"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> writes:

> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> > Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
> > the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
> > in fact.
>
> Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.

"Facts" in the sense of "observable phenomena."

> >> 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.
> > What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
> > the wrench now doesn't it :)

"Throws the monkey into the wrench?" Never mind, I know what you
meant.

Not at all, and there are quite a few of us who regard that as the
most reasonable explanation -- though we recognise that it's a
completely non-scientific proposal (need to avoid the word
"hypothesis" here).

> And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
> creation? :-)

What exactly would that mean? And what would it have to do with any
of the various newsgroups this is cross-posted to?
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair

 

Come on folks....don't take up bandwidth off topic stuff here. Apply it to
JEEPS for godsake! Like as in...the root word of evolution is evolve. Such
as the Wrangler YJ "evolved" from the CJ. Not that the Wrangler was created
as a wrangler..it started as a CJ and back before that and so on. Get it!
Hell I don't even read scientific journals ;-)....cept maybe my subscription
to Discover which is cool.
Allen
CJ7 (evolving from a pile of #!%$^&!)


"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vpjp9lk0t8lf87@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> news:vpjal6351k39e7@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> > > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > > >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> > > >
> > > >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
> > >
> > > So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
> > degree
> > > in?
> >
> > What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
> >
>
> I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim to
be
> a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?
>
>

 

Come on folks....don't take up bandwidth off topic stuff here. Apply it to
JEEPS for godsake! Like as in...the root word of evolution is evolve. Such
as the Wrangler YJ "evolved" from the CJ. Not that the Wrangler was created
as a wrangler..it started as a CJ and back before that and so on. Get it!
Hell I don't even read scientific journals ;-)....cept maybe my subscription
to Discover which is cool.
Allen
CJ7 (evolving from a pile of #!%$^&!)


"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vpjp9lk0t8lf87@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> news:vpjal6351k39e7@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> > > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > > >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> > > >
> > > >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
> > >
> > > So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
> > degree
> > > in?
> >
> > What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
> >
>
> I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim to
be
> a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?
>
>

 

Come on folks....don't take up bandwidth off topic stuff here. Apply it to
JEEPS for godsake! Like as in...the root word of evolution is evolve. Such
as the Wrangler YJ "evolved" from the CJ. Not that the Wrangler was created
as a wrangler..it started as a CJ and back before that and so on. Get it!
Hell I don't even read scientific journals ;-)....cept maybe my subscription
to Discover which is cool.
Allen
CJ7 (evolving from a pile of #!%$^&!)


"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vpjp9lk0t8lf87@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> news:vpjal6351k39e7@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> > > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > > >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> > > >
> > > >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
> > >
> > > So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
> > degree
> > > in?
> >
> > What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
> >
>
> I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim to
be
> a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?
>
>

 

rnf2 wrote:

> Besides which I think the Spacegear is available in LHD in some countries.
> you could possibly import a few for personal use under grey import rules.

Unfortunately there are no more grey import rules. You can import a vehicle as
is for testing, but have to export or destroy it after two years. You can bring
in a vehicle as is, if you can persuade the DOT that it is of "unique technical
or historical interest" but can only drive it 2500 miles a year and can't resell
it. Or you can import any vehicle as is that is over 25 years old with no
restrictions.

--Aardwolf.

 

rnf2 wrote:

> Besides which I think the Spacegear is available in LHD in some countries.
> you could possibly import a few for personal use under grey import rules.

Unfortunately there are no more grey import rules. You can import a vehicle as
is for testing, but have to export or destroy it after two years. You can bring
in a vehicle as is, if you can persuade the DOT that it is of "unique technical
or historical interest" but can only drive it 2500 miles a year and can't resell
it. Or you can import any vehicle as is that is over 25 years old with no
restrictions.

--Aardwolf.

 

rnf2 wrote:

> Besides which I think the Spacegear is available in LHD in some countries.
> you could possibly import a few for personal use under grey import rules.

Unfortunately there are no more grey import rules. You can import a vehicle as
is for testing, but have to export or destroy it after two years. You can bring
in a vehicle as is, if you can persuade the DOT that it is of "unique technical
or historical interest" but can only drive it 2500 miles a year and can't resell
it. Or you can import any vehicle as is that is over 25 years old with no
restrictions.

--Aardwolf.

 

In article <3F99E3DC.2060800@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>>in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>facts and others.
>>>
>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>
> Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
> field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
> people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
> evolution. Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
> species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
> isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.

Evolution is just that, evolution, from one thing to another. It does
not state how life first got started, it only tries to explain what
occured once it did. How that first one celled organism, what is thought
of as the starting point for evolution started is unknown. Evolution
starts only after life exists. Origin of species, refering to darwin
I suppose, is about how life gets from one form to another.

>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>should allow this to happen, right?

>> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

> Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
> interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
> good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
> both creationists and evolutionists.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

That's nice piece of faith work. I've seen people write with more
conviction about how the US government is league with the greys.

The bible is simply a collection of stories most with a historical
basis, many of just belief. Practically all with some sort of theme
about how to lead a good life. It too has evolved throughout time.

> However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
> There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
> Bell Labs/Lucent.

Yet still we have plants like brocolli.(sp?)

>> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.

> But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
> analysis, dating, etc. Check out these links if you'd like to see just
> some of the issues.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

I see alot of denials and trying to claim that there is no way to date
fossils. It is pure idiotcy to claim the earth is 6000 years old.

Here's where it goes wrong:
"UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE"

That's the first line. We know that this is an extremely biased
source that is setting out make everything fit the bible, it is
not objective.

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.

What next? Skip codes?

 

In article <3F99E3DC.2060800@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>>in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>facts and others.
>>>
>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>
> Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
> field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
> people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
> evolution. Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
> species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
> isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.

Evolution is just that, evolution, from one thing to another. It does
not state how life first got started, it only tries to explain what
occured once it did. How that first one celled organism, what is thought
of as the starting point for evolution started is unknown. Evolution
starts only after life exists. Origin of species, refering to darwin
I suppose, is about how life gets from one form to another.

>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>should allow this to happen, right?

>> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

> Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
> interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
> good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
> both creationists and evolutionists.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

That's nice piece of faith work. I've seen people write with more
conviction about how the US government is league with the greys.

The bible is simply a collection of stories most with a historical
basis, many of just belief. Practically all with some sort of theme
about how to lead a good life. It too has evolved throughout time.

> However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
> There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
> Bell Labs/Lucent.

Yet still we have plants like brocolli.(sp?)

>> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.

> But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
> analysis, dating, etc. Check out these links if you'd like to see just
> some of the issues.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

I see alot of denials and trying to claim that there is no way to date
fossils. It is pure idiotcy to claim the earth is 6000 years old.

Here's where it goes wrong:
"UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE"

That's the first line. We know that this is an extremely biased
source that is setting out make everything fit the bible, it is
not objective.

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.

What next? Skip codes?

 

In article <3F99E3DC.2060800@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>>in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>facts and others.
>>>
>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>
> Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
> field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
> people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
> evolution. Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
> species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
> isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.

Evolution is just that, evolution, from one thing to another. It does
not state how life first got started, it only tries to explain what
occured once it did. How that first one celled organism, what is thought
of as the starting point for evolution started is unknown. Evolution
starts only after life exists. Origin of species, refering to darwin
I suppose, is about how life gets from one form to another.

>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>should allow this to happen, right?

>> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

> Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
> interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
> good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
> both creationists and evolutionists.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

That's nice piece of faith work. I've seen people write with more
conviction about how the US government is league with the greys.

The bible is simply a collection of stories most with a historical
basis, many of just belief. Practically all with some sort of theme
about how to lead a good life. It too has evolved throughout time.

> However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
> There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
> Bell Labs/Lucent.

Yet still we have plants like brocolli.(sp?)

>> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.

> But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
> analysis, dating, etc. Check out these links if you'd like to see just
> some of the issues.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

I see alot of denials and trying to claim that there is no way to date
fossils. It is pure idiotcy to claim the earth is 6000 years old.

Here's where it goes wrong:
"UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE"

That's the first line. We know that this is an extremely biased
source that is setting out make everything fit the bible, it is
not objective.

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.

What next? Skip codes?