Pilot's Political Orientation

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works",

And you do? Time to pick up your Nobel Prize.

so you would have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me
comming to your church.

Chicken.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works",

And you do? Time to pick up your Nobel Prize.

Albert Einstein explains it in his book, "The Meaning of Relativity", but no
Nobel prize.

so you would have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me
comming to your church.

Chicken.

Cross post it to alt.politics.usa.republican and ping me. I neither read,
or post directly to religious newsgroups. most of your little troll friends
at talk.origins are smart enough to run when they see me posting. Ever
since my discussion with Andrew Hall showed up as half the WSJ editorial
page there are few takers.

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.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.

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

Another lie.

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

"L Smith" wrote:
So far, nothing in your response above even comes
close to answering my questions.

You can now see why Tarver is afraid to post in talk.origns. His
witless evasions have been ripped apart there before, but he thinks he
can get away with them here.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Matt Whiting wrote:

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.


What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)

Matt

That's the $64,000 question!

"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.

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.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"L Smith" wrote:
So far, nothing in your response above even comes
close to answering my questions.

You can now see why Tarver is afraid to post in talk.origns. His
witless evasions have been ripped apart there before, but he thinks he
can get away with them here.

And horses are an example of "natural selection".

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.


Kindly site some Libertarian positions that would indicate a far right
leaning. Live and let live is a far right position? Personal responsibility
is a far right position? A desire for a small government, minimal
interference in our lives and maximum liberty to live as we please
is a far right position? What am I missing here?

L Smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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


This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
topic is impossible.




Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at
least
one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage
cannot
exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.

Matt