Intelligent design is not science

[Claymore]

I thought this opinion piece on why ID is not science, and why that's important, was pretty interesting:

Part 1:


Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters

John Wise, Contributing Writer, jwise@smu.edu

Because science gives us methods to accurately understand and manipulate the world we live in. Few people would dispute that our present scientific understanding of the physical world has led to a tremendously long list of advances in medicine, technology, engineering, the structure of the universe and the atom, and on and on. The list is nearly endless, but it does not include everything. Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces. Miracles are extra-ordinary events; gods are super-natural beings.

Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the existence of God? Certainly. Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made that God does not exist? Yes. Is there scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny. Collins has no more scientific evidence that God exists than Dawkins has that God does not. Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific. Philosophy can encompass these issues, science cannot.

This actually matters and is important. If we call ID science, we will have to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects. The usefulness of science stems from the predictable action of the laws of nature and the strict rules regarding testable hypotheses. If you modify the definition of science to include unpredictable supernatural forces, magic and miracles, the utility of science will be lost because we won't be able to form reasonable predictions from what we observe in the natural world. No reverent believer would presume to know what goes on in the mind of God, so how can the actions of God be predicted? For science to progress and maintain its usefulness, it needs to be limited to the laws of nature.

The Discovery Institute and the ID proponents that visited our campus this April are busy right now attempting to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects.

A lawsuit (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District) brought before a U.S. Federal District Court in Harrisburg, Penn., by parents concerned about these issues has vividly illustrated the direction and the politics behind the Discovery Institute's effort to redefine science. The parents challenged a curriculum change by the Dover Board of Education that "…promotes the religious proposition of Intelligent Design as a competing scientific theory."

In his September 2005 opinion, the judge in this case, John E. Jones III, wrote that the "ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID." Judge Jones, on the three Discovery Institute experts' testimony: "Professor Behe has written that by ID he means 'not designed by the laws of nature,' and that it is 'implausible that the designer is a natural entity.'" "Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered." "Professor … Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural." What the ID people propose is a monumental change to the way science is practiced and has far-reaching implications.

Listen further to the transcripts of these hearings - they are astounding. Professor Behe, star witness for the ID proponents and Discovery Institute senior fellow, gave a Discovery Institute-approved definition of scientific theory in his testimony. Unfortunately for both Dr. Behe and the Discovery Institute, Eric Rothschild, the brilliant lawyer for the parents, asked Dr. Behe, "But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in Intelligent Design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?" And Dr. Behe answered, "Yes, that's correct."

Is this what America wants and needs? A definition of science that is so weak and neutered that astrology qualifies?

Judge Jones, a life-long Republican conservative, who was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush, spells it out clearly in his opinion: ID "presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." Intelligent Design is not science, and in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

[Claymore]

Part 2:


Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters

These redefinitions of science will damage the utility of the sciences, medicine and countless other technical fields. This is why it matters and why so many scientists in our country (and at SMU) are worried.

The politics of this "redefinition" movement has a long history. Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in a case referred to as Edwards v. Aguillard "struck down the teaching of creation science … because it embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of mankind." Many ID proponents, including The Daily Campus contributing writers Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, have asserted that "because Intelligent Design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does not apply to Intelligent Design." This is a critical assertion for the ID proponents. They are saying that ID is different from creationism and therefore the Supreme Court's rulings should not apply.

Judge Jones mentions a "creationist text" in his opinion that has become very relevant to this point. The book, "Of Pandas and People," was intended to be a high-school textbook that presented the Intelligent Design doctrine as science and was proposed by the Dover Board of Education as an alternative to the Dover students' approved biology textbook. In a brilliant move made by Eric Rothschild, a subpoena for all documents and drafts related to the Intelligent Design "Pandas" work and its Creationism predecessor text, "Biology and Origins," was served on the book's Richardson publisher. After losing their bid to quash the subpoena, the publisher surrendered a number of early, unpublished versions of the books to the court. A comparison of these original drafts with the actual published versions shows that the words "creationist" or "creationism" were simply substituted with "Intelligent Designer" or "Intelligent Design" just as if a word processor search-and-replace function did the job.

The date when this "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" big switch happened is absolutely damning to Ms. Levy and Smith's assertion that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not one and the same. The "switch" occurred in 1987, just weeks after the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that creationism was religion and not science, and could not be taught in public schools. No wonder Judge Jones wrote in his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion that "ID is creationism re-labeled".

So yes, Edwards v. Aguillard certainly does apply. The ID proponents have literally provided all of the needed evidence themselves. (As Levy and Smith assert, it truly is a good thing when your opponents make your points for you.) Simply changing the name from "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" changes none of the logic, relevance or the impact that the Edwards v. Aguillard decision had on the creationist movement and now has on Intelligent Design. Neither one is science. Both have been determined to be religious because they both require a supernatural creator or designer.

It matters because the utility of science, medicine and technology is at risk.

The Discovery Institute was formed with the purpose of politically furthering the religious beliefs of creationism and Intelligent Design. Philipp Johnson, one of the founders of the Discovery Institute, has made this clear in his writings. The goal is to redefine science in America so that it is friendlier to the concepts of a Christian God.

Quoting Johnson's own words, "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God." In other words, don't allow this to be about creationism-ID versus science. Make people think this is all about a choice they have to make between God and science. This is deceptive at best.

Ms. Levy and Ms. Smith in their recent Daily Campus article certainly are up on their Philipp Johnson and Discovery Institute indoctrination tactics. Look how strongly they reacted to my statement that one need not choose between religion and science. They state, "Instead of attempting to understand the arguments …, Wise introduces a red herring, suggesting we don't have to choose between religion and science."

Well, Ms. Levy and Smith, we don't have to choose and I do understand the arguments. We can have both science and religion. Philosophical and religious beliefs do not have to conflict with science. Science simply cannot and should not enter the supernatural realm.

Read the "Language of God." Read "Finding Darwin's God." Ask the authors, Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian) and Kenneth R. Miller (a devout Catholic), if science and evolution diminish their faith. They will tell you that the natural reality is a grand and glorious reality that beautifully complements their strong and devoutly religious beliefs.

The foundations of Intelligent Design are in politics and religion, not science. The nature of what we have learned about our physical world does not have to conflict with our faith and understanding of the spiritual domain. Don't let your faith become dependent on the politics of flawed pseudoscience.

About the writer:

John Wise, Ph.D. is a biology professor at SMU. He can be reached at jwise@smu.edu.

Source: SMUDailyCampus (http://media.www.smudailycampus.com/media/storage/paper949/news/2007/05/04/Opinion/Intelligent.Design.Is.Not.Science.Why.This.Matters-2894591-page4.shtml)

[fivelza]

Thanks Claymore, I particularly like the quoted passage below:


Read the "Language of God." Read "Finding Darwin's God." Ask the authors, Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian) and Kenneth R. Miller (a devout Catholic), if science and evolution diminish their faith. They will tell you that the natural reality is a grand and glorious reality that beautifully complements their strong and devoutly religious beliefs.

I think that describes my view quite well. :D

[ghoti]

Quoting Johnson's own words, "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God." In other words, don't allow this to be about creationism-ID versus science. Make people think this is all about a choice they have to make between God and science. This is deceptive at best.

How many forumites use this tactict? The Prom's and dodo`s of myadsl. Kinda reminds me of the Violent Femme's song, "lies"

"and it's so profound
and I like its rhythm
and I like its sound
it's by a very famous poet
no critic can criticise
and then I pause a moment
and I start to realize
he's tellin'
lies lies lies
on the motel TV.
I dig the evangelist
he'll tell you all about that
and then he tell you all about this
he's preachin' up a storm
by the sea of Galilee
he's mixin' up the truth
with something funny I start to see
he's tellin'
lies lies lies "

To me, science is understanding what are God's rules for the universe are. As the article mentions, Science measures the natural world. Collins I think has about the best perspective on this argument, and its no wonder that he took no part in it. Behe is a quack who tried to use fraud to pass off something he wrote as peer reviewed :(

[Mr TB]

How many forumites use this tactict? The Prom's and dodo`s of myadsl. Kinda reminds me of the Violent Femme's song, "lies"

"and it's so profound
and I like its rhythm
and I like its sound
it's by a very famous poet
no critic can criticise
and then I pause a moment
and I start to realize
he's tellin'
lies lies lies
on the motel TV.
I dig the evangelist
he'll tell you all about that
and then he tell you all about this
he's preachin' up a storm
by the sea of Galilee
he's mixin' up the truth
with something funny I start to see
he's tellin'
lies lies lies "

To me, science is understanding what are God's rules for the universe are. As the article mentions, Science measures the natural world. Collins I think has about the best perspective on this argument, and its no wonder that he took no part in it. Behe is a quack who tried to use fraud to pass off something he wrote as peer reviewed :(
It seems that you have the answer. My question to you...
Do you believe that the Almighty God Yahweh exist?

[Highflyer_GP]

@dodo: Yahweh is a sadistic psychopath, so I highly doubt that anybody who is capable of having their own opinion believes in him.

What bugs me about the article is not so much ID (ok that bugs me too), but the way they're propogating relating ID specifically to the Christian God, and then trying to pass it off as science so that it can be taught to all kids. Is this not just another evangelical move to try and convert people to Christianity? They're not just bringing themselves under attack from scientists, but from people of other religions too. IMO they'd be turning Christianity into one of the worlds most hated religions - and I know some really decent Christian people so I hope that this doesn't turn out to be the case for the sake of them not having that stigma attached to them.

[Xarog]

@dodo: Yahweh is a sadistic psychopath, so I highly doubt that anybody who is capable of having their own opinion believes in him.

What bugs me about the article is not so much ID (ok that bugs me too), but the way they're propogating relating ID specifically to the Christian God, and then trying to pass it off as science so that it can be taught to all kids. Is this not just another evangelical move to try and convert people to Christianity? They're not just bringing themselves under attack from scientists, but from people of other religions too. IMO they'd be turning Christianity into one of the worlds most hated religions - and I know some really decent Christian people so I hope that this doesn't turn out to be the case for the sake of them not having that stigma attached to them.
Show me one religion where this ISN'T the case.

[Highflyer_GP]

Show me one religion where this ISN'T the case.
While that's true, it wasn't really my point.

It doesn't give them a right to link creation specifically to Christianity and then teach it as science to kids. That's wrong. ANY God could be behind "intelligent design", my question is why do they specifically attribute it to the Christian God? Because Professor Behe happens to be Christian?

He may not realise it, but trying to pass off the Christian version of creation as science will only bring more hatred to his faith. Every intelligent Christian who I know agrees that faith and the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. That's something we should all be able to agree on, not this sad excuse to try and pass the supernatural off as science, in a lame attempt to try and reaffirm one's faith.

[ghoti]

It seems that you have the answer. My question to you...
Do you believe that the Almighty God Yahweh exist?

I believe God exists, just I have more expectations for a God, so our POV will differer incredibly. For instance, I dont think its right to lie for God, and any God who approved of lying in his name is not worth my worship.

[Xarog]

While that's true, it wasn't really my point.

It doesn't give them a right to link creation specifically to Christianity and then teach it as science to kids. That's wrong. ANY God could be behind "intelligent design", my question is why do they specifically attribute it to the Christian God? Because Professor Behe happens to be Christian?

He may not realise it, but trying to pass off the Christian version of creation as science will only bring more hatred to his faith. Every intelligent Christian who I know agrees that faith and the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. That's something we should all be able to agree on, not this sad excuse to try and pass the supernatural off as science, in a lame attempt to try and reaffirm one's faith.
I agree with what you say here, with one caveat. The supernatural only remains outside science until such a time as science finds a way to explain it, or incorporate it.

Diseases were once regarded as being supernatural. Today they are not.

[Nick333]

I agree with what you say here, with one caveat. The supernatural only remains outside science until such a time as science finds a way to explain it, or incorporate it.

Diseases were once regarded as being supernatural. Today they are not.

Diseases have always been observable, or at least the effects of disease have. In these enlightened times, when we have the scientific method, anything that is repeatedly observable cannot be classified as supernatural, and is therefore within the realm of science.

[Praeses]

Nice find, Claymore :)

[Claymore]

Nice find, Claymore :)

I have a nice list of useful sources. :)

[Xarog]

Diseases have always been observable, or at least the effects of disease have. In these enlightened times, when we have the scientific method, anything that is repeatedly observable cannot be classified as supernatural, and is therefore within the realm of science.
Yeah, but without a clue as to what causes them, or exactly how they are spread, how the hell are you going to know when it repeats, if indeed it actually repeats?

Without a working knowledge of molecular biology, you'd be better off postulating that sickness comes from evil spirits.

[Paul_S]

What bugs me about the article is not so much ID (ok that bugs me too), but the way they're propogating relating ID specifically to the Christian God, and then trying to pass it off as science so that it can be taught to all kids.

Please show me in the article where they are "relating ID specifically to the Christian God" because I don't see it.
The press in North America seem to keep equating ID with Christianity which is darn annoying - they seem to be unable to grasp the idea that other religions also fit the shoe.

[Highflyer_GP]

Please show me in the article where they are "relating ID specifically to the Christian God" because I don't see it.



The Discovery Institute was formed with the purpose of politically furthering the religious beliefs of creationism and Intelligent Design. Philipp Johnson, one of the founders of the Discovery Institute, has made this clear in his writings. The goal is to redefine science in America so that it is friendlier to the concepts of a Christian God..

[Claymore]

The press in North America seem to keep equating ID with Christianity which is darn annoying - they seem to be unable to grasp the idea that other religions also fit the shoe.

Theoretically, yes, ID could fit other religions. However, Creationism and ID in the US are exclusively Christian; this was made abundantly clear in the Kitzmiller trial, where documentation and evidence showed that ID was being used as a way to get the Christian God taught in school classrooms (the notrious "wedge" document).

[Mr TB]

Theoretically, yes, ID could fit other religions. However, Creationism and ID in the US are exclusively Christian; this was made abundantly clear in the Kitzmiller trial, where documentation and evidence showed that ID was being used as a way to get the Christian God taught in school classrooms (the notrious "wedge" document).
ID is not science and should be ruled out at schools....

Then I find the following comment and an interesting one...

"It is amazing that the same people that insist that creation is not appropriate to be taught in the public schools ask us to spend our money for web space to give equal time to the evolutionary point of view. Since most public schools present only one viewpoint, we have already paid once in taxes to have evolution taught. "

Yes the evolusionist viewpoint is presented and taxes once paid to present and teach it...
The evolusionist is very selfish expecting from the the creationist to present his viewpoint on webspace the creationist are paying for...

The opposers of evolution have become used to these tactics haven't they?

[Claymore]

ID is not science and should be ruled out at schools....

Then I find the following comment and an interesting one...

