AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: ToSeek

form_srcid: ToSeek

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.23.2.137

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: ToSeek

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 t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'ToSeek%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/04/18 04:34:53, Link
Author: ToSeek
Well, I'll just put down the key one for me, but it takes some explaining:

1. There are many potential findings that would blow the theory of evolution completely out of the water. None of these have been found. For example:

- Fossils go neatly from less complex to more complex as time goes by. There are no - none, zero, nada, zilch - anachronisms to be found: rabbits in the Silurian era or human skeletons alongside dinosaurs. How does your flood do that?

- Every living thing ever found can be placed neatly into a family tree. There are no gryphons or centaurs or half-bird, half-mammals.

- Every living things features are consistent with its position in the family tree, from its body plan to its biochemistry to its genetic sequence. (For just one example, the odds of humans and chimpanzees having the same Cytochrome C is something like 1 in 10^90. But they do.) You come up with the same tree no matter what. The odds of that are beyond astronomical, while a single organism that didn't fit would be the death knell for evolution.

- Every living thing uses the same genetic code. One organism with a different code would be an utter failure for evolution.

There's plenty more I could say, but that's the clincher for me.

Date: 2006/04/19 12:00:27, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (afdave @ April 19 2006,16:51)
One more question though ... some guy on the main PT site was insulted that I called him a Darwinist ... said that's like calling an African-American a "nigger" ... what's up with that?

Well, I'd say that's rather an overreaction, but, still, about the only people who use the term "Darwinists" are creationists. I don't know of anyone who would call themselves a Darwinist.

Date: 2006/04/25 05:59:01, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (afdave @ April 25 2006,09:40)
So all I get is rotten tomatoes and eggs?

Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?  

It's a really simple question, guys ...

Come on, you can do it ... Steve Story?  Moses? Lenny?  Anyone?

The "virtual monopoly" business is a creationist myth. High school and university teachers are intimidated into not teaching views that disagree with creationism by parents and the administrations. (See here if you don't believe me, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.)  Popular books abound on why evolution is wrong and creationism is right, while most scientist think it's too obvious to address.

It is embarrassing that most Americans - unlike citizens of most other countries - are creationists, but only in the same way that it's embarrassing that only about three-fourths of them know that the Earth goes around the Sun, and that most of them can name more Simpsons characters than they can First Amendment rights.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:16:24, Link
Author: ToSeek
As others have said, it's a not-terribly-well-written page-turner. I read it in three hours one slow Saturday afternoon and will most likely never pick it up again. Unless three hours of mildly entertaining reading is worth eight bucks to you, I'd suggest spending it on something else.

Date: 2006/05/19 05:09:46, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 19 2006,09:26)
Good lord, I had no idea they'd found 190 extrasolar planets. I didn't think the number was that big. I assume they're all Jupiter or Saturn-like in size?

Most of them are Jupiter-size are larger, but some are as small as Neptune. I think that's about the limit right now.

Date: 2006/09/25 07:10:08, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (pzmyers @ Sep. 24 2006,09:45)
Ah, reminds me of my little town of Morris, Minnesota.

5000 people.

0 bookstores.

2 bars.

14 "restaurants" (using the term very loosely, to include McDonald's and Taco John's and such cheap grease factories. We really only have one place we can take visitors to without making apologies).

18 churches.

What a waste.

We live in the wrong country. Some years ago I spent a night in the lovely English Cotswold town of Guiting Power, which had its priorities straight: one church, two pubs.

Date: 2007/02/01 14:54:45, Link
Author: ToSeek
I visit the site a couple of times a day just to laugh at what's being referenced here. If all of us are doing that, that's a big chunk of their audience right there.

Date: 2007/02/07 09:38:55, Link
Author: ToSeek
Gravity is a fact and a theory, just like evolution....

Date: 2007/02/09 16:16:08, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 09 2007,14:41)
(BTW, do the extraneous superscripts in the snippet add information to the piece? Discuss.)  :)

The extraneous superscripts are actually fancy quote marks that somehow got lost in translation. The "1" is an apostrophe and the "3" and "2" are left-handed and right-handed double-quotes, respectively.

Date: 2007/02/13 17:36:22, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (ofro @ Feb. 13 2007,13:52)
"5.  The Day he predicted Victory in Dover."
Would anyone have the link to that?  I remember somebody posting it on UD several months ago, but I didn't save it.  And that poster was immediately booted.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371#comment-8210

Quote
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

Date: 2007/02/14 10:28:25, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 14 2007,05:31)
Dave indulges in some Extreme Wingnuttery:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2070

It links to an animation that is, apparently, intended to drum up support for a war with Iran.

Whoa, Muslims play paintball!? We're doomed!

Date: 2007/03/05 21:12:01, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 05 2007,11:02)
Troutmac NEVER lets us down:

     
Quote
     
Quote
The fact is that there are, among the ranks of ID proponents, people who are not persuaded that such evidence as is cited "overwhelmingly denies the possibility of a young earth."

I agree with this as well, but I would make the larger statement that while most (or 'many' if you prefer) ID proponents accept an old Earth, it's also true, and actually more important, that ultimately age of the Earth is simply not relevant to the ID theory. At this point in time, ID is compatible with either age scenario as a matter of principle.

I would like someone to show me the "hard" evidence of a 4.5 billion year old Earth. By "hard evidence" I mean the evidence that is not the result of extrapolation. I don't think I'm very far out on a limb when I say that there is no such evidence.


(my boldfacing)

He also treads very carefully since, after all, his Immortal Soul is at stake:

 
Quote
I honestly do believe I could be convinced of an Old Earth given the right argument and evidence. I don't believe I must be hindered by the Biblical account (I am a Christian) as there are many, many Christians who accept an old-Earth and find "room" for it in the Genesis text. Maybe they're right… maybe there IS room for an old Earth. I'm open to that.

I just got banned from OE for arguing with Troutmac (or something - nobody actually told me why I got banned).

Date: 2007/03/15 13:07:44, Link
Author: ToSeek
Is it a typo that you're spelling his name "Lushkin", or are you trying to make a point?

Date: 2007/03/21 22:29:08, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote
Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard.


RSR has comments enabled just fine, though they work a little differently from most blogs. Is DT too stupid to figure that out, or is that a dumb question?

Date: 2007/03/22 19:37:44, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 22 2007,15:56)
Oh I don't know, probably my age. :D


Happy birthday, Kristine!

(That's what you were angling for, right?)

Date: 2007/04/04 22:30:38, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Kristine @ April 04 2007,19:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,18:04)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....-393816

HAHAHA KRISTINE. YOUR BROOMSTICK IS DOUBLE PARKED!

*Folds arms, nods, BOINK! disappears* Catch me now. :)

Sounds more like "I Dream of Jeannie." The witches I remember twiddled their noses. Or am I showing my age?

Date: 2007/04/14 20:12:45, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.  The only simliarity is that they both support the notion that there has to be a source of intellect responsible for the information and complexity we observe in nature.

ID is creation science cut down to the absolute minimal claims that the creationists think are closest to being able to pass scientific muster.

Date: 2007/04/19 10:42:08, Link
Author: ToSeek
Shan't.

Date: 2007/04/20 09:40:03, Link
Author: ToSeek
The first "Crisis in Cosmology" conference I could find by Googling was this one, which is more a gathering of those opposed to the Big Bang Theory than to relativity. Perhaps he is conflating two different groups of non-mainstream thinkers.

Date: 2007/04/23 16:18:51, Link
Author: ToSeek
Okay, I visit here to see what the ID wackos are doing without having to pollute my brain by visiting UD or OE. My job (software engineer) has nothing to do with the whole evolution vs. creation issue, but I've followed it with interest for many years.

Date: 2007/05/11 11:47:25, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,09:09)
Ever heard of IDEA clubs?

Yes, the pro-ID clubs that require you to be a Christian in order to hold office, even though ID "has nothing to do with religion."

Date: 2007/05/15 16:42:19, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Lufeld @ May 15 2007,14:57)
Quote
I’m pretty new at scientific american, and I don’t speak for the company, but given what I know about how our websitet works, I’d say that the reason the cover story doesn’t appear on that page you link to is that only some articles are made free every month on the web, and for whatever reason that month they didn’t choose the cover story to be one of the free articles. If you were to buy the digital issue of the magazine, the cover story would be part of it (it’s the whole issue, after all). In other words, this is hardly a conspiracy.

So in fact they did not even check if in general all stories are freely available but instead instantly assumed that there is a conspiracy going on. Wow, really good research. And what an impressive demonstraition of  critical thinking skills.

I actually checked all the other issues in 2001 (the earliest year that's on the website), and five of the twelve cover stories are not mentioned in the list of "feature articles" for that issue (that includes Gonzales's). So there's nothing special about how that one article was treated.

Date: 2007/05/18 21:18:13, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 18 2007,13:37)
Orac's latest dose of woo includes this little titbit:

 
Quote
The pyramid effectiveness may also be explained using Einstein's concept of Tachyons and Tardyons. Tachyons are particles of invisible energy that move faster than the speed of light (that means it is faster than 186,282 miles per second). Tardyons behave in the opposite way, moving below or at the speed of light.

(I really want to give the whole quote, it's magnificent.  But that might distract)

Joyously, this means that all of the UD crowd must be made of tardyons.  And I bet tardyons disobey the SLoT too.

Bob

"Tachyons" and "tardyons" are actually legitimate scientific terms (not that that means the rest of the quote isn't nonsense).

Date: 2007/06/05 22:44:41, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2007,19:24)
Tim Sandefur links to this in a post on Panda's Thumb. I thought we might benefit from a dedicated thread on it here.

Disaster in Daver: The Trials and Tribulations of Intelligent Design. (PDF)

Did you mean to spell it "Daver," or is that a Freudian slip? ;)

Date: 2007/06/10 12:41:30, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 04 2007,18:38)
I'd like to know why Behe didn't dazzle the scientific world with his, uh, bold new scientific insights on the witness stand in Dover, when he had the chance . . . . .

What? And give away his ideas for free?

Date: 2007/07/05 09:54:08, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (stevestory @ July 04 2007,12:17)
I'll never understand why people use their work computers to get into trouble on the internet. Guy I know was threatened by an ex's brother. Turns out the ex's brother made the threat from his workstation at Microsoft. Two days later, Microsoft had a job opening. Sounds like Chris Torvik might soon be looking for work too.

There was a guy I once worked with who was using a NASA computer to try to arrange, um, liaisons with underage women. The FBI was called in, executed a sting, and he ended up spending over a year in jail.

Date: 2008/04/09 08:47:15, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 08 2008,23:30)
Poachy has long been one of my favorite sock puppets tards.  here is why.  good stuff.

I think Poachy is a very subtle subversive. Read his comments with that in mind and see if you don't agree.

Date: 2008/04/10 08:36:08, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2008,02:21)
You've gotta wonder about the dimwits who paid for this turkey.

"Hi, I'm here to get some funding from you. I wanna make a documentary about the revolutionary science of Intelligent Design."
"Ooo, scientific revolution, huh? Sounds neat. What kind of experiments do ID scientists do?"
"Experiments? They don't do any."
"So they're all theorists I guess. What's their theory?"
"Their guy Phil Johnson says they don't really have one yet."
"No theory...no experiments...Well then what do they publish in their journal?"
"Nothing. It went defunct three years ago."
"Sounds great! Here's $3.5 million!"

How much of the film actually talks about Intelligent Design? I think it's more like "We want to make a film that depicts evolutionists as crypto-Nazis."
"Awesome!"

Date: 2008/04/17 14:32:39, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 17 2008,13:48)
Interweb folks, what would be the effect of us all putting expelled exposed links in our sigs?

Google is pretty tight-lipped about how their ranking algorithms work, but the general belief is that multiple links from one location don't have much effect. Better to have one link each from many locations, which is why many science bloggers are linking the word "Expelled" to the NCSE site.

Date: 2008/04/17 14:37:25, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (ReligionProf @ April 17 2008,11:59)
A student of mine has created a better image than I did: Yoko Ono as Kali standing on Ben Stein's chest:


But why does she have a bunch of Neil deGrasse Tyson heads around her waist?

Date: 2008/04/22 09:40:55, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 22 2008,06:20)
Quote
Guthrie:  I recently re-read "A fall of moondust"

Was that the one about the ship that sailed on the lunar dust and sank?  I remember that from my childhood - first class SF!  I also think it may have been instrumental in convincing creationists that the moon should be covered with hundreds of feet of dust.

Doesn't seem likely - Clarke makes it clear that this was a very specific location on the Moon where a lot of dust had collected. The ship that sailed on the dust was a special tourist attraction for just that reason.

(Always wanted to see a movie made from that book!)

Date: 2008/04/24 12:03:45, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (themadlolscientist @ April 24 2008,11:18)
Quote
4/21/2008: $227 per theater
4/22/2008: $216 per theater

It's a blockbuster, all right!

I'll be very interested in seeing how many theaters keep it over for a second week. Not many at this rate.

Date: 2010/06/24 14:14:17, Link
Author: ToSeek
Quote (JLT @ June 24 2010,08:56)
If the USA wins against Ghana then your next opponent is either England or Germany.

That's not correct. The USA-Ghana winner will play the winner of Uruguay-South Korea. England and Germany are in the other bracket - they could only meet up with the US in the final or in the consolation match. See bracket at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_knockout_stage

 

 

 

=====