AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

form_srcid: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

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: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/07/26 03:00:10, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

First I'd like to thank getzal for that wonderful example.  Here's a case in which you have no clue as to what you are talking about nor could you (unless you actually knew me, of course) and yet you make these absurd statements with absolute conviction and take them as fact.  Thank you.

Odd, this sounds exactly like yours and the creationist position. Taking absurd statements as fact. Pot/Kettle? And, this may be news to you, but we do know you, via your work on this board. Are you saying that if we knew you in real life we'd have a totally different impression then the one we do now? I think not...


As to the evidence, there is a difference between a data set and the extrapolations made from the data set.  A perfect example is the apparent fact that we are the only signs of life in the universe.  Outside of some hints on Mars and other space debris, we have no direct evidence of life beyond our planet.  That's the data and it is used by both sides of this debate to further their own case.  Creationists say God created only one planet, etc and so forth.  Evolutionists say that the random events that played a role in the emergence of life have not occurred anywhere else in our observable range.  Same data two opposing conclusions.

Except for the fact that people are looking for life beyond our planet. If creationists say that god only made life on one planet, they are hardly going to look elsewhere for it? If they found it, that would kinda disprove their belief. So they are not going to look are they? Same data, two opposing conclusions but only one of those conclusions has within it the potential to discover more (hint, not the creationist position).


On my side, I offer a potential theory concerning the mechanism of mutation and supply data as support and it is ignored or derided.  Why?  Because it threatens the cornerstone of evolutionary belief and that is random mutation.  Random mutation must be defended for two reasons. 1) It reinforces an atheist philosophy, and 2) It is the very concept that is attacked by creationists so it must be opposed.  The funny thing is "random" mutation can not be measured, observed or duplicated in the lab because it is random so there is no hard data to support random mutation outside of the fact that we have to in order to uphold atheism.  I think Dawkins summed it up when he said that Darwin made it possible for him to be an intellectually honest atheist.

You have a high opinion of your evidence. Dont forget, you can convince everybody on this board, but that wont change a thing. We are not the ones that need to see your evidence. It's the peer reviewed journals out there that you should be sending your evidence to. Anybody can propose a theory. Propose an experiment that we can use to prove/disprove your theory.


Now as far as science not being in the business of finding Truth, that is exactly right.  But, Eric, then you go and contradict yourself by impling that science (or the facts) prove that religions are bogus.  Science has nothing at all to say about the existence of God, nor can it or should it.  The existence of God is not an observable, testable hypothesis and to imply otherwise is just wrong, or as Pauling would say, not even wrong.

So, if we equate god with your designer (if not, why not?) then why exactly are you trying to say? You seem to be attempting to say that evolution cannot work with out a god or other " EXTRA SPATIAL VDU TERMINAL WORKER" inputting data, yet here you say that science cannot prove or disprove god exists. It's one or the other i'm afraid - if not, what exactly are creationists trying to achieve other then "proving" god exists by showing that current biological compexity cannot have happened on it's own. You are right about one thing, "you can prove anything with facts".
Oh, could you also (as you deny that Speciation has been observed) debunk any single instance in Observed Instances of Speciation at talkorigins? Just a link will do, if that's the best you can manage. I promise i'll examine any evidence with an open mind.

Date: 2006/08/01 09:04:31, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 01 2006,07:49)
Ichy, thank you for that incredibly useful and relevant post.  You can crawl back into your hole now.

as a matter of fact, it was quite a good post. It contained a couple of facts - the date the thread started, which can be independently verified. Facts are good.  I find it odd you find the time to respond to such a post when there are many more outstanding issues you would be better off addressing.

Date: 2006/08/01 22:04:26, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2006,22:55)
Do Myspace pages count as peer-reviewed?

August 1, 2006
Evolution Questions Network
More student activism to unmask evolutionary pretensions:


Filed under: Education, Darwinism — William Dembski @ 8:52 pm
Comments (1)

At this point, I believe they have more blogs, than publications.

exactly. And the content is really nothing new - surprise, surpirse.
what i dont understand is how is this "student activism", just because the pages are on places "students" are found (myspace). Show me the 100's of students "debating"! It is not happening.
oh " Evolution Questions has 2 friends" on myspace. grass roots activism indeed

Date: 2006/08/05 01:52:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 05 2006,06:37)
1) The Mid-Ocean Ridge which appears to be a massive "rip" in the earth's surface
2) Folded mountain ranges which extend almost the full length of North and South America -- it appears that the entire landmass took a westward ride away from the MAR and then had a very sudden stop while sediments were still soft
3) Massive quantities of sedimentary rock -- this indicates massive quantities of WATER, does it not?  Or would you propose gasoline?  Elmer's glue perhaps?  Maybe another liquid which no longer exists?
4) Tons of marine fossils on mountain tops indicating they used to be underwater
5) The fact of billions of fossils all over the earth argues strongly for CATASTROPHIC burial ... not slow burial
6) Saltwater found in deep holes in Bavaria and Russia

...and these are just some of the evidences I have covered ...

do you have any links/references with those nibbles?

Date: 2006/08/06 04:28:00, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
speaking a a layperson:
Searching for “Multiple Banding of Sediments Deposited During a Single Season" in google gives 2 results.

Both are promoting creationism. If this work was so significant, would there not be more hits then that and on non-creationist sites? All the articles/books you cite are relatively old. Unless you have been keeping up with the literature since 1947 or thereabouts (timestamp on one of your refernces), how can you be sure that this work you reference has not been superseded?

Link To Google Search

Date: 2006/08/08 10:09:49, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

It’s a question of rebellion. Scientific evidence leads me simply to regard materialism as nonsense.

Comment by William Dembski — August 8, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

1st comment now reads this. Somebody better tell Bill that somebody is impersonating him.
That, or, well.....whats your guess at to what  Scientific evidence means to him?

Date: 2006/08/09 02:34:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
1st off, i dont claim to be an expert in biology, but i think i've thought of an example of a testable IC item (like it's needed, but bear with me :)

We know that we can genetically engineer animals to express human proteins. I am always reminded of Larry Nivens Sci-fi work, where a now extinct civilisation left behind animals that were very handy indeed (eat anything, provide usefull work) and you would be hard pressed to say they evolved due to natual selection as they possessed features of no use to the animal itself.
It's sci-fi, remember!

Now, if a human protein (which is of no use/consequence to the animal itself) is expressed in (say) the milk of the animal, then would you (if it was defined in a meaningfull way) be able to use IC to say "there was no way for this protein to come into existance via evolution, therefore it must have been ID'd" as ID says (if i understand such a neblous concept correctly) one if the indicators of design is if there is no previous "version" that is also functional (but less functional then the current version) then you could not "step up" to the current usefull construction of the item.

Obviously, it was "designed" into the animal (by humans) but would ID be able to determine this in a rigourous manner suitable for peer-review? If so, what are they going on about? If not, what are they going on about?  And all you have to work on is the animal itself, deviod of all other information regarding possible creators.

Of course, i know that the answer is that they dont do research of their own, but in theory is this plausable?

Date: 2006/08/10 02:55:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
what gets me is that why does AFD feel the need to say/prove that the flood water was all underground 1st off and the Gawd made it erupt and flood the earth. If Gawd can do that, cant he just make the water appear from no-where instantly? Why does it have to be underground 1st off, what's the reasoning there? Is there some set of rules for Gawd, like for the Asended beings in stargate, i.e he cant interfere directly (create the actual water itself) but can pull the plug and let it erupt.
Great site btw, CSALOCL - i'm totally clear now (those pesky unnamed "european scientists" proving their case for them!;)

Date: 2006/08/10 04:12:45, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
the funny thing is that i went to a school run by Monks, in the UK. A roman catholic school even. We had mass in the chapel in the actual school, prayers, even a G.C.S.E exam on religion (Religious education, i failed!;).
We also had a perfectly good science education, better then most schools at the time even. Not once, ever, was there the slightest hint of incompatability between what we were taught in science and what we were taught in Religious education. We understood, even if it was not stated  explicitly, that the two lessons were not about the same worldview. The religion class was really more like a philosophy  class then anything else. It certanly was not trying to disprove what we'd just learnt 10 minutes earlier in biology!
So, take heart, even if you have schools that mix religion and science then they can still spit out people like me that were not conned to believe in the oldmaninthesky without critically examining the reasons for there belief (or, in my case, disbelief).

Date: 2006/08/10 21:58:08, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (improvius @ Aug. 10 2006,21:32)
Quote (JonF @ Aug. 10 2006,20:30)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2006,18:47)
seriously AssHatDave, what the F%@ck is wrong with you? I had posted that before...i can post 100 different things that all tie in with the  kaibab...but you're MENTAL , meaning you have some form of mental disease that keeps you from seeing what is put in front of your face....what IS wrong with you?

I have NO reason but to conclude at this point , that given what you have done...that you are mentally ill.

He's got he worst case of Morton's Demon I've ever seen.  The combination of that, extreme ignorance, no intellectual capability, and compulsive lying gives us ... our Davie!

Seriously, though, what do you people expect him to say?  We know his job is selling creo tracts to kids.  Is it in any way feasible for him to just say, "Gosh, you science people really do have a point.  My life and livelihood are based on ignorance and lies.  I guess I'll just find something else to do instead."  Dave is invested in creo propaganda - both psychologically and financially - up to his beady little eyeballs.  There is no way whatsoever he can back out of it now.

i think part of his "plan" is to get people so angry that they respond with "swear words" (oooh). Then, he can take pictures,  and say "look how the evo-bots react when they get caught in a lie".
From this thread, i've learnt more about geology then i knew existed before - mutiple dating methods, how to date samples that cannot be dated (age of the fossils etc) via normal methods.
It's a shame that the level of proof AFD demands is not the same level of proof he applies to the Bible.
Tell you what, why dont you tell us what dating methods you accept as working, and we can go from there.
"I stared at it for 1 hour, therefore it's at least 1 hour old"

Date: 2006/08/12 01:57:33, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,06:39)
1) It washed everything away BEFORE redepositing those layers.
2) Then it deposited the layers as the continents and ocean basins were shifting
3) Then the receding phase commenced and the waters ran off the land into the enlarged ocean basins
4) There was some water trapped in lake with debris dams
5) Some debris dams broke and released massive quantitites of water in a short period of time (Grand Canyon, Palouse Canyon, etc.)

but HOW do you know this? Where you there when it happened?
On one side i see references, work, books, efforts to work out what's going on in a methodical way. What are you offering?
What is a "receding phase" ? Is god whispering in your ear? Where are you getting your information from?....
Why dont you just go back to teaching 10 year olds, who'll be trusting you to tell the truth. Nobody here is getting converted, quite the opposite. Before i started reading here i would have been quite happy to let people like you believe what you want. Belief is a personal matter. Now, i'll take every opportunity to fight you and those like you.
Ah, perhaps when you were flying your jet fighters (yeah, right) you were so close to heaven that you could hear God dictating the next verion of the bible, and you are a prophet come down to teach us how silly we've all been. Ad hominem, perhaps. Do.nt care anymore.

Date: 2006/08/12 11:03:00, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,15:32)
Jonny, Jonny, Jonny ... you're from MIT right?

From Wikipedia (and probably anyplace else I might happen to look) ...
Formation [of sedimentary rocks]
Sedimentary rocks are formed from overburden pressure as particles of sediment are deposited out of air, ice, or water [Shameful of you pretending that I'm stupid for saying sedimentation usually involves water] flows carrying the particles in suspension. As sediment deposition builds up, the overburden (or 'lithostatic';) pressure squeezes the sediment into layered solids in a process known as lithification ('rock formation';) and the original connate fluids are expelled.

Now, JonF, my opinion is that MOST sedimentary rocks we see in the Grand Staircase appear to be water laid.

Before we go further, are you denying this?  If so, what % would you say are water laid?


Secondly, of course sediments are accumulating at the Mississippi delta and other similar deltas ...

I was talking about ABOVE WATER ...

If you want to talk about river deltas, then you are going to be in much deeper water (ha, ha) than you already are.

But I'll be content to bury you one point at a time ...

Back to the above ground sediments ...

I say that most of the Grand Staircase is WATER LAID.  Do you disagree?

just a couple of questions:

1: have you been to the grand canyon?
2: If the water event made all canyons at once, it seems logical that they will all be "pointing" the same way (unless every point on the globe was the source of the water). Are they? If not, how do you explain this?
3: Do you think, that even if you can "demolish" the current dating schema for the grand canyon that this then provides evidence for your viewpoint?
4: You said that your evidence for circular reasoning re: dating of the layers is coming along nicely. Will you be collating this data and submitting it to a peer-reviewed publication? If not, why not?
5: what exact percentage of the Grand staircase appears to be water laid to you ("most" is not a percentage). How did you determine this?
6: Do you really think thousands of hard working normal everyday scientists are involved in a conspiracy to prevent the truth coming out? Could they really live with themeslves day in day out making up results that not only are internally self consistant, but consistant with experiments carried out by unrelated groups of people (on other continents, who've not heard of eatch other).
7: Do you believe radioactive elements decay and this decay duration can be simply stated as it's half-life?
8: If you accept that (say) 3 of the 25 layers have been dated, this does in fact mean that the earth is in fact millions of years old - 3 or 25 datings, it's the same, why is 25 more believable then 3? Does not 1 single instance disprove your theory (i.e then there's missions of years for this to have happened). If not, what's your specific problem with the dating method used?

Date: 2006/08/12 11:28:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,16:15)
just a couple of questions:

1: have you been to the grand canyon?
2: If the water event made all canyons at once, it seems logical that they will all be "pointing" the same way (unless every point on the globe was the source of the water). Are they? If not, how do you explain this?
3: Do you think, that even if you can "demolish" the current dating schema for the grand canyon that this then provides evidence for your viewpoint?
4: You said that your evidence for circular reasoning re: dating of the layers is coming along nicely. Will you be collating this data and submitting it to a peer-reviewed publication? If not, why not?
5: what exact percentage of the Grand staircase appears to be water laid to you ("most" is not a percentage). How did you determine this?
6: Do you really think thousands of hard working normal everyday scientists are involved in a conspiracy to prevent the truth coming out? Could they really live with themeslves day in day out making up results that not only are
7: Do you believe radioactive elements decay and this decay duration can be simply stated as it's half-life? I

1) No.  However, one does not need to go to know that most of the sediments are water laid.  One reason we know this is because of the marine fossils in many of the layers.
2) No need for them to "point" the same way.  Canyons were formed when debris dams burst.  Dams could have been facing any direction.
3) Yes.  It provides some evidence that the Bible is accurate when it speaks of the Great Flood of Noah.
4) No.  As I have said many times here, I have an undergraduate engineering degree, not an advanced science degree and I am not involved in publishing scientific papers in conventional peer-reviewed journals.  At some point, if I were to get an advanced degree of some type, I might have an interest in publishing in Creationist journals.  At the moment I am involved in publishing children's material.
5) I have not come up with a figure yet, but I intend to find out.  My guess would be at least 80%.
6) Of course not.  I think they want to be accepted by their peers.  And to do that they must think WITHIN the box.  It is the same dynamic that causes many kids in  school to wear the same kind of jeans, wear their hair the same, listen to the same kind of music, etc.
7) Yes.

fair enougth.

Date: 2006/08/15 09:21:01, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Aug. 15 2006,13:21)
Just before you get too excited Dave I think I should just point out a couple of things:

a) the survey was all students not just science not just science students

b) the survey is based on self selection, so what it actually tells us is of the people with a email address (includes anyone who works at a UK university including secretaries, IT technicians etc), who are registered with the website and decided to fill in the survey.

c) most people in the UK think that intelligent design is the same thing as theistic evolution

regarding point c) - spot on. In fact, not a single person i've ever spoken to in my life knows the "creepy USA fairytale" of ID.
And i went to a school run by Monks. If anybody was going to push GODDIDIT it would have been them, i assure you.

Date: 2006/08/16 08:31:02, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
here's a quote for you Dave:
"The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars"
1925, A Hitler.

While you may not be an expert liar here, to those kids you poison you are.

Date: 2006/08/16 10:43:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (notta_skeptic @ Aug. 16 2006,15:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 16 2006,14:31)
here's a quote for you Dave:
"The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars"
1925, A Hitler.

While you may not be an expert liar here, to those kids you poison you are.

Oh, geez, now you've gone and done it! The thread's been Godwinned.  Definition

Thanks. Thanks a lot. It was really starting to heat up, too. I had a couple of questions for Dave myself, but didn't want to take things in another direction while he was *blindly* arguing in circles. :p

i know, i'm sorry :) i just happened to read it in this weeks private eye magazine, and the 1st person i thought of was Dave.
Dont worry, i think we have an exception in this case, as the law states the dicsussion will be over shortly. In this case, nothing short of nuclear war would stop it i suspect.

more here, if you are wondering....

Date: 2006/08/16 12:01:09, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 16 2006,16:56)
SFBDave: Does that help clarify my position for you?

We all know your position by now Dave.

whats the view like from in there DavE?

Date: 2006/08/18 10:03:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 18 2006,14:57)
Trust me on one thing Davey, I've met people in your situation before and I actually feel sorry for you.
I don't trust you an anything and no you don't.  You hate my guts and all people who think like me.  Which is too bad for you but oh well.  Hating people turns your heart black.  (not literally, guys, calm down--it's a figure of speech)

Further, I expect to be treated with the politeness and courtesy afforded a guest-- in return, I speak to you with the politeness and courtesy given to a host. The moment you fail to do that is the moment you wind up with some serious problems. Bring a bodyguard if you like, but that won't help either of you much, should you fail to meet my requirements above.
So if I call you an idiot to your face, you're gonna karate kick me unconscious and then slit my throat?

and that proves the earth is 6k old how exactly? perhaps you'd get a better reaction by addressing some of the outstanding points.
how old do you think the Universe as a whole is Dave?

Date: 2006/08/18 10:15:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
What i dont understand, and please do enlighten me, is why exactly the preponderence of evidence certanly (and you must admit this, fossils etc, at least enougth to convince non-christian scientists around the world with no axe to grind or preconcieved basis on how things are, and thousands of them) points to an ancient earth yet somehow you *know* it's not.
If it's really 6000 years old then why's gawd gone to all the trouble of doing it's best to make it look much older, so much so that even creationists studying rock formations originally *had* to admit they were wrong? Is it to seperate the true belivers from the non-believers or something?
sorry about this to the regulars, i'm sure you are groaning, but i want to know!

Date: 2006/08/18 11:06:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 18 2006,16:01)
I doubt he'd be interested.  Dave has been quite clear in telling us that he is here to argue, not learn.

I told you once, I'm not allowed to argue with you unless you've paid.

OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse......


Date: 2006/08/19 09:16:08, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 19 2006,13:53)
Of course I believe in miracles.  But God does not use them often.  He allows natural processes to operate most of the time.

ah, a prohpet among us, who knows the mind of god. What else does God not do often Dave? And how old do you think the universe is Dave?

Date: 2006/08/19 09:55:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 19 2006,14:51)

However, I won't shake your hand and I won't treat you as a friend or tolerate your attempts to be such. Further, I expect to be treated with the politeness and courtesy afforded a guest-- in return, I speak to you with the politeness and courtesy given to a host. The moment you fail to do that is the moment you wind up with some serious problems. Bring a bodyguard if you like, but that won't help either of you much, should you fail to meet my requirements above.

If that bodyguard's Russian, not only will it "help", you'll end up shining Dave's shoes after you wake up. Please look at who owns whom in Boxing, MMA, and Wrestling. So take that trash talkin' mouth elsewhere, honey.

yawns. we can see what turns you on honey.

Date: 2006/08/19 10:01:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 19 2006,12:55)
I'll be happy to put my microscope on your Atlantic basalt dating at some point, just as I am right now putting my microscope on the KBS Tuff and how it relates to the dating of the Grand Staircase.

Will you still be around?  Will you hate life as much as these guys are when I put my microscope on your question?  You've seen them curse and spit and call me names because they have no facts to refute my objections.  We'll see what you do ... maybe you'll be more polite being from France ... we shall see ...

the difficulty (well, one of them) i have with your position is how can you even trust what your microscope tells you?
When you are using it to "examine" the KBS Tuff, how do you know that a miracle is not happening to alter the photons to show you something different to what is really there, as they travel from the sample to your (ID designed) eyes.
If you allow miracles once, then upon what basis do you claim they are rare? their frequency in the bible? Well, alot there last time  i checked, kinda the whole point in a way.
So, how can you trust your microscope? How can anything be trusted if miracles abound? Are you saying that the universal "plan" is faulty and gawd has to fix it up sometimes with a miracle, like keeping a spinning top going? you cant refute facts with rhetoric.
pah. refute this

Date: 2006/08/19 11:56:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 19 2006,16:31)
Faid--  I guess your going to go chasing off on a rabbit trail for about 10 pages trying to say how stupid I am that I think EB said fossils are primary (like you did with your  Portuguese bandwagon that kept crashing) ... well, go ahead because, guess what ...


Oh ... and "Why do you bother?"  ... beats me ... I never see you say anything on topic anymore, so I ask myself that same question too ...

Steve Story...  
It's very common for pseudoscience screeds to misuse basic terminology in a field.
Says "Mr. Exponential Sedimentary Layers"

Jeannot--  Before I answer your latest question, tell me ... what do think the definition of a "miracle" is ...

in the context of this thread, it would be a miracle if you presented some evidence of your own, rather then pick apart other theorys (not that you do that, you just think you do). you define miracles, you just said you believed in them. Or is this typical creo crap? you get to say "i believe in miracles, and i get to define what they are after the fact".
I can see that being useful, like a +2 refutation card. handy in many situations.

how old is the universe Dave? Or shall we try a simpler one? How old is the sun?

Date: 2006/08/19 12:45:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 19 2006,17:33)
So, how can you trust your microscope? How can anything be trusted if miracles abound?
We take a break from our regularly scheduled programming to answer this question ...

This is really not complicated at all ...

IF you believe there is a Creator (and I do since the evidence--that Eric is too blind to see and keeps droning that it isn't evidence--points toward one), then you would expect Him to interact with His creation.  But you would not expect Him to necessarily interact on a second by second basis any more than a human creator would do that with one of his creations.  I like the gardening analogy ... a garden is a human creation.  But the gardener does not interact constantly with the garden to make it grow.  He interacts briefly to till, then plant, then weed, then water, etc.  But the rest of the time, he let's natural laws do their thing.  See?  Why should it be different with God?

well, because there's alot of universe out there for a start. what's so special about this bit?

and, dont you think, following your analogy, that we'd notice the interactions? and by noticing them and ruling out all other options, we could derive absolute proof of gods existence? and then where does that leave belief? it becomes unnecessary, if we have absolute proof. and of course, this also would "prove" old bee-le-ze-bub himself exists, would you not agree?

so, we're back to the old saw - why would god water the plants, and then give them cancer?

how old is the universe Dave?
how old is the Sun?

and your "evidence" for the creator so far seems to be negative - by this i mean no direct evidence, but pointing out the "flaws" in other theorys. Even if you manage to destory current understandings about the ancient earth, you're still left with ZERO proof for your theory!

Date: 2006/08/19 13:24:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
and why did all these "interactions" take place 2000+ years ago and then appear to stop? you can surely answer this?

Date: 2006/08/20 10:26:43, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 20 2006,13:42)
Sure. AFDave explained it to me. If you want animals with stripes, you cut some stripes into sticks, and put it near where the animals are mating....

the stick thing was one of the funniest things i've ever read!

Date: 2006/08/21 09:01:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 21 2006,12:49)
"Sham" is probably too strong a word.  How about "honest mistake"?  Just as many good scientists were honestly mistaken about geocentricity, phlogiston, ether, etc.

when geocentricity was in vouge, how many scientists were there in the world? When phlogiston and the ether were all the rage, how many were there? How many are there now? Can you see where i'm going with this?
the more honest people examining the issues, the more likely you are to approach the truth of the matter. Why did it take so long to overturn the geocentricty tendancies? Was it because proponents of a particular worldview (who also happend to be of a similar religion to you) were murdering people who disagreed? Tell me again about persecution of people who have a different view? Seem to me what happens now days is trival compared to what your lot used to get up to.
pah, how old is the sun Dave? how old?

Date: 2006/08/22 08:08:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 22 2006,12:07)
Web definitions for paleosol
An ancient, buried soil whose composition may reflect a climate significantly different from the climate now prevalent in the area where the soil is found. - Definition in context

For those of you mere mortals who, like me, didn't know what a "paleosol" was ...

JonF likes to flaunt big words in the hope that people will say "Oooo!  Aaaah!  This guy's from MIT and he uses big words ... he MUST know what he is talking about!"

So my first question is "How does this relate to my questioning of radiometric dating of the layers in the Grand Staircase?"

So there are some PALEOSOLS.  IOW, there are ancient, buried soils whose composition may reflect a climate significantly different from the climate now prevalent in the area where the soil is found.

I already knew that.  I have been saying for a long time that the climate was different prior to the Great Flood of Noah.

I will have more questions as I analyze JonF's post more.

in my field, there are many many words and concepts that you would never have heard of, i can speak to somebody for an hour and a 3rd party would be lost in seconds.

so what's your point? If you have to look up a word it's part of the evilouninitsts consipricy?
How old is the sun dave?

Date: 2006/08/23 09:37:31, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,11:22)
Science is not biased.  
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho  ...

He he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he  ...

Oooooh!  My sides hurt!  This is classic!

Would you like me to cut and paste some stuff just to illustrate how biased conventional historical geology is?


it would appear that your bias is as follows:

If it supports my case, it is true
If it does not support my case, it is not true.

The bias that you percieve is simply the tendancy to seek the truth, and of course therefore the "bias" is against you.

How old is the sun Dave?

Date: 2006/08/26 03:40:54, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
i thought the issue was plant roots, not tree roots?
but, whatever, let the farce continue.

Date: 2006/08/26 04:06:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
tens of million's of plants all deposited upright ?- unlikey.

or do you not agree? i thought the point was that the root traces were found as if the plants were grown there, in-situ.

i.e the roots were all found "pointing" in the same direction.
in your example, you would expect to find the roots in all directions, including "downwards" - i.e some as if they were grown there, and all in random orintations.  So in a mega-flood situation it'd be essentially all random orintations.
Now, i understand from what i've read here that they were found upright. all of them.


none of them would get re-deposited in an upright position?

so, im not saying that in a random mega-flood enviroment that NONE would be deposited upright, i'm saying that NOT ALL would be, and this disproves your premise (i.e if we look and see all are deposited upright, this rules out your flood).

Date: 2006/08/26 04:24:24, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,09:20)
But with their roots all fanned out like they're growing?  That's pretty silly, even for you, Dave.
Oh come on, guys.  I think you're thinking of those bare root plants you get from Spring Hill and you're thinking about how nice and tidy the roots are.  Well, I'll tell you what ... take one of those and dip it in water and watch what happens.  Now imagine it's in raging, swirling water with a bunch of sediments--sand, silt, what-have-you.  Not very difficult to imagine many of these plants getting "planted" in an upright position.

Come now!

all in the same direction? unlikely.

Date: 2006/08/26 04:49:09, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,09:34)
all in the same direction? unlikely.
No.  Didn't say that.  I'm sure they were deposited in many orientations.

how are you sure? where are you getting your information from? Just interested, is all.

Date: 2006/08/26 06:38:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,09:34)
all in the same direction? unlikely.
No.  Didn't say that.  I'm sure they were deposited in many orientations.

well, it seems you are wrong about that. unless you can show us some proof?
so, we're done here then? or rather, you are.

if not, why not? You've just provided a way of testing your own flood theory, like it or not.

and now all you have to do is show mutiple root traces in random directions. please go said you were sure about that. so show us some proof.

it should be easy, if true.

and, if the sun is 6000 years old, does that mean that the light from stars 6001 light years away is being generated by god in realtime? or what?

Date: 2006/08/26 08:32:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
sorry, forgot

Cha-ching.  Cha-ching!!  CHA-CHING!!!
Cha-ching.  Cha-ching!!  CHA-CHING!!!
Cha-ching.  Cha-ching!!  CHA-CHING!!!

how u like them apples....
etc etc ad infinitum.

Date: 2006/08/27 05:57:39, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
teach ID in school and you might as well teach scientiology too.
or spagettimonestrism.

Date: 2006/08/27 06:08:16, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
c, of course.
but i would point out that you cannot even teach something so neblous as ID. even it's creators cannot agree on what exactly it is, and if on the stand and pinned down it's an equal with astrology, who could even begin to argue for it to be taught in schools?

should we sit 5 year olds down with tarot cards?

Date: 2006/08/27 06:42:04, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
O'Leary's back screeching about the Vatican and Coyne. Not mentioned is the fact he's undergoing chemotherapy for colon cancer and (as i understand it) is why he stepped down.

It's hard to work out exactly what the point of the article is, the title "The Vatican and the Astronomer: Why George Coyne had to go" is the bit that makes most sense! The rest seems like a random selection of quotes and buzz-words.

Date: 2006/08/27 06:45:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
i may rethink my answer IF you can provide the lesson plan for what would be taught in the lesson!

Date: 2006/08/28 09:13:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 28 2006,14:02)

"Who was that that was yapping at me about how all those vertical cliffs in hard rock at the Grand Canyon prove that they could not have formed rapidly."

But Dave, you didn't prove it.  Your post were dismantled point by point.  You were refuted, you just chose to ignore the recognized evidence.

Again, that doesn't make you the victor, it makes you an ignorant looser.
No one can ever prove this type of thing.  It was a one time event.  We cannot go back in time to observe it.  All I can do is show you similar instances which prove that it is very plausible.  That's what I have done.  Will believe it or not?  That's the question.

you "evidence" might have more weight to it if it was not just scanned in from some creo-tract that does not hide it's pre-dispositon to goddidit.
Go do your own research!
Present your own conclusions!
Stop leeching off other peoples work.

Before you say that's all that other people have done here, the point is you are trying to PROVE your OWN theory and therefore you need evidence. To overturn the current thinking, you cant just point to the evidence for the current thinking and say it's wrong!

Date: 2006/08/29 08:31:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
In case you've not noticed
From Wikipedia
Permalink is a term used in the world of blogging to indicate a URL which points to a specific blog entry. A permalink is accessible even after the entry has passed from the front page and into the blog archives. The term is a portmanteau made by contracting the phrase "permanent link". The permanent URLs created are often simple and human-readable to ease the process of linking to a particular entry and are designed within blogging software to remain unchanged indefinitely so as to help prevent link rot. The practice is utilized by mainstream news and other types of websites as well, although the term permalink is most common within the blogosphere. Permalinks are supported in most modern weblogging and content syndication software systems, including Movable Type, LiveJournal, and Blogger.

There's one on every single post. So there's no need to re-hash your answers (or hash :L), just post the permalink to the answer. It's all done for you! So, you can go through the 50 questions, and add the permalink for the answer, simple!

Date: 2006/08/30 10:56:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
perhaps the robed scientists could be shown to be making things like computers where quantum level understanding of  electron tunneling helps us make faster logic gates.
and if our understanding of that sort of thing is right (it's is, you are using a computer right now! and it works dunt it?) then the sun is not 6000 years old either.

and once you've done that you can illustrate in the same matter what the people you support can make using only the information found in your book (which, as im sure you dont know, new chapters are being discovered now, the number of the beast is now 616, and so on - inerrant indeed).

who had syphilis on the ark deacon dave?
Did Noah bring woodworm?
What happened to the woodpeckers? Were they caged the entire time?
How much wood can a woodchuck chuck?

Date: 2006/08/30 12:03:51, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
i bet dave has the maddest's all there, at some level.....

Date: 2006/09/04 08:08:27, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
A stalagmite normally grows 0.1 to 0.3 mm per years in moderate climate zones. This means a step of 20cm needed 2,000 years of continual growth to form

Not that yet another method is needed to date teh earth older then 6000 years, but here it is.

So, 2k years = 20cm. Therefore there are no 61cm long stalagmite's then Dave? As they have not yet had time to form, right?
Is that something you'd agree with? If not, why not?

Oh, and i'm sure you'll be happy to note that some can be correlated with and match tree ring growth (i.e climate changes).

Oh, and for future reference, your list of "answers" would have had somewhat more credibility if you added permalinks to each point, linking to where you "showed" the evidence for each item. Not much more, but you wont want to do that because if you start doing that it'll be even easier to see that your answers were just handwaving. Dont agree? Then go back and edit that post and add the links to where you provided the evidence in previous posts (like you SAID you have). Or was that a lie?

Date: 2006/09/04 09:08:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
N.Well's comment just became "news" at Uncommon Idiocy. Surprising that they are not over here debating it, or perhaps its to do with the comment moderation policy over at UD?
It's the only blog i've seen where the number of comments per item go down more often then they go up!
They make a big deal of Eviluitionists barring dissent, yet comments here are not deleted if they disagree with the moderators point of view. Perhaps they are afraid of "debating" when you cant delete comments that disprove a point before they are seen, or go back in time and "revise" the thread to make your opponent look foolish.

No wonder they hide out in their little playpen and are afraid to engage in honest debate.
It's amazing how little there is about ID over at UD, just constant garbled attacks on "Darwinism". If they had something (an ace?) they'd have played it by now!
but no, just more of the same. More and more "joke" articles over at UD too these days. Which is apt, as the whole thing's a joke! Least they are owning up to the fact they are not serious :)

Date: 2006/09/04 10:37:18, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
It just links to this page of the thread. TinyURL seems faulty atm.
But far handier to distribute on scraps of paper etc. Nobody make one like
and put it in the small ad's now will ya? ( links to daves "you JUST DONT GET IT" froth at the mouth")

Far handier to distribute then the mighty tome this thread would be printed out deadman_932, even with the salty language expunged! think of the trees!

Date: 2006/09/05 03:01:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
DaveScot points out that he cant respond here, because he's banned.
Aww, shame. Perhaps you now know how the 100's of banned people at UD feel.

DaveScot, as you are obviously reading this, why dont you remind everybody why you are banned? As you cant post here, why not post it on UD? Then they can decide for themselves if it was fair or not? Why not start a thread on it in fact?

Date: 2006/09/05 08:02:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 05 2006,10:35)
I see that Faid has adopted the technique of trying to refute the conclusions of a DIFFERENT Snelling paper (1999) than the one I am currently discussing while trying to make people think he is refuting the 2003 paper.  Hmmm ... interesting technique, Faid.  I'll be happy to look into the 1999 paper, but kindly don't confuse my readers by pretending you are refuting the 2003 paper with supposed refutations of a 1999 paper.  

JonF is still yelling "Fraud, fraud" while failing to see how completely irrelevant and silly his fraud claim is.  But alas ... what's a Darwinist to do?  Honest dealing with facts is impossible for many of them ... so that leaves goofy techniques such as yelling "Fraud" just for the fun of it.

Thanks *ahem* for the hint about the Meramec Caverns.  I'm always looking for fun stuff to do with the kids ... I'll go see the stalagtites.

I'm headed to the lake for two days ... sorry to disappoint!  I know this will mean a quite boring Wednesday and Thursday for you!

I'll be back at it Friday morning and I will show you in detail why Snelling is right on and ...

JonF is, once again ... ALL WET!

and what will you say to the "kids" about the stalagtites dave?
What's your story on those then? How will you twist it round to supporting your viewpoint? How damaged will those kids be after a couple of years of your poison?

And what difference does "what" paper (2003/1999) make, if what's under dicussion is the methodology?

I doubt anybody's confused somehow. Nobody's "pretending" to refute anything, it's *been* refuted.

Date: 2006/09/05 09:08:26, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Silly me, when i'm looking for more information i generally avoid the links that go to AIG.
DOH, i'll know to look there 1st from now on!

seriously, it is not odd how none of that article is "we did, we looked, we examined, we cut the bloody thing in two and counted the rings" it's all "they published, they changed, they said".
Do these people ever do their own research? Are they just Copy/paste experts? There's a basic logic issue with these people - if they can insert the word "may" they think they've won it seems to me.
limestone cave formations may not have needed countless thousands of years to form

so some are not tens of thousands of years old - so what!
How does that affect the vast majority of items under question?
while looking for more info, i stumbled on the whole crystal caves thing - amazing, more hereCrystal Caves. Now, try showing me one of those that had formed on somebody's porch door! :)

Date: 2006/09/05 10:52:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
John A. Davison posted
Woops. I goofed with my signature. Things like that happen when one gets upset don't you know.

 05. September 2006 09:56

is it just me that finds it funny he made a copying error?

Date: 2006/09/09 03:56:48, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,08:39)
I've lurked in this thread for a while (50+ pages or so) and I just wanted to say that I've never seen arguments as hopeless and misinformed as those presented by AFDave in support of his "hypothesis"; furthermore, his obstinacy in the face of the most transparent facts is quite incredible.
Of course that's what you think ... this forum is a "buglight" for skeptics seeking to justify their skepticism.

if you were talking about how people who believe in the absolute literal truth of the bible are become skeptical of that "fact" by reading this thread, then i'd agree with you 200%.
C'mon Dave - even you can see your arguments are either

a) demolished instantly
b) demolished after a moments pause to reflect on how best to demolish that specific argument (or cut'n'paste job, thw word argument raises the bar to a level you have not got to yet).

I suspect you take that pause as your victory.

You are doing your "side" no good at all, why do you think you are still being toyed with?
Honestly, it'd be funnier if you were not twisting kids mind all the while.

Date: 2006/09/09 10:34:31, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Davey, you are getting blogged! over at C.S.I bluffing
Davey - address the limestone issue! My pseudoscience gland needs pumping!

Date: 2006/09/11 02:43:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,06:21)
135 miles on your bike?  This weekend?  As in bicycle??!!  Not a motorcycle?  Wow ... you just officially obtained my respect ... not in science, but in biking! What do you do for a living?

Amazing indeed.
Now, answer the goddam questions!

What do you do for a living Dave? Lie to kids cant be the only thing? Or is there more money in that nowdays then there used to be?
Fleece money from the gullible? Doubt that'll go down too well on a CV.

And how are you getting on with spreading the word of your great victorys on this forum? Nobody's piped up yet with any support, unless you'd care to point us towards a permalink? Oh, you've not worked them out yet have you? not too surprising, lets just add it to the list of things you still dont understand desipte having had your hand held and it explained to you in words i'm sure even the kids whose minds you posion could understand.

Here, let me get you started. This is a permalink to where one of your oh so tyresome (heh!;) argument gets totally destroyed. You say you won, but anybody looking at that post (nicely done btw) can see for themselves you got whipped!;).

And, unlike the kids you poison, "it's wrong" "why?" "because"  is not a way to win arguments, friends and influence. Is that what you say to the kids "it just is, now believe or burn in ####".

Have you ever told Kids about #### Dave? Do tell? Does it come up often when they ask you an question you cant answer (i believe that even 8 year olds could ask you questions that would leave you stumped!;)

"but Dave, if all the animals were living together on the ARK why didn't the Lions eat the Zebras?"

"they just didnt, now shut up or burn in #### little girl"

Is that accurate? Is that how it goes down when you are poisoning kids minds? Dont you think that at least some of them will grow up to be scientists? Dont you think that on 2016 they'll be on this board telling you what a fool you were and how much they resent you for lying to them for all those years!?!

Date: 2006/09/11 03:15:27, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,06:21)
135 miles on your bike?  This weekend?  As in bicycle??!!  Not a motorcycle?  Wow ... you just officially obtained my respect ... not in science, but in biking! What do you do for a living?

so you edited your own post to remove the permalink reference? I see, is this because you realised that by even mentioning it you'd have to start providing references to *where* you'd "proved" your point? And of course, you cannot and so that does not help you does it?
Ha, it's nice to know even you realise that you cannot support your own "i've won" posts with THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU SAY YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN.

which, on examination, of course would prove to be just mroe empty handwaving or quoting for AIG.

Date: 2006/09/12 10:33:37, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Date: 2006/09/13 21:53:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 14 2006,00:47)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2006,20:13)
There's another billion plus people you can throw in the ring in favor of creationism.

Hey, Dave, the number of Muslims in the world is expected to surpass the number of Christians in a couple decades. When that happens, will Islam then become true and not Christianity?

Silly Arden.  The rapture will happen long before then.  Of COURSE Muslims will be the majority in 20 years, all the good Christians will be gone!

sounds good to me, any way we can speed it up?

Date: 2006/09/14 02:27:12, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dave spat out:

So ... what am I to assume but that all you guys are heavily influenced by peer pressure?  I assume that you think "If everyone believes this, it must be true."

Perhaps if you rewrote it like so:

So ... what am I to assume but that all you guys are heavily influenced by evidence?  I assume that you think "If the evidence indicates  this, it must be true."

then you'd be onto something.
Dave, so what's your take on the number of the beast and the innerant bible?  I *know* you read the links about the number becoming 616 instead of 666, but you never followed up on that. Any particular reason why? Are you disputing the evidence there also? If not, then the bible is not 100% fact now is it?

how you *you* date the the grand staircase Dave? How would you date *anything* at all?  if all you can say is "you cannot date anything" then you might as well crawl back under your fundie comfort blanket because you've nothing to add to any dicussion apart from "goddit, goddiddit, i cant tell you exactly how or why, but goddammit, goddidit!"

Date: 2006/09/15 10:45:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I started a blog, and rant into that about their idocy. And post here still!
The o'leary posts are like some sort of dementia inducing visual   narcotic.
They should read them out at riots, nobody would be able to concentrate on fighting as they'd be too busy trying to work out what point she's trying to make as she's so obtuse (or just incapable of stringing worlds together in the same way everybody else is!;)

Date: 2006/09/16 00:15:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 15 2006,17:56)
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 15 2006,16:27)
By the way, I've been a long time lurker here.  Recently, however, I've been finding the level of disingenuity, stupidity and sheer wickedness at Uncommon Descent impossible to take without an opportunity to vent about it.  My wife has grown tired of hearing me, so I'm posting here now.  Putting it like that, it does make me wonder why I can't just stop visiting such a wretched intellectual train-wreck in the first place... ???

First, good to have you. Second, it's important to not let it get to you. I recommend reading the entire Kitzmiller opinion by Judge Jones. The spectacle of ID getting a 130-page beatdown from a conservative christian judge will help to impress upon you how doomed the Uncommonly Dense are.

agreed, plus you should give the behe testimonly a read.

They've got him pinned down, and he admits ID = astrology = bunk.

Plus, as you know the ID'ers love to twist the behe stuff in the trial round and round, if you read the entire section, in context, their arguments become pathetic. It's amazing they are still trying to twist the trial verdict round to give them some kind of support. Shows how stupid they are, basically.

Plus it's mighty enjoyable to read how, when given the change to shine the ID'ers fall at the 1st post and handwaving is their main evidence.

And the bit about the books "i dont see any books" is pure comedy gold.

CSI Bluffing - My blog.

Date: 2006/09/16 05:15:15, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 16 2006,09:19)
I am happy to take a much closer look at dendro, ice cores, limestone, C14 and many other things in due course ... however, I am only one guy with a limited amount of bandwidth and I have to take one topic at a time.

It seemed logical to me to look closely at radiometric dating since we just finished looking at the Grand Staircase in some detail and it is claimed that the layers of the Grand Staircase can be dated (or at least bracketed) radiometrically.

Is this such an unreasonable approach?

not at all, but would you care to clearly re-state your position as to how old the Grand Staircase is and how you arrived at that particular figure?

Date: 2006/09/18 07:04:26, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Sep. 18 2006,09:34)
Whatever happened to the site that Dimbski claimed he was going to develp as a reply to Kitzmiller?   Does anyone else recall him speaking of it on UD?

Perhaps he's mislplaced all of that "overwhelming evidence"?

ps: I wonder if he is/was planning to use the sticky bun in the likeness of mother teresa as a part of the evidece for ID?

they've also blocked's ability to archive the site

We're sorry, access to has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt

I wonder why :)

perhaps idiocy does not age all that well!

Date: 2006/09/18 07:47:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 18 2006,12:10)
Dozens of Deceitful Deity-Detectors Drone Dopily

yeah that sparked a rant for me, they have the cheek to say "id Exam question" when having an ID exam is just a wet dream for them. There's no answer sheet boys, because the questions are meaningless.
Why dont they get off their sorry butts and do some research?

Then one of the *$*Ł's pipes up:
On the subject of objectively detecting design: Remember the cartoon in Behe’s book of the explorer caught in the jungle trap? Design in this case was objectively detectable (someone or something set a trap in the jungle), not at all difficult to discern, and didn’t require anything fancy like calculating CSI.

Comment by GilDodgen — September 18, 2006 @ 12:32 pm

They CANNOT calculate CSI anyway, now they are making up reasons why they dont have to! And their best research to date is to point at COMICS.

I cant wait for the next time ID is on trial in court....

Date: 2006/09/18 08:01:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,12:22)

We don't even need to discuss pre Clovis sites to blow your 'merican history starts with fundy white immigrants wiping out the local inhabitants view of American History (much less the History of the Universe).

Let's add racist to moron and willfully ignorant liar! did elaborate. Too bad the explanation's silly: the history of America is not congruent to the history of North America. Your hatred of the West whines through loud and clear, however.....

and you aredoing what again, trying to say that the sun goes around the earth or something?

I think that before you speak of other peoples *silly* explanations you might want to have a look in the mirror.

now, run along.

Date: 2006/09/18 10:31:18, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 18 2006,15:11)
Real world proof.
Arden, I know you think the Bible is a "religious" book only.  The sooner you get that idea out of your head, the better off you will be ... as for reliable ancient history, you cannot find a better real world proof of events that happened than the Genesis record.

It's every bit as good a real world proof as the historical records for George Washington or any other historical figure.

did you know some people are not convinced that Elvis is dead?
And people argue over the recipe for his fav fried chicken?
Some people think Elvis never took drugs in his life.

If all this can happen in a few years, the "real world" proof of Elvis being distorted so much, then how much stronger will the effect be after 2000 odd years worth of chinese whispers - which is kinda what your book is, translated mutiple times etc.

So it's hardly the best proof of anything at all. People dont make predictions using Elvisology, so it's ok to argue or just not know about how much paprika he liked in his chicken wings. It dont matter so much.

There are some other books that are really almost as old, that contain timeless truths. I think you'll find they are about maths :)

Can you see the point here Dave? Science is here because it's useful, not because it's rote!

Date: 2006/09/18 10:40:16, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
perhaps they dont want to be quotemined!

And the pro ID scientists are wondering what keeps the rain up in the air if not god, not on the internet doing "research".
“There’s a lot of questions right now that I can’t answer. What holds the clouds up?"

As it goes, i suppose the closest thing they come to actual research is surfing the internet.

Date: 2006/09/18 11:31:43, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 18 2006,15:53)
and that Genesis is a written record of eyewitness history, passed down from generation to generation eventually to Moses

did it evolve during that? :)

Date: 2006/09/20 06:58:24, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2006,10:51)
Then DaveScot wrote a very misleading and embarrassing note to Rieseberg claiming he doesn't dispute "evolution", but only the very limited role of chance. What he means, of course, is an Intelligent Designer is involved, something he neglects to mention.

have you got a link to that handy?

Date: 2006/09/22 02:10:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 22 2006,06:49)
Fine with me to start a new one ... call it "AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis Part 2"

It's also fine with me to start a separate one called "AFDave on Christianity in Western Civilization" since that topic comes up alot.

BTW ... my computer basically crashes every time I try to download "ALL" on my 200 page thread ...

Any hints for downloading it successfully?  I would like to be able to search it.

try using a browser such as opera, where you can disable images. This should reduce the overall size of the thread to something a bit more manageable.
Then you can search through and create permalinks to the answers you've already given eh? :)

also, it seems to be possible to right click on the "all" option and do a "save as". It will then write out the entiure thread to a off-line html file. At least, this thread did anyway. It'll be called something like ikonboard.htm and it'll take a while!

Date: 2006/09/22 08:26:47, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 22 2006,12:19)
I am sorry that you don't like "my" Jesus.  You will bow before Him someday whether you like Him or not.

How do you know that?

just like he knows the earth is 6000 years old.
And, just to remind everybody, Dave thinks the sun is 6000 years old. His default position is that everything is 6000 years old. Kinda rules out life on other planets then eh?

So, it dont matter what the subject is, or how conclusive the evidence is, it's wrong by default if it indicates an age greater then 6000 years old. So stars thousands of light years away (6000+) are also less then 6000 years old. Logic plays no part here. If gawd really wanted us to believe in an ancient earth then he's doing a damm good job of proving it. Big old liar in the sky?

Dave, you say you believe in 90-95% of science. Well, part of that belief should come with the idea that you can look at what the evidence says and then draw a conclusion based on that. Not the other way round!

Date: 2006/09/22 23:37:46, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
personally, i think what makes them useless is the fact that anybody can understand them.
What i mean by that is when people provide links to back up their arguments (such as they are) the creationist sites are like baby talk -if you can understand the bible you can understand these websites.
Actual science sites take some real effort to understand, if you are not familiar with the field. And the depth of material available means that you can quickly get in over your head and not understand a word (and tens of thousands of scientists working for millions of hours make alot of words!;).
Real research papers dont couch things in baby talk for non-specialists. Whereas creationist websites, even when talking about real hard science read like a 15 year olds essay.
So, creationist sites are fantastic if you want to preach to the converted in baby talk, but to everybody else they are just playing at science and not even trying very hard at that usually ("the bible says" is not a scientific argument).

Date: 2006/09/27 02:46:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dave - presumably you believed this 6000 year old guff last year? In that case, is the earth now 6001 years old then? Or in your world, is gawd holding back the age of the earth and keeping it steady at 6000 years? Or taking off a year at the start instead?

So, what is the age of the earth then as you see it? 6000 years? 5999? 6001?
If it's 6000, presumably there must be a point where it tips over to 6001? Would that be new years day? If so, why? If not, what day does it flip over to 6001 years on? Simple  questions, but i dont expect a reasonable answer. Prove me wrong! Give me a date/time when the earth will be 6001 years old instead of 6000.

Date: 2006/09/27 08:12:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Overwhelming Evidence is a site where high school students can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution.

it's kinda creepy if you ask me. As you know there's loads of middle aged blokes writing the articles.

And when is the last time you overheard a student saying "So when are Behe and Dembski coming out with new books?"?

Where is the evidence hinted at by the site title, anybody got a link? :)

Date: 2006/09/29 06:54:00, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
When will the earth be 6001 years old? Is there a specific day? Is it new years day?
Or is gawd keeping it at 6000 for ever?
It's a simple question but i dont expect an answer.

Date: 2006/09/30 23:21:39, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
the "recent posts" list is funny

   * God is beyond Understanding
     4 hours 59 min ago
   * Simulations are Wrong
     5 hours 1 min ago
   * Science Teachers just Perpetuate Lies
     5 hours 6 min ago
   * Great Thoughts TheMAN!
     5 hours 14 min ago
   * Denyse is Right
     5 hours 30 min ago
   * Another point
     3 days 16 hours ago
   * Easily Established
     3 days 16 hours ago
   * In a nutshell, undiluted
     3 days 19 hours ago
   * Charles Thaxton, for
     5 days 4 hours ago
   * The only reason that Darwin
     11 weeks 2 days ago

Date: 2006/10/01 02:23:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
The problem stems from what Jones called “a creeping civic stupidity,” where the public, for whatever reason, thinks judges should bow to what politicians say or polls show.

Judge in Dover I.D. case touts legal independence

how apt they have his picture on their new website.  civic stupidity indeed.

Date: 2006/10/02 09:25:01, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

dont know why he didnt use that one, he owns that too! just as apt! link

but now Ann Coulter is defending predators.

COULTER:  Why wait until right before the election to let it break?


Date: 2006/10/02 21:58:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
so why is it that Denton is right and everybody else is wrong? Is it because you *agree* with his claims?
After all, he claims to be a scientist, as do ALL the other people who do research, who happen to contradict you/him.

So, what's different about Denton to all the others? To me, it appears as if you are doing exactly what you claim everybody else is doing - closing your eyes to the actual evidence because of what you *believe*. Is that not the case? You claim that rocks are *chosen* before they are dated and this makes dating invalid. Are you not doing the same by picking and choosing who you believe because of their conclusion?
If I only ever dated rocks under 6000 years old then of course they'd say earth<6000 years old! So what?!

When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?

Date: 2006/10/03 02:42:27, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
dont forget the financial scandal rocking Dave's church at the moment, boy do they love their $$$. big part of the old religion it seems - no money, no entrance into heaven.

And darker things have been hinted at too......

You know, i'd pay for somebody to stand outside Davie's church and hand out flyers to people with a tinyurl to this discussion. Or radio ads in his town or whatever. Davie's told us that everybody he knows already is aware of his great victory's so there's no big deal in making sure. Paypal ok? :) I'm sure somebody on craiglist would help out for $$!

The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).

But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems. Where's all your support Davie? It does not exist, much like your Evil Jebus who's going to make us all bow down to him.

Date: 2006/10/03 02:46:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 02 2006,20:53)

No, Bill, a fly cannot evolve into a horse. Insects are proterostomes, and for architectural reasons that cannot be reversed under evolutionary theory, it is simply impossible for a proterostome to evolve into something the size of a horse. A fly evolving into a horse would disconfirm evolutionary theory.

Any quantifiable predictions in this regard? I'm not arguing that a fly would specifically evolve into a horse, only that there's nothing in evolution that would forbid such changes, especially if the evolutionist's imagination is allowed free reign. Prove me wrong by citing the specific predictions, especially since I've cited a specific paper that admits that some evos posited a "flip" in the chordate axis as opposed to divergence from a common ancestor. By the way, I'm not claiming that a fly in its current exoskeleton could become as large as a horse.

heh, they do exist already - horsefly

So, i guess that makes you right GOP!

Now, about the earth and sun again, lol, still cant believe you even tried to make that case...

Date: 2006/10/03 04:24:33, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
it just means that their webmaster is inept!

Date: 2006/10/03 05:20:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,09:31)
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).

But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.

yeah, whatever. Show us your science then Davey.

When will the earth be 6001 years old?

And as far as "Darwinist truth search methods go"

1: Dave says all his buddies know about this particular thread
2: nobody has ever come into this thread to give Davie their support.
3: We know fundies love to say " you are all going to ####" unless you believe *a really quite specific set of beliefs*
4: Nobody has ever done this, to my knowledge

Therefore, Davie has never told any of his fundie buddies about this thread. A reasonable conclusion from the available evidence if you ask me. It's not science, but i bet i'm right!

Davie, it's quite obvous that you want to talk about anything other then the facts, so i'll bow out now and leave you to discuss the actual *science* behind your claims with the others.

Date: 2006/10/03 07:56:28, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
it's amazing how they demand "proof" of everything except their own outlandish claims!

All mouth, no trousers.

Date: 2006/10/04 07:56:39, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I think even I get this.
Davie, think of DNA like a vinyl record. The label (non-coding) you can mark and scribble all you like on, but if you try and do that on the record (the part that's played) itself it's really unlikely that you'll make it sound better (more fit) by accident (the random bit). The sound that comes out does not depend on the state of the label.

So, perhaps 400billion year old crocs might look like modern crocs but their "label" will be different. And, if you can only move one step at a time in mutation space then it'll take you a minimum amount of time to get to another part of that space (new label to old, worn label).

Not that the "new/worn"  analogy means much here I would imagine, more like state X to Y?

Date: 2006/10/04 08:59:12, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
sure, quote me when there's a 1000 points you have not answered at all. That's my understanding of other peoples answers to you , my summary is alot easier to pick holes in then the actual real scientific arguments themselves made in this very forum in answer to you. So i'm not surprised you've done that, dishonesty is your daily bread.

so, when the world's scientists jump from the sinking ship of darwinism, what exactly are you picking them up with?

"Right, so on Monday we'll all bring a bible to the lab and have a nice chat about how wonderfull we all are and how all those horrible people outside our little circle here are going to he*l"

Date: 2006/10/05 10:54:46, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)
It is simply a logically and evidentially bankrupt view, and time will reveal this.

A) You can hardly talk about evidence as you've not provided any yet.
B) Time will not reveal anything. People will. Most people are not liars even when they are not of the same religion as you.

Date: 2006/10/07 02:58:26, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
it's thundering along over at the ID wiki:

Detecting Intelligence in Movies summarizes examples where movie directors depict people recognizing intelligent design or intelligent causation.
  1.  Kubrick’s 2001 Space Oddessy: (1968) A black monolith with smooth sides and geometric proportions is unearthed on the moon with sides “in the exact ratio 1 to 4 to 9 - the square of the first three integers." It is immediately recognized as made by an advanced civilization.
  2. The Gods Must be Crazy: (1980) Kalahari Bushmen recognize a soft drink bottle as “from the gods” and not natural.
  3. The Hunt for Red October (1990). The apparent "seismic," "magma" or "whale" sound is shown to repetitious and moving along a track with an identifiable destination, and was thus man made, caused by the Red October submarine's magnetohydrodynamic "silent" drive.
  4. Contact: the movie (1997) Reception of a signal containing a sequence of prime numbers from outerspace reveals an alien civilization. They discover an audio band, a TV broadcast of Hitler, and material in the artificial language Lincos. The movie is modeled after SETI. See also: Contact review
  5. My Favorite Martian (1999) An alien spacraft (UFO) is distinguished from other cellestial objects by its "erratic" (non-gravitationally controlled) behavior indicating controlled flight. An alien life form is identified by its non-human DNA.

pathetic. overwhelimg evidence indeed.

Date: 2006/10/08 21:52:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 08 2006,22:41)
Eric, I'm afraid on the "biological" source of non-physical traits you run into the difficulty of direct causation unless you make the blanket statement that  all human traits are linked to a direct biological cause.  This statement lacks in specificity even though from a materialistic perspective it seems a given.  For example, how much advancement can be attributed directly to the opposable thumb, did language cause an increase in average brain sizes or was it the other way around, does religion fall into the catagory of social behavior or is it actually an evolved instinctual trait.  Assessing the major differences between chimps and humans becomes more of a philosophical argument much like the mind vs brain discussion.  I realize that this is actually off topic but comparisons of uniquely human traits certainly bring these questions up.

well, why dont you start us off with a list of uniquely human traits not linked to biological causes?

Be specific now...

Date: 2006/10/09 02:33:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,05:51)
I realize that this is actually off topic but comparisons of uniquely human traits certainly bring these questions up.
As far as I am concerned, this is quite ON topic.  This question of "Are humans just another animal, or are they somehow unique?" is a fundamentally important question to me.  Of course, I believe we are fundmentally different, but I am not clear on how this can be shown to a committed materialist.  My view of humans, of course, comes from the Book of Genesis, then from the balance of Scripture.  Since Genesis is not contradicted by the evidence in the many areas in which I CAN verify it, I have no reason to doubt it's reliability in all areas, including it's statements about humans.  Of course, there are many differences between apes and humans which are not quantified in the same way as genetic sequences are, and this presents a challenge.  However, I think there should be legitimate scientific ways of quantifying these things if one is a bit creative.

humans are just another animal. Deal with it.
Of course, they are unique. But so are rabbits, deer, anything you could care to mention. So what.

So, where Genesis is contradicted by the evidence do you then dis-believe those bits?

How can you talk about legitimate scientific ways of "quantifying these things" when you reject so roundly the scientific method in general? You cant pick and choose, it's all or none.

Date: 2006/10/09 02:36:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 08 2006,23:11)
 I don't believe I've ever met a more arrogant individual who has no problem being consistantly wrong

there must be a lack of mirrors in your abode.

Date: 2006/10/09 02:52:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2006,07:46)
Then lo and behold European style spearheads are discovered in Virginia dating 6,000 prior to the Asian migrations.
Uh, wrong. This is utter nonsense. One archaeologist speculating on "Solutrean" or even a "Mousterian"-style toolkit does not make it so.

ah, he's using AFDave's version of "evidence".
If you can find a single person, dont matter if it was 30 or even 50 years ago, who espouses a different viewpoint to the mainstream, it becomes "evidence for the alternative viewpoint".

In their "world" utter conformity would be the only absolute "proof". Unfortunatly (for them, and us too as we have to listen to it), that's not the way science works.

Date: 2006/10/09 02:57:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
hear hear.
I'd add to that "science can make predictions". Can you provide a prediction that we can test Davey?

Date: 2006/10/09 04:40:13, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
well, if you are so sure, present us the facts as you'd like them taught to schoolchildren. There is no further meaningfull discussion until you do this. "let the children decide" you say. Well lets hear your case then!


Lets see them laid out. Then we can decide if you are talking science or not.

Oh, by the way it's not possible to verify star-formation in the lab, nor the large scale formation of galaxys. However, this does not stop us understanding a heck of alot about these processes. So the fact you *think* it's not possible to verify "darwinism" in a lab means nothing at all.

Date: 2006/10/09 06:41:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:58)
Because ours make predictions, and yours don't. Why don't you prove me wrong?
Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  This was such a successful prediction that Gould and Eldredge came up with "Punctuated Equilibrium" to try to explain this glaring absence.   You don't know about Creationist predictions because you don't read Creationist publications by your own admission.  I do not pretend to be a scientific researcher with plans to publish research papers with detailed predictions of anything.  As I have said many times, I am more of an investigator who is very interested in finding out if there is anything scientific about the claims of establishment scientists WRT Origins--you claim to be one of these.  So you are missing the boat to say "I can make predictions ... and you, Dave, cannot."  Great.  You're a scientist.  I'm not.  I'm more of a science journalist.  Science journalists--which is a fair label for someone like me, considering my work at Kids4Truth--don't make scientific predictions.  Science journalists read the published works of scientists and report on their findings.  And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."

is that honestly the best you've got?

Nobody's asking you to present a scientific paper, we know you are not capable (you've admitted as much youself).
What we do want is for you to point to somebody elses papers that support your case.

Can we avoid the stuff from the 50's? Anything from the last decade perhaps?

Date: 2006/10/09 07:00:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
so, that's the best you've got then Dave?
Quotemining about transitional forms?

tell you what, define what a transitional is, and then we'll point you towards the 100's found so far and you can tell us why they are not, in fact, transitional.

Oh, what's that?, you can always point to two of them and say "ah -ha, but what comes in between those two" so I guess you win on that one Dave....LOL>

Is that also your proposed lesson plan? "read these quotes, they prove goddiidit"

Date: 2006/10/10 10:51:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
who is this TRoutMac anyway
The scientists who disagree with me and believe that DNA is NOT designed only do so because they are philisophically predisposed against anything or anyone that could possibly have designed it. They are naturalists. They're caught in a box. So, I'm really not too interested in what they disagree with. To me, their observations and input are irrelevant because they are letting their philisophical inclinations steer their conclusions and THAT is not science.


Seems to be keeping it going single handed. That "scientists who disagree with me and believe that DNA is NOT designed" sounds a bit too personal for a graphic artist :)

I think the ID version of science is defining what is not science and what is left must be! At least it's something.

Date: 2006/10/10 11:08:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

i dont think it's trees, I think it's runes.
Daveys gone all mystick on us :)

Date: 2006/10/10 11:24:02, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
The 1st reply to that song post is

Right. Moths and Haeckel's embryos. That's all the evidence evolution has to back it up.

and that seems to be sarcastic to me (perhaps i'm just that way!;).)
But TRoutMac's reply seems completely earnest to me
Heck, it's much worse than that. As for macro-evolution, evolutionists can't even claim moths OR Haeckel's embryos!

Date: 2006/10/11 08:32:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,12:59)
Fish didn't stop evolving after the first tetrapods hit the beach, amphibians didn't stop evolving after eggs started to be laid on land, and so on for every point on your right-hand graphic.
Really?  Are you sure?  How do you know this?  Can you supply me proof that these creatures did not stop evolving (in the "macro" sense)?  Why did lungfish stop evolving?  Ditto for coelecanths?  Cockroaches?  Opossums?  Many others?

Dave, you dishonest sack of sh*t. Were you then when gawd handed down the 10 commandments? Or told Noah to build the ark? etc etc
what proof can you supply if your comfort blanket of a book is taken away?

Really?  Are you sure?  How do you know this?  Can you supply me proof that these creationists did not stop evolving (in the "can think straight" sense)?  Why did Ken Ham stop evolving?  Ditto for Dumbski?  Cockroaches?  Opossums?  Many others?

Date: 2006/10/11 09:17:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,13:46)
Dave, you dishonest sack of sh*t. Were you then when gawd handed down the 10 commandments? Or told Noah to build the ark? etc etc
No.  I have historical records claimed to be written by eyewitnesses and we have no reason to doubt these eyewitnesses because of a century or more of archaeological confirmation.

You have only speculation.

no, I also have the previous post. Makes a whole lot more sense then almost all of your just so stories.

Date: 2006/10/12 02:54:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 12 2006,07:16)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 12 2006,03:13)
I do remember the day JAD was correct though. Something to do with a dinosaur nest and the way the eggs lay. JAD commented on how this was evidence for a certain pelvic arangement in the species (something along those lines, it was few years ago). He was instantly ridiculed by many posters, but turned out JAD was right.

JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad.

I wonder if he was as dull and repetitive before the breakdown?

His thread over at Dawkins place is progressing nicely, they've got to the point of going "huh" now, little do they know the madness that awaits (repetitive madness mind!;)

I fark it so!

Date: 2006/10/12 22:05:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2006,22:46)
And there's no way that sort of massively-accelerated macroevolution could have gone unnoticed by every literate civilization on the planet.

You're not talking "rapid" speciation. You're talking "instantaneous" speciation.

exactly. Dave, dont you think that people would notice and write down the fact that there seemed to be more and more animals appearing year by year, moment by moment?

You talk about rapid speciation being caused by seperation, do you really think this would be true in every single case? What about critters in the sea? Did somebody put some glass partitions in to "speed up dem evolving".

Dave, there's so many problems with the rubbish you spout, do yourself a favour and stop relying on AIG - it only makes you look foolish as every single word on their website has been proved false.

Date: 2006/10/16 11:48:04, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,16:10)
No, I'm not contending Dawkins is a creationist.

It simply shows that the innumerable transitonal forms hoped for by Darwin ...


... to the delight of Creationists!

is that the best "proof" you can come up with? The lack of things?

"It was the absence of a dead body m'laud that lead us to suspect the accused".

Very monty python.


Did you mean: innumerable transitional forms  ?

edit: Yeah, perhaps that's the root of his problems - davey's been spelling the words wrong in the search engine!

Date: 2006/10/17 11:39:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,14:39)
Dave, you claimed the left side happened easily in 6,000 years, while even the top 10% of the right side could not have happened in millions. What gives?
The top right could not happen in millions or even billions because they are separate "baramins."  The left side could have happened in 6000 years because they were likely in the same "baramin."  It appears that God endowed each uniquely created "baramin" with great potential for variability and that this could happen quite rapidly under certain conditions (such as after the Flood).  But there appear to be inviolable boundaries which cannot be crossed no matter how much time is available.

when you say "it appears that God" where exactly are you getting your information from?

Date: 2006/10/17 21:56:13, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,21:08)
DM ... you are once again showing your vacuity by chasing ghosts.  Do you have anything substantive to say on Genetics or Egypt or not?


I bet you believe in ghosts too dont ya davey?

Do YOU have anything substantive to say about anything?

Generics or Egypt? How about bible thumping and mecca? Or evil priests and starving people.

Davey, if your religion is so great how come your luxury mega church is not sold off and the profits given to the poor? That's what your magic book says aint it? Look after the poor? Perhaps you could suggest that next time you speak to the leaders of your church (or the next time god speaks to you anyway - mention it, see how it goes down).

Date: 2006/10/18 01:48:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,05:08)
On the plus side, it teaches you at an early age that some very confident people have no earthly idea what they're talking about.
Yes, it does.  You might be one of them.  Deadman might be also.

I wrote a bunch of stuff here speculating about the people I've known, and how much they are or aren't like AFDave. But I deleted it because it's just speculation. In truth, I've never before seen something like this thread. I've never seen a guy get thoroughly refuted every day for 5 months. I've seen people be refuted for 4 hours and come out the other side with no loss of confidence, but ~150 consecutive days? Even I'm a little surprised.
You assume I've been refuted and yet you cannot name a single topic in which I've been supposedly refuted and explain point by point HOW I've been refuted.  You are just depending on other people (putting your faith in them) and hoping they are right.  

You have more faith than I do, my friend.

you are really an idiot davey. You have been refuted on this very thread mutiple times. Do you want links to it? Just because you say that you have not does not mean we'll believe you! You are already a proven liar, do you really think you can say "i've not been refuted" and people will just believe you? That kind of uncritical gulping down of information might serve you bible thumpers well, but it'll do you no good here.

Nobody is "Putting their faith" in other peoples claims that they've refuted you. WE CAN SEE FOR OURSELVES ON THIS VERY THREAD THAT YOU'VE BEEN REFUTED OVER AND OVER.

do you need permalinks to the refutations

Date: 2006/10/18 08:59:12, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,13:55)
MacNeill lays the smack-down on CSI. I wonder if WmD will come out and play?

I doubt it. I suspect that'll be the last post in that thread! What could you possible say?

In other words, Dr. Dembski’s mathematical models amount to interesting philosophical speculations, without any empirical application that we can infer.

Date: 2006/10/18 10:45:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
davey. are you saying that the way that genetics operates has changed over time since your "initial creation"? If so, how?

I mean this in the same way you invoke accelerated nuclear decay - is there a "trick" you think everybody has missed that would convince us all the earth is 6000 years old (you never did say when it's due to flip over to 6001) fer sure?

Date: 2006/10/19 02:50:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I notice davey has been very quiet on this subject (in conparison). I wonder if it's because even he realises he's on a hiding to nothing with this "genetically rich" idea of his. It's been so demolished now (why not 1024 chroma's?) that there are no pieces to pick up.

Amazing how such a know-nothing can say that modern genetics is simply wrong, solely on the basis of his belief that Adam and Eve existed.

When i asked him how old the sun was, we get the answer 6000 years. Not on the basis of any actual evidence supporting that, but only on the basis that his belief is that it's not possible for anything to be older then 6000 years old - i.e nothing intrinsic to the sun promotes this belief, but a 2000 year old book "proves" facts about the sun (at a time when people didnt even know what the sun really was).

Amazing. I hope your kids grow up to hate the fact you lied to them throughout their youth - it'll happen. If not to you, then to sombody in your "church".

Oh, i've found somebody willing to hand out leaflets (Craiglist for ya!;) outside your church pointing towards a tiny url for this thread. This is your last chance to admit that you have not pointed your "friends" towards this thread of lies.

Date: 2006/10/19 23:47:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 19 2006,21:53)
"Secondly life is not about increased “order”. life is about specified purposeful information."

Firstly, life is about family and home, in that order.
Chaos is natural.  Order is 'mind made'.

define Chaos and Order please.
Or you might as well say "fishfingers are natural, cake is man made".

I've seen some quite orderly snowflakes :)

Date: 2006/10/20 06:29:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 20 2006,11:25)
Mike ( and everyone else) : sorry I kinda spoiled the fun for a moment, but Dave will be back with an excuse soon, I'm sure.

The thing that gets me is the amount of time spent trying to patiently explain even simple things to Dave and the fact that he seems to let it all pass in one ear and out the other, while making claims he can't even vaguely support -- because he knows squat about the topics and is merely looking for ANYTHING to twist.

Anyway, sorry for chasing him off again, but as I said, I'm sure he's scouring the logs to try to find an excuse for his nasty little tactics and he'll be back, all full of vim, vinegar and vigor as if nothing at all had happened.

speak of the devil.....

Date: 2006/10/24 08:03:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
information huh?

Random AIG article (the one about the "ark", 1st link)

Fog Index:   11.02

Random Article I found here  
that I got to via a search for "Gene therapy with apoA-1 Milano"

Fog Index:   18.46


The Fog Index is a readability test designed to show how easy or difficult a text is to read. It uses the following formula:

Reading Level (Grade) = (Average No. of words in sentences + Percentage of words of three or more syllables) x 0.4

The resulting number is your Gunning Fog Index.

The Gunning Fog Index gives the number of years of education that your reader hypothetically needs to understand the paragraph or text. The Gunning Fog Index formula implies that short sentences written in plain English achieve a better score than long sentences written in complicated language.

For reference, the New York Times has an average Fog Index of 11-12, Time magazine about 11. Typically, technical documentation has a Fog Index between 10 and 15, and professional prose almost never exceeds 18.

Now, if anybody has a paid sub to any of these type of services, i'd be most interested to see a big chunk of the AIG site examined.

But davey, can you see where i'm going here? Using AIG for "research" is like using the ladybird books for reference material. Quite the wrong resource. There is an objective difference between the quality and scope of the data from AIG and from *any other serious research paper* - dont believe me, go to the link and do your own tests.

Date: 2006/10/24 08:32:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
the wordcloud for that AIG noah article is teh funny

Date: 2006/10/25 21:57:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?

Date: 2006/10/26 05:00:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 26 2006,06:41)
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 25 2006,18:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 25 2006,18:04)
It was satire, zero.

Find the pattern in this:

It took me a few minutes to figure out your message.  First I only saw a two inch square of chaos.
Speaking of patterns, the IDOL (intelligent designer of life) made a pattern.  It took him 80 days and nights on a mountain top
to create and 40 days and nights in the desert to tweak.
Exd 25:9 According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make [it].
Exd 25:40 And look that thou make [them] after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.
Num 8:4 And this work of the candlestick [was of] beaten gold, unto the shaft thereof, unto the flowers thereof, [was] beaten work: according unto the pattern which the LORD had shewed Moses, so he made the candlestick.
Jos 22:28 Therefore said we, that it shall be, when they should [so] say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we may say [again], Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it [is] a witness between us and you.
1Ch 28:11 Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat,
1Ch 28:12 And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the LORD, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things:
1Ch 28:18 And for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out [their wings], and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD

Will he build what he planed?
Does a bear shit'n the woods?


the thing is, i think your holy book is total bullshit, to me it is just like all the other "holy" books, utter rubbish, man made stories.
So why should i care what you make of it?

Dont you have anything to say that's not related to a 2000 year old book full of rubbish?

Do you want to stone women to death for adultrey? If not, why not, it's what your "holy" book says you must do? And you are obviously a believer?

Date: 2006/10/26 07:51:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 26 2006,12:23)
Everyone knows how to turn water into wine.

Does anyone know how to turn wine into water?


try drinking it then micturating.

10 is 4 plus 7 minus a baboons arse.


Numerology is as scientific as ID. I.E Not at all. Go away.

Date: 2006/10/28 00:31:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
and, I suppose to strain a analogy, they are evolving their own strain of commenters at UD. While the people that duck under the enviromental hazards (bannation) dont exactly breed and reproduce (the thought alone is horror- a dating agency for UD commenters?! think of the kids!;) but they do reinforce each others tardness.

Some of the comments at UD and OW make me wonder why those people dont go back to college and start training for working as scientists, they opine so assuredly about how wrong everybody else is getting it, and how "obvious" the truth really is if the blinkers are taken off. I could live with that tbh, it's harmless navel gazing, it's just their insistance on "teaching the kids the controversy" that gets me. And garbage like kids4lies.

edit: and flipping over to UD , boy they've sure got a thing for Dawkins at the moment. Keep it up Mr Dawkins sir!

Date: 2006/10/29 09:27:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit


Date: 2006/10/30 02:34:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 29 2006,22:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2006,09:52)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 29 2006,09:38)
And what are the "chances" that you have 2
eyes to see them?


If you want depth perception and redundancy, quite likely.

Richard, I wonder what chance, chance has of
recognizing a need for focus or redundancy?

Especially something external to itself.

Just a thought.


your idocy is this:

you think that chance cannot recognise the "need for focus or redundancy". That's but a straw man.

rephrase your question thusly:

"does redundancy or having eyes that can focus increase or decrease the likelyhood of the thing in question surviving to reproduce".

Of course, 100 eyes may take resources that the creature needs to survive and others spending less energy on that item may survive, but that's likely way over your ability to comprehend - there is no benefit to a mutation if the enviroment does not favour that mutation.

Now just go away and read your bible.

Date: 2006/10/30 02:53:15, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 30 2006,08:43)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2006,08:27)

It follows that DS listens to a JS Bach two part Invention and concludes that it was not designed.  

Is that outside the Universal Probability Bound? Better go with a Bach Fugue, just to be sure. ;-)

didnt we discover recently that "music, art, sculpture" etc etc mean simply nothing to DS? He's a total black hole as far as anything other then "real life" goes?

Of course, he's all sorts of other holes too, but....

Date: 2006/10/30 08:26:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit


I like Zuckerkandl's statments about 'junk DNA' ...
‘Given a sufficient lack of comprehension, anything (and that includes a quartet of Mozart) can be declared to be junk. The junk DNA concept has exercised such a hold over a large part of the community of molecular biologists …(emphasis in original).’ (Zuckerkandl, E. and Hennig, W., Tracking heterochromatin, Chromosoma 104:75, 1995.)

‘DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.’ (Zuckerkandl, E. et al., Maintenance of function without selection, J. Molecular Evolution 29:504, 1989.)
Just another example of how scientists sometimes mislead people ... and they probably don't even realize they are doing it!

You are a real tard daveie. If they dont realise they are misleading people, they are speaking the truth as they see it (as you think you are). When they learn more, they admit their mistakes and move on. It's called Science you bozo.

And you never responded to the funny "we can prove man will never fly" quotemines - why was that again?

have AIG fixed their article that even YOU know is wrong? Who's misleading who now then? Pot, kettle etc. The whole point of science is to come up with a theory that better describes the evidence to hand - the thing is you already KNOW the truth and will never change you mind. Seems like you christians want to lie and lie, AIG are lying right now to everybody that clicks on that fradulent article - after all, nobody but the christians want to hold back the CANCER VACCINATION from kids - i guess Jesus' love will cure cancer? Or was that his tears? Dunno, perhaps you can pray for it instead?

How can you say "prove what Noah's genome looked like" when you DONT HAVE NOAHS DNA IN THE FIRST PLACE? ARE THESE CAPS GETTING THROUGH TO YOU?

Date: 2006/10/30 08:36:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
MORE CAPS: DAVIE, why dont you settle the argument (ha) once and for all.

Simply make a prediction, and we'll start a fund (oh, boy will we) to verify it one way or the other.  You win, AIG = 100% true (apart from the bit you now know is false, of course).

You lose, TOE is all true and you take down kids4lies?

EG: The earth is only 6000 years old, therefore there are 5999  rings on the oldest tree in the world, if it can be proven to everybody's satisfaction that 1 ring a year is lain down..

I'm sure we can think of 100's of others, but what would you propose?


and, it has to be a thing that can be examined by material science as we currenty understand it (the 95% bit of science that you think is true, remember?)

Date: 2006/10/30 08:42:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,13:55)

I got quite interested in cell sizes and genome sizes ... so I did some digging this morning ... this is a pretty cool table!

0.1 nm (nanometer) diameter of a hydrogen atom
0.8 nm Amino Acid
 2 nm Diameter of a DNA Alpha helix
 4 nm Globular Protein
 6 nm microfilaments
10 nm thickness cell membranes
11 nm Ribosome
25 nm Microtubule
50 nm Nuclear pore
100 nm Large Virus
150-250 nm small bacteria such as Mycoplasma
200 nm Centriole
200 nm (200 to 500 nm) Lysosomes
200 nm (200 to 500 nm) Peroxisomes
800 nm giant virus Mimivirus
 1 µm (micrometer)
      (1 - 10 µm) the general sizes for Prokaryotes
 1 µm Diameter of human nerve cell process
 2 µm E.coli - a bacterium
 3 µm Mitochondrion
 5 µm length of chloroplast
 6 µm (3 - 10 micrometers) the Nucleus
 9 µm Human red blood cell
10 µm
      (10 - 30 µm) Most Eukaryotic animal cells
      (10 - 100 µm) Most Eukaryotic plant cells
90 µm small Amoeba
100 µm Human Egg
up to 160 µm Megakaryocyte
up to 500 µm  giant bacterium Thiomargarita
up to 800 µm  large Amoeba
 1 mm (1 millimeter, 1/10th cm)
 1 mm Diameter of the squid giant nerve cell
 120 mm Diameter of an ostrich egg (a dinosaur egg was much larger)
 3 meters Length of a nerve cell of giraffe's neck

Dear Sir,
I've looked in my copy of the bible, and could not find the quoted information. Please inform me how you can be sure this is just not darwinian specluation desiged to remove god from public schools? I see no mention of Jesus in Globular Protein?
Only Jesus can say that  10 nm thickness cell membranes are required, rather then  9 nm thickness cell membranes. 10 is Zero and One. God is 3 in 1 - the holy trinity.
Where is Jesus in your ungodly list of "cell sizes". Take Jesus into your heart and your "Comparison of Cell Sizes"  will be unnecessary.

Best Wishes

Fundy Tard

Date: 2006/11/01 07:48:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 01 2006,13:46)
Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,13:29)
2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.

huh... why?

b'coz goddit!

Dave: How do you get from 16 or fewer HLA alleles to 500 alleles in a handful of generations?

Date: 2006/11/01 10:43:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
however the newcomer seems to think that blocks of text marked up as quotes count as proof.

Date: 2006/11/01 12:50:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
2000 AD The end times. Believers prepare for the rapture

can you be a little more specific as to dates? I cant wait to be of your lot and its organised ignorance! And davey too, if you can.

Date: 2006/11/02 08:18:57, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
at least they stay true to form and mention the holocaust in the 1st chapter!

Date: 2006/11/06 06:59:00, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
how'd it go over at AIG then davey? Are they taking the article down then, that even you admit is wrong?
If not, why not?

Date: 2006/11/11 06:57:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
davey says:


By assuming [THERE WE GO AGAIN, MAKING THOSE BAD ASSUMPTIONS] that 14C in the present atmosphere


[REMEMBER ... I SAID THERE WAS A MUCH HIGHER C12 LEVEL IN THE ATMOSPHERE PRE-FLOOD -- A GOOD GUESS IS 300-500X PRESENT LEVELS (Brown, 1979; Morton, 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidemann, 1992; Giem, 2001)]

whats the difference between "assuming" and "guessing" ?
Is that all you've got? Guesses?

Date: 2006/11/11 07:35:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,07:28)
Varves ... dendrochronology ... "calibration" ... please!  Spare me.  Do you guys have no shame?

do you have any evidence for your own hypothesis?
Care to present it?

Date: 2006/11/11 07:38:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I'll ask you again.



are guesses all you've got?


davey, do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"The majority of evidence on first sight appears to indicate an old earth"


Date: 2006/11/12 05:05:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,18:33)
And where did the carbon go? Maybe the same place the water went to, after the flood?
Jeannot ... have you ever heard of coal and oil?

see, this is what we expect from your magic book. Statements of "fact" with ZERO supporting evidence that can only be accepted with big helpings of "faith". If that's what the condition you are suffering from could be called...

Where is coal and oil formation mentioned in your book? I thought it was your position that if it's not in the book it's not real? DO educate me.

Date: 2006/11/12 08:48:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
indeed. If davey had any integrity at all he'd have to come out and say something like "I dont have a good answer to that, but it's simply what I believe, even if there is no supporting evidence. It's faith".

As he does not, what can we conclude about his Motives?

And you'd have thought that the average human wrist would not be able to support 6 months+ of constant handwaving :)

Date: 2006/11/12 09:35:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
now, if you follow that link to AIG and that article, the *best* bit's are right at the end

We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.

So, they might as well admit that it's not science, it's not supposed to be science, and that if it came down to it they'd still try and burn galileo given the chance.

But how many scientific articles do you see ending in a warning against misue and naming the court? LOL


This Agreement, and all interpretations thereof, shall be deemed to be in accordance with Kentucky law. Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be resolved in accordance with Kentucky law in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Kentucky, which court shall be deemed to be the court of proper jurisdiction and venue

putting alot of faith in Boone County courts huh? Must not be those same courts that keep saying ID is in fact religion.


Do you need me to cite some studies that show you the massive quantities of coal and oil that got buried by the Flood?  If you do, you are worse off than I thought.

davey, Why dont you just list them instead of threatening to? Please list those studies. In fact, why dont you start a webpage listing all your overturnings of modern thinking?

Oh, of course, it'd just be a collection of links to AIG. Keep up the navel gazing.

Date: 2006/11/13 15:05:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
i think daveys been reading this

It's funny because you can read big chunks of it and it reads ok, but then they say things like
transition between the pre-biblical-flood biosphere and the contemporary biosphere  

and it all goes funny again :)

Found, unsurprisingly at An Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Geoscience Research Institute


edit: on the teachers faq it says

say it like you mean it why dont ya!

Date: 2006/11/13 15:15:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:07)
Calibration, huh ...

Please tell me this is going to be more interesting than the "calibration" at Koobi Fora ... :-)

OK, I'll bite ... is Dendro your first one?  Tell me what's wrong with Batten's dendro article that I posted this morning.

no, i think the way it works is that you 1st disprove radiocarbon dating and then get to put in the replacement.

radiocarbon dating:

Date: 2006/11/14 07:19:02, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
i ate it,
oh sorry, that's another joke

Date: 2006/11/14 07:25:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,05:40)
They ASSUME that C14 and C12 have been roughly constant throughout earth history.

And they are mistaken.

Anyone with half an ounce of honesty can see this.

your honesty can be measured in negative numbers.

Honestly, if i write an article and put it on the web, does it automatically become true? If it put it on a "believers" web-site does that make it doubly true? The reason we have peer-review is so that the only place for this sort of pseudo-scientific trash is on the believers web-sites. Find me a article supporting your position (btw, all the citations in the last were pre-1980 and i imagine alot of research into the enviroment has happened since then!;) that's in Nature or another reputable source, and then perhaps you'll have some credence. Not much, but it's a start!

Perhaps i'll start a website that appears to support your position, and when you start to C+P from it i'll come out and say it's all made up crap. But, it's all made up crap from you now aint it davey wavey?

Date: 2006/11/14 07:31:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,07:24)
The choice is yours.  God will not force Himself upon you, friend.

And the time may be short.

How long do you really have before you meet your Creator?

No one really knows.

Care to put a time-scale on that? Last time i saw my brand-new nephew he didnt seem to be suffering from a detoriating genome. Quite the opposite.

C'mon - if this is true, then there must be a predition you can give us? Such as

"currently there are X stillborn babies per year, this will increase to Y by the year Z"

Or whatever mesaure you want to give?

So your answer is


No one really knows.

If no one really knows HOW DO YOU KNOW?

What a great prediciton "the end of the world is nigh, but we're not quite sure when, but it'll be soon you can be sure of that, and although last time i said it was going to be the year 2000 i'm REALLY sure this time that it'll be 2010"..

You know those people that walk around with those signes? "the end of the world". that's you that is, davet.

Date: 2006/11/14 07:36:49, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 14 2006,07:31)
And Davey-boy bails out, after being shown a total liar. Claiming that *I* and other archaeologists "assumed a constant " ....when my very posts previously said otherwise.

Dave bails when he cannot-- by any of his articles --show a "spike" in carbon. They cannot show an increase in land mass available, they cannot show anything he needs in the period of his "flood date" of 2300 he bails, like the intellectual and moral coward that he is.

My work is done for this morning.

your work is indeed done. It's plain just from this page of the thread that the coward dave cannot even begin to talk about the massive spike you mention without some C+P stuff from AIG et al.

C'mon davey. If this spike was real there'd be evidence EVERYWHERE yet you cannot even C+P 1 single article that supports this.

Coward - change the subject all you want but you think people wont notice you've backed down on a major point? Ha, you'll be asked this one for months to come, no way are you getting away with this one.

Date: 2006/11/15 03:10:40, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,22:03)
You guys would never believe who called me today!

Any guesses?

lemme guess. Some kid that you taught your garbage to has all grown up and seen the light. The real light. And he called you up to express his hate?

Date: 2006/11/16 13:21:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

you see that davey? That's

a) incontrovertible proof nuclear theory is sound
b) Your worldview disappearing - it's obvious we're getting down to the core now :). Core sample anybody?? :) :)

Are you really down to
It is actually a religious philosophy.  Worse, it is a religious philosophy completely devoid of any factual basis.

This is you davey - both of them

Date: 2006/11/17 13:28:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 17 2006,13:00)
(And no goatse, or I’ll be assigned another paper. Weird JAD quantumness there.)

aww, goatse's so old hat. It's all about tubgirl now :)

Date: 2006/11/17 14:06:16, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,13:29)
Or maybe it was because their work was better and more useful than his.
Oh sure.  How then do you explain the 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Damadian's favor regarding his patent rights?  Or how do you explain the fact that in 2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr. Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner." ??  How do you explain that Ruse (and atheist and no friend of creationists) says that in the eyes of the Nobel committee, "It is bad enough that such people [creationists] exist, let alone give them added status and a pedestal from which to preach."??  How do you explain that Lauterbur's own notes indicate that he was inspired by Damadian's work in his landmark 1971 paper in Science?

This just illustrates starkly how close minded you are to the truth, Improvius.

You're simply re-phrasing this

but there you go.

It's a hard old world out there. If I went to a job interview and talked about FSM and his noodly appendeges, quite rightly they'd think I was a loon. Same applies to people who think the world is 6000 years old - not supported by evidence and not only that but it's an idea that only has relevance if you are a xinthian.
As much as you'd like to think this is persecution, it's not, it's simply chaff/wheat seperation in action.
Your "goddit" meme is dying out. If it was not, then you'd have no need to be here would you? Refining your "arguments" (wrong word for what you spout, but...)so no doubt so you can "refute" any questions those 10 year olds ask you in your "class of bullshit".

Hey, I invented a new type of Laser, but the holocaust also didnt happen. What's that, dont want to hear about my laser? Why not? Aw....

Date: 2006/11/18 06:27:47, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I can’t blame Nazi eugenics entirely on Darwin.


Date: 2006/11/18 06:52:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
i always thought it meant "by the braces". I guess my religious school prefered it that way :)

davey, explain this

9 Billion-Year-Old ‘Dark Energy’ Reported. NY Times.

The new results are based on observations of 23 supernovas that are more than eight billion years in the past, before dark energy came to dominate the cosmos.

and this
Instead, to their surprise, the two teams, one led by Saul Perlmutter of the University of California, Berkeley, and the other by Brian Schmidt of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories in Australia, found that the universe was speeding up instead of slowing down.

is the best one. You know why? They didnt expect that result, but accepted it as what their results were saying. They "expressed surprise". They did not "cover their eyes and ears and mouths and turn the pages of their bible faster and faster eventully deciding to burn the heretic". They got a result they were not expecting and dealt with it. It's called science. No "historical records" needed, except what was written in the sky 8 billion or so years ago that's there for all to see - no "translation" needed by "preists" that require "donations" so they can cover the ceilings with gold plate (ever been to the Vatican? The wallpaper alone would feed the poor!;). Always got their hands out, the bible thumpers.

Date: 2006/11/19 05:43:16, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Ok, riddle me this:

Can you name some people who believe that the earth is 6000 years old but are not religious? If the "evidence" is so strong for a 6000 year old earth you would have expected it to also have convinced non-christians also.
Can you name some self confessed athiests that also believe in a young earth? Or is the belief ALWAYS tied to religion (i.e only religion can blind you sufficiently to be able to accept a young earth)? Would that not tell you something very specific about your belief davey?

I suspect I already know the answer, and your expected silence on it will be answer enougth.

edit: oh, and why didnt you address the point of my earlier post, which was that 8 billion year old stars are being examined. Where is the flaw in their methodology? Was it pointing their scopes into the sky in the 1st place? Are you contending that these stars are also 6000 years old? why does your liar god make them appear so old? Why?

Date: 2006/11/19 06:05:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 19 2006,05:56)
Oops ... forgot the link on the Dawkins article ...,,2087-2460338,00.html

so what is it you think will happen when AIG win? What different course will science take?

It seems to me that you already know all the answers, so what, would you just cancel all historical, archelogical, and universe history research? Once you get to teach Noah and his ark in science class what then? What are you trying to achieve? Is it simply more converts to your pathethic religion? Once you have them then what happens to science?

So, once you are teaching religion as science, whats your next step? Ban books? Burn the dis-belivers? Overturn the seperation of church and state? Ban abortion? Ban questioning religious authority? Punish affairs by stoning the women to death?

What exactly do you think you'll "win" by this course of action? Are you unhappy with the fruits of the scientific revolution? Do you want to go back to pre-enlightenment days when people thought that everything in the world around them was because of their relationship with dog? Throw another virgin in the volcano perhaps? Is that what you are after? Total worldwide ignorance?

What is it that you want davey? "stop teaching the lies of darwinism to the kids"? Is that all, or is there more to it then that? You want the truth to come out, what would the world look like? What difference to your average scientist would it make? I get the feeling it'd be like living under Nazi germany before too long - another good christian there (and dont for a   second tell us that he was an athiest, unless you want another portuguese moment rammed down your gullet).

Inquiring minds want to know. If you were running the world, what's different?

Date: 2006/11/19 06:14:33, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

This may come as a shock to you, but I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.  And guess what?  Science isn't planning on removing them - EVER.

This is your basic mis-understanding. If you read each magazine in order of publication LATER ARTICLES WOULD SUPERCEDE THE OLDER ONES. I.E new information would refine and correct previous understandings. This is the basic difference between YOU and US. We allow new information to overturn and update previously held views. Your information is static and unchangable and was set 2000+ years ago.


As a matter of fact, this weeks "new scientist" magazine has half the magazine devoted to reprinting articles from the 1950's and up. So we can see, depending on the subject, how wrong we were (nuclear power a panacea for all) and how right we were (global warming). So you see, those "MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG" were the best attempt at the time to understand the issue. Of course, many if not most turned out to be wrong, but that's called science. Over time, your understanding increases and you develop better theorys. Unlike your lot, who stopped developing the moment you went to church to be indoctrinated.  Why search for answers about time=0 when you know FOR A FACT that goddit all along.

I get the impression from you that it would have been better had we not even tried. Then we'd all be sitting round herding sheep, and i'm sure you (your preists) would like that because there's nothing easier to control then a ignorant populace scared of divine retribution (usually for breaking "rules" that the preisthood has devised to protect their "power").

edit: You've also shown your inability to understand what an "archive" is for.  oh dear.

edit edit: oh, who goes to an "archive" to find out current information? Would you not expect it to be outdated? sheesh. And if we compare science's "archive" to AIG's current site, can there be a reasonable comparison? One is labeled an archive, one is what AIG are pushing as "truth" right now. Are you really so desperate to defend AIG that you'll compare outdated information in a archive to their current site? Your desperation is showing.
And, did they correct that false AIG article btw? Did they aplogise for misleading readers the past X years? I've seen plenty of "corrections" in new scientist magazing. Does that mean they are more honest then AIG? hmmm. If so, that would mean that these no doubt athiest scientists are more honest then the AIG lot despite not having a moral code handed down to them by gawd. And yet AIG's been directly commanded by gawd to be honest, and they are not following that commandment? Odd, dont you think, the religious dishonest man will not own up to his mistakes yet the amoral scientist prints "corrections" when required. Personally, i'm not surprised.

Date: 2006/11/19 06:55:00, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
sorry for the mutiple posts but

"Darwin was right about so many things," said Jonathan Losos, a former Washington University biologist who led the study. "In this case he was wrong. He thought that evolution must occur slowly and gradually."

does this help or hinder you hypothesis davey?

Lizard Evolution

Date: 2006/11/19 09:02:27, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
seems like Orwell's 1984 is daveys ideal world. Where you can reach back in time and expunge contradictory data like it never existed.

What do you suppose

If I have seen further [than certain other men] it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.

means davey?

Date: 2006/11/20 12:05:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,10:59)
No ... we wouldn't stone women for adultery or squelch scientific research or any of the other wild things you speculate about.



If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

so, that must be one of the bits you think is allegory right? It's just I thought if it was in your book YOU BELIEVED IT 100% for sure.

The rest, meh, BWE's got it covered. One other thing, however, for history classes would you teach the philisophy of the KKK and the holocaust deniers? Where do you draw the line on things to teach that are contradicted by evidence?

The thing I dont get about fundies is how they pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe and which parts to ignore. Is there some sort of fundie council out there deciding that in the modern world it'd be not good to promote death as punishment for adultry. Not good PR or something?

so, davey, why dont you want to punish adultry with stoning, it clearly says to do so in your book?

Date: 2006/11/21 12:46:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
i'm sorry, but did you actully read the comment you C+P from Allen MacNeill? Go back and read it again.

And I want to see these "science" articles that are wrong.

I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.

Lets see them! Or is this another bluff?

Date: 2006/11/21 13:38:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2006,12:59)
OE: one post in the last 24 hours. Wow, those hip IDers gave really harnessed both youth culture and the interweb.

it would have been more, but mine got deleted in what seemed like seconds. I was just trying to correct some of Troutmac's more egregious  errors regarding "random" and "mutation" with a few links to PT and whatnot. I was only surprised that my comment was allowed to appear at all, instead of being in a Q for "approval".

Date: 2006/11/22 11:30:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Date: 2006/11/22 13:00:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
it's nice to see Joseph getting spanked too


“Then they accept it despite the data to the contrary. And there still isn’t any data (biological/ genetic) that demonstrates what caused the differences observed between chimps and humans. Or that any mutation/ selection can account for those differences.”

All three of these statements are demonstrably false.

If there are “data to the contrary,” please provide a reference (and remember that “data” means empirical evidence, derived from observations and experiments and preferably published in scientific journals, not theoretical speculation or unsupported assertions).


Date: 2006/11/22 13:49:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,13:43)
Eric ... Twisting and distorting won't help ... Anyone who wants the truth can download the thread ... I still don't think you have a good definition of biological information (which is what you accused me of not having when you started your blunder) ... Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism ... Evos are at the end of the rat maze ... BWE ... Monday :-)

you are sick in the head. He provides links to your own words, and you call that twisting and distorting? Anyone who wants the truth can follow those permalinks and see how honest you are.

davey, can you name for me a SINGLE person who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and who also is not a christian?

If the evidence is so overpowering, it'd convince non-believers huh?

If not, what does that tell you?

Date: 2006/11/22 14:27:32, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
ha, I believe I owe somebody $5. He really cannot admit to making a mistake, ever!


I understand the structure now and did when I wrote the article.


My mistake, if any, was not knowing that biologists call the intermediates a haploid cell as a matter of convention.

Pedantry at its finest. If that’s the best argument that can be made about what I wrote then it’s not much of an argument.

It just keeps getting better and better.


Date: 2006/11/24 07:49:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Zero, you've got one long attention span...

Date: 2006/11/24 13:41:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Mexican President Vicente Fox has inaugurated a giant telescope that could help scientists uncover clues about the origins of the Universe.

The telescope, which resembles a gigantic satellite dish, sits high in the mountains of central Puebla state.

It will pick up radio waves that have been travelling through space for some 13 billion years.

What is it that you believe they are picking up davey? Bippity boppity boo?

Desperation is setting in huh? I say we should have a vote on if davey should be allowed to post anything that does not relate to support for his 'hypothesis'

edit: I think he should still be allowed to post whatever he wants, but we should still vote on it :)

Date: 2006/11/26 06:27:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
my favourite DS moment yet, an oldie but no disussion of "the Man, DaveTard" is complete without it:

I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows #### well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.

I grew up in a small town and when a few people pull crap like that that hurts everyone there will be payback. I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.

I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them.

and the cherry on the cake is at the wikipedia talk page

wikipedia talk

where DS makes legal threats over his own words. Oddly, the actual post over at Larrys blog has been removed. I wonder why. It's lucky there are so many caring people that kept a copy

Date: 2006/11/26 06:50:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
what i find funny is

Mr. Caldwell is a parent and attorney in Roseville

so what if he's a parent? Does he also own a dog? How does he have his hair cut?

I suppose being a parent has more relevance then him being an attorney - talk about a sell-out.

Date: 2006/11/26 07:41:46, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
avoid the questions why dont ya.

Whats YOUR opinion on nylon eating bacteria?

and you are pointing us towards a website that says

The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated.

Would you mind telling me what research AIG is carrying out to "eludicate the details of how nylon eating bacteria came to be?"

Amazing they can say "we dont know how the details of how it does it BUT WE KNOW GODDIT". Why is that? Despite their own acceptance of the fact they dont KNOW HOW THE DETAILS, they are perpared to say that GODDIT already. I believe i remember you davey going on about how evilutionists have a pre-concieved idea of the truth, and warp the evidence to fit it. What's the difference in this case?
Please do explain it to me. AIG says "we dont know, but goddit" and science says "we dont know, but we're going to find out". How much money is AIG spending finding out davey?

Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation—the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes.

I suspect that any discoverys in disease control will NOT be coming from AIG - nice how they simply latch on to others work, the word for that is parasite.

And as good christians, you want to relieve suffering etc right? In that case, with the potential for breakthroughs in disease control just waiting there why dont AIG put some of their millions of $$ towards helping people for once? If you are dying of a infection that AIG's groundbreaking research pays for, you are more likely to join up with your church right (as the alternative is death!;). So what are you waiting for? Nobel prizes await. Scum.

your other link contains the classic strawman

What would be really impressive evidence for goo-to-you evolution would be fish gaining eyesight where there was no previous genetic information for eyesight.

care to wait around a few years and i'm sure that will happen. How long exactly have you got? Is this what it's all based on then for you creos? How "impressed" you are? It's such a shame that you dont appriciate how "impressed" you should really be, as the blind fish under question evolved, just as the person talking about it did. You dont need eyes to be impressed by the power of evolution, but you do need a brain in the 1st place to appriciate it. Hey, perhaps the feedback loop here is IC? You cant appriciate evolution until you have a brain to do it with, and you cant get a brain unless you believe goddit? Or something anyway, lucidity is not their strongpoint :)

and finally you say davey

Notice again that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.

we're at the point now where entire genomes have been sequenced. Presumably there is a library of things that organisms might need "just in case". So, your prediction is that

If we sequence the nylon eatings bug genome, we'll find that

a) There is another copy of the nylon eating "code" in there (otherwise where did it come from in the 1st place?)

b) Next to that, there are instruction sets for digesting every other material that could ever be made, or that gawd could think of at the time

c) Then, therefore, we can in a single generation (once we understand the triggers and switches) create bugs that will eat anything at all on demand?

To me, all that logically follows from

Notice again that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.

or what davey? You've made some predictions at last, be proud!

Date: 2006/11/26 11:44:28, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Russel said:
annoying tendency of would-be obfuscaters to just type out a reference or two, rather than actually dealing with the issue - implying, of course, that those referenced articles deal with it.

it's like we're playing top trumps with davey or something. Or, bullshit baton racing perhaps?
The fundies just pass the problems back and back, like a baton in a race but the further the baton goes away the more misty the view, the bigger the potential gaps for goddit to live in.
I think their mindset must colour everything they do - in their world, they deal with their problems (i.e things that require forgiveness) by asking for and getting forgiveness from the sky-daddy (via the intemediary of the church and hangers on, donations, church roof falling down, etc etc).

So, take a problem and hand it back, up, down. davey thinks he can hand off things back to his masters at AIG as it certanly seems to work for the things he's done wrong that he requires forgiveness for. Worked for A, will work for B, those damm pesky scientists with their inquiring minds.
He really thinks he's dealt with the questions by placing those links, as it's standard procedure in the rest of his life - no need to think about difficult questions, just pass them back, back and to the left, back and to the left.

And JayRay Said

Do I understand it right that AFD is in charge of teaching groups of children about (whatever passes for) his version of science?

davey waives this
around like it's the finest thing since the LOTR. And not a sad example of lies4kids. He's made various claims to be teaching groups of kids his verison of the truth, I believe.

Date: 2006/11/28 08:08:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
davey said
And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.

good to see you are admitting you are a liar now. Small steps, but we are getting there.

Date: 2006/11/29 08:07:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
stolen from fark (bad me)

foozdude seyz:


1. Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Unconstituional by the first amendment. Freedom of religon.

2. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image
Unconstitutional by the first amendment. Freedom of speech.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Unconstituional by the first amendment. Freedom of speech.

4. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it
Unconstitutional by the first amendment. Freedom of speech/expression.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother
Unconstitutional by the first amendment. Freedom of speech.

6. Thou shalt not kill.
Finally! One that is universially consistent throughout all of history. Unfortunately, it was written down in the Code of Hammurabi 500 years before moses. Not original to the Bible.

7. Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
It can be used as grounds for divorce, but there are no federal laws against cheating on your partner or having pre-marital sex.

8. Thou shalt not steal.
Ahh! Another universal law. Too bad codes of hammurabi got to it first. Not original to the Bible.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
No laws against lying except under oath.

10. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbor's wife, thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's
Our entire economy is built on people wanting stuff. Without our nation coveting useless crap we wouldn't have the lives we do today. No computers, no cars, nothing. No laws against this.

From now on, anyone claiming that the laws of of the United States are based on the 10 commandments is automatically considered a pink tutu wearing moran.

Date: 2006/11/30 03:06:39, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,17:08)
The INTELLIGENT DESIGNER created new ones for those years.

this intelligent designer, care to make any guesses as to who it is? Remember, your friends over at UD insist (when they remember) that it's not your xthian god.

Date: 2006/12/02 15:44:18, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,15:34)
Deadman ... You keep thinking that because I haven't delved into stars or whatever else that this means I have a dogmatic opinion about them that happens to coincide with something you've heard from other creationists.  Not necessarily so.

I originally asked you way back how old the sun was. You said, with no supporting references or really any reason at all, that it was 6000 years old. So, I take this to mean that if we asked you the age of object N (where, N=any object) you'd say 6000 years old. In fact, you can hardly say otherwise can you? Or you'd disprove your own "hypothesis".

Since then, what I've wanted to know is when does the universe have it's birthday? When will it be 6001?

Date: 2006/12/04 12:54:32, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
davey, how about you tell me when it is exactly that you celebrate the earths (and now we know, the universe too) birthday? When will the earth be 6001?

And Erics point is quite simple. I find it hard to believe that you can fly a plane and yet not understand a concept like "you only find ford motorcars being assembled in ford factory's and you only find Daiwoo cars in the process of assembly in Daiwoo factory's"

You can't answer this point so you dissemble.

Im my own words then

If you get all fossils and mix them up with water, and dry them out, they'll be sorted according to size and shape.
But this is not how we find them.

ericmurphy   Posted on Dec. 04 2006,12:11

Holocene fossil shellfish are found in Holocene deposits, Cambrian fossil shells that have the same hydrodynamic characteristics are found in Cambrian deposits. Your quote from Morris simply fails to account for this fact. No fossil has ever, ever been found other than where evolutionary theory has expected to find it.

Date: 2006/12/08 13:47:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
They are really loving this non-coding lark over at UD. The fools. I would call them a parasite on science, but at least parasites have a purpose.

bFast  // Dec 8th 2006 at 12:26 pm

DaveScot, they’re realin’ and a wrigglin’ — or at least they should be.

bFast  // Dec 8th 2006 at 11:22 am

DaveScot, let me keep this discussion painfully honest, after all we’ve got ‘em this time, and we don’t need to bungle it.

mike1962  // Dec 8th 2006 at 1:29 pm

“If mice and men had a common ancestor many millions of years ago and they still have highly conserved DNA in common, the story follows that all the conserved DNA must have an important survival value.”

Or perhaps (gasp) common descend is a crock, and some designer(s) came up with all the body plans, and shared various components from a “library”, and the “junk” just happened to be in the library as filler, etc.

Think OOP.

Boy would I love to toy with that library. Seems like it would be fun populating a planet with variouos lifeforms that interact. Hmm, I wonder if the “angels” (read: extraterrestial brainiacs) did that on this planet? Seems I read in the Talmud that this is exactly what happened. Hmm.

I wonder what revelations will come from this new ID research programe


DaveScot  // Dec 8th 2006 at 12:21 pm
I recently did a light survey of genomic analysis software to see what it costs to get into the business of data mining the genome bank. It ain’t much.

Davetard is rich! Why not fund a little research instead of talking about it DS? Put your money where your mouth is. Your nobel awaits? Or what are you scared of?

Date: 2006/12/09 14:31:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,13:15)
although we apparently have precursors to Thought Police in academia

name them

Date: 2006/12/10 15:21:48, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,14:01)
Nobody laughed at my joke!  Come on ... you guys are too serious!

Yes, you showed me the Ames test alright ... I would buy you a cold one if you were here ... and yes, I misread you on our nylon friend ... I spent a lot of time on supposed proof for ToE in APO Milano ... I suspect this nylon-eater is a similar case ... but feel free to prove me wrong if you like.

... but as soon as you're done celebrating the Ames test, you might want to explain how that helps save ToE.

It DOES need saving, Russell ... at least the Modern Synthesis does according to MacNeill.

More tomorrow!

davey, why dont you mail MacNeill or zip over to his blog and engage him there? Explain your position.See if he supports you or not in "person".

huh? huh?

Date: 2006/12/11 03:00:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,22:33)
Argy's explanation for why the Ames Test proves ToE ...  

this is real kids stuff. But I suppose children lap this up?
How old are you davey? 10?

When will the earth be 6001 davey?
If you can say it's 6000 years old, you must know when it'll be 6001? Or will it be 6000 years old forever? That would be a miracle!

Date: 2006/12/12 12:50:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,12:34)
Now, let me digest Incorygible's post and I'll get back to you.

Ironic metaphor. Considering.

Last time asking. When is the earth 6001 davey?

You are not saying "the earth is 6000 +/- 1000". You are saying it's exactly 6000. If you said "6000 +/- 16billion" then perhaps we can work to narrow the error margin.

Date: 2006/12/12 15:21:57, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 12 2006,13:52)
In fairness, we should record this comment:
12. bj  // Dec 12th 2006 at 2:23 pm

When I was a lad, long ago, I played baseball. When beaten by an opposing team, we would often complain about the unfairness of it all. We would accuse the other team of cheating, being lucky, or just generally being the scum of the earth. Our coaches would tell us to shut up, stop whining, improve our game and beat them next time.

Generally, I am a supporter of ID’s cultural goals, but I found the above to be good advice.

Blessed are the whiners, for they shall inherit the earth. I don’t remember that one.

...before the whole thread gets deleted.

P.S. Alan: I've passed your message on.  We'll see what happens.  I might not join in (I only started on the thread because I wanted to try and push it in one direction.  But I'm being distracted by consciousness), but I appreciate you making the effort, and  hope someone turns up from the Other Side.

threads still there!
I think this thread will be their anti-censorship thread.

"Censorship, what censorship? Look at all the rude comments we've allowed to stay".

Date: 2006/12/16 11:16:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,10:56)
* A machine is the obvious definition -- simply a highly specific arrangement of parts which consume energy and perform some useful function

what useful function does AIDS perform then?

Date: 2006/12/16 14:34:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,14:26)
Eric ... The sun and the earth as factories ... sure ... not as similar a comparison though as watches and cells.

Can you figure out why?

this aint kids4lies camp for 8 year olds you know davey.
Speak like you are speaking to fully grown people (scientists no less, remember?).

Date: 2006/12/16 14:42:07, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,14:26)
dodge and hide from one of the most obvious facts to be uncovered by the molecular biological revolution -- that cells are not just blobs of goo ...

... they are factories full of exquisite machines!

I understand ... to admit this would be to give up your prized religious philosophy (Naturalism).

And this you will never do.

oh, yes, the revolution in molecular biology brought about by hardworking YEC's, Intelligent Design Theorists, Creation labs like Biologic Institute and well funded groups like AIG.

For a moment there I thought you were serious.

People used to think cells were blobs of goo.
People used to think the sun went round the earth.
People used to think death was brought by bad smells.
People used to think that rational argument could potentially lead to changes in points of view. Until they read this thead anyway.

Date: 2006/12/16 16:22:08, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
i'm deeply impressed.

Have you got the phone number of this bloke? I've got a drive that needs looking at, last bloke was a right cowboy. Could do with some nano-manipulation no doubt. Where's it mention nanobots in the bibble then davey? :)

Date: 2006/12/18 12:53:57, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:23)
Improv ... you get confused easily ... I am not arguing the opposite.  Nothing has changed in my argument.  DNA is like a computer program.  And it is also real, honest-to-goodness software.  All at the same time.  The only people whose heads explode trying to understand this are those infected with Darwinism.  (And those who read our lawyer friend's posts)

if you are right, and the rest of the scientific world is wrong, how come nobody's listening to you?

If Darwinism is an "infection" then Creationism is getting your leg sawn off because of a mole.

Date: 2006/12/18 13:00:07, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)
Eric, Eric, Eric ... my lawyer ... er ... lawyeresque friend ...

Your "Watches can't reproduce" thing that you got from Russell isn't working.

Quit  typing so much and re-read my posts and you will see why.

Jeannot already agreed with me and you all would to, if you were honest.

we ALL get your point, you just dont get ours.

Eric says it best:

You're mistaking proof that an intelligent designer could have created life (duh) for proof that an intelligent designer must have created life.

Date: 2006/12/18 13:18:40, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:02)
OA ...    
DNA is NOT honest-to-goodness software Dave.  Software is a set of abstract symbols that are read and interpreted by another agency (the computer OS), then acted upon to produce a desired result.
I beg your pardon, Mr. Masters in EE Space Scientist.  Software is NOT abstract.  It is a PHYSICAL REALITY in memory chips, hard drives and other storage devices.  Each bit of data represents either a "1" or a "0" (which is the abstraction), but it is a physical reality ... either an electrical charge or a magnetic orientation.

Just like the biological software is also a physical (though different) reality.

You might need to ask for a refund on your EE degree.

ah-ha. Now we're in my field.

Lets play.

So, this "biological software". What hardware does it "run" on?
Can we abstract the hardware layer and virtualise it? I.E can we run buffalo software on a horse hardware layer?

If not, why not? If we cannot, then your "biological software" requires a different name.

So, it's electical charges OR magnetic orinentation is it? How about clockwork computers? Ever hear of babbage (and they recently built his design and it works!;).

Forget about this tactic davey, it will not do you any good.

So, each bit of data represents 1 or 0 huh?

In my experence, if I "mutate" a single bit in a piece of compiled code it will usually not work. Ta-da. You've proved "the fall". Well done, it was a computer virus?

Are you talking about source code or compiled code btw? There's a major difference.

I could go on.

edit: And the point you missed is that what does



To computer A: It could mean "blow the hatches"
To computer B: It could mean "hatch the blowfishes"

It's meaning is "abstract" in the sense that what it means depends on (basically) the programe that's running! Or the OS, or the hardware.

Look, press ALT+F4 right now. See? On a spectrum that does nothing! But on a modern PC it closes your browser. Context. Otherwise it's just seemingly random noise.

Date: 2006/12/18 13:34:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I admit an Intelligent Designer could have created life.

Bippty, boppity boo. WOot. Teh Win.

There is a saying round my neck of the woods.

"If me aunty had bollocks, she'd be my uncle".

Hear what i'm saying?

If, perhaps, maybe. I thought you had "proof". Not just more god of the gaps verbage.

Date: 2006/12/18 15:07:57, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
12. DaveScot  // Dec 18th 2006 at 3:51 pm


Is Darwinism largely supported by atheists?

No. Atheists largely support Darwinism. If faith in Darwinian principles was limited to atheists we wouldn’t be here talking about it as they’re so small in number. It’s interesting though that the National Academy of Science’s membership is quite the reverse of the nation as a whole with atheists representing 80% of its membership. I don’t think any organization so skewed from the population as a whole should be given the advisory role in gov’t that the NAS enjoys. It’s an atheist clique. Religious people need not apply.

Comment by DaveScot — December 18, 2006 @ 3:51 pm

apart from the presumably 20% non-atheist members?

The oddest thing about ID is that supporters point to things that disprove their case, and yet it becomes positive proof.
Is DS taking lessons from O'Leary now?Link

Date: 2006/12/18 17:34:45, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
well, they have got the good Judge bang to rights this time.

The Quote Mark Scandal

Last week, Rob Crowther reported evidence suggesting that Judge John Jones of Kitzmiller v. Dover fame plagiarized from a scholar's book in his commencement address last summer at Dickinson College. Well, consider the report confirmed

I sight the bottom of the barrel, but they keep on digging!
Of course, party line tower number 1 GilDodgen brings this to our attention when he comments on one of his masters threads that yet again attempts to defend the fart noises in the ill famed animation.
These creationists have really got no idea how to play dirty! Fart noises?
Perhaps they should start taking tips from big oil!

"unattributed quotes you say? Blackball the fellow at once!"


In other words, he’s nothing but a talking doll mindlessly repeating verbiage supplied by others. Either the loyal opposition are all as dumb as a bag of hammers or they are purposely ignoring the point made by the satire.

Daves new "oops" Dumb as a Bag of Hammers

Has anybody else noticed the more "controversial" the topic on UD the less comments there are on the threads? It's almost like they are all "held in the moderation" Q. I wonder why. I wonder how many of the party line towers are really sockpuppets also?

Date: 2006/12/18 17:59:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
ohh, it's tit for tat now! The handbags are out between Dembski and Dawkins!
Since Richard Dawkins thinks he has the right to reprint my letters to him by posting them over the Internet (go here), I’ll assume the same privilege applies to me. Let’s start with this exchange from the spring of 2000:

The Dawkins-Dembski Briefwechsel, Installment I

But there’s work by design theorists, now starting to appear in the journals, which argues this with full rigor for specific biochemical systems.

He's publishing letters from Dawkins now. Exciting stuff! Anything to push that fart entry further down the page I suppose.

Where are these "arguments with full rigor" by design theorists he mentions?

Date: 2006/12/19 11:07:39, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,11:05)
I do not want to be distracted with "complexity tests" because they have ZERO to do with my argument.

so we'll take that as a NO then?


Date: 2006/12/20 16:25:02, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (heddle @ Dec. 20 2006,15:53)
No, it just promises certain damnation for saying something [some specific thing, well documented].

I believe i'm dammed for missing church on one of the 7 days (I'm remembering through a 20 year old mist of time mind you) of the year that you have to go to church and do something or other, or be dammed for ever.

Or something. Got Dammed when I was about 10 in that case!

But you are quite right

No, it doesn't. There is no magic sentence that gets one irrevocably damned.

in any case, as there's no such thing as dammed in the 1st place as #### does not exist!

Date: 2006/12/21 11:21:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
TroutMac is now chastising people -

You can critique design in nature all you like, but that you offer this as an argument against the theory of Intelligent Design despite the fact that you are able to recognize design, even 'bad' design, in objects designed by intelligent humans is a reflection of your own intellectual dishonesty, charlatanism and hypocrisy.

My bolding. I guess the pot + kettle are never out of work over there. It's like watching a traincrash in slowmotion over there at OW at the moment. I bet the mods just wish Trouty would shut the heck up.
At the moment the "kidz" are reading little but how the people who try to argue with his self imposed ignorance get bannation (with a "send a email Dembski" if they want to appeal!;)). Hardly the myspace beater we were promised!

But if your no 1 shill is Trouty

There is peer-review literature which supports ID. That's a fact.

Then perhaps it's no surprise!


Date: 2006/12/21 11:32:15, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
It's a Miracle!

Sal shows us how stickers increased SAT scores!

In other news, there hasn't been a world war since YouTube was created.

4. Collin  // Dec 21st 2006 at 11:33 am

I don’t see what was wrong with the stickers. What if it said the same about any other theory? Did ACLU argue it was implying ID? And if so, does ID equal state endorsement of a religion?

Comment by Collin — December 21, 2006 @ 11:33 am

I wonder how DS will spin this one? LOL. Instead of Gravity we have the "Theory of intelligent falling". Link

And scordova's inane unsupported gibberish tops it off:

What is not reported in the press is that it is possible the influx of affluent pro-ID families and their influence in Cobb county sent the SAT scores into record territory for Georgia. The stickers were evidence the parents were deeply interested in their children’s education. It was because of the public schools in Cobb county that affluent and educated pro-ID families were flocking there.

Sure, how many families are there exactly that say "lets move to Cobb county because they have stickers there that point out the flaws in Darwinism". If he considers this a realistic or likely situation it's no wonder he can believe the mish-mash of contradictiory random verbage that passess for the bibble. Honestly. And, correct me if i'm wrong, but would a influx of these "people" show up in areas other then SAT scores? Property prices? Tax recipts? Perhaps here's a investigation the IDers could finally get off their behinds and investigate and provide objective proof thereof. Not a chance.

Date: 2006/12/21 11:36:37, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
If you find a piece of pottery--nothing else, I guarantee you that you would say it was designed.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Disagree.  Make a fool of yourself.

what about a nuclear reactor? If you found one of those on the street davey, would you say it HAD to have been designed?

Date: 2006/12/21 11:47:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Date: 2006/12/21 12:26:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,12:20)
Yes, yes.  We could post many EQUIVOCAL examples now, couldn't we?

I'm only interested in the UN-equivocal ones ... such as those that I have posted.

Anyone that uses their eyeballs (and their noggins) to evaluate those two motor pictures I posted will have NO trouble at all determining that BOTH are designed.

And all it takes is ONE example ... at which point ID becomes very likely.

:D  :D  :D  :D

This is such fun!

we could, but could you? You are yet to give us an example of an object that was not designed!

Date: 2006/12/21 14:04:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 21 2006,12:51)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 21 2006,11:52)
DaveScot blogs on Parthenogenesis in Komodo Dragons.

Atom wonders,    
I was wondering if anyone had noticed that story…

I wonder... Those darn scientists always hiding their discoveries in plain view.

So let's recap the TardLogic.

The virgin birth could be considered an example of parthenogenesis in a 'higher animal'.

Parthenogenesis occurs in Komodo dragons.

Komodo dragons are a 'higher animal'.

Therefore this proves the Virgin Birth was totally possible.

Therefore Darwinism is wrong and Intelligent Design [which has nothing to do with religion] is right!! USA! USA! USA!

Aw, Dave, we love you so much, man.  :p

do you think the reason DS does not spend his $$$ money on ID research is because he's spent it all already?
On research aimed at  inducing parthenogenesis in himself and creating a mini-DS?


"this year, dont buy gifts, buy a mini-tard and save a soul"

Date: 2006/12/22 08:54:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:41)
intuition n. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.

Faid was able to use "immediate cognition" to determine that the monkey was not Mrs. Bloom's son.

C'mon, Improv ... try another approach.  Or better yet ... be humble and surrender!



K.e ...      
Have you checked the latest info on how the flagellum EVOLVED I thought not.
Yes I have.  It was like reading "Alice in Wonderland."  You Darwinists have quite the active imaginations!

From How to search a quantum phonebook

To get a glimpse of Deutsch's insight, consider an atom that has a lone electron on its outermost orbit. By shining light on the atom, it is possible to force this electron to jump to a higher orbit: the atom becomes excited. What happens if you shine the light on an atom in the ground state, but for only half the time needed to excite it? Where will the electron end up, knowing that quantum mechanics forbids it from lying anywhere between the two orbits? The counterintuitive answer is that the electron will find itself simultaneously on both orbits. If we associate the binary value 0 to an atom in its ground state and 1 to an excited atom, we have produced a qubit -- the unit of quantum information -- that is in a superposition of classical states 0 and 1.

This one is from your favourite resource, wikipedia

Macroscopic systems (such as chairs or cats) do not exhibit counterintuitive quantum properties, which can only be observed in microscopic particles such as electrons or photons. This invites the question of when a system is "big enough" to behave classically and not quantum mechanically?

This quenching of spontaneous emission by quantum coherence provides yet another example of counterintuitive quantum effects

Or, to put it another way if we'd only followed intuitive results or reasoning like you propose, the modern computer would be impossible and you would not be able to have this "discussion".

Date: 2006/12/22 09:02:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:41)
K.e ...
Have you checked the latest info on how the flagellum EVOLVED I thought not.
Yes I have.  It was like reading "Alice in Wonderland."  You Darwinists have quite the active imaginations!

what exactly was your problem with it? I dont have a degree in any sort of biology subject, but i've followed this whole story in detail. And if we judge soley on the quality of evidence, then you lose.

Have you not read all the research done on this one? Your side has had it's arguments destroyed in detail. And you think they are still right but can only say what a imagination. Well, from where I am looking, the person with the Alice in wonderland imagination is you! Considering what else you believe in. Global floods that moved cacti from mountaintop to desert, sheep with VD, 6000 year old universe...

What specific part do you have a problem with?

Date: 2006/12/22 10:01:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:22)
What specific part do you have a problem with?
Simply that when they try to explain how the flagellum could have evolved stepwise, they propose each of the imagined steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by chance and selection.  It's pure speculation.  Pure "Alice in Wonderland."

What specific part do you have a problem with?
Simply that when they try to explain how the flagellum could have been created by a higher power, they propose each of the holy steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by divine intervention.  It's pure speculation.  Pure "Holy Scriptures"

Date: 2006/12/22 10:13:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:22)
What specific part do you have a problem with?
Simply that when they try to explain how the flagellum could have evolved stepwise, they propose each of the imagined steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by chance and selection.  It's pure speculation.  Pure "Alice in Wonderland."


If you go to google, and search for

site: postulated

you will see a couple of hundred results. What a whole lotta postulation going on. What a shock, IF this THEN that. IF IF IF.

What are you, a basic programmer? Your overuse of "GOTO Miracle" has been noted.

Date: 2006/12/22 11:06:16, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,10:41)
It's easier to pretend like I'm stupid for asking if Russell knew this fact than to come out and admit he (and you) didn't, isn't it now?

It's easier to concentrate on your percieved "slights" then answer any of the substantive points?

I did not see any meaningfull comeback on the DNA as software? AIG tell you to give up on that one?

Date: 2006/12/22 15:04:27, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
hey, Dembski has only just propsed a debate and already

Okay, I’m already planning a road trip to see this Dembski/Forrest debate. Can we pin her to a date?? Seriously…

Comment by Forthekids — December 22, 2006 @ 3:08 pm

Kinda reminds me of how ID researchers conduct themselves in general. And Forrest has likely not even heard about this offer of a debate, never mind had time to accept it!

Date: 2006/12/23 05:30:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
London originally, now i'm "sunning"* myself down by the south coast of England.

* it's not really all that sunny!

Date: 2006/12/23 10:29:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
but you can generate novel items via evolution

so, lets compare evolved to designed antennas. Can Behe or Dembski tell the difference?

Which one evolved?

Date: 2006/12/23 12:08:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
DS shoots and scores

"The Sound of The Neutral Theory Exploding"

What is their secret weapon do you think? I believe it's some sort of google news "notifier" widgit. Enter some search terms, it spits out original science research!

And as a bonus, if you want your scientific paper looking over by a know nothing bozo then UD offers a spit and shine service like no other!

Date: 2006/12/26 15:25:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

45. DaveScot  // Dec 25th 2006 at 8:17 am


Saying it could happen in some manner isn’t good enough. It must be demonstrated. The former is story telling. The latter is science.

Comment by DaveScot — December 25, 2006 @ 8:17 am


Irony meter melt down shortly!

So is ID science or story telling? :)

DS - What has the ID movement demonstrated via science lately? What will it demonstrate in the coming year? Any predictions? Or are predictions still not something that ID gets to do yet?


TroutMac Seyz (my bold) on the same thread:

That is, DNA is the information storage system used universally by every organism, except, as I understand it, by a few that only use RNA or something. Whatever. The point is, SO WHAT if a chimp’s DNA is “98%” similar to that of humans? DNA itself is EXACTLY the same, as an information storage medium, in every organism.

I think TroutMac is about to challenge DS for the head-tard position. Are those antlers about to clash? Will TroutMac be forced to read a remedial science book???

Date: 2006/12/26 16:02:32, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Faid @ Dec. 26 2006,15:45)
I see. So, having a single "information storage medium" for every organism totally disproves common descent because um, that is, proves common design, because er, evolution would have created all kinds of different self-replicating molecules for every organism no wait

...What was this about again?

I think Trouty has been drinking the same brand of Kool-aid as O'leary!

Date: 2006/12/27 06:44:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,21:49)
Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?
Flood was about 2350 BC.  Gizeh Pyramid was about 2170 BC.  Built by humans.  Smart ones.  Fun topic.


So 8 People became hundreds of thousands in a few dozen years, who then went built the pyramids?????

As they must have been totally inbreds, how does that work out?

"Hey Sister, you are looking great tonight!"

Date: 2006/12/27 07:09:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Hey, Jehu has pointed out that we've got it all wrong! ID is in fact on the up and up! And he has the evidence required too! What a master!

14. Jehu  // Dec 27th 2006 at 3:11 am

Here’s how I see the score card.

First Cause of Matter. ID wins easy because material causes cannot cause mater itself. Therefore, a non-material cause is necessary to explain the existance of matter.

Fine tuning of physical laws. ID wins because the probability of laws that allow life arising by chance are so low as to be impossible.

The Big Bang, Another easy ID win because it is really the sum of the previous two.

Fine tuning of the earth Easy ID win because again, all of the conditions necessary to life that are found on earth are so improbable by chance that design is more probable.

Origin of Life ID wins on this so easy it is not even funny. Life is IC.

Evolution of Singel Cell Organisms ID again carries the day because an honest look at the evidence shows no indication of phylogeny.

Evolution of Complex Organisms ID wins. Why? Two words: “Cambrian Explosion.”

Fossil Record of Complex Organisms ID wins because of the absence of transitional fossils and stasis.

I could go on but it is late. I see ID as way ahead of NDE. There might be some areas where NDE makes a good argument but I haven’t seen one in so long that it is not coming to me right now.

Comment by Jehu — December 27, 2006 @ 3:11 am

You've got to hand it to them, they know when they are on top! LOL

On the same thread, Bourne says

I’ve never seen such an inability to reason from A to B to C before. Nor such a clear failure to understand or even discern simple logical implications.

I’m wondering if their relativist stance has some sort of neurological logic breaking tendency and is thus draining away their ability to critically analyse logical arguments clearly.


Pot? Kettle? LOL LOL LOL

These guys are sooo very funny! Living in their little bubble.
What do you suppose a "neurological logic breaking tendency" is anyhow? Is that the condition you get if you listen to too much DS or Dembski? The very fabric of your brain revolts against it? Sounds about right.

Date: 2006/12/27 08:15:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,08:07)
9) No more court cases.  Way too much media attention on the controversy debate ... er ... well, just way too much media attention PERIOD.

I'm sorry, I believe we're waiting on your answer to

Flood was about 2350 BC.  Gizeh Pyramid was about 2170 BC.  Built by humans.  Smart ones.  Fun topic.

How did 8 people turn into hundreds of thousands of labourers in a few dozen years again?

As to the court cases. Are these the one's which your side always loses? Bring them on I say! The more the merrier! The transcripts are funny as anything! Boy, these ID'ers squirm when they are "pinned down".

Edit: Oh, and Dembski on the stand will be worth waiting for. It'll never happen as he's too much of a coward (would not want to put those jobs at risk would we? Cushy numbers at a know-nothing religious university? Like working for the council or something. Get to work, stretch, write a few fart jokes, nice work if you can get it!;).

Date: 2006/12/27 08:24:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,08:07)
1) Figure out a viable mechanism for Macro-Evo since RM+NS is dead.  Synergistic Epistasis maybe?  Soft Selection perhaps?


3) Don't refer anyone to Allen MacNeill's statement that the Modern Synthesis of ToE is dead, found here and here

From the Thread you Linked to. Why not let the Man speak for himself, Liar davey?

And davey, does your curiosity about nature exceed your fear of the unknown?

. Allen_MacNeill  // Oct 17th 2006 at 6:35 pm

Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success.

This idea was essentially based on theoretical mathematical models originally developed by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, with some experimental confirmation (using Drosophila) by Theodosious Dobzhansky and field observations (chiefly of birds) by Ernst Mayr (with some supporting observations on the fossil record by G. G. Simpson and plants by G. Ledyard Stebbins). Its high water mark was the Darwin centenial celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which most of the aforementioned luminaries attended, and which has been chronicled by Ernst Mayr and William Provine.

However, cracks were already showing in the “synthesis” by 1964, when W. D. Hamilton proposed his theory of kin selection. They widened considerably in 1969 when Lynn Margulis proposed her theory of serial endosymbiosis. Then, in 1972, the dam broke, when Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould published their landmark paper on “punctuated equilibrium. Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis”, Gould went on to publish yet another landmark paper with Richard Lewontin, this one undermining the “Panglossian paradigm” promoted by the founders of the “modern synthesis”:
that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.

And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

But what has come out of all of this is NOT the end of the theory of evolution, but rather its further integration into the biological sciences. Darwin only hinted at (and the founders of the “modern synthesis” mostly ignored) the idea that the “engine of variation” that provided all of the raw material for evolutionary change is somehow intimately tied to the mechanisms by which organisms develop from unicellular zygotes into multicellular organisms, and the mechanisms by which genetic information is transferred from organism to organism.

We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.

Date: 2006/12/27 10:29:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,10:05)
You mean you've never read about how rapidly the ecology was restored at Mt. Saint Helens?  Surely you've read about that, right?

You never did say how those Cacti got up and down the mountain did ya?


Aftershave, Aftershave ... you jump to so many false conclusions ... where to begin?

Oh, so explain how when water (was it salt or fresh btw?) covered the entire globe, every ecosystem was not wiped out? How did a cactus get up a mountain to survive the flood and back to the desert?
Oh, I forgot, GODDIT! Of course, silly me. This is why you and yours will only lose lose lose.

Date: 2006/12/27 10:33:43, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 27 2006,10:19)
(AFDave) :  You mean you've never read about how rapidly the ecology was restored at Mt. Saint Helens?  Surely you've read about that, right?

Mt. Saint Helens had an abundant supply of flora and fauna from immediately outside the eruption damaged zone (as well as surviving life inside the zone) to draw from Davie  According to your little saga, the entire Earth was totally laid completely barren.

Walk us through the development of the post flood ecology, will you Dave?  Tell us what all those millions of long-lived sister-bonking folks lived off of.  Then tell us how they all ended up in Egypt.

davie, dont you have any response to this, other then to shake your head at the "ignorance" of it?

You lack of substantial response says more then any wordgames you can come up with. You just dont have an answer to that do you? And your masters at AIG dont have one either.

How are the mutant baboon dogs doing anyway? Of course, I only mean the females AS THE MALES DIE BEFORE MATURING! LOL LOL LOL.

Who's telling fairy tales now?

Date: 2006/12/27 10:39:20, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,09:49)
Kristine read my piece and thinks I don't want more court cases and that I do want Dawkins to shut up.   Funny!  :D  :D  :D

oh, and I guess your problem with that is that you are scared that the "misreading" crown will pass to another? Mis-understanding is your forte davey!

So you DO want more court cases? Funny that, so do I! Care to predict when the next one will be?

Tell you what, why don't you use some of the $$$ millions of $$$ that you've scared out of a credulous population and put it towards the next court case? Get Behe, Dembski, all the boys together AND LOSE AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. And we'll be here for every moment of it.

Oh, what, 7 peer reviwed articles you say? Oh, but 1/2 are books (very peer reviewed!;) and the rest are utter crap that does not even support ID. What to argue over that? Well, too late, Dover beat you to it! And that RELIGIOUS judge appointed by BUSH (your gawd buddy) ruled against ID.


Date: 2006/12/27 13:13:51, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 27 2006,12:30)
I guess I would assume I'm like most people and oppose taxes just on general principle.

Yep.  I don't need any government that can't sustain itself on fresh air and sunshine.  For instance, if I need a road to drive somewhere, I'll just buy one.  If my house catches on fire, I'll put it out myself.  If someone steals from me, I'll just do my own police work, then try them in my own court.  My kids don't need any education that I can't give them myself.  All of this would be easy, if the IRS would just let me keep 100% of the money I earn.

Exactly so. Here in the UK it seems to me that taxes are just accepted as the price for living in a civilised land. One party, a while back, even made putting up taxes part of it's manifesto pledge.
The opposition party policy is not to slash taxes, believe it or not (that's already got them into trouble!;) but to "optimize" (ever the mantra of the politician I know) for savings.

When taxes were cut for the richest % in the USA, that more then anything else told me where the current POTUS interests lie. Why do that? The richest could have struggled by on a little less...


Date: 2006/12/27 13:25:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Faid @ Dec. 27 2006,13:01)
BTW dave: Love the new sig!

"A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell" eh?


Maaan, you can't even get your analogies straight!

But then, from what you have said, you don't even know what an analogy is.

which one of these is "alien" in this context?

number 4 seems to fit best from what you've said in the past (and as you've come out as an ID supporter!;)

Is that the sky-daddy for you now?

Date: 2006/12/27 14:15:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

I like these wordclouds. 1 is Joesphs blog, 2 is UD, 3 and 4 are the 2 last updated blogs on scienceblogs.

Link to Science blogs updated in last 24 hours.

Date: 2006/12/27 14:21:49, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,13:39)
Oh so you can only say disparaging things about UD here?  Sorry ... I didn't know that rule.

it's not a rule as such, more of a consequence of there being nothing good that can be said.

Date: 2006/12/27 14:59:09, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
43. SCheesman  // Dec 27th 2006 at 3:37 pm
 "Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria? ”

I agree, this IS an excellent question and it does deserve some kind of answer.

Though not an “exact” answer, the solution to this question is that the designer created the complete DNA code for the flagella to be fully operational, once instantiated. Whether as a “hidden” subroutine that was eventually activated at the proper time (i.e. front-loaded), or as part of a fully functioning bacterium fully formed (as oponents of common descent might prefer) might be a question answerable in the future, just as close examination of computer code can reveal aspects of the code’s orignal design and subsequent evolution.

Comment by SCheesman — December 27, 2006 @ 3:37 pm


My Bold. TBH, I dont think too much of Cheesemans "some kind of answer".

So, ever hear of SCO v's IBM SCheesman? Go to and check out the most comprehensive examination of the "evolution of computer code" ever conducted. What would ID have done differently? Can ID come down absolutley on one side or another in the row over source code?

C'mon DS, put those computer skillz to use! Identifying source code origins should be a trivial matter for the design inference.

Date: 2006/12/27 17:23:28, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,17:03)
Idolaters.  Pfft.  Malum, my friend ... just the simple fact that written history only goes back 6000 years should tell you something is seriously wrong with the Deep Time Story.  Add to that all the funky assumptions of RM dating and it turns out that Deep Timers are more "idolaters" than YECers are.


This guide is ideal for travellers who want to understand Australia's 50,000-year-old cultural tradition. More than 60 Indigenous people have contributed to this guide, together with some of Lonely Planet's most experienced guidebook researchers. Includes an introduction to Indigenous languages.

