Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 13:04 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ehfndt$8qk_013(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <453A5164.754CBC24(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>The survey was to determine death rates from all causes pre and post >>>>>war. Quite simple really. >>>>> >>>>>Pre-war of course there weren't any deaths from either US killings or >>>>>any insurgents. >>>> >>>>And of course you faithfully believe Saddam's historical >>>>records as being accurate and true! Bwahahahahahaha >>> >>>The figures for the pre-war era encountered by the group tally with CIA >>>figures ! >> >>What era? And there aren't death certificates for those >>in hidden mass graves. So any person asked about people >>they know who died couldn't have shown a certificate. >>This person who disappeared could have been reported by >>10 households. Do you not see a problem in collected >>unique datums? >> >>/BAH > > > So if anything, the prewar deaths are over-reported, since you're relying on > people to tell you, and for post-war deaths, you have death certificates. No bannana for this one either. When you have bad data you are not in any position to decide it has some other value that makes it useful. Some deaths are over reported. Others are unreported. Still others are correctly reported. How can you draw any valid conclusions out of such data. You might hazzard a guess, but hazzard is the operative word whenever you try that.
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 13:11 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better >>>be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational >>>sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history >>>of science. >> >>It is not. > > > Yes it is. It the cornerstone for biology, in the way atoms are for > chemistry. > > >>The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and >>especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant. > > > OK, lie #1 > > >>There >>is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution. > > > Lie #2 > > >>Nobody >>actually understands how DNA works. > > > We don't understand quantum theory either, but the sun shines and your > computer works. > > >>Evolution, and especially its >>mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day, >>but not yet. > > > You are lying. > > >>If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're >>right. >> >>John >> >> > > Idiot. Whether or not models are correct is not important to us. What is important that they provide accurately predictive tools for us to use.
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 13:13 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <1161169073.347610.229970(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>>>The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only >>>>the US government knows how to make these things. >>> >>> >>> >>>>They >>>>seem to believe that only the US government can OK >>>>all chemical invoices. >>> >>> >>>>Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again. >>> >>>>Our business and politics do not >>>>work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by >>>>this because their businesses are generally government >>>>controlled. >>> >>>A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic. >> >>Not the labor. Labor is union. >> > > So? Takes both capital and labor to make anything. Besides, you said > "government controlled." > > >>>>and/or union controlled >>> >>>Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what a >>>radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New > > England. > >>>>espeically in the >>>>manufacturing and mining areas. >>>> >>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>> >>>Except start wars. >> >>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. > > > And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. >>That was written that way so that the states didn't war >>among themselves. Disputes are settles in courts of law >>rather than killing fields. The people who met at >>the Constitutional Convention did not want to go through >>the hundreds of years' war that Europe meandered in. >> >> >> >>> >>>>This >>>>is gradually getting destroyed; everytime you hear about >>>>a Supremem Court ruling about the Constitution deals with whether >>>>the states or feds have power. >>>> >>>> >>>>>Buying the bulk reagents from Western sources at high purity allowed >>>>>them to concentrate on the hard part of industrial scale synthesis and >>>>>improved yeilds. >>>> >>>>I understand that. However, that was convenience and it was possible. >>>>What these Europeans (with whom I'm talking) are really saying is >>>>that the US government should take control of all business and >>>>make the decisions of what, who, what and where. IOW, they >>>>want the US to become, not socialist, but communist. >>>> >>> >>>You are a liar. >>> >>> >>>Geez, the "red under every bed" paranoia went out with McCarthy! >> >>Communism is the result of choosing equality for everybody >>in favor of liberty for everybody. >> >>/BAH > > > And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties?
From: lucasea on 23 Oct 2006 13:16 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>>> >>>>Except start wars. >>> >>>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. >> >> And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? > > In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 23 Oct 2006 13:17
On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:54:23 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <bt4nj2hg7452pfc15b7d76h3c4p6p4n6n5(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:03:45 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>news:tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>>> > to >>>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>>>>>> > the >>>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the >>>>>>>> radio >>>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the >>>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> know >>>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they >>>>>>> had >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>>> >>>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>>> >>>>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>> >>>> It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>> quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>> situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>> >>> >>>Yes, all theories are flawed by definition, and the only measure of a theory >>>is its usefulness--i.e., how well it predicts or explains a certain effect, >>>combined with how easy it is to use (i.e., simple). >>> >>>The trouble is, the Creation Science/Intelligent Design people use that >>>"flawed" to mean "useless", in order to aggrandize their belief system, >>>which provides complete certainty and Truth, despite being nearly useless in >>>explaining and predicting natural phenomena. >>> >>>Eric Lucas >>> >> >>By the standards set for decent scientific theories, evolution has a >>long way to go. It's still very fuzzy about explaining and predicting >>phenomena. It seems to be the only "science" that, confronted with >>true mysteries, seems to accept, and be relieved and satisfied by, >>unproven conjecture. >> > >You are lying. > And you are ranting. Lying is at least creative. John |