Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #92591 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-22 10:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-12-14 12:23 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 380 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 10:13 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 10:22 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-22 10:38 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-08-22 13:44 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 10:50 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 10:48 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Gene Buckle" <gene.buckle@bbs.retroarchive.org.remove-1029-this> - 2016-08-23 10:10 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-08-23 13:35 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-26 07:19 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 05:46 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 15:04 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 06:28 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-08-29 11:23 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Dawkins <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-29 17:57 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 10:07 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-29 17:36 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-29 20:18 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-29 14:39 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-08-29 17:06 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-02 20:53 +0100
[OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 17:59 +0800
[OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 03:32 -0800
[OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 04:03 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 20:26 +0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 04:39 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 20:51 +0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-03 13:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-05 13:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:07 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:32 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:40 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:52 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:02 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:32 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:37 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:45 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:54 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:27 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:36 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:59 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:09 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 15:05 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 15:20 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 20:05 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:12 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 13:31 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 00:52 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:06 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:21 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:30 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 20:10 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:18 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-13 14:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 11:24 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-13 21:04 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 12:53 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-13 22:19 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 13:55 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 14:06 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-14 14:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 11:44 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 12:07 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-14 23:02 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 17:47 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-15 17:40 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 08:53 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-15 16:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 09:15 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-15 17:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 09:40 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-15 17:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-15 18:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 10:32 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 10:57 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-15 19:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-15 17:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-15 12:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 16:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-15 17:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-13 12:29 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 12:46 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 21:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-13 22:21 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 13:26 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-13 22:38 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-12-13 17:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-13 23:14 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 14:02 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-13 23:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 14:21 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 14:42 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 15:04 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 14:42 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 15:47 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-12-13 18:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-14 00:04 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 16:18 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 01:33 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-14 15:51 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 07:18 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-14 09:09 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 09:18 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-14 17:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 11:28 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 11:36 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 20:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 16:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:09 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:17 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:41 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:46 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:17 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:32 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:43 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 14:29 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 06:17 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 06:44 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-13 14:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 11:23 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-14 14:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-14 19:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 11:42 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-14 11:59 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-14 20:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-14 19:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-15 12:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-15 18:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-03 12:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 21:03 +0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 05:27 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 21:41 +0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 06:05 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 22:26 +0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 07:07 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 23:25 +0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 01:34 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 05:44 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 06:09 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 05:52 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 05:55 -0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:38 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 12:08 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 12:33 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-31 21:43 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 12:50 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-31 22:01 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 13:31 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-31 22:33 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 13:45 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-31 22:47 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 14:01 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-31 23:06 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 15:49 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 14:12 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-02 21:23 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 14:45 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-03 00:06 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 21:51 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-09-02 22:59 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 21:54 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-07 20:11 -0500
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-07 21:46 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-31 23:05 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 23:12 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-05 17:55 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 18:05 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-05 20:23 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-06 03:33 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-11-06 10:06 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 02:45 -0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-11-06 11:11 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 17:52 -0500
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-05 20:30 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 01:59 -0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-02 22:41 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 12:53 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-31 22:07 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-08-22 13:59 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 11:33 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:09 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 18:11 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 18:20 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-08-31 16:10 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-01 12:32 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 05:04 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-01 14:14 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-08-31 13:38 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:09 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:15 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 12:20 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 12:32 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 12:35 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 13:01 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-02 22:31 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-03 08:40 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-03 14:27 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-03 19:33 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 12:11 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-03 12:29 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 12:23 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-03 20:23 +0100
Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-03 19:43 +0000
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 21:07 +0100
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-03 20:56 +0000
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-09-03 16:25 -0400
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-09-03 17:25 -0400
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 14:42 -0700
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-09-03 18:15 -0400
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 15:23 -0700
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 21:29 -0700
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-04 10:37 +0100
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 05:15 -0700
Re: Does Keith really know what killfiles are for? Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-07 11:03 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-03 22:19 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-03 21:02 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-03 22:16 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 21:39 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-03 22:56 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 22:16 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-07 10:59 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 05:42 -0500
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-07 10:52 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-07 16:06 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-07 23:35 +0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-07 17:10 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-07 17:36 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-08 12:28 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-08 17:43 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 18:27 -0500
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:35 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-09 09:32 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 16:37 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-10 01:58 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 06:38 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-10 18:09 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 19:33 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-11 13:59 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-11 13:16 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:56 -0500
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 06:24 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-07 17:34 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-07 15:46 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-07 17:34 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-08 12:25 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 09:31 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-08 17:33 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-13 14:18 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:30 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-07 11:55 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 09:57 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-08 12:33 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 09:41 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 17:57 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 10:36 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 19:04 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-08 19:58 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:06 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-09 09:40 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:36 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-09 17:25 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 08:37 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 16:48 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-09 21:17 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 12:40 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 16:00 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 16:15 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-13 15:25 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 12:41 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-13 20:02 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-13 14:32 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 11:46 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:59 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-19 13:38 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 10:44 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-19 18:36 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 12:00 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-24 20:19 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-25 00:28 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-24 20:21 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:39 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-27 16:44 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:00 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-28 11:26 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-27 21:40 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-09-27 17:48 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-28 11:48 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:59 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-03 22:05 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 18:14 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-08 02:09 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-07 20:53 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-08 12:38 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 09:44 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 17:58 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-08 19:02 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-08 22:31 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-13 15:35 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 20:00 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-05 21:35 -0700
[OT] DNA as a random number generator? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:05 +0800
Re: [OT] DNA as a random number generator? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-06 09:55 -0500
Re: [OT] DNA as a random number generator? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:01 +0800
Re: [OT] DNA as a random number generator? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-06 17:18 -0500
Re: [OT] DNA as a random number generator? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 16:29 +0800
Re: [OT] DNA as a random number generator? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 09:35 -0500
Re: [OT] DNA as a random number generator? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-07 16:11 +0100
Oil in the ground (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-08 19:57 +0000
Re: Oil in the ground (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-08 19:53 -0500
Re: Oil in the ground (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-13 15:37 -0400
Re: Oil in the ground (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-13 13:41 -0700
Re: Oil in the ground (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-13 16:46 -0400
Re: Oil in the ground (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-13 23:14 +0100
Re: Oil in the ground (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-13 15:19 -0700
Re: Oil in the ground Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 20:02 +0100
Re: Oil in the ground Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-19 13:42 -0400
Re: Oil in the ground Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-09-19 21:25 +0200
Re: Oil in the ground Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-09-24 20:22 -0400
Re: Oil in the ground (Was: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-13 15:02 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-07 20:35 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 14:20 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 16:10 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-01 12:43 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-01 00:16 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-01 12:51 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 09:35 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:00 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-01 10:01 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:04 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-01 17:12 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-09-01 16:25 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-01 22:29 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-09-01 16:50 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 13:54 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-09-01 17:14 -0400
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-02 00:20 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:29 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-01 18:31 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-02 14:25 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 07:31 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-02 16:42 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 07:54 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-02 17:15 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 08:20 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-02 17:22 +0200
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 08:35 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-02 17:41 +0200
Hodgin's wager (Was: The truth comes out ...) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-02 16:17 +0000
Re: Hodgin's wager (Was: The truth comes out ...) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 09:31 -0700
Re: Hodgin's wager (Was: The truth comes out ...) Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-03 00:42 +0800
Re: Hodgin's wager (Was: The truth comes out ...) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-02 17:10 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:09 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-09-02 02:34 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 13:30 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2016-09-01 22:43 +0000
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:29 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 22:37 -0400
The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 05:35 -0700
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 11:23 +1300
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:32 -0500
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-13 14:21 -0500
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 11:32 -0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-14 14:37 -0500
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 12:06 -0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-14 23:17 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 17:57 -0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 17:34 +1300
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 23:56 -0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-15 08:15 +0000
Back to on-topic? Maybe? (was Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-15 12:17 -0500
Re: Back to on-topic? Maybe? (was Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 16:39 -0500
Re: Back to on-topic? Maybe? (was Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-17 17:54 +0100
Re: Back to on-topic? Maybe? (was Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 16:10 -0500
Re: Back to on-topic? Maybe? (was Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-18 14:51 -0800
Re: Back to on-topic? Maybe? (was Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 09:10 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-19 16:41 +1300
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 19:50 -0800
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth Norbert_Paul <norbertpauls_spambin@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 21:16 +0100
Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 12:23 -0800
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 22:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mvjon0p2.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93175 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > Le 03/09/2016 à 22:39, Gareth Owen a écrit : >> Mathematics, like logic, is a key underpinning of science, but it is not >> itself science. The practice of doing the vast bulk of novel >> mathematics does not follow the scientific method. >> > > Of course maths is a science, with special rules since the object of > maths, the ideal realm, is different than the realm of experimental > science. Very few mathematicians would agree with you. Some would, though. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+maths+a+science I can't prove the Goldbach conjecture by looking at "sufficiently many" even numbers. I can't devise an experiment that will confirm or refute the Riemann Hypothesis. >>> > There aren't proofs in *experimental* science, but proofs are the pure >>> > product of maths. >> The term "experimental science" is a tortology. >> > > No. There other sciences that are not experimental. Astronomy, for > example. Astronomers can just OBSERVE, they do not have any > possibility of doing any experiments with the stars, galaxies, or > whatever they see. The difference between "observation" and "experiment" is irrelevant here. Astronomers make observations, infer hypotheses from those observations -- e.g. "There's a lot of dark matter out there affecting the expansion of the universe" or "There is free standing water on Europa" -- then they make predictions and look for observations that fulfill or confound those predictions -- "How rapidly are distant stars receding?" or "Screw it, lets crash a probe into Europa for shit and giggles" That they have to search the skies for these observations, rather than set them up in a lab is simply not relevant (and, as with various landers on bodies in the Solar System, they absolutely can set up *some* experiments). I'm pretty certain the guys who recently detected gravity waves will be surprised to learn they weren't capable of doing experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 10:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqpa06$ika$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93175 |
On 9/3/2016 4:56 PM, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 03/09/2016 à 22:39, Gareth Owen a écrit : [...] >>> > There aren't proofs in *experimental* science, but proofs are the pure >>> > product of maths. >> The term "experimental science" is a tortology. >> > > No. There other sciences that are not experimental. Astronomy, for example. > Astronomers can just OBSERVE, they do not have any possibility of doing any > experiments with the stars, galaxies, or whatever they see. No, but they can come up with theories about how planets, stars, galaxies, interact with each other. Then they can observe if their models fit the real universe. And they can then use those models to predict things, such as the trajectory of a spacecraft, including a "gravity assist" from Jupiter, and arrive at Pluto 9 years later, and Pluto and its moons will be just where the models said they'd be. -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 05:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.329753b37a7936e398a698@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #93175 |
In article <nqfdef$33l$1@dont-email.me>, jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr says... > > Le 03/09/2016 à 22:39, Gareth Owen a écrit : > > Mathematics, like logic, is a key underpinning of science, but it is not > > itself science. The practice of doing the vast bulk of novel > > mathematics does not follow the scientific method. > > > > Of course maths is a science, with special rules since the object of > maths, the ideal realm, is different than the realm of experimental > science. > > >> > There aren't proofs in *experimental* science, but proofs are the pure > >> > product of maths. > > The term "experimental science" is a tortology. > > > > No. There other sciences that are not experimental. Astronomy, for > example. Astronomers can just OBSERVE, they do not have any possibility > of doing any experiments with the stars, galaxies, or whatever they see. Part of science is determining whether there is a mathematical method that applies to a given situation and determining the range of conditions over which that method is valid. That there are some mathematical methods that are very useful in the physical sciences does not mean that all of mathematics bears any relation to physical reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 10:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqp9iu$h4p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93158 |
On 9/3/2016 2:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/09/16 19:27, Ken Brody wrote: >> On 9/3/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 03/09/16 03:31, Ken Brody wrote: >> [...] >>>> "The truth comes out -- Fossil proves evolution is a reality" >> [...] >>> Prove, Ken? /Prove? Really /prove/? >> [...] >> >> I was just using the same wording as the subject of the original post. > > Understood. But by quoting it, you imply (or at least you lead other people > to infer) that you agree with it unless you expressly state otherwise. My intent was to mock it. Yes, in science, an single (repeatable) test result can disprove a theory. (Or, at least, show that it's incomplete.) But the existence of DNA certainly doesn't qualify of evidence against evolution. > There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Well, it's been proven that there are no integral solutions to a^3+b^3=c^3. -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 16:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nqpad5$k73$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93267 |
On 07/09/16 15:52, Ken Brody wrote:
> On 9/3/2016 2:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/09/16 19:27, Ken Brody wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/16 03:31, Ken Brody wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> "The truth comes out -- Fossil proves evolution is a reality"
>>> [...]
>>>> Prove, Ken? /Prove? Really /prove/?
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I was just using the same wording as the subject of the original post.
>>
>> Understood. But by quoting it, you imply (or at least you lead other
>> people
>> to infer) that you agree with it unless you expressly state otherwise.
>
> My intent was to mock it.
>
> Yes, in science, an single (repeatable) test result can disprove a
> theory. (Or, at least, show that it's incomplete.) But the existence of
> DNA certainly doesn't qualify of evidence against evolution.
>
>> There is no such thing as "proof" in science.
>
> Well, it's been proven that there are no integral solutions to a^3+b^3=c^3.
This, at least, can be made at least semi-topical.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
unsigned long solutions = 0;
int a = -10;
do
{
int b = -10;
do
{
int c = -10;
do
{
if(a * a * a + b * b * b == c * c * c)
{
printf("Solution no %lu: %d, %d, %d\n",
++solutions, a, b, c);
}
} while(c++ < 10);
} while(b++ < 10);
} while(a++ < 10);
printf("Ken is %s.\n", solutions > 0 ? "wrong" : "right");
return 0;
}
Using the above program, I found 61 counter-examples to your claim. So
much for "proof".
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 23:35 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nqpc39$obb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93271 |
AT Wednesday 07 September 2016 23:06, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 07/09/16 15:52, Ken Brody wrote:
>> On 9/3/2016 2:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 03/09/16 19:27, Ken Brody wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 03/09/16 03:31, Ken Brody wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> "The truth comes out -- Fossil proves evolution is a reality"
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Prove, Ken? /Prove? Really /prove/?
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I was just using the same wording as the subject of the original post.
>>>
>>> Understood. But by quoting it, you imply (or at least you lead other
>>> people
>>> to infer) that you agree with it unless you expressly state otherwise.
>>
>> My intent was to mock it.
>>
>> Yes, in science, an single (repeatable) test result can disprove a
>> theory. (Or, at least, show that it's incomplete.) But the existence of
>> DNA certainly doesn't qualify of evidence against evolution.
>>
>>> There is no such thing as "proof" in science.
>>
>> Well, it's been proven that there are no integral solutions to
>> a^3+b^3=c^3.
>
> This, at least, can be made at least semi-topical.
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
> unsigned long solutions = 0;
> int a = -10;
> do
> {
> int b = -10;
> do
> {
> int c = -10;
> do
> {
> if(a * a * a + b * b * b == c * c * c)
> {
> printf("Solution no %lu: %d, %d, %d\n",
> ++solutions, a, b, c);
> }
> } while(c++ < 10);
> } while(b++ < 10);
> } while(a++ < 10);
> printf("Ken is %s.\n", solutions > 0 ? "wrong" : "right");
> return 0;
> }
>
> Using the above program, I found 61 counter-examples to your claim. So
> much for "proof".
Integral solutions means no negative numbers.
Fermat's last theorem has been proven. It holds not only for exponents of of
3 but for all exponents bigger than 2.
So show us at least one.
--
Reinhardt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h99rwv06.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #93273 |
Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> writes:
> AT Wednesday 07 September 2016 23:06, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> On 07/09/16 15:52, Ken Brody wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2016 2:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/16 19:27, Ken Brody wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/09/16 03:31, Ken Brody wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> "The truth comes out -- Fossil proves evolution is a reality"
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Prove, Ken? /Prove? Really /prove/?
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I was just using the same wording as the subject of the original post.
>>>>
>>>> Understood. But by quoting it, you imply (or at least you lead other
>>>> people
>>>> to infer) that you agree with it unless you expressly state otherwise.
>>>
>>> My intent was to mock it.
>>>
>>> Yes, in science, an single (repeatable) test result can disprove a
>>> theory. (Or, at least, show that it's incomplete.) But the existence of
>>> DNA certainly doesn't qualify of evidence against evolution.
>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as "proof" in science.
>>>
>>> Well, it's been proven that there are no integral solutions to
>>> a^3+b^3=c^3.
>>
>> This, at least, can be made at least semi-topical.
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> unsigned long solutions = 0;
>> int a = -10;
>> do
>> {
>> int b = -10;
>> do
>> {
>> int c = -10;
>> do
>> {
>> if(a * a * a + b * b * b == c * c * c)
>> {
>> printf("Solution no %lu: %d, %d, %d\n",
>> ++solutions, a, b, c);
>> }
>> } while(c++ < 10);
>> } while(b++ < 10);
>> } while(a++ < 10);
>> printf("Ken is %s.\n", solutions > 0 ? "wrong" : "right");
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> Using the above program, I found 61 counter-examples to your claim. So
>> much for "proof".
>
> Integral solutions means no negative numbers.
That's not a usage I've heard before. At the very least, if it does
mean what you say in some contexts, it should be considered ambiguous.
But non-negative is both not enough and too much. For example 0, 1, 1
is a solution in non-negative integers, but it's also too much in that
the theorem only requires that a, b, c != 0. Negative integer solutions
are permitted but not possible when n > 2.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 17:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nqpfm0$8ia$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93276 |
On 07/09/16 17:10, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> writes:
>
>> AT Wednesday 07 September 2016 23:06, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/09/16 15:52, Ken Brody wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2016 2:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 03/09/16 19:27, Ken Brody wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/09/16 03:31, Ken Brody wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> "The truth comes out -- Fossil proves evolution is a reality"
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Prove, Ken? /Prove? Really /prove/?
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was just using the same wording as the subject of the original post.
>>>>>
>>>>> Understood. But by quoting it, you imply (or at least you lead other
>>>>> people
>>>>> to infer) that you agree with it unless you expressly state otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> My intent was to mock it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, in science, an single (repeatable) test result can disprove a
>>>> theory. (Or, at least, show that it's incomplete.) But the existence of
>>>> DNA certainly doesn't qualify of evidence against evolution.
>>>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as "proof" in science.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's been proven that there are no integral solutions to
>>>> a^3+b^3=c^3.
>>>
>>> This, at least, can be made at least semi-topical.
>>>
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>
>>> int main(void)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long solutions = 0;
>>> int a = -10;
>>> do
>>> {
>>> int b = -10;
>>> do
>>> {
>>> int c = -10;
>>> do
>>> {
>>> if(a * a * a + b * b * b == c * c * c)
>>> {
>>> printf("Solution no %lu: %d, %d, %d\n",
>>> ++solutions, a, b, c);
>>> }
>>> } while(c++ < 10);
>>> } while(b++ < 10);
>>> } while(a++ < 10);
>>> printf("Ken is %s.\n", solutions > 0 ? "wrong" : "right");
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Using the above program, I found 61 counter-examples to your claim. So
>>> much for "proof".
>>
>> Integral solutions means no negative numbers.
>
> That's not a usage I've heard before. At the very least, if it does
> mean what you say in some contexts, it should be considered ambiguous.
>
> But non-negative is both not enough and too much. For example 0, 1, 1
> is a solution in non-negative integers, but it's also too much in that
> the theorem only requires that a, b, c != 0.
