Welcome to the Realm™ - Version 5.0...
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





In yet another glaring example of why some black robes ought to come equipped with the logo of a well-known retail chain, a tin-horned bench jockey has infringed upon the free-speech rights of a school board.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) – In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

And who would know better about disguises than a black-robed tyrant pretending to be a fair-minded, knowledgeable-in-the-law judge, hm?

U.S. District Judge John Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

See what I mean?  Once again a fuckwitted excuse-for-a-jurist shows his ass and demonstrates his abject cluelessness when it comes to the Constitution.

For the 18,473,903rd time:  The words separation of church and state do not appear anywhere in the United States Constitution.

Learn it, live it, love it.  Especially you, John-boy Jones, you shit-for-brains.

The ruling by Judge Jones, a Republican

Don’t you morons at the Asphyxiated Piss mean “a RINO”?  Oh, that’s right – you only point that out when it suits your  twisted purposes, don’t you?

This Wapner-wannabe is no more of a Republican than San Fran Nan, Dingy Harry or Senator (hic!).  Actually, you Demoscum can have him – he fits right in with your philosophy of ignoring the Constitution when it suits you.

and a churchgoer

What “church” would that be?  The Unitarian Universalists?  I can almost guaran-fuckin’-tee you that this assclown doesn’t go to a church that preaches Christ crucified.

appointed to the federal bench three years ago by President Bush, was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is waging battles in Georgia and Kansas.

Which is just one more reason no one named Bush should be making judicial appointments.  First Souter by his father, then Roberts, then Miers, then Alito – and who knows how  many of our rights are going to be destroyed by the Bush Bench Bozos™?

But that’s not the most egregious thing about this whole judicial charade.  This sorry-assed excuse-for-a-judge, rather than rule on what he perceived to be the facts surrounding the case, end of story…this asshole actually accuses the defendants of lying and then goes on to fawn all over the failed theory  of Darwinism.

Judge Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” Judge Jones said.

Oh, yeah.  “Overwhelming evidence”.  “Your Honor, we’re the One True Way man got to be here, even though we can’t prove we evolved from monkeys, so please help us make sure that no one can question our belief system!!!  WAAAAAAAAH!!!”

The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, Of Pandas and People.

But the judge said: “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”

So suddenly, this smarmy little high-horsed pisspot has decided that truth – namely, the fact that evolution is nothing but an unproven theory – is unconstitutional.

What truth will you next ban, John-Boy?  George Washington as the father of our country? The fact that a Republican freed the slaves?  The Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor?  Der Kaiser diddling an intern?  What is too inappropriate for young skulls full o’ much to hear?

In his ruling, Judge Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments “may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.” Among other things, the judge said intelligent design “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation,” it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.”

Oh, really???  When, pray tell?  Please, show us the “evidence” that proves evolution?  Show us these so-called “refutations” of the scientific community.  I dare you.

“The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources,” the judge wrote.

The Dover school board deserved better than to have a biased pissweasel hearing their case, having already made up his mind about it.

He also said: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

If I were the defendants, I’d now hire another attorney and go after this bastard Jones for everything he’s got.  That black robe doesn’t preclude the bastard from libel, and that’s just what he’s committed against the Dover plaintiffs.

That is, assuming that I were interested in allowing him to continue living.  Shitheads like John Jones deserve nothing less than to be swinging from lamposts.

ESAD, Jones, you fucking snotwit.



9 Comments to “The monkeys win again”


  1. Um Yeah — December 23, 2005 @ 3:18 am

    I just got back from this! the greateast thing ever!

    I went even though i dont make much money becaus repukes let rich shits keep all there take!

    EVERYONE shopuld have been reqired to go!

    [Oh, quit lying, Shitcliffe.  You barely have enough take-home left after having to buy your boss a new broom handle because of what you did with the old one.

    Let that be a lesson to you, too - broom handles and mayonaise don't mix. (chortle)  -LSI]

  2. Darwin's Finch — December 25, 2005 @ 11:10 am

    In yet another glaring example of why some black robes ought to come equipped with the logo of a well-known retail chain, a tin-horned bench jockey has infringed upon the free-speech rights of a school board.

    This is not the case. School boards do not have the absolute right to teach whatever they want. Would you support the “rights” of a public, tax funded school board that demanded its economics teachers advocate Communism, or taught its history students that the Holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy?

    The only thing that should be taught in a science class is science. Intelligent Design is not science because it makes no falsifiable claims.

    And who would know better about disguises than a black-robed tyrant pretending to be a fair-minded, knowledgeable-in-the-law judge, hm?

    The decision was completely fair, and Judge Jones opinion that the teaching of ID violates the establishment clause of the Constitution is perfectly valid, as I shall explain below.

    See what I mean? Once again a fuckwitted excuse-for-a-jurist shows his ass and demonstrates his abject cluelessness when it comes to the Constitution.

    For the 18,473,903rd time: The words separation of church and state do not appear anywhere in the United States Constitution.

    That is true. Since, to qualify as a Judge in the first place, Judge Jones must have earned a law degree and practised law for several years, I think it’s safe to say that he is aware of the precise wording of the establishment clause.

    The words Separation of Church and State are simply a convenient shorthand for Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    They both say the same thing. Religion and Government should never mix. Ever. In any capacity. A cursory glance at the Middle East reveals precisely why this is such an exceptionally good idea.

    The Intelligent Design movement is a religious movement because it posits the existence of a creator, which is a religious claim.

    Religious claims have no place in public school science classes for two reasons. Firstly, science classes can only teach things which are scientific. The central tenet of Intelligent Design, that there is an intelligent creator, is not a scientific claim because it cannot be tested.

    Secondly, public schools are funded by tax money paid by people of all denominations, including people of no denomination. Why should an atheist be forced to pay for public school classes which are positively theistic? You may well be inclined to respond with the converse, that theists should not be forced to pay for ‘atheistic’ science classes which teach evolution. However, the idea that you can’t be an evolutionist and a Christian is a myth. Lots of evolutionists are Christians.

    This Wapner-wannabe is no more of a Republican than San Fran Nan, Dingy Harry or Senator (hic!).

    So, just because Judge Jones upheld the establishment clause he cannot be a ‘real’ Republican? Since when were you in charge of what makes a ‘real’ Republican, anyway? I’d be interested to hear Grover Norquist’s reaction to the news that he is no longer a Republican

    …the failed theory of Darwinism.

    Darwinism is far from a failed theory. It is an immensely successful theory as it explains everything we know about how life arose on our planet. Yes, there are gaps to be filled and legitimate questions to be answered and the people most aware of this are scientists. In fact, the people who question evolution most effectively are scientists. That is what scientists are paid to do. But none of them are advocating ditching evolution, because it is the best explanation we have.

    Intelligent Design, by contrast, poses no challenges to evolutionary theory which cannot be met by a second year biology undergraduate.

    One can ask a great many mroe questions of Intelligent Design than of evolution, not least of which is ‘Who created the creator?’

    Oh, really??? When, pray tell? Please, show us the “evidence” that proves evolution?

    My pleasure. Proof of Macroevolution.

    Scroll down to the section on Endogenous Retroviruses. You cannot explain the existence of retroviruses without macroevolution.

    There. Proved it.

    The Dover school board deserved better than to have a biased pissweasel hearing their case, having already made up his mind about it.

    He was probably able to do so because he had been taught science properly

    That black robe doesn’t preclude the bastard from libel, and that’s just what he’s committed against the Dover plaintiffs

    He has not committed libel by any legal definition.

  3. Darwin's Finch — December 25, 2005 @ 11:10 am

    In yet another glaring example of why some black robes ought to come equipped with the logo of a well-known retail chain, a tin-horned bench jockey has infringed upon the free-speech rights of a school board.

    This is not the case. School boards do not have the absolute right to teach whatever they want. Would you support the “rights” of a public, tax funded school board that demanded its economics teachers advocate Communism, or taught its history students that the Holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy?

    The only thing that should be taught in a science class is science. Intelligent Design is not science because it makes no falsifiable claims.

    And who would know better about disguises than a black-robed tyrant pretending to be a fair-minded, knowledgeable-in-the-law judge, hm?

    The decision was completely fair, and Judge Jones opinion that the teaching of ID violates the establishment clause of the Constitution is perfectly valid, as I shall explain below.

    See what I mean? Once again a fuckwitted excuse-for-a-jurist shows his ass and demonstrates his abject cluelessness when it comes to the Constitution.

    For the 18,473,903rd time: The words separation of church and state do not appear anywhere in the United States Constitution.

    That is true. Since, to qualify as a Judge in the first place, Judge Jones must have earned a law degree and practised law for several years, I think it’s safe to say that he is aware of the precise wording of the establishment clause.

    The words Separation of Church and State are simply a convenient shorthand for Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    They both say the same thing. Religion and Government should never mix. Ever. In any capacity. A cursory glance at the Middle East reveals precisely why this is such an exceptionally good idea.

    The Intelligent Design movement is a religious movement because it posits the existence of a creator, which is a religious claim.

    Religious claims have no place in public school science classes for two reasons. Firstly, science classes can only teach things which are scientific. The central tenet of Intelligent Design, that there is an intelligent creator, is not a scientific claim because it cannot be tested.

    Secondly, public schools are funded by tax money paid by people of all denominations, including people of no denomination. Why should an atheist be forced to pay for public school classes which are positively theistic? You may well be inclined to respond with the converse, that theists should not be forced to pay for ‘atheistic’ science classes which teach evolution. However, the idea that you can’t be an evolutionist and a Christian is a myth. Lots of evolutionists are Christians.

    This Wapner-wannabe is no more of a Republican than San Fran Nan, Dingy Harry or Senator (hic!).

    So, just because Judge Jones upheld the establishment clause he cannot be a ‘real’ Republican? Since when were you in charge of what makes a ‘real’ Republican, anyway? I’d be interested to hear Grover Norquist’s reaction to the news that he is no longer a Republican

    …the failed theory of Darwinism.

    Darwinism is far from a failed theory. It is an immensely successful theory as it explains everything we know about how life arose on our planet. Yes, there are gaps to be filled and legitimate questions to be answered and the people most aware of this are scientists. In fact, the people who question evolution most effectively are scientists. That is what scientists are paid to do. But none of them are advocating ditching evolution, because it is the best explanation we have.

    Intelligent Design, by contrast, poses no challenges to evolutionary theory which cannot be met by a second year biology undergraduate.

    One can ask a great many mroe questions of Intelligent Design than of evolution, not least of which is ‘Who created the creator?’

    Oh, really??? When, pray tell? Please, show us the “evidence” that proves evolution?

    My pleasure. Proof of Macroevolution.

    Scroll down to the section on Endogenous Retroviruses. You cannot explain the existence of retroviruses without macroevolution.

    There. Proved it.

    The Dover school board deserved better than to have a biased pissweasel hearing their case, having already made up his mind about it.

    He was probably able to do so because he had been taught science properly

    That black robe doesn’t preclude the bastard from libel, and that’s just what he’s committed against the Dover plaintiffs

    He has not committed libel by any legal definition.

  4. Darwin's Finch — December 25, 2005 @ 11:10 am

    In yet another glaring example of why some black robes ought to come equipped with the logo of a well-known retail chain, a tin-horned bench jockey has infringed upon the free-speech rights of a school board.

    This is not the case. School boards do not have the absolute right to teach whatever they want. Would you support the “rights” of a public, tax funded school board that demanded its economics teachers advocate Communism, or taught its history students that the Holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy?

    The only thing that should be taught in a science class is science. Intelligent Design is not science because it makes no falsifiable claims.

    And who would know better about disguises than a black-robed tyrant pretending to be a fair-minded, knowledgeable-in-the-law judge, hm?

    The decision was completely fair, and Judge Jones opinion that the teaching of ID violates the establishment clause of the Constitution is perfectly valid, as I shall explain below.

    See what I mean? Once again a fuckwitted excuse-for-a-jurist shows his ass and demonstrates his abject cluelessness when it comes to the Constitution.

    For the 18,473,903rd time: The words separation of church and state do not appear anywhere in the United States Constitution.

    That is true. Since, to qualify as a Judge in the first place, Judge Jones must have earned a law degree and practised law for several years, I think it’s safe to say that he is aware of the precise wording of the establishment clause.

    The words Separation of Church and State are simply a convenient shorthand for Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    They both say the same thing. Religion and Government should never mix. Ever. In any capacity. A cursory glance at the Middle East reveals precisely why this is such an exceptionally good idea.

    The Intelligent Design movement is a religious movement because it posits the existence of a creator, which is a religious claim.

    Religious claims have no place in public school science classes for two reasons. Firstly, science classes can only teach things which are scientific. The central tenet of Intelligent Design, that there is an intelligent creator, is not a scientific claim because it cannot be tested.

    Secondly, public schools are funded by tax money paid by people of all denominations, including people of no denomination. Why should an atheist be forced to pay for public school classes which are positively theistic? You may well be inclined to respond with the converse, that theists should not be forced to pay for ‘atheistic’ science classes which teach evolution. However, the idea that you can’t be an evolutionist and a Christian is a myth. Lots of evolutionists are Christians.

    This Wapner-wannabe is no more of a Republican than San Fran Nan, Dingy Harry or Senator (hic!).

    So, just because Judge Jones upheld the establishment clause he cannot be a ‘real’ Republican? Since when were you in charge of what makes a ‘real’ Republican, anyway? I’d be interested to hear Grover Norquist’s reaction to the news that he is no longer a Republican

    …the failed theory of Darwinism.

    Darwinism is far from a failed theory. It is an immensely successful theory as it explains everything we know about how life arose on our planet. Yes, there are gaps to be filled and legitimate questions to be answered and the people most aware of this are scientists. In fact, the people who question evolution most effectively are scientists. That is what scientists are paid to do. But none of them are advocating ditching evolution, because it is the best explanation we have.

    Intelligent Design, by contrast, poses no challenges to evolutionary theory which cannot be met by a second year biology undergraduate.

    One can ask a great many mroe questions of Intelligent Design than of evolution, not least of which is ‘Who created the creator?’

    Oh, really??? When, pray tell? Please, show us the “evidence” that proves evolution?

    My pleasure. Proof of Macroevolution.

    Scroll down to the section on Endogenous Retroviruses. You cannot explain the existence of retroviruses without macroevolution.

    There. Proved it.

    The Dover school board deserved better than to have a biased pissweasel hearing their case, having already made up his mind about it.

    He was probably able to do so because he had been taught science properly

    That black robe doesn’t preclude the bastard from libel, and that’s just what he’s committed against the Dover plaintiffs

    He has not committed libel by any legal definition.

  5. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — December 25, 2005 @ 10:25 pm

    This is not the case. School boards do not have the absolute right to teach whatever they want. Would you support the “rights” of a public, tax funded school board that demanded its economics teachers advocate Communism

    Have you checked the political leanings of the NEA lately?  Not exactly budding capitalists in the majority over there, are there?

    or taught its history students that the Holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy?

    No, I don’t advocate teaching absolute bullshit.  But using that  logic, I’m glad you agree that evolution should be pulled from the curriculum pronto.

    The only thing that should be taught in a science class is science. Intelligent Design is not science because it makes no falsifiable claims.

    As opposed to evolution, which makes nothing but “falsifiable claims” – which, so far, have all been proven false, I might add?

    But let’s use your definition for a minute – that ID isn’t “science”.  I find this article to be most interesting – particularly the part which says:

    Design proponents point to certain “irreducibly complex” biological structures that cannot be explained by current Darwinian theory – structures that would cease to work if any one of their components were missing. In such cases, the process of natural selection could not have gradually constructed the structure because it enjoyed no survival advantage until fully formed. Further, many of these structures function as machines. To the theory’s proponents, these structures exhibit the characteristics of design as measured in systems made by other known intelligent causes. Given Darwin’s inability to account for this complexity, design scientists find the evidence infers a pre-existing intelligence and call for scientists to follow the data wherever it leads.

    Not “science”, huh?  Or maybe it’s just not the “science” of the true-believing evolutionists, who insist upon shouting down anyone who dares suggest that their precious little theory doesn’t exactly hold water.

    Makes one wonder who the religious fanatics really  are.

    The decision was completely fair

    What, because you  say so?  The opinion of an evolutionist flack doesn’t carry much weight around here, sorry.

    and Judge Jones opinion that the teaching of ID violates the establishment clause of the Constitution is perfectly valid, as I shall explain below.

    How about the black-robed tyrant’s opinion that the citizens of Dover were “poorly served” by their school board?  I don’t seem to recall that being part of the questions the bench-jockey was required to answer – not that it was any of his business anyway…

    That is true. Since, to qualify as a Judge in the first place, Judge Jones must have earned a law degree and practised law for several years,

    Oh?  And exactly where is that codified into law?  Seeing as you seem to know so much about it, that is?

    I think it’s safe to say that he is aware of the precise wording of the establishment clause.

    Hardly, given this shit-for-brains ruling of his.

    The words Separation of Church and State are simply a convenient shorthand for Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    The words “separation of church and state” are nothing more than code words cherry-picked from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson two-hundred-plus years ago to a church organization, and used to try to beat Christians about the head and shoulders and get God out of American society.  The words are not law, and in fact the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said so just this past week.

    They both say the same thing.

    English not your first language, hm?  Perhaps some remedial courses…

    Religion and Government should never mix. Ever. In any capacity. A cursory glance at the Middle East reveals precisely why this is such an exceptionally good idea.

    Only a fuckheaded son-of-a-bitch would equate “religion” (by which, obviously, you mean mainstream Christianity) with Islamofascism.

    Congratulations, you’ve just destroyed what little credibility you had left.

    The Intelligent Design movement is a religious movement because it posits the existence of a creator, which is a religious claim.

    Intelligent Design makes no claim as to who the designer might be.  This being the case, perhaps you could enlighten us as to precisely what “religion” ID might be espousing?

    Religious claims have no place in public school science classes for two reasons.

    Well, so much for the “free exercise thereof”.  Then again, leftists always did  have a knack for ignoring those parts of the Constitution they found inconvenient…

    Firstly, science classes can only teach things which are scientific. The central tenet of Intelligent Design, that there is an intelligent creator, is not a scientific claim because it cannot be tested.

    Oh, and evolution can?  You people have found your “missing link”, then?

    Gee, this should be good.  Somebody pass me the popcorn…

    Secondly, public schools are funded by tax money paid by people of all denominations, including people of no denomination. Why should an atheist be forced to pay for public school classes which are positively theistic? You may well be inclined to respond with the converse, that theists should not be forced to pay for ‘atheistic’ science classes which teach evolution.

    Thank you for saving me the trouble and destroying your own argument.

    However, the idea that you can’t be an evolutionist and a Christian is a myth. Lots of evolutionists are Christians.

    Lots of “Christians” also don’t believe that the Bible is God-inspired, despite the words to the contrary from Scripture itself.  I don’t put much stock in anything an evolutionist has to say, Christian or no.

    So, just because Judge Jones upheld the establishment clause he cannot be a ‘real’ Republican? Since when were you in charge of what makes a ‘real’ Republican, anyway?

    Since I run this blog and I can say who I think is or is not a “real” Republican, dumbass.

    You don’t like it, come do something about it.

    I’d be interested to hear Grover Norquist’s reaction to the news that he is no longer a Republican

    I’d be interested to hear just what the Hell™ Grover Norquist has to do with this thread.

    Actually – I take that back.  No, I wouldn’t be.

    Darwinism is far from a failed theory. It is an immensely successful theory as it explains everything we know about how life arose on our planet.

    What, again – because you  say so?  You’ve lost all your credibility here, remember?

    Yes, there are gaps to be filled and legitimate questions to be answered and the people most aware of this are scientists. In fact, the people who question evolution most effectively are scientists.

    Yes, and the people who have failed to prove your little pet theory so far are scientists.  Please, let’s not forget that scientists  have colossally failed  to prove this theory,  shall we?

    That is what scientists are paid to do. But none of them are advocating ditching evolution, because it is the best explanation we have.

    “In the beginning, God…” works pretty well for me.  Sorry it doesn’t for you – but that’s your problem, not mine.

    Intelligent Design, by contrast, poses no challenges to evolutionary theory which cannot be met by a second year biology undergraduate.

    Apparently, according to the Newsmax article I linked above,

    Design proponents point to certain “irreducibly complex” biological structures that cannot be explained by current Darwinian theory

    Sounds like a definite “challenge” to me.  Perhaps your “second year biology undergraduate” should get to cracking his book, hm? (snicker)

    One can ask a great many mroe questions of Intelligent Design than of evolution, not least of which is ‘Who created the creator?’

    Be kinda hard if we don’t even know who the creator is, hm?  On the other hand, I’d say you people still have to answer my question:  “Where’s your ‘missing link’?”

    The problem is, your honeyboy judge Jonesy won’t even let the Dover schools ask the question.  So much for the pursuit of knowledge of which you people seem to be so proud.

    My pleasure. Proof of Macroevolution.

    Scroll down to the section on Endogenous Retroviruses. You cannot explain the existence of retroviruses without macroevolution.

    There. Proved it.

    Uh, sorry – you haven’t proved shit.

    The talkorigins site has been pushed here before.  It failed then, too.  You’re going to have to do better than that.

    He was probably able to do so because he had been taught science properly

    Ah yes.  Spoken like a true-believer:  “All Hail the UberGod Darwin!!!”

    He has not committed libel by any legal definition.

    So being accused of lying with no evidence to back it up isn’t libel?  You’re as shitty a lawyer as you are a scientist, y’know that?

    Sorry, you lose.  Nice try, though.

  6. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — December 25, 2005 @ 10:25 pm

    This is not the case. School boards do not have the absolute right to teach whatever they want. Would you support the “rights” of a public, tax funded school board that demanded its economics teachers advocate Communism

    Have you checked the political leanings of the NEA lately?  Not exactly budding capitalists in the majority over there, are there?

    or taught its history students that the Holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy?

    No, I don’t advocate teaching absolute bullshit.  But using that  logic, I’m glad you agree that evolution should be pulled from the curriculum pronto.

    The only thing that should be taught in a science class is science. Intelligent Design is not science because it makes no falsifiable claims.

    As opposed to evolution, which makes nothing but “falsifiable claims” – which, so far, have all been proven false, I might add?

    But let’s use your definition for a minute – that ID isn’t “science”.  I find this article to be most interesting – particularly the part which says:

    Design proponents point to certain “irreducibly complex” biological structures that cannot be explained by current Darwinian theory – structures that would cease to work if any one of their components were missing. In such cases, the process of natural selection could not have gradually constructed the structure because it enjoyed no survival advantage until fully formed. Further, many of these structures function as machines. To the theory’s proponents, these structures exhibit the characteristics of design as measured in systems made by other known intelligent causes. Given Darwin’s inability to account for this complexity, design scientists find the evidence infers a pre-existing intelligence and call for scientists to follow the data wherever it leads.

    Not “science”, huh?  Or maybe it’s just not the “science” of the true-believing evolutionists, who insist upon shouting down anyone who dares suggest that their precious little theory doesn’t exactly hold water.

    Makes one wonder who the religious fanatics really  are.

    The decision was completely fair

    What, because you  say so?  The opinion of an evolutionist flack doesn’t carry much weight around here, sorry.

    and Judge Jones opinion that the teaching of ID violates the establishment clause of the Constitution is perfectly valid, as I shall explain below.

    How about the black-robed tyrant’s opinion that the citizens of Dover were “poorly served” by their school board?  I don’t seem to recall that being part of the questions the bench-jockey was required to answer – not that it was any of his business anyway…

    That is true. Since, to qualify as a Judge in the first place, Judge Jones must have earned a law degree and practised law for several years,

    Oh?  And exactly where is that codified into law?  Seeing as you seem to know so much about it, that is?

    I think it’s safe to say that he is aware of the precise wording of the establishment clause.

    Hardly, given this shit-for-brains ruling of his.

    The words Separation of Church and State are simply a convenient shorthand for Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    The words “separation of church and state” are nothing more than code words cherry-picked from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson two-hundred-plus years ago to a church organization, and used to try to beat Christians about the head and shoulders and get God out of American society.  The words are not law, and in fact the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said so just this past week.

    They both say the same thing.

    English not your first language, hm?  Perhaps some remedial courses…

    Religion and Government should never mix. Ever. In any capacity. A cursory glance at the Middle East reveals precisely why this is such an exceptionally good idea.

    Only a fuckheaded son-of-a-bitch would equate “religion” (by which, obviously, you mean mainstream Christianity) with Islamofascism.

    Congratulations, you’ve just destroyed what little credibility you had left.

    The Intelligent Design movement is a religious movement because it posits the existence of a creator, which is a religious claim.

    Intelligent Design makes no claim as to who the designer might be.  This being the case, perhaps you could enlighten us as to precisely what “religion” ID might be espousing?

    Religious claims have no place in public school science classes for two reasons.

    Well, so much for the “free exercise thereof”.  Then again, leftists always did  have a knack for ignoring those parts of the Constitution they found inconvenient…

    Firstly, science classes can only teach things which are scientific. The central tenet of Intelligent Design, that there is an intelligent creator, is not a scientific claim because it cannot be tested.

    Oh, and evolution can?  You people have found your “missing link”, then?

    Gee, this should be good.  Somebody pass me the popcorn…

    Secondly, public schools are funded by tax money paid by people of all denominations, including people of no denomination. Why should an atheist be forced to pay for public school classes which are positively theistic? You may well be inclined to respond with the converse, that theists should not be forced to pay for ‘atheistic’ science classes which teach evolution.

    Thank you for saving me the trouble and destroying your own argument.

    However, the idea that you can’t be an evolutionist and a Christian is a myth. Lots of evolutionists are Christians.

    Lots of “Christians” also don’t believe that the Bible is God-inspired, despite the words to the contrary from Scripture itself.  I don’t put much stock in anything an evolutionist has to say, Christian or no.

    So, just because Judge Jones upheld the establishment clause he cannot be a ‘real’ Republican? Since when were you in charge of what makes a ‘real’ Republican, anyway?

    Since I run this blog and I can say who I think is or is not a “real” Republican, dumbass.

    You don’t like it, come do something about it.

    I’d be interested to hear Grover Norquist’s reaction to the news that he is no longer a Republican

    I’d be interested to hear just what the Hell™ Grover Norquist has to do with this thread.

    Actually – I take that back.  No, I wouldn’t be.

    Darwinism is far from a failed theory. It is an immensely successful theory as it explains everything we know about how life arose on our planet.

    What, again – because you  say so?  You’ve lost all your credibility here, remember?

    Yes, there are gaps to be filled and legitimate questions to be answered and the people most aware of this are scientists. In fact, the people who question evolution most effectively are scientists.

    Yes, and the people who have failed to prove your little pet theory so far are scientists.  Please, let’s not forget that scientists  have colossally failed  to prove this theory,  shall we?

    That is what scientists are paid to do. But none of them are advocating ditching evolution, because it is the best explanation we have.

    “In the beginning, God…” works pretty well for me.  Sorry it doesn’t for you – but that’s your problem, not mine.

    Intelligent Design, by contrast, poses no challenges to evolutionary theory which cannot be met by a second year biology undergraduate.

    Apparently, according to the Newsmax article I linked above,

    Design proponents point to certain “irreducibly complex” biological structures that cannot be explained by current Darwinian theory

    Sounds like a definite “challenge” to me.  Perhaps your “second year biology undergraduate” should get to cracking his book, hm? (snicker)

    One can ask a great many mroe questions of Intelligent Design than of evolution, not least of which is ‘Who created the creator?’

    Be kinda hard if we don’t even know who the creator is, hm?  On the other hand, I’d say you people still have to answer my question:  “Where’s your ‘missing link’?”

    The problem is, your honeyboy judge Jonesy won’t even let the Dover schools ask the question.  So much for the pursuit of knowledge of which you people seem to be so proud.

    My pleasure. Proof of Macroevolution.

    Scroll down to the section on Endogenous Retroviruses. You cannot explain the existence of retroviruses without macroevolution.

    There. Proved it.

    Uh, sorry – you haven’t proved shit.

    The talkorigins site has been pushed here before.  It failed then, too.  You’re going to have to do better than that.

    He was probably able to do so because he had been taught science properly

    Ah yes.  Spoken like a true-believer:  “All Hail the UberGod Darwin!!!”

    He has not committed libel by any legal definition.

    So being accused of lying with no evidence to back it up isn’t libel?  You’re as shitty a lawyer as you are a scientist, y’know that?

    Sorry, you lose.  Nice try, though.

  7. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — December 25, 2005 @ 10:25 pm

    This is not the case. School boards do not have the absolute right to teach whatever they want. Would you support the “rights” of a public, tax funded school board that demanded its economics teachers advocate Communism

    Have you checked the political leanings of the NEA lately?  Not exactly budding capitalists in the majority over there, are there?

    or taught its history students that the Holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy?

    No, I don’t advocate teaching absolute bullshit.  But using that  logic, I’m glad you agree that evolution should be pulled from the curriculum pronto.

    The only thing that should be taught in a science class is science. Intelligent Design is not science because it makes no falsifiable claims.

    As opposed to evolution, which makes nothing but “falsifiable claims” – which, so far, have all been proven false, I might add?

    But let’s use your definition for a minute – that ID isn’t “science”.  I find this article to be most interesting – particularly the part which says:

    Design proponents point to certain “irreducibly complex” biological structures that cannot be explained by current Darwinian theory – structures that would cease to work if any one of their components were missing. In such cases, the process of natural selection could not have gradually constructed the structure because it enjoyed no survival advantage until fully formed. Further, many of these structures function as machines. To the theory’s proponents, these structures exhibit the characteristics of design as measured in systems made by other known intelligent causes. Given Darwin’s inability to account for this complexity, design scientists find the evidence infers a pre-existing intelligence and call for scientists to follow the data wherever it leads.

    Not “science”, huh?  Or maybe it’s just not the “science” of the true-believing evolutionists, who insist upon shouting down anyone who dares suggest that their precious little theory doesn’t exactly hold water.

    Makes one wonder who the religious fanatics really  are.

    The decision was completely fair

    What, because you  say so?  The opinion of an evolutionist flack doesn’t carry much weight around here, sorry.

    and Judge Jones opinion that the teaching of ID violates the establishment clause of the Constitution is perfectly valid, as I shall explain below.

    How about the black-robed tyrant’s opinion that the citizens of Dover were “poorly served” by their school board?  I don’t seem to recall that being part of the questions the bench-jockey was required to answer – not that it was any of his business anyway…

    That is true. Since, to qualify as a Judge in the first place, Judge Jones must have earned a law degree and practised law for several years,

    Oh?  And exactly where is that codified into law?  Seeing as you seem to know so much about it, that is?

    I think it’s safe to say that he is aware of the precise wording of the establishment clause.

    Hardly, given this shit-for-brains ruling of his.

    The words Separation of Church and State are simply a convenient shorthand for Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    The words “separation of church and state” are nothing more than code words cherry-picked from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson two-hundred-plus years ago to a church organization, and used to try to beat Christians about the head and shoulders and get God out of American society.  The words are not law, and in fact the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said so just this past week.

    They both say the same thing.

    English not your first language, hm?  Perhaps some remedial courses…

    Religion and Government should never mix. Ever. In any capacity. A cursory glance at the Middle East reveals precisely why this is such an exceptionally good idea.

    Only a fuckheaded son-of-a-bitch would equate “religion” (by which, obviously, you mean mainstream Christianity) with Islamofascism.

    Congratulations, you’ve just destroyed what little credibility you had left.

    The Intelligent Design movement is a religious movement because it posits the existence of a creator, which is a religious claim.

    Intelligent Design makes no claim as to who the designer might be.  This being the case, perhaps you could enlighten us as to precisely what “religion” ID might be espousing?

    Religious claims have no place in public school science classes for two reasons.

    Well, so much for the “free exercise thereof”.  Then again, leftists always did  have a knack for ignoring those parts of the Constitution they found inconvenient…

    Firstly, science classes can only teach things which are scientific. The central tenet of Intelligent Design, that there is an intelligent creator, is not a scientific claim because it cannot be tested.

    Oh, and evolution can?  You people have found your “missing link”, then?

    Gee, this should be good.  Somebody pass me the popcorn…

    Secondly, public schools are funded by tax money paid by people of all denominations, including people of no denomination. Why should an atheist be forced to pay for public school classes which are positively theistic? You may well be inclined to respond with the converse, that theists should not be forced to pay for ‘atheistic’ science classes which teach evolution.

    Thank you for saving me the trouble and destroying your own argument.

    However, the idea that you can’t be an evolutionist and a Christian is a myth. Lots of evolutionists are Christians.

    Lots of “Christians” also don’t believe that the Bible is God-inspired, despite the words to the contrary from Scripture itself.  I don’t put much stock in anything an evolutionist has to say, Christian or no.

    So, just because Judge Jones upheld the establishment clause he cannot be a ‘real’ Republican? Since when were you in charge of what makes a ‘real’ Republican, anyway?

    Since I run this blog and I can say who I think is or is not a “real” Republican, dumbass.

    You don’t like it, come do something about it.

    I’d be interested to hear Grover Norquist’s reaction to the news that he is no longer a Republican

    I’d be interested to hear just what the Hell™ Grover Norquist has to do with this thread.

    Actually – I take that back.  No, I wouldn’t be.

    Darwinism is far from a failed theory. It is an immensely successful theory as it explains everything we know about how life arose on our planet.

    What, again – because you  say so?  You’ve lost all your credibility here, remember?

    Yes, there are gaps to be filled and legitimate questions to be answered and the people most aware of this are scientists. In fact, the people who question evolution most effectively are scientists.

    Yes, and the people who have failed to prove your little pet theory so far are scientists.  Please, let’s not forget that scientists  have colossally failed  to prove this theory,  shall we?

    That is what scientists are paid to do. But none of them are advocating ditching evolution, because it is the best explanation we have.

    “In the beginning, God…” works pretty well for me.  Sorry it doesn’t for you – but that’s your problem, not mine.

    Intelligent Design, by contrast, poses no challenges to evolutionary theory which cannot be met by a second year biology undergraduate.

    Apparently, according to the Newsmax article I linked above,

    Design proponents point to certain “irreducibly complex” biological structures that cannot be explained by current Darwinian theory

    Sounds like a definite “challenge” to me.  Perhaps your “second year biology undergraduate” should get to cracking his book, hm? (snicker)

    One can ask a great many mroe questions of Intelligent Design than of evolution, not least of which is ‘Who created the creator?’

    Be kinda hard if we don’t even know who the creator is, hm?  On the other hand, I’d say you people still have to answer my question:  “Where’s your ‘missing link’?”

    The problem is, your honeyboy judge Jonesy won’t even let the Dover schools ask the question.  So much for the pursuit of knowledge of which you people seem to be so proud.

    My pleasure. Proof of Macroevolution.

    Scroll down to the section on Endogenous Retroviruses. You cannot explain the existence of retroviruses without macroevolution.

    There. Proved it.

    Uh, sorry – you haven’t proved shit.

    The talkorigins site has been pushed here before.  It failed then, too.  You’re going to have to do better than that.

    He was probably able to do so because he had been taught science properly

    Ah yes.  Spoken like a true-believer:  “All Hail the UberGod Darwin!!!”

    He has not committed libel by any legal definition.

    So being accused of lying with no evidence to back it up isn’t libel?  You’re as shitty a lawyer as you are a scientist, y’know that?

    Sorry, you lose.  Nice try, though.

  8. andrew — December 27, 2005 @ 9:48 pm

    The only way you are going to get a peace of my sister is to tear her off my dick first. I cant hold it any more I has to go! All my mommys sexual services must be paid for and provided by the government, free for everyone. That includes condoms, health care for the clap she’s spreading, food for me and sissy when she cant turn any tricks, clothing so no one has to look at her trailer trash ass, red-light housing and ALL othr liesure. We need to stop her from breeding and start eliminating the kids like sissy and me shes already had, recliam the once pristine air my familys farted away, and start building free menteal insti…mental insty…mentel ins…nut housses in the cities. We demand the end of private restrooms, and demand public bathhouses run by NAMBLA. We need to stop the spread of my daddys jizz, and start giving out standard and uniform condoms for free for everyone so therell be no one else liek me and sissy. my whole sitzpinkling family are evil! They corrupt everything. SHORT BUSISM RULES!

  9. andrew — December 27, 2005 @ 9:51 pm

    [You probably should take the hint and go away, Annie.  IP-spoofing pussies don't get treated very well around here.  -LSI]

    THE RIGHT-THINKERS ASSAULT ON MY FAMILY OF SITZPINKLERS

    I’ve noticed more and more lately, that if you accuse my mommy or daddy of being my parents they become quite angry, as though you’ve just told them to go straight to hell. They begin to twitch and spasm, their faces turn several shades of red, and on more than one occasion I’ve wondered if their fury would turn to violence and they’d throw me back in the basement with Gramma again.

    Intolerance by my parents toward me hasn’t received attention by the Left-Winged asshat media or the blogosphere, but it’s there and it has been growing. Take for example the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler that laughs at me and calls me “asshole” at every opportunity.

    Gee, you’re a poster child for tolerance Spatula, except when it comes to tossers like me who don’t have an ounce of gray matter between their ears. For that eggregious offence [ED. NOTE: (sp)] there can be no tolerance obviously. Spatula then goes on to display just how rooted his intolerance of wanker pricks like me really is.

    That’s right, anyone who has my IQ is a silly fuckface just like me. I am so crazed and intolerant that I cannot even accept the fact that I bathe in my granny’s colostomy bag and wet my bed every night. But that’s not surprising since this is typical of the kind of bullshit you expect from a goat-humper like me.

    This intolerance isn’t limited to the Blogosphere either. No one likes me in my Romper Room class, either. I guess it’s ’cause I dump all my dandruff on my desk. Or maybe it’s because I’m a sitzpinkler like my daddy before me.

    You see, in the world of the Sitzpinkler, there is simply no room for anyone who is man enough to stand up to pee. We all have to be effeminate little wussies like me and my daddy.

    It’s clear that I’ll never be much of a man, seeing as I’m a little nancy boy that can’t stand up to pee-pee, but I for one will not be cowed into standing up to piss by their hatred of candy-asses like me, or their bullying.


_____________________________________________________

    
_______________
 
 
Glossary -  Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - History - The SpatulaFAQ
This blog is best viewed with your eyes. 
It helps, though, if you have Microsoft Internet Explorer  set about 1024x768 1280x1024 with your Favorites window activated on the left deactivated.  (At least until I can get a better handle on how WordPress works.)

(KORRIOTH:  Oh, great.  More wormholes.)

Mozilla Firefox doesn't do too badly, either; in fact, it's His Rudeness' browser of choice.
You can  use Nutscrape,  if you so desire - but why in blazes would you want to use a browser from a company that had to hide behind Janet El Reño's skirt to be successful?

And don't even  get me started on Opera or Chrome.  I'm not about  to trust any browser that won't let me change its color scheme.
Spatula City BBS! was based on WordPress platform 2.6 (it's 3.05 3.31 now), RSS tech , RSS comments design by Gx3.