>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Bertvan@aol.com>
> To: ccogan@telepath.com (Chris Cogan)
>Bertvan:
>Hi Chris. I don't like to appear to I ignore you. Your arguments are
>always elaborate and well thought out, but our premises are so different
>that discussion would be difficult.
>
>Silk here: Why don't you guys take your gobblydegook on the road? In your
>juvenile & ever so desperate attempts to come off as "in the know" you
>simply make fools of yourselves!
Here's a thought. Why don't you join the conversation and try to
prove one or the other of them wrong? Or explain where they fail to
adequately support their arguments? That is, after all, the purpose
of this list.
>No offense intended by why can't you simply state your case simply? Why the
>riddles & double negatives? Why the laborius attempts at complication? Are
>you giving eachother a course & if so what is the course on? "I know more
>than you"????????? I could take the amount of actual "useful information &
>thus knowledge" passed on by the both of you & put it in a thimble & there'd
>still be room for a rattle.
Alternatively, if you are disappointed in the quality of the
conversation perhaps you should unsubscribe. Here are the directions:
---- If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to <Majordomo@lists.calvin.edu> with the following command in the body of your email message:unsubscribe evolution
------
Susan -- ----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 15:13:32 EST