Cummins had the 600 horse KTA motor 'bout 20 years ago..... I tried out an
"opened up" silver 92 Detroit..... had the big injectors, a reworked turbo
and governed about 2800 or 3000. With the RTO12513 and a brownie behind
that, two shifts on an empty 5 axle would have you doing 70mph.... I was too
friggin' sane to try 8th over in the main and OD in the brownie at the same
time...

That Benz looks like a bit of a -----....


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f93a95b$0$249$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com.. .
> Big? Heavy?
>
> You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
>
> :-)
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bms76n$6me$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> .........................................>
> > I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove
> fairly
> > pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
>
>

 

Cummins had the 600 horse KTA motor 'bout 20 years ago..... I tried out an
"opened up" silver 92 Detroit..... had the big injectors, a reworked turbo
and governed about 2800 or 3000. With the RTO12513 and a brownie behind
that, two shifts on an empty 5 axle would have you doing 70mph.... I was too
friggin' sane to try 8th over in the main and OD in the brownie at the same
time...

That Benz looks like a bit of a -----....


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f93a95b$0$249$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com.. .
> Big? Heavy?
>
> You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
>
> :-)
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bms76n$6me$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> .........................................>
> > I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove
> fairly
> > pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
>
>

 

Cummins had the 600 horse KTA motor 'bout 20 years ago..... I tried out an
"opened up" silver 92 Detroit..... had the big injectors, a reworked turbo
and governed about 2800 or 3000. With the RTO12513 and a brownie behind
that, two shifts on an empty 5 axle would have you doing 70mph.... I was too
friggin' sane to try 8th over in the main and OD in the brownie at the same
time...

That Benz looks like a bit of a -----....


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f93a95b$0$249$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com.. .
> Big? Heavy?
>
> You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
>
> :-)
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bms76n$6me$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> .........................................>
> > I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove
> fairly
> > pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
>
>

 

Trucks don't generally handle "poorly"..... however, they do handle like
trucks. This is not a really well kept secret - well not if we actually
stayed awake in school.


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcbc1a36fe269a989e29@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> In article <l6j4pvoqdoe3n193jjjiqvrj2fm4om3vau@4ax.com>,
> whineryy@yifan.net says...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
> > >whineryy@yifan.net says...
> > >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> > >> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> > >> >boasts about.
> > >>
> > >> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles
well for
> > >> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove
would
> > >> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of
a
> > >> similar price point.
> > >>
> > >Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
> >
> > That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
> >
> > Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
> >
> > Marc
> > For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> >
>
> Next time you might not want to say "would actually beat a LARGE number
> of cars" when trying to make a point about the poor handling of trucks.
> You might come off looking like an idiot or something.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

Trucks don't generally handle "poorly"..... however, they do handle like
trucks. This is not a really well kept secret - well not if we actually
stayed awake in school.


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcbc1a36fe269a989e29@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> In article <l6j4pvoqdoe3n193jjjiqvrj2fm4om3vau@4ax.com>,
> whineryy@yifan.net says...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
> > >whineryy@yifan.net says...
> > >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> > >> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> > >> >boasts about.
> > >>
> > >> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles
well for
> > >> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove
would
> > >> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of
a
> > >> similar price point.
> > >>
> > >Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
> >
> > That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
> >
> > Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
> >
> > Marc
> > For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> >
>
> Next time you might not want to say "would actually beat a LARGE number
> of cars" when trying to make a point about the poor handling of trucks.
> You might come off looking like an idiot or something.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

Trucks don't generally handle "poorly"..... however, they do handle like
trucks. This is not a really well kept secret - well not if we actually
stayed awake in school.


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcbc1a36fe269a989e29@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> In article <l6j4pvoqdoe3n193jjjiqvrj2fm4om3vau@4ax.com>,
> whineryy@yifan.net says...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
> > >whineryy@yifan.net says...
> > >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> > >> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> > >> >boasts about.
> > >>
> > >> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles
well for
> > >> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove
would
> > >> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of
a
> > >> similar price point.
> > >>
> > >Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
> >
> > That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
> >
> > Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
> >
> > Marc
> > For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> >
>
> Next time you might not want to say "would actually beat a LARGE number
> of cars" when trying to make a point about the poor handling of trucks.
> You might come off looking like an idiot or something.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

There is no misquoting. I too quoted the actual stats, but I was
comparing cars to SUVs only, because this is the choice that most
people make when buying a vehicle. Also almost everybody believes that
SUVs are inherently safer than cars, which makes the comparison of the
real-world behavior of these two types of vehicle especially relevant.
Bringing into the discussion other types of vehicle such as pick-up
trucks only confuses an already bewildering situation.

The NHTSA study proves that on average heavier vehicles are safer in
the sense that your are less likely to be killed in a heavy vehicle as
compared to a lighter vehicle.

It also shows that, despite of this, you are more likely to be killed
in a SUV than in a car of slightly less or even considerable less
weight: small and mid-size SUVs are less safe than mid-size cars (even
though mid-size cars weight less), large SUVs are less safe than large
cars (even though large cars weight less). In fact even when comparing
SUVs to SUVs, weight is not always an advantage as small and more car
like SUVs are safer than heavier mid-size SUVs (see bellow for model
list). All of this makes it pretty clear that there is a safety
problem with the SUV design itself (other posters have argued that the
main disadvantage is their relatively high center of gravity).

In other words, weight confers a safety advantage but the SUV design
more than offsets this advantage. These are the facts, let's get over
them and stop blowing smoke.

Now, as automakers make a lot more on SUVs than on cars it follows
that for any budget, as far as safety is concerned, you are better off
buying a car than a SUV. There is nothing actually wrong with buying
a SUV as long as you need their special capabilities (off-roading or
towing) and as long as you know that they are not really safer.

How you drive is even more important than the inherent safety of a
vehicle. If I were to drive a SUV I would be extra careful
particularly where SUVs are especially unsafe such as risking a
roll-over (when making a sharp turn or driving over an obstacle at
high speed) or hitting a solid barrier.

PS. Here is the list of small and mid-size SUVs in the NHTSA study
(they only considered 4-door models). It is rather surprising that on
average small SUVs turned out to be safer that mid-size ones. If you
need off-roading and some towing capability you are safer buying a
small SUV.

Small SUVs: Jeep Cherokee; Chevrolet/Geo Tracker; Subaru Forester;
Toyota RAV4; Suzuki Sidekick, X-90, Vitara, Grand Vitara; Honda CR-V,
Kia Sportaga.

Mid-Size SUVs: Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford Explorer, Mercury
Mountaineer, Chevrolet S/T Blazer, GMC Jimmy, Oldsmobile Bravada,
Nissan Pathfinder, Isuzu Rodeo, Toyota 4Runner, Mitsubhish Montero,
Honda Passport, Lexus RX300, Infinity QX4.

BTW between small SUVs, Subaru Forester appears to be the safest. See:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/...uv_overall.htm

Beware: these lists include all models in each category. One category
may be safer than another but this does not mean that each model in
one category is safer than each vehicle in the other category. For
safety rating of specific models visit sites such as and www.iihs.org
and www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP

"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote in message news:<bn3ev0$bip$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> Oh, I was not surprised at all that the stats were misquoted...
>
> My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
> prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
> quoted bear that out quite well...
>
> Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
>
>
> "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> > > You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> > > detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> > > on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> > > real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> > > died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> > > passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> > >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
> > --
> > ____________________
> > Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

There is no misquoting. I too quoted the actual stats, but I was
comparing cars to SUVs only, because this is the choice that most
people make when buying a vehicle. Also almost everybody believes that
SUVs are inherently safer than cars, which makes the comparison of the
real-world behavior of these two types of vehicle especially relevant.
Bringing into the discussion other types of vehicle such as pick-up
trucks only confuses an already bewildering situation.

The NHTSA study proves that on average heavier vehicles are safer in
the sense that your are less likely to be killed in a heavy vehicle as
compared to a lighter vehicle.

It also shows that, despite of this, you are more likely to be killed
in a SUV than in a car of slightly less or even considerable less
weight: small and mid-size SUVs are less safe than mid-size cars (even
though mid-size cars weight less), large SUVs are less safe than large
cars (even though large cars weight less). In fact even when comparing
SUVs to SUVs, weight is not always an advantage as small and more car
like SUVs are safer than heavier mid-size SUVs (see bellow for model
list). All of this makes it pretty clear that there is a safety
problem with the SUV design itself (other posters have argued that the
main disadvantage is their relatively high center of gravity).

In other words, weight confers a safety advantage but the SUV design
more than offsets this advantage. These are the facts, let's get over
them and stop blowing smoke.

Now, as automakers make a lot more on SUVs than on cars it follows
that for any budget, as far as safety is concerned, you are better off
buying a car than a SUV. There is nothing actually wrong with buying
a SUV as long as you need their special capabilities (off-roading or
towing) and as long as you know that they are not really safer.

How you drive is even more important than the inherent safety of a
vehicle. If I were to drive a SUV I would be extra careful
particularly where SUVs are especially unsafe such as risking a
roll-over (when making a sharp turn or driving over an obstacle at
high speed) or hitting a solid barrier.

PS. Here is the list of small and mid-size SUVs in the NHTSA study
(they only considered 4-door models). It is rather surprising that on
average small SUVs turned out to be safer that mid-size ones. If you
need off-roading and some towing capability you are safer buying a
small SUV.

Small SUVs: Jeep Cherokee; Chevrolet/Geo Tracker; Subaru Forester;
Toyota RAV4; Suzuki Sidekick, X-90, Vitara, Grand Vitara; Honda CR-V,
Kia Sportaga.

Mid-Size SUVs: Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford Explorer, Mercury
Mountaineer, Chevrolet S/T Blazer, GMC Jimmy, Oldsmobile Bravada,
Nissan Pathfinder, Isuzu Rodeo, Toyota 4Runner, Mitsubhish Montero,
Honda Passport, Lexus RX300, Infinity QX4.

BTW between small SUVs, Subaru Forester appears to be the safest. See:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/...uv_overall.htm

Beware: these lists include all models in each category. One category
may be safer than another but this does not mean that each model in
one category is safer than each vehicle in the other category. For
safety rating of specific models visit sites such as and www.iihs.org
and www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP

"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote in message news:<bn3ev0$bip$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> Oh, I was not surprised at all that the stats were misquoted...
>
> My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
> prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
> quoted bear that out quite well...
>
> Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
>
>
> "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> > > You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> > > detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> > > on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> > > real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> > > died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> > > passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> > >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
> > --
> > ____________________
> > Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

There is no misquoting. I too quoted the actual stats, but I was
comparing cars to SUVs only, because this is the choice that most
people make when buying a vehicle. Also almost everybody believes that
SUVs are inherently safer than cars, which makes the comparison of the
real-world behavior of these two types of vehicle especially relevant.
Bringing into the discussion other types of vehicle such as pick-up
trucks only confuses an already bewildering situation.

The NHTSA study proves that on average heavier vehicles are safer in
the sense that your are less likely to be killed in a heavy vehicle as
compared to a lighter vehicle.

It also shows that, despite of this, you are more likely to be killed
in a SUV than in a car of slightly less or even considerable less
weight: small and mid-size SUVs are less safe than mid-size cars (even
though mid-size cars weight less), large SUVs are less safe than large
cars (even though large cars weight less). In fact even when comparing
SUVs to SUVs, weight is not always an advantage as small and more car
like SUVs are safer than heavier mid-size SUVs (see bellow for model
list). All of this makes it pretty clear that there is a safety
problem with the SUV design itself (other posters have argued that the
main disadvantage is their relatively high center of gravity).

In other words, weight confers a safety advantage but the SUV design
more than offsets this advantage. These are the facts, let's get over
them and stop blowing smoke.

Now, as automakers make a lot more on SUVs than on cars it follows
that for any budget, as far as safety is concerned, you are better off
buying a car than a SUV. There is nothing actually wrong with buying
a SUV as long as you need their special capabilities (off-roading or
towing) and as long as you know that they are not really safer.

How you drive is even more important than the inherent safety of a
vehicle. If I were to drive a SUV I would be extra careful
particularly where SUVs are especially unsafe such as risking a
roll-over (when making a sharp turn or driving over an obstacle at
high speed) or hitting a solid barrier.

PS. Here is the list of small and mid-size SUVs in the NHTSA study
(they only considered 4-door models). It is rather surprising that on
average small SUVs turned out to be safer that mid-size ones. If you
need off-roading and some towing capability you are safer buying a
small SUV.

Small SUVs: Jeep Cherokee; Chevrolet/Geo Tracker; Subaru Forester;
Toyota RAV4; Suzuki Sidekick, X-90, Vitara, Grand Vitara; Honda CR-V,
Kia Sportaga.

Mid-Size SUVs: Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford Explorer, Mercury
Mountaineer, Chevrolet S/T Blazer, GMC Jimmy, Oldsmobile Bravada,
Nissan Pathfinder, Isuzu Rodeo, Toyota 4Runner, Mitsubhish Montero,
Honda Passport, Lexus RX300, Infinity QX4.

BTW between small SUVs, Subaru Forester appears to be the safest. See:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/...uv_overall.htm

Beware: these lists include all models in each category. One category
may be safer than another but this does not mean that each model in
one category is safer than each vehicle in the other category. For
safety rating of specific models visit sites such as and www.iihs.org
and www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP

"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote in message news:<bn3ev0$bip$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> Oh, I was not surprised at all that the stats were misquoted...
>
> My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
> prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
> quoted bear that out quite well...
>
> Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
>
>
> "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> > > You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> > > detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> > > on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> > > real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> > > died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> > > passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> > >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
> > --
> > ____________________
> > Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message news:<3F99A319.703@computer.org>...
> 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. <snip>

Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started. Evolution is
about as certain as a scientific truth can be.

How life started is not yet known. This is a very difficult scientific
question, because most traces of this event have been eradicated by
now. It is possible that we will never know, but this is rather
unlikely because science has been really very successful in explaining
things so far.

IMHO, evolution does not contradict the idea of God as creator.
Religion teaches that God created the world, and science explains how
God created the world. I think it is a pity that some religious people
don't know more about science, because they would marvel even more
about God's ways. It is also a pity that some scientists misunderstand
what religion is about, because they miss what is best in life.

Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.

And we are very much off topic here.