Letting my Flying Subscription Expire

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger wrote:
Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
"controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.

That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
some times called faith.

True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
superstition. Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if
fossils supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence
would disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.) Things
have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution -- the more
we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a scientific
standpoint.

One factoid that got my attention: Evolution proponents insist that
_only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach
the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.
The latter position is in line with scientific principles and an honest
effort to learn the truth, while the former smacks more of unsupportable
religious belief and superstition. Some folks don't think kids should
even be told that evolution is only a _theory_, not a proven fact, and
that there are other views with good scientific arguments behind them.
Is that objective science, or religious fundamentalism?

In the interest of returning to topic, I've determined that with spring
coming, I'm going to have to get out there and fix my airplane, as it
doesn't seem to be evolving on its own. At least, not in the right
direction. I was hoping if I left it alone over winter, it would turn
itself into a Columbia 400, or maybe a King Air. But, no luck so far.

Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint. I've
seen some attempted explanations of this phenomenon, but they don't stand
up to critical and unbiased examination. It's sort of like believing if
you play the slot machines long enough you've just gotta win, when there
are big signs everywhere saying "Our slots return [some number less than
100]%" -- in other words, on average, you are going to lose. But, folks
keep believing what they want to believe, despite the facts staring them
in the face.

-Dan

"Dan Youngquist" wrote in message
hell.org...
True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
superstition.

Doesn't sound to me like you're actually doing much learning.

Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if fossils
supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence would
disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.)

Your assertion is that there is no fossil evidence in support of evolution?

Things have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution --
the more we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a
scientific standpoint.

Hardly. Evolution has not only received strong support from geological
evidence, but from laboratory experiments as well.

One factoid that got my attention: Evolution proponents insist that
_only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach
the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.

A fundamental component of science is a testable hypothesis. Evolution
qualifies for this, "intelligent design" does not.

Evolution proponents do not "insist that _only_ evolution be taught". What
they do insist on is that in science class, the topics be restricted to
things that are valid science. If someone came up with an alternative
theory that actually proposed a testable hypothesis, I'm sure they would
have no trouble accepting that as a teachable topic.

"Intelligent design" is nothing more than the religious idea of a creation
by a supreme being restated. It contains no actual theory for process, no
testable hypothesis, nothing that would even remotely qualify it as science.

The latter position is in line with scientific principles and an honest
effort to learn the truth, while the former smacks more of unsupportable
religious belief and superstition.

You have that backwards.

[...]
Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

It seems that you understand neither evolution nor thermodynamics. Entropy
is in no way a counter-proof to evolution.

Pete

But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many people are confused on which is science and which is faith or superstition.

The key difference is that a scientific theory can be =dis=proven, with
appropriate evidence. An issue of faith cannot.

Evolution proponents insist that _only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.

It may be a factoid, but it is not a fact. A factoid "resembles" a
fact. What you state above is not true. It is not a fact.

What is a fact is that those whom you call "evolution proponents" insist
that matters of faith not be taught as science. Come up with a
testable, disprovable theory and it can be taught as science. Come up
with some evidence in its favor and it might even gain support.
Evolution fits the bill. Neither Intellegent Design (laughable when I
see how living things actually work!) nor the Great Spaghetti Monster
(bless his noodley appendages) can be disproven, therefore do not fit
the definition of "scientific theory". To be a "scientific theory" it
must be more than an idea or speculation - it must be DISprovable. (not
that "disprovable" does not mean "incorrect"; it merely means that there
are experimental results which, =if= obtained, could disprove the theory)

Theories of air pressure on wings is testable and disprovable. Lifting
fairies are not.

I've never understood how people can simultaneously believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).

Entropy increases over a closed system. Evolution shows its effects on
an open system. It's like perpetual motion machines being impossible,
even in the face of solar powered motors. While small areas of a system
get more complex, they do so at the cost of larger areas of the system
becoming more degraded. Go to any garbage dump for a picturesque
illustration.

This has been discussed here about six months ago. I forget the (of
course misleading) subject lines, but google for it.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dan wrote:

Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

Check out: http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

--Walt

"Dan Youngquist" wrote in message
hell.org...
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger wrote:
Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
"controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.

That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
some times called faith.

True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
superstition. Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if
fossils supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence
would disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.) Things
have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution -- the more
we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a scientific
standpoint.

HA!!! Where did you get that non-sense?

On 2006-03-16, Dan Youngquist wrote:
religious belief and superstition. Some folks don't think kids should
even be told that evolution is only a _theory_, not a proven fact, and
that there are other views with good scientific arguments behind them.

As soon as someone says '...evolution is only a _theory_' you can
immediately tell they actually have no idea what a scientific theory
actually is. They are equating the scientific meaning of 'theory' with
the common every day use of 'theory'.

The common use of 'theory' often really means a hunch, or a gut feel, or
maybe even as much as a conjecture. In science, a 'theory' is something
much different. A theory must be falsifiable for a start. It must make
predictions that can be tested. I won't waste my time here going over
the full definition of a scientific theory, if you're interested, Google
will help you do that.

Electricity is also "just a theory" too. So is Einstein's Theory of
General and Special Relativity. Even though, as you put it, they are
'just a theory', you tell the residents of Hiroshima in 1945 that E=MC^2
is part of something which is 'just a theory'.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is not a theory or even a
hypothesis - it only qualifies as conjecture. It is not scientific in
any way. It has no place being taught in science classes. That's not to
say it should *not* be taught at all - perhaps it should be taught as
what science ISN'T and why it is not science. Perhaps it should be
taught in religious studies classes and philosophy classes. But it
should not be taught as a valid theory in a science class because it is
not science.

Teaching the theory of evolution is not religious or religious
fundamentalism. It is just science. Of course, those who don't even
understand what a scientific theory actually is (probably because their
own science classes failed them) are not likely to agree.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

If you want interesting reading, you should get a subscription to Aviation
Week.

Mike Schumann

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
[...] I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read, so why
don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the magazines
changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and after
reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little left
that is new and interesting to me?

Only you can say. However, if your experience is similar to mine, it's a
combination: you have read the same thing over and over again often enough
that it's no longer interesting; but also, I feel that Flying in
particular has been going downhill. I can't stand either Mac or
Collins -- Mac just seems like too much of an idiot sometimes, and Collins
is just too full of himself. When Collins came back, the magazine
practically turned into "The Richard Collins Magazine".

Back in the day, there were several authors in the magazine that I enjoyed
reading: Gordon Baxter (duh), Len Morgan, and Peter Garrison being the top
three. "I Learned About Flying From That" kept my interest occasionally
as well. But Baxter and Morgan are both gone and while their replacements
are competent enough, they don't draw me hopelessly in the way those two
did (especially Bax). The stories in "ILAFFT" have gotten old (I guess
there's only a limited number of ways most people wind up crashing or
nearly crashing an airplane). And Garrison on his own isn't enough to
keep me resubscribing, especially when I not only have lost interest in
most of the rest of the magazine, but the principals in the magazine are
people who irritate me.

That said, every now and then Flying runs a feature that seems
interesting, and it's one of the least expensive aviation magazines I've
seen that's worth reading. But I already have a LOT of reading in my
life. Aviation isn't the only topic for periodicals to which I subscribe,
and there are still books, and of course online resources to read.

If I had nothing better to do, maybe I'd have kept up the subscription,
but when it came time to do some paring down, Flying was one of the first
to go.

Have you tried Air & Space Magazine? It's not targeted at general
aviation per se, but rather runs a broad gamut of aviation topics. IMHO,
it is to Flying Magazine what Scientific American is to Discover Magazine.
I also still keep my subscription to Flight Training Magazine, even though
it's now published by AOPA and has a lot of duplicated content. I am
especially interested in the topics targeted at flight instructors, or
which address the learning process generally; as far as I know, there's
not another aviation magazine out there that provides that slant.

But as far as general aviation, and general piloting topics go, I think
the two you're getting now are about the best around. Hopefully they
still interest you, more than Flying Magazine at least.

Pete

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
ink.net...
If you want interesting reading, you should get a subscription to Aviation
Week.


If you want articles that really get to the nitty-gritty of piloting, get a
free subscription to "Professional Pilot", though the ads are some of the
most blatent asskissing I've ever seen.

Peter,

Collins is just too full of
himself. When Collins came back, the magazine practically turned into "The
Richard Collins Magazine".


Isn't it a pity? The guy is practically ruining the magazine. And at an age
where he could easily quit.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

KB

Must be some Karma here, my initials too. I subscribe here from OZ ($54 two
years) as opposed to paying $11 per issue at the newsagent.

Having said that, I've noticed that the general thrust of the magazine has
shifted from generally GA (me a low time VFR pilot) to mid sized jets. I
don't mind the occassional article on the jets, but I really have no
interest. As far as I'm concerned the content is (has) shifting
significantly out of my interest zone and I wont be updating the
subscription when it expires.

The local AOPA magazine here in OZ is, well, poor by comparison to the US
version. I've thought about joining the US AOPA just to get the magazine.
The local OZ SAAA magazine is a better fit for me than Flying, at least it
talks stuff I want to hear.

YMMV,
Kevin

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping
the subscription. In recent years, I've grown more and more reluctant to
renew it, but when it came to crunch time, I went ahead and mailed in my
$12.00 or whatever. Not this year, though. In all honesty, I don't
remember the last article or column in Flying that made me want to go back
and re-read the article. Instead, the magazine arrives and I spend an
hour or so breezing through it, then it goes into the trash can, leaving
me wondering what I missed.

Once upon a time, I subscribed to 4 or 5 aviation magazines and enjoyed
them all. Now I'm only taking two aviation related mag's - Sport Aviation
and AOPA Pilot, and both of them are member benefits from their sponsor
organizations. I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read,
so why don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the
magazines changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and
after reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little
left that is new and interesting to me?

Anyway, it is sad in a way that there isn't an aviation magazine that
interests me enough that I'll spend $12 or $15 a year for a subscription.

KB