Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[snarks_when_bored]

Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.

[VadeRetro]

I make no apology for condemning a deluded and corrupt man - Darwin - whose bizarre work has caused so much hell on earth.

Your "condemnations" have been silly attempts at transparent trickery--by you. Deluded and corrupt? Look in a mirror.

You really need to rethink what you are doing on these threads. No one is fooled and you are behaving very badly in public.

[Protagoras]

Hee. Have a good one.

Thanks, you too. I'm having a ball.

[sauropod]

Correct assessment.

[Diamond]

Find an endogenous retrovirus identically positioned in the human and gorilla genome, and not present in the chimp genome in order to do tremendous damage to the theory of evolution.

That's a valid method of potential falsification in general, but in the particular example you chose, it would be a bit problematic. The reason is that the points of divergence of the gorilla/chimp/human lineages are close enough together in time that the divergence was more like a three-way split than a sequence of clean successive forks. As a result, it wouldn't be out of the question to find genetic "markers" that are common to different pairs of these lineages, in "contradictory" ways.

I been told by Darwinists here that endogenous retroviruses are the "smoking gun" of simian/human lineages. So they are when the theory accommodates them, but if markers are found "out of place" the notion of common ancestry is not falsified? The whole idea of these markers constituting incontrovertible evidence for common ancestry rests on a host of bare assumptions, not the least of which is that they are non-functional, random occurrence - an assumption that is called into question by evidence such as observed insertion bias. The fact is nobody really knows what, if any, role these retroviruses have played in natural history. It's one thing for a theory to be able to accommodate evidence, but it's quite another for the same theory to accommodate its absence. I guess such a find in the future would just be chalked up to convergence.

Cordially,

[MineralMan]

Your namesake would be appalled at the poor level of sophistry you exhibit.

I know what you referencing. I said that I could offer grace in several languages, and have done so. Many folks pray without belief in any deities. Table graces are nothing more than expressions of gratitude for food. If I offer one, I have no particular entity in mind, but am, yet, grateful for the abundance at my table.

Others believe in various things. Each person is his or her own philospher. You may recognize that concept, given your choice of freepname.

While you may agree with your namesake that you are able to argue the weak side as well as the strong side, you would be incorrect. Protagoras may well have been able to do that. You are not Protagoras.

Perhaps, in Aristotelean terms, you are a shadow image of Protagoras, but not the actual Protagoras.

Sophistry is the mocking term used for those who attempt to emulate Protagoras. Few succeed. You are one of those who do not.

Unlike others on this thread, you are arguing for argument's sake. That's sad. Find a position, oh shadow of Protagoras, and argue from that position. Sophistry does not become you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Actually it's the lack of evidence that EVOS protect."

Projection is a bitch.

Now, about ANY evidence that

1) Darwin was a misanthrope
2) He lied
3) There ever were 500 theses based on Piltdown man

"Very sad...and must be humiliating to know how flimsy that evidence is...and destructive. "

Yes, your humiliation must be tremendous since you are unable to provide anything to back up your above claims.

"Frauds are sad...and the imposters like you who have to be mocked now and then."

That's why you are such a pitiable person. You are a liar who thinks his God likes lying. Lying won't get you a better seat by his side.

Now, gonna provide any evidence for your claims or are you going to continue to wallow in lies?

[MineralMan]

"Don't fall for Protagoras' trolling; he's trying to get you to snap. He knows damn well what you meant."

Oh, yes. I know. Protagoras is arguing the weak side as an exercise. He's trying to emulate his namesake. It's not working. It is, however, a pleasant enough exercise for a Wednesday morning.

[Coyoteman]

Would you like to tell me exactly what science was used in terms of attaching an age to these skulls? Perhaps later you would like to discuss Piltman?

Also, just try and absorb the following from one of my favorite web sites:

Please post the link to the "favorite web site" you quoted from.

Dating is done in several different ways. One is radiometric dating (of which there are several different kinds). Another deals with fauna and flora in associated strata. Still another deals with distinctive volcanic deposits. Using multiple methods helps to get reliable dates. But the dates are always cross-checked. If a fossil does not seem to fit, some bright person in some other facility will probably try to correct the date, and get a major research paper out of it.

As far as Piltdown Man, the great hoax, I would be happy to discuss it. What would you like to know?

In response also to your post #1674, there are not a lot of fakes and it is dishonest to claim otherwise. The vast majority of scientists hate errors and do their best to root them out.

[Protagoras]

:^}

Hey, he is a purely logical man, he doesn't need advice from other posters!

BTW, speaking of trolling, in case you missed it, that's the whole point. He exists on this site with that childish tag-line to troll for debate on his favorite subject. It is the reason he is here.

I suspect that even though he will never ever admit it, even to himself, he feels a irresistible compulsion to talk the whole thing to death because he is very uncomfortable with his philosophy and has a terrible fear that he may be wrong.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" BTW, speaking of trolling, in case you missed it, that's the whole point."

Maybe yours, but not ours.

[MineralMan]

"I suspect that even though he will never ever admit it, even to himself, he feels a irresistible compulsion to talk the whole thing to death because he is very uncomfortable with his philosophy and has a terrible fear that he may be wrong."

---

Is that what you suspect, oh shadow of Protagoras? You suspect wrongly.

BTW, it's considered polite to include the freepname of the person you're discussing in the To: field. Common courtesy. OTOH, I neglect to do that myself from time to time, so you are forgiven.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

The same "proofs" that are being offered to support evolution, only different.

That's what you creationists keep saying.

Show me the proof that supporters of evolution claim that:

...“various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,”

As I recall, evolution supporters don't claim that fish with scales and birds with feathers, beaks and wings began abruptly as if created out of nothingness. If you have proof otherwise, please post it.

I had asked you a question, which you have yet to answer. You chided me for inferring that you believe ID is scientifically provable. I would like you to clarify your opinion.

Do you believe ID is 'science' or that it is 'scientifically provable'?

[Protagoras]

I know what you referencing. I said that I could offer grace in several languages, and have done so. Many folks pray without belief in any deities. Table graces are nothing more than expressions of gratitude for food. If I offer one, I have no particular entity in mind, but am, yet, grateful for the abundance at my table.

This is hilarious stuff. You should do stand up!

Just curious, if you give thanks to no one, who receives the thanks? And grateful? You mean the word "grace"? You might want to look that up.

Here's an idea, when you give thanks, use my name. Tell the people you are grateful to me. Hell, I'm as good as anyone else who never gave you anything!

[Protagoras]

BTW, it's considered polite to include the freepname of the person you're discussing in the To: field. Common courtesy. OTOH, I neglect to do that myself from time to time, so you are forgiven.

I do not seek your forgiveness. And since there is no right or wrong, why would it matter if I was courteous? Or even if I killed someone, as long as I didn't get caught? I mean, it's not really right or wrong.

[MineralMan]

"Here's an idea, when you give thanks, use my name. Tell the people you are grateful to me."

I will be happy to do that. You can freepmail me your address, so I can send you the receipt for the food I buy for Christmas dinner. Once I receive your check, I will be sure to give thanks in your name for the dinner.

Until then, I'll give generic thanks, since I have no idea of the names of the folks who raised the turkey, harvested the potatoes, or produced, handled, distributed, and otherwise assisted me in my dinner preparations.

It would be much easier if I had one person to thank, and I'd be more than happy if it were you. So, just forward a check in the amount of the receipt and you'll be the recipient of my thanks at dinner.

[NJ_gent]

"This should be interesting. A "conservative" making the case for government schools. Paying for all education regardless of need."

As a conservative, I see education as the primary means by which to enable self-betterment. Self-determination is a cornerstone for conservatism. Nationalism is also a part of being a conservative, and if we were to improve our schools to be the best in the world (which would require a return to the pre-Freudian teaching constructs used prior to the 1920s), I believe it would make this nation far stronger. We would once again be at the frontal edge of many important fields, rather than bystanders watching other countries make breakthroughs for us.

"First, your "masses upon masses" of people who are in government schools are mostly people who could afford to educate their own children under a different plan. Particularly if they weren't forced to pay for other people's educations and all other manner of government scams."

Do you have any idea how much private schooling generally costs? I'm not saying that a lot of people currently in public schools couldn't afford it, but to say it's "mostly" is absurd. Your assessment is based on the idea that everyone pays the same amount of taxes which is, of course, completely incorrect. Am I all for knocking out government waste? Yes; on a scale that would knock your socks off (start with eliminating Social Security, Medicare, and the national debt, then work on the smaller stuff). But I see knocking down education as being perhaps even more dangerous than saving money by eliminating the Department of Defense to save money. In other words, I simply see some things as worthwhile.

"But basically you are saying that the one and only way to provide education to the truly needy is the current system."

Certainly not, and I'm open to good, solid ideas that don't leave kids or parents out in the cold (literally). However, 95% of what I hear from the anti-government schooling crowd is essentially that government schools stink, always will be terrible, don't teach kids, are dangerous, are wasteful, and should be shut down immediately. What I don't hear are reasoned arguments based on facts, alternate plans which are actually thought out and viable, or viable plans for a transition from the current system to this supposedly better system. Complaining about something without offering ideas or solutions is something we've been pounding Democrats about for years. Why the anti-government schooling crowd thinks the same methods will work to win over their fellow conservatives is beyond me.

"Put on your thinking cap and think of possible alternate methods of provision. I bet you can think of some if you try."

My thinking cap tells me that the current schools can be improved in many ways, beginning with a return to older teaching constructs proven to work far, far better than what's used now. If you want alternate ideas proposed, I suggest you do so or find someone else to do so. I'm for massive overhaul reforms unless and until someone provides a better idea that's workable, viable, and doesn't leave kids without the opportunity to advance themselves.

"Right out of the liberal Democratic handbook."

If you say so; I'll chalk that up to broken clock theory. The more you demonize public schools and make it appear as though they're inherently evil, the more you marginalize yourself and make others less open to hear your arguments. I'm one who can be swayed by a reasoned argument that provides sound solutions, but not one who responds to emotionally charged arguments that don't go anywhere. Unless I see a plan in place and a transition plan in place, I can only assume that the plan is to let those who can afford it go to private schools and let the rest be farmers or beggars. It simply wouldn't make sense to believe otherwise.

[Protagoras]

Maybe yours, but not ours.

It's definately his. No question.

I haven't ever seen any of your posts or they weren't memorable, so I can't address your whole point of being here.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I haven't ever seen any of your posts or they weren't memorable, so I can't address your whole point of being here."

More trolling.

[MineralMan]

"I do not seek your forgiveness. And since there is no right or wrong, why would it matter if I was courteous? Or even if I killed someone, as long as I didn't get caught? I mean, it's not really right or wrong."

---

Ah, more sophistry from the shadow of Protagoras. There is no right or wrong position...only the rhetoric. Very good. Even though Protagoras left little in writing, you are more than making up for the loss of his words through history.

It's all relative to you Sophists, is it not. Murder is only a crime if you are caught and apprehended by the society which defines it as a crime.

I know of no atheists who have that opinion. Most of us are not sophists at all. But, oh shadow of the real Protagoras, you are not quite up to the task of espousing pure relativism. Perhaps you will continue to grow in your philosophy, and make the shade proud of its shadow. Time will tell.

[Protagoras]

The unknown persons who you are thanking never sent you any check. And since I never claimed you owed me thanks, I think I'll just keep my money or give it to a worthy cause, like my church.

My post clearly indicated you owe me no thanks, I just want equal billing with all the other people you are thanking who never did a damn thing to put that food on your table so you could pray to no one with your ape relatives. Particularly the dim witted ones who believe in God. Poor slobs, they just aren't as smart as you.

This is great fun!