[_ Old Earth _] ID/Creation- What's the point ???

[jmm9683]

I don't know of any of them "debunked" in fact the lunar dust issue went on display at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum -- a note they placed there beside the lunar module explaining the reason for the large pads on the landing gear.

The argument that the accumulation of dust on the moon would be deeper if it were actually 4.5 billion years old is false.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

your "debunked" and fraud argument against Christians AND I.D evolutionists is rank "equivocation" when compared with the actual frauds and hoaxes listed on the Atheist darwinist side of the ledger. And in this case -- as with all of atheist darwinism -- story telling is the real meaning behind "debunked" -- you simply take science data and "tell stories around it" calling that "debunking".

No, actual science has proven these creationist arguments false over and over. Creationists don't have any peer-reviewed scientific journals supporting their claims, sorry.

Simply telling a story that makes you "feel good" has nothing to do with the credibility of the data that is "not in favor of" atheist darwinism. but this is to be "expected" since atheist darwinism requires a "deny all" approach to objective science and hard facts.

Oh the irony...

2. I would argue that the JUNK-SCIENCE frauds and hoaxes that litter and yet fueled the rise to acceptance of atheist darwinism AS IF it was actual science -- were being USED for DECADES in support of atheist darwinism. See the Horse series STILL in use, see Neanderthal dating hoax STILL in use see Piltdown USED for 40 years see ... well just see!

As more fossils have been found, the horse evolution has been discovered to be more elaborate, complex, and multi-branched than previously thought. Not exactly a fraud. The Neanderthal dating hoax was exposed by scientists and the professor was forced to retire. Science is self-correcting. The Piltdown Man was exposed again by scientists and hasn't been used as evidence since 1953. Hardly evidence for evolution being false.

 

[BobRyan]

What do you mean "we"? I do believe you're the only person using the idiotic term "atheist darwinism". It's almost as if you've got some weird pretentions about using "evolutionists" or "evolutionary scientists" instead.

Atheist Darwinist -- like Darwin, like Huxley, like Dawkins, like Provine, like Gould ... get it?

But actually "atheist darwinist" (as seen in triplicate on the atheist-darwinist threads) is about the "distinctively atheist" attack on ID EVOLUTIONISt scientists.

details -- you have to pay attention.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan wrote:
I don't know of any of them "debunked" in fact the lunar dust issue went on display at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum -- a note they placed there beside the lunar module explaining the reason for the large pads on the landing gear.

The argument that the accumulation of dust on the moon would be deeper if it were actually 4.5 billion years old is false.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

1. The argument was made by Hans Pettersson and accepted by NASA when they built the lunar module -- NOT by "dirty rotten stinking christians" as some have hyped it.

The "origin" of the data AND of the prediction is NOT Creationists. The spin and hoax story telling of atheist darwinist would easily like to engage in the revisionist history to MAKE IT APPEAR that such were the case. But this is neither an I.D. Science problem NOR a case of Christians inventing data like we have with the atheist darwinist hoaxes.

2. Talkorigins stories are usually pretty entertaining. But not much else.

TalkOrigins link provides this quote -

For example, theistic evolutionists from Calvin College, after scathingly critiquing creationists for alleged erroneous handling of data, do precisely that and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted.

(AIG link provided in TalkOrigin's link above)

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

2. I would argue that the JUNK-SCIENCE frauds and hoaxes that litter and yet fueled the rise to acceptance of atheist darwinism AS IF it was actual science -- were being USED for DECADES in support of atheist darwinism. See the Horse series STILL in use, see Neanderthal dating hoax STILL in use see Piltdown USED for 40 years see ... well just see!

As more fossils have been found, the horse evolution has been discovered to be more elaborate, complex, and multi-branched than previously thought. Not exactly a fraud. The Neanderthal dating hoax was exposed by scientists and the professor was forced to retire. Science is self-correcting. The Piltdown Man was exposed again by scientists and hasn't been used as evidence since 1953. Hardly evidence for evolution being false.

FRAUD - as in "Never happened in nature".

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated." in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
â€â€*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

A "known fraud" at the time of display --

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."â€â€*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks[/b]."â€â€*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

Stories told "AS IF they were TRUE"

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

"Stories easy enough to TELL.. but they are NOT science"

Colin Patterson --
There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

 

[BobRyan]

The driver for the story telling is Darwinist atheism --

the METHODS of the storytelling are as follows --

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.†“Evolution’s Erratic Pace,†Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]

‘It takes a great deal of reading to find out for any particular genus just how complete the various parts of the body are and how much in the illustrated figures is due to clever reconstruction. The early papers were always careful to indicate by dotted lines or lack of shading the precise limits of the reconstructions, but later authors are not so careful.’
Gerald A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, New York, p. 146, 1960.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm "the courts have ruled" -- Scopes trial -- I believe the evolutionists lost

No, that's wrong. Scopes was acquitted.

Wrong. He was declared guilty and fined. In fact Clarence Darrow refused to allow his client to testify -- he simply entered a plea of GUILTY.

Why is it believers in atheist darwinism are so easly duped by their own leaders???

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The issue in Dover was whether ID was science or simply creationism

Wrong.

The issue in Dover was a lawsuit against the school board for having a ONE PARAGRAPH statement entered at the begining of a DARWINIAN EVOLUTION based class that read "THERE EXISTS a book in the Library...".

The issue was that ONE PARAGRAPH. and whether the new shackles of atheist darwinian rank censorship should be applied SUCH that the ONE paragraph should be VERBOTEN and the school board fined for daring to say "A BOOK EXISTS IN THE LIBRARY".

How is it that the devoted followers of atheist darwinism as so befuddled by their own leaders on history and facts??

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian on the attempted deception:
Unfortunately Dover put an end to that. Maybe another name change...

Bob said --

Dover is actually a good place to find extreme censorship -- in that case..."you are not allowed to tell students -- 'THERE EXISTS A BOOK in the Libary..."

-- Judges orders- no telling that to students.

That dirty rotten freedom of speach thing keeps contradicting the dark-ages censorship ordered by atheist darwinist devotees.

Rats!

Bob said

BTW, the tiny district that has to follow that bogus Dover court ruling is not "the district of America".

It is, however, precedent, and that is enough.

Wrong.

Read the legal review given by reviewers not enslaved to atheist darwinism.

Open your mind - - read.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think this is the part where Darwinists are supposed to ignore the point showing that darwinism is junk-science -- not actual science.

Bob

I thought this was the point where you point to Piltdown Man being the reason why all of evolutionary biology is false...

Piltdown, Neanderthal, Horse Series, Achaeoraptor, Haeckle's "ontogony-Phylogony" fabrication etc etc ... you mean "the whole LIST of junk-science hoaxes" should be devoutly ignored??

Good thing we have an alternative -- REAL science!

Why not LISTEN to Colin Patterson speak to "the STORIES about how one thing came from another -- they are STORIES EASY enough to TELL but they are NOT science!"??

Why is it that darwinists IGNORE these prominent atheist DARWINISTs as they give out "these little hints"??

Bob

[
None of those things are being used to support current evolutionary biology. It was scientists who exposed the frauds and fixed the errors, not creationists. That's how science works, it's self correcting.

The junk-science frauds, hoaxes and blunders were in most case many decades in the "foisting" onto school children and the DATA was fabricated -- totally bogus.

In the words of later atheist darwinists "NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

This included FRAUDS exposed since 2000 -- Neanderthal in 2006.

Allow yourself the luxury of being open minded to independant critical thinking when frauds are exposed.

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

I think this is the part where Darwinists are supposed to ignore the point showing that darwinism is junk-science -- not actual science.

Bob

I thought this was the point where you point to Piltdown Man being the reason why all of evolutionary biology is false...

Piltdown, Neanderthal, Horse Series, Achaeoraptor, Haeckle's "ontogony-Phylogony" fabrication etc etc ... you mean "the whole LIST of junk-science hoaxes" should be devoutly ignored??

Good thing we have an alternative -- REAL science!

Why not LISTEN to Colin Patterson speak to "the STORIES about how one thing came from another -- they are STORIES EASY enough to TELL but they are NOT science!"??

Why is it that darwinists IGNORE these prominent atheist DARWINISTs as they give out "these little hints"??

Bob

[
None of those things are being used to support current evolutionary biology. It was scientists who exposed the frauds and fixed the errors, not creationists. That's how science works, it's self correcting.

The junk-science frauds, hoaxes and blunders were in most case many decades in the "foisting" onto school children and the DATA was fabricated -- totally bogus.

In the words of later atheist darwinists "NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

This included FRAUDS exposed since 2000 -- Neanderthal in 2006.

Allow yourself the luxury of being open minded to independant critical thinking when frauds are exposed.

Bob

Even if what you posted proved the theory of evolution false (which it doesn't), it doesn't mean that ID wins by default. That's like having two suspects to a crime with one being proven innocent, that doesn't make the other person automatically guilty. ID needs to have its own theory and not just point to weaknesses in evolution. ID has no peer-reviewed scientific journals supporting their hypothesis. ID is pseudoscience and should be treated as such.

 

[John]

Even if what you posted proved the theory of evolution false (which it doesn't), it doesn't mean that ID wins by default. That's like having two suspects to a crime with one being proven innocent, that doesn't make the other person automatically guilty. ID needs to have its own theory and not just point to weaknesses in evolution. ID has no peer-reviewed scientific journals supporting their hypothesis. ID is pseudoscience and should be treated as such.

I think lennox cleared that up.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Scopes was acquitted.

Wrong. He was declared guilty and fined.

Nope. The judge reversed the decision, and Scopes was acquitted.

In fact Clarence Darrow refused to allow his client to testify -- he simply entered a plea of GUILTY.

For good reason. Scopes and the local community leaders had set the whole thing up as a publicity stunt. They recruited Scopes to teach evolution, with the express purpose of getting arrested and then having a trial to attract attention to Dayton.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had offered to defend anyone accused of teaching the theory of evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. George Rappleyea, who managed several local mines, convinced a group of businessmen in Dayton, Tennessee, then a town of 1,756, that the controversy of such a trial would give Dayton much needed publicity. With their agreement, he called in his friend, 24-year-old John Scopes, who was Clark County High School's football coach and had substituted for Principal Ferguson in a science class. Rappleyea asked Scopes to teach the theory of evolution.[5]

Rappleyea pointed out that while the Butler Act prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution, the state required teachers to use a textbookâ€â€George Hunter's Civic Biology (1914)â€â€which explicitly described and endorsed the theory of evolution, and that teachers were therefore effectively required to break the law.[5] Scopes could not actually remember having covered the section on evolution in Hunter's textbook, but he told the group "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial."[cite this quote]

Scopes became an increasingly willing participant, even incriminating himself and urging students to testify against him.[6] He was indicted on April 24, after three students testified against him at the grand jury, at Scopes' behest.[7] According to Edward J. Larson, Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "...all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom."[8] Scopes was charged with having taught from the chapter on evolution to a May 7, 1925, high school class in violation of the Butler Act (and nominally arrested, though never detained). His bail of $500 was paid by Paul Patterson, owner of the Baltimore Sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

The reversal threw a wrench in that; the prosecutor didn't want to do it again, and you can't appeal your own acquittal. So it ended there.

Why is it believers in atheist darwinism are so easly duped by their own leaders???

You mean "believers in ID/creationism. Now you know the whole story. Surprise.

Remember when I told you that what you don't know, can hurt you? It just did again.

 

[BobRyan]

Even if what you posted proved the theory of evolution false (which it doesn't), it doesn't mean that ID wins by default.

The demonstrated and exposed junk-science methods of atheist darwinists - simply exclude them from "practicing their craft" in the class rooms -- they may continue to do it all day long in their temples.

The point for ID - is the OBJECTIVE and OPEN system that allows science to "follow where the data leads" and does NOT shackle the research with the predetermined "needs" of atheist darwinian "needs".

And if the "data does not lead" to design so beit -- BUT let the "data speak" without trying to politicize the science with court rulings about "you can not tell studens that - THERE EXISTS a book in the Library...".

We already know there are such things as electromagnetic wave forms that show design. The same principles of detection can be used on all effects seen in nature.

However the "need" of those who follow atheist darwinism is to 'deny-all" data, censor all scientific work and shut down all science programs via political and legal recourse that might threaten the dogmas of atheist darwinism. Darwinists are totally exposed in the methods they use to prop up darwinism and to "censor science".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Scopes was acquitted.

Wrong. He was declared guilty and fined.

Nope. The judge reversed the decision, and Scopes was acquitted.

[quote:0a621]In fact Clarence Darrow refused to allow his client to testify -- he simply entered a plea of GUILTY.

For good reason.
[/quote:0a621]

For "good reason" he PLEADS guilty -- for good reason the "judge finds him guilty" but then you argue that the Judge "reversed the PLEA of GUILTY??"" How can you reverse a guilty plea??

Scopes and the local community leaders had set the whole thing up as a publicity stunt. They recruited Scopes to teach evolution, with the express purpose of getting arrested and then having a trial to attract attention to Dayton.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had offered to defend anyone accused of teaching the theory of evolution in defiance of the Butler Act.

Yep -- all true.

And so with a GUILTY PLEA it was pretty hard for the judge NOT to find him "guilty" and to level a fine against him as state law required.

George Rappleyea, who managed several local mines, convinced a group of businessmen in Dayton, Tennessee, then a town of 1,756, that the controversy of such a trial would give Dayton much needed publicity. With their agreement, he called in his friend, 24-year-old John Scopes, who was Clark County High School's football coach and had substituted for Principal Ferguson in a science class. Rappleyea asked Scopes to teach the theory of evolution.[5]

Indeed - the "PE teacher" was being manipulated into teaching a single lesson on darwinism. (And as it turns out -- he didn't actually do it).

, Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "...all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom."[8] Scopes was charged with having taught from the chapter on evolution to a May 7, 1925, high school class in violation of the Butler Act (and nominally arrested, though never detained). His bail of $500 was paid by Paul Patterson, owner of the Baltimore Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

Now we are talking. Found guilty -- but only because Darrow refused to let him testify or be cross-examined. Darrow NEEDED a guilty verdict as part of the ACLU plot.

PE teacher or not.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm "the courts have ruled" -- Scopes trial -- I believe the evolutionists lost

No, that's wrong. Scopes was acquitted.

Wrong. He was declared guilty and fined. In fact Clarence Darrow refused to allow his client to testify -- he simply entered a plea of GUILTY.

Why is it believers in atheist darwinism are so easly duped by their own leaders???

Bob

The wiki site you just linked to -- shows no reversal of decision by the judge that presided over the Scopes trial -- what it DOES say about the APPEAL made to the Tenn Supreme Court is "instructive"

Scopes' lawyers appealed, challenging the conviction on several grounds.

First, they argued that the statute was overly vague because it prohibited the teaching of "evolution," a very broad term. The court rejected that argument, holding:

[quote:18306]
Evolution, like prohibition, is a broad term. In recent bickering, however, evolution has been understood to mean the theory which holds that man has developed from some pre-existing lower type. This is the popular significance of evolution, just as the popular significance of prohibition is prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. It was in that sense that evolution was used in this act. It is in this sense that the word will be used in this opinion, unless the context otherwise indicates. It is only to the theory of the evolution of man from a lower type that the act before us was intended to apply, and much of the discussion we have heard is beside this case.

Second, the lawyers argued that the statute violated Scopes' constitutional right to due process because it prohibited him from teaching evolution. The court rejected this argument, holding that the state was permitted to regulate his speech as an employee of the state:

He was an employee of the state of Tennessee or of a municipal agency of the state. He was under contract with the state to work in an institution of the state. He had no right or privilege to serve the state except upon such terms as the state prescribed. His liberty, his privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory of evolution, elsewhere than in the service of the state, was in no wise touched by this law.

Third, it was argued that the terms of the Butler Act violated the Tennessee State Constitution which provided that "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly in all future periods of this government, to cherish literature and science." The argument was that the theory of the descent of man from a lower order of animals was now established by the preponderance of scientific thought, and that the prohibition of the teaching of such theory was a violation of the legislative duty to cherish science.

The court rejected this argument (Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 1927), holding that the determination of what laws cherished science was an issue for the legislature, not the judiciary:

The courts cannot sit in judgment on such acts of the Legislature or its agents and determine whether or not the omission or addition of a particular course of study tends "to cherish science."

Fourth, the defense lawyers argued that the statute violated the Establishment Clause, unconstitutionally establishing a state religion.


Writing for the court, Chief Justice Grafton Green rejected this argument, holding that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion as had been the experience in England and Scotland at the writing of the Constitution, and held:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Tri ... _Tennessee
[/quote:18306]

Hint for Barbarian: This is from your OWN quoted link!!

Barbarian -

Nope. The judge reversed the decision, and Scopes was acquitted.

you can lead a horse to water -- but you can't make him drink.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Yep, I'm sure it was surprising for you to learn that Scopes was not fined; he was acquitted because of procedural problems.

Scopes case (July 1925) The US legal case in which John T. Scopes, a biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was charged with violating state law by teaching Darwin's theory of evolution. The state legislature had enacted (1925) that it was unlawful to teach any doctrine denying the literal truth of the account of the creation as presented in the Authorized ( King James) Version of the Bible. The judge ruled out any discussion of constitutional legality, and since Scopes clearly had taught Darwin's theory of evolution he was convicted and fined $100. On appeal to the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the state's law was upheld, but Scopes was acquitted on the technicality that he had been “fined excessivelyâ€Â.

And contrary to your belief, he had been recruited for the express purpose of being arrested for teaching evolution. He agreed to do it, admitted doing it, and even encouraged students to testify against him. It was a publicity stunt by local businessmen to bring attention to Dayton.

Learn something new every day um, Bob?

 

[BobRyan]

Yep, I'm sure it was surprising for you to learn that Scopes was not fined; he was acquitted because of procedural problems.

Scopes case (July 1925) The US legal case in which John T. Scopes, a biology teacher

He "pleaded guilty" not "innocent"

Indeed he was fined not aquitted.

His appeal was denied by the Tenn Supreme Court.

He was not a science teacher OR a biology teacher -- he was the football coach

He had no interest at all in this other than the ACLU manipulating him.

And in the end -- he did not actually have the guts to teach the class on Darwinism and if Darrow had let him be cross examined that would have come out - hence Darrow's immediate change of plea to GUILTY.

The judge ruled out any discussion of constitutional legality, and since Scopes clearly had taught Darwin's theory of evolution he was convicted and fined $100 . On appeal to the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the state's law was upheld, but Scopes was acquitted on the technicality that he had been “fined excessivelyâ€Â.

HIS OWN guity plea that he made -- stuck. Never questioned.

Hint: the judge in the scopes trial was NOT the supreme Court AND the Court rejected the arguments of scope's lawyers.

The fine was the only thing questioned. So if the argument is that your "science teaching" is only about "the amount of the fine" -- continue it.

The legal arguments his lawyers made to the Supreme Court rejected.

And as I said -- the Scopes trial convicted him, fined him and the appeals of his laywers were rejected by the Tenn Supreme Court.

So much for your "let courts decide science" attempt at politics-is-science.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Indeed he was fined not aquitted.

Let's take a look...
On appeal to the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the state's law was upheld, but Scopes was acquitted on the technicality that he had been “fined excessivelyâ€Â.

So much for your "let courts decide science" attempt at politics-is-science.

Like it or not, courts are the final arbiter when politicians try to rewrite science. Dover is just the first precedent; more will follow, as IDers get increasingly desperate.

 

[BobRyan]

Yep, I'm sure it was surprising for you to learn that Scopes was not fined; he was acquitted because of procedural problems.

Scopes case (July 1925) The US legal case in which John T. Scopes, a biology teacher

He "pleaded guilty" not "innocent"

Indeed he was fined not aquitted. - by the judge at the scopes trial.

His appeal was denied by the Tenn Supreme Court.

He was not a science teacher OR a biology teacher -- he was the football coach

He had no interest at all in this other than the ACLU manipulating him.

And in the end -- he did not actually have the guts to teach the class on Darwinism and if Darrow had let him be cross examined that would have come out - hence Darrow's immediate change of plea to GUILTY.

The judge ruled out any discussion of constitutional legality, and since Scopes clearly had taught Darwin's theory of evolution he was convicted and fined $100 . On appeal to the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the state's law was upheld, but Scopes was acquitted on the technicality that he had been “fined excessivelyâ€Â.

[/quote]

awww -- "He was convicted" and... "fined"... by the judge at the Scopes trial.

can you define "Convicted" and "fined"???

Barbarian - you never answered the question in all of your "gaming" in this topic. IS YOUR supposed "SCIENCE determined by courts" argument REALLY just over the issue of HOW MUCH we should be fining the believers and purveyors of atheist darwinism??

Is that all you really care about here?

And as I said -- the Scopes trial convicted him, fined him and the appeals of his laywers were rejected by the Tenn Supreme Court.

So much for your "let courts decide science" attempt at politics-is-science.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

As you saw, the court overturned Scope's conviction and he was acquitted. What a lower court did in error has no bearing on that fact. He was acquitted by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

And that was the end of it.

Does it matter that courts have ruled ID to be a religion, and not science? Of course. But that isn't why it's a religion. They are merely observing the obvious, something IDers admitted themselves in the Wedge Document.