AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: djmullen

form_srcid: djmullen

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: djmullen

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 'djmullen%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/01/24 13:46:26, Link
Author: djmullen
Someone: "So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.  Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination"."

Zardoz: I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's razor.

djmullen: Occam's razor says to choose the simpler of two explanations that cover the observations equally well.  The problem here is that ANY Intelligent Designer, even a lowly human designer, must have a mind and even a lowly human mind is incredibly complex and requires trillions of bits of information to function.

For instance, an Intelligent Designer would have to understand how even something as simple as a one celled organism works before he could design or build one and that would require millions of bits of information or more.  (For instance, it would require approximately as much information as is found in the organisms genome.)

Evolution, on the other hand, is dumb as dirt: get a population of genetically self-reproducing critters.  Mistakes  will inevitably be made copying the genome, which means that some of the offspring will not be exactly like their parent(s).  If one of those offspring is better at making a living than their parent(s), they will tend to increase in numbers at the expense of their parent(s).

Total information required for evolution - a few bits at a time, which are generated through errors in copying the genome.

Total information required for any kind of remotely Intelligent Designer: Trillions.

Which method passes the Occam's razor test?  Evolution!   And the final score is billions to a few against Intelligent Design.

P.S. If anybody doubts that a God or Intelligent Designer's mind requires huge amounts of information to exist and function, ask yourself these questions:

1) Does God know your phone number?  If He does, then his mind contains at least enough information to incode your phone number, area code and country code.  That's about 13 decimal digits or roughly 40+ bits of information, so God (or any Intelligent Designer) has to have at least 40 bits of information in His mind to know your phone number.

2) Does God know EVERYBODY'S cell phone number?  (Never mind all phone numbers.)  About 650 million cell phones were sold last year.  At 40 bits per phone number, that means that God (or the Intelligent Designer) must have at least 40*650 million or 26 GIGABITS of information in His mind just to know the numbers of the new cell phones that were sold last year.  The figures will be much worse for ALL phone numbers, land line and cell.

3) What is Dembski's Upper Probability Bound?  That is how much information can something contain before it's effectively impossible to achieve without a process like evolution?  About 150 bits!

Therefore, by Dembski's own criteria, Gods and Intelligent Designers of any stripe are impossible unless they somehow evolved.  And if you're not a Mormon, you don't believe that Gods or Inteligent Designers evolve.  QED

Date: 2006/01/24 13:54:42, Link
Author: djmullen
Zardoz: "... if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate."

djmullen: One of the sure signs of a creationist is their insistence that the first living thing was a cell.  Usually they hold up a modern cell, which is the product of about four billion years of evolution, and say something like, "What are the odds of something this complex happening by chance?"

The problem is that nobody but creationists believe that the first living thing was a modern cell.  Most theories today involve either a simple polymer (such as RNA, proteins or something similar) that manages to reproduce itself or a very tiny "cell" containing several chemicals that catalyze each other and thus reproduce.  

Once you have a population of genetic self reproducers, evolution begins automatically when the first copying error is made and it's Katie bar the door as far as complexity and diversity is concerned from then on.

Date: 2006/01/26 21:23:11, Link
Author: djmullen
In the ID-Files section of this BBS, under the topic "Phil Johnson, Links to interviews, works, reviews, etc", niiicholas quotes Phillip Johnson as saying, "The scientific key is, "No natural processes create genetic information." As soon as we get that out, there’s only one way the debate can go because Darwinists aren’t going to come up with a mechanism."

Professor Johnson should read a little on the subject before opening his mouth.  Darwinian evolution has a mechanism for creating genetic information that's simple enough for even a lawyer to understand if he tries hard enough.

I was going to write this to Zardoz in the "After the bar closes/Official Uncommon Pissant Discussion Thread", but he has shown himself to be emotionally resistant to all attempts at education, so I'll post it here where it can be read by people who are emotionally capable of understanding the concept.  Professor Johnson is invited to read and comment if he's in that group.

Abstract: Mutations create new genetic information.  Natural selection tests the new information to see if it's useful or not where "useful" is defined as improving the ability of the organism to produce more offspring capable of reproducing the new information.  If the new information is useful, natural selection leaves it in the genome, if it's not, it gets rid of it.

Detail: Suppose you have a stretch of DNA that contains this sequence: "CAGTAGTTAC".  If the organism that contains that stretch of DNA reproduces and the DNA is copied perfectly, the offspring will have the exact same sequence of DNA and there will be no new information generated.  (In one of his books, Dembski compares this to printing a second copy of a book.  No new information is generated, the information that already exists is merely copied.)

Now suppose that an organism with that stretch of DNA reproduces and an error is made copying the DNA.  Suppose that "CAGTAGTTAC" becomes "CATTAGTTAC".  This is new information because it's not exactly the same as the original sequence.  

So we have new information, courtesy of mutation/copying errors, but we don't know if this new information is bad, neutral or one of the rare instances of good new information that improves on the original.  The odds are low that the new information is an improvement.  As Richard Dawkins once said, "...however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead!"  Similarly, there are 4^10 or 1,048,576 different ways of arranging 10 DNA base-pairs and most of them won't do anything useful, which is lethal if the organism is depending on those ten base-pairs to do something vital.

