RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: The Ten Year Anniversary of Dover< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2072
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2015,20:39   

:D

My favorite part of the "Panda's Trial" was in the cross examination of creationist Michael Behe:

Eric Rothschild, "Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?"
Michael Behe, "No, I am not."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....12pm475

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2072
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2015,20:47   

I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,07:50   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3598
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:03   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1160
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:42   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

#36

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
stevestory



Posts: 9516
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,10:40   

one of my favorite things about dover was, the IDiots published their fake 'science journal', PCID, until dover. December 2005 was the last issue. As soon as Judge Jones told those diptards to get out here with that bullshit, they abandoned their 'journal'.

That's what real scientists do, right?

Edited by stevestory on Oct. 01 2015,11:41

   
stevestory



Posts: 9516
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,10:45   

the PCID website doesn't even work anymore. They didn't even say 'this is important work, we should archive it'. because they know it was horseshit.
Quote
As of September 2008 the society's website stated that "ISCID is no longer being managed as an organization".[10] Its last "Society announcement" and last journal publication being in late 2005,[11] no updates on its essay contests and moderated chats since 2004,[12][13] and no conferences or workshops announced since 2003.

-wikipedia

   
KevinB



Posts: 254
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,11:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 01 2015,10:45)
the PCID website doesn't even work anymore. They didn't even say 'this is important work, we should archive it'. because they know it was horseshit.

I would dispute this assessment on the grounds that the PCID stuff wasn't even useful in the garden (even Ken Ham's).

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4748
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,13:45   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

You have a plan to get past a Daubert motion?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4748
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,13:46   

Without it, the fun will be all too short.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:53   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 01 2015,13:45)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

You have a plan to get past a Daubert motion?

The Dover Trial was a joke. Actually, if I'm a supporter of ToE, I will uphold and support Behe since Behe had just used Darwin's original idea of "complex" eyes...


According to you, DARWIN is one of the best scientist! arrrrggghhhh...

Darwin had thought that naturen is "simple eyes"

and

intellen is "complex eyes"...

therefore, "I am right, Hallelujah Amen!" according to Darwin!

Lol!

And when Behe and others followed Darwin's complexity, they were ashamed! Lol! Of course, you cannot get any science from DARWIN!


That trial was error vs error and one error had won!! Hilarious!

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4748
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,16:47   

In other words, you don't know what a Daubert motion is, yes?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
JohnW



Posts: 2625
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,17:03   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,07:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

Where's the fun in that, Ogre?  I, like Postrado, want to see a literal fight.  

It's traditional for the party who was challenged to choose the weapons: shall we say custard pies?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1309
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,17:13   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,17:03)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,07:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

Where's the fun in that, Ogre?  I, like Postrado, want to see a literal fight.  

It's traditional for the party who was challenged to choose the weapons: shall we say custard pies?

Flagella.



Edited by Lou FCD on Oct. 05 2015,13:04

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4336
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,20:48   

Flagella? You want the two visiting "scientists" should try to whip each other into shape?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2360
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,23:14   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,15:13)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,17:03)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,07:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

Where's the fun in that, Ogre?  I, like Postrado, want to see a literal fight.  

It's traditional for the party who was challenged to choose the weapons: shall we say custard pies?

Flagella.

POTW

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
sparc



Posts: 1856
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,01:20   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,17:13)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,17:03)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,07:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

Where's the fun in that, Ogre?  I, like Postrado, want to see a literal fight.  

It's traditional for the party who was challenged to choose the weapons: shall we say custard pies?

Flagella.

T3SS

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
rossum



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,03:43   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,17:13)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,17:03)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,07:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

Where's the fun in that, Ogre?  I, like Postrado, want to see a literal fight.  

It's traditional for the party who was challenged to choose the weapons: shall we say custard pies?

Flagella.

Flagella, fine.  But they have to be wearing Naugahyde thigh boots, and post the video on YouTube.

:D

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:58   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,09:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

LOL!

What if the peer-reviewers were dumber than you? What would you do??

  
KevinB



Posts: 254
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,07:41   

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 02 2015,03:43)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,17:13)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,17:03)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,07:03)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
     
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

Where's the fun in that, Ogre?  I, like Postrado, want to see a literal fight.  

It's traditional for the party who was challenged to choose the weapons: shall we say custard pies?

Flagella.

Flagella, fine.  But they have to be wearing Naugahyde thigh boots, and post the video on YouTube.

:D

rossum

Has there been horizontal gene transfer into this thread from the "Mullings Meander"?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3598
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:01   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,09:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

LOL!

What if the peer-reviewers were dumber than you? What would you do??

Still racking up the crackpot index points.

When you complain that everyone you meet is crazy... the problem might not be everyone you meet.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4748
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,09:14   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,09:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

LOL!

What if the peer-reviewers were dumber than you? What would you do??

I wrote civil responses to the editor that took up the reviewer's concerns and demonstrated that my position was correct.

So, what does Edgar do, if not that?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:21   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,09:14)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,09:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

LOL!

What if the peer-reviewers were dumber than you? What would you do??

I wrote civil responses to the editor that took up the reviewer's concerns and demonstrated that my position was correct.

So, what does Edgar do, if not that?

That is called an APPEAL. Nature Journal has does system but the one who works on that section was also dumb!

Thus, oh my goodness, science book is the best solution for that and wait until those dumb generations die and be replaced with new generation.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4748
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:27   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,09:14)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:58)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,09:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

LOL!

What if the peer-reviewers were dumber than you? What would you do??

I wrote civil responses to the editor that took up the reviewer's concerns and demonstrated that my position was correct.

So, what does Edgar do, if not that?

That is called an APPEAL. Nature Journal has does system but the one who works on that section was also dumb!

Thus, oh my goodness, science book is the best solution for that and wait until those dumb generations die and be replaced with new generation.

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:32   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 02 2015,20:21]
No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.

Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1035
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,21:33   

Hi, JoeG!  Glad to see you have a new "occupation."

Dumb as usual, but new.  Good luck!

  
stevestory



Posts: 9516
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,10:19   

Quote
H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
dover decision

   
Henry J



Posts: 4336
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,10:26   

Re "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

Yep. The existence of unanswered questions in no way invalidates answers that we have for other questions.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10725
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,18:14   

Web interest now 2% of Dover trial peak:

http://www.google.com/trends....&cmpt=q

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Quack



Posts: 1920
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,01:04   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 08 2015,18:14)
Web interest now 2% of Dover trial peak:

http://www.google.com/trends.....&cmpt=q

What, Sweden? Secular Sweden? My mind boggles, is boggling, boggled or something.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
  30 replies since Sep. 11 2015,20:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]