By: Bill Wolff To: Coridon Henshaw Re: For everyone's ammusment. [1] So Coridon. What part

By: Bill Wolff To: Coridon Henshaw Re: For everyone's ammusment... [1] So Coridon. What part of all this truth do you find amusing? Btw, I am so glad you posted this message here. As I have been trying to tell these bozos here this for years. Maybe they will listen to another bozo such like yourself. Keep up the job. As you are making my job a lot easier. Oh so I don't just leave you hanging. Here is just a small sample what kind of bozos you're siding with. Area: HOLYSMOKE Date: 03 Mar 95 13:15:14 From: Coridon Henshaw To: All Subject: For everyone's ammusment... CH> "My personal opinion that we were built by something is based on the CH> available evidence. Since it is an opinion and not backed up with CH> evidence." - Bill Wolff Oh yes. I remember this one. Coridon seems totally unembarrassed that there is a whole important paragraph missing between those two sentences. But Coridon will never inform you of this small dishonest detail. Will he? And if anybody have any more doubts about all of this. Feel free to Netmail me or take it to the Holysmoke echo or whatever. As I don't mind. It's dealing with liars and cheaters to whom want me around for their play thing is who I don't have any time for. Date: 26 Apr 94 01:55:37 From: Bill Wolff To: Fredric Rice Subject: THE REIGN OF IGNORANCE @MSGID: 1:115/769.2 097403fc Quoting: Fredric Rice (04-15-94 12:27) To: Michael Hardy Subj: THE REIGN OF IGNORANCE ~*~ My personal opinion that we were built by something is based on the available evidence. Since it is an opinion and not backed up with evidence. -- Bill Wolff Cute Fredric! Okay I got one for you. OKAY OKAY! I ADMIT IT! It was a lie I willfully coded into my program to make it look like you hardly open your mouth! I did it and _oh_ did it feel good! I guess I must have had two or three "second cummings" after I ran that program. And am I ashamed? Oh no! Quite contrary. I would do it again in a minute! I'll have to wrap myself in a towel so I don't soil another blue jeans but it'll be worth it! -- Fredric Rice (93) By the way Fredric. Why don't you post what I really said instead of taking this out of context. Let me guess? Because you're the master of deceiving. Am I correct? No Sir! My personal opinion that we were built by something is based on the available evidence. Please bare in mind. This is one of the few times I express my opinion. Since it is an opinion and not backed up with evidence. All I can say is I might be all wrong. -- Bill Wolff Gee Fredric, you such a clown. And a good liar too. DP> On 01-31-95, Bill Wolff wrote to Hector Plasmic: BW> No you dumb moron! Carl Sagan didn't claim that evolution had BW> positively had taken place! You are trying like hell to take BW> Carl Sagan out of context you dumb baster. Face the truth for BW> once you stupid moron! Anyway have a nice day Hector. You just BW> might learn something for once. Just maybe. DP> Hail,Bill! Hail Doug! DP> Now that you have publicly stated nonsense, I will join the DP> people lining up to show that *you* are the moron regarding DP> Carl Sagan's statements concerning evolution. Okay go far it. But you will probably fall into the gutter like so many other morons whom have tried. DP> From the pages of Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos": "If artificial DP> selection can make such major changes in so short a period of DP> time,what must natural selection,working over billions of DP> years,be capable of? The answer is all the beauty and diversity DP> of the biological world. -page 27,Chapter 2 "One Voice in the DP> Cosmic Fugue" Yeah so? I have no problems with the idea that natural selection and mutations will take place. But what I am looking for answers to is the origin of life on earth and why species don't change for millions and some for billions and then they change rapidly for a few thousands of years and then return back to being stable again. What force is making this quick changes Doug? DP> EVOLUTION IS A FACT,NOT A THEORY."(shouting mine) Yes this part is definitely yours. Although you added it to the end of Carl Sagan's quote to take Carl Sagan out of context. Something that I have learned that many Bill Wolff bashers here likes to do. And then they blame me when they had misunderstood the quote in the beginning. Nice way to make a stupid argument alive huh? DP> Wakey Wakey,Bill. You need to get out from under that rock that you live under Doug. Carl Sagan also believes in the possibility of life out there in the universe. Although he takes it a step further than I would. He also believes that we may not be able to recognize these other lifeforms either. I got this information from the Scientific American of the October 1994 issue. In fact, "Cosmos; Contact," which is a fictional account of a meeting between humans and an alien civilization. Now we have come full circle again. Haven't we? JS> In actuality human life is no different than any other. From JS> the smallest virus to mold and algae... BW> Actually there is a big difference. In fact, a virus cannot BW> reproduce without a host. And this fact may disqualify a virus as BW> being a living creature. And it has been argued back and forth. JS> ... The complexity of our cell structure does not take a JS> miricle to create. True. But trying to perform the same feat without the help of living organic material does seem to make it a miracle. Since we haven't done it yet. But we are getting closer nevertheless. But it has taken our intelligence to get us this far. Think about it. BW> Really? Strange! I can't ever recall hearing that our scientists BW> have created life from nonliving matter before. When was this done? BW> Maybe it's no miracle, but it sure is a sign of intelligence to BW> perform this feat without outside help. JS> Scientist know how living things reproduce through cell division, JS> DNA mitchondria ect... I don't think god has anything to do with it. I never claimed that any god did have anything to do with it. JS> I believe in evolution. There is evidence of it everywhere. JS> Living things adapt, mutate and reproduce in order to survive. I believe in evolution too. At least up to a point. But I find problems with the unanswered questions that evolutionists create. JS> Did god take a lower primate and evolve it into modern man? How would I know? All I know is that lower primates and humans share some of the same DNA code, features, and bad habits. And this data has so far has left this question opened. JS> It is time we stop looking to the god(s) for answers to JS> questions we are having trouble answering. (where did life come JS> from) (how did the universe come to exist) ect... Why are you telling me this stuff for? I look at facts, not the tall tales from whining fundamentalists nor even from whining atheists. JS> For thousands of years man has felt it necessary to tell JS> stories, make up fables and myths in order to explain away the JS> unknown. Just a few centuries ago giant squid were considered JS> evil sea monsters along with whales, sharks ect... through JS> greater scientific understanding we now find reasonable JS> explanations for most myths and ancient legends including JS> Christianity (a most bigoted cult). And the same goes for scientific theories. Science use to believe in spontaneous generation. They use to believe the world was flat. Also believed in something other than the big bang theory. Scientists text books seemingly becomes outdated just in about 7 years or so because we learned so much more since then. And that is why I keep an open mind. Unlike some atheists bigots I know around here who use the rose colored glasses approach. Their beliefs are fixed in stone and no scientists is going to tell them anything new. > MG> You are a coward who quoted Dr. Sagan out of context and now > MG> return over and over to try and protect your crdulity. It won't > MG> work. You are a iar. BW> Look Martin, you dummy. I have not taken Carl Sagan out of context. HP> Of course you did, the evidence has been provided, and you're debunked. Of course I didn't Hector. It's just because you look at things as a one eyed bigot. Now here is the original quote again. And you tell me exactly which part you are saying I have a problem with. Now read it really slow. Because I know morons like you like to jump the gun far too fast and make false claims based on your own misconceptions. "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)." - Carl Sagan HP> Yep, that's what the man said, your attempts to disguise it HP> (i.e. lies by purposeful omission of context) notwithstanding. There are no lies on my part Hector. I just don't see the world as a one eyed bigot. But speaking about lies... wasn't it you who merged two totally different messages together to make it appear I replied to something that I really didn't? No that was Fredric dated in my files as (09 Nov 93) wasn't it? But you went along with it. Why you both are nothing more than just slimy, whining, little lying bigots. HP> ROFL! Science (and, like it or not, evolutionary theory is a HP> scientific theory, not a Billy Wolff assertion) doesn't deal in HP> "proof," it deals in evidence. The fossil record shows that HP> life changed over time, which just happens to be what HP> evolutionary theory attempts to explain -- life changing over HP> time. And when Carl Sagan provides two possibilities on how life got started. You like all one eyed bigots only saw one possibility. >... You attempted, by quoting him out of context, to make it >seem otherwise. Ergo, you're a liar and we've pointed this out >to you on many occassions. If you're too stupid to get it, >blame your brain. BW> Carl Sagan didn't claim that evolution had positively had taken BW> place! HP> Of course not -- science isn't about proof, it's about HP> evidence. Your further attempt to disguise the fact that Sagan HP> says natural selection is the best explanation of the facts in HP> the fossil record shows you, again, to be a liar. You're wrong again Hector. Just because there is a best explanation out there doesn't mean it is the only one. But because you are a stupid bigot, you can't see past this point. Can you Mr. Hector? And speaking about lying and misquoting. Here is just one of many examples I can think of your dishonesty. This one was pulled from my Oct 93 file. Which many have probably forgotten about. HP> Bald-faced lie. You were originally invited here because you HP> claimed that you could convince anyone of the existence of god HP> in ten minutes in the DR_DEBUG echo, remember? And then I dig up the original post. Didn't I, you damn liar? I made no such claims and you had twisted, folded and mutilated everything that I had said. Didn't you, Mr. One Eyed Bigot? BW> Carl admits that the fossil record does not prove evolution. BW> And finally Hector has just accepted this fact. DW> So? The theory of gravity will never be proven either. Do you DW> disbelieve in it as well? That's comparing apples to oranges. No I don't disbelieve the theory of gravity. This is because this theory is seen and felt everyday in our lives. And it is darn near impossible to blow any holes into it. DW> Proof is for mathematics and liquor, dipshit. We're interested DW> in evidence. Well I disagree. Putting proof on the same level as dipshits is pretty stupid on your part. Facts weigh in more than mere evidence do. But keeping one eye closed, you couldn't tell the difference. DW> Do you have evidence that supports a better theory than the DW> theory of evolution? No not really. But it is easy as cutting through butter to make holes in this theory. In fact, it's so scrambled that it isn't really just a theory at all. It's really a theory build upon many other theories. No matter how you start slicing it, another scientist has a different theory on how it all happened. So I say this isn't a true theory at all. It's really just another kind of religion. But I have said all this before. BW> But you like a dumb moron have not. DW> Goldberg is much better educated in this field than you are. DW> I'd suggest you go back to the playground and spout your DW> nonsense there - you'll save yourself a lot of embarrassment. First of all. Goldberg could be a lifer student at the age of 99 and I could give a rat's ass. As Goldberg as demonstrated far too many times that he is just nothing but a blind bigot. I have seen blind bigotry fool even the best of them. So why should Goldberg be any different than the rest? As John R. Durant (biologist) had once said: "Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science." SR> Bill Wolff wrote in a message to Martin Goldberg: MG> Now, go ahead and try to teach me something about genetics, either MG> Mendelian or molecular. BW> Why? That's your department. My department is trying to BW> train morons like you to try some common sense once... SR> You being a fundy... Gee Steve. I am talking about common sense here and you're off in left field with your stuck on fundy talk again. And being a blind bigot like yourself, you somehow confuse common sense and fundamentalist as somehow related. Now which blind zealot taught you this crap? Hector perhaps? SR> ... it is easy to see why you constantly fail in that SR> endeavour, as well. You are truly a blind zealot my friend. You seemingly believe if you're not an atheists zealot like yourself. Then you must be a fundy. Is that how your stupid logic works there Steve? Date: 03 Jan 95 15:41:58 Public From: Bill Wolff To: Steve Rose Subject: Nope, Try Again. BW> Still you have turned up nothing, but you people still BW> don't believe your own backups. No wonder you just leave me BW> the impression that you're just a little dimwit looking for BW> attention. SR> You simply leave all of us with the impression that you are a SR> dimwit, period. Now really Steve. Calling people names without providing any evidence. Now you should know better than that. Even a low life like Hector could figure this one out. ROTFL! Area: HOLYSMOKE Date: 30 Jul 93 10:26:22 Public From: Steve Rose To: Bill Wolff Subject: SILLY WAGER! DM>> Do the work before you claim the wage. BW> Don't worry! I am new here and it might be a good idea to take notes BW> from my messages. Good advice...seeing how Psych Major finals are coming up. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Steve. You slacker! Yet you never provide any evidence for your stupid claims. Yet you blindly try to go forward without them. Well time's up, you blind zealot! I call and finals are here! And you Steve, are in deep shit! ROTFL! DM> Though millions would not, David Worrell said to Bill Wolff: BW> But you like a dumb moron have not. DW> Goldberg is much better educated in this field than you are. DM> And, I would think, much better educated in just about any DM> field one would care to name, but who's counting? And this is based on what Don? Comparison of resumes? Evidence brought to the table? Or your highly biased opinion? I bet the latter. How about it Don? Don't keep it a secret. Remember what I told Marilyn Burge about scientists in general? You should, she was defending you and she was calling you a scientist. Well I am not a scientist per se, but I have worked with a lot of them. Probably hundreds of them. From universities, research centers, government agencies, etc. Oh yeah... and what about this biased opinions coming from scientists. Here goes... Then Robert Jastrow (an astronomer) smartly points out the fault and writes in regard to: "Astronomers are curiously upset" department, Robert states: "Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith on our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases." And do you recall my other comments that I added to Marilyn claims? I said: "It is all up to Don now. If he chooses to stick with his fairy tale, he will find himself in deep doo-doo. If he chooses to side with the evidence, it should be a great learning experience for the both of us. Are you placing any bets?" - Bill Wolff (02 Aug 93 09:40:49) And currently, instead of trying to support your position with scientific evidence. You have lower yourself to being a clown and have provided nothing lately but just outcome biased slander. Tsk. Tsk. Don. Marilyn had higher hopes for you. ROTFL! BW> Look Martin, you dummy. I have not taken Carl Sagan out of BW> context. Carl admits that the fossil record does not prove BW> evolution. FR> Look, Creationist... Your first mistake. Between you and I. There are no definite creationist! But you just never get it, do you? FR> ... do you know _any_ biologist who claims that the fossil FR> record "proves" the fact of evolution? Your second mistake. A matter of fact I do know of a biologist who knows other scientists who feels there is no room for doubt. As John R. Durant (biologist) had once said: "Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science." FR> Or do you admit that Sagan then goes on to show how the fossil FR> record is exactly as predicted by contemporary evolutional FR> theories? Yeah I give you that one. But you foolishly believes he closes all of the other doors. He did not! He left them open you moron! And if you had read the Scientific American back in Oct 94, you could see this. But no, you only look at a small piece of the picture. Don't you Mr. Blind Zealot? ROTFL! FR> Lastly, do you have a better explanation for observed FR> speciation and the fossil record? If so, divulge it. What do you think I have been doing you dumb zealot? Evolutionary theory is filled with so many holes that there are zillions of unanswered questions that remains. And yet blind zealots like you could careless. As far as you're concern, it's written in stone! Which is another trait of a blind zealot. ROTFL! MG> Now, go ahead and try to teach me something MG> about genetics, either Mendelian or molecular. bw> Why? That's your department. My department is trying to train bw> morons like you to try some common sense once in awhile. FR> You'll need to divest yourself of your Catholic beliefs first, FR> Bill. Strike three! As I denounced my Catholic faith about 20 years ago (and I hadn't been to church in about 30 years). This is just another example of your stupid blind logic and I am so far ahead of you that you are having a hard time getting caught up to speed. ROTFL! HP> Carl goes on to say that it would have to be an idiotic "great HP> designer" and that there's a better explanation -- natural HP> selection -- that matches the facts better. bw> Oh really? So what is a idiotic "great designer" anyway? One bw> who can produce life from nonliving matter? ROTFL! FR> The reason why you're having a hard time searching for a FR> rational argument to use against Hector is because he's right. Nope another strike against you! It's because Hector is a bumbling fool and can't reach outside of his own bigotry. FR> You can't explain atrophied evolutionary apendages and FR> cast-offs in light of an intelligent creator. Sure you can. You just can't see it because you're just a dimwit. Let's see... how can I explain it so a dumb ass can understand it. Okay here goes... Pretend for a second that your just your basic 6 year old. Which shouldn't be too hard for you. And I warn you not to put that paperclip into the wall socket. You being a moron, just don't understand how a paperclip could cause any harm. But to us more intelligent folks. We totally understand your stupidity. FR> Such a creator would by rights of evidence need to be a FR> bumbeling idiot. Really Fredric? Yet at the same time this bumbling idiot(s) would happen to have more advanced technology or wisdom than our own. But to a more advanced intelligent being(s) than our own. We're the bumbling idiots! But you just don't get it? Do you Mr. Fredric the moron? FR> What the fossil record and the atrophied evolutionary trash in FR> evbery cell of every living thing, flora and fawna, shows FR> exactly what's predicted by all evolutionary theories. And it also shows that either by design or by accident, that things were played around with until the desired effect was made by the many improvements and revisions. Which is something us human beings can totally relate to. As we call it progress. FR> And Sagan points that out clearly -- unless you try to turn him FR> into a Creationist stooge. No he does not Fredric. He openly admits of the possibilities. Although he candidly makes a mockery of the most common creationist theory of which I too, enjoy poking holes into. BW> You just don't get it, do you? For over a hundred years, BW> people have been using the fossil record as proof as for BW> evidence of evolution... FR> It would appear as though you would like the observed FR> speciations to disappear. Additionally, the fossil record FR> indicates conclusivly that evolution has taken place and FR> continues to take place. Yeah evolution had taken place all right. But was driven by what force is what is totally up in the air. HP> "as proof as for evidence of evolution?" How'd that "proof" HP> part get stuck in there? Sagan does, indeed, state that the HP> fossil record is evidence of evolution... bw> Proof got in there because that is all the evolutionists have as far bw> as proof goes. But I don't buy it as being proof and I am glad you bw> don't see it as such either. FR> You're an idiot. (Imagine my surprise.) Hector correctly FR> indicates that the fossil record is evidence that evolution has FR> taken place in the past. And you're a dimwit who thinks like a moron and routinely misses the blind side of the barn. I have no problems of evolution per se. I have a problem with who, what, or why though. And yet, you still don't get it. Tsk. Tsk. Fredric. And quit poking that paperclip into that socket. You're going to look like Don King if you keep it up. FR> No one claims that evidence constitutes proof. Proof is valid FR> only in mathematics. I'll take proof any day over evidence. And my buddy Einstein used mathematics to backup his theories. Did he not? FR> The overwhelming evidence, however, indicates that evolution is FR> simply not debateable. It would be about as silly as debating FR> whether geometry exists. Your stupidity is not even debatable. You somehow can't grasp what anything smarter than you would think of yourself as. And thus you seemingly can't even grasp simple common sense. Which pretty much puts you into the group of morons. Which I've been saying all along. HP> ... You attempted, by quoting him out of context, to make it HP> seem otherwise. FR> Hector's right. And over the years few people still bother to FR> keep a copy of your claim. You're wrong Fredric. Few ever kept a copy and I have been posting copies for all those who wants one. Even not so bright Martin. HP> Ergo, you're a liar and we've pointed this out HP> to you on many occassions. If you're too stupid to get it, HP> blame your brain. bw> No you dumb moron! Carl Sagan didn't claim that evolution had bw> positively had taken place! FR> He, as do all biologists and paleontologists qualified to speak FR> on the subject, point out that the fossil record is FR> overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place in the FR> past. Sagan approached scientific certainty exactly equal to FR> the certainty that gravity exists. You and I are speaking about two different evolutions. I speak of evolution controlled by an unknown. And you speak of an evolution which seemingly can make vast improvements without any outside help. bw> You are trying like hell to take Carl bw> Sagan out of context you dumb baster. FR> Calm down, Bill. You're getting your players mixed up. You did FR> that -- good grief, at least 4 years ago, as I recall. ROTFL! Get real Fredric. The middle of 93 wasn't 4 years ago. You always seem to get your facts wrong, don't you Mr. Rice? No wonder you have trouble with facts and claim it's just for mathematics. That is because you have trouble with even the most basic mathematics. Isn't that so Fredric? bw> Face the truth for once you stupid moron! FR> Attack the man when his truth hurts you. Nope your wrong as usual. I am a attacking a zealot who's beliefs are built upon his own stupid dogma. But only morons such like yourself can't see the difference. An IQ tester if you will. FR> FR> Wake up, Creationist fundy. bw> bw> Wake up moron. You mislabel someone again. But that is what bw> one eyed bigots do best. Isn't it Mr. Moron Rice? ROTFL! FR> It's a good thing I shook your cage and then jumped FR> out of reach. The animals have found new and interesting things FR> to do with their excrement. Damn it Fredric! Every time I give you an opportunity to show some intelligence. You always take the backwards compatibility of using your stupid old animal instincts. Damn Fredric! I was wrong! You're living proof of the existence of the missing link. What a find! Does your knuckles drag the ground when you try to walk too? FR> I find it _vastly_ interesting how upset you get when someone FR> calls you a Creationist. It's because I find the numbers of one eyed bigots a disturbing number and its screwing up life for the rest of mankind. As it shows that natural selection has an upward battle against the ever present mutation factor always being applied. In your case, luck wasn't with you. Don't feel sad though. As someday you are going to die and your organic matter will be recycled in all probability. And then you'll get another chance. FR> And yet you still have trouble accepting the immutable fact of FR> evolution... There you go using the word "fact" when just about 10 minutes ago you said that evolution was only just "evidence." And you said facts were only for mathematics. Don't you see how much you lie Fredric? You can't even tell the same story just 10 minutes later. ROTFL! And you somehow believe I am just trying to be cute when I call you a moron. ROTFL! FR> ... and you still refuse to admit that you quoted Carl Sagan FR> out of context so many decades ago. Gee just about 10 minutes ago, it was just 4 years ago. And now it's up to decades ago. So how long is your nose now? ROTFL! And you also just don't get it do you Fredric? If a guy like me is ever found out to be mistaken. I come clean and will freely admit my faults. You on the other hand just keeps telling larger and larger lies. And nowadays, yours have become whoppers. ROTFL! FR> Really I'm just baiting you to get you to mouth off without FR> thinking again. It's nothing personal, you understand. Actually you are blinded by your own stupidity and can't see that you're digging a deep hole for yourself for every time you choose to speak to me. But I should have let you believe your own version of this account. As somehow you seem to draw more pleasure from this one. But it comes as no surprise. As most fools usually do. MG> Your last post to me claimed that you never quoted Carl Sagan MG> out of context. At that point in time, I did not have this MG> little morsel.... Why not Martin? I have told you dimwits from the very beginning to take good notes. Yet you have failed me. And I had even helped you by posting this quote below many of times in the past. And luckily, you finally just saved one of them. That a boy! > > HP> have to demonstrate it. Provide evidence. Remember, you said > > HP> in DR_DEBUG that you could easily convince anyone of this. > > HP> Time to put up or shut up. > > BW> Okay where do you want me to start? How about with Carl > > BW> Sagan? In his book Cosmos, he candidly admits "The fossil > > BW> evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great > > BW> Designer." MG> So, you never Quoted Dr. Sagan out of context? No I haven't Martin. The difference is that you only believed that I have because you're just a dumb dimwit. Here. Let me show you some comments from others after my famous quote. Date: 30 Jul 93 10:34:40 From: Wayne Michaels To: Bill Wolff Subject: RE: MISSING EVIDENCE OF G So what does that prove Bill? That Carl Sagan has an opinion? Hell, I'll admit it "could be consistent...". Chocolate ice cream could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer. Date: 01 Aug 93 07:24:48 From: Kelsey Bjarnason To: Bill Wolff Subject: MISSING EVIDENCE OF G It could also be consistent with the idea that Bobo the Mutie is running the show. So what? Date: 01 Aug 93 07:26:43 From: Marilyn Burge To: Bill Wolff Subject: MISSING EVIDENCE OF G COULD BE is a qualifier, usually followed by a "but" and a refutation. Your aren't perchance quoting Sagan out of context, are you? Also, Sagan is a cosmologist. The fossil record is hardly his strong suit. Date: 18 Aug 93 09:26:59 From: Aaron Boyden To: Bill Wolff Subject: THEORY OF CREATION Anything at all could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer. We're not talking about the idea of a Great Designer, we're talking about the biblical account of creation. And we can thank Marilyn for first bringing up this idea of quoting out of context idea. But Marilyn didn't seemingly stick with this belief. But you dumb lemmings sure did. And please note that I never once claimed to support any kind of biblical creation account. Nor will you. And now let's review the whole text for like the many times we have in the past, shall we? "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)." - Carl Sagan And here's Hector believing that some how he is being clever and somehow capturing me in some kind of trap. Yet Hector is just too dumb to realize that I am just too smart for his foolishness. Date: 18 Aug 93 09:36:39 From: Hector Plasmic To: Bill Wolff Subject: RE: MISSING EVIDENCE OF GOD, MISSIN I suggest, before attacking Sagan, that you recall that it was _you_ who brought him up as a source. To deny your source now will make you look very foolish for having invoked him in the first place. And despite Hector's ignorant attempts. There is not one single part listed above by Carl Sagan that I find myself in disagreement with? Truly I don't! But you somehow believe I do since the year of 93. Boy I have heard about some slow people Martin. But you people are about as dense as those I have ran across in some time. And what did I say about this full quote back then? Lucky for you, I kept my notes. And here it is. Date: 09 Oct 93 12:22:41 From: Bill Wolff To: Don Martin Subject: PSEUDO-FACTUALIST FOLLIES On (09 Oct 93) Don Martin wrote to Bill Wolff... DM> Have you learned yet why quoting out of context is a no-no?... No not really... I really don't see why quoting Carl Sagan saying that the fossil record doesn't disagree with a great designer and then I leave out his mumblings about evolution is wrong. I thought the whole thing about the fossil record is that it is suppose to prove species didn't come by means of design. And the truth is, the fossil record does nothing of the kind and Carl Sagan admits it... Now back to your message dated as of (12 Feb 95). MG> You're going to hell for lying Billy. That's nice Martin. And it's interesting that somehow you believed that I lied and that it somehow relates to the belief in hell. But since I don't personally believe in a place called hell, I could give a rat's ass! But you just won't understand this Martin. Because your just a moron. And you haven't gotten it for many years. MG> Then you go on to make an even bigger mockery of this.... > HP> Carl goes on to say that it would have to be an idiotic "great > HP> designer" and that there's a better explanation -- natural > HP> selection -- that matches the facts better. BW> Oh really? MG> Yeah, really. Caught with your pants down, Billy the Factualist. No Martin. Your a dimwit and just have been too slow to grab on to the truth. The truth is that I don't disagree with evolution per se, but I disagree with the idea that the case about evolution being solved is closed. That's what I speak out against you dumb moron. MG> Yer a moron. Gee a dimwit who doesn't get it who is trying to call me a moron. Gee how nice. It means that your just too slow to grasp anything I tell you. And somehow you believe that saying that I'm going to hell is somehow is going to vindicate you in some way. Sorry Martin, you just too stupid to understand your own stupid ignorant fate. ROTFL! HP> ... and I think you're pulling a Bill Wolff on us and quoting a HP> creationist pamphlet. Isn't that right? Hehehe... you always behind to times. Aren't you Hector? I haven't used a creationist anything in a long time. But you just seem to quote from that limit pea brain you have up there. How about using some real references once in awhile. Oops... I almost forgot. You can't because you are a living moron.