"It is amazing that the same people that insist that creation is not appropriate to be taught in the public schools ask us to spend our money for web space to give equal time to the evolutionary point of view. Since most public schools present only one viewpoint, we have already paid once in taxes to have evolution taught. "

Yes the evolusionist viewpoint is presented and taxes once paid to present and teach it...
The evolusionist is very selfish expecting from the the creationist to present his viewpoint on webspace the creationist are paying for...

The opposers of evolution have become used to these tactics haven't they?

I don't understand your point.

Evolution is science. It should be taught in science classes at school. Creationism is not science, it's religion, and should therefore only have a place in religious classes.

Government should be supporting education of science, not the preferential treatment of one religion over others.

[Praeses]

I don't understand your point.

Evolution is science. It should be taught in sceince classes at school. Creationism is not science, it's religion, and should therefore only have a place in religious classes.

Government should be supporting education of science, not the preferential treatment of one religion over others.

I agree 100%.

[cyghost]

Same here.

[Mr TB]

I agree 100%.
Yes the evolusionist viewpoint is presented and taxes once paid to present and teach it...
The evolusionist is very selfish expecting from the the creationist to present the viewpoint of the evolusionist on webspace the creationist are paying for...

I profusely apologise. Only noticed now that I did not express myself properly.

[Ekhaatvensters]

Um... why do you assume that religious people are paying for the whole of the internet?

Is there something more to that which I haven't read?

[Praeses]

Yes the evolusionist viewpoint is presented and taxes once paid to present and teach it...
The evolusionist is very selfish expecting from the the creationist to present his viewpoint on webspace the creationist are paying for...

you take everything way too personally. You try to create borders between evolutionists and creationists. We're all humans. So what if creationists are "hosting webspace" that evolutionists are using? Welcome to the year 2007 where everybody doesn't believe in the same things as you while they still are people, just like you. Which webspace are you referring to, anyways?

[Mr TB]

Um... why do you assume that religious people are paying for the whole of the internet?

Is there something more to that which I haven't read?
Err... what do you mean?

[Mr TB]

Please read again what I typed, do not make a single assumption.
You are not busy with microbiology now...

[Mr TB]

Evolution is a religion. You have to have faith that the first life just happened.
You have to have faith that this universe happened out of nothing.
Unfortunately evolution is a religion and its foundation is build on sand.
When the real storm comes it will be washed away...

[Ekhaatvensters]

You wrote this once or twice, should have quoted it:

"on webspace the creationist are paying for..."

Was it just on a creationist website? Ja.. I see it was something like that, you were quoting someones else quote :/ I get confused with all the highlighting of other peoples quotes :p

Oh, I did assume that you relate creationism with religion though.

[cyghost]

Evolution is a religion. You have to have faith that the first life just happened.
You have to have faith that this universe happened out of nothing.
Unfortunately evolution is a religion and its foundation is build on sand.
When the real storm comes it will be washed away...

I am writing this slowly. Please read it slowly. Hopefully it will get through to you.

Faith that life or the universe happened out of nothing has got NOTHING to do with EVOLUTION

okay, NOTHING

read that slowly. again. do it a couple of times.

If you want to attack the Big Bang which does theorize that the universe comes from a single singularity then do so. If you want to attack life starting from a primeval ooze than attack abiogenesis. If you want to attack evolution then for the love of science learn what it is. Or you will forever come across as a moron.

kthxbye

[The Cosmos]

I thought this opinion piece on why ID is not science, and why that's important, was pretty interesting:

Part 1:

Ok, i get what your saying, with regards to the title. You want science to be full blown science without any devine intervention. Intelligent design is part science/part devine intervention. The devine intervention is the intelligent design. The science of it, is the biology.

[cyghost]

It is pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)

[The Cosmos]

It is pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)

Sorry, i'm not a fan of wiki. It's not a source that can be relied on.

[Praeses]

Sorry, i'm not a fan of wiki. It's not a source that can be relied on.

theness (http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=30)


Features of Pseudoscience

The fundamental feature that separates the process of science from pseudoscience, in my opinion, is that science is a genuine search for what is true, regardless of what that might be, whereas pseudoscience begins with a desired conclusion and then works backward to verify only that conclusion. The other characteristics I will describe all relate ultimately to this central feature.
Scientists should be dispassionate towards the findings of their investigations, with no vested interest in the outcome one way or another. In practice, we all fall short of this ideal, and we tend to care if our theories are correct, or if a medicine works to cure a bad disease. This is why experiments should be designed to eliminate the effects of experimenter bias. Scientists should also learn to be objective when evaluating the evidence for or against any particular theory. Pseudoscientists, by contrast, are overwhelmed by their bias. The desired belief is the lord of all that they do.


also
etc... (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/IntelDesign.HTM)

[cyghost]

Sorry, i'm not a fan of wiki. It's not a source that can be relied on.
Its a good starting point to get your bearings... after that you are on your own.

Now you made the very nice Preases do your work for you.

[Praeses]

Its a good starting point to get your bearings... after that you are on your own.

Now you made the very nice Preases do your work for you.

It's weird, a regularly updated source of information "isn't good enough" but a book that people worship which was written 2000 years ago, by people who thought that god spoke to them in their dreams and thought that lunar eclipses were bad omens, is. /mefailstoseethelogic

[Mr TB]

Neither am I, a source that leaves itselve open that a 24 yrs old prgrammer is it?, can present himself as a prof of note is certainly not trustworthy...

[Praeses]

Neither am I, a source that leaves itselve open that a 24 yrs old prgrammer is it?, can present himself as a prof of note is certainly not trustworthy...

so in google translation tools...which language should I set as the "source" language? Engrish? I want to translate your post into english...because it doesn't make sense to me :eek:

[cyghost]

You're going to hold that against wiki for all time and that is your prerogative...

Me. I'll keep on using it as its concise, clearly written, gives sources and if you don't agree with anything you may do further research yourself.

I have seen you use it as source yourself Mr TB so you are a little bit hypocritical in your approach.

me loves wiki

[Mr TB]

Rather go and do a bit of training then I don't have to be sarcastic...

[Neo]

Neither am I, a source that leaves itselve open that a 24 yrs old prgrammer is it?, can present himself as a prof of note is certainly not trustworthy...

So why do you use it as a source?

Oh, I forgot, you only quote Wiki without giving it credit..... what an idiotic hypocrite you are....:rolleyes:

[The Cosmos]

theness (http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=30)


also
etc... (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/IntelDesign.HTM)

What a load of crock. Many people either first go into religion and then confirm it by science, or go into science and then it confirms religion. What this article is implying there is only one rule of thumb, which is just complete idiocy.


It is pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)

Don't try and conjure up something. Pseudoscience is just a word.

[cyghost]

Many people either first go into religion and then confirm it by science,

There are no science that confirms religion


or go into science and then it confirms religion.

Science does not confirm religion in any way or form.


Don't try and conjure up something. Pseudoscience is just a word.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Paul_S]

There are no science that confirms religion

Science does not confirm religion in any way or form.

Bible : The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).
Science now : The earth is a sphere
Science then : The earth was a flat disk.

Bible : Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22).
Science now : Incalculable number of stars
Science then : Only 1,100 stars.

Bible : Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7).
Science now : Free float of earth in space.
Science then : Earth sat on a large animal.

Bible : Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).
Science now : Creation made of invisible elements (atoms).
Science then : Science was ignorant on the subject.

Bible : Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).
Science now : Each star is different.
Science then : All stars were the same.

Bible : Light moves (Job 38:19,20).
Science now : Light moves.
Science then : Light was fixed in place.

Bible : Air has weight (Job 28:25).
Science now : Air has weight.
Science then : Air was weightless.

Bible : Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
Science now : Winds blow in cyclones.
Science then : Winds blew straight.

Bible : Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).
Science now : Blood is the source of life and health.
Science then : Sick people must be bled.

Bible : Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6).
Science now : Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.
Science then : The ocean floor was flat.

Bible : Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).
Science now : Ocean contains springs.
Science then : Ocean fed only by rivers and rain.

Bible : When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).
Science now : When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.
Science then : Hands washed in still water.

Quite amazing that something that was written so long ago and totally contrary to what the scientists and philosophers of the day and age believed just happened to be so accurate now that we can look back.

[ghoti]

It was the religious fobs who where the major flat earthers, and don't forget Copernicus and Galileo... remind me again who persecuted them...? Science only escaped the clutches of religion at the end of the dark ages. So the science you are so fond of quoting is based on a time when the church had more control over science. Shows you how much it has improved since religion and science went in opposite directions hey? :)

[Mr TB]

It was the religious fobs who where the major flat earthers, and don't forget Copernicus and Galileo... remind me again who persecuted them...? Science only escaped the clutches of religion at the end of the dark ages. So the science you are so fond of quoting is based on a time when the church had more control over science. Shows you how much it has improved since religion and science went in opposite directions hey? :)

Yes the religious fobs got it all wrong... and include me if you want...

What is written in the Word of God. What is written in the Bible.

Your salvation do not depend on the religious fobs or on me but on your faith...

[Claymore]

Ok, i get what your saying, with regards to the title. You want science to be full blown science without any devine intervention. Intelligent design is part science/part devine intervention. The devine intervention is the intelligent design. The science of it, is the biology.

Yup. Though I'm not sure what the science in ID actually is; the proponents all seem to have differing ideas of what the basis of ID is. For example, they'll agree on the divine portion, namely God (specifically, the Christian God) created living beings. However they don't say which organisms exactly were created when, and whether or not some evolved from then onward or whether they were created bodily as a species.

[cyghost]

Bible : The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

The earth is not a circle


Bible : Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22).

I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky

Right. We estimate there to be in the region of 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. God sure got that one right. Not.


Bible : Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7).

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

Thats exactly how we understand it today. Not.



Bible : Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

How do you get atoms from this?


Bible : Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).

The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another;
and star differs from star in splendor

And the sun is a star?


Bible : Light moves (Job 38:19,20).

8:19
"What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?

38:20
Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings

Erm, what???


Bible : Air has weight (Job 28:25).

When he established the force of the wind and measured out the waters,

Weight ey??


Bible : Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course

Does it now? No West winds? No East winds? They sure knew a lot back then!

etc etc etc


Quite amazing that something that was written so long ago and totally contrary to what the scientists and philosophers of the day and age believed just happened to be so accurate now that we can look back

You might want to rethink that statement in my opinion. It should have been something like: Its quite amazing how I can read the bible and then twist it to fit any meaning I desire from it.

See what wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible) says on the matter.

For the record I used this (http://www.biblestudytools.net/) site to get the bible references from and used the New International Version for translation

[Mr TB]

I believe God exists, just I have more expectations for a God, so our POV will differer incredibly. For instance, I dont think its right to lie for God, and any God who approved of lying in his name is not worth my worship.
"For instance, I dont think its right to lie for God, and any God who approved of lying in his name is not worth my worship."

If a god expect the above from you, he is not worthy of worship...

The way you structured your sentence indicates that you believe I indeed did such thing...
I apologise where I, in your opinion lied for God. He certainly does not expect that from me. Yahweh is holy,loving, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient,omnipresent and benevolent. He does not need me to protect his honour.

I apologise where I brought you under the impression that Yahweh as holy ,loving, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent God approve of such actions by me... I sincerely apologise...

[The Cosmos]

Bible : The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).
Science now : The earth is a sphere
Science then : The earth was a flat disk.

Bible : Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22).
Science now : Incalculable number of stars
Science then : Only 1,100 stars.

Bible : Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7).
Science now : Free float of earth in space.
Science then : Earth sat on a large animal.

Bible : Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).
Science now : Creation made of invisible elements (atoms).
Science then : Science was ignorant on the subject.

Bible : Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).
Science now : Each star is different.
Science then : All stars were the same.

Bible : Light moves (Job 38:19,20).
Science now : Light moves.
Science then : Light was fixed in place.

Bible : Air has weight (Job 28:25).
Science now : Air has weight.
Science then : Air was weightless.

Bible : Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
Science now : Winds blow in cyclones.
Science then : Winds blew straight.

Bible : Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).
Science now : Blood is the source of life and health.
Science then : Sick people must be bled.

Bible : Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6).
Science now : Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.
Science then : The ocean floor was flat.

Bible : Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).
Science now : Ocean contains springs.
Science then : Ocean fed only by rivers and rain.

Bible : When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).
Science now : When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.
Science then : Hands washed in still water.

Quite amazing that something that was written so long ago and totally contrary to what the scientists and philosophers of the day and age believed just happened to be so accurate now that we can look back.

Excellent, excellent stuff. It might be worthwhile to post more of such, but others must also do. I will do my part in providing the same. Well done. :cool:

[The Cosmos]

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

The earth is not a circle



I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky

Right. We estimate there to be in the region of 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. God sure got that one right. Not.



He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

Thats exactly how we understand it today. Not.




By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

How do you get atoms from this?



The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another;
and star differs from star in splendor

And the sun is a star?



8:19
"What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?

38:20
Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings

Erm, what???



When he established the force of the wind and measured out the waters,

Weight ey??



The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course

Does it now? No West winds? No East winds? They sure knew a lot back then!

etc etc etc



You might want to rethink that statement in my opinion. It should have been something like: Its quite amazing how I can read the bible and then twist it to fit any meaning I desire from it.

See what wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible) says on the matter.

For the record I used this (http://www.biblestudytools.net/) site to get the bible references from and used the New International Version for translation

Goodness gracious. This reply is a joke. :o

[The Cosmos]

[QUOTE=cyghost;1052451]There are no science that confirms religion



Science does not confirm religion in any way or form.

It confirms creation.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha

There is true science, and there is no science. Nothing else. Pseudo is just a word.

[cyghost]

Goodness gracious. This reply is a joke

I take it you disagree with my version then? :p You may do so but the quoted parts comes straight from the bible. A sphere is not a circle for instance. oh jolly good science there mate.


It confirms creation.

No. it. does. not. Please give me sources for this madness.



There is true science, and there is no science. Nothing else. Pseudo is just a word.

Words are all just words mate. We use em to communicate. The word describing ID is pseudoscience. Its not my word. Complain to the word builders association if you have trouble with words or their meanings. I just use em where they fit. Mostly. When I don't put my foot in it that is. :rolleyes:

[The Cosmos]

No. it. does. not. Please give me sources for this madness.

From http://www.csm.org.uk/faqs.php?PHPSESSID=b26adf2e512bf21d62353e34f9887de a#evidence here:

Is there any scientific evidence that supports Creation?
There is no truly scientific evidence that disproves Creation. In cases where there is an apparent clash, one finds that the science is relying on unsubstantiated assumptions. Of course, science can never confirm any unrepeatable happening in the past.

The alternative to evolution by chance changes is deliberate design. Can we decide whether some system was designed by an intelligent mind? Darwin and his followers say that natural selection hones a system to perfection, so that it mimics design. For living things that can interact with their environment, Paley's watchmaker argument appears to have been invalidated. But is this so? Simple organic molecules like glycine can come about by chance chemical interaction, but complex bio-molecules are far too precisely constrained in their compositions to arise fully-formed by chance. Some enzymes are made up from dozens of component proteins, each essential and each very complex. Irreducible complexity needs a Designer. Information requires an Intelligence
Peruse the site if you will http://www.csm.org.uk

Also:
http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/7internt.html

[cyghost]

Is there any scientific evidence that supports Creation?

There is no truly scientific evidence that disproves Creation.

I mean come on! And that's why ID is branded as pseudoscience!!

[The Cosmos]

Is there any scientific evidence that supports Creation?

There is no truly scientific evidence that disproves Creation.

I mean come on! And that's why ID is branded as pseudoscience!!

What exactly is wrong with that statement ?
Also, as i explained to a great deal in the CvsD thread. Intelligence is part of creation. Look at the mayans, the egyptian higher/advanced knowledge as examples.

[Lycanthrope]

Ahhh yes... A whole lotta tunnelvision.

It's funny how a sentence like "There is no truly scientific evidence that disproves Creation." in the eyes of a Creationist reads more to the effect of "There is scientific evidence that proves Creation."

Whereas the same sentence in, say, an Evolutionist's eyes, reads as "There is no scientific evidence that proves Creation."

If people like Mr_TB and uh.. Internet_Junkie would open their eyes and lose that godawful tunnelvision they suffer from, then perhaps all debates with them wouldn't end up being ridiculously redundant with 5 separate people having to explain the same thing 10 times.

[The Cosmos]

Ahhh yes... A whole lotta tunnelvision.

It's funny how a sentence like "There is no truly scientific evidence that disproves Creation." in the eyes of a Creationist reads more to the effect of "There is scientific evidence that proves Creation."

Whereas the same sentence in, say, an Evolutionist's eyes, reads as "There is no scientific evidence that proves Creation."

If people like Mr_TB and uh.. Internet_Junkie would open their eyes and lose that godawful tunnelvision they suffer from, then perhaps all debates with them wouldn't end up being ridiculously redundant with 5 separate people having to explain the same thing 10 times.

You say that, and then on the other hand you have tunnelvision, when it comes to creationism. That statement is a starting point. Nothing else.

[Lycanthrope]

You say that, and then on the other hand you have tunnelvision, when it comes to creationism. That statement is a starting point. Nothing else.

I do? Odd, for a split second I thought I didn't care either way. I'm just speaking from experience with Ye Olde Mr_TB from the Gay Marriage thread.

But for the sake of argument, if I had tunnelvision in regards to Creationism/Evolutionism, then I'd have tunnelvision when it comes to Evolutionism, not vice-versa.

[The Cosmos]

I do? Odd, for a split second I thought I didn't care either way. I'm just speaking from experience with Ye Olde Mr_TB from the Gay Marriage thread.

But for the sake of argument, if I had tunnelvision in regards to Creationism/Evolutionism, then I'd have tunnelvision when it comes to Evolutionism, not vice-versa.

Look, the whole point of me disagreeing with 'complete' evolution, is i believe there are too many things that don't add up. However, i have said more than once that i believe in evolution, but only to a very small degree.

In saying all this, it does not at all mean, that i have tunnel vision.

[Lycanthrope]

Look, the whole point of me disagreeing with 'complete' evolution, is i believe there are too many things that don't add up. However, i have said more than once that i believe in evolution, but only to a very small degree.

In saying all this, it does not at all mean, that i have tunnel vision.

I completely agree with you. I also personally believe that even the first micro-organism, amoeba, etc, had to come from somewhere. And henceforth that somewhere had to come from something, unless there was some other force of... existence which caused some sort of space-time continuum, etc, etc. Whatever the originating cause was, that will likely remain a mistery until the day we die and hopefully discover the answers for ourselves.

Evolution is undeniable, it's not a "belief"... the only factor where I personally believe any sort of faith or belief comes into it, is in the origin of the primordial ooze that we all came from, and eveything before that.

Hence why it's just odd to incorporate tunnelvision into it... Both can quite comfortably fit into the same argument.

P.S. I apologise for... comparing you... to Mr_TB, no one deserves that.

[Praeses]

I completely agree with you. I also personally believe that even the first micro-organism, amoeba, etc, had to come from somewhere. And henceforth that somewhere had to come from something, unless there was some other force of... existence which caused some sort of space-time continuum, etc, etc. Whatever the originating cause was, that will likely remain a mistery until the day we die and hopefully discover the answers for ourselves.

Evolution is undeniable, it's not a "belief"... the only factor where I personally believe any sort of faith or belief comes into it, is in the origin of the primordial ooze that we all came from, and eveything before that.

Hence why it's just odd to incorporate tunnelvision into it... Both can quite comfortably fit into the same argument.

P.S. I apologise for... comparing you... to Mr_TB, no one deserves that.
I totally agree with you on this. There are many hypotheses for how the first life began but they are still just hypotheses which probably won't ever become more than that unless we can travel back in time one day.
Evolution is indeed undeniable. It's quite clear that IJ doesn't study anything biological for a living. The CSM website he referred to states lots of bull which I didn't even have to think about, I know it's plain BS. People that so easily says that ID is backed by scientific evidence clearly lack a lot of scientific knowledge and wisdom. They just read random things on random websites and of course, they would not be skeptical about the info they find there, nah uh, why would they if it makes them feel all fuzzy on the inside and "supports" their views?

And yeah, don't compare people to Mr_TB...

PS: to all reading this: just because some evolutionists are a bit over-confident doesn't mean they all are. Or should I start treating all christians as over-zealous, biased, narrow minded and conservative fools? Didn't think so.

PPS: Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

[The Cosmos]

The CSM website he referred to states lots of bull which I didn't even have to think about, I know it's plain BS. People that so easily says that ID is backed by scientific evidence clearly lack a lot of scientific knowledge and wisdom. They just read random things on random websites and of course, they would not be skeptical about the info they find there, nah uh, why would they if it makes them feel all fuzzy on the inside and "supports" their views?

This is where you people get it so wrong, so many times. I did not mention, i endorse everything fully on the site, however i was pointing to the Noah's flood argument of the site as being reliable, and i did not link to anything intelligent design. How on earth can you just jump to such a conclusion ? Life and logic should have thought you that you won't agree with everyone on everything.


PPS: Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

You've got that right. ;)

[Praeses]

however i was pointing to the Noah's flood argument of the site as being reliable, and i did not link to anything intelligent design. How on earth can you just jump to such a conclusion ? Life and logic should have thought you that you won't agree with everyone on everything.



From http://www.csm.org.uk/faqs.php?PHPSESSID=b26adf2e512bf21d62353e34f9887de a#evidence here:

Peruse the site if you will http://www.csm.org.uk

Also:
http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/7internt.html

I don't see you pointing to the flood specifically at all unless you did so in a previous thread which I've missed (I've been busy) for which I then apologize.


Look, the whole point of me disagreeing with 'complete' evolution, is i believe there are too many things that don't add up. However, i have said more than once that i believe in evolution, but only to a very small degree.

Things that don't add up...which you read where? Creationism websites filled with scientific flaws which you don't know about? I know that we can't all know all sciences to high degrees but shouldn't you be a bit more skeptical about non-scientific websites trying to "fit-in" by saying science agrees with them? There are very good reasons why they aren't allowed in the real scientific communities.
But sure, you don't have to agree with "complete" evolution. Many theories about evolution will be proven wrong/modified in the future. It's an ever-growing theory.

And when you refer to a website, it might be handy to give your opinion of what you think about the website, otherwise people will assume that you agree with most of the things on the website.

[The Cosmos]

[QUOTE=Praeses;1053593]I don't see you pointing to the flood specifically at all unless you did so in a previous thread which I've missed (I've been busy) for which I then apologize.

Apologies. I was referring to the wrong site. Here's the correct one (http://www.answersincreation.org/floodlist.htm).



Things that don't add up...which you read where? Creationism websites filled with scientific flaws which you don't know about?

I will admit there are alot of creationist sites and creationists, that debate like idiots, and i won't endorse them, and their views.


And when you refer to a website, it might be handy to give your opinion of what you think about the website, otherwise people will assume that you agree with most of the things on the website.

Point taken. ;)

[Mr TB]

Ahhh yes... A whole lotta tunnelvision.

It's funny how a sentence like "There is no truly scientific evidence that disproves Creation." in the eyes of a Creationist reads more to the effect of "There is scientific evidence that proves Creation."

Whereas the same sentence in, say, an Evolutionist's eyes, reads as "There is no scientific evidence that proves Creation."

If people like Mr_TB and uh.. Internet_Junkie would open their eyes and lose that godawful tunnelvision they suffer from, then perhaps all debates with them wouldn't end up being ridiculously redundant with 5 separate people having to explain the same thing 10 times.
Inter Junkie, the problem was that Neo and Lycanthrope took hands sat in one corner and made two claims:
1)God approve of same - sex marriages, or
2)God said to christians kill homosexuals.

The debacle came when by systematic use of the bible I proved both statements wrong. Lycanthrope's feelings was hurt badly and he withdrew...

[Lycanthrope]

Inter Junkie, the problem was that Neo and Lycanthrope took hands sat in one corner and made two claims:
1)God approve of same - sex marriages, or
2)God said to christians kill homosexuals.

The debacle came when by systematic use of the bible I proved both statements wrong. Lycanthrope's feelings was hurt badly and he withdrew...

What the????

Uh... Mr_TB, have you been smoking your socks again? For the love of whatever little "God" you THINK you believe in, read what was said in that thread, and read it PROPERLY. For the last effing time. Your stupidity and ignorance are REALLY starting to work on my nerves.

Ever heard the saying, "Don't go to war with a beebee gun?" Well in your case, don't go to war with a beebee gun if you don't know how to use it.

[Neo]

What the????

Uh... Mr_TB, have you been smoking your socks again? For the love of whatever little "God" you THINK you believe in, read what was said in that thread, and read it PROPERLY. For the last effing time. Your stupidity and ignorance are REALLY starting to work on my nerves.

Ever heard the saying, "Don't go to war with a beebee gun?" Well in your case, don't go to war with a beebee gun if you don't know how to use it.

The scary thing is, he really believes the stuff he post here....:rolleyes:

[Lycanthrope]

The scary thing is, he really believes the stuff he post here....:rolleyes:

Yeah, I know, but it irritates the heck out of me when it's not one, or two, or three people, but the MAJORITY of people that say and understand something, and he manages to twist and contort and interpret it in his own maniacle way.

It's like he WANTS everyone in the world to be "evil" and "ungodly." I just wish he'd stop acting like such an illiterate child and READ what is written in the exact sense that it is written in. Not his own demented little version of it.

[Mr TB]

Yeah, I know, but it irritates the heck out of me when it's not one, or two, or three people, but the MAJORITY of people that say and understand something, and he manages to twist and contort and interpret it in his own maniacle way.

It's like he WANTS everyone in the world to be "evil" and "ungodly." I just wish he'd stop acting like such an illiterate child and READ what is written in the exact sense that it is written in. Not his own demented little version of it.
If I work on your nerves M8, use the ignore button, it works.
Don't judge me because you and NEO are clueless when it comes to the bible.
TACITUS is accepted as reliable historian. Prove me wrong please because that is what I was told in this forum...
If that is indeed the case ... he is a reliable historian...
Use the same criteria to judge the gospels that historians use to judge TACITUS. The gospels pass the test with flying colours...

[Lycanthrope]

The Bible, isn't the problem, Mr_TB. You reasoning like a baboon, however, is.

[Mr TB]

The Bible, isn't the problem, Mr_TB. You reasoning like a baboon, however, is.
Yeah,... Moses will not be impressed with you thinking that he reasons like a baboon...
You will remember LEV 19v18 and LEV 20v13 were written down by him.
If LEV 20v13 which seem contradictory to LEV 19v18 was applicable in that very sense written down, he Moses, would have, in my opinion, pleaded to God for an explanation...

My opinion I give taking into account that God was willing to start a new nation with Moses as their leader, Moses refused the option...
Do you really think Moses will then not ask for explanation where rules seem to be contradictory?...

Yes , may be I reason like a baboon... but if my reasoning is fine... welll...

[ghoti]

Reminds me of those signs in Cape Town.. dont feed the... animals ... :D

[Mr TB]

Reminds me of those signs in Cape Town.. dont feed the... animals ... :D
And in the Kruger National Park...biii...iiig animals...:p

[Claymore]

The alternative to evolution by chance changes is deliberate design. Can we decide whether some system was designed by an intelligent mind? Darwin and his followers say that natural selection hones a system to perfection, so that it mimics design. For living things that can interact with their environment, Paley's watchmaker argument appears to have been invalidated. But is this so? Simple organic molecules like glycine can come about by chance chemical interaction, but complex bio-molecules are far too precisely constrained in their compositions to arise fully-formed by chance. Some enzymes are made up from dozens of component proteins, each essential and each very complex. Irreducible complexity needs a Designer.


Hold on a second...enzymes (non-living molecules) have formed in a lab in abiogeneis experiments. These are the same experiments that creationists say cannot have started life because enzymes are not relevant. So are the enzymes relevant or not?

[Praeses]

Hold on a second...enzymes (non-living molecules) have formed in a lab in abiogeneis experiments. These are the same experiments that creationists say cannot have started life because enzymes are not relevant. So are the enzymes relevant or not?

There are even molecules that have biochemical activity without being proteins. A Mn2+ complex having superoxide dismutase activity in lactic acid bacteria...

[Neo]

Don't judge me because you and NEO are clueless when it comes to the bible.

Bit rich from someone who's admitted he's not even read the bible. :rolleyes:

[Mr TB]

There are even molecules that have biochemical activity without being proteins. A Mn2+ complex having superoxide dismutase activity in lactic acid bacteria...
I want to tell you something about Bertrand Russell

"It is to bad to be true"-
Before I do that read this:

QUOTE:""Since the earth rotates on its axis, the sun could only be made to 'stand still' relative to earth by stopping earth's rotation." ... "This was surely a unique miracle, but not beyond the capabilities of the Creator of the sun and moon and planets. He started their motions,has maintained them through the ages, and is able to change them at will."

If I accept the Bible's version of creation then the earth's rotation was not a problem... God placed the sun in its position, so what on earth will stop him from letting the sun follow the rotation of the earth whilst the battle rang...

I shudder thinking that the universe as a whole might be tipping just because two nations war..

[Praeses]

I want to tell you something about Bertrand Russell

"It is to bad to be true"-
Before I do that read this:

QUOTE:""Since the earth rotates on its axis, the sun could only be made to 'stand still' relative to earth by stopping earth's rotation." ... "This was surely a unique miracle, but not beyond the capabilities of the Creator of the sun and moon and planets. He started their motions,has maintained them through the ages, and is able to change them at will."

If I accept the Bible's version of creation then the earth's rotation was not a problem... God placed the sun in its position, so what on earth will stop him from letting the sun follow the rotation of the earth whilst the battle rang...

I shudder thinking that the universe as a whole might be tipping just because two nations war..

lol that's quite funny. Why must the earth not rotate to start orbiting the sun?

[Mr TB]

lol that's quite funny. Why must the earth not rotate to start orbiting the sun?
Aaah... is that the way you would counter the atheist's claim?
Impossible for the sun shining on the earth 23 hours 20 min in one area, but using your explanation it is...?

[Praeses]

Aaah... is that the way you would counter the atheist's claim?
Impossible for the sun shining on the earth 23 hours 20 min in one area, but using your explanation it is...?

wth are you on about, old man? Forgot to take your pills? Do you know WHY the earth is rotating as in, what caused it?

And the sun shines for months at a time on the Arctic before it goes dark for more months due to the earth's tilt. what does that have to do with anything?

[Mr TB]

wth are you on about, old man? Forgot to take your pills? Do you know WHY the earth is rotating as in, what caused it?

And the sun shines for months at a time on the Arctic before it goes dark for more months due to the earth's tilt. what does that have to do with anything?
I listen to a passage written by Bertrand Russel on humanism where he cried out TO BAD TO BE TRUE. Now I find the following passage on science...:

"That is why science threatens to cause the destruction of our civilization. The only solid hope seems to lie in the possibility of world-wide domination by one group, say the United States, leading to the gradual formation of an orderly economic and political world-government. But perhaps, in view of the sterility of the Roman Empire, the collapse of our civilization would in the end be preferable to this alternative."

[Praeses]

I listen to a passage written by Bertrand Russel on humanism where he cried out TO BAD TO BE TRUE. Now I find the following passage on science...:

"That is why science threatens to cause the destruction of our civilization. The only solid hope seems to lie in the possibility of world-wide domination by one group, say the United States, leading to the gradual formation of an orderly economic and political world-government. But perhaps, in view of the sterility of the Roman Empire, the collapse of our civilization would in the end be preferable to this alternative."

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that I don't worship things that other people said and actually have my own opinion? And what he said above in the quote is possible. What he said in my signature is also possible. What he said about the earth's rotation is probably taken out of context since you didn't provide any references to the quotation. But if he did mean it in that context, he didn't know about the theories of planet formations (he died in 1970). So...what's your point?

[Mr TB]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that I don't worship things that other people said and actually have my own opinion? And what he said above in the quote is possible. What he said in my signature is also possible. What he said about the earth's rotation is probably taken out of context since you didn't provide any references to the quotation. But if he did mean it in that context, he didn't know about the theories of planet formations (he died in 1970). So...what's your point?
Ag stop working on my nerves for references or are you not computer literate?
He also says this about science:
"Anybody who tells you that the latest results of science prove something, he himself not being a scientist, you may be pretty sure is talking nonsense."
So, the forumites... are they all scientists?

[Praeses]

Ag stop working on my nerves for references or are you not computer literate?
He also says this about science:
"Anybody who tells you that the latest results of science prove something, he himself not being a scientist, you may be pretty sure is talking nonsense."
So, the forumites... are they all scientists?

Why must I search for things that you say? If you state something, you should state where it comes from.

And what does that quote tell you about yourself? Talking of microbiology in the past like you even knew what it was about. Many of the things the forumites said in the past were quite correct according to me. Maybe you should not be so dependent on the words of another (eg. bible, Bertrand Russell etc.) and rather use your own common sense?

[Highflyer_GP]

Ag stop working on my nerves for references or are you not computer literate?

It's common decency to quote your source so that others know that you are not plagiarizing someone else's work by passing it off as your own opinion. It's got nothing to do with computer literacy, which is ironic because if you were computer literate then you would know how to copy and paste a link.

[Praeses]

It's common decency to quote your source so that others know that you are not plagiarizing someone else's work by passing it off as your own opinion. It's got nothing to do with computer literacy, which is ironic because if you were computer literate then you would know how to copy and paste a link.

plagiarism is stealing. You wouldn't steal a car...nor a movie *cough* :D

[Mr TB]

plagiarism is stealing. You wouldn't steal a car...nor a movie *cough* :D
Evolutionary biology shows material that they know is lie to innocent chidren... hmm... even worse is it not?

[Mr TB]

Evolutionary biology don't tell innocent children common ancestry is actually a presupposition... hmmm... even worse is it not?

[Mr TB]

High-flyer
I do see not any link attached to your signature...hmmm..

Praes
Neither do I see a link attached to your signature...hmmm...
So at least I am then not the only thief in here... the difference... I am forgiven...

[cyghost]

mwhahahahah

Both their sigs recognize the person whom they quote ~ that's all that's required.

you fail

[Praeses]

Evolutionary biology shows material that they know is lie to innocent chidren... hmm... even worse is it not?

And they teach to the children that the bible has been modified over the ages but they don't tell the kids how it used to be nor why it was changed. People turned the bible into a fairy tale.


Evolutionary biology don't tell innocent children common ancestry is actually a presupposition... hmmm... even worse is it not?

and the bible doesn't tell kids that the bible was written by mere humans which could've been lying or just made normal human error or is just a mere possibility.
Kids don't WORSHIP evolutionary biology. They don't adapt their lives to it. Evolutionary biology is just a way to explain everything around you. It's not there to tell you how you should live your life. It's completely different things.
Only a biologist can really experience evolutionary biology because they have actually worked with it, seen it in action.
And once again, I don't teach kids about evolutionary biology...so I should start calling you a narrow-minded, biased and incompetent just because some religious folks are like that? I don't responsibility for anybody else's actions on this planet. I don't worship anything, I have no god and I don't think the way you think I think.


High-flyer
I do see not any link attached to your signature...hmmm..

Praes
Neither do I see a link attached to your signature...hmmm...
So at least I am then not the only thief in here... the difference... I am forgiven...

1) We weren't trying to prove anything with our signatures.
2) We weren't discussing our signatures.
3) We did attach the names of the authors and added the correct punctuation to indicate that it's a quotation.
4) I don't care about sin, I care about rationalism, logic and certain levels of empathy. So feel free to feel forgiven. Go murder people and feel forgiven afterwards. It's all in the mind...

[FlyingPika]

And they teach to the children that the bible has been modified over the ages but they don't tell the kids how it used to be nor why it was changed. People turned the bible into a fairy tale.
Could please give an example of this?
The reading Ive done showed they took great care in copying the bible character for character (not like how when we copy, we read about half a sentence, then re-write that half sentence, with them it was letter by letter.). They also did checks, by counting the middle character of a chapter, and comparing it to the original. And then divide that half and find its middle character, and so on. Before they wrote the name Yahweh, they would first clean their hands.
You couldn’t be more meticulous. Comparison of our bible to the dead sea scrolls showed like a couple of characters, not words, characters difference, which had no effect on the meaning of the texts.

Heres a question for you, If the bible was true, would you want to know the God of the bible and trust in him and obey him?
I know you wish the bible was not true, but Jesus is Lord and hes coming back again whether you like it or not. You have sinned against a Holy God, that is not corrupt and lets criminal go free. There is justice. Do you want to pay for your sins with you soul, or will you repent and take the gift of salvation, letting Jesus take the punishment that is laid out for you?

[Claymore]

The reading Ive done showed they took great care in copying the bible character for character (not like how when we copy, we read about half a sentence, then re-write that half sentence, with them it was letter by letter.). They also did checks, by counting the middle character of a chapter, and comparing it to the original. And then divide that half and find its middle character, and so on. Before they wrote the name Yahweh, they would first clean their hands.
You couldn’t be more meticulous. Comparison of our bible to the dead sea scrolls showed like a couple of characters, not words, characters difference, which had no effect on the meaning of the texts.

That may be true for some editions. However, that neglects the fact that the biblical writings were translated from Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek by various translators, and that's obviously quite open to interpretation. Also, the early Bible was assembled by church councils, so there's some variation there.

If the Bible really was copied exactly, the King James Bible would be identical to the Good News Bible, and to the original Latin Bibles in the 4th and 5th cennturies, and to all other Bibles.

[Praeses]

Could please give an example of this?
The reading Ive done showed they took great care in copying the bible character for character (not like how when we copy, we read about half a sentence, then re-write that half sentence, with them it was letter by letter.). They also did checks, by counting the middle character of a chapter, and comparing it to the original. And then divide that half and find its middle character, and so on. Before they wrote the name Yahweh, they would first clean their hands.
You couldn’t be more meticulous. Comparison of our bible to the dead sea scrolls showed like a couple of characters, not words, characters difference, which had no effect on the meaning of the texts.

Heres a question for you, If the bible was true, would you want to know the God of the bible and trust in him and obey him?
I know you wish the bible was not true, but Jesus is Lord and hes coming back again whether you like it or not. You have sinned against a Holy God, that is not corrupt and lets criminal go free. There is justice. Do you want to pay for your sins with you soul, or will you repent and take the gift of salvation, letting Jesus take the punishment that is laid out for you?

MY friend studies theology and told me about parts that have been left out. Also, my afrikaans bible is of the "nuwe vertaling" which differs in some places quite drastically from the older translation eg. beating your child senseless when he disobeys.

If god exists, I still would take the bible as quite human but it might hold more truths to it than I think now. If god exists, it would know why I think the way I do, why I don't believe and why I believe in what I do. If god is an understanding god, it'll understand me and my ways. I live a good life.

You speak of Jesus as if he truly is the messiah. How do you know that he was the messiah? Did you write the prophecies of his coming? Did his coming correlate with the prophecies? Have you seen any miracles done by him? The possibility that he was not the messiah is just as good as the possibility that he was. Do you consider the possibility that he wasn't the messiah?

Now I've derailed the thread :/

[noxibox]

An example? A simple one would be the invention of Lucifer/Son of the morning/Morning star.

[FlyingPika]

That may be true for some editions. However, that neglects the fact that the biblical writings were translated from Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek by various translators, and that's obviously quite open to interpretation. Also, the early Bible was assembled by church councils, so there's some variation there.

If the Bible really was copied exactly, the King James Bible would be identical to the Good News Bible, and to the original Latin Bibles in the 4th and 5th cennturies, and to all other Bibles.

From Aramaic? I think you getting confused.
The reason why the KJV is different to the Good news bible is, wait for it... its another translation! Trickyness.
There are many translations. But compare the original manuscripts in the original language they were written in to the most recent manuscripts and they are 99.9% the same. The differences are usually updated grammar conventions.

Uh, the bible is the bible, and was assembled by a council. Where is the variance? Some people wrote their own beliefs and they weren’t published? We still see this today, look at the book of Mormon etc.

[FlyingPika]

MY friend studies theology and told me about parts that have been left out. Also, my afrikaans bible is of the "nuwe vertaling" which differs in some places quite drastically from the older translation eg. beating your child senseless when he disobeys.
There are a few half sentences that have been left out, because the catholic church did this, then burned the previous manuscripts that contained them. However they did find older manuscripts than the catholic ones (i cant remember their names off hand) that did indeed show those portions to exist. However it had already became established to note those half sentences do not exist in all manuscripts. I would guess there are about 10 of them ive come across in the new testament from when ive read my bible.


If god exists, I still would take the bible as quite human but it might hold more truths to it than I think now. If god exists, it would know why I think the way I do, why I don't believe and why I believe in what I do. If god is an understanding god, it'll understand me and my ways. I live a good life.
Well that is not biblical. The bible says "there are none good, no not one". You may seem like a good person by your own standards, but Gods standards are much higher than yours. The bible says men are without excuse, and all have seen his handiwork. God will understand your motives, just like a judge understands why some1 committed a crime who was desperate for money, however a non-corrupt judge still hands out judgement. God loves you, but you have broken his law. He spared not even his own Son from his Law, that is how seriously he takes it. Yet you think he will spare you? You are deceived.
Your sin is such a serious offence that he had to take drastic measures, i.e. sending his Son as a sacrifice for sin. If it was nothing serious, why did he do all that?
The bible also says your good works are like lifeless filthy rags before such a Holy God, its almost like you trying to bribe him when you standing before him and mention your good works.


You speak of Jesus as if he truly is the messiah. How do you know that he was the messiah? Did you write the prophecies of his coming? Did his coming correlate with the prophecies? Have you seen any miracles done by him? The possibility that he was not the messiah is just as good as the possibility that he was. Do you consider the possibility that he wasn't the messiah?
It starts with faith, but if you seek him you will find him. How ever it is not a drive through 2 minute affair. I could tell you about supernatural events I have experienced but you would just deny them. There has been 17 medical documented cases were Smiths Wigglesworth went into a hospital and raised up people from the dead. Even to the point where there limbs had already stiffened, they and had been dead for awhile. This is no coma/sleeping resurrection. The truth of the matter is miracles dont make believers. Look at Jesus, when he healed that mans withered hand on the Sabbath, the Pharisees just got mad and wanted to throw him off a cliff.

Sin separates us from a holy God. People want to know God but they seem to enjoy sin more, and hence they never find him. Remember with Cain and Able when God said the blood of Able was screaming to him. He is not going to fill his house with sin which he cannot stand, and hence he will not fill his house with sinners.
Do not be deceived, do not wink at sin, it is a serious matter to a Holy God.
God will judge you by his law, not by how you think/hope/wish he will judge you. And if he were to judge any of us by that perfect law we would all be found guilty (weighed in the balances and found wanting). That is why he had to made a way for us. Jesus is the Way. He will stand in that court of law, and pay your price to go free, because he loves you. On judgement day I will plead the blood, I can not plead innocent.

Repent and turn away from sin and trust in him Today. Read your bible daily. He promises if you draw closer to him he will draw closer to you.

The whole bible can be summarised to: If you love me (God) you will obey me, if you don’t your not going to like it. Choose this day who you will serve.

[PostmanPot]

I could tell you about supernatural events I have experienced but you would just deny them.

Please share your experiences.

[Mr TB]

Please share your experiences.
The bible says something about pearls and swine... no he won't share it...

If Jesus Christ is not the Messiah everything is in vain...correct... but..
read what Paul has to say, he had a massive encounter with Jesus...

It changed him... Read his testimony, it is fantastic! He had a personal encounter with Jesus, just like Jacob, it changed Paul... remember that Jacob received a new name ... Israel...

Here is a link you can look at... if you want of course...

http://www.tektonics.org/print.php4

Story #1:
TIME (P. 32): "A THEORY GONE TO THE DOGS"
"On Thursday investigators learned that on June 10 St. Louis airport police had used the plane as a testing facility for a bomb-sniffing dog, and that the tiny amount of chemicals used to test the dog could be the source of the residue found on the plane parts."

NEWSWEEK (P. 34): "GOING BACK TO SQUARE ONE"
"...senior officials at the Department of Justice admitted last week that the plane known as TWA Flight 800 had been used to train bomb-sniffing dogs only five weeks before its mysterious destruction July on July 17. That suggests an innocent explanation for the presence of RDX and PETN...in the wreckage of the doomed plane."

So let's play Bible critic and pick these apart. Was there just one dog (Time) or more than one (Newsweek)? Was it "investigators who learned" or "officials who admitted"? How could the date of the test been June 10 when five weeks before July 17 was June 12? Why are no chemicals named in Time where they are named in Newsweek? Why isn't St. Louis mentioned in Newsweek?

It seems picky, but some of these are just like "errors" that Bible critics like to pounce on - such as the "women at the tomb" issue and the story of the healing of the blind men outside Jericho. As Matthew says "two blind men" where Luke and Mark say "a blind man," it is not said in the latter that there was ONLY one! Likewise, Time's story COULD be read to indicate just one dog, but not necessarily.

[PostmanPot]

I'm sure I quoted FlyingPika...

[Neo]

I'm sure I quoted FlyingPika...

I've got a sneaky suspicion dodo is FlyingPika, or at least he is dodo-2 (the more 'literate' one that often posts under Douwdouw or Mr TB, vs dodo-1, the forum member that deprived a village somewhere).

As we saw with Douwdouw/Mr TB, we have the same thoughts, grammar and even sig for both FlyingPika/Mr TB. And both of them claim first hand knowledge of the occult, even to the point where dodo said he can cause cancer in any forum member.

[Praeses]

There are a few half sentences that have been left out, because the catholic church did this, then burned the previous manuscripts that contained them. However they did find older manuscripts than the catholic ones (i cant remember their names off hand) that did indeed show those portions to exist. However it had already became established to note those half sentences do not exist in all manuscripts. I would guess there are about 10 of them ive come across in the new testament from when ive read my bible.

There are whole stories left out. I can't remember them (was 2 years ago) but I remember him (my friend) telling me one of them.



Well that is not biblical. The bible says "there are none good, no not one". You may seem like a good person by your own standards, but Gods standards are much higher than yours. The bible says men are without excuse, and all have seen his handiwork. God will understand your motives, just like a judge understands why some1 committed a crime who was desperate for money, however a non-corrupt judge still hands out judgement. God loves you, but you have broken his law. He spared not even his own Son from his Law, that is how seriously he takes it. Yet you think he will spare you? You are deceived.
Your sin is such a serious offence that he had to take drastic measures, i.e. sending his Son as a sacrifice for sin. If it was nothing serious, why did he do all that?
The bible also says your good works are like lifeless filthy rags before such a Holy God, its almost like you trying to bribe him when you standing before him and mention your good works.

You should remember that the bible is made by humans and 2000 years ago their whole perception of a god could be quite different from what god really is. Also, you speak of only one god as if your god is the only possible god to exist. There are many gods out there that are quite possible to exist, just as much as yours.



It starts with faith, but if you seek him you will find him. How ever it is not a drive through 2 minute affair. I could tell you about supernatural events I have experienced but you would just deny them. There has been 17 medical documented cases were Smiths Wigglesworth went into a hospital and raised up people from the dead. Even to the point where there limbs had already stiffened, they and had been dead for awhile. This is no coma/sleeping resurrection. The truth of the matter is miracles dont make believers. Look at Jesus, when he healed that mans withered hand on the Sabbath, the Pharisees just got mad and wanted to throw him off a cliff.

Just because something cannot be explained (yet) doesn't make it divine unless you believe that lunar eclipses are bad omens? The world learns and adapts...



Sin separates us from a holy God. People want to know God but they seem to enjoy sin more, and hence they never find him. Remember with Cain and Able when God said the blood of Able was screaming to him. He is not going to fill his house with sin which he cannot stand, and hence he will not fill his house with sinners.
Do not be deceived, do not wink at sin, it is a serious matter to a Holy God.
God will judge you by his law, not by how you think/hope/wish he will judge you. And if he were to judge any of us by that perfect law we would all be found guilty (weighed in the balances and found wanting). That is why he had to made a way for us. Jesus is the Way. He will stand in that court of law, and pay your price to go free, because he loves you. On judgement day I will plead the blood, I can not plead innocent.

Repent and turn away from sin and trust in him Today. Read your bible daily. He promises if you draw closer to him he will draw closer to you.

Don't try to convert me, I can promise you that the chance of you converting me is 0. I'm less of a sinner as many people around me in general but I shall not trust a person that's merely an image in people's heads.



The whole bible can be summarised to: If you love me (God) you will obey me, if you don’t your not going to like it. Choose this day who you will serve.
"If you won't work like my slave, you will be whipped." = "If you don't believe, you'll burn in hell for all eternity"
Fear followed by submission.

[Mr TB]

There are whole stories left out. I can't remember them (was 2 years ago) but I remember him (my friend) telling me one of them.



You should remember that the bible is made by humans and 2000 years ago their whole perception of a god could be quite different from what god really is. Also, you speak of only one god as if your god is the only possible god to exist. There are many gods out there that are quite possible to exist, just as much as yours.



Just because something cannot be explained (yet) doesn't make it divine unless you believe that lunar eclipses are bad omens? The world learns and adapts...



Don't try to convert me, I can promise you that the chance of you converting me is 0. I'm less of a sinner as many people around me in general but I shall not trust a person that's merely an image in people's heads.


"If you won't work like my slave, you will be whipped." = "If you don't believe, you'll burn in hell for all eternity"
Fear followed by submission.
God is not standing with a whip in His hand...

Anyone without Jesus as Savior is on his way to hell, there is no threat, it is a fact.

There is only one legitimate way that God can prevent you ending up in hell.
That is through the precious blood of Jesus Christ that was spilled on Golgota.

Jesus want you to believe He did it for you and for the world, for the forgiveness of our sins, that is you part of the deal...

There is not any reason for Him to accept you if you refuse to accept Him and He is a gentleman, will not force himself onto you...

[Praeses]

God is not standing with a whip in His hand...

Anyone without Jesus as Savior is on his way to hell, there is no threat, it is a fact.

There is only one legitimate way that God can prevent you ending up in hell.
That is through the precious blood of Jesus Christ that was spilled on Golgota.

Jesus want you to believe He did it for you and for the world, for the forgiveness of our sins, that is you part of the deal...

There is not any reason for Him to accept you if you refuse to accept Him and He is a gentleman, will not force himself onto you...

According to only your religion.

[Mr TB]

According to only your religion.
Fair enough.

[Tux]

According to only your religion.

or mohammed if you're muslim...

[Mr TB]

or mohammed if you're muslim...
What are you smoking again?!!

[Tux]

What are you smoking again?!!

If I send you some money, will you promise to go and buy a clue with it?

[Mr TB]

If I send you some money, will you promise to go and buy a clue with it?
Yes I will indeed buy the glue that go with it...

[Claymore]

From Aramaic? I think you getting confused.
The reason why the KJV is different to the Good news bible is, wait for it... its another translation! Trickyness.
There are many translations. But compare the original manuscripts in the original language they were written in to the most recent manuscripts and they are 99.9% the same. The differences are usually updated grammar conventions.


Aramaic, yep.

The original manuscripts do not exist. However, the earliest we have had things like absolutely no punctuation, so natually punctuation was added at the whim of transcribers and translators. And translations make a huge amount of difference, especially given the differences in the nuances of how words are used in a particular cultural environment.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible - it's actually really interesting.

[Highflyer_GP]

If I send you some money, will you promise to go and buy a clue with it?Yes I will indeed buy the glue that go with it...
Ok that explains everything. Is that what you've been sniffing? Because that's not what he said you should buy :/

[Tux]

Yes I will indeed buy the glue that go with it...

I rest my case...

[Lycanthrope]

roflmao. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. **offers Mr_TB a pair of glasses** You might be surprised what else you've failed to read in other threads.

**leaves the Intelligent Design is not Science thread alone**

[Mr TB]

Yeah, but without a clue as to what causes them, or exactly how they are spread, how the hell are you going to know when it repeats, if indeed it actually repeats?

Without a working knowledge of molecular biology, you'd be better off postulating that sickness comes from evil spirits.
So what you are telling me is that I am dependant on another human being to explain to me what is wrong with me when I am ill... even with a headache.

Headaches can be dangerous as we know... I place my trust in another human being believing that he will do what is best for me...

....mmm...the night before last night I watched Channel 69 on DSTV. The dear docter apparently poisoned 349 patients, he was connected to 15 murder charges and jailed for life...

Now I sit with a bible it says: "WOW!" to the man who puts his faith in another man...

The docter in my view is a typical example...

[Xarog]

So what you are telling me is that I am dependant on another human being to explain to me what is wrong with me when I am ill... even with a headache.
No, you're inferring that all on your own.

[Mr TB]

No, you're inferring that all on your own.
I used a very stupid example. One of our directors had a headache, went to the doctor...
The headache was caused by a tumor...
So he got cancer in his brain and died two months ago...

He had to place his faith in the doctor to diagnose him...
I am just trying to say the bible says we need not always depend on the next person ... there is also God that will give guidance... personal opinion...

[Mr TB]

Michael Behe has been call a liar, the JUDGE in the case had zero integrity.



Jones, for example, claimed that during the trial, biochemist and Discovery Institute fellow Michael Behe dismissed articles supposedly explaining the evolution of the immune system by saying they are not "good enough." But the court record shows Behe said the opposite: "It's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject."

Behe did not lie, the Judge lied...


In another example, the judge claimed "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." But University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified there are between "seven and 10" peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design.

The Judge lied...

The Judge in the court case has no integrity... In the article I read he decline responding on the claims made...

[ToxicBunny]

Ok, point us to the web link of this judgement..

and the seven to 10 peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design.

You're treading a very fine line by saying a judge lied Mr TB.

[Claymore]

In another example, the judge claimed "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." But University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified there are between "seven and 10" peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design.

The Judge lied...

The judge stated that ID is not supported. He got his information from many souces, not just one microbiologist.

[alloytoo]

ID is not science and should be ruled out at schools....

Then I find the following comment and an interesting one...

"It is amazing that the same people that insist that creation is not appropriate to be taught in the public schools ask us to spend our money for web space to give equal time to the evolutionary point of view. Since most public schools present only one viewpoint, we have already paid once in taxes to have evolution taught. "

Yes the evolusionist viewpoint is presented and taxes once paid to present and teach it...
The evolusionist is very selfish expecting from the the creationist to present his viewpoint on webspace the creationist are paying for...

The opposers of evolution have become used to these tactics haven't they?

So basically your problem isn't with the science budget but with the Philosophy budget. I agree whole heartedly, Christian doctrine should be presented with equal effort, right alongside Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, Shinto, Buddist etc etc Doctrine.

[alloytoo]

Evolutionary biology don't tell innocent children common ancestry is actually a presupposition... hmmm... even worse is it not?

Didn't DNA analysis actually prove "Common Ancestry." Seven daughters of Eve?

[Mr TB]

Claymore Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr TB
In another example, the judge claimed "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." But University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified there are between "seven and 10" peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design.

The Judge lied...

The judge stated that ID is not supported. He got his information from many souces, not just one microbiologist.
05-08-2007 03:21 PM

"ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."

In my understanding the words "by any" reduce the papers to zero...

The Judge is lying or he is calling the microbiologist Scott Minnich a liar...

[cyghost]

Please supply us with a source so we may have a look at your "evidence"

You are a known liar and nothing you say can be trusted.

[Mr TB]

alloy Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr TB
Evolutionary biology don't tell innocent children common ancestry is actually a presupposition... hmmm... even worse is it not?

Didn't DNA analysis actually prove "Common Ancestry." Seven daughters of Eve?

Are you telling me that Eve was indeed the first woman to walk this earth?

[cyghost]

Not exactly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve)

*feel free to search for other sources ~ wiki is a stepping stone if you will.

[Claymore]

Are you telling me that Eve was indeed the first woman to walk this earth?

Read the book and be enlightened.

[Claymore]

"ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."

In my understanding the words "by any" reduce the papers to zero...

The Judge is lying or he is calling the microbiologist Scott Minnich a liar...

Actually, I think that you are lying by omission, and by misquoting Scott Minnich.

To start with, Minnich said there were 7-10 peer-reviewed articles supporting ID. However, he was only able to name one - his own! - and he admitted it had not properly been peer-reviewed. (Minnich, by the way, was rather amusingly mangled in examination).

Then Michael Behe, ID's poster-child, shot the argument in the foot:


On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision2.html#p121)

I suggest you take a little read of the following:

The Discovery Institute Quote Mines Judge Jones (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/kitzmiller.html)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 20 (November 3), PM Session, Part 1 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day20pm.html)

[alloytoo]

Are you telling me that Eve was indeed the first woman to walk this earth?

No, I've saying that DNA tracking of mycondrial DNA indicates 7 Major common ancesters which scientests have named the 7 daughters of Eve. It effectively proves Common ancestry as postulated by Darwin.

[Mr TB]

I am so glad all of you came out of your sad holes defending plagiarism...bwahahaha...

Judge Jones did not have the stomach to comment on that... shame on the Judge who can't think for himselves... and shame on you .... but he of course evolved it make sense...

[alloytoo]

I am so glad all of you came out of your sad holes defending plagiarism...bwahahaha...

Judge Jones did not have the stomach to comment on that... shame on the Judge who can't think for himselves... and shame on you .... but he of course evolved it make sense...

What Plagiarism?

I think the Judge's stomach is fine, he made the right call.

[ToxicBunny]

Plagiarsm?.. where?

So you're going to ignore the fact that Claymore blew your little "Lying Judge" concept out of the water with the true facts of what happened in that case, which of course you chose to omit because they didn't suit your "argument" and now bring in something about plagiarism.

Please show where plagiarism was brought into this by Judge Jones?

[Mr TB]

TO: TOXIBUNNY


Plagiarsm?.. where?

So you're going to ignore the fact that Claymore blew your little "Lying Judge" concept out of the water with the true facts of what happened in that case, which of course you chose to omit because they didn't suit your "argument" and now bring in something about plagiarism.

Please show where plagiarism was brought into this by Judge Jones?

If you are not aware of it, it shows your one-eyed approach to the subject, not worth commenting. Why don't you research the case? Judge Jones is very good with paste and copy...

[ToxicBunny]

Well since you happened to omit the fact the both Behe and your other poster child Minnich showed that they couldn't point out 7 to 10 peer-reviewed articles, and the Behe then said there were none. I think the Judge did a good job.

But you still haven't showed us where the plagiarism aspect comes into this, or is this another one of your made up things, like that "Fallacy of Moral Outrage" that you invented recently...

[ghoti]

I wonder if Jesus would fib as much as dodo does...?

[alloytoo]

TO: TOXIBUNNY



If you are not aware of it, it shows your one-eyed approach to the subject, not worth commenting. Why don't you research the case? Judge Jones is very good with paste and copy...

Burdon of proof rests on you.

You've made serious allegations, now back them up.

[Claymore]

TO: TOXIBUNNY

If you are not aware of it, it shows your one-eyed approach to the subject, not worth commenting. Why don't you research the case? Judge Jones is very good with paste and copy...

Mr TB, isn't it rather hypocritical of you to tell other people to research the case when it's evident you haven't bothered to do so yourself?

I have actually read the complete trial transcript. Have you?

[Mr TB]

Mr TB, isn't it rather hypocritical of you to tell other people to research the case when it's evident you haven't bothered to do so yourself?

I have actually read the complete trial transcript. Have you?
I did not. Did the Judge paste and copy and refuse to comment or did he not do that?
I do not think, with all due respect ,that you are qualified enough to judge on the issue especially if the Judge refuse to comment on his own actions?
Less than, if my maths are correct, of 30% of the statement made by him was of his own doing... He even included the mistakes in his pasting operation...
Yeah, not much of a Judge in my view...

[ToxicBunny]

Mr TB : so you did not read the entire transcript? so you did not see if the judge acknowledged his sources at all?

What actions did the judge refuse to comment on?

We're still waiting for you to show us where the plagiarism occured.

[alloytoo]

I did not. Did the Judge paste and copy and refuse to comment or did he not do that?
I do not think, with all due respect ,that you are qualified enough to judge on the issue especially if the Judge refuse to comment on his own actions?
Less than, if my maths are correct, of 30% of the statement made by him was of his own doing... He even included the mistakes in his pasting operation...
Yeah, not much of a Judge in my view...

And yet citing precidents is very much part of legal work.

In my understanding it was successfully proven that ID was no more than rebadged Creationisms.

Having established that, then the Judge's verdict would hinge on the precident set by the previous trial.

It is not only sensible, but good legal practice to quote substantively from that trial, (in effect repeat that verdict) and reserve his own comments to specifically the rebadgeing issue.

[Mr TB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr TB
I did not. Did the Judge paste and copy and refuse to comment or did he not do that?
I do not think, with all due respect ,that you are qualified enough to judge on the issue especially if the Judge refuse to comment on his own actions?
Less than, if my maths are correct, of 30% of the statement made by him was of his own doing... He even included the mistakes in his pasting operation...
Yeah, not much of a Judge in my view...

And yet citing precidents is very much part of legal work.

In my understanding it was successfully proven that ID was no more than rebadged Creationisms.

Having established that, then the Judge's verdict would hinge on the precident set by the previous trial.

It is not only sensible, but good legal practice to quote substantively from that trial, (in effect repeat that verdict) and reserve his own comments to specifically the rebadgeing issue.

I am not bothered about ID, the Judge committed plagiarism... A stone the forumites thrown in my direction...
You are defending the fact that the Judge committed plagiarism. You have a double standard in your closet M8. I am not bothered about the outcome of the trial... You find plagiarism acceptable...

[Claymore]

I did not. Did the Judge paste and copy and refuse to comment or did he not do that?
I do not think, with all due respect ,that you are qualified enough to judge on the issue especially if the Judge refuse to comment on his own actions?
Less than, if my maths are correct, of 30% of the statement made by him was of his own doing... He even included the mistakes in his pasting operation...
Yeah, not much of a Judge in my view...

Have you provided references for your claims? If not, perhaps you should stoofoo.

[Claymore]

I am not bothered about ID, the Judge committed plagiarism... A stone the forumites thrown in my direction...
You are defending the fact that the Judge committed plagiarism. You have a double standard in your closet M8. I am not bothered about the outcome of the trial... You find plagiarism acceptable...

Proof of plagiarism, please.

[alloytoo]

Proof of plagiarism, please.

Perhaps we should *shudder* provide a definition of the word?

[Mr TB]

Proof of plagiarism, please.
No one can provide proof of any of the allegations they throw around in the threads against me so...
You throw around comments about people being liars, I do not think you have any right doing that Judge...

[alloytoo]

No one can provide proof of any of the allegations they throw around in the threads against me so...
You throw around comments about people being liars, I do not think you have any right doing that Judge...

What allegations? No allegations, a few things proven perhaps, but no allegations.

[Claymore]

No one can provide proof of any of the allegations they throw around in the threads against me so...
You throw around comments about people being liars, I do not think you have any right doing that Judge...

So, in other words, you can't provide the proof...which implies that you were spouting BS.

[cyghost]

Another lie then Mr. TB? Your little black book seems to be running over. Some time you have to stop lying?

[Mr TB]

So, in other words, you can't provide the proof...which implies that you were spouting BS.
If I can't you can't , so the same goes for you...

Secondly, it is my personal opinion that you do not take the time to read the links provided by me properly...
or making a decision it is trash before you start reading it...

I find the providing of links therefore a waste of precious time...
I will rather just state my case and so be it...

[ToxicBunny]

Actually Mr TB : you said you didn't read the full judgement that you posted, you therefore just cherry picked the bit that you liked and ignored the stuff that didn't fit in with your argument, or disproved it.

We do take the time to read the links, and find them mostly purile or completely irrelevant.

[cyghost]

Well said Toxicbunny.

I am actually currently caught up in that blog he posted in another thread, trying to make sense of it and how it fits in with our discussion there. It seems I must first discern who the feck those people are before I can get to the bottom of anything.

[alloytoo]

If I can't you can't , so the same goes for you...

Secondly, it is my personal opinion that you do not take the time to read the links provided by me properly...
or making a decision it is trash before you start reading it...

I find the providing of links therefore a waste of precious time...
I will rather just state my case and so be it...

Ah basically you can't substantiate anything. It's made up, smoke, mirrors and magic mushrooms.

[cyghost]

and magic mushrooms.
Somehow that's just so... apt. :D

[The Cosmos]

We do take the time to read the links, and find them mostly purile or completely irrelevant.

Liar. ;)
I posted some stuff to support noah's ark, and biblical history long time ago, but you skimmed over it, and blasted it as biased. :rolleyes:

[Mr TB]

TO: TOXIBUNNY


Actually Mr TB : you said you didn't read the full judgement that you posted, you therefore just cherry picked the bit that you liked and ignored the stuff that didn't fit in with your argument, or disproved it.

We do take the time to read the links, and find them mostly purile or completely irrelevant.

And maybe you actually have it wrong ... because you are not arguing the same point than me... plagiarism
If the world have can spit on christians, well he ain't nothing better... he is a disgrace for fair treatment in court...

Your argument is irrelevant not mine... his office will not even comment on his deed, it is shamefull man...

[ToxicBunny]

No I'm not arguing that point, because until you can point out WHERE the plagiarism is, I will disregard it.

Now I am still "harping" on about you cherry picking the bits you want from that judgement and ignoring further passages which show the paragraph you cherry picked to be incorrect or even a lie.

[cyghost]

Were you referring to this (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html) crap?

It seems you just can't get it right. Alloytoo explained it very well here (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1162982&postcount=139) re-read his post you should.

Its fine to make a mistake, even I do (rarely) but to keep on making a mistake after it has been pointed out to you turns a normal mistake into a lie... dum dum dum

btw that was facetious ~ I make loads of mistakes and like most I find it hard to own up to them.

[Mr TB]

You better agree with the worldview of phylisophical naturalism supported by this thing evolution otherwise you are thumped...


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp

[ToxicBunny]

Ok so now that we've shown you were talking rubbish, you just jump on some other bandwagon?

Please explain what this Philosophical Naturalism thing is because that link has nothing about it. Plus of course, since you brought in this supposed peer-reviewed document which has been shot down, have you read it?... and where is a link to the original peer-reviewed document?

//Edit//
Ah, ok.. well given the reading graciously provided by cyghost... it seems like Sternberg tried to achieve something by circumventing the normal processes of getting something published in a journal, interesting.

[cyghost]

I love wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg#Peer_review_controversy)
and then the other side (http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html)

I know, I know there is much to say against wiki but one doesn't have to hold it to be the complete truth and one may go on to look for other / better sources if one were so inclined. But I like it because its concise and easily understandable. And it is all that's ever needed to debunk the mushroom. Which says something in and of itself.

In this case it means a) Richard Sternberg is a liar b) all other scientists are lying and conspiring to keep us in the dark about evolution / ID. Occam's Razor says we assume a) without other credible evidence to point to the contrary.

[The Cosmos]

The Judge is lying or he is calling the microbiologist Scott Minnich a liar...

Remember, judges could care less what the outcome of a case may be. He just sits there, listens, does a few speeches and collects a paycheque.

[ToxicBunny]

IJ : Thats actually a very dangerous statement to make. Judges do care about the outcome of the case, thats what they're trained and hired to do. What they preside on and their judgements state becomes a precedent. Its incredibly important.

[Mr TB]

Remember, judges could care less what the outcome of a case may be. He just sits there, listens, does a few speeches and collects a paycheque.
Agreed,

Something else about ID, and in my personal opinion taking the words of Behe out of context.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1406

[ToxicBunny]

Just a question directed at IJ and Mr TB : do you follow the laws of this country?

[AntiThesis]

Remember, judges could care less what the outcome of a case may be. He just sits there, listens, does a few speeches and collects a paycheque.


Agreed,


The assertion that judges don't care about their verdicts/the outcomes of a case is a) unsupported by any evidence and b) a complete generalisation. Further, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic being argued and is therefore pointless. Just sayin'

[Pr⊕phet]

Just a question directed at IJ and Mr TB : do you follow the laws of this country?

some of them ;)

[alloytoo]

You better agree with the worldview of phylisophical naturalism supported by this thing evolution otherwise you are thumped...


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp

It would appear that this article lies by omission, and that the so called Peer reviewed article was a) not & b) subsequently retracted.

[Mr TB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr TB
You better agree with the worldview of phylisophical naturalism supported by this thing evolution otherwise you are thumped...


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...2sternberg.asp

It would appear that this article lies by omission, and that the so called Peer reviewed article was a) not & b) subsequently retracted

But you still miss the point... only after victimization... please man get a life

[alloytoo]

But you still miss the point... only after victimization... please man get a life

Now, now, those charges were subsequently dismissed weren't they?

Found something interesting, the other side:



http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/a_second_dimens.html

[AntiThesis]

And it's not necessary to become personal in your responses :)

Victimization doesn't really enter into the matter since the apparently peer-reviewed article turned out to not be. Whether or not there was victimization is academic as it doesn't change the outcome of that.

[Mr TB]

some of them ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToxicBunny

Just a question directed at IJ and Mr TB : do you follow the laws of this country?

I not in jail, obviously I am doing some things correctly...The question however indicate that you believe I do not follow all of the laws. I assume it will be based on religion, let me have it...

[ToxicBunny]

No its not based on religion...

Its based on the fact that you and IJ both question judges rulings, which a LARGE part of our codified laws are built around.

And not being in jail is not an indication of whether you are law-abiding or not in this country.

[alloytoo]

No its not based on religion...

Its based on the fact that you and IJ both question judges rulings, which a LARGE part of our codified laws are built around.

And not being in jail is not an indication of whether you are law-abiding or not in this country.

Just that he hasn't been caught?

[Mr TB]

Were I personal?, I truely apologise... I however have seen no comments on the plagiarism committed by the honourable Judge Jones. Neither will his office comment on that...

In my personal view it only shows what evolution really is, a religion nothing more...

If the peer-reviewed article were indeed retracted provide me with the link for future reference...

[ToxicBunny]

Mr TB : the link that was posted regarding your supposed plagiarism dealt with the issue. It is what ALL judges do. It is not plagiarism, get over it.

As for the retraction of the article, perhaps you should actually read the links that are provided.

[alloytoo]

Were I personal?, I truely apologise... I however have seen no comments on the plagiarism committed by the honourable Judge Jones. Neither will his office comment on that...

In my personal view it only shows what evolution really is, a religion nothing more...

If the peer-reviewed article were indeed retracted provide me with the link for future reference...

1. You were asked to substantiate your charges of Plagiarism.
2. I responded explaining how judges often use prior judgements and incorporate it into their judgements.
3. It is common accepted practice for Judges to incorporate submissions in the case into their judgements.
4. The Judge has not commented because the allegation is so ludicrus not to merit comment from him.
5. If the allegation is so serious then why did the lawyer who's work was incorporated into the judgement not object and scream and jump up and down? (oh I know, he was pretty pleased that the judge liked his work so much as to incorporate it into his judgement.)

6.On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article:


The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

(source: http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html)

[Mr TB]

No its not based on religion...

Its based on the fact that you and IJ both question judges rulings, which a LARGE part of our codified laws are built around.

And not being in jail is not an indication of whether you are law-abiding or not in this country.

Did I question the judge's ruling or the fact that he committed plagiarism?
He ruled that ID will not be taught in schools, he is accountable to God for that ruling not me...
The Bible says you will be rewarded according to your works... and this is part of Judge Jones works...

With the help of God I will submit to the country's laws... but not if a law denies God... then not in my own power but God's power will I not submit...

Remember all power on heaven an earth has been given to Christ Jesus. If you are in a position of power, you received that power from Jesus Christ, what you however do with it is your decision and you will be accountable.

[ToxicBunny]

Actually you did question his ruling by calling him a liar....

We then proved that you had cherry picked a paragraph from the judgement that suited that view point and ignored the rest of it, whereupon you moved on to this plagiarism accusation which again we have shown you is incorrect and ludicrous.

If you recieve a position of power on earth it has either been achieved by good business sense or by lying to a constituency and being voted in by the people, the process has very little if anything to do with any deity. And in SA, there is no accountability.

[alloytoo]

Did I question the judge's ruling or the fact that he committed plagiarism?


You impuned his integrity.



He ruled that ID will not be taught in schools, he is accountable to God for that ruling not me...

He ruled that ID wasn't science. I'm certain you could teach it as religious theory or philosophy.

[Mr TB]

If you really wish to take it that far , who are any of you to question the integrity of the ALMIGHTY GOD or to call GOD a liar?

Go back in the threads and read you remarks about the ALMIGHTY GOD again...

if what a human judge have to say indeed carry so much weight with you, just think how heavy is the weights that you placed on yourself impuning the Almighty God and questioning his integrity...

[ToxicBunny]

Ok since we don't believe in your "god" or accept his existence that line of argument is null and void.

What you did is call a flesh and blood person who we can all see exists and has been given a position of authority because of his knowledge and training, a liar because you do not agree with his judgement (which is now a legally binding judgement and has set a precedent in the United States of America), even though he has researched it considerably more extensively than you seem to have done.

Please stop trying to muddy the waters and be a man and stand up when you've been shown up.

[Mr TB]

Ok since we don't believe in your "god" or accept his existence that line of argument is null and void.

What you did is call a flesh and blood person who we can all see exists and has been given a position of authority because of his knowledge and training, a liar because you do not agree with his judgement (which is now a legally binding judgement and has set a precedent in the United States of America), even though he has researched it considerably more extensively than you seem to have done.

Please stop trying to muddy the waters and be a man and stand up when you've been shown up.


What you did is call a flesh and blood person who we can all see exists and has been given a position of authority because of his knowledge and training, a liar because you do not agree with his judgement

Is this not funny , Judge Jones committed plagiarism and you are defending it. His office will not comment on that... He even pasted the errors on the report into his verdict...
ID is not even my concern but the fact that he committed plagiarism...
Why is plagiarism my concern? because I have been accused of the same thing!

[alloytoo]

If you really wish to take it that far , who are any of you to question the integrity of the ALMIGHTY GOD or to call GOD a liar?

Go back in the threads and read you remarks about the ALMIGHTY GOD again...

if what a human judge have to say indeed carry so much weight with you, just think how heavy is the weights that you placed on yourself impuning the Almighty God and questioning his integrity...

Again, so the actions of (supposed non Christians) allows you to impune (wrongfully) a man's reputation.

"You Hypocrites."

[alloytoo]

Is this not funny , Judge Jones committed plagiarism and you are defending it. His office will not comment on that... He even pasted the errors on the report into his verdict...
ID is not even my concern but the fact that he committed plagiarism...
Why is plagiarism my concern? because I have been accused of the same thing!

1. You were asked to substantiate your charges of Plagiarism.
2. I responded explaining how judges often use prior judgements and incorporate it into their judgements.
3. It is common accepted practice for Judges to incorporate submissions in the case into their judgements.
4. The Judge has not commented because the allegation is so ludicrus not to merit comment from him.
5. If the allegation is so serious then why did the lawyer who's work was incorporated into the judgement not object and scream and jump up and down? (oh I know, he was pretty pleased that the judge liked his work so much as to incorporate it into his judgement.)

6. You are not a judge adjudicating a case before your court.

7. This is the THIRD TIME I've addressed the issue.

[Mr TB]

Again, so the actions of (supposed non Christians) allows you to impune (wrongfully) a man's reputation.

"You Hypocrites."

Like I said before remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the splint from your brother's eye...

[Claymore]

Did I question the judge's ruling or the fact that he committed plagiarism?

He did not. He used the plaintiff's document of desired findings. If the defendants had won, he would have used the defendant's document of desired findings. That's how it works!

[Tux]

Like I said before remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the splint from your brother's eye...

I find it much more satisfying to remove their eyes with the plank

ps. You don't have a split in your eye dodo.. you got the whole bloody timber yard lodged up your rectal cavity

[alloytoo]

Like I said before remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the splint from your brother's eye...

A lesson. Marc 1:1-6


(1)There once was a foolish foolish servant who mocked the wisdom of his master's guest, a man who was a teacher of law and a Judge, often calling into question his decisions. (2)One day the servant was accused of a heinious crime of murder and came before this Judge.

(3)"You have said many times that my judgements are wrong, that my decisions are foolish. Do you now stand by what you say."

(4) The servant knew that the judge meant to shame him into recanting his earlier words and his pride took control of his mouth.

(5)"You are a poor teacher and a foolish Judge of the law. I will not accept your judgement."

(6) "This saddens me." The judge said "For I judge innocent of this crime. But you reject my judgement and therefor your own words condemn you."

[Mr TB]

He did not. He used the plaintiff's document of desired findings. If the defendants had won, he would have used the defendant's document of desired findings. That's how it works!
Any other excuses you can bring to the fore? If that was indeed the case why are the judge's office afraid to comment. Lack of confidence? Showing that he had no insight in the case he had to judge on?... come on... is it possible that he was bribed and that is the reason for his hiding?

Who are you trying to kid me?... yeah that is fine indeed...

[Mr TB]

I find it much more satisfying to remove their eyes with the plank

ps. You don't have a split in your eye dodo.. you got the whole bloody timber yard lodged up your rectal cavity
Gru the bird stopped singing long time ago, don't you know that.
I got rid of the socketpuppets and the intention is not to let it happen again, will you also be good mannered enough and let go of the bird? let go of dodo?

[alloytoo]

Any other excuses you can bring to the fore? If that was indeed the case why are the judge's office afraid to comment. Lack of confidence? Showing that he had no insight in the case he had to judge on?... come on... is it possible that he was bribed and that is the reason for his hiding?

Who are you trying to kid me?... yeah that is fine indeed...

The Judge has not commented because the allegation is so ludicrus.

Only a fool would continue to beat this horse because not only is it dead it's starting to smell poorly.

[Claymore]

Any other excuses you can bring to the fore? If that was indeed the case why are the judge's office afraid to comment. Lack of confidence? Showing that he had no insight in the case he had to judge on?... come on... is it possible that he was bribed and that is the reason for his hiding?

Who are you trying to kid me?... yeah that is fine indeed...

Why would his office comment on normal law procedures? They can't answer every tiny little pissy query from people who don't understand legal procedures.

And it's evident from the transcripts that he had plenty of insight. Of course, you haven't read the transcripts.

[Mr TB]

Why would his office comment on normal law procedures? They can't answer every tiny little pissy query from people who don't understand legal procedures.

And it's evident from the transcripts that he had plenty of insight. Of course, you haven't read the transcripts.
Well, I will not make these comments concerning the Judge if he indeed showed such great insight... Like I have said he included the errors in his verdict, but I will not try and convince you any further... It is like trying to convince people the EMM - Head of Police is not a criminal. They just don't accept the arguments...

[ToxicBunny]

Mr TB : Have you or have you not read the entire transcript of the case?

[Mr TB]

Mr TB : Have you or have you not read the entire transcript of the case?
I answered it once I do not believe I have to answer it again...

[ToxicBunny]

Ok well I was just double checking...

So you didn't bother to read the entire judgement, yet you still claim the judge commited plagiarism, when we have shown you over and over again that its normally judicial practice to do as this judge did, and his lack of comment on the Discovery Institute claims is because they are totally ludicrous and should not even be entertained to waste a judge's time.

We still haven't dealt with the issue of you stating that the judge lied, without reading the entire judgement and getting to the point where Behe and his little companion admitted that there were NO peer-reviewed articles on ID.

[Mr TB]

Ok well I was just double checking...

So you didn't bother to read the entire judgement, yet you still claim the judge commited plagiarism, when we have shown you over and over again that its normally judicial practice to do as this judge did, and his lack of comment on the Discovery Institute claims is because they are totally ludicrous and should not even be entertained to waste a judge's time.

We still haven't dealt with the issue of you stating that the judge lied, without reading the entire judgement and getting to the point where Behe and his little companion admitted that there were NO peer-reviewed articles

and his lack of comment on the Discovery Institute claims is because they are totally ludicrous and should not even be entertained to waste a judge's time.

So what you are telling me, when the Judge is wrong, he just plays it down as time wasting. What a wonderful way to earn big bugs and get rid of your responsibility towards the public. It unfortunately happens in our country too. You are biased in your opinion he quoted incorrect information , did you not read the transcript? He had no clue what he was actually doing otherwise he would have noted the incorrect info and was he not suppose to refer to his source in depth? Oops!

You still need to convince me about Behe an his companion. It seems more and more that he actually was intimdated...

[ToxicBunny]

No, what I'm saying is when someone like the Discovery Institute decides to try and attack a judge for doing what ALL judges do and is accepted practice in the judiciary, that the judge need not waste his time responding to the "accusations"

Convince you?.. It was Behe and his cohort who admitted it during the case. READ THE JUDGEMENT.

[Mr TB]

No, what I'm saying is when someone like the Discovery Institute decides to try and attack a judge for doing what ALL judges do and is accepted practice in the judiciary, that the judge need not waste his time responding to the "accusations"

Convince you?.. It was Behe and his cohort who admitted it during the case. READ THE JUDGEMENT

Yeah and if I remember correctly when I did commercial law the judges referred to their sources...
When I did Company Law the judges also referred to their sources... in depth.
The Judge will not sit and read more than 70% of another source word by word without ensuring that those listening was aware where he was coming from...
What Judge Jones did is not accepted practice in the judiciary, it is plagiarism or theft with the eyes is it not, claiming intelligence that does not belong to him...lying in other words...

Read the opinion of this JUDGE?

[ToxicBunny]

Ummm, yes it is.

You seem to handily forget that your experience in law is based on a Roman Dutch system which has been brought from the UK. The USA have a different legal system.

Oh, so we're back to the lying accusation again. You will need to back that accusation up Mr TB.

[The Cosmos]

Just a question directed at IJ and Mr TB : do you follow the laws of this country?

uhmm... yes. What are you getting at ?

[The Cosmos]

IJ : Thats actually a very dangerous statement to make. Judges do care about the outcome of the case, thats what they're trained and hired to do. What they preside on and their judgements state becomes a precedent. Its incredibly important.

Ok. Read carefully. :)

IT-IS-A-JOB

Nothing else. Their job is to make a descision according to law. There's no caring at all. They follow the law. No matter how ridiculous it is.

[Mr TB]

Ummm, yes it is.

You seem to handily forget that your experience in law is based on a Roman Dutch system which has been brought from the UK. The USA have a different legal system.

Oh, so we're back to the lying accusation again. You will need to back that accusation up Mr TB.

I honestly believe you have no clue concerning the functioning of the US legal system... I need not retract anything based on that fact...or are you going to be the jury also?

[alloytoo]

Ummm, yes it is.

You seem to handily forget that your experience in law is based on a Roman Dutch system which has been brought from the UK. The USA have a different legal system.

Oh, so we're back to the lying accusation again. You will need to back that accusation up Mr TB.

One would imagine that in a true case of plagiarism the plagiarised party would have squealed like a stuff pig and raised a huge stink AT THE TIME, instead a party who didn't suffer so-called "plagiarism" (more like sour grapes) raises these spurious charges a YEAR later?

[alloytoo]

Ok. Read carefully. :)

IT-IS-A-JOB

Nothing else. Their job is to make a descision according to law. There's no caring at all. They follow the law. No matter how ridiculous it is.

Boy I'm glad you're not a judge.

[ToxicBunny]

So your studying all of this law was in the US or in RSA Mr TB?

alloytoo : yes there is that too, but thats just a fact that will get glossed over by Mr TB because it obv harms his lil point...

[alloytoo]

So your studying all of this law was in the US or in RSA Mr TB?

alloytoo : yes there is that too, but thats just a fact that will get glossed over by Mr TB because it obv harms his lil point...


The problem with "common sense", is that it's not so common.

[Mr TB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToxicBunny
So your studying all of this law was in the US or in RSA Mr TB?

alloytoo : yes there is that too, but thats just a fact that will get glossed over by Mr TB because it obv harms his lil point...


The problem with "common sense", is that it's not so common.

R U implying I am boasting? It is easy studying subjects M8, the difficulty is passing them. But then again not passing is not the end of the world, you gain knowledge, knowledge you would not have if you did not try...

One's you run around for a job it counts in your favour... I found Roman Dutch a bit easier to handle...
"Common sense" is not something used in this threads let me tell you that...

[ToxicBunny]

No, I am asking whether you studying South African law, or American law. and what does passing or failing have to do with anything?

We've noticed, common sense is ignored as is fully reading judgements instead certain people choose to cherry pick the bits that suit their argument.

[alloytoo]

R U implying I am boasting? It is easy studying subjects M8, the difficulty is passing them. But then again not passing is not the end of the world, you gain knowledge, knowledge you would not have if you did not try...

One's you run around for a job it counts in your favour... I found Roman Dutch a bit easier to handle...
"Common sense" is not something used in this threads let me tell you that...

Oh don't worry I passed Com Law.

[Mr TB]

alloytoo Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr TB
R U implying I am boasting? It is easy studying subjects M8, the difficulty is passing them. But then again not passing is not the end of the world, you gain knowledge, knowledge you would not have if you did not try...

One's you run around for a job it counts in your favour... I found Roman Dutch a bit easier to handle...
"Common sense" is not something used in this threads let me tell you that...

Oh don't worry I passed Com Law.

Must I shake your hand?

[Mr TB]

No, I am asking whether you studying South African law, or American law. and what does passing or failing have to do with anything?

We've noticed, common sense is ignored as is fully reading judgements instead certain people choose to cherry pick the bits that suit their argument.
Cherrypick? just check your thoughtless answer in the other thread concerning evidence... That is cherry picking... nothing else...
With all due respect you are showing a lack of knowledge concerning evidence...

OJ Simpson's glove was part of the evidence... to be interpreted by the defence and to be interpreted by the prosecution...
The prosecution messed up and OJ Simpson walked out a free man...

You should really reconsider your understanding of the word evidence...

[ToxicBunny]

Actually no, cherry picking means you chose the bits of the judgement that suited your argument and ignored the rest of it.

OJ's case has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever and will be ignored and whether the prosecution messed up has nothing to do with cherry picking.

I understand the word evidence, you should find out what is meant by chery picking.

[Tux]

Gru the bird stopped singing long time ago, don't you know that.
I got rid of the socketpuppets and the intention is not to let it happen again, will you also be good mannered enough and let go of the bird? let go of dodo?

You can paint racing stripes on a donkey, but underneath it, it stays an ass

What am I trying to tell you? Probably not what you're thinking about right now

[alloytoo]

Must I shake your hand?

Kissing the ring will suffice.

[Mr TB]

You can paint racing stripes on a donkey, but underneath it, it stays an ass

What am I trying to tell you? Probably not what you're thinking about right now
In my life I have found the Ignorant it the ones that identify other people as obtuse, or will identify another person as an ass- characteristics actually part of themselves they do not like...

[Mr TB]

alloytoo Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr TB
Must I shake your hand?

Kissing the ring will suffice.

Only traitors kiss...

[alloytoo]

Only traitors kiss...

I'll be sure to advise your mum of that.

[ToxicBunny]

Well it does beg the question of whether he has kissed his wife, or his mother or anyone for that matter....

Or does he still think females have cooties...

[Claymore]

What Judge Jones did is not accepted practice in the judiciary, it is plagiarism or theft with the eyes is it not, claiming intelligence that does not belong to him...lying in other words...

Read the opinion of this JUDGE?

It is common practice in the US for judges for incorporate proposed findings for plaintiff or defendant (which are submitted by the plaintiff and defendant) in their judgement. He used the plaintiff's document of desired findings. If the defendants had won, he would have used the defendant's document of desired findings. That's how it works!

[AntiThesis]

Parts of this seem to be degenerating into insults :P Let's play nice shall we?

Mr TB, you do need to back up your statements that the judge was lying and/or stealing information from sources without due credit. The accusation of something does not make it true. There must be sufficient evidence present for this to happen. In other words, saying over and over again that he is lying isn't evidence, but a court finding or something similar would be.

[Mr TB]

I will play ball if we look at the truth of the matter...
Is a person to important to respond to an opinion or critism?
Well then he can not convince me that he was impartial...

Remember the Judge was hailed for insight reading the findings of some else word for word...
The mess he found himself in came about when it came to light that it was not his own words...

If the above however is acceptable... I need not to provide an backing for any of my arguments do I? My "insight" is good/bad enough...:)

[ToxicBunny]

There was no mess, other than the ridiculous accusation to come out of the Discovery Institute after they lost the case fairly and squarely.... and when they got no rise out of the judge because of their ridiculous accusations, they left it because they would get nowhere with it since it is standard practice in the American Legal system (which you claim to have studied and therefore should know this anyway and have laughed at the Discovery Institutes ridiculous accusation)

Do try follow along Mr TB, its not that difficult.

[alloytoo]

I will play ball if we look at the truth of the matter...
Is a person to important to respond to an opinion or critism?
Well then he can not convince me that he was impartial...

Remember the Judge was hailed for insight reading the findings of some else word for word...
The mess he found himself in came about when it came to light that it was not his own words...

If the above however is acceptable... I need not to provide an backing for any of my arguments do I? My "insight" is good/bad enough...:)


If I accused you of looking both ways before crossing the street you would think my accusation without merit, because you have been told and taught to do just that, and know it's good common sense.

Some people might respond to the accusation with redicule, others would simply shake their heads and move on. Judge Jones is clearly of the later sort.

[Mr TB]

and when they got no rise out of the judge because of their ridiculous accusations, they left it because they would get nowhere with it since it is standard practice in the American Legal system

Yeah that is correct plagiarism is allowed in the American Legal System... I always found that quite funny...

[ToxicBunny]

No.. plagiarism is NOT allowed in the American legal system

I'm starting to wonder if you studied law at all Mr TB.

[alloytoo]

Yeah that is correct plagiarism is allowed in the American Legal System... I always found that quite funny...

And yet we're not laughing, at least not with you.

[cyghost]

Is a person to important to respond to an opinion or critism?)
I have called you a liar on many many occasions now. You have yet to respond to any of them. Either an angry retort or a denial. Or godforbid, an admission of a mistake. Mostly you gloss over it or jump to the next off topic remark.
I was considering opening a topic where I list all your lies and where you made them. I think once I have time, I'll get to this.

[Mr TB]

I
have called you a liar on many many occasions now. You have yet to respond to any of them. Either an angry retort or a denial. Or godforbid, an admission of a mistake. Mostly you gloss over it or jump to the next off topic remark.
I was considering opening a topic where I list all your lies and where you made them. I think once I have time, I'll get to this

In the view of people I may be a liar... do I care... In the view of God I do think not...
Do you know that Jesus was also called a liar?
We will all be rewarded according to our works. If you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your personal saviour just think what evil works mean?


Oh please it is not a thread only a little bit of clear minded thinking required.

[cyghost]

You are howling at the judge because he doesn't respond to criticism or opinion yet for yourself you claim Jesus saves. I cry hypocrite!

[alloytoo]

I

In the view of people I may be a liar... do I care... In the view of God I do think not...
Do you know that Jesus was also called a liar?
We will all be rewarded according to our works. If you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your personal saviour just think what evil works mean?


Oh please it is not a thread only a little bit of clear minded thinking required.

The difference is that Jesus was never caught in a lie.

Furthermore the idea that you can simply sin with the intention of claiming salvation.....um....doesn't quite work that way.

[AntiThesis]

In the view of people I may be a liar... do I care... In the view of God I do think not...

Yes you damned well should care. You're sitting here trying to represent the religion that I hold dear to my heart and you don't care that you've been dishonest or that you're giving a terrible impression of Xians in some forms. That's no good.

If you're a liar, you're a liar. God isn't going to go "Well that's ok. You're a Xian so you're allowed to lie."



Do you know that Jesus was also called a liar?

Jesus is the son of God. You're not.


We will all be rewarded according to our works. If you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your personal saviour just think what evil works mean?

That's an illogical argument. It relies on the belief in Jesus/Xianity/Afterlife to have importance. If you don't believe in any of these things then evil works expire when you die. They don't come back to haunt you.

[Mr TB]

The difference is that Jesus was never caught in a lie.

Furthermore the idea that you can simply sin with the intention of claiming salvation.....um....doesn't quite work that way.

AH!.. at last someone acknowledged a truth... sinning with intent close the door to salvation...

[alloytoo]

AH!.. at last someone acknowledged a truth... sinning with intent close the door to salvation...

Yup, standard mainstream Doctrine, perhaps you can try follow it?

[Mr TB]

Yes you damned well should care. You're sitting here trying to represent the religion that I hold dear to my heart and you don't care that you've been dishonest or that you're giving a terrible impression of Xians in some forms. That's no good.

If you're a liar, you're a liar. God isn't going to go "Well that's ok. You're a Xian so you're allowed to lie."

Am I really a liar?
Judge Jones is a liar in declaring evolution to be scientific... while it is based on philisophical naturalism... why call me a liar?

Every article on every christian site is a big lie have you not yet noticed that? Everything typed on such sites are lies or unsubstanstiated.

The truth is only told on sites like talkorigins,evilbible... etc. They are exactly right... No one cares as long as they can take a potshot at God...

[ToxicBunny]

Ummm, Mr TB. evolution IS scientific... what is this philosophical naturalism (odd that now you can spell it correctly) rubbish you mention, I've asked you to explain and you just ignore.

No... we don't only care at taking potshots at your Deity.... we will attack and bring down doctrines who are opposed to real science and try to replace it with nonsense.

[AntiThesis]

Am I really a liar?
Judge Jones is a liar in declaring evolution to be scientific... while it is based on philisophical naturalism... why call me a liar?

If you take a look over here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/6:Curriculum%2C_Conclusion) you'll find the conclusion of Judge Jones' findings. He gives credit where credit is due. I don't expect that you'll actually read any of it but there it is. So bang goes the plagiarism claim.

Further, evolution is based on science. As has been pointed out, simply saying "Philosophical Naturalism" doesn't mean that evolution isn't scientific. How is this a lie?

I'm calling you a liar for the same reasons that people have in this thread. Read the thread and you'll find out :)

Your victimized opinion that all Christian sites are viewed as lies is irrelevant to this discussion.

[alloytoo]

Am I really a liar?
Judge Jones is a liar in declaring evolution to be scientific... while it is based on philisophical naturalism... why call me a liar?

I do believe he declared ID to be non-scientific. That was the issue at hand.




Every article on every christian site is a big lie have you not yet noticed that? Everything typed on such sites are lies or unsubstanstiated.

Well if you want to think so, I personally don't believe that to be the case.


The truth is only told on sites like talkorigins,evilbible... etc. They are exactly right... No one cares as long as they can take a potshot at God...

And yet some of this sites, as you pointed out, admit that they don't have all the answers.

[Mr TB]

If you take a look over here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/6:Curriculum%2C_Conclusion) you'll find the conclusion of Judge Jones' findings. He gives credit where credit is due. I don't expect that you'll actually read any of it but there it is. So bang goes the plagiarism claim.

Further, evolution is based on science. As has been pointed out, simply saying "Philosophical Naturalism" doesn't mean that evolution isn't scientific. How is this a lie?

I'm calling you a liar for the same reasons that people have in this thread. Read the thread and you'll find out :)

Your victimized opinion that all Christian sites are viewed as lies is irrelevant to this discussion.

I do not see any reference to the "ACLU" so your link is incomplete in my view...
Why are you defending the fact that evolution as science is built on philosophical naturalism? The other forumites do not accept that, it turns evolution into religion accepting such a fact...

I'm calling you a liar for the same reasons that people have in this thread. Read the thread and you'll find out
Well if that sooths your conscious keep on doing it...:)

Victimised opinion...:D... you only have to read the threads...:D
I have been victimised in a job situation... I know what it is about...:D:D

[ToxicBunny]

What is this Philosophical Naturalism you keep punting now?

[ToxicBunny]

Actually I got bored and did the research myself.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

Even if one makes the assumption that evolution is based on metaphyscial naturalism (the more common term for your Philosophical Naturalism), it still doesn't turn it into a religion, because one of the concepts in metaphysical naturalism is that it EXCLUDES gods, spirits or supernatural beings.

[Mr TB]

Even if one makes the assumption that evolution is based on metaphyscial naturalism (the more common term for your Philosophical Naturalism), it still doesn't turn it into a religion, because one of the concepts in metaphysical naturalism is that it EXCLUDES gods, spirits or supernatural beings.

Ai,jai,jai,jai... it is a believesystem... Nature is your god, matter is your god...eishhh...

[alloytoo]

Ai,jai,jai,jai... it is a believesystem... Nature is your god, matter is your god...eishhh...

Nature is proven to exist, matter is proven to exist.

So what you're saying is that it's the only religion with an iota of evidence?

Kewl - I always supported nekid witches dancing in the moonlight.

[Claymore]

Yeah that is correct plagiarism is allowed in the American Legal System... I always found that quite funny...

This (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186) is from your buddies at the Discovery Institute:

Proposed “findings of fact” are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” would not be considered “plagiarism” nor a violation of judicial ethics.

If they say it's not plagiarism, then you have no room to talk.

[Mr TB]

Professor
Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select
systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the
immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few
biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller
presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact
irreducibly complex.

I can't help but find this really funny while reading the transcript, a few mutations and it proves micro-evolution and are projected onto macro-evolution... but irreducible complexity debunked in a blink of an eye, what a joke... It can be shown that the relationship between population/beneficial mutations is improbable... talking about the blind leading the blind...

[alloytoo]

I can't help but find this really funny while reading the transcript, a few mutations and it proves micro-evolution and are projected onto macro-evolution... but irreducible complexity debunked in a blink of an eye, what a joke... It can be shown that the relationship between population/beneficial mutations is improbable... talking about the blind leading the blind...


Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies

Hardly a blink of an eye, peer reviewed studies, yet Professor
Behe and his cronies were admitted that their studies had not been peer reviewed

Bearing in mind the objective of the trial was not to prove Evolution, but to establish that Intellegent Design was not science, but religion.

[Mr TB]

So what do you mean by that:


"In reality, Behe said the exact opposite at trial: “it’s
not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a
different subject.”"

He is a liar as I said because he stated the opposite Behe said correct?
I actually gave him credit less than 10% of the verdict was his own great thinking... shame on the Judge... He was suppose to have a critical look at the report not being biased, you have seen it yourselves now...

Oh yes have a look I do not believe I ever tried to say that ID is science but I insist that evolution is definitely a religion... In that view the 2 can be taught next to each other...

[ToxicBunny]

Ummm how can you call it a religion when YOU harp on about it being based on philosophical naturalism which negates it being able to be classified as a religion.

Well you called the judge a liar, which by inference means you think ID is a science since the judgement stated ID is not a science.

[Mr TB]

The Plot around Judge Jones deepens if you are credited with these comments:

ß According to University of Chicago geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert, Jones’
ruling is a “masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking.”2
ß According to pro-Darwin lawyer Ed Darrell, “Jones wrote a masterful decision, a
model for law students on how to decide a case based on the evidence presented.”
Indeed, Jones’ ruling is “a model of law... a model of argument... a model of legal
philosophy... [and] a model of integrity of our judicial system.”3
ß According to Scientific American’s editor John Rennie, Jones’ opinion constitutes “an
encyclopedic refutation of I.D.” 4
ß According to plaintiffs’ expert witness, Southeastern Louisiana University
philosopher Barbara Forrest, Judge Jones’ ruling is “a marvel of clarity and
forthrightness.”5
ß According to Time magazine, the ruling made Jones one of “the world’s most
influential people” in the category of “scientists and thinkers.”6
ß According to bloggers at the pro-Darwin Panda’s Thumb website, Jones’ decision is
an important work “of both scholarship and history,”7 and Jones himself is “a topnotch
thinker,”8 “an outstanding thinker,”9 someone who “is as deserving of the title
‘great thinker’ as someone who writes a great mathematical proof or a great work of
music criticism.”10
The underlying theme in these comments is that Judge Jones should be recognized for his lucid
analysis and mastery of the factual record, especially when it comes to his determination that
intelligent design is not science.

Then only to be caught out... none of it is of your own making, only about 10% of the writing is your own...
It undercuts the credibility of the decision as well as your integrity as Judge... That is my personal subjective opinion, but if the judge is allowed to have one so am I...

[Claymore]

The Plot around Judge Jones deepens if you are credited with these comments:

ß According to University of Chicago geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert, Jones’
ruling is a “masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking.”2
ß According to pro-Darwin lawyer Ed Darrell, “Jones wrote a masterful decision, a
model for law students on how to decide a case based on the evidence presented.”
Indeed, Jones’ ruling is “a model of law... a model of argument... a model of legal
philosophy... [and] a model of integrity of our judicial system.”3
ß According to Scientific American’s editor John Rennie, Jones’ opinion constitutes “an
encyclopedic refutation of I.D.” 4
ß According to plaintiffs’ expert witness, Southeastern Louisiana University
philosopher Barbara Forrest, Judge Jones’ ruling is “a marvel of clarity and
forthrightness.”5
ß According to Time magazine, the ruling made Jones one of “the world’s most
influential people” in the category of “scientists and thinkers.”6
ß According to bloggers at the pro-Darwin Panda’s Thumb website, Jones’ decision is
an important work “of both scholarship and history,”7 and Jones himself is “a topnotch
thinker,”8 “an outstanding thinker,”9 someone who “is as deserving of the title
‘great thinker’ as someone who writes a great mathematical proof or a great work of
music criticism.”10
The underlying theme in these comments is that Judge Jones should be recognized for his lucid
analysis and mastery of the factual record, especially when it comes to his determination that
intelligent design is not science.

Then only to be caught out... none of it is of your own making, only about 10% of the writing is your own...
It undercuts the credibility of the decision as well as your integrity as Judge... That is my personal subjective opinion, but if the judge is allowed to have one so am I...

Mr TB, please stop plagiarising the writing of others.

[Mr TB]

Mr TB, please stop plagiarising the writing of others.
.