Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>
>>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>>already...
>
>
> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.

Or spontaneous emergence from the primordial soup.

Matt

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>
>>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>>already...
>
>
> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.

Or spontaneous emergence from the primordial soup.

Matt

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F96F5EA.6020502@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>>been explained, only accepted.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
> established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.

Hardly. These are nothing more than models that explain observations in
some regimes. We are always learning new things that violate our
current models and require rethinking. You wouldn't know a fact if it
sat in your lap.


> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?

Probably as well as you do based on your past posts.


Matt

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F96F5EA.6020502@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>>been explained, only accepted.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
> established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.

Hardly. These are nothing more than models that explain observations in
some regimes. We are always learning new things that violate our
current models and require rethinking. You wouldn't know a fact if it
sat in your lap.


> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?

Probably as well as you do based on your past posts.


Matt

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F96F5EA.6020502@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>>been explained, only accepted.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
> established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.

Hardly. These are nothing more than models that explain observations in
some regimes. We are always learning new things that violate our
current models and require rethinking. You wouldn't know a fact if it
sat in your lap.


> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?

Probably as well as you do based on your past posts.


Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>Gravity is an established fact.
>
>
> Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> than other basic forces.
>
>
>>Relativity is an established fact.
>
>
> No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> behaviors.
>
>
>>Atoms are established fact.
>
>
> Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
> rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
> think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>
> It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

No, it's not even that. I don't have enough faith to believe that
humans randonly emerged from a collection of elements. Much easier to
accept that a supreme being designed and created us.

And if the big bang theory is correct, where did the matter and energy
for the big bang come from?


Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>Gravity is an established fact.
>
>
> Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> than other basic forces.
>
>
>>Relativity is an established fact.
>
>
> No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> behaviors.
>
>
>>Atoms are established fact.
>
>
> Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
> rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
> think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>
> It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

No, it's not even that. I don't have enough faith to believe that
humans randonly emerged from a collection of elements. Much easier to
accept that a supreme being designed and created us.

And if the big bang theory is correct, where did the matter and energy
for the big bang come from?


Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>Gravity is an established fact.
>
>
> Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> than other basic forces.
>
>
>>Relativity is an established fact.
>
>
> No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> behaviors.
>
>
>>Atoms are established fact.
>
>
> Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
> rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
> think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>
> It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

No, it's not even that. I don't have enough faith to believe that
humans randonly emerged from a collection of elements. Much easier to
accept that a supreme being designed and created us.

And if the big bang theory is correct, where did the matter and energy
for the big bang come from?


Matt

 

Too damn expensive and too damn small.
I don't think you get the Mitsubishi Delicia Spacegear 4x4 minivan in the
USA, but it's good here. 2.7L turbo diesel and 4X4 while carrying 8 people.

rhys

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote > Subaru (any model).
>

 

Too damn expensive and too damn small.
I don't think you get the Mitsubishi Delicia Spacegear 4x4 minivan in the
USA, but it's good here. 2.7L turbo diesel and 4X4 while carrying 8 people.

rhys

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote > Subaru (any model).
>