I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Show Threads Show Posts

[QUOTE=Rez;368710][url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm[/url]

the way he ruled, you'd think they tried to crash a hot-air balloon into the white house and call it art.
"breathtaking inanity"
i wonder how transparent these fuckers must have been for a bush-appointed judge to rule like this.
or maybe he's actually got a sense of, y'know, ethics.

You can read the ruling as a PDF: [url]http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf[/url]

More from [url]http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051219/full/051219-8.html[/url]

i like his connection between a religiously-motivated idea and drugs. an idea backed by "if i can't wrap my head around it then it's obviously not true" and argued IN COURT seems to have a fair bit of substances behind it as well.
i look forward to the day when children get accosted during recess and are asked "hey, you want a theory of how we came to be that "they" DON'T want you to know? i got what u need, man, it's all here."

who the fuck [i]are[/i] these people?
"come on you guys, i mean look at it, it's so huge! i dont think science could do this, y'all!"[/QUOTE]

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Dec 21st, 2005 03:34 PM

Cosmo Electrolux

it's creationism, man...it in no way resembles science.

Dec 21st, 2005 03:32 PM

Big Papa Goat

intelligent design doesn't rely on a supernatural creator, but it does rely on an infinitely complex intelligent entity that cannot be observed in nature

Dec 21st, 2005 12:28 PM

Rez

I.D. gets K.O'd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm

the way he ruled, you'd think they tried to crash a hot-air balloon into the white house and call it art.
"breathtaking inanity"
i wonder how transparent these fuckers must have been for a bush-appointed judge to rule like this.
or maybe he's actually got a sense of, y'know, ethics.

You can read the ruling as a PDF: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf

More from http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0512.../051219-8.html

Quote:

"The judge simply ignored the evidence that intelligent design does not rely on a supernatural creator," says Luskin. He predicts that the ruling will pique people's interest in intelligent design: "When you tell students that they can't think about something, they are going to want to think about it."

who the fuck are these people?
"come on you guys, i mean look at it, it's so huge! i dont think science could do this, y'all!"

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:39 AM.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum