Pilot's Political Orientation

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"L Smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...



I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.



1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to
meet the terms of the scientific method.

2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.

3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to
a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".

4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists.



And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion
rather than fact.

1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest
applications of the scientific
method that I know of. The revisions that have come since then are
further examples
of science at its best.

2) Geological evidence was used in the development of the theory, and so
far nothing
from geology has been found that clearly contradicts the theory.

3) I'm afraid that Georgia is not a well-known and widely respected
scientific expert.

4) Considering that evolution is a fundamental part of biology, I find
your last statement
somewhat surprising. I've known of several biologists who believed that
there were
still questions that evolutionary theory had not yet answered, but that
is a far cry from
claiming the theory is wrong.

Rich Lemert

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution
are
two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.

Absolutely. And that's a bad thing?

Not to me, but those policies are incompatable with socialism.

"darwin smith" wrote in message
k.net...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"L Smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...



I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.



1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails
to
meet the terms of the scientific method.

2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.

3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer
to
a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".

4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of
biologists.



And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion
rather than fact.

The geological evidence has ended any question as to the validity of
Darwin's quaint little story. It is not opinion, but hard physical
evidence.

1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest
applications of the scientific
method that I know of.

Nope, biologists have to ignore the scientific method to even consider
Darwin's "Origin of Species" a theory at all, as Darwin's notional
hypothesis fails to meet the criterion of "experimantally demonstrable and
repeatable" required to be a theory.

This is my last reply here at rai, as this is way off topic and I don't
expect you will change your religous beliefs based on hard physical
evidence, or for any other reason.

What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?


Freedom.

"There ought to be limits to freedom"
-George W. Bush

I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"Chicken Bone" wrote in message tnews.com...
Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.

Results:

Democrat 22.97%
Republican 57.24%
Ind. 19.79%

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthr...threadid=21699

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...
I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
--

I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
prove it. The sheep are lying.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
prove it. The sheep are lying.

Does that mean it's going to rain?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart
enough to run when they see me posting.

Another lie.

I have science on my side and no reason to lie.


the science where you claim a spoiler is a flap; and a spoiler is a
wing that creates negative lift?

or the science where you claim a flap "thickens" a wing?

or the science where you claim that "average" and "total" are
interchangeable terms?

Dan,

Look up Tarver on Google. He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
fact". Give it up.

Michael


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Another lie.

I have science on my side

Another lie.

and no reason to lie.

Then apparently it's just your nature.

Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth,
you should get little or no response.

I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It
is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old
dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are
big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species",
but "it demonstrates how one thing might
replace another". Although demonstrating a
concept has value, theaching religion as science is
not the way to do it.

More lies. You're afraid.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03...
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Another lie.

I have science on my side

Another lie.

and no reason to lie.

Then apparently it's just your nature.

Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth,
you should get little or no response.

I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It
is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old
dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are
big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species",
but "it demonstrates how one thing might
replace another". Although demonstrating a
concept has value, theaching religion as science is
not the way to do it.

More lies. You're afraid.
Dan,

Look up Tarver on Google.

You will find an archive troll which has been largely ineffective. There
was a second archive troll, but the paradox in that one has been revealed.

He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
fact". Give it up.

I have provided Dan with enough information to do his own google search. It
doesn't really matter to me whether Dan has an interest in the scientific
truth of the matter, or not. Jay Gould spent a number of years trying to
reconcile the hard physical Geological evidence through a notional
hypothesis similar to Darwin's, except Gould's rapid evolution might have
happened; while Darwin's evolution into a new species slowly over a long
period of time is false.