Originally Posted by
NickLappos
i4iq,
It never fails to amaze me that those of us (and you, perhaps) who make a living in a very scientific endevor, where the physics of flight - the very topic we are discussing - is part and parcel of our occupation can just divorce a selected scientific fact when demanded by their religion. .
Interestingly enough, Newton himself was a creationist (as you would label him). Which
facts are you suggesting he divorced?
Originally Posted by
NickLappos
Precisely where is the line drawn between 1/2rho V squared and creationist theory?
You make the assumption that there are lines...
Originally Posted by
NickLappos
I cannot see how a fundamental religious belief can so vastly replace one section of the scientific firmament without leaving gaping holes!
Gaping holes such as those left by missing links, for example?!
Originally Posted by
NickLappos
Suppose you suddenly found a section in the bible that told you to shut down all engines at 10,000 feet, would you do it because of your belief?
This is a straw-man argument, Nick.
Originally Posted by
NickLappos
You are clearly a reasonable person, therefore I know the answer, and I am glad! Perhaps it is easier to argue against evolution because it doesn't seem to matter, we blindly follow this portion of religious fundamental belief because nobody dies if we are wrong..
Nobody needs to blindly follow anything.
Originally Posted by
NickLappos
I truly hope that professional pilots know where to draw the line between religion and the aviation procedures they follow,.
Back to the straw-man argument...
Originally Posted by
NickLappos
just as I know Doctors do when they use fundamental evolution as a means to develop new drugs and medical procedures
That is known as elephant hurling but anyway, evolution requires additional information to arise, not changes/"adaptations" where loss of information is often the cause for drug resistance. (btw, Pasteur was a "creationist" too!)
Originally Posted by
NickLappos
in spite of those who label things they don't understand as "theory" and therefore not valid.
So, in your own words, you mention the "creationist theory" as something you dont understand and therefore invalid
I dont think this is the right "forum" to be discussing this but I'd be happy to continue the discussion via PM...
