Pilot's Political Orientation

"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

"darwin smith" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

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.

Why would you post something so rediculess? Astromony adheres to the real
scientific method. Anyway, the discussion is moved to talk.origins. TO has
been pretty well destroyed since my discussion with Andrew Hall there would
up in the WSJ, so you will find many kooks and trolls there.