Skip to comments.
Judge copied ACLU in anti-design ruling
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| December 12, 2006
| Art Moore
Posted on 12/12/2006 8:52:13 AM PST by editor-surveyor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 221-239 next last
To: editor-surveyor
It looks like the Discovery Institute's analysis was cut-and-pasted verbatim from Kent Hovind's 1990's tax returns. /sarcasm
The link at their site doesn't work.
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
"Book only says they (the moon and sun) became visible (ruled the night for navigation, if you will) after the plants (already created from the earth, of course) cleared up the previously toxic and opaque atmosphere." Wrongo.
Book uses the same 'create' word for the sun/moon as it did for the beasts and man.
Now, if you think that the beasts and man only 'became visible' you might have a point.
To: ndt
Too bad that 'party A' proved nothing. A secularist, empty suit judge simply said "my friends win, nya nya nya..."
And yes, that has displaced honest judicial review in many courts, but that doesn't make it right. (I know you don't understand, so trust those of us that do, you're doing the best that you can with what you have)
63
posted on
12/12/2006 11:47:25 AM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: antiRepublicrat
"The DI is lying by removing context and relying on the ignorance of its supporters not to catch it -- or even reject it when the proper context is shown, as is apparent here." Nope, the DI is telling the truth that its opponents do not want told.
Therefore the need to characterize them falsely.
To: GourmetDan
Riight. No disagreement.
They were created from the earth. Just as the moon was formed from the collision of a large object and the earth.
Neither was "created" (as we think of it) from nothing, their matter already existed. But they could not be seen until the plants cleared up the atmosphere.
Then again, I could argue that this means that plants (now thought to be "only" 3 some-odd billion years old) were actually already present before the moon's collision at around 4 billion some-odd years ago.
We shall see. Science has been wrong before in confirming what the Book already said.
65
posted on
12/12/2006 11:51:31 AM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: editor-surveyor
"Too bad that 'party A' proved nothing. "
Sour Grapes.
"A secularist, empty suit judge simply said "my friends win, nya nya nya..."
LOL You mean the Lutheran Republican Judge John E. Jones III appointed by George W Bush? And did you just say "nya nya nya"? How old are you?
"I know you don't understand, so trust those of us that do"
O ya, you sure know what your talking about d/a
66
posted on
12/12/2006 11:55:27 AM PST
by
ndt
To: GourmetDan
God bless the Discovery Institute for their tireless efforts to publish the truth about the inability of the judicial 'process' to recognize what science is and what it is not. Oh yeah, the Discovery Institute has a real handle on science!
(If only mainstream science would listen to my theory!!!!)
67
posted on
12/12/2006 11:55:43 AM PST
by
Quark2005
(Incredulity doesn't make facts go away.)
To: Quark2005
"Oh yeah, the Discovery Institute has a real handle on science!" Oh yeah, Judge Jones has a real handle on science!"
To: highball
who went looking for a school district foolish enough to provoke a lawsuit. They couldn't get their program in schools on its own merit, so they decided to use the courts.
That is exactly how they introduced "evolution" into our schools to begin with, isn't it?
69
posted on
12/12/2006 12:06:25 PM PST
by
loboinok
(Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
To: subterfuge
Hmm. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Thanks. Trust no one. Here's a portion of a transcript from a hearing in SCO v IBM on Feb 24, 2006:
THE COURT: Counsel, I'm prepared to rule in this matter. Looking at this case individually on its particular set of facts, I find that ... And, Mr. Shaughnessy, if you'll prepare an order as to that decision. [IBM attorney] MR. SHAUGHNESSY: I will, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Now let's address the remaining motion... And I'm going to deny SCO's motion to compel at this time. ... Are there any other questions that need to be posed or should be posed and answers given, or is that clear?
MR. SHAUGHNESSY: I think that's clear. Would you like me to prepare an order on that, as well?
THE COURT: Yes. Yes.
To: GourmetDan
Oh yeah, Judge Jones has a real handle on science!" Jones' decision was to leave science to scientists. A good one.
Biological scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution.
71
posted on
12/12/2006 12:10:53 PM PST
by
Quark2005
(Incredulity doesn't make facts go away.)
To: GourmetDan
Nope, the DI is telling the truth that its opponents do not want told. The opponents don't care if it's told in context. In fact, it's all public record in the first place, so it has been told already. The problem is the defamatory spin the ID is doing. Just as in my examples -- a spin of facts equals a lie.
To: editor-surveyor
A foolish statement from someeone known for foolish statements; I'm dazzled! Get back to your garbage truck before it gets ripe. No it isn't. Creationists have to lie. Let me tone that down. They frequently lie on top of manipulating real science into some Frankenstein monstrosity in order to mislead people. Creationist/IDers don't do any actual research. I'll get back to doing real research while you dig through that garbage truck for more 'evidence' of creationism or bias in this ruling.
73
posted on
12/12/2006 12:13:08 PM PST
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Book only says they (the moon and sun) became visible (ruled the night for navigation, if you will) after the plants (already created from the earth, of course) You realize that this also means the Earth was created before the Sun, right?
To: antiRepublicrat
Nooooo. 8<) (Thought I went through this already.)
Everything was created first. Without form or substance, of course.
Then light (condensed), then matter, then the matter condensed into what we now call the planets and cosmos.
Planet, atmosphere, and (one) ocean were formed - stars too as a matter of course. Plants were formed from the earth - so evolution is NOT rejected by Genesis - it is PREDICTED and required by Genesis.
What you're assuming is the "creation" of the sun and moon is what actually only occurred when they became visible after the plants cleaned up the atmosphere. Until then, they were not visible, and not not be used for navigation and light. Alternate position - and perhaps even more correct, is that the first plants are going to found to be older than the moon.
Either view yields the same point: how did these itinerant shepherds wandering the dessert before numbers, zeros, and logarithms and powers-of-ten were invented figure out there was only one continent and one ocean..... When they KNEW from observation and trade that there were many oceans and seas, and many continents?
75
posted on
12/12/2006 12:38:56 PM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: RunningWolf
His ruling will be overturned I hope.It won't be overturned. The school board got voted out, remember? The new board isn't appealing.
76
posted on
12/12/2006 12:40:01 PM PST
by
Sandy
To: editor-surveyor
actually, judges routinely have the prevaling attorney write the court order.
What surprises me is that nobody pickup up on this earlier.
77
posted on
12/12/2006 12:47:19 PM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
A shopped-for (liberal) judge What are you talking about? The judge followed precedent perfectly (which you would know if you actually read the decision). There's nothing liberal about that.
78
posted on
12/12/2006 12:47:57 PM PST
by
Sandy
To: GourmetDan
He said that it (cut-past w/ errors) seriously undercuts the credibility of Jones' examination of the scientific validity of the intelligent-design argument and it does.
No, it doesn't.
You obviously haven't read the transcripts - the defense's star witness, under oath, admitted that ID is as scientific as astrology.
The only side to put forward a valid scientific analysis was the plaintiff. The only side to lie in court was the defense. That the judge recognized those two facts in no way weakens his argument.
79
posted on
12/12/2006 12:48:57 PM PST
by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: highball
Two years later, some folks are still counting chads.
There was a time and a place when DI could have testified, but they chickened out. They demanded, as witnesses, the right to have attorneys present. Since the appearance of perjury was an issue in the findings, they were no doubt wise not to testify.
80
posted on
12/12/2006 12:56:38 PM PST
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 221-239 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson