| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
31 Oct 2005 04:21:18 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130604306.826905.25140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Atheism is also a belief in non-existance of God
Nope. Stop lying about atheists.
and all beleivers in
atheism very strongly defend their belief, call it their narrow
mindedness or enlightment, it is no different than the passion people
expresses in their religious beliefs such as christianity.
I see: you now think you speak for all atheists as well as all Christians.
Fascinating symptom.
I separated
all beliefs including atheism. Looks like you are a narrow minded
person incapable of understanding intelligent arguments. Calling people
liars without provocation shows that you need to grow up.
You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 12:24:13 PM |
|
|
In article <437379fe$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"I just want scientists to consider both theories when they make
interpretations of the evidence."
They did, 150 years ago, and literal
genesis came up short.
"At the very least, I would like school children to learn about both
theories. I don't understand why evolutionists don't already allow both
things to happen."
This is a bald face lie, the reasons have been provided you many times.
"It's my guess that they don't want to lose their monopoly. I realize that
they claim that creation science is NOT real science."
No, they say it is not by what the definition of science is, another bald
face lie as this too has been given you many times.
"I encourage evolutionists and those in the creation science movement to
KEEP LOOKING for evidence related to how life came to be on this planet. I
don't want people to stop looking at evolution."
What evidence is cs looking for as the origin of life, they start with a
traditional account and work backwards trying to make it work square peg
in round hole.
Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret evidence,
they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence work square
pegs into round holes. I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that
found a tooth. Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that
the tooth came from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It
was later determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was
trying to fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do
the same thing with lots of other evidence.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 12:19:14 PM |
|
|
"Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret
evidence, they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence
work square pegs into round holes."
Not quite, cs starts with a traditional account
which must not be changed at any cost. Science is
always willing and does change its ideas with the
introduction of compelling new evidence or better
ways to evaluate it. By this process it could in
principle one day be given over to something
completely new, cs can never do this.
"I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that found a tooth.
Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that the tooth came
from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It was later
determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was trying to
fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do the same
thing with lots of other evidence."
Show us "lots of other evidence" please. What you mention is another of
science's strengths, it is self correcting. It was other scientists
looking at the tooth who came to think it was not a primate and based on
their evidence it became the accepted view. Cs is unable to do same
because it starts with a cast in concrete traditional account which can
never never be allowed at any cost to be altered by other evidence. This
is one earmark why cs is not an evidence driven science, not science in
fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 02:07:27 PM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2005 18:19:14 GMT, wrote:
"Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret
evidence, they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence
work square pegs into round holes."
Not quite, cs starts with a traditional account
which must not be changed at any cost. Science is
always willing and does change its ideas with the
introduction of compelling new evidence or better
ways to evaluate it. By this process it could in
principle one day be given over to something
completely new, cs can never do this.
"I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that found a tooth.
Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that the tooth came
from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It was later
determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was trying to
fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do the same
thing with lots of other evidence."
Show us "lots of other evidence" please. What you mention is another of
science's strengths, it is self correcting. It was other scientists
looking at the tooth who came to think it was not a primate and based on
their evidence it became the accepted view. Cs is unable to do same
because it starts with a cast in concrete traditional account which can
never never be allowed at any cost to be altered by other evidence.
As has beem amply demonstrated by Jason. Anything which did not
fit his prejucided view of evolution just did a 'fly-by' and he just
simply repeated his prejudices as if we had never replied.
As usual withe these people they eventually start going round in
circles repeating stuff long dismissed.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 01:40:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:24:13 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <437379fe$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"I just want scientists to consider both theories when they make
interpretations of the evidence."
They did, 150 years ago, and literal
genesis came up short.
"At the very least, I would like school children to learn about both
theories. I don't understand why evolutionists don't already allow both
things to happen."
This is a bald face lie, the reasons have been provided you many times.
"It's my guess that they don't want to lose their monopoly. I realize that
they claim that creation science is NOT real science."
No, they say it is not by what the definition of science is, another bald
face lie as this too has been given you many times.
"I encourage evolutionists and those in the creation science movement to
KEEP LOOKING for evidence related to how life came to be on this planet. I
don't want people to stop looking at evolution."
What evidence is cs looking for as the origin of life, they start with a
traditional account and work backwards trying to make it work square peg
in round hole.
Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret evidence,
they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence work square
pegs into round holes. I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that
found a tooth. Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that
the tooth came from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It
was later determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was
trying to fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do
the same thing with lots of other evidence.
Are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes and get it
wrong sometimes? You are not surely dismissing the mountains of
evidence based on this one error are you? Maybe you are actually
misrepresenting what happened anyway as it was eventually identified
as a pig so in the end they did not get it wrong.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 02:26:23 PM |
|
|
In article <2b87n1dno7p89mihlop52oefmr4ep5oc7v@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:24:13 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <437379fe$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"I just want scientists to consider both theories when they make
interpretations of the evidence."
They did, 150 years ago, and literal
genesis came up short.
"At the very least, I would like school children to learn about both
theories. I don't understand why evolutionists don't already allow both
things to happen."
This is a bald face lie, the reasons have been provided you many times.
"It's my guess that they don't want to lose their monopoly. I realize that
they claim that creation science is NOT real science."
No, they say it is not by what the definition of science is, another bald
face lie as this too has been given you many times.
"I encourage evolutionists and those in the creation science movement to
KEEP LOOKING for evidence related to how life came to be on this planet. I
don't want people to stop looking at evolution."
What evidence is cs looking for as the origin of life, they start with a
traditional account and work backwards trying to make it work square peg
in round hole.
Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret evidence,
they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence work square
pegs into round holes. I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that
found a tooth. Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that
the tooth came from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It
was later determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was
trying to fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do
the same thing with lots of other evidence.
Are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes and get it
wrong sometimes? You are not surely dismissing the mountains of
evidence based on this one error are you? Maybe you are actually
misrepresenting what happened anyway as it was eventually identified
as a pig so in the end they did not get it wrong.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
You missed the point. The evolutionist was trying to make the evidence (tooth)
fit into evolution theory. The painting of the cave man is further proof
that the evolutionist mis-interpreted the evidence due to his evolution
tinted glasses glasses. That's NOT the way that scientists are suppose to
deal with evidence. I used the story as an example of how evolutionists
treat almost all of the evidence that they discover. For example, it's
impossible to determine how much hair is on a body of a man or ape that
has been buried for several thousand years. However, if a bone from a so
called cave man is found, the artist that paints the picture is the one
that determines how much hair was on the body. If the artist has on his
"evolution tinted glasses", there will be almost no hair on the caveman's
body since they want it to look as much as possible like a human.
Jason
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 02:16:19 PM |
|
|
"I used the story as an example of how evolutionists treat almost all of
the evidence that they discover. For example, it's impossible to determine
how much hair is on a body of a man or ape that has been buried for
several
thousand years. However, if a bone from a so called cave man is found, the
artist that paints the picture is the one that determines how much hair
was
on the body. If the artist has on his "evolution tinted glasses", there
will be almost no hair on the caveman's body since they want it to look as
much as possible like a human."
Aside from an exaggerated claim, artistic renditions are not scientific
evidence. If one goes to icr and sees their same examples rendered by
their artists, which have lots of hair and which not? The similarity that
demonstrates relatedness and how related one example is to another is
99.99 percent based on physical structure and patterns and tools and other
such cultural material.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramesh Rutajit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 09:53:13 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <2b87n1dno7p89mihlop52oefmr4ep5oc7v@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:24:13 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <437379fe$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"I just want scientists to consider both theories when they make
interpretations of the evidence."
They did, 150 years ago, and
literal genesis came up short.
"At the very least, I would like school children to learn about both
theories. I don't understand why evolutionists don't already allow
both things to happen."
This is a bald face lie, the reasons have been provided you many
times.
"It's my guess that they don't want to lose their monopoly. I realize
that they claim that creation science is NOT real science."
No, they say it is not by what the definition of science is, another
bald face lie as this too has been given you many times.
"I encourage evolutionists and those in the creation science movement
to KEEP LOOKING for evidence related to how life came to be on this
planet. I don't want people to stop looking at evolution."
What evidence is cs looking for as the origin of life, they start with
a traditional account and work backwards trying to make it work square
peg in round hole.
Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret
evidence, they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence
work square pegs into round holes. I can tell you the story about an
evolutionist that found a tooth. Eventually, a artist made a painting of
the "cave man" that the tooth came from. The picture appeared in at
least one newspaper. It was later determined that the tooth came from a
pig. The evolutionist was trying to fit the square peg (tooth) into a
round hole. Evolutionist do the same thing with lots of other evidence.
Are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes and get it
wrong sometimes? You are not surely dismissing the mountains of
evidence based on this one error are you? Maybe you are actually
misrepresenting what happened anyway as it was eventually identified
as a pig so in the end they did not get it wrong.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
You missed the point. The evolutionist was trying to make the evidence
(tooth) fit into evolution theory. The painting of the cave man is further
proof that the evolutionist mis-interpreted the evidence due to his
evolution tinted glasses glasses. That's NOT the way that scientists are
suppose to deal with evidence. I used the story as an example of how
evolutionists treat almost all of the evidence that they discover. For
example, it's impossible to determine how much hair is on a body of a man
or ape that has been buried for several thousand years. However, if a bone
from a so called cave man is found, the artist that paints the picture is
the one that determines how much hair was on the body. If the artist has
on his "evolution tinted glasses", there will be almost no hair on the
caveman's body since they want it to look as much as possible like a
human. Jason
Jason
Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is not based on evidence so no
matter what evidence is discovered, it will never change. It is not
subject to modification by scientific means.
Evolution is a theory. Evolution has been changed and will continue to
change as new evidence is discovered. It is subject to modification by
scientific means.
--
Pramesh Rutajit - - remove tongue to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 03:49:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:26:23 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <2b87n1dno7p89mihlop52oefmr4ep5oc7v@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:24:13 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <437379fe$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"I just want scientists to consider both theories when they make
interpretations of the evidence."
They did, 150 years ago, and literal
genesis came up short.
"At the very least, I would like school children to learn about both
theories. I don't understand why evolutionists don't already allow both
things to happen."
This is a bald face lie, the reasons have been provided you many times.
"It's my guess that they don't want to lose their monopoly. I realize that
they claim that creation science is NOT real science."
No, they say it is not by what the definition of science is, another bald
face lie as this too has been given you many times.
"I encourage evolutionists and those in the creation science movement to
KEEP LOOKING for evidence related to how life came to be on this planet. I
don't want people to stop looking at evolution."
What evidence is cs looking for as the origin of life, they start with a
traditional account and work backwards trying to make it work square peg
in round hole.
Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret evidence,
they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence work square
pegs into round holes. I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that
found a tooth. Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that
the tooth came from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It
was later determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was
trying to fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do
the same thing with lots of other evidence.
Are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes and get it
wrong sometimes? You are not surely dismissing the mountains of
evidence based on this one error are you? Maybe you are actually
misrepresenting what happened anyway as it was eventually identified
as a pig so in the end they did not get it wrong.
Les,
You missed the point.
Part of my point was:
"Maybe you are actually misrepresenting what happened anyway"
I don't know the case so cannot comment but if your newspapers
are anything like ours they often totally get their stories wrong and
sensation is more important than accuracy. I hardly expect your
mob to be unbiassed in its reporting either.
The evolutionist was trying to make the evidence (tooth)
fit into evolution theory.
According to you. For all I know he may have said it was a tentative
conclusion subject to further investigation. It was eventually shown
- by an 'evolutionist' to be the tooth of a pig (leastways that's what
you claim. It may have been an early fossil pig for all I know. I
ma totally reliant on you report of the event and we already know you
are happy to lie for us. Does your god forgive those that bear false
witness. Does your god need people to lie for it?
The painting of the cave man is further proof
that the evolutionist mis-interpreted the evidence due to his evolution
tinted glasses glasses. That's NOT the way that scientists are suppose to
deal with evidence. I used the story as an example of how evolutionists
treat almost all of the evidence that they discover.
Again this is a lie. You cannot say that based on one mistake - if it
was a mistake. This tooth is not part of the verified evidence fo
evolution. You will not find it in a museum labelled "human ancestor"
but you will find claims we are created without even the slightest
shred of evidence. You cannot demonstrate that your creationist tooth
is genuine can you? . We have pulled your tooth and show it to be
fake as well.
For example, it's
impossible to determine how much hair is on a body of a man or ape that
has been buried for several thousand years.
Isn't it? How do you know this?
However, if a bone from a so
called cave man is found, the artist that paints the picture is the one
that determines how much hair was on the body.
They are usually labelled clearly as an artistic depiction. There is
no intent to deceive. What about your intents to decieve? A professor
who dismisses a whole evolutionary sequence in the Grand Canyon
because there has been a catastrophic change in environment for
example.
If the artist has on his
"evolution tinted glasses", there will be almost no hair on the caveman's
body since they want it to look as much as possible like a human.
So why did they add hairs? Maybe because they realised that our
ancestors had not the brain power then to make themselves clothes
and needed hair to keep warm? Still I know and you know that an
artistic drawing is only meant to be conceptual and that they usually
lbel them as such. So once again you are lying by presenting just
a half-truth.
Sorry but you are addressing the wrong people if you
want to pass off half-truths or blatent lies in order to discredit
scientific knowledge and replace it with unevidenced belief. Is
your creation science so weak that it only stands upon lies?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 09:53:01 AM |
|
|
In article <p3p8n1l4a05hasuniumc5p4krj84t0ej61@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:26:23 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <2b87n1dno7p89mihlop52oefmr4ep5oc7v@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:24:13 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <437379fe$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"I just want scientists to consider both theories when they make
interpretations of the evidence."
They did, 150 years ago, and
literal
genesis came up short.
"At the very least, I would like school children to learn about both
theories. I don't understand why evolutionists don't already allow both
things to happen."
This is a bald face lie, the reasons have been provided you many times.
"It's my guess that they don't want to lose their monopoly. I
realize that
they claim that creation science is NOT real science."
No, they say it is not by what the definition of science is,
another bald
face lie as this too has been given you many times.
"I encourage evolutionists and those in the creation science movement to
KEEP LOOKING for evidence related to how life came to be on this
planet. I
don't want people to stop looking at evolution."
What evidence is cs looking for as the origin of life, they start with a
traditional account and work backwards trying to make it work square peg
in round hole.
Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret evidence,
they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence work square
pegs into round holes. I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that
found a tooth. Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that
the tooth came from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It
was later determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was
trying to fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do
the same thing with lots of other evidence.
Are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes and get it
wrong sometimes? You are not surely dismissing the mountains of
evidence based on this one error are you? Maybe you are actually
misrepresenting what happened anyway as it was eventually identified
as a pig so in the end they did not get it wrong.
Les,
You missed the point.
Part of my point was:
"Maybe you are actually misrepresenting what happened anyway"
I don't know the case so cannot comment but if your newspapers
are anything like ours they often totally get their stories wrong and
sensation is more important than accuracy. I hardly expect your
mob to be unbiassed in its reporting either.
The evolutionist was trying to make the evidence (tooth)
fit into evolution theory.
According to you. For all I know he may have said it was a tentative
conclusion subject to further investigation. It was eventually shown
- by an 'evolutionist' to be the tooth of a pig (leastways that's what
you claim. It may have been an early fossil pig for all I know. I
ma totally reliant on you report of the event and we already know you
are happy to lie for us. Does your god forgive those that bear false
witness. Does your god need people to lie for it?
The painting of the cave man is further proof
that the evolutionist mis-interpreted the evidence due to his evolution
tinted glasses glasses. That's NOT the way that scientists are suppose to
deal with evidence. I used the story as an example of how evolutionists
treat almost all of the evidence that they discover.
Again this is a lie. You cannot say that based on one mistake - if it
was a mistake. This tooth is not part of the verified evidence fo
evolution. You will not find it in a museum labelled "human ancestor"
but you will find claims we are created without even the slightest
shred of evidence. You cannot demonstrate that your creationist tooth
is genuine can you? . We have pulled your tooth and show it to be
fake as well.
For example, it's
impossible to determine how much hair is on a body of a man or ape that
has been buried for several thousand years.
Isn't it? How do you know this?
However, if a bone from a so
called cave man is found, the artist that paints the picture is the one
that determines how much hair was on the body.
They are usually labelled clearly as an artistic depiction. There is
no intent to deceive. What about your intents to decieve? A professor
who dismisses a whole evolutionary sequence in the Grand Canyon
because there has been a catastrophic change in environment for
example.
If the artist has on his
"evolution tinted glasses", there will be almost no hair on the caveman's
body since they want it to look as much as possible like a human.
So why did they add hairs? Maybe because they realised that our
ancestors had not the brain power then to make themselves clothes
and needed hair to keep warm? Still I know and you know that an
artistic drawing is only meant to be conceptual and that they usually
lbel them as such. So once again you are lying by presenting just
a half-truth.
Sorry but you are addressing the wrong people if you
want to pass off half-truths or blatent lies in order to discredit
scientific knowledge and replace it with unevidenced belief. Is
your creation science so weak that it only stands upon lies?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Interesting post. My point related to the artistic drawings was that they
are usually drawn based upon how the evolutionary scientists interpret the
evidence. If they have on their "evolution tinted glasses" instead of
"unbiasd scientist tinted glasses" they could end up with a painting that
is NOT compatable with the evidence.
According to the story (I seem to recall that he was called "montana
man"), the tooth that the painting was based on came from a species of pig
that has been extinct for thousands of years. The scientists stated that
the teeth of those species of pig are very similar to human teeth. That's
the reason the error was made. Evolutionists should be given the credit
for figuring out that there was never a montana man.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 02:27:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:53:01 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-1111050753020001@pm4-broad-24.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[snip]
Interesting post. My point related to the artistic drawings was that they
are usually drawn based upon how the evolutionary scientists interpret the
evidence. If they have on their "evolution tinted glasses" instead of
"unbiasd scientist tinted glasses" they could end up with a painting that
is NOT compatable with the evidence.
Do you discuss "gravity tinted glasses" when considering how the Moon
moves? I know you don't like it, but evolution is fully accepted
science, supported by millions of pieces of evidence from multiple
independent lines. It has been tested over and over for 150 years and
has emerged strong and better. It is lack of bias that leads
scientists to accepting evidence. You admit on occasion that it is
your religious bias that steers you from evolution.
According to the story (I seem to recall that he was called "montana
man"),
Nebraska Man, I have pointed this out several times and given you
on-line references.
the tooth that the painting was based on came from a species of pig
that has been extinct for thousands of years.
Pigs teeth do happen to look like human teeth.
The scientists stated that
the teeth of those species of pig are very similar to human teeth. That's
the reason the error was made. Evolutionists should be given the credit
for figuring out that there was never a montana man.
Yep. And someday you will figure out that the famous picture was for a
magazine. And then you will figure out that the creationist sites that
get this wrong are lying to you. Do you support religious leaders who
lie?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 04:35:36 PM |
|
|
In article <adv9n1pju2ht5jrrp2a2iej4ngho3eg0ve@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:53:01 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-1111050753020001@pm4-broad-24.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[snip]
Interesting post. My point related to the artistic drawings was that they
are usually drawn based upon how the evolutionary scientists interpret the
evidence. If they have on their "evolution tinted glasses" instead of
"unbiasd scientist tinted glasses" they could end up with a painting that
is NOT compatable with the evidence.
Do you discuss "gravity tinted glasses" when considering how the Moon
moves? I know you don't like it, but evolution is fully accepted
science, supported by millions of pieces of evidence from multiple
independent lines. It has been tested over and over for 150 years and
has emerged strong and better. It is lack of bias that leads
scientists to accepting evidence. You admit on occasion that it is
your religious bias that steers you from evolution.
According to the story (I seem to recall that he was called "montana
man"),
Nebraska Man, I have pointed this out several times and given you
on-line references.
the tooth that the painting was based on came from a species of pig
that has been extinct for thousands of years.
Pigs teeth do happen to look like human teeth.
The scientists stated that
the teeth of those species of pig are very similar to human teeth. That's
the reason the error was made. Evolutionists should be given the credit
for figuring out that there was never a montana man.
Yep. And someday you will figure out that the famous picture was for a
magazine. And then you will figure out that the creationist sites that
get this wrong are lying to you. Do you support religious leaders who
lie?
actually--the picture was displayed in a newspaper.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 03:00:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:26:23 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-1011051226230001@pm4-broad-46.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <2b87n1dno7p89mihlop52oefmr4ep5oc7v@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
....
Are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes and get it
wrong sometimes? You are not surely dismissing the mountains of
evidence based on this one error are you? Maybe you are actually
misrepresenting what happened anyway as it was eventually identified
as a pig so in the end they did not get it wrong.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
You missed the point. The evolutionist was trying to make the evidence (tooth)
fit into evolution theory. The painting of the cave man is further proof
that the evolutionist mis-interpreted the evidence due to his evolution
tinted glasses glasses. That's NOT the way that scientists are suppose to
deal with evidence. I used the story as an example of how evolutionists
treat almost all of the evidence that they discover. For example, it's
impossible to determine how much hair is on a body of a man or ape that
has been buried for several thousand years. However, if a bone from a so
called cave man is found, the artist that paints the picture is the one
that determines how much hair was on the body. If the artist has on his
"evolution tinted glasses", there will be almost no hair on the caveman's
body since they want it to look as much as possible like a human.
There is no limit to the amount of misrepresentation that you will
engage in is there. You don't even know what this is called, but you
insist that the whole thing was intentional, not a mistake, but when you
have the lies of the ICR pointed out to you, you ignore them. What would
Jesus say? Nevermind, we already know, He didn't like pharisaical
behavior, false self-righteousness, and those who used the temple to
make money.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 04:53:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:26:23 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
(Jason) in
<jason-1011051226230001@pm4-broad-46.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
In article <2b87n1dno7p89mihlop52oefmr4ep5oc7v@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:24:13 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <437379fe$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"I just want scientists to consider both theories when they make
interpretations of the evidence."
They did, 150 years ago, and literal
genesis came up short.
"At the very least, I would like school children to learn about both
theories. I don't understand why evolutionists don't already allow both
things to happen."
This is a bald face lie, the reasons have been provided you many times.
"It's my guess that they don't want to lose their monopoly. I realize that
they claim that creation science is NOT real science."
No, they say it is not by what the definition of science is, another bald
face lie as this too has been given you many times.
"I encourage evolutionists and those in the creation science movement to
KEEP LOOKING for evidence related to how life came to be on this planet. I
don't want people to stop looking at evolution."
What evidence is cs looking for as the origin of life, they start with a
traditional account and work backwards trying to make it work square peg
in round hole.
Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret evidence,
they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence work square
pegs into round holes. I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that
found a tooth. Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that
the tooth came from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It
was later determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was
trying to fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do
the same thing with lots of other evidence.
Are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes and get it
wrong sometimes? You are not surely dismissing the mountains of
evidence based on this one error are you? Maybe you are actually
misrepresenting what happened anyway as it was eventually identified
as a pig so in the end they did not get it wrong.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
You missed the point. The evolutionist was trying to make the evidence (tooth)
fit into evolution theory. The painting of the cave man is further proof
that the evolutionist mis-interpreted the evidence due to his evolution
tinted glasses glasses.
The painting was done for a popular press magazine, not for any
scientific publication. If someone told you otherwise they were, at
best, wrong. If you continue to spread falsehoods you will bear false
witness. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
That's NOT the way that scientists are suppose to
deal with evidence.
Of course it is. The first thing you do is try to fit things in. If
they don't fit, then you try something else. Most evidence is boring.
As they say, if you hear a clip clop on your street think horses, not
zebras.
I used the story as an example of how evolutionists
treat almost all of the evidence that they discover.
And you did not bother to find out if the story was correct, did you?
You read something in a creationist book and took it as, well, gospel.
For example, it's
impossible to determine how much hair is on a body of a man or ape that
has been buried for several thousand years.
But you can make reasonable estimates based on other evidence. Mammals
have hair, for example, and you can tell it is a mammals from the
bones.
However, if a bone from a so
called cave man is found, the artist that paints the picture is the one
that determines how much hair was on the body.
Some day you just might look at real science and not creationist
nonsense. There is a nice display at the American Museum of Natural
History (the New York one) on how they (actual scientists) develop
those drawings. They show you the drawings they do of the skeleton.
They use evidence from bones and similar existent organisms to put on
the muscles. Then they use that and more evidence to make guesses
about the skin. And the actual scientists know that this is a guess
and not actual evidence.
If the artist has on his
"evolution tinted glasses", there will be almost no hair on the caveman's
body since they want it to look as much as possible like a human.
Sort of like how artists have their "gravity tinted glasses" and
assume that things fall down.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
10 Nov 2005 06:03:58 PM |
|
|
In article <pej7n1hpfsbkorgh20750t04hkvmjjrj93@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:26:23 -0800, in sci.life-extension ,
(Jason) in
<jason-1011051226230001@pm4-broad-46.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
In article <2b87n1dno7p89mihlop52oefmr4ep5oc7v@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:24:13 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <437379fe$0$76286$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"I just want scientists to consider both theories when they make
interpretations of the evidence."
They did, 150 years ago, and
literal
genesis came up short.
"At the very least, I would like school children to learn about both
theories. I don't understand why evolutionists don't already allow both
things to happen."
This is a bald face lie, the reasons have been provided you many times.
"It's my guess that they don't want to lose their monopoly. I
realize that
they claim that creation science is NOT real science."
No, they say it is not by what the definition of science is,
another bald
face lie as this too has been given you many times.
"I encourage evolutionists and those in the creation science movement to
KEEP LOOKING for evidence related to how life came to be on this
planet. I
don't want people to stop looking at evolution."
What evidence is cs looking for as the origin of life, they start with a
traditional account and work backwards trying to make it work square peg
in round hole.
Evolutionists do the same thing. When they examine and interpret evidence,
they start with evolution theory and try to make the evidence work square
pegs into round holes. I can tell you the story about an evolutionist that
found a tooth. Eventually, a artist made a painting of the "cave man" that
the tooth came from. The picture appeared in at least one newspaper. It
was later determined that the tooth came from a pig. The evolutionist was
trying to fit the square peg (tooth) into a round hole. Evolutionist do
the same thing with lots of other evidence.
Are you saying people are not allowed to make mistakes and get it
wrong sometimes? You are not surely dismissing the mountains of
evidence based on this one error are you? Maybe you are actually
misrepresenting what happened anyway as it was eventually identified
as a pig so in the end they did not get it wrong.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
You missed the point. The evolutionist was trying to make the evidence
(tooth)
fit into evolution theory. The painting of the cave man is further proof
that the evolutionist mis-interpreted the evidence due to his evolution
tinted glasses glasses.
The painting was done for a popular press magazine, not for any
scientific publication. If someone told you otherwise they were, at
best, wrong. If you continue to spread falsehoods you will bear false
witness. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
That's NOT the way that scientists are suppose to
deal with evidence.
Of course it is. The first thing you do is try to fit things in. If
they don't fit, then you try something else. Most evidence is boring.
As they say, if you hear a clip clop on your street think horses, not
zebras.
I used the story as an example of how evolutionists
treat almost all of the evidence that they discover.
And you did not bother to find out if the story was correct, did you?
You read something in a creationist book and took it as, well, gospel.
For example, it's
impossible to determine how much hair is on a body of a man or ape that
has been buried for several thousand years.
But you can make reasonable estimates based on other evidence. Mammals
have hair, for example, and you can tell it is a mammals from the
bones.
However, if a bone from a so
called cave man is found, the artist that paints the picture is the one
that determines how much hair was on the body.
Some day you just might look at real science and not creationist
nonsense. There is a nice display at the American Museum of Natural
History (the New York one) on how they (actual scientists) develop
those drawings. They show you the drawings they do of the skeleton.
They use evidence from bones and similar existent organisms to put on
the muscles. Then they use that and more evidence to make guesses
about the skin. And the actual scientists know that this is a guess
and not actual evidence.
If the artist has on his
"evolution tinted glasses", there will be almost no hair on the caveman's
body since they want it to look as much as possible like a human.
Sort of like how artists have their "gravity tinted glasses" and
assume that things fall down.
I did not write in the post that you were referring to that the painting
or picture appeared in a journal. It appeared in a newspaper. Do you
really believe that it is possible to determine how much hair was on the
body of a man or ape that has been buried for over 1000 years? I shoud
note that thye may only have a couple of bones to rely on.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 10:18:58 AM |
|
|
"Do you really believe that it is possible to determine how much hair was
on the body of a man or ape that has been buried for over 1000 years? I
shoud note that thye may only have a couple of bones to rely on."
Hair only a thousand years is quite possible, hundreds of thousands and
million of years not likely, execpt one recent dinosaur example millions
of years ago had soft tissue and others have had skin patterns preserved.
Apes and other primates, including humans, can be seperated into
categories based on various physical markers. If some of theose markers
should appear in the one or two bones found putting them into a category
is no problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 02:25:58 PM |
|
|
In article <4374c472$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"Do you really believe that it is possible to determine how much hair was
on the body of a man or ape that has been buried for over 1000 years? I
shoud note that thye may only have a couple of bones to rely on."
Hair only a thousand years is quite possible, hundreds of thousands and
million of years not likely, execpt one recent dinosaur example millions
of years ago had soft tissue and others have had skin patterns preserved.
Apes and other primates, including humans, can be seperated into
categories based on various physical markers. If some of theose markers
should appear in the one or two bones found putting them into a category
is no problem.
It's my guess that if an evolutionist is able to figure what a man would
look like based on a tooth (e.g. montana man)--it's only logical that
evolutionist could determine the exact amount of hairs on a man based on
two or three bones.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 02:19:40 PM |
|
|
"It's my guess that if an evolutionist is able to figure what a man would
look like based on a tooth (e.g. montana man)--it's only logical that
evolutionist could determine the exact amount of hairs on a man based on
two or three bones."
It was nebraska man, you were provided this information just recently,
which speaks to your memory. No scientist would make a claim about
primate
hair,btw which is different then fur, based on bones. You are going for a
ridiculous point there. The hair on neb. man was purely the imagination
of
the artist and had no basis in science. You are grasping at desperate
straws
each time you bring this up again. It makes you look very weak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 04:33:57 PM |
|
|
In article <4374fcdc$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"It's my guess that if an evolutionist is able to figure what a man would
look like based on a tooth (e.g. montana man)--it's only logical that
evolutionist could determine the exact amount of hairs on a man based on
two or three bones."
It was nebraska man, you were provided this information just recently,
which speaks to your memory. No scientist would make a claim about
primate
hair,btw which is different then fur, based on bones. You are going for a
ridiculous point there. The hair on neb. man was purely the imagination
of
the artist and had no basis in science. You are grasping at desperate
straws
each time you bring this up again. It makes you look very weak.
thanks--I made a note.
Do you know the website where the painting of the nebraska is displayed.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 04:18:59 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2005 20:19:40 GMT, wrote:
"It's my guess that if an evolutionist is able to figure what a man would
look like based on a tooth (e.g. montana man)--it's only logical that
evolutionist could determine the exact amount of hairs on a man based on
two or three bones."
It was nebraska man, you were provided this information just recently,
which speaks to your memory. No scientist would make a claim about
primate
hair,btw which is different then fur, based on bones. You are going for a
ridiculous point there. The hair on neb. man was purely the imagination
of
the artist and had no basis in science. You are grasping at desperate
straws
each time you bring this up again. It makes you look very weak.
It certainly makes creationism look weak if he has to rely on half
truths and lies to prop it up. It is wholly negative way to proceed.
Instead of trying to discredit evolution he should be about proving
creationism. He has nor even tried.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 04:21:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:25:58 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <4374c472$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"Do you really believe that it is possible to determine how much hair was
on the body of a man or ape that has been buried for over 1000 years? I
shoud note that thye may only have a couple of bones to rely on."
Hair only a thousand years is quite possible, hundreds of thousands and
million of years not likely, execpt one recent dinosaur example millions
of years ago had soft tissue and others have had skin patterns preserved.
Apes and other primates, including humans, can be seperated into
categories based on various physical markers. If some of theose markers
should appear in the one or two bones found putting them into a category
is no problem.
It's my guess that if an evolutionist is able to figure what a man would
look like based on a tooth (e.g. montana man)--it's only logical that
evolutionist could determine the exact amount of hairs on a man based on
two or three bones.
Yes, that's all it is. Your guess. Thank you for being honest for
once.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
11 Nov 2005 08:22:02 PM |
|
|
In article <ca6an19na4fjea1on0hq68kgjlljor6hfe@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:25:58 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <4374c472$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"Do you really believe that it is possible to determine how much hair was
on the body of a man or ape that has been buried for over 1000 years? I
shoud note that thye may only have a couple of bones to rely on."
Hair only a thousand years is quite possible, hundreds of thousands and
million of years not likely, execpt one recent dinosaur example millions
of years ago had soft tissue and others have had skin patterns preserved.
Apes and other primates, including humans, can be seperated into
categories based on various physical markers. If some of theose markers
should appear in the one or two bones found putting them into a category
is no problem.
It's my guess that if an evolutionist is able to figure what a man would
look like based on a tooth (e.g. montana man)--it's only logical that
evolutionist could determine the exact amount of hairs on a man based on
two or three bones.
Yes, that's all it is. Your guess. Thank you for being honest for
once.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Are you the poster that believes that it's possible to tell the amount of
hair on a person or ape that has been buried for over 1000 years? I should
note that I made an error in the post. It was not "montanta man". The
correct name is "Nebraska man". I saw the painting on a website last week
but failed to make a note related to the URL where the painting is
located.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
12 Nov 2005 06:30:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:22:02 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <ca6an19na4fjea1on0hq68kgjlljor6hfe@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:25:58 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <4374c472$0$76287$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>,
outsor@citynet.net wrote:
"Do you really believe that it is possible to determine how much hair was
on the body of a man or ape that has been buried for over 1000 years? I
shoud note that thye may only have a couple of bones to rely on."
Hair only a thousand years is quite possible, hundreds of thousands and
million of years not likely, execpt one recent dinosaur example millions
of years ago had soft tissue and others have had skin patterns preserved.
Apes and other primates, including humans, can be seperated into
categories based on various physical markers. If some of theose markers
should appear in the one or two bones found putting them into a category
is no problem.
It's my guess that if an evolutionist is able to figure what a man would
look like based on a tooth (e.g. montana man)--it's only logical that
evolutionist could determine the exact amount of hairs on a man based on
two or three bones.
Yes, that's all it is. Your guess. Thank you for being honest for
once.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les,
Are you the poster that believes that it's possible to tell the amount of
hair on a person or ape that has been buried for over 1000 years? I should
note that I made an error in the post. It was not "montanta man". The
correct name is "Nebraska man". I saw the painting on a website last week
but failed to make a note related to the URL where the painting is
located.
How can I possibly know how hairy an animal will be? What I did say
is the ancestor of man would likely be naked, not having the brain
power to wear clothing, and I know of few land based animals that are
not protected by some kind of covering whether it be fur, feathers,
hair or blubber or whatever. As we are an animal with hair on our
bodies it seems more likely our ancesters were also hairy. Our more
primitive cousin are more hairy than us it so taking these factors
into account it seems likely that our ancestor would be very hairy.
I don't know this, is just surmise on my part but can you see any
flaws in that surmise? Simple common sense I think.
Regarding Nebraska Man. I don't know which particular web site
you used but I found the painting you refer to on this web site
which makes it clear exactly what the painting, as originally
published said:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.html
Furthermore the Illustrated London News stated in its article that the
“reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant
imaginative genius.” This is what actually happened not you
half truth account.
That is what I surmised when you brought this example
up originally. It was imaginative genius by an artist not an
evolutionist. So once again your lies and half truths about
evolution in order to prop up and smokscreen concerning the
total lack of evidence to justify creationism as other than
irrational belief based religion has been clearly exposed.
Thank you for giving me opportunity for batting the ball
clearly out of park. Chalk up another home run to us!
This is fun, this is easy :-)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
12 Nov 2005 10:39:31 AM |
|
|
In article <8smbn1talqj8mu776j4k4kocdtcfbl0hh1@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:22:02 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <ca6an19na4fjea1on0hq68kgjlljor6hfe@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
& | | | | | | | | | | | |
