Skip to comments.
Intelligent Design Bibliography Misleading
National Center for Science Education ^
| 4/5/2002
Posted on 04/05/2002 1:57:02 PM PST by JediGirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
1
posted on
04/05/2002 1:57:03 PM PST
by
JediGirl
To: *crevo_list
bump
2
posted on
04/05/2002 1:57:17 PM PST
by
JediGirl
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: jlogajan
"Liars for Christ, I calls 'em." That's it. We don't take kindly to your kind round here…
4
posted on
04/05/2002 3:26:14 PM PST
by
elfman2
To: JediGirl
Is there another side to this story or is this kind of like New York Times reporting?
5
posted on
04/05/2002 3:32:37 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Another side? Like the original authors of 34 out of 44 books are lying about what is in their own material? You don't objectivity, you want fog.
6
posted on
04/05/2002 3:54:34 PM PST
by
gcruse
To: PatrickHenry; longshadow; jennyp; RadioAstronomer; <1/1,000,000th%; Stultis; ThinkPlease
"Inaccurate and tendentious" Bump!
7
posted on
04/05/2002 3:58:28 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
To: VadeRetro
The Discovery Institute is simply engaged in ‘quote-mining’ ...This guy's plagiarizing you!!
There should have at least have been a footnote.
To: VadeRetro
Lurking ...
To: JediGirl
You're wearing us out. I'm still on the other 2 threads. I hope you're taking the weekend off for some relaxation (and maybe a good steak dinner????).
To: gcruse
Another side? Like the original authors of 34 out of 44 books are lying about what is in their own material? You don't objectivity, you want fog.The fog is in your head cruse. Did you read this sentence? More than half of them regarded it as inaccurate and tendentious
Or put another way, half had no problem with their description. Shouldn't they have been heard from? Seems to me there is another side and like leftist pukes who populate the editorial pages and NEA, you aren't interested in it.
Regards.
11
posted on
04/05/2002 4:04:14 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jlogajan
Liars for Christ, I calls 'em.Are you selling t-shirts? And in what colors?
To: jwalsh07
Or put another way, half had no problem with their description. Or, put it another way yet, less than half had no problem, or was too busy to respond.
To: VadeRetro
But we don't know that do we? And why don't we know it? Because like the New York Times, we got only what we needed to know, right?
14
posted on
04/05/2002 4:09:09 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
But we don't know that do we? From the whole, take "more than half" away. What's left? 1) Half. 2) Less than half.
Comment #16 Removed by Moderator
To: VadeRetro
So lets the split was 14 to 12. And lets say they picked the population to get this split.
Never mind. If its your propaganda, its good propaganda. I get it.
17
posted on
04/05/2002 4:12:32 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: lexcorp
Whats suspect is we didn't hear from the people you called liars, no? Perhaps they are liars, perhaps not.
18
posted on
04/05/2002 4:14:23 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Even ten percent of your sources condemning you for misrepresenting them would look bad in scholarly lines of work.
To: VadeRetro
From the whole, take "more than half" away. What's left? 1) Half. 2) Less than halfHow long did it take?
20
posted on
04/05/2002 4:16:10 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 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