Yes, I agree, the close-up does your visage justice, but I cropped the photo just above where it was getting a bit... shall we say... "saggy"
...if you know what I mean. 
Now just run along and tell your little friends good night, granny Lilith.
Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
The NCSE is headquartered in California, not Washington State.
It still has nothing to do with the fact that nothing untoward happened to Sternberg. All the hype and bad press is of his doing. In his effort to play the persecuted at the SI he actually blew up administrative minutiae to look like a personal attack on himself, and obviously people bought it. In general, it’s good to make sure you have a clean record before you start calling persecution, and Sternberg had far from a clean record. Yet quite the opposite of being punished for nothing, absolutely nothing was done to him for his transgressions.
[[embryology, information theory, the Cambrian Explosion, population genetics, etc]]
Pretty powerful evidence agaisnt Macroevolution coupled along with mathematics, biological evidences, the second law- pretty devestating if you ask me
[[So not only was the article inappropriate for ANY science journal,]]
Funny, I thought scientific journals covered embryology, information theory, the Cambrian Explosion, population genetics, etc
[[I’m pretty sure the post was referring to Guillermo Gonzalez, not Sternberg]]
The original comment was about sternberg, and it was insinuated that he couldn’t possibly be trusted to state anythign scientific becuase he was denied tenure, and he was accused of lying (qwithout any proof that he actually did lie- it was nothign but a baseless accusation- per usual)
Let me guess, you bought the spin. An internal DI document labeled "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution" was leaked detailing their plans. Obviously they didn't want anybody to know of their plans, yet now we do. Meyer had to finally admit its authenticity. After that the DI went on a massive spin campaign to downplay it. That's what organizations usually do when they get caught.
especially in relation to Dover, which, as I demonstrated, was rejected by the Discovery Institute.
Read again: Started by the Discovery Institute as part of their "teach the controversy" program. They only withdrew after they saw they had a losing case.
So show your "conspiratorial" facts.
Wedge Document, Phase III, second sentence: "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula."
In response to criticisms the DI said in their "So What" refutation, "others have invented and then hyped a supposed secrecy" about the strategy. Supposed secrecy? The document was marked "Top Secret" so the DI obviously intended secrecy.
I think it was something about the god Mercury using magnets to have Ben Stein make a movie.
“The original comment was about sternberg, and it was insinuated that he couldn’t possibly be trusted to state anythign scientific becuase he was denied tenure, and he was accused of lying (qwithout any proof that he actually did lie- it was nothign but a baseless accusation- per usual)”
—I’m not sure which comment is the “original comment”, but I don’t see Sternberg being brought up until post 686. And you’re probably still confusing Gonzalez with Sternberg since Sternberg was never denied tenure (nor has he ever sought tenure). (If you’re thinking of post 668, that was definitely referring to Gonzalez).
Yes, I agree, the close-up does your visage justice, but I cropped the photo just above where it was getting a bit... shall we say... "saggy"
...if you know what I mean.
Now just run along and tell your little friends good night, granny Lilith.
“Pretty powerful evidence agaisnt Macroevolution coupled along with mathematics, biological evidences, the second law- pretty devestating if you ask me”
—Not if you ask me (nor the vast majority of the world’s scientists who actually study the subjects).
“Funny, I thought scientific journals covered embryology, information theory, the Cambrian Explosion, population genetics, etc”
—They do - but journals are for articles with something new to say, which this article didn’t. (And even if it DID have something new to say and was appropriate for a science journal, this was entirely the wrong journal for the subject matter.)
Wow, Shamus! But this is from Washington(I was wrong about the state it is D.C.)...."Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington", which is the publication Sternberg edited, belonging to the other entity I mentioned.
It still has nothing to do with the fact that nothing untoward happened to Sternberg.
You've got to be kidding me. First, you say Sternberg got what he deserved. Now you say nothing untoward happened. You trying to sell dead parrots?
You've been guessing all along so why stop now. No, no spin. And you are either lying or incorrect about the "Top Secret".. Look for yourself...
That said, this is not about "The Wedge" this is about Scopes as a conspiracy and your alledged conspiracy involving DI in the Dover case. So far you have struck out. You will notice that the vote about ID occurred on Oct 18, 2004 and DI stepped away from the vote when asked on Nov 12, 2004. What the vote in Oct. stated was ....Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught." This is what DI would not support on Nov 12. Then on Nov 19 the Dover Area School District made a press release which included...
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.
The ACLU then sued on behalf of 11 parents on Dec 14, 2004. NCSE was involved in the plaintiff's side by their own admission. They started looking at Dover in Jun 2004, four months before the Oct vote on the inclusion of a statement.
Read again: Started by the Discovery Institute as part of their "teach the controversy" program. They only withdrew after they saw they had a losing case.
B.S. prove it. I told you that NCSE was triggered on the Dover situation in Jun. It had nothing to do with DI.
Wedge Document, Phase III, second sentence: "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula."
When was phase three supposed to occur? (And that was in this "Top secret" document which was not labeled so). Put your money where your mouth is. Show me the marked "Top Secret" document and show me the involvement of DI in this conspiracy that NCSE sniffed out in Jun.
[[—They do - but journals are for articles with something new to say,]]
Really? Because I see scientific journals rehashing the same old tied out crap over and over again- guess the ‘new’ only applies to ID proponents eh?
[[which this article didn’t. (And even if it DID have something new]]
Which is it- did it or didn’t it? As well, making an argument against Macroevolution, and in favor of ID doesn’t necessarily require ‘new material’ as the disciplines you and I both pointed out have plenty of powerful arguments agaisnt Macroevolution despite your claim to the contrary- individually they are powerful, but taken together, even more so- making the odds against Macroevolution happening simply overwhelming, and biologically, mathematically, chemically impossible, not to mentio nthe fact that macroeovlution violates basic scientific principles- I can’t help it IF the ‘vast majority’ of scientists ignore these powerful arguments against macroevolution- the fact is that they ARE devestatign to macroevolution- regarldess of hte unscientific and unrealistic denials of scientists who put all their FAITH in a hypothesis based simply on a priori belief
“Really? Because I see scientific journals rehashing the same old tied out crap over and over again- guess the ‘new’ only applies to ID proponents eh?”
—A journal may print new research backing an old idea, or a new idea based on old research, but not being sufficiently new is one of the common reasons for an article to be rejected.
“Which is it- did it or didn’t it?”
—It didn’t. (For the third time now). But if it did (rhetorically - does that help?) it was the wrong journal for such an article.
“I can’t help it IF the ‘vast majority’ of scientists ignore these powerful arguments against macroevolution”
—Are the vast majority of the world’s scientists ignoring “basic scientific principles”... or do the scientists know something you don’t? Must be one or the other... I wonder which is more likely. hmm
But, you see, according to atheists (like you), a cabbage is an atheist. So if the brain damage is such that it puts the victim mentally on-par with a cabbage, he will then be (like you) an atheist. No?
It is bearing fasle witness to pretend to be conservative and espouse liberal positions.
[[—Are the vast majority of the world’s scientists ignoring... I wonder which is more likely. hmm]]
Well wonder no more! YES- they ARE ignoring- palin and simple! They are irreversibly married to their a priori hypothesis- bottom line!
As I mentioend, any ONE of those scientific disciplines you pointed to show that it’s biologically impossible- yet pile on all the other scientific impossibilities, and you just compound the impossibility of Macoreovlution exponentially, and no amount of hand-waving will dispell the seriousness of hte problems with macroevolution, and no amount of reachign into the past and claiming it ‘might have happened’ DESPITE the FACT that it is NOT and indeed can NOT happen today, will make hte case for macroevolution- Informaiton hteory is a VERY powerful argument agaisnt Macroevolution, as is the second law, biological impossibility of mutaitons creating NEW non species specific info, not to mention the mathematical odds beign overwhelmingly agaisnt mutaitons producing NEW non species specific info (and just for hte record- NON ID Scientists- leadign scientists, concluded in a symposium in Chicago that it was simply mathematically impossible- this was NOT coming from Creation scientists, ID scientists, or anyone else- this was coming from leading scientists)
Ouch! If the goat fits...
duplicate post
do yourself and others a favor with a simple search before posting
Writing isn’t your strong suit, but then again pink unicorns are your only area of expertise, after all.
I just ran the title in the search box, and this is the only thread that comes up.
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.