Pilot's Political Orientation

Tarver Engineering wrote:

With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in
public

schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically false, makes your
comments projection, Dan.

Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
Chances are
you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized the
error, or that
you have mis-understood the material. If you really have found an
unrecognized
error, science will thank you for allowing it to improve our
understanding of the world.
If you are in error, you'll thank us for helping you become a
better-informed citizen.

Rich Lemert

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in
public

schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically false, makes
your
comments projection, Dan.

Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized
the
error,

Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely
false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science:
Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts
applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard
physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay
Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to
reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of
species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in
school is a lie.

Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

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



Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized


the


error,



Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely
false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science:
Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts
applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard
physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay
Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to
reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of
species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in
school is a lie.

Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools.

So far, nothing in your response above even comes close to answering
my questions.
I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.
You respond with
a bunch of hand-waving that claims "this group shows its false, and that
group shows its
false, and blah-blah-blah." Since I don't accept the "because they said
so" argument from
people who count (such as those in political office), why do you think
I'll accept that
argument from someone I don't know from Caesar?

If you're unwilling to tell us where you think Darwinian theory is
wrong, are you at least
willing to tell us what you think Darwinian theory says?

By the way, while repeatability is a significant component of a
scientific theory, its not
a necessary or even a sufficient component. Otherwise, there could be
_no_ theories
of the universe. The _necessary_ and _sufficient_ condition required in
order for a
hypothesis to become a scientific theory is that the hypothesis must
lead to predictions
that can be proven false. "The moon is made of green cheese", for
example, meets
this test. You can prove the theory wrong by going to the moon and
seeing what it's
made of.

Can your favorite creation "theory" predict the development of
anti-biotic resistant
bacteria?

Rich Lemert

"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.

Tarver Engineering wrote:


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.

I agree that this discussion is way off topic, and that it's a good
time to end it. It's
just such a shame that you refuse to offer any "hard physical evidence"
for your
statements.

Oh, and by the way, I guess astronomy cannot be considered a science
either since it
so often fails the "experimentally demonstrable" requirement of a
theory. I do suggest
you check out a good discussion on the philosophy of science sometime,
though, to
find out what really is required to have a valid theory.

Rich Lemert

"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".