AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Steverino

form_srcid: Steverino

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: Steverino

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2005/10/13 09:11:11, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,14:04)
As to the list of neo-darwinian rejectionists its posted so I'll let you practice counting yourself. And I suggest you stop parading around the idea that only biologists are real scientists. You may alienate the paleo bone polishers, zoologists, physicists, astronomers... etc.

Unlike evos, IDers and IC people never say we know we're 100% right and everone else is a redneck, uneducated, bible thumping, illterate cult group.

Neither do they insist on suppression of alternate explanations or paradigms in science, the persecution of people who disagree with them, the denial of work tenure etc. for opposing or even questioning the evo principles.

Its really quite obvious that the suppression of new ideas that might call into question the theory of evolution and the censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp and that open debate in the marketplace of ideas, schools in particular, is very much feared indeed. I wonder why?

"...censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp..."

I love that one.  Please learn what the Establishment Clause means and you might understand why such comic books are not allowed in our public schools.[B]

Arguing that this is not a effort gain religion a foot hold in our public schools is disengenious.

Date: 2005/10/21 06:33:59, Link
Author: Steverino
I wonder if Evo believes the Moon landings were faked also?

Date: 2005/10/21 06:50:36, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 20 2005,08:39)
Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked?

The fact the Apollo missions were faked is obvious. Remember the waving American flag in the photograph. If evolutionists are correct in saying there is no air on the moon, how does a flag wave? Which is it--is there air on the moon and the evolutuionists movement has been exposed so utterly they will never be able to get their pants on again, or is the Apollo mission a fake?

As far as the Sun going around the earth, Scripture makes this crystal clear. (Note that Joshua made the Sun stand still, this is because the Sun is going around the earth.)

Are you really that dilluted?

Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!

Next time you have lunch with Elvis, tell him I said hello.

Date: 2005/10/21 09:54:10, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2005,12:28)
Are you really that dilluted?

No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have!

Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!

Speaking of which, were you aware evolutionists assumed there would be 125 feet of moon dust on the moon based on the assumption that such dust had been accumulating for however many billion years they assume its age is. In actuality, there is only three inches. However, every item allegedly taken on the alleged Apollo mission was equipped with a flat base like a sled so it would not sink in this dust. The flagpole did not have to be jammed anywhere, it merely had to be set down. Your story is all bull$^^%, or, excuse me, rhino&%&^.

Unlike you, I know how to spell "rhino" nad use words like "diluted."

The fact that you think the moon landings were faked shows the depth of how much you really don't know or understand.

The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.

Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower?

Date: 2005/10/21 14:56:20, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2005,15:13)
The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.

 Yeah, that's a common theme around here. Was this debunking any better than the attempt to "debunk" Berlinski?
Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower?

 Oh no, I ain't going for that again. O'Cryin', Foxy, and the brief stalker are already using my geocentrism as an excuse to run away from my arguments. You'll have to figure it out yourself.

Well, now we all know you are flat out incorrect regarding Moon Landing being faked.  It's been documented by numerous sources.  So, you got that one wrong.

What Berlinski fairytale are you speaking of?

Date: 2005/10/25 06:15:18, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2005,20:52)
If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.

 Oh please, it's obvious to anyone with a room temperature I.Q. that you're as yellow as they come. Heck, if you ever made any sense, I'd praise you for being Nicky's best prawn puppet. I'm sorry if the evo's brightest were pranked by a mediocre paper; I really am. But don't blame Berlinski for rubbing your collective noses in it - that's what you get for #####ing on the rug.

I asked the question originally because it addresses the issue of what information your selectively choose to ignore you justify your beliefs.

You have stated, I believe, that one of the reasons evolution was a myth was because there were no witnesses to Big Bang, or Evolution... that it was not to be believed.

Well, using the same logic, your belief with regard to the moon landings has been invalidated.  There were witnesses to the moon landings, the astronauts themselves.

But, contrary to documented, verified evidence and eye witness validation, you still choose to believe that moon landings didn't take place.

Date: 2005/10/31 06:48:53, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 28 2005,14:13)
"Oh butterscotch! This Paley guy knows biology, philosophy, history, psychology; he expresses himself well, doesn't fall for our usual tests and psi-wars, stays on topic, rubs our noses in our boo-boos, knows and throws our own sources back at us, shows us stuff we never knew; and worstest of all no matter how we try we just can't ignore him - the lurkers are even catching on! Mr Dawkins you said you said all fundies were dumb n' nuts so why so why THISCANTHAPPENWEHAVELOTSOFDEGREESJUSTLOOKATTHEMSTACKEDINROWSCOLUMNSTOTHECUSPOFINFINITYANDB


Yes, but his is so easily convinced by the Moon Landings Hoax.

It proves that you pick and choose what you wish to believe as fact.

Date: 2005/11/07 09:09:57, Link
Author: Steverino
I'm sorry but, how can anyone who is still convinced that the Lunar Landings were a hoax, be taken seriously?

He chooses to ingore first hand account, eye witness...which is his/their major reason for not recognizing Evolution...."cause no one was there to witnes it.

It's hypocritical at best.

Date: 2005/11/08 03:14:00, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 07 2005,17:38)
[quote=Steverino,Nov. 07 2005,15<!--emo&:0]I'm sorry but, how can anyone who is still convinced that the Lunar Landings were a hoax, be taken seriously?

I can't say I'm taking this guy seriously, but he has demonstrated some knowledge of orbital mechanics and Newtonian physics (more than mine, anyway), so he's not a complete half-wit.

But I'm interested to see how he wriggles out of this particular box.

(And when I say I'm not taking this guy seriously, I mean I don't think he really believes anything he says he believes.)[/quote]
My point is that while he may be very intelligent, which I believe he is, he also finds it very easy and convenient to discard, ignore documented fact to form a belief.

I believe this practice makes his other arguments less credible.

Date: 2005/11/08 09:35:39, Link
Author: Steverino
Bingo!...My point is you filter out what you information goes against what you believe or want to believe.  Even though that information is proven.

The Lunar Landings are proven but, fact, they happened but, those you cannot choose not to recognize that.

So, what is the point in debating fact with you when you can just offer as a defense.."No thats wrong"?

Date: 2006/02/18 03:19:21, Link
Author: Steverino
I haven't been out here in some time...are we all still waiting for GOP to post his "check back on Monday" theory?

Dude, I know the urge to please others is great but, pick a realistic date and then meet it. ???

Date: 2006/02/18 03:28:09, Link
Author: Steverino
From Demski:

"If you find complex information in a pattern that can be independently given and cannot reasonably find any means it could have come about through serendipity then you’ve detected design."

What the F>#$%???

Based on what science???

Because we cannot yet explain it, so there???

Do they just make this crap up???...Wait, I know the answer to that.

I'm not a scientist but, I can see the logical flaw in his reasoning.  How does he expect the real world of science to take him seriously???

Date: 2006/02/24 06:15:52, Link
Author: Steverino
From the Unmanly Descent:

From a colleague:] Leo Tolstoy’s last completed letter, dictated from his sick-bed at the Astapovo train station on November 1, 1910 (six days before his death), and addressed to his son Seryozha and daughter Tanya, included a warning that Seryozha should not allow himself to be seduced by Darwinism. Here is the relevant passage:

“The views you have acquired about Darwinism, evolution and the struggle for existence won’t explain to you the meaning of your life and won’t give you guidance in your actions, and a life without an explanation of its meaning and importance, and without the unfailing guidance that stems from it is a pitiful existence.”

—Tolstoy’s Letters: Volume II, 1880-1910, selected, edited, and translated by
R.F. Christian. London: Athlone Press, 1978; No. 607, p. 717.

Is it the job of science to give guidance in your actions???...Is it the job of science to give meaning and importance???

Help me here...I cannot believe the stuff that pant-load posts on his site.


Date: 2006/05/16 09:49:02, Link
Author: Steverino
This is way above what I understand:

from Dave Snot:

"Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. "

Anyone?  ...thanks in advance!

Date: 2006/06/02 04:44:32, Link
Author: Steverino
And the proof is....!!!......?????

He doesn't have any.  He is just another moron walking around with tin-foil on his head to prevent the gov. from reading his thoughts.

How can one possibly believe any of this drivel???  Can you imagine how difficult a secret; a phony moon landing would, to keep???

With all the money people are willing to throw at individuals to come forward and expose conspiracies; wouldn't you think someone would have spilled the beans by now???

You know why not???....Because it really happened!!!
All the former astronauts would beat the crap out of you for accusing them of a lie, which is what you are doing.

Paley, the next time you see Elvis and JFK having a cup of coffee and splitting a doughnut at your local choke and puke, tell'em Stevo says "hey!"

Now drop the crayons and back away from the table.

Date: 2006/06/08 09:41:34, Link
Author: Steverino
This was worth posting:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,

Date: 2006/06/09 02:13:31, Link
Author: Steverino
Thorydaddy,  your arguments are old and tired.  The same were trotted out as reasoning against interracial marriages.

It's nothing more than a scare tactic employed by the "people who know best".  It usually ends up with a comment like....."well, what if someone wants to marry a sheep"...or something really stupid.

Nothing has done more harm than to the sanctity of marriage than heterosexuals inability to keep their own marriage vows.

Not too mention, this entire topic is a ploy by the right to shore up the Fundie vote for this off year election.

One might think with all the issues like the war, prices of gas, health insurance...we would have other items to focus on.

Date: 2006/06/23 06:54:36, Link
Author: Steverino
From a DS post on Uncommonly Dense:

"I defend ID because it is the most rational explanation for the empirical evidence."

Again, he makes statements like this but, does not post any peer-reviewed data.  Ya know, the kind that is accepted by the world of science and not just the religious.

It is an argument of emotion.  How is it rational when there is no supporting evidence?

Where is this empirical evidence???  "Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis"

Did I miss something that happened???  Did a new species pop up somewhere and I didn't get the email alert???  Did some experiment provide this evidence???

Does lying to support ID make you a righteous in the eyes of God?

Date: 2006/06/24 13:21:03, Link
Author: Steverino
I think what Demski fails to realize is, that a lot his hits are actually PT'ers who visit his site daily for his joke of the day.

What....???....those aren't meant to be funny???

I's kind of like Science's version of the "Onion"

Date: 2006/06/30 07:00:05, Link
Author: Steverino

"Didn't Darwin himself say that if numerous transitional fossils were not found, his theory would be toast?  Forget 'ignoramuses' like myself.  Those fossils are equivocal to trained Creationist PhD's (oxymoron) as well."

What hard number of transitional fossils would prove to you the fact of Evolution?  Or do you continue to deny and move the goalpost?

Looking forward to your Flood Dissertation.  Will you reprint it with all the Disco Institute crayon charts and  cartoons?

Date: 2006/06/30 07:09:46, Link
Author: Steverino
"God-ordained killing is only allowed by governments, whether they be a large sophisticated government like ours, or a small tribal government consisting of a chief and his elders."

Is this how you rationalize Bush's fiasco???  It's ok if there is a Christian at the helm??

Do you just make this sh1t up?

It's time to thin the herd.

Date: 2006/07/17 06:07:22, Link
Author: Steverino
LOL....Ask him on what day God created fossils?


Date: 2006/07/25 06:08:54, Link
Author: Steverino

"And I don't even know what relative DNA dating is, but I'm sure you could enlighten me ... then when I understand it, I'll blow away your reasons why it supposedly supports evolution and long ages ... like I have practically everything else! "

That's you whole failed logical process process in a nutshell.  You are informed of fact, back up with data,  then you choose to ignore and deny.

You're kinda like the 5-year old who puts his finger in his ears and shouts, "I can't hear you...I can't hear you...."

For this reason alone, you have absolutely no credibility.

Date: 2006/07/26 07:46:35, Link
Author: Steverino
From Dense O'Leary:

"Darwin’s corrosive principles laid the foundation for the murder of more than 125 million people in the 20th century. About three times more than the 38 million killed in all the wars of the 20th century!"

Blah...blah...blah....Same emotional, nonsense argument....Different day.

It's just the same typical ad hominem.

I think the lyric from Elton John explains ID best:

"And all this science I don't understand,
It's just my job five days a week"

Date: 2006/07/26 09:18:47, Link
Author: Steverino
So, I guess we should ignore or deny fact (scientific or other kind) because we have people in our socienty who might do something stupid?

Date: 2006/07/27 07:10:20, Link
Author: Steverino
What a putz.

Date: 2006/07/28 04:50:09, Link
Author: Steverino
"Pagan-drenched Darwinism "

GoP, you really do post some very stupid statements.

Date: 2006/07/28 04:57:11, Link
Author: Steverino
From Asatru Folk Assembly
Asatru/Odinsim: A Briefing for Law Enforcement Officials

Hitler vs. Odinism:

Nazism and Odinism/Asatru

As the Nazi Party gained power, it sought to tap into this religious revival. Hitler was a master propagandist and he sought to transform Odinist holy symbols into props for a petty nationalism and a tyrannical ideology. He did this hypocritically, for he himself had no interest in, or regard for, the ancient faith. Here, according to his closest advisors (Hitler's Table Talk, page 61, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, 1953) is what he had to say about the followers of the old Germanic deities, whose symbols he usurped:

"It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan [father of the gods in the German lore]. Our old mythology ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund."

In Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

"The characteristic thing about these people [modern-day followers of the early Germanic religion] is that they rave about the old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack."

Hitler and other Nazis were explicit in their contempt of the ancient gods. Alfred Rosenberg exclaimed, "Odin is dead!". And Hitler himself declared that the future "must not take the form of a revival of the worship of Wotan."

Baldur von Schirach, leader of the Hitler Youth, assured German parents that "it is my purpose neither to re-erect in the forests of Germany heathen altars and introduce our youth to any kind of Wotan's cult, nor in any way to hand over young Germany to the magical altars of the herb-apostles..."

What else ya got?

Date: 2006/08/15 05:18:01, Link
Author: Steverino

"Today I am going to get rather detailed on the layers of the Grand Staircase ... so let's start right out with a nice picture of it ..."

Then let us all hope you acknowledge the validity of the scientific data you will receive in return and not just stick your fingers in your ears yelling "I cant hear you...!!!", as you have done in the past.

It would also be nice if you answered questions when asked of you.

Date: 2006/08/15 06:15:51, Link
Author: Steverino

3) Very few of these rocks can be dated radiometrically (same article)
4) Certain rocks were chosen for RM dating because they were "favorable" (??)
5) I have been given 4 such RM dates for the 80 or so layers of the Grand Staircase
6) In these 4 cases, why were the selected rocks chosen?  Ostensibly because they contained the desired minerals like Zircons or some other "suitable" mineral, but my guess is that if you looked at each individual case, you would find that the "Art of Selecting Datable Rocks" has been tailored to correlate with the Primary Dating System - Index Fossils (remember the article above? Fossils yield Primary Dates)

In other words... you cannot dispute validity of the rocks that were dated so, in an attempt to muddy the waters, you try you call into question the motives behind what rocks were dated and why they were chosen.

While rocks may be hard to date, the fact remains, they can be dated.

Date: 2006/08/15 07:23:46, Link
Author: Steverino

"the ones that are dated RM were very likely NOT deposited at the same time as the sedimentary layers."

Where is your proof?...documents? base this all on an assumption because the opposite proves you wrong.

Do you feel that a conspiracy is being commited by everyone in the scientific community?

Date: 2006/08/15 08:34:19, Link
Author: Steverino

Your misinformation has been refuted and with supporting documentation.

How is it only Creationist with little or know knowledge of....anything can figure all this stuff out while those who study for years, learning all the sciences and earn the degrees can't seem to grasp the truth?

Failure to acknowledge supported fact doesn't make you the victor, it makes you ignorant.

Date: 2006/08/15 09:09:46, Link
Author: Steverino

"What documentation would you believe anyway?  Do you want a Henry Morris quote?  You would spit on that."

No but, I wouldn't give it much weight initially becuase Henry Morris has an agenda.  His research, history proven, is not unbiased.

Date: 2006/08/18 02:52:43, Link
Author: Steverino

If a piece of wood was found that was believed to be from the Ark...and dated to when you believe the Ark existed, would you believe the dating?

Date: 2006/08/18 03:32:32, Link
Author: Steverino

If a piece of wood was found that was believed to be from the Ark...and dated to when you believe the Ark existed, would you believe the dating?

Date: 2006/08/18 06:24:35, Link
Author: Steverino

You can't shine shit.  Give up.

Date: 2006/08/21 07:44:43, Link
Author: Steverino

You keep using the word "sham" as though you belive its all part of a greater science conspiracy.

Is that what you really's all a conspiracy???  To what end, for what or who's benefit???

Do you honestly think that all the scientist are involved in this conspiracy???

I imagine, no, I know how famous a person would be if he were to debunk Evolution, age of the earth...yada, yada, yada.... So, knowing all this, you actually think science has convinced all the real scientist to drink the koolaid?

Date: 2006/08/21 08:23:09, Link
Author: Steverino

You are grasping at straws, the last act of a desperate man.  You need to identify what you believe to be gaps so you don't feel you were duped by your religious beliefs.

You have been handily refuted but, you choose to just ignore data put in front of you. You proved nothing because you have nothing.

Time for you to move on.

Date: 2006/08/23 02:41:46, Link
Author: Steverino

Do you think that anything from answersingenesis would be straight up unbiased science research?

You keep posting links to biased data.  Why not try to back up your beliefs with real-world, peer-reviewed data?

Date: 2006/08/23 05:33:35, Link
Author: Steverino

"Yes, my data is biased.  AIG is biased.  As Rush Limbaugh says in response to people whining about giving liberals "equal time" on his show ... "I AM EQUAL TIME" ... "AIG IS EQUAL TIME" ... in other words, BOTH conventional literature and AIG/ICR are biased.  The question is "in which direction"??

Very few people out there write unbiased literature.  I have not read ANY conventional literature which does not have the assumption of Long Ages or Evolution sprinkled heavily throughout.  This is why I have gotten quite bored reading them.  They all sound the same.

NO, Wrong answer.  You still do not get it.  Science is not biased.  It does not identify the destination and then cherry picks or misrepresents data to support the idea or theory. It researches ,evalutes and tests evidence.  It discards ideas when found to be incorrect or when new evidence is more supported by fact.

ID/Creation is just the opposite.  They have identified the destination and will only acknowledge information that brings them to their destination.

Flush Windblow is no more "equal time" than David Duke is equal time on issue of race.  Limbaugh misrepresents and tells outright lies to convince the sheeple of what he speaks.

Date: 2006/08/23 07:14:29, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (improvius @ Aug. 23 2006,11:42)
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,12:22)
Science is not biased.  
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho  ...

He he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he  ...

Oooooh!  My sides hurt!  This is classic!

Would you like me to cut and paste some stuff just to illustrate how biased conventional historical geology is?

Your notion that there exists an irrational bias towards "long ages" is a nothing more than a paranoid figment of your diseased mind.  You will never be able to support this delusion with factual evidence.


Case in point??? it, link to it...back up your babble.

You believe EVERYTHING from AIG without question based upon your religious beliefs/biased.

Your sides hurt because you are so full of shit, you will explode misinformation and  ignorance all over the children you pretend to "tell the truth" to.

Date: 2006/08/23 07:28:06, Link
Author: Steverino
Hey, and Dave, while you're out there looking under "G" for Gaps, in the Denial File....Have cold one one me.

Date: 2006/08/27 03:15:31, Link
Author: Steverino

Deadman has offered you the moment...this is it in a nutshell, your moment to shine...

"Why are there no modern mammal fossils mixed in the layers as your 2350-5000  BC flood would require? "

And you answer is.....????

Date: 2006/08/28 08:20:30, Link
Author: Steverino

"Who was that that was yapping at me about how all those vertical cliffs in hard rock at the Grand Canyon prove that they could not have formed rapidly."

But Dave, you didn't prove it.  Your post were dismantled point by point.  You were refuted, you just chose to ignore the recognized evidence.

Again, that doesn't make you the victor, it makes you an ignorant looser.

Date: 2006/08/29 07:28:30, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 29 2006,09:32)
Your guesses have been shown wrong consistently,
Actually, my guesses have been proven to be right so far in many cases.

Really?....You have not provd a single point.  All you do is post questions and then ignore the answers when they are not what you want to hear.

Date: 2006/09/01 06:19:57, Link
Author: Steverino

Why all the need for a flood in the first place?  I mean, if God is all knowing, all powerull and created the universe in 6 days...why the flood???

Why not just declare it a "do-over" snap his fingers, and have it all start again???

I mean, God must be logical so, it only stand to reason the he would have just done it that way.

Date: 2006/09/01 09:03:44, Link
Author: Steverino

You see evidence for a global flood becuase that's what you want to see...that's what you need to see.  You latch on to "one offs" or misquote information because, while it won't prove your case, it might cast doubt on evolution.

What you are doing is dishonest and immoral. What's even more sad is, you are dishonest to yourself.

You have yourself convinced that you have refuted the work of thousands of scientist much smarter than you or I with your misunderstandings.

What's it like to live a lie?

Date: 2006/09/04 02:17:20, Link
Author: Steverino
Dave said:

"(in regards to Fraud) Pretty strong words!  Is it a really a fraud?  Why?  Or why not?"

Really, you use and imply the word with every post.  The whole of science is perpetrating a fraud to convince people God does not exist.  How and why else would everyone in the scientific community, with the exception of the Christian Right, believe in such theory!  Such a fraud would require 10 of thousands of scientist to by lying.  Do they get pay-o-la for that?

Well, it could be that the theory IS correct and that the real fraud is being committed by a hand full Christian Right, mostly non-scientists, with a proven agenda.

Logically, which do you think is the more reasonable answer?

(No prompting from our studio audience!;)

Date: 2006/09/04 02:23:15, Link
Author: Steverino
At 47 years old, I still love watching the Croc Hunter.  There was a certain level of engergy and passion in his presentation.  Plus, he walked the walk.

It's a shame when someone who has such passion and wishes to share that passion...and actually does good, is lost all too early.

Only the good die young.

Date: 2006/09/04 02:41:34, Link
Author: Steverino
To quote Austin Powers,

"She's a man, baby!"

Date: 2006/09/06 09:57:46, Link
Author: Steverino
Then how he does explain the "Dogs Shooting Pool" on the wall of his living room???

Date: 2006/09/11 05:55:24, Link
Author: Steverino

"It is true that the founders of America were "enlightened" to the errors of the authoritarian church hierarchies of Europe, but it is a serious mistake to overlook their committment to the fundamentals of Christianity and the Scriptures and there is a massive body of original writings which support the fact that America was most definitely founded as a Protestant Christian nation--not an authoritarian one as some here like to say that the GWB's of the world want, but a definitely Christian, Bible promoting one."

To the contrary, if you step away from the koolaid and read any number of books (authors) who researched the men and their beliefs, you would find that they did not intend this country or the governmnet to be "Christian or Bible promoting".

That's just a lie promoted by you and your ilk to assume the moral high ground, categorize patriotism and again, as usual, force you religious dogma on other.

Let me suggest a good book to start with:

The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (Hardcover)
by David L. Holmes

Date: 2006/09/11 06:47:35, Link
Author: Steverino

Quick google on Barton:

This is a good one....Sounds like he is full of $hit too!

Date: 2006/09/11 06:59:17, Link
Author: Steverino
And becuase it is fun to prove you wrong and then see you ignore it...

"Jefferson specifically denied that Christianity is the basis of the common law and regarded efforts to declare it so as anti-separationist propaganda. In an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson observed, "The incontrovertible, to wit, that the common law existed while the Angle- Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never heard the name Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character existed. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!"

Date: 2006/09/12 05:01:06, Link
Author: Steverino
Hey, side question...

A while back, one of you had posted a funny quip at the end of the post...something along the line of:

"I feel like I'm staring at the sun except, its made of stupid"

Is that the exact quip???

Date: 2006/09/12 07:03:56, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,10:39)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 12 2006,10:01)
Hey, side question...

A while back, one of you had posted a funny quip at the end of the post...something along the line of:

"I feel like I'm staring at the sun except, its made of stupid"

Is that the exact quip???

The quip in question (hey, two Q's! ) was "It's like staring at the sun if the sun was made of stupid".

Except I didn't make that up -- I ripped it off from some place. I think maybe Pharyngula.

Thanks!....I'm going to have that made into a tee-shirt.

Front "Intelligent Design"

Back "It's like staring at the sun if the sun was made of stupid".

Date: 2006/09/14 05:51:53, Link
Author: Steverino

"Well, OK, there are many Christians, yes, who still have not been shown the light of truth on Origins, but this latest announcement by the Pope will go a long way toward fixing that problem."

You suffer from a severe case of cranial rectal inversion.  How condescending and snarky of you to assume you actually know the Truth.  I am so disinclined to believe you know anything based on your inability to critically think or acknowledge fact.

Tell me, do you believe the sun and the stars revolve around the earth?

Date: 2006/09/14 07:25:12, Link
Author: Steverino

Do the sun, stars and planets revolve around the earth?

Date: 2006/09/20 14:57:13, Link
Author: Steverino

Does the sun revlove around the earth?

Date: 2006/09/20 17:08:58, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,17:59)
It's also pretty interesting that people like PZ Meyers have been lying to kids about our origins for years, but now he's mad because there's an alternate view out there being promoted to kids.

Just think how mad he'd be if we were TAX FUNDED like his view is AND mandated in all the public schools!

Whooo ... baby!


Oh, I see that people looked at my chart and are pretending not to know what the word "hypothetical" means ... oh well ... what am I to expect from this crowd.

More pretty pictures tomorrow!

The real shame is...dishonest idiots like yourself are allowed to influence children with your misinformation.  Those children will grow up without the ability to critically think...all for your own personal selfish reasons.

You and your closed minded, intellectually vapid leaders are really just about control.  God forbid anyone actually think for themselves.    

You are promoting the dumbing down of America.

Date: 2006/09/21 02:20:43, Link
Author: Steverino

No Dave, no more beating around the bush or obfuscation...answer the question...Does the sun revolve around the earth...Do the stars revolve around the earth?

Ecclesiastes 1:4 and 5:  One generation goeth, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth.

Psalms 92: "He has made the world firm, not to be moved."

Psalms 103: "You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever."

Joshua 10:12: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon."

It's that simple.  You believe in Biblical Creation and that the Bible is a book of facts and the inerrant word of God.  Now pony up.

Or do you just pick and choose the statements that support your beliefs?

See if you can answer this time without resorting to an attempt at a "veiled" shot.[I]

Date: 2006/09/23 18:09:43, Link
Author: Steverino

You never answered...

Does the sun revolve around the earth?....Is the earth the center of the universe?

It's in the Bible...spit it out.

Date: 2006/09/23 18:14:34, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)

So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?

Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.


You're like the third man in, in a hockey fight.  A born coward/pussy....pick you term.

How about posting something that proves 6000 year Creation.  Back it up or piss off.

Date: 2006/09/24 02:56:59, Link
Author: Steverino

Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?"

Now who is being disingenuous?  Are you attempting to interpret the written word of God?

So that whole Galileo being tossed in prison was just about turn of phrase??? Can't have it both ways.

Date: 2006/09/29 09:44:32, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:30)

I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!

But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)

Typical Paley...wrong,  wrong, wrong!

People in the is thread have answered ALL of AFDave's questions and detail...backup with links and documents.

Why is it you feel the need to make an incorrect statement?

Date: 2006/10/05 07:06:41, Link
Author: Steverino
Dembski said -
"What I'm concerned about are sneering critics who think that ID's claims to science are dishonest, confused, ignorant."


Didn't a judge in Dover come to the same conclusion???

Did Dover not happen...was I just dreaming?

Date: 2006/10/05 12:40:29, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 05 2006,13:16)
Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 05 2006,12:06)
Did Dover not happen...was I just dreaming?

Yes, you were just dreaming.  And you still are.  When you wake up, you'll find that geocentrism is still taught in schools and doctors still practice bloodletting.  Welcome to the Dark Ages.

You have to wonder...if these sheep were in many fewer illnesses, diseases or world problems would have be or gone unsolved?

If God designed or created every and everything was by design then would it not be an act to go against the will of God to cure an illness or changes the path of a virus...or move people out of harms way of a hurricane?

Funny how the pick and choose, how they interpret God's word and will.  Are they not themselves committing blasphemy by speaking for God

Date: 2006/10/06 05:57:37, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)


C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." Quote by Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, quoted by C. Mann (1991) "Lynn Margulis:  Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 378-381.  Lynn was the originator of the theory that mitochondria were once independent bacterial cells.

Yes, I agree with you, Lynn, but these guys don't yet.  Maybe someday!

There are many such quotes that I could give you and I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with in attempting to make their theory square with the evidence from all branches of science.  The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.  Why?  "Well, because Evolution is true, of course, and those critters have been evolving for 400 million years!  What are you?  An idiot or something?"  [Insert Headscratching]

So if Darwinism is bankrupt for explaining the Origin of Species [and I will continue to show you that it is], then how did it REALLY happen?  Glad you asked!

It happened pretty much as I outlined in Points C and D above.  How do I know this?  Well of course this idea comes from the Biblical book of Genesis, which, as I have pointed out with no small effort, is most likely a compilation of written, eyewitness history--documents which were carefully recorded on clay tablets by contemporaries of the events recorded, then compiled into one volume by Moses.  You can read the details of this here

Now how do I KNOW it happened this way?  Well, of course I cannot KNOW it happened this way simply by reading the Book of Genesis.  Reading the Book of Genesis simply gives me an account of how it happened.  It is obviously a very high profile account due to the success and spread of the Christian religion, so it is reasonable to at least investigate this account and compare it to other accounts and investigate whether it could be true or not.  I have done this quite thoroughly and have come to the conclusion that, whether it is true or not, at the very least, it is far from being simply a Hebrew legend, similar to all the other legends of the world, passed down orally from generation to generation, possibly copied from Mesopotamian accounts.  No, my friends.  This book is unique.  On close examination, it has every evidence of being a solemn, eyewitness record of the events described.  And you can start with the link above to see why this is so.

Now Dave, come on, you think this book is "inspired by God" ... how can you present a scientific hypothesis when you invoke God?  It's true, I have come to the conclusion that this book is inspired by God, but let's pretend that I don't think this, because I have not always thought this.  I have only come to this conclusion after careful study.  So at this point, we will pretend that there is no "inspiration" or "inerrancy" involved.  We will simply look at the Genesis record as a historical record and investigate it's claims regarding the "Origin of Species."

Now most of you are already familiar with the Genesis Record and, if you have read my article above on the Tablet Theory of Genesis, you know that the huge events of Creation and the Flood are recorded on Tablets 1 - 4.

Let's begin with my first statement ...

"All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation."

First, what do I mean by "genetically rich"?  Well hopefully you all are somewhat familiar with the facts of heredity, specifically, that a population of organisms that is NOT geographically isolated, will tend to maintain the original pool of traits.  Only when a subset of the population is isolated from the group will the original group and the subgroup experience a loss WRT the genetic information of the original group and thus will specialize.  For example, a group of 1000 similar looking "mutt" dogs on a desert island which have unrestricted access to the entire group would generally continue to produce "mutt" dogs.  Assuming that you could achieve thorough mixing, there would then be mixing of the characteristics in such a way that the overall characteristics of the group would not change.  Now if a dog breeder shows up on the island and begins isolating small groups of dogs, I think you know what will happen.  You will end up with Great Danes and Chihuahuas and everything in between.  Why?  Because of Geographic Isolation.  The dog breeder is physically separating the large original group into small, isolated groups, thereby cutting off each sub group from all the genetic information in the other sub groups.  So ... back to my original statement.  "Genetically rich" as I (and AIG) use the term, simply means "muttish" if you will.  It simply means that Adam and Eve possessed ALL the genetic information which ever there was in the human genome, and their immediate descendants had free access to all other members of the group because there was only one super-continent (I think you agree with this already) and there would have been no compelling reason early on to separate from the group.  We are not told in the Genesis account that there were any differences in language until the Towel of Babel incident, so we assume that there was only one language originally.  

Another characteristic of Adam and Eve was that they were much more free of harmful mutations than we are today.  How do we know this?  Simply by observing that harmful mutations tend to accumulate over time in any population.  Thus if we go back in time 6000 years, we can infer that there were much fewer at that time.  How much fewer?  I cannot say.  One of the earliest prohibitions against close marriages that I know of came with the Law of Moses which was not given until around the 15th century BC.  And we know that the Bible records at least one close marriage about 500 years prior to this--Abraham marrying his half sister (see Genesis 20:12).  From this we infer that close marriages were not a problem for Adam and Eve's early descendants because harmful mutations had not yet accumulated enough to be a problem for close marriages.  We propose that the reason for the Mosaic prohibition on close marriages (Leviticus 18) is partly due to the accumulation of harmful mutations over the previous 2600 or so years since Creation.

As for my second statement, "My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification", I think this needs no proof from me because I think you all agree that this was the situation initially.  We obviously disagree on how long ago that this situation prevailed, but I think we agree that it is a quite likely scenario at some point in the past.

Now what have I done this morning?  Not much yet, but we are moving.  Have I quoted massive quantities of scientific papers?  No.  What I have done is merely started with a written record of events, shown you my research into why this record is a historical account, then pointed out some simple facts of science which anyone with a high school education should know.  In doing so, I have merely shown you that the historical record is plausible.  Have I proven that it is true?  No.  "Proof" is a hard thing to come by.  But I have given you good reasons from well known scientific observations that the statements ...    
All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.

... are indeed quite plausible.

Now for your comments!


It's supposed to mean that if you're having trouble getting anyone to take you seriously [as you are, Dave; you do recognize that much, don't you?], it's not a good strategy to use, as your pillar of credibility, someone that no one takes seriously. ... Tell you what. When you and your kind have had anything more than zero impact in any of the professional literature that defines science as far as I'm concerned, I'll take the time to read what you have to say. In the meantime, I'm just skimming for laughs.
Hmmm ... I get the feeling, Russell, that you are like a windsock.  You will point in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing.  IOW you accept only what the "experts" determine is true, not what YOU have determined is true.  America (and modern science) was built by radical, out-of-the-box thinkers with stout spines.  America and the world needs more people like this.  I challenge you--as my English teacher in 11th grade once did to me--to stop following and start leading.

2) You asked for a list of examples in the form of (modern animal)-like critter. I gave you that.
You listed "human like critter" at every step.  I think you know what I am looking for.  And I am beginning to think that for some reason, no one wants to stick their neck out and list them all.

Mike PSS...  
and no amount of you saying that "The ToE says that fish are closer to bacteria than humans" is going to change the reality of what the ToE says - which is that humans and fishes are equally distant from bacteria.
Yes.  And I have to tell you that this was an eye opener to me.  I knew Darwinism did not make any sense to me.  But I never dreamed that Darwinists would ever propose something this wild, the implications of which are so ridiculous as to render one unable to do anything but stand with mouth agape in utter amazement.

Now, you asked me a while ago to provide you a list of organisms between (i.e., intermediate to) bacteria and humans. There is no such list, because the question makes no sense. Humans branched off from bacteria at the same time as every single other eukaryote that ever lived, approximately a billion or so years ago. There are no eukaryotes which are intermediate between bacteria and humans.
Oh, but you are so wrong.  There IS such a list!  The question makes perfect sense.  You most definitely SHOULD be able to make a Bacteria-to-Dave Hawkins ancestry list, at least with made up names for the various organisms.  You see, if ToE is true, then there DEFINITELY WAS a real live bacterium on my family tree -- "Great ... great grandpa" if you will.  And there DEFINITELY WAS a real live worm-like creature, and there definitely was a fish-like creature, etc.  If ToE is true, then these creatures all truly lived and died on this planet.  They may not look exactly like modern species, which is why you are so non-comittal, but they truly lived on earth, if ToE is true.

And more to the point, why do you think either one of these possibilities is absurd? It seems to me that either one could be true, and more to the point, neither would falsify the theory of evolution.
Simple.  If the ancient "living fossils" are the same biochemically as the modern ones, as Zuckerkandl wrote in 1965, and as I am inclined to believe that many scientists believed also up to that point, then Denton's discussion on sequence data is very apt--as he points out, molecular biology then gives no support to ToE whatsoever.  Now, if they are different, then you have the emabarrassing task of trying to explain why in the world they would be different, given what we know about say, two modern golden retrievers.  The golden retrievers are just as similar in form, physiology and function as are the "living fossil" specimens.  How in the world could they live on planet earth for 400 million years and not change a bit?  Yet you try to tell me "Oh, they've changed--you just can't see it because it is in non-coding DNA."  You are right about one thing, Eric.  My argument HAS changed.  I began this segment pointing out that evolutionists NEED Deep Time, and this has been easily shown.  Then I presented Denton's info on sequence data which presents a real problem to evolutionists who used to believe as Zuckerkandl once did.  But you have given me new information, namely, that you think the ancient forms of "living fossils" were far different that modern forms.  This is so ridiculous sounding to me that yes, I have been focusing on this more lately.  And why not?  I began by pointing out a problem for Darwinism.  Now I see an even bigger problem for Darwinism.

And when, oh when, Dave, are you going to deal with the implications of the list you asked me to prepare?
When you complete the list I asked for.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that NO ONE can be wrong about Evolution.
Logically, then, that will be your last post here.
It is quite a different matter, Russell, to say "NO ONE can be wrong about ToE" than to say "The ToE is a fairy tale."  IOW, I'm saying it is absurd for one fairy tale adherent (you, for example) to say that so-and-so fairy tale adherent (Denton, for example) is wrong about our fairy tale.  The truth is, it's a fairy tale anyway, so who cares if so-and-so gets some details wrong.  There is no such thing as "wrong" when dealing in fairy tales.  But I am not a fairy tale adherent.  I stand outside the Darwinian fairy tale and seek to show WHY it is a fairy tale and why the Biblical explanation is NOT a fairy tale.  So, logically, then, I have many more posts ahead of me here.

Despite the title of this thread, for these 200+ pages you've provided no evidence for your so-called hypothesis, only attempts (pretty feeble ones, long since rejected by anyone with a high-school education worthy of the name) to find problems with standard science. Not terrifically surprising, since that's all creationism has ever amounted to.
Actually, I've given good solid evidence for 7 of my points and we are on 8th and 9th now (Points C & D).  You're right, though, that I have not yet given any positive evidence yet for the current points.  That's coming.

So, when I ask him, if ancient bacteria are neither the same genetically nor different genetically from modern bacteria, then what are they genetically compared to modern bacteria, I take it as personal affirmation that he can't answer me.
Then you are either ignorant or dishonest.  There are many questions of mine that you all do not answer also.  But I would be a fool to assume that this is because you CANNOT answer them.  Only when you DO answer them and the answer is no good, can I assume that you are not able to answer.  There are many reasons why you may not answer.  1) You cannot 2) You're not in the mood 3) You don't want to take the time, etc.  Origins is a very broad subject and one only has a limited amount of time.  My approach is to focus on the topics I am most interested in.  And I know that most people here are the same way.

Whenever you or Deadman or 7 Popes post that big list of questions, all you are doing is showing your dishonesty by pretending that I am not ABLE to answer them.  Anyone with any sense of ethics at all knows that "Unanswered Questions != Unanswerable Questions."

Sort of like how Aftershave is revealing his true character when he posts pictures of dog turds.

5. The ark lands and organisms begin to radiate. "Microevolution" really takes off. Humans "microevolve" into all the races currently existing (and the mislabeled "species" that are now extinct). The Ark-monkey "microevolves" into all the monkey "species" we see today. The Ark-lungfish...stays the same. The Ark-bacterium...stays the same.

You see the predicament, Dave. If there's no difference between the fossil lungfish and the modern lungfish, then that lungfish hasn't changed (i.e., deteriorated) since the Flood. Why has it not been paying the price of sin for the past 4,000 years? Did God grant it a pardon? Does that mean we should revere lungfish, bacteria and other species which "look the same" as their fossil ancestors as the currently living things that MOST RESEMBLE God's initial, perfect Creation?

Excellent question.  Outta time today.  I want to answer this though ... hopefully tomorrow.

How can both of these statements be true:

4.55 billion years is not nearly long enough for life to have evolved from a few thousand species to the tens of millions of species in existence today.

4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have evolved from a few thousand species on Noah's ark to the tens of millions of species in existence today.
Excellent question.  Outta time today.  I want to answer this though ... hopefully tomorrow.

Grey_Wolf_c ... I will now refer to you as "GW" ... I am not into using the SHIFT key 3 separate times just to type someone's name properly ... sorry!  Hope that helps! :-)

Dave, You left out...

"Thanks...I'll be here all week!...Don't forget to tip your waitresses.....Try the veal!"

I'm not sure when I have read a more funny post!  Honestly, thanks for the belly laugh.  

I'm sure they childen you "mentor" will find you just as funny when the learn to think for themselves.

Date: 2006/10/16 08:17:31, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 15 2006,14:03)

I'd just like to add that calling Dave a "liar" isn't an insult; it's an observation. There can be no question at this point that Dave has repeatedly lied, either explicitly or by omission, on countless occasions. Dave will no doubt dispute this, but when Dave claims not to be a liar, he is, in fact, lying.

I appreciate the irony of someone like me making this point, but I think even calling someone a "liar" is counterproductive. The best strategy IMHO is to document the oppenent's distortions and abuses of the literature, and let the lurker discover the truth for himself. One of my favorites in this regard is Jim Foley. His debate with Richard Milton remains one of the most effective demolitions I have ever witnessed.

Paley,  How ironic that you use Columbo as your avatar…a stumbling, mumbling, disheveled detective who gave the impression that he was easy to deceive….And you with all your supposed worldly knowledge, and education…..

Just makes me smile...ear to ear.

Date: 2006/10/18 12:43:53, Link
Author: Steverino
It's obvious that Dave is not only reading alot of assumptions into the Bible but, also creating ideas or concepts that are not in the Bible.

Front-loading Adam and Eve????

Do you just make this crap up?

Date: 2006/10/31 07:36:49, Link
Author: Steverino

You are being dishonest with not only us but, with yourself.  Even if we take you at your word regarding
2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these."

Stories (The Bible is not a collection of historical records) that have been written down, translated...over and over...You assume these are accurate.

Noah was 600 years old?  You actually believe place more validity on the idea Noah was 600 years old...than say....Dendrochronology, which is considered to be one of the most accurate dating method?

Date: 2006/11/01 10:48:19, Link
Author: Steverino
Again, this brings us to an "all powerful" God.  If he were all powerful why not just snap his heavenly fingers and declare a "do over".

Why all the expense and drama of a flood?


Date: 2006/11/02 04:28:20, Link
Author: Steverino
Is this the same Dr. John Sanford.....Raelien John Sanford who believes:

Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers

"Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth.
Today, everybody knows that life on earth is the result of random evolution and/or a supernatural God. Or is it?
In "Message from the Designers" Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world. During a UFO encounter in 1973 he was dictated a series of messages, face to face, by one of these designers. The result is what lies within these pages - an astonishing revelation for mankind."

mmmmm.....Nuts don't just come in jars.

Date: 2006/11/02 09:39:08, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 02 2006,12:45)
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 02 2006,10:28)
Is this the same Dr. John Sanford.....Raelien John Sanford who believes:

Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers

"Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth.
Today, everybody knows that life on earth is the result of random evolution and/or a supernatural God. Or is it?
In "Message from the Designers" Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world. During a UFO encounter in 1973 he was dictated a series of messages, face to face, by one of these designers. The result is what lies within these pages - an astonishing revelation for mankind."

mmmmm.....Nuts don't just come in jars.

Steverino, this makes it look like you're quoting Sanford.

Whoops....sorry was not my intention.  My intention was to show the Raelien mind set.

####, I hope that means the will still beam me up when the time comes.

Date: 2006/11/06 09:48:36, Link
Author: Steverino
"...What I am doing here at ATBC is showing, in a systematic (although admittedly not comprehensive) way, that there is no data from science or archaeology that contradicts the historical record known as the Book of Genesis."

Dave, you are either stupid, ignorant or denial.  Not being rude here, just honest.  You have been shown what is fact and what is fiction and you choose to turn a blind eye and cling to ideas that have been proven false.

Your opinion is insignificant to the discussion because you will not honestly debate.

Date: 2006/11/30 10:32:46, Link
Author: Steverino
Dave you talk tough for a pussy.  The fact you and your church take money when you know what you pitch as fact is plain bullsh!t, is dishonest.

While it may not be against the law, it is morally bankrupt.

Date: 2006/11/30 11:12:48, Link
Author: Steverino

Since I have not posted or accused you of anything libelous, I'd be more than happy to contact you but, bring friends.  You will need them.

You are quick to threaten lawsuits.  In my opinion, that speaks of a true, sniveling pussy that cannot win either the argument or the fight.

Date: 2006/12/08 07:27:39, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 07 2006,15:41)
Here's another question for you, Dave, that is directly on topic. So you can't dodge it by saying it's not on-topic.

You claim that the human genome is "degenerating" so quickly we should be heading for extinction after a hundred generations. Is the human genome somehow more prone to "degeneration" (despite the fact that humans have managed not to radiate into any new species in the last 5,000 years, while according to your "hypothesis" the average "kind" on the ark has radiated into a thousand species) than other large mammals?

A house-cat generation is approximately a year. So is a domestic dog. Most birds can reproduce after approximately a year. A hundred years after the "flood," shouldn't most of these species have been headed for extinction, according to your "hypothesis"? Doesn't this present a problem for your "hypothesis," in the form of yet another misprediction? If not, why not?

"...Is the human genome somehow more prone to "degeneration" (despite the fact that humans have managed not to radiate into any new species in the last 5,000 years, while according to your "hypothesis" the average "kind" on the ark has radiated into a thousand species) than other large mammals?"

Eric, that's a fantastic point!  And, one I'd love to see a YEC answer with out giving away the fact they are full of shit.[B]

Well, Dave???

Date: 2006/12/11 17:24:21, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 11 2006,11:20)
To spend more time with her 48 other blogs, perhaps.

:O  I blogged about the pinched schoolmarm behind this little nugget without even connecting it to Denyse! She's behind Christianity.caca? DO'L!

I've heard that the instances of men wearing goatees and the sale of pitchforks have been on the rise in the last twenty years.  Perhaps, and I think Denyse might be able to come up with the supporting article, it's due to the a movement away from Christian values as men fall victim to the control of Satan.

Least, that's what I heard anyways......


Date: 2006/12/13 17:01:42, Link
Author: Steverino

"I have every reason to suspect that the Judge took a payoff from the ACLU. "

Of course he does!  It's an emotional comment based on an emotional desire to have his belief's validated.  No evidence needed!

That's what makes him so good at ID...No evidence needed...just and emotional desire.

Can I get an Amen!

Date: 2006/12/14 16:14:01, Link
Author: Steverino
Am I missing some evidence or data that says, if something is complex then it must be designed.

Why the automatic leap to the designer conslusion?

Where does complexity prove design? Or is that just a way of saying, "I give up, it's too tough to figure out...Game over".

Is it maybe becuase science is on the verge of coming up with the explanations and the Creationist/Christian Right/Fundies see this and rather than have it all exposed, they hope to stem the tide before the curtain is lifted???

Date: 2006/12/15 09:30:04, Link
Author: Steverino

Please provide any evidence that proves complexity proves design or designer.

Date: 2006/12/15 18:39:03, Link
Author: Steverino

Again, please provide any evidence that assumed complexity proves design or designer.

Date: 2006/12/16 06:47:37, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 15 2006,18:39)

Again, please provide any evidence that assumed complexity proves design or designer.

Dave.......Answer please

Date: 2006/12/16 14:09:44, Link
Author: Steverino

It's actually amusing to watch you build a strawman.

Now, cut to the chase and provide the evidence/proof that assumed complexity proves design.

You can save us alot of time reading your run around BS and answer the question.

Date: 2006/12/17 16:13:36, Link
Author: Steverino
I'm not sure it's worth continuing this thread.  Dave seems unable to concede when he has lost the point.  Instead, he Bolds his misinformation and adds it to his list of misinformation.

Quite frankly, he is disingenuous in arguing his position and thus, not worthy of an honest debate.

Date: 2006/12/21 08:40:38, Link
Author: Steverino

AGAIN,...Where does complexity prove assumed design?  Where is your science, your evidence...your proof???

You have nothing, period.  It's all just emotional, wishful thinking

Date: 2006/12/21 12:48:40, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:35)

Ancient stone tools ... and ... modern tools

... and ...


Flagellar motor (picture from NON-YEC source)..... and ...... electric motor

:D  :D  :D

No rigorous mathematical tests required!

AHHHHHHH.....No Proof Required!!!

I get how this works.

Date: 2006/12/23 08:44:33, Link
Author: Steverino

AGAIN, before you assume anything that looks complex or like a real man-built machine...where is your proof that complexity proves design.

Everything you have posted regarding complexity has been explained through natural means so, you have yet to get off first base. So, lets cut to the chase and you just provide us with your evidence that assumed complexity proves design.  Evidence that is outside of your emotional desires.

Date: 2006/12/24 07:47:54, Link
Author: Steverino

A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.

If there is such a being, with all kinds of power....why all the drama of a flood and all....why not just a snap of this his fingers...or noodles (trying to be PC) and just do a cosmic do-over?

Was it an attempt on His part to mislead?  Do it make logical sense to you?

Date: 2006/12/26 10:13:04, Link
Author: Steverino
Ok!...I give in and agree!...Moron's do exist!!!

Dave, thanks for the proof.

Date: 2006/12/27 08:59:53, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2006,08:24)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,08:07)
1) Figure out a viable mechanism for Macro-Evo since RM+NS is dead.  Synergistic Epistasis maybe?  Soft Selection perhaps?


3) Don't refer anyone to Allen MacNeill's statement that the Modern Synthesis of ToE is dead, found here and here

From the Thread you Linked to. Why not let the Man speak for himself, Liar davey?

And davey, does your curiosity about nature exceed your fear of the unknown?

. Allen_MacNeill  // Oct 17th 2006 at 6:35 pm

Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success.

This idea was essentially based on theoretical mathematical models originally developed by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, with some experimental confirmation (using Drosophila) by Theodosious Dobzhansky and field observations (chiefly of birds) by Ernst Mayr (with some supporting observations on the fossil record by G. G. Simpson and plants by G. Ledyard Stebbins). Its high water mark was the Darwin centenial celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which most of the aforementioned luminaries attended, and which has been chronicled by Ernst Mayr and William Provine.

However, cracks were already showing in the “synthesis” by 1964, when W. D. Hamilton proposed his theory of kin selection. They widened considerably in 1969 when Lynn Margulis proposed her theory of serial endosymbiosis. Then, in 1972, the dam broke, when Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould published their landmark paper on “punctuated equilibrium. Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis”, Gould went on to publish yet another landmark paper with Richard Lewontin, this one undermining the “Panglossian paradigm” promoted by the founders of the “modern synthesis”:
that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.

And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

But what has come out of all of this is NOT the end of the theory of evolution, but rather its further integration into the biological sciences. Darwin only hinted at (and the founders of the “modern synthesis” mostly ignored) the idea that the “engine of variation” that provided all of the raw material for evolutionary change is somehow intimately tied to the mechanisms by which organisms develop from unicellular zygotes into multicellular organisms, and the mechanisms by which genetic information is transferred from organism to organism.

We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.


ONCE AGAIN, you have been caught being, at best, disigenous.

This seems to be your pattern or method of arguing your position...taking quotes or ideas out of context to support your position.

If proves you have no credibility, no honesty or morals.

I for one am saddened that you have contact or influence over any child...saddened that those children are being lied too and taught to be dishonest as you are.

Date: 2006/12/27 09:52:44, Link
Author: Steverino

Do you honestly think court cases will help your cause???

What don't you understand about "Unconstitutional"?

Date: 2006/12/27 10:09:28, Link
Author: Steverino
Furthrmore, religious fundies, like yourself, have a snowball's chance in ####.

The last election results was in part due to a backlash against the right and the religious elements that have hijacked our decision and law making process to have their views, unconstitutionally, forced on the American people.

Well that day is over and it's time to pay the piper.

Date: 2006/12/27 11:47:18, Link
Author: Steverino
Yeah, how about your "credibility" gap.  Start there.

Date: 2006/12/27 14:30:06, Link
Author: Steverino
Here is a great link explaining the method and process for dating the Great Pyramids.

Turns out, there old....Older than Dave needs to make his myth work.

Date: 2006/12/28 18:55:25, Link
Author: Steverino

You keep throwing the:

"So could the Great Pyramid have been built in 2170 BC as the astronomy of the edifice indicates?"

Incorrect date.  The majority Eygptologists agree the date is much closer to 2600 BC.

Again, you are just wrong, and again, just dishonest.

Date: 2007/01/03 08:25:33, Link
Author: Steverino
Denyse should just complete the surgery and then she could join the "Fab Five"...although, they would have to change the name to something like the "Sensational Six".

Ya know, if the whole ID thing doesn't pan out for her.

Date: 2007/01/03 09:16:17, Link
Author: Steverino
"I do not believe that creationism or ID should be taught in the public school system.  I think it should be mentioned on the basis of an alternative theory, but that is it.  I do not want non-believers to be teaching something like creationism to my child.  My personal belief is that creationism at it's core is a religious belief.  I do not self identify with the ID crowd.  I applaud them for trying, but I believe they are misled."

Using the word "Theory" implies scientific or provable facts are being used to support this concept.  It would imply that Creation carries as much, or should carry as much weight as the Theory of Evolution.  That's just not the case.

Creation is not supported by any scientific/testable data or evidence henceforth, is not a theory.  It is at best, a concept.  And, as such, it has no place being taught or even mentioned in a science classroom.

Date: 2007/01/03 11:02:21, Link
Author: Steverino
"The potential of the universe to cause itself into existence at the same instance that it is caused is impossible to believe and even more impossible to explain.  It cannot cause itself before it's existence. "

And the Bible offers a more plausable explanation?  Based on what???

You suffer from the basic "argument from incredulity".

Date: 2007/01/04 19:24:06, Link
Author: Steverino
Not to be harsh but,

"I have chosen to believe in a living Book and a living God.  A God who has existed before time and understands all things.  I have not seen God physically, in much the same way that any of you have seen physically all of science.  I have seen God in my life, and I have seen Him work in my life.  I cannot abandon my belief in a God who has never abandoned me.  So I will stand by my belief in a literal God and a literal Bible.  I will stand by my belief in a 6 literal 24 hour day creation.  I will stand by my belief that the Bible is the only Truth by which all truth should be measured.  Just like you stand by your belief based on the authority of science, a science that is fallable and created by scientists that are mortal, I will stand by my belief based on a God that makes no mistakes and is omnipotent and omniscient.  My faith is in that which transcends the limitations of science."

What a full of sh!t statement.  While you may believe you have been touched or can attest to God in your life, the fact remains you have absolutely no proof other than your emotional desire to believe God has touched your life.

Your "witness" is nothing more than an appeal to an emotion.

Date: 2007/01/08 09:10:11, Link
Author: Steverino
Again, where is the science or the evidence that proves if something has the appearance of design, that design took place?

Don't they have to prove that for any part of their argument to work?

Date: 2007/01/18 08:56:07, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 17 2007,15:39)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 17 2007,15:36)
"Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." - Song of Solomon 4:5

"Thine Adam's Apple is like mine." - Song of Dembski to Coulter 3:16


"Man Coutler" ???

Couldn't resist.

Date: 2007/01/19 11:05:08, Link
Author: Steverino
Skeptic posted (although not his quote):

"In my experience, science is not enough."


1. Why not?

Are we that needy that we need to have some type of reason or challenge for our existence?  Does that some how make our lives more valuable or noble than that of other life forms?  Are we just feeding our collective ego? Does gravity or mathematics need a "why"?

I read a story on another blog about a Christian student who decided to challenge his beliefs so, after he graduated from a Christian Academy (high school) he decided to attend a secular university.  One of his main observations was how other students who were not Christian or religious at all, lived a moral life.  He wondered under what rules or obligations prevented them from acting out or living immorally.  Why weren’t they just running amok?

Maybe because, what you see is, what you get…that’s all there is.

Date: 2007/01/19 11:14:49, Link
Author: Steverino
As a Graphics Designer, Artist and Usability Specialist....the assclown known as TRoutMAC on UD makes me want to turn in my talent.

To paraphrase a quote about business customers..."Scientists shouldn't do design and designers shouldn't do science."

STFU Assclown!!!

I hope he attends the next SIGGRAPH so, I can piss in his margarita.

Date: 2007/01/19 14:24:13, Link
Author: Steverino
From TRoutMac, Unintelligent Designer

"If ID is really a just religious view, then why would folks of many different religious persuasions, including those that would not hold the Bible as a religious authority, be interested in it?"

Ummmmmmm, let's see.....why would religious people, who are religious but, may hold different religious beliefs...share a common religious view?

Ummmmmmm...mabye because they are RELIGIOUS!!  You completed TOOL!

It's no mystery that 99% of the major religions believe in an omnipotent deity.  Your point is...well, pointless!

Turn your mouse and crayons in at the door.

Date: 2007/01/25 11:31:38, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2007,10:36)
Yes, he seems to be having a bad day, and is taking it out on his Strawman:

The number of unconvinced is growing. Better get busier in those labs producing evidence that random mutation and natural selection is responsible for turning mud into man and bacteria into baboons

IQ north of 150 and don't know what abiogenisis is?


I'm pretty sure with Demski as "The Skipper" and Dave Scot as his "Little Buddy", the good ship Tard won't get off the island.

They really are the fleas fighting over the dog.

Date: 2007/03/07 14:04:39, Link
Author: Steverino
One has to remember, Coulter is professional pundit.  She has to keep her name in the press or be forgotten.

There are so many right-wing pundits competing for time on the Faux News channel that unless she distinguishes herself from the mealy pack, she will fall by the way side.  So,it’s to her benefit to open that pie hole sitting upon her Ichabod Crane body and spew forth her wisdom.

On the plus side, she is polarizing.  She is one of those people that you either love or hate...and those who hate her, will never be convinced to like her or be moved to accept her position.

She is what Dice Clay would have called, a Snapper-head.

Date: 2007/04/20 09:16:38, Link
Author: Steverino
Steverino here....

20 years as a Designer (print and web) and UI/Software Usability Analyst.

I just happened to stumble onto to the Pandas Thumb after doing some googling.  I had gotten into debates regarding the adoption of creation ideas into the public school system and needed some hard scientific data to go along with the legal facts.

Science rocks and you all have my admiration and gratitude for defending not only science but, the unconstitutional intrusion of religion into our schools and government.

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
                                                                                - Henry J. Tillman

Date: 2007/04/20 11:06:50, Link
Author: Steverino
LOL....I just love that "essence of TARD" closing..." - homo"

Makes me smile every time I see it.

Date: 2007/06/18 16:30:16, Link
Author: Steverino
Hey, completely off-topic...

Anyone ever come across this site:

Sadly, I found it when looking for contact information for the actor Dean Jones....who is Christian Activist now.

I'm guessing I'll never get his autograph for my bug..... ???

Date: 2007/06/18 17:52:03, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 18 2007,17:18)
Quote (Steverino @ June 18 2007,22:30)
Hey, completely off-topic...

Anyone ever come across this site:

Sadly, I found it when looking for contact information for the actor Dean Jones....who is Christian Activist now.

I'm guessing I'll never get his autograph for my bug..... ???

Oh shit,
another YEC Christian apologist with an engineering background!!!

Is there a factory making these somewhere?
Could we get Bush to bomb it?
Tell him it's an Al-Qaeda bombmaking factory...

Hey, we could do that with Ham's Creoseum.
Gotta be some more plays on words for that place...

Oh...I thought it was just another jerkoff.....oh, is.

Date: 2007/06/21 18:50:25, Link
Author: Steverino
Well, for all of you going to Hell...and you know who you are.

I believe you can simply make a donation to the Evangelical Church of your choice....and....its all good!

Of course, the best seats in the house...will run you a bit more.  Ya bleacher seats...non-obstruced view may run you a $1000....but the Green Monster seats up top the wall....Jesus...that might run you $10,000!

Oh shit, I said Jesus in vain!....God damn, this is gonna cost me!....Oh shit!!!...not again!......

Do they have a payroll deduct plan???

Date: 2007/06/21 19:21:07, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 21 2007,19:17)
Ah, straight to hell. Still, I hear the barbeque is good there.

I hear they make a bitchin hot sauce there!

Date: 2007/06/25 16:45:32, Link
Author: Steverino
Buckaroo Banzai.

Superhero.  Scientist.  Rock star.[/quote]
No!.....Buckeroo was not only a smart scientist and rocker......He Was Cool!!!

Demski is just one of those guys you gave swirlies to between classes!

Date: 2007/06/25 19:51:52, Link
Author: Steverino
To paraphrase from the movie "Fletch", Kent Hovind molests Collies.

Date: 2007/06/28 10:57:12, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,08:00)
The problem is, Oldman, that for every bit of inference or speculation you put forth that you feel supports common descent, there is also a mountain of evidence against the notion.

Here, make this easy on yourself.

Post one specific argument, that you can back up with data against common descent.

We will limit responses to your one specific argument.


Date: 2007/07/03 11:04:44, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2007,11:18)
Earlier, I unpublished a Larry Fafarman comment from the PT thread I have about Yecke.

Wikipedia provides links to a number of services that operate on provided IP addresses, like the ones logged in the vandalism.

Here's what RDNS had to say about the vandal's IP address:


Location: United States [City: Los Angeles, California]

The  reverse DNS entry for an IP is found by reversing the IP, adding it to "", and looking up the PTR record.
So, the reverse DNS entry for is found by looking up the PTR record for
All DNS requests start by asking the root servers, and they let us know what to do next.
See How Reverse DNS Lookups Work for more information.

How I am searching:
Asking for PTR record: says to go to (zone:
Asking for PTR record: [] says to go to NS4.VERIZON.NET. (zone:
Asking NS4.VERIZON.NET. for PTR record:  Reports [from]

Answer: PTR record: [TTL 86400s] [A=]

A vandal with a deranged sense of humor from Los Angeles.

Anyway, I'm writing up an email to Verizon abuse asking for their assistance in tracking down their user for publishing false defamatory information about me. Who knows, maybe I can get the joker's internet service yanked, or take it even further.

I'm sure that Larry F. would be interested in this case, if only to make appreciative noises about what the vandal did.

hhhhmmmmmm.........Were there any "fart" noises in the background????


Date: 2007/07/06 14:13:15, Link
Author: Steverino
Hey, a parody magazine...from ID....isn't that kind of an oxymoron?....Any who, I have a photo submission.

This one still cracks me up

Oh, maybe not.....

Date: 2007/07/06 14:30:39, Link
Author: Steverino
I wonder is we can locate a picture of him doing the Electric Slide or the Chicken dance.....

Date: 2007/07/06 14:38:38, Link
Author: Steverino an aside, you profile image is my fav TV marketing campaign.  They guy who plays the caveman as absolutely fantastic!

Date: 2007/07/17 13:58:32, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Henry J @ July 05 2007,22:18)
Wonder if "Tremors" fits the criteria?


"Tremors" rocks.  Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward were terrific together.  Not to mention, Reba McEntire and Michael Gross as the gun toting survivalist.

Seen it a hundred times...still makes me laugh! :p

Date: 2007/07/19 12:37:39, Link
Author: Steverino
From the Editor of the Churchill Centre,

"This floats around the internet in various guises. I have no doubt it was done widely, but there is no record in the literature of a formal operation."

I'm guessing this is just an urban legend.

Date: 2007/07/26 13:39:25, Link
Author: Steverino
I think you scared him away.! shucks.....*snif*....

I'd like to know what court case his planning on testifying in....for what case?

Date: 2007/07/27 06:53:42, Link
Author: Steverino
LOL...whenever I glance this thread name...for some reason, my mind reads it or sees it as "Libations and Combustibles"

Just makes me chuckle.

Although not a scientist and I have never played one on TV, I am a fan.....huge fan who supports the fight and the effort you all make in the name of truth.

Having said that...if you all ever get to Unv. of CT way...drinks are on me!

Date: 2007/07/31 09:50:04, Link
Author: Steverino
"I still insist you don’t need to know any biology at all to have predicted your main conclusions, all you need to know is the second law of thermodynamics: natural forces don’t build bridges, they just destroy them*. But no one will listen to you unless you do know some biology, so I’m glad there are people like you who look at the details and arrive at the same obvious conclusions" - Granville Sewell


Fish, barrel.......Blam!...Blam!..Blam!

Date: 2007/07/31 10:49:03, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 31 2007,10:47)
You darwinist materialist from ATBC miss the point.  Those bridges were DESIGNED.  Gahhh.

Well, putting all that slippery flora up top was...a bad design? could that be?


Date: 2007/07/31 11:56:22, Link
Author: Steverino
:...When a Darwinist uses the natural bridge argument, we could perhaps claim that natural bridges are actually FORMED by some sort of depositional activity. "

This is the nugget I find most telling..."we could claim" science, no facts....just straight up, unadulterated, old school head in the sand....Tard.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....that's good Tard!

Date: 2007/08/01 07:02:40, Link
Author: Steverino

Some day your children will realize how dishonest you were with them and yourself.  It's sad really.

You are contributing to the dumbing-down trend in this country because of your fanatical religious beliefs.

Your children will be ill-equipped to compete in the world when they move out on their own...unless they live in a community with other ill-equipped, poorly educated children such as themselves...all fighting for jobs at McDonalds.

You claim to what to know the truth, to learn but in reality, you close your eyes and mind to facts because it flies in the face of your unsupported beliefs.

YOU are what is wrong with this country today.

Date: 2007/08/01 08:23:45, Link
Author: Steverino
FTK is incapable of acknowledging facts.  It's a waste of time.  She knows all she wants to know.  She is disingenuous us and dishonest with herself.

She renders herself insignificant to the discussion because she refuses to acknowledge known fact and refuses to learn.

Date: 2007/08/01 10:57:53, Link
Author: Steverino

"BTW, AtBC, I don't NEED a worldwide flood in order to justify my worldview. A large scale localized flood would do the trick, IMO, and there is all the evidence necessary to very reasonably believe that that occurred."

Well, that's is not what the Bible says. The biblical flood, according to the Bible, covered the world.  Now you wish to make a case for a large localized flood?

So, was the Bible right or wrong?...which is it?

Date: 2007/08/03 19:36:38, Link
Author: Steverino
These people absolutely crack me up.  They live in a totally different reality.

They just can't see that the entire world is laughing behind their backs.

What's interesting is, one does not have to be a scientist to see they are full of shit.  One just had to examine their logic to know, they are full of shit.

Date: 2007/08/06 17:37:47, Link
Author: Steverino

"My Dad made the prediction that Hillary will be our next President (he seems to be sure about this). Don't worry though, his accuracy on predictions are usually 70-30. There's still a decent chance he's off kilter on this one.

God help us if he's right... "

When I read something like this I realize you're not just a moron, you're an asshole.

Wake up and smell the rotting flesh of 3000 US soldiers and countless dead Iraqi citizens killed in a war of choice.  That's right...CHOICE.  

The US did not have to start a war with Iraq...but we did....and, who know for what?...we still have not been told the real reason.

Date: 2007/08/07 14:25:33, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 07 2007,14:02)
Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 07 2007,07:29)
"Or the Halliwell sisters?"

Geri Halliwell has a sister?  NNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!


Must be a different Halliwell - I was referring to Prue, Piper, Phoebe, and Paige Halliwell. No Geri (whoever that is) in there.


mmmmmmmmmmmmmm...the Halliwell sisters!....Nice earmuffs!

Date: 2007/08/09 11:32:36, Link
Author: Steverino
...and neither did Joe G.


Date: 2007/08/09 14:29:34, Link
Author: Steverino
"Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design. And intelligent design here at Grace Bible Church actually is a smaller, uh, tent than you would have in the intelligent design movement as a whole. Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant, and it’s good to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent."

- Don McLeroy

mmmmmmmmmmmm...It's all about science?  These assclowns don't even lie well!

Date: 2007/08/09 20:21:38, Link
Author: Steverino
They aren't interested in open dialogue, open debate or learning.  What they/she is looking for is validation.

The simple fact that she goes to Behe, Demski, the Disco Intitute, and AIG for scientific fact tells you that she is looking to validate her bias because all that she is, her beliefs, her values... are rooted in this belief.  She needs it to be true.

Date: 2007/08/13 16:34:12, Link
Author: Steverino
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...legos!....I think they are an important building block in the ID theory.

Or at least, I think the people at AIG play with them alot....I forget now.

Date: 2007/08/13 16:53:34, Link
Author: Steverino
"If should be possible to allow for discussions on both evolution and ID in our classrooms without considering any part of religious issues, and that is what we should be striving for (together). "   -FTK

FTK, are you completely dishonest?...or is it stupidity?

"...We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."  - The Wedge Strategy

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

4. Significant coverage in national media:

- Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek

- PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

- Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

- Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

- Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

-  Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

- Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

- Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

7. Scientific achievements:

- An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

- Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

- Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

- Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

- Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory"

- The Wedge Strategy 5 Year Objectives

FTK, Tell me, where is the science....where is the objective to research and define ID Theory???..To present data for peer review????

I don't see anything here but swaying popular belief to Christian beliefs thru propaganda!!!

So, can you honestly tell me that "discussions on both evolution and ID in our classrooms without considering any part of religious issues" are what ID is all about???

Com'on....are you that stupid, disingenuous...or dishonest???

Date: 2007/08/13 17:19:32, Link
Author: Steverino
...but if left unchecked...can spead to your toes....causing....Toelio!

ba dum tish!

Date: 2007/08/13 18:01:08, Link
Author: Steverino
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

"...But as a thumbnail (and my last comment on the matter, at least on this thread), the hatred of God by all atheists is synonymous with Original Sin, ..."


There you go making a logical fallacy again because it fits your position.  One does not have to "hate" God to be an atheist

From the friends I have who are atheists, it's a decision borne out of logic, lack of evidence, proof, data or anything testable, that most atheist acknowledge.

Your position, however, is based on emotion and not logic or evidence.

Date: 2007/08/14 07:42:36, Link
Author: Steverino
Ha!...has FTK closed her blog to public view???

It seems only the priviliged can view her stupidity and dishonesty.

Date: 2007/08/14 11:33:08, Link
Author: Steverino
"...The problem is that Darwinists have proclaimed it unwise to debate...listen to the audio above to better understand why." - FTK

Really???...Tell me why won't IDiots/Creationist participate in a written debate?  One where positions have to be supported using facts and evidence.

Ask the Disco Institute that one..or Ham...or Hovind, ...when he gets out.

Date: 2007/08/15 06:28:06, Link
Author: Steverino
bbbbbuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrr....I shudder to think!

Date: 2007/08/17 18:28:30, Link
Author: Steverino

I started listening....and then the weird looks on his face...and that annoying condescending lip smacking distracted my focus.

Not being well versed in BS, I didn't follow his logical fallacy.  If this were say, 30 years ago and in school, this diatribe would have ended up in a swirly for the young squire.

Date: 2007/08/18 20:02:13, Link
Author: Steverino
It's just a typical reaction.  She doesn't like what she is reading, it goes against her beliefs, it does not validate her, instead of learning....she chooses to stick her fingers in her ears and cover her eyes....

When my daughter was 4, she used to do that too.

Date: 2007/08/23 11:25:40, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
Hotter, to who? ?(clue, there, that one is)

I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

I'll have to toss in on the redheads too!

If you want, I'll even go out and do my own research....armed with nothing more than some NoDoz, Coffee and duct tape...

I'll explain later.....


Date: 2007/08/27 11:29:41, Link
Author: Steverino
Any response from VenonFangX....does he wish to debate in an open forum?....or just post on utube where he can control debate?

Date: 2007/08/27 14:24:51, Link
Author: Steverino
Hey Joe G...Come back and answer some questions....ya know, when you take a break from preparing for court.

I'd like to know:

Any proof that appearance of design, does in fact, prove a design or a designer?.

Does Irreducible Complexity have a timelimit???  I was wondering because if you argue something is too complex to have evolved thru natural means...and in 5 years we understand more about how it could have evolved thru natual means...wouldn't that mean that your whole "IC" is just "BS"?

Just asking.

Date: 2007/08/30 12:20:40, Link
Author: Steverino

Creationist/Idiots are really nothing more than the many wacko conspiracy theorist we all read about.

Think about it, for all that they believe not to be true, in terms of TOE...tens of thousands of scientists, educators and researchers would all have to keep the "secret"?

In this day and age of greed and money wouldn't it be reasonable that a poor struggling biologist, making base pay, would have sold out and made themselves rich by exposing the man behind the curtain?

How would keeping such a secret be possible? ?For what reason? ?Wouldn't someone in the media want to expose just such a thing...think the fame and fortune!

Date: 2007/09/06 06:33:12, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 05 2007,21:43)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 05 2007,15:14)
What does a half developed tube look like anyway? A flat surface?

...FTK, if we were to find a "half evolved" something, how would we know what it was?

Wait a minute now. The horseshit FTK posts on this topic is indisputably half-assed. No one has any difficulty seeing that.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...."half-assed..."...would that be part of an evolutionary processs, ya know...a transitional...on the way to a "complete ass"??? ?Would that be the "missing ass"?

Actually I think FTK has evolved to a complete ass...right before our eyes!...WAIT A MOMENT!...Have we have observed evolution at work!??

Date: 2007/09/06 11:41:58, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:37)
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,11:30)
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability. ?There's gotta be something in the New England water. ?Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?

If Joe G is in New Hampshire, we drink different water. ?Mine comes from the mighty Quabbin, and it's fine indeed.

Then I must be south of your location.

Did you ever see the Quabbin special on PBS?  Fantastic special with divers diving the bottom to show the old town, bridge and railroad and golf course remains.

Date: 2007/09/06 12:47:09, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:51)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 06 2007,11:41)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:37)
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,11:30)
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability. ?There's gotta be something in the New England water. ?Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?

If Joe G is in New Hampshire, we drink different water. ?Mine comes from the mighty Quabbin, and it's fine indeed.

Then I must be south of your location.

Did you ever see the Quabbin special on PBS? ?Fantastic special with divers diving the bottom to show the old town, bridge and railroad and golf course remains.

I'm in the Boston area. ?As to documentaries, I only know Haunting the Quabbin, a great radio documentary produced by WBUR. ?The former town residents still hold ceremonial town meetings every year. ?Very poignant. ?

Also there's James Tate's poem "Quabbin Reservoir" (in Distance from Loved Ones, 1990), which includes the following passage:
There was a village at the bottom of the lake,
and I could just make out the old post office,
and, occasionally, when the light struck it just right,
I glimpsed several mailmen swimming in or out of it,
letters and packages escaping randomly, 1938, 1937,
it didn't matter to them any longer. ?Void.
No such address.

It was called, "Under Quabbin"

They run it from time to time. Well worth the watch.

I'm in NE Connecticut and work in Springfield.

Date: 2007/09/06 13:09:19, Link
Author: Steverino
To parphrase from "Fletch"

"...Joe G. molests collies."

Date: 2007/09/07 06:25:29, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 02 2007,21:39)








Disclaimer. AtBC gets a full $1 for each one of these sold, as described in chapter 7 on No Free Lunch.

uuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmm......Does it come in tinfoil?

Date: 2007/09/11 18:18:22, Link
Author: Steverino
NO!....Not the Yellow Hornet™!

May the Farce be with you!

I tried to post on his blog...and no dice.  I guess he does not like being called a LIAR.

Date: 2007/09/11 18:30:15, Link
Author: Steverino
It's a good thing to know, when we need serious science, we can turn to AnswersInGenitals!

Date: 2007/09/12 06:46:13, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2007,20:15)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 11 2007,12:07)

N.B.  I didn't create this.  Steve found it over at PZs.

I wonder if he's still cutting his hair with that pocketknife.

Hey, the 80's called!....They want their sweater back!

Date: 2007/09/13 12:03:29, Link
Author: Steverino
Joe also makes a huge leap of faith...that the appearance of design proves design.

Joe, again....when concepts that you point out Irreducibly Complex...are explained by "natural" (lol) causes...why does that not invalidate IC???

Date: 2007/09/18 07:05:03, Link
Author: Steverino
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.

Date: 2007/09/18 07:36:38, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.

the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.

No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.

Date: 2007/09/18 10:27:30, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.

I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.

"unbeliever".....tell me what bit of science fact caused you to become a YEC?

Date: 2007/09/18 10:44:21, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 18 2007,10:10)

A category 3 shitstorm out of the clear blue, with a schizotypal creationist recluse rotating energetically at the core. Where's my shit hat? that made me laugh!

Date: 2007/09/18 16:29:41, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:16)
Darwinists don’t like the origin-of-life topic brought up in the context of the evo/creo debate. To this they will always proclaim that ToE does not attempt to answer the question of life’s origin. Yet if you read any evolutionists’ books or talk to evos on debate forums they will almost always frame the debate as ToE against special creation. At first this may sound like an ok premise, but if you think about it, it’s off base and it's a diversion. Let me explain:

When evolutionists like Richard Dawkins – or any of the rest of them – frame the debate, they will almost always proclaim the debate is between ToE and special creation...(ie.."Goddidit")….YET evos are the first to admit that ToE is not a theory that deals with origin of life. So we have a disconnect: We have theory of biological change (ToE) being pitted not against another theory of biological change, but against a supernatural creation event. This is wrong, wrong, and wrong…In my opinion, the debate should not be between RMNS vs. special creation, but RMNS against a biological alternative to how change happens: In this case, the polar opposite to RMNS is the ability of the MIND/mental processes to bring about beneficial, purposeful heritable change.

But guess what…..Darwinists hate the mind. They never, but never, mention it in the context of evolution because the mind/mental processes is not only non-scientific, but is something that cannot even be defined, much less measured. The mind to evolutionists is like Kryptonite to Superman. You see, what evolutionists know is that in this day and age it’s accepted and even politically correct to bash and mock YECs…and it’s almost getting to that point even with God. However, it’s not quite so easy to bash the brain, mind, consciousness, awareness and other mental processes, which most people in society would admit are darn-near miraculous. So instead of bashing the mind, evolutionists merely ignore it, choosing instead to bash YEC, which is not even a biological theory of change! Talk about the strawmen of strawmen!

Heck, read any book: Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Darwin, or anyone else, NONE of them talk about the mind, which is the real biological alternative to Darwinism. At most, these people will make some sort of negative comment about creationists or lamarckism. Never is the mind brought up as a possible alternative to RMNS.

So Dawkins and his satellites have successfully pitted ToE against the 6-day Creation story mostly because the 6-day Creation story is (to many people) an unbelievable-sounding event….(by the way, miracles usually are unbelievable-sounding). But Dawkins dares not bring up ToE’s REAL biological opponent: the mind. And in kind, evolutionists have historically refused to test mental processes in animals because they want no part of anything that would contradict their beloved materialism. If the mind indeed controls evolutionary change, then evos’ assertion that mental processes are mere by-products of eons of random physical events is false and thus destroys the whole theory. Sensing/thinking/believing/knowing/being aware can, however, change the expression of DNA -- which, to the chagrin of evos, introduces free will into biology and makes us creators of our own destiny to a certain degree.

Not only that, but the idea that the mind controls biology eliminates the idea that changes in biology are part of a long string of random events that turn creatures into different kinds of creatures over time. Instead, biological change has nothing to do with the build-up of organisms nor the origination of the mind.....which leads to the conclusion that the mind was not built up over time -- and thus must have been created instantly.

"We now know that significant life events can turn on genes that lead to the synthesis of proteins, which, in turn, generate new neurons and connections in our brain. Our daily and hourly life experiences, thoughts, emotions, and behavior can modulate gene expression and neurogenesis in ways that actually can change the physical structure of the brain.

This new worldview of the relationships between gene expression and human experience emerging from the Human Genome Project is setting the stage for a profound expansion of our understanding of life.....

...In Chapter 2 we take our first steps in exploring the surprising and little known research on behavioral state-related gene expression: How behavioral states such as sleeping, dreaming, consciousness, vigilance, stress, emotional arousal, and depression are associated with different patterns of gene expression. We learn how a special class of genes called “immediate early genes” can respond to significant life events and psychosocial cues in an adaptive manner within minutes!"


Again, you are just wrong.  TOE has nothing to do with Origins.  Attempt to tie the two are disingenious.

"but against a supernatural creation event."..again, there is no supporting evidence for the supernatural creation event.  Not one piece.

Your agrument for the morphology, as you frame it, is laughable.  I guess those millions or so with spinal damage just aren't focusing their mental capabilities hard enough for a new spine.

What sad is, all the arguments you post have repeatedly been dealt with here...over and over....and all been debunked.

That is until another Creo comes out here after sniffing the pile at AIG or some other remedial site and thinks they have just discovered the answers to the universe.

Date: 2007/09/20 09:31:26, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.


You have ignored all the evidence presented above.  All the arguments presented above that refute your statements so, who has the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the truth?

"hatred for the idea that they were created"...are you really that stupid?

Date: 2007/09/20 09:37:17, Link
Author: Steverino
"why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive."

In your mind it has.  Please post the research test data.

Date: 2007/09/20 09:43:32, Link
Author: Steverino
I've seen you post links that pose an idea with no repeatable supporting test data.  You post idea after idea, take concepts out of context and claim..."proven".

You have not proven a thing.

Date: 2007/09/20 11:07:45, Link
Author: Steverino

I've read the article...very interesting, good information.  So tell me, how is this the death Nell for RM?

Oh, and stop making assumptions about one's just proves you don't think before you post and highlights you to be that asshole we all think you are.

Date: 2007/09/20 11:25:46, Link
Author: Steverino

Date: 2007/09/20 14:32:42, Link
Author: Steverino!

Non-physical!...Non-physical!!!....You asshole...the flea is a physical entity...process inside the flea are physical....not mystical.

Date: 2007/09/20 16:01:17, Link
Author: Steverino
...also the article did not define "spine".  Are we to assume that this is a spine similar to those of humans???...or is this some chemical physiological reaction to a predator???

Also, you are mis-using Non-physical...which is my point.  You using in a way that make imply something mystical or Godly....which is not the case.

Date: 2007/09/20 18:45:48, Link
Author: Steverino

Are these real spines???...composed of vertebrae, spinal col????....or are these just "spine" like.

Huge difference.

Oh, and make mine a Capt.N'DietPepsi....

Date: 2007/09/21 06:22:08, Link
Author: Steverino

Again, are these real spines...with vertebrae, vertebral column...or are these just spine like???

Date: 2007/09/21 14:03:44, Link
Author: Steverino
If ID here a Hooker....we would all be left unsatisfied...and out of money.

Date: 2007/09/21 15:52:54, Link
Author: Steverino
"who said the asteroid hit after the flood?"


Dave, you're so full of shit, your eyes are brown.

Date: 2007/09/21 15:55:25, Link
Author: Steverino
If ID was a would be any car I wanted it to be...until someone else saw that it was really a skateboard.

Date: 2007/09/21 16:18:07, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 06 2007,20:50)
This training diet is just killing me. Even though it's not all that strict. Basically it's just, all week, no alcohol and ~2000 calories. The two weekend days, do what you want. My weekend days are friday and saturday, because would you rather go out drinking friday or sunday? friday of course.

Today I've had a quesadilla, a mcdonalds double cheeseburger, a Caesar salad, and one of these

with the aforementioned El Yucateco green habanero sauce. The only thing I've had to drink all week is coffee and icewater.

I will be one happy dude to see the weekend arrive.

If you want to drink on those two days...try a Captain Morgan and Diet Pepsi.  No fat, very low cal and carbs.

Its the official drink of us long time bodybuilders!

Date: 2007/09/23 07:22:18, Link
Author: Steverino

Welcome back.  I'm never in favor of banning here...although, I didn't know the exact reasons.

It's so very sad that you view the side that can support its theory, the only real theory, with evidence, data and research as the "dark side".

Doesn't say much for your ability to critically think or to not be duped by BS because that what you need to believe.

I think it would be best if you have an issue...that you present one issue at a time and let the dedate runs its course on just that one issue before heading off in another direction.

So, what shall it be...SLOT...Age of the Earth....IC...

Date: 2007/09/26 06:39:45, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 25 2007,22:15)
Quote (dochocson @ Sep. 25 2007,21:39)
Excellent! Denyse is waxing poetic with her perspective on the Baylor affair.

She is waxing something, but I am pretty sure whatever it is, it isn't poetic.

eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!...I just got the piss-shivers!

Date: 2007/09/26 06:56:12, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 25 2007,22:56)
If you want to understand why Behe's assumption of continuous and differentiable functions is incompatible with Dembski's assumption of mostly undifferentiable functions you need some basic understanding of functions and calculus.


FtK, if you want to convince us Behe's math is good, and you don't understand Behe's math, first of all, how could you possibly imagine you can succeed, and second, shouldn't you be a little less certain that Behe's math is any good?

First of all...I have no intention of trying to convince you that Behe's math is good.  I'm saying that I'm not going to take your word that his math is poor, nor am I going to rely primarily on the opinions of those who reject every aspect of ID.   That would be silly.

*If* Dembski and Behe's work conflict with one another in some aspects, I'm certainly not going to reject the theory as a whole.  Those who hold to the Darwinian paradigm often come up with conflicting data as well.  That doesn't mean that they toss their work into the garbage...they continue looking for answers to those aspects of their work that are still in question.

Well what's funny is, she won't or fails to extend the same amount of scrutiny to ID proponents.  Thus proving her intellectual dishonesty.

Date: 2007/09/26 10:53:29, Link
Author: Steverino
Doc Bill,

This is a rather poorly thought out statement:

"Liberals, on the other hand, are attracted to causes, are passionate, make quick decisions based on emotion, and are accepting and embracing of counter-cultural ideas.  In short, fundamentalist Christians.

I am a liberal and I think through all issues before I offer an opinion on something.

I think you are committing the same broad brush error that fundamentalist Christians make when referring to people who acknowledge TOE.

I also think this war is and those who lied us into it are full of sh!t.  That's based on evidence, fact and first hand account, not emotion.

Date: 2007/09/27 09:03:36, Link
Author: Steverino

Please post something that ID or Creationist have proved correct.  Just one item or concept that we can validate.

Date: 2007/09/29 07:25:51, Link
Author: Steverino
Daniel, as you use it, Design predicts everything whether it happened or not.  It's not an explanation but, and excuse.

Date: 2007/09/30 07:31:53, Link
Author: Steverino
I'd put it in the Religion Class...only so long as they touch upon all other religions origins or creation beliefs.

This goes to another point about the disingenuous tactics of the IDiots or Creationist.  They keep talking about "alternation" views, when in fact, the only alternative view they want taught along side TOC is their Biblical view.  Not a Hindu, Muslim, Scientology...blah..blah...blah....Just theirs.

Date: 2007/09/30 07:34:46, Link
Author: Steverino
"The other cousin decided she'd had enough with men (had been divorced - has two sons), so she chose a women the second time around."

She chose a woman???  So you think you can just choose to like a sex???  Are you really that much of a twit???

I can't believe the sh!t that comes off your keyboard.

Date: 2007/09/30 08:40:58, Link
Author: Steverino

Let me make this clear...because this is one of the biggest LIES from the Christian Right.


No amount of bullshit thrown by the Christian Right will ever make it choice.

Tell me, why would people choose to live a sexuality that puts them in danger?  Makes them a taget of abuse??

You claim to have the ability to critically think but, every time you post, you betray your statement.

Date: 2007/09/30 18:29:59, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,12:38)
And, Arden, I don't "hate" people.  Why would I hate homosexuals?  Because they have a different set of values than I do?  That would mean that I "hate" all of you as well.  We disagree on many important issues about life.

Do you honestly think I "hate" you?  If so, what have I said that makes you feel that way?  Are disagreements a sign of hatred to many of you?


I cannot believe the stupid bullshit you write:

"Why would I hate homosexuals?  Because they have a different set of values than I do?"

Ok...Moron...again, sexuality is not a choice.  There is no value judgement being made.

Maybe you and your "good Christians" should leave this country and start your maybe.."Dumbfuckastan".

Date: 2007/10/01 06:42:30, Link
Author: Steverino
FTK basis her entire argument on the presumption that sexuality is a choice, an alternative lifestyle...something you can just shut off if you make the moral decision to....or with some therapy.

Now she says she will not vote in the next election...GREAT!!!

Wish she had made that decision 8 years ago, we could have avoided the current Commander and Thief in the White House!

Date: 2007/10/02 13:29:20, Link
Author: Steverino

"I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles. "

So anything you do not understand is BS.  Well, that's what you just said.  Or translated, anything that you do not understand, is not worth your learning about.

I've got it know.  I hope you children will have the ability to see the world with better eyes.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:48:16, Link
Author: Steverino

Where is the proof/evidence/science that the appearance of design proves design?  Isn’t that nothing more than a leap of faith?

With regard to IC, examples presented for IC (blood clotting, the eye…blah, blah, blah...) have been shown to not meet the definition of IC.  So, at what point does IC just become another pseudo-science concept like Alchemy?

Date: 2007/10/03 16:10:09, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:21)

It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?


Not quite.  Your position has no supporting evidence as you have just admitted, it's nothing more than an unsupported leap of faith.

TOE has plenty of evidence that supports the process of evolution.  There is no leap of faith.

You have just rendered your argument invalid.  Your position is based on not acknowledging accepted, tested scientific process and facts.

You have brought a knife to a gun fight and can't figure why you don't stand a chance.

Date: 2007/10/03 16:35:14, Link
Author: Steverino

Is there a dating technique that is good by your standards?

What would happen if they were to discover Noah's Ark, would you acknowledge the dating technique if it put the age of the Ark at around 2400BC?

My guess is you would because it would support you position.  Which is why you cannot and will never agree to dating methods because they do not support you position.

Which, when you come right down to it, it's a waste of time debating with you because you will never agree with any science that does not support your argument.  Not because of a flaw in the science but, because you refuse to be proven wrong...and that is why you and other Creationist try to misrepresent and ignore facts.

Date: 2007/10/03 17:13:12, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 14 2007,12:11)
Geez. More impotent "gloating", oh yes! Oh yes! Duck me (and the arguments) baby!    
There’s much wisdom here. Without giving away my talk — I doubt Michael Ruse reads this blog, although I’ll bet many of his students do — I’m going to come at the topic from what I hope is a counterintuitive direction.

One that picks up on my skeptical friend’s insights, in fact.

Ooooh! That ranks right down there with watching golf on the couch with your beer gut hanging over your briefs for manliness. :p

Geez. Why don’t they bang drums and start crying already. Look, I'll explain it to you. Five things that have always oppressed men - the family, society, the workplace, sobriety, and church. Hello! American UDudes, what is happening to you? Break free! Break free!

Hey!...that's not a gut!....aahh.....that's!!!

Who knows when then environment might change...and there is no more beer!...DOH!....

Date: 2007/10/04 06:35:18, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:21)

It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?


Again, you obfuscate.  Who said there was no designer?  

You want us all to believe that because you think you see "purposeful design" that it should be given serious thought in the scientific community.  It would, if there was some supporting evidence that appearance proved design.

You want A+?=C. (hint: no parts of this is equation are verifiable)  Doesn't work that way...It's not science.

You cannot not just make up concepts and expect the scientific community to accept them just because you want it to be so, which is exactly what ID is, a made up concept (not theory).

Date: 2007/10/04 09:46:46, Link
Author: Steverino
"Why do you use AIG as your source? Don't you trust the mainstream science sites?"

Because they say what he wants to hear.  He has chosen to cherry pick information that he believes makes his case.


Dendrochonology of the bristlecone dates to about 9000 years old.  3000 years well past translated age of the earth from the Bible.

Is that bogus dating also?

Date: 2007/10/04 10:07:55, Link
Author: Steverino
Yeah, not sure about that one myself.  I'm restoring a 66 Beetle.  It's a bitch to......oh wait....never mind!

Date: 2007/10/04 15:58:00, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,15:48)
Here is a tree ring article which does not list Yamaguchi's work or site him.

And to JohnW,

I asked them to provide the current number and to provide a chronological history of STDs in general.  Gee Whiz in engaging in research, okay?


I find it very telling that the only sources you quote/link to are Christian apologetic site.  I know it's because they will tell you what you want to hear.

If Dendrochonolgy where such a subjective science don't you think the experts in the field would reflect the same skepticism of your Christian site?

Again, you are incapable of intellectual honesty.

Date: 2007/10/04 17:32:06, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 04 2007,16:20)
Well, Christopher,

I'm guessing you have never looked into Dendrochronology, but that you suspect it's wrong. The article you linked to lists this article as one of it's sources. (It's abstracted, sorry I refuse to give money to evil causes)

The Biblical Chronologist. Hmmm. But anyway, read the abstract.

You are a science teacher, right? Hey, my wife is a science teacher! See, we have something in common.

Anyway, the abstract, possibly lacking in detail due to its being a summary kind of thing, basically says, "Well, Dendro turns out to be valid."

Here is a bit of it. See if I am misunderstanding:  
An Independent Check

Early in the history of the science of dendrochronology, a tree-ring chronology using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California was developed. Separate dendrochronologies were then developed, also in America, using other types of trees, such as Douglas fir. These separate chronologies did not extend as far back in time because these types of trees are shorter-lived. However, they did agree with the bristlecone chronology as far back as it could be checked by the shorter chronologies. That is, rings of the same putative dendrochronological age were found to contain the same amount of radiocarbon, and to give the same pattern of fluctuations over time.

These measurements demonstrated the basic validity of the science of dendrochronology. If the method had a large component of random error due to inaccurate pattern matching, how could such detailed agreement between the radiocarbon in the rings of two independent dendrochronologies be possible? The internal agreement of these American dendrochronologies confirmed that dendrochronologists are able to accurately match ring patterns.

But another independent check came along which was even better than the Douglas fir chronology.
European Tree-ring Chronology

While American scientists were building bristlecone pine and Douglas fir chronologies, European scientists were actively building a very long tree-ring chronology using oak trees. The more recent part of the chronology was constructed from oak logs used in various historic buildings. The more ancient part of the chronology was constructed from oak logs preserved in peat beds, for example.

The European oak chronology provided an excellent check of the American dendrochronologies. The two were obviously independent. Ring-width patterns are determined by local environmental factors, such as temperature and rainfall. The patterns in America could not bias the work on patterns in Europe, because the specimens came from two different local climates, separated by an ocean. The scientists worked independently of one another. Also, oak trees and bristlecone pine or Douglas fir trees are very different. Bristlecones, for example, are evergreens which grow very slowly, at high altitude, in a cold, arid environment, and live for thousands of years. None of these things are true of the oaks used in the European chronology. They are deciduous, grow relatively rapidly, at low altitudes, in relatively warm, moist environments, and live for only hundreds of years.

If the science of dendrochronology was characterized by significant random error, the American and European tree-ring chronologies would certainly disagree with each other. In fact, a comparison of the European and American chronologies showed very close correlation. The pattern of radiocarbon in the rings showed a maximum divergence, even at very old ages, of only around 40 years. This objective, quantitative test of dendrochronology showed it to be reliable and accurate.
Multiple Rings Per Year?

These checks show that tree-ring chronologies are not subject to significant random error. However, some critics of dendrochronology go on to suggest that trees in ancient history grew multiple rings per year, perhaps due to Noah's Flood, for example. A number of evidences argue strongly against such a claim.

First, the agreement of independent chronologies from separate continents discussed above must be taken into account. If Noah's Flood, or some other phenomenon caused trees to grow multiple rings per year, it must have affected different species in widely separated locations in exactly the same way. This does not seem likely.

Second, radiocarbon dates on objects of known age have confirmed the reliability of radiocarbon dating, and hence dendrochronology, when applied to the last 2,000 years, at least. The radiocarbon dates on the Dead Sea Scrolls are a good example. Thus we know that trees growing in the last 2,000 years or more haven't been growing multiple rings per year.

Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.
Tree-ring Calibration: An Important Part of the Radiocarbon Dating Method

Because the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere varies over time, raw radiocarbon "dates" are calibrated to obtain actual calendar dates using dendrochronology. This process of calibration is an essential part of the radiocarbon dating method, and eliminates assumptions about historical atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations and the constancy of the decay rate of radiocarbon over time. (See How does the radiocarbon dating method work?) Dendrochronology thus provides an essential service to radiocarbon dating, the major method used to date archaeological remains, guaranteeing its accuracy throughout the period of interest to biblical chronology.
Photo Credit: The photograph of tree-rings above is from Henri D. Grissino-Mayer's Ultimate Tree-Ring Web Pages, a site with much interesting information about tree-rings and dendrochronology.
The foregoing article was abstracted from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 1. Full details and references can be found there.

Of Christopher:
"Germans...???...Pearl Harbor...??  Forget it, he's on a roll........."

Date: 2007/10/05 16:30:30, Link
Author: Steverino
But beware of those Godless, immoral homosexuals!...They like to have parades enticing regular men to "dump the bitch and make the switch!"

Don't fall for it!....Remember, it's your decision.

Or, at least thats what FTK said.

Date: 2007/10/05 16:32:01, Link
Author: Steverino
Funny how the Science shows up and the host leaves.

Date: 2007/10/08 06:53:17, Link
Author: Steverino
Oh, this is gonna be fun to watch......

Date: 2007/10/08 06:59:21, Link
Author: Steverino
"I know it sounds like a cop-out but all designers make choices that many of us don't understand.  If we cannot directly ask a designer why they made certain choices, the best we can hope for is to examine their designs and try to make an educated guess based on what we observe.  "

While it may not be a cop out, it's BULLSHIT.  It's based on the premise that when we see gaps of information, you feel that God should be included in the discussion until proven otherwise.

Date: 2007/10/08 07:26:39, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Fat Man @ Oct. 08 2007,07:13)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 08 2007,07:00)
Fat Man, presumably you are the same "angryoldfatman" who had nothing to say over at UncommonDescent also?

I mean

Funny, whenever I have stated to an ID critic that the human eye and the octopus eye are very similar even though their common ancestor is thought to be eyeless, they chant the magic words which eliminate the whole probability and/or frontloading problem: convergent evolution.

I guess the magic words work only when the evidence isn’t consistent with Darwinism.

Yep, Darwinism is disproved. 100%. Wow, if only you'd been around in Darwin's day, you could have been famous.

Announcer: "Ladies and Gentleman, we now proudly announce the theory that destroyed Darwinism".

Fat Man: "Darwinism did not do it. Thank you very much, and goodnight!"

Wow, Nobel prizes all round!

Once again, your presumptions are wrong.

I am Fat at a much younger age that angryoldfatman.

Too much campus food.

I see the foundation of a straw man being built.

Date: 2007/10/08 07:34:59, Link
Author: Steverino
Yes, I forget, ID is all science.  It even says so in the Wedge Doc.  Oh wait.......

FatMan you have nothing of value to offer.  Go Troll elsewhere.

Date: 2007/10/08 11:05:42, Link
Author: Steverino
I wonder if God had really given his initial plan some thought…did he actually run the numbers?

If there was to be no death in the original plan and knowing how fast we humans  seemed to have reproduced in just 6000 years (wink)….what would the population be if the “fall” never happened?

Where would we have put everyone!  Was God going to make the Earth larger every year….or make the people smaller?

Date: 2007/10/09 06:37:41, Link
Author: Steverino

Behe asserted that flagellum was "irreducibly complex", the fact is, it is not.

He was wrong.

Date: 2007/10/09 17:19:19, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 09 2007,10:49)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 09 2007,10:12)

(I've bolded the good bits)




9:40 am

An ID proponent would never have made it through peer review with such an incoherent, disjointed, fantastic yarn. It’s amazing that someone without the taint of ID attached to them could get it through. The reaching and stretching involved in drawing parallels between cosmology and biology smacks of desperation - clutching at straws. I will give credit to the author for at least recognizing that the current biological creation yarn spun out of NDT is untenable and he’s to be congratulated for having the courage to say so and offer an alternative yarn in its stead.

The striking parallel that evolution story tellers need to recognize is that phylogenesis mirrors ontogenesis. Both processes are ones where unexpressed potentials are expressed in a predetermined sequence with chance playing little if any role in the process and where the environment at most provides cues for when to proceed to the next predetermined stage in the unfolding process. Both processes are self-terminating when the predetermined course of diversification reaches a final stage. A single cell is the beginning of every chicken and an adult chicken is the preprogrammed terminal stage where that cell stops diversifying. Phylogenesis appears to be the same process played out over a much longer span of time. It may or may not have terminated. Certainly many branchings have terminated as evidenced by the extinction of 999 out of 1000 species that ever lived after an average span of about 10 million years of life.

A big mistake in NDT inspired ideology is that the earth’s changing environment gradually molded life to fit it. That’s bass ackwards. Life molded the environment, paved the way so to speak, for the next predetermined phase of phylogenesis. That’s why the process took billions of years. It isn’t quick or easy laying down foundations that span an entire planetary surface. The atmosphere needed to be oxygenated. The time of great upheavals and catastrophy in a young solar system had to be waited out. Fossil fuel reserves had to be laid down to power an upcoming industrial species. My contention is that industry didn’t arise because a power source was available for it but rather a power source was made available so that industry could arise. The way was prepared in advance. It was planned that way.

There are two important and basic questions raised by the front-loaded phylogenesis hypothesis.

First and most amenable to finding a definitive answer is how, when natural selection is unable to conserve unexpressed genomic content, is that content conserved for geologic timespans. That such a mechanism exists seems evident in the result of a knockout experiment where 1.5 million base pairs of DNA highly conserved between mouse and man was deleted from the mouse and the resultant GM mice were indistinguishable in any metric from unmodified mice. *Something* acted to conserve that apparently unexpressed DNA for 180 million years of reproductive isolation between the mouse and man lineages. That much is obvious. What isn’t obvious is what mechanism did the conserving. When we find that mechanism we’ll have our answer, or at least an experimentally demonstrable possibility, to the conservation mechanism required by the front loading hypothesis.

The second question is less amenable to finding an answer. That question is what was the source of what must have been a hugely complex front loaded genome. How, who, or what generated the original uber-genome? We might never know the answer to that question but that’s just how the cookie crumbles in science. We might never know the origin of the observable universe either. But just because we hit a brick wall where it seems there is no way to find further answers it doesn’t follow that we should ignore the evidence that we can observe as far back as practically possible. *Something* caused the observable universe to come to exist just as *something* caused organic life on earth to come to exist. We can at least follow the story back to the wall beyond which we cannot see. We might not ever discover with any degree of certainty how the universe or organic life first came about but it appears we can at least decipher how it works and how it evolved after it appeared.

Everything in evolution makes ready sense in light of a front-loaded genome. Little makes sense in the absence of that light.

Holy Shit!  Does he ever read what he types?  Yes, I think he has totally jumped the shark now.

Does he now gets paid by the word?  By the Tard?

I think the first 3 words that you bolded tell the story:
A big mistake

However, I have to give credit where credit is due, and DaveScot might just be on his way to Stockholm soon to collect that Noble, seeing as how his fully fertile, yet feeble autodidacted mind has created New Information.

YEC and OEC are now relegated to the Scrap Heap Of History.  DaveScot has created an Entirely New, and Improved, “Now With More Tard”™ Theory:

Wait for it/….. Drumroll please…

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:

DaveTard’s OFL Theory!  (Pronounced: offal, although it could also be pronounced awful).

As Per DaveTard’s OFL Theory:  Oil was created so we could burn it later and fuel the Industrial Revolution.  

This is so totally amazing.  I am amazed that he thought of it, then I am amazed that he typed it, and amazed even more that he has access to a pc.  If there is a Mrs. Springer, I think she should be notified that now something is really wrong with her Davey… This is just not Dave being a bully or bragging to his neighbors and the internet community about starting up Dell, or being a tough ex-Marine… this is over the edge, and I think officially counts as a “Cry For Help”.  

Dave – please think again about your OFL Theory.  Doesn’t it sound just a little bit like now you’re just making shit up?  You know that this is totally not testable, right?
You realize you’re just this close to thinking that the Tooth Fairy done it?  Dave?  Are you there?

...And the best part is......i DIDN'T NEED ANY EVIDENCE FOR THAT!!!....YUP,  JUST MADE IT UP ON MY OWN!!!

Date: 2007/10/10 11:29:49, Link
Author: Steverino

Demski's Mini Me issues the smack down

"Religion Prof, watch it. I said nothing about any conspiracy. The mindless conformism that currently defaces and debases academic life is no conspiracy. It is right out there in the open."

She is too fvking funny!  Ever notice that she looks a bit like Vincent Van Gopher from Deputy Dog???

Date: 2007/10/10 11:57:17, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 10 2007,10:59)
The point is to protect herself from doubting her faith by attacking something she has been told is in opposition to it and which she neither understands or knows anything significant about.



That is the point I made weeks ago.  Acknowledging the facts would mean all that she believes(d), all that she bases her morals and her future path on… would now be subject to scrutiny.

That is why these people are fighting so hard to deny fact, to ignore the elephant in the living room.

For their leaders of ID/Creation, it’s more economics than faith.

Date: 2007/10/10 16:34:38, Link
Author: Steverino

" That's like giving up and conceding that we'll never know for sure if we're right...but, dang it, evolution IS THE STUFF NO MATTER WHAT!"

The difference being, is that science does not give up.  Eventually, what is unknown, will be known.

ID on the other hand, doesn't even begin the research.  They look for the gap and say, "See! have no idea what caused that so, you have to include the concept that a designer might have done it.  Solved!"

It's not an explantion, it's an excuse for not doing research or worse yet, not wanting research to be done to close the gap.

ID will contribute to the dumbing down of America.

Date: 2007/10/10 16:37:30, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 10 2007,16:34)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 10 2007,16:12)
Perhaps that is how “science works” according to Darwinists, but it doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

Sadly, this whole conversation is like watching a very slow train wreck.

...over and over and over again.

Date: 2007/10/16 06:36:06, Link
Author: Steverino
"The designed descent hypothesis accepts that some genetic regions are passed on intact - while others are changed during the saltational phase of evolution.  I'm not sure how your objection applies."  - Denial Smith

AAHHHH>....Creation thru unidentifiable-all powerful widget.

Date: 2007/10/16 16:11:01, Link
Author: Steverino

Please let me know which dating technology you believe to be accurate.

Date: 2007/10/17 06:29:54, Link
Author: Steverino

Again, what dating method(s) do you accept?

Date: 2007/10/17 06:50:04, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (djmullen @ Oct. 17 2007,05:05)
DavidBrennan is a fine piece of work:      
Watson’s just saying what all Darwinists secretly think, including Margaret Sanger and a cast of thousands.

And these power-tripping Darwinists do far more than just think it….they act on their eugenic fantasies: reproductive rates are dropping rapidly, and it’s due to plummetting fertility in both sexes more than it is lifestyle choices.

Men’s testosterone levels have been PLUMMETTING for 25 years.

(If Rush Limbaugh’s wondering why he needs Viagara and Bill O’Reilly’s wondering why he has bizarre sexual predilictions….maybe they should look to the secret activities of their Darwinist, globalist, faux-Christian handlers.)

Make no mistake about it: in business, science, and politics, these social Darwinists are out to manipulate and control the population.

Can somebody just refresh my memory here?  I forget how the evil Darwinist conspiracy managed to make  testosterone levels plummet.  Did we put something in the water?

Also, how did we become social Darwinists?  I thought social Darwinism was a philosophy designed to appeal to the rich and powerful that has nothing to do with Darwin except misusing his name.

I don't think the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy can take credit for Limbaugh and O'Rielly's sexual preferences and problems, though.  They're just plain dorks.

I think it has something to do with Soy....

Date: 2007/10/17 09:48:36, Link
Author: Steverino
"I notice you are not adressing any of the age-of-the-Earth issues."

You noticed that also?


What dating method do you accept?

Date: 2007/10/17 13:38:46, Link
Author: Steverino

So, and I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, you will accept dating methods that will not point to an earth older than 6000-10000 years.

It seems to be a bit of circular reasoning.  If the dating method can only date 6000-10000 years then you will accept it because it falls into the range of the Biblical age time frame.  If the dating method can date say millions of years, you will not accept it because if falls out of range of Biblical age time frame.

Radiocarbon dating is accurate to 50,000 years and has been cross checked/verified by other dating methods to be accurate.  Your “trace carbon 14 in samples of coal and diamonds” is misrepresented by AIG and other pro-YEC sources to undermine the accuracy of Radiocarbon dating to call into doubt any dating method that does not fit their scenario.

Your argument is disingenuous.

Date: 2007/10/18 06:34:57, Link
Author: Steverino
"No I don't.  Mainly because I think bacteria are designed to mutate and evolve quickly - so I'd predict a number of different mutations in that scenario."

You have no proof, evidence or data that the appearance of design, proves design other than you desire to have it be so.

Whenever there is no current explanation for how something happened you play the design card.  I am glad the majority of science is not as lazy or stupid as you.

Date: 2007/10/18 10:55:11, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 18 2007,07:10)
Someone should tell the delightfully ignorant BA77 to look inside a color jet printer.  There he'll find three tanks containing inks of secondary colors cyan, magenta and yellow.  And (surprise, surprise!) there will be at least one more tank containing black ink.

So, what you're saying is, you have evidence and a repeatable test to prove him wrong.

This "evidence" thing is very interesting......

Date: 2007/10/19 06:37:04, Link
Author: Steverino

Please come back and answer questions about dating methods.

Date: 2007/10/19 09:32:11, Link
Author: Steverino

"Animal House" is my fav.  I was freshman in college when that came out.  We paid to see it 12 times.  I still have the theater full size, floor standing promotional display that was in the lobby...until we liberated it.

Recently, "Almost Famous" is a fantastic movie.  Great characters and acting.

Date: 2007/10/19 11:25:41, Link
Author: Steverino
hey, that landscape looks like a pretty picture.....almost as was designed.

There's your proof!

Date: 2007/10/23 12:15:12, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 23 2007,11:58)
Dear oldman...

Any response on the Dawkins questions?

Dear rest of you,

I am insulted that you treat me as some sort of an idiot.  Obviously I do not have any blood lust or have any intention of killing anyone save in self defense or the defense of my family.

And of course I know that mutations have to happen in the germ line for crying out loud.  That still does nothing for shooting down my statement that the spider needs a mutated alteration of its brain to know how to use the newly evolved structure.

What is true is that Hitler had evolution as his basis for exterminating Jews.  One of your own is now claiming that blacks are less evolved that whites. (see the article on the Evolution News & Views website.  So that is what I was refering to when killing you is neither right nor wrong if evol. is true.  If an asteroid or some catastophe from space wipes out the dinosaurs, and is natural, then if I wipe out anytihng I am just as natural as an asteroid, so what's the beef?

A discussion of the pine pollen is here :

A listing of young earth evidences is here :

A discussion of morality is here :

An evidence for rapid ice build up of the icecaps is here :

Look here for numbers of people after the Flood :

As for the origins of things make any difference on how they work now, all you can come up with is obtuse lawn-mower discussions that make no sense.

As for claiming that AIG will not deal with you realistically, then I invite you to give them your best shot and tell them I sent you.  Perhaps you'll be printed in the skeptics letters section.  I caution you to fully research the site and list specific scientific errors or illogical thinking and back them up.  Be concise as you can.

You still have not answered about the spontaneous formation of specified complexity like these sentences I have written.  All the analogies we use to explain the workings of the cell rely on intelligently designed items.  If intelligent design is not true, then the analogies are nonsensical.

Been there, debunked that.

Is that all you have???  Pointing to non-science, christian apologetic site???

Their "Young Earth" bullshit has ALL BEEN refuted...over and over again.  I cannot believe you would even attempt to bring that weak ass shit to this debate.


Date: 2007/10/23 16:01:24, Link
Author: Steverino
Christopher admitted that he filters information thru his religious filters to determine what he believes.  Rather than judging information on its own merits.

This makes Christopher intellectually dishonest because he will not acknowledge information that his religious filter will not let through.  That type of information just does not exist in his eyes and therefore, he can never be proven wrong.

It's just not worth it as he has no honest desire to learn.  It's the exact same issue with FTK.

Date: 2007/10/24 07:31:33, Link
Author: Steverino
Well now it all makes sense!....That's where all the DI shit comes from!!!

That was just too easy![

Date: 2007/10/24 16:49:21, Link
Author: Steverino

Let's start with this statement:

"It seems to me that there are systems that could legitimately be considered irreducibly complex unless you are stuck in a Darwinian mindset. "

Please provide a single example.

Most amazing.  The example you have used in previous posts have been refuted but yet you just gloss over with "systems that could legitimately be considered irreducibly complex" though you had mentioned one and we agreed with it and gave your the pass.

How much more intellectually dishonest can you get?

Date: 2007/10/25 14:22:53, Link
Author: Steverino
I honestly do not believe Christopher to be a Science teacher.  His logic and and ability to reason don't sound like someone with an education, let alone a Science teacher.

His absolute dismissal of fact, facts that can be tested and proven, belie his so-called intellectual honesty.

In short, he is a Troll.

Date: 2007/10/25 14:45:35, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 25 2007,14:37)
Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 25 2007,15:22)
I honestly do not believe Christopher to be a Science teacher.  His logic and and ability to reason don't sound like someone with an education, let alone a Science teacher.

His absolute dismissal of fact, facts that can be tested and proven, belie his so-called intellectual honesty.

In short, he is a Troll.

He might technically be a science teacher. I have a relative in Kentucky who teaches middle school, including science classes, despite being completely credulous and believing in conspiracies related to the moon landings, evolution, vaccination, the UN, 9/11, she consumes colloidial silver, etc etc.

Does she take the tinfoil off her head when she goes out in public?

Date: 2007/10/25 17:31:59, Link
Author: Steverino

"I again posit that everyone filters facts through his/her own presuppositions and worldview. "

That's just bullshit.  You are trying to conflate skepticism with religious bias.  You cannot compare the two.

The more I read of what you write, the more I am convinced you are, at the heart of it, a disingenuous person.  You lie about your motives and wanting to look at and learn  ACTUAL science.  You have no desire to learn, you just need to convince yourself what you believe is not bullshit.


Again, you are a troll.  You can go back and report to your Pastor that "you held your ground".

Date: 2007/10/25 17:44:38, Link
Author: Steverino
Denial Smith, CG, FTK....they all never remember what they said but, will be the first to tell you that you have misquoted them.

Date: 2007/11/05 11:24:13, Link
Author: Steverino
Last night I was in bed when George Bush came on TV...all of the sudden, I had the strong desire take a dump!


Bless you all.

Date: 2007/11/05 13:56:37, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 05 2007,11:42)
Steve, you should have listened to the whole speach.

"First, I want to thank you for inviting me tonight.  
Thirdly, who in the hell shut off the teleprompter"


Now that made me chuckle.

Date: 2007/11/06 17:10:25, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,16:03)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,14:05)
Skeptic, FtK and VMartin I have a couple of questions for you.

Do you

1) Deny/doubt the HIV=AIDS relationship

2) Deny/doubt global warming

3) Believe ID ("certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection...") is a scientific theory.

4) Believe ID should be taught in public high school science class.

These are pretty easy questions and each only requires a yes/no answer.  I have no desire to debate/deconstruct your answers or suggest your answers are right or wrong.  I'm just curious about where you stand on these issues.

Thanks in advance for your answers!



Point 1) and 2) is something I don't know much about. No opinion.

3,4) If a (neo)darwinism is a scientific theory I don't see a reason why telepathy and astrology are not also taught at school.

Anyway some basics of religion should be taught at schools for those childrens whose parents are fanatic atheists or neodarwinists and do not talk with their children about religion which formed thinking of our grand parents and our predecessors more than 1.000 years so intensively

Also children should know some other evolutionary approaches as well - it means ID, orthogenesis etc., and their basic arguments - if they want to study it outside school. They should be taught more facts about "natural selection" and what some great scientists thought of it. They should be taught about living organisms and Nature  from some different point of view, which is much more sensitive and have more sympathy for life as those reductionist concepts of "struggle for survival", "selfish gene" etc...
Such concepts  have harmful effect on youngsters on my opinion. Whats more such concepts are unscientific. Such concepts spoils the perception of beauty of living world, where "struggle for life" and "natural selection" obviously play no main role, but creativeness of life itself.

Can I puke now?

I cannot begin to point out, in so many ways, the false logic of that post.


Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?

Date: 2007/11/06 17:31:06, Link
Author: Steverino
Love that document!

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

Question:  Was it the destructive scientific materialism that made Ted Haggard take it up the ass while doing drugs and singing "Afternoon Delight"?

Question: Was it the destructive scientific materialistic legacy that caused Evangelical Rev. Gary Aldridge to die while dressed up in two wet suits bound and gagged with a rubber buddy up his ass?

Question: Was it the destructive scientific materialistic legacy that convicted Dr. Dino for tax evasion?

Date: 2007/11/07 06:37:17, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 07 2007,00:08)



Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?

And you? Instead of lunch do you carry your copy of "Selfish gene"? Are you affected by memes there so strongly you are beyond any help?


The way you conflate topics when responding to questions....I felt that question was right up your alley.

Beyond the religious myth of "being saved"?  That is your cultural/religious meme.  You are in more danger than I.

Date: 2007/11/08 14:34:50, Link
Author: Steverino
Oh!..and I have just the highlighter!

Date: 2007/11/10 10:42:43, Link
Author: Steverino
It only makes sense that FTK doesn't understand the fossil could she when she can't tell her ass from her elbow.

Again, she is intellectually dishonest.

Date: 2007/11/12 09:09:24, Link
Author: Steverino

Date: 2007/11/13 17:40:28, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2007,17:01)
UD is teaching me so much about morality. It's Grrrrrrreat!



You are mistaken IMO. Also, you seem to be missing the obvious point that in the end , “God kills everybody”. There are no deaths that are not caused directly by or allowed to come to pass by Him

Wowsers. Death cult! "No your honour, I think you'll find it's God who kills everybody. So "Not Guilty".

Bad Design <> No Design


Shoite Morality = Divine Morality.

Wow! dont' die???

All loving and all compassionate God kills us???

but....but... .but.......

Date: 2007/11/13 17:52:55, Link
Author: Steverino
Oh sure they will fast track that one

"...You're outta here homo!"

Date: 2007/11/14 14:24:21, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 14 2007,11:31)
Steverino and Darth,

Thank you very much. Nice work in particular Steverino, when I saw that I thought "WHOA!!! No WAY!!" and then I saw the web address.


For your own fun and amusement:

Date: 2007/11/15 09:34:39, Link
Author: Steverino
Dense O’Leary over at UD quotes Phillip Johnson:

“Johnson: … What’s going on here is a process of soothing. The scientific establishment has decided that the way to get a reluctant American public to put aside their doubts and believe what they’re being told in the mass media, and in the textbooks, and in the museums about evolution is absolutely true is to reassure them that it doesn’t threaten [their] religion. Then after they have been talked into accepting the theory, then the types like Richard Dawkins will come out and say, “Well actually now that you’ve accepted it, we have to tell you that it does destroy your religion.”

First, that’s not actually true.  I’m pretty sure that there is no conspiracy to convert the religious faithful to atheism using Richard Dawkins as the “Closer” to nail the lid shut.  But, that’s not my point of my amazement with his comment.

My point is, should we stop researching, discovering, communicating and teaching the truth because it might be contrary to or offend someone’s religious beliefs?

It’s not the job of science or academics to coddle or take into consideration one groups over sensitive feelings regarding their religious beliefs when teaching fact.

Facts are facts.  Not wanting to believe those facts does not render those facts any less true.

Date: 2007/11/15 13:17:56, Link
Author: Steverino
This was on the PBS Blog from a Chip W:

"The court can rule however it wants.
I'm sure I speak for many Christians when I say: I know the answers; I'm not interested in the truth."

This is to be a joke....this is just to good.

Date: 2007/11/21 17:04:18, Link
Author: Steverino
...and we have a thread for Heroisameal because....???

Date: 2007/11/25 14:58:26, Link
Author: Steverino

"...Now maybe that's because we just don't know enough.  But there's also the possibility that it just can't be done."

This is basis of your, ID's and Creationists argument. Boiled down it's the standard "God of the Gaps" argument.

When one gap is explained you abandon that point like rats leaving the sinking ship and move on to the next gap.  You (IDiots/Creationists) never admit that it was you that was wrong in your thinking.

It's disingenuous at best because no matter how much Science proves, there will always be a gap for you and yours to hide in.

Date: 2007/11/25 14:59:53, Link
Author: Steverino
Sure it does....anything you say.

Date: 2007/11/25 19:49:02, Link
Author: Steverino

God = 0

Is your theory?

Date: 2007/11/26 14:11:10, Link
Author: Steverino
"It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. "

There is a really good Monty Python sketch in there somewhere....

Date: 2007/11/26 16:36:59, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 26 2007,13:56)
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 25 2007,14:58)

"...Now maybe that's because we just don't know enough.  But there's also the possibility that it just can't be done."

This is basis of your, ID's and Creationists argument. Boiled down it's the standard "God of the Gaps" argument.

When one gap is explained you abandon that point like rats leaving the sinking ship and move on to the next gap.  You (IDiots/Creationists) never admit that it was you that was wrong in your thinking.

It's disingenuous at best because no matter how much Science proves, there will always be a gap for you and yours to hide in.

I've already answered your "god of the gaps" objection once - don't you remember?
Let me just nutshell it for you:
Even though man can explain certain things, it doesn't mean they weren't designed.  I can explain many of the systems at work within my car.  Does that mean they weren't designed?

"Let me just nutshell it for you:
Even though man can explain certain things, it doesn't mean they weren't designed...."

Now that argument is called "moving the goal posts".

So, at Dumbfvck U, DI/Creationist Institute of Higher Edumacation, everything is and was designed....until proven otherwise.

"...I can explain many of the systems at work within my car.  Does that mean they weren't designed?"

I'm gonna have to call a non sequitur the play.  Does your car reproduce?

Where is the proof that the appearance of design, proves design?

Date: 2007/11/26 17:27:58, Link
Author: Steverino
Happy Birthday Penny!  I hope you had a wonderful day!

Date: 2007/11/26 19:36:49, Link
Author: Steverino
I can, and that is not science.

You start with an assumption that skews your research, your interpretation of evidence and your results.  You have identified your goal and cherry pick or distort the evidence that supports your hypothesis. That's not science.

Now, you might wish to argue that evolutionary biologists do the same.  The difference is, their methodology is based on something that has been proven, something that has successful applications in other scientific fields and something that has been validated over and over....and they don't discard evidence that alters their path.

What you are arguing for is not Science.

Date: 2007/11/27 06:57:58, Link
Author: Steverino
and all this made up number concept proves.....???

Date: 2007/11/27 08:56:53, Link
Author: Steverino
I think you are seeing things that are not there.

Date: 2007/11/27 14:32:12, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 27 2007,13:39)
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 26 2007,19:36)
I can, and that is not science.

You start with an assumption that skews your research, your interpretation of evidence and your results.  You have identified your goal and cherry pick or distort the evidence that supports your hypothesis. That's not science.

Now, you might wish to argue that evolutionary biologists do the same.  The difference is, their methodology is based on something that has been proven, something that has successful applications in other scientific fields and something that has been validated over and over....and they don't discard evidence that alters their path.

What you are arguing for is not Science.

And I'm not a scientist.  So what's the beef?

No, and that's fine.  Then don't get all tweaked when you want to argue your belief scientifically and are told you cannot because your methodology is not scientifically based.

Case closed.

Date: 2007/11/27 16:49:50, Link
Author: Steverino
I didn't make myself clear.  His numerology is meaningless and does not prove anything other than patterns exist in the universe.

Date: 2007/11/27 17:17:33, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 27 2007,15:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2007,14:46)
I'm sure they'll have a press release up soon...

It took Dembski 7 days to create the cover story press release.

Can we put this through the Nixplanatory Filter to see if it was designed that way?

Numbers!...Numbers!.....I think this is a job for "heroisameal"!

Quick, to the Integers Cave!

Date: 2007/11/27 18:26:18, Link
Author: Steverino
LOL....You guys rock!  That's too funny!

Date: 2007/11/28 08:12:06, Link
Author: Steverino
What a surprise!....More Bible Babble!

Date: 2007/11/28 17:41:23, Link
Author: Steverino
This is priceless:

"Lutepisc, if you are really into Intelligent Design then you will engage this person and attempt to save their soul for Christ, the Designer. These trolls just come here hoping that someone will lead them to the Lord, and that is the only thing we have on this Earth to accomplish. No amount of stealing materialists arguments to fight materialism will save one single soul."

Can I get a Amen!....pass the beaker.

Yeah, it's all science.

Date: 2007/11/30 18:26:23, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 30 2007,18:04)
Quote (JAM @ Nov. 30 2007,00:30)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 29 2007,22:14)

Does this qualify?              

Not even close, because they aren't talking about endocytosis, they attribute any design to evolution, and they point out the stupidity of the process:
The resulting terrestrial mammalian kidney is enor-
mously inefficient and energy-consuming, illustrating the tink-
ering premise. Smith (17) famously stated, “What engineer,
wishing to regulate the composition of the internal environ-
ment of the body on which the function of every bone, gland,
muscle, and nerve depends, would devise a scheme that oper-
ated by throwing the whole thing out 16 times a day and rely
on grabbing from it, as it fell to earth, only those precious
elements which he wanted to keep?”

So if God designed your kidneys, He is stupid. Who would worship such a god?

Interesting then how man cannot improve on such a "flawed" design.  Dialysis is no where near as effective as the natural kidney - in spite of all it's supposed flaws.

Give it time...because it will happen.  Then what will your smart ass answer be

There is no proof Front Loading exists.  It's nothing more than a "catch all" excuse for IDiots because they don't do research.

Date: 2007/12/02 07:33:38, Link
Author: Steverino
Drop the net!...We got one!

Date: 2007/12/03 17:30:26, Link
Author: Steverino
Then one would think, given your concept, God, Lord and King should all equal.

God = 22
King = 41
Lord = 49

What gives????

Date: 2007/12/04 06:25:16, Link
Author: Steverino
I didn't ask for side-stepping, I asked why the magic does not work as it should for:

God = 22
King = 41
Lord = 49

Date: 2007/12/04 08:44:43, Link
Author: Steverino
It's obvious that you can make phrases to fit your desired outcome.  It's not magic, mystery or special coincidence it's manipulation.

There is no mystery, wonderment, signs of God or design since you plug in words until you reach your desired outcome.

Also, as pointed out by someone else, the original language of the Bible was Hebrew.  If this were really something worth value, the word of God would present the same patterns in all languages.  He is after all, God.

Go back to crossword puzzles…they keep you sharp.

Date: 2007/12/04 22:05:18, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (hereoisreal @ Dec. 04 2007,20:53)
One size does not fit all:

Eze 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house
by the way of the gate whose prospect [is] toward the east.

Eze 44:1 ¶ Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the
outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it [was] shut.

Eze 44:2  Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut,
it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD,
the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

Eze 44:3  [It is] for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread
before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of [that] gate,
and shall go out by the way of the same.

Eze 46:9 ¶ But when the people of the land shall come before the LORD in the solemn feasts, he that entereth in by the way of the north gate to worship shall go out by the way of the south gate; and he that entereth by the way of the south gate shall go forth by the way of the north gate: he shall not return by the way of the gate whereby he came in, but shall go forth over against it.

Eze 46:12 ¶ Now when the prince shall prepare a voluntary burnt offering or peace offerings voluntarily unto the LORD, [one] shall then open him the gate that looketh toward the east, and he shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, as he did on the sabbath day: then he shall go forth; and after his going forth [one] shall shut the gate.



I thought to myself," Jesus said he is the door. Doors serve
two purposes. They let people in and they keep people out."

I glanced down at the Reader's Digest that "happened" to
be laying in front of me. On the cover was a story title:
"Immagration now. Who To Let In and Who To Keep Out"

No, apparently, your "design" concept only works in light of your imagination or your desire to make it work and mean something.

Either way, you got whole lot of nothing.

But, feel free to babble on.

Date: 2007/12/05 06:43:33, Link
Author: Steverino
As stated above, your "design" concept only works in light of your imagination or your desire to make it work and mean something.

Please seek help.

Date: 2007/12/08 07:33:28, Link
Author: Steverino
This is nothing more than not performing the job that your were hired to do.

I’d like a job washing cars, but I would rather not work with soap and water.

How else was Abraham going to perform his job function?...Just think and pray real hard?  He must have known real scientific research was going to have to be done.

One wonders if he was looking to get dumped to make an issue or test case out of this.

Date: 2007/12/08 08:00:02, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (hereoisreal @ Dec. 07 2007,09:00)
The Ark (saving 8)

No rudder, no sail

No front, no tail

No left, no right

No lights in sight

No charts, no maps

{Some prayers perhaps}

No dinghy in tow

No motor to go

One window, one door

3 floors, no more

But it served its purpose

Not to mention, No Ark.

Date: 2007/12/08 10:10:02, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 08 2007,08:20)

I’d like a job washing cars, but I would rather not work with soap and water.

Or, for a bit better parallel case,

I'd like a job researching washing cars, but if you insist on saying that it requires applying soap and water in contact with the car rather than my belief that vaguely waving my handkerchief at it from my chair does the job, then you can't use my data. [pout]

I wonder what type of accomplishments he meet not using evolutionary biology?

It might actually be a good idea to hire him back to do things the way he wants and then hire another using the accepted methodologies...and then at the end of 2 years, see who has meet the goals of the job.

Date: 2007/12/10 07:03:50, Link
Author: Steverino
Thanks so much!

Date: 2007/12/13 11:50:53, Link
Author: Steverino

Ok....I'm checking out Lilly....what should I be looking for???

Date: 2007/12/13 12:02:56, Link
Author: Steverino
I don't know why, but Joe G just strikes me as a loud mouth pussy.

Date: 2007/12/14 21:21:48, Link
Author: Steverino
As my 11 year old daughter would day, "Duh!"

Again why doesn't God = King = One?  You seem to be surprised that things "=" when you manipulate the phrase.

Big deal.

Date: 2007/12/15 09:21:32, Link
Author: Steverino

You are typical of Creationist/IDiots.  You point to something, a gap, and then back it up with dubious articles and viewpoints from the fringe.  Most of which has been debunked.....and then you cling to it.

What you and your side lack is it's own theory.  It's own evidence that can stand all by itself without clinging to perceived gaps.

You have nothing to offer.  Nothing.

If there was ANYTHING behind your position, then why aren't scientists jumping in doing research.  After all, we all want to be famous, make a name for ourselves....go down in history for our accomplishments.

Why???...because it's all BULlSHIT.

Date: 2007/12/16 07:40:03, Link
Author: Steverino

Where is your proof that apperance of design, proves design?

Leap of faith is not proof.

Date: 2007/12/16 16:13:22, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (hereoisreal @ Dec. 16 2007,12:46)
From my Dec 03 post:
"What fascinates me about the way I seek answers?  I like to find
pieces of the puzzle that fit."

Jesus took the time to compare Soloman with a lilly.
There is, IMO, a profound analogy between them.

Six senses connect you with reality.  They balance in the middle.
Six stamen of a lilly surround the ovary (center).  They each pivot
or balance on a center point.

Mat 20:2  And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

I have six senses, since I was sent to make scents for six cents.
(A penny a day for six days.)


You continue to make things up to fit your babble.  There is no purposeful or designed association...It's just wishful thinking on your part.

You babble on as though you believe you have found some fantastic hidden meaning, but when pointed out that what should "=" doesn't, you avoid the question and drool forth more babble.

Date: 2007/12/17 07:03:08, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 16 2007,21:27)
Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 16 2007,07:40)

Where is your proof that apperance of design, proves design?

Leap of faith is not proof.

Are you admitting life shows the appearance of design?
Or is this a trick question?

ID proponents are big of spouting "this was designed and this looks designed...blah...blah...blah...."

What I'm asking is, if you believe something has the appearance of design, where is the proof that the appearance of design, proves design.

Date: 2007/12/17 07:08:47, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (hereoisreal @ Dec. 16 2007,19:26)
Steve, it's rather strange that you can state that since the word 'God' doesn't equal 'one',everything I say is "babble".  How much weight does that claim to reason carry?
What part of my math is 'babble'?
To those guests who are first time visitors to my thread, I urge you to start on page
one to see where I'm coming from.


No, it's what you choose to make equal.  You add or subtract words to make phrases equal and then trumpet the results as though the pattern is amazing of magical.

If it were truly magical, amazing or designed then, God would equal King, God would equal One and so forth.  

What you are doing is making the arguments fit the sum.

Date: 2007/12/17 17:16:21, Link
Author: Steverino
Just more bullshit.

Date: 2007/12/17 17:26:20, Link
Author: Steverino
.....uuuummmmmm....because its all bullshit?....and the only ones who care are you and your doctor???

Does he know you use his computer when he leaves the grounds????

Date: 2007/12/17 17:36:46, Link
Author: Steverino
Great....another 4 years of half-assed decisions made for this country based on unfounded religious beliefs and lies.

Date: 2007/12/17 17:53:06, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 17 2007,10:00)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 16 2007,21:15)
I'm assuming you have not read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology.  If you had, you'd know that Schindewolf endorsed Richard Goldschmidt's theory of Systemmutation, or the "repatterning" of the chromosomes, as a mechanism:            
This repatterning or Systemmutation, is attributed to cytologically provable breaks in the chromosomes, which evoke inversions, duplications, and translocations.  A single modification of an embryonic character produced in this way would then regulate a whole series of related ontogenetic processes, leading to a completely new developmental type.
Basic Questions in Paleontology, pg. 352, footnote (emphasis his)

That this mechanism has merit has been spelled out in this discussion by the contention that mice and men share "100%" of their genes, yet their chromosomes show complete restructuring in relation to each other.

Even if this were correct, it does not answer the problems of how organisms know what information they will need for the future, how this information is stored without being corrupted and how it is turned on at the 'correct' time. You have previously admitted you can't answer these questions and you must have known this is what I was asking about, so in future try to be more honest in your responses.

It still does not answer the question 'Why the fascination with a defunct theory?'

Richard....Richard.....Richard......(big sigh)......

You miss the point, they don't need to know because.....

Everyone Now.........!!!!


Damn!....I love those group chants...Don't we all feel better now!!!???....God!....I do!!!!

Date: 2007/12/17 18:11:03, Link
Author: Steverino

"So, to answer both our questions:  It's not that organisms "know" anything, it's that there was someone behind them that knows everything.  God programmed life to live and die, to flourish and become extinct, to evolve and devolve.  It is God who keeps all these things going - for whatever his unknown purposes are."

Did I call it or what!!!

"Backed into a corner.....with no valid supporting information, evidence or data....crayons running low....our God Warrior, young Denial Smith whips out the God Card!"

It's all about the science folks!!!  Check please!

Date: 2007/12/18 06:49:21, Link
Author: Steverino
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

more like....

the doctor is "in"

Date: 2007/12/18 06:58:11, Link
Author: Steverino
I'm no scientist, but even I can see the logical flaw in his position.

Why are we even engaging this twit:

"So, to answer both our questions:  It's not that organisms "know" anything, it's that there was someone behind them that knows everything.  God programmed life to live and die, to flourish and become extinct, to evolve and devolve.  It is God who keeps all these things going - for whatever his unknown purposes are."

There is no proof to back that statement up and he knows it.  It’s an argument that cannot be proven on way or the other, so he clings to it because is leaves the door open for God.

You cannot argue/debate science once someone invokes the God card like this because it’s jut another form of moving the goal posts and at that point it becomes useless.

Date: 2007/12/18 18:48:44, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 18 2007,18:04)
Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 18 2007,06:58)
I'm no scientist, but even I can see the logical flaw in his position.

Why are we even engaging this twit:

"So, to answer both our questions:  It's not that organisms "know" anything, it's that there was someone behind them that knows everything.  God programmed life to live and die, to flourish and become extinct, to evolve and devolve.  It is God who keeps all these things going - for whatever his unknown purposes are."

There is no proof to back that statement up and he knows it.  It’s an argument that cannot be proven on way or the other, so he clings to it because is leaves the door open for God.

You cannot argue/debate science once someone invokes the God card like this because it’s jut another form of moving the goal posts and at that point it becomes useless.

Do you just trot out the standard "anti-creationist bag of arguments" - no matter who you're debating?  Because you obviously haven't been paying very close attention to what I've been saying.  I've been claiming "God did it" from the beginning.  Where have you been?


""So, to answer both our questions:  It's not that organisms "know" anything, it's that there was someone behind them that knows everything.  God programmed life to live and die, to flourish and become extinct, to evolve and devolve.  It is God who keeps all these things going - for whatever his unknown purposes are."

This is you throwing in the towel because you have nothing.  You bullshit a good game getting all sciency....until you cannot argue your point with valid science...and then you just toss in what you have been dying to say all along.  Why debate science at all?

Piss off and go over to UD with the other shills.  The only thing ID has proven without a doubt is that you can fool some of the people some of the time and jerk the rest off.

Which one are you?

Date: 2007/12/19 06:37:45, Link
Author: Steverino

Please provide proof or existance of something "eternal".

Can be anything.  I'm not picky.

Date: 2007/12/19 09:48:57, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 19 2007,07:54)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 16 2007,20:39)
What part of my math is 'babble'?

The typed part.

Hereoisreal is a kooky troll, but he's the gentlest and least annoying troll I've ever seen. I don't mind him being around at all.

I'll concur with that.

You're right.  I'll just let it tard.

Date: 2007/12/19 11:15:52, Link
Author: Steverino
# CA008. Evolution encourages promiscuity and lust.

Where was I!....I miss all the fun things!

Date: 2007/12/20 18:40:54, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 20 2007,18:26)
Quote (George @ Dec. 18 2007,18:47)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 18 2007,18:40)

There's a difference between balance and stasis.  It's true that there is no stasis in nature.  There is balance however.  If there weren't we'd be overrun by cockroaches by now.  Extinctions are a part of that balance.  When climate conditions change radically, species that once thrived die out and new ones take their place - all the while maintaining the balance that sustains this planet for life.

Then please explain to me what you mean by "balance".  And how it relates to cockroaches.  I don't know what you're getting at.

I mean that the world always has exactly the right mixture of species to keep life going (even though the players are in a constant state of flux).  

There's no reason - from an unthinking, uncaring natural selection standpoint - for it to be thus.  If it truly is "the survival of the fittest", cockroaches would win out, take over the world, then die out too when their food sources ran out.  The planet would then be dead - like every other planet we know of.  (Of course, this is just an imaginary scenario where cockroaches just happen to win - you can substitute any "fit", rapidly reproducing species - it doesn't matter, one species should overtake all the others if there's no balance in nature).

That's what I mean by balance.

....from that you make your leap of faith to a "Designer".

Argument from Incredulity, nuff said.  Leave.

Date: 2007/12/21 21:58:01, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 21 2007,11:06)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 21 2007,10:35)
You don't have to worry about JAM arguments. His concept of many basic bilological words are wrong.    

