Skip to comments.
Judge copied ACLU in anti-design ruling
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| December 12, 2006
| Art Moore
Posted on 12/12/2006, 4:52:13 PM by editor-surveyor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-239 next last
What, evolution supported by leftist lies and plagiarism?
Tell me it isn't so!
To: metmom; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; betty boop; ...
2
posted on
12/12/2006, 4:54:38 PM
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: editor-surveyor
"What, evolution supported by leftist lies and plagiarism?"
Big shocker to me also......
3
posted on
12/12/2006, 4:54:50 PM
by
scottdeus12
(Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
To: editor-surveyor
4
posted on
12/12/2006, 4:57:12 PM
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: editor-surveyor
Unlike the judge, the Discovery Institute did their homework.
I wouldn't expect any fallout though...but I hope I'm wrong.
5
posted on
12/12/2006, 4:59:19 PM
by
Artemis Webb
(All Truth is God's Truth...regardless of the source.)
To: editor-surveyor
6
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:00:23 PM
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: editor-surveyor
Cut-n-paste by a law clerk-
Hailed as brilliant work by a not-so-brilliant Judge.
LOL!
7
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:01:39 PM
by
silverleaf
(Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
To: editor-surveyor
This is nothing unusual. The cases and analysis are what they are, regardless of who wrote them. There are any number of criminal appellate opinions that I am familiar with that are taken verbatim from the prosecution briefs.
8
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:02:46 PM
by
mak5
To: silverleaf
Huh! This is no more than Captain Obvious deciding to play lawyer. Judges frequently import the winning side's argument. At the trial level -- which is what this was -- the winning side often writes the order itself. The other side can then object and say, e.g., this is not what the court ruled, etc.
Move along, nothing to see here . . . .
9
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:05:48 PM
by
King of Florida
(A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
To: editor-surveyor
The judge revealed himself to be nothing but a sock puppet. His ruling will be overturned I hope.
And here is the statement the evos went rabid over.
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
10
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:06:01 PM
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: editor-surveyor
Sour grapes. Get better facts next time and maybe you won't lose.
11
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:08:11 PM
by
ndt
To: mak5
Nice excuse-making there mak.
You'll have lots of company soon though as the anti-creationist Freepers will be showing up for 400 + posts thread.
12
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:08:31 PM
by
subterfuge
(Today, Tolerance =greatest virtue;Hypocrisy=worst character defect; Discrimination =worst atrocity)
To: editor-surveyor
What, evolution intelligent design supported by leftist creationist lies and plagiarism? Tell me it isn't so!
13
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:08:59 PM
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: editor-surveyor
West is vice president for public policy and legal affairs for the group's Center for Science and Culture, which issued a statement saying, "The finding that most of Judge Jones' analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones' examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design." Typical Discovery Institute BS.
Both sides submitted their closing briefs. The judge selected those parts that set forth his opinion. This is standard in cases of this type, and the DI folks are dishonest in making a big deal of it. By the way, both closing briefs were posted on the web at the time.
The DI is just upset because their Trojan horse, ID, got pasted.
Here's something else the DI wrote, which somehow leaked out of their control. It sets out their entire strategy: The Wedge Strategy: Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture.
14
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:09:12 PM
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: editor-surveyor
May 22, 2006 - Judge Jones reveals his false beliefs (premise for his ruling) about the Anti-Establishment Clause in the Constitution:
"The founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. They possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason. This core set of beliefs led the founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state." ~U.S. District Judge John E. Jones in his May 2006 commencement address to 500 graduates at his alma mater, Dickinson College.
He needs to click my screen name and get up to speed. :)
15
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:10:35 PM
by
Matchett-PI
(To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
To: RunningWolf
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." That quote of yours is so full of errors that it should not be read by anyone, ever.
16
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:11:45 PM
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: editor-surveyor
Intelligent Design:
To: mak5
"This is nothing unusual." We know. LOL!
To: editor-surveyor
This just shows there's so little real proof of evolution they have to resort to lies to push it on our kids, all in the name of rejecting God. Sick.
To: TraditionalistMommy
The DI is complaining the opinion was cut and pasted. Where is anyone being accused of lying?
20
posted on
12/12/2006, 5:29:06 PM
by
gcruse
(http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-239 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson