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

 

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

 

Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:

> 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. :-)

I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:

> 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. :-)

I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:

> 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. :-)

I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Lon Stowell wrote:
> Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:
>
>
>>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. :-)
>
>
> I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
> quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.

Keep evolving, maybe some day you'll come up with a good retort.

Matt

 

Lon Stowell wrote:
> Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:
>
>
>>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. :-)
>
>
> I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
> quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.

Keep evolving, maybe some day you'll come up with a good retort.

Matt

 

Lon Stowell wrote:
> Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:
>
>
>>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. :-)
>
>
> I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
> quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.

Keep evolving, maybe some day you'll come up with a good retort.

Matt

 

In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> 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.

It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
you take appear out of context. If you want to live in the 12th century
fine, I don't.

The reality is alot is *KNOWN* with a great deal of certainity. You just
refuse to accept it because it doesn't match with your reading of a book
of faith. What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?

 

In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> 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.

It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
you take appear out of context. If you want to live in the 12th century
fine, I don't.

The reality is alot is *KNOWN* with a great deal of certainity. You just
refuse to accept it because it doesn't match with your reading of a book
of faith. What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?