Apollo BBS Archive

Apollo BBS Archive - July 18, 1987


*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

*=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*


Message: 1561
Author: $ Mike Howerton
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Books
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 05:36:40

Well, I went shopping for books today.
I picked up a new  one from Piers Anthony and a couple old
ones that I had read but wanted in hard back.
I got a copy of the original  Dracula.  (Supposed to be great to read
in a  dark house when you are home alone).
I also picked up this wierd little paperback called 'The Long Walk' by
this guy called Richard Bachman.
Anyone ever hear of him????

Message: 1562
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mike Howerton
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 09:16:55

Ha - who are you kidding?? You know thats Stephen King!! 

Message: 1563
Author: $ Robert Simpson
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Piers Anthony
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 14:16:19

"Out Of Phaze" the 4th book of the "Apprentice Adept" trilogy (!) is out in
hardback as of April of this year,
"Weilding a Red Sword" the 4th book in the series of "Incarnations of
Immortality" is in hardback, and will be out in paperback in September, if I
recall...
"Being a Green Mother" the 5th and last book in the "Incarnations of
Immortality" will be out in hardback (I think) in September.
 
Anyone read David Eddings?  His most recent work is his new five-set series
entitled "The Mallorean".  It picks up right where his last five-set series
"The Belgariad" left off.  The first book is out in hardback entitled,
"Guardians of the West."

                   Robert

Message: 1564
Author: $ Mark Adkins
Category: Question?
Subject: Robert Simpson
Date: 07/19/87  Time: 01:37:26

Want to buy the first hardcover edition (it's British) of Edding's "Castle
of Wizardry"...cheap? Somebody gave it to me as a gift a while back, and I
just don't feel interested in reading it.

*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

*=* Late Night Bulletin Board entered *=*

Message: 1117
Author: $ Mark Adkins
Category: Yawn...
Subject: ROD
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 03:26:30

Rod is trying to brainwash me into becoming a communist dupe. His
interrogation techniques are most effective. Right 
now, I am being forced to look at pictures of Michael James, who, by his own
admission, may not exist. I don't know how much more I can take before I
start spouting propaganda...

Message: 1118
Author: $ Dean McCarron
Category: Yawn...
Subject: Movies. . .
Date: 07/19/87  Time: 00:00:59

Well, I was kinda leaning towards Snow White (aren't we all, says
Letterman. . .)  This might be a little too graphic though: as I pointed out
in a letter to Traci, Prince Charming kisses Snow White while she is
sleeping and WITHOUT her consent.  Shame, shame, on Prince Charming.
 
(Yawn) Sorry I'm not on more, but now that I actually (well, not actually,
but kind of) work now, I get pretty tired.
 
Dean

Message: 1119
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 07/19/87  Time: 01:08:20

No need to apologize, Dean.  We understand how it is.  Go get 'em.

*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

*=* Bulletin Board entered *=*


Message: 45172
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Religion
Subject: Cliff
Date: 07/17/87  Time: 13:07:56

  I am doing nothing more than what the Xtians do to those who don't believe 
as they do.  Groups of them lay in wait for people to harp on. I have been 
verbally attacked man a time.  In fact, these so called people come to your 
door to spread thier beliefs.
Cliff, I am just trying to help those less fortunate, really!
  As you know, I am a sharing person and when I find a good thing I like to 
spread it around.  You and Jim are in error and I'd like to see you guys 
come out of it with a more advanced belief.
  Between, Adkins, Lippard, Petrisko, and others we are just trying to help.
It is like 'mind' over superstition, so to speak.
It is like we are on the Star Ship Enterprize and we are exploring this 
planet and we find you guys and we are going against the rules of the 
non-interference directive and helping anyway, probably because we are, like
you, trapped on the same planet, in your silent, dark well of ignorance.
(and apathy)
  We love you, really do, so lay that bible down and go find a good science 
book, curl up with Sandy and get nude.
  We pray for your heathen souls even though we suspect they will burn 
everlastingly because that is the kind of people we are, dude!
                                Love/Hate
                                Rod

Message: 45173
Author: Billi Idyll
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: Tom Leykis and God
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 06:22:49

        God had excused himself (something about using the little demi-god's
room) when Tom Leykis walked into the resturaunt.  I waved to him and
invited him over to the table.  "Sit down, Tom."
        Tom took one of the table's empty seats and looked over the massive
spread of food clustered around God's half of the table.  "That's an
OUTRAGEOUS amount of food."
        I smiled at the atheist.  "I'm having dinner with God, and that's
what he ordered.
        Leykis laughed and shifted over to that chair.  "God doesn't exist,
Billi.  He won't be coming back."
        I nearly choked when the God returned to the table.  "Hi, Tom, I'm
God."
        Leykis grinned.  "Sure you are.  Prove it."
        "OK," God said.  He reached into the back pocket of his flowing robe
and produced a greenish piece of plastic.  "See, Tom, it says Member since
year 1."
        "Unbelieveable!" Tom stared at the deity as he sat down.  "Wanna do
a Talk show?"
        God thought for a half second.  "OK, but only if I can be on
Dial-a-date."
        Tom sighed regretfully.  "Sorry, your standards are too high for
Phoenix."
        God smiled.  "Guess again.  After 2,000 years, I'm not going to be
that picky."

Message: 45174
Author: Billi Idyll
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: God and Tom Leykis
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 06:36:24

        "So, tell me, God," Tom intoned as if setting a trap, "What do you
think of the close minded, bigoted Ministers who preach intolerance in your
name?"
        God pondered for a second, though I had the feeling he knew the
answer and merely sought the best example he could for it.  "I think they're
all close-minded bigots.  They have forgotten that before they became
ministers or scholars, I made them MEN and WOMEN.  Heavens, I let them
evolve up from primates..."
        "You admit EVOLUTION exists?" Tom exploded.
        God nodded.  "Sure."  God rested a hand on Tom's right arm.  "Don't
you think, if I'd wanted to, I would have done a better job?  I mean, look
at it.  Detached earlobes and attached earlobes, for example, are a detail I
would have fixed if I'd just constructed men from whole cloth."
        I cleared my throat.  "What would you have done with the earlobe
thing?"
        God smiled.  "I'd have restructured the ear totally.  No lobes and a
point on each ear."  God lowered his voice.  "I'm a great fan of Star Trek."
        "No!" Tom and I exclaimed in hushed whispers.
        "Shhhh," God cautioned us as Jim White walked into the resturaunt. 
"He's got not sense of humor."
        I agreed.  "We should something about that."
        God nodded in agreement.  He got a twinkle in his eye and looked at
the vast spread on the table.  "Let's stick him with our bill."

Message: 45175
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Question?
Subject: Sandy SYSOP
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 07:41:30

    In regards to sex and your job, in your current job, don't you have a
more than professional relationship with the boss?
 
     /
 /  *  /  Alan
*     *

Message: 45176
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Religion
Subject: [R|G]od
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 07:59:39

  Why am I not supporting my "brothers?"  Well, both my older and younger
brothers are Mormons, so naturally I don't support them.  (Yes, I'm
deliberately misunderstanding you.  I detest that use of the word
"brother.")  Anyway, I made the objection that I did for the same reason I
correct misstatements about the Mormon church.  Sure, I don't belong anymore
and have no real reason to support them, but I don't like lies or erroneous
deductions, even if they further a cause that I favor.
   You seem to fault me for not supporting my "brother" (BLEAH!) atheists. 
Being an atheist, I have my own private moral code, and I will support or
attack whatever I please.  So there.  Nyah!  I won't conform to an atheist
code of ethics any more than I will conform to a Christian one.  I might,
just to spite you, push the Christian point of view and why you should have
faith in our eternal Saviour, Jesus Christ.  Or I might argue for the Jews. 
Or maybe even the pagans.  In any case, I won't accecpt some guilt trip for 
failing to further the Cause.  In my opinion, most skeptics are rather
obnoxious and insulting, and I would rather not be that sort of skeptic.
 
     /
 /  *  /  Alan
*     *
 
P.S.  My parents are quite Christian, and they aren't real pleased with they
way I turned out.


Message: 45177
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Alan
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 12:51:28

Good message and now I understand more, thanks for the enlightenment.
There is NO guilt trip at all.
It is simply that we atheists have the power to help speed up evolution a
wee bit and if we do then we can look for rewards.  No, not money, just a
more sane world, that's all.
  Imagine that religion was dead, that no one had that need anymore.  Even
if there was a god it wouldn't matter.  What matters is that people stop
fighting about their petty differences and get on with working together to
construct a good world.  
  I appreciate your answer and can see where you are coming from, better,
thanks for the message.
                                Rod


Message: 45178
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: Satan
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 13:07:56

Satan sat down, slipped me an envelope containing $20,000 and ordered a
shrimp coctail and a 'coke'.
  "Thanks", I said, "will I be getting the same every week", I asked.
   "If my boss okay's the project", said the Dark One.
  "Yer Boss", "I thought yo were the Boss of Darkness, I squealed.
  "Nah", He whines, "Never has been that way, from my very first
rememberences I was under His thumb, doing His bidding"
  "Very interesting", says I, "Are you saying that you spend your life doing
evil, but this evil has to be approved by a Higher Authority".
  "Evil", what are you talking about", pipes Satan, "Hell, I reformed long
ago, almost 1200 of you years, I saw the error of my ways, it wasn't hard
for The Creator to convince me, He can do miraclulous things, anything at
all, anything, so He reformed me, saw that he almost made a mistake"
  "But, you are blamed for ALL evil, what's the deal", I inquired?
  
  "Easy, dude, that's simply, it is the human creations choice of reading
material, they have been reading (and worshipping) the same volumn for 2000
years, what do you expect, it's never been updated, how could they find out
any new advancement?", pipes Satan.
  "Then why the $10,000?", I ask.
  "It's for Jim White, now he can afford a life", Satan laughs.
I almost choke on my raw oyster, but it manages to slide down anyway, I take
a gulp of my Pepsi then with a terrible laugh I spray it half way across the
room.


Message: 45179
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: In search of
Subject: Life
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 15:40:50

  Perhaps it is in this respect that language differs most
sharply from other biologic systems for communication.
Ambiguity seems to be an essential, indispensable element 
for the transfer of information from one place to another by
words, where matters of real importance are concerned.  It
is often necessary, for meaning to come through, that there
be an almost vague sense of strangeness and askewness.
Speechless animals and cells cannot do this.  The 
specifically locked-on antigen at the surface of a 
lymphocyte does not send the cell off in search of something
totally different; when a bee is tracking sugar by polarized
light, observing the sun as though consulting his watch, he
does not veer away to discover an unimaginable marvel of a
flower.  Only the human mind is designed to work in this
way, programmed to drift away in the presence of locked-on
information, straying from each point in a hunt for a 
better, different point.
  If it were not for the capacity for ambiguity, for the
sensing of strangeness, that words in all languages provide,
we would have no way of recognizing the layers of 
counterpoint in meaning, and we might be spending all our 
time sitting on stone fences, staring into the sun.  To be
sure, we would always have had some everyday use to make of 
the alphabet, and we might have reached the same capacity

Message: 45180
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: In search of
Subject: Life
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 15:42:34

for small talk, but it is unlikely that we would have been
able to evolve from words to Bach.  The great thing about 
human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the
matter at hand.

Message: 45181
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod..(Again)
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 17:55:23

        I am not part of a Christian GROUP "harping" on you or anyone.  I am
just finding out why you are so rude to Christians...  So Rude in fact, that
you have chased members away from this board.  You are educated enough that
you can express your ideals with out the PROFANITY factor, so why don't you
drop the insults...and post your "facts".   Or don't you have any?

ClifFORD

Message: 45182
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Alan on the Boss
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 17:56:17

        But SANDY is the "BOSS"....

ClifFORD

Message: 45183
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jim White/KHEP
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 18:31:35

Today in your debate with Dennis McKinsey you argued that "perfect does not
equal sinlessness".  I would agree that they are not coextensive, but
perfect quite clearly entails sinlessness by any reasonable definition of
"perfect".  "Perfection" is being without flaw, and clearly the Christian
notion of sin is that of a flaw.  Therefore I think you have not at all
resolved the contradiction that the Bible both says all men have sinned and
that some men of history have been perfect.
   Since you are saying that sinlessness is not entailed by the term
"perfect", you must be using some nonintuitive definition of the word.  What
do you mean by the word "perfect", and why do you think that your definition
is the one intended by the Bible in its descriptions of Noah and Job?

Message: 45184
Author: $ James White
Category: Answer!
Subject: Lippard on Last
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 20:26:18

I did not bring home my Hebrew lexical sources, but I will attempt to do so
tomorrow so that I can provide you with the particular word used for
"perfect" and its usage elsewhere in Scripture.  I know that there are
Hebrew terms for "holy" (which would be the particular idea of "without
sin") and without flaw, and obviously those words are not used of Job nor
Noah.  Noah sinned - we are told as much.  Job eventually admitted his sin
(somewhere around chapter 38 or so) and both offered sacrifices - why offer
sacrifices if you are sinless?  I have to wonder.  By the way, Jim, what is
your comment on McKinsey's unwillingness to admit that Jesus and Paul did
NOT disagree on the wording of the 6th Commandment?

Message: 45185
Author: $ James White
Category: Religion
Subject: Lippard 2
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 20:28:02

I posted a letter last week relevant to Jim Lippard's book 
"Fundamentalism is Nonsense."  I now take the time to begin
posting criticisms of his work.
     First, some basics should be put forward.  Jim's book
utilizes ultra-liberal bibilical "sholarship" as its very
basis.  People like G.A. Wells (a professor of German) is
hardly middle of the road, that's for sure!  Neither is
Dibelius!  Indeed, one term that could never be used of Jim's
selection of sources and materials is "unbiased."  Also im-
portant to notice is the fact that the viewpoints expressed by
these men reflects the 19th century German rationalism that
has been discredited and out of date for nearly a century in
Biblical studies.  These men came up with theories and then
ignored facts to maintain them.  An example would be Jim's
comments on page 5 ("Accurate copying is also irrelevant to
the fact that there were established doctrines about Jesus
developed early in the first century to which the New Testament
writers conformed.") and on page 31 ("Use of this information
results in dating the earliest of these letters between 80
and 90 CE...most of the rest between 90 and 110 CE...with
2 Peter around 130 CE.")  There are many problems with these
theories.  First, they are based on the assumption that the
documents themselves are lying about who wrote them.  Second,
the statement that the New Testament writers conformed to...

Message: 45186
Author: $ James White
Category: Religion
Subject: Lippard3
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 20:29:00

preexisting doctrines is backwards - the doctrines were formed
by the New Testament writers, not vice-versa.  It is pure
speclation to say anything else.  Also, the most devastating
evidence comes  in the form of raw data - every decade brings
earlier and earlier evidence of the early dating of the NT
documents.  Indeed, a controversy continues to brew (which
most liberal scholars avoid like the plague) about 7Q5, a
fragment seemingly from the gospel of Mark, found in Cave 7
at Qumran.  This would push the date of Mark to before 60 AD.
The liberal datings would, of course, fall apart in such a
climate, so they simply avoid the issue as much as possible.
Paul's letters date no later than 65 (F.F. Bruce puts Galatians
at 48) and they represent an extremely high level of theological
development (Philippians 2:5-11; 1 Cor. 15:1-12; Colossians 1;
Ephesians - all of it).  John A. T. Robinson toward the end of
his life argued that all of the NT books were written before
AD 70, and someone as "unconservative" as C.H. Dodd has admitted
that there simply is no reason whatsoever to say that any of the
books of the New Testament were written later.  Only pre-
suppositions make anyone say anything else.
     Having said that, I will try (though it would be more
organized to do it otherwise) to address topics in the order
they are presented in the book.

Message: 45187
Author: $ James White
Category: Religion
Subject: Lippard4
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 20:30:04

     On page 6 of "Fundamentalism is Nonsense" under the sub-
title "Death of Adam" we encounter the following:  "In Genesis
2:17, God says that if Adam or Eve eat from the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil, he or she would die that day.  
Although Adam and Eve both ate the fruit in Genesis 3:6, Genesis
5:5 says that Adam did not die until he was 930 years old."
    Here was have a classic example of not allowing the Bible 
to speak for itself.  I would hope that Jim would not argue 
that the Bible clearly presents the death that Adam suffered
as being a separation from God - a spiritual downfall (as Adam's
actions in the story of the Fall clearly show).  The death
he died that day (spiritual) led eventually to the physical
death he died 900+ years later.  The above supposed problem
assumes at its core the proposition that death in the Bible
only refers to physical death, an unwarranted belief indeed.
     On the same page (6) we encounter the ages old question of
whom Cain married.  Jim says, "If God did not create further
humans, then he effectively required sin."  Not so, friend.
There was no law against marrying one's sister when there were
a grand total of less than 20 people around anyway.  Then Jim
says that if God did create other humans, then they would not
be guilty of original sin.  But since God's decree of original
sin was a judicial one, why would this be so?  Maybe you should
look more into the doctrine of original sin.

Message: 45188
Author: $ James White
Category: Religion
Subject: Lippard5
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 20:30:58

    And finally (on this point) Jim says that if God did not
create other humans, where did the multiple races come from?
As he states, "...but multiple races are certainly significant
changes and demonstrate some form of evolution."  No, it dem-
onstrates some form of natural selection, a mechanism I am
very familiar with and fully endorse as being highly compatible
with the creation model.  Natural selection does NOT equal
evolution.
    In another area that is related somewhat to science, on page
7 of FIN Jim states relevant to the flood narrative, "There are
approximately 1.12 million species of animals and .5 million
species of plants on the planet..."  The problem here of course
is that Jim is placing modern definitions of "species" on a
book written thousands of years ago, which is hardly correct.
The term "kind" does not equal species, and I have no problem
with the idea of "speciation" in its strictest sense.  You have
Great Danes and you have Collies and etc. and etc. and each can
mate with the other.  A dog is a dog.  At any rate, each  
according to its "kind" does not mean that there were 1.12
million pairs of animals on the ark.  Such is unreasonable.

Message: 45189
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: James White/please
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 21:20:32

PLEASE, James, go to the Christian SIG. board.!!!! --- ANN

Message: 45190
Author: $ James White
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 21:56:28

Given that these posts are about Jim Lippard's book, and Jim Lippard is an
atheist, and Jim Lippard is not allowed in the Christian SIG board, why
would I bother?

James>>>

Message: 45191
Author: $ James White
Category: Religion
Subject: Lippard6
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 21:57:19

**Note - I have not intention of entering into debate on each
and every post I am writing on Jim's book.  I am doing this
primarily for the interest of those who would like to see some
kind of reply to Jim's information, and I am also doing it for
Jim's benefit.  I imagine he would like some input from the
"enemy" camp as he is re-writing his work this summer.

     On page 7 of FIN Jim says, "According to Genesis 11:26,
Abram's father, Terah, was 70 years old at Abram's birth."
He then goes on to show how this is contradictory with Gen.
12:4 and Gen. 11:32.  The problem is, Gen. 11:26 does NOT 
say that Terah was 70 years old when Abram was born - it says
he was seventy years old when "he became the father of Abram,  
Nahor, and Haran."  Now, obviously, these guys weren't tri-
plets!  Therefore, it is only speculation to say that Abram
was the first to be born of the three (especially in light of
two factors - first, Haran died first of the three (Gen.
11:28) and second, Abram's being listed first is probably
due to his prominence, not due to his order of birth).  
Therefore, the supposed "contradiction" is easily explained.

