Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the
And you are ranting. Lying is at least creative.In article <bt4nj2hg7452pfc15b7d76h3c4p6p4n6n5@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:03:45 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...
T Wake wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is
the
basic idea of evolution.
Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.
I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they
had
no
vailidity !
I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."
Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.
Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.
It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."
Yes, all theories are flawed by definition, and the only measure of a theory
is its usefulness--i.e., how well it predicts or explains a certain effect,
combined with how easy it is to use (i.e., simple).
The trouble is, the Creation Science/Intelligent Design people use that
"flawed" to mean "useless", in order to aggrandize their belief system,
which provides complete certainty and Truth, despite being nearly useless in
explaining and predicting natural phenomena.
Eric Lucas
By the standards set for decent scientific theories, evolution has a
long way to go. It's still very fuzzy about explaining and predicting
phenomena. It seems to be the only "science" that, confronted with
true mysteries, seems to accept, and be relieved and satisfied by,
unproven conjecture.
You are lying.
I don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that
You mean more than a nuke?
Stupidly incorrect. Modern Turkey started with Attaturk
Your opinion is distorted.
That would have to be Lutherans. LOL
......distorts as only a Muslim can. LOL
History shows she's right. All through the period beginning
Not at all.
Perhaps you forget that the UK has a state religion.
UK's colonial "corporate culture" remains intact. The US
Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of
The same statement can be made with great validity about any
there is no less or no more added to the reply.
The recession of large scale structures is not a "velocity" in the normal
The standard model doesnt really look at gravity. The standard model looks
No more so than anything else about the universe. Cosmology is fantastic.
But the red shift is dependant on distance from the observer not proximity
The rate is not dependant on the proximity to the wall but the distance from
The bubble can be any shape and this is the case. Unless the bubble is
Yes, yet both are being pulled to the wall with equal force.
Depends on your perspective, accelerated expansion was identified in theDoes this support a Big Bubble universe? Maybe. Off the top of my head I
cant immediately fault it as a theory
---
It's still just a hypothesis.
As are they all. No one _knows_ what happened at t=0.
although the Big Bang is itself a
misnomer and was never meant to imply a huge explosion at the t=0 event.
---
Regardless, the apparent accelerating expansion of our universe
isn't explained by the Big Bang theory, and _can't_ be, unless
gravity is found to be repulsive.
Accelerated expansion is not part of the t=0 theory which became known as
"Big Bang Theory." The Big Bang theory is about what happened at t=0.
---
In the sense that accelerated expansion was discovered quite some
time after the Big Bang hypothesis slipped into theory, you're
right.
I am not sure what big bangers you are talking about here. I certainly do
No it doesn't. The acceleration is a function of distance from observer notSubsequent theories look at the evolution and development of the universe.
That is like saying Boyles Law doesn't explain the accelerated expansion
of
the universe.
---
Well, it doesn't, does it???
---
Gravity does not have to be repulsive to expansion to take place.
---
No, but for _accelerated_ expansion to take place, it does.
One of many options. It has good and bad points. That objects distant from
No, sorry.
You are talking about universal models here. The open universe model does
Like anything. We have to come to assume that the four fundamental forces
Well, unless they have started giving out Bachelor of Electronics, I think
) and people can call them anything they want.Not strange. Separating them is (IMHO) strange. Electronics is a practical
Of what?
Sigh. Re-read my post. The turmoil in central Africa goes back much further
Most of the other sciences produce theories that work quantitatively
What's strange is how pervasive it is. Hardly any hard science
You're applying standards from one science (physics) to another science
Yes, but those things are just the details of how it gets done--the
Why? We've been in a situation for almost 60 years, that electronics can do
Yes, and of course the gear and it's calibration relies on the science in
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45336.aspx
No, it was a survey of deaths.
No, everybody pretty much agrees the violence is much worse now.
Still not equalling 600,000 a year.