NOTARIZED LIE by University of California at Berkeley

[Ed Conrad]

Here is the document that proves, beyond the shadow of a
doubt, that the University of California at Berkeley actively
engages in scientific hanky-panky in defense of the factless,
facetious theory of the origin of man.

Fraud, I suppose, is the much better word.

Three specimens of petrfied bone, discovered between
anthracite veins, were sent to UofC after initial contact was
made. They were mailed to its Department of Paleontology for
testing after I was instructed to do so..

Many week later, when no response was forthcoming, I wrote
back and requested the results of the testing.

I was shocked, first, when I received a terse letter from
Berkeley with five words typed on a blank sheet of 9 1/2 by
11-inch paper:

> "Specimens Returned. No Expertise Available"

without a name or a signature as to who had sent it.

But NO specimens were inside the package.

When I wrote back demanding that the specimens be returned, I
received no reply.

So I then got U.S. Postal inspectors involved. It took some
time but the end result was evidence that confirmed that the
specimens indeed had been sent -- and indeed had arrived -- at
Berkeley. The physical proof was found by a Postal Inspector
inside the main Post Office in Berkeley.

In fact, it revealed that Pat Wright of Berkeley had signed
for the specimens upon their arrival.

Armed with that knowledge, I again wrote to Berkeley and
vehemently demanded that the specimens be returned -- or
else!.

The University of California then responded with a notarized
letter, written by Michael T. Greenwald, Museum Scientist in
the Museum of Paleontology, that the specimens had NEVER
arrived, and that I must've been mistaken about sending them.

> http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-001S.JPG
> http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-002S.JPG
> http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-003S.JPG
> http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-010S.JPG
> http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-012S.JPG

Nice try, Berkeley!

But there's more -- a GREAT deal more.

When forced to return the specimens -- three, not four -- the
University of California at Berkeley pulled a typical
Smithsonian Shenanigan.

None of the specimens appeared to have been sliced, which is
necessary for the preparation of a ground section to examine
the cellular structure to determine if the specimen is or is
not petrified bone.

But, lo and behold, it was quite easy determining,
conclusively, that a slice had been cut from one of the
specimens for testing purposes.

Under water pressure from a simple kitchen faucet, the side of
one of the specimens revealed that it was nice and shiney and
indeed had been cut.

Unquestionably, the University of California at Berkeley
examined the cellular structure and realized that, under
microscopic scrutiny, it was examining petrified bone.

But. obviously, confirmation of petrified bone discovered
between anthracite veins could not possibly be made. On the
other hand, denial of the existence of the cellular structure
of bone could not be made either, for fear of the
consequences that might lie ahead if Berkeley was caught in a
monumental lie.

There was no alternative but to deny the specimens had
ever arrived.

Little did those know-it-all's at the University of California
-- Michael Greenwald and the whole dishonest lot -- realize
that, when a Certified package is mailed with Return Receipt
Requested, a copy of the "Signed for" receipt (a white copy)
remains at the Post Office where it was delivered.

I might add that Michael Greenwald is no longer employed at
the University of California at Berkeley. You see,
participation in deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy
quite often results in promotion and higher pay.

Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com

Man as Old as Coal

[Jimbo]

Who cares?

"Ed Conrad" <edconrad@shenhgts.net> wrote in message
news:3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net...
>
> Here is the document that proves, beyond the shadow of a
> doubt, that the University of California at Berkeley
> actively engages in scientific hanky-panky in defense of the
> factless, facetious theory of the origin of man.
>
> Fraud, I suppose, is the much better word.
>
> Three specimens of petrfied bone, discovered between
> anthracite veins, were sent to UofC after initial contact
> was made. They were mailed to its Department of Paleontology
> for testing after I was instructed to do so..
>
> Many week later, when no response was forthcoming, I wrote
> back and requested the results of the testing.
>
> I was shocked, first, when I received a terse letter from
> Berkeley with five words typed on a blank sheet of 9 1/2 by
> 11-inch paper:
>
> > "Specimens Returned. No Expertise Available"
>
> without a name or a signature as to who had sent it.
>
>
> But NO specimens were inside the package.
>
> When I wrote back demanding that the specimens be returned,
> I received no reply.
>
> So I then got U.S. Postal inspectors involved. It took some
> time but the end result was evidence that confirmed that the
> specimens indeed had been sent -- and indeed had arrived --
> at Berkeley. The physical proof was found by a Postal
> Inspector inside the main Post Office in Berkeley.
>
> In fact, it revealed that Pat Wright of Berkeley had signed
> for the specimens upon their arrival.
>
> Armed with that knowledge, I again wrote to Berkeley
> and vehemently demanded that the specimens be returned
> -- or else!.
>
> The University of California then responded with a
> notarized letter, written by Michael T. Greenwald, Museum
> Scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, that the specimens
> had NEVER arrived, and that I must've been mistaken about
> sending them.
>
> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-001S.JPG
> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-002S.JPG
> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-003S.JPG
> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-010S.JPG
> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-012S.JPG
>
> Nice try, Berkeley!
>
> But there's more -- a GREAT deal more.
>
> When forced to return the specimens -- three, not four --
> the University of California at Berkeley pulled a typical
> Smithsonian Shenanigan.
>
> None of the specimens appeared to have been sliced, which is
> necessary for the preparation of a ground section to examine
> the cellular structure to determine if the specimen is or is
> not petrified bone.
>
> But, lo and behold, it was quite easy determining,
> conclusively, that a slice had been cut from one of the
> specimens for testing purposes.
>
> Under water pressure from a simple kitchen faucet, the side
> of one of the specimens revealed that it was nice and shiney
> and indeed had been cut.
>
> Unquestionably, the University of California at Berkeley
> examined the cellular structure and realized that, under
> microscopic scrutiny, it was examining petrified bone.
>
> But. obviously, confirmation of petrified bone discovered
> between anthracite veins could not possibly be made. On the
> other hand, denial of the existence of the cellular
> structure of bone could not be made either, for fear of the
> consequences that might lie ahead if Berkeley was caught in
> a monumental lie.
>
> There was no alternative but to deny the specimens had ever
> arrived.
>
> Little did those know-it-all's at the University of
> California -- Michael Greenwald and the whole dishonest lot
> -- realize that, when a Certified package is mailed with
> Return Receipt Requested, a copy of the "Signed for" receipt
> (a white copy) remains at the Post Office where it was
> delivered.
>
> I might add that Michael Greenwald is no longer employed at
> the University of California at Berkeley. You see,
> participation in deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy
> quite often results in promotion and higher pay.
>
> Ed Conrad
> > http://www.edconrad.com
>
> Man as Old as Coal

[The_sage]

>Reply to article by: edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) Date
>written: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
>MsgID:<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>

If scientists are afraid of you, it's because you are a scary
person -- most nutcase are!

Even if we pretend you have some "bones" of a prehistoric
man, your case for creation is still seriously flawed on
many levels:

1) Your rock cannot disprove evolution, it could only, at
most, revise it. That's because your rock doesn't prove
a creation
2) Research by proclamation is not credible or honest
research. Or in other words, who is Mr Krog, beside a
nobody is an expert in nothing?
3) If your version of man was created in your God's image,
your God must be awfully stupid, since it took 279 million
years before your version of man learned to read and write,
make fire, and come out of the caves. Sounds to me like
you've made God in your own image
4) Your Satan did a better job at His re-creation then your
God did at His creation. Your Satan left no stone unturned
in his effort to hide the evidence of a creation, while the
best that your God could do was dedicate two chapters to it
in an ancient textbook filled with contradictions and
inaccuracies. Your Satan must be not only more intelligent
than your God, He must also be more powerful.

So the question remains, do you have any evidence of the
existence of your God? I am not talking about the hearsay of a
book or the testimony of a biased witness, I am talking about
actual physically real evidence. Of course not, you aren't
even close to being able to offer physical evidence of any
kind whatsoever.

While evolution has (in some but not all places) incomplete,
partial, and even downright inconclusive evidence, that is far
more convincing and logically acceptable then the complete
lack of evidence that you present. Do you have so much as a
strand of hair from God, a bone fragment from an angel, or how
about even a footprint from when He used to walk about in the
Garden of Eden? All you will ever have is a contradictory book
and an empty grave. Every piece of evidence you could ever
hope for, seems to only come up empty handed for you. Even at
this very moment, I have a fossil paperweight sitting on my
desktop as just one small piece of proof that evolution does
happen and that alone is a thousand times more evidence in
favor of the evolutionary theory, then you could ever dream of
having in support of your God theory.

Your creation theory lacks way more credibility than you
portray evolution as having -- and you know it! Which means
you are lying and deceiving and covering up this whole
creation mess by not teling us the whole truth about
creationism.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

[Sir Arthur]

In article
<SizG9.34256$vM1.2625836@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Jimbo says...
>
>Who cares?

Honest researchers, sincere humanitarians, true patriots,
pro-democracy heroes, American Constitution Lovers, morally
uncorrupted scientists, anti-militaristic concerned citizens,
those who oppose UFO debunkers, decent caring folks with high
integrity and powerful family values. Apparently none of those
apply to you!!

>
>"Ed Conrad" <edconrad@shenhgts.net> wrote in message
>news:3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net...
>>
>> Here is the document that proves, beyond the shadow of a
>> doubt, that the University of California at Berkeley
>> actively engages in scientific hanky-panky in defense of
>> the factless, facetious theory of the origin of man.
>>
>> Fraud, I suppose, is the much better word.
>>
>> Three specimens of petrfied bone, discovered between
>> anthracite veins, were sent to UofC after initial contact
>> was made. They were mailed to its Department of
>> Paleontology for testing after I was instructed to do so..
>>
>> Many week later, when no response was forthcoming, I wrote
>> back and requested the results of the testing.
>>
>> I was shocked, first, when I received a terse letter from
>> Berkeley with five words typed on a blank sheet of 9 1/2 by
>> 11-inch paper:
>>
>> > "Specimens Returned. No Expertise Available"
>>
>> without a name or a signature as to who had sent it.
>>
>>
>> But NO specimens were inside the package.
>>
>> When I wrote back demanding that the specimens be returned,
>> I received no reply.
>>
>> So I then got U.S. Postal inspectors involved. It took some
>> time but the end result was evidence that confirmed that
>> the specimens indeed had been sent -- and indeed had
>> arrived -- at Berkeley. The physical proof was found by a
>> Postal Inspector inside the main Post Office in Berkeley.
>>
>> In fact, it revealed that Pat Wright of Berkeley had signed
>> for the specimens upon their arrival.
>>
>> Armed with that knowledge, I again wrote to Berkeley
>> and vehemently demanded that the specimens be returned
>> -- or else!.
>>
>> The University of California then responded with a
>> notarized letter, written by Michael T. Greenwald, Museum
>> Scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, that the specimens
>> had NEVER arrived, and that I must've been mistaken about
>> sending them.
>>
>> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-001S.JPG
>> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-002S.JPG
>> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-003S.JPG
>> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-010S.JPG
>> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-012S.JPG
>>
>> Nice try, Berkeley!
>>
>> But there's more -- a GREAT deal more.
>>
>> When forced to return the specimens -- three, not four --
>> the University of California at Berkeley pulled a typical
>> Smithsonian Shenanigan.
>>
>> None of the specimens appeared to have been sliced, which
>> is necessary for the preparation of a ground section to
>> examine the cellular structure to determine if the specimen
>> is or is not petrified bone.
>>
>> But, lo and behold, it was quite easy determining,
>> conclusively, that a slice had been cut from one of the
>> specimens for testing purposes.
>>
>> Under water pressure from a simple kitchen faucet, the side
>> of one of the specimens revealed that it was nice and
>> shiney and indeed had been cut.
>>
>> Unquestionably, the University of California at Berkeley
>> examined the cellular structure and realized that, under
>> microscopic scrutiny, it was examining petrified bone.
>>
>> But. obviously, confirmation of petrified bone discovered
>> between anthracite veins could not possibly be made. On the
>> other hand, denial of the existence of the cellular
>> structure of bone could not be made either, for fear of the
>> consequences that might lie ahead if Berkeley was caught in
>> a monumental lie.
>>
>> There was no alternative but to deny the specimens had ever
>> arrived.
>>
>> Little did those know-it-all's at the University of
>> California -- Michael Greenwald and the whole dishonest lot
>> -- realize that, when a Certified package is mailed with
>> Return Receipt Requested, a copy of the "Signed for"
>> receipt (a white copy) remains at the Post Office where it
>> was delivered.
>>
>> I might add that Michael Greenwald is no longer employed at
>> the University of California at Berkeley. You see,
>> participation in deceit, deception, collusion and
>> conspiracy quite often results in promotion and higher pay.
>>
>> Ed Conrad
>> > http://www.edconrad.com
>>
>> Man as Old as Coal
>

[David Jens]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:42:09 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in
<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>:

>
>Here is the document that proves, beyond the shadow of a
>doubt, that the University of California at Berkeley actively
>engages in scientific hanky-panky in defense of the factless,
>facetious theory of the origin of man.
>
>Fraud, I suppose, is the much better word.

Your claim is the fraud, one that you have repeated without
success, for ages. Please start pounding your rock-filled head
into the anthracite.

[Cyde Weys]

"The_Sage" <theesage@azrmci.net> wrote in message
news:3deac137.3994188@news.west.cox.net...
> >Reply to article by: edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) Date
> >written: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
> >MsgID:<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>
>
> If scientists are afraid of you, it's because you are a
> scary person -- most nutcase are!
>
> Even if we pretend you have some "bones" of a prehistoric
> man, your case for creation is still seriously flawed on
> many levels:
>
> 1) Your rock cannot disprove evolution, it could only, at
> most, revise it. That's because your rock doesn't prove a
> creation
> 2) Research by proclamation is not credible or honest
> research. Or in other words, who is Mr Krog, beside a
> nobody is an expert in nothing?
> 3) If your version of man was created in your God's image,
> your God must be awfully stupid, since it took 279
> million years before your version of man learned to read
> and write, make fire, and come out of the caves. Sounds
> to me like you've made God in your own image
> 4) Your Satan did a better job at His re-creation then your
> God did at His creation. Your Satan left no stone
> unturned in his effort to hide the evidence of a
> creation, while the best that your God could do was
> dedicate two chapters to it in an ancient textbook filled
> with contradictions and inaccuracies. Your Satan must be
> not only more intelligent than your God, He must also be
> more powerful.
>
> So the question remains, do you have any evidence of the
> existence of your God? I am not talking about the hearsay of
> a book or the testimony of a biased witness, I am talking
> about actual physically real evidence. Of course not, you
> aren't even close to being able to offer physical evidence
> of any kind whatsoever.
>
> While evolution has (in some but not all places) incomplete,
> partial, and even downright inconclusive evidence, that is
> far more convincing and logically acceptable then the
> complete lack of evidence that you present. Do you have so
> much as a strand of hair from God, a bone fragment from an
> angel, or how about even a footprint from when He used to
> walk about in the Garden of Eden? All you will ever have is
> a contradictory book and an empty grave. Every piece of
> evidence you could ever hope for, seems to only come up
> empty handed for you. Even at this very moment, I have a
> fossil paperweight sitting on my desktop as just one small
> piece of proof that evolution does happen and that alone is
> a thousand times more evidence in favor of the evolutionary
> theory, then you could ever dream of having in support of
> your God theory.
>
> Your creation theory lacks way more credibility than you
> portray evolution as having -- and you know it! Which means
> you are lying and deceiving and covering up this whole
> creation mess by not teling us the whole truth about
> creationism.

I just love when his cross-posting accidentally brings in
all the awesome people we haven't heard from before. Thank
you so much.

[Cnote]

theesage@azrmci.net (The_Sage) wrote in message
news:<3deac137.3994188@news.west.cox.net>...
> >Reply to article by: edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) Date
> >written: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
> >MsgID:<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>
>
> If scientists are afraid of you, it's because you are a
> scary person -- most nutcase are!
>
> Even if we pretend you have some "bones" of a prehistoric
> man, your case for creation is still seriously flawed on
> many levels:
>
> 1) Your rock cannot disprove evolution, it could only, at
> most, revise it. That's because your rock doesn't prove a
> creation
> 2) Research by proclamation is not credible or honest
> research. Or in other words, who is Mr Krog, beside a
> nobody is an expert in nothing?
> 3) If your version of man was created in your God's image,
> your God must be awfully stupid, since it took 279
> million years before your version of man learned to read
> and write, make fire, and come out of the caves. Sounds
> to me like you've made God in your own image
> 4) Your Satan did a better job at His re-creation then your
> God did at His creation. Your Satan left no stone
> unturned in his effort to hide the evidence of a
> creation, while the best that your God could do was
> dedicate two chapters to it in an ancient textbook filled
> with contradictions and inaccuracies. Your Satan must be
> not only more intelligent than your God, He must also be
> more powerful.
>
> So the question remains, do you have any evidence of the
> existence of your God? I am not talking about the hearsay of
> a book or the testimony of a biased witness, I am talking
> about actual physically real evidence. Of course not, you
> aren't even close to being able to offer physical evidence
> of any kind whatsoever.
>
> While evolution has (in some but not all places) incomplete,
> partial, and even downright inconclusive evidence, that is
> far more convincing and logically acceptable then the
> complete lack of evidence that you present. Do you have so
> much as a strand of hair from God, a bone fragment from an
> angel, or how about even a footprint from when He used to
> walk about in the Garden of Eden? All you will ever have is
> a contradictory book and an empty grave. Every piece of
> evidence you could ever hope for, seems to only come up
> empty handed for you. Even at this very moment, I have a
> fossil paperweight sitting on my desktop as just one small
> piece of proof that evolution does happen and that alone is
> a thousand times more evidence in favor of the evolutionary
> theory, then you could ever dream of having in support of
> your God theory.
>
> Your creation theory lacks way more credibility than you
> portray evolution as having -- and you know it! Which means
> you are lying and deceiving and covering up this whole
> creation mess by not teling us the whole truth about
> creationism.
>
> The Sage
>
> =============================================================

> My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
>
> "The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
> most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently
> are those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
> =============================================================

There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First of
all, and formost is the Bible Code. I don't know if you've
ever heard of it, it was discovered by one of the worlds
leading mathmatecians and has been looked for for centuries.
It has the dates, names, and events of every major event in
human history in it. There is absolutly nothing the skeptics
can say about it because the guys methods certaintly aren't
flawed, and have been tested many of times. In fact a book
that was published on it, it was a new york times best seller
I believe, had the little description story on the back about
how when he was first cracking the codes, he found that
Yhiksah Rabin or whatevers name it saying he would be
assasinated in 1996, and warned him. Sure enough in 1996 a guy
who claimed to be on a mission from god killed him. So far
with all the codes and codes within codes they've found
they've determined no supercomputer that we have could make up
a code, especially since it tells the future. I recommend you
also read the 800 pages of the Forbidden Archealogy, with well
over 500 pieces of evidence that show our theorys on evolution
are false. Of course you'll probably only listen to the
skeptics rant about how 5 of the pieces of evidence aren't
conclusive enough (when they even mention in the book which
evidence is more solid and compelling and which is just kind
of in that gray area), and then you'll totally forget about it
like it doesn't even exist. Have you ever heard of the ABC
special in 1999 Stigmata: Science tests faith. It featured
Katya a stigmatist who is approved of as genuine by the
vatican. She offered to be monitored in laboratory to prove
the legitamacy of her stigmata. It was the first time stigmata
wounds were caught on film forming and healing. It also showed
one part when she was talking to jesus, a scientist in a room
she didn't even know about who was monitoring her brain waves
talked about how she was in a Delta state and might have
epilepsy, and just then she said "I'm an niether sick nor have
epilepsy" and all the scientists looked like they shit their
pants. Another thing was the statues that were bleeding or
oozing something, and the scientists checked and showed they
didn't have any mechanisms in them. It also had jesus talking
directly through katya to the scientists, and gave a final
message about how he set it all up to get the message out to
the world about god and jesus. I can think of countless other
evidences and reasons to believe. You don't believe because
the only thing you will consider religion is the little sunday
school bullshit "God created earth just 6,000 years ago". Read
the original hebrew bible which is what the bible code is
incoded in and you'll see the differences. You don't believe
in god because he's ignored you just like you've him, so he
stays out of your life.

[Pip R. Lag]

The_Sage wrote:

[snip]
> 4) Your Satan did a better job at His re-creation then your
> God did at His creation. Your Satan left no stone
> unturned in his effort to hide the evidence of a
> creation, while the best that your God could do was
> dedicate two chapters to it in an ancient textbook filled
> with contradictions and inaccuracies. Your Satan must be
> not only more intelligent than your God, He must also be
> more powerful.
>

See: <http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta President for Life International
Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta (If your name is
Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)

<http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/pip.html

[David Jens]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:24:47 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
sk8er424@aol.com (CNote) wrote in
<ac3a451a.0212020934.6610a0d7@posting.google.com>:

>There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First of
>all, and formost is the Bible Code. I don't know if you've
>ever heard of it, it was discovered by one of the worlds
>leading mathmatecians and has been looked for for centuries.
>It has the dates, names, and events of every major event in
>human history in it. There is absolutly nothing the skeptics
>can say about it because the guys methods certaintly aren't
>flawed, and have been tested many of times. In fact a book
>that was published on it, it was a new york times best seller
>I believe, had the little description story on the back about
>how when he was first cracking the codes, he found that
>Yhiksah Rabin or whatevers name it saying he would be
>assasinated in 1996, and warned him. Sure enough in 1996 a
>guy who claimed to be on a mission from god killed him. So
>far with all the codes and codes within codes they've found
>they've determined no supercomputer that we have could make
>up a code, especially since it tells the future. I recommend
>you also read the 800 pages of the Forbidden Archealogy, with
>well over 500 pieces of evidence that show our theorys on
>evolution are false. Of course you'll probably only listen to
>the skeptics rant about how 5 of the pieces of evidence
>aren't conclusive enough (when they even mention in the book
>which evidence is more solid and compelling and which is just
>kind of in that gray area), and then you'll totally forget
>about it like it doesn't even exist. Have you ever heard of
>the ABC special in 1999 Stigmata: Science tests faith. It
>featured Katya a stigmatist who is approved of as genuine by
>the vatican. She offered to be monitored in laboratory to
>prove the legitamacy of her stigmata. It was the first time
>stigmata wounds were caught on film forming and healing. It
>also showed one part when she was talking to jesus, a
>scientist in a room she didn't even know about who was
>monitoring her brain waves talked about how she was in a
>Delta state and might have epilepsy, and just then she said
>"I'm an niether sick nor have epilepsy" and all the
>scientists looked like they shit their pants. Another thing
>was the statues that were bleeding or oozing something, and
>the scientists checked and showed they didn't have any
>mechanisms in them. It also had jesus talking directly
>through katya to the scientists, and gave a final message
>about how he set it all up to get the message out to the
>world about god and jesus. I can think of countless other
>evidences and reasons to believe. You don't believe because
>the only thing you will consider religion is the little
>sunday school bullshit "God created earth just 6,000 years
>ago". Read the original hebrew bible which is what the bible
>code is incoded in and you'll see the differences. You don't
>believe in god because he's ignored you just like you've him,
>so he stays out of your life.

Dear credulous mark,

Please send money.

God will give you blessings.

[C. Thompso]

CNote wrote:

>
> There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First of
> all, and formost is the Bible Code. I don't know if you've
> ever heard of it, it was discovered by one of the worlds
> leading mathmatecians and has been looked for for centuries.
> It has the dates, names, and events of every major event in
> human history in it.

Great. That being the case, please fill us in on the next 4
presidential elections.

Oh, and when will my stock split again, please?

Chris

[Cnote]

"Cyde Weys" <vze23tncNO@SPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:<fnHG9.26499$%r6.16598@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> "The_Sage" <theesage@azrmci.net> wrote in message
> news:3deac137.3994188@news.west.cox.net...
> > >Reply to article by: edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad)
> > >Date written: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
> > >MsgID:<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>
> >
> > If scientists are afraid of you, it's because you are a
> > scary person -- most nutcase are!
> >
> > Even if we pretend you have some "bones" of a prehistoric
> > man, your case for creation is still seriously flawed on
> > many levels:
> >
> > 1) Your rock cannot disprove evolution, it could only, at
> > most, revise it. That's because your rock doesn't prove
> > a creation
> > 2) Research by proclamation is not credible or honest
> > research. Or in other words, who is Mr Krog, beside a
> > nobody is an expert in nothing?
> > 3) If your version of man was created in your God's image,
> > your God must be awfully stupid, since it took 279
> > million years before your version of man learned to
> > read and write, make fire, and come out of the caves.
> > Sounds to me like you've made God in your own image
> > 4) Your Satan did a better job at His re-creation then
> > your God did at His creation. Your Satan left no stone
> > unturned in his effort to hide the evidence of a
> > creation, while the best that your God could do was
> > dedicate two chapters to it in an ancient textbook
> > filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Your Satan
> > must be not only more intelligent than your God, He
> > must also be more powerful.
> >
> > So the question remains, do you have any evidence of the
> > existence of your God? I am not talking about the hearsay
> > of a book or the testimony of a biased witness, I am
> > talking about actual physically real evidence. Of course
> > not, you aren't even close to being able to offer physical
> > evidence of any kind whatsoever.
> >
> > While evolution has (in some but not all places)
> > incomplete, partial, and even downright inconclusive
> > evidence, that is far more convincing and logically
> > acceptable then the complete lack of evidence that you
> > present. Do you have so much as a strand of hair from God,
> > a bone fragment from an angel, or how about even a
> > footprint from when He used to walk about in the Garden of
> > Eden? All you will ever have is a contradictory book and
> > an empty grave. Every piece of evidence you could ever
> > hope for, seems to only come up empty handed for you. Even
> > at this very moment, I have a fossil paperweight sitting
> > on my desktop as just one small piece of proof that
> > evolution does happen and that alone is a thousand times
> > more evidence in favor of the evolutionary theory, then
> > you could ever dream of having in support of your God
> > theory.
> >
> > Your creation theory lacks way more credibility than you
> > portray evolution as having -- and you know it! Which
> > means you are lying and deceiving and covering up this
> > whole creation mess by not teling us the whole truth about
> > creationism.
>
> I just love when his cross-posting accidentally brings in
> all the awesome people we haven't heard from before. Thank
> you so much.

Also, if the universe was created just by "chance", I'd like
to know what exactly it was is the bigger thing that it was
an "accident" of. Hindu scriptures "the vedas" which date
themselves at 18,000 years old (of course our cultures steps
in and says no thats impossible their only 3000 years old)
claim that the material universe which is just a part of the
creation continuosly creates and destroys over periods of
time unimaginable to humans, several hundred billion years, I
believe. Just because one cultures religion which has a big
misinterpretation to it, has now resin to be the most popular
and powerful religion, doesn't make it the absolute truth of
god, and sinces its claims can be ridiculous sounding and
easily discredited people see this as 100% proof against gods
existance Its funny how metaphysics which has its main
evidence based on expierences (ie. you can't send a probe
into a non-physical consiousness based reality, only
consiousness like in remote viewing) will be discredited by
skeptics for obvious reasons (their materialistic attitudes).
But when some physicist makes a theory about how since the
universe it based on chance there must be other "dimensions"
that "split" whenever a "chance" out of a range of
"possibilities" occur, the all find it as the absolute truth.
But of course we can't travel to those dimensions and prove
their existance. But you can go to the 4th dimension and
investigate all around if you want, you do it every night. I
really suggest that some of you read some of Lt. Col Tom
Beardens papers, it will enlighten you.

[Kermit]

"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:<GlCG9.1062$kV3.180@www.newsranger.com>...
> In article <SizG9.34256$vM1.2625836@bgtnsc04-news.ops.world-
> net.att.net>, Jimbo says...
> >
> >Who cares?
>
> Honest researchers, sincere humanitarians, true patriots,
> pro-democracy heroes, American Constitution Lovers, morally
> uncorrupted scientists, anti-militaristic concerned
> citizens, those who oppose UFO debunkers, decent caring
> folks with high integrity and powerful family values.
> Apparently none of those apply to you!!
>
> >
> >"Ed Conrad" <edconrad@shenhgts.net> wrote in message
> >news:3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net...
> >>
> >> Here is the document that proves, beyond the shadow of a
> >> doubt, that the University of California at Berkeley
> >> actively engages in scientific hanky-panky in defense of
> >> the factless, facetious theory of the origin of man.
> >>
> >> Fraud, I suppose, is the much better word.
> >>
> >> Three specimens of petrfied bone, discovered between
> >> anthracite veins, were sent to UofC after initial
> >> contact was made. They were mailed to its Department
> >> of Paleontology for testing after I was instructed to
> >> do so..
> >>
> >> Many week later, when no response was forthcoming, I
> >> wrote back and requested the results of the testing.
> >>
> >> I was shocked, first, when I received a terse letter from
> >> Berkeley with five words typed on a blank sheet of 9 1/2
> >> by 11-inch paper:
> >>
> >> > "Specimens Returned. No Expertise Available"
> >>
> >> without a name or a signature as to who had sent it.
> >>
> >>
> >> But NO specimens were inside the package.
> >>
> >> When I wrote back demanding that the specimens be
> >> returned, I received no reply.
> >>
> >> So I then got U.S. Postal inspectors involved. It took
> >> some time but the end result was evidence that confirmed
> >> that the specimens indeed had been sent -- and indeed had
> >> arrived -- at Berkeley. The physical proof was found by a
> >> Postal Inspector inside the main Post Office in Berkeley.
> >>
> >> In fact, it revealed that Pat Wright of Berkeley had
> >> signed for the specimens upon their arrival.
> >>
> >> Armed with that knowledge, I again wrote to Berkeley and
> >> vehemently demanded that the specimens be returned -- or
> >> else!.
> >>
> >> The University of California then responded with a
> >> notarized letter, written by Michael T. Greenwald, Museum
> >> Scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, that the
> >> specimens had NEVER arrived, and that I must've been
> >> mistaken about sending them.
> >>
> >> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-001S.JPG
> >> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-002S.JPG
> >> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-003S.JPG
> >> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-010S.JPG
> >> > http//www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-012S.JPG
> >>
> >> Nice try, Berkeley!
> >>
> >> But there's more -- a GREAT deal more.
> >>
> >> When forced to return the specimens -- three, not four --
> >> the University of California at Berkeley pulled a typical
> >> Smithsonian Shenanigan.
> >>
> >> None of the specimens appeared to have been sliced, which
> >> is necessary for the preparation of a ground section to
> >> examine the cellular structure to determine if the
> >> specimen is or is not petrified bone.
> >>
> >> But, lo and behold, it was quite easy determining,
> >> conclusively, that a slice had been cut from one of the
> >> specimens for testing purposes.
> >>
> >> Under water pressure from a simple kitchen faucet, the
> >> side of one of the specimens revealed that it was nice
> >> and shiney and indeed had been cut.
> >>
> >> Unquestionably, the University of California at Berkeley
> >> examined the cellular structure and realized that, under
> >> microscopic scrutiny, it was examining petrified bone.
> >>
> >> But. obviously, confirmation of petrified bone discovered
> >> between anthracite veins could not possibly be made. On
> >> the other hand, denial of the existence of the cellular
> >> structure of bone could not be made either, for fear of
> >> the consequences that might lie ahead if Berkeley was
> >> caught in a monumental lie.
> >>
> >> There was no alternative but to deny the specimens had
> >> ever arrived.
> >>
> >> Little did those know-it-all's at the University of
> >> California -- Michael Greenwald and the whole dishonest
> >> lot -- realize that, when a Certified package is mailed
> >> with Return Receipt Requested, a copy of the "Signed for"
> >> receipt (a white copy) remains at the Post Office where
> >> it was delivered.
> >>
> >> I might add that Michael Greenwald is no longer
> >> employed at the University of California at Berkeley.
> >> You see, participation in deceit, deception, collusion
> >> and conspiracy quite often results in promotion and
> >> higher pay.
> >>
> >> Ed Conrad
> >> > http://www.edconrad.com
> >>
> >> Man as Old as Coal
> >>
> >

Perhaps UFOs stole Ed's important specimens and replaced them
with rocks?

Perhaps an undergrad geology student got so annoyed with the
crank delivery that he tossed the rocks?

Perhaps Ed made this up? No evidence for it. But Ed, we all
know that you just sent them ordinary rocks, so we have a hard
time getting upset at the loss. Did you photograph them before
sending them? And why would you think the University of
California would ever start showing interest in your ...work?
Have they ever in the past?

Perhaps you could send future discoveries to Sir Arthur; he
seems to have an open mind. A very open mind.

--- Kermit

Dismissing UFO claims for 40 years.

[Mark Vande]

In article <ac3a451a.0212020934.6610a0d7@posting.google.com>,
CNote wrote:

> There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First
> of all, and formost is the Bible Code. I don't know if
> you've ever heard of it, it was discovered by one of the
> worlds leading mathmatecians and has been looked for for
> centuries. It has the dates, names, and events of every
> major event in human history in it. There is absolutly
> nothing the skeptics can say about it because the guys
> methods certaintly aren't flawed, and have been tested many
> of times. In fact a book that was published on it, it was a
> new york times best seller I believe, had the little
> description story on the back about how when he was first
> cracking the codes, he found that Yhiksah Rabin or
> whatevers name it saying he would be assasinated in 1996,
> and warned him. Sure enough in 1996 a guy who claimed to be
> on a mission from god killed him. So far with all the codes
> and codes within codes they've found they've determined no
> supercomputer that we have could make up a code, especially
> since it tells the future.

This kind of stuff makes me chuckle.

The Bible code wasn't discovered by "one of the world's
leading mathmatecians [sic]". The chief promoter of this
nonsense is Michael Drosnin, a journalist in his book _The
Bible Code_, 1994. This was based upon the paper in
_Statistical Science_ by Eliyahu Rips.

It's mindless drivel. The short story: In any sufficiently
long text, you can derive pretty much whatever you want.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9803/bible-code.html

Of course the silliest thing about the Bible code is that our
divine creator would encode his messages to mankind as a kind
of lawless crossword puzzle.

> I recommend you also read the 800 pages of the Forbidden
> Archealogy, with well over 500 pieces of evidence that show
> our theorys on evolution are false. Of course you'll
> probably only listen to the skeptics rant about how 5 of the
> pieces of evidence aren't conclusive enough (when they even
> mention in the book which evidence is more solid and
> compelling and which is just kind of in that gray area), and
> then you'll totally forget about it like it doesn't even
> exist. Have you ever heard of the ABC special in 1999
> Stigmata: Science tests faith. It featured Katya a
> stigmatist who is approved of as genuine by the vatican. She
> offered to be monitored in laboratory to prove the
> legitamacy of her stigmata. It was the first time stigmata
> wounds were caught on film forming and healing. It also
> showed one part when she was talking to jesus, a scientist
> in a room she didn't even know about who was monitoring her
> brain waves talked about how she was in a Delta state and
> might have epilepsy, and just then she said "I'm an niether
> sick nor have epilepsy" and all the scientists looked like
> they shit their pants. Another thing was the statues that
> were bleeding or oozing something, and the scientists
> checked and showed they didn't have any mechanisms in them.
> It also had jesus talking directly through katya to the
> scientists, and gave a final message about how he set it all
> up to get the message out to the world about god and jesus.

This was a Fox special, not ABC.

http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990729-signs-from-god/

> I can think of countless other evidences and reasons to
> believe. You don't believe because the only thing you
> will consider religion is the little sunday school
> bullshit "God created earth just 6,000 years ago". Read
> the original hebrew bible which is what the bible code
> is incoded in and you'll see the differences. You don't
> believe in god because he's ignored you just like you've
> him, so he stays out of your life.

Uh huh. Or he chooses to reveal himself in parlor tricks,
rather than in the actions of his followers.

Mark

[SkitterThe]

On 1-Dec-2002, edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:

> Here is the document that proves, beyond the shadow of a
> doubt, that the University of California at Berkeley
> actively engages in scientific hanky-panky in defense of the
> factless, facetious theory of the origin of man.

The links you provided for this document did not work. I'm not
sure why, but thought you might like to know.

> Fraud, I suppose, is the much better word.
>
> Three specimens of petrfied bone, discovered between
> anthracite veins, were sent to UofC after initial contact
> was made. They were mailed to its Department of Paleontology
> for testing after I was instructed to do so..

<snip the stuff that I can not confirm without a great deal
more trouble than it is worth>

> When forced to return the specimens -- three, not four --
> the University of California at Berkeley pulled a typical
> Smithsonian Shenanigan.

I am not sure exactly how many things you sent them. Was
it three or four. Did you send them three things and get
four back?
>
> None of the specimens appeared to have been sliced, which is
> necessary for the preparation of a ground section to examine
> the cellular structure to determine if the specimen is or is
> not petrified bone.
>
> But, lo and behold, it was quite easy determining,
> conclusively, that a slice had been cut from one of the
> specimens for testing purposes.

if none of them appeared sliced, how was it easy to
determine, conclusively, that a slice had been cut from one
of them? How do you know it was for testing purposes? Did you
request specific types of tests be conducted? If so, what
types? Cutting something for a thin section analysis is
different from sawing off a piece to check what material is
beneath the outer cortex. Could they have done something as
simple as that?
>
> Under water pressure from a simple kitchen faucet, the side
> of one of the specimens revealed that it was nice and shiney
> and indeed had been cut.

Ok. If I understand you, one of the things had been cut. By
this, do you mean that it had been sectioned.
>
> Unquestionably, the University of California at Berkeley
> examined the cellular structure and realized that, under
> microscopic scrutiny, it was examining petrified bone.

I think that is a bit of a leap.

> But. obviously, confirmation of petrified bone discovered
> between anthracite veins could not possibly be made. On the
> other hand, denial of the existence of the cellular
> structure of bone could not be made either, for fear of the
> consequences that might lie ahead if Berkeley was caught in
> a monumental lie.
>
> There was no alternative but to deny the specimens had ever
> arrived.

They could have just thrown it away, leaving no trace to be
found by the postal inspectors. Or substituted something
different, something that would not be difficult to explain,
for your samples.

> Little did those know-it-all's at the University of
> California -- Michael Greenwald and the whole dishonest lot
> -- realize that, when a Certified package is mailed with
> Return Receipt Requested, a copy of the "Signed for" receipt
> (a white copy) remains at the Post Office where it was
> delivered.
>
> I might add that Michael Greenwald is no longer employed at
> the University of California at Berkeley. You see,
> participation in deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy
> quite often results in promotion and higher pay.
>
> Ed Conrad
> > http://www.edconrad.com
>
> Man as Old as Coal

Dave Indy_dav A Shinning Example of Post-Pleistocene Man
Hoping I don't regret jumping into this....

[Lucas John]

"CNote" <sk8er424@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ac3a451a.0212021013.3caa890b@posting.google.com...
> A Review of the Attempts to Invalidate the Torah Codes
>
> Hebrew
> Version
>
> Introduction: The battle being waged against the
> phenomenon of Torah Codes is emotionally highly-charged
> and loaded with preconceptions. Some of the critics
> involved are scientists who seek to negate the research,
> not on the basis of objective observations and evidence,
> but driven by a belligerent worldview. Given these
> conditions, their pseudo-scientific approach can hardly
> qualify as a yardstick for establishing truth. We are
> fiercely attacked and even vilified by these opponents,
> who feel justified by their philosophy to mislead and
> distort. Any means seems to justify their goal: to deny
> the existence of the Torah Codes.

Barry Simon, a math prof at Caltech and an Orthodox Jew, has
weighed in on this issue. Perhaps you could read what he has
put forth, and tell me what you think of it. He also gives
details about the refereeing of the paper eventually published
in Statistical Science, in particular, that it was rejected by
PNAS and sent to SS so that it could be a discussion piece
with rebuttals from other scholars (which, in the end, was not
what happened).

http://wopr.com/biblecodes/

My understanding is that the "Torah Code" is the mathematical
equivalent of Velikovskian cosmology, but I admit that I'm not
a mathematician (I'm not a cosmologist either ;).

[Random Aside: Velikovsky was an orthodox Jew, and even lived
and worked in Palestine for a time (before the founding of
Israel), I wonder what he would have thought of this Torah
Code mess? Anyone brave enough to speculate?]

By the way, if you're going to copy a whole article...don't.
Give a link, and quote the good stuff. In your case that would
be: http://www.torahcodes.co.il/review.htm. As for the good
stuff, well...

Luke http://soulsonfire.blogspot.com

[Hiero5ant]

Just out of curiosity, do you write for Dr. Bronner's Soap?

CNote wrote in message ...
>"Cyde Weys" <vze23tncNO@SPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:<fnHG9.26499$%r6.16598@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>> "The_Sage" <theesage@azrmci.net> wrote in message
>> news:3deac137.3994188@news.west.cox.net...
>> > >Reply to article by: edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad)
>> > >Date written: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
>> > >MsgID:<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>
>> >
>> > If scientists are afraid of you, it's because you are a
>> > scary person -- most nutcase are!
>> >
>> > Even if we pretend you have some "bones" of a prehistoric
>> > man, your case for creation is still seriously flawed on
>> > many levels:
>> >
>> > 1) Your rock cannot disprove evolution, it could only, at
>> > most, revise it. That's because your rock doesn't
>> > prove a creation
>> > 2) Research by proclamation is not credible or honest
>> > research. Or in other words, who is Mr Krog, beside a
>> > nobody is an expert in nothing?
>> > 3) If your version of man was created in your God's
>> > image, your God must be awfully stupid, since it took
>> > 279 million years before your version of man learned
>> > to read and write, make fire, and come out of the
>> > caves. Sounds to me like you've made God in your own
>> > image
>> > 4) Your Satan did a better job at His re-creation then
>> > your God did at His creation. Your Satan left no stone
>> > unturned in his effort to hide the evidence of a
>> > creation, while the best that your God could do was
>> > dedicate two chapters to it in an ancient textbook
>> > filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Your
>> > Satan must be not only more intelligent than your God,
>> > He must also be more powerful.
>> >
>> > So the question remains, do you have any evidence of the
>> > existence of your God? I am not talking about the hearsay
>> > of a book or the testimony of a biased witness, I am
>> > talking about actual physically real evidence. Of course
>> > not, you aren't even close to being able to offer
>> > physical evidence of any kind whatsoever.
>> >
>> > While evolution has (in some but not all places)
>> > incomplete, partial, and even downright inconclusive
>> > evidence, that is far more convincing and logically
>> > acceptable then the complete lack of evidence that you
>> > present. Do you have so much as a strand of hair from
>> > God, a bone fragment from an angel, or how about even a
>> > footprint from when He used to walk about in the Garden
>> > of Eden? All you will ever have is a contradictory book
>> > and an empty grave. Every piece of evidence you could
>> > ever hope for, seems to only come up empty handed for
>> > you. Even at this very moment, I have a fossil
>> > paperweight sitting on my desktop as just one small piece
>> > of proof that evolution does happen and that alone is a
>> > thousand times more evidence in favor of the evolutionary
>> > theory, then you could ever dream of having in support of
>> > your God theory.
>> >
>> > Your creation theory lacks way more credibility than you
>> > portray evolution as having -- and you know it! Which
>> > means you are lying and deceiving and covering up this
>> > whole creation mess by not teling us the whole truth
>> > about creationism.
>>
>> I just love when his cross-posting accidentally brings in
>> all the awesome people we haven't heard from before. Thank
>> you so much.
>
>Also, if the universe was created just by "chance", I'd like
>to know what exactly it was is the bigger thing that it was
>an "accident" of. Hindu scriptures "the vedas" which date
>themselves at 18,000 years old (of course our cultures steps
>in and says no thats impossible their only 3000 years old)
>claim that the material universe which is just a part of the
>creation continuosly creates and destroys over periods of
>time unimaginable to humans, several hundred billion years, I
>believe. Just because one cultures religion which has a big
>misinterpretation to it, has now resin to be the most popular
>and powerful religion, doesn't make it the absolute truth of
>god, and sinces its claims can be ridiculous sounding and
>easily discredited people see this as 100% proof against gods
>existance Its funny how metaphysics which has its main
>evidence based on expierences (ie. you can't send a probe
>into a non-physical consiousness based reality, only
>consiousness like in remote viewing) will be discredited by
>skeptics for obvious reasons (their materialistic attitudes).
>But when some physicist makes a theory about how since the
>universe it based on chance there must be other "dimensions"
>that "split" whenever a "chance" out of a range of
>"possibilities" occur, the all find it as the absolute truth.
>But of course we can't travel to those dimensions and prove
>their existance. But you can go to the 4th dimension and
>investigate all around if you want, you do it every night. I
>really suggest that some of you read some of Lt. Col Tom
>Beardens papers, it will enlighten you.

[Stew Dean]

edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message
news:<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>...
> Here is the document that proves, beyond the shadow of a
> doubt, that the University of California at Berkeley
> actively engages in scientific hanky-panky in defense of the
> factless, facetious theory of the origin of man.
>
> Fraud, I suppose, is the much better word.

But completely incorrect.

You have somehow mistaken stuff being misplaced (or even
thrown away) with fraud.

You also seem to think you are in some kind of way
important enough to have to listened to (the reason you
post to this group).

YOu have nothing of scientific interest so stop acting
like you do.

Personaly in that sitution if I received a letter saying 'this
is definitly bone' - which you probably did and it turned out
to be a concretion I wouldnt have returned the specimems as I
probably had far more important things to do that bother with
clearly misguided members of the public.

You appear to enjoy wasting peoples time - mostly your own.

I've just come back from a round the world trip so am more
patience than usual - a couple more stupid posts like this and
I'll go back to ignoring you.

Stew Dean

[Lane Lewis]

"CNote" <sk8er424@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ac3a451a.0212020934.6610a0d7@posting.google.com...
> There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First of
> all, and formost is the Bible Code. >

http://www.pithemovie.com/java.html Lots of fun, not
much truth.

[Cyde Weys]

"CNote" <sk8er424@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ac3a451a.0212020934.6610a0d7@posting.google.com...
> theesage@azrmci.net (The_Sage) wrote in message
news:<3deac137.3994188@news.west.cox.net>...
> > >Reply to article by: edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad)
> > >Date written: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
> > >MsgID:<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>
> >
> > If scientists are afraid of you, it's because you are a
> > scary person -- most nutcase are!
> >
> > Even if we pretend you have some "bones" of a prehistoric
> > man, your case for creation is still seriously flawed on
> > many levels:
> >
> > 1) Your rock cannot disprove evolution, it could only, at
> > most, revise it. That's because your rock doesn't prove
> > a creation
> > 2) Research by proclamation is not credible or honest
> > research. Or in other words, who is Mr Krog, beside a
> > nobody is an expert in nothing?
> > 3) If your version of man was created in your God's image,
> > your God must be awfully stupid, since it took 279
> > million years before your version of man learned to
> > read and write, make fire, and come out of the caves.
> > Sounds to me like you've made God in your own image
> > 4) Your Satan did a better job at His re-creation then
> > your God did at His creation. Your Satan left no stone
> > unturned in his effort to hide the evidence of a
> > creation, while the best that your God could do was
> > dedicate two chapters to it in an ancient textbook
> > filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Your Satan
> > must be not only more intelligent than your God, He
> > must also be more powerful.
> >
> > So the question remains, do you have any evidence of the
> > existence of your God? I am not talking about the hearsay
> > of a book or the testimony of a biased witness, I am
> > talking about actual physically real evidence. Of course
> > not, you aren't even close to being able to offer physical
> > evidence of any kind whatsoever.
> >
> > While evolution has (in some but not all places)
> > incomplete, partial, and even downright inconclusive
> > evidence, that is far more convincing and logically
> > acceptable then the complete lack of evidence that you
> > present. Do you have so much as a strand of hair from God,
> > a bone fragment from an angel, or how about even a
> > footprint from when He used to walk about in the Garden of
> > Eden? All you will ever have is a contradictory book and
> > an empty grave. Every piece of evidence you could ever
> > hope for, seems to only come up empty handed for you. Even
> > at this very moment, I have a fossil paperweight sitting
> > on my desktop as just one small piece of proof that
> > evolution does happen and that alone is a thousand times
> > more evidence in favor of the evolutionary theory, then
> > you could ever dream of having in support of your God
> > theory.
> >
> > Your creation theory lacks way more credibility than you
> > portray evolution as having -- and you know it! Which
> > means you are lying and deceiving and covering up this
> > whole creation mess by not teling us the whole truth about
> > creationism.
> >
> > The Sage
> >
> > =============================================================

> > My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
> >
> > "The men that American people admire most extravagantly
> > are most daring liars; the men they detest the most
> > violently are those who try to tell them the truth" -- H.
> > L. Mencken
> > =============================================================

>
> There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First of
> all, and formost is the Bible Code. I don't know if you've
> ever heard of it, it was discovered by one of the worlds
> leading mathmatecians and has been looked for for centuries.
> It has the dates, names, and events of every major event in
> human history in it. There is absolutly nothing the skeptics
> can say about it because the guys methods certaintly aren't
> flawed, and have been tested many of times. In fact a book
> that was published on it, it was a new york times best
> seller I believe, had the little description story on the
> back about how when he was first cracking the codes, he
> found that Yhiksah Rabin or whatevers name it saying he
> would be assasinated in 1996, and warned him. Sure enough in
> 1996 a guy who claimed to be on a mission from god killed
> him. So far with all the codes and codes within codes
> they've found they've determined no supercomputer that we
> have could make up a code, especially since it tells the
> future. I recommend you also read the 800 pages of the
> Forbidden Archealogy, with well over 500 pieces of evidence
> that show our theorys on evolution are false. Of course
> you'll probably only listen to the skeptics rant about how 5
> of the pieces of evidence aren't conclusive enough (when
> they even mention in the book which evidence is more solid
> and compelling and which is just kind of in that gray area),
> and then you'll totally forget about it like it doesn't even
> exist. Have you ever heard of the ABC special in 1999
> Stigmata: Science tests faith. It featured Katya a
> stigmatist who is approved of as genuine by the vatican. She
> offered to be monitored in laboratory to prove the
> legitamacy of her stigmata. It was the first time stigmata
> wounds were caught on film forming and healing. It also
> showed one part when she was talking to jesus, a scientist
> in a room she didn't even know about who was monitoring her
> brain waves talked about how she was in a Delta state and
> might have epilepsy, and just then she said "I'm an niether
> sick nor have epilepsy" and all the scientists looked like
> they shit their pants. Another thing was the statues that
> were bleeding or oozing something, and the scientists
> checked and showed they didn't have any mechanisms in them.
> It also had jesus talking directly through katya to the
> scientists, and gave a final message about how he set it all
> up to get the message out to the world about god and jesus.
> I can think of countless other evidences and reasons to
> believe. You don't believe because the only thing you will
> consider religion is the little sunday school bullshit "God
> created earth just 6,000 years ago". Read the original
> hebrew bible which is what the bible code is incoded in and
> you'll see the differences. You don't believe in god because
> he's ignored you just like you've him, so he stays out of
> your life.

You're entering talk.origins zone. That kinda crap just isn't
good enough around here.

[Cnote]

Mark VandeWettering <wettering@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnauncae.103j.wettering@keck.vandewettering.net>...
> In article
> <ac3a451a.0212020934.6610a0d7@posting.google.com>,
> CNote wrote:
>
> > There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First
> > of all, and formost is the Bible Code. I don't know if
> > you've ever heard of it, it was discovered by one of the
> > worlds leading mathmatecians and has been looked for for
> > centuries. It has the dates, names, and events of every
> > major event in human history in it. There is absolutly
> > nothing the skeptics can say about it because the guys
> > methods certaintly aren't flawed, and have been tested
> > many of times. In fact a book that was published on it, it
> > was a new york times best seller I believe, had the little
> > description story on the back about how when he was first
> > cracking the codes, he found that Yhiksah Rabin or
> > whatevers name it saying he would be assasinated in 1996,
> > and warned him. Sure enough in 1996 a guy who claimed to
> > be on a mission from god killed him. So far with all the
> > codes and codes within codes they've found they've
> > determined no supercomputer that we have could make up a
> > code, especially since it tells the future.
>
> This kind of stuff makes me chuckle.
>
> The Bible code wasn't discovered by "one of the world's
> leading mathmatecians [sic]". The chief promoter of this
> nonsense is Michael Drosnin, a journalist in his book _The
> Bible Code_, 1994. This was based upon the paper in
> _Statistical Science_ by Eliyahu Rips.
>
> It's mindless drivel. The short story: In any sufficiently
> long text, you can derive pretty much whatever you want.
>
> http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html
> http://www.csicop.org/si/9803/bible-code.html
>
> Of course the silliest thing about the Bible code is that
> our divine creator would encode his messages to mankind as a
> kind of lawless crossword puzzle.
>
> > I recommend you also read the 800 pages of the Forbidden
> > Archealogy, with well over 500 pieces of evidence that
> > show our theorys on evolution are false. Of course you'll
> > probably only listen to the skeptics rant about how 5 of
> > the pieces of evidence aren't conclusive enough (when they
> > even mention in the book which evidence is more solid and
> > compelling and which is just kind of in that gray area),
> > and then you'll totally forget about it like it doesn't
> > even exist. Have you ever heard of the ABC special in 1999
> > Stigmata: Science tests faith. It featured Katya a
> > stigmatist who is approved of as genuine by the vatican.
> > She offered to be monitored in laboratory to prove the
> > legitamacy of her stigmata. It was the first time stigmata
> > wounds were caught on film forming and healing. It also
> > showed one part when she was talking to jesus, a scientist
> > in a room she didn't even know about who was monitoring
> > her brain waves talked about how she was in a Delta state
> > and might have epilepsy, and just then she said "I'm an
> > niether sick nor have epilepsy" and all the scientists
> > looked like they shit their pants. Another thing was the
> > statues that were bleeding or oozing something, and the
> > scientists checked and showed they didn't have any
> > mechanisms in them. It also had jesus talking directly
> > through katya to the scientists, and gave a final message
> > about how he set it all up to get the message out to the
> > world about god and jesus.
>
> This was a Fox special, not ABC.
>
> http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990729-signs-from-god/
>
> > I can think of countless other evidences and reasons
> > to believe. You don't believe because the only thing
> > you will consider religion is the little sunday school
> > bullshit "God created earth just 6,000 years ago".
> > Read the original hebrew bible which is what the bible
> > code is incoded in and you'll see the differences. You
> > don't believe in god because he's ignored you just
> > like you've him, so he stays out of your life.
>
> Uh huh. Or he chooses to reveal himself in parlor tricks,
> rather than in the actions of his followers.
Its kind of hard to do that when nobody pays attention or
cares about the action of his followers, because they
aren't famous and glamorous so the best way to do it is
over TV. I saw the skeptics so called "moby dick code",
and it was lame. Only a few of the messages fit what the
standard ELS is. For the majority they were doing really
abstact and unorderly ELS's, where they would take a
letter from one corner another by the bottom and another
and connect them. Thats not what the bible code is, they
have a certain formula and it has come up with names and
dates for everything from the start of WWII to the
assisination of rabin (which was of course discovered
before it happened).
> Mark

[Jeff Georg]

stew dean wrote:

> edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message
> news:<3dea9424.40776211@news.shenhgts.net>...
> > Here is the document that proves, beyond the shadow of a
> > doubt, that the University of California at Berkeley
> > actively engages in scientific hanky-panky in defense of
> > the factless, facetious theory of the origin of man.
> >
> > Fraud, I suppose, is the much better word.
>
> But completely incorrect.
>
> You have somehow mistaken stuff being misplaced (or even
> thrown away) with fraud.
>
> You also seem to think you are in some kind of way
> important enough to have to listened to (the reason you
> post to this group).
>
> YOu have nothing of scientific interest so stop acting
> like you do.

Every branch of science has its cranks. I can't imagine Conrad
has the market cornered on loony paleontology. He mistakes
people not giving a crap for being stonewalled.

Ed, seriously ...... nobody gives a crap.

[Cnote]

"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusathome@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<3DEB9C2F.9050301@attbi.com>...
> The_Sage wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > 4) Your Satan did a better job at His re-creation then
> > your God did at His creation. Your Satan left no stone
> > unturned in his effort to hide the evidence of a
> > creation, while the best that your God could do was
> > dedicate two chapters to it in an ancient textbook
> > filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Your Satan
> > must be not only more intelligent than your God, He
> > must also be more powerful.
> >
>
> See: <http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>
>
>¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
> Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
>ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°
>
> -- Pip R. Lagenta President for Life International
> Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta (If your name
> is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
>
> <http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/pip.html>

Signs From God: Science Tests Faith Saturday, 6 November 1999,
11:58 am Article:

TVNZ PUBLICITY MATERIAL

TV 2 takes you around the world with the special two-hour
presentation, SIGNS FROM GOD: SCIENCE TESTS FAITH (tonight
at 9.45). The show is being repeated following an
unprecedented public response calling for a repeat
screening.

The show was first broadcast on October 14.

Retired journalist Mike Willesee has spent seven years
traveling from country to country investigating the
age-old concept of science vs. faith. He invites audiences
to follow his journey when SIGNS FROM GOD: SCIENCE TESTS
FAITH exposes extraordinary phenomena, and asks if science
has any answers.

Witness the extensive laboratory analysis of blood that
flows from a statue of Jesus, a statue subjected to a CAT
scan to test for the possibility of trickery or fraud. As
reporters cross to leading testing facilities in
California, find out what the blood test shows. Will it be
human blood?

Images of Christ on rose petals are also tested for the
first time, by botanists and experts in art fraud. SIGNS
FROM GOD: SCIENCE TESTS FAITH challenges experts to
explain and even re-create the images.

Willesee meets real people who have encountered these
strange phenomenons in their everyday lives, those for
whom these supernatural occurrences are common place and
completely real.

Examine a woman who suffers from the wounds of the
crucifixion – the stigmata. It appears as though she is
dying. Over several hours, bloody wounds appear on her
hands, feet and forehead. Her suffering is undeniable. Yet
the next day, she is fully recovered and her wounds have
disappeared.

During an interview with visionary Katya Rivas (from
Bolivia), she says Jesus appears and speaks to her. At the
same time, a bright reflection of light becomes clearly
visible in her eyes. Does Jesus appear in the interview?
The reflection is magnified and enhanced so viewers at
home can judge for themselves.

This revealing documentary subjects the same woman to
sophisticated neurological testing while she claims to be
receiving messages from Jesus. The testing neurologist
says he measured brainwave activity not possible from a
conscious person, yet the woman is alert and fully
communicative. She appears to have a conversation with the
neurologist through Jesus while in a completely separate,
sound-proof room.

He has no explanation, as SIGNS FROM GOD: SCIENCE TESTS
FAITH looks into the meaning of these messages, and Riva's
communication.

If indeed it is all a fraud, then exactly who is behind
it, and why?

This special presentation will challenge beliefs and
change the way we think about life. SIGNS FROM GOD:
SCIENCE TESTS FAITH screens tonight, at 9.45pm (on TV 2).

A remarkable FOX hunt for the truth!

Don't know how many tuned in Wednesday night to
FOX TV's two-hour special entitled "Signs from
God: Science Tests Faith", for the promos tinged
on the sensational; but if you did you had to be
pleasantly surprised by the reverence with which
the program handled private revelation and
undeniable mystical phenomena. Here is the network
that gave us "Ally McBeal," "Cops," "King of the
Hill," "When Animals Attack," "The PJ's," "The
Family Guy," "Wildest Police Chase Videos,"
"Married With Children," "Melrose Place," and
other banal viewing not to mention the cultural
phenomenon known as "The Simpsons." So to expect a
quality program that would do justice to the
Church and express reverence throughout would be a
stretch but that's exactly what occurred. Aside
from the sophomoric commercials promoting upcoming
FOX programing, it was an enjoyable and inspiring
two hours. In FOX's hunt for the truth, the real
credit goes to Trans Media Group and the executive
producer Michael Willesee, Sr. who also oversaw
the events and reported on the set Wednesday
night. What made this so interesting was not only
that they were live with both the messengers
featured - Katya Rivas from Bolivia and Hermilla
Carrazco de Ortiz from Monterrey, Mexico, as well
as live with all the appointed experts to help
verify or disclaim the miracles that occurred, but
also showed taped coverage of the visible Stigmata
actually occurring the day after the Solemnity of
Corpus Christi. That was mind-boggling and should
have reinforced anyone's faith - even the most
hardened heart.

