Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!

Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?


owd

On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena! Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ










Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic
Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into
the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!
Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ

Another fine Christian sentiment. Do you have a scat obsession?

We don't discuss religion here, remember ?

HJ







Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell
me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003

Honest John wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena! Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ

Another fine Christian sentiment. Do you have a scat obsession?

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003

Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic
Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into
the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!
Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ

Another fine Christian sentiment. Do you have a scat obsession?

We don't discuss religion here, remember ?

HJ


Who is "we"?






Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell
me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003



--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote
in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test
crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does
not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even
if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system
could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was
tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic
Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into
the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the
rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a
theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of
the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then
that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and
earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!
Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ

Another fine Christian sentiment. Do you have a scat obsession?

We don't discuss religion here, remember ?

HJ


Who is "we"?

"We" is anyone that does. Could be Charles and myself, that makes a "we".

HJ








Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell
me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little
restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003



--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell
me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:37:26 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:

SNIP


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!
Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

I see that you are substantialy incapable of learning.

How unsurprising.

take a hint: the Bible isn't a science text book.

We don't discuss religion anymore you ****ing idiot! Eat some more ****

HJ

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:37:26 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:

SNIP


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena! Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

I see that you are substantialy incapable of learning.

How unsurprising.

take a hint: the Bible isn't a science text book.

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:23:31 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:


"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:37:26 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:

SNIP


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!
Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

I see that you are substantialy incapable of learning.

How unsurprising.

take a hint: the Bible isn't a science text book.

We don't discuss religion anymore you ****ing idiot! Eat some more ****

Ahh, your "Christianity" is shining through I see.

We don't discuss religion here, **** for brains.

HJ




Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."