Like all Aboriginal art, cave and rock paintings are inseparable from the 50,000-year-old Aboriginal society and culture. Aboriginal people did not develop a written language but communicated their religion, laws and history through song, poetry, painting and carving.


A startling discovery of 70,000-year-old artifacts and a python's head carved of stone appears to represent the first known human rituals.

Scientists had thought human intelligence had not evolved the capacity to perform group rituals until perhaps 40,000 years ago.

But inside a cave in remote hills in Kalahari Desert of Botswana, archeologists found the stone snake [image] that was carved long ago. It is as tall as a man and 20 feet long.

Link - oldest_ritual

Date: 2006/12/27 17:51:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
now they get to win either way! Must be nice and simple being a ID supported over at UD. Dont have to think much, and you get free ice cream and treats from DS the performing seal. bac-flag flavour.

59. Jack Krebs  // Dec 27th 2006 at 6:40 pm  
If one hypothesizes that design is implemented at the genetic level, or even at the sub-molecular level within the genome, then one might expect the implementation of the design of the flagellum in this hypothetical situation to appear to us as “step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations each functional in its own right.” There would be nothing deceptive about this - it would just be the way the designer works.

So it can still be IC, but built up stepwise, as evilution might have done? Waaaa?

It's hard to believe that some of these people are not really Anti-ID when they spout garbage like this! So "evilution" can be true, but it's design in any case every step of the way? Waaaa?

Are these people for real? Somebody needs to make a 10c docu-drama about the deluded folk that think "darwinism" is coming to a crashing end "some time soon". Vapourware we call that for computer software long time promised. Vapourscience? Vapourlabs....

And the big deal they are making about re-issuing Behe's book? Must be 1000 books coming out a month with real science in them, at all levels, and no doubt all of it directly contradicts their position. Which they've declined to defend in court, or in the labs.

C'mon DS, spend some of that $$$ on some real darn tootin ID science! A Nobel awaits! If you get it, make sure Dembski does not get hold of the mic on the night, we know how much he loves his fart jokes!

Date: 2006/12/27 18:14:32, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,18:10)
It's quite simple.  History only goes back 6000 years.  So mankind most likely has only been around for 6000 years also, not 200,000.  This, then, lends support to the Biblical record from which we then infer that the universe is also 6000 years old.

And I say you are a Liar!

Date: 2006/12/27 18:18:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 27 2006,18:10)
The hypothesis of design is only the very first step of any reasonable scientific approach. Then this hypothesis is subjected to skepticism and the collection of new evidence in a continuing effort to refine our knowledge.

And I know that DS agrees!

45. DaveScot  // Dec 25th 2006 at 8:17 am


Saying it could happen in some manner isn’t good enough. It must be demonstrated. The former is story telling. The latter is science.

Comment by DaveScot — December 25, 2006 @ 8:17 am

Date: 2006/12/28 05:15:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
yes, I read some of his later posts and it does seem he was playing with them.

There's a law about this one though, like Godwins. Something like "if you are pretending to talk like a creationist then somebody will come along and believe it". I guess that somebody was me today :)

Date: 2006/12/28 05:44:13, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
ok I know Gil is for "real" !

81. GilDodgen  // Dec 28th 2006 at 1:20 am

In light of what we now know from modern biochemistry and computational technology — not to mention the mathematics of combinatorics and the inadequacies of appeals to deep time — traditional Darwinian mechanisms are simply dead in their explanatory power, and can only be propped up by appeals to authority and lawsuits.

This is pathetic, and represents the antithesis of genuine scientific inquiry.

There is a simple explanation for this devotion to a scientifically and mathematically bankrupt proposition: It promotes a religion of nihilism, especially to other people’s children.

Comment by GilDodgen — December 28, 2006 @ 1:20 am

OK. So modern biochemistry and computational tech are mainsteam science disiplines. Plenty of peer review going on here. Number of articles supporting ID = 0.

The mathematics of combinatorics - again, plenty of peer review and ZERO publications supporting ID. Speaking of mathamatics, where is Dembski's rigours proof of anything at   all? Math's is the one arena they could obtain some sort of "proof". Yet they have the "newton" of the information age sitting there paid to do nothing at all and yet there is no mathmatical proof of anything at all so far!

Deep time - is that the deep time the ID'ers are so afraid of that they use exponents rather then type out all of those 0's? Ha, would not want to give the faithfull ideas.

Traditional Darwinian mechanisms? What's that? Is that like "traditional ginger ale"? So presumably scientists sit around asking "shall we investigage the traditional mechainsms today or all the stuff we've found out in the last 100 years instead?"

Darwin was not aware of much of the mechanisms taken for granted today. Does Gil know this?

This is pathetic, and represents the antithesis of genuine scientific inquiry.

Hmm, again that pot+kettle is never very far away!

There is a simple explanation for this devotion to a scientifically and mathematically bankrupt proposition: It promotes a religion of nihilism, especially to other people’s children.

And then we have that! Quite how this proposition is linked to the previous garbage I dont know. So scientists lie and cover up the evidence for ID so they can promote nihilism to the neighbours kids?

scientifically and mathematically bankrupt  = ID
promotes a religion = ID
especially to other people’s children = ID plus AFDave

Gil, it's like this. ID will only win when the majority of scientists accept it. So far, you've got about a dozen people who can evern claim to be scientists on your side. The side promiting reason has hundreds of thousands. You pathetic little charade will pass into history with little more then a ripple. The thing you forget about the "underdog" theory is that the underdogs who win in the end are right whereas you are simply just wrong.

If not, why dont you make another of those "darwinism is dead in 5 years" claims that we can all come back in 5 years and chuckle over. Enougth of those and perhaps the faithfull will stop buying your ID books (which is what we really know this is all about, just another way to get a $$ from a faithfull sheep).

Date: 2006/12/28 10:08:02, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,09:37)
I find the idea of evolution to require just as much faith to believe in as creationism.

really? Then you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Do you believe in the literal truth of the Ark story? You must, you've already said that all or none of the bible is true.    Have you not seen how destroyed AFDave gets every time that comes up?

You can argue that evilution also has it's assumptions, as does the bible fairy tale. We're however using computers, which are not mentioned in the bible and the "assumptions" about the laws of the universe hold true to such an extent that quantum theory provides a usable framework for construction advanced items such as the computer you are reading this on. So, weigh up A) the bible B) Actual science and I think you'll find that the airplane you last flew on had nothing whatsoever to do with the bibble.

True science requires you to observe the activities, recreate them and develop hypothesis or laws based on testable and observable means.  

Oh, does it. I guess you dont believe in plate tectonics then? It's hardly possible to re-create the formation of the crust of the earth, and so this is all hearsay as far as you are concerned? Pah. What's your theory as to how the earth got to look as it does? Let's hear it????

volution must follow a single ordered path.  If evolution was random you would still see evidences of it occuring today on a much grander scale.  Why do we not see one example of an Australopithecus ramidus.  Can't the jump still be made?  Why is evolution forward movement  if it is only random based.

How ignorant! How many millions of years do you have to wait around and watch for evolution in action? Pathetic. You've been reading too much UD! If I dont have a video tape of it happening, I refuse to believe it! That's not how real "science" works.

I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age.

So the universe could have been created 15 seconds ago, with all our memories intact? So, gawd created the universe 15 seconds ago and made it look like it's 15 byo, and WHY DID HE DO THIS? WHAT A BASTARD YOUR GOD MUST BE!
Is this some sort of test perhaps? Make it look old, but TRUE BELIEVERS will see through the charade and note that it's 15 seconds old really? WHAT IS THE POINT? Are you 10 years old? Do you really think this way? What a evil bastard you worship. So is your position that gawd COULD not have made the universe look 15 seconds old IF HE WANTED TO? Ha. Some all powerfull gawd you worship.

Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,08:45)
Plate Tectonics: Continental drag race.

I love this one.  I will have to remember it.  :D

Yeah, funny huh? But the continents race around @ 150MPH in "your" version of the creation event. And on their way they are boiling the seas!

Go read a non-fiction book!

Date: 2006/12/28 10:32:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

16. shaner74  // Dec 28th 2006 at 10:53 am  
That article was horrible. It certainly seems as though Darwinian-based ethics and morals really don’t compare to good ole’ fashioned God ones. I’ve yet to see a reporter with a Darwinian bias write an article without lying through their teeth. Guess lying and cheating is ok as long as you win.

Does somebody have a list of "good ole’ fashioned God morals"?


Is making fun of your opponents via Fart Jokes ok with"good ole’ fashioned God morals"?

So, they don't like what they read about their own movement, and instead of trying to dispute the facts they instead say the author of the article has no morals. How pathetic. Try and engage on the issues mo-rans, instead of attacking the messenger. I guess they have nothing to say about the message however, it's already been proved in court they are a bankrupt organisation overall (and Dembski running and hiding from the court case tells me all I need to know about his ""good ole’ fashioned God morals")

Date: 2006/12/28 10:59:12, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
dgszweda, let me ask you 1 question.

If you had been raised either atheist or *any* other religion that did not use the bible as it's source, would reading the bible be enougth to convert you into a believer, if you read it *say* when you were 20 years of age?

Are there any buddists (Not a religion!;) out there who also believe in ID?

My contention is that you were raised by a believer who transfered the "believe" meme to you before you were old enough to understand what it was you were letting into your  still forming mind.  

Can *anybody* point me out a ID'er who does not believe in the christian god? If the evidence is so overpowering (or, LOL overwhelming) then It seems to be this overwhelmingevidence would be converting people all over the world, whatever their pre-existing religion was!

As this is not happening (or i'm sure the disovery people would be crowing about it) then what does this tell us about this so called overwhelmingevidence?

You know what, over on it'd be nice if they put on the website the overwhelmingevidence itself! Then we can all have a read and be overwhelmed!

Honestly, why don't they collect this overwhelmingevidence  together in one place, i'll bring my microscope and we will all have a look together!

Date: 2006/12/28 14:07:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,12:35)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 28 2006,10:59)
My contention is that you were raised by a believer who transfered the "believe" meme to you before you were old enough to understand what it was you were letting into your  still forming mind.  

I will respond to your more refined response.  I will stay out of the unecessary attacks that are more personal in nature.  And I will attempt to concentrate my responses on the discussion as well.

I do not classify Intelligent Design to be the same as Creationism, although I am sure that many IDers are creationists.

I do not hold to the belief that I believe what I believe because my parents "brainwashed" me.  I do not believe in a static faith.  I believe because I have a personal relationship with God.  My faith is in the Bible.  We all have faith, I haven't met anyone who doesn't have faith.

fine, believe all you like, but please understand when the story of the Ark is pushed as literal fact to children then people will stand up and fight against it.

Do you support AFDave's position that YEC or ID should be taught as fact to children? That's all I would like to know.

I do not hold to the belief that I believe what I believe because my parents "brainwashed" me.

To me, this has answered my question. Your parents had the same belief that you now hold. My point is how many children of good christians become muslims by age 10? None? The fact is that children believe what they are taught to believe. It's just like what football team you support, you'll more then likely support team X that's local instead of team Y. There's no objective difference, except that you happened to be born near team X.
So you may still have had your personal relationship with god, but it might have been based on the Koran if things had been slightly different, but you'd still be he arguing the same case. This is the fundamental difference to me between science and religion. Religion is completley static, despite what you might say and science is not at all (or at least it may appear to be so over short time scales, but there is always something new being discovered that overturns established norms sooner or later. The bible is static and inerrent, right?)

Date: 2006/12/28 14:17:45, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:14)
Hmmm ... I see Steve moved my post from the UD thread over to here.  I guess he perceived that my "ID Bashing" was insincere?  How could he think such a thing?!

not much gets by you does it davey?

So, how can biodiversity be increasing and decreasing at the same time?

Date: 2006/12/28 14:32:09, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:25)
Hmmm ... so my "nuclear waste" of creationist thinking has been quarantined

about that biodiversity?

And that mountain hikeing cacti? Up and down it goes, fast thing aint it? "Quick, the water is coming, run up the mountain top!"

davey, can you point me to the verse in the bible that says christmas day is on the 25th of december please? Oh, you cant? Odd that.

davey, if you found a nuclear reactor lying around on the ground, would you consider it must be designed?

Date: 2006/12/29 04:29:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 29 2006,02:33)
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,12:15)
I do not dispute that current measurements show a very old universe, I just don't believe that we can extrapolate that to a creation date of the universe.

But if you think the evidence supports a very old universe, then how can you believe in a young universe, regardless of the creation date of the universe? Presumably the universe is at least as old as its creation date. And it's hard to picture how it could be older than its creation date.

As far as I can tell, he believes in a young earth but an old universe. Which, as far as YEC goes, is a bit more reasonable then daveys YEC + YUC. If reasonableness has a side to it that far off the scale anyway.

Date: 2006/12/29 04:37:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I'm starting to like this Jack Krebs :)

Others believe in a God that periodically intervenes to override the course of natural processes, specially designing and creating some things but otherwise letting everything else run it’s course. In my opinion, and I know that I am being blunt here, this latter view is more “simplistic and magical” than the view that I have described.


I wonder how much longer they will allow him to post, even considering his published work? :)

Other then him, it seems the rest of them are really quite mad

Interesting that PZ Myers uses metaphors of war, a more dishonorable gang type war…rather appropriate for the Herd that is united by its urge to merge. His metaphors of war seem to be drawn from things typical to some old Darwinian brownshirts.


He managed to get in a oblique nazi reference! Very well done mynym! Congratulations. Do you think that

a) Anybody who counts (and I don't!;) is reading your excessive crapola?
b) It'll change a single thing, or advance your "war" on Darwinism?

I would say the lunatics seem to have taken over the ayslum  but it's all lunatics "all the way down"!

Date: 2006/12/29 05:01:04, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 29 2006,04:39)
You cannot have it both ways.  You asked specifically what parts of the Theory of Evolution could not be tested.  I showed one hypothesis that could not be tested.  That is what the great majority of the ToE covers.  Hypothesis.

dgszweda, is this you?

The underlying problem with all of these arguments is that people are trying to develop theories in which they can "logically" explain the largest supernatural event of God to agree with today's limited scientific reasoning. Things occured in those 6 days which cannot be explained by science. We are trying to resolve our limited minds held within the physical limitations of a creation with a supernatural event created by an omnipotent spirit who has no limitations and is not limited by this physical realm. I feel the answer to us explaining the creation by resolving it with our physical view is answered by

Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou has understanding."

Why do we feel the need to try to resolve our view with the very literal creation account in Genesis? What does it benefit?


If so, it's already plain that you'll allow the bibble to trump anything that conflicts with the Genesis account. So why bother even trying to argue your case, you've already decided on a winner, which is not very scientific is it?

edit: More here

Date: 2006/12/29 05:57:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
The Grand Canyon:

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.

materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”

“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,”

Nostrils of Satan. I like that!
So davey, did you know that creationist literature is being sold in the grand canyon giftshop? And the only way it got there was by overruling all the geologists who worked at the park itself?
the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”

Not long till it's gone, we hope. And this is YEC winning? Darwinism (whatever that is) is on it's way out? Much like biological diversity is both increasing (8 humans and a few thousand animals becoming millions of people and species) and decreasing "since the fall"so the genome has been deteriorating rapidly - just look at the poor baboon hound

Date: 2006/12/29 06:07:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
it's unbelievable. Perhaps this is how they think science works.

a) Scordova makes a unsupported claim based on somebody else's work he's likely not even read
Humans only 94% similar to chimps, not 98.5%

b) Then follows it up with the reason this supports ID
Darwinian evolution simply does not have the population resources to fix that many base pairs of difference (not enough individuals, not enough mutations, not enough time).

c) The get's his reasoning disputed in the thread (he gets slapped upside the head and schooled with what he should have known before opening it)
I realize there are complications when trying to align and establish % idenentity.

d) But comes back with a classic DS move - the details, always the details.
That is technically a difference of 177,500,000.

e) And then, to top the love fest off, we get the uncritical adoring praise of the masses

19. jwrennie  // Dec 29th 2006 at 6:44 am

Nice. I always wondered about this sort of thing. The rate of change needed is beyond what RM+NS is able to ever accomodate even in the Darwinists most fevered imaginiation.

Comment by jwrennie — December 29, 2006 @ 6:44 am

So this is how hard science research is done huh? Nice. Preaching to the credulous more like.

And the article referenced in the 1st place ends like so (Sciam)

The group estimated that humans have acquired 689 new gene duplicates and lost 86 since diverging from our common ancestor with chimps six million years ago. Similarly, they reckoned that chimps have lost 729 gene copies that humans still have.

"The paper supports the emerging view that change in gene copy number, via gene duplication or loss, is one of the key mechanisms driving mammalian evolution," says genomics researcher James Sikela of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

And has a whole I cannot see where it supports ID in any way?
Certainly it does not say "Not nearly enough time", as clearly noted out in the UD article????????
What is Sal saying, that he's found evidence that the designer intervened in evolution directly, recently enough to be detected? Here comes your Nobel prize Sal, and i'm guessing the pope will ask you to take over too!

Nice armchair detecting!

Date: 2006/12/29 08:34:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,07:58)
Oldman ...    
So davey, did you know that creationist literature is being sold in the grand canyon giftshop? And the only way it got there was by overruling all the geologists who worked at the park itself?
Of course I knew.  Why should it not be sold there?  You seem to be working from the erroneous assumption that the federal government is supposed to remove all religion from government.  Wrong.  The Founders simply wanted to prevent the Federal Government from establishing a National Denomination ... ala the Church of England.  Your view seems to be the now popular revisionist view of "Remove all vestiges of Christianity from public places and replace them all with the Naturalistic Religion" (i.e. Eternal Matter, Uniformitarian Geology, Billions of Years, Abiogenesis, Macro-Evo, etc.)

what's religion got to the with the age of the grand canyon, christinanity specifically?

Date: 2006/12/29 10:14:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,09:55)
Oldman ...        
what's religion got to the with the age of the grand canyon, christinanity specifically?
Religion has nothing to do with the age of the Grand Canyon, actually.  The age of the Grand Canyon is a historical question and it so happens that the historical Book of Genesis (which you seem to view as strictly a religious book) has an account of the Global Flood of Noah, which, it turns out, explains the GC formation quite readily.

Then, if it can explain the large, can it also explain the small? Which, you would think would be easier.

How did cacti get stored for a year and then get back to australia in time to re-populate the continent to the levels we see today?

Was this a scene from the ark?

Big decks full of cacti on the ark? I imagine tens of thousands of samples would be needed for worldwide re-population. Who did that re-popluation?

Sorry if these questions are beneath your notice, I know the big issues are the ones you like to concentrate on.

Date: 2006/12/29 12:13:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,12:08)
Are you reading carefully?

Are you sitting comfortably?

Date: 2006/12/29 12:19:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,12:13)
JohnW ...  
You need to get from a few hundred "kinds" to millions of species in a few hundred years, no?
You got it right ... NO.  Very good.  Millions of species!  Pfft!  You really have not stopped to think about how few kinds really had to be on the ark, have you?  That's ok.  I'll be walking you through it now that we are moving on to Post Flood Ecology and such.

can we do cacti 1st please?

Please describe for me what happened to a typical cacti from the day of the flood onwards, until things were "normal" again.

Date: 2006/12/29 12:35:15, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Sal's smugness is disgusting.

It’s like they had an initial condition not too long ago where their genomes were nicely purified. :-)

yep, ID is nothing to do with religion at all, no siriee.

Date: 2006/12/30 06:23:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
In 2004, Answers in Genesis of Kentucky (AiG-US) saw $10,423,222 in revenue.

In 2005, their revenue dropped to $5,429,923--a nearly 50% decline.

Explain this davey please, in light of the ever growing numbers of people coming over to YEC that you recently claimed (must I get a perma?).

This would seem to contradict the charts you posted recently on AIG? Is somebody lying somewhere?

EDIT: Please deal with "a year in the life of a cacti" so we can understand how such tricky plants were dealt with in the flood! This will explain alot to the lurkers, do you not think?

After all, you can talk about the Grand Canyon all you like, but if the way that cacti were "saved" is illustrated, then that's a big step forwards for you, right?

Date: 2006/12/30 06:30:07, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,06:22)
Are we afraid to talk about dogs?


I want to hear your answer on dogs.


Eric, I hope you dont mind me quoting you but as me and davey are here at the same time....

Eric said:
There were two dogs on the ark, right, Dave? A single breeding pair, right? Now, let's suppose that either both dogs were Great Danes, or both were Chihuahuas (although any other breed would do as well). You've already said it was impossible to get from Chihuahas to Great Danes. In that case, if the two dogs on the ark were both Chihuahuas, how do we have Great Danes now? Remember, no matter how you want to look at it, whatever the breed the two dogs were on the ark, they both had, at most, two alleles for every gene in their genome. In other words, there was no "pre-existing variability" in their genomes.

I cant say it any better then that. Explain DOGS DOGS DOGS in light of the above please. It's a logical puzzle and one that will stop many readers in the tracks from believing anything else you have to say on the subject until you address this point!

Date: 2006/12/30 06:44:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Ken Ham's salary went from $121,764 in 2004 to $60,000 in 2005; CFO James Hatton's salary went from $81,000 to $42,500; General Counsel John Pence's salary went from $93,115 to $46,500; VP of Museum Operations Mike Zovath's salary went from $90,201 to $42,500; VP of Administration Kathy Ellis's salary went from $86,068 to $39,500;

Luke 12:33-34 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

James 2:5 “Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?”

Hey, I believe the devil can also quote scripture, so don't worry too much :)

EDIT: Apparently Ken's in a state where the median household income is $37,270.

Date: 2006/12/30 09:14:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,09:05)
I would point you to the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) for the straight scoop on AIG finances.  I know of no huge revenue drops.  To my knowledge, their revenues have been increasing steadily for a number of years.

well, then you are wrong.

Here it is

in their own handwriting no less. Undisputable.

EDIT: About those cacti?

Date: 2006/12/30 13:15:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,11:16)

You won one! Remember that feeling. It'll have to keep you going till "darwinism" falls, which will be just after he!! freezes over.

Date: 2006/12/31 05:12:51, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Meanwhile, over at overwhelmingevidence

I propose a new taxonomy, or rather a heirarchy which seeks to explain the dominion of the intelligent designer. At the very bottom of the heirarchy will be the microbes, plants and simple organisms. All the way at the top will be the intelligent designer, or possibly some kind of supreme being. Just below us will be all the domesticated creatures, which represent more refined versions of naturally occuring kinds.

I think we also need to start from established facts, and not as the evolutionists do with their wild conjecture: For example, we know that Noah was able to resuce two of every kind of land-animal that existed at the time and that all these kinds of animals produced the species we have today.

So, starting from established facts instead of wild conjecture we can talk about Noah's ark???????
I suspect this is a troll, judging by the name :) But like somebody else said, when satirical posts are impossble to tell from "real" posts there's a real problem with their whole "science".

Not that TroutMac's in any danger of losing head-tard position

I suspect that there was some sort of incident in which the original human languages were all invented by the intelligent designer. It seems inconceivable that he could have designed us but not given is a language to speak.

Yes, inconceivable indeed. Where are they getting these people?

And even the moderator admits that the bannation policy is 100% one sided - if you are Trouty or any other ID supporter you can stay, but to be anti-ID you must be a student???

To be clear, evolution supporters/ID detractors are allowed on this site but they should be students and they definitely must be contributing to the discussion in a way that will benefit the students who use this site.

Bag of hammers anybody? I've got a "dumb as" that needs work.

Date: 2006/12/31 05:59:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 31 2006,05:55)
And looking back at the 10,000 posts of AFDave threads, the science establishment looks fine.
Uh huh ... and AiG's revenue suffered a 100% drop last year, so no doubt they will be out of business by this time next year, and the NCSE can pack up and go home because the public will realize what honest, ethical sages we have running our universities.   :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

(Not going to post Alberts' entire definition are you, Argy?  Just going to keep spouting "heritable change, heritable change, heritable change" and trying to make a parallel with snickerdoodles)

(Am I going to have to get the book myself and show how dishonest you guys are YET AGAIN? )

just like darwinism has been "about to fall" for 150 odd years. Still here, still waiting.

About those cacti? The ones that survived a year underwater (salty or fresh btw), can you please please please describe a day in the life of an American and Australian cacti and how they survived the flood?

Aww, go on!

EDIT: Oh, please could you define "hi-tech" for me? I'm not sure I understand the way you are using it in your sig, and if  i'm not sure of that how can I understand the point you are trying to make? You don't want to be ambigious do you?

Date: 2006/12/31 07:13:04, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 31 2006,06:53)
information, which I contend consists of created information + mutation, easily preserved at the ark bottleneck by judicious selection of pairs to ensure that heterozygosity was not unacceptably low.

Could you describe the process of "judicious selection of pairs" as this seems to be what your whole argument hinges on.

How exactly did Noah do that?

Also, how did Australian and Americian cacti survive underwater for 1 year? How were these places re-popluated wit h their native cacti after the flood? Who did that and how?

Date: 2007/01/01 07:59:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,07:47)

Some folks here have claimed that 4500 years (the approximate time elapsed since the Biblical Flood) is nowhere near enough time to achieve the massive diversity we see in species today.

I say it's PLENTY of time and one of the most obvious proofs is DOGS.

I referred to this article from the BBC ...      
They [research teams reporting in Science] conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.

so if all the variation we see in modern dogs was there already 500 years ago, and all it took was selective breeding to bring it out, who was doing the selective breeding for all the other species on the earth for the last 5999 years then?

I.E you point to dogs as the example why your theory works, but the difference between dogs and almost every other animal on earth (except farmed animals and plants) is that humans have bred the dogs for various reasons (with strong selection pressures) yet nature would have "selected" whatever suited the enviromental pressures acting at the time.

My point is that human selection would act towards different ends then random selection, so you cannot use dogs  in this way.

conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.

who did the intensive breeding for the last 5999 years then? What unknown to science process was this?

Date: 2007/01/01 09:25:24, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,08:38)
And your answer is ... the other species were selected naturally as a result of rapid post-Flood migration and isolation due to various mechanisms including distance, physical features (such as mountain ranges), and bodies of water.  Note that there were land bridges prior to the end of the Ice Age because the oceans were lower, i.e. much water was frozen in the polar ice caps.

these selection pressures sound very course grained to me, and unsuitable for turning 2000 animals from the arc into the millions of species we see around us today. What selection pressures, for example, are you talking about on a smaller scale?

Logically, if 2000 species can turn into 2 Million species (for example) in 5999 years, would we not expect to see new species appearing around us all the time?

And beetles are often found in the same areas, but can look totally different, what drove the speciation of these if their enviroment was almost identical (identical if we speak about such large scale features such as montains and enforced isolation)?

And if 2000 kinds can turn into millions of species, would we not expect the isolated bird population's you've been mentioning alot recently (isloated by sailors 500 years ago) to have already diversified into thousands of species? Just like the beetles must have?


It is well known that a parent population with sufficient heterozygosity will diversify quickly WRT the parent population if broken down into smaller groups and isolated from each other.

If this is well known, can you provide references that support this? And presumably these references will support 2000 species into millions in <5999 years?

Date: 2007/01/01 10:25:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,10:14)
Oldman ...      
And presumably these references will support 2000 species into millions in <5999 years?
"Millions of species" is not correct.  Just briefly ... this list from our friendly Wikipedia gives      

1,250,000 animals, including:

   * 1,190,200 invertebrates:
         o 950,000 insects,
         o 70,000 molluscs,
         o 40,000 crustaceans,
         o 130,200 others;
   * 58,808 vertebrates:
         o 29,300 fish,
         o 5,743 amphibians,
         o 8,240 reptiles,
         o 9,934 birds,
         o 5,416 mammals.
... of which only the mammals, birds and reptiles definitely had to be on the ark ... the others most likely did not.

So ... if this is correct, your "millions of modern species" becomes more like 23,000.

Pick a happy medium between Woodmorappe's 2000 and 16,000 animals on the ark of say, 10,000 and you have approximately 5000 "kinds" on the ark.

This means 5000 "kinds" diversifies to 23,000 species in 4500 years.

Much more believable than 2000 >> Millions.

but if the planet was covered in water, be it a mile or a foot deep, where did  950,000 species of insects live during that year? If they didnt need to be on the ark?

And was the water fresh or salty? Where did the fish go that salty/fresh water would kill?

What did the insects eat for a year while their normal food sources were underwater?

And I suppose, most obvious of all, why did only the species on the ark radiate out into many species?

This means 5000 "kinds" diversifies to 23,000 species in 4500 years.

Why didnt the other
  * 1,190,200 invertebrates:
         o 950,000 insects,
         o 70,000 molluscs,
         o 40,000 crustaceans,
         o 130,200 others;
         o 29,300 fish,
         o 5,743 amphibians,

also radiate out into 4x as many species too?

Each year, about 13,000 more species are added to the list of known organisms.

If we discover 13,000 more a year, does this mean that at some point even you would accept that Woodmorappe's 2000 and 16,000 animals on the ark will someday be too few to support known species today? Doubt it, but do you have a rational reason why not?

Date: 2007/01/02 12:55:33, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
over at OW

TroutMac says:

the idea that science and religion should be separated is the result of a subtle but profound presupposition. That is, when someone says that science and religion must be separated, they are really saying that one of the two does not pursue truth. And of course, usually they mean religion.

Bottom line is that science is not opposed to religion by definition. If one religion is true, and science pursues the truth honestly and objectively, then science will eventually point toward the religion which is true.

What religion do you suppose TroutBrain is hoping to be true? Where are they getting these people from? Is DS being cloned? What religious technology can we expect to see from the religious pursuit of science?
Perhaps they would invent tech that would "seek the truth"?
So perhaps:

It was probably styled after the Mary, with a carved likeness of her on the face.

Date: 2007/01/02 14:31:08, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
December was a record month for Uncommon Descent traffic.

Link to tardation

Yet other webstats show a different story

Link to Alexa Stats

However, somebody knows a bit more about it then DS does, from the comments:
1. Robo  // Jan 2nd 2007 at 3:14 pm

You need to be careful with these stats. Are they unique hits or are they counting one hit for every graphic on the page plus one hit for body text etc. Look for unique hits on the stats page.

Comment by Robo — January 2, 2007 @ 3:14 pm

Carefull? This is ID SCIENCE! They do not need care or attention, HEADLINE GRABBING = SCIENCE!

Date: 2007/01/03 07:56:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
my only regret that this thread is closing is that it will be cut short before a full year is up.

You see, AFDave started this thread about 8 months ago. If it had been left for a full year


And that's a fact :)

Date: 2007/01/03 14:55:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,13:02)
David-  Here's where I hang my hat on the starlight thing ...  
Humphreys, “Starlight Wars: Starlight and Time Withstands Attacks”

Humphreys, “Humphreys Answers Various Critics”

Humphreys, “Seven Years of Starlight and Time”

Humphreys, “Spiral Galaxies and Supernova Remnants”

Humphreys, “Our Galaxy Is the Centre of the Universe”



And my opinion is that Lenny is right on the speciation thing.  Speciation is no problem for the Biblical worldview ... in fact, it is required.  I copied his list and will be using it in the future to show him and others the plausibility of the Biblical account.

The main feature is the large ‘timeless zone’ in gray which expands out from the center and then inward back toward it. Inside the zone, nothing happens. Clocks don’t tick, and physical processes are stopped at whatever state they were in when the zone engulfed them. Billions of years worth of events occur in the distant cosmos while the earth experiences no time at all. After the earth’s clocks resume again, they measure only twenty-four ordinary hours total during the fourth day.

WTF? davey, your boys at AIG must be tripping when they wrote this utter bullshit.

Date: 2007/01/04 11:39:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
The most likely reason Mr. Hawkins is unaware of research demonstrating that recombination can produce new alleles is that he has not taken the time to research the subject. Allelic recombination is well represented in the scientific literature. For example from PNAS | December 10, 2002 | vol. 99 | no. 25 | 16348-16353 we have:

"Meiotic recombination in the anopheline mosquito is the major mechanism for allelic variation of PfMsp-1 (8); thus, intragenic recombination between unlike alleles generates new alleles in the progeny (10). Recombination sites are confined to the 5' and 3' regions of the gene."

Dr. Elsberry's rewrite is concise, accurate, and easy to understand, and should thus be adopted. The references from the quote are (8) Tanabe, K., Mackay, M., Goman, M. & Scaife, J. (1987) J. Mol. Biol. 195, 273-287 and (10) Kerr, P. J., Ranford-Cartwright, L. C. & Walliker, D. (1994) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 66, 241-248. Dphippard 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) David J. Phippard


Let's see who wins this wikipedia "war".

Bye Mr Hawkins!


Date: 2007/01/08 12:59:47, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I would’ve banned you for making me waste my time googling up the skinny on Wolfram. Don’t refer me to any crank science again.

Comment by DaveScot — January 7, 2007 @ 5:16 pm


Cellular Automata as Simple Self-Organizing
Systems (1982)
Statistical Mechanics of Cellular Automata (1983)
Cellular Automata (1983)
Geometry of Binomial Coefficients (1984)
Algebraic Properties of Cellular Automata (1984)
Universality and Complexity in Cellular Automata (1984)
Preface to Cellular Automata: Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Workshop (1984)
Computation Theory of Cellular Automata (1984)
Cellular Automata as Models of Complexity (1984)
Twenty Problems in the Theory of Cellular Automata (1985)
Two-Dimensional Cellular Automata (1985)
Cryptography with Cellular Automata (1985)
Thermodynamics and Hydrodynamics with Cellular Automata (1985)
Random Sequence Generation by Cellular Automata (1986)
Approaches to Complexity Engineering (1986)
Cellular Automaton Fluids 1: Basic Theory (1986)
Minimal Cellular Automaton Approximations to Continuum Systems (1986)
Tables of Cellular Automaton Properties (1986)
Complex Systems Theory (1988)
Cellular Automaton Supercomputing (1988)

Note: Since 1987 Stephen Wolfram's intellectual efforts
have primarily been described in his books on Mathematica
and A New Kind of Science rather than academic articles.

So, Wolfram is "crank" science huh? Ok, a list of articles (taken from his own website btw) is no proof of non-crankness, but there's plenty of references found in google scholar.
Some living things use naturally occurring cellular automata in their functioning.

Patterns of some seashells, like the ones in Conus and Cymbiola genus, are generated by natural CA. The pigment cells reside in a narrow band along the shell's lip. Each cell secretes pigments according to the activating and inhibiting activity of its neighbour pigment cells, obeying a natural version of a mathematical rule.[citation needed] The cell band leaves the colored pattern on the shell as it grows slowly. For example, the widespread species Conus textile bears a pattern resembling the Rule 30 CA described above.

Plants regulate their intake and loss of gases via a CA mechanism. Each stoma on the leaf acts as a cell.

yeah, I mean, what application do CA's have in the real world huh? Unlike ID, which is great for, erm, er, goddit?

CA's are one of the most interesting ways of interpreting the world, I was fascinated by them when I first discovered them

And, i've just discovered, you can make music with them!

Yeah, ID has much more hard science! Much more!

Date: 2007/01/08 15:04:04, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
well, it is not going too well in that case!
If the horse is dead, why keep kicking it?
by William Dembski

1. thechristiancynic  // Jan 8th 2007 at 3:45 pm

I’m sure you meant this to be a rhetorical question, but…money?

Comment by thechristiancynic — January 8, 2007 @ 3:45 pm

never a truer word spoken! Money indeed.

EDIT: And if you follow the links to the "people" who review the books, check out what appears to be a subtle bias

Icons of Evolution is now a classic and must reading for anyone interested in Darwinism.

For example, where does Behe hint that he is giving up as claimed on page 139?

It was irresponsible for the ACLU, Judge Jones and Francisco Ayala not to check the original source

I looked in vain for a viable mechanism that would supply the new genetic information that selection can select from.

and check this out, actual ID research
For example, the oft cited claim that ID has not produced any science or has not published in the peer reviewed literature is clearly false. In my work in the area of cell biology research, we in fact proceed on the assumption that the cell was designed and asked the question "how was it designed, i.e. how does it work" often assuming that the mechanisms we are researching are ingeniously designed. We were never disappointed, except things were, with few exceptions, always more complex then we first assumed.

but somebody's been very busy "reviewing" all these books...wonder who?

Date: 2007/01/08 17:06:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
meanwhile, over at myspace, er, OE

   * A matter of discernment.
     1 year 70 hours ago
   * Throwing Helena to the Wolves
     5 years 2 hours ago
   * Wolf
     5 years 4 hours ago
   * Possible Interpretations
     6 years 3 hours ago
   * Fossil Record
     6 years 4 hours ago
   * Science vs. Religion
     1 decade 2 years 302 days 4 hours ago
   * Truth is truth
     6 decades 3 years 13 hours ago
     6 trips round the galactic center 20 hours ago
   * It will be great to have ID
     1 evulition of man 49 min ago
   * ID in the UK
     1 monkey producing (and directing) hamlet 57 min ago

Date: 2007/01/08 18:38:32, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
lets get him Dawkins latest!

Date: 2007/01/09 08:01:32, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
no, I'm almost your age and I know it as that from the eye also!
Speaking of the eye, I'm sure they'd be interested in this Truth In Science lie-fest......

If you are wondering what the heck we're talking about

On the truth in science website they have a link to
Evidence of evolution

But oddly, there's no corresponding link to
"evidence for ID".

How strange. What does Darwinism have to do with ID? It's the old "disprove Darwinism (whatever that is) == ID is true" fallacy all over again.

Edit: Just sent them this

You have a "Evidence for Evolution" link, but I cannot find the "Evidence for Intelligent Design". Do I take it that you think that disproving evolution means ID is true by default. If not, do you have any direct evidence for ID that does not reference "Darwinism" in any way?


I'll let you know what they say! LOL

Date: 2007/01/09 15:03:26, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 09 2007,14:19)
Millions of lines of code not written using structured programming techniques. Sounds like a maintenance programmers nightmare. As for $1000 per hour, does that sound realistic to any fellow programmers in the US? I've worked in IT for 18 years in the UK and have never heard of such exhorbitant rates, even for self-proclaimed fantastic programmers like Dave.

one last home for the maverick genius programmer is for projects that never require maintenance {EDIT - Computer Games! Doh}. There can be big $$ for programmers to come in and fix projects that millions have already been poured into, at the last minute just to get it out the door. Not so much anymore, bigger teams bigger games with online updating etc (maintenance! my xbox360 updated today!;), but in ye olde days of  saturn,ps1,ps2 etc :O

Date: 2007/01/09 16:14:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
opengl is great. Really quick results and open standards.

Date: 2007/01/10 03:08:47, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
yeah, what happened there. 1 minute it was all "welcome to UD" and then outta nowhere "bannation". Even Sal got in on the act
By the way. Welcome to uncommon descent. Here are links to the areas I disucssed:

What has Sal been smoking?

I think the literature out there both in peer-review and the popular press has made a devastating case against Darwinian evolution on theoretical and empirical grounds.

He's just insane! So "Darwinian" evolution has been proved wrong on theoretical and empirical grounds in peer-review and the popluar press? What, in a parallel universe or something coz it sure as heck aint in this one!


Date: 2007/01/10 07:54:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
2. caligula  // Jan 10th 2007 at 8:33 am

‘Gee, I wonder how that works. When a mutation causes death of the individual before it can reproduce how exactly does natural selection not repeat that mistake? Does it send a memo to all the other members of its species saying “don’t try this, it’s a mistake”.’

Since when has natural selection affected mutations? What on earth makes you think Febble was even *talking* about mutations? Natural selection changes frequencies of alleles. To not repeat a mistake is to be unable to reproduce. To repeat a good trick is to reprocude better than average. It makes all sense to say that a population “remembers” what works and what doesn’t, because this information indeed accumulates into its gene pool.

DaveScot, perhaps you’d like to apologize to Febble?

Comment by caligula — January 10, 2007 @ 8:33 am

just in case it vanishes.

Date: 2007/01/10 13:10:43, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

One of the other mods wrote to me last week about Febble, anticipating a banning for cause, saying “There might be hope for her. Let’s try to correct her before getting rid of her.”

I had no intention at the time of getting rid of Febble and in fact she’d escaped my notice until I got the memo

Comment by DaveScot January 10, 2007 @ 1:30 pm

My Bold.

Wow, sounds like a robot from Westworld DS is talking about!

Date: 2007/01/11 16:12:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Pav spouted some unintelligible buzz word sequences then said
If evolutionary biologists are left with only RM+NS to explain the origin of the “tools”, and there are countless numbers of “tools” needed–since everything at the nano-level ooks optimized–what are the odds that RM+NS could produce these tools?

ook indeed.

Date: 2007/01/12 11:53:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 12 2007,11:50)
<a href=""" target="_blank">The Dawkins 11 Second Pause</a>


Date: 2007/01/13 16:34:45, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
over at new look same tard UD asks

I hear “Intelligent Design” silently screamed from the pages. Am I deluded, or do others hear it too?

He (it, they, what's right for a website?) then proceeds to highlight some words that ID have claimed as their own, thus proving once and for all goddditit. And this is how in 5 to 10 years (some recent prediction IIRC) they will topple "darwinism".

Date: 2007/01/15 03:02:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
at the "shit, quick, post something, anything" OW

Yeah... I suppose. But don't you think the biologists knew this? I guess some of them were faking their evidence. I think evolutionists fake their evidence all the time. Why isn't there something to stop them doing that? When other scientists find out about this fraud it's going to be some big trouble.

OK, own up, who's sockpuppeting citizenbob? Whoever you are, keep it up :)

We know bacteria can resist the most cleverly designed drugs but can we be expected to believe that a purely natural "dumb" process can outsmart the best scientists? Is it not possible that the Intelligent Designer is still at work and merely wishes that man does not upset the order of his creation, and he does so by limiting our use of these drugs.

Date: 2007/01/15 12:47:45, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,10:24)
I have to do a call out from Mike's list of Tardity:
The argument that ID is not "testable" and that it "doesn't make any predictions" isn't true and most definitely isn't relevant.
As to the actual testability and prediction making of ID, however, I am not an expert and would rather have one respond to these questions.

And that's from the DIRECTOR OF THE UNDERGRADUATE INTELLIGENT DESIGN RESEARCH CENTER. Ah, the future leaders of ID. Don't know what testable predictions ID makes, and don't think it even matters. I'd drink to the future of ID, but I think it's still just a little early here on the Left Coast. Could ya knock one back for me, Mr. Elliot?

Mission Statement
The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) is a student organization dedicated to:

1) investigating intelligent design as a viable scientific theory
2) promoting education and critical thinking about neo-Darwinism
3) supporting efforts of those trying to revise school standards to include discussion of the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory
4) providing a forum for high school and college students to present, debate, and discuss their ideas about intelligent design and neo-Darwinism
5) clarifying the debate concerning neo-Darwinism, intelligent design, and creationism
6) encouraging creative exploration of the aesthetic dimensions of design.

LOL. These guys are TEH FUNNY. Found any experts yet Samuel Chen? Are you sure these "experts" even exist?

Date: 2007/01/15 13:38:47, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
The evidence, if considered honestly and objectively, testifies clearly to the existence of an Intelligent Designer at the very least, and a thorough knowledge and understanding of the Bible together with consideration of that evidence will make identifying that Designer as God unavoidable
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Funny, alot of people consider the same evidence and believe in
a) A totally different deity
b) A number of totally different deities
c) None at all

And some of or none of the above.
And if what's right is derived from the number of people who believe in it (TRoutMac believes in "it" so it must be true, ergo more people who believe (intuit) it to be true, the "truer" it is, or to put it another way, it has more "truthiness" in it) then TRoutMac's kids kids are in trouble
Islam is growing about 2.9% per year. This is faster than the total world population which increases about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively larger percentage of the world's population


Date: 2007/01/15 16:47:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
and more from that thread!
Well, I don’t think anyone really suspected this was a “real experiment”


I took it for granted that everyone knew it was just photo-shopped.

prehaps they shoulda used the filter!
And for Dembski's latest challenge: Goo to Man - Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough
how many of his "characteristics we ordinarily attribute to life"  does DaveScot meet? At least one
reproduction, growth, metabolism, homeostasis, stimulus-response repetoire, adaptability to changing environments, maintenance of organizational boundaries
having seen his photo I know which one!

Date: 2007/01/16 07:25:48, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
5:37 am
Funny how they can spend time on religious critiques of ID yet refuse to take seriously the scientific challenges to evolution. Can they answer why,if humans evolved from apes, then why are apes better suited for survival in the wild? Sure having our brain power is better for survival, but we are weaker, we can’t subsist on the vegetation we find around us, we don’t have fur, etc. Think about it. If natural selection is guiding evolution then why did humans ever come into existence? At the first sign of having less fur wouldn’t that have heen a disadvantage and have been weeded out? Wouldn’t cold weather and sun exposure to our bodies (before there was clothes) make our furless bodies destined to be weeded out or never arise in the first place? How about a weaker body and limbs? Shouldn’t that have been weeded out? How about human teeth? If you were an ape wouldn’t human teeth and jaw strength have been weeded out if it started to evolve away from the stronger ape teeth and jaw? How about our digetive system? Apes can survive on stuff they scrounge around in the wild for, humans cannot. Which is better for survival? We could go on down the line with this type of reasoning, not just for the ape to human evolutionary scenario, but for countless other life forms as well.

Like he says "Think about it". I think new words are needed for this level of dumbitide.

8:01 am
Anyway concerning “bad design”, these fellows are making a claim they can do better. Yet, cannot even approach desiging the things biological entities routinely do.

So, tribune7, what do biological entities routinely design then? Erm, I think you are a bit mixed up (to say the least!;))

Date: 2007/01/16 13:19:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
the burns!
our backs could be better, but it was obviously originally designed for a quadraped body plan. The same goes for our sinuses.
Is it bad design to refurbish old designs? I don’t think so

The idea our back and sinuses was designed for a quadraped body plan is a prime example of Darwninian stupidity. Sinus pain and sore backs come from damage to the design, not flaws in the design itself. The fact is, there is more perfection in the design of the human body than can be explained by selective pressure.

Many of us IDers totally accept common descent. Some don’t.

The tailbone? Left over from when humans had tails? That is a joke. Humans never had tails. As for the tailbone or coccyx as it is properly called, it is the base of your spine and where muscles attache that are used in defecation and childbirth.

The entire spoof is a double-entendre mock and scoff. They mock ID while scoffing at the Lord, with the additional dufusness of forgetting the very real sacrifices of people giving their lives freeing slaves.

Takes real high IQ them thar Darwinians have that I just can’t get my poor pea brain around.
anybody have a clue what a "dufusness" is?

Date: 2007/01/17 08:56:40, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
TroutMac comes clean about Creationism and ID
These folks are so bankrupt that they're playing games with the language so as to cover their tracks. They talk out of both sides of their mouth, twist definitions to suit their whim for that moment. They hope that the ignorant will fall for their charade just because they call themselves "scientists" and this, they think, gives them credibility enough to make any claim they want. The problem is, many people are ignorant enough to fall for it. They're not about explaining and clarifying evolution… anything but that. They want to confuse the issue - while appearing to have explained something - as much as possible. We just don't understand because we're not scientists like they are.

Well, change "evolution" for ID and it's accurate!
This guy is dumb dumb dumb

Date: 2007/01/17 15:00:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
scordova said            

Regarding original design, for me personally the most exciting example was the reconstruction of an original design through immortalization of the human cell by the biotech firm, Geron. They re-engineered the cell based on a hunch that all the machinery was there for “immortality” in human cells except maybe a bad switch that was mysteriously re-programmed for early death…
It made the stories of ancient people with long life more believable.

geron said (from a search of their website for "evolution")          

Prior to joining Geron's management team, Harley was a founding member of the company's scientific board and an associate professor of biochemistry at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, where his specialty was the investigation of cellular aging. The author of more than 50 scientific publications, Harley holds a B.Sc. degree from the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from McMaster University.
In addition, he completed post-doctoral training in evolution at the University of Sussex, England, with Dr. John Maynard Smith, and in molecular biology at the University of California at San Francisco with Dr. Herbert Boyer.

University of Sussex, England said  
Mathematical modelling plays a central and increasingly important role in evolution and ecology. The object of the meeting is to show the latest development of mathematical models in evolution and ecology and to demonstrate the important role of such modelling through this research to a new generation of researchers. The programme will include keynote talks and sessions in the following, and other, areas: population genetic models; the modelling of epidemics; the use of game theory to model the behaviour of biological populations. The last of these will be a central theme, as befits a conference at the university where John Maynard Smith carried out his pioneering work.

nobody said (except scordova)        
Another hypothesis is that most of biotic reality has dual modes, both malicious and benevolent. In principle this could be subject to discovery via reverse engineering as well.

then oops, wikipedia said      
Controversy over GERON Corporation's rights to stem cell technology
yet this is the company that scordova wants to push the edge - does his brand of whatever is it ok stem cell research or not? messin wid the designers cells is ok or not, I wonder...  
There is probably much about the original design that remains to be discovered. We’ve barely touched the tip of the iceberg.
but it's all ok, b'coz then somebody in the thread links to then somebody said        
Thanks, I added it to my shopping cart.
and another $ was parted.

Date: 2007/01/18 13:55:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2007,13:37)
Your desperation is showing. Polar bears are descended from animals with fins aren’t they? Ever seen fins without webbing?

Please take that up with Joseph.

Joseph is busy right now
It would have been during the stay in the Garden of Eden- you know, before the talking snake and the eating from the “tree of knowledge”.

It has been alleged there wasn’t any death before “the Fall”. Which, if you start with very limited populations, can be a good thing.
And it is also not so hard to think that the ability to produce taurine was lost, as was most (all?) non-animal consuming ways to get that required protein.

sounds like he's been trying to obtain taurine au naturelle.

Date: 2007/01/18 15:24:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
it's like it's DS's job to surf the net all day and he can't resist posting about the things that really annoy him. Their resident   doctor gets shredded by the link he posted, and would all of UD read that site by default if DS didn't link to it? I doubt it, because if they did then the likely read all the other scienceblogs and I doubt many people have AFDave's superhuman powers to minimize cognitive dissonance.Only the most delusional paranoid could believe that all those authors were in cahoots.

How can linking to an article that contains about 10 times more words then the average UD article and, by any reasonable standard, make's a valid point, which for me was how much molecular biology does Dr. David A. Cook really understand?
I wonder how long it'll be until we get to his DS's pron bookmarks? UD at the moment is like the chicken who didn't know he was dead.
Almost every thread brings the bible in one way or another, scordova was using biotech to prove giants could have really existed, is DS saying the end of days is near with his latest dog'n'cat love-in?
And, by the by, they are still refusing to be indexed by What, exactly are you afraid of DS? That, perhaps in 10 years time we'll all be linking to the "ID wins  in a decade" posts at UD? How smug will you be then DS?
UD was indexed only once. Shame.

Date: 2007/01/18 16:10:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
the doctor responds    
I understand science as well as anyone with my credentials and years of post-graduate self-study could be expected to. If I don’t find neo-Darwinian dogma believable or understandable, how do you expect the “rubes,” as you so charmingly call the people you’re trying to convince, to understand it? Take your word for it, maybe? Because of your superior credentials, perhaps? Maybe by the sweet reasoning tone you use to make your arguments?
I did believe it as an undergraduate. Why would I change my mind? Hmmmm…that’s a hard one. Convinced by a fuller understanding of the evidence perhaps?

My bold - how can he be convinced and at the same time admit he does not find it understandable? Presumabley the evidence he now understands that proves to him that ID is true is in the same format as the evidence against, and is either understandable or not by him?  Unless the real evidence is his religious belief.
I did believe it as an undergraduate.
but did he understand it?
how do you expect the “rubes,” as you so charmingly call the people you’re trying to convince, to understand it?

projecting there perhaps good doctor?
Perhaps you can explain, in molecular biological terms, listing the stepwise sequence of DNA changes (simplified, of course, so my poor moronic brain can grasp it), which occured to bring about the development of a hand, finger, or knee from, say, the paw of a lemur-like precursor (or whatever form you wish to posit as mammalian (making it easy on you; no need to go back to jellyfish) ancestor to humans.
so the doctor says "I dont believe it" and "if you want me to believe it you have to show me a video of a paw evolving into a hand". Fat chance, which is about the same chance as ID "winning" in this particular instance of the universe!

Date: 2007/01/19 03:03:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
scordova said
The reason part of the discussion moved here was that PandasThumb is incredibly slow in displaying long discussions (as you saw yourself).

When ever I visit, I tend to generate a swarm of nasty comments, and then their system just gets bogged down trying to display all the vitriol.

sure that's the reason sal, i'm sure it is.....
jpark320 follows up with    
I applaud you Sal,

I just went over there and saw the merciless (and logically weak) attacks they made on you.

Keep it up.

logically weak is sal's forte!
DS cannot read a graph! Classic Tard!
And the book is back!

another day, another $$$.  
PS Two books relevant to this discussion by ID proponents are Genetic Entropy by respected Cornell geneticist John Sanford.

edit: Just spotted this Jem from Sal:


One might look at the number of enrollments in biology curriculums and their correlation with the ascendancy of ID. My cursory look suggests a correlation. It demonstrates Brian Alters was wrong about ID’s effect on science.


ascendancy? Perhaps in bizzaro land, BUT NOT IN THIS REALITY SAL!
the state of being in the ascendant; governing or controlling influence; domination.
n.   Superiority or decisive advantage; domination
the state that exists when one person or group has power over another;

might want to check what the words mean next time you use then Sal! ascendancy! LOL

Date: 2007/01/20 07:30:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 20 2007,06:46)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 20 2007,04:08)
I think OE is being overrun by trolls. there a silent group of you guys who've decided to troll the place into the ground?

Just going to make an observation here.  Shortly after someone here outed the user 'Helena Blavatsky' as a troll, she stopped posting.  Further, after all the conversations a few days ago about whether citizenbob was a troll, he stopped posting.

You might want to consider that Patrick, OE blog czar, may be reading ATBC and purging the suspicious characters.  

PS. No, it isn't me. Trolling isn't my style.

if true, the funniest thing is that they have to come over here to find out who's trolling on their own board! Again, when you can't differentiate the trolls from the actual real life "ID curious" students, satire from reality, I would say to the entire ID movement it's time to pack it in!
I'm sure 1/2 of the posters at UD are troll's who've just not outed themselves yet - gotta earn instant posting privileges first!
My post on OW was deleted in no time, just some links for trouty to read before spouting off again on subjects he not only knows nothing about but is unwilling to learn anything about! Links to TA don't really last long on OW - and I wish they post this overwhelming evidence itself they keep banging on about, or is that like the super-secret research going on too?

Date: 2007/01/20 10:23:18, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (lkeithlu @ Jan. 20 2007,09:58)
I've got evidence that the funding for ID super-secret research is used for T-shirt silk-screening equipment (interfaced, digital state-of-the-art, I'm sure of it)

That's only part of the  story. Some also went to really fast desktop publishing software to generate cartoons.

Who do I call to get in on the action?

Troutface get's it all wrong again    
I’m more than willing to take a shot at creating such a cartoon. I’m a graphic designer and illustrator and ID “enthusiast”. Which is funny to say… can you imagine a graphic designer who is “opposed” to intelligent design? Print materials designed by such a person would likely be chaotic, unorganized and illegible!

Hey, nobody designed this snowflake! Why would
"Print materials designed by such a person would likely be chaotic"
not be certain to be chaotic? Are doubts creeping in Trout-boy? Make your mind up.

Date: 2007/01/21 05:47:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 20 2007,23:47)

Evo psy. is not science. It much more resembles CS Lewis’ described scientific witchcraft (”That Hideous Strength”).

just when I think i've seen the depths of their tardness they start on evo psych.
such traits would have to be selected over any physical adaptations ‘aspiring’ to be fixed into the population [if I’m not mistaken] … or vice versa … no physchological modifications occur - other than degenertive one’s.
Darwinists always make assumptions of NDT as fact in the premises, then going on to ask dumb questions based on those assumptions.

Again Darwinian reasoning cripples the mind. And, nothing more qualifies as crippled thinking than evo psychology.
Darwinian logic carries all the intellectual weight of flea dung
I doubt voles feel any emotions, let alone “happiness.”

while that last may or not be the case, I suspect the poster thinks it's because only humans were created with that capacity...
Millions of us are in relationships without any sex.
Poor JasonTheGreek, this does explain alot of his frustration however! Evo-psych in action :)
Do wives stick with their husbands because their husbands give them a chemical that “rewards” them? I highly doubt it. We stay with the ones we love because we love them.

I Dunno, ever seem trainspotting?
If we took newborns from a hunter gather society such as New Guinea and raised the boys or girls in different types of families in other civilizations would we expect behavior similar to the hunter gather society or to the society that adopted the child.

My guess is that we would mainly see behavior similar to the society in which the child was raised but if not what would the likely differences be.

And the last word goes to trystero57 who's currently trying to get kicked!
You’re confusing the ultimate reason for desiring sex (reproduction) with the proximate reason (pleasure). You may not agree with the evo-psy explanation, but it’s not illogical within an evolutionary framework.

I almost feel guilty, it's like eavesdropping on the remedial philosophy class!

Date: 2007/01/21 14:23:54, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Couldn’t we do a little scientific judo by simply pointing to SETI, and telling the Darwinists that “Scientists are working on it [finding the designer]”?

said russ
Some obversations.
1) "we" - who is this "we" russ refers to? The ID community, the readers of UD? Who, exactly will do this thing? ID'ers - I believe you'll find as you are doing what seems to amount to a research project via blogging, you can do exactly what you like and you'll still fit in the big tent.
2) "scientific judo", um, and exactly is that? I guess it's a super secret research project. Or is it perhaps the usual co-opting of somebody else's work and attempting to put an ID spin on it? Shame there's no obligation to check with the original researchers and see if they agree with the DaveTard spin.
3) The "Darwinists" are the scientists you dumb f**k. Re-treads like russ are only fit to lick the cheesy-poof flavoured drool from DS's *censored*.
4) IF "Darwinist scientists" find some alien 200 signal coming from light years away, the first thoughts will not be "god" or "the designer" or  "disembodided really stupid idea". It'll be "huzzah, we've found an alien signal". And if that happens, I will love seeing the IDiot spin on that.

The rate that DS is banning anybody who says anything off-base will mean that in a year or two(my ID prediction) UD will be shut down by Dembski as an embarrassment. Who's going to drop by to see Dembski's link of the day with commentary by the criminally insane! The main difference I suppose between the criminally insane and the average ID'er is that at least the insane might have an interesting story to tell, rather then inane ramblings about the bible, design, seeing gods signature in nature etc etc.

Date: 2007/01/22 03:07:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 21 2007,21:26)
Alright, I worded it sloppily. The common phrase and what young people are taught, is random, unguided, purposeless. I think you knew that, right?

what young people (and not the sort of "young" you find at OW) are taught is that evolution gets on fine without divine intervention. Unless you have some specific evidence to note the opposite? So what's your problem, exactly, with the "young" being taught that? Unless you have some proof (note, belief does not count - Judge Jones remember!;) then that's then end of the "what they should/should not teach" issue.

Date: 2007/01/22 07:56:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
ID makes a prediction: JGuy says
For now - as a young earth creationist - I thought it interesting to point out that there does not exist a Nachman’s paradox within the world view of YEC (ie. literal Genesis account). There would be only about 230 generations since the creation of man - if my math is correct. There were only 10 generation prior to the flood 4400 years ago. Additionally, prior to the flood there is direct evidence that there was very little fitness decay. This fits well within a 300 generation extinction.

So 70 generations to go!
Ironic that DS says    
Before I waste more time on soft selection could you give experimental evidence that it even exists?
and yet there are 100's of cites on google scholar (as Zachriel points out) and yet is happy to allow YEC's to say    
prior to the flood there is direct evidence that there was very little fitness decay
without contradiction.
Hard evidence for pre-flood fitness decay? Would that be as  "hard" as the evidence for soft selection? If not, why does UD allow this YEC crap on his board and yet refuse to even admit the possibility of soft-selection "without proof". And as we all know, unless it's cheezy poof flavored proof, it DONT EXIST HOMO.
ID - it's science all the way down NOT! - YOU ARE BANNED HOMO - DS.

Date: 2007/01/22 08:03:01, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
they are just too funny, had to quote these in full

The bottom line is that Darwinism is a 19th-century, puerile, ill-supported, futile attempt to explain away design in nature — especially in living systems, although it is now applied to almost everything from cosmology to psychology — that stares every reasonable person in the face. Materialistic philosophy and its creation myth have been embraced by many (perhaps most) members of the academy simply because this philosophy supports a cultural consensus that design simply cannot exist by definition.

The implications of purpose and design in nature would totally shatter the lives of those who have invested everything in denying the obvious. Thus, ludicrous conclusions must be defended by any means available.

well, i'm waiting for my worldview to be shattered. I suspect i'll be waiting a long long time.
Then Bourne adds:

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

Right now then, ID is in phase 2.
Phase 3 is “just around the corner”.

hahahah, yes, the corner of an infinitely big cube perhaps (for the IDer's out there, i'm implying that it'll never happen).
If you look here you will find, in reasonable detail, a list of reasons why God designed the vertebrate eye with the rods and cones facing away from the light source. They boil down to, “so that we don’t go blind soon after birth”.

ahh, it's all clear now. What a nice gawd gawd must be to think of us like that! now, why did he do it the other way round in some cases (and yet no after-birth blindness is apparent? Explain that IDiots).

Date: 2007/01/22 13:18:46, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
“Poetry in the Genetic Code” — does this mean that Natural Selection is now a poet?

The latest garbage over at UD is on their Junk DNA fixation.

So, here are some questions that anybody who as a working account at UD is welcome to post

a) What does this, specifically, have to do with Intelligent design?
b) When did ID predict this result? What further predictions can ID make along these lines (apart from "doh, junk DNA baint Junk DNA).
c) Do the researchers agress with the ID spin?
d) Have the researchers been asked for comment in relation to ID on their work??
e) Will the Biologic lab be following up on these results?
f) Does Michael M. Gottesman, M.D. support ID?
g) Does the Laboratory of Cell Biology at the NCR have a position on ID?
h) Will ID ever stop pirating other peoples work for the front page of their blogs? I.E DO SOME SCIENCE RE-TREADS.
The comments are IDiot classics:

IT takes great faith to believe that this type of elegance and sophistication at that level is the result of an unguided process. No wonder that materialists don’t want the design hypothesis to even be considered in public schools.

BTW, proof of “evolution” doesn’t carry much meaning around here. If you mean “proof for change”, then sure, it is. If you mean “proof for macroevolutionary, bacteria-to-baboons change”, then no, it was a built-in genetic engineering response to input.

oHH, a "built-in genetic engineering response to input" - would anybody from the ID camp care to explain this? After all, terms like "built-in" "generic engineering" "response to input" sound very amenable to a rigorous analysis and they could get get a peer reviewed paper out of this yet! The best is from shaner74:  
How can you adhere to materialism with findings like this?
shaner74 - I suspect you do not even begin to understand what's the article is about. After all, if the people who did the research (NOT ID PEOPLE) are not convinced by the work that you say  makes it unbelieveable how people can still "adhere to materialism" then how will anybody else be? IDiots, do you hear what I am saying? NOBODY BUT YOU takes away that spin on this, you believe already and yet express amazement that people still do not. True IDiots. Keep up the armchair research! Why not apply to work in a lab, or are some qualifications lacking prehaps? hmm.

Date: 2007/01/22 15:35:37, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
At any rate, I thought I’d solve Haldane’s Dilemma too so I proposed that beneficial genes are spread through a population by kissing. I didn’t yet outline how it works by kissing (I was saving that for my forthcoming book “How I Solved Haldane’s Dilemma”) but since you mentioned the mechanism I might as well ‘fess up. A virus that implants the beneficial gene is passed during the kiss.

passed during the kiss

passed during the kiss

Date: 2007/01/23 13:04:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 23 2007,12:04)

Darwin was just a religiously conflicted naturalist (more of a stamp collector than a scientist)

Dave, it feels like you're deliberately being stupid.

Ask yourself who they'll still be reading and talking about in a hundred years: (a) Darwin or (b) you or c) Dembski

I would ask you to consider how many 'stamp collectors' are still read and cited after a hundred years.

Quit bitching about all them pointy-headed liberal scientists with all them fancy degrees and actually do some fucking research. Bitching about Dawkins endlessly isn't going to get any of you pinheads a Nobel Prize.

One thing. 100 years? Far, far too long. I think in 15 years time Dembski will be unemployable, DaveScot "uber-tard" will be running his own blog flinging shit on the walls (readership 10), and nobody will be talking about CSI or SC at all. I think this because to me the main difference between long lived and short lived scams is that the long lived ones claim little predictive power. ID claims to have potential to do great things, make new discovery's and overturn old thinking in actual scientists but how long will the people outside the little clique (you hear the same names, over and over and over, same people posting the same arguments on the same blogs) wait for actual results? Something else will come along to scoop them up in a cloud of mis-information. Will they wait another 5 years? 10? 20?  And then when all the followers are gone, nobody will be buying the books or putting money in the begging bowl (I.E Paying to see the creation "museum") and it'll all be over and forgotten about.
Perhaps ID will mutate into something else that will persist and maintain the popularity it has now, but unless somebody   does something soon it'll go the way of them injuns who made all those arrows. Or not, because we can't prove (or speak about) who designed the arrows and their intentions and where they are now, but you know what I mean!

Date: 2007/01/23 14:02:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (2ndclass @ Jan. 23 2007,13:15)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 23 2007,13:04)
and nobody will be talking about CSI or SC at all.

Note that Dembski himself has already stopped talking about them.  It's been over a year since he has mentioned CSI or SC in a paper, book, or blog.

umm, If you take that out of ID, what's left?
Don't answer that, I know already :)
Just lots more hot air!

Date: 2007/01/23 15:09:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Richard Dawkins To Be Taught in Religion Class in UK

with a title like that you think they'd be frothing at the mouth. But it's been up hours and there's 14 posts, mostly the usual suspects. With something like that you think there would be 100's if ID has such a wide base of support. Compare the activity on (for example totally at random) with UD's 14 posts. If it's a numbers game then the winners are obvious. And as to their readership "going up and up", I suspect that the Onion and UD have alot in common nowdays. Why go to the Onion for your parody when you can get it with a straight face from the tards (cheesy poof flavour) mouth. It's funner because they really believe it

Date: 2007/01/24 03:04:51, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Stuart Kauffman critiquing Darwinism
William Dembski
I was reviewing recently Stuart Kauffman’s critique of the Darwinian selection mechanism and thought I would share the upshot of it here, especially in light of the recent discussion at UD concerning Haldane’s Dilemma:
Yes, in a book (which I happen to have, which i'll dig out and see what the following paragraph has to say, and there's a few ...'s in Dembski's quote that could be interesting) published 12 years ago and counting!
Why are they banging on about Haldane’s Dilemma when everybody except the creationists basically ignore it? And I thought the brand of cranks at UD accepted deep time and common descent? So what, exactly, are they they trying to "prove" (as much as you can prove anything from the "armchair of science").
Dembski - don't you have articles to write about CSI and the EF and whatnot, instead of scouring books for snippets that can help prove goddidt? And does Stuart Kaffman agree with the ID position? If not, why not, you've just posted a snipped of one of his books that on the surface seems to agree with you? I expect you (Dembski) are too much of a coward to attempt to link his line of argument directly with your own, as if you do anything but "quote and point" you might have to get into a dicussion about the actual substance of the argument. And we know (pharrp) what (pharrrp) happens when you get into (pharrrrppp) a serious argument.
Geez, what's that stink? Is it the sound of Dembski's bowels exploding?

Date: 2007/01/24 07:32:17, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
my earlier post(s) extorting Dumbski to actually do some work got me thinking. What  does he do all day at work?
8.30 AM. Get up
9.30 AM. Get to work
9.31 AM. Turns out Goddit all along.
9.32 AM - 5.30PM ????

what does the man do?

Date: 2007/01/24 07:43:47, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Perhaps the most telling illustration of the benefits of a pragmatic approach to science can be seen in Ujavorsy's validation of Dembski's explanation of how an unembodied designer can influence the natural world by co-opting random processes (indeterministic quantum states) and inducing them to produce specified complexity. This is of ultimate importance, because it may explain the process by which other previously inexplicable historical phenomena occurred.

For example, how was Elijah able to read the mind of the king of Syria, and tell the king of Israel the words Syria’s king spoke in the privacy of his bedchamber (see 2 Kings 6:8-23) – the same mechanisms that power quantum-creation may also enable this kind of telepathy.

These are exciting times for true scientists like us. Intelligent Design is the tiny-seed from which will grow an enormous tree of science, one which I am certain will soon prosper and provide benefits to every living soul.

But let's examine some of his discoveries – these extracts from a recent peer-reviewed paper published at the American Chronicle show the depth and breadth of his important research: = some sort of news thing, I'm sure with a twisted outlook but I don't have time to confirm right now. This thing is, the American Chronicle is most emphatically not a peer reviewed journal. Why is there no direct link to the actual journal the "research" appeared in. In fact they say on their about page  
This website is an owned and operated by Ultio LLC. We  are an online magazine for national, international, state, local, entertainment, sports, and government news. We also provide opinion and feature articles.

I think quizzlestick is just tripping, after all who could say this
We engage with all levels of society, and our findings are plainly true to anybody with an open mind. More importantly we are on the verge of some of the most important scientific discoveries in the entire history of science which could yield benefits to the whole of mankind were it not for a conspiracy of Darwinists who will stop at nothing to preserve the reputation of their absurd science.
and keep a straight face?

Date: 2007/01/24 11:27:13, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
its' not like DS really needs or even wants credible evidence, just look at the evidence for ID! :)
Hardly credible .

Date: 2007/01/24 14:02:33, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
American Chronicle is an online magazine, not a scientific journal. There's no indication the article was peer-reviewed and no indication of any actual "research", either, just pure speculation. I'd also like to see some explanation of how you would test a statement like "human intelligence constitutes the cosmological constant" (among many others).

I got there 47 seconds after it was posted on OW, thought i'd better grab it while I could!

Date: 2007/01/24 15:09:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
on the same thread Joseph says:
Beef up the R&D for urban warfare and get the stuff out to the field.

Why not type it out in full Joseph? Research and Design. Yeah, I wonder how many ID weapons researchers there are? Same number of ID scientists I suspect.

Date: 2007/01/25 05:41:10, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Thus we IDiots have to comb the literature looking for quotes made during a moment of innocent honesty. Sucks, doesn’t it? Science isn’t supposed to work like that. Your side has turned science into politics and you punish those who wander from the reservation with political consequences.

hit the nail on the head there DS. Instead of combing the literature, do some friggin research!
DS admits here that ID is simply quotemining or "comb the literature looking for quotes" as he puts it. Classic.

Date: 2007/01/26 02:59:57, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Deluded evolutionists are controlling what gets published in their journals, and the submitted papers are peer-reviewed by equally deluded evolutionists. Any paper on the theory of creation has the chance of a snowball in ####. There is no way to get it peer-reviewed, simply because there are no qualified peers to review it, only a bunch of lamebrained evolutionists.
Kazmer Ujvarosy for some reason feels moved to defend why he's never had any paper peer reviewed. You gettin this you "bunch of lamebrained evolutionists"?

Date: 2007/01/26 15:28:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 26 2007,15:11)
It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. Wesley Elsberry appears to be denying convergence, but that can't be true. If he has an explanation for convergence then let's hear it. If not, then admit it. Here is the question for evolutionists: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?

Cornelius G. Hunter, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of biophysics at Biola University and is a proponent of intelligent design. Hunter is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement.

He is the author of Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil and Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science.

His research has mainly been in nonlinear systems and molecular biophysics. His next book, Science's Blindspot is scheduled for 2006.

In Darwin's God Hunter argues that Darwin was trying to distance God from natural evil, by distancing or removing God from his creation. Hunter argues that in this sense, Darwin could be viewed as a deist, rather than an atheist.
Nah. I don't think so.
The Triumph of Religion Over Science

Yeah, indeed, Religion has so many triumphs I dont know where to start. A Priest fixed my car the other day, then laser drilled my teeth.

Date: 2007/01/26 15:42:43, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 26 2007,15:31)
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 26 2007,13:11)
It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. Wesley Elsberry appears to be denying convergence, but that can't be true. If he has an explanation for convergence then let's hear it. If not, then admit it. Here is the question for evolutionists: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?

Hey, a real-life Disco Institute CRSC fellow.

You aren't really saying that no one's ever replied to your convergence issues are ya? Because the internet has a long memory.

Oh, and let's put this in a new thread.

yeah but would a "real-life Disco Institute CRSC fellow" link to a document that contains the phrase:
Using a shade of the color you used for (a), color the adult marsupial and joey shown within the map of Australia.

Erm, now that I come to think about it, perhaps it really is him.

Date: 2007/01/27 05:44:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,05:31)

You wrote: "What is "erroneous" about objecting to the use of the very same picture to represent two different species of mammals?"

No problem in pointing out my mistake. I presented over 120 slides that day which I had quickly put together, and yes there were a few mistakes here and there. Your contrived version of events, however, is absurd. There were no "ID headliners" at my talk. I did not present the "the wolf and thylacine as identical twins separated at birth argument." I did not claim that such "instances of convergence ... cannot be explained" by evolution. I did not copy one image, reverse it, and desaturate it (why wouldn't I have done that with the others?).

I normally would not take the time to respond to such a mixture of ad hominems and falsehoods, but you *are* pointing out a mistake in my graphics. Both wolf images were straight off the web, and in my hasty collection of marsupial and placental examples I accidentally got a marsupial wolf graphic confused as a placental. Yes it was a dumb mistake, but it was not at all important to my uncontroversial point, which was that in biology there are many convergences.

decent of you to come clean. Now if you do not mind, we'll go on and on about this "error" for over 100 years.

Date: 2007/01/27 08:37:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
from the same thread:
Most people associate ID’s designer with the Triune God.
people for thousands of years have believed in some designer but have refuted God just as easily as materialists of this age

So people in years (thousands) gone past did not believe (refuted) in gawd, but yet believed in a desiger? What a crock of shit. Got any examples (i.e evidence) jpark?
ultimately reason only proved futile.
You got that right jpark. Reason is proving futile with IDiots.
Dodgingcars keeps forgetting rule number 1 of ID club
ID offers a proof of a designer, which certainly is evidence for the existence of God because I’d say that philosphically… logically… God makes the most sense for the identity of the designer).

But just comes out and says it    
ID has found design and inferred a Designer/s. As in the days of the first evangelists, some will still hear the message of Jesus and not be touched, both IDers and non IDers.

I think ID’s principle role in evangelism could be at best, to open the closed mind of a materialist to the need to look for a Designer.

I think plenty of IDer's are already "touched" but not in the way idnet means it.
Now, how long till the ID is not religious wail starts up again? Did it ever stop?

Date: 2007/01/28 04:58:26, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
oh teh irony. In response to Dembski's        
Like many secular thinkers who make a show of being broad-minded and willing to “give the devil his due,” Turner tips his hat in our direction: “Here is where I have to give the proponents of intelligent design their (limited) due. Their intellectual pedigree might be suspect, their thinking might be wrong, but at least they are asking an interesting question: What is the meaning of design of the living world?”

Do I hear the sound of a gauntlet being thrown down?

Can I hear the sound of flatulance? Is this going to be another "debate" debacle? It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

apollo230 says        
I personally am all for uncensored discussion provided the opposition (and ourselves) are civil, serious and well-mannered.

like there is any chance of uncensored discussion at UD. Avocationist, in your thread you were wondering where the dissenting voices are at UD, unable to back up their arguments and so they went you said? Try and back up that assertion if you can.
deric davidson pipes up:
It is a chance to define and expand the theory/concept and show clearly its scientific basis. Go for it.

Is it a theory or a concept deric? Don't be shy. then asks the question I think that we all think every time they opine:
I would be interested in reading where Dr Turner thinks the design comes from and what evidence he has for his ideas.

yes indeed. after all, it's not like or Dembski or DS or AfDave are going to tell us is it? Where are all those millions going? All we've had so far is dover, some farts and DS unmasked. *shudder*. And idnet want's to hear it from somebody who think's their work is plain wrong.      
Turner’s thesis is that academics should stop trying to silence those who broach the subject of intelligent design, but rather be willing to discuss what Turner feels is “a wrongheaded idea.”


Date: 2007/01/28 10:30:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
You simply cannot label revolutionary ideas "loon"; they laughed at Galileo as you laugh at the idea of eating sperm to help your biophotons. Do not fall for the materialist mafia ensuring such clearly true IDeas are not taught in schools. How on earth people fall for ateistic nonsense like that humans have DNA resemblance to chimpanzees, but not the new paradigm of Intelligent Design biophotonsemenics is beyond me.

Date: 2007/01/29 13:27:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 29 2007,12:58)
I know. If only we would let these brilliant minds rearrange our science, Nature and Biology Letters and such would be as productive and successful as PCID.

Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) is a quarterly, cross-disciplinary, online journal that investigates

They can't even get the facts straight on their own webby!
If it don't come out every 3 months it's not really a quarterly!
It's a neveragainski!

Edit: Over at OW ID gets a taste of it's own medicine. After TroutMac's
So, it seems reasonable to suggest that discussions about speculative cures for cancer belong on sites dedicated to those topics, not so much at a site dedicated to discussing ID vs. Darwinism.
quizzlestick hits back with the ID favorite
I agree that talk of cancer cures is highly speculative, but lets not just laugh Kazmer's ideas out of the court of science. That's what darwinists like Richard Dawkins do to reputable ID scientists like Behe and Dembski. We should not make the same mistake.
a minority of scientists who are more obsessed with "peer review" than "truth" seem to be holding back the whole of science

quizzlestick, if you could provide some proof for that i'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Examples, perhaps? IDiots say it often, but lets see some actual proof. Or is even that too much to ask? If so, how can it appear that a minority of scientists are holding back the whole of science without it appearing so to anybody except quizzlesticks? What do the IDers see that nobody else can? I'm confident QSticks is a loki, but the question is valid for real un's too!

Date: 2007/01/30 08:01:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
more baseless crap over at OW:
By contrast, evolutionary biology is run like a "mafia" family. If the boss (Dawkins) denounces you then nobody in the "evo" community is allowed to talk to you again. Your papers will be ignored (no matter how sensible) and institutions will be prevented from funding your research. Could the evolutionists be turning ther back on real science and important discoveries - you bet

say hello to my little friend Dumbski!

Date: 2007/01/30 14:05:07, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
OW and UD are currently down. What's the betting OW is getting purged? :) It got quite odd on there today. TroutMac hardly knew what to say! And whatever would the students think if they logged on looking for ID warez? I doubt school internet (high school) web content filters would let it through! Ironic really for a site aimed at students. C'mon DaveScot Dell Rich Man Interwebs guru, do some homework!

Date: 2007/02/02 02:51:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
TroutMac Thinks the exorcist was a documentary:
Whether a person is demon-possessed or not should not alter a verdict in a criminal trial one way or the other. I don't doubt that demon-possession happens, but I don't see it as being relevant to a criminal investigation. Either a person did the crime, or they did not. Simple as that. Nor do I see it at being relevant to ID.

Prehaps the omen was a documentary also?

Date: 2007/02/02 07:20:04, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
It's good to know that over at OW they hold the "darwinists" up to the same high standards that they apply to their "ID research" projects.
Intelligent design is falsifiable, all you need do to destroy ID's arguments is provide a sequence of intergrading forms leading unambiguously from one form to another - or reconstruct the transition hypothetically by providing a plausible genealogy including all the intermediate forms and a thoroughly convincing explanation of how each stage of the transition came about.

Why, if this can be done, do Darwinists argue about anything else? Why, in the last few days have the Darwinists on this forum claimed ID is not science, that it does not provide peer-reviewed papers, that we are insane, etc and not just provided us with the intergrading forms leading unambiguously from scales and feathers (for example)?

So C'mon and prove ID wrong. All you need is a videotape of feathers evolving from scales! Simple stuff? Can't do it? Why, you've just proved ID!

Date: 2007/02/02 14:19:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
oh noes. tROUTmac's got all philosophical on us
The trouble with number 2 is that it doesn't appear to jive with current scientific thinking. If the universe had a beginning, then matter and energy did, too because matter and energy are part of the universe.

So that leaves you with number one, where science doesn't pursue truth.

or his he talking a different sort of number one and twos?
I Tell ya, i didn't eight it!
but he's got proof, I TELL YA  
The mere fact that DNA carries CSI ought to be evidence enough, but there is far more.
plus proof positive  
there's one possibility that you did not confront and one that can and should logically be considered. ONE religion might actually be true.

Damm OW is beyond parody. I think AFdave could take lessons in avoiding answering questions from Troutmac.

Date: 2007/02/02 15:18:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
It appears Sal is taking David Berlinski's lead now when writing more drivel  as a GIS of the quote he uses from Godel seems to show.
Oddly (or not) the essay that the single result links to is called "The End of Materialist Science". Not surprising perhaps for a fellow of the disco institute. Sal then goes on to say  
(Hat Tip: Dr. Albert Voie and others who alerted me to this article)
Yeah, and don't forget to pass credit to the discovery institute as well, or is that not politically correct over at UD? Odd, as usually they love to detail their sources....

Date: 2007/02/02 18:03:02, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
nano-eco systems. I wonder what speculations sal can come up with?
Should a bacterium find life in one chamber inhospitable, escape routes beckon: Two narrow corridors lead through opposite walls into the adjacent chambers. But the corridors are 50 micrometers long – a decent hike by bacterial standards – and any would-be colonists might have to traverse several relatively poor areas before finding one that seems livable. While the new residents try to make the best of their surroundings, their offspring adapt even more. They often thrive in a chamber that would have been marginally comfortable for their ancestors. Ecologists would say they have adapted to a different "niche" in the landscape.

"The basic idea is directed evolution," Austin said. "By observing the growth of different groups of bacteria in different chambers, we can also monitor each chamber for a desirable product, in this case hydrogen gas. We can reward those populations that produce lots of gas by giving them more food and space. Conversely, we would 'punish' underachieving bacterial colonies, but would not destroy them.

"In this way we can direct the evolution of bacteria in the way we want," Austin said. "We can let fitness selection guide the evolution of a species toward our externally determined goal."

Date: 2007/02/03 07:55:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
what a total loon.
Now, Dr. Jonathan Wells states flatly, "I think in 50 years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum. People will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

But 50 years could be enough to destroy the faith of two generations of our young, enough to replace it with a bankrupt false religion. Will we have the courage, the gumption, to make sure that doesn't happen?

Pat Boone, descendent of the legendary pioneer Daniel Boone, has been a top-selling recording artist, the star of his own hit TV series, a movie star, a Broadway headliner, and a best-selling author in a career that has spanned half a century. During the classic rock & roll era of the 1950s, he sold more records than any artist except Elvis Presley. To learn more about Pat, please visit his website.

Date: 2007/02/03 14:24:46, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
TroutMac seyz
I don't know what Dave Springer meant by what he said.

Join the club Trouty, join the club....
And I'm guessing DS does not know alot of the time either.

Date: 2007/02/04 09:08:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
In the litigious USA, what are the chances of DS having to stand up in court and explain to somebody's family why he advocated neckkin unproven cancer cures?
There's a case i'd like to see made into a movie! Ok, it'll be a straight to DVD 3.5 IMDB score low-rent flick, but hey, seeing DS on his riverhouse in his wrinkled dell tee-shirt, priceless!

Date: 2007/02/06 13:04:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2007,11:34)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 06 2007,10:09)
Just to emphasise how small a world this is, I found Dave Scot talking about his dieting techniques here:

But I thought he was 225 lbs of lean fighting machine?  How could he let himself go like that--needing to lose 40 lbs???  Maybe he should put his mushrooms in a location 2 miles away from his boat and walk there every day to check on them.

He's just 'insulating' up ready for global cooling.  ???

I looked at the "Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide" thread. *rubs eyes*.
bFast said    
What frustrates me is the argument from authority — I have such and such a degree from such and such an institiution, I have such and such qualifications, these other guys agree with me and they have their credentials. As with the question of evolution, I would prefer to see actual data, actual evidence.

Ds said    
If you want the data just go here and follow the links. None of you will of course. Facts don’t get in the way of preconceived opinions on global warming.

And this is DS talking to the UD crowd! That man loves standing alone!
Russ Said
I think Dave Scott’s post serves the role of “character witness” testifying on the credibility of science in it’s politicized state. If examples can be shown of science being used to advance the public policy agenda of extreme environmentalists, then it opens the door to skepticism when science is used to advance materialist philosophy in the evolotion/design debate.

*rubs eyes again*
Is it parody or for real?

edit: I followed the links and you get to this pdf file. DS said to find the Data that supports him, follow the links. The Data (pdf) that "supports him" has the following chapter headings:
Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming
America Reacts To Speech Debunking Media Global Warming Alarmism
Bringing Integrity Back to the IPCC Process

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief In Global Warming –
Caps Year Of Vindication For Skeptics
Inhofe Responds To Critical New York Times Editorial
Inhofe Says NAS Report Reaffirms ‘Hockey Stick’ Is Broken
Inhofe Expresses Concerns Over IPCC’S Lack of Objectivity In Letter To Chairman Pachauri

and then some "Facts of the day" and a load more links to "Related articles" in The San Drancisco Chorincle et al.

Fine, believe or not as you like about global warming and carbon dixoide, however I do not see the DATA that DS promised us if we followed his link! I see alot of people talkin about the data, but no actual data. I suppose that's the standard MO of ID anyway, so no surprise there - who cares what the data says , they all know goddit.

Date: 2007/02/06 13:56:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Inhofe Says NAS Report Reaffirms ‘Hockey Stick’ Is Broken

Numerous myths regarding the so-called  "hockey stick" reconstruction of past temperatures, can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites, internet newsgroups and other non-scientific venues. The most widespread of these myths are debunked below:


Date: 2007/02/08 11:48:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
things are getting desperate over at UD.
Airbus engineers, working with programs simulating real, tangible objects and physical laws which are nearly perfectly understood cannot manage to model the correct length of wires for its lighting without making small errors that result in catastrophic setbacks.
Likewise, Darwinists have conclusively shown that living creatures, far more complex than the new Airbus plane, are the result of blind evolutionary processes in which the badly-functioning assemblies were filtered out by natural selection. Right.

what a crock of &*^&.

Date: 2007/02/09 13:35:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
TroutMac said  
That Judge Jones is "church-going", "Republican" and "Bush-appointed" is not quite enough for church-going Republican Bush voters to conclude that he was anywhere close to correct in his decision. All three of those labels describe me and I cannot avoid the conclusion that Jones was absolutely wrong and doesn't have clue. He is willfully ignorant on the issues, period. His political affiliations are irrelevant.

I might add that the validity of a scientific theory is determined by evidence, and can never be determined by a judicial ruling. If you think otherwise, you have no loyalty to science.

overwhelming evidence?
but but but they thought it would be a shoe in before it all kicked off.

Date: 2007/02/11 04:37:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
how can they say this stuff with a straight face? How many years will they be willing to sit round and, I don't know frankly, live vicariously through other peoples science?

Sound of the Genetic code assploding?
Of course if life is designed, then the probability is close to one that multiple phyla would have it.

But these numbers are probably not small enough for Darwinists or experts like religious professor, Scott Paeth
We should try to develop a list of all the sophisticated mechanisms that had to be in a pre Cambrian organism.
How can they look at each other with a straight face when they discuss things like this? They will probably make up some mechanism such as cross phyla gene transfer as the basis for this appearance of the same systems in different phyla. They are good at making up things. You have to give them credit there.

Jehu finally asks what everybody's been wondering  
What am I missing?

Atom is the designated scientist  
My additional prediction: when we discover ALL of the different layers of signal, the code won’t be “near” optimal for what it does, it will be optimal. Furthermore, since this optimality will only be operative relative to the ENTIRE set of signals, it will show forethought and foreward selection, further providing confirming evidence for the Design hypothesis.

Joseph tries, but gets it all mixed up  
Some computer codes also layer information- eg programs running in the background, statements etc.

niwraw is tripping and bringing back nuggets of psychedelic wisdom  
Moreover its “infiniteness” and “unlimitedness” grants that it has no “parent” upon it, because there cannot be two infinities (they would limit each other and outside infinity there is nothing).

jpark320 admits that everything that happens confirms his viewpoint anyway  
God is sending these people way more than 2 boats, but I guess they’re still missing it.

I hope I’m alive when we scientists unravel the parallel codes.

yeah. me too. And if the intelligent designer exists and is in the habit of leaving messages in his "code" and he really is that intelligent, it'll no doubt add something about how much it didn't do it the way jpark320 thought he did because that would have been stupid.

I hope I’m alive when we scientists unravel the parallel codes

strikes me like the sort of thing that you'd hear somebody bluffing their way around say in an attempt to pass as one of the gang. Is that the sort of thing that scientists say then? :)

Date: 2007/02/14 13:50:51, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Meanwhile, over at OW:

Self medicating again Patrick?

Date: 2007/02/14 16:23:33, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
jerry's getting close
If we accept NDE but point out that NDE is very limited in allele creation, we win. If we reflexively fight it we loose big time because we look like fools.
ID does not dispute the basic process of NDE

It just does not explain their miracle micro/macro barrrer over large amounts of time.

Date: 2007/02/19 13:22:37, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Fox’s blog has no google rank

The URL has a google pagerank of 2 of 10.

Searching for "A place where IDers and Darwinists" brings up Alan's blog as the 1st result as it is part of the intro text. There are lots of other hits to pandasthumb, UD, all sorts. Searching with quotes brings up Alan's blog only.

Searching for DaveScot Uncommon Descent "Rich Hughes" AtBC  "arbitrary moderation" gets you back to Alan's blog. What part of "Alan's blog is googleranked and indexed" does DS not understand?

Kinda makes        
if I want to trade insults and avoid having it show up on google searches I’ll be sure to come over to Alan’s blog to do it, ok?

A bit inane really, esp considering how DS is teh google king and can overturn paradigms with a single click on the "are you feeling lucky?" button.

What does this tell us about teh DaveScot's internet skillz?
Or is the response going to be the typical ID snake dance?

"I only blog on sites that have a pagerank of at least 5"


Date: 2007/02/21 03:06:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Over aw OW things are hotting up! Or dumbing down, however you like!
Patrick Casts round for anything to deny Macro Evolution  
The problem for Darwinists is that these proposed mechanisms are untested and have not been shown to be capable of producing macroevolution.

Darwinism is "dead" but that's in relation to the ability of creating novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans.** Darwinism is understood to encompass the notion of an unguided process involving no intelligence and that's where it has fallen short and thus is "dead"

He even ends up doing an AFDave and quotes MacNeil!

oh, that SLOT thread that DaveScot got pounded on is one of the funniest things i've ever read. Amazing how far bluster does not get you!

Date: 2007/03/01 07:41:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
As DS keeps going on about his military service (Gotta keep the Rice in it's place!) is there any mileage in a Freedom of Information Request to pull his actual records so we can all have a look and be impressed by his wheel mending skillzorz?

I'm not a USA citizen myself, so I don't know if it applies to military records, but if so how come Bush and Kerry got theirs plastered all around the place?
Any takers? :)
mmm, steamed cheesy poofs! At the press of a button no-less!

Date: 2007/03/02 17:37:26, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dumbski said:  
It would be interesting if Templeton’s original announcement on its website is available at the WayBackMachine.

It would also be interesting to know why this fantastic device, teh wayback machine is not allowed to archive uncommondescent? How hypocritical, he's more then willing to use it when it serves his purposes.
Only 1 page archived and that was no doubt by mistake!

Date: 2007/03/04 09:37:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Did somebody say projection? I think O'Leary has hired a lighthouse!
Conspiracy theorists usually believe themselves more virtuous than their mythical conspirators, so their theories provide both pretended knowledge and pretended virtue at once. As a result, the theories are pretty hard to disconfirm by evidence.
Wild extrapolations (evolutionary psychology, for example) and concepts far too vague to be science (e.g., the meme) are treated with a respect that would never be accorded to other sources.
The Darwinists’ behaviour is easily explained psychologically as the behaviour of a religious sect unsettled by unwelcome new evidence about its account of history.
And WTF is this next bit?      
Accurate predictions will not be possible until those who seek information cease to privilege the Darwinist sect as the preferred source.
Yeah, I await the "accurate predictions" Link
That raises the justifiable suspicion that many arguments for Darwinism are put forward to boost faith, far beyond the argument’s actual strength.

