HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:07:41 GMT
	<1992Sep29.062741.4401@desire.wright.edu>
	<1992Sep30.120831.28903@city.cs>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 30 Sep 92 12:08:31 GMT, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) said:

> At the Stoneleigh Bible Week in Stoneleigh, Coventry, England in
> August this year, there were numerous miracles. [...]

> I can report on this more if you are interested and if I get more
> details.

Please do.  I seem to remember one TV program was going to do a
followup, do you remember which one?  (I think it was a late BBC1
prog, but I can't quite remember which one.)

> BTW Mahesh has an international ministry, and said that miracles
> tended to happen more in 3rd world countries where faith is
> simpler. 

Hmm.  And so is medical knowledge.  I wonder if there might be a
connection here?  It's interesting that ESP experiments tend to show
positive results that decrease as experimental controls increase.  I
would strongly suspect that the same happens with faith healing.

> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

--
Bruce Stephens
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:19:13 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <42@fedfil.UUCP>
news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>3.  Simple calculations, as I have noted, show an impossible strength
>    requirement for a sauropod to hold his head out vertically in our
>    world, perceived gravity being what it is now.

>In reality, of course, brachiosaur HAD to hold his head up to get at the
>leaves he fed on.  Getting blood to his brain was no problem due to the
>attenuated gravity of the antique world.

Could someone fill me in: what is this "perceived gravity" thing and
why was there attenuated gravity in the atique world?

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Morals, Family and Religion (was worthless comic strips)
Date: 3 Oct 92 09:39:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

> "share", "wash behind your ears", etc.  Religion only regulates the moral 
> values of adults, which it has very little control over.  Religion, for an 
> infant or small child, is nothing more than an hour trip he or she must 
> suffer in clothes that feel wierd.  No lessons learned, no morals gained.  

      That is true enough. Children learn more by example than anything else.
> 
> intelectual sence -- I think the experiments were downright mean)

      Well, Skinner wasn't known as a compassionate sort of fellow. 
> 
> 
> I argue that Religion doesn't teach morals, but in turn it does make people 
> feel guilt -- guilt people learn to live with and continue doing the act.  
> The power of religion is slipping with the onslaught of University 
 education.  People no longer need to be repressed or oppressed.

      First off, let's establish that not all religions are guilt-based. 
That is mostly Christianity. One must earn one's way into Jehovah's graces. 

      Most of us, especially as we are educated want to discover the 'meaning'
of it all. As we search deeper into various cosmologies, we decide for 
ourselves what makes most sense. 

      I would certainly say, though, that Christianity seems to be a religion
meant explicitly for those who are afraid to think for themselves. No moral 
or ethical dilemmas: everything is black and white. One is told what to do --
in fact ordered to obey rather than to develope any analytical skills wiht
which to make decisions. 

      You're fundamentally right. We have evolved enough that we no longer
need to be repressed or oppressed. That doesn't mean that we won't always
look for answers. 


//rks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Favorite astronomer jokes
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.211509.20010@u.washington.edu>,
sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> Anyone got a punchline for this one:
> How many catastrophists does it take to shift the orbit of Venus?

  None.  It will happen all by itself (and for no good reason).

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Cladistics
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:20:56 GMT
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR

Could someone point me towards information on Cladistics?  Thanks in advance!
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 3 Oct 92 08:58:13 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct3.014805.20115@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <43@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>>The point I was making was that if elephants need to eat...

>The stuff elephants eat is not particularly nutritious.  Maybe the
>sauropods had access to slightly more wholesome fair. 

Nope, about the same.

Go read McGowan's book.  You'll find the section that Ted is cribbing
from.  Then read the next five pages...
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Hydrological sorting" (was: "Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!")
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:26:47 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep30.115043.25745@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.223933.9207@alc.com> stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>>Lionel Tun writes:
>>> All [the fossil record] shows is that different forms of life appear
>>> in the fossil record at different _layers_!
>>
>>This is at least different from Lionel's original claim, which was that
>>the fossil record was merely a figment of "evolutionists'" imaginations.
>>Is this a half-hearted admission of error, Mr. Tun?
> 
> No. The two statements are entirely compatible. To say that
> fossils appear in various layers is one thing. But to piece
> together assorted layers from round the world and assemble
> a supposed historical timescale is entirely another.
> 

Sigh, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.  If a layer is
the *SAME*, that is, contains the same fossils, is dated the same, correlates
with other layers above and below it, then it was laid down at the *SAME* 
time.  Why is this so very hard for you to understand?  Hell, I explained
it to my son when he was five and he understood it.  Of course, he's a
bright kid though.  
And if I can go to *ONE* spot and see many, many different levels, all
of which correlate to dating methods and all of which contain sequentially
different fossils, then it's a logical progression.

Sue

Sheesh!  

> --
> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: A brief tirade
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:13:37 GMT

Ken.Stuckas@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Stuckas) writes:

>Or another question I have never gotten any response to -

>"If God created Adam and then Eve and they had (among others) two kids named Cain and Abel, and Cain slew Abel and was kicked out of town whereupon he found himself a wife and married her, who the hell did he marry???"

Well, well, the Eve created in the *other* account of Genesis, of course!
You just have to ask those momentous theological questions to yours 
faithfully.

PS. Now, that's a neat explanation of why there are two accounts of Genesis,
folks. The Bible being literally true, there are not two *accounts* of
Genesis, there were two Geneses. God, being omniscient, had foreseen
that Cain would find himself without a wife to rightfully wed. So, as
he was resting on the seventh day He said to Himself "Hey, we'll
need another Eve pretty soon!" And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why
the world was created twice: so that Cain should have a bride who
was not his mother. Send your donations to me, for the creation of
the Double-Genesis Church. We prefer uncut diamonds in brown 
envelopes or direct deposits into our account in the Caiman Islands
(only Swiss Francs, Japanese Yens, and Deutsche Mark, please).
From: davis@bedlam.asd.sgi.com (Tom Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:08:32 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bedlam.asd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct1.235515.2439@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
|> In article <BRUCE.92Sep30153607@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk> bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
|> >Here's another example: suppose I want to roll six sixes (with six
|> >dice).  How many rolls would I expect to need if
|> >     a) I just keep rolling all six until they all come up sixes?
|> 
|> 65536, on the average.
|> 
|> >     b) If I take out any that come up sixes and just reroll the rest?
|> 
|> I think the expected number of rolls is 14.7 exactly (6/6 + 6/5 + ...
|> + 6/1), but I'm not entirely confident of my reasoning.
|> 

I get for (a) an expected value of 46656, and for (b), an expected
value of 13.9378.  I am fairly confident of my reasoning.

  -- Tom Davis
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:15:40 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  How does this cause a problem for evolution?  Think about it, genes don't
>select the lead bird, right?  So even if the lead birds suffer higher mortality,
	Wrong, but partly yes - genotype is not as important as fenotype in 
	this point (and many others).
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:00:58 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

>>> 
>>>    Oh, but there's concrete evidence for the existence of a divine, omnipotent,
>>> omniscient creator?  Besides, you're wrong about the "supposed" intermediates ...
>>> unless you think that all the hominid remains found back to about Ramapithicus
>>> are a clever ruse, designed to trick naive scientists.
>>> |> --
>>> |> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>>> |> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 388
>>> Loren King
>>> Dept Political Science
>> The hominoid remains found back to Ramapithicus represent SIDE-BRANCHES or
>> "cousins" and not INTERMEDIATES in the evolutionary line of Homo sapiens. I
>> think this is what Lionel Thun refering to in his post.
>> Gary
> 
> This is a little confusing.  Do you mean to say that you consider Homo Erectus
> and Homo Habilis to be cousins and not intermediates in the Homo sapien line?
> 
> Sue
Loren was refuting Lionel's diagram of evolutionary lineage of intermediates
being linear or branched terminals. She  introduced as evidence the hominoid
remains (back to Ramapithecus) being the former. While I agree with you that H.
erectus and H. habilis (and also H. sapiens neanderthalis) are generally
portrayed linearly in the human evolutionary tree, the rest down the line to
Ramapithecus are regarded in terms of side branches (or cousins). Since the
point of separation between 'ape' and 'man' (ie. between the Austalopithecan
and Homo lines) is not yet known (reflecting Lionel's position), and since the
Homo line represents the smaller proportion of the evolutionary line from
Ramapithecus to H. s. sapiens, Loren's evidence of this line as support of her
position fails, since it also supports (and to a larger degree) Lionel's
position. Had she not projected as far back as Ramapitheicus her evidence would
have supported her position -until Lionel raised the larger picture, of course
:-)
Gary
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:51:05 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <YM3-MW-@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
>  May I point out (this being talk.origins and all) that, at least 
> insofar at the first few chapters of Genesis are concerned, the 
> archaeological evidence does *not* support the Bible's version of 
> history. (At least, if you insist on a literal interpretation.)

Nor is there archeological evidence for the most (ahem)
startling claim of the New Testament.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: christ
Summary: christ was female
Keywords: christ
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:40:45 GMT

	At a rescent talk given by John Maynard Smith here at Simon 
Fraser University in British Columbia, it was mentioned that there has been only one 
recorded incident of parthenogenesis in mammals.  Most of the audience
didn't understand what he meant, but I admit to giggling.  If you think
a bit, you may see why.  Mary (a female) may have given birth to a child
without ever having sex, this is possible (although i\unlikely in mammals due so
imprinting genes) however, the progeny of a parthenogfenic birth are always
female.  So how about that, not only do we have scientific evidence that virgin birth can happen, but if it does, the only rational result is that christ was a woman.

	Richard Pocklington

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:00:24 GMT

stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:

>[Someone else asks:]
># Can you explain *what* the book has considered up to this point that
># allows the author to conclude that Genesis is scientifically sound?

>Antti Siivonen writes:
>> Quite many. For instance the order life was created on earth. 

>False.  Land plants ("day three") don't predate the Sun ("day four")
>or fish ("day five").  Try again.

	No, actually those refer to the visibility of sun. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: sgi
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:22:27 GMT

In article <80745@ut-emx.uucp>, wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
|> In article <q946t64@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >In particular, are "fish" a single kind, which seems to
|> >be what you imply above?   
|> >
|> >Are whales fish, or if not, what kind do they belong to?
|> >
|> >jon.
|>
|> Whales are air breathing mammals.

You don't say.  That's amazing.

jon.
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:02:02 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Oct2.120024.15852@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>
>>[Someone else asks:]
>># Can you explain *what* the book has considered up to this point that
>># allows the author to conclude that Genesis is scientifically sound?
>
>>Antti Siivonen writes:
>>> Quite many. For instance the order life was created on earth. 
>
>>False.  Land plants ("day three") don't predate the Sun ("day four")
>>or fish ("day five").  Try again.
>
>	No, actually those refer to the visibility of sun. 

Nope, that explaination won't work either.  If the sun was not visible until
day 4, it might as well have not been in existance until day 4.  (I am assuming
that the frame of reference for the 'visibility of sun' is that of the plants
on the earth.)

If the sun is not visible to the plants, then no EM radiation is reaching the
plants.  Without this EM radiation, there can be no photosynthesis and the
plant will die.  Or are you postulating a selective filtering system which will
allow enough EM radiation to penetrate to the plants such that they may grow
until the sun is 'visible'.

Turning to Occam's Razor, we now have to suppose:

	1. existance of the sun prior to day 4.
	2. existance of plants on day 3.
	3. existance of a filtering system so constructed as to allow the
           plants to live but to keep the sun "invisible" until day 4.

Propositions 1 and 2 are dificult to begin with but proposition 3 is almost
ludicrous.  Such a filtering system would have noticable effects on the whole
system of the earth.  What evidence would support such a filter?

I think that there are too many assumptions in this model to persue it much
further.


-- 
-----------------------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\---------------------------
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\\   ...!uunet!digi!jtisdel
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\\        jmtisdel@aol.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: suopanki@zombie.oulu.fi (Heikki Suopanki)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Reply-To: suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
	<BvB2Lz.CFC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <BvB5G0.FqA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Sep29.155205.29809@cs.joensuu.fi> <1992Sep30.090817@IASTATE.EDU>
	<1992Sep30.155024.14018@cs.joensuu.fi>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:24:05 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:50:24 GMT, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) said:

>  No, some people say there is a small chance of it not being true.  There are
>enormous mounds of evidence _for_ evolution, while I have yet to see even a
>single piece of evidence against evolution which stood up to analysis.  It is
>you who are grasoping at the 1%.

Antti> 	No, I said the probability of evolution is 

Antti> 			1
Antti> 		----------------
Antti> 			350,000
Antti> 		      10

In this universe perhaps?
If there are more than one universe, let's say infinite, calculations
become very interesting.... 
Any evidence there is (and has been) only one universe? If no your
number is even more bogus than it's now.

-Heikki
--

* Heikki Suopanki    ***   suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi *
* University of Oulu ***   Departme~r~r_@dd{_kklF
NO CARRIER
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: evolution through time
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:05:00 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <ksand-051092182921@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>Could you please let us know when the thory of evolution changed
>dramatically, thanks?

When Lamarck proposed evolution, he presented it as organisms
continually being spontaneously generated and becoming more
complex through internal mechanisms (I think this is called
orthogenesis, don't quote me.) Darwin proposed a new mechanism
for evolution (natural selection), but in the end added some
Lamarckian ideas to cover for his lack of knowledge of genetics.
He also presented evolution as a branching tree, not a linearly
progressive ladder as Lamarck envisioned. I'm not sure if that
was a contribution of Darwin, or if biologists had switched
the pattern of evolution prior to Darwin proposing selection
(Stan? Andy? Matt? anyone?)

In any case, substantial change has been made (IMHO) to evolution
to make the theory fit the data (which keeps growing in quantity
and quality). The rate of change seems, however, to be tailing 
off. The biggest changes of late are probably the neutral theory
of molecular evolution and directed mutagenesis.

>Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:17:57 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <ksand-051092193949@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>> 	Right ! I think they survive in the cloudy days as well as cloudless.
>> 	(there wasn't obviously TOTAL DARKNESS on earth).     

>You
>are implying that the fish and plants had quite a radical different
>way of surviving during the first 3 days.

To be fair to Antti (why I'd want to be fair to him is beyond me,
but anyway) I don't think this is really a problem. Organisms
could live three days (if we are talking 24 hour days) without
light. Take a houseplant sometime and stick it in your closet
for three days, I doubt it will croak. Creationism has serious
problems (no explicit theory exists and -- of course -- no
evidence for it exists), I don't think its neccessary to go
this far afield to criticize it. 

>Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:19:13 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Sep30.020510.19489@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) wrote:
> Are creationists willing to put this to the test? Construct a large pool
> containing models of all the creatures found in the layers, churn the
> water and see if they all settle out in the right order...
> 
> If its "creation science" then its time to start testing some of its
> theories in the lab...

Actually, if this 'hydraulical sorting' works, we should be able 
to watch it in micro scale in Nature. Over to you creationists, any
known current places where this is observable? 

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Eyes & Blind Watchmakers (was Re: Antti's File...)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:38:47 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>are biased. Also, I lived in Finland, and I do remember birds staying
>around during winter time, and they survived. Once again, are you
>really studying biology?

	I referred to late winter 1982 AND migratory birds. We were dealing 
	with swallows etc. not redpolls etc. winter species !

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins