AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Renier

form_srcid: Renier

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: Renier

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/01/24 02:16:46, Link
Author: Renier
Dave plugs in his robotics modem to get a dynamic IP, so that he can read these posts.

I just got banned from UD too. Never try and point out that science is a method, they don't like it.

It's a pity I cannot comment there. This whole thing with Dave admitting to "COMMON DESCENT" could have been so interesting.

Date: 2006/01/24 02:22:41, Link
Author: Renier
When asked about how biology teachers should teach intelligent design theory, Dembski said teachers should “go as far as you can.

but I thought the DI was against this type of attitude???

On the other hand, Dembski was the scared one during the Dover trial, refusing to take the stand and stand up for his buddies...

Date: 2006/01/30 21:46:45, Link
Author: Renier
Over at

Uncommon thread

DaveScot : "That is the perfect scientific description of intelligent evolution."

*snicker* Let's face it, they are backing down. The whole thread above is about how true common descent is. Ironic now, that the site self is a contradiction, since the name is "uncommon descent".

So, all you have to do to get banned over there is disagree with common descent... oh wait, that's the usual ID standpoint. What a bunch of confused clowns.

Date: 2006/01/30 23:06:06, Link
Author: Renier
Stephen, that was cruel. How the #### am I going to get that image out of my mind? Nightmares tonight! :D

Date: 2006/02/01 20:12:29, Link
Author: Renier
Did you guys read that thread on "ID in India"? I actually went and read the link provided. Lost my cool and went home. As I drove home I realised I would be banned ...again...

One just get so tired hearing the same old hogwash over and over and over again.

My conclusion is all the poofters (IDiots) that are writing their pseudo mumbo jumbo science books are just doing it for money and attention. Some kids are like that. They are naughty to receive attention. Even negative attention is attention I suppose, and then of course there is the "god" syndrome of getting disciples.

This whole "hidden genetic message" is just more of their trash. But hey, they would love to teach the children to be and think like them. The whole scientific world is laughing at them, and they are so very proud of it. Disagreeing with science makes them ... uh.... right? Nope, it just makes them clowns. And let's face it. We had some good laughs at all their claims and contortions.

Date: 2006/02/06 01:13:19, Link
Author: Renier
I am fairly anti-religion. This just once again reminds me why :-)

Curious. How do the Brits feel about all the immigrants? A friend of mine in Holland says that the people there are fedup. It's very confusing. Once bunch wants to do all they can to help them (fight poverty), the other bunch wants them out of there. Something about national resources being consumed by all the immigrants. They are also complaining that in places like Rotterdam, where there are lots of emmigrants, the crime rates are very high, so the dutch are moving out of cities like Rotterdam.

Over here is SA, we get LOADS of immigrants from Zimbabwe, Mosambique etc. Local people are complaining about it, since our own unemployment rate is high (VERY HIGH), they now have to contend with outsiders for jobs. On the other hand, Zim is down the drain, so what must the people do?

Just thinking out loud.... :(

Date: 2006/02/06 21:22:05, Link
Author: Renier
To avocationist :

And why would I separate philosophy from science? If I think something is philosophically true (God exists) I would expect to find clues to that in science, in nature, in reality. And if I can't, then the science is yet primitive or my philosophy is wrong.

First, You cannot state "God exists". It is an assumption, with no evidence to back it up.

Secondly, you say that in reality, you should find clues about the existence of God. In reality my friend, there is none. Not one gram of evidence. Not even a atom, not even a neutrino bit of evidence or any trace of God in nature. You think mainstream science is stupid and just some wacked out conspiricy? Don't be naive. Face your fears.

"And if I can't, then the science is yet primitive or my philosophy is wrong." Science does not deal with the question of God's existance. However, if you really insist on using this measurement, then your philosophy must be floored, since, as I have stated, nothing, NOTHING in science has the need to invoke a god for explanation. There are gaps in science (so what?), and there are lots of people working on filling those gaps, and they are very successful, year after year they close the gaps.

Read this, and stop being ignorant or stiff-necked. If you are sincere in your search, then this might help you. If not, nothing will, not even if your God boomed a thunder voice from the heavens and said "you are wrong". You would then just rebuke the devil. Worship your God in whatever way you see fit, but don't trade him in for an old book or be dishonest about what science is and all the things they have found. Not even your God thinks dishonesty is a good thing.

> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to
> answer.

I would be careful with this line of reasoning. It is essentially a "you don't know everything so you don't know anything" position. For example, one could assert

"Among the many problems with the theory of Gravity are the questions it is unable to answer."

If you were to assert that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete or inaccurate in some places that Gravity does not exist, then you would be a fool.

</Tongue-in-cheek humor here> And since there are questions that the Theory of Gravity cannot answer, I invite you to show your equal disdain for it by walking off the top of a tall building. After all, by your reasoning, gravity must not exist, right? </End TIC>

But seriously, you have a much worse problem than with the Theory of Evolution. For by your own reasoning which I reproduce exactly for your benefit, your own faith is in jeopardy. For "Among the many problems with Christianity are the questions it is unable to answer."

And a whole list of questions could -- and certainly would -- emerge! The list would be endless, including the exact nature of the kenosis, the conflicts between free will and predestination, etc. There have been wars build on conflicts of theology concerning questions the Bible has no complete answers for.

In fact, the problem of unanswered questions is much more of a difficulty with Christianity than it is with Science. After all, Christianity is a "Revealed Religion". Since the source of that Revelation is supposedly God Himself, then leaving us with essential and important questions unanswered is a potential argument against the reality of your Faith and mine. Certainly, by your reasoning, Christianity should possess all of the answers, right?

Yet we do not. And one of the largest questions challenging the reality of your Faith is how you can remain so decidedly smug in your ignorance and call it knowledge. That is a direct violation of the principles of faith found in the Holy Scriptures, yet you ignore those principles daily in your crusade against Evolution.

Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. We explain things the best we can with the evidence at hand. When more knowledge or better explanations come into view, they tend to supplement and change our explanations.

Why, a cursory reading of any popular science journal has new discoveries in almost every issue, with a note on how the discovery addresses a particular question or explanation in science. And very often, the assertion is made that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a change in a certain part of the current theory.

And Science is happy, even eager, to accommodate! After all, the goal of science is to progress from less knowledge to more knowledge, from less understanding to more understanding. We already know that we don't know everything -- unlike certain people who (on religious grounds) think they have all knowledge and wisdom and power and might.

> Here they are, in order of importance:
> 1. How can life come from non-life?

You have for the umpteenth time confused abiogenesis with evolution. Let me try to put it as plainly as I possibly can.

"Life from non-life" is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate field, still in its infancy, and will have unanswered questions for many, many years. It is principally a chemical exploration of conditions in the distant past -- and given developments in planetary cosmology recently, I suspect there will have to be some changes in some of their models of the early earth.

"Life from life, with modifications" describes the Theory of Evolution. After all, you are different from your parents, and your parents were different from their parents, ad infinitum. The changes from one generation to the next were subtle. Yet they were there. The ToE describes the changes in the characteristics of populations from one generation to the next.

You are on notice. You have been told the difference between evolution and abiogenesis many times. Now pay attention. We will expect you to know the difference from now on and to use the terminology correctly.

Still, to answer your question a bit more completely, life as we know it follows the laws of chemistry even as non-life follows the laws of chemistry. These laws are rather complex, and while the interactions of elements and molecules are somewhat random, the chemical results are not at all random.

That random interactions can produce terribly complex results can be found in some toxic waste dumps. In certain dumps, chemicals have combined into significantly more complex forms than the chemicals that were originally dumped there. What formed was a product of chemistry. It depended upon the chemicals present (both kind and quantity) and the heat energy available. But the laws of chemistry guaranteed the result.

Now think. You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He breathed life into. How did that breath create our physical systems from undifferentiated clay? That is an unanswered question of Christianity, by the way. But there is life from non-life.

For that matter, from where did God come? Your answer, of course, is that He always existed. And yet, if life must come from somewhere, then so must have He come from somewhere! Your own reasoning, sir -- your own reasoning.

And might not God, from Whom are all things, have been able to write the laws of chemistry in such a way as to guarantee that "life" would emerge? Is not God omnipotent? If He is, then He would have that ability to create such laws.

There is no difficulty between faith in God and the Theory of Evolution, or between faith in God and abiogenesis for that matter.

> 2. How could the Cambrian Explosion happen?

This is a question? The fact is that what we call the "Cambrian Explosion" did happen!

There is a certain geologic strata we call "Precambrian" in which no life remnants are found (or only the least complex). In the Cambrian strata -- which covers about a 50 million period.

And in fact, this is not a single strata or time period itself with undifferentiated mixed-up forms. There are seven different subdivisions of the period! I commend to you this site for study, should you decide to do some:

But the fact is that some of the characteristics of life are reproduction, adaptation, and a struggle to survive. And in the early earth, not every environmental niche had been inhabited. There was plenty to be exploited. And life gravitated to those niches where it could survive, and succeeding generations became better adapted to those niches. After all, the better the organism fits with its environment, the more likely it is to survive and reproduce!

So there were environmental pressures toward fairly rapid evolutionary changes.

And yes, we don't know all the answers. But that doesn't matter. We know many things, and as time and investigation progresses we shall know more.

Does this frighten you? Man, learning on his own without the aid of a holy book? Finding answers to questions in the world around him? Why should it? If God created man with a brain, then is it a sin to use it? I should think not!

> 3. How does evolution disprove ID?

Evolution does not disprove ID. ID is a weasel-word theology for those who contend that we have reached the limits of our knowledge and must confine all the rest of our unanswered questions to the Unknown "God did it" explanation.

In point of fact, Michael Behe has admitted to belief in evolution, including the common ancestry of man and ape! His beef is that God is left out of science (since science cannot investigate the supernatural), and so he wants to redefine science.

His problem, I suspect, is largely like your own. He perceives troubles in the world with "evolutionary philosophy", not realizing that there are many other troubles in the world that have nothing to do with this imaginary construct. His objections to the ToE are not scientific, but theological.

The Dover case amply proved that ID is nothing but a theological attempt to put religion back into the public schools. The goals of the Discovery Institute and others like them are to reform society and government into a more theocratic arrangement, intolerant of non-Christians or Christians who do not agree with them, and imposing their concept of "morality" upon the population.

However, shouldn't the question be, "How does ID disprove Evolution"? It doesn't, of course. And despite objections, evolution still happens.

If God's hand is behind evolution (and I have no problem thinking that it might be so), there is no evidence of it. After all, if God can cause the course of events to happen so that man exercising his "free will" can still do exactly the thing God wants to be done, then God can similarly hide here.

In any case, Science by definition cannot investigate the supernatural. There may be things science can never explain, and it accepts that limitation. But the Kansas school board notwithstanding, Science investigates natural phenomena, natural causes, natural effects. The supernatural is not in view.

> 4. How can a cynodont evolve into a therapsid? A synapsid?

Actually, if you were to do your research, you would find that cynodonts are therapsids. A derived branch of them, to be sure, but still from that line. The therapsids are part of the synapsid group.

So you have it backwards. Not that we are surprised. After all, this question was probably culled from some creationist web site, and maybe you thought maybe the terms would be as confusing to others as they are to you?

The following are a list of websites where you can get more information on this technical question.

But your real question here is "How can macroevolution happen, where species with certain traits are ancestral to species with different traits?"

The answer, simply, is "descent with modification." The genetic code is flexible. It can change. It has changed! And given time (there has been plenty of it), the changes have accumulated.

> 5. How can evolution disprove the existence of G_d? Of Jesus Christ?

It can't. It doesn't even try. Evolution simply answers questions about how things work. It says nothing about God, neither affirming nor denying Him.

And that is as it should be. For petty man to think he can "prove" the existence of God or "disprove" His existence is ridiculous. He is beyond all such proofs. The only thing that can be disproved is our own limited "God-in-the-box" theology in which we assume our descriptions of God are necessary and sufficient.

> 6. How can Social Darwinism be justified on moral grounds in light of Nazism > and racism?

As you should know (and doubtless do know, but what do you care?), "Social Darwinism" is not an accepted sociological theory any more. It was popular up until the Second World War, but it really had nothing to do with racism or Nazism.

Racism has been around a long time. I have read sermons by prominent pre-Darwin theologians who justified racism and slavery on the basis of the Bible. I have read sermons on social order by pre-Darwin theologians who justified social inequality on the basis of the Bible.

It seems that Social Darwinism and certain Christian doctrines had a lot in common at certain times!

But see for more information.

The fact is that man will reach for what is handy to justify what they are doing. You do the same thing. I am quite convinced that you are aware of the truth in certain areas, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your theology. And you wind up blaming God for your bad behavior.

"Evolutionists", by the way, do not endorse "Social Darwinism". And just because "Nature" behaves a certain way does not mean that we want it that way. So Scientists work with natural phenomena to frustrate nature! We do that with vaccines, medical treatments, improvements in technology and infrastructure. Life for us does not need to be cruel and brutish. We can rise above our circumstances -- and we attempt to do so.

However, I find it interesting that Fundamentalism is in many ways a repackaging of "Social Darwinism". After all, Fundamentalism is not concerned with addressing inequalities, but with preserving inequalities! It is not concerned with the rights of the masses, but with preserving power with the wealthy or the "right". It believes that the Strong should rule over the Weak.

I beg you to open your eyes. Read. Study. Understand. All of your questions above have been answered many times over. You still ask the same ones! You seem to think that nothing can ever answer your questions, so you refuse to recognize where they have been!

In that way, you are as thoroughly blind to the truth as you imagine your adversaries to be.

Yet there need be no conflict between Faith and Science. And the more I learn about both, the less real conflict I find. I am glad to be a Christian. I am grateful I am no longer a Fundamentalist.


Raymond E. Griffith

Date: 2006/02/07 20:07:44, Link
Author: Renier
Ah, Affirmative Action (AA) I know all about, in my country anyway.

It works this way. Companies are forced to meet a quota. 20% white and 80% black employees, for instance (and it's about right). Due to past discrimination against the blacks by the old apartheid regime, AA was brought in to get black people more jobs, and to get them jobs in higher places and to get them better paying jobs. Now, that's all fine, since there was an inbalance due to past discrimination (that's a fact). Problem is, this AA has been going on for more than 10 years and show no signs of stopping. Children (white males) coming out of school/higher education cannot find jobs, due to the AA law. These kids had NOTHING to do with the old apartheid government, they are innocent, fairly liberal, yet they cannot find jobs. They don't find jobs, not because they are not educated, hard working , willing, eager etc, but because companies cannot by law employ them. We also have a HIGH unemployment rate.

Now, imagine yourself a white male with a son that is about to finish school. I just think a person should be employed on merit, and all else is unfair and discrimination.

Now, I am an older white male. If I loose my job... I will have to try and make it on my own.

On the other hand, it is a STUNNING country! Nothing is perfect, I suppose :-)

Date: 2006/02/08 03:03:32, Link
Author: Renier
What I'm trying to say about miracles is that if they occur, they are within the laws of nature

Then it is not a miracle...

Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail.

I am gnashing my teeth not to insult you, after you made the above statement. I cannot for the life of me consider this statement to come from an honest person. Am I missing something? What detail does ID have? You don't read science journals, do you?

I think I see what this all about. You need a designer to be there. You want science to confirm this. Well, science does not and wil not. What now? Do you think raping science with pseudo-science is the honourable thing to do? Behe does. Oh, and btw, you can/may be spiritual, without adulterating science. Just think about defending ID. What is it you are really defending? ID has been proven to be a clown suit for creationism. It has been proven to be nothing else than a scheme of fundies to try and force their politics and there hidden agenda (wedge document) on people like you, and us, and our children. For God's sake man, have your precious designer if you need him so, but leave science out of it, because it is not science.

As for physics, it also does not deal with ID. People have religions and are spiritual, not science. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. And stop reading all the rubbish that the ID people are spouting. Go to and do your homework.

Maybe this Inteligent Designer you are seeking is really nothing else but Evolution. But hey, join the fundie crowd in getting their religion recognised as science. You sit on that side of the fence, and I will be on this side, doing what I can to defend science and a future for my children.

Go over to UD and see what type of people you are siding with. They cannot even tolerate their own, let alone people with different views. Their own supporters gets banned for asking questions, for stating religious conviction or just for disagreeing with them. Christians within that faction are fighting for power. But hey, you are free to choose your own friends. I suppose you can swallow their propaganda if you wish, but don't be suprised if the VAST majority of scientific community stands up against them, as is currently happening. Ever wonder why?

One can be spiritual without being dishonest, or stupid, or fundie.

Date: 2006/02/08 20:32:02, Link
Author: Renier
GCT, the post about the "Flashlight Designer" is a gem! LOL :D

Date: 2006/02/08 22:00:08, Link
Author: Renier
Avothingie wrote :  Some people are saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function without consciousness.

Some people are not thruthfull with you. The above quote could only relate to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that states that nothing (quantum level) happens/exists until it is observed (probability wave). Religious people would of course jump unto this and state that God is the active observer of all things, therefore they exist. Just a note, but the Copenhagen Interpretation is just one of many interpretations of what happens a quantum level.

But there is another problem. We battle understanding Quantum Mechanics (QM - QED, QCD too). The reason for this is we are seeing things that we have no frame of reference for. Chemists can think of an electron as a little billiard ball, but for a physicist it is a particle, giving off photons, each photon splitting into another electron and a positron, combining again and in the whole acting as an electromagnetic wave all the time. Nobody has ever seen these crazy little things, so how we explain them, from our own views are flawed. We know what they do, but we are not sure what they are. String theory will help here. String Theory also has implications that takes away the CC (ref Gribbon, ref X), so I assume ID people should/will be attacking it very soon. But we all know String theory is still going to take years, that the calculations are super hard and takes long, so the religious people still have a couple of years to hold on to their precious CC argument.

The advance/retarded (back in time/ forward in time transactional wave) wave idea (among others) of how QM works kick the Copenhagen Interpretation under the *ss, so the whole requirement for an observer falls away. Nonlocal is then not even a consideration. Bottom line, people are working on understanding these things. Are you not glad that people don't just say "Goddidit" but actually do experiments, work on theories in order to explain all this? I am glad, for sure!

So, if people are saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function without consciousness, then they might just be sucking it out of their thumbs. Wishful thinking, no proof. And you know what? Even years after we have proof of local and not nonlocal, then creationists will still be saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function/exist without consciousness. And the sad thing, even nonlocal is not proof of any God, not at all, it just raises a question over "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light".

But, I also suppose I just wasted my time and that the next blog you hit you will still be stating your above statement. Oh well.

*Nobody is as deaf as those who do not WANT to hear.
*Niemand is so doof soos die wat nie WIL hoor nie.

Date: 2006/02/09 03:00:40, Link
Author: Renier

Actually, the Copenhagen Interpretation (Bohr's old brain child) would say that a machine does not count as an observer. Bizarre, I know. The Machine (Geiger-Muller, for instance) doing the measurements would be in a "half" state until someone reads the digits on the machine, then only the wave collapses. So, until the measurements on the machine is observed, there is no measurement yet, even though the experiment could have been performed a year ago. Strange....

Date: 2006/02/13 03:01:41, Link
Author: Renier
Avo ... hmmm. Just realised it was the name for the "good" god in the game "Fable".

Well avobloke, seems like the people here really went out of their way to provide you with some meaningful data and in a most polite way. Now, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to just say "no evidence" and prove you just waisted everyone's time, or are you going to do the honest thing? I think I know why Lenny treats them the way he does. I am beginning to think that except for the VERY rare occasion (like S. Elliot), that no amount of evidence will ever convince some people. :angry:

Avo, get "The Ancestor's Tale" from Richard Dawkins.

Date: 2006/02/13 19:22:31, Link
Author: Renier
I grew up in a creationist, calvinistic environment. From early childhood till end of High School.

Then I found TalkOrigins. and Funny reason, but I was trying to get hold of some Mark Twain writings to read. Then I found Robert Green Ingersol, Thomas Paine etc.

Today, I am FREE! So there is hope for those kids. Most of my friends are also free, although some are somewhere in Africa doing "The Lords Work".

Date: 2006/02/15 00:44:47, Link
Author: Renier
Carol, where do you get your dates from. I could not help to notice the precise and unrounded "79" in Metuthingies birth date.

Futher, the studies suggest the JAHWE is a form of ENKI. What are your thoughts on this and why is it not possible?

Date: 2006/02/16 02:39:16, Link
Author: Renier
I would just like to point out that the Sumerians had a Flood story/myth. These people predated good 'ol Abram by many moons. Now, Carol, is it possible that Abraham might have been influenced bu this much older religion, and therefore based the new religion that he started on the old Sumarian religion. This would explain the flood myth.
Pinches on Ea possibly being a prototype of the Hebrew God  Yah (note: Pir-napishtim is now rendered Utnapishtim, he is the "Mesopotamian Noah"), and that the Flood was a flooding Euphrates river (Note :Microscopic inspection of the flood sediments at Shuruppak where the Flood-Hero lived at the time he was warned of the pending flood, revealed freshwater laid silts and clays, suggesting a river flood)

"The reason of the coming of the Flood seems to have been seems to have been regarded by the Babylonians as two-fold. In the first place, as Pir-napishtim is made to say "Always the river rises and brings a flood" -in other words it was a natural phenomenon. But in the course of the narrative which he relates to Gilgamesh, the true reason is implied, though it does not seem to be stated in words. And this reason is the same as that of the Old Testament, namely, the wickedness of the world...Pir-napishtim was himself a worshipper of Ae, and on account of that circumstance, he is represented in the story as being under the special protection of that god...It has been more than once suggested, and Professor Hommel has stated the matter as his opinion, that the name of the god Ae or Ea, another possible reading of which is Aa, may be in some way connected with, and perhaps originated the Assyro-Babylonian divine name Ya'u "god," which is cognate with the Hebrew Yah or, as it is generally written, Jah...There is one thing that is certain, and that is, that the Chaldean Noah, Pir-napishtim, was faithful in the worship of the older god, who therefore warned him, saving his life." (pp.112-114. "The Flood." Theophilus G. Pinches. The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia. London.1908)

and from Abram to Moses

Abraham according to the biblical chronology compiled by some scholars was born circa 2100 BCE and lived at Ur of the Chaldees (modern Tell al Muqayyar in Sumer according to some). If Kramer is correct in identifying certain motifs associated with Enki as later ascribed to the Hebrew God Yahweh-Elohim, it is possible that Abraham would have known Enki as Ea, as this name change occured approximately some 400 years before his birth. Did the Aramaic "ear" at Haran where Terah and Abraham later settled, via "assonance" transform Ea (pronounced Ay-a according to Leick) into Ehyeh who allegedly spoke to Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:14)

Though I do not take the above as evidence (just as I do not take Carol's word as evidence), it does seem to be more plausable and simple than the Jewish version of what happened.

In Sumerian myths En-ki is associated with warning the Babylonian Noah, called variously Ziusudra, Atrahasis or Utnapishtim of an impending Flood which will destroy the world and all mankind, telling him to save himself and animals by building a boat. In the Hebrew re-working En-ki becomes Yahweh-Elohim and Utnapishtim becomes Noah.

Sounds plausable? It sure does to me. It seems like the Isrealites, decendents of Abraham got their Mythology from the older civilisation.

One tends to forget that Yahweh's FIRST appearance to Abraham was NOT in the Sinai, but at the city called Ur of the Chaldees in Lower Mesopotamia.

So why then, do we HAVE to believe that Carol's version of the flood is the correct one? Is there ANY power of persuation in her arguments? If not, then let's repect Carol opinion and request she keeps it to herself, since it has no weight.

One more thing:
Scholars have identified some of the motifs and concepts found in Genesis as existing in Sumerian works of the 3rd millennium BCE (but said motifs and concepts perhaps being of the 4th millennium).  Genesis explains how man in the form of Adam, came to lose out on a chance to obtain immortality. His God denies him access to the Tree of Life, whose fruit, if consumed, confers   immortality. This is apparently a later Hebrew reworking of the "Adapa and the South Wind myth." Adapa, symbolizing man, has an opportunity to obtain immortality. All he has to do is eat and drink the food of the gods offered him by Tammuz and Nin-gish-zida on behalf of Anu. Adapa refuses both on the prior advice of his god En-ki (en meaning "lord" and ki meaning "earth"), who forewarned him he would surely die if he consumed anything. So, Mankind lost out on obtaining immortality because HE OBEYED HIS GOD. En-ki did not want "his servant" Adapa to possess immortality, he was willing though to give great "wisdom or knowledge" to Adapa

Anyone see the garden of Eden story in the above quote, based on a much older pagan source? Abraham would have known these myths, so why then is his retold version claimed to be the "origional"?

"The literature created by the Sumerians left its deep impress on the Hebrews, and one of the thrilling aspects of reconstructing and translating Sumerian belles-lettres consists in tracing resemblances and parallels between Sumerian and Biblical literary motifs. To be sure, the Sumerians could not have influenced the Hebrews directly, for they ceased to exist long before the Hebrew people came into existence. But there is little doubt that the Sumerians had deeply influenced the Canaanites, who preceeded the Hebrews in the land that later came to be known as Palestine, and their neighbors, such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians, and Arameans." (pp.143-144. "The First Biblical Parallels." Samuel Noah Kramer. History Begins at Sumer, Twenty-seven 'Firsts' in Man's Recorded History. Garden City, New York. Doubleday Anchor Books. [1956] 1959)

and, wrapping up with the parallels between the ancient sumerian myth and the hebrew :

"Sumerian literature contained a number of literary forms and themes found much later in the Bible...Some of the more conspicuous themes involve creation of the universe, creation of humankind, techniques of creation (in two ways, by word and by 'making' or 'fashioning';), paradise, the 'Cain-abel' motif, the 'Tower of Babel' motif, the earth and its organization, a personal god, divine retribution and natural catastrophe, the plague, the 'Job' motif, death and the nether world, and concerns with law, ethics and morality. The most conspicuous of all, the story that has the closest connection with biblical literature, is the story of the flood. There are a few twists to the flood story that will be taken up later." (pp.154-155. "Traces of the Fugitive God." Samuel Noah Kramer and John Maier. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. New York and Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1989)

Any argument that the other "tribes" got the comparitive Mythology from the Hebrews and not the other way around would of course be... dishonest, since the Sumarian civilisation no longer existed when Abraham started his own religion. That settles it for me.

Date: 2006/02/20 00:48:20, Link
Author: Renier
Your really going to have to explain that one to me.  I didnt realize Mark Twain was particularly popular with the  Christian really dont understand why you were looking for Mark Twain at TalkOrigins.  I am hoping that a hilarious story is behind this one.

Sorry for only now replying. Been busy with some re-enactment (SCA) stuff.

Mark Twain was not populer at all with the xtians. Lot's of his stuff got banned. I never knew that, only read the Tom and Huck books. So, I went looking for more. Found them at, read them (Letters from the Earth and The War Prayer). By the time Twain was through with Noah's Flood I realised that my "beliefs" might not have been all it was cracked up to be. Then I read Ingersol and found a link to TalkOrigins on I read "How to be Saved" by Ingersol and uh... it cleared up a lot of confusion I had at that time. It was the first ever "critic" stuff to the xtian religion I came across, and it was devistating (devilstating :-)). Then, the church creationist lies got exposed by talkorigins and I dumped the whole rotten sack of lies and dishonesty and never looked back.

I am still "spiritual" in a strange way and from a strange source, but I am "strong" atheist.

Date: 2006/02/21 02:40:01, Link
Author: Renier
I am listening to the "Argument" mp3 now (dug out of my archives).

Cheese emporium... hehehe...

Date: 2006/02/21 19:45:32, Link
Author: Renier
Sir_ToeJam, that's the argument.mp3 I was listening too. It is awesome! I have a whole bunch of Python MP3's here, that I found on a server at work...

First Python I ever saw was "Meaning of life". I got it the moment it got "unbanned" in my country.

IDiots also remind me of the "dead parrot" bit.
It's DEAD!  
No, it's just resting...
Flat on it's back?
That's what parrots do!


Date: 2006/02/22 01:03:44, Link
Author: Renier
I think you guys are waisting your time with Avo. "Nobody is as deaf as those who do not want to hear". He is not here to listen... nothing you say has any weight with him.

Date: 2006/02/22 23:45:35, Link
Author: Renier
Avo wrote
As Davison said over at his blog, it is the mechanism I have doubted.

Ah, RM + NS is your ONLY problem then?

We have seen RM, it happens often. We have seen NS, it happens often. We can understand that RM and NS is a VERY plausable explanation for the mechanism of Evolution.

Since we have observed RM + NS, why do you have a problem with it? You would rather go for frontloading? Uh if I can recall Blast got blasted on this theory, since Gartner snakes do no have Cobra Venom genes, and that's just one simple example of why frontloading is BS.

We observe RM, and we observe NS. Have you got ANY observation that is a better candidate for the mechanism?

Date: 2006/02/26 22:28:16, Link
Author: Renier
Avo. You noted we seemed paranoid of ID. Ask yourself why. Because ID is a fundamentalist Christion wedge to indoctrinate children. That's all it is, nothing more and nothing less. I used to be a fundie, and I know how these people (IDiots) think. I can smell it a mile away.

You appear to be a sincere person, and that's great. Remember, people can be very sincere, but sincerely wrong. At least it seems like you are willing to do your homework on the subject.

RM+NS might not be perfect, but it is the best we got by far. I don't know, but if I was a god, then creating a system like evolution would seem to me the most intelligent and exciting thing to do. ID people say God is still tinkering in evolution. Science says that is an assumption that is not backed by evidence. The God that still has to do fixes and tinkering cannot be almighty. It's like a vehicle that requires a lot of maintenance. But to make a vehicle that betters itself all the time, adapts to the environment, requires no maintenance, now THAT is what I call awesome. That's why people like Miller have no problem, being religious and knowing evolution to be true.

Bottom line, science is a method, not a search for the divine. You want to make it a search for the divine, but no matter how much you want it, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Imagine I am a computer programmer. I search for the divine or try to validate the divine in my daily work. But, I work for a financial company. How can my code (search for divine) benefit that company? I will get fired, for various reasons. Crappy code, too much code, slow code, useless code. See, my that mark that I must hit is not to search for the divine, but to write good financial systems. The mark that science aims for is not the divine or supernatural. Assumptions on supernatural would kill our search for knowledge of nature. Goddidit is lazy, an easy way out.

Now, what evidence/facts etc do you require to "believe" that Evolution is real and ID is just religious dogma in a clown suit?

Date: 2006/03/05 20:33:19, Link
Author: Renier
I used to be an ex-fundie. Bottom line, people I trusted lied to me. I have a score to settle. I have no respect for them and make it clear, whenever I can. They are dishonest and deserves to be treated as dishonest liars. Futhermore, I am sick and tired of hearing the same old lame arguments from them, year after bloody year. It's not even arguments, just whining.

People who think they have the right to teach (force) their c_rap to other people's kids... not my friends. :angry:

Date: 2006/03/07 23:06:44, Link
Author: Renier
Is this about the SLOT again?

Date: 2006/03/08 01:09:54, Link
Author: Renier
So you are whining because common descent is so obvious right now? Well then, wait another couple of billion years and then attack common descent again. Or, if you don't want to wait that long, change your surname and tell you father (and mother) you no longer think common descent is possible.

Date: 2006/03/08 02:51:32, Link
Author: Renier
Thorthingymagingy. What you are really saying is that the fundie population of America should define what science is, not just for America, but also the rest of the world. Arrogant!

Kiss my *ss! You should go far in life boy, the futher, the better. :angry:

Date: 2006/03/08 19:20:54, Link
Author: Renier
Thorthingy. Science is a method. Get that, or should I draw you a picture?

Date: 2006/03/09 22:25:08, Link
Author: Renier
This is a war of 2 competing ideas that is being fought in the courtroom, classroom, bedroom and public square.

No, this is a war between Religious nuts who wants to force their c_rap(doctrine) down the throats of kids, and people who does not want to allow it. Science is under attack by religion because some religious nuts are to dumb, arrogant and ignorant to think for themselves (or are just dishonest money making maths people), and wants everyone else to be like they are. This is a war that ONLY appears where there is a strong fanatical religion base. Religious nuts wants science to prove their doctrines(Maybe because they are faithless freaks). Science does not. That's why the religious nuts wants to change what science is, in order to make it say what they want it to say. I only have 2 words for them : F them. They need to sort themselves out before they try and sort everyone else out. As for me, I don't give a rats *ss for their doctrines. They should leave science and the rest of humanity alone, or leave the planet and find their own.

This, Thordaddy, is what it is all about. We are doing just fine without your religious creationist c_rap in science. It is unwelcome in science, until the useless, lazy, talkers, the ID scientists, get their lazy bu_tts into the labs and start giving us evidence. If not, they should shut up and carry on teaching their "science" in church, where it belongs. The rest of us (including some Christians) are sick and tired of their fluffy bunny arguments and dishonesty.

In my view Thordaddy, you are :
1) Dishonest
2) Sincere, but indoctrinated.
3) Hiding a faith crisis behind your antics, mostly preaching to yourself, and thus, in denial.
4) You are suffering from

Apologies to rational religious people. The comments above (religious nuts) deals with Fundies, not human beings.

Date: 2006/03/11 22:23:49, Link
Author: Renier
Td wrote :
According to science "faith" must be attained the same way any system of belief is attained, namely, through interpretation of the empirical evidence.

When you have evidence for something, then you do not have faith in it, you KNOW it. Faith is required where there is a lack of evidence, or even contrary evidence. I don't believe the computer in front of me is there, I KNOW it is.

Date: 2006/03/12 19:16:36, Link
Author: Renier
How is "faith" acquired if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?

Memes.... ever though of that?

Date: 2006/03/14 23:41:15, Link
Author: Renier
from 2006 -
Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture said while his group does not favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design, "we do think it is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is based upon scientific evidence not religious premises."

*Snort* He must have missed the wedge document, and the Dover court case. Lying for Jesus again...

This is old news and has been refuted by Campus Crusade and several churches. Shape up or shape out pal -ds

Date: 2006/03/15 02:45:26, Link
Author: Renier
It was a good post Faid! Really. Problem is, UD people don't like to be shown just how c_rappy their own logic is. As a matter of fact, there is a lot in common with their logic and their intelligent designer. It's just d_amn so hard to prove it exists...

We have lots of logic. Take any number and our holy lord Dumbski will proove there was a space alien (wink wink) behind it. Now THAT, is logic. If you disagree, I will smite ..uh.. ban thee!-ds

Date: 2006/03/20 03:19:54, Link
Author: Renier
For the American market :
Because bacteria develop resistance and new viruses appear all the time.

should be

Because bacteria is constantly redesigned with new resistance and new viruses appear all the time, since the pesky intelligent designer cannot make up his friggin mind.

It just occured to me. Humans are actually fighting the so called "intelligent designer" when they make new drugs, are they not? Does Dembski teach this to his Sunday School class?

Also, I am a computer programmer. If the Vitamin C gene in humans are not working any more, why is it not fixed, or why is the cra_ppy code not deleted? "Sloppy Designer". Also, mutation should be prevented in the code, at all cost. Most mutations are "bad mutations". Data corruption / malfunction is not a sign if "intelligence" at all. Surely, no Christian can worship their God and the intelligent designer at the same time. Could it be the devil then????

Date: 2006/03/21 18:55:34, Link
Author: Renier
Someone at uncommon descent, I think it was Salvador Cordova, told me that it would be better if we treated antibiotic resistance as a planned germ warfare attack. I didnt ask him about the implications for god but I imagine he would have said it was satan.

So... Satan might just be the "intelligent designer"... how ironic. Satan must have tinkered with human DNA to make people so curious, thus they munched the apple.

Date: 2006/03/22 01:34:45, Link
Author: Renier
Over at UD :
Update: Okay Young, you’ve shown a modicum of sanity. You may unpack. While you’re at it consider that the ability to terminate grade school teachers exists for a reason. The firing of one for making inappropriate decisions regarding what six year old children can and cannot be exposed to isn’t the end of the world.

This is about the puppet play of Faust. Snotnose Dave thinks it's no big deal for a teacher to be fired. Must have the same attitude as his lord and master Dembski, who was willing to sponsor a teacher for breaking the law (teach ID in science class). Christians should be ashamed to have Dembski as one of them. Offering money to people, to break the law. As for Dave, he must be the most self-righteous fool ever. Dave, I am sure a teacher loosing her job is no big deal to you, but it might just be for her, her spouse, her kids...

Oh, and Dave, no matter what you say, how much you whine and gurgle in your own verbal vomit, showing a puppet opera of Faust is not a bad thing. The only bad thing is that organ between your years, you know, the one that's never been used. Showing Faust (SOCK PUPPET Dave! Let me repeat that. SOCK PUPPET!;) is evil, but teaching kids about the fall of man, the extermination of nations, killing of kids, crucifixion etc from the Bible is okay? By what standard do you define evil then? Your arrogance is astounding. However, as you were soldier. We all need comedy in our lives, so please, carry on.

Date: 2006/03/22 03:20:32, Link
Author: Renier
Carol wrote about the universe : It is unfinished and defective and was so intended to be.

So, when God said "It is good", he was... uhm... joking... or dishonest? And, what's all the nonsence of everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden then? Anyway, doing half a job and not completing it is not a good thing, even for a god. And, if you don't give it your best...

No Carol, find another excuse. I don't buy this one. And you really cannot expect me to.

Date: 2006/03/22 03:37:45, Link
Author: Renier
'Tis funny, but a thread on the idiocy of UD might just have gotten more views and replies (since its beginning) that the ACTUAL UD site.

:)  :)  :)  :p

Now, where's that beer? Prost!

Date: 2006/03/25 04:16:40, Link
Author: Renier
It's an all-win situation for us. They can say whatever they want, they can hurl every insult, level every charge of conspiracy, censorship, atheism, ID will never be real science.  No amount of hysterical christianity can change that. Whether they ever have any political or legal victories, ID will never ever be science.

Truth is, let's say the IDiots win the battle in the US and gets to teach it in public schools (let's just assume). The rest of the world will still not accept ID as science. It appears as if xtianity is loosing ground all over the world (except US). Together with this, creationism as a whole is loosing ground.

I think the internet plays a major role in this. Before, people were isolated to ideas within their own community but the internet has changed all that. I remember when, as a fundie, I discovered the site. It changed my whole take on things.

Date: 2006/03/25 05:53:50, Link
Author: Renier
Good for you, Renier, if you used to be a fundie and were able to change your mind. Fundiness is so hard to break I don't even try to persuade them. I consider religion a family of insanities which are mostly benign, but occasionally malevolent and lead to suicide bombing etc.

I share your views. I went from fundie xtian to liberal xtain to agnostic to atheist (in 6 sec flat - just had to say that) - in about a year. :D

Date: 2006/03/25 06:59:48, Link
Author: Renier
Is that the same Doug who is all for intelectual honesty? Can't be...

Date: 2006/03/26 07:11:23, Link
Author: Renier
DaveScot:This demonstrates a misunderstanding of ID. ID positively identifies design. It does not positively identify what is not designed. What is not identified as design may still be designed, it simply isn’t positively identifiable as design. In more formal terminology ID does not produce false positives but it may produce false negatives.


Date: 2006/03/26 10:58:14, Link
Author: Renier
That said, ID does have implications for ethics and morality.

Because while ID does not depend upon a supernatural designer, it does not exclude a supernatural designer either. ID does not speak of – far less prove the existence of – the God in which I believe, but it is not incompatible with His existence

This is really ironic. The Intelligent Designer makes human males, so that by the age of 18 (healthy, full blooded males) they would do anything to get a girl into bed. It is a law of nature. The ones that don't succeed dream about it. The ones that deny this are liars. So, what is this whole thing about "morality"?

Furthermore, I am an atheist and against adultery (not fornication outside of wedlock). Why? Not because of some "higher" moral truck, but because adultery can be devastating on the people (and kids) involved. Now, it appears as if lots of males (Fundies too!;) cannot refrain from intercourse if the opportunity arises. Why? Because of hormones, thus because of DNA. So, if this "Intelligent Designer" wants to take credit for it, he is welcome to. He is, after all then responsible for every immoral act. The fundies can then conclude that since they are made with such hormones, it is OK to adulterate and fornicate. Furthermore, murder would also be ok for them (act of anger). The Bible is clear that their "God" instructed them (the chosen ones) to kill males, females and children. Except the virgins of course, they could keep them. Wonder for what...

Bottom line, when the ID people start squealing about immorality, it makes me sick. Christians are not more moral or immoral than people of other beliefs (or lack of). They need to understand the implications of what they are REALLY saying. They should think before spouting such utter nonsense.

Date: 2006/03/26 11:16:31, Link
Author: Renier
ID, Creationist and all Fundies are people who have a backwards view of reality and time. They are like a drunken guy riding his trusty horse the wrong way around, facing the rear end of the faithful beast. And what do they do? They whine and complain that they have to keep their fingers in the “main artery” so that the horse does no bleed to death.

Date: 2006/03/26 12:25:38, Link
Author: Renier
Sanctum, you are right of course. Problem is, religion appears to pop out all the time at UD, and we comment on UD. Would it not be a nice change if UD started being focussed on science?

Just to clarify, I know a lot of relgious people that are good people, better than what I can hope to ever be. So, I respect a lot of religious people. However, I admit that fundies really gets to me. They really irk me. Some people here have a JAD addiction, I have a fundie addiction. I'll go get help :)

Apologies if you are not a fundie and felt insulted by my posts. ;)

Date: 2006/03/26 13:18:21, Link
Author: Renier
This new UD blogger, Barry the lawyer, is something else ...

He should stick to law. His understanding of science is frightful...

Date: 2006/03/26 14:17:52, Link
Author: Renier
From UD:On a side note, I am always amazed how certain darwinists (the ones Dembski calls the “Eugenie Scott Darwinists”) try to convert the Christians to their world view.
Comment by Mats — March 26, 2006 @ 1:03 pm

There now. Good thing fundies never try and convert anyone... wait, I hear the doorbell ringing...

... just some bloke selling a "Watch Tower" magazine???... go figure. It's also ironic to note that the ID people gave Judge Jones the idea that ID is just religious peddling. Wonder why...

Date: 2006/03/26 14:26:37, Link
Author: Renier
Let me answer by saying that I am at least willing to accept Darwinism IF it can be demonstrated by reference to the empirical data. I am also willing to accept design IF it can be demonstrated by reference to the empirical data.

...For now, I take the position that design has the upper hand.
Comment by BarryA — March 26, 2006 @ 3:19 pm

Someone get a doctor please. I just fell out of my chair laughing and think I hurt my back... If this Barry bloke is really honest, pointing him to the talkorigins archive would be a good thing. Anyone wanny try and see if they get banned?

Date: 2006/03/26 14:55:13, Link
Author: Renier
If he knew jack about science, DS would have kicked him off long ago.

Very true.

Date: 2006/03/27 21:49:22, Link
Author: Renier
I went at posted at that new Barry guy's threads. First comment I asked was what empirical evidence he was talking about.


Then, based on his reply, I asked if he rejected common descent, and sort of asked in a nice way for the empirical evidence again, since he never provided any. Needless to say, second comment never made it.

My conclusion: UD is a useless blog to post at. They don't like questions and they don't like answers. They only LOVE to hear themselves sing to one another, whilst scratching each other's backs and then make funny crooning sounds. The quality of memes over there is bordering in viral infection.

Date: 2006/03/28 20:38:38, Link
Author: Renier
Sanctum, I think I am No.1 transgressor for mocking fundies, here and at PT (Although BWE and k.e also likes to, eh, anger them). However, we sometimes get a slap on the hand if we go too far.

Now, just to explain something. I mentioned I am an ex-fundie. For most of my life I dedicated it towards the fundie xtian God in an almost fanatical way. Always tried to be warm, never lukewarm or cold. I stood up for the faith whenever I could, thinking that Jesus would never be able to say I denied him. This is the drive in the fundie, to always be more dedicated, always be more extreme. In all this I was ever sincere and always gave it my 120 percent.
Then, my bubble burst and I found out that the very pulpit I trusted had been lying to me. Many other things happened to, but the end of it was that I rejected xtianity in any form and could no longer think of it as a good thing. I realise now that any form of "extreme" is not good, but for most of my life I have been pushed by the church to ever be more extreme.

I have adapted a "live and let live" view on life, and like I said, I have many good xtian friends. However, I still strongly react to fundies and fundie propaganda. I love making fun at them, and they really should thank me, because the Bible says if they get persecuted, it must mean they are doing something right. The irony is that they are always the ones that persecute. They have one agenda, and that is to force their religion on everyone that they possibly can. This includes my children and yours. I see this in my own children, getting taught that their daddy is a "bad guy" because he does not believe in Jesus. I kid you not!

So, I do not respect fundies in any way. I mock them whenever I can, and I expose their lies wherever I can. They do the same, but go even further, as we all know. They incite hatred, aimed against all people that do not see things like they do (Good 'ol Pat and Co.) They lie to their own people about evolution, politics, and accuracy of the Bible etc. They are enemies of reason and freedom. Given half the chance, they would outlaw reason and take all freedom away. Given half the chance, they will ban evolution out of schools. This "teach the controversy" is nothing else but an attempt to get a foot in the door. We all know it, they all know it, yet they lie and cheat about it.

Bottom line, I apologise for offending reasonable religious persons. I do not in any way apologise for offending fundies. They are not my friends.

Date: 2006/03/28 22:31:34, Link
Author: Renier
On the UD thread, my comment, alas, does not appear.
Thread here

So, here it is again.

"Luke 6:27-35
Bummer that this moral wisdom does not apply to any athiest!

Comment by tb — March 29, 2006"

"verse 30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not

tb, put your money where your mouth (verse) is and ... send me all your money please. Thanks. You may ask my details on this thread.

Date: 2006/03/29 23:12:56, Link
Author: Renier
Hey you bunch of "church burners"! Geez, I don't get it. Some "celebrity" here can poke UD with a stick. I simply ask Barry for his "Empirical Evidence" and my post never sees the light of day.

DS : Sometimes it’s difficult or impossible to do this and that’s the bane of the study of evolution in the distant past. It attempts to reconstruct unwitnessed, unrepeatable events in the remote past where most of the physical evidence has been long destroyed and nothing remains but imprints in rocks.

Help me out here, but why do they think ID can do a better job of it? Behe even admitted in court that the "Designer" might be dead and no longer active. I need to point out that Dave misses genes in this argument. Gene comparison strengthened our view of common ancestry that the fossil finds clearly pointed to. This, in itself, is our window view into the distant past. Nothing of this, in any way, supports ID, not a scrap of data. So yeah, keep on squealing about evolution but remember that ID has nothing, nothing at all. It seems that most ID people are just undercover creationists. For this reason common descent is attacked as a main target. When people like Dave says that he thinks common descent is true he gets attacked by his own ilk. Why? My bet on it is that Dave really believes in evolution. He just uses another name, ID. Sure, he whines and cries about the gaps like the rest of the creationists, but his acceptance of common descent was really an acceptance of evolution. It sure as He_ll was not an acceptance of creationism ID.

So, they keep on moaning about the gaps in evolution, where ID and creationism is nothing by one BIG gap. We have data to support out views, they have religious texts. On the occasion where they quote the data, it is not data that they gathered. No, but they feel they are smart enough to criticise and interpret actual data and tell the researches to shut up (remember that thread)? They might call us church burners out of hatred, but they are rapists... DATA rapists.

Date: 2006/03/30 00:25:12, Link
Author: Renier
Noted Stephen. You are right. Evidence will not help them. I just get angry with their dishonest tactics and lies.

How's things going with the "Science, just Science" project? What was the url again?

Date: 2006/03/30 21:01:36, Link
Author: Renier
Talk about angels, it IS scientific, look!:

Praise! Evilution has been a “theory on the ropes” for some time now, and is clearly down for the count. I agree that it is time to give our attention to some of science’s other demonic doctrines.

* Gravity - This one is already on the ropes, soon to be replaced by the Intelligent Falling Theory, where objects are guided back down to the ground by guardian angels.
* Relativity - Relativity leads to relative morality, and is therefore both evil and false. God is absolute and unchanging. Relativity is a lie, and I wouldn’t trust anything that whoever the author of so-called “relativity” has to say.
* Inertia - Inertia says that objects at rest stay at rest, and objects in motion stay in motion. If inertia is true, then how am I able to leave my house to go to church, and how am I able to stop once I get there?
* Global Warming - The Earth is climate controlled by God Himself. If He wants to fiddle with the temperature controls, who are we to ask a bunch of stupid questions? To be replaced by Divine Thermostat Theory.
* Continental Drift - The continents are in exactly the same spot where they have been since The Flood. To be replaced by the Sin Theory of Earthquakes.
* Probability - “God does not play dice with the universe.” — Albert Einstein.

However, I want to hold off debunking String Theory for a while, because there are some things that I like about it.

String theory postulates 11 dimensions (seven more than sinful man can perceive), and that all of the individual particles that make up the world are actually strings that have been plucked to vibrate at a particular frequency.

Well, I think we all know Who is plucking those strings, amen. If we could peer into those extra dimensions, we would see the LORD, and he would be playing the largest stringed instrument you have ever seen! HALLELUJAH!

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Date: 2006/04/04 01:52:20, Link
Author: Renier
This Pianka thing is quite disturbing. I mean, having a human, or even a non human entity saying that 90% of humans should be discarded somehow... reminds me of a story I read in an old book. Something about a dragon, plague, angels casting pestilence, sorrow, death, suffering, destruction and many wicked things on the earth. Some vengeful god really out to make sure about 90% of humanity does not just die, but suffer as much as possible for not worshipping him. Then, there was this really cruel part of torturing some people in fire for all eternity. I mean, really! Stuff like this is just so... evil and makes Pianka look like a sweet little baby angel. I am sure the people at UD would agree with me.

Joking apart, it appears to me some people over at UD have some serious double standards. They say Pianka is evil, but many of them believe (and hope) that much more cruel and wicked things will befall about 90% (or more) of humanity.

Date: 2006/04/04 03:47:04, Link
Author: Renier
Chris Hyland wrote :That's just the point, he didn't say that it should happen, he said he thinks it will happen.

I made the mistake of reading the UD biased version first. They are clear that he encouraged it. Then, I read some other sources and, once again, found out the ID people are just liars that cannot help themselves.

Date: 2006/04/05 22:54:23, Link
Author: Renier
DaveTard:This is evolutionary biology at its finest though. Sort of like stamp collecting.

The practical benefit from this “great discovery” is exactly zero. Again like stamp collecting.


Discovering Tiktaalik is great news for biology. Since ID people say they are all about science, they would really love this discovery... oh.. wait... seems like they think it is dull, like stamp collecting. They also think there are NO benefits in discovering a transitional fossil (fish to tetrapods!;). Good thing ID is all about science, oh yes. Just a bunch of lazy, retarded liars, nothing more, nothing less. Since this is their attitude to science, it sure is a good thing that they do not get to teach their cr_ap "science" to kids.

I don't see the benefit of having you around here. - ds

Date: 2006/04/06 00:14:03, Link
Author: Renier
DaveTard needs to get in touch with his inner, peaceful fish, like the sticker on the back of his car.

Date: 2006/04/06 02:23:44, Link
Author: Renier
Help me out here please.

Positive statements like "there is a bacteria somewhere on earth with 5 legs and 2 ears" cannot be disproved by science. But, the negative "There is not a bacteria with 5 legs and 2 ears" can be disproved, by finding the critter in question. (This is just a lame example, so please!;).

Now, a postive statement like "the sun is x meters from the earth" CAN be proved. What is the difference??? Is it because sample number 2 (the sun/earth distance) can be measured? What is the distinction between the first positive statement and the second one?

Date: 2006/04/06 02:59:49, Link
Author: Renier
improvius, but what about a positive statement like "there is  milk in the fridge". It still is measurement (observation), is it not? Or is the focus on the disprove of the negative, ie "there is no milk in the fridge"? Is there a technical term for all this?

Date: 2006/04/06 03:42:54, Link
Author: Renier
Tim, you are a star! Thanks. I could see the distinction (it was obvious) but I could not define it. At least now I too can explain the difference.

Date: 2006/04/06 03:47:31, Link
Author: Renier
thurdl01, let's mimic the DI and make everyone fellows. Fellow of the "Institute for Ebola lovers and church burning liberals"

It sure sounds better than what the DI has, since a fellow of the DI is in fact a fellow of "Cra_p science and liberal hating fundies institute".

Date: 2006/04/06 04:34:54, Link
Author: Renier

Yes, the scope explanation of Tim and your measurement explanation is the same thing, where possibility of measurement defines the scope.

Date: 2006/04/07 04:04:12, Link
Author: Renier
I don't think you guys are thinking big enough here. I mean, just "burning" a church is boring. Spice it up a bit. We have to at least make headlines. We need a "Big Bang". That sort of thing. Where are the Chemists when you need them. Remember the saying:

1) If it is dirty, it is archeology.
2) If it blows up, it is chemistry.
3) If it stinks, it is biology
4) If it does not work, it is Physics.
5) If it is funny, it's creationism.

Oh, my little Ebola culture is coming along real nice. Now, to just give them wings... Red Bull perhaps?

Date: 2006/04/11 02:06:25, Link
Author: Renier
I think he saw the Head Toady role at UD as his chance to undo his reputation as a blogospheric laughingstock.

I doubt it. He is so full of himself, with a massive ego and only really interested in his own opinion (and don't forget the arrogance). Too thick-skinned to be worried about what people say about him. In reality, he is just a jerk, but in his own reality (perception) he is a god.

Think about it. We see this almost obsessive drive to be right, yet he never is, and just keeps on steamboating forward as if he was never wrong in the first place. He deals with his failures by denying them and is just too good and holy to admit when he is wrong. He loves insulting other people. Insults are fine, but Dave dishes them out in a way that exposes his whole character, for everyone to see.

Date: 2006/04/13 03:09:45, Link
Author: Renier
I've wondered where all the money that I've been sending out into the internet has been going. Apparently, DaveScot's pocket. We've been had!

I don't mind paying for good comedy. :p

Date: 2006/04/13 03:30:42, Link
Author: Renier
And what about the role of intuition? If we can intuitively know the process is not random, is there a scientific reason to discount that as evidence?
Comment by Doug — April 12

Link here

My intuition tells me Doug does not think. Since Doug thinks intuition counts as scientific evidence it must be right, by his own standards!!!

Date: 2006/04/13 03:35:36, Link
Author: Renier
By DaveTard: What changes in the earth’s history do you believe to be random? The only thing that occurs to me is the exact timing of large meteor strikes. The inevitability of such events could be taken into consideration. Not only could the earth’s evolution be designed, every motion of every subatomic particle in the universe could be according to design. Waxing philosophic, I think the universe may be deterministic and minutely planned right up to the point where rational man emerges and through free will brings non-determinism into the picture.

Sounds like and agnostic? I don't think so.

Date: 2006/04/17 22:51:15, Link
Author: Renier
<quote>Same goes for the center of a black hole. Brane/string theory does away with singularities.</quote>

It does away with some singularities and poses another threat to the whole cc argument as a bonus.

I think you will like this:
New Scientist Link

It's about dark energy stars and the possibility that our own universe might just be one of these.

Anyway, it is very interesting.

Date: 2006/04/21 00:48:10, Link
Author: Renier
The biggest difference I believe (wish you touched upon it more) is that YECs don’t have the luxury to choose a hermeunetic model that fits scientific data (and AFTER they look at the data), but rather subjects the data to fit to a faithful reading to Scripture (and the priority that it/Scripture takes). Trust me, if I really believed the Scripture could be interpreted that way I would more than happy to be old earth it would save me a lot of stress!

*Snort* - "subjects the data" is of course another way of saying "Lying, distorts, misrepresents, quote mine".

But the dude was honest about one thing. YEC and ID are in the same boat.... thought both groups suffer from "seasickness" and throws up muck all the time, and lots of it. Then they call the muck "science" and gets upset if someone tells them it stinks like h_ell and looks like muck. They also package the muck and try to sell it to school kids, and once again get upset if someone points out it is 100% pure muck. But what the heck, the ID muck is slightly more yellow and firm than YEC muck, so it must be pure golden science. Dembski attempts to use math to prove that muck with pizza bits must be science, since he SAYS it is. DaveTard actually loves muck, and cannot understand that other people do not share his distinct taste for muck coming from Dembski's gut. ID is a "gut feel" after all... Oh, Behe claims muck is IC, that means, you can't take an olive off the pizza, since the pizza would then collapse and create muck of a different colour. He came to this revelation after he slipped in his own muck and bumped his head on the YEC side of the boat. The "muckers" (Muck lovers) is upset with Judge Jones, because he refused to eat their muck and has been branded an activist, anti-gold judge. Oh, and DaveSnot will ban you if you do not agree that his own muck is of the hue and brilliance of a space-fairy's bu_tt. Last note, muck is designed by some very intelligent being, somewhere, somehow, sometime. We now this, since muck exists, and if you squint your eyes right (and smoke the right stuff), then ANYOME can see the pretty patterns and pictures. If you don't, you must be a church burning ebola boy.

Date: 2006/04/21 03:34:41, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave, I used to be a creationist (and fundie) for a long long time. I started doubting, did a lot of research and realised I had been lied to by the people I trusted most. Even more, I have been spreading their lies as if it was truth, and that made me a liar too. It is better to be honest than to believe. If you really want answers, go and find them for yourself (read, think, learn and repeat). Read the critic material instead of just pro-creationism lies. Gather enough knowledge to make informed choices. You don't even have to be open, just be honest.

If some people here respond to you with personal attacks, don't blame them. And just to repeat what Steven Elliot said, that pro-evolution people are more honest (and open) than creationist/pro-ID people. I'll second that.

Date: 2006/04/24 23:06:23, Link
Author: Renier
I have been telling them that I am the Inteligent Designer, but nobody believes me!!!

On Larry's blog, is it not nice to see people taking DaveTard apart, and he cannot even delete the comments....?

Date: 2006/04/25 20:29:40, Link
Author: Renier
I know of no laws of physics that must be violated to assemble a living organism from inanimate chemicals. -ds

Ah, but TYPING, now THAT violates the laws!

You violated our laws for too long - ds

Date: 2006/04/27 22:09:42, Link
Author: Renier
JohnADavison said...

   I see Stravid Dinger is back but a much kinder and gentler Dinger. It looks as if Wembski must have had a fatherly talk with his blogczar suggesting he tone down his rabid rhetoric a few decibels. Of course If I am wrong, I am sure Dinger will remind me in short order. For a while I thought he might be on his way to Vermont to give me that whipping he seems to think I deserve. Bullies are like that don't you know, all mouth.

   I love it so!

Sorry, could not resist this. Alan, have your fix man! Does Dave have ANY friends at all??? :p

Date: 2006/04/28 01:16:46, Link
Author: Renier
He's also the same person who took pleasure in the thought of beating PZ Myers' face to a bloody pulp

See above. Seems like he threatened JAD with the same type of thing.

Date: 2006/05/01 04:14:52, Link
Author: Renier
afdave, Carol claims you are totally wrong in your interpretation. Why don't you and Carol battle it out a bit, so that the rest of us unholy heathens can have a chuc... eh.. learning experience?

So, who is right, you, or Carol? You cannot both be right, and both claim to be speaking for God. Who must we believe then?

Date: 2006/05/01 04:14:52, Link
Author: Renier
afdave, Carol claims you are totally wrong in your interpretation. Why don't you and Carol battle it out a bit, so that the rest of us unholy heathens can have a chuc... eh.. learning experience?

So, who is right, you, or Carol? You cannot both be right, and both claim to be speaking for God. Who must we believe then?

Date: 2006/05/01 04:19:19, Link
Author: Renier
When some people started laughing at him in the discussion, he got very hostile.

Did he blow fire??? lol. Fundies are good for comedy, but get upset when people laugh. Oh well.

Date: 2006/05/01 04:26:23, Link
Author: Renier
I keep telling people I AM GOD.

* no, not the pills again, and what are you doing with that funny looking white jacket??? *

Date: 2006/05/01 05:32:13, Link
Author: Renier
There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)

Afdave, so you have a "suspicion" that there is a god. I have a "suspicion" that you are wrong and that he/she does not exist.

As you admit, you base your suspicion on something for what there is not the slightest bit of proof.

I base my suspicion on that there is NO EVIDENCE/PROOF of any kind, for ANY god.

Not just that, but you say of people share your suspicion. Now, there are hindus, jews, muslims, pagans etc. What makes your suspicion better than theirs? And, I must point out, but if the Muslim suspicion is right, then you are doomed anyway, so you have to prove that your suspicion is better than anyone else's. Just to point something else out, but your suspicion/perception also differs from what a lot of Christians have. So, how do we know you are right in your "revelation" of God??? Can you prove it? No? Is there reason to regard your suspicion more highly than other people's suspicion? No?

Date: 2006/05/01 06:11:19, Link
Author: Renier
after I present credible evidence that we should expect some Super-Intelligence to exist

You know you would be the first human being EVER to do that, don't you? I'm not holding my breath though...

Date: 2006/05/01 11:18:58, Link
Author: Renier
Yours have no evidence.  Mine does.

Dave, get on with it. We are all waiting for this "evidence" to appear. Are you now saying that you have already presented it? You are joking, right? Either that, or you are insulting us.

...and in this mood of anticipation that you have created, take the hat and pluck out the evidence... come on! Oh, btw, your "suspicion" does not count as evidence, but I think you know that.

Well laddy, you promised evidence, so, do honour to your word!

Date: 2006/05/01 11:27:25, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave wrote:

This is extremely important and will come after I present credible evidence that we should expect some Super-Intelligence to exist and that it is highly likely that He (or it) commmunicates like we do.

And this is where I think my evidence ... "cosmic fine tuning, the anthropic principle, etc." as I will elaborate on soon lead to a Super-Intelligent 'god-like' character as a better explanation than other alternatives.

Oh cra_p. Is this going to be a Deja Vu feeling, like talking to Heddle?

Date: 2006/05/01 11:31:06, Link
Author: Renier
So you are running away Afdave... alas...

Date: 2006/05/01 11:31:06, Link
Author: Renier
So you are running away Afdave... alas...

Date: 2006/05/01 11:35:55, Link
Author: Renier
Tiax, you sound suprised?

The colors are all far too vibrant too.

Think davey might be, eh, y'know, taking something? Maybe that's what the "lab at home" is for... don't touch the stuff Dave!!!

Date: 2006/05/01 11:47:40, Link
Author: Renier
what I don't get is why anyone is giving this afdave turd the time of day, let alone actually arguing with him.  he's clearly not here to learn anything, doesn't have anything to teach anyone else, and doesn't contribute anything but a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs, unfunny jokey asides, and empty promises that he might eventually participate in a real debate about any of the issues he pretends to think are in question. why bother?

Comedy value, and since the regular trolls have been a bit silent.

Date: 2006/05/01 11:54:56, Link
Author: Renier
I have not read the book, but I intend to. The reason is I have a fundie cousin who read the book, and all of a sudden he is more laid back about his beliefs. Might have been the book.

Could we set up a collection and sponser a donation of books  for UD?

Date: 2006/05/01 12:10:14, Link
Author: Renier
As for the forthcoming "bombshell". I'm not holding my breath.

Well, I hope Afdave gets on with it, before the sun burns out.

Oh.. wait a minute, I get it. "A 1000 years is like a day". Think afdave is taking the bible definition for time, like "behold, I come quickly"?

Date: 2006/05/01 14:45:20, Link
Author: Renier
When the earth is referred to as old or young it should be kept in mind that time itself is not a constant, as postulated by Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The rate of expansion of the universe since the Big Bang (Gen 1:1) would cause a time dialation effect …
Which in turn would cause mankind to argue about the age of the universe ..

Parody! Right??? Please tell me it's a parody... please....

Date: 2006/05/01 15:02:33, Link
Author: Renier
So Tiime iiiiissss ssslllooowwwiiinnnnggggg dooowwwwnnnnnn?

Wish the rapture would hurry up. Can't take this much longer. Eh, on the other hand, what would we laugh at? Oh, wait, agnostic DS would still be here. Phew!

Date: 2006/05/02 01:11:19, Link
Author: Renier
BWE and Bob.

I am the Intelligent Designer. I have been telling the ID folks, but they won't believe me. Stoopid, I know, because I can prove it too! I can take a stick and some grass (plus a bit of wire), and make a broom! See??? Intelligent Designer. I don't know what the ID folk's problem is. Just a bunch of infidels! As for how I made all the plants and simple stuff, well, my time machine blew up, along with all my data. Alas, it was my own fault, because I tinkered with the cc (cosmo c, not cubic!!!;) (to make the time machine faster) and kaboom! It's a pity really, because I had some great ideas with some bacterial butts. Think yamaha 500 outboard engine on nitros! The experiment, of course, was called "how many gods can water ski in a drop of water - Take 98458273". Problem is, the bloody bacteria infected all my kin, and I am the only one left. But it seems, my dear Bob and BWE that I have found some long lost brothers. Let the trinity proceed. Just a note of warning. Don't leave the bacteria (aka, godly waterski equipment) alone for too long. They morph in sponges, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, shrews, apes and humans. When they get to the final stage, some of them malfunction and spontaneously gather at a place called "UD". I have been observing them for a while now, and I can tell you there are some really funny specimens out there. It's my new grand experiment. I call it: "Uncommon divine comedy"

Date: 2006/05/02 21:07:16, Link
Author: Renier
The "fine-tuning" argument is really an argument "against" a God of miracles. Think about it. If we lived in a universe that would NOT allow life, then THAT would be a miracle, and could be used as an argument for a God of miracles.

As has been pointed out, we know how everything happened in a natural way, from the Big Bang, right upto now. Abio-genesis is still a big gap, and you are welcome to plug that gap with your God. Another place you can plug him in, if you so wish, is before the Big Bang. Any attempt to force him into another area is just dishonest (yes, we do think you are dishonest, even though sincere), since we have natural explanations for it.

I must mention this again, but some Christians believe that their God started everything off at the big bang. In his infinate wisdom, he planned everything so well (even evolution) that it required no constant "tinkering and fixing" from him. This God, is way more powerful and smart than the one you are trying to peddle here. You think you make a good case for your god, but all you are really doing is insulting him, and us.

Date: 2006/05/02 23:53:50, Link
Author: Renier
You know, if genetic-id is doing legit design detection, you'd think they'd all be up in arms that everything except for genetically engineered stuff comes up as not designed.

True. They would have been the first to say "wait a minute, why does this natural bit of dna look designed?"

But of course, the Designer designs in a way different from humans. In fact, it looks just like RM + NS.

Date: 2006/05/04 00:02:59, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave, did you even UNDERSTAND what you just quoted? Parrot!

Date: 2006/05/04 00:02:59, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave, did you even UNDERSTAND what you just quoted? Parrot!

Date: 2006/05/04 02:40:17, Link
Author: Renier
Talk about wasting money. the ID "Theory" is useless and worthless yet tons of money poured into it (all into PR).

Date: 2006/05/04 03:19:07, Link
Author: Renier
Another thread again, yet you fail to deliver on your promise to produce evidence on other threads. Keep your promises on the other threads first before clogging the system with your ignorance.

Date: 2006/05/04 03:40:42, Link
Author: Renier
I have given evidence every day as promised.  I spend at least 2 hours every day now both answering critics and producing evidence for my own assertions.

I have been reading your threads daily, and have not seen one gram of evidence. I also did not see anyone else pointing to any evidence you posted, instead, they are all still waiting (and asking) for the promised evidence. Where have you been?

And kindly don't clog my serious attempts to understand ND assertions--such as this one--with your polemics.

I think very few people here think you are serious (if any), or even honest in your "search" for truth. You might as well rename this thread to "AFdaves pulpit".

Date: 2006/05/04 21:26:51, Link
Author: Renier
True Believer

So, Dave, your only gripe is really with common descent, from ape to man? That's it? That's all? Then why all this other useless noise and antics? Lets focus on the chimp/human thing then and ignore the rest of the BS.

Tip: Vitamin C. I used to be a YEC fundie, Vitamin C did it for me. Why do you need Vitamin C? What other animals... come on Dave, show us you can do some googling....

Date: 2006/05/05 00:06:29, Link
Author: Renier
Well put Chris.

Date: 2006/05/05 01:07:30, Link
Author: Renier
Dave, are you going to read up on the Vitamin C thing or not? If so, check some other sources too, not just AiG BS.

Date: 2006/05/05 02:14:31, Link
Author: Renier
Oh what the ####, I’ll help you out Dave.

Imagine you write a book. It is a book about sound and how it behaves. You publish the book and have copyright on it. A couple of months later, you pick up another book, about sound. You are furious when you notice that someone else has copied your work, and you promptly take them to court.

Now, how will you prove that the other person copied your book, since all the facts about sound, and how it behaves, are stated in the same way in both books? The other person could of course get the facts right too! In fact, the 2 books appear about 97 percent the same (factually)! You cannot tell the judge: “Well, your honour, I wrote the speed of sound is 330 m/s, and the other person wrote the same!”. The judge will laugh at you, since you claim that because the other person got his facts right, that he must have got it from you. Still with me Dave?

But, if there are errors in your book, factual errors, and they appear in the other book too, then you have a strong case for copyright infringement. If you made a mistake in your book, and wrote that the speed of sound is 632 m/s, and the other person repeats that EXACT SAME mistake, then you can prove that he copied your book. Your case would be even better if you could come up with 37+ errors that you made that were repeated in the impostor’s book!

Humans must eat Vitamin-C. They cannot fabricate their own Vitamin-C. Why is that? It is because our gene for Vitamin C fabrication is broken. It was a mutation that destroyed the function of the Vitamin-C gene, therefore we have to eat stuff with Vitamin-C in it, or else we would die. You know who sits with the same problem? Chimps! They also have the broken Vitamin-C gene, and it is broken in the SAME way that ours is. Why is that?

We know our DNA and Chimp DNA are VERY close to each other. But apart from the entire DNA that works, that are the same, in both our species, we ALSO share ERRORS, like the Vitamin-C gene (and many others), with Chimps. To me, this is good proof that we and Chips evolved from the same type of ape thing. We share common ancestry (Thus, we did not evolve FROM Chimps; we simply share a common ancestor). We BOTH inherited the DNA that works, AND the various ERRORS from the common ancestor.

Relate this back to my copyright story at the start of this post, and you will understand. But take it further. The 2 books are WORD FOR WORD, FACT AND ERROR, the same and ordered the same, except for about 5% max (it’s less), that differs.

So, tell me with a straight face that you think common ancestry is not true. But hey, I know you would rather believe preachers (AiG) than biologists (and other scientist) about biology. Even Behe admits common ancestry is true….

Date: 2006/05/05 03:29:33, Link
Author: Renier
I supose Afdave wants us to assume that there is something like a spirit/soul, and that these are not just words used for the mind and its various functions/output.


Date: 2006/05/08 03:42:54, Link
Author: Renier
I wonder if Dave will admit that the Chromosome fusion is STRONG evidence for evolution..... anyone want to take a bet?

Date: 2006/05/11 01:18:27, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave keeps on harping on about the evidence he presented. I have been reading all his threads, but cannot see any evidence presented by him. It appears as if he thinks the cc is evidence. Is it just me, or are other people also still waiting on his evidence? Is there ANYONE here that picked up on any evidence that Afdave has presented? Is there ANYONE?

Date: 2006/05/11 02:24:06, Link
Author: Renier
Yes, like calling someone who makes an observation a racist. Always remember, never make the observation that there are Asians in a church, and DARE call them fundies. It's racist. Just like making the observation that there are white people in a church, and calling them fundies. It's racist!!!

This whole think really makes me sick! They really are a bunch of mean, nasty, bitter lying bunch of croaks over there at UD. I mean, I am sure everyone has seen all the things DaveScot said over at Larry's blog. Dembski has someone like that in charge of his blog. Striking!

Date: 2006/05/11 03:27:58, Link
Author: Renier
Larry blog

Steve, here is the url. I was refering to the poo slinging between him and JAD.

Date: 2006/05/11 03:33:46, Link
Author: Renier
It's just REAL interesting to see DaveScot's character when there is no Demski to "heel" him.

Date: 2006/05/11 03:53:06, Link
Author: Renier
Steve, searching for DaveScot would not yield much. He was posting under different names, normally someting like "davison the liar" etc. Oh, one more thing, don't search for an science related stuff... there is almost none...

Date: 2006/05/11 03:58:08, Link
Author: Renier
Holy smokes! You are right steve, if that post is for real it would be priceless.

Date: 2006/05/15 21:03:44, Link
Author: Renier
Thanks, it was a very interesting article.

Date: 2006/05/15 22:36:45, Link
Author: Renier
When fundies try to be rationale, it always reminds me of the cheese shop episode. Replace "cheese" with "evidence". Didn't Heddle also complain about Python? There might be a pattern here.

Oh, btw, welcome Moorit. I assume you have met our resident trolls?

Date: 2006/05/16 22:32:32, Link
Author: Renier
Determinism. People don't always make the right choices, because many times they are unable to.

My view is that people do not have free will. Various factors form the basis of every choice/decision that they make. Factors like upbringing, mood (brain chemistry), past experience, social influence etc.

You moral code is great, but many people would not be able to adhere to it. People walk around with hundreds of memes that would not allow them to accept you moral code. Religion springs to mind. Then, think of a person with a serious brain chemistry inbalance. Imagine such a person commits suicide, due to the biological factors (depression). This person was not able to protect him/herself.

Date: 2006/05/16 22:57:53, Link
Author: Renier
Irrationality in MP is always part of the joke.

Therefore, UD is of such great value to us.

Date: 2006/05/17 01:00:45, Link
Author: Renier
No thanks Afdave, I value logic and reason more than ignorance and superstition :-p

Date: 2006/05/17 01:36:43, Link
Author: Renier
Yes, Afdave, I think you will find the site very good. Lots of people who think like you do. However, you gave your word that you will provide some evidence for you views (here, at THIS site). People are still waiting, or shall we call it quits and label you an Oath-Breaker? Or, you can back out and say that you had no idea how strict the word evidence can be, and that you confused it with faith.

Date: 2006/05/17 02:29:22, Link
Author: Renier
Thanks for that Chris. It really does give some insight on how the creos think. In the light of this, it becomes more easy to understand Afdave, Larry, Gop, Heddle, Carol, Blast etc.

It also shows it is useless to argue with them, and one can therefore understand why Lenny (and others) treats them like he does.

Date: 2006/05/17 03:17:07, Link
Author: Renier
He accepts creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith, rather than deluding himself and lying to others about it being something that can be backed up with science.

Eh, what about this line?

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture.

Scientific reasons to accept a young earth.... hmmm. I must be ignorant, I have not heard/read one.

Date: 2006/05/17 03:25:56, Link
Author: Renier
But, I do agree that he seems moderate and more in touch with reality than some local Trolls, for instance.

Date: 2006/05/17 03:39:18, Link
Author: Renier
Imagine a world where all YECers are like Wise.

Date: 2006/05/17 23:02:42, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave is showing off his amazing faith. Since I feel that he just waisted our time, asking to be educated and then revealing he is just here to preach, I feel we need to test Dave on the claim that he is indeed a Christian and not just someone who is fooling us.

I am also fedup with his arrogance.

My test, from the very Book that Dave adores.

"Luke 6:30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."

Dave, send me all your money please. Thanks.

Date: 2006/05/18 01:31:21, Link
Author: Renier
because it is just one more evidence for a Creator.

It implies there has been "other" evidence. That's why people here calls you a liar. We are still waiting on the FIRST bit of evidence, liar.

And now you are going to flog the morality horse... Deja Vu yet again... is there nothing new???

Date: 2006/05/18 03:14:15, Link
Author: Renier
Chimps and Humans

This is interesting. Now the fundies are REALLY going to fume.

Date: 2006/05/18 04:05:32, Link
Author: Renier
From Faid's article.

Voting booth:
How do you regard theories of hominid evolution?  
* 100970 responses

I think there's sufficient evidence tracing the evolutionary family tree of primates and humans.

I don't accept any evidence that humans arose through evolution.

Neither of the above.

Just interesting. Science is not about voting.

Date: 2006/05/18 22:36:38, Link
Author: Renier
Carol does not believe in a young earth, or a global flood. Afdave does. You think we can pit them in a discussion to see who wins?

My bets are that Carol wil whip Afdave's A-ss. Anyone want to bet on Afdave? We could even throw GoP in, just to spice things up... come on guys, I know you want to see this!!!

This could work. Afdave is keen on talking about the topic, as is Carol...

Date: 2006/05/19 00:28:45, Link
Author: Renier
Spike. I think everyone here would agree that your "codes" would really be good, if everyone abided by it. Problem is, some people are good, some people are bad. That's why we have laws, to protect society.

In a way, it seems like your "code" is really the old concept of honour.

There are however millions of people who would not be able to abide by your code, in the sense that you would want them to. People are complex. Someone can harm another person, and justify it in a million ways. You might think it is wrong, but the person committing the act thinks it is right.

In the end, being "objective" about it is very hard to do.

Date: 2006/05/19 00:51:14, Link
Author: Renier
hhmmm. You would have to drop the "Sir" part, else all will know it is you, no?

Well, how about "Lord" then? You don't even have to add something to the end of it, and you get to provoke some fundies, because they would just HATE to say "Lord, I think you are wrong" or "Lord, I think you are an A-ss"!

Or, you could go for "Lord FishFinger, Lord Python". "ShowMeSomeID" is also ...oh well. I still like the churn burning ebola boy thingy. However, instad of Church-Burning Ebola-Boy #32, you could do Church-Burning Ebola-Boy #69. or "Boy Church"

Date: 2006/05/19 01:31:09, Link
Author: Renier
Spike. I really do think Morality is Relative. There is no universal morality. Canibals can munch other people, so for them it is fine and moral. We would have a problem with that, would we not, so our morality (our sense of what is right and what is wrong) differs from theirs. What are the reasons for this? The best explanation, for me, is determinism. Research it.naturalism

Date: 2006/05/19 04:00:04, Link
Author: Renier
(1) Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.  
(2) Human beings do not in fact behave in that way.

Spot the falacy/ies

First. "moral" codes differ from culture to culture. Simple example, canabilism. No "moral" problem for them cooking you in your own juice.

Secondly, you state human beings do not behave ins "that" way, ie, the universal super duper moral code. Well, give me any example of people breaking this "super duper moral code" and I will give you an example of someone "adhering" to it. Conclusion, some people act in this way, and some not. Example. Atheists are not more moral or immoral that Christians. Christians are not more moral or immoral than atheists, or Hindus etc.

Date: 2006/05/22 00:15:15, Link
Author: Renier
Fascinating. Only thing is, since you have now voiced this, Afdave would think it is the devil tempting him (to doubt) and would resist it with all his might. It is what he has been doing ever since he came here. For him, it is an issue of heaven or ####. He will not risk going to #### by accepting anything that the "godless" people here comes up with.

The Bible tells him that in his own belief, he should be as a child. Afdave takes this to the extreme. He also believes that by the power of God's word he will sow the seeds, here, in this blog, that is needed to save some "godless" souls. The Bible promises him that God's work will not return to God without having acomplished what it was sent out to do. He is here for one reason, and one reason only. He truly believes that God has told him to "do the Lord's work" here in this blog. He also believes that the Holy Spirit will empower him to overcome the tainted way of thinking that Satan has been fermenting in this blog and it's people. He is here as God's warrior, and he won't give up. (He prays every night that God wil help him say the right things, that it will be God's words and not his own) He truly believes we will all (or some, even at least one) see the light and praise Jesus for it. If he fails, it will not be his or God's fault that we did not see the light, but we would be to blame since we rejected the truth when it was presented to us.

In all of this, Afdave has one great enemy, DOUBT. He cannot dare to doubt, for if he doubts his own faith will falter and he would have failed in his mission here. To have faith, for Afdave, is to have NO DOUBT (and keep it that way).

Also, imagine a world where Afdave will admit that he is wrong. What has he got to loose? Family, friends, maybe even spouse and kids, his whole society. If you think you will convince him, think again. He has too much to loose. He is not here to hear "our" side of the story, he is here to convince us of "God's" side of the story. To accept our views would be to "back-slide" and give in to evil. He also truly believes we are deluded and that Satan has clouded our minds. Need I go on?

Date: 2006/05/22 00:52:48, Link
Author: Renier
Good Omens was a great book, for me anyway. The whole creation thing in there was hilarious.

Date: 2006/05/22 01:09:02, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave, the VitC thing was "the last straw on the camel's back" for me. If you think it was the ONLY thing that caused me to think that the YEC position is full of cr_ap, then think again. It is not just the VitC gene that is broken and shared, is it? Have you read anything of Viral DNA (pseudo) that is shared? We don't even mention the working genes that are shared.

Jeannot is right of course. ONE broken gene is not enough evidence. But, that's not all the evidence we have, is it? You appear to be distorting Jeannot's position a bit there lad. You also fail to see the relation between the human/ape GULO and the one in Guinea Pigs.

Talk Origins that is lying

Step by step, in good argument format, please support this statement of yours.

Date: 2006/05/22 01:51:15, Link
Author: Renier
Renier, if you stick with me long enough, I will be systematically dismantling all the basic underpinnings of evolution and establishing the credibility of the YEC position.

*Snort*, just like you have been promising some evidence. So far, you seem like a dishonest liar that has been trashed in the face of logic. I know you don't see it this way Afdave, and won't take my word for it. You are however, not doing the cause of your "God" any good so far. Take my word for it... These people are not stupid, and have VALID REASONS to think the way they do. I have seen more honesty in the science camp than in the ID camp. So, why could/can I see it and not you? Tell my why Davey boy.

Date: 2006/05/22 02:06:51, Link
Author: Renier
In another thread, Davey is now asking for evidence that they lied. Go figure...

Date: 2006/05/22 02:38:27, Link
Author: Renier
I have dismantled Dr. Max's argument, and I will continue to dismantle many more.

He REALLY believes this.... any votes vor hopeless?

Date: 2006/05/22 02:41:52, Link
Author: Renier
Chris, you might be right. the whole "Well, no matter what you say, WE can do it BETTER!" way of thinking.

Date: 2006/05/23 02:35:16, Link
Author: Renier
STJ, I agree. But think about it. The help they seek will be at a Christian pshycologist. It might help though...

I remember helping a fundie that developed Pshycosis. He used to hear voices (God's voices) and thought every little thing that happened was an omen that he was going to die (too much seretonin?). The poor bloke REALLY suffered. Panick attacks on a daily basis. In all of this madness there was always the religion that played a big role. Then, some fundies tried to help him and tried to cast out the demons. It all damaged the person even more. Remember, in all this, it was reality for him, ie, it was really happening.

He agreed to go to a Christian Pshycologist. The Pshycologist told him that the voices he hears is not God and that God does not cause such torment (I know, I know). It's just really hard to understand the way these people think. It's hard to even relate to how they think.

Anyway, the person is still a fundie, but the pshycosis is a lot better and he is able to function in a more "normal" way.

Bottom line, they don't trust any "non-fundies" really. Afdave does not trust us to be truthful to him. He would be more than happy to trust old Pat though...

The Bible is very outspoken about that "way of the world". In Afdave's eyes, we are agents of this "way of the world".

Romans 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  
Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

This is how Afdave views us.

And this

Hebrews 3:12  Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

See STJ, if they were allowed to doubt, they would be allowed to examine themselves and their own beliefs. But, these actions are not encourage and is seen as "bad". So, how do you go about to help someone that is not allowed to doubt anything that he believes?

2 Corinthians 6:14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (6:15) And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

One more thing. They look down on liberal Christians because they see them as being "luke-warm" and thus not true Christians. For them, to be extreme and fanatical is the only way to stay on the "warm" side. This form of Christianity does not encourage critical thinking but views it as a weakness.

The question in the end is, how do you help someone who has been brainwashed to the extreme, week after week, year after year? How many fundies dropped their views in light of evidence? Geez, how many of them understand the meaning of evidence? Just look at the stuff that pops up over at UD. The sad thing is, they are all so convinced they are right

I think over at it was an article of Dawkins that described religion as a viral meme. Think it was called "Virus of the mind" or something. Perhaps there is something that makes certain people more "open" to recieve this meme (fundie version)? So, how do you fight such a virus? One thing, make sure kids in school don't get taught this nonsense as truth...

That's why I really laugh when the fundies are on about being fair and being allowed to give their version of evolution in science class. It's not about science, and never has been. They just want to be allowed to indoctrinate kids. Of course, they think this is a good thing. They really think they will be doing everyone a favour by saving souls.
And this, is the very reason Afdave is here.

Date: 2006/05/23 03:23:55, Link
Author: Renier
Russel, you might have a point there. I am sure my memory fails me, but I recall that when the Holy Roman Empire (Charlemagne - Under Frankish rule) was split between the 2 sons, that it was German that was spoken. I think it was after that time that the Western half came under greater influence from the Gealic tongues of the natives. There is mention somewhere that when the rulers of the 2 sides got together a couple of years after (some generations) that they could not understand each other any more. Anyway, it's all a bit fuzzy, and I don't have dates. I think I'll go and theck up a bit. Maybe Jordane mentions something about it.

Date: 2006/05/23 03:32:06, Link
Author: Renier
Darn, wrong about the Gealic (Celtic)! Guess the whole of Gaul spoke Latin by that time, thanks to old Julius.

Charlemagne ruled as an emperor for more than thirteen years, during which time three emperors sat upon the [44] Byzantine throne. With them all Charlemagne endeavoured to keep peace, sending them embassies, and calling them brother; but it was not until the year 812 that the Emperor Michael formally recognized Charlemagne's right to the imperial title.

Then for hundreds of years there were two emperors, one in the East and one in the West, each claiming to be the rightful heir of the Cæsars.

But although in the West the title  of emperor endured, Charlemagne's Empire fell to pieces soon after his death, the whole state being filled with discord and violence. For it was built upon no solid foundation, but upon the will of one man.

The Sons of Louis the Pious

Charlemagne had many sons, but only one survived him. He is known as Louis the Pious, and was more fitted for the cloister than the throne. Even in his lifetime his unruly sons tried to rend the Empire from him, and after his death they quarrelled among themselves over their inheritance. After a time the two younger of these sons, Louis and Charles, joined together against Lothaire, the elder.

At Strasburg they met together, and swore an oath of eternal friendship. The taking of this oath was made an occasion of solemn ceremony. The two armies were drawn up facing each other upon the plain, and in the space between the kings, in gorgeous robes, glittering with gold and jewels, met. Each made a speech, and then with great solemnity swore to stand by the other.

Louis, being the elder, spoke first. "For the love of God," he said, "and for this Christian people and our common salvation, as much as God gives me to know and to do, I will aid my brother Charles in all things as one ought rightly to aid one's brother, on condition that he does as much for me. And I will never willingly make any com- [45] pact with Lothaire which may injure this my brother Charles."

Louis repeated the same words but in another language. For the interesting thing about this oath is that it was taken in two languages. It had been the dream of Charlemagne's life to unite all the Germans under one sceptre, so that they should be one people, speaking one language, and owning one ruler.

Before he died he had even begun to write a German grammar. But already, less than thirty years after his death, there were two such widely differing languages spoken within the Empire that the Frankish soldiers of Charles and the Saxon soldiers of Louis could not understand each other. So Louis, speaking to his brother's Franks, spoke their language, and Charles, addressing the Saxon soldiers, used another language.

Out of those two languages have grown modern French and modern German.

You may see how they have developed from the few words from the beginning of the oath which follow:

Old French: "Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poble et nostro commun salvament."

Modern French: "Pour l'amour de Dieu, et pour le salut commun du peuple cretien et le notre."

Old German: "In Godes Minna ind in thes Christianes folches ind unser bedhero gehaltnissi."

Modern German: "Aus Liebe zu Gott und des Christlicher Volkes sowie unser beider Heiles halber."

Those of you who know Latin can see at once what a strong influence that language had on the French spoken in the ninth century. The Vandals and the Goths, who had, in turn, conquered Gaul, left no trace even on the language. The Franks left little, and to-day there are not more than a thousand words of Germanic origin in the whole French [46] language. Still fewer words can be traced to Celtic—the original language of the Gauls. Latin, the language of the Romans, is the chief element. Therefore we call it a Romance language—that is, one founded upon and developed from the language spoken by the ancient Romans. Italian and Spanish are also Romance languages, for in spite of repeated conquests by Vandals, Goths, Lombards, and Saracens, Latin remained the chief element in them.

Date: 2006/05/23 03:43:16, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave, I don't get this "Common Design" thing. Back to the broken Vitamin C gene. Was it broken BEFORE the fall of man, or did it break AFTERWARDS?

If before, then humans were not made perfect, right? If after, then why the he11 did it break in much the same way as that of chimps, and then trace it back futher to other apes. BS laddy.

Let's say it broke afterwards (after the apple). Why so similar, and why in such a way as to look like common descent? You saw the nice little graphics that the people showed you about how the mutations are related.

Date: 2006/05/23 23:03:28, Link
Author: Renier
guthrie, the eternal optimist :-p Ok, let's bite... (I know I am going to regret this)

Sceptic. You don't like Evolution, ID or Creationism. What do you propose then, and why?

Instead of having a problem in general with evolution, could you please be more spesific? It's no use coming in here and just voicing normal creationism objections. If these objections are your own, as you seem to claim, then by the Gods man, out with it and let's all discuss it. Give us some examples!

And we all agree on one thing. ID and Creationism is dishonest stinking BS.

If you really are an undercover IDiot/Creotin, then bugger off, because you just ruined your reputation with dishonesty, by pretending to be something you are not.

Date: 2006/05/24 00:16:36, Link
Author: Renier
Shalini: You don’t seem to have quite the right spirit for our little band. Go in peace, but go. –WmAD

I have no idea how Shalini escaped the moderation list. I reviewed his comment history and nothing in it warranted letting him off the leash. -ds

Comment by William Dembski — May 23, 2006 @ 10:17 pm

Hahahaha... snif.

Translation :
WD: What the ??? What is this blotto on my blog doing here? Do I have to do all the banning and cleaning myself?
DT: Sir Dembski Sir. Sorry Sir. *type type type type* Don't know how this happened Sir!

Date: 2006/05/24 01:28:50, Link
Author: Renier
Perhaps it's just because I'm new here, but I am utterly baffled as to why this post would get nixed. It also shows that blaming UD's suppression of any dissent (even courteous, reasonable dissent such as shalini's comment) on DaveScot is a mistake - here we have The Man himself telling someone to shut up and go away just because they disagree with him.

Welcome, welcome. Yes, you got it right. However, kick off those shoes, grab a beer, sit back and enjoy the comedy that is UD. Pass the popcorn, will you? We are all addicts here. UDholics anonymous.

I also think every single one of us is banned from UD because we posted something that did not agree with either DaveTard or Dumbski. We don't blame them though, since NOBODY likes being wrong all of the time. You can see it is getting to them.

Oh yes, if someone from UD refers to the "Church-burning Ebola boys", that's us. This thread here is CBEB central. STJ (the bloke with the toe) might claim the handle of CBEB#32. All the other numbers are still up for grabs, although getting 666 might not be a good idea. The great Designer in the sky dislikes this number, and although ID has nothing *cough* to do with religion, the UD crowd will be quick to envoke the Bible on you and dam_n you to he11.

You are dam_ned to banneddom - dt

Reminds me of the old Iron Maiden song, "Children of the Damned". Hey, we could use the tune for our theme song, "Children of the Banned" :-D

Date: 2006/05/24 02:13:40, Link
Author: Renier
Oh no. Afdave has done it. He has refuted evolution!!! Our evil plot is exposed, run to the hills!!! Or, wait..

# Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.

Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness.

Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

In the wild it is usually impossible to determine when a mutation occurred. Usually all we know (and often we do not even know that) is the current distribution of particular traits.

The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides.

Actually Afdave, just read This

I really don't see what the problem is. Are you saying that the change Bacteria undergoes disproves evolution, or are you on about "increase in genetic information"?

Date: 2006/05/24 03:49:15, Link
Author: Renier
Sceptic, consider how these people spend time and effort trying to talk sense into dishonest creationists, then try and understand that they might react in a bit of a mocking way when you barge in here and tell them you have issues with evolution. Sounds like a creationist, you have to admit, no? Also, after their scrap with Afdave, you can hardly blame them for being sceptical that you are here in an honest way.

I just don't accept the current theory.

You are still being to broad to discuss anything. WHAT is your exact objections and give us some examples with that.

I believe it must be reactive and mechanism based.

Okay, but what the he11 do you mean by it? Samples please.

Date: 2006/05/24 20:25:06, Link
Author: Renier
Stj, "alles klar". Dutch?

Date: 2006/05/24 20:58:46, Link
Author: Renier
Sceptic. Okay, we have a topic, the Fossil Record. Let's stick with it a while.

What are your "issues" with the fossil record?

You do understand that for something to fossilise conditions must be right. This does not happen very often. We therefore have no problem with the fact that every single predicted transitional form is not available as fossils. You do understand that, right.

However, where we do find fossils, we find exactly what we would expect (what evolution would predict). We find the "simpler" organisms in the older rock, and the more "complex" or newer organisms in younger rock.

I think the fossils are GREAT evidence for evolution. In fact, we even found some predicted transitional fossils. Lucky eh? We are even so lucky as to have fossils (they are very rare) of soft bodied ancient worm type organisms. We found them in early rock, once again, as predicted by Evolution. We can even trace our own ancestry back to such ancient worm type critters. Sure, we don't have all the transitional fossils, but then, we cannot be reasonable and expect that we should have them all.

You claim to know a lot about genetics. When we look at comparitive dna between organisms, we find exactly what we would expect, as predicted by evolution. Darwin never even had Genetics to look at, yet in later years Genetics added even more meat and proof to the theory of evolution.
Just think of the GULO gene in primates. It is a stunning piece of evidence. It is not the only one (you know there are many), but for me, it is a classic piece.

Just think of Mitochondria! What they are, what they do, where they came from. That an ancient bacteria lives in our own cells and are our little power generators. Evolution can be strange sometimes.

Evolution, when looked at as a whole, say from Bacteria to Human seems too incredible to be true. But taken in little baby steps, with the supporting evidence, it makes so much sense. And there is soo very very much evidence.

The theory of evolution is not 100% perfect, no. Why? Becuase we simply don't have all the data of 4 billion years. Suprise! We don't have data on every single mutation that has ever happened. However, the data that we do have all comes together in support of the Theory. Until data comes along and falsifies it, the Theory of Evolution is still the best we have, and the best by far.

If you have a problem with ToE, then fine. However, don't just attack gaps (or even false gaps and strawmen). Come up with a better theory, and we can all examine it in the light of data that we do have. If it is better than ToE, then I assure you, the scientific world will take notice and start testing it. Until then, don't just moan and whine that ToE is not 110% perfect. GR is not 110% perfect. QT is not 110% perfect. String Theory still has a long way to go, but it seems like there is much promise in it, even just for a more powerful maths model.

Back to the fossils. If you are going to point out that there are gaps, then save yourself the effort. We KNOW there are gaps. In fact, gaps are to be expected. But know that at many places there are not gaps, and this data that we have all just once again tells us the ToE is on the right track.

Date: 2006/05/24 23:20:48, Link
Author: Renier
Very very interesting Thread.

Emotional Abuse: (also known as: verbal abuse, mental abuse, and psychological maltreatment) Includes acts or the failures to act by parents or caretakers that have caused or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. This can include parents/caretakers using extreme and/or bizarre forms of punishment, such as confinement in a closet or dark room or being tied to a chair for long periods of time or threatening or terrorizing a child. Less severe acts, but no less damaging are belittling or rejecting treatment, using derogatory terms to describe the child, habitual scapegoating or blaming.

i.e., “That’s God’s punishment for what you did;” “When you do that, you make Jesus sad” “Do you want to go to ####?” etc., when spoken to 3-6 year olds.

I don't know if the examples given would really fit the criteria above.

First example. “That’s God’s punishment for what you did;”. How is this different from "No Games as punishment for what you did"?

Second Example “When you do that, you make Jesus sad”. How is this different from "You make Daddy/Mommy sad if you do X"?

The he11 thing hovever might be something. Eternal punishment by torture of the worst kind. This does appear to be abuse, to me anyway.

Everyone here knows I am an ex-fundie. The he11 thing is pretty intense, for fundies, to say the least. It was for me anyway. I think the whole role of he11 in fundie religion is blackmail, threatening with eternal torture. If a child grows up believing he11 is true, then it is the single most powerful factor that makes him adhere (and defend) the given doctrine.

I recall the stage when I started doubting the Christian Doctrine. I would have left it easier and earlier were it not for the he11 factor. It might sound stupid, but reaching the stage where you know your faith will not take you to heaven (and by default land you in he11) is pure torture. It makes it even worse then you lost the ability to have faith in all the things you were told. So, you are going to he11 and can't help it, and, there is nothing you can do about it.

The chalenge would be to define and prove the behavioral, cognitive, emotional or mental disorders that arrive from fundie upbringing. I wish Afdave would let us study him :-)

However, I think any state would be LOATH to interfere in religious upbringing. There are various political reasons. The fundie population in America is substantial, and polititians are not going to do that much and offend them. It's voters that count in the end.

Another problem is drawing a line between acceptable indoctrination (standard Christian upbringing) and unacceptable upbringing (Fundie). To define a scale where you say "X" is ok but "1.2X" is not. I don't see this as easy or anything that will surface soon.

Some posters has sugested that each case would have to be seen on it's own merit. More detailed analysis is required on the effects that Fundie stuff has on kids. We should also remember that the effects would differ from child to child. I know a fundie pastor who has three kids. One of his kids is fundie and the other two are agnostic. Why did one kid fall for it and the other two not?

Futhermore, are there any studies that shows that the ratio of disorders are more for fundies than non fundies?

Then, lets assume there is a court case and 2 (loving) fundie parents gets convicted on child abuse. The kids are taken away from them. Does this help? Would the kids be better of with foster parents?

It is a very sensitive subject this. I don't have any answers to this, although if a way could be found to limit the cultish parents from damaging a child by indoctrination, then I would be all for it. Fundies however will raise he11 before submitting to such a thing, of this I will assure you.

Date: 2006/05/25 00:44:03, Link
Author: Renier
I cannot amend any of my posts. I get an error, something like this "You are not permitted to use this board...blah blah... you are logged in as Renier"


Date: 2006/05/25 02:59:32, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave, Sceptic already said he thinks creationism is crap. We all agree with him on that one. It is the biggest load of BS.

Date: 2006/05/25 03:24:10, Link
Author: Renier
Oh yes, and PLEASE have a look at the RATE project. It is a really good example on how not to do science. Well, at least they tried....
RATE debunked

Date: 2006/05/25 03:38:12, Link
Author: Renier
GCT, are you insinuating that ID is religion??? DT would ban your a_ss in a split second :-)

Just ask Afdave. ID is not religion, it's eh... wel... uh... something else...

But this illustrates that the enemy of ID is not science but atheism.

Yeah that's why atheist Ken Miller fried the ID a_ss in dover... oh... wait...

Well, that's why the scientific community is not anti-ID.... oh... eh... cr_ap...

*bangs head *

Date: 2006/05/25 03:55:45, Link
Author: Renier
Before reading this article, I was under the impression that bacterial resistance to anti-biotics might in some way provide evidence for macroevolution.

So you agree evolution (on micro scale) is a well established fact? You have a problem with Macroevolution, no?

What is your definition of macroevolution?

And, allow me a nitpick. Back on the GULO gene. You say the gene was not broken before the fall of man, so that's about 6000 years (in your book), right? So God made a perfect VitaminC gene in all primates, and humans. Then, Adam eats the apple and the gene (in all primates) starts breaking down, in VERY much the same way for all primates and Humans. Correct? The Guinea pig also gets a dose of broken GULO, but in a VERY different way. Okay, I got that. Now, how on earth does your common design argument fit into all this. Was the errors in GULO after the fall the "common design"? So, God designed the error to look the same in all primates (and humans) and designed the error in Gunea pigs (did they also eat of the cursed apple) to look totally different from the one in primates, and humans?

C'mon Afdave, you have to admit, it looks like pure BS. It does not take faith to believe this, it takes stupidity.

Date: 2006/05/25 22:40:19, Link
Author: Renier
Bzzzt... and there it goes. Dial 0800-newironymeter.
For steel, press 1
For stainless, press 2
For Carbon Fibre, press 3
For UD resistent, please hold.

I am really shocked at you guys. You just blew Great_Ape's cover!!! Shame on you!

Date: 2006/05/26 00:42:34, Link
Author: Renier
This quote from PT. Thought it might just help Afdave and GoP. I doubt it though, but it is worth a try.
Posted by fnxtr on May 25, 2006 03:06 PM (e)

FL is guilty of what Sherry Tepper in “The Fresco” called worshipping Scripture instead of God.

From the religious viewpoint, God made the 4-billion+-year-old rocks and gave us the ability to learn about them, but Scripture disagrees with the evidence God gave us.

Who you gonna believe, FL? The world God made, or the Scripture men wrote?

Date: 2006/05/26 01:45:51, Link
Author: Renier
I read the Wiki article on Neutral Theory and cannot see anything wrong with it.

1) I don't see any reasoning that natural selection on a mutation does not happen. It might even strengthen the position of natural selection on mutation, since many times when selective preasures on a population arise there is already a "neutral" alelle present, and is now being selected for because of the advantage that it gives.

2) Sexual selection appears to be selecting on the more neutral allelles, until it has propagated through a population.

3) It is my understanding that a lot of mutations are neutral and not selected for.

What is the issue with this, and why do some people claim it is an alternative to Darwin's theory? As pointed out, the molecular clock technique is possible because of neutral mutations.

Date: 2006/05/26 02:06:06, Link
Author: Renier
The third category is problematic. It seems human nature for children to have invisible playmates, to WANT horoscopes to be true, or UFOs or miracles.

Ah, I really think you got something there. How does the childhood thing of "invisible playmates" differ from the way the fundies construct their "personal" relationship with Jesus?
Some children create "make-believe" friends to fill a specific need. What is this need, and is it possible that fundies are doing the exact same thing?

Date: 2006/05/26 03:06:31, Link
Author: Renier
Sceptic wrote :
Neutral theory isn't exclusive of natural selection, at least not the way I read it.

I think that is one thing we all agree on.

Although Afdave would like to add "Goddiddit" to the theory.

Date: 2006/05/26 03:22:18, Link
Author: Renier
And of course, people at UD are already claiming victory....

Date: 2006/05/26 03:34:08, Link
Author: Renier

:-) Does that make it official?

Date: 2006/05/27 14:32:42, Link
Author: Renier
Hmmm ... huge, abrupt changes you say?  Whole genome duplication!  Wow!  Can you give some examples of this happening today?  In fact, can you give examples of ANY of these abrupt changes?

Flowering plants Dave. But then, I am sure, you would not believe a word any scientist say.

Date: 2006/05/30 01:04:24, Link
Author: Renier
Sorry I am late. Did anyone mention VARVES to Afdave? It's the ones in Greenland, right? I recall Saladin shooting Gish down in flames with that one simple piece of evidence. Anyone here thinks afdave will do better than Gish?

Date: 2006/05/31 01:00:16, Link
Author: Renier
This blog is well over a month old and now has about 30 articles on controversial subjects, and I am still waiting for the lousy sleazebags at Panda's Thumb to take a potshot at it.


"Sniff... boohoohoo. Nobody visists my blog any more ...sniff ...sob"

Date: 2006/05/31 23:54:15, Link
Author: Renier
I am not interested in Afdaves ramblings any more. He is just here to see what arguments we use so that he can start indoctrinating (brain-wash) children against them. He is arrogant and proud of this, thinking he does his fundie god a major favour. Let him lie as much as he wants to. It's not going to stop, it is who he is.

Date: 2006/06/02 03:10:07, Link
Author: Renier
steve, I am going to use this thread to dump this little article.

'We are not entirely human'
02/06/2006 08:35  - (SA)  

# Gene map holds disease secrets

Washington - We may not be entirely human, gene experts said on Thursday after

studying the DNA of hundreds of different kinds of bacteria in the human gut.

Bacteria are so important to key functions such as digestion and the immune

system that we may be truly symbiotic organisms - relying on one another for

life itself, the scientists write in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Their findings suggest that studying bacteria native to our bodies may provide

important clues to disease, nutrition, obesity and how well drugs will work in

individuals, said the team at The Institute for Genomic Research, commonly known

as TIGR, in Maryland.

"We are somehow like an amalgam, a mix of bacteria and human cells. There are

some estimates that say 90% of the cells on our body are actually bacteria,"

Steven Gill, a molecular biologist said.

"We're entirely dependent on this microbial population for our well-being. A

shift within this population, often leading to the absence or presence of

beneficial microbes, can trigger defects in metabolism and development of

diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease."

Scientists have long known that at least 50% of human faeces, and often more, is

made up of bacteria from the gut. Bacteria start to colonise the intestines and

colon shortly after birth, and adults carry up to 100 trillion microbes,

representing more than 1 000 different species.

They are not just freeloading. They help humans to digest much of what we eat,

including some vitamins, sugars, and fibre. They also synthesise vitamins that

people cannot.

"Humans have evolved for million of years with these bacteria. And they provide

essential functions," Gill said.

Germ surprise

Gill and his team sequenced the DNA in faeces donated by three adults. They

found a surprising amount of it came from bacteria.

They compared the gene sequences to those from known bacteria and to the human

genome and found this so-called colon microbiome - the entire sum of genetic

material from microbes in the lower gut - includes more than 60 000 genes.

That is twice as many as found in the human genome.

"Of all the DNA sequences in that material, only one to five percent of it was

not bacterial," Gill said.

"We were surprised."

They also found a surprising number of Archaea, also known as archaebacteria,

which are genetically distinct from bacteria but which are also one-celled

organisms often found in extreme environments such as hot springs.

The donors were healthy adults. None had taken antibiotics for a year, as these

drugs are known to disturb the bacteria in the body.

Gill said his team hopes now to make a comparison of the gut bacteria from

different people.

"The ideal study would be to compare 20 people, 30 people from different ethnic

backgrounds, different diets, drinkers, smokers, and so on, because I think

there are going to be distinct differences," Gill said.

Date: 2006/06/02 03:27:07, Link
Author: Renier
God loves you! Accept that or be tortured forever!

Thanks for that. I just spat coffee all over the screen, and it came through my nose!!!

Date: 2006/06/05 20:06:05, Link
Author: Renier
Harken all! The good news is out. There is a cure (at last) for fundies, and you don't need a prescription for it! And the answer is ...... HERE

Date: 2006/06/06 21:00:33, Link
Author: Renier
Sceptic. First off, the collapsing wave funtion is NOT the only explanation. Using some string theory maths, another model, the transactional wave model was developed. Personally, I like the transactional wave function more than the collapsing wave function because it gets rid of the whole observer requirement and might even go so far to explain gravity etc.

Secondly, your idea of RNA-->DNA popping up in various places (abio-genesis) in perhaps different times. So what of it? What are you predicting? Are you predicting that mammels and fish are from different initial life forms? Are you predicting that Bacteria and Archea are the results from these different life forms?

Personally, I don't have a problem with the model that life arose at different places, in the "beginning". In fact, I think it did happen that way, since some calculation on abio-genesis that I saw predicted that it could happen every 10 000 years, on primitive earth. But, if one life form kicked off, it would have gobbled up other organic molecules that were one their way to life.

The observation is that all life forms (as we know it) shares the RNA-DNA foundation. Yes, it could have started up at different places, but we don't know for sure. We do however know that at least in one place it started. So, one LUCA or many LUCAS really makes no difference to evolution theory right now. Evolution theory is not abio-genesis.

Date: 2006/06/07 00:23:31, Link
Author: Renier
GOP, I don't really care for this discussion, but one little irk I have.

An appeal to Authority is fine and valid in an argument. This is NOT a fallacy. However, there is a fallacy known as "The FALSE appeal to Authority".

Example of a VALID appeal to authority:
1) Prof in Physics, Dr X stated that GR is …

Example of the fallacy
1) Prof in Biology, Prof Y stated that GR is …

Get the idea?

Oh, oh, one more sample of the fallacy, for say, a discussion in Biology.
1) The Bible states that …

Get it yet?

Date: 2006/06/07 00:38:29, Link
Author: Renier
Nobody drinks beer anymore ???

Date: 2006/06/07 02:20:06, Link
Author: Renier
GCT, get some tripple distilled vodca and throw it on the church. Then ....

Date: 2006/06/07 02:44:07, Link
Author: Renier
Eh Dave, let's clear up the Gulo thing. The initial deletion was the same, but due to further mutations (time, lots of time) the genes are no longer the same. Remember they even tried to draw you some pictures on WHY a friggin comparison can be made and that the initial error was the same. We also had a look at the guinea pig to see that the poor critter's GULO mutation was totally different from the mutation that we and chimps share.

So please, start being honest or do you really still not get it? You are a disgrace for your religion.

Date: 2006/06/07 02:51:56, Link
Author: Renier
...and as for the Portuguese thing, get a spine and admit you and/or your source was wrong. It's ok to be wrong sometimes Davey, and you don't have to loose all credibility if you admit it. However, sticking to a lie will not do your reputation good, and this is the reason people are still poking you with the stick that you picked.

Date: 2006/06/07 03:22:47, Link
Author: Renier
Davey, by comparing the mutational differences what Chimps, humans and guinea pigs have. Can you not see the relation??? ?

Date: 2006/06/09 01:22:34, Link
Author: Renier

Date: 2006/06/09 01:31:48, Link
Author: Renier
I have bad memories of Sambuca. Ever since that night I cannot stand the stuff, not even the smell.

Date: 2006/06/09 02:13:09, Link
Author: Renier
Eh, GCT, I think Thordaddy has been banned, so it's no use asking him anything....

Date: 2006/06/09 03:00:04, Link
Author: Renier
(detailed step by step accounts at the molecular level of how individual species evolved by RM+NS alone)

this call for evidence from the same link that rage quoted. Anyone here thinks that even if we could produce such an arm and a leg, from say Bacteria to Fish, that it would stil not convince the fundies? They don't really get it, do they?

Date: 2006/06/09 03:05:43, Link
Author: Renier
It seems that as JS Bach always wrote thanks to Jesus on his manuscripts, so there is an obligation when biologists find amazing things, to give homage somewhere in their paper to the almighty creator EVOLUTION. Otherwise the ignorant “creationists” may give praise where it is not deserved.
from here

Translation :
Sob, snif, boohoo... I want Jeebus to get the praise for this... it's just so unfair!

Date: 2006/06/09 03:29:28, Link
Author: Renier
GCT, yes, I agree. Don't think anyone got through to T-diddy. As for that head banging thing, it's cool, as long as you have some good metal with it :)

Date: 2006/06/15 04:15:33, Link
Author: Renier
hhmmm. I think this Randy bloke might be bit smarter than Afdave. I mean, Afdave came here claiming he will destroy evolution. The only thing he DID destroy was his reputation, if he had any. Another reason I think Randy is smarter than Afdave is that if Randy had ANYTHING he thought he could "destroy" evolution with, he would still be here spilling the beans and slaying the evil minions with his holy words. On the other hand, Afdave thought his holy words would do the slaying, and are still trying to figure out what went wrong, because he must have been sure that God told him to oppose us in here. However, I am sure Afdave came to the conclusion that we are all lost to salvation, else we would have heeded his Godly words.

In the end, we must be suckers, because we are still waiting on Afdave to produce his evidence, although I think Afdave actually meant "faith" and not evidence. It's was just a little typo but he is too proud to admit it.

Come back here Randy and show us what you got. Are you afraid? We promise we will not call anyone who is not an idiot, an idiot. Deal? Don't be scared, we don't bite, although RGD might have fangs :p

Date: 2006/06/15 04:21:19, Link
Author: Renier
Don't be sad for our friend Randy.  I'm sure our comrades over at UD will give a nice big snuggly welcome.  Maybe even posting rights in the near future?

Yeah, untill DaveScot feels slighted and threatens to pay him a personal visit and beat him up, just like DaveScot  threatend to do to JAD.

I'll beat you up on your way outta here! - dt

Date: 2006/06/15 04:26:59, Link
Author: Renier
GCT! You should be ashamed. This is the once in a lifetime chance to speak to the big G, and you ask a silly question (btw, I also want to know, cuase I want one).

However, I do have a question and it is one I have been contemplating for years now. What rocks makes the best pet rocks?

Date: 2006/06/15 04:36:56, Link
Author: Renier
Well Randy, it's not THAT bad being called names. Overall, I think there is good humour in here.

Now, if we're past all that, and someone wants to actually make the topic of discussion the evidence for and against evolution that's certainly great news.  If *I* am to be the topic of discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time.

Well, you aqre a free man in here, and can even open a topic yourself! My I suggest for starters, you evidence against evolution. The evidence for evolution is a lot longer discussion, and could be the main course.

Also, take note. We want evidence. Not faith, not hand waiving, not quote mining. If you are honest about this, then please, feel free and fire away.

Date: 2006/06/15 04:40:22, Link
Author: Renier
I still cannot edit a post once it is posted. I get a "You are not permitted to use this board. You are logged in as Renier..."


Date: 2006/06/15 04:44:07, Link
Author: Renier
I am doing fine, thanks for asking GCT. :p I am sure BWE will be on my case for impersonating him, ie God, ie BWE. lol

Date: 2006/06/20 04:31:21, Link
Author: Renier
Why does only America have this blotto called creationism and the rest of the world only laugh at it? I know it has been attempted in other countries, like the UK, yet all in all the people still laugh at it. Heck, a BIG proportion of Christians laugh at it. In fact, I think the majority of Christians worldwide laugh at it. So, a little population in America think they are God's gift to the world, and that everyone should just agree with them and do what they say, since they say so.

Bite me!

But Dave, please don't stop. Our comedy over here are not nearly as good as the US exclusive creo comedy. I will be sad when the rapture comes, because I will miss the creos a lot. Oh well, back to Python then :)

Date: 2006/06/21 03:08:00, Link
Author: Renier
Good post Louis!

Date: 2006/06/26 01:36:54, Link
Author: Renier
So Afdave is saying that if his God (via another man) tells him to kill woman, children and even babies, that he would do it and be ok with it...


I don't like you Afdave.

Date: 2006/06/28 00:45:16, Link
Author: Renier
Hi Lenny.

I noticed a couple of your comments appeared here at the Bathroom wall. O yes, congrats on that TO post of the month  thingy. I read the post and it was good.

Sir_Toejam also hangs around here, but has a new handle. Ickysomething...

Also said, yes, PT is more upmarket. However, there are some very competent people around here. Debates held with creobots turns out to be very educational and of high quality.

Date: 2006/06/28 02:32:35, Link
Author: Renier
Silk worms of course also have silk (as does other worms). Now, it's a stupid question, but is this trait a seperate evolution path from spiders? I would think so.

Interesting, but here we call the tarantulas "baboon spiders". All in all, we have 3 dangerous spiders here, the worst being a light (beige) little spider with a dark mouth area and dark feet tips. Called a "Sakspinnekop".

There is also a very interesting spider called a "Roman". Red hunting spider. I read somewhere that they are closer related to scorpians than other spiders. It's mouth is totally different from other spiders and it has no venom. It will however kill a scorpian in "combat". They also have the habit of running from shade area to shade area, thus creating the impression they are chasing humans (running after moving shade). Girls don't like them :)

Date: 2006/06/28 03:02:03, Link
Author: Renier
Lou, I'll see what I can dig up over the "strange" Roman spider.

Our 3 "bed guy" spiders is
1) Sakspinnekop. I'll try and find the english name
2) Black Widow - I have one in my garage door...
3) Violin Spider.

The Tarantula spyders don't rate as dangerous over here. About a year ago, met one in my garden. Nice hairy fellow. Scientific name ended with "Lightfooti" and I think they only live here in the Cape Town region. The article stated they are very good jumbers and can give a bit of a nasty bite as Tarantulas go.

Date: 2006/06/28 03:07:27, Link
Author: Renier
Ok big boys, brace yourself... Red Roman Spider....

Mr Jaws

Date: 2006/06/28 03:15:31, Link
Author: Renier
Oh look. Turns out they are not spiders after all...

good site with photos

Date: 2006/06/28 03:34:41, Link
Author: Renier
Sicarius  hahnii from the Northern Cape and Namibia is possibly the most lethal spider in the world. Fortunately, due to its habitat, it is rarely encountered and appears reluctant to bite. I have often scooped up a Sicarius by hand while looking for reptiles. This spider should not be handled, as there is no effective treatment.

From this site

I forgot to mention the six eyes crab spider as another dangerous bloke, but people VERY seldom encounter them.

It also metions it is a very "old spider" and silk is only used for the egg sacs.

Then, the "sakspinnekop"...


Date: 2006/06/28 03:39:55, Link
Author: Renier
I wonder if that means they are irreducibly complex and intelligently designed?

Yeah, flagella, I also cringed when I saw that word. Please don't tell Behe, or we wil never hear the bloody end of it :) Or, you want to make some money? Write a ID book about the designed spider @ss.

Date: 2006/06/28 03:55:02, Link
Author: Renier
Seems like the violin spider is a common customer over at the US and here. I know here aree some species that is only native to Namibia. The 6 eyes means they are related to the crab spider, I think. Will have to check a tree to see. Say, what other dangerous 8 legged critters you got over there? We have a bigger type of black widow here, the brown widow. Not as poisonous as the black widow, but a nasty bite...

Date: 2006/06/28 04:58:54, Link
Author: Renier
Cool trick with the hairs. Almost like the fundies when they are

Wonder of the tarantulas here in Southern Africa would be "old" or "new" world... I'll ask one tonight.

Cool storie. Guys in the army, fighting on the borders, used to catch scorpians, spiders and other stuff and pit fight them in ration boxes. The Red Roman spider always won the scorpians. I recall that the spider disabled the scorpian's sting first. However, the real champ was a purple kind of millipede, demolishing every foe.

Date: 2006/06/28 23:42:52, Link
Author: Renier
and even managed to get nailed by a South American centipede

I said the champion in the box fight was a millipede. Sorry, meant centipede.

Lenny, I recall reading that a tarantula here in Cape Town area is the most dangerous of all (lightfooti). This only means you get a headache when they bite you :-)

We also have another big spider here that is not dangerous. It's called a "rain spider" and they do get pretty big. I'll see if I can find a photo.

Yes, the Red Roman is of the "Sun Spider" type. They do look mean. With jaws like that...*shudder*

Lou, you ever got the "purple" awards? Sounds like something we have in my reinactment group...

Date: 2006/06/29 20:54:06, Link
Author: Renier
Thanks for the info Lenny.

That centipede that bit you. What type of toxins?

Date: 2006/07/01 08:42:11, Link
Author: Renier
Oh woe is us! Evolution the evil whore of Baybylon is seducing our sons. Woe is us. Sniff * boohooo* sob * sniff.

People actually gets paid to write such junk?

Date: 2006/07/01 09:15:08, Link
Author: Renier
Lenny, and all the other spiderma... uh, spider fans out there.

I found the rain spider here (same site as the above links)
Link here

They get prerry big, as far as spiders go. How big does that Orb Spider in Florida get? I have a couple of these "rain spiders" in my back yard.

A friend of mine kills all rain spiders in his house, by request(command) of his wife. She had a shower one evening and was toweling her back when she felt something "scratchy" between the towel and her back. hehehehehe..... Needless to say, her reaction was pretty intense.

As for handling any spider, like you plucking the orb spiders off, It's just not me, but then, the only insects to ever zap me were wasps and bees. My father used to farm bees, and as for the wasps, well, I deserved it.

Date: 2006/07/01 09:36:01, Link
Author: Renier
Just a correction. It appears as if the "baboon spiders" are not actually Tarantulas. From this article here

It is however a VERY interesting article to read. It mentions that the baboon spiders are not true spiders as should be classified such as scoprians is to the spider family.

I don't know how accurate this site is, but it refers to our own local verion of "Tarantulas" as Wolf Spiders. They are very small. See Here.

Date: 2006/07/01 09:55:31, Link
Author: Renier
I read that the 'pede that bit you is a nasty customer. It's venom contains Seretonin. Why would 5-HT be used as a venom?

Date: 2006/07/01 12:31:33, Link
Author: Renier
Ok, so it enhances pain. It is however a vital chemical for brain working. We all now about SSRIs and such. Just strange that it is used against, say, humans, as a toxin, and at the same time it is vital to humans (mental well-being). The world can truly be strange.

Serotonin (5-HT) is released at serotonergic synapses, which are generally inhibitory, it subserves many functions such as mood, eating, sleeping, pain, dreaming and arousal.
From here

Correct me if I am wrong, be it appears as if Serotonin  would enhance pain if interacting with pain receptors, in say, a finger? It's hard to find sources on this.

Date: 2006/07/01 12:40:19, Link
Author: Renier
The thing is guthrie, Tom Flannery is just spouting a whole lot of BS and he won't be able to back up ANY of his claims. Sounds a lot like ID huh? In fact, ID and religion have so much in common, it is one and the same thing :)

Date: 2006/07/01 12:48:04, Link
Author: Renier
Carlson ... Where did you get the idea that all land animals were cooped up in the ark?  Only two of every kind (7 of some) were in the ark.  There were many animals outside trying to escape the rising floodwaters.  It is perfectly plausible for an animal to make footprints in mud, then the footprints got covered up with a new layer of mud.

Fcuk this is funny. You are gonna get your @ss fried over the flood...

Date: 2006/07/02 01:52:12, Link
Author: Renier
It is true that creos make the Evolution = Atheism = Evil assumption.

But, IMHO, the real reason evolution is being targeted by them is that it simply implies that a literal Bible is not always right. If the Bible is wrong on one thing, it can be wrong on many things or it could even be wrong on all things. The thought of this is too much for creos to even consider, thus they attack any science that could be a problem for them. In the same way, they see "theistic evolutionists" as simply blinded by the evil world (atheists).

Date: 2006/07/02 20:39:44, Link
Author: Renier
Did afdave handle the varve issue yet?

Date: 2006/07/05 04:04:21, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave, the article you cite contradicts your own position, even though both are BS. The article claims that the water carved it out of the mountain, and you are still stuck in the mud, remember?

Date: 2006/07/06 02:48:02, Link
Author: Renier
I have not yet read the book, but it is next on my list. Can't wait!

I enjoy life much more as an atheist than when I used to be a fundie. The day I became "free" was the day I decided that fine, I'll go to #### for doubting and not believing any more, but at least I will be honest. Also, I don't like harp music... ;)

Life is good. So much to do, so little time! My only regrets are spending whole weekends (year in and year out) at church, bible school etc. I could have been drinking beer! :) Have to catch up.

Things that depress me are what humans do to this planet and to this life. Fundies don't care, because their god will come and remake the whole earth soon. In the mean time, they have no problem messing things up, so they deny global warming etc and really don't give a rat's tootie in the end. They still think they "rule" over it all, as their god commanded them to do.

As an atheist, I started viewing myself as part of this universe. Stardust that became alive. Respect for animals and plants, since they have as much "right" to be here as I have.

Date: 2006/07/06 21:51:15, Link
Author: Renier
When religious people hear that I am an atheist, they sometimes ask me what is my purpose in life then. The answer is simple, "to live!". For some reason, many religious people think that if one is an atheist that that person becomes a detached, pessimistic robot. Nothing could be futher from the truth.

I do think the atheist life view is a very good one. We don't look for supernatural explanations for things. good or bad, that happens in our lives. We understand that "life" happens, and with it comes the good and bad. Like everyone else we enjoy the good and try and deal with the bad as best we can.

My own view is very much naturalistic and deterministic. This becomes even more relevant when dealing with people. I understand that people do the things they do due to various factors. Some of these factors are upbringing, brain chemistry, dna, past experience, circumstances etc. Afdave really has no free choice in his actions. He does what he does because of who he is. He is who he is due to all these various factors that shapes/shaped him and influence his decisions. Bottom line, he cannot change who he is, none of us can change who we are. There is however one way to change, if the desire is there. It is to change the factors that determines us. Learning and education is a good way to change.

Date: 2006/07/09 23:53:01, Link
Author: Renier
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2006,06:34)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 06 2006,22:44)
my roleplay is strictly the 1600s and I just carry a huge stick/pike and try to knock-over any oposition.

My first weapon choice was the axe, particularly the two-handed daneaxe (always had an emotional sympathy for the Vikings -- anti-authoritarian free-roamers, ahhh, what a way of life).  After a while, I switched to longsword.

Alas, both of those require brawn to swing around and use effectively, and I am not a brawny guy.  Hence, the rapier is far better suited for me.  

Interestingly, my intellectual fighting tactic is similar.  While I do put out some long swingy speeches occasionally, I much prefer the quick pithy single verbal thrust that goes straight to the heart.  ;)

I am quite involved in re-enactment. Prefer a Sword and shield or spear and sword. Pole-weapons are also nice to intimidate someone with, as long as you can maintain range. I have no luck with a basterd sword or great sword. I am pathetic with a rapier... but quite comfy with a broadsword.

Date: 2006/07/10 21:12:19, Link
Author: Renier
Lenny, the Viking shield walls, sounds like SCA?

Date: 2006/07/12 21:03:13, Link
Author: Renier
It is interesting to see how many re-enactors there are that visists this forum.

I belong to the SCA here in South Africa. Still small. The DVD of Estrella war XX is awesome. So many people having a nice good war. Guthrie, your group, is it "live steel"?

Date: 2006/07/12 21:32:16, Link
Author: Renier
Oh great! Someone just dropped Kent E Hovind's dvd, "Age of the Earth" on my desk...

Date: 2006/07/12 22:10:54, Link
Author: Renier

If you use live steel, what is your armour requirements for going up against, say, a spear or pole-axe?

My own SCA persona is early period Swedish (Viking - 980). Busy making myself a nice centre grip shield.

Some friends and myself play with blunt steel swords (2mm edge) and are thinking of forming a "live steel" group here, outside of the SCA of course. We don't do actual bouts with the live steel yet, only a fairly fast unpowered "sword dance", and I love it. The sound of steel on steel just does it for me.

Date: 2006/07/12 22:19:39, Link
Author: Renier
I remember having the same thing a while ago. It's not moderation, as far as I can recall. I think it might have something to do with certain words being caught, perhaps by the spam filter.

Date: 2006/07/13 00:50:40, Link
Author: Renier

Thanks for replying. I am fairly hungry to talk to other re-enactors.

As you know, we don't fight with live steel in the SCA, we use Rattan. Our armour standards ar such (metal helm with grill etc) that we can do full powered and fast combat. We also have limited target areas, ie knees and below and the wrists and hands. All else goes. Even with the Rattan it gets "brutal" and I always have a nice bruise, somewhere. Still, it is great fun!

As for my Viking persona, I don't really know, expect that I love the old norse mythology and related icelandic sagas. Also, I can play as a "pagan/heathen". Yeah, the armour aint that great, like say Gothic plate armour, but it still looks good. I am busy with a maile "suit". ####, lots of rings.

The sword and shield is one of my favorite styles. It's nice to stick/press the shield into the "enemy's" sword arm bend and prevent him from striking back. It's nice to rush a pole-axe and stick the shield on the "enemy's" chest to prevent use of his weapon. We also have "knights" in the SCA. One from Sweden and one from Finland recently visited us and we got our @sses handed to us on a silver plate.

I know swordforum, but haven't been there for a while. You ever heard of "Tournament Productions"? Those guys are nuts! I had a look at the link about your group. Looks very interesting. Do you guys allow "gappling" during combat?

The fencing masks won't work with a broad sword, I don't think so anyway. It might take the first blow but it will crumple. We use 1.6 mm plate helmets with a grill in front. That would be better for live steel, no?

Date: 2006/07/13 01:26:28, Link
Author: Renier

It's great that you allow gappling. That's one historical aspect that the SCA lacks. I would also LOVE to bash someone with the shield, but that's not allowed, since you can do serious damage with that kind of weight. It does sometimes happen in "war" scenarios, as I am sure Lenny would be able to tell you. I've seen clips of viking shield walls charging over people...

I'll check up on the fencing masks you talk about. Maybe it would be able to take a blow from a viking broad sword, but we will have to test it first. We have HEAVY gorgets that will protect the neck.

Find a SCA shire or chapter and pay them a visit. They also do fencing (rapier and dagger, bucker, cloak) etc, so it might be a change to "poke" some other people that use different styles (to test your own). They don't grapple, however. Nice chatting to you about this!

Date: 2006/07/16 23:31:42, Link
Author: Renier
Fundies are strange people, take it from an ex-fundie.

You people have to realise that Afdave sees you all as "Children of Satan". It's not to say he thinks you are satanists, but he really believes that you are under the devil's influence and that the devil lies to all of you. He there fore won't believe anything you say, since it is the "Spirit of this World" that is manifest in you (and me).

He trusts his fellow xtians more than he will ever trust you. If you bring data that contradicts his sources (fellow xtians), he will discard it as distortions and lies. His resistance to the data, in Dave's view, is simply God protecting him from the lies of this World, and is in Dave's world evidence that his God is with him and on his side.

He also risks too much to even entertain the thought that what you guys are saying might be right. He risks his family, past, present and future. He won't take that risk, and becuase he denies any truth from you he feels secure in his "knowledge" of God. Futhermore, in Dave's world, he is an entity with God living in side of him. He will acknowledge some simple mundane mistakes, but he cannot see any truth in your evidence since that would mean that Satan got the better of God, and Dave will not let that happen, ever. Fundies view themselves as the only true children of God, and in a way it is true. The Bible is clear that you need to be extreme in order to be a disciple of God (apologies to moderate Christians, its just my view).

The really sad part is that all this just makes Afdave the very thing that he hates, and that is a dishonest backstabber that lies and defends other lies with his life. He does not know it though. He thinks we are the ones supporting lies with "wordly" data and that we are blinded by Satan. The truth is that Afdave is trapped. It will take great sacrifice and effort for him to be free of worship of the Bible and this is the very thing that Afdave thinks is a trick from the Devil. As such, he cannot allow it and will never see your reason and evidence, less he be tempted by the Devil and allow the thought that maybe the Bible is not all it's cracked up to be. He has one God, and that is the Bible. He will defend it with his life and go back to his YEC buddies and tell them how he resisted the devil here and triumphed with the "Word of God". The more he is mocked, the more he thinks he is doing the right thing, since the Bible says he will be persecuted for his belief.

Trip down memory lane... anyway, just trying to tell you guys that evidence will never convince Afdave. He is not here to be convinced or because he has any doubt on the YEC position. He is here to try and convert you. Very noble, since he thinks the Devil has you by the short and curlies. If Dave wanted the truth, he would be out hunting for it himself.

Date: 2006/07/17 01:51:17, Link
Author: Renier
stevestory, You pretty much nailed it on the head. You can add one step to it, the "Miracle Factor". When there is no evidence, or there is evidence to the contrary, they simply call the old card of miracle.

You can throw lots and lots of evidence against Noah's flood. In the end, when the fundie is cornered, he can still shrug miracle and leave feeling victorious.

It's like the argument with Afdave over the footprints in the sandstone. In Dave's mind, it could have happened during the flood, and it must have, else the flood is false, and Dave "knows" the flood is true, since the bible says it is.

Anyway, your sample of their reasoning is really very good. They always look for a way out.

Date: 2006/07/18 00:56:41, Link
Author: Renier
Hovind is arogant and simply a dishonest liar. As Lenny says, it seems like Ceaser will be getting his chunk after all. However, I am sure the fundies will love him for his "boldness"...

Date: 2006/07/18 01:02:07, Link
Author: Renier
Renier- the way you put it I'm amazed the enlightenment ever happened at all.

I sometimes wonder myself.

Date: 2006/07/19 01:08:52, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave. I don't know about "PT's decline". However, I do find it amusing that you are standing up for DaveScot. In fact, DaveScot thinks your YEC position is full of sh*t... why don't you take it up with him at UD and we can all have a nice laugh on this side.

Ladies and gentleman, we are pleased to announce the coming match. I this corner we have Afdave with his YEC "rapid flood major f-up theory" gloves. In the opposite corner we have DaveScot with his... uh... Intelligent Corrosion theory. Ding ding.

Date: 2006/07/19 01:13:04, Link
Author: Renier
What the he_ll??? What did I miss? Where, when, why, who???

Date: 2006/07/23 01:54:44, Link
Author: Renier
Dave wrote:
OA ... Can you read the original languages in which Herodotus' works were written?  How about Tacitus?  Josephus?  Berosus?

No.  You trust the translators.  There's your answer.

Well, we don't claim that these works areinspired by some Divine, do we? Futher, if science throws doubt on some of the things contained in these great works, we will take the evidence and conclude that there are HUMAN errors in the writings. No big deal, and at least it is honest.

But since you mention Tacitus and Josephus... If Jesus was such an imposing figure that had such a great influence, why is there no other documents outside of the Bible that mentions him and his great deeds? I mean, Tacitus and Josephus wrote at about that time, so why did they not know about him. Hint : The Josephus documents were kept by the Catholic church, and they might just have wondered the same thing and felt obliged to "correct" Josephus. In fact, The Catholic church even felt obliged to correct the gospels and other documents that you take as the unaltered Word of God. But hey, let me give you a little hint. At one stage the Catholic church faced some serious competition by another Christian group that claimed that Christ did not rise or come in the "flesh" (but in the spirit). So, they took the liberty of making sure that this new doctrine gets crushed and outlawed. So, what whould they have added? These perhaps?

Romans 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  
Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Hebrews 3:12  Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

1 John 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2 John 1:10  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (1:11) For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Also, looking at the top versus, I hope you don't have any friends that are not "believers"...

And then, just to be nasty and show you something about your own belief and the strenght of it... You are sure the Bible is God's pure unchanged word and to be taken seriously and literally... so, do it.

"Luke 6:27-35 verse 30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."

Thanks super faithfull pure Christian Davey. Send my thy money...

Date: 2006/07/24 02:38:45, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave smirks :
1.  I have not any part of the Bible which anyone has proven to be untrue.  Sometimes a statement appears untrue at first, but upon closer inspection, it proves true after all.

Ok. Some questions to the great Bible scholar who goes by the name of Afdave...

Questions about the resurection of Jesus (or the SUPPOSED resurection) :
1) How many angel/s was/were at the tomb.
2) Were they inside or outside of the tomb when the first people arrived
3) Who was the first people to arrive at the tomb?

Simple questions with straight answers. Let's here what your errorless Bible says about it...

Date: 2006/07/24 02:52:09, Link
Author: Renier
selfishgene, welcome.

As Ud themselves have said before, it is not a forum for debate or where critique of any ID concepts has a right to be. It might be tolerated, but all in all the forum is a special, wamr and cosy place where ID people can croon about their own insight and importance. Oh, and of course to preach to one another.... It really is just a religious blog trying to sound scientific. Sad thing is, the religion is poor and the science is just weak pseudo-science.

Date: 2006/07/24 04:03:54, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave writes:
2.  I think the parts that Jesus said were true and the parts He commissioned to be written are the ones we accept as 'Inspired by God.'  Jesus confirmed the inspiration of the OT and he commissioned the apostles to write the NT.  So I take both to be true.

i must have missed that. Where did Jesus tell them to write the New Testament? You got a verse for me please?

Date: 2006/07/24 22:59:38, Link
Author: Renier
Diogenes, you are right. It was a poor post from me.

Afdave wrote:
Thank you, Diogenes, for pointing out Renier's goofy claims about Tacitus and Josephus hardly mentioning Jesus ... Renier, I'll continue to assume your a smart guy, you just misfired no doubt ...

Eh, goofy claims?

Diogenes was right that I should have been more specific. I did not think the reference in Josephus would count, for this reason.

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The above text came from a version that was in possession of the church. Also, Josephus was not a Christian, so this passage seems rather odd. Other versions of his manuscript does not contain this passage at all. Heck, even Origen tried to use the Josephus text to defend xtianity yet fails to mention this passage.

Date: 2006/07/26 23:59:26, Link
Author: Renier
Afdave wrote
Jesus confirmed the inspiration of the OT and he commissioned the apostles to write the NT.

Please answer my question. Where did Jesus tell them to write the NT? One verse will do!

Oh, just to refresh your memory, here are some very simple questions that you appear to have missed.

Questions about the resurection of Jesus (or the SUPPOSED resurection) :
1) How many angel/s was/were at the tomb.
2) Were they inside or outside of the tomb when the first people arrived
3) Who was the first people to arrive at the tomb?

Come one Davey... you can do it!

Afdave wrote: There is no 100% literal, inerrant translation ... But I use NKJV ... it's close ...

How do you know the NKJV is close?

Date: 2006/07/27 20:01:56, Link
Author: Renier
I have a hard time getting any answers out of Dave... let's try again.

Afdave wrote :
Jesus confirmed the inspiration of the OT and he commissioned the apostles to write the NT.

I asked where Jesus told them to write the NT, and Davey replies with this.

He didn't use those words.  If you study the NT, you find that Jesus had a definite small group of "apostles."  They even "elected" another one to replace Judas.  In John 16:13, we find "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. Although we are only given glimpses into this, it is apparent that these apostles were given special authority by Jesus.  Thus the early church only accepted writings as canonical if they were authorized or authored by apostles.  An apostle was one who had a direct commission from Jesus.  Paul received his commission later than the others and the genuineness of his commission was verified by other living apostles.  Contrast this with modern day, self-proclaimed "apostles" whose commission HAS NOT been verified by living apostles who actually lived and walked with Jesus.

So to be clear, Jesus never told them to write the New Testment...

This thing about the Holy Spirit not speaking on it's own authority is a bit freaky eh? So much for the Trinity.

Let's then continue the discussion. Who wrote the following books.

If you could also tell us WHEN they were written, added bonus points to you. (Ps, you need some, you have none).

And I think you missed the questions I have now asked you twice.

Questions about the resurection of Jesus (or the SUPPOSED resurection) :
1) How many angel/s was/were at the tomb.
2) Were they inside or outside of the tomb when the first people arrived
3) Who was the first people to arrive at the tomb?

Come on Bible-Scholar-Davey. Easy peasy!

Date: 2006/07/27 22:49:24, Link
Author: Renier
Diogenes, you are spoiling the trap! :)

I said :
This thing about the Holy Spirit not speaking on it's own authority is a bit freaky eh? So much for the Trinity.

Diogenes replied:
I never quite understood why the trinity was important.  Jesus as god made flesh, Jesus as a portion of god, Jesus as a lesser being than god, they all work pretty much the same IMO.

According to Dave's docrine (I think), they are all equal. So if the Holy Spirit does no speak on his own authority, only what he has heard, from either the Father, or the Son, then it just sounds pretty stupid. Agreed?

As for the Gospels, who wrote them and when they were written, my point would have been that there are no origionals. Thus, the origional manuscript of, say, Mathew, does not exist, only copies. As for the dates and actual authors, nobody really knows, but it does get interesting when you look at the doctrine of salvation, because if Mathew wrote the gospel of Mathew, he never hear of it or forgot to write it down. In fact, the only Gospel that goes on and on about salvation by belief is John.

Questions about the resurection of Jesus (or the SUPPOSED resurection) :
1) How many angel/s was/were at the tomb.

1 (Matthew, Mark) or 2 (Luke, John)


2) Were they inside or outside of the tomb when the first people arrived

Inside (Mark, Luke), Outside (Matthew) or Neither (John has the angel appearing later after Mary fetched the apostles and they left)


3) Who was the first people to arrive at the tomb?

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (Matthew) or
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salmoe (Mark) or
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke) or
Mary Magdalene (John)

So, the 4 Gospels differ as to the account of the resurection. They differ on the number of angels, where the angels were, who came to the tomb first, to who Jesus appeared first etc.

This in itself leaves us with the question. If the Bible is inspired and 100% true, then why did god get so confused over the facts of the resurection? All four Gospels therefore cannot be true.

Date: 2006/07/28 00:16:53, Link
Author: Renier
Quote (Tim @ July 28 2006,04:57)
I just feel sad for his kids. :(

It is sad. What pisses me off is that he is doing it to kids (not just his) with a smug expression on his face...

Date: 2006/07/28 00:36:13, Link
Author: Renier
I'll rate myself as strong atheist. Reason is that I "believe" there is no god, just like I "believe" there is are no pink unicorns. In my view, there is the same amount of evidence for a god than what there is for fluffy pink unicorns. It would still be easy to convince a strong atheist that there is a god, by showing him some scientific evidence. Just wish the fundies will come to realise that gaps in our scientific knowledge is not evidence for any god...

Date: 2006/07/28 03:58:32, Link
Author: Renier
William Kingdon Clifford, one of the greatest men of this century, said: "If there is one lesson that history forces upon us in every page, it is this: Keep your children away from the priest, or he will make them the enemies of mankind."

In every orthodox Sunday school children are taught to believe in devils. Every little brain becomes a menagerie, filled with wild beasts from ####. The imagination is polluted with the deformed, the monstrous and malicious. To fill the minds of children with leering fiends -- with mocking devils -- is one of the meanest and basest of crimes. In these pious prisons -- these divine dungeons -- these Protestant and Catholic inquisitions -- children are tortured with these cruel lies. Here they are taught that to really think is wicked; that to express your honest thought is blasphemy; and that to live a free and joyous life, depending on fact instead of faith, is the sin against the Holy Ghost.

Children thus taught -- thus corrupted and deformed become the enemies of investigation -- of progress. They are no longer true to themselves. They have lost the veracity of the soul. In the language of Prof. Clifford, "they are the enemies of the human race."

So I say to all fathers and mothers, keep your children away from priests; away from orthodox Sunday schools; away from the slaves of superstition.

They will teach them to believe in the Devil; in #### in the prison of God; in the eternal dungeon, where the souls of men are to suffer forever. These frightful things are a part of Christianity. Take these lies from the creed and the whole scheme falls into shapeless ruin. This dogma of #### is the infinite of savagery -- the dream of insane revenge. It makes God a wild beast -- an infinite hyena. It makes Christ as merciless as the fangs of a viper. Save poor children from the pollution of this horror. Protect them from this infinite lie.

This is from Ingersol's writing... sort of had to post it here, as it is on-topic to the tee.

Date: 2006/07/31 04:40:44, Link
Author: Renier
I will now give you a painting on the glory,weight and validity of ID... stand back and be prepared to be amazed...

Yip, you guessed it... nada, just like their "science".

Date: 2006/12/14 04:41:54, Link
Author: Renier
Interesting. Thanks for the post Jason. I think we were all wondering what they were up to.

I just had to cringe when I read that they call themselves "Biologic Institute". However, since the DI appears to be funding this, I would say it is a good thing, since it means less money for them to pump into PR. Funny though, they should have taken the Templeton offer...

Date: 2006/12/14 05:02:44, Link
Author: Renier
BWAHA! After intelligent design being "misunderstood" by everyone else, turns out that they "misunderstand" their own stupid theory!

Yes, it is hard for them not to misunderstand each other since no one knows just what the he_ll their "theory" is.

The only thing that is left of ID is comedy value.

Date: 2006/12/15 02:13:47, Link
Author: Renier
I can picture this already...

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Ok, I got the petri dish prepped with Bacreria X and firmly placed on a King James Bible. This will work, I just know it. All systems go, I repeat, all systems go!"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Prayer group reports they are ready and will start praying in 3...2...1..."

*Moment of holy silence...

*Time passes

* People blink

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "I don't see anything happening. Are you SURE thay are praying?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "I am sure they are praying! Heck, even I am praying..."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "Well, nothing is happening, so they must be doing it wrong! Perhaps the King James should be replaced with a New International Version... hhhmmm"

Creationist "researcher" no 3 : "Maybe they should try praying in tongues...."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"You mean they were NOT praying in tongues? How do you expect this to work if they don't pray in tongues??? Idiot!"

*Radio communication...

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Ok, the Prayer group has actived Praying in Tongues mode. I can hear them from here."

*Time passes, voices rise in religious fervor

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : " Still nothing. What are they praying for?"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "How the #### should they know? It's tongues, remember! Nobody but God nows what the #### they are jabbering about"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "It's driving me nuts, all this bloddy noise, tell them to shut up. It friggin sounds like a bunch of drunk Swiss yodeling! Even the Bacteria seems uneasy and are scattering to the sides!"

Creationist "researcher" no 3 :Who left the Dakins book on the tabel over there next to the hydrogen container????"

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"What, A Dawkins book!! That satanist atheist crap just ruined our experiment! Burn the cursed thing!"

*Bang.. smoke, sparks, lightning

Creationist "researcher" no 1 :"It looks like all the Bacteria died! This is great! It means if you burn atheist books, God... er.. the designer will purify the Earth of these disease causing critters! Praise the Lo... I mean, the Designer. Get me more evil books now!!"

Date: 2006/12/15 06:44:46, Link
Author: Renier
optional ending #4:

* Sever weeks later, while cleaning the lab, someone spots the petri dish...

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "WTF? Look at this. Fungi! Praise! The experiment worked! ... contamination? .. what do you mean contamination? It's those evil Darwinians that has contaminated your mind! Contaminate this " (sticks up middle finger)

Jad : "I told you it was front-loading... PEH!"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "This Meth is good stuff... and... clearly, neon purple and blue fungi is a new species... kind of like a kind kind... good on the eyes."

Creationist "researcher" no 3 : "Pass me the cheese, I mean Meth, I still can't get that darn yodeling out of my head. God, this is ####!"

JAD : "I don't believe in ####, I believe in Einsteins's God"

Creationist "researcher" no 2 : "Shh! designer... designer.."

Creationist "researcher" no 1 : "JAD, You ARE BANNED, I mean... uh.. fired"

JAD : "... just proves I am right, Bitch!"

Date: 2006/12/22 03:57:18, Link
Author: Renier
Cape Town, South Africa. Best city in the world...

Date: 2006/12/27 03:06:41, Link
Author: Renier
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 22 2006,14:01)
Quote (Renier @ Dec. 22 2006,03:57)
Cape Town, South Africa. Best city in the world...

Jujuquisp from Milwaukee disagrees... :p

... and that just proves that nobody is perfect :-p

Date: 2006/12/28 03:12:57, Link
Author: Renier
33, Systems Analyst and professional beer drinker. Say, what hobbies do you blokes have, apart from drinking, that is?

I know Lenny is into being bitten by rare critters.... whatever makes you happy   :p

Date: 2006/12/28 04:44:49, Link
Author: Renier
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2006,17:51)
now they get to win either way! Must be nice and simple being a ID supported over at UD. Dont have to think much, and you get free ice cream and treats from DS the performing seal. bac-flag flavour.

59. Jack Krebs  // Dec 27th 2006 at 6:40 pm  
If one hypothesizes that design is implemented at the genetic level, or even at the sub-molecular level within the genome, then one might expect the implementation of the design of the flagellum in this hypothetical situation to appear to us as “step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations each functional in its own right.” There would be nothing deceptive about this - it would just be the way the designer works.

So it can still be IC, but built up stepwise, as evilution might have done? Waaaa?

It's hard to believe that some of these people are not really Anti-ID when they spout garbage like this! So "evilution" can be true, but it's design in any case every step of the way? Waaaa?

Are these people for real? Somebody needs to make a 10c docu-drama about the deluded folk that think "darwinism" is coming to a crashing end "some time soon". Vapourware we call that for computer software long time promised. Vapourscience? Vapourlabs....

And the big deal they are making about re-issuing Behe's book? Must be 1000 books coming out a month with real science in them, at all levels, and no doubt all of it directly contradicts their position. Which they've declined to defend in court, or in the labs.

C'mon DS, spend some of that $$$ on some real darn tootin ID science! A Nobel awaits! If you get it, make sure Dembski does not get hold of the mic on the night, we know how much he loves his fart jokes!

I know Jack Krebs is anti-ID, and very active in fighting ID. I think he was playing with them to perhaps admit that *if* there was a designer, then he might be designing in the same way that evolution works. Makes sense, since the IDiots have no bloody clue what God.. uh.. the Designer does, or how he does it.

And you are right of course, they get to win either way, since magic can make anything happen... However, since we won't settle for "Magic" as an explanation, they feel they are being persecuted... shame...

Date: 2006/12/28 05:32:19, Link
Author: Renier
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 28 2006,05:15)
yes, I read some of his later posts and it does seem he was playing with them.

There's a law about this one though, like Godwins. Something like "if you are pretending to talk like a creationist then somebody will come along and believe it". I guess that somebody was me today :)

I have been cought out by it myself a couple of times. When the *real* thing and say, *parody* does not differ... oh darn it!

Date: 2006/12/28 06:29:24, Link
Author: Renier
Its looking more like only a matter of time before ID becomes a small subset of creationism.

It has never been anything else... although the comedy value of ID has been better than creationism at large. Take creationism, dress it up in a clown suit and viola! ID.

Date: 2006/12/28 06:34:16, Link
Author: Renier
Last time anyone asked about hobbies, it turned out that a surprising number of us had been or were involved in re-enacting.

Drat, that might have been me bringing up the topic. Oh well, take 2, it is however interesting to hear (read) what people do in their spare time.

Date: 2006/12/28 06:45:59, Link
Author: Renier
I agree that the comedy value will be lost though.  It would be fun watching DS get absorbed slowly into the creationist structure.  Or maybe he'll set out on his own like JAD.

Well, recalling the antics of DS trying to keep the religious at UD from saying the Big G word.... perhaps they will yet have their revenge and ban him... eye for an eye, y'know...

Date: 2006/12/28 07:29:47, Link
Author: Renier
As some people here already know, I am still quite heavily involved in re-enactment. Also do spearfishing...

Well then, since we are *introducing* ourselves a bit, anyone want to volunteer some info on what music they like? As for me: Rammstein, Sabbath, Iron Maiden etc, mixed in with some old Goth... Led Zeppelin, Nightwish....

Date: 2007/01/08 03:26:17, Link
Author: Renier
Quote (CloneBoySA @ Jan. 08 2007,02:51)

I'm from South Africa, more specifically Durban on the east coast. Finishing off my Master's in Mechanical Engineering, and hopefully starting my doctorate soon.


A fellow South African at last!  :D

Date: 2007/01/09 04:59:41, Link
Author: Renier
Yeah, Durban is a good distance from civilisation, aka, Cape Town :-)

David, if you are ever here again, drop me a PM a week or so before your visit. We can go and hit some pubs. Bring your calculator with, we will need to predict how long it will take to crawl to the next pub :-p

Date: 2007/01/09 07:59:03, Link
Author: Renier
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Jan. 09 2007,07:13)
Quote (Renier @ Jan. 09 2007,04:59)
Yeah, Durban is a good distance from civilisation, aka, Cape Town :-)

David, if you are ever here again, drop me a PM a week or so before your visit. We can go and hit some pubs. Bring your calculator with, we will need to predict how long it will take to crawl to the next pub :-p

I should be in Cape Town later this year - got to go visit a few prisons  :D

Visit a few prisons?

What time of the year are you coming down here?

Date: 2007/01/11 02:45:32, Link
Author: Renier
Rkootknir! Another South African!

Oh, I still remember Jeremy Taylor... not that I wanted to!  ???

Anyway, the offer stands. Anyone who will be visiting Cape Town, PM me. I check ATBS on weekdays.

Date: 2007/01/17 01:05:59, Link
Author: Renier
My inpression of GOP is that he is a young man and still possible to educate. I doubt that he is a dyed in the wool creationist.

Nietzsche would have had something to say about such ideals :p

Anyhows Louis, don't let GoP get under your skin. Oh, and don't leave either!!!

Date: 2007/01/22 00:47:56, Link
Author: Renier
*turns nasty acid green*....

Sounds like you guys had great fun!

Date: 2007/01/26 04:20:48, Link
Author: Renier
I have not been over at UD for some time, so I thought I will have a look at some of the threads...

*** Warning, irony meters unplugged! ***

From here

TerryL presents :

I’d like to think that the future of atheism is bleak–except for the annoying tendency of human beings to believe whatever the #### they want to believe.

Darwinism is a case in point. There is scant evidence FOR it, mountains of evidence AGAINST it, and yet well-educated, intelligent people still hold it to be true, and are willing to castigate all doubters and dissenters as “ignorant, stupid, or insane” (to quote Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker.)

and goes on to describe someone without faith...

This is not to say that all evidence says whatever we want it to say, but merely that the tendency to believe whatever one wants to believe is a profoundly HUMAN tendency–and thus, atheism, however poorly supported, will never be eliminated. Too bad. It takes much more faith to be an atheist than to be a theist.

as having faith....

Quality Tard, no preservatives added - All Natural.

Date: 2007/01/26 07:20:59, Link
Author: Renier

Off topic, but just a little good news, from my side. A bloke that works with me used to be a literal reading creationist. He onced dumped one of Hovind's DVDs on my desk... Lucky for me, it was the same day Hovind got arrested :-)

Anyhow, today I told him Hovind (Dr. TaxEvader) got around 10 years. So, the bloke says he has been thinking about all this stuff and came to the conclusion that Hovind is lying about the 6000 year old earth, only attacking the older earth model and giving no positive evidence for a 6000 year old earth. Guess that makes him a OEC now, but at least its one step up.

Another small victory, I got Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" removed from the science section at a local big bookstore. It is now filed under religion. It was quite an effort, since the "second in charge" is a creationist that though they had the obligation to present "alternatives" to evolution. *sigh*

Date: 2007/02/02 02:24:59, Link
Author: Renier
Sharks! Now THERE, is a topic. I do quite a bit of spearfishing here in South Africa and have been on a cage dive at Gansbay to see some "whites". Awesome creatures. Would love to hear some stories STJ! Open a thread....

Date: 2007/02/05 04:06:30, Link
Author: Renier
Lost a finger??? hhmm. Truth to tell, I do have scars on my body where a hammerhead shark bit me. Wel actually, to be more precise, it is on my thumb :-) Taking out the hook somehow my thumb landed in it's mouth. Let's see, the shark was about  60 odd cm long :-)

Date: 2007/02/23 02:09:43, Link
Author: Renier
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 20 2007,12:15)
Quote (snoeman @ Feb. 19 2007,23:14)
...By far, the best part of the evening was getting to know Jedidiah.  As it turns out, he's been following the Evolution v. Creationism thing longer than any of us in the AtBC Seattle group.  In fact, he's been a regular reader of talkorigins since the BBS days of the early '90s; except at that time, he was a creationist.

Huh? Well, a funny thing happened: Jedidiah paid attention to the evidence.  He was persuaded that the data supporting evolution couldn't be reconciled with a literalist interpretation of the bible, and now is strongly irritated by the blatant dishonesty of the DI...  

Jebidiah's story there sounds very similar to mine. Except he did it first.

Ja, same here. TalkOrigins also did it for me. That and a debate between Gish and Saladin that I found on

Date: 2007/02/27 04:35:43, Link
Author: Renier
(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through
purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?
Understand that this question does not ask that the Creator be given a name. To
name the Creator is a matter of faith...

...(2) Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a
Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?...

Some nasty, arrogant assumption in there that an evil person might exploit. Can you imagine their faces when:

"The conclusion of this report is that it cannot be determined if a supernatural being created the universe or not. However, let it be stated for the record that the closest creationist theory with regards to the various science disciplines is.... HINDU! The recommendation, based on the initial request (see (2)), is therefore that Hindu creationism be taught in all science classes as an alternative to the natural sciences."  :p  :D

Date: 2007/03/23 01:51:08, Link
Author: Renier
Have a stunning day and drink too much!

Date: 2007/05/18 03:12:16, Link
Author: Renier
Don't these people ever learn?

Reflecting back on my own school life in South Africa (1991). We had compulsery Bible classes, about 2 hours a week. It was all focused on the doctrine of the NG Church (Nederduits Gereformeerd = Dutch German Reformed). Apart from that, we used to pray and pray and pray. Praying at the start of each day, at the end of the day, even before certain classes, if the teacher was religious. We did not mind the official praying before exams because, hey, every little bit helps :-) At the start of the week, on a Monday morning, the whole school would assemble in the hall and there would be a sermon, about 30 minutes long. Heck, if you did not close your eyes during a prayer, and a teacher saw it, you would get 3 shots with a plank on the ass! Hurts like hell, I know, I had many :-) The whole education system was called ("Christian Higher Education"). The apartheid government endorsed the NG Church and that may very well be the reason why the NG doctrine was the "official" doctrine in the Afrikaans schools. Of course, the NG church endorsed the apartheid governement too.

Someone from my school once saw me wearing a Gothic t-shirt (I think it was Sisters of Mercy) and reported me to to the school principle. I got "called in" and was accused of "satanism". Almost got expelled over a friggin t-shirt.

*modified for accuracy

Date: 2007/05/30 02:01:08, Link
Author: Renier
I miss those long PT threads.

Date: 2007/06/20 01:40:30, Link
Author: Renier
Ichthyic, thanks a million for this thread. I love sharks. I even have a collection of fossilised White's teeth Blue-grey colour).

I often do spear fishing here in the Western Cape (South Africa). I have been spear fishing all my life and have never ever ever seen a Great White (or other dangerous shark, such as the Zambezi and Tiger sharks in the warmer waters) while spear fishing.

About four years ago I went to Gansbaai for a cage dive. Conditions were bad, South Easter howling and the swell at about 4 to 5 meters. Visibility on the open sea at about 4.5 meters, less than 1.5 meters in the tidal zone. Since the cage was connected to the boat via ropes, it was shaking like mad, making photography very difficult. I did however get two acceptable underwater photos of a White. The average Whites we saw was between 3 and 4 meters. However, at one stage, a White passed under the boat. It looked like a friggin submarine. It was about 6 meters, maybe even 6.5.

The bloke who owned the boat (he was also the skipper) claimed that he did spear fishing even though there are Whites around. His reasoning was that if you see a White, you should be safe because he is in "scavenging" mode. If the White wanted to eat you, he would hit you at high speed without you even realising it was there. A while after my cage dive adventure I saw the nutcase in a diving/nature magazine. They had a photo of him touching a white on the nose, in open water, without a cage. He had is speargun in the other hand... and I thought the dude was lying.

Date: 2007/06/20 08:10:11, Link
Author: Renier
largest I ever saw was a 5.5 meter female, out of about 20 or so separate individual observations.

We had about 8 individual sharks around the boat that day. I don’t have a source but I recall hearing that Gansbay has the world’s most concentrated Great White population. I will check on the details.

that's some pretty poor reasoning based on false assumptions, IMO.  

I know some of the folks that work on white in SA, and, just like the ones we worked on in CA, these were rarely "scavengers" (as there is rarely large meat sources to scavenge on) and were far more often actively hunting large marine mammals.  However, he is right about the ambush thing, as that is what we sometimes have observed when they hunt elephant seals.

I remember they chummed the water and had a cut-out rubber seal and a rope with half of a smaller shark (not a White!) in the water. The sharks would spot the fake seal and swim closer. The fake seal the got hauled in closer to the boat until the shark came close to the piece of meat (shark meat) in the water. At that stage the bait got hauled closer to the boat with the shark following the bait. At one stage, a White popped his head out of the water. The skipper touched his nose and the White went into a sort of trance and after about 5 seconds just slipped back into the water. I don’t know why this is but I suspect it is an over stimulation of those little organs on the nose that picks up electric signals. Hmmm… does this mean the shark pods are like drugs to them… Just kidding.

plus, given their apparent curiosity about unique things in their environment, I personally would always think it a risky thing to dive with one.  You simply never know when one might decide to take a bite to see what you are, like a baby sticking a rubber ball in its mouth.

Agreed. The whole “tasting” thing we call “mouthing”. For this reason we try and avoid dirty water (poor viz) like the plague. We were once diving at Rooi-els and got scared sh*tless by a Sea-otter. It was playing with a piece of kelp but made such a splash that we thought a White just got hold of a seal. Talk about paranoid.

of course, there is some evidence that if you show "awareness" of the shark's location, they tend to back off a bit.

Sounds interesting. A fellow diver told me a story of a shark attack that he witnessed. They were spear fishing of Wilderness area, around a huge rock peninsula when a diver spotted a White and raised alarm. I am not sure how many divers they were but I recall a figure of eight. They sort of grouped together in a circle and tried to locate the shark. The shark (White) came out of nowhere, really fast, and took a diver. He bit (mouthed) the poor bloke and then just left. The freaky thing is the shark swam past two other divers to get the bloke. The dude was injured but survived.

of the sharks you mentioned, the Zambezi (actually is correctly known as the bull shark), is the one most known to attack humans.

Bull shark. Yeah mate, if you’re an Aussie! Lol. Zambezi sharks are locally known as the bullies of the sea. Maybe they are territorial and that would explain their aggressive behaviour? I have an old book with Shark attacks recorded in South Africa. Most of them are Zambezi attacks. The freaky thing is that Zambezi sharks has a high tolerance of fresh water ( I know you know that, just info for lurkers). The record inland attack was 2000km inland (river) by a Zambezi Shark (Must double check on source).

Both the bull and the tiger sharks, when they attack, typically do more damage than a white shark, as they often come back for repeated attacks.

That also struck me. I know of only 2 White attacks where the shark returned and actually ate the victim. 1966, Theo Klein at Buffels Bay, close to Cape point and another one, about two years ago, at Fishhoek. We often dive Buffels Bay and Fishhoek looking for Yellowtail.

The problem with whites, is that they are just so damn big and strong, and their teeth concurrently big as well, that even when they are just investigating, they tend to do a lot of damage to soft fleshies like humans.

Yes, being punctured by a razor sharp row of teeth of what, about 5cm each, is going to do some damage. Speaking of sharp. I have another little shark tooth I wear around my neck (not a fossil). Its small, about 1cm long, but it takes the hair off my forearm like a razor. I love demonstrating it to people.

bottom line, I wouldn't worry too much about whites while spear fishing, simply because they really aren't all that common, and they typically wouldn't be much interested in the kinds of fish typically speared around reefs.

Agreed. The local fish thieves are Raggedtooth sharks that steals the captured fish off the stringers. I don’t really mind, it’s like paying hunting tax. Raggies look fierce and have long tearing (not cutting) teeth. Years ago people attributed attacks to Raggies when it was actually Mako sharks.

You can check with the SA shark research groups to find out what times and places the marine mammals in your area tend to haul out on the beaches for mating or pupping.  I would tend to avoid these areas to minimize your risk.

Great idea. Thanks.

oh, btw, I would mention that there is a great difference in cage diving rules here off of CA vs. in SA, and the issue has been one of tremendous contention over the years here.

I’d like to hear! I am aware of some debate over here about cage diving. Some people reckon that baiting the water is going to make Whites think we are food, since the chum and humans will be associated. I don’t know how accurate this is, but my opinion is that cage diving will do a lot for the conservation of Whites.

Now, a question for you. I cannot help but notice that a White and a Mako looks very very similer, but that their teeth differs radically, as sharks go. Any studies as to a common ancester link between the two you could refer me too?

heh.  my collection of fossil shark's teeth contains mostly everything BUT Charcaradon spp.

I was walking down the road at Camps bay when I notice a hippie dude with an old brown vw combi. He had an array of shark fossils. I only had 40 Rand (8US$) so I bought two White’s fossils. However, he also had another fossil tooth on sale there, a Megalodon. As big as my hand. Pity, I did not have enough bucks on me to purchase it.

Date: 2007/06/20 09:00:11, Link
Author: Renier
Hehehe. What was that thread again?

"Who you calling a coward?"

Awesome stuff! Gotta love this place.

Date: 2007/06/21 04:13:39, Link
Author: Renier
... most of the attacks in fresh water suggest they really are hunting for food.  Could be a case of mistaken identity, but again, a lot of those attacks involve multiple bites.  Some have suggested they are more aggressive in fresh water, but I also don't buy that, as it just seems more likely to me that where these attacks occur in freshwater, there is simply a lot higher concentration of people actually in the water, so you get a higher frequency of attack.

I agree. Rural Africa, for instance, has a lot of villages next to the big rivers. These people don't have access to fresh water and thus bath and swim in the rivers very often. I don't know what the ratio is to say holiday makers (swim, surf etc.) along the warm water coasts.

yeah, again, they didn't know where the shark was.  I've seen many videotapes of dives where when the divers could see where the shark was, and turned to face it, the shark would go into circling behavior instead of attack behavior, and often would move off.

I'll keep that in mind if ever I encounter one of the big Whites on a dive. All brave now, but I reckon I'll just crap myself an island and go sit on top of it :-) I do however carry a power head just in case. I suppose it won’t really help if a shark is bent on munching me, but it does at least give one a greater sense of ability to defend oneself.

sharks aren't invulnerable; especially ones that feed on large prey items like elephant seals.  We've seen whites with missing eyes and huge numbers of scars on occasion.  Even one missing eye can put a serious damper on prey location.  of course nothing is absolute, and while we often see whites hit once (hard) and then circle to allow for ensanguination, we also infrequently see them just going all out and chomping the prey to bits in rapid fashion.

I noted that many sharks close their "eyelids" when they start to bite a pray. Obviously to protect the eyes from injury. Whites however don't close their eyes, but rolls them back. This seems a less effective way of protecting the eyes? Another fascinating thing. If you have bait in the water and a White closes in to munch it then it rolls it's eyes back just before it bites the bait. However, at the last moment before contact with the bait, the Whites often turn their heads away and bites a metal part of the boat. The conclusion was that at the last moment, when the eyes are rolled back, the White uses those electric sensors on the nose to guide it towards the prey, and thus confuses the metal parts of the boat as prey/bait. Is this correct?

Mako's typically feed on large pelagic fishes, but again, sharks being typically opportunistic, I've seen video of them feeding on marine mammals as large as full-grown bottlenose dolphins.  Amazing stuff - they would hit the tail of the dolphin full-speed to immobilize it and cause severe ensanguination, then come back to feed on it.

My grandfather was a fulltime fisherman (boat) at an early stage of his life. One day they were catching fish when all of a sudden a big shark jumped out of the water and landed in the boat. It knocked two people clean out of the boat and got its head stuck under one of the wooden benches. Of course, the crew got a helluva fright and promptly proceeded to calm the shark down... with nice big wooden batons and some spicy fisherman words. It worked. They killed it thinking the shark tried to grab one of them clean out of the air. I had a newspaper clip that showed the jaw. From left to right it was about 40-50cm. The newspaper had it down as a "Blue shark" but it was clearly the jaw of a mako. They had strange names for different sharks and fish in those days. Why do makos do that? Why do they jump out of the water and often attack boats? I think Whites are also known for such behavior?

We know even less about mako behavior than we do about whites, mostly because they're pelagic, and large ones might be almost as rare these days as whites (they are a great food and sport fish, and so many have been taken by the longline and gill net fisheries that large ones have become quite rare).

It’s a sad thing. This whole shark fin soup stuff just makes me really angry and sad. To cut off a beautiful creature like that's fins and just leave the innocent dying animal. For friggen soup! Wonder who the REAL "murder" machines are. Don't think it's the sharks.

A friend of mine has been studying a close relative, the Salmon Shark (Lamna ditropis) for some time now.

Never heard of it, but thanks for the tip. I'll trace down some info on distribution, behavior etc.

yes, there has been some work on this area, and I have those references, but not ready to hand.  give me a couple of days to dig them up for you.  They do belong to the same family:  Lamnidae.  However, I recall a tremendous amount of controversy surrounding whether the linneages are actually based on a common ancestor.  also a lot of controversy around whether megalodon is actually an ancestor of carcharias or not, which is related to the same issue.

I would appreciate any info on this. It freaks me out. Makos look like Great Whites, but have teeth just like Raggies. Their type of teeth (grabbing teeth) forces them to catch smaller prey, yes? I assume that cutting teeth, like Whites, are useful when you are hungry and there is a nice juicy, pickled whale carcass floating around.

I don't believe them, but there were rumors about Megalodon not being extinct but alive and well in certain (human isolated) spots on Earth. Do you know anything about this and if there is any substance to these claims?

Did you ever encounter one of those "cookie-cutter" sharks? We don't have any over here, as far as I know. I saw a documentary that showed some seals with weird bite marks (think it might have sparked the Megalodon theory). Apparently, these cookie-cutter sharks swim up to a seal, bites a chunk out and then swims away (Drive-thru style). I would hate meeting one of those under water - wet suits are expensive!

personally, i think the data from the long term studies of the sharks based on the satellite tagging and behavioral ecology programs will yield better results for long-term conservation than cage dives ever would.

You made some valid points. I'll read up on it, thanks for the info. "satellite/gps tags". Geez, I never knew that type of technology was being used. It's awesome. I should tag my kids with some...

I suppose I can relate my tiny shark experience here, just FYI. Even in the UK we get sharks, where I am from originally (Dorset coast) we get two species: Porbeagle sharks and Basking sharks.

The basking sharks scare the surfers over here. What, they grow up to 12 meters I think?

I'm not sure of the distance comparison, not brushed up on my metric system sad to say, but bulls have traveled up the Mississippi in the US as far as Illinios and I remember swimming in the Miss. and the Ohio many times during my younger days with never a thought that a shark may be cruising by.

Never even imagined the Mississippi had Zambezi/Bull sharks. Interesting.

Ichthyic, another question. Just to check up on a rumor. I heard that there are records of Whale Sharks hunting tuna somewhere in, I think, The Gulf of Mexico. Do you know anything about this offhand? I was under the impression that they are strictly filter feeders. Did any of you ever read Thor Heyrdahl's Kontiki expedition? There is some really freaky stuff in there, like the thing that munched the one bloke's sleeping bag.

Date: 2007/06/21 06:09:14, Link
Author: Renier
did i ever mention the endless sci-fi marathon I set up in hell?

I found a list of famous Atheists on Wiki. Roddenberry and Whedon will be there in hell to comment on the sci-fi. *rubs hands* Where do I book front seats? Requests to be sent to

Date: 2007/06/22 04:26:57, Link
Author: Renier
that's the current theory.  It makes a lot of sense given the large distribution of ampulae of lorenzini on the front of the shark's head.

I don't recall ever seeing this tested formally, however, so consider it anecdotal.

I have some footage somewhere on an old video where they demonstrated this “turning away from bait and bite metal” behaviour. However, help me out here. A piece of bait is a dead piece of flesh. What electric current could possibly be detected in a dead lump of flesh? Or, is it a question of whether the shark, in hunting live prey, does not make a distinction once the eyes are rolled back, but treats it as live prey?

yeah, no way could a blue shark pull that feat off.  They aren't that quick or strong.  I've handled both, and a nine foot blue can quite easily be handled by one person.  a nine foot mako??  not gettin near that thing with FOUR people.

hell, I only tagged two makos the whole time I was working with sharks in Monterey, and the largest was only about 2m.

it took almost 30 min. to get that thing IN the boat, and it took two people to hold it down.

in contrast, a nine foot blue takes about 5 min to get in the boat, and one person can easily manage to hold it down.

Some amazing footage I have on a video here was when they did some experiments on determining how much force a shark displays when biting down on something. They had a big piece of bait with some sort of measuring device inside the bait. Took a lot of effort to convince the sharks to bite it. Most sharks that bit it were impressive, however, and then a mako came along and showed them how it’s done. I also have footage of a White biting a motor vehicle tyre. It looked like the White was playing with a piece of soft sponge.

btw, the only time we actually pulled the sharks in the boat was to take blood samples before release.

Hope you gave them a nice sucker and a pat on the head for their co-operation. Is there anything interesting about shark blood as compared to other fishes perhaps?

well, the actual answer is that they don't.  it just sticks in one's memory when they do.  Also, I personally have never heard of a white shark jumping INTO a boat, not saying it hasn't happened, but it's gotta be far rarer than the mako.

My guess would be it's a simple matter of speed and miscalculation.  they are probably chasing a fast prey item, which darts under the boat to confuse the chasing predator, and succeeds.  the predator trys to jump over the interfering object, and fails.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. Thanks. I’ll see if I can trace a source for Whites jumping into boats. I know they are notorious for nibbling on outboard motors. Iron deficiency? Heh! I have seen pictures of ski-boats after a White took a bite out of some hulls. It is amazing when humans introduce themselves to an environment how strange some animals react to it.

"typically" yes, but see the note about makos taking out dolphins above.

I once read a study about dolphins and sharks. They put some dolphins and some harmless sharks in a tank somewhere (perhaps Durban). They trained some dolphins to attack the sharks (hi-speed hit on the gill slits) when a certain signal (whistle) was given. The dolphins did just fine. Then they introduced some more heavy weight sharks (I think it was Bull/Zambezi sharks) into the test and gave the dolphins the signal. The dolphins went nuts. They swam around the tank making distressed noises. It was like they knew that some sharks are not to be played with.

even though the tooth shape is different, mako teeth are still extremely sharp.  you can cut stuff with the tip of a sharp knife if you draw it across fast enough, just as easily as you can with the serrated edge if you move slower.

Good point.

don't know... next time I see bigfoot I'll ask him.

I thought so.

IIRC, those suckers live pretty deep, so no worries.

Hey. Don’t underestimate my apnea. They don’t call me “The Great Giant Squid Hunter” for nothing, y’know! Heh, I wish.

OTOH, we had lots of yahoos trying to hook them with giant treble hooks to get "towed" on their kayaks or canoes, and one idiot who decided to use one for archery practice once.  many used to be seen with bullet holes.

That’s just sad man. Wtf is wrong with people anyway? I remember walking around some rock pools at spring tide and found some octopus heads lying around. They were still alive! Some people caught them and just cut of their tentacles (for bait), leaving the mutilated octopus on the dry rocks to die a slow and painful death. I have killed some octopus (in my younger days) for bait and food but made sure the critter had a quick death. Once, fishing on the deep sea I caught a nice big octopus. I wanted to keep it for seafood stew and took a knife to give it a quick stab between the eyes. As the blade came closer, the octopus saw what I was up to and tried to block the blade with its tentacles. And, it gave me a look! It KNEW what I wanted to do. I just threw it back overboard. They are strange creatures. OT, sorry.

they actually have very small (relatively) throat openings, so swallowing a large tuna would be a bit of a problem.

I thought the story might have been thickened a bit.

I have a question about Tiger Sharks. We don’t get them here in the cold Cape Town water, but the things I have read about them! They are like garbage collectors. An article (in a book somewhere in my garage) claims they have found the weirdest things in Tiger Shark bellies. Stuff like food tin cans, match boxes, shoes (hmm), monkey parts and some misc mechanical junk and assorted metal and plastic things. Hey, I am all for cleaning up pollution, but this goes a bit far. Do you perhaps know why they have such exotic tastes?

Date: 2007/06/22 06:11:01, Link
Author: Renier
Turns out there was no Robert O'Brien. It's Wesley when he gets really drunk.

Coffee burns when ejected through the nose. Thanks for that!

Date: 2007/06/28 03:03:04, Link
Author: Renier
It's sad to hear that you might leave. Pity it's not FTK.

Oh yes, Ich, congrats on the Molly. You really deserved it.

Date: 2007/07/11 03:38:56, Link
Author: Renier

I really like ATBC. There are many good posters here. Thanks, and keep it up!


Date: 2007/08/08 06:05:03, Link
Author: Renier
It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

Uh, is it also impossible for God to prove his own existence? Let's face it, God could come down here, right now and introduce himself, and, all knowing as he is, he *must* know what he could do to prove himself to people, even the hardcore Atheists. So, it *is* possible to prove the existence of God, especially if the god in question lifts his ass and manifests himself in a way that would leave no doubt, you know, actually DO something for a change. Such a feat should be easy, for an all-knowing, all-powerful god, no?

But, since God has done such a great job of hiding himself it makes one wonder why some people are so full of sh*t to think they know God, what God does, why God does and who God does (Mary). Since some people also believe they have a special communication system (prayer) could they please request that God comes down here and stick up for himself, because we are tired of all the imaginations and cr*p that people offer up as reasons to even think that a God exists. Since God is not doing his part lots of precious souls are going to fry (and currently is frying) in Hell for being unable to place their faith in something (God) that cannot be differentiated from nothing.

Date: 2007/08/14 01:28:13, Link
Author: Renier
Quote (George @ Aug. 10 2007,08:56)
My take on this subject, and maybe it's the middle point btwn Louis and Skeptic, is that religion and science should not come into conflict, but often do.  As Louis has said, they are based on two completely different ways of understanding the world and humanity.  Neither should try to answer questions that are best addressed by the other.  Religion can't usefully answer questions about the natural world and science can't usefully questions about what it means to be a human.  The problems arise when people forget this.  Usually creationists.

My €0.02.  Maybe not very enlightening or useful, but must dash now.

Perhaps you are right with "science can't usefully questions about what it means to be a human". But, how does religion do any better with answering questions about being human? Is philosophy not perhaps better at this and does it mean that non-beleivers like Atheists and Agnostics cannot answer questions about being human because they have no religion to help them?

I don't buy it. There are many people who uphold NOMA, for obvious reasons, even reasons that I can understand but I don't agree with it. Religion is just pissed because science has refuted so much opinions that their holy texts had about the universe and world we live on.

*Disclaimer: As Lenny would surely point out, there are many religious people that stands up for science, even against people that share their faith. My above comments are therefore not a blanket.