Posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Is that bozo back again?
Stunning, isn't it?
Patrick, do you have the link to Behe's testimony handy? I can't wait to see how connectthedots explains away his own standard-bearer's words.
Ah, that explains it. For a moment there I was afraid you had been abducted by, well, an intelligent designer from another planet or something and replaced with a pod person.
Now I see the universe is still as it should be. ;-)
I did publicly condemn the guy for lying; on the thread related to his testimony.
It serves no positive purpose. He was stupid to lie, especially when the trial is not about his personal beliefs; it's about a simple statement that accurately states that there is evidence that conflicts with the theory of evolution.
I've taken the liberty of adding his anthraciterabbit's name to my database just in case the mods discover it's ol' Ted again and ban him.
He did? Can you cite the page numbers so I can look it up in my copy of his book?
As for 'universal common descent'. I don't think that term was ever used during Behe's testimony. could you point out where it was used in his testimony?
But he did have to lie - the motives of the school board are essential in this case.
The school board brought in ID because they wanted to introduce religion into the science class, which they know is a violation of the Establishment clause. Because they couldn't admit what they were trying to do, they had to hide their motives.
In this case, why they did it is as important as what they did. They tried to sneak their faith into the schools, and got caught doing it.
I don't have his book, but you've seen the link I posted several times within the past few weeks. He said, in reference to the fossil record, that his book takes common descent for granted.
Do you have some Clintonian interpretation of "common descent" in mind? Do creationists and IDers have to be lawyered to death like Bill Clinton to find out what they mean by phrases in use for over 150 years?
Hoagland will be on Coast tonight to address ID. He might have an original take on the issue if he holds true to form.
"Common descent" and "universal common descent" are not the same. I also think it would be more accurate to say the Behe stated that ID does not take a position on common descent.
Voodoo? You've exposed yourself there.
Wouldn't surprise me. These are the same people who are trying to re-define the word "theory"....
Generally I find that the people who descend to name calling first are the ones w are losing the argument.
Thank you for being deliberately dense.
ID is the result of embracing all the evidence, including the statistical probability evidence. Creationism has never denied a single shred of evidence, and no evidence ever found has in any way undermined special creation. The genitic code is a guiding plan to specifically prevent evolution, and it works really well.
Michael Behe direct examination on qualifications.
Michael Behe direct examination.
Day 11, Morning.
Day 11, Afternoon.
Michael Behe cross-examination.
All I can say to this, is I am sure PatrickHenry has a suitable place for it in his List-O-Links. It is not just wrong, it is spectacularly wrong.
Oh! Thank you thank you for pointing that out (now open the air valve and inflate your cranium)
"Evolution has centuries of testing and confirmation behind it"
So does the religion of Islam, what is your point.
But it's amusing to note that no creationist has criticized any of these for lying. One must assume that such taqqiya is a legitimate creationist tactic.
Interesting... what testing and confirmation has Islam been subjected to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.