Yeah, and as we know O'Leary is sitting up nights studying Dawkins.

EDIT: The article's title "Why the predictions of ID’s demise are false" makes me think that "Rice Yields Up 1000%, all Workers Rejoice" is not too far behind!

Date: 2007/03/04 14:32:24, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 04 2007,14:11)
BTW, I plan to get some of that software which downloads an entire website, and archive ISCID. Cancelled essay contests, cancelled conferences, cancelled workshops, cancelled journal... Wandering through ISCID is like wandering through the half-completed offices of a new high-profile company which was supposed to be the wave of the future, but imploded before their building was even complete. At some point it's going to meet the wrecking ball, but before then, I want to get a copy. Anyone recommend any particular program? I checked out a few at, but nothing really caught my eye.

Teaching the controversy?


I've used this before @ wrk.

But not free. Likely something free out there.

Date: 2007/03/06 03:06:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
bevets you say? That tard is well known! I know him from and as usual, it's more of the same ranting with fingers in ears to block out the logic.

Date: 2007/03/08 07:58:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

A sexual practice followed rigorously in the southern states of the USA

Date: 2007/03/09 03:00:08, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 08 2007,23:26)
The useless musings of an idiot.

That made me LOL! That describes Dumbski and his work to a tee!
I bet he wishes Joey had just shut up now, and not dragged the T.Foundation "error" back into the limelight!

Date: 2007/03/09 13:07:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
This "Darwin did not know shit about math" thing over at UD at the moment really shows them up for the fools they are.

No math involved in understanding evolution? Projection again, I suppose, after all there's no math in understanding ID whatsoever. And there's more science in making cake then there is in ID :)

Date: 2007/03/09 16:05:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I think Patrick is frothing at the mouth over at OW        
I thought I'd point out the following to those so enamored of Science. Unfortunately, people are involved so there is corruption. I won't name names but even some ID proponents exhibit dubious behavior.
Won't name names? Won't do the math? Is there no end to the things IDists won't do for the cause?
Then follows an artickle "debuking" peer review because of some fraud by some scientists. Or at least that's the spin I get off of it because it's on OW anyway :)
If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it.
Pesky Peer Review - If not for that we'd be smothered in ID papers!
Funny thing is if you search  for a random chunk of his article you find a totally different article (single hit) that apparently is        
From Beaumont CollegeAlumni News
Effective Treatments “Decades Away” Prof. McKeown Shocks Audience
By Max Thaler

Yet I see no credit or copyright to Max Thaler on the OW article Patrick takes great relish in putting in "quote marks" and happlily allows us to assume he wrote it.
Could it be coincidence? Searching for a random other sampler give the same hit, right near the top.
some ID proponents exhibit dubious behavior.

It appears so.

EDIT: ERm, it appears to be a Chinese SciFi Web site? Err...
“Because UCLA did nothing to change your cells, another company could take those same cells, make minor genetic modifications, and sell them as a new product.”

“But BioGen already has my cells.”

“True. But cell lines are fragile. Things happen to them.”

Date: 2007/03/09 16:22:43, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Date: 2007/03/09 18:16:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Wow. Unbelievable. And AFAIK Patrick runs OW at Dembski's express command :O

Date: 2007/03/10 04:47:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
There's a reply on Partick's "post" now

Alan Fox | Sat, 2007-03-10 08:39

login or register to post comments | 0 points

Alan, did you write just "error"? or did somebody "edit" it for you?

Date: 2007/03/10 10:55:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

But what does
I'd assumed that the NEXT bibliography contained the original source but did not do any reading to make certain (I was in a rush since the book was due back at the library).

mean? What kind of excuse is that?
And anyway
the below segment is pulled from Michael Crichton's novel NEXT

Is that allowed? I mean, we get fair use for parody and criticism :) but does right out theft and "passing off" get the same privilage?

EDIT: So, does anybody have any idea of what Patrick thought he was posting in the first place now that he's "clarified" things, and what his actual excuse is for it now that he's been caught out? Or did the designer control his hands at a molecular level and telogically force him to "channel" it into his post at OW? I'm confused :) But enjoying it so !

Date: 2007/03/10 11:59:13, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2007,11:20)
So, does anybody have any idea of what Patrick thought he was posting in the first place now that he's "clarified" things, and what his actual excuse is for it now that he's been caught out? Or did the designer control his hands at a molecular level and telogically force him to "channel" it into his post at OW? I'm confused :) But enjoying it so !

Email exchange:

From: Patrick
To: Alan Fox
Subject: Re: Plagiarism
Date: Sat, 2007-03-10 15:02

Yep. I failed to doublecheck the Bibliography as throughly as I should have. Oh well.

> Hi Patrick
> Seems the allegation is quite specific. See here

From: Patrick
To: Alan Fox
Subject: Re: Plagiariem
Date: Sat, 2007-03-10 15:01

huh? I was under the impression it was an actual news story based upon “Scientist Admits Faking Stem Cell Data,” New York Times, July 5, 2006.

As if the usage of quotation marks and section headers doesn't make that blatantly obvious...but to make it even more obvious I'll edit the post to include the original source.

> Hi Patrick
> Thought you should know that it is being suggested that you have plagiarised your story "Big Science" from Michael Crighton's "Next".
> Regards
> Alan Fox

So, Patrick, what was your original source?

Thanks for posting that Alan, very interesting.

Date: 2007/03/10 12:53:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Aw, cheers, but you found that it was from a Sci-Fi Novel, which is the cherry on the cake here :)

Patrick copying from somebody else's report, as I first thought, is par for the course for ID! Quote mining taken to the next level you might say in this case.

To find them copying from Sci-Fi? It's priceless.

Date: 2007/03/12 14:32:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
If the sun's setting on ID then get ready for Intelligent Geology over at OW!
I was wondering if perhaps mountains and coastlines, sand dunes, and other interesting natural shapes might better be explained by the sculpting hands of an intelligent creator than by erosional forces.

Id in geology
Patrick says no  
No, for these mountain ranges the Explanatory Filter would return a negative since natural law can explain the object. Now I said "most" in the subject header since there are underwater "cities/temples" where there is a controversy over whether they came about by geological processes. The reason there is any controversy at all is because accepting them as being designed would upset historical narratives (they're older than they "should be"). But ID hasn't been used at all in that case as far as I know. I've always thought it'd make an interesting test case.

My bold.
Patrick, there's the boat. Get out there and apply the Explanatory Filter to every odd looking lump of rock under the sea. When you find Atlantis, let me know!
Honestly, if Patrick thinks the EF can help determine if these "ruins" really are designed or not, well, Email the people looking into it and tell them how! Do you need us to find some links?

Date: 2007/03/12 17:18:31, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I'm guessing that quintilis is a socket puppet invented by Patrick for the sole purpose of cranking out posts so ludicrous that they overshadow Patrick's inanity in plagiarizing Crichton.

You think? I can't quite believe they are allowing it to stay up there - imagine how the ID curious students will take it!
With this in mind, I think our government should be pumping billions of dollars into careful analysis of genomes in a hunt for messages from our designer. While we might not turn up anything in a year or even twenty, imagine what would happen if we found just even a limerick about Nantucket on, say, the human Y chromosome?

Honestly :)

To an observer looking at the evidence, the result can look a lot like structures somehow modifying themselves over the course of generations (perhaps through the hocus pocus of natural selection), but anyone with any sense can see that these are modifications of underlying designs that came from OUTSIDE the natural world

My Bold!It's classic stuff. I mean, how credulous is Patrick anyway? Is he like 13 years old? I think he just accepts the premise that is just is that way and everything else is just filling in the details.
I mean, sombody told him something years ago
because accepting them as being designed would upset historical narratives (they're older than they "should be").

And forever more things are as they "should be" and if not you are wrong! muh-huh!

Date: 2007/03/16 10:38:18, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 16 2007,08:53)
It is often said here that the ID movement has gotten to the point where the genuine article is virtually indistinguisable from parody. Will it please the court to recognize the Plaintiffs Exhibit No 1968.  

In this exhibit, we have a known ID proponent arguing that the theory of evolution must be a theory of abiogenesis:
Consider the title chosen for Darwin's famous book… "Origin of Species." I would suppose that the first form of life to appear on this planet was some species of something.

And a bit later:
What this all boils down to is that essentially there can be no difference between the phrases "origin of species" and "origin of life." If you explain the origin of species, you will have explained the origin of life. So, to defend Darwinism by asserting that it's not a theory about the origin of life seems rather absurd.

Okay, seriously.  Which one of you guys stole TRoutMac's password and posted this?

I admit that I also believe, in one sense, that humans are "related" to rocks.

Date: 2007/03/16 19:17:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
TroutMac, unbelievable even for A IDiot, says:

I have not read "Origin of the Species." Nor do I plan to.

Should I have? If so, why?

Why should I be concerned with what someone thought about origins of--whatever--when, at the time the book was written, they had so little knowledge and understanding of how biology worked? At that time, scientists thought that a cell was very, very simple. They had no technology to discover otherwise. As a result, the grander claims of evolution seemed plausible. I'll grant you that wasn't Darwin's fault. But it is the fault of Darwinists that they cannot let go of an obsolete theory.

I would suggest that reading books such as Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" would be more useful, since it reflects contemporary knowledge and understanding of biology.

Didnt DBB come out in like 96? Hardly Contemporary ;)

EDIT: Found this review of DBB

Michael Behe is a biophysics professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and his book, released last summer, has been causing a firestorm of activity in academic circles ever since.

The stranglehold that Darwinism has had in the biological sciences for decades has already been weakened over the last 30 years due to the new creationist movement and more recently by the push from intelligent design theorists. But Behe's new book may end up being the straw that broke the camel's back.

You'd never guess the review was from 97 :)

Date: 2007/03/16 20:26:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

No, shady dealings and friendly book reviews? I won't have it!  ;P
And that firestorm of activity?
Imagine somebody in '97 lighting a match....

Date: 2007/03/19 12:46:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
don't forget the 100k book deal for a book that was never written! Not bad work if you can get it....

Date: 2007/03/19 18:29:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I know this is the UD thread (lately beer!) but meanwhile, over at OW :)
Patrick Says:  
Due to the ever-increasing number of trolls we've implemented major changes to the OE user system. When a person first registers, they have very few privileges, and their comments must be approved by a moderator. When we think that a user is a positive contributor to the site, we can "promote" them to the next user level that removes many of the restrictions. This will prevent trolls from being able to sign up easily and run amuck before a moderator can spot them.

Right now very few user profiles have been "promoted".

Have we discovered a new rule of thumb here? If the number of legitimate users was rising at the same rate as the number of trolls, you'd likely only notice the same proportion of trolling overall. However, if the fastest growing  (only growing) demographic of your website (movement) is largely troglodyte in nature does that indicate a movement that's caught the popular imagination?
It's all so naive, it's like somebody told Dembski about viral marketing and that's what they hoped the J Jones Fartimation would turn into, a worldwide underground success.
Patrick is a plain speaker  
if the comment never appears you're either a troll or you need to Private Message one of the moderators

He's been taking charm lessons from Davescot alright!

Patrick follows down the track that DS cleared years ago
So if you're experiencing difficulty making blogs or comments just Private Message myself or one of the other moderators (Samuel, Micah, Bill, O'Leary, etc).

A free and frank exchange of ideas :) Teach the controversy!
The mods - Bill, O'Leary - we know who they are. Just.
Samuel - could be anybody
Micah - Hum, unusual name


His main argument was that there were no waterfalls on earth older than 6,000 years (false: Niagara escarpment is ~415 million years old; the Niagara falls are 12,000 years old). And hence, the world was 6,000 years old, just like the bible said. Next came the creationist conspiracy theory talk. Did you know that all the fossils from hominids could fit in one coffin?
I will herein put forward the case, primarily, that Christians should not be threatened by the idea of evolution, but instead should at least suspend absolute negative judgment on the matter while being aware of the way they present the implications of their beliefs to non-Christians (Col 4:5–6); and secondarily, that a Christian who believes in evolution can do so on a theologically sound and rational basis.

Anti-evolution Campaigning by Christians Should Be Discarded Immediately Without Further Ado
Nah, can't be him! Can it?

Could it be
The Case for a Pre-Adamite Creation.
wherin we hit the motherlode  
This verse plainly tells us that the God didn't create the earth to be "formless and empty" but rather He intentionally created it to be inhabited. So the idea that the earth was kind of "sitting there" before all creatures were created is one that contradicts the bible.

So what was on the earth before Genesis 1:2 and onward? Many theologians, (with whom I agree) believe that God created and destroyed an ancient civilization eons before Adam and Eve. It was a kingdom which believe it or not was under Lucifer's (Satan) rule. (See Ezekiel 28:12-17 for reference.) Isaiah 14:12-17 gives us details of his moral fall;

Could it be fair Atlantis? ;) It's a new one on me.

Date: 2007/03/21 14:00:02, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
In other words, promote a boycott of the Darwin 10-pound note because it promotes racism.
kick-off a comparison of what good has been brought to the world by these two people — Darwin vs. Wilberforce. Nazi Eugenics vs. the abolition of slavery.

Pardon my french, but for fucks sake.
It does show how vacuous Dembski is however.
What I dont understand is that recently they were saying how Darwin plagiarized Wallace. So would they now be saying that Wallace caused Nazi Eugenics?
NS was obviously an idea whos time had come. If Darwin did not specify it, somebody else would have, no question. So, I get the impression from these UD posts that they are critical of Darwin becuase of his "racism", not becuase of the idea he originated.
I get that impression, but I don't believe it for a moment. It's "Darwinism" they hate, not Darwin, and any attempt to say otherwise is misdirection.

I think that Dembski is pissed because Darwin's legacy will endure for thousands more years. And Dembski will just be a footnote in history, if that.

Date: 2007/03/23 08:38:20, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
It's almost funny.
Ken Miller — A Wasted Life?
It’s like what Judge Jones said regarding irreducible complexity, that Behe ignores co-option, as though co-option is a real phenomenon and not just a made-up story that defies evidence and logic. Miller continues this silly tradition with reference to the Type 3 secretory system, as if this should end all debate about the power of Darwinian mechanisms to produce highly complex and functionally integrated biological machinery.

So, let's get this clear. They say that co-option is not a real phenomenon and the evidence they provide for this is a link to a previous story on UncommonDescent. Well, case closed, i'm convinced. However, for the other 99.999% of people, GilDodgen has some actual work to do proving that co-option is not an option. And posting to where DS says "co-option is not an option" does not count!

How inane! Is this what passes for proof in ID circles? A link to a discussion where they proclaimed it so? No wonder they are going nowhere fast. It's hardly a "cite" now is it? :)

I'm still waiting for Dembski's "ID friendly univeristy lab", or whatever it was, to be announced! I suspect it will never be.

And any news on Biologic? Over at OW they are talking it up and wanting to buy shares in it!

Date: 2007/03/23 10:08:00, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
bwhahaha, Gil adds
If blind-watchmaker Darwinism is false and ID is true, this huge and vitally significant portion of his life will have been wasted

And if ID turns out to be false???????



Date: 2007/03/23 14:07:54, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
teh comments are the funny on that thread!

When they have to defend their “theory” using this kind of childish sophistry, they know they have lost on substance and are now clinging for dear life to keep the less educated segments of the public in the dark about the outcome. They are obviously not arguing with Dembsky any more.

As concessions of defeat go, I think this thinly veiled way of saying ‘we have lost and we know it and you know that’ is as far as they will publicly humiliate themselves.

They'll need a new bulb for that projector soon!
Odd, as I thought that keep(ing) the less educated segments of the public in the dark was ID's entire strategy!
And as far as public humilation goes, you can see ID's very public humilation every day by visiting:
and i'd call thinking that fart jokes are a "reasoned" response to a court defeat and then being called out on a book that somebody paid good money for you to write was certanly public humilation a-plenty!

They are obviously not arguing with Dembsky any more

they are obviously not engaging with the "reality based community" anymore either!

Date: 2007/03/26 07:54:48, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
The UD crowd are egging on "Dr" Dembski to get back into court
if one can be identified as a target of defamatory remarks, one has a right to sue, whether or not the identification was “intentional.” For the underlying point of a tort is “negect of a duty of care.”
Until and unless Professor Miller, Professor Forrest, Judge Jones, et al fairly and frankly face such, they are guilty of misleading he public and slandering the ID’s leading spokesmen through neglect of duties of care. (Were I Mr Demsski, I would be looking up a good Barrister in the UK, preferably a QC. At minimum, IMHCO, a correctibve Lawyer’s letter to the BBC, cc Mr Miller and also relevant overseeing powers in Parliament, is warranted.)

tribune7 adds  

kariosfocust, great post!!!!

Dr. Dembski, it wouldn’t hurt to make a phone call to some U.K. law firm specializing in libel/slander and see if you got a case to make the BBC correct the record.

Yeah, wouldn't hurt to make a phone call, wouldn't hurt to do some actual science either. And yet somehow I doubt either will happen, although I'd love nothing more then to see Dembski v Miller in court in the UK.
Dembski just don't get it. All mouth, no trousers. It's fine to challenge people to debates when you know they won't accept, it's fine to mouth off that Miller slandered you when you know that you'll do nothing about it then write about it on a blog. ID don't need your peer-review, it's got cheesy-poof review! The mobile command center is at Dr Dembski's disposal! Why not make use of it Dr Dembski? Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr.

EDIT: LOL! If you follow the link to kairosfocus website here there's a load of blah (including why Jones was wrong!) but there's also the classic line
no claim is made for absolute truth, and corrections based on factual errors and/or gaps or inconsistencies in reasoning, etc., or typos, are welcome.

Permission is therefore granted to link to this page for fair use under intellectual property law, and for reasonable fair use citation of the linked content on this site for church- or parachurch- group related training and/or for personal or specifically institutional academic use. [But kindly have mercy on the available bandwidth at a freebie site . . . ask me to use the page whole or make significant excerpts on your own site as appropriate . . .] This permission specifically excludes reproduction, linking or citation for commercial, controversial or media purposes without the Author's written permission -- especialy where matters relating to the validity and value of Faith/Religious/Atheological Commitments and Truth-Claims are being debated or disputed.

No linking to without permission? Obviously there's a deep misunderstanding of how teh internets work! You don't need permission to link! Seeya in court buddy boy!

Date: 2007/03/26 10:51:51, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 26 2007,09:28)
Kairosfocus goes on to say that Dembski should sue Judge Jones, Ken Miller, Barbara Forrest, the BBC...

yeah, that just shows you how far away from reality Kairo really is. ID ain't done so well in courts of law recently.
For further proof, check out his website! The inanity knows no bounds!

Sue them for what anyway, exactly? Telling the truth? Even if the editing left something to be desired then ID would presumably have to prove itself in court (otherwise Miller wins by default! If Dembski was to sue, he'd have to prove ID was right!) or Miller is right by default! And we know that is not going to happen!

Date: 2007/03/26 12:52:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
favorable evidence that animals were created in and for a germ-free world.

The Tard is strong today. So, if animals are designed, are germs not also designed?

I bet DS will soon wish he did not go here!
Really Big Edit:
In the comments Joey "IDiot" Campana asks

What you report here is astounding. I have several points and questions that I am very curious to hear any responses to:
. Joey, WTF are you asking DaveScot for then? It's not like he's going to put any of his "alleged" millions into doing some research now is it?
(1) If life was designed to evolve, and “animals raised germ-free could not have evolved in the natural world without exposure to bacteria,” what you report here would seem to confirm Hoyle’s suspicions about germs and viruses being vectors of evolutionary change. Any thoughts?

Hum, assuming (!) it's confirmed (via that ID research stalwart Biologic, no doubt) that viri and bacteria are the only vectors of evolutionary change how does that do ID any good? Hum, a virus diddit! Not very conforting for the children (well, insult to children that is) over at UD.

Here's a funny. If you click on Joey's name you go to
If you click on Scientific Research Projects from an Intelligent Design Perspective you'll get
On this episode of ID The Future we present an interview with Joseph C. Campana, founder of, a wiki-based website devoted to cataloguing scientific applications of intelligent design. CSC's Casey Luskin talks to Campana about what inspired the website, and how people can get involved to help constructively catalogue intelligent design scientific research.

Yeah, that's a goldmine i'm sure. But the comment is what I brought you here for:

quoting Inquisitive Brain:

38 minutes ago, Question wrote:
> How would you test the hypothesis that an
> intelligent designer created DNA?

The same way you would test the hypothesis that an unintelligent designer created DNA:

Formulate a plausible pathway using a causal framework and test the pathway for causal specificity.

This, however, is a long process, and idealogues are not willing to let researchers test their ideas, much less wait for the results.

Inquisitive Brain, who, exactly, are the idealogues and how, exactly, are they stopping researchers (can you name them) testing their ideas?. Simple question. I can wait as long as you like for the answer. I don't know who the fark Inquisitive Brain is but, the question remains.

Date: 2007/03/26 14:38:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2007,12:40)
Shock, horror, Dembski prints something he doesn't believe:

Hmm, for what possible reason? Inference the design, or whatever it is they do, and it's $$$

Intuition. That's how I knew that.

Controversy = Page Hits = Prizes.

After all, it'd be a pity if the dear reader was not aware of such delights as
The Cave Painting is an allegorical novel exploring the intelligent design/evolution debate.  With special emphasis on contemporary intelligent design theory the novel, together with comprehensive end notes, highlights the key shortcomings of current evolutionary theories in explaining the origin of specified complex things, whether they be cave paintings, or, by analogy, human beings.

It's a pity they don't think to put special empahsis on contempoarary intelligent design's shortcomings as well. Hum, cave paintings were painted by cave people? Is that a design inference? Manganese paintings were painted by manganese people therefore?!

Oh look the book has a recommendation!

"A page turner"
A page turner from the get-go, and informative, to boot. It's a rare treat to read something so absorbing yet so substantive.

-- Mark Hartwig, Ph.D.

How nice. And by sheer coincidence, Mark Harwig is a IDEA member, a Director no less!
Mark Hartwig is on the Access Research Network Board of Directors and has much experience with outreaching to students through the creation-evolution controversy. He has been an active member of the intelligent design movement by promoting understanding of the basic issues in popular media--especially to college students.

What is it with the middle aged men and the students? Why pick on them? :)

experenced student outreacher indeed. And how does this bloke appeal to students via the mass media anyway? Just wants to flog them stuff if you ask me.

ID is one big circle Jerk, everybody reviewing everybody else's books, one big happy family in their big ole tent. Fingers in ears. As long as the books keep selling it's gravy all round. I just followed the 1st advertising link I found on UD and already the IDEA people are there with their approval.
It's lucky ID's "elephant in the room" AKA no proof whatsoever is actually an absence of the already mentioned "elephant" as it died (or would have, if it existed) a while ago now and is stinking (or would have, anyway) up the tent.
From what I can see, Mr Hartwig, Ph.D is a big cheese over at IDEA, long time liar for jesus. It's just nice that he's got time to take out of his busy day and write a book recommendation for a book that will
provide a thorough criticism of Darwinism but also detail the many scientific arguments for design

You can own it now for only $16.00 !

Date: 2007/03/26 15:13:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dembski says:
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.

You see, it's all part of the plan! (just in case somebody save that page!)

And Richard, you've ignored the gist and therefore ID wins by default? err

Date: 2007/03/27 14:22:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
The recent comments list over at OW reads like an ID history timeline. Maybe that's what they would like to teach as history to the students they are outreaching to?

# Banging Stones Link
# cavemen were more advanced than modern scientists
# Willing To See
# Wishful thinking
# Table turning, etc.
# Possible disingenuity?
# Finding IC?
# Turning the Tables
# a vast arsenal of irreducibly complex cell components
# ultimately, though, we DO accept the supernatural Link

Also, since comment moderation was turned on, can we take that to mean that Patrick


9:36 am
A bunch of Darwinists are keen to point this out:

I figured I’d post it minus the usual insults.

approves of everything that now appears on OW?
In some ways, particularly given the rise of Darwinism, human societies were actually further ahead when they were living in caves and banging stones on each other's heads. At least back then they KNEW there was a designer and would have laughed had one suggested they bore any familial relationship to animals. Sure, they were all damned to #### because they were thousands of years from having a personal relationship to Jesus, but in their gut at least they knew they were special and knew that complex mechanisms required designers.
Poor cavemen, no personal relationship with Christ! It's ok b'cos Theologan TrouTMac steps in:
On a theological note, and from a Biblical standpoint, ancient man would have had salvation through faith in Christ just as we do… their faith looked forward to a promised messiah, while our's looks back.

But if we Listen To TroutMac we'll get ever so confused.
I'm very skeptical of the notion that humans EVER lived as the "stereotypical" caveman. So in one sense, I agree with you… ancient civilizations would probably surprise us with their technology, relative to the popular conception of that technology is.

Second, let me say that I personally tend to believe that the Earth is young. I might even believe that strongly enough to be called a "Young Earth Creationist."

Antarctica was mapped, at least crudely (by today's standards) during a time when it was largely free of ice.

And do you think Patrick has a postion on why "the usual insults" might happen to appear on a page near the one bring all those people's attention Dr Dembski's little oversight? After all, it's not as if other disciplines leading figures make fart animations about each other? Can you imagine Hawking or George Smoot (I dunno) trading flatulance based animations in public to better get across their point? Hmm. Why does ID have to stoop to those levels Patrick? Heh. Same reason your moderation allows comments like
You can literally win every single argument by invoking non-materialistic causes. That is why natural-materialism proponents are so against it. They do not like an idea that can so easily defeat their darwinist ideas.
And if these "people" are the best that ID student outreach programes can find (must be millions of $$ spent, that's what is on the tax forms anyway!), then I think I might be coming round to the "DNA is DEGENERATING" meme. Except it's a belief in ID that's doing the damage!

Date: 2007/03/28 11:04:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 28 2007,09:46)

Wanna be a fly on a wall? How about a bacterium on a fly on a wall? How about a mitchondrium in a bacterium on a fly on a wall?

You know what this reminds me of? Girl gossip in school - something I was never good at (because I was too busy reading Gould and Sagan and finding excuses for not going to dances like my mom wanted me to - oh, the irony). :)

The nastier it gets the more I lose heart. I'm watching somebody implode, and it ain't Ken Miller.

hmm, much Tard here, will keep me going for days

Dembski said  
Let me suggest you write up your thoughts in a formal article and submit them to a peer-reviewed publication. Once it’s accepted, I’ll be happy to look at it more closely and offer comment.

Irony meter on danger, must not e.x.p.l.o.d.e, danger Will Robinson, danger. Yeah, if Dembski was such a fan of peer-review you think he'd submit something himself!
In your note to me below you write: “you seem incapable or unwilling to discuss the data or the inescapable conclusion that emerges from them.” Actually I’m quite willing. If you would like me to speak at your campus on the topic of intelligent design and address your data, I can put you in touch with my speakers bureau.

So Dembski will discuss the data but only if he gets paid! for it via a speaking arrangement. So, this is how science get's done in ID circles, he with the most $$ wins!


Date: 2007/03/28 13:12:33, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 28 2007,11:59)
When you are dealing with the deliberately dishonest is it ever ok to show your displeasure?

Yes, it is :)
But it might not help much, but it's ok. We're only human after all (or designed to be that way, take ur pick).

Kudos to Alan Fox on that regard, some of the discussions i've seen him have with Sal et al would have had me frothing at the mouth reaching for my book of insults. However, Alan just responds with the patience and calm of a buddist (the good ones anyway!), and becuase of it the vacuity of the people he is arguing with is even more apparent.

Date: 2007/03/29 03:15:10, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Jehu Wonders
For over 30 nobody has complained about Leakey’s model. Now all of the sudden it is wrong.

Why did it take so long for “science” to “self-correct”?

Well, ID's science book the bible has been going strong for 2000 years and no self corrections seem likely yet.

EDIT: Jehu, what science has ID done that could be proved wrong at a later date? Science does not claim to be infallible whereas your bible does make that claim.

Date: 2007/03/29 09:33:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 29 2007,07:52)
Re: the so-called leak about Leakey, Sladjo wonders: I wonder how many other “proofs” for evolution are actually frauds… Did these guys miss the Not Making the Movement Look Stupid orientation?

"Proofs" for evolution? Evolution just explains the evidence. The evidence doesn't prove the explanation.

Stuff like that just gets my chimp. Besides, Score-Dover is quoting Creation Safaris anyway, and we all know how reliable they are. Any reputable source for this charge?

well, if your reference book is "Icons" then Sladjo is in fact performing Science by ID standards.

And even if "Leakey Manipulated His Apelike “Skull 1470” to Look Human ." then how does this provide a single positive shred of evidence for ID? What does it in fact, have to do with ID anyway?
Answer : It does not!

Date: 2007/03/29 16:06:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Hey Patrick, When it comes to taking lessons in right and wrong from DaveScot
It’s expected that you give credit to the original source when copying copyrighted content under academic free use so I don’t see how he could have avoided citing the source.

Patrick said:
I'd assumed that the NEXT bibliography contained the original source but did not do any reading to makecertain

Does OW qualify for "academic free use"? Academic is not the word I first think of to describe that site.

Also, exactly how stupid is Jehu anyway?
If you are so intimidated by opposing view points that would fire a teacher for raising objections to evolution, I think your word view is pretty obvious.

I mean, come on, if you were that brain damaged you'd not b e able to type would ya? But like Jehu himself says    
repressing truth in order to protect his fragile world view
makes his world go round.

EDIT: OW is teh funny. Just to remind everybody, Patrick approves all the comments! :)
the designer designed dodo birds SPECIFICALLY to supply meat to Dutch and Portuguese sailors for a brief period during the late 1500s - perhaps to help them with their spreading of Christianity. This would seem to confirm that God is Christian and not Islamic - otherwise He would have let the closer-by Arabs do the extinctifying

Slight quotemite to make it funnier but wtf.


Date: 2007/03/29 16:29:24, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2007,15:22)
I'm starting to think Quintilis is a deep-cover troll just messing with their minds at OE:

They've no minds to mess with!
IMHO there are no non-trolls on OW apart from the Mod, TroutMac, Mario and Scen24whatever. It's amazing, I'm surprised it's still running. I guess it's still there because Dembski set it going a while ago and in his reality denying mind it's a roaring success. I mean, if the man cannot detect his name in a list, how can he judge if OW is a worthy challenge to myspace etc? It's not like DS and Dumbski have ever made an appearence over at OW. It's just a tick in the "student outreach" box for them, another $50,000 in the bank from some rich doddering old deluded man no doubt.

Date: 2007/03/30 10:59:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
They (IDiots at UD) know we are here talking about them, picking their arguments to shreds (nice Fisking Zachriel) yet in all the time I've been here nobody has ever dropped in from UD to say "no, you've got it wrong and here's why".

I guess they don't feel the need to compete with Zachriel et al's "pathetic level of detail".


Date: 2007/03/31 06:04:31, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
some people are perhaps so thoroughly consumed by their ideologies that they have the mental equivalent of firewalls which just won’t allow them to see as valid anything which isn’t compatible.
Ever wake up sweating in the night crandaddy? Unable to remember what it was that concerned you so very much? Hum.
I cannot walk one mile, or dig one foot deep in my back yard without seeing “obvious” evidence of a great prehistoric flood
sagebrush gardener, same thread
Quick, sage, better let AFDave know about your "obvious" evidence of a global flood, he could really really do with your help!
In fact, why did you put "obvious" in scare quotes anyway? Are you not so sure it's really "evidence" after all? Would you care to expand on this "evidence"? Take, y'know, pictures and samples and whatnot?

Date: 2007/03/31 11:53:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
DS cracks me up
DNA and ribosomes are common to all observed forms of life (barring viruses which some say aren’t really alive but in any case rely on hijacking existing ribosomes). Since this machinery is so basic it’s very close to arguing origins.

However, in neither of these cases is there any specific inferral about the originating mechanism other than it appears to require foresight and planning (intelligence) rather than any haphazard mechanism lacking the ability of abstraction into the future.

Does it DS, really? why? Even "intelligences" find problems with "abstraction into the future". I mean, will DCA be a good thing, Is global warming man made? These are 2 questions DS has asked (and, I note answered in the affirmative EDIT: I mean DS says he "knows" the answer, not that GW is man made, he appears to deny that, or deny that it matters anyway!). Why would you even have to ask the question, if the only thing we know about the designer is that he makes things, we're equal to him now and yet still cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy.

DS is a div.

Date: 2007/03/31 18:53:13, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Jehu sums it up    
The argument that design cannot be detected is such a pathetic lie that it I am amazed at how brazenly it is made by the opponents of ID.

Who says design cannot be detected? Look for the label! The point is rather that ID can provide no evidence whatsoever for the intelligent design of the objects they claim can only have arisen via that intelligent design.
Jehu then argues with nasa    
The argument from SETI scientists attempting to distancte themselves from a design inference is hilarious

Yes. If that's funny imagine how funny you are Jehu. At least those scientists are working at SETI. Or,  to put it another way, working scientists. Who do you think knows more about it, you, anonymous poster at UD, or NASA scientists? The reason nobody's "refuting" ID is that you cant play ball with somebody who's not turned up to the game! ID publishes books, not papers. Scripted lectures, not discussion conferences (what's to discuss, the bible is unchanging?)

Also, is this what it has come to for ID? The article is headed by DS    
It’s a good example of how the design inference has been employed for practical matters.

how the design inference

THE design inference, or to put it another way, is it designed? I can only take it to mean that, as he does not go into details. No pathetic level of detail here, no siree, not going to tell you how this is relevant to ID thinks DS. He's just going to publish it and see what the cattle make of it.
So, Dembski gets to define and write how the design inference is to be used, and somebody else can also use the very same method to detect design. Or can they?Have they? Is DS saying that Lt. Flipper uses Dembski's methods, or just the design inference, or what exactly? Seems to me that ID is co-opting Lt. Flipper's ability to spot designed piles of rocks!
It's pathetic how they attempt to shuffle into the spotlight aimed at another and attempt to catch some reflected light.

ID - The science of spotting news story's and seeing how you can create a spin on them to promote your cause which is in the end all about selling books to rubes. And dusting off the cheesy poof stained hands before the wife gets home.

Date: 2007/04/02 11:41:54, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2007,10:41)
Quote (guthrie @ April 02 2007,10:01)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2007,09:47)



I read that and immediately thought of Al Gore.  
Whadya know, I was right.  

Is there a correlation between small mindedness and predictability of behaviour?

At least he's checking snopes since the HOMO ALCU CHURCH BURNERS STOP MARINES FROM PREYING affair..

the funniest thing about that saga to me is what DS says at the end of the thread.

Now that everyone is happy that this article isn’t a fabrication the comments are closed. :-)

Yes, whatever DS, whatever. We know you can never lose, and always have to have the last word. We'd expect nothing less.

Date: 2007/04/03 03:11:48, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 03 2007,00:07)
Demsbki upset with anti-ID book:



This book takes the level invective, namecalling, and sexual obsession (while abnegating intellectual content) among our Darwinist critics to a new low. But the important question here is, can they go still lower? I’d like to encourage P. Z. Myers to try his hand at a full-length book treatment of ID.

Not enough farting in it, Bill?

Bourne adds:  
Alston is not a scientist… but as a licensed psychologist it is clear that he needs to get his head examined by one more competent than himself.

So, psychologists are not allowed to comment on ID coz it's science, but engineers know more about biology then biologists?

But Bourne does get one thing right, but fails to remember "if the cap fits"
When they have nothing left but imprecations, bitterness, perversions and “threatenings and slaughter” to spit, they’re pretty much washed up.

Another lamp for your projector sir?

Date: 2007/04/03 06:44:09, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers

What were those peer reviewed papers about? They were not supporting ID, as unless i'm very much mistaken there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID
So what were they and why were you reading them? And did you believe them? If not, what problem did you have with them and will you be submitting a peer-reviewed paper to the journal in question rebutting their claims?

Date: 2007/04/03 14:01:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.

yeah, whatever. Your stereotypical nerdy scientist invented your modern way of life. What you've done?

EDIT: And threats of violence? I guess we should expect no less when logic fails you.

EDIT EDIT: And you've not addressed a single substantive point on this thread. Do you think your stereotypical nerdy scientist will fail to notice, and note such a data point?

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Ever meet AFDave FTK? That's what lies ahead on the road you are travelling. Your behaviour here reminds me so of him.

Date: 2007/04/03 15:13:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (slpage @ April 03 2007,14:26)
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers...


What was the last peer-reviewed paper that you read, and could you give us a quick summary of it?

Somehow I think it's all hot air. In some ways it's like teenagers boasting about how many cigarettes they smoke, but in reality they don't smoke at all.

Guess how many peer reviewed papers I read last night?

I'd propose a wager as to FTK's response, but there's too many people here who'd know a sure thing when they saw it :) and the odds would have to be looonnggg.

IDers think if you have the slightest veneer of science (the verbal equivilent of the lab coat, chucking around the phrase "peer reviewed article") then somehow ID will become science and it's practitioners scientists. Like sombody here pointed out, IDers are cargo-cultists.

Date: 2007/04/03 18:00:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2007,17:46)
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.


I wouldn't say it's dishonest. I think if you see Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer who's never calculated (delta)S once in his entire life, and he claims that all the scientists in the world are wrong about SLoT, I think if you see that and it doesn't immediately occur to you that Philip Johnson probably has no idea what he's talking about, you're not so much dishonest, it's just that for whatever reason you don't have the brains god gave a goose.

For me it's the "and now what" factor.
Electromagnetism and electricity discovered? Check
And now we've got tv, computers, modern world.

SloT disproves evolution? Ok, accepted for purposes of argument.
So now what? What ya got instead? How do you explain evolution/Slot and with a pathetic level of detail please!

ID proves designer designed? Hum, ok.
And what changes? ID only claims to "Detect design" remember (well, depends on who you ask really!). It's a simple Does not move things on much really!

Self replicating machines become self aware? Erk!
I welcome our new nano-bot masters with open arms!

Before the internet I expect the only place with the levels of concentration of  irrational people we see at UD were asylums!

Date: 2007/04/04 03:15:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
People are defending Ann Coluter in the comments at UD!

That was crude. OTOH, that wasn’t in any of her books....She called a couple of political types whores? Mercy, can my ears stand it.

(link deleted, too long and i'm at work!)
When Ann Coulter appears crude it’s usually because she’s quoting someone she’s criticizing.

So, Like when Darwin appears racist......
Just unbelievable.

Date: 2007/04/06 06:12:20, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dumbski says  
Here’s a pro-ID article without the usual disclaimers (e.g., a ritualistic suck-up to Darwin, an obligatory sneer at ID). Perhaps this is a sign of things to come.

Now, i've only read the abstract, but does this quote from the article  
There is also overreliance on the Darwinian blind search to obtain practical results. In the long run, random methods cannot replace insight in constructing life-like proteins. For the near future, however, in enzyme development, we need to rely on a combination of both.

really imply pro-ID intent? I really don't think so. To me the difficulty Dumbski has is when he see phrases like "in the long run" and equates them to human time scales. Yes, in the long run, random methods will not produce results because we'll all be dead. In the geological "long run" random methods are fruitfull.

Dembski, this is the best "
pro-ID" paper you can find? Pshaw!Link

Date: 2007/04/06 08:50:37, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 06 2007,08:07)
Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
Well, the time draws nigh.  DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact.  I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...).

So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard.  These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever.  I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard.

So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Ask him what he uses to get those pesky ground-in cheesy poof stains out of his muumuu.

ask him for a essay on the laws of thermodynamics and what they mean for him, personally :)

Date: 2007/04/07 12:08:46, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,10:04)
many of you seem completely blind to the truth

wow. Would that be the truth of the gospel by any chance? Or similar ye olde textbook of knowledge? About that flood....

Date: 2007/04/10 10:06:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2007,09:08)

DaveScot said...

Sorry for the off-topic but I wanted to leave a note for Blipey and I know it'll get to him if I leave it here.

I was checking the calendar to make sure there weren't any all day soccer tournaments on Sunday, May 13th, and was reminded that's Mother's Day. I won't be available for any meetings on that day.

10:19 PM

oh wow. It's in the "dog ate my homework" league of excuses. I bet DS' mom dreads that day coming round.
And I take it if there had been an all day soccer tournament then that would have trumped all other events also? What a whirlwind exciting life the DS must have, the dell multimillionaire and innovator.

Can you imagine the number of cheesy poofs that must meet their demise at one of these "day soccer tournaments"?

Date: 2007/04/11 07:05:54, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Sal mutters:    
Now it seems the Darwinists at Southern Methodist University (SMU) are trying pull off their own Barbara Forrest imitation. See: Are the Darwinists afraid to debate us?

Debate is one thing Sal, doing actual science is another.
Darwin vs. Design Conference
Featuring Lee Strobel, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Jay Richards

However, a comment from Fross cuts to the chase (methinks Fross is not long for UD!)

two words:

Lee Strobel.

Let’s assume these guys want a purely scientific debate. Having Lee Strobel on the bill makes it look like a religious seminar aimed at trying to make their views seem scientific. The guy is 100% a Christian apologist and a strict Bible literalist.

Erm, Fross, it's your side that's organised this debate!
Everybody else thinks that ID and this seminar is "aimed at trying to make their views seem scientific" already. Glad to see you've caught up with the rest of us Fross. Now, about the blogs you choose to comment on.....

Date: 2007/04/11 07:20:49, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 11 2007,07:14)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 11 2007,07:05)
Sal mutters:      
Are the Darwinists afraid to debate us?

Not at all, Sal,  "Darwinists" debated "you" in Dover, in Ohio, in Kansas, and in Georgia.  In COURT, where it really counted.  Where "you" could present any evidence or witnesses that you wanted, where "you" could put all the "darwinists" in your big bad vise and ask them any hard tough questions you wanted.

"You" lost every time.

"You" shot your load.  "You" lost.  "You" have nothing new to add.

"You" aren't worth bothering with any more.

Not only that, but traditionally taking part in a debate *might* lead you to changing your mind about something (you know, learning something new and changing your position because of it, that kind of thing).

However Sal et al simply cannot change their mind about any part of their position ever. To do so would lead them to consider the rest of their "positions" also and they might find the basement is really full of sand. And shifting. Or they end up crazed (JAD?) with the cognative dissonance of it all!

These "debates" are not really debates at all, might as well call them book readings. The audience is only there to get their preexisting beliefs reconfirmed. Hardly "debate" is it?

Date: 2007/04/11 07:39:15, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
NEWSFLASH! Dembski admits evolution "works"
evolutionary methods work

Date: 2007/04/11 07:49:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
one wonders how long it'll take DS and Dumbski to get bored of the commenters who are left after all the people who speak out of turn get banned. I mean, that barrel's got to have a bottom *at some point*?

And here's a prediction. If Dumbski does abandon UD, will DumbScot continue to publish monthly figures for hit counts? I say no.
After all, most of the visitors to UD I imagine are only there to see a "professor" make a fool of himself over and over. Once that attraction goes, will DS have the same draw? Nahh....
A cheesy poof eating moron spouting on subjects he knows nothing about? Pchaww, internets full of  those already!

Date: 2007/04/11 07:56:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
unlike Christinanity of course, which is "completely provable" as well all know, I mean they even found the tomb of Jesus the other day!

Date: 2007/04/11 15:04:31, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
DS get's down to the specifics of what is and what is not designed:    
Proteins don’t automatically warrant a design inference. It depends...

It depends you say DS? Really? I say, this should be fasinating
It depends on the function of the protein and interdependencies on other proteins

Oh rlly? That helps alot. It depends <blah blah blah>. This guy is unbelievable. He has the time to type in hundreds of words (it just goes on)
The whole machine must be assembled and working in order produce the parts that make the up machine that makes the parts!
How’d that happen without a designer envisioning the entire machine in abstract then building all the hundreds of interlocking pieces that make it up simultaneously?
To compound the problem you need a fully working automobile to gather the parts together to make an automobile.

I think what DS has failed to grasp, as evidenced by the next quote, is that behind every internet blog or site there are also 100's of scientists doing actual research.
This is the story the chance & necessity pundits ask you to accept and take as a matter of materialistic faith that, impossible as it sounds, eventually science will reveal how it was done without intelligent agency.

chance & necessity pundits??? That says it all about DS . Pundits? It's not pundits that need to be convinced DS...
And evolution works at different speeds for DS  
In 20,000 years of artificial selection and preservation of variants that never would have survived in the wild there hasn’t been a single variant with an anatomical feature not characteristic of canines...<snip>Not even something as simple as a retractable claw.

But hang on, I remember at the start we we going to learn something about "when to make a design inference".
Proteins don’t automatically warrant a design inference. It depends...

Remember DS? What do we get instead?
Intelligent agency solves all these problems.

it seems premature to rule out exotic forms of intelligent agency that could very well be composed of non-baryonic matter that we only suspect exists through indirect observation of its gravitational effects on normal matter. In fact what we consider normal matter and energy may be the minority component and thus really an atypical form in the big picture

Link to the unsufferable IDiots post
Maybe DS can see the writing on the wall nonetheless?
Hubris is rampant in the halls of science today. Of course that’s nothing new. The history of science is littered with disgarded theories that were once thought to be writ in granite.

Ask Behe about astrology and dover DS. See what he says about it.

Date: 2007/04/11 16:56:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I guess I presume everybody who posts on UD is one of "them". Kinda for a combination of reasons, despite their claims of enjoying open discussion.

Sorry Fross - how do you walk that bannation line?

Date: 2007/04/12 10:19:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:07)

Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion.  If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either.  

SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment".  Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about.  Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason?

The illusion that there is "something to think about" is all the IDers want. What that thing is is irrelevant. If IDers are stood on stage with scientists then they are perceived to be the same, or nearly so.

The "discussion" already happened in Dover. Accept that, and perhaps things can move on!

Nobody's "afraid" to debate. It's just why bother? Do you debate Hindus as to who's got the "right" religion? No? Why not?

Date: 2007/04/12 11:01:39, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:26)
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not.

Have you read the trial transcripts?

I guess not by your usage of the phrase "I was under the impression".

Don't you think that before you offer opinions on "a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject" you should perhaps read the transcripts? Do you need a link?

Come back when you've read them.

Date: 2007/04/12 11:03:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:55)
and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program.

What does this gobbledygook mean?  

"critics of antievolution" - does that mean an evolutionist who is speaking out against ID and the inclusion of it in science classes?

Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No?

Date: 2007/04/12 12:02:47, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,11:33)
gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!]

Nope, actually I use that word quite often.  Ask Jack Krebs - his statements often resort to my use of that term.

Honestly, Kristine, I'm guessing that you and I have quite a few things in common other than our age and our terminology.

Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No.

Date: 2007/04/12 12:44:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,12:26)
Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No.

No.  Not the entire thing.  If you pull up the link for me, I'd appreciate not having to take the time to find it again.  I keep meaning to finish reading it, so I'll add it to the stack of stuff I'm currently reading.

I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*.

Wesley, I'll get back to you in a bit because I have a few things I must comment on in regard to your last post.  Right now, work calls...

Behe starts here
if you want to jump ahead.
Is the decision.

Date: 2007/04/12 15:06:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I believe that thread contains some of the hardest core tard eva.

Are you sure you can cope?
Extinction occurs as recessive deleterious mutations accumulate in any species with obligatory sexual reproduction until there are so many of them the genome is no longer robust
How many generations since the ark AFDave, erk, DS?
Purebred dogs are prone to a litany of genetic disorders that would quickly make the breeds become extinct in the wild. The sudden appearance is what begs for a credible explanation. This is summed up in the commonly heard phrase “The question isn’t about survival of the fittest but arrival of the fittest.”

Odd phrase "The question isn’t about survival of the fittest but arrival of the fittest"
If you search for "problem is not survival of the fittest but arrival of the fittest"
you get 2 results.
Some attempt to prove life arose by accident in the primitive seas by a chemical process. But chemical processes cannot account for the mechanical marvels of life. What is the chemical formula for an eye, or an ear, or a hand? Each of these had to be formed  in working order and all at once,  or they would never have formed at all. The unbeliever's problem is not survival of the fittest but arrival of the fittest.
From the Church of
The other hit is from somebody called whodey Link who seems rational. I wonder which one DS has been reading?
One of the most obvious reasons to  reject  evolutionism as an explanation of life is the fact that, had they not been formed fully functional, the millions of species of life on earth could never have formed. The circulatory system, for example, requires a pump, blood, arteries, veins, etc. Each component is extremely complex; each is precisely tailored for the role it is to play in concert with every other part. It cannot be accounted for as the result of an incredible sequence of events leading to its formation.

Recognizing the absurdity of thinking that blind chance could have formed what we see here, some express faith in an unknown and unproven power in matter itself to form life. When conditions are right, they argue, life will just naturally form. This is more blind faith than scientific deduction.

EDIT: THe other tract names are classics!
Job115 -- Why Bad Things Happen to Good People
Job116 -- Homosexuality -- Are Same Sex Relationships a Christian Option?
Job117 -- The Case Against Instrumental Music in Worship
Job118 -- Christian Unity -- A Practical Plan for Peace in Our Divided Religious World
Job119 -- How to Identify the New Testament Church
Job120 -- Some Things You May Have Wondered about Churches of Christ
Job121 -- Why Not Be Just a Christian?
Job122 -- Leadership in the Local Congregation
Job123 -- Countdown to Armageddon?????
Job124 -- Confirming the Message
Job125 -- A New Covenant
Job126 -- CHRIST'S LAW, the Principle of Love
Job127 -- THINK ABOUT IT -- Who Provides for You?

Date: 2007/04/12 15:22:49, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 12 2007,13:38)
can anyone with UD posting rights alert them to this thread?

I'm sure they'd love to partake.

yes, please do so somebody. It's the simplest of things being asked.
And the first comment from the linked-to thread at UD is from Jehu who says:  
The argument that design cannot be detected is such a pathetic lie that it I am amazed at how brazenly it is made by the opponents of ID.


Date: 2007/04/12 15:27:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,15:00)

Nope, that's definitely post-snake.  See those cave kiddo’s in the car?  Dead give away, buddy.

Ah, equating Sin and Sex. Classic.

Remind me why could sperm and egg not fuse before the fall?

Date: 2007/04/12 16:05:09, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Are you for real, or is that suppose to be a joke?

Heh. Did I misunderstand something that seems obvious to you? Some tricky point of causality? Was there even time as we understand it in the Garden of Eden?
Munchins aren't mentioned until after they had been thrown out of the garden.  

And that answers my question about sperm and egg how? "God wanted it that way". I guess you believe in the literal reading then? If so, do you also believe Noah had all species on his Ark (or Kinds even)?
And, btw, sin and sex should never be used in the same sentence.  Nothin' sinful about sex unless you're misusing the function and hurting others by your actions.

IMHO I think you'll find that a large part of christianity and religion in general is about making people feel bad (i.e like they've commited a sin) when doing things that come naturally. So then can confess. And throw a few $$ in the collection plate on their way out as "thanks".  A vicious circle.

A question then, as you are in the mood for answering them it appears, FTK, is there nothing sinfull about homesexual sex or do you condone that 100%? You are fine with the whole gay thing I take it? That's not a misuse of god-given function or anything right there?[I][/I]

Date: 2007/04/12 16:17:46, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,16:16)
IMHO I think you'll find that a large part of christianity and religion in general is about making people feel bad (i.e like they've commited a sin) when doing things that come naturally. evidently must not know many Christians.  I assure you that sex is something I engage in frequently, and I certainly don't feel like I've commited a "sin" afterward.  

In fact, biblically, one of the very first things God told Adam and Eve was to get it on....a lot.

And you are 100% fine with homosexual's getting married etc? The whole gay thing? I seem to remember God having somewhat of a harsh opinion on all that.
EDIT: And sex outside marriage was what I was refering to, amongst other things, with the Sex/Sin reference. I presume you are married ForTheKids.

EDITEDIT: To clarify. Sex inside marriage (presuming you are in fact married) is presumably not defined as a sin by whatever splinter sect you are in. Therefore you do not feel sinful "getting it on". Which totally misses the point I was making. That religion, particularly Christianity, defines many  things as sinful (e.g sex outside marriage) when it's quite good odds that it's going to happen anyway. Very handy I'd say.
So 100% happy with married homosexual folk getting married FTK? Does that cancel out the sin of sex outside marriage I wonder? Hmm...One for the theologians that.

Date: 2007/04/13 03:03:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,18:39)
There’s not a chance in #### that I’m going down this road again.  Been there, done that.  Brace yourself, it’s 26 pages long.  And, if you decide to quote mine me, you better be darn sure you’ve read all 26 pages or it might come back to bite you.

I'll take that as a no to "Are homosexual relationships ok?" then.

Bigot. You disgust me.

I'll go and read your 26 page thread, and IF I feel my label is wrong, I will apologise. After all, you could have just said "it's ok" instead of linking me to a dicussion. It's a YES/NO answer you know. And as you did not just say yes...

Date: 2007/04/13 03:08:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,22:22)
Not a bad idea. But they have pills now. I think they call it, "The Pill."

Dude, my sister is a social worker.  I can tell you that those little girls having sex with whoever is nice to them are not very good about remembering to take that pill each morning.  It is much safer to give them the shot that lasts for about 3 months.

Just fyi.

Sounds to me like you are promoting eugenics. I take it that you would not advocate the 3 month pill injection for good little Christian girls then? After all, why would they need it, they are saving themselves for marriage.

And something tells me you are a W supporter. Happy for AID prevention programs to be stopped from handing out condoms and being forced to promote absitnace?

Anyway, why am I wasting any more time on you, as per my last post your sand has just run out for me.

Date: 2007/04/13 08:09:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,07:30)
I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

I suggesting promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences.

I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  

No, but you are happy for it to be promoted in your name.
If birth control does not alway work (99% effective if used correctly) then how often does abstinence work? And it's not 100% I assure you.
Take 2 groups of "kids". Give one education about birth control, condoms etc. Give the other religious education, why it's a sin to have sex before marriage and promote abstinence in general.

Which do you think would have less pregnancies?

And anyway the point is that the government you support promotes abstinence over practical sex education which as a direct consequence tens of thousands of people have died. But that's ok, as at least they did not die sinners! Died from AIDS with no drug support maybe but at least they went to heaven!
I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.

So, get real then and stop trying to promote abstinence as *any* kind of solution to the problems you see.
So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

In *your* opinion. And *your* opinion seems to be that sex before marriage is one of the things that are "counter productive to a happy healthy life". Don't conflate the issue with unwanted pregnancy, AIDs etc. Sure, those are bad things, of course. But to say that sex per se is "counter productive to a happy healthy life" is just plain wrong. And that is what you are saying. Only sex in marriage between a man and a woman is not sinful, right? That's your position.
I suggesting promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences.

Yep, lets tell all those forced sex workers in India about abstinence and how it can help them avoid AIDS. Sure.
And these people "who have no self control whatsoever" or "sinners" to put it another way, if they've never been educated about Sex then how can you expect them not to behave that way? It's the government that you support that wants to not educate "kids" about sex. And so the "kids" find out themselves.

Date: 2007/04/13 10:32:08, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,08:16)
You are putting words in my mouth at this point, so I'll just back off and say your absolutely right.  You win.  I'm deluded.

If you seriously want to take this conversation further, let me know.  But, at that point you'll have to stop misrepresenting my position.

Hmm, I've only extrapolated from what you've said already.
Is there any specific part of what I've said that you have a problem with? Yes, I've put words in your mouth. As you will not answer simple questions like "do you think homosexuality  is a sin?" then what option do I have?

Date: 2007/04/13 11:05:12, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,10:57)
"do you think homosexuality  is a sin?"

Personally, I think it's unhealthy both emotionally and physically for ~numerous~ reasons.  You can read the thread I posted for further enlightment into my crazy and demented worldview.

I'll take that as a Yes then.
What about stoning to death people who commit adultery?

Date: 2007/04/13 11:13:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,10:48)
The anonymous commenter sent me two more cryptic comments.  It must have some secret meaning!
.....At the gate at midnight...

....Friday the 13th.....

So, we have "the wolf howls when the moon is full at the gate at midnight Friday the 13th!"

Today is Friday the 13th!!!  What could this mean? And, does it have anything to do with the Design conference at SMU???  So mysterious...

you could always use the EF to determine if there is a design behind the comments!
Oh, except you cannot, can ya?

Date: 2007/04/13 11:31:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Louis @ April 13 2007,11:13)
So you won't talk science with us because we'll twist your words?

I think I could take that personally! Are you saying that I would do that? On the basis of no evidence whatsoever? Wow FTK. Arrogant and delusional much?


don't forget some people are predisposed to see their own character traits in other people and be blind to them themselves. So maybe it's not surprising FTK anticipates getting "her" words twisted, as it's par for the course round "her" neck of the woods.

Date: 2007/04/13 15:49:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
"I've got evidence God exists"
       "Show it to me then"
"No, but i've got this book....."

Date: 2007/04/13 16:05:19, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Click here to apply for the 2003 ISCID Undergraduate Summer Workshop.

Date: 2007/04/14 04:15:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I've found that many TE's think that those who support ID have a hidden agenda to bring a particular religious belief into the public schools

I think many of us are puzzled as to what exactly that it is ID would like to teach kids?
The vast majority ( of ID seems to be about picking minor holes in "darwinism" and not providing positive proof for ID itself. It's almost as if they think that if they disprove "darwinism" ID is true by default.

FTK, what specifically would you want taught in ID Class? Icons of evolution? Pandas and People? What?

FTK, do you realise that you have no credibility whatsoever because you refuse to "go there" on the subject of the earths age, and the other simple questions you've been asked. You might not realize, but we're not interested in going there either, because there's nothing there but a fact! We're not after a discussion on the age of the earth, because there's nothing to discuss!

What colour is red?
How heavy is a one ton weight?
Is water wet?
How old is the earth?
Does gravity work?

Date: 2007/04/14 05:15:28, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
UD has picked up on the photosynthesis story
Is Photosynthesis Irreducibly Complex?

Apparently, ID "research" has determined this by bolding some of the words that a generous reading might imply design
For example      
“The process of photosynthesis is a very complex set of interdependent metabolic pathways,” said Robert Blankenship, professor of biochemistry at Arizona State University. “How it could have evolved is a bit mysterious.”

Of course, there is no ID explanation as to how it might have evolved (well, *poofed* into existence then).

Hey FTK, look      
We know that the process evolved in bacteria, probably before 2.5 billion years ago, but the history of photosynthesis’s development is very hard to trace,” said Blankenship.

Is 2.5 billion years more or less then the 6000 years old you  think the earth is?

Jehu comes to the rescue, and puts the ID scientist hat on
I am sorry but I don’t buy the horizontal gene transfer story. What is clear in the article that you post is that there is no evidence of evolution of photosynthasis other than that it exists. The rest of the article strikes me as “just so” story telling.

So Jehu does not believe it, so it's not true. No reasons why, he just "does not buy it". FTK, there's your ID science right there.
Argument from incredulity - Link

If ID really was science, the first thing they would have done is calculated the probability of photosyntheses popping into existence all on it's own. And some sort of use of the EF would have been made!Don't laugh, Dembski has spend quite a few pages on the probability of things popping into existence fully formed. I mean, that's what evolution does best right? Make things appear with no precursors. We all know that. Cambrian explosion anybody? That proves it!

Date: 2007/04/14 10:18:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,09:53)
I don't think that I've ever been so thoroughly insulted before. What was that about IDC advocates not hurling insults?

You and I disagree on our term “insult”.  What bothers me in these forums is that many evolutionists are vicious in their name calling routine.  There are thousands of examples to choose from, but here are just a couple that were recently thrown at Dr. Egnor:

“Michael Egnor is a Crappy Neurosurgeon Who Will Cut out Your Brain and Eat It,”

“..compared Egnor’s arguments to taking “a big ol' steaming s*** on a piece of paper and want[ing] that taught as science.”

“...let me say,as [sic] gently and politely as possible, that on this Egnor is full of s***,”

“...if idiots couldn't weather having their idiocy pointed out to them, they wouldn't BE idiots now, would they.”

I do apologize for comparing you to Hovind, and I agree that was a bit over the top.  I was trying to make a strong point.  I would be very uncomfortable having you teach a course on ID because you obviously believe that all ID supporters are liars, so it would be questionable as to how you would approach the topic of ID with your students.  Now, obviously, I don’t know you at all.  So, it could be that you are one of the few who would be able to leave their emotional baggage at the door and teach ID as an ID advocate would teach it.  I believe that would be quite difficult for a guy who works for an organization who is out to stop the movement at all cost, but who knows.  

My religion says that lying is wrong. Yours apparently doesn't.

Well, for a guy who doesn’t like getting insulted, you certainly have no problem insulting others.  I’m not a liar.

If these are thousands of examples of insults to choose from, I find it strange all of your's were cherry picked for you by The Discovery Institute?
In fact, Darwinist attacks upon Egnor are nothing new. Last summer a Darwinist wrote that “Michael Egnor is a Crappy Neurosurgeon Who Will Cut out Your Brain and Eat It,” and compared Egnor’s arguments to taking “a big ol' steaming s*** on a piece of paper and want[ing] that taught as science.” More recently, Egnor pointed out the viciousness of Darwinist attacks upon Michael Behe. Egnor was then greeted with telling replies from Darwinist commenters on PZ Myers’ blog who wrote things like: “let me say,as [sic] gently and politely as possible, that on this Egnor is full of s***,” and explained away Behe's perseverance through the attacks by saying “if idiots couldn't weather having their idiocy pointed out to them, they wouldn't BE idiots now, would they.” Yet for all their numbers and name-calling, not a single one has answered Egnor’s question: How does Darwinian mechanisms produce new biological information?

Are you a paid shill for the disco institute?

Date: 2007/04/14 10:32:05, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
What a sad state it is when we’re the only ones that can see design when it’s so blatantly obvious. If our “scientific community” had any b*lls, they would throw darwin in the garbage and get on with science.

What does that mean shaner74? What would you have done differently in their place? We're waiting......
And whats with the scare quotes around scientific community? The "scientific community" helped build your PC and generally keeps the lights on. What has Dembski done of any practical use lately? Hmm, well I understand he does a good line in firelighters....

Date: 2007/04/14 10:49:08, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,10:38)
Although, I suppose I'd merely have to go through a couple of Lenny's posts from the past few days and have plenty to work with.

Then do so! Or apologise to Lenny!

Date: 2007/04/14 10:58:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,10:38)
I used Casey's stuff because it was handy.  I already had it on my blog and rather than go through individual blogs and forum, I just pulled the quotes from what I had.

I wonder did you even check the quotes to see if they were accurate (and in fact existed) before "using them on your blog"? Or did you just repeat what Casey had to say?
If a "darwinist" used data without checking it's veracity you would no doubt be the first in line to call them out!
But like you say    
My personal opinion is that I see no reason to disregard portions of God’s word for current scientific theories that are certainly questionable. Scientific theories postulated by mere human intellect are always changing.

Out of interest FTK, do you think 2+2 has always been 4 and always will be? Or is that also a scientific theory postulated by mere human intellect and therefore subject to change too?
EDIT: BTW, FTK - How's your other blog at overwhelmingevidence going?
I look forward to discussing the issues with pro-ID folks for a change.

Yeah, no comments to either of your posts, and about a comment a week on the rest of the site on average since then! This is how popluar ID is "with the kids" (and the comments were generally trolls anyhow, v funny).

Date: 2007/04/14 18:15:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Scientifically, I'm saying we can't rule out design.  As to how you scientists are going to get that fact worked into your science, I'll await patiently.

We cannot rule out unicorns either.
You say "we can't rule out design" and "get that fact worked into your science" yet there seems to be a fact missing in that construction? "we can't rule out design" is an assertion, not a fact. Why can't we rule out design, exactly?
Should every paragraph in every school book have appended to it "or maybe it was in fact designed that way, we cannot rule that out".

And as to the status of the "earth, could be 4.5 billion, could be 10,000" thingy, let me ask you a specific question. You say
will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach

Do you also feel the same way about geocentricism? Do you think that there's a good chance that in fact the sun orbits the earth and dissenting voices are being supressed? If not, why not? Why accept the consensus view in one case and not the other?
I mean "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth." (Joshua 10:12). Seems clear to me the author believed in "teaching the controversy" about geocentricism.

Date: 2007/04/14 18:18:28, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
As teachers can be good and bad, a good lesson plan is vital. Could you summarize a short lesson plan you would be happy to see implemented in classrooms. I'm not asking for an essay, just bullet points as to the essential points you believe would give a fair hearing to ID.

Date: 2007/04/14 18:23:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,18:19)
Ugh....serious deja vue going on.

I'm not going there again.  Too time consuming.

easy dodge. Do you at least have a link. Are these themes recurring alot?
EDIT: There is not enough time to teach all the thinks kids should know, never mind teaching stuff there is no positive proof for (only negative "we don't have a DVD of it's evolution" type stuff). So Until IDers can pony up some actual proof it's just not going to happen. As I asked in another thread, what is it you want taught?If it's "you cannot rule out design" that'll be a quick lesson!

Date: 2007/04/15 04:39:27, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,00:09)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 14 2007,19:23)
So Until IDers can pony up some actual proof it's just not going to happen.

I would be totally down with teaching any ID paper which was published in the leading ID journal in 2006-2007.

Oh wait there weren't any.

FTK, there may still be some spaces left
Click here to apply for the 2003 ISCID Undergraduate Summer Workshop.
This second annual ISCID Online Summer Workshop will be held on the web from July 28th - August 9th 2003. From its beginning ISCID has been a leader in harnessing online technology in innovative ways. Using software from, ISCID will offer interactive lessons which will incorporate real time chat, discussion boards, and a suggested reading list.

FTK, if they have not updated their website in almost half a decade, do you really expect them to come up with some science too?
609-924-4424 (general)
609-924-0582 (fax)
Try to call them and ask! There is no answer! If anybody does pick up (cheers Steve) my tape recorder is handy! I'll be asking when the next issue is coming out!

Date: 2007/04/15 14:45:47, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
FTK, some of the things you say on you blog as so funny they bear repeating!
For instance, when considering junk DNA, we may find that the evolutionary assumption is incorrect, and this may be an area of research that lends further support to ID. Besides that, common descent is irrelevant to the advancement of science, yet we consider it “scientific”.

This old saw. Could you point me to the scientific peer reviewed paper where research into Junk DNA has generated support for ID?
Why is "scientific" in scare quotes?
As you know, I also reject Darwinism because of it is also rife with intellectual dishonesty.

Could you point to a specific example rather then just wave your hands about?
ID is packed with “scientific content”.

Yeah, evolutionists have their token theists, just as IDists have their token atheists and agnostics.

How amazingly ignorant.
They are committing the *same crime* they accuse those *fundies* of doing. They want a theocracy as well, but their government would reject all consideration of the supernatural. There is no difference between their brand of preaching and a hard core fundamentalist preacher who wants to stop atheism in it‘s tracks.

Ever hear of the Taliban?
So, they’ve had to bypass Eugenie et. al. and let the the public know what they are up against. Sounds like the perfect plan for the second phase, IMO.

Yeah, coz when the scientists aint biting, gotta take it straight to the people where real scientists do their finest work.    
dating techniques are considered by the “scientific community” to be unquestionable

Those scare quotes again. If you've got a problem with the dating techniques what is it? Or are you just getting your talking points from AIG now? Have you spotted a flaw in the dating methodology, or what?
ID is advancing science whether you care to admit it or not. These discussions over “the controversy” are pushing scientists to find answers to the questions that are being asked about evolution - the questions that have been overlooked or taken for granted for decades.

What scientists are finding what results to what questions? Do you have a list? I mean, it's not the leading ID science people is over at ISCID is it? They ain't picking up the phone!
But, again, before you convince me that IDists are out to insert a specific religion (Christianity or whatever) into the public school system, you’ll have to show me specific evidence that this is so, and also provide me with the science curriculum that teaches those students about Jesus, Budda, Muhammad, ET, or whomever in the science classroom.

I believe Lenny has asked you several times about this issue, and you have not responded. I also asked you for a bullet point list of a potential set of ID class talking points, what essentials should be covered to give ID a fair treatment.

EDIT: You say  
Is it poor science to consider other options when one explanation seems to be lacking the science to back up it‘s claims? Is it possible to detect design in nature due to the information and IC we find packed in living beings?

In that case please go here  and help them work out how. Do your best to prove it possible to detect design in nature due to the information and IC we find packed in living beings. If you cannot then logically it is poor science to consider other options when one explanation seems to be lacking the science to back up it‘s claims. And your contention is that ID is packed with “scientific content”

Have a nice day


Date: 2007/04/15 17:42:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (phonon @ April 15 2007,16:56)
I have logged on to UD and have been able to make comments. None of my comments so far have been deleted, but I wonder if that will change after I left this one at the bottom of the "Thinking Christian" post.
Well, all of this is fine and good, but what does it have to do with intelligent design?

I guess to really accept intelligent design, you must first use your Christian mind, and not your secular, atheist, materialist (Satanic) one.

Maybe that's the answer.

The reply to your post is most amusing:
Oh you don’t know what this has to do with ID? If this is really the case, I would advise you to first go and read some basic stuff about ID theory. Maybe you also want to check out the overwhelming evidence webside where more elementary concepts are discussed than here (overwhelming evidence= mostly ID interested students; this side= mostly ID scientists).
Hope I could help.

Is that the site where the first thing you see is a fart animation? Is that what he means by elemental? The wind element?  :p
Obviously ErnstMayer has never been to the site, or he would know nothing of the sort happens.
someone receiving instructions from God could make space ships, time-traveling devices, teleporters, perpetual motion machines, and even (perhaps) fountains of youth.

I'd like my fountain of youth medium rare please!

Date: 2007/04/16 15:25:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Hey FTK,  
A new study commissioned by Congress has concluded that abstinence only sex education has literally no effect at all on whether or when teenagers have sex.

Date: 2007/04/16 16:02:12, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,15:58)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,15:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 16 2007,15:25)
Hey FTK,      
A new study commissioned by Congress has concluded that abstinence only sex education has literally no effect at all on whether or when teenagers have sex.

Fundies aren't really bothered by the STD thing, it's the lack of kids/ vectors for there mimteic virus to infect.

Ya know why I don't discuss anything of depth with you guys?  As predicted, I knew you'd twist anything I say to work for you.

Someone needs to show me where I said anything about supporting abstinence "only" classes.  I would never support such a thing.  That's crazy.

it sounds like you accept the findings of the study.
Why bother to spend taxpayer $$ on something proven not to work?
edit: And if I'm twisting your words you can defend yourself here! It's, I suppose, up to me now to find a quote of you where you say "only". I'm not going to look.
And while it may be true you have in fact (and you fully realize this as your "ace") never promoted abstinence "only" classes you have in fact promoted abstinence+something else. I'm asking you why bother to promote something that does not work+something that does work when you could spend all of your available $$ on the latter?
Or to put it another way, why promote abstinence at all if it's proven not to work?

Is it your contention that promotion of abstinence is effective in the presence of, say, good sex education? How do you separate out the effects and prove abstinence promotion works at all? Do we just take your word for it?

Just wondering!

Date: 2007/04/16 16:18:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,16:12)
it sounds like you accept the findings of the study.

Um....did I say anything about whether I accept the findings or not????!  

Why bother to spend taxpayer $$ on something proven not to work?



Jeez, you people are dense.  Of course, this is the EXACT same thing they did to the Kansas Board of Ed.  The moderates screeched to the media that the board wanted to place abstinence only sex ed classes in KS schools.  THAT WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE!  The board supported ABSTINENCE PLUS classes.  I emailed some of them myself to be sure of what they supported.

Keep spinning my friends.  It'll catch up with you in the end.

Um....did I say anything about whether I accept the findings or not????!

Do you or not?

No, I think I clearly tried to differentiate there. I'm asking why support abstinence classes at allif they have been proven to have no effect? Irrespective of whatever else you want to mix them up with!
Or do you think they teach how not to have sex on the same day they teach you how to?
To be clear then.
1: Sex Ed. Proven to help sexual health. Check
2: Sec Ed "the abstinence" lesson. Proven to make no difference. Not Check!

To say that you support two things and accept that one does not work (not that you have, so I guess you reject the study?), or at least admit it's controversial as I believe you have indicated by your caps, seems odd to me. Why bother with the thing that does not work? Why include it at all?

Date: 2007/04/16 17:08:04, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I posted the link originally with no comment except the excerpt from the post. I never claimed that FTK supported abstinence only sex ed lessons initially, I just wanted to see if FTK would respond to the article one way or the other. Seemed relevant...
Of course people should be told the full story about sex, good and bad, but promoting something for purely traditional or religions reasons, or even political cannot be good. There's even laws about it in some countries.....

However, I could have been clearer in my follow on posts regarding what FTK did and did not say. Sorry FTK.

Date: 2007/04/16 17:11:51, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,17:01)
Well, that makes SIX times and counting.

You must be daft.  There is no way in #### that I would discuss anything serious in this forum.  There are very few people here who are capable of discussion.

And, if I actually did start to engage, Lenny, Oldman, et. al. would (again) start posting numerous separate posts at a time and take up huge amounts of thread width.  They'd make it virtually impossible to carry on a conversation.  Lenny's a real piece of work.  I have no idea why you people allow him to post here.

Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is.

well, I'll opt out of this thread and start another where we'll talk about this one. If that's what it'll take to get you to answer Steve's question.

Date: 2007/04/16 18:20:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Date: 2007/04/17 15:32:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
speaking of OW, anybody catch this thread at the time?
Somebody on OW asks have you read the book origin of the species @ troutmac, I unfortunately didn't save that bit, but the rest is classic. If you can't be bothered to read it all, the money shot is Troutmac saying at the end "it does appear that Darwin did not fancy his own theory as an explanation of the origin of life. And thank you for providing the bottom line". Fair play to him for responding rationally! I'm afraid there's no link to go with the text because of course it does not exist anymore

TRoutMac | Fri, 2007-03-16 23:45

TRoutMac here… I'm gonna take a wild guess that your question is directed at me.

I have not read "Origin of the Species." Nor do I plan to.

Should I have? If so, why?

Why should I be concerned with what someone thought about origins of--whatever--when, at the time the book was written, they had so little knowledge and understanding of how biology worked? At that time, scientists thought that a cell was very, very simple. They had no technology to discover otherwise. As a result, the grander claims of evolution seemed plausible. I'll grant you that wasn't Darwin's fault. But it is the fault of Darwinists that they cannot let go of an obsolete theory.

I would suggest that reading books such as Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" would be more useful, since it reflects contemporary knowledge and understanding of biology.

Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
tylerzookie | Fri, 2007-03-16 23:52

The title of the blog post is

Just What DOES Darwin's Theory Explain?

You said I have not read "Origin of the Species." Nor do I plan to. Should I have? If so, why?

Why not find out for yourself what Darwin's Theory Explains?

It's only at the link on my 1st post! It's just a click away.

You yourself asked Just What DOES Darwin's Theory Explain? The answer is here

If you don't want to know why did you ask the question?
reply | email this page | 1 point


Thanks, but No Thanks
TRoutMac | Sat, 2007-03-17 00:00

tylerzookie wrote:
"If you don't want to know why did you ask the question?"

The question "Just what DOES Darwin's theory explain?" is aimed at pointing out that there seems to be much controversy, even among Darwinists, about whether Darwin's theory purports to explain the origin of life. I would not expect such a controversy within such a well established theory whose proponents insist is proven fact. Would you?

Thanks, but no thanks. I know Darwinism and neo-Darwinism well enough to reject it.

Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
reply | email this page | -1 points
tylerzookie | Sat, 2007-03-17 00:08

In the conclusion of the book Darwin himself addresses your point.

It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. Who can explain what is the essence of the attraction of gravity? No one now objects to following out the results consequent on this unknown element of attraction; notwithstanding that Leibnitz formerly accused Newton of introducing "occult qualities and miracles into philosophy."

I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self- development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

My bold.
To Darwinists: Pick a Story And Go With It!
TRoutMac | Sat, 2007-03-17 00:58

Alright, it does appear that Darwin did not fancy his own theory as an explanation of the origin of life. And thank you for providing the bottom line, tylerzookie. Personally, I never have accepted it as a theory about origin of life… even though it was presented quite plainly as just that when I was in high school.

It's odd (don't you think?) that so many opponents of Intelligent Design theory (which actually is a theory about the origin of biological life) treat ID as though it were a direct competitor. It can't very well be a directly competing theory if one purports to explain 'Question A' and the other makes no such claim.

How do I reconcile this? Well, it appears that Darwinists are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They are proud to claim that Darwinism quite adequately accounts for the existence of life on this planet, even to the extent that it eliminates any need for a designer, but then once the theory's weaknesses are exposed, they fall back on "Oh, Darwin never claimed to have explained the origin of life."

Convenient, don't you think?

Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Hmm, I might have to adopt
Convenient, don't you think?
As a catchphrase!

Date: 2007/04/18 03:06:20, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

My favourite language book, "Le Ton Beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language"
I'm currently reading Douglas Hofstadter's latest, "I am a strange loop", amazing so far.

Date: 2007/04/18 09:37:40, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I wouldn’t argue that there’s little if any evidence of it but can’t see why it would be necessarily illogical.

So, If I understand DS (ha!) he would not argue that there is no evidence of it. Therefore, he would argue that there is evidence for it? So what's the evidence DaveTard? Pony it up or shut up!

Date: 2007/04/18 11:46:00, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Also check this page
The Christian Legal Society is an interdenominational, student-led group with the main goal of being a place where Christian law students can meet and fellowship together.

And the author of the piece in question is the contact for the above!
In the piece she says
ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis.

It's just coincidence that they are all Christians or similar. What are the chances of that? If the odds are against it, does that mean its got 500 bits of CSI or whatever it is?

Date: 2007/04/18 16:42:26, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure.

And I suppose the higher up you are in those churches, the less likely you are to sin? DS is plumbing new lows with this.

Date: 2007/04/18 17:05:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
oops wrong thread!

Date: 2007/04/18 17:10:01, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I wonder how many people who reference it, like mike1962 at UD
A perfect example of how “METHINKS IT’S A WEASEL” would work without the intelligently designed components.
have read the book? gAH, IDiot UD'ers and their comfort blankets.
It's in response to a very lame unfunny thebrites post today at UD.
Place the watch parts in a special shaker, firmly attach the shaker lid, and shake until assembled. Results may vary

I know it's been pointed out 100's of times, but where are all the positive ID posts at UD lately? Ever? It's degenerating into farce, if it was not all along.
Somebody's not been paying attention:
This is hilarious! I wonder if you can actually order it?

yES, V Funny, but you can be assured if it was for sale you'd be looking at an advert for it, as selling crap to rubes is what ID is today.

Date: 2007/04/19 03:05:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Hey FTK,
I've not said a word since you had your little "explosion". Which was my intent, btw. Hard to rationalise the illogical huh?

Yet you've still not answered Steve's question. How dishonest! And it's been asked a dozen times.

Date: 2007/04/19 08:03:59, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Honestly, how stupid are IDer's? Ok, "very" but still
Each of them could be the cause of interesting hypotheses and of precious inquiry.But if we pretend that we already know the answer (let’s say that everything must be explainable in terms of RM + NS), then the access to truth is denied.
all research is ID research, in the sense that any research gives us facts, and as ID is true, facts are always ID friendly. But, obviously, somebody must have the honesty to look at facts for what they are, and proceed from them toward further knowledge.

So, IDiot, let's here your "interesting hypotheses" for how the designer created ribosomes?


EDIT: I think Jerry has stopped taking his medication.
I am certainly not a micro-biologist but are there other proteins or RNA that are also in common. If there are not then could you use that as proof that there isn’t common descent. Either way there will be some of each so what does each imply.


Date: 2007/04/19 16:55:15, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
A comment on the Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane’s Dilemma thread.
I have already refuted Nunney’s simulation. I could verify this, but I don’t feel like it.

I suspect it might have a short half life!
ALso, on the same thread  
No way can Darwinists keep pulling this cr*p and get away with it. They don’t want ReMine getting access to the data because they know he’ll rip it apart and show it for what it is - Darwinist storytelling. I wonder what some Darwinists are willing to resort to in order to protect their faith? How far will they go? I’m scared to find out.

I find it odd that nobody's addressed the heart of the issue on UD (ok, not that odd).
From the article:
He declined, saying he will not share his software with “people who do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” (his words)
I’m sure Prof. Nunney is a fine person, but this is bad public policy.

No attempt to say that in fact he is publishing in peer reviewed journals, just that it's bad policy!

What I found funny was Dumbski says at the start of the article  
I asked Walter ReMine to write up his recent experiences debating Haldane’s Dilemma:

If you read the article there is nothing that could be considered debate! Just Walter complaining about the unfairness of it all! And nothing else! No debates, because I guess who wants to debate him?


Date: 2007/04/20 03:08:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dumbski attempts humour again. NO farting this time!
I will share a simulation that refutes Nunney’s simulation only with scholars who have published in the peer-reviewed ID literature. ;-)

Well, Bill, you've somewhat missed the boat there, the last issue was a while ago!

Volume 4.2, November 2005

Unless you've got a time machine (Tardis anybody!?) you'll have to wait for the next issue. And as nobody's picking up the phone.....

And in the same thread, they realise they don't need it anyway
Is there anything the results cannot be reproduced using the data in the paper and recoding the simulation ?
That's right - reproducable results? Almost sounds like they are understanding science (almost)

Jason, that’s what I would assume. I haven’t read the paper (I skimmed it), but I think once you know his assumptions then it would be straight-forward to code a similar simulation.

So, if it's possible to re-code it that sounds like a perfect ID research project. DaveTard is a computer whizz, so what are you waiting for IDiots? Or is this the best you can do? I.E Nothing at all.

Date: 2007/04/20 07:08:37, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,16:45)
I'm asking why support abstinence classes at allif they have been proven to have no effect?

Oh, forgive me!!  How silly of me to suggest that perhaps those youngsters may not have thought about all the baggage that can go along with having sex with whomever & whenever at a young age.

How's this..the teachers stands at the head of the classe and states that today is a big 'ol party day and the party favors are flavored condoms in a plethora of assorted colors!!!  Far out.  

Then she spouts off all the other ways to try to avoid pregnancy and STD's .  But, not to worry!  If those don't work and you still get knocked up, there's always the abortion option.

At the end of class, she can tell them to go out and fuck to their hearts delight!!!  Heck, she could pair the kids up and let them have a go at it right there in class!  They have porn classes at the university level, so why not just start those classes in high school??  That would surely give them some SEX EDUCATION.

The teacher won't have to deal with the repercussions, the parents and the students will.

What in the heck is wrong with you people? Abstinence should certainly be suggested and discussed, along with discussions of the emotional issues involved in sexual relationships.  There should also be discussion about treating the opposite sex with respect.  I'm thinking Richard and I would fail that part of the class.

hahahahahaha. this is FTK's longest post on this thread I believe. Tease indeed.

Date: 2007/04/20 13:10:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
They have porn classes at the university level, so why not just start those classes in high school??

WTF? Do they? I suspect that porn is the one thing where it "comes naturally" :) FTK, what university did you go to?

Date: 2007/04/20 14:07:28, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Bing @ April 20 2007,13:34)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 20 2007,13:10)
WTF? Do they? I suspect that porn is the one thing where it "comes naturally" :) FTK, what university did you go to?

Yes, they do, well in a kinda-sorta way.  I took Psy153(Psychology of Human Sexual Behaviour) at Western with Bill Fisher back in the day.  Some of my friends referred to it as F*ckSci.  We only got movie night once during the semester and we had to watch a movie about a couple of 70 year-olds getting it on.  All the moves seemed the same, only slower.

I'm guessing she wanted to go go Liberty, but didn't meet the admission requirements, so she had to settle for Patriot like Kent Hovind.

From FTK's phrasing, it sounds like she objects to those too!
How bizzare. Nobody forces people to take these classes.

Date: 2007/04/20 14:35:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
A comment in the worm thread reads:

Evolutionist =“Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented twice throughout evolution, it must be the same system,”

Creationist = “Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented once throughout evolution, it must be the amazing,”

Hmm, I guess smidlee did not get the memo.

Date: 2007/04/20 15:06:10, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2007,14:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 20 2007,14:35)
A comment in the worm thread reads:

Evolutionist =“Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented twice throughout evolution, it must be the same system,”

Creationist = “Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented once throughout evolution, it must be the amazing,”

Hmm, I guess smidlee did not get the memo.

I don't think anyone over there cares any more.  Ever since Dover, the "But it's all about the science" corpse has been twitching more and more feebly.

yes, it's like a word salad mixed with buzzword bingo over at UD lately

I think the idea of convergent evolution destroys the concept of homology as evidence for common descent (though I have no problem in accepting common descent myself). Since very similar organs and systems can appear many times in organisms that have no common anscestor, then the whole concept of homology is circular reasoning.



Typically I find that people who say things like "I have no problem in accepting common descent myself" usually then go on to prove that in fact they do have a problem. Problems

Date: 2007/04/20 16:56:36, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Like most serious science organizations, the iscid uses paypal for donations.

Date: 2007/04/21 07:35:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
in the UK there is talk of re-nationalising the railways because the private companies are making such a mess of it and are still getting taxpayer money for it. And quite right, it should never have been sold off in the first place. I simply cannot imagine something similar happening in the USA, market is king and all that. Has it ever?

Date: 2007/04/22 16:52:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (someotherguy @ April 22 2007,13:05)
An OE update:

Recent comments

   * Actually...
     1 week 2 days ago
   * what does it matter what the Pope thinks?
     1 week 3 days ago
   * Substance not Spin
     1 week 3 days ago
   * Brilliant research
     2 weeks 3 days ago
   * Yes I agree,
     2 weeks 3 days ago
   * I wish I had invented it!
     2 weeks 3 days ago
   * temporo-spacial anomaly on Noah's Ark: fascinating
     2 weeks 3 days ago
   * (Off Topic): What technologies did pre-noahic people have?
     2 weeks 4 days ago
   * I don't think the Bible contradicts the existence of cavemen
     2 weeks 5 days ago
   * Ugh! Ugh!
     2 weeks 5 days ago

Whenl is Dembski going to realize that if he wants this site to survive, he's going to have to bring back the trolls?

"But where are the trolls?
Quick, send in the trolls.
Don't bother, they're here."

there is some activity still, of a commercial nature.
Oleary's blog today offers us
a list of cool animations of the life of a cell  in alpha order , for your convenience. Useful for discussing such questions as irreducible complexity and specified complexity: Could these processes arise by Darwinian means (natural selection acting on random mutations)? Which ones? How? How plausible is that, really? Or is it just something we have to believe because we are materialists?

Still following that student meme then oleary? "cool animations" - mmm, like what Ren and Stimpy cool? Just the thing for catching students in the ID web....

Date: 2007/04/23 13:25:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
some quotes  too good to miss from Dumbski's latest thread from various IDiots!
I have an idea Dr. Dembski.

Why don’t you publish a book only on information theory.

Have it be accurate in totality without any objective information. The book could then be used for course instruction.

hear hear!
My guess is that the TE’s at ASA would be more supportive of ID if the ID argument wasn’t so heavily associated with YEC.

ID is associated with YEC? O'Rlly?


Who knows or cares about the “American Scientific Affiliation”? Why have you been wasting your time chasing down the opinions of picayune advocacy groups and reacting to every little news article on social controversies related to ID?

You are better than this. Please, please get back to writing books, papers and articles on the mathematical and scientific underpinnings of Intelligent Design.

Yeah, coz so far there is no mathematical and scientific underpinning to ID at all :)

Date: 2007/04/23 16:13:24, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I think Jerry's gone batshit insane! Or come to his senses! Or somethings burst
But in my observations in the world outside this website, ID is closely associated in most people’s eyes with some group that has eccentric religious and scientific views

Hit em with the old one-two Jerry!
On this site I would personally estimate that half or more of the contributions are from YEC’s. Just watch how many comments get made when the topic implies something about an old earth. A discussion of the science of the Cambrian explosion rarely gets more than a few comments despite Marcus Ross having authored a paper on the topic.


Date: 2007/04/24 02:53:13, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I'm up for some of that, I can write flashy sounding bullshit with the best of em! At work, they even pay me for it!

Date: 2007/04/24 02:56:10, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
as long as it's not a homosexual forest, FTK is down wid that.

Date: 2007/04/24 08:27:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:22)

You are such a liar.  Seriously, how do you live with yourself?

Brown did participate in that thread.  The debate went on for months.

of the points raised

a) Brown's gibberish was demolished
b) FtK often acting as the willing go-between
c) Brown would not come to KCFS on his own.
d) FtK simply ignored the refutations of his claims
e) FtK still, it appears, worships the charlatan.

you choose only to address c).
Most people would say that the other points were in fact more important. It's a reflection on your honesty that you choose to address the least important point.


Date: 2007/04/24 08:50:22, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:45)
Yup, the other points are more important, and Brown did not get "demolished".  That would be wishful thinking on Scott's part.  Just like anything I might choose to discuss here, it would be spun to your liking.  

I've had no serious discussions here, yet when I did merely mention sex ed classes, that conversation was contorted to what you wanted to think I supported.  Yet, in writing, I had already given my opinion on the matter.  It didn't match with what you relayed to readers later.  Not surprising.

I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  


You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.

If Brown did not get "demolished" do you have links to the rebuttals where he addresses his critics? No? I wonder why.

And pot/kettle?
the style in which you people debate

I've seen your blog, and your boyfriends blog (UD). At least the debate here is uncensored.

Yup, the other points are more important

Er, Address them then, handwaiving does not count!

Date: 2007/04/24 08:55:13, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:45)
You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.

Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.

Date: 2007/04/24 09:12:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 24 2007,08:57)
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:45)
I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  


You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.

Remarkable.  As if anyone here had a chance of doing anything that would change her opinions. I just looked back at some of those KCFS threads, and it is clear that FtK's position hasn't changed a bit. You could drag those 2-yr old posts over here and nobody would know the difference.

Just for the record, FtK, what would it take to change your opinion from creationist BS to a state of accepting reality and then figuring out how to accomodate it to your religion?

Feel free to ignore this question like you have ignored Steve's...

Personally, I'd like to know what it is about certain authorities that means that people like FTK will listen to them and disregard others totally.
I mean, is it the power of Brown's arguments that has persuaded FTK that he is right, or is it the fact that his conclusion concurs with hers.
Is it coincidence?
You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair

Lets start simple.
FTK, did you initially agree with the consensus view of the age of the earth? What caused you to question it? How do you decide which authority to listen to? The science involved is obviously beyond you, so is it personality, charm, what? Or is it just that you choose your authority figures depending on if they agree with what your magic 2000 year old book happens to say?

Just wondering.

Date: 2007/04/24 09:58:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,09:47)
More misinformation.  I've addressed that false spin here before as well.


no, we're just keeping an open mind to both sides of the debate! You can call if "false spin" if you like, but it's really about being open minded.

And, just out of interest, do you also keep an open mind that every word in teh Bibble was in fact written by man and not inspired by gawd? Teach the controversy!

Date: 2007/04/24 10:03:54, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:03)
Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

it's not. Once day you will learn that, and boy, will your face be red!

Date: 2007/04/24 10:08:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:03)
Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

but but but, this is exactly what you are doing with Brown's nonsense, twisting reality to match up with a Genesis flood!
What a fool you are not to see this! And the twist in your reality must be breaking your back? Do you have a spine like a corkscrew!

Oh, teh irony!

Date: 2007/04/24 10:38:06, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (argystokes @ April 24 2007,10:29)
No, I don't trust any of you.

Won't you keep an open mind?

think of the children!

EDIT: FTK, the dawkins forum has a special debate mode. Would you consider that venue instead? A neutral place.

Date: 2007/04/24 11:56:07, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
any comment on this FTK?

He was candid enough to admit that they would
have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-
earth geochronologists in the world.
He also agreed that the
mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold
during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the
group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a
“cosmic-scale event” or miracle.

Date: 2007/04/24 12:55:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:50)

Let's be honest.  Whatever I present as "evidence", you will reject.  I'll sincerely believe it to be solid evidence, but you won't.  Pretty much end of story.

And, as far as my readers are concerned, I have all confidence that they will certainly understand why I do not engage here.

But, thanks for worrying about me.

Then present your evidence!
As you are not a scientist, it's not "your" evidence, and therefore it's not required that you defend it.

But people here can only respect you more if you say
"This is my position, and here is my evidence for that position".

Whatever we make of your "evidence" (I like these scare quotes more and more) to come here and mouth off about your beliefs strikes people as nothing but arrogance (as you say that your beliefs are informed by the evidence, but will not present said evidence).

A few links would do. Nobody's asking for a paper!

All your "readers" are seeing at the moment is you saying one thing but not backing it up even with an argument.

Date: 2007/04/24 13:01:28, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dumbski [URL=

To ASA list members and sympathizers who feel compelled to respond to this post: Watch your step. If you must insult Denyse, do it on your own forum. I shall be monitoring this thread especially closely, and am ready to boot anyone at the least provocation.

Let me repeat that
am ready to boot anyone at the least provocation

No Shit Dr D! Shame you are not read to write a scientific paper "at the least provocation" or finish that $100,000 book "at the least provocation". Odd huh?

Date: 2007/04/24 13:15:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:50)
Let's be honest.  Whatever I present as "evidence", you will reject.  I'll sincerely believe it to be solid evidence, but you won't.

erm, could we clarify one thing?

What is the position that you are not going to present "evidence" for? I'm confused?

Is it for a young earth? If so, I thought you said that you were open to mutiple ages, both young and old! It seems to me you have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag about what it is that you really believe!

What position does this "solid evidence" support? Tell us that, even if you refuse to present evidence, please!

Date: 2007/04/24 14:09:20, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Good grief, what the heck is wrong with you, Oldman?

Umm, do I have to answer that?  ;) If I do, you got to too!
You're just dying to get into a big YE/OE bashing session, and I provided on the other thread a freaking 4 month long debate I was involved in called "Brown's evidence".

That was there, this is here! OK, lets talk about the fossil forest instead. How old do you think it really is?
What the heck more could you want?

Ask me a question, i'll do my best to answer it. I'd like you to do the same.  
Read it...have a ball.  I was up against god only knows how many Darwinists on that thread.  Well over 40 I'm sure.

Did they describe themselves are Darwinists? What convineinent handy label did you apply to yourself during that debate?  
I have never said that I believe YE creation scientists to be right and other scientists to be wrong.
True True. You've said very little of substance, which to be fair to you, you are under no obligation to do. You obviously come here to relax, and chill, and so who am I (random internet gonk) to question that.
I believe there is ~much~ to consider coming from both sides of the debate.
I agree, however where we differ includes what to teach children. I say "teach the controversy" and give kids philosophy classes instead of religious education. Apparently you want to teach them that the earth quite possibly could be 10,000 years old and that there is "scientific" evidence to say so. Or is your moniker wrong?
 I don't think ~anyone~ has it right yet.

Nobody ever gets it right (part from math folk!), but you can get close. And YEC is unsupportable by any honest open minded person without religious dogma forcing their viewpoints into particular containers.

There are a number of Ex-YEC here. Did you know that?
So there.

Well, IDers do get the best book covers, I'll give you that!

Date: 2007/04/24 14:13:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
hOLEY sMokes! FTK did a DS!

Date: 2007/04/24 15:48:40, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Strange world we live in. It appears that anything that can be even remotely traced to religion is now outlawed, and porn, homosexuality, explicit sexual content in books, and naturalistic creation stories are A-Okay.

My bold. So, let me get this straight - naturalistic creation stories are in the same category as porn, homosexuality and explicit sexual content in books?
Like ones not an attempt to discover humanity's ultimate origin and the others, well, just not, basically!
I've read that "Post", and I still don't understand the point of it! Are you saying that because naturalistic creation stories are taught that either religion should be taught in science class or that naturalistic creation stories are banned in science class? Or sexual content all together should be banned?
Such a puzzling world we live in. As I surf the web from one Darwinist site to another, it seems that most of these folks are die hard liberals who believe that there should never be censorship of anything in our schools and universities.

huh? I think I see your problem. You have confused

And FTK, it may interest you to know that this website
rates your website like so:
Readability (Gunning-Fog Index) : (6-easy 20-hard) 5.2
Average Syllables per Word : 1.69
Number of different words : 1375

And so on.
For Comparison, PT gets
Number of different words : 1973
Readability (Gunning-Fog Index) : (6-easy 20-hard) 8.1
And so on. Interesting huh?

Date: 2007/04/25 03:05:40, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
From FTK's blog

Funny how "science says so" only sometimes, and other times it's not to be trusted. FTK, what happened to keeping an open mind and not being dogmatic?

Why do you trust these "scientists" that say things you think are true, and not other "scientists" that happen to say things that you disagree with? Is that basically it? Anything that supports your world view is "science said so" and anything else is "evil darwinists"? No further thinking required.

FtK, did you even read the article?
It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation.

Date: 2007/04/25 13:21:02, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Date: 2007/04/25 14:22:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
How cheap are they!
Registrant ID:GODA-01590006
Registrant Name:Dennis Wagner
Registrant Organization:Access Research Network
Well Dennis, all these domains are currently available

What say we leech off your fame?....Oh, thats right....

Date: 2007/04/25 16:16:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I saw somebody (PrincessEve)on the thread about an real life working example of the EF (so far nothing doing) saying of YEC Scientists    
They hypothesize and test theories and adapt to the findings and discard unworkable theories, just like evolutionists do

If that's true, where is it happening? Is it written down, in a paper or magazine, or journal?
Is ISCID it? They have not published in years.
It's nice that you can discard a growing global community of scientists as "left behind many years ago."
where is the evidence for that?
I've asked PrincessEve if she would care to talk about it here.
I hope you don't mind Steve!

EDIT: Of course the discarded unworkable theories are what i'm interested in most of all. Where is that line drawn?

Date: 2007/04/25 16:51:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (JohnW @ April 25 2007,16:40)
Of course they test and discard unworkable theories.  Where they differ is what they test them against:

Scientists: empirical evidence.
Creationists: literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

I know, but it's like the favourite centre in a box of chocolates, that nutty crunch as a serious "scientific" article segues into bible references from out of nowhere.
I mean, if somebody can say (my bold, as usual.)
YEC requires radioisotope dating to be collaberated with another reliable dating method (carbon 14 dating is not at issue--perhaps you should actually try reading YEC literature instead of misrepresenting their positions).  Currently there is no other dating system that collaborates the dates that radioisotope dating provides, and items whose dates can be established through over means are given vastly inaccurate dates by all the radiometric dating techniques.  This has actually been approached scientifically and researched extensively, but since it throws out dates the evolutionists desperately need, the data from such experiments is branded "bad science".  The rest of your accusations are just more strawmen arguments and misrepresentations.

I mean....
I'd like to see an example of each of those bolded items Princess, if you ever make it over here. As we found out with FTK, her talking points are dictated by the Discovery Institute. Who's promoting this "thrown out" data meme currently I wonder?

Date: 2007/04/26 03:03:49, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,02:38)
DaveTard is a weak excuse for a human being.

Well, it looks as if DaveTard is going to duck our meeting after all.  What a pussy.  There's a nice pic of him though, with his dogs, and a nice Texas size, 13 mpg truck.

and he's got no shoes on. When people take pictures of me, I always insist on taking my shoes off.

What a miserable excuse for a human being. A total waste of blood.

A COWARD 100%. I imagine if you cut him in two (with a chainsaw no doubt) there would be nothing inside but a streak of yellow.

And this "man" calls himself a marine? For shame.

Date: 2007/04/26 14:32:43, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Is it just me

or can you see something in the sky behind him?

Date: 2007/04/26 15:26:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
princessEve gave me a link to  
multiple creation science organizations ... alive and well and contain plenty of relevant content
As I don't consider
# Archaeology Odyssey  Magazine by the Biblical Archeology Society
# Biblical Creation Journal by the Biblical Creation Society UK
# Biblical Archaeology Review by the Biblical Archeology Society
# Biblical Astronomer Journal Quarterly on Geocentricity
# Christian Research Institute : Journal
# Connections Archive quarterly magazine from Reasons to Believe
to be science, they had to be ignored. When I got to the "science" link I got things like
Watch for the online version of Origins & Design Issue 40 in late 2001

The document you requested was not found. May we suggest our home page?

The requested URL /journal.htm was not found on this server.

The page cannot be found

I wanted to see what I could find on "Premise by The Center for the Advancement of Paleo Orthodoxy  " as that sounded exciting.
The wayback machine obliges
There is some funny stuff in there. But nothing that could be called a recent scientific journal. So how can people honestly
believe that nobody will check their links!
Ironic really as PrincessEve says  
Your naturalistic evolutionary worldview will automatically reassemble data to fit with your desired conclusions.  A creationist will do the same thing.  At least the creationist admits to a worldview.  While someone like you just asserts that your worldview isn't a worldview and that the only way to explain the data is your way.  Sure you will modify your theory to fit new scientific evidence, but it won't change your underlying assumption through which you arrived at the theory. Creationists have an underlying worldview, but this does not prohibit them from doing science, as you have blatantly accused.

Date: 2007/04/26 17:07:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 26 2007,15:24)
Is DaveTard going up/in or down/out?

down and out, he already has the hobo look about him.

Date: 2007/04/27 13:51:25, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 26 2007,23:17)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,23:11)
So has Pirahna Lady made a vow to ignore us from now on?

Guess we have to concentrate on Dave Scot again.

she's busy linking to


well if you visit her "blog" you'll see "she's" been very busy.

Step one: Find a science story.
Step two: Find some inane commentary and reprint it wholesale.
For example

FTK: I challenge you to find a single piece of evidence to support your (well, you just regurgitated it but nonetheless)  contention that  
Darwinian preconceptions have held back a promising field of genetic research

or even  
Intelligent design is taking back its rights.

I mean, you are a fucking joke FTK. You take an article created by actual scientists and then the monkeys over at the creolabs put the idiot spin on it and you reprint it wholesale. For the Kids, right?

So, this promising field of generic research now opening up due to the efforts of Intelligent design advocates, would you care to name the intelligent design scientists current doing reseach on "junk DNA". If you can name a single one I'll take you on a wager. I'll never post here again if you can find a name. A single ID scientist researching "junk DNA". That's easy right? After all,  
Darwinians, you have been exposed as usurpers. Get out of the way. The field is not evolving. Intelligent design is taking back its rights.
or is that just so much smoke and mirrors too?




Date: 2007/04/27 13:54:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
yeah, I can remember a time before I knew what DS looked like. Oh happy days.

Date: 2007/04/27 15:00:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
do you notice how in the blog post I posted a snapshot of earlier itself FTK uses misdirection to make it appear (IMHO) that Science Daily is praising ID scientists.

I've put the URLs linked to in the image and shaded the text into two blocks.
The inital link is to the usual creobot Idiocy site. Carved up into  morsels suitable for the weak of mind to reprint without further thought.
Yet the following paragraph of text after the link is more or less straight from the article. So not from "here" after all.
The shaded text below is from the link at the start of the article.

How dishonest can you get? And shes doing it for the kids!

Date: 2007/05/01 14:01:48, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2007,12:58)
Didn't someone suggest we could produce the next issue ourselves?  It sounded like a good idea at the time.*

*and I wasn't drunk or anything.

yes, they did indeed! On the UD thread I believe.
I found this gem:
So, did random explosions create all this, or did God? What can stop the outward travel of gasses after an explosion in space? For if gravity stopped this travel outward, would it not also pull these gasses back inward so that it would not longer be the beautiful designs that we see? So why has not NASA done a test on this to see how long it would take a gas to dissipate in space? Or maybe, they already know and wish not to reveal that information.

when trolling around the deadly earnest site. Urgh. I bet there is a paper or three right there for this new journal!

Date: 2007/05/02 06:57:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dr Dumbski thinks that the latest news about the wiring of eyes supports ID.
Perhaps we need is some congressional research funds earmarked to tackle all these instance of “bad design” and show that they actually constitute great design

Yes indeed, but with English like "Perhaps we need is some congressional research funds" maybe funds for remedial classes in writting and wrotting would be more useful?

Date: 2007/05/02 08:04:57, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
on that same "eye" thread shaner74 seyz
How many is that for ID now? At least two big ones right? “Junk” DNA and now the eye?

Well, I make that a big fat zer0!

Oh well, get the darwin propaganda machine spinning and churn out some articles at PT claiming how this is old news and darwin predicted it all along

Remind me, shaner74, what ID scientists are doing research into "junk" DNA or eyes? Another winner for the "big fat Zero"!


Date: 2007/05/02 10:40:03, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I'll ask nullusalas if he'll join us here to discuss
that you can walk into a lab with a philosophical presupposition of ID and achieve quite some interesting results.

He's also on thesciphishow threads where so far, surprisingly, nobody has managed to come up with a worked example of the EF.

Date: 2007/05/03 03:07:24, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)
I hope that her kids don't tell anybody about heronicide when they pick up their prizes for the duck stamp contest this month. And someday I hope that they learn about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which was amended in 1998 to allow the fine for a misdemeanor violation of that act to range up to $15,000. And yes, if you want to know, Great Blue Herons are protected under that law, as well as various Kansas statutes.

You are such a dope, Dave.  My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.  Personally, I love watching them on the pond.  But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing.  We had been taking care of that pair of Mallards for quite some time.

My husband and kids are members of Ducks Unlimited so they know all the rules *quite* well, thank you.  And, they've also been through hunter's saftey.  My husband is a stickler about the rules.  

Of course, when the bible tells you that you have dominion over the earth, you really don't have to pay attention to those cheeky laws that restrict what you can do to the planet. When the Rapture comes, you get to leave this planet for the heathens to live on!

News flash, Dave...

I'm not a Premillennial Dispensationalist, so I don’t find biblical support for a first “rapture”, a "tribulation" period for the "heathens", and a “1000 year reign”.  In other words, I’m not a Tim LaHaye fan.  I take care of the planet like anyone else.  My husband built our home with conservation in mind.  It's a fairly large home, but he did quite a few things so that our energy usage is much lower than the norm.  

Also...I did not encourage Dave to do damage to Bilpey.  I was merely alluding to the fact that from the looks of both of them, Dave wouldn't need the dogs to protect himself from Bilpey.  

Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.  It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.

*yawn* fascinating...
No wonder you've not been around, such a busy, fascinating life.
So, you allow your kids to shoot at a protected species. Disgusting. What is that teaching them? Oh, man has dominion over all species. I fergot.

Date: 2007/05/03 06:23:56, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
DS says  
Chance worshippers are turning into a desperate bunch of wankers in a futile effort to prevent the study of Darwinian dogma from falling into well deserved disregard as no more than woolgathering.

let me correct that for you DS

Design worshippers are turning into a desperate bunch of wankers in a futile effort to prevent the study of intelligent Design dogma from falling into well deserved disregard as no more than woolgathering.


Date: 2007/05/03 08:43:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
ah, so now when we report FTK to the wildlife police at least they'll know who they are looking for!

Date: 2007/05/03 08:56:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,08:51)
Oh great.  Now I'm going to have to post pictures of myself because that is the single worst picture ever taken of me, and it's a couple years old....UGH!!

I'd seriously like to know who in the #### dug up that picture and how they knew it was me.  My name was not in that paper so it's someone who knows me...

Liz, Jack, Jeremy, Josh, Burt....speak up.  Someone went to some work to find that one.

welcome to the Internet FTK, welcome to the internet......

Date: 2007/05/03 10:07:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
FTK, is your real name Alice Wright by any chance?  :)

Just my first 10 second attempt to trawl the internets for information.....

Date: 2007/05/03 11:44:09, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 03 2007,10:07)
FTK, is your real name Alice Wright by any chance?  :)

Just my first 10 second attempt to trawl the internets for information.....

so we have a name and a face.

And "tracking people down" is typically done by religious nut jobs, not working scientists.

What are you so scared of FTK?


Date: 2007/05/03 11:58:33, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
FTK, you latest blog post notes  
Take a gander at these two 30,000 year-old ancient artifacts:

So, I guess a 10,000 year old earth is out then?

And while it's not nice to be outed (AFAIK Alice Wright may or may not be FTK's real name, anybody can come up with the same from 10 seconds in google) somebody who knows FTK on a personal level has done this. So, who have you pissed off lately FTK? Don't blame these people for your transgressions!

you people seriously suck

I think you'll find that the person who posted that picture joined today, posted a single post (that picture) and we'll likely never hear from them again. So I fail to see how you can blame the other members of this forum. Unlike the other places you visit (UD,OW) anybody can post anything they like here without pre-approval. So look to your own house first!

Date: 2007/05/04 07:55:57, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (slpage @ May 04 2007,07:24)
Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,15:34)
Looks like I wanted to kill someone....oh, yeah, I did.  The speakers were all from KU and die-hard liberal evolutionists.

Yeah, because all evolutionists are librals' and need to be killed.

Like Krauthammer and George Will and Guiliani etc...


What is it with conservative religious fanatics and their death cult?  Always wanting to go to war (as long as someone else has to go fight), always talking about violence.


yeah, because wanting to kill somebody for the views they are espousing is really scientific.

FTK, can you imagine how scientific debate would be if the protagonists were sitting there "wanting to kill each other".

I think you'll find only religion inspires such hatred towards your fellow man.

Violence is obviously something that's not far away from your mind, or DS' come to that. Threats to kill if property lines are crossed, desire to kill somebody for having a "liberal" viewpoint. Very Old Testament.

What a bunch of sicko whackjobs you are. And it only took a picture for the true you to come out on display for us all to see.

Next time, instead of sitting there thinking "I want to kill these people" you spend that time trying to think up cogent arguments that support your case. Oh, sorry, right....

Date: 2007/05/04 09:51:10, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
you asking me if i'm for real? That's funny.

Looks like I wanted to kill someone....oh, yeah, I did.  The speakers were all from KU and die-hard liberal evolutionists.

Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.

So you'd do what, set your dogs on somebody because they knocked on your door?
Also...I did not encourage Dave to do damage to Bilpey.  I was merely alluding to the fact that from the looks of both of them, Dave wouldn't need the dogs to protect himself from Bilpey

My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range

seems like violence is never far away from your thoughts.

Date: 2007/05/04 12:48:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
If you still want to use it at home, you'll need to keep your current ISP and get a wireless router instead of your current setup for your laptop to connect to. Unless your next door neighbour has open wifi running!
In a few years (wi-max is coming! range measured in km) you won't need to but typically wifi has a range measured in tens of meters.

It's not quite true that all interaction with the web will be insecure, but if you don't take steps to secure it, then it certanly will be.

As mitschlag says, you can also connect anywhere there is a open wifi access point, but typically you'll be paying via the nasal orifice for the privilage. See it as an extension to your current set up, not a replacement.

Date: 2007/05/04 18:08:49, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
On the UD thread Gigantic Bacteria has 300 Times More DNA than Human Cells Troutmac asks:    

What’s the thinking on the implications of this re: information and Intelligent Design? I often think of information in DNA in a way similar to that of, say, blueprints for a building. It’s a crude comparison, I’ll grant you… but it illustrates how information should relate to complexity.

You could say that a storage shed might only require one or two pages of drawings to describe how it’s built. And of course, you’d say that a skyscraper’s plans would fill up probably hundreds of sheets. You wouldn’t expect the storage shed to use more pages than the skyscraper, in other words.

In light of that this seems, on the surface, to be opposite of what we would expect to find from a design perspective. I realize that there are other factors, although I don’t totally understand them, that pertain to how the information is organized (number of chromosomes, etc.) that might explain it away. But I’m curious what you all think about it.


As we've suffered interminable repetitions of that claim, and in light of the recent Junk DNA that isn’t claims, how can ID answer Troutmac's question in a coherent manner? Or will it have as many answers as people commenting? Which will not be that many, true, but still an incoherent mess. If they can't have a consensus how can they think they can convince anybody of their position?
What did the designer intend for those 3 billion base pairs DS? Dr Dr Dr Dembski?

Edit: Also on that thread from SCheesman
How about searching the DNA for the coding to proteins etc. needed for eyes, flagella etc.?

If you found it, it would be slam-dunk victory for ID

If they sequence it and find no front loading for George Foreman grills encoded in the DNA would it still be a slam dunk for ID? Somehow I suspect Sal would find a quote.....

Date: 2007/05/06 17:56:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Date: 2007/05/07 10:23:34, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Dr Dr Dr Dr Dembski has staked his claim to be a defender of the "good" side
We discuss lots of things at UD. Global warming is important to the discussion over intelligent design because the same bag of tricks used to invalidate ID get used to invalidate criticism of man-made global warming. Certain sectors of science are notoriously corrupt, inventing threats and then setting themselves up as saviors so that anyone who resists their salvific efforts is branded as evil. This is an abuse of science, and UD will stand against it in whatever form it takes.

What a re-tread. Dembski stands against the abuse of science? Intelligent design is nothing but an abuse of science.
Note to DaveScot: Hominin Fossils Would Fill a Coffin Many Times Over
Laying the cluestick on DaveScot over dichloroacetate (DCA) and cancer
The Pastor Ray Mummert Award goes to…
animals raised germ-free could not have evolved in the natural world
and there is plenty more on scienceblogs alone.

So yeah, UD is really standing against the abuse of science.
And of course

Date: 2007/05/07 12:33:53, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
blipey, don't forget to post it all on teh interwebs when you are done dicussin.

Richard Dawkins continues to publish my past emails to him without permission and I continue to return the favor

Date: 2007/05/08 04:31:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Why DS believes what he believes:
I chose non-denominational Protestantism. It makes a great working basis for civil and productive society, the overhead is minimal (ask to be saved and you are saved), I was saved as a child so there’s nothing more that needs doing (once saved always saved), it’s a common religion where I live so its easy to fit in, and so there’s really no downside unless some other religion is right but I don’t have enough evidence to make that determination. Pascal’s Wager to the letter.

What a Tard. Link

Date: 2007/05/08 06:08:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
DS also says
When you describe someone unsure of whether or not there is a God as an atheist I feel insulted by it as I fall within that definition.

Doh. Make up your "mind" DS!

Date: 2007/05/08 07:48:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
This thread is to invite nullasalus to discuss the following quote he posted on UD  
this does show that you can walk into a lab with a philosophical presupposition of ID and achieve quite some interesting results.

Invite posted at sciphishow where there has been 0 progress on a worked example of the EF so far (and it's been weeks!)

Date: 2007/05/08 07:56:42, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,07:49)
Do any of you know any "reconstructionists" personally?

I had never even heard of the term until I became involved in this debate.  I then heard it repeatedly from Darwin advocates who feel the DI is a bastion of religious fruitcakes out to control government.

Where are these reconstructionists?  Do they center around certain denominations or what?  I truthfully have never met ANYONE who holds the view of these so called "reconstructionists".

way to avoid the question. Don't you have any comment on Lenny's huge post as to who the paymasters are at the disco institute?

What about the accusations made on redstaterabble?
Rousas Rushdoony, the Christian Reconstructionist theologian who was a mentor and father figure to Discovery's Daddy Big Bucks, Howard Ahmanson, is on record as saying the estimates of Holocaust victims is "exagerated."

In fact, Rushdoony, whose reading of the Bible led him to call for the stoning of gays and disobedient children, viewed the "exaggeration" of the number of Holocaust victims "as a violation of the Ninth Commandment that forbid bearing false witness."

I personally don't know any Nazis skinheads, but I'm quite sure they exist!

Date: 2007/05/08 08:03:55, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,07:49)
I had never even heard of the term until I became involved in this debate.  I then heard it repeatedly from Darwin advocates who feel the DI is a bastion of religious fruitcakes out to control government.

It seems that even if you read it in their own words, you still do not believe it. What will it take for you to see it?

Twenty Year Goals

   * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
   * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
   * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

And as pointed out at redstate  
the extermination of hundreds of thousands of supposed social undesirables

Not millions, but thousands? Way to re-write history there DI. Shameful. How many people were killed by the Nazi's FTK? Tens of thousands? Millions? Or are you ambivalent about those numbers too? Could be 10,000 or could be 2 million. Keeping your options open on that one too?

Date: 2007/05/08 08:07:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,08:04)
I was thinking about this a bit more...

I'm not sure what exactly this Ahmanson guy is involved in as far as "reconstruction" *at the moment*, but in regard to the money he supposedly gives the DI -- so what?  Should they not accept the donations?

That would kinda be like me telling all of you to reject Dawkins, PZ, Weinberg, et. al.  They have made it quite clear that they are using science as a means to put a stop to religious nonsense.  Should we reject their scientific accomplishments because their mission is not focused on science alone?  

Do you see my point?  I HONESTLY cannot believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. want to see a Christian theocracy.  That's just completely insane.  

At the religious level of the debate, there's nothing wrong with wanting people to consider that there is an ultimate source of our existence.  But that is much different than wanting to take control of the government.

Should they not accept the donations?
Would you accept money from a holocaust denier?

But that is much different than wanting to take control of the government.

Can you then explain why  
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
is in the document that defines the DI's goals?

Date: 2007/05/08 08:30:52, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,08:18)
way to avoid the question. Don't you have any comment on Lenny's huge post as to who the paymasters are at the disco institute?

Hey, oldman, back off.  I know how this plays out...I've been here before.  If I post something, all of a sudden there are numerous darts thrown and I'm expected to answer everyone immediately.  Screw that.  I don't have time for it.  I'll comment on what I'm interested in, and if I have time later to go back and comment on the rest, I will.

Ignore me if you don't like it, but if you start freaking and bellyaching from the get go, I'll ignore everything else you have to say as well.

Do what you like FTK. Ignore everything I say if you like. It don't matter to me <shrug>

Won't stop me from asking.

Date: 2007/05/08 10:18:46, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,10:02)
I mean, come on...even Dawkins, the atheist’s equivalent to Billy Graham, sees design in nature.  Science follows the evidence, yet for Dawkins his philosophical perspective won’t allow for him to do that.

There is no evidence for design in nature, except for that which has been "designed" by RM+NS (and others).

Therefore there is no philosophical viewpoint preventing people from "seeing" the design in nature, they just differ from you in thinking that RM+NS (and others) can generate it or not. You think  RM+NS (and others) cannot generate the "design" we see in nature. Eyes were "designed" by RM+NS (and others)  to allow their possessors to survive a bit better.

If you had evidence for design in nature being generated by systems other then RM+NS (and others), could you let Dr Dembski know what it is?

Date: 2007/05/08 12:43:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
I predict FTK will ignore the question.

Date: 2007/05/08 12:55:37, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Their personally credulity seems to keep them from expressing the grandeur and complexity of nature.  

FTK, what do you make of this
A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self-aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of some future state of chaos. The idea is named for Ludwig Boltzmann, whose ideas led to the proposal of such entities. It is often referred to in the context of the "Boltzmann brain paradox" or "problem".

The concept arises from the need to explain why we observe such a large degree of organization in the universe. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in the universe will always increase. We may think of the most likely state of the universe as one of high entropy, closer to uniform and without order. So why is the observed entropy so low?

Boltzmann proposed that we and our observed low-entropy world are a random fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe. Even in a state of almost equilibrium, there will be stochastic fluctuations towards in the level of entropy. The most common will involve only small amounts of organization, with greater levels of organization being more rare. Large fluctuations would be almost unconceivably rare, but this can be explained by the enourmous size of the universe and by the idea that if we are the results of a fluctuation, there is a "selection bias": We observe this very unlikely universe because the unlikely conditions are necessary for us to be here.

This leads to the Boltzmann brain concept: If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which is only just able to create a single self-aware entity. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enourmous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. This refutes the observer argument above: the organization I see is vastly more than what is required to explain my consciousness, and therefore it is highly unlikely that I am the result of a stochastic fluctuation.

The Boltzmann brains paradox is that it is more likely that a brain randomly form out of the chaos with false memories of its life than that the universe around us would have billions of self-aware brains.

Date: 2007/05/08 13:20:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,13:16)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 08 2007,12:15)
As you may have heard, the official platform of the Texas Republican Party now has a plank "to dispel the myth of the separation of church and state". That smacks of theocracy to me. Do you know people who would agree with that platform plank?

I predict that FTK will state that the separation of church and state is a myth, and then to refuse to back up her reasons for saying so.

No, I don't agree that the separation of church and state is a myth.  I think the socas is very much needed for people in our society to live together peaceably.

I saw a video by Barton one time, and thought that many of the things in it were interesting, but I didn't realize at the time that he wanted to disolve the much needed wall of separation.  

But, OTOH, I do think that there was a strong Christian influence during the time of our founding fathers.  Today we find that there is a loud movement from the left complaining about virtually everything religious, and we have found that the wall of separation is doing what it was designed to keep the peace between various groups and allow for religious freedom.

Though, I do think that many times people take the socas too far.  For instance having to take down displays of the 10 commandments, crosses, etc. from every freaking public display is getting pretty carried away.  At the time of our founding fathers bibles were in the public schools as was prayer.  Nobody complained then, but today it's as though some people want to rid the nation of Christianity altogether.  It's a shame that something so wonderful for some can be viewed as such a negative to others.

Out of interest, do you think Church and State are equal entities? Equal in stature and one is as important as the other?

When there is a choice to be made, and Chuch is pulling one way and State the other, who should win? Always? Or can the matter be decided on merit, case by case?

For instance having to take down displays of the 10 commandments, crosses, etc. from every freaking public display is getting pretty carried away.

Are you ok with other religions adding their Icons in that case? Tributes to the Koran etc?

Date: 2007/05/08 14:06:54, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,12:48)
I certainly don’t think that Dawkins writing in regard to  scientific issues turns a person away from God.  He sees the design, he just can’t accept it.  Very strange, IMHO.

Two books come to mind to explain what I mean...  More than Meets the Eye, by Richard A. Swenson, M.D., and Billions of Missing Links, by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.  These two gentlemen recognize the immense complexity and awesome design in nature.  Their writing relays this wonder of science to the readers and compels them to want to explore the subject even further.  While reading those two books, I went to the net many times to learn more about the subjects they discussed.

Evolutionists are BORING because they don’t write or teach with the intensity that those who accept design do.  If they did, they’d give credence to design, and WE CAN’T HAVE THAT!!

That book, More then meets the eye. Here is what Amazon has to say  
This forgettable survey of divine design in the natural world offers an awkward treatment of what could have been a compelling topic. Swenson, a physician and consultant best known to evangelical readers as the author of Margin, alternates between schoolbook science and pious observations in a style reminiscent of the Wonders of God's Creation films put out by Moody Bible Institute a generation agoAif lacking the vividness of the latter. The book aims to illuminate both the greatness and intimacy of God's involvement with creation, spanning astronomy, biology, physiology and the microphysical world. This is a delicate task, as some resonances between science and theology are more apt than others. Swenson's attempt to quantify Jesus' red blood cells is particularly inane ("Without a doubt, he shed at least one red blood cell for every human who ever lived," he assures readers). Swenson primarily focuses on Christian devotional interests, occasionally hinting at broader discussions about biological complexity and cosmological coincidences. But the largest share of the book is devoted to more or less direct expositions of specific sciences, mining their subject matter for impressive statistics and handles for (often strained) biblical allusions. Problems of disease or suffering are not acknowledged. Christian readers looking for theological reflection on human physiology will prefer Paul Brand and Philip Yancey's near-classic Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, which approaches the topic with notably deeper insight and compassion. (Nov.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

And before you say that anybody random could have wrote that, it was from Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly!
The other reviews contained some gems also!  
I groaned audibly at the segue from a discussion of the mysterious dynamics of the inner ear to a reminder that we should use our ears to listen because "softly and tenderly Jesus is calling."

Date: 2007/05/08 14:21:35, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
FTk, your other points - OK! Cannot argue with that!
Sure, slap a buddha right up against Christ if need be, but I don’t think that we need to hide our religious beliefs from the world, or secretly talk of them in the privacy of the church.

Can you imagine the fuss? Look at what happened when Keith Ellison wanted to swear in on the Koran!

"If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress," Prager wrote, adding that using the Koran "undermines American civilization."

And the rednek reaction?

My point is that yes, its simple to agree with such a thing in principle (equal time for all religious icons at the courthouse) but in practice it's only really the one "specially chosen" religion that gets the option. So agreeing really costs nothing, and so does nothing to progress the issue, and you get to sidestep the fact that there are no Korans at the courthouse (are there? Prove me wrong!).

Date: 2007/05/08 14:32:12, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,14:12)

I saw that specific review before I bought the book and almost decided to skip the purchase.  In fact, I did at first and then a few weeks later decided to go ahead read it and decide for myself.  

I'm glad I did.

I agree that there were a few sentences he could have left out, but they are few and far between.  You'd have to read the book to pick up on his style.

Ok, so that book seemed to have details (science?) about stuff, and then a Jesus tie-in (how unlikely is that then! Eh Eh?Must have needed Jebus).

That's passable, at least people are reading details of sciency type stuff. Better then nothing, I suppose.

My question to you is then, Ftk, why do you need an interpreter? Why do you need an intermediary to interpret the science for you? Why not just go directly to the "source" and get your science from a science book and your religion from a religious book?

Here's one

Readable without advanced degrees!

My question is then, why is the science in More then meets the eye ok, and the science in the book above not? If you have no "problem" with the science per se, then why not go to the actual source material?

Date: 2007/05/08 17:18:41, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,15:21)
1.  I'm not on anyone's "side" in if we're talking about evolution vs. ID or creation science.  I've always been very clear about my feeling that the "scientific community" is ousting the movement due to philosophical issues not scientific ones.

uh, hate to break it to you, but that exactly the position of the ID crowd, so, yeah, you've taken a side.

Of course I side with the ID crowd in that respect.

Of course. However, if it takes philosophy to combat "the movement" and science is not taken out of the cupboard and used (+7 Modifier), what does that say about ID? Philosophy vs philosophy in science class? Nah.

Are you implying that ID is more of an intellectual excercise with no practical use?
If not, where does ID beat conventional science? What trick is the "scientific community" missing? Why is "scientific community" in scare quotes anyway?

You see every time you say things like  
due to philosophical issues not scientific ones
it either means that the "scientific community" is not engaging the scientific arguments that ID is making, or that ID is making no scientific arguments. Either way if philosophical issues are being used to oust ID, the scientific issues should nonetheless remain (if they indeed exist).
The premier ID journal has not published in years. Where is this science you speak of?

If we can agree to call ID philosophy for now, thats something at least? Although it's a shame to drape that tawdry rag on that word.

Date: 2007/05/09 02:59:48, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2007,17:46)

Make up some small stickers that read “Pseudo” (using a personal computer & printer with mailing labels would be cheap & easy) and place them in front of “Science”. No need to let slightly flawed signs go to waste when the correction is so easy!  

So instead of

“Intelligent Design: War on Science”

you'd replace 6 characters with "Pseudo” presumably leaving the space after, for:

"Intelligent Design: Pseudo Science”

Please, no-one buy Dave any fireworks or sharp things.

Bourne adds
Get some students to correct the posters typo.

Yes Bourne. There are some students over at
Well, apart from the middle aged men anyway. I'm sure you can find one or two students? NO?

Date: 2007/05/09 03:05:58, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
So far, so poor. 3 comments on the new church'n'state thread.
The concept of “separation of church and state” seems to have replaced the plain language of the first amendment, which states that congress shall make no law promoting or prohibiting the establishment and free exercise of religion

I'd say that indicated the seperation was badddd.
Todd says  
I personally believe in a church which is seperate from the state but not subject to the state

So seperation is, what good? As long as the state can subject to the church? What?
DS says  
It’s still important to keep in mind that until 1868 it WAS just the federal government that was restricted. Morever, in historical context, requiring all the state governments to uphold the Bill of Rights was all about slavery in the South - the civil war had just ended.

and I read that as a no. Not looking so good huh Ftk? Well, early days yet I suppose.

Date: 2007/05/09 09:04:30, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,08:48)
Perhaps science will eventually discover even more evidence for design.

The difficulty is that as far as most people here are concerned (if not all) is that no evidence at all has been discovered so far.

What evidence convinced you?

Date: 2007/05/09 09:22:50, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
What evidence convinced you?

I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

Date: 2007/05/09 09:45:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:39)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,09:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2007,09:22)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
What evidence convinced you?

I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

FTK needs to read this again.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.....

Maybe you need to consider that your arguments stem from your own personal credulity.

hmm, so if you've not heard of it, it cannot exist. How arrogant.

Date: 2007/05/09 10:01:44, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Irreducibly complex molecular machines are in fact a prediction of "darwinism". Would you like me to prove that to you Ftk?

Date: 2007/05/09 14:01:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:13)
People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.

Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

my interpretation of this comment is that Ftk is alluding to the creationist tactic where they say "It does not  matter what physical evidence is found as evolution will twist and deform to accommodate it all anyway"

This is patently untrue, as previous posters have noted - there are innumerable things which if found would damage or destroy evil-ution.

Ftk, you are quite right, an old earth does not give time for evolution to happen. And if we've got an old earth, it's but a short step to saying Noah's flood really did happen (you don't you?).

If that's the case, I'd like to introcuce you to AFDave, who's currently arguing the case for a global flood/old earth with stunning sucess over at
Seems to be down atm.

Now, after all that do you still think evolution (or darwinism) is unfalsifiable?

And on your UD thread (full marks for the follow up!) you say  
The problem is that evidence for the Christian faith is rarely discussed in church settings

Fucking Monks, MONKS taught me for far too long when I was a child. MONKS. And if there was some "evidence" for Christianity, I be sure they would have mentioned it at the time. Really quite sure. rEALLY very quite sure indeed.

What "evidence" do you mean? The Bible? What else is there? Or do you count it as self evident as your design evidence? "DNA, it's obvious!"

Date: 2007/05/09 14:08:00, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:48)
Honestly, I have no clue how one cannot see design in nature, but then again, I realize that others feel exactly the opposite.  I don't know why that is.

Get in a spaceship and go out into deep deep space. Look at the nearest square meter of space. Chances are good that it's empty space essentially, with a few molecules here and there of various types thrown in. Not many. It's still essentially a very hard vacuum.

Please now point to the design that can be seen? The sweeping majesty of the designers design. This is what almost all space consists of - almost nothing. So if design is so evident everywhere you look, it should be there too, no?

If (poof) we assume for a moment a living being comes to awareness in empty space, and somehow survives long enough to think, would it also come to the conclusion that what it sees is designed? Inherently so? On what basis?

Date: 2007/05/09 14:14:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 09 2007,14:06)
FTK is an adherent of Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory(sic). So, yes, she believes in a global Noachian flood.

(Or did...)

Was the flood water salty or fresh? How did the salt/fresh water fish survive? :D

C'mon. Nobody really admits they believe that still do they? Not even the MONKS went that far.


Date: 2007/05/09 14:41:21, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:30)
Fucking Monks, MONKS taught me for far too long when I was a child. MONKS.

Fucking monks?  Monks that FUCK??!  I didn't know that was allowed.  Who did they fuck? Inquiring minds want to know.

well, US!

Child abuse by religious authority figures was (is) rife in the UK, often with the church's collusion. Often the chuch "failed" to inform the police.
Fortunately, not at my school, that I knew of.

Date: 2007/05/09 14:48:38, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....

No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.  There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

No matter....just a fucking fluke.  Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

Are you serious?
Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

Do you really think that's how it's really done? What do you do for a living FTK?

I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.
Like what? What out of place fossils do you know about?

There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

Could you elaborate? Whose side does it help? ID?

Date: 2007/05/09 15:09:12, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (J-Dog @ May 09 2007,14:38)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,13:54)
Actually, their worst nightmare is you... if you DO get educated and understand why they are scamming you, and what they are doing to continue the scam.

Scamming me into what?  If they don't believe what they put forth, what is the unlying devious plan?  A forced CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY??

Nope!  I think their scam is just making money so they don't have to get real jobs.  No big conspiracy, just some lazy slobs (mentally and physically) .

aye, fer real.

and fer the kids

dont wanna spoil the kids so

You'd think all that lot could between them get a few papers published? But no. There is far FAR FAR better money selling pony old shit to rubes for dirty dirty cash "me love you long time" dollars.

Date: 2007/05/09 15:20:14, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:52)
So, let me get this straight.  It's not a theocracy the DI guys are after.  It's the money!  Yeah, they allow themselves to be shunned by the scientific community because they have no better way to make a living!!  

They're pretty bright guys...I can think of better ways to make money than to scam Christians.  Honestly, Behe seems pretty darn sincere.  I'm anxious to read his new book, but I guess I'll have to wait until I can pick it up at the library.  DON'T WANT TO GET TAKEN IN BY THE SCAM!!!!!


It's funny how the evidence for gods existence always seems to fit so neatly in book form. Handy for the selling thereof.
Some research projects generate terrabytes of information. A second. Hardly the same sort of thing. Surprising that proof for god can be contained in so small a set of specified complex information as found in a book.

A bloke speculating about the way things are or could be is a poor replacement for real actual science. Like I said earlier in the thread, why not study these things directly, rather then needing an interpreter like Behe? There are plenty of biology books out there, whats wrong with them? No spin allows you to make your own mind up no?

Date: 2007/05/10 07:55:32, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,07:46)
It's really pathetic that you claim to know what's good for school children and yet you don't understand this.

I'll tell you what's really pathetic....the fact that you believe evolutionists are the only people who have a right to educate the public on these issues.  You instill the false notion that every scientist, doctor, etc. who rejects the historical inference of the ToE has the IQ level of a baboon.  

If it was just myself who wasn't able to grasp the "facts" surrounding the theory, I'd have to write it off as ignorance on my part.  But, unfortunately for all of you, there are plenty of extremely intelligent folks that feel the same way I do.  AND, THE NUMBERS ARE GROWING...

I'll tell you what's really pathetic....the fact that you believe evolutionists are the only people who have a right to educate the public on these issues.

That right has to be earned. As my earlier post noted, the public is being "educated" by your side already, in spades - there are plenty of books, dvd, soft toys that speak of the Creationist theory.
You instill the false notion that every scientist, doctor, etc. who rejects the historical inference of the ToE has the IQ level of a baboon.

In every field there will be people who disagree with the majority. Sometimes, those people are right and new insight will follow and old thinking is overturned. If your side is right, this this will happen of it's own accord. Bright people can be just as misguided as stupid people.
If it was just myself who wasn't able to grasp the "facts" surrounding the theory, I'd have to write it off as ignorance on my part.

By your avoidance of even the most basic questions (like in my Sig, what does fossilized dino marrow do for ID or evolution?) indicates that you've not grasped the facts surrounding the theory.
This dino marrow. Is it soft and sticky? Hard as rock? Somewhere inbetween? Do you even know? How does it's existence help/hinder ID or "Darwinism"?
But, unfortunately for all of you, there are plenty of extremely intelligent folks that feel the same way I do.  AND, THE NUMBERS ARE GROWING...

As the population of the world is growing, typically you can point to any group and say that they are growing too. Tell me FTK, is the proportion of ID scientists growing or shrinking relative to the "Darwinist" scientists? That's the only thing that counts.

How many of these ID scientists are called Steve?
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

Date: 2007/05/10 13:42:18, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
These remnants of germ cell viral infections take up some 8% of the human genome. It’s the presence of these at the same loci in closely related species, but weathered differently in the amount you’d expect for the time since the cell lines diverged, that I find as that last bit of compelling evidence of common ancestry. If common design instead of common ancestry then the designer seems to be using an existing species in situ as a template for the new species and that essentially makes common design and common ancestry effectually the exact same thing.

Yes, EVOLUTION is the way forward IDers!


the designer seems to be using an existing species in situ as a template for the new species and that

yes, it's almost as if the designer is slightly mutating existing species and then allowing them to breed. And then, obviously the enviroment ensures some kind of selection against, erm, anybody help me out here?

Date: 2007/05/10 18:05:23, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (argystokes @ May 10 2007,17:47)
I understand that you can't test for "Heaven and Hell", but I can guarantee you that the atheists here believe that science has ruled them out.

Well, I'm here and I'm an atheist. And of course science hasn't ruled them out -- except as physical locations in the sky and below the earth. I bet few disagree with me. Your guarantees are apparently worth very little, much like your scientific opinions.

I've read plenty of sci-fi and i'm sure some places could exist that we'd happily label heaven and hell. For lack of better names. Big universe out there! And old too!
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen

Or maybe we'd find them and they'd be indistinguishable from the real thing anyway. Some great books out like that

On Earth, a post-technological group of humans, pampered by servant machines and easy travel via "faxing," begins to question its beginnings. Meanwhile, a team of sentient and Shakespeare-quoting robots from Jupiter's lunar system embark on a mission to Mars to investigate an increase in dangerous quantum fluctuations. On the Red Planet, they'll find a race of metahumans living out existence as the pantheon of classic Greek gods. These "gods" have recreated the Trojan War with reconstituted Greeks and Trojans and staffed it with scholars from throughout Earth's history who observe the events and report on the accuracy of Homer's Iliad. One of these scholars, Thomas Hockenberry, finds himself tangled in the midst of interplay between the gods and their playthings and sends the war reeling in a direction the blind poet could have never imagined.

Date: 2007/05/10 18:11:15, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
In your twisted mind, ID = religion.  It doesn' has religious implications just as evolution does. I can live with evolution - all of it.   You in turn, are going to have to live with ID.    

Ah-ha, but you are forgetting one small thing! There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with!

Date: 2007/05/11 03:02:11, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,23:25)
Certainly the dates don't jive (never do), but obviously creationists believe that humans evolved from a "small group" of people who emigrated somewhere near Africa and spread throughout Eurasia.

Ever heard of a guy named Peleg?  

I'm sure you've heard the creationist take on “mitochondrial Eve”.

From the linked article
Without assuming that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 5 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.10

You know where they are getting that from? 10 referes to the notes, below

Yes indeedy. Proof positive that eve lived only 6000 years ago. No oringial research, just quotemining.


How utterly pathetic.

Date: 2007/05/11 03:12:29, Link
Author: oldmanintheskydidntdoit
ID research is now being carried out by SCI-FI authors says DS
There’s no reason to presume a designer would be limited to one virus nor does any single virus have to have an immediate effect. A long series of ERVs that lie dormant until a final one activates the whole lot into action is possible. This is so speculative (but quite possible) the best reading I can recommend on speciation via ERV mob