 | | Re: 6769 Fort Legoredo on sale at Shop At Home!!
|
|
(...) You know, looking at this as "the consumer who reaches the underwear department after Richard", it would make me kind of sick. The impression would be that someone went to the dressing room with said three-pack of underwear and tried them on! (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Was T-Rex a herbivourous animal?(was: Re: Why not Both?)
|
|
(...) It's not the grey matter, it's how the grey matter is wired. The last study I've seen (admittedly only in the mainstream) suggests that it's the brain's ability to cool and warm itself--e.g., the blood flow--that determines a species's (boy, (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reuters report on Lego at New York Toy Fair
|
|
Folks, This WWF discussion should not be in general. FUT to off.topic.debate or off.topic.fun, whatever suits your fancy. Thanks! Scott S. -- Want LEGO Elements at Great Prices? Visit The Sanburn Systems Company www.sanburnsystems.com Scott E. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Was T-Rex a herbivourous animal?(was: Re: Why not Both?)
|
|
(...) Just because a certain species of primates shows a significant enlargement of brain doesn't mean it always uses it: (...) As long as they can match in speed with their victims it's no problem - or do you want to tell me that the giant (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 6769 Fort Legoredo on sale at Shop At Home!!
|
|
(...) Well, actually -- I repackage the underwear I don't want so it's identical to it's original packaging except for the color varieties, perfectly fit for selling and I doubt anyone even notices. I do actually pay for the assortments I have (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 6769 Fort Legoredo on sale at Shop At Home!!
|
|
(...) In what way is opening multiple packages and rearranging the assortments not theft? If you don't like the assortment don't buy it, but what is the shop to do with the opened packages you've left behind after you fished your favorite colors of (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Then I'm done wasting my time with you. You're hopeless, there's no doubt about it. I refuse to beat my head against a wall to try to talk some real common sense into you. You're just lost, and it's obvious you WANT to be lost. -- Tom Stangl (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question about this creationism/evolution debate
|
|
(...) Here's the point--literal interpretation. Most evolutionary scientists and cosmologists are Christians, and quite a few of my acquaintance are deeply religious. The argument isn't between religion and evolution, as much as Young-Earth (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Questions Literal Creationists Can't Answer?
|
|
(...) Oh, see, they're still around today, they're just HIDING: (URL) And of course it's all a communistic government plot: (URL) It's interesting that each of the supposed questionnaires (each worded quite carefully) take advantage of the compart- (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Ditto :o). I hope to make teaching evolutionary biology an important part of my career, and I don't think that I can be a good teacher if I resort to name calling etc. I'm not interested in harassing people just because they have a world-view (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) No doubt in my mind. (...) People are a nice meal for lions, and tigers, and bears, and pirannahs, and sharks, and all sorts of carnivores/omnivores, but we seem to be surviving just fine. Perhaps your idea of a Trex isn't what you imagine (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) is incidental to the question, the answer seems to boil down to "The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all." For my money this is a good explanation, IF you accept that (a) there is a One True God who made it (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I don't know if it would spread through the population. Before I go on, I really want to keep this on friendly terms. I'm not a fighter and I am a creationist. And as a Christian I don't feel any argument is worth the cost of mutual respect (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) That's right. There are currently about 1.8 million species (plants and animals) described. Of course this is just an estimate - general textbooks vary in giving numbers from 1-2 million of DESCRIBED species, and estimates go even up to 8 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'm not going to waste it refuting every point on this site (and there are MANY that are ludicrous), but the following is just too rich to pass up... "Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
This reply is brought about by Dave's direct request: (...) (URL) (sorry to keep using and defending this source because you all hate it so much - but it is the best online one that I know...if you're immediately plannng on saying "that source isn't (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I don't even knwo why I bother since I could cite every source ont he subject known that explains this but here's another one just for the record: (URL) to answer your fish question from the next message: (URL) Kent Hovind also explains this (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The breaking point with both analogies is that they refer to human-invented artefacts (leading to the spurious conclusion that the universe is _necessarily_ a God-invented artefact). Re the scaffolding, I can give an example from embryology. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Many organisms, particularly plants, cope very well with multiple copies of the same (or similar) chromosomes. For example, modern agricultural wheat has three "sub-genomes" which are more or less identical. Spelt (I think), a more ancient (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question about this creationism/evolution debate
|
|
(...) Unless you believe the Bible. The Bible tells VERY clearly how and when earth was created, and if you don't believe that then you don't have to believe anything else the Bible says. There are multiple conflicts between the Bible and the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
