AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Aardvark

form_srcid: Aardvark

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Aardvark

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Aardvark%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/03/03 01:44:30, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (DaveScot @ Mar. 03 2006,05:13)

You can't be serious.  I've had to re-register here four times because some moderator removed posting privileges from older registrations.  I had to create a throw-away email address at hotmail to get registration confirmation because was disallowed on the last go-round.  And finally I can't even read this site, to say nothing of posting comments here, unless I use an anonymous proxy because all my permanent IPs have been banned.

John Davison, who isn't as adept at sidestepping these obstacles, can't post here at all.   The pathetic reflection on this forum is that Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.  No one is more qualified to smack you people down and he isn't allowed to do it.  That's so illustrative of the actual practices here.  YOU say you can't get enough ID proponents in here and I'm here to tell you the adminstration here does everything it can to keep them out and in most cases it's enough.  The real truth of the matter is that you can't get enough easily discouraged, unknowledegable ID proponents in here and the moderators (I have no idea if there are more than just Wesley) ban the rest.

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, folks.  God knows I'm not opposed to moderated forums but I am opposed to pretending to be open to all dissent while in practice only allowing weak dissent.

I guess the means does justify the end then, doesn't it?

Date: 2006/03/04 06:07:25, Link
Author: Aardvark
Mercury, thanks again for your response. I am so intrigued by this new tangent of our ongoing dialogue, because I couldn’t agree more with you that the universe is lawful and that the magnitude of this lawfulness is what is the truly glorious evidence of God’s creative genius. On the issue of intelligent design being about God intervening by breaking those laws, though, I think this is an interpretive stance. This is really where the sticking point is. I have not been forthcoming about my own personal beliefs bacause, like I said, I wanted to avoid, initially at least, having the discussion be about competing BELIEFS, and more about getting a handle on what TEs think, and how they resolve what TO ME has seemed like an unresolveable dilemna. Perhaps I can be more forthcoming here in order to illustrate why I still come down on the side of design inferencing in individual instances:

First of all, I am a vitalist. I believe there is matter, and I believe that for that matter to have life, and element or substance OF A HIGHER SPECIES must penetrate and ’set aglow’ the dead matter. The laws of the universe to which you seem to be referring, and to which the Darwinian theory of evolution refers, seem to me to be interactions within matter only. This leads quite directly to the view that higher properties are always emergent: they come about as a result of matter arranged in complex ways, but have no independent integrity or origin. I would be interested to hear your view of this, because the vitalist conception of life includes the idea that living things have a body or material form, which is, however, infused with, or occupied by, a non-material form. This non-material component, which in humans we would call the soul, has independent existence and the value or quality of its own species. The emergent view negates this.

Second, I think about the evolution of life on earth as being the result of constant work by intelligent beings who act fully within the creative laws of God, and whose purpose is the development of material life. The ancients called these beings gods or elementals, because for them, their activity was the most immediate and real. Nearly all of the most ancient religions are animistic, and it is my view that as the spiritual recognitions of humans developed to higher and higher planes, culminating, again in my view, in the recognition of the one Almighty God, that unfortunately this always led to the categorical rejection of everything that came before. I understand that this will not be a popular view, but I decided to share it anyway, because it is fundamentally why I do believe that the mutational changes which lead to progressive successful adaptation through time are in fact directed by these beings, who are servants of God. Their activity, which is entirely within the laws of creation, nevertheless shapes its development willfully. The reason this view is important to understand is that there seems to be a division between the conception of something working out according to law, vs. violating that law to move something in a particular direction. I think this is a false conflict. If I build a bridge to walk across a river, am I violating the laws of creation, such as gravity? I don’t see this as a violation, but rather as an acceptance of the inexorable and unchangeable nature of gravity and an intelligent adaptation to it. If however I could only build a bridge over a chasm by suspending the activity of gravity, this would constitute a miracle or violation of this law. Incidentally, I think there are no such violations, which might be termed miracles, because the laws ARE the will of God and as such are perfect. God doesn’t violate his own perfection or his own perfect will. If Christ healed the sick, it was not by violating laws, but by infusing the event with a HIGHER FORM OF ENERGY, which he posessed as a result of his inner nature. THe higher energy form is able to quicken a perfectly natural process (which in this case would be the sick person’s own natural tendency to heal) in much the same way as adding heat to a chemical combination increases the rate of the sought after reactions.

Comment by tinabrewer — March 4, 2006

Waffle, waffle, waffle...bla, bla, bla...

I really do utterly regret visiting UD sometimes.

Date: 2006/03/08 07:48:15, Link
Author: Aardvark
Looks like dougmoran's trying to outdo tinabrewer in the waffle stakes.

Loved these bits:

As a Christian theist I am required by my philosophy and belief system to be honest– especially with myself.

In the not too distant future, as top scientists of the day work feverishly to follow the real evidence where it really leads...

The ID mantra appears to be:

Follow the evidence where it leads and if it disagrees with your religious views then just accuse the other side of not following the evidence and claim that only you are.

Date: 2006/03/09 08:39:18, Link
Author: Aardvark
My grasp of the 'theory' of ID:

I can make whirlpools in the bathtub.

Therefore whirlpools are intelligently designed.

Is that it?

Date: 2006/03/09 18:20:35, Link
Author: Aardvark
I have exclusive access to some of UD's forthcoming headlines:

Domestic dog drinks from toilet -yet another ID prediction fulfilled

Area man eats cold pizza for breakfast -ID theory confirmed in the process

Date: 2006/03/11 15:00:57, Link
Author: Aardvark
Not to give any credence to Daveyboy's theory about PT being being responsible for the church burnings, but I thought I do a little research on what has been said about atheists by the gang at UD:

“The people that are really bringing religion into the ID/evolution debate are atheists.”

“Why Is Evolution Suppressed by Scientific Community?

It’s really simple. 72% of the most influential scientists in the United States, members of the National Academy of Atheist Sciences, are positive atheists...”

“To deny ID is unthinkable to the normal mind and that posture can only be doggedly held by homozygous, “prescribed,” atheists like Richard Dawkins and William Provine.”

“Incidentally, atheists ARE intellectually fulfilled. They were “born that way.””

“all atheists are Darwinists”

“Intimidation is rampant. What are they all afraid of that they want to compromise their beliefs in order to accomodate a so-called scientific position that’s nothing but a huge hoax perpetuated by atheists in the academy and the judiciary?” [DaveScot]

“atheists...[are]...trying to force their faith in a godless universe down the throats of others” [DaveScot, with slight paraphrase on my part]

“Silly atheists with their tremendous double-standard.”

“How does an atheist justify any morality whatsoever?”

“[Atheists] have no rational basis for [their] moral judgments.”

“What we have here is not Christians vs. Science. What we have here is atheists vs. everyone else.” [DaveScot]

“...atheistic governments of the 20th century [have] killed more than all religions combined.”

“[atheists accept] that life is ultimately meaningless [and] that humans aren’t special...”

“There’s no hope with atheism, even some famous atheists have admitted the worldview is dark, dim, depressing, and spirit killing…”

“When you feed the worldview of atheism to people, they’ve no real reason to care about the murder of 6 million over here- as long as it isn’t them…they have no reason to care about millions beign starved over here, just as long as they have food. In the end, it’s a rat race for survival that has no point anyway- so why would any rational person care?”

“God has no problem with a Christian condemning an atheistic worldview. Nor does he have any problem with people pointing out the logical absurdities and contradictions that need to be in place in the life of every atheist.”

“A full atheist, living the full worldview would realize that right and wrong and human opinions under their worldview, and that morality is the same. Good and evil don’t truly exist, and man has no true right to make any value judgements.”

“...atheist zealots out to censor any interpretation of empirical data that doesn’t conform to an atheist worldview.” [DaveScot]

“Collecting data from a pile of dead humans is a helluva thing to do. You wouldn’t be an atheist would you? We can start collecting some data on what percentage of atheists think killing a healthy unborn child in a callous inhuman manner should be a personal choice. I’d bet abortion on demand is rather popular among atheists. Want to bet?” [DaveScot]

“Personally, I don’t think you can be a real scientist and a positive atheist at the same time.” [DaveScot]

“Hitler was atheistic or something similar.”

“The only thing I would say is that you can’t believe in morality in any meaningful way and be an atheist...”

“A consistent atheist wouldn’t care about anything really...”

“Interesting how atheists seem to think religion dropped down from heaven…” [???]

“good to see the UK going deeper into its moral decline by embracing militant atheists, anti-americans, and other members of the fringe (youve got to wonder whats wrong with people today).”

OK, the above is just from the first page of six when typing the following into google:

atheists site:

You will find many more examples in the remaining pages, or by trying different words to replace 'atheists' (such as: atheism, secular, humanism, materialists etc.).

Date: 2006/03/12 12:58:19, Link
Author: Aardvark
You don’t really have know what you are talking about to post here...

Comment by Red Reader — March 12, 2006 @ 4:04 pm

Date: 2006/03/13 09:43:34, Link
Author: Aardvark
Mr Cordova made a new post saying that the Church burnings were not religiously motivated (linked to a story somewhere).  The post now appears to have been deleted.  Did anyone manage to save a copy?

Date: 2006/03/13 09:52:04, Link
Author: Aardvark
Got it:

March 13, 2006
[followup] No religious motive for Satanist arson suspects

Christinaity Today: ‘No Religious Motive’ for ‘Satanist’ Arson Suspects

   Birmingham News:

   Friends said [suspects Russell DeBusk] and Ben Moseley were Satanists,

This is a followup on DaveScot’s provocative question PandasThumb Denizens?

In my own view, in answer to Dave’s question, I would think the probability is very remote that they were PandasThumb Denizens. PT’s not quite that deep in the swamp compared to say (….site names withheld…)

But It would be worthwhile indeed to inquire what website these guys visit. In fact it was some internet posts they made which uncovered some incriminating evidence which is in the article linked above from Christianity Today.

This is a curious instance of how the press will rush to paint criminals as not religiously motivated when Christian churches are being desacrated. The jury may still be out on them, but the point is the media is not being very swift in reporting certain things…

How does this relate to ID? In contrast, look how quick religious motivations are put to the front in the media, when the truth is, these are legitimate scientific questions which Darwin himself was willing to entertain….

The media is unwilling to insulate the question of ID from religious motivations, but quite willing to avoid mention of the religous views of these suspected criminals. I had to dig quite a bit to find the above information.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — scordova @ 10:38 am



     Hateful speech leads to hateful actions. Panda’s Thumb encourages hateful speech towards the prototypical “fundie” - evangelical southern Baptists. You know that. I can only then conclude you don’t believe that hateful speech leads to hateful actions.

     I found a link worth looking at in yours describing the so-called “Culture Wars” in more brutally honest terms “The War On Christians”. This is exactly what is going on. It’s politically incorrect in the United States to pick on minorities of any kind but Christians are a majority so they’ve become fair game. The “Angry White Male” that 10 years ago was credited with Gingrich’s “Contract With America” that began the conservative Republican ascendence to political dominance now has lots of company in the liberal Democrat doghouse - strongly religious Christians of any color.

     I just can’t wait to see the results play out from this further bit of idiocy from the loony left that hijacked the Democratic party as they’re now working hard to alienate two of their largest and most loyal remaining political bases - Catholic Hispanic Americans and Baptist African Americans. It’s almost getting alarming as their destruction of the Democratic party moves us further towards what for all intents and purposes is a single party system.

     Comment by DaveScot — March 13, 2006 @ 11:26 am

     “Hateful speech leads to hateful actions. Panda’s Thumb encourages hateful speech towards the prototypical “fundie” - evangelical southern Baptists. You know that. I can only then conclude you don’t believe that hateful speech leads to hateful actions.”

     I don’t think this follows. For one, the phrase ‘hateful speech leads to hateful actions’ would need to be amended to read ‘hateful speech necessarily leads to hateful actions’, a claim that I think is not true. Another problem is the notion of ‘hateful’. Perhaps I find it hateful when I’m told that I will go to #### because I don’t accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Should I worry about the speaker (or one of his followers) taking action to speed me on my way? (I don’t worry, by the way.) And perhaps I find referring to people as ‘loony’ as hateful. Does that mean that I can expect DaveScot to soon commit a hateful action? Probably not.

     The point is that calling speech ‘hateful’ is not as clear-cut as one might like it to be. It is also not as productive as one might like it to be.

     With respect to the original post, I won’t try to defend the media but would point out that we have been (overly) sensitized to religiously motivated violence and ‘hate crimes’ in this country. So when something happens to a church, one of the first questions that the media asks is “was this motivated by hatred for religion?” When the answer turns out to be ‘no’, that’s what they report. And that’s what people are asking as well, so it is probably appropriate that they do.

     And they are doing the same thing in your second example: looking for religious motivations. If the media were less focused on religion as a motivation for actions we might see more facts and discussion of issues and less digression into off-topic areas.

     Comment by Kipli — March 13, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

Date: 2006/03/14 14:38:55, Link
Author: Aardvark
New ID buzzword: "meta-science"

...linking to:

Thus for a methodological naturalist it is perfectly reasonable possibility that in science lessons it will become necessary to teach children what is in fact not true and what is in fact known to be untrue for the sake of meeting the methodological naturalism criteria laid out by the grand assembly of the interplanetary science council.

The real truth can only be taught in a new subject called meta-science lessons and it is a perfectly reasonable possibility in the future for the syllabus in these lessons to contradict the science syllabus and for the meta-science lessons to be teaching the truth and the science lessons to be teaching what is known to be wrong.

Feel free to pile in.

Date: 2006/03/17 08:18:12, Link
Author: Aardvark

The nebula we have found with NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope is a remarkable example of something that can be accomodated by the scientific enterprise as readily as we can account for hurricanes. Although there is much to be learned yet about the nebula, what we do know can be well explained in terms of existing and well-supported scientific hypotheses about the Galaxy and its contents. Consequently, I am dismayed that it has been brought up in an ID blog. Logically fitting natural phenomena that display order and/or beauty into the scientific superstructure of self-consistent ideas about the universe about us are what makes science so satisfying, and so meaningful. Not everything is a God-induced miracle.

Comment by MRMorris — March 16, 2006 @ 10:50 pm

DaveScot in reply:

I think you’re being too accomodating to Doctor Morris who appears to have forgotten his place in the scheme of things.

You tell him, Mr Springer.

We the taxpayers paid for this research including Morris’ time and the instruments he used. We didn’t pay for nor ask for his opinion about whether or not God had anything to do with this nebula’s formation although he’s free to give it in an unofficial capacity on his own time. The data belongs to us as much as does him as we’re all taxpayers and if we want to interpret it as a sign of design in the universe that’s our business.

Comment by DaveScot — March 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am

Your business appears to be re-interpreting scientific findings to agree with your political/religious agenda.

I guess that makes ID just another business failure.

Date: 2006/03/19 06:16:48, Link
Author: Aardvark
According to DaveScot, Morris,
in his report on the discovery of the elongated double helix nebula, apparently uncovered evidence in support of ID without realising it:

I bet Dr. Morris got a stern warning from the thought police at the National Center for (Selling Evolution)Science Education that the language he used in his description of the nebula - DNA and “high degree of order” - was too reminiscent of design and worse, he failed to use the word “evolution” even one time. The good Dr. Morris, understandably wishing to avoid a nasty sternberging from the thought police, hastily published a retraction on a well known Intelligent Design “Creationism” blog. I mean what astronomer in their right mind wants to be gonzalezed by the Darwinistas or worse be davisoned into early retirement?

Comment by DaveScot

Morris then alllegedly published a retraction on UD, or am I reading this wrong?

Date: 2006/03/19 07:58:51, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 19 2006,12:39)

Morris then alllegedly published a retraction on UD, or am I reading this wrong?

That seems to be Davesnot's spin, "but apparently uncovered evidence in support of ID without realising it:" doesn't equate with the original NASA news release.


Yeah, it's much like how Dembski reacted when SETI officially differentiated itself from ID:

But in fact, my criterion for design detection applies to the very signals that Shostak’s SETI Institute is looking for.

Date: 2006/03/24 04:16:26, Link
Author: Aardvark
Bozoman, along with a few others, tried their best to convince Dembski to sack DaveScot.  Here:

"No surprise there as it's tough to find evidence against the plain truth."

Sadly, he now "runs" Dembski's site, yet that quote there is contrary to Dembski's views.

I completely agree that DS has ruined the site. He banned me for talking about religion in a thread labelled "OFF TOPIC" and it was about the Italian court demanding proof that Jesus existed, based on a lawsuit from some loony atheist. I mentioned in that thread that Richard Dawkins claim that religion was the root of all evil and that atheism was pure and good was proven false with the atheistic regimes of the 20th century that killed more than any Christians have in history.

Dave Scot then started in on the spanish inquisition, etc, and he "warned" me to knock off my comments in the manner I was posting. So, HE started comparing body counts, then "warned" me again and claimed I was comparing body counts and it was not allowed! Then, he started to distort the point I was making- the mere fact that Dawkins was proven wrong in his pure and wholesome atheism claim.

Dave Scott then demanded I apololgize, which I did (tho, I had nothing to apologize for...only did so to get back to commenting.)

He banned me right away for commenting on a post on an article that mentioned Darwinists getting clergy to sign letters supporting evolution, but they use the word in such a vague sense they fool masny clergy into thinking God guided evolution is part of what they're supporting, what it's unguided NDE. (
There's the thread...I clarified that my point was- they fool the clerhy many times into supporting ideas they don't really understand or agree with...propaganda was my main point.

He claimed I was doing apologetics, preaching, etc. The funniest thing is that DS himself posted the SAME exact point a cpl weeks later here-
He said "“How many of these do you suppose have studied it thoroughly enough to take a leadership stance on the issue?”

The same percentage that didn’t study it enough any time in the past 150 years. The difference is that 10,000 of them didn’t sign onto a program to reconcile Darwinian evolution and the Protestant church any other time in the past 150 years.

Or am I missing something?

So what exactly caused them to sign onto this if not intimidation? Specifically I think they’re afraid of being labeled uneducated throwbacks to a premodern era. Maybe they should send Richard Dawkins a bouquet of flowers and an invitation to be a keynote speaker where he can say to them things like this

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Comment by DaveScot — January 22, 2006 @ 10:10 am"


I KNOW that Bill knew about the post, because I sent him a long e mail about Dave's tactics and his post which he deleted the very day it was posted. Bill replied saying that he didn't have the time to moderate and left it all to DS, but if he were in charge, he'd allow me to comment, and that I've done nothing wrong.

I've talked to the other mods as well- one of them told me that Dembski was upset over the post he assured me that something was going to be done about DS. A second mod talked about how DS complained to him that he was allowing too many comments thru thtat Dave didn't agree with, so he actually lowered his moderation status, banning him from moderating comments!

Heck, the other day, he got into an argument with another moderator in the comments section...DS basically said the other mod was a fool for believing what he did, and they argued in the comments section.

Dave is a bully and a blowhard...a quick google search shows you that he cannot get along with others very well at all.

I've talked to Bill on numerous occasions,and I have a feeling it won't be long before the site is closed again due to Dave's childish antics.

It's funny because UD has now pretty much reverted back to its 'Big Tent' roots after DS's muddled attempt at 'legitimizing' ID as science by accepting common descent, and the whole Bozoman crowd would fit right back in there if DS would only let them.

Date: 2006/03/24 09:57:12, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 24 2006,10:24)
Perfect example of that. GilDodgy says

“The methods and concepts of evolutionary anthropology often consist of making up stories, presenting them as facts, and arriving at silly conclusions.”
Afarensis posts this first part of a response:

And then GilDodgy post this, thinking he's actually won:

March 23, 2006
My 15 Minutes of Infamy in the Evolutionary Anthropology Community
As the result of a somewhat insensitive and politically incorrect comment I made about evolutionary anthropology here, I have been immortalized for a few minutes at

My comment was as follows: “The methods and concepts of evolutionary anthropology often consist of making up stories, presenting them as facts, and arriving at silly conclusions.”

Apparently this comment struck a nerve, because the author of the article (linked below) launches into a brilliant explanation about how studying tooth enamel reveals so much about human evolution.

He makes my point much more effectively than I. I’ll leave it to UD readers to be the judge.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — GilDodgen @ 9:19 pm
Complete with overblown self-importance ("My infamy...")

It's like watching Martin Brazeau pummel Ghost of Paley. Ghost pisses you off so you like seeing him get his a55 kicked, but it's so brutal you kind of cringe.

You can just see Homer making some idiotic yet confident remark, a scientist explaining to him at length why he's wrong, and then homer saying, "Whatever all that meant, I'm still right."

I've noticed that GilDodgen, along with the rest of the lot at UD, revel in making themselves feel part of 'the contraversy'.  Having a major scientific blog dismantle their argument/s just doesn't register when they can brag to their compatriots about battling it out with the other side.

In some ways, it's a no-win situation for us.  They make an argument.  If we respond, then they shout as loud as they can about 'the contraversy', if we don't respond, then they proclaim that their arguments have gone unanswered.

Date: 2006/03/25 12:41:01, Link
Author: Aardvark
Did she perchance wonder how water evolved?

Meanwhile, the debate rages on, all the while opponents keep insisting there is no debate.

Here's what I said in the UD thread:

"They make an argument.  If we respond, then they shout as loud as they can about 'the controversy',..."

Date: 2006/03/25 15:29:46, Link
Author: Aardvark
UD's newest recruit, Barry Arrington:

To me, the most thrilling thing about ID is that it shows us that while Darwinism may be true, it is not necessarily true.

What am I missing?

Edit: Looks like Barry's struggling to top his inaugural post:

Date: 2006/03/26 07:38:31, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 26 2006,11:26)
Brand new UD dumdum is doing the whole "we're not a religion, we just have *implications* for religion....

With Barry's arrival at UD it's a new character just joined my favourite sitcom.

Date: 2006/03/26 10:22:06, Link
Author: Aardvark
I would say that the 'exposure' element works both ways, depending on the character of the individual.  

Some people can be 'forced' to go to church for 20 years and still end up rejecting it, while it seems like others are unconvertable after  the slightest exposure.

Date: 2006/04/12 02:40:27, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ April 12 2006,07:07)
So we just need to find a case where "Things have not happened" to falsify ID?

I haven't showered today, does that count?

Date: 2006/04/18 04:20:17, Link
Author: Aardvark
afdave Says:
April 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

My personal opinion is that our educational institutions–from the public schools to the Ivy League universities have been gradually taken over in the past hundred years or so by the anti-God (anti-supernatural if you will) crowd, basically because good, competent people like our present ID people were not very involved and let them do it. The results in the public schools are obvious and similar results are beginning to show at the college level as well.

Looks like afdave is not so neutral after all.

Date: 2006/04/21 09:51:07, Link
Author: Aardvark
IC definition # 106H-07T:

Date: 2006/04/21 12:55:15, Link
Author: Aardvark
...I leave it to Miller to explain why he misrepresented Behe under oath.

He can say:

1. I didn’t misrepresent Behe (which is a false statement)
2. I did it because I hate ID even though I knew it was wrong (which is perjury)
3. I did it because I didn’t understand what Behe meant (which is incompetence)

All three alternatives are not exactly great, with #1 being the easist out for Miller. In either case, he should never be let off the hook until he acknowledges he was wrong. We can’t let him off the hook for this.

And to clarify, the question of whether Behe is right or wrong about ID is not the issue. The issue is whether Miller misrepresented Behe’s ideas, and the answer is an obvious yes.

What does Behe himself have to say? In Dover transcript I lost count of how many times Behe said, Miller “mischaracterized” his position. That Jones would defer to Miller for what Behe actually meant about Behe’s own theories only shows that Jones is an unjust judge.


Looks like another one of Sal's deadly, inescapable logic vices.

Date: 2006/04/29 18:11:21, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,21:50)
No ... I'm really not yanking anyone's chain intentionally ... I actually believe what I have written (yes, I know ... ladies are fainting and men are shaking their heads), but I would be glad to believe what you believe if I could be convinced of it by sound arguments ...

Is there a $250,000 prize up for grabs by any chance?

Date: 2006/04/29 18:52:53, Link
Author: Aardvark
[quote=afdave,April 29 2006,22:02][/quote]
How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?

Most cultures have seperate cultural calenders.  The 7-day week is thought to have originated in ancient Rome and was then spread worldwide by the British Empire.  There are thoughts that it is linked to ancient Astrology.

The 7-day week has been adopted worldwide primarily for business and snychronisation reasons.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:35:11, Link
Author: Aardvark
This is why there isn't much good Xtian porn about; all they want to see are brothers and sisters going at it and virgins being gang-raped by angels.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:35:11, Link
Author: Aardvark
This is why there isn't much good Xtian porn about; all they want to see are brothers and sisters going at it and virgins being gang-raped by angels.

Date: 2006/05/02 17:32:53, Link
Author: Aardvark
I think that this is 'Scott' from UD:


36 years old, Christian (Thank God). Married (to a babe, again Thank God).

Born in NJ, College in VA, busted a move to Oregon, and here I planted myself.

I'm a Christian before I'm a Republican...I moved to an interest in politics when that idiot Kerry was running (man, did we dodge a bullet), and started listening to Hannity on my lunch break.

The Liberal agenda is a scourge and must be eradicated!!

Fits the profile.

Date: 2006/05/04 14:46:57, Link
Author: Aardvark
"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."

Now new & improved:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.”

Date: 2006/05/14 06:37:04, Link
Author: Aardvark
afdave at UD:

I spend a lot of time over at Panda’s Thumb at “After the Bar Closes” refuting evolution and defending Intelligent Design …


Date: 2006/05/16 10:40:41, Link
Author: Aardvark
Are we at 100 pages yet?

Anyways, Demski's apology to Padian seems to have amounted nothing more than a chance for the UD faithful to pile on more junk about him.


Date: 2006/05/22 08:26:01, Link
Author: Aardvark
To everyone who’s pointed out that Intelligent Design Theory is a fabrication according to real scientists - that’s hardly the point. The bacterial flagellum and complexity of DNA are real. The fighting and lying to protect the interests of the rightwing religious fundies is real. The request to pray for them and buy their books is real. So I think I’ll just echo the Isaac Newton of Information Theory William Dembski and say, from the very real former Marine Sergeant David Springer, “If your worldview starts with a problematic origin story, everything else is going to be infected.”

HOO RAH! Semper Fi!


Date: 2006/05/22 09:47:01, Link
Author: Aardvark


     You people are retarded.

     The email is a fake and you’re an idiot for not realizing that.

     Good show, Professor. This type of thing does wonders for your credibility.

     Comment by mamoulian — May 22, 2006 @ 2:38 pm

Probably won't last long either...

Date: 2006/05/22 10:33:21, Link
Author: Aardvark
Real shame that this is drawing all the attention from DS's intensive ID research efforts.


Date: 2006/06/01 03:30:01, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (keiths @ May 31 2006,20:58)


Mr Dembski has every right to run his blog as he wishes and I imagine that teaching ID to our youth will work in much the same fashion.

Comment by Jeffahn — December 1, 2005 @ 10:55 am

Believe it or not...that's me!  I knew pretty much how things worked at UD and my comment was intended to imply that WD would teach ID as science in a similar fashion to the way he runs his blog i.e.  mercilessly crushing dissent and objective enquiry.  I was banned a few comments later.  I didn't expect that comment to last but somehow it has.  

Since then, I've managed to successfully 'play the fool' at UD on a  number of occassions.  At one stage they were making whole threads about my apparently naive questioning of ID.  DS actually ended up 'courting' one of my personas as an ally, but of course it all ended in tears when I turned on him  :(  .  Who knows, I may still be playing the fool there right now?!?

Date: 2006/06/03 11:38:33, Link
Author: Aardvark

Can someone help me out here?

Something tells me BarryA doesn't really want to be helped.

Date: 2006/06/03 17:15:17, Link
Author: Aardvark
BarryA, being either plain dumb or plain dishonest:

Also, look again at what Darwin predicts: “the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly ENORMOUS . . .” The handful of [proposed transitionals] that have been put forward in the last few years will never, ever come close to what the theory predicts should be there. It really is a closed case. — BA

Darwin said that the number of intermediate varieties must be enormous, NOT THE NUMBER OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.  He goes on to propose why this is so: "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.".

Date: 2006/06/04 07:30:48, Link
Author: Aardvark
Mung, from the transitionals thread at UD:


Yesterday you pointed me to where creationists accept fast evolution. Today you point me to a creationist site that denies evolution ever took place. What’s up with that?


Yes jonnyb, please expain exactly why you're confusing poor Mung?

Date: 2006/06/04 14:58:57, Link
Author: Aardvark
A question courtesy of Larry Fafarman:

For example, how come dinosaurs did not evolve again after they became extinct?

My answer:  God stopped them from evolving because he knew that Noah would have trouble fitting them on his ark.

Date: 2006/06/05 08:03:01, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2006,11:57)
evolution denial, meet global warming denial:

June 5, 2006
Is it just evolutionary biology that is corrupt or science more generally?

This movie review may seem off topic, but it raises important questions about the abuse of science in our culture.

in other news:

I don't know why this Greg Bluestein bothered to put in a dismissive quote from Dembski. The article is filled with real scientists talking about real science, why mention a crank bible professor making sarcastic remarks on his weblog?

What I want to know from Demski et al is what they think the reason or motivation behind all this corruption is?  



...or just a good old-fashioned, large-scale, all-encompassing EAC.


Date: 2006/06/05 10:24:39, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (dhogaza @ June 05 2006,15:03)
Tinabrewer leaves  me gasping ...
Jerry: “Science gets corrupt when it gets political.” This is only the latest phase of why science is corrupt. Its root corruption is much deeper; science is the work of the intellect. It seeks to categorize and explain material reality. The real “leader” in human life should always be the spirit, which seeks communion with the Creative Will of God. Science as it is currently practiced desires the overthrow of this natural hierarchy, replacing wisdom and truth with data and facts.

Well, at least she's honest about why she's anti-science.

tinabrewer -all waffle, no syrup

Date: 2006/06/05 11:05:46, Link
Author: Aardvark
tinabrewer says:

In issues like global warming, it is interesting to peel away the politics and ask “what are the values of the spirit which are motivating the different sides?” I think that the environmental groups have a correct basic inner urge to protect the purity of the air we breathe and the ecologies which sustain complex life. They are also filled with hangers-on, who merely use their association with the “correct” opinions to elevate their own egos. this is true of any cause on any segment of the political spectrum. You have the kernel of truth, and the dross which clings to it. We live in a maze of our self-created errors.

Summary:  "You can't handle The Truth!!!"


Date: 2006/06/07 13:31:50, Link
Author: Aardvark
I don't really know what crandaddy's trying to get at with this but I guess it has something to with design detection via intuition or something.

The fist picture is from here and is of a natural rock formation from Corriganville, which is apparently near Hollywood.

The second picture is from here and is of an Olmec (early pre-Hispanic civilisation) rock sculpture.

Date: 2006/06/08 10:38:07, Link
Author: Aardvark
DaveScot bragged:

ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank.

But I thought that that the DI had clearly stated that they didn't want ID taught in school?  And didn't that one guy say that you still didn't have a scientific theory of ID?  Is there now a scientific theory of ID?  Could you please state it somewhere, DaveScot?  As much detail as possible please.

Date: 2006/06/08 11:05:51, Link
Author: Aardvark
DaveScot said:

ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery.

But I thought that mathematically proving ID was pretty much Demski's sole purpose?  Is he now out of a job?  How soon then will we be seeing DS's mug adorning the banner atop UD?

Intuition is really great science though, DS.  Did humanity a  whole lotta good during the dark ages.  Too much scientific progress there.  

Public opinion is also a great way to conduct scientific research.  Afterall, why spend all that time, effort and money using the scientific method when you could just conduct a poll of 16-30 year-olds?  Just think about all the useful data you'd end up with -bearing in mind half of them probably can't even spell 'science'.

You go right ahead, DS.

Date: 2006/06/12 15:48:44, Link
Author: Aardvark

No wonder biologists haven't been able to detect design in nature -they've been using microscopes when they should have been using telescopes.

Date: 2006/06/14 19:34:48, Link
Author: Aardvark
Don't be sad for our friend Randy.  I'm sure our comrades over at UD will give a nice big snuggly welcome.  Maybe even posting rights in the near future?


Date: 2006/06/18 03:19:04, Link
Author: Aardvark
DS said:

1) The evolution of language was witnessed as it was happening. 2) Language didn’t evolve from lifeless chemicals into a hideously complex world of self-replicating molecular machines.

1.  Yeah, and how many witnesses do you have to life in the process of being designed?

2.  What's the difference between "lifeless chemicals" & non- "lifeless chemicals"?  If life is so "hideously complex" the how does that lead you to believe that it was designed?


Date: 2006/06/18 13:19:47, Link
Author: Aardvark
I love DS's response to Dembski's blunder:

Why are you telling me this? You might want to read the author’s name before replying to him or her. -ds

"See, I'm not the only one making #"@*!'+-ups around here?"


Date: 2006/06/19 20:19:58, Link
Author: Aardvark
I don't know how he managed it, but Michaels7 just jumped to the top of my IDiot Leaderboard with this:

Glenn, I’m curious to see a real answer. The point of the question was two-fold and I think its fairly well thought out.

1) produce it in a lab
2) why do insects or higher level organisms fight against mutation?

You stated…

“The question I asked was in response to this question, which I included in my post:

“Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn’t ‘fight back’ when you were done meddling and revert to the original species.”

Then followed my question:
“Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. … So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab.”

You said you did this to “counter the old canard about the lab…”. In truth, all your doing is avoiding the difficult question others have not answered after 150 years. Lets remain focused on the issues and problems with macro-evolution.

Its a valid question. If scientist today with 1000’s of years of cumulative lab experience amongst them, in nature and genetics cannot randomly mutate a new insect with novel features and have it naturally selected for survival in the lab and then have it survive in nature, then its a valid question.

Pointing fingers elsewhere is not an adequate response.

The experiments done in on insects, fruit flies, etc., were not successful. If RM/NS were true for McEvo, you could reproduce it. You could morph flies all day long with new features that would survive.

Secondly, the overlooked question of why higher level organisms such as insects, fish, etc., in fact fight against mutations. This leads to more questoins which I’ve yet to see answered by the RM/NS answer. The regulatory process limits mutations. Why is there error correction, editing and splicing? Why are there dual pathways as backup systems?

These are valid questions.

I’ve got the feeling scientist will design a new insect before evolutionist ever randomly mutate one.

I’m very curious to know Glen if you think one day scientist will Randomly Mutate a new insect, or design one.


Date: 2006/06/21 08:44:44, Link
Author: Aardvark
Heads up:

Scientists urge evolution lessons

Can't wait for the DI/UD/YEC response.

Date: 2006/06/25 00:58:05, Link
Author: Aardvark
If ID is potentially valid at the origin of life, what is to preclude its validity for the subsequent history of life?”

None I should say… This is one of the reasons I try & add the Origins of Life when I debate TOE..

Need to introduce myself. First time on UD & I am impressed. Been following the posts for a few days now… I have begun to read up on ID only off late as I researched evidence against TOE. I was led to beleive that scientist are contantly trying to falsify existing theories for obvious reasons & so i expected to find lots of work being done to falsify TOE. But alas my modest search untill now gives the opposite picture for TOE…

What I have dicovered is reams & reams of supposed anomalies which seemingly contradict TOE & its conclusions/inferences but very less mainstream scientific studies in such areas. Infact its the opposite which is true, there are reams & reams of speculative psedo-scientific explanation( no experiments) that try to explain away the TOE anomalies & then we get told there is “overwhelming evidence” in favour on TOE & no(zilch, dada) evidence against it. Silly of me to trust that scientists always follow the data irrespective of where it leads to. Can’t blame them entirely cause some of these areas have been labelled unfairly fringe science, namely parapsycology, forbidden archaelogy etc etc. I can understand ignoring a field to protect one’s career but to peddle falsehoods, subvert truth etc in the name of debunking is a strict no no in my book.
The materialistic scientists need to realise that Truth always wins.. it always just a matter of time. Truth doesn’t contradict at any time/place, while lies/falsehoods always will contradict & hence will be eventually exposed.

Science as I understand should be the pursuit of Truth using the Scientific method.

“Truth Always Wins” translates into “Satya Meva Jayate” ( language Sanskrit/Hindi) and is one of Mahatma Ghandhi’s famous quotes.

As long as any scientific activity pursues Truth, its on solid grounds & no amount of hurdles can stop it.

Whatever I have learnt untill now about ID, its primary exponents & its many votaries reinforces this notion of “Pursuit of Truth” & hence have no doubts on its eventual triumph over TOE.

Comment by SatyaMevaJayate — June 23, 2006 @ 1:52 am

Cool, so the designer was a afro dinoman in a flying saucer then?  Was he perhaps on a vacation from the gardens of Mars at the time?  Was he using an iMac?

ID just gets more and more interesting.


Date: 2006/07/03 19:18:27, Link
Author: Aardvark
I found a video of Larry on YouTube:

Date: 2006/07/05 13:33:26, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (GCT @ July 05 2006,07:35)

3.  Dave,
Not to hound you with this…. but write a book!

Comment by Doug — July 3, 2006 @ 3:44 pm

4.  I agree with Doug. You should write a book. I’m excited that Mike Gene is writing a book, but I think Dave Scott has just as much to offer.

Comment by Benton — July 3, 2006 @ 10:09 pm

Yes, DaveTard, write a book.  Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.  He can write a book that explains how gravity is the strongest force in the universe, how the evil ACLU used jury nullification to fleece the Dover school system, how Marines are being kept from prayer, how he violates SLOT every time he thinks, how Scientific American is the greatest journal of all and how he has become the expert of all by reading it, how engineers are much more knowledgable about biology than biologists, how homos and the ACLU are ruining this country, etc.  Any other ideas?

How can they expect DaveScot to write a book when he's single-handedly running ID's one-and-only research project from his basement?


Date: 2006/07/08 00:51:13, Link
Author: Aardvark
If liberal scientists really think it’s that disastrous why haven’t they embraced my suggestion that we take what they told us in previous decades about “nuclear winter” and use that to eliminate global warming? Surely if 1000 nuclear detonations all at once (or whatever the number was) can bring about global cooling of such proportion as to wipe out most of the life on the planet then surely some smaller number would halt global warming in its tracks. And we already have so many nuclear weapons we’re dismantling them just to make a less dangerous stockpile. So you kill two birds with one stone there, so to speak. The downside is some miniscule increased risk of cancer around the world. No biggie. Take all the money saved by not implimenting expensive schemes to reduce greenhouse gases and pour it into cancer research, prevention, and treatment.

DT has mentioned this 'solution' to climate change before.  

I find it difficult to decide if he's being honest or just joking around.  Either way it's just stunning idiocy.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:38:26, Link
Author: Aardvark
*anxiously awaiting the loang-awaited return of Josh Bozeman*


Regarding WD shutting the blog, I predict that he'll make a martyr of it if he does decide that it's too much bother.

"Those evil, Church-burning infidels forced me to close my blog by swamping it with legitimate questions and observations about ID!!!"


As for DT...I think it's time for you to move on -WD

Be interesting to see how long he hangs around...

Date: 2006/08/13 00:37:44, Link
Author: Aardvark
UD is just too much for me these days, but I still can't help visiting every day.  The combination of DT's departure and their loss in Kansas seems to have cause them to give up almost all pretense, with inanity ruling in its place.  

I tried to post a comment/question in BarryA's thread about Behe's testimony, but it doesn't seem to have made it.  All I asked for was how ID could account for the immune system, so that it could be compared to the NDE account.

That said, I think the most fun thing to do would be to start some kind of leaderboard for the IDists at UD, with points/votes being awarded/decided on ignorance, dishonesty, conflation etc. etc.

How about it?

*still awaiting the ruturn of Josh Bozeman*

Scott is my current favourite though.

Date: 2006/08/16 07:36:15, Link
Author: Aardvark
...his argument is like that a wet noodle, it's not strong.

Joel Borofsky


Date: 2006/08/23 14:34:22, Link
Author: Aardvark

The point is that religious violence, as reprehensible and evil as it is, is checked by the ethical standards of the religious people who commit it.


Oh dear...

Date: 2006/09/14 13:01:25, Link
Author: Aardvark

DaveScot: “I find continuous intervention to be inelegant but it remains a possibility.”

Newtonian physics was more elegant than QM. I don’t see how elegance is logically relevant. Seems more like an emotional/intuitive response to me, and thus without any rational usefulness.

Seems to me that if there is a designer(s) it may be smart enough to engineer life, but not smart enough to completely front-load it. Why does it have to be all frontloading or nothing?

Comment by mike1962 — September 14, 2006 @ 3:30 pm


Looks like there's some controversy about IDC.  This must mean that it is about to collapse.

But collapse from what exactly?


Date: 2006/09/21 07:08:33, Link
Author: Aardvark
All comments become the intellectual property of Uncommon Descent


Date: 2006/10/11 15:35:15, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2006,14:49)

I love it so!

Whack that mole!


Date: 2006/11/26 06:58:56, Link
Author: Aardvark
Should professional societies issue position statements at all?

Does this mean that Dembski will be demanding that the DI withdraw their own position statement.  Or does the DI now accept evolution sans ID?

Date: 2006/12/09 21:48:01, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 09 2006,09:41)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 09 2006,00:29)
Here's some vintage Tard for you...

