In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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.

Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.


> 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.

And you're either ignorant or a liar.

>
>I believe creation is the best available explanation.

Then you're stupid too.


>They believe
>evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
>either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
>

Yes you can. Try learning some science.

>
>Matt
>

 

In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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.

Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.


> 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.

And you're either ignorant or a liar.

>
>I believe creation is the best available explanation.

Then you're stupid too.


>They believe
>evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
>either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
>

Yes you can. Try learning some science.

>
>Matt
>

 

In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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.

Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.


> 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.

And you're either ignorant or a liar.

>
>I believe creation is the best available explanation.

Then you're stupid too.


>They believe
>evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
>either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
>

Yes you can. Try learning some science.

>
>Matt
>

 

In article <vpjaesbkbtavd2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnc0s9$r7e$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpg80s99dfk95a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
>> >> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Joe wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >> >> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who
>as a
>> >> body
>> >> >> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to
>> >having
>> >> >> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
>> >best...
>> >> >> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign
>of
>> >> >> terror:...
>> >> >
>> >> >And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information
>as
>> >> >facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>> >> >
>> >> >You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>> >> >understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says
>that
>> >> >in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If
>you
>> >> >consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't
>rocket
>> >> >them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>> >> >still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on
>his
>> >> >own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>> >> >(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If
>they
>> >> >were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should
>be
>> >> >documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>> >> >
>> >> >Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass,
>if
>> >> >they existed they would have to have been:
>> >> >(1) Dissipated (by use)
>> >> >(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>> >> >(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>> >> >structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>> >> >(4) Shot into space
>> >>
>> >> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
>> >would have remembered that.
>>
>> They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
>
>And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why they
>were there?
>

Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
haven't found them.

>>
>>
>> > Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>> >Iraq by Saddam?
>>
>> We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
>
>No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>> >> >destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>> >> >decided that they really didn't mean it.
>> >>
>> >> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
>> >did.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>> >braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
>>
>> Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>>
>
>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>happened to them.

LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?

>
>>
>> >Question is Where are they
>> >now, not do they exist.
>>
>> Prove their existence first
>
>Well documented, look it up lazy.
>..

Liar. Prove they existed this year.

>>
>>
>> >If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>> >Saddam provide proof of it?
>>
>> Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
>
>Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything.

No, it illustrates you cannot prove a negative.


>If I were, I would
>destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
>records,

How do you know? The US does too, but our military is even missing planes
from its inventory.


>he could easily have provided the proof of where they were and what
>he did, he choose not to. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he destroyed them
>but choose not to reveal that, hopeing to use them as a bluff. Well, we
>caled his bluff.

Yeah, we broke international law, invaded a country, and find out we were lied
to as the reaons.

>Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded Liberal.

Thank you for once again proving yourself a war-mongering sheep of a
right-winger.

>
>>
>>
>> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>> >
>> >! =-----
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

In article <vpjaesbkbtavd2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnc0s9$r7e$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpg80s99dfk95a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
>> >> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Joe wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >> >> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who
>as a
>> >> body
>> >> >> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to
>> >having
>> >> >> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
>> >best...
>> >> >> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign
>of
>> >> >> terror:...
>> >> >
>> >> >And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information
>as
>> >> >facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>> >> >
>> >> >You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>> >> >understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says
>that
>> >> >in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If
>you
>> >> >consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't
>rocket
>> >> >them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>> >> >still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on
>his
>> >> >own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>> >> >(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If
>they
>> >> >were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should
>be
>> >> >documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>> >> >
>> >> >Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass,
>if
>> >> >they existed they would have to have been:
>> >> >(1) Dissipated (by use)
>> >> >(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>> >> >(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>> >> >structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>> >> >(4) Shot into space
>> >>
>> >> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
>> >would have remembered that.
>>
>> They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
>
>And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why they
>were there?
>

Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
haven't found them.

>>
>>
>> > Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>> >Iraq by Saddam?
>>
>> We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
>
>No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>> >> >destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>> >> >decided that they really didn't mean it.
>> >>
>> >> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
>> >did.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>> >braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
>>
>> Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>>
>
>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>happened to them.

LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?

>
>>
>> >Question is Where are they
>> >now, not do they exist.
>>
>> Prove their existence first
>
>Well documented, look it up lazy.
>..

Liar. Prove they existed this year.

>>
>>
>> >If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>> >Saddam provide proof of it?
>>
>> Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
>
>Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything.

No, it illustrates you cannot prove a negative.


>If I were, I would
>destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
>records,

How do you know? The US does too, but our military is even missing planes
from its inventory.


>he could easily have provided the proof of where they were and what
>he did, he choose not to. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he destroyed them
>but choose not to reveal that, hopeing to use them as a bluff. Well, we
>caled his bluff.

Yeah, we broke international law, invaded a country, and find out we were lied
to as the reaons.

>Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded Liberal.

Thank you for once again proving yourself a war-mongering sheep of a
right-winger.

>
>>
>>
>> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>> >
>> >! =-----
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

In article <vpjaesbkbtavd2@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnc0s9$r7e$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpg80s99dfk95a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
>> >> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Joe wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >> >> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who
>as a
>> >> body
>> >> >> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to
>> >having
>> >> >> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
>> >best...
>> >> >> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign
>of
>> >> >> terror:...
>> >> >
>> >> >And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information
>as
>> >> >facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>> >> >
>> >> >You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>> >> >understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says
>that
>> >> >in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If
>you
>> >> >consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't
>rocket
>> >> >them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>> >> >still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on
>his
>> >> >own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>> >> >(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If
>they
>> >> >were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should
>be
>> >> >documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>> >> >
>> >> >Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass,
>if
>> >> >they existed they would have to have been:
>> >> >(1) Dissipated (by use)
>> >> >(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>> >> >(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>> >> >structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>> >> >(4) Shot into space
>> >>
>> >> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
>> >would have remembered that.
>>
>> They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
>
>And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why they
>were there?
>

Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
haven't found them.

>>
>>
>> > Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>> >Iraq by Saddam?
>>
>> We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
>
>No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>> >> >destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>> >> >decided that they really didn't mean it.
>> >>
>> >> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
>> >did.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>> >braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
>>
>> Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>>
>
>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>happened to them.

LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?

>
>>
>> >Question is Where are they
>> >now, not do they exist.
>>
>> Prove their existence first
>
>Well documented, look it up lazy.
>..

Liar. Prove they existed this year.

>>
>>
>> >If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>> >Saddam provide proof of it?
>>
>> Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
>
>Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything.

No, it illustrates you cannot prove a negative.


>If I were, I would
>destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
>records,

How do you know? The US does too, but our military is even missing planes
from its inventory.


>he could easily have provided the proof of where they were and what
>he did, he choose not to. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he destroyed them
>but choose not to reveal that, hopeing to use them as a bluff. Well, we
>caled his bluff.

Yeah, we broke international law, invaded a country, and find out we were lied
to as the reaons.

>Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded Liberal.

Thank you for once again proving yourself a war-mongering sheep of a
right-winger.

>
>>
>>
>> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>> >
>> >! =-----
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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.

And evolution is supported by a huge mass of data -- facts.

>
>
>>>I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
>>>evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
>>>either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
>>
>>
>> What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
>> the wrench now doesn't it :)
>>
>>
>
>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>creation? :-)
>

Then I'd demand some evidence of it. Occam's Razor and all.

>Matt
>

 

In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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.

And evolution is supported by a huge mass of data -- facts.

>
>
>>>I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
>>>evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
>>>either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
>>
>>
>> What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
>> the wrench now doesn't it :)
>>
>>
>
>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>creation? :-)
>

Then I'd demand some evidence of it. Occam's Razor and all.

>Matt
>

 

In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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.

And evolution is supported by a huge mass of data -- facts.

>
>
>>>I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
>>>evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
>>>either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
>>
>>
>> What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
>> the wrench now doesn't it :)
>>
>>
>
>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>creation? :-)
>

Then I'd demand some evidence of it. Occam's Razor and all.

>Matt
>

 

In article <3F99D547.4070101@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>rnf2 wrote:
>> "John Mielke" <mielkman@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.c om...
>>
>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>>(i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ice core in Antartica, peat cores in bogs, ice cores in Alaska.
>>
>> plenty of ways of finding out about the limate long before metrologists
>> evolved.
>>
>> rhys
>>
>>
>
>If we only knew for sure how old the ice and peat was...
>
>Matt
>
We do. Look up radioactive dating.