 | | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) "New from Hasbro: It's Rough-n-Ready Mister Greenjeans, with Battle-Action Ploughshare and Corn Husking Power!" You know it's time. We'll make a mint! Does anyone have their phone number? Hey, it's no dumber than 'Pokemon.' best LFB XFUT -> (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) Boy, that takes me back. I'm sure a lot of 'us' were in the NERD category. Some of us still are, but we have long CVs and/or money, so it's somehow okay now. Things really began to change in college. These have been the best twelve years of my (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if that has as much to do with it as the situation they were in. When I was in high school, I was squarely in the NERD category. The Athletes and the Beautiful People made fun of me and my friends all the time, in any situation or (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) Very well said, James. Violence has certainly become a marketing tool to attract little and big "boys." This leads to your next comment: (...) Biologically speaking, yes, males are wired for conflict (i.e. testosterone). Ironically, I truly (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
|
(...) I don't have any strong opinions in this matter, but I'll just toss out my main reaction when I read your post. I think that there is quite a qualitative difference between phasing in wireless phone technology (1) and revamping the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) So's TLC. It's pretty clear these days that a toy company has to incorporate some element of conflict into its product if it's going to sell to the pre-teen market. There is too much graphic exposure to violence nowadays (i.e., videogames), (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
|
(...) True, but how about the FCC's current strategy of restricting EM emissions to certain frequency ranges? Does the noise that spills out of a Palm Pilot or even a cell phone really cover a wide range of frequencies? However, I believe that the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
|
(...) It can be devilishly difficult to properly shield devices. This difficulty is why some electronic products aren't licensed for home use because the manufacturer doesn't want to pay the expense of shielding it properly and then testing it. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
|
An article in Wired News today: (URL) strikes me as really odd is that this LA lawyer is expecting to use precedent (not yet?) set in lawsuits against handgun manufacturers, to be applied towards cell phone manufacturers after future air crash (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) That reminds me of one of our running jokes for the summit :) Also reminds me of the scripture which says '..and they will beat their swords into plowshares...' or something like that. -Tim (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
The Wall Street Journal article had a large-print sidebar quoting "They're not weapons, they're tools." Right..... As a side effect I've got a new understanding of "Codewarrior: Tools for the Professional Programmer." They're not weapons, they're (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) of (...) Well, I participated in my first Brikwars recently, and really enjoyed it (not least because I was on the winning side!), so I guess I'm a bit conflicted too. (...) Nup. down to a 2-week low this morning. 8?( ROSCO (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) And I agree with *that* too. I'm conflicted. I like the Star Wars(tm) stuff, if only for the parts. I like the Wild West stuff, for more than just the parts. I even bought one of Dan's tanks. Yet I agree that I would rather TLC didn't have any (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) I think I pretty much agree with your words about violence, Larry. It's summed up pretty well in that Kenny Rogers song, which I can't remember the name of right now, about tommy, Becky, and the Gatlan boys. But I am disappointed that TLC (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
Trimmed bionicle from FUT (...) I agree with Bill. Violence in a story isn't bad, per se. It's *celebrating it* as an end in and of itself that's bad. I hold with a philosophy that doesn't initiate violence but that doesn't mean I'm against seeing (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
Trimmed bionicle from FUT (...) I agree with Bill. Violence in a story isn't bad, per se. It's *celebrating it* as an end in and of itself that's bad. I hold with a philosophy that doesn't initiate violence but that doesn't mean I'm against seeing (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) This may stir up a firestorm (not my intent), but why is violence in a storyline so bad? Violence is a regrettably necessary part of life. If children learn to comprehrend the difference between violence that defends or protects innocence and (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
I agree with both of you. I do think it's disturbing. I'd just like to raise some points to clarify some things. 1. If a computer virus is programmed not to like being killed, it won't like being killed. Now, this may not be true, today, but it is (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I hadn't read the Bionicle.com story yet. I didn't expect to find anything beyond the 2001 TECHNIC brochure found in the LEGO boxes. So now we have a character that is definately evil- is it okay now? I still think that evil LEGO was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
(...) Makuta followed his brother, Mata Nui from there home. The islanders of Mata Nui worshiped Mata Nui because he had made the world into a paradise. Makuta was jealous and tried to get the islanders to worship him by using fear and pain, but (...) (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is Bionicle violence?
|
|
*** "Launching in late summer, the Bionicle line consists of six heroes, known as the Toa, and five villains, know as the Makuta. In addition to the figures, LEGO will launch two Bionicle video games. With vicious-looking villains and grim heroes, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.technic.bionicle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution in Kansas
|
|
(...) Heard about that on CNN yesterday morning. A great FACT in this situation is that every culture and society has a myth, legend or story of creation. Whether it is Adam and Eve or the native American's Great Spirit or the gods of Olympus, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) Fox...Rupert Murdock...isn't he Australian? And the landing wasn't faked - they had to cover up the Alien kidnappers who are holding Fox Mulder on the Moon AND replicated Neil Armstrong (note how there are only pictures of Buzz from the moon (...) (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Evolution in Kansas
|
|
This might be of interest: Kansas Puts Evolution Back Into Public Schools (URL) brain: (URL) in all it's just another brick in the wall..... ***...*** (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) Oops! Who added admin.general to the group header? Dave! FUT ot.fun (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) ***light-heartedness on*** There's self-deprecating humor and simple farce, of course, but those also refer to Fox News Channel. ***light-heartedness off*** Dave! (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) ***light-heartedness on*** There's self-deprecating humor and simple farce, of course, but those also refer to Fox News Channel. ***light-heartedness off*** Dave! (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: bizarre changes to postage stamps due to GST
|
|
Debaters: read this whole thread for a good example of how screwed up a bureaucracy can get... (...) Boy this whole thing is screwed up... FUT: lugnet.off-topic.debate Frank (24 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) I was gonna film a hoax portraying a so-called "Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous probe" landing on a ficticious "minor planetoid Eros", but Nasa beat me to the punch. Hmmm, I wonder if I could fake the "cold fusion debunking" again...? Cheers, - (...) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) Loosen up a little. Can you point out humor that doesn't make fun of or bash someone or something else? -Duane (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) Like James said my post was meant as Fun Mocking not nasty mocking. It wasn't meant as bashing at all. Fox is what it is and I was making Fun of it. If you took it another way then I am sorry but I won't apologize for directing it where I did (...) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) Uh...sorry. I honestly didn't mean it that way. I just like to make fun of Fox because they're always running something that they try to make sound all official and astounding and stuff. Although that's possibly because Fox is SUCH and (...) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) This message has been nothing more than the Fox News Channel bashing, that is why, hence debate. (...) Because I do not like seeing debate material outside where it belongs, among others. Scott S. -- ***...*** Please visit (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) Probably because some people think that a program about the moon landing being a hoax is funny, and not fodder for serious debate. I've certainly been under the impression that the messages in this thread have been ranging from tongue-in-cheek (...) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
Folks, Why is this in fun? Please take it to off.topic.debate where it belongs. Scott S. ***...*** Please visit (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
To All, Why is this in off.topic.fun? (...) This sounds like quite an opinionated statement, rather than a "fun" statement. I could say the sme thing about CNN, MS-NBC, etc. FUT off.topic.debate Scott S. ***...*** Please visit (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) This is why I love FOX. They arn't afraid of telling the truth and exposing government conspiracies. I hear that they are working right now on "The Earth really is flat" to be followed up by "We are the Center of the Universe". Nice, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Interview with LEGO at Toy Fair
|
|
(...) The real issue/problem is Lego's inconsistency in their position. Really, it's inconsistency to the point of absurdity. I don't have a problem with weapons in Lego, and I wouldn't have a problem if weapons were absent. It's just hard for me to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) Nonsense! They must have gone to the moon--otherwise, where would they have gotten the alien for that autopsy? Dave! (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
(...) Sweeps. What happened to simply having Buzz Aldrin in a hot tub surrounded by bikini-clad models? ;-) Bruce (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Moon Landing Hoax
|
|
Thursday on Fox (9pm/8 Central) they are presenting a one hour program on why the moon landing was a hoax. They claim to have new evidence! See, proof! They wouldn't show it if it wasn't true! :~) Bill (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Literal Creationism--a non sequitur!
|
|
(...) to himself or others. Perhaps an intervention is in order. However, at the bottom of the page Dr. D does make an interesting and absolute refutation of literal readings of the Bible when he indicates: GODISNOWHERE There are two obvious (...) (24 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My Underwear Buying Philosophy! (Re: was -- er whatever...)
|
|
You know, you guys really need to get out more. You're worried about my *touching* a rolled up undergarment as if I could infect it or something? Let's talk about ladies underwear for a second...most of the women's undergarments for sale in stores (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Just finished....
|
|
...Formatting my hard drive. Hence I am just now recovering and lost track of the messages that I was involved in with the Creation/Evolution debate. Anyhow I think I read most of them on the web interface and I don't really have much to say in (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 6769 Fort Legoredo on sale at Shop At Home!!
|
|
(...) Sans quite that invective, I agree. Yeah, it sucks that they don't make the assortment you want, but it's selfish, crude, and technically illegal to go about opening packages. It's called product tampering at the very least, theft and fraud at (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I was so busy at work that I forgot one of the more obvious grevious errors with your speaker. He seems to think that Noah only needed to gather land dwelling animals, that the water dwelling ones just swam around happily....PAP. Have you ever (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I think you need to reread his original post: (...) Obvious typo, which he corrected, he added 3 too many zeros, he meant 1.8Million. But note the "different species OF LIVING BEINGS" (...) The LARGE majority of species on this planet are (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) This is a good start. I have some additions to this but I'm late for an event I have to go to. I'll send my comments ASAP. -chris (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A question about this creationism/evolution debate
|
|
This question is mainly aimed at the individuals here supporting 'scientific creationism', but anyone else is free to add their own thoughts. What is the creationist community afraid of when it comes to evolution? There is no conflict that I can (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
David Gowing <davidgowing@lineone.net> wrote in message news:G8FH27.AE8@lugnet.com... (...) are (...) more (...) could (...) more (...) I have actually read the first, well, less than 3 pages of the first book, BUT my girlfriend has read them all. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) Okay now I'm REALLY questioning the credability of these numbers. Please give me an authoritative source on this. First you (inclusive of "the evolutionists in this discussion") say "1.800.000.000 species", then you correct yourself and say (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) Hah! Like that matters! Do you want to even TRY to calculate the sheer volume of 2.2MILLION insects, especially since then would have to be housed separately to avoid some eating others? Want to try to figure out the food requirements for (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Repeatedly shaking such a box is simply re-randomization. If somehow you could discard every faulty physical combination of the elements and preserve the useful ones (as traits are discarded or preserved through evolution) your chances at (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) You're quite correct. (Maybe if you gave it BILLIONS of years at that temperature though (note tongue-in-cheek....sort of)) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) "do not, do to, do not, do to, do not...." - how many times are you going to say this Larry? (...) First of all, I never suggested that Creation should REPLACE all "Eolutionary" teaching in the textooks - I personally would like to see it (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I'm not quite sure what you mean by this - because this sure does sound like an evolutionist's argument to me. Certainly you have hit on a point where "practically" speaking a creationist can't argue against the monstrosity of the event you (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I realise the limits of taking an analogy too far...but since you already did it.....what you've just said is still intelligent design. What are the chances of a moustrap forming if you put all the parts into a box and shake it - that's not (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Maybe, but only insofar as the peppered moth was espoused as proof in a very public way, which it wasn't. Correction in future texts would be appropriate, as would a mention of the erroneous conclusions about the moth. For that matter, in my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I certainly agree-- but who? Let's say we discovered that, oh, I dunno, Rome didn't 'fall' to the Visigoths, but instead some disease infested the city and they were forced to relocate. But the Romans, not wanting to appear as though Gods (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Generally a full autopsy requires the examination of such soft bits as are seldom preserved for 65+ million years. With this in mind, it's difficult to assess the viral pathology of an organism of which you have only fossilized bones (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I guess the problem I have is that the peppered moth was shown as THE proof of evolution in our time to the masses. There should be some sort of accountability that expresses, "We were wrong here" in a very public way. You can't be so (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) No, I think Downs Syndrome is a case of such chromosomal changes. I just want to know why critters that look so much alike outwardly are so genetically different and how they got to be that way. I wish I had the charts that I found in my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I think you mean "Fahrenheit 451." I don't think 45 degrees F is going to burn much in the way of reading matter. :) best LFB (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Such as, for instance, positing "Creation Science" as if it were science. (...) No one is blaming you for the ignorance of others, but others' ignorance doesn't excuse them, either. The fact is that certain people are pushing an agenda to have (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The spanish inquisition didn't "control" Galileo, but it did destroy the ability to think in a host of lesser folk. You haven't grasped the pernicious damage that pushing a bunkum "theory" into impressionable kids, placing it as equally valid (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) (URL) wouldn't necessarily be so bad. I wish the Creator-scale figs were a bit more articulated, but I don't see what everyone's big problem with them is. Yeah, I'd be upset if they completely replaced Minifigs, but I don't think that's going (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
The author of this article also reveals science illiteracy at best and bias at worst in describing evolution as positing a "random" force at work in shaping variations. Darwin's theory of descent with modification postulated the principle of natural (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes: <snipped explanation of why I'm so vehement in my disdain for bunkum of the Literal Creationist sort... thanks!> (...) Me too, sort of... (well, if there *was* a bejeezus in me he's gone now) :-) What I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
Sorry, (...) should of course read as: 1.800.000 different species ... (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
I'll now go ahead and try to argue like Creationists do: Currently there are about 1.800.000.000 different species of living beings described. Do you seriously want to tell me that Noah had time enough to sample 1.100.000 insect species (wait a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Maybe Chris Tracey (or someone else) can explain this a bit better, but I think it's important to point out the main flaw in "intelligent design". To take Behe's mousetrap analogy: it's true that half a mousetrap isn't much of a mousetrap. But (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I think Larry has a problem with the truly "lost" people, mostly in the SouthEast US, who have decided they basically want the Bible taught in school in place of true scientifically based textbooks. Biblethumpers already pound the Bible into (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Actually it took me a day or two but I did happen to find a grip eventually: (URL) (...) I wish I had said that. (...) Where did you come up with this crazy ide that I'm out to control thoughts? I assure that was never my intent nor do I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Wow we MUST be good if we can control whether or not someone is able to think. It's a good thing you're smarter than everyone else Larry so we can't exercise our super powers over YOU! You must be among the more evolved humans....your (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) EGAD! A Clone! What is the world coming to!?! ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) That's OK, since that's the vision I have of every Literal Creationist. You don't have to physically burn a book to destroy knowledge or worse, destroy the very ability to think. You literal creationists, with your incessant pushing to get a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Midifigs? Is this the new music stuff from Lego? Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
Ack! Don't suggest it! You know why? To get the right scale, they'd end up using minifigs for the Hobbits, and the new Midifigs for humans. Ick! (...) -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) 8^) Okay, maybe I was exaggerating a little. And anyway I wouldn't be burning quality textbooks--just books that purport pseudoscience to be the equivalent of science! Dave! (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Go get em' Dave you crazy text book burning machine! I'm getting these mental images of you as one of the firemen in "Farenheit 45" walking around Pittsburgh with a big flame thrower raiding schools to burn books. (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