The first visionary placed under the "Foxscope"
was Katya Rivas, a resident of Cochambamba,
Bolivia, who was a fallen-away Catholic, having
been married three times. Her faith was the
farthest thing from her mind and heart, but
through a series of events that the network did
not go into, she returned to the Church through a
full conversion of heart. She first experienced
the visible Stigmata, she claims, during a visit
to Conyers and the visionary Nancy Fowler whose
experiences with visions on the 13th of each month
have since ceased. For many years prior to
traveling to Atlanta, she had been receiving
locutions from Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, a
spiritual phenomena that has been repeated very
often in the last few decades throughout the
world. But the difference between all the other
messengers and Katya is the fact that she is the
only one with the visible Stigmata. There have
been many who bore the "invisible Stigmata" but
the last one to bear the visible Stigmata is now
well on his way to sainthood, having been
beatified in May by Pope John Paul II. We're
speaking, of course, of Blessed Padre Pio. Katya's
cause hasn't been introduced yet but what we saw
signifies that she is special in God's eyes. She
has over nine books of hand-written messges, many
in Latin, Greek or Polish and she speaks only
Spanish. Add to this that she is a high-school
dropout and one gets the sense that this must be
supernatural. Add also to this that the Archbishop
of the See of Cochabamba, Archbishop Rene
Fernandez Apaza has already approved the
visionary's experiences in the first stage.

Cochabamba sits high in the Andes in West Central
Bolivia and is the country's second largest
diocese with 95% of the population of over 330,000
being Catholic. It is a fertile, productive
agricultural region where the Rio de la Rocha
river flows through and was founded in 1574 as
Villa de Oropeza and renamed Cochabamba in 1786.
The See was established by a Bull from Pope Pius
IX on June 25, 1847. That is an interesting date
for June 25th is the date Our Lady first spoke to
the visionaries of Medjugorje 134 years later and
half way around the world. Once again, God chose a
remote spot in the mountains. It follows the
pattern of La Salette, Garabandal and Medjugorje
to name a few.

The amazing thing is that FOX went in filming,
assuming Katya would experience the Stigmata on
Good Friday for, after all, that was the day
Christ died on the Cross. To their surprise, it
was a "no go" but they did not come away
disappointed; rather their ambitions were anxious
for Katya received a message from Jesus in which
He affirmed the Stigmata would occur the day after
His Feast of Corpus Christi. It would be further
proof of the Mystery of the Eucharist - Body and
Blood, Soul and Divinity. True to His word, on
June 7th this year the cameras were rolling as
Katya slowly drifted into a perplexed anxiety and
retired to her home chapel to pray, then to her
bed where right before the world's eyes the
miracle of the visible Stigmata appeared as Katya
writhed in reverent agony for hours, often
exhibiting signs of being near death. All of this
replicated the circumstances Our Savior
experienced as He hung on the Cross. Blood began
exuding from Katya's forehead first in accordance
with what a crown of thorns would do to one's
skull. Next her hands and feet began to show a
cross and shortly after the cross gave way to
larger wounds in which blood flowed from both her
hands and feet. A priest and doctor, as well as
friends and producer Michael Willesee, Sr. were
all in attendance during this miraculous
phenomena. What struck us about the entire program
was the reverence Mr. Willesee expressed for the
event and he was careful to extract on a swab
traces of her blood that would be tested and
revealed live Wednesday during the program. He had
earlier extracted blood samples to know Katya's
blood type. The results showed the blood was
indeed hers, but what truly amazed Willesee and
others was when he visited her the following day
on June 8th, she showed hardly any signs of
wounds. No medical expert could explain it. All
the wounds on her body had miraculously healed.

During his time with Katya in preparing this
documentary and showing it last night another
miracle happened; this one was with Willesee
himself. Call it the miracle of the heart for, in
his own words he became a believer. We don't know
what his faith is or background. We have attempted
to contact him to do a follow-up interview with
him which we hope to bring you down the road on
his own experiences and conversion of heart, but
it was another example of God's graces working
through signs and wonders.

The second messenger placed under the network's
microscope was Milla Carrazco de Ortiz in
Monterrey who is a simple housewife and mother of
two children and who, along with her husband, live
in the cramped quarters of a two-room house,
having to share bathroom and kitchen facilities
with four other families. They have no phone, no
address even. Literally dirt poor! The Image of
Our Lady of Guadalupe has appeared indelibly in
the floor of her home, much in the same manner as
the image in Florida on the office building, on a
tree in northern California, and so on. There is
no mistaking the image of Our Lady embedded larger
than life miraculously in the terrazo surface. In
addition rose petals placed in the bible and
prayer books develop images of Jesus and Mary and
saints that cannot be copied under normal
circumstances. This same phenomena has occurred in
the Philippines in Manila and Dick Polak of Denver
had a collection of the "miraculous rose petals"
which we have seen first-hand. He since lost them
on a pilgrimage to Garabandal when his suitcase
was lost in flight, but he at least still has
photos of the miraculous petals.

Both women expressed a simplicity and pious faith
found in so many Hispanic women and the filming
crew and reporters showed a tremendous respect for
their piety. The producers were smart to send
reporters that were bilingual as well and their
handling of the entire series of events and the
two hour program were beyond reproach. They
covered all angles, calling in various experts
including Dr. Richard Castanon of Bolivia who was
once an atheist and whose sole purpose in life was
to debunk supernatural phenomena. He has written
numerous books on his global investigations of
many claims, proving fraud in several and has even
been employed as a "Devil's Advocate" by the
Vatican for some investigations, but through his
experiences with Katya his perspective was
entirely changed and he came across as a believer
live on FOX. Other secular experts were Michael
Reid, Professor of Environmental Horticulture at
UC-Davis who examined the structure of the petals
and could find no process added to them to
indicate tampering. The same for Will Shank, an
art conservator who tried to show that by pressing
a coin image against the petals one could
reproduce the same image and therefore debunk the
credibility of the authenticity of the miraculous
rose petals, but the image he pressed could not
measure up to the detail of the miraculous rose
petals and he would not turn the petal he pressed
over to see if it had the same clear image on the
back which the process of pressing could not fully
do. His findings were, to say the least,
inconclusive and deceiving. The other secular
expert was Lisa Calandro, a Forensic Anaylitical
Lab biologist who tested the DNA of the blood of
both Katya's Stigmata and the blood that
miraculously flows from a bust of Christ in
Milla's home. The findings were surprising for
they were not Our Lord's blood type nor Milla's
but that of a woman and it was Michael Willasee
who pointed out that it could very well be the
blood of the Blessed Virgin Mary for it was her
blood that gave life to her Divine Son in her womb
through the mystical insemination of the Holy
Spirit. Willasee's comments were truly profound.
The lone "expert" representing the Church was not
the Archbishop of Cochabamba but Father Peter
Stravinskas, the well-respected editor of "The
Catholic Answer" who is an excellent writer and
has written volumes on spirituality and the
Church. But he was visibly uncomfortable in front
of the FOX cameras and it showed as he stuttered
his way through, never saying anything definitive
and mouthing the Church's conservative viewpoint
on private revelation. It was interesting that he
still expressed skepticism after the Archbishop
had already proclaimed belief in the first stage.
He was questioned on this by the two FOX
moderators and he hemmed and hawed his way through
an embarrasing few minutes in which he defended
his stance by calling on that time-worn refrain
that Catholics don't have to believe private
revelation. That is true, but the way he delivered
his comments, in essence poured cold water on the
hearts of many viewers that might have otherwise
been on fire through these signs and wonders. In
short, he came up short in explaining the Church's
stance and contradicted the Magisterium of the
Church in light of Archbishop Apaza's findings.

But even Father Peter's unfamiliarity with the
camera and awkwardness couldn't dampen the spirits
of so many who were so touched by the reverence
shown for Catholic beliefs and the miraculous
phenomena that science, as a whole, could not
refute. In conclusion, we leave you with Christ's
Own words in Luke 13: 32 when the Pharisees
informed Our Lord that Herod wanted to kill Him,
Jesus said, "Go and say to that fox, 'Behold I
cast out devils and perform cures today and
tomorrow, and the third day I am to end My course.
Nevertheless, I must go My way today and tomorrow
and the next day, for it cannot be that a prophet
perish outside Jerusalem.'" Our Lord continues to
cast out devils and perform cures today through
these wondrous Heavenly signs that man may believe
and it cannot be that a true prophet perish
outside Jerusalem for God will protect those truly
chosen as His messengers no matter what science or
skeptics say. For once, FOX has exceeded
everyone's expectations with that excellent two
hours Wednesday night. To borrow from Tobias'
words in Esdras 4: 3, "Let them build. If a fox go
up, he will leap over their stone wall." The FOX
Network has built up many walls preventing true
Christian morals in its programming, but, in
giving the devil his due, this time FOX truly has
lept over the wall of division and immorality by
bringing us programming that produced excellence
in depth and devotion. In other words, given the
network's track record, it was a remarkable FOX
hunt for the truth!

[Pip R. Lag]

CNote wrote:

[snip]
>
> Signs From God: Science Tests Faith

[snip vast (non sequitur) cut-n-paste verbiage]

Add my own cut and paste verbiage: ***Start*** Evidence
indicating the truth, reality, and validity of Evolution is so
ubiquitous, omnipresent, pervasive, and indisputable that for
biblically literal creationism to be accurate, all the Earth
and the rest of the Universe must have been created by a Great
Deceiver, The Father of Lies: Satan.

Therefore, those who accept biblically literal creationism as
factual also accept Satan as the One True Lord and God...
because no one and nothing else could create such an
all-encompassing and consummate deceit. ***End***

The above being from
<http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>

I could do this ALL day long.

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta President for Life International
Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta (If your name is
Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)

<http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/pip.html

[The_sage]

>Reply to article by: sk8er424@aol.com (CNote) Date written:
>Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:24:47 +0000 (UTC)
>MsgID:<ac3a451a.0212020934.6610a0d7@posting.google.com>

>There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First of
>all, and formost is the Bible Code. I don't know if you've
>ever heard of it, it was discovered by one of the worlds
>leading mathmatecians and has been looked for for centuries.
>It has the dates, names, and events of every major event in
>human history in it. There is absolutly nothing the skeptics
>can say about it because the guys methods certaintly aren't
>flawed, and have been tested many of times.

Like every other alleged occult phenomenon, there is no
scientific, logical, or factual credibility to stand behind
the Bible Code fad but that never seems to stop anyone from
committing intellectual suicide and believing in it anyway.
Martin Gardiner summed it up best in the August 1998 issue of
Scientific American where he states, "I regret that I never
asked Dr Matrix for his opinion on the preposterous 1997
best-seller The Bible Code, which claims to find predictions
of the future in the arrangement of Hebrew letters in the Old
Testament. The book employs a cipher system that would have
made Dr Matrix proud. By selectively applying this system to
certain blocks of text [namely text that has been stripped of
all spaces and punctuation], inquisitive readers can find
hidden predictions not only in the Old Testament but also in
the New Testament, the Koran, the Wall Street Journal -- and
even in the pages of The Bible Code itself".

Just like the so-called "prophecies" of Nostradamus, the
Bible Code can only manage to "predict" dates, names, and
events of every major event in human history only after the
fact instead of beforehand. The Bible Code has yet to predict
just one future or near future major event in human history.
The Bible Code amounts to a computerized version of a Ouija
board -- and we all know your Bible doesn't look very highly
on the Ouija board.

This isn't the first time that the bible has been (mis-)used
for fortune telling, in fact the bible has been (mis-)used for
many years in the occult art of bibliomancy, which, in turn,
is a derivative of the even older occult art of stichomancy.
Isn't the 'Bible Code' just a sneaky way of avoiding using the
term 'bibliomancy' so as to make it seem more 'respectable'?
Do you really think that the Bible Code phenomenon is how your
God really would intend your Bible to be read and interpreted?

And I would hardly consider the meresay and hearsay of yet
another "sacred" book proof that a God or Gods exists, I would
only consider an actual physically real visitation from a God
or Gods as proof.

But of course, you never have had any of *that* kind of
evidence, have you?

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

[The_sage]

>Reply to article by: sk8er424@aol.com (CNote) Date written:
>Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:24:47 +0000 (UTC)
>MsgID:<ac3a451a.0212020934.6610a0d7@posting.google.com>

>There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First of
>all, and formost is the Bible Code. I don't know if you've
>ever heard of it, it was discovered by one of the worlds
>leading mathmatecians and has been looked for for centuries.
>It has the dates, names, and events of every major event in
>human history in it. There is absolutly nothing the skeptics
>can say about it because the guys methods certaintly aren't
>flawed, and have been tested many of times.

Like every other alleged occult phenomenon, there is no
scientific, logical, or factual credibility to stand behind
the Bible Code fad but that never seems to stop anyone from
committing intellectual suicide and believing in it anyway.
Martin Gardiner summed it up best in the August 1998 issue of
Scientific American where he states, "I regret that I never
asked Dr Matrix for his opinion on the preposterous 1997
best-seller The Bible Code, which claims to find predictions
of the future in the arrangement of Hebrew letters in the Old
Testament. The book employs a cipher system that would have
made Dr Matrix proud. By selectively applying this system to
certain blocks of text [namely text that has been stripped of
all spaces and punctuation], inquisitive readers can find
hidden predictions not only in the Old Testament but also in
the New Testament, the Koran, the Wall Street Journal -- and
even in the pages of The Bible Code itself".

Just like the so-called "prophecies" of Nostradamus, the
Bible Code can only manage to "predict" dates, names, and
events of every major event in human history only after the
fact instead of beforehand. The Bible Code has yet to predict
just one future or near future major event in human history.
The Bible Code amounts to a computerized version of a Ouija
board -- and we all know your Bible doesn't look very highly
on the Ouija board.

This isn't the first time that the bible has been (mis-)used
for fortune telling, in fact the bible has been (mis-)used for
many years in the occult art of bibliomancy, which, in turn,
is a derivative of the even older occult art of stichomancy.
Isn't the 'Bible Code' just a sneaky way of avoiding using the
term 'bibliomancy' so as to make it seem more 'respectable'?
Do you really think that the Bible Code phenomenon is how your
God really would intend your Bible to be read and interpreted?

And I would hardly consider the meresay and hearsay of yet
another "sacred" book proof that a God or Gods exists, I would
only consider an actual physically real visitation from a God
or Gods as proof.

But of course, you never have had any of *that* kind of
evidence, have you?

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

[The_sage]

>Reply to article by: sk8er424@aol.com (CNote) Date written:
>Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:56:57 +0000 (UTC)
>MsgID:<ac3a451a.0212041307.6868bb51@posting.google.com>

>blood that flows from a statue of Jesus

>Images of Christ on rose petals

>a woman who suffers from the wounds of the crucifixion

>Jesus appears and speaks to her.

>If indeed it is all a fraud, then exactly who is behind
>it, and why?

So these nimwits are so desperate to prove the existence of
a God, that they have reduced Him from being the creator of
the universe to a mere sideshow charlatan, running around
the universe making statues bleed and painting sloppy
images of his Son on rose petals. Can anyone tell your God
to get a life?

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

[James Band]

>There is quite a bit of evidence that supports god. First
>of all, and
: >formost is the Bible Code.

Nonsense. This work has laready been discredited by
mathameticians. Also, it fails in its ability to
predict....name just one event it predicts THAT HAS NOT YET
OCCURRED! According to the authors....it works on everybody.
Let's test your hypothesis. Pick a year...say 2015..tell us
that the Bible Code says will happen in that year...who the
names of 'historical figures are' and post here. I'll save
your answer, burn it to CD, and store it until then. Surely,
if this 'proof of god' works...everything will turn out
...'right'...right? ;-/

jbb

___Pine 4.05 The Cure For Mad Cow Disease?
http://chillspot.thechain.com/flash/madcow.swf

[Cnote]

theesage@azrmci.net (The_Sage) wrote in message
news:<3def00ac.15275492@news.west.cox.net>...
> >Reply to article by: sk8er424@aol.com (CNote) Date written:
> >Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:56:57 +0000 (UTC)
> >MsgID:<ac3a451a.0212041307.6868bb51@posting.google.com>
>
> >blood that flows from a statue of Jesus
>
> >Images of Christ on rose petals
>
> >a woman who suffers from the wounds of the crucifixion
>
> >Jesus appears and speaks to her.
>
> >If indeed it is all a fraud, then exactly who is behind it,
> >and why?
>
> So these nimwits are so desperate to prove the existence of
> a God, that they have reduced Him from being the creator of
> the universe to a mere sideshow charlatan, running around
> the universe making statues bleed and painting sloppy
> images of his Son on rose petals. Can anyone tell your God
> to get a life?
>
> The Sage
Will anybody tell you to get a soul?? All you know is
"life" which according to you is just a consequence of
matter, which makes you a fool. Even the ex-chief
nuclear physicist for the army Col. Bearden talks about
how its proven consciousness is not a consequence of
matter. Because of your utter stupidity and ignorance,
the only creation you are aware of is this so called
"physical" creation. If you've studied quantum physics
though it becomes apparent this world isn't as "real" or
"hard" as it seems. Atoms don't exist as fundemental
particles but only as part of an interrelated web. The
only way we can observe atoms is when we interfere and
manipulate them to show some characteristics. Even then
we can never tell exactly when and where and how an atom
is going to exist, we can only give probabilities of
where when and how they will exist. When you break down
an atom it just breaks down to smaller particles
spinning at a higher rate, and those break down, and
those break down, until we realize matter is just
another manifestation of energy. I'm going to ignore the
fact that there is an 800 page encyclopedia giving over
500 pieces of evidence (many pictoral evidence) of life
before "evolution" happened. Regardless of what you
little skeptical inquirers say which I doubt have any
qualifications close to the people who wrote the book,
and the numerous PHd's who supported the book and are
quoted on the back. The only thing you can throw at it
is some lame ass article about how 5 pieces of evidence
are kind of shady and aren't conclusive, but guess what,
THEY EVEN MENTION THAT FACT ABOUT THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE
OF THAT QUALITY IN THE BOOK. 5 out of 500, wow
1/100 good job. But anyways like I said you assume that this
creation your expierencing is the only creation of gods,
not only that but you assume he has an ego just like every
other human and just like you, and because his behavior is
nothing you could ever understand in the state of mind your
he doesn't exist. Even if their was evolution based on what
they say, they still can't explain how it went from
inanimate matter to animate adequetly. Don't give me some
bullshit about how some water swirling around over time all
of the sudden morphs into living cells, that has never been
close to being proven. They can't explain how the genius of
DNA was created, he'll there are a lot of things they can't
explain. Its funny because you also assume if there is a
god, he will only be the common judeo-christian god, and if
its anything else its invalid. Goes to show how your psyche
takes it up the butt from the mainstream. Look at all
religions that came before them, and even their religion if
you interpret it right and read an original copy of the
scriptures. The Vedas for instance say the material
creation is nothing but a "matrix" type thing. It is always
existing under the energy of the supreme lord, but he has
nothing to do with except the souls (which are part of him)
existing in it. The material creation is constantly
creating and destroying itself over periods of time
unimaginable to humans (about a trillion years or so I
believe). The purpose of the material creation is for the
soul's to realize themselves and gain knowledge. Eventually
it is for the purpose of the soul's realization of what it
truly is, not the body, not even the psyche, but the realm
of being the person expierencing. People in comas showing
no brain activity have reported being able to know whats
going on around them to somewhat of a degree, and still
being aware, not at all aware like you and me or having the
sense of self like you and me but still expierencing. Once
that realization has occured the soul is no longer attached
to the material creation and can go back home, back to
godhead. But of course you don't understand how there could
be anything other than your so called "hard" physical
matter, or what the "next step" might be. Hell you probably
don't even dream anymore. And no dreaming isn't just a
product of the brain, its proven but not commonly accept as
col. bearden said that consciousness is not the result of
the piece of meat in between your ears. Remote Viewing and
the Stargate project proved that dreaming is something much
more, it is another "dimension" if you will. But you'll
jump at a concept by some atheistic physicist who says
seeing as the universe is just an accidental occurance by
chances, everytime an event happens another universe is
created in another "dimension" but you can never travel to
them or prove their existance. You tell god to get a life,
but your life is a joke compared to what its really all
about. "And had we sent down to thee a Book written on
parchment, and they had touched it with their hands, the
infidels had surely said, "This is nought but plain
sorcery" They say, too, 'Unless an angel be sent down to
him...' But