Ken did not invoke such a constraint, so I didn't feel bound by it.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 12:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nqs3k5$d74$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93279 |
On 9/7/2016 12:36 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 07/09/16 17:10, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> writes: [...] >>>> Using the above program, I found 61 counter-examples to your claim. So >>>> much for "proof". >>> >>> Integral solutions means no negative numbers. >> >> That's not a usage I've heard before. At the very least, if it does >> mean what you say in some contexts, it should be considered ambiguous. >> >> But non-negative is both not enough and too much. For example 0, 1, 1 >> is a solution in non-negative integers, but it's also too much in that >> the theorem only requires that a, b, c != 0. > > Ken did not invoke such a constraint, so I didn't feel bound by it. Question: As far as the C standard is concerned, is zero considered "positive"? -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 17:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nqs4f2$i24$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93300 |
On 08/09/16 17:28, Ken Brody wrote: > On 9/7/2016 12:36 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 07/09/16 17:10, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> writes: > [...] >>>>> Using the above program, I found 61 counter-examples to your claim. So >>>>> much for "proof". >>>> >>>> Integral solutions means no negative numbers. >>> >>> That's not a usage I've heard before. At the very least, if it does >>> mean what you say in some contexts, it should be considered ambiguous. >>> >>> But non-negative is both not enough and too much. For example 0, 1, 1 >>> is a solution in non-negative integers, but it's also too much in that >>> the theorem only requires that a, b, c != 0. >> >> Ken did not invoke such a constraint, so I didn't feel bound by it. > > Question: > > As far as the C standard is concerned, is zero considered "positive"? Integers: 6.2.6.2(3) says: If the implementation supports negative zeros, they shall be generated only by: — the &, |, ^, ~, <<, and >> operators with operands that produce such a value; — the +, -, *, /, and % operators where one operand is a negative zero and the result is zero; — compound assignment operators based on the above cases. It is unspecified whether these cases actually generate a negative zero or a normal zero, and whether a negative zero becomes a normal zero when stored in an object. Floating point: 5.2.4.2.2 (Characteristics of floating-point types) has this to say in (4): An implementation may give zero and values that are not floating-point numbers (such as infinities and NaNs) a sign or may leave them unsigned. Wherever such values are unsigned, any requirement in this International Standard to retrieve the sign shall produce an unspecified sign, and any requirement to set the sign shall be ignored. Complex: 6.3.1.7(1) says: When a value of real type is converted to a complex type, the real part of the complex result value is determined by the rules of conversion to the corresponding real type and the imaginary part of the complex result value is a positive zero or an unsigned zero. So yes, 0 can be positive, so (for the case in point) I think you can get away with "positive" but you should also specify "real". Which leads to the obvious follow-on observation: is FLT also true for complex numbers? (I suspect not, but I don't know.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 18:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nqss5f$9hi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93306 |
On 9/8/2016 11:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 08/09/16 17:28, Ken Brody wrote: >> On 9/7/2016 12:36 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 07/09/16 17:10, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> writes: >> [...] >>>>>> Using the above program, I found 61 counter-examples to your >>>>>> claim. So >>>>>> much for "proof". >>>>> >>>>> Integral solutions means no negative numbers. >>>> >>>> That's not a usage I've heard before. At the very least, if it does >>>> mean what you say in some contexts, it should be considered ambiguous. >>>> >>>> But non-negative is both not enough and too much. For example 0, 1, 1 >>>> is a solution in non-negative integers, but it's also too much in that >>>> the theorem only requires that a, b, c != 0. >>> >>> Ken did not invoke such a constraint, so I didn't feel bound by it. >> >> Question: >> >> As far as the C standard is concerned, is zero considered "positive"? > > Integers: > > 6.2.6.2(3) says: > > If the implementation supports negative zeros, they shall be generated > only by: > — the &, |, ^, ~, <<, and >> operators with operands that produce such a > value; > — the +, -, *, /, and % operators where one operand is a negative zero > and the result is > zero; > — compound assignment operators based on the above cases. > It is unspecified whether these cases actually generate a negative zero > or a normal zero, > and whether a negative zero becomes a normal zero when stored in an object. > > Floating point: > > 5.2.4.2.2 (Characteristics of floating-point types) has this to say in (4): > > An implementation may give zero and values that are not floating-point > numbers (such as infinities and NaNs) a sign or may leave them unsigned. > Wherever such values are unsigned, any requirement in this International > Standard to retrieve the sign shall produce an unspecified sign, and any > requirement to set the sign shall be ignored. > > Complex: > > 6.3.1.7(1) says: > > When a value of real type is converted to a complex type, the real part > of the complex result value is determined by the rules of conversion to > the corresponding real type and the imaginary part of the complex result > value is a positive zero or an unsigned zero. > > So yes, 0 can be positive, so (for the case in point) I think you can > get away with "positive" but you should also specify "real". > > Which leads to the obvious follow-on observation: is FLT also true for > complex numbers? (I suspect not, but I don't know.) > It's false in the complex numbers (for example, a = 3, b = 3, c = 3 * cuberoot of 2 is a solution to a^3 + b^3 = c^3.) Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 06:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bmzx63fd.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93318 |
Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> writes: > It's false in the complex numbers (for example, a = 3, b = 3, c = 3 * > cuberoot of 2 is a solution to a^3 + b^3 = c^3.) They're not complex numbers. They're real numbers - and I think its safe to say that FLT is not true over the reals. The problem with the complexes is that you can't talk about "positive" complex numbers. So the +N*i, -N*i, 0 for odd powers. It think for non-zer Gaussian integers (real and imaginary parts both integral) its still an open question - but know true for small powers. This MathOverflow question gives some details: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/90972/fermats-last-theorem-for-gaussian-integers-excluding-mathbbz-or-i-mathb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 09:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nqtoin$dk3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93322 |
On 09/09/16 07:35, Gareth Owen wrote: > Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> writes: > >> It's false in the complex numbers (for example, a = 3, b = 3, c = 3 * >> cuberoot of 2 is a solution to a^3 + b^3 = c^3.) > > They're not complex numbers. They're real numbers - and I think its safe > to say that FLT is not true over the reals. Real numbers are a subset of complex numbers - those /are/ complex numbers. But they are not the kind of complex numbers that are interesting in this context - which is, as you have below, the Gaussian integers. > > The problem with the complexes is that you can't talk about "positive" > complex numbers. So the +N*i, -N*i, 0 for odd powers. > > It think for non-zer Gaussian integers (real and imaginary parts both > integral) its still an open question - but know true for small powers. > This MathOverflow question gives some details: > > <http://mathoverflow.net/questions/90972/fermats-last-theorem-for-gaussian-integers-excluding-mathbbz-or-i-mathb> > That surprises me a little - I thought it would be a simple matter to find a^n + b^n = c^n within the Gaussian integers. But I haven't done much work with Gaussian integers, and it's not the first time I've been surprised by them. Can we up the ante and let "n" be a Gaussian integer too?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 16:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878tv184of.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93323 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 09/09/16 07:35, Gareth Owen wrote: >> Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> It's false in the complex numbers (for example, a = 3, b = 3, c = 3 * >>> cuberoot of 2 is a solution to a^3 + b^3 = c^3.) >> >> They're not complex numbers. They're real numbers - and I think its >> safe to say that FLT is not true over the reals. > > Real numbers are a subset of complex numbers - those /are/ complex numbers. Well nitpicked, sir!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 01:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nqvibu$ju2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93331 |
On 09/09/16 17:37, Gareth Owen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 09/09/16 07:35, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> It's false in the complex numbers (for example, a = 3, b = 3, c = 3 * >>>> cuberoot of 2 is a solution to a^3 + b^3 = c^3.) >>> >>> They're not complex numbers. They're real numbers - and I think its >>> safe to say that FLT is not true over the reals. >> >> Real numbers are a subset of complex numbers - those /are/ complex numbers. > > Well nitpicked, sir! > I should probably have added a smiley - after all, it's fairly obvious that you already know that all real numbers are complex numbers. Any thoughts on letting n be a Gaussian integer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 06:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87d1kc9uwc.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93349 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >> Well nitpicked, sir! >> > > I should probably have added a smiley - after all, it's fairly obvious > that you already know that all real numbers are complex numbers. I read it as with a smiley. And replied in kind. > Any thoughts on letting n be a Gaussian integer? Off the top of my head it would seem unlikely. for integer m,n then m^ni will tend to have real and imaginary parts that are irrational (multiples of cos n and sin n) which is going to make balancing contributions unlikely. But I have to state that I don't really know what I'm talking about. I've read Singh's excellent book, and I understand the infinte-descent arguments for n=3 and n=4, but once the modular forms come in, my head explodes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 18:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nr1b7v$dv3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93351 |
