🚀 go-pugleaf

"Obwon" <obllOob@att.net> wrote in message
news:ec8bi1900ci0f27rc80p7o7vkgbkseibmg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:35:58 GMT, Mike Smith
> <mws@wt.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:57:42 GMT, Peter Boyd <pbyd16@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >>
> >>> Peter Boyd wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Peter Boyd wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > snip
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > The fact is that global warming/cooling are cyclical and the
results are
> >>> > > > > beyond the means of humans to control it just as major natural
> >>> > > > > disasters.  Hurrican Katrina is a pimple when compared to the
overall
> >>> > > > > scheme of natural progression.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Here's a few things to gnaw on that humans would have
absolutely no
> >>> > > > > control over and which will occur sooner or later.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > . Yellowstone park contains (perhaps the most) violent
potential for a
> >>> > > > > volcanic event that would significantly change world climate
for years.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > . Deep Atlantic seismic activity could produce a tidal wave
that would
> >>> > > > > strike the east coast of the US and make that little
Indonesian thang
> >>> > > > > look like chump change.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > * Then of course is the "big one" (Andreas Fault adjustment)
which is
> >>> > > > > already twenty years overdue and will occur during most
everyone's life time.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > And Asteroid 2004 MN4.  The asteroid
> >>> > > > not only has the potential of minimizing
> >>> > > > the effect of a cat 5 hurricane but may
> >>> > > > eliminate the social security crisis.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > If only it could discriminate between the stupid and bright.  But
wait,
> >>> > > didn't the hurricane do just that.  Seems that all the smart ones
headed
> >>> > > outta town.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > > There is nothing like bad science that feeds multiple
> >>> > > > > industries/bureaucracies to become the lifeblood of liberals
being
> >>> > > > > generally ignorant and reality challenged.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I don't like bad science either.  What are your
> >>> > > > thoughts on evolution and intelligent design?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > First, my initial exposure to bad science was the so called menace
of
> >>> > > the seas, Acanthaster Planci (Crown of Thorns) starfish that was
gonna
> >>> > > kill every coral reef on earth.  Turns out that all that brouhaha
in the
> >>> > > l970 time frame was a cyclical event.  That experience converted
the
> >>> > > last liberal bones in my body to that of an independent thinker.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Regarding intelligent design, bah!  We came out of a soup recipe
that
> >>> > > just happened to perk...
> >>> >
> >>> > Isn't that the Liberal position?
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> No, not if one has worked in the sciences and is well informed.
> >>>
> >>> JT
> >>
> >>So msnbc
> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792302/
> >>is mistaken when it implies that conservatives
> >>back intelligent design.
> >
> >If you presume that MSNBC is wrong on everything they present as fact,
> >you will be right, most of the time.
> >
> >Mike Smith
>
>   Bush did agree that I.D. should be taught in schools
> as an alternative theory!  Unfortunately, Intelligent
> Design isn't a theory at all!  It doesn't qualify as a
> credible, useful or scientific theory,  and therefore
> the teaching of such a subject in schools is a complete
> waste of valuable time and money.  Consider:  What
> could intelligent design predict that would be
> verifiable,  replicable and therefore useful?  The
> answer, of course is NOTHING!!!  That makes it useless
> and a waste of valuable time.  Science teaches us
> things that man can do,  duplicate and use!  It also
> leads us along pathways that aid in the increased
> understanding of our world and the universe in ways
> that allow us to perform and survive.
>
>   Intelligent design does none of these things.  You
> can study it any way you choose for as long as you
> like,  and you will never find any way to produce
> anything,  because not only has none of it been
> observed,  none of these non existent observations will
> ever be available for testing,  let alone for
> replication by independant researchers.  It's just a
> body of unsupportable "lore",  which the advocates hope
> people will take on faith.

If only they would label it as philosophy instead of science, but they can't
be that honest with themselves....

>
>   Obwon
> 0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
>   Liars share with those they deceive
>   the desire not to be deceived.
>                         --Sissela Bok
> 0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0