### 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.