AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Wonderpants

form_srcid: Wonderpants

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.227.62.141

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Wonderpants

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/09/29 06:04:19, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,09:39)
Your position:

I have no idea how life was started and it doesn't matter because it had to be naturalistic ... I just assume it happened without a scintilla of evidence to support it and a great deal against it. (And you call that science)

I have no basis for my theory of evolution as to the enabling mechanism of replication, the genetic code, the complex molecules necessary for the simplest imaginable life form on which my theory and its mechanism of random mutation and natural selection could act. I just don't think about that .. I just assume somehow it happened.

My kind of science mostly rests on unproved assumptions without experiemental evidence, in the face of phantasmagorically negative mathmatical probability because once that is assumed I can then extrapolate the assumption to explain the entire natual world and its operations.

I have no problem with a scientific world view whose entire foundation is unproved, undemonstrated, mathmatically impossible and rails against established scientific laws. In fact I embrace it against all odds and vehemently oppose any explanation other than mine which is no explanation at all but just an assumption.

I would rather have any answer than one which was not completely naturalistic.

I've been reading this thread for a few days, and just had a couple of points to make to evopeach.

1. You seem to have described ID rather than biological evolution, in being an unproven assumption with no evidence to support it.

2. If you are in fact describing biological evolution, and in light of your previous comments, then I can only assume that you are a shamefully ignorant lying fool of the first degree.

Date: 2005/09/29 07:45:26, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,12:03)
Hey looky ;looky major disruption to  "established" evolution common decent numer 99,978.

http://news.yahoo.com/s....VRPUCUl

Guess its back to the drawing board for the pseudoscience crowd regarding humans and chimps common ancestor.

I'm sure another fairy tale will quickly take the old one's place.. they always do.

Really? In that case, I look forward to the Flying Spaghetti Monster replacing creationi.....ID. It has as much evidence as ID, after all.

Date: 2005/09/29 11:34:40, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,14:51)
As for teh rest of the world if you read widely you would know that Darwinian evolution is even less believed by scientists outside the USA than inside... but that would be over your head.

You really have no clue at all, do you?

I live in the UK, and I can categorically assure you that just about every last person in the country has a good long laugh at your fundies when we hear about them trying to push America back to the 5th century AD.

Now, would you like me to pass you another straw to cling on to?

Date: 2005/09/29 11:43:44, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,15:03)
Wonder and Midnight,

I see the intellectual content of your replies is up to evolutionist standards...totally void.

Well, you know what they say: If you can't beat them (fundies, by using your God-given brain), join em (by removing every trace of rationality and logic). So I thought I'd play at being a fundie tonight.   ;)

Date: 2005/10/05 01:16:50, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Free speech is the last thing the ID cultists want.

ID is simply part of their roadmap to setting up a fundamentalist theocracy in the USA.

If anyone dared to stand up and suggest that the designer might actually be aliens, Allah, Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of the Christian god, you'd have them screaming their heads off non-stop.

Why not stop lying when you deny that ID isn't religion and that all you want is the truth taught? That way, you might at least appear to have courage in your convictions. Perhaps you ought to reread the bit in the Bible where Peter denies Jesus three times.

Date: 2005/10/05 05:27:27, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 05 2005,08:29)
First despite the ID distancing themselves from NEC and holding to a purely unnamed designer in word, text and now under oath


My word! They lie under oath about God not being the intelligent designer? Something tells me he isn't going to be too happy about that when the ID people reach the pearly gates. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and all that...


Quote
you're paranoia and rediculous illogical fears ( setting up a theocracy.. how stupid can you be)  .


Go and read the Part Robertson and Jerry Falwell websites. It's all there in black and white (unlike the 'evidence' for ID, of course).


Quote
you now commit another illegality, the assumption that people are guilty of your accusations by some form of mind reading ... that they are conspiritorial liars willing to purjure themselves in print and before the courts without a scintilla of evidence to support your claims


It's a statement of fact, not an assumption, I'm afraid.


Quote
You mischaracterize ID


Pot. Kettle. Black!

Quote
I can honestly say there is nothing to support the idea that any scientist would alter activity of observation, innovation, copying. altering one whit under the alternative approach of assumed original design.


Why should they when ID has not one whit of true evidence?

Quote
If the American people are so uneducated, ignorant and behind the rest of the world is it God's providence that we are the most developed, generous, wealthy, advanced in science and technology the world has ever seen. Is the puny, starving, begger, backward and obscenely immoral old Europe or moslem mid-east or North Korea or Russia your ideal model for America. Is the 46% of Americans who want ID taught  the minority cult you speak of... laughable.


Will you stil be saying that when Europe, China, India, Japan, etc, overtake you in the sciences?

And I really wouldn't get to carried away with the idea of America as 'God's own country'. I can pretty easily point out some major problems with that.



Quote
egomaniacal atheists and agnostics as the representing the official philosophy of our country.


Egomaniacal atheists and agnostics? Ah, at last you come clean!!

Instead, they're going to have a bunch of fundamentalist Christians representing the official philosophy of your country. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to point and laugh at you.

Date: 2005/10/05 05:44:30, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 05 2005,10:34)
Wonderpants,

Now that I see you're just another pitiful, jealous, butt head from outside the USA why don't you stay the #### out of our internal affiars and fix your own horrible problems.

Are you a socialist, a communist, a neo-nazi, a facist or some other equally admirable true believer.

Good Bye Sewer Pig

Wow, that almost hurt.

BTW, I'll take it to be your admission that you've lost the argument.

Date: 2005/10/05 07:33:07, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 05 2005,12)
No you can take it that your arguments are so specious and you have zero credibility and I don't thow pearls to swine.

Now go marry two women, start a brothel, shoot some senior citizens or whatever fun thing turns you on today.

Bye Bye Pig Barf

My, you do have a lot of pent up anger.

I guess it must stem from the fact that you know you're utterly wrong, a blatant liar, a hypocrite, a poor reflection on even the fundamentalist Christians, and that you have to resort to name calling to conceal the fact from yourself. I've scraped more intelligent and civilised things than you off the bottom of my shoes.

Date: 2005/10/05 08:18:58, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Keep going, evopeach!

