Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-239 next last
To: RunningWolf
In that case it is very similar to the theory itself then.

Not really. That sticker is typical of the lying manipulations of all creationists. This Discovery Institute arguement about plagarizing plantiff legal briefs is another example. The DI is putting out propaganda red meat for their supporters who know nothing of standard operating procedures in the legal system. It's pure manipulation and you, as well as several others here, have fallen for it.

41 posted on 12/12/2006 10:56:45 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Never, ever let a thing like being 'technically true' stand in the way of a good opinion.

A fact told without its context can be spun into essentially being a lie. Imagine this headline a while back:

Roosevelt is a Murderer!

Today, a large group of armed Americans were directed by President Roosevelt to cross into the sovereign nation of Germany and kill thousands of German citizens. One of the leaders of his group was even caught saying he personally wanted to kill the democratically elected head of the German government.

That is all technically true, but it constitutes a huge lie unless one knows the context.
42 posted on 12/12/2006 11:00:08 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You really don't get it? - This case proves that assumption false. The lies won.

As is typical, the creationists were the ones caught lying under oath. The lies were refuted and a good legal opinion was had. As I said to RW, you have been suckered in by Discovery Institute spin. Another example of creationsist manipulations. The way of writing of this opinion is no different that what happens in all the courtrooms across this nation. With actions like this, how can anyone who is a creationsist ever have credibility?

43 posted on 12/12/2006 11:00:49 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: highball
"However, pretending that this is somehow unusual or unexpected is either gross ignorance of the law or an outright lie."

Please show where this happened.

"You may choose which it is, based on how charitable you're feeling today."

False dichotomy but I guess we know how charitable you feel today. ;-)

44 posted on 12/12/2006 11:02:29 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; highball

Highball is right. This is a Jones is a conservative judge. You only believe otherwise because he ruled on the merits of a case in a way you disagree.


45 posted on 12/12/2006 11:02:42 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
It comes as no surprise to me that the Discovery Institute and its supporters would now want to cover up their role in the debacle, but you can't hide from the truth. The Discovery Institute gave the Dover school board legal advice when it was writing the curriculum.

You can't run from that.

46 posted on 12/12/2006 11:04:15 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"This case proves that assumption false."

Bull. They proved their facts and hence the judge used their Findings of Facts. If the other side won then he would have used the other sides Findings of Facts.

As has been pointed out about ten times in 3 different threads, that is how it is done by every judge out there.

Party A states a, b, c.
Party A proves a, b, c.
Judge writes a, b and c in the ruling

OMG look!! a, b and c are there!!!!

Sour Grapes
47 posted on 12/12/2006 11:04:17 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"That is all technically true, but it constitutes a huge lie unless one knows the context."

Well, Roosevelt may have been a murderer, but the text that followed didn't say that. DI didn't claim anything that they didn't prove.

You guys are just upset because the truth is being more widely disseminated than previously and that obviously must be the result of evil creationists.

48 posted on 12/12/2006 11:05:20 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"However, pretending that this is somehow unusual or unexpected is either gross ignorance of the law or an outright lie."

Please show where this happened.

Sigh. I really wish you'd read the article before posting.

"Judge Jones's decision wasn't a masterpiece of scholarship. It was a masterpiece of cut-and-paste," said the Discovery Institute's John West in a phone conference with reporters yesterday.

West is vice president for public policy and legal affairs for the group's Center for Science and Culture, which issued a statement saying, "The finding that most of Judge Jones' analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones' examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design."

What Judge Jones did was standard legal practice, and West ought to know that. If Jones had ruled for the Dover school board, then the opinion would have been constructed out of the Dover lawyers' arguments.

49 posted on 12/12/2006 11:08:31 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
DI didn't claim anything that they didn't prove.

DI is now claiming that there is something suspect in the judgment. That is a claim that they did not prove.

50 posted on 12/12/2006 11:09:40 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: highball; GourmetDan
To clarify:

DI is now claiming that there is something suspect in the judgment because it incorporates text from one side's arguments. As stated above, that is common legal practice.

That, again, is a claim that they have not proved.
51 posted on 12/12/2006 11:11:28 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
(By the way, just how DID Genesis get the Big Bang and continental drift and planetary development and biology sequences exactly right - before they knew all that scientific stuff?)

Like creating the Sun, Moon and stars after having created the plants and fruit trees?

52 posted on 12/12/2006 11:20:07 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: highball
"What Judge Jones did was standard legal practice, and West ought to know that."

Sigh. West never said that it wasn't.

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. If Jones couldn't recognize scientific error, how does that support his ability to make a judgement in that area?

I really wish you'd stop projecting your own personality onto others when posting.

53 posted on 12/12/2006 11:29:16 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"As is typical, the creationists were the ones caught lying under oath."

A foolish statement from someeone known for foolish statements; I'm dazzled!

Get back to your garbage truck before it gets ripe.

54 posted on 12/12/2006 11:29:20 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: highball
"DI is now claiming that there is something suspect in the judgment. That is a claim that they did not prove."

Yes they did.

They showed that Judge Jones' posting of scientific error makes it apparent he was unqualified to understand the arguments.

55 posted on 12/12/2006 11:30:50 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: highball
"DI is now claiming that there is something suspect in the judgment because it incorporates text from one side's arguments. As stated above, that is common legal practice."

Well, that's not what they claimed but I understand why you need to present it in that manner.

56 posted on 12/12/2006 11:31:43 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

God bless Judge Jones and his sound decision to keep U.S. science education on solid footing!


57 posted on 12/12/2006 11:38:32 AM PST by Quark2005 (Incredulity doesn't make facts go away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

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.


58 posted on 12/12/2006 11:41:08 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
No, no.

Nah. Everything was created first. Then came light. Then matter. Just like the Big bang predicts now, only the old Jewish shepherds were about 6000 years early. Then the stars and planets were formed, each in their own sphere. Just like cosmologists now (finally) claim. 8<)

Just like the geologists (finally) now believe. 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.
59 posted on 12/12/2006 11:41:09 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Well, Roosevelt may have been a murderer, but the text that followed didn't say that.

In the law, if you direct someone to commit a murder, then you are yourself guilty of murder (also look up "felony murder doctrine" for how one can be a murderer without himself killing anyone). What I wrote in the paragraph text was exactly factual and would lead a reasonable person to conclude the headline was true, but it is in effect a huge lie that completely distorts what really happened. You could do the same with Bush and Iraq.

DI didn't claim anything that they didn't prove.

Completely out of context, as in my earlier example. 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.

60 posted on 12/12/2006 11:41:15 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson