Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
April 1990 -> April 24
Apollo BBS Archive - April 24, 1990
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 6246
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rog on Rod
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 06:41:34
An agnostic doesn't know what he believes. Rod KNOWS what he thinks
he believes. He also has a somewhat obnoxious way of expressing those
beliefs (or rather unbeliefs). In my opinion, and by his own admission, he
is an atheist, not an agnostic.
Message: 6247
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Religion
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 07:17:35
Paul: An agnostic believes that he doesn't know. (without knowledge)
Mike: I'm Zoroastrian
Message: 6248
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Religion
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 07:34:58
I have yet to meet anyone who I felt was positivity effected by religion,
Christianity in particular.
Message: 6249
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: jeff/senge
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 07:54:27
Jeff, you must read a LOT. I have never heard of Peter Senge. Who is he and
what did he write.
Message: 6250
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: carter/atheists
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 07:57:34
Why are atheists so threatening to you ? Is it because the voice of reason
calls seductively to you to think ? And once having thought honestly that
the sandy base of your faith will be eroded until you left with nothing
but uncertainty and your fellow man ?
Message: 6251
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Paul on Rod
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 07:59:10
I'm not going to argue what Rod believes. I have no idea. I can tell however
that we do share uncertainty and skepticism.
Message: 6252
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mike on seeing
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 08:35:15
I do not need to see something with my eyes before it exists for me. I was
just making a point. We all choose our paths. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 6253
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rodger / Me
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 11:48:33
I don't find atheists threatening in any way for or means.
Your attempting to put words in my mouth. WHat a shabby excuse
that was.
Perhaps the reverse is true...like a perfect Freudian example,
that YOU are feeling the voice of reason and fear that the truth
isn't in what your loose beliefs are now. You would be doing yourself
a favour by investigating it for Yourself...instead of taking the word
from me or anyone else....from either "side". Look for yourself..or
are you afraid to?
I *was* an atheist..a very DEDICATED atheist. I trashed my fair share
of Bible thumpers and such. But I was equipped with the ability to
go beyond the superficial, look behind the masks and given eyes and
a good set of ears to read and learn for myself.
The only way is through individual searching. No other.
Message: 6254
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: it's roger !!!
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 13:16:20
Quite frankly, I find the defensiveness on the part of the "Christian"
astounding since they should be the most assured of all of us. Your
automatic response to my questions and points seems to be defensive. Why
can't you discuss these things rationally. Does "believing" in Christ mean
you throw away all your critical faculties ? Come on, man, let's reason
together. Please be honest with me and yourself and admit you DO have
doubts. One of the greatest of all clergymen of all time is Martin Luther
and
he had doubts. My hero in the Bible is Thomas, because he was honest about
his disbelief. The worst verse in the Bible is the one in the story about
Thomas and Christ --- where Christ allegedly says that it is better to
believe when you have not seen. If Thomas was really a skeptic, he would
have
still doubted after he touched the wounds of Jesus Christ and asked himself
"Did he really die". Is this really J.C. or is it an imposter ? So, lets
talk about it. Or are you afraid ?
Message: 6255
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Roger?
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 16:22:07
Does it upset you that one can believe without doubt? It sure seems
so. Maybe it just frightens you so much you can't stand to see someone at
ease with this Christian belief. It is okay for you to have doubts, and
that is why Mike was trying to help you, not because he needs to prove
anything for himself.
I feel the same way as Mike does, and so do MILLIONS of others, if
you don't understand or agree, that is okay. Just follow your heart, and
keep an open mind, you will get there in time.
Cliff the SysOp-
Message: 6256
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 16:46:13
This defensiveness as you like to state it is just what Cliff said.
I have no reason to doubt my beliefs because they're tried and tested
in my day to day life. My only sin here is to disagree and point out
the fallacies and assumptions people make about Christianity.
It's these same fallacies and misunderstandings that people have everywhere
at one time or another. Sadly, a lot of it gets so public it goes way
beyond rationality because folks ARE looking for witches to burn
like they were years ago. Only the witches they want to burn are
those people and beliefs they cannot understand and refuse to.
Why is it that my beliefs upset you so?
-Mike
Message: 6257
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Religion
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 18:28:33
There are atheists (people who lack theism) and there are theists (people
who believe in gods, etc.
Then there are anti-theists. This would be someone who can not tolerate
anyone else being a theist, even if that belief is having no ill effect on
anyone else.
Likewise, there is the anti-atheist. This would be someone who can not
tolerate anyone else being an atheist, even if that lack of belief is having
no ill effect on anyone else.
I think it is the anti-theist and the anti-atheist who lump everyone in
the opposing camps together and provoke even the more tolerant individuals
on both sides.
Mere theism or atheism in itself does not constitute a threat to anyone. I
am no more responsible for the crimes of Stalin than Sandy is for the
Crusades, by virtue of our stands on the existance of God.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 6258
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: cliff/belief
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 20:00:58
Sorry, Mike was not trying to help me, he was striking back because
my skepticism threatens his belief. I am asking him to discuss doubt
and unbelief because most normal people, including me, have doubts.
To deny you have doubts is being dishonest with yourself. The greatest
religious leaders in the world have had doubts. The best thing to do
is to bring them out and examine, rather than deny you have them. I'll
be glad to discuss this with you if you do have doubts. If you don't,
fine, then we have nothing to say to each other. I suspect, however,
that Cliff does have doubts and I'd like to discuss it with him, if
he wants to.
Message: 6259
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 20:09:50
I ask a question and don't get an answer. You will never convert me
to your brand of Christianity that way. Come on, give me some good
answers. Why shouldn't we all be like Thomas ?
Message: 6260
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mike Carter
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 21:09:59
You have yet to outline the "horrors" committed in the name of atheism. On
the other hand, history contains an almost continuous record of the horrors
perpetrated in the name of religion.
In examining your tirade, I see no other points worth responding to.
Message: 6261
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 21:22:34
Well, I'm not sure what constitutes "a lot." My reading rate varies, and
sometimes I won't touch a book for weeks (except maybe light stuff like Dave
Barry or something).
The Peter Senge quote was taken from Turbulent Mirror. He appears to be a
systems analyst who applies the concepts of chaos to management systems.
I like to read at least two books at once; one serious non-fiction and the
other fiction or humor. A varied diet, so to speak. Right now, I'm reading
a great book called "Great Ideas of Modern Mathematics: their nature and
use," by Jagjit Singh. It's one of those great Dover Press books, the kind
of reprints which would be lost to time it it weren't for them. I'm not
sure how much I will fully absorb, but I've already learned new things and
clarified old concepts.
BTW, did I exceed the limit in my use of the word "great" in this message?
Message: 6262
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger 6259?
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 22:21:05
Re: to Cliff, "You will never convert me to your brand of Christianity..."
Roger... I said for you to "Follow YOUR heart" not me or my religion!
Please show me where I was trying to 'CONVERT' you to anything? And just
what 'BRAND' of Christianity do I have anyways, Roger? Better fill me in
since you have me tagged and bagged.....
I slam Rod because he slams me... I could care less if he wants to
be an atheist or agnostic. I'm not out to convert ANYONE, but I will
discuss what I believe if one wishes.... but to assume I am trying to
convert you is YOUR error! If you say one thing, and we do not agree, you
attack us for being defensive. Just what is it you want us to do?
As for 'doubt'... I KNOW there IS a GOD! I fail to believe all this
is just an 'ACCIDENT' in nature. Why can't you let me think this, since I
am no way offended that you may have some doubt and think otherwise.
I at one time did have my doubts... but I feel I don't anylonger.
(Hard to place into words) But, I believe in what I believe.
Cliff-
Message: 6263
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: Melissa/last
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 05:10:27
"I have yet to meet anyone who I felt was positively effected by religion,
Christianity in particular."
Either you have led a sheltered life, or you have no feeling at all.
Let's get together one of these Sunday mornings. I can show you literally
thousands of people who have been positively influenced by Christianity. Of
course, you wil have to keep your eyes open, since that is a prerequisite
for seeing.
Message: 6264
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 05:12:26
If you have no idea what Rod Williams believes, you haven't been reading
his messages for very long Roger. I don't think that the two of you share
uncertainty at all. He may be skeptical, but he is very certain about his
unbelief.
Message: 6265
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff/last
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 05:23:04
That was very well put Cliff.
I'm another one who has no doubts about my beliefs. I know whose I am, and
know that I am in the body of Christ. To quote Jesus' words in Roger's
"favorite" conversation, speaking to Thomas, "You have seen and have
believed. Far better are those who have not seen and yet believe."
I have not personally seen, but I know that I know that I know. My Jesus
lives! And I can face the future because of that.
My sins were hung on a cross at Calvary. My eternal life is assured by His
final defeat of death for all who believe. I believe. No doubt about it.
Message: 6266
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jeff
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 07:08:19
Better than awesome, however.
Message: 6267
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: cliff/belief
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 07:10:24
It is a long way from belief in God to the extremes taken by some
fundamentalist literalists. I was going to ask Mike, but I'll ask you too.
How much of the fundamentalist literalist line do you swallow ?
Message: 6268
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff/Doubt
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 07:52:37
If doubt ever creeps into my mind, all I need to do is examine the universe
around us. From the vastness of our galaxy to the makeup of our planet. From
the grandest mountain to the atom or DNA molecule. And the fact that it all
works together without chaos. The only way with which we can guarantee that
something is going to go where it is supposed to when we shoot it into
space, is because it's trajectory and speed, etc. are calculated according
to the ordered regularity with which the universe operates. I believe that
this intelligent design was simply the result of some cosmic explosion. No
matter how often we throw paper and ink into a blender and turn it on, we
are never going to end up with a dictionary. Also, there is no way that the
infinite order of everything here and "out there" could not have been the
result of a single random explosion.
When I do not have the word of God handy to assure me, I need only look
out my window, or look around me as I travel about. God is with us.
Message: 6269
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger/6267
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 08:00:07
Given that there are different types of writing in the Bible (history,
poetry, prophecy, etc.), each part of the Bible must be understood in the
manner with which it was originally written.
However, I believe in the accuracy and inerrancy of the Scriptures. I
read that all Scripture is God-breathed. Therefore, I must be consistent and
confess that I believe the whole of God's word to be truth. To do otherwise
would be inconsistent and hypocritical.
It is the word of God that causes me to believe, not a "fundamentalist
literalist line." I believe what God tells me, not what people tell me to
believe about God. If what someone tells me agrees with the Bible, then
fine, I will be in agreement with them on that.
Message: 6270
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 08:36:40
I am sure that what you and I would see would be very different. We live in
very different worlds. Both of our eyes may be open, just open to different
worlds.
Message: 6271
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl/chaos
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 10:23:13
Actually you are using the argument from design fallacy. The problem with
that argument is that used correctly, you get an infinite regression on
the original creator. For, if you argue that if a system exists that is
sufficiently complex, it must require a creator, then the creator of that
system is more complex that the system created, and therefore reasoning
accurately, requires a creator also. If you insist on having a creator
popping into existence or always being there, it is better to stop with the
least complex system, rather than continuing on to create a being that needs
not be created.
Message: 6272
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl/inerrancy
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 10:28:02
Then, if God really breathed those words, which, by the way is a
mis-interpretation of 2Timothy 3:16 and requires an additional belief in the
canon (who else defines scriptures) to include or not include a book in the
canon as scripture, then why are there so many minor nit-picking differences
in the stories. An excellent example is the four versions of Mary Mag's
visit
to the tomb. In one a man is seen sitting on the stone, another a man in
the tomb, another two men .... If God really had a hand in writing the
Bible, these minor inconsistencies between stories would not be there.
Instead, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that individuals
wrote those words, and since they were human they made mistakes. Thus, the
Bible contain mistakes, and one must be very careful in extracting truth
from such a book in a mechanistic manner.
Message: 6273
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: BEHOLD! .....
Subject: Soup or God?
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 13:01:30
Life from soup? not hardly, it was Louis Pasteur who proved that spontaneous
generation is impossible. He contended that every generation of every
living creature had to be derived from a preceding generation. Life could
not have started spontaneously from inorganic matter. The spontaneous
generation of life idea is just wishful thinking on the part of the
evolutionists. Dr. Fred Hoyle has calculated that such an accident had one
chance in 10 to the power of 40,000 of occurring, making it beyond
possibility. Now that we know of the enormous complexity of the DNA genetic
code, and that the information content of a simple cell has been estimated
as around 10 to the power of 12 bits, we know that random development of
living matter is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Consider these facts: there are 2,000
complex enzymes required for a living organism, but not a single one of them
could have formed accidentally. The genes of the simplest single-celled
organism contain more data than there are letters in all of the volumes of
the world's largest library. As Fred Hoyle put it: "The chance that higher
life forms might have emerged in this accidental way is comparable with the
chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing
747 from the materials within."
I contend there is a God... I KNOW there is a GOD!
cliff-
Message: 6274
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: cliff/biopoesis
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 13:13:13
Fred Hoyle, unfortunately, doesn't understand how evolution occurs. As you
probably can guess, that once DNA exists, then the only outcome can be
evolution. That means that if God created DNA then we evolved from the
original protein in the "soup" as you put it over 3 billion years ago. On
the other hand, if you are arguing that DNA could not have arisen from
inorganic material (actually, organic molecules exists without any problem
at
all since they can spontaneously arise given the conditions of a primordial
earth. So where do you draw the line ? You don't believe that ANY evolution
occurred, or that only the rise of life (biopoesis) could not have occurred
without an outside agency. Consider this also: if an outside agency is
required to form DNA, then it doesn't take a God, only someone smart enough
and powerful enough to "seed" the world. In fact, this is a subject of
many Science Fiction conjectures... a world is seeded with the beginnings
of life, and evolution takes over. The point is that even when you say it
is impossible (and I am not conceding that it is) that it does not prove
God exists, since any lesser being could have done the same thing. Then, of
course, if you argue "where did the "lesser" being come from ?" I will
immediately respond with, "where did God come from ". If you say God has
always been, I will say my LGM have always been.
Fun, eh ?
Message: 6275
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: BEHOLD! .....
Subject: Thermodynamics
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 14:46:34
I'm sorry Roger, your last post violates the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. This law indicates "that nature tends to go from order to
disorder; from complexity to simplicity. If the most random arrangement of
energy is uniform distribution, then the present arrangement of the energy
in the universe is nonrandom."
The Mystery of Life's Origin, p.115
There is NO factual basis of evolution. It is all THEORY and
speculation, and each year the theory becomes less and less tenable in the
light of new scientific evidence. Many of the world's greatest scientists
are devout Christians and atheism is actually destroying true science.
See next post.
Message: 6276
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: BEHOLD! .....
Subject: A Gigantic Hoax
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 14:49:03
The simple fact is that no proof whatever has been found
indicating that one species evolved into another. The fossil record is
simply a series of still pictures of species that existed at one time. They
do not show how one species evolves into another. Transitional fossils have
not been found. The fossil record shows new species appearing suddenley
without any ancestors. For example, evolutionists have done experiments
with fruit flies for years in hope of demonstrating evolution at work. But
the fruit flies have stubbornly refused to develop into anything but more
fruit flies, despite all kinds of stimuli. In other words, lions have
remained lions, monkeys have remained monkeys.
Even Darwin wrote in 'The Origin of Species': "The geological
record is extremely imperfect... and this fact will to a large extent
explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all
the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest gradual steps. He who
rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will RIGHTLY
reject my whole theory."
cliff-
Message: 6277
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff/Daryl
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 15:58:17
Daryl proves the existance of God by saying the our vast and complex
universe is regular and predictable, while Cliff proves the existance of God
by saying that new species are occasionally dropped into existance just for
fun. Which is it?
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 6278
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: 2nd law of thermo
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 17:07:52
You do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. According to your
interpretation we should never see a snowflake, or God is out their madly
creating them. Secondly, if you look at the earth as "closed" system it
has a net input of energy to drive various processes in the earth system.
Another example of order arising out of disorder are galaxies, the solar
system, the sun, the earth, the moon... Even the particles that make up
our subatomic zoo increase in seeming variety as the universe cools down.
At near big-bang energies all four forces are united as one force. As the
universe has cooled down, we have four forces manifested: the strong
nuclear,
the weak nuclear, the electromagnetic and gravitational force. This is
another example of complexity increasing in a system that is cooling down.
Now, as far as no transitional forms are concerned, that is simply not true.
We have an excellent fossil record for the hominid species that have arisen
and perished over the last 5 million years. If you like, I can also present
other examples of "transitional" species.
Finally, a clear understanding of evolution and how it works will help
dispel some misunderstandings and deliberate obfuscations by the ICR and
other creationist organizations bent on creating confusion in the minds
of the public.
Message: 6279
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Xtianity
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 18:40:16
Try my brand: the Moving Target (TM) brand. I believe, man, and you can,
too.
Message: 6280
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl/Paul
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 18:41:20
So, Daryl, like Paul believes in salvation through belief. Why aren't you
helping him to find the true way to heaven, since he has a better chance of
listening than we do...
Message: 6281
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: 2nd law
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 22:30:07
Gosh, doesn't the concept of an eternal, invariant God contradict the 2nd
law? If God has an infinite amount of energy at his disposal, then one
could conclude that, if it is an open system, the universe does too, and
therefore entropy is an illusion except as a localized phenomenon.
Message: 6282
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: Dean
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 23:46:54
I did not say "new species are occasionally dropped into existance
just for fun"... The present arrangement of energy in the universe is
predictable... but, this proves there must be a creator, for matter by
itself cannot and does not behave creatively. The evolutionists have not
been able to explain how inanimate matter, with its inherent tendency to
decay, reversed itself so as to be able to synthesize life and to build
complex organisms. That would have required matter, on its own, to develop
the highly complex genetic codes found in the DNA molecule.
cliff-
Message: 6283
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: fossil record
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 00:24:11
Well Roger..if you have a excellent record for the hominid species
that ties us back to the one celled amoeba in a step by step evolution, I
sure would like to see it. You then have found the 'Missing Links'.
Paleoanthropologists have hunted high and low for the missing link or links.
But not only have they not found them, they are now pretty sure that such
links do not exist. Let's take your claim to have such fossil records to
David Pilbeam at Harvard. ( a noted paleoanthropologist ) I am sure he
would be quite interested.
Evolution is not a proven fact Roger. From now on I would like you
to refer to it as 'Theory of Evolution Drivel'. Even Darwin said it was
only a theory of natural selection. He was proud of the fact it provided a
counterblow to the idea of creation even if it was all based on pure
speculation and conjecture.
Some of your stuff sounds so old, are you reading from Darwin's
"The Origin of Species", published in 1859?
read: Darwin's Enigma, On the Origin of Species, Evolution from Space, The
Mystery of Life's Origin, The Origin of Living Things, The Survival of
Charles Darwin and The Eighth Day of Creation.
clif-
Message: 6284
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Evolution/Breeding
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 00:36:15
Just making sure these two are not getting confused. Breeding, or
variety of breeds within a species, is a function of genetics, not
evolution.
clif-
Message: 6285
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Lizards & Birds
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 00:49:07
All dinosaurs (terrible lizards) were once thought to be just that.
At the Museum of Natural History (N.Y. of course) they all had their tails
dragging on the ground. (when I was a kid) Not to long ago, they found this
not to be the case in all cases. Seems that many of these lizards were not
lizards at all, but from the BIRD family. Now on my last trip to N.Y., I
see they have corrected this on many of the exibits, their tails are now in
the air.
The only thing I am trying to point out here, is science does make
mistakes! What is todays fact, is tomorrows myth. Frankly I feel that
evolution as stated by Darwin is a snowjob!
clif-
Message: 6286
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger/Angels
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 00:56:53
The "difference" in the accounts, is really not all that strange, and
certainly not contradictory. Frequently the spokesman is noted only and an
accompanying figure is not mentioned. Words and posture (seated, Jn 20.12;
standing, Lk 24.4) often change in the course of events, so these variations
are not necessarily contradictory. They are simply evidence of independent
accounts.
Message: 6287
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Beliefs
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 02:07:42
Yes Paul, there are so many thousands of Christians here. There are also an
estimated 7,000 to 10,000 homeless in Arizona. Keep up the good work.
Message: 6288
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: existence of life
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 02:13:48
There is so much mass and energy in the universe that if life did not exist,
it would be a miracle.
P.S. Damn good posts Roger.
End of the Universe Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 1277
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Piss on it!
Subject: Hey now!
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 07:23:50
Let's give a devil's welcome to.... GORDON LITTLE !
Message: 1278
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 09:08:14
Welcome, Mr. Little ................
Message: 1279
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 09:25:12
I tend to agree with you as well. A child's personality, one of
those things that the greater minds of this world can not agree on as to
whether the child's personality is inherited or enviornmentaly developed or
both, and, indeed, the involvement and interest the parent takes does have
an effect.
Not that I want to call some of the parents I talked to liars, but
it appears that some schools, who use some of the newer curriculum from the
federal government, are having a greater effect on the children than the
partent's. These children were involved in these programs at an early age.
Some even in Kindergarten.
Guess I would not be so riled up if such programs were only offered
at the High School or, better yet, college level as a course offering a
different type of lifestyle.
Message: 1280
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: educhildren
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 15:31:55
I tend to agree with you also. I don't like the idea of a curriculum
designed to brainwash children into a point of view that is contrary to
what we may consider to be the authority of the parent in the eyes of the
child. I do know that we have had discussions with our children on some of
the more outrageous points of view that they have gotten from their social
ed classes. namely: that sex before marriage is ok if you take the proper
steps to avoid pregnancy. Now, I think it is good that pubescent children
become aware of contraception and that they know it is available. It is not
good to teach the little sinners that it is OK to go ahead and experience
sex without considering the moral aspects of such an act. This "If it feels
good, it's OK" morality leads to, I think, the idea that it's OK to take
drugs because it feels good, and therefore OK. I think that schools, if they
are going to teach morality of this sort, need to start over again and teach
the kids that life isn't a playground, but that hard choices have to be made
based upon morals that have been around for thousands of years. Otherwise,
the schools should get out of the business of brainwashing these pre-adults
and into the business of teaching them how to make a living and compete with
the Japanese.
Message: 1281
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 20:47:06
Amen!
Schools should go back to what they used to do. Teach the 3 R's and
how to make a living and compete with the Japanese.
Leave the Moral raising to the parents.
Message: 1282
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Welcome
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 22:41:11
Good to be here! 'Scuse me while I adjust my horns and tail...
Message: 1283
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Sandy
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 22:43:25
It's interesting that you had two separate concerns about what is being
"taught" in schools, one of which I would interpret differently, while the
other I would violently agree with.
To take the "right and wrong" concern first, and to concentrate on sex,
which is usually more of a hot button for many people, I don't see anything
wrong with what the textbook was advising these young adults to do. (And
biologically they *are* adults -- something this society often tries to
ignore.) I see an enormous difference between saying "if it feels good, do
it" (which considers only present gratification) and "if you and others
genuinely want to do it, after considering the CONSEQUENCES, then it's all
right" -- which is what the book was saying.
To illustrate the significance of the second statement, let's take a look at
some of the reasons that teenage girls have given for having sex, and what
that says about the girls themselves.
"I didn't know how to say no." (Lack of social skills,
assertiveness, self-confidence.)
"I didn't know what he was doing." (Lack of sex education.)
"I didn't think I could get pregnant the first time." (Ditto)
"I was afraid he would dump me if I didn't say yes." (Lack of
self-esteem; dependency upon another for validation.)
"Everybody was doing it. I felt left out." (Lack of independent
identity; dependency upon peers for validation.)
"I thought if I got pregnant he would stay with me; maybe we'd get
married." (Deplorable lack of education in male psychology.)
"I thought it would be nice to have a baby. I didn't know it would
be such a grind." (Failed to visualize consequences objectively.)
"I wanted to have a baby because then I'd have someone to love and
who would love me. I'd be a mother, so then I'd have an
identity." (Tragic lack of love and self-esteem.)
These girls did not make decisions that were right for themselves, let alone
for anybody else. It's reasonable to conclude that they, and millions of
their sisters all over the country, might well have said "no" (or at least
taken better precautions!) if they had possessed certain attributes: self-
esteem (not "selling" oneself to others for validation); self-confidence
(believing in one's own judgments, including moral ones); introspection
(studying one's own motives and what is right for oneself, not pandering to
others' selfishness); objective understanding of others' motives;
accurate knowledge about sexuality; clear thinking, not denying reality; and
a realistic prediction of consequences. These are the life skills that
these educators are trying to promote.
Now, one might argue that none of these skills are needed if we just rely on
a pat formula for Right and Wrong handed down by some higher authority. To
that I say, first, that looking to a higher authority for answers falls down
in a complex technological world where new moral judgments are constantly
needed. What did God have to say about genetic engineering, for example, or
about nuclear war? Nothing directly; we have to guess what He *would* have
said, which means we still can't get away from thinking for ourselves.
However, the main reason for promoting such skills is that the alternative
just does not work today. Like it or not, the majority of young people do
not believe in unquestioning acceptance of judgments from higher authorities
-- be they human or divine -- and trying to force such judgments on them
actually backfires. If we take sex, it's obvious that the majority of
adults no longer believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. And that's
judging only from what they say; if we judge by their actual behavior the
majority is much larger. Young people can't see the relevance of sexual
prohibitions to their lives, and so tend to reject anything at all that
"authority" has to say. "Just say no" is all very well, but it cuts both
ways; you have a right to say "no" to anybody, including the people who keep
telling you to say "no". These people demand a good reason for saying "no".
I think mankind has accumulated a lot of wisdom, part of which is that some
kind of moral code is an absolute necessity for reasonable human
coexistence. Religion usually codifies such moral codes in a fixed ex
cathedra form, but it is also possible to derive an adequate moral code from
first principles, which is a lot better than nothing. This does require,
though, that people -- young people especially -- do some thinking about why
some things are "right" and some are "wrong", and that they be motivated to
think about it in the first place.
To motivate young people to listen, we have to say something relevant and
helpful to them. We have to talk in terms of what they want, so that they
can see how to integrate what they want with what is for the good of
everybody. Hence the discussion of "when it feels right", "when all the
consequences for everybody are considered", and so on.
I don't think for one moment that any educator would tell young people not
to talk to their parents (unless the parents themselves were degenerate).
But these educators are offering an ear to young people who would *like* to
talk to their parents and cannot get them to listen. There are far too many
parents who refuse to sympathetically acknowledge their offsprings' real
concerns and feelings and needs -- about sex, friends, whatever -- and there
are many who refuse to even discuss such topics as sex and drugs. (My
parents only refused to discuss rock 'n' roll seriously, which I could put
up with.) When parents will not discuss the serious topics with their kids
objectively, or at all, why on earth should the kids listen? It is far
better for people in high school to have *somebody* knowledgeable to rap
with other than their peers, who know no more than they do.
For a person of strong religious faith -- let's say a Christian, since there
aren't so many Zoroastrians around here -- there is actually an important
moral decision to be made. Given that much of humanity today has rejected
strict religious teaching, is it better to encourage free will and free
thought (with its attendant threat to orthodoxy) so that *some* skill in
moral judgment can develop? Or is it better to constrain people to two
alternatives: either you do it this way, or you don't, and then you go to
hell? And this with the sure and certain knowledge that most of them are
going to choose the latter course. With no help in formulating a reasonable
alternative they will end up creating a hell on earth, never mind what
happens in the afterlife!
The second major issue -- the one I "violently agree" with, is the one about
teachers cheating. I suppose what is being taught here is a set of survival
values; that outside of the risk of getting caught, you get on better in
life by being dishonest. I'm not sure if this is even true. Lots of people
have made lots of money by being dishonest, but I don't know how they feel
about themselves unless they're practicing an awful lot of denial. I
suppose if what is of value to them is to appear good to everyone else, then
it's worth cheating, as long as they don't get caught.
(Once again, it's validation by others versus personal integrity.) But if
one's opinion of oneself is worth anything, the cheat must surely realize
that his high grades are worth absolutely nothing, because they mean nothing
in reality. A cheat must feel dreadfully insecure about being put to the
test!
What is more important for society in general is that false credentials are
worth nothing to anybody else, either. I could forge myself a diploma as a
civil engineer, but I sure as hell wouldn't live on the top floor of a
skyscraper I'd designed! Still, it might be nice to walk up and get awarded
a diploma for something I hadn't earned. Instant gratification, at the
expense of future consequences. This is part of the essence of morality:
postponement of gratification for the sake of future gains. It's also
something that children have to learn, slowly. It's part of the definition
of maturity. By modeling dishonesty, we are teaching children to be
immature, and we are raising a society to fall flat on its face later.
The culture of the 1980s, as I think I've said before, is a bizarre mixture
of brutal honesty and blatant lying. All we can hope for is that by
encouraging independent thought we can assist the triumph of truth over
trickery.
Message: 1289
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Devil Shit!!!
Subject: Dog Shit!
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 02:16:57
Welcome Gordon Little. I'll bet your fingers are sore, wow.
Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 64973
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Vote
Subject: ... so far ...
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 07:14:35
I have a really hard time believing that the oting on Apollo for the
gubernatorial primaries is representative of the Arizona (or even the
Maricopa) voting population. No votes for Terry? So many votes for
Steiger? Come on! The most recent poll before ours showed Sam and Fife to
be neck-and-neck.
Message: 64974
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Vote
Subject: last on Dog
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 07:27:25
Goes to show you what a radical bunch we are...........
cliff-
Message: 64975
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: mary of magdala
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 08:05:54
The evidence that Mary was Jesus' lover is not conclusive. However, she
is an important woman in his life, and the fact that she is mentioned first
in all four gospels indicates to me that it is at least arguable that she
had some special relationship with Jesus. Therefore, it is not unreasonable
for a film maker to have Mary and Jesus as lovers. It fills out the two
dimensional comic-book figure that the pseudo-reverent movies of Christ's
life have portrayed. e.g., the Greatest Story Ever Told.
Message: 64976
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: No Fault
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 09:56:10
Has anyone on here lived in a state with 'No Fault Insurance'?
Can anyone here speak pros or cons to this concept?
I know the lawyers don't like it, period! But I am not the kind of
a guy that wants to sue anyone as long as the basic responsibility has been
met.
cliff-
Message: 64977
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod & T-Shirts
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 11:32:02
Here's a couple from my idea mill;
"RAPE PILLAGE LIE CHEAT STEAL AND IGNORE.."
You See, I understand Politics Too!
"SNOWBIRD FROM HELL"
"NOW HELL IS FREEZING OVER"
WET PANTS IN YOUR FACE
There..
Message: 64978
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 11:39:48
If you ever have the unfortunate experience of ending up in an
accident over here, you will find that there is no such thing
as 100% blame. The insurance companies will always place some of the
blame on you...only VERY rarely will they not be able to blame you for
a certain percentage of the "fault".
(1) If your car is parked in your own driveway
(2) If you're stopped in traffic and you're not:
Blocking an intersection, sitting too close to the guy in front
of you and all of your brake lights work and you can prover they did
before you get munched in a rear-end.
Through the nose or not, I'll keep my full coverage insurance on my
truck until the day its value is lower than the premium.
I'm certainly not well-to-do, rich, money bags or have all the time in the
world and no where to work or person to work for. I *must* be able to
get to work reliably and on time. That means if my car gets munchola
in a crashola, I will at least be able to go get another four wheels
and a motor.
Right now I couldn't afford one wheel and a rubber band.
Message: 64979
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: rod's t-shirts
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 13:09:09
I would like to submit the following slogan:
QUANTITY IS JOB ONE
Message: 64980
Author: Hans Glans
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 13:43:41
How about:
Japanese men do it smaller.
Message: 64981
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: No Fault
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 18:53:15
Unfortunately, all No Fault is not created equal. It works differently in
different states. I have no idea which state the current Arizona bill is
modeled after.
Message: 64982
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
Subject: Mike K.
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 19:15:11
I plan to bring a friend, who may bring anything from an AR15 to a buffalo
gun. I will have handguns, and maybe a Spanish American War rifle. Pretty
much anything goes I would say.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 64983
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Shirt
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 19:16:18
Here's a possible shirt slogan I saw on a bumper sticker:
Protected By A Pit Bull With AIDS
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 64984
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: GT
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 21:01:32
I'd love to come, but 9:00 am is a little early -- especially on a Saturday.
Message: 64985
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: Weapons Systems...
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 21:04:18
"From studying the neurology and micro-anatomy of the mindless insects the
specialists of the mid-twenty-first century quickly obtained splendid
results. Their predecessors were truly blind to overlook the fact that such
insects as bees, seemingly primitive creatures, nevertheless possess their
own, inherited language, with which the workers in the hive inform one
another of the location of newly discovered nectar. Through signal-gesture-
pantomime the direction of the path is given, the time required to reach the
nectar, and even its relative quantity. Of course, the point was not to
duplicate wasps, flies, spiders, or bees in computer chips or the like; the
important thing was their neural anatomy with its built-in sequences of
directed behavior and programmed goals. The result was a scientific-
technological revolution that totally and irreversibly transformed the
battlegrounds of Earth. Until then, all arms had been fashioned to fit man;
their components were tailored to his anatomy, so that he could kill
effectively, and to his physiology, so that he could be killed effectively.
As so often happened, the beginnings of this complex new trend lay in the
twentieth century, but at that time no one was able to combine them into a
novel synthesis, because the discoveries that made possible the
unhumanization of weapons systems took place in widely separated fields.
Military experts had no interest in insects (except the lice, fleas, and
other parasites that beset soldiers in wartime). Intellectronics
engineers, who with the entomologists and neurologists studied the neurology
of insects, knew nothing about military problems. And politicians, true
to form, knew nothing about anything."
"Thus, while intellectronics was developing microcalculators so small that
they competed in size with the nerve bundles of mosquitos and hornets, the
majority of artificial intelligence enthusiasts were still busy programming
computers to carry on stupid conversations with not-too-bright people. The
mammoths and dinosaurs of the computer species were beating chess masters
not because they were more intelligent but only because they could process
data a billion times faster than Einstein. For a long time no one imagined
that all the ordinary front-line soldier needed was the skill and enterprise
of a bee or a hornet. In basic military operations, intelligence and combat
effectiveness are two entirely different things. (Intelligence can actually
be a negative factor. In battle, the soldier's instinct for self-
preservation, incomparably greater than a bee's, can interfere; the bee, on
the other hand, will sting to defend its hive though the sting means its own
death.) Who knows how long the old-fashioned way of thinking would have
continued in the weapons industry -- the search for new conventional and
unconventional instruments of warfare, the spiralling arms race -- had it
not been for a few works that directed the public's attention to a remote
and unusual episode in our planet's history."
(to be continued)
Message: 64987
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff/psych in school
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 22:36:28
Sorry, I'd almost forgotten you asked me what sort of psychology I'd teach
children in schools. Well, I wouldn't start with Freud, that's for sure! I
was thinking of more things of practical use. Effective listening and
communication. How to handle other people and get what you need without
alienating people. How to deal with feelings -- fear, shame, and especially
anger, in oneself and in others. (I don't completely agree with Asimov that
violence is always the last resort of the incompetent, but I would say it is
frequently the FIRST resort of the incompetent.) What motivates diifferent
people, and how people differ in this respect. And the fundamental but
dangerous truth that People Do Things For Their Own Reasons.
This last is especially important, because people substitute other myths for
this truth and fall into different traps as a result. Some people think the
world exists for their own benefit. These narcissists get lots of grief
from others. Some people classify others as "good" or "bad", judged
exclusively from their own point of view of course, which leads to an "us"
versus "them" mentality and inevitable conflict. However, if one
acknowledges that people do things for their own reasons -- oneself included
-- it is easier to understand and accept the weird or even hostile behavior
of others. Trouble is, this knowledge is threatening to a lot of people,
especially politicians, who would prefer us to think that they are only
doing what they are doing for our own good. Many people are threatened by
competent children, which is why psychology isn't taught in schools.
Message: 64988
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Mary of Magdala
Date: 04/24/90 Time: 23:01:42
Somebody (I think it was on the SIG) mentioned, as a facetious argument,
that some material in the Gospel could be interpreted as meaning that Jesus
was homosexual. Well, there was a radical minister in England, 20 years or
so ago, who did make that claim in all seriousness. Needless to say, he
created quite a furor. Part of his claim was based on the words that speak
of Peter as "the disciple that Jesus loved". I felt rather sorry for the
fellow, because as a Christian he ought to have understood that there ARE
other kinds of "love" in the world besides the purely sexual.
To interpret some of these passages clearly it might be helpful to go back
to the original language. Sure, Greek had umpteen words for love, but I
thought most of the Gospels were written in Aramaic, so how clearly do we
understand the different shades of meaning in that language today?
Message: 64989
Author: Vittorio Sgarbi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hello!
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 01:20:24
Hi, everybody!!!
I 'm calling from Italy.... How are you???? Fine, i hope...
Well, this is my English, it isn' t good, I, know....
mr^m{
I remmber Formula 1 Grand prix from Phoenix... great!!!
Vittorio
Message: 64990
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Vote
Subject: Beau
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 05:00:41
Realizing that the primaries do not allow for cross-over voting, this may
be at least one of the reasons for the "no votes for Terry". I am a
registered Democrat who wouldn't vote for Terry the Terrible if he was
running for dog catcher. If it becomes a Goddard-Steiger general election, I
plan to vote for Sam.
Of course, if by some faint chance it becomes a Goddard-Mecham general, I
will probably recant the above statement and vote for Goddard in self
defense.
Message: 64991
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Vittorio/last
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 05:06:34
Sure.
And I've got some ocean front property just outside of Yuma that you wold
just love. The price is right, too.
Message: 64992
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: gospel language
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 07:06:27
I thought the Gospels were written in Greek.
Message: 64993
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: T-Shirt Slogans
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 08:06:34
Keep us informed.
Oh, yeah, and I want a regular statement in the mail, too.
That idea took me at least four seconds to make up. And time is money, you
know. I guess .25 for four seconds worth of work is pretty good money. That
would be, what...only $3.75 an hour? Wait, I thought they boosted the
minimum wage. ROD!!!
(grin)
PS: My contribution to the current Earth-mania movement:
TAKE CARE OF THE PLANET. WE ONLY HAVE IT ON LOAN.
Message: 64994
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/MofM
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 08:15:34
But when a filmmaker makes a film about something based on the only
evidence available on that something, he should stick to that evidence, and
not resort to an idea that the evidence does not support. The Biblical
account of Jesus has a far wider scope than just the fact that "he lived on
Earth." There was a reason why he came, there was a reason why it had to be
him, and there was a reason he led the life that he did. If he gave in to
sin, then his work to atone for the sins of the world would have come to
nothing. Trust that he was fully able to come down off the cross, and his
human nature probably tempted him to. But to do that would have voided out
everything he came here for. The same goes for a "one night stand" with Mary
of Magdala.
Message: 64995
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/64992
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 08:22:04
I believe so, too. Why would the Gospel writer need to translate an Aramaic
term such as "Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani," if they were writing in Aramaic
to begin with?
Message: 64996
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl/MofM
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 10:17:11
Actually, the filmmaker wanted to make a "non-historical" movie. It was
not intended to be historical. However, the filmmaker wanted to show Jesus
as a man and thereby "fictionalized" the account.
As for being sinless, he couldn't be sinless because he was born of Mary,
who, the last time I looked, was a human. Assuming that the immaculate
conception myth is true, the issue of that union still carries Mary's genes,
and therefore Adam's sin. (Of course, I also think that Adam and Eve are
mythological creatures also, due to the fact that homo sapiens evolved
around
2-5 million years ago in the center of Africa.
Message: 64997
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: Modem test
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 12:14:32
Well, 60 days and this new modem seems to be working better then the
older one... Is that right Ann?
Anyway, this is my last [plug] for the sponsor of the new modem.
Are your keys old and not working properly? Have you lost keys and would
like your locks all re-keyed to a *new* & different key? Well, by Golly,
Call Hawley, the QUALITY locksmith who works cheap! (discounts to $tatus
users too) He can be reached at anytime at 277-9595 (mobil phone).
For FAST---> and friendly service, call TODAY!
(Don't be like the Assp (the ungrateful that her modem connects faster) that
called a BRAND X locksmith)
To J.H. Send check ($153.00) now.... or I will take it all back!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=* cliff *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*
P.S. Really, he is a GOOD locksmith!
Message: 64999
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: IT'S HERE!!!!
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 13:30:12
Yes the moment I have all week been waiting for
_sex, lies, and videotape_ is in a video store near you just waiting to be
rented.
"Rent me, rent me" it squeals in a whisper...
Just forget about the garbage and watch it!
Message: 65000
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/t-shirt
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 16:09:11
Here is another slogan from a bumper sticker:
"Don't Blame Me, I Voted LIBERTARIAN"
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 65001
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: transitional forms
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 19:20:58
Another transitional form is Archaeopteryx, thought to be a transitional
form between reptiles and birds. Here is an excerpt from the May 1990
article in Scientific American:
"In 1985 the British astronomer Fred Hoyle charged that the Archaeopteryx
specimen in the British Museum of Natural History was a fake. He claimed
that a forger had created the specimen by first applying a thin layer of
binding material mixed with pulverized rock to the fossilized skeleton of
Compsognathus -- a type of small dinosaur called a theropod --- and then
making impressions of feathers in it. Hoyle and his colleagues also
suggested that the other Archaeopteryx fossils either were forgeries or
did not really show imprints of feathers. In England, Archaeopteryx soon
became know as the Piltown chicken.
Because of the publicity surrounding the affair, the British museum
decided in 1987 to stage a special exhibition to accompany the scientific
reexamination of its fossil. Various tests proved that the stone in which
the feather imprints were found did not differ in structure or composition
from the surrounding material. Notwithstanding the modern appearance of
Archaeopteryx's feathers, nothing pointed out their being forgeries.
Moreover, the stone plates encasing the skeleton fit together perfectly,
which would have been impossible if the fossils had been tampered with
by adding a layer of cement.
Ironically, the features that Hoyle saw as proof of the fossil's
inauthenticity -- its mixture of Compsognathus-like bones and modern
feathers-- are some of the most important clues that paleontologists
have for understanding how birds and bird flight evolved. Its combination
of anatomical characteristics from two distinct classes of animals make
Archaeopteryx, the oldest-known bird, a textbook example of a transitional
form between reptiles and modern birds."
This article was authored by Dr. Peter Welinhofer, the main curator
and vice director of the Bavarian State Collection for Paleontology and
Historical Geology in Munich, where he specializes in the study of fossil
birds and flying reptiles. He is the author of numerous articles on the
subject of Archaeopteryx and the editor of the Encyclopedia of
Paleoherpetology.
Message: 65003
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/Recommended book
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 21:34:32
None.
Sorry, that's a very brusque and unhelpful answer, but it was the first one
that came to mind. But since Apollo's line was busy, I took a quick glance
over the bookshelves to see, and after a (fairly cursory) check I was unable
to spot anything that was at once so original and wide-ranging as "Zen".
There are of course lots of books I've enjoyed, many of which were also
"worthwhile". I used to read a lot of SF, but I don't so much now. I think
that's because most of the ideas (gadgets, time paradoxes, different flavors
of aliens) eventually got covered, so it's increasingly hard to find
something new (meaning new to me). The last good SF book I read was by
Sagan. Can't remember the title, and my books are jumbled since we moved;
it can take up to ten minutes to find a book. Oh, and Michael Crichton's
"Sphere" wasn't at all bad.
This "discovery" factor is important, though, in the impact of a book. The
Gospels are vital books ; but how do you judge the "impact" of something you
have known since childhood? Random thoughts: I was impressed at the time by
Morris's "Naked Ape"; Pohl's "Tunnel Under the World" (short story); "The
Bible as History"; "In Search of Bridie Murphy" (actually a fraud); "The
Slave Trade" (in N. Africa/Saudi Arabia); Fowler's "Modern English Usage";
Alice Miller's books. And I *must* read "Goedel, Escher, Bach" some time.
(I know you're not keen on the Gospels, but there are good thoughts there.)
Message: 65004
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak/books
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 21:39:08
Funny, I remembered somebody asked me about books, so I wrote up this
post. Then I checked to see who it was, and saw it was Zak. So I thought,
"well, sounds as if I'm pushing religion or something". And unfortunately
the buffer was too full to add an explanation. Well, no big deal, they're
all good books.
Message: 65005
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: News Today
Subject: Comment
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 21:40:57
I sometimes listened to Y95 radio in the mornings. Don't know why, except
laziness. Some friends stayed over a couple of days and they left the radio
tuned to Y95. Such a lot of insane noise poured into my ears; but then it's
*meant* to be insane, especially in the morning. Irritation wakes people
up. "WAAAAAAAAAAAKE UUUUUUUUUUUP!" screamed that voice from Bedlam. And I
did.
I finally got stirred out of my lethargy by listening closely to a string of
words the announcer uttered. I use "uttered" deliberately here, because the
words were not "said"; it was more a mixture of gabbling and singing. There
was music in the background also. But the words themselves did have
semantic content. It was something like: "Arecentreportsaysthatpeopleliving
intheindustrializednationsuseorwastetheworld'sresourcesatfiftytimestherateof
peoplelivinginThirdWorldnationswealthymembersoftheindustrializednationsuse
resourcesatonethousandtimesthatrate..."
There was such an extreme contrast between the words themselves and the way
they were gabbled, with intonation matching the background music rather than
the meaning of the words, that I found myself wondering if the announcer was
crazy or if I was. Was this meant to be newsreading? Giving people
information? How unlike the steady, sober voice of a BBC announcer, or even
the artificially hyped-up emotion of some television news. What message was
the announcer giving? "Here's some information, but don't bother to listen
or think, let alone worry about it; it isn't important anyway."
I decided that if I kept letting this pollution pour into my ears I was in
serious danger of having my brain fried, so I turned off right away. Later
that day I listened to some news on -- KFLR, is it? "Family Life Radio"? I
don't go much on a diet of religious songs, but at least they read the news
as if it meant something.
Then I turned to KDKB, and I'd been listening to that for about a month. I
liked their music better than Y95 anyway. It was OK. Then, this morning,
up came the news. It went like this.
ANNOUNCER: Right now, let's see what you think of this: "President
Bush is holding off on sanctions against the Soviet Union for its
crackdown on Lithuania..."
CHORUS of Voices in the background: BORING! BOOOOORRRRRING!
ANNOUNCER: Oh. Well, let's try this: "The space shuttle Discovery is
in orbit following yesterday's successful launch, and the Hubble Space
Telescope will be deployed today..."
CHORUS: BOOOOORRRRRING! BOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRING!
I'm beginning to think of these voices as the "Moron Tabernacle Choir". The
announcer continued:
ANNOUNCER: All right. How about this? "Donald and Ivana Trump have
announced their "free love" agreement, in which..."
MORON TABERNACLE CHOIR: HOORAY!
