Theos-Talk Archives (February 2010 Message tt00211)

Cass, 
CNN is a lot younger than I am lol. One of the main anchors on CNN once said "Saudi Arabia doesn't even have an Army!" Lol. That was when Saudi Arabia was the only buyer who saved the production of the US Abrams-II Tank by buying it. The Pentagon didnt want to buy the now more capable version. And If I remember there was earlier years where snow fall also covered at least 48 states twice in the 20th century. 
Regards, 
John 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cass Silva" <silva_cass@yahoo.com> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 3:51:58 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [bad text] 








According to CNN there is no recorded evidence that this has happened in the past. 
> 
>Cass 
> 
>From: " Augoeides-222@comcast.net " < Augoeides-222@comcast.net > 
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Tue, 16 February, 2010 10:46:35 AM 
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [bad text] 
> 
> 
>Chuck, 
>Yep, 26 beow zero icy frozen everything, and that wonderful 50 mph breeze blowing acroos thge 1/2 mile of ice on the shore of Lake Michigan begin reaching any of us chicagoans lol!!! Sbow was higher than I was when I was kid in Chicago. We used to grab a ride and shoe surf on the ice by holding onto the back bumpers of the cars ! Wheee what fun!!! And the MONSTER summer electrical storms amde my mom disappear because she was hiding in the closet. And it was estatic to wake up drenched with wet sheets in the hot summer time of Chicago. I also said "Whats the big deal?" we had snow like that every year back on the 40-50's! 
> 
>John 
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Drpsionic@aol. com 
>To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:14:59 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [bad text] 
> 
>LOL! 
> 
>I can remember a number of years where 95% of the US was under snow and 
>cold so bad it froze the oil in car engines. This year is nothing. Oh the 
>East Coast had a snow storm and the southerners got to make snowmen, but I'm 
>from Chicago, I live in Wisconsin and you ain't gonna impress me with snow. 
> 
>As far as the planets being aligned with the Milky Way, the planets are 
>always aligned with something. The Mayans were simply nuts, or is it the 
>folks who are taking them seriously who are nuts? Sorry, I'm not impressed. 
> 
>Chuck the Heretic 
> 
>www.charlescosimano .com 
> 
>In a message dated 2/14/2010 7:35:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
>silva_cass@yahoo. com writes: 
> 
>Hi Chuck 
>Seeing we have no recorded evidence of all the planets being in alignment 
>with the Milky Way (which is all the Mayans predicted) we have no way of 
>knowing what, or cannot predict, how or if this event will impact the earth. 
>We have had pole shifts in the past and survived them, we have had ice and 
>mini ice ages, so what I am saying, is not that the earth will be 
>annihlated but what is causing these climatic changes such as 95 percent of the USA 
>under snow? 
> 
>We have evidence of islands sinking and evidence of mountains reemerging, 
>and if a chamber was found in the sphinx foot it would suggest that it was 
>constructed to hold something which could have been removed. As Cayce was 
>a christian perhaps the Jesus thing was more about the Christos thing.? 
> 
>Are there no more clairvoyants left in the TS? 
> 
>Cass 
> 
>In AgnosticsRefuge@ yahoogroups. com, "HumanCarol" <humanist@> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > Unable to correctly attribute material to the correct author, 
>mangummurdock <no_reply@> alleged: 
>> > 
>> > > Richard Dawkins argues in Chap 3 of his book "The Dawkins Delusion" 
>that>> 
>> > 
>> > It is already know that that is a lie. 
>> > 
>> > << "it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a `Big Bang 
>singularity' or some other physical concept as yet unknown" to account for the 
>existence of the universe. The word parsimonious is meaningless in context: 
>Whatever it might denote, how could it be measured? But conjure is the right 
>verb, suggesting as it does both misdirection and inattention. Misdirection: 
>The Big Bang singularity does not represent a physical concept, because it 
>cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It is a point at which physical 
>theories give way. Inattention: The physical concept in which Dawkins has 
>placed his confidence is something that is either infinite and inscrutable, 
>or otherwise unknown. Men have come to faith on the basis of far les_s. 
>This is, I suppose, not surprising. His atheism notwithstanding, Dawkins 
>believes that he is a "deeply religious man." He simply prefers an alien cult.>> 
>> > 
>> > Why don't you correctly attribute that passage? 
>> > 
>> > Here is the context and a correct citation: 
>> > 
>> > ---begin excerpt--- 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> 
> 
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
> 
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
> 
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]