In article <
[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, 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.
>>> 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.
>>> 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)
>>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. 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'.
>>"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.
>>> 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.
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.
