Pilot's Political Orientation

"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:

"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

"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.

"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

"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".