On 10/09/16 07:38, Gareth Owen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >>> >>> Well nitpicked, sir! >>> >> >> I should probably have added a smiley - after all, it's fairly obvious >> that you already know that all real numbers are complex numbers. > > I read it as with a smiley. And replied in kind. > >> Any thoughts on letting n be a Gaussian integer? > > Off the top of my head it would seem unlikely. for integer m,n then > m^ni will tend to have real and imaginary parts that are irrational > (multiples of cos n and sin n) which is going to make balancing > contributions unlikely. Yes, I agree (after having thought about it a bit more). I guess I'll just have to write a test program some time and try it for a small range of integers. > > But I have to state that I don't really know what I'm talking about. > I've read Singh's excellent book, and I understand the infinte-descent > arguments for n=3 and n=4, but once the modular forms come in, my head > explodes. > If I ever have the free time, I'll look more into this. Maths is fun as a hobby :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 19:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mvjfsizg.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93358 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 10/09/16 07:38, Gareth Owen wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>>> >>>> Well nitpicked, sir! >>>> >>> >>> I should probably have added a smiley - after all, it's fairly obvious >>> that you already know that all real numbers are complex numbers. >> >> I read it as with a smiley. And replied in kind. >> >>> Any thoughts on letting n be a Gaussian integer? >> >> Off the top of my head it would seem unlikely. for integer m,n then >> m^ni will tend to have real and imaginary parts that are irrational >> (multiples of cos n and sin n) which is going to make balancing >> contributions unlikely. > > Yes, I agree (after having thought about it a bit more). I guess I'll > just have to write a test program some time and try it for a small > range of integers. Well, the other thing to note if you do that, z^complex is not a single valued function unless you specify where on the Riemann sheet you're putting your line of discontinuity: 1^i = (e^0)^i = 1; But its also 1^i = (e^(2πi))^i = e^(-2π) and 1^i = (e^(4πi))^i = e^(-4π) and 1^i = (e^(-4πi))^i = e^(+4π) and so on. And there's nothing special about 1^i The function z^i has infinitely many plausible values, stacked on top of each other like a multi-level parking garage, and each time you wind around the origin you pass on to the next level up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 13:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nr3gva$54a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93362 |
On 10/09/16 20:33, Gareth Owen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 10/09/16 07:38, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Well nitpicked, sir! >>>>> >>>> >>>> I should probably have added a smiley - after all, it's fairly obvious >>>> that you already know that all real numbers are complex numbers. >>> >>> I read it as with a smiley. And replied in kind. >>> >>>> Any thoughts on letting n be a Gaussian integer? >>> >>> Off the top of my head it would seem unlikely. for integer m,n then >>> m^ni will tend to have real and imaginary parts that are irrational >>> (multiples of cos n and sin n) which is going to make balancing >>> contributions unlikely. >> >> Yes, I agree (after having thought about it a bit more). I guess I'll >> just have to write a test program some time and try it for a small >> range of integers. > > Well, the other thing to note if you do that, z^complex is not a > single valued function unless you specify where on the Riemann sheet > you're putting your line of discontinuity: > > 1^i = (e^0)^i = 1; > > But its also > > 1^i = (e^(2πi))^i = e^(-2π) > > and > 1^i = (e^(4πi))^i = e^(-4π) > and > 1^i = (e^(-4πi))^i = e^(+4π) > and so on. > And there's nothing special about 1^i > The function z^i has infinitely many plausible values, stacked on top of > each other like a multi-level parking garage, and each time you wind > around the origin you pass on to the next level up. > Yes, that's true - we would have to be more specific to limit the exponential function here. Or we could widen the question, and ask for any solutions to a^n + b^n = c^n where a, b, c and n are all Gausian integers, with a, b, c non-zero, and n not equal to 1 or 2. And we accept a solution if /any/ of the values of the exponential functions fit the equation. (We may want to limit n to having a non-negative real part - but perhaps it would be fun to allow negative real parts too.) Solving this problem is left as an exercise for the reader, because it is beyond my capabilities!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 13:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nr3hur$821$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93367 |
On 11/09/16 12:59, David Brown wrote: <snip> > > Or we could widen the question, and ask for any solutions to > > a^n + b^n = c^n > > where a, b, c and n are all Gausian integers, with a, b, c non-zero, and > n not equal to 1 or 2. And we accept a solution if /any/ of the values > of the exponential functions fit the equation. (We may want to limit n > to having a non-negative real part - but perhaps it would be fun to > allow negative real parts too.) > > Solving this problem is left as an exercise for the reader, because it > is beyond my capabilities! I have a truly remarkable proof of this theorem, but Usenet is too large to contain it. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web