Which Bob?
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of graywolf
Sent: 14 June 2007 01:02
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Even as simple a search as Wikopedia shows that all
intelligent - such as
some birds, dogs, dolphins, octopuses and so on.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of graywolf
Sent: 14 June 2007 01:49
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Still
it will
be.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom C
Sent: 14 June 2007 00:49
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Go flip a quarter until it comes up heads 100 times in a row.
Then get back
The intelligent design hypothesis has repeatedly tried to hold up
examples of irreducible complexity as signatures of a sentient, and
necessarily divine creator.
One thing they repeatedly fail to take into consideration is that the
precursors of the traits they look at may have evolved for other
The designer was randomly designed?
I'm outa here ;-)
Tim Typo
Mostly Harmless
- Original Message -
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
The intelligent
-
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
The intelligent design hypothesis has repeatedly tried to hold up
examples of irreducible complexity as signatures
Ultimately, the concept of a designer also begs the question of who
designed the designer.
Jostein
That's correct. And I believe we're in an area that we, I at least, am
pretty much unable to comprehend. We're stuck in a What came before that?
loop. Infinity is mind-boggling and for me
I go with Pierre-Simon de Laplace.
Towards the end of the 16th century, Newton had found instabilities in
the planetary orbits, and it was commonly understood that without the
assistance of God, the planets simply weren't able to stay in orbit
for a prolonged time. Laplace proved mathematically
-- Original message --
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. If so, was it caused by 1) something eternal or 2) someone eternal?
Which raises another question. Is there really a difference between something
and someone. Or is the notion of a being just a product
AlunFoto wrote:
The intelligent design hypothesis has repeatedly tried to hold up
examples of irreducible complexity as signatures of a sentient, and
necessarily divine creator.
One thing they repeatedly fail to take into consideration is that the
precursors of the traits they look at may
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. If so, was it caused by 1) something eternal or 2) someone eternal?
Which raises another question. Is there really a difference between
something and someone. Or is the notion of a being just a product of
our being a self-centered, humanoid fixated
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of graywolf
Sent: 14 June 2007 01:02
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Even as simple a search as Wikopedia shows that all this is
still very much in dispute. The final argument seems to be
that one side claims
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:01:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote:
So it seems to boil down to...
1. Did the universe have a beginning?
Yes
2. If so, did that beginning have a cause?
Yes (probably). Call it the rules of time/space
3. If so, was it caused by 1) something eternal or 2) someone
Besides those arguments were developed back when no one understood much in the
way of anatomy and engineering. I remember reading a article by some
engineering students long ago ridiculing the design of the human body. It is a
hodgepodge of good, bad, and ridiculous engineering. If the human
Tom - let me take another bong hit and I'll get back to you on this...
Norm
Tom C wrote:
That's correct. And I believe we're in an area that we, I at least, am
pretty much unable to comprehend. We're stuck in a What came before that?
loop. Infinity is mind-boggling and for me especially so
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:01:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote:
So it seems to boil down to...
1. Did the universe have a beginning?
Yes
2. If so, did that beginning have a cause?
Yes (probably). Call it the rules of time/space
3. If so, was it caused by 1) something
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Besides those arguments were developed back when no one understood much in
the way of anatomy and engineering. I remember reading a article by some
engineering students long ago ridiculing the design of the human body. It
is a hodgepodge of good, bad, and
I did. But on this issue, I'd recommend climbing mount improbable by
the same author. :-)
Jostein
2007/6/14, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
AlunFoto wrote:
The intelligent design hypothesis has repeatedly tried to hold up
examples of irreducible complexity as signatures of a sentient, and
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of graywolf
Sent: 14 June 2007 18:22
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
The one that says there is now only one theory.
--
graywolf
http
, June 14, 2007 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
The one that says there is now only one theory.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Bob W wrote:
Which
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Sustainability is a myth, so far progress has worked much better. (In
fact it's given a lot of people the luxury to worry about the planet,
rather than were their next meal is coming from
At 6:31 PM -0400 6/12/07, Christian wrote:
Tom C wrote:
To turn about face then, and think that these
systems and mechanisms, which has taken individual humans lifetimes, and the
human race, arguably thousands of years to reach the point of beginning to
understand, had no designer...
Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Sustainability is a myth, so far progress has worked much better. (In
fact it's given a lot of people the luxury to worry about the planet,
rather than were their next meal is coming from).
Progress
Some theories are eventually proven to be fact. At one time, the earth was
thought to be round. The ancient Greeks had even estimated it's size, but
with what was known and what could be observed at the time, we would have to
say it was a theory. Today, we have seen it for our selves. It's no
2007/6/12, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
People will believe what they find convenient to believe.
Mark!!
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
by the
end of the last 20th century is now considered an abundant toxic waste,
can you guess which one? (It wasn't part of this bet). Sustainability
assumes no change and everything always changes.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming
Human brain development may well be a runaway evolution process, just
like the tail feathers of paradise birds, reindeer antlers, etc. etc.
Any feature that enhance your probability of reproduction can continue
evolving far beyond mere likelihood of survival.
There's a lot of literature...
by the
end of the last 20th century is now considered an abundant toxic waste,
can you guess which one? (It wasn't part of this bet). Sustainability
assumes no change and everything always changes.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming
On 6/12/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipThe problem with evolution that I see
is that it doesn't favor intelligence, it only favors survival.
snip
...Which is why cockroaches will be here billions of years after our
demise as a species.
However, I don't see that as a problem with
On 6/12/07, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll trust what the scientists say, and you trust what the preachers say, and
we will see which works better. However, I only trust scientists a little
more than I trust preachers. All humans tend to have an agenda they push. One
of the things
2007/6/13, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The biggest problem is overpopulation. The solution is easy.
But I do not see any of the environmentalists here saying they
are willing to kill themselves to help solve it.
wow.
That must be the most massively stupid thing ever written, even on
this list.
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/06/13 Wed PM 01:08:38 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
2007/6/13, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The biggest problem is overpopulation. The solution is easy.
But I do not see any
It's not stupid. It's hyperbole. And it's meant to illustrate the fact that
sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.
Graywolf can be tough and occasionally obnoxious but never stupid.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Never said Tom is stupid. The statement was stupid. It's not the sort
of argument that gets a discussion anywhere but into flamewars.
Jostein
2007/6/13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's not stupid. It's hyperbole. And it's meant to illustrate the fact that
sometimes the cure can be
-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:31:43 -0400
Tom C wrote:
To turn about face then, and think that these
systems and mechanisms, which has taken individual humans
John Forbes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:59:20 +0100, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The major limiter on population growth will be clean water, unless of
course we find an unlimited supply of energy, with enough energy nothing
is impossible.
Ever-lasting life? A cure
On 6/13/07, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ever-lasting life? A cure for cancer? An honest politician?
A Pentax DSLR with an aperture simulator?
;-)
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:59:20 +0100, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The major limiter on population growth will be clean water, unless of
course we find an unlimited supply of energy, with enough energy nothing
is impossible.
Ever-lasting life? A cure for cancer? An honest
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Another fallacy, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but
the reason why Julian L. Simon won his bet with Paul Ehrlich is the same
reason we'll not run out of resources. You can
Yet.
I say this because history has shown me that every time some expert or
pundant says something can't be done, some ingenious fool who was never
educated in the cant's of this world up and does it!
The above is not about the world's resources or any other part of the
discussion. It's about
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Yet.
I say this because history has shown me that every time some expert or
pundant says something can't be done, some ingenious fool who was never
educated in the cant's of this world up
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Another fallacy, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but
the reason why Julian L. Simon won his bet with Paul Ehrlich is the same
reason we'll not run out of resources. You can
That's true, but in hard times, (and there have been a lot of hard
times), something as anti survival as a resource hungry giant brain,
that hasn't yet reached real survival value, (and the brain is very
resource hungry), would be very anti-survival. I don't remember exactly
where I've read
Really? I thought it was amusing!
The only massively stupid things I've ever seen on this list is the
denigration of the ideas of some on this list by others who should be their
colleagues and friends.
Like Jack Nicholson said in Mars Attacks, Can't we all just get along?
Regards,
Bob
John Forbes wrote:
You two should swap names. Christian isn't one, and Thomas has no doubts.
John
funny. oops, I wasn't supposed to be reading this thread... :-)
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I think (may be wrong) that you've temporarily lost the ability to recognize
and appreciate humor, Jostein. Do you really think that Tom was implying
that environmentalists anywhere should consider suicide to help us all out
of some future population bomb?
Relax! The next asteroid the size of
I don't feel comfortable letting Forbes speak for either of us... though I
do appreciate the humor. :-)
Tom C.
