On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Mike

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Um, the primary reason for stockpiles is to provide food in the event of
crop failures and shortages

BUt if you check the history of US agriculture, the primary reason was
_not_ to provide food - it was to prop up prices. Stop playing with
words and check the facts.

Mike

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to
be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases.

One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny,

You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There
is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border
is _not_ open.

and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US

Which only proves that the US can't control its borders.
Don't blame anyone for your problems. The 9/11 terrorists
arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada.

Mike

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nah, we'll just drill more wells here. Canada will suffer far more than the
US from a border closing.

If you could increase domestic oil production in the US by 10% of your
total consumption, it would already have been done. That would be in
excess of 25% of current US production. That is an enormous amount
of oil and the value to the domestic oil industry would be tremendous.

There is also no way you could replace the electricity you import
without a lot of time and enormous expenditures.

Nothing we can't do without.

Raw materials and manufactured parts for US industry? For a
start, closing the border would shut down GM, Ford and D/C's
car plants. When the border was backed up after 9/11, Michigan
Congressmen were the first to complain.

I know you'd like to think Canada is essential to the success of the US, but
it's not.

The problem is that you are completely ignorant of the interconnectedness
of the US with the rest of the world in general and Canada in particular.
If the US could survive on its own, it would. It can't - it has become
much too dependent on imports. The US has been spearheading free trade
pacts for decades. Get your head out of your ass and look at the real
world.

Mike

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That would roughly double the state GDP while dropping
less than 2% of GDP in agricultural production.

I don't know where you get the idea that a 50% reduction in agriculture in
California would result in less than a 50% reduction in agricultural
production in California.

Your head's been in your ass too long - you can no longer read. A 50%
reduction in agriculture in California will result in a 2% reduction
in California's GDP. You do know what GDP means, don't you?

Mike

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Oil we'll get one way or another.

Mike

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Actually, much stronger states rights than in the EU.

You really don't have a clue, do you? Individual states
in the US have virtually _no_ power compared to the EU
countries. They have less power than Canadian provinces.

The US is a union of weak states. Canada is a confederation
of relatively strong provinces. Europe is a loose union
of independent countries. Completely opposite to what you
claim. The advocates of strong state rights in the US _lost_
the civil war. Just check your history books. It would
also do you some good to learn about political systems in
the world, since you don't have any idea what you're talking
about.

It's no
different than the EU. The EU got the idea from us, in fact.

Jingoistic day-dreaming. Try some reality someday.

Well, are you claiming bad press then? Whenever someone here talks about
socialized medicine, the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada
and Britain are commonplace. Maybe you're just lucky.

I don't know where you get what you think are facts, but they don't jive
with reality. Luck is not involved.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the
universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence
of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly
does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest
that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of
their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable?
What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that
thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Mike

Mike, I knew that when I opened the can of worms at the start of this
particular discussion in this thread, that the discussion would get a
little intense. I have been watching your particular discussion with
Scott, and I certainly don't want to jump into the middle of your fun
and distract either of you. However if I could get a little of your
attention on the side, I would like to ask you a few questions. Though
I do not necessarily agree, I appreciate your perpective and your
intensity of thought, and thought process.

You apparently believe strongly in the scientific approach, and do not
believe that religion, and in particular Christianity has much to offer
the 21st century man. Is there any conceivable reason that you would
change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is your
mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and what
is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would
like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your
conclusions.

It is easy to throw around the Cat. Ch. and the Jesuits, and things
that happened hundreds of years ago. I wasn't there, nor you, so it is
hard to know what was really going on, or interview those scientist
that were there at the time. And similarily, today I can only interview
you. You are the scientist of today in my experience, so I hope you can
entertain my little fantascy, and share your insight and personal
observations that you base your personal philosophy. Respectfully TnT

BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
================
Well, are you claiming bad press then? Whenever someone here talks
about
socialized medicine, the examples of people waitlisted to death in
Canada
and Britain are commonplace. Maybe you're just lucky.
==================

Probably bad press all around, eh? Whenever the media talks about the
Americam model, it's examples of the working poor, nursing nagging
ailments that under socialized medicine would have readily been cleared
up.

Sounds like the media is once again depicting sensationalised
viewer-attracting examples that are not representative of reality... but
what else is new? Not too long ago Fox aired a so called "documentary"
about live new-born babies who were tossed on piles to die. The funny
thing was that no Dutch reporter had heard of anything like that ever
happening, and even a German report exists about how Fox aired something
that never happened. It turned out to be something that a Fox reporter
who only stayed in the Netherlands for a day made up... Very original
and very bogus.

I guess he decided that mixing two controversial items about the
Netherlands, i.e. legalised abortion and euthanasia, would draw more
U.S. viewers.

puke

I've had plenty of relatives with eye, cancer, heart, diabetes, etc etc
problems. NO issues with our health system. NO waits (in one case, in
fact, helicopter from one town to the next -- immediately from the GP's
office).

Ditto here. The only exception is certain transplants for which very few
donors exist, but for that there is also a waiting list in the U.S..
Unless of course you pay a fortune to let some Indian streetkid get cut
open in a New Delhi private hospital and getting his organ. :-(

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko, long ago, the USA pioneered the implementation of universal
education. The western world owes much to those endeavors.

Assuming that public education is a good thing (and I do), I find it
difficult to accept that public healthcare is not every bit as "good"
or important. Perhaps even more so.

Is it just me, or could it be that the long-standing bias against
public healthcare in the USA is a function of a well-financed medical
profession lobby? In most countries, before public healthcare was
mandated, the dire warnings of the medical establishment about negative
consequences of public medicine were shrill indeed.

It has been decades now since most western nations adopted one form or
another of public healthcare. The well-being of these peoples has not
been compromised.

But in the USA, it's still a case of, "The sky is falling!"

frtzw906