You're giving me the best laugh I've had for some time, and digging yourself ever deeper into a hole at the same time.  :)

Anyone know if ID cultists even consider Neanderthals a separate species, btw?

Date: 2005/10/05 09:08:49, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
Wonderthal,

Yes ever since you began posting and it became common knowledge that no member of any extant species would consider having sex with you.


Sorry, was I talking to you there?


I'm going to start selling an Evopeach clockwork toy line.

Just wind it up and watch it childishly and illogically rant on about evolution!

Date: 2005/10/06 09:15:58, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Oct. 06 2005,11:02)
:02-->
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 05 2005,17:02)
I just looked up the aid to developing countries as a percenmtage of GNP equivalent and per capita and gross dollars and USA leads in every category for the last 25 years at least. Try it yourself meatball.

Facts please not assertions... you read like an evolutionist.. oh thats right you are one.

Dear evopeach.  You specifically stated, and the quote is below, that "aid to developing countries as a percenmtage of GNP.....USA leads in every category for the last 25 years at least"  Apart from the spelling, that statement is incorrect.

Which is backed up according to this page:

http://www.oecd.org/documen....00.html

No doubt Evopeach will further demonstrate his lack of civility and respect for Christian principles by insulting me in response.  :D

Date: 2005/10/07 06:47:26, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (GCT @ Oct. 07 2005,10:12)
Evopeach,
You've just admitted that you only have a bug up your backside when it comes to evolution.  So, why not those other sciences?  

Because he's only been told to go after those wicked atheist evilutionists, and not the scientists in other fields who support evolution.

Date: 2005/10/08 09:29:35, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 07 2005,14:37)
It will be difficult since half-truths, omission, misrepresentation, character assination, vitriolic personal attack, vendettas and blackmail are stock in trade for the evo community and such are built-in reactions from years of training and mind control ... but I will try.

I unreservedly admit that I'm speechless at this point.

You freely and repeatedly insult me and others who have treated you civilly solely because you don't like your shallow and blinkered little worldview being questioned, you lie, distort, demonstrate appalling ignorance, and evade awkward questions, and then you have the hypocrisy to whine about being subjected to the same treatment.

If there is a God, I hope he washes his hands of you.

Date: 2005/10/08 09:32:24, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 08 2005,09:47)
I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160. I am smart enough to know a "Theory in Crisis" for all the right reasons.

"I'm so smart! S-M-R-T!"

Date: 2005/10/08 09:37:27, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 08 2005,10:20)
If you want to argue your stupidity with Cal Berkley, Cal Tech and Rice go ahead but to me you have zero credibility compared to the entire world community of physics Phds.

Would this be the same world community of physics PHDs that you deem to be elitist ivory tower atheistic/socialist/communist liberals for daring to accept biological evolution, perchance?

Date: 2005/10/08 12:54:27, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Ask and you shall receive.  ;)

http://lever.suntliv.com/gastbilder/rotfl.gif

Date: 2005/10/13 04:42:50, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,09)
I never said 400 scientists don't believe in evolution. Rather there are 400 who publically state they do not accept neo-Darwinian theory of muation and selection as an acceptable explanation of the life we observe.


How many of those scientists are biologists, and what do they believe to be an acceptable explanation?


Quote
Anyway any person skilled in critical thinking knows that Conclusions from Popularity is a severe logical fallacy. (I can give you references if you like)


But the Conclusion from Popularity is one that ID supporters like to use, given the 50%-66% support that ID gets in polls.

All while dismissing the near universal consensus on evolution by scientists, incidentally....

Date: 2005/10/13 04:59:25, Link
Author: Wonderpants
The problem is that whatever you call it, ID will find a way to attack it.

If you call it a law, they'll talk about dogmatic atheists desperate to prop up an idea in crisis.

And if you continue to call it a scientific theory, they'll use the old 'it's just a theory!' line.

Date: 2005/10/13 12:03:33, Link
Author: Wonderpants
:04-->
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.

Where? Show me a link or back your claim up in some way, please.


Quote
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.


I never said they were. The point is, why ask astronomers, physicists, etc, about something that isn't their field of expertise? You wouldn't go to a heart surgeon and ask him to do eye surgery, would you?

Date: 2005/10/13 12:12:07, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 13 2005,15:07)
Your argument isn't even an argument from incredulity. It's an argument from deliberate blindness.

More precisely, it's an argument where Evopeach has his eyes shut tight, his fingers jammed in his ears, and his head stuck under a pillow, while coming up with all sorts of rubbish.

As evidenced by the post just above mine, where he makes ludicrously erroneous claims about abiogenesis and the evidence for evolution.

Date: 2005/10/18 00:40:38, Link
Author: Wonderpants
One popular claim by the ID/creationist fantasists is that evolution has never been observed in the real world and/or that it's only been demonstrated under laboratory conditions by 'immoral atheist' scientists.

So let's see if we can come up with a counter argument that involves easily demonstrated examples of evolution in everyday life. Here's a few to get the ball rolling:

1. The most notable and significant example (to us): Superbugs. Germs that have evolved partial or complete immunity to antibiotics.

2. Warfarin resistant rats. Warfarin is a common rat poison that kills them by stopping their blood clotting. Of course, quite a few rats have now developed immunity to Warfarin.

3. Mice that have developed to exist in extremely cold environments. Mice living in places like freezer rooms have been found to have developed extremely thick coats to deal with the sub-zero temperatures.

Anyone with any other examples?

Date: 2005/10/18 03:40:24, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (GCT @ Oct. 18 2005,08:29)
When it was argued that you were wrong, you persisted that you were right.  Now, you shift the goal posts and accuse us of evasion?  

Evopeach, have you ever thought about going into politics?

Date: 2005/10/18 11:16:01, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Can we please just ignore Evopeach in this thread and come up with examples of everyday evolution, as per the original thread?  :)

Date: 2005/10/21 06:56:09, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,10:13)
we impeached their trailer trash president

So you did.

Yet you say nothing about his successor invading Iraq on what I'll charitably call false intelligence and going on record as saying that a voice in his head told him to invade.

What a world!

Date: 2005/10/21 11:17:49, Link
Author: Wonderpants
EricMurphy has saved me the trouble of answering Evopeach. :)

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,14:53)
Now I see you and lenny and most of the others are just another band of socialist pinko anarchists who have no compunction about lying, cheating, BSing, etc. and are  antithetical to the truth and every value except me first and right now.. well it just clears things up considerably.


And there are so many things wrong with that comment that I won't even bother making an attempt at it.

Date: 2005/10/22 09:12:33, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Moderator @ Oct. 22 2005,12:54)
Read the board rules

Warnings were issued, and ignored. Say goodbye, "evopeach".

As rude and misinformed (to give him the benefit of the doubt) as Evopeach is, does he still warrant a ban?

I'd like to think that we can hear the other side (unlike a certain William Dembski with his blog) and prove that we don't gag dissenters out of hand, as the IDers/creationists are fond of claiming.

Date: 2005/10/23 02:07:11, Link
Author: Wonderpants
ONE ID-oriented paper? Did I hear you right there? Only one? Just ONE as opposed to God knows how many in support of evolution over 150 years? My God, the case for ID is truly compelling.

Date: 2005/10/23 02:18:09, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2005,14:52)
Quote
Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)


Because the Holy Bible says otherwise.


Sources please.


Quote
The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity.


Again, sources please.


Quote
Since if you no Almighty God to answer to, it follows that you can act in any way you wish.


Sadly, even God's words in the Bible doesn't make Christians act in a Christian way. They were forbidden to shed blood, so instead they got round it by putting people on the rack and finding similar loopholes. Or how about the bishop who said "Kill them all. God will know his own." when asked what to do about the population of a town that had been captured and had quite a few Christians living there.


Quote
This especially true of the sin of sodomy, the unholy communion of the Darwinian faith. How else can you explain that almost all of the so-called "Christian" evolutionists are Catholoics? That is, they belong to a church where Christian ritual has been exposed as a front for this most germane and heinous Darwinian act.


And here GoP finally leaves all semblance of reality behind and bravely wanders off into a twilight world of X-files like fantasy.

Date: 2005/10/23 09:14:22, Link
Author: Wonderpants
If I have to read many more of these 'evolution is a dogmatic atheist religion' claims, I'm going to go spare on the authors.

Date: 2005/10/23 12:08:07, Link
Author: Wonderpants
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,Oct. 23 2005,15:44][/quote]
Quote
 Yes, and the evos are doing their best to make sure that little indiscretion never happens again. See the journal's statement.


Did you actually read the article?  
"Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure."
And you might look at the AAAS article it links to as well.

Quote
 Besides, I think the Behe-Snoke paper also qualifies as an I.D. paper.


So the number of peer reviewed papers has suddenly doubled. I still don't think they'll bring the scientific theory of evolution crashing down, somehow.

Quote
 What are our schools producing nowadays? Hint: look near the front.


I don't know what American schools are producing these days, but I'm not optimistic if they're still fighting over the validity of evolution. Please enlighten me.


Quote
 Well, there's My Struggle by some German fellow. What was his name?


By Christ, I really hope that you're not suggesting that a terrible perversion of the theory of evolution by an evil lunatic to justify the extermination of an entire people is what the theory of evolution is actually about.
You think that the scientific establishment would like to be connected to the Nazis?

Also, does Godwin's Law come into play at this point?


Quote
This must explain the utter bliss and peace that reigned during the secular 20th century.


The 20th century wasn't exactly 'secular'. It's only in the last 30 years that religion has declined, at least here in Europe.
And can I point out that we're now in a new religious war, with Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda thinking that God wants them to destroy Western civilisation, and George Bush thinking that God wants him to invade Iraq.

Date: 2005/10/23 12:14:23, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (sir_toejam @ Oct. 23 2005,16:56)
as brought up later in the thread this came from...

Europe.

Would most compare the bulk of Europe to any of the 3 cults listed by SS?

No. Most people here seem to realise that Scientology is a cult designed to fleece people out of their money, that Charles Manson is an insane murderer, and the Raelians....I don't actually know what they are, but they're not about to take the world by storm.

Date: 2005/10/24 06:22:14, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Midnight Voice is almost right.

'Going spare' is a phrase we use here in the UK. It means going mad, getting pretty angry indeed, to start ranting at someone.

Date: 2005/10/28 06:28:54, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Let's imagine that the scientific establishment adopts ID and pushes for it to be taught, with the proviso that the designer is a superintelligent alien race (you could even make a very speculative case for this by using that meteorite that was claimed to show signs of bacterial life some years back). Would the DI and other organisations have to accept this, or would they suddenly start backpedalling frantically?

Date: 2005/11/13 12:16:13, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 13 2005,17:56)
Is there a way out of this mess? Yes - but I'll give my solution later.

Why do I suspect that the answer will involve establishing a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in some shape or form?  ???

Date: 2006/01/18 11:28:07, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 18 2006,00:45)
Quote
Dave

Thanks for letting me return to Dr. Dembski’s blog. I apologise for making this comment on my own blog:

It seems things are really falling apart over at “Uncommon Descent” since Dembski turned over the reins to DaveScot. Dembski has had to return in a frantic attempt to restore order. I find it all very amusing. The very title of that blog raises my hackles. Like Groucho Marx -

“I wouldn’t belong to an organization that would have me for a member.”

Of course since I have been banned for life from that forum I am eternally grateful, just as I am for the actions by ARN, EvC, Fringe Sciences, Panda’s Thumb and the several other “groupthink” closed union shops with which the internet abounds.

All alone is the only place to be these days.

I love it so!

Did he ever get Richard Dawkins and Dembski to post on his blog?  :D

Date: 2006/01/23 07:38:54, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,09:41)
Since DaveScot's linking here at the moment, here's a brief statement to the ID folk who'll be wandering over:

You're welcome to discuss things here.

But will Davescot then ban them from posting at UD?  :D

Anyone want to bet how long it'll be before that place consists of DaveScot talking to himself, with even the IDers having been banned?

Date: 2006/03/04 01:57:36, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 03 2006,06:57)
:07-->
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 02 2006,17:07)
Extremely few ID people are agnostic. I suspect the one you have in mind, let's call him DanScot, is just lying. Jesus is the fuel of the ID movement.

I'll second that.

I've seen him on more than one occassion let his true religious feelings slip.  He has talked about the wonders of the Bible, the genesis story, how obvious god is, etc.

Agreed. IDers can't hide their religious motivations for long, and DaveScot, while better at it than most, still slips up from time to time (complaining about atheist scientists, generally).

Davison seems to be the only one on the UD circus who might genuinely be agnostic.

Date: 2006/03/28 09:51:58, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Looks like DaveScot is getting pretty paranoid (see the latest UD post).

Is there an atheistic Darwinist hiding under YOUR bed, Dave?....  ;)

Date: 2006/04/06 07:56:11, Link
Author: Wonderpants
There was a good article about this in the Guardian newspaper today, specifically noting that it was a big blow to the ID crazies.

And sure enough, you can smell the desperation in the UD thread about it, with DaveScot especially sweating like mad.  :D

Date: 2006/04/13 08:39:39, Link
Author: Wonderpants
I haven't had my daily laugh from reading UD yet.

Have they blogged about that new fossil found in Africa yet, and if so, what does DS have to say about it?

Date: 2006/04/15 12:34:23, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 15 2006,13:28)
Quote (keiths @ April 15 2006,05:20)
ID's Goodwill Ambassador, DaveScot, spreads the cheer:
Quote
Actually it makes me feel like doing some pain experiments on PZ Myers. I don’t believe he feels pain. All the blood and screaming from my fists pounding his face to a pulp would be nothing more significant than an automobile engine leaking oil and bearings making noise from lack of lubrication. Of course I could be wrong. -ds


Funny that the Good Christians on UD don't seem to mind this kind of talk. You know, given that they're so much more moral than us wicked secularists.

Given that they lie through their teeth about ID in every last post there, a little Internet Tough Guy posturing from DS is just  drop in the ocean.

Date: 2006/04/22 07:52:39, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
If you're too persistent in arguing against the party line PT admins will begin deleting your comments without warning or explanation. In my case they also disemvoweled comments but I think they stopped that because it can't be hidden.

A normal reaction to having comments that have broken no rule deleted is to change your name so your comments aren't targeted by who wrote them. As soon as you do this and they figure it out they match up IP addresses and ban you for breaking the rule about using multiple screen names.

It's actually, in every case I've seen, a matter of Panda's Thumb admins being the first to break the rules. They break the rule about comment integrity first and then when a rule is broken in response they ban you for it.

If they weren't lying about all this I wouldn't give a shit. It's their blog and they can ban whoever they want. It's the lying about it being an open forum that annoys me. It's not open to persistent disagreement.


Surely the above comments deserve some sort of Irony/Comedy Gold award?

Date: 2006/04/25 10:46:50, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
Dave said “A bunch of insecure atheists don’t want to admit that there might be a greater intelligence in the univere than human intelligence and moreover that the effects of said intelligence can be observed and measured.”

I believe you’ve just summarized the essence of this entire debate with that one sentence.


Funny how IDers, DaveScot in particular, always claim that ID isn't religious apologetics and that a lot of them aren't Christian fundies, yet they do so love pulling out the "atheist scientist" card.

Date: 2006/04/29 11:26:13, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (dhogaza @ April 29 2006,15:55)
This has got to be Dembski's dumbest post yet

I checked twice thinking it had to be DaveScot or one of the other lower-caste fruitcakes but nope, it's Dembski.

"Where instruction and indoctrination are the same thing . . . http://www.cdu.edu.au

So it's nothing at all like Bob Jones University then?

Date: 2006/05/01 04:48:58, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
This might sound off topic, but given that the issue revolves around a scientific discovery that people interpretate diferently, I think that a carefull analysis of the evidence presented by both sides might be helpful. Let people see the claims from both sides, and let them decide if the evidence confirms one theory or the other.



ID evidence in it's entirety (as against 150 years of evolution research):

1. We think it looks designed. Therefore it is.

2. Er.....that's it....

(Apologies to Private Eye)

Date: 2006/05/01 10:42:19, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Eh, I liked it better when it was called The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. That had just as much bullshit in it, but at least it was better written.

Date: 2006/05/03 10:37:37, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Repent lest you burn in a pan of overdone pasta for all eternity, for the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes to smite all those who follow Mr Potato Head.

Date: 2006/05/05 08:43:11, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
Russ makes a key point in comment #5. In the interview I linked in comment #1 Phillip Johnson is asked what he brings to Darwinian theory as a professor of law. Johnson is an expert in the logic of argumentation, and as such offers scrutiny of the rhetorical, logical, and apologetic devices used by advocates of blind-watchmaker Darwinism. Johnson is, after all, an advocate by training and experience, and he knows all the tricks that are used to manipulate people and pull the wool over their eyes in making a case.


Knows them? He uses them on the ID/creationist crowd!!

Date: 2006/05/06 07:44:55, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (keiths @ May 06 2006,10:46)
Quote
This is what Darwinists fear, evidence and logic, so these two foundational precepts of science must be repressed at all cost when it comes to origins. Religiously committed blind-watchmaker Darwinists are in a transparent state of panic, because logic and evidence contradict their creation story, which is foundational to their nihilistic faith.

Comment by GilDodgen — May 5, 2006 @ 7:19 pm

These guys really ought to write fantasy novels, given the make-believe world they inhabit.

Date: 2006/05/23 08:29:32, Link
Author: Wonderpants
I think my brain starting bleeding after reading that Dumbski purchased the 'evidencefreescience' domain. Apart from the last word (or the omission of the word 'pseudo' before 'science', it's what he should call his blog.

Date: 2006/05/23 08:47:52, Link
Author: Wonderpants
I've managed to refrain from posting at UD for a while, but this post by TinaBrewer was too good to ignore. No doubt it'll never see the light of day there, but it was good to post some pent up opinions.

"Dr. Dembski you are proving yourself very adept at painting the enemy."

Being a general waste of space, Dumbski isn't good for much else.


"How about putting some intellectual energy into actually responding to the points he makes?"

Methinks you give him too much credit. It's about the only thing he and his little toady DaveSpringer can only do the one thing they're good at, ie character assassinations and mud flinging.


"Does it really satisfy you to use him as a poster child?"

Of course it does. It distracts the rabble at this wretched excuse of a blog from noticing that he's intellectually and morally bankrupt. Note the recent purchase of the 'evidencefreescience' domain. Apart from squandering money that could be used in the ID research program (What research program? Hahahaha), it sums up ID to a T if you remove the word 'science' or add the word 'pseudo' in front of 'science'.



"What is the point of posting someone’s opinions and then failing to respond meaningfully to them? It is just a gesture of self-righteousness. “look how bad he is. we are so much better!”

Have you really not noticed before now that the bogeyman of 'Darwinism' that is deployed daily on this sad little website is responsible for every last little evil of today's world according to Dumbski and his stooge DaveScot, and that before 1850, life was perfect in every way?

"Sorry, Tina, but I’m not going to take the bait, tempting as it is."

I bet you can't. Because that would mean doing some science. And let's face it, why go to all the trouble of doing some actual work when you can piss, moan, lie, post hoax emails, stay just on the legal side of slandering people, and other such charming activities?

Date: 2006/05/31 08:40:26, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 31 2006,10:04)
[quote=GCT,May 31 2006,07:53]I had imagined DaveScot to be older than that: I thought he was mid-60s at least: one of those sclerotic old codgers who just complained about how bad the world was nowadays.

Egads!  What will he be like when he becomes a sclerotic old codger?!

Bob

Let's not even go there.

If you thought John Davison was bad enough, wait till you get a load of a 70 year old DaveScot....

Date: 2006/06/05 08:51:13, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Faid @ June 05 2006,09:47)
Quote
I love the peanut gallery at ATBC. They’re better than The Three Stooges, The Keystone Cops, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and The Benny Hill Show rolled into one! None of them are actually banned. Some just don’t get all their comments posted. Some hardly ever get a comment posted. A few aren’t even on the moderation list because they’re not stupid or trollish. -ds


Aww shucks, Davesy! Thanks! We remember well your warm welcome and our hospitable stay in your forum, and we're honoured that a genious of your magnitude still finds time from single-handedly disproving evolution in his basement, to bother with us!
And I'm personally honoured to be compared to Monty Python by you. *fights a tear*

That reminds me of the single most infuriating thread/post I ever read on UncommonlyDense. Some of the UD posters started a Life of Brian quote game.

Dunno about anyone else, but the sight of the finest comedy film ever, which is entirely based around the concept of ridiculing the blind faith, dogmatism, and sheeplike behaviour of fundamentalist religion being quoted on a board which defines the above behavour made me want to put my fist through the screen.

Date: 2006/06/06 07:34:33, Link
Author: Wonderpants
What about Evopeach? He may not have been dumb as the others, but he compensated by being rude. And while stupidity is forgivable, rudeness isn't.

Date: 2006/06/08 11:09:12, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (GCT @ June 08 2006,14:03)
As I’ve said many times before, there is only one prop still holding up the NDE narrative and that is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

And DaveScot once again scores an own goal. So a statement about not establishing a government endorsed religion is the only thing keeping ID from supplanting evolution?

Date: 2006/06/09 22:07:50, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Tiax @ June 09 2006,15:27)
You'd think that the big ruckus that went on in Dover about the Pandas text with subtle name changes from creationism to ID would teach Dembski not to openly discuss these things.  Of course, maybe he still believes ID won't need another name change in a few years.

Luckily no one on UD, even Dembski, is too bright. Just look at the way they keep letting slip what their agenda is (rants about atheists, the first amendment being the only thing stopping ID from replacing evolution) despite doth protesting too much that it's not religion. If they ever wised up, we might have a problem.

Date: 2006/06/10 13:55:14, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Has anyone pointed out yet that this proposed name change is a clear example of evolution in action?

Of course, you could say that it's an example of Intelligent Design instead, but using the word 'intelligent' in any relation to UncommonlyDense make me feel dirty.  ;)

Date: 2006/06/11 06:17:06, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (djmullen @ June 11 2006,08:52)
words

And if you think that's bad, you should see the way Judge Jones went from ID's pure as the driven snow hero to moustache twirling villain after the Dover decision.  :D

Date: 2006/06/16 23:17:32, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 16 2006,16:04)
Dave "I'm too stupid to actually look at the plane I'm flying; and too stupid to land when something's wrong"

I'm never going to be able to picture DaveScot as anything other than the autopilot from Airplane from now on.

Date: 2006/06/17 03:41:56, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ June 17 2006,08:18)

The resemblance to DS is uncanny!  :D

Date: 2006/06/19 08:33:58, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (stevestory @ June 17 2006,23:33)
bourgeois / Wonderpants, your Otto comment is deserving of special recognition. As we have just surpassed 100,000 views, I feel I should take some time to bestow recognition on some of our commenters.

bourgeois and wonderpants, I hereby present you with the Distinguished Medal of Somethingorother, for your work in the field of Davetard mockery.

//takes a bow

Always glad to assist in mocking DaveScot and his ilk (although they're already such jokes we're not really necessary).

Date: 2006/06/24 14:39:38, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Just to add my tuppence worth, I fail to see why DaveScot should be given a platform on this forum, Pandas Thumb, or Alan Fox's blog.

If he won't give others the courtesy of having their views heard without endless editorialising, censorship, or banning (see any thread on UncommonlyDense), what good reason is there for us to give him this courtesy?

Date: 2006/06/25 11:42:32, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (stevestory @ June 25 2006,14:57)

Quote
I think it’s time everyone here is going to be avoiding apologetics. I’ve been too lax in the keeping the topic away from religion and on intelligent design.


He's outdone himself this time. If he leaves out all the religious stuff, there'll be nothing to talk about!

Date: 2006/06/28 07:35:05, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
This analogy can be taken in so many ways. While the Visigoths helped speed up the collapse of Rome, they certainly offered no alternative struction to replace it, and thus we had the Dark Ages. Another ironic thing is that creationism was the Dark Age view of life, and that’s what the I.D. movement is wanting to return us too.

Comment by Fross — June 28, 2006 @ 11:40 am


I doubt that'll last long, sadly.

Date: 2006/06/29 07:50:12, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (stevestory @ June 28 2006,21:19)
What a dumbass. I don't want to get all Lenny Flank in here, but it's like Davetard's brain has been replaced with a ziploc bag full of cat vomit.

Been replaced? What makes you think the bag of cat vomit wasn't there right from the start?

Date: 2006/07/01 23:21:02, Link
Author: Wonderpants
And Lenny, you forgot:

the ever popular "We're being oppressed!"

and

- "Darwinism is dying."

Date: 2006/07/02 08:39:50, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
I'll update this if Larry or some other legal expert over there ever answers.


//sprays beer over kis keyboard and 6 feet up the wall at the thought of Larry being described as a legal expert

Date: 2006/07/04 08:48:08, Link
Author: Wonderpants
A new gem from UD:

Quote
ID being a scientific enterprise easily sustained by empirical evidence


I nearly wet myself, I laughed so hard.

Surely the original poster deserves several dozen gold stars, either for sheer comedy gold value or absolutely jaw dropping pig ignorance.

Date: 2006/07/08 04:23:32, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (dhogaza @ July 08 2006,08:23)
Buried within DaveTard's idiotic statement is this gem:
 
Quote
liberal scientists

Can you think of a better two-word summation of what really drives the anti-science crowd?  

That's easy.

Atheist scientists.

As I've said before, despite his protestations to the contrary, DaveScot can't resist stock right wing Christian fundamentalist rants about atheists/liberals/activist judges, and so on.

Date: 2006/07/08 13:01:24, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (mcc @ July 08 2006,17:23)
Has anybody yet tried just contacting Miller and asking him if he made a mistake on the stand?

You're new to UD antics, aren't you?  ;)

Date: 2006/07/08 23:07:53, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Faid @ July 08 2006,19:05)
HAHAHAHAHA guys check Davetard's response to Miller.

After Miller provided audio links that show that, in his actual answer, he does not support any kind of supernatural interferrence for the creation of life, on Earth, and he just states his beliefs that this whole universe has a purpose as it is, Davey takes it upon himself to defend his master.

And what does he do? He accuses Miller of LYING

So Ken Miller provides both text and audio sources refuting what UD claimed he said, and DS still insists that he's lying on the basis of the UD stuff?

Straight out of George's Orwell's Big Brother.....

Date: 2006/07/10 20:18:32, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 10 2006,23:06)
[quote=Arden Chatfield,July 10 2006,21:43]Near as I can tell, DaveTard just don't like girls.   :D

Doesn't he claim to be married? Anyone ever seen a picture of the wife?

If not, we should exercise DaveTard's beloved First Amendment right of free speech, find a picture of her, and have lots of free and frank speech about her.  ;)

Date: 2006/07/17 09:47:41, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (k.e @ July 17 2006,14:10)
You know DT is getting serious 'shrinkage' when someone intelligent drops by and rattles their chains and questions their macho chest beating....he projects 'girly man'. I wonder if he wears his wifes outfits when he looks at the pictures in Sci Am...God knows he doesn't actually undertand the writing.

He's said that Richard Dawkins is also a 'girly man', as I recall, and speculated on what Dawkin's wife finds attractive in Dawkins.

Anyone else think this says quite a bit about DS and his own apparent inadequacies?

Date: 2006/07/18 08:01:55, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,09:55)

Jebus!

Did she manage to hit every single branch when she fell out of the ugly tree?

Though I'm actually kinda sorry to see Dave 'Otto' Scot leave, he was the online equivalent of a train derailing in slow motion. Perhaps we should find him a friend (Anyone got a picture of his 'girlfriend' from the end of Airplane?)

Date: 2006/07/18 11:42:32, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it's nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski.
[/quote]
ROTFLMAO!

Even after being demoted at UD, he's still in thrall to His Master's Voice.

Date: 2006/07/18 20:24:02, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 18 2006,23:56)
It's kind of telling that you chose mushrooms to "raise," DaveTard1.


And we all know how well mushrooms do when kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.

Date: 2006/07/19 09:37:52, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
Dembski's....going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child.


I wonder if Dembski is using medicines developed through research into evolution to cure the alleged sick offsprinng.

Date: 2006/07/20 07:35:14, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Open the comments up already!

I want to see how O'Leary behaves to honest discussion of ID, #### it!


Edit:
What the...? You can say shit and fuck, but not d*mn??

Date: 2006/07/20 07:38:16, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (blipey @ July 20 2006,01:43)
Off the top of my head I can think of:
1. You have copious amounts of freetime to waste
4. You really, really hate DaveTard (my leading candidate)
5. You're deranged in some, probably none-dangerous way

JanieBelle = John A Davison?!?

Date: 2006/07/20 08:32:24, Link
Author: Wonderpants
"I am a published scientist...

Which issue of The Amazing Spiderman was that?"

Classy ICE BURN!

Date: 2006/07/20 20:32:18, Link
Author: Wonderpants
I posted this, so I'll be interested to see if it goes through.

Quote
"Of course all those things are designed, as demonstrated by the Law of Cosmic Fine Tuning. While each individual event may not have been planned, the principals were set into place at the creation, much as Richard Dawkins was not planned but humanity was inevitable as revealed in certain historical/moral/spiritual texts. "

So are you saying that humans were designed as stated in the Bible?

Date: 2006/07/24 06:30:54, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
4.  We’re in stage V, most certainly. As long as we can’t offer a logical proof for ID, the materialist will continue to retreat ever more deeply into the depths of ignorance and pure chance–and mock and taunt us all the while. The Black Knight is an outstanding analogy for our situation!

Comment by crandaddy — July 23, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
[/quote]

So why not come up with a valid proof for ID then?

Date: 2006/07/24 21:54:27, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
My goal has always been to entertain. I'd rather put a smile on your face than a thought in your head...


Sounds just like David Brent......

Date: 2006/08/03 09:28:42, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (apollo230 @ Aug. 03 2006,13:46)
"In my opinion, intelligent design will not be ready for Kansas science classrooms until it matures. Maturation will occur when the following conditions are met:

1) the actual designer is detected, and
2) this detection is reproducible.