The announcer then continued with the most important news of the day: how
the Trumps had agreed that each would be free to "see" other people.
I must say that KDKB was less objectionable to me than Y95. KDKB's message
about the importance of news was at least upfront, clearly presented and
available for criticism. Y95's message, on the other hand, was camouflaged
with noise and had to be dug out before it could be examined and either
accepted or rejected. KDKB was honest; Y95 was subliminal and deceptive.
I don't know if it's worth listening to the radio news, because they only
read what I can read for myself in the Repugnant later the same day. But
even the Repugnant thought that George Bush's dislike of broccoli merited
front-page headlines. Interesting and entertaining, yes, but not my idea of
front-page significance.
You can see why I get seriously worried about this culture's discouragement
of clear, coherent, independent thought. I've said some words elsewhere
about whether schools encourage children to think or not. Like alcohol, the
Babel of sound assaulting our ears may appear a stimulus to some, but is
really a depressant. The anesthetic quality of sound is well known, and is
used in dentistry. Drugs also anesthetize people. Drug laws are a great
way to give the impression of dealing with the problem of drugs -- and also
create jobs on both sides of the law -- while letting people continue to be
anesthetized.
I hardly watch TV any more, though I do watch movies. I can see why I like
BBSs. The people on them are usually trying to say something that makes
sense. Even when they only succeed in annoying people, at least something
real gets communicated. You know also that people are listening and
processing. As Milton almost said, "They also serve who only sit and read".
At least it keeps them awake.
That voice on Y95 radio screeching at people to "wake up" really is ironic,
because the insanity behind it is really telling them to go to sleep. Those
patients of Oliver Sacks who laughed at the President's message would have
found THAT funny.
Message: 65009
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/T-shirts
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 21:48:46
I did like your slogan a lot.
One that popped into my head yesterday was
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HUMANITY THAT A GOOD NUCLEAR WAR CAN'T FIX
I HOPE that this one has become outdated...
Message: 65010
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Vittorio
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 21:55:08
Benvenuto, Vittorio. Sorry, this is a large percentage of the Italian
I know. I've been on other boards where people have called from
as far away as London, so I could believe you were genuine. But the
"s" and the "g" together did make me wonder. I never saw that in
Italian.
Still, people do have strange names. My favorites from the Phoenix
telephone directory:
Kilo Watt (almost certainly false)
Phongsavanh Xoumphonpmakdy (almost certainly genuine)
Message: 65011
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/psych
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 22:13:23
My initial question remains. Whose theories of these things are you going
to teach? Furthermore, though your phrase "people do things for their own
reasons" is rather vague, it suggests a multiplicity of motives whose
complexity would defy any generalized system of analysis.
Effective listening and communication -- who would argue against teaching
such things? And yet, even when dealing with such an elemental subject, the
fact remains that effective listening and communication is not an invariant
technique, but rather a multivariant one which depends on, among other
things, the attitude(s) of the listener(s) and speaker(s), in relation to
each other, their immediate environment, their past histories, and your
relation to them, real and perceived. What constitutes effective
communication techniques at a meeting of the Algonquin round table does not
necessarily hold true at meeting of the Klu Klux Klan.
The other things are even more subjective. Whose theories of how to deal
with feelings are you going to teach? Leo Buscaglia's, or Robert J.
Ringer's? Christ's or Buddha's? Or any other the innumerable alternatives?
Whose theories are you going to teach regarding "what motivates different
people, and how they differ in this respect"? Again, you say this as though
this was a matter of scientific record.
All of this is complicated by the most important fact that, even if one was
able to delineate some "best" system of analysis, it is not as though people
would be amenable to it. People already know why they REALLY do things, by
and large, but choose to ignore this or pretend otherwise for various
reasons.
Message: 65012
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl and Roger
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 22:18:28
I have to agree with Daryl on this one. This suggestion of a one night
stand with Mary Magdala is reminiscent of an article in the Leisure section
of the Republic the other day, dealing with the question of obscenity in
art. In comparing Maplethorp's works with standard religious works, the
writer described one well known painting (whose name eludes me) as follows:
"An angel is piercing her breast with an arrow, and her head is tilted back
*in the moment of orgasm*." An absurd interpretation, both in light of
art history, religion, and visual evaluation of the evidence.
Message: 65013
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Roger/Daryl/Gospels
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 23:06:37
Yes, color my face red, the earliest known sources of the four Gospels are
indeed written in Greek (according to the Britannica).
However, what I was remembering was that the originals of some of the
Gospels were probably written in Aramaic, which would have been the language
of the Disciples. What I remember (Jane is shuffling through the books but
hasn't found it yet) is that the three so-called Synoptic Gospels --
Matthew, Mark and Luke, which contain a great deal of parallel material
(unlike John) -- may have drawn on an earlier "Q" (German, "Quelle") source
that is now lost. I think it was more complicated than that, or more likely
the scholars couldn't make up their minds, but it was perhaps this "Q"
source, or an earlier Gospel of Mark (also lost) that was probably written
in Aramaic.
Message: 65014
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff/psych
Date: 04/25/90 Time: 23:21:07
Very quick and incomplete answer (just read your post). Effective
listening is simple enough. It is just a technique for reflecting back to
the speaker what you have heard him or her say. You'll come across this
idea in "Leader Effectiveness Training", Teacher Effectiveness Training",
"Parent E.T.", and so ad nauseam. Point here is that people, like computer
communications protocols, repeat themselves unless they've heard an "ACK"
from their audience. If they don't, they'll go into retry mode. You can't
get heard by somebody else until they are convinced that what THEY have said
has sunk in.
Feelings are somewhat similar. If you reflect somebody's feelings back to
them ("empathize" with them), you enhance rapport and encourage them to do
the same with you. If you don't, they won't be in a mood to listen to what
you have to say, and if they fail after repeated retries, they'll just give
up and break off communication.
"People do things for their own reasons." I suppose it's a sort of
psychological Theory of Relativity. It amounts to the idea that you have to
place yourself in somebody else's position to see why they act the way they
do. Such understanding is impossible solely from one's own position. "Walk
a mile in my shoes..."
Motivation": more complicated, but there are theories with reasonable
consensus. What do we teach but theories, anyway? Who says 2+2=4?
Message: 65015
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/64996
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 01:10:44
But what caused the Word to become flesh? It was the Holy Spirit. The Holy
Spirit did not produce sperm to fertilize an egg inside Mary, for that would
not be a virgin birth. The Word was made flesh by the Holy Spirit. Mary
became the vehicle by which Jesus was born.
By his human nature, he could be tempted to sin, BUT:
By his divine nature, he could NOT sin.
He was tempted, YES...but didn't sin.
Again, you are trying to eliminate Christ's Divinity, and make him just a
man.
Message: 65016
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/Synoptic
Date: 04/26/90 Time: 01:14:05
I do have information on that, and I will look it up.