AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Reginald Beasley

form_srcid: Reginald Beasley

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: Reginald Beasley

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 'Reginald Beasley%' 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: 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.