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.

"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.

"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.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Another lie.

I have science on my side

Another lie.

and no reason to lie.

Then apparently it's just your nature.

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.

More lies. You're afraid.

Dan,

Look up Tarver on Google. He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
fact". Give it up.

Michael


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Another lie.

I have science on my side

Another lie.

and no reason to lie.

Then apparently it's just your nature.

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.

More lies. You're afraid.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03...
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Another lie.

I have science on my side

Another lie.

and no reason to lie.

Then apparently it's just your nature.

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.

More lies. You're afraid.
Dan,

Look up Tarver on Google.

You will find an archive troll which has been largely ineffective. There
was a second archive troll, but the paradox in that one has been revealed.

He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
fact". Give it up.

I have provided Dan with enough information to do his own google search. It
doesn't really matter to me whether Dan has an interest in the scientific
truth of the matter, or not. Jay Gould spent a number of years trying to
reconcile the hard physical Geological evidence through a notional
hypothesis similar to Darwin's, except Gould's rapid evolution might have
happened; while Darwin's evolution into a new species slowly over a long
period of time is false.

"Michael 182" wrote:
Dan,

Look up Tarver on Google. He is a long time troll who never:
bothers to back up any of his arguments except with rambling
non-sensical "statements of fact".

I know, I know. Hell, *everyone* knows Tarver is the dizziest loon on
usenet.

Give it up.

I guess I'll have to; he's gun-shy now. I sure did want to see him get
shredded on talk.origins again, though; it's pure entertainment.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Michael 182" wrote in message news:uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03...
Dan,

Look up Tarver on Google. He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
fact". Give it up.

Michael



nah he's not a troll, he believes his utter garbage.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"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.


the science where you claim a spoiler is a flap; and a spoiler is a
wing that creates negative lift?

or the science where you claim a flap "thickens" a wing?

or the science where you claim that "average" and "total" are
interchangeable terms?