AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: thurdl01

form_srcid: thurdl01

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: thurdl01

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 'thurdl01%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2006/03/03 06:59:56, Link
Author: thurdl01
Long time reader, first time responder...

This is horribly cynical of me, but I thought it was just a matter of time until someone proposed a state (or even federal) constitutional amendment along these lines.  I've spent too much time watching the fight to keep homosexuals from marrying, and recognized the same patterns.  People argue a secular solution to a religious problem they're having in society.  Laws get passed.  Courts shoot down those laws.  Thus, amendments are needed.  I just hope to #### that antievolution amendments don't meet with the same success rate that the anti-gay marriage ones are having.

Date: 2006/03/14 01:34:38, Link
Author: thurdl01
Now, I'm new at this whole parsing the UDites thing...

"Dave Springer and I have been insulting one another for years. It is a way of life for us. Bright people are like that you stupid turd."

Now, he says that bright people insult each other, then insults Arden.  Therefore, he considers Arden bright.  Ipso QED.

Date: 2006/03/22 11:36:52, Link
Author: thurdl01
Here's what I wonder...considering that the story of Faust is an exploration of Christian ideals, if it was the ACLU instead of a group of fundy parents trying to get it out of schools...would UD suddenly be pro-Faust?

Date: 2006/03/28 01:29:34, Link
Author: thurdl01
I'm disappointed in myself.  UD is still perpetuating that the Alabama church burnings were the fault of "Darwinians" and...and I was actually surprised that he's sitting on that canard.  Why oh why did I think that DS (don't like that other abbreviation, cause it's uncomfortably similar to my own initials) would give a good darn that it's been shown there was no religious motivation (or, according to the stories I've read, ANY motivation) behind the fires.  Guess the cynicism isn't strong enough with me.

Date: 2006/03/29 04:15:33, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (Fross @ Mar. 29 2006,00:00)
3.  She used to play us a song that the local Xian radio played.  It mentioned something about Grandma coming from a monkey.  One of the lyrical lines sang "well tell me friend, where did the water, the sun and the scum come from?".  I've not heard it since then, but this was circa 1983.

So then "how did water evolve" wasn't a new piece of crackpottery, but has been around for two decades?

Date: 2006/04/06 02:49:53, Link
Author: thurdl01
I'm starting to think we need a serious division of labor here.  What with our plots to burn churches, kill most of the people on the planet, and destroy Christianity, there's a #### of a lot on our plates.  We should really start considering committees and such.  With the ultimate goal of making sure that the 10% of the remaining population has nowhere to worship...well...that's not something you want to mess up.

Date: 2006/04/19 06:27:14, Link
Author: thurdl01
Dang, I was hoping he had claimed it 19 and then only posted 18, just because one of his favorite misunderstands was the three rulings, one ruling thing.

Date: 2006/04/21 06:37:11, Link
Author: thurdl01
It's the new media.  "Balance" is defined as giving inequal sides equal time.  Kinda like the day after the Dover decision, the CBS morning show had Bill Nye and Jerry Falwell going at it head-to-head to give equal time to both sides of the issue.

Date: 2006/04/25 03:03:20, Link
Author: thurdl01
Ahh, poll data.  The single most meaningless argument "against" evolution.  And that's saying something, considering the mounds and mounds of meaningless arguments against evolution.  My favorite way of looking at public opinion polls comes from the fine Penn and Teller production called "Bullshit!"

Imagine a rabbit.  It's cute, furry, I believe the one on the show is black and white.  Now, let's all vote on the sex of the rabbit.  It'll probably end up about a 50/50 split, as ignorance of the subject leads to people making decisions based on their own preconceived predjudices.  But even if there was a clean majority one way or the other, it wouldn't actually affect the sex of the rabbit.  85% of the people voting could say it looks like a butch rabbit, so thus must be male, and be wrong.  However, a public opinion poll about the gender of the rabbit doesn't actually affect the fact of the gender of the rabbit.

Public opinion polls that show the country being "against" evolution do nothing to change the simple fact of evolution.  They just go to show that a frighteningly large percent of the population is sadly ignorant of the facts, whether by fault of their education or are even willfully ignorant, and are thus bringing their own preconceived prejudices to the table.

Date: 2006/04/25 03:48:57, Link
Author: thurdl01
Oh, and...

Dorudon -- I was only able to find artist's RECONSTRUCTIONS of this fossil ... do you have any links to pictures of what was ACTUALLY found?

Funny, took me very little search to find a link to this.  It's the University of Michigan paleontology site, showing the highlight of their collection: a quite complete Dorudon.

Date: 2006/04/25 05:20:19, Link
Author: thurdl01
You've gotten some very reasonable answers over in PT to that question (evolution is a very difficult concept to fully grasp, and represents some advance biology, combined with childhood religious indoctrination beginning much earlier than biological study and a willing ignorance among the far right), so what reason do we have to think you'll listen to similar answers over here?  And did you go look at the Dorudon skeleton you demanded?  Seriously, I've seen the likes of you before.  You demand answers, then you ignore the answers, then you demand them again.  Then, when people stop answering demands that you've repeated, you say "aha!  So you have no answer!"

Date: 2006/04/26 01:12:09, Link
Author: thurdl01
Is it too soon to link to talk.origin's refutation of standard creationist claims, or do I have to wait for afdave to trot out all the standard old canards first?

I mean, the canards he's promising for his next post, not the standard "evolution requires as much faith as creationism" canard, which I believe is CA612.

Date: 2006/04/26 05:11:09, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,09:53)
I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.   :)

To me this says you want us to argue with our hands tied behind our backs by not using established research and sources.  But that's not the way science works, and evolution is a science.  Science is built on the research and findings of those who have gone before.  If you're going to challenge us about the evolution of whales but then say that you don't want to be linked anywhere, well, what are we supposed to do?  Each and every one who wishes to refute you has to what...go dig up for him or her self a complete evolutionary history of the whale?

And can we trust that your promised arguments that will scientifically prove creationism are yours and yours alone, and that you aren't getting any outside help?

Date: 2006/04/26 11:43:10, Link
Author: thurdl01
Yes.  Please.  We're all waiting and anxious for the evidence that you've been promising us.  You seem to have plenty of time to build strawmen versions of Faid to knock down.  Surely that requires new effort, whereas I'm sure you already have all your evidence that's going to turn the scientific world on its ears.

Though...though why are you going to tell it to us?  Shouldn't you be rushing to the press?  To the nobel committee?  You can disprove 150 years of biological science, and you're going to waste it on us?  I guess we should be honored.

Date: 2006/04/27 07:23:35, Link
Author: thurdl01
So it's basically every other book that Ann coulter has written, attributing ideas she doesn't agree with to the Liberal Boogeyman, then hacking away at strawmen to show how verile she is?  All while making sure to show plenty of skin on the cover.

Date: 2006/04/27 07:26:48, Link
Author: thurdl01
So you ask for our opinions ("I welcome your comments!") but then get to hide behind a shield of "it's only a hypothesis"?  Swanky get up.

Date: 2006/04/27 07:33:03, Link
Author: thurdl01
Oh, and ID is about science, not politics, right?  Sigh.  I hate that scientific literacy has been painted by so many people as a liberal trait, when I know that there are people doing real and good science who fall on both sides of the political spectrum.  But as long as Ann Coulter and her ilk are going to paint science as liberal, well, it gives me one more reason to be proud to self-identify a liberal.

Date: 2006/04/27 08:27:26, Link
Author: thurdl01
So wait, this is the same DS who calls people on our side Ebola loving church burners, but the concept of blowing up the New York Times gives him no pause?

Date: 2006/04/27 15:29:43, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ April 27 2006,20:10)
No, Arlen, there are mountains of evidence ... maybe not evidence to your liking ... but there is evidence alright, and my guess is you've probably seen alot of it already ...

But that's OK, I'll be giving it again ...

We're waiting.

Date: 2006/04/28 01:25:31, Link
Author: thurdl01
You realize you've completely misread that post, don't you?  The good Rev Dr wasn't saying that for every one person converted to the side of reason three more get converted towards Creationism.  He's saying for every one who embraces reason, three more who are already on the side of Creationism show up to take that person's place.

Date: 2006/04/28 08:17:25, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,11:12)
Lenny's not infallible, just assumed to be a good "sample" of majority PT thought ... and I like his title ... Oh, and I forgot ... where should I send my interpretations of certain posts to have them receive the "official, approved PT interpretation"? :-)

You make it sound like I'm trying to apply some kind of spin on the statement, but I'm not.  It's just simple reading comprehension.  The good Rev Dr did not say

"And indeed, for every one that gives up ID/creationism, there are three or four more who give up on evolution."

He said

"And indeed, for every one that gives up ID/creationism, there are three or four more ready to take his place."

And the two statements are not equal.  "Ready" implies a pre existance, not a conversion.  This isn't about official interpretations or trying to get PT's approval on things, but I have so little doubt that you've misread what the good Rev Dr said that I have no hesitation to call you on it, even without his official take on it.

Just, ya know, get some reading comprehension skills, that's all you need in this instance.

Date: 2006/05/01 08:43:15, Link
Author: thurdl01
I kinda enjoyed it while reading it, but thought it would make a much better movie, so am looking forward to the Ron Howard version of it.  It wasn't great, but it kept you turning the pages, and I'll tell you how right---OH MY GOD!

::chapter ends::

Date: 2006/05/01 09:51:31, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (tacitus @ May 01 2006,15:15)
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 01 2006,14:00)
I didn't think it was that good, but then again I had already read the book that most of the mythology in TDC was lifted from so it ruined a lot of the surprises for me. I will go and see the film but I swear if it has a disclaimer at the start saying any of the stuff is true Im leaving.

That's funny.  There are a number of Christian organizations lobbying hard for a disclaimer at the start to say that none of the stuff in the movie is true!

Just for the sake of pure surrealism, I'm hoping for both disclaimers.

Date: 2006/05/01 11:22:52, Link
Author: thurdl01
Ad hominem attacks combined with a strong martyrdom complex.  Interesting strategy.  Do you expect it to win converts when you are lobbing general insults, though often veiled, at people?

Or is it your strategy, as you've demonstrated several times in this thread, that you will simply ignore any evidence that doesn't mesh with your predecided upon conclusion?  Or, worse yet, deciding to declare arguments that are damaging to your point of view as "off topic" even if they are in direct responce to comments that you, yourself, have made in the self same thread?  How can it be that we should be expected to stay "on topic," as decided upon by yourself apparently, when you are not bound by those same rules?  The issues that have been discussed above in this thread that you deemed "off topic" stemmed from comments that you yourself have made.  Thus, you are delivering the message that (A) you are allowed to be off topic but (B) no one is "allowed" to respond to your off topic statements.

I mean, I'm just trying to look at the rules that you're apparently setting up for us to "follow" should we hope to have our eyes opened by yourself.  Assuming that we are "men enough" to do so.  Because it seems to me that the pattern is going to be you ignoring, or simply labelling as "off topic," any evidence that is contrary to your position, while delivering veiled insults to anyone who dares to be on the side of reason in this whole debate.

To use your own terms, are you man enough to debate this honestly?  More simply: why should we bother reading and replying to you?

Date: 2006/05/01 15:33:04, Link
Author: thurdl01
See, that just goes to show that the rapid evolution needed to allow for the biodiversity we see today to have come from the animals on the Ark.  See, in a post diluvian world, everyplace would be more tropical.

(Oh come on, you know someone's going to say that and not be joking).

Date: 2006/05/04 05:06:22, Link
Author: thurdl01
Hmmm, I wasn't going to vote, after hearing some of the reasons given, but I'm just too #### curious about how anyone could still believe in geocentrism.

Date: 2006/05/04 17:14:27, Link
Author: thurdl01
But remember, ID isn't screw it.

Date: 2006/05/05 05:30:11, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,11:47)
To use your own terms, are you man enough to debate this honestly?


Just to remind you of your promise.  Cause quote mining?  Doesn't count as honest debate.  Even if you mined your own quote from the book rather than relying on a pre-mined quote, it's still quote mining.

Date: 2006/05/05 09:51:33, Link
Author: thurdl01
If doctors publicly state that they don’t believe that evolution has been proved, it allows those uf us with less education to feel more comfortable with our view. (When you get to talking with educated people, they often leave you feeling like a stupid little worm. When there’s some big boys on your side of the field, the field feels a lot less intimidating.)

But...wait...if someone has their PhD in Biology, and says that evolution is true, they just ignore it.  So...advanced degrees only count when the person in question is on their side?  More importantly: Why does the internal inconsistance and hypocracy of the ID movement still surprise me?

Date: 2006/05/08 04:20:13, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,09:55)
I am becoming quite proficient at searching the "Index to Creationist Claims" and the Article DB at Talk Origins now BEFORE posting my questions here, so as not to waste your time.

And yet, you chose to trot out Hitler anyway?

Date: 2006/05/08 08:38:26, Link
Author: thurdl01
So, AFDave.  What of that promise you made, when I confronted you early on, that you would argue with intellectual honesty throughout your dealings.  Want to admit that you were being slightly less than truthful, or did you just forget your promise.

Date: 2006/05/08 08:44:49, Link
Author: thurdl01
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?

That's an easy one.  Because your ideas are not within the mainstream of scientific understanding today.  It's that simple.

Now, here's a question for you, since I was nice enough to answer yours: Under what pretense do you believe yourself to be more capable of rendering a decision on this subject than 150 years of biological science?  Why do you, Mr. former air force pilot and engineer, feel that you have answers that are correct, even though they contradict the findings of people who have spent their entire professional careers studying evolutionary biology?  How are you so utterly conceited that you think your answers are the correct ones in the face of all the evidence that they have compiled?  How big, exactly, are your cojones?

Bonus question: Why do you ignore the fact that the chimp/human DNA thing is a PRETTY DURN BIG piece of evidence in favor of evolution, especially since it is the proof of predictions made before people even knew there was such a thing as DNA?

Date: 2006/05/08 08:52:18, Link
Author: thurdl01
You've provided nothing worthy of concession.  This isn't a negotiation.  It's not encumbant upon us to concede something just because you have.

Date: 2006/05/08 09:15:33, Link
Author: thurdl01
To trot out an over used but apt comparrison.  A recent poll came out that said barely 1/3 of questioned people could locate Iraq on a map.  Does that mean that:

1)  We should improve geographic education to make sure that Americans are more aware of the world around them or
2)  We should "teach the controversy" and show both sides of the issue, both those people who believe Iraq is in the middle east, and those people who pointed at Australia and said "I think it's around here somewhere".

Popular opinion about the validity of a falsifiable fact should not be used to dictate education towards ignorance.  If anything, it means that efforts should be redoubled in those areas that people are ignorant in.

Date: 2006/05/08 10:42:17, Link
Author: thurdl01
And as a followup question to Joe's: Why should it be your religion that the government subsidises the teaching of?

Date: 2006/05/09 09:24:51, Link
Author: thurdl01
Ah, so our troll found the rather infamous "list of scientists" that "support" creationism.  I was wondering how long it would take for him to get to that.

So then, here are some questions based on that for AFDave:

1) Are you aware of Project Steve?  Project Steve is a listing of scientists who have signed a document saying they support evolution, and right now that list is at 740 compared to your claims of 500 who are against it.  Now, that might not sound like much, it isn't even 50% above the creationist list.  Well, the name Project Steve comes from the fact that it only allows scientists named Steve or Stephanie to sign the list.  Thus, there is more demonstrated support of evolution among scientists named Steve than there is support of creationism among all scientists.

2) Are you using the AIG list?  Because if you are, are you aware that there are many many MANY problems with that list.

3) I believe you are going to inevitably claim that Project Steve doesn't count, because that's the only possible way out of admitting that the vast huge massive majority of scientists are on the side of evolution.  So, why are your 500 scientists greater than Project Steve's 740?  In addition, are you willing to account for the fact that Project Steve has a lot more star power to it, as it includes such famous Steve scientists as Hawking?

4) Are you aware that NEITHER the creationist list of scientists NOR Project Steve even matter?  Why's this you ask?  Because both of them are a prime example of argumentum ad verecundiam, which is a logical fallacy right up there with argumentum ad populum (which is what your attempts to democratize science fall under).  In fact, Project Steve was intentionally set up to show that.

So.  Still want to stand up your list, still think it represents some kind of devistating attack under which evolution whithers?  Or are you willing to conceed that it's based on a logical fallacy, and that even if it wasn't a fallacious line of reasoning, it would be trumped so hard by Project Steve?

Date: 2006/05/11 02:26:36, Link
Author: thurdl01
I'm completely shocked that UD didn't have some post about Panda's Thumb being down.  Usually DS seems to do some kind of gloating happy dance whenever PT has the slightest technical glitch.  Because...I guess somehow it proves ID.

Date: 2006/05/11 06:31:08, Link
Author: thurdl01
I think the real question is whether any of the UDites have reported Padian to the DHS yet.

Date: 2006/05/11 07:50:59, Link
Author: thurdl01
Have you, and I'm just asking out of the sake of curiosity, ever heard of the concept of a metaphor or similie?  I'm just trying to establish a baseline to work from, and want to know if I have to first explain those concept before I then point out the use of such devices by Alberts and others?

Date: 2006/05/11 08:05:27, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,13:59)
Trivial!  Trivial!  I just choke on that!  To me, biological systems are the most profound antithesis of "triviality" that one can possibly imagine!

Want to know what the two most important words in that statement are?  "To me."  To you, someone who is untrained in biology and has more of a background in engineering, they are the antithesis of triviality.  However, to trained and career biologists, it is trivial, and the word "machine" is entirely a metaphor.  Do you see what I'm getting at here?  Very often in your posts you're using statements showing that you are arguing from personal incredulity, however that's not a position that has any grounding in this kind of debate.  That you don't understand something doesn't serve as an arguement against it.

I, for example, can't get through even two paragraphs of quantum theory before my brain starts doing backflips and the words just become meaningless bunches of letters.  I do not understand how quantum physics works.  However the difference is that I do not then say "well, they must all be WRONG then.  There's no way that dern cat can be alive and dead!"

This all gets back to a question I've asked before, and gotten no answer on: Why should your amateur and uneducated opinions be worth more than the expert opinions of entire fields of science?

Date: 2006/05/11 08:15:56, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,14:08)
This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!  

The ID movement has been telling us to stay tuned for 20+ years.  You've been telling us to stay tuned for several days.  How long are we supposed to wait for the earth shattering research that ID is doing?  Or are you willing to admit that ID is doing nothing but PR, and you're doing nothing but stalling?

Date: 2006/05/11 16:05:12, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (thurdl01 @ May 11 2006,14:05)
Why should your amateur and uneducated opinions be worth more than the expert opinions of entire fields of science?

Just in case you missed this question.

Date: 2006/05/12 01:14:22, Link
Author: thurdl01
"Church Burnin’ Sheet Wearin’ Ebola Boys "

Wow, DS has upped what evolutionists stand for.  Irony is that he says this while calling for tollerance.

I don't know if it's because I'm getting strung out at work, and got way too little sleep last night, but this whole Padian thing is really starting to piss me off.  They acknowledged that they got their facts wrong, and then actively demonstrate that they don't give a shit, and they're just going to keep libeling and defaming Padian.  How does any human being get so completely warped that this seems like a way to pass their time?  How can anyone's life be so sad that they delight in making up phrases like DS's above?  Pissed off, and depressed about the state of humanity, that's me this morning.

Date: 2006/05/12 05:06:00, Link
Author: thurdl01
You're expecting DS to make SENSE?

Date: 2006/05/12 09:24:17, Link
Author: thurdl01
Yeah, point #13 certainly seals it, since one of his favorite things to harp about is his perception of the plantiff's legal team being excessively large.  And certainly don't put it beneath him to defend himself in the third person, hasn't he conducted conversations between two different names before?

Date: 2006/05/14 04:43:53, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (Faid @ May 13 2006,20:06)
So... If someone thinks that people who kill one person they hate, are as evil as people who kill many persons they hate, then that someone is obviously prone to homicide himself, somehow. I see.

Well, we talk about Lies For Jesus, but Murders For Jesus has been a much longer standing tradition.

Date: 2006/05/15 04:01:57, Link
Author: thurdl01
So, in short, you've given yourself the Perfect and Ultimate Out.  If common descent is obvious, well, that's just common design.  If a structure works, well, that's obviously the will of the Intelligent Designer.  If a structure doesn't work, well, that's just original sin.

And at that point you wouldn't need to care about any evidence that's provide to you, as you could just pigeon hole it, and be all happy that you're "winning".

Do I have it right.

Date: 2006/05/16 09:24:58, Link
Author: thurdl01
I think it boils down to just one thing: Humor is subjective.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:36:28, Link
Author: thurdl01
Steve Holt?

Date: 2006/05/17 01:20:34, Link
Author: thurdl01
Oh my god!  Creationism is taking over religious institutions!  ALL IS LOST!

Date: 2006/05/17 02:42:44, Link
Author: thurdl01
And...and I don't have a problem with someone like that.  He accepts creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith, rather than deluding himself and lying to others about it being something that can be backed up with science.  Faith is an amazingly powerful thing, and more power to Wise.  If you believe, if you truely believe, that's the get out of jail free card, and no one can touch you.

It's only when people start to try to contort the physical world around them into their beliefs that problems start.

Date: 2006/05/17 03:21:34, Link
Author: thurdl01
Guess I missed that line the first time 'round.

Date: 2006/05/17 03:33:03, Link
Author: thurdl01
...whom I'm sure will have a difficult time understanding why they're different from Wise.

Date: 2006/05/17 03:57:11, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,09:51)
(1)  One reason I am here at PT is to see if there really is anything substantive to evolutionary arguments.  
(4)  Someone has correctly observed that I am an apologist for YEC.  I'm glad someone has figured this out because it is true.

Do you fail to see the inherent contradiction in these two?

Date: 2006/05/17 06:23:51, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 17 2006,11:39)
People are trying to find ways to defeat bacteria once and for all, can you please explain to me how the assumption that it is a designed entity will help?

Step one: Identify that they're designed.
Step two: Identify the designer.
Step three: Beat the designer up until he calls them back.
Step four: Profit!

Date: 2006/05/17 18:40:24, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 17 2006,23:32)
I will put money on Dave thinking he is "winning" because we insult him so.


He's already basically stated such, if I recall.

Date: 2006/06/09 09:58:36, Link
Author: thurdl01
So once again rules that apparently don't apply to you should apply to others?

Date: 2006/06/09 13:58:32, Link
Author: thurdl01
Ah, I see, by calling their side "intelligent evolution" then actual biological study becomes "stupid evolution."

*eye roll*

Date: 2006/06/12 16:48:48, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 12 2006,19:25)
AIDS cures fags...

ahhh, cue the right revered Fred "feltcher" Phelps:


to think this guy actually has a significant following.

I thought it was under 100 people, mostly within his own family.  They're just a very VOCAL and hateful under 100 people.

Date: 2006/06/15 15:38:52, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 15 2006,17:27)
I just wish one of these days he'd give us a sample of the "massive evidence for a global flood" he says he has. So far he's given us exactly no evidence to support any of his contentions, but how long can his streak continue?

Of course the obvious question is whether you actually have to hear it.  I'm sure it'll begin with the favorite chestnut of many different cultures having a flood story in their mythology, and end with seashells on top of mountains.

No, wait, it'll end with him declaring that he's won.

God help me, I've finally reached the point where I've followed enough of these threads where I could probably argue YEC better than some of the people who believe it.

Date: 2006/06/16 07:50:21, Link
Author: thurdl01
Could be worse, I've only got a degree in BSing.


Date: 2006/06/20 04:46:45, Link
Author: thurdl01
Who doesn’t want wheat and corn growing in Alaska and Siberia while bananas and oranges thrive in North Dakota?

::Raises hand::

Date: 2006/06/27 12:42:32, Link
Author: thurdl01
There are over 300 specific prophecies about the Messiah -- all fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.

But see, that's using the Bible to prove itself, which is a fallacy.  If you want to validate prophecy, you have to present prophecy that can be validated through observation, and not through later chapters in the same book.

Otherwise, I can say that the theories in the Da Vinci Code are true, because later chapters revisit the theories as major plot points.

Date: 2006/06/29 06:41:33, Link
Author: thurdl01
He sure does hate judges!

Interesting how he looooved appointed judges leading up to Dover...

Date: 2006/06/29 08:03:37, Link
Author: thurdl01
I'm just trying to figure out the over/under on how many times UD will trackback to the Numbers thread.  It's already up to 4.

Date: 2006/06/29 08:08:44, Link
Author: thurdl01
Aren't ratios meaningless when one of the numbers is zero?

Date: 2006/06/29 16:00:13, Link
Author: thurdl01
Ya know, when I think "quality laptop," Dell is not the first company that comes to mind.  Or the second.  Or, really, the third.  And now I know why.

Date: 2006/07/03 03:51:46, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ July 03 2006,08:02)

And yet you've still refused to offer any reasoning why they are laid down in a set order that is verifable through other means instead of appearing in a single jumble.  Did animals line up to die in the correct order?

Then again, I guess you yourself said it.  You have to be a half-wit to see your proof, which is why apparently only you can see it.

Date: 2006/07/24 08:56:36, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ July 24 2006,14:21)
So THE FACT OF A GLOBAL FLOOD is very well established.

Bolding something doesn't make it true.  Repeating it ad infinitum doesn't make it true.  Backing it up with verifiable facts makes it true.

Guess which of these three you haven't done.

Do we need a new name for this kind of fallacy?  Perhaps agrument ad boldeum?

Date: 2006/08/09 09:45:02, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (stephenWells @ Aug. 09 2006,15:18)
You clearly didn't attempt to check a single one of the very comprehensive list of references, did you?

Well...none of them was World Book.

Date: 2006/08/15 09:15:04, Link
Author: thurdl01
Back when all this started, back before AFDave's record got stuck on the "circular reasoning" groove, I asked him one simple thing: was he "man enough" to debate this with intellectual honesty (phrasing I chose because he was challenging if other people were "man enough" to debate him).

He said he was.

I just like to bring that up every now and then, because apparently...he isn't.

Date: 2006/08/15 09:19:01, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 15 2006,11:07)
For instance, I’m starting a website ( — not yet up and running)

What's the point of that?  Does cyberspace really need a vast collection of new posts with no comments?  ???

Also, isn't that the project that he claimed was the reason he stepped away from UD and handed it over to Davetard to begin with?  That was what, about 8-9 months ago now?

Date: 2006/08/16 02:22:37, Link
Author: thurdl01
So out of curiosity I went to "overwhelming evidence" in hopes of being overwhelmed.  Instead, it says "site under development" then crashed my browser.

Date: 2006/08/17 04:24:40, Link
Author: thurdl01
So is it easier to win debates when you get to be the one to define words?  Cause I notice that seems to be a popular tactic.  I mean, there's the whole "just a theory" bullshit that gets thrown around by people who don't understand the scientific use of the word 'theory".  And now we've got Davipoo here still not quite able to grasp the geologic use of the word "primary" it would seem.

So therefore, I've decided that two can play at this game.

I choose to define the phrase "Stay tuned for more!!!" as "I'm a completely ignorant, disingenuous, and dishonest person and my ideas have been destroyed several times over."

Date: 2006/08/18 08:00:57, Link
Author: thurdl01
How long has Anne Coutler been a mysoginist?

Date: 2006/08/23 03:28:29, Link
Author: thurdl01
Ahh, and once again, it's the difference in the sides.  Pharyngula makes a mistake, and then corrects that mistake on the 20th at 11am.  WingNut decides two days later to publish the mistake, but not publish about the correction and apology.  Gotta love it.

Date: 2006/08/29 02:39:10, Link
Author: thurdl01
It's interesting, the relationaship between the Catholic church and the ID/Creo movement.  Mostly the US movement to censor evolution is run by the same kind of fundamental protestants who don't consider catholics to be "real" christians, or worse yet, pagans.  Don't believe me, check out the writings of one Mr. Jack Chick on the subject.  Therefore whenever the Vatican comes out with something in support of evolution, it's easy to ignore, because it isn't "their" religion.  Yet I'm sure you're right that they will fall ass over teakettles rushing to say "SEE!  SEE!  POPE SAYS ID!"

Of course, when has the ID/Creo movement ever been known for internal consistancy of message?

Date: 2006/09/06 02:20:39, Link
Author: thurdl01
I don't know whether to be depressed that Florida Republicans could possible hand Harris the primary or be happy that it should make an easier task for the Democratic candidate than if a competent candidate had won.

Date: 2006/09/08 09:02:26, Link
Author: thurdl01
Yet I bet he was one of the people up in arms over the Reagan docudrama on CBS a few years back...

Date: 2006/09/14 07:09:00, Link
Author: thurdl01 Dan Brown is an authority?

Date: 2006/09/18 06:26:07, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 18 2006,11:44)

I'm told by a certain Mr. Behe that all these things are inside cells. That's powerful evidence. Some might even say overwhelming.

Odd.  I've always heard that cells are not a dump truck, that they're a series of tubes.  Or am I thinking about something else?

Date: 2006/09/25 05:22:14, Link
Author: thurdl01
I'm planning on getting a toy dump truck, carrying around a bunch of cardboard tubes, and explaining the internet to people.  Shame it isn't quite as topical anymore.

Date: 2006/09/26 02:58:30, Link
Author: thurdl01
So here's a question.  Did those mathematicians make their great contributions BECAUSE they were Christians, or did they just happen to BE Christians?  Are you going to sit here and tell us that they wouldn't have made their contributions if they had been Buddhist, Muslim, or *gasp* athiests?  I'm just curious if this is actually the point of view you're coming from, because it's a completely indefensible position (and I mean that quite literally), and reveals an inability on your part to recognize a distinction between coincidence and causality that makes this whole attempt at debate futile.

Date: 2006/10/05 05:27:31, Link
Author: thurdl01
And this is truly how it should look if Evolution were true.  

No.  That's how it would look if your misinformed strawman interpretation of evolution was true.  Unfortunately for you, you do not get to define evolution, as we are going by the established scientific principle in this debate, and not your feverish imaginings.

Date: 2006/10/09 07:33:51, Link
Author: thurdl01
Anyone want to see more of the George Gaylord Simpson quote?

"In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."

Funny that AFDave, champion not-quote-miner, chose not to include the previous paragraph.  Of course, I'm sure that's because whatever website he copied his quote mine from (I'm certainly not going to credit him with the time and dedication needed to come up with FRESH quote mines) didn't want to show that paragraph either.

So.  AFDave.  What do you think we mean when we call you a "quote miner"?  And why do you think you aren't?

There is nothing but NOTHING more intellectually dishonest than quote mining.

Date: 2006/10/09 07:56:05, Link
Author: thurdl01
So the answer is apparently that you are so intellectually dishonest, so tied up in this whole thing, that you are going to actively defend mined quotes even when presented with their context?  And you expect us to have even the slightest bit of respect for your methodologies as a debater?  You are a sad, sad individual.

I'm curious if you'll share your source for your quotes, because I know you aren't mining all of these on your own, as that would require you to read the entire articles and contexts.  If that were the case, you would know that you are quoting sentences out of context with the express purpose of making the authority in question appear to take up a position contrary to the one he is (my definition of quote mining).  So.  Cough it up, lie-boy.  Where are you getting your quotes from?  Which "in their own words" book did you get your hands on?  Do you even care that the book or site has lied to you?

No.  Of course you don't.  Because it has facilitated your lies to others, and you see that as the higher calling here.

You make me sick.

Date: 2006/10/11 05:59:37, Link
Author: thurdl01
And shame on you for spreading lies about Gish and Morris.  These guys are careful, honest scholars.

Best laugh I've had all month.  Thank you.

Date: 2006/10/11 06:40:21, Link
Author: thurdl01
Aha, but what you said that I laughed at was that Duane Gish is an honest researcher, when really, he shows about the same level of intellectual honesty as you do.  But then, you would thus have to support him as honest or else annoint yourself and dishonest, so I suppose I should not be surprised to hear you say so.  And, naturally, anything that I now say will be either ignored by you, or brushed aside as "nuh-UH," as has been your practice anytime you have been shown wrong in this debate.

So what I do now I do for any lurkers that are unaware of the history of Duane Gish's reputation and how it stands up against claims of him being an honest researcher.  I care not if AFDave disagrees with me, because I know he will, because he has to.

Duane Gish makes his reputation by travelling the country and trying to set up debates with scientists.  This is, at the first, a dishonest practice, because this is not how science is done.  Science is done through a process of expirimentation, peer review, and publication, a process that Gish abandoned when he left the Upjohn company in the 1970s.  Before that, he actually spent a decade doing legitimate scientific work, and being published in legitimate scientific journals, so he does have a demonstrated history of knowing how science is meant to be conducted.  He just seems to choose not to.

Instead, as I said, he tries to set up debates.  Which is not science.  Debates are, instead, showmanship and PR, both of which seem to be what creationists try to fall back on, since science is not an option.  His debates are set up so that usually he is setting the rules, so that he is often not actually debating biological scientists (which isn't entirely his fault I will conceed, as most serious academic types know who he is, and know why debating him is a danger) and even so that he can set the audience, which is often bussed in from area churches to present him with a sympathetic ear.

And then...the Gish Gallop begins.  He uses a scattershot approach where, for 45-60 minutes, he will throw out as many possible topics as he can, knowing full well that something it takes him 10 seconds to say could very well take 10 minutes to refute, and that's if the scienist he has duped into debating knows to come prepared for that refutation.  He has a history of making and repeating claims that he has been shown to be wrong.  For example, he has long claimed that paleontology has not come up with a viable evolutionary lineage for Triceratops, though one does exist, and it has been shown to him.

If anyone is legitimately curious about Gish, they can read up on his methods here. and a response to Gish's rebuttal of that article here.

Of course, I fully expect that AFDave will not accept any of this, and that he will stand by Gish being the paradigm of intellectual honesty.  The fun thing is, I don't care what he says.  Someone who is willing to stand up for quote mining as a practice is someone who's opinion is not worth considering in any intellectual situation.

Date: 2006/10/11 07:09:24, Link
Author: thurdl01
One more time ... this chart is a more accurate representation of what YOU believe, not what I believe.

No.  That chart is a strawman.  And an especially blatent one at that.  What you are presenting is the theory of evolution as how you want it.  And I can understand why.  The theory of evolution, as you keep presenting it, is quite laughable and probably quite easy to debate against.  Of course, that's why they're called "strawmen."  Instead of debating actual evolution, you've built a effigy out of straw, put a sign reading "evolution" around it's neck, and you now want to kick the #### out of it.  Worse yet, you seem to expect your opponents in this debate to support your version of evolution instead of the actual one.

I've stated this before, the last time you tried to redefine evolution for your own purposes: Unfortunately for you, you do not get to define what evolution is.  Science has already done so.  And that is the definition that is being used in this debate.

Date: 2006/10/12 05:03:34, Link
Author: thurdl01
Well...brick and mortar churches are at least often aesthetically pleasing.

Date: 2006/10/13 03:18:20, Link
Author: thurdl01
Wish I could say that's the first time I've seen someone try to conflate linguistic and biological evolution.

Date: 2006/10/16 09:56:15, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 16 2006,15:45)
I see a wee gap in the argument here, Dave...

And that's really where the whole thing falls apart.  The actual response to any mined quote is just to logically think about it for a moment.  Usually we're dealing with people who have made a career of evolutionary biology (they're the most fun to mine quotes from), and the argument that the quote mine tries to make is "here...these 20 words taken out of context completely invalidate the rest of their produced scientific work."  Anyone who thinks about it realizes that's nothing more than manure.  Half a sentence of Ager or Dawkins don't make them creationists, and quoting more of the piece and saying "nuh-uh" doesn't make AFDave not a quote miner.

So.  Instead of this quixotic attempt to get us to accept quote mines in the place of evidence, why don't you get back to trying to present real evidence.  Not that that's been any more successful, but it might be viewed with a little less burning scorn from all involved.

Date: 2006/10/18 04:17:53, Link
Author: thurdl01
Evolution by gradualism, evolution by "punq eq", evolution by saltation ... it does not matter HOW you try to tell your fairy tale, Improv ... it is not convincing.

And here's the crux of the problem right here.  What Dave doesn't seem to realize, or is unwilling to realize because otherwise he'd recognize why his quotes don't say what he desperately (almost pathologically) needs them to say.  There are now and have been in the past legitimate scientific debates as to exactly how evolution happened, and you have mentioned three of those above (I've taken the liberty of removing your facetious call to "voo-doo" from the quote for the purpose of this post).  However, here's the interesting thing.  Even though at various times people have come down in each of those camps, none of them have denied the underlying tennant that evolution HAS HAPPENED.

There's the important part right there.  None of them disagree with evolution, they just may disagree on the processes that got us to the point we are today.  You've presented quotes where people express their doubts about various other schools of evolutionary thought, and have interpretted them as an attempt to cast doubt on all of evolution, and such is simply not the case.

You have, therefore, taken quotes and, by removing them from their context and provided an incorrect interpretation, attempted to make them say something that they don't.  Do you know what that defines?

And there's the problem.

Date: 2006/10/18 04:44:41, Link
Author: thurdl01
All you have to do is reference the lists at AIG, ICR and DI.

Project Steve anyone?

Date: 2006/10/20 09:16:26, Link
Author: thurdl01
I took a swig of cough syrup a few minutes ago, so I'm not sure...does this thread look like this for everyone?

Date: 2006/10/23 09:59:23, Link
Author: thurdl01
Personal incredulity does not a winning argument make.

Date: 2006/12/01 08:20:03, Link
Author: thurdl01
President Teddy Roosevelt did not swear the oath of office on a Bible.  He, instead, affirmed it without a Bible present.

Did the US survive?

Date: 2007/01/03 14:54:14, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,14:34)
Show some honesty, quit misrepresenting me, etc. etc.

And once again, as has happened many times in this thread, the pot has called the snow drift black.

And another lurker in the dying hours of this thread popping his head out to thank all of those who tried to get a point across to someone uninterested in hearing that point.  The information has been wonderful, and the fortification of those posting has been commendible.  For awhile, I was against closing this thread, as it granted AFD the martyrdom that he has so sought, but there really has been less and less point to it as the months have dragged on.  Well done, all, and it is somewhat nice to know that this thread is down to just double digit replies left.  I'm glad to do my part in killing one of them.

Date: 2007/01/04 07:18:37, Link
Author: thurdl01
Quote (CloneBoySA @ Jan. 04 2007,02:05)
PS I can't help feeling that all Dave's have been given a bad name, by Afdave and DaveScot...

As a fellow David, I know the feeling.  Glad to know there's more of us on the correct side of this whole thing.  Maybe we need a sequel to Project Steve.