AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Gunthernacus

form_srcid: Gunthernacus

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: Gunthernacus

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/04/26 12:35:23, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I grew up in the rural South and I can say, from plenty of experience, that the people who use the term "boondocks" are often the same morons who chainsaw their shade trees, burn off the ground cover hoping to replace it with non-native "lawn" grass - and then bitch about how it's so hot and dusty.

Those dogs, far from vicious, look like puppies no more than six or seven months old.  I hope they're getting fed better than cheesy poof crumbs and toe jam.

Date: 2007/04/26 14:11:23, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Why are so many people so jocular about Dave (Springer) Scot?

I can't speak for anybody else, but as a repressed eugenicist - seeing a retard like DS on the loose makes my teeth hurt.  For a blowhard of his magnitude, I'm wondering which would require the smaller of instruments - the lobotomy or the castration.

Date: 2007/05/03 12:07:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 02 2007,18:57)
In a comment thread filled with DaveScot's explanations about his height, the location of his truck and property, and descriptions of his neighbors...

Reading his post, I was reminded of the MP Inquisition - "This is uncle Tard at the front of the house.  And this is uncle Tard at the side of the house.  This is uncle Tard at the front of the house again, but you can just see the side of the house..."
Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)
My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.

But they are trying to kill the birds, yes?  And you did teach them how to use the guns - how to aim, adjust for distance, lead a moving target?  If they only put out an eye, is that okay?
Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)
My husband is a stickler about the rules.

So the hubby was seriously pissed, but a stickler for the rules - so he sends the minors out to break the law.  Now, if they're caught, you just need a blank, I-can't-keep-track-of-the-kids-much-less-all-of-our-countless-guns stare to plead ignorance.


Date: 2007/05/03 16:26:46, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Boo, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a good one from DT:

Davescot's comment in the thread is also truly a thing of wonder:
This is like requiring auto mechanics to study high energy physics so they understand precisely how the iron in our automobiles was formed by fusion in the core of a dying star billions of years ago. No doubt that's interesting trivia but completely irrelevant to their trade.

Doctors are mechanics who diagnose and repair problems in the most complex machine on the planet. There's no possible way any one of them can know everything there is to know about how that machine works, the range of problems that can occur, and all the best ways to fix them. Any additional knowledge worth crowbarring into their heads to make them better doctors is more medical knowledge not hypotheses on how life originated and diversified over billions of years.

He's basically just admitted Egnor is unqualified to pontificate on evolution.

Here is Boo's comment

Here is the UD retch

Date: 2007/05/09 12:32:59, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,10:26)
It's hard to tell where TE's stand though.  I'll be honest, I've never understood them, and I've had numerous conversations with a couple of them.

They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.  It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO.

Some people ultimately believe that God has a mind, but that they cannot know it or understand it - at least in this life.  What say you, FTK?  Does God have a mind?  If so, are you astute enough to fathom It?  If you think that God has a mind but yet you are unable to fathom It - is that a bizare leap of faith on your part?  If you think that God has a mind and yet you are unable to fathom It - can that contribute to your scientific understanding of the world?

Date: 2007/05/14 13:48:27, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Dr. Dr. Dembski wrote:
If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?).

This whole IDist business of righteous indignation about Gonzalez is a mixture of unwitting projection and bitter jealousy.

Date: 2007/05/17 11:33:10, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Guest @ May 17 2007,10:44)
An eight foot long beaver weighing 485 lbs sounds pretty big to me.

Nice beaver!

Date: 2007/05/20 21:30:53, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
crandaddy gets serious:  
Seriously, I no longer pay any attention whatsoever to anything a scientist says which diverges at all from his area of expertise.
Obviously, except for anything related to biology - right crandaddy?

mike1962 whines:  
I have been wondering lately why ID-friendly scientists don’t just start some of their own peer reviewed journals.  Sometimes it’s impossible to put new wine in old wine skins, and all that.
Or why they don't continue to publish in the ones they have started - right mike1962?

Date: 2007/05/23 09:13:10, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
GilDodgen can't do junior high math.
The worst part is that anyone with a modicum of common sense and a even a superfluous knowledge of modern science, engineering, and basic mathematics can figure out that the universe and living systems did not just happen. It was all designed.

Do the math. My 14-year-old daughter can do the math without breaking a sweat. It’s junior-high-school stuff.

He links to an entry of his from last year:
Writing Computer Programs by Random Mutation and Natural Selection
What is the probability of arriving at our Hello World program by random mutation and natural selection? How many simpler precursors are functional, what gaps must be crossed to arrive at those islands of function, and how many simultaneous random changes must be made to cross those gaps? How many random variants of these 66 characters will compile? How many will link and execute at all, or execute without fatal errors? Assuming that our program has already been written, what is the chance of evolving it into another, more complex program that will compile, link, execute and produce meaningful output?

I can’t answer these questions...

Date: 2007/05/31 18:02:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

Date: 2007/05/31 18:05:57, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

Date: 2007/06/01 17:20:10, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

Date: 2007/06/01 17:32:43, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

Date: 2007/06/01 18:17:23, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

Date: 2007/06/13 14:32:20, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
From here

Date: 2007/06/14 13:24:19, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

Date: 2007/06/14 16:25:57, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quality tard from Joe G at ARN:

The whole thread is classic - but this post is tops:

That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play.

For any ARNies reading, Joe G previously trolled as ID's Bulldog.

Date: 2007/06/15 10:56:14, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Louis @ June 15 2007,03:15)

You do NOT fuck with the trilogy!


Heh.  I did have 2nd thoughts before posting it, but then my photoshopping would've gone from mostly to complete waste of time.

As for the Limp Ire striking back, I think this is a good example.  I say Dembski is either directly lashing out against or trying to jump start his minions into answering this LOL thread.

Date: 2007/06/15 16:18:53, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ June 14 2007,16:47)
I'm just one of those people who has a really hard time watching people say stuff about me that is completely incorrect without mentioning that fact to them.  I have no idea how other people can allow you guys to rake them through the coals without comment.

...I tried to get out of here early on, but people kept bringing up stuff from my blog that I couldn't just let go by without comment.

Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:05)
I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously?  Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views.

Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,07:25)
I don't have time this week....busy at work & I'm planning a 70th birthday party for my mother-in-law and expecting about 80 people at my home this weekend.  Needless to say, it takes some serious time to prepare for that many people.

Now...13 posts to this thread in the last 3 hours.  You put the fun in fundie, lol.

[Edit:  14 posts to this go, girl!]

Date: 2007/06/15 16:40:47, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 15 2007,13:03)
seriously, you can trademark your artwork for free, and that is something I would claim trademark on like, RIGHT NOW, if I were you.

Thanks for the kind words, but I don't know about that...someone else is welcome to take that one-way trip to Lucasfilm's basement office of Infringement Rectification if they want. (Wrecked 'em?  Damn near killed 'em!)

Date: 2007/06/20 11:58:22, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I received an e-mail from an acquaintance, who has a PhD in biology, saying he calculated that the human genome could contain about 6.25 Mb of information...and he was wondering if that could be right. I don’t know why he thought I would know...

Maybe he believed you when you said you were a mathematician?  The next comment is from a high school math teacher who attempts the calculation showing each step and comes up with 700Mb and Sewell responds:
OK, 6Mb or 700Mb, that still seems WAY to small.

Of course, you don’t know why you would know - but feel free to guess.

Date: 2007/06/20 15:04:54, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 20 2007,12:39)
And as any good fundy will tell you (if you really get into it with them): once saved always saved.

I was saved as a child so there’s nothing more that needs doing (once saved always saved)


Date: 2007/06/22 14:52:03, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Nelson, sarcastically:
Because such emergence is guaranteed mathematically (never mind the messy chemical details, folks, just focus on the large numbers — you’re bound to win the lottery if you buy enough tickets), there’s no need for the design hypothesis...

But Paul, move those large numbers into the denominator and you have the entire ID argument - and sum total of its contribution.

Date: 2007/06/27 12:54:16, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Mutant on the Bounty is a great title (haven't seen it, just thought the title was good).

What about "Signs" with Mel Gibson?  I did not watch the whole movie, but saw the end - where water was like acid on the aliens' skin.  I mean, it wasn't cheesy like B-movie cheesy, but the water thing just killed me.  What happens in a rain shower, a heavy fog, or just the morning dew?  It was just stupid, and as far as I could tell not necessary to the story unless I missed something from earlier in the movie.

I doubt this comes close to some of the stuff already nominated, but I give you:

Empire of Ants

I caught this one late at night after a good bit of drinking.  It was a typical can't-look-away-from-the-wreck situation.  Radio active waste pollutes the Everglades where Joan Collins is selling scam real estate.  Ants become enormous by eating radioactive sugar at a sugar cane processing plant.  In the final scene, the good guys are escaping by boat.  One of the heroes, who'd gotten pretty beat up including a bum leg, is the last to get to the boat.  As he scampered/skipped/shuffled along the long wooden boat dock as fast as his bad leg would allow - I kept hoping he would trip and go asshole over tea kettle as the credits roll to a cheesy laugh track.  But no, they all get away safely.

Date: 2007/06/27 13:40:45, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:29)
JOE G IS STUPID is genius BTW...

LOL. I read that whole effing thread looking for that - I thought maybe it was a commenter's name - before I saw it. Good show!

Minutiae:  Joe G posts at ARN as Joe G now, but got banned while posting as "ID's Bulldog".

Date: 2007/06/27 13:52:33, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 27 2007,13:15)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,12:42)
Darwinists are indeed, as Hoyle implied, “mentally ill” creatures - and as such, I would add, immune from normal reason and logic.

Sweet. What fair and loving god wouldn't let the mentally ill into heaven?

Not even Johannes Lerle can deny this LOLocaust.

Date: 2007/07/19 13:41:48, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
FTK:  What if you're wrong about prayer? What if there is a God? Should we not pray for the safety of our troups, our citizens, and ultimate world peace?

What of the millions of prayers said at weekly services, meal times, bed times, etc... week after week, year upon year for the health and safety of loved ones - family and friends alike?  Bombs fell - people died - and what?  Pray "harder"?  Pray "louder"? Pray, but "really meant it" now?  What?

What if there is a God?  Doesn't He know that you don't want your children maimed or killed in a war (or anywhere else for that matter)?  You have to spell it out for Him?  Doesn't He know (didn't He make it so) that the safety of your children is one of the few things you want so desperately as to trade your own life for it?  And yet you have to ask for it, in a certain special way?  Is prayer a "magic spell" that requires a particular phrasing and hand gesture?  Or is your love and devotion to your children enough to alert Him?

Date: 2007/07/20 11:15:22, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Kristine @ July 19 2007,22:53)

Bill sees dead people.        
Chuckie’s Ghost visits me regularly and let’s me know what’s happening inside the belly of the beast.

Dr. Dr. D must have someone "on the inside" - but I wonder how much of his story is complete fabrication.  He wonders if a transcript will be made available.  I bet he is just prompting his toadies to search one out if available so he can edit/delete his story to match.

Date: 2007/07/25 10:51:37, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 24 2007,23:01)
New! Snakeoil!


New Snakeoil!

A new concept, “Transitive Complexity” and really big blue font!

Is there no limit to the shoite these creobots will make up?

Kindly supply a definition and description of Transitive Complexity.

kairosfocus better watch it.  Not for the temerity of asking a question of content - but because he is one of the rubes that are being counted on to buy this stuff.  If he wants the goods for free, what use is he?

Date: 2007/08/01 12:40:23, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Sal is a self-fluffer...                      
Sal: I delight to consider myself [Dr. Cheesman's] partner
Sal: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)

Sal has been talking about Setterfield for over three and a half years, at least:  Sal @ ARN  But, how serious is he about following the science with YEC implications?  Just last week, he admitted:                    
Actually until you pointed out the Andromeda and Magellan formations I was not aware of binaries that far away.

From his C14 radiometric dating thread:                  
In 2004 some of my personal research augmented that of Loma Linda/GRI

Either that is more self-fluffing, or Sal must have been pretty knowledgeable about radiometric dating.  From the ARN post linked above:          
All you show are 'proofs by contradiction', but surely a young Earth would have many traces left of its short history? One example would be short-lived radioactive isotopes. Where are they?

fG, I do respect your opinion here, you are clearly more knowledgeble in these areas.  I present the argument with caution, I could be wrong (and fall back to OEC), but for the sake of defending the YEC thesis, I will try to entertain your objection to the best of my ability.
Can you point me to a link to spool me up on radiometric dating? Your question deserves to be answered. I will do my best to honor your question. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, however, there may be some possibilities to radioactive decay related to the speed of light being variable (strange as that may sound).

What a fluffer!  The argument he cautiously presents is that "there may be some possibilities to radioactive decay related to the speed of light being variable" and to ask for a link where he can read up on radiometric dating.  How telling that his personal research ignorant googling can augment YEC research.  Sal puts the "fun" in fundie.

Date: 2007/08/06 18:42:52, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Patrick projects:  
This objection has been made before on UD but yours is the most coherent version yet (I mean that as a compliment) since you’ve explained the reasoning behind it and it’s not just a “gut feeling” objection like most Darwinists make. [my italics]

Why can't the Darwinists put forth some hard-core subjective speculation like DT?

Patrick projects more:  
Lest we retread ground once again…I’m assuming you’re saying that as a starting basis for making an argument about homologies of flagellar proteins, which usually turns into drawing a chart of said homologies and devolves into a game of wishful connect the dots without demonstrating how the various proteins can be formed, assembled and function as a motile device via unguided, purpose-less processes.

Why do Darwinists bother with that stuffed-shirt homology research and just jump straight to the wishful dot connecting that is the design inference where there is no demonstration of how the various proteins were formed, assembled, and given function?

Why do I say the design inference is currently the strongest explanation? We know what intelligent agencies are capable of coupled with the knowledge of what nature, operating freely and unguided, is capable of. The whole point of Behe’s new book was to try and find experimental evidence for exactly what Darwinian mechanisms are capable of.

So Behe's is trying to find evidence for what Patrick already knows in his gut.

More Patrick
Let’s say we have have a lower organism and a higher organism that share a homolog. But the creatures that are supposed to be in-between do not share this homolog. Now you could explain it away by saying this code “re-evolved”, but I’d consider this scenario to be more compatible with front-loading/designer reuse.

Let's make up a scenario where the evidence might actually be credible in pointing to design.  In a case like this isn't silly to think it could be explained by Darwinism?
BTW, I’m not aware of such an example but it’d be an interesting data point if there was.

Oops.  Well, Darwinism would be silly if we had that evidence - and boy, it would be interesting if we did - but we don't.  But, if there were, those sneaky Darwinists would just explain it away somehow - they can't deny that!

Date: 2007/08/08 17:00:09, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,02:46)
k.e., is English your second language?  If so I can find the appropriate translation to get my point across.  If English is indeed your native tongue then I'll try to speak very slowly.  Ready?  Here goes...

Well coming from a frigging Yank that's pretty funny Septic.

That's gold, k.e., gold!
When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries.

Not so much in defense of my countrymen - our English is horrible, and the internets ain't H3lP1N6 - but the timing is too good to miss:
RU 4Real
A New Zealand couple is looking to call their newborn son Superman -- but only because their chosen name of 4Real has been rejected by the government registry.

Date: 2007/08/15 16:50:18, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 15 2007,16:18) is hollow and swallow...

Catchy slogan.

Date: 2007/08/17 17:08:37, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
10 bushels of Tard in a 5 bushel sack - Tard is oozing out of the seams.  Yikes.

Date: 2007/09/14 11:01:09, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 14 2007,10:38)

Dembski has updated the page with the home phone numbers of the regents now, as well as what appears to be their actual addresses.

Allcorn, Rev. Stan
XXXX Canterbury Drive
Abilene, Texas 79602

this should be fun. Richard, can you get some more popcorn on the go?

Dembski says
Yes, it may be good to point out to regents that Baylor’s treatment of Prof. Marks will be featuring in EXPELLED (

What film will document Dembski's treatment of them I wonder???


What a guy!  He went the extra step and protected their emails from the spam bots.

Date: 2007/09/14 12:37:50, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I hope its alright if I post some ARN trard. Ilíon links this article in his thread "Sea-water As Fuel?".
First, Ilíon defends the article:        
But, the particular article *I* read seems the very epitome of sedate reportage of a potentially world-changing event.
The second sentence of the article should have been a clue:        
John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer.
When you hear about an RF generator for treating cancer - isn't it normal to wonder just how well it would desalinate seawater?  Anyway, back to the ARN tard.  A small problem with the "discovery" is pointed out to him but he is not fooled:      
If we already "know" that the energy output will be less than the inputs, then it is pointless to try to determine whether this discovery could become the basis of technology...
faded_Glory wonders "...what happened to the days when the SLOT was the Creationist' best friend?".  But, like a good creotard, it goes right over his head and he doesn't check his pace at all.
Ilíon has two - in one day!        
Another thought:

According to the article, this discovery was a serendipitous *accident* -- apparently, no one's 'scientific theory' predicted this result.

Just something that the "Science" worshipers really ought to keep in mind at all times; and, of course, the rest of us ought also to keep this in mind when confronted with worship of "Science."
Anyone who is not trying to misunderstand what I wrote realizes at once that I wasn't talking about e=mc^2, but rather about the "recoverable work" of a process based on this discovery.

It's going to take a certain amount of energy to power this process. The process generates heat (heat is energy). Heat can be "captured" and put to work. If the work that can performed by use this heat exceeds the work that could have been done by directly using the energy input into the process, then the process results in a net energy gain. On the other hand, if the work that could have been done by directly using the energy input into the process exceeds the work that can performed by use this heat, then the process results in a net energy loss.
Are you *really* so stupid (on top of all-round ignorance) as to imagine that we don't routinely -- without in any way violating SLOT -- extract more work from various processes than we put into those processes?
Starting to suspect that he is a throbbing tard, he takes a page from Dembski's street theater handbook:          
Or, perhaps by this point the thread has so degenerated that I am toying with you.

Some of you Defenders Of Science (and you are one of these) appear to have such a deep-seated *need* to view me as a blithering idiot (and from where I'm sitting, this apparent need can only seem pathological) that you routinely carry on as you have in this thread. Sometimes, I toy with that apparent need.
But, he can't help himself:          
faded_Glory: With regards to the gasoline example, you are overlooking the original source of energy, i.e. the Sun ...
I strongly suspect that this "fact" rests far more on its continual assertion over the past century than it does on any empirical demonstration ... or even on sound reasoning (by which I mean that the reasoning this "fact" is presently based on is circular).
I see now that I have probably quoted too much, and yet it is not enough to capture the full depth and nuance of teh Tard.

Date: 2007/09/27 11:14:44, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I know that PZ gets irate when I say things like “biology isn’t rocket science”, but in this day and age, we have *everything* we ever wanted to know or learn right at our fingertips.

Most of the discussions going on at the blogs and forums dedicated to the ID/Evolution controversy are really not terribly difficult to understand, and if there are terms or subjects that I’m unfamiliar with, I just look them up.

The same thing I tell the rest of you...10,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old.  He understands many of the arguments from both sides, and I've told him over and over to remain open minded to both.  There is so much we have yet to learn about many of these controversial issues.
My bolding, italics, and underscore.
You are BSing, FTK, that much is obvious - but where?  Are you BSing when you claim that you can spot BS from others - that really you are choosing who to accept and who to reject based on the preconceived notions of your closed mind?  Or, are you BSing when you claim that there is not enough known to discriminate between two wildly disparate claims - that there is enough information, but you are unwilling to accept anything that goes against the preconceived notions of your closed mind?  These are rhetorical questions, FTK, no need to answer.  Besides, I your answer already - you *honestly* can't see a contradiction and you stand by both statements:
"in this day and age, we have *everything* we ever wanted to know or learn right at our fingertips"
"There is so much we have yet to learn about many of these controversial issues"

Date: 2007/09/28 13:50:41, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Secret Message for Paul Nelson

Paul Nelson comments, "No, I'm debating Michael Ruse in southern California, about what would make us adopt the opposing position on ID vs. Darwinian evolution." and he links to UD. There he offers this quote:
An alert mind keeps in reserve and in good trim all that’s needed to destroy its dogmas and opinions. It is always prepared to attack its “feelings” and to refute its “reasons.”
— Paul Valery, Analects

YEC notions excepted, of course.  FFS, a YEC "debating" about what it would take to get him to accept Darwinian evolution?  I guess the following week, the KKK will give 5 good reasons for affirmative action and a representative for NOW will offer a scenario in which suffrage is a bad idea.

Date: 2007/10/04 18:02:41, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2007,17:45)
Er, wasn't Tinkerbell a fairy, not an angel? ;)

Don't get FTK started on that again.

Date: 2007/10/09 08:53:17, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 08 2007,22:03)
It begins..

All but one of the search results are about ID, so Google asks appropriately:

Did you mean to search for: mythology

Date: 2007/10/13 09:30:05, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 13 2007,04:21)
PaV picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue.

Date: 2007/12/02 13:23:31, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 01 2007,23:09)
I can't imagine my kids ever beating up a puppy to feel a sense of power.
FTK, on her blog in late April:
We get a lot of Herons here too. Last spring a pair of Mallards had some eggs on a small island the kids fish off of. We kept an eye on them and made sure the pair were well fed, but in the end a freaking heron had the eggs for lunch. Hubby was seriously pissed. Now, when the kids see herons on the pond, they go for their guns.

Herons aren't alone in their taste for eggs.  Puppies like eggs, among many others.  Without Purina or Alpo to fall back on, mommy and daddy doggie would prize those eggs as much as mommy and daddy heron.  Now, I'm sure FTK wouldn't let her kiddies shoot at puppies, not even "with a bee bee gun at very long range".  But, it is not too hard to imagine those kiddies, or FTK herself, going for their guns - acting on a sense of entitlement and power - to "punish" an animal simply for being that animal.

Date: 2007/12/03 13:47:17, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Photo redacted - possible copyright concern, don't want to get the board in trouble...

Sorry everyone...sorry.  Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...

Date: 2007/12/13 13:30:07, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 13 2007,12:33)
Dembski claims in his Southwest Babble College CV that the book in question is forthcoming

I don't know how recent that "forthcoming" list lists his "Reflections on Human Origins" as forthcoming, but that has been on his Design Inference website for some time (link to PDF) and Google just told me that it is in the July 2005 issue of PCID.  So, two and a half years out of date at least.  Oh well, he does have that one class to teach, not to mention stalking the Baylor campus for an unattended broom closet.

Date: 2007/12/26 17:39:33, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 25 2007,12:48)
Invite him here, someone.

Ilion is a tard.
He got taken by a sea water as fuel scam and became a belligerent tard when called on it.  He tried to change the subject, but instead backed himself into two corners - a double tard.  Here is some more about his "proof" of God.

Date: 2007/12/31 18:13:12, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,14:50)
I'm saying that "Darwinism" (not evolution or even particularly molecule to man) is an atheist philosophy and is based upon "faith".  Dawkins, PZ and followers would be of the Darwinism faith.

You're wrong.
Dawkins: No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.


Date: 2008/01/02 14:01:28, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
FTK on Dec. 29  
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,10:34)
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 29 2007,10:28)
Your endorsement of the young-earth hydroplate theory is particularly annoying in this respect. You refuse to discuss it- because everyone else is too closed-minded to accept a young earth, against all observations, as a premise for the argument? Okay, then.

Oh, on the contrary, I would absolutely love to discuss it, but fairly. [Broken link removed, emphasis added]

FTK on Dec. 31  
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,12:18)
I stated at my site that I won't debate Brown's work.  Period.

Edit: Removed broken link.

Date: 2008/01/11 08:49:10, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 11 2008,04:47)
While we're back to bashing FtK, I particularly enjoyed how she bolded "from a Darwinian perspective" in Dawkins' ramble about how sexual jealousy is a bad thing without, evidently, noticing that he was explicitly arguing against the trait which could be explained from a Darwinian perspective. It's as if his moral arguments are completely different from, and quite contradictory to, evolutionary concerns of fitness.

Several pages back, I showed her this quote:
Dawkins: No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.

It's almost as if Dawkins learned about evolution and common descent, but doesn't realize he is now supposed to run wild and act like an animal.

Date: 2008/01/18 17:32:05, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 18 2008,11:44)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 18 2008,11:29)

15 minutes?  What took so long?  Homemaker's Union mandatory break?  Caught in the middle of some ground breaking ID research?  Stacking the last few faggots around your effigy of Darwin?

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 18 2008,11:44)
We have a beautiful and fairly large home because *we* built the entire thing *ourselves* over the course of a year and a half.

FTK, April 2007:
The house is around 5000 sq. ft., and it and [sic] took a year to build because we were working at the time as well.

I can't wait to hear about it when it took two whole the snow...while you were 8 months pregnant...with one arm tied behind your night...with the gout...

Date: 2008/01/22 11:04:21, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 22 2008,07:51)
So PaV is not willing to put any effort in to publish, but he's happy for other people to "run with it" or "work something out with you".

It's lucky the reality based community simply gets on with it.

PaV = Walt Brown?

Date: 2008/03/05 14:11:22, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 05 2008,11:38)

Behe accepts common descent and an old Earth.  I don't have a link, but I remember the good doctor doctor hinting that he accepts neither.  Plus, given the venue, his audience is going to consist of YECs.  So leaving out Behe, at least, doesn't surprise me at all.

Edited to add:  I just noticed the epigraph on Dembski's page:
What you believe to be true will control you whether it's true or not.
- Jeremy La Borde

There's a nasty smell and a cloud of greenish vapour where my irony meter used to be.

Dr. Dr. Give Me the News:
For the record: I personally don’t believe in common descent...

Date: 2008/03/18 07:22:28, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 18 2008,05:51)
Methinks Emkay is a YEC.  Or one of you.  

bFast: “For example, during the cambrian explosion, many phila were generated, shortly after that, most of these phila dissappeared. Why? The data looks like experimentation to me.”
The so-called Cambrian explosion is only proof that a global flood took place about 4500 years ago, in the time of the biblical Noah.

A tard-fight ensues.

LOL!  bFast is a genius.

There is only one way that there could have been a great flood, and the scientific community could be so wrong — a mass conspiracy.

However, when it comes to natural selection...

Honest folks, I think that this thread has meandered into people finding fancy ways of telling other people that they are stupid becuase either you all have narcisistic personality disorder, or because you fear that I have your pet theory by the short hairs.

There is only one way the scientific community could be so wrong - and none of the countless antievolutionists throughout the centuries have been able to catch them out...

Wile E. bFast - Super Genius

Date: 2008/04/03 17:39:20, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I carry a small pocket knife - good for cheese and apples and the occasional postal package.  It is definitely not a weapon; 1) if I ever need to use a weapon, I want one that doesn't require me to get so close to the target.  2)  It would probably fail on impact, snap shut and lop off my fingers

Quote (Louis @ April 03 2008,03:26)
You guys know what kerb crawling is?

Started to ask, then googled:  Wiki on kerb crawling
Then thought, "Oh, curb crawling."

Date: 2008/04/09 21:52:29, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I can see them now...complaining to anyone who will listen about how XVIVO is being soooo petty and overzealous; their night vision goggles bobbing animatedly as they gesture with their clipboard lists of who is the right sort and who got the fake cancellations.

Date: 2008/04/10 00:40:32, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 09 2008,22:20)
Still with the shooting BB guns at waterfowl?

God FtK you are one dumb hussy.

I wish I knew some wildlife agents near where you live.  I am sure Mr FtK and the kids need a break from your manic ass.  Lock you up for a few days and see how you like missing prayer breakfast.

From last April, her report of the incident:    
We get a lot of Herons here too. Last spring a pair of Mallards had some eggs on a small island the kids fish off of. We kept an eye on them and made sure the pair were well fed, but in the end a freaking heron had the eggs for lunch. Hubby was seriously pissed. Now, when the kids see herons on the pond, they go for their guns. [My bold]

When she caught some heat for sending her kids out after the herons, the story changed.  It wasn't eggs, but darling, adorable baby ducks.    
You are such a dope, Dave.  My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.  Personally, I love watching them on the pond.  But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing.  We had been taking care of that pair of Mallards for quite some time. [My bold.]

I guess she felt that ~eggs~ didn't evoke enough emotional response to justify her shrugging off valid criticism, so she juiced it up.  She doubted her boys could hunt/stalk/shoot well enough to kill the herons, but how to rationalize even letting them try?  Eggs become ~just~ hatched, helpless babies.  Who could blame her now?  She's not the killer - don't be a dope, it's the herons.  Were those tracking bands on their legs, or swastikas?

Now, they're eggs again...    
Last year, a pair of Mallards claimed the prized spot and unfortunately after watching them for a few weeks, something got to the eggs and the pair disappeared. [My bold]

Something?  Repress much?

Date: 2008/04/12 02:56:14, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (didymos @ April 11 2008,21:43)
OK, so UD gots this: WORLD interviews Ben Stein

Your basic Dembski cut-and-repost.  Here's the part I found interesting:

WORLD: How did you get involved with Expelled?

STEIN: I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can’t question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you’ll lose your job, and you’ll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating.

Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis’ Final Solution to their so-called “Jewish problem” and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.

A couple years ago?  They may not have settled on the title, but it seems the premise was understood.    
From Pharyngula:

My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion."

Date: 2008/04/12 16:05:42, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Paging Dr. Dr. Freud...

Dembski wrote:
Friday, April 18, another such millstone will be attained.

ETA:  Oops, snookered.  Two shots for looking.

Date: 2008/04/14 13:03:17, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 14 2008,10:02)
IDists, get on this:

Filter away!

From the article:
Geophysicists Guangmeng Guo and Bin Wang of Nanyang Normal University in Henan, China, noticed a gap in the clouds in satellite images from December 2004 that precisely matched the location of the main fault in southern Iran.

Come on now, you know that the IDCs are much too clever to make a gap argument.

Date: 2008/04/19 01:28:16, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

Not polite to go to someone’s house and call them an IDiot.

No, that isn't polite.  If you go to someone's house and you think he's an idiot, you don't call him an idiot - you knock up his wife.

Date: 2008/04/20 14:12:55, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 20 2008,10:22)
Poor Dog_of_War  

You figure about 4 people per showing (just a number I pulled out of the air, but it seems reasonable), 1,050 theaters with 2 showings per theater, that’s 8,400 people per day.
At 7 dollars per ticket, that’s $58,800 a day. Not a big number as movie grosses go, but it adds up. Over a reasonable run, that could easily add up to over a million dollars.

There's no way he's a sockpuppet - he's far too comfortable using ID methods. (My bold)

Date: 2008/05/21 12:25:54, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

Found this website during my daily wanderings.  Fun for a few clicks.  Top 3 of about 10 tries with "Tard":

Everything is simple with Tard!

Tard. Impossible is nothing.

One goal, one passion - Tard!

Date: 2008/06/12 11:09:17, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Hi FtK, here's an easy one for you...

In Spring 2007, you wrote on your blog:        
We get a lot of Herons here too. Last spring a pair of Mallards had some eggs on a small island the kids fish off of. We kept an eye on them and made sure the pair were well fed, but in the end a freaking heron had the eggs for lunch. Hubby was seriously pissed. Now, when the kids see herons on the pond, they go for their guns. [My bold]

Over here, you caught some criticism over allowing/encouraging that action toward a protected species and the whole seeking-vengeance-with-guns thing in general.  You came over to explain the situation:        
You are such a dope, Dave.  My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.  Personally, I love watching them on the pond.  But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing.  We had been taking care of that pair of Mallards for quite some time. [My bold.]

You changed it from "eggs" to "baby chicks" - not an obvious typo.  I think that the criticism hit home and rather than accept/admit it, you lied to up the emotional appeal and justify your actions.

This Spring, you wrote on your blog:        
Last year, a pair of Mallards claimed the prized spot and unfortunately after watching them for a few weeks, something got to the eggs and the pair disappeared. [My bold]

Back to eggs, again.  Why are they eggs at your blog but baby chicks over here?  Why the petty lie, FtK?  Because you cannot be wrong, no matter what?  Because AtBC cannot have anything worthwhile to offer? (Excepting, of course, when one of your boys wants to talk about real science/engineering.  I mean, where are you going to go?  Sal the EE and ID-scientist extraordinaire, with his own, empty website to carry the discussion?)

EDIT TO ADD:  I have quoted your post a couple times in this thread, so don't bother going back to edit it out beca...oh, wait, never mind.

Date: 2008/06/12 12:37:21, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
The "lie rather than be wrong" thing is a big deal, FtK.

At sites like UD or Telic Thoughts, there are a nearly constant accusations that science is dogmatic, that unfriendly data is ignored, that theory is treated as unassailable fact, that everyone must toe the party line or else...  But the few times that real science is posted there, it is mostly to highlight the scientists saying that the results were unexpected or even contrary to current theory.  The point is that the real scientists do admit when they are wrong. Not only do they admit it, they incorporate the new findings into the body of knowledge (i.e. they learn and move forward with an enriched viewpoint).

Contrast that with ID.  What has ID been wrong about?  Have all their ideas panned out?  No false steps, no false leads?  No surprises for them?  Look at Behe - his testimony in Dover or his current flap.  Or Nelson. Are they making changes or are they insisting that they were right all along no matter how contrary the data? Which came first at UD - the sock puppets or banishment of valid criticism?  Eggs or baby ducks, FtK?

Date: 2008/06/13 06:51:23, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2007,22:28)
When I first fell into this debate, I’d never been involved in forums, blogs, chat rooms, etc., and honestly I was scared shitless to pipe up and say anything for fear that I wouldn’t have a clue what they were talking about nor how I would address their responses.  I found out that it wasn’t nearly as difficult as I’d feared.  I know that PZ gets irate when I say things like “biology isn’t rocket science”, but in this day and age, we have *everything* we ever wanted to know or learn right at our fingertips.

Most of the discussions going on at the blogs and forums dedicated to the ID/Evolution controversy are really not terribly difficult to understand, and if there are terms or subjects that I’m unfamiliar with, I just look them up. (linky)

Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,19:51)


I've gone back and forth from creationist to evolutionist on so many of the issues in this debate, and each side always claims to be able to address and resolve the issues put forth by their opposition.

So, I give up...I have no way of knowing who's right, who's wrong, and whether the answers are assumptions, facts, or wishful thinking.  So, call me ignorant, and let's just leave it at that, huh? (linky)

Well, gosh, PZ was right all along.  Science by Google just doesn't work and after years of study at Walt and Sal's feet, FtK is still an ignorant about science.  At least she learned from Sal how to lie at the drop of an argument.

Date: 2008/06/13 07:32:21, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 13 2008,07:36)

What she's reaching for is "Bill Dembski is the Dick Butkus ButtKiss of information theory."

Fixed that for you.

What?  Too easy?  Hey, us unfunny pricks can't all be IDists.

Date: 2008/06/30 10:08:48, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2008,02:38)

I was particularly concerned in writing the book to inoculate young people not only against the atheistic poison of Dawkins and Co. but also against the theological and scientific confusions of theistic evolutionists (like Ken Miller and Francis Collins). If this book does its job, both these camps will lose much of their traction with young people.

Wasn't that the purpose of Overwhelming Evidence? How's that going Bill?

And "Of Pandas and People" and "Exploring Evolution" and "The Design of Life" and IDURC...

Date: 2008/06/30 11:38:38, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 30 2008,11:37)
If you go to IDURC and click on the "what's new" link you are shown this:

Not Found
The requested URL /whatsnew.htm was not found on this server.

How apt.

EDIT: anybody find anything on the site newer then 2005?

Nothing since Dover.  The Search link takes you to a "Comming Soon" page, though.

Date: 2008/07/01 12:19:29, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,07:55)
Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.  The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.

But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like, which my kids really like.


I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

This is the first time in your participation on this thread that ID has been brought up.  You did it and you tied it to Creationism.

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:13)
But as many have said before ID is not religious.

This is the second time in your participation on this thread that ID has been brought up.  And, again, you did it.  Is this the talking point you've wanted to get to all along?  Anyway, before these comments you wrote:

Quote (lcd @ June 30 2008,22:10)
Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  After all, look at Stalin, Mao and other atheists who supported evolution.  Granted it may not be what you guys now have put on the mantle of your altar of science now, evolution can never be disproved as it is always shifting the goal posts, but they were atheists and as atheists they sure as heck didn't believe in Creation now did they?

I don't agree with you, but I'll set that aside for the moment.  In your opinion, can atheists believe in ID?  You say that evolution is "the idea that we have no meaning" and that it "must be defeated".  Defeated by what?  Non-religious ID?  Does non-religious ID offer "the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth"?  What meaning does ID offer for we humans or life in general - and how does ID come to that conclusion?

Date: 2008/07/02 10:36:18, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:16)

Here's a shock for you.

I have no problem confirming that ID is part of Creationism.

No shock at all, I was pointing it out to you and contrasting it with your statement that ID is not religious.

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:16)
What I don't agree with though is that without the Bible, ID would fall apart.

I feel just the opposite.  Imagine a world where God unknown and Jesus hadn't saved anyone.  A truly terrible place.  I could see real scientists looking for better ways to kill other people for their evil governments and looking into bio warfare.

So war and violence are things of the past in your world?  Just for fun, why don't you make a list of the top 5 industrialized nations where Christianity is the dominant religion and then a list of the top 5 nations with the largest nuclear/biological weapons stockpiles.

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:16)

The goal is to "build a better bug".  The scientists start and some of them notice the unmistakable signs of design in these microbes.  Their conclusion is that someone already designed them.  Perhaps that is what can help them discover God and all of His Glory.

So ID can lead people back to God and His Word as well as His Word leading people to ID and His Creation.

You didn't answer my questions about the meaning that ID offers in contrast to, what you called, meaningless evolution - yet you provide an excellent example for why I ask.  "Build a better bug" - the bugs already exist.  Nasty diseases, fatal diseases caused by horrible bugs with the "unmistakable signs of design".  How do the unmistakable signs of design in these horrible bugs suggest to the scientists that they shouldn't build a better one?  Why should they think killing people is wrong when there are so many clever and efficient ways of killing people unmistakably designed into the environment?  (To clarify:  I don't think it is okay to kill people or build bio weapons, nor do I think that atheists in general think those things.  I am asking you about these things to contrast your concepts of "meaningful ID" vs. "meaningless evolution".)

ETA:  Erasmus is probably right.  I'll wager it is FtK, itself, that a) is cleverly turning the tables on the den of sockpuppets and b) okay, it's not so clever, but it just can't stay away.

Date: 2008/07/09 16:59:16, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,14:39)
I'm not a liar or dishonest so all those who claimed I am can retract now.

Nope.  You're a liar.

Date: 2008/07/10 00:24:46, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
FtK, trying to pretend ID and science are on equal footing:
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,09:21)
News flash...both ID and evolution have been around in different forms since the dawn of time.  Neither Darwin nor Dembski/Johnson/Behe have startled us with new ideas...they've merely massaged the old.

Darwin didn't startle "us" with new ideas - merely reworked some old ones.

Less than 14 hours later:
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,23:17)
Dave, all drastic theories such as Darwin's go through a time of upheaval, but naturalists went nuts for this particular scenario because it excluded the designing aspect of life.  Huxley, et. al. went ape shit over the theory.  From what I understand, there were as many scientists supporting the theory as there were against it....even from the start.

Darwin's was a drastic theory that caused a lot of excitement and controversy.

It is obvious that you are clueless, but you are also a known liar about even the most petty things.  I wonder which it was in this case of diametrically opposed statements?  A knowing lie to try to save a bankrupt argument, or innocent cluelessness from a known liar?

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:50)
IOW....ID and Darwinism are both lacking in regard to empirical data, they both deserve a fair shake in science classes, and both the evidence for and against both should be addressed as well.

In your opinion, what is the evidence against ID?  Do you believe what you say here?  Do you know of any - a link would do - have you ever seen a leading light from ID discussing evidence against ID, or a research dead end, or an incorrect assumption?  Or have they always been right about everything and no anomalous data?

[All ellipses in original]

I know you have seen the last sentence of The Origin of Species (if you don't remember it, you can find it through the link below).  Here are the first two:

Preface to OoS  
I WILL here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created.

Great majority then:  Separately created species, no "macro" evolution.
Great majority now:  Species arise through evolution, common descent from some primordial life form(s).
If not through scientific study and honest appraisal of evidence - including reevaluation as more and more evidence became available - how/why did this change take place?  If you don't think that current theory is based on evidence, and led/leads to fruitful research - pull out your tinfoil hat and give your best conspiracist explanation.

Date: 2008/07/10 09:00:52, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (olegt @ July 10 2008,09:05)

Here are some pertinent thoughts by Dave expressed recently at TT:
On the plus side Sal is fairly well informed, works diligently for the cause, and he bends over backwards* trying not to offend anyone.

Sal is "on the plus side"?  Maybe that is why he and FtK get along so well.

* Insert gay joke here about bending over backwards**

** Append additional gay joke about inserting gay jokes

Date: 2008/07/16 17:20:11, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Is that you on the right, FtK?  Rawr!!!1!  I bet you wish you could still wriggle into that little number.  (P.S.  When they said to get off the scales, they weren't worried you were going to break something, they just wanted you to help clean the fish.)

Date: 2008/07/17 06:38:54, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Zachriel @ July 16 2008,19:31)
StephenB: Dave, I was responding to your selective quote, not mine. Nevertheless, I will silence myself before I get silenced, if that hasn’t happened already.


DaveScot: If I banned everyone who thinks Darwin’s theory of evolution was a necessary factor in the holocaust I’d have to ban about 50% of the ID supporters here. It seems to be a group psychosis closely associated with a refusal to believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old. So don’t worry it. If it was MY blog I would definitely throw that crowd overboard so the ship doesn’t sink under the weight of it, but it isn’t my blog so I don’t - I’m just following orders letting the young earth Nazi card players have a voice here.

Just following orders.

I looked in at this thread and started giggling thinking that some sockpuppet had hit upon the idea of leaving open format tags to turn UD into a more complete and visual tard wreck.  I scrolled up to see who had done it - kariosfocus.  First he left off the close italics tag then, a mile of italics later, he typos a close bold tag.  Random errors - and not ID - is the best idea they've had over there in weeks.  LOL.

Date: 2008/07/17 17:41:26, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
1,000 pages of pointing out tard absurdities...

Thou protest too much?

To be shut down at 1,000 pages...

Grand farewell?

K bai?


Thanks to all of the tard miners and funny fellows!

Date: 2008/07/25 20:49:42, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (J-Dog @ July 25 2008,14:03)
added in edit:  Quote plug to lcd:

"Favre would have been smarter to keep quite instead of being so direct.  If he didn't say he was going to retire, the Head Cheese Heads wouldn't have drafted 2 QBs"

That damn fossil would look awfully good throwing to Devon Hestor...

and he's got to be better than THIS Fassel:

Bitter beer face! (Or Mr. FtK getting the why-you're-going-to-wash-those-dishes-again lecture.)

Date: 2008/08/08 14:10:11, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Following DHeddle's links above, I then clicked on the article Real car designers go Hot Wheels.  Number 5 is from Honda - a submission by Guillermo Gonzalez.  I guess the universe and the laws of physics are uniquely tuned to allow 1/64 scale fake cars to do loopty loops.

Date: 2008/08/08 15:24:50, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 07 2008,09:50)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,07:02)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 07 2008,00:35)
Text questions at Second Baptist Houston

According to a quick TagCrowd counting the christian god in its (his, her?) different forms appears 89 times in the questions (god (70) jesus (12) christ (7)) although ID doesn't say anything about the nature of the designer.

QUESTION: Is there anything we as a church could do to change text books being taught in public schools?

Bottom line.

No answers.  Typical of ID.

If the megachurch is so high tech, are there recordings of this available?

Still no answers posted, or curiosity about the answers.  Crandaddy is curious as to how Dr.Dr. could answer all of the questions - but not curious as to the actual answers.

Here is a page with links to the audio and video (with audio) of the Q & A.  Maybe the good Dr.Dr. will add these links to his blog?

Date: 2008/08/11 11:17:03, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (dheddle @ Aug. 02 2008,17:54)
Here's something you don't see often. An open letter to the double doc.

As unsual as a pass for the lead in an F1 race.

Edit: edited what I had previously submitted.

Thread deleted; lock, stock, and comments.

Bilbo says:I deleted the open letter to Dembski. It occurred to me that it was the type of thing that would fit in better at UD, instead of at TT.

With more and more threads about Jesus, and more and more threads getting 404'ed the difference is becoming negligible.

Date: 2008/08/11 15:12:14, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I have (what I hope is) a silly question.  When I'm logged in, I cannot see the relatively new links bar for "stickied" threads.  But when logged out, it is there.  I have cleared my cookies, to no avail.

ETA:  I use Firefox v3

Date: 2008/08/13 14:02:58, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Something about Gonzales' speculations makes me think annular eclipse - but I can't put my finger on it...

Date: 2008/08/15 10:01:46, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 15 2008,00:32)

First of all it was ME who put that definition of ID on this website. Bill Dembski wasn’t even consulted in the decision. I simply googled the web and copied what I thought was the best definition. As it turns out that definition was worked out and adopted by a large group of ID proponents. No wonder I liked it, a lot of work went into it from a diverse group.

Wow.  Just, wow.  Hey, maybe DT can put a link to Google here.

Date: 2008/09/04 06:37:43, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 03 2008,19:53)
Trouble at t'mill:
2:24 pm
Like most cynics, Pigliucci’s attempt at irony backfires because his analogy contradicts his argument. Flat earth and Darwinist ideologies came first, and have become obsolete; round earth and ID sciences came later and are what’s happening now. If you are going to lampoon your opponent with historical references, the first order of business is to get hold of your chronology.

Less than 2 weeks ago, StephenB wrote:  
In fact, modern science began with the belief that God designed the world for discovery, leaving material clues that would hint at his immaterial existence.

and then a couple comments later:  
Darwinists, as a general rule, don’t have a clue about ID history one way or the other. Apparently, Judge Jones didn’t even know about Aristotle’s “prime mover.” Design thinkers go way back. Are you suggesting that we should ignore the long history of design thinkers because schoolyard bullies slap nerds around?

Poor, confused little tardlet.

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Sep. 03 2008,18:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,14:20)
PaV fails to acknowledge the role of [changing] environments in evolution:


Error 404 - Not Found

Hope that doesn't happen again. Could there be a bug in UD's code or something?

Does anyone have a guess as to why this thread was for-oh-Ford?  It was stupid, ignorant, and fawning - but not noticeably so for UD.  An articulate and reasoned comment would have just gotten the commenter banned and deleted - but not usually the whole thread.  Perhaps they were aiming for the thread with DT's knuck-dragging-bible-thumper comment and missed?

Date: 2008/09/04 07:20:57, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
In fact, during Darwin's time, the link between fins and limbs seemed impossible.

Yep.  Back then, the predominant Creationist view was that the animals with fins and limbs were created according to God's Plan.  Now we know - through the exacting and mathematical rigor of ID - that the link between fins and limbs is only possible because it was part of the Designer's Plan (not that we know the Designer's Plan, just that there are fins and limbs - so they must have been part of the Plan).  Yay! ID Science!

Date: 2008/09/24 11:11:56, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,11:36)
I am not dishonest.

That is the Liars' Motto, FtK.  You lie about even the most petty things.

Date: 2008/09/24 12:53:21, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 24 2008,13:01)
So, to be blunt, the phrase "circle jerk" is more apt for the small group of ID proponents in their incestuous relationships where they slap each other on the back and promote each others books irrespective of their merit.

And quite Freudian, coming from little miss center of attention.

Date: 2008/09/30 08:07:45, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 30 2008,02:12)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 29 2008,20:30)
Drive a steak through his hart and be done with it.

Oh deer.  Trying to buck the trend.

Date: 2008/10/01 11:06:26, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 21 2008,23:06)
After salsa dancing with the missus, I have to ask: is there a better salsa song than Smooth, by Santana? I mean seriously. Is there anything better.

It isn't salsa, but there is nothing more smooth than this.

Date: 2008/10/08 15:45:13, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I somewhat agree with FtK, too, about the pork barrel projects during an economic crisis - are these projects of Obama's that recent?  However, pork fat is the grease of the government engine.  Just look at the pork that had to be added to the bail-out bill to get those principled congressmen to re-examine (and pass) it.

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:07)
Those f*ucking moronic creationists sure are able to raise some serious cash for their projects. Maybe you can take some pointers from them?

You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.

You say "creation science", but I can't find any science (not even any pretend science) at your link.  I can find what a day's admission costs, and what a 2-day pass costs.  I found a link where I can donate without visiting.  I found a link where I can sign up (and pay for) a new membership.  I found a link where I can make a payment on an existing membership.  I found a link to a store where I can buy some merchandise.  But no science (not even pretend).

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:07)
You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.

Who are the "us" and the "they" I bolded above?  How are you not part of "they"?  Did you not donate any money or do you not think the "museum" is important - or are you just pretending to be on the fence?

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:51)
...[Creationists] do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,16:38)
The gal I've been talking to about baraminology told me there are people working on it in their spare time, and a few Christian colleges getting some funding for it.

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:07)
...yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.

Yep.  Did I mention that there wasn't any science at your link (not even pretend)?

Date: 2008/10/08 16:16:21, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,16:54)
No, I didn't donate to the creation museum.  Shoot, we haven't had any extra money to donate to anything the past year or so, other than some to my church.  This economy is absolutely killing our pocketbook.  We haven't vacationed in several years, and have watched every single penny we've made.

Hubby doesn't go to church?

Maybe you should petition your congressman for a new planetarium.  A new building project creates all kinds of jobs - even one for an architect.

Date: 2008/10/09 16:42:58, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 09 2008,14:51)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 09 2008,13:37)
(my political "position" is so far out of what is available in the US or the UK as to be unrepresented).


Coventry City last won the FA Cup in what year?

Date: 2008/10/25 08:52:01, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

This morning, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) gave her first policy speech urging the federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), “a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation.” In the speech, Palin cited the need to do more for children with disabilities such as autism...

[Palin:] Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

An FtK style attack on science that she doesn't understand and can't get instant gratification/results from. "I kid you not"?  It's like reading an FtK blog.
Palin did not specify what fruit fly research earmark she was referring to (presumably a grant for olive fruit fly research), but she is apparently unaware that scientific research with fruit flies has led to valuable discoveries that have boosted autism research, as a study at the University of North Carolina demonstrated last year

Links at the linked.  Also, the IDEA acronym leads to all sorts of Sal jokes, but I haven't had enough coffee yet.

Date: 2008/10/25 10:25:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 25 2008,10:23)
Crosspost of a comment I made on Pharyngula:

What Palin said is not so crazy. Scarce scientific research funds should be allocated on merit, based on a peer review of competing proposals. Apply for grants, make a scientific case, receive your grant. That's how it should work. Was this an earmark that went directly to the researcher or research team, or was it to some state agency that then invited grant proposals? If its the former, she has a point.

"Scarce scientific research funds" - exactly.  Can the process for awarding research funds be improved - certainly.  If her argument is about mismanagement of funds, that argument applies to most, if not all, government spending.  Why is she handing out pitchforks and torches over "scarce scientific research funds", when there are so many other more blatant examples like, oh, $10 billion a month in Iraq - or $150,000 on designer clothes for Mrs. Hockey-mom, Jane-six-pack, Real America?  The "I kid you not" eye-rolling, as if those "ivory tower liberals elites" are the only - or even significant - ones to misuse tax payer funds, is pathetic class/culture warfare.  She flings fruit-fly research out there for ridicule when she clearly is unaware of the medical and economic benefits shows just what a vapid FtK clone she is.

Date: 2008/10/30 12:22:22, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Interesting snippet at the end of an article titled: Joe?  Where did you go?
A local school district official confirmed after the event that of the 6,000 people estimated by the fire marshal to be in attendance this morning, more than 4,000 were bused in from schools in the area. The entire 2,500-student Defiance School District was in attendance, the official said, in addition to at least three other schools from neighboring districts, one of which sent 14 buses.

No reports of compulsory singing, though.

ETA:  McCain rally.

Date: 2008/11/05 20:36:37, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Some juicy gossip about Palin over at Newsweek:

An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Of course we can expect all sorts of non-story, petty, backbiting little thin....HOLY SHIT!!!

Palin Didn't Know Africa Is A Continent

Date: 2008/11/14 08:46:15, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Robert Marks and I continue to crank away at papers...

Crank? Telling.

So Dembski has done his business at the litter box known as UD - time to Barry it.

Date: 2008/11/26 22:14:18, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 26 2008,22:48)
Quote (bfish @ Nov. 26 2008,19:03)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 26 2008,18:44)
If JackInHofe* is here. If they don't give you traffic for UD, you can get detailed stats for the post-darwinist

* I just got the joke name. Gee I am thick sometimes.

*Bartender cups hand over telephone, calls out to crowded bar room*

Is anyone here Jack InHofe? Anyone?

Note: I didn't get it either, until you pointed it out. Apparently I am Uncommonly Dense.

I haven't seen Oliver Klozoff and Al Koholik around UD lately. I hope they haven't been banned.  :(

I think Phil McKrakin is DT's personal puppet - he uses it at all the hard core bear Marine boards - but Emerson Biggins and Ben Dover are available if anyone has an extra email address.

Date: 2008/11/27 07:12:25, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Like most of his ilk, Barry has a love-hate relationship with Jack Inhofe.

Trepidatious about banning a poster, Barry finally decided he had to rub one out.

Date: 2008/12/29 15:43:15, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 29 2008,13:35)
The Design Of Life Update - Because it is all about Teh Science:


That was then, and this is now. In fact, experimental research has been underway throughout most of this decade, long enough for us to get a very satisfying glimpse of where this is going. Dare I say it? Earth-shattering breakthroughs are on their way. Future science textbooks will one day open new chapters recounting this landmark progress.

Dare I say it?  WaterlooooOooOooooOoos...on their day...

Date: 2008/12/30 17:16:12, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 30 2008,16:03)
I avoid Wikipedia at all costs, always preferring other sources.


Please, NOT in publishing, online or otherwise.


Just don’t ever quote Wikipedia as a source to me, and expect me to take it as some kind of authority.

Really, Denyse?  Your book By Design or by Chance contains at least 5 references to Wikipedia.  Did you mean to say that you had been unable to find any other sources to tell you about the Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre and convergent evolution?  

For the record, I think Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for learning about a subject, but it is not an authoritative source.  I would not cite in a publication.

She is on a roll today, even for her.  Back-to-back own goals.
Densye's latest
First a DO'L patented "buy my books" plug:  
If you got money for Christmas, 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: and 5 Others That Didn’t Help would be a good use of your dime.
Okay, not really - that's the title of the book she is touting, not a description of her literary output.  She brings up the false positive design inference of the "canals" on Mars.  She quotes the book:  
The lesson is simple enough. Schiaparelli, Lowell, Wells, and a host of other scientists and popularizers wanted to see life on Mars. The alien enthusiasts just wanted to see what was fuzzy as straight and geometrical because they wanted Mars to be populated with aliens. It is often our desire to have something be true that makes us clearly and distinctly see the false as true, the imagined as real. This is as true in the history of science as it is in our everyday life. In either case, reality is the appropriate test of our everyday beliefs and scientific theories. (pp. 25-26)

No parallels to ID there, no sir.

Date: 2009/02/16 07:10:52, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 16 2009,07:27)
January 4, 2009 by Michael:

Starting Over

The original blog for The Design Matrix was hacked and, as of now, it looks like it is lost. So alas, I start over.  The good news is that I can now activate the comments section, but I have the system set so that I have to approve comments before they are posted.

I read about the "hacking" in the comments at TT - maybe as much as a week after it had happened.  It is my opinion that it wasn't hacking, but a final step in cutting ties to the TT crew.  As transparent as Mike Gene can be, I think even he has gotten embarrassed of Bradford and the gang.  The first thing I did was to try to go to MG's ID Think website.  So I went to the TT links list, but all the links to MG had been taken down.  I thought that was odd - not only to be worried about broken links, but to have already decided that it was beyond repair and to just scrap it.  I thought it was odd, but not too suspicious - the clincher for me was that there wasn't even one rant post (much less half a dozen spread across two or three blogs) about getting hacked.  Mike Gene passing up an opportunity to whine about poor treatment of Mike Gene?  My design detector's needle jumped on that one, for sure.

Date: 2009/02/18 14:47:46, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Like the Sirens' song...

First it was Carlson:
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 17 2009,16:46)
I have a small digital recorder...I've never used it so I have no idea...

Now Amadan:
Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 18 2009,09:21)
I've got a little link

No wonder Richard is back.

Date: 2009/02/20 17:08:42, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
prhean:  I don’t see many rectangles occurring in nature. In fact, I can’t think of any. For that matter, I can’t think of any straight lines, except maybe light beams, inertia, or gravitational forces. None of these would apply here. Can someone enlighten me?

Enlighten?  No.  But add a few pounds and you might make a good door stop.

Date: 2009/02/21 07:54:07, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Andrew Sibley:
OK in the interest of fairness I will amend one line to read. “The cartoon shows a chimpanzee shot dead by police with a caption apparently referring to the new American President Obama - although it was later denied that Obama was the target.”

Shades of DT amending his praying marines/ACLU rant - never let the truth or the clarifications by the principals involved get in the way of good demonization.  There is now a bolded insert from "UD Admin" to further amend Silbley's statement about the cartoon.  But this:
There is some irony that the left loves both Darwin and Obama, but Darwinism leads to racism and fascism where the African is considered less evolved and closer to apes than the Caucasian. It is time for the left to address honestly the dark side of Darwinism.
Is, of course, left untouched.  What a bunch of fucktards.

ETA:  Good on Khan for pointing out the pre-Darwin racism by a creationist, even if the tards will only accept it as evidence that creationists can contribute to science.

Date: 2009/02/21 16:14:05, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2009,14:40)

Don't forget thatYoung Jack Inhofe gave up his posting life to fight against the tardicity of this post!  He is the one that got the Disclaimer put on the damn site and made Sibley issue his not-pology...

RIP and more power to Jack Inhofe!  As a matter of fact, I want all of you to equate UD with Jack Inhofe.  He would have wanted it that way.

Thanks for that J-Dog.  You are, of course, correct.  I think tonight I shall set some soft mood music, maybe uncork a nice wine, and light some candles - the entire evening shall be dedicated to Jack Inhofe.

Date: 2009/02/22 20:53:24, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (simmi @ Feb. 22 2009,04:46)
You never know, Casey might be into:

Date: 2009/02/23 06:03:37, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 22 2009,15:16)
Luskin brutalized in yet another venue.


An awesome comment from "Rob of CA":
I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.T.   D.E.S.I.G.N. = "If Nanotechnology Takes Engineers Let's Logically Infer God Engineered Nature Teleologically! DNA's Engineering Shows Ingenius Guidance Needed!!"

The Acronym Regarding Design?

Date: 2009/02/23 12:27:29, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Paul Nelson posts at UD:
Don’t use the D word. It’s being eliminated.
Thanks for being ahead of the curve, Paul, and not using the D word in "Explore Evolution".

Date: 2009/02/27 11:52:51, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I have a laymen's question about publishing:  If you submit a work to be published, and it gets rejected - for whatever reason - are the notes from the reviewer(s) or the rejection letter protected in some way?

I know the IDers can't/won't/don't publish in their own journals, but why don't they put their work up somewhere and include the rejection letter or whatever mean, nasty notes they've gotten to show how they are not treated fairly?  I'm sure someone like Bill O'Reilly would give nation-wide airtime every day to expose this kind of injustice.  Hell, maybe even a feature-length documentary profiling those poor souls who have been unfairly barred from the academic process?

Date: 2009/02/27 14:06:05, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Thanks all for the replies.

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 27 2009,14:31)
Ray Martinez, up-and-comming cybertard is one for the future:


Behe *chose* to “accept” common ancestry and human evolution in order for his IC evidence to not be dismissed as originating from a Creationist. His strategy has failed and now he is stuck.


LOL.  Shirley that is a Top Tard Quote?

Date: 2009/03/04 14:42:10, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
OT - and yet, not.

Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?

Sheep can hear a zipper a mile away.

Date: 2009/03/12 10:21:38, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,10:26)

otherwise knows as Gordon E Mullings of The Kairos Initiative, apparently looks like this (assuming I found the right photo)

From here:

Hi Gordon

What a Ham.

Date: 2009/03/17 09:22:49, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 16 2009,21:41)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 17 2009,01:19)
This is great.  



R. Martinez


7:04 pm

Sparc (#51): “I will miss DaveScot who has been banned from here just because he tried to keep UD connected with reality.”

Once again, you have misunderstood.

I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him to lose composure and lash out against his Christian opponents with very ugly slander.




I propose we refer to Ray as Ray Tardinez from now on. He clearly deserves it.
And UD deserves Ray Tardinez. A guy who constantly equates IDists with Christians and design with creation, denies evolution and common descent, and denounces Behe as a heretic. Probably the most honest person at UD. They should give him posting rights.

I think Tardinez may be a new breed of IDer who espouses not so much The Argument Regrading Design but rather The Wooly Argument Theologic.

Date: 2009/04/06 12:17:19, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (dnmlthr @ April 06 2009,12:20)
Quote (Maya @ April 06 2009,17:06)
Quote (Louis @ April 06 2009,10:04)
Oh no Maya, it would be oh so right!

Careful and responsible exercise of power is always appropriate. Using your Jedi powers to gain control of a website is fine, as long as it generates Teh Funneh.


Will you teach me to sashay?

Short skirt and batting your eye lashes won't work on CS geeks. You might have more luck with spock ears though.

Yep.  Forget the skirt, just go with the Spock's ears.  That's sashay on any planet - sashay with cachet!  Okay, okay, beam me, er, down Scotty.

Date: 2009/04/06 15:39:55, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Of course, our model gives the
opposite sign for the time-variation of ?, but this is a
minor glitch which is probably easy to fix.

Was this just an innocent April Fools, or was it specifically a parody of the IDCs?  Seeing the graph of the historical measurements of pi, I couldn't help but think of the crap Sal Cordova (used to?) post about the historical measurements of c to "show" that c was slowing so therefore Earth is YOUNG!!1!Eleventy!

Date: 2009/04/08 07:39:34, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 08 2009,07:42)
Unpleasant BiPed: I'm still an asshole.

Hazel writes to UB:  …you responded with some rudeness, which I don’t think I deserved.

UB responds: Rudeness? Not hardly.  There is no need to conflate rudeness with simple directness...

Now, RB, there is no need to conflate asshole-ness with simple arrogant stupidity.  No, wait, there is - Unpleasant Butthead has hit the trifecta of arrogance, stupidity, and assholery.  (Has anyone ever seen him and Cordova post at the same time?)

Date: 2009/04/09 11:38:02, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
What is the upshot of all this Weasel wrangling?  Are they (UD) accurately portraying Weasel and down playing cumulative selection as not that important?  Or are they trying to rig their Weasels in an attempt to "demonstrate" that cumulative selection is not as effective as Dawkins says?

It seems to me that they have painted themselves into a corner on this one and they either have to agree (on some level at least) with Dawkins, or fudge the results.  By bringing in anagrams and dressing up the terminology (Proximity Neutral Search?), it sounds like they are preparing some pretty packaging for their fudge.  And I am sure that they would rather pack fudge than agree with Dawkins on anything.

Date: 2009/04/09 16:25:36, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2009,15:34)
Joseph, king of socks:              
From reading that reference the logical inference is that once a letter is found the search for it is over which essentially means it is latched in place.

I have asked for quotes FROM THAT BOOK that would refute the logic behind that inference yet not one has been produced.

So the bottom line is stop blaming Dembski and Marks for Dawkins’ sloppiness and deception.

Not that Joey would listen, but here are some quotes from BWM:
Pg. 307

It is only if you define 'random' as meaning 'no general bias towards bodily improvement' that mutation is truly random.

Pg. 312

Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random...

Dawkins above is not talking about the Weasel program, but it helps make clear what he means by mutations that take place in his program.
Pg. 47

It [the Weasel program] again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before... It now 'breeds from' this random phrase.  It duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error - 'mutation' - in the copying.  The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Date: 2009/04/13 13:48:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 13 2009,11:52)
Quote (Lowell @ April 13 2009,10:38)
I stay away from philosophy because it takes too much effort to understand and has always been too squishy for me. Though I love Plato and Socrates.

Plato and Socrates? Could someone please tell me where I can find the collected writings of Socrates? Been looking for it forever!

Of course Play-doh is squishy. That's why kids love it!

Date: 2009/04/21 10:27:48, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Tiki doesn't have a true wrist and, well, you know how the DI/UD gang feel about those limp-wristed types.

Date: 2009/04/21 16:08:13, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (JohnW @ April 21 2009,15:53)
Tribune7 went to a much more exciting high school than most of us:
I grew up attending American schools and was pounded with evolutionary (and Freudian and various pop-psych) dogma with nary a nod towards any sort of respect for religious tradition.

And this created an environment that led to massive drug abuse, suicides, loveless sex and a generally nihilistic atmosphere that eventually even resulted in murder.

I’m convinced that starting the day with a quick voluntary prayer and maybe hearing a little scripture would have gone long way to making things a bit more pleasant.

I can see it now - an Expelled sequel!

Pounded, Dogma Style:  The Tribune7 Story
"How I avoided Darwinism's sinister reach around my high school"

Date: 2009/04/23 13:13:47, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Sally C is still plugging away for Uncle Walty:
A possibility, one which most ignore, is that Comets may have emerged from the Earth in an explosion. This is no less fantastic a theory than some of the mainstream theories of the origin of the moon. Collision Hypothesis.

The fact that Earth-like substances, like Olivine are found in comets suggests an Earth borne origin of comets.

An Earth borne origin of comets would be a better explanation of the living matter (or remants thereof) found in meteorites and comets.

A link to Harvard for the collision hypothesis - but no link to Uncle Walty?  Don't be ashamed, Sally, no one could think less of you.

Bonus: fifth monarchy man shows ID to be a robust science stopper:
Couldn't a skilled designer make lighting appear random and spontaneous or to look at it another way could not a motivated observer refuse to acknowledge the design in lighting and deceive himself into believing it does not exist?

Fmm is quite the blowtard.  So the "skilled designer" makes lightening appear random and spontaneous, but I'm deceiving myself if I fall for it.

Hats off, and a cold beer, to Zachriel for his tireless efforts deep in the tard mines.

Date: 2009/04/28 06:24:15, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
If I die tonight, the most urgent thing I want to say is this: Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.

Disses?  Really?  She's got street cred, fo shizzle.

Quote (keiths @ April 28 2009,01:06)

In fact, "Denyse is wrong" asymptotically approaches the axis of tautology.


Date: 2009/04/28 12:14:38, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 28 2009,09:15)
Quote (keiths @ April 26 2009,23:36)
It turns out that Joe was just following Darwin's example when he converted to Islam.

there is some good isht on that page

The Mystery Of The Cattle

The Cow is a sacred animal in Hinduism…weird?

The Cow is the name of the longest sura ‘chapter’ in the Qur’an…more weird?

The Cow was the first god the monotheist Jews worshipped immediately after leaving Egypt to Sinai…oohh…that is really weird!

Dr Mark Thomas, UCL published a paper in February 2007 revealing for the first time that Europeans developed the gene lactase which produces the enzyme lactase that digests the sugar lactose only 7000 years ago. He concluded that Europeans could not have digested cow’s milk, rich in lactose, before these dates. He assumed that cows must have been introduced to Europe from the Middle East around that time, which must have triggered the evolutionary changes and created the gene lactase…since it is evolutionarily explained, then it is not very weird!

But does Dr Thomas, or any other scientist, have any evidence that there was a single cow on earth before this date?

The general perception amongst evolutionists is that: all species have evolved from one common origin, although there is no concrete evidence that there are no exceptions to this generalisation.

This book proves beyond doubt that the common origin of all species was divinely revealed in all the scriptures, but was ill understood a long time before it reached Darwin . We have identified, within half a square mile, the location where the first ever living cell appeared, as well as identified the exceptions to the earthly evolution.

Camels, cows, sheep and goats were created outside this planet and were brought down to the ape man ‘ Adams ’ after they were converted to intelligent beings. This Extraterrestrial Evolution serves three main purposes:

1. It proves that all living beings on Earth evolved from one cell, the exception being the four ET creatures.

2. The ‘cattle’ civilised the ape man and took him away from hunting wildlife, as they used to do before the conversion. Their presence was a key factor in the psychosocial development of the early intelligent man.

3. The swift integration between the two ‘evolutions’ proves that it is all an Intelligent Divine Design, not spontaneous evolution.

The Mysterious connection of the ‘cattle’ with various religions and their place in the evolution was revealed when the Shajara Code was decoded!

It seems we have a muslim dembski.



Holy Cow!

Date: 2009/05/04 21:12:44, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,21:00)
For every solution found, new maladies crop up.

Huh, what are the odds on that I wonder.  Several times I have heard the cute colloquialism "Every time a door closes, God opens a window".  I thought it was supposed to be a generally positive statement, but I see now that the true context is a howling blizzard.

Date: 2009/05/12 17:13:42, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
As is typical at TT, they are hashing out the scientific implications of ID by talking about the mean, nasty Dawkins. Here is one from chunkerz that is quite the blue-veined projection:
Anyone who was REALLY interested in studying and understanding child abuse and religion would have hundreds upon hundreds of scientific studies at his disposal. How many studies has Dawkins cited to support his assertion?

I guess spunkerz and the other IDists are not REALLY interested in studying and understanding ID, then.

Date: 2009/05/14 07:15:07, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,23:33)
Joy has done nothing to deserve the filthy treatment that you've reached down under your prehensile tails and flung at her. She came here in good faith just to shoot the breeze and you morons treated her like garbage with insult after vulgar insult, and it is evident that not one of you even knows the first thing about her.

Joy's first post of her most recent foray      
Well, I've gotta say I'm only slightly surprised that anyone in real life actually believes the sort of shit Beck, O'Reilly, et al. spew on the teevee. I don't watch teevee. Bradford's head is indeed in a very scary place, from what I can tell. The peanut gallery is even worse off, from all indications. Luckily they're chickenhawks, talk big but only when hiding behind a keyboard. Much like those on this wetland side of the equatorial belt...

I used to believe they were the underdogs. Their human and Constitutional rights at issue against actually politically powerful bullies like you. Now all I see are schoolyard bullies on all sides, overeager wannabe mind-tyrants that aren't merely pitiful for being so damned sociologically dumb. Some of them might be dangerous if I cared that much. Fortunately, I don't.

Meanwhile, the actual actually politically powerful bullies march on, unseen and unnoticed by practically all. I don't believe in magic - I know too many magicians. At this point I don't believe in evolution either, because if it meant anything we'd have evolved past this shit by now. A pox on both your houses - think I'll go prune the vineyard instead...

My bolding.  It seems she grabbed a fresh steamer out of your diaper on her way over here - just to tell us that she doesn't care and would rather prune her vineyard.  A week, and 20-30 comments from Joy, later you say she "came here in good faith just to shoot the breeze".  Tell us chunkerz, when she reached into your diaper, were her hands warm?  Did they almost convince you to give up the homoeroticism?  Almost?

Date: 2009/05/18 07:44:18, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
A couple more data points on chunkerz' denial of the obvious:
chunkerz at TT, November 24th, 2008

Hi all. I didn't really want to blog about ID. I just wanted a venue to publish my erotic Stargate fan-fiction.

chunkerz at TT, August 23rd, 2007

Here are some sample questions for the extended interview [of Nick Matzke], chosen to stimulate / suppress the widest range of brain activity:
...9)Aren't you really leaving the NCSE because of your failed romance with Wesley Elseberry?

It seems that erotic stories and man-love fantasies are a long standing part of chunkerz' shtick.

Date: 2009/05/22 09:02:43, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (JLT @ May 22 2009,08:36)
The Discotute on the 19th:
Lemur Monkey Falls From the Sky, Robbing Man of Sleep

If they weren't atheists, you'd think the scientists raising the ballyhoo over Ida were hailing the second coming.

Here is yet another icon of evolution. Every time one of these discoveries is made, there’s a huge PR snow job from the Darwin lobby to make it seem like it answers all the questions and objections. I thought Tiktaalik did that. Or maybe Archaeopteryx. It goes at least as far back as Proconsul. Each time the Darwinists seem to forget they already found the missing link — the one fossil to rule them all — and re-find it all over again.

[then they go on quoting from the abysmal Sky news article]

and on the 21st:
Is Great Grandma Ida Getting More Accolades Than She Deserves?
By the far the most insightful is this post from a science writer at the Smithsonian, offering some more tempered words than the Darwinian elders. In some ways this is a pretty stunning piece, even just appearing on his blog. As is known, the Smithsonian doesn't play nice with people who don't toe the line. Switek doesn't commit the sin of disavowing a strict Darwinian view, but he does chastise the establishment for overselling this latest "missing link."

Isn't that curious? "Scientist raising the ballyhoo", Laelaps (Brian Switek) with "more tempered words than the Darwinian elders" and "chastis[ing] the establishment" - when all they looked at were Sky News and CBS News and despite the fact that the not at all sensationalistic original article went online on the 19th and this were the headlines on Nature News that day:
Reunion of fossil halves splits scientists
Well-preserved primate suffers identity crisis.

and on Science News*:
"Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists

* That one has got some really "interesting" comments...

Not to mention the "tempered" words of PZ on PT:
She’s beautiful and interesting and important, but I do have to take exception to the surprisingly frantic news coverage I’m seeing. She’s being called the “missing link in human evolution”, which is annoying. The whole “missing link” category is a bit of journalistic trumpery: almost every fossil could be called a link, and it feeds the simplistic notion that there could be a single definitive bridge between ancient and modern species. There isn’t...

Date: 2009/05/26 13:00:51, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (dnmlthr @ May 26 2009,12:24)
Quote (dnmlthr @ May 26 2009,11:44)
Last of the finals coming up later today.

This spring has kicked my ass thoroughly, just this last little fucking thing (and a couple of paper presentations, but that's easy) left. Honestly, I don't really care how it goes, just want to get it over with.

Passed it.

Date: 2009/05/29 14:00:23, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 29 2009,14:37)
yeah wtf is that all about?  it's broke!

It's your post above Bob's - your comment and signature are inside the quote box.  Put that jar down.

Date: 2009/06/01 06:31:27, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (J-Dog @ May 31 2009,19:52)
I hope Quidam can do something with the cover of  Dr. Dr.'s new book, like he did for his last book.  Those Green Buttocks were a great marketing tie-in for the usual crowd of UD and ID Ignorati .

It does sort of resemble the Erectile Dysfunction undoubtadly suffered by most UD and ID supporters...

It looks like Dembski's on his period.

Date: 2009/06/01 09:32:27, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 01 2009,07:30)
Dembski's written a really, really deep book.  

For instance:          
10At least part of Eve’s fault was that she uncritically accepted Satan’s explanation of
God’s refusal to let her eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She didn’t
ask who Satan was or why he was suddenly supposed to be an authority about God. If she
had done any checking at all, she would have discovered that Satan had been kicked out
of heaven, that his current address was far from God’s, and that he was widely regarded
as a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

Question: As one of the only two people on earth, who would she have asked?  Not Adam, he was as ignorant as Eve was.

What?!? Eve uncritically accepted Satan's explanation?  She didn't know it was wrong to disobey God? Its almost as if she didn't have any Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Beyond that, isn't there some question as to whether the talking serpent = satan?

Date: 2009/06/03 14:12:19, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Congrats, Louis!

As a veteran of the university and the pub, you already know how to go without sleep - no problems.  Enjoy every moment, you'll soon wonder where the months have gone as you chase after the giggling, stumbling little ball of energy.

Date: 2009/06/03 21:47:07, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (keiths @ June 03 2009,22:10)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 03 2009,11:37)
as cool as Bill Dembski

Said without a trace of irony. Onlookers, how is that possible?

Following in the venerable tradition of the notpology, it strikes me that "as cool as Bill Dembski" is the perfect notcompliment. In that spirit, I offer:
As smart as Clive Hayden.

As succinct as kairosfocus.

Other UD-based notcompliments?  Take it away, folks.

As articulate as Densey...

As restr^ained as BA77...

Date: 2009/06/04 15:06:08, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
As honest as Sal Cordova

As level (fore)headed as Luskin

Date: 2009/06/04 22:22:40, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
A disagreement about the interpretation of a quotemine of Dawkins and some hyperbole in a casual political discussion.  ID is going to become science any moment now.

Date: 2009/06/08 16:27:36, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 08 2009,17:10)

Brace for Quotemining from DO'L.

Bradford at Tardic Thoughts beat you (and DO'L) to it.

Date: 2009/06/09 15:04:16, Link
Author: Gunthernacus

To hair is human...

Two hair is divine.

Date: 2009/06/17 05:10:23, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I have been having some fun with this site:

There are some ads for the free accounts, one or two an hour about 15 sec each, but you can really tailor your listen.

Date: 2009/06/23 09:39:24, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Its like some kind of bad Three Stooges routine, where chunkerz shows up and starts stepping on rakes.  Why does he keep coming back and slapping himself in the face with a long, hard....oh....nm.

Date: 2009/06/30 13:19:10, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (sparc @ June 30 2009,13:07)

He will have to beat his own      
which he only reached once.

He only reached it once, 'cause he never let it go.

Date: 2009/07/06 10:58:19, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (keiths @ July 05 2009,18:30)
Poor Gil is still stinging from being mocked by Alan and David, so he tries to convince us that he is a "rocket scientist":

Thanks for fleshing out my résumé.

I have an interesting story. During the Genesis spacecraft recovery mission at UTTR (the Utah Test and Training Range), in which I was involved in 2004, I had time to chat at length with a JPL scientist.

(Our team was in charge of performing the MAR [Mid-Air Retrieval] of the space capsule, which we rehearsed with the helicopter pilots to the point of perfection. The spacecraft came down precisely as predicted, was on radar track, and all was well. Unfortunately, human error caused a semi-catastrophe. A G-force detector in the space capsule was mounted upside down, and its signal to deploy the square parachute did not initiate. As a result, the space capsule smoked into the Utah desert, although fortunately into relatively soft, wet ground. Eventually, about 90% of the science was recovered, although tediously.)

I watched the entire thing from the control room and you can see it here:

But I digress. The JPL scientist I mentioned is a specialist in solid- and liquid-fuel rocket propulsion. We had many interesting discussions. When people ask him what he does for a living, he says, “I’m a rocket scientist.”

Although my specialty is guidance, navigation, and control in aerospace R&D, I guess rocket science is my specialty as well.

I apologize for not having risen to the intellectual level of Alan Fox and David Kellogg. I’ll have to work on that obvious deficiency.

He posted that on July 5th, in the afternoon.  And, coinkydink of coinkydinks, what was the NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day for July 5th?

My Design Dector is pegged at lying douchebag.

Date: 2009/07/14 10:07:26, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (dogdidit @ July 14 2009,10:44)
Quote (1of63 @ June 28 2009,18:29)
Quote (blipey @ June 03 2009,09:35)
Wow.  They seem like nice guys.  How again is Vox qualified to lecture the British electorate?

The standard British response to a lecture from Vox Day will be a gesture involving two fingers and a reference to the Biblical commandment to go forth and multiply.

Re the British two-fingered salute: how is it dis-ambiguated from V for Victory?

I think that the V for victory shows the palm of the hand, while the 2-fingered salute shows the back of the hand to the recipient (and a beckoning-type motion of the hand, too?).

Date: 2009/07/24 13:48:20, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (hooligans @ July 24 2009,13:48)
Dembskis apologetics Final Exam . . .  
Please answer each of the following questions in 500 words or less. Answer every part of each question. Be concise. This exam is open-book, but  you can only consult general reference books (e.g., the Bible), the  five books read in class, and the notes you took in class. You may not cruise the Internet in search of answers or in any way seek the help of others. Your completed exam needs to be emailed to the grader, Jack Greenoe, by Thursday 12:00 noon. In turning this paper in you agree, on pain of divine judgment, that this is entirely your own work.

Answer the following questions [20 points each, no more than 500 words per question]:

1. Defend the Vincentian Canon to a 21st century skeptic of Christianity.

2. You just learned that your nephew or niece is going off to study theology at a liberal seminary. You suspect the place is teeming with “Homer Wilsons,” i.e., professors intent on eroding any real faith of the seminary students. Write a letter to your nephew or niece outlining the pitfalls that they are likely to face and how they should protect their faith from eroding.  

3. According to Richard Dawkins, faith is believing in the absence of evident. By contrast, Nancy Pearcey argues that the attempt to remove Christian faith from the realm of knowledge and evidence has led to Christianity’s cultural captivity. Make the case that Christian faith is a matter not of subjective opinion but of objective knowledge.

4. No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles). Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a well-confirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?

5. Philosopher and theologian Nancey Murphy, who is on the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary, argues that humans do not have a soul, that soul is a Greek invention, and that the original Hebrew understanding of the human person was as a purely physical being. Thus, for her, our immortality consists not in having immortal souls but in the prospect of God resurrecting us to a new physical existence. Contra Murphy, argue that we do have a soul and that it is more than our physical bodies.

Good stuff.  #s 1 & 2 - Reinforce the persecution complex, check.  #3 - Faith is not about faith, but Truth!!1!, check. #4 - Anyone got a good way to answer those atheists on this? Bueller?  #5 - Let's crack this one before the atheists get wind of it...

Not included is the extra credit question:

If you had $50 to spend on a book that could be mistaken for a text book; what topic would you be most interested in, and what title would most catch your eye?  How much would you pay for that same book in paperback?

I went looking for Homer Wilson - I half expected him to be the prof in the Chick tracts.  Maybe from here?

Date: 2009/08/04 17:13:33, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Dr. Dr. D. (Sept. 27, 2007):

For the record: I personally don’t believe in common descent though I think there are lines of evidence that suggest considerable evolutionary change. At the same time, there are lines of evidence that suggest considerable discontinuity among organisms. Check out chapter 5 of my forthcoming book with Jonathan Wells titled THE DESIGN OF LIFE (publication date keeps being delayed, but I think it’ll be out in November).

Date: 2009/08/11 13:36:34, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 11 2009,13:45)
I would like to see Gordon E Mullings fight electricity.

It wouldn't do any good - he's not grounded in reality.

Date: 2009/08/18 15:36:03, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
StephenB suggests a new banner to the UD entrance - not quite Dante, but apt nevertheless:
Quote are immersed in intellectual quicksand.

Date: 2009/08/21 20:24:20, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
GillyD on the hoax thread:
I was extraordinarily blessed by public education, in a small town called Pullman, Washington (in an era gone by, the 1950s and 1960s). My teachers were almost all terrific. I remember:

My junior-high science teacher, who spent extra time after school explaining things to me that I did not understand. My high-school French teacher who gave me a love of foreign language and literature. My high-school math teacher who inspired me. Our choir director, whose choirs I accompanied on the piano.

All of these teachers had very high standards, and for that I am grateful.

From GillyD's post, "The Atheism Delusion: The Destructive Power of Materialist Indoctrination ":
I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s. I got a triple dose of indoctrination: from the public schools, from the secular environment in which I grew up (a small college town, surrounded by intellectual university types), and from the university itself.


Date: 2009/08/25 21:19:42, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Gordo's evolving fantasy...first, she's an older woman...
Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 25 2009,07:30)
Gordon Tourette's Mullings:        
f –> BTW, the only rape accused I have ever known and attended the trial of, was having to deal with an older woman who threw herself at him, then cried rape when things went sour. She discredted herself in the courtroom by showing up in stilettos, stockings and a tight micro-mini. Believe it or not.
I believe that's what you saw, Gordon. Someone should file this in case Gordon ever gets picked for jury service.

Now she's a young miss...
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 25 2009,15:07)
Gordon Mullings does not know when to shut up
I noted earlier that no sensible rape complainant in Barbados shows up in court dressed in a micromini.

BillB plainly thought that his had to do with my prejudices — but I was simply a spectator, not a participant in the trial. My opinion had zero weight on the outcome of the case.

(Let’s just say that I sat in a waiting room across from a late 20’s young miss dressed in a greyish, plaid micro mini, black sheer stockings and a low cut top, and chatted with a couple of friends in for a traffic violation. The topic came up as to why I was there, and I said that I was there because of a rape case accusation against a former student who 300 mi from home was on a rape accusation by another student. Imagine my shock when I got into the courtroom, to see the same young miss as the complainant! Her lawyer should have been fired from the bar for failing to advise his client on suitable court dress, especially with so weak a case as she actually had.)

The actual case was stopped by the Judge as unsafe to further pursue when it turned out after a couple of hours of evidence, that the claimed crime occurred in a bed room in a rooming house full of students with no-one else in the house at the time reporting any untoward sounds or circumstances. A complainant who presented herself as she did, and whose case was as weak as that effectively asked for such a result.

Fuck off and die Gordon Mullings.

Stroke'm if you got 'em Gordo.

Date: 2009/10/22 10:25:05, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Fross @ Oct. 22 2009,11:06)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 21 2009,21:57)
Wow - Gil's man crush gets even stronger:    
David Berlinski is a rare treasure, a true Homme de la Renaissance (French for a man of the rebirth – how interesting) in an age when very few such people exist. He speaks multiple languages; knows classical music, history, theology, mathematics; and can think and analyze on many levels. This combination of talents is extremely rare, and his willingness defy the powers that be is even more rare.

David knows which questions to ask (questions never asked or even considered by Darwinists), such as, “What would it take to re-engineer a car into a submarine?” This concerns the evolution of a land mammal into a sea-dwelling mammal. A few purported transitional fossils provide no insight into the efficacy of the Darwinian mechanism to account for the relevant engineering requirements.

Last, but not least, David is as eloquent, incisive, clever, iconoclastic, and humorous in person as he is in print.

My (snicker, giggle) bolding.

OMG.  How does a car become a submarine?

I see, trying to pretend you're not a Darwinist by asking the verboten question.

Actually, Gil re-worded David's question to make it more related to design.  It wasn't "what would it take to re-engineer a car into a submarine", it was actually "what would it take for you to go down in my car".

Date: 2009/10/28 07:23:03, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 28 2009,02:22)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 27 2009,20:39)
Quote (khan @ Oct. 27 2009,16:06)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 27 2009,18:40)
The atheist life ethic may be summed up as follows: When we want them, babies may live; when we don’t want them, they must die.

So no "believer" has ever had an abortion? According to StephenB I guess not.

Anybody fancy asking him? I've not been able to stand the stink over there lately...

Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in the USA. Lying cretins try to ban abortion while they have them.

And natural (divine?) abortion, a.k.a. miscarriage, is even more common. God must be the the most prolific abortionist of all. Praise the Lord!!!11!

But sledgehammer, miscarriages are our fault, not God's.  They can be traced directly to the Fall.  Just ask William Dembski, the Isaac Newton of fucked-up apologetics.

Not to mention the staggering infant and child mortality rates for the vast majority of human existence.  Designed that way from the start?  Or implemented to punish some long dead ancestor?

Date: 2009/11/12 08:45:56, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 12 2009,07:35)
In that same thread, Clivebaby exhibits a talent for tardolalia that would make Denyse envious.
No comparison can be made when talking about God’s miracles. There is no direct violation of the “laws of nature” in your “poof” mental image except one that you’ve invented. If you do not understand why the laws of nature are as they are, then you cannot say why they couldn’t be otherwise, which means that you’ve only witnessed some their effects by repetition, but that’s as far as it goes. Whether there is an ability to control the laws strictly in the purview of God, you cannot say. You’re question is a false dilemma.

Has Clive just demolished the Fine Tuning argument?

Date: 2009/11/13 06:34:03, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,20:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2009,15:05)

This is what Vox has been working on:

Needs more buttons.

Dudes! That's a vibrator.

You mean it's not a mouse, but a gerbil?

Date: 2009/11/19 23:42:43, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,17:08)
What Dembski is saying is that we don't have to know the specific mechanism used in order to detect design.

Yet you say design is a mechanism.  Here you're admitting that your obtuse bluster was nothing more.  You were asked for a specific mechanism because DesignDidIt is a worthless explanation - you know it, but you still can't admit it, can you?

I do have to give you some props, though, Joe.  Now, I know it was somewhat self-serving on your part as I am sure, over the years, your ears have gotten stretched and sore - but putting those handles on the top of your Captain Anal gimp suit is pure genius and much appreciated.

Date: 2009/11/20 12:50:56, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Bradford deftly sidesteps a trap:
Nick> Here's a question that might help to clarify the issue of "junk" DNA. If the entire genome is functional, would one expect genome size to correlate with functional complexity?
Absolutely not.

Tard.  GodThe Designer just likes onions.

Date: 2009/11/20 13:07:52, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 20 2009,13:43)
Dear Dr. W. Dembski –
ŕ propos publication of a seminal work: what’s the status of the peer-review of your article “The Search for as Search?”

Dr^n replies:
DiEb: It was accepted at a peer-reviewed journal that was a year behind in its publication schedule. We waited and waited … and waited, and now the journal is two years behind. So we withdrew it and resubmitted to another journal.

Yeah, right. Bwahahaha.

Well, to be fair to Dr. DrDr, JOEI is tough to get into.*  They've even shut down the website to curb the temptation of would be submitters.**

* Insert obligatory pants/sweater joke here.***

** Insert obligatory Frill Dodge'm joke here.***

*** May be the same joke.

Date: 2009/11/20 15:48:53, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Bradford forgets to cite:
Nick, I think it presumptuous to assert that the DNA of one species is better designed than some other. There are too many unknowns. Up to now, most mapping projects have been focused on protein-coding sequences. Yet ncRNA regulatory circuits are key components of complex genetic phenomena in eukaryotes which could be the distinguishing marker of better design.

2nd Google hit for "ncRNA regulatory circuits"
Until recently, most mapping projects have focused on protein-coding sequences, and the limited number of identified regulatory mutations have been interpreted as affecting conventional cis-acting promoter and enhancer elements, although these regions are often themselves transcribed. Moreover, ncRNA-directed regulatory circuits underpin most, if not all, complex genetic phenomena in eukaryotes, including RNA interference-related processes such as transcriptional and post-transcriptional gene silencing, position effect variegation, hybrid dysgenesis, chromosome dosage compensation, parental imprinting and allelic exclusion, paramutation, and possibly transvection and transinduction.

I re-worded my sources more carefully for high school book reports, pre-Google.

Date: 2009/11/24 13:24:28, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 24 2009,14:04)
More than made up for by the likes of ... "Geddy" Lee ... and a few others.  My 2c.



And Second City Television.  And Tommy Chong.

Date: 2009/12/07 15:30:59, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Dembski:  I would challenge you to point out how anything like this is happening with, say, the work of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab (

I wonder if this challenge is similar to the (apparently still standing) challenge he made in November of 2000:
Dembski:  I challenge anyone to read Paul Nelson's "On Common Descent", which critiques Darwin's idea of common descent from the vantage of developmental biology, and show why it alone among all the volumes in the University of Chicago's Evolutionary Monographs Series does not belong there (of course I'm refusing here to countenance an ad hominem argument, which rejects the book simply because of Nelson's creationist views).

Nelson's book doesn't exist, what of the "work" of the EI"L"?

Date: 2009/12/08 13:20:20, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Disco says Oct. 1, 1998


Date: 2009/12/09 14:12:10, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2009,12:42)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 09 2009,10:56)
FTK is as delusional as ever

He won’t debate Craig for the same reason he never mentions highly credentialed intelligent design theorist’s and their objections to evolution in his latest book.

He merely takes on critiques of naďve creationists and other amateurs without ever mentioning the ID community because (wait for it) HE’S A FREAKING COWARD, obviously. That’s the only explanation, of course. Anyone who *truly* believes what they purpose would take on their top notch critiques at the drop of a hat. PZ Myers is cut from the same mold as are most evolutionists.
Why Richard Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig

Oh, my English Nazi ears (eyes?)

he never mentions highly credentialed intelligent design theorist’s [?] and their objections to evolution in his latest

PZ Myers is cut from the same mold as are most evolutionists.

"Cut from the same mold"?

Another goodie:
Anyone who *truly* believes what they purpose would take on their top notch critiques at the drop of a hat.

She spells propose as "prupose", the spellchecker asks "do you mean purpose?", she says, "I ain't dun it by axident!" and clicks OK.  Spellchecker - best friend and worst enemy - and who knows how she got it to suggest critiques when she meant critics.

Date: 2009/12/10 11:39:57, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Turncoat @ Dec. 10 2009,11:19)
Well, I just made somebody or another at UD piss his pants. I posted, without the least meanness or gloating, an explanation of how Dembski and Marks got a crucial point wrong in the "search for a search" analysis of their latest publication. Someone deleted it, and I don't think Clive has the mathematical acumen to know just how devastating my comment was.

Oh dear.  As one of the more Truly Articulate Representatives of Design once said:
Anyone who *truly* believes what they purpose[sic] would take on their top notch critiques[sic] at the drop of a hat.

But deleting valid criticism?  Well, as she might say, when the going gets tough - stay out of the kitchen.

Date: 2009/12/18 08:24:57, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 18 2009,08:32)
KF drive by
Both easily surpass the info content of a chain of 1,000 yes/no decisions to get to such delicately specific integrated functionality! (If you doubt me, ask your friendly local chemical engineer –Hi Dr J-S, if you are out there watching! (You are as brilliant as you are lovely) — to estimate the price for a design of a plant to do each of these reaction networks, and the onward cost to build.)

If he met her in court wearing a black mini, we now know the reason for KF's recent absence.

That mini is too short, I can see his dangling participle. (Okay, I know, it isn't really a participle the way it is tucked in the middle, but that's the way KF likes it.)

Date: 2009/12/29 13:58:33, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Cornford's is a triolet - where the 1st line is repeated at 4 and 7 and the 2nd line is also the 8th.  I think that is why it more visually and rhythmically appealing.  Why she had to call out FTK, I don't know.

Was Cornford a well known poet of her time, or was Chesterton just a stalker of all things Darwin?

<Spelling edit.>

Date: 2009/12/30 10:31:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Yikes.  Posted on Christmas day and titled "A Christmas Story"
Jen thought when she left the house that she was just going for a joy ride, but that's not what her "friends" had in mind. Once they had Jen back at their apartment they tied her to a bed, abused her, filmed the whole thing, and when she resisted they beat her until she submitted.

Finally her abductors sold her to a street gang in exchange for drugs. Bound and gagged, she was raped repeatedly and beaten savagely.

Amazingly, this is not written by chunkyD.  The story ends with "And that's why Christians celebrate Christmas."  Some weird, sick, twisted shit.

Date: 2010/01/07 10:53:37, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Mark Frank @ Jan. 07 2010,02:22)
Hazel picks up on the rather large hole in Barry's logic.

I also wrote this - repeated here because I am not sure it will ever see the light of day:

#8 Barry

You say:

Cochrane clearly states that one of the effects of the dignity criterion is to prevent medical experimentation, and then he goes on to argue against that criterion.

Both of these are true (although they are minor points in the paper).  It does not follow from this that:

(a) Cochrane believes medical experiment is a good idea

(b) That is why he thinks the dignity criterion is wrong (he explicitly gives a different reason).

© Other criteria such as "moral status" and "autonomy" do not also prevent medical experiment.(Hazel's point in #9)

Believe me I am not being obtuse.  I have read the paper several times very closely and cannot find it in it the conclusions that you draw.

Hazel's comment has been overwritten, and is the last in the thread.

Date: 2010/01/07 16:04:13, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2010,16:24)

This is why I am excited about ID – and honored to be invited to post on this site – because ID gives us hope for freedom.

That's the corrected line - check comment #1 to see Barry's Freudian slip.
A possible typo in the last paragraph: “…because ID gives up hope for freedom.” I assume you meant ‘us’ instead of ‘up’, but the word change definitely changes the meaning.

Date: 2010/01/08 09:46:00, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 08 2010,09:38)

Question for Barry:  WTF????!!! Why are you watching dog porn???!!!

Barry was conducting a "research study" on what is moral. His mom caught him in the middle of one of his sessions and warned him that it would soon be a blind study.

Date: 2010/01/08 13:29:12, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2010,13:40)
47 guests, 7 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Richardthughes >Jkrebs >Zachriel >dogdidit >Ftk >Rail Bird >khan

FtK! WtF?

She wanted to read Barry's thread, but logged onto UD too late.

Date: 2010/01/26 08:48:18, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 26 2010,09:16)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 26 2010,07:00)
If I only had a sock: Gill runs out of time thread            
The numbers don’t add up. They don’t add up even by orders of magnitude, and they don’t add up even by many orders of magnitude raised to exponents with many orders of magnitude, when one considers all of the finely orchestrated functional integration required to make even a “simple” cell survive and reproduce.

What's really amazing is that all of the so-called scientists have been completely fooled by this for a century and a half.  Even the Nobel prize winners, even the ones who worked on the Manhatten Project, even Gil's Sainted Father, they were all fooled!  

Thank Dog we have Gil Dodgen, Boy Genius, to finally realise the simple, obvious truth about this and remove the wool from over our eyes.  Now if we could only get the professional scientists to realise this.  But many of them are paid from our taxes, according to Denyse.  I've also heard that many of them have tenure.  That must rot their brains or something.  

The world owes Gil so much.

All for the glory of God Disembodied Telic Entity.

B 3
It is amazing how this continues to be so accurate.

Date: 2010/01/29 16:14:49, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Attention Australian Tennis Enthusiasts*

A Scotsman plays in the finals of the Australian Open on Sunday.  Be on the lookout for large blancmanges.

But in all seriousness, good luck to Andy Murray.  Who would have thought, with all those dance schools, he'd have time to play tennis at such a high level.

* By that I mean tennis enthusiasts** who are Australian***

** This, of course, includes enthusiasts of Australian tennis***

*** Who are currently in Australia

Date: 2010/01/29 20:44:54, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
porkies = pork pie = lie

I worked for a while with an Englishman on a construction crew.  Of course, most work days ended with a beer or three.  A pigs ear before heading home to the trouble-n-strife.

Date: 2010/02/04 14:20:30, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
JohNad offers up some helpful advice:
I think evolutionary biologists, committed to Darwinism, should consider borrowing some thinking from forensic science. A few years ago I was watching a PBS documentary on investigating air crashes. In particular I remember one comment made by one of the investigators. Since I don’t have the exact quote I’ll paraphrase what he said as closely as possible. Essentially he warned that crash investigators have to be very cautious that they are not led in the wrong direction by their theories.The purpose of a crash investigation, after all, is to discover what really happened, so hopefully we can prevent the same kind of thing from happening in the future. It is not to prove some ones pet theory.

His italics, my bold.  Pretty standard IDC projection of peering through their corneal lumberyard to spot another's mote.  Here's the goodie:
The second example is that of Flight 19, a flight of 5 five TBM Avenger Torpedo Bombers, which disappeared off the Florida coast in 1945. In 1991 5 Avenger TB’s were discovered off Ft. Lauderdale, which in 1945 was the home of the Naval base where Flight 19 had originated. The private salvors who discovered the planes thought they had the scoop of the century. The 5 planes were located in deep water within a mile and a half of each other. This had to be flight 19. A coincidence would be just too improbable.

Now, if this was all the information that we had, we could recreate a very believable and plausible narrative of what happened. We could speculate, for example, that after losing their way the crew finally got their bearings and were on their way back to their base. However, they were also running low on fuel. They decided then that if one of them had to ditch they would all ditch to increase their chances of being found. A theory for sure, but very compelling if all the facts we know are only the facts I have given you. However, that is not the whole story.

It turns out that, as improbable as it may appear, it was a coincidence.

My bold.  Yes, JohNad is cautioning evolutionary biologists from making too much of a probability argument based on incomplete information.

Date: 2010/02/22 07:48:24, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 22 2010,08:18)
ahhhh, now it makes sense to me.

ashamed of his 5000th post, Louis has created a sock with which to troll the ATBC board.

should be fun!  at least his sock has TWO eyebrows!

I have to agree on sock - his avatar is one of the captains of the TARDis.

Date: 2010/03/02 11:39:29, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (REC @ Mar. 02 2010,11:11)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 02 2010,05:41)
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 02 2010,04:40)
This is the first of probably three posts on applied Intelligent Design. This is not an extensive list of applications of ID concepts, but I thought that giving people examples of how ID can be not only interesting and informative but actually useful in solving both biological and engineering problems.
[snip drivel]
So, that is application #1 – to be able to tell when additional information sources are feeding evolution. The next two applications of ID will not be biological at all, but rather related to software design and engineering.


So, the first and only practical application of ID to biology is to be able to say that what was designed was designed?
That must sound pathetic even to people who believe in that nonsense.

Sadly, nothing sounds pathetic if you believe in that nonsense...

No, what is really sad is going to his personal blog (which he grandiosely calls Bartlett publishing) and reading about his "article."


I had finally gotten a paper published (titled "Irreducible Complexity and Relative Irreducible Complexity: Foundations and Applications") that I had been working on for the last 3.5 years.  You might be wondering why it took me so long to come out and announce it.  The reason is simple - most people who have read it misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Bolds mine.

Are these signs you should find a new career:
1) The ID/Creationists find your arguments confusing.  You are misunderstood by the pro-misunderstanders, who have no crap filter.
2) It takes 3.5 years to publish a review article in Occasional Papers of the BSG (A creation science study group)
3) Said paper lands right behind "The Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a Snake"

Here is another sign:
I just finished reading a paper that is both fantastically interesting, and a little disheartening.  It is disheartening only because I thought that my senior paper for seminary was going to be freshly novel, but it turns out that someone else already made 90% of my arguments 11 years ago, and actually made most of them better than I could.

Date: 2010/03/12 10:55:32, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Bradford is a tard.
The simplest solution is just to make people pay for cleaning up their own mess. A market-driven solution. Pay for carbon dumping, or avoid the problem by not dumping.
People is everyone. If you consume a product you are equally responsible and will shoulder the costs of more expensive technology. "Carbon dumping" is not a sin although you can feel the ire directed at "big carb."

It's not a sin...if it feels good, do it - right, BradTard?  Hey everyone, look!  BradTard, the super-capitalist, has discovered that manufacturers will pass costs on to the consumer!
BradTard's parting shot:  A child molester would probably be viewed with more favor by this crowd.

That definitely felt good, didn't it BardTard?  And six hours later?
AnaxagorasRules just noted a mindset that is characteristic of those ruling America today as well as their supporting caste. If you deviate from standard norms in your thinking you must be one of those (insert the most far out or extreme group you think palatable for the exchange) and we all know what those types are like.

Project much, BardTard?

Date: 2010/04/21 12:17:20, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 21 2010,12:40)
"I should mention that for about 30 minutes, the possessed woman actually levitated about half a foot in the air."

..but no-one had a camera phone.

Or an hoop.

At the RtB site, I found this from Dr. Ross:  
Finding a wife for Cain      
Resolving the "Incest" Problem

Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, either Cain or one of his brothers must have married a sister. This would seem to violate the commands recorded in the book of Leviticus forbidding marriage between brothers and sisters. The Levitical laws, however, must be considered in their proper historical context.

Though the book of Genesis condemns sexual relations between children and their parents, it nowhere prohibits a man from marrying his sister or niece. Abraham, for example, married his half-sister without compunction. Not until the time of Moses were laws established forbidding a man from marrying a sister or niece. The timing of this command makes perfect sense biologically, for genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations.


Date: 2010/04/21 12:43:56, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Bradford is lonely:
Do human females have a protein factor whose expression or lack thereof affects their mating drives?

Date: 2010/05/04 22:29:11, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (didymos @ May 04 2010,19:10)
Dude, this guy is soooo banned...

I think he's running  interference.  
Dr. Dembski, speaking of “The End of Christianity,” on page 111 you mentioned a sequel book that would explore divine trans-temporal action. Would you have any idea as to the release date of this? I thoroughly enjoyed “The End of Christianity,” but this issue is sort of a keystone for your proposal, and one in which I have many questions.

Date: 2010/06/16 09:50:49, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Chicken Little @ June 15 2010,12:39)
Anyway over the years God had asked me many times to remember, though many prophetic people like John and Paula Sanford of Elijah House ministries and others you will not know..have asked  of me to remember and I didn't do what he/they asked me to do it those other times .. it just didn't seem relevant to me and my life at the time.

Over the years, with the softest of kid gloves, God sends dreams and prophets - some traveling thousands of miles to visit her personally - to make sure she gets the message.  But the rest of us?  
so believe it or don't I do not care.. but I am sure God does care if you care . I just don't happen to give a rip.. believing or not is between you and him.. but just don't say you weren't warned alright! as of today and you read this you have been warned!

We get one cold, crazy lump of word vomit, take it or to Hell with ya.

Whatevs...climb off your cross, honey, we need the wood.

bu tit is surely coming

Maybe it's not all bad then.

Date: 2010/06/16 15:38:11, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 16 2010,13:00)
StephenB fails to see the irony in his comment:

Was Matheson once banned from this site? Or does he simply avoid meanaingful dialogue? The last time he was here, he left just when things started getting interesting and I never knew why. Was it our choice or his?

If it is the former, why not rescind the order and allow to make his unpersuasive case right here so we can refute it?

Somebody banned?  Maybe there is a record of it.  Hey, waddayaknow...
Well it looks like Stephen Matheson has got his wish and got banned from here...snip...I went off to read the article and had some questions for him when I discovered his comments were deleted.

Looks like it was your choice, StevenB.  Too bad you guys delete comments, rather than leave a record of what awful, bannable behavior the other side exhibits.

Date: 2010/06/18 13:18:04, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (fnxtr @ June 18 2010,14:09)
Quote (fnxtr @ June 18 2010,11:07)
Quote (Robin @ June 18 2010,10:35)
Quote (JohnW @ June 18 2010,12:18)

Quote (Robin @ June 18 2010,09:46)
I know...I know...I shouldn't be saying this, but...

We tied we tied we tied we tied we tied with Slovenia!!!


Had to be Slovene to be believed.

(Channeling his best Michael Palin) Stop it stop it! Right! They'll be no more o' that kind of silliness!

The Colonel was Graham Chapman.  Glad to be of service.

'course your right if you're thinking of the King of Swamp Castle. "And NO Singin'!"

Let's not bicker and argue about who tied who...

Date: 2010/06/21 11:17:30, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
How about Front Loading?  I don't know if has gotten circulated widely enough to qualify, but it is one of my faves...

IDC:  Life is designed, evolution is designed, it's all Design.

Reality:  You don't have any evidence of design or a designer.

IDC:  Even better!  The Designing must have taken place way back in our unknowable history, and has been unfolding naturally and undetectably ever since.  How AWESOME is that?

Reality:  What?  How can...why would...wait, what?

Date: 2010/07/08 13:02:58, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
angryoldfatman tries to take chunkerz' homo eroticism crown:  
When I am Emperor of the World...
Nick Matzke could be my footstool boy and general purpose sycophant.

But chunkerz wrestles it right back:  
In my experience it's the hard things that are worthwhile in life.

I recently found a note I had made to revisit this Bradford entry after a month - that was back in January, but I figured why waste all of that note-making effort.

Will Mutation Clusters Pass Muster?
The links within are interesting reading, but nothing from Bradford as to the relevance to ID.  The first comment, from Bilbo, is a quote from one of the links with Bilbo adding, "Interesting, indeed."  The third of three total comments is a non sequitur from Denial Smith.  The only other comment is from Bradford:
Next time someone wants to accuse us of not talking about science this thread becomes exhibit A.

Exhibit A, indeed.

Date: 2010/07/14 15:56:51, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2010,14:33)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 14 2010,09:03)
Quote (KCdgw @ July 14 2010,05:50)
Did anyone else see StephenB trying to hide a bong after he wrote that?

I think he stashed it behind the cardboard pyramid he sits in to write his posts.

That would be an orgone box.


Date: 2010/07/21 12:35:43, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Quack @ July 21 2010,12:42)
This is the _URL I use to access AtBC:;f=14

The bottom line on my screen reads ”topics sorted by last post date in ascending order from the beginning”

6 threads are listed, with Book club at the top, date of last post July 20.
Bathroom Wall at the bottom, date of last post July 21.

the list used to be in the opposite order, a descending list  with the newest entries at the top instead of at the bottom.

Now I am unable to get back to that order. Has anything been changed at the forum, or is the problem here with me? How can I get back to the old ordering of topics?

Those are drop-down boxes for me - the sort by criteria, the beginning time frame, and the ascending/descending.  If you can, just switch from ascending to descending.  If it switches back on you the next time you visit, I dunno - but, as is our IT motto, let's hope it was a one-time thing...

Date: 2010/07/28 09:00:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 28 2010,00:52)
They have evidently discovered and sequenced some 400+ million year old DNA.
The Cambrian Specified Complexity
The Cambrian Explosion resulted in far too many millions of DNA code pairs that appeared far too fast to be consistent with Darwin's theories.

That is awesome - they must have developed a time machine, what with all of their rigorous mathematics and such:
The chances of evolution powering the Cambrian Explosion are one in trillions or more.

However, I think the biggest revelation, which all of you blinkered materialists have not been able to elucidate, is this:
The form of living things is an arrangement of body parts which develop within physical limitations: It is possible for a human to have a neck which is about six inches high, it is not possible for a human to have a neck that is 100 feet high.

How do we know?  Six inch necks.  Clearly, even God could not have made 100 foot, wait...he could, but didn't want to.  He only wanted six inch necks.  How do we know?  Six inch necks.  The Design inference?  Sweaters.  When you pose for a picture, looking thoughtfully into the distance, who can see your sweater when it is a 100 feet below?  Not even a turtleneck could make the frame, much less a properly over-sized cardigan.

Date: 2010/07/28 09:20:59, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Freudian comma:
Materialists rule out a designer, and so are forced by this metaphysical presupposition, to only look at evidence, which supports their position.

Date: 2010/07/28 10:44:28, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,07:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.

That and the fact that he's wielding a LotR movie promotional letter opener.

Date: 2010/07/30 13:08:48, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:16)
Don't worry if you baught a FAILmouse. You can get a new FAILmouse that might work in 4 weeks.

LOL.  What a bunch of hucksters.  Multiple problems with the mouse, probably not repairable, so - as a favor to their suckers - they are going to replace them.
You will have the option of either sending your current mouse back to either our American or our UK address after the replacement mouse arrives or keeping your old mouse for $25.  If, as we anticipate, you prefer to send your old mouse back to us, you will have 30 days from the receipt of your replacement mouse to send it back.  If we don’t receive it, we will charge your credit card $30.

You can keep the broken mouse for $25, but if you don't send it back - it's $30.

You have 30 days to send it back before you get charged the $35.  After 30 days it's $40, plus freight makes it $45 for an even $50.  If you haven't canceled your credit card account in 2 months time, we will bill an additional $60 plus a $65 it's-cheaper-to-just-pay-it-than-hire-a-lawyer fee.  Any credit card accounts that are still valid after 3 months, we will assume that your hands are too crippled from trying to learn our wearymouse to use the phone (that and simply just unwilling to push any more buttons) and a new round of charges will begin.

Date: 2010/08/05 11:30:12, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (SLP @ Aug. 05 2010,12:00)
Joey claims:

With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).

So, by this measure, there is  no such thing as an 'original' gene and a mutated one with less information.

I wonder if little Joey considered that he just shot down a major YEC/ID claim?

For a case like that, I think his reasonable request is simply for a live video feed of any mutation as it takes place along with a notarized affidavit from the Teh Designer waiving all purposeful intentions to said mutation.

Date: 2010/08/27 15:39:53, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Tom Ames @ Aug. 27 2010,16:25)
Or that there's some kind of fake controversy brewing.

You can tell it is a fake controversy, because while it may show up on Fox News - it is never in the French press.

Date: 2010/09/22 21:18:14, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Petrushka:  ID declares that intelligence can somehow do biological design, but offers no examples for the most critical areas — new species and adaptation to environmental or competitive challenges.

Proponentist:  I think ID can successfully point to the work of intelligence in genetic modification, for example. A human scientist does not rely on chance mutations and selection to modify a dog species, for example. The fact that even this conscious, informed, human intelligence cannot speciate new dogs is evidence against what an unintelligent process can produce

His three sentences broken down in reverse order:

Petruska says that ID has no evidence that the I can do the D in speciation.  Proponentist says that is just evidence against any other way to do it.  Tard.

"A human scientist does not rely on chance mutations and selection to modify a dog species, for example."  What?  German shepherds* didn't choose the best dogs from litters of slightly varied pups?  They had a genetics lab?  They knew which AA in what combination would produce the dog they wanted?  Tard.

The "work of intelligence in genetic modification" is not based on innate knowledge.  It is based on information that already exists in the environment.  Information that was/is painstakingly extracted from the environment, overwhelmingly by trial-and-error.  Lately that process has been codified as the scientific method, but it's an accumulation that goes back unbroken to the first guy to strike one rock against another.  ID can't successfully point to that without the glaring absence and question-begging of the whole origin of information thing they whine about constantly.  Tard.

*  Substitute with the developers of your preferred dog breed, of course.

Date: 2010/09/28 12:23:45, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 28 2010,12:11)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2010,10:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 28 2010,10:56)
 Just curious.

Hey FTK,
Do you believe the age of the earth is closer to 6000 or billions of years?

Just curious.

After all this time, I still quite honestly don't know.

Liar.  There is no way you can honestly feel that the evidence for a Designer is rock solid and still honestly be up in the air about the age of the Earth.
Ftk:  When I first fell into this debate, I’d never been involved in forums, blogs, chat rooms, etc., and honestly I was scared shitless to pipe up and say anything for fear that I wouldn’t have a clue what they were talking about nor how I would address their responses.  I found out that it wasn’t nearly as difficult as I’d feared.  I know that PZ gets irate when I say things like “biology isn’t rocket science”, but in this day and age, we have *everything* we ever wanted to know or learn right at our fingertips.

You let your fingers do the walking, found the evidence inarguable, and promptly stuck those fingers in your ears.

Date: 2010/10/11 11:00:51, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 10 2010,23:25)
Slightly off topic, but this seems to be the most relevant thread.

This headline has been sitting on my Google News page for over a week now:

UK Centre for Intelligent Design claims it will focus on science, not religion

Today it was joined by [URL=

localLinksEnabled=false]this one[/URL], referring to the same outfit:

Would you Adam and Eve it? Top scientists tell Scottish pupils: the Bible is true

Surely some mistake!

Edit: fixed second link

The photo caption in the fist article:  
Dr Alastair Noble, director of the Centre for Intelligent Design in Glasgow, says ID is 'consistently misrepresented as a religious position'

From the second article:  
“We are definitely not targeting schools...” Dr Noble said...

And then:  
Dr Alastair Noble is...currently education officer for CARE, a Christian charity which campaigns for more faith teaching in schools.

One measure of a paper's significance is the number of times it is cited by the subsequent literature:
[The Centre for Intelligent Design]'s president, Professor Norman Nevin OBE – a geneticist at Queen’s University in Belfast – told a meeting in the city earlier this year he believed Adam was “a real historical person”. He also said: “Genesis chapter 1-11, which indeed many Darwinists and evolutionists say is myth or legend, I believe is historical, and it is cited 107 times in the New Testament, and Jesus refers himself to the early chapters of Genesis at least 25 times.”


Date: 2010/12/15 09:36:17, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 14 2010,20:15)
Molch objects to kairosfocus:        

“take the fact that our hearts so staunchly cry out for fairness and justice. That is, we are inherently conscious that we are morally bound, that is we are morally governed by an un-erasable moral law.”

that is quite likely the most subjective justification for an allegedly objective fact I have ever read. Your heart staunchly cries out for something. So you deduce that everybody else’s heart cries out for the exact same thing – staunchly nonetheless. And then you deduce that makes the thing desired real and objective.

Your first stumbling block will be to show that hearts in general cry out for fairness and justice. There are a lot of hearts that cry out for advantages for themselves, rather than fairness for all. Next you’ll find that even among those who might agree upon fairness and justice for all, definitions and perceptions of fairness and justice will vary gravely, depending on who you ask… and that’s just the beginning of your problems on the way to demonstrating anything like “warrant” in your claim to objectivity…

kairosfocus, inevitably, responds.  Of course the response is long-winded, and of course he makes the "selective hyperskepticism" accusation (love how these folks invent terms and then treat them as philosophical truisms).  He also has a little fantasy about what it would take to convince his opponent:        
In short, I indeed point to a universal consensus, one that you yourself are doubtless familiar with when you are not wearing selectively hyperskeptical, dismissive spectacles.

(As in, what is your response when you are willfully short changed, or cheated by a sly shopkeeper passing off substandard goods, or have your pocket picked, or your car stolen, or — God forbid — are tied up at gun-point and forced to watch your mother, wife, sister, or daughter multiply raped, slowly tortured and murdered?  Or, put yourself in the shoes of Prof Epstein’s wife at Columbia, above: is here revulsion and rage just a subjective perception she projects unto others, perhaps driven by a subtle attempt to impose her views on others? If ought is not real, it is just a might makes right jungle out there, so shut up and slide down the throat nicely, weakling. And, to the problem of evil, we must add the problem of good. If evil is real [as is a common premise in an attempted rebuttal to the concept of God], so is good,and the foundation of both has to be explained.)

And folks like this accuse other people of having warped thinking.

A universal consensus, indeed.  Except, of course, for the sly shopkeepers, the pickpockets, the car thieves, the rapists, the sadists, the murders...not to mention all those homos.  FFS.

Date: 2010/12/29 09:50:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 28 2010,17:48)
Even a god could not win a billiard game in one stroke without using supernatural powers.

I wonder if it is OK to choose the best god I can think of. I wonder whether we may just have to accept the God who is called “I AM”, rather than being able to imagine the one we would like to exist.

Our views of what is possible in this given universe need to be constrained by known science. Cosmic front loading, if it exists, should be detectable and observable. If it is not, it is indistinguishable from intervention.

This is a work of art.

tragic mishap adds to cosmos as billiards game analogy:
The ID argument is that all the balls have been sunk and that is a pattern which requires intelligent design.

It doesn’t matter one whit how it happened.

Date: 2011/03/07 10:48:10, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2011,09:33)

Joey dismisses Wikipedia:
And when a source allows anyone to post their shit it pretty much goes without saying that it isn't an accepted authority.

But just upthread, he quotes UD's faq that states this in the foreword:          
In the fall of 2008, the UD administration asked StephenB, GPuccio and Kairosfocus to take the work Patrick had begun and reorganize it and add to it. Then, the various sections were subjected to public comment and given a final edit by Barry Arrington. Thus, no one person is responsible for the final product. It is an amalgam that resulted from this process.

IOW, anonymous circle jerk.  Hey, wait a minute, what a catchy title for a new ID Journal!

Anonymous Circle Jerk:  We do more than stroke your ego!

Anonymous Circle Jerk:  You have many options for Intelligent Design vanity publications, but only one puts you in the middle of an Anonymous Circle Jerk.

Anonymous Circle Jerk:  See who's expelled today!

Date: 2011/03/07 11:39:25, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
What is funny* is that, while they all jumped into Bilbo's thread about "Why we need critics" to say "No we don't"; they can't wait to gang up and shout down any new critic that appears.  They ignore any possible ID "debate" that might be had amongst themselves.  See poor Techne as an example in the blind cave fish thread.  He is mentioned by numbdumbass in the OP, and he posts an interesting* comment:            
From a teleological perspective this study just again confirms the presence of intrinsic finality/natural ends/natural inclinations or intrinsic natural ends/inclinations in nature, this time specifically related to the intrinsic finality of genomes naturally inclined to produce eyes and sight. While they have the potential to produce eyes and sight, this might not be always actualized, but sometimes when it is, it might be functionally relevant to the fitness of the organism.

None of the IDers take notice - they are too busy challenging posts from people whose opinions they don't value.  Maybe after the pounding of the ban hammer has subsided, they will get around to some serious ID discussion.

* Funny/interesting here meaning typical ID dumbfuckery.

Date: 2011/03/28 14:50:18, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Guts gets battered by the true scientists in the room.

First, ID Git leads with a couple quick jabs:
Are these lineage specific insertions design differences, evolutionary differences or blind watchmaker diffferences?

Would baraminology, in which chimps and humans don't share a common ancestor but do share a common design, also "actually explain those differences"?

Then Bung lands the haymaker:
Would tiny green monkeys jumping around in human dna proove the hypothesis?

Ouch!  There is no answering the ID Git, but tiny green monkeys?  Zing!  At first, I thought it was setting up for a good tard fight - but it was just a bloodbath.  Guts showed up alone to a tard team match and I doubt he'll have the stomach to get back in the ring.  Expect instead for some bowing to design or some hasty new topics to push it off the first page.

(Hey Guts, they're just a little testy and defending YEC is low hanging fruit.  You could get back in their good graces, or at least get them to ease up on you, if you would pop over to UD and show them how to calculate CSI.)

Date: 2011/04/25 08:55:16, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Seversky @ April 23 2011,12:20)
"quark soup"

My favorite appetizer at the Big Bang Burger Bar.

Date: 2011/04/25 10:31:34, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
That...hmm...was...ahhh...brutal.  I didn't last more than a few minutes.  Comments liked.

The first thing he does is explain why he uses the term "anticreationists".  The next thing he says is "this is what happens when evolutio...ah, anticreationsts get editorial control of a journal..."

We know what you meant, Paul.  Freud giggled, and it wasn't from your John Bolton mustache.

Date: 2011/05/18 10:00:08, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Starting here:
ellazimm:  So, I’m wondering . . . if the Alu sequences are purposeful and they’ve been linked to lots of nasty diseases then . . . is the designer malevolent?  Is that a fair question? If there is a designer is the fact that there is so much death and pain and suffering an indication that the designer is actually evil?

nullasalus: Sure. It’s just not an ID question.

ellazimm:  I have never understood the reluctance to question the motivations, methods and timings of the intelligent designer.

nullasalus: What reluctance? I said, sure, good question. *snip* I said such questions are not part of ID. But I agreed they’re valid questions.  What exactly are you disagreeing with here?

ellazimm:  It’s not so much a matter of disagreeing with anything . . . I’m just wondering why there is little discussion of what I’m seeing as some of the ramifications of some things being designed.

nullasalus: Who said it’s not a scientific question? I said it’s not part of ID. If you want to lay out the case that evaluating possible reasons for why the world is the way it is is a scientific question, let’s hear why. I’d be interested in hearing it. If a biologist tells me that fish eat plankton, and I ask where the carbon in the plankton came from, he may well tell me ‘That’s not a question for biology.’ It would be a question for, say.. cosmologists or physicists.

ellazimm:  And if they’re not part of the plan then what power and influence does the designer have or choose to exert?

nullasalus: Good questions. Theology and philosophy deal with these. But you seem to be arguing that these questions are part of science. I’d love to hear why.

Okay, let that marinate.

In the comments to the nullanus post (an All Science So Far! production) An Encouraging Moment at Biologos:
nullasalus: Now, I think ID requires more than this, and I think the ID questions still remain valid. But I also think that, by saying ‘Variation could be guided’ and, in essence, ‘Selection could be guided’, Bishop is offering a view of evolution that ID proponents and TEs could, at the very least, have something to seriously discuss. It’s something actually approximating common ground, and it’s very different from the now-typical TE tack of not wanting to talk about how, even in principle, God could work through or with evolution.

Like I said, this was an encouraging moment. If Biologos shows more willingness to take seriously the idea of guidance and purpose in the evolutionary process, particularly in this sense where God may be behind both the variation and selection (either altogether or at particular points), it does seem like something ID proponents should encourage.

Nullanus, here, says that the idea of God guiding variation and selection is common ground for IDers and TEs, and that those types of discussions should be encouraged by IDers.  But now, a week later, he's telling ellazimm that those types of questions are not part of ID and should be addressed by theology and philosophy.
nullasalus: The problem is that TEs are routinely unable to articulate what Bishop did. Some TEs aren’t – Stephen Barr, for example. But for others, particularly at Biologos, they get as far as “God and evolution are compatible” and when you ask why and how, they wring their hands and mumble about how that’s a very important question and there are many opinions, let’s discuss something else.

Yeah, those gutless TEs, right nullanus?  Hey, nully, give us your best gutless TE impression.  I'll give you a lead in:

"I have never understood the reluctance to question the motivations, methods and timings of the intelligent designer God in evolution."
nullasalus: What reluctance?...I said such questions are not part of IDTE. But I agreed they’re valid questions.  What exactly are you disagreeing with here?

Wow, you've got it down pat.  Let's do another:

"[W]hat power and influence does the designer God have or choose to exert?"
nullasalus: Good questions. Theology and philosophy deal with these. But you seem to be arguing that these questions are part of science. I’d love to hear why.

Simply amazing, you avoid giving any substance and fire back with your own discussion-changing questions.  It's almost like you practice the technique, but that can't be, what with your full time job of asshole.

Date: 2011/05/18 10:17:57, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
nullasalus:  I also think that...‘Variation could be guided’ and, in essence, ‘Selection could be guided’ view of evolution that ID proponents and TEs could, at the very least, have something to seriously discuss. It’s something actually approximating common ground, and it’s very different from the now-typical TE tack of not wanting to talk about how, even in principle, God could work through or with evolution.

...the idea of guidance and purpose in the evolutionary process, particularly in this sense where God may be behind both the variation and selection...does seem like something ID proponents should encourage.

About 5 hours later:
nullasalus: Intelligent Design is often accused of being entirely driven by religious motivations. I don’t think there’s anything about ID itself that warrants this conclusion, but I do think it’s obvious that ID’s supporters by and large tend to be religious...At the same time, I see nothing in ID that mandates a person being religious, even theistic in the common sense of the term.


Date: 2011/06/02 11:30:59, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Kristine @ June 01 2011,23:46)
I notice that when she is alarmed, such as during the hype about the reactor rods in Japan, she comes here to ask questions. Probably because she knows that despite everything that transpires between people she will get a straight answer without an agenda.

Yep.  Similarly, when one of her sons showed an interest in engineering, she came here for suggestions and advice.  

Quote (Ftk @ June 01 2011,14:23) boys didn't *kill* a Heron.  They are fully aware of the fines.  Their Dad allowed them to shoot at it....(not to kill) to scare the thing off because my boys were all paranoid about it messing with the goose nest because it was right by it.

Mallard eggs to baby chicks then back to eggs and now they're geese?  FFS, FtK, quit lying.

Date: 2011/06/10 15:26:22, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Oh dear, chunky is starting to lose it - posts may start disappearing soon.

It started as a typical TT thread - obsessing about Dawkins and drifting into an absolute morality morass.  But it has hotted up recently.

If there were no such thing as pure white then gray could not exist.

Is there such a thing as pure white?  Uh oh.  Don Provan tells chunks he is silly.  Just like joe g, chunky suspects he has goofed and starts thrashing, snapping off several quick comments without waiting for reply.

What is gray if not a corruption of pure white?

What is gray without white?  Utter darkness.

By what light, Don, do you claim to be able to discern these shades of gray?

One thing for everyone to notice:

Remember days ago when Don assured us that he took Christianity seriously and did not think it was merely a delusion?

Two days later he is declaring it silly and irrational to proclaim that God is absolutely good.

The only thing anyone has noticed is your desperate thrashing, chunky.  Don says your prattling about pure white is silly, you play the victim card and try to pretend that he's attacking your gawd.  If anyone were concerned that you might not know what you're talking about, you cleared it up in the your next comment.
Actually there is pure white in the universe – at the extreme end of the visible spectrum.

Is that the red end or the violet end?  No, wait, don't tell me - the tard end.
Bonus tard:  Atheists and Christians can share the same morals. But as I just said, atheists have no idea where they come from.

That has so much tard packed into it that there's barely enough arrogance to contain it all.

ETA:  See Alan Fox above - chunky isn't done yet.  Be careful, chunkerz, you know how sometimes the TT memory hole gets all glitchy and loses comments altogether.

Date: 2011/06/27 15:50:07, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (olegt @ June 24 2011,13:24)
Joe reminisces about his days of glory.
Of Ticks, Watermelons and EvoTards.
He promises MOAR experiments! Yay!

Joe writes:  This seems to have spawned a life of its own...

Only because it is such utter and obvious bullshit, Joe.
Quote I will tell you what happened.

During one dry summer, after a cook-out, I threw some watermelon rinds (with some fesh still on) into the woods across the street from my house.

A couple-few days later I was out in the same woods...

Bullshit, Joe.  As I posted in 2007, and is still available at ARN, you claimed:
That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play.

You were lying about your super-cool basement lab then.  Now, realizing what a melon-headed tard you seemed, you are trying to make your tick story somehow plausible.  It ain't workin'.  I bet the only part of the lies that is true - because it fits your douche bag persona so perfectly - is the littering in the woods.

Date: 2011/07/14 10:09:21, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
The Argument Regarding Design - Zachriel

"It never fails to amuse me that the probabilty of the sun coming up yesterday remains a question for IDers" - K.E.

Date: 2011/07/25 11:41:14, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Louis @ July 25 2011,12:25)
Quote (Henry J @ July 25 2011,16:17)
Well that was elementy.

Element-Ar-y surely?


Here we go argon.

Date: 2011/09/28 16:03:37, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 28 2011,16:38)
Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 28 2011,21:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 27 2011,12:41)
Hey Joe, I'll be up near your neck of the woods tomorrow and Thursday.

Here's your chance.  Just give me an address where you'd like to meet and you can 'explain all this to me'.

Joe will probably be in those woods hunting for Bigfoot so that he can measure the increase in density of it's hairy coat, a reliable indication of cooling temperatures, therefore giving the lie to global warming.

Reminds me of that old joke:

A white colon cuts some wood for winter. Not sure if he has enough, he goes to see the local Native Shaman and asks if this winter is gonna be cold.

The Shaman nods: yes, it's going to be cold!

The colon goes back to cutting wood, and not sure about his stock, goes to the Shaman once again.

-Yes, it's going to be very cold.

So there goes the colon again, cutting wood.

And back he goes to the Shaman for advice, over and over until he has a huuuuge pile of fire-wood.

Then he asks the Shaman:

-How do you know it's gonna be so cold?

To which the Shaman answers:

-When White Man cuts lots of fire-wood, winter gonna be very cold!

This joke did very well intestine with focus groups.  They busted a gut laughing.

Date: 2011/10/04 14:52:01, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 04 2011,11:28)

Fox news.
Alleged sightings of Yetis in Kemerovo and the neighboring Altai region, about 1,988 miles (3,200 kilometers) east of Moscow, are up three times compared to 20 years ago, with scientists estimating that there is a current population of at least several dozen in the area.

Other evidence of the existence of the creatures -- such as basic twig huts, twisted branches and footprints of up to 35 centimeters (14 inches) -- also has been found in the area.

A group of scientists from the conference will be sent out to search the region's mountains to examine the evidence and try spot a Yeti.

It will be the first expedition of its kind since 1958, when scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences scoured Western Siberia trying to catch a Yeti.

Igor Burtsev, who heads the Moscow-based International Center of Hominology, said, "When Homo sapiens started populating the world, it viciously exterminated its closest relative in the hominid family, Homo neanderthalensis. Some of the Neanderthals, however, may have survived to this day in some mountainous wooded habitats that are more or less off limits to their arch foes."

Whoda thunk? ;)

Stuff like this always reminds me of Murray's line from Ghostbusters, "You're right, no human being would stack books like this."

Date: 2011/10/13 09:09:42, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 13 2011,08:48)
In this post [link not carried over]we discover: According to Darwinian theory, new species emerge when mutations produce individuals who can outperform the stock they came from…

Gil, is it too much to ask for a reference to a leading biology textbook for this?  Apparently, yes it is and always will be.

Comments on the Darwinian logic point out Gil's number 2 is appropriately numbered:

Given #1: A certain feature of a living system exists. (Let’s try a trivial example, like Mozart’s ability to write symphonies.)
Given #2: Since this feature exists, it must have a survival advantage.
Given #3: Since it is known (scientifically) that Darwinian mechanisms can explain everything about the history of life, there must have been a gradual pathway such that random mutations and natural selection could turn a microbe into Mozart. How could this not be obvious?

It would be a trivial example if we all could write symphonies, Gil.  If we all could write them, then we would expect a connection to some sort of survival advantage.  Let's turn it around, though, Gil.  Can you write symphonies like Mozart?  No?  Not intelligent then, Gil?  Or maybe the Designer loves Mozart more than He loves you?  It's okay, Gil, He did give you checkers - but maybe that was a hint.

Date: 2011/10/21 12:19:25, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,05:28)
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,04:02)
We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID

How did they use ID - or is ID useless for doing science?  I won't ague about the 99.9% or who was/wasn't an IDer - I'll just note that they weren't expelled, and that their work is taught in public school.  You claim the vast majority of the greatest scientists, yet ID is a threadbare set of vague notions and your martyr complex is a sad little fiction used to sell movies and books to the gullible.

ETA:  Wrong thread - copied to correct one.

Date: 2011/10/21 12:21:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,05:28)
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,04:02)
We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID

How did they use ID - or is ID useless for doing science?  I won't ague about the 99.9% or who was/wasn't an IDer - I'll just note that they weren't expelled, and that their work is taught in public school.  You claim the vast majority of the greatest scientists, yet ID is a threadbare set of vague notions and your martyr complex is a sad little fiction used to sell movies and books to the gullible.

Date: 2011/10/24 09:23:16, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,18:12)
except maybe the blue whale but one bigger will pop up sooner or later

An ID prediction! </confetti>  Using this new robustness measure - ID is sure to replace current science.

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,08:00)
from feces to Ninety-Five Theses


Date: 2011/11/14 10:09:49, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,23:10)
Quote (Seversky @ Nov. 12 2011,18:20)
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 12 2011,07:00)
Just in case you have any lingering doubts that Vincent Torley still has some small measure of sanity left, read this.
Or imagine that the family member opts for a head transplant. Which would you value as the person you loved: the head or the body? And what if the body their head is transplanted onto is robotic? Now imagine that this person wants to load their all their personal memories onto a CD, before they die. Assuming it were doable, would you ascribe any ethical value to the CD? If you’re self-consistent in your ethics, you’d ascribe value to the head and the to the CD. But I wouldn’t. I’d identify more with the loved one’s body, and I’d attach zero importance to the CD. In my book, anything that doesn’t have a body, isn’t even an organism, and therefore isn’t an individual.

Cue R. Crumb doing the headless Devil Girl.

A man walks into his local pub with a big grin on his face. “What are you so happy about?” asks the barman.

“Well, I’ll tell you,” replies the man. “You know I live by the railway. Well, on my way home last night, I noticed a young woman tied to the tracks, like in the movies. I, of course, went and cut her free and took her back to my place.. Anyway, to make a long story short, I scored big time! We made love all night long, all over the house. We did everything I could think of, sometimes me on top, sometimes her on top, every position imaginable!”

“Fantastic!” exclaimed the barman. “You lucky guy. Was she pretty?”

“Dunno… Never found the head…”

Date: 2011/11/17 08:48:52, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 17 2011,00:41)
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 16 2011,04:35)
Isn't she at least nominally a Catholic? And of the emigrant-Irish variety, at that? (Our Lady of Nagging Guilt, pray for us...)

Catholics of that generation were imbued with a deep and firm conviction that Protestants - particularly the fundagelicals - are Teh Eeevul. The old joke about Fr. O'Reilly asking Brigid what she wanted to be when she grew up (punchline "Oh, that's OK, I thought you said 'A protestant'!") was scarily close to the truth.

It is not unusual for those of that background to end up wallowing in fundagelical primal ooze. But doing would normally require a Hallelujah Moment and a Jack Chick style Frillologue, typically adorned with a few evil Jesuits etc etc.

Densye, your mother is suffering because of your infidelity to The One True Church! Have you no shame?

She said once that she's a convert to Catholicism.  I have no idea what her maiden name was, but her husband seems to be mercifully dead.

ETA: Denyse at Husband's grave: "But what does this 'STFU' on his tombstone mean?"

IIRC, she's careful to say "Catholic Christian".  CBEBs don't worry about mundane details like sect or denomination - you call it church, they call it kindling.  So for whom does she have to qualify her Catholicism?  Hmmm.  I wonder if she's convinced herself that she wouldn't be one of the first on the bonfire once they run out of Darwinists.

Date: 2012/02/01 13:37:08, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 01 2012,07:50)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 01 2012,05:03)
If engineers could do the job so much better why are there still priests and pastors?

See the ID research.  Present your own paper.  Only $98 if you register now.  Hurry!  Hurry!  Hurry!


"Early-bird" pricing?  I thought fleece came from sheep.

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 01 2012,13:33)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2012,04:29)
We have evidence that intelligent entities exist or existed other places than earth.

Yeah, it's in the box next to all the evidence for ID!

There isn't room. The ambiguity has put on weight.


Date: 2012/03/15 14:24:49, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 14 2012,12:44)
A question for Uncommonly Dense subscribers. I've been looking for something. Unsuccessful thus far.

"Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution"

Everyone knows this comment of Dembski's. And the forthcoming unholy union between Dembski and O'Leary attacking theistic evolution is set to italicise the sentiment.


A few years ago, Dembski, in one of his regular lapses of self-awareness, either in an interview or a posting at UD, lamented the fact that ID proponents had 'lost' the sympathies of the theistic evolutionists somewhere along the line.

One of AtBC's heroic tard-miners picked up on it, promptly juxtaposed it with the above quote, and recorded it here. But I can't find it, nor Dembski's original comment.

Are you that miner? Do you remember in which U-Dense thread you filed away said nugget?

Maybe this from Feb, 2010?

ID, Atheism, and Theistic Evolution
Posted by William Dembski
Evolution is the mainstay of an atheistic worldview — is it a coincidence that the day-job of the world’s most prominent atheist (Richard Dawkins) is evolutionary biology? ID, by challenging this mainstay, fundamentally undermines an atheistic worldview. It’s therefore ironic that theistic evolutionists fall all over themselves to support evolution, even arguing that it is more compatible with Christian theism than ID.

When I got into this business 20 years ago, I thought that any Christian (and indeed theist), given good evidence against evolution (again, a materialistic understanding of it) would be happy to trash it and move to some form of intelligent design (whether special creation or intelligent evolution). But that’s not happened. Theistic evolutionists now make common cause with atheistic evolutionists — specifically against ID. ID has become public enemy number one for both atheistic and theistic evolutionists (the recent spate of books by both sides confirms this point).

The practical effect of this is that not just the mainstream academy but the mainstream Christian academy (Wheaton College, Calvin College, Seattle Pacific University, etc. — most of the schools in the CCCU) have now closed their doors to ID and to hiring faculty that explicitly support it. We’re therefore on our own. This may seem like a bad thing (it sure would be nice to be invited to those wine-and-cheese parties at the Templeton Foundation), but I submit it is a good thing. It keeps us honest. We don’t have to play nice with Darwin because our livelihoods are at stake. Moreover, it will make the ultimate victory of ID all that much sweeter.

It might not be what you're looking for, but it certainly has that butt hurt arrogance that DrDrD could patent.

Date: 2012/04/09 09:38:37, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 08 2012,22:26)
Has Behe ever addressed this?

Well, Behe did suggest how skeptics of his ideas might test them.
Q. And you also propose tests such as the one we saw in "Reply to My Critics" about how those Darwinians can test your proposition?

A. Yes.

Q. But you don't do those tests?

A. Well, I think someone who thought an idea was incorrect such as intelligent design would be motivated to try to falsify that, and certainly there have been several people who have tried to do exactly that, and I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.

But its not worth it, to him.  And, of course, he considered testing the ideas put forth by his skeptics.  Considered.
Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?

A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those?

A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.

Q. It would be a waste of time?

A. It would not be fruitful.

Book sales are fruitful, though, at least there's that.

Date: 2012/07/02 09:37:39, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
What a sad, sad little bunch (this not only refers to the UD circle jerk in general, but KF's contribution to same).

Six months ago, if you wanted to get banned quickly from UD, all you had to do was refer to a conversation over here or assert ID=Creationism/Designer=God.  They were above the mud slinging and tired of retreading the same ground over settled issues.

Now, after they went ban-anas and are left with just an empty echo chamber, what are they doing?  KF is referring to the conversations over here and they are starting new threads assuring each other that the bleeding obvious is just a flesh wound.

What happened, guys?  I thought you ran off all of the deniers who could only parrot the ID=God arguments so you could focus on the advances of ID science.  Now all you can do is bitch about what the deniers are saying off-site?  You're posting new threads covering the well trodden ground that has long been dealt with by your eloquent, always-linked FAQs?  Nothing new to say?

Date: 2012/07/02 14:08:17, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Amadan @ July 02 2012,13:55)
Ummmm, would it be tactless to mention that this is the fourth mammoth thread concerned entirely with observing and commenting on their site?

No, I don't think so.  The mamoth threads here are because the comments in them will get (and have gotten) the author banned over there.  They are welcome to post here, and that is the difference.  If I took the tone of "Dr Jammer" over there, I would be banned in under 5 comments.

Bloguno  Teh Creotards are banning people for calling them Creotards!

Blogoduo  The poisonous bile is unwarranted and untrue.  It used to distract and disrupt us from honest discussion.  The hateful atheists simply cannot leave us alone!!1!

Bloguno  Teh Creotards are banning anyone they even remotely suspect isn't a Creotard!

Blogoduo  Now that the polarised atmosphere has been cleared and refreshed we can begin our honest discussions!!!1

Bloguno  LOTardCats!

With the solitude and serenity of the ban hammer reigning over the land, every opportunity for free and honest ID discussion is available.
Blogoduo  Look what they are saying now, in the fetid fever swamps!  Disgraceful!!1!  Will they ever leave us alone to have our discussions in peace?!?!1?

Bloguno  LOTardCats!

Date: 2012/07/03 08:15:50, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Amadan @ July 02 2012,16:17)
Meh. No mackerel.

Apologies.  I thought that "hold mackerel in their left hands" was one of those weird Brit euphemisms.

Date: 2012/07/03 13:31:06, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 03 2012,13:00)
Quote (fnxtr @ July 03 2012,11:44)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2012,09:15)
He's Canadian; I wonder if part of his unique style is due to the fact that his native language is French.

Fake ETA: Now I'm feeling all smug for being nice and calling it "unique style". I had to because I'm aware that my English is far from perfect, too.

Real edit: JohnW, I hate ninjas    ;-)

Better than his.



NinGenius - one step above Super Genius.

Date: 2012/07/06 08:41:38, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
I think Sally is doing this mostly because he gets off on pretending to be smart, and his favorite way to do that is posting formulae.  He is already back-pedaling with a relabeling suggestion for Sewell, but Granville is not having it.  I liked this bit:
Granville Sewell:
...most everyone I’ve been arguing with these last 11 years acknowledges that what has happened on Earth would violate the second law if the Earth were an isolated system...but I have been told continually for 11 years that I don’t know what I’m talking about, that’s why I’m so hypersensitive.

My bold.  Most everyone I've argued with over the years agrees that we could colonize the stars if we had a Star Trek warp drive, but since they can't counter my devastating 23 part argument they eventually tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about and to shut the fuck up and that's why I'm so hyper-sniveling.

Date: 2012/07/23 08:32:22, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (REC @ July 21 2012,10:50)
Joe (ID is ok with evolution/ID isn't creationism/I'm not a evangelical Christian/I'm a muslim) points us to the following:

A creationist has an article Of Apes and Men: Chromosome 2 in Humans and the Chimpanzee in which he lays out the explanation for HC2 in a Creation/ ID context.

Creation/ID? How many of us have been scolded or banned for saying Intelligent design creationism?

So what does the article say?

The only remaining explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to chromosomes 2A and 2B in the chimpanzee is that God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup.

Atheists have asked why God would purposefully create a human chromosome that “looks” like the fusion of two chromosomes. At this stage of understanding, we do not know. Recall God’s words: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9, ESV). Eliphaz rightly stated: “He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end” (Job 5:13, ESV). We cannot know God’s intentions for creating us as we exist, nor can we know why He created chimpanzees with such close genetic similarities to humans.

Creationist: ITS A TRAP!!! (created by God to trick the intelligent)


(My emphasis)

I guess since the inference from known design works so well, the Designer can't be God.  I wonder if He knows that someone else has been working his street corner?

Date: 2012/08/02 11:14:56, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 02 2012,08:11)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 02 2012,05:23)
ba77 suggests research!

For a twist on this experiment that would really drive Darwinists bonkers, they could artificially darken or lighten some moths and see if their behavior adjusts accordingly. It would certainly raise some interesting issues if they did adjust their behavior, as well as throwing another monkey wrench into the Darwinian Icon of peppered moths

So do it! Do the fucking experiment! Then discuss what interesting issues arose from it when you actually got some results, rather than speculating on how mad Darwinists would be if the result happened to be X!

Darwinsts would be soooooo mad if a bacterium with a lathe-turned metal genome were discovered! (Or maybe ... they would simply be curious, if initially skeptical).

Wouldn't it be better to do that "experiment" on some organism with even a hint of self-awareness?

Well, yeah, but that sort of implies that the organism proposing the "experiment" is self-aware and I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion from the data we have.

Date: 2012/08/02 12:14:24, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 02 2012,12:48)
What I meant by self awareness was the ability to know what color it was and then be able to compare its own color to its surroundings.

Self-awareness in aspect of being able to be aware of one's own body as itself.

I'm probably not being clear... forget it.

You're fine, I was talking about the self-awareness of BA, joeg, KF, et al... for instance, KF's recent whining about Christine Shellska's qualifications for speaking about a "technical science matter".  I was just trying to be funny, which may point to my own self-awareness issues.

Date: 2012/09/07 13:21:17, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 07 2012,11:30)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 05 2012,15:30)

well to be honest some of you lot need to frikkin vote
ETA  I have 12 votes.  That's chickenshit.  Y'all get out there and let freedom ring now, heah?

As you're asking on the Uncommon Thread, and we shan't be bothered to read the rules, so we will nominate primarily from the Uncommon World. Here are amongst the tardiest per our estimation:

Post of the Century of the Week, Today!

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 07 2012,11:30)

Miss Congeniality
Scordova, for being himself.

Casey may forgive you, but he will never forget this blatant omission!  :angry:

Date: 2013/07/18 09:17:25, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 17 2013,16:31)
The best part of that profile is the, ahem, poetry that Joe/Adair writes. Some literary classics there, for sure!.

Okay, I had to go look.  It does seem a little too elaborate to be Joe, but then again...

Date: 2014/03/19 09:57:03, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2014,16:58)
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Imhaus exits]
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Marston exits]
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: [amorously] Doctor!
[Boyer exits]
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Hadley exits]
Austin Millbarge: We're not doctors!

Me Doctor?

Date: 2014/09/24 13:27:41, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 24 2014,04:05)
On Barry's Banning Thread, Dr. JDD asks
When have IDers tried to remove evolutionists from their tenured positions or lectureships or jobs due to their views on origins?

Exhibit A

Of course, I would post this on UD but, well, I'm banned.

Now, now, he is right. IDist wouldn't remove the darwinists from their jobs - they would remove the jobs from the darwinists.
Dr. Dr. WAD (UD link): If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?).

Date: 2014/09/24 13:34:48, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 24 2014,12:56)

I have seen Phil Harding of Channel 4′s Time Team. The speed with which he spots a flint tool as an artifact has to be seen to be believed, based on characteristic signs of deliberate shaping. As to potsherds and the way they are used to give a rough date . . . the notion of accidental formation does not even enter. KF

Brilliant! All we have to do is apply this methodology to non-flinty/pot things and we're home free.

I don't know about Phil Harding's Channel 4 Time Team, but I've seen a celebrity chef roast a 20 lb turkey to golden brown deliciousness in half an hour (with commercials!), where it took me over 5 hours and it still didn't look nearly as good.

Date: 2016/05/05 16:11:02, Link
Author: Gunthernacus
Quote (paragwinn @ May 05 2016,13:15)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 05 2016,06:55)
Gordon Mullings (dba KairosFocus) is criticized for not being able to have a civil discussion with anyone who disagrees with him. So his solution to this criticism?
Post a FYI/FTR post about the issue with comments off.


cal-secularism/]Completely insane ramblings of a twisted mind[/URL]

Christian evangelist Lance Wallnau, referenced by KF as an authority on saving civilization from the radical non-Christian-dominionist hordes, preseents a plan to gain access to the Chinese Communist Party.

Gain access to the Chinese Communist Party? No need for high tech medicine. Just get them into a Bingo club.