Image 01
profile-image

Soyburg

Joerg Gastner
test
...I Know better than you (II)...

Wallpaper Other 26 comments

Score 50.0%
Dec 16 2003
This is such a great wallpaper, it will sit on my desktop for years and years to come. Please relate everything you know about the significance of ducks! And where can I send the cash? Please advise. - Dec 15 2003
Unto Us a Child is Born

Wallpaper Other 26 comments

Score 50.0%
Dec 08 2003
The second amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

While that is a rather nice quote, I would like to remind you that this relates to US constitution. Not Chinese, Vatican, Indian or Saudi Arabian constitution. You may be a citizen of the US, but on the internet, you are just one among many others. How about this quote?

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.

-- Thomas Jefferson
- Dec 08 2003
Unto Us a Child is Born

Wallpaper Other 10 comments

Score 50.0%
Dec 08 2003
Flaming and objecting are two different things.

To flame as defined by the Jargon Dictionary is

flame     [at MIT, orig. from the phrase `flaming asshole'] 1. vi. To post an email message intended to insult and provoke. 2. vi. To speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude. 3. vt. Either of senses 1 or 2, directed with hostility at a particular person or people. 4. n. An instance of flaming. When a discussion degenerates into useless controversy, one might tell the participants "Now you're just flaming" or "Stop all that flamage!" to try to get them to cool down (so to speak).

I have to assume that you meant definition #1 and #3.

Please also read definition #2. - Dec 08 2003
If a flame thread begins, I *will* delete the entry and re-enter it. It's up to you! Vote your opinion of the work.

Don't you think that you kind of ruin the voting system with this approach? And isn't deleting all the entries and going back to tabula rasa, once someone objects the art or the subject, a bit infantile? - Dec 08 2003
"Fearfully Made"

Wallpaper Other 49 comments

Score 50.0%
Dec 10 2003
While agreeing with the rest of your post, I'd like to say that it is mostly geological and palaeontological evidence that tell us about the early earth. Archaeology starts whith the appearance of human beings which (hope I get it right this time) happened on Saturday, according to the bible. - Nov 21 2003
Oh well... 6 days then.

Saying *fini* is all polite and nice. But you see, there are lots of other comments around. If mine offend you, then just look at some others and find something to your taste. Thanks for keeping kde-look.org an open website. - Nov 19 2003
Sure, I have the problem. Can't look beyond my cultural context. Am childish and/or adolescent. Yes, I keep the world from being perfect. That's me.

I can't even spell tolerance. - Nov 19 2003
I have to assume that you answered to my post and by accident chose the wrong hyperlink. You appear today in this forum but unlike Tim I am not inclined to think that you therefore are him.

Are you not exactly what you don't like? If you can't tolerate Timbrown527's wallpapers becasue it's a different concept of life?

What makes you think that I don't tolerate Tim? Please quote. There's an FAQ on the net. It's called "learn to quote". Just google and thou shalt find it.

What do you mean by the last 200 years of science?

Tim frequently says that the multitudes of organisms didn't evolve but were made by some guy called god. I have to applaud him for not yet having said that it all happened in 7 days.

I'm not saying I agree with timbrown527, but I would be hard pressed to say the proof exists there is no god and timbrown527 is wrong.

Please get the facts right. I never mentioned having proof of the non-existence of god. Please quote me if you think I did. I always said that I have yet to see proof of god. If you don't get the difference, I can't help you. Nonetheless, Tim has as of yet not produced any proof of god. Which makes god a topic for belief but not for fact or knowledge. That is how science works. Show me the facts and it is scientific. If you say that I can not proof the non-existence of god, then you are right, but it is still not scientific. That's all I am saying. Tim likes to put god forward as a fact while I am merely saying that a fact needs a proof. Which he can't produce. I am getting so tired of this...

Another thing I would ask is, why are you so hostile to timbrown527 and christian concepts?

Am I hostile? I think not. Please quote me. Otherwise I have to assume that this is just your gut feeling, which is then only based on a subjective appraisal of the facts and not the facts themselves. Which makes you a prejudicial person.

Do they not have the same right as human beings to experess their opinions and idea's?


You make it sound as if christians were no human beings. Which is not very nice. You seem very intolerant. Getting back to your question: I think that everyone should be allowed to say everything. In an ideal world, that is. On the other hand, if I insult someone on national tv, can he sue me and win? Yes he can. Why is that? Because one's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. That is my definition of tolerance. You are free to say or write anything as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And I will back it and fight for your right to do so.

Let's imagine I put up a wallpaper of Osama bin Ladin here. Would it hurt the feelings of the relatives of the people who have suffered from his terrorist operations? I think so. I wouldn't want that here, because that is where my tolerance ends, because it hurts someone.

Let's imagine I put up a wallpaper of a B-52 here. Would it hurt the feelings of the relatives of the Afghan civilians that were killed in Operation Enduring Freedom? I think so. That's why I wouldn't want it here.

Let's imagine I put up a wallpaper of Jesus shagging a sheep. Would it hurt the feelings of the people who choose to believe in Jesus? You bet it would. That's why I am not doing it. I want to stress the fact that there are things which make other people angry or hurt their feelings.

Tolerance is saying "it does offend me, but I think free speech is more important than my feelings." Tim doesn't realize that he is hurting lots of feelings. And he doesn't seem to wonder about where the expansion of his personal freedom starts to hurt the feelings of other people. There were several posters who actually put their hurt into words.

So if he is taking it for granted that he can post and say anything he likes, shouldn't I assume the same? Why are you picking on me instead of the guy who can not look beyond his cultural context?

If your definition of tolerance is different of mine then please consider the following wallpapers:

A propaganda picture of a suicide bomber
A picture of a rape
A picture of Kennedy with his brains out
A propaganda picture of Kim Yong Il (or whatever his name may be)
A propaganda picture of a guy being cruzified
A propaganda picture of Hitler or a swastika
A picture of Stalin

All of them are bound to hurt someone's feelings. I guess that is why we see so little of them. If your tolerance is boundless, then I bow to you and praise you, but most people are not that detached from their cultural life yet. Have pity on them and me and understand that some things are bound to provoke a reaction. My guess is that Tim is here merely for the sake of provoking a reation. And that, I don't like. Not in a forum which is dedicated to eye candy. You registered here today and your opinion is a contribution to the everchanging, ever different structure of this website. Please think about the people who have lived happily without Tim for a couple of years. And think about me who thinks that he is taking it a bit too far. It's in my opinion not intolerance, rather homedefense. - Nov 18 2003
If tracks and trains is your allegory, then please show me a picture of the train. - Nov 18 2003
If the wallpaper offends, there are many others to look at.

It's not the wallpaper that I am offended by. I am offended by Tim's tendency to deny the last 200 years of science. And in the case of this particular wallpaper it's the organization he credits the picture to that offends me. You may hold a different opinion, but please visit their website and read a few of their articles about women, family, evolution, gay marriages, separation of state and church, ... Maybe then you'll get a notion about the kind of tolerance that these people (and I see Tim in that corner) are preaching.

Tolerance is all nice and good. But I really don't like tolerance to be exploited by people who have little tolerance for different concepts of life. Does that make me intolerant? - Nov 18 2003
You ask about belief and then you go on to ask for proof. Which kind of defeats the purpose. Either you believe something, or you know it.

I know of no proof for the existence of god or satan. So I have a choice between believing that they exist or not to believe it.

And since you asked: My personal choice is not to believe. - Nov 18 2003
Could you please explain what 4D means? Also I appreciate that you have given due credit to the source of the image.

I went to their website. Did you know that they are anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-separation-of-state-and-church and anti-free-media? - Nov 17 2003
Fellowship of the Unashamed

Wallpaper Other 83 comments

Score 50.0%
Nov 20 2003
Tacitus wrote about Jesus in AD 116, some 80 years after the alleged death of Jesus. There are some facts which suggest that he based his mention of Jesus on secondary (christian) sources.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

I read only one book by Tacitus. "Germania" was his account of the Germanic tribes. It is inaccurate or wrong in a lot of places. Which might be due to the fact that Tacitus never travelled to Germania. That's what I call hearsay. Not really fiction, because he only reported what he heared about that place. He didn't make it up but write down what he had heard about it. He was a better historian when he wrote about Rome, but then there are those who think that he had a tendency to include a bit too much social gossip in his works. - Nov 21 2003
I always thought Bob Moorehead wrote this great christian poem. I guess I was wrong. - Nov 19 2003
Double Trouble

Wallpaper Other 27 comments

Score 50.0%
Nov 20 2003
Hmmmm...A physicist can't be an authority on evolution...interesting...especially considering how evolution relates to the laws of thermodynamics...

Sure. And a butcher can be a great authority in the field of brain surgery, because he works on brains all the time... I think it is a bit more complicated than you might realize. - Nov 18 2003
Double Trouble

Wallpaper Other 8 comments

Score 50.0%
Nov 15 2003
However, an increasing number of top evolutionary scientists are coming forward affirming that the evidence points to intelligent design and/or creation, not evolution...

H. Lipson is not a top evolutionary scientist. He is not an evolutionary scientist at all. His filed of expertise is optics and x-ray diffraction. It seems you quoted from this article:

H.S. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, 31 Physics Bulletin 138, 138 (1980)

Which I could not find online. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to it? Thanks. - Nov 16 2003
Blue Balls

Wallpaper Other 6 comments

Score 50.0%
Nov 10 2003
Yes I do. I did Thai boxing for a couple of years. So I know first hand, or rather first knee. But nonetheless. Picasso had a blue period (you didn't know about the blue period, did you?).

Anyway, this one goes out to all the masochists. You love them blue balls, don't you? - Nov 10 2003
Picasso. Period. - Nov 10 2003
Pleiades Bound, Orion Loosed

Wallpaper Other 90 comments

Score 50.0%
Oct 28 2003
...and it's a poll about *tim* and *his* art, not just a certain type of paper?

Damn, you are right. It is just about a certain type of wallpaper. Of which you are the most visible proponent of. I say skip Athens, skip the free will of the people. Rule Tim. Time be our saviour.

No seriously. You accused me of having posted under a different name (Flanders). So I tried to figure out what made you think so. And I looked at the persons most in favor of your posts and found some of the most eloquent ones to have joined here after you did. Which happened in the middle of August. I would never accuse you of using alter egos, but the fact that you did accuse me made me think. - Oct 29 2003
You know, I know a user here by the name of Soyburg (who oddly enough has used the word "Flanders" when messaging me...and I see you are a "brand new user"...go figure!).

1.) You don't know me.

2.) I used the word "Flanders" because you behave exactly like the neighbour of Homer Simpson. Who is a charcter in a tv series I enjoy. (My nick here is Soyburg. Which is a bad spelled version of the name of the doctor in Futurama. Another series by Matt Groening.) Obviously others did get the same kind of impression about you.

3.) "Brand new user" and "go figure"... It seems you are implying that I made up an alter ego here. Which is complete and utter bullshit. If I ever I have anything to post in response to your stuff, it will bear my name (Soyburg). It is the nick I have posted under since I started posting on this site. I have no plans to discontinue this tradition. I am an atheist and a geologist and am simply offended by your posts for the following reasons

a) Religious content is as bad as political content. Do as you please but please stop and wonder when tomorrow 5 million hindus, buddhists, jews, taoists, muslims and north koreans will start posting their stuff. I simply think that you are setting a bad example. And continue to do so. Those people posting sexual content are not to my gusto either. But they usually stop after two or three posts. And you and I know that you are on a misison from god, so no stopping to be expected anytime soon from you.

b) I do not really care for your wallpapers on an artistic level. I think most of them are poorly made. A good example for what I mean is your first wallpaper in this post. The blue one. It is poorly done in my opinion. It reminds me of the early 80s, when computer graphics sucked. Which makes me wonder why you put this up here and whether you are spending more time thinking about the right quote than about he right graphics. You did some pretty good ones though. Job's hydrology (or whatever the title) was a good one in my opinion. Maybe you took more time for that one. Please continue to do so.

c) You keep denying scientific facts. Not once or twice but continuously. You deny evolution, you deny the age of our planet and you are resistant to any kind of link I send you which represents the findings of the vast majority of scientists. (And when I say vast I mean vast.) Which means that you do not only offend me on a religious (difficult cause I have none) level, but also on an intellectual and scientific one. You show no signs of ever having studied a science and keep quoting the bible to ensure me that yours is the right view. And you keep pointing to obnoxious pseudo-archeological discoveries to back up your point. To sum it up: You insult my intellect.

d) What I especially do not like about your posts is that you never give due credit. You find something (which took hard work to create from someone) in the public domain and put some quote on it. You do not _ever_ give dues or links to the persons who created the images you use. This post is a fine example for that. It's true that you do not need to do so (according to Stanford's and NASA's copyright notice) but they make the request that they be mentioned. Which in my opinion is a reasonable request. Which you do not honor. That is in my opinion not illegal but poor style. Maybe some time in the future you will create something genuine and somebody whom you don't agree with slaps his quote onto it without mentioning you. Maybe you'll understand then.

e) You say that you clearly mark you posts to be religious or christian or whatever it is that they are. Please take the time to click on this post in the main view of the website. Please think about how long one will have to read on to the _third_ paragraph where you mention that this is for other believers and then think how long the usual visitor will take to just click on the preview (which is probably what most visitors do). I'd say it is not clearly labeled. Do so and I will shut up. (Except when you start to deny modern science which you frequently do).

4.) The fact that you suspected me of posting under an alter ego is exactly what Stalin and Chruschchow (whatever the spelling may be) experienced during their stay in power. It is called paranoia. So I guess there is hope. - Oct 29 2003
If you can disprove the ressurrection, you can destroy Christianity.

QUR'AN CHAPTER 4:

"And because they said, "We have killed the Messiah, Eisa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah" they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but a look-alike was created for them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt about it; they know nothing of it, except the following of assumptions; and without doubt, they did not kill him."

Without crucification there is no resurrection, right? And it says there wasn't in the Qur'an. Proven, I'd say.

Evolutionary ideas can be tracked back to Epicurus, who did not arrived at his ideas from science, but from preference. And after all these years, even with our 'advanced' science, we still can't show the hypothesis true through the Scientific Method, which is how an hypothesis is SUPPOSED to be shown to be true.

I won't bother you with any links to the contrary since you are resistant to reason, as you have proven to me during our last conversations. And by the way: The EU isn't a "revived Rome". Rome is nowadays found in Washington D.C. - Oct 28 2003
Slavery

Wallpaper Other 27 comments

Score 50.0%
Oct 28 2003
According to http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm there are about 2 billion Christians on this planet. There are about 6 billion people living on this planet. A majority would be more than 3 billion. Am I missing something? Or do you suspect that all the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists and Jews have a bible hidden somewhere? - Oct 29 2003
Most people on this planet don't. - Oct 28 2003
remind me why it is called the good book? - Oct 28 2003
Heavenly Declaration

Wallpaper Other 22 comments

Score 50.0%
Oct 28 2003
From the website you linked:

Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and it may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract. However, it is requested that in any subsequent use of this work NASA and STScI be given appropriate acknowledgement. STScI further requests voluntary reporting of all use, derivative creation, and other alteration of this work. Such reporting should be sent to

I think the first one is a reasonable request. - Oct 28 2003
Squirt

Wallpaper Other 1 comment

Score 50.0%
Oct 21 2003
From the website:

"can i use your pictures on my webpage?"

"you can use them if you link me. "

So here is the link (as in hypertext reference):

http://www.deaddreamer.com/ - Oct 21 2003
Got Christ?

Wallpaper Other 130 comments

Score 50.0%
Oct 16 2003
Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.

--Isaac Asimov - Oct 17 2003
However, I want to ask for clarification...the "transitional" form...this live fish...I assume this represents something re:MACROevolution, not just variation within kind? If so, how do you know? And, what is it a transition from and to...and again, how do you know?

I won't answer any of your questions. Go to the faq at www.talkorigins.org and read it. If you have any questions after that, then I can't help you.

There is a saying about horses and leading them to water. I believe the horse has to decide for itself, wether it is thirsty. - Oct 08 2003
Am I trolling? Well, I don't know what the intended meaning of the word as applied to me.

Excerpt from the "New Hacker's Dictionary"

"To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames." - Oct 08 2003
1.) About Lewontin

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_lewontin.html

2.) About evolution of cells

http://www.vexen.co.uk/life/evo.html

3.) About "Darwin Fish" (or is it fisheses?)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

Look at a transitional form which is still around:

http://www.aquarium-berlin.de/Artikel/Fischkunde/fische1.jpg

4.) Again, Christianity is not based on test tubes...but evolution claims to be based on science; hence I ask for scientific answers.

You got them, Flanders. I strongly urge you to read something besides the creationist books that you've been reading. You are ignoring what the majority (majority as in more than 99%) of scientists consider to be hard facts. - Oct 08 2003
I would have liked to reply to your earlier post (Re, Re, Re....), but my version of Mozilla didn't show a "reply to this" anchor.

No afterlife? Based on what? How do you know? Do you have all knowlege so that you can rule that out?

It is not about ruling out. It is about proof. There is no proof of an afterlife. If you say there is one, show me the proof. If you say there is one, I don't have to disprove it. The burden of evidence is in your corner. That is how science works. If you say "The stone, if dropped, will move westwards, and not downwards." you will have to supply some proof. If you don't supply it - it ain't scientific. It will be belief or opinion.

And about the "geology professor who had a doctorate in Geology". I come from an oldfashioned country, where a doctor is not the same as a professor. A doctor can however become a professor if he habilitates himself at a university. Would you care to tell me what your studies were (what subject) and what college you attended for how long to what success? And how you came to believe that the mentioned doctor of geology was an evolutionist? And in what way you know that it was 4000 years ago that job realized the simplest of things, namely that water can be liquid and gaseous? (Which the Chinese discovered first, try and read the I-Ching sometime.) And why the bible is "scientifically accurate" when it comes to the water cycle (which it is not at all - if you had been in my class, you would have flunked it)?

Oh and by the way. Irreducable complexity is bullshit. There are all kinds of beings, starting from bacteria to algae, which can do quite well without blood clotting. Not to speak of the single-cell organisms. Since when did they have blood? Something must have gone by me. You seem to read books from one particular stream of thought only and seem to be immune to reason.

And what is Darwin's fish anyway? Never heared of it. Sorry. Did you just make this up? When I googled to learn about it, the best link I could find was to a bumper sticker.

How deep is your understanding of geology and palaeontology? Did you take just one course at some college, or why do you write like a simpleton? I studied geology for more than 6 years and I can not help but feel utterly bewildered by the way you write about things that are so utterly clear. The answers to your questions are in a library near you. I won't waste my breath explaining the things to you in 5 minutes that took me several years to grasp. Education (even at university level) is free in my country, but I understand that it is not in yours. Which is a pity. But don't blame me. Save some money. - Oct 07 2003
Alright Flanders. I'll try to make this real simple.

1.) The scriptures are not "UNIQUELY" accurate. They are a collection of stories (and yes, they have changed over time. Go to college for christ's sake...). If you choose to believe they are accurate to the last semicolon, well that's fine. Why do you have to convince everybody else that they are?

2.) Never trust a man who writes in uppercase. (Please keep your 50 million $ in your nigerian bank account).

3.) I don't live in Florida, but I believe there are hurricanes. However, I do not believe in any kind of afterlife. Afterlives aren't shown on the weather channel. - Oct 07 2003
1.) I prefer knowledge over belief.

2.) I do not like to be preached upon. As you do. Most discussions in here are about artistic merit. Most discussions in your posts are about religion. So I get the impression that this is the main reason for your posts. To have missionary discussions in here. I just think it is not the right place for this.

3.) Please don't sell the bible as hard facts. Do you have any proof for the walking-on-water bit?

4.) As with all myth there are some historical facts in the bible, sure. Buddha who lived 500 years before Jesus was a historical person as well. Wasn't he. But although his teachings were rather a help to me and my life, I am not here to convince anybody else that they might be to him or her, or that they are scientifically accurate. And I would be really turned off, if all the Muslims and the Jews and the Catholics and the Zoroastrians and the Satanists and the Freemasons in here would start putting up stuff for their cause. This is not a site to mission people into your belief. It is about art.

5.) Fools talk - wise men listen. Which makes me a fool. But think about it.

6.) I studied geology and majored in hydrogeology. And whatever you may think about "job's hydrology" - it ain't scientifically accurate. Hell no. No it ain't. - Oct 07 2003
So, to privatize my faith, I must basically deny the charge given me by the Lord through His Word. I won't do that.

If someone ties a bomb around his waist and blows up a busload of school children and claims in the video taped before his death that his Lord charged him with the task - would you believe it would be any relief to the innocent bystanders or their relatives? Let's say my Lord charges me to deal dope to your children - would you like that?

Thomas Jefferson (the guy whose pic is on one of the dollar bills, Jefferson. Remember?) once wrote

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.


and

Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our God alone

If he could keep his faith to himself, why can't you?

Since we are fallen, we can't do anything to save ourselves.

Where is your proof, that I am fallen? Did you just draw that out of your hat? - Oct 07 2003
Redhat Beauty and Brains

Wallpaper Other 2 comments

Score 50.0%
Oct 15 2003
...you placed this wallpaper under the GPL. Which seems to imply that you are the person holding the rights to this photo.

Is that correct? - Oct 15 2003
The Exodus -- Fatal Pursuit

Wallpaper Other 5 comments

Score 50.0%
Oct 14 2003
Nice move to scrap your former post and delete all my previous comments. There's nothing like silencing the non-believers, is there?

First of all let me give you my humble thoughts about your work of art. The writing might be a bit darker, cause the first line is almost (nauseatingly) invisible. I also think that the borders for the pics might be a bit lighter. There seems to be too much saturation which is in contrast to the rest of the wallpaper.

Concerning the article you refer to in your link, it might be honest to divulge what worldnetdaily is nicknamed in the talk.origin newsgroup on usenet. It's wingnutdaily. Here are some links which shed some light on the worldview of WND:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28740

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30427

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27686

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24710

That might give you some idea towards the credibility of WND.

Concerning pharaoh's wheelchair I again quote from

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/index.html

One of the individuals who I interviewed, who lost approximately 30,000 thousand dollars to Ron Wyatt, went to Israel with him, supposedly to see some of these sights and record them on film. An assignment editor of a major television station in Nasheville went with them. Not only did this individual not see any of these incredible discoveries, but his wife was told by one of Ron Wyatt's sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron. Mr. Wyatt gave this couple some coins which he supposedly found at the Ark of the Covenant site. Again, one of Wyatt's sons informed the wife that Wyatt bought those coins.

Gary Amirault
tentmaker.org

I have seen the photographs of one of these chariot wheels and it does not look like an Egyptian chariot wheel. It looks more like an Assyrian chariot wheel of the ninth or eight century BC, not an Egyptian one of the fifteenth century BC The difference is that the Assyrian chariot wheels were thick rimmed and the Egyptian chariot wheel is very well preserved, better than one would expect for 3,000 years on the sea floor.

William H. Shea
Biblical Research Institute

Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. We are aware of his claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they ever been published in a professional journal. They fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc. It's amazing that anyone would believe them. Furthermore, he has been throughly discredited by various Christian organizations such as Creation Research in Calif. For the latest on his "discoveries" I suggest going into the WWW (use Vista) someone called Tentmaker decided to do an expose of his various claims. Here you will find the truth, which is more amazing that his (RW) fictions.

Joe Zias
Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology
Israel Antiquities Authority

I am especially suspicious of what I call, "the dog ate it evidence." Many would be "discoverers" would show the evidence, BUT the government stole it or the film didn't develop right or they lost it, and so forth. In Wyatt's case, he would have the evidence of pharaoh's chariots, and the location of the ark of the covenant, but he got a sunburn and had to catch his plane (p. 33, 62) .

David Merling, Associate Director
Institute of Archaeology
Andrews University

Peter Elmer, whose work ist mentioned in the description of the wallpaper (he works as a forklift mechanic in England) failed to produce any piece of evidence that might have been taken to a C-14 lab. Given the rich evidence of this scrapyard at the bottom of the Gulf of Aquaba, this seems rather strange. Just look at the photo of the glittering chariot wheel (which supposedly has lain at the bottom of the bloody ocean for + 3000 years and is not covered in debris, algae, coral or sand) and ask yourself wether this is planted or not. - Oct 14 2003
Earthsphere

Wallpaper Other 18 comments

Score 50.0%
Sep 28 2003
Well; we can agree on one thing; the Jewish scholars are right in saying that we have a young earth...

Do you consider 4.2 billion years to be young? Just curious... - Sep 29 2003
Job's Hydrology

Wallpaper Other 25 comments

Score 50.0%
Oct 30 2003
The hydrological cycle includes among others such things as streams, rivers, groundwater, oceans, and precipitation such as hail and snow.

Nice wallpaper though. And I appreciate it that you made a version without the promo. - Sep 29 2003
my first wallpaper :)

Wallpaper Other 5 comments

Score 50.0%
Apr 28 2003
Looks like Terragen to me. - Apr 28 2003
Sleek and Sporty

Wallpaper Other 6 comments

Score 58.0%
Dec 18 2002
Very much. Aum Shiva. - Dec 17 2002
Monument

Wallpaper Other 6 comments

Score 50.0%
Dec 16 2002
Thanks. I used Terragen and Gimp. Terragen under Win98. I used the FEO-plugin and copied the classic kde-lineart into the bitmap. Inverted the pic, reduced the brightness and: Bingo. But the horizon sucked, so I rendered it against a black sky and copy'n pasted the sky in there. Because the horizon would have been much higher, if I had have an unlimited plain. - Dec 16 2002
New-KDE-Design2

Wallpapers KDE Plasma 1 comment

Score 50.0%
Sep 20 2002
...about the color of the shadows. Maybe something a little more dark? And I am not too sure about the "cone" in the upper left corner.

I love those squishy pebbles though. - Sep 20 2002
UltraCool

Wallpaper Other 3 comments

Score 50.0%
Sep 20 2002
The contrast between a more edgy font and the round shapes would imho be beneficial to the picture. But even like this it is a great wall. - Sep 20 2002
My First Bubble

Wallpaper Other 7 comments

Score 50.0%
Sep 02 2002
Very simple - very nice. Good job. (And I especially like the tilted letter I). :) - Sep 03 2002
Golden Cubes

Wallpaper Other 4 comments

Score 50.0%
Aug 10 2002
I like it very much. Could you explain, how you did it? What tools, what objects? - Aug 11 2002
triplegear remix 2

Wallpaper Other 5 comments

Score 50.0%
Aug 01 2002
... trying to abbreviate "less than" in html... - Aug 02 2002
your comment. I don't like the picture too well either, I just put this up to find out how soon it would disappear. (Since the last good thing I uploaded disappeared as well).

The first try was below 20 in - Aug 02 2002
... just happened....

Downloads, 90 min. after upload = 3
Downloads, 100 min. after upload = 60

Strange, strange, strange... As a scientist I am attracted to numbers (in an almost sexual way), but sometimes the numbers just don't make sense. Someone could point out, that it is still early morning in australia and china, and that a lot of people who just started their day at the office downloaded the wallpaper. But I am doubting it... It looks as if someone deliberately downloaded this wallpaer 57 times. This is really weird... - Aug 01 2002
Enjoy GnuLinux (Ayo gnulinux Remix)

Wallpapers GNU 6 comments

by ayo73
Score 50.0%
Jul 21 2002
Man, that's great. - Jul 21 2002
switch to K

Wallpaper Other 3 comments

Score 50.0%
Jul 21 2002
... I was tempted at first to go back to what I had intended (...makes things easy...) but then I thought it must have been a freudian lapsus. And I won't argue with my subconscious. :)

I think it's funnier this way. Thanks for your hint. :) - Jul 21 2002