"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.

 

"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.

 

In article <3F990B0E.8010203@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dave C. wrote:
>>>>You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>>>>claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>>
>>>Or spontaneous emergence from the primordial soup.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well at least that doesn't stretch credibility beyond the breaking
>> oint. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>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?

The universe? The sun? The earth?

To claim something we've only got 1 example of can't be because other things
are different is fallacious logic.


> I
>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>
>
>Matt
>

 

In article <3F990B0E.8010203@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dave C. wrote:
>>>>You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>>>>claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>>
>>>Or spontaneous emergence from the primordial soup.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well at least that doesn't stretch credibility beyond the breaking
>> oint. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>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?

The universe? The sun? The earth?

To claim something we've only got 1 example of can't be because other things
are different is fallacious logic.


> I
>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>
>
>Matt
>

 

In article <3F990B0E.8010203@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dave C. wrote:
>>>>You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>>>>claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>>
>>>Or spontaneous emergence from the primordial soup.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well at least that doesn't stretch credibility beyond the breaking
>> oint. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>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?

The universe? The sun? The earth?

To claim something we've only got 1 example of can't be because other things
are different is fallacious logic.


> I
>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>
>
>Matt
>

 

In article <584jpvk3t0054q7k84bi3t8p5lhqdfpmkt@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>and nothing else.
>>
>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>
>See? Exactly what I said you'd say.
>>
>>
>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>
>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,

No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.


>it just
>*can't* be the higher levels that's causing the current warming.
>Science at work.
>
CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising. Fact.

 

In article <584jpvk3t0054q7k84bi3t8p5lhqdfpmkt@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>and nothing else.
>>
>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>
>See? Exactly what I said you'd say.
>>
>>
>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>
>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,

No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.


>it just
>*can't* be the higher levels that's causing the current warming.
>Science at work.
>
CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising. Fact.

 

In article <584jpvk3t0054q7k84bi3t8p5lhqdfpmkt@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>and nothing else.
>>
>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>
>See? Exactly what I said you'd say.
>>
>>
>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>
>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,

No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.


>it just
>*can't* be the higher levels that's causing the current warming.
>Science at work.
>
CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising. Fact.

 

In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> 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:
>>>
>>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>>>than other basic forces.
>
>> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>
>Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
>much more.
>
>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>behaviors.
>
>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>
>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.

That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.

>
>>>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>>>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>>>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>>>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>
>> But they don't refute the existence of atoms.
>
>So you are now making a much more limited statement. Your global
>statement above indicates that we know all there is to know about 'atoms',
>it's all 'facts'. In reality we don't and it isn't.
>
>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>
>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>
>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.

No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
and a theory of evolution, explaining it.

>
>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>occurs with climate.
>
>> No, warming on a global scale.
>
>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>whole or in part)

Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."

>
>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>
>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>
>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>
>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>US warm spell was global warming in action.

You saw scientific facts and explanation.


>As usual didn't see you
>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.

I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.

>
>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>> Yes it is.
>
>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.

It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
evolution.

Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
stupidity.

>
>>>> 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?
>
>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.

Then tell us again.

>Still using consumer reports over engineering journals parker?
>That's like getting your science from the new york times, no scratch
>that, the national enquirer.
>
>>>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>>>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>>>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>>>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>>>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>>>is politically acceptable.
>
>> No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
>> science because it contradicted their faith.
>
>You have faith in global warming, evolution, consumer reports, and who
>knows what else. You call anyone that doesn't share your beliefs, no
>matter what they have for evidence, heretics (of course you use other
>words to the same end).
>
>> You're the church here.
>
>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
>
>
The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the cause
of disease?

Try learning some science.

 

In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> 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:
>>>
>>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>>>than other basic forces.
>
>> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>
>Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
>much more.
>
>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>behaviors.
>
>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>
>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.

That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.

>
>>>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>>>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>>>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>>>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>
>> But they don't refute the existence of atoms.
>
>So you are now making a much more limited statement. Your global
>statement above indicates that we know all there is to know about 'atoms',
>it's all 'facts'. In reality we don't and it isn't.
>
>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>
>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>
>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.

No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
and a theory of evolution, explaining it.

>
>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>occurs with climate.
>
>> No, warming on a global scale.
>
>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>whole or in part)

Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."

>
>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>
>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>
>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>
>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>US warm spell was global warming in action.

You saw scientific facts and explanation.


>As usual didn't see you
>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.

I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.

>
>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>> Yes it is.
>
>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.

It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
evolution.

Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
stupidity.

>
>>>> 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?
>
>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.

Then tell us again.

>Still using consumer reports over engineering journals parker?
>That's like getting your science from the new york times, no scratch
>that, the national enquirer.
>
>>>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>>>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>>>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>>>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>>>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>>>is politically acceptable.
>
>> No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
>> science because it contradicted their faith.
>
>You have faith in global warming, evolution, consumer reports, and who
>knows what else. You call anyone that doesn't share your beliefs, no
>matter what they have for evidence, heretics (of course you use other
>words to the same end).
>
>> You're the church here.
>
>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
>
>
The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the cause
of disease?

Try learning some science.