If we are all descended from Noah ...

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:Who did Caine and Abel marry if they were the only two offspring of Adam and Eve actually meantioned and there weren't anyother people on Earth at the time? Did they marry their mother?BTW, you need at least a minimum of 40 unrelated couples to make a genetically healthy population for any real length of time. Any less and you have many problems with inbreeding that take much time to weed out if at all possible.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-14-2002]

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:From Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

​

It can be surmised that daughters had been born earlier, for throughout Scriptures the eventual arrival of a male was so announced in so many other words. It never was considered worth mention that a daughter was born since the seed is through the male.Actually the sperm is the fertilizer, the "seed" is in the woman already it is called an Ovum, or egg. Do you know anything about reproductive science? Both the Sperm and Ovum carry equal amounts of the DNA required to produce an offspring. Do you hold the mistaken belief that all a woman does is carry the man's "seed" for him and that she doesn't have any real genetic say in it?From Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.How could he have "known" her since there were no other people.It is fair to surmise Cain brought his wife, a sister born of Eve, or cousin, or neice, to a land he called Nod, and there "knew" her.Adam and Eve were only "children"This is all only speculation.From Genesis 5:4-5
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: [5] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

​

We can assume Eve was alongside all those years populating the earth quite regularly. Josephus estimates "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." How many children were possible in 930 years of child bearing? We don't know how long Eve lived, as only the death of Adam is recorded, typical of Hebrew emphasis. Nor does the Bible state how many children there were, but surely MANY.You are only assuming. Many claimed great life spans back then, but the truth is that for most of humanity's existence the average lifespan was around 18 years, with a max of between 30 and 40 years. This is one reason why we "fall apart" when were reach our 30's and 40's. A long life wasn't important as long as we lived long enough to reproduce and raise our children to maturity. It has really only been recently that we have been able to extend it to what it is now of around an average of 80 years. BTW, if the rate continues to climb a person born now could expect to see an average lifespan of about 110 years. We are seeing more and more people celebrating their 100th and more birthdays.You claim it would take the 40 unrelated couples to make a genetically healthy population. I question that, but also doubt we can say the gene pool is healthy now anyway. It is FULL of copying errors with all the mutations imaginable. Starting with less than that 80 individual scenario is sort of moot to me anyway. If you are an eolutionist, you think it all began with the emergence of A man from some mutation of a lower life form such as an ape. I find it incomprehensible that 80 or more arose simultaneously from apes in time for them to breed in their lifetimes. The modern evolutionary concept of species considers the inability to reproduce with nearest ancestors to be definitive. That would require spontaneous emergence of the 80 individuals capable of reproducing to all be of the same species.Hardly. It appears that you don't understand genetics as well. It is not a matter of a sudden change, but a gradual one where in each generation the differences add up. We see this now in the Equus family where they are now to a point where they can still inter-breed and produce offspring, but most are infertile though not all are. Evoution is a very wasteful process.
BTW, we are still a member of the primate family.I think 6,000 years of cultural awareness of the dangers of interbreeding has been sufficient to clean up the gene pool, and elimination of many of the accumulated copying errors through careful selection.They knew of the problems of in-breeding long ago, that is why they made up taboos about having sex with one's close relatives. The vast majority of our DNA is not actually active, but leftovers from our evolutionary ancestors. It is called our "Junk" DNA. This is how they were able to complete the Book of Man through the Human Genome Project much faster than they originally expected.BTW, this link should be of some interest. Make sure to read the entire site, not just what you want.The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 EvesBTW, they are not actually speaking of the biblical Adam and Eve, but only as a label.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:Now, for once I am going to answer in the Magesterium of Religion

​

I believe that there are many religions other than Christanity and Judaism becuase there are many paths to whatever you want to attain. There are many religions becuase it is man's way of trying to relate to something greater than himself. As there are many difference choices of career there are many choices of religions. Why? Becuase everyone would not be happy being in the same career or the same religion.

​

I am personally an atheist. This is my only guess as to why there are so many religions.Have you read the first post of my thread, "Why People want to believe there is a god"?http://EvC Forum: Why people want to believe there is a god. -->EvC Forum: Why people want to believe there is a god.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:WS: Actually it's a little more complicated than that. In every male/female cell there is a complete set of identical X chromosomes. A sex cell (sperm/egg) has one half of the ("X"/"Y") contributed. Meiosis involves a random choosing of genes from the two halves of the parent's chromosomes, producing a random mix of genes, each sex cell a completely unique creation. When combined in reproduction, the resultant child is the product of mixing four grandparents' genes. We all know all about that, don't we?What, you had to look that up?That said, let's try to straighten out your apparent misunderstanding of Hebrew lineage reckoning. Citizen rights among them was entirely based on the lineage of the males, resulting in accounting only for male progeny except in matters of cultural interest.Irrelevant, Adam and Eve were not exactly Hebrews.Thee is a big reason for that system. In the beginning there were two seeds, that of Adam and that of Eve. In all fairness, the responsibility for the original sin fell upon Adam who was the one of two who received the one and only law from God before Eve was even made.How could they have known what sin was, or what right and wrong were?
These concepts didn't exist to them before they ate of the apple. To disobey what "god" said and the possible consequences had no real meaning to them either. They were set up.Would you throw your children out into the streets naked and ignorant the very first time they may have disobeyed you? You would be arrested as a unfit parent.All responsibility falls on the male. When he failed to enforce it, his sin was reckoned against his seed (lineage), not that of the woman.So, if your great-grand father was sent to prison for a crime you should continue his sentence?That is why the Bible has the sins of the fathers falling on the sons for several generations, in fact to all his descendants. So it was that God could legally make entry into the human family through the untainted seed of the woman, mixed with the seed of God Himself. In that sense only is there any biblical disagreement with genetics.That is why it is complete nonsense.WS: That is not a reasonable statement based on any fact, making a poor question. The Bible just doesn't state how many people had been born into the world before Cain was exiled.Because there were no others.It seems more logical to assume the first 4 chapters of Genesis spanned several decades, and we already know females were hardly ever listed in geneologies anyway.Speculation.WS: Where did you get that? The Bible says Adam was made a MAN, not a boy, and the pair was commanded to reproduce.Only children as in no other siblings.WS: Your opinion. I'm going by what the Bible actually says, and making inference from the patterns of many Scriptures that support my speculations.Speculation based on speculation.For the purposes of this post, your belief "all" is only speculation is both wrong and moot. I began with Scripture to supply the KNOWN, then made inferences based on the known stated and not stated, but referred to in general. If you need the posting of the geneologies and verses demonstrating the principles referred to, I suppose I could paste it in for you, but the post would be quite large.You are still just guessing.WS: "Only" assuming? I gave the reference concerning the age of Adam. That is not an assumption, but a statement from the Book of Genesis accepted literally by millions of people, no doubt thousands of scholars throughout thousands of years.So was the belief that the Earth was flat as well. Just because people believe something without any real facts still doesn't make it true.The Genesis geneologies clearly state the ages of Adam's descendants, both when their sons were born, and when they died. I make no assumptions about that. Why exxagerate my post?Because it is fantasy.The very long life spans are Bible fact.They are myth. Bible facts are not the same as real facts. Bats are not birds just because they can fly and whales are not fish just because they live in the ocean.Science has not disproven any of that.Yes they have disproven it by studying the fossil record and the like.Bible archeologists are turning up massive evidences of the accuracy of Bible statements, confirmed in the ancient writings cultures other than the Hebrews. The Bible teaches that the original sin and the continued proliferation of sin is responsible for disease, death, deterioration of Creation. Every generation suffered more and more until the life expectancies did in fact reach the deplorable limits you mention. Only modern technology has improved on that so pitifully compared to the long healthy lives once enjoyed before the Flood.Just because the bible contains actually peoples and places still doesn't mean that these other things are true. We still do this today to make a story more relevant to those it is being told to.Look at Homer's epic poem the Iliad and the Odyssey. They used it to find the lost city of Troy. Does this mean that everything else in it is true as well?WS: Understanding scientific genetics and conforming to evolutionary explanations are two very different things. Let me jump to that last statement. I am a member of the Order of Man, specifically now of the family of God as a Christian, not of the primates.We are so closely related to some of the other primates, such as chimps, that we share the same blood types and can also share blood with little or no filtering.The primates were made before Adam was made. Adam was a specially created class of being all alone in his own order, that of MAN, after the image and likeness of God.Wrong. The evidence says otherwise. But than again you belive that women were made from a man. If you knew human biology you would see just how ridiculous that is, unless you have functioning nipples. No animal was so created. The plants were made, then the animals to eat them, then man to dominate all of that. Plant-Animal-Man. Very simple.Man is a member of the animal kingdom.This is what makes man an animal.Animal:
1. A living organism characterized by voluntary movementI don't know of a single geneticist who would say an organism would reproduce by combining sex cells outside the demanding constraints of each particular species. There is no inter-species reproduction.Just like most creationists you don't have a clue about what evolution is all about. You seem to think that a new form of life just springs up over night.I still have a problem reconciling your 40 couple requirement. How did the original 40 arise if the changes were very slow and subtle? All 40 would have to be present in one generation simultaneously for them to begin your healthy genome.It is not really all the complex a concept. There is a gradual change, not a sudden one as you seem to believe there is.I don't buy it. There would have to have been simultaneous random changes in many humanoid individuals, each set of changes following a random course of collective benefit, yet remaining each and every one of the same species, else reproduction would fail between them.

​

Look, I don't believe in evolution at all, and am not interested in that, lacking a good foundation in "evolutionary biology", geology, paleontology, astrophysics, etc..That is why you can only be wrong in your belief.WS: The Bible says otherwise. It predated your belief, and will survive long past it. You impose a belief not proven, that our ancestors evolved. They allegedly evolved. Your 'explanation', a theory, says they evolved, based on certain supportive evidences. Your choice of explanation is subject to constant alterations as history reveals, in keeping with more sophisticated science methods. My explanation from the Bible is a survivor of time and is eternal, not subject to alteration. So why make such a definite statement you can't prove? Do you subscribe to the notion "evolution is a fact"?Please, it is so much a proven fact that even the Roman Catholic Church had to accept it as such. And we all know how hard it is to get them to admitt when they are wrong. It took them centuries to pardon Galileo. It is only a few, like you, who don't accept it as such. There are even some who still believe that the Earth is flat as well. What you believe is in the same league as that. You remind me of that forest ranger on the New Red Green Show. You've been in the woods far too long.BTW, Hinduism predates Christianity and Judaism. It is considered to be the oldest living religion.The bible has been edited and revised many times. It has only been around as a whole for about 1700 years and at first contained 80 books to the now 66. Also, the current bible is so filled with contradictions and errors that it is funny. And I'm not speaking of the scrolls and manuscripts it may have been based on either. The vast majority of Christians, in the world, have been taught from it for centuries and not the scrolls and manuscripts. Most don't even know that that even exist, they are irrelevant. To them all they know is what is told to them out of bibles such as the KJV. Plus there are now also many different versions floating around as well.If one were to write a biology exam based on the "facts" in the bible one would be put back a few grades. I don't think geneticists actually know more than the tip of the mountain of DNA knowledge that will probably take centuries to master, if ever. It will require very narrow specialties to break the project up into manageable parts, that in itself keeping any one person from comprehending the entire thing.They're learning new things about our DNA everyday now.Did you read that link I sent you?[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:Please learn how to post. You don't have to include EVERYTHING when you reply.WS: Of course not. But it was a Hebrew (Moses) who recorded the Pentateuch. The geneology of Hebrews required a link all the way back to Adam through Seth through Abraham to guarantee Hebrew lineage.*Thery're is some evidence that the Books of Moses were not written by Moses himself. I.E. The inclusion of some kings which live after Moses' death.WS: There was but the one law from God delivered to Adam before Eve came along. No eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Very simple command, easy to understand. It was fair and square. God did his part, Adam decided to contradict it. No excuse.*What is law? Adam wouldn't have understood the concept. How could he have made such a decision? First he would have had to know the difference between right and wrong and to do that he would have had to eat of the apple. Did you toss out your children into the street the first time they had disobyed you? Are you an unfit parent?WS: Your arguments are irrelated to the issue. Adam was not a child needing to be raised up.Maybe not, but the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong were alien concepts to him.He was a full adult ready for a wife about the time he was first given the one law from God.There was no sex (no need) in the garden before the apple. So, the concept of a wife was irrelevant as well.There is a greater "law of God", in existence then, but God only revealed the one law of the Garden. There is no relationship between your comment and what the Bible declares.*That is because I have shown the flaw in the myth of Adam and Eve.WS: I see your misunderstanding now. Sin lifestyles of fathers do affect the sons for 3-4 generations. That has nothing to do with the imputed sin ushered in through Adam.Sin is a religious concept and has no relation to morality and the real world.Before he sinned against God there was no sin anywhere in the world. When Adam sinned, sin entered like a disease, spreading through the human family as quickly as it formed. It was unleashed. Adam is the responsible actor for letting it in. One in, it stayed, affecting all his descendants. In that way it was Adam, not God, who did the condemning, beginning with a deliberate violation of a plainly revealed law in the Garden. Everyone suffers because of it, unable to escape its ravages without a savior. The plan for salvation was revealed along with the sentencing of the first couple, then developed through the ages, culminating in Jesus Christ.*It is cruel to blame others for the action of one.WS: That is another unbased opinion you are entitled to.* It is much more than an opinion and it is far from being biased.WS: Can you prove that? Until you can, the Bible stands true, self-proven, self-supported, backed by the testimony of many.*Can you prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist?WS: Your comment is speculation. Mine are based on Bible statements and patterns that lead to logical conclusions. You speculate I am speculating. Your argument is much too remote now, for you failed to supply evidence I am ONLY speculating.*That is like saying that you base you opinions on Grimes Fairy Tales.WS: That makes no sense at all. You have no basis for it. It is pure speculation. Snipping out frivolous responses...*Ok, where in the bible does it meantion their siblings by name?WS: The Bible doesn't teach a "flat earth". That concept was developed between philosophers before the Pentateuch was even written, in the beginning formation of the concept of "science". It was later pushed on the Bible by poor exegesis. The Bible revealed all along the truth of the earth, containing true knowledge, while some people believed otherwise. I think you have it all backwards.*Matthew 4:1-12
Daniel 4:10-11
Isaiah 40:18-23
Isaiah 22:18http://members.aol.com/jalw/flat_earth.htmlWS: Are there not rules in this place? You make too many unfounded assertions with no basis whatsoever. Pure opinion, unbelief. Simple unbelief with no foundation at all.*So, you are losing and now you want to go whining to the mods.WS: Your basis? Nobody has ever disproven anything in the Bible, while Bible archeologists continue to verify many obscure events and facts.So, you do believe that bats are birds?I suggest subscribing to Bible Archeology for a while.Do you have an unbiased reference instead?I'm also familiar with the many atheist sites that sport long lists of alleged contradictions in the Bible. All that I have seen so far have been debunked many times over through the years, including all of Burr's arguments. Practically all of that is poor exegesis, simple ignorance of the Bible, culture, and history.*That is because they mainly went back to the scrolls and manuscripts, but they are irrelevant in this context. Most Christians are not taught the bible in Hebrew or even Aramaic.WS: The fossil record is far too fragmented and incomplete to demonstrate anything other than a lot of organisms were fossilized under an unusual circumstance not likely to be repeated. The requirement of sudden burial and preservation sufficient to lithify bones over vast areas on earth is not a repeatable scenario. I think all those fossils came from the Global Flood era.That isn't what I had meant. You can tell the age at death and gender by look at bones, even fossilized bones.Thre is no other geologic scenario that I know of that would explain how the world organisms were so preserved on a regular basis.There is no evidence at all for a recent global flood.WS: Disconnected again. Your comments are simple denials, hardly suitable in any debate. You need to supply some substance.*You really shouldn't talk to yourself like that.WS: Few things of those myths have been corroborated, not nearly enough to take most of Homer's works seriously. The Bible, however, has been corroborated sufficiently for any serious scholar to admit the uncorroborated parts are probably true.Please, that is a load.Just 30 minutes of searching Google under "Bible archeology" will support that statement. However, you will spend days trying to find much more than the Troy discovery linked to Homer. Big difference.*Do you have any unbiased sources?WS: So? We have a common Creator. Most blood is red. Deer blood is red, coyote blood is red. So its that of bears and birds. Why?Blood is red because it is based on iron and oxyidizes when exposed to the air. When it is not it is blue.Because of the purpose of blood to carry oxygen to cells. There are many similarities between most organisms. It is no mystery to me why primates would have more similarities than others, since many of their functions are similar. In fact, we share a common deficiency with apes and Guinea pigs, lacking one of four enzymes needed to synthesize vitamin C.
It appears to me that both apes and men have always had the mobility to get fruit from trees and obtain vitamin C naturally from other sources frequently enough to avoid scurvy.* Many other animals eat the same fruit as well and they don't have the same blood types. Color of blood has nothing to do with it.WS: No evidence exists to support your claim.* We have many female features. Plus during the early stages of a pregnancy we are all female.WS: All you have there is a purely secular definition making man of the animal kingdom based on movement. That doesn't negate the biblical revelation.*Yes, it does.WS: They did that in the Creation week, but not overnight. They all were created in the daylight. None have emerged since then.*Which creation account?WS: No change at all occurs, except from normal predictable genetic mixing that makes varieties, but never new species being formed.*You really don't have a clue?WS: Should I assume you are an expert professional adept in all the applicable science fields, able to explain without flaw all the processes concerning evolution? If not, you are likely to be promoting lots of error. Passing on assumptions?*I don't have to be. There is more than enough credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence which does show that evolution is a fact. No such evidence exists for creationism.WS: The RCC has joined in yet another heresy claiming it is wrong to proselyte among people of other religions, contrary to the clear Bible message. They are a heretical cult.The RCC is the oldest Church in Christianity and the vast majority of Christians are Catholic, so by definition you are the one who is a memeber of a heretical cult.What they admit about evolution has nothing to do with Christianity. The official RCC statement, however, declares belief in evolution to be considered personal and not something for Catholics to argue over. It's OK to believe it, OK not to believe it. The RCC is making no official direct statement of belief in evolution.*They did say that it was a fact.WS: "The Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and written down about 600 B.C." http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/The bible was written down almost 1700 years ago.WS: You need to study that out better. Any translation from Hebrew or Greek had its problems with changing languages, and still does. However, sufficient lexicons of those original languages allow a check and balance to make it possible to spot errors in new versions.*Irrelevant. Most Christians are not bible scholars and know nothing of this.WS: The prospect of dealing with each and every alleged contradiction is inviting, but too time consuming. Christians are forbidden to engage in such frivolity anyway.How convenient. Enough has been published already to expose those lists of accusations, all proven false.All assumptions.WS: Although the central message of the Bible is the Fall and salvation of man, it does contain many true fats about biology unless the reader is prone to exegetical sloppiness. Not all statement revealed in the Bible are true knowledge, such as lies quoted of actors, and quotes from Job's friends. Folly is reported, but so is eternal truth, ultimate true knowledge.*Meaningless babble.WS: Yes. It appears the ancient historian Joesphus was pretty close in his estimate, adding sons and daughters the scientists have not traced yet.Did you look at the time scales involved? They are far longer than your 6000 years. And they are different lines, not necessarily closely related either.It is clear that it is useless to argue with you since you are what is call a TRUE believer and nothing will steer you from the belief in your myths and stories. It is a good thing that you are in a minority and mostly irrelevant. You mostly just worth a good laugh in your willful ignorance. You rather believe in a popular myth than in an unpopular truth. You just have your bible, I have the rest of the planet.

I'm not going to reply to you anymore. It is too much work for very little return. Please learn how to post, you are including the entire post when it is unneccessary.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wordswordsman:WS: Made you too uncomfortable? Your replies are so often so remote as to require the context to permit a sensible response. Without the previous quotes it is necessary to scroll back and forth between posts to figure out what was said to get those strange responses. I suppose all those three word one-liners wore you down? Anyway, I proved your comments to be innacurate, sometimes completely false, and evidenced your ignorance of the Bible. You need to pick on topics you know something about. I can understand why you would want to tuck and run. Sort of embarassing, huh? I challenged you to acknowledge valid points made, which you don't do- more reason to avoid future discussion. [/B][/QUOTE]Hardly. Arguing with you is like hitting one's head against a dense wall. You wouldn't accept anything even if the proof were undeniable and right in front of you. Like I had said, you are a TRUE believer and nothing will stand in the way of that. You can't allow anything to stand in the way of your beliefs. See my thread "Why People want to believe there is a god" and this fits you to a tee. Your religious beliefs are all you have. You are too deluded to be truly rational. Even the others on here who don't agree with me most of the time see just how irrational you are.I won't be a performer in your little Cirque Du Lusion.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-16-2002]

You are irrelevant and a non-person. You don't exist from this point on.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

I do not encounter rabid Osirian fundamentalists in this country, only rabid Christian fundamentalists. I have as much respect for the Bible as I do for any other mythology, though I think there are many other mythological systems that are much richer.

---

Namely Greek mythology. It is so much more interesting and detailed and has been around a lot longer than Christianity's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Namely Greek mythology. It is so much more interesting and detailed and has been around a lot longer than Christianity's.

---

​

My personal favorites are Hindu and Norse. The former largely because it is so abstract and mutable. The appeal, I think, is somewhat like the appeal of a Dali or an Escer. And the Norse... I just kinda like Yggdrasil.

​

---

It's too bad they don't worship the old gods anymore. Christianity has much to answer for.Though, The bible is more interesting than the Qu'ran. I've read the Qu'ran and it reads like disjointed poetry or a laundry list. You can't actually take it out of context because there barely is any.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-17-2002]

He'll probaby try to turn it around, or say that they are afraid to admit, that they are heretics, or some other such nonsense. You are banging your head against the dense wall of a TRUE believer. Absolutely nothing will get through to him. He's in too deep and a lost cause.If this were the "good old days" of the Dark Ages when the Church was the strongest he would be the one conducting your "interview" before the Inquisition, or lighting the fire under the stake you would be tied to. If he were a Muslim he would be crashing airplanes into buildings..

What's that smell??? Did someone fart?

Originally posted by Mammuthus:LOL!!!
That was just the first (not the only) poll I found in direct contradiction to your bogus numbers.Want to hear something funny? I was just watching a show on the religious channel here and they used the same poll to prove that most Americans WANT creationism in schools as well. They also used the "It's only fair" arguement. As well as the "evolution is a religion" assertion. And the "scientist are afraid to tell the whole truth about evolution and its gaps..." conspiracy nonsense.Though, this is scary as well because it tricks so many unknowing people into thinking that what they are saying is in anyway valid.Also, everytime I hear some say that evolution is about how life got started I want to SCREAM. It has nothing at all to do with how life, or the universe got started at all. Darwin's book was the Origine of Species, not life...Hey nos482...you called it right on the money...he did exactly like you said...stimulus response...stimulus response His "kind" are so predictable. They have no real depth to them at all.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:

​

Sorry - this is a field I know little about. I was intrigued by the reference to transportation!

​

I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?

---

As far as I'm concerned they either have to accept the entire bible as the literal inerrant word of their god and obey all of it, or not at all. There is no middle ground with something like this. There are far too many Cut&Paste Christians around who only follow the good parts and ignore all of the nasty bits.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Wow,

​

Made my statement look pretty pale. That is a great way of putting what I believe. Where did you get that? Is there a source.

​

I have not made it to all the threads, it takes time, to get through all of them.

​

Laters

​

---

It is a passage out of one of my favorite SF novels. "Butterfly and Hellflower", by Eluki Bes Shahar, 1993(?), published by DAW Books. It is a three in one book collection.http://www.sff.net/people/eluki/bib.htm[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-19-2002]