The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

User talk:Scorpionman

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and respect all usertalk content as private.

Personal attacks are not allowed on the CreationWiki. Do not post such comments.

--Mr. Ashcraft 16:56, 27 November 2006 (EST)

I'm quite sorry. I didn't mean to be rude.


Hi Scorpionman, and welcome to CreationWiki! I hope you enjoy your time here. As you have probably noticed, we only have a few regularly contibuting editors. The more we have, the faster we can grow in size and "notability". Personally, I find the lack of creationist participation in such projects to be sad. Those of us here contribute because we faithful to our beliefs and wish to show others the absurdities of evolutionary thought.PrometheusX303 14:50, 22 April 2006 (GMT)

Well, as more users enter, we will certainly grow. I will certainly contribute a great deal to this useful project, and I hope more will. God bless, Scorpionman 15:27, 22 April 2006 (GMT)

I would like to thank you for replying to my comment under Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I would like to apologize. I was attempting to reply to your reply when I must have hit a wrong key or something and now I'm afraid I may have erased your comment. I assure you this was not intentional, and I would like to know how to repair the damage. Thank you again for taking the time to reply.--Drlindberg 17:01, 27 November 2006 (EST)

I can't recall everything of what I wrote, and I don't think I want to rewrite it word for word as a lot of it was uncivil. I'm not sure how to repair the damage; that'd be something you should contact Mr. Ashcraft above about how to do. In the meantime, if you have any questions don't hesitate to e-mail me or post them on my talk page. Scorpionman 12:13, 29 November 2006 (EST)


Your lack of civility has you once again in violation of CreationWiki policy.

::Why don't you take your evolutionist views to Wikipedia or EvoWiki? Why here? This is a Creation encyclopedia, not one for promoting evolutionism. If you're going to make comments on here, please be reasonable and stop trying to force atheism on the users here. Thanks. Explain why you clearly aren't mistaken. Scorpionman 23:50, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Before telling our users that they dont belong here, perhaps you should read our policy. While you are at it, take special note of the policy section on discussion since your recent posting related to media had absolutely nothing to do with the article in question.

Be advised: further use of the discussion pages is likely to result in permanent suspension of your CreationWiki account.

--Mr. Ashcraft 09:44, 31 January 2007 (EST)

What about my discussion page? Will I get banned for using that? Scorpionman 22:18, 31 January 2007 (EST)


I'm sure that Mr. Ashcraft would not want us to use article talk pages to engage in commentary. I don't think he would object here.

I am extremely leery of publishing an e-mail address on a page that might be protected from public editing but not from public viewing. I can already read the hate mail, complete with scatalogical and pornographic references, that I am likely to receive from evolutionists the instant my e-mail becomes known.--Temlakos 18:11, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I usually don't publish my e-mail address either; DrLindberg is pretty much the only wiki evolutionist to know my e-mail address, as well as John Stear. Fortunately, neither of them have sent any crap to me, but John is an evolutionist extremist who uses vulgar and obscene terms to describe creationists on his site. DrLindberg is okay, but I don't really like to take a lot of time to discuss things with him since he, as well as most other evolutionists, likes to use creationist errors to try to undermine my faith, but of course he explains away or denies evolutionists doing those same things (i.e. underhanded techniques to get their theory across). If you'd rather have my e-mail, I think I've already given it on this site so it probably won't do much if I tell it to you.
But we should probably stay on this or your talk page, just to be safe. Scorpionman 19:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)


A small minority of scholars reason that Jesus couldn't have existed. Their beliefs are that Jesus was simply borrowed from various pagan myths. However, this claim is simply absurd because virtually every historian from around that time period agrees that He existed. The more prominent claim is that Jesus was simply a very good man, rather than the Son of God. This is also absurd, because not only do the above historians agree that He existed, but that He performed the miracles the Bible discussed and that He was ressurrected, just as the Bible says.

You must provide references. --Mr. Ashcraft 12:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out this wild claim Mr. Wong makes on this site, he states that since 37% of americans believe in Theistic Evolution that they are part of what he calls "somewhere in between evolution and creation". This Wong guy is one real character, why should we even take him seriously?

--RichardT 19:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You took the words right out of my mouth. Ha ha, there's no reason to take him seriously at all. Scorpionman 16:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Well neither should we take the totality of evolution as serious, yet this whole site is for that very reason. I think the creationtheory rebuttal serves a great purpose. You would be suprised how many times I have talked to anticreationists who use the same logic, it is good to have a foundation to build on through the Creationtheory rebuttals. --Tony Sommer 16:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

You're absolutely right. I'm sure that Mr. Wong, if he sees this site, will dismiss this all as bigoted nonsense. Of course, that's just an example of his hatred and personal bias. Scorpionman 16:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Transitional fossils

I don't know off the top of my head what we've got on Tiktaalik and the other forms you mentioned--the ones that the evos tout as "transitional forms." I know I hear about all this on OriginsTalk, and it's one particular stumbling block that one particular evo (who shall remain nameless) always mentions.

I'll tell you what I will do, though: I'm going to check with Mr. Ashcraft about putting that list out on the Help Wanted list, to get everybody working on it.

In the meantime, I suggest looking in the Talk.Origins archive. I suspect that we've responded to much of this before.--TemlakosTalk 05:59, 26 February 2008 (PST)

Case Against Faith

Hey there, I've come across a site that I found at least interesting if not stupid ([1]) and was wondering if anyone here was interested in a rebuttal. He's got a large critique of Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator and since that deals mainly with evolution and design I thought it might be appropriate for a refutation on this site. What do you think? Scorpionman 07:23, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

My first thought is that we ought to ignore sites like that. The only reason we have a series of rebuttals to, say, Talk.Origins is that they have already achieved a certain amount of prominence. If we start trying to swat every specimen of Order Diptera we run across on the Web, we will rapidly run out of time to carry out our most important mission, which is: Building the scientific case for Creation, and a Creator.--TemlakosTalk 11:10, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

I agree Temlakos. The site just piggy backs on Lee Stroebel's success as an outstanding defender of the Christian faith. Thank the Lord that he and others such as me and you Scorpionman give countless others help with defense in theirs. --Tony 22:05, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
I think this site probably deserves some attention, unless of course they're just repeating what Talk.Origins has already put out. Scorpionman 10:24, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

At first glance, "EpicIdiot" might seem to be taking a slightly different and more refined line than does Talk.Origins. Yet in the end they repeat Talk.Origins' favorite tactic: calling us liars without getting any more specific than that. Such things do not deserve the dignity of a reply. My caution against looking for Diptera specimens to swat, still goes.--TemlakosTalk 14:50, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

You ever see this article from the Discover magazine? Kinda disturbing Scorpionman 17:58, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

Bear in mind that Leslie H. Orgel, one of the co-investigators cited, was also the co-author, with Francis Crick, of the paper proposing directed panspermia as a model of life's origins. That might or might not be significant.

This might stimulate a discussion of a dedicated mission to Europa, and specifically a mission to punch a hole in Europa's ice and deliver a submersible to the liquid ocean that NASA seems to think lies deep to the ice. But that no more proves "evolution in ice," or anywhere else, than does Tiktaalik.--TemlakosTalk 18:10, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

Useless theory

Check out this article from "Creationism versus Science:" Intelligent Design is Completely Useless. Does the analogy he provides work or not? I'm not a biology expert so I can't tell but it makes sense. Scorpionman 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I found the analogy. Basically the writer is copping out. The one thing that his essay never addresses is this: Neither he nor any other common-descent man can explain how one species changed to another, or how one genus changed to another. The car analogy fails for another reason: we can actually trace the driver if he wants to be traced. No one has ever traced the birth of an individual of a brand-new genus from parents not of that genus. (Or whatever the created kind taxon level is.)

But worse than that, he can never explain how the car got built! Or the road, either! To carry his analogy to the logical conclusion, the road "just formed"! And the car "just formed"! Or it managed to assemble itself out of wagon parts!

Typical white-smock doubletalk. Even Talk.Origins has tried better than that, though we have a response to their argument, too.--TemlakosTalk 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


The mudskipper is quite an interesting amphibian (or fish? Hard to say). I can see why macroevolutionists would seize on this species as an example of a "transitional form." But what I see is an animal uniquely and ingeniously adapted to a habitat that is flooded half the time each day and exposed to air in the other half. Isn't God wonnderful?

But a lot of conditions need to be satisfied before you can get fish changing to mudskippers and then to true amphibians and on up the chain. And one of those conditions is the breaking of the inter-kind barrier. That we haven't seen.

And why wouldn't God have made a creature like that, seeing that He made the Moon, the very cause of the tides that would create "intertidal habitats"?

Macroevolutionists will seize upon anything that looks strange, but is still well-adapted, to try to support their interpretation. But they still have to make a priori and ad hoc assumptions in order to get from mudskippers to "goo-to-you."--TemlakosTalk 13:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one possibility I can think of, indeed it was speculated by the very scientists who found the skeleton! I can conceive of it being a bird. But why would a bird like Archaeopteryx have teeth and claws if it was "just a bird?" Wouldn't the claws, teeth and tail be the "leftovers" of reptile-to-bird evolution? Scorpionman 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember one possibility that many people refuse to consider: Archaeopteryx is just as likely to have been an out-of-place artifact, and perhaps a cruel one, of a society that we already know was inordinately cruel.--TemlakosTalk 02:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Velociraptor spp.

What about the fact that they've found bumps on a velociraptor skeleton that seem to show it had feathers? The same person is flouting this too as "evidence" of dino-bird evolution. Scorpionman 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What about 'em? If Velociraptor really did have feathers, then mightn't it have been a bird after all? People can come up with all manner of scenarios, but that still doesn't prove anything. Or give them enough time to "do evolution" in. The strongest evidence contrary to the uniformitarianism/abiogenesis/macroevolution paradigm is coming from astronomy and geology, anyway.--TemlakosTalk 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


Concerning homosexuals: If by "toleration" one means not throwing them in jail for engaging in their peculiar acts, I can think of far better use of the cell and bed and exercise yard space than that. But if by "toleration" one means "acceptance as natural and normal," the answer that your debate opponent gave is "No." If a man is sick, it serves him severely ill to tell himn that he's not sick. And the sickness goes far beyond the infections he might contract, infections that are secondary to the basic, primary problem.

Which is about as far as I can go and still keep this site family-friendly and high-school friendly.--TemlakosTalk 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the BBC article and that so-called study:

  1. The thesis of the article smacks of biological determinism, something of which no one has ever convinced me. Furthermore, most female homosexuals insist that theirs is a political choice. Only male homosexuals ever hide behind that kind of trumped-up excuse.
  2. I can name you one man who had a plethora of older brothers, and far from being homosexual, he came a cropper because he could not keep his heterosexual urges in check: King David. Nor does the Bible record that any of the sons of Jacob and Leah were homosexual. (Hint: Judah was not the last.)
  3. "There is still the question of the mechanism." Meaning that he has no idea what he's talking about.
  4. The social differences between adoptive and natural siblings are far larger than the "study" authors give them credit for.
  5. The study does not explain "only boys" who wind up homosexual.
  6. Evidently it never occurred to the study authors that the "babying" of the youngest brother is a common hazard.

This whole thing is Tea and Sympathy all over again.--TemlakosTalk 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Well, I see that the Tea and Sympathy crowd are at it again. My, my, my—what might Actress Deborah Kerr think of this? But about those hormone imbalances: First, like a gene for a propensity for addiction to ethanol, those congenital influences can only predispose. They cannot determine. Second, I would advise any pregnant woman to avoid anything that would knock her hormones out of balance. I've seen some work that suggests that soy is one of the worst offenders in this regard, and particularly the unfermented soy of which Americans consume far too much, in the belief that they are eating something healthy. We see soy in infant formula; we see tofu; the list goes on and on. And the major point is this: the isoflavones that soy contains are estrogen analogs. The work I've seen blames soy in the diet for precocious puberty in girls and delayed puberty in boys, not to mention an overly slender and "unmanly" body habitus.

Then again, maybe what we're seeing is what Paul predicted for the end times.--TemlakosTalk 16:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you misunderstand me. Regardless of any hormonal predisposition, an adult is responsible for overcoming sinful predispositions. That is what the word adult means. But our fellow travelers are no longer insterested in behaving like responsible adults.--TemlakosTalk 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


I'm assuming you've seen's a lamebrain's "satire" of the "Casino of Life" animated segment. Notice any problems in his reasoning? Scorpionman 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I have seen Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Obviously, so has the one who made that video linked above. But I see two problems with his reasoning:

  1. At a mininum, his argument is incomplete. Admittedly the segment quoted didn't give the specific odds. But if the "rebuttal witness" is really serious about computing the minimum time for someone to win the game at least once, then why didn't he do so? In the end, all he is saying is, "Trust me; the universe has been around plenty long enough to satisfy the Law of Averages."
  2. In the face of evidence that the universe is young, his argument falls to the ground. In fact, you remind me that I really need to visit the "young universe evidence" article and add to it the links to my articles on "dark matter" and "dark energy"—though, before I do, I ought to write the article that describes John Hartnett's solution to the light-time-travel problem. Let it suffice that the universe is not that old and indeed could not be that old. And if anyone's imagination is limited, it is that of the evolutionists, not the creationists.--TemlakosTalk 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And on the subject of Kent Hovind: why does that other videographer mention him, when Ben Stein doesn't in his production. He can't even claim the excuse of not having watched the Expelled movie, because he quoted from it almost exactly.--TemlakosTalk 10:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)