Apollo BBS Archive - August 1991
Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
August 1991 -> August 4
Apollo BBS Archive - August 4, 1991
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 7817
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Everybody
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:07:24
All right.
Take a deep breath.
All together, now...
G-O-O-D P-O-S-T, everybody!!!
Hurrah!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, having gotten THAT out of my system, let's get down to business...
Message: 7818
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Accuracy of dating
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:08:17
The half-life of carbon-14 is a bit under 6,000 years. If you start off
with some amount of carbon-14, in 6,000 years half of it will have decayed.
In another 6,000 years, half of the remainder will have decayed, and so on.
In 50,000 years you will have less than a four-hundredth of what you started
with. It's difficult to measure such tiny quantities with accuracy, so
50,000 years is about the limit of usefulness for carbon-14 dating.
Apart from assumptions about the rate of cosmic ray bombardment in the past
and so forth, a significant source of possible error is contamination of the
sample by younger organic material. This is only a problem with very old
samples where the amount of carbon-14 is small enough to make precise
measurement difficult. The point here is that if such contamination does
occur, it will make the sample look younger than it really is, not older.
There are several other methods of radiometric dating, most of which use
elements with much longer half-lives such as uranium, or thorium-232 with a
half-life of 14 billion years.
When we see disagreements about the age of something ranging from, say, two
million years to eleven million years, it's easy to say "well, all the
estimates are way different anyway, so they're all unreliable". But the
vital point is that they're all of the same order of magnitude. The biggest
estimate is only three or four times the smallest. An estimate of 6,000
years, on the other hand, would differ by a factor of about a thousand.
Message: 7819
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl/examples (1/8)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:09:14
In the Grand Canyon we can find nearly-pure limestone deposits 1500 feet in
depth, in addition to siltstone, shale, and sandstone layers. Layers of
different rocks in the north wall are reflected in the south wall, from
which it is obvious that these layers were once continuous across the
canyon. We can estimate how many millions of years it took for the river to
erode away a total depth of 6000 feet or so, or we can argue that the canyon
was opened up rapidly by a vast earthquake; but the thickness of the
limestone deposits is of special interest. Marine shells are found in
abundance in these layers, showing that they were originally laid down at
the bottom of the sea. Study of the sea today shows that where lime
accumulates, it does so extremely slowly; perhaps 3000 years per foot. At
this rate, it must have taken four or five million years to lay down 1500
feet of limestone.
What are called "varved" deposits are particularly useful in estimating time
scales. A "varve" (from a Swedish word meaning "periodic repetition") is a
cyclic pattern of visibly striped layers laid down horizontally in a rock
stratum. Usually they alternate between dark and light. They are formed in
different ways, but their significance is that one cycle of layers is laid
down every year.
Gerard de Geer was a Swedish scientist who made a life's work out of the
study of varves. Most of those he studied were laid down by melting
glaciers.
Message: 7820
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl/examples (2/8)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:10:07
The alternating light and dark layers reflect the temperature of the
changing seasons. In the spring, ice melts and streams rush down into a
lake at the head of the glacier, carrying with them particles of silt and
clay. The larger particles drop quickly out of suspension, forming the
light-colored layers at the bottom of the lake. The finer particles are
held in suspension longer, gradually dropping out in the fall and winter
when the melting stops and the water is no longer constantly disturbed by
running streams. When the finer particles settle to the bottom, they form
the darker layers. This process can actually be seen in action.
After centuries of time, the sediment hardens and turns into solid rock, but
the layers remain as visible evidence of the passing years. By counting
layers all over Sweden, de Geer was able to establish a varve chronology
going back 17,000 years, due solely to glacial action in comparatively
recent history.
Varves can be formed by a number of processes resulting from the annual
temperature cycle. Sometimes they occur because certain plankton residues
settle to the bottom at the onset of winter, or because carbonates and other
dissolved minerals are forced out of solution as temperatures drop. Apart
from being able to observe the process in action today, the fact that varves
do reflect an *annual* cycle is borne out by the observation that the
"spring/summer" layers often have a high pollen content, while the
"fall/winter" layers do not.
