AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: TheMissingLink

form_srcid: TheMissingLink

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: TheMissingLink

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2005/10/19 14:53:02, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Don't trust the NYT? Here's another account of the testimony from the local paper:


Eric Rothschild, attorney for the plaintiffs, asked Behe about whether astrology was science. And Behe, after hemming and hawing and launching into an abbreviated history of astrology and science, said, under his definition, it is.

And, oh god, I wish there was a reliable way to bet on this trial. Anyone who thinks the judge is going to do anything other than rip the school board to shreds.. is seriously delusional. This ruling will not be pretty.

Date: 2005/10/19 16:34:33, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
All school boards should be this progressive, open minded, and concerned about the presentation of issues in a fair and balanced manor:


Date: 2005/10/19 20:17:36, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (FishyFred @ Oct. 19 2005,20:40)
evopeach: How sure are you that the court is in your camp? Let's go down the list (and I'm making the assumption that Miers will be on the court if this gets there):

John Paul Stevens - Voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard. A vote against Dover.
Antonin Scalia - Along with Rehnquist, dissented in Edwards v. Aguillard. You can probably consider his vote a vote for Dover, but I'm not 100% sure. Just... something. He'll probably vote for Dover.

That takes care of the justices who voted on Edwards v. Aguillard. Now lets take a look at the post-1987 justices.

John Roberts - Can't go either way on him yet.
Harriet Miers - I'm guessing she's on your side. If she isn't confirmed and O'Connor is in her place, you will not get this vote. She voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Anthony Kennedy - Slightly difficult to read, but he's tended toward the left. He'll vote against Dover.
David Souter - Not a chance in ####. He's voting against Dover.
Clarence Thomas - Arguable. I'm guessing he'd vote against Dover, but you can have his vote.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - A sure bet to vote against Dover.
Stephen Breyer - Also a sure bet against Dover.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt evopeach, you lose 5-4.

For more info on the Supreme Court justices, see the Wikipedia page.

Personally, I doubt Dover would do that well. But I don't think it will end up in the surpreme court anyway.

Of course, Dover is going to lose here - it's only a matter of how bad. The case is so weak that even the Discovery Institute pulled their witnesses when they heard about all the bible thumping that went on during board meetings. Behe has essentially made an idiot of himself - the gallery was openly laughing at him. And Astrology? Ha ha. And he's their STAR witness. So there's no way the ID guys are going to want to bring this stinking barge to Washington because nothing good can happen. More likely, we'll have to wait for a while until the ID guys find a better case. And the mathematical probably of that happening is like a protien chain... uh, nevermind...

Date: 2005/10/20 08:26:06, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,08:21)

I doubt that a person who can't add has much credibility in predicting outcomes. See if you can't go with Roberts either way then the vote can't be put in the against column.

I think I can help you with his vote ....99% for Dover... he's a person of faith and a strict constructionist.

5-4 I win.

Evo, if you'd like to read in great detail how and why Intelligent Design in it's current form will fail in virtually any court you can read this:

Warning, though. It might tax your ability to generate delusional fantasies at the rate you're used to. But then, I might be under estimating you :)

Date: 2005/10/20 08:50:51, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (cichlid666 @ Aug. 12 2005,07:01)
I cant fathom that our president can believe this. " Astrophysicists such as stephen hawking determined that the evident starting point just before the Big Bang was something called "singularity" wich is: all the cosmos's potential mass (matter), energy, and dimentions (and time) reduced down to an infinately small point ZERO volume --- so , matter, 3-dimentional space , and time virtually did not exist before the Big bang."I am truly scared If people can accept this, wow!

I wish I could understand why so many people refuse to accept so much of science these days. When you break your leg and go the hospital what do you say when the doctor wants to xray you? "Ooooh no, doc, there's no way you can get a PICTURE just by pointing that thing at me! Next thing you know, you'll be sticking some needle in me to prevent the flu! But I know it's all just a conspiracy to make me think man comes from monkeys, and I won't have it! Call my pastor and have him prey for me instead!"

Yeah, so, it's not the point BEFORE the big bang that's the singularity. It's actually the smallest instant after the big bang (and before) where the laws of physics break down (unless you buy into string theory, in which case everything is peachy!;).

Also, you're not quite on target when you say the cosmos's mass (and energy) is ... zero volume. We know from Einstein's E=MC^2 that mass and energy are interchangable - we can convert mass to energy (i.e., atomic bombs). But interestingly, and even Einstein didn't realize the potential of this, energy can be converted to matter! This is what happened during the big bang. An unimaginable amount of energy (zero volume!;) exloded and began to forge sub-atomic particles, which eventually formed atoms ... etc, etc ... which eventually formed monkeys, which eventually formed man! (ha ha - couldn't resist).

Date: 2005/10/20 09:56:25, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,14:10)

You want me to read a propaganda piece written in part by Barbara Forrester , the lead witness, against Dover as an objective convincing analysis.

Most people would agree that the way you know when a trial is decided is when its over and the verdict is rendered.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue and since the supreme court has agreed that the teaching of altenative scientific theories is acceptable the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that ID is not scientific.

The detection of design like Mt. Rushmore or the monoliths on Easter Island are pretty comprehensible by average people.

The question seems to be is there any impact on science by the detection of design or is it ... so what.

In ETSI the entire idea was to detect the difference between random white or colored noise and a correlated signal, a code, a message. If such a message was detected and decoded would it have an impact on science in  the USA?

1) We would act on the message because it would likely be some universally important scientific information.

2) We would approach additional messages with a scientifically schooled filtering scheme to enhance further understanding, tightly focused.

So the detection of design would be a scientific endeaver
which would very likely have impact on science itself.

If the messages were repeated over and over and when decoded was universally agreed to say......."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." would that make all of the work performed to get to that point a waste of time and unscientific?

Yeah, I know, that article is does poke some fun at ID, but it also has some very careful analysis about the Lemon and Edwards cases.

As for your assertion that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs isn't not EXACTLY correct. One thing we learned from Edwards is that ideas like creationism, even beyond their religion implications, aren't worthy of special protection in a science class. The court ruled that the science community is very robust and anything worthy of being taught would have risen on it's own out of the free marketplace of ideas.

With ONE scientist for ID, and thousands against, the court is unlikely to find that the defense passes the first prong of the Lemon test: that ID has a secular benefit. Clearly it does not, or it would have succeeded in the peer-reviewed science community.

And I agree with you 100% when you say that you know the trial is decided when it's over. I know I won't change your mind, and I'm really not trying to. I'm just writing this so that when Dover is shot full of holes, you'll think to yourself: "####, maybe those evolutionists aren't as dumb as I think they are!". And for just ONE second, your delusions will vanish, a beam of light will shine down from the heavens, and God's voice will say with a booming reverberating echo: "He Told You So!"

Date: 2005/10/20 10:06:34, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,14:47)
False Dilemma

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy

Evolutionists say either the universe, life etc. are all the result of natural law driven phenomena or they are driven by supernatural interventionist acts that are purely and wholly expressions of religion.
From this they conclude that no science can ever be assumed valid because if the supernatural is permitted a result cannot be relied upon as repeatable and dependable because it would be indistinguishable whether the result was obtained scientifically or as a direct result of supernatural intervention.
Given the concept of ID there is in fact a third scientific choice:
At an undefined point in time an Intelligent Designer hybridized intellect, power and ability onto matter resulting in the design in life that we observe as well as the operation of the universe. Past that point the ID has intervened in the universe only rarely and in general has been content to let the universe operate within the boundaries of physical law.

The problem with your "one time" defense, Peach, is that you can't provide any observable data about when and if such a "one time" event will happen again. And in the absense of such data, you can't be sure that when you walk out of your front door tomorrow morning you won't rise from the earth as if touched by his noodly appendage! Therefor, nothing you can know about science is reliable because any unexpected or non-intuitive result can be just another case of the Intelligent Designer mucking up the words... again.

It may well be that God mucks up the works with some regularity, but science must proceed on the assumption that he does not.

Date: 2005/10/20 10:11:59, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
I just wanted to say that! I've always wanted to meet one of those "flat earth" guys just to see how they manage to construct a world view that skips right past reality. And evopeach, you are #### near as good! This board freaking rocks!

Date: 2005/10/20 11:34:35, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Further, conservative scholars hold to the absolute economy of miracles...

Hahaha.. Oh my god, that's the funniest thing I've read in days! "economy of miracles"... haha... you can't make that stuff up!

"economy of miracles".. I just had to type it once more!!

Date: 2005/10/20 11:50:17, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Oct. 20 2005,16:34)
[quote=evopeach,Oct. 19 2005,16:13]Captain Midnight ... still putting a little crank in your ovaltine I see. Lets take that unbiased NYT article as purely objective. LOL

Now I wonder if you would care to read what Behe said?[/quote]
The funny thing about reading those transcripts is that it's hard to tell if it's direct testimony or cross. He sounds equally buffonish both ways.

Date: 2005/10/21 11:19:10, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,16:04)
Oh and the reason I keep posting is that I do from time to time like to engage my ego by mentally stomping a few evos, democrats, atheists, socialists, losers and here I can hit them all with one swat.

Ha ha.. you must be very insecure.

Date: 2005/10/21 11:31:34, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Hey, don't put down republicans. I know lots of them who don't bury their heads in the sand pretending that evolution doesn't exist.

Anyway, evo, sorry you got upset. Maybe god will make it up to you and violate his law of "conservation of miracles" to grant you a win in Dover!

Date: 2005/10/22 10:17:09, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Is anyone really offended by evo? I think he's hysterical - very entertaining. Hense the title of the thread.

Date: 2008/04/19 20:17:43, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
I took a field trip today and gave those lying snakes my $7.50. I figured that since I've been following the saga for the last year or two I should actually see the film.

I live about 2 miles from Stephan Meyer's office in Redmond, WA and I saw the film in the theater just down the street from there.

There were perhaps 80 to 100 people at the 2:50pm matinee. It looked to me like most were in their 40s or older. There were two teenage girls a few rows in front of me, and I was really wondering if Bueller-Ben was that big of a draw for them. They left before Ben's 3 minute opening speech, though, so I guess the answer was no.

Based on the location of the laughs and the post-film conversations I overheard, I'd say that one half or more of the audience was neutral or positive about the movie's message.

I was a little surprised that the movie was even more badshit than I expected; so in that sense I'm glad I saw it. And I'm sad to say that I can see where it would be compelling to someone who knows little about the history of evolution science.

It was great to see, though, that the top IDiots all lined up on camera to convincingly assosciate ID with "God." The ID movement would have trouble winning any first amendment case on the back of anyone in that film now, I think.

For the full effect, I even went to "Victors Coffee" (the coffee shop where Stephan Meyer was interviewed) on the way home. I'd never been in there and it turns out they have pretty good coffee and cheesecake! So, thanks Ben, for educating me. There is an 8x10 Expelled flyer hanging next to the register with a note that reads "Go see this movie - Victor's is in it!".

Date: 2008/04/22 02:02:14, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 21 2008,21:10)
Iowa State is known for football, statistics, and agriculture (or so I assume). It is not known for physics. Add to that the fact that Ames is a soul-enervating ****hole (yes, I've been there) and I'd say Dr. Gonzalez comes out ahead of his opponents.

I guess ISU did Gonzales quite a favor by not granting him tenure then, didn't they? So what's all the fuss about?

Date: 2008/04/24 20:48:15, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 24 2008,10:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2008,03:15)
Ono is seeking Premise's profit from the documentary, as well as at least $75,000 in damages and a ban on the 1971 song's use in the film.

All the profit - potentially gone!,5143,695273188,00.html

EDIT: And if it makes a loss? Does Yoko owe them money? :)

Yoko Ono is a crazy bitch.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who recently pointed out the the title of the best selling christian 'self-help' book, "A Purpose Driven Life", is trademarked. Seems ironic.

Date: 2008/04/25 17:06:08, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (ERV @ April 25 2008,14:23)
Just read the complaint against Premise by Yoko.

Its beautiful.

Did you all know EMI is in on the suit too?

I didnt know that.

*wipes away tears of joy*

Link, anyone?

Date: 2008/04/29 02:33:44, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Quote (J-Dog @ April 28 2008,15:46)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,April 28 2008,15:16]
Quote (Quidam @ April 28 2008,14:57)
Is that something you'd be interested in?

Sure, unfortunately I know very little about ERV's and how to make them webby.  

I could do Behe on his knees, beaten into submission by a Dominatrix Abbie.

I think we need Abbie as Science Dominatrix with a long whip, on the left side of the banner, with Behe and Dembski groveling and crying on the right side of the banner.

Ah-ha! Now I understand Stein's motives for making Expelled. It's not about Nazis, it's just about the nazi hat, leather boots, and riding crop!

Ben, Ben, Ben...

Date: 2008/04/29 13:49:21, Link
Author: TheMissingLink
Here's a blogger feature, and potential problem, that you may or may not be aware of.

You can make posts to your blog via email, without logging into blogger at all. To do this, you send mail to an address based on your blogger login name and the name of your blog. The format is:

For instance, if your blogger login name was "erv" and your blog name was endogenousretrovirus, you could post by sending mail to:

The only security is that your blogger login name isn't something obvious.. like erv :)

I actually make all my blog posts this way so I a) can use my normal e-mail editor and b) so I have a record of all my blog entries in my mail's 'sent' folder... just in case.