Posted on 12/31/2005 1:32:58 AM PST by neverdem
Actually, they were initially involved up to their eyeballs, but decided to back out, apparently over a dispute regarding their "fellows," who were to be expert defense witnesses, having their own (meaning DI's) attorneys present during depositions, instead of just relying on the TMLC attorneys, who represented the Dover School board. When TMLC insisted they alone represent the deponents, DI backed out and took a couple or more of their experts with them.
Additionally, DI filed an amicus brief with the court, even after withdrawing its witnesses, so it is fair to say they were heavily involved, but backed out partially.
All of which just goes to show that DI is exactly like the wacko Eco-nazi organizations, including looking for opportunities to get involved in litigation.
Amazing how much work people will do for money, and not just intellectual preening or curiosity. :-)
Happy New Year.
...and all the best to you, too!
And how little appreciated it is by a certain highly vocal group.
How many times do we see that fallacious argument? Life is more complicated that a watch/car/computer/airplane, and we don't question that a watch/car/computer/airplane was designed, so life must have been designed.
Watches/cars/computers/airplanes don't reproduce (imperfect) copies of themselves, though!! If they did, one might legitimately call into question whether their original origin was that of design...
(redundancy error noted)
Some here are merely "self important", so they can be ignored. [/sarc]
DOESN'T THIS STAR KNOW THAT ITS GAS CLOUD IS VIOLATING THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!!!
The ingredients - gaseous precursors to DNA and protein - were detected in the star's terrestrial planet zone, a region where rocky planets such as Earth are thought to be born. The findings represent the first time that these gases, called acetylene and hydrogen cyanide, have been found in a terrestrial planet zone outside of our own.
as someone who believes in creation/ID I have never been a big fan of the whole watch analogy. I, too, do not think it is very relevant. On the other hand, the evolutionist's comparison of evolution with the law of gravity is just as weak. they have virtually nothing to do with one another.
Both example are nothing more than illustrations which prove absolutely nothing.
SHUT UP! What if one of the robots in Detroit milling axles or cutting and shaping sheet metal has an Internet connection, reads this, and realizes that what it's doing is impossible? If word gets out to the other robots you could bring the entire automotive industry to a screeching halt!
We usually compare evolution to the THEORY of gravity, not the LAW of gravity, in order to explain why the THEORY of evolution is "only" a theory.
In case you missed it, a scientific theory explains the mechanisms of how something works. I.E. gravity is real, as is evolution. But the THEORY of gravity and evolution are different things. The theory of gravity, despite the fact that we can observe it everywhere is actually not well understood. I believe one of the current theories of gravity relates to warping of space.
The theory of evolution is quite a bit more settled science, in that we understand "survival of the fittest", and DNA mutations, etc.
The bottom line is that evolution is both a fact (because it happens), and a scientific theory. Just like gravity.
DNA is a chemical, essentially a polymer of four deoxyribonucleic acids. Big molecules have smaller ones as precursors. It doesn't matter if they are from living systems or not. Chemicals are chemicals and they exhibit the same properties regardless of origin.
Drawing something with software on a computer screen, or movie frame doesn't take much resolution. But the information contained in a real, full sized compound curve of a car fender with polished surface would be astronomical.
Uh, but the robots actually DO it. And they aren't programmed with "astronomical" amounts of information.
Yup. And the surface they leave is rough, requiring buffing and polishing at least.
The original point was the amount of information in a car. A real car. Which means you must numerically describe the shiny surface of the metal. The multiple layers of the paint. And result in something measurably identical to a real car.
THAT is numerically impossible.
The reason I'm making that comparison is I'm studying how to do software 3D rendering now, and I'm recognizing the serious limitations involved.
You seem to be saying that the Thoery of 'evolution is pretty much guess work.
Numerically impossible placemarker. ;^)
And imagine the level of detail required to make the no-line bifocal type lenses people wear. THat's where precision curvature and optics come together.
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.