Only Dave and Bill O'Reilly get this good. High praise indeed.

When I worked at Dell every conference room had a sign in it which read “Attack Ideas - Not the People Who Hold Them”. I’d never seen that saying before but I presumed it was a common saying. Just a few minutes ago, out of curiosity, I googled it and found only four hits on the world wide web. And three of the four were quotes of me!

Let's start out with this interesting bit of Google-uniqueness: Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them.

Wow!! How Google-original is that? About as Google-original as I presumed it was a common saying or And three of the four were quotes of me or Just a few minutes ago, out of curiosity. (This tells us more about the nature of human languages and how varied they are, even when filled with stock phraseology and banal ideas.)

But more to the point, on a thread titled Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them, DaveScot blogs "And the ones cheering about courts censoring it on establishment clause grounds are downright despicable," also Google-unique.

News Editor
News Editor

Joined: May 20, 2004
Posts: 3693

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:38 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Jay, didn't your mother ever teach you to attack ideas - not the people who hold them?

Only 2 years late.


Date: 2006/12/30 11:36:31, Link
Author: Aardvark
Dembski re-confirms God as the intelligent designer

{The lie of Darwinism is: }all organisms, including ourselves, are the result of a blind, purposeless evolutionary process (namely, the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation) that at no place required the services of God or any guiding intelligence.

In related news...

Is Darwinism becoming the dinosaur of scientific theories? Poppe thinks so, and he shows why the 150-year-old concept is headed for extinction. Exposing Darwinism's flaws, he reveals indisputable scientific evidence that supports purpose and design in the cosmos. Learn more about the impossibility of the first cell coming into existence by chance; scientists' fantasies about extra-terrestrial life; mathematical improbabilities concerning random selection; and other topics. 320 pages, softcover from Harvest. looks like ETs have been discarded as candidates for the intelligent designer/s (the above is a promo for the new pro-ID book for which Dembski wrote the foreward).

Date: 2007/01/27 04:09:15, Link
Author: Aardvark
CH responds:

A niche does not cause an adaptation. Adaptations occur via unguided biological variation, such as by mutations. They can then be selected for and become one step in a series of evolutionary changes. Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target. And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat. This is why evolutionists are surprised by impressive similarities. Then they explain them as due to similar niches.

Are you trying to say that there is some kind of law preventing evolution from creating superficially similar animals?

If so, then how is that law going to be incorporated into ID?

Date: 2007/04/14 15:34:27, Link
Author: Aardvark
Creationist Museum Challenges Evolution (BBC)

As we prepare to leave, Eugenie Scott quietly slips a panda glove puppet from her handbag and photographs it among the dinosaurs.


Date: 2007/07/11 21:07:23, Link
Author: Aardvark
Anyone know why Denyse hasn't yet blogged about that Pope guy's latest decree?

Date: 2007/08/18 20:52:38, Link
Author: Aardvark
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I will pray for Jesus to save you!


Date: 2008/04/30 20:25:21, Link
Author: Aardvark
Sorry if this was caught earlier, but...

unfortunately so many of our legislators just want to listen to facts and this plays right into the materialists hands


Date: 2008/05/02 15:57:02, Link
Author: Aardvark
Gerry Rzeppa

A believer in common descent will see a fossil that is midway between a cow and a whale...

Whales evolved from cows?  He must be thinking of Behe...

Date: 2008/05/07 13:17:22, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2008,12:45)
Joel Borofsky is also back...

Welcome back, Deadman...

Can Josh Bozeman be far behind?

One can only hope...


Date: 2008/07/19 13:53:25, Link
Author: Aardvark
Dembski links to something Anthony Flew supposedly wrote.

There's some fluff about Flew, then it starts out:

Professor Antony Flew writes:

But it gets a bit strange:

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew...

Then there's this at the end:

Note on Lord Gifford (Adam)
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes Lord Gifford as ‘judge and benefactor’. He endowed lectureships at four Scottish universities ‘for promoting, advancing and diffusing natural theology, in the widest sense of that term, in other words the knowledge of God’ and ‘of the foundation of ethics.’

Am I just imagining the puppet strings?


Date: 2008/07/27 02:52:11, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 26 2008,08:13)
ID award recipient not named for own protection …

It's sort of a witless protection program.

I don't understand.  Surely, if 'Darwinism' is collapsing as we speak (as DoL has repeatedly claimed) then being 'exposed' now shouldn't really make much difference?  If anything, coming out in support of ID as soon as possible would raise you to the top of the ID heap once 'Darwinism' is vanquished.


Date: 2008/08/08 18:57:50, Link
Author: Aardvark
Denyse decides that the human brain isn't intelligently designed after all:

The human brain does not work like a machine. It is not going to start working like a machine. Not now. Not ever.

Go figure.

Linked from her UD teaser.

Date: 2008/09/07 14:02:25, Link
Author: Aardvark
Hope to be seeing RTH in Expelled 2: they didn't liked my jokez...

Date: 2008/12/21 05:14:25, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 20 2008,22:26)

Date: 2009/01/03 03:28:19, Link
Author: Aardvark
From O'Leary's latest.

Neuroplasticity makes way more sense if your immaterial mind is real and directs your brain.

How?  Can anyone explain this?

Date: 2009/01/10 08:45:26, Link
Author: Aardvark
ftk has updated her blog with an admitted c & p from Creation Safaris (?).

Date: 2009/02/19 16:07:01, Link
Author: Aardvark
Gilly on ID (comment 6):

...we have no idea how [ID] was...implemented.

Is anyone surprised?


Date: 2009/04/25 17:16:45, Link
Author: Aardvark
Denyse takes 2nd in a poll:

1.  29% - Excess fees for very overweight passengers,
  2. 25% - €1 for toilet paper – with O’Leary’s face on it,
  3. 24% - €3 to smoke in a converted toilet cubicle,
  4. 14% - Annual subscription to access,
  5. 8% - €2 “corkage” fee for passengers who bring their own food onboard.

I say it's her 'coz she's O'Leary on UD & it doesn't say it's not Denyse in the poll.  That's all the evidence I need.

Date: 2009/05/09 03:44:50, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 22 2009,14:36)
Casey Luskin on a roll in Texas.

A response from DonExodus2 (haven't actually watched it yet).

Date: 2009/05/10 17:27:37, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (KenGee @ May 09 2009,22:16)
Grandma'  comp thread has put me into a vegetative state. I had a stress induce nose bleed. I really cannot believe the stupid that is UD, Since Daetard left the funny has gone and now it's just pure tard, I think I'm going to stop reading.
The thread clearly shows they don’t even understand the own argument let alone what they are arguing against.

Feeling nauseous after midday?   Aggressive urges towards animals and small children?  Dried meat cravings?

Diagnosis:  TARD poisoning.

Been feeling similar myself after the two recent religious threads and something following.  Thought it was just swine flu at first,'s hoping for more 'science' on upcoming UD threads.  I just can't handle the hard religious 'tard.  I know there are other places for those who need that particular fix, but I can't take it that pure.  I need at least 70% 'fine tuning', 'no transitionals', 'front-loaded hyper bacterial protocysts' etc. in the mix.

The bottom line is, after this colon:

TARD, in its varied forms, can't be taken lightly.  Or without protective headgear.  Be safe.  Know your TARD.  Not everyone has the same tolerance.  Admit your addiction and regulate your intake accordingly.  Leave the hard stuff to those who've been in there themselves; mining the finer nuggets for us to savour. Heroes, I tell you.

OK, so that was more like a paragraph.

Date: 2009/05/24 15:53:26, Link
Author: Aardvark
We now return you to our regularly scheduled 'tard...

Date: 2009/05/27 07:57:40, Link
Author: Aardvark
I can barely contain my excitement.

Date: 2009/05/31 14:54:21, Link
Author: Aardvark
[quote=FreeSpeachFan,May 31 2009,14:08][/quote]
I am a Swedish ID supporter,...

Odin of the gaps?

so I hope you won't ban me as you banned Dave Scot, Air Force Dave, and Four the Kids.

Four the Kids was banned for impersonating ftk.  Davescot is in the process of debriefing after going in deep cover for 'Operation Hardhat'.

I came unto this forum while reading about evolutionism vs. ID on the web, and was appaled at what I saw here.

Please elaborate.

This site might be the worst train wreck I have ever seen on the net, and believe me when I say I have seen many a uninformed site.

The whole train wreck thing was not our fault.  They shouldn't have left the keys in the ignition.

It is a cesspool of insults and profan language, a repgnutant swamp of ad hominems passed of as scientific discoarse.

But do you at least agree that we can spell?

I do not expect a rational dialogue thusly[/I], although I concede to change my view should you prove to be able to converse in a civil tone free from the abuse that is so typical of Darwinist forums on the internet.

Feel free to make your case for whatever.  We're not here to molly coddle you.

Nevertheless, let it be repeated that my expetactions are low.

Your "expetactions" are low.

Now that I have thusly introduced myself, I must ask why I cannot start topics of my own?

It's a Sunday.  Nobody can open threads on a Sunday.

As a part of an attempt at supressing open dialogue, perhaps?

See above.

But I shall showe some goodwill and reconsider this opinion if you can give a cridible reason why I should not be allowed to set up my own tread.

Thank you for the goodwill, Crister Wimblén.  Would it be ok for somebody to start a thread for you?  You can put your topic & arguments in reply here and they will be added to your own thread.


Date: 2009/06/13 00:30:02, Link
Author: Aardvark
ATBC exclusive:

Who can haz identification?

Date: 2009/06/13 12:58:07, Link
Author: Aardvark

I live in Durbanville, Cape Town & these are wild birds living in the Willowbridge area.

They are indeed Guineafowl, but the reason I posted these pictures was because of the unusually pale colouring of the one specimen.  

I've done a little reading but still can't decide if the paleness is due to leucism or albinism.  I'm tending towards albinism right now; mainly because the bird still has some colour around its head at least, unlike this bloke:

Date: 2009/06/14 04:59:51, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 13 2009,21:08)
Are they good to eat?

According to Wikipedia:

The cooked flesh of guineafowl resembles chicken in texture, with a flavour somewhere between chicken and turkey.


Date: 2009/06/15 13:59:28, Link
Author: Aardvark
The UD linkfarm Borg marches on.

Our only hope is that they may well exhaust the remaining url variations before the Sun explodes.

Date: 2009/06/27 12:18:43, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2009,19:53)
Clive tells it how it is
You should use Occam’s razor on yourself if you really want to know if ghosts exist. Just kidding, don’t do that. Yes, some dead, but not all, can be communicated with, but we are not supposed to do that. This question has been answered for me since I was a kid. My grandparent’s house was haunted, and my whole family, including cousins, including myself, had encounters with this ghost. Including actually seeing it. Unless we grant perpetual hallucinations of entire groups of people all seeing the same thing, Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation was that a ghost was what they indeed saw. If you deny this, that’s your business, but you do so to a prior commitment to materialism, and actual observation doesn’t much matter to you if observation competes with your world view. If you are not an embodied spirit, then there is no “you” to begin with.


*insert deep cover agent activation joke here*

Date: 2009/07/12 08:40:08, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (didymos @ July 12 2009,01:19)

Should read:

...only by stealing their tacky arguments and repackaging them as my own original thoughts and then publicly distancing myself from my creationist roots as part of a transparent legal tactic.

Date: 2009/07/18 17:19:21, Link
Author: Aardvark
Robert Byers:

...and the detail of a pouch is a minor adaptation common to all the creatures in a certain area.

But what good is half a pouch?  Has Bob inadvertently discovered another Irreducible Complex feature?  Can somebody (anybody?) please calculate the CSI of the marsupial pouch?

Date: 2009/09/04 16:26:47, Link
Author: Aardvark
More like UDT 2.5 than 3; since the original had ~1000 pages (IIRC) and the sequel only 500.

Anyways, on with the tardmining...

Date: 2009/09/13 13:11:58, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 13 2009,10:33)
Darwin Expelled from U.S.

I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read that article.

Date: 2009/10/04 16:48:52, Link
Author: Aardvark
Could somebody over at UD kindly ask for the internet logs for the DI & Baylor?  I guess if they aren't provided we can then just assume that they're all checking out the online naughties as well.

Date: 2009/10/18 01:59:26, Link
Author: Aardvark

What do I win?

Date: 2010/01/27 02:25:35, Link
Author: Aardvark
IDC staple diet exposed:


Date: 2010/03/16 18:35:00, Link
Author: Aardvark
Joe's odour explained:

Date: 2010/03/19 09:38:10, Link
Author: Aardvark
I've apparently been banned from TT for asking Bilbo to provide an evidence-based example for his position that either Copernicus, Kepler or Newton achieved anything of scientific merit as a meaningful causal result of their respective teleological/theological viewpoints.

He linked to this waffle & expected me to swallow it.

I replied with:

No good, I'm afraid. From your link:

 "…Kepler pursued science as a mission from God. In his words, he was merely “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

I could claim the same re my belief in Ceiling Cat. Would any scientific discoveries I made therefore persuade you to switch allegiance?

I was think something more along the lines of:

Kepler read in the Bible about the firmament, so he built a hot air balloon (potential anachronism?) and flew up to 18000 feet where he encountered said firmament and determined that it was made of fibreglass, with LEDS for the 'stars'.


Copernicus was also a proud owner of one of the (now extinct) feathered bats of biblical fame.

He also might have been unhappy with me holding him to the same standard of evidence demanded by Bradford to explain the evolutionary origins of the cell.

What a bunch of cowards.

Date: 2010/03/20 19:48:57, Link
Author: Aardvark
I disagree, I think that Dembski used to be much more severe. Most of the socks here would have disappeared after one or two comments.

I must have had at least a dozen socks at UD since 200(6?) up until very recently.  None of those lasted more than ~10 posts (and then only by acting carefully or naive) and at least half never had their first post make it through 'moderation'.

Date: 2010/03/21 16:33:44, Link
Author: Aardvark
Bilbo tries to act innocent.

Premo 'tard Daniel Smith doesn't realise he's arguing with a ghost.

Ultratard eric wins the debate in series of epic tardologies.

'tards 'til the day they die...and I won't shed a tear...

Date: 2010/03/24 18:56:31, Link
Author: Aardvark
Things around my room:

And something from the bathroom:

Date: 2010/03/25 15:47:05, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2010,13:04)
Simulated Granville peeks into the restroom mirror...

Can't find it right now, but a few weeks back there was a video of somebody listening to their own web/podcast live; leading to some pretty bizarre audio & video feedback.

Date: 2010/03/27 19:32:40, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 27 2010,19:04)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 28 2010,13:21)
Was it Behe or Dembski who was pushing the "bible code" numerology BS?  Maybe BA is just taking after his idols?

It was Dembski. Wikipedia quotes him:        
At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated ("irreducibly complex") biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

Unfortunately the citation link leads to a 404 page.
He's displayed gullibility in other areas as well. There was that incident with that faith healer a couple of years back. Oh - and he's an evolution denier too!

I remember that post on UD.  It definitely did exist at one stage.

He repeats something similar here.

Date: 2010/03/30 18:37:04, Link
Author: Aardvark

...if it can be demonstrated that a pedophile’s pleasure from molesting children is greater than the suffering he causes, then, for that pedophile, molesting children should be considered “good.”

Why does he have to bring the Catholic Church into this?

Date: 2010/04/02 15:34:10, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2010,11:58)
These universal, transcendent, self-evident and absolute morals... people can't seem to agree on them or interpret them with consistency, can they?

Let's just agree to disagree on them , OK?

Date: 2010/04/08 15:53:09, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 08 2010,08:25)
I'm in the running for Alter Boy of Information Science.

Then you need to be aware of (another) new type of 'information' just recently discovered here:

No explaination using change and chemical necesity alone is capable of explaining the information - specified irregular complexity - found in biochemistry.[sic]

Date: 2010/04/18 15:01:47, Link
Author: Aardvark
Slaying not harmful if the Bible defines it that way, or something, according to DL:

I guess you want to define slaying as "harmful" by definition, but apparently the Bible doesn't go by that definition.

Date: 2010/04/21 13:11:21, Link
Author: Aardvark
I can write upside down, and I can levitate.

I can in fact do both at the same time.

Date: 2010/04/22 12:59:06, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 22 2010,01:35)
Quote (Aardvark @ April 21 2010,13:11)
I can write upside down, and I can levitate.

I can in fact do both at the same time.

Ah, an antipodian aardvaark!

Good guess, but the trick is:

Upside-down whilst levitating.

Works better in conversation, actually...

Date: 2010/04/23 09:16:36, Link
Author: Aardvark
Yet another design detection failure:



That Argument Regarding Design is so big, that there are little arguments orbiting around it.

HT: To fnxtr, Mojo Nixon, and Skid Roper.



Date: 2010/05/07 10:18:39, Link
Author: Aardvark
BarryA tells us about his latest case.

I like to say that reality is the practical wall you smack into when you’re theory is wrong.  And thankfully trials are nothing if not practical endeavors.  No matter what a post-modernist might say about “all reality is subjectively constructed,” the truth of the matter is they all look both ways before crossing the street.  And it turns out that judges really do try to determine “what actually happened,” and another name for “presenting a competing version of reality” is “lying under oath,” which judges tend to frown on (as the defendant found out to his dismay).

My reply:  Dover.

Date: 2010/05/20 03:39:58, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 19 2010,20:23)
Awright, who left the gate open?

I saw that on an episode of Top Gear.

Date: 2010/07/13 04:47:07, Link
Author: Aardvark
I suspect that TB may in fact be a sock for JoeG/IDguy.  I've never seen anyone else argue against common descent like that.

Date: 2010/07/16 11:19:35, Link
Author: Aardvark
fifth monarchy man Says:

I have a personal relationship with God the same way that I have a personal relationship with my wife.

I just dunno.

Date: 2010/07/16 13:50:49, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 16 2010,11:53)
Quote (Aardvark @ July 16 2010,11:19)
fifth monarchy man Says:

I have a personal relationship with God the same way that I have a personal relationship with my wife.

I just dunno.

Given how many people his god is supposed to have a personal relationship with, what does that say about his wife?

On his wife:

If it was proven that my wife did not exist I would not think she was a liar.

Date: 2010/07/16 19:40:25, Link
Author: Aardvark
Regarding the pop-ups:

Farshad Says: (I won't link to the comment)


This site is infected with WordPress Redirect Exploit trojan.

Instructions to clean:


I use No-script, so I guess that's why it never happened to me.

Date: 2010/07/17 15:33:36, Link
Author: Aardvark
bornatard77 on why pi is equal to pi:

To me this order that we find imposed on the universe is no small wonder,, for example exactly why should the space-time that I experience always give me the correct value of pi and not some other value that is at variance with other people’s measurement for pi?

Wasn't pi=3 in biblical times?  Maybe he's [not] on to something...

Date: 2010/09/09 06:29:07, Link
Author: Aardvark
DaveScot is opening a museum (video).

Date: 2010/09/10 06:19:40, Link
Author: Aardvark
I present the final disproof of evolution:

Any of you fancy-pants evolutionists care to explain exactly how a chameleon knows what colour to change into thanks to only blind, undirected, chemical, atheistic and materialistic processes?

Date: 2010/09/10 18:19:09, Link
Author: Aardvark
It's a juvenile Cape_Dwarf_Chameleon.

Wow Aardvark! These pics are gorgeous. Where were they taken?

Durbanville, Cape Town, South Africa.

Cute! I didn't realise they are so small. And what did you do to make it stay on your hand?

It's a juvenile.  There was a larger one but he scrambled into the bush and I couldn't take a clear picture.

I just plucked it from the branch and put it back afterwards.  They have a slow way of moving about (rocking like foliage in a breeze).

Date: 2010/10/31 11:44:00, Link
Author: Aardvark
Encountered the following sunbather when out cycling today (cellphone pix):

It's a mole snake.  About 1.5m long.  Feeds mainly on moles & bird eggs.  Non-venomous.

Date: 2010/11/04 16:03:09, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 04 2010,05:57)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 03 2010,13:11)
BA77 linked to his facebook page. Who wants to be his friend?

So BornAgain77's real name seems to be Philip Cunningham, his hometown is Longview, Texas and he's currently residing in Minneapolis?  Too close!

Also, his Facebook page currently features an ad for Mafia Wars.  "Want A Killer Good Time?  Play Mafia Wars today and find out just how much fun you can have robbing, stealing and putting out contracts on your friends."  It's illustrated with a picture of a rifle shell and a blood stain.

Sounds like Jesus to me.

His Facebook updates are much like his UD posts; overflowing with links and redundant notes.

Date: 2010/11/04 16:27:10, Link
Author: Aardvark
In mole-related news, look what the cat dragged in:

I swear that cat catches the same damn mole very week.  Something dodgy going on behind the scenes.  Doesn't kill it; just plays with it until bored -then we have to let it go.

Date: 2010/11/05 06:00:32, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 04 2010,23:46)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 04 2010,15:59)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 04 2010,06:57)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 03 2010,13:11)
BA77 linked to his facebook page. Who wants to be his friend?

So BornAgain77's real name seems to be Philip Cunningham, his hometown is Longview, Texas and he's currently residing in Minneapolis?  Too close!

Also, his Facebook page currently features an ad for Mafia Wars.  "Want A Killer Good Time?  Play Mafia Wars today and find out just how much fun you can have robbing, stealing and putting out contracts on your friends."  It's illustrated with a picture of a rifle shell and a blood stain.

Sounds like Jesus to me.

Why stop at Philip Cunningham when you can be friends on Facebook with William Dembski and Paul Nelson?

Self respect?

Philip's latest FB update is an argument I personally despise more than almost anything else:

"However we may interpret the fact scientific development has only occurred in a Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on, science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did." - Robert Clark

Little known by most people is the fact that almost every, if not every, major branch of modern science has been founded by a scientist who believed in Christ:

Followed by a trawl of links & quotes.

Genuine edit:  It's weird how Philip Cunningham could almost pass for Wesley R. Elsberry... ...could it be?  No...the biggest, longest running sockpuppet-troll-job ever?

Date: 2010/11/18 10:17:39, Link
Author: Aardvark
Anyone else doze off during Demski's segment?

Date: 2010/11/18 10:29:13, Link
Author: Aardvark
Did Dembski just plug LOL...

Date: 2010/11/18 10:45:01, Link
Author: Aardvark
Stream has stopped for me, but did Dembski say that "God is not subject to the same rules we are"?

Do as I say not as I do.


Date: 2010/11/26 15:17:14, Link
Author: Aardvark
JoeG, owing to all the recent breakthroughs in ID and your revolutionary work, how long does materialistic, atheistic, blind, undirected evolution have?

Date: 2011/01/08 16:07:38, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 08 2011,00:49)
BA77 pretends to be educated:      
Diatoms are delicate unicellular organisms that have a yellow-brown chloroplast that enables them to photosynthesize. Their cell walls are made of silica almost like a glass house.

Too bad that this Hop guy wrote exactly the same back in 2008:      
Diatoms are delicate unicellular organisms that have a yellow-brown chloroplast that enables them to photosynthesize. Their cell walls are made of silica almost like a glass house.
but was more honest by adding      
This post was blatantly plagiarized from the internet :D
seemingly from here.

I've been following BA77 (Philip Cunningham) on Facebook for a few months now and absolutely everything he has posted is a link to a ID/Creationist article/video/podcast.  There is literally nothing else.  No 'Merry Christmas!', no 'gosh, golly it's hot today...', no jokes or pictures of family/friends...just an endless stream of links.

I tried to coax something out of him when he 'liked' some Harun Yahya pictures posted by somebody else.  I linked to a couple of articles on what Harun Yahya really thinks of ID in the comments, but he didn't seem to notice.

Date: 2011/04/07 19:01:10, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (Freddie @ April 06 2011,17:40)
Quote (damitall @ April 06 2011,07:08)
Joseph asks:

"Is there a bright side if you are an atheist?"

If UD were unmoderated, the answers would be fast and furious, beginning with "yeah, atheists don't have to tolerate aggressive, ignorant, fairy-tale-believing morons like joe"

As things are, I guess no-one will bother.

Any forum that gives the likes of Joseph free rein whilst moderating polite criticism into irrelevance is terminally broken.

Rather than "Always look on the bright side ..." I would suggest "The Galaxy Song" from The Meaning of Life as a more appropriate Pythonesque/Atheist anthem.  The last two lines are particularly apropos UD.

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Or: this

Date: 2011/11/18 05:29:09, Link
Author: Aardvark
My father called in this guy to remove our backyard bees (I didn't mind them):

...but, they have now now decided that they prefer their old haunt:

Date: 2012/07/22 11:06:31, Link
Author: Aardvark
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 22 2012,10:00)

But if technology (and the rest of human enterprise) is recovered for intentionality, teleology becomes a truly global rival to evolution.

Can anyone parse this for me?


Off topic, by why are the bars in Montserrat stocked with 8-10 year old girls? Or is it 8-10 mya? :p

"8-10s" is how the reviewer rates the females in question out of 10.