is it time yet for sci.bio.evolution?
James G. Acker
jgacker at news.gsfc.nasa.gov
Tue Oct 5 12:27:30 EST 1993
Tero Sand (cust_ts at kruuna.Helsinki.FI) wrote:
: Eric, that won't happen. I suspect many (though of course not all),
: perhaps even most, will subscribe to s.b.e _in_addition_to_, not instead
: of, t.o. I know I would/will.
: Reasoning? Despite the fact that there is a fair amount of information
: in absolute terms, the s/n ratio _is_ low. So, the people staying here
: are here because they _want_ to rip Creationist crap up.
Plus, let's say that someone posts a singularly difficult
piece of Creationist biology to refute (hey, it could happen ;-)) but
I'm not a biologist :^0 ) --- well, the monitoring legions of
t.o. could then email to Chris, Deaddog, Andy, Rich, Stan, etc. for
aid on the "such-and-such" thread. I thought for awhile and decided
sci.bio.evolution is a pretty good idea. Put it up for votes.
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jgacker at neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
"Science moves, but slowly slowly,
Creeping on from point to point." -- Alfred Lord Tennyson,
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
More information about the Mol-evol