AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Reg

form_srcid: Reg

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Reg

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Reg%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2008/04/10 19:00:46, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (ERV @ April 10 2008,16:46)
William Dembski: Not a Lawyer

Everyone needs to read this post - Dembski is admitting to malicious forethought - maybe on the advice of the dumbest lawyer in the history of the Universe?

It's post 63  on the UD comments

Date: 2008/04/10 19:36:47, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Actually, quick question - isn't there supposedly a version of Excreted that used the entire Harvard animation with no alterations at all?

And don't they show these movies just on DVD through a laptop?

Does it then follow that there is a DVD of the movie with the completely unaltered animation?  Hell, XVIVO may just be suing on that version.

Date: 2008/04/12 16:42:52, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Whew!  This hurt my fingers and I'm a little light-headed.  Could be a few errors and the italics are not intact, but I wanted to give the world a much more copiable version of the Dembskisterics.  I think we should put this up in a few places:

EXPELLED! The Movie arrives at theaters soon, and the world is about to change.

I earlier remarked that, rather than thinking the producers of EXPELLED! are idiots, it would be wise to consider that they are like chess players working many moves ahead of the competition.  I can now reveal that the ID movement itself has implemented a look-ahead strategy that has extended not merely through a single game, but rather - to extend this useful metaphor - through an entire tournament, a tournament that is still underway.  Remember, sacrifice plays an important role in skillfull chess tactics.  From this long perspective, every loss is a victory every setback an advance, and every apology is, well, not.

Friday, April 18, another such milestone will be attained.  In light of the several planned reversals you are about to witness, I thought it important to frame your experience of what is to follow.  Rest assured that the events of the coming weeks are both complex and specified, and that however apparently discouraging the results at first, ID is on target and the demise of Darwinism is nigh.  Here are some markers of success to watch for:

-Within days of the release of EXPELLED!, theaters will be empty, EXPELLED! will quickly drop from sight.

-A torrent of negative reviews villifying EXPELLED!, its writers, and its producers will accompany the relaase.

-The blogosphere will be flooded with reporting and scholarship that apparently rebuts the main assersions of EXPELLED!

-Some inattentive viewers may come away from the movie with the mistaken notion that ID is an inherently religious concept that argues for the existence of a Designer God.

-Legal action will go forward against the producers and distributor of EXPELLED!  Discovery will result in a series of embarassing revelations that, to the naïve observer, disclose dishonest conduct and self-defeating beahvior that may be difficult to fathom.

As these events unfold, rest assured that these efforts, however eristic, will be decidedly otiose.

As these events unfold, ask yourself these questions:  Who benefitted from the deftly timed release of the "Wedge" document?  Who was served by my planned "expulsion" from Baylor University and the dismantling of the Micahel Polanyi Institute?  What followed the Dover decision?  What flowed from my release of the Judge Jones School of Law flatulence animation?  Who was served by my second expulsion from Baylor?  Who was served by my sly attack upon the board of directors and president of Baylor, and subsequent notpology?  Who was served by my un-credited use of the XVIVO animation, and again by my sincere notpology?

I could go on, but my point should be obvious.  With each of these events, which some of you might be tempted to disclaim, the scientific and mathematical credibility of Intelligent Design as a revolutionary new discipline increased, while, simultaneously, the rigid, top down intellectual hegemony of atheistic materialism was eroded.  Similarly, subsequent to the relase of EXPELLED! it will become apparent that the events of the coming weeks and months, initially dismaying to some, will have been the result of careful planning, calculated to elicit and display to the world the reactionary behavior of a moribund and fascistic atheist academic establishment.  Make no mistake about it: the public perception of ID will be forever changed by the release of EXPLLED!, and no obfuscatory legerdemain, no facile display of intellectual chicanery will obscure the resulting noetic realignment.  To think otherwise is to postulate events in violation of the universal probability bound; hence my argument here cannot be incorrect, and requires no further support.  I might add: any commnetary that suggests otherwise will result in my displeasure and the prompt dismissal of the commenter.

Eristic, yet otiose.  Hold fast to that simple truth.

I'm especially intrigued by:

"Legal action will go forward against the producers and distributor of EXPELLED!  Discovery will result in a series of embarassing revelations that, to the naïve observer, disclose dishonest conduct and self-defeating beahvior that may be difficult to fathom."[I]

Date: 2008/04/12 16:48:48, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
I also think it's weird that he's saying 'just remember!  Eristic yet otiose!'

He does know that that means "controversial but ineffectual and useless" right?

Date: 2008/04/12 17:24:41, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 12 2008,17:16)
I will go on record as suggesting Beasley's submission is a joke.

Dembski isn't dumb.  He often let's his arrogence get the better of him, but this is too much.

That wasn't my submission, I just copied  everything from the image by hand as a back-up incase  RB's image suddenly went down.

Mayhaps, though, I was taken for a fool and now my fingers are paying the price...

Date: 2008/04/13 16:29:57, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Looks like Kerry Emmanuel has come out and said new evidence has made him reverse his position that global warming will cause more hurricanes.

Note how he doesn't say that global warming exists, but just watch.  We'll be getting lambasted for weeks from the usual suspects screeching that global warming isn't real.

Of course, davescot over at UD has picked up on this and has posted about it.

This is why this anti-science crap is so dangerous.

Normal common occurence - scientist  changes his position when confronted with new evidence - gets distorted into a literally deadly talking point to score political points.

Date: 2008/04/13 16:31:08, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Oops, *note how he doesn't say that global warming doesn't exist....  I'll start previewing before I post, sorry.

Date: 2008/04/15 10:18:55, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (didymos @ April 15 2008,07:06)
Quote (charlie d @ April 15 2008,04:53)
what you have as "actin network" in your comparison above looks to me like chromatin in the case of Expelled (DNA wrapped around histones). Either that, or they have no idea what actin looks like.

Yeah, I forgot to add a caveat to that one as well.  I'm not entirely sure what that's supposed to represent, I just thought it might be their version of the actin network stuff in "Inner Life".

That vesicle bit is huuuuuuuuuuuuge.   It's such a tiny specialised part of the cell and the copy is so incredibly blatant that any copyright lawyer worth his weight will harp on it over and over.

Hell, infringement cases have been won on much less.

And if Motive attempts to say "Well, cells are all pretty much the same, that's just the way that it would have happened no matter what,"  they will have to present their original research to the judge.   If they tell him they don't have any, as I suspect they would have to, they're in wayyyy deep.

Also, a little advice to the UD folks, you're associated with people that are being sued (even if you think no one can tell you're associated, don't worry, courts have a funny way of finding out where money comes from) so try shutting the hell up.  A lawyer who got his degree from a matchbook should be able to tell you that much.

Date: 2008/04/15 15:13:04, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (olegt @ April 15 2008,14:05)
What battle?

The cultural battle.  

Science will never be defeated by ID, it's impossible because ID isn't even in the same boxing ring.

But the religious right want to sow seeds of disbelief in science.   If we did things right in America and public education standards were decided only by those who are well-suited to decide them, there'd be nothing to worry about.

Unfortunately, what is taught in public schools is largely a matter of opinions and biblical literalists will keep changing tactics until one day a judge can't rule that 'academic freedom' or 'ID' or 'constant non-stop whining and bitching' is religously motivated.

But don't think that it's all for religion's sake either, the biblits that are arguing for all this are not religiously motivated - they write books that cost money, they give lectures that cost money, and they make movies that cost millions of dollars.

Biblical Literalism is bad theology and has been for about 1700 years.  To win the war, we need to get the truly religious people and not these false prophets/money changers to step up and say, "Hey, this is bullshit."  I don't think it's very Christian to look at Jesus bleeding on the cross and say 'cha-ching!'

Date: 2008/04/15 18:08:17, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (dheddle @ April 15 2008,18:03)
Did anyone catch the vanishing UD post? (No, I'm not kidding.) It was a WAD byline, and it was Promise Media's response to the plagiarism charge. It was above DO'L s latest post--but now it is gone. Again, I'm not kidding.

Timeline added in edit: I saw it when I was in my university office around 5:30 (Eastern) and it was gone by 6:45 when I checked again from home.

What did it say?   do we have an eta from erv?

Date: 2008/04/15 18:34:06, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 15 2008,17:55)
Quote (ERV @ April 15 2008,18:51)
Peter got it.

Make sure Reciprocating Bill gets it for the archive.

They've just put it back up.

Date: 2008/04/15 18:53:59, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (BWE @ April 15 2008,18:45)

I don't think it disappeared.

15 April 2008
EXPELLED Producers respond to Dawkins, Bolinsky, XVIVO, etc. regarding copyright of its animation
William Dembski

The following statement is from the Executive Producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.

   Since we began working on this very interesting project, the producers have been the subject of any number of groundless accusations, most of which we found amusing. The vast majority of these accusations we chose to ignore given that agitation is typical with any provocative documentary. We also recognized that as the film took form, it would specifically disturb a vocal minority of academic elites, and tread on what some people involved with science and academia consider sacred ground. We therefore expected a high level of criticism against the film from this particular group, who view themselves as self appointed gatekeepers. We accepted in good humor many of the crazy insinuations that they made as part of the cost of pursuing our project.

   However, the latest claim concerning the copyright status of our proprietary animation is so ridiculous, bogus and misinformed that we must respond. Premise Media invested significant time and money into the research and original creation of the animation used in our film to illustrate cellular activity. Our own team of experts created the highest quality of animation that is available. In fact, the animation we use in the theatrical release of our movie is only a small portion of the animation we have created and plan to use in future projects.

   Concerning the intriguing smear campaign being carried on by long term activists on one side of the evolution controversy, we are completely confident of the validity of our copyright on our originally created animation. We can assure any opponents of free speech that the rights granted in the United States Constitution are extraordinarily strong, and most especially strong related to protecting film productions.

   We look forward to ordinary Americans from a broad range of backgrounds seeing our film.

   The Executive Producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.


   Following the discovery of the kinesin in the late 1980s there were investigations into the locomotion method used for propulsion giving two models with one being an “inch worm” model and the other being the “hand over hand” model. We illustrate the hand over hand mechanism in the transport of a vesicle.

   A variety of papers, micrographs, illustrations and animations with depictions of the cellular transport system of kinesin were used and are freely available on the internet. We invite you to learn more about this incredible little transport engine through the following links:

Statement 1: Premise Media invested significant time and money into the research and original creation of the animation used
in our film to illustrate cellular activity.

Statement 2:  We invite you to learn more about this incredible little transport engine through the following links:

So apparently their extensive significant time and research is a google search.

Date: 2008/04/15 20:27:07, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
1. The Expelled producers have filed suit in the Northern District of Texas seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. Premise Media also seeks its attorneys’ fees in responding to the XVIVO claims.

Well they've taken a good tack legally by going straight on the offensive, but the evidence is still not in their favour, so they're still in trouble.

Date: 2008/04/15 20:35:07, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (Ftk @ April 15 2008,20:27)
Your Youtube dude states that the dissent from Darwin list is a ”List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?”

Clearly he has absolutely no clue what the list has even been compiled for.  I can’t imagine *anyone* “rejects evolution”.  That would be ridiculous.

Here’s what the list of scientific dissent actually states:

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”

The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

He also addressed whether they reject common descent or not.  Irrelevant.  Behe doesn’t reject common descent, and I’m sure there are others that don’t either.  

He claims that “many” of the signers had been asked to be removed seven years ago.  I have an extremely hard time believing that they wouldn’t press that issue and get their name off the list.  Hearsay - no evidence.  Also, depending on how many Internet stalkers there are (like this particular guy), I’d certainly consider whether I should get my name off that list.  Sheesh...

He also took people off the list that he couldn’t contact....?  The moron even seems to be saying that Behe should be taken off the list because he doesn't reject common descent...LOL.  Dude is *clueless*.

Rich, do you actually have a clue what the DI fellows reject?  It’s certainly not “evolution” and ID doesn’t reject common descent either.  It questions whether Darwinism can fully explain the complexity of all living things.  Can the mechanisms of evolution *alone* account for everything we observe in nature today?  That is the question.

This guy gives virtually no evidence of his claims.  He starts picking people off the list at will and only provides about 3 email responses that supposedly came from these 3 individuals claiming they don't want to be included on the list.  One of the emails he included was from Behe!  Is he insane?

Rich, if you take this guy at his word, I just really feel sorry for you.  In fact, this tells me a lot about your gullibility.

 how do you address the fact from the end of the video pointing to the fact that even if all the scientists on the list mattered, it was still less than 1% of all the scientists in America alone?

Why are you ignoring that?

Also, for my own personal curiosity - which is the more majestic God, the one who creates the Universe over billions of years through a set of natural laws or one that you have to force into a 6000 year box?

Is it good theology to say that God is completely comprehensible?

I know your track records with questions so I only expect a response to the first.

Date: 2008/04/15 21:09:47, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (ERV @ April 15 2008,21:02)
Premise Media is in Canada.

XVIVO is in Connecticut.

'Lawsuit' filed in......... Texas.  In Billy Ds back yard.

Which is great, cause its just a 3 hour drive for me to go testify, should someone ask.

And I hope they ask.


They definitely filed in Texas hoping to get a summary judgment from a sympathetic judge which has always worked out very well for the ID movement befo...

Summary Judgment in California Creationist Case: Behe Shoots, Scores, We Get Point

No offense ERV, but I hope they send Behe to testify!

Date: 2008/04/15 22:36:15, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (Annyday @ April 15 2008,22:30)
In the short term in the US, it's definitely an uphill battle. In the long term, though, say a hundred years from now? It seems ... unlikely that creationism will maintain a strong presence over time.

I hope so.  I try to remind myself - hell, heliocentrism got attacked by the church for what?  half a century?

On the one hand we certainly have been fighting this one for longer than that.  

But on the other, reason and science always wins out somehow.

At least we have to hope

Date: 2008/04/16 21:25:52, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Yoko Ono's lawyer has officially said that Expelled did not have the right to use John Lennon's Imagine.

Even if they take it out of the final release, they had it in the promotional releases - promotional releases are a form of advertising and I really don't see how the hell Expelled is going to slime their way out of this one.

"Ms. Ono's lawyer, Jonas Herbsman, of Shukat, Arrow, Hafer, Weber & Herbsman, said in an interview Wednesday: "It was not licensed." With respect to the filmmakers, he says: "We are exploring all options." It is not clear what remedies if any may be available to Ms. Ono.

In a written statement, the film's three producers -- Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft -- acknowledged that they did not seek permission, but they called the use "momentary." "After seeking the opinion of legal counsel it was seen as a First Amendment issue and protected under the fair use doctrine of free speech," the statement said. A spokeswoman said under 25 seconds of the song are used in the movie."

Full Story

So their official story is "We only used less than 25 seconds and we swear we were going to take it out!"

I have heard of a 'less-than-15-seconds' rule for radio bumper music, but this seems a little stretchy and I'd love to see a judge's opinion on the matter.

These expelled guys are more sketchy than a police artist.

Date: 2008/04/18 10:13:02, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 18 2008,08:29)
I see that the usual idjwits at UD have engaged their persecution complexes in order to bitch and moan about the unfairness of US copyright enforcement. Naturally, this allows them to avoid the real question - Are the makers of Expelled really that stupid?

I guess it is pretty easy to be cavalier about the intellectual property of others when you have no intellectual property of your own.

My favourite argument so far is "The song Imagine says 'imagine no possessions!'  Yoko is certainly not living up to that!"

Have we figured out if the song is actually in the final cut?   I thought before when they said 'momentary,' they meant only in the promotional bits, but then I got to thinking maybe they mean momentary temporally because the song is only in for 25 seconds.

Date: 2008/04/20 08:00:10, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
The UD people have officially started their "ITS A CONSPIRACY!" to explain the abyssmal ticket sales, claiming that Expelled is losing money because the EVIL DARWINISTS are buying tickets to one movie and then seeing expelled.


It makes one wonder how much larger EXPELLED’s take would be if Darwinists pulling this trick were factored in.

And O'Leary's not going to stop there!  Expelled should be making millions!  Who else is at fault?  Hmm perhaps anecdotal evidence of an isolated incident somewhere with no specifics is at fault!  Let's sue that teenager making minimum wage into the ground!

More O'Leary:

Yesterday afternoon, someone contacted me to tell me that his party had had their tickets stamped for a different movie, when they tried to buy tickets for Expelled.

I alerted the producers, as they would have the legal right to investigate.

Date: 2008/04/21 09:49:37, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Am I the first person who has noticed this?   How old is this?  Ben Stein at the Missouri State Capitol with Representative Jane Cunningham who is apparently trying to push Intelligent Design into public schools.

Ben Stein at the Missouri State Capitol

Date: 2008/04/23 12:00:11, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
I wondered how long it would take them to start complaining about 'Those elitists' that are ruining the film's reception.   Countdown to blaming the poor showing on people not being able to get away from their jobs because they're just so darn hard-working in 3, 2..


To understand what will happen next for Expelled, ignore the derision of the elite; note whether people “with jobs” go see the film.

Ah the old haves vs. the have-nots, the last refuge.

Date: 2008/04/23 15:01:18, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (themadlolscientist @ April 23 2008,14:53)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2008,11:26)

Deja vu?

John says.... Sorry, I'm new to iB code. When I tried to embed the picture itself, I kept getting errors.

The lawsuit is here!

Yoko sues!

Date: 2008/04/23 15:34:53, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (dogdidit @ April 23 2008,15:22)
Quote (Reginald Beasley @ April 23 2008,15:01)
The lawsuit is here!

Yoko sues!

Hint: before posting, check upthread to see if Arden Chatfield has beaten you to it.
:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

He should have been more clear about it!  I did a quick search for "Yoko" and "sue" and got all excited.

I still have the first non-subtle scoop of Yoko suing, I still win the 40 dollars :P

Date: 2008/04/23 20:17:36, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (ERV @ April 23 2008,18:43)
Fine.  It was fair use.  So why did they ask 'The Killers' and not Yoko Ono?

God they are retarded.

This will come up in court.  

For example, if your gas stove stops working in your apartment and you refuse to pay rent and your landlord decides to take you to court, one of the first things the judge says is "Okay, what reasonable measures did you take to alert the landlord of the situation?" and you respond to him, "Well, none your honour." the judge will laugh at you.

It doesnt make it an open-shut case, but it does not bode well for Premise that they never asked for licensing rights.

Date: 2008/04/25 11:38:30, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 25 2008,11:09)
If it's legal, I hope someone is archiving.

It's on the internet and nobody hacked into their server or anything.  Seems pretty solid to me.

Looks like this stuff is full of religious references by the way, probably not what the IDers want leaked to the public.

Date: 2008/04/29 15:34:42, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Ugh, avoid watching Part 19 if you're one of those people like me who gets really really squeamish and panicky when presented with the idea of eternity.

Well, not so much panicky as I used to, but surely very squeamish.

Date: 2008/04/30 09:25:28, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Looks like the Creation Scientists are moving onto another state - one that realllllly needs a good waste of taxpayer money what with all the economic success they're having lately:

Disco launches attack on intelligence in Michigan

Warning, that link will take you to the DI website, but is there any legal recourse that the states themselves can take?  Michigan has about as many jobs as potatoes in a salt field right now and the last thing they need is to expend resources fighting the people trying to cram Jesus down their kids' throats.  Like after the DI fails miserably once, can they be kept from ever having anything to do with the state's politics again?

Date: 2008/05/20 12:08:31, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
The slow wheels of justice are churning as there was a prelim injuction hearing yesterday, here's a choice bit:

But in the state court PI hearing this morning, Judge Richard Lowe wasn’t nearly as convinced as Professor Wu. Judge Lowe asked Falzone why it was necessary to use Lennon’s actual performance of the song, rather than, say, having Stein say the lyrics himself or flashing the lyrics on the screen. To this, Falzone gave what we thought was a compelling and novel reply. Lennon’s performance, said Falzone, triggers a specific emotional response in the viewer’s mind — i.e. “Maybe Lennon’s right; maybe the world would be better off without religion” — and it’s that response that the film, and its use of “Imagine,” seeks to criticize.

Judge Lowe seemed skeptical, and decided to stay the original TRO pending his ruling, which means that “Expelled,” currently playing in theaters around the country, cannot be reproduced or otherwise distributed.

Exactly one of the arguments I've been spouting the whole time - it's not necessary to actually use the song at all and the dishonesty of Premise will not do well for them in court.

Date: 2008/06/17 07:20:53, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 17 2008,06:09)
Quote (Assassinator @ June 17 2008,06:01)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ June 17 2008,04:32)
Or is the funny bit here:

Dammit, why isn't that being broadcasted here in Holland, I miss all the good stuff! O well we dó have the Daily Show over here.
Anyway, not much new stuff in that one, just saying what we already knew. That Colbert guy is awesome though.

I download the Colbert show via usenet, day after it's shown.  Naughty me.  PM me if you want some links etc.

Or you can just watch the Ken Miller interview on Uncommon Descent - DaveScot basically put up "Here's a video that makes us look stupid!"

Date: 2008/07/13 14:01:07, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
Of course the bill has been signed and Louisiana is going to lose tons of taxpayer dollars this Fall as it has to fight the unconstitutional bill.

It's also a detriment to LSU, Tulane, ULL, ULM, and LaTech who will have to adjust their curricula to include a "No, evolution actually does occur and your science teachers didn't know what they were talking about" class.

But we're told not to worry, all this bill allows is to bring in supplementary texts.  Has anyone looked at these supplementary texts?

Here's an example of a supplementary text endorsed by the Louisiana Family Forum (who fought hard for this bill, though I'm not sure if they wrote any of the language or was an official sponsor or what):

Take a look at some of the textbook-quality questions you can find in their "What is your Evolution IQ?" section:

It has been known that the peppered moth pictures in biology textbooks have been staged since the
moths are nocturnal. Why are these still being taught as examples of evolution?

About Archaeopteryx: This fossil is generally accepted as being a bird with a few reptilian characteristics. Since there are
modern birds with the same reptilian characteristics and its supposed immediate ancestors occur
higher in the fossil record than it appears, why is this fossil considered transitional?

The odds of insulin (51 amino acids long) forming spontaneously by accident is the same as
winning the Power Ball lottery 15 times straight. Is it reasonable to assume that one of the
smallest living organisms (H39 mycoplasma) with its 4,864,000 total chemical compounds could
ever form? Justify your answer.

If mutations are the building blocks of macro-evolution why hasn’t something other than a
deformed fruit fly appeared since the fruit fly has been forcibly mutated millions of times.  [Yes there was actually no question mark on this one]

Darwin observed that there are gaps in the fossil record and wrote that this posed a serious
problem for his theory. Since the gaps still exist how is it possible to say that macro-evolution is a

...With macro-evolution one would expect a gradual increase in
the number of species present as time goes by. With the reported mass extinctions and Cambrian
Explosion the number of species shoots very high during this period and then decreases abruptly at
times as time goes by to where there is only 5% of the species that once inhabited the earth now
present. Doesn’t this contradict the macro-evolution concept?

There's 58 more like those, plus PDFs that talk about this bs for specific textbooks.  Nothing like loaded and/or rhetorical questions to teach students how to 'think critically.'

On the bright side, it shouldn't be too damned hard when this goes to trial to just point out "Uh, these are classic creationist canards, obviously the motive is the same."

Also, the LFF links to Answers in Genesis, which is an Absolutely Epic Fail.

Date: 2008/12/03 08:05:53, Link
Author: Reg
[quote=lkeithlu,Dec. 02 2008,20:07][/quote]
b) the Province of Ontario has banned the continued breeding of a variety of dog (the pit bull) unknown to wild nature, and currently (controversially!) on a sort of “death row” here."

WTF does this mean?

Probably that Ontario, like other places, has banned pit bulls. This is because of their unfortunate tendency to attack people. How this supports O'Leary's claims about biodiversity is unclear.

Date: 2008/12/13 12:59:58, Link
Author: Reg
Uh-oh, Barry A's identified CSI Las Vegas as a conduit of Darwinistic propaganda. I'm wondering what's next: an examination of athetistic subtexts in NYPD Blue?

Date: 2009/02/04 03:16:35, Link
Author: Reg
My two comments over at UD are still "awaiting moderation" 12 hours after being submitted, so I thought I'd share them here. One on the Ben Stein post:
Talking of Mein Kampf, Domoman wrote “One cannot read that and think that Hitler was not influenced by Darwin” and perhaps he was. Let’s have a look at some other passages in that book and think about what influences they might indicate.
Their [the Jews'] very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God’s image in His creation.

But if for reasons of indolence or cowardice this fight is not fought to a finish we may imagine what conditions will be like 500 years hence. Little of God’s image will be left in human nature, except to mock the Creator.

Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination [ie Catholic or Protestant], to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God’s handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.

The State should consecrate [matrimony] as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape.

Of course, he might have been spouting nonsense to please his audience (after all, they’re the words of one of history’s archetypical liars). But if you’re going to claim that Mein Kampf honestly declares an evolutionary influence, you also have to acknowledge that it talks of religious ones as well.

And one on the 'if we don't succeed' one:
Dr Dembski states one possible reason for a hypothetical future failure of ID. But in the event that Intelligent Design does not succeed, I can see at least two possible reasons:
* Not taking advantage of the incredible resources available to us.
* ID being wrong.
Others might exist which have not yet occurred to me. Any analysis of the relative probabilities of these options would be welcome.

Date: 2009/02/17 14:02:59, Link
Author: Reg

The first two drones to speak up say:
Where would one go to find out what message theory is.
Message Theory sounds like some arm of Information Theory,but I’ve been unable to find any reference to it in the math literature.

Hey, that second drone was me - asking whereabouts in the literature this "message theory" is, of which he speaks.

Date: 2009/02/20 18:55:18, Link
Author: Reg
My comment on the "Holy crap, Atlantis!" thread is being held in moderation as always, so I echo it here in case it never squeezes its way through the tardpipe:
Is it chance or design?

So go on, apply your Explanatory Filter, quantify the Complex Specified Information, and tell us: is it naturally occuring via materialist processes, or Intelligently Designed?

And lest I be accused of demanding answers without being prepared to give my own, here’s the SHA1 hash of my answer to this particular puzzle: 369c703c-8a43f80c-ae9adbc0-9a1a5410-77265337. I’ll reveal the orignal when Dave Scott or Dr Dembski gives their answer.

Date: 2009/02/23 17:28:02, Link
Author: Reg
Has there been some censoring and banning going on?

In order to be scientifically useful, measures must give the same results when different people apply them independently to the same objects.

Actually to be scientifically useful lots of measure only need to be accurate to a factor of 10.
Get out of my thread, Rob. You’re either uninformed or a troll or both. Either way your welcome is worn out.

And Rob's posts on that thread have all disappeared. Dave Scot seems to think there's something wrong, bad or offensive about suggesting that a measure which gives different results when different people measure the same thing isn't useful? And that "accurate to within a factor of 10" is the only usefulness criterion for a measure? Jeez. I'd hate to buy a pair of trousers from the Acceptable To Dave Scot Tailoring Company. "Inside leg: anywhere between 3 inches and 25 feet. Waist: somewhere between very small and quite a bit. All depends on who used the tape measure."

Date: 2009/03/26 12:10:51, Link
Author: Reginald Beasley
We won!   Just crossing the BABlog right now:

7-7 vote means science wins, just barely.

Date: 2009/08/29 03:12:03, Link
Author: Reg
Grrr, over at the "Darwinists nobbled Blogginheads" thread I submitted an answer to DATCG's reply to me but it didn't make it past moderation. I've resubmitted it (yeah, some hope) and might as well post it here.

Please do tell Reg. What in that video looks silly? Care to expand on which questions or answers were silly?
I've seen the first few minutes of the video and Dr McWhorter comes across as a bit of an awestruck fan-boy lavishly praising Behe's book. And his mystification at how skunks could possibly have come to be without an Intelligence crafting their stink-squirters was funny.
What you think about the fascist NCSE shutting down Dr. Sternberg after he published an ID friendly paper?
I don't much care about Dr Sternberg being let go, but I'd love to see you give some evidence that the NCSE are fascists. I've not noticed them herding opponents into extermination camps, wanting to implement a policy of "racial hygiene" or trying to eradicate Jews.

Date: 2009/08/29 03:49:48, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 29 2009,03:27)
He wasn't "let go".  The Smithsonian didn't do anything, other than move him from one office to another during a re-shuffle.

My mistake - I didn't know that. I thought his contract expired and wasn't renewed... I think I got his employment at Smithsonian mixed up with his term as journal editor coming to an end.
Being moved from one office to another is, wow, erm, quite heavy handed intimidation. Yeah. Practically equivalent to being taken out into the alleyway and beaten with 2x4's by masked minions of Eugenie Scott.

Date: 2009/09/10 16:46:36, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 10 2009,16:34)
Yes, but he meets the essential criterion for recruitment into UD's "Distinguished scientists who support us" club.  He's too dead to disagree.

Von Neumann seems to have had the whole ID movement nailed down quite well, even going so far as to lay down the ground rules for their approach to both mathematics and biology:
Quote (Von Neumann @ possibly apocryphal)
"There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about."

That's as true today as it ever was.

Date: 2009/09/10 17:00:04, Link
Author: Reg
I've just had a thought. UncommonDescent describes John von Neumann as "an IDer ante litteram". But I'm sure I've seen many posts on UD flatly denying that Intelligent Design is any kind of a recent notion (like, say, some kind of rebranding of creationism) and insisting that ID is ancient and well-established, invoking Aristotle and Newton and other great names back into the mists of history as great ID proponents. But if that's the case, and ID is so well established and not at all new, how come ID could have been ante litterum as recently as von Neumann's days of the 1950s? I would ask there, but have no confidence the question would see the light of day.

Date: 2009/10/03 10:42:48, Link
Author: Reg
Shorter William Dembski:
"Some NSF employees were looking at porn on work computers, thus Intelligent Design is science, Evolution is wrong, and the Earth isn't heating up."

Date: 2009/10/03 14:11:29, Link
Author: Reg
Dembski gets classier: "I think Dawkins would prefer to surf porn at work and pay hookers rather than give money to help orphans."

It's False Dichotomy Bingo, which is fun and easy for anyone to play:
This raises an interesting question for William Dembski: If we had to choose one or the other, helping “poor sick children” by (1) frequenting at taxpayer’s expense porn sites that pay these children's mothers a cut, the porn sites constituting a strictly non-scientific activity which stimulates his nonmaterial consciousness or by (2) donating money to charities that research the childhood diseases, using biological methods rooted in the Theory of Evolution, these charities constituting a secular materialistic activity, which should we prefer? I suspect WD, given his virulent hatred of secular materialism, would opt for (1).

Date: 2009/10/03 16:50:18, Link
Author: Reg
"Oh, Dr Dembski! What a perceptive insight you have given."
"Why, Mrs O'Leary, you make an excellent point."
"That foolish Dawkins is quite the dunderhead isn't he, Dr Dembski?"
"He's certainly a dim bulb compared to us, Mrs O'Leary."
 [and so on...]

Date: 2009/10/07 04:31:19, Link
Author: Reg
I notice that while I seem to have been pushed into UD's Outer Darkness they still haven't actually answered the question of what kind of information Wells meant. Ho hum.
I don't quite know why Hayden says "Reg is now moderated" (my emphasis) - everything I've posted there for months has only appeared after being "held in moderation" for several hours.

Date: 2009/10/08 14:28:43, Link
Author: Reg
Good grief, Barry's really been wielding the Ban Scythe with gusto. Not counting the deletions where he's cut out inconvenient parts of people's responses, just the bannings:

* 2nd comment: BGOG is no longer with us.
Many snips and warnings follow before we reach comment 22:
* SNIP. Quaggy ignored the warning above and is no longer with us.
A mere 2 comments later Todd falls to the Banninator:
* SNIP. Todd, a guest on this site, attacked and insulted his host. He is no longer with us.
* Then: SNIP. Long-time poster God’s iPod is no longer with us.
* and SNIP, DNA_Jock is no longer with us..

5 down, warnings aplenty.

I love this bit where he justifies the gaggings and bannings:
It is rude for a dinner guest to tell his host that the food is odious. It is just as rude to come into UD’s house and tell the posters their posts are unworthy for discussion.

Yes, it would be rude to tell the host that the food is odious. To continue Barry's preferred dinner party analogy; if the host turned to the guest over dinner and proclaimed "Your problem is you lack any sense of decency and morality, I bet you think it's okay to sodomize drugged girls and I'm amazed we even allow you into our house while our daughter lies asleep upstairs" then it would hardly be rude for the guest to mount a spiritied defence and ask how the host justified such a position.

Date: 2009/10/08 15:07:29, Link
Author: Reg
People are still being SNIPped and told to stay tightly on topic after Clive's 3000 word quote of CS Lewis on morality in religious texts is left intact.

Date: 2009/10/08 15:44:01, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2009,15:35)
And for the Hat Trick-CHINA!!!

And the connection to evolution-?  ?  ?


Duh; climatology, euthanasia, Hitler, child rape, the Columbine shootings and Chinese infanticide are all made possible by evolution corrupting people's souls away from God.

Date: 2009/10/14 13:51:00, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 14 2009,13:23)
I probably shouldn't do this but I can't help myself:


12:29 pm
in this vid I clam that 2nd law encourages genetic decay

OMG, we're doomed, DOOOMED! Waterloo is imminent! Just watch the video and realise that the really intelligent people are all in favour of ID.
(he's got even a PART II! I love his illustrations, e.g. at 2:05)

I'll now stand in the corner and think about what I've done.

oh. my. goodness.

Date: 2009/10/16 12:40:12, Link
Author: Reg
Oh my, Dembski's really sliding into tinfoil hat territory:
If people like Paul Williams fall prey to our global secularized culture (especially when it is able to bypass the U.S. 1st Amendment), then we are not far downstream.

I can understand how one country's laws reaching citizens of another country is a contentious issue, but how is it a manifestation of "secularized culture"? There are some attempts being made by some members of the UN to crack down on "defamation of religion"; hardly an example of a secularist transnational assault on free expression.

And he goes on. And on, and on...
Over two years ago, I reported here at UD about the European Council’s denunciation of ID as an assault on human rights. It’s not hard to imagine that ID, because it may be construed as implying that humans were intended to operate within certain constraints, might be seen as challenging certain lifestyles and thus as constituting a “hate crime.”

And over two years ago the chilling extent of the "denunciation of ID as an assault on human rights" was explained to him:
“If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.” In so much as teaching creationism can violate freedom of religion, this is much the same position taken by virtually every American court which has considered the matter in the last 40 years or so.

But to Information Theory's Isaac Newton it's a step on the road to making ID a hate crime and crushing the US Constitution.

Date: 2009/10/16 12:51:37, Link
Author: Reg
And O'Leary grabs the wrong end of the stick about the case against Williams:
What happened in recent years in Canada was that progressive limitations on free speech due to “human rights” concerns made it difficult to discuss issues like who has access to nuclear materials today and what are their loyalties. I say bosh to it all. If a person is smart enough to know what to do with nuclear materials, he should be able to look after his own human rights, and should expect hard questions without shouting “racism!!”.

But Williams is not being prosecuted any kind of racism or human rights laws. He is being sued for libel by McMaster University because he claimed they mismanaged a nuclear reactor and lost a load of nuclear material; claims which McMaster thinks are defamatory. It is a civil case about alleged defamation, not a criminal case about alleged racism.
You'd have thought that someone who helped write the Canadian Constitution would realise this.

Date: 2009/10/16 13:36:48, Link
Author: Reg
In "Freud down, Darwin next?" David Coppedge tells me something I never knew before:
Sigmund Freud had immeasurable impact on modern culture. ...  His theories (based largely on Darwinism) brought new words into popular vocabulary–id, ego, super-ego, the unconscious.

Freud based his theories "largely on Darwinism"? How in the name of the sweet baby Jesus did Coopedge come up with that?

Date: 2009/10/16 13:58:10, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 16 2009,08:47)
And unfortunately for Dumbski, actually checking his irrelevant assertion (something highly unlikely for the inhabitants of UD's Carnival of Creo Credulity to bother to do) reveals that Dawkins' book is at #19 and the survivalist whatever is at #60.

At time of writing....
'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins. Sales Rank: #23 in Books.
'How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It' by James Wesley Rawles. Sales Rank: #68 in Books.
'The End of Christianity' by William Dembski. Sales Rank: #5,892 in Books.

Date: 2009/10/18 12:57:13, Link
Author: Reg
Oh my, O'Leary's mathematics thread. What a mess...

Denyse O'Leary, on 17th October, not a creationist:
Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition, I sometimes get pegged as the local gap tooth creationist moron. ...

Denyse O'Leary, later the same day, all of creation is the work of God:
Peter, well, the Cambrian explosion was doubtless the work of God, in my view, but I would say that of all creation. ...

But not a creationist by any reasonable definition. Right.

But she's very clear on something:
Guys, I am no mathematician and don’t use well-defined terms, as I don’t know any.

You got that right, sister.

Date: 2009/10/18 15:01:11, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 18 2009,14:39)
I was hoping to catch a glimpse of her amazing dialect of English being misspoken in real time, but alas her efforts seem to have fallen on the cutting room floor.

Is there video of Dense-speak on the web?

Oh, yes.

Date: 2009/10/20 14:54:09, Link
Author: Reg
tgpeeler opens the Spout Of Ignorance:
The fundamental problem that any materialistic or naturalistic explanation for life faces is that it has the laws of physics as its ONLY explanatory resource.

Being restricted to demonstrable reality is a problem?

Amazingly, the comment gets far sillier after that.

Date: 2009/10/22 15:06:07, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 22 2009,03:56)
Tomorrow's ID headlines today!  From the November, 2009 Scientific American:    
Rethinking the Hobbits of Indonesia

New analyses reveal the mini human species to be even stranger than previously thought and hint that major tenets of human evolution need revision.

Waterloo!  Waterloo!  The idea of evolution is failing and probably won't last until the 21st century!!

Uhm ...

Tomorrow's ID headlines today: Ida interpreted differently:
Primate fossil 'not an ancestor'
The exceptionally well-preserved fossil primate known as "Ida" is not a missing link as some have claimed, according to an analysis in the journal Nature.
The research is the first independent assessment of the claims made in a scientific paper and a television documentary earlier this year.
Dr Erik Seiffert says that Ida belonged to a group more closely linked to lemurs than to monkeys, apes or us.

Coffee!!! These crazy evolutionists can't agree about anything, the Darwinian edifice is falling, it's like Waterloo and the fall of the Berlin wall and evolution's a Theory In Crisis real soon now sometime.

Date: 2009/10/22 16:20:10, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 22 2009,15:23)
Quote (Fross @ Oct. 23 2009,03:06)

OMG.  How does a car become a submarine?

For those that missed it first time around, oleaginous narcissist Homme de la Renaissance Berlinski gives his car-to-submarine analogy here.
In a twofer, he includes the now classic the "I stopped at 50,000 changes" line.

Has David Berlinksi ever shown his workings for the "50,000 changes" claim? And why not? Are we to believe that he's said this, which has made him rich and famous, but he hasn't kept the original notes? I think we should start a competition to find the original workings of Berlinksi's "50,000 changes" claim. Winner gets a copy of a Denyse O'Leary book. Runner-up gets two Denyse O'Leary books.

Date: 2009/10/22 16:56:31, Link
Author: Reg
I'm listening to the David Berlinski interview which Gil describes as "one of the best interviews with David I’ve ever heard". Seriously, if this is one of the best then I'd hate to hear Berlinski on an off day. For example, Berlinksi is asked by the host Greg Koukl to define the scientific method (starts at 2:18:30):


BERLINSKI: The scientific method is this thing that looms monstrously large in the textbooks. But when you decode the message that's revealed in the textbook it comes to this: Be careful, look around, don't trust the other fellow, cut the cards, shuffle them a great deal, run a few experiments if you can. If you can't run experiments then do some mathematical calculations, hope for the best. That's the scientic method.

KOUKL: So this idea of this kind of rigid a method of necessary and sufficient conditions...

BERLINSKI: ...powerful tool that only the scientists have... that's... let's be serious about that, there is no such thing as the scientific method. And if there is such a thing as the scientific method it's also the best method of learning golf. The same principles are at work; be careful, see what works, don't make too many mistakes, keep a careful record. Nobody knows how science proceeds and the fact of the matter is that the analysis of science as an institution and science as a body of theories is just as difficult as the analysis of the physical universe itself.

It's incoherent and pompous as well as wrong: "The scientific method is shuffling cards and hoping for the best, there's no such thing as it, but if there was such a thing it would be something different." WTF?

I've wasted enough of my life listening to this. A few minutes earlier Berlinski was saying that religious explanations shouldn't be excluded from biology because science hasn't even managed to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, or to solve the 3 body problem or explain where the universe came from. I kid you not.

Date: 2009/10/23 04:16:41, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 22 2009,23:29)
I'm watching Berlinski right now on YouTube here and I notice two things:

First, this is part 2 of a four or five part series titled, "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski"

The Incorrigible Dr Berlinski. It's an accurate description, but not a flattering one; what kind of scientist wants to be incapable of being corrected, or having beliefs which are "necessarily true simply by virtue of being believed"? Kind of smacks of total unwillingness or inability to yield to contrary evidence and argument.

Date: 2009/10/30 13:58:03, Link
Author: Reg
Darwin was Wrong! About a particular geological problem over 20 years before publishing On The Origin. See? See? Darwin was totally wrong! So there, thus evolution is wrong too.

The ID crowd would have people believe that Darwin is an unchallengable and hallowed saintly figure who nobody dare criticise. But the post shows an example of Darwin's theorising and conclusions being entirely open to debate and to being overturned by better explanations. Almost as if some methodical and open process (let's provisionally call it "sci-ence") were at work.
I suspect Darwin’s biggest blunder will prove not to be his interpretation of the Parallel Roads at Glen Roy, but his Theory of Origins. I don’t think we’re very far away from this day.

That's always the way isn't it? The great Collapse Of Evolution is always just not very far away, real soon now and imminent at any moment... but never seems to happen. It must be terribly frustrating.

Date: 2009/10/30 14:25:10, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (cogzoid @ Oct. 30 2009,14:14)
What's going to happen first?  The ToE being overturned or Rapture?!?!

I'm on the edge of my seat...

Rapture Ready's Rapture Index is all the way up to 165 right now and anything above 160 counts as "Fasten your seat belts", (130-160 merely counts as "Heavy prophetic activity"). But that's still lower than the record high in September 2001 and the Rapture didn't even happen then. Really, I wish Rapture forecasting could be put on a more reliable and rigorous footing.

Date: 2009/11/02 11:45:40, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 02 2009,11:01)

... Many atheists are not content to simply pervert their own nature. ... Atheist anthropologist Margaret Mead, adulterer, cooked the books in cultural analysis to create the impression that adultery was far more widespread than it was. ...

What a tortured soul.

My emphasis. I think he means this anthropologist Margaret Mead:
A committed Anglican Christian, she took a considerable part in the drafting of the 1979 American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer

Not merely an atheist, but one of those Episcopal prayerbook-writing atheists.

Date: 2009/11/02 12:54:13, Link
Author: Reg
The most ominous words ever to flow from O'Leary's keyboard?
I have always counselled my students...

She teaches? Oh those poor students.

Later in the same thread she comes close to identifying something important but I suspect the important words sailed neglected over her head:
It was okay to disagree with orthodox theorists, even if, like [Einstein], you are only a patent office clerk somewhere, but you make sense.

It was - and is - okay to disagree with orthodoxy, but it helps to make sense. Hold that thought, Mrs O'Leary.

Date: 2009/11/05 13:50:39, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary on textbooks:
Enough already with total subject confusion, ecological misunderstanding, and useless social conflict.

Hear, hear. Lets have an end to...
Total subject confusion...
I wouldn’t be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified.

If Darwinian evolution predicts anything at all, other than grants for its promoters and persecution for its doubters, it should predict that such an event as the beefalo does not happen, yet it does.

Star writer Carola Vyhnak, urban affairs reporter, was informed that this is an example of a new species forming, in other words, “evolution in action.” Not so in this case. This is a hybrid.

ecological misunderstanding...
And no, eco-nuts, don’t write to tell me that humans cause ecological destruction worldwide. Quite the contrary. Humans have greatly increased the diversity of species,subspecies, and varieties worldwide

and useless social conflict
“Infect otherwise hookers with the religion meme? ” That would be a big problem according to many current pundits because the otherwise hookers would live a lot longer and have more children who survive. Like, they might even actually marry guys who care about them, or something, and care about their children. Can’t have that, can we?  ... I guess if the selfish gene is better propagated by Western sex tourists forcing themselves on starving girls, maybe Dawkins must support it.

All quotes: Denyse O'Leary.

Date: 2009/11/05 16:13:16, Link
Author: Reg
Does a bug believe that it's an insect?

That would depend on the bug's completely non-materialistic neuroscience while materialistic neuroscience has so far given us nothing. Except the ability to mitigate and repair brain trauma and some degenerative disease. Coffee! Coffee!!! Coffee!!!!

Seriously; why does Denyse O'Leary yell "Coffee" at the start of so many of her posts?

Don't get me wrong; I like coffee and celebrate its inclusion in our diets, if only because hacking down thousands of acres of native flora to plant imported coffee monocultures is such a clear increase in biodiversity. I just don't understand why Mrs O'Leary yells "coffee!" so often. Is it some kind of Canadian custom of which I have been unaware?

Date: 2009/11/06 08:29:09, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary's curiosity-stunting manifesto made me sorrowful. I apologise if what follows is emotional, but I must vent...

Given that Darwinism is the creation story of atheism, one question it all raises for me – and this was raised by a relative a decade ago – why is Darwinism even public business? Who cares why the tyrannosaur died? Whether Neanderthal man was polygamous? Like, these questions are interesting, but how did they get to be the stuff of public business – school agency hearings and such?

Public business should be about roads, sewers, water mains and culverts, and bringing people off the highway to the Emerg when their cars crash up in a blizzard, and quickly sending shelter buses for people evacuated from a serious fire.

Yes, who cares why the tyrannosaur died or how Neanderthals lived; these are only questions which we ask because people are curious and like to know stuff about the universe in which they live. Let's restrict public business to the immediately concrete necessities of everyday life like roads and putting out fires and pulling people from snowdrifts. Let's not spend anything to ask questions and answer them simply for curiosity's sake; let's close down public funding of things which don't produce doctors and engineers - all you university-dwelling archeologists who've only found stuff out about dead people, and those philosophers and historians and anthropologists and classicists and linguists and theologists and artists and those funding-hog astronomers who've only ever built telescopes to look into the sky and sent rockets to distant planets to find out useless stuff like how many moons Jupiter has or how many stars are in our galaxy. That all just takes away money from public drainage schemes and how how did they get to be the stuff of public business?

The whole elite culture racket of telling teachers what they can or can’t say about “evolution” (= Darwinism = atheism, of course) could be shut down with no loss of science potential.

You say it, sister! People don't need to be told about evolution... and while we're at it let's not bother telling them about this “heliocentrism” stuff because people can get through life quite happily without knowing what orbits around what, and why insist on the culture racket of telling teachers what they can or can't say about gravity and “relativity” and explaining to their students why the moon doesn't fall down out of the sky - people know perfectly well that rocks fall to the ground but the moon won't and it's not as if knowledge of a heliocentric solar system orbiting the galactic centre has ever put a roof over anyone's head.

It’s quite likely that nearly half of Americans doubted “evolution” (= Darwinism) when they put a man on the moon. Most Canadians were probably not supporters of Darwinism when we built the Canadarm on the Space Shuttle.

Firstly, as a couple minutes with Google and such arcane search terms as Canada "acceptance of evolution" might have told her, it's quite likely that most Canadians probably were "supporters of Darwinism" when they built the Canadarm:
Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view regarding the origin and development of human beings on earth?  "Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years": 59%

Secondly, why does O'Leary seem happy for the Canadian taxpayers to have funded the Canadarm anyway? It's not like the Canadarm's ever helped anyone when their cars crash up in a blizzard. That's public money being spent on something which will never mend a road or install a sewer.

Date: 2009/11/06 11:26:51, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary opens the valve to the tard fountain as she writes about the latest ID The Future (sic) podcasts:
Earlier this year I was listening to a committed materialist, theoretical physicist Larry Krauss of Arizona State U, explain in detail, exactly how the world is going to end.

For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out how he differs from the hellfire sect banging on my door inconveniently on Saturday morning, handing me a tract explaining … how the world is going to end.

*facepalm* For the life of her she just can't figure out how Krauss and some hellfire sect differ, because both were talking about the end of the world. Let's think for a second... One uses logical inferrence from precise and ongoing observations. The other uses interpretation of an arbitrarily chosen ancient text and maybe the inspired words of some self-proclaimed prophet(s). And Denyse O'Leary the science writer can't see that these are different.

Krauss says he has “science” on his side. Yes, but … . science has changed its mind on a number of issues many times in the past few centuries, when its theories proved false.

Ah yes, the old "science has been wrong before" card. Science has been wrong before, but O'Leary seems not to have noticed that every time science "changes its mind" it gets a little bit closer to describing reality. The Earth was flat, then a sphere, then an oblate spheroid, then also slightly lumpy and bulges in and out as it rotates relative to the moon...

So has the hellfire sect, though the history is less often recorded.

Look, I am a Catholic Christian and am busy and don’t know how the world is going to end.

And she seems perfectly content with her ignorance.

Date: 2009/11/06 11:55:16, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 06 2009,11:49)
I'm waiting with bated breath for the day when someone, anyone (Bueller?) over there actually provides some data about the moral behavior of the religious vs. the non-religious.  If it's so freaking obvious that belief in goofy superstition is the basis of morality, you'd think it would be pretty easy to back up with evidence.

Haven't you heard? "Hitler was an atheist darwinist, and so was Stalin, and atheism made Klebold and Harris shoot their classmates at Columbine, and materialists see no reason not to sample the choice flesh of 13 year old girls, QED."

Date: 2009/11/07 03:41:19, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 07 2009,03:01)
I wrote a forth interpretor in Z80 assembler for my Amstrad 64k. Do I win the geek prize?

Not until you program it to win championship checkers.

Date: 2009/11/07 03:58:29, Link
Author: Reg
The language centres of Clive's brain keep firing:
If love and compassion aren’t metaphysical, then they are physical, and can be removed or altered by a physical process, therefore your love for your mother or anyone else doesn’t even rise to the level of being a figment of your imagination, but rather a chemical process of material movements. In other words, they can be changed by a physical process, and if they can be changed by a physical process, then they don’t really exist, and neither does any other conclusion that can be altered in the same way, not even the conclusion that your thoughts are material, for they could, themselves, be altered for you to believe them to be metaphysical. The fatal flaw is that none of this way of thinking has anything at all to do with truth, only material movements.


I love the claim that "if they can be changed by a physical process, then they don’t really exist". Mount Everest can be changed by physical processes, and it certainly exists.

Two comments later Mark Frank points out that emotions can be altered by physical changes in the brain.

I'm getting some popcorn.

Date: 2009/11/07 09:31:28, Link
Author: Reg
I'd almost forgotten that the list of people that IDers love to hate is longer than Judge Jones and Barbara Forrest but includes Ken Miller as Flannery shows:
Noted Brown University biologist and slayer of windmills, Kenneth Miller, came to Birmingham, Alabama, on Thursday November 5.

If I remember correctly he slayed rather more than a windmill. If he'd just been knocking down windmills you wouldn't still be pissed off at him 4 years later.

Miller began by giving a long list of his publications interspersed along with some obligatory self-deprecating humor, the apparent take-home message being “look at what a smart and prolific boy I am.”

While Dembski, Berlinksi et al are such paragons of modesty.

But props to Flannery for using the words "This is Whiggish history of the worst kind!" while asking Miller a question. I've no idea what it means but I think more people should talk like the 18th Century more often.

Date: 2009/11/07 12:46:04, Link
Author: Reg
StephenB tells people how to sock it to Ken Miller:
First, just as you did at the Dover trial, you conflated ID, a design inference, with creationism, a religious presupposition.

Oh do please go on and open up that line of questioning. Miller's probably brought along his slides showing the morphing of 'Biology and Creation' into 'Of Pandas and People' and the abrupt search-replace just after the Edwards v. Aguillard verdict but hadn't showed them in the talk because it was side issue.

Second, in defending Darwnistic macro evolution, an undirected process which is indeed, incompatible with ID, you provide evidence only for generic macro evolution, which ID does not, in any way dispute.

That's clear. Darwinistic macro evolution is incompatible with ID. ID does not in any way dispute generic macro evolution. Okay. I've got that. Everybody else clear?

Date: 2009/11/07 14:49:13, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 07 2009,13:42)
Usually, he is ever so polite. That's why I was so astonished by his recent somewhat sharp or strange comments. I guessed he had run out of patience and was going to blow his stack anytime soon.

As he orbits closer to the Singularity Of Tard he, like all of who have probed UD, has been passing down an increasingly steep Density Gradient toward his own Politeness Event Horizon (we all have them but they form under subtly different conditions yet to be fully understood). When the Politeness Event Horizon is reached the person's posts flare brightly as stored frustration is radiated in an intense flash of Snark, after which they wink out of the observable universe as they fall forever into Bannination.

Date: 2009/11/09 13:29:24, Link
Author: Reg
Tomorrow's UD headlines today - the Times* prints a lament about how Darwin's turned our children into nihilistic killers. None other than Barry Arrington is quoted:

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, the Denver lawyer Barry Arrington has come across more in a similar vein. “I read through every single page of Eric Harris’s journals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes… It became evident to me that Harris consciously saw his actions as logically arising from what he had learnt about evolution. Darwinism served as his personal intellectual rationale for what he did. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshipper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles.”

* Also known as the Times Of London in North America.

Date: 2009/11/10 16:43:02, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary becomes even more incomprehensible than normal:
After I got home, I got Hull due to complaints about how I had sorted the laundry.

What does that mean? That somebody accused her of having mis-sorted the laundry is merely wildly irrelevant, but what on earth does "I got Hull" mean? She is making no sense at all. COFFEE!!!!

Date: 2009/11/11 13:43:46, Link
Author: Reg
I'm not a fan of various copyright legislation and treaties, but Bill Dembski's going off the deep end. First, his source is Russia Today, the same place where we can learn that H1N1 was artificially created in a lab and that 9/11 was an inside job. But even assuming they're right about the treaty, Demsbki spins off into a paranoid fantasy land of his own invention:
What if Big Brother finds on your laptop that you think ID supports certain traditional moral views, and what if any articulation of such views comes to be regarded as a hate crime?

Yes, Bill, that's alarming, and the sinister possibilities don't stop there. Just think; what if Big Brother finds in your kitchen that you've baked muffins, and what if the possession of baked goods comes to be regarded as a hate crime? It's a chilling possibility.

Date: 2009/11/11 16:43:38, Link
Author: Reg
Coffeee (and Hull and deranged laundry)!!!! As a relative newcomer to the intelligent design controversy!!! I don't understand the "frilly shirt" references to Gil Dodgen. I understand the Dr Professor Dembski baggy sweater references, but I don't understand Gil Dodgen in frilly shirts. I understand Gil Dodgen is too busy parachuting championship checkers to wear anything as unmanly as a frilly shirt.

Date: 2009/11/11 16:56:20, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2009,16:52)
Check the birthday thread.

Thankyou. What is "the birthday thread" of which you speak?

Date: 2009/11/11 17:09:36, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 11 2009,16:58)
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 11 2009,16:43)
Coffeee (and Hull and deranged laundry)!!!! As a relative newcomer to the intelligent design controversy!!! I don't understand the "frilly shirt" references to Gil Dodgen. I understand the Dr Professor Dembski baggy sweater references, but I don't understand Gil Dodgen in frilly shirts. I understand Gil Dodgen is too busy parachuting championship checkers to wear anything as unmanly as a frilly shirt.

That's one hugley frilly shirt. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. Thankyou.

Date: 2009/11/14 07:53:07, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary's being channeled in another outlet:

Flatfish have always been a problem for darwinists because nobody's ever seen a symmetrical fish squash itself flat. Instead they come up with just-so stories of a symmetrical fish squashing itself flat in small incremental steps over millions of years, but nobody's ever seen that either.

ID research wins Nobel Prize
A trio of diligent Americans have won a Nobel Prize for discovering how the ends of chromosomes don't fall off when they are copied. As is explained at Uncommon Descent, this is exactly the sort of thing which ID researchers would have predicted if only they'd known about it.

Date: 2009/11/14 14:27:08, Link
Author: Reg
Sal Cordova makes a welcome return: Nachman’s Paradox Defeats Darwinism and Dawkins’ Weasel.

Sal and members of the IDCS Network put together a youtube animation featuring gingerbread men. Some of which get mutations and the most mutated gingerbread men explode. Thus evolution is wrong.

Tellingly Sal doesn't reveal his original source code. Do you think Dembski will demand he does so?

Date: 2009/11/15 10:40:09, Link
Author: Reg
niwrad attempts formal logic.

Let’s try to formalize somehow as a very logic antinomy the double standard situation described above. ...

Then it all gets a bit messy.

Date: 2009/11/15 14:09:48, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 15 2009,13:26)
Well, I registered and asked a polite and harmless-bordering-on-naive question. That was two hours ago. Is this normal treatment for newbies at UD?

Entirely normal. Your first few posts will be held up until whenever they have been screened for acceptability.

Date: 2009/11/17 13:51:00, Link
Author: Reg
bornagain77 talks population genetics:
This video gives a overview of the effects of mutations (Kimura’s distribution):

Evolution vs Genetic Entropy

"Kimura’s distribution" is mentioned from 1:30 into video (a presentation by AiG's Andy McIntosh in the UK). What looks like the same slide is explained here by someone who saw one of McIntosh's presentations. McIntosh (the AiG guy) claims that it's well-known to all biologists and shows favorable mutations are greatly outnumbered by harmful ones and favorable mutations are never phenotypically expressed.

I am not a biologist but suspect misunderstanding or misrepresentation is in play. Insight from real biologists welcome.

Date: 2009/11/17 15:06:41, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,14:53)
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 17 2009,13:51)
bornagain77 talks population genetics:
This video gives a overview of the effects of mutations (Kimura’s distribution):

Evolution vs Genetic Entropy

"Kimura’s distribution" is mentioned from 1:30 into video (a presentation by AiG's Andy McIntosh in the UK). What looks like the same slide is explained here by someone who saw one of McIntosh's presentations. McIntosh (the AiG guy) claims that it's well-known to all biologists and shows favorable mutations are greatly outnumbered by harmful ones and favorable mutations are never phenotypically expressed.

I am not a biologist but suspect misunderstanding or misrepresentation is in play. Insight from real biologists welcome.

BatShitInsane77 is citing McIntosh, who is using John John Sanford's misrepresentation of Kimura's 1983 "The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution" (Cambridge U. Press), who in turn was trying to improve Fisher, Maynard Smith, etc...

Gah. ...

Sanford's asertions about distributions and effects of detrimental/neutral/beneficial mutations have been discussed a lot in threads here and elsewhere, and it's a pretty complex topic. Suffice it to say that Sanford hasn't been able to back his assumptions ... I can only say look at the materials that Talk Origins , Wiki, Panda's Thumb and this forum have to offer first.

Thanks for the intro and pointers.

Date: 2009/11/19 13:37:03, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary quotes physicist David Tyler announcing that some Russian naturalists thought the "struggle for existence" really wasn't such a big deal in hostile environments. Thus, erm, something.

Physicist David Tyler has a substantial expertise in the biological sciences:
Current research interests relate to teamworking in product development and the optimisation of performance of textile/apparel supply chains. He is a Senior Lecturer, a Member of The Textile Institute and a Member of the Institute of Physics. In 1995, he was awarded the Golden Medal by The Textile Institute.

Don't get me wrong; textiles are important, as is the performace of supply chains. But it doesn't say "take my insights into biology seriously".

Date: 2009/11/19 14:07:47, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 18 2009,16:46)
“Darwin is mistakenly thought to have killed the design argument in science,” [URL=

nce/]said Robert Crowther[/URL], director of communications at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which is the intelligent design research program directed by Dr. Meyer.

Two things there. There never was a design argument in science. And intelligent design research program ? That's a new one. What, pray tell, are they researching?

Yeah, there totally is a working ID research program. Casey Luskin says so:
As was repeatedly pointed out to Dr. Hess throughout the rest of the day, ID does have a working research program, as seen in the work being done at the Biologic Institute and the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, among other examples.

So there.

Date: 2009/11/20 13:31:46, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 20 2009,11:38)
Prediction:  Since UD is inhabited and run by credulous morons, they will soon post on the release of hacked CRU emails as an example of how modern science is corrupt.

And in 1, 2, 3.... you're exactly right.

Date: 2009/11/20 13:56:04, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 20 2009,13:34)
Dembski has invited a new contardibutor, someone named David Anderson:
This is my first post at UD, so I’d better say “hi”, and thanks to Dr. Dembski for inviting me. Rather than an intro, I’ll just send you to my home page, here.

His book looks like a reliable resource...

Here is the contents table from the first draft:
D. Information and thermodynamics 158
Andy McIntosh

Oh, the horror!
Needless to say, we have been in touch with Professor Andy McIntosh of Leeds University to see if he wishes to comment on Richard Dawkins' letter in the Guardian about his comments on our Creation Wars special. I'd hoped to ask Dr McIntosh for his reaction to that letter ... Professor Dawkins is astonished that a professor of thermodynamics could seriously contend that the second law of thermodynamics conflicts with the theory of evolution ... Andy McIntosh has replied to our invitation, and has decided not to take part in a follow-up radio interview. This is unfortunate, I think, since there are important (if rather esoteric) issues at stake here. ...

Date: 2009/11/20 14:02:09, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 20 2009,13:58)

But it gets even better! They are also eutelic!

The whooshing noise was that joke going over my head.

Date: 2009/11/20 14:13:18, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 20 2009,14:03)

Some interesting physics going on in the comments over there
Just as the turkey deteriorates into a carcass on the Christmas tables the earth is a part of the deteriorating universe. The sun, the DNA, and the other raw materials are deteriorating, and will succumb to the second law – the law of sin and death.

I quite like "the law of sin and death". That could spice up physics lectures a bit.

"Today, I'll be introducing the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is a bit like... <dramatic pause>... the law of sin and death!"

On the other hand, now that the imminent decline of evolution has been explained in turkey carcass form it's all much clearer to me.

Date: 2009/11/20 15:27:42, Link
Author: Reg
Okay, which of you is Collin?
You can start a journal all you want, but no one will read it if it is marginalized. Parapsychology has been producing high quality research, higher quality and more rigorous than regular psychology, but it is still not mainstream. It is marginalized. The peer-review process is a joke.

My emphasis. Comedy gold.

Date: 2009/11/21 06:46:15, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 21 2009,04:07)
My - who could this comment be aimed at?



12:15 am

Do you often post private email conversation without consent? Strange behavior. At least spell my name right.

Dembski is so lacking in ways to publish and discuss his work that the best method of handling criticism of a paper submitted for publication is via a comments thread on his blog?  ???

Date: 2009/11/22 10:11:37, Link
Author: Reg
Frost122585 brings his unique insight to atmospheric physics:
I have noted before that I highly suspect that natural forces like gravitation limit how much CO2 can naturally accumulate within the atmosphere before falling back down to earth where it can be re- sequestered by plants, the ocean and soil.

Yeah, like if there's too much CO2 then it'll settle out of the atmosphere into low-lying areas like Death Valley and the Dead Sea, producing a bloom of plant life in those previously barren places. Good thinking.

Date: 2009/11/22 18:10:46, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary almost sprains something with the vigour of [URL=

be/]her mockery of[/URL] the sheer hilarity of the Large Hadron Collider:
Here’s a fun piece on the large Hadron Collider’s woes, when a passing bird dropped a piece of bread on it (yes!)

Oh do keep up, dear, the bread-dropped-into-the-substation was two weeks ago - it was on the children's news so a science journalist would surely have heard at the time. With perfect timing, CERN switched the machine back on a couple of days before O'Leary's post and it's all going well so far.

Succeed or fail, I have an advantage over the Higgs Boson particle. I definitely exist.
Golly, I can remember the days when science was not ridiculous.

I know this can be difficult to understand, Denyse, so sit down and I'll try to explain it for you. These people are called scientists, they have a hypothesis about how the universe works and they've built a machine to test that hypothesis. Novel concepts, but important ones.

Date: 2009/11/22 18:16:25, Link
Author: Reg
Don't seem to be able to edit post for the broken link.

Link to O'Leary on LHC.

Date: 2009/11/24 14:10:19, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 24 2009,13:36)
Dembski, channeling DaveTard, discusses climategate and how scientists are faking data, withholding data, or whatever the tards think is the outcome of those hacked emails from researchers at East Anglia University/

Frosty wants to sue, since he thinks those rogue scientists are abusing his tax money.
I would file a law suit and compare what they allegedly said in these emails to what they have actually done in their fraudulent climatology work- whether that be those computer models or what have you. Based on the FACT that they are working on FEDERAL grants, and if they are presenting fictitious data- or omitting essential data- they should be investigated by the BFI and the individuals should be changed according based on any violation of federal law.

Somebody should send him an atlas...

Whatever the truth or end result of the e-mail hack and resulting kerfuffle, it must be the most exciting to happen to Norwich in living memory. Or possibly ever.

Date: 2009/11/24 15:49:26, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary wades in with her unique insights into the leaked climate change e-mails thread:
Now, instead of jeremiads about starvation in developing countries, I hear the UN issuing jeremiads about obesity

A claim by O'Leary that the UN is writing about obesity instead of starvation immediately makes one wonder whether this is true. If only there was a way to get an idea of the relative bulk of the UN's writings on these subjects. How about an arcane tool known as "google"? Searching the main UN website finds these many pages for the following roughly equivalent terms on each side of the obesity/starvation dichotomy:

"obesity": 1,030 pages.
"obese": 274 pages.
"overeating": 9 pages.

instead of...
"starvation": 4,110 pages.
"starving": 1,310 pages.
"famine": 41,500 pages.

Obesity is a choice. Starvation? Rarely, and then only among love-starved teenage girls.

They sure change their tune when they are happily married and having a baby.

Anorexia is caused by "love starvation" instead of anything else and sufferers just need to get married and pregnant. My jaw drops.

Date: 2009/11/24 16:42:14, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (REC @ Nov. 24 2009,16:24)

VPR is showing how the conspiracy predictably goes right through that agenda controlled wicked-pedia. Same people who control wiki are also forwarding the global warming exaggeration because it is part of their religion and agenda as well.


Wicked-pedia is where people promote evil-ution.

Date: 2009/11/26 17:58:04, Link
Author: Reg
How far down does Irreducible Complexity go? Why, it's IC all the way down of course (recursive turtles optional).
I'd love to be writing Gil's grant application. "The intangible magic fairies stand on unknowable magic fairies, who stand on unfathomable magic fairies, who..." That's science!

Date: 2009/11/27 13:14:51, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 27 2009,10:28)
(regarding alleged "atheists" who, without any evidence whatsoever, are claimed to be responsible for disrupting a website)

"I can’t prove new atheists did it, any more than I can prove that an outlaw motorcycle gang runs drugs.

But one must ask, who would want to do this?

Apart from anything else, as she can prove neither that new atheists did it nor that the motorcycle gang runs drugs, making the accusation seems out of keeping with the sound, traditional English Common Law approach which she generally holds to be important.

Date: 2009/11/27 13:32:38, Link
Author: Reg
Dembski posts an adaptation of "a close colleague's email" describing an article which in turn describes some of the source code leaked from CRU, and draws a conclusion which is suitably tentative and provisional:

This is unquestionably the biggest fraud in the history of science

This verdict is based on an article describing "hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files". The article's author acknowledges that "IDL is not a native language of mine" but he's found comments in some of the files which warn that some data manipulation is approximate or should only be used within certain stated date ranges. So there is source code and it's got comments in which warn of its limitations. It's the smokingest gun ever! Really; the article's author describes it as "maybe the most important strike in human history".

Date: 2009/11/27 15:36:55, Link
Author: Reg
Frost122585; a bit like a klansman driving a clown car:

I have been reading the emails at and noticed a lot of these guys are Russian Jewish scientists. Not that there is anything wrong with Russians or Jews but given the US’s historical relationship with Russia and the nature of the proposed legislation for this AGW theory- I think it is definitely noteworthy of pointing out.

Woah, that's really classy, Frosty-boy. Translated:
"A lot of these guys seem to Russian and Jewish. There's nothing wrong with being Russian or Jewish and even some of best friends are Jewish, but I think it's worth pointing out that this could be a Russian Jewish plot to bring America to its knees without having the balls to explicitly say so. But I don't mean to cast suspicions."
For his next trick, Frost will scream like a monkey and fling shit at anyone vaguely foreign-sounding in the hope some of it sticks.

Date: 2009/11/27 16:41:23, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 27 2009,16:29)
So can anyone give a brief outline of what's actually going on with the whole "Climategate" scandal?  All I can find on the topic are ridiculously biased Washington Times opinion pieces.  From what I currently understand it has something to do with an unused variable in the so-called fudged data?

I know almost nothing of climate models or predictions, so it would be great if somebody posted some no-bull sources.

But I have learned from UncommonDescent that this makes you perfectly qualified to speak on the subject with authority. It's really all so much easier than you might think. Those who know almost nothing of climate models or predictions, or the type and relevance of the data being processed by software, or the transforms the software is applying to the data or the language in which that software is written can get to the bottom of the puzzle by simply reading the comments in a handful of the source code files.

PS: like RDK, I would also appreciate a beginner's synopsis of the "climate smoking gungate" story.

Date: 2009/11/28 07:12:12, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary suggests money laundering, tax evasion:
I make no accusation, I am simply asking a question passed on to me by a reader.
[snippet of a CRU email which mentions tax]
Schemes to avoid taxes may be illegal in some jurisdictions, and I would welcome clarification on the point, to assure that they are not, and that these people have done no such wrong.

"I make no accusation, instead casting only general hints of possible wrongdoing and seeking clarification that these people aren't criminals."

I make no accusation, I am simply asking a question, but can we be sure O'Leary isn't laundering drug money? After all, she's mentioned drug-dealing motorcycle gangs in the past and their drug dollars don't launder themselves. I would welcome clarification on the point, to assure us all that she isn't, and that she has done no such wrong.

Date: 2009/11/28 09:39:33, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 28 2009,09:30)
Not gone yet.

Anybody else find this claim by O'Leary hard to believe?
Laughable at 1, as a woman who has faced sexual assailants myself on several occasions

To be fair, she didn't claim the assailants were human.

Don't mean to sound like the Thought Police, but that reflects some outdated and distasteful myths about sexual assault that attackers only go after attractive women or that sexual assault isn't a worry for "ugly chicks".

Date: 2009/11/28 10:10:26, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 28 2009,09:59)

The guy needs to watch a jumping spider for a few minutes.

That's awesome.

Date: 2009/11/28 12:18:11, Link
Author: Reg
Apologies for posting about Evolution News & Views, but wow, Michael Egnor is a seething pit of rage:
A cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media concubines have conspired to lie about global warming. The reasons are obvious: power and money. ... The fraudulent scientists who suckle off the 7 billion dollars spent this year alone on the global warming scam [are] merely using science, rather than hedge funds, to enrich themselves. ... The ID-Darwinism debate clearly demonstrates that venality and shameless self-interest, as well as a toxic leftist-atheist ideology, runs very deep in the scientific community. ... The obvious truth is that these citadels of organized science [eg the Royal Academy (I think he means Royal Society), IPCC, NAS] were part of the fraud, or at least acquiescent in it. Several of the admitted ClimateGate fraudsters were in senior positions in these organizations. ...

And this guy's a brain surgeon. I just hope he calms down a bit while operating and doesn't leave any spittle-flecks inside his patients' skulls.

Date: 2009/11/28 14:13:15, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 28 2009,13:58)
I can believe it. Distrust of science, outright ignorance of science, paranoid delusions, notions about God creating the world just for us - all of these things predispose one to accepting the denialists hook, line and sinker.
I agree. He already believes there's a Giant Conspiratorial Cabal promoting the myth of "descent with modification" and stifling the voices of those who dare to speak against its atheist soul-devouring march. From there it's only a small step to thinking there's a Giant Conspiratorial Cabal promoting the myth of "altering atmospheric contents affecting the climate" and stifling the voices of those who dare to speak against its communistic freedom-devouring march.

Date: 2009/11/29 05:24:18, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 29 2009,04:07)
My resolution is to argue that just as the salvation of Christ purchased at the Cross acts forward as well as backward in time (the Old Testament saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so too the effects of the Fall can go backward in time. Showing how this could happen requires extensive argument and is the main subject of the book.

I'd think so! So that is only the first of a series?

(My bold.)

I love the way an old earth and fossilised organisms predating humans are referred to as tentative possibilities which, if true, need to be explained in reference to the Fall of Adam:
My book attempts to resolve how the Fall of Adam could be responsible for all evil in the world, both moral and natural IF the earth is old and thus IF a fossil record that bespeaks violence among organisms predates the temporal occurrence of the Fall.

Date: 2009/11/29 08:23:52, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 29 2009,07:42)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 29 2009,04:07)
My resolution is to argue that just as the salvation of Christ purchased at the Cross acts forward as well as backward in time (the Old Testament saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so too the effects of the Fall can go backward in time. Showing how this could happen requires extensive argument and is the main subject of the book.

I'd think so! So that is only the first of a series?

(My bold.)

Didn't Dense just spend a fair portion of a caffeine-ated post ridiculing the idea that the "Higgs-Boson particle could travel back in time to destroy itself"

... maybe she could perhaps also comment on Dembski's idea of the backwards-in-time effects of "the Fall".

Yes, but you have to understand the obvious and inherent huge difference between a couple of scientists going way out on a limb with a speculation about subatomic particles travelling backwards in time to affect an instrument (which renders physics laughably ridiculous) and the main man in ID arguing that Adam's sin-field rippled backwards through time to derange the entire biosphere (which is a reasonable position and 100% unsilly).

Date: 2009/11/30 14:45:20, Link
Author: Reg
Most terrifying UD comment ever? Berceuse in the Ed Begley thread:
I work in the aerospace industry as well, and I’m wondering if this is one of the reasons why so many of the engineers I know are Christians. Not that they all think Darwinism is BS, but at the very least, their instincts tell them a materialistic worldview just isn’t right.

Engineers in the aerospace industry know that the materialistic worldview just isn’t right. So what do they figure they need to work on to keep their aircraft intact and airborne; prayer to a loving god, or the uncaring laws of physics?

Date: 2009/11/30 16:08:42, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 30 2009,14:32)
Can anybody explain the motivation behind the truthers? I could understand it as a left wing conspiracy theory but the right wing loved Bush at the time.

I'm sure there a PhD theses to written about this, but here's my take:
The "lefty truthers" think Bush done 9/11 because Bush is right-wing, thus evil; thus does things like that as a pretext for wars to enrich his plutocrat buddies.
The "righty truthers" see 9/11 and subsequent events as the reason for an increase in the power of the federal government to do everything from spying on people to taking away their guns to putting vaccines in their children; thus 9/11 must have been done with that specific purpose in mind.

Truthers can always find some reason, no matter what the colour of their tinfoil hat.

Date: 2009/12/06 07:28:25, Link
Author: Reg
Uncommon Descent is fast becoming an aggregator for the best informed climate change opinion, with both Sarah Palin and Camile Paglia.

Date: 2009/12/06 09:08:03, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 06 2009,08:12)
Quote (Reg @ Dec. 06 2009,07:28)
Uncommon Descent is fast becoming an aggregator for the best informed climate change opinion, with both Sarah Palin and Camile Paglia.

It is seems pretty obvious that anything that blackens the eyse of Big Science ™ is just fine at UD.  Gil thows his hat into the Retrograde Parade:

I now automatically assume that any paper coming out of any publicly funded university is probably tainted by philosophical bias and corrupted by leftist, secular ideology.

That's such a problem with anything coming out of these publicly funded universities. Whenever I hear stuff about clotting drugs or newly described crab species I think "probably tainted by leftist secular ideology".

Date: 2009/12/06 15:54:07, Link
Author: Reg
olin: I doubt the ID community has a single view about global warming and humanity’s role in it. What many of us in that community have a problem with is the abuse of science to further political ends, which we find exemplified both among proponents of Darwinism and among proponents of AGW.

My irony meter just went off-scale and needs resetting.

Date: 2009/12/08 17:39:34, Link
Author: Reg
Frosty gets insightful about global warming:

The sea levels are not rising- the ice is not melting at any significant rate- and I can go down to the bay and see the facts- AGW is 99% a political lie.

<with fingers in ears> "la-la-la, sea levels are not rising, ice is not melting, the globe is cooling, the sun goes around the earth and the moon is made of cheese."

Aside from all the religiously indoctrinated true believers- you have all the governmental interests- the bought and paid for media (useful idiots)- those who need more government grants- then you have the international interests that are just interested in beating down and extorting the US

Yes, Frosty, it's a grand conspiracy of scientists, governments, the media, and them thar foreigners - but fortunately you and Gil Dodgen can see the truth.

— and finally you have the sleazy dishonorable CAPITALISTS- very often overlooked- who are floating all of these pseudo businesses hoping for Stalinist style AGW legislation to be forced down the people’s throats in an unconstitutional fashion- so that they can scheme their way to fortunes hand over first.

Because capitalists just love stalinism! Never mind that I thought AGW legislation was supposed to be some kind of plot to crush capitalism and free enterpise, now it's morphed into a plot by capitalists themselves. In which case, if capitalists are pushing for it, it must be good for business. Bring it on.

Date: 2009/12/08 18:16:57, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (khan @ Dec. 08 2009,17:44)
Quote (Reg @ Dec. 08 2009,18:39)
Frosty gets insightful about global warming:
— and finally you have the sleazy dishonorable CAPITALISTS- very often overlooked- who are floating all of these pseudo businesses hoping for Stalinist style AGW legislation to be forced down the people’s throats in an unconstitutional fashion- so that they can scheme their way to fortunes hand over first.

Because capitalists just love stalinism! Never mind that I thought AGW legislation was supposed to be some kind of plot to crush capitalism and free enterpise, now it's morphed into a plot by capitalists themselves. In which case, if capitalists are pushing for it, it must be good for business. Bring it on.

A conspiracy of Stalinists & Capitalists?

Without getting into various conspiracies, I shall just say that I have been a gardener & bird watcher for 30+ years. I & my compatriots can tell you something is amiss.

A conspiracy of Stalinists & Capitalists & bird watchers. The evil just gets deeper...

Date: 2009/12/09 14:07:55, Link
Author: Reg
Of course, I try to avoid counterfactual beliefs.

Of course! The jokes, they write themselves.

Date: 2009/12/09 15:04:00, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 09 2009,14:40)
Wasn't sure where to post this.

Kent Hovind's "pH.D." thesis is now on the intertubes here:

If you are afraid of becoming stupid, then I suggest you don't read it.  This will kill brain cells faster than a .357 hollow point.

My 3-year makes more structured sentences and more effective arguments.  

This is slightly beyond hillarious... and yet somehow sad.

Oh my. He goes out in style with the last page, posing the difficult question "Why has the whole of recorded history only happened since the invention of writing?" then wrapping up with "I believe Jesus was right."

The End.

Date: 2009/12/09 15:35:11, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Freddie @ Dec. 09 2009,10:08)
Gaz sets Jerry right ...
Rubbish. Britain, for example, has – for now – a socialist Prime Minister who is the son of a Scottish Minister and a practising Christian. Check out the Socialist block of MEPs in the European Parliament and you’ll find most of them – nearly all – are actually Christians.

I expect Jerry's riposte to be one in which he opines that these MEPs cannot possibly be True Christians™ ... 3, 2, 1 ...

Oh it's not just the MEPs who aren't True Christians.
It turns out that the eye-talians ain't true christians neither cus they ain't havin' enough babies to be proper catholics. But their politicians still have to pretend to be christian, else they'd not elected by the heathen populace, see?

Date: 2009/12/20 09:25:57, Link
Author: Reg
What is "brownbagged" correspondence? It sounds like it has been obtained secretly or via a confidential inside source which needs to be kept secret (ie: handed over in a brown paper bag, possibly in a darkened parking lot). In which case - hint to Free Speech Journalists - don't give one party's name away ("How many books has that Wheeler guy sold for you?") such that a quick google search leads people to the original e-mail and reply. That could be particularly embarassing if it was published in full by the original author days before you claim to have received it by secret inside means which need to be protected and/or refused to publish it because you don't want to breach the authors' confidence.

Date: 2009/12/23 11:27:43, Link
Author: Reg
Darwin was wrong! About boulders, and his being wrong held back our understanding of South American boulders all the way until there were better surveys.
Charles Darwin never escaped uniformitarianism. It pervaded his geology – as is apparent from the example before us here. It entered his thinking about biological transformation: the natural selection of small incremental variations. (Unfortunately, this constraint is still with us today, as Darwinians are unwilling to concede anything significant to the theory of punctuated equilibrium or to evo-devo.)

Yeah, those Darwinians just won't concede anything to evo-devo. It goes on:
For more – on why ID thinking is essential for the scholarly world to be healthy – go here.

Because without being able to say "How could that ever happen? ... Magic man done it!" science dies.

The author of this piece is David Tyler of the Young Earth creationist Biblical Creation Society. As well as thinking the boulders Darwin was wrong about are 6,000 years old he's quite the authority on Polar Bears, so would enjoy a cup of COFFEEE!!! with O'Leary:
Research has led, at least for animals, to locating the ‘created kind’ typically at the family level of classification (Scherer, 1993). This implies, in the case of bears, that the Ursidae species are all descended from one created kind represented by two animals on the Ark. The evidence for this has been discussed previously by the author (Tyler, 1997).

For further lols, he continues:
The rapidity with which specialized adaptations occurred after the Flood is a consequence of created complexity. We can infer that God created the kinds with adaptation in mind. This is becoming more widely discussed.

Date: 2009/12/23 12:29:33, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2009,13:31)
Does ID predeict this?:

Of course. The life will have been designed, which required intelligence, thus ID.

Date: 2010/01/06 10:47:38, Link
Author: Reg
Has anyone got access to the full Bioethics article which Arrington's decrying as proof of The Evil Materialist Agenda? Arrington's presenting the fragments he quotes as if the paper is arguing "Human dignity is bunk, so let's start cutting up live children for fun and profit", but they could equally be from a paper arguing "There are some ethical problems in which dignity is not a helpful concept, so we need new criteria to use in those situations so we can safeguard people's wellbeing". I suspect one of these is more likely than the other. Steve Fuller seems to have read the whole thing, but I wouldn't be the first to trust his interpretation of anything.

Date: 2010/01/06 12:42:07, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Mark Frank @ Jan. 06 2010,12:14)
Reg Posted on Jan. 06 2010,10:47      
Has anyone got access to the full Bioethics article which Arrington's decrying as proof of The Evil Materialist Agenda? ...

Yes. I got access through my Open University library membership (although Ceiling Cat says that you don't a subscription anyway).   In any case you are spot on.  It is a paper about the different senses of the word "dignity" and how they don't help much in bioethics.   There is one paragraph about the difficulty of basing ethical judgements on a religious concept of dignity which is not shared by everyone. But this is a small part of the paper and he most certainly does not suggest that it is OK to experiment on people of any kind. He doesn't make any ethical judgements at all.The whole UD thread has gone galloping off on a wild tangent and I am pretty sure none of them , except possibly Barry and Steve, have read it.

The article seems to be behind a paywall for me; thanks for the summary.

Date: 2010/01/06 13:45:39, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 06 2010,13:19)
Does anyone have their UnDembski Chrome Extension fired up?  I saw a comment on the What Would Nietzsche Do? post from Waterbear challenging Barry to support his assertion regarding what Cochrane was actually saying in the article.  But, that comment has seemed to disappeared and it was worth memorializing both the challenge and UD's cowardly deletion of it.

For posterity, lest the reappearance also vanish:

2:39 pm
I tried to post this earlier, but it seemed to disappear. Apologies if it ends up being double-posted:

Cochrane is impatient with the “dignity criterion,” because it prevents actions that he deems beneficial, for example medical experiments on human guinea pigs that might lead to advances in medicine.

Where in Cochrane’s paper does he advocate experimenting on live humans? Reading the whole paper requires a subscription so I’ve only seen the extracts Barry Arrington has posted, and they can be interpreted in two ways; as part of a paper arguing “Let’s cut up live babies for science!”, or as a part of a paper arguing “There are some ethical problems in which dignity is not a helpful concept, so we need new criteria to use in those situations so we can safeguard people’s wellbeing” and then maybe proposing some of those critieria. Without seeing the whole paper it’s not possible to know which it is.
Can you please post those part(s) of Cochrane’s paper in which he advocates using human guinea pigs?

Date: 2010/01/06 15:56:21, Link
Author: Reg
Oooh, Barry's bringing his razor-sharp lawyerly insight to the thread and presenting clear evidence that Cochrane really does think Mengele-style experimenting on live humans is okay after all. No, sorry, my mistake:

Mark Frank and waterbear, your comments are absurd. The whole point of Cochrane’s article is to contest the dignity criterion. You can participate in this discussion if you have something reasonable to say. You cannot, however, come in here and say “black is white.”

Gotcha, because that answers the question.
I also love how saying “black is white” on UD is wrong, but saying “questioning and trying to define ethical criteria is the same as wanting live human guinea pigs” is apparently fine.
And is it just me, or is Barry's comment some kind of bannination threat?

Date: 2010/01/06 17:53:46, Link
Author: Reg
waterbear is an obvious troll and is no longer with us.

No, all waterbear did was ask O'Leary which of the various questions she asked in her post she wanted help with answering.

Can someone explain?
That would be easier if you first indicate what you want explaining:
1] Why Christian preachers need to shout out against intelligent design? or
2] Who would want Ed the Manic St Preacher managing their stock portfolio? or
3] The probability of events leading to someone's birth? or
4] Whether Darwinism guarantees that that (the guy’s son knew something his paw didn’t) can’t happen, right?

That's "obvious trolling", apparently. It's now official; trying to understand what the f*ck O'Leary is saying constitutes trolling.
On another thread, Barry pounds his little gavel:

waterbear, I have posted the passages in which Cochrane clearly states that one of the effects of the dignity criterion is to prevent medical experimentation, and then he goes on to argue against that criterion. If you and Franks are going to be willfully blinid to the implications of the paper, I can’t stop you, but I am gaveling your displays of willful blindness on this thread.

You keep banging your hammer, Barry. You still haven't explained how saying "dignity is a criterion used to stop performace of medical experiments on live human subjects, but in some circumstances dignity is not a clear or agreed concept" is any way the same as saying "medical experiments ought to be performed on live human subjects".

Date: 2010/01/07 18:14:25, Link
Author: Reg
"Arrington and Stephen Barr Mix it Up", because if there's one thing Barry Arrington really likes it's people mixing it up with pointed disagreement and challenge in comments threads. No, hang on....
At time of writing (23:50 GMT) all comments on the "What Would Nietzsche Do?" thread have vanished and comments there are disabled, at the same time as Arrington is passing judgement in the "Calling Dr Mengele" thread that      
words like “ethics” and “bioethics” are meaningless to materialists

Which is easy to say when you can bang your little gavel at the dissenting voices to make them vanish. There's nothing like stopping people from posting and then deleting their previous posts to come across as the master of logic and facts.

But just what kind of idiot tries to kill the waterbear by banging it with his gavel, anyway? Any fule kno that neither red hot nor the ice cold can destroy the waterbear. We just have to wait for the eggs to hatch in a suitable niche such as the insides of another sock.

Date: 2010/01/08 13:44:02, Link
Author: Reg
Gil gets all probabilistic and biochemical:
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer’s “Melancholia” is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform.

Something's missing...
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer’s “Melancholia” is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye[citation needed]; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform[citation needed].

Fixed it for you, Gil.

Date: 2010/01/09 04:25:08, Link
Author: Reg
Zachriel wins the "Editing the Tape of Evolutionary History Yet Again" thread:
If there are humans tetrapods, why are there still apes fishopods?


Date: 2010/01/11 13:21:44, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 11 2010,11:15)
LOL @ O'Leary

Voice Coil 4, I am hardly the only person who got hold of and tried to read Gould’s Structure of Evolutionary Theory but found it nearly unreadable. In the end, I had to write a book myself, By Design or by Chance?, as I was under contract, thus had to send Structure back to the North York sci tech library after perusing a few chapters.

Apparently, Gould, despite his doubtless virtues, was not a fan of editors.

I still don’t believe any of it, and think he sold out in the end.

While O'Leary might not believe any of it she's unable to disprove any of it either.

And does it makes sense that because she could not understand SET that she had to write her own book? I guess she could mean anything as she writes so badly, but it makes no sense as is.
O'Leary perused a few chapters and then because she was under contract had to send it back to the library? WTF? What does one thing have to do with another? If she'd have understood it would she not have had to write her own book? Or send SET back to the library?

As usual, O'Leary makes no sense whatsoever.

I parse O'Leary's comment thus:
She was under contract to write By Design or by Chance?, borrowed Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory from the library but found it nearly unreadable so sent it back after perusing a few chapters.
This of course gives confidence in the quality of research done, and understanding reached, before O'Leary wrote a book about the origins and development of life.

Date: 2010/01/11 13:29:57, Link
Author: Reg
Nakashima's sock in peril???!


Clive Hayden
1:48 pm


I think you know as well as I that the only group that claims absolute knowledge of past events is the YEC community. Mrs O’Leary is engaging in agit-prop.

This is factually wrong, the Darwinitwits have most certainly, over and over, claimed knowledge of the past to “evidence” their fancy of evolution. Mrs O’Leary is not engaging in agit-prop, and quite frankly, I don’t appreciate the accusation. There was nothing propagandistic in what she said. I am going to ask you to apologize, or you will no longer comment here.

My emphasis. Salient points:
1) It's wrong to claim that anybody is anything other than perfectly correct and upstanding, and attempts to do so will not be tolerated at UncommonDescent*.
2) Darwinitwits?

*  Unless directed at climatologists or tax-scamming child-raping evolutionary materialist atheists trying to further their ideology.

Date: 2010/01/11 14:14:18, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 11 2010,13:35)
Barry gets it wrong, gets corrected, one suspects comments soon to be cloed:

11 January 2010
Why Not Accept the Fossil Record at Face Value Instead of Imposing a Theory on it?
Barry Arrington
In a comment to a prior post Johhnnyb makes the following excellent points:

One thing which I think ID can contribute to any historical aspect of earth history is shaving off hypothetical creatures. While there are certainly many creatures which haven’t yet been found, and I’m sure many of these creatures include chimeras of existing features in existing creatures, there is no reason to believe that there must be creatures where none have been found or evidenced.  [...]

Worst week ever, Barry? Oh, right.. new week.

Even the post's title is almost unimaginably sad and small-minded:
Why Not Accept the Fossil Record at Face Value Instead of Imposing a Theory on it?

Yeah, why bother to try and make sense of the underlying reasons for stuff?
Gah! Other thread titles coming soon from Barry Arrington:
* Why Not Accept the fact that heavy things fall at Face Value Instead of Imposing a Theory on it?
* Why Not Accept the apparent movement of the planets at Face Value Instead of Imposing a Theory on it?
* Why Not Accept the occurence and symptoms of a disease at Face Value Instead of Imposing a Theory on it?
* Why Not Accept the way things disappear over the horizon at Face Value Instead of Imposing a Theory on it?
* Why Not Accept the fact of combustion at Face Value Instead of Imposing a Theory on it?

To follow Expelled, will the ID movement's next big cinema release be Incurious Basterds?

Date: 2010/01/11 16:01:56, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary's back, with an observation that cats sometimes lick each other thus monkeys aren't too smart.
Cats like to wash themselves, and cannot conveniently wash their own faces. All attempts I have seen so far have been clumsy and disgusting, so co-operating with another cat works much better.

Speak for yourself; my cats wash their own faces fine; they lick their paw, then rub their paw on their face, repeating until clean without being clumsy or disgusting. But they're probably just wussy European cats who'd accept human rights commissions and give their tax dollars to reject the precepts of English Common Law by having professors promote darwinism. Or something.

I was going to say something pithy, but the O'Leary has finally broken down my will and I'm going to have a little cry. Is this how a free speech science journalist writer of non-fiction truly makes their case; by arguing "I don't believe so-and-so" and "everybody knows that" and "I've seen a cat do something, thus monkeys...."?

Date: 2010/01/12 14:57:56, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 12 2010,14:21)
Denyse shows off her research skills again:
Flu kills millions every year

Well, maybe not:
Regular flu in the United States kills about 30,000 people in an average year.
. . .
A regular year worldwide is for 250,000 to 500,000 people to die from the flu.

Where did she print receive her journalism diploma again?

Flu does kill millions each year; everyone knows that and your "250,000 to 500,000 deaths worldwide" claim doesn't pass the horse laugh of common sense which should be the benchmark for quality research. So there.

Date: 2010/01/17 17:12:14, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 17 2010,16:31)
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 17 2010,16:02)
Is this more weasel bashing?

I think it is. And I think that O'Leary thinks that evolution stands or falls on a toy example from decades ago.

It's cargo cult science.

It's all a bit sad, really:
"Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009."
Remember, these are the ten most important things to have happened in evolution and in ID (which totally so too does have an active research programme) in the past year. In reverse order as presented by the Access Research Network...

[10]  Human engineers learn some things from biology, thus biology is engineered.
[9] Peppered moths are changing colour yet again as their environment changes. Try explaining that with your "science", darwinists.
[8]  The Ardi fossil, which is just yet another dead ape. Pah, that's no transition; it's got two arms and two legs and looks a lot like other apes of the period and still doesn't show us a monkey giving birth to a Southern Bapist so there aren't any transitional fossils.
[7]  The Ida fossil looks more like a dead monkey, nothing to see that tells us anything; it also stubbornly possesses two arms and two legs and lacks a birth certificate so there still aren't any transitional fossils.
[6] The Cambrian Explosion's difficult to study, thus ID. And we made a movie!
[5] Michael Behe's found the edge of evolution in a proper published biology paper. The paper's author disagrees with this, but Behe wrote about it on his blog and that's where real science happens.
[4] Some biologists admitted they don't yet know everything!
[3] Some biologists admitted they don't yet know everything!
[2] Stephen Meyer wrote a book, which got a good review in a magazine, and we made an animation.

 And in the treasured Number One spot, the most significant thing in Intelligent Design in the whole of 2009...

[1] Dembski got a paper published! About math. In an engineering journal. Which didn't mention biology at all. The darwinianist edifice is crashing down! It's like WATERLOO all over again!

Date: 2010/02/09 15:01:46, Link
Author: Reg
Barry Arrington ("Intellectual hubris drove the Enlightenment project from its beginning, and many Enlightenment thinkers even believed that “reason” was an all-powerful force with which man could unlock all of the secrets of the universe. ...") is channelling Prince Charles ("I thought, ‘Hang on a moment’. The Enlightenment started over 200 years ago. It might be time to think again and review it and question whether it is really effective in today’s conditions, faced as we are with huge challenges all over the world. It must be apparent to people deep down that we have to do something about it. ...").

Coming soon: Barry starts promoting organic gardening while Prince Charles opines that Darwin's making teenagers murder one another.

Date: 2010/04/13 15:41:14, Link
Author: Reg
O'Leary invokes telepathic dogs and earthquake-predicting toads*:
Many types of animals make use of early warning systems that humans never notice.

Check out Rupert Sheldrake’s work on animal early warning systems. Dawkins tried to make a fool of him, but Sheldrake had the good sense a few years ago to throw him out of his lab.

Now Rupert Sheldrake and his telepathic hounds are going to collapse Darwinism's Fortress{tm}. Those walls must be crumbling as we speak.

And I love her reaction when commenter Lenoxus replies to her informed comments wild speculation about nest-building.
Obviously, too many eggs would get broken in a Darwin-only process to enable survival of the species.

It's obvious. It "just sounds wrong". No further research needed, and if you do that research then you're a Darwinianoid tax-burden. Because that's how science progresses.

* My favourite observation about the earthquake-toad thing: "Arbitrary event observed. Assumed causation with other later arbitrary event."

Date: 2010/04/13 17:03:32, Link
Author: Reg
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 13 2010,15:46)
Birds do learn.

But how do they learn? Your darwinianistical evolutionism is powerless to explain.
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 13 2010,15:46)
Not everything is hard wired.

Thereby disproving your godless materialistic neuroscience. Thus ID, and COFFEE!!!

PS: Rupert Sheldrake's dogs really are psychic.

Date: 2010/06/21 17:30:52, Link
Author: Reg
Barry Arrington's latest:
[Off Topic] Parents of College Freshman to be, Beware

I paraphrase the gem from "one of the best writers we have"...

(Cue mournful banjo music) That sweet country girl from Montana, she sure was good around horses but didn't know a whole lot of much about anythin' else. And when her family sent her off to college in Austin, Texas they didn't think for a moment that they were sending her into a den of secular man-wolves. Why, turns out that in Austin Texas, the college students can get them thar contra-ceptives? I know, it defies belief and flies clear in the face of the Almighty! Sends them straight into a fornicatin' frenzy, it does. So after a bit the horse-ridin' girl comes home in tears, all knocked-up and defiled. Course, if they'd sent her to a proper Biblical college then them thar students' "hormonal urges" would surely have held in check by Godly Fear And Shame. But no, not at this "secular" college, where they gone teachin' Darwin. So that thar's why you country folk don't ought to go sendin' yur daughters off to the Big City where the girls are all Jezebel Whores who know about ovaries and sperm an' stuff like that. And her gettin' pregnant didn't have nothin' to do with her gettin' all heavy-pettin' with her sweet-heart but not knowin' about anything 'cept horses; if anyone had suggested tellin' her how babies get made then her daddy would have quite rightly horse-whipped that book-learnin' liberal out of the house. Hot diggity. And here endeth the lesson, amen.