 |
 |
How true, K.F. For example, until about ten years ago the exit poll was widely respected as the undisputed statistical sampling tool of choice. Suddenly, the public lost faith in this most established and reliable measurement standard. Though used "religiously" throughout all of academia, we voters were told not to believe in statistical sampling because it could somehow reflect a bias. Instead, we were to believe in the efficacy and trustworthiness of computerized paperless voting machines and tabulators running proprietary software with proven security holes. Never mind that all the companies selling these "black boxes" were owned by the same handful of right wing Republican insiders, or that there was no way to authenticate or audit the count. Rapidly, so fast it has made my head spin, a country that prided itself on free elections has become just another casualty in the age-old war for grotesque accumulation of wealth and power. How complacent we can become. And how quickly things can change! I know this isn't strictly PWP related but I figured if we're going off topic, I'd rather bring us round to something more important and less ethereal than ID. I'm done trying to talk rationally with people who seriously believe they're going to be lifted naked from their cars and condos at any moment and taken up into the sky so they can watch the rest of humanity fry. As they say in Hawaii, "Waste time already." ~ Greyling -----Original Message----- From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of rayilynlee Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:40 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The Scientific Method and intelligent design & linearity Sounds like chaos science and fractals to me Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "KF Etzold" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:36 AM Subject: Re: The Scientific Method and intelligent design & linearity > Paula wrote: > The earth's rotation is slowing very slowly every year because of tidal > friction. The moon's distance from the Earth is increasing 2 inches a > year. > Working back, would mean the moon and earth would be touching only two > billion years ago. Or starting as a realistic distance of separation, if > the earth is 5 billion years old the moon would be out of sight by now. > > The sun's diameter appears to have been decreasing by about 1/10 % a > century. Scientists have been watching for over a hundred years and the > evidence is conclusive. Every hour the sun is shrinking about 5 feet. If > the sun is shrinking 1/10% per hundred years, then it is shrinking 1% a > millennium. If the sun existed only 100,000 years ago it would have been > double it's present diameter, and only 20 million years ago the surface of > the sun would be touching the Earth. The earth is supposed to be 4.5 > billion years how does that work.? > ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ > > There is an underlying assumption in your description: Things always > proceed at the same rate. This is not true. In fact most processes in > nature are non linear. > > K. F. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn