Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Science Once Taught That the 4 Elements Were Earth Wind Fire & Water
56 views
Skip to first unread message
Bret Cahill
Oct 9, 2012, 11:53:52 PM10/9/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >evolution a "religion."
> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> of a static universe which is wrong!
Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
They were wrong.
Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
Bret Cahill
> >evolution a "religion."
> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> of a static universe which is wrong!
Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
They were wrong.
Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
Bret Cahill
Tunderbar
Oct 10, 2012, 12:05:27 AM10/10/12
to
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 12:09:51 AM10/10/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> > > >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> > They were wrong.
>
> > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> > They were wrong.
>
> > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> ya still got nuthin'......
It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
polonium.
And then report back to us with the results.
As always don't mention my name.
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 10, 2012, 10:37:03 AM10/10/12
to
On 10/10/2012 12:09 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>>>>> evolution a "religion."
>>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
>>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>>
>>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
>>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>>
>>> They were wrong.
>>
>>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
>>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>
>> ya still got nuthin'......
>
> It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
> have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
> polonium.
In a previous post you libs say that "you" do have to prove that it's
>>>>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>>>>> evolution a "religion."
>>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
>>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>>
>>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
>>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>>
>>> They were wrong.
>>
>>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
>>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>
>> ya still got nuthin'......
>
> It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
> have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
> polonium.
harmful, otherwise we would need to test every element and compound that
exists to measure it's effect "that we don't know to look for" against
all carbon based life.... then we limit it based on what we find. But
that leave what we didn't find because we didn't look for it?
Basically we can't find what we didn't look for.
When trace amounts are harmful they generally create effects we see and
then we look into that cause. CO2 has been looked at and it is NOT
deadly as a trace gas.
--
*Rumination*
#41 - When we lived under a constitution we were a Nation of LAWS.
Tunderbar
Oct 10, 2012, 10:44:41 AM10/10/12
to
On Oct 9, 11:09 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> > > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > > of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> > > They were wrong.
>
> > > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> > ya still got nuthin'......
>
> It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
I've never claimed that trace amounts can never be harmful in any
> > > > >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> > > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > > of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> > > They were wrong.
>
> > > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> > ya still got nuthin'......
>
> It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
context whatsoever. That is your construct, and your strawman
argument, not mine.
The reality is in the nature of the substance that we are discussing.
CO2 is not an equivalent to sarin or cyanide or zyklon B or anthrax or
anything else. CO2 is CO2. CO2 is not even comparable to CO. Two
entirely different compounds. Completely different properties.
And in the context of what CO2 is, and it's role in the atmosphere,
and in life in general, 380 ppm is actually low. In terms of
usefulness to animals and plants and historical levels. If it goes
much lower than 150 ppm, all life on the planet is in danger. That is
on the down side of atmospheric values. On the up side of atmospheric
values, planst love CO2 at levels up to 80%, and animals do not suffer
any problems until CO2 levels reach around 5% of the atmosphere. That
is literally thousands of times higher than what we have now. And if
we assume CO2 levels going up at the current rate in a linear fashion,
which is impossible, levels will not be anywhere near the 5% levels
for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.
The increase we have seen in the last millenium has brought CO2 levels
to approx 380 parts per million. That is about 4 one tenths of one
percent. The actual total increase since the late 1800's is about one
one tenth of one percent (100 ppm). And man's actual ascribable
influence is around 14 ppm. 1.4 one hundredth of one percent. Trace.
Now feel free to explain again how trace amounts of CO2 can have more
than a trace amounts of effect on the globes climate.
Cites will be required.
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 11:14:51 AM10/10/12
to
> >>>>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >>>>> evolution a "religion."
> >>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> >>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> >>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> >>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> >>> They were wrong.
>
> >>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> >>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>
> >> ya still got nuthin'......
>
> > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
> > have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
> > polonium.
>
> No, it's up to you to prove that trace amounts of a gas that life on
> >>>>> evolution a "religion."
> >>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> >>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> >>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> >>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> >>> They were wrong.
>
> >>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> >>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>
> >> ya still got nuthin'......
>
> > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
> > have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
> > polonium.
>
> this planet NEEDS is what is causing the warming.
>
> We are not talking about radioactive material here, but a gas that life
> needs to survive.
It's up to you to prove that water, which is necessary for life, is
always desirable in any amount and any form.
Hire a refinery shutdown crew to cut you in half with an industrial
pressure waster and report back with the results.
As always, do not mention my name.
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 11:17:37 AM10/10/12
to
> >>>>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >>>>> evolution a "religion."
> >>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> >>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> >>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> >>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> >>> They were wrong.
>
> >>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> >>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>
> >> ya still got nuthin'......
>
> > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
> > have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
> > polonium.