Message: 7821
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl/examples (3/8)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:11:02
Varves vary greatly in thickness depending on local conditions. One unusual
layer found by de Geer near Ragunda in Sweden, where a large, ice-dammed
lake formed, was a meter thick. It was subsequently dated to the year 6923
BC. Now there's precision! You don't have the inaccuracies and guesswork
associated with carbon dating when you have something you can actually
count. But it's worth mentioning that where comparisons are possible, varve
chronology correlates quite well with recent carbon-14 dating, and has also
been used to refine the carbon dating scale itself.
The average varve is more like a centimeter thick, but many of them are a
lot thinner. One interesting thing is that variations in thickness clearly
indicate differing climatic conditions and variations in annual temperature
cycles. Varves often show a repeated cycle of variations in thickness every
11 years, or 22/23 years, which correlates with observations on the cycle of
sunspot activity.
Evidence is stronger when it can be correlated with other evidence.
Dendrochronology is the measurement of age by counting tree rings, and we
know that one new ring is grown every year. The oldest trees we've found
are not the sequoias (which are pretty old themselves), but the bristlecone
pines of the Rocky Mountains. Boreholes in trunks of these trees showed
ages of up to 4900 years. This isn't quite enough to prove that the earth
is older than 6,000 years, but dendrochronology can also tell us a lot about
climatic conditions in the past.
Message: 7822
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl/examples (4/8)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:12:00
This is because the thickness of the rings also varies. And in different
places in the earth, what we learn from dendrochronology correlates with
what we learn from varves. Yes, it's often possible to say things like "In
the year 2036 BC, California had a crummy winter."
The value of dendrochronology doesn't stop at the birth of the oldest tree
we have today, because in the past many trees have been preserved by
fossilization. The walls of Lamar Canyon in Yellowstone rise more than 2000
feet. They were built up by successive volcanic eruptions. Digging through
the rock, we find no fewer than twenty-seven successive layers of redwood
forest. Each forest flourished for a time, and then was wiped out by a
volcanic eruption and buried in a layer of ash. The trees were petrified
where they stood. In later years, another forest grew on top of each
previous one.
We can count the rings in these fossilized trees and determine that some
were up to 1600 years old when they died. A reasonable estimate is that the
age of each forest is at least 2000 years, but that is a minimum. It might
have taken a lot longer to develop fertile soil in the newly deposited ash
to allow each new forest to grow on top, and of course we don't know how
many generations of trees might be represented by each forest. So it must
have taken about 50,000 years at a minimum to form twenty-seven forests on
top of one another, but in all probability it was a lot longer.
Message: 7823
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl/examples (5/8)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:13:03
Varved deposits are not limited to the measurement of relatively recent
history. The Green River formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming was
deposited in three lake basins. Varved layers here vary from 0.014mm to
9.8mm in thickness, averaging 0.18mm. They manifest the same cyclical
pattern of varying thickness that seems to reflect the sunspot cycle. The
deposits themselves are supposed to have been formed in the Eocene epoch,
around fifty million years ago. But more to the point, a count of the
layers yields the fact that one of the lake basins, called Gosiute Lake,
must have been in existence for about four million years. It's fascinating
to think that we can look at a specific layer and tell something about the
weather in a specific year millions of years ago.
If you look at a map of the world, one thing stands out as almost glaringly
obvious: that the Americas seem to have been broken off and torn away from
Europe and Africa. That right-angled corner on the east side of Brazil
seems made to fit into the angle of Africa between Nigeria and Cameroon.
And the great lump of northwestern Africa looks as if it was torn bodily out
of the Caribbean. The fact that most geologists rejected such obvious
visual evidence until the 1960s is most probably due to the sheer enormity
of the idea that vast continents thousands of miles wide could simply float
around on the Earth's surface like little rubber life rafts. But gradually,
evidence was found that this is exactly what happens. For example, some
rocks were found in only two places on Earth: the west coast of Africa, and
the corresponding east coast of South America that was torn away from it.
Message: 7824
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl/examples (6/8)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:14:02
Geologists found it difficult to understand just how continents could drift
around without tearing great holes in the Earth's crust, until they
discovered the mechanism by which the sea floor spreads and widens. Europe
and the Americas are still moving apart. As they do so, a rift is torn in
the middle of the Atlantic; but molten rock bubbles up from the Earth's
interior, solidifies, and plugs the gap.
Drillings into the sea bed taken near Iceland and other places showed that
this is what is happening. This is the newest part of the Atlantic floor.
The sea bed gets older as you move away from the central rift. But
something else interesting was found.
Moving away from the central rift, a pattern of "stripes" was found in the
rock of the sea bed, lying parallel to the rift. These stripes indicated a
pattern of magnetization that corresponded to the changing orientation and
intensity of the Earth's magnetic field, which varies over time. This
variation has been observed by direct measurement over the past three
hundred years. But we can detect it farther back than that, because it even
leaves traces in clay vessels that have been fired in ovens. When the clay
is heated, its internal structure becomes oriented to the magnetic field
prevailing at the time. We can date clay vessels for several thousand years
back from known and recorded history. Pottery, and (better still) ancient
fire pits, which are stationary in orientation, have recorded changes in
geomagnetism for the last several thousand years.
Message: 7825
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl/examples (7/8)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:15:01
The pattern of the stripes nearest the rift corresponded to the known
changes in the Earth's magnetic field. The rate at which the sea was known
to be widening corresponded to the rate at which the stripes were formed.
Furthermore, if our understanding of the process was correct, the sea bed
closest to the rift was young. The farther from the rift you got, the older
the sea bed was. Drillings taken at various places in the Atlantic floor
confirmed the fact that marine microfossils found close to the rift were
those already believed from other sources to be recent. Fossils found
farther from the rift were those believed from other sources to be older.
But how long did it take for the Americas to split and drift away from
Africa and Europe? The Atlantic is widening at approximately two
centimeters per year. Extrapolating backwards, the opening of the Atlantic
Ocean must have taken two hundred million years.
This time around.
A study of the convoluted land masses of the Earth, and the great mountains
such as the Alps and the Himalayas which were formed by the crunching action
of colliding continents, shows that this is not the only time continents
have drifted apart. It is believed that eventually the Pacific will close
and the continents will meet at the other side of the Earth -- just as they
have several times before, on a four hundred million year cycle.
Message: 7826
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl/examples (8/8)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:15:55
It is not only single pieces of evidence, but the correlation of so much
evidence, that indicates the great age of the Earth. I think the current
estimates are around five billion years. All of this fits fairly well with
estimates of the age of the Universe, derived by quite different methods.
We know how fast light travels, and we can estimate how far away certain
stars are. The farthest object visible with the naked eye, the Great Galaxy
in Amdromeda, is over two million light-years away. We are seeing it as it
was over two million years ago. So it was there that long ago. The quasar
0051-279, discovered four years ago, is estimated to be thirteen *billion*
light-years away.
None of this in my opinion disproves the existence of God. It doesn't even
necessarily invalidate Scripture, provided we are prepared to read Scripture
with an eye to allegory. We are told that creation took six "days". But
Psalm 90, verse 4, says: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as
yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night". If we compared the
age of the Earth to a single year, Man might have been here for a few hours.
To a God who was eternal, surely the creation of the Earth, or even the
entire universe, would only seem like a matter of days.
Message: 7827
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Answer!
Subject: Wild Barb/DNA
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 06:33:59
I think it is you who need a review of High School Biology. DNA is short
for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid... It's basic building blocks are a sugar withe
the name of Deoxyribose, and four other compounds, which are in the generaly
class "purines" and "pyrimidines". Neither of these are Amino acids, which
are the basic building blocks of proteins. RNA has a similar structure, but
it's backbone is a sugar named ribose. It is not a protein, either. The only
similarities between DNA/RNA and proteins is that they are polymers. DNA is
the "blueprint" from which proteins are formed. However, proteins are
necessary for life, since DNA without the cellular "machinery", (including
enzymes which are proteins) is rather like a computer program without the
computer. (Now there is the really tricky problem in the evolutionary model
of the origin of life...How did this elaborate machinery get set up in the
first place?)
Message: 7828
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 07:10:57
"Good posts my god Rod!"
Message: 7829
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl on Wild
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 07:22:30
Re: your ... "I would like to see some of this hard evidence that you claim
the evolutionists have."!
Why? So that you can do the samething you did to me when I said Paul of the
Bible was against women and I went to prove it with Bonified Biblical
statements and you 'poo pooed' them as not meaning what they said?? Wild
could throw proof in your face and you'd miss it because you've got the
Bible in front of it! THE TWO CAN BE COMBINED!!! You can still claim to be a
Christian and believe in evolution!! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 7830
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann/Last
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 12:41:13
You are absolutely right. It's like the people who claim that men never
walked on the moon. You can show them videos, rockets, pictures of the
Earth, and they just claim that they're fakes.
First they say, "Prove it", and you do, and they say, "Oh, that's not proof!
That's just some propaganda you read!" That you're just a silly little
girl, and you don't *really* understand. But hey, if you read some bible
verse, the light will shine.
I think there is a basic point that many don't understand. People NEED
something to belive in. Maybe they can't believe in themselves. But here
is some omnipotent, LOVING being that will make the 'next' life great.
Your wife is cheating on you, you don't have enough money to pay the bills,
but just knowing that you will be *rewarded* for hardships on Earth will
pull you through. Everybody needs something or someone to believe in.
Otherwise we would just kill ourselves when anything difficult happened.
The bible is a narcotic stronger than crack. Yes, it does make you feel
good. I'm sure that Paul gets a rush when he finger points and says, "I'm
going to heaven, and you're going to hell! Nyah! Nyah!" We have to
believe in ourselves, and our families. No one wants to die, but it will
happen. It's scary. I'm not looking forward to it yet. Maybe a couple
more Phoenix summers will convince me. Live in reality, not fantasy.
Message: 7831
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Lament (1/3)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 12:55:33
I mean, like, y'know...
It's funny how people will often make concessions about little things, but
they're pigheaded about the big ones. Like, I mean, you talk to this car
salesman and you try to talk him into giving you a fair deal. And maybe
he'll drop the price a few hundred bucks or throw in a set of seat covers or
something. Penny-ante stuff, y'know? But when you tell him what you're
REALLY looking for is a brand-new Corvette with all the options, and a
lifetime warranty, all for $3,000, he'll laugh at you. Like, I mean, is
that reasonable or what? I'm sure they sold 'em for that price back in the
50s, so why can't they do it now, hey? But if you ask the salesman for what
you REALLY want, what you think you have a, y'know, RIGHT to, I mean, like,
he not only laughs at you, he... he gets, like, ANGRY, y'know? I mean,
real p!$$ed off, like, y'know? And when he does that, he won't even talk
any more about the few hundred dollars off and the free seat covers and
stuff, y'know? I mean, like, he just shuts up and tells you to bug off.
It's like, y'know, PEOPLE. I mean, I know I'm not explaining myself very
clearly, but, like, y'know what the real problem is with people. It's
PEOPLE. Umm, well, lemme try again...
I mean, we do so much ARGUING with people about all sorts of things. Like,
everything under the sun. Like, y'know, was it a good movie and will the
Giants win and does porn make killers and is there a God and war 'n' stuff.
Message: 7832
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Lament (2/3)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 12:56:33
And sometimes people will even make concessions about this stuff, y'know?
Like, yeah, maybe you're right, they didn't do so well in the playoffs. And
yeah, maybe you're right, I guess there isn't a God after all. Or maybe
there is. And yeah, maybe we *would* all be better off if we let Saddam
Hussein rule the world. I mean, like, it's a lot easier to just give up
than to go out and FIGHT people, isn't it? People sometimes give way on
these little things, y'know? But it's all penny-ante stuff. Like those
seat covers, y'know? I mean, like, who cares how many times the earth went
round the sun or if there's a God or not or if Saddam rules the world or
even if the world ends tomorrow. None of this stuff is, like, the REAL
problem, y'know? I mean, the REAL problem is PEOPLE, isn't it? Y'know?
I mean, people are such jerkoffs, y'know? Like, they're lying and corrupt
and bossy and greedy and stupid and ignorant and hypocritical and cruel and
lazy and snotty and wimpy and ugly and dirty and smelly and thieving and
spiteful. Y'know what I mean? I mean, OK, it's not like EVERYBODY was,
like, ALL of these things. Let's be fair. Some people are worse than
others. But most everybody has a few of these faults. Except for me, I
guess. And maybe a few of my friends.
And, like, I mean, if people would only STOP being all of these things,
y'know, we wouldn't have any more problems. Like, it wouldn't even matter
if the world ended tomorrow. We could all be friends and agree with one
another and, like, hug all the time, and wouldn't it all be tweet? Y'know?
Message: 7833
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Lament (3/3)
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 12:57:30
So, I mean, like, if ONLY we could get people to SEE just what ****ing
****s they are, ["Sorry, Gordon!" -- The Censor] then maybe they'd CHANGE!
Maybe they'd be DISGUSTED with themselves and want to be such BETTER people,
y'know? I mean, like, I'd be so EXCITED to hear somebody AGREE with me when
I told them what's only the simple TRUTH. Like, "Yes, you're absolutely
RIGHT! I AM an ignorant jerk! An absolute kneebiter! THANK you, THANK you
for pointing that out to me! I'd NEVER have noticed if you hadn't told me.
Oh WOW, I'm going to be SO much better in the future..." (Well, no, you
don't actually have to *kiss* me. Oh, all right, if you're female...)
But, y'know, people will concede trivial points, like maybe there's a God or
not, depending which way you're arguing, but they'll never concede this BIG
one about THEMSELVES! If you even get close to it, like, y'know, you say
something like "I think you're full of crap about that," they start to
bristle and their backs go up, y'know? And when you, like, confront the
issue squarely, y'know, and stop beating about the bush, like, and TELL them
out loud "You're an assh*le" -- I mean, it's only the simple truth -- but
they stop listening, like. Right there. Y'know? It's like it was taboo to
say it or something. Y'know? They just WON'T confront reality!
So I just sorta gave up hope of convincing people that THEY were the
problem. Now, I just argue about trivial stuff like God. It's depressing.
Y'know?
Message: 7834
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: B.Dog 1/2
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 20:12:37
BD>> "matter can be neither created nor destroyed" ..really? What are
BD>> chemical or nuclear reactions, then? Like I said before
BD>> (or was it a different board?), you're forgetting about energy.
Then you should perhaps take a few semesters of chemical sciences.
Energy is synonymous with matter, or have you forgotten about E=MC^2 ?
What's truly fascinating about energy and the co-relationship with matter
is that the latent energy within all matter can be tapped; it's just
a "matter" (ha ha) of unlocking the secret to its tap. While studying
quantum physics, we learned that lasers are a result of a closer
step in that direction. Problem is that to this date we expend more
energy in releasing the minor amounts contained within easily stimulated
matter. The basic element to amplifying an emission is finding the
"resonant" frequency of the material you want to lase. Our methods for
this are still somewhat crude.
In chemistry, you will find that a chemical reaction is always balanced.
This is junior level high school knowledge. Electrons, atoms and
energy are dispersed, but the only thing happening is a transformation.
Nothing is "created" in the pure sense. One of the fundemental rules of
chemistry is known as "The conservation of matter and energy."
The energy changes in some familiar chemical reactions are obvious.
We burn fuel in air to release heat, mostly in a useful form.
Message: 7835
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: B.Dog 2/2
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 20:15:15
Our bodies are powered by the "burning" of carbohydrates to produce
carbon dioxide and water.
In an electrochemical cell, most of the energy is released not as
heat but as electrical energy. In a fuel cell, electrical energy
is obtained from the combination, for e.g;
2H + O -> 2H O ; Electrical energy is released.
2 2 2
The study of energy changes involved in chemical reactions is called
Chemical Thermodynamics. The energy released in any chemical reaction
has to come from somewhere. It is stored in the chemical reactants and
is released when their bonds are rearranged to form the products.
Chemical Thermodynamics deals not only with the energies in reactions,
it also shows how the flow of energy can be used to predict whether a
reaction will go one way rather than another. The law of conservation
of energy and matter shows us that if a reaction is reversable and it
releases energy in one direction, it will absorb the same amount of
energy when going in the opposite direction.
Nice try, but Chemistry is one of my favorite subjects and you can't
hoodwink me with falsification of facts on related subjects.
Matter and *energy* can neither be created nor destroyed. Unfortunately
an irrefutable fact. Free energy would mean APS would be history
and my electric bill in summer would be laughable.
Message: 7836
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Wild Barb
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 20:22:49
Tell you what, you go right on founding your beliefs in theories
that are unproven and opinions of others...
I'll be just fine knowing that God loves his people and the answers
to everything may not come my way right this minute, but at least
*I* can keep an open mind instead of childishly pointing fingers
at people with different beliefs.
Since you are incapable of rational discussion and must resort to
name calling and TYPING IN CAPITALS so many times it reminds me of
someone who once said; "Writing in caps is the equivalent of using
crayola on walls."
Your multiple use of grammatical punctuations, such as !!!!!!! and ???????
tend to point out that your juvenile attitude in these matters
is far from being worthy of further response.
There's nothing you can do to prevent God from loving you, in the
end, he will most assuredly weep for the lost souls who never found
their way home.
Message: 7837
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Beau Dog on Mike
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 23:02:44
"Sexual reproduction occurred as a result of mutations...the chicken egg was
first -- what laid it (and the father) weren't quite chickens, and the gene
mix that resulted was a chicken egg."
Totally unsubstantiated; a statement of belief. Your religion, one might
say. And the odds against such things (sexual reproduction as a result of
mutation, evolution of species from 'not-chickens' to 'chickens') are so
astronomical that it boggles the imagination.
IMHO, a rather discouraging confession of faith.
Message: 7838
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Barbarian
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 23:10:58
I never said that I did not believe in science or technology. You
continue to make the false connection between science and evolution.
Evolution is a belief system; a religion. You have proven that in your own
messages. I have asked you to provide me with ONE piece of evidence that
PROVES evolution. You have not. In fact, you go so far as to say that you
don't claim to have any answers, and yet you CLAIM "science" (which by your
definition is not science at all, but rather the doctrinal interpretation of
scientific data by the religion of evolution) as an exacting form. You
state, rather dogmatically, that carbon dating is accurate and reliable, and
yet you continue in your refusal to support and defend your religion.
You claim that since my beliefs are based upon the Bible and a belief
in God, that they must be prejudiced. I will not deny that. Can I ever
look at anything and say, "Did God NOT create?" No, because if I did what
would I cease to be? A Christian. On the same track, you are no less
prejudiced than I. Can you ever look at anything and say, "DID God create?"
You won't, and you know why? Because if you do, then what do you cease to
be? An atheist. You are no less biased, prejudiced, etc. than you judge me
of being. Face it. Admit it. The difference between you and I is that I
believe in a system of absolutes, wherein you don't. Evolutionary thought
(again, not science, but the religion of evolution) changes BECAUSE once
it's dogmas are disproved by science, then it must rewrite it's doctrinal
position, and that only lasts until THOSE dogmas are disproved by science.
Proof that God exists? What evidence are you prepared to accept?
Message: 7839
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Barbarian
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 23:29:02
Time and chance do not produce evolution. Ever heard of the second law
of thermodynamics? The only thing that time and chance are going to produce
is erosion and reduction.
Message: 7840
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Barbarian
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 23:36:22
1. You must have proteins to sustain life.
B U T
2. You must have DNA to make the proteins.
B U T
3. You must have proteins to make the DNA.
B U T
4. YOU CAN'T GET THE PROTEINS UNTIL YOU GET THE DNA WHICH YOU CAN'T GET
UNTIL YOU HAVE THE PROTEINS.
Message: 7841
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Wild Barb on Mike
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 23:38:33
"If you care to read the scientific journals with an open mind..."
In other words, Mike, "If you care to read the scientific journals,
having the dogmas of evolutionary thought fixed firmly and immovably in your
mind..."
"Number two DON'T PREACH to me."
Yes, please don't. After all, he has an OPEN MIND and doesn't need to
be bothered with other ideas.
"If God is so loving and caring why has he abandoned the human race?"
The poor chap apparently hasn't heard about, or hasn't taken the time
to consider the mission of Christ while He was on earth. If God had truly
abandoned the human race, we would not be here right now. And if God had
truly abandoned the human race, He would have never sent His Son to die for
our sins. Which means that we would ALL (EVERY ONE OF US) be in hell,
receiving what we as sinful beings DESERVE. But praise God, Mike, that the
Barbarino speaks not the truth. God has not abandoned us. He is with every
person, believer or not, up until the day that person dies. Now whether or
not that person has chosen to abandon GOD, then that person gets what he has
strived for his entire life...a REAL seperation from God. For eternity.
Mike, let's keep WB in our prayers...for his sake.
Message: 7842
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Barbarian / 7812
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 23:47:58
Hey, I'm not miserable, and I'm not in a dilemma.
I WAS an evolutionist, or at least a very doubtful creationist, until I
was shown a very logical and reasonable view of science and the origins of
the world, and that science and creationism are not in the least bit of
conflict.
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:Gordon
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Didn't Voltaire say something to the effect that when it come to money all
2:people have the same religion?
3:
4:Thanks for trying to educate us clods. It is interesting, ya know.
5:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 7843
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:R7843
Message: 7843
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon
Date: 08/06/91 Time: 00:24:16
Didn't Voltaire say something to the effect that when it come to money all
people have the same religion?
Thanks for trying to educate us clods. It is interesting, ya know.
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board entered *=*
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:%C
% is an invalid command
Enter for a list of valid commands
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 4963
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer !
Subject: Mike
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 16:44:00
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about youngsters
watching porn. The type of shows that Pee Wee did were nothing close to
porn, and yet many people allow their kids to watch Rambo or MTV.
For some reason, some people think that it's not so bad to watch violence on
TV but sex? Forget it! Sex is evil, sex is bad. I would feel much safer
if teen's jacked off rather than shot off a gun. I suppose arousal is a
more complex emotion than anger and so parents don't know how to handle that
one when the kids start asking questions. I wish parents would be straight
with their kids from day one about sex (the physical stuff, where babies
come from, etc) and answer questions truthfully.
Pee Wee was getting a sexual release in a theatre. Granted, it was a xxx
theatre and he was accused of exposing himself there, which is
inappropriate, but not anything out of the ordinary for those theatres. Big
fucking deal.
Message: 4964
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer !
Subject: Melissa
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 20:40:08
It is refreshing, at least in the inference, that you disaggree that
children should not be allowed access to pornographic materials.
In that, we are on the same fence.
I also aggree that sheltering kids from the truth is more harmful than
allowing them to speak about things than to drop them into a situation
where they may be totally unprepared. Parents indeed, should talk to
their kids truthfully about sex. It's one of the most natural and
beatiful things two human beings can share.
Now please read what I say here carefully.
Inasmuch what Pee Wee did at the XXX theatre was illegal, it wasn't
something normally one would consider worthy of losing your livelihood
over. However, because the news of it was made public, now the future
audiences if any, will be aware that this actor/image on the screen
before them engages in activities unsuitable for children to copy or
mimmick. True, the act itself was and never will be on air for the
kiddie shows. The problem is, the viewpoint or the perceived notion
that the studios approve of his actions will nonetheless harm him and
the broadcasting network that airs any more of his stuff.
It is from parents who the angry calls; "Don't be showing that pervert
to my kids!!" that is the potential disater for the networks.
Just as much that Police officers cannot ever have had hard drugs in
their life, Pee Wee herman will pay for his actions in similiar fashion.
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:E?
[$]#!+ [A]nswer !
[B]eyond... [C]osmos-Chatter
[E]rotic Stories [H]OT-SEX !
[I]n & Out [J]okes & Ha Ha's
[K]issing What? [L]ove & Sex
[P]ositions Plus [Q]uickie
[R]e-BuTTal [S]hit-Chat!
[T]hang! [U]p Yours
[W]ho-dun-it
Enter category, for list:L
You chose Love & Sex
Subject:Movie GT
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Hey, let's all have a movie gt where we masturbate. First one who comes
2:wins a prize.
3:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 4965
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:R4965
Message: 4965
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Love & Sex
Subject: Movie GT
Date: 08/06/91 Time: 00:27:20
Hey, let's all have a movie gt where we masturbate. First one who comes
wins a prize.
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* FILm & Video Bulletin Board entered *=*
FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:%C
% is an invalid command
Enter for a list of valid commands
FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 1747
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Review
Subject: Robin Hood
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 18:44:32
I guess this version is worth seeing in spite of Kevin Costner's
unconvincingness, but I'd like to see a little more realism in movies with
almost-plausible plots. Kids would probably appreciate all the special
effects and last-minute miracles, but they interfered with my enjoyment of
the film.
This version also goes to annoying lengths to be politically correct. Bah!
FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:Robin Hood
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:I heard that Robin used a nice looking telescope in that picture, more than
2:a few centuries before it was invented. Perhaps Bill and Ted dropped one
3:off to him on their way through time. ???
4:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 1748
FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:R1748
Message: 1748
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Robin Hood
Date: 08/06/91 Time: 00:29:35
I heard that Robin used a nice looking telescope in that picture, more than
a few centuries before it was invented. Perhaps Bill and Ted dropped one
off to him on their way through time. ???
FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Late Night Bulletin Board entered *=*
Late Night Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 2063
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: hair
Date: 08/05/91 Time: 02:19:25
I wouldn't mind grey hair so much. I could always dye it, or just leave it
in its natural color to make me look distinguished. My problem with hair is
that it's slowly disappearing.
Late Night Bulletin Board command:EQ
You chose Question?
Subject:Gordon
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Do you wear a hat or headband? Does hair loss run in your family. Is your
2:flatware radioactive? Floor tile?
3:
4:I have a Geiger Counter if you ever need to use one.
5:end
Edit command:E1
1:Do you wear a hat or headband? Does hair loss run in your family. Is your
Find text:family.
Replace text:family?
1:Do you wear a hat or headband? Does hair loss run in your family? Is your
Find text:
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 2064
Late Night Bulletin Board command:R2064
Message: 2064
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Question?
Subject: Gordon
Date: 08/06/91 Time: 00:32:02
Do you wear a hat or headband? Does hair loss run in your family? Is your
flatware radioactive? Floor tile?
I have a Geiger Counter if you ever need to use one.