> Dino wrote:
> "Because they're always out to get me. always.
That is true.
> my foil hat they're trying to brainwash me into buying an Audi
Well, you could a lot worse than an Audi.
BTW, I hate to fuel your paranoia but as I'm writing this MSNBC has just showed:
1.) A girl who died from a sw
"Because they're always out to get me. always. every time I read a paper
they're beaming their media rays into my head. Every time I go out without
my foil hat they're trying to brainwash me into buying an Audi or getting a
soy cafe late grande with a twist of guava. They're always out there.
a
> Dino wrote:
> them. Be just a little paranoid that there are people out there looking to
> trick and manipulate you.
But if they did, how would you know?
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hi
I judge the NY Times as unreliable for not seeing the problem in the first
place. They have layers of editors and checkers for this type of stuff. I
assume that this went through these layers without comment. As for the blog,
I'm only judging them for and on this single article/issue and only ba
I give the blog credit for the update. I don't remember the caption, to be
honest. But why does the update make the blog reliable, and not the NYT? Not
that I am especially defending the NYT; I think they are not very objective
lately, but not, I think, for the same reasons as you.
On 8/10/06, Mic
So I don't know if this has gone through before, but here is some video
from a German TV news report regarding the now famous Green Helmet guy;
including images of him doing the same thing some 10 years ago.
http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/10/1884
I like the part where he makes it look like he is
Lets assume that the blog is not reliable. All we have to do is check their
data to judge for ourselves. Is the guy alive in the first shots? Yes. If he
shown laying down with his hat between his arm and body? Yes. Does the
caption totally imply that he's a dead body? I'd say so.
But the point i
ok, I realize that you guys have already been at this for a couple of days,
but how reliable is the blog, first of all?
On 8/9/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those who say that investigative reporting takes a lot of time and
> money, just look what amateurs in the blogosph
> Gruss wrote:
> > That's a good point, but I'll still ask where the fault is. There are
> > a few candidates:
> >
> > (1.) The photographer. Here are possible motives:
> > 1.1) I'm too scared to go where the action is but I need product ...
> > 1.2) I need something big to make the nex
> Gruss wrote:
> That's a good point, but I'll still ask where the fault is. There are
> a few candidates:
>
> (1.) The photographer. Here are possible motives:
> 1.1) I'm too scared to go where the action is but I need product ...
> 1.2) I need something big to make the next career st
> RoMunn wrote:
> The photo and the accompanying caption attempt to appeal to the
> gut emotions of the viewer and convince them emotionally that Hezbollah is
> fighting a just war of defense against Israeli aggression.
>
That's a good point, but I'll still ask where the fault is. There are
a few
It's not my logicit's the logic of "the people". You speak as if the
American public is rational...it aint.
On 8/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > gMoney wrote:
> > But for every 2 that get caught, the concern is "how many more get
> through
> > undetected?"
> >
>
> Well, if we
bs. Look at the photo and the caption and take it in the context of the
gallery it was a part of on nytimes.com. The photog and the editor, and by
extension the publisher, are trying to tell a story about what is happening
in Lebanon. The photo and the accompanying caption attempt to appeal to the
rying to make Israel look bad, worse than anything that
they are actually doing.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:30 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: here we go again - media manipulation
>
> &
> gMoney wrote:
> But for every 2 that get caught, the concern is "how many more get through
> undetected?"
>
Well, if we use your logic, let's define "the media" and then ask how
many they get right vs. wrong. My contention is the percentage of
intentional fraud would be minuscule and the percen
But for every 2 that get caught, the concern is "how many more get through
undetected?"
Does the appearance of a couple of doctored photos render the entire media
blameful? No. But do they go a long way in hurting the credibilty of ALL
media with the public? Absolutely.
On 8/9/06, Gruss Gott <[E
> Dino wrote:
> For those who say that investigative reporting takes a lot of time and money,
> just look what amateurs in the blogosphere can find if they just look.
I'd point out that we have no idea what the photo shows - it's
certainly no proof of staging. The guy could've been screwing arou
This is getting out of hand.
On 8/9/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For those who say that investigative reporting takes a lot of time and
> money, just look what amateurs in the blogosphere can find if they just
> look.
>
> http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-york-ti
Classic. Message to the media: you can try to hide the truth, but the
bloggers will find it.
On 8/9/06, Michael wrote:
>
> For those who say that investigative reporting takes a lot of time and
> money, just look what amateurs in the blogosphere can find if they just
> look.
>
> http://gatewaypund
For those who say that investigative reporting takes a lot of time and money,
just look what amateurs in the blogosphere can find if they just look.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-york-times-busted-in-hezbollah.html
The NYTimes put this series of pictures up and either they are tot
> gMoney wrote:
> tA better term might
> be "propagation" of the fittest.
>
That's what I think of when I look at this chart:
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
To me it says that some line of Homo Egaster spawed 3 different races:
1.) Homo Erectus (who discovered fire),
2.) Homo Heidelb
But the theory states that those small changes help choose which species
survive. As the changes that prove beneficial become traits of the species,
that species "evolves"...hence survival of the fittest. A better term might
be "propagation" of the fittest.
> The Theory of Evolution does not s
The Theory of Evolution does not speak to the survival of the fittest,
or more correctly, natural selection.
Evolution only deals with small changes over time.
On 5/8/06, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, survival of the fittest?
>
~~~
> Matt wrote:
> Um, survival of the fittest?
>
Well, this really means the economically fittest - ironically.
There's such a thing as a "war chest" and unless you have a big one
that means you can't wage war too long.
In order to get enough disposable capital to wage war you either have
to have
Um, survival of the fittest?
- Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Jerry Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Ah, Jeez, Here We Go Again ...
> Um... not even close?
>
> On 5/4/06, Ches
Um... not even close?
On 5/4/06, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't this
> what evolution is all about anyway?
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:206275
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.co
What a great song :)
On 5/5/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
> "The meek shall inherit the Earth
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:206244
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription:
> Viv wrote:
> Their social structure, their adherence to peaceful values, and their
> tolerance of the differences between the members of the tribe,
"The meek shall inherit the Earth? That's ok, we'll just beat them up
and take it back."
~
Sure, there is more to civilization than military might, but great
civilizations have always contributed across the spectrum. The Chinese
invented gunpowder and cannons, but they also invented kites, acupuncture,
and many other things.
The Roman Empire conquered all of Europe with military might,
2006 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Ah, Jeez, Here We Go Again ...
> Culturally?
> Try the Amerindian tribes living in Trinidad.
>
> Their social structure, their adherence to peaceful values, and their
> tolerance of the differences between the members of the tribe, oneness
> with thei
Culturally?
Try the Amerindian tribes living in Trinidad.
Their social structure, their adherence to peaceful values, and their
tolerance of the differences between the members of the tribe, oneness
with their environment has yet to be matched by either US culture or
Spanish.They also mirrored som
But it's in the past and immutable, which I think was his point. We can only
learn from it, we can't change it.
If anyone could learn from this lesson today, it would be the African Union
and the UN, which have stood by while millions of people have been
slaughtered in civil wars in Africa over th
That's just details. The Inca could have wiped out Pizarro's party and they
still, over time, would have been subjugated because they lacked the
military technology and might of the Spanish empire. This story is repeated,
all over the world, all throughout history.
The Mulsim Caliphates of the Mid
rom: "Zaphod Beeblebrox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community"
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 2:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Ah, Jeez, Here We Go Again ...
>
>
> > okay, that's a little bit of revisionist history there. Pizarro had a
> > handful of m
est of eternity. Isn't this
what evolution is all about anyway?
- Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Zaphod Beeblebrox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Ah, Jeez, Here We Go Again ...
> okay, that'
okay, that's a little bit of revisionist history there. Pizarro had a
handful of men (maybe a couple hundred) The Inca had an army of over
30,000. If the Inca had wanted to, they could have wiped out Pizarro. They
fought according to their rules and not the spaniards which included that
when yo
I'm not endorsing the waves of genocide that occurred when the Europeans
colonized the Americas, but your little tirade fails to recognize that the
Mesoamerican civilizations regularly fought and slaughtered each other, as
did the Europeans internally, as did the civilizations of the Middle East,
A
Which culture was more advanced and developed at the time Spain arrived in
south and central America? Which one Gellie, come on man. YOu really have
gone off the deep end.
On 5/4/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Look, that way of thinking is utter and complete BS.
>
> It is the same, exa
> Look, that way of thinking is utter and complete BS.
My thinking that countries should be free to forge their own destinies
instead of under empirical rule...is complete BS?
>
> On 5/4/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Regardless of Gel's hyperbolic outburst, I think there's a good point
>
Look, that way of thinking is utter and complete BS.
It is the same, exact thinking of the Christian Missionaries that
slaughtered millions of native americans in the United States, that
enslaved and degraded an entire people in the Caribbean Islands
because they needed to be shown the way to do t
> Regardless of Gel's hyperbolic outburst, I think there's a good point
> there best articulated by RoMunn - on the whole, imperialism seems
> have, in the end, helped many countries emerge from 3rd world status.
But we all know that the end doesn't justify the means. Many countries have
suffered
> gMoney wrote:
> You should print out a copy of this email and attach it to your application
> for admittance to Belleview...
>
Regardless of Gel's hyperbolic outburst, I think there's a good point
there best articulated by RoMunn - on the whole, imperialism seems
have, in the end, helped man
Yes massawe will commit ourselves to Belleview...trust in massa
that this is what is good for us.
On 5/4/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should print out a copy of this email and attach it to your application
> for admittance to Belleview...
~~~
> Some MPD sufferer wrote:
> Lol! You think that's what he meant?
>
> Sorry I only have this to go by:
> "You'll have a person
> like Gel rally against US imperialism - maybe justifiably. But you
> have to wonder if there isn't benefit to it."
>
> So..
>
> o/ I WANNA be a Cooowwwboooyyy!!
> With t
On 5/3/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> o/ I WANNA be a Cooowwwboooyyy!!
> With the top let back and the sunshine shining!!
Vivec is a cowboy. Do you have a cowboy hat?
-Cameron
PS: y-haw
~|
Message: http://www.house
> RoMunn wrote:
> The places colonized by
> Spain (and throw Portugal in there)- most of Latin America, the Phillipines-
> followed a more Catholic/monarchist imperialist path, and they are not
> generally as developed, stable, or prosperous as the original British
> colonies.
>
[actually replying
Lol! You think that's what he meant?
Sorry I only have this to go by:
"You'll have a person
like Gel rally against US imperialism - maybe justifiably. But you
have to wonder if there isn't benefit to it."
So..
o/ I WANNA be a Cooowwwboooyyy!!
With the top let back and the sunshine shining!!
COW
Gruss can speak for himself, but his comments seem to be directed at
imperialism generally and not the US specifically. I would actually trace it
back to European imperialism starting in the 16th century. This is a very
large generalization, but here goes: the places colonized by Britain- Canada
(e
*smirk*
And who ruled the US to show them how it was done?
Or is it only Americans and Protestant Extremists kicked out of Europe
that are allowed to struggle and find their way to prosperity?
Other races and peoples just aren't good enough huh.
They need to be ruled with an iron fist, and shown
ay 03, 2006 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Ah, Jeez, Here We Go Again ...
> I'll give you ten bucks if this move actually improves their economy.
>
> Ask yourself this one question. Why is it that many of the most
> resource-rich nations on the planet- especially resource-rich in oi
I'll give you ten bucks if this move actually improves their economy.
Ask yourself this one question. Why is it that many of the most
resource-rich nations on the planet- especially resource-rich in oil and
gas- have had some of the most screwed-up, corrupt, repressive regimes in
human history? Wh
d be much better off.
Like those Mid-East countries.
- Matt
- Original Message -
From: "G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Ah, Jeez, Here We Go Again ...
> I'm all for leaving them to their ow
> RoMunn wrote:
> I don't think anyone is suggesting doing anything other than leaving them to
> their own devices. It's just sad to see yet another doomed experiment in
> Communist economics.
>
This is what makes me wonder about imperialism. You'll have a person
like Gel rally against US imperia
I don't think anyone is suggesting doing anything other than leaving them to
their own devices. It's just sad to see yet another doomed experiment in
Communist economics.
On 5/3/06, Bram wrote:
>
> My point being they elected this guy, they know what they are getting, he
> is
> not planning/threat
I'm all for leaving them to their own devices. But it's still a bad, bad
idea.
> My point being they elected this guy, they know what they are getting, he
> is
> not planning/threatening to invade other countries that I know of so leave
> them to their own devices.
~~
My point being they elected this guy, they know what they are getting, he is
not planning/threatening to invade other countries that I know of so leave
them to their own devices.
On 5/3/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So because they are poor, they should support something that not only
> gua
So because they are poor, they should support something that not only
guarantees they will remain that way, but just might bring the rest of the
country down to their level?
> So what, this is what he was elected to do. His majority of support comes
> from Bolivian peasants who have been agains
So what, this is what he was elected to do. His majority of support comes
from Bolivian peasants who have been against private ownership of Bolivia's
resources for some time. And if it fucks up well they will be no worse off
(really poor and treated like dirt) than they were before.
On 5/3/06, V
The companies themselves are waiting on a further explanation of the
new rules and requirements for them to operate. Apparently they are
unaware of the details.
http://tinyurl.com/oh8dc
[[The Government aims to study the impact of the nationalization of
Bolivia's oil and gas industry on investmen
So stupid. Bolivia is already the poorest country in South America. So now
he seizes oil fields and pisses off his big neighbor, Brazil, whose
state-owned oil company has a big stake in Bolivia, and which is a major
customer for Bolivian gas. Total bonehead move brought on by well
intentioned but w
Don't worry guys, he knows were spread thin in the middle east, or he
wouldn't be trying any of this.
The way I see it, it'll be that much funnier when it's his own people
dragging his corpse through the streets in a few years, rather than him in
US Army custody.
On 5/2/06, William Bowen <[EMAIL
> "Troops Deployed In Move to Block Foreign Influence"
You know, I don't think we ever got payback for what the Bolivian Army
did to Butch and Sundance!
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
Just waiting for Gel to tell us this is a GOOD thing
> "Troops Deployed In Move to Block Foreign Influence"
>
> Oh goody.
>
> On 5/2/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
>>
>> Bolivian President Seizes Gas Industry
>> Troops Deployed In Move to Block Foreign Influence
>>
>> By Monte Reel and Steven Mufs
"Troops Deployed In Move to Block Foreign Influence"
Oh goody.
On 5/2/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Bolivian President Seizes Gas Industry
> Troops Deployed In Move to Block Foreign Influence
>
> By Monte Reel and Steven Mufson
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Tuesday, May 2, 2006; Page A01
>
> CA
Bolivian President Seizes Gas Industry
Troops Deployed In Move to Block Foreign Influence
By Monte Reel and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 2, 2006; Page A01
CARACAS, Venezuela, May 1 -- Bolivian President Evo Morales seized
control of the country's natural gas industry
ttack science.
> - Original Message -
> From: Michael Dinowitz
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:39 PM
> Subject: RE: Here we go again
>
> No, it shouldn't. A proper science class will explain the scientific method
> and
ty
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: Here we go again
No, it shouldn't. A proper science class will explain the scientific method
and then deal with science. The problem is that science is being used as a
hammer to beat those who believe in God by saying th
ntent of a concept.
>From: Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Here we go again
>Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:36:11 -0400
>
>This is kinda funny, maybe this what sparked this whole debate, I du
> From: Michael Dinowitz
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:19 PM
> Subject: RE: Here we go again
>
> I really havn't read most of the discussion, but yes, testing for the
> existance of God is outside the realm of science.
>
>
- Original Message -
From: Michael Dinowitz
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: Here we go again
I really havn't read most of the discussion, but yes, testing for the
existance of God is outside the realm of science.
_
a public science classroom.
>
>Wowwe've finally come full circle :)
> - Original Message -
> From: Michael Dinowitz
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:19 PM
> Subject: RE: Here we go again
>
> I really havn't
And thus...shouldn't be taught in a public science classroom.
Wowwe've finally come full circle :)
- Original Message -
From: Michael Dinowitz
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: Here we go again
I really havn'
I really havn't read most of the discussion, but yes, testing for the
existance of God is outside the realm of science.
_
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 3:07 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Here we go again
sounds like a
sounds like a good summation of the discussion to me.
To add one point though,
Ergo it is not within the realm of Science therefore not a topic of
scientific investigation.
larry
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:57:23 -0400, Michael Dinowitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1.The existence of God is a perso
1.The existence of God is a personal issue that is verified (on a per person
basis) based on anecdotal evidence. I know that God exists due to the
evidence, but I could not prove it to others as the evidence is mainly
personal and has no meaning to others.
2. You can never 100% prove a scientific
Great debate, I just consciously made that decision myself. I must say
that I have learned a lot of stuff
Ray
At 02:36 PM 9/29/2004, you wrote:
>You know what. I realized that I just go so engrossed in this subject. I
>must have just flooded everyone's mail box.
>I will gracefully end any
The most fundamental point to me seems that if a person put the mind
to it and had the time, they could research, test, and prove the
scientific theories. On the other hand, no matter how much time,
work, or research you put into it, you'd not be able to prove there
is/isn't a god. That's where
Better set aside another two weeks then :)
- Original Message -
From: Michael Dinowitz
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: RE: Here we go again
I'll have to get back to this thread some time in 2 weeks (holiday
tonight for 2
You seem to be missing a very important point. Data. The data has to
support the conclusions before any tenative acceptance of that model
is made.
larry
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:32:40 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 14:21 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >If the data adequately supporte
Mike D is wy behind on emails due to holiday and work. If I wasn't, then
HoF would be running in Blackstone now, the new ability to search by poster
name would be live (it's written mostly) and I'd be up to date on the gmail
requests. I'll have to get back to this thread some time in 2 weeks (h
You know what. I realized that I just go so engrossed in this subject. I
must have just flooded everyone's mail box.
I will gracefully end any more public discussion of this topic. Although
it may be a tad late for that. I really enjoyed this topic and I hope I
didn't offend anyone. I have
At 14:21 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>If the data adequately supported the conclusions, and were considered
>to do so by the relevant scientific community, then I would
>tentatively accept the conclusions. The watchword is tentatively.
>Otherwise I freely admit it would be beyond me and goes into t
>As for people's individual relationships to science, you are correct
>to a point. As Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
>indistinguishable from magic." And the clever corollary from someone
>else: "Any technology that does not appear magical is insufficiently
>advanced."
>
>The
At 13:53 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Well, I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree - sort of. I see where
>you're coming from when you say that you and I are not able to prove these
>Laws ourselves. But what I am trying to get across is that the scientific
>community holds themselves to a s
If the data adequately supported the conclusions, and were considered
to do so by the relevant scientific community, then I would
tentatively accept the conclusions. The watchword is tentatively.
Otherwise I freely admit it would be beyond me and goes into the realm
of Don't Know.
larry
On Wed, 2
At 14:00 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>When I reach that point you refer to I educate myself until such a
>point that I cannot go any further and recognize it. For those other
>fields, I do recognize that they are not my area, so my comments are
>not necessarily valid.
Doesn't matter if your comme
When I reach that point you refer to I educate myself until such a
point that I cannot go any further and recognize it. For those other
fields, I do recognize that they are not my area, so my comments are
not necessarily valid.
One of Clarke's Laws of Science apply here, When a scientist is
speak
IMO, you're confusing the observation of a process (evolution) with a
causative agent (god).
As for people's individual relationships to science, you are correct
to a point. As Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." And the clever corollary from someon
Well, I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree - sort of. I see where
you're coming from when you say that you and I are not able to prove these
Laws ourselves. But what I am trying to get across is that the scientific
community holds themselves to a standard that when a Law is proven as s
At 13:32 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm not sure that "we're" trying to verify that it's "true" although you may
>be. ;^)
>
>
>
>Asking "what is truth" is a rather dead-end question that, as you're
>pointing out, prevents any intelligent conclusions. Science really doesn't
>deal with "truth" as
I'm not sure that "we're" trying to verify that it's "true" although you may
be. ;^)
Asking "what is truth" is a rather dead-end question that, as you're
pointing out, prevents any intelligent conclusions. Science really doesn't
deal with "truth" as it doesn't deal with many abstract topics. Sc
At 13:23 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:49:41 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 12:41 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > While I'm not saying that it is the same or it isn't, I'm curious what you
> > think is the difference between taking the word of a scientist a
At 13:15 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Because it has been proven using basic/advanced mathematics and physics
>facts, which were proved from the fundamentals of mathematics and
>fundamentals of physics. Math (of which physics are derived) started off
>by proving the most fundamental things, such a
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:49:41 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:41 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> While I'm not saying that it is the same or it isn't, I'm curious what you
> think is the difference between taking the word of a scientist and taking
> the word of some religious text i
At 13:15 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>As a nit pick here, Evolution has more support than almost every other
>scientific law, except for gravity. It has been held to a higher
>standard for good reason.
>
>The problem I see occurring here is how the word Theory is defined.
>
>In North America Theory
.
- Original Message -
From: Jim Davis
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: Here we go again
I think one issue is bubbling to the surface here.
In these arguments Won is arguing from the point of view of a single
individual. His
Because it has been proven using basic/advanced mathematics and physics
facts, which were proved from the fundamentals of mathematics and
fundamentals of physics. Math (of which physics are derived) started off
by proving the most fundamental things, such as 1+1=2, etc. All subsequent
laws we
As a nit pick here, Evolution has more support than almost every other
scientific law, except for gravity. It has been held to a higher
standard for good reason.
The problem I see occurring here is how the word Theory is defined.
In North America Theory means a proposition, or something slightly
At 12:53 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>I think one issue is bubbling to the surface here.
>
>
>
>In these arguments Won is arguing from the point of view of a single
>individual. His arguments are correct from that perspective. However
>others arguing with him (myself included) are using the same
At 12:44 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>I guess, then, I'm at a loss for what your point is. ;^)
>
>
>
>I agree that one needs to have faith (although "trust" is, I think, a better
>word) in others when they've not the capacity or the time to "figger thangs
>out". However I can point to people, act
1 - 100 of 260 matches
Mail list logo
