Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2251
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>
>>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>
>> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>etc etc...
>
>
Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old. Biblical
infallability, you know.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>
>>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>
>> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>etc etc...
>
>
Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old. Biblical
infallability, you know.
#2252
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9BC391.3070304@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:<3F99A319.703@computer.org>...
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. <snip>
>>
>>
>> Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started. Evolution is
>> about as certain as a scientific truth can be.
>
>I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:
>
>1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
>being created from fundamental constituents.
The first life got started, then evolution took over. How the first life got
started is paleochemistry, or maybe cosmology, or some. It does have
scientific basis, but it's not really evolution.
>2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
>to admit that.
Scientific fact is. Theories are subject to refutation and modification.
>
>At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
>significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
>any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
>based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.
No, you're just too dumb to understand what science is.
>
>
>> How life started is not yet known. This is a very difficult scientific
>> question, because most traces of this event have been eradicated by
>> now. It is possible that we will never know, but this is rather
>> unlikely because science has been really very successful in explaining
>> things so far.
>>
>> IMHO, evolution does not contradict the idea of God as creator.
>> Religion teaches that God created the world, and science explains how
>> God created the world. I think it is a pity that some religious people
>> don't know more about science, because they would marvel even more
>> about God's ways. It is also a pity that some scientists misunderstand
>> what religion is about, because they miss what is best in life.
>
>Again, I basically agree with you.
>
>
>> Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.
>
>Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
>to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood that
covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
> assuming you
>stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
>extrapolate to parts unknown.
>
>
>> And we are very much off topic here.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>Matt
>
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:<3F99A319.703@computer.org>...
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. <snip>
>>
>>
>> Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started. Evolution is
>> about as certain as a scientific truth can be.
>
>I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:
>
>1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
>being created from fundamental constituents.
The first life got started, then evolution took over. How the first life got
started is paleochemistry, or maybe cosmology, or some. It does have
scientific basis, but it's not really evolution.
>2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
>to admit that.
Scientific fact is. Theories are subject to refutation and modification.
>
>At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
>significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
>any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
>based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.
No, you're just too dumb to understand what science is.
>
>
>> How life started is not yet known. This is a very difficult scientific
>> question, because most traces of this event have been eradicated by
>> now. It is possible that we will never know, but this is rather
>> unlikely because science has been really very successful in explaining
>> things so far.
>>
>> IMHO, evolution does not contradict the idea of God as creator.
>> Religion teaches that God created the world, and science explains how
>> God created the world. I think it is a pity that some religious people
>> don't know more about science, because they would marvel even more
>> about God's ways. It is also a pity that some scientists misunderstand
>> what religion is about, because they miss what is best in life.
>
>Again, I basically agree with you.
>
>
>> Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.
>
>Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
>to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood that
covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
> assuming you
>stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
>extrapolate to parts unknown.
>
>
>> And we are very much off topic here.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>Matt
>
#2253
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9BC391.3070304@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:<3F99A319.703@computer.org>...
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. <snip>
>>
>>
>> Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started. Evolution is
>> about as certain as a scientific truth can be.
>
>I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:
>
>1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
>being created from fundamental constituents.
The first life got started, then evolution took over. How the first life got
started is paleochemistry, or maybe cosmology, or some. It does have
scientific basis, but it's not really evolution.
>2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
>to admit that.
Scientific fact is. Theories are subject to refutation and modification.
>
>At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
>significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
>any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
>based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.
No, you're just too dumb to understand what science is.
>
>
>> How life started is not yet known. This is a very difficult scientific
>> question, because most traces of this event have been eradicated by
>> now. It is possible that we will never know, but this is rather
>> unlikely because science has been really very successful in explaining
>> things so far.
>>
>> IMHO, evolution does not contradict the idea of God as creator.
>> Religion teaches that God created the world, and science explains how
>> God created the world. I think it is a pity that some religious people
>> don't know more about science, because they would marvel even more
>> about God's ways. It is also a pity that some scientists misunderstand
>> what religion is about, because they miss what is best in life.
>
>Again, I basically agree with you.
>
>
>> Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.
>
>Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
>to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood that
covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
> assuming you
>stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
>extrapolate to parts unknown.
>
>
>> And we are very much off topic here.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>Matt
>
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:<3F99A319.703@computer.org>...
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. <snip>
>>
>>
>> Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started. Evolution is
>> about as certain as a scientific truth can be.
>
>I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:
>
>1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
>being created from fundamental constituents.
The first life got started, then evolution took over. How the first life got
started is paleochemistry, or maybe cosmology, or some. It does have
scientific basis, but it's not really evolution.
>2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
>to admit that.
Scientific fact is. Theories are subject to refutation and modification.
>
>At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
>significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
>any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
>based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.
No, you're just too dumb to understand what science is.
>
>
>> How life started is not yet known. This is a very difficult scientific
>> question, because most traces of this event have been eradicated by
>> now. It is possible that we will never know, but this is rather
>> unlikely because science has been really very successful in explaining
>> things so far.
>>
>> IMHO, evolution does not contradict the idea of God as creator.
>> Religion teaches that God created the world, and science explains how
>> God created the world. I think it is a pity that some religious people
>> don't know more about science, because they would marvel even more
>> about God's ways. It is also a pity that some scientists misunderstand
>> what religion is about, because they miss what is best in life.
>
>Again, I basically agree with you.
>
>
>> Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.
>
>Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
>to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood that
covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
> assuming you
>stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
>extrapolate to parts unknown.
>
>
>> And we are very much off topic here.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>Matt
>
#2254
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9BC391.3070304@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:<3F99A319.703@computer.org>...
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. <snip>
>>
>>
>> Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started. Evolution is
>> about as certain as a scientific truth can be.
>
>I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:
>
>1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
>being created from fundamental constituents.
The first life got started, then evolution took over. How the first life got
started is paleochemistry, or maybe cosmology, or some. It does have
scientific basis, but it's not really evolution.
>2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
>to admit that.
Scientific fact is. Theories are subject to refutation and modification.
>
>At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
>significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
>any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
>based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.
No, you're just too dumb to understand what science is.
>
>
>> How life started is not yet known. This is a very difficult scientific
>> question, because most traces of this event have been eradicated by
>> now. It is possible that we will never know, but this is rather
>> unlikely because science has been really very successful in explaining
>> things so far.
>>
>> IMHO, evolution does not contradict the idea of God as creator.
>> Religion teaches that God created the world, and science explains how
>> God created the world. I think it is a pity that some religious people
>> don't know more about science, because they would marvel even more
>> about God's ways. It is also a pity that some scientists misunderstand
>> what religion is about, because they miss what is best in life.
>
>Again, I basically agree with you.
>
>
>> Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.
>
>Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
>to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood that
covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
> assuming you
>stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
>extrapolate to parts unknown.
>
>
>> And we are very much off topic here.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>Matt
>
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:<3F99A319.703@computer.org>...
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate. <snip>
>>
>>
>> Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started. Evolution is
>> about as certain as a scientific truth can be.
>
>I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:
>
>1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
>being created from fundamental constituents.
The first life got started, then evolution took over. How the first life got
started is paleochemistry, or maybe cosmology, or some. It does have
scientific basis, but it's not really evolution.
>2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
>to admit that.
Scientific fact is. Theories are subject to refutation and modification.
>
>At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
>significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
>any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
>based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.
No, you're just too dumb to understand what science is.
>
>
>> How life started is not yet known. This is a very difficult scientific
>> question, because most traces of this event have been eradicated by
>> now. It is possible that we will never know, but this is rather
>> unlikely because science has been really very successful in explaining
>> things so far.
>>
>> IMHO, evolution does not contradict the idea of God as creator.
>> Religion teaches that God created the world, and science explains how
>> God created the world. I think it is a pity that some religious people
>> don't know more about science, because they would marvel even more
>> about God's ways. It is also a pity that some scientists misunderstand
>> what religion is about, because they miss what is best in life.
>
>Again, I basically agree with you.
>
>
>> Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.
>
>Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
>to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood that
covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
> assuming you
>stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
>extrapolate to parts unknown.
>
>
>> And we are very much off topic here.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>Matt
>
#2255
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>>>
>>>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>>>
>>>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>>>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>>>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>>>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>>>etc etc...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
>>know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
>>circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
>>reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
>>scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
>>about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.
>
>
> It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
> you take appear out of context.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Matt
> In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>>>
>>>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>>>
>>>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>>>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>>>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>>>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>>>etc etc...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
>>know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
>>circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
>>reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
>>scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
>>about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.
>
>
> It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
> you take appear out of context.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Matt
#2256
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>>>
>>>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>>>
>>>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>>>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>>>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>>>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>>>etc etc...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
>>know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
>>circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
>>reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
>>scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
>>about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.
>
>
> It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
> you take appear out of context.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Matt
> In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>>>
>>>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>>>
>>>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>>>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>>>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>>>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>>>etc etc...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
>>know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
>>circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
>>reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
>>scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
>>about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.
>
>
> It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
> you take appear out of context.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Matt
#2257
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>>>
>>>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>>>
>>>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>>>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>>>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>>>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>>>etc etc...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
>>know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
>>circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
>>reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
>>scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
>>about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.
>
>
> It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
> you take appear out of context.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Matt
> In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>>>
>>>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>>>
>>>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>>>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>>>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>>>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>>>etc etc...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
>>know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
>>circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
>>reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
>>scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
>>about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.
>
>
> It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
> you take appear out of context.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Matt
#2258
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Jim Warman wrote:
> All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
> to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
> the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
> damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
> higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
> outlets.... the list goes on.
>
> I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
> indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
> RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
> HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
> for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
> are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
> Nova Scotia than here in oil country.
>
> Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
> an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
> $80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
> emissions, I will always view it "in context".
Just make sure she understands the difference between feeling safe and
being safe. Minivans are much safer according to almost every statistic
I've seen.
Matt
> All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
> to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
> the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
> damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
> higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
> outlets.... the list goes on.
>
> I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
> indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
> RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
> HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
> for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
> are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
> Nova Scotia than here in oil country.
>
> Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
> an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
> $80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
> emissions, I will always view it "in context".
Just make sure she understands the difference between feeling safe and
being safe. Minivans are much safer according to almost every statistic
I've seen.
Matt
#2259
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Jim Warman wrote:
> All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
> to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
> the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
> damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
> higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
> outlets.... the list goes on.
>
> I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
> indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
> RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
> HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
> for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
> are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
> Nova Scotia than here in oil country.
>
> Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
> an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
> $80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
> emissions, I will always view it "in context".
Just make sure she understands the difference between feeling safe and
being safe. Minivans are much safer according to almost every statistic
I've seen.
Matt
> All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
> to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
> the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
> damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
> higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
> outlets.... the list goes on.
>
> I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
> indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
> RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
> HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
> for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
> are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
> Nova Scotia than here in oil country.
>
> Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
> an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
> $80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
> emissions, I will always view it "in context".
Just make sure she understands the difference between feeling safe and
being safe. Minivans are much safer according to almost every statistic
I've seen.
Matt
#2260
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Jim Warman wrote:
> All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
> to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
> the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
> damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
> higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
> outlets.... the list goes on.
>
> I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
> indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
> RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
> HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
> for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
> are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
> Nova Scotia than here in oil country.
>
> Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
> an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
> $80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
> emissions, I will always view it "in context".
Just make sure she understands the difference between feeling safe and
being safe. Minivans are much safer according to almost every statistic
I've seen.
Matt
> All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
> to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
> the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
> damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
> higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
> outlets.... the list goes on.
>
> I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
> indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
> RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
> HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
> for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
> are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
> Nova Scotia than here in oil country.
>
> Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
> an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
> $80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
> emissions, I will always view it "in context".
Just make sure she understands the difference between feeling safe and
being safe. Minivans are much safer according to almost every statistic
I've seen.
Matt