call yourself "above average"... makes it sound better...

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:mAumb.1151$Px2.56@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FCkmb.2361$FI2.1256@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> > "comfortable" is relative. The Subarus are built for "average" males
> (5'9"
> > give or take). Some people are unnaturally large and need a bigger
> vehicle
> > to feel comfortable.
>
> Oh, well I'm 5'10" with disproportionately long legs. I wouldn't be
> comfortable in most cars unless someone 6'2" would be comfortable in them.
> Still, I don't consider myself (or guys 6' and over, for that matter) to
be
> unnaturally large. There are many car buyers who are not 5'9". -Dave
>
>

 

call yourself "above average"... makes it sound better...

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:mAumb.1151$Px2.56@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FCkmb.2361$FI2.1256@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> > "comfortable" is relative. The Subarus are built for "average" males
> (5'9"
> > give or take). Some people are unnaturally large and need a bigger
> vehicle
> > to feel comfortable.
>
> Oh, well I'm 5'10" with disproportionately long legs. I wouldn't be
> comfortable in most cars unless someone 6'2" would be comfortable in them.
> Still, I don't consider myself (or guys 6' and over, for that matter) to
be
> unnaturally large. There are many car buyers who are not 5'9". -Dave
>
>

 

call yourself "above average"... makes it sound better...

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:mAumb.1151$Px2.56@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FCkmb.2361$FI2.1256@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> > "comfortable" is relative. The Subarus are built for "average" males
> (5'9"
> > give or take). Some people are unnaturally large and need a bigger
> vehicle
> > to feel comfortable.
>
> Oh, well I'm 5'10" with disproportionately long legs. I wouldn't be
> comfortable in most cars unless someone 6'2" would be comfortable in them.
> Still, I don't consider myself (or guys 6' and over, for that matter) to
be
> unnaturally large. There are many car buyers who are not 5'9". -Dave
>
>

 

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
> creation? :-)

Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.

 

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
> creation? :-)

Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.

 

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
> creation? :-)

Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> etc etc...
>
>

The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.

Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> etc etc...
>
>

The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.

Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> etc etc...
>
>

The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.

Matt

 

John David Galt wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>>creation? :-)
>
>
> Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
> so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.

In your case that may well be true. Blame in on evolution since the
original design was created. Scope creep and field changes are common
problems and tend to ruin many elegant designs. :-)


Matt