In article <
[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>
> I cited one property that proves relativity.
ONE ASPECT OF. It's like you saying the ABS works because the rear drums
slow the car. Connected, but one aspect of the system working doesn't
make the whole system work.
Plus, you don't seem to understand that theories like relativity and
alot of the equations used are descriptive of what occurs.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
>>in your initial and followup statements.
> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
is not a fact in and of itself.
Some google search results for you parker:
http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
>>>>>>> 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."
>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
> You, sir, are lying.
*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
>>>>>>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.
>>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>>warming, you and others would ream that person a new asshole and say he
>>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
No response from parker.
>>>>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.
>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>make everything fit the bible.
> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
know what I am saying is true. Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
all over them as 'conservative corporate whores' or try to scramble and
say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
warming. It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
and it is amusing.
>>>>>>"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.
>>Theory != fact,
> yes it is. Try learning some science.
I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
sue for damages.
Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
From the last one:
"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
test, their confidence increases."
You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
>>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
> Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
I know it very well. You don't. See above.
>>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>>on what measures you use.
> Wrong. You need to look at the data.
Read: "only look at the data that supports parker's beliefs"
I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
that needs to learn some science.
>>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
>>> stupidity.
>>Hey you ****ing moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>>you haven't published jack ****, right parker?
> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
are.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
>>then you're too stupid to even use google.
>>>>> 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?
>>Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
>>beat your wife?
>>Is that the kind of lame bull**** you want to play with parker? I can play
>>that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
>>> Try learning some science.
>>I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.
> Yeah, sure. Not if you believe evolution isn't factual. You're just another
> creationist, pretending to be a scientist.
Do you even read posts before spewing that crap? You even replied to one
of my posts with regards to evolution in this thread with agreement. And
btw, I don't prentend to be a scientist, that's your act. I simply know
more about science than you do.
