05 klr 650 for sale new england, maine

[Doug Herr]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, E.L. Green wrote:

>> I thought rich mixtures resulted in cooler operating temps? > > That's the theory, but I think having to suck through a clogged-up filter may be the main > problem. I know what the reality is (i.e., when my filter is clogged up my bike overheats), > and am working backwards towards a theory to explain it. This is what's called the > "scientific method", as vs. starting off with an interesting theory then ignoring all evidence > if said evidence doesn't match the theory, which is called the "religious method".

Switched over to "NKLR", so that I can bicker: Both induction *and* deduction are part of "scientific method": http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php -- Doug Herr doug@... A16 in Oakland, California

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Doug Herr wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, E.L. Green wrote: > > problem. I know what the reality is (i.e., when my filter is clogged up my bike

overheats),

> > and am working backwards towards a theory to explain it. This is what's called the > > "scientific method", as vs. starting off with an interesting theory then ignoring all

evidence

> > if said evidence doesn't match the theory, which is called the "religious method". > > Switched over to "NKLR", so that I can bicker: > > Both induction *and* deduction are part of "scientific method":

It is the "ignoring all evidence if said evidence doesn't match the theory" part, not the induction vs deduction part, which differentiates the "religious method" from the scientific method. For example, there are certain people who believe that the world was created in seven days some 16,000 years ago. Any evidence to the contrary, such as analysis of decay products of radioactive substances showing a much longer lifespan for the planet Earth, is utterly ignored. They pretty much do a Sergeant Schultz, "I hear no- THINK! I see no-THINK!". This is the "religious method". BTW, my Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Hand Grenade of Rationality . (If you don't know what I'm talking about, Google "Unitarian Jihad", one of satirist Jon Carroll's most brilliant creations). -E

[Jud Jones]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "E.L. Green" wrote:

> BTW, my Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Hand Grenade of Rationality . (If you don't > know what I'm talking about, Google "Unitarian Jihad", one of satirist Jon Carroll's most > brilliant creations).

As a lapsed Unitarian, I'm not sure I wanna go there. But I will.

[Michael Nelson]

Brother Garrote of Enlightenment here. That's some funny stuff! -- "Do you think that when they asked George Washington for ID he just whipped out a quarter?" --Steven Wright San Francisco, CA

[revmaaatin]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "E.L. Green" wrote:

> > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Doug Herr wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, E.L. Green wrote: > > > problem. I know what the reality is (i.e., when my filter is

clogged up my bike

> overheats), > > > and am working backwards towards a theory to explain it. This

is what's called the

> > > "scientific method", as vs. starting off with an interesting

theory then ignoring all

> evidence > > > if said evidence doesn't match the theory, which is called

the "religious method".

> > > > Switched over to "NKLR", so that I can bicker: > > > > Both induction *and* deduction are part of "scientific method": > > It is the "ignoring all evidence if said evidence doesn't match the

theory" part, not the

> induction vs deduction part, which differentiates the "religious

method" from the

> scientific method. For example, there are certain people who

believe that the world was

> created in seven days some 16,000 years ago. Any evidence to the

contrary, such as

> analysis of decay products of radioactive substances showing a much

longer lifespan for

> the planet Earth, is utterly ignored. They pretty much do a

Sergeant Schultz, "I hear no-

> THINK! I see no-THINK!". This is the "religious method". > > BTW, my Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Hand Grenade of

Rationality . (If you don't

> know what I'm talking about, Google "Unitarian Jihad", one of

satirist Jon Carroll's most

> brilliant creations). > > -E

Eric, I'll go out on a limb here--at the risk of a few concerted chuckles: IRT to your post: (ERIC'S WORDS) For example, there are certain people who believe that the world was created in seven days some 16,000 years ago. Any evidence to the contrary, such as analysis of decay products of radioactive substances showing a much longer lifespan for the planet Earth, is utterly ignored. Yes, those zealots are annoying I am deliberately being kind. It is actually pointless to engage them in any kind of `faith-based' OR scientific discussion. Smile. They have forgotten their heritage of discussion and discovery, as well as searching to know the entire content or who and what God can do Enough of throwing stones. My favorite phrase gleaned at seminary, to those that purport the thoughts you have suggested, "Quiet frankly, the evidence God left behind of his creative process, does not substantiate that theory (literal seven-day creation). Why would God leave a trail of evidence (geological and astronomical) that would suggest otherwise?" And so, we ponder the creation, and marvel at it complexity, its intricacies, and some suggest that it was all a fluke; a colossal cosmic accident. Cough. A fluke? Now that is what I would suggest as preposterous. YMMV. shrug. I suppose to some, I am a heretic for saying otherwise, but I easily see the creation we can observe has been in the process, 15billion+ years in the making. shrug. How can that be? It is a function of how time is measured. The God of creation, his time continuum is THE ETERNAL NOW, something that the human mind has difficulty comprehending, but Einstein was very close. Suffice to say, God does not measure time as we do. So, a creation requiring a billion years or a day --shrug--he is/remains the captain of the eternal now. Something to ponder has your KLR thumps you towards a day/wekend of happiness. revmaaatin. who is still trying to wrap my arms around all the learning-stuff offered for digestion in my first 52y11m of life

[Allen Faber]

Now, for my 2 cents... I won't suggest anyone has been slandered just yet, but there is an often-cited authority that is translated as saying the earth was created in 6 days, not 7, and the 7th day was a day of rest. As evidenced on this site, whether this should be taken as literal days or not is the subject of some debate, but here's how it was explained to me: Given that any entity has the power to create the universe in 6 days, it would likely also have the power to make it appear to have taken 6 bazillion years, or whatever timeframe suits it's ultimate purpose. Maybe that is too simplistic for some. I'm OK with it. Allen --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[mbetcher]

I think that my faith in biblical authority began to wane very early in life, and the creation story was probably the one that sowed the first seed of doubt. Even a kid has to wonder who observed the process described in Genesis, or to whom the story was related at a later time, and by whom/what. In other words, how did the human author of Genesis come to know what happened before there were humans? Later in the Bible God has humans to interact with, so one might postulate some kind of oral history thread that preserves the memory of early events like the flood. Other divine revelations are described as coming from God in direct discourse, such as Moses and the burning bush -- also unlikely but at least containing the citation of a source, and arguably within the orbit of human observation. But nowhere in the creation story is there any explanation of how it came to be known, which lends it low authenticity even by fantastical biblical standards.

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Allen Faber wrote: > > Now, for my 2 cents... > > I won't suggest anyone has been slandered just yet, but there is an often-cited authority that is translated as saying the earth was created in 6 days, not 7, and the 7th day was a day of rest. As evidenced on this site, whether this should be taken as literal days or not is the subject of some debate, but here's how it was explained to me: Given that any entity has the power to create the universe in 6 days, it would likely also have the power to make it appear to have taken 6 bazillion years, or whatever timeframe suits it's ultimate purpose. Maybe that is too simplistic for some. I'm OK with it. > > Allen > > > --------------------------------- > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. > Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >

[albatrossklr]

Depends on where you believe we are in the cycle.... Is Shiva around the corner or has Brahma just transformed.... albatross

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Allen Faber wrote: > > Now, for my 2 cents... > > I won't suggest anyone has been slandered just yet, but there is an often-cited authority that is translated as saying the earth was created in 6 days, not 7, and the 7th day was a day of rest. As evidenced on this site, whether this should be taken as literal days or not is the subject of some debate, but here's how it was explained to me: Given that any entity has the power to create the universe in 6 days, it would likely also have the power to make it appear to have taken 6 bazillion years, or whatever timeframe suits it's ultimate purpose. Maybe that is too simplistic for some. I'm OK with it. > > Allen > > > --------------------------------- > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. > Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >

[Luc Legrain]

By Thor, the Walkyries, and all the Viking Gods, could we let go of the metaphysical issues and gimme a reply on my KLR question ? --- albatrossklr wrote:

> Depends on where you believe we are in the cycle.... > Is Shiva around > the corner or has Brahma just transformed.... > > albatross > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Allen Faber > wrote: > > > > Now, for my 2 cents... > > > > I won't suggest anyone has been slandered just > yet, but there is > an often-cited authority that is translated as > saying the earth was > created in 6 days, not 7, and the 7th day was a day > of rest. As > evidenced on this site, whether this should be taken > as literal days > or not is the subject of some debate, but here's how > it was explained > to me: Given that any entity has the power to create > the universe in 6 > days, it would likely also have the power to make it > appear to have > taken 6 bazillion years, or whatever timeframe suits > it's ultimate > purpose. Maybe that is too simplistic for some. I'm > OK with it. > > > > Allen > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in > alternative vehicles. > > Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > >

____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

[John thomas]

John thomas wrote: My question is: If this is a KLR sight...adnd we come here to talk about KLR's....and related....and adventure issues....related to KLR or BIKES. why all the religous and wild wemon discussions? I really don't come here to spend my time deleating redicouls emails. COME ON! lets get real... Oh by the way...I have this weeping wound on my&*%^ that looks live mary mother of.... jk Luc Legrain wrote: By Thor, the Walkyries, and all the Viking Gods, could we let go of the metaphysical issues and gimme a reply on my KLR question ? --- albatrossklr wrote:

> Depends on where you believe we are in the cycle.... > Is Shiva around > the corner or has Brahma just transformed.... > > albatross > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Allen Faber > wrote: > > > > Now, for my 2 cents... > > > > I won't suggest anyone has been slandered just > yet, but there is > an often-cited authority that is translated as > saying the earth was > created in 6 days, not 7, and the 7th day was a day > of rest. As > evidenced on this site, whether this should be taken > as literal days > or not is the subject of some debate, but here's how > it was explained > to me: Given that any entity has the power to create > the universe in 6 > days, it would likely also have the power to make it > appear to have > taken 6 bazillion years, or whatever timeframe suits > it's ultimate > purpose. Maybe that is too simplistic for some. I'm > OK with it. > > > > Allen > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in > alternative vehicles. > > Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > >

__________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/ Thomas Forest Park Ga. "Old Geezer club member 39" 90 Tengai 19,362 miles 78 CB400A 7,839 --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. Thomas Forest Park Ga. "Old Geezer club member 39" 90 Tengai 19,362 miles 78 CB400A 7,839 --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]