It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lordtyp0
Oh give me a break lord, how much of the ACLU's mentality does this "Judge" have to plagiarize and how long before the trial is over before you admit that the judge may as well have been the damn ACLU.
This judge was even quoting from ACLU's own objections for petes sake.
Yes I have already said in my post it is legal but before this trial, no one had ever anticipated a judge using pages from a book and a month before a trial was even over using the same words and phrases of the opposing plantif or defendant and why their is legislation being looked at because of this so it never happens again.
It was plane wrong and hopefully soon it WILL be against the law.
It certainly doesn't instill confidence in the legal system just like the OJ trial diminished my faith in our justice system, this trial nailed that coffin shut.
Give a break? I'm sorry but the way the courts work in the US is not the Judge deciding things as it would seem from first glance. The judge is more of a mediator between the two sides (plaintiff and defendant). They ensure all laws are met and side at the end with whoever found the most loopholes etc.
If you read dockets (and they are just as exciting as they sound). ALL judges either accept the objections/rebuttals verbattum and read as such, or they accept with some reservations based on minutae of the situation.
This is NOT bias. This is how a neutral party does it. The simple fact is that people didn't like his ruling and thus scream improper. This is how it has always gone. From the left yelling about the BSA being allowed to kick gay kids out, to cases like this.
The judge is bound to look at evidence. That is all. If they do show improper skewing, the appeal tosses it out faster than Limbaugh can sneer 'activist".
The just made the right choice. If they ID people can make a better case later in appeals. Fine it should be redressed.
If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will.
There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision.[6]
Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Originally posted by kerontehe
The theories of evolution and intelligent design both require faith.
I offer one last observation - absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
Originally posted by Aermacchi
Originally posted by kerontehe
The theories of evolution and intelligent design both require faith.
Yeah you got that right but "faith" is a bad word to these people and not because of its definition but its association to religion which indicates their motivation to use science to advance their atheism and public policy.
This argument that evolution doesn't try to answer origin is because they have failed at that one miserably and goes to a place they fear to tread. That doesn't stop them from going as far back as they can making up as many fables as they say the bible is full of.
Chuck Darwin didn't call it the ORIGIN of species for nothing but they don't seem to make that connection.
All they have done in Dover is prove they can persuade a jury AND a judge by giving them pertinent data far enough in advance to not only prejudice a jury but a judge also. this judge is a clown and didn't even try to hide the fact that he used the ACLU's arguments against ID until AFTER it was discovered he did. He is just another activist liberal posing as a conservative just like Arnold Swarzenegger proved he is a middle of the road democrat.
They can use that same ever evolving theory which is so elastic they can make it fit any additional new fangeled idea they wish. So far we have seen them redefine words like species and merge meanings like macro and micro to mean one and the same. This sophistry is a tactic they have used for years. The idea evolution is the best model we have is bunk.
It is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY model
allowed
[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]
I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it arose.
-Charles Darwin
source
Originally posted by kerontehe
My biggest doubt concerning the theory of formation of life in the "primordial soup" of amino acids forming proteins; is that we have yet to observe or even able to artificially repeat the theory of amino acids linking to form a protein. We have yet to find evidence of a protein being formed outside of an already living cell - even when we manipulate the environment.
Where this bogs down is the supposition that the coding contained in RNA and DNA that provides the information to cells that makes life possible occurs by chance. All available evidence indicates that it takes intelligence to devise code and arrange them into patterns of instruction.
The theories of evolution and intelligent design both require faith.
faith in the infallibility of science? umm no got none of that either they make mistakes, they admit it and correct it and move on
or faith in the infallibility of a scientific model that is a creation of our own imagination.
I offer one last observation - absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.