Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Argyria. How does silver get absorbed?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

BillyFish

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
I happened to look on a web page devoted to argyria Dr. Dean Edell on his
radio show has also mentioned argyria. Apparently, with all the recent
alternative medicine craze, colloidal silver is being sold as a panacea for
many ills. Soluble silver, such as silver nitrate can also produce argyria.
This leads to me asking some questions that I have not seen answered before.

How large are particles of colloidal silver? How does it get absorbed and
enter the bloodstream? Because colloidal silver is not in solution, osmosis
does not seem to be a likely method for absorption.

When it comes to soluble silver, silver nitrate, I would expect it to form
highly insoluble silver chloride when it hits the somach. Similarly, I would
expect any colloidal silver that gets dissolved to also precipitate. Is it
possible that the concentration of ammonia in the gut can become large enough
to produce a soluble complex of silver nitrate?

Most curious.

Bill

Uncle Al

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

People who ingest heavy metal get heavy metal poisoning. - neat,
clean, simple survival of the fittest housecleaning (including
Kansas).

AgCl is insoluble, but look at its Ksp. AgCl is nicely solubilized by
high chloride concentrations as the complex ion; by amines, by
coordination to proteins (especially thiol-rich)...

All together now, "They are VICTIMS!" and deserving of unlimited
compensation in trade for their credulous stupidity.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, all the Kansas
school board did was refuse to require teachers to tell students that
Darwinian macroevolution is a fact beyond dispute. The teachers can say so
if inclined, but are no longer required to. Nowhere do they say creationism
is to be taught at all. IIRC, the board *increased* the coverage of
evolution fivefold over earlier guidelines.
Why the outcry? Is any scientific theory beyond criticism? If it's
true, then what are we afraid of? Theories should welcome challenge.
Darwinism *ought* to be examined fully, pros and cons. Anyone who calls
*any* theory of origins a scientific fact is ignorant (willfully or
otherwise) of the scientific method upon which all modern science, and the
ability to determine what is or is not a scientific fact, is based. You
can't observe life's origin. You can't reproduce it. It will always remain
a theory, unless spontaneous generation comes back in vogue (I'm sure there
are a few people the Uncle Al would say sprang from rotten meat :}). It
just so happens that origins carries very high stakes for the winner of the
intellectual high ground. Should not true science focus on all of the
available data regardless of the intellectual, political, and even spiritual
ramifications?
Sorry for the verbal voidage, but I had to say something about mocking
the scientific method in the name of academic freedom. Kansas has plenty of
faults, but increasing schoolhouse coverage of evolution fivefold while
simultaneously allowing a theory to be called a theory is not one of them.

donald haarmann

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

BillyFish <bill...@aol.com> wrote in message news:19991013022324...@ng-cn1.aol.com...

> I happened to look on a web page devoted to argyria Dr. Dean Edell on his
> radio show has also mentioned argyria.

------------
Look up "Silver Protein" in the Merck Index.

........ "Contains ~ 8% silver, most of which is present in ionic form."

--
donald j haarmann
------------------------------
There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.
Alexandre Ledru-Rollin

There go my opinion poles. I must follow them. For I am a politician.
William Jefferson Clinton

Pearson Cresswell

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

BillyFish <bill...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991013022324...@ng-cn1.aol.com...

> How large are particles of colloidal silver?

Samples I have seen fall in the range 20-40 nm, measured by PCS.

I don't know anything about the mode of absorbtion or action.

Pearson
Microns to Measure / Particle size analysis service.

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
: Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, all the Kansas

: school board did was refuse to require teachers to tell students that
: Darwinian macroevolution is a fact beyond dispute. The teachers can say so
: if inclined, but are no longer required to. Nowhere do they say creationism
: is to be taught at all. IIRC, the board *increased* the coverage of
: evolution fivefold over earlier guidelines.

No, they said evolution is not required to be taught in KS and won't be on
state tests.

: Why the outcry? Is any scientific theory beyond criticism? If it's


: true, then what are we afraid of? Theories should welcome challenge.

Evolution is a fact as well as a theory, as are gravity, quantum behavior,
etc.

: Darwinism *ought* to be examined fully, pros and cons. Anyone who calls


: *any* theory of origins a scientific fact is ignorant (willfully or

Anyone who doesn't seem to know what "theory" means in science should
refrain from posting in scientific groups.

A theory is an explanation for a observed set of facts. Gravity is a
fact. We have laws of gravity to predict its behavior and theories to
explain the phenomenon. The same holds for evolution -- facts, laws, and
theories. You might as way challenge that gravity exists since there is a
"theory of gravity" too.

: otherwise) of the scientific method upon which all modern science, and the


: ability to determine what is or is not a scientific fact, is based. You
: can't observe life's origin. You can't reproduce it.

Can't observe electrons directly either. Nor the big bang, nor what
happens in the center of the sun, nor what happened during the formation
of the continents.

: It will always remain
: a theory,

You're still wrong about what the term means.


Gavin Whittaker

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@emory.edu) wrote:

: Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
: : Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, all the Kansas
: : school board did was refuse to require teachers to tell students that
: : Darwinian macroevolution is a fact beyond dispute. The teachers can say so
: : if inclined, but are no longer required to. Nowhere do they say creationism
: : is to be taught at all. IIRC, the board *increased* the coverage of
: : evolution fivefold over earlier guidelines.

: No, they said evolution is not required to be taught in KS and won't be on
: state tests.

Serious question here. Evolution or Darwinian evolution?

: : Why the outcry? Is any scientific theory beyond criticism? If it's


: : true, then what are we afraid of? Theories should welcome challenge.

: Evolution is a fact as well as a theory, as are gravity, quantum behavior,
: etc.

True. But I think we're either wrong or confusing our terms in this
discussion. Quantum behaviour is a fact. Quantum theory is not.
Likewise, evolution is a fact, Darwin's theory of evolution is not.
See below.

: : Darwinism *ought* to be examined fully, pros and cons. Anyone who calls


: : *any* theory of origins a scientific fact is ignorant (willfully or

: Anyone who doesn't seem to know what "theory" means in science should
: refrain from posting in scientific groups.
: A theory is an explanation for a observed set of facts.

Yes. But it does not follow that the explanation, no matter how good its
predictive capabilities, is a fact. Phlogiston, the earth centred universe,
ether and Laplace's theory of evolution were all theories which fitted
the facts at the time. You cannot reasonably claim any of them to be facts.

: Gravity is a
: fact. We have laws of gravity to predict its behavior and theories to
: explain the phenomenon. The same holds for evolution -- facts, laws, and
: theories. You might as way challenge that gravity exists since there is a
: "theory of gravity" too.

<sigh> The experience of gravity is a fact. The explanation (the
theory) of that, and related facts is not a fact. It is a model to
explain the fact. Last century, gravity was explained as a force
between any two bodies. Early this century it was reinterpreted as
a bending of space.
Which is the fact? Neither. They are both models with predictive
abilities, and that's it.

: : otherwise) of the scientific method upon which all modern science, and the


: : ability to determine what is or is not a scientific fact, is based. You
: : can't observe life's origin. You can't reproduce it.

: Can't observe electrons directly either. Nor the big bang, nor what
: happens in the center of the sun, nor what happened during the formation
: of the continents.

...and they too are all theories. They are not facts. Yes, even the
electron. We treat it as a fact, but that's not the same thing.

Let me illustrate. I can propose an equally valid explanation for
'electron' behaviour without the need to invoke the electron -
hyperintelligent telepathic little green men, smaller than we model
electrons to be, working together to direct the rest of the universe
around so as to make it look like electrons exist. They make it look as
if electrons exist because they know how our minds work, and what we'd
model electrons to do.
Fanciful? Then prove me wrong. My theory is every bit as valid as
the theory of the electron. The only reason for general acceptance of
the electron theory is Occam's razor.

: : It will always remain a theory,

: You're still wrong about what the term means.

Nope. He's right. You're definitely in the wrong here.

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Gavin Whittaker (ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:

: Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@emory.edu) wrote:
: : Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
: : : Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, all the Kansas
: : : school board did was refuse to require teachers to tell students that
: : : Darwinian macroevolution is a fact beyond dispute. The teachers can say so
: : : if inclined, but are no longer required to. Nowhere do they say creationism
: : : is to be taught at all. IIRC, the board *increased* the coverage of
: : : evolution fivefold over earlier guidelines.
:
: : No, they said evolution is not required to be taught in KS and won't be on
: : state tests.
:
: Serious question here. Evolution or Darwinian evolution?
:
: : : Why the outcry? Is any scientific theory beyond criticism? If it's
: : : true, then what are we afraid of? Theories should welcome challenge.
:
: : Evolution is a fact as well as a theory, as are gravity, quantum behavior,
: : etc.
:
: True. But I think we're either wrong or confusing our terms in this
: discussion. Quantum behaviour is a fact. Quantum theory is not.
: Likewise, evolution is a fact, Darwin's theory of evolution is not.

But the uproar in public schools is over any mention of evolution (except
maybe microscale, within-species). Not just Darwin's theory, but
evolution itself.

: See below.

:
: : : Darwinism *ought* to be examined fully, pros and cons. Anyone who calls
: : : *any* theory of origins a scientific fact is ignorant (willfully or
:
: : Anyone who doesn't seem to know what "theory" means in science should
: : refrain from posting in scientific groups.
: : A theory is an explanation for a observed set of facts.
:
: Yes. But it does not follow that the explanation, no matter how good its
: predictive capabilities, is a fact. Phlogiston, the earth centred universe,
: ether and Laplace's theory of evolution were all theories which fitted
: the facts at the time. You cannot reasonably claim any of them to be facts.

Agreed. But evolution is a fact, and this is what KS no longer requires
even be mentioned. It's also what AL makes textbooks put in as a
disclaimer -- that nobody was around to witness evolution and that it's
just a theory and that there are other theories.

:
: : Gravity is a

This is like creationists saying God put fossils here that appear old to
deliberately deceive us.

: Fanciful? Then prove me wrong. My theory is every bit as valid as

: the theory of the electron. The only reason for general acceptance of
: the electron theory is Occam's razor.
:
: : : It will always remain a theory,
:
: : You're still wrong about what the term means.
:
: Nope. He's right. You're definitely in the wrong here.

He was claiming evolution itself is "just a theory." He's wrong. It's a
fact. (quoting Gould here, by the way)

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7u4kv5$ht5$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...

:Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:: Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, all the Kansas
:: school board did was refuse to require teachers to tell students that
:: Darwinian macroevolution is a fact beyond dispute. The teachers can say
so
:: if inclined, but are no longer required to. Nowhere do they say
creationism
:: is to be taught at all. IIRC, the board *increased* the coverage of
:: evolution fivefold over earlier guidelines.
:
:No, they said evolution is not required to be taught in KS and won't be on
:state tests.


I will have to read the guidelines further.

:: Why the outcry? Is any scientific theory beyond criticism? If it's


:: true, then what are we afraid of? Theories should welcome challenge.
:
:Evolution is a fact as well as a theory, as are gravity, quantum behavior,
:etc.


I respectfully disagree on the grounds that facts are observable. Gravity
has been observed, quantum behavior has been observed. The origin of life
has not. What experiment would you design to validate evolution or creation
or...? With gravity and QM, we have the luxury of designing experiments to
study before and after conditions. With origins of life, we only have the
after.

:: Darwinism *ought* to be examined fully, pros and cons. Anyone who calls


:: *any* theory of origins a scientific fact is ignorant (willfully or
:
:Anyone who doesn't seem to know what "theory" means in science should
:refrain from posting in scientific groups.


I apologize for my condescending tone.

:A theory is an explanation for a observed set of facts. Gravity is a


:fact. We have laws of gravity to predict its behavior and theories to
:explain the phenomenon. The same holds for evolution -- facts, laws, and
:theories. You might as way challenge that gravity exists since there is a
:"theory of gravity" too.

When I challenge the theory of gravity by performing experiments
desgined to validate or refute it, I am not challenging whether or not
gravity exists. That's like saying performing experiments to validate or
refute a particular theory of origins (which is impossible in the first
place) is challenging whether or not life exists.

By your nomenclature, may I know categorize the study of the origins of
life like this:

Facts: Life exists. Life both foreign and similar to the present time died
in sometime in the past in various locations. Many forms of life have
similar structures. Life adapts to its environment.

Laws: No known new life created (yet), so no law predicting the behavior of
origins is possible (yet).

Theories: The observed facts (i.e. phenomena) can be explained by a few
theories, the most popular being evoultion and special creation. No theory
can be verified as true or false due to the constriction placed on Laws
above.

:
:: otherwise) of the scientific method upon which all modern science, and


the
:: ability to determine what is or is not a scientific fact, is based. You
:: can't observe life's origin. You can't reproduce it.
:
:Can't observe electrons directly either. Nor the big bang, nor what
:happens in the center of the sun, nor what happened during the formation
:of the continents.


I'm sorry. Too much Schoolhouse Rock! I must be confusing how a theory
becomes law with how a bill becomes law. Gravity is a law because you can
demonstrate it's effects right here and right now. Gravity can be observed
in the present. Gravity has a universal constant. Is there a difference
between a theory and a law? . I thought a theory was upgraded to law status
when its predictions were observed to be always true. Maybe instead of
theory I meant to use the word hypothesis. Irrespective of the semantics,
what I meant to say in plain language is that you cannot prove the
unobservable or the irreproducible. Would you disagree? Motive isn't
enough. You need more than a body. You need someone to be placed at the
scene of the crime. I know you cannot directly observe electrons. However,
experiments designed to infer the existence of electrons gives observable,
reproducible results. Can the same be said of creation or evolution or
spontaneous generation? Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing any theory
here. I merely want to bring to attention that based on the *fact* that no
one was able to observe the origin of life, and that no one has yet
succeeded in creating life, any theory of origins we may devise has not been
proven as categorically and exclusively true.

:: It will always remain


:: a theory,
:
:You're still wrong about what the term means.
:

Perhaps it is better said that any theory of origins will remain unproven
until we can both travel back in time and create life ex nihilo.

I appreciate the time you took for your thoughtful reply.

Rich Lemert

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:

> :: Why the outcry? Is any scientific theory beyond criticism? If it's
> :: true, then what are we afraid of? Theories should welcome challenge.
> :
> :Evolution is a fact as well as a theory, as are gravity, quantum behavior,
> :etc.
>
> I respectfully disagree on the grounds that facts are observable. Gravity
> has been observed, quantum behavior has been observed. The origin of life
> has not.

This is all fine and dandy, but you appear to be confusing evolution withthe
creation of life. Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species", not
"On the Origin of Life." Evolution (i.e. the adaptation of a species in
response to it's environment) has been observed. The origin of life has,
as you say, not been observed. However, the theory of evolution provides
predictions about how it might have arisen, predictions that can (in principle)

be tested.

Rich Lemert


Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/15/99
to
Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7u4kv5$ht5$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...

: :Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
: :: Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, all the Kansas
: :: school board did was refuse to require teachers to tell students that
: :: Darwinian macroevolution is a fact beyond dispute. The teachers can say
: so
: :: if inclined, but are no longer required to. Nowhere do they say
: creationism
: :: is to be taught at all. IIRC, the board *increased* the coverage of
: :: evolution fivefold over earlier guidelines.
: :
: :No, they said evolution is not required to be taught in KS and won't be on
: :state tests.
:
:
: I will have to read the guidelines further.
:
: :: Why the outcry? Is any scientific theory beyond criticism? If it's
: :: true, then what are we afraid of? Theories should welcome challenge.
: :
: :Evolution is a fact as well as a theory, as are gravity, quantum behavior,
: :etc.
:
:
: I respectfully disagree on the grounds that facts are observable. Gravity
: has been observed, quantum behavior has been observed. The origin of life
: has not. What experiment would you design to validate evolution or creation
: or...? With gravity and QM, we have the luxury of designing experiments to
: study before and after conditions. With origins of life, we only have the
: after.

So there goes the Big Bang, black holes, plate tectonics, ice age,
dinosaurs, quarks, electrons, etc., since we can't "observe" any of them.

However, we can observe evidence they provide and the effects they
produce. Similarly, we can observe the evidence evolution provides and
the effects it produces.
: When I challenge the theory of gravity by performing experiments


: desgined to validate or refute it, I am not challenging whether or not
: gravity exists. That's like saying performing experiments to validate or
: refute a particular theory of origins (which is impossible in the first
: place) is challenging whether or not life exists.

Perform experiments on plate tectonics. Perform an experiment to see if
dinosaurs existed. Perform an experiment to see if a black hole will
form.
:
: I'm sorry. Too much Schoolhouse Rock! I must be confusing how a theory


: becomes law with how a bill becomes law. Gravity is a law because you can
: demonstrate it's effects right here and right now. Gravity can be observed
: in the present. Gravity has a universal constant. Is there a difference
: between a theory and a law? . I thought a theory was upgraded to law status

WRONG! A law is a concise summary of data, used to make predictions. Ex:
Newton's Law of Gravity, or Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures. They make
no attempt to explain something.

A theory is an explanation. A theory NEVER EVER becomes a law. A law may
arise from a theory, but a law does not get "promoted" to a theory.

This is covered the first day in most freshman science classes in college,
by the way.

Matthew Comstock

unread,
Oct 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/15/99
to
>
> I respectfully disagree on the grounds that facts are observable. Gravity
> has been observed, quantum behavior has been observed. The origin of life
> has not. What experiment would you design to validate evolution or creation
> or...? With gravity and QM, we have the luxury of designing experiments to
> study before and after conditions. With origins of life, we only have the
> after.

the experiment has been done. the average height of an american at the turn of
the century was just below five foot. now it is about five foot six or so. one
can say that mankind has evolved over 100 years to be a few inches taller
because of our environment. (better food, less disease, etc.)

Evolution says that the characteristics of species can change over time. period.
nothing more to it. so it IS a fact.

darwinian evolution, birds turning into monkeys, and any other explanation as to
how all the species we now see got to have the characteristics that they do can
only be a theory. but species do have the ability to change their average
characteristics over time. no one can dispute that.

-mat


William Penrose

unread,
Oct 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/17/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, all the Kansas
> school board did was refuse to require teachers to tell students that
> Darwinian macroevolution is a fact beyond dispute.

I thought they said that it was no longer necessary to discuss evolution
in class if they didn't want to. In most of Kansas, I'm sure that would
mean instant erasure of every reference to evolution. Local Christian
activists would see to that.

Reminds me of visiting my local library in 1980 and seeing a group of
clean-cut Reagan brownshirts ostentatiously indexing biology books and
other objectionable literature. They were preparing for its eventual
removal from the library when (their perception of) the Reagan
Revolution was achieved.

Let's not forget that there are other parts of science that fly in the
face of Biblical teaching, including most of astonomy. Evolution is just
the easiest target; the others will be next.

On the other hand, I don't need the hayseeds of Kansas competing with my
grandchildren in the new millenium. Let them speak in tongues, exorcise
demons, and burn witches if they want.

Bill
--
************************************************************
Information on gas sensors and related instruments:
Check us out at http://www.customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618,
email wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D and product development to this
and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************

Stewart Rowe

unread,
Oct 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/17/99
to
In Kansas, one might have some doubt as to whether the Earth is round!

Stewart Rowe

Gavin Whittaker

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
William Penrose (wpen...@anet-chi.com) wrote:

: Let's not forget that there are other parts of science that fly in the


: face of Biblical teaching, including most of astonomy. Evolution is just
: the easiest target; the others will be next.

For those that aren't aware, here's the basis of the problem from the
mainstream Christian perspective:

The Biblical basis of creation is based on babylonian myths. Or at
least, we call them myths. At the time, it was the science of the day -
it was a theory that fitted the facts, and was enough for the time.
The Biblical creation narrative changes the Babylonian narrative
slightly, so as to indicate that 1. there is only one God, so we're
not talking about polytheistic religion any longer and 2. That God is
outside of creation, not part of it. If it were written today, the
Genesis narrative might well say that God brought the big bang into
existence, formed the earth from the bits and then guided the
evolution of species as an incredibly creative and imaginative act.
Any person with a brain - and what do they think God gave us brains
for? - can understand that the Genesis narrative is not a literal
scientific theory and that there is ample evidence for the current
mainstream scientific theories. If they must insist on taking the
Bible absolutely literally, then there's going to be a lot of blood
spilled with people cutting their hands off and gouging out their own
eyes.

Gavin

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

Matthew Comstock wrote in message <380783FB...@cem.msu.edu>...
:>
:> I respectfully disagree on the grounds that facts are observable.

Gravity
:> has been observed, quantum behavior has been observed. The origin of
life
:> has not. What experiment would you design to validate evolution or
creation
:> or...? With gravity and QM, we have the luxury of designing experiments
to
:> study before and after conditions. With origins of life, we only have
the
:> after.
:
:the experiment has been done. the average height of an american at the turn

of
:the century was just below five foot. now it is about five foot six or so.
one
:can say that mankind has evolved over 100 years to be a few inches taller
:because of our environment. (better food, less disease, etc.)


Then we should assign a new classification. Homo sapiens is now obsolete.
They're obviously not human anymore. Or maybe we should introduce
subspecies. That should feed our racist animals.

:Evolution says that the characteristics of species can change over time.


period.
:nothing more to it. so it IS a fact.

:
:darwinian evolution, birds turning into monkeys, and any other explanation
as to
:how all the species we now see got to have the characteristics that they do
can
:only be a theory. but species do have the ability to change their average
:characteristics over time. no one can dispute that.


Agreed. Natural selection (which is really unsupervised selective breeding)
accounts for changes within species, but does not necessarily explain how
one species becomes another species, independent of time.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

William Penrose wrote in message <380A6E...@anet-chi.com>...
:
:Let's not forget that there are other parts of science that fly in the

:face of Biblical teaching, including most of astonomy. Evolution is just
:the easiest target; the others will be next.


As an aside...among the scientists who profess to be biblical Christians,
the greatest number of these are astronomers and astrophysicists. I'm sure
they're just right-wing, intolerant, bigoted, backwater bible-thumpers like
Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler.

:On the other hand, I don't need the hayseeds of Kansas competing with my


:grandchildren in the new millenium. Let them speak in tongues, exorcise
:demons, and burn witches if they want.


Why wasn't Wedgewood called a 'hate crime?'

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

Stewart Rowe wrote in message <380A627A...@fuse.net>...
:In Kansas, one might have some doubt as to whether the Earth is round!
:
Nice try. St. Augustine considered the earth to be round over 1,000
years before Columbus set sail. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas
inferred a spherical earth from the shadow caused by a solar eclipse. The
flat earth theory was pinned on the Middle Age church by early 19th century
Enlightenment propagandists seeking to discredit it.
And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends might
help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.


Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

Rich Lemert wrote in message <38067FBD...@mindspring.com>...
:Darrin Dailey wrote:
:
:> :: Why the outcry? Is any scientific theory beyond criticism? If

it's
:> :: true, then what are we afraid of? Theories should welcome challenge.
:> :
:> :Evolution is a fact as well as a theory, as are gravity, quantum
behavior,
:> :etc.
:>
:> I respectfully disagree on the grounds that facts are observable.
Gravity
:> has been observed, quantum behavior has been observed. The origin of
life
:> has not.
:
: This is all fine and dandy, but you appear to be confusing evolution

withthe
:creation of life. Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species", not
:"On the Origin of Life." Evolution (i.e. the adaptation of a species in
:response to it's environment) has been observed. The origin of life has,

:as you say, not been observed. However, the theory of evolution provides
:predictions about how it might have arisen, predictions that can (in
principle)
:be tested.
:
I agree. Brilliant observations do not necessarily lead to brilliant
conclusions. Darwin was brilliant in his observation of natural selection.
To conclude that this explains the diversity of life across the boundary of
species is not indisputably true, when we now know that DNA contains more
than enough information capacity to explain diversity within a species.
Freud made brilliant observations of human behavior. Today's modern
psychology has little to do with his conclusions, perhaps in part because
they were able to be tested.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

Gavin Whittaker wrote in message <7ueoda$i9j$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>...
:William Penrose (wpen...@anet-chi.com) wrote:
:
:: Let's not forget that there are other parts of science that fly in the

:: face of Biblical teaching, including most of astonomy. Evolution is just
:: the easiest target; the others will be next.
:
: For those that aren't aware, here's the basis of the problem from the

:mainstream Christian perspective:
:
: The Biblical basis of creation is based on babylonian myths. Or at
:least, we call them myths. At the time, it was the science of the day -
:it was a theory that fitted the facts, and was enough for the time.
: The Biblical creation narrative changes the Babylonian narrative
:slightly, so as to indicate that 1. there is only one God, so we're
:not talking about polytheistic religion any longer and 2. That God is
:outside of creation, not part of it. If it were written today, the
:Genesis narrative might well say that God brought the big bang into
:existence, formed the earth from the bits and then guided the
:evolution of species as an incredibly creative and imaginative act.
: Any person with a brain - and what do they think God gave us brains
:for? - can understand that the Genesis narrative is not a literal
:scientific theory and that there is ample evidence for the current
:mainstream scientific theories. If they must insist on taking the
:Bible absolutely literally, then there's going to be a lot of blood
:spilled with people cutting their hands off and gouging out their own
:eyes.
:
OK. Here is what really is at stake. Mankind's quest for knowledge
from the dawn of history has sought to answer these three questions.

1. Where did we come from
2. How did things get the way they are, and
3. Where are we going from here

The way in which satisfactory answers are achieved is called a person's
worldview. There are many different worldviews that seek to answer these
questions. Our latest invention, relativism, says that they are all true,
no matter how contradictory. I disagree. I challenge worldviews, including
my own. The saddest thing about America (and perhaps the world) today is
that 98% of the population wanders about in their little treadmills not even
knowing what their worldview is, when in reality you *are* your worldview.
Everything outside your answer to those three questions is fluff. I ask the
questions...Why do you believe G(g)od(s) (Babylonian or otherwise) created
the heavens and the earth? Or for equal time, why do you believe evolution
explains the origin of species? Doubts resolved are stronger than facts
realized. I've also learned that belittling somebody contributes twin
fistfuls of squat toward them considering your worldview for even a second.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7u7dm2$ep0$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
:Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7u4kv5$ht5$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
:So there goes the Big Bang, black holes, plate tectonics, ice age,

:dinosaurs, quarks, electrons, etc., since we can't "observe" any of them.


Right. All of these theories are disputable. I haven't ever said
evolution is not true. I have simply said that evolution is not an
indisputable fact.

:However, we can observe evidence they provide and the effects they


:produce. Similarly, we can observe the evidence evolution provides and
:the effects it produces.

:: When I challenge the theory of gravity by performing experiments


:: desgined to validate or refute it, I am not challenging whether or not
:: gravity exists. That's like saying performing experiments to validate or
:: refute a particular theory of origins (which is impossible in the first
:: place) is challenging whether or not life exists.

:
:Perform experiments on plate tectonics. Perform an experiment to see if


:dinosaurs existed. Perform an experiment to see if a black hole will
:form.

We have observed plate sublimation. I've held fossilized remains in my
own hands. We've observed real time changes in stellar objects that infer
the existence of black holes. With evolution as it pertains to the origin
of species, we're forced to infer the changes in the data that infer the
theory. The changes themselves have never been observed.

::
:: I'm sorry. Too much Schoolhouse Rock! I must be confusing how a theory


:: becomes law with how a bill becomes law. Gravity is a law because you
can
:: demonstrate it's effects right here and right now. Gravity can be
observed
:: in the present. Gravity has a universal constant. Is there a difference
:: between a theory and a law? . I thought a theory was upgraded to law
status

:
:WRONG! A law is a concise summary of data, used to make predictions. Ex:


:Newton's Law of Gravity, or Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures. They make
:no attempt to explain something.
:
:A theory is an explanation. A theory NEVER EVER becomes a law. A law may
:arise from a theory, but a law does not get "promoted" to a theory.
:
:This is covered the first day in most freshman science classes in college,
:by the way.

Sorry. It's been awhile. Again, I do believe regardless of semantics
which I am still attempting to correct, you understand the points I am
trying to make.

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:
: Stewart Rowe wrote in message <380A627A...@fuse.net>...
:
:
:
:
:

"four corners of the earth..."

How can a round earth have 4 (or any) corners?

And then there's the pi=3 (implied in 2 places).

The plants appearing BEFORE the sun.

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
: ::
: :: I respectfully disagree on the grounds that facts are observable.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


: Gravity


: :: has been observed, quantum behavior has been observed. The origin of
: life
: :: has not. What experiment would you design to validate evolution or
: creation
: :: or...? With gravity and QM, we have the luxury of designing experiments
: to
: :: study before and after conditions. With origins of life, we only have
: the
: :: after.
: :

: :So there goes the Big Bang, black holes, plate tectonics, ice age,


: :dinosaurs, quarks, electrons, etc., since we can't "observe" any of them.
:
:
: Right. All of these theories are disputable. I haven't ever said
: evolution is not true. I have simply said that evolution is not an
: indisputable fact.
:
: :However, we can observe evidence they provide and the effects they
: :produce. Similarly, we can observe the evidence evolution provides and
: :the effects it produces.

: :: When I challenge the theory of gravity by performing experiments


: :: desgined to validate or refute it, I am not challenging whether or not
: :: gravity exists. That's like saying performing experiments to validate or
: :: refute a particular theory of origins (which is impossible in the first
: :: place) is challenging whether or not life exists.

: :
: :Perform experiments on plate tectonics. Perform an experiment to see if


: :dinosaurs existed. Perform an experiment to see if a black hole will
: :form.
:
: We have observed plate sublimation. I've held fossilized remains in my
: own hands. We've observed real time changes in stellar objects that infer
: the existence of black holes. With evolution as it pertains to the origin
: of species, we're forced to infer the changes in the data that infer the
: theory. The changes themselves have never been observed.

How do you know God didn't make the fossilized remains as they are now --
you didn't observe them being formed. How do you know all the continents
were once together -- nobody observed that. How do you know black holes
exist -- infering isn't observing.

Nobody observed the continents drifting apart, dinosaurs existing, black
holes forming, electrons doing anything, etc. Science does NOT require we
directly observe something before accepting it.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to

Darrin Dailey wrote in message <380b5...@gold.lpcorp.com>...
:
:Stewart Rowe wrote in message <380A627A...@fuse.net>...

::In Kansas, one might have some doubt as to whether the Earth is round!
::
: Nice try. St. Augustine considered the earth to be round over 1,000
:years before Columbus set sail. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas
:inferred a spherical earth from the shadow caused by a solar eclipse. The
:flat earth theory was pinned on the Middle Age church by early 19th century
:Enlightenment propagandists seeking to discredit it.
: And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
:nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends might
:help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.
:
Correction: That should be lunar eclipse instead of solar eclipse. My
mistake.

rjb

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>
>
> "four corners of the earth..."
>
> How can a round earth have 4 (or any) corners?
>
> And then there's the pi=3 (implied in 2 places).

I think that one is unfair. Pi does equal three if you round to one
digit. Can you write out the value of pi without rounding?

>
> The plants appearing BEFORE the sun.

And don't forget the four-legged grasshoppers and rabbits chewing their
cud (Deuteronomy, I think). The bible is not a science book, only a
fool would think so.
Rick

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
rjb (r...@andia.gov) wrote:

: Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
: >
: >
: > "four corners of the earth..."
: >
: > How can a round earth have 4 (or any) corners?
: >
: > And then there's the pi=3 (implied in 2 places).
:
: I think that one is unfair. Pi does equal three if you round to one
: digit. Can you write out the value of pi without rounding?

Yes, but the Bible describes something as "10 cubics across and 60 cubits
around" (or similar numbers) when it would be 63 cubits around.

rjb

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to

It's arguable like so many other biblical passages. Even saying
diameter is 10 and circumference is 30 can be considered rounding to one
sig fig.

Any strict biblical literalist has a lot of scrambling to do. But who
would care if they were not trying to sneak their religious nonsense
into the science classroom.

Rick

rjb

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to

The citations of several Christian scholars above is not particularly
relevant. Other scholars deduced the spherical earth before the bible
was written. The vast majority of Christians believe the earth is
fairly spherical. Many Christians also agree that the theory of
evolution is the best explanation for the biological and geological
facts.

Had Augustine or Aquinas been (practically brain-free) Biblical
literalists like some of today's fundamentalists, then they might also
have been troubled by the "four corners of the world". It is a very
similar fallacy to take the seven day creation story, the biblical
flood, or the four-corners of the earth as being literally true. In New
Mexico, we have just struggled with a similar problem of a single
influential biblical literalist on the school board attempting to
undermine the science teaching in the state. Fortunately, the voters
changed the makeup of the school board, and good science standards are
being reinstated. With luck, Kansas will follow a similar path.

Rick

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7ug2hl$sp6$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
:Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
::
:: Stewart Rowe wrote in message <380A627A...@fuse.net>...

:: :In Kansas, one might have some doubt as to whether the Earth is round!
:: :
:: Nice try. St. Augustine considered the earth to be round over 1,000
:: years before Columbus set sail. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas
:: inferred a spherical earth from the shadow caused by a solar eclipse.
The
:: flat earth theory was pinned on the Middle Age church by early 19th
century
:: Enlightenment propagandists seeking to discredit it.
:: And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
:: nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends
might
:: help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.
::
::
::
::
::
:
:"four corners of the earth..."

:
:How can a round earth have 4 (or any) corners?

A compass is round and yet it has points. The corners refer to the cardinal
directions. The earth is the reference frame.

:And then there's the pi=3 (implied in 2 places).

You're still trying to make the bible a treatise on mathematics, which it's
not. The statement was made as an approximation, not a definition.
Besides, pi to one sigfig *is* 3 :)

:The plants appearing BEFORE the sun.


Again, this may be incongruent with modern beliefs, but both modern science
and the bible are *self-consistent.* If plants appeared before the sun,
that would be supernatural. The bible affirms the existence of the
supernatural. Modern science does not. Therefore it is the assumption
regarding the existence of the supernatural that is at odds here. No one
saw plants appear, so how can you say with 100% certainty that *any*
appearance theory is true?

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7ug2o1$85$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
:Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:: ::
:: :: I respectfully disagree on the grounds that facts are observable.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
:
:: Gravity

:: :: has been observed, quantum behavior has been observed. The origin of
:: life
:: :: has not. What experiment would you design to validate evolution or
:: creation
:: :: or...? With gravity and QM, we have the luxury of designing
experiments
:: to
:: :: study before and after conditions. With origins of life, we only have
:: the
:: :: after.
:: :
:: :So there goes the Big Bang, black holes, plate tectonics, ice age,

:: :dinosaurs, quarks, electrons, etc., since we can't "observe" any of
them.
::
::
:: Right. All of these theories are disputable. I haven't ever said
:: evolution is not true. I have simply said that evolution is not an
:: indisputable fact.
::
:: :However, we can observe evidence they provide and the effects they
:: :produce. Similarly, we can observe the evidence evolution provides and
:: :the effects it produces.
:: :: When I challenge the theory of gravity by performing experiments

:: :: desgined to validate or refute it, I am not challenging whether or not
:: :: gravity exists. That's like saying performing experiments to validate
or
:: :: refute a particular theory of origins (which is impossible in the
first
:: :: place) is challenging whether or not life exists.
:: :
:: :Perform experiments on plate tectonics. Perform an experiment to see if

:: :dinosaurs existed. Perform an experiment to see if a black hole will
:: :form.
::
:: We have observed plate sublimation. I've held fossilized remains in
my
:: own hands. We've observed real time changes in stellar objects that
infer
:: the existence of black holes. With evolution as it pertains to the
origin
:: of species, we're forced to infer the changes in the data that infer the
:: theory. The changes themselves have never been observed.
:
:How do you know God didn't make the fossilized remains as they are now --
:you didn't observe them being formed. How do you know all the continents
:were once together -- nobody observed that. How do you know black holes
:exist -- infering isn't observing.


We have artificially fossilized organic remains. There is a company that
petrifies peeler cores for fencing materials. Under the right conditions
(patent pending, I assume) it takes two weeks. I don't know that the
continents were once together. I never claim to. I wasn't there. Black
holes are inferred from real-time, before-after data sets. Just like
electrons. The point I keep trying to emphasize is that there exists no
real-time before-after data sets to support *any* origin theory. Therefore,
are we good stewards of knowledge for declaring any origin theory a fact?

:Nobody observed the continents drifting apart, dinosaurs existing, black


:holes forming, electrons doing anything, etc. Science does NOT require we
:directly observe something before accepting it.

Neither does religion.

Rich Lemert

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:

> Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7ug2o1$85$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...


>
> :Nobody observed the continents drifting apart, dinosaurs existing, black
> :holes forming, electrons doing anything, etc. Science does NOT require we
> :directly observe something before accepting it.
>
> Neither does religion.

However, before science can accept something it must be shown how
this new fact derives logically from other accepted facts. Religion too
often doesn't demand this connection - refuge is too often taken in the
statement "because 'God' said so."

Rich Lemert


rjb

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:
> [snipped]

> All of these theories are disputable. I haven't ever said
> evolution is not true. I have simply said that evolution is not an
> indisputable fact.
>
[snipped]

I think the answer to this statement is that evolution is an
indisputable fact because it has been observed. For an organism, the
shorter the generation time, the easier it is to observe evolution.
Thus, I can watch bacteria (10 minute generation time) evolve in culture
plates (microevolution, changes in gene frequency). Drosophila species
(a few days generation time) have evolved to other species in laboratory
experiments. This latter observation is what some microbiologists would
call macroevolution- changes of one species to another. Creationists
have mangled the definition of macroevolution to mean evolution between
whatever taxonomic group has not yet been observed (genus, family,
order, Kind?).
Earlier Darrin seemed to be confusing evolution with abiogenesis, the
origin of life. Abio has not been observed and there is widespread
disagreement among scientists as to the mechanisms for abiogenesis;
whether it occurred by natural means on earth (and then what was the
detailed chemistry), extraterrestially, or supernaturally. If the
latter, then it is beyond the scope of science to figure it out, but we
sure can keep studying chemistry to see if a believable natural
mechanism can be discovered. The teaching of evolution in schools has
nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Rick

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7ug2hl$sp6$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
: :Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
: ::
: :: Stewart Rowe wrote in message <380A627A...@fuse.net>...

: :: :In Kansas, one might have some doubt as to whether the Earth is round!
: :: :
: :: Nice try. St. Augustine considered the earth to be round over 1,000
: :: years before Columbus set sail. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas
: :: inferred a spherical earth from the shadow caused by a solar eclipse.
: The
: :: flat earth theory was pinned on the Middle Age church by early 19th
: century
: :: Enlightenment propagandists seeking to discredit it.
: :: And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
: :: nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends
: might
: :: help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.
: ::
: ::
: ::
: ::
: ::
: :
: :"four corners of the earth..."
: :
: :How can a round earth have 4 (or any) corners?
:
: A compass is round and yet it has points. The corners refer to the cardinal
: directions. The earth is the reference frame.

But a sphere cannot have "corners," can it? It can have directions, but
not corners.

:
: :And then there's the pi=3 (implied in 2 places).


:
: You're still trying to make the bible a treatise on mathematics, which it's
: not. The statement was made as an approximation, not a definition.
: Besides, pi to one sigfig *is* 3 :)

I think you've hit on it -- the Bible is not a treatise on mathematics (or
science), and the mistake is when people try to make it one. Example:
creationism.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to

rjb wrote in message <380C89...@sandia.gov>...

:Darrin Dailey wrote:
:>
:> Darrin Dailey wrote in message <380b5...@gold.lpcorp.com>...
:> :
:> :Stewart Rowe wrote in message <380A627A...@fuse.net>...

:> ::In Kansas, one might have some doubt as to whether the Earth is round!
:> ::
:> : Nice try. St. Augustine considered the earth to be round over 1,000
:> :years before Columbus set sail. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas
:> :inferred a spherical earth from the shadow caused by a solar eclipse.
The
:> :flat earth theory was pinned on the Middle Age church by early 19th
century
:> :Enlightenment propagandists seeking to discredit it.
:> : And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
:> :nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends
might
:> :help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.
:> :
:> Correction: That should be lunar eclipse instead of solar eclipse. My

:> mistake.
:
:The citations of several Christian scholars above is not particularly
:relevant. Other scholars deduced the spherical earth before the bible
:was written. The vast majority of Christians believe the earth is
:fairly spherical. Many Christians also agree that the theory of
:evolution is the best explanation for the biological and geological
:facts.


My point was that a flat earth was never the belief of the church in the
Middle Ages as has been claimed. I wasn't saying the knowledge of a round
earth was exclusive to Christian scholars. Christians that agree that the
theory of evolution is the best explanation are also at odds with their very
namesake.

:Had Augustine or Aquinas been (practically brain-free) Biblical


:literalists like some of today's fundamentalists, then they might also
:have been troubled by the "four corners of the world". It is a very
:similar fallacy to take the seven day creation story, the biblical
:flood, or the four-corners of the earth as being literally true. In New
:Mexico, we have just struggled with a similar problem of a single
:influential biblical literalist on the school board attempting to
:undermine the science teaching in the state. Fortunately, the voters
:changed the makeup of the school board, and good science standards are
:being reinstated. With luck, Kansas will follow a similar path.


The problem for today's Christian is that they are forced to choose
between what Jesus said and what modern science reports. Modern science
says life evolved over millions of years. Jesus says God did it in six
24-hour days. The most quoted book of the Law of Moses (Pentateuch) is
Genesis. If it can't be trusted, then the whole thing is a sham. Can a
Christian call themselves such and believe Jesus was lying or delusional or
misquoted? If so, then their faith has zero foundation and they might as
well be atheists.
And please show me one writing of either Augustine or Aquinas that would
indicate they were not biblical literalists. In my thinking, a biblical
literalist considers its statements to be true. "Four corners of the earth"
is not a statement, but an obvious figure of speech that meant then what it
means today. It was also written by John to describe his vision of
impending destruction in the Revelation (7:1). That means if he meant the
earth is square, it would be made so in the future! Look out! If the
practically brain-free are the ones taking the bible word for word without
distinguishing statement from idiom, then I would agree. This, however does
not describe all biblical literalists, as I believe Augustine and Aquinas
most definitely were.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7uht25$g4g$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
:rjb (r...@andia.gov) wrote:
:: Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
:: >
:: >
:: > "four corners of the earth..."

:: >
:: > How can a round earth have 4 (or any) corners?
:: >
:: > And then there's the pi=3 (implied in 2 places).
::
:: I think that one is unfair. Pi does equal three if you round to one

:: digit. Can you write out the value of pi without rounding?
:
:Yes, but the Bible describes something as "10 cubics across and 60 cubits
:around" (or similar numbers) when it would be 63 cubits around.

You're refering to 1 Kings 7:23-26. The author is describing a cast
metal "sea" (basin)created by a master bronze worker named Hiram (a widow's
son from Tyre of the tribe of Naphtali) for the temple King Solomon ordered
to be built in Jerusalem. (Seems like a lot of detail, doesn't it?)

23: "Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim,
circular in form, and it's height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in
circumference."

OK assuming all the above cubits are equal (which we do) we get 30/10 =
3 for pi. The circumference based on 10 cubits should obviously be 31.4
cubits. Now here's where it gets interesting. First of all, the Hebrew
does not say "and thirty cubits in circumference." The text literally
reads, "and a line of 30 cubits went around it." Second, most basins I know
of are not perfect cylinders. They are rounded, maybe even hemispherical
with a flattened bottom. The question then is, where along the ~7.5 ft
height of the basin do you string your line?

Let's say it is a cylinder. Another solution only requires the
circumference to be measured under the brim, not hard to imagine at 7.5 ft.
off the ground. The basin measures 10 cubits brim to brim. The brim is
stated in v. 26 in being made like the brim of a cup, turned out, as was the
style of the era. So if we take the brim into account and rewrite
30/(10-2x)=pi, we get x=0.225 cubits, taking the cubit to be ~18 inches,
that makes x about 4 inches. That sounds like a reasonably sized brim to
me.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to

Rich Lemert wrote in message <380CA2D2...@mindspring.com>...
:Darrin Dailey wrote:
:
:> Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7ug2o1$85$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...


Or just as often "because 'Gould' said so." :)

Rich Lemert

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:

> The problem for today's Christian is that they are forced to choose
> between what Jesus said and what modern science reports. Modern science
> says life evolved over millions of years. Jesus says God did it in six
> 24-hour days. The most quoted book of the Law of Moses (Pentateuch) is
> Genesis. If it can't be trusted, then the whole thing is a sham. Can a
> Christian call themselves such and believe Jesus was lying or delusional or
> misquoted? If so, then their faith has zero foundation and they might as
> well be atheists.

I getting somewhat confused and may be mis-attributing posts in thisthread,
but I'm getting the impression that on the one hand you are
saying (quite rightly, I believe) that the Bible is not meant to be a science
text, and yet on the other hand that we are to take the creation story in
Genesis to be literally true. If so, it seems like you want your cake and
eat it too.

In the comment above, you claim that "Jesus says 'God' did it [created
life] in six 24-hour days." There are several questions that come to my
mind with this statement. First, I don't believe I've ever seen this statement
attributed to Jesus. It does figure very prominently in Genesis, but Genesis
predates Jesus quite significantly if I remember my biblical history anywhere
near correctly. Second, I don't ever recall seeing these referred to as 24-hour

days. And IIRC, 'day' (at least as we understand it now) was a pretty-much
meaningless concept for the first bit, since the "light and the darkness"
weren't separated until later.

Furthermore, much of the argument of creationists is built upon the belief
that the Bible is "the Word of 'God'". However, if you are claiming this for
the King James version, or any version written in English, for that matter,
then it cannot be even if the original texts were the literal word of 'God'. It

is impossible to translate any text into another language without the
translator
putting some of himself into the translation. Therefore, regardless of the
validity of the original text as "the Word of 'God'", any translation
automatically
has been adulterated with "the word of man". Going even further, the original
texts were transcribed by men, which introduces even more adulteration.

As for your remarks about whether Genesis can be trusted (and ignoring the
fact that Jesus had nothing to do with Genesis), the problem comes about
when people are unwilling to recognize that the Bible often talks in metaphors
for things that people of that time did not understand. It is a useful moral
guide (not necessarily the best, and definitely not the only one), but it is
most
definitely NOT a science text.

I am often frustrated by people who claim that "the only way to know 'God'
is through the Bible." This requires that you accept the words of people dead
for several centuries as the truth, and makes no allowance for mankind's
increased understanding. Science, IMO, seeks to understand the other side
of 'God's' word - how life and the universe work, as opposed to the moral
aspects of the Bible - in a directly observable manner. For this reason I
believe
that any physics department at any reputable university is at least as much in
touch with 'God' as any church. In too many churches, in fact, the physics
department is closer to 'God' than that particular church.

Rich Lemert

David Lloyd-Jones

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
I think this is a legitimate toipic for any science news group -- but can I
suggest that nobody should be entitled to post on it unless they are active
in their own PTA or local school board politics?

The important thing to be learned is that the assholes are going to bugger
up the schools every chance they get if the white hats don't take a live
interest in them.

-dlj.*

* Formerly elected "curriculum tanto-o" of the Nishi-Ogikubo, Tokyo, public
school board, when my daughters were in school there.

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:
: rjb wrote in message <380C89...@sandia.gov>...

Fundamentalist Protestants (the ones demanding evolution not be taught and
that creationism be taught) take the Bible literally; their beliefs have
nothing to do with what the Catholic Church believes or believed. Witness
the snake handling and drinking poision some churches do.
: The problem for today's Christian is that they are forced to choose


: between what Jesus said and what modern science reports. Modern science

Not so. Jesus never said how life began or came to be as it is today.

: says life evolved over millions of years. Jesus says God did it in six
: 24-hour days.

No he did not. Further, Genesis never says the days were 24 hours.

: The most quoted book of the Law of Moses (Pentateuch) is


: Genesis. If it can't be trusted, then the whole thing is a sham. Can a
: Christian call themselves such and believe Jesus was lying or delusional or
: misquoted? If so, then their faith has zero foundation and they might as
: well be atheists.

You can use the Bible as a religious and moral book without insisting it
be a science book. Most Christians eat pork, wear clothes made of 2
different fibers, etc., even though these are God's Laws in the OT. Most
don't even give away all of their possessions to follow Christ, or heed
the admonition about how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven,
Christ's own words. Most don't pay attention to his words about God
taking care of the lillies of the field which, if taken literally, says
don't bother to work, God will take care of you. And conservative
Christians are among the loudest complaining about taxes, although Christ
said clearly to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

rjb wrote in message <380CB9...@sandia.gov>...

:Darrin Dailey wrote:
:> [snipped]
:> All of these theories are disputable. I haven't ever said
:> evolution is not true. I have simply said that evolution is not an
:> indisputable fact.
:>
:[snipped]
:
:I think the answer to this statement is that evolution is an
:indisputable fact because it has been observed. For an organism, the
:shorter the generation time, the easier it is to observe evolution.
:Thus, I can watch bacteria (10 minute generation time) evolve in culture
:plates (microevolution, changes in gene frequency). Drosophila species
:(a few days generation time) have evolved to other species in laboratory
:experiments. This latter observation is what some microbiologists would
:call macroevolution- changes of one species to another. Creationists
:have mangled the definition of macroevolution to mean evolution between
:whatever taxonomic group has not yet been observed (genus, family,
:order, Kind?).


I am intrigued by the Drosophila experiments. What is the
microbiological definition of different (and I would assume new) species.
If creationists have mangled the definition of macroevolution then so have
the evolutionary laymen. The average Joe who accepts "evolution" as a
concept, or theory, or whatever, believes it means what you say its mangled
definition above is. Who is educating them?

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7uiea8$5nj$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
:Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
::
:: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7ug2hl$sp6$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
:: :Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:: ::
:: :: Stewart Rowe wrote in message <380A627A...@fuse.net>...

:: :: :In Kansas, one might have some doubt as to whether the Earth is
round!
:: :: :
:: :: Nice try. St. Augustine considered the earth to be round over
1,000
:: :: years before Columbus set sail. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas
:: :: inferred a spherical earth from the shadow caused by a solar eclipse.
:: The
:: :: flat earth theory was pinned on the Middle Age church by early 19th
:: century
:: :: Enlightenment propagandists seeking to discredit it.
:: :: And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
:: :: nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends
:: might
:: :: help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.
:: ::
:: ::
:: ::
:: ::
:: ::
:: :
:: :"four corners of the earth..."

:: :
:: :How can a round earth have 4 (or any) corners?
::
:: A compass is round and yet it has points. The corners refer to the

cardinal
:: directions. The earth is the reference frame.
:
:But a sphere cannot have "corners," can it? It can have directions, but
:not corners.
:

It is a figure of speech! If I said people from the four corners of the
earth post to this newsgroup, what do you think I'm saying. Am I saying the
earth is a flat rectangle with people at the vertices congregating around
their terminals or am I saying that people from all over the earth post
here? Did you ever get a bite to eat and only take one bite?

::
:: :And then there's the pi=3 (implied in 2 places).
::
:: You're still trying to make the bible a treatise on mathematics, which


it's
:: not. The statement was made as an approximation, not a definition.
:: Besides, pi to one sigfig *is* 3 :)
:
:I think you've hit on it -- the Bible is not a treatise on mathematics (or
:science), and the mistake is when people try to make it one. Example:
:creationism.

Genesis 1:1 is a verse that nearly anyone in Western society can recite,
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That statement
is either true or false. If I consider it to be false, I did not use
mathematics or science to prove that it's impossible and therefore false. I
used belief. Likewise, if I consider the statement true, again I used
neither mathematics nor science to reach that conclusion. I used belief. I
would contend that any theories generated by the interpretation of data will
be colored by your fundamental, underlying belief in what is true no matter
what. If there is no God, evolution (with its inconsistencies) is the best
explantion for why life is the way it is. If Genesis 1:1 is held to be
true, then special creation (with its inconsistencies) is the best
explanation for why life is the way it is. Both schools of thought employ
brilliant scientists. They differ only in their underlying assumptions.

Rich Lemert

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:

> Genesis 1:1 is a verse that nearly anyone in Western society can recite,
> "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That statement
> is either true or false. If I consider it to be false, I did not use
> mathematics or science to prove that it's impossible and therefore false. I
> used belief. Likewise, if I consider the statement true, again I used
> neither mathematics nor science to reach that conclusion. I used belief.

1. This statement is outside the realm of science. Therefore what you sayis
correct but proves nothing.

2. Whether or not the statement is true, it says absolutely nothing about
the mechanism by which the universe was created. Creationist's would
argue that 'God' in essence 'snapped his fingers' and the universe sprang
into being in it's full modern form. This statement does not say that, though.
It says only that 'God' created the universe, not how he did it.

> I
> would contend that any theories generated by the interpretation of data will
> be colored by your fundamental, underlying belief in what is true no matter
> what.

True to an extent. However, I find a 'theory' that says "things are like
theyare simply because 'God' says so" to be particularly unsatisfying. They say

that we don't know, and beyond that that we can never know. They say there
is no use trying to find out because we won't learn anything. They also
provide no opportunity to increase your confidence in the theory because there
is no way they can be used to predict future events or observations - these
future
events will be arbitrary depending on 'God's' whims of the moment.

I am much more comfortable with a theory that says "if this is true and that
is true, then when we do this other thing we should see this happen",
especially
if the final event is something that has never before been observed.

> If there is no God, evolution (with its inconsistencies) is the best
> explantion for why life is the way it is. If Genesis 1:1 is held to be
> true, then special creation (with its inconsistencies) is the best
> explanation for why life is the way it is.

Special creation requires the existence of a divine being. Evolution
neitherrequires nor forbids the presence of that being.

> Both schools of thought employ
> brilliant scientists. They differ only in their underlying assumptions.

Creationism typically begins with the conclusion, then figures out how
tojustify it. Evolution arose as people looked at the facts and tried to make
since
out of what they meant. This goes beyond a mere difference in assumptions
to the realm of different philosophies.

Rich Lemert

rjb

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:
> rjb wrote in message <380CB9...@sandia.gov>...
> :Darrin Dailey wrote:
> :> All of these theories are disputable. I haven't ever said
> :> evolution is not true. I have simply said that evolution is not an
> :> indisputable fact.
> :>
> :
> :I think the answer to this statement is that evolution is an
> :indisputable fact because it has been observed. For an organism, the
> :shorter the generation time, the easier it is to observe evolution.
> :Thus, I can watch bacteria (10 minute generation time) evolve in culture
> :plates (microevolution, changes in gene frequency). Drosophila species
> :(a few days generation time) have evolved to other species in laboratory
> :experiments. This latter observation is what some microbiologists would
> :call macroevolution- changes of one species to another. Creationists
> :have mangled the definition of macroevolution to mean evolution between
> :whatever taxonomic group has not yet been observed (genus, family,
> :order, Kind?).
>
> I am intrigued by the Drosophila experiments. What is the
> microbiological definition of different (and I would assume new) species.
> If creationists have mangled the definition of macroevolution then so have
> the evolutionary laymen. The average Joe who accepts "evolution" as a
> concept, or theory, or whatever, believes it means what you say its mangled
> definition above is. Who is educating them?


Sorry if I was confusing. Drosophila is an insect and species is
defined in the usual way. (IIRC) Micro- Macroevolution were terms that
were coined to distinguish change in gene frequency within a species
from evolution of new species. It is a matter of degree. Thus by
observing both microevolution in virus, bacteria, insects etc and
macroevolution in insects, it is obvious that evolution is a fact. If
you desperately want to deny the factual nature of evolution, then you
should say you are waiting for biologists to see a Kind (bird?) evolve
into another Kind (insect?). Of course, evolutionary theory says this
should not happen so you can wait forever. What "the average Joe" does
or doesn't believe about any subject is probably not as clear as you
make it out to be.


Now, however, I regret having contributed to this very non-chemistry
topic. The talk.origins newsgroup is continually hashing over these
subjects with all levels of extremism and some very knowledgeable
participants.
Wouldn't this be better continued over there.


Rick

rjb

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:
> [snipped lots]

> And please show me one writing of either Augustine or Aquinas that would
> indicate they were not biblical literalists. In my thinking, a biblical
> literalist considers its statements to be true. "Four corners of the earth"
> is not a statement, but an obvious figure of speech that meant then what it
> means today. It was also written by John to describe his vision of
> impending destruction in the Revelation (7:1). That means if he meant the
> earth is square, it would be made so in the future! Look out! If the
> practically brain-free are the ones taking the bible word for word without
> distinguishing statement from idiom, then I would agree. This, however does
> not describe all biblical literalists, as I believe Augustine and Aquinas
> most definitely were.

I can't quite see the chemistry connection here (talk.origins???)

When you call something a "figure of speech" you are denying its literal
meaning. I am delighted that you are able to read the bible and
distinguish the figures of speech from the literal parts. Were you a
strict literalist, you would probably want to join the flat earth
society, and you might go looking for some pillars holding up the
heavens or remnants of the flood. Most Christians seem to think that
large parts of Genesis should not be taken literally. Many (according
to survey results) think that God created everything and used evolution
as the tool to make humans. Even the Roman Catholic Pope understands
that evolution is more than just a theory. You think you able to
distinguish which words in the bible are figurative and which are
literally true. Pardon my skepticism.
Rick

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7ukl9v$5cp$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
:Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
::
:: rjb wrote in message <380C89...@sandia.gov>...

:: :Darrin Dailey wrote:
:: :>
:: :> Darrin Dailey wrote in message <380b5...@gold.lpcorp.com>...
:: :> :
:: :> :Stewart Rowe wrote in message <380A627A...@fuse.net>...

:: :> ::In Kansas, one might have some doubt as to whether the Earth is
round!
:: :> ::
:: :> : Nice try. St. Augustine considered the earth to be round over
1,000
:: :> :years before Columbus set sail. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas
:: :> :inferred a spherical earth from the shadow caused by a solar eclipse.
:: The
:: :> :flat earth theory was pinned on the Middle Age church by early 19th
:: century
:: :> :Enlightenment propagandists seeking to discredit it.
:: :> : And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
:: :> :nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends
:: might
:: :> :help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.
:: :> :
:: :> Correction: That should be lunar eclipse instead of solar eclipse.

My
:: :> mistake.
:: :
:: :The citations of several Christian scholars above is not particularly
:: :relevant. Other scholars deduced the spherical earth before the bible
:: :was written. The vast majority of Christians believe the earth is
:: :fairly spherical. Many Christians also agree that the theory of
:: :evolution is the best explanation for the biological and geological

:: :facts.
::
::
:: My point was that a flat earth was never the belief of the church in
the
:: Middle Ages as has been claimed. I wasn't saying the knowledge of a
round
:: earth was exclusive to Christian scholars. Christians that agree that
the
:: theory of evolution is the best explanation are also at odds with their
very
:: namesake.
:
:Fundamentalist Protestants (the ones demanding evolution not be taught and
:that creationism be taught) take the Bible literally; their beliefs have
:nothing to do with what the Catholic Church believes or believed. Witness
:the snake handling and drinking poision some churches do.

I would agree that handling snakes and drinking poison to glorify God is
rather silly, especially in light of the second temptation of Christ. And
who says Catholics *or* Protestants are right? What's the standard?

:: The problem for today's Christian is that they are forced to choose


:: between what Jesus said and what modern science reports. Modern science
:
:Not so. Jesus never said how life began or came to be as it is today.

I'm working on this one. I think I'm working off of an inference. I'll
answer this claim when I get a handle on it.

:: says life evolved over millions of years. Jesus says God did it in six


:: 24-hour days.
:
:No he did not. Further, Genesis never says the days were 24 hours.

So how many hours are in an evening and a morning? All other Pentateuch
references (written by Moses during the same time) say six days, resting on
the seventh. The Hebrew word for day (yom, used both in the creation
narrative and elsewhere in the Law of Moses) can mean an indeterminate
amount of time, but never enumerated. When numbered, 'yom' always means a
24 hour day. The concept in modern usage would be; I can take a while to
get a job done, but not six whiles. When I put a number to it, the concept
demands a duration.

:: The most quoted book of the Law of Moses (Pentateuch) is


:: Genesis. If it can't be trusted, then the whole thing is a sham. Can a
:: Christian call themselves such and believe Jesus was lying or delusional
or
:: misquoted? If so, then their faith has zero foundation and they might as
:: well be atheists.
:
:You can use the Bible as a religious and moral book without insisting it
:be a science book. Most Christians eat pork, wear clothes made of 2
:different fibers, etc., even though these are God's Laws in the OT. Most
:don't even give away all of their possessions to follow Christ, or heed
:the admonition about how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven,
:Christ's own words. Most don't pay attention to his words about God
:taking care of the lillies of the field which, if taken literally, says
:don't bother to work, God will take care of you. And conservative
:Christians are among the loudest complaining about taxes, although Christ
:said clearly to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

By golly, Lloyd, we may agree on something yet! Except for the lillies.
Jesus said not to worry (i.e. work toward) what you would wear. Be content
with the clothing you have. What you have to do to be loved by God is
similar to what a lily must do to be arrayed in beauty (i.e. nothing). The
OT laws were for the nation Israel. There is a passage in Exodus that makes
lighting a fire in your hearth on the Sabbath a transgression. Lord help
Alaskan believers! In Israel, fires were primarily for cooking. Bake your
bread ahead of time :)

It seems all the examples of the foolish results of a literal
interpretation of the bible result from interpretations being taken out of
context. I am no happier with people taking things out of context than the
next guy. Taken in context, the literal interpretation maintains the
greatest degree of self-consistency.

I think what needs to be taught is how what you assume to be absolutly
true affects the theories your interpretation of data produce. Teach why
people came up with certain theories and let the students decide for
themselves what is true.

goldfish

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

Rich Lemert wrote:

> Science, IMO, seeks to understand the other side
> of 'God's' word - how life and the universe work, as opposed to the moral
> aspects of the Bible - in a directly observable manner. For this reason I
> believe
> that any physics department at any reputable university is at least as much in
> touch with 'God' as any church. In too many churches, in fact, the physics
> department is closer to 'God' than that particular church.

Perhaps the famous teeshirt applies here:

And God said:

"del x E = -dB/dt
del x H = J + dD/dt
del . D = p
del . B = 0"

and there was light.

Peter Mott


Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

rjb wrote in message <380E32...@sandia.gov>...
:Darrin Dailey wrote:
:> rjb wrote in message <380CB9...@sandia.gov>...
:
Does this mean the Kinds co-appeared in the beginning and what we see today
are merely adaptations of those first Kinds going through the natural
selection process (which has been observed)?
:
:Now, however, I regret having contributed to this very non-chemistry

:topic. The talk.origins newsgroup is continually hashing over these
:subjects with all levels of extremism and some very knowledgeable
:participants.
:Wouldn't this be better continued over there.
:
:
:Rick

I would agree, however I had to raise a stink to get sci.chem on the
corporate newsgroups. I doubt they'll be as understanding over talk.origins
:) Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

rjb wrote in message <380E38...@sandia.gov>...

Do you think a God who could have created everything there is would give
a sparrows fart about what most Christians seem to think? Is God a product
of survey results? Where would the Reformation have been if Martin "one with
God is a majority" Luther obeyed popular opinion?

Give yourself some credit. I'm sorry that you don't think that you can
distinguish statement from idiom in the bible.

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

Rich Lemert wrote in message <380DF7DA...@mindspring.com>...
:> true, then special creation (with its inconsistencies) is the best
:> explanation for why life is the way it is.

:
: Special creation requires the existence of a divine being. Evolution
:neitherrequires nor forbids the presence of that being.

IMHO, a God (supposedly of love) that would use several hundred millions
years of death and chance (think about what chance means to an omniscient,
omnipresent, omnipotent being) to bring about man when it would be in His
power to create the entire universe ex nihilo would not be worthy of
worship. If He did it at all, our question should be why did He take a
whole six days when He could have done it in a femtosecond? Does a theistic
evolutionist strive to see where God used evolution, or do they assume
evolution and try to make God fit in their little reality box.

:
:> Both schools of thought employ


:> brilliant scientists. They differ only in their underlying assumptions.
:
: Creationism typically begins with the conclusion, then figures out how
:tojustify it. Evolution arose as people looked at the facts and tried to
make
:since
:out of what they meant. This goes beyond a mere difference in assumptions
:to the realm of different philosophies.


What is a philosophy other than your assumptions of reality? Are they
not the same?

Evolution began when people used a extrapolation of a scientific fact
(natural selection) to justify a progression (and ultimately creation) of
life that did not require a deity.

I would argue that evolution begins with the conclusion as well. Just
as a creationist dismisses data that doesn't fit the bible, don't tell me
that evolutionists do not dismiss data that does not fit evolutionary
theory. The question I ask is which theory dismisses less data?

Rich Lemert

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:

> Rich Lemert wrote in message <380DF7DA...@mindspring.com>...
> :Darrin Dailey wrote:
> :

> :> If there is no God, evolution (with its inconsistencies) is the best
> :> explantion for why life is the way it is. If Genesis 1:1 is held to be
> :> true, then special creation (with its inconsistencies) is the best
> :> explanation for why life is the way it is.
> :
> : Special creation requires the existence of a divine being. Evolution
> :neitherrequires nor forbids the presence of that being.
>
> IMHO, a God (supposedly of love) that would use several hundred millions
> years of death and chance (think about what chance means to an omniscient,
> omnipresent, omnipotent being) to bring about man when it would be in His
> power to create the entire universe ex nihilo would not be worthy of
> worship.

This is getting pretty far afield for sci.chem, but ...

Why would an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being even care whether
or not it was worshipped? It would know what it did, and that should be
sufficient. If it is so insecure that it requires worshippers, that brings to
my
mind a serious question about it's omnipotence. [see also next comment]

> If He did it at all, our question should be why did He take a
> whole six days when He could have done it in a femtosecond?

If 'God' is truly omnipotent etc., why should it ever need to be involvedin
every last detail of existence? To take one example, 'God' would have to
be there at every moment of conception going "girl - boy - boy - girl - girl
-girl
- boy ...". Much more impressive to me would be for 'God' to "set the
rules" so that this happens automatically.

As far as your comment about 'chance' is concerned, you seem to be
neglecting the fact that you can have something occuring by chance that
is still certain to happen. Consider for example the lottery. The odds of
any one ticket being the winner are typically so small as to be non-existent,
and yet _someone_ will win the lottery. Similarly, the odds of being
dealt a royal flush from a legal shuffle are very small, and yet so many
poker hands are dealt that one should be surprised if a day passes without
such a hand being dealt.

Similarly, once the rules (i.e. the laws of chemistry and physics) have been
set, the final outcome is assured. Individual interactions may or may not
produce an effect that leads toward the final outcome, but enough do so that
that outcome is inevitable. (_We_ are not necessarily inevitable, but who
says that mankind as we know it today is the desired outcome. We just
happen to be a particular manifestation of that outcome, which is an
intelligent, self-aware race. Besides, how do we know we are not just
another stop on the way to the truly-desired outcome?)

If 'God' is truly omnipotent et al., he can afford to be patient and wait for

the result he knows will take place.

> Does a theistic
> evolutionist strive to see where God used evolution, or do they assume
> evolution and try to make God fit in their little reality box.
>
> :
> :> Both schools of thought employ
> :> brilliant scientists. They differ only in their underlying assumptions.
> :
> : Creationism typically begins with the conclusion, then figures out how
> :tojustify it. Evolution arose as people looked at the facts and tried to
> make
> :since
> :out of what they meant. This goes beyond a mere difference in assumptions
> :to the realm of different philosophies.
>
> What is a philosophy other than your assumptions of reality? Are they
> not the same?
>
> Evolution began when people used a extrapolation of a scientific fact
> (natural selection) to justify a progression (and ultimately creation) of
> life that did not require a deity.

Again you are confusing 'why' with 'how'. The extrapolation is merelyto
determine the details of how life my have arisen. Why - whether a
completely chance event or divinely inspired - is a question that science
cannot answer and is therefore not addressed.

> I would argue that evolution begins with the conclusion as well. Just
> as a creationist dismisses data that doesn't fit the bible, don't tell me
> that evolutionists do not dismiss data that does not fit evolutionary
> theory. The question I ask is which theory dismisses less data?

Evolution begins with observations (the process of natural selection -
whichcan be readily observed, the fossil record, plate tectonics and other
geological
activities, etc.) When one sees that life forms become simpler and more
primitive as one progresses backwards in time at a rate that can be estimated,
the conclusion that life began at some approximate time in the past arises
naturally. The mechanism by which the early simple life forms have evolved
to their present state also arises naturally. Again, divine inspiration for the

event is neither required nor forbidden.

I also would question your assertion that scientists would "dismiss" data
that does not fit evolutionary theory. It may be set aside as something that
"we don't have an answer for that yet", but it won't be dismissed. They
will try to find an explanation that fits into their current understanding of
evolution, but it won't be dismissed. As new developments occur and new
knowledge is gained, they will try to use that new knowledge to resolve the
conflict, but it won't be dismissed. If necessary, they will modify their
theories to account for the conflict, but it won't be dismissed. And if all
else fails, they will try to develop a new theory that accounts for all the
observations that the old theory explained as well as any observations that
the old theory was unable to address. Scientists are going to do this only
as a last resort, however, being very loathe to abandon a theory that fits
observations as well as current evolutionary theory does.

Rich Lemert

Rich Lemert

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
Darrin Dailey wrote:

> rjb wrote in message <380E32...@sandia.gov>...


> :Now, however, I regret having contributed to this very non-chemistry
> :topic. The talk.origins newsgroup is continually hashing over these
> :subjects with all levels of extremism and some very knowledgeable
> :participants.
> :Wouldn't this be better continued over there.
> :
> :
> :Rick
>
> I would agree, however I had to raise a stink to get sci.chem on the
> corporate newsgroups. I doubt they'll be as understanding over talk.origins
> :) Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

I would say that, to me at least, it appears that you have been trying to
avoid the usual emotional arguments that I would imagine fill talk.origins,
and that you have tried to maintain a more rational level of discussion
debating
the philosophy of science. Thank you for recognizing the intellectual level
of your audience in doing this.

Is there a philosophy of science group this discussion could be taken to?

Rich Lemert


Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

Darrin Dailey wrote in message <380e4...@gold.lpcorp.com>...
:
:Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7ukl9v$5cp$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>...

[snip]

::: The problem for today's Christian is that they are forced to choose


::: between what Jesus said and what modern science reports. Modern science
::
::Not so. Jesus never said how life began or came to be as it is today.
:
:I'm working on this one. I think I'm working off of an inference. I'll
:answer this claim when I get a handle on it.

OK. Here's why I made the above statement. First of all, I apologize
for the misquote. The episode I was thinking of was when the Pharisees were
grilling Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. They quoted Exodus 20:11 to him
to justify their ire. Exodus 20:11 most definitely implies that the
Pharisees, contemporaries of Jesus who built their religion on the writings
of Moses as inspired by God, accepted the six day creation week with rest
on the seventh as described in Genesis as the basis for the seven day week.
Jesus did not refute the six days (which *in my opinion* he would have had
they been false), but on the same basis declared himself Lord of the
Sabbath. Note also that a Sabbath day doesn't make sense if God rested an
indeterminate amount of time after six indeterminate periods of creation.
Let's not forget also that Jesus declared himself to be equal to God.
"Before Abraham was, I AM"

I'm done with this topic on this newsgroup (usenet sigh). I will gladly
carry on any threads you like via email. Thank you to everyone who
responded.

Bill

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
Sounds like we need to increase the concentrations in those homeopathic
remedies.

Uncle Al wrote:
>
> BillyFish wrote:
> >
> > I happened to look on a web page devoted to argyria Dr. Dean Edell on his
> > radio show has also mentioned argyria. Apparently, with all the recent
> > alternative medicine craze, colloidal silver is being sold as a panacea for
> > many ills. Soluble silver, such as silver nitrate can also produce argyria.
> > This leads to me asking some questions that I have not seen answered before.
> >
> > How large are particles of colloidal silver? How does it get absorbed and
> > enter the bloodstream? Because colloidal silver is not in solution, osmosis
> > does not seem to be a likely method for absorption.
> >
> > When it comes to soluble silver, silver nitrate, I would expect it to form
> > highly insoluble silver chloride when it hits the somach. Similarly, I would
> > expect any colloidal silver that gets dissolved to also precipitate. Is it
> > possible that the concentration of ammonia in the gut can become large enough
> > to produce a soluble complex of silver nitrate?
>
> People who ingest heavy metal get heavy metal poisoning. - neat,
> clean, simple survival of the fittest housecleaning (including
> Kansas).
>
> AgCl is insoluble, but look at its Ksp. AgCl is nicely solubilized by
> high chloride concentrations as the complex ion; by amines, by
> coordination to proteins (especially thiol-rich)...
>
> All together now, "They are VICTIMS!" and deserving of unlimited
> compensation in trade for their credulous stupidity.
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
> http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Dan Drake

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:21:44, Rich Lemert <lls...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> Darrin Dailey wrote:
>
> >...


> > I would agree, however I had to raise a stink to get sci.chem on the
> > corporate newsgroups. I doubt they'll be as understanding over talk.origins

Please recognize that this is an abuse. You're using your employer's
money to discuss things your employer doesn't want to pay for, in a
newsgroup devoted to other subjects where you're wasting time and that
infamous Bandwidth. I won't actually throw a stone at you, for
reasons that you can guess, but you would really be better off getting
your own Internet account and pursuing the newsgroups you want.

>
> I would say that, to me at least, it appears that you have been trying to
> avoid the usual emotional arguments that I would imagine fill talk.origins,
> and that you have tried to maintain a more rational level of discussion
> debating
> the philosophy of science. Thank you for recognizing the intellectual level
> of your audience in doing this.
>
> Is there a philosophy of science group this discussion could be taken to?

There's a history of science group, soc.history.science, but you
(either of the two quoted here) don't want to go there. It has been
almost entirely taken over by him who has been described as Uncle Al's
evil twin (an inaccurate description, but I won't put the name in
searchable clear text). And that's the problem with unmoderated
newsgroups. They tend to get spoiled by stupid (s.h.science) or
flaming (t.origins) or irrelevant (legion) stuff, and people go
looking for greener pastures. Get used to it, but oppose it when you
can. End of sermon.


--
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com


David Lloyd-Jones

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

Bill <b...@wam.umd.edu> wrote

> Sounds like we need to increase the concentrations in those homeopathic
> remedies.

Such powerful new medicaments will of course have to be tested before they
are approved for public use. See "The Need For Double Strength Placebos,"
http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/55/xcursion/humor

-dlj.


Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:
: What is a philosophy other than your assumptions of reality? Are they

: not the same?
:
: Evolution began when people used a extrapolation of a scientific fact
: (natural selection) to justify a progression (and ultimately creation) of
: life that did not require a deity.

No, evolution really doesn't say how life BEGAN, only what happened
afterwards -- how the different species evolved from early life.

:
: I would argue that evolution begins with the conclusion as well. Just


: as a creationist dismisses data that doesn't fit the bible, don't tell me
: that evolutionists do not dismiss data that does not fit evolutionary
: theory. The question I ask is which theory dismisses less data?

:
:

Creationism dismisses ALL evidence.

What does evolution dismiss?

Uncle Al

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

Dr. Schund was there first and better, with Placebocin - the placebo
with side effects. Below.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

==============
ASK DR. SCHUND
(C)1997 Alan M. Schwartz

Dr. Schund, what fantastic advancement in medical information
science awaits us?

The greatest breakthrough in public health was the segregation of
privy drainage from drinking water supply. Discoveries of
essential nutrients, antibiotics, and amelioration of chronic
diseases of aging pushed First World average lifespan beyond 75
years for people born before the Great Depression, long before
most of it was emplaced. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness were raging flat out. Error correction and damage
control commenced. We are from the government. We are here to
help ourselves to you. We have come for a piece of all mankind.

Landfills displaced incinerators that we may again drink noxious
garbage juices (disposable baby diapers). The FDA ignores voodoo
"nutritional supplements;" "felonious fortification" of food with
essential nutrients is vigorously prosecuted. When Baby Boomers
commence retirement in 2010 and really kick in by 2020, Social
Security and Medicare will drown in multi-trillion dollar
deficits. Health maintenance organizations limit physicians'
practice to maximize short term profits, or the doctor is poof!
unemployable and uninsurable. Despite use of inbred lab rodents
giving rise to spontaneous cancer rates of 70% or more, better
drugs continually make it to market against FDA terrorism. (N.
Engl. J. Med. 333, 677 (1995): 7% of control Sprague-Dawley rats
made it to age two. A sewer rat has a three year lifespan).

Dr. Schund, eternal bosom chum of quiet cash compensation, offers
ethical pharmaceutical manufacturers transcendently profound
ordnance. Never again will miracle drugs be hawked in Malaysian
bazaars for five cents on the dollar. Never again need they dump
a quarter billion dollars into Stage One human testing and have
their quarter million pages of documentation tossed back in their
faces. Never again will a spectacularly unclad distaff hard body
look through your TV screen and murmur "...dry mouth, drowsiness,
icthyosis, aplastic anemia, and rectal itching."

Dr. Schund offers the world a millennial advance (just in time!)
in medical information science: Placebocin - the placebo control
with side effects. Any double-blind drug study conducted against
Placebocin is guaranteed a winner!

If a new oral decongestant brings on a little nausea in Stage One
testing, what is that compared to the control group and their 24
hours of continuous projectile vomiting? Imagine net retained
earnings Proctor & Gamble could have enjoyed with Olestra had its
"anal leakage" skid marks been contrasted with 20 quarts/day
choleroid discharge in the controls. Placebocin will render
anything FDA-certified short of health food store absurdities.

Placebocin will restore industrial hygiene and emasculate OSHA,
returning invincibility to the otherwise indefatigable American
manufacturing juggernaut. 8-hour averaged chemical exposures are
now determined by immersing fragile inbred rats up to their
limits of chronic lethality and interpolating backwards to "safe"
human exposures. Think of all the murine lives to be spared and
productivity to be redeemed when Placebocin goes one-on-one with
butadiene, chloroform, xenocryptoestrogens, mu-1,4,10,13-tetraoxa-
7,16-diazacyclooctadecane-7,16-diyl-fluoro-bis(N-methylmethanamin-
ato)dimethylphosphorous diiodide, or beach sand (silicosis!).

Nuclear power plants will edge into profitability when allowed
employee integrated radiation exposure is gauged against copious
mutations and bizarre growths in Placebocin controls. Dow will
recover its $billions in legal settlements awarded to breast
implant whiners. Asbestos will protect us from heinous death
rather than precipitate heinous jackbooted State reprisal. Root
beer will again be delicious.

Is Placebocin paradise, Erehwon, Shangri-La, utopia, Eden, and
heaven all in a tiny gelatin capsule? Is Placebocin a T-1
fiberoptic Gigabit Ethernet connection to the Net? Is there
anything that Placebocin cannot cure?

Airbags will still kill children and "small" females, double
blind or otherwise. Our government is terrifically enthusiastic
about protecting people to death. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge.
The BATF laughs at Placebocin. The BATF and 70 more agencies
have huge weapons arsenals plus Federal budget and mandate to
hunt and kill citizens. Does life get any better?

Fish kissers and tree huggers purged our refrigerators and air
conditioners of God's freons. By international Leftist fiat
plus inveigled local fines and imprisonment they ordained freons'
replacement with malfunctioning, corrosive, and absurdly
tumorigenic hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Our air bristles with real
death. Even Placebocin cannot change that.

The ascendance of the Golden Age, Pax Americana, is within our
grasp. A titanic pecuniary liquidity hovers within Dr. Schund's
reach. However, we must in the most sober terms possible caution
against undo optimism. Placebocin for all its wonderments cannot
sweeten effluvia from Environmentalist hind gut fermentation or
armed assault from a leering evil empire in Washington. Isn't it
time we segregated privy drainage from our drinking water, again?

Richard Schultz

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:

: And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
: nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends
: might help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.

Anyone who reads the book of Genesis in the original and thinks that
it does not refer to a flat earth is engaging in apologetics to defend
a position independent of the actual text.

-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."

Darrin Dailey

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to

Richard Schultz wrote in message <7v0r0t$dvk$4...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>...

:Darrin Dailey (Darrin...@LPCorp.com) wrote:
:
:: And, FWIW, not that the bible is by any means a scientific text,
:: nevertheless, it does not suggest a flat earth, as our Jewish friends
:: might help confirm in Isaiah 40:22.
:
:Anyone who reads the book of Genesis in the original and thinks that
:it does not refer to a flat earth is engaging in apologetics to defend
:a position independent of the actual text.
:

Looks like I'm going to have to learn Hebrew :)

Richard Schultz

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
rjb (r...@andia.gov) wrote:

: > And then there's the pi=3 (implied in 2 places).

: I think that one is unfair. Pi does equal three if you round to one
: digit. Can you write out the value of pi without rounding?

Actually, in that case, the statement is merely that something is
10 cubits across and 30 cubits around. If you round to the nearest
cubit, then even with an exact value of pi, you could easily have
something with a circumference of 30 +/- 1, and a diameter of 10 +/- 1.

: And don't forget the four-legged grasshoppers

This is also not quite correct. The term "goes on all fours" is
pretty clearly an idiom for "crawls." Although I have heard someone
point out that if you define the two front appendages as "hands,"
then insects will have four "feet." And in fact, there is one
interpretation of that passage that says that it is differentiating
between insects like praying mantises that walk on their four rear
legs and the majority that walk on all six.

: and rabbits chewing their cud (Deuteronomy, I think).

Deuteronomy 14. Of course, one can ask whether "chewing the cud" in
the sense of "ruminants with the extra stomach thingy" is meant.

: The bible is not a science book, only a fool would think so.

I agree with that sentiment.

-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----

"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

Richard Schultz

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@emory.edu) wrote:

: Yes, but the Bible describes something as "10 cubics across and 60 cubits
: around" (or similar numbers) when it would be 63 cubits around.

When did the value of pi get changed down there in Georgia? And, if
something is exactly 30 cubits around, what will its diameter be to
the nearest cubit?

-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----

"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy

GMacbeth

unread,
Oct 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/29/99
to
In article <7v4d4i$eg6$1...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>, correct address in .sigfile wrote:
>rjb (r...@andia.gov) wrote:
(snip)

>: and rabbits chewing their cud (Deuteronomy, I think).
>
>Deuteronomy 14. Of course, one can ask whether "chewing the cud" in
>the sense of "ruminants with the extra stomach thingy" is meant.

Hmm - maybe they were simply too polite to say what the rabbits were really
chewing. Lagomorphs are coprophagous (the only way to be a protien-efficient
hindgut fermenter). Just a thought. "GM"

Lucius Chiaraviglio

unread,
Oct 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/30/99
to
d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:21:44, Rich Lemert <lls...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>> Darrin Dailey wrote:
>> > I would agree, however I had to raise a stink to get sci.chem on the
>> > corporate newsgroups. I doubt they'll be as understanding over talk.origins
>
>Please recognize that this is an abuse. You're using your employer's
>money to discuss things your employer doesn't want to pay for, in a
>newsgroup devoted to other subjects where you're wasting time and that
>infamous Bandwidth. I won't actually throw a stone at you, for
>reasons that you can guess, but you would really be better off getting
>your own Internet account and pursuing the newsgroups you want.

This doesn't have to be an abuse. One could have a legitimate
business reason for accessing sci.chem (and other internet services) -- for
instance, to get references to information about chemical safety or proper
disposal procedures for environmentally deleterious materials. If one then
also discusses non-business matters on sci.chem, but does not do it on company
time, and does not expend ADDITIONAL company resources to do so, and does not
in the process do anything that reflects badly on the company or otherwise
cause it harm, and does not otherwise abuse the newsgroup, THAT is NOT an
abuse (unless company policy specifically forbids non-business use of the
services even if no additional cost is incurred).

Now, granted, discussing non-chemistry matters in sci.chem is not
good, but that doesn't have anything to do with using a company's resources
to do it.

The other thing to remember is that with a lot of employee agreements,
anything you do with company resources (even if at no additional cost) is
subject to claim by the company. Your postings on sci.chem (or any other
newsgroup, or even things you composed but didn't post) using company
computers/services could become the company's property, and you could be
legally barred from even discussing your own thoughts about such matters in
the future (this seems unconstitutional to me, but the Constitution doesn't
seem to be much protection against vested interests). (I had this prospect
thrust in my face a few weeks ago, but fortunately nothing too bad came of
it.) For that reason, it is better to use your own access, if you can get it.

Finally, in a probably futile effort to keep this post from being
considered a total abuse itself, let me put in my own vote in for kicking this
thread over to some newsgroup where it is more appropriate (I'm not going to
try to figure out which is the right one when I haven't been on any of the
candidate replacement groups for a long time).

Lucius Chiaraviglio | notlu...@acmppi.com
--
To reply to this message, remove the first three letters from my user
name. If you are seeing this in an e-mail message, it is because I am
posting it from my news reader -- normal e-mail messages from me do not
have this feature.
--
News and mail access temporarily reprieved. But downsizing can only be
delayed, not cheated. New date of access loss is 11/21/1999 +- 1 day.

Dan Drake

unread,
Oct 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/30/99
to
[posted and emailed]

On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:05:00, notlu...@acmppi.com (Lucius
Chiaraviglio) wrote:

> d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:21:44, Rich Lemert <lls...@mindspring.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Darrin Dailey wrote:
> >> > I would agree, however I had to raise a stink to get sci.chem on the
> >> > corporate newsgroups. I doubt they'll be as understanding over talk.origins
> >
> >Please recognize that this is an abuse. You're using your employer's

> >money to discuss things your employer doesn't want to pay for ...


>> you would really be better off getting
> >your own Internet account and pursuing the newsgroups you want.
>
> This doesn't have to be an abuse. One could have a legitimate
> business reason for accessing sci.chem (and other internet services) -- for
> instance, to get references to information about chemical safety or proper
> disposal procedures for environmentally deleterious materials. If one then
> also discusses non-business matters on sci.chem, but does not do it on company

> time, and does not expend ADDITIONAL company resources to do so,...

Good reply. I concede that writing off-topic posts on one's own time
using the company's computer requires some hyperbole to qualify as
abuse.

>...(unless company policy specifically forbids non-business use of

the
services even if no additional cost is incurred).

>...


> The other thing to remember is that with a lot of employee agreements,
> anything you do with company resources (even if at no additional cost) is

> subject to claim by the company...

Much too true. Companies have lots of property rights as to the use
of their equipment, but what they assert is ridiculous.

I could expand on that, but am restrained by conscience and (relative
to OT postings) that foolish consistency which is the hobgoblin of
little minds.

--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com


0 new messages