AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: hooligans

form_srcid: hooligans

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: hooligans

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2007/01/26 17:06:27, Link
Author: hooligans
As a longtime troll here and at the PandasThumb, I simply had to register and share in the communal guffaw of Mr. Hunter's argument. This chap has actually used, as his evidence, a picture from a coloring book designed for adolescents!!!! Holy crap!!! I finally get why the word TARD is used so often here.  :O

Date: 2007/01/26 17:39:37, Link
Author: hooligans
At UD they are continuing to rail on how these expensive journals should be freely availible to all taxpayers . . . hmmm . . . . so this means because some of my tax dollars help fund our local libraries I am  entitled to my own copy of every book in it!!!!

[I]The Conspiracy Revealed
Shocking report by undercover DI operatives captures library staffers at universities all over America hiding freely availible science journals. [I]

Using secret cameras, a team of undercover, specially trained operatives, infiltrated the Portland State University Branford P. Millar Library. There the schocking truth was revealed . . . An evil Darwinian conspiracy is afoot. Hidden away behind a secret locked door, is an entirely self-contained library wherein stacks of scientific journals are freely avaible to those who have access to the secret password. Here our tax dollars go. Here we fund thier evil conspiracy, while being depreived of equal access. This travesty of justice shall not stand.

Date: 2007/02/14 14:31:04, Link
Author: hooligans
Holy mackeral! If you look down the recent posts over at UD you begin to see the sketch of what Intelligent Design has to offer our society:
1) Civilization Calls: Nutty neocon rantings compiled in one thread with a bit of bigotry to boot!
2) Global Warming: It’s just a conspiracy!!!!!! Haven’t you read Michael Crichton!!!! It’s all a lie and he’s an authority, just look at the research he did!
3) Two Mass Murders on Darwin Day: Basically Darwin and Evolution are evil and cause people to kill each other. These murders are proof.
4) Judge Jones Farts A Lot: This means his ruling was wrong.
5) Young Earth Creationist Gets PhD: ID has nothing to do with religion.
6) DCA Rocks: This proves that Darwinists are evil. They don’t want to find a cure for cancer.
7) Religious People Shouldn’t Critique Dr. Dr. Dembski: Yeah! Because ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion (see bullet item #5). Also the guy isn’t even a scientist like Dr. Dr. Dembski who has two PhD’s. One in math and one in religious studies!!!! So keep your mouth shut. He’s a genius.
8) More People are Visiting UD Now: Readership has gone up since we starting getting even wackier. DTard has helped bring in all the wackos. Thanks DTard. (Personal Note: I check the site twice a day purely to see what kind of crazy stuff they have up on the site).
Gotta love UD!

Date: 2007/02/18 11:29:37, Link
Author: hooligans

Date: 2007/03/06 15:52:28, Link
Author: hooligans
A quick question for Gil- "Dodging the Question” that wasn't posted on UD. . . . You were talking about O’Leary’s comment regarding
“…the mathematical probabilities of Darwinism…”
You then stated that:
“They are nonexistent. I’ve blogged about this at UD, and this should be a complete no-brainer for anyone with a basic understanding of mathematical combinatorics. The improbabilities of the creative powers of Darwinian mechanisms are not just exponential in nature; the orders of magnitude compound exponentially.”

So how does this support ID? To calculate what you consider the improbablity of Darwinism, has no bearing on the validity of ID . . .. Right? Both Denyse and yourself are saying, “gee it couldn’t of happened this way, so lets just make up a story (ID) and say it happened that way.” Has anyone calculated the probability that an intelligent designer could intelligently design not only various species, but the entire universe? I don’t think so.

Another idiotic comment that goes uncontested at UD from Gil "Dodging the Question"

Date: 2007/03/08 13:47:14, Link
Author: hooligans
I love how I got booted over at UD for suggesting to Dr. Dr. Dembski that calling an impartial judge a narcissitic putz was innapropriate and unchristian. Now dembski has the gall to pretend that he has values:
I am a Christian, and the example of our Lord is not to shun people or set up a caste system of more, or less, acceptable people.

BS. Dembski . . . you are a total fraud!

Date: 2007/03/24 18:42:38, Link
Author: hooligans
Best Dembski Post Ever!  
William Dembski
5:07 pm
motthew: I was well aware of the context. But if I make the context clear, PvM and his fellows will find something else to attack. Better to give them what appears a minor slip-up, let them attack that, and then show how they’re acting in bad faith because they have ignored the gist.

Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons.

Then the Reply is priceless:  

6:30 pm
To Bill:
“it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons.”

Eh? Are you serious ?

Yeah, I ment to make that minor slip up, because it was all part of my grandmaster, dragon-scholar plan. I'm always two or three steps ahead of those clowns like PvM. Ha, fooled him again!

Date: 2007/03/24 21:44:38, Link
Author: hooligans
Let the betting begin . . . how long before OilBoy's comments dissapear? I'm saying they are gone before 12:00. You must remember no person can speak low, or question, the great double-reverse secret agent, known as Dr. Dr. Dembski. The great one who plays mind games with us peons has shown everyone up.

I must admit he had me totally fooled. Now I realize Darwin is evil and ID is the real deal. He is just too smart for any Darwinist.
9:26 pm
To: russ

Perhaps, but I think there may be a simpler explanation.

Date: 2007/04/19 11:09:54, Link
Author: hooligans
I teach middle school science in White Salmon, Washington. As a public school teacher you get some pretty interesting responses to teaching the evolutionary paradigm in biology. I have had a few parents invite me to their churches to hear, the now imprisoned, Kent Hovind speak. I declined, but I regret that now. I would have loved to see a true snake oil salesman do his show. As a teacher you continually have to take courses for professional development, this last spring I took a course at a local community college and was dumbfounded to hear my professor talking about the Great Nochian Flood, the speed of light slowing down, human footprints next to dinosaurs, and radiometric dating inconsistencies. He was a wacko YEC’er.  I spent much of my time at TalkOrigins prepping for our next class where I crushed his pathetic talking points. From there I found the Pandas Thumb and this site as well.

I have found that 8th graders love to learn about the grand picture of life. The love to understand why nature works the way it does. Truly, nothing in nature makes any sense without an understanding of evolutionary theory. Now when students or parents question the wisdom of teaching evolution to their kids, I simply say that this is the best explanation given the observed evidence. I am greatly indebted to the many wise ones here that have shed light of the subject for me.

I must also admit that the antics of the folks at UD are such a crack-up. I just love seeing the gang here just totally crush their idiotic rantings.

Date: 2007/06/05 16:55:29, Link
Author: hooligans
First of all Denyse O'leary is completly too dense to notice the pun. Secondly, how could you all miss that the fact that OE hasn't posted in weeks is clearly proof of a Darwinist Conspiracy to keep people from hearing both sides of the debate.

Date: 2007/06/08 22:58:11, Link
Author: hooligans
I saw this and followed the link to the "Brites" site:

I then thought, "wow even Behe's buddies mock him!"

Yeah I know the Brites is supposed to be funny and all, but this is funny for all the wrong reasons. Galapagos Finch is f**king retarded.

Date: 2007/06/15 16:06:07, Link
Author: hooligans
I can just see Dembski getting all steamed up over the likes of Coyne, Judge Jones, all those Behe haters, and  . . . well . . . just about anyone who doesn't bow to his Isaac Newton-like DR. DR. status. Hello!?! This guy just screams out "Napoleonic complex".    
Dembski thinks to himself:

Unlike Dembski, I use reliable sources to back up my points. According to  Conservapedia, a napoleonic complex leads to "overly aggressive tendencies by some to compensate for being short or small. It is not endemic of all short people, and is only relevent for a small number for whom lack of physical stature may lead to difficulties in accepting themselves." Clearly conservapedia is describing Dembski. Here the only difference is that rather than lacking in height, Dembski lacks intellect. Otherwise the resemblance is obvious . . . his overt aggressiveness, when in the safety of his heavily moderated blog(not in public forums like court though) is clearly a sign of one who fels a need to compensate for a small something (intellect in this case). Furthermore, he clearly has difficulty accepting himself. Thus the need to be the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, and get so puffed up about his staus as DR. DR.

So while Coyne might be likened to Frankenstein, I think an appropriate image for Dembski would be either the Elmer Fudd imaged above, or the Napoleon Dynamite image here

Date: 2007/06/15 21:21:27, Link
Author: hooligans
Sorry to cross post this one from a different thread. It is just too good though . . . I think it is obvious Dembski has a napoleonic Complex. BTW why did Dembski boot bdelloid From the Herman Munster thread?  

Date: 2007/06/16 13:58:54, Link
Author: hooligans
What's up with Dembski booting bdelloid? I noticed that not only did this dude get booted, but his comments got delected from the thread. He must have actually posted about Coyne's arguments, rather than just mocking him. After all UD isn't interested in defending Behe with actual EVIDENCE!!!! Mocking people like Judge Jones is the best defense (or not showing up to court cases).

William Dembski


7:05 pm
bdelloid is no longer with us.


Date: 2007/06/16 21:49:17, Link
Author: hooligans
The Brookfield Institute of Transparadigmic Science is in need of finaincial help  . . . .
We need your support: Putting new papers online costs time and money. We are also planning to build this site into a portal on the subjects of attachment parenting, pleasure deprivation, sexuality and touch. If you would like to support this project, click the button below:

The following is an example of the ground breaking research they are delving into

#2. “Natural Selection” (is actually, Natural Selective Destruction {-})

Now 1+1 = 2
-1 (plus) -1 = -2


R(-)m plus NS(-) equals a negative (-) not a positive.

Are negative numbers bad or evil or something? I guess I never knew that a negative number was actually BAD!!!

Date: 2007/06/17 18:02:08, Link
Author: hooligans
I tried to post on UD to ask Dembski why he thinks this nut at iconrids is so cool. Is it the groundbreaking research Brookfield is conducting? Or what?

No surprise my post was not allowed through the filter. It is obvious that damage control is now at full throttle. Basically, he wants to get the post off the page as quickly as possible by posting garbage above it.

This huge fiasco, started by Dembski, illustartes the vacuity and desperation of ID right now. Dembski, desperate to find anyone who supports ID, simply is tickled pink every time he sees a person bashing darwinism and suporting ID. So much so that he can't stop the rush of PLEASURE to post online his delightful discovery. His pants are probable still wet from his first read of Pleasurian philsophy.

Date: 2007/06/21 15:01:09, Link
Author: hooligans
I took a few moments to catalogue both the type and quantity of posts made at UD since April 2007. I didn't count posts in multiple catagories, even though that would make sense. For example, all Denyse O'leary posts were classified in their own category because it doesn't matter what they were about, they are all just f**king crazy sh*t. While I could have also counted them in other categories, like Evolution is Evil, I figured this would just take too much thought and time. I think the results speak clearly . . . UD whines a whole lot, bu they don't do sh*t.

ID is Persecuted = 33
Atricles Unwittingly Supporting ID = 17
Global Warming Isn't Happening = 15
Reviews of Popular Books about ID (not peer-reviewed) = 15
Stupid Articles by Denyse = 12
Evolution is Wrong, So ID is Right = 12
Articles That Don't Make Any Sense (not by Denyse) = 9
Davescot Pontificating About Something He Doesn't Understand = 8
Street Theatre = 7
Complaints/Putdowns about Dover or Jones = 5
Evolution is Evil = 5
Teach the Controversy = 5
Jeolousy/Hatred of Dawkins = 4
New Research ID is Thinking About Doing Sometime = 2
ID Supporting Pleasurianism = 1
New Research by ID Scientists = 0

Date: 2007/06/22 21:44:31, Link
Author: hooligans
Taking bets . . . how long till Brandon gets banned at UD?
8:36 pm
I would have posted a response sooner, but I needed to read the articles you included in your post. Also, I would appreciate it if you could post a source for your percent of college graduates that believe in special creation.

Now I disagree with your statement that “It is hardly possible to make evolutionary claims clear to students when evolutionary biologists don’t even understand it.”

Date: 2007/06/23 12:48:04, Link
Author: hooligans
Over at UD, Davescot pontificates about how conservatives are better at creating high qualtity educational programs . . . but does he know the real story . . .NO! I am an educator and actually know a bit about what he is so stupidly stating. He says:
By the looks of it we ought to appoint Jeb Bush education czar for the entire U.S. as Florida contains 22 of the top 100 high schools. George Bush is no slacker when it comes to education either as Texas has 13 of the top 100 (including the top 2),

Little does Davesscot know that George Bush appointed a secretary of education that led Texas to being one of the most "successful" school systems in America. But wait, was it really? Or was it just a sham to get George Bush elected? Oh wait, it was a sham! Thats why Rod Paige is the FORMER Secretary of Education. What did Rod "the Snake" Paige do?

One: He pressured superintendants and adminstrators to get the troubled, low kids suspended or missing during testing windows so their scores wouldn't be counted. NO SHIT. Paige manipulated data to make the schools dropout rates look like they were getting better when in fact they were just manpulating the data. See  the following story done by 60 minutes The Texas Miricle Here is another good story:
Scandel in Education "Miracle"

Furthermore, it was revealed (i can't find the story but I did read and remember it) that Texas' standardized test was the easiest in the nation. Thus kids were passing it with flying colors. Low standard equals lot sof kids looking successful.

Date: 2007/06/23 13:36:50, Link
Author: hooligans
Took about 12 hours before Brandon got the "silent boot".
10:50 am
Wow, ok my posts are getting left off, individuals would rather snipe than talk and there is a serious narrowing of vision going on here with you people.

I am going to return to keeping an eye on you rather than attepmting to hold a conversation.

Date: 2007/06/24 11:26:39, Link
Author: hooligans
As I've said before Galapogos Finch has serious problems.

As a middle school science teacher, I can tell you that the same kind of humor displayed by Galapogos Finch is what I observe in disturbed adolescent boys. These are the kind of individuals who make, what they think is a joke, and then the entire class falls silent and stares at them like WTF!?! After class, inevitably, a student comes up and says, "little William is kind a creepy."

Date: 2007/06/26 15:01:36, Link
Author: hooligans
Wow Dembski has really hit the jackpot now!! I can't belive it!?! In no less than two weeks he has linked to a holocaust denier and a wacked out PLeasurian philosopher. Found a translation from Right Wing Professor website of this guy who is being persucuted in Germany:
Unfortunately, Dr. Lerle, our martyr-candidate, did a little bit more than compare abortion to the Holocaust. Just taking one snippet from one of his two pages for which he was convicted, he says:
But it does not fit contemporary history which says that no Germans died in gas chambers on German soil. In order to come up with the number six million, the number of deaths in the occupied territories had to be increased. Thus four million in Auschwitz died. However this number is also decreasing, which starts to look like a whitewashing operation. The inconceivably large number of four million raises the question of consistency with some laws of nature (e.g. with the properties of execution agent Zyklon B, the size of the gas chambers, the duration of the gassings, including the necessary ventilation of the chambers, the capacity of the incinerators, as well as the unknown location of the 15,000 tons of ash from the incineration of the corpses).
The confession of the camp commander Höss is considered to be proof for the gas chambers. This [confession] was produced, however, by British torturers. Confession of alleged witches under torture, which also violate the laws of nature, are not now considered proof that witches can fly, for example, through the air on brooms. Why do we believe the torture-confession of Höss, when confessions from the time of the witch-myth are not believed? Why has not a single concentration camp prisoner, convicted of false statements, been punished for perjury?
Tourists could visit the original gas chambers in Auschwitz. Subsequently an American villain stole a sample of rock, which did not show elevated values of Iron cyanide, and it because known the gas chambers were reconstructions. The original gas chambers being reconstructions compellingly proves that we were deceived also over Auschwitz.

All good old-fashioned David-Irving-style Holocaust denial, of course.
Lerle's main defense, according to Catholic site, which seems to have embraced our Lutheran Nazi's pal's cause, is that other people have gotten away with saying the same thing. Ah, that old Christian principle - two wrongs make a right!

You just can't say that sort of thing in Germany. Yes, one can deny the Holocaust in America and be protected by the First Amendment, and the German law grates a little against American sensibilities. But Germany is a country that has had to come to grips with its recent horrific history, and the laws against Holocaust denial are an integral part of making sure the biggest stain on the 20th century never happens again.

This case, like the case of Paul Hill, shows the danger of extremist anti-abortion rhetoric, leading some people to murder abortionists, and others to deny or minimize well-documented historical atrocities -- real atrocities perpetrated on real people, not theological ones perpetrated on blastocysts -- all in the name of preventing a medical procedure that in most cases leads to the extinction of a small, hardly differentiated mass of cells.

The wages of fanaticism is imprisonment.

Date: 2007/07/01 22:23:25, Link
Author: hooligans
Just picked up this old post from miniTARD Gil:

One must have some sympathy for Darwinists, because they have painted themselves into a corner. They cannot admit that even a single, solitary aspect of biology is the product of design, or their entire thesis collapses catastrophically. ID proponents, on the other hand, can admit that Darwinian mechanisms play a role in biology, and they most certainly do, almost by definition.

Gee Gil-tard, what happened to the concept of falsifibility? You know the whole philosphy of science thingy? You know
where confirmations are significant only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is, if, unenlightened by the theory, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory. AND HOW
"Good" scientific theories include prohibitions which forbid certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

source wikipedia

According to Gil-tard Darwinists got it all wrong. But gee, according to the philsophy of science those pesky Darwinists must have a powerful theory.

It must hurt to be so stupid.....

Date: 2007/07/08 10:58:58, Link
Author: hooligans
WAD questions?
Is it fair to judge scientific theories by their offspring?

If it is, I have to wonder what all those UDer's do when it is time to investigate the offspring of Pleasurianism?

Date: 2007/07/08 11:03:19, Link
Author: hooligans
Holy Moly!!!! This has got to be such a bit of mud in Dembski's Eye!!!;)
11:00 am
Speaking of offsprings from scientific theorie . . . Have you all investigated the ICON-RIDS webiste and Pleasurianism?

OK I had fun being IrishFather412 for a bit. But now the cover is blown and I am banned for shedding light on one of Dembski's own links. Wow shouldn't they be banning Dembski instead of me?

Date: 2007/07/10 10:05:40, Link
Author: hooligans
Would you pass Dembski's Final Exam on Rhetoric?

I especially like this question:
13. You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York. A consortium of Christian
businessmen and foundations is fed up with the godlessness of our society and approaches
you to run a “rhetorical campaign” to make Christianity and its moral values credible again
to the wider culture. You have $100,000,000 a year for five years to make the campaign
work (i.e., half a billion dollars total over five years). What programs are you going to
institute and how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible
world view? What objectives could you realistically hope to accomplish? [Example of a
zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]

Here is another great question from his class about Intelligent Design. I'm wondering what counts as a correct answer, seeing that I can't think of a way to answer the question without running away. Oh wait, Dembski did run away from the Dover Trial. He must of not got any good material from his students to use in the trial. Here is the essaay prompt:
2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID’s method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID?

Date: 2007/07/11 00:33:55, Link
Author: hooligans
Dembski's tagline/quote was the first thing I noticed when I vivited his website for his academic courses. I thought, "wow, and this guy is teaching science!?!
What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.
–Jeremy LaBorde

Date: 2007/07/11 20:04:22, Link
Author: hooligans
Has anyone considered opening JAM's eyes to the world of The Banned? He is Now With the BANNED!

Date: 2007/07/12 10:11:55, Link
Author: hooligans
Seriously, does anyone else see the striking, and I mean striking resemblance Dembski and his minions have with a group of little kids? Evidence:
1. Stupid infantile humor (farty jokes)
2. Refusing to listen (JAM kicked their collectives asses, but they never could hear what he was actually saying)
3. Taking their ball and going home (JAM and Patrick are no longer with us) when they are losing.
4. Taunting (neener, neener JAM sucks) when someone can’t defend themselves
5. Active imaginations (we are smart and know stuff)

What is crazy is that these little hits of juvenile behavior are, in themselves, quite revealing, but when you look at the pattern of behavior over time, the comparison of the tards at UD to a pack of idiotic children is striking.

Date: 2007/07/13 13:17:46, Link
Author: hooligans
I posted this on PT but thought I'd add it here as well:

I can see that the DI and this teacher from Tacoma are trying to shave as close as possible to what is allowed. The key reason I object to this "teach the controversy" concept is because a better approach is to teach what is understood and admit ignorance when you don't know the answer. Virtually all controversy is born from a lack of knowledge about a particular subject. In science, the best method for reducing controversy is to review what is known and then set about filling in the gaps of knowledge through research.

What this text, Explore Evolution, attempts to do is use the gaps of knowledge to create controversy where none should exist. Instead, a sound educatinal program would teach what is known and understood and make clear where and what is not known or what is still unclear. This way future biologists can form ideas of how best to apply their research and labrotory skills in college and in life.

More important than teachimg any controversy is teaching kids how to actually conduct labrotory investigations and how to use the scienctific method.

If you need to teach the controversy to get kids excited about science, your not much of a teacher.

Date: 2007/07/13 20:40:37, Link
Author: hooligans
EE states that:
For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom. “The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,”

Ah yes, yet another example of an argument from ignorance. Hmm, too bad for EE progress is being made in understanding this perplexing problem. Check out this article entitled South Pacific Plant May Be Missing Link In Evolution Of Flowering Plants.

The problem with EE is that it tries to stimulate controversy where, instead, a teacher should stimulate a thirst to understand what is known and where the gaps in knowledge are. This way students will be able to do research to help find answers.

Date: 2007/07/13 22:29:05, Link
Author: hooligans
More from Dr. Dr. Dembski's syllabi at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This one really made me chuckle:
PHREL 4373 Christian Apologetics
William A. Dembski
[masters course; spring 2008]

What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.
–Jeremy LaBorde

Course Description:
This course provides an overview of Christian apologetics. Of special interest are how
various apologetic strategies alternately help or hinder the Christian in defending one’s
faith and making it plausible to others.

Week 1: Flash animations and farty jokes
Week 2: Strategies for banning people who know too much
Week 3: How to avoid public court cases where you have to tell the truth

Care to imagine the ret of the semester?

Date: 2007/07/14 21:18:41, Link
Author: hooligans
Why are they quoting the Science Framework for California Schools from 1990 in EE? I couldn't find anything on the framework from 1990. However I did find this gem on page ix of the 2004 framework :
Discussions of any scientific fact, hy­ pothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history–social science and English–language arts curricula.

As a matter of principle, sci­ence teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard. Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation.

I'm wondering how the 2004 frameworks mesh with what EE is trying to convey. Too me it looks like the California standards are well written and clear. I'm also wondering how the DI can support secret research labs in light of what I read in the 2004 Science Framework for California Schools on page 20:
Science does not take place in a secret place isolated from the rest of society.

Date: 2007/07/16 14:42:56, Link
Author: hooligans
Can anyone summarize Dembski's Jesus Tomb Math? I'm no mathematician and frankly have no idea what they are trying to prove. How is it related to ID? Also what is this Evolutionary Infomatics lab and how is it related to the Jesus Tomb Math on the website.

Help I don't understand!

Date: 2007/07/17 18:54:43, Link
Author: hooligans
Hey Mr. Paul Nelson,

I am a science teacher in the state of Washington and would love a review copy of EE. How can I get one?

Date: 2007/07/17 21:42:54, Link
Author: hooligans

Date: 2007/07/22 20:10:02, Link
Author: hooligans
I believe that EE will be taught at this school:
Feel free to warn the administrators that they are about to get sued.

Curtis High School
8425 40th Street W
University Place, WA 98466
Phone: (253) 566-5710; Fax: (253)566-5626

Attendance: 566-5715
Athletics: 566-5718
Guidance: 566-5713
David Hammond, Principal
Terry Jenks, Asst. Principal &Athletic Dir.
Jeff Johnson , Asst. Principal
Rosalynn McKenna, Asst. Principal
Ron Brock, Coordinator Student Discipline

Date: 2007/07/26 10:59:46, Link
Author: hooligans
26 July 2007

A Scoville Scale for Dangerous Questions
William Dembski

I love your sense of humor DR. Dr. D!!! Haha Haha . . . . . At the Dover Trial people from both sides were put on the stands and asked hot questions. I thought you were going to deliver some pure capsiacan? What happened to your vice strategy?

I think that the record shows the only people who couldn't handle the heat of pure capsiacan were those on the losing side. I read the trial transcripts, and it played out like Spurs-Cavaliers series. Total domination . . . pure capsiacan. You got ganked. You got pawned.

So go ahead, ask tough questions that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. That's all you have after all.

Date: 2007/07/26 12:18:18, Link
Author: hooligans
Check out the questions at UD!! LOL!!! They are so f**king stupid!!

Date: 2007/07/27 18:59:34, Link
Author: hooligans
I've adopted pseudonymes and got my foot in the door by saying outrageous stuff that I knwo they will love. I then slowly step up the satire until I get banned. It's fun.

Date: 2007/07/27 21:10:02, Link
Author: hooligans
Arden asked . .  .
Quote (hooligans @ July 27 2007,18:59)
I've adopted pseudonymes and got my foot in the door by saying outrageous stuff that I know they will love.

Any good examples you can cite?

Yeah... IrishFather412 made a few stupid remarks and then up'd the tard to the point of edgy satire. Now IrishFather412 can't seem to get a comment through moderation. The last comment which was not posted had something to do with a Dembski post about how you can judge an idea based on what kind of philosophies stem from it. I basically said, "yeah speaking of which has anyone checked out ICON-Rids and Pleasurianism?"

This comment didn't make it rhough moderation.

Date: 2007/08/08 20:24:55, Link
Author: hooligans
Quick Paul Nelson is back from Rome and can finally use the internet. Je jas spent his time posting pictures of half naked darwinists. Way to go Paul! You rock. Now, about EE . . .

Date: 2007/08/13 15:20:40, Link
Author: hooligans
Sometimes, I am a bit slow, but this bit from Davetard struck me as unusual.
Consider the hypothesis that black holes exist in nature. It can never be falsified.

Haven't black holes been observed? Am I crazy, or am I missing something here? Is Davetard just stupid or did I read his post wrong.

Date: 2007/08/15 10:37:19, Link
Author: hooligans
Mentok and his pals at UD hit the hard stuff:

Dude . . . like  
Since reality is beginningless therefore time is also beginningless because time is simply a continuum of reality or a measurement between any number of points withing that continuum.

Isn't that like far out (cough, cough). That's some chronic sticky Moroccan.

Date: 2007/08/16 12:58:42, Link
Author: hooligans
Okay! Which one of you went undercover to post this nugget?
1:13 pm
As more and more journalists get hip to ID, the biologists will see their hegemony over science crumble.

Is this rich TARD or what?

Date: 2007/08/22 15:40:58, Link
Author: hooligans
Latest Paul Nelson sighting:
21 guests, 9 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members ? [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Richardthughes >Erasmus, FCD >Arden Chatfield >Leftfield >Stephen Elliott >Hermagoras >Paul Nelson

are you ready to discuss anything Paul?

Date: 2007/08/22 21:37:48, Link
Author: hooligans
We all know Dembski is a wanker. So let's see if you can pass yet another tough quiz from the Master Wanker. This question comes from his 2006 Christian Apologetics Class he taught at that 2nd rate bible school.
(2) Why is groupthink an obstacle to leadership and how does Robert Greene suggest countering it?

Answer that Dembski wants:Maintain unity of command and put the right people in place who will do what you desire, but with creativity rather than slavishly.  

Dembski!?! shouldn't you, like, figure this stuff out and actually apply to your own life?

Date: 2007/08/22 21:40:53, Link
Author: hooligans
Another wonderful question from the same class:
What is the key to staying unintimidated?
Answer Dembski wants: Realizing that people are just people ? that they are not gods and will never be gods. Only God is God
and it is he alone that we are to fear. ?The fear of man brings a snare.? (Prov. 29:25)

Dembski!?! what happened at Dover man?

Date: 2007/08/23 10:55:12, Link
Author: hooligans
I was just reading an the article in National Geographic when I came across this passage about education in Pakistan:
An MIT -trained professor of nuclear physics at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, he was speaking to a graduate-level class in physics a few days after the huge disaster that devastated Kashmir in 2005, describing the geophysical forces that produced the disaster. "When I finished, hands shot up all over the room," he recalls. "'Professor, you are wrong," my students said. "That earthquake was the wrath of God.'"

Ahh yes! Gotta love that fundie education! Having recently finished the Republican War on Science I have no doubt that it wouldn't be hard to create a country of morons very quickly. GW, and his cronies, are frightening.

My theory is that all the policies put into place since GW took office are there to privatize education. In the state of Washington, where I am a science teacher, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation recieves a lot of funding from the Walmart family to destroy our unions and privatize public education. Why? Hmmm. . . . Follow the money . . . most of a states budget is spent on education money not going to line the pockets of the Walmart family. What do they want? They want a crack at all that money. The No Child Left Behind Act ensures that all schools will be labeled as failing by the year 2011. This will create the illusion that schools suck and need to be privatized. Once privatized Walmart will open schools using their business model and rake in the cash while giving our children a crappy education.

Soon Dembski's dumbass quizzes will be standard test prompts. Soon teh correct answer will be Goddunit.

Date: 2007/09/03 16:46:28, Link
Author: hooligans
And even more bizarrely, Grandma Tard posts something for Dr. Dr. Dembski!

Have his posting privileges been revoked?

Beat me to the unusual observation. I was wondering . . . is there no end to the various posting pseudonymes Dembski uses to create TARD? Must he post under the guise "Galapago Finch" when producing unhumorous TARD? Must he post under teh name "Botnik" when creating spiteful TARD?

Date: 2007/09/07 19:11:37, Link
Author: hooligans
Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 1303
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,13:51 ???
While we're digging, I came across a suspicious domain registration. Whois comes up with Corey Burres of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation of Olympia, Washington as the registering party. Email to Burres went unanswered. Anybody know anything about either entity?

I wrote about the EFF awhile back. I'm a science teacher from Washington. They are funded primarily by the Walton family (Walmart) and, I believe ,are trying to privatize schools not to teach creationism, but rather to profit from opening schools based on their efficient business model. I realize this is just pure speculation. But when you follow the money and you combine the political push and policies implemented by conseravtives. They all point towardds privatizing public education. Why? Most of a states budget is spent on providing education. A free public education. Wouldn't it be nice to privatize it and make crap loads of money? Thats what teh EFF and Walmart wants. I swear it.

Date: 2007/09/09 11:02:36, Link
Author: hooligans
Did anyone else notice the tagline/disclaimer at the bottom of the EvIL Webpage:

The material on this Web site does not necessarily represent the views of, and has not been reviewed or approved by, the employers of the participants in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

So to review . . . the material on "this web site" doesn't represent the views  of anyone?!?! :O

Date: 2007/09/09 22:30:11, Link
Author: hooligans
Neal is Dembski releasing all of his pent up anger. Wouldn't you be angry if every time you opened your mouth you made of fool of yourself?

Date: 2007/09/13 19:44:20, Link
Author: hooligans
I have done a quick analysis of O'leary's blog. My conclusion is that Dense doesn't get out much and she never talks to real people.
posted by Denyse @ 1:13 PM  0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 11:00 AM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 10:13 AM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 9:44 AM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 1:07 AM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 1:04 AM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 12:58 AM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 12:52 AM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 8:49 PM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 8:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 12:59 PM 3 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 10:18 AM 2 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 9:01 AM 0 comments links to this post
posted by Denyse @ 6:49 AM 0 comments links to this post

Date: 2007/09/15 10:26:46, Link
Author: hooligans
Captain, she can't take anymore tard! UD is down.

Date: 2007/09/20 21:50:37, Link
Author: hooligans
I'm getting impatient!!! Where is the transcript of Dembski at OU? I can't wait to read or hear the event. I want to laugh at him. He is sooooooo stoooooopid. I wish I was there!

Date: 2007/09/21 17:30:55, Link
Author: hooligans
Had to save this gem from Rob before it gets deleted.



5:18 pm
“[Peter Irons] forwards to me their response confirming that I am indeed an execrable character”

But John Lilley doesn’t describe you as, nor even imply you to be, “an execrable character”. Perhaps this description is in other e-mails not yet published here. Or will soon be revealed to us in the form of an animated cartoon replete with farting noises.

Date: 2007/09/21 20:36:23, Link
Author: hooligans
Why isn't Dembski posting links to the letter to teh editor at The Lariet? Could it be that the letters basically say that Dembski is a loser? Why yes:

Instead of answering dismissive critics by producing incontestable data, intelligent design advocates resort to juvenile and underhanded tactics to spread their anti-science message.

For the jejune, there's former Baylor professor William Dembski's flash animation of Judge John E. Jones III and others involved in the Dover, Pa. case.

The scholarly-minded Dembski thought it appropriate to intersperse fart noises between comically high-pitched sound bites from the opposition.

Date: 2007/09/22 15:11:35, Link
Author: hooligans
11:33 am
Dr. Dembski,

I think I can see how it could be thought that you had identified the EIL as a Baylor initiative.

On a couple of occasions, you have made reference to “Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab”. To the average layperson, like me, I think that would suggest that Baylor was sponsoring the lab setup.

Also, I hope that this is not too far off topic, but just how much space was occupied by the lab and its staff? What happens to all the equipment that was purchased to set up the lab? Does Baylor get it?

Wait! Wait! I know! Dembski won't answer this question, because the lab didn't actually exist! There was no equipment because you can't test ID. There was no staff, because nobody was interested or had any expertise. The only signs of the lab, are what got created in Dembski's warped mind. Dembski, if you read this, you know I'm right. You know there was no equipment, no space, no staff, there was no thought, no testable hypothesis. You know you won't answer this question because it will reveal that there was nothing get all worked up over at Baylor. This is all just more PR. You are a fool.

Date: 2007/09/22 19:44:54, Link
Author: hooligans
Hey Ftk ,

Can youfind out what Dembski's take on his pantsing at OU is?


Date: 2007/10/30 19:52:22, Link
Author: hooligans
I love visiting Dembki's classroom website. It is a view into the crazy world he lives in as a teacher at SWBTS here is teh midterm study exam:
Study Guide for Midterm Exam, PHILO 4583
Monday, October 22, 2007, 7:00-8:00pm
note: page/chapter numbers, when included, appear in parentheses

In addition to these study questions, please read carefully your class notes, attending to themes and concepts that I highlighted in class.


Why is the Big Bang important to the discussion of design? Why might a world without a beginning be less open to design? (2; see also ch. 1).

How does Darwinism differ from evolution? (8-9)

What is intelligent design? How does it differ from creationism?

What is the difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? (38)

Know basic biographical information about Darwin and his thought. (ch. 5)

What is natural selection and how does it work?

What is eugenics and how is it related to Darwinism? (ch. 6)

How does the actual Scopes Trial differ from its movie portrayal in Inherit the Wind? (ch. 7)

Who are Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould? How did they clash? (ch. 9)

Be able to summarize the Roger DeHart episode. (ch. 13)

What is Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity? Give an example of an irreducibly complex system. Why do irreducibly complex systems pose an obstacle to Darwinian processes? (44-45, 175)

Is design detectible? How? (171-174)

What is science? Is ID science? Why or why not? Is Darwinian evolution science? Why or why not? (ch. 14)

What do you think about the claim that “bad design means no design”? (ch. 15)

What is panspermia? (ch. 15)

Phillip Johnson’s DARWIN ON TRIAL

Why are the fossils a problem for evolutionary theory? What is the Cambrian explosion? What is a phylum? What is the plural form of “phylum”? Explain why the Cambrian explosion is incompatible with common descent. What is common descent? (ch. 4)

How do evolutionists try to justify that evolution is both a fact and a theory? What is the difference between a fact and a theory? (ch. 5)

What is the difference between prebiological and biological evolution? How well do scientists understand prebiological evolution? (ch. 8)

Are there “rules” to science? If so, what are they? Who makes the rules of science? Can they change? Should they change? (ch. 9)

What is the difference between science and pseudoscience? Why do critics regard ID as pseudoscience? Is there a case to be made that Darwinism is itself a pseudoscience? How so? (ch. 12)


What is the Wedge? What is the Wedge Document (see (ch. 2)

What is the National Center for Science Education (see

What is the Santorum amendment? What happened to the amendment? Is it still influential? (240-252)

Be able to name at least five prominent ID proponents and summarize what they are known for in the ID debate and why their work is controversial. (passim)

Because this book is so scattershot and because it is the basis for your critical review, I won’t be asking much about it on the exam. You will need to have read it carefully, though, to write a good review.

Date: 2007/11/12 13:36:00, Link
Author: hooligans
Ans so far his response is all science . . . yeah right!

Date: 2007/11/17 19:24:14, Link
Author: hooligans
Yet Again . . .

15 guests, 8 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >Nomad >Annyday >stevestory >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >jupiter >Paul Nelson >Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/11/18 19:10:30, Link
Author: hooligans
Will BA77 bite at the selection of gibberish that I posted under a pseudonym?

5:02 pm
BA77 . . . regarding #30 . . . I recently delved into sequence divergences within pigs. It also supports your claim. I came across this because I have a brother who works with genetics at the University of Utah. I love math and helped him with the equations. The evidence clearly indicates frontloading.

DNA markers are commonly used for large-scale evaluation of genetic diversity in farm animals (just like dogs). AFLP (a type of genetic marker) are useful for such studies as they can be generated relatively simply. In a study of 59 pig breeds. The average proportion of monomorphic populations was 63% (range across loci: 3%–98%). The variance of sequence divergences across pigs also significantly exceeded the variance expected under the hypothesis of evolutionary relationships alone.

So far I've got a nibble. Lets see. I think we really ought to do more gibberish posts at UD and see how they respond. So far BA77 is using caution.

Date: 2007/12/17 11:17:08, Link
Author: hooligans

Ouchh! Full on backbreaker

Date: 2007/12/19 20:25:03, Link
Author: hooligans
Dembski seez:
when I get time off from my scientific research with Bob Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab

WTF!?! This dude clearly lives in a closet! I was still wondering how long it took to move the lab off of Baylor's campus?

How long could it take to unplug the computer and move it to another broom-closet off campus?

Date: 2007/12/23 11:26:32, Link
Author: hooligans
We have a blue-light special on TARD on aisle 7!

We talk a lot here about Darwin and his theory.

I have used an already condensed version of Darwin’s book to produce an 8 page PDF precis of the famous work. Would anyone be interested in, or strongly object to, my posting a link to it here for comment? Of course it is not even the bare bones of his work but it is an easy to understand introduction.

I have also read Dawkins and the Koran. It is important to know what others think, and what others think we think.

WTF does this have to do with anything. Wow! "I've read Dawkins and the Koran." This sounds like your standard freshman philosophy wannabe spouting off at your local liberal arts college drum circle. "I've also read Dostoevsky. Did you also know I am a vegan-marxist-pacifist. By the way I wrote a book report about Darwin's famous book and got it published online!"

Date: 2007/12/28 18:53:14, Link
Author: hooligans
Is the fossil record complete? Do we have Paul Nelson sightings recorded each time he visits, or is it possible that some of his visits go unrecorded in the fossil record? I don't know . . .  ask DaveScot

29 guests, 13 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >Reciprocating Bill >UnMark >rhmc >Mr_Christopher >dheddle >Maya >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Raevmo >Jbird >clamboy >Annyday >Paul Nelson

Date: 2007/12/28 19:01:55, Link
Author: hooligans
Paul Nelson,

If your able to post becasue your not in Italy where they have no internet could you give us an update about the debate page on the Explore Evolution website. So far there is nothing. How is that public school teacher from Tacoma doing using the new textbook? Could you give us an update?

Date: 2008/01/10 17:24:33, Link
Author: hooligans
You could take an online course from Dr. Dr. D! Wow. Now that would be so cool!

Date: 2008/01/15 12:10:16, Link
Author: hooligans

Date: 2008/01/15 13:32:14, Link
Author: hooligans
I done did an FtK an done gone an deleted my comment and replaced it with a "hi" so as to protect my secret identity at the tardfest going on at UD

Edit: I done gone and used my edit button yehhaaa!

Date: 2008/01/17 09:42:17, Link
Author: hooligans
Censorship! Censorship! All of Shoghi's insightful comments related to frontloading and the development of predictions in ID have done gone and been dissapeared.

I was personally offended that his experiment related to spider propagation in a novel environment was considered beneath those at UD. Holy crap, they will allow comments related to forcefields around DNA!! Please!!! I mean come on, a middle school student who gets censored for expressing ID views at UD. This has got to be brought to the attention of the Expelled Producers.

Date: 2008/01/17 11:56:09, Link
Author: hooligans
I wonder if the great Dr. Dr. was busy at the Jesus Tomb Conference? Time Story on Jesus Tomb Math that uses statistics.

Date: 2008/01/21 19:18:26, Link
Author: hooligans
Crazy, that Shoghi came up with the same idea with his spider experiment. His post got deleted. Now PaV has stolen that middle schoolers ideas and used them for himself.
Is PaV saying that particular seeds trigger frontloaded components to activate?

From an ID perspective, this kind of an experiment is a complete waste of time. What would be valuable, OTOH, is an experiment wherein native Galapagos seeds are fed to controlled populations of G. magnarostris and G. fortis while observing changes to beak size (and other traits that are correlated). You see, ID really is “science”!

ID might be "science" but it's not science.

What Does T. cistoides Have To Do With Darwin’s Finches?

Date: 2008/01/27 11:01:52, Link
Author: hooligans
Thought P said:
One on the activities was what passed as a multi-media presentation of Euclidean geometry where it was explained how Euclid would have demonstrated (A + B)^2 = A^2 + 2AB + B^2 with rectangles and squares instead of numbers.

That's the way most math teachers go about it nowadays. Except at our school we teach these concepts at the 8th grade.

Date: 2008/01/28 13:42:06, Link
Author: hooligans
There has got to be a Dembski meltdown soon. The pressure has been building for awhile.

Date: 2008/01/28 17:01:25, Link
Author: hooligans
Quote (hooligans @ Jan. 28 2008,13:42)
There has got to be a Dembski meltdown soon. The pressure has been building for awhile.

There has got to be a .....

I know, that you know, that the reference works on multiple levels. You know how Vanilla Ice stole that riff for his hit song "Ice, Ice Baby" or whatever. Just like Dembski is a mass plagarizer!!!! Ha Ha Ha! You crazy insane1

Date: 2008/02/01 21:15:08, Link
Author: hooligans

How come there is no discussion of EE at the webpage? I thought the whole point was for the book to foster debate. How is that teacher from Tacoma doing using the new text? How come his students are not posting questions and debating on the website? Are any other public schools using the text? Why is the second edition already in the works?

Date: 2008/02/14 19:43:42, Link
Author: hooligans
Curious. I never really understood the inanity of WmaD arguments regarding information until now. Before I just let you all interpret the tard for me. Now I get it straight from master. Wow. I'm buzzing with tard. WmaD seez:
evolution requires an information source that imparts at least as much information to evolutionary processes as these processes in turn are capable of expressing. In consequence, such an information source (i) cannot be reduced to materialistic causes (e.g., natural selection), (ii) suggests that we live in an informationally open universe, and (iii) may reasonably be regarded as intelligent.

"In consequence . . . .  goddidit." How the hell does he get from his first statement of "evolution requires an information source" to "goddidit?

I just don't understand.

Date: 2008/02/16 17:16:23, Link
Author: hooligans
27 guests, 9 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>hooligans >keiths >Advocatus Diaboli >Lou FCD >Paul Nelson >olegt >Henry J >kbck >oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Date: 2008/02/29 21:45:19, Link
Author: hooligans

Did you actually step foot into the lab? Did you see photos of the equipment? What kind of staff does the lab employ?

Date: 2008/03/10 22:04:56, Link
Author: hooligans
I am impressed with chuckhumpry's ability at sockpuppetry.
9:22 pm
chuckhumphry at 25
Better. Now turn it around and show positive evidence for design information or Complex Specified Information.

Better yet, address the topic of this thread “Haeckel’s Embryos Are Alive” and don’t divert attention into rabbit trails.
He is clearly a master to get DLH to demand positive evidence. But notice, DLH is careful. He asks for only positive evidence for design information or CSI. What the F*ck is design information? Can I go to stonehenge and measure the design information? What is the positive evidence for design information in a fork?

Yeah DLH . . . where is the positive evidence that shows how the CSI has been calculated for a known designed object? I want to see that.

Date: 2008/03/13 11:21:30, Link
Author: hooligans
Mr. Nelson,

I was wondering what you have to say about this issue IN EE I posted back in August:
(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,20:40    

EE states that:  
For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom. “The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,”

Ah yes, yet another example of an argument from ignorance. Hmm, too bad for EE progress is being made in understanding this perplexing problem. Check out this article entitled:South Pacific Plant May Be Missing Link in Evolution Of Flowering Plants

The problem with EE is that it tries to stimulate controversy where, instead, a teacher should stimulate a thirst to understand what is known and where the gaps in knowledge are. This way students will be able to do research to help find answers.

Any thoughts?

Edited to fix quotes

Date: 2008/03/13 11:48:35, Link
Author: hooligans
Mr. Nelson,

Given the quote from EE mentioned above regarding the evolution of flowering plants, how will you incorporate new data rolling in related to this issue?

Developmental Evolution of the Sexual Process in Ancient Flowering Plant Lineages
William E. Friedmana,1 and Joseph H. Williamsb
a Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309
b Department of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996

. . . After a long period of empirical and intellectual stagnation, critical new reproductive data coupled with more robust phylogenetic hypotheses are radically altering the conceptual landscape. Many of the century-old paradigms about the origin and early evolution of flowering plant reproductive features are in the midst of being substantially overthrown.


edited to add link

Date: 2008/03/15 22:53:09, Link
Author: hooligans
Mr. Nelson,

Would you mind updating us on the following article from Student News Daily. It stated back in August that:

This fall, the 34-year teaching veteran will restructure his evenhanded presentation around a new textbook from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007) does not address alternative theories of origins but succinctly lays out the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the most critical elements of Darwinism. "It's made my work a lot easier," Cowan said.

Explore Evolution encapsulates a "teach the controversy" paradigm that the Discovery Institute has advocated for the better part of the past decade. Over that time, the institute has advised school boards against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in their science standards. Some boards have heeded that counsel; others have not.

Hows that little experiment going?

Date: 2008/03/15 22:54:06, Link
Author: hooligans
Are you going to give him a new set of textbooks for free given all the mistakes in the first edition?

Date: 2008/03/20 09:39:55, Link
Author: hooligans

What about the evolution of flowering plants? I'm curious to find out what you think of the current state of research in that field.

Date: 2008/03/23 12:57:56, Link
Author: hooligans
What is the real issue? To me it seems like the issue is as follows:

1: You made a movie wherein those asked to do interviews where asked to do so under false pretenses. You knew they would never agree to a partake in a ID/Creationist piece of propaganda, so you tricked them.

2: Your movie is just plain bad.

3: You are saying that ID has nothing to do with religion, but your actions and connections say otherwise

4: During a free screening PZ was expelled for no apparent reason. Those responsible, lied about why he was expelled. They got caught lying.

5: Your movie tries to conflate Hitler and Genocide with "Darwinism". But it doesn't examine the relationship between Hitler and Religion. Why? I thought you just wanted to look at all the angles?

6: Finally, you are a tool

Date: 2008/03/23 13:03:52, Link
Author: hooligans
Ha Ha. All three of us wondered the same thing. I guess when something is just too obvious it makes sense.

Date: 2008/04/03 16:09:58, Link
Author: hooligans
I second the comment of Mr. Christopher:
(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2008,11:19    

What evidence is not being allowed to be pursued, Kevin?  

Tell us about the evidence.

Yes Kevin. Please tell us about the evidence that is being supressed. I assume that because you just finished making a movie about people who have had their ideas supressed in academic circles, you can give us a list of the ideas that caused this supression. Please be detailed enough so that we can examine the ideas themselves.

Date: 2008/04/05 09:47:26, Link
Author: hooligans

pzoot Posted: April 05 2008,09:23  

You can't make this up.

"Did you mean: Plagiarization"

I think Kevin was trying to make a funny. But, alas, the question goes unanswered. Furthermore, I second, again, oldmanintheskydidit's request to show us what other evidence has been suppressed by academia. Seriously, we should know this. Please inform us. Right now, I am unaware of any data collected that put into doubt evolution's power to explain the diversity of creatures on our planet.

Date: 2008/04/17 09:48:35, Link
Author: hooligans

I know your busy, but I have a few questions for you related to EE that have yet to be addressed. Here they are:

Posted by hooligans: Mar. 15 2008,22:54
Mr. Nelson,

Would you mind updating us on the following article from Student News Daily. It stated back in August that:
This fall, the 34-year teaching veteran will restructure his evenhanded presentation around a new textbook from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007) does not address alternative theories of origins but succinctly lays out the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the most critical elements of Darwinism. "It's made my work a lot easier," Cowan said.
Explore Evolution encapsulates a "teach the controversy" paradigm that the Discovery Institute has advocated for the better part of the past decade. Over that time, the institute has advised school boards against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in their science standards. Some boards have heeded that counsel; others have not.

Hows that little experiment going?  


Posted by hooligans: Mar. 15 2008,22:54  

Are you going to give him a new set of textbooks for free given all the mistakes in the first edition?  


Mr. Nelson,

I was wondering what you have to say about this issue IN EE I posted back in July:

Posted: July 13 2007,20:40    

EE states that:    

For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom. “The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,”  

Ah yes, yet another example of an argument from ignorance. Hmm, too bad for EE progress is being made in understanding this perplexing problem. Check out this article entitled:South Pacific Plant May Be Missing Link in Evolution of Flowering Plants

The problem with EE is that it tries to stimulate controversy where, instead, a teacher should stimulate a thirst to understand what is known and where the gaps in knowledge are. This way students will be able to do research to help find answers.  

Any thoughts?

Thanks for looking into these questions. I'm real curios if you talk about the evolution of flowering plants. Apparently quite a bit of work has been accomplished recently that helps answer this tough question.

Date: 2008/04/18 16:39:15, Link
Author: hooligans
Here's another review from
It’s apeshit crazy nuttiness right from the opening moments of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, as imagery of Nazi atrocities and the terrors of life behind the Berlin War are smugly deployed in a demented attempt to editorialize away basic scientific fact.

Gotta love that review!

Date: 2008/04/18 20:08:22, Link
Author: hooligans
Thanks Casey!

I haven't said much about you, but I sure thought some bad things about you. You are dishonest. Virtually everything that comes from your mouth is a lie.

Have a nice day.

Date: 2008/04/23 11:42:45, Link
Author: hooligans
My questions, Paul, should only take a second to answer. Would you mind? I'm curious.

Just look up the board for full questions. To summarize:
1: How is Cowan doing with EE? Are you giving him a new set of texts, given the vast quantity of errors in the 1st edition?

2: Flowering plants. What's up witht the new research that appears to cast doubt on the wording you use in EE regarding their evolution? Will you incorporate some of these ideas? Why or why not?


Date: 2008/04/29 15:19:09, Link
Author: hooligans
Mr. Nelson,

I am still curious about how well the EE textbook was recieved at Curtis Highschool in Tacoma. Did Doug Cowan give you favorable reviews and feedback for the next edition? He endorsed your book early on, but now that the school year is almost over, and given the huge quantity of errors in the 1st edition, will he be given a new set of texts?

Furthermore, I thought the whole point of the debate page on the EE website was to offer a forum to debate the ideas outlined in the text. Why is it that no students are using the forum to debate the topics outlined in the text? I would at least expect some homeschool groups to be using it.

Could you also get back to me about hte flowering plants?



Date: 2008/05/21 12:05:28, Link
Author: hooligans
Alan Fox said
I know I've said this before but if all AtBC sockpuppets and anyone else* with such honourable intentions would stop holding a mirror up to the likes of UD regulars, I predict the thread content would quickly deteriorate to the level of the resident acolytes.

Could we organize a one-two week period wherein all sock puppets do not particiate at UD. Or even more radically, a complete no-peeky at UD for a one-two week period?

I know it would be hard for all you tard addicts, but think of how their traffic would fall!!!! Any other people curious to see this happen? I am

Date: 2008/05/30 14:58:58, Link
Author: hooligans
I'm curious if anyone has bothered to check in with some of hte people who endorsed the 1st version of Explore Evolution. One was Doug Cowan from George R. Curtis Senior High School Biology near Tacoma, WA.

He said:  
Explore Evolution is an excellent resource for those who wish to study the topic of neo-Darwinian evolution objectively. The standard pillars of the theory are examined from all sides objectively, but more importantly, civilly. The inquiry approach is excellent for students as they use critical thinking skills to "explore" cutting edge information in an evidence for and evidence against format, leaving room for further debate and questions. The students can follow the evidence wherever it leads and form their own conclusions, or as Charles Darwin said, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"

His email is  dcowan AT upsd DOT wednet DOT edu. The department chair of biology at his school is Peter Heussman. His email is pheussman AT upsd DOT wednet DOT edu

I happen to know that they are doing a textbook adoption this year. I wonder, now that the year is over, if Explore Evolution was one of the texts piloted? I wonder what decision was made? I wonder what feedback Doug Cowan or Peter Heussman have for Paul Nelson. Perhaps someone should enquire? I'm rather shy.

Date: 2008/06/11 16:38:10, Link
Author: hooligans
I thought I'd Highlight Davescottttt's dangerous liasons with gravity. This was back when I first commented on UD. I knew virtually nothing about ID. I love it when he say's back in June of 2006 :
So you’re saying that in a neutron star the electromagnetic force is stronger than gravity and electrons and protons still repulse each other with enough force to remain separate? You’re wrong if you do. The problem here is one of comparing apples to oranges. Gravity is additive and when enough particles are involved the additive property overwhelms the other three forces. Ultimately the universe is governed by gravity. It is the strongest of all the forces in the big picture. -ds

Date: 2008/06/13 14:35:35, Link
Author: hooligans
Perhaps one of the funniest posts I have ever read from Sal:
The general mood among my associates is that the Darwinists haven’t even begun to see what will be unleased on them. They’ve only been sparring with scouting parties so far, they haven’t seen yet a truly organized and large-scale assault yet, but they will…

The main reason a large-scale organized assult will happen is that the Darwinists no longer have a monopoly on the dissemination of information. Their tactics of censorship and intimidation don’t work like they used to….

Cheap access to the interenet and video and teleconferencing cannot be policed by them. These communication mediums are not yet even being fully leveraged, but they will be, and as they are leveraged the great Berlin Wall will collapse.

Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID.

This guy is so delusional it makes me laugh. He Sal, if you're going to win the youth over, how about starting by getting more than 1 comment per week at Overwhelming Evidence.

Another funny picture . . . misinformed youth speaking up in high school and college classes trying to show off how smart they got while watching some crazy preacher in the basement of their local church. Wow! Sal, I'm shaking in my boots already.

Date: 2008/06/17 14:28:01, Link
Author: hooligans
Thanks for the assinine tag. I also checked it off. Don't forget to check of fugly sweater as well!!!  LOL

Date: 2008/06/30 18:41:08, Link
Author: hooligans
uhh . . . lcd . . . Dembski pioneered childish tantrums . . . matter o'fact, he is often referred to as the "Dick Buttkiss of childish humor/tantrums". Some call him the Isaac Newton of Infantile Behavior. To further educate yourself on his childish tactics I suggest you read John Kwok's review of the new book. It gives a good overview. Or you can dig into the tard mines here at AtBC and find it all.

Date: 2008/07/02 22:08:29, Link
Author: hooligans
I just need to say that the Amazon page for Dembski's new book makes me chuckle aloud each time I look at it. The tags on it are a crack up. Poor Dembski. He has a pack of scrub jays hounding his every move. I love that. You will fail dembski . . . you are just a grown up version of the kid we tied to the leaky downspout during a torrential downpour. We enjoy picking on you because you're such an easy target.

Date: 2009/06/07 22:44:58, Link
Author: hooligans
Great advertisements on UD . . . I bet all the guys there actually think these women will stay married to them. Women of China

Date: 2009/07/05 22:32:50, Link
Author: hooligans
Thought this was Funny . . .

I have great respect for your contributions here at UD. I also find DK et al rather annoying and patronizing.

In regards to your friend that was part of the team at JPL. I can sympathize with him. I too have worked on projects wherein we simulated physical phenomena and then ended up not capturing the true complexity of the event with our simulation. I assume you suggested to your friend that they should have turned the computer they ran the simulations on upside down. This would have fixed the problem.

Date: 2009/07/21 14:24:48, Link
Author: hooligans
Roasting Gil .. . AGAIN!! LOL!!!



2:13 pm

Don’t give up again!!!! I love your ideas about modeling systems! As I stated on another thread I teach programming to vacation bible home schoolers. This week we are modeling roller coasters and I have special permission from the park to have the kids program their roller coaster simulations while actually riding the roller coaster. Our control group in this little comparison study will use laptops at the base of the ride and remain fairly stationary. We have hypothesized that those on the roller coaster will end up with more accurate models/simulations than those at the base.

This was inspired by your ideas so thank you!!!

Date: 2009/07/24 12:40:19, Link
Author: hooligans
Check out this interesting find. Every once in awhile I'll check out Dembski's syllabi that he puts online at his Design Inference website. he is teaching a new undergraduate course and ID an UNintelligent Evolution.

First off, does he think that just because evolution doesn't have the word intelligent in it makes it dumb and that becasue ID does that makes it smart. I think he is dumb.

Second, he requires students to create "At least 10 posts defending aspects of the Christian worldview totaling at least 3,000
words on “hostile” websites — 10 percent positive. "

No wonder there has been a sharp uptick in tard the last year.

Date: 2009/07/24 12:43:49, Link
Author: hooligans
Oh yeah . .  he also deals with some special needs students:

Individuals with documented impairments who may need special circumstances for exams, classroom participation, or assignments should contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester in order for special arrangements to be considered.

Damn, that must be his whole class!!!! They are already going to Southwest Tardilogical Seminary.

Date: 2009/07/24 12:48:29, Link
Author: hooligans
Dembskis apologetics Final Exam . . .
Please answer each of the following questions in 500 words or less. Answer every part of each question. Be concise. This exam is open-book, but  you can only consult general reference books (e.g., the Bible), the  five books read in class, and the notes you took in class. You may not cruise the Internet in search of answers or in any way seek the help of others. Your completed exam needs to be emailed to the grader, Jack Greenoe, by Thursday 12:00 noon. In turning this paper in you agree, on pain of divine judgment, that this is entirely your own work.

Answer the following questions [20 points each, no more than 500 words per question]:

1. Defend the Vincentian Canon to a 21st century skeptic of Christianity.

2. You just learned that your nephew or niece is going off to study theology at a liberal seminary. You suspect the place is teeming with “Homer Wilsons,” i.e., professors intent on eroding any real faith of the seminary students. Write a letter to your nephew or niece outlining the pitfalls that they are likely to face and how they should protect their faith from eroding.  

3. According to Richard Dawkins, faith is believing in the absence of evident. By contrast, Nancy Pearcey argues that the attempt to remove Christian faith from the realm of knowledge and evidence has led to Christianity’s cultural captivity. Make the case that Christian faith is a matter not of subjective opinion but of objective knowledge.

4. No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles). Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a well-confirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?

5. Philosopher and theologian Nancey Murphy, who is on the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary, argues that humans do not have a soul, that soul is a Greek invention, and that the original Hebrew understanding of the human person was as a purely physical being. Thus, for her, our immortality consists not in having immortal souls but in the prospect of God resurrecting us to a new physical existence. Contra Murphy, argue that we do have a soul and that it is more than our physical bodies.

Date: 2009/07/27 16:33:16, Link
Author: hooligans
Uh oh! The evil materialist forces have mounted against Dr. Hunter . . . How will he respond?

I predict he will ban Khan, who has throughly thrashed him on the subject of how evolution is just like religion . . .

The last three comments on UD put Dr. Hunter in a difficult place:

Khan corners the opponent . .
4:00 pm
ps Cornelius,
spontaneous generation was adopted by Christianity and many people (including Augustine) wrote about how it was compatible with Biblical teachings. so it does have religious implications, meaning that microbiology is also religious in nature.

utidjian lays down the backbreaker
Anyhow…. back to the OP: I have not seen PZ Myers or Jerry Coyne misrepresenting science. Coyne is not making “theological arguments” (that I can see) but he is making arguments about evolution vs “design.” Are scientific arguments about “design theory” or “intelligent design” now theological arguments? Hunter, how do you delineate where the science stops and the theology begins?

ScottAndrews brings the hurt . .  .
Still I can’t follow the “evolution is religious” idea. Yes, they occasionally draw contrasts to creationism, which isn’t very scientific. And there’s the optimistic faith in yet nonexistent evidence. But that’s more dogmatic than outright religious.
Comparing the two opposing viewpoints on their merits makes sense. But I think the idea that evolution is religious is a really, really hard sell, and I don’t see what the benefit is.

90 DegreeAngel sez it like it is . . .

Dr. Hunter, you keep saying “oh its religious alright!!!” But you have NO sound reasoning. No logical argumentation. AND you ideas constantly get thrashed by those like Khan. Please sir!!! Explain yourself because right now it just sounds like bluster…

Date: 2009/07/28 15:01:05, Link
Author: hooligans
Silent ban of 90DegreeAngel was recorded for challenging Corny Hunter regarding religious nature of evolution.

Date: 2009/08/10 17:36:00, Link
Author: hooligans
First of all, I just wanted to say that I was the one to point out Dembski's kooky teaching methods. I was waiting to see his response and . . . yes it has arrived! My favorite part:  
In any case, I’ll make you a deal: let Darwinist, atheist, skeptic, freethinking, and infidel websites state prominently on their homepage the following disclaimer — “Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Prohibited” — and I’ll make sure my students don’t post on your sites.

The Irony !!!! LOL . . Man . .. you cannot make up that kind of delsional wackiness. AWWW poor Dembski got his panties in a bunch becasue his students might get banned for debating ideas!!! HAHAHAHAH you are completly MAD, MAD, MAd

Update: 1st post on the thread:



5:21 pm
I did a quick pass through the course descriptions and its pretty scary stuff.
Can this be called an education ?

Date: 2010/09/16 18:14:55, Link
Author: hooligans
A post that will not show up at UD because I was banned more than four times. The first when I suggested to Dembski that it was unchristian to call Judge Jones names . . . This one goes out to Gil "gotta love the ego" Dodgen . . .
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

A great example of Gil’s logic, reason, and evidence (i.e., the ID movement) that represent the greatest threat to the reigning nihilistic and anti-intellectual Darwinian orthodoxy is how he suggested that computer models won’t be effective until you actually expose the computer itself to the conditions being modeled. Like for example, if your modeling projectile motion, you should throw the computer out of a plane while it is doing the computations. It is this kind of thinking that makes Gil an invaluable commentator at UD. keep up the good work!