Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

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

I believe you're wrong on that as, afaik, the forester is the largest
subaru. But even if you're correct, the legacy would need to be about twice
as large as a forester to come close to comfortable. -Dave

 

Yup, undersized, just like the Avalon. -Dave

 

Mitsubishi Delecia Spacegear 4x4 minvan with turbo Diesel engine

Great! As soon as it's sold on this continent, count me in. -Dave

 

A car or minivan the size of an SUV would be called an SUV...

 

That is a preoblem, too many strident Unions ensuring their members continue
to be employed making substandard over priced re-hashes of '50s mistakes.

GM has some of the finest cars/trucks/pickups in the world, but can't be
persuaded to import them to the US.

Besides which I think the Spacegear is available in LHD in some countries.
you could possibly import a few for personal use under grey import rules.

rhys

 

Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.

And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
creation?

Matt

 

If we only knew for sure how old the ice and peat was...

Matt

 

"comfortable" is relative. The Subarus are built for "average" males (5'9"
give or take). Some people are unnaturally large and need a bigger vehicle
to feel comfortable.

"I believe you're wrong on that"
http://www.audiworld.com/news/01/allroad_xc/content.shtml
"Many have chosen to take a car chassis and build a more sport-ute inspired
design on top as seen with offerings such as the Lexus RX300 (Toyota Camry
platform), Subaru Forrester (Impreza platform),..."

http://www.epinions.com/content_47286488708
"Handling is very car-like as it's based on an Impreza chassis"

There are other sources for this...

 

Approximately 10/24/03 18:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:

With a creature capable of posing this argument as a result, I'd
have to question the actual intelligence of this designer.

 

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.

 

And with a brain that is the result of random evolution, random thoughts
are only likely to result.

Matt

 

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.

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?


Matt

 

Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.

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.

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.

 

Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
evolution. 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.

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

However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
Bell Labs/Lucent.

But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
analysis, dating, etc. 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

Matt

 

I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim to be
a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?

 

"Facts" in the sense of "observable phenomena."

"Throws the monkey into the wrench?" Never mind, I know what you
meant.

Not at all, and there are quite a few of us who regard that as the
most reasonable explanation -- though we recognise that it's a
completely non-scientific proposal (need to avoid the word
"hypothesis" here).

What exactly would that mean? And what would it have to do with any
of the various newsgroups this is cross-posted to?

 

Come on folks....don't take up bandwidth off topic stuff here. Apply it to
JEEPS for godsake! Like as in...the root word of evolution is evolve. Such
as the Wrangler YJ "evolved" from the CJ. Not that the Wrangler was created
as a wrangler..it started as a CJ and back before that and so on. Get it!
Hell I don't even read scientific journals ;-)....cept maybe my subscription
to Discover which is cool.
Allen
CJ7 (evolving from a pile of #!%$^&!)

 

Unfortunately there are no more grey import rules. You can import a vehicle as
is for testing, but have to export or destroy it after two years. You can bring
in a vehicle as is, if you can persuade the DOT that it is of "unique technical
or historical interest" but can only drive it 2500 miles a year and can't resell
it. Or you can import any vehicle as is that is over 25 years old with no
restrictions.

--Aardwolf.

 

Evolution is just that, evolution, from one thing to another. It does
not state how life first got started, it only tries to explain what
occured once it did. How that first one celled organism, what is thought
of as the starting point for evolution started is unknown. Evolution
starts only after life exists. Origin of species, refering to darwin
I suppose, is about how life gets from one form to another.

That's nice piece of faith work. I've seen people write with more
conviction about how the US government is league with the greys.

The bible is simply a collection of stories most with a historical
basis, many of just belief. Practically all with some sort of theme
about how to lead a good life. It too has evolved throughout time.

Yet still we have plants like brocolli.(sp?)

I see alot of denials and trying to claim that there is no way to date
fossils. It is pure idiotcy to claim the earth is 6000 years old.

Here's where it goes wrong:
"UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE"

That's the first line. We know that this is an extremely biased
source that is setting out make everything fit the bible, it is
not objective.

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.

What next? Skip codes?

 

I can say one thing, when I did a search a few years back for the hell
of it, nothing had ever been published in a Journal that was written
by Parker.

While I didn't get author credit, at least one of the projects I worked
on got into a journal. And I do have a patent, a design one, but a patent
none the less. What about you parker? You've got decades of head start
on me......