Trucks don't generally handle "poorly"..... however, they do handle like
trucks. This is not a really well kept secret - well not if we actually
stayed awake in school.


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcbc1a36fe269a989e29@news.eastlink.ca...
> In article <l6j4pvoqdoe3n193jjjiqvrj2fm4om3vau@4ax.com>,
> whineryy@yifan.net says...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
> > >whineryy@yifan.net says...
> > >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> > >> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> > >> >boasts about.
> > >>
> > >> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles
well for
> > >> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove
would
> > >> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of
a
> > >> similar price point.
> > >>
> > >Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
> >
> > That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
> >
> > Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
> >
> > Marc
> > For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> >
>
> Next time you might not want to say "would actually beat a LARGE number
> of cars" when trying to make a point about the poor handling of trucks.
> You might come off looking like an idiot or something.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.

There is no misquoting. I too quoted the actual stats, but I was
comparing cars to SUVs only, because this is the choice that most
people make when buying a vehicle. Also almost everybody believes that
SUVs are inherently safer than cars, which makes the comparison of the
real-world behavior of these two types of vehicle especially relevant.
Bringing into the discussion other types of vehicle such as pick-up
trucks only confuses an already bewildering situation.

The NHTSA study proves that on average heavier vehicles are safer in
the sense that your are less likely to be killed in a heavy vehicle as
compared to a lighter vehicle.

It also shows that, despite of this, you are more likely to be killed
in a SUV than in a car of slightly less or even considerable less
weight: small and mid-size SUVs are less safe than mid-size cars (even
though mid-size cars weight less), large SUVs are less safe than large
cars (even though large cars weight less). In fact even when comparing
SUVs to SUVs, weight is not always an advantage as small and more car
like SUVs are safer than heavier mid-size SUVs (see bellow for model
list). All of this makes it pretty clear that there is a safety
problem with the SUV design itself (other posters have argued that the
main disadvantage is their relatively high center of gravity).

In other words, weight confers a safety advantage but the SUV design
more than offsets this advantage. These are the facts, let's get over
them and stop blowing smoke.

Now, as automakers make a lot more on SUVs than on cars it follows
that for any budget, as far as safety is concerned, you are better off
buying a car than a SUV. There is nothing actually wrong with buying
a SUV as long as you need their special capabilities (off-roading or
towing) and as long as you know that they are not really safer.

How you drive is even more important than the inherent safety of a
vehicle. If I were to drive a SUV I would be extra careful
particularly where SUVs are especially unsafe such as risking a
roll-over (when making a sharp turn or driving over an obstacle at
high speed) or hitting a solid barrier.

PS. Here is the list of small and mid-size SUVs in the NHTSA study
(they only considered 4-door models). It is rather surprising that on
average small SUVs turned out to be safer that mid-size ones. If you
need off-roading and some towing capability you are safer buying a
small SUV.

Small SUVs: Jeep Cherokee; Chevrolet/Geo Tracker; Subaru Forester;
Toyota RAV4; Suzuki Sidekick, X-90, Vitara, Grand Vitara; Honda CR-V,
Kia Sportaga.

Mid-Size SUVs: Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford Explorer, Mercury
Mountaineer, Chevrolet S/T Blazer, GMC Jimmy, Oldsmobile Bravada,
Nissan Pathfinder, Isuzu Rodeo, Toyota 4Runner, Mitsubhish Montero,
Honda Passport, Lexus RX300, Infinity QX4.

BTW between small SUVs, Subaru Forester appears to be the safest. See:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_smsuv_overall.htm

Beware: these lists include all models in each category. One category
may be safer than another but this does not mean that each model in
one category is safer than each vehicle in the other category. For
safety rating of specific models visit sites such as and www.iihs.org
and www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP

"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote in message news:<bn3ev0$bip$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> Oh, I was not surprised at all that the stats were misquoted...
>
> My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
> prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
> quoted bear that out quite well...
>
> Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
>
>
> "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca...
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com>,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> > > You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> > > detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> > > on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> > > real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> > > died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> > > passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> > >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
> > --
> > ____________________
> > Remove "X" from email address to reply.

"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.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9AD15B.5020308@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>>>
>>>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>>>
>>>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>>>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>>>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>>>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>>>etc etc...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
>>know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
>>circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
>>reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
>>scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
>>about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.
>
>
> It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
> you take appear out of context.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Matt

Jim Warman wrote:
> All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
> to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
> the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
> damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
> higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
> outlets.... the list goes on.
>
> I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
> indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
> RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
> HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
> for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
> are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
> Nova Scotia than here in oil country.
>
> Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
> an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
> $80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
> emissions, I will always view it "in context".

Just make sure she understands the difference between feeling safe and
being safe. Minivans are much safer according to almost every statistic
I've seen.


Matt

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> "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.

I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:

1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
being created from fundamental constituents.
2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
to admit that.

At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.


> 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.

Again, I basically agree with you.


> Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.

Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ... assuming you
stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
extrapolate to parts unknown.


> And we are very much off topic here.

Yep.


Matt

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:17:39 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:

>What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
>Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?

A Scientologist?

--
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>,
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) 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.
>>
>>
>>>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?

We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.

>(i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)
>
>

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 <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 <0j4jpv86af0sqfa8dr3u9lhgrtu354oavh@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:05:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>>>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>>>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>>>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>>>
>>>Mercedes C class = 52
>>>Volvo 850 - 39
>>>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>>>
>>Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than
an
>>S-class.
>
>The the larger size *does* make the SUV safer?
>
Apples should not be compared to oranges.

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 <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 <bNgmb.890$RQ1.297@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a
>reply
>> >here) -Dave
>> >
>> >
>> Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo
>space.
>
>OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
>space for less money than the typical SUV?

Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much seating
or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.


> Oh, and AWD or 4X4,

Town & Country, Caravan, Sienna.


>with good
>towing capacity. -Dave
>

Why, for that one day you might have to tow a house?

>

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.com...
>>
>>>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.

In article <3F99E3DC.2060800@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>facts and others.
>>>
>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>
>Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
>field/theory deals with the origin of the species then?

Evolution. That's different from the origin of LIFE. That's perhaps
cosmology, or a similar field.


>If you ask most
>people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
>evolution.

Because strict creationists insist God made all life exactly as it is today.


>Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
>species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
>isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.
>
>
>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>should allow this to happen, right?
>>
>>
>> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.
>
>Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
>interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
>good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
>both creationists and evolutionists.
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but quoting unscientific web sites just makes you
look stupid.

>
>However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.

There's a giant conspiracy involving every biologist, every chemist, every
anthropologist? X-Files time!

>There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
>Bell Labs/Lucent.
>
>
>> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.
>
>But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
>analysis, dating, etc.

Yes, but when so many facts keep piling up, only a fool keeps denying them.


>Check out these links if you'd like to see just
>some of the issues.
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
>

Check out a biology textbook.

>Matt
>

In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:

>>
>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>
>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>

Sorry, radioactive dating is quite accurate.

>Matt
>

In article <3F9BC391.3070304@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "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.
>
>I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:
>
>1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
>being created from fundamental constituents.

The first life got started, then evolution took over. How the first life got
started is paleochemistry, or maybe cosmology, or some. It does have
scientific basis, but it's not really evolution.

>2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
>to admit that.

Scientific fact is. Theories are subject to refutation and modification.

>
>At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
>significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
>any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
>based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.

No, you're just too dumb to understand what science is.

>
>
>> 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.
>
>Again, I basically agree with you.
>
>
>> Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.
>
>Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
>to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..

100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood that
covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?


> assuming you
>stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
>extrapolate to parts unknown.
>
>
>> And we are very much off topic here.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>Matt
>