Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution has been Disproven
Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 301 (184028)
02-08-2005 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
02-08-2005 8:23 PM


Unitarian?
Percy,
Certainly you knew this question would come up when you used that term: How do you define Unitarian? The dictionary shows three meanings:
1. An adherent of Unitarian Universalism.
2. A monotheist who is not a Christian.
3. A Christian who is not a Trinitarian.
Would the points outlined in uua.org describe your beliefs? UUA.org discusses "spiritual life" and "God" etc.
I'm just trying to understand what you believe, because up until now I thought you were a full blown atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 02-08-2005 8:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 02-09-2005 9:56 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 301 (184030)
02-08-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by NosyNed
02-08-2005 12:22 PM


???
Ned writes:
Of course, other scientific disciplines make it pretty clear that there was a time when there was no life on earth; in fact, no earth at all. So those other (not biology which is where evolution sits) disciplines would say that life came from non-life.
Of course, this is exactly the religious view too. I thought all religions (certainly Christianity) say that there was a time when there was no life and a later time when there was life. "From the dust of the earth"; isn't that how it goes.
If you are going to discuss things maybe you should bone up a bit first. You are working with some misconceptions. Ignornance is not a very strong foundation for discussion.
Good grief, Ned; you're right about "ignorance". But what about "twisted logic"? Yes, life came from non-life. But the view of modern SCIENCE (ToE) says it came about by ACCIDENT, or RANDOM PROCESSES, or CHANCE or whatever term they've switched to lately. While Christianity says GOD designed/made it. To use twisted logic as you did above is on the same plane as "willful ignorance", which is not a very strong foundation for discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 02-08-2005 12:22 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2005 12:15 AM Juhrahnimo has replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 301 (184031)
02-08-2005 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Jack
09-11-2003 7:00 AM


...good grief,
jack writes:
In fact the reverese is true, everyday billions of animals, and plants, convert dead matter into living tissue. You're doing it right now, and every time you eat. Every pregnant animal on earth is currently converting dead matter into a new life.
Good grief, you're right. And did you notice that it took a LIVING organism with a set of INSTRUCTIONS to make that life? So, it was LIFE making LIFE. Not dead stuff bringing itself to life. You did notice that in your example, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 09-11-2003 7:00 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 301 (184035)
02-09-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by John Paul
12-15-2003 9:55 PM


yep,
JP writes:
Evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis for obvious reasons.
You hit it right on the head. And the REASON they distance themselves from abiogenesis is the "amino acid problem" that is absolutely insurmountable. There is just no way for enough left handed amino acids to come about by "chance" to make even ONE right handed protein. The probability of that happening by itself is 10 to the oh, 1200th or so power I believe (law of probability is 10 to the 50th power, don't forget). And even if that DID happen, we would have only ONE protein that COULDN'T survive on it's own because it would have NO instructions, much less a mechanism, to replicate itself. You want to see an evolutionist go beserk? Just mention the amino acid problem to them; but be sure to DUCK so you don't get hit by inadvertant sputum!
And Mr Jack makes a good show of a point in post # 25:
Mr Jack writes:
I'd be quite worried if anyone is presenting a theory of abiogenesis as a proven fact. We haven't reached anywhere near that stage yet, all we have is a collection of hypothesises, some experiments, some mathematical models showing plausability and some emperical results showing the conditions present in the early earth. All of this shows quite convincingly (but not yet conclusively) the possibility of abiogenesis, however we have no direct evidence of it, nor is it particularly likely that we ever will (tiny, fragile proto-creatures do not exactly fossilise well and even if they did fossilise they would be almost impossible to find).
We also lack any credible alternative theory.
First, there is NO mathematical model that shows ANY plausibility whatsoever for life coming from non-life (amino acid problem).
Second, "some experiments" refer to the "Miller" experiment (and others) which insinuated that a bolt of lightning (and other stuff) made "the building blocks of life" somehow, which was a bogus experiment but I won't cover that here (evolutionists get VERY defensive when you take pokes at Miller), neglecting the fact that Miller's experiment produced nothing more than the same POISONOUS mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids that a dead body produces by itself (WITHOUT intelligence!).
And third, they "lack any credible alternative theory" because they don't want to consider GOD as the owner of this chunk of real estate, and that he made some rules for anyone who wants to live here (rules like "thou shalt not bear false witness" and "thou shalt not covet" and "thou shalt not use God's name in vain", etc). If they leave God out, they will NEVER have a credible alternative theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 9:55 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by sidelined, posted 02-09-2005 1:33 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 106 by Parasomnium, posted 02-09-2005 4:20 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 109 by sfs, posted 02-09-2005 9:17 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 110 by Quetzal, posted 02-09-2005 9:24 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 02-09-2005 11:20 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 263 by Gordon, posted 11-07-2005 12:46 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 301 (184036)
02-09-2005 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by NosyNed
02-09-2005 12:15 AM


...
Ned writes:
who was it accusing us of being arrogant because we found difficult to tolerate?
Don't know. Who was it? Is this a quiz? I'm TRYING to read carefully.
Ned writes:
The ToE says nothing about how life came about. It tells us how life diversified into the forms we have today. How life arose remains to be determined.
Yeah. Right. And it CAN'T. So why isn't it taught that way? We're taught that we came from a primordial broth after a bunch of (random) chemical reactions took place. And it's all taught in the SAME breath. Speaking of reading CAREFULLY, did you NOTICE that? So, where do we draw the line? And did you notice Darwin's comments about the "origin of plants"? (this is NOT a quiz). "Origin" eh? Now WHY would Charles be thinking about the ORIGIN of ANYTHING? Seems like he had a thing for botany, I guess.
Ned writes:
It may not have come about by chance at all.
Now I'm starting to see a flicker of light in you, Ned. Unless you're talking about aliens of course. Then we would have to discuss the origin of aliens, though, wouldn't we?
But nevermind all that; instead I want to focus on:
Ned writes:
Evolution is NOT a random process.
Oh, really. Well, now I feel like I'm being enlightened. So, tell me more; what is the "non-random" driving force behind mutations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2005 12:15 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2005 12:50 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 123 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2005 9:31 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 301 (184117)
02-09-2005 2:22 PM


Pathetic floundering...
Thanks for the answers and responses from so many of you. I'll just use this ONE post to respond to all of you to keep this thread from loading up with too many posts from one member.
To those of you who attack my Chrisitanity, thanks, you just fulfilled prophecy (again).
To those who evaded the main issue and attacked out-of-context sidebar issues, I have no real comment since you didn't either.
To those who actually addressed the issue, thank you. We can discuss a few points:
Where did the RNA come from that produces these L-amino acids? (see post 110 regarding quetzal's mention of Bailey JM, 1998, "RNA-directed amino acid homochirality", FASEB J 12:503-507). The chicken and egg problem is very real, and remains unaddressed despite your post. Your post just creates one MORE problem for you. You might be better off talking about life being brought here by aliens.
And the problems of "folding", "oxidation" (or lack of oxygen (think: ozone) is even worse), replication, and others are only dodged at best. One weak theory to support another; a common diversionary tactic that causes the listener to forget how ludicrous the original theory is. If enough "supporting" theories are developed, eventually we'll come up with something that actually makes sense in itself, and we'll think "yeah! That makes sense!" while forgetting how ridiculous the original theory is. Sort of like this:
Theory: Chocolate ice cream evolved from rotting elephants tusks in Africa.
Question: Huh?
Answer: Natives from the immediate vicinity dumped their garbage on top of an elephant carcass.
Question: I didn't know tusks could rot. So, what, um, then?
Answer: Bird and rat feces chemically reacted with some of the garbage and the resulting broth bonded with the rotting tusks. This process killed most of the bacteria on the tusks, but some mutated super-bacteria survived and chemically reacted with some other chemicals which resulted in a kind of choclately flavor according to witness reports from the area.
Question: Ah, yes. Witness statements, of course. But what about the ice-cream part?
Answer: This all happened at the base of the Mountains of the Moon in Africa (see evidence) and during a season of heavy mountain snow, there was HUGE avalanche that buried the elephant tusks and bones. After many decades, researchers discovered the chocolate ice-cream as the ice/snow receded.
Question: That's ridiculous. How does snow and a "Choclately flavor" equal Chocolate ice-cream?
Answer: There were some other processes involved as well, but you would need to get an education to understand. Basically, the local dogs deposited more feces on the site and, just before walking away, the dogs would use their hind legs to "kick" dirt over the mixture and the "kicking" action is what created the "ice-cream" texture. Some theorists believe that cats may also have played a role in this as-of-yet poorly-understood process.
Question: Yes, I've seen my dog do that "kicking" thing! But I don't have a cat; do cats do that too?
Answer: Experiments verified how the process could be re-produced in, what is known today as "ice-cream" factories, and thus we have Chocolate ice-cream. Here, try some...
Answer: MMMmmmm. Yummy!!!
Yeah. Elephant tusks. Right. And ones that ROT, even.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s true. Say it loud enough. Say it often enough. Keep saying it. And people will believe it.
The "Big Lie" wasn't really created by Hitler; rather by his drug addicted sidekick who knew that if you’re going to lie, you’re more likely to be believed if you tell a big one. But make sure you pepper it with lots of truth and observations that can't be refuted. That way people will feel stupid if they try to refute ANYTHING you say. And don't argue about the LIE; just stick to your guns on the irrelevant truths. That's evolution in a nutshell. If you say the same can be said for religion, then you're putting evolution and religion into the same class, so I suggest you avoid going there.
And post 105 that points out the website www.ic.ac.uk is quite telling:
ic.ac.uk writes:
They believe that at the dawn of biological life there were even numbers of molecules in each form, but through hitherto unknown processes, one particular form came to completely dominate over the others...
What the heck is THAT? They "...BELIEVE...." that "...through hitherto unknown processes..."? Of course they have to "believe" these molecules existed because they STILL can't explain HOW these molecules came together; they just BELIEVE these molecules were there somehow. Sounds like alot of faith is involved here. I thought we were talking about science.
And the article also points out:
ic.ac.uk writes:
...chemists regularly make catalysts ...
Which tells me only that INTELLIGENCE is required for these catalysts. I'm not saying it DOES. I'm saying that THAT'S ALL your reference can indicate. It's just a never-ending cycle of one thing being required for the next, then the next, then the next. But a random chance process just doesn't account for what has happened in our universe. Yes, for life to chemically evolve by itself, without intelligence, is ASBOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, impossible. That's why God made it the way he did; to make sure that NOBODY has ANY excuse whatsoever.
And the "kinda like sodium chloride needs instructions to form a cube" argument is just as pathetic; so how DOES it form a cube? We'll wind up at the exact same spot again; it took INTELLIGENCE to make the universe function as we know it.
This is sort of like a Calvin and Hobbes football game; they make up more rules as the game progresses. And for only ONE reason; to support their desire to BEAT the other guy, no matter the method. Again, we have ONLY two possible choices (as mentioned SOoooo many times on this forum):
1. God created, or
2. Everything created itself.
Oh, wait... I almost forgot that Calvin came up with ANOTHER rule (after he realized #2 above just can't float):
3. Everything has always been here.
The problem that Calvin was hoping Hobbes wouldn't notice, was that this "final solution" requires MORE faith than believing in God does. AND it's NOT SCIENCE. It's a HOPE or FAITH at best, fantasy fiction at worst (unless you're from hollywood). Sorry dudes, but the intelligent creator is real.

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2005 2:49 PM Juhrahnimo has replied
 Message 119 by Quetzal, posted 02-09-2005 4:20 PM Juhrahnimo has replied
 Message 120 by Parasomnium, posted 02-09-2005 4:42 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 02-09-2005 5:23 PM Juhrahnimo has replied
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2005 9:42 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 126 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-09-2005 10:08 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 301 (184148)
02-09-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Admin
02-09-2005 3:04 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
Thanks for stepping in, Percy. Do your rules also cover foul language? And what are the penalties for such useage? Especially the "F" word?
Thnx.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Admin, posted 02-09-2005 3:04 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Admin, posted 02-09-2005 5:33 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 301 (184296)
02-10-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Quetzal
02-09-2005 4:20 PM


Re: Pathetic floundering...
Since your response to me is by FAR the most pathetic, I'll respond to you.
First:
Quetz writes:
In discussion board parlance, this is called "moving the goalposts". Your first argument raised the homochirality problem.
YOU guys moved the goalposts by admitting that L-amino acids can't form by themselves as life would require. To solve this little difficulty, you came up with a mechanism that MADE the amino acids; RNA. So, since that was the ball you tossed me, I ran with that (so as not to insult anyone). So "where did the RNA come from, along with it's amazing capabilities?" was basically my next question. Your problem hasn't changed; you just keep drawing more "dots" and then connecting lines. Sort of like telling a lie, then having to tell another one to cover the first one. And then another to cover the previous one, and so forth. Your problem though, hasn't changed; you can't get this stuff by accident! So what if they can make RNA in a lab? They can build a Chrysler in a factory, but that doesn't mean you can expect to find Chryslers popping up out of the ground like mushrooms in some forest.
Your quote:
Quetz writes:
...The RNA world hypothesis regarding the early evolution of life relies on the premise that some RNA sequences can catalyze RNA replication...
Your just going over the same thing. I'M not moving goal posts; YOU're coming up with sillier ideas to cover silly ones. Words like "premise" are dead giveaways that your heros have absolutely NO CLUE as to what really happened; they just HAVE to come up with at lease SOMETHING that sounds scientific so they don't lose their government research grants.
And:
Quetz writes:
...The ribozyme uses nucleoside triphosphates and the coding information of an RNA template ...
Totally ludicrous, don't you see? I'm starting to think that you're not even READING what you cut and paste. You may even just be a sensationalist who enjoys complex ideas, even if there's no other reason for it. But simply posting the above quote (cut and paste) in hopes of supporting your argument shows that YOU DIDN'T READ it. The mechanisms that you describe requires INFORMATION and CODING (see your own post). So WHERE did this "information" COME FROM, and HOW was it ENCODED? And how was the CODE determined? And, once you have THAT problem solved, I'll let you explain where the DE-CODING system came from and HOW did they chemically evolve simultaneously and so conveniently. If you develop a code and start transmitting a "happy birthday" message across the country, WHO will know what your message is if nobody knows HOW to DE-CODE? You're chasing your own tail.
And:
Quetz writes:
...even the modern ribosome has been considered to be fundamentally an RNA machine...
Again, HOW did the RNA "machine" develop its amazing capabilities? The chocolate ice-cream from elephant tusks sounds much more plausible than what you're trying to tell me. Actually, maybe not. The elephant tusk thing isn't weird enough to qualify for a government grant. I might have to re-think that theory a little.
Quetz writes:
RNA molecules are thought to have been prominent in the early history of life on Earth because of their ability both to encode genetic information and to exhibit catalytic function...
Same thing. Do you see a pattern here? For this guy's crazy ideas to work, it REQUIRES a mechanism that can ENCODE GENETIC INFORMATION and, obviously another mechanism to DECODE. Where do these capabilities come from, and how does this mechanism decide WHAT INFORMATION TO ENCODE?
Quetz writes:
...Keep 'em coming. I've got a million of them.
Keep'em coming; I've got one of these for every one of yours. Or, on second thought, nevermind. You're already proven my point.
Quetz writes:
Ummm, what IS the problem of "folding" and "oxidation" you mention
I thought you knew that, since you seemed so knowledgable about this subject. But simply because you brought that question up, I can now only presume that you have no idea what you're talking about in this area. Sorry I wasted my time with you. Please learn your subject matter next time before you start cutting and pasting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Quetzal, posted 02-09-2005 4:20 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 12:05 AM Juhrahnimo has replied
 Message 134 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-10-2005 12:21 AM Juhrahnimo has replied
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 12:32 AM Juhrahnimo has replied
 Message 151 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 10:38 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 301 (184300)
02-10-2005 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Nighttrain
02-09-2005 11:31 PM


Good point:
train writes:
Give science another hundred years and come back with questions about abiogenesis.
So, you're saying that we don't have a clue, at the moment? That our current theories are a joke (even humorous)? If you're not saying that, then consider me as having said it. But if you DO say it, then I'll give you the credit for having said it, no problem.
Oh, and thank you for saying that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Nighttrain, posted 02-09-2005 11:31 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 12:18 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 138 by Nighttrain, posted 02-10-2005 1:12 AM Juhrahnimo has replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 301 (184302)
02-10-2005 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by NosyNed
02-10-2005 12:05 AM


?
Ned, puhleez. How is it that you always notice that I'm ranting, but don't notice when the folks from your camp rant? Your favoritism is showing again. I would appreciate a little more consistency, please. If we're ranting, tell us. Don't single out those who don't support your views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 12:05 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 12:20 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 301 (184309)
02-10-2005 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
02-09-2005 5:23 PM


Yes,
Percy writes:
...I think you may be confusing two different topics of discussion...
And:
Percy writes:
Speculations about how life might have began do not constitute evidence for evolution.
I think the topics that are being confused are "Evolution" and "Evolution". The two terms are being used interchangeably by your camp. One means (contextually) micro/macro evolution, and the other means (contextually) chemical evolution. Your camp usually is quick to point out that MME has nothing to do with the origin of life (without mentioning CE), but then that's where the discussion always ends up somehow. Maybe evolution DOES have something to do with evolution after all, despite evolutionists shying away from the orgin of life (CE). I mean, read the posts from the folks in your camp; its as if they don't read each other's stuff.
Percy writes:
...There are lots of ideas, but little concrete has been settled at this point...
Not according to Quetzal. He acts like creationists are stupid for not understanding his fantasy fiction ideas of how life could have begun. Of COURSE they haven't a clue. So who are these guys who think they have it figured out? Of course, no one SAYS verbatim that they have it figured out; but they act like it. Remember THE CORE: "....just say it together with me; I DON'T KNOW....".
Percy writes:
..By the way, scientists are not postulating anything circular such as that amino acids came from RNA and RNA came from amino acids. The issue they're studying is which came first. It is understood that if some kind of primitive RNA came first that it would have had to have been composed of amino acids that can arise naturally without RNA...
Yes, your humor (like your Woody Allen picture) never ceases to amaze me. Or are you just testing me to see if I would catch that? That's exactly the kind stuff Brad McFall pulls on people (and he is BRILLIANT, I might add) for a living. Sayyyy.... maybe you're... Yes, it's starting to add up now. Nawwwww... it COULDN'T be! Could it? C'MONNNNNN!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 02-09-2005 5:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Nighttrain, posted 02-10-2005 1:24 AM Juhrahnimo has replied
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 02-10-2005 9:56 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 301 (184312)
02-10-2005 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by DBlevins
02-09-2005 2:39 PM


Yes,
Yes, please check for me. And also check what he said about the early atmosphere composition. Something about either oxidation or lack of ozone. And that amino acids might be upset about either scenario. I'll await your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DBlevins, posted 02-09-2005 2:39 PM DBlevins has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 301 (184323)
02-10-2005 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
02-09-2005 2:49 PM


Crash writes:
...I mean, I find it patently ridiculous that grown-up adults come here and relate fairy tales developed by first-century goatherds as though they were actually true...
Yeah, who would want to believe something like that?
And:
Crash writes:
In fact it's much more likely that what you or I consider "ridiculous" is a function of cultural upbringing, not a function of what is true in the universe.
Yes, you've learned well, Luke. Many of the truths to which we cling, depend greatly on our own point of view (we've gone over this before in a different post; did you think of something else you might want to add, or do just want to go over it again?)
If you reject a particular possibility, then anything that supports that possibility is ridiculous. If you have decided that God doesn't exist (for whatever reason), then even his appearance in your living room would not be sufficient evidence that he is God (God walked with Cain, but yet he STILL chose to murder his brother). Crash, we went over this in detail in another thread; I thought we reached a point where we both said what we had to say (including your personal attacks against me) and that was that. Did you want to switch over to that thread to continue our discussion or am I mis-reading you? (again, I thought we were finished with that).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2005 2:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2005 10:55 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 301 (184324)
02-10-2005 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Nighttrain
02-10-2005 1:12 AM



LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Nighttrain, posted 02-10-2005 1:12 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 301 (184325)
02-10-2005 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by NosyNed
02-10-2005 12:32 AM


Re: GENETIC INFORMATION
Ned writes:
Someone has been asked for their definition today IIRC. Was that you?
Not that I recall. Unless someone took something I said and made an acronym out of it. There's a ref to it in post 104 of a different thread; is that what you're talking about? I've never used term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 12:32 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 1:31 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024