A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pilot's Political Orientation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 19th 04, 12:32 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #2  
Old April 19th 04, 02:12 PM
darwin smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #3  
Old April 19th 04, 12:40 AM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #4  
Old April 19th 04, 12:52 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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".


  #5  
Old April 19th 04, 04:16 AM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
godless in order to further their own political agenda of
excluding religious views from the political forum.


I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--

Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.


  #6  
Old April 19th 04, 06:21 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
godless in order to further their own political agenda of
excluding religious views from the political forum.


I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--

Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.


Yes, but they did not make it part of the Constitution, did they? Read the
Federalist papers. There was quite a bit of debate about it, and Madison
lost.


  #7  
Old April 19th 04, 10:56 AM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote:

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
godless in order to further their own political agenda of
excluding religious views from the political forum.


I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--


Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.


If he wrote the Constitution, why didn't he include this phraseology?
Could it be that it was simply HIS opinion and not generally shared by
the group that in the end approved the wording of our Constitution?
Many contributed to the wording either through writing it with their own
hand or through the debates that edited the final wording. You better
go back and read some more history so that you learn not to take one
man's opinion as being representative of all.


Matt

  #8  
Old April 19th 04, 06:18 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
godless in order to further their own political agenda of
excluding religious views from the political forum.


I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--


I have little tolerance for the religious right, either, but I don't think
the religious right is representative of conservatism. They appear to be a
hostile group of xenophobic, racist reactionaries. Frankly, they are as much
of an embarrassment to conservatives as PETA and the ELF are to the
liberals. Extremist groups like those are hotbeds for terrorism and other
criminal activity.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Dover short pilots since vaccine order Roman Bystrianyk Naval Aviation 0 December 29th 04 12:47 AM
Pilot's Political Orientation Chicken Bone Owning 314 June 21st 04 06:10 PM
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? No Spam! General Aviation 3 December 23rd 03 08:53 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.