"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8Inmb.9553$mZ5.58279@attbi_s54...
> In article <vpjp9lk0t8lf87@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> >> 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?
>
> I can say one thing, when I did a search a few years back for the hell
> of it, nothing had ever been published in a Journal that was written
> by Parker.
>
> While I didn't get author credit, at least one of the projects I worked
> on got into a journal. And I do have a patent, a design one, but a patent
> none the less. What about you parker? You've got decades of head start
> on me......
>
>
I didn't get credit, but I got in a book written by a lecturer here at Uni,
we were having a debate and one of my remarks in refuting the opposing
arguement made the lecturer go all thoughtful and she asked after class if
she could quote me in the textbook on the subject she was writing.

rhys

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8Inmb.9553$mZ5.58279@attbi_s54...
> In article <vpjp9lk0t8lf87@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> >> 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?
>
> I can say one thing, when I did a search a few years back for the hell
> of it, nothing had ever been published in a Journal that was written
> by Parker.
>
> While I didn't get author credit, at least one of the projects I worked
> on got into a journal. And I do have a patent, a design one, but a patent
> none the less. What about you parker? You've got decades of head start
> on me......
>
>
I didn't get credit, but I got in a book written by a lecturer here at Uni,
we were having a debate and one of my remarks in refuting the opposing
arguement made the lecturer go all thoughtful and she asked after class if
she could quote me in the textbook on the subject she was writing.

rhys

 

rnf2 wrote:

> Stupid.
> should be able to import anything that is not currently imported by a
> manufacturor.

Or anything that meets ECE specs, but hey, this is the Land of the Free we're
talking about. Can't have that!

--Aardwolf.

 

rnf2 wrote:

> Stupid.
> should be able to import anything that is not currently imported by a
> manufacturor.

Or anything that meets ECE specs, but hey, this is the Land of the Free we're
talking about. Can't have that!

--Aardwolf.

 

rnf2 wrote:

> Stupid.
> should be able to import anything that is not currently imported by a
> manufacturor.

Or anything that meets ECE specs, but hey, this is the Land of the Free we're
talking about. Can't have that!

--Aardwolf.

 

Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
> "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?
>
>

Even more important, in what journals has he been published.

Matt

 

Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
> "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?
>
>

Even more important, in what journals has he been published.

Matt

 

Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
> "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?
>
>

Even more important, in what journals has he been published.

Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> 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.

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.


Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> 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.

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.


Matt