'Kitzmiller v Dover' Judge's comment

[Audie]

.....that is bacteria (excuse me, amoeba).

If you are going to try sarcasm, shouldn't you
kind of sharpen your game just a little first?

 

[sayak83]

.....that is bacteria (excuse me, amoeba).

Yes correct.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Conan Doyle was famously taken in by a photo of fairies. He was a mug.

I have no idea what claims to objectivity are made for either Anwar Sadat or Eleanor Roosevelt.

You might find this interesting: Psychology: The truth about the paranormal

In a way, I like the article....the results of those studies the author mentions, fits well with my understanding of the causes. (No predictable, repeatable methods detected, as one would expect from invisible, intelligence , whose primary goal is to deceive.) Skeptics will never get this. Like the author....

“....[smart men who] couldn’t stop themselves from believing in the impossible.”
Obviously, with a statement like this, he’s already biased about the issue....no objectivity here.

 

[exchemist]

In a way, I like the article....the results of those studies the author mentions, fits well with my understanding of the causes. (No predictable, repeatable methods detected, as one would expect from invisible, intelligence , whose primary goal is to deceive.) Skeptics will never get this. Like the author....

“....[smart men who] couldn’t stop themselves from believing in the impossible.”
Obviously, with a statement like this, he’s already biased about the issue....no objectivity here.

Listen mate, you are free to believe whatever you like.

The points being made to you are not to convince you that you are wrong. We know that is a hopeless task. It is to explain to you and other readers why the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" will never be taken seriously by any branch of natural science. You won't convince anyone here who is not already signed up to ID for religious reasons.

You are determined to misunderstand the nature of science, it seems. No doubt this is because if you were to acknowledge what science is, your pre-prepared arguments couldn't be used. This is typical ID behaviour. [shrug]

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"Amoeba is still correct"

If you had said 2+2=3, you'd find a way to say it is correct.

The lol is best directed at yourself.

Hey, I’m quoting from one of your fellow evolutionists on this forum, Sayak83. He said it, take it up with him! I just report the news.

 

[shunyadragon]

In a way, I like the article....the results of those studies the author mentions, fits well with my understanding of the causes. (No predictable, repeatable methods detected, as one would expect from invisible, intelligence , whose primary goal is to deceive.) Skeptics will never get this. Like the author....

“....[smart men who] couldn’t stop themselves from believing in the impossible.”
Obviously, with a statement like this, he’s already biased about the issue....no objectivity here.

Your missing an important issue here. The advocates of 'Intelligent Design,' ie the Discovery Institute, claim it is based on science. To be based on science you need research based on hypothesis that are predictable, have repeatable results using scientific methods. The hypothesis for Intelligent Design lacks the foundation that meets this criteria to be science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, I’m quoting from one of your fellow evolutionists on this forum, Sayak83. He said it, take it up with him! I just report the news.

And why do you have a problem with that?

Why does reality bother the Jehovah's Witnesses so much?

 

[gnostic]

No. Then that animal will be called Daisy. But we are scientifically classifying Daisy as a penguin, that is a bird, that is a therapod dinosaur , that is a diapsid archosaur, that is a tetrapod, that is a vertebrate, that is a chordate, that is an animal.

And I thought daisy is a flower?

Doh!

(Sorry, Skwim, for borrowing your smiley. Thank you)

 

[gnostic]

I have been trying to rethink the whole taxonomic and evolutionary classification, and have tried to use clades, but unfortunately I sometimes forget and used the Linnaean taxonomy.

Bad habits, I’d guess.

 

[Audie]

Yes correct.

Hey, I’m quoting from one of your fellow evolutionists on this forum, Sayak83. He said it, take it up with him! I just report the news.

His response is ambiguous, I dont know what he said.
But you do. Perhaps he would like to clarify.

As for "reporting the news", they probably would like
you in North Korea; what suits the party will be selected
and nothing else exists.

You may well be under even greater constraints.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I’m quoting from one of your fellow evolutionists

Are you a germist?