AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Faylen

form_srcid: Faylen

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: Faylen

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 'Faylen%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/01/18 15:11:43, Link
Author: Faylen
That's just OK.  The real screamer they came up with is "Darwiniacs".  Just about fell off my chair reading that one.

I never bothered posting on UD because I knew what would happen, but I did get deleted from ForTheKids' blog, and I'm currently being dissed by DaveTard at UD. . .does that count for anything?

Date: 2007/01/18 15:25:56, Link
Author: Faylen
Don't forget, either, that in many areas, the water is unsafe to drink.  A product that had to be mixed with water that sickens people would be useless as a food.  I recall Nestle making this mistake with baby formula in some third-world country a few decades ago.

Date: 2007/01/23 19:41:45, Link
Author: Faylen
DaveScot made me laugh with this one:

I’m using the Judge Jones definition of religion to classify atheism as a religion. Near as I can tell his definition is that if people who talk about religion a lot have other ideas their other ideas must be religious ideas. I hear atheists talking about a religion a lot. Take Richard Dawkins for instance. A very famous atheist and all he seems to do is talk about religion.

Hmmmm.  I talk about my cats a lot, does that make my cats a religion?  I know THEY sure as heck would like me to worship them. . .

Date: 2007/01/28 17:10:26, Link
Author: Faylen
I can't wait until they publish the results of the sperm-eating research.  Just don't explain the methodology.

Date: 2007/02/13 12:20:57, Link
Author: Faylen
Nah.  DaveScot simply ignored it and posted a link.  Posting a link means he's right.  If there's any link, anywhere, that's properly set up for quotemining, DaveScot is right.

Date: 2007/02/14 14:53:05, Link
Author: Faylen
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 13 2007,14:57)
Does anyone know what this hobo symbol means?

It indicated a kind woman lived at a house, meaning they could get food, maybe some old clothes, or a place in the barn to bed down for the night.

Oops, I missed where you said you already knew.  My bad.

Date: 2007/02/20 22:22:31, Link
Author: Faylen
You know, I've always told my kids that someone who consistently tells other people how intelligent and/or talented he is generally isn't particularly intelligent or talented.  If you're really smart, or really good at anything, other people will be telling you, not the other way around.  My 12 year old has looked over my shoulder at several of DaveScot's posts, and pointed out that she thought he was a good example of what I'd been telling her.  

I know I was not the first one to come up with this idea, and I knew there was some kind of folksy wisdom type saying that expressed it in fewer words, but I couldn't put my finger on it.  While my daughters and I were just shaking our heads over one ridiculous statement or other, it finally came to me.

"The empty barrel makes the most noise"

But. . .does it still make a lot of noise when it's filled with cheesy poofs?

Date: 2007/02/21 07:19:19, Link
Author: Faylen
Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 20 2007,14:16)
<a href=""" target="_blank">DaveScot</a>:    
The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed. They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today. Given the definition of a theory as a well tested explanation there is no theory of evolution but rather only hypotheses of evolution. Until a hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do these mechanisms remain hypothetical.
(Emphasis mine)

So Dave thinks that the only way to test a theory is to actually observe the proposed mechanisms in action.  Thanks to Dave's insight, an awful lot of scientists are going to have to close up shop.  And it leaves ID in a pretty awkward position, too.

Yeah, this popped into my head last night when I was having trouble sleeping.  Wouldn't this mean that they could no longer "infer design", but actually get some film of god designing stuff?  Does he have a workshop?  Does he look like Norm Abrams?  That would be funny.  "This Old Planet" or "New Species Workshop" - on the Discovery Channel, natch.

Date: 2007/02/23 09:58:31, Link
Author: Faylen
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 22 2007,09:01)
Do We Drop A Dime On DaveScott?

Orac (A real MD and cancer oncologist)has a blog at Science Blog, and has @ 10 recent posts going back and forth with our favorite Tardster DaveScot about the efficacy of an untried cancer treatment DCA.

Dave has really jumped on the altie-med bandwagon, no surprise, and in his usual ham-handed approach, has pissed the Doctor, and a lot of people off.  

In Orac's latest post, he links to all his previous posts, and also to the FDA Fraud alert website.

FDA Fraud Site:

So... Moral Dilemma time...

If we drop a dime, DaveScott might go to The Big House 5-10 years, but cancer patients might be spared a potentially dangerous chemical that Dave is pushing.

If DaveScot goes to prison, UD goes stale, the Tard level goes way down, and we only have Bill and Denyse to kick around. They are both idiots, but not in the same Idiot league as Dave.

Help me out here,  please post your thoughts.  

Do we "Drop a Dime on Dave"™,
or Do We Love It So and Can't Live Without The Tard?

Oh, but he's covered his butt with a disclaimer now.  We all just woke up, and it never really happened.

Plus, I went looking for the original posts, and couldn't find them on UD.  Am I searching wrongly, or did they get removed?

Date: 2007/03/07 15:24:30, Link
Author: Faylen
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2007,18:27)
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

I'm picturing guys like TAPS (from the "Ghosthunters" TV show) looking around for Design with their EMF detectors and infrared cameras, jumping and saying "holy s***, what was that?!?!?" every time the wind blows.  "Look, there it was!  I swear, it was intelligent Design, and it was wearing a long white dress and a big hat!!!"

Date: 2007/03/08 11:08:56, Link
Author: Faylen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 08 2007,09:10)
Davetard gets testy with Tims; believes in milometers but not kilometers:

I don't think he believes what he writes anymore. We've only  seen man make perfect spheres. Therefore the Sun is man-made.

I think I need to take a painkiller right now.  So, ID is better than evolution because it "infers" things (I betcha god did this, betcha anything!), and it shouldn't be held to a higher standard than science (bad enough that it's failed when held to the SAME standard), and the fact that it doesn't attempt to actually figure anything out indicates its sciency scientificness is more scientifical than science, which foolishly tries to explain things.  Which is a bannable offense.

I'm just trying to wrap my brain around DaveScot's assertion that guessing about stuff and not trying to figure it out is a science.  "The definition I pointed you to clearly states ID is the science of design detection. It is not about determining design methods. There isn’t now nor may there ever be any empirical evidence to indicate how these designs were instantiated."  By this definition, there's a heck of a lot of science out there that we haven't even begun to explore.  Heck, by this definition, every three year old on the planet is a scientist.  That's pretty scary.

Date: 2007/03/12 15:26:36, Link
Author: Faylen
I'm all confused now.  I thought all the canyons and mountains and everything were carved out by Noah's flood.  If that's not Intelligent Design, I don't know what is.  Filtering that explanation will lead down a slippery slope, I tell ya.

Date: 2007/03/13 20:29:32, Link
Author: Faylen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2007,15:38)
More FTK 'wisdom'.

aka...Forthekids said...
Hmmm...only one post at AtBC.


Okay, I will cut you some slack just this once, but if I catch you over there in the playpen again, I'm going to seriously lose respect for you and your opinions.

I don't have time for the test questions right now. I'll try to read through them again later this evening. It doesn't really matter though because you're merely stringing out a conversation that will end up focused on micro changes and similiarities between species. The common descent mindset is irrelevant to science.

I think she should be applauded for judging individuals not by their own merits or opinions, but by by the company they keep. Very progressive.

You might notice that responses like these are bountiful, while answers for the other dave's question are completely absent.  And a few days before, FTK posts about how busy she is, and how she doesn't want to let comments through moderation because she wants to be able to answer them all.  For someone who wants to answer all her comments, she sure spends a lot of time avoiding answering comments and posting comments that answer nothing.  Is she busily searching UD for answers that contain the right amount of pseudoscience needed to make it sound like she knows what she's talking about?

Date: 2007/03/16 16:37:15, Link
Author: Faylen
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 15 2007,18:45)
Too bad I don't dance with a sword.
This would make a great costume. (Maybe not for the kiddies, tho...)

My mom used to dance with a sword.  I still have it, but it's kind of dull by now. . .

Date: 2007/04/18 16:53:24, Link
Author: Faylen
Hey, if Debbie Schlussel can continue to assert a muslim terrorist connection despite the evidence, imagine how much easier it must be for the UD crowd.

Date: 2007/07/18 19:38:58, Link
Author: Faylen
It's hard enough for a non-scientist to do enough research to see where the line really is between reality and tard, but everyone here has been really helpful.  As I was pondering some tard the other night, it suddenly occurred to me that I had no idea what constituted "Neo-Darwinism".  I mean, I know that they've misconstrued "Darwinism" into an ideology with a structure just like a religion, Darwin as a deity, and a moral code that involves barbecueing babies.  But what got changed or added when they coined the term "Neo-Darwinism"?  How does it differ from standard grade Darwinism?  UD often invents new terms, sometimes goes straight from inventing the terms to referring to them only by their initial letters (to weed out the nonbelievers?) but those usually get exposed for what they are pretty quickly.  Help me understand!!!

Date: 2007/07/19 08:28:58, Link
Author: Faylen
From the Wiki, it seems to me that Neo-Darwinism describes the basic mechanism that Darwin described, plus the information scientists have discovered about genetics.  Am I right?  It doesn't sound like a word that should be uttered with a scowl or a sneer, and it's still not some kind of moral ideology.  But if it is referring to a current scientific knowledge, howcum they still use "Darwinist" by itself?

Date: 2007/07/20 21:07:18, Link
Author: Faylen
It's pretty easy to root out terms that IDiots have created to support their agenda, but I had just wondered if they actually differentiated between "Darwinists" and "Neo-Darwinists" and how.  They seem to use the terms interchangeably.  Not surprising, since they don't seem to know much about Darwin's theory, anyway.  Or about Darwin - he seemed like a really nice man.

I laughed really hard, Rev. Dr. Lenny, when I first learned about Micro- and Macro-evolution, and how they could believe in one but not the other.  Right away I knew it was so they could deny coming from apes, but still get good antibiotics.  All the explanations and posturing really comes down to that, I think.

Date: 2007/07/23 08:04:49, Link
Author: Faylen
Why, oh why, did I read this before the second cup of coffee?  

Re: the dog.  I knew a guy with a dog that was half black lab and half dachshund.  It can be done.  The dog had a very large head and tail, not quite as big as a full lab, but way too big for his body, which was slightly chunky dachshund.  He had black lab hair all over.  Every time he walked, it looked like he was going to fall face first, his head was so big compared to his body.

Re:  Debbie Schlussel and slutty Congressmen's daughters.  Hmmm.  Could it be pot/kettle, or is she just jealous?

Re:  Antediluvian speciation (somewhere on page 1). So evolution happened, but only after the flood, and only by losing genetic information.  Way to compromise faith and science, dude!