Where did you get your training in 'bilology', Martin?


I think this is an honest question.

Date: 2007/12/24 07:41:30, Link
Author: Steverino
As a designer/artist, I consider myself a "Regular Joe".  I am, however, blessed (bad choice of words) with the ability to recognize both valid and invalid logic when presented in an argument.

Having said that, I am awe of what the scientific community has accomplished and what they have been able to explain and contribute.

Please persist, challenge, fight and take no prisoners when it comes to those who would impose their personal religious, factually unsupported beliefs on others, especially the children.  Their efforts to dumb down the next generation needs to be exposed and thwarted.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading and learning from this blog and at times, throwing in my 2 cents without being made to feel a fool.

Please have a happy safe holiday season...whether it's Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanza, Festivus, Unholiday...or just that time year to wind down and enjoy your family.


Date: 2007/12/24 08:19:52, Link
Author: Steverino
This was up this moring on Amazon:

The most helpful favorable review

2nd Best Book Ever, December 23, 2007
By  The Spinozanator

I must reluctantly admit, I was teetering on the brink of being seduced by Satan's evil theory of evolution. Then I read Dembski's and Wells's inspired book, which ranks right up there with astrology in exposing science and its ridiculous reliance on evidence and the outdated fuddy duddy scientific method; instead of the Bible and other privileged sources.

None of my friends down at the Church of the Divine Sepulchre of Spiritual Holiness believe in that stupid ape story either. Among the high spots in this fine book was the sensitive support given in the bibliography to Santa Claus, Mother Goose, and the Stork. Those 100% of Nobel prize winners and 99% of other scientists who believe evolution's hogwash are most certainly going straight to Hell. Top Notch!

Ok....which one of you is this????  This was great!!!

Date: 2007/12/24 10:16:32, Link
Author: Steverino
"Spiked Egg Nog" there another kind????

Date: 2007/12/27 12:32:46, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,10:23)

I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.

Yeaah, they are working on it more than 100 years with the same result - it is "probably" due to cooling of sperms. They will go on working in such "untestable" ideas till the end of the world. But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. They never cannot solve it using neodarwinian way of thinking.

And what is your theory, backed by the tested, repeatable evidence?

Date: 2007/12/27 14:22:53, Link
Author: Steverino

Off need to optimize your catnap image...its downloading almost 500k

Date: 2007/12/29 07:05:15, Link
Author: Steverino
"Now, if Darwinism leads a person away from Christianity due to the notion that Darwinism makes for "intellectually fulfilled atheism", yeah, I have a problem with that.  But, that's a whole different issue."

Why???  If the evidence proves what you believe to be bullshit, why would it be a problem to turn away from bullshit???

FTK, Your are intellectually dishonest with yourself and when you repeat those lies to other like your children, you are dishonest with them.

You have asked questions and then received fact-based answers in response.  When you don't like those answers, you disingeniously invoke your "bullshit meter" and ingore that fact.

Again, you really don't wish to learn the truth, you just wish to validate you beliefs.

Date: 2007/12/29 07:10:18, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 29 2007,03:05)
Wirth concluded, "As we monitor scientific discoveries and reports in the news, I think we're beginning to see a growing trend overall that the sufficiency of Darwinian explanations to describe how life evolved is turning out to be substantially inadequate in a growing number of fields, particularly in the areas of genetics and molecular biology. I think it's becoming clear that Darwinism is on the verge of one of the greatest challenges it has faced in many decades. And, based on what we're seeing, I suspect the debate about origins will heat up again significantly in 2008."


The old...."Wait 'til next year!!!" battle cry.

Frequently invoked after the "So there!" defense.

Date: 2008/01/03 17:55:56, Link
Author: Steverino
What...and take time off blogging to do actual research!!!

Date: 2008/01/09 13:04:48, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 09 2008,11:24)
Quote (George @ Jan. 09 2008,05:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 09 2008,06:34)
Quote (1of63 @ Jan. 09 2008,00:32)
If ID takes off in Florida, could give a whole new meaning to CSI: Miami.  Can't you just see the Complex Sweater Idiot snapping off the cool shades and talking sideways at people?

They'd have to change the soundtrack, though.

ID has nothing to say about The Who.

Anyone think of a less appropriate theme song for ID than Won't Get Fooled Again?

Teenage Lobotomy.

I'm pretty sure the Ramones would take exception to this.

Gabba Gabba Hey!

Date: 2008/01/09 19:19:44, Link
Author: Steverino
"Biological systems represent just such an advanced technology in my opinion.  Until you provide me with a plausible explanation as to their origin, I'll continue to hold that they were designed by a supreme intelligence.  That's my position."

No proof, failure to accept proof.  Argument from Incredulity.

Does gravity pull things up in your world?

Date: 2008/01/10 12:20:26, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 10 2008,08:53)
From PZ and Pharyngula:

AIG is starting up a Fake Science Journal.  Hopefuly, it will be as successful as all the ID Journals.

Maybe all the hits coming from FTK's monster website will put it over the top.

So, will this be their own "peer reviewed" documentation?

I once had a letter published in Penthouse Forum.  Under the Answers In Genitals mindset...I would be peer review author....COOL!

FYI  -  Mother and daughter, stack level 6 of the library, of a small mid-west college.........


Date: 2008/01/18 17:29:24, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Mark Iosim @ Jan. 18 2008,07:28)
I have had a quick look back over recent posts and failed to see anything remotely fitting this accusation. All I have seen is some people getting frustrated over covering the same ground. Can you give a link to the passage you have in mind?

I also looked back over resent posts, but couldn’t find the post where JAM calling, Daniel moron. However you can find plenty (every other) of JAM’s posts are filled with accusation that Daniel is “deeply dishonest person”, lier, and that his arguments are stupid. Daniel is a very bright person and if his arguments some time get fuzzy it is because he tried to defend his convictions and we all have the same problem, as was demonstrated in the recent discussion.

My whole reason to follow up this forum was to see how Daniel withstanding a heat and I was impressed with his intelligence, ability to learn quickly and with his dignity. In the same time I was irritated by some folks and especially by JAM who was trashing Daniel in manner not acceptable for scientifically inclined discussion (at least not in my book) and by bragging his knowledge. Eventually, I decided to participate just to have an opportunity to tell JAM that having Curriculum Vita instead of Resume doesn’t make him a scientist yet. Unfortunately, I exploded prematurely and I apologize for “collateral damages”

I think you left out "ass hat".  I'm pretty sure I called him that more than once.  But, that is more of a label of observation rather than your ordinary run-of-the-mill name calling.


Date: 2008/01/20 08:02:30, Link
Author: Steverino
My cousing borrowed my sleeping bag for the Woodstock concert...when I got it back, it looked like a Drakes Yodel!  Had to weigh about 40 lbs.

Date: 2008/01/22 09:16:41, Link
Author: Steverino
Hey, sounds like fun! I'll toss in $20....who want to pad their resume!

Date: 2008/01/22 09:30:17, Link
Author: Steverino
No, but it would be typical of those that argue the ID/Creationist or cdesignproponentsist side.

After all, AiG is where all the secrets are kept.

Date: 2008/01/28 11:50:38, Link
Author: Steverino
Sox Rule!....Still living in the after glow!   Can we extend the off-season, so I can continue to bust the asses of Yankee fans???...I'm having too much fun!

I was on a cruise that left out of New Jersey during the World Series.  Me with my 5 Sox hats (one in wear and four packed) and a boat load of Yankees fans, and Yankee hats, Yankees shirts...and Yankee atitudes.....Until...the Sox completed the sweep.

Didn't see another article of Yankee clothing until we got back to NYC.

........Priceless.....Best cruise of my life.


Date: 2008/01/29 11:53:35, Link
Author: Steverino
"Only mankind’s ego could misinterpret 2 Peter 3:8 affixing the number 1,000 to the ratio equivalent in the passage  “ to the (Judeo-Christian) Lord . . .” by leaving out the word ‘As’. This one word by all known logic methodology means the word ‘Day’ in Genesis 1:5 has no fixed equivalent to man’s calculation of time but rather uses 1,000 to emphasize day represents a much longer length of time than man could fathom. If the ratio was intended to be exact then the sentence would have omitted the word As or been translated using only the word Is — “. . . a day is 1,000 years. . , ”  if you simply ask a human whose life-span is 76 years then 1,000 is a very large number. Only ego would bind that which is called Creator and not admit that the actual time of this difference or ratio could easily have been 65 billion years (the word billion not yet having appeared in language and not yet fathomed by logicians as infinity.)"

Yes, except for one small, teensy weensy detail....


Other than that, you're good to go!

Date: 2008/01/29 15:27:27, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,22:10)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,21:46)
Casey, Your Slip is Showing

Oh, that is just hilarious, Elsberry.  

". . And here’s the weakness of the entire Atheist Darwinist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted indocrination entertained."

Picking at a typo, huh?  That's as nasty as quote mining.

Let it be known that Darwin once said:
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power.

Grow up.


Honing up those quote-mining skills???

Full context of Darwins Puppy Beating Days:

"Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before
that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply
from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have
been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as
the spot was near the house.  This act lay heavily on my
conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where
the crime was committed.  It probably lay all the heavier from my
love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a
passion.  Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing
their love from their masters."

FTK, you really are pathetic.

Date: 2008/01/30 12:14:14, Link
Author: Steverino
Well, I am glad of one thing…

It’s seems that the overwhelming number of complete, bat-shitty nutters, denialists and complete tools would appear to sitting on the other side of the isle.

Date: 2008/01/31 11:03:53, Link
Author: Steverino
Both bits of schlock will go "straight to video" as they are nothing more than propaganda pieces created to sell to their own market.

Just more fleecing of the sheep.

Date: 2008/02/01 17:04:25, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 01 2008,00:12)
Quote (Nomad @ Feb. 01 2008,00:00)
Well at least we know that ID has some people very scared. You don’t issue challenges to those you don’t fear.

The thing is.. don't you issue challenges to people you think you can beat?  I don't issue a challenge to a heavyweight boxer to meet me in the ring.  I don't challenge Yo Yo Ma to a.. Cello off.. whatever that would be.  Sorry, I don't know where that came from.. I was thinking of a musician and for some reason he's the first think that came into my head.  I mean I could have said challenge Tom Scholz to a guitar solo contest.

To challenge them is to admit fear.  To ignore them is to admit fear.  Would kissing them full on the lips be to admit fear?

First person to post a picture of Denyse gets a flaming bag of dog poo left on their doorstop.  Not her.  Anyone but her.

edited to ward off possible responses involving Granny Spice.

come and get me big guy.

nom nom nom nom nom

eeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!....I just got one of those "piss shivers"!

Thanks a whole bunch!

Date: 2008/02/02 10:10:46, Link
Author: Steverino
Any one who has spent that much time in Bible study, has shit for brains.

Date: 2008/02/04 16:37:43, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 03 2008,22:24)
Well, Ian, I only find 2 things worth addressing here.

1.  One, I'm not a nutter...the polls indicate that you are.

2.  I'd be oh so very interested how Dawkins taught his daughter about every single religious belief without letting on that he thinks they are all a crock.  He indicates that it was very difficult for him to talk about "important issues" altogether.  And, after reading some of his thoughts about Christianity, I shudder when consider how he addressed that specific religious belief to his daughter.

In conclusion, you have your beliefs about what we should share with our children and I have mine.  I'd ask that you allow me to raise my children to honor their Maker, and you can tell your children whatever the hell you like.  If it was mandated that I were not allowed to share my own beliefs and insights with my child simply because they didn't fall in line with your beliefs or Dawkins beliefs or someone in higher government's beliefs, then I would choose not to have children at all.  I suppose that's another way for scientists to rid the world of over population.  Take away our rights to parent our children the way we see fit, and most people are going to think twice about raising children with big brother breathing down their necks.

In fact, that would be cause for war right there...having the government hold reign on what I can and cannot teach my children.   Unbelieveable...

That's all well and fine.  Just don't count on your children accomplishing anything that requires deductive reasoning or logic.  

I'm sure they will end up (and I'm sure, very nice) good little Christians.  It's only too bad that we, as a country, won't be able to count on them to lead the way in technology, medicine or research.

Ya know, the stuff that keeps the US competitive.

Date: 2008/02/05 10:35:13, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 04 2008,21:03)
Quote (Steverino @ Feb. 04 2008,16:37)
I'm sure they will end up (and I'm sure, very nice) good little Christians.  It's only too bad that we, as a country, won't be able to count on them to lead the way in technology, medicine or research.

Hey, Steverino

According to FtK-logic, this post means that you're a "moron".

And biologists who "adhere to Darwinism" suffer from "mental illness".

Way to build those bridges, FtK!

He’s evidently forgetting that my children are and will continue to attend public elementary, high school and college. They’ll know everything they need to know about evolution so that they can feign the same mental illness that biologists who adhere to Darwinism have. In fact, they'll know more about evolution than the average science student because they'll have a background in ID and creationist theories as well.


Will they be able to "feign" the ability to discover, innovate and research new technologies or medicines???

Exactly what beneficial background does ID provide???  How would it give them the upper hand on their peers??? Please be specific.

Your logic betrays your intelligence.

Date: 2008/02/05 11:23:21, Link
Author: Steverino
"Contrary to the charge, creationists do not reject science, not in the least. Instead, they reject naturalism, which is a philosophy that has incorrectly become synonymous with "science" in modern language."

Really???...You all believe in Science....Two words:

Radiometric Dating

Date: 2008/02/05 18:09:51, Link
Author: Steverino
No, but it might cause you to turn your brain on!

Date: 2008/02/11 17:15:08, Link
Author: Steverino
Wait, I thought those were the ones who held the clothes on the clothesline??? I’m all confused!

I'm sure Answers from Genitals will now claim this is proof the dino were really small at the time of the flood....and that's how they all got on the Ark.

"here....give is a hand with this goalpost....."

Date: 2008/02/11 17:59:08, Link
Author: Steverino
I really believe that Expelled is nothing more than a vehicle to pump up and bilk the faithful out of their hard earned dollars.

The only people who are going to come out and pay the $8-$12 ticket are the ones who need to have their beliefs validated.

Straight to video.

Date: 2008/02/13 12:49:44, Link
Author: Steverino
moved to FTK thread

Date: 2008/02/13 17:10:17, Link
Author: Steverino

You have stated a few times the you have a "bullshit" meter.  Funny how those work.

In order for your bullshit meter to work, it has to know what is, and what is not bullshit.  As, you are the inner workings and brains of this bullshit meter, you assume to know what is and what is not bullshit based on your emotions.

So tell me again, how it is possible for you to approach anything, let alone the Theory of Evolution, with an open mind?

I'm calling "Bullshit" on your bullshit meter.

Date: 2008/02/15 16:06:43, Link
Author: Steverino
"...These are important questions that can only be answered by using the EF."

"Quick! the BatShit cave!"

Date: 2008/02/18 17:11:12, Link
Author: Steverino
The more Luskin write tardbabble this, the more dead on the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody becomes.

Casey, why not just STFU and do the science.  Come back when you have some to show.

Date: 2008/02/19 08:12:05, Link
Author: Steverino
I have the audio, but the video is frozen.  Anyone else???

Got it!!!....had to stop and start.

Date: 2008/02/19 08:36:34, Link
Author: Steverino
More Gould taken out of context!.....God, I hate these people...they are just so intellectually dishonest!

"Darwinian Evolution is in a state of collapse...."


Date: 2008/02/19 08:57:18, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 19 2008,08:39)
I had to give up.  The feed is stuttering so bad it's driving me nuts now.

Well, that and the disingenuous asshats.

"Academic Freedom..."...I love how they try to assume the moral high ground thru the naming of there hidden agenda act.

Kind of like the "Patriot Act".  Implications are, if you are not for the act, you are not Patriotic.

Same with the "Academic Freedom" working.  If you are against, you are against freedoms.

Joe Jerkoff on now (with the ugliest American tie I have ever seen) speaking about what he knows nothing about, but apparently, is an authority on macro-evolution.

Date: 2008/02/22 10:19:54, Link
Author: Steverino
Me too.  I stand corrected then.

Date: 2008/02/24 07:07:37, Link
Author: Steverino
Speaking of which, what was God thinking when he designed hermaphrodite?

I'll have to ask FTK...she has all the answers.

Date: 2008/02/25 06:23:34, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2008,03:51)
Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 25 2008,03:06)
No no, the Great Author in the sky did it because He prefers to watch us suffer and do bad things, for the extra drama. Life on Earth is basically one long, gruesome, tragicomic soap opera for Him, you see. Or maybe one of the better episodes of CSI. But I repeat myself.

NOTE TO ALL: If you should find yourself in a cosmic episode of CSI, do not panic! You may die in a terrible fashion, but the audience will eat it up. Or not. Your death may instead be an occasion of little more than dark humor. Either way, you will go to greater reward than you can know! Rejoice!

Better than being the bit part actor in a cosmic episode of the original Star Trek.

"Sooooo, who's going on the away mission. The Captain, ok. Spock, good good. Bones McCoy, alrighty, and....{gulp} ME?? Ohsweetfuckingfederationnotme!!! Can't Barry come as well? What about Uhura? Let's make it a ship picnic, come on JUST me then? Can I quickly call my wife and kids?"

Cut to:

{De dede de de, De dede de de}

[Kirk fighting a male alien, unknown bit part actor badly pretending to be dead in corner]

{Bobo bobo bobo}

[Kirk smooching a female alien who cannot pronounce the word "Kirk"]


Aaaahhhhh....a Trekkie!  Was not "Galaxy Quest" a fantastic spoof!

Date: 2008/02/25 18:01:34, Link
Author: Steverino
Once again, FTK shows just how little she understands by posting a video invoking the Probability issue.

I can only hope your children mature with a better grasp of logic than yourself.

Just another case of SCRI (Severe Cranial Rectal Inversion)

Date: 2008/02/26 10:45:57, Link
Author: Steverino
And I thought it was just because he was a dickhead.  I stand corrected.

Date: 2008/02/28 06:40:48, Link
Author: Steverino
I love this one

As Ann Coulter wrote in "Goddless", "The Darwinists have saved the secular sanctity of their temples:  the public schools.  They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence.  They won the way liberals always win:  by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a sliver platter.<sup>(Coulter 2006, "Godless" p. 200)

Tell me again, how did Bush win the first election????

Date: 2008/03/03 10:39:01, Link
Author: Steverino would something evolve to fly, when there is no need for flight underwater?

Did I miss something?

Date: 2008/03/04 06:33:14, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 04 2008,06:08)
Sal informs us that Caroline Crocker is selling a new product, intellectual honesty.  $5,000 if made from scratch, $1,000 for gently used.  Details are available from her agent at intellectual

Oh and it's a real slick website!

The 90's called and they want their copy of FrontPage back!

Date: 2008/03/20 11:15:36, Link
Author: Steverino
I don't recall the circumstances of Sternberg not being kept by the Smithsonian, but didn't it turn out to be for something other than him being an IDiot?

Can anyone provide me with the Reader's Digest version?

Date: 2008/04/22 17:50:20, Link
Author: Steverino

"It's a beautiful day in KS today...lots of fun.  I'm trying not to let you folks upset me with all your nastiness and misconstruing of facts. "

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in your baby-making faux Christian ass.

Date: 2008/04/22 17:55:33, Link
Author: Steverino
Here, just to be, take this 3-iron and hold it above your head.

Even God can't hit a 3-iron!

Date: 2008/04/22 18:02:36, Link
Author: Steverino
I always carry a:  Sandwhich!

what? one else???.....I'm not giving ya any!

Date: 2008/04/22 18:04:17, Link
Author: Steverino

As the Japaneses would say, "Happy Berated Birthday!"

Date: 2008/04/28 11:41:14, Link
Author: Steverino

I always loved that one

Date: 2008/05/15 08:52:17, Link
Author: Steverino
WW said

Debating evolanders is like playing chess with pigeons.

So, does he make up his own rules for chess too?

Date: 2008/05/15 11:12:02, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 15 2008,09:45)
Quote (Steverino @ May 15 2008,06:52)
WW said

Debating evolanders is like playing chess with pigeons.

So, does he make up his own rules for chess too?

What's more, he spends most of his time wandering around insulting other people while they're playing. He's only willing to play on his own little board, tho he never actually starts a game. Every 24 hours or so he declares that he's beaten everyone.

I doubt he even plays...I think he just set up the pieces and waits for God to smite his opponent.

Date: 2008/05/19 18:27:55, Link
Author: Steverino
Way off topic...but stil fun to poke with a sharp stick...the obfuscation of topics to confuse the studio audience.....

VenonFangX, of YouTube fame, post his debunking of the theory of Evolution....and has promised to remove the teaching of Evolution from the public school system in his life time.

What a diatribe!

Date: 2008/05/22 10:55:44, Link
Author: Steverino
Not sure why but....O'Leary reminds me of Vincent Van Gopher from the Deputy Dawg Show

or...could be the sh!t I'm smoking.....

Date: 2008/06/02 11:41:35, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 02 2008,09:12)
If theistic morals are in fact fixed then incest is still acceptable!

I believe FTK has made noises in the past about the NT overriding the OT in certain aspects.

Must be so nice to have a "fixed" morality where you can pick and choose what to obey.

I'll have that from the OT and that and that from the NT.

A morality shopping list!

Yeah so....the inerrant word of God needs a tweak every now ant then....



Date: 2008/06/11 11:22:50, Link
Author: Steverino
FTK said:

??  That's certainly not the case.  I find his work extremely interesting, but I've repeated ad naseum that I don't know how old the earth is.  But then, scientists have struggled with that question as well. Just over one hundred years ago, they thought that it was about 100 million years old. Then they changed their minds, and decided it was 500 million years old. Then they changed their minds a couple more times >>>1.3 billion years, 3 billion, and then 4.55 billion

"Then they changed their minds,..."  Changed their minds???

This is what I find most disgusting about you, FTK.  You have a most disingenuous way of making the scientific process sound one day Scientists just decided, for personal reasons, to just agree that the earth was older.

While I am not a scientist or in a related field, I have two friends who carry out real a real lab...and who painstakingly follow rules and a process to do so.

I've come to the conclusion that, what YOU know about science or the process of science could be shoved up a gnat’s ass and still have room for an ice cube.

Date: 2008/06/26 19:53:45, Link
Author: Steverino
Going to start restoration of a 1966 VW Bug.  Got the compressor all wired up....aarrrrr...arrrrrr....

Date: 2008/07/30 09:26:59, Link
Author: Steverino

You also might want to start looking into each issue, one at a time, rather than trying to digest the entire debate.

You will find, much of the Creation/ID arguments can be easily researched on their own merits.  Some of these take a bit of time to explain or understand…which is also why many scientists don’t like to debate with Creationist or ID proponents.

More telling is why Creationist/ID proponents refuse to participate in any written debates.

Just my 2 cents.

Date: 2008/08/03 08:41:42, Link
Author: Steverino
...but if you're a Tardaholic like me, your boats come in..

That's my favorite quote of the month!  Now, that's a keeper!!!

I disagree on one point, Vox while a complete tool-bag, is very intelligent.  He does, however, lack the ability to interpret information without his religious biased.

Facts make sense to him except when they are contrary to his religious, emotional beliefs.  Then they are just complete lies.

P.S.  I love this pic...What a pretentious douche bag.

I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies

Date: 2008/08/15 11:25:08, Link
Author: Steverino
Well!......Well!........Anyone, an update from the press conf???

I'm only asking because Amelia Earhart keep bugging me.

Date: 2008/09/23 14:02:43, Link
Author: Steverino

Does anyone have any history or knowledge of this gentleman?

Rev. John Rankin  -

He is part of an upcoming debate at my former place of employ.  I'm looking to take the day and hear him

Date: 2008/09/24 11:34:21, Link
Author: Steverino
Kinda OT here....Looking for a critique of this:

In nineteenth century England, Charles Darwin provided a mechanism for this theory (descent with modification), though he did not reference Epicurus. He also had deep theological and personal problems with the question of evil and suffering. Like many of his peers in the Enlightenment, had a very poor grasp of the Bible on this subject, and thus moved away from believing that the God of the Bible was good.

But Darwin did something profoundly dishonest as he changed the terms of the debate to suit his presuppositions:

“The homological construction of the whole frame in the members of the same class is intelligible, if we admit their descent from a common progenitor, together with their subsequent adaptation to diversified conditions. On any other view the similarity of pattern between the hand of a monkey, the foot of a horse, the flipper of a seal, the wing of a bat, etc., is utterly inexplicable (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 31).

First, Darwin changed the language away from “morphology” to “homology.” Morphology is “the branch of biology dealing with the form and structure of organisms.” But homology, though also a biological term, is rooted in the philosophical assumption of “a fundamental similarity based on common descent.”

In other words, morphology describes things the way they are – different species all have the similarity of having “digits” in their bone structures. This is straightforward science. But homology presupposes that these similarities are due to a common organic source – i.e., it presupposes the theory of macroevolution. This is philosophy.

Second, Darwin would not admit any counter theory to be explored. Indeed, for his whole professional life he was arguing against the long-standing idea of a “common Designer,” as articulated in his age by William Paley and others. So when Darwin says that “any other view … is utterly inexplicable,” he never identifies the view he was challenging, thus not being accountable to its argument.

Had he been honest, he would have stated the arguments for the two competing views side by side, then argued why his theory was better:

Common Designer – morphological similarities are there because a Designer knew that various forms of life need their respective types of digits to function.

Common descent – morphological similarities are there because they evolved from a common organic source, all the way up to mankind (the argument with which Darwin concluded Descent).

But he did not. The problem for Darwin was this – whereas his theory could have some logical ability given its starting point, he still could not rise above the logic of the Epicurean swerve. He would not look at the question of origins. Where did the first living cell come from? And this leads us to the debate over “intelligent design,” which is merely current language for a “common Designer.” It has always been the same debate that Darwin would not honestly admit or confront head-on.

Is this guy speaking out of his ass???   My assumption is yes.

Date: 2008/12/23 13:36:43, Link
Author: Steverino
"Just possibly, someone might listen — they certainly are monitoring. And, as fellow sons of Adam and Daugthers of Eve [the echo of C S Lewis is deliberate], they too deserve a chance to respond to the truth. Even if — in the guise of medicine — it is a bit hard to swallow at first."

LOL.....Who writes this way?

Date: 2008/12/31 10:06:19, Link
Author: Steverino
""Bizarre ignoramus," "retarded," "suck-up," "Pathetic Loser," "attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy," "an orc," "Annoying," "a miserable loser with no life," "an idiot," "dishonest," "ignorant cheap poxied floozie," "fanatic and lunatic," "A proven liar," "incompetent,"

Com'on! We can do better than that!

Here, I'll get the ball rolling...."AV Club dropout"...."Pseudo-Nerd"...."Intellectual Wannabe"....

Date: 2009/01/06 13:00:22, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (dmso74 @ Jan. 06 2009,11:12)
Jerry issues a throwdown:

So I suggested to Sal Gal (and to anyone else) to go through the OV site and bring the best arguments here to debate.

Is there any anti ID advocate that is willing to take up this challenge? My guess is that none will be forthcoming. For all those who claim that ID is bogus, give it a shot or as they say “forever hold your peace.”

very brave, offering to duel in an arena where the opposing side is consistently banned or held up in moderation for hours/days so that their statements get buried. has anyone ever seen jerry comment anywhere but in the UD womb?

How about an offer to "Jerry" to come here where opposing viewpoints won't be banned based on the position???

Can we bring'em here???

Date: 2009/04/02 07:11:42, Link
Author: Steverino

"Our minds have already accepted that there is an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator.  When we look at life, design is instantly recognizable.  When we look at DNA, we see genetic programming.  When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.  Chloroplasts are God's photovoltaic cells.  Enzymes and all the other proteins are individually designed machinery - made to carry out specific functions.

The ability to supply the causal history is the key..."

What you have just said is, "I am biased and predisposed to view evidence through the filter of religion and my emotional beliefs."

You are now free to remove any semblance of logic or accepted scientific process from your arguments.

“we see a God-designed…”

...Is based on emotion and nothing supported by evidence.

Just admit to it and we can move on.

Date: 2009/11/24 07:46:28, Link
Author: Steverino
I ran across this web site that offers proof of God's existence. This is pure, uncut TARD so, be careful.

Apparently, by asking the question does God exists, we have proved his existance!'s all there in a kinda twisted circular reasoning way.


Date: 2009/11/24 08:28:20, Link
Author: Steverino
This is a snippet of one of his responses:

The existence of God is not based on 'circumstantial evidence.' It is actually because God exists that anyone can call ANYTHING 'evidence.' God is the necessary precondition for the proof or evidence of anything as both presuppose the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, which cannot be accounted for outside of God, and are accounted for with God. You see Lisa, the very fact that you say that the site "really doesn't prove anything,' shows a precommitment to the very concept of proof which YOU cannot account for without God.

As far as you saying that it is "obvious to everyone" why I created the site, or basically, "It's true, because we all say it's true," I hope that's not your best argument, cause it that is a logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum."

Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity., you can stop doing all the "sciencey" stuff.

Date: 2009/11/24 09:35:12, Link
Author: Steverino
My name is Sye Ten Bruggencate. I'm 46 years old, single, and live in Ontario, Canada.

left out

[qoute] the basement with my mom and dad.[/quote]

Date: 2009/11/24 09:38:05, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 24 2009,09:17)
"I don't know if absolute truth exists" choice gets you to

"I don't know if absolute truth exists"(again)----> "Absolutely true" or "False"

well, with a choice like that...  choosing "False" kicks you back to the first choice with the caveat "This is not a glitch:  think about it".  I thought about it and this is really dumb.

ETA  and "I don't care if absolute truth exists" gets you kicked to Disney.

fuck what a pile of stupid.  yes by all means let's blame heddle

He doesn't like being exposed for using circular reasoning so, he tries to reframe logic all together so, " do you know circular reasoning is invalid?"


Date: 2009/11/24 11:33:42, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,11:23)
I blame the Olympics.

As in ..."Special Olympics"?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Date: 2009/11/24 17:27:58, Link
Author: Steverino
Happy Birfday Mr. Heddle!....That is, if you can acount for this being your absolute birfday in your worldwide view.

Happy Birthday!....Enjoy!

Date: 2009/11/25 06:30:53, Link
Author: Steverino
TARD (now in HD....;-) )....

Well, it turns out the gentleman has made a guest appearance on......Eric Hovind show!

Get your boots on!

Date: 2009/12/15 18:45:50, Link
Author: Steverino
Bump!...this was great!

Inquiry and the other logical fallacy guy, please come back!

Date: 2009/12/15 20:37:00, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:13)
So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation?

Their consistency, rationality, force, etc. Why is there order when there should be disorder? Just think thermodynamics - something within physics itself is working to burn this universe out, what started it up? Why are natural laws rational? Why do you have a mind that grasps them? Why can you count? Etc. It would seem to me that science PRESUPPOSES a rational universe, one that can be understood. That is precisely why science arose in a Christian worldview as opposed to a Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc. worldview. Early scientist believed in the order of the universe because they believed it was created by a rational God who ordered.

mmmmmm....Rational God.  So, you can offer proof of god?

Please do.  Oh, and as usual, don't assume if A is incorrect that proves B.

Carry on.

Date: 2009/12/15 21:08:57, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:57)
mmmmmm....Rational God.  So, you can offer proof of god?

Please do.  Oh, and as usual, don't assume if A is incorrect that proves B.

Carry on.

If time were on my side, maybe. But for now I will stop and wait for responses to my posts (if everyone hasn't given up that is - I have been distracted by my truck dying on me this week and was not able to respond promptly).

"If time evidence were on my side, maybe."

Fixed that for ya.

Date: 2010/01/02 08:15:28, Link
Author: Steverino
Steverino here...I'm an web designer/graphic artist-usability specialist.

Although not quite the "lurker" as I do jump in from time to time. I don't have the educated scientific background most of the regular have. I was, however, motivated to purchase a Bio 101 book to refresh my basics and have gone on to read many of the books and papers referenced by the regulars.  For that, I thank you.

Keep up the snark....I LOVE THAT!

Date: 2010/01/06 19:42:09, Link
Author: Steverino
HHHHHMMMMMMMM.....seems that mommy and daddy have issues with him also....

Date: 2010/01/11 20:18:39, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 11 2010,15:44)
Wow, this VFX thing just gets better and better. Reality TV, you should be like this!

It just keeps getting better!

Apparently, VFgs family believes he has deep seated mental issues an has been contacted by one of the people that regularly refutes his post.  This person seemed to see through VFgs posts and see this kid (24 yo) is struggling with reality and contacted the father.

Stay tuned!

Date: 2010/01/19 16:49:25, Link
Author: Steverino
Question for you all.  I got this one from a bible-babbler.  It's well out of my a

Now if you want to show how really smart you are, explain away the 200,000+ polypeptides in the human body, some of them with amino acid chains 2,000 members long.

What is the space of a 2,000 amino acid polypeptide?

I'm not sure how this would refute Evolution or how he believes it does.


Date: 2010/01/19 18:16:47, Link
Author: Steverino
I'll probe further.  I got my dress shoes on, I don't wish to get too much tard on them.


Date: 2010/02/21 08:33:54, Link
Author: Steverino

I hope you have an ample supply of KY handy

(Oh boy!...this is goona be great!...sitting back with a large popcorn....)

Date: 2010/02/21 14:16:54, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,11:17)
Quote (Steverino @ Feb. 21 2010,08:33)
(Oh boy!...this is goona be great!...sitting back with a large popcorn....)

I think this is another hit-n-run troll from Dr Dr D's spring class barrel o' monkeys.

Dale got the 10 post minimum, but I don't think he made it to the required 3000 words. So perhaps he'll be back.

Just in case Dr. Dr. D. ever checks the URLs that his monkeys turn in, perhaps he can answer a question I've had ever since I first clapped eyes on one of his syllabi.

Is that epigram at the top ("What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.") supposed to be deep, ironic, or WTF?


Darn!....It's been a while since I have seen you guys disembowel a CreoTard or IDiot.

It's like driving by a really nasty car know you shouldn't look....but, you just can't help yourself.

Date: 2010/02/24 21:06:27, Link
Author: Steverino
Quite simply, an object's function is what it was intended to do by the one who designed it.

Again, VoxTard makes a leap of faith. Similar to the one he need to make when believing in the mythical sky fairy

The assume that something is designed and then use that assumption as support for you explanation is a logical fallacy.

Where is the proof that something is designed?  Even Demski, try as he might, can't come up with the science or math for that one.

Date: 2010/02/26 11:02:30, Link
Author: Steverino
De-cloaking here for a comment.....

From I can tell, Joe G’s. complex criteria for discerning the validity of research and data is.....Joe G. and his ability to “hand wave”

Correct me if I’m wrong Joe.

Date: 2010/03/30 19:24:50, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 30 2010,05:04)
What size shoe do you take?

Hey! No trick questions!...Let's keep this above board.

(Joe, Sticking up for bro)

Date: 2010/05/14 16:07:24, Link
Author: Steverino
mmmmmm.....I think it was missing the fart noises.   Yeah!...that's the ticket!

Date: 2010/11/13 10:19:58, Link
Author: Steverino
Which, of course, begs the age old question...What came first, The bullshit or the Bullshitter?

Date: 2010/11/16 18:48:40, Link
Author: Steverino
Best wishes for unendless days of joy and happiness in hers, and your future.

....and some will seen unendless.   ;-)

Date: 2010/12/09 21:21:25, Link
Author: Steverino
Thanks all!

As a graphic artist/artist/usability specialist...mostly I lurk here...and I have to tell you, I throughly enjoy your dismemberment of CDesignProponentsists and their bullshit.

You have inspired and motivated me to more about the topic of evolution and the science behind it. For that, I thank you all.


Robin,  Happy Birthday!!!

Date: 2010/12/28 20:37:06, Link
Author: Steverino
JoeToolBag said:

"You can say ID is just a trojan horse for Creation but you don't have anything to support the claim." does "cdesign proponentsists" work for ya.

From the Disco Institutes ass, to your mouth.

Enjoy, internet tuff guy

Date: 2011/01/02 17:59:15, Link
Author: Steverino
Everyone, re-meet David Mabus/Dennis Markuze...Asshat extroidenaire....

Dennis is a second rate photog from Canada who like to troll and spread his special blend of tard and stupidity wherever he goes.

Dennis, did your mother have any children survive child birth?

Date: 2011/01/02 21:09:40, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (awarfarexs @ Jan. 02 2011,18:10)
we just want to demonstrate how easy it is for us to annihilate you FUCKING BASTARDS... you forfeit your lives today....


Surprise!....Still here!!!

Your gwad must be on vacation today or smiting helpless women and children on some impoverished island.  He's a funny-fucking guy!

Date: 2011/01/03 19:10:07, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (awarfarexs @ Jan. 03 2011,12:42)
Do you have a little headache, Louis? It is called your SOUL DISAPPEARING!

Just for you, little traitors…

why does everyone always want to PUNCH you, shermer?

I know it's just wrong...and I should be ashamed...but, there is something sickly fun about poking a stick at this handicapped person.

May Dog forgive me.....

Date: 2011/01/04 17:46:45, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2011,14:44)
Of course I don't fouck with the French, I retain my abilties to services teh same species... ;)

You come to Austin and I'll get you some food that make escargots taste like snails.

Oh snap!...

Texas???...Oh, wait you guys can't make fun of have Don McLeroy.

Toss up.

Date: 2011/01/06 22:28:23, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:30)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 06 2011,21:28)
LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D

wolfhound - we're going to exterminate you as well...

you are going to be a martyr for ATHEISM....

Dennis, when you look in the mirror, do you see the same pathetic individual that we do?

Honestly...failed photog career, people pointing and laughing behind your back, the inability to present a valid argument to support your emotional beliefs....

Must be awful...

Date: 2011/01/07 17:37:29, Link
Author: Steverino

There...fixed that for ya.

Date: 2011/01/07 17:50:25, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (mrobotsm6 @ Jan. 07 2011,17:23)
now we are going to bury you...

And the lesson from all of this? DOUBLE!

So, DogWarrior

....when you come out here every day...and see we have all not been smitted (sp?) because you mythical sky fairy was to busy flooding the islands of helpless, innocent women and children (men aren't innocent)...

..Doesn't it just piss the BaJeebus out of you!...I know!...Dog Damn!...what's up with that!

Date: 2011/01/07 18:19:32, Link
Author: Steverino
Dibs on the Twins!!!

mmmmm....I think that's actually the first time I've ever said that out loud.....

Date: 2011/01/08 07:41:28, Link
Author: Steverino
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (mrobotsm6 @ Jan. 08 2011,01:39)
At least we're on the same page...

Serves Em Right, eh, Randi....

Just for you, little traitors…

What's wrong now, Dennis?

Is Randi STILL IGNORING your insignificant ass?  Why do you care?

It's not like you have anything to offer...or ever did.

Date: 2011/01/09 08:10:43, Link
Author: Steverino
Yeah, I know.  My work machine was/is being rebuilt so, I'm on a loaner and it had only the company approved fonts.

This is the third time I've had to install/reinstall Adobe CS5...This software just has issues!

Date: 2011/01/10 21:01:34, Link
Author: Steverino
Where's the Crocoduck and the banana???!!!

Date: 2011/01/11 16:51:05, Link
Author: Steverino
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (terrkin @ Jan. 10 2011,23:27)
an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....

At least we're on the same page...

Serves Em Right, eh, Randi....

Dennis,  How much does is suck being on the losing side of an argument every time your fingers hit the keyboard?

Does your family laugh at you the way we do?

Date: 2011/01/11 18:04:51, Link
Author: Steverino
This is off topic but, what's the latest/up to date evidence on Dino-Bird evolution?

Was the merits of Evolution with a creationist who used this article (below) as proof that the dino-bird evolution lineage is not as strong as previously thought.

I've tried to find a more up to date information but seem to have hit a wall.

Any suggestions?

article referenced:

Jones, T. D. and J. A. Ruben. Respiratory structure and function in theropod dinosaurs and some related taxa. In: New perspectives on the origins and evolution of birds. Pp. 443-461. Gauthier, J. and Gall, L. F., eds.,Yale University Press, New Haven.

Date: 2011/01/15 13:55:35, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (arobotasi @ Jan. 15 2011,12:30)


the end of atheism - only the blind and deaf can deny it...

an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....


Ever try to post anything coherent? I mean, just once? more thing before I forget,.....You do know that Edward Current is a PARODY....RIGHT????


Date: 2011/01/25 17:03:31, Link
Author: Steverino
I gotta hand it to you guys....You frikken make me laugh!  I've been heads down finishing a design for a client...took my first break in a week or so...and thought I'd pop in here...

I about pissed my pants....Not many sites issue the smack-down like the one you get here for being bat-shit ignorant and stupid.

I love you guys!


Quit while you're......oh, wait.....yeah,...your not.... Oh, never mind.

Date: 2011/03/24 07:27:34, Link
Author: Steverino
Gerneal question I was sent in response to humam chromosome 2:


Honestly ... is there any similar two species ... with the same 99% gene relation such as the man-chimp ... with one having a combined chromosomes 6 or 8 or whatever ... there must be evidence that combination of chromosomes can lead to evolutionary speciation. Because as far what I know; combining genes results to two things only.


Date: 2011/03/24 11:55:44, Link
Author: Steverino

Dispelled: An Interview with Expelled  Writer Kevin Miller
by Gord Wilson

To me, something like The God Delusion  is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical.

Kevin, my impression is, you're not as smart as you think you are.

Date: 2011/07/12 14:47:24, Link
Author: Steverino
Oh, I don't know...these two from TerryP at Scam

"I was a science teacher many years ago, back in the 80's. We talked mostly about science and not evolution."

"I'm not a big fan of gaining more intelligence, because it contains the truth."

I called him a Tard and the Mod sent me an email informing me that I had inflicted great pain by calling him a Tard...and would I please stop.  

Made my day. ;-)

This stuff just writes itself.

Date: 2011/07/13 05:06:39, Link
Author: Steverino
"Darwin... you magnificent bastard, I read your book! "

Date: 2011/08/11 17:39:46, Link
Author: Steverino
I believe, from memory....that Dennis is a photog.  Wasn't he the one who demanded a new camera from PZ a few years ago?

Date: 2012/11/27 17:36:04, Link
Author: Steverino
Holy shit!...Some people just refuse to learn! How long has he been posting the same shit?  All this time he could have actually made an honest attempt to learn something rather than to continue perpetuating woo.

Some people are just too stupid to be considered part of the species.

Date: 2012/11/28 03:03:21, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:32)
Pyramids are antennae?

He didn't by any chance recently see Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, did he?


Well they just removed all the cell towers from our town and are now building pyramids in their place....

...Nah....couldn't be.

Date: 2012/12/05 09:09:32, Link
Author: Steverino
Off topic question....Discussing the origins of the universe with a fundie.  He is attempting to make the claim that because the universe is infinitely intricate, the "laws of the universe" are/have to be a product of a "lawgiver"...

Other than the obvious argument from incredulity, are not the laws of the universe (physics) a RESULT of the universe?

Date: 2012/12/05 10:35:17, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 05 2012,10:30)
Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 05 2012,07:09)
Off topic question....Discussing the origins of the universe with a fundie.  He is attempting to make the claim that because the universe is infinitely intricate, the "laws of the universe" are/have to be a product of a "lawgiver"...

Other than the obvious argument from incredulity, are not the laws of the universe (physics) a RESULT of the universe?

It's just word games - we use the same word for "scientific" law and "legal" law.

He's hearing "I need to get this work done fast" and demanding you tell him how many miles per hour.

Maybe I didn't state my question correctly.  I think what he is attempting to say is, (1) these laws/rules were in play before the beginning of the universe and that they universe is a result of those laws/rules...(2) then, gawd created these laws/rules.

Poof!...proof of gawd.

Date: 2012/12/05 16:00:27, Link
Author: Steverino
Too funny. He had no real answer but instead axed these:

Scientists seem to have forgotten the implications of time, which is, of course, an important consequence of their discoveries.

1. Scientists agree that time began at the time of the big bang.

2. Scientists agree that time is a measure of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics), and therefore time moves forward.

3. Scientists predict the universe will go on forever, contract into a big crunch, or bounce back from a crunch to begin a new universe.

4. How about the beginning? What do scientists say about it? Mostly, they ignore it. Assuming scientists agree to a time line, they must acknowledge a beginning.

5. If you eliminate God as a cause for the big bang, you must provide an answer based on physical laws.

6. Here is the problem for science. Science can't explain how matter and energy created itself. Also, science can't explain how, in the beginning, physical laws necessary for matter and energy, came into existence.

8. The only way out of the dilemma is for science to prove matter and energy are eternal, in which case there would be no beginning. However, there is no evidence that matter and energy are eternal. [QUOTE]

Date: 2012/12/05 16:41:21, Link
Author: Steverino
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 05 2012,16:16)
8. The only way out of the dilemma is for science to prove matter and energy are eternal, in which case there would be no beginning. However, there is no evidence that matter and energy are eternal.

The conservation of mass/energy might be read to imply energy and mass are in fact eternal. The mass/energy that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is mass/energy is that which shall be mass/energy: and there is no new mass/energy under the sun.

Also, check this shit out.

Good read, thanks!

Date: 2014/11/10 16:42:43, Link
Author: Steverino
I know this is coming in from way of left field....Anyone ever run into this special maroon:

"Edgar A. Postrado was born in the Philippines (1966) with civil Engineering Degree from National University, Manila. He discovered: the real Intelligent Design, the real "intelligence" and its elusive nature, discoverer and promoter of Biological Interrelation or Interrelation Theory (replacement to the Theory of Evolution), promoter of the new powerful categorization method in naturalistic science, discoverer of the new and testable Theory of Intelligence, and solver or giver to some of the most unsolved mysteries in naturalistic science in origin's topic, like physics, biology, psychology, philosophy, mathematics, religion etc."


Date: 2014/11/10 17:21:40, Link
Author: Steverino
Exactly!...he claims he has "discovered" new intelligent design...that's different from the rest. It's akin to me claiming that, Gazornaplatz is my new discovery proving intelligent design.

Date: 2014/11/11 09:18:53, Link
Author: Steverino
I'd love to engage him but, I really don't feel like paying $5 for his "book".

Anyone have I can read?

Date: 2014/11/12 18:43:54, Link
Author: Steverino
Does anyone know what his exact or specific claim is?