Message: 45192
Author: $ James White
Category: Religion
Subject: Lippard7
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 21:58:16

     On page 7 in FIN we have the assertion that the fact that
Isaac was Abram's "only-begotten" son is in contradiction with
the fact that Abraham also had Ishmael by Hagar.  This kind of
thing has always amazed me, as it assumes that the writer could
not remember from one moment to the next what in the world he
was writing about.  Anyway, the answer again lies in the usage
of the term "only-begotten."  It does not refer to the idea of
only one son - it refers to the special position enjoyed by that
son.  Two terms are used in this way - only begotten (GR: mono-
genes) and firstborn (GR: prototokos).  NEITHER have a primarily
temporal aspect to them as used in the NT.  The Hebrew term used
in Genesis (and the term used in Hebrews) does not exclude other
children - it rather points to the uniqueness of the position of
the child in question.  Isaac was the son of promise, and in that
sense was Abraham's "only-begotten" son.  Errors of this kind
could be avoided by taking some classes in Hebraisms and 
backgrounds, etc., something that Jim as well as others such
as Dennis McKinsey know precious little about.  Indeed, McKinsey
will not even allow the cultural backgrounds to enter the 
discussion, a sad fact indeed.

Message: 45193
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Religion
Subject: Ann on Jim White
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 22:19:08

        Ann, Jim Lippard is not a member of the CHRistian SIG, so James
White needed to use the PUBlic board...   OK?

ClifFORD

Message: 45194
Author: Daniel Sloan
Category: Hard/Software
Subject: RUNTIME
Date: 07/18/87  Time: 22:54:28

I'M IN DESPERATE NEED OF AN APPLE II SERIES VERSION OF RUNTIME.*
          THANKS,
                 DANIEL SLOAN

Message: 45195
Author: $ David Burkhart
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: James White
Date: 07/19/87  Time: 00:39:41

Thanks for going to the effort to answer Jim Lippard's points.
It puts you way ahead of people like Sue Joan who say "We don't have to
refute his silly arguements."

Message: 45196
Author: $ David Burkhart
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: For James White
Date: 07/19/87  Time: 00:52:29

Creationism Versus Evolution
As taught in Texas Public Schools  
(From the Satiricon:Creationism Bashed)

Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel
Were sitting around the dinner table
When little abel began to grouse:
"Why don't we ever go to grandma's house?"

        Little did Abel know
        That he had no grandmother, even though
        Subsequent people, like me and you
        Would have not one grandmother, but two

                So Eve and Adam had to explain
                The facts of life to Abel and Cain;
                Eve, putting Abel in his crib
                Told how she'd come from Adam's rib.

Then Adam told the boys his story:
How he'd been made in a blaze of glory,
And then how eve had been created
And how, on their first date, they'd mated.

Message: 45197
Author: $ David Burkhart
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: more
Date: 07/19/87  Time: 00:53:09

        "That's how you boys were born," he said,
        "So now before you go to bed
        "You know it takes both man and wife
        "To join to make new human life."

                "If that's the case it's pretty plain
                "We'll both need girl-friends," muttered Cain,
                "But until Eve again gives birth
                "We two are the only kids on earth!"

So Eve told Adam: "Let's try, and maybe
"We can create a human baby.
"Then Cain and Abel can do the rest
"Even though it'll be incest!"

        A girl was born.  Thanks to a brother
        She soon became the second mother.
        Then further births follow apace
        As they begat the human race.

Message: 45198
Author: $ David Burkhart
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 07/19/87  Time: 00:53:41

                Yes, that's the story of creation
                Accepted without hesitation
                'Til Darwin claimed we came from apes
                Who evolved to our present shapes.

           Did Adam or Orang-utan
           Father the race of modern man?
           The chances are we'll never know --
           It happened many years ago.