Bible-beater pilots

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:44:43 -0500, "John Harlow"
wrote:

Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
people, I think anyone that really understands scripture,


Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for that
person.

Post your questions, and tell us what you mean by "really understand
scripture".

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Again, my only point in this sub-thread has been that there isn't a
Constitutional argument against the phrase. Those wishing to have it
removed may have a point, but they need to find another argument to make
their case.

What "argument" other than "it serves no need being there" do you need?

It just plain doesn't belong there. Period.

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.


Sure they did. One instance amont many is the 1865 law "An Act to
authorize the Coinage of Three-Cent pieces, and for other Purposes."
This includes the following...

"And be it further enacted, That, in addition to the devices and legends
upon the gold, silver, and other coines [sic] of the United States, it
shall be lawful for the director of the mint, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury, to cause the motto 'In God We Trust' to be
placed upon such coins hereafter to be issued as shall admit of such
legend thereon."

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:26:42 +0100, Martin Hotze
wrote:

and why has to start every day in school with the Pledge of Allegiance? (one
nation UNDER GOD [!])

Participating in the pledge has long been optional, with the only
requirement being that the dissenter quitely respect those who *do*
participate.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:05:52 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

in spite of changes in the intensity of
the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth due to changes in the
ozone layer, Van Allen belts, etc.


There is a grave misunderstanding of radioactive decay in that
sentence.

I thought so too. I had thought that radiocarbon dating was supposed
accurate because the C-14 was embedded deep in the organic materials
dated, along with a certain amount of C-12 (?). The ratios tell the
age.

Then again, I don't know how that relates to stone fossils, since the
organic material would have been longgone.

But none of it troubles me at all, really, since the idea of biblical
(or koranic, or talmudic) inerrancy is anathema to me.

(Evangelicals don't like my belief system very much at all)

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On 24 Nov 2003 08:48:15 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Religion is based on faith.

Science is based on doubt.

Two sides of the same coin.

Experimentation is based on faith.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:38:09 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

Nothing's ever that simple, but it seems to me that this property of the
universe, this 'tendency toward organization', might be the underlying
basis for the beliefs in "a higher power."

It's the thing many believers point to as their evidence of the
"higher power."

And it's not so simple to define natural processes as mindless things
following their own pattern. There's no way to test and see if the
pattern itself is created or accidental (and thus no way for believers
to use thier evidence in scientific method, but no way for
non-believers to do so, either)

The real rub is the provability of the source of those patterns matter
and natural life both follow. If you succeed in producing experimental
conditions which approximate the patterns sufficiently, and the
experimented-upon matter behaves as in nature, what have you proven
with respect to God?

Think about it!

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Especially in today's world where news travels fast.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



The fallacy here is that you assume because the private sector is NOT doing
something now, it still would not if the government were not in the way.

I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance
company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check
my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if
i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license
really serve?

The insurer might still insure the quack, but at a much higher rate, raising
his costs sufficiently that he could not compete with me, so the marketplace
would cull the quacks. Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with insured
dentists) gets what they pay for.

No license, no government interference, but no loss to the consumer, as it is
just as easy to see if I am insured as it is to see if I am licensed.

The same thing already applies to airplanes. Try to buy a high performance
airplane with a bank loan. They will require insurance for the loan. The
insurer's requirements for time in type, annual experience and recurrent
training are already in excess of what the FAA requires.

Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free market
will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our liberty.

"Wdtabor" wrote in message ...

I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance
company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check
my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if
i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license
really serve?

Because, the interests of the insurance company is not necessarily the interest
of your patient. The insurance company only cares about the probability and
the magnitude of any loss they'd have to pay out. This is not necessarily mean
competent dental care for your prospective patients. The fact that you are paying
insurance doesn't tell me if you're any good (mind you neither does the fact that
you got the certificate on your wall from the Commonwealth).

In article , "Ron Natalie"
writes:

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the
insurance
company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would
check
my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see
if
i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the
license
really serve?

Because, the interests of the insurance company is not necessarily the
interest
of your patient. The insurance company only cares about the probability and
the magnitude of any loss they'd have to pay out. This is not necessarily
mean
competent dental care for your prospective patients. The fact that you are
paying
insurance doesn't tell me if you're any good (mind you neither does the fact
that
you got the certificate on your wall from the Commonwealth).


Exactly.

There are some truly lousy dentists around with valid licenses. You have to do
a lot more to loose your license than to become uninsurable.

What's more, the marketplace does a lot of things short of stopping you from
practicing to encourage good care.

A dentist who gets sued a lot pays very high malpractice insurance, while
someone like me, who has a 30 years without the insurance company having paid
out a dime, gets a substantial discount.

To loose your license, you have to be consistently grossly negligent, commit a
felony, or forget to pay your renewal.

So, what goood does the license do that the private sector has not already done
better?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG