AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Malum Regnat

form_srcid: Malum Regnat

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.227.62.141

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Malum Regnat

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 t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Malum Regnat%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/12/13 17:56:41, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
"Because it demonstrates the foolishness of believing one thing is designed (the watch) while at the same time believing the other, more complex thing (the butterfly) is NOT designed."

And, if complexity requires a designer, then the butterfly's designer, being by necessity more complex then the butterfly, would also require a designer.

And so on to infinity and beyound ;-}>

Date: 2006/12/14 00:30:11, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Malum ...
Quote
And, if complexity requires a designer, then the butterfly's designer, being by necessity more complex then the butterfly, would also require a designer.

And so on to infinity and beyound ;-}>
============

I know what you are saying and I agree that it is impossible for a finite human mind to comprehend such a thing as an Uncaused Cause of all things, which is essentially what the Bible describes when it talks about God.  The problem is that to believe the alternative (Chance caused all things) not only presents it's own difficulties, but also requires us to close our eyes to everything that science has taught us.  At least with the Uncaused Cause, we are consistent with science up until the point we hit the Uncaused Cause, at which point, like the Naturalist, we must say ... "We don't understand how this can be."  With Naturalism, we are not even consistent with the known facts of science -- EVER!


Oh, I can comprehend the concept of the 'uncaused cause' or the 'unmoved mover' as the Greeks originally phrased it, I just don't agree that the concept is usefull or enlightening in any way.

In order to avoid an infinate regress you have to make the jump from 'it's so complex that it has to have a designer' to 'it's so much more complex than anything we have knowledge of, but it doesn't need to have a designer'.  It saves a lot of time to just forget about a designer from the beginning.  Especially when you have to invent layer after layer of unecessary complications to keep your 'undesigned designer' viable.

Date: 2006/12/14 13:58:40, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
IOW, from our study of butterflies (and watches), we know that they reside far, far away from the demarcation line of Design / Non-Design.


But something as complex as 'god(s)' or 'godess(es)' are in the class of things that don't need a designer?

Date: 2006/12/14 14:15:39, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.


In an earlier post you offered to take us on a tour of factories so we could see people assembling watches.  I will accept your butterfly/watch analogy, and the conclusions you draw from it just as soon as you arrange a tuor of one of the factories where people are assembling butterflys.
;-}>

Date: 2006/12/14 15:03:47, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.


In an earlier post you offered to take us on a tour of factories so we could see people assembling watches.  I will accept your butterfly/watch analogy, and the conclusions you draw from it just as soon as you arrange a tuor of one of the factories where people are assembling butterflys.
;-}>

Date: 2006/12/14 15:19:36, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.


In an earlier post you offered to take us on a tour of factories so we could see people assembling watches.  I will accept your butterfly/watch analogy, and the conclusions you draw from it just as soon as you arrange a tuor of one of the factories where people are assembling butterflys.
;-}>

Date: 2006/12/15 16:28:59, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
And I am looking forward to seeing how many people go on record with a "Yes" answer to my most recent question of Dr. Durbin.


Does Dave even know what a metaphor is?

Date: 2006/12/15 16:55:02, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
HOW do you know about them?  Have you ever met one?  Have you ever been to his factory?  Have you ever watched this process in action?


Yes, yes, and yes.  I have also known a custom watchmaker who made mechanical watches by hand on his workbench.

Have you, Dave, ever seen a butterfly maker assembling a butterfly?  

I'm still waiting for that tour of the butterfly factory.
;-}>

Date: 2006/12/16 17:55:30, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Simple "Yes" or "No" to both questions would be uber-great.  If you say "No" please restrict your objections to the SPECIFICS of these particular statements--nothing more.



Dave seems to be really good at giving instructions on the form we should use to answer his questions but really poor at giving answers in the form requested or, for that matter, even answering questions at all.

Date: 2006/12/16 18:04:38, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Are you telling me that if manufacturing became so sophisticated that we could actually store the plan within each manufactured object and enable those objects to manufacture duplicates of themselves simply by giving them access to the raw materials for assembly--if our 21st century technology could achieve this, then you are telling me that these smart products would not be a factory in themselves?



Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?

Date: 2006/12/16 21:08:02, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Quote
(Malum Regnat @ Dec. 16 2006,18:04)
Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
 

Yes. That is what he's saying. Actually, he's saying more than that. If a butterfly is the same as a watch, only more complicated, then a watch is the same as a butterfly, only less alive.


Dave does seem anctious to sacrafice the difference between living and non living on the altar of complexity.  I'm sure this is not his intention but, even though I discovered this site less than a week ago, I've already noticed that Dave is often trapped by the unentional consequences of his assertions.

Date: 2006/12/16 22:30:26, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
I've already said that I just discovered this site a few days ago, I've read the last few pages and begun to read some of the older pages.  Having just read page twenty I have a question.

In the intervening 109 pages has Dave ever answered this question?

Quote
How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?


If so would someone please let me know what page I should look on?

Date: 2006/12/16 22:49:43, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Dave,
I'm still reading back around page 30 of this thread to catch up and I have a question for you (excuse me if you've already answered this question if so just give me a link to the answer).

What is your definition of 'geneticaly rich' as used in-

Quote
C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)


While we're on the topic, you claim that you will define the term 'kind' later.  Could you supply a link to where you defined 'kind'?

Date: 2006/12/16 22:58:13, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
An observation from by 'catch up reading'-

Quote
...I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with...


Why is it that every time a 'Creationist' doesn't understand something they call it a 'conundrum' that 'Darwinists' are faced with?

Date: 2006/12/16 23:02:41, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Wow ... Malum and Jupiter are one of the few who are starting to understand.



...the depths of your insanity maybe.  No, that can't be the thing that only Jupiter and I understand, that's common knowledge.

Date: 2006/12/17 00:38:10, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Reading through the earlier pages of this thread (where Dave demonstrated his total lack of understanding of any part of evolution), I was struck once more by the misunderstanding of how science works that is common to all creationsists.

Dave is convinced that the people who are picking the rocks to be dated are picking only rocks that give an old age for the earth because that's what biologists need to support evolution.  Creationists also insist that biologists won't look at any data that might disprove evolution because they don't want to be kicked ot of the Good Old Boy Biologists club

What they fail to understand is that any scientist who could falsify the ancient age of the earth, or evolution would become the most famous scientist in history.  Imagine every biologist in the world is passing up the oppurtunity to replace Darwin in the science history books just so he won't make the other biologists unhappy. :)

Date: 2006/12/17 01:09:15, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Still reading at the begining and would like to know if Dave ever answered this question-

Quote
And the interesting thing, Dave, is that the "Cambrian Explosion" took place over at least 10 million years, which is over two thousand times longer than the "Noachian Explosion" that your ridiculous "hypothesis" proposes. You still haven't answered how both of these statements can be  true:



4.5 billion years is not nearly enough time for life to have diversified from a few thousand species to the 10 million currently in existence;

4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have diversified from a few thousand species to the 10 million currently in existence.


You say you you have an answer for this; what is that answer?

Date: 2006/12/17 12:57:17, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
... this chart is a more accurate representation of what YOU believe...


This quote is from mid October, but I wanted to comment on it.

Dave, like every other creationist, is too busy telling us what we believe to listen when we tell him what we know.

Date: 2006/12/17 15:31:06, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
The unanswered questions are piling up faster than sediments in Noah's flood. But I don't want to let this one get lost in the heap. I think it's particularly important, because it concerns a specific lie that davy specifically targeted to an audience of kids. In his little "watchmaker" cartoon, he presents the science position as "cells came from chance". I contend that that's a blatant untruth, and I asked him to justify it. His response:


You just don't understand, saving their souls is so important that it justifies dishonesty.  He's doing it for the kids, don't you understand that?

Date: 2006/12/17 16:26:22, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Another note from the time machine-

Before the thread is cancelled I've got to know, how long did it take for Answers in Genisis to remove the article after Dave pointed out the error to them?

Date: 2006/12/18 16:48:18, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
And this is attested by no less an authority than Bill Gates ...  
Quote

 “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  (The Road Ahead, p. 188)


This has got to be one of the most idiotic references you have used to try to 'prove' your point.  When did Bill Gates become an expert on DNA?  Could you supply links to some of his peer reviewed published research papers on the subject?

Date: 2006/12/18 18:52:03, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
As I recall, Richard Dawkins (Dave Hawkins's favorite bete noire) described DNA as more of a recipe than a computer program.


Thank you, I've spent the last few minutes, while I was catching up with the posts, trying to remember who had used the recipe analogy.

I previously questioned Bill Gates' qualifications as an expert in the subject of DNA, lets be honest, he's not even an expert when it comes to software.

Date: 2006/12/21 15:51:15, Link
Author: Malum Regnat


"This is not a pipe."

I assume everyone,other than Dave, understands this.

The image doesn't seem to be linked properly, at least it's not showing up on the PocketPC I'm use during the day.

Date: 2006/12/25 00:19:49, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 23 2006,13:51)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,10:47)
Ayala says Darwin was wrong about mutations.  He says they are a mere trickle compared to pre-existing variability.  

And Eric calls ME the idiot.  And Russell doesn't get it either.

Dave, when you can refute my argument re "genetic variation," then I'll stop calling you an idiot.

You keeping bringing up Ayala, despite the fact that I've patiently explained to you that there WAS NO "genetic variation" after your "flood." But you keep using it as a way to somehow drive an explosive increase in biodiversity in less than a millennium. Now, are you going to address the utter lack of genetic diversity among the survivors on the ark, or aren't you? Because it's a fatal flaw in your argument, and I'm not going to let you forget it. You'll see it in my signature in every message I post.

Like virtually all religious fanatics Dave practices 'magical thinking'.  He has learned the phrase 'pre-existing variability' as a magical incantation.  He has no understanding of what this phrase means but it comes from a member of the 'Darwinist Priesthood' so it must be terribly powerful.  He repeats it over and over hoping that if he says it just right the magic will work and his enemies will be defeated and humiliated.

Dave is a modern day Cargo Cultist trying to co-opt the power of Science by copying forms and phases he doesn’t understand.  Just like the native hunched over his bamboo model of a radio trying to get the airplanes full of ‘cargo’ that the ‘gods’ obviously intended for him to land at his ersatz landing strip.  
:)

Date: 2006/12/26 13:25:09, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (Ved @ Dec. 26 2006,10:54)
Quote (ericmurphy @ ,)
you're playing word games with MacNeill

Which basically boils down to being a quote mine, which is among the lowest of the low. Didn't dave learn what a bad thing quote mining is a long time ago??

Our modern-day Cargo Cultist justifies his quotes this way-

He quotes the parts that seem to agree with him because, well because they are obviously right.  After all they agree with him.

He leaves out the parts that don't agree with him because they are obviously wrong.  I mean really, how could they be right?  They disagree with Dave.

Date: 2006/12/26 14:46:47, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 26 2006,12:01)
I wonder what Dave means by the term "Darwinian Fundamentalism."

<snippity></snip>

And yet somehow he thinks his "hypothesis" is a better explanation for observation than the standard theories. Dave sure has a strange definition of "better."

Cargo Cultist Dave doesn't know what he means when he uses the term "Darwinian Fundamentalism".  All he knows is that ‘Christian Fundamentalism’ is a powerful epitaph when used by his enemies.  He tries to reformulate this incantation and use it against them, hoping without understanding that if he uses it correctly its magic will still be potent.

Cargo Cultist Dave has no understanding of what a hypothesis is.  Again, to him, it is just one of the powerful magical words used by his enemies and he hopes that if he recites his misunderstanding of his religion’s creation myth and anoints it with this magical word learned from his enemies that, somehow, the magic will work for him and it will become all 'scientifical' like their writings.

Date: 2006/12/26 15:28:02, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 26 2006,13:01)
What's your explanation for the existence of the earth, Dave? How did it get here? Did God just press his fingers to his temples, squint his eyes up, think really hard, and "poof" it into existence? Is that the sum and substance of your explanation for the existence of the earth? Or is there more to it?

I'd be willing to bet that is pretty much how Dave believes the world got started.  Dave has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he does not know what a hypothesis is.

Dave, don't bother to c&p a definition of 'hypothesis' to prove otherwise.  The truth will set you free only if you can understand the truth.

Date: 2006/12/26 18:18:26, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
My response to Dave will be in three parts. First, a preface, giving context. Second, I will show him lying. Thirdly, I will show why it is a lie in a way that anyone, even Dave , can understand.


Never overestimate Dave's ability to understand nor underestimate his ability to misunderstand.

Date: 2006/12/26 22:01:13, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,19:49)
Eric...  
Quote
Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?


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

So, in 180 years eight people turned into the hundreds of thousands it took to build the pyramids?  What about the additional thousands that were working on Stonehenge Part I?

Date: 2006/12/26 23:06:31, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,19:49)
And after all that, it turns out that my guesses were right (or very close) after all ... he doesn't believe the God of the Bible exists...

'Humble' Dave believes that 'his' enterpretation of the God of the Bible is the only possible one.

Date: 2006/12/27 16:49:29, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 27 2006,12:48)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,11:43)
You guys are too funny ... just keep 'em coming.  I'll devote tomorrow's post to filling in some of your early post-Flood era knowledge gaps.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR THE ANTI-ID CROWD
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.

Dave your siggy is just silly. I will agree on this. Almost everything in biology looks designed. But looking and being are not the same Dave.

What really puzzles me is why on Earth you think the Universe is only about 6K years old. That is plain flat out weird.

That is one of the fundamental questions.  Why would anyone believe that the world, this entire universe in fact, is only 6k years old.  The vast majority of Christians don't even believe that.  The only ones who do believe that this universe is only 6k years old are the ones who have decided to worship a book instead of the god it supposedly describes.  

I don't even think they could accurately be called Christians any more.  They are really idolaters.

Date: 2006/12/27 17:27:04, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Deleted another dup post.

Date: 2006/12/27 17:33:51, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,15:03)
Idolaters.  Pfft.  Malum, my friend ... just the simple fact that written history only goes back 6000 years should tell you something is seriously wrong with the Deep Time Story.  Add to that all the funky assumptions of RM dating and it turns out that Deep Timers are more "idolaters" than YECers are.

First, you are not my friend and I am not your friend.

Second why in blue blazes do you think written history on this one little planet is any indicator of the age of this universe, other than your idle worshiping the Bible that is?

Edit- Make that 'idol' instead of 'idle'.  -Although, in this case, ... :D

Date: 2006/12/27 18:50:22, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,16:10)
It's quite simple.  History only goes back 6000 years.  So mankind most likely has only been around for 6000 years also, not 200,000.  This, then, lends support to the Biblical record from which we then infer that the universe is also 6000 years old.

The total lack of any hint of logic or rationality in that statement can only be described as breathtaking.  It only proves my assumptions that you are a Bibliolotor and a modern day Cargo Cultist trying to use the forms and language of science in an attempt to co-opt the power of science without the least understanding of science, its forms, or its language.

Date: 2006/12/27 18:52:56, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Deleted duplicate post.  Posting with a PocketPC can be challenging at times.

Date: 2006/12/27 20:31:17, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (Ved @ Dec. 27 2006,17:08)
I agree, Malum.

Dave's hypothesis is made of coconuts.

You, sir, are slandering coconuts.

Date: 2006/12/27 22:55:39, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,07:27)
1) Longevity did not decrease until quite some time after the Flood

Dave, I'm not even going to ask you to prove this statement but, with only 180 years between the flood and your date for the pyramid, how, exactly, is 'longevity' supposed to get you from 8 people to million plus?

Date: 2006/12/28 02:47:20, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,14:50)
... even though both of us think we are familiar--you say ToE, I say God--

Don't use a false dichotomy dave, a large number of biologists say God by way of evolution.

Date: 2006/12/28 03:01:08, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Dave,

It must really suck big time to have a faith that is so weak it cannot survive discovering that the universe is older the 6k years.

Date: 2006/12/28 08:45:15, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Plate Tectonics: Continental drag race.

Date: 2006/12/28 11:10:07, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
On the other hand I cannot prove that creationism occured solely based on scientific principles.


You cannot prove that creationism occurred based on [bold]any[/bold] scientific principles.  'Creationism' and evolution are not two equally supported choices, there is no scientific bases for creationism.

Date: 2006/12/28 11:21:08, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
The truth is that many of the evolutionary theories are not testable and are built on top of other theories.  I don't know how many times I have sat in conferences while an evolutionist has argued until he was blue in the face showing his grand thesis and quoting experts on how Dinasour X did this and that, only to find out 3 years later after a new fossil was found for Dinasour X that disproved all he taught.


In this one paragraph you seem to say that you have a problem with the TofE because parts of it can't be tested.  Then you say you have a problem with the TofE because parts of it are tested and corrected.

Date: 2006/12/28 11:32:00, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
True science


It has been my experience that when anyone in the Cult of Creationism uses these words they end up meaning-

'true science' = whatever I think I can twist to agree with my enterpratation of the Bible.

Date: 2006/12/28 11:52:00, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Creationists claim that 'parts of the ToE cannot be tested'.  Would Dave, or any other creationist, list for me the parts of the ToE that, in their opinions, cannot be tested.

Date: 2006/12/28 11:56:12, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age.


That would have been the god Loki, the trickster right?

Date: 2006/12/28 12:29:19, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,09:31)
LONG LIVES WELL SUPPORTED OUTSIDE THE BIBLE
Not much time today ... but here's some snippets ...

There are other lists that refer to long-lived ante-Diluvian patriarchs besides the Book of Genesis ...

See here

There is controversy about Sumerian counting of years which I will explore here later, but suffice to say for now that there is  good extra-Biblical corroboration to the idea that prior the Flood, men lived much longer lives than they do now.  This, of course, agrees with known genetic data that genomes were much less degraded in the past.

I will give you the population formula I am using later today ...

Combine all this and it is no problem for the Great Pyramid to be built soon after the Flood.  How many years exactly?  Maybe not as little as 180, but certainly 300-400 years is no problem at all ...

More to come on this.

The Hebrew scribes mined the Code of Hammarabi for most of the ten commandments; filed the serial numbers off the Epic of Gilgamesh and renamed it the Arc of Noah; and took the Sumerian's word for it that people lived a really, really long time 'way back when'.  Is there anything in Genisis that they didn't ah, borrow from the Sumerians?

Date: 2006/12/28 12:45:29, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
I often call these conversations unfruitful, because it is doubtful any of us will change our positions, but it may be interesting why people who believe in a young earth believe in one.


If you have even one reason for believing in a young earth that is based on science and not a wacky Irishman's enterpratation of the Bible I'd love to hear it.  I've been reading creationist's writings for thirty years and have yet to hear one.

If your belief in a young earth is based solely on your understanding of the Bible then go in peace, I have no problem with you as long as you don't try to claim it's sience and try to teach it as such to children in public schools.

Date: 2006/12/28 12:53:25, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Cleaning up another duplicate post.  If anyone out there has experience posting to these lists with a PocketPC perhaps you could enlighten me as to the cause of these double posts.

Date: 2006/12/28 13:48:45, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 28 2006,11:25)
dgszweda, what sciences did you say you were educated in?

I think this is a pertinent question at this point.  To base your objections to the ToE on what you've seen in movies, or even what you've seen on the Science channel on cable, does not speak of any true understanding of the theory at all.

Yes there are huge quantities of conjecture presented as fact in those shows, but that is an indictment of he quality of the tv shows not the ToE.

Date: 2006/12/28 14:05:48, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Yet we can quickly surmise great amounts of extrapolated theories and regard them as fact


First, no scientific theory is ever regarded as 'fact', they are always open to falsification and correction as new evidence is developed.

Second, the kind of disagrement you have presented here is the very heart and soul of science.  Both 'sides' will continue collecting evidence until it becomes over whelming for one interpretation or the other (or until someone developes an interpretation of the evidence that does a better job than all of the previous interpretations in explaning all of the data).

I did not check the references you gave, do you happen to have a date for them?

Date: 2006/12/28 14:17:27, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Yet we can quickly surmise great amounts of extrapolated theories and regard them as fact


First, no scientific theory is ever regarded as 'fact', they are always open to falsification and correction as new evidence is developed.

Second, the kind of disagrement you have presented here is the very heart and soul of science.  Both 'sides' will continue collecting evidence until it becomes over whelming for one interpretation or the other (or until someone developes an interpretation of the evidence that does a better job than all of the previous interpretations in explaning all of the data).

I did not check the references you gave, do you happen to have a date for them?

Date: 2006/12/28 15:21:09, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Yet we can quickly surmise great amounts of extrapolated theories and regard them as fact


First, no scientific theory is ever regarded as 'fact', they are always open to falsification and correction as new evidence is developed.

Second, the kind of disagrement you have presented here is the very heart and soul of science.  Both 'sides' will continue collecting evidence until it becomes over whelming for one interpretation or the other (or until someone developes an interpretation of the evidence that does a better job than all of the previous interpretations in explaning all of the data).

I did not check the references you gave, do you happen to have a date for them?

Date: 2006/12/28 15:23:11, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Cleaning up more PPC carnage.

Date: 2006/12/28 16:02:10, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
I worked for a little while at Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico with their large radio telescope.


My condolences, it must have been terribly frustrating seeing all that money being waisted capturing and analyzing radio signals that god just made up when he created this universe.

Date: 2006/12/28 16:09:22, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.


Evolutionary archeologists?

Date: 2006/12/28 18:02:12, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
2) That the loss of alleles (caused by mutations) thus eliminates much of the diversity


Dave,
Just for clarification, are you saying that the loss of of the alleles was caused by mutation, or that alleles that were caused by mutations were lost?

Date: 2006/12/28 18:28:04, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.


Were they disagreeing about aspects of the ToE?  If so I don't see the relevence since in depth knowledge of cutting edge ToE is not needed in their field of work.

Were they disagreeing about archeological topics?  If so I don't see the relevence to the ToE.

Are you saying that their being conversant in the ToE caused them to be unable to agree about Archeology?

Are you contending that if they had rejected the ToE that they would have been able to agree about Archeology?

I really don't understand what point you're trying.to make.

Edit-
If your only point is that 'scientists' disagree with each other then...

DUH!!

'Scientists' in every field disagree with each other, a lot.  And the more cutting edge the research they're doing the more they disagree.  Very politely of course.

Date: 2006/12/28 18:53:23, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 28 2006,16:41)
Quote
I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.

I'm actually curious about WHERE this was at, too. I don't know many archaeologists that sit around "research institutes"

What?  Nobody ever offered to pay you to hang out in a nice heated and air conditioned 'research institute' and argue about the ToE over lunch?   :D

Date: 2006/12/28 19:11:05, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Another dup post bites the big one.

Date: 2006/12/28 22:41:03, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 28 2006,20:19)
Do you think Dr. Humphreys has an axe to grind with evolutionists in particular?  Why doesn't he attribute these observations to the proper field of study they belong?

Mike PSS

Yes, absolutely, they all do.  The bottom line is they just don't like being told that humans evolved instead of being 'made in the image of god'.  Since none of the other branches of science have anything to say about the origins of man they lay every objection at the feet of 'Darwanists'.  Like afdave's idea that physicists, geologists, astronomers, astrophysists, etc., etc. would give a flying eff whether biologists approved of their calculated ages for this universe and the Earth.

Date: 2006/12/29 09:02:25, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.


Dave,
How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?

Date: 2006/12/29 11:51:19, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
"The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential is NOT limited after a bottleneck"


Dave,
What do you think 'evolutionary potrntial' means?  Do you think it's synonymous with 'pre-bottleneck genetic richness'?

I wouldn't argue with the idea that a greatly reduced population, given enough time, has just as much 'evolutionary potential' as the pre-bottleneck population, but that is exactly what your mythological scenario doesn't have.  You don't have enough time.  Unless, of course, you're a supper high speed evolutionist.

Date: 2006/12/29 12:02:47, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Malum ...  
Quote
How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?

No other definition that the one you yourself would use.  Just the usual plain vanilla every day definition.


That, Dave, is a cowardly cop-out.  My definition of 'Hi-tech' is immaterial to the discussion.  You are the one who made the statement, now quit being a coward and define your term.

Date: 2006/12/29 12:41:46, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:17)
Malum...
Quote
That, Dave, is a cowardly cop-out.  My definition of 'Hi-tech' is immaterial to the discussion.  You are the one who made the statement, now quit being a coward and define your term.


Please tell me you are not going to adopt the ridiculous position of saying that an alien spaceship would not be considered "hi-tech" if one landed on earth?  I really hoped that I was debating intelligent people here.

Dave,
Until you stop your cowardly behavior and define what you mean when you use the term 'Hi-tech' it is impossible for any of us to say which, if either, belong in that class.

Of course, if you'd rather not define your term so you can claim any statement we make is wrong, you can do that.  It would be, if not an out right lie, at least dishonest of you.

Date: 2006/12/29 12:54:44, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
PPC dup post cleanup

Date: 2006/12/29 16:49:01, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Having spent several long picoseconds in deep thought contemplating the relative abundance and complexity of the myriad forms of life on this planet, I am now ready to reveal-

Malum Regnat's Super-Duper Explains Everything a Whole Lot Better Than Those Snooty Scientists Creator God-Like Entity Theory (V 1.5.3 build 8) (Note 1)

In the beginning some god-like entity (Note 2) created bacteria. (Note 3)  The god-like entity was so impressed with his bacteria, and loved them so much, he created all of the 'higher' life forms to be food, shelter, and transportation for the bacteria.  Then the god-like entity packed his bags and went on vacation never to be heard from again. (Note 4)




(Note 1) I'm calling mine a theory because I have way more evidence than Dave has for his mere 'hypothesis'.

(Note 2) In order to not offend anyone I will refrain from naming this god-like entity.  However, I can say that my exhaustive research has led me to believe that the god-like entity in question is the second cousin once removed of the FSM.

(Note 3) Actually the god-like entity created stars, quasars, black holes, galaxies, planets, and all the other stuff that Carl Sagan got all excited about on his show but since none of those things are, like, actually on the earth, we can just ignore them.

(Note 4)  There have been reports that the god-like entity was observed playing skiball somewhere in New Jersey, but they remain unconfirmed.

Date: 2006/12/29 21:51:12, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Your inability to grasp this bone-simple concept, and your inability to understand that you can't get back lost genetic variability from "pre-existing genetic variability" (that's what got lost in the first place!;) remains as one of the more puzzling aspects of your intellect, Dave. If that's not too strong a word for it.


We must not forget that Dave does not know what an allele is.  He would not be able to tell an allele from a male baboon dog puppy on its death bed.  

Dave has found an 'expert' to wave his hands, mumble scientific sounding incantations, and assure him that 'the nasty old bottleneck' would magically go away.  Now Dave won't do anything but cover his ears and yell 'I can't hear you' over and over until he declares victory.

Date: 2006/12/29 22:32:03, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
What happened, Dave, you realized that you could not define 'Hi-tech' in a way that would include both items without making a fool of yourself?  You shouldn't mind looking foolish Dave after all aren't you instructed to become a fool for Christ?

Date: 2006/12/30 13:16:35, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
But to say HLA-B alleles have nothing to do with the "flood" bottleneck is moronic.


Which explains why Dave would say it.  Like I said Dave wouldn't know an allele from a male mutant baboon dog on its death bed.

The modern-day Cargo Cultist doesn't understand anything you write.  All he does is try to find the right sciency sounding magical incantation to make the objections go away, but since he doesn't really understand the objections most of the time his quotemined magical incantations work against him.  But since he doesn't even understand enough to know they don't magically fix everything for him he keeps chanting them over and over hoping that if he does it just right the magic will work and he will become the hero of the rest of the YEC Cargo Cultists.

Heck, apparently Dave can't even define 'Hi-tech'.

Date: 2006/12/30 13:53:33, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
I mean ... dogs just didn't evolve overnight according to you ... it took a million years or so.


Dave, 'dogs' didn't exsist until humans created them by genetically altering wolves.  This was done by selective breading for pre existing traits and for new mutations (like webed feet on some breeds bred to be used around water).  

The ToE does not pfredict 'millions of years' for species created by man through gene manipulation.

By the way, how do you define 'Hi-tech', Dave?

Date: 2006/12/30 14:20:50, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
So now the light bulb will come on for the bright people on this thread and they will say "Oooooh!  I don't like how this is looking!"

"Dave's been saying all along that massive variation can happen with NO mutations in a very short time and we've been pooh poohing him.  Oooops.  This article says that the 'dramatic differences' we see in modern dogs is due to intensive breeding--doesn't say anything about mutations.  And 500 years is such a small time on our scale anyway that these 'dramatic differences' can NOT be due to 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% of the total mutations that have occurred in dog evolution.  Ooooh!  We'd better run from this topic!"

"I finally see what Dave's talking about and suddenly I'm having hot flashes!"


Your delusions are showing, Dave.  Nobody here is doing anything but laughing their a's off at your Cargo Cultish inability to understand even the very basic concepts of science.

And, by the way, can you define 'Hi-tech'?

Date: 2006/12/30 14:39:46, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS


Very true if, like with your example of dogs, you start with a species (let's just for giggles say wolves) and selectively breed for traits that have evolved over a million years or so.  Lets look at your qualifier “VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS”, but every once in a while one of those mutations gives you something new like webbed feet found on dogs that were bread for use around water.  

Or like when a breeder of Dachshunds discovered he had a white Dachshund puppy.  In the hundreds of years they had been breeding these dogs there had never before been a white Dachshund.  This was a new mutation which the breeder (aware that he was holding a cute little wiggly gold mine in his lap) began to selectively breed for.  


By the way, Dave, can you define 'Hi-tech'?

Date: 2006/12/30 14:50:27, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Dave's been saying all along that massive variation can happen with NO mutations in a very short time and we've been pooh poohing him.

MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS


Which is it, Dave, no mutations or virtually no mutations?  The two statements are not equivalent.

And, Dave, I was just wondering, can you define 'Hi-tech'?

Date: 2006/12/30 18:53:04, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,14:39)
MY FRIEND FRANCISCO ... SUCH A GOOD FRIEND :-)

This time he helps me refute Russell's idea that ...  
Quote
(By the way: there are many kinds of mutation, including recombination.

Hmmm ... I never read anywhere but here that recombination is a "kind" of mutation.  Nope.  I get my definitions from the leading scientists (so as to make Russell happy) ... look what this one says ...

 [quote]Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
p. 58
“A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”

Dave, Dave, Dave,
The laughs just never end with you.  Tell me, Dave, in your extensive reading of scientific articles have you ever run across the phrase ‘defining their terms’?  Your “friend” (snicker, snicker) Ayala Francisco is telling his readers that, in the context of this article, when he uses the term ‘mutation’ that he will mean “an error in DNA replication…”.  He doesn’t say that this is the only definition of the word ‘mutation’.  He doesn’t even indicate that it’s the only definition that he ever uses, only that this is how he is defining the word for this article.

Speaking of defining terms, Dave, can you tell us how you define ‘Hi-tech’ when you use it in your silly little comparison?

Date: 2006/12/30 19:48:29, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,17:41)
Eric ... I'm not making fun of your career or your lack of education.  There are plenty of people without college degrees and in various careers who I respect ... one of my most respected business partners has no college degree.

I'm simply helping you understand that you just might be wrong about some things and you might try on some humility on for size.

Pot, kettle, black.

Date: 2006/12/30 20:55:24, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
SO ... ONCE AGAIN, WE SEE A SILLY OBJECTION TO THE BIBLICAL FLOOD REFUTED

THE OBJECTION:  4500 years (time since the Flood) is not enough time to achieve the diversity in organisms we see today.

THE REFUTATION:  Dogs.  So simple ... Dogs.  "Dramatic differences" in only 500 years with virtually no help from mutations.  Almost all pre-existing variation.

You see?


Dave seems to think that humans domesticating and breeding animals is responsible for all the diversity in animals seen on earth today.  That is, after all what is responsible for the great diversity in dog breeds.  

Hey, Dave, can you define 'Hi-tech'?

Date: 2006/12/31 01:33:37, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Notice this was not included in the other two I posted?  Hmmm ... why would that be?  Maybe for the same reason that Ayala says that “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.” ??


Dave, please go back and review what that nice English teacher said about context and word meaning.  Maybe, if you really tried hard, you could understand what was being said and stop making such a fool of yourself.

We can't expect Dave to understand definitions of 'mutation', he can't even define 'Hi-tech'.

Date: 2006/12/31 01:39:34, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
What should be embarrassing is your failure to admit that massive diversity is possible in just 500 years with virtually no mutations.


Perhaps, when you show that such 'massive diversity' is possible starting with just one breeding pair and without human manipulation of the species genome.

Also, while your pondering how to do that you could tell us what definition you used for 'Hi-tech' in your silly little comparison.

Date: 2006/12/31 01:48:52, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Code Sample
And I'm not missing the point and I note that you have resorted to calling me "bozo" and "moron."


I think we should stop calling Dave 'bozo', 'moron', and ‘macaque’.  We are being disrespectful to clowns, people with minimal IQ's, and monkeys by comparing them to Dave.

'Hi-tech', Dave, what's your definition?

Date: 2006/12/31 15:21:40, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
I only discovered this site about two weeks ago, but in that time I've learned a lot from all of the posters, even Dave.  From everyone else I've learned more about genetics, information theory and, even Portuguese.  From Dave I learned that one of my long held beliefs is wrong.  From my experience of about thirty years dealing with creationists in different venues I had come to the conclusion that all creationists could be placed into one of the following categories-

Stupid,
Ignorant,
Dishonest

From Dave I have learned that a creationist can fit into all three categories at the same time.

Dave, before the thread gets shut down, could you define 'Hi-tech'?  I didn't think so.

Date: 2006/12/31 17:52:00, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Well, you won't be able to point them to my thread for much longer.  It appears we've reached the end of Wesley and Steve's tolerance for Creationism.


No, Dave, they, and everyone else, have reached our tolerance for your particular brand of smug ignorance.

Date: 2007/01/01 13:46:56, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Last time I checked, science was about searching for the TRUTH about the natural world.  In all your cheering for Eric, have you not noticed that he simply asserts things, often with no support, then chastises me for doing the same in spite of the fact that I DO support what I say?


Since I cannot see you Dave, It's impossible for me to tell whether you are 'saying' that with a stright face.  If you are then delusional is the only word I can apply to you.

Come on, Dave, it will only take a couple of seconds.  How do you define 'Hi-tech' in your silly comparison?

Date: 2007/01/02 23:27:28, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:19)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:50)
I want to start off by telling you that I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be a reliable source for learning about man’s relationship with the Judeo/Christian deity.

I am a little at odds with your explanation of the “apparent age” of the universe—i.e.: God made the light already hitting the earth, etc.

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not lie and that we can learn about God by studying his creation.  You are saying God intentionally misleads through the creation.

Let’s take your approach using an analogy:

Suppose I offered you a great reward for learning about me and I told you to look through my house to learn as much as you can about me.  I will also penalize you if you get it wrong.

In the house I’ve placed a number of items:

A dog bowl
A picture of two elderly people with a frame that says “mom and dad”
A business card with my name on it saying I am an Executive VP at Xerox
I leave on the coffee table a book showing my genealogy back 5 generations

Based on my instructions you would assume:

I have a dog
The picture is of my parents
I work at Xerox
You knew the names of my ancestors for the last several generations

I then come back to see how you’ve done and give you either your reward or punishment.

You rattle off your conclusions and I say, “Sorry, I intentionally made it look like I had a dog, but I don’t.  I made it appear as if those people are my parents, but they’re not.  I made it look like I work at Xerox but I don’t.  The genealogy was a fake I planted.
Now you will be punished for getting it wrong."

I don’t see how that can be consistent for the Biblical God.

If God tells us to look at the creation to learn about Him, I believe he didn’t lie.

You seem to think He did.

I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

It’s a bit more than ‘god’ creating an ‘appearance’ of age, ‘god’ apparently made up a whole fictional history for this universe.  We regularly receive light from novae and super novae that are astronomically :D  further away than 6k light years.  This would indicate that ‘god’ created ‘light’ from a super nova that never happened.  That’s really going a long way for a practical joke. :p

Date: 2007/01/03 01:05:30, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Born in Orlando Florida, grade school years just outside Disneyland (the original in Anaheim, not one of the fake imitations), then after a short stint in Oklahoma and Kansas, moved back to civilization.  I graduated from high school in Lodi California (yes it is the Lodi made famous by Credence Clearwater) and have spent the last 30 years in and around Stockton Ca (central valley, near Sacramento).

Date: 2007/01/03 12:57:46, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Not that long ago the greatest minds of the world believed the earth was flat.


Not to be overly picky but 'the greatest minds of the world' haven't believed that the world was flat since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.

Date: 2007/01/03 13:39:42, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Not that long ago the greatest minds of the world believed the earth was flat.


Not to be overly picky but 'the greatest minds of the world' haven't believed that the world was flat since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.

Date: 2007/01/03 16:36:57, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
Cory, your science training has limited your vision.  You say you reject anything that you cannot prove scientifically, yet you uncritically accept the proposition that matter organized itself into biological structures in defiance of the very scientific laws that you applaud.


And exactly what 'scientific' laws are you referring to Dave?

Date: 2007/01/03 16:46:43, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
You accept written eyewitness testimony for many things in your life.

You just don't regarding the Origin of Species.


I'm sure he does accept eye witness accounts for the origin of new species, there have been about 200 references to such accounts listed on the other Dave's thread.

Isn't it interesting how much more interested AFDave has become in saving our souls since Dave #2 started posting.

Dave, can you say hypocrite?

Date: 2007/01/03 20:33:44, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 03 2007,04:36)
Lodi is "civilization"?
Yikes. What does that say about Oklahoma and Kansas?

Everything is relative.  It might help if I explain that in Oklahoma we lived in a wide spot in the road named Goultry (Pop. App. 300) the highway through town was the only street that was paved.  I use the term ‘highway’ loosely, I think the residential street I live on now is wider, and I know it has more traffic than the ‘highway’ that went through Goultry Oklahoma.  The entire school, 1st through 12th grades, occupied one not very large building.  The gym was almost as big as the entire rest of the school.

In Kansas we lived in a town twice the size of Goultry Oklahoma.  Le Roy Kansas had a population of 641.  I remember the population figure because the Boy Scout troop repainted the town sign.

I offer my condolences to anyone on the board who has actually been in either town.

Date: 2007/01/04 12:02:25, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
The fact that there is still debate doesn't mean that it isn't settled for the Church.


The fact that there is still debate (withen the 'church';) doesn't mean that it isn't settled for the Church.

I assume that when you refer to the 'Church' you are refering to your own particular veriant of Christianity and not to the worldwide 'church' of all Christian believers.  If not then you're statement is obvious nonsense since the worldwide 'church' of all Christian believers has yet to settle on just one cannon of scripture.

Or perhaps what you really mean is that anyone who disagrees with your own particular veriant of Christianity is not a real Christian?

Date: 2007/01/04 16:20:17, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 04 2007,03:26)
Quote (Malum Regnat @ Jan. 03 2007,20:33)
   
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 03 2007,04:36)
Lodi is "civilization"?
Yikes. What does that say about Oklahoma and Kansas?

Everything is relative.  It might help if I explain that in Oklahoma we lived in a wide spot in the road named Goultry (Pop. App. 300) the highway through town was the only street that was paved.

(snip)

I offer my condolences to anyone on the board who has actually been in either town.


I've never been to Goultry, but have been up in the area several times.  I bought hay in Carrier this summer, which is only about 10 miles from Goultry.  You must not have made it to town much.  You were only a half hour from Enid which, while not exactly very cosmopolitan, does have a few more amenities.

Yes, there was Enid.  We had family on mothers side living in Enid.  We moved to Oklahoma so father could go back to Phillips University and study for the ministry.  We were living in Goultry because the church where he was a student minister had a parsonage we could live in.

Don't tell either of the Daves this but he had a degree in biology with a minor in geology as well as being an ordained minister.  He taught Biology at the high school level and had no problem accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Date: 2007/01/04 16:55:47, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
I have not seen God physically, in much the same way that any of you have seen physically all of science.


Anyone who cares to look will see a lot more 'science' than you ever will 'god'.  IIRC in the New Testament we are advised to gudge things according to their 'fruits' the 'fruits' of science are very convencing to anyone who has not been rendered blind by their fundamentalist beliefs.

Date: 2007/01/04 17:41:29, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
For a good time, call Janie @ 555-UDoJ


What about Corporal Kate?

Is it my imagination or wasn't Dave arguing the exact opposite about recombination of genes just a few pages back?  You know, back when he was claiming that his 'friend' Francisco said that 'genetic diversity' had some way of magically slipping through a genetic bottleneck.

Date: 2007/01/05 01:31:35, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
For what it's worth, I consider my signature block to really sum up the "proof" for an Intelligent Designer quite decisively and succinctly.  Identifying the Designer is another matter, however, and in my opinion involves study in various disciplines including ancient historical documents, archaeological finds, and the mythology of various cultures, among other things.  We do not believe in the existence of George Washington because of any "scientific evidence" to my knowledge.  We believe he existed because of written eyewitness testimony which, for many reasons, we judge to be reliable.  It's the same with the God of the Bible for me.


Dave, without defining your terms, your signature is meaningless.

Date: 2007/01/05 02:13:39, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 04 2007,23:44)
too bad it wasn't an Alky joke. There are so many great drinking quotes.

"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza."
--Dave Barry.

What’s the difference between a drunk and an alcoholic?

The drunk doesn’t have to go to the meetings.

Date: 2007/01/07 02:42:01, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
"I suspect that a good understanding of ID will allow us to predict exactly when the world will end." - SBWillie


The world will end as soon as the lab rats discover the question.

Date: 2007/01/07 03:17:24, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 06 2007,15:13)
Re "There either is or there isn't something outside of the universe. "

I wish people would state which definition of "universe" they're using when making statements like that one.

The literal meaning of "universe" is simply all that is, in which case anything that is, is part of it, by definition, including any Gods.

But most sentences about "universe" seem to use it to mean "the space (or space-time) in which we live", but quite often appear to confuse that meaning with the previously mentioned literal meaning, which makes it hard for me to figure out what the person is saying.

Henry

I try to avoid that confusion by using the term 'this universe' when I'm speaking of "the space (or space-time) in which we live".

Date: 2007/01/07 20:33:13, Link
Author: Malum Regnat
Quote
So tell me, O wise BWE ... what original thought have YOU had regarding Origins?  Have I been mistaken all this time?  I thought Darwin was the start of all these modern Evolution ideas and I thought it Tim Berners-Lee who invented the web at CERN.  Silly me!  All this time I should have known ... It was BWE and Al Gore!


Do not confuse the World Wide Web and the Internet.  The Internet started as a US Military research project and it was indeed Al Gore who, as a Senator, made sure the financing was available to grow the Arpanet into the Internet that now supplies the infrastructure for the World Wide Web.

 

 

 

=====