Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Shop Popular Services TheTick TheTick TheTick  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8, starting at $79.99 Kindle Oasis GNO Water Sports toystl17_gno
Customer Discussions > Science forum

David Coppedge update!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 187 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 3, 2012, 10:47:15 AM PDT
There still isn't a verdict. The Pasadena Sun reported on September 7, 2012 the following:

On Aug. 28 Coppedge's attorney, William Becker, filed papers addressing the legal definition of workplace retaliation.

Judge Ernest Hiroshige must decide whether to rely on precedent established by the California Supreme Court defining retaliation as "materially adverse actions" taken against the worker for improper reasons, or whether to turn to a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling stating that retaliation occurs if a reasonable worker would have been deterred from speaking out about discrimination by the employer's alleged actions.

In his papers, Becker said JPL's conduct meets either standard. He said the question might be most important if Hiroshige's ruling is appealed to a higher court.

"It tees it up as an appealable issue," Becker said. "The bottom line is this: It doesn't matter what test you use, because the facts support retaliation under either case."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 3, 2012, 12:42:35 PM PDT
Deckard says:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/david-coppedge-judges-ruling-nasa_n_2068974.html

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 3, 2012, 12:43:44 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Nov 3, 2012, 12:43:56 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 3, 2012, 12:45:14 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Jon Covey said:
"Coppedge is not backed by big money. You can donate for his legal costs by going to logosresearchassociates.com and clicking on his donate button."

Not a prayer.

"How would you feel if you lost your job after 14 years for bogus reasons? Would you want to sue?"

Bogus reasons? Why don't you actually go read the facts of the case.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 3, 2012, 1:13:01 PM PDT
noman says:
JPL Prevails in Lawsuit
By Wesley R. Elsberry on November 2, 2012 7:15 AM | 16 Comments

While the final decision hasn't been written, the judge in the Coppedge v. Caltech and JPL case has made an order for a final ruling in JPL's favor.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/11/jpl-prevails-in.html#comments-open

************

Judge: Employee Not Let Go Over Intelligent Design
LOS ANGELES November 2, 2012 (AP)

A former computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory was not dismissed because he advocated his belief in intelligent design while at work, a Superior Court judge has tentatively ruled.

Judge Ernest Hiroshige said Thursday he is leaning in favor of JPL's argument that David Coppedge instead was let go because he was combative and did not keep his skills sharp.

Hiroshige, who presided over the lawsuit's trial in April, ordered a final ruling to that effect be drawn up and distributed within 30 days.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/judge-employee-intelligent-design-17622942#.UJV6Z0auky9

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 3, 2012, 9:30:05 PM PDT
Nov 1, 2012, the Pasadena Sun published:

"A Los Angeles judge has tentatively determined that Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge did not improperly fire a longtime employee because he espoused the theory of intelligent design in the workplace, according to the Associated Press."

We'll have to see what Coppedge and his lawyer do.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 3, 2012, 10:06:11 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 4, 2012, 8:28:17 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 3, 2012, 11:21:20 PM PDT
Re Covey, 11-3 10:35 AM: "How would you feel if you lost your job after 14 years for bogus reasons?" They weren't bogus. He was wasting his employer's time, and distracting his colleagues. His belief in nonsense may or may not have affected the performance of his duties -- but it doesn't really matter.

"Because you mentioned the magical creation of Saturn, ..." That wasn't me.

"If you'd like to take this discussion into planet and star formation, I'd be glad to talk about it." If you actually know anything about astrophysics, there would be no need for this. Judging from your remarks in the preceding paragraph, you don't.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 4:31:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 4, 2012, 4:38:19 AM PST
RR says:
Barrick,
"And never rule out the catastrophe that a world wide flood would cause."

It's been ruled out. Creationists/floodests have failed abjectly to establish that all those catastrophic events happened at the same time and were all due to floods.

"who don't buy it all and still believe that God created it rather quickly.."
If I thought an all-powerful being would throw me to eternal torture for not agreeing with him, I'd be likely to agree with you. Let's call it Lubyanka science. Stalin used science the same way you do, to support a doctrine. The major difference is your thuggery is afterlife and his during this one.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 4:35:57 AM PST
RR says:
Jon,
"How would you feel if you lost your job after 14 years for bogus reasons?"

So, if a guy was in your work place constantly pushing the Hindu monkey god instead of working, you'd be okay with that? If so, I'd love to be you competitor.

" Some scientists say a quantum fluctuation brought the universe into existence out of nothing, while others says there was an infinitesimal singularity of infinite density and temperature that exploded as the big bang. Nothing magical about that is there?"
No.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 4:41:30 AM PST
noman says:
RE: Jon Covey prevaricates: "...I'm supposed to be able to come to the same conclusion by reading newspaper accounts of the trial?"

**Doesn't seem to have stopped you before:""How would you feel if you lost your job after 14 years for bogus reasons? Would you want to sue?"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 6:40:38 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 4, 2012, 8:27:21 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 7:52:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 4, 2012, 8:00:24 AM PST
RR says:
Jon,
"These theories on the origin of the universe are "just-so" stories, ad hoc explanations."

Ergo, goddidit. If you actually understood the theory you wouldn't post such nonsense. There is little doubt what happened within the first few moments of the creation of the universe. And evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fact, if you talked to any Christian apologist who understood the science, he'd have no problem with reconciling the theology. In fact, it is one of the easiest things to do in an otherwise mess that is apologetics.

The most interesting question is what happened before that first moments. Potential explanations aren't "just-so" stories, they are hypothesis that allow some opportunity to test and understand. Saying "godidit" because genesis said so, is worst than a "just so" story, it's a commitment to willful ignorance.

"Both accounts are outside the scope of science."
Only to those who claim that the universe is an unknowable product of a capricious deity. Otherwise, the only limit to science are the limits of what can be observed and measured. Those limits aren't any basis for you to stuff your religious notions offensively into gaps in human knowledge.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 1:23:28 PM PST
Deckard says:
Jon Covey said:
Deckard: "Bogus reasons? Why don't you actually go read the facts of the case."

Covey:"It took Judge Hiroshige about 7 months to make up his mind to give a tentative judgment in this case. He heard the trial and had the transcripts to review, and I'm supposed to be able to come to the same conclusion by reading newspaper accounts of the trial?"

So you admit that you think that the dismissal was bogus even though you only read the newspapers and don't know the facts of the case.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 1:24:44 PM PST
Deckard says:
Jon Covey said:
"These theories on the origin of the universe are "just-so" stories, ad hoc explanations. No one ever observed the origin, nor can it be tested. Both accounts are outside the scope of science."

Apparently your ignorance is not limited to the facts of the case.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 2:39:24 PM PST
Does this mean you know the facts? Were you at the hearings or read the transcripts? Or did you read newspaper accounts and blog remarks? I know some of Coppedge's personal account, so I am biased.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 3:05:25 PM PST
Deckard says:
Jon Covey said:
"Does this mean you know the facts? Were you at the hearings or read the transcripts? Or did you read newspaper accounts and blog remarks? I know some of Coppedge's personal account, so I am biased."

The point is this - YOU disagree with the judge's preliminary decision, but you admit to not knowing the facts of the case. If you want to make a valid assessment, you should know the facts.

But you're a creo - facts aren't really all that important to you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 4:19:51 PM PST
I know some of the facts. I did not attend the legal hearings, and I have not accessed the transcripts of the hearings. Have you?

As I see it, you are unfairly asking me to have a level of information that even you have not had.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 4:26:22 PM PST
Deckard says:
Jon Covey said:
"I know some of the facts. I did not attend the legal hearings, and I have not accessed the transcripts of the hearings. Have you?'

No.

"As I see it, you are unfairly asking me to have a level of information that even you have not had."

Let me try this again. YOU made the claim that the termination was bogus, even though you admit that you don't have all of the facts. YOU are disagreeing with the judge, not me. YOU are the one that needs to use facts to demonstrate your case.

But if you think that there was a world-wide flood, then I can see why you are averse to finding out facts.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 4:44:28 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 4, 2012, 8:26:43 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 4:52:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 4, 2012, 4:52:55 PM PST
RR says:
"The laws of physics show that it is impossible for stars to form by gravitational collapse of interstellar gases and dust. Stars came into being because God created them along with everything else."

All that work and Covey comes down to a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

"Isn't observation a requirement of the scientific method?"
And where is the observation of god making stars? This is the hypocrisy of creationism.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 5:44:01 PM PST
Deckard says:
Jon Covey said:
"Mr. Deckard, let's get down to the nuts and bolts of the universe: star formation. It is easy to overlook exponents in the text-based forum on Amazon discussions. So if a number, such as 1043 appears, it is likely that I meant 10^43. This essay gets fairly technical, but I consider it an introduction into current astrophysics."

LOL. I am not an astrophysicist and I do not have the time to go through your article. But I did go to the site that you cut and pasted the article from (Creation in the Corssfire) and looked at some of your geology articles.

And they are nonsense. This was my favorite quote: "As the Flood began, gigantic slabs of ocean floor broke loose from their moorings with the continental crust and slid beneath the continents (perhaps the result of asteroid bombardment that disrupted the earth's crust)."

Utterly ridiculous, but refreshingly fact free.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 9:16:31 PM PST
Re Covey, 11-4 6:40 AM: "No one ever observed the origin [of the universe]..." Obviously.
"nor can it be tested." Wrong: it CAN be tested, and has been [1].

1. For details, Search Customer Discussions for "saundersx" in "Belief in the Christian god is absurd."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012, 9:25:43 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 4, 2012, 9:27:27 PM PST
Re Covey, 11-4 4:44 PM: This long post is another case of creationist quote-mining.

"Stephen Hawking wrote that the Big Bang neatly explains all the observational evidence of the universe except the origin of galaxies and stars." That book is now obsolescent; more modern work shows the origin of these also.

"[formation of stars] required some sort of outside influence, like shock waves from the explosion of a star." That may be the case now, but the universe was considerably more compact in its youth, and it is easy to show that early on the numbers permitted the formation of quite large stars.

"because God created them..." The classic "god of the gaps" argument, also called the argument from ignorance: a logical fallacy.

If you actually knew anything about astrophysics, you would not be making such egregious blunders.

See also Deckard, 5:44 PM.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012, 8:10:10 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 4, 2012, 8:26:23 PM PST]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 9868 1 hour ago
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 2665 2 hours ago
Space 4 3 hours ago
Can someone please explain in layman's terms how scientists know who's Jewish? 28 2 days ago
Ocean Floor Mapping 1 2 days ago
So what good is an electronic inside/outside thermometer if you can't calibrate it yourself! 4 5 days ago
Scientist: Trump is Exposing Global Warming as a Made Up Claim. What is Your Response? 1373 6 days ago
Theranos Inc., next phase. 26 9 days ago
Science in Harmony with God 9467 10 days ago
The Science Behind Fetal Pain-related Abortion Legislation 1239 12 days ago
Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann cuts and runs from Court. 10 12 days ago
Right, loss of all engine(s) thrust, no problem. 26 18 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  23
Total posts:  187
Initial post:  Jun 11, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer