well.... well... lookie at what we have here
All-Seeing-I
groups on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then
some of the posters.
Out of idle curiosity I wondered what the first post ever made was
about.
To no surprise i found this:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
hl=en>
Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
But the second post, (which is actually the first post with substance)
is what was most interesting.
It can be found here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0099f69b22b6ba1d?
hl=en>
For those that cannot wait to read the original, I will copy/paste:
<quote>
People talking about the exact number of days involved in a prophesy,
from 445 BC to 32 AD. Lots of corrections about Julian vs. Gregorian
calendars.
Q: When did Julius Caesar live?
Q: Did the pre-Julian calendar have leap-years at all?
Well, I suppose the Babylonians were astronomically sophisticated.
</quite>
Well. It seems the very first (actual) post to talk origins mentions
prophesy AND how "the Babylonians were astronomically sophisticated."
So.
The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
--
End of Message...
The All Seeing I
Kleuskes & Moos
> So.
> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
And who exactly told you these things were OT? Au contraire, they're
very much on topic AFAIK, but do not expect everyone to share your
views on them.
Oh, by the way, what exactly was the last sumerian text you quoted? I
forget...
spintronic
Which got me thinking.About calendars.
Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
Weird tha, especially since we are supposed to have been here for
millions of years.
I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
thousand years.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Which got me thinking.About calendars.
>
>Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
>Weird tha, especially since we are supposed to have been here for
>millions of years.
>
>I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
>thousand years.
nah. we'll just tell the truth
we didn't know how to make calendars >6K years ago.
guess the creationist overlooks the obvious. not surprising. he has
the intellect of an artichoke
spintronic
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
.
.
> >Which got me thinking.About calendars.
>
> >Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> >Weird tha, especially since we are supposed to have been here for
> >millions of years.
>
> >I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
> >thousand years.
>
> nah. we'll just tell the truth
What, that people didn't count the time 20 thousand years ago?
> we didn't know how to make calendars >6K years ago.
Lol. are you stoooooopid?
> guess the creationist overlooks the obvious. not surprising. he has
> the intellect of an artichoke
Ya, the obvious being that there was a worldwide setting of clocks, on
unconnected continents 6 thousand years ago.
Nice,
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 28 Nov, 00:44, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>.
>.
>
>> >Which got me thinking.About calendars.
>>
>> >Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>>
>> >Weird tha, especially since we are supposed to have been here for
>> >millions of years.
>>
>> >I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
>> >thousand years.
>>
>> nah. we'll just tell the truth
>
>What, that people didn't count the time 20 thousand years ago?
no, they didn't.
>
>
>> we didn't know how to make calendars >6K years ago.
>
>
>Lol. are you stoooooopid?
no. truthful
>
>
>> guess the creationist overlooks the obvious. not surprising. he has
>> the intellect of an artichoke
>
>Ya, the obvious being that there was a worldwide setting of clocks, on
>unconnected continents 6 thousand years ago.
you guys just like to make stuff up. doesn't matter how unrealistic it
is.
by the way...there's no santa claus.
now run home to mom
VoiceOfReason
Another facepalm moment.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Which got me thinking.About calendars.
> >
> >Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
> >
> >Weird tha, especially since we are supposed to have been here for
> >millions of years.
> >
> >I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
> >thousand years.
> nah. we'll just tell the truth
> we didn't know how to make calendars >6K years ago.
Some people did.
> guess the creationist overlooks the obvious. not surprising. he has
> the intellect of an artichoke
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Which got me thinking.
No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
> About calendars.
> Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
shit (i.e., a Creationist).
The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
Dwib
What are the origins of the Scarlet Witch?
Dwib
Eric Root
Sorry, could you please quit rudely calling us "K0oks?" It is very
obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
Eric Root
Eric Root
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> > Which got me thinking.
>
> No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
>
> > About calendars.
> > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> shit (i.e., a Creationist).
>
> The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Cool.
Eric Root
That was about when writing started. Before that, things weren't
recorded, not just calendars. Why are you insulting people?
Eric Root
Walter Bushell
<91e60b5b-af0c-4a32...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
How many days in a week?
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Michael Siemon
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
8 days (cf. Beatles...)
Boikat
You think humans made calenders before they developed a writing and
numbering system?
>
> I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
> thousand years.-
No. That's actually one of ASS-I(diot's) gag lines.
Boikat
Boikat
He can't help it. He has a problem with "projection".
Boikat
Sapient Fridge
<19206c5c-4754-469c...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
>On Nov 27, 7:06�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> So.
>> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
>> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
>> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
>> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>>
>> --
>> End of Message...
>>
>> The All Seeing I
>
>Sorry, could you please quit rudely calling us "K0oks?" It is very
>obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
I must admit that I dislike the continual insults from *both* sides. It
doesn't add anything and using insults rather than reasoned arguments is
not a good way of getting a point across.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Greg G.
wrote:
> In message
> <19206c5c-4754-469c-bba0-3b451e776...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
>
> >On Nov 27, 7:06 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> So.
> >> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
> >> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
> >> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
> >> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>
> >> --
> >> End of Message...
>
> >> The All Seeing I
>
> >Sorry, could you please quit rudely calling us "K0oks?" It is very
> >obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>
> I must admit that I dislike the continual insults from *both* sides. It
> doesn't add anything and using insults rather than reasoned arguments is
> not a good way of getting a point across.
Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut
your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you
vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!
VoiceOfReason
>
> > Which got me thinking.
>
> No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
>
> > About calendars.
> > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> shit (i.e., a Creationist).
>
> The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
Even before writing, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
that every 12 moons or so the seasons got warmer and colder.
Boikat
> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
>
> >On Nov 27, 7:06 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> So.
> >> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
> >> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
> >> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
> >> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>
> >> --
> >> End of Message...
>
> >> The All Seeing I
>
> >Sorry, could you please quit rudely calling us "K0oks?" It is very
> >obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>
> I must admit that I dislike the continual insults from *both* sides. It
> doesn't add anything and using insults rather than reasoned arguments is
> not a good way of getting a point across.
Usually, I would agree. Too bad reasoned arguments do not seem to
work on the likes of AS-I, Nashton or Spinny. Especially in the case
of AS-I, who's response to reasoned arguments is usually an insult
that totally dismisses the reasoned argument, and adds the "insults".
Boikat
Sapient Fridge
<837a1419-aeab-4924...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> writes
>On Nov 28, 2:27锟絘m, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <19206c5c-4754-469c-bba0-3b451e776...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> So.
>> >> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
>> >> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
>> >> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
>> >> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> End of Message...
>>
>> >> The All Seeing I
>>
>> >obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>>
>> doesn't add anything and using insults rather than reasoned arguments is
>> not a good way of getting a point across.
>
>Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut
>your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you
>vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that you are pathetic?
You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas. I'll bet you couldn't pour
piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore
that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.
You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate,
noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise
everything about you. You are a bloody nardless newbie twit protohominid
chromosomally aberrent caricature of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond
scum. and I wish you would go away.
You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm
deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a
weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a
revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared
richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth
into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody,
abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and
then killed themselfs in recognition of what they had done.
I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as
you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought
of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are
vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of
this earth. And did I mention you smell?
If you aren't an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating one.
Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before attempting to
impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop
will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it
more rapidly.
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive
its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to
fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame
of your ignoble blood. May you ckoke on the queasy, convulsing nausea
of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty
and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus.
Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are
unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that
reality forgot.
And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements
of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you
hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more
weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle,
waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease,
you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are
dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all
unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid.
Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond
the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are
trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far
that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on
Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire
galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll.
Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some
primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure
essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond
the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is
an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again
for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant
questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of
the rest of this drivel. Duh.
(Alas the above rather wonderful text isn't mine, I've lost the
attribution)
SeppoP
> In message
> <837a1419-aeab-4924...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> writes
>> wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <19206c5c-4754-469c-bba0-3b451e776...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >> So.
>>> >> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
>>> >> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
>>> >> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
>>> >> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> End of Message...
>>>
>>> >> The All Seeing I
>>>
>>> >obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>>>
But still quite nice as an early morning wakeup-notice.
- sp
Burkhard
wrote:
> In message
> <19206c5c-4754-469c-bba0-3b451e776...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
>
> >On Nov 27, 7:06 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> So.
> >> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
> >> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
> >> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
> >> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>
> >> --
> >> End of Message...
>
> >> The All Seeing I
>
> >Sorry, could you please quit rudely calling us "K0oks?" It is very
> >obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>
> I must admit that I dislike the continual insults from *both* sides. It
> doesn't add anything and using insults rather than reasoned arguments is
> not a good way of getting a point across.
> --
Very true indeed. I even find those from "our" side marginally more
irritating, as a matter of fact - after all, inability to reason
calmly based on evidence is not what I would necessarily expect of the
creationists anyway..
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Burkhard
I must admit I always liked being a kook. Forever staying in a lover's
story and hung up on romancing, that's just me. And yes, I spend way
too much time in the kitchen preparing dishes. But then as a non-
native speaker of English, I might miss some of the nuances of the
term ;o)
TomS
<0cbd42e9-862d-4603...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason stated..."
>
>On Nov 27, 9:35=A0pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
I wonder how many people in the 21st century, particularly in urban
societies, know that?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Burkhard
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> > Which got me thinking.
>
> No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
>
> > About calendars.
> > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> shit (i.e., a Creationist).
>
> The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Also from Hungary - see László Vértes : "Lunar Calendar" from the
Hungarian Upper Paleolithic. Science 1965:
Vol. 149. pp. 855 - 856
Spin is a couple of millennia off the mark.
Ye Old One
The starter post was made by Mark Horton.
The post you quote includes quoted text, so it was a reply to
something.
As for your crap about ancient texts, that is off topic for any
intelligent group.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Desertphile
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <91e60b5b-af0c-4a32...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> > >
> > > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Which got me thinking.
> > >
> > > No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
> > >
> > > > About calendars.
> > > > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
> > >
> > > None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> > > shit (i.e., a Creationist).
> > >
> > > The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> > > Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
> > Cool.
> How many days in a week?
They didn't have weeks: just lunar phase months. If I cared, I'd
try a Google search. The calendar could not have worked very well,
since the months outran the seasons.
--
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
ha!!
Try making one .
You are the queen of nasty insults.
Mike Lyle
> In message
> <837a1419-aeab-4924...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> writes
Your mothers smell of elderberries.
--
Mike.
Desertphile
wrote:
> "On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:08:14 -0800 (PST), in article
> <0cbd42e9-862d-4603...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> VoiceOfReason stated..."
> >
> >On Nov 27, 9:35=A0pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> >>
> >> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Which got me thinking.
> >> No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
> >> > About calendars.
> >> > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
> >> None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> >> shit (i.e., a Creationist).
> >>
> >> The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> >> Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
> >Even before writing, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
> >that every 12 moons or so the seasons got warmer and colder.
> I wonder how many people in the 21st century, particularly in urban
> societies, know that?
A frightening number of otherwise educated people in the USA don't
even know why the moon has phases, nor why Earth has seasons. Some
Paleolithic cave-dwellers figured it out, but some modern yuppie
Starbucks-dwellers cannot.
Desertphile
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 28 Nov, 02:35, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> >
> > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Which got me thinking.
> >
> > No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
> >
> > > About calendars.
> > > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
> >
> > None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> > shit (i.e., a Creationist).
> >
> > The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> > Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
> Also from Hungary - see László Vértes : "Lunar Calendar" from the
> Hungarian Upper Paleolithic. Science 1965:
> Vol. 149. pp. 855 - 856
Way cool. Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall:"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/149/3686/855.pdf
> Spin is a couple of millennia off the mark.
--
SeppoP
Your elderberries smell of your mother.
- sp
Mike Lyle
> On 28 Nov, 03:45, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 7:06 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> So.
>>> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
>>> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and
>>> the like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer
>>> you to the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter
>>> post.
>
inaccuracies without fuller knowledge.
>>
>> Sorry, could you please quit rudely calling us "K0oks?" It is very
>> obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>>
>
> story and hung up on romancing, that's just me. And yes, I spend way
> too much time in the kitchen preparing dishes. But then as a non-
> native speaker of English, I might miss some of the nuances of the
> term ;o)
I find it somewhat stronger, since I always assumed, perhaps wrongly,
that it had to do with a depressingly neat correspondence between
"cuckoo" and the Revolting Rabbis Kook.
--
Mike.
Boikat
I have, on several occasions. Your response was to wet youself then
spew out you usual inane dismissals. If you don't have enough common
sense to display mutual respect, you do not deserve any. It's that
simple, m'kay?
.
>
> You are the queen of nasty insults
And you're the village idiot,
Boikat
SeppoP
<snip>
>
> I find it somewhat stronger, since I always assumed, perhaps wrongly,
> that it had to do with a depressingly neat correspondence between
> "cuckoo" and the Revolting Rabbis Kook.
>
Could you elaborate a bit about that? I'm already fascinated. :)
- sp
Ye Old One
Actually, there is some evidence that they did. Communities of early
humans living on the coast of South Africa certainly knew enough about
the lunar calendars that they could count the number of days after a
new/full moon to know when the tides would be out to collect shell
fish. They needed to count days because it was a long trip from their
home to the beaches.
>
>>
>> I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
>> thousand years.-
>
>No. That's actually one of ASS-I(diot's) gag lines.
For some warped definition of "gag".
>
>Boikat
--
Bob.
raven1
42 (cf. Douglas Adams).
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:09:52 -0800, Michael Siemon
>
>
>
> >In article <proto-8ED047.23552627112...@news.panix.com>,> >> <91e60b5b-af0c-4a32-a22d-349019940...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 27, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> >> > > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > Which got me thinking.
>
> >> > > No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
>
> >> > > > About calendars.
> >> > > > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> >> > > None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> >> > > shit (i.e., a Creationist).
>
> >> > > The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> >> > > Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
>
> >> > > --http://desertphile.org
> >> > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> >> > > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>
> >> > Cool.
>
> >> How many days in a week?
>
> >8 days (cf. Beatles...)
>
> 42 (cf. Douglas Adams).
One too many. I propose we abolish mondays! Everybody hates Mondays.
Free Lunch
<kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in talk.origins:
The Revolutionary calendar had 10-day weeks, but they forgot to add an
extra day off to compensate for the longer week.
raven1
I don't like Mondays; they make me want to shoot the whole day down.
All-seeing-I
> Mike Lyle wrote:
> > Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> In message
> >> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> writes
> > [...]
>
> > Your mothers smell of elderberries.
>
> Your elderberries smell of your mother.
>
> - sp
Well.
Reading over your first posts to T.O. since your return, one can
safely assume you are just another evo-clone in their borg-type
collective.
heekster
It is just a part of an old flame (at least 12 years, probably older)
that has evolved with time, and a number of different contributors
have added things to it. Attribution is not possible.
I added just few lines, and I inserted the "stupid" rant, which exists
as its own rant. I did polish it a bit.
Here is what it looked like, back in 1997. I am not fresponsible for
any solid or liquid nasal ejecta, which may occur during perusal.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.motorcycles.harley/msg/8f6468a96c125dcd?hl=en
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:55:26 -0500, Walter Bushell
> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <91e60b5b-af0c-4a32...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 27, 9:35�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> > > >
> > > > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Which got me thinking.
> > > >
> > > > No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
> > > >
> > > > > About calendars.
> > > > > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
> > > >
> > > > None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> > > > shit (i.e., a Creationist).
> > > >
> > > > The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> > > > Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
>
> > > Cool.
>
> > How many days in a week?
>
> They didn't have weeks: just lunar phase months. If I cared, I'd
> try a Google search. The calendar could not have worked very well,
> since the months outran the seasons.
<http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/oldest-lunar-calendar/1520
4>
In any event they probably had adjustment rituals when necessary. Party!
They weren't exactly using the calendar for computing compound interest.
Even us moderns have to insert an extraordinary period into our
calendars, albeit we have it down to seconds. Even in Europe and England
the Gregorian calendar has been around for a negligible time.
Sufficient to the day is the accuracy thereof.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
spintronic
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Which got me thinking.
.
> No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
>
> > About calendars.
> > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> shit (i.e., a Creationist).
Excellent, what year does your calendar hold as zero?
(Now I know you won't answer that)
> The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
Yeah retard, you said, but (compared to 2009) what is year 0 on that
calendar?
Walter Bushell
<0cbd42e9-862d-4603...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 9:35�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> >
> > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Which got me thinking.
> >
> > No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
> >
> > > About calendars.
> > > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
> >
> > None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> > shit (i.e., a Creationist).
> >
> > The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> > Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
>
> Even before writing, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
> that every 12 moons or so the seasons got warmer and colder.
The first woman to discover that was a "rocket scientist" of the period.
You measure ideas against their back drop. Hmm, the discoverer would
have to be able to count to 12. Or have developed an early computing
device, perchance.
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:08:14 -0800 (PST), in article
> <0cbd42e9-862d-4603...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> VoiceOfReason stated..."
> >
> >On Nov 27, 9:35=A0pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> >>
> >> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Which got me thinking.
> >>
> >> No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
> >>
> >> > About calendars.
> >> > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
> >>
> >> None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> >> shit (i.e., a Creationist).
> >>
> >> The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> >> Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
> >
> >Even before writing, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
> >that every 12 moons or so the seasons got warmer and colder.
> >
>
> I wonder how many people in the 21st century, particularly in urban
> societies, know that?
Most don't know the relationship between the earth's orbit and the
length of the year.
spintronic
> > The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
> > and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
> > like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
> > the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>
> > --
> > End of Message...
>
> > The All Seeing I
>
> obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You called Desertphile "cool".
You are a kook.
spintronic
> On Nov 27, 6:31 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
.
> > Which got me thinking.About calendars.
>
> > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> > Weird tha, especially since we are supposed to have been here for
> > millions of years.
>
> You think humans made calenders before they developed a writing and
> numbering system?
Are you saying they suddenly learned to cound 6k years ago?
What are the odds?
> > I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
> > thousand years.-
>
> No. That's actually one of ASS-I(diot's) gag lines.
So prove it wrong. (Glue sniffer).
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
Need to know. And perhaps only the medicine people knew. Knowledge
passed down to from elder to elder, no need for the bulk of the tribe to
know. They took orders for the seasonal migrations and so on from the
elders.
spintronic
> On Nov 27, 8:35 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Nov, 00:44, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> > > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > .
> > .
>
> > > >Which got me thinking.About calendars.
>
> > > >Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> > > >millions of years.
>
> > > >thousand years.
>
>
> > What, that people didn't count the time 20 thousand years ago?
>
> > > we didn't know how to make calendars >6K years ago.
.
.
> > Lol. are you stoooooopid?
>
> > > guess the creationist overlooks the obvious. not surprising. he has
> > > the intellect of an artichoke
>
> > Ya, the obvious being that there was a worldwide setting of clocks, on
> > unconnected continents 6 thousand years ago.
>
> > Nice,
>
> That was about when writing started.
Wow, happy coincidence.
> Before that, things weren't recorded,
Why not? What is your scientific explanation?
Can you cross reference with a sudden jump in the I.Q, of (Homo-
whoever)?
> not just calendars.
What else?
> Why are you insulting people?
I'm not.
I only insult stoopid people who believe they are smart.
spintronic
wrote:
> In message
.
.
Nice we have you so worried, you resort to knee jerks & eye-twitching.
Excellent.
spintronic
> On Nov 27, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
>
> > > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> > shit (i.e., a Creationist).
>
> > The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> > Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
>
> Even before writing, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
> that every 12 moons or so the seasons got warmer and colder.
Are you saying rocket scientists suddenly & magically appeared 15000
years ago?
Sapient Fridge
<f99e031f-4cf6-483f...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
What on earth are you talking about?
The article you deleted contained a long and amusing spoof insult in
reply to someone (not you). Why do you think it indicates "knee jerks &
eye-twitching"?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Don Cates
> In message
> <837a1419-aeab-4924...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> writes
>> wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <19206c5c-4754-469c-bba0-3b451e776...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
>>>
>>>
>>> >> So.
>>> >> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
>>> >> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
>>> >> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
>>> >> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> End of Message...
>>>
>>> >> The All Seeing I
>>>
>>> >obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>>>
"have no rhythm"? "have no rhythm"?
That's just *mean*.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Walter Bushell
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Had they done that, the calendar might have lasted longer.
Walter Bushell
<b632f844-6fe2-486c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The same as year zero on our calendar. And for all we know, they might
have had a concept of zero.
Walter Bushell
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
Don't wish your life away, so far, my worst day alive has been better
than my best day dead. At least in retrospect.
Walter Bushell
<1ca787af-eced-47c0...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You called Desertphile "cool".
>
> You are a kook.
Desertphile is really cool, sometimes I think he has liquid helium in
his veins and an extension into the 4th dimension. Figuratively
speaking, of course.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I only insult stoopid people who believe they are smart.
must spend a HELLUVA lot of time insulting himself.
bpuharic
>
>Are you saying rocket scientists suddenly & magically appeared 15000
>years ago?
no, but your fellow creationist, all seeing, says that with his
obsession with ancient texts
you, OTOH, merely say everything is caused by ghosts.
spintronic
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:21:59 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 28 Nov, 02:35, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> > > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Which got me thinking.
>
> > > No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
>
> > > > About calendars.
> > > > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>
> > > None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated ignorant
> > > shit (i.e., a Creationist).
>
> > > The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
> > > Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
> > Hungarian Upper Paleolithic. Science 1965:
> > Vol. 149. pp. 855 - 856
.
.
> Way cool. Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall:"http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/149/3686/855.pdf
No wonder.
They couldn't even spell "has" correctly.
"las been identified as a uterus symbol. It may also be a lunar
calendar."
What was that about "it may not even be a calendar"?
Move along drunken dipshit.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
What was their zero year, on our calendar?
Because your SOOO retarded.
What is the present year as counted on their calendar?
(Be warned, [say 2009, I dare you]).
spintronic
.
> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You called Desertphile "cool".
>
> > You are a kook.
>
> Desertphile is really cool, sometimes I think he has liquid helium in
> his veins
Must be why his brain is so inert.
> and an extension into the 4th dimension.
Could he stay there? That would be "Kool".
spintronic
.
.
> you, OTOH, merely say everything is caused by ghosts.
So you say.
Like all your gibberish, you have no references/quotes.
Tim DeLaney
wrote:
<snip>
> I must admit that I dislike the continual insults from *both* sides. It
> doesn't add anything and using insults rather than reasoned arguments is
> not a good way of getting a point across.
And I must say that I heartily agree.
Tim
Boikat
Where did you get that idea? Developing writing and a numbering
system is totally different than knowing how to count, or having a
spoken langurage. You are apparently assuming that humans had a system
of writing during the entire span of modern human existence. Language
and counting do not equate to knowing, or even having, a system of
writing.
As far as calenders, from Wiki Answers:
Hebrew calendar year is 5769.
Chinese calendar 4706.
Hindu calendar 2031.
Gregorian calendar 2009.
Byzantine calendar 7518 (as of 2009 Gregorian)
>
> What are the odds?
1/1, since they exist.
>
> > > I guess the evo-sniffers will say we hit worldwide reset every few
> > > thousand years.-
>
> > No. That's actually one of ASS-I(diot's) gag lines.
>
> So prove it wrong. (Glue sniffer)
Lack of evidence. It''s up to him to provide the evidence to support
the claim, or it's nothing but a meaningless assertion (Ass Wipe)
Boikat
Greg G.
Why are you so upset by the year zero? What is the zero year with the
Julian calendar? The year before 1 CE was 1 BCE.
bpuharic
sure i do. you're a creationist. creationists believe that magic, not
laws, rule the natural world
if you believe this is gibberish, i await your correction. otherwise i
stand by my statment.
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I find it somewhat stronger, since I always assumed, perhaps wrongly,
>> that it had to do with a depressingly neat correspondence between
>> "cuckoo" and the Revolting Rabbis Kook.
>>
>
> Could you elaborate a bit about that? I'm already fascinated. :)
>
Well, the "cuckoo" bit is clear enough, of course; but there was a
father and son pair of "fundamentalist" rabbis. Others will know better,
and will correct me; but I think I'm unfair to the father. Though they
both took a strictly religious position, it was the son who used it to
justify expansionism. Father was, I understand, a Kabbalist, though
presumably not of the shallow showbiz kind, and scarily wanted to bring
about the Messianic era --a bit like Ray, only with proper training.
--
Mike.
Greg G.
wrote:
> In message
> <837a1419-aeab-4924-b52c-50cee5cc7...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 28, 2:27 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> >wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <19206c5c-4754-469c-bba0-3b451e776...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> So.
> >> >> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
> >> >> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
> >> >> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
> >> >> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> End of Message...
>
> >> >> The All Seeing I
>
> >> >obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>
> >> doesn't add anything and using insults rather than reasoned arguments is
> >> not a good way of getting a point across.
>
Thanks. That's the sweetest thing anybody has said to me all day.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
But, of course, that year was stolen by the Calendar Gnomes.
magicus
wrote:
> On 28 nov, 17:51, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:09:52 -0800, Michael Siemon
>>
>>
>>
>> <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >In article <proto-8ED047.23552627112...@news.panix.com>,
>> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> In article
>> >> <91e60b5b-af0c-4a32-a22d-349019940...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 27, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:48 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>> >> > > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > Which got me thinking.
>>
>> >> > > No evidence for that claim: *DISMISSED!*
>>
>> >> > > > About calendars.
>> >> > > > Ever noticed none are older than 6k?
>>
>> >> > > None that you are aware of, because you are an uneducated
>> >> > > ignorant shit (i.e., a Creationist).
>>
>> >> > > The oldest known calendar is around 15,000 years old created by
>> >> > > Late Upper Paleolithic cultures around what is now France.
>>
>> >> > > --http://desertphile.org
>> >> > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of
>> >> > > water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" --
>> >> > > Jim Rutz
>>
>> >> > Cool.
>>
>> >> How many days in a week?
>>
>> >8 days (cf. Beatles...)
>>
>> 42 (cf. Douglas Adams).
>
> One too many. I propose we abolish mondays! Everybody hates Mondays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic_Monday
and
http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Bangles%20Lyrics/Manic%20Monday%
20Lyrics.html
and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s48kuKLf0mE
:-P
ciao,
f
--
aa #2301
"Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
-- Frank Zappa
spintronic
.
> Why are you so upset by the year zero? What is the zero year with the
> Julian calendar? The year before 1 CE was 1 BCE
So what year does it say on your 15,000 year old calendar?
You know, the one you think you have, that looks like a womans vagina?
spintronic
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:48:50 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> >> you, OTOH, merely say everything is caused by ghosts.
>
> >So you say.
>
> >Like all your gibberish, you have no references/quotes.
>
> sure i do.
So where are they?
bpuharic
i already gave you the information
now address the issue, ghost boy
Mark Isaak
> For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest groups
> on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then some of
> the posters.
net.origins is older, but Google apparently didn't keep any of those
posts.
> Out of idle curiosity I wondered what the first post ever made was
> about.
>
> To no surprise i found this:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
> hl=en>
>
> Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
Sept. 5, 1986. I hadn't realized it had been in existence only two years
when I started reading it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
spintronic
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:48:23 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 28 Nov, 21:34, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:48:50 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> >> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On 28 Nov, 20:28, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >.
> >.
.
> >> >> you, OTOH, merely say everything is caused by ghosts.
>
> >> >So you say.
>
> >> >Like all your gibberish, you have no references/quotes.
>
> >> sure i do.
>
> >So where are they?
>
> i already gave you the information
So you can't quote me then?
Figures, another lying piece of kangaroo testicle.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 29 Nov, 00:32, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:48:23 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>>
>> i already gave you the information
>
>So you can't quote me then?
>
>Figures, another lying piece of kangaroo testicle.
i already did. you're a creationist.
no further quote is needed, ghost boy
Dave Oldridge
8d850d...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest
>groups on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then
>some of the posters.
It certainly has been around for more time than the emotional age of most
creationist apologists posting here.
>
>Out of idle curiosity I wondered what the first post ever made was
>about.
>
>To no surprise i found this:
><http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
>hl=en>
>
>Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
>
>But the second post, (which is actually the first post with substance)
>is what was most interesting.
>
>It can be found here:
><http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0099f69b22b6ba1d?
>hl=en>
>
>For those that cannot wait to read the original, I will copy/paste:
>
><quote>
>
>People talking about the exact number of days involved in a prophesy,
>from 445 BC to 32 AD. Lots of corrections about Julian vs. Gregorian
>calendars.
>
>
>Q: When did Julius Caesar live?
>Q: Did the pre-Julian calendar have leap-years at all?
> Well, I suppose the Babylonians were astronomically sophisticated.
>
></quite>
>
>Well. It seems the very first (actual) post to talk origins mentions
>prophesy AND how "the Babylonians were astronomically sophisticated."
>
>
>So.
>The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
>and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
>like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
>the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
Actually it is far from surprising that the first post by a creationist
was off topic. Creationists are notorious for preach-and-run tactics.
Bible prophjecy buffs are very good at associating historical events with
prophecies. They are very bad at using their claimed knowledge of
prophecy to predict actual future events. Indeed, if Old Testament laws
were in effect, scarcely any of the professional prophecy interpreters of
the 19th and 20th centuries would have escaped ritual lapidation.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Robert Grumbine
Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
? 1989? -- John Wilkins
Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
Fess up the rest of you.
In article <pan.2009.11.29....@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:06:38 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
>> For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest groups
>> on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then some of
>> the posters.
>
> net.origins is older, but Google apparently didn't keep any of those
> posts.
>
>> Out of idle curiosity I wondered what the first post ever made was
>> about.
>>
>> To no surprise i found this:
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
>> hl=en>
>>
>> Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
>
> Sept. 5, 1986. I hadn't realized it had been in existence only two years
> when I started reading it.
>
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
TomS
<slrnhhfl9...@saltmine.radix.net>, Robert Grumbine stated..."
>
>
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
>DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
>Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
>? 1989? -- John Wilkins
>Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> Fess up the rest of you.
I'm sure that I have been around since before 1994, but I can't
get Google to do a search for my early posts.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Boikat
> � Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
> Sep 1988 �-- Mark Isaak
> ? � 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 �-- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> � Fess up the rest of you.
>
Boikat
VoiceOfReason
> � Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
> Sep 1988 �-- Mark Isaak
> ? � 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 �-- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> � Fess up the rest of you.
I've been in & out with different 'nyms over the years since at least
1997.
Ye Old One
<bo...@saltmine.radix.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
>DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
>Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
>? 1989? -- John Wilkins
>Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> Fess up the rest of you.
I didn't start until 1997.
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
Michael Siemon
Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
> Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
> ? 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> Fess up the rest of you.
>
>
> In article <pan.2009.11.29....@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:06:38 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
> >
> >> For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest groups
> >> on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then some of
> >> the posters.
> >
> > net.origins is older, but Google apparently didn't keep any of those
> > posts.
> >
> >> Out of idle curiosity I wondered what the first post ever made was
> >> about.
> >>
> >> To no surprise i found this:
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
> >> hl=en>
> >>
> >> Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
> >
> > Sept. 5, 1986. I hadn't realized it had been in existence only two years
> > when I started reading it.
> >
I started sometime in 1987, I think.
Tim DeLaney
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
> Sep 1988 �-- Mark Isaak
> ? � 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 �-- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> � Fess up the rest of you.
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <pan.2009.11.29.06.10.02.708...@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:06:38 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> >> For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest groups
> >> on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then some of
> >> the posters.
>
> > net.origins is older, but Google apparently didn't keep any of those
> > posts.
>
> >> Out of idle curiosity I wondered what the first post ever made was
> >> about.
>
> >> To no surprise i found this:
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
> >> hl=en>
>
> >> Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
>
> > Sept. 5, 1986. �I hadn't realized it had been in existence only two years
> > when I started reading it.
>
> --
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think I've been here that long (with breaks). I remember PZ, McCoy,
Karl (ksjj?), Andrew Macrae, Richard Harter and Larry Moran among
others.
Pagano is another.
Tim
Gene Poole
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
> Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
> ? 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> Fess up the rest of you.
Earliest I can come up with with google search is 1998 (back when I used
my real name):
I'm sure I've been following since 1995 or so though.
hersheyh
> For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest
> groups on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then
> some of the posters.
>
> about.
>
> To no surprise i found this:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
> hl=en>
>
> Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
>
supported evolutionary expectations since that time (1986). Think of
the huge amount of sequence evidence that has accumulated since that
time (PCR methods were invented in 1983 and DNA sequencing itself was
only a decade earlier). Think also of the intermediate fossils that
have been discovered since the 1980s.
OTOH, think of how little change has occurred in creationist arguments
and how little new evidence is used by them.
[snip]
Boikat
As wf3h is fond of pointing out, creationism is a stagnate pseudo-
science, only he doesn't quite phrase it that way.
Boikat
RAM
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
> Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
> ? 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> Fess up the rest of you.
>
>
>
> In article <pan.2009.11.29.06.10.02.708...@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:06:38 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> >> For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest groups
> >> on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then some of
> >> the posters.
>
> > net.origins is older, but Google apparently didn't keep any of those
> > posts.
>
> >> Out of idle curiosity I wondered what the first post ever made was
> >> about.
>
> >> To no surprise i found this:
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
> >> hl=en>
>
> >> Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
>
> > Sept. 5, 1986. I hadn't realized it had been in existence only two years
> > when I started reading it.
>
> --
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
I began lurking in 1991 when Ted was in his "felt effects" theory of
early earth gravity and Tero Sand was still producing those brilliant
cryptic postings, I still miss him. I have in my files somewhere a
folder of TO printouts (starting in 1992) of especially good
rejoinders and Tero dominates this file.
I began posting around 1998 (I think) in response to Glenn's idiocies
and misunderstandings about science. Since retirement I lurk and
post much more.
Rich Mathers
David Iain Greig
> All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote in news:aefed9ef-aac4-4294-9aad-
> 8d850d...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>>For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest
>>groups on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older then
>>some of the posters.
>
> It certainly has been around for more time than the emotional age of most
> creationist apologists posting here.
>>
>>
>>So.
>>The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
>>and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
>>like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
>>the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
It's off topic.
--D. 'one man, one vote'
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
David Iain Greig
>
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
> Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
> ? 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
1994 here.
--D.
Susan S
<bo...@saltmine.radix.net>:
>
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
>DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
>Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
>? 1989? -- John Wilkins
>Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> Fess up the rest of you.
[snip]
July 1996. Blame that guy with the same last name as mine; he made me do
it.
Susan Silberstein
Christopher Denney
> "On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:11:50 -0600, in article
Around 1994 here, maybe '95, shortly after I got the Internet
connection working at work, in any case.
John Harshman
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15 years.
>
> Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
> ? 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my first post)
>
> Fess up the rest of you.
I have no idea.
Dick C.
news:slrnhhfl9...@saltmine.radix.net:
>
> Ok, after Mark's post, and chatting with the Wilkins on his visit to
> DC, I'm curious who else has been reading here longer than, say, 15
> years.
>
> Sep 1988 -- Mark Isaak
> ? 1989? -- John Wilkins
> Oct 1990 -- Bob Grumbine (yes, I read for about a year before my
> first post)
>
> Fess up the rest of you.
>
>
> In article <pan.2009.11.29....@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:06:38 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>
>>> For those that do not know it, Talk Origins is one of the oldest
>>> groups on Usenet. In fact, i thing talk origins may even be older
>>> then some of the posters.
>>
>> net.origins is older, but Google apparently didn't keep any of those
>> posts.
>>
>>> Out of idle curiosity I wondered what the first post ever made was
>>> about.
>>>
>>> To no surprise i found this:
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/522447ebebbe9bd6?
>>> hl=en>
>>>
>>> Which simply states: "starter post for talk origins"
>>
>> Sept. 5, 1986. I hadn't realized it had been in existence only two
>> years when I started reading it.
Since sometime in 1990, I believe. Google groups does not go earlier than
1999, unfortunately.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Eric Root
wrote:
> In message
> <19206c5c-4754-469c-bba0-3b451e776...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes> <snip>
>
> >> So.
> >> The next time one of you k0oks mentions to me that biblical prophesy
> >> and ancient texts, including Babylonian texts, Sumerian texts and the
> >> like, are off topic for the Talk Origins news group, I refer you to
> >> the very first post on Talk Origins other then the starter post.
>
> >> End of Message...
>
> >> The All Seeing I
>
> >Sorry, could you please quit rudely calling us "K0oks?" �It is very
> >obnoxious and has no basis in fact.
>
> I must admit that I dislike the continual insults from *both* sides. �It
> doesn't add anything and using insults rather than reasoned arguments is
> not a good way of getting a point across.
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org �ICQ #17887309 � � �* �Save the net �*
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net�http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer �*
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net�* � �today � �*
> Kill:http://mail-abuse.com�http://au.sorbs.net�http://spamhaus.org
Plus, the people you are arguing with fixate on the insults while
totally ignoring the substantive posts.
Eric Root
Eric Root
>
> �spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You called Desertphile "cool".
>
> > You are a kook.
>
> Desertphile is really cool, sometimes I think he has liquid helium in
> his veins and an extension into the 4th dimension. Figuratively
> speaking, of course.
>
ha! Like Nadreck of Palain VII
> --
> �A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Eric Root