> >Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a
reply
> >here) -Dave
> >
> >
> Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo
space.

OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
space for less money than the typical SUV? Oh, and AWD or 4X4, with good
towing capacity. -Dave

 

> >Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a
reply
> >here) -Dave
> >
> >
> Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo
space.

OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
space for less money than the typical SUV? Oh, and AWD or 4X4, with good
towing capacity. -Dave

 

> >Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a
reply
> >here) -Dave
> >
> >
> Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo
space.

OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
space for less money than the typical SUV? Oh, and AWD or 4X4, with good
towing capacity. -Dave

 

"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?

 

"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?

 

"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?

 

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. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
claim that evolution is fact based.

I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.


Matt

 

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. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
claim that evolution is fact based.

I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.


Matt

 

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. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
claim that evolution is fact based.

I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.


Matt

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnc0s9$r7e$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpg80s99dfk95a@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
> >> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Joe wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> >> >> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who
as a
> >> body
> >> >> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to
> >having
> >> >> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
> >best...
> >> >> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign
of
> >> >> terror:...
> >> >
> >> >And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information
as
> >> >facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
> >> >
> >> >You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
> >> >understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says
that
> >> >in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If
you
> >> >consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't
rocket
> >> >them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
> >> >still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on
his
> >> >own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
> >> >(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If
they
> >> >were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should
be
> >> >documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
> >> >
> >> >Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass,
if
> >> >they existed they would have to have been:
> >> >(1) Dissipated (by use)
> >> >(2) Moved and found (so far no)
> >> >(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
> >> >structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
> >> >(4) Shot into space
> >>
> >> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
> >>
> >
> >That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
> >would have remembered that.
>
> They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.

And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why they
were there?

>
>
> > Was this before or after they were kicked out of
> >Iraq by Saddam?
>
> We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.

No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
> >> >destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
> >> >decided that they really didn't mean it.
> >>
> >> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
> >did.
> >>
> >
> >Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
> >braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
>
> Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>

The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
happened to them.

>
> >Question is Where are they
> >now, not do they exist.
>
> Prove their existence first

Well documented, look it up lazy.
..
>
>
> >If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
> >Saddam provide proof of it?
>
> Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.

Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything. If I were, I would
destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
records, he could easily have provided the proof of where they were and what
he did, he choose not to. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he destroyed them
but choose not to reveal that, hopeing to use them as a bluff. Well, we
caled his bluff.
Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded Liberal.

>
>
> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
> >
> >! =-----
> >
> >