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date
List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:29:11 -0400
That's true, but in hard times, (and there have been a lot of hard
times), something as anti survival as a resource hungry giant brain,
that hasn't yet reached real survival value
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Another fallacy, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but
the reason why Julian L. Simon won his bet with Paul Ehrlich is the same
reason we'll not run out
I would be in awe too, but I've never met such a person.
Never the less, that does not negate or diminish what I said.
Another observation I've made (I may be wrong) is that necessity really is
the mother of invention. It may be unfortunate that extreme necessities may
have to come about, but
). Sustainability
assumes no change and everything always changes.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Sustainability is a myth, so far progress has worked much better. (In
fact it's given a lot of people the luxury
IIRC, that was in the hype phase just after the discovery of the
molecular clock in the Y chromosome. Can't find any reference to it
now, except an indirect pointer in the Wikipedia article on population
bottlenecks, where it is stated that the molecular clocks disproves a
bottleneck as tight as
My statement was just a general observation of today's technology.
I'd seriously question if it's worth keeping the option open for
generation of hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water without
utilising plants, though. It would require another energy source,
which again implies that humanity
Please note that your statement would be entirely valid no matter what
we looked like today. :-)
Jostein
2007/6/13, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's not a problem with evolution per se it does make the likely hood of
a creature like ourselves one hell of a lot smaller. I'd almost rather
It's not a problem with evolution per se it does make the likely hood of
a creature like ourselves one hell of a lot smaller. I'd almost rather
believe in space aliens monkeying with our genes than expect us to
appear as we are today.
frank theriault wrote:
On 6/12/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL
was the major limiting factor, bad planning
usually by governments makes that matter worse. But, it seems you like
to throw out nonsense factoids of your own.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Another
It depends on your definition of everlasting life. I expect a cure for
some cancers fairly soon. There have been some, I said impossible not
improbable.
John Forbes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:59:20 +0100, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The major limiter on population
That's not impossible, just improbable.
frank theriault wrote:
On 6/13/07, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ever-lasting life? A cure for cancer? An honest politician?
A Pentax DSLR with an aperture simulator?
;-)
-frank
--
All dogs have four legs; my cat has four
:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Another fallacy, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but
the reason why Julian L. Simon won his bet with Paul Ehrlich is the same
reason we'll not run out of resources. You can
I wasn't speaking so much of physical appearance as our mix of mental
and physical abilities. :-P
AlunFoto wrote:
Please note that your statement would be entirely valid no matter what
we looked like today. :-)
Jostein
2007/6/13, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's not a problem with
.
Feel free to ignore the seeming coincidence.
Tom C.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:29:11 -0400
That's true
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Well, we could kill 2 dinosaurs and wait 200 thousand years.
Actually most petrol seems to be dead veggies. Peat bogs come to mind. But
in the end something else will be cheaper and petrol will become a thing
of the past
the workings of DNA some 50+
years ago, I wouldn't rest my faith on what they think they know right now.
Tom C.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Well, we could kill 2 dinosaurs and wait 200 thousand years.
Has anyone considered cats instead?
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net
Yes, that is about what I thought you would say.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
AlunFoto wrote:
2007/6/13, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The biggest problem is overpopulation. The
YEP!
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
frank theriault wrote:
Skepticism is a good thing. I know that you, more than most, agree
with that statement, Graywolf!!
--
PDML
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Well, we could kill 2 dinosaurs and wait 200 thousand years.
Has anyone considered cats instead?
The resulting plagues would certainly have an effect on the human
population
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Waller
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
He also stated that as the easiest (least costly) to obtain petroleum ran
out, harder to obtain (more expensive processes) became viable.
The easy to pump oil ran out in southern
And a collaterally is that things always change. Unfortunately there are many
folks who a terrified of change and start singing the woes every time it
happens, they are predestined to be very unhappy most of their lives.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
As to petrochemicals, there are alternate solutions for most uses of
them. The alternate solutions are more expensive however, but I expect
they will become more popular as reserves drop
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Some of us are just not as intellegent or articulate as you, Willie. Be
a little more patient with us. Give what we say a little more thought. If
you do, perhaps you can better understand
Isn't it nice to have a predictable debate? :-)
Jostein
2007/6/13, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, that is about what I thought you would say.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Hard to accept that you are not somehow special, isn't it. Personally I believe
random chance over millions of years is the simplest answer.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
P. J.
It is not even proven that Neanderthals were a separate species. They were
almost certainly tool using culture, although there are a few anthropologists
still arguing against that.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
As to petrochemicals, there are alternate solutions for most uses of
them. The alternate solutions are more expensive however, but I expect
they will become more popular
Ah, so the problem is they are not getting what they think is their fair share
of the US Dollars? Always interesting to get some insight to what lays under
the propaganda and rabble rousing.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert
graywolf wrote:
Hard to accept that you are not somehow special, isn't it. Personally I
believe random chance over millions of years is the simplest answer.
