Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

See? Exactly what I said you'd say.

Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels, it just
*can't* be the higher levels that's causing the current warming.
Science at work.

 

Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
much more.

That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.

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.

No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.

*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
whole or in part)

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. 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'.

No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.

I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
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.

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).

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 the larger size *does* make the SUV safer?

 

Holy crap, the forester is puny. I can't imagine driving a legacy. Think
Pontiac Grand Prix. That's a good starting point. Now think more
oom. -Dave

 

What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
(i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)

 

The forester is SMALLER than the Legacy. The Forester is built on the
Imprezza frame...

 

Well it's not relevant at all, unless you have a family to consider. I know
I sure as heck wouldn't take a road trip in a forester. Not unless I was
masochistic, that is. -Dave

 

I can't speak for him, but I need lots of leg and head room. Jeep
Cherokee,

Well I can speak for him, and I agree with you. I don't think there's a
single Jap car that I'd want to take on a long road trip. All too small,
even the Avalon/Camry. -Dave

 

Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from our

You a family of midgets? -Dave

 

Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a
reply

space.

OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
space for less money than the typical SUV? Oh, and AWD or 4X4, with good
towing capacity. -Dave

 

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. 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.

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.


Matt

 

And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why they
were there?

No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.

The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
happened to them.

Well documented, look it up lazy.
..

Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything. If I were, I would
destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
records, 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.
Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded Liberal.

 

What journals do YOU read Lloyd?

 

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.

What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
the wrench now doesn't it

 

(John Mielke) wrote in

They measured gases frozen in layers of glacial,Arctic,and Anarctic
ice.Drilled core samples,checked the layers.

 

(Brent P) wrote in

Hey,you guys should read Darwin's Radio and the sequel Darwin's Children,by
Greg Bear. Sci-Fi,but very interesting.(they're about evolution)

 

Do you get the Mitsibishi Diamante sedans?
larger than a Ford Mondeo with more leg room.

rhys

 

Mitsubishi Delecia Spacegear 4x4 minvan with turbo Diesel engine

rhys

 

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