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,
"Locksley Hall"

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 mailing list