Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
Did you pay the postage or send them C.O.D?
Did you also observe the angels holding the plane aloft?
It's not all work. I've also gone over mach 1.0 at 100' AGL. I've watched a tanker wave gossamer wings as we fell away on a practice emergency disconnect. etc.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate." -- Blade Runner
2Ti 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
Absolutely. ;^) It's pretty quiet up there.
Well, good stuff. That is obviously something to behold.
(The >mach 1.0 at 100' AGL -- hope that was over uninhabited land, or water. You could get a lot of broken windows doing that!)
Tropical jungle, and mostly uninhabited. Huts don't have glass windows. We didn't fly directly over them, but they sure knew we were around.
Did you use GPS?
LOL
No. Those were the days when timing was done using sundials and positioning was determined using someone call Janice Doppler ;^).
call = called.
idiot.
That is really a funny (but sad) picture.
Factually incomplete. It does not show the saddles.
Yes, I suppose it would be sad if you fail to understand science, I-M.
It's sad that people actually fall for that crap. It is even sadder that people fall for the huckster selling that crap.
How true!
Here's an idea. Why don't you read Godless and refute what she states about the theory of evolution? I'd love to see you destroy her "scientific research".
It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.
You may find the question "already ridiculous" but to simply claim that the signers are anti-science because they agree with its statement still begs said question by running afoul of the "No true Scotsman fallacy".
I didn't claims that the signers are anti-science. Your statement is, thus, an example of the "Strawman fallacy." (It is the Discovery Institute and those that wish to replace science in the classroom with fairy stories, creation myths or, to risk repetition, ID.)
It's one thing to say that ID isn't really science, and it is another to say that no true scientists endorse it. It's that latter claim that I think can't be made without committing the NTS fallacy.
I never said anything about the scientists who signed it, but about the DI, who are defrauding the public, and its tactic of lying about the supposed existance of a genuine controversy in the biological community about the validity of evolution.
Of the signatories, some are Moonies who were asked by "Father" Sun Yong Moon to pursue education and careers in biology to give the sort of legitimacy to his primative Genesisist beliefs that the DI is pushing. Some, if not most, are scientists who were duped into signing it, given the innocuousness of the statement, coupled with the signatory's ignorance of the DI and its tactics and goals. Finally, there are a bunch of scientists in non-biological fields who are born again Christians who, I believe, signed as an act of religious faith or obligation.
As for Stephen Jay Gould, I'm a little surprised you would describe him as "great". According to John Maynard Smith,...
Maynard Smith's entitled to his opinion of Gould, I'm entitled to my opinion of Maynard Smith. And anyone who wouldn't describe Gould as "great," even if they have academic differences with him, simply isn't paying attention.
Gould is well known for having written the Mismeasure of Man, a screed attacking the Bell Curve and its authors as pseudo-scientists rather than dealing with its facts and arguments...
LMAO! Referring to any of Gould's writing as a "screed" is utterly ridiculous. Gould may write many things, but "screeds" are not among them.
We're also entitled to disagree. I don't feel threatened by that. I'm sorry if you do.
What Ann Coulter does is by no means "Scientific Research." I'm sure that she would be the first to admit that.
Funny, but I didn't realize you were the rule maker of what qualifies as scientific research and what doesn't. What Coulter lays out perfectly are published FACTS about the theory of evolution and in the process, destroys Darwin. But don't take my word for it. Read Godless to see for yourself, then argue your points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.