AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: bourgeois_rage

form_srcid: bourgeois_rage

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: bourgeois_rage

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2006/03/29 10:10:08, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

I have been reading this thread for quite some time now, and I find it quite humorous. Not to derail Arden's current foray at UD, but I saw this quote and knew you guys would appreciate it.

DaveScot, you’re a genius and technically qualified to comment while I am not.

33% right, I'd say.

Date: 2006/03/30 04:58:36, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
DaveSlot strikes again

I’d like to be the first to congratulate Nick Matzke on finding an adversary that makes Nick look well versed in science by comparison. It’s about time. Maybe if Nick starting fisking nursery rhymes for bad science he could appear even smarter than he does now.

First Newman writes nursery rhymes, and is obviously a quack. Dave must have figured that the argument is complete bunk from the get go.

Update: Awe shucks. It looks like I was wrong. The adversary is Dr. Robert C. Newman who was awarded a doctorate in theoretical astrophysics from (Ivy League) Cornell in 1967. Nick has not only failed to attain a doctorate, he switched his major at an unremarkable school from chemistry and biology to the much more lightweight field of geography. What’s next for Nick, a doctorate in basket weaving from the ITT Technical Institute? Theoretical Astrophysics is pretty much your stereotypical rocket science and far beyond Nick’s meager intellectual abilities. My abject apologies to Dr. Newman for the comparison.

Oh, wait! Did you say that you have a doctorate from a big name school? Well obviously, my first statement was an emotional statement. Now that I have thought it thru, there is clearly some merit to you arguments, Dr. Newman.

*cough* Appeal to Authority *cough* Ad Hominem *cough*

Excuse me, I don't know what overcame me. Was this too obvious to even point out?

Date: 2006/03/30 10:14:02, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
The "abject" comment was there at 10:58 this morning, when I posted on this thread. Page 64, 10 posts from the bottom.

Date: 2006/04/05 08:16:10, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I was just about to post that here, Wes.

Just more evidence that DaveSLoT doesn't read any more than he wants to read. If he just looked back a few posts on Ed's site he would have answered his questions on his own. I guess he just doesn't get that answering everyone of his idiotic questions that he could have looked up himself isn't intellectually stimulating for the science community, but it is high comedy.

Date: 2006/04/05 09:11:40, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Pardon my ignorance, but since when has tenure been a democratic process?

Is there evidence of anyone ever gaining tenure through public petition?

Date: 2006/04/05 10:07:55, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

1 Comment »


     The question has broader implications than you mention, Dave. If the newly elected board had recinded the policy at their December meeting, prior to the Judges ruling, they would have made the Judges ruling unnecssary. Furthermore, it may have saved the school board some money by doing so. It makes you wonder what behind door conversations might have taken place. It appears that they wanted Jones to rule…but why?

     Also, it appears a motion to recind the policy was made but not seconded at that December meeting. Yet, this was the very issue that got them all elected in the first place. Very curious indeed!!!

     Comment by DonaldM — April 5, 2006 @ 1:47 pm

Looks like DonaldM is slow on the uptake.

Date: 2006/04/11 02:00:36, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Thanks, I enjoyed googling "DaveScot". I know this isn't news, but I found this comment amusing.

John Lynch at Stranger Fruit has taken to removing the vowels from my comments on his blog.

What a wonderful demonstration of what Darwinian apologists do with things they don’t want to hear.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

LOL - I might have to rethink the matter of whether man is descended from monkeys at least in John M. Lynch’s case.

Comment by DaveScot — June 3, 2005 @ 9:54 am

Click to see

I find it amusing how less than a year ago, it is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, but now it is standard policy at Pissant.

Date: 2006/04/12 02:07:13, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
So we just need to find a case where "Things have not happened" to falsify ID?

Date: 2006/04/13 01:51:42, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
How are they making money off of us? Are any of us buying Dembski's books, or clicking on his advertisements?

I've wondered where all the money that I've been sending out into the internet has been going. Apparently, DaveScot's pocket. We've been had! :p

Date: 2006/04/13 09:15:53, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Uncommonly Dumb
Perhaps the original ancestor had a coccyx and evolution extended it into a proper tail from there. Given that the fossil record is so horribly incomplete it’s not surprising that <crossout>Adam</crossout> the first vertebrate has not been discovered in it. Indeed, fossil remains of the whole <crossout>garden of Eden</crossout> small populations may be irretrievably destroyed. ;-)

Comment by DaveScot — April 12, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

I'm surprised this hasn't been noted yet. Agnostic? Sounds like he has to keep beating himself over his head to make sure that he is still agnostic.

Oh and apparently Adam is the first vertebrate.

Date: 2006/04/14 12:48:39, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

Here's the link to the quote from my post at the top of page 80.

Uncommonly Dumb

Did any one else notice the the new ads on the site?

First one says:
Can God be proven?
Coincidence and Random mutation are not stronger than these numbers.

Breaking News Documentary
Has science discovered God? Famous Atheist says God exists.

Third is just a link to another ID blog.

But I thought there was no God in ID? Just like there's no crying in baseball.

Date: 2006/04/18 07:32:04, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

You know, if the IDiots joined SETI they would have claimed that they found intelligence long ago. Just turn on a radio and you can hear all the static. It is incredibly complex and must have been designed. They just haven't decoded it yet.

Date: 2006/04/18 07:51:37, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
T-Rex didn't breath fire.

Clearly you haven't done any research. And now you won't breath anything at all after I puncture your lungs just like I did to PZ. -ds

What happened to Barry?

The same thing that's going to happen to you! -ds

Date: 2006/04/20 02:39:10, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I am a computer engineer and was brought to this debate by the ID side trying to convince me that biologists were hiding facts. After some very convincing arguments and actually beginning to doubt the biologist's explanation, I started to do some of my own research.

What I found was that the ID community was primarily driven not by evidence, but religion. In fact the people who originaly tried to convince me of ID (and claimed that it wasn't religious) were clearly very religious people. ID could very well have some good points, but they try to claim things that they cannot prove. Plus instead of releasing studies, often they only released press releases in response to scientist's studies.

Evolution does not make any claims beyond that which they can show within reason. ID activists claim that Evolution wants to make claims about the origins of life, but the evidence for the origins of life is very sparse and the theory of evolution doesn't touch it because it is so sparse. Occasionally someone does some experiements on how life could have intially formed, but as of yet no conclusions have been drawn, and certainly this is outside of the scope of evolution.

After doing my own research I found that ID's view of evolution tends to be mostly misconceptions and strawmen. To me, this is not a convincing argument, and if I may be so bold, it should not be a convincing argument to anyone. The people who believe in ID WANT to believe. Scientists should not allow their emotions to become involved with the search for facts.

As for myself, I attend church weekly, but remain agnostic. I could probably discuss the Bible and philosophy with the best if I were so inclined, but I find that my perspective tends to only brings out anger with some people so I keep it to myself. I have found that no matter how much arguing I do with someone, I'm never going to change their religious views. People have to want to change their views themselves.

I know this is going to lead nowhere. You, afdave, will not change your opinion. In fact, anyone posting on this forum will probably not change their opinion. We have done all the searching that we need to form our opinions, and drawn our conclusions. I think that here are those of us who wish to be told what to think and then there are those of us who wish to draw their own conclusions. Most people on here try to draw their own conclusions (even you afdave). Of those who wish to draw their own conclusions, some try to be objective and weigh all the evidence while some try to do that while also bringing in a belief system, which really isn't proven by any objective means (at this point in history). The latter method isn't good enough for me.

Date: 2006/04/20 07:25:28, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Looks like a third grader drew that.

The unfortunate situation that the world falls into, is that a minority ‘controls’ the majorities opinion. If one voices an view that is not acceptably mainsteam then you are automatically relagated to the lunatic far-right fringe (bear in mind the context). Slowly but surely the majority is whittled down. Presently the media are the new dictatorship and ACLU/Academic-left have become the new gestapo - censoring anything right of far left.

Zig Heil Mein Führer Dawkins…..The new British anthem

PS way to go Dave, give em the boot!

Comment by lucID — April 20, 2006 @ 11:00 am

Let me get this straight. The minority controls (I guess through radio waves) the majority's opinion? And if you voice an opinion that is not mainstream, then you are branded not mainstream?

You're not mainstream. Oh by the way -ds

Date: 2006/04/20 09:40:34, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Right you are, Flint.

I've never been the best writer in the world, so sometimes my arguments can be somewhat disjointed. I guess my closing line was trying to be somewhat diplomatic.
some try to be objective and weigh all the evidence while some try to do that while also bringing in a belief system

ID does try to address some of the evidence, but due to their belief system they throw out whatever does not fit in. For instance Carbon dating and radioactive decay seems to be a problem for them. Instead of trying to fit their theory around those tools (which is what scientific theories do), they claim the tools are broken and throw them away. The same can be said of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The sad/funny part is that for those who actually look into the claims, a lot of times the jumps in their logic/coverups are obvious. With ID proponents, they are actively trying to keep themselves in the dark or are being intentionally disingenuous.


In a nutshell, biologists draw conclusion from evidence, and creationists manufacture evidence from conclusions.

That's probably about as concise as one can be. I endorse this answer to afdave's question.

Date: 2006/04/24 01:37:50, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
If Dave's goal was to make Evilutionists looks stupid shouldn't he have left the answers that "didn't follow the directions" up? Then he could have pointed at them and showed how Darwin Ebola boys couldn't follow directions.

Oh yeah, that would just help show what a moron that HE IS.

DaveScot has to be the most dishonest person I think I've ever come across (on the internet or in real life).

Date: 2006/04/24 09:36:21, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Why don't these guys just use some blogging software that doesn't hold comments in queues, or delay posting the information?

Date: 2006/04/25 04:36:04, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Subtle? "If you believe in my God, you'll get to meet Brad Pitt." I guess that's about as rational as "If you believe in my God you'll get to go to heaven, if you don't our loving God will send you to burn in the pit."

If you haven't seen Ed's post, check it out.

Brad Pitt is clearly made by an intelligent designer. Who else could have designed something that could make the switch between Jennifer Anniston and Angelina Jolie? Perfection! -ds

Date: 2006/04/25 07:51:10, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I don't know. Look, Friends was an IC system. Take the parts out and they don't work anymore.

Good point, I believe that may be the Waterloo for the Darwinists -ds

Date: 2006/04/26 02:14:17, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Driving across bridges is another good one.  I always wonder if those engineers that designed that thing were competent.  Can I prove that they had the proper credentials and knew what they were doing?  Maybe, but it would be a lot of trouble and I don't.  Have there been bridges that broke b/c of poor design?  Yes.  But I drive on it anyway ... going on "faith" if you will.

I can see the bridge and observe the bridge's condition. If I wanted I could look up the previous inspection dates and engineering diagrams. And of course I can go and observe people crossing the bridge and make a judgment for myself on the safety of that bridge. I can also go out and stomp on the surface of the bridge to make sure that it is strong. Perhaps I could take smaples of the steel and concrete to analyse their strength. Show me something like that for God. Obviously we don't do this, but we could if we wanted. Because I drive over a bridge does not mean that I should worship your god.
I think a more appropriate analogy would be driving off a cliff expecting to make it to the other side smoothly because the road map (Road Bible?) says that there is a bridge there, even though you cannot clearly see a bridge.

This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.  Does it ultimately come down to faith?  Yes...

Stop right there. It is the best supported hypothesis around? Then you say that it is supported by faith. I actually think that is the opposite of support. You have faith because there is no support.

Date: 2006/04/27 07:27:11, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Where we differ is that I believe you have come to a conclusion from the evidence which is not as well supported as my conclusion is.  

I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then!

Yeah, we're all still waiting for that evidence.

Date: 2006/04/28 01:40:08, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

How can your hypothesis be falsified?

Date: 2006/04/28 05:37:04, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Already, he [Chapman] said, an effort in Ohio to include intelligent design in school curricula failed when some state school-board members said the Dover case settled the issue.

Haha, are they slipping? I can see the next reality show: "Who will be the Next ID PR Guy?" I hear that you can use your cell phone to vote now.

Date: 2006/05/01 06:05:22, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

I nominate that for post of the year!

Date: 2006/05/01 08:19:28, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I've read it, and I have to say that it is a "page turner"; Every chapter ends on a cliffhanger.

I wouldn't say that it is bad, but it's not anything really profound like some people would have you believe. The whole book is one big chase scene. Get it from the library, or borrow it from a friend.

Date: 2006/05/02 01:58:40, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Also Eco writes a little better.

I'd say a lot better. And his research is more indepth, I think. Focault's Pendulum was a very good book, in my opinion.

Date: 2006/05/02 02:03:59, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
LOL: did he really type that himself, or did someone else sabotage his page?  Either way, it's very funny.

It was sabotage. If you look at the history you will see that the post script first showed up in an edit by a user named Disko on Feb 16th.

Date: 2006/05/03 10:03:32, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Heck if you had a time machine, maybe you could go and kidnap Hitler, and substitute him for Jesus. Then put Jesus, a jew, in charge of Nazi Germany. things would have been much better there. Of course everyone would be saying praise Hitler because he would have gotten all the credit or Jesus' work. And people will believe whatever they want to believe, so the Chrisitans will still think Jesus/Hitler was God and he died for our sins.

It's a win-win situation.

Oh and afdave, when are you going to present your evidence? Oh tomorrow?

Date: 2006/05/04 02:17:03, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Is this how science is done? Voting on what topics to delve into? 18 people? Is that arbitrary?

Oh, ok. geocentrism. ???

Date: 2006/05/04 06:11:01, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Glen, clearly God made DNA so that brothers and sisters could not marry.

Date: 2006/05/04 06:11:01, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Glen, clearly God made DNA so that brothers and sisters could not marry.

Date: 2006/05/05 02:18:42, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Shouldn't the Earth revolve around Paley? Or better yet, Jesus (praise be his name)?

Date: 2006/05/16 02:37:17, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Slate is running a series now, where David Plotz, an ignoramus (his words), is reading the Bible and blogging his thoughts. His first installment is interesting.

If you want to read it, click here.

Date: 2006/05/17 03:03:16, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Anyway, back to Noah.

Chapter 8

8:20 All the animals on earth except those on the ark have died. So, what's the first thing Noah does after landfall? He makes an animal sacrifice.

Date: 2006/05/18 04:50:56, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
(Not explained—why would Abimelech want to seduce Sarah, who is nearly 90 years old?)

Date: 2006/05/19 02:25:02, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Thanks for pointing me at this. Great stuff. I've been a big fan of decentralized algorithms, and stuff like this just blows the mind. Scalability is a fine thing.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:03:13, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
If you look closely at the picture above, you will note that all the Marines pictured are bowing their heads. That’s because they’re praying.

This incident took place at a recent ceremony honoring the Birthday of the Corps, and it has the ACLU up in arms. “These are federal employees,” says a rumored spokesman for the ACLU, “on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately.”

When asked about the ACLU’s charges, former Marine Sergeant David Springer, speaking for all his brothers in uniform said (cleaned up a bit), “Screw the ACLU. GOD Bless Our Warriors, Send the ACLU to France.”

Please send this to people you know so everyone will know how stupid the ACLU is Getting in trying to remove GOD from everything and every place in America. May God Bless America, One Nation Under GOD!

Wow, he sure fixed this up. I think he's removed all doubt that he is an intelligent person. He sure pulled a quick one over on us, and we're standing here looking like idiots.

And this is from the only ID researcher ever! :D

Former Marine Sergeant David Springer says "You're outta here!! Google that!" -ds

Date: 2006/05/22 09:41:33, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
They simply know the American public wouldn’t tolerate it and the ACLU would be so harmed they might never recover as an organization. So they bite their anti-religious tongues in the interest of self-preservation.

Dave's a freakin' genius. The ACLU never takes any positions that are unpopular. Hey Dave, Google that!

Date: 2006/05/30 08:28:27, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
NCSE transcripts page 39, line 9. This is where Behe says that Astrology is a scientific theory. Hope that's one that you wanted.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
19 theories, are nonetheless theories.

Date: 2006/05/31 08:08:41, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (GCT @ May 31 2006,12:56)

I just found this comment rather funny:

“agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence”–I call this arrogant agnosticism. My father was a humble agnostic–he didn’t know but neither did he know that you cannot know.

Comment by Rude — May 31, 2006 @ 11:29 am

Does that mean that there are "Arrogant Christians" (those who know Jesus loves them) and "Humble Christians" (those who don't know if Jesus loves them)?

Date: 2006/06/01 07:40:07, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (GCT @ June 01 2006,06:03)

I thought Tiktaalik was a major discovery for Intelligent Design!  Everything is.  The objective fact that you can breathe means that Jesus loves you and that ID is Truth and if you athiest (sic) heathens don't wise up, you'll burn in hellfire for all eternity for not recognizing the Truth that goddidit and he loves you.

I thought breathing showed that the second law of Thermodynamics was flawed.

Date: 2006/06/01 08:00:48, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (GCT @ June 01 2006,12:55)
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ June 01 2006,12:40)
I thought breathing showed that the second law of Thermodynamics was flawed.

I thought it was typing sentences that could violate the second law.

But one has to breath in order to type sentences.

Date: 2006/06/01 10:22:08, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (GCT @ June 01 2006,13:23)
How about this then?

Violating the second law of Thermodynamics proves that Jesus loves you.

Ah, actually, that fits in with what DaveSLoT wants everyone to believe.
Scientists say that SLot cannot be violated.
If that is true, then Jesus must not exist.
If Jesus does not exist, then Jesus must not love you.
If all of the above is True, then scientists are trying to prove that Jesus doesn't love you.

It all makes perfect sense.

Sorry about derailing this thread. I'll try to get it back on topic.

NEW YORK, US (AP) -- In the field of Intelligent Design Research today, scientists have announced the discovery of the Jebus. "The Jebus is the irreducible unit of Jesus' love that is spread around the earth to each of us Christians." says Dr. William Dembski.

The Jebus has shown properties of recharging electrolytes during moments of prayer amongst some Christians, while causing burns on radical Muslims. It appears there is no effect on Catholics and members of the more liberal Christian sects such as members of the United Church of Christ.

Noted Intelligent Design researcher Dave Springer was skeptical, "I can't see the Jebus so I remain agnostic, but Thank God we have a rigorous research program to solve this problem once and for all." He then slammed his door as he said, "You're questions aren't in the spirit of this house, you're outta here."

Date: 2006/06/02 02:38:29, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (stevestory @ June 01 2006,15:26)
The reporter then added, "I'm not sure how Springer managed to misspell the spoken homonym 'You're', but somehow he did. He's a very stupid man."

Gah, I hate it when I do that. Makes me feel dirty..., like an intelligent design advocate.

This just in...
God has planted new evidence suggesting that Intelligent Design is the correct "Theory" explaining life on Earth. In the face of this evidence Intelligent Design (ID) scientists are dumbfounded. "Obviously, God has planted this evidence to fool us." squawked Doug Moron, "Anyone who believes this 'theory of ID' is obviously a slave to materialistic atheism."

Date: 2006/06/05 06:00:47, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
As a computer engineer I have to agree with much of what is said above. Engineers tend to be confident and arrogant. I'm with Wayward Hammer in that I also took Philosophy in college, just three years ago, as well.

My guess is that intelligent design is the product of engineers trying to reconcile their faith with their knowledge. The obvious connection is God's a designer and an engineer. This falls directly in line with their confidence and arrogance. They view themselves on similar terms as God and then the problem just doubles. It's a vicious cycle.

Date: 2006/06/07 03:14:49, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Gin. Nothin' beats gin.

The upside to church is that you get wine there.

Date: 2006/06/09 02:23:47, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
# 15  You’re right, saying that evolution did it is very much like saying God dit it.

If evolution did it, then who/what created evolution? How come they never have to answer that one?

Comment by Lurker — June 8, 2006 @ 11:58 pm

Ba doom ching!

Clicky Click

Date: 2006/06/09 06:58:47, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
If you aren’t conscious of your religion then you are unconscious of it.


If you can't post comments then comments can't be posted by you. You're outta here. -dt

Date: 2006/06/14 09:51:48, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (stevestory @ June 14 2006,11:56)

Please tell me the book isn't going to argue for ID using some kind of 'The Matrix' metaphor.

Don't know. I didn't make it through the nonsense. Words flashing on the screen like "BUNNIES AND EARTHQUAKES" and then slowly fading away, to be replaced by "DESIGN BY EVOLUTION", slowly fading away, etc etc.

Why was the animation even necessary? Couldn't they have just typed the text? Think in way that you have never thought before? Think I'll stick with the ways I'm thinking now. If I started thinking like Mike Gene, every post on here would have to be a separate flash animation.

Date: 2006/06/16 05:53:53, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Congrats! As someone who only has a lowly BS, I'm in awe.

Date: 2006/06/17 03:18:01, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

Date: 2006/06/19 02:54:48, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
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.

To all those who have not been recognized, fear not. I have not overlooken you. More awards will be forthcoming.

Thank you. The designer is my co-pilot, but Otto is my autopilot.

Date: 2006/06/19 09:54:33, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
You must have missed this one. See. It appears that we may start having to "teach the controversy" of whether Arc researchers are idiots, liers, or both.

The unusual object is perched on a slope 13,120 feet above sea level. After studying the discovery site, Bonnema observed, “These beams not only look like petrified wood, they are so impressive that they look like real wood—this is an amazing discovery that may be the oldest shipwreck in recorded history.”

Reg Lyle, oil and gas geologist said “the object appears to be a basalt dike, however, it is absolutely uncanny that the object looks like hand hewn timbers, even the grain and color look just like petrified wood….I really need to keep an open-mind about this.”

Date: 2006/06/20 09:31:45, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Michael7 has some odd notion that organisms "fight against" mutations...

I've seen this elsewhere, as well. There must be some creationist propaganda somewhere that is saying that even organisms being tested on believe in Jesus and are fighting "the good fight" against RM + NS. ???

Date: 2006/06/21 04:14:53, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion.

So in order to avoid computers, politics and religion he has become a poster on UD?

Date: 2006/06/22 08:10:29, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

It’s due to high quality content and high level debate. Also, the moderation is pretty successfull in maintaining trolls away… It’s the only blog I visit at least 3 or 4 times a day.

Comment by Marcos — June 22, 2006 @ 9:42 am

In response to the Record viewings thread. High level debate? Where?

Date: 2006/06/22 08:28:51, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Ha ha to PT! They always say that opinion polls don’t make things true but I guess this takes the wind out of those sails a little eh?

Your precious “Truth Machine” over at PT is falling behind our lowly “Opinion Machine”.
Way to Go Dave and William. Kudos.


Comment by Doug — June 22, 2006 @ 1:16 pm

No comment needed.

Date: 2006/06/23 09:10:14, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Good Lord! I have avoided this thread for the last month or so, and coming back I see that afdave is still going and going... He must be trying to overcome the Uncommonly Dense thread.

Date: 2006/06/26 04:54:27, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Ed Brayton has a link to an article in a student paper that has this lovely gem to say about UD:

For those interested in learning about some of the scientific evidence and arguments for intelligent design, check out these right-wing propaganda sites at, or I also recommend the book "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel.

With advocates like these...

You'll need an advocate, but I won't listen to them. Your kind isn't welcome here, I'm sick of responding to your drivel. -dt

Date: 2006/06/28 04:52:05, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I think they've realized that some of their "readers" didn't like all the long blocks of text. Getting their ideas across in the form of cartoons seems like the best method of communication for them.

The one thing that is the most (unintentionally) humorous about it is that the message has not changed at all. It's still just making fun of science, as if that proves their argument.

Date: 2006/06/29 10:00:19, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2006,13:53)
Please note how I used my time machine to mock Alan Rhoda BEFORE he spouted:


It’s not simply enough that there be an assembly mechanism and assembly instructions. The assembly mechanism also has to be able to “read” the instructions. That means we need to already have in place some type of chemical “language”.

Moreover, all this has got to be hereditable somehow.

Ps - I'm sure this one isn't satire because he's got a Jesustastic website.

There is no way that you randomly guessed that Mr. Rhoda was going to say that, it's far too improbable! Anyone who thinks that you just guessed that he was going to say something like that is only lying to themselves. Clearly you were prompted by God to say what you said.

Hear, hear! -dt

Date: 2006/06/30 01:58:27, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (blipey @ June 29 2006,22:56)
Dembski's lauding a new magazine dedicated to the downfall of materialism!  I know; it's exciting.  :D

I especially like the the coming soon part.  Sorry, I can't link directly to the flash image, but maybe someone can explain exactly how that form of intercourse is either natural or safe.  If anything, I think it would be painful...not to mention unfruitful.

Wow, check out where her hand is in that picture.

Date: 2006/07/03 09:32:30, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
This thread is great on her blog. Do you think Dave will ever make that "first post"? Maybe he was too busy on the weekend trying to figure out when jury duty is.

5. One comment at a time. We'll start with Dave. Dave will make a positive scientific argument for ID. I will then make a comment, and IAMB (Matt, right?) will make his rebuttal. I will then make a comment, and IAMB can make a positive scientific argument for evolution. Everybody see how this is going to work?

Date: 2006/07/03 09:59:56, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Yeah she seems like someone who is open minded. If she really wants to see this fight played out on the scientific field, great! If she wants to stick to the ground rules she has set, she could be finding that she's more inclined to accept the side that she seems to have prematurely ruled-out. That's why I want to see Dave make that first (in more than one sense) positive argument for ID.

Date: 2006/07/07 02:59:11, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
She's good. She's really pushing the envelope of banter with DaveScot.

Date: 2006/07/07 05:36:14, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 07 2006,10:18)
Now I'm starting to wonder.  Does anyone else think it odd that a 17-year-old would use the phrase Danger Will Robinson?

Odd, maybe, but not out of the realm of possibility. I used to watch a lot of old TV shows when I was a kid. Also, it is not that obscure of a reference.

Date: 2006/07/07 09:42:38, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

1. Thinking about water, I just realized I have a question about molecules that perhaps someone here can help me with. I envision them like cells, that is, having a membrane of sorts, but that isn’t true, is it? So if we have a body of water, how does each molecule maintain itself next to the others? For how long does it do so?


Comment by avocationist — July 7, 2006 @ 11:15 am

Brilliant. Good thing these people aren't trying to force feed their view of science into the education system. I think the theory that avocationist is looking for is "intelligent molecule holding." It says that some intelligent being is required to hold all the molcules together, or else they will all fly apart. Oh and molecules that fly apart, they are governed by "intelligent molecule pushing." That says the molecules need an intelligent force to push them apart, otherwise they would just stick together.


Date: 2006/07/11 03:54:51, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (GCT @ July 11 2006,08:18)

Without the same sort of preconceptions and prejudgements that characterize Darwinian views (i.e., an unfounded precept that “it can’t have happened”), the science of History–yes History is a science–verifies the reports of the Resurrection, that the physical bodily resurrection of the person named Jesus of Nazareth did in fact occur.

Ancient literature including but not limited to the New Testament histories and the flow of history itself, especially the history of Western Civilization, are inextricably intertwined and unexplainable if the Resurrection did not occur.

Without the blinders of preconception, the Resurrection is a staggering event.

Comment by glennj — July 9, 2006 @ 10:16 am

It's comments like this that make redreader so dear to all our hearts.

But again, it's not about religion.
Blinders! Ha!

Date: 2006/07/12 03:47:18, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Dave posts again on JanieBelle's blog.

And to do some quote mining of my own, he had this to say:
Lesbians are HOT

Date: 2006/07/13 05:15:10, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (guthrie @ July 13 2006,09:58)
I love this comment by Mung in the thread by DS about how Darwinism is 150 year old lies etc etc:

I am not sure that I want ID to replace Darwinism. The problem with scietific theories is that they are always changing and eventually being replaced. What’s to prevent the same fate happening to ID? We’d need to change something about science itself. It would need to become about “absolute truth.”

So how to we separate ID as absolute truth from ID as science, and prevent ID as absolute truth from being affected by the vagaries of science?

Comment by Mung — July 13, 2006 @ 9:46 am

So, ID is correct, but yet would be replaced by something else?  
So we need to redefine science as absolute truth, effectively freezing scientific discourse at the level at which they are comfortable with?  
Hasnt that already been tried?  
Anyway, my brain hurts, I'm going to bow out for now.

We need to make it so that no one can question ID; We need to make it religion. Ah, but it is...

Date: 2006/07/18 05:10:38, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Comments are closed? Everyone prepare for a slow couple of days... Hopefully the tard will build up like water behind a dam and come rushing forth when comments are opened up again.

Date: 2006/07/18 05:27:31, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Janie responds to her banning.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:49:09, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Dave, don't come back until you can post something novel. -wad

Date: 2006/07/19 10:11:38, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2006,14:10)
BTW, could whoever is playing JanieBelle, email me and tell me who you are. I just want to know.

If JanieBelle really isn't a real person, I have to say that not only has she pulled off a great hoax, but the patience she has shown is astounding.

I think the news about the family would be easy to fake, and obviously the lesbian love scenes would be fun to write. But quoteing Shakespeare with Blipey seems to show a bit of research for someone just playing a 17 year old girl. On top of that, sitting through my attempts at describing some evidence for evolution would require some real restraint from someone who knows all about it.

Looking at her comments on UD also look like a real person, not someone acting. Had I been acting, the jig would have been up long ago. If she's not real close to who she says that she is, then I'll be the first to admit that I've been had.

Edit: Maybe I need to be more skeptical...

Date: 2006/07/20 08:48:44, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for someone to get banned while staying within the rules posted? Closest without going over.

From the time that comments are re-opened I give it 58 hours.

1. This blog solicits and welcomes vigorous argument, backed by facts.

2. Here we critique the argument, not the person. Therefore, we don’t do personal abuse or cussing.

3. Abuse involving race, religion, social class, sexual preference, et cetera, is a banning offence. We judge people on the strength of their arguments, and expect the same treatment from others.

4. As a moderator, I blog on the site, and will therefore only occasionally comment in the Comments section, usually to remind posters of blog policy or redirect a discussion that has gone way off track. When I do, I will post my own comment.

5. In the unlikely event that things get hairy, we may have to close or remove the Comments section without notice. But if we all cooperate to further a lively and fruitful discussion, that won’t ever happen.

Date: 2006/07/24 03:06:05, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,21:04)
By the way, what do I win? Yesterday, someone asked for speculation on how long it would take someone to get the boot, and guessed 50-some hours. I guessed 24. By my reconing, Dembski banned me about 27 hours after comments opened.

I posted this contest.

The rules were:
Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for someone to get banned while staying within the rules posted? Closest without going over.

From the time that comments are re-opened I give it 58 hours.


So Thanks for playing. Maybe if you posted a couple of more times at UD you could have been victorious.

Date: 2006/07/24 04:04:35, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I am an idiot.... Steve you won... I can't understand my own rules.

I'll try to find a prize worthy of such idiocy.

Date: 2006/07/26 02:55:17, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,21:04)
By the way, what do I win? Yesterday, someone asked for speculation on how long it would take someone to get the boot, and guessed 50-some hours. I guessed 24. By my reconing, Dembski banned me about 27 hours after comments opened.


How about an Otto Award for Political Theatre.

Yeah, that's quite appropriate.

Date: 2006/08/01 08:05:21, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
What you, Mrs Cogan, are attempting to do is use rhetoric and the famous, “ID is Creationism is a cheap suit” argument.


Date: 2006/08/02 01:58:49, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
oh " Evolution Questions has 2 friends" on myspace. grass roots activism indeed

The first friend, "Tom" is the guy who runs mySpace. Everybody gets him as a friend.
The other friend appears to be either an advert for a movie or one of the actors in that movie. A movie not about ID, I might add.

Date: 2006/08/03 10:54:20, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
DaveScot leaves some more information as to his identity.

Stop me if you guys already know this.

I authored a huge online multiplayer card & board game site 10 years ago that in its hayday had 700+ people logged into at one time every night chatting and playing games. My son has been running it since I retired from Dell almost 7 years ago and it's still around at

UDoJ Link

Date: 2006/08/08 04:36:10, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

Date: 2006/08/10 03:28:06, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (Tom Ames @ Aug. 10 2006,08:22)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 09 2006,22:14)

To which I responded:
Wow!  Best thread yet!

I bet they censor my comment, and then delete the whole thread, claiming it never happened.  The bar-stewards! :-)


What was in this thread? (As you predicted, it's gone now.)

If there was anything in that thread, Buud didn't seem to catch it. It just shows up there as a blank post.

Just a repost so that others can find it easily: Buud

Date: 2006/08/17 09:15:11, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Blipey's got a great rant at DaveScot over on UDoJ.

Check it out if you can.
On August 17, 2006 11:47 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...

   Very defensive about your inability to answer questions, Dave. You should seek some professional help. They say laughter is the best medicine. You couldn't afford me, but perhaps there are others out there willing to take on a charity case.

   Tagging around behind you? Let's examine what's really happened:

   1. DaveScot is invited to present positive evidence for ID on a new blog

   2. DaveScot fails to do so (there's a surprise)

   3. People (including myself) question him about it

   4. DaveScot decides he doesn't like it when he can't censor comments and claims he doesn't want to talk about it anymore

   5. (This is the only point that is speculative) DaveScot buys a lot of wood glue

   6. Blipey quits asking DaveScot about ID (forgot about that part, right?)

   7. DaveScot breaks his silence by posting a long rant about ID

   8. People (including myself) question him on it

   9. DaveScot, trying to figure out if he can suck his own dick since nobody will do it for him, claims that he isn't talking about ID--all evidence to the contrary (get it? it's a joke--the evidence supports you talking about it, but there's no evidence to support ID. HAHA, you slay you)

   10. DaveScot doesn't post on UDoJ for a while, at least not about anyhting I find interesting.

   11. Due to #10, I don't comment to DaveScot.

   12. DaveScot posts In case you all haven't noticed conservatives have been a majority for the past 10 years. Well, this bears directly on a question I asked earlier about majority rule. I had not brought the subject up until you reintroduced it.

   13. DaveScot doesn't answer question, claims foul, fucks a vodka bottle.

   Nice that series of unfortunate events ended with number 13, huh?

Bravo, Blipey, Bravo.

Date: 2006/08/18 02:08:31, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Louis, is that from a movie or something? It is brilliant! We used to sing rugby songs back in college.

Date: 2006/08/21 02:49:29, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
A few days old, but a great quote from Joel:
Alien abduction, though I think it is silly, should be something a Darwinian athiest looks at with an open mind (open mind to be defined as willingness to accept something’s plausibility after reviewing the continuing evidence).

I think alien abduction is silly, but the fact that Darwinist ignore it proves that they are following their dying religion.

Sounds like another waterloo is coming. And this time with lazers and cattle mutilations.

Date: 2006/08/23 02:16:12, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (GCT @ Aug. 23 2006,06:38)
Well, we did get this from lucID...

13.  Grumpy thanks for not wasting your time here

we certainly won’t waste our time reading your comments either  

(for the record only people who write very poor and unscientific posts get booted)

Comment by lucID — August 23, 2006 @ 2:50 am

Yup, only "very poor and unscientific posts" get booted.  Riiiiiight.

Don't forget those who only thank Jesus for helping them turn their computer on. They get booted all the time, too.

Date: 2006/08/31 03:01:10, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Again in the Mount Rushmore Thread:


Tom English

“Even we earthlings, familiar as we are with natural processes on earth, do not know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability.”

Yes, we earthlings have. In the case of Mt. Rushmore forming by natural processes we do indeed know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability. The reasonable estimate is zero and it’s arrived at by way of elimination. If you think of a reasonable reason it should be non-zero to a significant degree please give those reasons otherwise through the process of elimination you must agree that a reasonable estimate is zero. What we earthlings don’t know how to do is arrive at a precise probability. There is some exceedingly small chance Mt. Rushmore could be a natural phenomenon but it’s so small there’s no way to give a precise number. Duh.

Comment by DaveScot — August 31, 2006 @ 3:00 am

Thanks for clearing that up Dave. What's the chance of Mount Rushmore being natural? I don't know, but it must be so small that it is not worth calculating. Of course the Aliens would use CSI to figure it out, but we'd be idiots to even try.

Has anyone ever seen anybody give the CSI for anything? I've never looked at Dumbski's books, does he even calculate the CSI for anything? Who else wants to see a double blind for CSI's effectiveness?

Double Blinds are for materialists, that's over the top. You're outta here. -dt

Date: 2006/09/11 05:49:45, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Got me good at the get go.

Once Steve started to question the blog, I started getting suspicious, but it was played well. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Nice job, overall, Lou.

Date: 2006/09/14 09:22:51, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Speaking of Harry Potter, I just saw this in a thread where a Christian was trying to explain why he won't let the book in his house.

I really think you should read the first story before you start the grand conspiracy theory.

How does that make sense at all?  I should read a book that I know up front I don't agree with.  Come on, that makes no sense what so ever.

Date: 2006/09/15 04:46:45, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
That, by the way, is one reason why I have never been enthusiastic about the initiatives taken by various American school boards to warn students away from Darwinian evolution. Yes, yes, Darwinism’s a dead duck. It is promoted principally for ideological purposes, and anti-religious ones at that. In the form of social Darwinism, it has some stinky associates and in the form of persecution of non-Darwinian scientists, it has a stinky history. So I completely understand why the school boards and parents are concerned, and I wish them well.

But , all that said, I maintain my objections for the following reason: We do no favor to students who cut classes to smoke in the can when we act as though they can easily understand problems with Darwinism. These are the same kids who need a calculator to add up a shopping bill, don’t know whether Canada is north or south of the United States, can’t name the three branches of the US government, and are not disciplined for being rude to teachers. I could go on, but why bother?

Yeah, crazy. These kids are so dumb, why try to confuse them with things like, "Jesus is Lord!" and "Goddidit?"

Date: 2006/09/20 03:04:38, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 20 2006,01:32)

re Google

Thanks for the head’s up. It looks like someone on the inside at Google hacked google’s database so it never returns anything from I notified google security.

Comment by DaveScot — September 20, 2006 @ 12:07 am


Google is now "in on the conspiracy."

Karl's replies are obvious (at least, I was going to post them if he hadn't beaten me to it):

For even more fun, compare them side-by-side:

Comment by Karl Pfluger — September 20, 2006 @ 12:08 am

Even better, reverse the order of the terms (evolution first, then intelligent design):

If you squint, you can see the bars representing intelligent design.

Comment by Karl Pfluger — September 20, 2006 @ 12:22 am

Date: 2006/09/20 03:25:46, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
In all likelyhood, they didn't shut out google. Here's their robots.txt:

What probably happened was google tired to hit UD and for whatever reason the site did not respond, so it de-indexed them.
says that they have an error, but I'm not sure if it enough to stop the googlebot.

The idea that DaveScot immediately jumps to the conclusion that someone at google hacked the search engine from the inside is a good commentary on the thinking that goes on over there.

Why Google may ban you

Date: 2006/09/27 03:28:39, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
What makes something a science? Personally, I think science is about discovering the world through observation. Sometimes, we discover things that were designed. So, if somethings in the world have been designed, it makes sense that science could include their discovery.

The have overwhelming forums!

Date: 2006/09/29 09:58:14, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Same here, SS. I have heard the cat/dog thing, but with other animals.

Yeah, creationism is a bigger threat than a lot of other idiot theories because it is a larger threat (getting into schools) and because it is fairly widespread. I have argued with people who I know to be perfectly rational being about a variety of these issues and by far, the creationists are the most stubborn.

At least with most astrology buffs and moon landing hoaxers, you can get them to admit that it is either just for fun, or they can admit that the possibility exists that they are wrong. Creationists just eventually fall back on, "I ain't no monkey!" How can you argue with that?

Date: 2006/10/05 07:10:09, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
YouTube is awesome!

Date: 2006/10/11 02:12:59, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

This is what I though of:

I guess that means that this is a team of crack ID researchers:

Date: 2006/10/12 02:19:14, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Personally, I’ve always been more worried about what’s going to happen when the Maya Calendar expires in 2012.



Date: 2006/10/12 06:04:43, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 10 2006,17:30)
I'm thinking of going as two lesbians young girls without sexual preference....

Would that really be a costume? :D

Date: 2006/10/25 03:42:45, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (nuytsia @ Oct. 25 2006,06:54)
Amazing flame fractals take your breath away

Unfortunately the subsequent comments just seem to confirm the stereotype of software engineers....

Not all of us computer engineers are this dense.

Date: 2006/11/02 02:53:46, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2006,08:36)
In fact, once I'm the preacher, I'll make visits to all your bedrooms and give you a little hands-on instruction.  Truly, by allowing me to demonstrate the proper techniques on your wife's hoohoo, you'll be saving your marriage.

Bring Janie and Kate, Lou. :p

Date: 2006/11/03 02:30:51, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage

College ID book now, eh? Lets see what kind of brilliant stuff will be taught at the college level.
Intelligent Design. The study of patterns in nature that
are best explained as the product of intelligence.

Intelligence. Any cause, agent, or process that achieves an
end or goal by employing suitable means or instruments.

Design. An event, object, or structure that an intelligence
brought about by matching means to ends.

So if design is by definition only brought about by intelligence, why do they need to specify intelligent design?

7. kairos  // Nov 3rd 2006 at 7:02 am

   The Design of Life …this book is poised to become the authoritive textbook on the theory of intelligent design.

I find very important that the book be pre-released for review on Internet. First, this will allow minor errors to be fixed through woldwide checking (probably also by NDEers …). Second, and most important this could give the book a huge diffusion provided that also the final release could be freely available. I agree that “the labourer is worthy of his hire” but the experience in such fields as computer science tells us that even more hardcopies are actually sold for more and more people like to buy a copy.

Comment by kairos — November 3, 2006 @ 7:02 am

Yeah get as many versions as you guys can out there, so that when the next trial comes around we can again show how some words were changed to mask the fact that your new "theory" is just ID in a cheap tuxedo, which is just Creation Science in a cheap tuxedo.

Note: Putting more tuxedos on does not make you look any better.

6. JGuy  // Nov 3rd 2006 at 6:02 am

You’re correct. They did mix the names up.

But hey, let’s get back on tangent ;) … how different are the DNA between man and woman? Could it be factually argued that the difference is greater between man and woman, than it is between man and chimp?

Comment by JGuy — November 3, 2006 @ 6:02 am

What!? I didn't come from no monkey woman!

Date: 2006/11/03 08:49:05, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Looks like Sal's in the clear...

47. scordova  // Nov 3rd 2006 at 2:38 pm

In the interest of fair reporting, I would like to quote PZ himself from the title of his response to me:

   PZ Myers is such a LIAR!

   –PZ Myers

I can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of PZ’s title. I merely report what he said.

Comment by scordova — November 3, 2006 @ 2:38 pm

Date: 2006/11/07 08:35:01, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 07 2006,07:55)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 07 2006,13:46)
ID is science, and 'Ova has a firm scientific basis for his assertion:
Genesis 3:14 (New International Version)

So the LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life."

See? Nothing here about being a cow, but Serp clearly had legs before he was cursed above all the livestock.

I think that's precisely what Sal has in mind, as this later comment states quite explicitly:

Besides, some of you out there who share my ideas about origins certainly believe snakes once had legs!

I don't think that means that they had to have legs, maybe they used to be able to fly.

Here's some snakes that have gotten around the whole crawling on your belly thing. Weeee!

My thought is that cows form chrysalids and then after a short time they open revealing a few hundred snakes. Wow, freaky, That needs to be made into a movie.

Date: 2006/11/08 13:31:24, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I got to cast my vote for Schloemer. It felt good.

Date: 2006/11/08 14:04:46, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Lou, I was just reading through old posts on UDoJ, and I came across this gem where DaveScotDell needs help uploading his avatar.

Humorously, he's still using that avatar to this day. In a way he still is carrying around a mark of his idiocy.

On another note, it is quite weird to read the stuff we wrote under the assumption that you were a 17 year old female. Too funny.

Date: 2006/11/10 08:46:31, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
This is the first picture that comes up on Google Image search for DaveScot:

"Only thing that comes from Texas are steers and queers! You're outta here homo!" -dt

Date: 2006/11/22 09:29:52, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I arranged a googlefight to resolve this situation.

I win handily. There are far more glossaries that contain the word diploid without the word parent (by 2:1 margin) than there are glossaries that contain both diploid and parent. Subtract the number on the left from the number on the right to get the number of glossaries without parent in it.

Good one Dave. But I'm confused.

I thought marines were tough.

I guess that also shows that Dembski isn't smart.

Date: 2006/12/15 08:09:30, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
300 pages? Nope, but getting close...

Date: 2006/12/21 10:38:15, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2006,10:18)
Google trends:

"intelligent design"


Fizzling? What are you talking about? That graph clearly shows that Intelligent Design is infinitely more popular now than at the beginning of 2004.

That sound you hear is Darwinism's Waterloo.

Date: 2006/12/22 10:40:55, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Born in Toledo, OH and now I live in Cincinnati, OH. How boring!

Date: 2007/01/05 09:23:38, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
As to Robo being a physics student, hold out hope. Engineering students are often also required to take general physics classes.

Date: 2007/01/26 13:10:55, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 26 2007,12:46)

Whoa, I've been gone a while. I didn't realize a picture of Dave had been revealed.


Date: 2008/03/26 10:18:44, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
I've been away far too long. These shops are brilliant.

Date: 2008/03/26 12:46:46, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
russ: The people marketing this film are geniuses.

No, that's not sarcasm. :D

Date: 2008/11/17 13:45:08, Link
Author: bourgeois_rage
What a sad day, this is. What will we do without DaveSLoT?