Noted British Astonomer Fred Hoyle wrote (note I'm using this as an example
of a noted and respected scientist, not that I agree
HAR!
Regards,
Bob Blakely
-
A mother takes twenty years to make a man of her boy,
and another woman makes a fool of him in twenty minutes.
- Robert Frost
- Original Message -
From: William Robb
warming was: The Nine-spotted
graywolf wrote:
Hard to accept that you are not somehow special, isn't it.
Personally I
believe random chance over millions of years is the simplest
answer.
Noted British Astonomer Fred Hoyle wrote (note I'm using this
as an example
of a noted
now.
Tom C.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:40:54 -0400
Genetic drift puts the event well into prehistory. If I
FYI, Neanderthals are currently classified as homo sapiens. You have to
reference outdated texts to find them classified as Homo Neanderthalis (sp).
Regards,
Bob Blakely
-
A mother takes twenty years to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:54:20 -0400
Thanks for putting a strawman in my mouth, (to totally mix a metaphor).
Since I never said anything like
Therein lies a problem in discussing the subject. Definitions.
Tom C.
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:53:02 +0100
Hoyle
not a
subspecies of H. sapiens, but a distinct species.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bob Blakely
Sent: 13 June 2007 23:53
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
FYI, Neanderthals
-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:53:02 +0100
Hoyle is presenting a false dichotomy in that argument. In essence he
says (in that quote) that life arose either by random
Astronomers do not seem to understand chance, do they. If the chance is a
billion to one, what is the change of it happening in the next iteration?
One in two, no matter what particular iteration it is in, it has as much chance
of happening the next time as it does of not happening. In other
You're right. It's out of date.
Regards,
Bob Blakely
-
A mother takes twenty years to make a man of her boy,
and another woman makes a fool of him in twenty minutes.
- Robert Frost
- Original
Either the models are wrong or there aren't enough millions of years...
graywolf wrote:
Hard to accept that you are not somehow special, isn't it. Personally I
believe random chance over millions of years is the simplest answer.
--
All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs.
Go flip a quarter until it comes up heads 100 times in a row. Then get back
to me on that. ;-)
Tom C.
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13
was random chance then he clearly didn't understand
evolution.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom C
Sent: 13 June 2007 23:33
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
graywolf wrote:
Hard
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bob Blakely
Sent: 13 June 2007 23:53
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
FYI, Neanderthals are currently classified as homo sapiens.
You have to
reference outdated texts
Even as simple a search as Wikopedia shows that all this is still very much in
dispute. The final argument seems to be that one side claims there was
interbreeding and the other side says that was impossible because of DNA
evidence, to which the other replies the samples were inadequate to
graywolf wrote:
Ah, so the problem is they are not getting what they think is their fair
share of the US Dollars? Always interesting to get some insight to what lays
under the propaganda and rabble rousing.
Not exactly. The US and Libya have disliked each other since the late
18th
Sent: 13 June 2007 23:33
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
graywolf wrote:
Hard to accept that you are not somehow special, isn't it.
Personally I
believe random chance over millions of years is the simplest
answer.
Noted British Astonomer Fred Hoyle
: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:44:15 -0400
Astronomers do not seem to understand chance, do they. If the chance is a
billion to one, what is the change of it happening in the next iteration?
One in two, no matter what particular iteration it is in, it has
warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:44:15 -0400
Astronomers do not seem to understand chance, do they. If the chance
is a billion to one, what is the change of it happening in the next
iteration?
One in two, no matter what particular iteration it is in, it has as
much
In a message dated 6/13/2007 9:58:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm completely in awe of people who presume that someone will invent a
parachute after they've fallen off the cliff but before they hit the
ground..
William Robb
==
Mark!
Marnie aka Doe
exists, has not done that.
Tom C.
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:06:15 -0400
Einstein very much believed in intelligent design
pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:09:55 -0400
How about I flip a quarter a hundred times and it comes up heads once? That
is all that is needed. You apparently do not understand random chance any
PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:44:15 -0400
Astronomers do not seem to understand chance, do they. If the chance
is a billion to one, what is the change
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
