Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 99-08-29 10:19:52 EDT, Ric Carter writes: Meanwhile I notice that nobody here has ventured to answer any of the questions I posed re: deities and creation. That's probably because it's not possible to rationally support deistic creation. It's obvious - saying "god(s) did it" means "I don't/can't know." Belief in a God(s) is a matter of faith and only needs to be proven/unproven to an individual. Can you explain the "proof" of evolution such as Nebraska man, Java ape-man, Piltdown man, Neanderthal man, or Lucy? It takes time, but all missing links have been proven to be hoaxes (lies) by perhaps over zealous scientists. Regards, Bob Stokes DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ric Carter writes: Meanwhile I notice that nobody here has ventured to answer any of the questions I posed re: deities and creation. That's probably because it's not possible to rationally support deistic creation. It's obvious - saying "god(s) did it" means "I don't/can't know." Belief in a God(s) is a matter of faith and only needs to be proven/unproven to an individual. Prove? I said nothing about "proving" anything, I just asked for some rational support for creationist notions - and no, such isn't really possible, is it? Science is about testing one's ideas, faith is about acceptance without testing - the twain shan't meet. Can you explain the "proof" of evolution such as Nebraska man, Java ape-man, Piltdown man, Neanderthal man, or Lucy? It takes time, but all missing links have been proven to be hoaxes (lies) by perhaps over zealous scientists. noknok Is this thing on? noknok Why do you keep bringing up 'proof' ?? 'Proof' is significant at the bar [both types], in graphic arts and cooperage, in formal logic -- but 'proof' has nothing to do with science. Science is about building workable, usable models of observable reality, devising the most viable explanations for what we see around us, revising those models as we observe and think more. There's a process: observe, hypothesize, test, revise, ad infinitum. If the verified data overwhelmingly supports a theory, fine - one may regard that theory as "proved" - yet for that theory to be relevant to workers in that discipline, it must make predictions, point to further areas to be explored. Over roughly 150 years, biological evolution has been accepted by the vast majority of biological researchers, because it provides the most coherent structure for the vast amount of evidence. And evolution [the survival of changes over time] is explained by selection and other mechanisms, which make testable predictions about relationships between lifeforms. We see, say, similarities in the anatomy and physiology of primates; we look closer, and see further similarities in biochemistry; we look closer, and see similarities in genetic structures. Evolutionary theory predicts these similarities - if such theory was incorrect, those similarities wouldn't be observed, and evolution would be shit- canned in favor of another theory that worked better. [Whoever devised such a better theory would be immortalized, lionized - they'd certainly NOT be motivated to suppress their ideas, kowtow to "current dogma". One makes one's reputation by smashing paradigms, eh?] As for the protohominids you mention above - you know that the fossil record is necessarily spotty, yet a tentative family tree CAN be devised from what data there is. Is that family tree precisely accurate? Of course not, and I doubt that you'd find any anthropologist/paleontologist who'd make such a claim. They'll say that, given what we know, this is how the fragments seem to fit together, and that we need to keep on searching for more specimens. Some future technology may be developed that'll allow studying any genetic fragments extant in hominid fossils; then, the relationships will be much clearer, the "family tree" will be much more accurate. But it'll never be carved in stone. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- -- From: Ric Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CTRL] Scientists say "God .Exists" Date: Monday, August 30, 1999 2:13 PM -Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ric Carter writes: Meanwhile I notice that nobody here has ventured to answer any of the questions I posed re: deities and creation. That's probably because it's not possible to rationally support deistic creation. It's obvious - saying "god(s) did it" means "I don't/can't know." Belief in a God(s) is a matter of faith and only needs to be proven/unproven to an individual. Prove? I said nothing about "proving" anything, I just asked for some rational support for creationist notions - and no, such isn't really possible, is it? Science is about testing one's ideas, faith is about acceptance without testing - the twain shan't meet. I have always found the alternative (a random/chaotic universe) to scary for words. Perhaps, it isn't faith, but avoidanceor the lesser of two evils. Hilary DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abiogenesis has been observed - why invoke god(s)? I'd sure like to know when this has been observed. Abiogenesis (living units produced from non-living materials) was explored in 1953 in an experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. There's been a bit of other research in the ensuing 46 years. Ilya Prigogine [Nobel in Chemistry, 1976] showed the self-organization of organic chemicals. Biological chemicals commonly derive from nonbiological sources: http://www.naturalgas.com/consumer/origins.html A German team recently reported having synthesized self-replicating entities - life, in other words. But don't believe me - do some web searches on ABIOGENESIS and BIOGENESIS, see what pops up. Or see the links here: http://sln.fi.edu/qa97/biology/biopoint2.html Meanwhile I notice that nobody here has ventured to answer any of the questions I posed re: deities and creation. That's probably because it's not possible to rationally support deistic creation. It's obvious - saying "god(s) did it" means "I don't/can't know." DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 8/29/99 10:19:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
There's been a bit of other research in the ensuing 46 years. Ilya
Prigogine [Nobel in Chemistry, 1976] showed the self-organization
of organic chemicals. Biological chemicals commonly derive from
nonbiological sources: http://www.naturalgas.com/consumer/origins.html
A German team recently reported having synthesized self-replicating
entities - life, in other words. But don't believe me - do some
web searches on ABIOGENESIS and BIOGENESIS, see what pops up. Or
see the links here: http://sln.fi.edu/qa97/biology/biopoint2.html
Meanwhile I notice that nobody here has ventured to answer any of
the questions I posed re: deities and creation. That's probably
because it's not possible to rationally support deistic creation.
It's obvious - saying "god(s) did it" means "I don't/can't know."
You are correct, in that rational support of Deities is not possible. You
make a fallacy of assumption, in that you assume that for one to be against
the dogmatism of scientific materialism, and the entrenchment of Darwinianism
is to be in favor of Creationism in any form. That is not so, and in so
defending your position you merely point out the flaws in the other
("scientific" Creationism). I submit that there is ample evidence,
observable and testable of evolution within species, but scant evidence or
proof of MACRO-evolution, though I don't necessarily discount the
possibiblity. It is erroneous to state that such is knowable and testable
when it is in fact not. Furthermore, as I have already stated self
replicating chemical compounds is not life, and life from nonliving matter
has never been accomplished by man, nor has it ever been observed. Further
some of the experiments which produce organic molecules, and nucleic acids
make assumptions about the early condition of the earth which are in fact not
established, theus they are flawed to some degree at least. We are removed
from the point at which such events took place and because of that will never
be able to, with any degree of accuracy or certainty, reproduce the exact
mechanism by which such occurred, if it occurred at all. You fallaciously
contend, like God yourself that all is and you must accept it as such, I
guess I am in the role of the devil then to say that you are wrong in that
you do not know it all, and have never observed life from nonlife, and have
never seen MACRO evolution in action, nor separate species evolve from
another. Your claims may indeed prove to be correct but until that day you
merely postulate theory and nothing more, since it is not proved. Why is it
so egregious to you that others should contend different theories of origins?
I am human enough to admit that I simply do not know for sure how things
came about and will listen to all sides of a debate before making a decision.
DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
[CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- Scientists Find Evidence of God Insight on the News, April 19,1999 by Stephen Goode Reprinted with permission of Insight The Darwinist hegemony in the natural sciences may be threatened by a cutting-edge, revolutionary movement that sees intelligent design in nature - and a Designer. Chemist Charles Thaxton was amazed 15 years ago when The Mystery of Life's Origin, a book he coauthored on chemical evolution with two other scientists, provoked a very positive response from scientists around the country. Thaxton, a visiting assistant professor at Charles University in Prague, expected a negative reaction, if indeed the book (which since has come to be regarded as one of the opening salvos in what is called the Intelligent Design Movement) even was so much as noticed. After all, The Mystery of Life's Origin, which became a best-selling college text, tentatively proposed the case for intelligent design in nature and pointed out serious flaws in Darwinism. Such views were regarded as unthinkable and most definitely unscientific by the vast majority of scientists at the time, not only because Intelligent Design suggested that evolution wasn't the random, chaotic process most biologists believed it to be but (even more unacceptably) indicated the probable existence of a designer - God, perhaps - who was responsible for the design. The notion that a designer might be at work behind nature was a concept no self-respecting scientist wanted to bring into the scientific scheme of things. "I didn't think anyone would accept the book. When we wrote it, it was like being a lone wolf out there," Thaxton tells Insight. "Hard-core materialists aren't going to tolerate intelligence in nature," he says. "Then I got lots of calls from scientists and mathematicians who did" - men and women in a variety of scientific fields who were coming to the same conclusions that Thaxton had described in The Mystery of Life's Origin. They (like Thaxton and his coauthors) daily were coming across data in their laboratories and scientific pursuits that no longer could be explained by the standard model of Darwinian evolution. Such data could be better - and more scientifically - understood by arguing that certain highly complex entities in nature - the DNA molecule, for example - had been designed to do what they do and hadn't evolved randomly, by accident, which is how Darwinian evolution says they came about. William Dembski was one of those who got in touch with Thaxton. Dembski, a young man with a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a second Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a master's degree in theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, had a strong conviction that Thaxton not only was right but onto something that was going to revolutionize the way man looks at nature and the way biologists approach their field. He wanted to be part of that revolution. Dembski recently published his own addition to the ever-growing Intelligent Design Movement, a closely argued book that he calls The Design Inference, in which Dembski (whose impressive list of degrees led one friend to describe him as "the perpetual student") brings to bear his knowledge of symbolic logic and mathematics to argue in favor of design in nature. Dembski's book is one of the latest and most impressive contributions that grace Design studies (the name its adherents like to call it), which is a new branch of science that has grown increasingly sophisticated since Thaxton's contribution 15 years ago. Between Thaxton's coauthored book and Dembski's very recent contribution, the Intelligent Design Movement has traveled quite a distance, and more developments are on the way, its adherents promise. Intelligent Design now has its own professional journal, Origins Design. Many of its advocates belong to a think tank, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, though many of those associated with the center are located elsewhere: Dembski, for example, is in Dallas, and Thaxton remains in Prague. And the movement has its own magazine for nonscientists, the glossy quarterly Cosmic Pursuit, in which scientists such as Thaxton and Dembski present their ideas for the general reader. What, then, are those ideas? First, they argue that their defense of Design arises directly out of the empirical data they have observed as scientists, rather than from any theological or philosophical notions they may hold. "Discoveries in mathematics and biology are making way for Design and a Designer," says Thaxton. And Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemist who is author of one of the Intelligent Design Movement's most important texts, Darwin's Black Box (1996), tells Insight, "Intelligent Design flows directly out of the data that now are available." What makes this claim significant is that it makes Intelligent Design a phenomenon to be dealt with and studied
Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scientists Find Evidence of God God, or gods? If one posits the existence of one god, why not accept the existence of multiple gods? Was the universe created by a team? How could we tell? If there's only only one god, did it manipulate the universe to look as though it had been created by a team, or evolved naturally? If there are multiple gods, did they manipulate the universe to look as though it had been created by a single god, or evolved naturally? If one posits the existence of one or more creator deities, then such deities could have manipulated the universe however they wished, for purposes that humans can't comprehend - mustn't an honest investigator disregard ALL evidence pro or con re: god(s), since the evidence COULD be manipulated, tainted? If one invokes god(s) to explain the origin/structure of the universe, what forces/entities must be invoked to explain the origin of the god(s)? Who intelligently designed the intelligent designer(s)? Or did it/they evolve naturally, and if so, where/ when/how? Doesn't any invocation of gods merely push back the question of origins into unexplorable realms? Doesn't saying "one or more gods did it" equate to "I don't know and I'll never be able to find out, so I'll stop looking here" ?? Isn't the invocation of god(s) a dead-end, a capitulation? Evolution has been observed - why invoke god(s)? Abiogenesis has been observed - why invoke god(s)? How complex is/are god(s)? If observations of life and the universe can be explained without invoking god(s), and god(s) is/are more complex than the deduced/ observed forces and phenomena of nature, aren't god(s) the least likely workable explanations? Doesn't Occam's Razor preclude gods? DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- Any mention of Goddess? Hilary -- From: Ric Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Conspiracy Theory Research List [EMAIL PROTECTED]; SkeptiChat list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SC] Re: [CTRL] Scientists say "God .Exists" Date: Saturday, August 28, 1999 10:58 AM - Original Message - From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scientists Find Evidence of God God, or gods? If one posits the existence of one god, why not accept the existence of multiple gods? Was the universe created by a team? How could we tell? If there's only only one god, did it manipulate the universe to look as though it had been created by a team, or evolved naturally? If there are multiple gods, did they manipulate the universe to look as though it had been created by a single god, or evolved naturally? If one posits the existence of one or more creator deities, then such deities could have manipulated the universe however they wished, for purposes that humans can't comprehend - mustn't an honest investigator disregard ALL evidence pro or con re: god(s), since the evidence COULD be manipulated, tainted? If one invokes god(s) to explain the origin/structure of the universe, what forces/entities must be invoked to explain the origin of the god(s)? Who intelligently designed the intelligent designer(s)? Or did it/they evolve naturally, and if so, where/ when/how? Doesn't any invocation of gods merely push back the question of origins into unexplorable realms? Doesn't saying "one or more gods did it" equate to "I don't know and I'll never be able to find out, so I'll stop looking here" ?? Isn't the invocation of god(s) a dead-end, a capitulation? Evolution has been observed - why invoke god(s)? Abiogenesis has been observed - why invoke god(s)? How complex is/are god(s)? If observations of life and the universe can be explained without invoking god(s), and god(s) is/are more complex than the deduced/ observed forces and phenomena of nature, aren't god(s) the least likely workable explanations? Doesn't Occam's Razor preclude gods? *** SkeptiChat: Ver. 0.98.09.27 *** depending on your needs, email "subscribe skeptichat" or "unsubscribe skeptichat" or "info skeptichat" or "help" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 8/28/99 1:02:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abiogenesis has been observed - why invoke god(s)? I'd sure like to know when this has been observed. Did some scientists create life sometime, out of nonliving matter. That would be major news after all. I'm not talking about self replicating chemicals, I'm talking about lifeforms, created. There is a Quantum leap from self replicating chemical compounds and life in my view. When was life created from nonliving matter? DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Scientists say God .....Exists
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 99-08-28 16:01:24 EDT, you write: In a message dated 8/28/99 1:02:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abiogenesis has been observed - why invoke god(s)? I'd sure like to know when this has been observed. Did some scientists create life sometime, out of nonliving matter. That would be major news after all. I'm not talking about self replicating chemicals, I'm talking about lifeforms, created. There is a Quantum leap from self replicating chemical compounds and life in my view. When was life created from nonliving matter? Abiogenesis (living units produced from non-living materials) was explored in 1953 in an experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. They mixed water vapor, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gas in a reacting chamber with electrodes and a heat source. Within a week, the mixture contained amino acids and other components of living cells. Other experiments have produced ATP and the bases of DNA and RNA. If these compounds could be encapsulated in some sort of semipermeable membrane, it is conceivable that a proto-cell could possibly develope. To my knowledge, this has never been demonstrated. This is not living organisms being created from non-living materials. Regards, Bob Stokes DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
