AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: snorkild

form_srcid: snorkild

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: snorkild

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2007/09/19 05:16:45, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,19:23)
Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer

Danish astronomer named Ole Rřmer.

Why does Setterfield exclude Huygen's (late 17th century) figure based on Rřmer's data: 220,000 km/sec?

Why does he ignore Bradley's (1728) figure: 298,000 km/sec?

And Fizeau's (1849): 313,000 km/sec?


Date: 2007/10/24 05:58:30, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (HalfMooner @ Oct. 24 2007,03:31)

Truely brilliant!

"Is it a bird? Is it a jet plane? Is it Uranus? No! It's NGC 7293!"


Truely brilliant!

"Is it a bird? Is it a jet plane? Is it Uranus? No! It's the Disco Institute!"

Date: 2008/11/25 07:06:57, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Reed @ Nov. 24 2008,23:54)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 24 2008,13:08)
Don't play dumb.  If you see a neatly stacked, perfectly square pile of bricks, do you not immediately know that it is beyond the capabilities of nature to stack them in such a way?


God piled them with His Fingers!

Date: 2009/01/22 04:06:23, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Lowell @ Jan. 20 2009,16:29)
Ooo Bush sworn in on a Freemason's Bible?

Really? I thought he was sworn in on "The Very Hungry Caterpillar".

Date: 2009/01/22 04:49:46, Link
Author: snorkild
The Canadian box office figures can be seen here:

Date: 2009/02/25 02:40:14, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:59)
I've explained the mechanisms of creation as well as anyone here has elucidated the mechanisms of evolution.

LOL sure!

Life was built by an omniscient being who was able to bring atoms together via an as-yet-unknown method.  He used his vast knowledge of chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, the future and the past to design successful biological systems which would be functional, adaptive, self-maintaining, elegant, efficient and evolvable.  He used the as-yet-unknown method to implement said designs into life.  This method was probably similar to the one we humans use on a macro-scale when we build houses, bridges, cars and the like.  It involves the orderly joining of parts into a whole.

That's a lot of unknowns in critical places.

Tell me: Did God insert the defect vitamin C gene into every Old World Monkey species, or did he create the broken gene only once, and then left evolution to do the rest?

Date: 2009/10/02 06:09:38, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.

From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:

"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."

Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals.

Date: 2009/10/05 16:03:27, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 05 2009,15:46)
*Not that there is anything wrong with that...

Your army instructor really said that?

Date: 2009/10/19 13:38:45, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:12)
got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.

So now I gotta go back through 50+ pages and show you what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot.

Why don't you just repeat the answer?

It can't be that difficult, can it?

And don't forget to bookmark it, just in case.

(I have followed the thread, and as far as I remember you evaded the question rather than answering it).

Date: 2009/10/22 13:55:26, Link
Author: snorkild

A darwinist belt buckle?

Date: 2009/11/02 07:31:24, Link
Author: snorkild
If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith?

Doesn't the Bible say samething about those who leads people away from Christianity?

Date: 2009/11/13 04:06:04, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,03:49)
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.

So Lenskis bacteria are all dead?

Darwin and Wallace based their theory mainly on their study of modern species.

But you wouldn't know that, would you?

When you first made a fool of yourself on IIDB some years ago I assumed you was about twelve years old. You don't seem to have grown older since then.

Date: 2009/11/15 04:39:37, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 15 2009,04:18)
Studying the change over time requires the object that is being studied to be in ones hand. The biological life of it. All that is studied is a cast of the outside of a creature. This is not biology. there is no life systems involved but mere pictures of details of a former life system.
So evolutionary biology is a subject of history. Fine with gathering data and making conclusions but not the same methods and tools of biology. It can't

Is lying OK in your religion, Robert?

Please address the fact that Darwin's and Wallace's theory was based mainly on the study of live animals.

Please address Lenski's study of evolution in populations of living E coli.

I'm certain that even if fossilization didn't happen, science would conclude that evolution and common descent were facts.

Date: 2009/11/20 12:36:49, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 20 2009,10:13)
Thylacine is sadly exctinct, yes. There are still tasmanian devils, though...

Did they leave Hell to go to Tasmania before or after the Flood?

Date: 2009/11/30 15:47:05, Link
Author: snorkild
Maybe he is human but has a made a bet with a garden rock over who knows less.

Date: 2009/12/03 06:01:17, Link
Author: snorkild
In your essay you speculates that the "environment" is responsible for placentals going totally marsupial.
Do you have any suggestion as to what environmental factors has this effect?
Why hasn't humans and dogs become marsupials? Your essay doesn't seem to answer that question.

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,02:14)
I am confident I'm right and believe classification sysems one day will correct themselves with or without my help.

I don't think you should worry. Classfication systems may well change, but not because of you.

Date: 2009/12/30 06:53:30, Link
Author: snorkild
Hi Robert. What did the Lions (with or without pouches) eat when they left the ark?

Date: 2010/01/15 05:56:01, Link
Author: snorkild
I see a dead CG kangaroo on that picture.

What is Rubberts non-marsupial version of a kangaroo?
A hare? A rabbit? a pogo stick?

Date: 2010/02/05 05:32:57, Link
Author: snorkild
[quote=Robert Byers,Feb. 05 2010,02:56][/quote]
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.

Why are differences to the head important and differences to the tail unimportant?

doggy actions

lol. All science!

Date: 2010/03/12 03:43:45, Link
Author: snorkild
If Robert was capable of understanding what he is writing, I believe he wouldn't write things like this:
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,01:38)
Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.

Date: 2010/03/24 13:12:27, Link
Author: snorkild
Methinks mr. Ray weasel'd away.


Date: 2010/03/24 17:55:53, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
an honest man such as Dr. Dembski

Have you been reading the posts in this thread?

Dembski's actions before the Dover trial doesn't strike me as typical for "an honest man".

Date: 2010/03/24 18:03:21, Link
Author: snorkild
Is cdanner one of the disciples from UD?

Is the course requirement #4 fulfilled if he produces 10 posts of bitching and moaning, or is some minimum of factual content expected?

Date: 2011/01/14 06:11:02, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (arobotsa9 @ Jan. 14 2011,03:31)

2011! = ~7,0191549339325416461017375829088e+5771

Date: 2011/03/02 16:27:26, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 02 2011,15:54)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 02 2011,15:39)
those are furries?  i thought real furries were like louis' mom.  

No, furries wear costumes.  Louis' mother doesn't, and is more appropriately classified as a Sasquatch.

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 02 2011,15:39)
those are furries?  i thought real furries were like louis' mom.  

No, furries wear costumes.  Louis' mother doesn't, and is more appropriately classified as a Sasquatch

So she's the out-of-focus blur behind the comfy chair on the family photos?

Date: 2011/03/22 16:14:25, Link
Author: snorkild
Why don't you ask Dawkins?

PS Is it the real Kevin Miller, or has one of you regulars stuck his hand up Millers' a** for the lulz?

Date: 2012/04/02 07:32:43, Link
Author: snorkild
I can't find the book on Springer's homepage. Do I lack searching skills?

Date: 2012/11/07 02:32:58, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 06 2012,17:23)
Now we know:

137 Mammals on the Ark

Isn't Jesus Science wonderful?

Oh dear Bobby Byers isn't going to be happy!

The Tasmanian wolf has got a kind all by itself and is no doggie at all.

Date: 2013/05/21 15:20:20, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2013,07:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2013,03:57)
Quote (Driver @ May 20 2013,14:33)
Two wordclouds of UD commenters. The first one is easy.

Slightly more difficult:

1. batshit
2. ?????

I'd say the second is Byers, but I don't think he comments at UD.

I think that in a Byers' wordcloud half of the words would contain some kind of spelling error.

Date: 2013/08/20 08:35:15, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2013,07:01)
My day-job just got very busy. I have no time for anything else, including defamatory trolls from the usual nutcases.

Gary's employer accidentally discovered this forum?

Date: 2014/10/06 05:30:51, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2014,02:18)
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:    
give us your young people . . .

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:    
give us your young people . . .

Ah, but we're not shown how very much younger the audience was at the beginning of the presentation.

Date: 2014/12/13 16:39:11, Link
Author: snorkild
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 13 2014,12:47)
that is mind blowing.

Evolution news and views:  
Now, a massive genetic study published in Science has confirmed the fossil evidence that birds arose explosively. According to an article titled, “Rapid bird evolution after the age of dinosaurs unprecedented”:
Okay, it all happened really fast, and so do explosions. (If it happened really slow, we would call it evolution.)

See the problem? Explosions aren’t just very fast, they are usually destructive. Yes, they can be constructive, but only if controlled for a constructive purpose like blasting a subway tunnel (intelligent design).

see? an "explosion" of birds is bad because explosions are bad, unless it's a controlled demolition, therefore intelligent design.


The destructiveness of these explosion have long been known:

i hav a question about te camban expotion, i can see how crocdiles and the cmbrian explotin that killed te other diosaurs, but what about elephts? They ouldn't all hve bee in the water at the time it happed. And the were too big to be undrgrond with thesmall ratty mamals from wo we evolved. Why d we stll see ephants toay/