>
> In a previous post you libs say that "you" do have to prove that it's
> harmful, otherwise we would need to test every element and compound that
> exists to measure it's effect "that we don't know to look for" against
> all carbon based life.... then we limit it based on what we find. But
> that leave what we didn't find because we didn't look for it?
>
> Basically we can't find what we didn't look for.
Well you need to start looking.
> >>>>> evolution a "religion."
> >>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> >>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> >>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> >>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> >>> They were wrong.
>
> >>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> >>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>
> >> ya still got nuthin'......
>
> > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
> > have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
> > polonium.
>
> In a previous post you libs say that "you" do have to prove that it's
> harmful, otherwise we would need to test every element and compound that
> exists to measure it's effect "that we don't know to look for" against
> all carbon based life.... then we limit it based on what we find. But
> that leave what we didn't find because we didn't look for it?
>
> Basically we can't find what we didn't look for.
> When trace amounts are harmful they generally create effects we see and
> then we look into that cause. CO2 has been looked at and it is NOT
> deadly as a trace gas.
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 11:27:35 AM10/10/12
to
> > > > > >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> > > > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > > > of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > > > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > > > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> > > > They were wrong.
>
> > > > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > > > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> > > ya still got nuthin'......
>
> > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
>
> I've never claimed that trace amounts can never be harmful in any
> context whatsoever.
Eating 1800 kcal of food a day is necessary for life. If you eat 2000
> > > > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > > > of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > > > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > > > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> > > > They were wrong.
>
> > > > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > > > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> > > ya still got nuthin'......
>
> > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
>
> I've never claimed that trace amounts can never be harmful in any
> context whatsoever.
kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
Bret Cahill
Tunderbar
Oct 10, 2012, 11:34:21 AM10/10/12
to
more than 1800? Would it be catastrophic? In how many years? By how
much exactly?
Would you even notice? Would the results be even measurable?
If you are going to use an analogy, make sure your analogy fits the
scenario.
Bert
Oct 10, 2012, 11:55:06 AM10/10/12
to
In news:96f0e927-cdcc-4eda...@b4g2000pby.googlegroups.com
For some people.
> If you eat 2000 kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
For people like you, who lead a life of sloth, maybe.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
For some people.
> If you eat 2000 kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Tunderbar
Oct 10, 2012, 12:14:52 PM10/10/12
to
Which amounts to 1800 / 100 = 18 / 100 = .18 kcal.
So if you need 1800 kcal/day and you eat 1800.18 kcal/day will it make
any real difference? Would that be catastrophic? How long before it is
even measurable?
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 12:23:56 PM10/10/12
to
> > > > > > > > >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> > > > > > > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > > > > > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > > > > > > of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > > > > > > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > > > > > > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> > > > > > > They were wrong.
>
> > > > > > > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > > > > > > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> > > > > > ya still got nuthin'......
>
> > > > > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
>
> > > > I've never claimed that trace amounts can never be harmful in any
> > > > context whatsoever.
>
> > > Eating 1800 kcal of food a day is necessary for life. If you eat 2000
> > > kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > But what if you eat one one hundredth of one percent of a kilo-calorie
> > more than 1800? Would it be catastrophic? In how many years? By how
> > much exactly?
>
> > Would you even notice? Would the results be even measurable?
>
> > If you are going to use an analogy, make sure your analogy fits the
> > scenario.
>
> Actually it should be one one hundredth of one percent of 1800 kcal.
> Which amounts to 1800 / 100 = 18 / 100 = .18 kcal.
Actually the % increase in CO2 is 50% so you would need to be eating
> > > > > > > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > > > > > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > > > > > > of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > > > > > > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > > > > > > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> > > > > > > They were wrong.
>
> > > > > > > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > > > > > > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> > > > > > ya still got nuthin'......
>
> > > > > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
>
> > > > I've never claimed that trace amounts can never be harmful in any
> > > > context whatsoever.
>
> > > Eating 1800 kcal of food a day is necessary for life. If you eat 2000
> > > kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > But what if you eat one one hundredth of one percent of a kilo-calorie
> > more than 1800? Would it be catastrophic? In how many years? By how
> > much exactly?
>
> > Would you even notice? Would the results be even measurable?
>
> > If you are going to use an analogy, make sure your analogy fits the
> > scenario.
>
> Actually it should be one one hundredth of one percent of 1800 kcal.
> Which amounts to 1800 / 100 = 18 / 100 = .18 kcal.
3,000 kcal.day.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 12:25:14 PM10/10/12
to
> > Eating 1800 kcal of food a day is necessary for life.
>
> For some people.
>
> > If you eat 2000 kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
>
> For people like you, who lead a life of sloth, maybe.
Anytime you care to take a friendly little run up San Jacinto Peak let
>
> For some people.
>
> > If you eat 2000 kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
>
> For people like you, who lead a life of sloth, maybe.
me know.
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25176
Tunderbar
Oct 10, 2012, 12:37:54 PM10/10/12
to
380 ppm is 3.8 one tenths of one percent of the atmosphere.
100 ppm (the increase from approx 180 to approx 380) is one one tenth
of one percent of the atmosphere.
14 ppm can be attributed to man made sources. That is 1.4 one
hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere.
And this is supposed to change the entire climate of the globe, of
which the hydrosphere has 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and the
land mass adds even more mass to that.
So this minute 1.4 one hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere
increase in CO2 is supposed to catastrophically affect the globes
atmosphere, hydrosphere and land mass to a catastrophic enough extent
to catastrophically and irreversibly alter the planets climate.
LOL. Good one. The sad thing is that some people actually believe you.
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 12:40:16 PM10/10/12
to
As usual, don't mention my name.
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 10, 2012, 1:34:34 PM10/10/12
to
black cinder.
When you add this much over 100 years it should have cooked us.
Are you suggesting the effects are exponential as you add more?
--
*Rumination*
#16 - I'm not a genius, but I know how to hire them.
alie...@gmail.com
Oct 10, 2012, 1:39:18 PM10/10/12
to
weighed 150 lbs. +/- 5 lbs. since 1970.
Mark L. Fergerson
Ruut66
Oct 10, 2012, 1:40:24 PM10/10/12
to
the hypothesis to falsifiability comes next. That was more recent in
Poppers' 1934 Logik der Forschung.
Why would a good christian vote for a mormon.
R
Tunderbar
Oct 10, 2012, 1:43:08 PM10/10/12
to
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 1:55:39 PM10/10/12
to
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 1:56:45 PM10/10/12
to
is 40% too high.
Bret Cahill
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 10, 2012, 2:01:43 PM10/10/12
to
On 10/10/2012 11:14 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>>>>>>> evolution a "religion."
>>>>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
>>>>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>>
>>>>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
>>>>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>>
>>>>> They were wrong.
>>
>>>>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
>>>>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>>
>>>> ya still got nuthin'......
>>
>>> It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
>>> have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
>>> polonium.
>>
>> No, it's up to you to prove that trace amounts of a gas that life on
>> this planet NEEDS is what is causing the warming.
>>
>> We are not talking about radioactive material here, but a gas that life
>> needs to survive.
>
> It's up to you to prove that water, which is necessary for life, is
> always desirable in any amount and any form.
Water isn't even a trace amount, it has NOT only been gas but it's
>>>>>>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>>>>>>> evolution a "religion."
>>>>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
>>>>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>>
>>>>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
>>>>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>>
>>>>> They were wrong.
>>
>>>>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
>>>>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>>
>>>> ya still got nuthin'......
>>
>>> It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
>>> have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
>>> polonium.
>>
>> No, it's up to you to prove that trace amounts of a gas that life on
>> this planet NEEDS is what is causing the warming.
>>
>> We are not talking about radioactive material here, but a gas that life
>> needs to survive.
>
> It's up to you to prove that water, which is necessary for life, is
> always desirable in any amount and any form.
liquid and solid. A tone of humidity probably won't kill you, and a ton
of water you will float in, but a ton of ice will squish you dead.
So CO2 gas may not be any problem, while carbon in plants keeps us
alive..... The density and volume are only a small part of the story
and scientists need to get all the facts before they try to terrify
millions and Billions of people.
--
*Rumination*
#46 - Welcome to Socialism, where mediocrity is the highest achievement
possible.
BeamMeUpScotty
Oct 10, 2012, 2:11:42 PM10/10/12
to
can perform..... 5000 is NOT bad for some people. Maybe we are seeing
a rise in sports participation and a small number of people are eating
5000 calories a day and skew the numbers.
I'm not sure how you can take a moving target like how many calories you
need and decide people should be dead?
--
*Rumination*
#47 - ObamaCare is like a box of Cracker Jacks, you had to buy it to
find out what the surprise inside was? It was Slavery "surprise".
David Bostwick
Oct 10, 2012, 3:17:25 PM10/10/12
to
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in
news:9fefccb2-cae0-496f...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
>> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>> >evolution a "religion."
>
>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years
>> the idea of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
Not everyone. Get your facts straight.
news:9fefccb2-cae0-496f...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
>> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>> >evolution a "religion."
>
>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years
>> the idea of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
David Bostwick
Oct 10, 2012, 3:23:09 PM10/10/12
to
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in
news:b13cfe15-ee04-4105...@lb2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
therefore a small amount of something 42 orders of magnitude less toxic is
also bad. Your analogies are getting worser and worser.
David Bostwick
Oct 10, 2012, 3:27:45 PM10/10/12
to
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in
news:96f0e927-cdcc-4eda...@b4g2000pby.googlegroups.com:
[...]
>
> Eating 1800 kcal of food a day is necessary for life. If you eat 2000
> kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
>
activity in your conclusion. If I expend 2000kcal/day, I'll be just fine.
If I expend 2500kcal/day, I'd better consume more than 2000.
B. If you eat any kind of food, in any amount, for decades, sooner or later
you'll die anyway.
Cause and effect not proven. QE not-D.
David Bostwick
Oct 10, 2012, 3:30:39 PM10/10/12
to
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in news:60d47b6d-1bde-44d2-
9358-c27...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
So you must be eating only 1800kcal/day, or your "logic" concludes that
you're a fat, soon-to-be-dead guy.
9358-c27...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
you're a fat, soon-to-be-dead guy.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Oct 10, 2012, 4:48:27 PM10/10/12
to
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Eating 1800 kcal of food a day is necessary for life. If you eat 2000
> kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
I knew a guy in training for Olympic fencing that was eating 3,000 kcal
> Eating 1800 kcal of food a day is necessary for life. If you eat 2000
> kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.
per day and losing weight.
As usual, you post fixated on a single factor, blindered nonsense.
Bret Cahill
Oct 10, 2012, 5:52:00 PM10/10/12
to
> >> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >> >evolution a "religion."
>
> >> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years
> >> the idea of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> Not everyone.
Who said "everyone?"
> >> >evolution a "religion."
>
> >> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years
> >> the idea of a static universe which is wrong!
>
> > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>
> Not everyone.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
They were wrong.
Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
David Bostwick
Oct 11, 2012, 10:45:17 AM10/11/12
to
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:40ecd406-358f-498b-
827e-a4e...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>> >> >evolution a "religion."
>>
>> >> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years
>> >> the idea of a static universe which is wrong!
>>
>> > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
>> > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>>
>> Not everyone.
>
> Who said "everyone?"
>
You did. "The" is not the same as "some of the." Logic escapes you again.
> Anyway you dodged the issue:
>
> They were wrong.
>
And most doctors believed for hundreds of years that bloodletting was a
good idea. They were wrong, but all modern doctors must still be suspect.
Your logic, not mine.
827e-a4e...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>> >> >evolution a "religion."
>>
>> >> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years
>> >> the idea of a static universe which is wrong!
>>
>> > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
>> > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>>
>> Not everyone.
>
> Who said "everyone?"
>
> Anyway you dodged the issue:
>
> They were wrong.
>
good idea. They were wrong, but all modern doctors must still be suspect.
Your logic, not mine.
Bret Cahill
Oct 11, 2012, 10:49:11 AM10/11/12
to
> > Anytime you care for a little swim from Salton City to Bombay Beach
> > meet let me know.
> But you said that 2000kcal/day would make people fat and kill them.
Sure, if they are sedentary like newsgroups deniers.
> Period. Therefore, I concluded from your logic that you were eating only
> 1800kcal/day, or that you were obese and dying soon.
You were projecting. That's why looneytarians are trivially easy to
profile. Deniers are just looneytarians and looneytarians think
linear algebra is a Marxist plot.
It also explains why you dodged the issue above. Here try again:
Anytime you care for a little swim from Salton City to Bombay Beach
let me know.
> > In the meantime read up on college educated alarmists living 13 years
> > longer than high school drop out deniers.
>
> Naughty boy. You changed two variables, and blamed any difference on
> only one.
Liberty U. doesn't count.
> > meet let me know.
> But you said that 2000kcal/day would make people fat and kill them.
Sure, if they are sedentary like newsgroups deniers.
> Period. Therefore, I concluded from your logic that you were eating only
> 1800kcal/day, or that you were obese and dying soon.
You were projecting. That's why looneytarians are trivially easy to
profile. Deniers are just looneytarians and looneytarians think
linear algebra is a Marxist plot.
It also explains why you dodged the issue above. Here try again:
Anytime you care for a little swim from Salton City to Bombay Beach
let me know.
> > In the meantime read up on college educated alarmists living 13 years
> > longer than high school drop out deniers.
>
> Naughty boy. You changed two variables, and blamed any difference on
> only one.
Liberty U. doesn't count.
Frank
Oct 11, 2012, 1:18:34 PM10/11/12
to
On 10/10/2012 12:09 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>>>>> evolution a "religion."
>>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
>>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>>
>>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
>>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>>
>>>>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>>>>> evolution a "religion."
>>>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
>>>> of a static universe which is wrong!
>>
>>> Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
>>> that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.
>>
>>> They were wrong.
>>
>>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
>>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>
>>
>>> Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
>>> for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
>
>> ya still got nuthin'......
>
> It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
> have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
> polonium.
>
> And then report back to us with the results.
>
> As always don't mention my name.
>
> It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful. All you
> have to do is take a teeny tiny miniscule small minute hit of
> polonium.
>
> And then report back to us with the results.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ho hum, gott put another message filter in an ng for "Cahill" ;)
0 new messages