Raf

"Do you ever have deja vu?" "Didn't you just ask me that?"

One of the supporting characters went blind from a clunk on the head. He later regained his sight after another clunk on the head. This didn't happen in the source novels, because this character didn't exist at all in the source novels.

The pilot for this series was based on a novel that was actually a sequel. The series itself played a little fast and loose with subsequent novels in the series. For example, the central characters pretty much stayed in the title location throughout the series, but in the books, they moved many times. One other bit of trivia: The person who wrote the theme music for this series also wrote the well known prototypical burlesque theme music known as "The Stripper."

You had me at Danielle Spencer. What's Happening

LOL! I think you just won the game.

"I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank piña coladas. At sunset, we made love like sea otters. That was a pretty good day."

Really? Wow. Talk about a WAG. Ok, coming up...

"Tutti Frutti" "Do you believe in rock and roll? Can music save your mortal soul? Can you teach me how to dance real slow?"

Body Heat ?

On the whole "whale" diversion, there's something worth noting here. T-Bone has evidently gone to some trouble explaining why Genesis 1:21 mentions whales and whether that's an accurate translation. If you go back over my post, however, you will see that I made no such assertion (completely understandable, as I was not relying on the King James when I ASKED whether whales were included in the verse). I was not claiming that Genesis 1:21 included whales. If it did, it's an error. If it didn't, it's not. Minor point in the scheme of what I actually WAS addressing. The more I review what you're sharing about Ross, the more clear it is becoming that he is absurdly incorrect about whale evolution. That is a REMARKABLE claim. It's also horsehockey, and Ross should know it. He's counting on you NOT knowing it, though. Here's a simple task: Find one expert in cetacean biology and evolution who actually agrees with what you wrote there. If Ross is correct in that statement, then evolution has been actively disproved. That would be a Nobel-worthy achievement in the field of science. It is just an astonishing development, one that would have the entire field of biology shaken to its foundations. Unless, of course, it's bullcrap. It's simply not true. But again, don't take my word for it: check with real, unbiased scientists who have not started with their conclusions. Do whale biologists think whales are an exception to evolution, or that there hasn't been enough time for whales to evolve the way they have? Find one. One. (Psst: Ross is not one). Enjoy.

Mark, I appreciate your endorsement of Ross. If you'd like to apply it to something I've said, I'm all ears. Meanwhile, back to T-Bone: You can SAY that as often as you'd like, but you can only demonstrate it by finagling the Bible until it says the opposite of, or something completely different from, what is actually says. I'm entertained by the amount of effort you've put into examining what I said about whales, by the way. I just threw that in there as an afterthought, and you're acting like you've come across the biggest gotcha against my post. Not even close. First off, Ross is wrong. Ross makes the crucial mistake of beginning with his conclusion and manipulating both facts and scripture to suit that conclusion. Couple of things: one, that there's never been a measurable chance within a species is a flat out lie on its face, but if you expand on the idea a little bit, we might be able to iron it out. On its face, though, that's a howler. Big fat lie. Try again. Second: "much less the appearance of a new one" reflects both a simplistic and a distorted view of what evolution predicts. If Ross is trying to say that the fossil record does not show speciation, he's once again simply lying. Again, the problem here may be the wording. To say there's never been a change within a species, much less the emergence of a new one, is rather oxymoronic. You're never going to see a new species within a species. Because you're within a species. That's like looking for high school graduates among a high school's freshman population. Duh. You've kind of defined them out of the sample population. None of this discussion on whales, horses, speciation, etc, does a single thing to contradict the ACTUAL POINT I WAS MAKING, which is, again: Here's the order of creation in Genesis: Heaven, earth, light, plant life, the sun (moon and stars) water life, birds, THEN land animals) That's an actual error. In reality, it was heaven/light, sun, earth, with plant life not showing up for a couple of BILLION years, AFTER water life, and birds came after (and from) land animals. Now, if you BEGIN with the conclusion that there's no contradiction between scripture and science, then you can harmonize the two, but only by twisting both the scripture and science. The more you distort one, the less you have to distort the other. Ross accomplishes both, distorting science for those who are not scientifically literate, and distorting scripture in ways that, frankly, I'm surprised you guys are allowing. You would never let Wierwille get away with the infractions Ross is committing. But go ahead. I'm not going to stop you.

On the "regional flood" and the article we're debating, I just have this to say: You quoted the point I made but did not refute it. In fact, the information you provided supported every point I made. Namely, that the flood described in the article directly exposes the Genesis flood as an actual error. The Bible doesn't say it "looked like" the whole world was covered in water. Genesis makes explicit statements that the article you cite clearly establishes to be flat out wrong. The Bible says the flood covered mountains. The flood in the article did not. The Bible says the flood carried the ark to Ararat. The flood described in the article would not have accomplished that feat. So in other words, I'm quoting the Bible. You're quoting an article that says the Bible is actually in error. And you're claiming that the article proves the Bible is accurate and not in error. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

I just noticed the recent posts and will delve into them piecemeal as the opportunity arises. Thanks for the feedback.

I keep seeing Cameron Diaz and Ben Stiller in my head, so I'm gonna guess There's Something About Mary

The theme song referred to several life circumstances that seemed to belie the title of the program. Irony, maybe? Among the circumstances: losing your job for a short time and falling victim to predatory lending (though the song used different words).

Here was a strange spinoff. The main character was played by the same actress as in the parent series. She had the same name. Her husband was played by the same actor, though his name was changed. The couple now lived, with no explanation, in a different city (incompatible with the parent series). In fact, if you watched every single episode of the spinoff, you would have no idea it was a spinoff. Only by watching the parent series would you look at the character and say, hey! isn't that the actress from [the spinoff] playing the same character?

I'm awake!

Not Tommy, but the two m's are close...

Holy cow is this not a Woody Allen movie. Think about it Think about it Think about it

The first clue was enough for me. I'll post Monday, if no one minds. If you mind, free post!

Let's see: The lead actor, who recently died, did not play the title character. The movie is technically a sequel, but it's a sequel to a well known story, not to any particular adaptation of it. There is no lead actress, but a prominent actress in the movie had an assistant whose entire job was making sure the bottom of the actress' feet stayed clean. And that was reasonable. The hero and the villain were both played by Oscar winning actors. One won his Oscar before, the other after.

Welcome Back Kotter

Now if only I could taste my damn coffee.

Thank you

Yes