Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2261
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
to admit that.
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.
> 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 ... 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 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.
2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
to admit that.
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.
> 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 ... 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
#2262
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
to admit that.
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.
> 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 ... 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 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.
2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
to admit that.
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.
> 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 ... 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
#2263
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
to admit that.
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.
> 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 ... 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 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.
2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
to admit that.
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.
> 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 ... 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
#2264
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:17:39 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
>Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?
A Scientologist?
--
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
>What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
>Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?
A Scientologist?
--
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
#2265
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:17:39 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
>Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?
A Scientologist?
--
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
>What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
>Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?
A Scientologist?
--
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
#2266
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:17:39 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
>Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?
A Scientologist?
--
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
>What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
>Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?
A Scientologist?
--
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
#2267
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>
>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
Then where did all the ice go?
It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
following global warmings).
wrote:
>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>
>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
Then where did all the ice go?
It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
following global warmings).
#2268
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>
>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
Then where did all the ice go?
It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
following global warmings).
wrote:
>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>
>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
Then where did all the ice go?
It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
following global warmings).
#2269
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>
>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
Then where did all the ice go?
It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
following global warmings).
wrote:
>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>
>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
Then where did all the ice go?
It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
following global warmings).
#2270
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:46:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
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?
>
>The universe?
The universe?
Are you saying that it came from parts that were just floating around?
Doesn't that just beg the question: "where did those parts come from"?
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?
>
>The universe?
The universe?
Are you saying that it came from parts that were just floating around?
Doesn't that just beg the question: "where did those parts come from"?