3) We also need to see the designer, well, designing.

Date: 2006/08/04 08:27:17, Link
Author: Wonderpants
I'd love to know what strange fascination Otto seems to hold for JanieBelle.

Given the fact that he's a sensitive little soul who must be protected from all unpleasantness over there, and that they even set up a blog of his own for him, I can't help wondering if he has some kind of dirt on them?

Date: 2006/08/12 00:25:31, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2006,00:50)
Quote


Scott, how be you explain your point? I’m not psychic, so I can’t guess what you think is circular reasoning if you can’t explain. I bet a lot of other people would have the same reaction.

Comment by O'Leary — August 11, 2006 @ 8:28 am


Journalistic excellence, church lady.

O'Leary: "I'm so smrt! S-M-R-T!"

Date: 2006/08/13 06:44:05, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 13 2006,10:58)
Look who's gone groveling back to UD to lick his master's feet:
 
Quote

DaveScot!

Welcome back. I missed you.

Comment by BarryA — August 13, 2006 @ 9:20 am

Let the synergistic tarditude begin!


Time to break out the popcorn!

Guess he didn't even have enough pride to stay away from Dumbski's blog (and the "Morphodyke", as Janiebelle/DS call her) for long.  :D

Date: 2006/08/17 09:26:06, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Aug. 17 2006,14:15)
standard DS idiocy

What you've just described is classic IDer behaviour. Ie, ignore awkward questions and keep repeating yourself, or lay low for a while and then pop back up with the same questions.

Date: 2006/08/20 00:13:50, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Just submitted this at UD, on the off chance it gets through:

"Frankly, I am bored with this topic and will delete future posts on it. Most blog readers will want to hear about issues around ACTUAL evidence for Darwin’s theory. Anyone got some?"

I've a better suggestion, why don't you provide some actual evidence for ID?

And even boredom didn't stop her from posting another bit of idiocy, did it?

Date: 2006/08/21 07:40:00, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 21 2006,11:01)
He's BACK!!!!!

Bob

The quotation "For as the fool returneth to his foolishness, so the dog returneth to his vomit" seems to apply perfectly to this situation, where Otto can be considered as the fool or the dog. Or even both.

Quote
If it doesn’t get deleted by the PT censor-police when they wake up and put on their uniforms this morning someone please pass the oxygen as I’ll be feeling faint.


I really really hope he didn't have a straight face when he wrote that.

Date: 2006/08/28 09:34:21, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
If Darwinism is on the verge of collapse as is so often started on this blog, where does that leave us? And is there in fact solid evidence that this is the case, or is this just a much-desired assertion based on popular opinion? Let’s be a little scientific here, if Darwinism were to collapse, what would be the predictable signs? For example, would Universities stop teaching evolution classes? Would there be statements by prominent evolutionists (and preferable non-religious ones such as Dawkins) that declare that evolution theory is incorrect? So far I haven’t see these things occur, or maybe I’m not looking in the right place?

And if Darwinism is a defunct theory, what exactly do we now teach? After all most IDers do accept common descent don’t they? And didn’t most of the scientific work around common descent in fact come from the evolutionist camp? Does ID theory alone have enough substance to fully replace evolution wholesale? Are the IDers then going to throw out the baby with the bath water, or is there going to be an acknowledgement that there is an overlapping body of knowledge that both the ID and evolution sides agree on? I think doing so would be a very good thing — acknowledging what ID and evolution have in common could help not only mend fences but allow for a more constructive dialog between the two groups.

Comment by John Singleton — August 28, 2006 @ 2:12 pm


Is this guy entirely clueless or just taking the mick?

Date: 2006/08/28 11:02:58, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 28 2006,15:19)
Re "It's far too coherent for it to be someone clueless. Bet on 'closet evilutionist who will soon find himself banned'.  "

Does that mean his post was intelligently designed?  :p

There's very little on UD that's intelligently designed.   ;)

Date: 2006/09/23 11:23:06, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 23 2006,09:02)
Carlos: this is a warning: Either produce published, detailed papers to support your claims

What, like the published, detailed papers the IDers are producing?  ;)

Date: 2006/10/29 00:29:01, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 29 2006,04:50)
Yes!  We have an ID prediction:

 [quote]
SF–What predictions is ID making?

That biological complexities exist that cannot be reduced consistent with evolutionalry theory.

And have they found any?

I think I hear crickets chirping....

Date: 2006/11/26 07:55:56, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Is it just me, or did anyone else think of the Complaints Department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which covered all the major landmasses of the first three planets in the Sirius Tau system?

Date: 2006/12/17 13:46:37, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Looks like Dembski's new bit of Flash street theatre might be a step too far for even the party faithful at UD (apart from DaveScot, of course).

And I see that John Davison has popped up in the corresponding thread at RichardDawkins.net to add his crank views.

Date: 2006/12/18 13:20:45, Link
Author: Wonderpants
I actually wonder, especially in light of the 'lol farts' Flash animation that passes for science at UD, whether this is playing right into Dembski's hands. He's an obnoxious and humourless attention whore who's apparently on track to become the next John Davison. Should he getting so much attention here, when it seems that it's responsible for half his publicity?

Date: 2006/12/18 13:53:32, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 18 2006,13:33)
If someone referred to me as 'the next John A Davison', I'd probably get drunk and lay down on a train track.

Shhhh!!

Don't give the plan away!  ;)


Although the 'lol farts' thing is surely on the same level of hilarity as Davison's habit of switching the first letter in the names of people he dislikes.

Date: 2006/12/21 17:35:10, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Another UKer making his presence known.

Date: 2006/12/22 09:54:53, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 22 2006,06:06)
now in Windsor SouthEast England.

Hey, I can see your house from here! (Kew)  :D

Date: 2006/12/24 10:37:18, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (k.e @ Dec. 24 2006,10:12)
**edit I vaguely remember a mathmatical proof god didn't exist while I was at high school, maybe Dave Scott Springer invented that..?

Will Douglas Adams's refutation of God do?

"I refuse to prove that I exist", said God, "for evidence denies faith, and I am nothing without faith.."
"But", says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway. It couldn't have evolved by chance, therefore by your arguments, you don't exist. QED."
"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and vanishes in a puff of logic.
"That was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on a zebra crossing.

Date: 2006/12/24 19:31:36, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Has anyone picked up on this thread yet?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1897

Even for the mouthbreathers at UD, it seems to be charting new heights of unintentional humour.

Eg:

Scientific evidence obviously is not enough to persuade (Darwin's followers)

Yes, the people who don't do research, don't do any scientific publishing, had a judge declare that ID was unscientific, and had one of their key figures admit that if ID was science, so was astrology, are so much more plausible.

PT will publish outrageous and offensive stuff so long as it is in existence no matter what we say or don’t say.

Because of course, Flash animations with a fart soundtrack don't count.

it looks like we won the science part of the battel

In terms of delusion, this guy must be right up there with Hitler believing that Germany was going to be saved by some sort of divine miracle in April 1945.

Date: 2007/01/15 01:19:16, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 14 2007,23:06)
"I'm 5'10", 220#, strong as an ox..." - Davetard.

And, of course, hung like a mouse.

Date: 2007/03/02 12:52:35, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
Even more magical thinking: Liberal Dawinists claim that their “Theory” (wink wink) actually is capable of making predictions! The only predictions it seems capable of making is that the biology departments at american universities will continue to dillegently work toward the destruction of our Christian America and keep us all crying and moaning over our poor treatment of rapists, murderers, child molesters and filthy arab terrorists. The only thing that Evolution allows a scientist to do is to join the crusade to rip apart the christian fabric of our country.


Either this is a joke or a "supertard" class post. And of course, ID is still entirely separate from religion.  ;)

Date: 2007/03/02 14:51:17, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 02 2007,13:37)
Quote (Wonderpants @ Mar. 02 2007,13:52)
Quote
Even more magical thinking: Liberal Dawinists claim that their “Theory” (wink wink) actually is capable of making predictions! The only predictions it seems capable of making is that the biology departments at american universities will continue to dillegently work toward the destruction of our Christian America and keep us all crying and moaning over our poor treatment of rapists, murderers, child molesters and filthy arab terrorists. The only thing that Evolution allows a scientist to do is to join the crusade to rip apart the christian fabric of our country.


Either this is a joke or a "supertard" class post. And of course, ID is still entirely separate from religion.  ;)

link?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....t-95234

Date: 2007/03/02 16:24:10, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 02 2007,15:14)
Every once in a while, I think: " Ah, what the he11, these guys are doomed to obscurity anyway, due to their lack of valid and demonstrably science-oriented ideas," then some ass like Dembski calls the FBI on Eric Pianka, or depicts a guy like Kevin Padian as a Ku Klux Klan member--or some fucknut says shit like  
Quote
" The only predictions it seems capable of making is that the biology departments at american universities will continue to dillegently work toward the destruction of our Christian America and keep us all crying and moaning over our poor treatment of rapists, murderers, child molesters and filthy arab terrorists."
about Darwin, who was the most mild of men, and his theory.

Then I recall why I despise these liars like DaveTard and Dembski. The mere fact that Dembski allows a scumbag Muslim-hating idiot like Dave Scot Springer to control the content of his board...well, that's sufficient to show their aims.

I've certainly learnt to despise fundamentalist religion.

There's an article in the Guardian today about televangelism in the States and how it's taking off here in the UK, along with other unattractive elements like megachurches. Pat Robertson and his ilk remind me of nothing so much as the moneylenders that Jesus drove out of the Temple.

Date: 2007/03/09 14:07:07, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 08 2007,20:33)
Quote
I want to make a plea to Design Theorists like Bill Dembski and others. PLEASE GET TO WORK.

//checks calendar

He's right, they've gotta do some work. I mean, how long is it since the last ID book was published??  ;)

Date: 2007/03/11 06:08:54, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
What are these people so angry about?


Beats me.

After all, Dembski makes a living creating farting flash animations     writing books    putting Darwinist heads in vices destroying evolutionary theory!! *snigger*
You'd think he could show a little gratitude to Darwin for keeping him fed and clothed!

Date: 2007/03/12 02:23:55, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 11 2007,21:36)
Of course, I could have gone with the "Big ASS Beer" usually a 64 oz. Bud Light. :)

Why would anyone want to be seen in public with a normal bottle of love in a canoe beer, let alone a 64oz bottle??

Date: 2007/03/25 11:13:31, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (steve_h @ Mar. 25 2007,09:42)
Instead she argues that Darwin must have been a racist because he was a British Toff, which is racist in itself. But if all "British Toffs" were racist as she claims, why single out Darwin for special treatment?

There's been a lot of coverage on the 200th anniversary of the UK abolition of slavery in the last week or so. Apparently Erasmus Darwin, Charles grandfather, was one of the leading figures in the abolitionist movement.

Date: 2007/03/25 13:34:20, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 25 2007,11:04)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 25 2007,04:55)
Does it feel to anyone else that ID is now mostly an historical event?

Pretty much. Dead as a threat to science education anyway.

Until the next smokescreen for getting fundamentalist Christianity into science classes pops up.

Pure creationism is dead in the water, and ID may be too. But as long as someone can convince people that they're standing up for Jesus, then they'll get the funds to "teach the controversy!"

Date: 2007/03/25 14:23:33, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 25 2007,12:43)
Even had the IDers won in Dover, they would have lost the appeals. Just like the anti-evolutioners have lost every OTHER Federal court case they have ever been involved with.  Every single one.

Sure, they lose in court every time. But they soon pop back up with a new story.

Date: 2007/03/28 13:30:48, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Quote
Sheesh. Behe just destroyed Levin. Behe is polite but in my opinion, nobody does a better job of utterly demolishing Darwinist pretensions than Behe.


Yes, he made such an impression at the Dover trial. Why, I still can't work out how he unarguably refuted something like 57 papers on the evolution of the blood clotting mechanism and gave Darwinism it's Waterloo!  :D

Date: 2008/06/11 13:04:39, Link
Author: Wonderpants
Right, let's give this thread some class and get another Londoner into it.

Cheers!

//raises vodka glass.

 

 

 

=====