RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   
  Topic: Waterloo in Dover, Take 3< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:05   

Quote

Comment #53961

Posted by Flint on October 26, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s)

The Pennsylvania ACLU site has, apparently with great heaving and moaning, given birth to the Day 12 AM transcripts. As I write, that was *last Wednesday morning*. Over a week ago. Here we are reading about the testimony of Fuller on Monday. Was there no testimony from noon last Wednesday through this past Monday? And no testimony again yesterday or today? What is going on?


Quote

Comment #53962

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 26, 2005 07:11 PM (e) (s)

   I didn’t see the start but I think I saw
   http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.htm……
   before
   http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/24……

Well yeah, you did, since the second website you cite above is MINE. ;>

I can assure you that it was not leaked to ME.

Don’t I wish … .


Quote

Comment #53965

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 26, 2005 07:18 PM (e) (s)

lenny, lenny…

*wink* we KNOW you’re just deflecting suspicion away from yourself…

as would any Doctor of the Dark Side ™

:p


Quote

Comment #53969

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 26, 2005 07:29 PM (e) (s)

Trust me, if the Wedge Document had been leaked to ME, it would NOT have taken almost a decade to get it in front of a judge. ;>


Quote

Comment #53976

Posted by SEF on October 26, 2005 07:51 PM (e) (s)

   since the second website you cite above is MINE.

I know - that was what made it funny.


Quote

Comment #53985

Posted by Gerard Harbison on October 26, 2005 08:23 PM (e) (s)

Lenny asked:

BTW, I’m curious — does anyone have any idea at all who it was who leaked the Wedge Document to the Internet?

Using my superior search skills (ha ha) I traced the Wedge back to a usenet post on talk.origins by John Catalano on March 3, 1999. The post was copied from another list, and Catalano didn’t say who had done it, but the document was scanned from a hard copy ‘liberated’ by a “culture-jammer from our local cell.”

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/brow…

On the other hand, even mentioning this usenet post may be a bit foolish, as I suspect there are several people who hang out here that know a lot more about it than this.


Quote

Comment #54001

Posted by Cynthia Yockey on October 26, 2005 11:32 PM (e) (s)

I learned from Nick Matzke on Sunday, in our first-ever conversation, that some pro-evolutionists are not sure whose side Hubert P. Yockey is on because his work is quoted on the Discovery Institute’s site. [Note: Dr. Yockey is the author of Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1992), as well as many scientific articles.]

Dr. Yockey supports evolution. He devotes a section of his book, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, to explaining why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong. He also explains why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong at his new Web site.

BTW, Dr. Yockey is my father, but I feel silly calling him “Dad” in this context.


Quote

Comment #54003

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 26, 2005 11:48 PM (e) (s)

as a person who has seen this “debate” from a unique perspective, what’s your take on what the ID movement represents, and what will happen to it after Dover?


Quote

Comment #54010

Posted by K.E. on October 27, 2005 12:45 AM (e) (s)

Hmmmmm
Next DI stunt will be ace spaliens created DNA, naturally, by you know who.

That’s a gap so wide you could fly in fleets of you know who’s.

Makes you wonder why Bohr or Yockey never get a mention since it supports their ‘scientific-really scientific-no no I mean non ID-science’ case because it passes the falsifiable test.


Quote

Comment #54012

Posted by NDT on October 27, 2005 02:11 AM (e) (s)

According to Behe’s testimony under cross, there are “zero papers” demonstrating how somplex moleculary structures could evolve. Any truth to that?



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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:09   

Quote

Comment #54024

Posted by bystander on October 27, 2005 06:24 AM (e) (s)

The plaintiffs actually had stacks of papers in front of Behe when he was saying this. Behe basically said that none of the papers were convincing.


Quote

Comment #54029

Posted by Gary Mac on October 27, 2005 07:45 AM (e) (s)

Oh no !

Our master plan for the takeover has been discovered !

Oh well, back to reality.
Hey Toejam, you know the other day when you said that you could envision atheists and Catholics working together to defeat the concept of ID ?
Well, …… I think you stepped in yourself.

You see, most Catholics accept ID too, in conjunction with the mechanisms of evolution.

Therefore, why would they want to defeat the concept of ID ? They also, ( are you setting down ? ) now teach ID in some of their private school districts ! I know, I know, Lord Charles is rolling over in his grave. Sorry to break the news to you and your fellow, evos in-breds. But I thought a nice dose of reality was in order to start your day off right.

Now, tell your Comrades to get back to work. Defeating that major conspiracy, called the wedge argument, is paramount, PARAMOUNT I say !


Quote

Comment #54032

Posted by Grey Wolf on October 27, 2005 08:46 AM (e) (s)

The “ID” accepted by Catholics is even more at odds with the ID peddled by IDiots like you, Gary Mac, than Evolution is. And before you even think of quote-mining the late Pope, be forewarned that others have tried before and have not been able to show any kind of defence for your ID. In fact, ID is completely against the Catholic view, and has said so often. Just because you can call them the same name doens’t make a grand plan for reality (Catholicism) the same as a ignorant God-of-the-gaps (ID).

And you would be wrong, anyway, since most Catholics are not from the States, but from countries were evolution is seen as simply another part of science, and thus see no problem whatsoever with it. Unless, that is, that you can produce a document signed by over half of the Catholic population stating otherwise (you would need, what, 500 million signatures? better get started…).

For those following at home, Gary Mac is an IDier who has been caught sprouting soundbits which have turned out to be completely false in every post he’s done. For example: he claimed there was a scientific theory of ID, in the face of the fact that there is none. He has, of course, not produced any.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf


Quote

Comment #54033

Posted by Marek14 on October 27, 2005 09:28 AM (e) (s)

Hmm… I study at Charles U in Prague, but I haven’t heard anything about the DI symposium.
Probably it’s better that way :)


Quote

Comment #54034

Posted by shenda on October 27, 2005 09:33 AM (e) (s)

Sir_Toejam:
…… what’s your take on what the ID movement represents, and what will happen to it after Dover?”

Their new strategy is:

a) Push the “teach the problems with evolution” without presenting an alternative

b) Push BOE’s to change the definition of science to include “non-materialistic” explanations

They are already shifting to this, especially in Kansas.


Quote

Comment #54035

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 27, 2005 09:52 AM (e) (s)

   The plaintiffs actually had stacks of papers in front of Behe when he was saying this. Behe basically said that none of the papers were convincing.

He was busy “moving the goal posts”. His original statement in DBB said there was no literature. Now he is saying the literature is not sufficiently detailed and convincing. Meanwhile he offers no mechanism at all for his alternative, let alone a detailed and convincing one.


Quote

Comment #54038

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 27, 2005 09:59 AM (e) (s)

   Gerard harbison wrote:

   the document was scanned from a hard copy ‘liberated’ by a “culture-jammer from our local cell.”

I suspected the use of scanning & OCR due to the number of unlikely typos, e.g “hurman” for “human”.


Quote

Comment #54039

Posted by Anton Mates on October 27, 2005 10:08 AM (e) (s)

   Bayesian Bouffant, FCD wrote:

   He was busy “moving the goal posts”. His original statement in DBB said there was no literature. Now he is saying the literature is not sufficiently detailed and convincing.

Actually, by the end of the cross-examination he’d moved again, to saying he’s “skeptical” that the literature is detailed and convincing. Having admitted that he couldn’t be sure it’s not, since he, y’know, hadn’t actually read the papers the plaintiffs produced. Even though some of them were ten or fifteen years old and he’s written a truckload on this subject since.

The best part was when he explained that you don’t need to actually read a bunch of scientific papers in order to make sweeping claims about their content, you just need to read a few of the most recent papers and they’ll tell you anything interesting the older ones had in them. Now that’s rigorous scholarship!


Quote

Comment #54040

Posted by Steve LaBonne on October 27, 2005 10:42 AM (e) (s)

At this point I simply cannot any longer accept that Behe could really believe the crap he’s saying. If he were that dumb he would not have been able to establish himself as a scientist. I think he’s got himself into a very tight box, and he has to keep saying this sh*t because he’s sold his soul for the DBB royalties and the DI support. Gotta feed those 9 kids, you know.


Quote

Comment #54042

Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton on October 27, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)

   Cynthia Yockey wrote:

   I learned from Nick Matzke on Sunday, in our first-ever conversation, that some pro-evolutionists are not sure whose side Hubert P. Yockey is on because his work is quoted on the Discovery Institute’s site. [Note: Dr. Yockey is the author of Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1992), as well as many scientific articles.]

   Dr. Yockey supports evolution. He devotes a section of his book, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, to explaining why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong. He also explains why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong at his new Web site.

   BTW, Dr. Yockey is my father, but I feel silly calling him “Dad” in this context.

Thanks for the heads up on the book, and the new website. A “dot com” needs to be added to the link in the text of your paragraph.

Yockey is certainly one of the most misunderstood scientists.
Creationists take the line certain abiogenesis scenarios
have flaws = abiogenesis impossible, and impute that to be
what Yockey is claiming. Same goes for Robert Shapiro’s book.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:11   

Quote

Comment #54065

Posted by Gary Mac on October 27, 2005 01:46 PM (e) (s)

To the contrary Grey Wimp !

Everything I have posted to date, has actually exposed Lenny the Fraud and Toejam the Fool, to be incorrect.
Your reading comprehension is lacking today Wimp.

As far as your US-Catholic comment goes, I’ll let you take that up with them. After you insulted them, I’m sure a few million will be kicking you in the face soon.

You are no different than all the other evos in-breds. You continue to lie and lie and hope it comes true. That’s an exercise in futility, so keep it up Wimp.

You first claimed I have been falsified each time. NOT ! Then, you say I quote-mined the Pope in # 54029. Liar !
Next, you claim I support a God of the gaps.
Strike Three Wimp !

Now, listen to Loony. He said to grab a wet noodle and start attacking the wedge argument again.

I’ll be waiting. And laughing at you & your in-breds the whole time !

Thanks for the comic relief !


Quote

Comment #54068

Posted by Alan on October 27, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

@ Greywolf #54032

I see what you mean about Gary Mac. What a pillock.


Quote

Comment #54069

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 01:53 PM (e) (s)

   You see, most Catholics accept ID too, in conjunction with the mechanisms of evolution.

uh, boy are you confused.

If you read Dembski and Behe, you’ll see that the whole argument of ID is all about what the mechanism of evolution is (which is why Behe HAD to avoid any mention of what that “mechanism” is while he was in court).

perhaps you should actually learn what the #### it is you are supporting before you jump on board with it.

oh, and good luck with that since you seem to have gotten the short end of the stick in the intelligence department.


Quote

Comment #54071

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)

oh please, please say you want to argue with me about that, Gary…


Quote

Comment #54072

Posted by Cynthia Yockey on October 27, 2005 01:59 PM (e) (s)

Tracy, thanks for your comment. Let me try again with the link to Dr. Yockey’s new Web site: www.hubertpyockey.com. There he gives a simplified explanation of why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong.

I am the Webmaster and soon will be adding pages elucidating many aspects of his work. For example, there will be a page with copies of his papers as soon as I have permission from the original journals. I’ll also be adding an FAQ—and the first question will be, “Whose side are you on?.” (Answer: evolution.)

There also will be a glossary to ensure that readers of the site understand the scientific definitions of the terms used. One of the slickest tricks the IDers have pulled off is to hijack the vocabulary of science and redefine it. You can win any game if your first move is to change all the rules to favor your side. In politics, getting seduced by this tactic is called “accepting the premise of the question.” Dr. Yockey’s approach demolishes the IDers false premises. For example, on his Web site, Dr. Yockey summarizes points from his new book (Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life) showing why biology is not “irreducibly complex.”


Quote

Comment #54073

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)

@shenda:

   a) Push the “teach the problems with evolution” without presenting an alternative

indeed, i found it rather amusing that all the poll data that DI has listed in “support” of teaching ID actually has nothing at all to do with teaching ID. The poll questions simply related to whether people thought it a good idea to teach any SCIENTIFIC evidence against Darwin’s theory of evolution. Not surprisingly, most said yes. As would I. I often do, in fact, give students treatises on group selection and other scientific theories that have been disproven, as well as pointing out the veracity of current evolutionary theory even as new data continues to be discovered. However, since ID ISN’T scientific in any way shape or form, the DI obviously agrees it shouldn’t be taught as evidence against evolution (and actually have stated such several times, at least recently).

Of course, when they ask the real question: “do you believe that ID should be taught in science class… the poll data is, shall we say, just a wee bit lower *snicker*; which is of course exactly why they don’t list the real poll data on their site.

frickin hilarious.


Quote

Comment #54075

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)

Cynthia -

I apologize in that i shold have specified that my question was directed at yourself:

   As a person who has seen this “debate” from a unique perspective, what’s your take on what the ID movement represents, and what will happen to it after Dover?

thanks


Quote

Comment #54078

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 02:17 PM (e) (s)

hmm, Gary Mac’s posts sure look a lot like evopeach’s

does anybody know if they are related?


Quote

Comment #54082

Posted by Alan on October 27, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)

@ Ms Yockey.

Your link doesn’t seem to work, but I can find your father’s webisite here: http://www.hubertpyockey.com/


Quote

Comment #54083

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 02:33 PM (e) (s)

Wow I never thought The National Academy of Sciences would take a stance like this. But what does this mean for Kansas, or for Dover?. Can anyone explain what the implications are for the School Board?

Permission denied in Kansas

Anticipating the Kansas state board of education’s expected decision to adopt a set of science standards in which the scientific status of evolution is systematically deprecated, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have rejected the state department of education’s request to use material from the NAS’s National Science Education Standards and the NSTA’s Pathways to Science Standards in the Kansas Science Education Standards. In a joint statement dated October 27, 2005, the NAS and the NSTA wrote:

While there is much in the Kansas Science Education Standards that is outstanding and could serve as a model for other states, our primary concern is that the draft KSES inappropriately singles out evolution as a controversial theory despite the strength of the scientific evidence supporting evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and its acceptance by an overwhelming majority of scientists. The use of the word controversial to suggest that there are flaws in evolution is confusing to students and the public and is entirely misleading. While there may be disagreements among scientists about the exact processes, the theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and new evidence from many scientific disciplines only further support this robust scientific theory.

In addition, the members of the Kansas State Board of Education who produced Draft 2-d of the KSES have deleted text defining science as a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena, blurring the line between scientific and other ways of understanding. Emphasizing controversy in the theory of evolution — when in fact all modern theories of science are continually tested and verified — and distorting the definition of science are inconsistent with our Standards and a disservice to the students of Kansas. Regretfully, many of the statements made in the KSES related to the nature of science and evolution also violate the document’s mission and vision. Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science endorsed the NAS’s and the NSTA’s decision in a press release issued on October 27, 2005. Alan Leshner said, “We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology … We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.”

A story from the Associated Press (October 27, 2005) explains that “The two groups’ positions mean department attorneys must scrutinize any standards the board approves to make sure they do not lift language from the national groups’ material” and reports that board chair Steve Abrams (who favors the current draft of the standards) was unsure whether adoption of the standards would be delayed by the refusal to grant permission. The board is expected to discuss the standards at its next meeting, November 8 and 9, 2005.

October 27, 2005

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/KS/85…

Shadowram


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:14   

Quote

Comment #54085

Posted by Stephen Elliott on October 27, 2005 02:37 PM (e) (s)

“Deja vu all over again” (he,he! I actualy got to use it).
:)

This

   To the contrary Grey Wimp !

   Everything I have posted to date, has actually exposed Lenny the Fraud and Toejam the Fool, to be incorrect.
   Your reading comprehension is lacking today Wimp.

reminds me of JAD


Quote

Comment #54091

Posted by Jason Spaceman on October 27, 2005 02:51 PM (e) (s)

The defense took another beating today…

Former school board member ‘misspoke’ in advocating creationism

   By MARTHA RAFFAELE
   The Associated Press

   HARRISBURG, Pa. - A former school board member who denied advocating that creationism be taught alongside evolution in high-school biology classes changed his story Thursday after lawyers in a federal courtroom played a TV news clip that recorded him making such a comment.

   William Buckingham explained the discrepancy by saying that he “misspoke.”

   Buckingham’s testimony came in the fifth week of testimony in a lawsuit filed by eight families who are challenging the Dover Area School District’s policy that students hear a statement about intelligent design in biology classes. Critics say intelligent design is a repackaging of the biblical view of creation and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state.



Quote

Comment #54093

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 03:02 PM (e) (s)

After reading my last post more, I seem to have this feeling that the stance of the National Academy of Sciences will have “HUGE” implications on School Boards around the country. It looks like and I’m not sure, maybe someone can verify this. But without the endorsement of The National Academy of Sciences. Would this mean they will lose an accreditation of some kind? And thus making it harder for their students to get into choice Universities?

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #54098

Posted by Anton Mates on October 27, 2005 03:21 PM (e) (s)

   William Buckingham explained the discrepancy by saying that he “misspoke.”

Well, at least he’s better than Behe. Behe would explain that previously saying creationism should be taught is “entirely consistent” with currently saying it shouldn’t be taught, because the way he reads his former statement that it should, is that it shouldn’t. And so, in closing, he disagrees.


Quote

Comment #54100

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

I too am curious about the answer to your question, Shadowram.


Quote

Comment #54101

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 03:32 PM (e) (s)

I think this article sums up Behe’s testimony nicely. Very Funny but true.
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/

Shadowram


Quote

Comment #54115

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 04:24 PM (e) (s)

I know I keep going back to my post from NAS..But if I am right and please… please someone correct me..but “if” Kansas does adopt the new standards and according to NAS

“Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards”

That there will now be an entire US state, the State of Kansas, where their students will automatically be placed at the bottom of Admission lists at Major Universities.

That just blows my mind.

Please someone tell me I’m wrong in my line of reasoning, I can handle it, if I’m wrong, and in this case I want to be wrong. Maybe I’m too worried about the NAS statement and it’s implications are not as harsh as I think, and I’m just an idiot looking at this thing in a pessimistic way


Quote

Comment #54118

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 27, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

Gary Mack: is English your first language? Just wondering.


Quote

Comment #54119

Posted by His DSPness on October 27, 2005 04:53 PM (e) (s)

Buckingham may be sacrificing the DASD in order that it doesn’t take ID down with it. If the DI can make it look like the DASD - which is certain to lose - was actually promoting its own creationist agenda rather than “pure” ID, then perhaps ID can live another day to influence some other school district.


Quote

Comment #54122

Posted by K.E. on October 27, 2005 04:55 PM (e) (s)

if worms could speak


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:20   

Quote

Comment #54123

Posted by Flint on October 27, 2005 05:00 PM (e) (s)

   Well, at least he’s better than Behe. Behe would explain that previously saying creationism should be taught is “entirely consistent” with currently saying it shouldn’t be taught, because the way he reads his former statement that it should, is that it shouldn’t. And so, in closing, he disagrees.

Behe is an academic, and such people can never be admit error. They can, of course, lie and doubletalk and weasel and rephrase and misrepresent and change the subject, but they can NOT admit error. Fatal to the career.

Buckingham is a different story. I recall (does anyone else?) that after the wonderful pronouncements Buckingham and other creationists on the board made (in the presence of reporters, no less), the DI came and took them on some sort of retreat for a week or so. After which, nobody could recall anything anyone had said on the subject, and the records of the meetings somehow got misplaced, and everyone had become very careful to explain that religion wasn’t involved, oh no!

Buckingham is now retired, right? So his memory is worse than ever. He can’t even remember saying what he said when he watches the newsclip. He must have garbled his statements, he couldn’t have *meant* that. Oh, he said the same thing multiple times, using the same words, and is on record as doing so? Well, he must have misspoken *every time*.

Is Buckingham being more honest than Behe? Man, that is one tough call…


Quote

Comment #54125

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 05:18 PM (e) (s)

Lets put in a link Yockey site that actually works: http://www.hubertpyockey.com/

When giving a URL, it best to keep the “http://” with it since without browsers think the link is relative and hense will give broken link to a nonexistant Panda’s Thumb page.

   2005/10/26: Today, William Buckingham is set to testify. This is the highly controversial school board member who justified the ID policy by speaking about “someone” who “died on a cross 2000 years ago” and the need to “stand up for Him.” I can’t imagine why he was called by the defense and not the plaintiffs, and I’m curious to see how this testimony goes.

According to the court’s web site, Buckingham is a plaintiff witness:

   Thursday October 27 2005 - Plaintiff Witnesses Bill Buckingham, Joe Moldonado, and Heidi Bernard-Bubb.

There was a prior agreement between council and the court to go out of order here. I think (don’t quote me please) that this set of witness was not quite ready and thus rather than delay the trial the parties agreed to that the defense be allowed to start presenting its witnesses. Again that is my understanding that might not be correct. Of course the defense would not want Buckingham to be called, all the defense has made Buckingham a bit of a scapegoat.

Before clicking post I googled for “hostile witness” and dover and picked up Former school board member denies references to ‘creationism’

   William Buckingham, who was called by plaintiffs’ attorneys this morning as a hostile witness, said he and other board members referred only to “intelligent design” when they spoke of the need for the introduction of other scientific theories to balance evolution in high school biology classes



Quote

Comment #54126

Posted by Bulman on October 27, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)

   But without the endorsement of The National Academy of Sciences. Would this mean they will lose an accreditation of some kind? And thus making it harder for their students to get into choice Universities?

Accreditation can be given by any organization that schools or universities agree to use. Kansas will certainly not lose accreditation, the free market-of-the-gaps will create new accrediting organizations.

Kansas will however lose credibility and to restate your concern as an affirmtion:

The students of the State of Kansas will automatically be placed at the bottom of admission lists at major universities.


Quote

Comment #54128

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 27, 2005 05:35 PM (e) (s)

   a) Push the “teach the problems with evolution” without presenting an alternative

They already tried that in Cobb County, and lost.

   b) Push BOE’s to change the definition of science to include “non-materialistic” explanations

That, by definition, is introducing religion, and won’t last ten minutes in court.


Quote

Comment #54129

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 27, 2005 05:37 PM (e) (s)

   oh please, please say you want to argue with me about that, Gary…

Why on earth are you offering your intestine to the tapeworm?


Quote

Comment #54134

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 27, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

   Why on earth are you offering your intestine to the tapeworm?

why, to lose weight of course.


Quote

Comment #54138

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 06:52 PM (e) (s)

Minor maintainance issue: The “program” probably needs to be moved closer to the top of this page. (Feel free to delete this.)


Quote

Comment #54139

Posted by Grey Wolf on October 27, 2005 06:55 PM (e) (s)

   Gary Mack: is English your first language? Just wondering.

I know it was not your intent, but I feel insulted that me, as a non-English speaker, gets compared to Gary Mac. I mean, my English is not *that* bad, is it?

Joking aside, Gary Mac doesn’t sound so much foreigner as a petulant 10 year old who doesn’t undertand that name calling weakens his arguments, and that you have to provide data to strengthen it. Maybe he will learn enough English to realise I was predicting his next movements. Maybe the poor boy (gal?) has yet to ditinguish between past and future. Poor dear.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf


Quote

Comment #54157

Posted by bill on October 27, 2005 09:18 PM (e) (s)

Buckingham truly screwed the pooch today. Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”

The “anonymous” donor to the district of 60 copies of Pandas was Buckingham’s church.

Buckingham learned about the text, Pandas, after a visit by the Thomas More Law center, and, presumably, but not confirmed, Mark Ryland of the Discovery Institute.

Without doubt, Dover was engaged in an end-run of the Constitution, and most likely in collusion with the Discovery Institute, who, in the end, hung them out to dry.

The Discovery Institute is the Enron of creationism.


