AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Mr_Christopher

form_srcid: Mr_Christopher

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: Mr_Christopher

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/01/10 06:27:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
First of all hello to the folks whose names I recognize from PT.  Second of all this topic has been bugging me for some time now.

I think everyone knows what a lousy PR job is being done by legitimate science/science organizations and I have a few specific area of distress.

Media and news communication:  If you look at the NCSE 2005 News Room page you'll note none of the press relases are dated.  You have to click on each press release and scroll to the bottom of that page to see when it was released.  Very ameature.

Also, Google News has an news alert feature where you can add identifying words so when Google picks up a news story that has those words you get an email notification and a link to the story(ies).  I have a news alert for "intelligent design".  I get Google news alerts daily, from ordinary news agencies as well as online magazines and many blogs.  I get notified by Google about all the cr@p spewed by thre Discovery Institute but I have never gotten one from the NCSE, Pandas Thumb, or any other science related news/opinion organization with one exception - The Skeptical Inquirer.

Why is this?

Also, the recent Ken Miller Case University talk is pure gold, it explains evolution, intelligent design creationism, the culture war (brought on by the intelligent design creationists), the Dover case, etc. and everyone but PT seems to be ignoring it and the PT thread will soon disapear into the archives...

Every science organization in the world should have a copy of that video on their website and be promoting it.  I do not see a word about it on the NCSE site or any other science related site, the ACLU makes no mention of it either.  

And it was a few regulars at PT who took the time to make video files from the stream and put it up on a temporary site so we could down load copies.  

So you have a handful of folks downloading that video and the general public and media still has no idea it exists.

Meanwhile I get Google news alerts from the Discovery Institute on a daily basis.  

Intelligent design creationism is not going away and to sit back and think the courts are going to protect us from this dishonest charade is short sighted.  Unless science groups and organizations figure out how to communicate with the rest of the world we will continue to be playing catch up.

Date: 2006/01/10 07:20:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is too funny.  Dave Scott is the Dembski worshipper in charge at now and he's obviously ban happy.

But what cracks me up is he banned me today, NOT for what I said on uncommon descent (I have never criticized IDC, Dembski or anyone at that site nor have I ever argued with anyone there) but for my opinions expressed at PT.  I said some naughty things about the theologian William Dembski and the brain washing sunday school classes he teaches at Souther Baptist Theological Seminary.  

So, at uncommon descent you get banned for what you write anywhere, not just what you say on uncommondescent.

I suspect soon they will ban people for having naughty thoughts about the theologian we call William Dembski.

Anyhow, when I went to this morning and saw the thread where Mr Scott had banned me I laffed so hard I spewed coffee all over my keyboard.  He even links to the offending PT comment I made on PT (which is well worth a read).  

It is very funny, check it out.  -> Mr Christopher Is No Longer With Us


Date: 2006/01/10 08:02:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well I may have gotten off on the wrong foot with old Dave in this thread where I questioned the motives of the governor of my own state.  I think I did it in a very appropriate manner, you judge for yourself.  

It appears another unwritten rule at uncommondescent is you cannot question the motives of your own governor if Dave Scott happens to like that governor

Leave it to a Red State to come through in time of need

Simply too funny!

Date: 2006/01/10 09:08:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I am generally a big fan of the ACLU but I was dissapointed that the ACLU did not lend a hand when the New Orleans police department unconstitutionally started door to door confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens in New Orleans after the hurricane.  

*knock knock*

Who's there?

*New Orleans police departmen*

How can I help you?

*Hand over any guns you have in the house*

You're kidding?

*No. Hand them over now*

The NRA sued on behalf of law abiding gun owners and rightfully won. This was a no brainer.  

Sadly, this was a golden opportunity for the ACLU to demonstrate they defend ALL the constitutional rights and ammendments and not just the ones that appeal to the left.  I was dissapointed by their silence to say the least.

Unfortunaley the NRA (whom I am not a big fan of) seems to be one of the only organizations who defends the 2nd ammendment.

Date: 2006/01/10 10:02:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Flint, I am not a big fan of the NRA (yet I own a nice gun collection) but I don't think this is an accuate statement:

"And so the NRA thinks the amendment says that everyone is guaranteed an unlimited right to bear whatever arms they see fit, from poison gas to suitcase nukes"

And I could be wrong but I think constitutional scholars tend to read more than just the text of the constitution, such as reading the writings of those who wrote the constitution.  

Most all of the founding fathers who contributed to the constitution wrote about their feelings regarding private gun ownership and when we look at those documents they clearly mistrusted a government who did not allow private gun ownership and spoke highly of gun ownership.  I could dig up quite a few quotes from founding fathers if anyone has any interest in the subject.

The fact that the ACLU seems to ignore that historical data is what frustrates me.  And their silence during the New Orleans thing was most troubling, at least for those who like the 2nd ammendment AND the ACLU.  I really thought they lost out on a great case.

The NRA does tend to take things to an extreem thus my lack of support for them.

Date: 2006/01/10 11:44:45, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Flint, yes I read that ACLU statement, I orginally read it a couple of years ago.  

And I did not mean to hijack this thread, I am a big fan of the ACLU and thank them for their Kitzmiller efforts so I will leave it at that.



Date: 2006/01/10 12:16:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have seen Dave "I am warning you" Scott ban two people this week and they are big time ID supporters.  Neither were being jerks or doing anything that gave reason for their ban.  In fact I was going to write one of them an email.

Made me laff seeing him pull out the ban baseball bat.  When the intelligent design creationism cult starts eating their own you have to laff.

I suspect Dembski doesn't mind Dave pushing people around.  I sense Dembski is probably cut from the same authoritarian cloth.  Dembski is a sunday school teacher at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  He teaches religious subjects to people who already have deeply held religious beliefs but their beliefs and Demsbkis class subjects cannot be proven right or wrong.  In that environment the guy with the most power is the guy who holds the truth in his hand.  

I imagine Dembski loves teaching sunday school class at SBTS.  No one dare question him there.  Dave has the same thing going for him at uncommon poop.

Date: 2006/01/10 13:01:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey it gets better, Dave Scott admits he scans the internet looking for posters at uncommon poop who might say naughty things about the uncommon poop blog or naughty things about Demsbki, chief intelligent design creationism theologian.

Dave Scott Is Watching You

I feel like I owe them an admission fee for the free entertainment I am getting.

Date: 2006/01/10 17:39:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Here is a case and point.  By now you probably know a lawsuit is (or has been ) being filed in California to stop intelligent design creationism from being taught in a public classroom.

On this site Ken Hurst dissects the propoed intelligent design course outlined proving it is full of creationist garbage.  The link to that page is from Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Plenty of scientists and science organizations read and follow Dispatches yet I bet you a quarter not one of them publishes or advertises the work Ken Hurst has done reegarding the course outline.  I bet not a single scientific organization such as NCSE spends one minute actually explaining the details of what it being proposed in this class other than to say "id is religion" and "we already settled this in Dover". Alot of good that is going to do.

Here is a pro tip from me - John Q Public is not going to read a 139 page legal ruling, it just aint gonna happen.  And John Q Public is what drives this democracy, not the minority of scientists.  It is  scientific ignorance that allows this nutty intelligent design creationism to get a foot hold in the first place.  

And as far as I can tell most scientific organizations continue to ignore John Q Public, continue to not realize John Q Public does not have a PhD in molecular biology, they write things only for themselves and their peers (and probably absurdly think everyone reads their science blog)

Ken Miller knows the science PR/communication machine is terrible but unless you read PT you don't even know a video of his recent most excellent and very John Q Public friendly and educational presentation even exists.  

What the f***?

Because hardly no one in the science world seems to understand the general public does not seek out scientific opinions or science blogs, and the scientific community therefore tends to ignore fundamental communication with the general public, the public will continue to see the ACLU and AU as bullies who stifle free speech.  Soon we will see the public confuse the dreaded ACLU with evolution.  Their distaste for the ACLU will translate to a bitterness for evolution and science.

If we don't get better about *educating* and communicating with the public we're likely to one day see a back lash where the public gets fed up with hearing about intelligent design, darwin and ACLU lawsuits and they take that frustration out on the evolutionists and science.

After all,  in John Q Public's eye it is the evolutionist camp and the ACLU that keeps spawing these law suits and stifling free speech in school.  Why do they mistakenly think that?  Because science is too busy or too ignorant to try and educate and inform them.

Do any of you know anyone at the NCSE or any other science organizations or magazines that you could influence?

Anyhow, that's my story...I'll get off my soap box now...

Date: 2006/01/11 06:00:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
It doesn't take much time to format a news release properly (NCSE I am talking to you) or get your articles on Google News.  

It doesn't take much time to put Ken Miller's speech at Case University on a web page and promote it.

Date: 2006/01/11 07:33:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
First of all I am in Texas.  The Discovery Institute came though our state a few years back in an attempt to censor our biology texbooks.  They fell flat on their face.

Around the same time ARN (located in Richardson Texas) tried to get the Plano school district to adopt off Pandas and People.  Fell flat on their face, the board unanimously said #### no to Pandas and Peeps.  It's worth noting Plano is a heavy Republican voting city.

So Texas has a history of thumbing their nose at IDC.  Note that two days after a well respected Texas Republican announced she was going independent and running against Governor Rick Perry he announced his support for IDC in the classroom.  An obvious vote grab for Perry.  Two days later Perry clarified by saying he has no intention of encouraging any legislation to teach IDC or "the controversy", he simply thinks IDC is a legitimate scientific theory.  Note Karl Rove is one of his advisors.

In spite of my beloved Texas' history of just saying no to creationism in the classroom, Governor Perry's comments will no doubt inspire the lunatic fringe in this state once again. Therefore  I am putting together a CD to send to all of the Texas state board members.

The CD will include

1) Ken Miller's Case University presentation

2) Judge Jones' ruling

3) William Dembski's Intelligent Design course materials he uses at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

4) The Original "philosophy" IDC course outline in California with Ken Hurst's comments as well as the most updated version of the class.

5) A copy of the Wedge Document

6) A copy of the Wiki page on Teach The Controversy

In my cover letter I am NOT going to claim intelligent design is creationism or religious, I am not going to tell them I object to any attempts to teach it in school.  Instead the tone will be I am a father of two who simply wants my school board to make informed decisions when it comes to intelligent design in the classroom.  I think the evidence is far more compelling that anything I could say in a cover letter.

And yeah I know you can lead a horse to water but not make him drink and I have no fantasies that this effort of mine is going to change the world, but at least I am doing my part to help inform my state's school board.  

Is there anything else that I should include on this CD?

Date: 2006/01/12 05:41:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks for the feedback and encouragement guys!

Mr C

Date: 2006/01/12 05:50:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ivins: As Texas schools suffer, Perry can only pander

Molly Ivins isn't happy with the obvious pandering to the creationist crowd by Texas Governor Rick Perry who is running for re-election.  Perry recently said IDC was a legitimate science theory that should be taught in public schools.

Two days later Perry said he had no intention of sponsoring or encouraging any legislation to promote IDC in Texas classrooms.  He has not explained what exactly is scientific about IDC.

Rick Perry has been pandering to extreem right factions ever since Karl Rove became one of his advisors a few years ago.

Date: 2006/01/12 06:03:05, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'd be interested in reading some of the blogs here that folks might have.  Post a link to it here?

I'm thinking about starting one myself and I am in the early stages of looking at software.

Date: 2006/01/12 07:21:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher

Thanks Steve.

Date: 2006/01/13 07:34:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Leave it to a bunch of kids to unmask the true meaning of Intelligent Design Creationism.  Even after they have been coached on what to say and what not to say.

This one still makes me laff.

Date: 2006/01/13 07:41:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks Wesley, this is most helpful.

Date: 2006/01/13 07:57:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I may have seen a list like this on the NCSE web site but I cannot find it now.  Somehwere out there exists a list of every legitimate science organization that opposes intelligent design creationsism.

Anyone know where I can find this list?

Date: 2006/01/13 09:34:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
That's what I was looking for.  Thanks Jim.

Date: 2006/01/13 11:22:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Since science itself is apolitical and skeptical, meaning it thrives on evidence and shuns assertions and could care less about your religious or political beliefs.  Unless of course your political/religiosu beliefs include hostility towards science.

That coupled with the fact that religious belief does not lend itself well to the scientific method (by definition faith has nothing to do with evidence)  I think science is an atheist friendly environment thus we see a higher percentage of them there than in other socio groups.  

I don't see the notion that science causes atheism.  Since science is not hostile to atheists, is based on skepticism (the root of atheism in my opinion) so it makes sense that they tend to collect in that arena.

I think if you poll atheists (who were former theists such as myself) they will tell you their disbelief had nothing to do with evolution theory or science.  

I was a believer the first 30 years of my life and when I drop kicked my belief in God (about 15 years ago) I knew absolutley nothing about evolution and paid no real attention to science or science writers.  

I could be wrong but I suspect that is the same for most atheist/agnostics.   But I must admit, even though I was a beliver I knew at the time no way in heck the universe was slapped together in 6 days.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a molecular biologist to figure that one out.

One need not "believe" in or even know about Darwin or science to reject theism as a way or life or world view.

Date: 2006/01/13 14:06:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (haceaton @ Jan. 13 2006,18:37)
by definition faith has nothing to do with evidence

I found this parenthetical statement interesting. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I guess it depends on your definition of faith. If you can lose faith, then maybe that loss has a basis in evidence and so faith does depend on evidence.

I was not clear, I meant religious faith.  Religious faith is not based on evidence, by definition that is.  I recognize some people base their faith on what they call evidence or justify it with evidence, but I think if they had good evidence for a God they don't need faith.

Date: 2006/01/14 19:28:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
With all the publicity, analysis and commentary regarding Dover, someone who is writing stuff like that isn't concered with being objective.  No one other than the Disco is that mistaken.  

The author is trying to sell an idea.

Date: 2006/01/16 04:19:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like that California social studies teacher who was planning to teach intelligent design creationism was compelled by the Lord himself:  

"I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach"

When did the Lord (aka intelligent designer, space alien or time traveler) start designing "philosophy" classes in California hick towns?  

Fascinating how the Lord so effortlessly moves from creating systems of irreducible complexity to designing "philosophy" courses.  Who knew?

The Lord Made Her Do It


Date: 2006/01/16 10:33:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,09:08)
Here's the bet,

Anyone who replies and accepts, regardless of any appeal, has to write a post admitting they lost the bet.

Then they have to honestly resign from this forum under any and all names for a period of thirty calendar days.

I will be lonely posting to no one.

Did evopeach ever admit defeat?  Did he admit he lost the bet?

And speaking of Behe, he also admitted on Hannity and Colmes that the intelligent designer could be a space alien or time traveler.  

Behe is a real humdinger of a credit to modern scientific thinking, no?  Why just the other day I was having coffee with a space alien friend of mine who was telling me about his time traveling pals from a distant galaxy.  I asked him if he or his time travel pals designed mankind and he said he wasn't sure but suspected it might have been Klingons.

Date: 2006/01/16 13:01:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I love that site.  And Dembscott is a loon to be sure.  It's so funny to see how their ideas natually attract all these open creationist who are scolded for admitting the intelligent designer is God.  

It has been said before but when it comes to denying the Lord, uncommon dissent (and the Disco) makes Peter look like a light weight.

And if you inquire if the intelligent designer is god, you get warned.  If you suggest it is a space man you get warned/banned.  if you suggest it is a time traveler you get warned/banned.  Yet Dembski, Behe and the rest of the lunatic fringe anti-science creationist cultists have all said that the intelligent designer may be a space alien/man.  Ask them to discuss that proposition and you get banned.

Clearly Dembscott, UD, and the Disco have shown that trying to be "clever as serpents" has its drawbacks.  I love watching them get cornered by their own theories.  The response is always the same, ridicule the one who asks questions or simply ban them.

Too funny.  They divide intelligent design creationists into two camps, those that think and those that preach.  The thinkers get banned or ridiculed, the preachers tell the thinkers what to think and what not to think.  They let them know right up front what questions they should not ask and what topics they should not discuss.  

They are promoting the existance of an intelligent designer and insisting their theory of an intelligent designer is scientific.  BUT...if you make the mistake of actually contemplating or even discussing what constitutes the/a intelligent designer you'll get banned in a heart beat.  Brilliant!

And although Dembski has earned a pocket full of PhDs (which proves he can pass exams and write papers), personally he strikes me as just another fundamentalist  simpleton armed with a fancy vocabulary.  And academic version of Pat Robertson. Yawn.  I cannot wait to go hear him when he comes to Fort Worth later this year.  Actually I can't wait to raise my hand and ask him questions in front of an audience.

I love that site.

Date: 2006/01/16 13:13:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
If you believe what Dembscott has been yapping about at uncoomon dissent, as soon as Alito gets the nod intelligent design creationism is going to bury evolution in the public schools.  Yeah and monkeys are waiting to fly out of my, um, monkey cage as soon as that happens!

Dembscotts mental illness aside, obviously the intelligent design creationists want to see a court case go to the Supreme Court.  What court case? What the heck would such a case look like and where would it come from?

As long as what they preach does not fall within the definition of what constitutes science, and it implies a supernatural creator, and they use obvious creationist garbage like of Pandas and Naive People,  how the heck do they think they will win a court case?

Alito or no Alito, I am looking forward to another court case, hopefully one that will go to the Supreme Court.  Perhaps someone like Chris "Divine Design" Buttars will give the Disco that opportunity.

Date: 2006/01/17 08:18:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Intelligent Design Creationism loses in Dover PA and now loses in Frazier CA.  

Class Dismissed!!!

Rural Calif. School to Stop 'Intelligent Design' Teachings

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

FRESNO, Calif.  — A rural school district agreed to stop teaching a religion-based alternative to evolution as part of a court settlement filed Tuesday, a legal group said.

Frazier Mountain High School will stop teaching a philosophy class discussing the theory of "intelligent design" this week and won't teach it in the future, said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

A federal judge in Fresno had been scheduled to hold a hearing Tuesday on whether to halt the class midway through the monthlong winter term.

A group of parents sued El Tejon Unified School District last week for violating the constitutional separation of church and state by offering "Philosophy of Design," a course taught by a minister's wife that advanced the theory that life is so complex it must have been created by God.

"The course was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot, 'intelligent design,"' said the lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court.

The high school in the Tehachapi Mountains about 75 miles north of Los Angeles draws 500 students from a dozen small communities.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State had successfully blocked Dover, Pa., schools last month from teaching intelligent design in science courses. El Tejon school officials had claimed the subject was proper for a philosophy class.

Date: 2006/01/17 08:37:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I kind of wish they had not settled and the matter would have gone to court.  Two IDC court case losses would have been fun to watch.  Of course had the California judge ruled sanely he'd be tarred and feathered as yet another "activist judge."

I wonder why the Thomas More Law Center didn't offer to help them this poor Christian social studies teacher out?  Maybe Richard Thompson's arse is still stinging to risk another judicial paddling (thank you sir, may I have another).

I hope they make the settlement details public.  It appears a a part of the agreement included no teaching intelligent design creationism in the future as well.  

This IDC in the classroom is a howler!

Date: 2006/01/17 11:18:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2006,15:26)
"Religion-based alternative"

wow, journalists really are starting to get it.

No kidding and it gets better:

A group of parents sued the school district last week, saying the class taught by a minister's wife violated the separation of church and state. The course taught that life is so complex it must have been created by God.

Yep, many in the media are now seeing through this intelligent designer as a space alien or time traveler nonsense.


Date: 2006/01/17 11:39:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Yet another howler!  Someone should post this on uncommon dissent where Dembscott and the two people left who have not been banned yet can whine and complain about an "activist" Catholic church.

Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article,

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.

The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.

At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.

The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.

The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.

The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said.

The article said a Pennsylvania judge had acted properly when he ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in schools.

"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," it said.

From the church's point of view, Catholic teaching says God created all things from nothing, but doesn't say how, the article said. That leaves open the possibilities of evolutionary mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection.

"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," it said.

What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said.

The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance.

"Science as such, with its methods, can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out," it said.

From a religious viewpoint, it said, there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design."


Vatican Says "Just Say No" To Intelligent Design


Date: 2006/01/17 12:17:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
For the full on effect, read this one closely.  Then read it

Luskin Speaks

Intelligent Design Not Disingenuous

(Casey Luskin)

January 17, 2006
I am glad that my letter to the El Tejon school board provided such large percentage of text for Wayne Adkins’ recent editorial attacking myself and the Discovery Institute. Lieutenant Adkins believes it is “disingenuous” to claim intelligent design does not postulate a supernatural or divine designer. But he clearly does not understand intelligent design.

Darwinists and materialists have been reminding their critics for years that science cannot study the supernatural. In fact, this was their primary critique of creationism during the 1980’s. Design theorists too have recognized that referring to the “supernatural” is not a form of scientific explanation. This is because science can only study things which we can observe, and the supernatural is beyond the observable realm.

While we cannot study the “supernatural” through science, we can study intelligence. We have a huge sample dataset to tell us how intelligent agents operate: technology produced by the human race. Design theorists observe that intelligent action produces large amounts of “complex and specified” information. Language and the finely-tuned, purposeful arrangement of parts in machines are prime examples of this encoded information. If the cell was designed, then we would expect to find language-like encoded information commonly throughout biology.

The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes. This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Moreover, the machines in our cell are often said to resemble human design machines—such as the rotary engine found in the bacterial flagellum. This is powerful evidence that an intelligence was at work.

I have always openly acknowledged that I am a Christian, and thus I believe the designer is the God of the Bible. Thus Adkins assertions that I am “disingenuous” about my beliefs about the identity of the designer are thus baseless. What Adkins doesn’t realize is that his position is self-contradictory: evolutionists cannot on the one hand attack creationists as unscientific for referring to a “supernatural” of “divine” creator, and then on the other hand slander design theorists as “deceptive” for refusing to appeal to unscientific explanations like the supernatural. Rather, design theorists should be applauded for constructing an approach to studying intelligent causes in the history of life which does not stray into unscientific territory.

Many design theorists, including myself, believe the designer is God. But that is my personal religious belief and not a proposition of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The explanatory category of an “intelligence” is a valid scientific form of explanation because we have much empirical experience with how intelligent agents operate. The observed products of intelligent agents are precisely what we observe in the cell.

The designer very well may God, or a supernatural divine being. But if that is true, it is not something which a scientific approach to studying origins can tell us. Intelligent design thus takes a bona fide scientific approach which is endorsed by a growing number of scientists and peer reviewed scientific publications.


Casey Luskin

Date: 2006/01/18 07:38:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey *I* read your comments Larry, and they're still mindless.

Yep we should teach the controversy about intelligent design creationism, that non-scientific theory in crisis.  Let kids decide is my motto.  

As far as the course content goes, let's start with the Wedge Document.  Children should know that the Discovery Institute's two governing goals include:

1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

2) To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Let's help kids learn the dangers of replacing our scientific understanding with "theistic understandings" (Pat Robertson's comments on a variety of subjects will be used as an example of "theistic understandings").

Then let's add the "Teach The Controversy" campaign championed by the Discovery Institute.  We'll follow up those lessons with an in-depth study of the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.

Then let's teach what "peer reviewed" means.  Let's also teach kids what the "scientific method" is as well as devote some time to identifying what is a testable theory and what is not.  What is science and what is pseudo-science (intelligent design, healing crystals, cancer curing magnets, palm reading, etc).  We should cover what is natural and what is supernatural too.

Yep, we should be teaching about intelligent design creationism in public schools.  You will not get an arguement from me on that one.

Date: 2006/01/18 08:03:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
What a weird blog that guy has.  Other than a few isolated interruptions it consists of him talking to himself.

I was going to suggest there that if he added a Klingon, space alien or time traveler to his theory he'd get the attention and support he wants from Dembsky, Behe, Wells, etc.  But Mr Christopher is not available and I simply refuse to adopt a new handle!

Date: 2006/01/18 08:28:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well it would sure make God look like a goof ball if it turned out the intelligent designer was in fact a space alien or time traveler (as Behe suggest) and not God.

Someone should ask Luskin if it is not God, and in fact a space man, where does that leave God's role?

Did God create the intelligent designer or was it the other way around?

Also, does Intelligent Design Creationism Theory tackle the important question of whether or not we were designed in the intelligent designing space alien time travelers image or not?

Date: 2006/01/18 10:31:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (improvius @ Jan. 18 2006,16:18)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 18 2006,14:28)
Well it would sure make God look like a goof ball if it turned out the intelligent designer was in fact a space alien or time traveler (as Behe suggest) and not God.

Someone should ask Luskin if it is not God, and in fact a space man, where does that leave God's role?

For that matter, how could we even tell the difference between God and a technologically advanced alien or time traveler? ???

Well according to scripture, God looks sort of like us.  And according to Star Trek, space aliens look more like iguanas on a real bad hair day.

So I think we'd be able to tell who is who in a line up.  Assuming of course scritpure and Star Trek are reliable sources.

Too bad this subject is off limits for ID cultists.  Talk about a science stopper, they are not allowed to dive into what/who the intelligent designer is.

Is there any other "scientific theory" other than intelligent design creationism that states

B proves A exists but you are not allowed to discuss or contemplate A.  

And of course discussing A will get you banned from Dembskis intelligent design creationism blog.  Why does the Dicovery Institute and their loyal army of true believers try to stifle free speech and scientific inquiry into the nature of the intelligent designer?

Date: 2006/01/18 11:06:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The nice thing about PT and this forum is you don't get booted for asking logical questions that intelligent design creation begs.

Speaking of begging the question...Is the intelligent designer dead or alive?  True or False?

If he/she/it/ is still living, what is that lizard man up to nowadays?  Seriously, his last "invention" seems to be quite dated now, what it is 10s of thousands of years old or is it millions of years?  

What the heck is he doing with all his free time?  Other than snacking on small rodents and insects that is.

And is the intelligent designing lizard man made of the same irreducible complexity, DNA and encoded cells he is theorized by Dembski, Behe, et al to have invented?  Meaning did he invent himself?  

Maybe I'll send Dembski an email and ask him to break out his HP science calculator and answer that one for me.  Or maybe one of his science students at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary could answer that one for me.  I hear they have an awesome science program at ol' SBTS!

Date: 2006/01/18 11:12:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembscott just gave John Davison his own thread

A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis - John A. Davison via uncommon dissent

Date: 2006/01/18 11:31:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
STJ, I believe you are looking for this thread.  Funny that I read and bumped this thread yesterday, or maybe the day before.;t=39

But evo peach is still posting on PT.

Date: 2006/01/18 11:42:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Nope, go to his blog and read about it.  Basically he invited quite a few people to write an 500 word essay and they all either turned him down (lack of time was the common excuse) or just ignored him.  

He saw this as evidence they have nothing scientific to bring to the table in the first place, otherwise they would have accepted his offer.

I went to his web site at whatever school in VT he teaches.  The man is a loon but I bet he would probably be fun to smoke a fattie with at 3 in the morning and have a bull session.

Date: 2006/01/19 02:18:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 19 2006,02:59)
Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.

intelligent design is a craetion theory in crisis.  It has been booted out of two school districts and newpapers all over the worl are carrying stories indicating intelligent design is about super naturalism and higher powers.  

What we may be seeing is an IDC melt down.  The desperate news releases from the Disco indicte this as well.

Date: 2006/01/19 02:54:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 19 2006,07:01)
More information on the Intelligent Designers = Space Aliens theory here.

I'm glad someone else sees this.  The IDCers keep theorizing about space men but the Raleians are having coffee with them. Why does the Disco ignore this?

Date: 2006/01/19 11:19:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Keep in mind those guys do not play by the same set of rules that science plays by.  If you read the sunday school course materials Dembski teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary you'll note things like not letting logic get in the way of Christian truths and other nonsense.

And not long ago when it appeared Dembski and Ken Miller might debate, Dembski said something to the effect of he did not have to stoop to Ken Miller's "pathetic" level of detail regarding his ID theories.  He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.

Logic and reason are the IDists biggest enemies so their assault on those who use logic and reason as a means of understanding and sorting fact from fiction is predictable.  

It is still astonishing to observe though.

Date: 2006/01/20 06:30:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'm not sure if this topic is cool here but here goes...

Google Refuses Demand for Search Information
Government Asked 4 Firms for Data in Effort to Revive Anti-Porn Law

By Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A01

The Justice Department said yesterday that it subpoenaed four major Internet companies for data on what people search for on the Web as part of an eight-year battle over a federal law designed to shield children from online pornography.

Three of the companies responded to some degree, but Google Inc. said it was resisting the demand. Privacy advocates said the subpoenas raised deep concerns about the government's ability to track what ordinary people view on the Internet...

Read Entire Article

This is weird on many fronts.  First of all, let's talk about the strong arm tactic being employed by the Federal government.   Give us your records or else...

Why are they not approaching Google and other search engines and offering to pay for this kind of proprietary and private data like everyone else would?

Second of all, what gives them the right to demand this kind of data.  Google has not broken any laws, is not a party to a lawsuit, so why are their records subject to a subpoena?  You lawyer types will have to help me understand that one.

And I am stunned that Yahoo and MSN apparently rolled over for the Feds and handed them their search records.  I loath anything Yahoo or MSN and would not search for bread crumbs on their site if I were starving to death, but come on.  What are they now, honorary G-Men?  Did the feds give Bill Gates a Junior Deputy Badge to wear after MSN handed them their search records?

If the Feds want to monitor seach habits they should build a search engine, or buy a search engine, or contract with a search engine to provide them that data.

We live in scary times and just because Bush will be leaving the White House in a few years does not mean another one just like him will not be taking his spot.  

In fact in view of where he and his kind have taken us over the last 6 years I suspect his replacement will be cut from the same cloth.

Date: 2006/01/20 06:45:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This could be interesting.  
        Nick News Explores Issues Surrounding the Teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design in Schools

Nick News Explores Issues Surrounding the Teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design in Schools

Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: God, Science, Politics and Your School - Sunday, Jan. 22, 8:30 p.m. (ET/PT) on Nickelodeon

NEW YORK, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- In Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: God, Science, Politics and Your School, airing on Nickelodeon, Sunday, Jan. 22, 8:30 p.m. (ET/PT), award-winning journalist Linda Ellerbee and Nick News take a look at the on-going controversy surrounding the teaching of the theory of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution in public school science classes.

"The goal of this show is not to debate the issues of evolution, intelligent design, or creationism," said Ellerbee. "We just want to give kids a better understanding of what all the shouting is about, not to mention the court cases that have resulted already, and some that are shaping up. We also wanted to hear from kids affected by these disputes."

Recent events have put the teaching of evolution on the front page of newspapers everywhere again. Since the Supreme Court outlawed the teaching of religious ideas (creationism) in science classes in 1987, another group has come forward to challenge evolution. Intelligent design supporters say that their idea is a scientific, non-religious challenge to evolution. But what exactly are evolution and intelligent design? What is science?

Traveling to Kansas and Dover, Pennsylvania, Nick News takes a look at how intelligent design is being opposed or supported. In Dover, PA, for example, Nick News looks at a legal challenge to intelligent design that lost. In Kansas, supporters of intelligent design won. Nick News also focuses on other places where challenges to evolution exist or might soon, including Georgia and Alabama.

Ellerbee speaks with several experts throughout the show, some on the subject of intelligent design, including Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, and others on the evolution perspective including Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, an organization which is dedicated to the teaching of evolution, and Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.

Ellerbee and Nick News make certain to also get one of the most important perspectives on the matter -- from kids themselves. The episode ends with kids from different religions and cultures around the world speaking about their beliefs of how the world began.

Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: God, Science, Politics and Your School will also air on Nickelodeon's Cable in the Classroom on February 3 and 10 at 6 a.m., and will available on TurboNick, Nickelodeon's online broadband service on as of Jan. 25.

Nick News, which is in its 14th year -- the longest-running kids' news show in television history -- has built its reputation on the respectful and direct way it speaks to kids about the important issues of the day. A recipient of a 2005 Emmy for Outstanding Children's Programming, the program has covered the tough topics, including the Sept. 11 attacks, the Columbine tragedy, divorce, bullying, learning disorders, all the presidential elections since 1992, the Balkan war, the Iraq War, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and AIDS. In 1992, Ellerbee's special, "A Conversation with Magic," which featured Magic Johnson, set the standard for talking with kids about AIDS. In 1994, the entire series, Nick News, won the Emmy for Outstanding Children's Programming. In 1998, "What Are You Staring At?" a program about kids with physical disabilities, won the Emmy for Outstanding Children's Programming. In 2002, "Faces of Hope: The Kids of Afghanistan," won the Emmy for Outstanding Children's Programming. In 2004, two Nick News Specials, "The Courage to Live: Kids, South Africa and AIDS" and "There's No Place Like Home," a special about homeless kids in America, were both nominated for the Outstanding Children's Programming Emmy. In fact, Nick News has received more than 20 Emmy nominations. Nick News, produced by Lucky Duck Productions, is also the recipient of two Peabody Awards, including a personal one given to Ellerbee for her coverage of the President Clinton investigation; a Columbia duPont Award; and more than a dozen Parents' Choice Awards.


[unrelated mild rant]BTW, if anyone here is associated with the NCSE please note how this Nick news release above is formatted.  And note that is was picked up and publicly broadcast.  It was probably submitted (correctly) as well.  There is probably a reason thatas far as I can tell no one in the media has ever read or quoted any of the NCSE "press releases."
[/unrelated mild rant]


Date: 2006/01/20 08:42:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Last week, any evidence of online ID crimespeak, regardless of where you might commit it,  would get you banned from Demsbki's smile-a-while-a-creationist blog.

And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?

Good lord man this is so_freaking_funny.   Dembski is the cult leader of a bunch of mindless automatons.  How cool is that?  

Side note, should the Disco go ahead and commit themselves to the specified religion they are in fact promoting and simply call it Christian Scientology?

After all, they are blending Christianity with Science Fiction.  Does this not make them Christian Scientologists?

Date: 2006/01/20 10:18:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Discovery Institute's senior fellow and resident poodle, DAVID KLINGHOFFER, wrote in yestedays Seattle PI:
"Whatever its merits as science, Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling. Today when young Americans could use a little uplift and an appreciation for what's noble, letting them know about intelligent design, an alternative scientific theory with none of Darwin's drawbacks, couldn't hurt and might help."
Why we care about Darwin wars

Well I have never met anyone who adopted "Darwinism" as a personal philosophy so I cannot say whether Mr Klinghoffer is on the right path or smoking crack (again).  

But on the subject of "uplifting" and "young Americans" I personally found the following article about some young Americans in Plano Texas in today's Dallas Morning News to be quite uplifting.

Teen's digging his fossil find
At Plano West, he uncovers ancient fish and love of science

07:42 AM CST on Friday, January 20, 2006
By KIM BREEN / The Dallas Morning News

PLANO – Brandon Alexander poked through the dried creek bed in his school's back yard searching for ancient oysters with his biology classmates last week.

Instead, he found an estimated 85 million-year-old vertebra from what once was one angry-looking fish, and unearthed an excitement about science that most teachers only dream about.

"You could not pay to have materials like these" in a classroom, said Wes Kirpach, Brandon's biology teacher at Plano West Senior High School and a paleontology enthusiast.

"It is about the most perfect 'in' to a lesson you could possibly imagine."

The fossil find that started with Brandon's discovery continued last weekend with the help of dozens of interested children, adults and teenagers. Several more vertebrae, a fin and other pieces of an estimated 12- to 15-foot-long Xiphactinus audax have since been recovered, and the campus hopes to find more in the coming weeks – if not months.

Although it's quite a find for the school, that fish's fossils are not uncommon in the area, said Kent Newman, director of laboratories at Southern Methodist University's Shuler Museum of Paleontology.

About 85 million to 90 million years ago, much of Texas was covered with a warm, shallow and clear ocean, Mr. Newman said.

The Xiphactinus audax were "probably the top dog," of fish, he said. "They were pretty much the top fish predator at the time. No one probably messed with them."

He said he hadn't heard of another school making such a discovery on campus.

"It's a great teaching tool," he said. Children grow up learning about scientific finds, but few get to see them up close. "So much of science takes place in a faraway place," he said. "It's never really real to them."

Outside of Mr. Kirpach's classroom is a picture of what the menacing fish would have looked like. Mr. Kirpach describes it as a marlin without the bill and with "a whole lot of teeth."

"Our kids call it 'Nemo with an attitude,' " said principal Phil Saviano. Mr. Saviano calls it a "home run more than one time" for Mr. Kirpach and his lessons. "We're capitalizing on the excitement," said Mr. Saviano, who showed off the fossils to other district administrators this week.

For Brandon, a 16-year-old Hurricane Katrina evacuee, the discovery has changed life on campus. It's given him an identity other than as just one of the evacuees.

"I'm a star," he said, laughing.

It's also recharged his long-dormant interest in science.

Mr. Kirpach said he never heard Brandon, a junior, mention college before last week. Now he's been asking about what it takes to become a paleontologist.

"I did not want to know anything about science," Brandon said. The fossil find, along with Mr. Kirpach's knack for explanation, has changed that. "I now have a thirst for science. It makes sense now."

Mr. Kirpach, who started looking for fossils across Texas as a hobby a few years ago, never expected to find much just past the student parking lot. He said he is not surprised, however, about the excitement the fish has drawn from youths and adults alike.

"Honestly, I've never seen a kid who didn't like dinosaurs," he said.

There are not many things more uplifting than seeing young kids discover the world of science.  Who knows how many kids will pay closer attention to what science has to offer as a result of this find.  And who knows if any of them will be the Ken Millers of tomorrow?

And note there is no mention of these kids wanting to destroy religion, deny god, or molest others due to their interest in science and this fossil discovery.  What is up with that?

On the flip side, had this been an intelligent design course they would not have been digging for anything and instead would have been hearing "uplifting" lectures about mysterious designers, mouse traps, and fuzzy math.  A science stopper to be sure.  

And I wonder how many kids who were exposed to the intelligent design creationism class in California thought about becoming scientists as a result of the course?  I wonder how many were "uplifted"?

And there is some IDC trivia in this story - Plano Texas is next door to Richardson Texas (both are suburbs of Dallas). ARN calls Richardson home and a few years back ARN tried to peddle Of Pandas and People to the Plano School disctrict.  Plano is a Republican dominated, conservative, affluent community.  They unanimously said "no" to Pandas.

For some reason, finding this fossil so close to ARN's back yard makes me smile.  Of course, the bones were probably put there by a "designer" to test our faith...

Date: 2006/01/20 10:25:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2006,22:06)

He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.

This is not a recent manifestation. I invoked genetic algorithms as an empirical disproof of Dembski's claims following Dembski's talk at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. His response: "The logic is sound and the premises are valid, so the conclusion follows." No empirical test was necessary to Dembski then, and it does not seem that he has changed his mind in the interim.

Wesley, to clarify, do you mean Dembski's reply was

[My (as in Dembski)] logic is sound and [my] premises are valid, so [my] conclusion follows

Meaning he basically said "I am right because I say I am right"?

Date: 2006/01/20 10:45:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks Wesley.  That is nuttier than all get out.  

Pure Dembski for ya.  What a "scientist" he is.

Date: 2006/01/20 10:57:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Are any of you groovy hipsters planning to attend this?  I sent an email just now to see if it is going to be taped.

Lawyers to address I.D., science issues
Thursday, January 19, 2006

The lawyers who successfully battled to keep the teaching of intelligent design out of Dover, Pa., public science classrooms will speak Jan. 28 at an event titled “Intelligent Design, Kansas Science Education, and the Law.”

The event, presented by Kansas Citizens for Science and the National Center for Science Education will be from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Dole Institute of Politics on Kansas University’s west campus.

Attorneys for the Dover plaintiffs, Eric Rothschild, Steve Harvey and Richard Katskee, will speak. Jack Krebs, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, will also speak.

There will also be a question-and-answer session with the speakers joined by Steve Case, assistant director of the Center for Science Education at Kansas University.

Seating is limited. Registration is due today to Phil Baringer at

Date: 2006/01/20 12:17:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Probably 99% of Pat Robertson's followers are the type of people who blindly embrace intelligent design and could care less about things like "verifiable" "testable" "scientific" etc.  In fact the less science talk the better as far as they are concerned.  They simply see stooges with PhDs like Dembski putting Darwin's head in a vise and get all excited.  Pat has publicly embraced IDC on several instances.

CBN (Pat's broadcasting company) claims a viewership of 1 million people a day.  

Pat won't be president anytime soon but in spite of his nutty public proclaimations, he has influence in this country.  He influences some of the least educated and most poorly informed folks, the type of individuals the Discovery Institute appeals to the most.

Besides, he's fun to watch.  I was watching the 700 Club the other night and Pat told us that evolution is a religion.  He said no one was around 15 billion year ago to witness fish walking out of the ocean so believing in evolution requires faith.  That faith proves evolution is a religion according to Pat.  He wonders why the Supreme Court allows a religion like evolution to be taught in public schools.  

The 700 Club is not as good as PTL but it has some entertainment value.

Pat is a nut case to be sure but don't underestimate him or hsi influence.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:46:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
"Do kids have an innate ability to think logically without training, and if so, how and when are they most susceptible to the superstitions of adults? "

Children are first introduced to superstitions at about age 1 or so when they are taught about Santa Claus who serves as a training diety.  A bait and  switch concept to be sure.  Bait them with Santa and later switch them to Jesus.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:48:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Did anyone watch this?  I missed it...

Date: 2006/01/23 07:12:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Areden you are correct.  I am raising both of my chrildren with the Sanata  myth as well, yet  I tell them Santa is make believe.  That probably goes over their head though.

And I forgot to answer Julie's question:

"Do kids have an innate ability to think logically without training"

I think so.  When I was between 4 and 5 my parents tell me I confronted them with the notion that Santa could not really exist, or if he did exist he was not responsible for all the presents children all over the world get.  My claim was no one could visit every house in the world in one single evening.  

I think that would be an example of untrained critical/logical thinking?

Date: 2006/01/23 08:35:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
We should make it perfectly clear -

Anyone from Dembski's uncommodescent creationist blog should note that Dave Scott will ban you from there if you post anything here or on PT that he doesn't like.

And whatever you do stay away from calling Dembski a theologian or pointing out there is no science whatsoever being taught or researched at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Don't discuss the idiotic religious propaganda Dembski teacher there.

And I suggest you avoid mentioning Behe hasn't come up with any new ideas in over 10 years.  Nor has he provided any new evidence for "his" irreducible complexity notion.  And I wouldn't say a word about the fact that Behe published his book on irreducible complexity back in 1996 but there is still not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that supports it.   Yep, 10 years laters and it still lacks any scientific meat.

And I'd avoid talking about Dembski's lack of published peer reviewed scientific articles.  Dave won't like that.  Your best bet it to avoid any suggestion that Behe is a quack and Dembksi is a garden variety Christian Opportunist.  Mr Scott fancies Dembski as a legitimate "theorist/scientist" so let's not shatter his fantasy.

ps.  Dave Scott seems to be whining about his inability to read posts here.  If Mr Scott is jonesing that bad for a ATBC shot in the arm, will someone tell the technically challenged Mr Scott to Google "anonymous proxy"?

Date: 2006/01/23 11:18:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Scott schooling creationists (and crackpots) on evolution.  Too funny.

Dave claims to be an agnostic but he insists a designers' signature is everywhere.  Hmmm..Since he rejects the God concept he must be from the ID Klingon Camp that proposes a time traveler or space alien done it.  He has yet to clarify whether he leans towards a time traveler or a space alien.

Oh, and uncommon dissent is still hostile to Christian ideas:

...I deleted two comments that appeared to be headed towards a dispute about the historical accuracy of the bible...
Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:18 pm

Date: 2006/01/23 12:05:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think Dave is actually working as an intern at Dembski's creationism blog.  If all goes well he will soon he will be a full time editor at Minitrue (aka The Discovery Institute).

Date: 2006/01/23 13:10:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
On Oct 21st AEI hosted an event called

"Science Wars  
Should Schools Teach Intelligent Design? "

Well I was looking at the online transcripts and saw the link to the video.  It appears they taped the entire event and you can watch it all online!,filter.all/event_detail.asp#

(Click on the Video link of course)

Obviously this was put on well before th Dover ruling.  During the final questions and answers, the tit for tat exchange between the TMLC and the Ministry of Truth (Disco) is well worth reading/watching.

Here is the low down:

Start:  Friday, October 21, 2005  8:45 AM  

End:  Friday, October 21, 2005  3:30 PM  

Location:  Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Directions to AEI

What should public schools teach about life’s origins? This debate erupted anew over the summer after President George W. Bush and Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) endorsed the teaching of intelligent design (ID)—the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity. Proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution are now lobbying state legislatures and pressing school districts to incorporate ID into science curricula. Alarmed scientists and educators see ID as a disguised form of creationism and a direct attack on the scientific method and critical thinking. Is intelligent design religion or science? What should we teach in schools? Would the teaching of intelligent design violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? Panelists at this day-long AEI conference will discuss these and other questions.

8:30 a.m. Registration  
8:45 Breakfast  
9:00  Welcome: Sally Satel, AEI
9:10 Panel I: Science, Religion, and Intelligent Design    
 Discussants: Paul Nelson, Discovery Institute
   Kenneth Miller, Brown University
 Moderator:  Sally Satel, AEI
10:15 Break  
10:30 Morning Keynote: Father George Coyne, Vatican Observatory
11:00 Discussant: Michael Novak, AEI
11:30 Panel II: Should We “Teach the Controversy”  
 Discussants: John Calvert, Intelligent Design Network
   Barbara Forrest, Southeastern Louisiana University  
 Moderator: Frederick M. Hess, AEI
12:30 p.m. Luncheon Keynote: Lawrence Krauss, Case Western Reserve University
2:00 Panel III: The Dover, Pa., Case and Beyond: Legal and Public Policy Implications of the ID Controversy  
 Discussants: Steven Gey, Florida State University
   Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center
   Mark Ryland, Discovery Institute
 Moderator: Jon Entine, AEI
3:30 Adjournment

Date: 2006/01/24 05:01:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Zardoz, the good news is you can post here and although not many people here are sympathetic to your ideas and cause, there is no expectation of conformity on this site.  Being socially appropriate is a good idea though.

For an example of what is not appropriate look for comments by a user named evopeach.

And I agree that the rampant dishonesty about who the deisigner/creator is that is within the ID crowd is most distateful.  And I believe denying God is still a sin, no?  If that is true you have a trainload of sinners out there promoting the notion that Klingons are responsible for life.

Date: 2006/01/24 05:18:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like those who do not wish to join the ID cult of conformity are now posting in coded language to air their concerns.

I wish you could download a decoder ring.  Doing the old fashioned way is time consuming....

I wonder if some of them will ban together and start meeting in secret?

Shane Was all..
Hy Dv, hvn’t sn wht thy’r syng nd dn’t ntnd t, bt s smn wh’s prtty pr D, wld pprct rthnk f yr mdrtn hr. Prhps jst lvng t ll t smn ls wld b bst. Th sgnl t ns rt hr hs chngd snc y’v bn mdrtng, nd ’m srt trng hrng bt y ll th tm nd sng thrs cmpln bt yr mdrtn, r y tllng s thy r. ’v bn n yr shs bfr, s knw wht’s t lk, trst m. thnk t’s bst y stp rght bck r stp t fr whl nd lt thngs cl dwn.

nd pls dn’t dlt ths pst, fr th 3rd tm.

Comment by Shane — January 23, 2006 @ 5:24 pm

Date: 2006/01/24 05:54:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, Behe popularizes the notion of irreducible complexity back in the early/mid 1990s.  This was not an original idea, BWT, Behe forgot to credit the originator of the theory Behe claimed as his own..

Anyhow, since then Dembski has come out with a few theories that are dependent on Behe's.  In over 10 years the intelligent design cult still has yet to publish a single intelligent design peer reviewed data in any legitimate science journal.

They have not improved upon or come up with any new ideas or any new evidence.  Behe's nutty ideas have been refuted time and time again.  They still cling to the "if it looks shiny and new, someone musta done it" theory.

The Ministry of Truth (aka the "Discovery" Institute) continues to claim there are all these "design" theorists and "scientists" workin in labs and doing science.  In over a decade they have yet to provide a shred of evidence of a creator.

They have had over a decade and they have yet to bring anything legitimate to the table.  When are they going to produce?

Date: 2006/01/24 06:41:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quoting Russell..

I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer.

My point is/was that they are fooling no one with their "it could be space aliens or time travelers" theory.  They keep trying to fool the public so that they can teach their nutty notions in public science class, but no one is buying their Klingons might have dunnit nonsense.

Date: 2006/01/24 06:54:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs.  But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science.  The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.

In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.  

And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science.  Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.

Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either.  It's voodoo.  We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.  

And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific.  They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.

Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.

And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd.  So far all the ID "scientists"  are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.

Date: 2006/01/24 06:58:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
"Over 150yrs there has bee 0 evdiences for evolution [Darwin-in]. "

Charlie, perhaps others here will waste their time chatting with you about evolution.  I have better things to do.

best of luck to you and your intelligent design creationism cause.

Date: 2006/01/24 07:39:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Zardoz, I am not saying what you believe is wrong, I am simply saying it is not scientific and therefore does not belong in a science class.

And you and I can agree that much of nature is awe inspiring in its beauty.  There is also a lot of horrifying things in nature as well.  Neither the beauty nor the horror is scientific evidence of a designer.

And evolution does not answer every question.  You are free to offer a more scientific and better explaination than evolution has provided.  But note so far no one in the ID camp has been able to do so.

And I cannot help the fact that so many people reject testable, verifiable evidence when it comes to biology and evolution.  Have you read Behe's testimony?  He is the poster boy for rejecting overwhelming biological evidence.  He is not alone in his pursuit to believe what he wants in spite of the obvious contradictory scientific evidence which suggests he is mistaken.

People have the right to live in a make believe world but teaching make believe in science class is not cool.

Date: 2006/01/24 07:46:05, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2006,13:37)
So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.

Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination".

Date: 2006/01/24 07:54:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
My favorite objections to evolution from creationists include:

1) Why are there no half man half monkeys walking around?

2) No one was around 15 billion years ago so evolution requires faith and is therefore a religion

3) Why haven't all monkeys evolved into humans?

4) Evolution has never been proven

5) Piltdown man proves evolution is wrong

And lastly, evolution is a theory in crisis...

Date: 2006/01/24 08:27:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Scot was all...
Play It Again Sam - Darwimps Wuss Out Again
In an unsurprising act of cowardice, not a single Darwimpian defender of the faith scientist had the balls fiber to stand up to our fearless leader in Kansas yesterday...

This is the same neutered, "fearless" leader that dodged the Ken Miller science bullet at Case University AFTER he had originally agreed to the debate?  And Miller was left with an empty stage?

Dave Scot, until the intelligent design cult provides some scientific evidence supporting intelligent design creationism,  you should probably not expect too many scientists to show up at your campus crusade christian cult events.

Man I wish I could still post at uncommon poop...

Date: 2006/01/24 08:34:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,14:19)
I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.

Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.

You were given this Link that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement.  You'd be wise to use it.

Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...

Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.

Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.

Date: 2006/01/24 11:07:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Flint was all like,

"Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?"

Flint, dude you are my hero and pass me that bong, will you?  If you're ever in Texas and want to sit around and contemplate the human hand, give me a ring.  That was too funny

Your whole post was good but that piece was especially fun.

Date: 2006/01/24 12:16:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Wesley, you inbox here is full and your email address is private.  How can I send you an email?

Date: 2006/01/24 12:44:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have the terms "intelligent design" set up as a Google News alert so I get notified of any new online article on the subject via email.  This one came from the Discovery Institute.  I wish people and organizations on our side of the debate would get hip to how the internet works...Obviously the Disco figured it out...Anyhow...

Have you guys read this "5 part series" by someone called "Viewpoint"? I got two Google News alerts for this, the first one the Disco credited John G West as the author, the second one credits "Viewpoint" yet the article appears to be signed with the initials RLC.  What gives?

The Disco links to it   here

And you find the whole enchilada Here

Be sure and click up a level when you get there, whoever this "RLC" person is he has some hard core fundamentalist beliefs you can read on the same web site.

Here is a tidbit from another article there called Christian Belief

If the atheistic materialist is right and death really is the end for each of us, then this life has precious little meaning. Death obliterates everything, nothing we do ultimately means a thing. Our lives are like the flash of a firefly's light in the dark night. It appears and then it's gone, forever. If death is the end then there's no reason at all why anyone should live one way rather than another. Nothing really matters, so whether one lives like Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa it's all the same. When Hitler and Mother Teresa died they both ceased to exist, their fate, their destinies were the same so what difference did their decisions about how they would conduct their lives ultimately make?

Now get this, I personally believe once I am dead I am done.  Finished.  Worm food.  In spite of this my life has much meaning, lots of things matter, and I have never advocated killing Jews, or anyone for that matter.  I have never injured another person or advocated it.  What gives?  Am I abnormal?

Date: 2006/01/24 13:14:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thank you sir and you have mail.


Date: 2006/01/24 17:27:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well that brings up yet another moral issue: which heaven should we be shooting for?  The one with toga clad angels playing harps, or the one with the elaborate bedrooms, fantastic wines, and 73..uh...female assistants.

Which is the right heaven? A mistake on which one you pick could send you straight to ####.  That's like someone putting a gun to your head and saying "pick the right answer or I'll pull the trigger"

Date: 2006/01/24 17:36:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.


Date: 2006/01/25 05:43:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This thread at uncommon poop is well worth reading

Looks like the IDCers have astronomy in their sights now.  Soon the IDCers will be telling is "look, all of the planets in the solar system are spheres...A coincidence?  Random outcome?  No, these obvious patterns in outer space suggest a designer is busy at work"

And I am amazed ftrp11 has not been warned/scolded/booted yet.

Date: 2006/01/25 05:48:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Interesting to note that the article he links to at LJWorld refers to them as Campus Crusade and not Campus Crusade for Christ.  They are a controversial Christian fundamentalist cult that has been around for some time.

Wiki has a pretty good article about them.

Date: 2006/01/25 06:46:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Based on the "logic" and definition PaV is suggesting (and he claims Dembski as the source of his understanding), a snowflake exhibits a pattern in nature which gives scientific evidence of an intelligent designer.

Crazy loons.

Date: 2006/01/25 08:57:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Although you did not specifically ask for my opinion, I'll offer it just the same.

You cannot reason with a true believer.  And keep in mind they are trying to convince you of your mistaken notions just as much as you are trying to convince them of their mistaken ways.  

True believers play with a different set of rules and reason and logic are not a part of their cultural currency.  "Debating" them is a complete waste of time.  They simply reject evidence that conflicts or contradicts their own beliefs and have no use for the scientific method.

Look at all the wasted space and energy granted to Larry over at PT.  Has Larry ever admitted he was wrong?  I have seen some brilliant minds take on Larry (and I learned quite a bit just listening) but those "debates" never benefited Larry in any way.  He is as close minded and dogmatic as he was the day he strolled in.  Yet many brilliant minds keep ignorantly thinking they can reason with Larry.  And substitute Larry's name for any of the intelligent design creationists here or on PT.

Although I have fed more than one troll in my life, I knew then and I know now doing so is simply a waste of time.  Again, a true believer has no use for things like reason and logic or the scientific method.  Heck one of Dembski's "science" courses at Souther Baptist Theological Seminary talks about recognizing how "logic" can dangerously keep you from "Christian Truths".

Although I think it is valid to point out bad arguements or mistaken notions that are promoted by ID cultists here, good luck to anyone who thinks they can reason with a true believer.  And a reality check may be in order for anyone who thinks reason has any value to a true believer.  

And to keep pointing out the same things to the same people over and over (as if the number of times you repeat the same thing will somehow magically make them "get it") is just plain silly.  I mean who is not in touch with reality in that scenario?

Anyhow, that is my unsolicited $.02

Date: 2006/01/25 09:43:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
And one final comment from me.  Pointing out these deep flaws is an important part of forums like this.  Thinking that effort will result in a true believer getting it borders on dellusional.

Date: 2006/01/25 09:53:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
War Against Reason: The “Intelligent Design” Scam by Owen Williamson.

Intelligent design itself is in essence a scam...

...As always, purveyors of right-wing pseudoscience rely on ignorance and lack of education as necessary preconditions for successfully peddling their poisonous product...

This is a good article...

Date: 2006/01/25 11:47:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
A common debating technique is the appeal to popularity. It goes like this:

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true. Therefore tatement p is true.

You're of course talking about the Discovery Institute.

Many scientists are now saying they doubt "Darwinism"...


Part of a debate or an "argument" is making "observations" which are meant to convince your opponent or your audience that your argument is superior.

Kind of like the Discovery Institute again and all their "observations" of "patterns" in nature, which of course suggests a pattern maker, or an intelligent designer

Zardoz, you're down with it.  The Disovery Institute won't be fooling you anytime soon.

Date: 2006/01/25 11:57:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 25 2006,17:46)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,23:36)
Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.


Thanks, I'm not emotionally attached to proving my point, I enjoy debate. I know where you guys are coming from, I was born and raised an atheist and an evolutionist. Most ID or creationist people will think that you guys are blind fanatics, I disagree with that assessment. I believe that everyone's thought process has to do with how our memory works. See my article at

Not getting emotionally involved in proving your point - you are a wise soul.  I also avoid getting emotionally involved with my own ideas.  This allows me to easily change or modify them in view of new evidence or understanding.  

And you and I must be historical opposites, I was raised a believer and later drop kicked that belief around the age of 30 or so.  No big deal.

I just now read your article.  We should drink beer and chat some time.


Date: 2006/01/25 18:26:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 25 2006,19:19)
I must admit that sometimes I get frustrated. Especially when I forget who the real audience is and actually think some of the cranks might be persuaded by evidence.

Sheesh I know #### well by now they wont. Guess I just live in hope. I should remember to remove my rose tinted glasses. ;)

If they do not respond to reason by the second reply you can bet your money you're dealing with a true believer and not someone who is simply misinformed or one who has been hoodwinked.

That is my litmus test so to speak.  And trying to convince a true believer generally always ends up ugly or simply a race to see who can be more sarcastic.  Again, Larry is a good example.  But at least he doesn't get down right nasty in his replies like that evopeach did/does.

I figure lurkers seeing that ugly type of stuff are turned off to both sides of the arguement.  Don't get me wrong, I make fun on guys like Dembski and Behe for sport, and I can be snotty about it, but I try to avoid getting into it with true believers and that means mostly ignoring them once they demonstrate a resistance to using ordinary and accepted uses of logic and reason.  No reason in the world will overcome a belief grounded in magic that is not bound to natural laws.

Date: 2006/01/25 18:57:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I am no expert but I am familiar with a few points...

• World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 are the only steel-framed skyscrapers to ever have suffered total structural failure—ever. While WTC 1 and 2 were hit by aircraft (certainly an unusual event), WTC was not. According to the official story, relatively minor structural damage and relatively minor fires caused the total collapse of WTC 7. By contrast, the Windsor hotel in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story hotel, burned for eighteen hours on ten floors last year without a total structural failure.

I am not familiar with the Windsor fire, but the first question would be was the center of the Windsor structure the epicenter of an explosion of a 747 jet with full fuel tanks?  


• All three towers collapsed vertically downward, into their own footprints. Normally it takes weeks of preparation from highly-experienced companies specializing in demolition to produce the same results.

There was a recent episode of Modern Marvels (History Channel) that explored catastrophic engineering failures.  The show was not conspiracy or controversy related.  The emphasis was purely from an engineering standpoint.  They also avoided the gore and horror aspect which I appreciated.

The Twin Towers was one of the subjects and they interviewed numerous engineers and architects including some who helped design and build it.  The also used some computer animation.  I am not an engineer but the explainations offered were compelling.  They speakers were very much "when we build/deigned this, we did not plan for X to happen"  They showed where the buildings were dedinged to withstand a lot of stuff, but jet fuel and a internal exposion was not one of them.

They also demonstrated how the impact affected certain braces, how once the temperature from the fire hit a certain level a literal structural melt down would occur.  Certain structures would melt or crumble and the floor would drop a certain bit as what was left was now holding up the entire floor/building.  They gave a pretty good blow by blow analysis including the final vertical drop.

It's worth watching if they ever show it again.


• The level of piloting expertise demonstrated by the hijackers was nothing short of breathtaking. Despite never having flown jetliners before, the pilot of Flight 11 managed to hit a 200-foot-wide target within 15 feet of its centerline at a speed of ~400 MPH. The pilot of Flight 174 managed to hit the south tower flying at almost 500 MPH, and while he didn't quite manage to hit the target on its centerline, he managed to hit it with the aircraft banked at almost 30 degrees, causing damage to four contiguous floors. The pilot of Flight 77 managed a spectacular 270-degree spiral dive, passed over an adjacent freeway at a low-enough altitude to clip the tops of streetlights, and impacted the Pentagon at exactly zero altitude (in the least-occupied part of the building).

a) I am not a pilot.  I'm sure someone here can speak to your question but do we know at what point during each flight exactly when the hijackers actually took control of the plane versus making the pilot manuever as they commanded?  

Also, I think the .Skeptical Inquirer has dedicated an issue or two to this subject within the last couple of years.  I take the hard copy but I think much of their stuff is online.  You might poke around there and see what kind of evidence they have come up with.

I always check them out for the latest on any fantastic claims.  Joe Nichols is my hero.  That's where I learned about the intelligent design hoopla.

Finally, my Iranian cab driver tells me Bush is behind 911.  The Twin Towers thing is a Bush conspiracy.  "Sam" claims Bush "wants the oil" and it was Bush who used controlled 747s to bring about 911.  Sam is always on time and greets me with a big smile and some Iranian pastries so I just smiled and said that was an interesting theory.  

Anyhow, it will be interesting to hear some of the engineers to chime in

Date: 2006/01/26 05:11:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
One of the comments (user name aldo30127 ) on Demsbki's blog takes him to task for not quoting the entire paper which apparently actually supports evolution.  Looks like Dembski only read the abstract, or simply quote mined and got busted for it.  

Aren't they accused of that all of the time, misquoting an author/paper/position so they appear to stae the opposite of what the author(s) actually meant?  

Could one of you science types confirm or deny that this is such a case please?  If Dembski is in fact quote mining or misrepresenting the article I think it deserves its own thread.

Speaking of the recently deceased....

Further Indications That Intelligent Design Creationism Is Dead


Date: 2006/01/26 05:52:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This puppy at UD is worth reading...

Review of Debating Design

Well worth reading.  I am amazed Dembski posted it.  And now I plan to buy the book.

Date: 2006/01/26 07:56:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
My background - I am not a biologist but I can spell it.

My bias - Intelligent Design to me is complete nonsense.

My comments and question -

Irreducible complexity (especially as it relates to flagella of certain bacteria) is the so-called "scientific" center piece and foundation of intelligent design creationism.  As far as I can tell without Behe they have no theory and Dembski own ideas are completely dependent on Behe's so they have a lot to lose if they lose the IC "war".

Ken Miller has refuted IC on several occassions, yet the IDers continue to claim Miller's ideas are mistaken.  See Dembski making such a claim here
Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller

My questions

1) Who else has refuted IC besides Miller?

2) And if IC can be disproven/refuted, IDC collapses no?  If this is true why isn't the entire scientific community pounding IC with a sledge hammer?

I don't see anyone in the science community taking the Disco or Dembski to task for claiming Miller is mistaken.  Nor do I see anyone other than Miller talking about how nutty Behe's IC is.  Or maybe I am missing something.

Sorry if my questions are naive, I said I was not a biologist and I meant it :-)

Date: 2006/01/26 07:59:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (MikeM @ Jan. 26 2006,13:53)
Just a quick question...

The posts by "physicist" on Dembski's board yesterday seemed particularly well-informed. I noticed that this user tried to enter a URL, presumably to his or her website, but that Dembski's board blocked this URL.

I would like to visit that website.

If "Physicist" would be so kind as to log on to this board and post that URL, I'd be much obliged.

That's all.

You might start a new thread here and ask him to respond.  Who knows...

Date: 2006/01/26 10:04:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Over at uncommon dissent user ftrp11 and aldo30127  continues to be one of about 3 voices of reason.  In this thread he/they clearly calls bullshat on the article posted, well he criticizes how the article is presented (as evidence for the demise of evolution theory)  and he offers some good lessons (for anyone) on scientific theory.  

I am amazed Dembscot has not warned or booted them yet.  And be sure to look where  Dembscot replaces the word Marxism with Darwinism to prove Popper was opposed to Darwinism.  Dembscott doesn't realize you could replace Marxism with Intelligent Design Creationism and get the identical result.  I wonder if anyone is going to point that out to him.

Further indications that neo-Darwinism is dead

Let's hope ftrp11 or aldo30127 don't get booted anytime soon, I enjoy reading their comments.


Date: 2006/01/26 10:09:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Any mention of a grassy knoll?

Date: 2006/01/26 10:36:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ahh it looks like Dembscot has had enough of one of the voices of reason:

I am not sure how many times I have heard critiques of Popper and the notion of falsification being a criterion of science here (in defense of ID) but enough that I am sure you are aware of them. At any rate bold statements like “Darwinian evolution is the biggest hoax in the history of biology” are hard to back up when only a statistically insignificant people in relevant fields hold such a view. That doesn’t mean that the statement is wrong, just that it is hard to say with such certainty.

I have read Dembski, Behe, and Gould as well and I am not sure how anyone can be justifiably dogmatic at either end of this question. The dogmatists at both ends give disproportionate weight to some evidence and unduly discount other peices of evidence.

Comment by ftrp11 — January 26, 2006 @ 3:02 pm


The hoax hyperbole was meant to be rhetorical.

Try to focus on what Popper said about the addition to ad hoc hypotheses to theories that began their life as authentically scientific.

If you dare. If you don’t dare then I’m going to invite you to leave the premises.

Comment by DaveScot — January 26, 2006 @ 3:32 pm

Date: 2006/01/26 10:50:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks JG Cox, that makes sense.

Date: 2006/01/27 05:35:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think Dave Scot has probably fatasized about having some sort of importance and power his whole life.  IDC gives him a stage to cultivate that sense of importance and power.  He's the IDC sergeant of arms.

IDC is a magnet for arse clowns, bullies, incompetants and whack jobs.  I often wonder if Dembski hates most everyone who comes to his little blog.  I wouldn't be able to stand most of them.

Anything goes in the IDC world and you need not offer any evidence whatsoever for any theory to be scientific.  This is a breeding ground for nut jobs and fantastic claims.

I read Dembski's blog often and I am simply astonished by the sheer ignorance and lack of any sort of critical thinking demonstrated each day at Dembski's IDC camp.  I'd be pulling my hair out if they were my peers or on my side.   The very few there who contribute anything intellectually honest get warned or banned or put down.

I think Behe is a quack but I view Dembski more of an opportunist who knows full well IDC is not science and never will be.  This is why I wonder if he cannot stand the type of people he attracts.  But without IDC Dembski would be nothing so not only does it pay the bills it gives him status.  I suppose in Dembski's world status amongst the ignorant and misinformed is better than no status at all.

And I do not think Dave Scot is mentally ill, I think he is a garden variety bully who is able to use the virtual world to create a sense of importance for himself.  The term "punk" comes to mind.

Date: 2006/01/27 06:48:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I mean if this isn't crazy talk what would you call it?


Intelligent Design IS a law of nature which is why it should never have been debated. Laws are not to be debated. They are to be accepted and diligently followed.

Comment by John Davison — January 27, 2006 @ 10:01 am

And sure, JAD ia a crank, but you don't see people falling over themselves to correct him.  

Meanwhile the IDC goons practice marching in step.

Date: 2006/01/27 07:03:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 27 2006,12:52)
LOL. What thread was that on?
JAD is great.

When Goofy Met Dumbo

Date: 2006/01/27 07:05:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 27 2006,13:00)
I believe I have one of the great "DaveScot is an ass" stories

This occured after Dembski banned me for attacking plans to teach ID in public schools

Uncommon Descent Post

Bad link

Date: 2006/01/27 08:07:31, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
A dude named Jon was posting the other night in the How Can You Tell It Isn't Science thread.  I thought he made some very good comments about the article and based on his layman's understanding of science and evolution (his self-description) he did not find the article all that convincing or illuminating.  He wasn't dogging anyone or being obnoxious, he was being candid and honest.

He got some good feedback and to best understand what the IDC clan is actually peddling as science, it was suggested that he go to any IDC related forum and ask the IDCers, "what is the scientific theory of intelligent design and how can that theory be tested"  I thought that was fabulous advice.

I think evolution/biology/science related forums and sites tend to assume everyone is already hip to the realities of evolution, which I think is a huge mistake.  I think the average Joe belives evolution means we came from monkeys and at some point in time half-man half-monkeys roamed the planet.

So...I got to thinking those would be excellent questions to ask here (or at PT).  So I'll ask on behalf of all the lurkers here and/or non-scientists (such as my self):

1) What is the fundamental theory of evolution?

2) How can that theory be tested?

3) What makes the theory of evolution scientific?

I know some very bright minds post here so would some of you shed some light on these questions for the benefit of those that may not be as hip to evolution and biology as they'd like to be?

Date: 2006/01/27 09:53:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Does swimming in intelligent design creationism theory and materials cause brain rot?  Once you become a "design theorist" does your IQ turn to mush?  Does "design detection" stunt ones intellect and reasoning functions?

Evidence that IDC might be bad for your brain:

Someone can correct me, but I think in philosophy the ‘first’ cause is associated with the ‘final’ cause, which, if so means that the ‘mind’ does not begin to act until it sees the goal (’final’ cause) in sight. Purpose is a property of the mind, and when we see ‘purpose’ at work in biological systems, then we are encountering a ‘mind.’

Comment by PaV — January 26, 2006 @ 11:48 pm

Wow! PaV, what a thought!

Comment by Red Reader — January 27, 2006 @ 1:08 pm

Lord help us all...

Date: 2006/01/27 12:12:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Speaker: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

How come only Christian Churches and evangelical Christian cults like Campus Crusaders for Christ invite the ID folks to speak.  Why the sudden fascination with "science" on the part of these religious organizations?

When I went to church I don't recall us EVER inviting anyone to speak on the subject opf science.  What gives?

Speaker: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Two lectures by Phillip Johnson, Feb. 16-17

January 26, 2006

Phillip Johnson, professor emeritus of law at the University of California at Berkeley, will give two lectures examining the debate over evolution and intelligent design, on February 16 and 17 at Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois.

Johnson will give a talk, "The Intelligent Design Controversy," at 7 p.m., Thursday, February 16 in Kresge Hall, and a second talk, "The Right Questions about Intelligent Design and Evolution," at 4 p.m., Friday, February 17, in Room A-110, Umbeck Science-Mathematics Center. Both events are free and open to the public.

Johnson is the author of several books on the theories of intelligent design, evolution and philosophical naturalism in science, law and society. They include "Darwin on Trial," a 1991 book that established him as one of the foremost critics of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and its wider sociological and cultural implications. In 1995 Johnson was interviewed for the Public Broadcasting System program, "In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy."

Johnson's other books include "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education"; "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds"; "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism" and his most recent, "The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning and Public Debate."

Johnson also has written two books, "Criminal Law: Cases, Materials and Text," and "Criminal Procedure: Cases and Commentary," published by West Publishing Company for use in law schools.

Johnson taught at the Boalt School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley from 1967 until his retirement in 2000. He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School. After law school, Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

The lectures are sponsored by the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. Johnson will give several other lectures in Galesburg sponsored by Bethel Baptist Church.

Founded in 1837, Knox is a national liberal arts college in Galesburg, Illinois, with students from 46 states and 43 nations. Knox's "Old Main" is a National Historic Landmark and the only building remaining from the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Date: 2006/01/28 05:27:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2006,10:43)
Those subnormal morons over at After The Bar Closes are nothing but a bunch of gossiping barnyard hens.

I think of myself more as Statler or Waldorf, those two old muppets who sat up in the balcony mocking the show.

Does Intelligent Design deserve any other treatment?

“I like Dembski's next book!"
"It hasn't been published yet."
“That's what I like about it!"


Good one, Steve.

Date: 2006/01/29 03:18:09, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (O. Johnson @ Jan. 28 2006,21:00)
Arden Chatfield

That is a lousy way to greet a new participant here. Why don't you just ban me if that is your attitude. Frankly I don't think you know what you are talking about and I don't care either. I have to agree with Davison about the quality of the dialogue here. He is currently holding forth at brainstorms and Uncommon Descent anyway. I doubt if he needs this forum. I sure don't.


Otto Johnson

Mr Johnson, I don't think they ban people here for whining like a spoiled little baby so I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Cheers and welcome to the forum!

Date: 2006/01/29 17:26:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (O. Johnson @ Jan. 29 2006,09:31)
Kirk to Enterprise.  

Beam me up, Scotty.  There's no intelligent life here.  

Kirk Out.

Dr Ottis, could we get your thoughts on the Dembski/Behe proposition that there exists a real possibility that the intelligent designer may in fact be a Klingon?  And your opinion on the testability of the Dembski/Behe inspired "Time Traveler" and "Space Aliens" theory of design.  

You'd be the best if you would shed some light on these theories advanced by two leading intelligent design theorists William Dembski and Michael Behe, especially if you could frame it in language that some of us average Joes will understand.  

Cheers and thanks in advance.

Date: 2006/01/29 17:54:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
What do people in the new age or psychobabble cultures think of ID?

It's been years since I have kept up with them.  I suspect even new agers, 12 steppers, and what not  would probably not gravitate to ID in measurable numbers.  They would be very skeptical once they realize far right evangelicals are the cultural force behind intelligent design.

But that wouldn't stop some of them from coming up with their own line of design theories once they recognize the opportunity and appeal to a certain demographic, as well as how forgiving intelligent design theory is.  It requires no proof and you need not have any education or degree in biology.  In fact philosophers, English majors and accountants do nicely as "design theorist".  It's all propaganda and marketing.

So my question is are any of the new age or pop psychology groups or organizations currently getting in on the ID action yet?

Speaking of which...I am surprised the Raelian inspired Atheist Intelligent Design Theory is not getting more play. They claim they can offer what the Discovery Institute only theorizes about.  Yeah I know, that's crazy talk but they are offering exactly what Dembski and Behe claim, it could be a space alien or time traveler.

Date: 2006/01/30 04:57:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
And IDer would tell you "intelligent design" does not mean "optimum design" which is their way of saying "God moves in mysterious ways" which is another way of denying the inherent immorality of their religious mythology.  

Or to add insult to injury, they'd suggest "God has a special plan for this child"

I think it was Camus who wrote something to the effect of "when a Christian sees a child whose eyes have been burned out, they must either burn their own eyes out or abandon their faith"

Date: 2006/01/30 06:35:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
From an email alert:

Date: January 26, 2006
From: The Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance
By: Jerry Falwell



Darwinian Evolution — the theory that is touted as enlightened truth by education and media elites — is not recognized as fact by many individuals.

In fact, a new survey from the United Kingdom has found that a majority of Brits do not believe in evolution. The BBC survey of 2,000 people in a program titled “Horizon: A War on Science” showed that “more than half the British population does not accept the theory of evolution.”

Further, participants largely favored the teaching of either creationism or intelligent design in schools, along with evolution.

Poll editor Andrew Cohen told Britain’s The Register, “Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life’s origins.”

American polls have found similar results.

Last year, 64 percent in a Pew Research Center poll said they believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools.

Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said, “What this basically tells us is that in contentious issues, many people take the default position — teach both sides and let people make up their own minds.”

But the evolution community wants to dictate their values on American school children. The left frequently talks about “diversity,” but they sanction uniformity of thought when it comes to teaching about the foundations of the universe. It is a troubling double standard.

Those who embrace biblical teachings on creation are typically depicted as provincial victims of obsolete views that have not kept up with modern society. We are told that it’s fine to believe in the Genesis account of creation while we are in our churches, but when we step out of the church our views should be stifled.

Two Diverse Roads

Creationists and evolutionists utilize the same historic facts and evidences in their research, but they reach largely dissimilar conclusions. But the evolutionists’ interpretation of the evidence at hand is largely given authority over the proposals of creationists.

When you consider how evolution is routinely presented as unquestionable truth in higher education and in our so-called mainstream media, it really is remarkable that so many people have not bought into the conventional thinking on the subject.

While a typical PBS broadcast on science or nature will include the assertive phrase “millions of years ago,” it is apparent that a large percentage of the audience has misgivings about the statement.

I believe this is largely the result of solid Bible teaching that continues to echo in our nation’s churches. Little children through the years who have learned about Adam and Eve continue to hold that story as truth in their hearts as adults today.

And there’s reason to believe that the creationism message will soon be communicated to more people than ever.

In Hebron, Kentucky, not far from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, the spectacular Creation Museum is nearing completion.

An outreach of Answers in Genesis (, the museum is a 50,000-square-foot facility that will proclaim to the world that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice and in every area it references.

The Creation Museum, described as a “walk through history,” is scheduled to open in 2007 and I am anticipating that it will have an impact on our culture the likes of which we have never seen. This spectacular alternative to the evolutionary natural history museums that are turning countless minds against the Gospel and the authority of the Scripture, will soon be recounting what the Bible teaches on creation, dinosaurs, the world flood, and many other pertinent topics.

In the meantime, I will continue to stand against the evolutionary and secularist tides by proclaiming that God spoke the heavens and the earth into existence in six literal days.

Six literal days, huh?  Maybe we should call him the "speedy intelligent designer" or maybe give him a real name and call him "Fast Eddy"?

BTW, I heard a rumor that on the 7th day the intelligent designer not only rested, but he watched the Super Bowl.  Any truth to that theory?

And has anyone here been to the Creation Evidence Museum Glen Rose, Texas?  It's about 2 hours from where I live but the more I read about it the more I was convinced a visit there would likely be too disturbing.


Date: 2006/01/30 06:58:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
One of the things the Discovery Institute does well is it targets ordinary people and appeals to existing cultural leanings and biases.  Sure, they are nothing but lying propagandists in the truest sense, but they are obviously good at it.  

I think what is needed is the equivalent of the Discovery Institute (sans the dishonesty and distortions).

And by equivalent I mean an organization that:

1) Writes articles that appeal to (or at least can be understood by) the average Joe.

2) Makes use of online news opportunities (gets included in things like Google News

3) Writes timely articles that take the Discovery Institute and their latest distortions to task.

4) Seeks to educate the public about the Discovery Institute's war on science in a language non-scientists can comprehend and appreciate.

5) Can frame the debate in a manner that taps into cultural biases and existing values.  What I mean by this is most people could care less than evolution is under fire.  Most people have a mistaken impression of what evolution is so the thought of "Darwinism" being under assault is not going to keep most people up late at night.

The war is not a bunch of scientists taking on "Darwinsim", the driving force behind the war is a group of fundamentalist evangelicals who want to replace science with "theistic understandings".  Understanding who the driving force is behind IDC and what their motives are would be alarming to most Americans.  But unless you read PT or some of the other similar blogs the average Joe is pretty much in the dark.

I know there are numerous science blogs that attempt to do what I am suggesting (PT is one good example), but so far I don't think any of them are succeeding.  Many write about the dishonest things being said and done by the Discovery Institute but the audience for these very good articles is so miniscule (or comprised of primarily the evo choir) I don't think the net effect on public perception is measurable.

Anyhow...That's my story...

Date: 2006/01/30 07:44:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I don't think scientific PR has any hope of competing with it.

If any science organizations ever learn how to do PR I think quite a bit could be accomplished.  It certainly beats doing nothing, or only singing to ones own choir.

And I think if people realized what value modern biology brings to the quality of their own lives in terms of medicine, fighting disease, etc., people would be more sensitive to the notion of biology being under attack.  

The public sees Darwin being defended and they could care less about Darwin.  Correct me if I am wrong but if you are attacking Darwin you are attacking modern biology which includes the field of medicine.  IDC is a science stopper and that has real world ramifications (not just philosophical whatnot) but the public has no idea of this.  That's my point.  Well one of them anyhow...

But no one is going to convince a true believer otherwise, so no need to waste time on that demographic.

Finally, I made similar comments in another thread here where one reply was "p.r. takes money".  This "we'll probably lose before we even start, so why start" is probably not the best approach.

At some point science will need the support of the average Joe and unless they start paying attention to the average Joe that support is unlikely or at least not a given.

Date: 2006/01/30 08:38:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says
By Mark Lombard


Catholic Online

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Catholic Online) -- Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory.

Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.”

Father Coyne is scheduled to deliver the annual Aquinas Lecture on “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution” at Palm Beach Atlantic University, an interdenominational Christian university of about 3,100 students, here Jan. 31. The talk is sponsored by the Newman Club, and scheduled in conjunction with the Jan. 28 feast of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Catholic Online received an advance copy of the remarks from the Jesuit priest-astronomer, who heads the Vatican Observatory, which has sites at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, and on Mount Graham in Arizona.

Christianity is “radically creationist,” Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.

In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate.

He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”

And while Charles Darwin receives most of the attention in the debate over evolution, Father Coyne said it was the 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, condemned a hundred years before Darwin for suggesting that “it took billions of years to form the crust of the earth,” who “caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution.”

He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

He criticizes Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna for instigating a “tragic” episode “in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science” through the prelate’s July 7, 2005, article he wrote for the New York Times that “neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine,” while the Intelligent Design theory is.

Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.”

“One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says.

Christianity is “radically creationist” and God is the “creator of the universe,” he says, but in “a totally different sense” than creationism has come to mean.

“It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis,” he stresses. “It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.”

He says that God is not needed to explain the “scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief.”

“To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need,” the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they “fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.”

Yet, he adds, this is the opposite of what human intelligence should be working toward. “We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation.”

Modern science reveals to the religious believer “God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God,” Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine.

“Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”

He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

The concludes his prepared remarks noting that science challenges believers’ traditional understanding of God and the universe to look beyond “crude creationism” to a view that preserves the special character of both.

- - -

Copyright © 2006 by Catholic Online ( All Rights Reserved.

Date: 2006/01/30 11:34:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 30 2006,17:08)
PR takes money?  How much money could we raise if every scientist in the USA gave a dollar, and companies employing scientists gave 10 dollars?

As far as an online resources go, the articles are already being written.  The issue lies in how they are being promoted, or for that matter not promoted.

And there is probably a ton of people who are pr savvy that would volunteer some time to a pr effort.  I think most of it would be a matter of somone(s) organizing and packaging existing information.

Date: 2006/01/30 13:10:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
46 pages for someone to propose the age of the earth is ~6,000 years?

Date: 2006/01/31 02:42:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think Zardoz is a new ager, maybe he can shed some light on the subject.

Date: 2006/01/31 05:32:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I don't think Mr Scott is not operating in a vaccuum and not a day goes by where someone over there doesn't say something like "I'm going to tell Bill on you, Dave Scott!".  

I'd pay top dollar to read the email between Mr Scott and Dembski.

Date: 2006/01/31 08:24:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Oh man you gotta love governors who moonlight as scientists.  Someone needs to send Gov Sanford to Dave Scott for some schooling on common descent.

S.C. governor OK with intelligent design

COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan. 31 (UPI) -- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he believes intelligent design should be taught in his state's public school classrooms.

In a Sunday appearance on a WIS-TV program, Sanford said there's nothing wrong with presenting students with alternatives to the theory of evolution.

"I think that it's just ... that there are real chinks in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about," Sanford said.

Intelligent design posits life on earth is too complex to be explained by evolutionary theory alone.

"The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics."

But College of Charleston physics professor Bob Dukes and biology associate professor Robert Dillon Jr. criticized the governor for his statements. They told the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier there aren't "chinks in the armor of evolution," and Sanford's citation of the second law of thermodynamics was also incorrect.

The intelligent mosquito theory is a new one to me...

Date: 2006/01/31 08:31:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Same old shite but from a different toilet:

Sanford OK with intelligent design
Sees theory as alternative to evolution

The Post and Courier

Gov. Mark Sanford sees no problem with teaching intelligent design in the classroom.

In an appearance Sunday on WIS-TV's "Newswatch" program, Sanford said there's nothing wrong with presenting students with alternatives to the theory of evolution.

"I think that it's just ... that there are real chinks in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about," Sanford told program host David Stanton.

Intelligent design posits that life on earth is too complex to be fully explained by evolutionary theory alone.

Final approval of state biology standards hinges on whether South Carolina's Education Oversight Committee will adopt a set of four teaching "indicators" related to the teaching of evolution for high school biology students.

Final approval of these indicators will be taken up Feb. 13 by the full committee. Members - including director Robert Staton, a Republican candidate for state school superintendent; Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, and Rep. Robert Walker, R-Landrum - argue that the state should consider including intelligent design, and in Walker's case biblical Creationism, in the science curriculum.

Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer reiterated the governor's position. "What the governor said is simply that different people believe different things, and that we should have an educational system that recognizes and responds to the diversity of beliefs that exist among the people of South Carolina."

But intelligent design isn't provable by experimentation and thus doesn't meet a definition for a teachable science topic, according to College of Charleston physics professor Bob Dukes and biology associate professor Robert Dillon Jr.

Dillon is a founding member of South Carolinians for Science Education, which a group of scientists and educators formed after state legislators made statements similar to Sanford's and in an effort to address contention over the final approval of state biology teaching standards.

The pair took the governor to task for his televised statements. They argued that there aren't "chinks" in the armor of evolution, and said a later citation of the second law of thermodynamics was taken out of context.

In his Sunday statement, for example, the governor said, "The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics."

"That's what the governor is confused about," Dukes said. "The earth is not a closed system and we can get order from disorder."

In December an intelligent design teaching measure in Dover, Pa., was struck down by a federal judge, who decried the school board's "breathtaking inanity." Dillon said Sanford and others were leading South Carolina down a similar path toward a lawsuit.

At a glance
Transcript of the governor's statements on intelligent design on WIS-TV's "Newswatch."

David Stanton: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools - for instance intelligent design?

Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.

Stanton: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching evolution?

Sanford: "Well I think that it's just - and science is more and more documenting this - is that there are real chinks in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a . little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with . one of the laws of thermodynamics, which is the law of, of . in essence, destruction.

"Whether you think about your bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don't naturally order themselves towards progression, . in the natural order of things. So it's . against fairly basic laws of physics and so I would not have a problem in teaching both. Uh, you saying 'This is one theory and this is another theory.'"

Contact Chris Dixon at or 745-5855.

Come to think of it, my bedroom has been messy for decades and yet I have never seen any half man half ape life forms walk out of there.  Maybe these IDC folks are on to something?


Date: 2006/01/31 13:05:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
As Dave Scott says, attack ideas and not people :-)

Date: 2006/01/31 17:48:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'll only copy and paste a few paragraphs or so.  This one is well worth reading, the author is on target.

Discovery's Creation

By Roger Downey

A Seattle think tank launched the modern intelligent-design movement with a simple memo. The idea has evolved into a media sensation. And the cause has mutated beyond rational control.
By Roger Downey

Birth of a Theory

A brief history of intellligent design.

The Wedge

The treatise that launched the Discovery Institute's campaign for intelligent design.
In 1998, members of a Seattle nonprofit think tank drafted a secret five-year plan with an ambitious goal: to "defeat scientific materialism" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

By the end of the stated five-year period, the benevolent conspirators had seen much of their goal accomplished. There was widespread public debate with materialist Darwinists. Dozens of books had been published presenting a non-Darwinian alternative theory of life. There was widespread respectful press coverage of their cause, with innumerable supportive op-ed columns in mainstream media, cover stories in the national newsweeklies, and even a widely broadcast PBS documentary. School authorities in 10 states were looking into adopting some or all of the recommendations for high-school science curricula. So well was the campaign going that in 2004, some of the original antimaterialism advocates were confident enough of eventual triumph to predict in detail a complete meltdown of Darwinian science by 2025—the 100th anniversary of the notorious "Monkey Trial" of 1925.

However unlikely their optimism at the time, it looks a great deal more unlikely today. In December, a federal judge presiding over another case of Darwin versus faith in a public-school system handed the antimaterialists a defeat so sweeping—in the form of a judicial decision so detailed and so trenchant—that even the most passionate advocates of faith-based science seem stunned and confused about the future of their cause. They'll be back. But in this time of their momentary disarray, it seems appropriate to look back over the short but rocketlike rise to media celebrity of the idea called "intelligent design" and the small, dedicated band of true believers who sold the concept to the wider world.

The story begins, so far as the world at large is concerned, on a late January day seven years ago, in a mail room in a downtown Seattle office of an international human-resources firm. The mail room was also the copy center, and a part-time employee named Matt Duss was handed a document to copy. It was not at all the kind of desperately dull personnel-processing document Duss was used to feeding through the machine. For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." Its cover bore an ominous pyramidal diagram superimposed on a fuzzy reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel rendition of God the Father zapping life into Adam, all under a mysterious title: The Wedge...

An analysis of this article probably belongs on PT...Lots of ID history too.  This is a very good one!


Date: 2006/02/01 04:58:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is so rich it deserves more commentary...

If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the “internet protocol” of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever!


Comment by scordova — February 1, 2006 @ 8:22 am

And if the Klingons land their space ship on the front lawn of the White House and explain how they created the universe "Darwinism" would be dead too.

If God stops giving us the silent treatments and explains (in a "pathetic level of detail") how he went about the Creation "Darwinism" would fall by the wayside.

If the Time Travelers show up at Dr Michael Behe's biology class and give a lesson on IC then "Darwinism" would fall off the map.

If the Space Aliens show up at one of the Christian propaganda classes Theologian William Demsbki teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and demonstrate the finer points of specified complexity "Darwinism" will be a dead horse with a dead rider.

The possibilities are endless.  

No wonder all the "Darwinists" are shaking in their boots.  Clearly "Darwinism" is a theory in crisis.

Date: 2006/02/01 06:33:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
What would the messages say?

Kilroy Was Here?

Or perhaps this:

The Raelian Movement Presents Message From The Designers

Date: 2006/02/01 07:09:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I can see it now....With that programming language they could finally build their Master Race of Militant Evangelicals who would take up the Mighty Sword of Righteousness against the Evil Evolutionists and The Word would reign for thousands of years!

Or something like that...

Date: 2006/02/02 06:04:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Repent America??


Repent America to Bring Creation Seminar to Dover Area High School; Evolutionists Lay Low

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 2 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Repent America (RA), a Philadelphia-based evangelistic organization, is bringing a creation seminar to the Dover Area High School next month, featuring internationally known creationist Dr. Kent Hovind.

The Dover Area School District became known for its support of intelligent design by ensuring that students were informed that evolution is “not a fact.” However, a federal judge ruled the practice unconstitutional because of the possibility that students might come to the conclusion that the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible. In addition, all of the intelligent design school board members were voted out this past election, adding to the disaster in Dover.

“The school board has been taken over by evolutionists who refuse to continue the legal battle for truth, and who once again are teaching students the lie of evolution as fact,” stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. “We must not abandon the schoolchildren of America in indoctrination chambers, but fight for the truth to be presented to those trapped inside its walls. Repent America is coming to Dover Area High School to do just that,” Marcavage continued.

Dr. Kent Hovind, who is considered one of the foremost authorities on science and the Bible, will be the event’s guest speaker. The former high school science teacher turned evangelist speaks over 700 times each year in public and private schools, universities and churches. He has debated evolutionists at many universities across the country and is dedicated to the proclamation of factual, scientific evidence supporting the Biblical record of creation and history of the world.

“Kent Hovind’s exciting, fact-filled presentations are extremely informative and highly educational, which will impact the lives of all those who attend,” Marcavage stated. “Christians will be strengthened in their faith while the most devout evolutionists will sit up and take notice,” he continued.

“The event was initially scheduled to be conducted in a debate format, but every evolutionist we contacted so far has refused to participate,” Marcavage continued. “Evolutionists lay low when they actually have to defend their beliefs, but when the floor is only open to them they will do whatever they can to tell fables,” he concluded.

The two-day seminar will be held in the auditorium of the Dover Area High School on Friday, March 17 at 6:30 p.m. and Saturday, March 18 at 10:30 a.m. The event is open to the public and admission is free.

Issuers of press releases and not the Christian Communication Network are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content.  Terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply.
Copyright © 1999-2006 Christian Communication Network. All Rights Reserved.  

Date: 2006/02/02 06:10:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Crazy talk?  WTF??

tinabrewer wrote:
“Can such a question hope to be settled in the realm of science which has unfortunately devolved into the playground of mere materialism?”

There’s an old saying, “Don’t give up just before the miracle happens.”

ID is a sea change; its a big idea.
Big ideas are unstoppable for a reason.
For example, the Copernicun universe was a big idea. It took decades.
Time marches on.

Art is a mirror; the movie is a mirror.
Behind the ridicule blindingly, hysterical horrible fear: fear flapping and flopping and flailing away.

Down deep they know they’ve climbed way, way out on a dead limb of Darwin’s tree.
The hear it cracking.
They’ve invested their lives in a worldview in which they are the greatest of the great, elite of elite, the kings of all, the glorious spear of man’s purposless ascent from the primordal ooze: gods of all knowledge; smarter, wiser, more manly…..(even the women!;). —craaaack— huh? what was that? It’s the sound of the natural prunning of the branch.

They could have chosen to follow the truth where it leads, the evidence where it leads, but instead the chose the best seats at the universities and the worship of men just like themselves. —-craaaack—-

“I am the Captain of a mighty armada! Bear Left I command you!”
“I am the watchman in a lighthouse on solid rock. I suggest you bear right.”

Comment by Red Reader — February 1, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

Date: 2006/02/03 05:25:31, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 03 2006,10:15)
LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.


February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor

This is the sort of glue that holds evangelicals as agroup together.  A sense of being persecuted and fear (the "Darwinists" are corrupting our youth/country/etc.).

Victimhood is one of the driving forces behind intelligent design as a movement:

No one will publish us...

They forbid us to make one innocent statement to some high school kids in Dover...

Judge Jones is our Inquisitor...

We are vitcims of a Darwin conspiracy to stifle free speech and intellectual inquiry...

The truth is out there....

And the IDiot true believers eat it up...Just more pandering to the Pat Robertson crowd..

Date: 2006/02/03 06:18:45, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation

Was this Dave Scott talking about Dave Scott?

Date: 2006/02/03 09:17:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Two points:

I thought the law of time travel states 1 million years is the limit you can go back in time.  

And all this guy is doing is taking Michael "it could be a time traveler" Behe's intelligent design theory to its logical conclusion.  Why in the world would they ban him for echoing what Behe proposes? :-)

Date: 2006/02/03 13:10:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Odd that you are not allowed to discuss the time traveler theory proposed by Michael Behe there.  

Why do William The Theologians followers hate Dr Behe?

Date: 2006/02/06 04:57:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well on a more "positive" note at least one of our embassies is not being burned for once...

Date: 2006/02/06 10:35:09, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Behe is joining the "Judge Jones is a naughty word" campaign.  Read his nonsense
Here (pdf file)

I am astonished Behe is defending his testimony.  The DI must have made him do it.  I think most everyone outside of the ID cult is fully aware that Dr Behe is a garden variety quack.

Date: 2006/02/06 11:03:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
A cry baby and sore loser to be sure. And the poor dear never had time to read those 50 articles/books put in front of him while on the stand.  Well if he took biology with any seriousness he would have already read them.  It's not like they were all published the day before the trial.

Date: 2006/02/06 11:21:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well when one says hey this is so complicated a space alien,  or time traveler, or god mustadoneit aint science and it's bad theory.  

First you find the god/space alient/time tarveler and learn all you can about him/her/it.  THEN you can poke around and make theories about what he/she/it might have done, but the IC or specified nonsense argument is plain dumb.  It's retarded thinking.  At least selling it as science is dumb but I'll admit it makes great 3am bull session material, well when you're philosophizing with a bong in hand that is.

Here is the facts - we don't know anything about any gods, space aliens or time travelers and until we do sitting around asserting one of those fellows contributed something to human biology is dumber than dumb, it's intellectual retardation.

Pardon me for being so un-pc but I am sick to my stomach from listening to the moronic "philosophy" of ID cultists and apologists.

Behe's whining today put me over the top...What a bunch of misguided, misinformed, cry babies.

Date: 2006/02/06 12:19:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dr Quack wrote...

-"If I performed an experiment nobody would believe me..."

A howler to be sure.  

And he's right, no one would have believed him.  They would have run the same test to see if they got the same result.  it;s called verification. That's how science works, Dr Quack.  

Someone says I ran this test and got this result and rather than believe that proposition on blind faith somone else tries to validate those test results.  I think this is a part of what is known as the scientific method.

I'm looking forward to reading the commentary about Behe's whine on PT and other science blogs soon...

Date: 2006/02/06 17:55:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Wow. This critique by Behe is scathing. Paragraph after paragraph, not once does Behe miss.

No kidding, the man is a marksman.  You should read his expert testimony at the Dover trial.  Everytime he was asked a question he took careful aim shot himself in the foot and never once missed.  A regular Annie Oakley that Dr Quack Quack.

avocationist -
How sad people are reduced to calling it whining, and to missing the simple point he made that the claim IC was "refuted" amounted to no more than saying it was controversial but not that it had been proven wrong.

"whining" To complain or protest in a childish fashion. Nuff said on whining.

And...Um, let's see according to Dr Quack Quack IC idea life is too complex at the biochemical level to have evolved and he calls this  "irreducible complexity" which is the signature of a "designer".  He can't quite figure out how these things got here so according to Dr Quack Quack this so-called "designer" is "God" but he also suggests it could be a space alien or even a time traveler.  I saw him say that on national television.

Now, I believe either AIDs or HIV fall within Dr Quack Quacks definition of IC which suggests the "designer" is a bio-terrorist who should be stopped at all costs.  The "designer" makes Saddam and Ossama look like choir boys.

And I agree with you, Ken Miller (and no one for that matter) has yet to prove Dr Quack Quacks space alien (or time traveler or god) is bogus.  So far NO ONE has proven space aliens and time travelers are not bio-terrorist.  Heck they haven't even proven time travelers do not exist.  In view of this I think Ken should change careers.  

But keep in mind the entire biology department where Dr Quack Quack teaches is totally unscientific too.  Check out this unscientific nonsense they wrote about the time traveler theory...

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

What a bunch of unscientific goons!  What the heck do a bunch of  goons at Lehigh know about biology in the first place?  They are probably jealous of all the attention Dr Quack Quack gets on t.v.

This man, Judge Jones, is utterly out of his league. He has made a shameful episode in history, and he is no friend of Darwinism. I would love to see him try to answer Behe's points, but of course he cannot.  

Of course not, NO ONE has been able to refute the time traveler theory or the space alien theory or the god theory for that matter.  No one ever will because Dr Quack Quack is the only man in north America who really understands science.

Did you read his testimony?  Man oh man he sure showed the world who understands science and who doesn't.  Well him and William The Theologian.  

YOU should read every single word of Dr Quack Quack's expert testimony.  It's a real eye opener.  

Finally, do you work for the Discovery Institute?  I read a few of your posts here and if you don't already work for them you should.  Seriously.  You've got the DI victim thing down pretty good and your ability to distort and misrepresent things in such a naive manner is flawless.  You're a good IDer.  Have you met Dave Scott yet?


Date: 2006/02/06 19:02:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Read all about it...

“Intelligent Design Matter of time

Intelligent design proponent William Dembski told Midwestern Seminary's convocation Jan. 24 that it's only a matter of time before the theory of evolution crumbles. "If your worldview starts with a problematic origin story, everything else is going to be infected," he said...

Intelligent design, Dembski said, does not and cannot replace the Gospel.

“Intelligent design is not the Gospel,” he said. “If you want the Gospel, read Luke. Read the Gospels. The Gospels will tell you about Christ and redemption in Him.”

But, he said, Intelligent Design does have an important function in the defense of the faith.

“It is a stand-alone scientific program that can sweep away this materialistic worldview,” he said.

Date: 2006/02/06 19:08:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have a Google news alert configured to send me a news listing of anything with the words "intelligent design" (yeah I know, I am glutton for punishment), anyhow, I opened a Google news alert just now and found some irony in the two article titles it references.  Check it out:


Google Alerts  <>to me
 More options   11:41 pm (28 minutes ago)

Google Alert for: intelligent design

Flying Spaghetti Monster and Intelligent Design
- San Mateo,CA,USA
The next topic I'd like to tackle is the much-disputed Intelligent Design. Since the Kansas schools and Dover school district approved ...
See all stories on this topic

"Intelligent design is most definitely scientific"
Discovery Institute
- Seattle,WA,USA
David Medici has a good piece in the Sheboygan-Press on intelligent design. The one nuance I would add to his short piece. is that ...

(bold emphasis mine)


Date: 2006/02/07 03:35:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is this Christian Intelligent Design advocate a liar or just ignorant on a wholesale level?  When it comes to those who promote intelligent design it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish which the two.  In this case I wonder if she moonlights for the Discovery Institute?

You be the judge.


.Bees provide example of God's intelligent design

Another look at intelligent design vs. evolution: In God's book, the Bible, he says we can know him by his creation. At least 80 percent of scientists now believe in intelligent design, and some don't even know the designer.

Date: 2006/02/07 04:48:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 07 2006,09:43)
"She" signed her letter "Albert Boynton". I guess it's just another crank letter-to-the-editor writer.

No I think I goofed and saw a pic of a woman on the right side of the page and assumed she was the writer.  Looks like a He actually wrote it.

And who knee Bees were so close to jeebus?

Date: 2006/02/08 07:39:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This lying Bush appointee was busted by a humble science blogger here.

There is some irony in this story somewhere.

ps: I hope the NY Times publishes his entire resume.


Date: 2006/02/08 12:08:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Scott on Crop Circles, intelligent design, and pattern detection...

Holy cow these people are nuts!  Which if you think about it, from an IDiots perscpective, crop circles are a perfect example of "detecting a pattern/design in nature"

Date: 2006/02/08 16:35:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
PT mentions This Blogger who has dug up a bunch of writing by George Deutsch,  including who killed Laci Peterson (Satanists) to the "clear" ties between  al-Qaida and Iraq.

Yet another howler from an intelligent design advocate.

And is it me or do all intelligent design advocates seem to lack any intelligence at all?

Date: 2006/02/09 05:50:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (GCT @ Feb. 09 2006,09:40)
If I had a dime for every time Dembski declared that something would be evolution's Waterloo, I would be rich by now.

The man is obsessed with anything "Waterloo"  I think he started his Waterloo fetish back when he got sh** canned at Baylor.

Ever since then it is Waterloo this and Waterloo that.  What a weirdo.

Date: 2006/02/09 06:06:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I am curious to know how evolution promotes atheism, especially since god is not even mentioned in biology textbooks.

What evolution teaches is common descent (and thus that women did not originate from a man's rib cage) and the animal/plant world did not occur in one or even 6 days.

So while it is true that evolution (and plain common sense for that matter) conflicts with the Judeo-Christian creation myth but how does this promote the idea that no God exists at all?

And old fashioned common sense conflicts with many Bibical myths such as no human being is going to survive 3 days and 3 nights inside the belly of a whale.  Common sense and a marginal understanding of human biology indicates no human being is going to live for 300 or 700 years.  And the world is not 6,000 years old.   Is common sense the enemy of faith as well?

Is believing in the literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian creation myth neccessary for belief in God?

Date: 2006/02/09 10:28:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 09 2006,13:42)
The only beautiful liberal women are concentrated in Hollywood and they are mostly dumb as a box of rocks.

Well, I wouldn't go that far - plenty of academic women are attractive. And actors tend to be brighter than most; they just don't use it. But it's true that liberalism draws primarily from two groups - twinkies and bitter people. And since attractive people tend to be more outgoing and successful (with no need of political crutches to justify their failure), the Professor has a point.

Twinkies and bitter people?  You left out satanists!

Date: 2006/02/09 15:11:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Recently therer was an article on PT about Dembski and the few math articles he had written that were published.  They were not ID related.

Does anyone remember that PT article and more importantly, did you book mark it?  I can't find the article....

Date: 2006/02/09 18:20:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I found it

(In case anyone was interested after I mentioned it)

Date: 2006/02/10 06:05:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
It is dangerous for people to live their lives without respect for the world we live in and therefore, respect for God.

People have the right to live dangerously, I have been doing it for decades now and having lived on both sides of the fence I can say I much prefer the danger to the slavery of faith.

our children will have nothing to cling to when their lives get truly difficult.

Grown ups can get along fine in life without the need for a magic sky pixie.  People deal with the normal ups and downs in life all the time without imaginary big brothers or invisible daddies.  

It's a shame you view human beings as incompetant to face the world standing on their own two feet and thus need something or someone to cling to.

There is NOTHING that could happen to someone in life that they could not deal with on their own without support from imaginary entities.  Human beings are quite capable and resiliant.  Your morbid view of humanity is noted.

Date: 2006/02/10 10:24:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
But to claim that God isn't important is equally dangerous.

Artist In Training, I recognize God is important to many if not most people.  My point it god it irrelevant to science, math, etc. and faith in a god is not needed for a wortwhile life that is free of fear and uncertainty.  

I also recognize most religionists would not agree with that statement but the facts prove otherwise.  Many religionists would choose to have a less meaningful life without a belief in a god but that would be there choice.

God *is* important to those who make him important but a society does not need a god to prosper nor does an individual need a god to be happy and comfortable in their own skin and lead a meaningful life.

There is nothing dangerous about rejecting faith in a god nor does it lead to despair or a life of crime.  And children do not need faith in a god any more than my goldfish do.

Date: 2006/02/10 11:49:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is it me or is uncommon descent starting to look more and more like a gathering place for a new age christian science fiction cult where everyone and anyone is a "design theorist"?

I predict we'll soon read about "patterns" found in crystals which are obviously a signature of an intelligent designer.  

It's all about "pattern detection".

Date: 2006/02/13 11:00:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
He's only saying what the "mainstream" IDiots wish they could say.  The biggest difference between this guy and what Dembski/Behe/the Disco is that he tells the truth and the others lie or cloak their true opinions in psuedo-scifi speak.

I say give him a medal for being honest.

Date: 2006/02/14 06:35:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Renier - "Then I found Robert Green Ingersol..."

Although I was never a fundamentalist I was once a believer as well and Robert Ingersoll's writings did more to expedite my atheism than any other person or ideology.  Ingersoll was my first glimpse into knowing there were in fact others who thought (and doubted) like myself.

Evolution had absolutely NOTHING to do with my decision to drop kick my faith.  The creationists should be trying to ban Ingersoll and leave evolution alone :-)

For those unfamiliar -  

Robert Ingersoll complete works


Robert Ingersoll Wiki Pages

And I'll leave you with this Ingersoll quote:

"The man who invented the telescope found out more about heaven than the closed eyes of prayer ever discovered. "

Date: 2006/02/14 06:44:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Are you guys aware that JAD has "featured" papers published on Dembski's International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) website?

JAD and Dembski, sittin' in a tree...

Keep in mind according to ISCID " The archive is moderated to assure that articles meet minimum scholarly standards and are relevant to the study of complex systems."  Therefore JAD must meet Dembski's standards.

Date: 2006/02/14 06:56:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The notion that human beings are flawed is flawed.  Such a dim view of mankind is needless.  Human beings are perfect at being human beings.  No one does a better job of being a human being than a human being.  

Part of the nature of being a human being is our capacity to make good decisions and bad decisions.  We're fallible.  This does not make mankind "flawed" it makes him what he is, a human being.  Human beings are fallible, that does not make them flawed.  Dogs are fallible, do we describe dogs as being "flawed"?

Notions of "flawed" human beings are rooted in religious nonsense having to do with original sin, the fall of man, etc.  Ideas we need not perpetuate.

Date: 2006/02/14 12:15:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 14 2006,16:56)
Mr. Christopher, I was inspired to add your comment above to  my blog.

Since I did it without your express permission I give my appologies and editing rights to you if you feel I have misrepresented you.

BWE :)

BWE, I am flattered my comments made an impression on you.  Feel free to quote me anytime.

I think there is some irony here somewhere.  Is there anyone on earth who started doubting their faith only after they read some Darwin or Stevie Gould?  I doubt it.  I think the creationists give Darwin/evolution far too much credit.

Initially I rejected my former faith on pure moral and common sense grounds and it was years later that I would read up on evolution.  Evolution did not provide a foundation for my lack of faith nor did it (or does it) contribute to my current lack of faith.  I think this is probably true for most folks.

Contrary to what the creationists believe the seeds of doubt do not need to be nourished by some biological theory or fact (and anyone who pins their faith on IC and mouse trap analagies is a fool to be sure).  All it takes to lose ones faith is a little common sense and the desire to ask oneself uncomfortable questions.

Reading folks like Ingersoll helped me because I began to realize there are others who share similar doubts who are not afraid to ask the questions.

Anyhow, cheers!

Mr C

Date: 2006/02/14 12:20:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 14 2006,17:24)
I note that the 'challenge' posted by "whoever" has now disappeared from the Uncommon Descent front page.

One would have to archive the entire thing every five minutes to keep up with the various attempts to cover up ill-considered, ignorant, or simply idiotic statements made over there.

One of these days the Insane Creationist Clown Posse is going to accidently ban themselves.

Date: 2006/02/15 11:39:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
William the Theologian is now crying about Ohio and calling "evolutionary theory" a racket because scientists continue to work to keep intelligent design creationism from being taught in our public schools.  

I used to think evolutionary theory was just a bad idea. It’s looking increasingly like a racket.

Yeah Al Capone is keeping your theology out of public schools, he and Kenneth Lay that is.  It's all about McCarthyism, dude.  Keeping Jesus out of science class.

One thing that can be said about the intelligent designer, he either could care less about what is taught in American public schools or he is impotent to do anything about it.  The current score is thus:

Science - 3
Intelligent design creationism - 0

Date: 2006/02/15 11:52:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Steve just because Dembski says God and religion are behind intelligent design (creationism) doesn't mean God and religion are behind intelligent design(creationism).  Take these Dembski comments for example:

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." – National Religious Broadcasters, 2000

Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

"I think the opportunity to deal with students and getting them properly oriented on science and theology and the relation between those is going to be important because science has been such an instrument used by the materialists to undermine the Christian faith and religious belief generally." "This is really an opportunity," Dembski added, "to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That's really what is driving me." – Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center, 2004

"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?  What a nutty idea.  ID is science, science I tell you!  Afterall, I mean, it could be a space alien or time traveler, no?  

And it's frontloaded, baby!

Date: 2006/02/15 12:14:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 15 2006,18:03)

Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?
Dude, Casey Luskin literally asked me that very question, while his Intelligent Design club required officers to be Christian.

What a bunch of lying turd nuggets.  It is as if they think everyone is as dumb as their own followers and they honestly believe that saying stupid moronic things like "we aint sayin' it is god, it could be a space alien or time traveler" somehow makes IDC scientific and not religious.  How insulting.  

Luskin et al are nothing but con men for Jesus.

Date: 2006/02/15 12:46:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have no vested interest in biology and I read several books on evolution probably 10 years ago but have given it little thought since then.  I have been a Skeptical Inquirer subscriber for years and  I kept noticing little articles or book reviews concerning IDC over the last couple of years and I'd seen where Georgia began losing their mind ("changes over time") but I never paid much attention to it until the Skeptical Inquirer dedicated a whole issue on IDC.  That was the worst SI issue I had ever read...

I read several of the IDC articles in it and felt I didn't understand anything about it so I went to the trusty web and found the Wiki ID article and ultimately found PT and other pro science web sites.

Next thing I know I am writing letters to editors and elected officials in my state and committing all sorts of other mischief.

Anyhow, that's how I got interested in IDC - a terrible Skeptical Inquirer issue.

Date: 2006/02/17 03:50:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 16 2006,20:58)
"Speaking of dogs, would someone here who is still allowed to post at “After The Bar Closes” please inform those sons of bitches that I am responding to their comments about me at the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread on the side bar."

Well this is what he had to say

Hey folks, get over to “After the Bar Closes” and read the last four lengthy posts at the “Uncommon pissant” thread (isn’t that revealing?). They all deal with me and the PEH. They are on the run folks, no question about it. They are now so deranged that they are suggesting that I may be on their side after all. Can you imagine that I could ever be on the side of that homogeneous clonal herd of congenital mystics? Not a chance Esley baby. You are history. Get used to it. Close down Panda’s Thumb right now. I would reprint the whole bizarre episode right here but I am too busy slapping my thigh to a pulp in glorious glee to take the time. It is this old physiologist’s dream come true.

I am sorry God if I ever questioned your presence and of course I did. Forgive me.

Comment by John Davison — February 16, 2006 @ 7:49 pm

As we say down here in Texas, get help, Davison.  

ps I wonder if the intelligent designer cut him any slack after reading his apology?

Date: 2006/02/17 06:23:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
What's the current status in Cobb County?  I haven't read anything on it in some time now...

Date: 2006/02/17 10:47:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 17 2006,15:05)
I'm not sure if the units of "specified complexity" have ever been named. Someone suggested "Dembskis", (kilodembskis, megadembskis, etc)


Date: 2006/02/17 11:08:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
That "Mars" thread at UD is nuttier than all get out.  I wonder if Dembski ever tires of his own followers.

Date: 2006/02/17 11:22:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Discovery Institute, specifically Luskin, West and other con men for Jesus claim ID "scientists" are busy in their labs performing research and testing/experiments.

How come we never hear from these so-called "scientists" doing ID "science"?  Why do NONE of them post on William The Theologian's Intelligent Design Weblog?  Wouldn't that be a perfect meeting point for ID "scientists" to share notes and ideas?  

Why do NONE of them talk about the "scientific" experiments and research they are doing?

Why do ID "scientists" working in "labs" defy any sort of human detection?  

And why does the media never ask the Dishonesty Institute or any of the con men for Jesus to name a single ID "scientist" doing ID "science" or ask which lab these ID experiments and ID research are being conducted?

I get the feeling ID "science" is more like a handful of quacks and theologians writing ID propaganda.

Date: 2006/02/18 11:18:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 18 2006,11:10)
That's the point: the real world of science doesn't take him seriously.  Those who've heard of him at all think he's rather a joke.

It appears to bother him a lot.  I mean, does the admiration of morons really make up for an utter lack of interest in one's work by the scientific community?  Really?

Morons buy stupid books and I think that is Demsbki's objective.

Date: 2006/02/18 11:35:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
There is a good article at Red State Rabble and PT but someone should make a copy of this page before it vanishes.  And there is a years worth of material in Dembski's comments.  What a complete maroon.

Amazing to think a math PhD falls for the bible codes.  Someone with that kind of education should be the first to see through such nonsense.

I always though deep down Demsbki was probably a bright guy who is simply cashing in on the ignorance of true believing christians.  Now I realize he is just another ignorant crank/quack.

Date: 2006/02/18 11:47:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 18 2006,17:41)
my favorite bit:
But perhaps that wedding is not unique. At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated ("irreducibly complex") biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

The relevant statistical methodology is identical for both fields.

Behe puts ID in the same category as astrology and Demsbki puts ID in the same category as the Bible codes.

And they wonder why no one takes them or their IDiot theories seriously.

*One* of my favortie quotes

The human authors of the Bible, writing well before the advent of computers, would have been incapable of consciously introducing into the Bible the patterns that Bible Code researchers are finding by means of computers. Hence these patterns, if not attributable to chance, must stem from a non-human intelligence.

Yeah it's all about "pattern detection" and I see a real pattern developing here but it has nothing to do with intelligence...

Date: 2006/02/18 14:37:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 18 2006,19:20)
Wasn't there a paper published a couple years ago where someone demonstrated that hidden messages a la the 'Bible Codes' could also just as easily be gotten out of Moby Dick? I wonder if Dembski would then have to ascribe religious significance to that book as well...

Skeptical Inquirer has had a ton of fun with the Bible codes.  The first article was in 1997, note Dembski's book review was in 1998.  Too bad Demsbki does not subscribe to SI, he could have saved himself some humiliation.  Enjoy:

Hidden Messages and The Bible Code

Bible Codes Follow-up

Date: 2006/02/18 16:02:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like Phillip E. Johnson smokes from the same  Bible codes pipe...

What Would Newton Do?

Date: 2006/02/19 07:26:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Scott put a UD track back on the PT article about Dembski embracing the Bible codes.  It will be fascinating to see how they react to Dembski being such a naive, unscientific rube once somone posts that Dembski believes in them.

Also, Philip E Johnson holds a similar view and has put his pro Bible codes in writing as well.

Date: 2006/02/19 15:27:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 19 2006,18:06)
As you could have foretold, my pseudonymous comment to Karen, saying as much, never saw the light of day over there. Essentially, DaveScot had to delete Dembski's own words, in order to preserve his ideas. Which is of course why I posted it in the first place. :-)

You quoted Dembski in that Mars/bible code thread and Dave Scott deleted it?

Date: 2006/02/20 06:21:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This guy says
For those of you who might think there is something to these "codes", here is a simple test.  Apply the "Explanatory Filter" defined by William Dembski in his books on Intelligent Design.  You will find that the codes fail Dembski's Explanatory Filter.  Dismally.

Hmm...Looks like Dembski could have used his own magical construct to refute the Bible code himself.

Date: 2006/02/20 06:54:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
From UD - “The Center of the Bible”

According to Dembski,
Christians may appreciate this; secularists will be sure to dismiss it
if I were a Christian I'd be insulted that Dembski would assume I am so naive to accept such obvious nonsense.

(You have to click your mouse for each step in the slide show. )

Date: 2006/02/20 10:21:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 20 2006,15:50)
IS Bill Dembski exploiting people, or does he honestly believe himself??

I think I have my answer.
The two possibilities are by no means mutually exclusive. Probably the best used car salesmen are the ones who manage to convince themselves first.

I've sold cars and know that culture well.  Car salesmen do NOT convince themselves of anything other than they need to make a sale right then while the customer is on the lot and to not let them get away.

Date: 2006/02/20 11:44:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 20 2006,17:00)
PZ Meyers debunked this in October of last year.  And here is snopes: <a href="" target="_blank"></a>

Broken link...

Date: 2006/02/20 17:12:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
What?  No mention of Project Steve? How's THAT for ignoring the controversy!

Date: 2006/02/20 18:05:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 20 2006,22:58)
Dembski has posted what is purported to be an email exchange between Dennett and Ruse. It's surreal. Read.

Can anyone translate that thread?  Who are they and what are they talking about?

Date: 2006/02/21 04:31:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Sanctum @ Feb. 21 2006,00:35)
Hi Mr. Christopher.
I think I can help. If the emails are real, they appear to start with one to Daniel Dennett from Michael Ruse (you have to read them from bottom up).
He appears to be anticipating the publication in NYT of a previously-discussed less than flattering letter by Dennett and Pinker about him.
Dennett says the letter is not being published, but does mention the less than flattering review of his own book in NYT. He also tells Ruse that his prestige is slipping among evolutionists.
Ruse then adds his own criticism of Dennett's book as well as of Dennett's public personna and the damage that he (along with Dawkins ... both of whom Ruse professes to like) is doing to the science side in the war with creationists. Along the way he stresses that he is not religious and is a hard-line Darwinian - even more so than Dennett and Dawkins.
Dennett decides not to reply as he seems to think that Ruse is just blowing off steam and might later want to retract some of his comments.

Thank you for the insight.

Date: 2006/02/21 13:08:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
from the loony bin:

Apologies to DS for posting under what he considered to be an offensive name (holy_chimp) on another thread. I did not intend to cause offense. I was stating an opinion that we are so genetically and cladistically similar to chimpanzees that one of the few things that separates us is the fact that we have appear to have a soul. However, I realise that this may have been offensive and I am sorry.

What exactly is the appearance of a soul and what makes you think a chimp is lacking in that department? Not that I disagree I just want to know how you arrive at these conclusions. As far as I’m concerned there are a lot of humans that have no soul. None whatsoever. Zilch. As cruel and heartless as any animal. Worse, because the human ostensibly has the capacity to know right from wrong. What other animals besides humans get any joy out of causing pain to other creatures? As far as animals resembling people in the soul category elephants might have us beat which I blogged about here. -ds

Comment by Chris_UK — February 21, 2006 @ 5:31 pm

Looks like Dave Scott has never observed a cat playing with a mouse or a killer whale playing with a sea lion prior to eating him.

Humans are not the only ones who get a kick out of torturing another animal.  

Does this mean my kitty doesn't have a soul? :-(  Is torture the litmus test for soul detection?

Speaking of souls, remember when Richard Thompson asked Barbara Forrest if she believed in the "everlasting soul" or somesuch nonsense while she was on the stand?  I wish she would have replied with something like "I did not see an "everlasting soul" on the evidence list, did you submit one to the court as evidence?  Could you show me one right now?"


Date: 2006/02/21 14:54:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Maybe Demsbki can get published here one day (I don't think they have a very rigorous peer review process):

Date: 2006/02/22 05:33:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Steve I sort of agree with you but think about George Bush.  Should ALL Americans be punished because the majority voted for Bush?  Not everyone in Dover was an IDiot but I suppose that's how democracy works sometimes.  You vote in dorks and eventually you eat dork soup.

Anyhow, I want to help the folks in Dover out so I am mailing them a quarter ($.25) to help pay their legal bill.

I wonder how much $$ the TMLC is chipping in?

Date: 2006/02/22 06:21:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (improvius @ Feb. 22 2006,12:10)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 22 2006,11:33)
I wonder how much $$ the TMLC is chipping in?

They should be footing the whole bill.  This never would have gone to trial if Dick Thompson hadn't convinced the school board that it was a good idea.  Dick was looking for a golden ticket to the SCOTUS and thought he found one in Dover.  The TMLC's ability to offer sound legal advice was in conflict with their own agenda.

Given the fact that the pretrial evidence and depositions indicated an overwhelming case against the school board's actions makes you wonder if the TMLC has some uncomfortable ethical questions to answer.  Questions they have so far not been asked.

I still wonder if the Dover board would have a case against the TMLC for giving them such astonishingly bad legal advice.  Obviously the TMLC was shopping the case to various school boards so their agenda was clear.  They wanted to use a school board as a pawn in their own culture war.  Is that ethical?  I mean given the overwhelming evidence against their cause.

And I wonder if the Dover board could sue the former members who lied and did other things to cover their creationist (unconstitutional) tracks?

Date: 2006/02/22 10:51:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
One of the former board members had suggested they do some bake sales to raise the money.

I say why not ask the intelligent designer to chip in.

Date: 2006/02/22 12:54:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
"Systems engineer" is likely a computer network administrator or engineer if you will.  I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and I can assure you folks like me are not taught or trained in any engineering concepts.  Basically if you can put a computer network together and install an operating system or two, poof, you're an engineer!

A couple years ago a few states tried to outlaw folks like me from calling themselves an engineer since we are not true engineers.  Not sure whatever became of that.

Anyhow, I supect that is what the wayward Dave Scott is referring to.

Also, his stupid notion that engineers have some talent for design is nonsense as well.  In his field network architects design and engineers simply assemble.

Dave Scott is a moron.

Date: 2006/02/23 06:44:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
To aid in understanding the religiosity of America be sure to read up on John Calvin and John Wesley as well as the Puritans.  All had a huge influence on early American religious thought that still resonates today.

And here is a pretty good Wiki article on Religion in the United States

Date: 2006/02/23 07:19:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I studied philosophy for years, so long that when I read stuff like this:

Can such a liberal perspective be held liberally? The paradox of freedom shows that complete freedom is not viable. Instead, maximal freedom is typically regarded as an optimum. Is such an optimum to be held absolutely?

Comment by William Dembski — February 23, 2006 @ 8:01 am

My only response is "shut the f*** up!"

Seriously, I have no stomach for the freshman philosophy language game of meaningless, useless banter.

Date: 2006/02/23 08:07:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Take a moment to get a load of these actual bible code "matrix" results (complete with actual diagrams of the Hebrew text) to fully understand the stupidity therein.

Nonsense for the naive

SARS, 9/11, Mel Gibson, Saddam Hussein's capture, Columbia Shuttle, the Iraqi election, evil rock and roll, kidney stones, Lady Diana, the Beatles, and even scientific proof for the bible code itself (front loaded proof?) are all predicted in the ancient Hebrew texts via the bible code!

And Dembski believes this crap.

Date: 2006/02/23 12:07:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Found here

The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

© 1998 John Baez

Date: 2006/02/26 17:27:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is from NewsBusters "Los Angeles Times Continues Slam of Intelligent Design"

It's pure Discovery Institute propaganda.  


Date: 2006/02/28 05:24:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Remember the rules, Billy does not have to stoop to [our] "pathetic level of detail".

I crack up everytime I see where he is described as a mathematician.  What a quack.

Date: 2006/02/28 18:41:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 28 2006,18:53)
Dayum that's stupid.
I don't think it can be summed up any more succinctly than that.

But just to belabor the obvious... what does "the theory of natural selection" tell us about the relationship between: (1) the number of human infections with the current strains of H5N1 (which are transmitted efficiently among birds, inefficiently from birds to humans, and not at all from human to human) and (2) the probability of the emergence of a strain that is efficiently transmitted between humans?

What does the "theory of intelligent design" predict about the same question?

Bonus question: who do you want in charge of preventing and, failing that, dealing with the pandemic: "evolutionists" or "intelligent design theorists?

This is an exceptional point to be made and explored on different levels.  Your comments that is :-)

You should pose this question to our friends at UD.  If they are at all intellectually honest about their theory they'll answer you.  I have a shiny quarter that says their answer would be something to behold.

Date: 2006/03/01 04:38:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Lordy lordy how about all that "just say no to intelligent design" action going on in Kansas lately?  What's cool to me is that what we're seeing in Kansas is not coming out of a court case or from outsiders but instead it looks like it is all local, grass roots efforts to take back their public science classes and provide some sort of protection from future "wedge" attempts.


I'm losing track of all the ID losses.


Am I missing any?

Date: 2006/03/04 18:11:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Check this out

Kent Hovind Reveals The Truth About The Age Of The Earth And Evolution!

They proudly outline their objective to get the 6 day creationism story taught in the bible into public classrooms.  They also explain how the courts have it all wrong and the constitution is being misread.

The Ten Commandments, adultery, Jesus, they cover the whole enchilada.

Date: 2006/03/06 08:35:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
advanced intelligence can unbake a cake. Intelligence can accomplish things that nature cannot and that includes violating 2LoT in relation to information entropy.

Um, prove it.  And while you're at it, show us a cake that has been unbaked by advanced intelligence to support your "baked theory"

Date: 2006/03/08 17:57:17, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 08 2006,22:27)
`Have some Intelligent Design Theory,' the Doug Moron said in an encouraging tone.

Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. `I don't see any ID Theory,' she remarked.

`There isn't any,' said the Paul Nelson.

`Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it,' said Alice angrily.

Alice I've had enough of your crap. You're outta here. -ds

That was #### funny.

Date: 2006/03/10 18:18:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 10 2006,20:32)
You know, DaveTard comes off looking so pathetic in all of this that for a minute there, I was actually feeling sorry for him.  Such a complete and public humiliation must be hard for him to swallow.

Then I thought about everything he's said and done to other folks, and the feeling passed.

I don't think Dave Tard is humiliated at all.  On the rare occassion when he realizes he is wrong, I think he could care less mainly because his followers/listeners don't know any better, or they too could care less.  

We're not dealing with the sharpest crayons in the box over at UD.  Besides, they could care less about accuracy, they're only concerned with selling their nonsense to the ignorant and uninformed.  

IDCers at UD are the internet equivalent of christian soldiers who will bravely die (look stupid) in an intellectual match to further their cause.  

Dave is a poser riding the coat tails of a fraud.  Without IDC Dembski is a nobody with no future, without Dembski Dave Tard is just another jerk on the internet.

That's my take on it.

Date: 2006/03/13 07:33:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2006,17:23)
Yeah, I really should write up a list of say Top Ten Uncommonly Dense basic science errors.

That would make a great thread all by itself!

Start with a list of ten and add to it as new errors are made.

Date: 2006/03/13 17:34:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stranger than fiction @ Mar. 13 2006,19:55)
I, for one, am no longer going to provide Dave with the acknowledgment that he craves.  I had another article ready to post on my UD parody (about the Inflammatory Filter, which gives no false positives), but instead I'm going to spend some time reading.  Then I'm going to read to my daughter, who loves to learn.

Send us a link to the article you are writing, will ya?

Date: 2006/03/17 12:59:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This volume celebrates Phillip Johnson's leadership in the intelligent design (ID) movement. Scholars who have known Phil best and worked with him most closely assembled in April 2004 at Biola University to present him with a collection of papers in his honor. I wish I could have been there to offer my congratulations and thanks in person. Instead, I have the privilege of writing this brief foreword from Washington.

Since the publication of "Darwin on Trial" more than ten years ago, Phillip Johnson has provided extraordinary leadership for an extraordinary cause, namely, to rid science of false philosophy. The importance of the cause is clear: what could be more important than showing that only a shallow, partisan understanding of science supports the false philosophy of materialist reductionism with its thoroughly unscientific denial of formal and final causes in nature and its repudiation of the first cause of all being? As the decline of true science has been a major factor in the decline of Western culture, so too the renewal of science will play a big part in cultural renewal.

Johnson's extraordinary leadership also is clear: rather than fall into the trap of building a cult of personality around himself and his own considerable intellectual talents, he has instead helped raise up and promote a whole group of intellectual leaders in the cause of scientific renewal. This kind of selfless Christian leadership is a shining example to us all, young and old.

Speaking of the young, I personally wish to commend Phil for the great help he has given me in my efforts to inject a renewed and unbiased understanding of science and its practice into the curricula of our public schools. There is much more for us to do, but working with Phil's colleagues at Seattle's Discovery Institute, we have begun the difficult fight for removing the stranglehold of philosophical materialism on textbook science.

Phil, I congratulate and praise you for your tireless work to return science to a sure philosophical grounding in the nature of things as they really are. Please know that during your Biola celebration, I was with you and your colleagues in spirit. As much as I was delighted when I first heard about this celebration in your honor, I am again delighted now that the proceedings from that celebration have appeared in book form.

Date: 2006/03/23 08:07:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is being talked about at TPT, but I am overcome with the irony and I had to post about it here...

A new self published DI book attacking the Jones ruling:

Traipsing Into Evolution

One of the "expert legal" co-authors - David DeWolf

A previous one of DeWolf's "expert" books on legal matters:

Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook

A quote from this DI fellow's brilliant legal mind from that guidebook:

9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy about the issue.160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.

I need to go to the store now, my irony meter seems to have blown up.

Date: 2006/03/23 11:59:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
How did my most excellent post about the stupidity of one of the the DI's top legal guns get side tracked into abortion, etc?

Date: 2006/03/23 12:11:05, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,18:01)

Does the public school system teach that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is the extermination of human life?  Again, the scientists seem to be focused in on one debate while your "findings" are being manipulated and excluded in other aspects of the education system.  Are you unaware of this situation?  Just look at jeannot and O'Brien's responses?  Obliviousness!

So, the discovery institute's legal gun, David DeWolf is a complete retard when it comes to the law, he is partially responsible for the Dover school districts 1 million in legal fees and now he has co-authored a book taking Judge Jones to task yet the schools should teach more about abortion?

Yeah I can see the connection there.  Sure...Perhaps we should also examine the relationship between grape jelly and peanut butter.  Two items that modern science seems to be avoiding if you know what I mean.  When was the last time you saw an evolutionist even speak on the topic of grape jelly and peanut butter.  Who are they trying to fool?

Thordaddy, how long will we let them get away with that is my question.

Date: 2006/03/23 12:17:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,18:11)
Mr Christopher,

This thread has nothing to do with abortion per se, but instead engages upon the silliness of the scientist's singular focus on ID.  Scientific findings are regularly used, manipulated and excluded within the public school system based on political considerations.  And yet, we only really hear the scientists when the debate revolves around ID.  Why?

The answer is quite simple.  The scientists are politicized themselves and know what's good and what is not good in regards to their own self-interest.  

So I ask, where are the scientists in the IQ debates, eugenics, AIDS and homosexuality or abortion and conception?  Why don't we hear the triumphant findings of the scientists in these areas of scientific exploration as it pertains to public education?  Where is the objectiveness?

thordaddy, the scientists are too busy wasting time and resources addressing the sneaky, lying, cheating, scumbags known as ID theorists who are trying to wedge fundamentalist christianity/creationism in our public school.  THAT is where they all are.

No telling what scientists would be doing if they were not having to devote so much energy to keeping the DI from making all american children scientifically retarded.

By the way, oh never mind.

Date: 2006/04/13 13:03:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 11 2006,09:02)
At the request of my fang club (whom I dearly love and feel very flattered by all the attention they give me) here are referrer stats. For March 2006.

Direct Address/Bookmark 92.2%
Search Engines 2.3%
External Pages 5.1%

Top Six External Pages
———————- 0.91% 0.42%  :angry: 0.26% 0.17% 0.13% 0.13%

Kind of hard to tell how much the fang club contributes to people bookmarking us which is where the vast majority of referrals come from. But I do appreaciate their efforts nonetheless and I try to keep them as excited as humanly possible. It’s great fun for everyone!

I do this sort of thing for a living and those are dreadful numbers, basically only 8% new traffic for the month of March?  92% are repeat (bookmarks) visitors.

Basically they are admitting the only people who went there in March were probably the same people who were there in February.

If they were paying someone to bring them traffic that person should be fired.  Those are awful statistics and something to hide, not brag about.

And a few people mentioned advertising on Dembski's blog, if he makes over $100 a month from advertising I'd be shocked.  

BTW, I have been away for a while, while they were bragging about their awful referral numbers, was there any mention of exactly how many visitors, not "hits", but actual visitors go to UD each month?

Date: 2006/04/14 07:30:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This nut:
Designers design systems holistically. Therefore, if we see something that is holistically design, we can infer that there was a designer somewhere behind it.
is saying the same thing Dembski claims.

Let's look at something that from a intelligent design standpoint, is equally "scientific":

Little green men design systems holistically. Therefore, if we see something that is holistically design, we can infer that there was a little green man somewhere behind it.

Or even

My rectum design systems holistically. Therefore, if we see something that is holistically design, we can infer that my rectum was somewhere behind it.

What is astonishing is that these people do not see how completely idiotic their statements are.  I guess being a magnet for morons is the price you pay when you are peddling creationism as science...

Date: 2006/04/14 07:42:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Speaking of evidence take a look at this gem I got from the IDnet in AU:

Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Irreducible Complexity.

Gosh, that proves IC is true, and that proves the existance of space aliens and time travelers!

Date: 2006/04/14 10:14:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Lee Harvey Oswald was a space alien from a distant galaxy.

Date: 2006/04/14 11:33:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Reclaiming Theological Education - William Dembski and Jay Wesley Richards

I am finally figuring out William Dembski.  He seems crazy because he is crazy.  

Forget reading his fuzzy "math" books or his moronic take on "biology" get a load of this loon's thoughts on religion and Christianity.  

This guy is a mad man.  He's crazy.  He's Pat Robertson with more degrees.  This guy's thinking is not that far removed from Islamic extreemists.

Question - will Dembski get 72 virgins for his martyrdom?

Date: 2006/04/17 07:45:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 15 2006,19:37)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
Oh dear, I think I foresee an upcoming mathematical tour de force which 'proves' that our DNA contains a notarized hidden instruction manual. Unfortunately the contents of that manual will remain unknowable without  considerable outlay.
Salvador has suggested on numerous occasions that he thinks we'll find a hidden message from Glorious Old Designer encoded in the 'junk' DNA. It's howlingly funny but it's so pitiful it actually makes me feel a little bit for him. Poor dumb idiot.

I think we milked a lot of mirth out of this idea several months ago either here or at PT. Cuz how does Sal know the message will say something he likes? What could it say?

Earthlings! Soon we will be back to destroy your puny planet! - Xenu

Baal demands human sacrifices!

Hail Satan!

this space available

Lose Weight Now! Ask Me How!

Christians: you're getting everything wrong! Stop it right now! - Jesus

My God! It's full of stars!

The possibilities are endless!

It might be something more simple, like

Kill Whitey!

Date: 2006/04/24 12:12:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
From the Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science” thread it seems Dembski does in fact respond to his readers:

Prof Dembski,

From the Genesis account we know that the fall of Satan preceded the fall of man. Surely that has some bearing on the entry of evil in this world that is not related to human sin? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[Yes, that’s why I consistently stress that evil in the world traces to human sin. The origin of that human sin, and Satan’s role in it, is a further question. –WmAD]

Comment by antg — April 23, 2006 @ 3:26 am

Now, what I want to know is did Dembski run that Satan theory of his through  the explanatory filter?  And where does Satan fit in this design theory?  And can we rule out Satan is NOT the designer?

Serioulsy, it coulda been Gawd, it coulda beena space alien, and it coulda been...Ummmmmmmm Satan!

The Church Lady's theory is about as scientific as Dembski's.

Date: 2006/04/28 09:57:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
afdave, I'd say you'd have more fun posting on umcommon descent where people who think like you tend to gravitate but you'll need to avoid talking about god and jesus and such.  They'll ban you for it.

Anyhow, you haven't brought anything new to the table here.  Christisian apologetics is not science and CS Lewis will never be remembered as having any understanding of science or scientific thinking.

Instead of you inviting us to try and "convert" you, how about you skip the middleman and go do some schooling and then convert yourself like any intelligent adult would?  Unless you just enjoy playing language games where you can make stuff up as you go along and are not held to any rational rules of logic or scientific method.  Read Dembski as an example.  

Oh and I have read Lewis, he doesn't bring anything new to the table either.  If you have read one Christian apologist you have read them all.  They all play by a different set of "logic" rules, make stuff up as they go along, make extreemly subjective and unproveable claims, all of which kills any chance of a meaningful discussion.  No offense but your comments here are in the same vein and I doubt you even see that.  

If you want to convert others here you'd do well to avoid theistic nonsense, wild unsupported assertions, and instead focus on things that can be tested using ordinary scientific method.  As an example, the fact that people claim they have had out of body experiences does not prove they have had out of body experiences. :-)

I recognize that critical thinking is probably foreign to you.  Wild, unsupported subjective claims are perfect for theology, but they don't mix well with scientific, or critical, thinking.

You seem like a decent guy so I'll shoot straight with you, most all of your claims and "predictions" are not only unscientific, they are utter nonsense and suggest that skeptical or scientific thinking is something you are unfamiliar with, and also a waste of time to respond to.  No big deal.  But if you want to be taken seriously, first go learn how to think critically and then get back to us.

Here is an introductory lesson in critical thinking for you:

1) The fact that many people make the same claim, and have done so for a very long time, is not evidence that their claims are true.  An idea's popularity is not an indication of its validity.

I'd be more tha happy to help you learn to think critically, but I personally don't have time to respond to your apologetics.  Again, Try Dembski's site for that.  They not only welcome untrained thinking, they relish it.  Just be cautious when you speculate on who the intelligent designer might be.



Date: 2006/04/28 10:12:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Carol Clouser @ April 28 2006,15:00)
If you think any aspect of your "hypothesis" above is based on the Bible, nothing could be further from the truth. The real, original Bible, namely the Hebrew Bible, says nothing of the sort, EVEN IF INTERPRETED LITERALLY. You must have been reading some of those sloppy, inaccurate translations of the Hebrew Bible out there, such as the KJV.

So your hypothesis has absolutely no leg whatsoever to stand on.

Get a thorough education, then you just might be in a position to hypothsize.

Oh my, wild assertions person meet wild assertions person.

Now you two can take turns making fantastic claims and make stuff up as you go along.  This is the beauty of theology!  Anything goes, everyone is right, and you need not prove anything for it to be true.  It is true because you say it is true (more often than not in flowerly, fresh scented language that makes your whites even brighter).

Standing in THIS corner, CS Lewis, standing in THAT corner, the ONLY TRUE Bible (Hebrew).  May the best mythology win!

ps: I'm putting $5 on Carol to win in the 3rd round (only because I have witnessed her "true Hebrew" thing before).

Date: 2006/04/28 11:24:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Isn't Larry a Holocaust denier, or revisionist?  When is he going to share on that subject?


Date: 2006/04/28 11:54:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,05:44)
 Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.

Your ignorance on most subjects is indeed profound, but that little tidbit simply made me laugh :-)


Date: 2006/04/28 13:05:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
why does anyone waste their time on someone as idiotic and backwards and prone to trolling as thordaddy?


Date: 2006/04/28 13:08:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (BWE @ April 28 2006,17:24)
What if it's ok with the sheep? I mean, er, well, sheep don't complain, if you ask them if they've been good or bad, they always say baaad. And we all know what you get to do to a woman who's been bad.

Hmm. There are some problems. Sheep can't cook or clean.

Sheep can't bring you a beer when you're watching football either (no matter how nicely you ask them).  They simply don't make very good spouses.

Date: 2006/05/01 05:52:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), then a businessman.

I am curious why you seem to think there is a need for you to advertise this in every thread.

These facts do not lend any credibility to your arguements.  

Two words come to mind - who cares?

Date: 2006/05/01 06:03:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Incest is all the rage in the bible.  Nothing new here.


Date: 2006/05/01 06:03:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Incest is all the rage in the bible.  Nothing new here.


Date: 2006/05/01 10:50:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
AFdave, tell us how some of the characters in the bible were able to live to be as old as 700 years.  

Bonus question - why is it that the only people who ever lived to be 700 or even 200 years old are all in the bible and no one has pulled this off since then.


Date: 2006/05/01 10:50:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
AFdave, tell us how some of the characters in the bible were able to live to be as old as 700 years.  

Bonus question - why is it that the only people who ever lived to be 700 or even 200 years old are all in the bible and no one has pulled this off since then.


Date: 2006/05/01 10:53:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I read it when it came out.  Very well written piece of "pop" fiction.  I had a hard time putting it down and I read very little fiction (other than uncommon descent).

Get a used copy at half price books.

Date: 2006/05/02 06:53:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I like how afDave ignores all relevant questions to him and keeps asserting the same idiotic, unscientific ideas as if he is really on to something new.  His ignorance of jr high level science is only matched by his ignorance of how many times we have heard the exact same nonsense he is bringing to the table.

This thread has turned into a real howler.

Too funny.

Date: 2006/05/03 04:56:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,12:21)
 I have the mind of an engineer and a scientist.  I, like you, am a healthy skeptic."

No sir, you are no skeptic.  You can pretend otherwise, but you're what is called a "true believer".  

And you do not have the mind of an engineer or a scientist, if you did you would have seen through the nonsense you promote a long time ago.

No need to thank me for pointing this out to you.


Date: 2006/05/03 09:16:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
afDave, please prove to me that Mr Potato head did not create the world and universe.  In fact, show me scientifically that mr Potato Head is not in fact God.

Be prepared to show your work.  Thank you.

Date: 2006/05/04 06:58:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
afdave, do you think Mr Potato Head could be the intelligent designer?

Date: 2006/05/04 09:21:31, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dimski is playing with numbers again.

The Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design

I guess if you add it all up you get a space alien (or time traveler).

Date: 2006/05/08 07:42:05, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
so afdave, have you confronted AIG about the lies on their site as you said you were going to do yet?

Please give us details.

Date: 2006/05/08 07:56:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
afdave, you mentioned in one of your many threads that you were going to confront AIG about the dishonesty they promote.

How about giving us an update on your efforts confront them on their lies?

I'd like to see exactly what you wrote them and what their response was.

Of course, I am assuming you were not lying to us in the first place.

Date: 2006/05/08 09:14:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
afdave, if you need retarded "science" (your idiotic AIG approved "science") to justify your faith in god you were in a world of hurt long before you came to this web site.

Date: 2006/05/08 10:41:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Paul Flocken @ May 08 2006,14:53)
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:0)
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

I don't know.  Last time I checked I couldn't swing through trees 100 feet up in the air. <!--emo&:)

Let's not forget that when caged an ape's poop flinging skill seems "more evolved" than a humans as well.

Date: 2006/05/08 11:16:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:50)
I do wonder if anyone else here will ever concede anything, though.  Haven't seen it yet, but then ... I've only just begun, really.  Who knows!

What exactly do you think should be conceded to your point of view?  Which specific afdave point are the biologists and other scientists here not getting?   Which notion were you promoting, I forgot.  Was it the space alient theory, or the time traveler?  Or perhaps it was the Mr Potato Head as the architect of the "fine tuned universe" theory?  Which scientific point were you hoping these know nothing biologists and scientists here would concede?

The nice thing about science (versus creationism aka intelligent design) is that evidence trumps personalities and lies and fabrications don't have a very long shelf life.  No matter how revolutionary or consensus destroying an idea might be, an evidence based notion is going to gain intellectual/scientific currency regardless of the consequences.  So if you have a scientific idea that is backed by evidence and gives a better explanation for things no one here can stop you.

As much as you and your AIG buddies would like to believe otherwise, there is no "darwin conspiracy".  All you have to do to get any or all of your points conceded is provide a better explanation and better evidence than what currently exists.  But moronic ramblings like "fine tuned universe" is not only unscientific, it is in layman's terms, utterly stupid and only for the intellectually weak.

All you have done on this forum is recycle ancient, mistaken, or even dishonest id/creationist claims that have all been addressed and proven mistaken for decades.  Yet you still think you are on to something...

And you honestly wonder why none of the biologists and scientists present in this forum have conceded anything to a person completely ignorant on matters of science and biology?  They have not conceded a #### thing to someone who anytime he opens his mouth he makes an admission he is completely clueless on matters of biology and science.  To someone who gets their "science education" from the lying AIG and the intelligent design creationism camps? Dude, you crack me up :-)  Seriously.

If you were someone who was actually looking for a good understanding of biology you'd knock off your agenda and childish, unscientific "theories" and start asking questions and listening.  Knowing full well you posess a hard core creationist (anti-scientific) bias, you'd spend a few weeks on the talk origins page to clear your head of the nonsense you have uncritically accepted.

But you, you keep making the same old mistaken and proven idiotic points and challenging those around you here to overcome them.  F*** that.

I am astonished anyone here gives you two seconds of their time.  Astonished.

There is a handful of brilliant minds that frequent this forum, it is amazing to watch how quickly you ignore those minds in favor of advancing/justifying your AIG/IDC/creationist nonsense.  As fas I can tell, you're a dishonest jerk, afdave.  If you had an ounce of integrity you'd be thanking people here for giving you those two seconds, stop all the stupid afdave hypothesis nonsense, and spend your time studying at talk origins.

You belong on William Dembski's forum, not on this one.  His is a haven for the intellectually dishonest, misguided, prejudiced, and ingorant.  They would agree with most everything you say.  

I do not buy your notion that you are seeking the truth.  I don't but it for one second.

Date: 2006/05/08 11:22:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well in the islamic world you get beheaded for dissing the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him).

Date: 2006/05/09 07:20:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,10:45)
You're not "enlisting their help", you're just playing their stooge.

afstooge has a nice ring to it.

Date: 2006/05/09 12:09:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Riddle me this,  guinea pigs are fine tuned creatures, apes are fine tuned come we don't see any half guinea pigs half apes walking around?  I think afdave might be on to something after all....

Gosh, I'm starting to think I've been listening to the wrong crowd the whole time!   A space alien musta invented guinea pigs!

Date: 2006/05/09 12:19:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey afdave, as you know the intelligent design creationists suggest that the "fine tuned universe" and mankind is the result of an "intelligent designer".  With a straight face they assert this designer may be a time traveler, space alien or a god.  They do not say which god it was (there are many) nor do they shed any light on which planet the space alien calls home nor do they provide any clarity as to which time zone the time traveler prefers to hang his hat.  Oh well, science can only answer so many questions.  But anyhow...

As a creationist and scientist who has already proven darwinism is false,  can you tell me which of these three you believe is the intelligent designer and why?

1) space alien
2) time traveler
3) god

I would like your opinion and the scientific and biological evidence you used to come to your conclusion.

ps. I have recently read where Mr Potato head is being considered as a candidate for the intelligent designer but quite frankly I am skeptical of the evidence so far.


Date: 2006/05/09 12:27:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski chokes off yet another voice of dissent from his smile-a-while-a-creationist blog:

A comment by Chris_UK has been deleted from this thread (as has his user name). Chris chides our little community for surmising what this book is likely to contain only to interpret its content for us and then treat us to some chestnuts against ID. He is welcome to ply his wares elsewhere.

Comment by William Dembski — May 8, 2006 @ 7:01 pm

Can anyone dig up the offending remarks made by "Chris_UK"?  It came from this thread

Date: 2006/05/09 12:40:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
You don't fool ME, Mr Darwinist.  That picture of a half guinea pig half ape is obviously a forgery!

Date: 2006/05/09 13:04:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I was once a dedicated member of an organization that was accused of being a religious cult.  It was accused of being a cult because it was in fact a cult.  We even had a whole 60 Minutes episode dedicated to exposing it :-)

I worked for them and was in a position of leadership.  I cannot tell you how many times we/I were/was aked "are you a cult?" and I would smugly answer "cults, by definition are religious groups, we are a spiritual organization so no, we are not a cult"

I honestly believed a denial like that neutralized the cult accusation.  Furthermore, I had never studied cults and knew nothing of what actually constituted a cult yet I would say no we are not a cult with great authority.  I was a member of the organization so of course I was an expert on the subject was my way of thinking.

I think the creationists are operating from the same play book.  Something is true because they believe it is true and that's all that counts.  Evidence, experts and scientific principles are meaningless to a true beliver.
Read afdave's thread(s) for evidence of what I am suggesting.  

Shoot, experts and scientists are idiots to a true believer.  Heck you've got creationist afdave here expecting scientists/biologists to concede creationist points to him.  WTF? :-)  This is why no one here will ever succeed at reasoning with afdave or others like him.  

The thing they are the most ignorant of is their own ignorance.   Their "truths" (ignorance) are things they are proud of as well.  THAT is what makes them so dangerous.

Date: 2006/05/11 05:33:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Once Dumbski gets settled in at his new digs in Fort Worth, Texas, would it be rude of me to post his phone number and address all over the internet as they are doing at UD?


Date: 2006/05/11 06:46:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Tina Brewer chimes in on Dumbski's slanderous character assasination of Kevin Padian.  She's pretty subtle about it but at least her comments were not deleted by Winston Smith (Dumbski) himself:

Do you think that Dr. Padian behaves differently, in essence, than a fundamentalist preacher does?

Comment by tinabrewer — May 9, 2006 @ 9:06 am


I fully agree that reacting with violent rhetoric to the opposing side is sinking to their level. I tried to make this point awhile back on the thread about Ann Coulter’s new book. Why is it not okay to “react” to Kevin Padian, but it is acceptable to support, even actively encourage, the rhetoric of Coulter? Is it because she is on “our” side in this particular issue? That is the inverse of a principled stance…

Comment by tinabrewer — May 11, 2006 @ 11:09 am

Date: 2006/05/11 08:39:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The latest on Padian from the Christians at UD:

"Defenders of Science"

Date: 2006/05/11 08:55:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 11 2006,13:47)
Er, Im all for freedom of speech, but Im pretty sure this falls under libel laws.

The fact that Dembski allowed the post where Padians work and private phone number was posted and the readers were encouraged to call and harass him will not look good in the eyes of a judge either.

I was looking up the term slander over at Wiki and what Dembski has done and is doing wouldn't impress a judge.

Dembski is a such a dumb fark.

Date: 2006/05/11 09:14:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Someone just nuked the KKK post.  Be sure and make a copy of the graphic before they wake up and remember to delete it.

What utter dorks...

Date: 2006/05/11 10:52:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (beervolcano @ May 11 2006,15:33)
This is a challenge question for ID people...
We'll try to keep this going until we get some "solid answers."

Just an FYI  don't hold your breath waiting for those "solid answers" from the IDiots.  You'll die from a lack of oxygen.

Date: 2006/05/11 12:27:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Are you making the absurd claim that biology plays no role in the human construct of marriage?

Does biology play a role when a Bishop agrees to be a Pope?  Does biology play a role when you sign a mortgage?  Does biology play a role when you ask for a back rub?

Please tell us, noble creationist, how exactly does biology play a role in a marriage?

Date: 2006/05/11 16:34:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 11 2006,19:21)
Yeah, this is just like old times! I was afraid that with Dembski back taking a higher profile, the site would get boring.

On the contrary, Demsbki puts the tard in DaveTard

Date: 2006/05/12 04:01:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
davetard was all
Church Burnin’ Sheet Wearin’ Ebola Boys

I think davetard mostly enjoys seeing reactions here to stuff like this and he knows most people at UD share similar beliefs.  They lost in Dover, they lost in California and they will continue to lose as long as they promote creationism as science.   This is what poor losers do.

When Dembski says "ID has been good to me" I believe him.  Demsbki may be the poster boy for losers in academia.  He has a boat load of degrees from prestigious universities yet he works for an insignificant, fundamentalist bible college.  Is "Southern" even an accredited institution? If not for his creationist book sales to the naive and uninformed,  Dembski would be just another loser with no future.  

So it makes sense that he/they now focus so much of their efforts on character assasination and slander.  That's all Dembski has left in him.  

Speaking of Dembski when is the newest version of Pandas and People going to be published?  I forgot what they are calling it this time around.

Date: 2006/05/12 04:10:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think Midnight was asking for an ignore button where you could ignore certain users here and not see their comments.

And Russell, if you make a new post you'll see a Quote button along the menue about the new post, experiment with that button.  Also, when you read my post here you'll see a different Quote button.  Try that one as well and use the Preview button alot  :-)

Date: 2006/05/12 04:25:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Read his most recent comments, aftard is now defending the liar at AIG and claiming it was an honest oversight.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:39:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Whate makes me laff the most is the idiotic assertion by some religionists that goes something like

"If it is true there is not god, then nothing matters, we can rape all the white women and murder is ok"

It is as if their whole morality is based on the bible and they simply check their intelligence at the door.  They seem to believe that a belief in (or more like fear of) god is the moral fabric that keeps us from killing one another.

I laff and laff everytime I read such utter nonsense.

My bias - I do not belive in gods.  Stranger yet,  I do not kill, rape, steal, lie, cheat or even vote republican.  Even weirder I have on more than one occassion been accused of being a very good father to my two children.  How in the world is someone like me, an admitted atheist, able to resist killing, stealing, raping, lying, and cheating without the bible or jeebus to tell me what is right and wrong and generally do my thinking for me?  

It still gets weirder.  I have a lot of friends who are believers and others who like me reject the god thing.  My godless pals have all been able to refrain from raping, murdering, stealing, lying and not one has ever adused any children.  Strange but true.

How can this be?  It boggles the mind!

But I am happy people like aftard keep their religious notions, otherwise by their own admission they would have no moral compass which implies they would likely become murdering, raping, thieving lunatics and we simply can't have that.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:42:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I have never been a fan of the "jammers" in fact I am not fond of them at all but they are the ones who originally uncovered and published the wedge document.  I had to rearrange my opinion of them when I learned this :-)

Date: 2006/05/12 11:42:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Great idea.  I'll call it the Dissent from Ignorant Fundy Dumb@55es list.

It will start with something like

"We are skeptical of ignorant fundamentalist claims that atheists and other free thinkers are prone to violence, unhappiness, selfishness, and lead lives of criminal or other anti-social behaviour. Careful examination of the evidence for atheists being moral, decent citizens who lead fulfilling and meaningful lives should be encouraged"

What do you think?  Who wants to sign it? :-)

Date: 2006/05/12 17:19:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I support this and obviously I am one who has really found afdave's dishonest agenda irritating (yet I keep mouthing off to his nonsense, go figure).  

And you're saying this thread is entirely for afdave's benefit, so it is not like he ie being banned or not allowed to speak his mind.  He can only throw up in one corner now and not the entire living room.

Sounds reasonable.

Date: 2006/05/12 17:37:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Speaking of shared ancestry!

Date: 2006/05/16 07:53:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 16 2006,07:24)
some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets
No ones wondering that, they're wondering why the feathers didn't evolve in to super-hard-bullet-proof scales.

And I am wondering why they have yet to "evolve" better landing gear.  I'm thinking a pair of wheels connected to their legs would be far superior to those claws.  That way they could land on level ground at faster speeds.

Date: 2006/05/16 08:01:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Brontosaurus - Monty Python's flying creationism

Date: 2006/05/16 12:39:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Not sure if anyone here has pointed this out yet but here is an irony meter fun fact from the Padian thread at PT:

The hilarious thing is, Dembski, who’s now pontifiicating about 19th century racism, teaches at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptists were split off from the Northern Baptists in 1845 specifically in order to uphold slavery, and maintained segregationist policies for a full century after the Civil War. If I were living in that particular glass house, I wouldn’t be throwing stones.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:05:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I don't have the stomach for these afdave threads, but if he finds any legitimate evidence for a god (or time traveler or space alien) would someone make a big fuss of it for those who are not following this thread?  Since no one in the history of mankind has ever provided any scientific and afdave says he has it I'm banking on one of you to share this discovery with us once afdave shows his cards.

I've always wanted to meet a god (or time traveler or space alien).


Date: 2006/05/16 13:58:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Provide evidence to support IDC or indulge in character assasintation.  I think Dembski and his followers are  realizing one is much easier than the other.

Calling dead people racist is a heck of alot less time consuming than pretending IDC is science.

And Dembki's current ties to an institution that has  such a long, rich (and very recent) history of racism and segregation is the howler of the month, if not of all time.

In view of Dembski's stunning display of hypocrisy, ignorance and bad faith, I hereby nominate Bill Dembski for the DaveTard Hypocrite Award.

ps: Are non-whites allowed to date whites at Southern where Dembski teaches?

Date: 2006/05/17 05:09:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is Wise a racist?  Meaning has he ever used the term Asian American?

Date: 2006/05/17 05:34:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I believe it is Southern...and not Southwestern, no?

Anyhow, I would love to be a fly on the wall at the Kentucky branch where Dembski used to teach and Wise now does.  The biggest difference between Wise and Dembski (that I can tell) is that Wise is not dishonest nor is he trying to con or manipulate people.  Dembski makes a charade of science to justify his beliefs, whereas Wise honestly says he simply rejects much of science that conflicts with the bible.  I appreciate his honesty and the fact that he does not seem to be portraying retarded ideas as science but instead just rejects what he finds distastefull.  Not my cup of tea but it beats the con man approach that IDC takes.

I suspect many of Dembski's former students will find Wise to be a breath of fresh air.

*update, I just found this noteworthy tidbit:

In actuality, Wise asserts, science is not a product and should never have come to be understood as being "the answers," collectively, to the questions people ask. "Science is the way we find the answers to the questions people are asking," he insists. "It's a process."

And until science is taught that way in the classroom -- as a process rather than a finite product, the Christian paleontologist adds, "I don't think we have any business being in there or trying to get a creationist or an ID theory in there."

So Wise is not advocating we teach the controversy?  Hmmm...The con men of the DI will not like that.

Date: 2006/05/17 08:39:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski is offering yet another cash reward:

Information-Theoretic Conjecture — $1000 Cash Prize
I’m offering the first person who completely resolves the following conjecture $1000 cash. I need a complete error-free proof and I need to be able to use it in my writings (of course, I’ll give full credit to the mathematician who proves it).

This made me wonder why Demsbki and the con men for jesus at the DI don't offer a cash reward for ANY legitimate scientific evidence for intelligent design.  Something that could be tested and such.  They could call the cash award something like the Nobel ID Prize or whatnot.

THAT is what Dembski should be offering to pay for, evidence that backs his unfounded and unscientific claims and not these stupid math games or offering to pay public teachers a bounty for breaking the law.

What they lack is evidence for IDC and not law breakers or math puzzle solvers.  THAT is where he/they should be offering cash prizes.

Date: 2006/05/17 09:30:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,05:50)
And if someone with better judgement cares to open a thread that is about the topic of chromosomal changes in evolution, and not just about AFDave's particular disagreements, then that would likely be peachy.

So I don't have good judgment (other than I don't support Common Design Theory)?  What criteria do I need to meet to be able to start a new topic?  (not that I need one now -- I only need the two I specified -- but several people have asked me off-topic questions in my threads and at some point, it would be appropriate to start a new thread and answer them if I have time.)

I don't think your lack of agreement with modern  science earned you this thread, but rather your profoundly dishonest motives and the fact that it is obvious you have no intention of ever providing any evidence for the fantastic, insulting and ridiculous claims you (AIG) make does not work to your benefit at all.  

You make unsupported assertions here and ignore requests to provide any evidence.  You want others to play by a set of rules (provide legitimate evidence) yet you grant yourself the right to ignore those rules you expect others here to abide by.  

Your children (and mine) have a word for a person who operates like that.  They're called cheaters.  You (rightfully) expect others here to deal from the top of the deck while you deal from the bottom.  

afdave, you're a garden variety troll by any other name.  No big deal.

Date: 2006/05/23 12:40:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This totally cracked me up:

but there is no doubt that men like Michael Denton, Michael Behe and William Dembski will be names long remembered once the rotting corpse of Darwin's General Theory of Evolution is buried and forgotten

aftard needs a reality check.  And perhaps he could provide us some evidence of his latest little theory?

Behe's own univeristy has a public disclaimer on their web site distancing themselves from Behe's nonsense.  Behe will be remembered from his mindless testimony ala Kitzmiller as the guy who said astrology was scientific and the guy who ignores evidence that conflicts with his "theories".  

Dembski has more degrees than I have ex-wives and so far he has amounted to nothing.  He teaches at a marginal theology school that is probably not even accredited.  No one in the math or science community thinks much of him at all.  Without the cultute war and his specific IDC role, he is nothing, a garden variety loser.  His theology is just as lame as his math.  He is a good propagandist without a moral compass, I'll give you that.

Yeah these guys will be remembered alright, but not the reasons they'd prefer.

For a corpse to rot it must first die yet ToE rages on in modern science and education.    No sign of ToE even catching a cold.  Looks healthier than ever.  A bunch of ignorant creationists yapping at the heels of ToE does not constitute its death or demise, silly.  That has been going on for 150 years and ToE just gets stronger with every bit of new and confirming evidence while the loons (creationists) look more foolish.

aftard, you can click your heels together all day long and pray or chant for things to be different, but the reality is you have chosen the side of the ignorant and uneducated.  

I'd hold off on sending out the invites to celebrate the death of ToE.  

Date: 2006/06/08 07:06:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
It's been 6 months or so since Kitzmiller and how many scientific experiments have been conducted since then to validate ID©?  How many papers have been published in legitimate scientific journals that support ID©?

Now tell me how many new discoveries and experiments have been made that further support ToE and our understanding of things like DNA, etc.?  Here's a hint - tons.

In fact a good PT article would consists of noting all the recent discoveries (since Kitzmiller) that further support ToE and also all the "science" that has been done in the name of ID© in the same time frame.

What makes me laff is no one at the UD camp seems to realize that the ID "scientists" have not produced a dang thing since Kitzmiller, meanwhile real science has been on a tear since then.


Date: 2006/06/08 10:20:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher

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

Forget the bank, get my bookie on the line!

Date: 2006/06/08 12:18:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I had to read the latest from Dr WAD a few times.

WAD's latest

Read the article WAD posted, then read his comments.  You'll have to read the article again after reading WAD's comments because the relationship between the two is not clear.

Bottom line - I think WAD is a lot dumber than we give him credit for.  Seriously, the notion he is "bright but misguided" is flat wrong in my book.  He's an over achieving dunce if you ask me.  

Not an idiot savant by any stretch of the imagination, but someone who is not real bright yet is still able to accomplish a great deal - an overachiever for his level of intelligence.


And here is my commentary on WAD's comments:

Indeed, the finding is so “unexpected” that biologists don’t have a clue how evolution did it.

It is not that "unexpected, WAD and biologist do have a clue how it came to be, you are the one without the clue.

Expectation and prediction — aren’t these roughly the same? Doesn’t one have to have an expectation of what will happen to predict it?

No Dr WAD, they are NOT the same.  I expect my children to behave yet I predict they won't always meet my expectations.

If evolution keeps doing completely unexpected things, how can the theory properly be said to be predictive?

What you're saying is with each new discovery of things we had not yet known we should throw in the towel because we did not see it coming?  I guess you think the Psychic Friends Network is science since they predict everything?


Maybe it isn’t really a science. Gosh, what a horrible thought. All those well-meaning biologists completely out to lunch and spending our tax dollars like drunken sailors. There ought to be a law against it, I say!

Indeed...How can anything really be science if it doesn't suggest (predict?) a space zombie did it?  

Comment by William Dembski — June 8, 2006 @ 4:35 pm

Date: 2006/06/08 12:27:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I guess the Handmaid's Tale is a good example of a Christian values movie.

Speaking of religious movies..What was the name of that Christian snuff film put out by Mel Gibson a few years back?  I missed that one.  Hey you gotta draw the line somewhere...

Date: 2006/06/08 12:46:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
"Traditional" marriage is NOT one man and one woman, it is one man and many women.  The one man one woman thing is actually quite new if you look at history.

Ahh how I long for the good old, traditionaldays ;-)

Speaking of sexual morality, Mary was what 13 or 14 when the space alien/time traveler knocked her up (while she was married to a 73 year old)?

Thordaddy, how many pictures of shirtless men with sweaty biceps do you keep on your bedroom wall at home?  Come on, tell us the truth.  You've got a huge collection of beefcake pictures on your computer, don't you?  You're amongst friends here, you can tell us the truth.


Date: 2006/06/09 09:48:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Based on the last thread at WAD's smile a while a lonny bin, they are getting serious about this ID to IE thing.  As if changing the name will somehow make it legit...

Too funny.

Date: 2006/06/13 06:23:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
WAD's infatuation with Ann Coulter (the ugliest transvestite I have ever seen) is a laff riot.  I love the latest ann love fest thread on UD.


Date: 2006/06/13 10:01:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (jeannot @ June 13 2006,12:29)
We often reproach IDers for their personal attacks. I'm not sure you should imitate them.

(to Christopher, Richard and Arden).

A socially cohesive perspective to be sure.  However, when it comes to Anne the Man, I am powerless over my ability to not stop making fun of "her".  

Perhaps I should join a 12 step religion or seek some other sort of help for it...

Date: 2006/06/15 08:21:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,11:04)
What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution?  It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc.  So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution?  


Randy, just an FYI, that's like asking are there any good books that challenge the Apollo 11 moon landing or are there any good books that challenge the notion that Elvis is really dead.  

Your time would be better spent reading legitimate science books on subjects within the ToE such as the realtionship between reptiles and birds and such versus books that claim evolution is "only a theory".

Also, read some of the posts here, there is a long rich history of ignorant creationists who have not a scientific clue creeping in here pretending to have an interest in this"evolution thing" only to quickly start trying to teach legitimate, trained scientists that everything they know is wrong.  Often they move on to encouraging people here to find jesus "before it is too late"  AFDAVE is one such tard/case.  

They bring up long, tired, wrong arguments popularized by garbage organizations like AIG and the Dishonesty Institute while ignoring all the verifiable evidence and facts presented to them.  

Whether right or wrong, because of jerk creationists  guys like you get knee jerk reactions in this forum.  

Also, you wrote

I have some concerns about the current state of peer-reviewed science.

Is it really a 'victors make the rules' place?

Actually it is he who backs up his claims is the one who wins the credible science award.  That's why the IDC crowd continues to lose at every turn, they have yet to provide a shred of evidence for a designer (space alien, tiem traveler, god, etc).  Meanwhile they whine and moan about not being allowed in public science class yet what they are proposing is clearly not science.  They are also pathologically dishonest which does not help their cause either.

If you want to learn more about science and the ToE you are at the right place.  


Date: 2006/06/15 08:33:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I don't have a link handy so could someone post the link for the most common creationist arguments at the talk origins site?  

That would give Randy visibility to the very "best" arguements from the creationist (anti-evolutionist) side he's looking for as well as the scientific rebuttal.  

In the meantime here are the Talk Origin "must reads" for you, Randy


Date: 2006/06/15 10:22:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
It was compared to someone trying to prove that Apollo 11 didn't happen, for example.  

The problem with the above approach is first, that it appeals to an attempt to humiliate an opponent rather than reason with them

Not true, my intent was not to humiliate you but rather point out how naive your request was (and not in a sarcastic way).  You were/are asking for the best arguements against known, scientific facts.  

Keep in mind that not every comment here is an attempt to persecute you and that although sticks and stones can break bones, ascii characters are harmless.


Date: 2006/06/15 10:32:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 15 2006,15:28)
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2006,15:26)
RM doesn't seem to be a dumb guy, but you can tell from things like "I thought evolution wasn't falsifiable" that he's been soaked in pseudoscience for some time.

My tipoff to that was his eagerness to invoke Piltdown Man as an argument against evolution.

Piltdown man??  Are you serious?  I must have overlooked that one.  Oh man....


Date: 2006/06/21 07:00:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
What septic, aftard and the other maroons seem to overlook is that evidence wins in science, period.  Nonsense might get some initial attention but in the end the best evidence wins.  Not the bible, not flowerly freshman philosophy nonsense, but evidence.  

The IDC camp has yet to put forth anything remotely scientific (evidence based) while they all whine about the so called "dogma" of science not letting the IDiots play in the same sand box.

Look at King Loser Bill Dembski.  It's been months (6?)  since Kitzmiller, where is the new evidence or scientific experiments they claim are going on and being tested?  Hey Dembski show us your latest ID research that is scientific, evidence based that no one will publish.  Post it on your stupid blog and let us read it, no need to wait for peer review.  Let's see your scientific evidence for ID that no one will publish and we'll judge it for ourselves you big cry baby.

All Dembski does is cry like a little baby because no one takes his nonsense seriously, and no one at UD seems to care that the IDiots have yet to produce a shred of evidence or anything testable.  Does randy, aftard, septic care that the IDiots have yet to produce ANYTHING scientific?  Of course not.  They're too busy pretending to be biology experts and telling real biologists here that they are clueless.

If septic was an actual skeptic he'd be asking Dembski to show some beef over at UD.  He'd be asking Dembski to provide some legitimate scientific evidence for ID.  But no, he's too busy playing biologist here with real biologists while pretending he's a "skeptic".  That's called ass clownery in my book.

I cannot stand the likes of septic, aftard ("I hope you find jesus before it's too late!") and the other semi literate retards that pollute this forum with their anti-science garbage and endless whining about persecution and victimhood.  But I sure get a kick out of reading their daily cry baby nonsense.  

And as far as my potty mouth goes, stop acting like babies and get a thick skin like the rest of us (aka grow up).



Date: 2006/06/21 07:12:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Yeah paley, you're a persecuted, white lunatic.  No story here...

Date: 2006/06/21 07:25:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey Randy, since you've got nothing better to do than cry like a baby about the IDiots not getting published in scientific peer reviewed journals, how about asking your new pal William Demsbki to publish one of his scientific papers he's written that is evidence based and testable that Nature and all the other scientific journals refuse to publish because they are all dogmatic, anti-anything but darwinism?

Seriously, ask Dembski to publish all those scientific papers he's written but no one will publish on his blog so we can all judge the scientific merit of it.

For that matter ask Behe to publish all the scientific papers he's submitted to godless science journals that are evidence based and testable yet they have been turned down for publication.  Ask Behe to publicly publish all those papers so we can judge for ourselves.

As one who is obviously upset over the dogma driven science journals that unfairly will not publish anything that supports IDc why not ask your IDC heros to publish all those papers they have written and submitted (but were rejected) on Dembski's blog?

I encourage the other IDC cry babies here to do the same.  Ask Dembski and Behe to show us what they have written and submitted that continues to not get published in a legitimate scientific peer review journal.  And ask them to please name the scientific journals who have rejected their papers.

Date: 2006/06/21 07:27:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Anne coulter is the best thing that ever hapopend to IDC but she gives tranvestites a bad name.


Date: 2006/06/21 07:38:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
People look at Anne Coulter and mistakenly think ALL transvestites are like her.  THAT is terrible for the transvestite cause.

Date: 2006/06/21 07:49:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (GCT @ June 21 2006,12:35)
He'll probably just complain now that your tone is derogatory or something.

No doubt.  It's astonishing though that none of these cry babies has ever asked Dembski or Behe to show them a paper(s) that they submitted to a science journal that was rejected.

Not one of these peer review whiners has ever asked to read a paper that was rejected.  Not one of these persecuted fools has ever asked Dembski or Behe for testable scientific evidence that supports IDC.

During the Kitzmiller trial there was all this discussion about all the IDC related lab work and testing going on by all these biologists all over the place.  Have any of the IDiots noticed not a peep has come from a single scientist supporting IDC since Kitzmiller?

And although the persecuted cry babies go on and on about this peer review conspiracy there is nothing stopping Dembski or Behe from publishing their rejected scientific works on their own blog. Nothing except they have never written any evidence based papers on ID, they have never submitted any papers supporting IDC to a legitimate science journal, nor have they ever conducted any ID related experiements.  Big surprise!

Date: 2006/06/21 07:59:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 21 2006,12:57)
Why deny ourselves the comedy?

I say let the man speak. :)

I concur, give him one thread to play in.  He's a laff riot to be sure.

Maybe he can dig up all those evidence based ID papers Behe and Dembski have written and submitted to godless science journals only to be rejected.

Date: 2006/06/22 07:01:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Let's not get too carried away with the Tard's "accomplishments" at Dell.  I have a friend who started out as a temp/receptionist at Dell and a few years later she was independently wealthy from the stock soaring.

She quit her Dell job and "retired" in her late 30s.


Date: 2006/06/22 07:14:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is pretty funny when you realize it was written back in 2000.  Compare this to recent press releases from the Disco for the full flavor affect.  This is mostly about the Baylor drama but it's pretty funny to note they have yet to prove or provide what they promised back in the year 2000.  The denials of IDc being creationism are especially funny.

Lynching of Bill Dembski

Date: 2006/06/22 09:17:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I especially like the threat aftard poses about the death bed conversion, hurry and find jeebuz before its too late!

The gun to the head approach for jesus works best on cowards and children, davey.  You probably won't find many of either here.  That's probably why you have failed to convert anyone in this forum.  All you have accomplished so far is convincing everyone you are a clueless moron.  

You're like a bad street preacher who won't shut up and you harass pedestrians all over town harping about finding the lord before it's too late.  Pathetic.

Why not spend your time on more fruitful efforts and convert some Muslims, but keep in mind they get 73 virgins when they go to heaven, Christians get zero so you had better come up with a convincing reason why your god is better than theirs.  On the surface I'd go for the religion that promises 73 virgins myself.

Date: 2006/06/22 09:24:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
speaking of morality and the bible, davey, let's talk about your god knocking up a 13 year old girl.  And she was married at the time to a 73 year old.  

What is up with that?  Are those the kind of morals you support?

Date: 2006/06/23 05:02:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The fees charged by the expert witnesses in the Kitzmiller case was in the official record, everyone on the IDC side got $100 an hour but Dembski got $200.  Everyone on the side of evolution charged nothing for their testimony.

Date: 2006/06/26 10:45:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (GCT @ June 26 2006,14:25)
From the "Teach no Controversy" thread...

I should also note that the anti-IDists could shut us down just by substantiating their claims. The fact that they shy away from the proposed bacterial flagellum experiment just further exposes their intellectual cowardice. That Judge Jones tried to tell IDists that it is their experiment to do just further exposes the sheer stupidity of those condemning ID.

Comment by Joseph — June 26, 2006 @ 8:38 am

Yeah, how dare those rotten evilutionists actually expect us to do experiments.

Wouldn't be fruitfull...Remember?

Date: 2006/06/26 11:25:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Has anyone pointed out that Dave Tard is censoring religious talk again?

Date: 2006/07/18 11:13:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Reading Dembski at UD is ok, but I can never figure out whether he is just ignorant or plain dishonest so his comments never really satisfy me.  Dave Tard is the only reason I go to that blog.  So this Denyse (were her and Janet Reno seperated at birth?) had better be good.  I only read UD for the Dave Tard absurdities so here's to hoping she's just as absurd.

Date: 2006/07/18 11:36:31, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dear Dave Tard, I cannot express my grief over you recently being neutered by that "cool" Bill Dembski.  The long hours you put in to UD, making it ground zero for the scientifically challenged and this is what you get for your efforts?  Replace by Janet Reno's twisted sister?

You banned more people in 6 months than there are signatures on the Disco's Darwin dissenting list.  Heck they should put you in charge of the Disco!

The day you banned me for "being all nice" on UD brought a tear to my eye.  You put the "A" in absured and the "I" in ignorant.  Where would "cool" Bill Dembski be without you.  More disturbingly, where will UD go without you?  Down the toilet as they say in the Marines :-)

One day "cool" Bill Dembski will see the error in his ways, but I fear it will be too late.

Please take pity on us here at the bar and start your own blog.  Many of us need a Dave Tard fix to get through the day.  You can write about anything as long as it includes the notion that intelligent design is science.

Please Tard, don't leave us hanging!  We believe in you.  You don't need "cool" Bill Dembski to bring the "scientific" theory of intelligent design to the masses and you need not have any intelligence or education at all to be an expert in Design Detection and Theory.  Can't you see that?  Heck I have read your posts, you could give Behe a lesson in biology and tutor "cool" Bill Dembski in math with one hand tied behind your back.

Stand up, man, and proclaim yourself an expert on the topic!  Write books, give speeches, make money and most of all, quote anonymous friends and sources on your blog!  You are as much of an expert on intelligent design as "cool" Bill Dembski, don't you see that?  Stand up for yourself and take your rightful place as a leading expert in Intelligent Design, Detection and Theory and leave losers like "cool" Bill Dembski in your intellectual wake.

Seriously, man, don't take this in the pants.  YOU are a Marine, sir.  Would the Marines bow down and crawl away, whimpering about how unfair things are or would they regroup, come up with a better battle plan and win one for God, Country and honor?

Think about it, soldier.  YOU are an expert on intelligent design and YOU do not need Dembski, Larry, the Disco or Janet Reno's twisted sister.  


Your pal,

Date: 2006/07/18 11:53:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (SomeGuy @ July 18 2006,16:20)
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,15:43)
Just amazing. Davetard embarrasses Dembski for six months, and the straw that breaks the camel's back is a mild potshot at Denyse O'Leary.

Does anyone have an archive of that thread? I'm curious to see what said straw actually was.

This has been a most entertaining day, too bad the fun is over. DT just has to start his own blog now.  :)

Yes what he said.  Did anyone keep a copy of what was said?

Date: 2006/07/19 12:00:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Will she be UDs Waterloo?

Sorry, I had to ask that....

Date: 2006/07/20 06:18:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dense O'Leary's rules of engagement include:

1. This blog solicits and welcomes vigorous argument, backed by facts

Since arguements must now be backed up by facts, I guess this means no one will be allowed to suggest ID is science anymore and they'll have to admit it is nothing but creationism repackaged.  

The UD/IDc crow has always loathed facts so this is a strange twist indeed.


Date: 2006/07/20 09:32:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well I'll have to create a new account at UD and join in the Denyse fun when they open up the comments.  Her thing for "facts" should be a hoot!

Date: 2006/07/20 09:57:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 20 2006,14:07)
Good lord, is THIS the same Joel Borofsky? I bet it is!

Amazing reading.  I am frequently astonished by the level of interest god seems to have in the lives of mostly middle class, white people.

Take Joel for instance. There is an AIDS epidemic in Africa (as much as 20% of the entire population in some countries are pregnant with death), civil wars there where millions of innocent men, women and children have died in the last decade or so, starvation is one the leading causes of death amongst children, at least 100 civilians are being killed in Iraq daily now, and yet god takes time out of his busy schedule to answer Joel's begging for $6,000 so he can go to college.  What a special guy Joel must be.

That god fellow has an interesting set of priorities if not a macabe sense of humor.  "Hey watching millions of innocent children die each year is no big deal compared to getting Joel through college debt free!"  

How curious.  Well I am white and middle class, I don't need tuition money but I could use some help in the stock market.  I wonder if god also provides that sort of assistance.


Date: 2006/07/20 11:37:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2006,15:39)
Re Mr. Christopher's comment:

I had a religious friend a few years back who knew a man we'll call Tom. Tom had been in the market for a house for months, and had viewed several, but didn't decide on any of them. When my friend asked Tom why, Tom said that he didn't feel like they were exactly right and he wanted to make sure "I got the house god wants me to have".

Yet another example of the mysterious ways god moves.  From college funds to picking the perfect home, god seems to have nother better to do than improve the lives of mostly white, middle class people.  

A story of my own - briefly in my early life I was a car salesman.  One day I was showing a Subaru to a couple who remarked after we had done a test drive and such that they needed to go home and pray to god to make sure buying the Subaru was god's will.  I thought quickly and suggested the three of us instead pray together right then.  I lead them in prayer right there in my cube and afterwards suggested they lease it instead of buy.  They felt that was god's will and leased the car.  

Yet another example of how god goes out of his way to improve the lives of mostly white, middle class americans.  What a fantastic world we'd live in If ethnic groups, non-Americans and those who live in poverty could stimulate that level of personal interest on god's part.


Date: 2006/07/21 05:17:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Church lady's post today is well worth reading.  First of all she quotes an article critical of ID where the author states "where is the science" and the Church lady completely ignores that question and spends her time talking about cockroaches.

The Church lady said:

Here’s one question that intrigues me: Why do some life forms not evolve, or so little that it hardly matters? The coelacanth and the cockroach come to mind, but there are others, including common ferns and cycads. Surely these life forms experience genetic mutations and changes in their environment.

A UD poster logically asked:

“Here’s one question that intrigues me: Why do some life forms not evolve, or so little that it hardly matters? The coelacanth and the cockroach come to mind, but there are others, including common ferns and cycads. Surely these life forms experience genetic mutations and changes in their environment.”

Come to think of it: What is ID’s explanation for this apparent lack of evolutionary change?

Comment by ofro — July 21, 2006 @ 9:48 am

And then Dembski replied:

Question: “What is ID’s explanation for this apparent lack of evolutionary change?”

Answer: Redesign (technological evolution) itself requires design, and lots of things are designed so well in the first place that they don’t need to be redesigned.

Comment by William Dembski — July 21, 2006 @ 10:02 am

Let's read that little admission of stupidity again...

lots of things are designed so well in the first place that they don’t need to be redesigned.

Um, excuse me?  That quote should go in the Dembski Wikipedia article.

Is it me or did Dembski just breech a new threshold for stupidity?

And where are the "facts" to back up this idiotic claim?  I hope someone asks for them since the Church Lady has already said you can argue all day long as long as you back it up with facts.  Does that apply to Dembski as well?


Date: 2006/07/21 05:49:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,10:24)
I thought we weren't allowed to call something a good or bad design, since we don't know the Designer's motives.

Well based on his comments I quoted it appears Dembski knows the designers motives.  He is suggesting the designer is not only designing but also later re-engineering his "mistakes" while leaving his better works alone (cockroaches in the example given).

How does Dembski know which designs the designer feels needs improving and which design is the designer simply having a little fun with?  How can Dembski claim to know the designer feels the cockroach needs redesigning or not?  And while you're at it Dembski, tell us how many times does the designer go back to the redesigning drawing board before he shi* cans the design altogether and starts from scratch?

I have said this a thousand times and I'll say it again, I am astonished when I read the idiotic things Dembski writes.  More perplexing is the fact that his followers fall for it.  They don't fall for it, they eat it up.

And did anyone note Dembski's "research assistan"  Joel what's hisname will be starting his own blog soon  No doubt he is addressing his boss.

Dembski + Church Lady = Dumb and Dumber

I wish Dave Tard got along with the Church Lady, the three of them would have been a howler to be sure.  A Tard Threesome!


Date: 2006/07/21 07:53:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,12:47)
Now they're disemvowelled Ofro. Boy, it didn't take them long to get back to sucking balls, did it?

Who exactly is removing the vowels?

Date: 2006/07/21 13:17:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 21 2006,13:17)
    ID’s explanation for the apparent lack of evolutionary change is the same as Einstein’s explanation for the apparent lack of ether. It’s apparently missing because it actually IS missing, like the apparent lack of unicorns. The only sort of change we have evidence for is minor changes within kind, like finch beaks getting larger or smaller.

Oooh, check out that word 'kind', that's a dead giveaway to where Dave T's sympathies lie...

From moderator Denyse: For Ofro and anyone else wondering, all the vowel-free comments have been deleted.

Anyone who fancies that sort of thing can sell the skills gained to publishers of game books.

WTF? If Church Lady didn't disemvowel them, who the fuck *did*?

My money says Dave Tard.

Date: 2006/07/27 11:54:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Just more insight from the Intelligent Design Lunatic Fringe...

Date: 2006/08/01 07:13:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I see these terms being used on PT but I am unfamiliar with them.  Are these some sort of PT slang?


Date: 2006/08/01 07:29:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thank you!

Date: 2006/08/01 07:37:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey I see that guy (Mel whatshisname) who made the wildly popular christian snuff film got busted driving while drunk off his arse.  This is what, his 10th DUI?

Question - Do christian themed movies cause alcoholism and drunken driving?  It would appear yes and yes are the answers.

Friends don't let friends watch christian snuff films.  You gotta draw the moral line somewhere.  


Date: 2006/08/21 06:43:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Aug. 21 2006,07:49)
A few days old, but a great quote from Joel:
Alien abduction, though I think it is silly, should be something a Darwinian athiest looks at with an open mind (open mind to be defined as willingness to accept something’s plausibility after reviewing the continuing evidence).

I think alien abduction is silly, but the fact that Darwinist ignore it proves that they are following their dying religion.

Sounds like another waterloo is coming. And this time with lazers and cattle mutilations.

Speaking of lunatic propositions, where does Joel sit on the Bible Codes?  Dembski is on record believing in the Bible Codes.  He has said thje Bible Codes and ID have alot in common (and he's actually right, but for different reasons).

Does Joel think ID is behind the Bible Codes too?

And on the subject of the Bible Codes, did anyone find a so-called "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" falling for the Bible Codes as hilarious as I did?  That alone proves what a total dufus Dembski really is.  In fact any university that gave him a math degree should offer to give him his money back in exchange for that degree.

Date: 2006/08/22 05:20:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
UD is nothing but a textbook example of the cult of conformity in vivo.  In fact if ID were to ever die Dembski will have no problem starting a new religious movement with himself as the grand poobah.

Date: 2006/08/22 10:17:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
do real programmers grow mold in their basements?

No, they grow pot plants.

Date: 2006/08/23 06:42:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski is joining the Darwin = Nazi dog pile at UD.  

It's comical when you think about Dembski currently works for an organization that has a long history of racism, in fact the southern baptist convention was created so they could distinguish themselves from the negro loving northern baptists.

Demsbki is such a blatant moron.   I love it so!

Date: 2006/08/28 05:46:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Whether you teach it in philosophy class or science, I would not be happy about my children sitting in ANY class where the the garbage and dishonesty promoted by the Discovery Institute and lying douche bags like Slick Willy Dembski is taught.  Behe is a one man laughing stock so I want my children protected from him too.

And would this IDiot class have supplimental course works such as the recent garbage by evolution expert Man Coulter?

Does that shed some light on my own personal feelings?  

In short I'd just have to say no to having my children subjected to perverse lies and distortions and fairy tales.  In fact I would pull them from any school that taught such nonsense.  Creationism has no place in public school, especially a brand that is so patently false and dishonest (ID).

This thread is theally dumb but not quite as dumb as Intelligent Design creationism.


Date: 2006/08/28 07:24:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I was hungry for a heaping bowl of dork soup so I moseyed (sp?) over to UD to read the latest rant/pile on regarding Darwin the idea thief! Good lord what idiots.  

And get a load of Davetard who seems to get angry when other commenters are obviously smarter and better educated than he is.  And how many times is Davetard going to remind us about his 30 year old Marine pledge to God?  

Amazingly comical.  I'm also shocked they allowed the subtle and well reasoned criticisms of ID and DI/ID strategy to slip through.  THAT was shocking actually.

It's long but worth a full read.

Date: 2006/08/28 07:51:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, I read this on PT and I believe STJ had actually found it elsewhere and posted it there.  It is too rich to not repost here.

I'm surprised it was not posted on UD...It clearly shows the relationship between Darwin and Hitler and how Darwinism practically forced Hitler to be such a nasty guy..


Real True Stories for Christian Children: Adolf and The Jews

Once upon a time, in the enchanted land of Austria, in the magical city of Vienna, there lived a handsome young Christian man named Adolf Hitler, who dreamed of being a painter.

Not a painter like a house painter, but a painter of pictures. Adolf loved to paint pictures of trees and birds and butterflies. But although Adolf was artistic, he was a normal young Christian man who liked girls very much.

Because he was a good Christian, even though he liked girls very much, he was waiting until he found the right Christian girl and got married before he kissed a girl. But it had nothing to do with him being an artist. He liked girls very much.

Adolf was a happy young man and everybody loved him and he loved everybody back. His heart was full of Christian love toward all his neighbors. He especially loved his Jewish neighbors. The reason he had a special love for the Jews is because he grew up in the enchanted land of Austria, which was really part of the magical land of Germany, and all the Germans loved the Jews very much. The Germans loved the Jews because the Germans were all good Christians, and the German Christians had always loved the Jews so much.

Adolf especially loved the Jewish children. He would give them candy and paint their pictures and give them the pictures, or sometimes just hug them and tell them how much he loved them.

Adolf loved his Jewish doctor, and his Jewish banker, and his Jewish accountant, and his Jewish landlady, and all the Jews he knew. Sometimes, Adolf would think about how much he loved the Jews, and he would wish he knew more Jews, so that his heart could be filled with more love. And sometimes he would go looking for new Jews to meet and love, and so he had many, many Jewish friends, all of whom he loved very much.

One day, Adolf was walking to church, thinking about how much he loved the Jews, when he met a strange and ugly little man. The man was an atheist, which is somebody who hates Jesus, and the man gave Adolf a book. The book was called Origin of the Species, written by Charles Darwin. The atheist said that the book was scientific, and that Adolf should read this book instead of going to church. Adolf was such a nice young Christian man that he agreed to what the ugly little man asked, even though, in his heart, he really wanted to go to church and worship Jesus and listen to the priest talk about loving Jews. But to make the atheist happy, Adolf promised he would read the atheist’s book instead.

So Adolf sat under a tree and began to read the atheist’s book. As he read, his face became more and more sad, and his heart became heavier and heavier. By the time he had finished the book, Adolf knew that everything had changed, and that he would never be happy again. Because now, instead of loving the Jews, he had to kill them all.

It made him sad to think of killing all his Jewish friends, whom he loved so much, and it made him very sad to know he must kill all the Jewish children, instead of giving them candy and hugs. But although he hated the thought of killing all his Jewish friends and neighbors and the little Jewish children, now he had no choice. Because Charles Darwin’s book said that all the Jews must be killed, and Charles Darwin was a scientist. Although Adolf’s heart told him to love the Jews, science said they must all die. And science says that what science says is more important than what’s in your heart.

And so Adolf killed all the Jews.

The Moral of the Story: Always go to church. And if you read a book given to you by an atheist, you’ll have to kill everybody you love.

Date: 2006/08/31 09:43:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 31 2006,14:01)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2006,07:09)
Another great Joel analogy:

as a slave would display his muscles in order to be purchased.

Since when do slaves take an active role in getting purchased?

Don't worry, Steve, I see Joel's obsession with girls' hoohoos extending well into the next several decades.

Since when do slaves take an active role in getting purchased?

The immortal Josh Bozeman explains.

PS, what's a hoohoo?

PPS, that was somebody else's link on UDOJ, but thanks for the publicity :D

What a fantastic glimpse into the warped mind of a fundy christian.  On the subject of slavery it seems Tard Josh has never read Exodus or Leviticus.  This thread is highly recommended!

I wonder if there is ever any tard envy between Dave Tard and Tard Josh?

Date: 2006/08/31 10:06:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2006,14:49)

I wonder if there is ever any tard envy between Dave Tard and Tard Josh?

They hate each other. I've seen DT insult JB pretty entertainingly. I think DT's mostly afraid of becoming like JB.

Let me know if you have a link to that.  I'm always up for watching a good tard fight.

Date: 2006/08/31 10:43:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Amazing to see the sort of people that gravitate to Bill Dimbski.  I've been thinking about creating a reality TV show and calling it "Guess My Mental Illness"  I'd like to get Dave Tard to star in the first episode.

Thanks for those links and the tard fight between sal and DT is pricess!

Date: 2006/09/01 05:53:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 01 2006,10:15)
I hardly think WAD is the kind of person who should criticize others for falling for pranks.

Falling for pranks or even promoting them.  Let's not forget Dimbski's affection for the Bible Code nonsense.  

Imagine that, the Isaac Newton of Information Theory falls for the Bible Code.  How fitting for a leading "ID Theorist".  I think Tina Brewer asked him on UD if he still thought the Bible Code was for real.  He never responded to her.

I wonder, did Dimbski use his little filter thingy prior to embracing the Bible Code?

Date: 2006/09/05 10:06:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is Josh a virgin?  That might explain his sexual obsession/hang ups.

Date: 2006/09/07 05:53:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like the DI has the Wiki article on Intelligent Design in their sights.  Be sure and read the Talk page of that article.  And then read the DI's Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries

Those guys crack me up.

Date: 2006/09/07 11:43:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
A moment of clarity in young Joel's evangelical thread

my original point was that it’s an exaggeration to compare Christians in America to what happened to the Native Americans.

You guys are shifting the focus to how a Gov. filled with Christians should run a country. The fact is that our country is very kind to Christians. They can own large corporations, they can live, eat and work anywhere they want. They can practice religion how they want. They can hold the highest positions in government (something that atheists can’t do), they can get an education (even in private schools that teach some rigid beliefs), etc. So how are Xians today (that make up the vast majority of the US) like the Native Americans?

I find it odd that a site called “stop lying to us” is making such an incorrect comparison.

Comment by Fross — September 7, 2006 @ 4:33 pm

Fross doesn't seem to get the Christian = persecuted victim thing and just because they say "stop lying to us" does not mean they are not going to lie to themselves and lie to others.  Wake up Fross!


Date: 2006/09/07 12:12:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
If you Google "Intelligent Design" you'll note that the Wiki article now has the top spot in the search results.  This might be a reason for the DIs sudden interest.

Date: 2006/09/12 04:27:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2006,21:28)
Uncommonly Dense often leaves me in this quantum superposition state, a Clebsch-Gordon combination of the [stunned> vector and the [unstunned> vector.


We deserve evil – This is a harsh statement, one that people do not want to think about, but it does ring as true. A working definition of evil is that which is a consequence of disobeying God, thus, evil is merely what we have brought upon ourselves. We deserve what we are given.

How does this work with a child dying of AIDS? How does this work with a family starving? Do they deserve such things? No, they do not deserve it, however it has occurred and we must deal with these things in the world because somewhere down the line, someone sinned. The child has AIDS because someone sinned at some point which then gave AIDS to this child. The family is starving because at some point, someone sinned.


"I agree with Joel. They deserved it!"

Did Dimbski call homeland security on joel?   And good god man joel is dumb as a fence post. I never ceases to amaze me to see the kind of ignorant morons Dimbski attracts.

Date: 2006/09/12 11:09:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
First of all you should do categories in a way that does not allow someone like Dimbski to compete with ordinary tards like the church lady or tard joel.  Perhaps start with a two tier approach:

1) Professional tards (Dimbski, Behe, Wells, Fuller, etc)
2) Lay tards (Denyse, dave tard, joel tard, and other ordinary tardettes from UD)

A few categories to consider

1) Most dubious grasp of biology
2) Most dubious grasp of reality
3) Best use of truthiness
4) Best use of double speak
5) Biggest hypocrite
6) Dumbest ID related theory
7) Dumbest use of the term "Darwinism"
8) Best quote mine
9) Dumbest analogy supporting ID
10) Dumbest portrayal of ToE

Those are just a few to consider...

Date: 2006/09/12 11:17:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,15:43)
she's wearing her 'Christian zealot' hat. In other words, she's just parroting the kind of rhetoric she hears every Sunday, where she's told that if every good Christian just prays a lot and reeeeelly reeeeelly believes, then whatever they want can be made to happen, especially if it involves prevailing over the wicked (us).

My father used to say something like

"pray in one hand and shi* in the other, then tell me which one fills up the quickest"

That pretty much brought things down to earth right then and there for me.  Dads, where would we be without them?

Date: 2006/09/18 04:34:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Whatever happened to the site that Dimbski claimed he was going to develp as a reply to Kitzmiller?   Does anyone else recall him speaking of it on UD?

Perhaps he's mislplaced all of that "overwhelming evidence"?

ps: I wonder if he is/was planning to use the sticky bun in the likeness of mother teresa as a part of the evidece for ID?

Date: 2006/09/18 05:32:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I get tired of all of the ID bashing that goes on here, especially when you realize there is a ton of evidence out there that supports ID.  Here is a sample of the overwhelming evidence that supports ID:

Feel free to post other examples of overwhelming evidence for ID in this thread.  Who knows, maybe we can change the minds of some of the Darwin cultists here.  

Long live the exotic time traveling, space alien race of reptilian (one "l" or two?) intelligent designers!


Date: 2006/09/18 06:21:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well I am delighted that at least one evilutionists can admit positive evidence for intelligent design exists.  Bravo, Steve!

And look, there's more.  Can YOU tell the difference between the two images below?  Me neither!!!

Those guys at UD (and Behe) may be on to something.  Maybe we should spend more time learning about ID and less time making fun of it.

Date: 2006/09/18 07:03:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 18 2006,10:20)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Sep. 18 2006,09:34)
ps: I wonder if he is/was planning to use the sticky bun in the likeness of mother teresa as a part of the evidece for ID?


That was good.

Has anyone put the mother teresa sticky bun under the lense of that ID filter thingy?

Date: 2006/09/18 09:09:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Someone who can still post at UD should alert Dembski to this thread, perhaps he'll want to use some of it for his site.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:24:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
We should start a list of IDers who dissent from ID and see if Heddle would like to be the first one to sign it.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:55:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think the entire post is worthy of a copy and paste here, Heddle is right on with his criticisms of the ID movement and Sal is nothing but a weasle.

Color Me ID Cynical

I am reading Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt's new ID book: A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature, (Intervarsity Press, 2006) More on this when I give a complete review later. But I will say that in an overcrowded genre full of ponderous gobbledygook, this book is a breath of fresh air.

Which is just what I need, being so deeply soured on the ID "movement." (Though not on the idea that God has left evidence of His design.) The movement, as a political enterprise, has made so many mistakes you wonder its proponents don't just disband and go home. A quick review of a very unsuccessful campaign:
"Evolution is just a theory" stickers in the text books. The purpose of which was--I don't even know. I'll speculate on their effectiveness: as for changing anyone's opinion one way or another on evolution: infinitesimal. As for pissing off the opposition, giving them something to rally around, and making Christians look like fools: very. This is independent of whether or not there is merit in the "evolution is just a theory" criticism. The tactic, in any case, was boneheaded.

The "ID is science" mantra. Except that by ordinary standards of science it isn't. The Irreducible Complexity "experiments" are really challenges: We dare evolution to explain the flagellum. This is reminiscent of a "refutation" of the four-color theorem I once saw in (I think) Scientific American for one of their famous April Fool's spoofs. A hugely complicated map was printed, and readers were challenged to try filling in the myriad of tiny, twisted shapes using only four colors. Can't do it? Q.E.D. Even the falsification experiments in the The Privileged Planet, which in my opinion is the ID book on the most solid scientific ground, don't smell like real experiments: Search for intelligent life on a planet without a large moon. This is not to say that experiments cannot be ID inspired, I believe they can be and are--in fact all experiments are ID inspired in the sense that they presuppose two facts in evidence: i) nature is orderly, i.e., governed by laws and ii) although we have no reason to expect it, it would appear that humans are able to uncover and understand these laws.

"Design can be mathematically demonstrated" except that nobody has ever actually done it, although there are plenty of excuses as to why it hasn't happened "yet." The irony here is multifaceted. Dembski's mathematics, which is touted as putting ID on solid mathematical footing, actually does nothing of the sort. His work says some interesting things applicable to genetic algorithms, but genetic algorithms resemble actual evolution (the way it is supposed to work) in only a superficial way. However, in a move analogous to leaning into rather than away from a left hook, evolutionists often proclaim genetic algorithms as a sort of proof of evolution. This lunacy then plays into Dembski's hands by extending the shelf life of his arguments which should, by now, be dead. It's all kind of crazy, when you think about it.

"ID has nothing to do with God." Yeah, right. Perhaps one place where Dembski's filter might actually work is that, just maybe, it could detect design in the composition of the ID movement. This shouldn't be all that difficult, given that the overwhelming majority of IDers are theists. Oh, the argument has a milli-ounce of merit: it's just about the design, not about the designer (and in truth is not much different from evolution saying: we don't care about abiogenesis) but this clumsy posturing looses out to the "looks, walks, and quacks like a duck" test.

"Let's get school boards to put ID in the curriculum, then fight the battle in the courts, and argue that ID is not religious (nod, nod, wink, wink) but, even if it is, then atheism is a religion too." Brilliant! That's worked real well. Not only are many scientists antagonized, but now many nonscientists are too. Perhaps the only saving grace is that these efforts have pushed enough loudmouths to Dawkinsian extremism and fundamentalism that the opposition is wasting its time fighting internal skirmishes.
The whole state of ID is in such utter disrepair the leaders of the movement should fall on their swords. (But that would necessitate abandoning a cottage industry, so that's not going to happen.)

The only thing, in my opinion, that can save ID is to acknowledge that it is not science but a science-based apologetic. Its purpose is to demonstrate that science is not incompatible with the bible and that Christians have nothing to fear: science is not the enemy anymore than archeology. Neither physics experiments nor Holy Land excavations are going to disprove God or the bible. ID, like all apologetics, should have as its primary audience believers, not unbelievers.

I have said this many times, but here is the truth, and it's worth pondering. Before the ID movement, ID ideas were discussed in classrooms. I hardly remember a physics class in college where a rabbit trail discussion about how the beauty of nature might point to a creator did not come up. The typical attitude of the professor was such that even if he wasn't a believer, he could understand how science, given that what it revealed was so amazing, might cause someone to consider that God was behind it all. Since that time, only additional marvels (such as the ever-more-rapidly-expanding universe) have been discovered. But the failed ID political movement, with its built in hero worship of rather unaccomplished non-scientists, has totally poisoned the well. I may be a minority of one, but I have to say that, as an IDer, I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders.

Date: 2006/09/21 04:14:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
UD lap poodle Dave Tard is blaming the mirror sites for their problems with google What a dork. and he is threatening to sue Wes.  

Two issues come to mind.  

1) The Tard doesn't understand copyright law.
2) Wes would be smart to block search engine spiders from the mirror site just to shut the super dorks at UD up.


When you make a claim that UD lies and changes their website to cover their lies and another sites keep mirror copies of what you say as evidence of your lies and underhanded methods (which supports the claim that UD lies), they are not breaking any copyright laws.  

If they were selling the mirror copy or benefiting financially from selling the content you'd have a claim but in this case the mirror is to pubicly prove what a bunch of liars and numbskulls you all are.  THAT is not about copyright law.  

Got that Dave Super Tard?  No? Read it again, this time read is slowly.  Now Google the term "copyright law" and start clicking.

Dimbski and his pet poodle Dave Tard make me laff.  I love it so!


Date: 2006/09/21 04:54:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I bet Dave spends more on girly magazine subscriptions than the lawsuit would cost him.  He could fart that kind of money and never miss it.

Anyone who can still post over there should encourage the poodle tard to file a lawsuit.  Tell him to think of all the money he could win by such legal action and then think of all the good he could do by donating it all to the Discovery Institute.  Heck, think of all the *scientific* research the DI could fund if Dave donated his winnings to them.  

The publicity would be awesome and it would bring to light the numerous lies and distortions that the mirror site(s) prove exist at UD.  Just the kind of publicity the ID movement needs :-)

Go Dave Tard!  File that suit, file that suit, file that suit!

I had to copy this (am I breaking copyright law, Dave Poodle Tard and Part Time Intellectual Property Attorney?).  I love it when Dave's so forceful...

Wesley, I know this will reach you. You are hereby explicitely put on notice that BUUD is illegally republishing our content which is protected by implicit copyright already and your actions have caused substantial real damages to, its owners, and content contributors. You will shut down BUUD immediately to ameliorate these damages

Date: 2006/09/21 05:34:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 21 2006,10:28)
If Uncommon Descent's RSS feed is causing them 'substantial real damages', they should probably turn it off.

Why doesn't RSS feeds cause the same Google problem on other sites?

Hmmm...And why isn't Wikipedia blocked since numerous sites re-publish entire Wiki articles?  Hmmmm...

And why is Dave Scott, Super Tard, Chief ID Lap Poodle and Budding Intellectual Law Expert so profoundly stupid and uninformed?  I thought he was the smartest man on Earth?  

As you can see I am enjoying this legal threat.  I know it's a long shot but it would make my year if the Tards at UD filed a lawsuit.

Date: 2006/09/21 06:43:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I can't wait to hear BarryA's take on it.  That should be a knee slapper.

Irony meter:  I was reading that UD thread again and there was a single post/reply from "Doubting Thomas" that said something like "Dave, you should learn about copyright law" , well I went back to UD just now and they have deleted that guy's comments.  Too funny!

That is EXACLTY why their site is being mirrored!

Date: 2006/09/21 07:02:45, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (2ndclass @ Sep. 21 2006,11:46)
Google's reply to Dave:

As your new copyright policy prohibits us from caching your site, you are now permanently de-indexed.  In other words...
You're outta here. -google

Yeah I'm sure the judge will ask why Google is not also named in the lawsuit since a Google cached copy clearly violates the poodle's copyright policy.

This is the problem with creationists, they come to conclusions without any rational investigation prior to those conclusions.

Hey Dave Poodle Tard, are you planning on suing Google as well?  If they cache your little creationist site they are clearly violating your little chat board policy.

And Mr Poodle Tard, I have posted on your dumb little chat board (before you banned me for "being all nice';) are you saying you are copyrighting my comments?

Date: 2006/09/21 08:01:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 21 2006,12:26)
Until such time as the UD/Google access flap has a known etiology, BUUD is off the air. If there is any chance that Google interpreted BUUD as a "link farm", the proper thing to do is to close access to the site.

Wes you just killed my buzz, man.  

ps. you can use a robot.txt file to block google from the BUUD portion of the site.

Date: 2006/09/21 09:35:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Alas, poor Jim Wynne, we hardly knew ye...YOU'RE OUTTA HERE! -dt

Date: 2006/09/21 10:30:17, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
My last comment on this subject, I promise...

Funny that the ID Poodle did not simply send Wes an email and explain the reasons why he thinks Google has dropped them and asked Wes to help out.  Instead he went the typical fundy route of portraying UD as a victim of an evil scheme plotted by and evil man.  I mean the Tard first suggested Google's database had been hacked by an "insider" and now he claims Wes is trying to destroy them.

Dave Tard, as a fellow Texan you know we have a term to describe guys like you down here, they're called pu**ies.

Date: 2006/09/22 05:00:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
What did they do to the website today?  New software?

Date: 2006/10/04 04:38:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
We should start an official Banned at UD thread that would consist of, well, the thing that got someone banned from UD.  it could also server as a place for mourning that great loss.  It would be an entertaining way of documenting the wholesale banning that goes on over there.

Wouldn't that be a fun thread to read? :-) Nothing but commentary that got folks banned at UD.


Date: 2006/10/04 09:38:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 04 2006,11:25)
When I read that little essay, a beautiful scene emerged in my mind:
Dembski stood beneath the oak, smirking and delighting in the admiration of his young apprentices.  Just as he was about to recommend his latest book for purchase, he saw a short man wearing sunglasses and a dark blue T-shirt approaching.

"Away with you, Heddle," said Dembski.  "You do not belong amongst these ID luminaries."  Dembski, upon seeing that he was in fact only surrounded by the likes of Salvador Cordova and Gil Dodgen, quickly pulled out his personal mirror to stare at his reflection.

Heddle cast aside his sunglasses, revealing a light of determination in his aging eyes.  But he did not reply.

Dembski became wary, and he thought he could hear music coming from the skies.  As the silent Heddle stalked closer, the music became louder.  Dembski recognized it as The Battle Hymn of the Republic.  It grew louder.

"Don't you dare approach me," Dembski admonished.  "Please take your message to my research assistant."

"That's me!" an eager Joel chimed in.  Dembski glared.

As Heddle grew near Dembski, he reached behind himself.  Sparkling in the sunlight, a golden cross the length of a golf club and as thick as Dembski's wrist appeared in the now upraised hand of Heddle.  The music became thunderous, and a chorus of angels could be heard singing, "MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY OF THE COMING OF THE LORD!"

Dembski went pale.


Heddle raised the cross above his head with both hands.


Heddle swung the cross.  Gil, Joel, Sal, and the others looked on in horror, but could not move.


The blow connected with Dembski's face, lifting him from the ground.  As he flew through the air, the voices thundered:

OK, it's a little violent, but keep in mind that all these people are two-dimensional images to be, so it should be imagined as cartoon-like.

That was the most beautiful prose I have ever read here.  I went through a whole box of Kleenex.  Onward Christian soldiers!

Date: 2006/10/05 04:48:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski said -
"What I'm concerned about are sneering critics who think that ID's claims to science are dishonest, confused, ignorant."

Gosh, Bill.  All you have to do to stop all that sneering is quit lying to people, stop misleading people, and go get yourself an education in biology.  That will cure the dishonesty, confusion and ignorance on your part.  Only THEN will the sneering will cease.  

Until then you might consider getting a tougher outer layer as you can look forward to being sneered at the rest of your life.

ps: just between you and me ID's claims to science are in fact dishonest, confused and ignorant.  That's why everyone outside your little cult sneers at you.  They see right through yours and the Discovery Institute's  little charade.  "Id is about science and not God (wink wink)" come on Bill, anyone with half a brain can see through the ID con.  And even your #2 lap poodle Joel admitted the ID movement in Kansas was dishonest they are really trying to sneak ID In the back door, remember?  THAT is what is meant by dishonesty.  Your "sneering" critics are right on the money, bro.  

"Dishonest", "confused", "ignorant"?  Bill, baby, I know that shoe stinks, it's moldy, and doesn't match your socks, but hear me out, Christian Warrior,  the shoe fits you like a glove.  Wear it with pride.

Sorry to be the one to break the news to you.  Finally, as far as your math degree goes, you might consider asking for your tuition money back.  You got hosed on that one.



Date: 2006/10/05 05:10:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 04 2006,18:50)
Call me cynical, but I think Heddle's sudden "change of heart" over Dembski and the others is entirely self-serving. He was, after all, nowhere to be found PRE-Dover.  

And now Dover killed anti-evolution for the forseeable future.  Heddle knows that.  So now he is attempting to position his "cosmological ID" crapola (which is every bit as religious and unscientific as the biological ID he is now ranting against) as The Next Big Thing.  

Now he can argue to all and sundry that since biological ID fell flat, it embarrassed itself so badly that the entire field is now radioactive, as is everyone associated with it.  Hence, Heddle has never been happy wiht biological ID, no sirree Bob, and everyone should leave it and jump over to his "cosmological ID", which -- not being about evolution at all (and avoiding the subject entirely) -- wasn't touched by Dover (as he sees it), and can therefore serve as The Next Big Strategy for getting fundie religion into classrooms.

Heddle knows that he must cut down Dembski in order to BECOME the next Dembski.  Which is all he's really wanted.

THAT would be a huge improvement.  I'd take Heddle leading the ID pack over D*mbski in a heat beat.  

Heddle may be many things but he does not seem to be a lying, dirty, rotten, scheming, sack of shite liek D*mbski, and he knows more about legitimate science than D*mbski ever will.

Self serving?  Who cares.  Someone put Heddle in charge of the ID cult and remove Dembski please!

Date: 2006/10/05 05:39:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 05 2006,10:30)
I'm sure we'd all like to see his scientific evidence for cosmological design.

i.e. meaning that you dont have to believe it is right for it to work.

Not trying to argue or defend Heddle, but why would you need to see the evidence?  I don't think Heddle is trying to peddle his ID notions to school boards and high school science classrooms.  Who cares what sort of evidence he uses to support/compliment his faith?

Sure he's come here and to PT to argue his case with notions that are fuzszy, but is he writing dishonest books to be used in high school curricula?  Is he pretending the designer could be a space alien (wink wink)?  

But most importantly is he tring to manipulate what is considered science in public school rooms?  If the answer is he's doing none of those Dembski/DI tactics than who cares what his evidence is.

Seriously.  From reading his blog he seems to be a devout Christian who thinks there is something to this ID stuff and enjoys talking about it and often argueing about it.  Where's the crime?

Yeah, I'd take a thousand Heddle's over one lying Dembski.


Date: 2006/10/06 10:47:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is it me or has UD gotten terribly boring lately.  Typical dave tard boasting ("look at me, I'm a brilliant person and William Dembski calls me by my name"), the church lady (aka "morphodyke") going on and on about nothing (that woman needs a hobby), and Dembski quoting anonymous sources who whine endlessly.

I drop by once a day and it's been super-zilla boring for weeks now.

Date: 2006/10/06 10:54:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Heddle was all

The next time I got into trouble (with the same people as it turns out) on the list was fairly recently, at the beginning of September, but still before Dembski became moderator. Ironically, I got in trouble along with Dembski.

I wonder who was moderating the list before Dembski took over those duties....Who in the ID movement is authorized to publicly (well within a secret society) scold the IDiot Savant of Design Detection?

Date: 2006/10/06 12:13:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is some weird, ignorant shite if you think about it.

To trust the scientists is not faith. It is, in fact, trusting in man's reason rather than God."

When they speak of trustijng god what the #### are they saying?  

What he is suggesting is do not trust man's ability to reason, instead trust a book that is incomprehensible, spilled poetry written thousands of years ago by men who thought the Earth was flat, the Sun circled the Earth, and owning slaves was cool as long as you don't abuse them too much.  WTF?

Yeah, put your faith in an ancient text written by people who were ignorant of fundamental things.

I think it was Bertrand Russell who said something close to I don't recall any part of the bible that praised using one's intelligence. (feel free to provide a more precise quotation).

Yeah don't trust man's ability to reason, trust Dembski and the Discovery Institute instead, afterall they obviously speak for gawd.  Or don't trust them, trust your bible!  Well your bible was written by men just them, so who exactly are you trusting when you say you are trusting god?

I was a believer the first 30 years and my life and I can assure you god never once called me on the phone so people can pretend they are trusting god but what they are really "trusting" are ignorant, uneducated men who wrote down their nutty thoughts thousands of years ago.

I'm probably not making any sense...Oh well...


The frightening and dangerous part to me is how so many christians (and IDers) make ignorance out to be a heavenly virtue.  They might as well say "blessed are the dumb and uninformed who do not think for themselvbes and instead let others think for them as they delude themselves into believeing they are actually trusting in god.  Blessed are those who refuse to think critically or question any of their beliefs or examine the evidence for those beliefs"

THAT is what this "faith" Wise is talking about really is.  And the dunces eat it up.

Date: 2006/10/09 07:47:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
How about disembodied ghoul?  I suppose that would conjure up images in Halloween ghosties.  

Speaking of which how come you never hear the phrase "...the father, the son, and the holy zombie who rose from the dead"?

Date: 2006/10/09 07:59:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey AFdave are you familair with Joseph D.
Renick of the intelligent design network?  Looks like you and he have a lot in common.

Date: 2006/10/10 09:39:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is a laff riot, I mean a total knee slapper.

Holy crikey those guys are mentally ill or something and their cultists lap it up.  I bet their little "celebrate success" event is a sell out.

I suppose spending 4 million bucks promoting ID is pretty much all the evidence they need to prove ID really is science.

Date: 2006/10/10 09:47:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I wonder if at their little celebration whether they will be bragging about all the goals they have reached that they outlined years ago in their Wedge Strategy.

That would be cool.

Date: 2006/10/11 06:32:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I notice this subject is not getting any air time over on Dembski's cult of conformity network.  

One would think that celebrating all the ID scientific accomplishments brought to you by the Discovery Institute would be something they would rejoice in?

Why isn't Dave Tard bragging about it and where is Sal the Snake when you most expect him?  The silence about this event at UD is eerie...

Color me perplexed!

Date: 2006/10/11 11:32:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'd like to thank Dave Tard and JAD for making things more interesting at UD this week.  I was starting to worry about dying from boredom there for a minute.

Date: 2006/10/11 11:49:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2006,16:36)
Awesome signature.

I doff my tardcap.

Talking to me?

Date: 2006/10/11 11:58:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The paper is dated January 1998. More than eight years have passed, and the full NAS — not just a past president — has issued a consensus statement that human activity is causing global warming.

I know somebody who signed the “no global warming” petition. He was an arrogant physicist who never reviewed the data, and who thought that by dint of his superior intellect and superior education he could pronounce on a hot-button topic he knew little about. Oh, and he incidentally had a lot of money invested in a company that used CFCs to clean the hulls of U.S. navy vessels.

Comment by DharmaBum — October 11, 2006 @ 4:30 pm

Alas, poor DharmaBum, we hardly knew ye.

Bye-by DharmaBum.

Date: 2006/10/11 12:18:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Could we allow JAD to post here again?  Maybe just one thread like Afdave, tard, fighter pilot and part time biologist got?

Just a thought.  JAD is too special to be silenced and Davetard just nuked him again.

JAD if you read this your fans here are pulling for you!

Date: 2006/10/11 12:26:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Aawwww man...That's cold!

Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.

I am going to miss him over at UD.

Date: 2006/10/11 12:42:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Yeah but you still wipe your bum, no?

Date: 2006/10/11 13:11:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
It's too bad the Lord doesn't update the bible from time to time.  That way He could clearly outline His opinion on youth blogging.

I'm thinking something like

''Blessed are those who only blog when they have a legitimate business need"


"Blessed are those who warn others about the evils of looking at women's che-ches on the internet"

Steve I think this does mean we'll be reading alot less of our boy Joel.  Oh well.

Date: 2006/10/12 04:27:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Aardvark @ Oct. 11 2006,20:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2006,14:49)

I love it so!

Whack that mole!


Aardvark, you steal a phrase from here, you magnificent bastard, this is pure gold!

I can't figure out if JAD is mental or what.  But check this out.  

JAD starts out

There is no evidence for the existence of one or more Gods, but that they once existed seems undeniable. It is impossible to understand any aspect of life as a manifestation of undirected processes. Everything we know with certainty demands one or more original creators with an intelligence far beyond our present powers to comprehend. I am convinced that evolution is no longer in progress and like ontogeny has proven to be a self-limiting phenomenon. I have recently summarized my thesis in the form of "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," Rivista di Biologia 98: 155-166. 2005. That paper and several of my earlier papers are available on the side board at and several other internet forums.

I look forward to a defence of my thesis here or anywhere else where I can present my convictions for civil discussion.

And the moment the other forumites there (who took the time to read his paper) start engaging him with very civil questions, mostly "show us your evidence for these claims"  and "you are mistaken in your understanding of how evolution works and here's why"  JAD retreats to his typical

No one has raised a single point. They have only denigrated me and my sources, some of the finest biologists of the past. This is all very revealing which is why I dropped in. I am afraid that you will have to do what other ideologically dominated blogs have found necessary. Ban me, because I have no intention of abandoning any opportunity I am offered to present my thesis. Being banned is the best evidence imaginable that I have, in the parlance of the military, "reached out and touched someone."

Your bullying tactics bore me to tears. Do what you have to do, what you were "prescribed" to do.

He presented his thesis, they pointed out a glaring lack of evidence for his conclusions and gave him an opportunity to provide that evidence (he did not) and they also gave him reasons why his assumptions about evolution are wrong, in a very civil manner i might add.  And JAD goes into victim mode.

Again, read the whole thread.  It's priceless.  That thread belongs on a JAD's Greatest Hits volume.

Date: 2006/10/12 07:35:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This post is destined for oblivion in the Welsberry gas chamber as just another example of his Nazi tactics

Now that was some comedy.  JAD should be a fundie christian.  He has the persecuted victim thing down to a "science".

His latest on Dawkins site is pretty much:

JAD: Read my thesis, I am prepared to defend it!

Forumites: Ok, we read it.  Please defend it here, here, here and here with some sort of evidence for these claims.

JAD: I will no longer tollerate the personal attacks on me!  Go ahead and ban me now!!!

Date: 2006/10/12 09:11:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2006,13:19)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 12 2006,12:58)
Casey Luskin Brings the Tard

North Korean Nuclear Test Forces Seismologists to Make a Design Inference

This week, seismologists were met with the unfortunate news that North Korea probably tested a nuclear weapon. The task of seismologists in the free world has been to confirm whether the North Korean government was truthful when they claimed they tested a nuke. Whether they realize it or not, scientists currently working to verify if North Korea has conducted a nuclear test are actually engaging in an exercise in intelligent design.

Wait -- I'm confused. Does that mean GOD blew up that nuke in North Korea?  :p

That's theology, they don't do theology.

Get it straight.

Date: 2006/10/16 06:17:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Allen: You really need to mix more in the real world. Question: did your views on evolution ever lead to you losing an academic job? No? From your cossetted little academic fiefdom, it’s all very easy to blow smoke. For your fatuous remarks above, I should boot you from this forum, but that would only confirm your delusions.

Comment by William Dembski — October 14, 2006 @ 11:14 pm

Dembski is a petty, nasty little bastard isn't he?  What a childish, insecure dork.

Date: 2006/10/16 08:26:05, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like one of ID speeches got cancelled when they realized he would be talking about, well, intelligent design.

Date: 2006/10/17 07:22:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Over at Christianity Today the Church Lady (tardette) reviews Johnson's latest...Bold emphasis mine.

Every few months, a wise head predicts the end of Intelligent Design

Yeah, kinda like you and Dembski and the rest of the wingnuts who predict the demise of "Darwinism" every other week.  

—in time for the next uproar. Darwin's Nemesis, a collection of essays in honor of Phillip Johnson—the Berkeley law professor whose Darwin on Trial started the controversy in 1991—helps readers understand why id cannot simply go away. Long before Johnson, many scientists objected to Darwinism, but lacked a framework for their objections in an academic environment committed to reductive materialism. Johnson's legal approach provided that framework.

No kidding, when your ideas are clearly unscientific skip the lab and go for the courtroom.  That approach was a real humdinger in Dover and later in California.

Steve Meyer's analysis of the Cambrian explosion, reprinted here, should have interested only the few paleontologists who really care about extinct organisms from half a billion years ago. His paper instead became headline news, because it challenged Darwinism.

Odd, as I recall it made a blip and mainly because most everything Meyer's wrote was false.  Or perhaps we're talking about a different Steve Meyer?

Mathematician William Dembski, Johnson's successor as informal leader of the id community, offers reflections on how a small, beleaguered band of scientists succeeded in bringing their issues to the front page. One reason he suggests is that id is not a top-down community and thus is less vulnerable to politically correct scientific orthodoxy. As this volume demonstrates, we can expect more such uproars in the coming years.

I love it when you call Dembski a "mathematician" but probably not as much as Dembski loves it.  What a laff riot!  And what's this, Dembski is now in charge of the ID fiasco?  Cool.  Does this mean Dave Tard is the #2 man in charge?

Hey Church Lady, what's it like to be such a lying baffoon?  Will misleading Christianity Today readers get you into heaven quicker?

(yes I know baffoon is spelled buffoon but I prefer pronouncing it with an "a").

Date: 2006/10/17 11:14:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'm still trying to decide whether Sal is mentally ill or just a garden variety opportunist who is slowly making a name/opportunity for himself in hopes of cashing in on the ignorance of others.  

He sucks up to Dembski well and has a role in the little IDEA cults.  I believe he gives speeches here and there, so he's making a name for himself, within the tard community that is.

I've actually known a few unsavory characters who were unapologetic about misleading Christians as a means of wealth building.  You know, pretending they are one of them and then cashing in on their ignorance.   I wonder if that's where Sal is coming from.  His statements are so patently stupid it's difficult to tell whether he's mental or simply a skilled professional.  

He obviously does not care what people think of him, any intelligent and informed person will recognize him as a dunce after reading only a few sentences.

Time will tell I suppose.

Date: 2006/10/17 12:08:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski has teaching chores to be sure.  Take a gander at the Fall 2006 class details:

As you can see he's raising the "science" bar at Southern.

Date: 2006/10/18 04:11:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 17 2006,23:52)
Now, what does a lilly have in common with
Soloman besides symmetry?


The suspense is killing me, please oh please give me the answer!


Date: 2006/10/18 06:11:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2006,10:59)
I don't know why the aparent fine tuning of the Universe is dissmissed so casually by posters here. As far as I am aware this is an aspect of the Universe that bothers plenty of Astronomers/Cosmologists and Physicists...

I am inclined to attribute it to a knee jerk reaction which is understandable when you think about how long science has been in the cross hairs of creationists/IDers.

Most of my friends are believers and the foundation of their faith does not concern me in the least.  It is the wingnuts who want to inject their religion in our public schools that give me the willies.  Too often I think people confuse believers with crackpots out to ram their religion down the throats of everyone else.

Date: 2006/10/18 07:52:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (dhogaza @ Oct. 18 2006,11:51)
Allen rocks.  No doubt about it:
It’s very gratifying to know there’s such interest in the evolving field of evolutionary biology, even at website that is moderated by someone who believes that it is morally detestible and the source of most of the moral failings of modern society

Was this a recent comment?  WHich thread?  

Surely Dembski will boot him.

Date: 2006/10/18 09:02:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,13:55)
MacNeill lays the smack-down on CSI. I wonder if WmD will come out and play?

88. Allen_MacNeill // Oct 18th 2006 at 12:44 pm

In comment #86 mike1962 states:

“There is lots and lots of hard evidence that intelligence agents can create CSI. There is none for NDE mechanisms. Therefore, so far, ID is the best explanation for the CSI in found in bio-forms.”

This is precisely where our seminar this summer at Cornell reached an impass. After reading and analyzing Dr. Dembski’s Design Inference and other papers updating his mathematical analysis of CSI, we concluded that, although his ideas were intriguing, there didn’t seem to be any way of actually applying them to an analysis of either unambiguously design objects, such as a ballpoint pen or a flashlight, and a “natural” object, such as a bacterium or a maple tree, in such a way as to clearly distinguish whether the object is the result of purposeful design or not.

For exampe, consider the following two examples:

(1) a large boulder placed by a human in the middle of a country lane in order to block traffic in the lane

(2) the sum total of all of the snowflakes at the top of Mount Blanc

The first object (the boulder in the lane) is unambiguously the result of purposeful design, yet its complexity (according to Dembski’s mathematics) would identify it otherwise. By contrast, the staggering complexity of the crystalline forms contained in all the snowflakes is beyond computation, yet no one that I know of would argue that they were the result of purposeful design.

Furthermore, “specification” doesn’t solve the problem, as the position and “function” of the boulder are certainly specified, yet according to the mathematics of Dembski’s CSI they would not so qualify. And, folk wisdom to contrary, given a sufficiently large number of snowflakes, the probability that more than one of them will exhibit virtually identical crystalline structures is pretty high (i.e. their shapes are “specified” by the hydrogen bonding capabilities inherent in the “natural” shape of water molecules), and yet once again no one that I know of would argue that such immense complexity was the result of purposeful design, “specified” or not.

In other words, Dr. Dembski’s mathematical models amount to interesting philosophical speculations, without any empirical application that we can infer. Simply “doing the math” isn’t what is going on, here: when one compares the results of an actual experiment with the predicted outcome, to determine if the results are “significant” evidence in favor of one’s hypothesis, one is actually doing science. However, deriving a mathematical model that has no real basis in actual practice nor any application to hypothesis testing isn’t doing science at all.

ID will be ready to take its place among the other sciences when a person schooled in its mathematical methods can unambiguously determine that the boulder in the lane is the result of purposeful design, but the collective crystalline structure snowflakes on Mount Blanc are not. Until then, it’s all airy speculation…

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 18, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

Date: 2006/10/18 09:23:09, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Can someone translate for me:

Who is Allen MacNeill?

Why is he posting on UD?

Amazing.  This guy has brought more biology to light over there in a few posts than Dembski and his wall of mindless zombies have in two years.  Amazingly several folks there seem eager to hear what he has to say.

I bet Demsbki is over in the corner polishing the trigger on his ban gun, just waiting for the perfect moment to pull the trigger. . .

We should be archiving his comments...

I hope Davetard engages MacNeill before Dembski erases him.  I'd love to see Davetard school MacNeill on biology.

Date: 2006/10/18 09:47:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Joseph is now schooling Allen.  Too funny.

Joseph // Oct 18th 2006 at 2:40 pm

Allen MacNeil:
Until then, it’s all airy speculation…

I would agree with that. That is is ALL airy speculation, even evolutionary biology and especially common descent.

I am also sure that anyone can fail to understand “No Free Lunch” and “The Design Inference”.

However given the materialistic alternative to ID is “sheer-dumb-luck”, sooner or later people, ie the general population, will start to realize that all objections to ID are nothing more than philosphical whinings.

As for “unambiguously” well with science you give it your best shot with the knowledge/ data available. Then future research can/will either confirm or refute the initial inference.

And BTW ball point pens and flashlights are just as “natural” as a bacterium or a maple tree. That is they exist in nature. And although we can say with confidence that neither ball point pens nor flashlights were produced by nature (acting freely) we have no idea how a bacterium nor a maple tree was originally produced- by nature operating freely or by intentional design.

Comment by Joseph — October 18, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

Date: 2006/10/18 11:05:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Tim Hague @ Oct. 18 2006,15:08)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,14:23)
Can someone translate for me:

Who is Allen MacNeill?

Why is he posting on UD?

Amazing.  This guy has brought more biology to light over there in a few posts than Dembski and his wall of mindless zombies have in two years.  Amazingly several folks there seem eager to hear what he has to say.

You asking seriously?

Allen is the guy who ran the 'Evolution and Design seminar' at Cornell during the summer.  

You can read all about it:

Yes I was serious and thanks for the link.

Date: 2006/10/18 12:28:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well...There's life and then there's.....

Date: 2006/10/18 13:10:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
You know the UD/ID crowd  are always asking moronic questions like "how come we don't see no cats givin' birth to no dogs?" or "how come we don't see no half man half monkeys??"

I got a question for those Genesis thumpin' rocket scientists.

How come we don't see no man or woman livin' to be no 700 years old no more?  According to the Word, that used to happen all the time way back then...How come aint no one livin' no 700 years nowadays?

Date: 2006/10/18 13:17:31, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
AFDAve answer me this, how come we don't see any people lving to be, oh, 700 or 900 years old anymore?

What's up with that?

Date: 2006/10/19 03:52:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 18 2006,18:56)
Allen said in post#76:
So what? Darwin didn’t speculate on any of this, but rather “started in the middle”
The following is one of my five attempts to post:  
From Allen MacNeill's site:

(Posted by Sal):

If I might give my ranking of the analogies in science with #1 being the strongest in terms of acceptance as “valid”:
1. Mathematics
2. Physics and Chemistry
3. Engineering
4. Biological Structure
5. Biological Function
6. historical hypotheses
#1 and #2 are so central to science they are adopted as articles of faith. Given analgous experimental conditions, we expect analogous experimental results
.Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — August 3, 2006 @ 3:19 pm

My post to the above:
Sal,I like the way you think. If the numbers
don’t add up, somethin’s not right.
You’ll find lots of them that do at:

more at:
Allen, symmetry is balance. (zero is in the middle)
Mathematically,that's where we should all begain.
Job 31:6 Let me be weighed in an even balance, that  *** may know mine integrity.

O + first and last = Noah
O + beginning and end = Noah
O + end = Noah
O + IN = Noah
O + I Am = Noah
O + G D (first and last) = Intelligent Designer
O + G D (beginning and end ) = Intelligent Designer
O = one sign (that) ( Intelligent Designer + IN)  I Am  "that" I Am
O = no sign
O = nothing (truth) “The prince of this world cometh and has nothing in me”
O = zero ( Intelligent Designer + I Am + O)
O = ought
O = nought
O = gap filler “none”   “ I looked for a man to fill the gap and found “none”
O = the one fold in infinity, eternity (size, direction, and time)
O = indifference, your middle face, the middle of each of your 6 senses.
O = a reference  point for all counting (beginning)
O = 15th letter of the alphabet
O = 360 degrees
O = a circle
O =a minute, an hour, a day, a year, one revolution
O = the middle of (Intelligent Designer )
O x seven folded once says "Intelligent Designer"
"Intelligent Designer" says "Seven circles (2520) folded once. (1260) or a,z and nothing.
O = the O in "O  ". (Intelligent Designer  ) (30 pieces of silver )  Zec 11:12
O = the O in “Mt. Olive”. From where  Intelligent Designer left, and to where he’s coming back.
Olive ewe = a greenish brown female sheep. ( Eve + v = ewe)

When the deciples asked the Intelligent Designer to teach them to pray, he began his prayer with an O: "Our father..."  It has no beginning nor end.

Mathematically, "Our" = LOVE (54), which is a good start or beginning.


Curious to know if you are Dembski's math tutor?


Date: 2006/10/19 07:50:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Sal's gift for self-promotion has not been overlooked by me...

Ponder the thread title:

Francis Collins: "I greatly respect William wishes to Salvador Cordova and the IDEA club"

Francis Collins mentioning Dembski and Cordova in the same "sentence".  Cool.

If he can start writing books Sal is a shoe in as a member of the next breed of official ID Tards.

I hope the DI makes him a fellow soon!

Date: 2006/10/19 08:10:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2006,13:00)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 19 2006,13:50)
Sal's gift for self-promotion has not been overlooked by me...

Ponder the thread title:

Francis Collins: "I greatly respect William wishes to Salvador Cordova and the IDEA club"

Francis Collins mentioning Dembski and Cordova in the same "sentence".  Cool.

If he can start writing books Sal is a shoe in as a member of the next breed of official ID Tards.

I hope the DI makes him a fellow soon!

Remember when Dembski used the text of someone's book signing to brag? In effect, he was quote mining a book dedication? Well, that's what's going on here, too.

He signed my copy of his book, “best wishes to Salvador Cordova and the IDEA club”. He cringed a bit when Caroline Crocker and I were getting our books signed as I pointed out the three of us were actually all together in the same Coral Ridge Hour TV series (see: Crocker and Sisson’s TV appearance helps launch a half-million dollar pro-Design campaign). I told him I was sorry over what happened in that he was not made aware of the complete content of the TV series. I thanked him for his visit, and said, “God bless you, Dr. Collins”.

Thanks Steve I overlooked this.

What a nut job.  I think he is the official "apologist" for the ID movement.  He was apologizing to Heddle for Heddle getting booted by Dembski over on Heddles blog, he was apologizing to someone else the other day for their treatment/banning at UD and now he's apologizing to Collins for being hoodwinked by the IDcreationists.

Sal says "I'm sorry we fucked you over, but we're doing it for Jesus.  Good bless you!"  What a guy, that Sal.

On an unrelated note did everyone see where the Discovery Institute was caught red handed making pro-ID/DI comments in various DI/ID related articles on Wiki?  Very funny.

Date: 2006/10/19 09:23:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 19 2006,13:36)
On an unrelated note did everyone see where the Discovery Institute was caught red handed making pro-ID/DI comments in various DI/ID related articles on Wiki?  Very funny.

Is there a link on that? This is one of the funniest mornings I've had in a while and that would be a capper.

Check out the tags at the top of the page


Date: 2006/10/19 09:33:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The Design Theorist known as Patrick gives us a good example of the beauty of ID.  As a Design Theorist you can be a high school drop out who never took a single biology course and still school people like Allen, who has taught biology for 30 years, on biology.

In the parallel ID universe, you don't even have to be able to spell biology to be an expert in biology.  In fact if you can simply name a few of Dembski's and Behe's books  (reading them is optional) you're more than just a biology expert, you know more about biology than biologists and therefore you have a moral obligation to point out where biologists are all wrong.

Allen seems like a humble kind of guy.  I'm sure he's penning a thank you note to Patrick for setting him straight at this very moment.

ID theorists are cool.  When I see some evidence that the Design Theorist known as Sal Cordova is starting to financially profit from peddling IDC I plan to become a Design Theorist myself.  But until I'm reasonably certain to make some cash from it I'll sit on the sidelines and root them on!

Date: 2006/10/19 10:11:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I believe ID can make great advances in uncovering dormant or deactivated designs. The Lord has honored the office of Physician, I believe medical advances through ID will someday transpire because IDers are willing to look in places where no one else will care to look.

Comment by scordova — October 19, 2006 @ 9:59 am

Sal, can you give us some examples how an IDer will one day make any medical advances at all?  Just one?

And...Sal, you design theorist you, had the Lord honored the office of the physician they'd all be given the gift of faith healing but instead they look to materialism for helping man's medical problems.  

The medical advances you see over history are not the result of the Lord honoring the office of the Physician, they are the result of scientists/physicians ignoring the Word and instead seeking humanistic solutions to human problems.  Tooth aches are treated with materialism (now in an easy to swallow tablet form) and not spiritualism.

There is as much evidence that the Lord honored the office of the physician as there is that the Lord honored the office of the guy who puts a hammer through the skull of a cow that is about to be slaughtered.

Date: 2006/10/19 11:46:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is your name here zero is real?

Just trying to make sure I get it.

Oh, and do you realize the United States (well one of them at least ) was prophesized in the Old Testament?

Noah looked over the ark and saw

(There was no mention of Bill Clinton though)

Date: 2006/10/19 12:14:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
a) Mike Argento is a genius.

b) Dude, like, sometimes when I look at my hand I wonder if there might be a parallel universe buried in one of the wrinkles.  When I consider that possibility I feel guilty when I wash my hands.

Hey pass that back over here...

Date: 2006/10/19 12:24:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
While the discussion on cosmological ID is keeping me on the dge of my seat, I am far more interested in this secret ID list serv you wrote about on your blog, Heddle.

I realize you were sworn to secrecy when you joined that list but can you shed any more light on it (without breaking your "pledge")?  

Like what is the purpose, why the secrecy, and do they really require a "pleadge" of some sort?  

And BTW, my hat's off to you for standing up for what is right and standing up to people who do not like anyone standing up to them.  Dembski seems to be drunken with power and he's obviously trigger happy happy when it comes to open discussion.

Date: 2006/10/19 12:28:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 19 2006,16:53)
(There was no mention of Bill Clinton though)

Hilery said if she gets back in the White House,
She's gonna raise all the urinals to keep
Bill on his toes.

"here zero is real"?

Dude, kindly explain the meaning/significance of the name?

And what's your take on intelligent design?

Date: 2006/10/19 12:58:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2006,17:46)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 19 2006,18:24)
Dembski seems to be drunken with power and he's obviously trigger happy happy when it comes to open discussion.

I'm drunk on power.

No wait. That's whiskey.

Just keep your finger off the trigger and we'll all get along nicely....

And pass the whiskey you ####, dirty darwinist.

Date: 2006/10/19 16:12:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I got two words for your dam dirty darwinists...

chocolate chip cookies!

Ha ha ha ha!  

Oops....Did I say two words?

here zero is real, for some reason I am not understanding what you are talking about...But that could be on account of all that cough syrup I just drank.

Oh man, these colors are awesome....

Date: 2006/10/20 08:33:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I read the other day that UD is still de-listed from Google.  This proves some darwinist has managed to hack into the Google database and delete UD (thanks Dave Tard for that tip).

Furthermore have you noticed the search engine relevance Wikipedia has been getting on Google?  The Wiki article on Intelligent Design is now the first search result and Wiki articles on subjects liked William Dembski, Discovery Institute, etc all show up in the top 3 results.  More damning is the fact that the Wiki articles are pretty factual.

This proves Google is part of the Darwin conspiracy to strangle the infant in the crib as Bruce Chapman says.

Interestingly, MSN (a known virus owned by Bill Gates) also returns the Wiki article on Intelligent Design as the first search result.  Gates has donated money to the DI (Cascadia) and this suggests he did it just to fool them into thinking he was their pal because it now appears MSN and Google are both in cahoots to topple ID on the internet.

Then I searched "Intelligent Design" from Yahoo (another virus masquerading as a search engine) and the Wiki article was #1 there as well.  No telling how deep this anti-ID conspiracy goes!

Date: 2006/10/23 06:50:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Tard pulls into the Stupid Station each morning and yells at the attendant, "Fill 'er up, and check the air in the tires while you're at it, homo!"

Date: 2006/10/23 07:00:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
As far as who JAD is and where he's coming from, I though that thread was the most revealing one yet.

JAD clearly comes out saying he has this super duper theory and invites folks to read his thesis and says he;s ready to defend it.

The second people started asking him to actually defend his assertions (and asking for evidence to support those assertions) he starts calling foul and goes in persecuted "scientist" mode.  He never once responded to any the requests for evidence or critiques of his ideas.

He's a certified lunatic.  Let's hope they let him start posting at UD again where is is amongst his own kind.

Date: 2006/10/24 06:02:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 23 2006,15:46)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,10:38)
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,11:27)
Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn?

What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else?

That might be the first time in history someone has been banned for his opinion on snowflakes.

DharmaBum told Daveless Wonder his comments about specification were not in keeping with Dembski's current formulation. Daveless denied that, tried to bluff his way along, and got caught. No, Daveless, specification is not a quantity. No, Daveless, zero specificity occurs rarely in practice. No, Daveless, zero specificity implies negative CSI, not zero CSI. So Hummer Dave unleashed his full intellect, and linked to a picture of a snow face. After DharmaBum responded, Daveless deleted the response and decreed:
Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He’s done wasting our time here.

Now I have it from a good source that what DharmaBum pointed out was that the 35 snowflake patterns are named in terms of concepts that have nothing to do with snowflakes. For instance, there are hollow columns, 12-branched stars, and fernlike stellar dendrites. Combine these partial descriptions with the term "ice" and descriptions of size and mass, and you have snowflake descriptions. There is nothing the least self-referential in such description, and Daveless no doubt p*ssed in his pants when he saw the similarity to "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller."

As I... oops, DharmaBum pointed out to His Davelessness, the snowflake patterns serve perfectly well as prospective specifications (now that presprecification is distinct from specification), and the way to avoid a presumably false design inference is to come up with a "chance" hypothesis under which the probability of a snowflake of a particular pattern arising is non-low. Daveless no doubt sh*t his pants at this point, knowing that no one understands how snowflakes take the forms they do. In other words, the design inference is laid bare as a god-of-the-gaps argument.

The upshot is that if IDists want biologists to give a detailed account of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, they had best get to cracking on formation of snow crystals. With their dearth of biologists and plenitude of physicists, the IDists are much better equipped to research crystals than biota.

This is the end of my Thank Dog incarnation. See you in the next life.

Well you look at the evidence and tell me which is begging for a "design inference"?

I mean those snow flakes look awful designed to me...

Date: 2006/10/24 06:13:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 24 2006,11:09)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,10:54)
Actually Hereoisreal, I see that your post was relevant. Mibad.

Thank you Steve
Since I'm banned from UD, I really would like
to see someone post my 10:26 there.

The numbers do add up.

As Sal said figures don't lie.


Keep in mind Sal is deceptive liar.  Just another helpful  FYI from yours truly.

Date: 2006/10/24 15:04:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
3. russ // Oct 24th 2006 at 4:51 pm

If I’m not mistaken, Tusekee University is an historically black college. As such, it is immune from attacks by the ACLU on the issue of religion/creation. They’re members of the same politically liberal coalition.

Comment by russ — October 24, 2006 @ 4:51 pm

ACLU = satan worshipping darwin loving atheists

black folk = ACLU

You do the math.

I've been reading UD more than usual lately and good god (space alien if you prefer) those people have got to be some of the dumbest folks walking the earth.  Seriously, I don't know if I have ever seen a dumber bunch of people in my life.

And Demsbki may be one of the best educated dunces in north america.  It's almost creepy yet highly amusing.

Date: 2006/10/27 06:52:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 26 2006,18:21)
I think his Tardness is gonna have to pull the plug on this thread:

31. bebbo // Oct 26th 2006 at 4:41 pm

Dave, just out of curiosity would Phillip Johnson be banned from this blog if he decided to post here? After all, it was he who said “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” If the “grandfather” of the ID movement is wrong that the designer is God then is it any wonder other people think so too?

Comment by bebbo — October 26, 2006 @ 4:41 pm

Then his Tardhood's reply (you can see he's getting irritated here -- you don't question the authority of an ex-Marine):

DaveScot // Oct 26th 2006 at 6:17 pm


In answer to your question, have you seen any posts by Phil here?

Comment by DaveScot — October 26, 2006 @ 6:17 pm

Is dave tard admitting he already banned Phillip E Johnson?

Date: 2006/10/27 07:06:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 26 2006,21:03)
DaveScot (to Jerry): As to your request that I ban you too. No problem. It’s done.


Seriously? Holy time travelling space alien, jerry is like the super charged ID fundie, I am stunned they would ban him.  He's one of the dumbest ones they've got (and therefore deserves to be a moderator).

Wow...They really do eat their own over at UD...

Date: 2006/10/30 04:21:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
dave tard us such a, well, tard.  of course snow flakes look designed.  they're perfect even.

funny how they'll use mt rushmore to make their case and when the same logic is used (snowflakes) they distance themselves from the concept and tell you that you don't understand engineering.

tards say the tardliest things.

Date: 2006/10/31 04:33:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
He's a UD refugee yet I'm all in favor of requiring this zero fellow to either post on topic (or at least close, and knock off the bibical riddles and other nonsense) or restrict him to his dedicated thread started by Steve.

Let him be as loony as he wishes in his own thread but require him to behave like a socially appropriate human being in other threads.

It would be different if he were actually bringing something to the table, in the form of question, debate or whatnot, but as it is he is acting like nothing more than an unwelcome fly at the dinner table.

Perhaps there is a bible code forum we could point him to where he could solve the riddles of the mighty jeebus?

Date: 2006/10/31 04:48:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The latest Heddle money shot:

Perhaps, Mr. Dembski, if you care to make a testable prediction regarding Harvard's initiative they will give you some "play." In fact, I am willing to bet that if you can make a testable prediction from your theories and apply for research funding under this initiative that your proposal would be reviewed favorably. By all means, submit a proposal that states: My ID theory states that if you do this experiment: [fill in the blank] the result will be this: [fill in this blank too].

As it is, or at least as far as I know, ID makes no prediction beyond that of the theologian...

Say what you will about Heddle's personal beliefs, but he's on the money when it comes to the Dembski cult.

Date: 2006/10/31 08:05:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 31 2006,12:44)
Ha, ha, it's a fundie purgefest this week!

40. jaredl  // Oct 31st 2006 at 12:23 pm

Sal -

If what you mean is that this blog is a place where a certain orthodoxy of thought shall be enforced - be it theological, philosophical, or scientific - then perhaps you aren’t being harsh.

It is, after all, a private place, and you’re free to place any restriction on the expression of ideas you wish.

I simply did not understand that this blog was not for discussion, but rather simple cheerleading and villification of heterodox opinions. Sometimes, I have problems discerning the unspoken rules.

Let the cheerleading continue.

Comment by jaredl — October 31, 2006 @ 12:23 pm

In what thread can this gem be found?

*Nevermind, I found it.  Carry on.

Date: 2006/10/31 08:12:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
So...Size really does matter?

Date: 2006/10/31 10:16:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I wonder if the intelligent design science labs and programs are hidden in tractor trailers, like the mobile biological weapons labs Bush told us about.   That would explain why none have ever been discovered.

I suspect the ID labs look an awful lot like this:

They're constantly on the go so they remain elusive and undetected.  They probably only stop for gas, potty breaks and road side chapels.  No telling the volume of scientific experiments they are conducting on an hourly basis.

Date: 2006/10/31 10:23:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'm curious to know how one might lie to themselves.  The other day I tested this notion.  I had $76 in my pocket but told myself I actually had $760 in my pocket.  I suspected I was lying to myself so I counted it again and low and behold, I only had $76 in my pocket.  Truth be told I never believed myself when I told myself I had $760 in my pocket.

How do you lie to yourself and not get caught?  Seems like you would already know you were lying in the first place.

I have to admit, these psychobable concepts like "lying to oneself" are quite amusing.  No they're not!  OH YES THEY ARE! (I just lied to myself again but I spotted it right away!;).

Hmmm...Back to the sex talk...So does this mean women really do like a man who wears Aqua Velva?

Date: 2006/11/07 09:54:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well if snakes evolved from cows, how come we still have cows?

Date: 2006/11/09 10:06:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,16:18)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?

God dun it.

Then he died.


'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?

I love it so!

Date: 2006/11/09 16:07:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
a not so bright Church Lady asked:

1. Blindness: Spiritual blindness worse than physical?

How stupid is that?  Ask a blind man how he feels on the subject, Church Lady.

Date: 2006/11/13 11:12:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The pile on Allen MacNeil at UD is to be expected I suppose.  Golly jeepers some of them are really mad at old Al.  Someone should take all firearms and sharp objects away from that Greek fellow.  Simply ugly.  

It will be interesting to see how much longer Allen posts at UD.  I would imagine trying to reason with retards has limits.

Date: 2006/11/14 12:19:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I hearby nominate Casey Luskin for the Joseph Goebbels Award.

Date: 2006/11/15 11:20:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (k.e @ Nov. 15 2006,10:44)
Simple Springer sez:


All I’m asking for is a positive demonstration that unintelligent processes can produce the complex nanometer scale machinery found in living cells.

Sorry I'd like to accomodate but I have this thing about doing it in public (if I know someone is watching) on the other hand that hasn't stopped me from being sprung in flagrante least that's what she said her name was.

So Davetard my best advice is to head down to the zoo and observe RM+NS through sexual reproduction in action.

If the animals don't comply a box of chocolats and a Barry White CD might help.

Barry White and chocolates is good, but might I also suggest an Al Green CD and a bottle of good wine.

Date: 2006/11/15 14:04:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 15 2006,11:33)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 15 2006,09:27)
Dorothy Parker once said about somebody, "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'." I'm beginning to think that applies to goddam salvador cordova.

The Empire Strikes Back, New Book by Woodward with foreword by Dembski
by scordova on November 14th, 2006 · 12 Comments

what do we see, a little while later?
Another pro-ID book rolled out: Tom Woodward’s...

'fraid I don't get what's going on here.

I second that. Could someone translate?  I get the "goddam salvador cordova" part.

Date: 2006/11/20 11:57:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Tard has gotten himself banned over at Wiki for his attempts to recreate reality on the William Dembski article.

Seeing the UD Ban Machine get banned makes me laff.

Date: 2006/11/20 12:03:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,15:24)
I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. I agree with Davison Manifesto on Punnet and mimicry. I would appreciate any comment of this part on Davison Manifesto or on my previous post connected with it.

Dude, do you honestly think we're going to argue about JAD's "theories" with you?  Are you serious?

Besides, this thread isn't about JAD's "theories" it's about his banning.

Got that?  Write it down!

ps - I love it so!

Date: 2006/11/21 09:20:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Looks like Heddle has been booted from yet another ID forum.  This time for criticizing Moonie cultist J. Wells.  Well he criticized Wells and also pointed out ID is not science and got the boot.

Date: 2006/11/27 12:24:17, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I don't blame guys like Dawkins for calling open season on religious belief.  Every day we see where leading religionists equate atheism with everything dark and demonic.  We see political leaders make similar claims, even going as far as to say atheists are not patriots (bush I).  Bush II has said all non-christians are all going to #### (as did Texas Gov Rick Perry last month).

It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn.

I am not one to argue about religion with religionists and I could care less what people believe in but I have no issue with people criticizing religious beliefs.  I hope Dawkins writes a dozen more just like his last one.  At least his arguments are thought out and reasoned and not emotional/hateful garbage like we read from the ID crowd and other tard communities.

We need more, not less, reasoned criticisms of religious belief.


Date: 2006/11/27 14:49:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 27 2006,12:49)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,12:24)
It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn...

So what?

Nobody living is responsible for what happened a thousand years ago. Nobody living suffered it.

Who blames atheists for 9/11? Nobody I know, let alone the general public. Nor am I aware of atheists being blamed for Hitler.

Stalin may have been an atheist but I don't think many people equate all atheists as being Stalin-like.

How many regular posters here criticise people for being atheist? I can't think of any.

It was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who blamed 9/11 on secular humanists (they also credited lesbos and pagans as well).  And not a day goes by where the tards at UD don't blame hitler's deeds on his atheism.  Religionists also trelessly point to Stalin as an example of what secular humanism/atheism gets you at the godless store.

Intelligent design is a full frontal assault on secular humanism.  You've heard of Intelligent Design I assume.  It's like creationism but they use bigger words.

And you are aware that Bush I said atheists should not consider themselves citizens or patriots?  And his mentally retarded son said no one but christians get to go to heaven.  

This is pretty common stuff, religionists blaming atheism for pretty much everything as well as portraying them as wicked and dangerous (or just doomed to leading meaningless, unhappy lives).  I'm surprised you weren't aware of any of this.  You should get out more.  Read the paper even.

There are several tards here to either blame secular humanism/atheism for the worlds ills, or they simply try and save us.  

But my point was if the religionists dish it out they should plan to have some flung their way too.  And those who get their feelings hurt because Dawkins thinks their beliefs are stupid might consider growing up or adopting ideas that are more bullet proof.


Date: 2006/11/27 14:52:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46)

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.


Date: 2006/11/27 17:22:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Just wondering what sort of events and such might be happening next month as we get closer to the one year anniversary of the Dover ruling.

I can't wait to read the tards at UD.  Dembski can remind us that Dover was NOT ID's Waterloo...And those of us who prefer living in reality can note that Dover was in fact their Waterloo, they lost and have no chance of ever gaining any traction again.  Their cause has not advanced one inch since Dover.  In fact they have had more set backs since then.

The DI claims they have spent 4 million dollars on ID research yet not a single paper published in a legitimate science journal.  4 million dollars and what do they have to show for it?  Seriously, 4 million dollars is quite a sum.  They have produced NOTHING.

We should chip in and buy Dembski a Dover anniversary present or something.  I'm good for $10 if anyone is taking a collection.

Speaking of utter, wholesale failure, the wedge strategy failed, the vise strategy was a no-show, what next from the tard camp?

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to some Dover anniversary hooplah.

Date: 2006/11/28 09:24:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Some of you guys are nutty.

I am not saying atheists are oppressed and I don't lose any sleep over religionists blaming atheists for everything.  I think it's funny/absurd.  I also think it's funny to see guys like Dawkins pointing out how silly religious faith is and I hope he keeps it up.  

It is absurd to think atheists should keep their opinions to themselves while religionists portray atheists as evil and dangerous.

That's it.  That's my point.  Try not to read more into my comment(s) than what I have written.


Date: 2006/12/06 15:01:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
What happened to the jesus wars that started this thread?

My friend's 5 yo daughter recently asked him who was more powerful jesus or santa claus.  He was stumped.

I thought maybe someone here might have a good answer for her.

Date: 2006/12/07 12:54:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Here is a better question:

What is the status of God research? Have plausible mechanisms been found for each of the major steps?  Obviously God could not just appear out of thin air.  You don't get something from nothing.

So what's the latest research on rescuing deities?  How could "he" have come to exist?  And what matter is he made up of?  

Bonus question, since the universe is billions of years old, and mankind has only been around for 10s of thousands of years (and the NFL has only been around for less than 100 years) what did God do to occupy his time for all those billions of years prior to mankind.

All productive criticism is appreciated.

Date: 2006/12/07 13:02:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Think about it peeps, lifes "origin" didn't start at the first cell.  It started at the "emergence" of the first deity.  So identifying the deity (that dude who created life) is ground zero.

So like I was saying, what is the status of God research?

Date: 2006/12/07 14:52:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 07 2006,14:28)
I read somewhere that the difference between science and an ideology is that a science can answer a question like, "What evidence do you have for your position?" without resorting to jokes, insults and tu quoque retorts.

Does anyone have anything to offer than one of the above?

Can you tell us what the status is on the God research?  
And you do see how the origin of life did not begin on planet Earth.  It began with God and then He created Earth and the little cells and stuff.  

So...Before we can answer how did Earth life begin, we must answer how did God begin.  

So...How is the God research coming along?  The bible clearly tells us what his mental state is (jealous, irritable, angry, two faced, dishonest, murderous, cruel, clearly NOT a good example for children)  But has anyone come up with a theory regarding what God might be made of.   I'm talking chemistry and biology here, peeps.  Does God have DNA or?

Paley, I believe this is your realm of expertise, no?  What is God comprised of, please.  At least what does the most recent scientific research suggest?


Date: 2006/12/07 15:41:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 07 2006,15:18)

Can you tell us what the status is on the God research?  
And you do see how the origin of life did not begin on planet Earth.  It began with God and then He created Earth and the little cells and stuff.  

How convenient. According to you, origin of life researchers don't have to answer the tough questions. All they have to say is, "Well, God isn't much of an explanation either!"

So not only does this field have the answers, it doesn't even have to sweat the questions. So when do I get a tax break?  :angry:


You still have not answered my questions.

Date: 2006/12/07 15:56:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
VMartin, you are nothing but a monkey man with potty mouth!

Date: 2006/12/07 18:12:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
No more Mr Nice Guy from me!  

Quit acting like a snotty nosed, bratty, spoiled  little girl, Paley and tell us about the state of the current God research. Have they discovered him yet?  What is he comrised of?

How can ANYONE suggest God created the heavens and man when we haven't even discovered God?  I thought this was the subject you knew something about.  God?

I mean even you will admit to say God did ANYTHING without first having discovered God or at least having a solid scientific theory on God would be absolutely stupid beyond belief.  You're a smart guy so I know we can agree on that, Paley.

So, where are we in our quest to discover God?  This is important stuff!  Has science found him yet?  Do we even have a coherant and scientific God theory?  What the #### do you think he must be made of?  Carbon based or?

Good God man, answer my questions and stop playing opposum!


Date: 2006/12/07 18:25:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2006,18:22)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2006,18:10)
The members of my church were sadly disappointed that I would go to such a liberal college as BJ.

I'm scared to even ask, but what colleges did they view as 'not liberal'?


Date: 2006/12/08 12:57:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
"I think that the latest discoveries in physics argue for a God who fine-tuned the universe."

How dense can you be?  And what a dumb, stupid cop out.  You cannot argue that godditit until you prove god exists.  You might as well say "I think that the latest discoveries in physics argue for a santa claue who fine-tuned the universe."  or "I think that the latest discoveries in physics argue for Elvis who fine-tuned the universe."

And I thought you knew something about science.  That's why these threads of yours are so patently useless and stupid I might add.  Paley says goddidit, well where is your evidence that god even exists?  Prove god exists and we can theorize how he might have done it but until you prove god exists you're just another creationist troll.

Where is the latest god research?  And what are scientists proposing he might be made of?

Date: 2006/12/13 11:25:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
On the subject of the narcissistic putz know as William Dembski and his Judge Jones is a big potty poopy thread, it must be depressing to realize dave scot and larry farararar... are your ideological peers.  That is one scary thread.

Date: 2006/12/14 09:17:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Are you sure they didn't mean soylent green?


Date: 2006/12/14 09:47:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well I hope we see lots of "then and now" articles at PT.  I have been reading some from last year prior to the ruling and it was fascinating how we were all wondering how he would rule, whose testimony rocked and whose was dumber than dumb.  It was an interesting time for science.

Remember when Dunceski calculated the odds of how Jones might rule.  What a jack arse he is.  I think Dunceski said something like

70% chance Jones will rule for defendants
20% chance Jones will rule for plaintiffs
10% chance Jones will rule in favor of the plaintiff AND say ID is not science.

Just goes to show you what a dunce he is when it comes to numbers.

And I KNOW the 3rd calculation by Dunceski is accurate, the first two I might be off by a little.

Date: 2006/12/14 10:07:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Arden Chatfield, brilliant signature.  And I agree on your take with what we should expect from the DI.

Date: 2006/12/14 10:50:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Someone should do a similar flash where Dunceski is the puppet and davescot and larry farararararararara are pulling the strings...

Speaking of that threesome, they were recently spotted at an ID forum.  Thats Dunceski in the middle.

Date: 2006/12/14 18:17:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This deserves it's own thread but for some reason I can no longer start new topics (Wes is looking into it).

This is what I have been trying to post all day -

Barbara Forrest takes Dembski, the Di and even Dembski's favorite lapdog, davetard, to the mat in this issue of the Skeptical Inquirer -

The “Vise Strategy” Undone: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District

They don't come off looking well ;-)  

Amazing that their national scam was undone by a tiny woman from Louisiana (with a little help from Ken Miller of course).  Think of the riches Dembski and the DI would have made if not for the Dover ruling.  Pandas and People would have been a cash cow cancer had they succeeded in Dover.

No wonder they ridicule Forrest at every chance they get.  She cleaned them out.

Date: 2006/12/14 18:26:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 14 2006,17:42)
Ekstasis waxes ecstatic over circumcision:
Check this out regarding circumcision!!

Now, what happened to the “religious practices damage humanity” line? And how in the world did a religious practice develop that makes so much sense from a medical standpoint, and not just for AIDS, long before any theory of bacteria or viruses?

Oh, just lucky happenstance, is it? Hmmm. And how about that old Moses, how did he “receive the Law” thousands of years ago that just happens to have completely solid sanitary rules that were not practised by the Egyptians at the time?

Pure luck, just like Darwinian evolution, of course!!!

Comment by Ekstasis — December 14, 2006 @ 7:25 am

No word from Ekstasis on the Designer's incredible foresight in providing the requisite skin for snipping, thus providing mohels with employment for centuries to come.

Let me get this line of "logic" straight..

God (or a space alien if you will) designed me with excess foreskin, which is unsanitary and can lead to health problems.  Only later did he realize his design was flawed and instead of correcting it he told Moses to tell my ancestors to snip that excess and we'd live longer.  Rrrriiiiiiiigght.  Sure.  I get it....

Just goes to show you how incompetant (stupid?) the unintelligent designer is.

Now, if they want to start a new movement that studies "unintelligent design" I just might join them.  Oh wait, that's already being done, it's called modern biology! :-)

Date: 2006/12/18 16:41:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
davescot is now dog piling on dave heddle, comparing him to the church lady (i thought the morphodyke was the church lady?)

davetard advancing the intelligent design cause

It's one year since Kitzmiller, where's the science they promised?

Date: 2006/12/18 17:44:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (phonon @ Dec. 18 2006,16:10)
There once was a judge in ol’ Dover…

Who was certain he was related to Rover,

So he saw his chance

Dropped his pants

And when the ACLU arrived, bent over.

They have deleted the jone is a dog indulging in anal sex with the aclu bit, or could you provide a link to it?

It appears they have deleted it.  Anyone got a copy?

Date: 2006/12/26 10:42:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is it me or is William "Divine Wind" Dembski losing his mind? Seriously, farting videos, innapropriate and childish emails to his critics.  And he uses scripture to justify his petty childishness.

Can you imagine Ken Miller doing this sort of stuff?  Or Barbara Forrest?  Speaking of Forrest, Willy responded to her recent article and challenged her to a debate.  How dumb can Willy get, Barbara already debated ID in the only forum worth paying attention to, the courtroom.  ID lost and she won.  Challenge Barbara Forrest to a debate, good one, Bill.  Ha ha.

I wonder how long until the bible school where Bill teaches finds his petty antics and farting videos tiresome.


Date: 2006/12/26 10:45:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
sorry for the double post...

Date: 2006/12/26 10:53:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 15 2006,17:00)
I recently crossposted a comment from Panda's Thumb, in which a certain "WillD" said he thought all copies of the Bible should be burned, just as Charles Darwin insisted in the Origin of Species.  Some commenters have expressed some dismay, noting that (1) WillD was an obvious pro-ID troll, (2) his IP address identified him as a faculty member of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and (3) his post, if read slowly, was written in a broad Chicago accent.  That may well be the case, but I do not intend to match this pathetic level of detail.  There is a more interesting question here.  The Panda's Thumb claims to be one of the leading forums for the discussion of evolution.  They also moderate their comments.  What does it say about their vaunted quality control if they let through posts that I could have written? - WmAD

Is this true?

Date: 2006/12/26 11:46:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks, that was so patently absurd I found it entirely believable :-)

Date: 2006/12/27 11:23:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Did the Christmas card include farting noises?  If not then there is your answer.  ID is all about flattulance.  

What would Jesus do?  Why, acdcording to William Dembski he'd down a bowl of chili fries and let one rip!

Get with the program, homo.

Date: 2006/12/27 13:07:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
They forgot one:

The location of the eyes of a house cat are exactly where two holes in the fur are located.  Chalk up yet another win for Intelligent Design.


Date: 2006/12/27 13:34:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2006,13:19)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 27 2006,13:07)
They forgot one:

The location of the eyes of a house cat are exactly where two holes in the fur are located.  Chalk up yet another win for Intelligent Design.


ooohhh that tickled me.

Plus, Oranges are orange coloured..
Flies do actually fly
Bangs Sound like they are spelled..

ID wins again, good one Richard.  Being a Design Theorist is easy, I can do it and so can you!

I'm pulling out the big guns on this one:

Notice that a human's nostrils are located EXACTLY where the sinus passage is?  Hands down ID wins!


Date: 2006/12/27 15:51:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'm telling you, it's all about human gasses at UD.  Send another one next year only don't forget to include a couple of fart sounds.  They'll eat it up!



Date: 2006/12/27 16:00:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,13:39)
Oh so you can only say disparaging things about UD here?  Sorry ... I didn't know that rule.

Actually if you drill into this thread you'll find quite a few examples of brilliant points being made at UD, often just prior to them being deleted (or banned) for obvious reasons.

But this is not a thread to promote creationist nonsense/ignorance, there are other ones for that.

Date: 2006/12/28 09:09:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,07:26)
OK fine.  I can bash UD as good as anyone.

Based on what we've seen so far, I'm going to have to disagree with you.   Besides, you forgot to fart.  ID is all about farting.  Get with the program.



Date: 2006/12/28 10:53:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Did Behe happen to cut any good farts during his presentation?  I wonder if anyone recorded them for a future video.



Date: 2006/12/29 11:05:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, I want some of this action...Here is a gem of tardacity.

Jehu // Dec 28th 2006 at 8:57 pm

There’s a bigger genetic jump between humans and chimps than previously believed.

I could have told you that. For starters, chimps are hairy little animals and humans are not. Some people have become so completely hypnotized by Darwinism they miss this simple common sense fact.  

Comment by Jehu — December 28, 2006 @ 8:57 pm

Two funny things to point out:  

A) Humans are in fact hairy animals.  We are not rocks, we are not gas, we are not paper, we are animals with lots of hair.

B) Human have much more hair (number of hairs) than a chimpanzee, only their hair is much thicker and coarser and longer which gives the appearance they have more hair.

People have become so retarded by their faith in IDC that they miss these simple common sense facts.

Date: 2007/01/02 14:09:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
If Dembski had any balls he'd be asking Ken Miller to debate him.

And why would Forrest debate him when she already won the only ID debate that matters?

What a Dorkski

Date: 2007/01/10 10:02:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 10 2007,09:03)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 10 2007,06:52)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 09 2007,15:45)
best I ever did was 240/hr for a specialized database app. for a University back around 2000.

now the best I can do is 65/hr.

Heck, back when I did snake shows for school classes, I got up to $300 for a one-hour show.

You guys are in the wrong business.   ;)

'Snake shows'?

I just got this mental image of you gyrating mostly-naked with 3 or 4 pythons draped around your body in front of a bunch of shocked 12-year-olds.

More like

Date: 2007/02/06 17:16:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Is this the pub in Phinney or Greenwood?  I'm having a memory lapse...


Date: 2007/02/23 09:47:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
McCain to speak to DI creobots today.

Now let's put my bias right out on the table.  Years ago I thought McCain might be cut from a different cloth, and thus worthy of consideration.  Since then I have come to know him as the scum bag, opportunistic poser that he is.  

He preaches creationism (aka "ID") should be a part of public science class and amongst other nutty ideas now believes the state should rule over a woman's reproductive system.

Let's hope his presidential bid goes down like Dimbski's latest carreer as a video artist.

From a Seattle Times Article Some critics of intelligent design called on McCain to cancel his appearance. The Discovery Institute, however, has a lesser role in the event than it has implied on its Web site, which says the institute is "pleased to co-present (McCain's appearance) with CityClub of Seattle and the Seattle World Affairs Council."

The council said it and CityClub are the "co-sponsors" in charge of the event. Council spokesman Hilbren Buys said the institute, one of 10 "co-presenters," is merely helping to promote it -- "sort of hopped on board and wanted this to happen. ... They put it on their Web site with a bit too much credit on their side."

What?  Are they suggesting the DI is being anything less than honest?

Date: 2007/02/27 10:08:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2007,08:46)
We laugh, but Dembski got sucked into the bible code BIG TIME.

"Sucked into it"?  More like uncritically pounced on it and has yet to admit he was wrong.  I've seen several posts on UD where naive IDers asked Dimski about his current views of the bible codes and he ignored every one of them.

People get "sucked" into playing 3 card monty but only dunces fall for the bible codes.

Dimski admits his math degree was a total waste of money and time!

Read where Dimski suggests Bertrand Russel would have likely given up his atheism had he known of the amazing Bible Codes!

Date: 2007/02/27 15:36:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2007,14:47)
...BTW, the Dow just fell 500 point, everyone. So I guess we liquidate our 401Ks now, because that disproves the whole compound interest/economic growth theory, right?
(Yeah, you go ahead—I’ll leave my money where it is. As John and his friend in high school math class used to say, e! e! e!)

Actually this is a good buying opportunity.

Date: 2007/02/27 16:25:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Senator Finney (no relation to Col Sanders) has an online survey that I have been having fun with.  Help him assess his 07 priorities by completing it here.

Date: 2007/02/27 17:09:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 27 2007,16:34)
Is there any reason why an endowed chair in sexual orientation law should bother anyone who cares about ID?

Oh, I dunno, is there any reason why a probably very under-endowed refrigerator repairman from New Hampshire should bother anyone who cares about science?

Actually the comments in that thread are worth reading.  Goofy to be sure.

And they're bringing up our good friend sodomy again.

Date: 2007/02/27 17:28:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Archie, have you seen the movie "23" yet?

Date: 2007/02/28 14:40:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 28 2007,10:22)
This is happening in this country...and these guys are yawping about sodomy!    

Ahh those pesky sodomites at UD are at it again!

Date: 2007/02/28 15:01:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 28 2007,13:10)
More from Denyse:
My own view is that a power struggle is going on at the Foundation. Templeton senior's demise will likely mean a changing of the guard. The ID guys would like Templeton money, of course, but materialists would love to grab the whole pot. Indeed them must. They have big expenses. But not all the money in the world will keep materialism from going down in flames.

Indeed them must.  How else them keep Darwinism not sink?

The MorphoDyke is more clever than we give her credit.  Why just the other day I was talking to a scientist friend of mine about research funding.  

I asked "what do you think of this Templeton bru-ha-ha?" and he started to turn red in the face, I noticed sweat building on his forehead and his hands began to tremble.  Then his teeth clenched as he whispered, "We won't rest until we have ALL of the Templeton money!  We won't share it with ANYONE!  We want it ALL, ALL I tell you!  The flames are near the front door, if we don't get ALL the Templeton money the flames could take over the entire materialist complex!  First we'll get ALL of Templeton's money, then we'll start on our program to take all the money in the world!  Ha ha ha ha!"

At that point he started laughing in the most sinister manner until he started coughing and hacking up phlegm.  This creeped me out so I came up with an excuse to go home.

The MorphoDyke is crazy but she's hit the nail on the head on the materialist conspiracy to take ALL Templeton's money first, and then all the money in the world right after.

Let's hope the MorphoDyke and sodomites succeed in stopping the materialist!

Date: 2007/03/01 09:32:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 28 2007,18:42)

1st entry:

Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William ...DaveScot, the anti-science slug from UncommonDescent, ... How the cell deals with supercoiled DNA during replication and transcription. DaveScot ... - Similar pages

He's not kidding, Google "davescot"

How the heck...Oh nevermind.

Date: 2007/03/05 17:32:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 05 2007,15:45)
Doug interjects by bringing the folks back to the core tenent of Christianity; Love:

Makes me sick. I can’t wait to see all those other folks rot in hčll.


The funny thing is Doug's comments could just as easily be about the ID cottage industry, and we all know how ID proponents deny Jesus and the movement is nothing but a money grab.

Oh, the irony again, it hurts, IT HURTS!

Date: 2007/03/06 09:57:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Jad found a buddy who even quotes him in an online article.

Date: 2007/03/06 09:59:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I thought you guys were extinct?

Date: 2007/03/06 15:01:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 06 2007,12:25)
*Shimmy* G. Gordon Liddy, I mean, Scooter Libby convicted on all but one count! :)

Now he'll go to prison and write a pro-ID book just like Colson. :p

I was going to say that Scooter will now be getting it in the pooter, but alas at a federal lock up he'll simply work on his back hand (tennis) and as you say, write a pro-ID book.

Dubya will likely pardon him though.

Date: 2007/03/06 17:35:34, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (hooligans @ Mar. 06 2007,15:52)
A quick question for Gil- "Dodging the Question” that wasn't posted on UD. . . . You were talking about O’Leary’s comment regarding
“…the mathematical probabilities of Darwinism…”
You then stated that:
“They are nonexistent. I’ve blogged about this at UD, and this should be a complete no-brainer for anyone with a basic understanding of mathematical combinatorics. The improbabilities of the creative powers of Darwinian mechanisms are not just exponential in nature; the orders of magnitude compound exponentially.”

So how does this support ID? To calculate what you consider the improbablity of Darwinism, has no bearing on the validity of ID . . .. Right? Both Denyse and yourself are saying, “gee it couldn’t of happened this way, so lets just make up a story (ID) and say it happened that way.” Has anyone calculated the probability that an intelligent designer could intelligently design not only various species, but the entire universe? I don’t think so.

Another idiotic comment that goes uncontested at UD from Gil "Dodging the Question"

it would be an interesting project to determine/estimate how powerful god must be.  Only looking at his  surveillance abilities.  He is after all a "he sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake" kind of deity.  

So let's put aside his magical creative abilities and just determine how much memory it takes to be gawd.

World population in 2006 was about 6.5 billion.  Ok, since god knows/sees everything, that means he must have some sort of live feed mechanism.  6.5 billion video/audio feeds running 27/7/365.  According to scripture god doesn't forget anything so everything that happens must be archived (probably to tape for cost savings).

For starters, how much hard drive space are we talking to keep track of the thoughts, behaviours and begging (prayer and special requests) of 6.5 billion live, data sources?  Every single thought, gesture, and utterance gets recorded.

Can someone calculate that for me?  Maybe Dembski could whip up some celestial math for us to solve this riddle.

Date: 2007/03/07 11:48:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (heddle @ Mar. 06 2007,19:25)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2007,17:40)
Tims's UD post reminds me, at one point last year Dave Heddle turned on Dembski. Said he was going to write a big explanation of where Dembski's math was in error. I went there a few times last year to look for that post, but all I saw was Jesus and NASCAR, and disliking both, didn't hang around. Does anybody here go to his site and know whether or not he wrote that essay?

I have not written the essay.

What I did was a huge amount of research, (re)reading Dembski's books (no fun, I'll assure you) and searching for all existing criticisms. The bottom line, I'll readily admit, is I am not sure I can add anything new. There was much more already written than I was aware of. I might get around to it, but I'm in no hurry--I would actually prefer to write a book--a Christian/Scientist on why the ID movement has been a disaster--which would include a chapter that would amount to a review of the better criticisms aimed at Dembski's mathematics. However, the ID fifteen minutes seems to be just about used up--I doubt I could find a publisher. So maybe I'll write another novel instead. That's a lot more fun.

As for Jesus and NASCAR, how could you not like either of those related topics? If God didn't intend NASCAR, why did he give us Morgan Shepherd?


And yet, the only reason he is adding his two cents is probably because none of those others have done the trick in his estimation.  See, he has this totally awesome, cool way of finally showing us all where Dembski went wrong that no one has thought of before since no one before Heddle has been able to show where Dembski was wrong.  Or at least that's the impression I get.

Also, a few commenters there have asked multiple times when he is going to get around to his mathematical tour de force and he keeps dodging the question.

As usual, you are less than truthful. I never once implied that I have some awesome new criticism--I would not have expected so since the problems are fairly evident and I am not even a mathematician.

And Choo-Choo asked me a few times (do you know of someone else? You implied multiple people have asked me about it.) about the Dembski critique, and I keep telling him I hadn't done it. How is that dodging?

BTW, It's funny that you flame me when I criticize PZ and his commenters--and yet you participate in this forum whose raison d'etre is to criticize someone (Dembski) and his commenters. (Oh, but that's different...)

I'll buy your book if you find a publisher!

Date: 2007/03/07 12:51:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I belive it is Fresno and not Bakersfield.  Please, let's not stain the Bakersfield sound with these two nitwits.

Date: 2007/03/07 13:14:50, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The ghost of Buck Owens is weeping...

Date: 2007/03/07 15:47:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Everyone's favorite Morphodyke has been whining that not only is ID not dying, it's thriving.  Dimbski is always bragging about how ID is catching on in some 3rd world country (just look at his Google gaffs for evidence).  Yet most everyone with more than two brain cells is pretty much convinced ID "theory" is either dead or on its last leg.  Here are a few bits of evidence that I think are worth mentioning, and note the Amazing Steve Story posted this on PT and I asked if I could repost it here, it's too good to ignore.

William Dumbski, 2002:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.

Paul Nelson, 2004:

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” –- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

Jonathan Moonlight Wells, 2007:

“I don’t think I’m obligated to propose an alternate theory,” Wells publicly stated. “I don’t pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life.”

Behe in the vise:

(Rothschild)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?

(Behe)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.

International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design:

Contact Information

66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800
Princeton, NJ 08542

609-924-4424 (general)

The essay contests at ISCID have been cancelled, the conferences have been cancelled, the student workshops have been cancelled, the online chats have been cancelled. The ID ‘journal’ hasn’t put anything out since 2005.
I’ve emailed two different ‘editors’ of that journal, asking when the next issue was coming. No response. So I just dialed that phone number. After it rang for a while, a fax machine tried to pick up.

And let's not forget overwhelming evidence where at least 4 ir 5 IDers post at least once a week.  

After Dover they were all "this won't stop us, this is not our waterloo, we have not yet begun to fight" but it did stop them.  What have they done since Dover other than whine like babies?  And where are all the ID conferances?  

I think this pretty much makes a good case for the fact that ID as a theory is not really dead because it never came to life.

Other than UD (the home for wayward creationists) and the non-stop press releases from the DI, is there ANY evidence that ID even exists?

Date: 2007/03/07 15:54:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I believe it was George Bush Sr who questioned whether American atheists have the right to call themselves patriots.  I don't call myself a patriot so I was not offended.

Me, if I am faced with believe or leave I'll start worshipping a rat turd.  And don't laff at me.  Pray to jeebus and then pray to a rat turd and see which one grants your wishes.

Date: 2007/03/08 16:37:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 08 2007,13:43)
Dembski. Templeton & Jebus:

And Little Willy Dimski was all,

Just because ID has a political dimension does not mean that it does not have a solid scientific and intellectual core than can be weighed apart from political considerations.

Hey Willy, take away the Wedge Strategy, the Teach the Controversy thingy and what have you got left?  NOTHING you bird brained nincompoop.

What is left at the core when you strip ID of its politics?  NOTHING you bird brained nincompoop, not a freakin' thing because at it's core it is a political movement that is void, VOID I tell you, of anything scientific and/or intelligent.

Prove me wrong, and show us the "solid scientific and intellectual core than can be weighed apart from political considerations." you freakin' liar for jebus.  And spare us your stupid mouse trap, mt rushmore, fuzzy math nonsense.  

We want the "solid scientific and intellectual core than can be weighed apart from political considerations."

Date: 2007/03/09 12:09:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dave Tard will start a new post tomorrow that dogs Darwin's lack of an engineering degree.

Meanwhile Dimski is still a loser with 5 degrees who works at a 3rd world bible school.  And what the #### is a "reasearch professor" at a 3rd world bible school anyways?

Date: 2007/03/09 15:30:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2007,13:07)
This "Darwin did not know shit about math" thing over at UD at the moment really shows them up for the fools they are.

No math involved in understanding evolution? Projection again, I suppose, after all there's no math in understanding ID whatsoever. And there's more science in making cake then there is in ID :)

I have news for them, Dimski doesn't know shit about math either and he has an advanced degree in it.

Date: 2007/03/12 12:44:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is simply crazy/ignorant talk:

"I suspect that atheism is fine as a personal philosophy, but it tends to hurt those societies that adopt it as a norm"

Fucking ignorant statement that.

Date: 2007/03/14 13:28:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 14 2007,02:24)
We interrupt this thread for a missing person bulletin.

Missing:      Joel Borofsky
Occupation: Research Assistant (heh) and Public Obsessor of Hoo-Hoos
Last seen:   November 11, 2006

Fifteen minutes of fame:  Am I Really That Important?

If you have seen Joel, please call his mother.

I suspect when he was researching "slutty" little teenage girls for more material on his blob, he found one with ta tas that he liked and locked himself in the bathroom and has refused to come out ever since.

We was fanatastic material because unlike Dimski, he was pretty honest which made him a laff riot.  

I miss his stupidity.  Joel, we forgive you for touching yourself down there, and jeebus forgives you too, please start posting again!

Date: 2007/03/15 11:29:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Check this out where even IDers think Lushkin is full of shite.  At ISCID he's being accused of the same quote mining riff raff that we accuse him of.  It made me laff.

Date: 2007/03/16 17:28:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The beauty about conservapedia is you can be the dumbest person in town and rule there.

I created an account a while back and I make edits to articles that are so completely absurd that they are acceptable.  I'm a born again loon there and make articles dumber and no one challenges my edits because, like I said, from a fundy perspective my edits are so lunatic fringe that they are mainstream on the conservapedia site.

No one is going to question you there if you use tbe bible to rationalize your opinion/edits.

It's fun being in the belly of the beast sometimes :-)

Date: 2007/03/19 11:47:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 18 2007,06:49)
I honestly feel sorry for any student that is willing to take a Dembski class, especially the "Studies in Apologetics: A Primer on Intelligent Design" course.  Any student taking that course is obviously too stupid to think about getting their tuition fees refunded.  For christ's sake, recommended reading includes a book by Dense O'Leary.  That alone is enough for me to pity the fools.  Does anyone know what kind of salary Dumbski draws for teaching at the Seminary?

His real windfall comes from the DI and book sales.

Date: 2007/03/22 10:22:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This post will probably get deleted because it is so off topic...But until then...Wouldn't that be cool if Rove really gets subpoenad (sp?) and is forced to testify under oath?  Holy cow that will make my year.

Date: 2007/03/22 17:24:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks Steve Story!

And I don't see Rove having charges brought against him or anything illegal having been done. But the idea of seeing him humiliated while being questioned (under oath) and the ensuing illumination of the shady goings on within the Chimp's administration get me all hot.

Date: 2007/03/23 13:15:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2007,11:54)
They've got nothing better to do than sit around and quote mine Darwin and smear Miller and so on. They don't have an investigative framework which leads to hypotheses and experiments. They aren't discovering anything. They aren't doing any publishing.

(being careful, before making that last comment I checked PCID to see if they'd revived their dead-in-the-water Intelligent Design journal. Nope. No activity of any kind on the ISCID site, except some guy named LifeEngineer babbling away to himself on the discussion board.)

To make matters worse, they aren't even funny anymore.  I used to laff my arse off when I'd visit UD, nowadays it's depressing to read them.

And they talk of Ken Miller's "collapse"?  I thought it was Dimbski with 5 degrees yet teaches at a 3rd rate bible school and whose theories are but garbage except to fundies and tards.  I thought Dimbski's side lost at Dover.  I thought Dimbski's camp cannot get their ideas in high school classrooms.  And wasn't it Dimbski who produces flash animation that includes federal judges farting?

Who collapsed I ask you peoples.

Dawkins described Dimbski best when he called him a loser.

Date: 2007/03/23 13:32:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
First of all they took down the picture of Jesus holding a tiny dinosaur from the same named article :-(

But here is something very funny.  Until today Conservapedia was using this logo:

Hidden in that same image (the alpha channel) is the following:

And if you open the image with notepad and scroll to the bottom you'll read:

"Thank you for investigating this file
enough to find this little note. Here's a
treat for you:
Place this image onto a dark
background and look real close.
If you can't see anything, use
graphical manipulation software
to up the brightness and contrast.
You'll find out what I actually
feel about this website.

You see, I find the very existence of
Conservapedia repugnant. Please do not
use this website. It really is a crock of

-- MarkyH, concerned "liberal."

Yes I am serious.  Conservapedia changed their logo when this was discussed at Wikipedia.  It is likely the Wiki article will be updated with the new Conservapedia logo so I'd suggest you download a copy of the image before it vanishes (if stuff like this amuses you that is).


Date: 2007/03/23 13:39:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I work accross the freeway from SMU..Perhaps I'll check out that event. But I hate the idea of giving them $55...

Date: 2007/03/23 13:41:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
So, if I was a cute chick you guys would have wished me a happy birthday on the 22nd as well?

Date: 2007/03/23 14:59:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I follow the conservapedia article on Wikipedia.  They have been discussing it on the talk page.  I believe that's what tipped Conservapedia off to it.

Date: 2007/03/23 16:15:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Yes the 22nd is/was my birthday.

But am I spry I ask you??

And Kristine, true, you could be dave springer...And I should have said, "If I had a cute chick logo, would you guys have offered me a happy birthday" :-)

Ok, we're both named "k/Chris" (sorta) and we share the same birthday.  You're not me are you?

Date: 2007/03/23 16:59:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 22 2007,22:41)
First of all, Lenny is delicious.  secondly, the existence of threads like this remove any doubt that most participants who are incapable of objective, rational thought do not belong here and instead should seek refuge at UD or some other site for tards.

Post fixed (I corrected Septic's spelling errors).

Date: 2007/03/23 17:36:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I know SMU is not sponsoring the event, but they are in fact hosting it.   SMU's disclaimer about their openess to ideas strikes me as odd.  Where does one draw the line when it comes to openess to new ideas.  Would SMU host a Holocaust Deniers event?  Would then host an HIV Deniers conferance?  I doubt it.  Yet they are hosting a biology deniers convention.  It just strikes me as odd.

Date: 2007/03/28 15:25:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Wonderpants @ Mar. 28 2007,12:30)
Sheesh. Behe just destroyed Levin. Behe is polite but in my opinion, nobody does a better job of utterly demolishing Darwinist pretensions than Behe.

Yes, he made such an impression at the Dover trial. Why, I still can't work out how he unarguably refuted something like 57 papers on the evolution of the blood clotting mechanism and gave Darwinism it's Waterloo!  :D

Keep in mind Behe refuted 57 papers/books without having ever read them. Now THAT is amazing.

Date: 2007/03/28 15:35:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I found this via PT but thought it was worth it's own thread here.

Seems Dimski ID textbook for our friends at FTE, "The Design of Life" is nearer to thee (should be in print soon).  This one promises to be "fact" filled and "scientific".  Dimski is quoted "It is bullet-proof, which in part accounts for the delay in its arrival"

Holy cow man I cannot wait to read this bullet proof, steaming bowl of recycled creationist dog shit.  Let's hope he pollutes it with lots of fuzzy math.

Read all about it here.

Date: 2007/03/29 15:35:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
You have probably seen Kris Helpinstine's power point propaganda by now, if not you can hurl here

Keep in mind this was in a high school science class.  

Secondly, a recent article and interview with the dorkus himself talks about the aftermath and how important teaching "facts" is to this guy.  One of the "facts" he taught to children (via AIG propaganda) was that poodles did not evolve like other dogs, no sir, they are the result of god's curse.  Seriously.  God cursed their DNA or somesuch nonsense.  Got to love those facts taught by creepy christchun creationists!

Anyhow, as far as the interview goes, you can hurl here.

My favorite quote from this tard:

"I realize I made a mistake, some of this was too heavy for these students. I should have waited until they were seniors."

Yes indeed, only seniors should be taught poodles are the result of god's curse and not evolution.  That is far too heavy for juniors or sophmores.

What a freaking luntic.

Date: 2007/03/29 15:46:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Come to think of it when I look at a poodle I tend to wonder who fucked up...

Date: 2007/03/29 15:51:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I guess the creepy christian creationists at AIG never bothered to learn that poodles were bred by human beings, who obviously hate their fellow man.

Date: 2007/04/03 15:35:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
From Conservapedia's greatest hits I bring you the Big Bang Theory!

...Young earth creationist scientists hotly contest the Big Bang Theory. They trace lineages in the Bible to estimate the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.

In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured. Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionist argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. However, the Bible makes no mention of the "Big Bang". While the universe has been observed to be expanding, this need not be used as evidence of a Big Bang, because the Bible states in Jeremiah that God "stretched out the heavens".

Man where would modern science be without the bible and especilly the book of Jeremiah.  What, without the bible we'd all be living in tents, have a few wives, believe the sun circles the earth, and sleep with camels.

Heck, without the bible we'd all still be living in the dark ages!

Anyhow, it's nice to see the quality articles Conservapedia feeds to the homeschooled.

Date: 2007/04/03 15:46:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (jujuquisp @ April 03 2007,15:42)

In O'Bleary's latest post, let's point out how many grammatical errors there are.  For a "journalist" and an "author", she really has no clue how to construct paragraphs or even write complete sentences.  In addition, after reading her verbal vomit, I was left completely confused as to what her point was.  I reread certain passages a few times and still didn't get the gist of them.  Could it be that she is trying to relay concepts that are over my head?  Am I not really as smart as I think I am?

Maybe she smokes really bad pot or something.

Date: 2007/04/03 15:57:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Richard, that Strat is a Jimi Hendrix sig model, no?

And the Tele rocks but it is calling for a pearloid pick guard and pearloid tuners (like my beater tele has).  Oh, and it told me it misses playing country music :-)

ps: Do you and Michael Dell hang out?

Date: 2007/04/03 17:23:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Say hello to my little friend...

This is a pic I got off the internet, mine is home snug in it's case.

I'll see about taking a pick of my beater tele later

Date: 2007/04/04 13:30:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (eddiep @ April 04 2007,13:07)
Hi, Louis. How about the number 5, or the rules of logical inference?

It's not that I think there's any sort of Platonic 5 up there in heaven. It's an argument I don't think I have a good answer for, to be honest.

And thanks for the welcome.

Previously you asked "Specifically, how do we account for those things that are not made up of matter and energy? "

Um, the number 5 follows the number 4 and come right before number 6.

And I am not familiar with the "rules of logical inference"

Can you tell us what those rules are?

Date: 2007/04/05 09:19:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Mr Rogers wasn't a sniper, that is so dumb.  He was an explosives expert. :-)

Date: 2007/04/05 13:56:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I read today that the rib of Joan of Arc is actually not her rib at all but from an Egyptian mummy.  Well that is just more proof that Darwinism is not true!

Add this to the Piltdown man, those funny moths and you've got bullet proof evidence that the Theory Of Evolution on its death bed.

Sorry to bring bad news.

Date: 2007/04/05 16:12:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (J-Dog @ April 05 2007,14:46)
link!  I must have link!

the missing link

Date: 2007/04/17 13:18:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I subscribe(d) to Skeptical Inquirer and they had a few articles on the subject which indirectly lead me here.  I got booted by the small penised DT for "playing all nice" at UD which I thought was cool.  

I keep coming here for the free beer and fun!

Date: 2007/04/18 11:17:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Read this garbage from yet another law student/IDiot who's lying her arse off.  It's pretty hilarious.  Feel free to leave comments.

But read the article at least twice before you do, there is so much to respond to.

Date: 2007/04/18 11:21:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Curious to know if Darwin made all those priests molest children over the last few decades.  Using IDiot logic, it would seem Catholicism causes a lack of morality which leads to child molestation since the believer is incapable of having a moral compass.

Date: 2007/04/19 09:18:17, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
You guys rock, they finally posted all the responses.

Date: 2007/04/19 10:09:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Willy Dimski is leading a new charade at UD, it's called let's see who is the biggest dumb ass and there are several folks (including the Fart Man Himself) who are determined to win the prize for being the dumbest poster.

I'm going to read a few more posts in the thread before making any wagers, there is some serious tardacity going on at the moment with no one in a clear lead as of yet.

* I take that back, my money is on Joseph.  Clearly he's the dumbest so far, and he elegantly demonstrates how when one "practices" ID (uses the "logic" built in the theory), science grinds to a halt.

Date: 2007/07/12 16:51:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I asked Jesus for an X-Box last Christmas yet I did not get one.  This leads me to doubt his existance.  

I need more evidence before I can ever muster up any faith in this long haired, dress wearin' hippie of a deity.


Date: 2007/07/13 09:16:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (franky172 @ July 13 2007,07:00)
Oh dear God.

Dembski has decided to spend some of his time dissecting the "Jesus Tomb Math" (which has already been rather strongly criticized in the mainstream media as a rather elaborate sham).  Not to be outdone by the hundreds of other people who took a stab at what appears to be some perhaps shoddy mathematics, Dembski tries.  What is interesting about this is two-fold.  First, Dembski put his refutation of the Jesus tomb math on the Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab website!  (here!

He makes it a point to provide links to his other "evolutionary informatics" papers, none of which have yet to appear in any journal (and I have read some of them, I reserve judgement until I get a chance to really read them in depth), but what in  God's name is a website devoted to the Jesus Tomb doing on an evolutionary informatics website?  Compounding matters is the lack of introduction, conclusions, or analysis on the website - it's just a collection of scripts (the links to which are currently broken) and plots.

I also appreciate this from the website:

There has been no consideration given to the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ that conflicts with his being buried.  With a link to "Leader U", which posits the following 5 pieces of evidence that the resurrection is true:

1: The Bible says that Jesus was buried and later his tomb was empty.
2: Paul says Jesus rose from the grave.
3: The story of the resurrection is old.
4: The story is simple.
5: Women probably discovered the tomb.
6: Other biblical stories also say the tomb was empty.

Well, I'm convinced.

Edit: 2 more things.
1) I should mention that the paper proper has introduction, conclusion, etc.   The website lacks these

2) The website goes on to cite quotations arguing against the use of statistics.  Why?

This "Evolutionary Informatics Lab
Baylor University" web site appears to have nothing to do with evolution. Nothing at all.  

Read the home page and poke around some.

It's a sham/scam from Demsbki and this Robert Marks person.

Date: 2007/07/13 09:24:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
And while Dimbski is getting all hot and horny going after these jesus tomb myths how come he hasn't used some of his math skilz to prove what a scam the Bible Codes are?  Oh wait, you say he published an article favorable to the Bible Codes?  Hmm...You mean Dimsbki believes in the Bible Codes?

Oh my goodness.

Date: 2007/07/18 10:08:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (creeky belly @ July 18 2007,03:26)
Jehu guesses(?)

The earth is pretty darn close to the center. We see the same amount of universe in every direction we look, which is consistent with being in the center.

1.  The universe is on average isotropic and homogeneous which means everything outside our galaxy should be about uniform.

2.  If we were at the center we wouldn't see something called THE GALACTIC CENTER, which impedes about 10% of the sky.

3.  Our galaxy isn't even in the same plane as the rest of the UNIVERSE!

I just realized *I* am the center of the universe.  Don't laff, I have proof.  Everything seems to be centered around me.  Everywhere I look I notice I'm surrounded by everything (including the universe).

Yep, the Earth is not the center of the universe, I am.

Maybe I could be an admin at Dimbski's web-o-blog?


Date: 2007/07/18 16:58:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I was looking at a cached copy of UD (they are down again) and found this old gem:

I’ve decided to put Uncommon Descent into mothballs indefinitely. Although I’ve enjoyed blogging, I find it distracts from more pressing work that I need to get for, which I expect will provide a suitable antidote to the Dover trial (stay tuned)....
Farewell. I enjoyed getting to know some of the regular commenters to this blog (especially DaveScot and Bombadill). Stay in touch.

Ahh those were the days, it brings a tear to my eye.  But my question is who was "Bombadill" and what became of him/her/it?


Date: 2007/07/18 17:17:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I like watching VMartin make an asshole of himself.  I wish dave tard would drop by and do the same.

Watching creobots is like watching the mentally ill (at a safe distance.)

I'll be right back, the popcorn's done!

Date: 2007/07/18 18:14:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Do you suppose this is man made or perhaps the handywork of an intelligent designer (gawd)?

Date: 2007/07/19 09:36:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2007,21:05)
William Dembski's supporters may be fools, but Dembski is not. He's just a hustler out to make some bank. So he goes where the money is: business executives.

The conference will take place on September 21-22, 2007 in the Smith Center for Leadership Development on the campus of Southwestern Seminary. Registration is $50 for students, $65 for Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce members, and $75 for regular registration. After September 14, registration will be $75 for students, $90 for Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce members, and $100 for regular registration. For more information, please call 1-877-474-4769. To reserve overnight accommodations, please call 817-921-8800.

Intelligent Design: The Scientific Theory That Improves Your Bottom Line
I see that William Dembski, fresh from raking in thousands of dollars for not testifying in the Dover trial, has now branched out into explaining his business savvy to the masses. Look at this announcement for a conference at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for a conference entitled "Intelligent Design in Business Practice: How design assumptions impact management, leadership & organization".

This page has more details. Since ill-conceived ideas like this have a history of vanishing without a trace, I'll repeat the description below:

You left out the best bits

Successful business leaders are intelligent designers, guiding organizations along innovative paths to achieve ends otherwise unattainable. Intelligent designers are not micromanagers, who short-circuit the freedom and creativity that organizations need to thrive. At the same time, intelligent designers do not encourage unbridled autonomy, which sets organizations adrift, causing them to lose focus and discipline. By striking a proper balance between guidance and autonomy, intelligent designers promote a synergy between organization and leadership that can actualize undreamt possibilities. Intelligent design for now is best known as a scientific alternative to Darwinian and self-organizational approaches to biological origins. This conference brings together scholars and business leaders to discuss the implications of intelligent design for business practice.  In particular, this conference will explore how design principles shape the beliefs of leaders about the people they lead, the nexus of innovation, the incentives to entrepreneurship, and the methods for managing organizational change. The overarching theme of this conference is "the business leader as intelligent designer."

Dimbski lecturing on business management?  This shit is insane, what business person in their right mind would listen to this crap from a 3rd rate bible college rube?  I bet this is nothing more than a chance for IDiots to mingle and network in hopes of identifying income streams from the ID world of wingnuts.  

I do hope someone from here plans to attend and cover this star studded gala for ATBC or PT.

I'd go but I'm afraid I'd throw up the whole time.

Date: 2007/07/19 10:58:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (heddle @ July 19 2007,10:39)
I believe the last time I tried to have a discussion here, J-Dog convened an ad-hoc committee to investigate whether I should be banned. Who wants to put up with that?

In his defense, J-Dog is a caveman, yeah I know, I thought they were extinc a long time ago too.  But forgive him, Heddle, for he knows not what he does sometimes.

You ROCK and your far-out groovy blog rocks too!  Nobody fries ID and Dembski better than you.

ps.  I wish you would shed more light on the super secret list serve that Dembski exiled you from.  That was a great story.


Date: 2007/07/19 16:07:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Heddle is a man witout a country, he's despised by the ID leadership because he's not a butt sucking toady, he's slammed at ATBC for harboring mystical notions about origins.

He even takes one on the chin from time to time from on his blog from fellow Christians for not being fundy enough for their taste.

What's a Heddle to do?

Heddle, again, I'd drink beer with you any day.

Date: 2007/07/19 17:07:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (heddle @ July 19 2007,16:44)
You SURE there's no upside, Dave?

Well now that people (Mr_Christopher) are talking about drinking beer, I must say that I'm beginning to reevaluate.

To sound like a pageant contestant:

I think it would be such great fun to have a massive conference where all the "little" people (because some, whose names shall not be mentioned, would no doubt demand honoraria of Brobdingnagian proportions) on both sides of the internet ID wars got together. Personalities are so distorted on-line--I bet it would be surprising who got along over a beer, and who didn't.

And world peace, don't forget world peace.

And I ONLY drink good beer.

And don't forget Kristine, she's an admitted "Heddle softie"

So it would seem there are two members of the Heddle fan club who frequent this joint.  Not exactly Kiss Army proportions but it's a start!

Speaking of the Kiss Army...

Date: 2007/08/22 14:00:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'd like to see more of Dembski.  He's not so bright but manages to hide that fact behind all of his various degrees.  What is he now, a research guy at a 3rd rate fundy school for future ministers?

The sychophants at UD lap up his act as if he had something to do with their everlasting life thereafter.  The "Dr Dembski" stuff just kills me.

I miss his scholarly farting videos and nobody is as good a liar while portraying themselves as a persecuted victim as Dembski.  I'd like to read more of him at UD.


Date: 2007/08/22 14:02:05, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I forgot, MORE Jesus and afterlife talk please.  And how about some more deep philosophical debates such as do darwinists go to heaven kind of stuff.  Does Jesus hate those who reject ID kind of stuff.

Thanks in advance!

Date: 2007/10/03 13:18:05, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Maybe someone should post Dimski's home phone number and personal address, just because you have a passion for truth that is.  Only because you are frustrated.  I'm sure he'd understand.


Date: 2007/10/08 13:53:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 08 2007,13:39)
How long til UD claims this as a victory for ID?

They gotta run in through the spanitory filter first.  Then Casey Lurchkin will send out a press release claiming victory and soon thereafter William Dipski will claim this is evolution's waterloo.

Date: 2007/10/09 09:42:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ben is not a dumb guy, I wonder if this is a pure play for cash. You guys don't think he's actually going to read any of the comments on his "blog" do you?  This is pure street theatre to generate buzz.  

His link for volunteers is pretty funny, funnier is that he's probably getting tons of creotards signing up for active duty.  

Onward Christian soldiers, and don't forget to leave your tithe in the War Chest on your way to the battlefield!

This sucks.  Now I can't stand Ben Stein and I'll never watch him again.


Date: 2007/10/11 09:23:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 10 2007,22:11)
Ah, but if one adopts a relativistic stance, one can claim that it's all just the same thing in proportion, because there are so many more badly-behaving pro-science people to be banned because of their bad behavior and so few righteous anticool-science folks willing to subject themselves to the manifestly unfair moderation at pro-science discussion sites, where they get banned simply because of their viewpoint. That is, I believe, actually fairly close to what FtK does think of the matter.

LOL...yeah, what he said...!  

Hey, Wes, how come you're a Christian?  Do you have, like, a "Why I'm a Christian" article out in cyberspace somewhere?  Just curious.

Hey FTK, why are you a christian?  Seriously.

Date: 2007/10/19 13:57:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dude, you have a mental illness.  Get help.  I'm not joking.

Date: 2007/10/19 21:21:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2007,16:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 19 2007,15:58)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2007,14:57)
Okay - we now have

Put up a links page to positive (i.e not dependent on criticizing some aspect of "Darwinism") evidence for ID.#

To keep out the loony fringe (aka BA77) better make it peer reviewed only.

here's my thoughts:

Main page is a variant of the above press release where the date changes each day automatically.

An 'about page' says why the website exists, how it parodies evolution news, discussion on positive evidence, link to talk origins, etc.

I also want a "mail me" function so I can post Fundie Screeds here.

Richard, you magnificent bastard, deal me in.  Let me know if I can help.  Seriously.


Date: 2007/10/22 09:51:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 22 2007,09:11)
never mind, it was louis and i found it on the FTK thread.

How about posting a link for those who missed it?

Date: 2007/10/22 10:02:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 22 2007,09:01)
Quote (nuytsia @ Oct. 22 2007,05:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 21 2007,18:28)
Logo inspiration for

My offering....

A bit heavy handed? :p

Maybe just "disco institute" for legal reasonons?

An additional idea would be to use Dembski's image (face) with Napoleon (think Waterloo).  

I can try and add Dembski's face if I get some time later today.

Maybe not a the logo for the site but instead an image to use on any pages that deal with Dembski.  I'm certain Dembski won't mind his image being used for parody.  After all, he's the farting video man and had no problems using other people's pictures in his farty videos.

Date: 2007/10/24 10:10:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Bill O’Reilly joins the liberal Darwinist media

I assume everyone has read this glorious tidbit at PT by now.

Yes both Bill and Ben portrayed ID as creationism and an attempt to fill the gaps with god.  The DI frowned on this ouf course and pointed out both of them are wrong.

I wonder how Ben will take to being corrected by a bunch of lying creationist zealots.  It's hard to imagine Ben agreeing to partake in the dishonest and sneaky tactices used by the DI.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.  Will Ben take orders from the DI or instead continue to call a spade a spade (creationism for the gaps)?

Date: 2007/10/24 10:15:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 24 2007,10:05)
I just emailed the double top secret group, If I forgot you, or you want in, let me know!

I'm happy to report my decoder ring is working flawlessly...

Date: 2007/10/24 10:21:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I predict WAD will soon offer a reward ($1,000?) for anyone who can offer a mechanistic theory for ID.

This is such a knee slapping howler that it's taken WAD this many years to finally figure out ID "theory" is missing a few critical elements.  Assuming he's actually figuring that out now.

Date: 2007/10/24 10:28:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The WAD money shot to be sure:

what if GeoffRobinson is right and the level of design in living systems so far exceeds human capabilities that we will never unravel it?

Date: 2007/10/24 10:33:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Guys I have been living on a steady diet of cough syrup the last few days so bear with me...

Is it me or is IDC entering a new stage of hitting new lows?  The Bill/Ben interview where they both agree ID is creationism and an attempt to fill gaps with God, the DI saying they're both wrong, WAD seems to be "amitting" they overlooked some of the juicy sciency bits in their ID "theory", WAD looking to troutmac and other UD losers for guidance and consolation, etc etc.

Either they are on their way to a new low or possibly the end of the world is near.

Or am I reading all the signs wrong?  BTW, I mentioned this in at least a few other posts but I think Ben Stein is going to be a great asset for our cause, in spite of his intentions.

Date: 2007/10/24 11:45:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 24 2007,11:33)
For instance, what happens when a new designed mutation happens. Does the designer change one gene, leaving the rest of the organism unchanged, then go in and change another? Or does the designer present an entire set of genes to an organism adding a new feature? This should be detectable. Some have suggested that the designer starts from scratch, from dust, and creates a whole new species. If so this should be detectable — the evidence I have seen goes against this hypothesis. There is so much that might be discoverable once we begin to look with the eyes that there’s been an agent a-twiddlin’.

Some have suggested the designer started from dust eh? All science so far.

BFast, how do you detect if a mutation is "designed" or not? Seems to me that would be the first step.

what an IDiot

Don't forget the BBQ rib theory.  That the intelligent designer used an actual human rib when designing the female class of the species.

No one has yet suggested he used some of Dembski's BBQ sauce to season the rib but I have a feeling he might have done just so.  Most females I've known are very spicey indeed which suggests he used more than a human rib in the mix.

Date: 2007/10/24 11:48:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 24 2007,11:33)
Even more reason for FTK to do her reading homework -
ID Theory predicts this Future Headline:

Kansas Soccer Mom Saves ID Theorey.

Seattle WA:  The Discovery Institute reported today that an unknown soccer mom from Kansas, known as FTK, has recently succeeded where ID scientists Mike Behe, Dr. Dr. William Dembski and noted autodidact and Full Time Dickweed DaveScot Springer were at a total dead-end and unable to proceeed.

FTK was quoted as saying "It came to me in a flash, as I was lap-dancing one night for some strange horny Englishman."   ID is like a pole.  You can dance all up and down and all around it, but it doesn't go anywhere.  It's just there.

J-Dog, this is the exact type of hard hitting news reporting that could help the super secret project that is unfolding.  Please report to Richard Hughes if you haven't already.

The IDC movement needs fair and balanced reporters just like you.  I'm serious!


Date: 2007/10/24 12:36:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, usually I let others here copy and paste the best tidbits from UD but this is so absurd I guess I'm calling dibs on this one:

From some pathetic creobot called "Borne"

It’s like asking why something true is true. Why does 1+1=2? Or, ‘what is life’? No one can answer that on purely mechanical or materialistic terms.

Indeed NO one can answer why 1+1=2.  Every math teacher and philospoher in the world has struggled with this for centuries.  To date NO one has provided a coherent reason why 1+1=2.  

And trying to answer why something is true is a waste of time.  If we say it's true it must be true, otherwise we wouldn't say it.  End of story! 

Truths that cannot and need not be proven but are still true.

Indeed.  It's true because we say it's true.  Go fuck your evidence AND your pathetic level of detail.

Those who persistently require knowledge of the designer don’t understand ID at all. They have not made the first step into the design inference.

And the first step into the design inference is ---- Truth is what we say is truth.  That is all you need to know.

Just read his comments for yourself.  the man is clearly insane  

It makes me laff to think this is what Dr William A Dembski's peers are like.   What a pathetic loser.

Date: 2007/10/24 21:30:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher

Good GOD people this is the breakthrough they've been promising for years.  Perhaps Tina will prove all your darwinist devil worshippers were wrong all along!

I have worked out a description of the mechanism underlying “Intelligent Design”.William Dembski are you willing enough to consider asking what is is?

you read it HERE first!

My question is will Dembski take Tina's bait?  Oh my I fear I won't be able to sleep a wink tonight in anticipation of Dembski asking Tina nicely to share her breakthrough...

Date: 2007/10/24 22:23:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 24 2007,20:47)
Reading UD is no longer much fun, and is becoming genuinely painful. It's looking like I'm going to need a new pastime:
Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”

As irksome as Richard Dawkins can sometimes be, one must nevertheless admire his occasional outbursts of honesty.  Over at First Things  Fr. Ed Oakes refers to an interview  Dawkins gave to an Austrian newspaper, Die Presse (July 30, 2005), in which he said: “No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws. . . . A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.”

The utterly dishonest headline. The post. The dribbletary that follows. Moronic. Un-fucking-believably moronic.

I have to say, I almost can't stand it any longer.

Reading that whole thread will give you a stomach ache.  It's difficult for me to imagine people being so completely stupid.  BarryA is a piece of work to be sure.  

Dembski must be very proud to have such a sharp bunch of followers.  Think about it, they represent the cream of the ID crop.  The IDjuts out there who are actually buying the nonsense WAD and the DI are peddling.

Date: 2007/10/30 13:11:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
IDiots say the darndest things, like Phillip Johnson saying

"We ought to see humans occasionally being born to chimps or perhaps chimps born into human families."

I spose I should admit that after having two children my wife and I discussed having a third.  But I nixed the idea since we know you run the risk of having a horse, or chimpanzee or finch every time you get pregnant.  Our house will not accomodate a horse so we decided to limit our family to 2 children.

And the IDiots call him the grandpappy of intelligent design creationism.  I call him dumber than a fence post.  Read the whole Nova interview here

Date: 2007/10/30 17:37:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I've never realy paid any attention to the FtK person but I followed the link to her blog and poked around a bit.  What a lying, sorry, sack af shit   Mentally ill Larry makes the perfect mate for her.

Date: 2007/10/31 10:42:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I've now spent a considerable amount of time reading this entire thread.  To put it nicely I'd like my money back please.

Thank you

Date: 2007/10/31 11:16:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Invisible worlds populated with winged humanoids, intelligent designers, hidden messages in the bible (the bible codes), where do Bill Dimski's mental illnesses  end?

Interesting to note that angels are close relatives of fairies.  One has insect wings and the other has bird wings.  The both seem to share a common ancestor.  I wonder why the bible is not keen on people with insect wings and seems to prefer bird winged humanoids instead.

Date: 2007/10/31 11:22:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 31 2007,11:18)
Patrick on the Today's Class Project thread:

I’m curious how many ID proponents have ever bothered to read the Wedge document. I know I have not. On top of that most of the leading ID proponents were originally Darwinists.

Wow.  The guy sure lacks in curiosity department.

It's a side affect from embracing ID which is not only a science stopper, it's a mind stopper as well.

This is the human brain on IDC:

Date: 2007/10/31 11:58:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Actually if someone could provide one shred of evidence for the existance of a "soul" I'd think I'd gotten my money's worth.

I'm not looking for a definition of a soul, I'm looking for evidence.  I know the IDjust have a difficult time distinguishing between the two.

So, according to Christian mythology I (and you, gentle reader) have a soul.  Where is it?  Can you prove it. Or is this just another bible lie?


Date: 2007/10/31 12:30:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well if no one can offer any evidence for a soul perhaps we might discuss whether teaching cannibalism and not just believing in zombies but actually praying (telepathy?) to them (begging zombies for special favors/treatment) is good for children.

I'm all for children enjoying make believe time but I think at some point you have to draw the line.

Date: 2007/10/31 12:34:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Arden, are you certain Bill doesn't believe in leprechauns?  Leprechauns seem like something Bill would advocate.  

Didn't Behe once suggest the intelligent designer(s) could be leprechauns?

Date: 2007/10/31 13:18:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Well according to leading intelligent design scientist, William Dimski, there is an invisible world inhabited with winged humanoids.  Maybe the Father of the Sacred Zombie lives in that invisible world.  

If that's the case the only way we'll ever detect him is to buy Dimski's books.

You can also detect the Father of the Sacred Zombie by reading the bible codes which is also advocated by William Dimski.  You see, this Zombie Father put little secret codes in the bible so we could...well who the fuck knows...But anyhow...

See skeptic, I'm not a believer and yet I know all the ways you can detect Him now and spare yourself the 5000 year wait.

You're welcome!

Date: 2007/10/31 14:55:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
In 5,000 years we might prove that Elvis Presley is the intelligent designer. I mean we cannot detect this now, but who knows what science might be able to detect in 5,000 years.

Date: 2007/10/31 15:14:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 31 2007,15:02)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,14:55)
In 5,000 years we might prove that Elvis Presley is the intelligent designer. I mean we cannot detect this now, but who knows what science might be able to detect in 5,000 years.

Is that Early Elvis, or the Fat Vegas Elvis?

Why, the Elvis as the Intelligent Designer Elvis of course.

Date: 2007/10/31 15:24:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
That's not Richard Hughes, that is the Intelligent Designer, you rube!

I put the evidence right in front of you and you make it into a Richard Hughes joke.  

You Darwinists are all alike!  Damn you, damn you all to hell!

Date: 2007/10/31 15:27:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, so spose man find a way to go back in time where he finds a colony of chimps and mates with one (or two, you know how "man" is).  Next thing you know a whole new species just pops up out of thin air.

I think this is what Behe meant when he said "it could be space aliens"

Date: 2007/10/31 15:30:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
exact nature of the afterlife

What afterlife would that be?  I thought worms ate you in the afterlife.  Are you suggesting something else happens.

Date: 2007/10/31 16:14:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (NoMissingLink @ May 29 2007,23:54)
Please tell me where Cain got his wife?

Or was it surfing M4F Causal Encounters section of Craigslist?

Date: 2007/10/31 16:41:05, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?

Date: 2007/10/31 17:10:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,17:04)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?

If there is anyone ill here it is you and your "darwinian" friends who believe in "natural selection". I am trying to help you, open your sleepy ignorant eyes.

It's free of charge.

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.

Date: 2007/11/01 09:20:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 01 2007,01:30)
OK, come on.  Admit it.  Which one of you is Granville Sewell?

Granville Sewell


2:56 pm

Tard Alert!

To those who say I am anti-science for ruling out the possibility that computers will evolve consciousness: what about TV sets and radios, will they become conscious someday? What about a typewriter, it can be used to write amazing things, will there be conscious typewriters? And what is the real difference, computers are just like typewriters, they also do exactly what you tell them to do.

Eh?  Eh?

The Morphodyke Church Lady likes him:

Following up on Grant Sewell’s interesting discussion of consciousness as a hard problem for Darwinism...

ps: Why doesn't that broad do something with her hair?

Date: 2007/11/01 10:13:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 01 2007,10:10)
Great quote from religionprof's own blog, in a post about Casey Luskin:

I won't quibble over whether the reasons why ID doesn't identify the designer are 'principled'. At the very least, the principle in question is not honesty.

His blog is well worth checking out.  I invited him to drop by here for cocktails.

Date: 2007/11/01 10:27:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Davetard pulls the trigger




7:16 am
ReligionProf is no longer with us.

Two bans in one thread.  That's pretty good shooting even though they're firing from close range.

Date: 2007/11/01 10:39:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 01 2007,10:24)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 01 2007,10:22)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,10:13)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 01 2007,10:10)
Great quote from religionprof's own blog, in a post about Casey Luskin:

I won't quibble over whether the reasons why ID doesn't identify the designer are 'principled'. At the very least, the principle in question is not honesty.

His blog is well worth checking out.  I invited him to drop by here for cocktails.

ReligionProf has been invited, and has already been here.

Senility is just hell.  :O

Suavely sidles up to hot chick: "So, tell me -- do I come here often?"

Senility?  It's actually worse than that.  You see, I was involved in a thread or two of Vtard's yesterday, I haven't been the same since.  

I didn't realize the professor was a rock star here.

Oops :-)

Date: 2007/11/01 11:01:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,23:08)
Wow, that was truely uncalled for.  For the first time I think I'm considering a cleansing exercise to rid myself of that image.

No one said the Intelligent Designer was HWP or even handsome.  

I'm telling you people HE is the intelligent designer and science may prove it in 5,000 years.

Date: 2007/11/01 15:11:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Over at PT an IDiot called bornagain77 stated that PvM's god was "too small" which got me thinking...

According to the IDiots, the Intelligent Designer has the ability to create well pretty much everything.  They claim the ID is the god of the bible.  

This is the same god who can create a man from dust, create a woman from a single rib (beef not pork), he can flood the entire planet, he can murder every single first born son in a given country (in one night), he can impregnate a teenage girl without even touching her (and thus avoiding a lengthy jail sentence), he can make an entire sea split, he can bring back the dead, and he even does a nifty ventriloquist act with a bush while it's on fire.  Ok, we're talking a mighty dude here, right?  Not so fast.

How come this all powerful deity is rendered impotent by a small group of soccer moms from Dover, PA and a few whacked out librull lawyers?  Seriously.  He creates EVERYTHING biological yet he cannot get his name mentioned in a simple high school biology textbook, can't even get himself in the curriculum.  All because of a few soccer moms.  That is a laff riot.

He creates all the stars and planets and do you see him in any astronomy textbooks books?  I mean without him we would not be singing "twinkle twinkle little star" to out children because there would be no stars. Right?  Without him we're be singing "twinkle twinkle little, oh never mind.  Go to sleep it's WAY past your bedtime"

Yet he allows a federal judge, a damn Lutheran at that,  and a few soccer moms to put him in a head lock until he cries "uncle".  Kinkier minds might imagine the moms grabbing him by his nipples and telling him to whistle before they'll let go.

I just find it odd that the intelligent designer is supposed to be all powerful and whatever yet he's so freaking impotent when someone stands up to him.  In fact he seems more like a p***y than a deity to me. And he relies on tards like the DI and Casey Luskin and Wilbur Dembski to take up his cause.  So the IDesigner is impotant AND stupid?

Anyhow, I think the IDiots should lay low when it comes to telling others that their god is too small, especially when their own appears to be a mental midget.

Date: 2007/11/01 15:18:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,14:53)
My goodness, BFast has begun thinking!

He should be very careful, that thinking can lead to all sorts of trouble.  For starters it will get him banned from UD.

Date: 2007/11/01 15:33:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,01:49)


No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.

So why are you responding? Any problems at your work?  
Have your boss reproved you not to annoy your collegaues with endless lectures about "natural selection" and "evolution in action"? So you are relaxing here (fuck off etc...), yes?

Vtard, pay close attention.  You can try and evangelize me and "my" Darwin buddies all you want, but keep in mind I don't lay awake at night thinking one minute about Darwin, biology, science or evolution.  These are interesting subjects for a discussion with educated minds over coffee from time to time, but not something I give two seconds thought about in an ordinary day.  

I just love seeing people like you exposed as the lying fools that you are.  Period.

I love seeing fundy religious nut cases (such as yourself) lose.  That's all.  

Yeah maybe it's not nice, oh well.  I just have a thing for watching lying, x-tian bastards get theirs whether in federal court or the public eye, I love a good public humiliation of fundy retards who want to shove their IDiotic notions down everyone else's throats while attempting to pollute our children's minds with their evil religion.  

Period :-)

So carry on your evangelizing while I make some more popcorn.  You're a one man tard fest and for that I say thank you!


Date: 2007/11/01 15:40:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 01 2007,15:32)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,15:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,14:53)
My goodness, BFast has begun thinking!

He should be very careful, that thinking can lead to all sorts of trouble.  For starters it will get him banned from UD.

Speaking of which, Mickey Bitsko is not long for that world.  He managed to post a comment that says  
the concept of CSI involves inescapable circular reasoning.

I'm opening the betting table now.  Weekends are slow at UD, so I'll put the over-under on Bitsko's bannination at 4 days (Monday 5 November).

Assuming he posts at least one comment each day I'll take the under.

He's toast for sure.  A dead man walking as they say.

Date: 2007/11/01 15:59:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, here is a new game I created.  It's called "Who Am I"  I provide some quotes/beliefs and you guess who holds the beliefs or made the quotes.  Feel free to add your own "Who Am I" after you answer this one.

Ready?  Let's roll!

1) The Bible has sophisticated, coded, hidden messages that were put there by an intelligent agent.

2) There is an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom.

3) Winged humanoids inhabit that real and weighty invisible world.

I am

a) William Dembski, PhD, Intelligent Design Theorist

b) A garden variety untreated mentally ill person who suffers from delusions and hallucinations.

c) Both a and b (they are one in the same)

d) Charles Darwin

e) None of the above

Ok folks choose only one answer, and please, no looking at other people's answers.

Date: 2007/11/01 16:36:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Leftfield @ Nov. 01 2007,16:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,15:30)
There may be trouble, ahead..




3:25 pm
Patrick (46)-

What can you calculate the complexity of? I can’t figure out how to calculate the complexity of anything.

Yeah, somebody help me out, I wasn't expecting to get an actual answer!

I just wanted to join the banned!

leftfield aka congregate

Did you read Patrick's answer?  More importantly can ANYONE make sense of Patricks reply?



3:38 pm
For calculating the informational bits using 8-bit single-byte coded graphic characters, here is an example: “ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL”ť is only 133 bits of information(when calculated as a whole sentence; the complexity of the individual items of the set is 16, 48, 16, 16, 32, 8, 48 plus 8 bits for each space). So aequeosalinocalcalinoceraceoaluminosocupreovitriolic would be 416 informational bits. The specification is that it is an English word with a specific function. That specific function does not have any intermediates that maintain the same function. Here we have a situation where indirect intermediates are well below 500 informational bits and thus there is nothing to select for that will help much in reaching the goal. Thus this canyon must be bridged in one giant leap of recombination of various factors, making it difficult for Darwinian mechanisms. Even though that is not 500 I would still be surprised if that showed up in a program such as Zachriels unless the fitness function was designed in a certain manner.

For more on calculating such things refer to Dembski’s work.

Is it me or does UD seem to be a watering spot for the mentally ill?

Date: 2007/11/01 16:39:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hint - the answer is probably not d)

Not more hints!

Date: 2007/11/01 17:05:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,16:55)
Zach, Barry said he would post a formal response. Would you like this to be it?

You think he'll really publish it?

Date: 2007/11/01 18:01:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 01 2007,17:52)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2007,17:36)
Denyse attenpts to stir up some trouble
Code Sample
Have you got an Expelled story, for the movie about the current frantic attempt to suppress evidence of intelligent design in the universe?

And proceeds to print a few examples of oppression. More of which can be found here
Me teacher makes me feel stupid

This case of the brutal suppression of free speech should help fill out Ben's movie:

Not Smart
Added by: Ryan, on 2007-10-29 09:00:39

I'm only a teen, but everytime I talk about Creation Science my teacher makes me feel stupid


I'm going to roll a fatty drink some beer tonight and post some really dumb stuff on Ben's site. the key is to be so patently absurd that you're taken seriously.

Holy cow this is going to be fun!  Everyone here should have a little fun with Ben's list of Darwin victims.

EDIT: I'm reading some of the sob stories, they mostly all use terms like creationism and creation science.  None is about intelligent design so far.  Ben Stein read the freakin note sent by the Disco, it's not creationism or creation science!  It's intelligent design stoopid!

Holw cow did I mention this is going to be fun?

Date: 2007/11/01 18:14:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Guys, go take a look the sob stories by the cranks and crackpots (not just IDers) that Ben is publishing on his site

There is some SERIOUS fun to be had.  .Ben is becoming a magnet for weirdos and I plan to introduce him to a few new ones :-)

Date: 2007/11/01 18:17:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 01 2007,18:03)
Leo we hardly knew yee.

that's it for today; I swear

Another dead man walking.  He'll expire by end of day tomorrow.  I'd wager today but it's so late in the day no one at UD will probably notice.

Date: 2007/11/01 18:36:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 01 2007,18:27)

Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 01 2007,10:51)

But Dodgen has moved the goalposts -

Hats off to BarryA for at least publishing it without making any edits or commentary.  That is way more than I had expected.  I'm actually astonished.

Date: 2007/11/02 09:05:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 02 2007,02:07)
Denyse is, of course, a tard.

She responded to SteveB:  

I looked at the first 4-5 entries, all of which were written anonymously and without any facts that could be verified. If a pro-Darwin site did the same, how much credence would you give to it?

with some evidence based reasoning  

SteveB: I’d conclude that it was worth looking into.
But re the Expelled witnesses, all the more so.
I ALREADY know credible people who are practically in hiding for saying that they doubt some of the Darwinian fables.

So, they're more credible because they're anonymous?

Mr. Christopher, how's your creative writing coming along?

They have not published anything I submitted yet.  I got an email(s) saying it should be published within 24 hours or something.

I'll do more tonight.

Hey I want to know which of you douchebags guys is the Alligator Man?  That cracked me up!

Date: 2007/11/02 09:13:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think we have a winner!

Louis come on down and accept your prize!

Date: 2007/11/02 10:27:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 02 2007,10:14)
Meet Bart Davis.  Wonder if it will get posted.

I have been a creationist for many years after realizing that the bible was true and that man-made science could not explain the bigger questions, like Why are We Here?  and What are We?  And I realized that the bible gave the best explanations for these questions.  That is all fine and good...

Until I entered a university and enrolled in a biology department.  I was told by professor and TA after professor and TA that my views were stupid and were not accepted by the scientific community.  Although I expect to be rejected by men and be unpopular for carrying the cause of Christ it still stung.  

When I offered to defend my views using the bible, I was told that it does not apply.  These darwinists want to stamp out all dissent and try to discredit the Word of God because they hate the idea that God created them.  The bible tells all about this.  When I told them that their 'evidence' was just rocks and ideas based on things that they could measure then they laughed at me and I lost my composure.

Now I am an engineer and doing very well for myself.  I try to stay out of the debate but in my Sunday School class I have free reign to teach children in the way that they should be brought up, so when they have to face the forces of the world they will be prepared to be ridiculed and hated for standing up for Jesus.

This is quality tard, nice work.  One suggestion - throw in the term "intelligent design" at least once so the reader sees ID and creationism/bible/god/jeebus/etc are all from the same play book.

My entries are heavy on the bible, creationism and creation science with at least one mention of ID.

Date: 2007/11/02 10:30:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Louis you can put the paper bag away, those are not mine.  Besides, mine are bigger.

Date: 2007/11/02 10:51:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey FtK happy friday!  Children and morality, what a great subject!  I posted the below in another post but no ID theorists have addressed any of my questions.  Perhaps you could?  In short I'm trying to figure out why the God of ID seems so impotent.  I'm hoping you can help me understand.  Thanks in advance!

According to the IDiots, the Intelligent Designer has the ability to create well pretty much everything.  They claim the ID is the god of the bible.  

This is the same god who can create a man from dust, create a woman from a single rib (beef not pork), he can flood the entire planet, he can murder every single first born son in a given country (in one night), he can impregnate a teenage girl without even touching her (and thus avoiding a lengthy jail sentence), he can make an entire sea split, he can bring back the dead, and he even does a nifty ventriloquist act with a bush while it's on fire.  Ok, we're talking a mighty dude here, right?  Not so fast.

How come this all powerful deity is rendered impotent by a small group of soccer moms from Dover, PA and a few whacked out librull lawyers?  Seriously.  He creates EVERYTHING biological yet he cannot get his name mentioned in a simple high school biology textbook, can't even get himself in the curriculum.  All because of a few soccer moms.  That is a laff riot.

He creates all the stars and planets and do you see him in any astronomy textbooks books?  I mean without him we would not be singing "twinkle twinkle little star" to out children because there would be no stars. Right?  Without him we're be singing "twinkle twinkle little, oh never mind.  Go to sleep it's WAY past your bedtime"

Yet he allows a federal judge, a damn Lutheran at that,  and a few soccer moms to put him in a head lock until he cries "uncle".  Kinkier minds might imagine the moms grabbing him by his nipples and telling him to whistle before they'll let go.

I just find it odd that the intelligent designer is supposed to be all powerful and whatever yet he's so freaking impotent when someone stands up to him.  In fact he seems more like a p***y than a deity to me. And he relies on tards like the DI and Casey Luskin and Wilbur Dembski to take up his cause.  So the IDesigner is impotant AND stupid?

PS, I'm a father and sensitive to what children are taught.  Do you feel that teaching children to worship deities who mass murder little boys for the crime of being born in Egypt a good thing or a bad thing?  Personally I'm opposed to it as I don't think mass murder and especially the mass murder of little boys is a good family value (I have a 2 yo boy so I'm biased of course).

How about you?  As a parent do you think mass murders who prey on children are good role models for children?  Also how do you feel about a deity who impregnates a teenage girl?  Again, as the father of a little girl (4) I simply cannot promote a deity who impregnates little girls to my children.  That would scare the hell out of my daughter.  I admit I'm totally biased, I'm a parent.

Looking forward to your opinion on these important matters.  Do you teach your children to worship a mass murdering deity who impregnates a 14 yo girl?  If so could you explain why.  Thanks!

Date: 2007/11/02 11:07:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
FtK, speaking of what's good reading for kids, how do you feel about children reading the bible.  More imporantly how do you feel about incest?  Is incest a family value in your home?  It's not in mine and just another reason why I don't feel the bible is appropriate reading for children.  

You're a christian, do you condone parents having sex with their children as along as they have a really good reason?  As a father I simply have to draw the line at incest but I realize christians like you may feel differently.  

As a moral woman do you keep your children away from the bible or do you think incest is ok and let them read all about it?

Date: 2007/11/02 11:18:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
FtK, if your husband had really really good DNA would you object to him impregnating your daughter in order to save his seed?

Please help me to understand Christian morals and what books are fit for children to read.  

ps: I fully understand that as an atheist parent who does not condone incest, murder, killing children, impregnating 14 yo girls, etc i am considered immoral by christian standards.  But with your help I might be able to turn things around.  Please help me to understand!  Thanks

pss: Louis we already knew you had bibical morals.

Date: 2007/11/02 11:32:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 02 2007,11:23)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 02 2007,16:18)
pss: Louis we already knew you had bibical morals.

Heeeeeyyyyyyy! No fair. I've never committed genocide!

Well, I've never committed MUCH genocide.


Louis, do you ever feel bad about the small amount of genocide you've caused?  I bet not, you're an atheist!

I wonder if the god of the bible ever felt guilty for murdering all those little boys.  I wonder if it ever kept him up at night.  My little boy is simply precious.  If god ever murdered him I'd kick god's impotent litte ass (or get some soccer moms from Dover PA to do if for me).  But I'm an atheist with no morals of course.

I wonder if the god of the bible ever felt weird about knocking up a 14 yo girl who was married to a 78 yo guy.  Man if someone ever tried to impregnate my wife I'd kick their ass but then again I'm not a christian so I  lack a moral compass.

To show you what an immoral bastard I really am, I would NEVER indulge in incest for ANY reason.  From a christian standpoint that makes me a sicko I think.

Anyhow I'm looking forward to FtK helping me understand bibical morality.

Date: 2007/11/02 11:59:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
That would make for a cool movie.  You could show guys like me (atheists) who refuse to condone murderng little boys, who refuse to partake or condone incest, who refuse to enslave others, as backwards immoral bastards rightfully punished by the Deity called the Teenage Impregnator ("Awl be bock...For YOUR daughter!") who wears Ray Bans and looks like Awnold.  

The movie would have lots of action packed with bibically condoned murder and incest and blood, LOTS of blood!  Christians LOVE blood!  I see a summer blockbuster in the making!

Maybe pattern the violence and bloodshed on that Christain snuff film that was so popular a few years ago, the Passion Of Christ or something made by that christian "sugar titts" alcoholic ("it was a disease that made me do that, Diane...").

Too bad Hollywood is controlled by Darwinists who'd never allow such a realistic and honest movie to be made.

Date: 2007/11/02 12:26:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Sorry to be such a pest guys but FtK has really got me thinking and as a moral Christian I think she can help me and also you understand what we atheists have been missing out on.

FtK, on the subject of Joesph and Mary, do you feel it's ok for a 78 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?  It doesn't sit well with me.  In fact I don't like the idea of a 78 year old guy even dating a 13 year old girl.

Will you support your daughter marrying a 78 year old guy when she turns 13?  I'm just trying to understand your superior Christian morals so that I might become more like you and thus spare my children from eterternal damnation.  

How do you suggest I tell my daughter it's ok for her to marry a 78 year old guy when she turns 13?  How did you explain this to your own children?  Also, in the state of Texas it is illegal for a 13 year old girl to get married.  

Do you feel that this law discriminates against christians?  I mean, if Joseph and Mary had lived in Texas back then they would not have been able to get married and/or Joseph would be doing time for pedophilia. Is the state of Texas backwards or what?!  Talk about no morals, welcome to Texas!

Thanks again for enlightening us atheists to all we've been missing when it comes to instilling family values in our children.  

Ok, so far FtK has given us Rule #1 do not expose children to anything that conflicts with or ridicules christianity.  Got that!

What is rule #2, FtK?


Date: 2007/11/02 12:54:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
According to leading Intelligent Design Creationism theorist, Dr Michael Behe, this guy could be the intelligent designer.  Personally I'm skeptical of his claim.  

Hey don't laugh at me (it hurts), after all he did make a man and in just 7 days!

I mean the ONLY thing YOU Darwinist guys have ever made is mold and bacteria and shit.  This guy made a MAN!

edit: I hope the broken link to the picture is fixed...

Date: 2007/11/02 13:04:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'm all ears.  Please explain why we should condone incest.

And why it's ok for a 78 year old guy to marry a 13 year old little girl.

And why murdering thousands and thousands of little boys is ok. As I read it god killed all the first born little boys because he was mad at pharaoh.  That would be like him killing all the first born sons in the USA because he was mad at George Bush.  Killing MY son because you're pissed at the Chimp is dumb, especially since I cannot stand the Chimp either.

Youre a mother, FtK, how do you feel when you think of all those little boys whose lives were snuffed out by god?  Do you have a son?  I do.

Also, jesus says those who reject his little scheme are doomed to "eternal teeth gnashing".  Does this seem rational to you?  Would you doom your children to eternal teeth gnashing if they rejected your ideology and or would you instead try and be a better example for them and encourage them to do better?

I'm all ears.

Date: 2007/11/02 13:09:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2007,12:56)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 02 2007,12:53)
Personally, I think you have no interest in considering the historical situations surrounding these type of issues.  You seem to be merely interesting in berating Christian morality.

Oh, people who say things like  
considering the historical situations surrounding these type of issues

typically also say things like "Slavery was not so bad"

FTK are you pro or anti Slavery?

Regardless of what FtK thinks, the bible is clearly pro-slavery.  Much of Leviticus is a simple slave owners manual.

Date: 2007/11/02 13:18:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Fair enough, keep in mind my existing biases:

I am the father of two young children, a boy and girl.

I think incest is immoral.

I think a 78 yo marrying a 13 yo is immoral.

I think killing innocent children is immoral, even when you're mad at the leaders of their country.

I'm not saying I can't be convinced otherwise, but I think my take on it is conducive to social harmony.

Date: 2007/11/02 14:25:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 02 2007,14:02)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 02 2007,13:52)
In response to the question "Is incest wrong?"
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 02 2007,13:13)
this is not a short answer kind of question

Looks like a short answer kind of question to me. Short answer = it's wrong.

But what do I know. Maybe she needs to research her opinions again, and it does take a while to find just the right phrasing with Google.

Have fun, Mr_Christopher!

Oh!  Is that all he wants to know?

Question:  Is incest wrong?

Answer:  Yes, it is, and I believe the bible supports that answer.

Good nuf, then?  I'm sorry, I thought he wanted some real input here...scriptural backup for that claim, etc. - substantiation.

Silly me.  Have a nice Friday, then!

If incest is wrong why didn't Lot's daughters get punished for having sex with him?  Why wasn't that act of incest condemned in the bible?

Date: 2007/11/02 14:47:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Behe opines:

Even if God purposely designed the malarial parasite, He may not have decreed that a particular infected mosquito would bite a particular person on a particular day, or that a particular tiger would eat some one in particular. In the case of the tiger (designed or not), for example, a human’s fate might depend on when he decides to go for a walk, which route he takes, etc., etc. Nature and human life would still be chockful of contingency and freedom.

Gosh that makes so much sense.  The designed the malaria parasite but it's not his fault if you become infected with it.  You should have never lived in Africa in the first place, dolt!  

It never ceases to amaze me how so many christians like Behe can ignore and/or rationalize obvious moral issues brought on by this religious nonsense.  When held to even the most marginal moral code, God/the inteligent designer is a very sick and perverted bastard.

"Hey god made the malarial parasite but he didn't force you to live in Africa!  You should count your blessings!"

I think it was Camus who said something close to when a christian sees an innocent child whose eyes have been burned out they must either abandon their faith or burn their own eyes out.  I think he was on to something.

Date: 2007/11/02 15:13:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Under what circumstances would incest be neccessary and therefore condoned?  Ancient circumstances or current.

Date: 2007/11/02 15:35:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
So in God's eyes its ok to have sex with and marry your sister?

Date: 2007/11/02 15:58:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 02 2007,15:51)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 02 2007,15:35)
So in God's eyes its ok to have sex with and marry your sister?, that's not what I said.  In early history, there would have been no one else to bear children with.  Life would have stopped altogether.  At that time, this would have simply been a way of life.  

Once the population grew, God put an end to this type of relationship when He made specific laws against it.  So, no, in God's eye's *today* it's not okay to have sex with and marry your sister.

From an evolutionary & Godless standpoint on this issue, I see no reason why the issue of incest would be a bad thing except due to health issues.  If both parties are willing, who would you be hurting?  

Personally, I believe God put a stop to it due to His knowledge that as the population grew and our bodies were no longer perfect, it would become increasingly dangerous for our offspring in the future.

BTW, you didn't address the evolutionary senario of incestuous relationships.  Again, we're talking early history....things were extremely different from today.  Are you against these early relationships in general or are you trying to pin something immoral on God?

This doesn't make sense.  God could have created more people (from dust and ribs) to avoid incest to populate the planet.  So it would seem god doesn't really frown on incest.  If god thought incest was ok back then (because he was too lazy to repeat the dust and rib trick) but not now suggests christian morals are relative and non-binding.  

Um, evolution is a part of biology/science that explains how things work and why things are, it does not come with a moral code of how things should be.  Evolution would have no position on incests any more than dentistry would.  

So how would you feel about a 78 year old man marrying your 13 year old daughter?  Moral or immoral?

Date: 2007/11/05 09:33:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I was playing my DaveTard's greatest hits this morning and I thought some of you might remember this

8 January 2006
Reminder To Stay On Message
This applies to everyone writing articles as well as writing comments. Professor Dembski excepted of course.

The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion...I realize that it’s hard to divorce our innermost faith from our writing and will try to tolerate a generous amount of spillage but the bottom line is if you’re warned to ease up, ease up or the axe will fall. Professor Dembski advised me to be ruthless in policing this blog.

Talk about jeebus and you'll get the axe!  Funny because that is ALL they talk about nowadays.  I'm glad they finally quit pretending ID has nothing to do with jeebus.

And since when were creobots are attracted to "math, science, and logic"?  Seriously, is there a parallel universe or something where religious tards are attracted to science and reason?  No one ever bothered to tell me this.

Date: 2007/11/05 10:11:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Have they ever banned more than two people in a single day?  What's the UD record for banning people in one day so far?

All this wholesale banning has got me thinking about getting a new UD account.

Date: 2007/11/05 14:47:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 05 2007,13:37)
Two Weeks to Waterloo!!! Buy my Book!!!

Also check out the excerpts.  A lovely collection of usual arguments (now with 15% more incredulity!!) and potshots directed at the leaders of the Atheistic Darwinian Priesthood.

Beat the Christmas rush and save $4 by ordering your copy early!

I'm interested to know how well these ID books sell nowadays since most everyone on planet earth knows IDc is a scam.

And am I the only one who finds hilarity in the moonie and fundy joining forces?  What next, cats breeding with dogs?  And when is the disco going to find a leading scientologist to take up the anti-darwin cause?

Date: 2007/11/05 15:11:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Rob @ Nov. 05 2007,15:08)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,14:47)
I'm interested to know how well these ID books sell nowadays since most everyone on planet earth knows IDc is a scam.

I would guess that a good portion of their customers buy these books because they know it´s a scam.  I´m betting that most of us on this board can´t wait to get our hands on a copy, which leaves us with a dilemma:  $31.50 is a great price for the entertainment value that the book is sure to provide, but do we really want to contribute to the ID cause?

That's easy.  You can contribute money to demsbki (via buying his book) thus insuring he'll write more rubbish in the future or simply order a copy to read from your local public library.

Date: 2007/11/05 15:30:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
VTard is here to convert people to his backwards world view.  What everyone else here recognizes right away (and eludes him) is that he's currently one of the dumbest and most poorly informed people here.  

People are too busy making fun of him and pointing out how stupid his ideas are to bother converting to his fundy, JAD butt sucking viewpoint.

Date: 2007/11/05 15:57:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Has Dembski joined the HIV deniers club yet?

Date: 2007/11/05 15:58:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I think the last time they added any sob stories was the 30th.

I keep hoping someone will submit some short sob videos we can watch too.

Date: 2007/11/05 16:45:02, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 05 2007,16:33)
More tard from the tardmeister. On the Hollywood thread, DT tries to pretend that ID predicted something, and that Behe proved it. (my emphasis to highlight some of the completely idiotic bits)    
ID makes testable predictions about evolution. Take for instance the parasite that causes malaria - P.falciparum. We observed this single celled eukaryote in the last few decades replicating billions of trillions of times. That is orders of magnitude more replications than it ostensibly took to transform reptiles into mammals. ID predicted that even in billions of trillions of replications no creative evolution of the type that distinguishes mammals from reptiles is possible without intelligent agency. Sure enough, when the parasite was scrutinized in both phenotype and nucleotide-accurate genotype after billions of trillions of replications it had accomplished nothing but trivial (albeit medically important) changes.

This was the largest real-world emprical (sic) test of the principles underlying ID and evolution by other means. ID was confirmed and evolution by any other means was repudiated. Feel free to offer an explanation for the lack of any significant creative evolution in P.falciparum under the rubric of the modern synthesis. And don’t say ID doesn’t make testable predictions. It did and the prediction was confirmed. Furthermore it continues to predict that no significant creative evolution will take place in P.falciparum in any of the billions of trillions of replications it undergoes every single year. Can the modern synthesis even make a prediction in that regard? At this point it appears it cannot. The theory absent predictions in regard to creative evolution appears to be the modern synthesis not intelligent design.

Later in the comment thread MacT skates close to the bannination edge by arguing with DT over some of the idiotic things in his comment, and BA77 chimes in with his notions about reality      
A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth.
and the non-theological nature of ID    
Thus, by the rules of logic this means truth emanates from God. So in answer to our question “What is Truth?” we can answer that truth comes from God.

All Science So Far!

If truth comes from god, and I am always truthful, I must be god.  

No need to bow down before me you hitler worshipping darwinists, but I do prefer that you all kiss my ring from now on.

ps: note how ba77 failed to answer his own rhetorical question

"what is truth - it comes from gawd"  

well what the fuck is it though, ba77?

Date: 2007/11/05 18:04:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I knew conservapedia was going to hell in a handbasket the day they removed this picture:

That pic used to be on the evolution page and proved dinos and people lived together in harmony.

Date: 2007/11/05 18:11:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I pray to the intelligent designer that they start including the poor me victim stories again.  Several of them are howlers indeed.  Some of the ones I submitted will be very funny if they ever get published.

Date: 2007/11/06 09:27:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 05 2007,23:05)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,14:57)
Has Dembski joined the HIV deniers club yet?

He quotes Jonathan Wells and Tom Bethell approvingly.

He doesn't have the guts to come out and say that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, however. I doubt that he believes that anyway. But he'll quote approvingly the "open-mindedness" of others because it suits his purpose (as it suited DaveScot's for the same reason).

It's like the whole age of the earth question - "Oh, it could be this or it could be that - what's the difference?" No thought of the consequences. It's just a game to them.

And these guys have the nerve to speak of morality.

Hermagoras said it best:  
To DaveScot,

I’m not surprised that you are skeptical of the HIV/AIDS connection, since you seem to be enjoy taking the oddball view for its own sake. To repeat your own (extraordinarily chilling) word to AIDS victims, I’m sure this behavior is thrilling and the thrill is a reward but you don't have any right to complain if you get hurt doing it.

Thanks for the ino/links, Kristine.

What total douchebags they are.

Date: 2007/11/06 09:31:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 05 2007,15:38)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,15:30)
VTard is here to convert people to his backwards world view.

The odd thing, tho, is that he refuses to say what his worldview is, other than "YOU DARWINISTS ALL SUCK!"

Isn't he from the 6,000 yo earth, godditit camp for intellectual retards?

I especially like the "kick me" sign he wears so proudly.

Is he also from the global warming is a left wing conspiracy camp as well?  And does he also doubt the relationiship between HIV and AIDS?  I'm trying to get an idea for the depth of his stupid infection.

Sorry to be so ignorant about one of our favorite poster boys of stupidity but I seldom read his nonsense.


Date: 2007/11/06 09:35:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2007,21:24)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,19:04)
I knew conservapedia was going to hell in a handbasket the day they removed this picture:

That pic used to be on the evolution page and proved dinos and people lived together in harmony.

Maybe they took it down because Jesus was a hardass Republican who would be Tough on Terror and never, ever, ride sidesaddle.

Yeah only a gay jesus would ride side saddle while wearing lace up sandals.

Date: 2007/11/06 09:44:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 06 2007,07:51)
Here's a howler from the comment thread on DT's latest idiocy. Someone named Lutepisc sez  
Dave, I think you’ve got a book in you. I can see it starting to develop like one of those old Polaroid pictures…

More like a sweat stain on a USMC t-shirt...

If anyone has posting powers at UD please use them to encourage Dave Tard to write an ID book.

Date: 2007/11/06 10:17:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2007,10:11)
Dippy Joe G chimes in:




10:10 am
My 2 cents:

Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis


Explaing the “I” in ID

Put your coffee down, click the links. Amazingly stupid.

This is like getting a front row seat to someone's mental illness.  I should feel empathy but instead i can't stop laughing.

Date: 2007/11/06 10:25:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, I'm maybe I'm slow, I can understand why fundies like William Dimwit, Behe, "Father May I" Wells deny any science that doesn't support the bible truths but why deny HIV?  

What motivates them to deny the HIV-AIDS relationship?  Is this just there way at getting at homos or just another way to chip away at the credibility of real science or?

I don't get it.  Why pick on people who are HIV positive?  What does this buy them and why would their followers care?

Date: 2007/11/06 10:35:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 06 2007,10:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 06 2007,10:23)
Question:  Why does it taste so good with peanut butter and not so good with tiny balls of shit?

Now this is an ID research program I can support!  Assuming, of course, that they do the experiments.

This explains alot actually.  You see Jeebus made chocolate taste good and poop taste bad so we would not eat one anothers poop.  If jeebus had not made poop taste so bad we'd all sit around doing poop shots.

Thank you intelligent designer!

Date: 2007/11/06 10:42:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'm all for free speech but I think this is in the same vein as crying fire in a dark theater or NAMBLA members carrying their message on elementary school grounds.  Just because we have the right to free speech does not mean we can say what we want anywhere we want.

These scum sucking christians have the right to free speech and to make their scum sucking viewpoints known but that doesn't give them the right to prey on grieving parents at the gravesite of their deceased offspring.  

I'm delighted they're going to lose their little christian church of hate.

Date: 2007/11/06 11:45:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Being a good darwinist I have numerous gay and lesbo friends.  Maybe I should hook jeebus up with them so he can gain some fashion sense and also learn what constitutes manly footwear.  

Even a pair of ropers would be better than those lace up sandals and that flowing dress has got to go!

Date: 2007/11/06 12:06:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I just got wind of this in one of the posts at PT.

Discovery Institute: PBS Teacher's Guide Injects Religion into the Classroom

A "Briefing Packet for Educators" just issued by PBS in conjunction with the NOVA program Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial inserts religion into the classroom and encourages teaching practices that are likely unconstitutional, says Discovery Institute.

"The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," says Dr. John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute.

"The teaching guide is riddled with factual errors that misrepresent both the standard definition of intelligent design and the beliefs of those scientists and scholars who support the theory," adds West.

The Institute has sent the PBS teaching guide out to 16 attorneys and legal scholars for review and analysis of its constitutionality.

Discovery Institute is hosting a press teleconference call on Wednesday, Nov. 7th at 1pm EST to discuss the legal review of the PBS teaching guide accompanying the Judgment Day docudrama program airing next week. To participate in the call, or to request an interview, contact Anika Smith at Discovery Institute, (206) 292-0401 x155, [][/EMAIL]

See it here

I'm digging around the filthy Disco web site for more tard...

Date: 2007/11/06 12:15:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 06 2007,12:10)
3rd prediction:  The disembodied telic being yahweh wants us to be amused, therefore we find this funny, thus proving that there was a garden of eden and that jesus rose from the dead.

This is all a part of the ID sub-theory known as the TBoS Theory (Tiny Balls of Shit Theory).


Date: 2007/11/06 12:20:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Here is a link to the offending Teachers Guide:

Date: 2007/11/06 12:39:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I hope all the major news outlets pick this up.  The result would be more viewers and more teachers particpating.  Well not homeschool, "fundy" teachers of course.

Date: 2007/11/06 13:56:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,13:13)
Good grief...teachers will need a *de-briefing* packet after reading that one sided rag.  The Discovery Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet as well.  

Here's the hilarious the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Most high school teachers don't have a clue as to the depth of this debate.  Pity...

Hey FtK which Id books have your kids read?

Date: 2007/11/06 14:05:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Skeptic, FtK and VMartin I have a couple of questions for you.

Do you

1) Deny/doubt the HIV=AIDS relationship

2) Deny/doubt global warming

3) Believe ID ("certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection...") is a scientific theory.

4) Believe ID should be taught in public high school science class.

These are pretty easy questions and each only requires a yes/no answer.  I have no desire to debate/deconstruct your answers or suggest your answers are right or wrong.  I'm just curious about where you stand on these issues.

Thanks in advance for your answers!



Date: 2007/11/06 14:10:44, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey FtK what do you think of the ID camp refusing to be interviewed?  

Q: Of the three expert witnesses who testified on behalf of Dover—Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and Steve Fuller—only Steve Fuller appears in the program. Why did you not interview the other two, who are among the country's leading proponents of ID?

Apsell: Michael Behe and Scott Minich, as well as other proponents of ID, were invited to participate in the program. We were committed to presenting the views of the major participants in the trial as fairly as possible. And our preference would have been to have their views presented directly, through firsthand interviews.

However, Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and other ID proponents affiliated with the Discovery Institute declined to be interviewed under the normal journalistic conditions that NOVA uses for all programs. In the midst of our discussions, we even offered to provide them with complete footage of the interviews, so that they could be reassured that nothing would be taken out of context. But they declined nonetheless.

In some sense, though, we do hear from both Behe and Minich in the program through our recreated trial scenes; the words that our actors speak are taken verbatim from the trial transcripts. And of course we hear directly in the program from lawyers for the defense—Richard Thompson, Patrick Gillen, and Robert Muise—as well as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as "the father of intelligent design."

Read more

And I'm still curious to know which ID books your children have read.  Well other than the bible.

Date: 2007/11/06 14:41:57, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks for your answers FtK.

Date: 2007/11/06 14:49:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:46)

What?  No arguments?  No slams?


I'm an honest guy.  As I previously mentioned I did not ask the questions to argue with you or rate your answers.  I was just interested in your opinions.  

I'll argue with you in other threads I'm sure :-)

And you have not answered a question I have posed twice to you now in the DI says the PBS teachers guide is unconstitutional thread.

Hey a bonus question, what's your take on the Discovery Institute?

Date: 2007/11/06 15:01:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:56)
Hey a bonus question, what's your take on the Discovery Institute?

That's kind of a silly question.  I think the Discovery Institute it great.  Though, I do prefer some of ID proponents over others.  And, no, I won't be sharing more on that comment.  Again I appreciate your answers.


And I don't think that was a silly question, many IDers view the Discovery Institute as scum sucking vermin who lie through their teeth, others not so much.  So i think the question was legit.


Date: 2007/11/06 15:03:17, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
If you haven't seen the PBS/NOVA forum for discussing "Judgment Day -- Intelligent Design on Trial" you might want to drop by.  Could get interesting within the next week or two.

NOVA: Judgment Day -- Intelligent Design on Trial

Date: 2007/11/06 15:16:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

Date: 2007/11/06 15:40:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 06 2007,15:28)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:16)
FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

Umm, not to be a pendant, Mr C, but why are you assuming that God is on the losing side?

God was booted out of science class decades ago.  Any attempt to put him back in science class ends up the same - god loses, over and over and over.

That's what I call losing.

Date: 2007/11/06 15:49:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Someone at PT linked to this gem by Mike Argento from the York Daily Record, Behe's 15th-century science.  

I remember reading it a very long time ago.  It's still just as hilarious and funnier still when you think of Behe's most recent testimony in the creationist vs California.  

When are the moron creationists going to realize Behe is a double agent who works for darwinists when he's under oath?  Behe on your legal team spells D-O-O-M for your side you dolts!

Date: 2007/11/06 15:53:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 06 2007,15:47)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:40)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 06 2007,15:28)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,15:16)
FtK, why does god seem to lose EVERY single battle when it comes to science?

Umm, not to be a pendant, Mr C, but why are you assuming that God is on the losing side?

God was booted out of science class decades ago.  Any attempt to put him back in science class ends up the same - god loses, over and over and over.

That's what I call losing.

Well, that joke fell flat since you completely missed my point.  

I have often wondered why Dembski, as a subscriber to revealed religion, has never stopped to think his unending string of defeats, and the shambles of his career, are a messages from God that he is wrong.  So, the point of the joke was that maybe God is on the winning (i.e. pro-science) side.

Sorry I missed it :-)  Must be the coffee and you are very right.  Who's to say god hasn't won every one of these court cases and he's getting really sick of being called an intelligent designer and wants nothing more than to be left out of science class and instead prominantly placed in religion class where he belongs :-)

That would be a very rational deity indeed.

Date: 2007/11/06 15:55:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2007,15:52)
Guys and gals, the topic here is the DI's stuff about Nova.

We have a Bathroom Wall for a reason.

Speaking of which why is the DI site silent on the topic?

Date: 2007/11/06 16:13:17, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,16:03)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,14:05)
Skeptic, FtK and VMartin I have a couple of questions for you.

Do you

1) Deny/doubt the HIV=AIDS relationship

2) Deny/doubt global warming

3) Believe ID ("certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection...") is a scientific theory.

4) Believe ID should be taught in public high school science class.

These are pretty easy questions and each only requires a yes/no answer.  I have no desire to debate/deconstruct your answers or suggest your answers are right or wrong.  I'm just curious about where you stand on these issues.

Thanks in advance for your answers!



Point 1) and 2) is something I don't know much about. No opinion.

3,4) If a (neo)darwinism is a scientific theory I don't see a reason why telepathy and astrology are not also taught at school.

Anyway some basics of religion should be taught at schools for those childrens whose parents are fanatic atheists or neodarwinists and do not talk with their children about religion which formed thinking of our grand parents and our predecessors more than 1.000 years so intensively

Also children should know some other evolutionary approaches as well - it means ID, orthogenesis etc., and their basic arguments - if they want to study it outside school. They should be taught more facts about "natural selection" and what some great scientists thought of it. They should be taught about living organisms and Nature  from some different point of view, which is much more sensitive and have more sympathy for life as those reductionist concepts of "struggle for survival", "selfish gene" etc...
Such concepts  have harmful effect on youngsters on my opinion. Whats more such concepts are unscientific. Such concepts spoils the perception of beauty of living world, where "struggle for life" and "natural selection" obviously play no main role, but creativeness of life itself.

You answered two questions and used the others as a spring board for your anti-evolution ideas.

I was hoping to get yes/no answers for all the questions I asked.  FtK was able to do so, can you try again?


Date: 2007/11/06 16:37:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
UPDATE: My DI mole tells me the DI does in fact have their crackpot legal team looking into this and and we'll see details on the DI website soon.  

Hooray!  Go team jeebus!

Wouldn't it be cool if the DI actually asked a federal judge to block the teachers guide for constitutional reasons?  If they really tried to make it a legal issue. Seeing them lose *again* would make my year!

Date: 2007/11/06 17:15:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
You guys remember the Wedge Document, yes?  It was published around 1998/1999.

I got a kick out of reviewing their 5 year goals and 5 year objectives today.  Class, let's review them!

First, I'm sure you all remember the two Governing Goals:

1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies
2) To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

(all science so far!)

And who could forget those 5 year goals:

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

(say yes to science!)

And while you're howling, let's review the 5 year objectives:

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

4. Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly
Regular press coverage on developments in design theory
Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

7. Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

How many goals and objectives did they pull off?

And Remember kids, Demsbki and Behe were key players in this grand scheme:

William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)

Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.

These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.

Remember, kids, Intelligent Design is science and don't let the satan worshipping darwinists tell you otherwise!

Ok I admit it, I love seeing these guys lose..Over and over and over and over...

Date: 2007/11/07 10:02:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Desperate to claim mental superiority over ANYTHING or ANYONE the morphodyke church lady takes on an opponent her mental size - apes!  Claiming they're not as smart as the darwinists first thought.

How sweet is that.  Yes morphodyke, you have better language skills than *most* apes.  You have probably sold a *few* more books than your typical chimpanzee.

Feel better now?

Date: 2007/11/07 10:09:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I keep reading on UD about these things called "souls" which all humans have and apparently apes do to (but they may be located in a different spot).  I have never seen a soul, do you need a microscope or an x-ray or a splanitory filter to detect them?  Are they IC?  Did they evolve from earlier primates?

Could you tell me who discovered the soul, I assume that scientist must have won a dozen or so prizes for that discovery.  And how can we detect souls.  I'm looking for convincing evidence, not smarmy definitions.

Anyhow the intelligent design crowd seems to know all about these so-called "souls" so I thought I'd ask you instead of the satanists here.



Date: 2007/11/07 10:14:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I was poking around UD for some quality tard and found this golden oldie:

(Off Topic) Mr. Christopher is no longer with us

How many of you had a dedicated thread at UD to celebrate your bannishment?  I think none.  

I win!


Date: 2007/11/07 10:27:11, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 07 2007,10:23)
My banning was announced to me here, in a post devoted to little old me!

I'm at least runner-up.  What do I win?

BTW, there's some utterly classic stuff in the comment thread on your banning, Mr C.  Like this from Dembski himself:


Infamous: I just decided to do DaveScot a favor and boot you myself. The deal with this blog, since I’ve given it over to my friends, is to build community and “feel the love.” Unfortunately, that requires recalcitrant elements to be purged. That’s a price I’m willing to pay.

He really is a little prick, isn't he?

"The Lion Shall Lie Down with the Lamb"  

Very impressive, but were you banned prior to that thread or actually bannished when it was written?

And the Dembski comments in my bannishment thread were classic.  You can spray perfume on a piece of poop but bite into it and it's still a piece of poop.  A pu**y can get 5 PhDs but he's still a pu**y.  Demsbki is clearly just another pu**y hiding behind a handful of degrees and tard followers.


Date: 2007/11/07 10:47:35, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 07 2007,10:40)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 07 2007,17:27)
Very impressive, but were you banned prior to that thread or actually bannished when it was written?

I believe banishment and publication were simultaneous.  I've tried to post things - innocuous and critical - a few times since then, but nothing has ever shown up.

But whether there is more than one "moment" in the action of bannination remains a mystery beyond human knowledge.  Just like how Dembski and Botnik can be the same, and yet not the same.  And how DaveScot was formed out of Cheesy Poof crumbs Dembski found in his sofa.  All great mysteries.

Sir, if you could no longer post after ""The Lion Shall Lie Down with the Lamb" then you are in fact the winner.  The title of your obituary is clearly superior to my own.  

Some might say since Dembski was such a pu**y in my thread that it's a draw, in fact if Dembski had been a pu**y to *me* in my obituary I'd agree with them.  But he wasn't.  I can admit defeat when I've been defeated.

I humbly step back into second place and allow you to rightfully take the first place spot.  



Date: 2007/11/07 10:51:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 07 2007,10:45)
I... uh... I mean JanieBelle, got a whole thread axed and rewritten with banishment.

I/we win.

I almost had teh sexeh with jenny-ho-belle you homos -dt

Date: 2007/11/07 11:03:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 07 2007,10:52)
Chris, did you save your post?  I'd like to read it.


No I did not save it, but click on the UD article where I was banned and dave tard linked to the PT article where my comments got me banned.  You'll have to dig through a ton of comments to find mine.

Date: 2007/11/07 11:19:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
We should hear from the DI today on this subject.  I spose UD will chime in too.

Anyone want to wager who at UD will start his/her own thread on the unconstitutional nature of the NOVA teachers guide?  Dipski (king tard)?  Davetard?  The Morphodyke?  A lower rung tard (gil, salvo, et al)?

My money says dave tard or the king tard himself.  They're the constitutional experts at UD.

Date: 2007/11/07 11:52:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
How can they whine about the ID point of view when all the IDers refused to be interviewed?  Well except the increasingly senile Phillip E Johnson who talked up a storm.   Note to the IDC leadership, keep Johnson's door locked.

Maybe the NOVA producers should have offered to pay Behe or Dipski for an interview.  Didn't Dipski get $20,000 for his part in the Dover trial?  And didn't Behe get $20,000 for his most recent court room testimony, yes?  Where he once again worked in secret for the other side thus dooming the creationists to lose yet another court case.

Looks like $20,000 is the magic number it takes to get IDCers to talk about their science.

Date: 2007/11/07 12:14:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Borne is a dead man walking.  Davetard is probably polishing his double barrel banninator at this very minute.

In another post he lets his fellow tard know he's not going to take it up the arse without a fight!

There is some quality reading in this tard fight thread.

And they seem to hate theistic darwinists but isn't Behe a theistic darwinist?

Date: 2007/11/07 13:02:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I had a gril friend (who was a christian) break up with me once.  One of her complaints about me was my lack of communication.  

I'm all "I forget to call you a few times and you want to break up, yet you love this god fellah who's NEVER called you, NEVER replied to ANY of your prayers, NEVER sent you a birthday card, NEVER even spoken to you, and failed to even show up at your graduation, and you think *I'm* bad at communication?!"


Date: 2007/11/07 13:15:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2007,13:06)
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 07 2007,10:07)
A grrrrreat piece of tard from Joseph:

They'rrrrrrre TARD!

I just don't get this.  They're slamming christians who accept evolution and correct me if I'm wrong but Behe is a christian who accepts evolution.  Behe just points out one or two things that in his mind that did not evolve (an over simplification to be sure).  

So..They're slamming Behe when they slam christians who accept evolution, yes?


Date: 2007/11/07 13:24:39, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 06 2007,22:30)
1) NO

2) I deny global warming hysteria, actually I worse than deny it but that's not really the question, or is it?

3) No

4) No

skeptic, thanks for your answers.  Could you explain answer #2, your point is not clear to me.


Date: 2007/11/07 13:51:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 07 2007,13:49)
So when my wife gets home from work this evening, I plan to suggest to her that I need to go out and do God's work, recharging dying women suffering from genetic collapse brought on by excessive entropy.

I wonder what she'll say...

Will you use the proven missionary position when you do your missionary work?

Date: 2007/11/07 16:40:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The anti-NOVA forces are hard at work and the  morphodyke is leading the UD charge

She quotes Behe saying,

When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin’s theory, Design of Life will be at the top.

Is Behe high?  Delusional?  That's crazy talk.  

These people have no grasp of reality do they?  William Dembksi, the Paris Hilton of Information Theory, and head Moonie Jonathan Wells are going to topple ToE?  That is crazy talk.  

Neither Dembski or Wells has a biological clue and according the Behe their little creationist handbook for the uninformed and uneducated is going to topple ToE?  They cannot even get published in any science journal and yet they are going to topple modern science with Of People and Pandas 3rd ed?

Holy crikey man my side is hurting.  This is too funny for words.

Date: 2007/11/07 17:08:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dunno, that was only open to the press.  Sadly the only thing on Evolution News today is an article claiming Dover was fucked up and they got it all wrong ("the Truth About Dover...") and a link to buy their self-published book "Traipsing Into Evolution:Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision"

Hardly the kind of fireworks and hilarity I was hoping for.

Date: 2007/11/07 17:25:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Nov. 07 2007,17:19)
Down the memory hole, just like that. Didn't even hold a bannination. How is it that these wingnuts don't see what an echo chamber they hide out in?

I think they prefer it that way and each banning is evidence of their righteousness.  I think the herd loves seeing people banned.  It keeps it cozy and allows them to make up and believe in anything without having to defend their nonsene or deal with pesky questions or demands for evidence.

I can't figure out how the marginally intelligent (Dembski) can stand the company he keeps/attracts.  You'd have to pay me to hang out with the ultra dunces at UD, in person or online and if I found myself at the helm of a movement that attracted people that stupid I'd seriously consider suicide, or at least moving and changing my name.

Date: 2007/11/07 21:05:13, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (creeky belly @ Nov. 07 2007,18:51)
Quiet Riot: Come on, feel the tard

um, that's a Slade song.  Quite Riot covered it. Badly I might add.

Date: 2007/11/07 21:09:12, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 07 2007,18:38)
Chris, I find the typical end-of-the-world hysterical rhetoric insulting.  The largest aspect of the global warming debate is political and economical, IMO, and the pandering that goes on to appear publically favorable is annoying to say the least especially given the extreme ignorance of the general public.  It's far past time for some rationality to enter this discussion but I fear a critical mass has been reached and we've been launched on this global crusade to save the planet.  What hogwash!

that about sums it up...IMO

Thanks for clarifying your answer.

Date: 2007/11/08 08:00:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
dave tard forgot to add the farty noises

With quality propaganda like this being unleashed on You tube ToE is pretty much doomed.

Date: 2007/11/08 22:00:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher

Expelled For Promoting ID
Added by: Chris, on 2007-11-01 18:15:52
Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.

Who is this Chris guy?  And why is his typing so shitty?


Date: 2007/11/08 22:02:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Expelled from Uncommon Descent
Added by: James, on 2007-11-01 20:02:19
Today I was expelled from the Uncommon Descent blog. All I was trying to do was talk about intelligent design in an intelligent way. I'm a Christian and a religion professor. Can you believe the sort of censorship this site is engaging in?

[URL= [/url]

Read it here

Date: 2007/11/08 22:06:30, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Guys like hereoisreal should tell their story of being banned by intelligent design blog UD because they were open about their belief in God and Christ.

Dave tard censors anything religious at UD.  Why does UD censor faithful, honest christians I ask you?

Date: 2007/11/09 10:16:09, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The latest from Kansas:

NOVA program a crash course in evolutionary science
 Kansans still convinced that public schools should teach creationism or the intelligent design theory should watch a two-hour NOVA program on KPTS, Channel 8, next Tuesday at 7 p.m.
 The program is about the 2005 landmark case in which the Dover, Pa., school board was sued for ordering its science teachers to read a statement suggesting that intelligent design -- an idea that life is too complicated to have evolved naturally -- was a scientific alternative to evolution. District Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a religious-based theory and couldn’t be taught in the science classroom.
 NOVA producer Paula S. Apsell said that the case is instructive in that it “provided a crash course in modern evolutionary science” and “explored the very nature of science — how science is defined.”
 Click here to watch a YouTube trailer of the program.
 Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design, contends that intelligent design is not religious based and that a teacher guidebook about the show distributed by NOVA violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

I'll wager that the number of downloads for the teachers guide is going to out do ANY show they have ever produced.  Once again the fundies are shooting themselves in the foot.  I bet teachers that would have never even looked at the teachers guide will be doing so now that the DI is making such a big deal of it.

How cool is that?

Date: 2007/11/09 10:29:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
This is a double post, but speaking of Kansas here is what they're saying in Witchita

The Wichita Eagle

NOVA program a crash course in evolutionary science
 Kansans still convinced that public schools should teach creationism or the intelligent design theory should watch a two-hour NOVA program on KPTS, Channel 8, next Tuesday at 7 p.m.
 The program is about the 2005 landmark case in which the Dover, Pa., school board was sued for ordering its science teachers to read a statement suggesting that intelligent design -- an idea that life is too complicated to have evolved naturally -- was a scientific alternative to evolution. District Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a religious-based theory and couldn’t be taught in the science classroom.
 NOVA producer Paula S. Apsell said that the case is instructive in that it “provided a crash course in modern evolutionary science” and “explored the very nature of science — how science is defined.”
 Click here to watch a YouTube trailer of the program.
 Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design, contends that intelligent design is not religious based and that a teacher guidebook about the show distributed by NOVA violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

I'd like to thank the DI for all the free advertising for the teacher guide.  No doubt the number of dowloads for this teaching aid will out number any other NOVA program and science teachers who might not have ever paid attention to the guide will download one now if nothing else but to satisfy their curiosity.

See, the DI is helping science teachers improve their understanding of both intelligent design creationism and ToE.

How cool is that?

Date: 2007/11/12 10:11:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2007,06:45)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 12 2007,03:57)
Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 12 2007,03:54)
Alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, etc., etc., it doesn't matter what they used to be addicted to.

'Cuz now they're all ADDICTED TO TARD!!!

We need to dig up those Robert Palmer/Bill Dembski photoshops from a while back.  Anyone remember where we left those?

Addicted to Tard!

Might as well face it...

Date: 2007/11/12 11:41:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
The DI's Mental Illness in full bloom

Date: 2007/11/13 12:29:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dear Friend of EXPELLED,

More exciting news regarding Ben Stein and EXPELLED ~ No Intelligence Allowed.
Please tune in to The Glen Beck Television Program TODAY, Tuesday, November 13th at 3:15pm (EST). Please see details below.


3:15 – 3:30pm (EST)
Television interview
CNN Headline News
“The Glenn Beck TV Show”


Date: 2007/11/13 12:35:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Televised Tard Alert:

Dear Friend of EXPELLED,

More exciting news regarding Ben Stein and EXPELLED ~ No Intelligence Allowed.
Please tune in to The Glen Beck Television Program TODAY, Tuesday, November 13th at 3:15pm (EST). Please see details below.


3:15 – 3:30pm (EST)
Television interview
CNN Headline News
“The Glenn Beck TV Show”


Sorry to double post but under the circumstances I think you see why.

Date: 2007/11/13 13:36:21, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I wonder if Ben plans to watch the Nova special tonight.  I'd love to be a fly on the wall at ben's house if he does.

Date: 2007/11/13 23:44:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
After watching him on NOVA I've concluded if William Dembski is the Paris Hilton of Design Theory, Steve Fuller is the Anna Nicole Smith of Design Boobery.

Good god where did he attend college?  Has he ever attended a college level biology class?  Or just logic 101?  

I'm serious and not a scientist nor a science philosopher and I can see that man is really dumb, or he assumes I am.  Or he's marginally bright, knows he's full of shit, and he's just enjoying the celebrity of being idolized by a sizeable group of very dumb people. I wonder how intellectually fulfilling it is to be Lord of the Tards.  Demsbki seems to enjoy it.

I found Fullers analogies for 5 year olds and other explanations/justifications insulting.  I suspect even most 5 year olds would feel similarly.

Date: 2007/11/14 00:19:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I loved the transitional fossil:

"cdesign proponentsists"

Date: 2007/11/14 10:08:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 14 2007,09:43)
Still waiting for the UD analysis of "ID on trial"

The Church Lady Morphodyke is busy linking all her books on Amazon to the article she'll be writing today.  That will take her some time.

No doubt we'll hear from the persecuted tards soon.

Date: 2007/11/14 10:33:03, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Interesting points.  I watched the show with my wife who is not ID or creationism savvy (she has more worthwhile interests) and without any coaching from me she remarked on what an idiot Fuller was,  "That guy is really dumb" was her initial assessment.  Then she went on to refute every single point he made.  She did so gleefully.

Date: 2007/11/14 12:00:31, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I'm getting impatient with the tardsters at UD.  I'm hurting for a tard fix and I'm waiting for something Nova related from UD and they seem to be hiding under a rock today...

Dembski, just because the ID humiliation was rehashed on Nova last night is no reason to climb under a rock and hide.  

UD Tardlettes, come out come out wherever you are....

Date: 2007/11/14 13:19:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 14 2007,12:16)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 14 2007,12:00)
I'm getting impatient with the tardsters at UD.  I'm hurting for a tard fix and I'm waiting for something Nova related from UD and they seem to be hiding under a rock today...

Here, let me help....


Wah wah wah Nova.....wah wah wah hoo hoo atheists.....blah blah blah former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board....wah wah wah PBS is Darwinian leftist media....yadda yadda yadda doesn't understand the science....wah wah wah Darwinism is a religion...


Feel better?

you forgot:


Date: 2007/11/14 14:46:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Instead of addressing the content of the Nova special William the Coward links to more DI tripe at the DI...

Date: 2007/11/14 14:59:15, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Annyday @ Nov. 14 2007,14:52)
You mean the DI tripe that was linked all over the rest of the internet hours ago?

Same tripe.  I wonder if WAD and the Church Lady are really going to ignore it or if they're both busy typing away what will no doubt be Dover's Waterloo?

Date: 2007/11/14 16:50:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
My ID prediction:

WAD and Church Lady lead a frontal assault against Nova tomorrow.

Date: 2007/11/15 09:28:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 15 2007,07:59)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 15 2007,08:48)


Zero, the thread you point to is just your incoherent ramblings, then questions about its relevance, then you pointing to your webpage which apparently also has nothing to do with this discussion.

As such, it seems to be nothing more than spam advertising for your website.

Please demonstrate the relevance of that link to this discussion, or refrain from posting such things outside your thread.


Hey zero I'll level with you and in good faith.  Your posts about numerology make you look mentally ill.  If that's your objective then consider yourself a success.  

Every now and then you *appear* to posess some intelligence but it's difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt when the majority of your comments suggest a mental problem exists, or at the very least a significant lack of judgement and very poor social skills.  Your posts are virtually NEVER on topic.  And if you haven't noticed not a single person here pays any attention to your numerology, they make fun of you instead.

That said you seem like a decent enough chap and you don't have to accept evolution (or reality for that matter) to post here but you could actually become a valued contributing participant if you'd knock of the links to your site and post your numerology on other sites where people might actually care and/or have an interest in them.

Posting comments that are *on topic* would be a great place to start.  Feel free to keep posting your ideas on numerology in the "zero ressurected.." thread but keep in mind such mindless comments only support the notion that you have a serious mental problem.

Or you can continue to portray yourself as someone who's ill and in need of help.  The choice is yours.


Date: 2007/11/15 10:29:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 15 2007,10:20)
Stanton Rockwell is begging for a bannination:

Scubaredneck said,

   The notion that a person be required to have read every book or article on a particular view before they can challenge it is a bit absurd, actually. According to this standard, the scientists who received the Nobel for showing that ulcers are caused by bacteria and not stress should reasonably have been expected to have read each and every book and article asserting that stress causes ulcers before they could be confident that bacteria and not stress caused ulcers.

Before you can refute an idea, you have to be familiar with its adherents and their data. If you think that Miller et al were not familiar with the current literature on GI disease, or could have achieved what they did without understanding the content of the current literature, you’re simply wrong.

Being a Christian myself, I’m very sympathetic to ID theory, but I can’t understand for the life of me why Behe is so vigorously supported when it’s become clear that he is simply wrong, and continues to make a fool of himself in the face of such potent arguments. Behe admitted that he was not familiar with any of the current literature dealing with evolution of the immune system, but still waved it off as being inadequate. That alone should be enough to make us realize that we shouldn’t be hitching our wagon to his pathetic claims for IC.

Add to this the fact that both Minnich and Behe are on record as having proposed experiements that would falsify IC, but have chosen not to do them and you must realize that they are not really interested in doing science.

:p :)  :D

Dead man walking...

Date: 2007/11/15 17:32:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Thanks Glen, I wondered if anyone watched this.  

Someone should send Ben a copy of the Nova program.  Maybe I will.

Date: 2007/11/15 17:40:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 15 2007,17:34)
I think that you should immediately post your ground-breaking paradigm-shattering news at Uncommon Descent Blog.

I agree with the Caveman.  You'll find a more receptive audience at UD.  It's a closed minded community here, nothing but darwin worshipping stalinists.  At UD you find the big tent where ideas are shared and discussed openly and without prejudice.

The aquatic ape theory sounds very compatible with the theory of intelligent design.  Eerily similar even.  You're clearly onto something but the darwinists will have nothing to do with it.  Trust me, I know.

William Dembski will be interested in your insight.  I think one of the admins at UD, dave scot, has even written about coral DNA before.

Date: 2007/11/15 18:07:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Stupid, stupid Fuller on Nova:

[intelligent design is] in fact opening the path of inquiry to new ways of thinking.

Creationism is nothing new, Steve.  And it was and always will be a science stopper.  True, it's pay dirt for losers though.

One way to get into the concept of Intelligent Design is by imagining what it would be like to run across something like this on the beach: "John Loves Mary." I mean, this is the sort of design that's very unlikely just to have assembled itself just from sand blowing randomly over even very long period of time. Rather, it shows a sign of some sort of intelligence that's behind it.

Steve, Steve, Steve.  It is the BIBLE that says man came from sand, not biology.  Ever heard of biology, Steve?  Science?  Ever read anything about evolution?  It's a fascinating subject, you'd probably enjoy learning about it.

The idea is that there are certain— aspects of life— perhaps organisms or organs or even cells that in a sense— could only have— come about as a whole. In other words, it was very unlikely they could have come about through just a kind of— contingent combination of parts over— even millions or billions of years. But, rather in a sense has to be created whole cloth, all together, at once. Because, everything fits together so well. That to remove one part, the thing wouldn't function.

Go ahead and say it, Steve, be bold!  It looks so complicated, my mind is so simple, therefore god musta done it!  There now, don't you feel better, Steve?

At the very beginning of genetics— the idea of there being a hereditary factor that somehow was responsible for the traits that we have, but one couldn't quite identify what the factor was. That was also initially regarded as supernatural as well. So, it's not that supernaturalism hasn't been part of science. In fact, it has been. And it's often led to very fruitful results. And it seems the evolutionists want to in a way— ignore or marginalize that very important part of the history.

Um, whatever Steve.  People used to think the world was flat, that doesn't make ID any more plausible or any less stupid now does it?  Steve have you ever considered going to college and getting an education?  

Steve Fuller, when I listen to you I can't help but wonder was Ken Hovind your science tutor?

And you're welcome.  This insight is on me, you owe me nothing.  


Date: 2007/11/15 18:29:47, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Trouble (and signs of mental illness) in Tard Town:

Michael Medved Becomes Discovery Fellow




4:16 pm
I must admit, I find this news scary. This website already seems to have married itself to the global warming issue. If the discovery institute marries itself to Americanism, and to American conservativism, all reasonable issues, it will dilute the primary message of the institute. I ask that you please avoid having the Discovery Institute become the American Conservative Institute. If it does, I fear that the cause of Intelligent Design will suffer.




4:28 pm
bFast, this is good news. Michael’s radio show, coupled with the Expelled movie, and Denyse O’Leary’s print journalism will break the liberal stranglehold on science media. The Darwinists are losing the PR battle and their so-called science will crumble right behind it

Is poachy one of us?  Deep mole?




6:38 pm
Nothing I have heard from Medved on his radio show when he talks about creationism leads me to believe that this is a good move.

By the way, Dembski just came out from under his rock to make the Medved announcement.  Isn't Medved the one who believes in Bigfoot?

Dan Sytman, Michael's producer and partner on the radio show, once saw Bigfoot at the edge of a summer camp in the woods. Even before meeting Dan, Michael was a passionate believer in Sasquatch.

That's from his own website...Copy it because I bet it vanishes soon...

Date: 2007/11/15 21:50:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Sorry if this has already been posted but I just now stumbled upon it via a Google Alert.  It's good reading.  There are links to other great articles.  FtK will have a ball!

Documentary Explores Key Case on 'Intelligent Design'

The PBS series NOVA airs a documentary Tuesday about a 2005 landmark Pennsylvania court case that found it unconstitutional for schools to teach "intelligent design" as an alternate theory to evolution. The judge who decided the case reflects the legal battle.

Date: 2007/11/16 09:50:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 16 2007,09:23)
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 16 2007,09:01)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 16 2007,07:02)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 16 2007,07:46)

"Evolution" isn't a fair comparison term because the word is used in so many non-biological contexts.

Let's see how "Intelligent Design" does against two of its intellectual equals, which can be represented by quite unambiguous search terms**:

I must admit, I didn't expect this result.  But it does make sense.

**Disclaimer:  I will not be held responsible for the psychological effects resulting from anyone searching these terms and viewing the results.

Yeah, well it's still not fair.  The flatline that is ID has not yet properly reflected the Michael Medved Bounce.  Once everybody knows Sasquatch Man Medford is "down wit da DI", that line will spike like Dembski seeing Denyse in the shower.

It's hard to tell from the graph but I'm not sure that the "Intelligent design" and "Michael Medved" results added together would even be as popular as either goatse or tubgirl.

I tried the search just for laughs, assuming that ID would of course be searched more often than the two most disgusting images on the intertubes, but no.  In terms of popularity, this is kind of like a restaurant that claims its food is delicious and extremely popular, when in fact the guy in the sidewalk vending cart out front is pulling down twice as much revenue selling feces-dipped roadkill-on-a-stick.

Someone needs to do a graph between intelligent design and aquatic ape theory...

Date: 2007/11/16 10:04:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Nothing would be more magnificent than to see some of the UDers get elected to local school boards.  If any of you are moles please encourage the tards to run for election.

I'd love to see some UD tards get elected and the riff-raff that would follow.

Date: 2007/11/16 10:48:26, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
hey if anyone has a mole account at UD can I take it for a drive?  I promise not to post anything that will get you banned.

PM me if you're willing to give me the keys for a bit.

Date: 2007/11/16 11:24:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 16 2007,11:20)
And Bornagain77 is me!

Praise Jesus!

I'm William Dembski at UD, praise Me!

Date: 2007/11/16 13:40:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 16 2007,12:41)
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 16 2007,13:23)
Vote early - Vote often -

Baylor U campus paper running survey regarding ID -

I voted "encourage", cuz y'know, I'd love to see some actual ID research.

Either that or another monumental embarrassment, whichever.

I hope *EVERYONE* here is voting "encourage"  I did.  I'd love to see more ID failures at Baylor.

Date: 2007/11/16 16:04:48, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2007,16:02)
Well, ol' Jim is just back from the tardmine

where I just received a double-secret, unannounced banning (apparently) as Stanton Rockwell.  My posts stopped showing up right after I hinted that I might have some expertise in biology (I don't) :p and defended Abbie Smith here. Unfortunately,  Stanton's my demise also came just as I was getting warmed up in discussions with mastertards Joe G. and Larry F.

That was damn funny, the pic, the tardmine and the mastertards,

Date: 2007/11/16 18:27:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 16 2007,18:12)
Seems like Little Billy D has bailed on us for two Fridays running.  Last week was weak, this week - nuthin'.

C'mon, Billy.  You're killin' us over here.

My thoughts exactly.  

While you're all sitting around bored, waiting for WAD to melt down, please go and vote at the Baylor Poll:

How should Baylor approach intelligent design research?

Please choose either "support it" or "encourage it", or both.  I've voted a dozen two dozen three dozen four dozen times so far.  Just select your answer and keep ckicking the vote button.  It's so easy even a tard can do it.

The result could be yet another Demsbki/Baylor fiasco or some real science from the ID tards.  Either way we win!

Thank you!

Date: 2007/11/16 18:34:56, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2007,16:40)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 16 2007,16:29) bannniations of admitted sock puppets count as operation of the Nixplanatory filter?

I can see that as a bit unfair to UD. And you all know I am the soul of fair play when it comes to UD.

(Well, not the detachable soul of fair play, but you know what I mean.)

I wasn't an admitted sockpuppet until after I was banned, so I don't know how that would be unfair to UD. I mean, it's not like I was trying to provoke them or anything.  :p

Dude I was following you the whole time and that was some quality stuff you wrote over there.

Date: 2007/11/20 09:59:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I've been out of the loop.  What the hell has happened to davetard?  He hasn't posted in some time now, yes?

Where the hell is he?  I need a tard fix and quick.

Date: 2007/11/20 18:02:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2007,17:44)
Can anybody tell which of the people arguing about whether Solon is a sockpuppet are themselves sockpuppets?  

I was wondering that myself.  That's what makes the shell game called intelligent design such a farce.  if it were real science they'd be able to quickly call bullshit but since it's nothing but a creationist sham you never know who's pulling your leg and who's for real.

Take the bible code.  If someone here started spouting off about the science of the bible code they'd get hammered with reality pretty quickly.  But at UD you'd go unnoticed.  Heck Dembski and Phillip Johnson are both bible code advocates and no one has ever taken them to task for that nonsense.

When you leave the door open for the supernatural and you reject the scientific method you cannot filter the nonsense.  It becomes a bully strategy where the guy with the biggest stick, or the most books published, is in possession of the truth.  

UD will one day be nothing but Dembski, dave  tard and a few dozen sock puppets all making fun of Dave and Dembski without them ever knowing they're being made fun of.

How cool is that?

Date: 2007/11/21 10:03:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Solon is a walking dead man...Waiting for a bullet...

I wonder which tard will pull the trigger...

Date: 2007/11/21 10:31:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Two funnies over at the UD funny farm.

Which one of you biotches is cdesignproponentsists

And if you haven't already take a look at the thread Gil started to express his man love for Phillip "Tard" Johnson.  What started out as a Valentine card for Johnson has quickly become an embaressing tard fest.  I'm astonished the whole thread hasn't been deleted.

Date: 2007/11/21 12:01:09, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 21 2007,11:55)
Man, I am so confused now that I don’t who are the particles and who are the anti-particles. In fact, AtBC and UD may just be one huge vacuum polarization. I am glad I was banned with extreme prejudice at UD, even though I can longer be confident it was actually WAD who banned me, or even if he really exists, because taking sock puppets seriously, which I have done a few times, is supremely embarrassing.

There is a link somewhere that discusses "Poe's Law" you might find interesting.

Date: 2007/11/21 12:41:55, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Ok, who the hell is bornagain77?  No one is this dumb:

I believe the “Designer” rapidly wipes the entire slate clean from time to time in the fossil record, only to, after an average of ten million years of sparsity, just as rapidly reintroduce a whole different spectrum of interdependent life

So god is like my two year old son playing with building blocks.  After creating a castle made of blocks he gleefully knocks the whole thing down and starts all over.  Just cuz it's fun.  Sure that fits in design theory too.  

bornagain77 has got to the the highest form of sock puppetry ever!

Date: 2007/11/29 14:08:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
In some cases they are not banning anymore, just quietly removing the ability for them to post.  Think of it as a private execution.

Date: 2007/11/30 12:10:45, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 30 2007,10:56)
Where's my Friday Meltdown, Designer-Dammit?

My thoughts exactly and i thought Wesley said he was privvy to some information that lead him to believe Dr Dimwit would melt down nicely today.

Where's the beef?

Date: 2007/11/30 12:51:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 30 2007,12:20)
isn't niwrad Davison?  If so he has snuck back into UD.  stay tuned for fun and games on the tard front.


Date: 2007/12/03 10:13:18, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Behe has a teaching role at Lehigh, yes?  Have we ever heard from any of his students?  Do legit students take any of his courses?  He is a magnet for tards?  Does he talk about ID and mouse traps in class?  Have any of his students ever pointed out how wrong he is in class?


Date: 2007/12/03 10:42:06, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
For what it's worth, in a recent UD thread the tards were whining about no colleges have any ID research happening on campus.  Someone logically suggested/asked why Southwestern or other Christian colleges seem to have the SAME level of interest in ID research that secular schools have (zero).  

Dembski himself chimed in and said talks were currently going on at Southwestern to establish an ID lab (or some sort of ID research center).

I was going to dig up that thread but I got grossed out being so close to all that stupid.  Maybe later.


EDIT= here's the link where Dembski was asked why no christian schools have a ID lab.  Dembski himself replies two or so posts later

Why do christian colleges have no interest in ID??

Date: 2007/12/03 12:58:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 03 2007,11:28)
OH, how I hate to admit this cause I know the inevitable but for the sake of honesty...I took a graduate biochemistry course from Behe before I'd ever really heard about him.

*ducks quickly and covers head with hands*

Well, DUDE, clue is in on his classroom activities and antics.  Does he steer clear of IDc or is it a subject he engages with students.

Does he tech the controversy in class or?

Date: 2007/12/03 12:59:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 03 2007,12:24)
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 03 2007,11:28)
OH, how I hate to admit this cause I know the inevitable but for the sake of honesty...I took a graduate biochemistry course from Behe before I'd ever really heard about him.

*ducks quickly and covers head with hands*

So, how did you rate him for hotness?

That too, is he sexeh?

Date: 2007/12/03 17:05:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 03 2007,16:29)
yes, I'm a Lehigh grad and no he doesn't teach (or didn't) ID in class.  This, of course was before he achieved any real fame (infamous) at least in my eyes cause I had never heard of him.  The first day of class he mentioned he was a bit of a heretic in the biology community because of a book he wrote.  That was the extent of it.  Looking back I remember only one clear implication and that was the final exam.  As a bonus question, he asked the statistical probability of monkeys banging on a type writer question.  Again, that was it.  I later saw his book and really began to understand who he was but he was a very good, passionate teacher.  In that sense I often find myself sympathetic to him even though I don't agree with much he says about the subject.

As far as sexy, I'm not really the one to judge that.  :D

Thanks for shedding some light on the subject, skeptic.

And I'm no biologist, nor have I ever studied monkeys or numbers but I bet there is a 99% probability that if you give a monkey a typewriter he's going to bang on it at some point.

Date: 2007/12/03 17:09:29, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2007,16:59)
I'm glad he doesn't teach obvious falsehoods in his classes too. Good on him.


I suspect his students would have him for lunch if he started blowing his IDc nonsense in class.  Well the students that aren't afraid that is.

And any student that has looked at the biology department homepage knows Lehigh thinks Behe is a crank so only a tard would sit there and listen to nonsense.  Yeah I would think he would not engage in much IDc chatter in class knowing full well his own students would chew through his nonsense.  I think Behe knows full well who is audience is, hand picked high schoolers and IDC tard and tardettes.

Date: 2007/12/04 09:14:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 04 2007,07:46)
You guys are getting caught up in the details.   what I'm saying is if [god] exists then knowledge given by God is external and not generated by reason AND if one accepts this knowledge then their not exercising a reasoned process but accepting revelation.

Skeptic, not to sound like a stinker but how can you claim anything when your first premise has not been proven.

If god exists then....

Ok, prove it. You can't because you've never proven your if premise, it's all make believe.

I might as well say if god exists, Elvis lives in my shorts.  And guys, don't get caught up in the details please, my shorts fit tight so this could be true.

My "if then" makes as much sense as yours and  I have as much evidence that you do to prove my point (my shorts do fit tightly).  You're just making shit up and telling us to not get caught up in the details.   I think that's the IDC approach, no?  

Here is our unsupported claim and don't get caught up in the details.

My 4 yo daughter can come up with more interesting if/then fantasies that are grounded in make believe.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with you or anyone else making things up because it makes you feel better.  But when you make fantastic claims people are naturally going to want to know the details, especially when it has to do with the supernatural, ghosts, goblins, zombies, etc.

Date: 2007/12/04 09:46:16, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
So will one of you sciency college guys answer me this.  What kind of future does Gonzales have now that he's made himself the IDC poster boy victim and the details of his loony ideas are plastered all over north america?

He's out the closet, advocates teaching pseudoscience, denied tenure, is considered a crank, what does the future hold for this guy?

Will he become Dembski's research assistant at some two bit bible school or?

Date: 2007/12/04 11:04:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
fellating each others egos

Sounds sexhe, even kinkhe...Maybe I should reconsider and join the IDC tards...

Date: 2007/12/04 13:19:52, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Douche bag ID creationists lose again!

The "IDC waterloo party" has been temporarily cancelled.

Date: 2007/12/04 21:17:09, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Sock puppetry at UD is way fun, Heddle you should try it.

Note we don't see that sort of riff raff here, why you ask?  Well I was hoping you ask me that.

What we talk about here is science, things that can be proven.  Things that can be tested.  Things that stand the test of reason.  Absurdity stands out like a sore thumb here...but not so at UD.  They cannot tell bullshit from IC of Dembski's NFL.  Why you ask?  Because IC and NFL are bullshit.  Get it?  Put two turds side by side and try and distinguish one from the other.  Both stink and neither tastes good with pasta.

UD and IDC sites in general are steeped in dishonesty (the IDer may not be god wink wink), and pseudoscience (IDC, bible codes, winged humanoids living in a parallel universe, etc.).  Oh, and if their followers are not as dishonest as they are (Sal comes to mind) then they are some of the dumbest most naive people ON PURPOSE.  

Hey when you're dumb ON PURPOSE you're going to get teased and made fun of like it or not.

Bottom line is when you insist on pushing your dishonest creationists shit in our public science classes AND you quote mine, lie, mislead people on purpose, you're begging for a throw down.  Sock puppetry at UD or other IDC sites is nothing but performance art.

I've had several UD sock puppet accounts (and I'll have more), I've been so absurd Dembski has agreed with me on more than one occassion and davescot has sung my praises.  They're dumb asses and I like proving it to them.

When they get sick of seeing Poe's Law in vivid technicolor they can abandon their nonsense and join the rest of us living in reality thereby making themselves immune to Poe's Law.

Bottom line if their ideas weren't so absurd they'd be able to recognize absurdity like we do here.

That said, I love you Heddle and read your blog often!


Date: 2007/12/04 21:40:25, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 04 2007,13:28)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 04 2007,13:19)
Douche bag ID creationists lose again!

The "IDC waterloo party" has been temporarily cancelled.

Good catch dude - do you live down there?

No, I'm in Texas.  The next DI throwdown will happen in my state

Date: 2007/12/05 09:30:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 05 2007,00:00)
Waterloopy is back on:

Dude!  The IDiots think the ACLU is "observing" these proceedings because they're sympathetic to GG and his claims!  Good lord is everyone at UD brain damaged or crack addicted?  

Have they all forgotten the ACLU was a key team member in a federal case that determined IDC is religious.  Has anyone at UD ever heard of Dover?  And they think the ACLU is about to join the DI and help GG's cause?  Good god they're dumb.  Ohh the stupid burns, it burns...

The level of stupidity at UD is just shocking at times.

You got it right, it's Waterloopy indeed...

Date: 2007/12/05 09:51:10, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2007,09:43)
Given Granny Spice's increased profile at UD of late, I wonder if she's responsible for DT's probable loss of moderator status? That is, I wonder if she told Dr. Dr. that she'd help hold down the fort and drive out the heathens but only on the condition that they change the locks and not give Dave a new set of keys? She'd certainly have reason to want Dave out.

I wonder if dembski ever made davetard apologize to the morphodyke for the morphodyke comments?

Date: 2007/12/05 13:16:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher

I love GG's suicide pact with the DI. True he'll be their poster boy for IDC persecution, hearing that drum beat over and over and over will get old.  But he'll never have a legit job again and the DI will lose again.

I bet you $1 that after the university says no way in hell will they grant him tenure the DI will back down on their legal threats.  Remember these are the same dunces that threatened to sue PBS over the NOVA teachers guide.

What dunces.  I love it so!

Date: 2007/12/05 13:19:33, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Dazza McTrazza @ Dec. 05 2007,13:17)
From here:

Latest Religious Messages
"This is a college education that I can use," said sophomore Emily Felts, 19, as she praised the homemaking curriculum of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas (which leads to a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities). Men and women may be equal, the school says, but they have different roles, and for women, that includes "how to set tables, sew buttons and sustain lively dinnertime conversation," or how to use the Internet to track grocery coupons, according to an October dispatch in the Los Angeles Times. Felts said she enjoys the work (except vacuuming), but it "doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the Bible says." [Los Angeles Times, 10-11-07]

Is this Dembski's college?

Ya.  Is that sweet or what?

Date: 2007/12/05 13:43:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
You guys gotta get a load of this morphodyke thread.  She's spanking the IDiots for not having the proper viewpoint on the GG affair and a few of the IDiots refuse to assume the position.

Made me laff

They start dog piling on people for not being the correct brand of christian too.  Priceless tard.

Date: 2007/12/05 14:00:43, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Barrya the lawyer introduces nazis and pigs to the GG fiasco.  Details at 10


And no I am not making this shit up.

Date: 2007/12/05 15:34:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Joseph is an interesting guy

Also there isn’t one peer-reviewed paper that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species, such as humans and chimps.

The premise that we share a common ancestor with chimps cannot even be tested.

see for yourself

With insight like his ToE doesn't stand a chance.  You biology, sciency guys better start looking for work.

Date: 2007/12/06 10:07:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Maya was all

It appears that UD does not welcome even mild dissent.

Maya, making sense and asking intelligent questions will get you banned every time at UD.  We have a thread here dedicated to documenting people who have been banned and the comments that got them banned.

Think of UD as a religious cult and their behaviour will make perfect sense to you.  

Have you read the Wedge Document?  You might enjoy reading it and your religious friend might find it illuminating as well:


Date: 2007/12/06 10:54:49, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
On PT I read a comment that GG's attorneys (pro bono)are also working for Huckabee's campaign.  YOU connect the dots.

Date: 2007/12/06 11:38:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 06 2007,10:59)
I think Lou is in charge of distributing those.

Hey Steve if I was a sock puppet who got banned can I wear the "I'm with the banned" or is it reserved for folks like Maya?


Date: 2007/12/06 12:30:22, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Huckabee being an IDIot may be the least of our worries.

Read this scary shit

Huckabee and other Christians worked hard to free a convicted rapist.  Huckabee pressured the prison board to get him released from prison.  The dude not only raped but murdered a woman shortly thereafter.

Huckabee's love affair with creationism isn't what scares me...

Date: 2007/12/06 16:11:51, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 06 2007,15:33)
Quote (ERV @ Dec. 06 2007,14:29)
Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 06 2007,14:21)
I have to say, the Kwok review is pretty crappy, reading more like an editorial. And I would have to agree with Dembski that you don't get a good feeling that Kwok actually read the book, given the paucity of specificity in his review. Having been on the receiving side of an Amazon reviewer who obviously didn't read my book (but who, to his credit, later withdrew it, and we became internet friends of a sort) I can sympathize.

Im sorry, Im new here-- Is Dave the male FtK?

Hey, Dave, guess who wrote this 'review' of a book he didnt read 4 years ago?

Don't knock heddle, ERV.  He's cool.

And comparing FTK to Heddle is giving her WAY too much credit.  

ERV check out Heddle's blog some time.

He Lives

Date: 2007/12/06 16:39:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
ID Haiku


is intelligent design

it makes you stupid

Date: 2007/12/06 16:55:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
we should start a haiku the tards what REAL poets can do!

Date: 2007/12/06 17:42:17, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Mister DNA @ Dec. 06 2007,17:29)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 06 2007,16:55)
we should start a haiku the tards what REAL poets can do!

This one's entitled "Denyse"

Read my blogs, you'll see
materialism, bad!
Won't you buy my book?

Metaphors mangled
like a wounded leaf in hell.
Buy my book for more.

Easily purchased,
Amazon gives it four stars.
Use your credit card.

Thank was some damn funny stuff, Mr DNA!

Date: 2007/12/06 18:09:53, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 06 2007,18:02)
Kwok's review isn't much, but at least it's back, countering the torrent of treacle from shills like Casey Luskin:

 8 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
A Fresh Take On Klingon Cosmology Courtesy of Dembski's Bizarre Usage of Probability Theory, August 13, 2006
By  John Kwok (New York, NY) - See all my reviews

Trying to read "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities" is like trying to understand a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta or a James Joyce novel without having had any prior exposure to their works. One doesn't really need to have a first rate understanding of theoretical probability and statistics (which I don't since I am at best, a decent applied biostatistician), to realize that Dembski's argument holds little intellectual weight, in its preposterous claim that the likelihood of extremely rare events would point to the existence of an unseen "Intelligent Designer" (I wonder whether such events would be the result of random variation, which would not in itself point to an "Intelligent Designer", or rather, dare I say it - GOD - as the source of these events.). Or perhaps Dembski's rather ponderous text might be more appropriately, a suitable intellectual exercise demonstrating why Klingon cosmology does exist, replete with a Klingon heaven and hell (After all, since we see Klingons often on television, then they must truly exist.).

I had the unique opportunity of speaking to William Dembski a few years ago, after a debate on Intelligent Design held at the American Museum of Natural History, in which Dembski and fellow Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe argued in favor, while opposing them were philosopher Robert Pennock, author of "Tower of Babel" (which contains a devestatingly brilliant critique of Intelligent Design) and my friend Ken Miller, author of "Finding Darwin's God (which has a superb critique of Behe's notion of irreducible complexity as proof of an unseen "Intelligent Designer"). Much to my amazement, Dembski could not answer well a trivial question I had regarding probability and statistics. So can I truly regard his book as a great leap forward in theoretical probability? Of course no, since "The Design Inference" is a philosophical text that should be of interest to those who enjoy hearing the "technobabble" of recent "Star Trek" television series, especially when such "technobabble" is translated into Klingon.

(EDITORIAL NOTE: I suppose the person who offered the interesting comment (see below) hasn't read either my Personal Profile page or the first paragraph of my review carefully. I have a background in biostatistics due to my graduate education in ecology and evolutionary biology. I was absolutely stunned that William Dembski could not answer a simple question I had on elementary statistics, when we met after the AMNH ID debate a few years ago. So I have every reason to be skeptical of Dembski's "expertise" in probability and statistics.) Help other customers find the most helpful reviews  
Was this review helpful to you?    Report this | Permalink
Comments (12)  

BTW, Dembski, if you or your publishers had sent us free books just so that we could write reviews, maybe we'd have read your junk and written reviews ourselves.  Of course we're not going to pour money into your scam, though, and, well, unfortunately for you, we already know how poorly you think.

Glen D

Edited just in order to violate SLOT


Date: 2007/12/06 18:26:19, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I just noticed something on the Amazon page for The Design of Life

Scroll down and look at the "Customers who bought this book also bought" section.

ALL of the books listed are about religion.

Yep, all science here.

EDIT - maybe when one of you reviews this book you could point that fact out.  custmers who bought this book" do not buy science books, they buy religious ones.

I wonder why...

Date: 2007/12/07 13:21:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
A total dumbass wrote

"Darwinists have traditionally hidden behind the complexities of biological systems to shelter their theory from critical scrutiny.

Hey you sciencey types here (you know who you are), I want to know how do you hide a theory from critical scrutiny.  Do you simply not tell anyone about the theory (like the IDC camp)?  Do you have secret labs where you discuss your theory and not tell anyone about your conversations?

Please tell me where and how you hide your theories, I swear I won't tell a soul!

Bonus question - how do you keep others from scrutinizing your theory, the one you keep hidden.  Please tell me your secret.  I want to know how to keep people from scrutinizing my own theories.  



Date: 2007/12/07 17:00:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 07 2007,15:16)
Even in UD-land I find the fact of Dembski renewing his challenge to debate Barbara Forrest sort of beyond the pale. Given all that has transpired, for him essentially to call her a sissy is—unfriggin’ believable.

You recall the last time he challenged her to a debate?  What a loser.  William Dembski is mentally ill.  Somewhere along the line he started believing his own scam.  Talk about a dunce.  I wonder who's dumber, Dembski or davetard.

And WAD had his chance to debate Forrest, it was called Kitzmiller vs Dover.  William Dembski, the Paris Hilton of information theory, chickened out.  Neither the DI or the TMLosers could get her disqualified but they did everything they could to do so.

Funny that this tiny lady from LA has the entire IDC movement by the balls and they poop their pants when they see her coming.  Hilarious!  No one scares the IDC movement more than Barbara Forrest.  The DI cannot print enough propaganda about her, and WAD is always threatening Barabara with his ID love stick.  The DI must have a couple of dozen press releases just on her.

And what exactly would WAD and Forrest "debate" in Dembski's perverted, little mind?  Whether ID is religious?  We know that one, there i nothing to debate.  Whether ID is science?  We know that one, there is nothing to debate.  

There is nothing to debate, William "Paris" Demsbki.  

ps.  I'd pay good money to see Dembski debate that Kwok fellow.  Someone with comment rights at UD should suggest that to his pussiness.  Dembski would run like a little baby from a debate with someone like that.

I love it so!

Date: 2007/12/07 21:33:24, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
35 pages of comments and no one is any closer to an answer then they were on the 1st page.

Are all you guys smoking pot?  I'm trying to figure out the lure of this thread.  Maybe if I was high I could go along with it.

If we assume X (make shit up) then we can conclude Y (made up shit).

Ok, I got that part.  It's like make believe for grown ups.  I get it.  

What's the point though?  Did I not tell you god exists and the evidence is that Elvis (the TRUE king) lives in my shorts?

Date: 2007/12/07 22:27:40, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 07 2007,22:16)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 07 2007,22:33)
35 pages of comments and no one is any closer to an answer then they were on the 1st page.

Blonds are hotter.

Thanks, now I get it and that actually makes sense.

Ok, carry on!

Date: 2007/12/12 09:41:32, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Class....Speaking of death threats, murder and athiesm...Who in the Dover case received death threats and why?  

Were the people who threatened Judge Jones' and Tammi Kitzmiller's lives influenced by Dembski's "vise" where he promoted the idea of crushing Darwinist's heads in a vise.  

This begs the questions - does IDC promote death threats and murder?  Is Dembski responsible for the threats Judge Jones received?

And be sure to show your work, no looking at your neighbors answers.

Date: 2007/12/12 12:09:38, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Hey Zero, do you ever make sense?  Do you ever speak in clear english, without the nonsense?

Just curious.

Date: 2007/12/13 10:17:14, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (hereoisreal @ Dec. 12 2007,14:27)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 12 2007,12:09)
Hey Zero, do you ever make sense?  Do you ever speak in clear english, without the nonsense?

Just curious.

Christopher, IMO, Christ and Ophir are two thirds of
the family (trinity) of God.

Pro 16:11 A just weight and balance [are] the LORD'S:
all the weights of the bag [are] his work.

Isa 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of
the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales,
and the hills in a balance?


I'll take that as a no.

Date: 2007/12/13 11:25:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Who can forget the Christmas Present To The Defenders of Darwinism Dembski sent last year?

If you're on the fence on whether or not William Dembski is mentally ill you've got to read that entire page!

Breathtaking stupidity coming from WAD.

Date: 2007/12/13 11:34:20, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Off topic, sorta, was WAD really given a $100,000 grant/prize by the Templeton Foundation for "writing book on information theory, 2000–2001." ??

Read it  here where Dembski teaches bible classes.

Date: 2007/12/13 12:01:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 13 2007,11:45)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 13 2007,11:34)
Off topic, sorta, was WAD really given a $100,000 grant/prize by the Templeton Foundation for "writing book on information theory, 2000–2001." ??

Read it  here where Dembski teaches bible classes.

The book that Dembski promised to write was never written.

But he was able to pocket the 100K?

Holy cash cow, no offense everyone but I'm thinking about jumping ship.  ID never looked so good!

Date: 2007/12/14 10:40:27, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 13 2007,13:46)
And speaking of unfulfilled... Whatever happened to The Big ID Big Business Bash?

We saw some pre-meetin' pub, but nothing afterwords.

Did it even take place?  (I seem to recall this was supposed to happen at Baylor, right about the time WMad went crazy(ier) on a Friday and published the Baylor Board of Directors addresses and phone numbers...

Anybody got details?

Dog, funny you mention this.  I was going to post/ask about it myself.

It seems not only is IDC a loser in the science world, it's a loser in business too.

And it seemed so promising at the time...Poor Dipski.

Oh well...

Date: 2007/12/14 12:10:01, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 14 2007,06:39)
WmAD posts an image of Chris Comer's Actual Email, but he neglects to mention that her words consisted entirely of the damning phrase "FYI." Also, he notes that

The Center for Inquiry is an organiBoo!  Booga-booga!  Just like Ken Ham!  [Paraphrase]

he actually blacked her comments out.  The opposite of IDC quote mining - they just censor what was said by blacking out the text.

Yet a new low for WAD!

Date: 2007/12/14 12:37:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2007,12:19)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 14 2007,12:10)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 14 2007,06:39)
WmAD posts an image of Chris Comer's Actual Email, but he neglects to mention that her words consisted entirely of the damning phrase "FYI." Also, he notes that

The Center for Inquiry is an organiBoo!  Booga-booga!  Just like Ken Ham!  [Paraphrase]

he actually blacked her comments out.  The opposite of IDC quote mining - they just censor what was said by blacking out the text.

Yet a new low for WAD!

I don't think that's true. Someone blacked out, it appears, her email address at TEA (now defunct, one presumes) and her phone and fax numbers. "FYI" was all the commentary Comer had on the email.

And I doubt whether there would have been a word said by Comer's administration if she had "FYI"'d a notice of a Ken Ham talk at a church. After all, Dan McLeroy does give talks at churches, too.

Whoever did the redaction did an incomplete job. They left the 800 number for NCSE intact.

Well for some reason I did not see the "FYI" the first time I looked at UD.  After reading your reply I went back and you're right, the FYI is visible.  My mistake.

So Dembski has not hit a new low (at least not on this issue) so I'll be taking that trophy away from him now.

Thanks Wes.

Side note, after reading the contents of the email that Comers forwarded i am stunned it caused her any problems at all.  Amazing.

Date: 2007/12/14 12:54:37, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
I've read a few places where Comer may be considering legal action.  Do we know if she is in fact going to pursue that and on what grounds?

I'd love to see the creationist school board in texas deposed.

Date: 2007/12/14 14:31:58, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

6 pages and he is still unable to answer those two questions.  I think they are probably too sciency even for him.

Maybe you could give Martin something easier to answer, like count your nose or maybe what primary colors make the color green?  Or how many IDiots does it take to come up with a testable theory.

I'm just trying to be helpful and again, 6 pages and he's still incapable of answering two simple questions suggests the questions are over his head.  No sense in calling a dope a dope over and over.  

So in all fairness, give him some questions his intellect can withstand.  Start with "count your nose" and see if he can get that one right.  And don't ANYONE help him.  That defeats the purpose.

Date: 2007/12/14 14:41:28, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Sal says with a straight face:
I thought it was my calling to help get ID taught in the universities. I prayed in 2004 that God would give my work on the campuses national attention. I specifically prayed that a poll I commissioned at JMU would be published somewhere. In 2005 my work got international attention when it was featured in Nature. My prayer was answered. A small miracle indeed that a YEC made the cover story of Nature on behalf of ID. There have been many other prayers answered that seemed a bit beyond the reach of mere coincidence.

I think it is so cool that 3,000 children die from malaria each day and yet god is able to take time out of his busy schedule to personally do Sal's bidding.  

Gawd "Well, I was going to save some children from the clutches of death today, but Sal wants me to feed his grandiose visions of self-importance.  I guess those kids will have to wait..."

What a loving deity.  Maybe Sal should teach those kids who are doomed to death the proper way to beg favors from gawd and their lives might be spared.  

This also gives us a glimpe into the priorities of the intelligent designer (god).  Advancing Sal's status as a leading IDiot seems to be a bigger priority than, say, helping man find a cure for cancer, ending war, or saving innocent children from avoidable and senseless death.  Fascinating, that.

Anyhow, awesome how Sal can get gawd to grant him special favors.  He is truly blessed!

EDIT: because I can.

Date: 2007/12/14 15:49:36, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (csadams @ Dec. 14 2007,15:39)
Not sure if this is the correct thread for this . . . pls move as appropriate.

From, Focus on the Family Action
Friday Five: William A. Dembski 12-14-2007
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

Are you kidding me?  THIS is the best tard we've seen here in weeks.

Allow me to copy a bit more for our readers here

Friday Five: William A. Dembski

by Devon Williams, associate editor

'Are there patterns in biological systems that would point us to intelligence?'

Leading scientist and mathematician William A. Dembski has devoted years to researching intelligent design.

He is a research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has been featured on the front page of The New York Times. He has appeared on numerous radio and television broadcasts, including Jon Stewart's The Daily Show and ABC's Nightline.

Dembski talked to CitizenLink about his latest book, The Design of Life — which he co-authored with Jonathan Wells.

1. What is intelligent design?

The study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. But the focus is really on biology. Are there patterns in biological systems that would point us to intelligence? What we find is that we see design in everything from human consciousness, through the fossil record, through similarities between organisms, through various molecular structures inside the cell to the very origin of life — the origin of the first cell.

2. Tell me about your new book.

It’s a comprehensive overview of intelligent design, trying to make it clear what intelligent design is. There’s lots that’s been written about intelligent design, especially in the media and some of the scientific community, that’s often misrepresented. This really puts to rest a lot of those biased and misrepresented claims about intelligent design.

3. Who is your target audience?

I don’t want to give the impression that it’s not a demanding book, but the book works at several levels. There are the main chapters; there are endnotes; then there’s a whole section of general notes on a CD. If you’re just reading the main chapters, I think it’s quite accessible. A lot of work went into it. You will learn some biology. You will learn what the real issues are and the specifics of what is wrong with Darwinism and what intelligent design has to offer.

4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.

There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: “How did the design get in there?” We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That's where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm.

5. How will your research affect the world of science?

It’s going to change the national conversation. I don’t see how you can read this book, if you’ve not been indoctrinated with Darwin’s theory, and go back to the evolutionary fold. The case against this materialistic, undirected evolution is overwhelming. This really goes to the worldview issues that are underlying this whole discussion: Are we the result of a blind, purposeless, material process, and is our intelligence then just this evolutionary byproduct of our need to survive and reproduce? Or are intelligence and purpose fundamental to our existence? Were we planned? Or are we an accidental happening? That’s really what is underlying this whole debate, and what this book, I think, addresses very effectively.

Intelligent design goes a long way in this culture, which is so infused with materialistic and atheistic ideology.

Again, this only supports my thesis = William Dembski is either delusional or mentally ill.

EDIT = i edit coz is fun

Date: 2007/12/14 16:03:42, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 14 2007,15:58)
The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

Maybe I missed something, but isn't Dembski supposed to pretend he doesn't think this?

I think the big tent just got a little smaller.

Where does this put the Jews and claimed "atheists" who support IDC?

Better copy that article before it gets "edited"

Date: 2007/12/14 16:15:41, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,16:08)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 14 2007,16:49)
Again, this only supports my thesis = William Dembski is either delusional or mentally ill.

I disagree.  He is fully in possession of his faculties.  He's a fraud and a con-man.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If he believed half the shit that he spews, he'd have showed up at Dover.

Very good point(s).

I may have to revise my thesis.

Date: 2007/12/14 16:21:46, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
is vmartin herezeroisreal's sock puppet? neither seems capable of answering a simple question and neither is able to make any sense.

Date: 2007/12/14 17:08:04, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
vmartin/here0isreal said
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved.

But it can be laughed at and quite frankly that's all you're good for.

Dude, what kind of a turd hangs out at a science blog and says shit like "darwin is wrong" all day long when darwin is proven right in science labs accross this country every stinking day.

Have you no life?  Is posting here some kind of weird S&M thing for you?

Date: 2007/12/14 17:12:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Dembski will justify it with "this is just my personal view, it could be a space alien" and call it a day.

I don't think it will bother the UD tards, they have the same opinion about god, i mean the designer.

I think I'm goping to put togther a collection of IDC quotes (like this one) from Dembski and other tards and mail it to all the education board members in texas and a few newspaper editors.

Sounds like a good project to do on a rainy day.

Date: 2007/12/14 17:25:45, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 14 2007,17:15)
Try and imagine little Marty teaching a 10-week biology class back in Slovakia.

Week one: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week two: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week three: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week four: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week five: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week six: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.

Around week 6 the students notice that all the readings are at least 70 years old, start to get restless, and say "Okay, we understand, the Darwinismus is wrong. But, uh, what's RIGHT? What IS the explanation for the stuff the Darwinismus tries to explain?"

Marty answers: "The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it."

The students get real confused at this. "What's the point here, Mister Martin?"

Marty answers: "The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my cosmology. I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why."

Most of the remaining students drop the class in week 7.

I thought Week 7 was the class where he'd have a guest lecturer,  JAD who would speak on "Why the Darwinismus is wrong."

Date: 2007/12/14 21:36:23, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
And let's not forget Dembski's belief in the bible codes, parallel realities (one of those is inhabited by winged humanoids according to WAD) and other nutty notions.

Date: 2007/12/15 11:12:07, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Where does Dipski's "splanitory" filter lead us?  Do the results point to the Christian God?

Date: 2007/12/15 19:40:54, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (EXEVOLUTIONIST @ Dec. 15 2007,14:36)
Hmm- If the evolutionists believe they have such an airtight case for thier religious belief in evolution, it would seem that they would welcome a side by side comparison of evolution vs. either Creation or ID. But it appears that there is much fear and trepidation about doing that. If you have not done that comparison, perhaps you should. It changed my mind completely! And perhaps that is the underlying reason why evolutionists seem so frightened of the thought of another explanation.

I'm open minded and it sounds like you're really on to something here.  How about you do the side by side thing that helped you see the light.  Then others here might gain the same understanding.  

Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to your side by side comparision.

Date: 2007/12/15 19:44:00, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
A tard moaned,
Darwinism and science are two separate things Dude.
They have nothing common Dude.

Remove evolution ("darwinism" for you) from biology and what have you got left, tard?  Do tell.


We're waiting...

Date: 2007/12/15 19:45:59, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 15 2007,17:34)
Quote (EXEVOLUTIONIST @ Dec. 15 2007,14:36)
Hmm- If the evolutionists believe they have such an airtight case for thier religious belief in evolution, it would seem that they would welcome a side by side comparison of evolution vs. either Creation or ID. But it appears that there is much fear and trepidation about doing that. If you have not done that comparison, perhaps you should. It changed my mind completely! And perhaps that is the underlying reason why evolutionists seem so frightened of the thought of another explanation.

What's the name you post under at UD? Are you UglyOldFatMan, or BA77?


Date: 2007/12/16 22:27:08, Link
Author: Mr_Christopher
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 16 2007,19:43)
he's dangerous because he's endangers the jobs of comedy writers in Hollywood?  Boy what's that say about the quality of comedy writers? lol

Really, you guys might be jumping at ghosts.  Huckabee's not dangerous in the least bit.  He's a lot of things but dangerous isn't one of them.  You guys might want to focus your energy elsewhere because there's only one scenario in which he becomes President and it's looking more and more like a long shot.

Skeptic you'e missing the whole