Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (275772)	2/20/2006 11:30:39 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 1576893

Looks like it. Thanks for calling that to my attention.

To: AK2004 who wrote (275772)	2/20/2006 11:31:43 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576893

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory Discovery Institute ^ \| 02.20.06 The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage, www.dissentfromdarwin.org. SEATTLE — Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington. Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.” “Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list.” According to West, it was the fast growing number of scientific dissenters which encouraged the Institute to launch a website -- www.dissentfromdarwin.org -- to give the list a permanent home. The website is the Institute’s response to the demand for information and access to the list both by the public, and by scientists who want to add their name to list. “Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, one of the original signers, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.” Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

To: AK2004 who wrote (275772)	2/22/2006 12:38:08 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576893

Terri Winchell's murderer lives another day... ________________________________________________________ Justice Has Gone NUMB In California [by Patrick Hurley] 2/22/06 theonerepublic.com Michael Morales, the man who raped and killed Terri Winchell, a seventeen year-old girl in 1981 was supposed to be put to death early Tuesday morning, February 21, just after midnight. He was not. The man who used a hammer in smashing the young girl’s head in twelve times and then stabbing her an additional four times in the heart was AGAIN supposed to be lethally injected later on that same Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. Again, he was not. His execution has now been stayed indefinitely. It may take months to finalize justice for Terri Winchell, or, if someone does not legally step in and exercise the power of common sense when it comes to loopholes in the criminal justice system, there may be no justice at all. Why? Because the state of California cannot figure out a way to HUMANELY put this vicious murderer to death. I am trying to keep a straight face while I type this article. The only thing that is preventing me from laughing out loud is the anger that is burning inside of me. A teenage girl was left stripped and mangled in a Lodi vineyard for her family to remember as her last night on this earth and now her admitted killer is sitting in his jail cell tonight smiling at his good fortune. Contributor Patrick Hurley Patrick Hurley is an independent conservative thinker living in Orange County, California. He has addressed over six million people in 47 states nationwide and won three Emmy awards for television comedy.[go to Hurley index] Where is the humanity here? Vernell Crittendon, a spokesman for San Quentin state prison made a statement on Tuesday afternoon regarding the postponement, “We are unable to have a licensed medical professional come forward to inject the medication intravenously, causing the life to end,” he said. The doctors, who supported the decision and whose identities were not released also issued a statement, “Any such intervention would be medically unethical. As a result we have withdrawn from participation in this current process.” These statements came after two anesthesiologists backed out because of ethical concerns that they might have to advise the executioner if the inmate woke up or appeared to suffer pain. Yes, it would be horrific if Michael Morales were to suffer any pain in the slightest way. After the way he was so nurturing and sensitive to Terri Winchell, we would not want him to experience even a twinge of discomfort. According to the laws of our state, we want a nurturing and calming execution; one in which the ruthless killer will know that we understood his trepidation in the last seconds of his pathetic life. According to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he is the one who needs to be coddled here. If Terri Winchell had not selfishly died at the hands of this PCP-laden monster that night, Michael would not have to unduly suffer at the pin prick of a fatal needle. Poor baby. He came so CLOSE to suffering… Thank God a federal judge stepped in with a Catch-22 that doomed the state of California from avenging Terri’s murder. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, (who by the way, was NOT in the vineyard that night worrying about the suffering Ms. Winchell was experiencing) gave the state its two options in finishing off Michael Morales; bring in doctors to ensure that he was properly anesthetized, or skip the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and execute him with an overdose of a sedative. To the DELIGHT of Mr. Morales’s lawyers, the prison authorities chose the second option. The judge said fine….BUT….that sedative must be administered in the execution chamber by a person who is LICENSED BY THE STATE to inject medications intravenously. Ballgame. Score one for the murderer. Ben Weston, one of the lawyers representing Morales gleefully said, “The decision to hold off the execution goes a long way towards demonstrating the state doesn’t have its ducks in a row for humanely killing a human being. They haven’t figured out how to do it.” On that fateful night in 1981, Michael Morales had his ducks in a row as he systematically slaughtered Terri Winchell. No one was there to evaluate his execution in, “humanely killing a human being,” because, in the words of his attorney, he HAD figured out how to do it. There was no smirking attorney that night representing Terri Winchell. There was no judge listing the rules by which Michael Morales could rape and murder her. There was no anesthesiologist to deaden her pain as she died slowly with every nerve ending screaming out to her brain that this was a horrible way to die. Justice was numbed on Tuesday allowing injustice to once again triumph in favor of the criminal over the victim. The truth is that twenty-five years is too long for this girl’s murderer to be allowed to live despite the fact that he has expressed remorse over his heinous act of brutality. When told he was spared once again because of this decision he smiled, nodded and said, “Thank you.” Somewhere Terri Winchell is watching all this and even though she is undoubtedly in a heavenly place, I wonder if she is saying the same thing to a justice system that stabbed her all over again. Except this time, it was in the back. -one- copyright 2006 Patrick Hurley