Quote

Comment #54168

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 11:20 PM (e) (s)

   bill wrote:

   Buckingham truly screwed the pooch today. Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”

It was an “intelligent design” all right. The intelligent designers in this case was the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. It was the plaintiffs that called Buckingham, not the defense. By agreement of the court and the parties, the plaintiffs called some of their witnesses out of turn.

   The “anonymous” donor to the district of 60 copies of Pandas was Buckingham’s church.

I was going to ask for a cite, but Google works for me:

AP story:

   Buckingham testified that during a Sunday service at the church he attended, he stood up and told members of the congregation they could donate money to purchase the books if they wished. Harvey noted that in a January pretrial deposition taken by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Buckingham never mentioned his fund-raising request and said he didn’t know who donated the books.

   “You lied to me at your deposition,” Harvey said.

   “How so?” Buckingham asked.

   “By not telling me you knew a collection was taken at your church,” Harvey said.

   “I did not take a collection,” Buckingham replied.

Buckingham Deposition in January (PDF):

   Q: Do you know where that came from, who donated them?

   A: No, I don’t.

   Q: You have no idea?

   A: I have thoughts, but I don’t know.

   Q. What are your thoughts?

   A: I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell who was board president at that time.

   Q: Why do you think—I know you’re not saying it was, but why do you think it might have ties to Mr. Bonsell?

   A: Because he was the president of the board at that time, and I just deduced from that that.

(From page 57-58 of transcript; page 17 of PDF file; since it is a scan, I had to print out the page and type it. So there might be typos.)

Now I believe witness are not just supposed to give the truth, but they have to give the “whole truth.” In other words intentionally misleading answers are not allowed.

If Buckingham solicited donations from his church then he has failed to tell the whole truth. He was required to tell Mr. Harvey what he knew about the donation of the books.

But there is certainly something even more damaging that how honest Mr. Buckingham is. The books came from a fundamentalist church. I sure hope no one is expecting us to believe that a church is devoid of religious motivation!

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:22   

Quote

Comment #54178

Posted by Alan on October 28, 2005 01:13 AM (e) (s)

   Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”

I believe Buckingham was called by the plaintiffs as a hostile witness.

@ Michael hopkins and #54125, see #54082


Quote

Comment #54201

Posted by Gary Mac on October 28, 2005 07:53 AM (e) (s)

Hey Wes E., Nick and or Gary H.

Next time y’all go to the latest public lynching, please remember to leave somebody at home with the keys, besides these amateurs.

Oh, a quick update for those who came late to the party. Toejam in many parts of the world, is slang for shit. This was in reference to Sir Fool, who attempted to defend Lenny the Fraud, in an earlier post. Therefore, he steppeth in himselfeth.
So, PAY ATTENTION NEXT TIME !

Also, please keep repeating the same lie that Bill and Mike speak for all IDers.
Here’s a hint. They don’t. But, keep it up anyway. It always exposes your blatant, collective ignorance.

Therefore, to Wes and the gang:
If you get a chance, hit Behe with a few rocks for me, would ya ? That dumb shit couldn’t defend himself, even if he were his own jury.

Now, for the rest of y’all, get back to work !
I reckon pimping the evos propaganda machine is all you’ve got to do.
Debating with IDers is not your cup of tea. I always know when evos have nothing left to provide. They get paranoid, as always, and start accusing us of being someone else. It happens every time !

Cheers in-breds !


Quote

Comment #54204

Posted by ega on October 28, 2005 08:25 AM (e) (s)

“I reckon pimping the evos propaganda machine is all you’ve got to do”

As opposed to the infantile personal jesus ‘I’m special my invisible friend told me so’ junk that evolution-deniers live with?


Quote

Comment #54209

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 28, 2005 09:03 AM (e) (s)

The tough part of being a lawyer - not that Thompson deserves anything better

   Outside court, defense attorney Richard Thompson said he believed Buckingham was trying to give specific answers to specific questions.

   He attributed the discrepancy between the testimony and the deposition to Buckingham’s treatment in December 2004 for an addiction to the painkiller OxyContin. Harvey deposed Buckingham in January.

   Buckingham knows he wrote the check to Donald Bonsell and he must have forgotten that during his testimony, Thompson said.

   “I don’t think it was damaging at all,” Thompson said of Buckingham’s comments on donations.



Quote

Comment #54212

Posted by Shadowram on October 28, 2005 09:16 AM (e) (s)

It really is scary as I see Gary Mac, members of the Dover school board, and supporters of ID, talk about their anti-evolution, ID/Creation views and some of the statements they made. In the statement below I have only substituted one word. Where ever this one “word” was mentioned I changed it to evolution/evolutionists.

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these “evolutionists” for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the “evolution” poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

This statement sounds just like what ID/Creation people are saying today. Almost verbatim. Look at what Buckingham said in Dover. “Someone died for us 2000 years ago, is anyone going to stand up for him”
The word I replaced was “Jew”
This was a speech from 1922, the author was Adolf Hitler. I did not even know this monster was that religious, but it does explain a lot.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


Quote

Comment #54213

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on October 28, 2005 09:26 AM (e) (s)

Mr. Mac, did

   Hey Wes E., Nick and or Gary H.

   Next time y’all go to the latest public lynching, please remember to leave somebody at home with the keys, besides these amateurs.

   Oh, a quick update for those who came late to the party. Toejam in many parts of the world, is slang for shit. This was in reference to Sir Fool, who attempted to defend Lenny the Fraud, in an earlier post. Therefore, he steppeth in himselfeth.
   So, PAY ATTENTION NEXT TIME !

   Also, please keep repeating the same lie that Bill and Mike speak for all IDers.
   Here’s a hint. They don’t. But, keep it up anyway. It always exposes your blatant, collective ignorance.

   Therefore, to Wes and the gang:
   If you get a chance, hit Behe with a few rocks for me, would ya ? That dumb shit couldn’t defend himself, even if he were his own jury.

   Now, for the rest of y’all, get back to work !
   I reckon pimping the evos propaganda machine is all you’ve got to do.
   Debating with IDers is not your cup of tea. I always know when evos have nothing left to provide. They get paranoid, as always, and start accusing us of being someone else. It happens every time !

   Cheers in-breds !

contain any actual intellectual content? I am sure that everyone here already understands that the ID movement (as opposed to the concept of ID is a ‘big tent’ operation, containing folks with a variety of views and concepts of ID. And the point being made that Behe’s testimony is confused, contadictory, etc. demonstrates that there is, in fact, no actual ID theory around which these folks can rally.

Other than that, if you have any actual response or point to make, perhaps you could make it?


Quote

Comment #54215

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on October 28, 2005 10:03 AM (e) (s)

Oops Shadowram, it´s Godwin´s Law! Really don´t need the Argumentum ad Nazium anyway…


Quote

Comment #54218

Posted by Shadowram on October 28, 2005 10:11 AM (e) (s)

Thank you Pastor Bentonit, Godwin’s law makes sense. I stand corrected. I guess the argument can be used both ways. I have tried to delete my post, but was not able to.


    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,06:19   

Buckingham's testimony as a hostile witness is stunning. It also shows the corrosive effect of long exposure to antievolution on morals.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,07:24   

This is a test message, mucking about with the code.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,07:28   

Another test message.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,07:32   

Yet another test message. Is it possible at this point for Judge Jones to rule in favor of DASD? That would be mind-blowing.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,07:44   

More testing. It is still up in the air whether Scott Minnich will testify as an expert for the defense. Stay tuned.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,08:03   

Another test. The trial should end by November 4th.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,08:31   

Another test.

One of the witnesses for the defense contributed her payment checks to the group seeking to replace the "intelligent design" faction on the DASD.

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91834/

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,08:36   

Another test.

Mike Argento on Buckingham's testimony: "Unbelievable."

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92062/

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,10:37   

Another test.

A web site that is spinning the separation between ID and "creationism".

http://www.christianpost.com/article....tm

Yeah, like that's believable any more.

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

    
  44 replies since Oct. 21 2005,17:49 < 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]