So how do we find out if the new information is useful or harmful?  Simple, we allow the new organism to try to make a living and reproduce using the new DNA sequence.  Most of the time, the new organism does as well as its parent did because most changes in the DNA sequence change non-functioning "junk DNA" or code for amino acids that are buried deep inside a protein molecule and have no effect on how it works.  If this turns out to be the case with the new DNA sequence, then mutation has given us two different ways of making DNA that can successfully run this specific organism - the original DNA and the new mutated DNA.  This is creating new genetic information through a natural process, Dr. Johnson!  

Before the mutation, we had one set of information that would run a successful organism, "CAGTAGTTAC".  After the mutation, we have a second set of information that will run a successful organism, "CATTAGTTAC".  This is not the same as printing another copy of an existing book, it's printing a second book that differs from the first, but which works just as well.  It's new genetic information!  Since the new information is no better than the original, organisms containing the new DNA may increase in numbers or decrease or disappear altogether.  This is the "genetic drift" you hear about.  An organism has new DNA, but it works as well as the old DNA, so nothing much happens.

If the new DNA sequence does make a difference in how the organism functions, the odds are that it will make the organism work worse than it's parent.  Remember that there are lots more ways of being dead than alive.  In the extreme case, the organism won't function at all and it will die.  If it dies before it has a chance to reproduce and copy the new DNA, the new DNA sequence dies with it and all the other organisms carry on with the original DNA.  Mutation generated some new information and natural selection tested it, discovered that it was bad and got rid of it.  We're back to where we started.

If the organism lives, but doesn't function as well as its parent(s), it may reproduce, but it won't reproduce as successfully as organisms with the old, original DNA and over the long run the organisms with the new DNA will be crowded out and disappear, taking their new but less effective DNA with them.  Again, the other organisms, with the original DNA, will continue to live, preserving the old DNA sequence.

In the rare case where the new DNA works better than the original sequence, the organism will tend to reproduce better than it's parents and it will gradually spread and increase its percentage of the population until it eventually takes over and replaces the old DNA sequence with the new, improved sequence.  

That is how new, useful information is created by the natural process of evolution:  Mutations create the new information, natural selection (which means, basically, having the new organism try to make a living with the new DNA) tests it, destroys new sequences that don't work as well as the original and preserves new sequences that work as well as or better than the original.

Your turn, Dr. Johnson.

Date: 2006/02/01 02:52:55, Link
Author: djmullen
This just gets better and better!

Latest post on Uncommon Descent:

Protected: After The Bar Closes
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 6:48 am

You can't make up stuff like this!

Date: 2006/02/13 23:16:34, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 13 2006,14:55)
Everybody who wants thread #809 over at Uncommon Pissant better go get it now. DaveScot is claiming that obviously Cartesian Dualism is crap, and that the mind is just what the brain does. At some point he'll be clued in to the fact that Overlord Dembski is a Cartesian Dualist. When that happens, the thread might do the disappearing act thread 744 did.

Let me know when you have some way of measuring mind apart from brain and you can argue with me about it. In the meantime mind/brain duality strikes me as wool gathering so you aren’t going to persuade me of anything no matter how hard you try.


Everybody who wants thread #809 over at Uncommon Pissant better go get it now.

Where are the thread numbers over there?

Date: 2006/04/08 17:24:52, Link
Author: djmullen
Oh my god, the fun just keeps coming!  Here's DaveScot's latest post:

April 8, 2006
Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts Wusses Out

Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts, without having seen a transcript of the Lamar speech where the recording devices were ordered off (the published transcript is only the last 5 minutes of a 45 minute speech), decides that Forest Mims is a liar man of terrible misjudgement and misunderstanding. Mike Gene, who has surely read the student review saying Pianka PREACHES that 90% of the population SHOULD be wiped out by airborne ebola, a student review of Pianka’s class that echoes what Mims heard in the Lamar speech, must also think this student is a liar person of terrible misjudgement and misunderstanding too.

I’m very disappointed in Mike Gene, whoever he is. No wonder Mike Gene refuses to identify himself. Wusses are like that. Get a clue, Mike. Pianka hates humanity and thinks it’s no better or more deserving of life than bacteria or bison. It’s okay for you to say it, Mike. You’re anonymous. The least you can do is be brave enough to call a spade a spade from behind your mask of anonymity.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 9:09 pm

Believe me, Dave, I'm very disappointed in Mike Gene too.

Date: 2006/06/01 19:40:49, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (GCT @ June 01 2006,13:28)
Hey, Crichton wrote "State of Fear" which you should know finally debunks this whole global warming thing.  Well, you would know that if it wasn't for the cabal of scientists trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

But before they gagged him, he revealed that it was environmentalists that caused the Christmas Tsunami.  Unfortunately, he didn't get a chance to tell us how they did it.  They're probably in league with Satan.

Date: 2006/06/07 00:40:00, Link
Author: djmullen
But let’s take a closer look. If I understand things here correctly, what Shostak is calling a “simple” tone is as far away from being simple as something can get. In fact, it should be considered a highly complex structure. If I’m not mistaken, a ’simple’ sinusoidal wave can be constructed through the constructive interference of a number of electromagnatic waves differing in wavelength and amplitudes. The fact that ’sinusoidal’ waves don’t exist in nature is very likely due to all the ‘noise’ that exists in nature, ‘noise’ that simply never sums up in the proper way so as to form a ’sinusoidal’ wave. Now the EXPLANATION for there not being a ’simple sinusoidal’ wave found in the microwave band is that the only ‘noise’ that nature produces in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum is that coming from hydrogen gas. Thus, hydrogen has nothing to interfere with; and, hence, constructive interference in this region is therefore ruled out. Thus, the appearance of a ’sinusodal’ wave is, instead of being SIMPLE, is, in fact, too COMPLEX a structure to be created by ‘nature’ in that part of the EM spectrum; and the INFERENCE would then be that it had to have been PURPOSIVELY produced: hence, ‘intelligence.’ Sounds a lot like ID, doesn’t it?

One constructs a simple sinusoid with many complex sinusoids?

Perhaps he is thinking of an EM pulse?

djmullen: PaV does NOT "understand things here correctly".  Or, in other words, he's a typical ID "thinker".

Any COMPLEX repeating waveform can be constructed by adding PURE SIMPLE SINE WAVES of the correct frequency, phase and amplitude.  Google "fourier" and "fourier analysis", PaV.

Date: 2006/06/08 00:31:54, Link
Author: djmullen
Dembski says: Too bad that Freeman Dyson agrees with me and not with them.

This is utterly false. Nowhere in the referenced paper does Dyson say that zero-energy waves can impart information.

And nowhere in my quote do I say that zero-energy waves impart information — I say that they do in the limit. Let me suggest you read the appropriate chapters in Michael Spivak’s calculus book on limits. In the meantime, you’re out of here. –WmAD

Comment by secondclass — June 7, 2006 @ 5:08 pm

And what the heck does the limit have to do with anything?  YOU said that zero energy infinite wavelength waves can impart information TODAY AND IN THE PAST.  That's how your Designer interacts with this universe to make it what it is today, remember? 

Dyson says that IN THE FAR, FAR FUTURE, when the universe is almost completely run down, there will be less and less available energy, but that life and intelligence can still survive by operating on less and less energy, which they can do by running slower and slower.

This has NOTHING to do with imparting information into the universe TODAY and IN THE PAST!

Dyson doesn't agree with Dembski because Dyson can recognize a faker a mile off.  

Dembski challanged us to email Dyson and see for ourselves.  Well, I invite Dembski to email Dyson, quote him your claims and invite him to say if he agrees with Dembski or not.  But Dembski's not dumb enough to set himself up for that kind of humiliation.

Anybody know Freeman Dyson's email address?

Date: 2006/06/08 20:04:30, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (keiths @ June 08 2006,05:45)
Anybody know Freeman Dyson's email address?

It's  He's at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ.

Anybody know Freeman Dyson's email address?

It's  He's at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ.

I wrote him and received this reply:

"Sorry to disappoint you but I have no comment.   F. Dyson."

Date: 2006/06/11 03:52:01, Link
Author: djmullen
The Arc of Conway

The ID arc of John Simon Conway, as reveiled in the pages of Uncommon Dissent

Poor John Simon Conway, how fast he rose in the ID firmament and now how far and how fast he has fallen from ID glory.  You can see his ID career climb ever higher in the pages of Uncommon Dissent and then, at the height of his ID greatness, the same blog documents his swift and terrible plunge to the status of a "Cultured Theological Despiser".  One crosses WAD at his own peril.

First, the climb to ID greatness:
April 22, 2005
Listed as a member of the Cambridge Templeton Foundation, helping to evaluate research proposals on Biological Complexity for the Templeton Foundation

May 15, 2005
"The renowned biologist Simon Conway Morris has found many such examples in nature and proposed that it’s “near inevitable” that species converge toward an intelligent “solution” to life."

May 18, 2005
Speaker to Templeton Foundation Journalistic fellows.

June 23, 2005
Talks about a "gaffe" in Simon Conway Morris's book, Life's Solution, in which an exponent and base are reversed.  [Isn't this actually called a misprint?]

July 2, 2005
The Privileged Planet has received an endorsement from Simon Conway Morris

Sept 7, 2005
"The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed" is "the first British book-length critique of Darwinism".  It's "preface is explicitly Christian [and] Simon Conway Morris went through the whole manuscript"
Also, chapter 13 is "Based on Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris"

Sept 28, 2005
"… On matters scientific, Dr. Dawkins, who came from Oxford, and Dr. Conway Morris, a Cambridge man, agreed: The richness of the biosphere, humanity included, could be explained through natural selection. [I’ve corresponded with Conway Morris; he regards natural selection as an engine that powers evolution but not as what gives it direction. –WmAD] "
"For Dr. Conway Morris, a Christian, nature’s “uncanny ability” to converge on moral, loving creatures like ourselves testified that evolution itself was the handiwork of God…."

Dec 10, 2005
"Simon Conway Morris is scheduled to do the 2006-07 Gifford Lectures on the topic “What organic evolution tells us about our place in the universe, not least in terms of religious perspectives and natural theology “"

Mar 8, 2006
"Simon Conway Morris, noted Cambridge paleontologist, has similarly noted that evolution is constrained rather than open ended like the Darwinian process."

And then Conway Morris is cast down from ID heaven:
April 8, 2006
"Simon Conway Morris, a biologist at Cambridge and an adviser to the Templeton Foundation, ridiculed intelligent design as nonsense that no respectable biologist could accept."

June 10, 2006
"ID’s Cultured Theological Despisers — Simon Conway Morris’s Boyle Lecture 2005"
"Conway Morris’s remark is another of the slapdash pseudo-theological criticisms of ID"

And from that day on, no matter how he wailed and gnashed his teeth, Simon Conway Morris never again sat at the right hand of the Apostle Dembski.  How the mighty have fallen!

Date: 2006/06/11 05:36:41, Link
Author: djmullen
I don't think he ever did, but Dembski fooled himself into thinking he did and tried to pass the delusion on to others.  

Dembski seems to think that any argument whatsoever with any aspect of evolution equals an ID believer - especially if you're a famous scientist.

Of course, once you say something anti-ID, that belief can no longer hold.  That's how someone like Conway Morris can plummet from a "renowned biologist" to a "slapdash pseudo-theological" critic.

Date: 2006/06/11 07:31:04, Link
Author: djmullen
You must mean former Judge Jones.  IIRC, we were assured by Davie Boy that his job was toast if he gave the "wrong" verdict, and he did.

Date: 2006/06/11 23:58:19, Link
Author: djmullen
Aww, you spotted that one before I did.

Nature has no fitness function. Nature, or rather Darwin’s version of nature, doesn’t give a flying flop if anything is alive or not.

Right!  After all, dead organisms have just as many babies as live ones!  Pass those successfull genes on, dead man!

Does anybody get the impression that Dave knows just about as much about evolution as Dembski?

Date: 2006/06/12 01:34:21, Link
Author: djmullen
This blew my mind!  I followed Dembski's lead to the site where Conway Morris's talk is stored - , opened up the .pdf file (Boyle lecture for 2005) and discovered that, "Simon Conway Morris holds an Ad Hominem Chair in Evolutionary Palaeobiology, at the
University of Cambridge."

An Ad Hominem chair?  A "To the Man" chair?  That sounds like a perfect academic position for Davie Boy.  Ad Hominem arguments seem to be his specialty.

Date: 2006/06/14 00:41:13, Link
Author: djmullen
Although slightly off topic, I'll mention this here since Dembski endorsed it on his blog: Mike Gene is coming out with a book, titled "The Design Matrix".  Go to to see a very pretty animation advertising it.  

How can you tell this is an ID book?  Because the animation finishes with a crash of thunder, followed a second later by a flash of lightning.

Only in IDland.

Date: 2006/06/14 18:39:59, Link
Author: djmullen
Do IDists ever read what they write?

Intelligent design will open doors to scientific exploration which Darwinism is too blind to perceive.

Think I’m kidding, and evolutionary biologists don’t make these kinds of obviously bad inferences?

Then he quotes from a University of Bath press release discussing exactly what 'Darwinism' is supposed to be too blind to perceive!

Date: 2006/06/15 23:55:49, Link
Author: djmullen
I love Uncommon Dissent!  GilDodgen strikes again:
The Missing Link in Bird Evolution Has Been Found!
I’m suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.,2933,199695,00.html

Those of us with room-temperature IQs* are perpetually assured that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. So, after reading the news release linked above, I asked myself, “Self, why is this big news?”

I guess I just don’t get it. Why has the missing link in bird evolution just been found, when I have been assured for years that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that the enigma of bird evolution was already solved?

From the article he links to:
"Most of the ancestors of birds from the age of dinosaurs are members of groups that died out and left no modern descendants. But Gansus led to modern birds, so it's a link between primitive birds and those we see today," Lamanna, a co-leader of the research team, said in a telephone interview.

Sigh. I’m apparently too stupid to understand Darwinian logic.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — GilDodgen @ 10:23 pm

* Room temperature ~ 70 degrees F.  That seems about right.
Filed under: Never read your sources, just bloviate.

Date: 2006/06/24 12:25:32, Link
Author: djmullen
"I frame no hypothesis." was Newton's comment on the mechanism of gravity.

"We don't need no steenking hypothesis." is ID's comment on the mechanism of ID.

Date: 2006/07/11 20:53:34, Link
Author: djmullen
HUMOR ALERT!!  Salvador's on an Avida roll again!

Salvador Cordoba, the man who makes Dembski look like an intellectual, is hanging himself out to dry once more.  In the Uncommon Dullards thread, "Tautologies and Theatrics (part 1): adventures in Avida", Salvador promises to shoot himself in the foot yet again by doing a three part series on the artifical life program, "Avida".

I urge everybody who appreciates the humor that is inherant in ID to read all three parts of this thread closely because every time Salvador starts talking about Avida, the results are invariably hilarious.  It has been this way since the first time he tangled with this program, back in the summer of 2004.

Avida is a program in which 'digital life forms', which are short programs written in a simple computer language, are run by the Avida program.  The person running the program can set various conditions, such as several types of mutations, that will change the code and reward it if it becomes more efficient.

Hearing about this program, Salvador procured a copy, (it's open source) installed it, selected a value for random point mutations that gave each instruction a .5 chance of being mutated every time the organism divided, started it running and then triumphantly reported that he had found a serious flaw in Avida - the digital organisms grew in an environment of lethal digital 'radiation' that should have fried every organism the first time it tried to reproduce.

He and RBH went around and around and around some more on this, with the argument being greatly hampered by the fact that RBH understands Avida and Salvador doesn't.  RBH finally sent Salvador's inputs and outputs to the Avida group and graduate student Evan Dorn responded here.

It turns out that what was going on was exactly what anybody who had even a sketchy knowledge of Avida would have predicted: every single organism was dead!  They had all been blasted to smithereens the first time they tried to reproduce as approximately one half of their instructions were mutated!  This was all pretty clear to RBH and anybody else familiar with Avida, but not, of course, to Salvador who's more of a doer kind of guy rather than an understander.  (Much like the current administration.)

Sal also made a second blunder: while fooling around with point mutation values, he set the probability of a mutation to 50,000.  This created a rather severe problem, since the highest probability you can have in the real world is 1.  It turns out that when Avida encountered a probability 50,000 times higher than the maximum possible, it responded by shutting off point mutations altogether and Sal's digital organisms thus reproduced unimpeded.

Sal still hasn't realized either blunder.  As he puts it, "...Avidian creatures have some features which seriously decouple them from reality. The proof was right there, because even after this bug [the .5 probability of mutation in each instruction] was fixed, the make-believe creatures could still be made to breed in high radiation environments (not quite like rabbits, but still enough to draw notice). The bug fix only slowed down reproduction in high radiation environments, it didn’t stop it. In fact the creatures (being immortal) would oscillate between sterility and fertility as long as one kept bombarding them with radiation! Doesn’t that strike you all as a bit odd?"  (Emphasis in the original.)

Well, not actually, but perhaps that's because I read Evan Dorn's reply to Salvador, which is cited above:  "Mr. Cordova claims to have observed inconsistent behavior in Avida which he believes disproves its' validity as an experimental platform. Upon examination, it is clear that he is simply misunderstanding the output of his experiments, and that at high (but valid) mutation probabilities, Avida is behaving exactly as expected - all organisms are dead."  

He goes on to say, "Explanation: Put simply, the population was dead. What Mr. Cordoba observed was slow, random activity of non- replicating random strings.

Whether or not the strings of instructions existing in grid cells genotypes are valid, replicating organisms, Avida will dutifully execute their instructions. In this case, the ancestor organism was thoroughly randomized in the first update, as would be expected at Pmut=0.5. However, the execution of random computer instructions will occasionally include the execution of the "allocate" instruction, creating new room at the end of the "genome" if other instructions happen to have put a non-zero number in the appropriate register. Also, the occasional "divide" will execute when other instructions have loaded integer values into the appropriate register ... meaning some piece of the randomized genome will get split into another grid cell. Without the actual code for organized replication, this will occur very slowly and all of these divides will contain random-length groups of random instructions. While yes, this process will slowly fill the grid cells, it is in no way analogous to life: nothing is replicated with fidelity, and no information is conserved.

Conclusion: Mr. Cordova has experimentally demonstrated that there is in no mechanism protecting genomes from randomization by killing the ancestor organism with a high mutation rate and observing the "brownian motion" activity of dead, random, sequences of computer instructions."

In other words, Salvador thoroughly skrootched the digital organisms with his torrent of point mutations, but Avida has no way of knowing this and keeps executing each individual instruction in the defunct 'organism'.  Once in a while it finds and executes an 'allocate' instruction which adds empty memory to the space the dead organisms live in.  Once in a while it also finds and executes a 'divide' command, which splits off another cell (full of randomized instructions that were once a digital organism) and a new 'life form' is born - at least it looks that way if you don't know what the he11 you're talking about.

Has Salvador figured this out?  Of course not, he's an IDist and figuring things out is against his personal moral code.  Is this ignorance going to stop him from making a further fool of himself?  Of course not, he's an IDist and God wants him to make a fool of himself as a warning to others and to provide good clean entertainment to ID critics.

Personally, I'm going get some popcorn and sit back and enjoy this one.

Date: 2006/07/11 23:50:59, Link
Author: djmullen
Ah, the fun has already begun.  By 3:10 am, zapatero had already posted the same excerpts from Evan Dorn that I posted above.  Evidently jealous of Salvador's ability to entertain us here, DaveTard jumps in with this comment at the bottom of his post:

"Correct me if I’m wrong here but wasn’t Avida and all the software & hardware it runs on the result of intelligent agency?

Avida doesn’t even pass the giggle test for showing that things can evolve without intelligent agency. I really wish you’d spare us all. If I want this type of entertainment I’ll go read the reports from the tobacco industry proving cigarette smoking is non-addictive and not bad for your health or the Pork Producers report that shows eating bacon prevents male pattern baldness!  -ds

dt, you're right!  Avida IS the result of intelligent agency.  It's a man-made model that simulates some aspects of the real world.  It takes quite a bit of intelligence to do that.  The real question to ask of a man-made model of evolution is whether it simulates evolution accurately and Avida does.  It's 'mutations' are random with regard to fitness and the fitness of the mutated 'organism' determines it's reproductive success.  That's what we want in a model of Darwinian evolution.

Thank's for your comment, we're all entertained by your insight.  Now why don't you relax and have a cigarette and some bacon while you wait for the next opportunity to show us the depth of your understanding?  And please continue to put your comments in BOLD.

Date: 2006/07/12 19:41:04, Link
Author: djmullen
SalTard digs himself in deeper!  In Reply #6:

[SalTard:] What is not mentioned is even when I correct the flaw of turning off the mutations, but instead turn them on, we only slow down the bizarre behavior of the simulation, we don’t stop it.

[Evan Dorn:] Put simply, the population was dead. What Mr. Cordoba observed was slow, random activity of non- replicating random strings.

[ST:] What this is showing is Avida can ressurect the dead, and this is being glossed over with techno babble.

No Sal, what this is showing is that when someone who doesn't understand Byte One about Avida blasts his critters with so many mutations that they die instantly, Avida gets almost as confused as you are.  None of your organisms were resurrected, they are all dead and you are now christened SalTard.

We eagerly await part 2 of your daring expose of your lack of understanding of the things you criticise.  Carry on.

Date: 2006/07/17 22:23:22, Link
Author: djmullen
DaveTard has noticed that people from all over the internet are coming around to enjoy the freak show:

Aside from setting new records in almost all categories June’s growth was larger than normal in that the total number of referring sites grew by over 20% month over month to 38,209. Growth in all other categories was our normal 10%.

Way to go everyone! We continue to get our message out to more and more people!

Unfortunately for the UD crew, the message is that ID is led by IDiots.

Date: 2006/07/17 22:27:06, Link
Author: djmullen
I forgot, DT also said this:
I wonder if Panda’s Thumb continued their decline? Maybe our loyal opposition will give us an answer at ATBC.

You can take the message just before this one as "an answer at ATBC".

Also, I don't read Panda's Thumb as much any more because Uncommon Descent is so much funnier.  I suspect others do the same, thus accounting for any falloff at PT.

Date: 2006/07/17 22:41:54, Link
Author: djmullen
Dembski has posted a thread entitled "How man's best friend overcame laws of natural evolution" on UD, a fairly straight forward story from the Times of London describing how dogs living the cushy domesticated life aren't subject to as much pressure from natural selection as wolves living in the wild.

John Lynch has opened this thread on Stranger Fruit where you may reply to it.

Be gentle.

Date: 2006/07/17 22:55:03, Link
Author: djmullen
Sorry to spray the blog with comments, but I just followed a colorful icon on UD to the"Wonderboy" page, advertising a book that has a rather familiar character in it:

Wonderboy and the Black Hole of Nixvy Veck is a light-hearted yet engaging tale of two men: one, a former PhD student in astronomy; the other, a complete imbecile, known by his co-workers as Wonderboy because he considers himself God's gift to the 10-minute oil-change industry. Set in Nixvy Veck, a small and utterly forgettable township in West Texas, known far and wide as a home only for the dead and the dying, this charming, witty novel is an inspiring tale of Man's place in the universe, and hope in a seemingly hopeless world. If you don't die laughing, it's not our fault!

Hmmmm, "a small and utterly forgettable township in West Texas", "home only for the dead and the dying" and the title character is "a complete imbecile, known by his co-workers as Wonderboy because he considers himself God's gift to the 10-minute oil-change industry".

Why am I reminded of so many prominent UD folk?

Date: 2006/07/20 01:13:04, Link
Author: djmullen
Steve S., where'd you get that hot picture of Denyse?  I'm thinking of starting a "Women of ID" calendar and that's a cover shot if I've ever seen one.

Also, can somebody give me the address of Faffferrrmann's blog?  I've lost it and Google doesn't seem to have ever heard of it.

Date: 2006/07/22 03:55:12, Link
Author: djmullen
No, I had NOT noticed when the [disenvowelling] problem first blew up, because the very idea of a trip switch to deface the content of certain posts, while publishing them anyway (!;), seems alien.

I am told that the victimized persons were not trolls.

That’s the trouble with setting traps. You never know who will fall in.

She's not gonna last long.

Date: 2006/07/27 21:12:03, Link
Author: djmullen
So I don't get the "Wells isn't a Christian" bit, since it looks to me like the Unification Church is simply another derivative branch of Christianity.

I don't get the "I only know of one biologist who has written much in favor of ID" quote.  Wells has been a Moony theologian for most of his adult life and was sent to get a PhD in biology by Reverand Moon/Jesus Christ Himself solely to attack science (and then lied in his book by claiming that he was a believer in evolution until his university studies convinced him otherwise).  "Biologist" is the last thing I'd call Wells.

Date: 2006/07/28 01:40:31, Link
Author: djmullen
You know, I think that Denyse just might turn out to be an adequate replacement for DaveTard after all:

From "Ernst Mayr at the millennium: A study in misplaced triumphalism":

Darwinian evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote in Scientific American in 2000:

“Let me now try to summarize my major findings. No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution,...

Denyse: "Note how Mayr has smeared the “so-called theory of evolution” (why “so-called”?) ..."

Well, Denyse, perhaps the last half of Mayr's sentence, which you quoted, might explain that:  

"...which we now know to be a simple fact."

Since you went to the trouble to quote the whole sentence, perhaps you should also have read it.

This does help answer the question she asks in another thread: "What is a “pseudo-journalist?”

Denyse, real journalists are expected to expend some effort towards making what they write accurate and this means, among many other things, actually reading what they are quoting.  Try doing that for a while.  It would be a good first step towards becoming an actual journalist instead of a pseudo journalist.

But I gotta warn you, from what I've read of your work so far, it's going to be a very long journey!

Date: 2006/08/08 20:14:14, Link
Author: djmullen
[quote=C.J.O'Brien,Aug. 08 2006,18:10][/quote]
I forgot which direction the sex change went, I think it was man to woman, Denyse O'leary probably knows

Why? Did they trade?

Jonathan to Joan

Date: 2006/09/06 13:36:54, Link
Author: djmullen
[quote=stevestory,Sep. 05 2006,20:46][/quote]
"I tutored people for years. I've never seen anyone have problems, like PaV has problems with the word 'random'."

Here's a clue as to why: "I haven’t read the entire article as yet, but I will shortly. I look forward to your reactions and thoughts."


Date: 2006/09/07 18:55:32, Link
Author: djmullen
jujuquisp says: "I apologize for my post regarding DaveScot's service in the Marines.  I will try to be more tactful in the future in my disparaging remarks about intellectual cretins.  A new baby and lack of sleep have caused a lapse in judgment."

Yes!  Enought of those d*mn*d asterisks!

Date: 2006/09/12 20:59:11, Link
Author: djmullen
Here's some deletion bait.  If this post stays up, then UD has really turned a corner.

From the "Who said Darwinists weren't a barrel of laughts?" thread:  

4. (Off Topic)
I’d like to compliment the folks at Uncommon Descent for adopting a friendlier moderation policy lately. It has made the threads much livelier (and longer), with a lot of interesting give-and-take between ID supporters and dissenters.
Unfortunately, this new, more open attitude does not appear to be shared by all of the contributors at UD. One of them has resorted to changing the comments posted by others.
I recently responded to a post of BarryA’s, in which he claimed:
A couple of days ago I said that some scientists’ metaphysical commitments make them blind to data that disconfirms their theory. My comment was met with howls of indignation by commentators who insisted that “science” is pristine, self-correcting and ideology-free. Nonsense.
My response:
Who are the commenters who “insisted that ’science’ is pristine, self-correcting and ideology-free”? I reread both “Illusion of Knowledge” threads and found nobody making (much less “howling”) such a statement.
Science is neither pristine nor ideology-free. It is self-correcting, however, and that is its genius.
After Barry had responded to others on the thread without answering my question, I posted the following:
Should I take your silence as an indication that you have no answer to the question I posed in comment #1?
Russ, Tina,
We can wish that all scientists were perfect humans, impervious to prejudice and perfectly open-minded, but this is no more likely than a world full of perfect teachers, perfect politicians, perfect religious leaders, and perfect used-car salesmen…
When I checked the thread later, the question to Barry had been removed, with only the portion of the comment addressed to Russ and Tina remaining:
In protest, I posted the following:
To BarryA or whoever has been editing and deleting my comments on this thread:
If you are not prepared to defend your posts, and if you feel the need to edit or delete comments which ask you to back up your claims, then why post at all? As a blog, Uncommon Descent is ostensibly about dialog, isn’t it?
My comment was deleted.
This is particularly ironic, given that earlier today Barry was advising his readers to
“have the courage to address your opponents’ real position, not a caricature of it.” This is precisely why I was criticizing him, yet he refused to acknowledge or answer my criticism.
It’s even more ironic that Barry should need to be protected from my question, given his aggressiveness in demanding answers from those whom he questions. Witness Barry’s treatment of Leo1787:
My prediction: Leo will ignore these two questions altogether or he will try to dodge them.
Since he asked to hear from others who read this blog, presumably Leo came back to check if anyone had responded. It has now been over two hours since I posted my response. This means Leo has almost certainly seen the questions I asked, and my prediction was right on. He chose to ignore the questions. He knows a no win situation when he sees one.
Are there any materialists out there braver than Leo who want to take a shot at a response?
Uncommon Descent would be better served if Barry, like those he pursues, was expected to back up his positions and respond to questions.
Comment by Karl Pfluger — September 12, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

I might add that I'm still waiting for the Church Lady to tell us which evolutionists know exactly how life started on earth.  I'm not holding my breath on that one, either.

Date: 2006/09/13 23:51:54, Link
Author: djmullen
BarryA has "answered" Karl Pfluger's posting to the "Who said evolutionists aren't a barrel of laughs?" thread:

5. Hey Karl, if you want to talk about the substance of my posts, by all means do and I will respond. If you want to whine and nit pick rhetorical flourishes, don’t expect me to 1. respond; or 2. leave your whiny comments on the thread.

Comment by BarryA — September 13, 2006 @ 6:45 pm

Karl comes right back to him:

6. Barry,

Look at what you wrote:

My comment was met with howls of indignation by commentators who insisted that “science” is pristine, self-correcting and ideology-free. Nonsense.

That’s not a “rhetorical flourish”, it’s an outright fabrication. Nobody on either of those two threads said any such thing.

Face it: You created a strawman position out of whole cloth, looking for an easy target. When I called you on it, you tried to cover your tracks by editing one of my comments and deleting another. Sounds like an awful lot of trouble to go through to avoid answering questions about a mere “rhetorical flourish”.

Maybe you should take your father’s advice:

If you have a position and you can’t meet your opponent’s argument, you must work harder, and if you do that and still can’t meet your opponent’s argument you must change your mind.

Think about it.

Comment by Karl Pfluger — September 14, 2006 @ 2:19 am

Anybody want to bet on whether BarryA follows his father's advice?

Date: 2006/09/19 00:22:45, Link
Author: djmullen
ID's secret weapon:

"It is scary that 70% of university students think this syllogism is logical: all living things need water; roses need water; therefore roses are living things."

Date: 2006/10/14 13:30:10, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2006,14:04)
Jonathan Moonie Wells, quoted on UD today:

As I learned in the course of earning my Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley, Darwinism is false because it doesn’t fit the scientific evidence.

Jonathan Moonie Wells, quoted by his moonie friends years ago:

Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

I guess he thought "Darwin is wrong because the evidence says so" sounded better than "Darwin is wrong because my cult leader says so"

Jonathan Moonie Wells, quoted on UD today:

As I learned in the course of earning my Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley, Darwinism is false because it doesn’t fit the scientific evidence.

Jonathan Moonie Wells, quoted by his moonie friends years ago:

Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

I guess he thought "Darwin is wrong because the evidence says so" sounded better than "Darwin is wrong because my cult leader says so"  

From the Preface to "Icons of Evolution", Pg XI:
"During my years as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks.  I knew that the books contained a few misprints and minor factual errors, and I was skeptical of philosoophical claims that went beyond the evidence, but I thought that most of what I was being taught was substantially true."

Nothing like starting the book off with a lie to give the reader confidence in the author.

From "About  the Author" in the same book:

Jonathan Wells is no sctranger to controversey.  After spending two years in the U. S. Army from 1964 to 1966, he entered the University of California at Berkeley to become a science teacher.  When the Army called him back from reserve status in 1968, he chose to go to prison rather than continue to sergve during the Vietnam War.  He subsequently earned a Ph.D. in religious studies at Yale University, where he wrote a book about the nineteenth century Darwinian controversies.  In 1989 he returned to Berkeley to earn a second Ph.D., this time in molecular and cell biology.  He is now a senior fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture ( in Seattle, where he lives with his wife, two children and mother.  He still hopes to become a science teacher.

No need to mention Reverand Moon or the Unification Church's  paying for the Ph.D. expressly so he could (attempt to) destroy Darwin or the fact that he would have to give up his job as a Moonie pastor and theologian to become a science teacher.  That kind of info can't possibly be interesting or useful to the reader.

Date: 2006/10/14 17:35:29, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2006,14:04)
Jonathan Moonie Wells, quoted on UD today:

As I learned in the course of earning my Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley, Darwinism is false because it doesn’t fit the scientific evidence.

Jonathan Moonie Wells, quoted by his moonie friends years ago:

Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

I guess he thought "Darwin is wrong because the evidence says so" sounded better than "Darwin is wrong because my cult leader says so"

Jonathan Moonie Wells, quoted on UD today:

As I learned in the course of earning my Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley, Darwinism is false because it doesn’t fit the scientific evidence.

Jonathan Moonie Wells, quoted by his moonie friends years ago:

Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

I guess he thought "Darwin is wrong because the evidence says so" sounded better than "Darwin is wrong because my cult leader says so"  

From the Preface to "Icons of Evolution", Pg XI:
"During my years as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks.  I knew that the books contained a few misprints and minor factual errors, and I was skeptical of philosoophical claims that went beyond the evidence, but I thought that most of what I was being taught was substantially true."

Nothing like starting the book off with a lie to give the reader confidence in the author.

From "About  the Author" in the same book:

Jonathan Wells is no sctranger to controversey.  After spending two years in the U. S. Army from 1964 to 1966, he entered the University of California at Berkeley to become a science teacher.  When the Army called him back from reserve status in 1968, he chose to go to prison rather than continue to sergve during the Vietnam War.  He subsequently earned a Ph.D. in religious studies at Yale University, where he wrote a book about the nineteenth century Darwinian controversies.  In 1989 he returned to Berkeley to earn a second Ph.D., this time in molecular and cell biology.  He is now a senior fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture ( in Seattle, where he lives with his wife, two children and mother.  He still hopes to become a science teacher.

No need to mention Reverand Moon or the Unification Church's  paying for the Ph.D. expressly so he could (attempt to) destroy Darwin or the fact that he's a Moonie pastor and theologian.  That kind of info can't possibly be interesting or useful to the reader.

Date: 2006/10/17 20:00:23, Link
Author: djmullen
I'm still trying to decide whether Sal is mentally ill or just a garden variety opportunist who is slowly making a name/opportunity for himself in hopes of cashing in on the ignorance of others.  

They're not mutually contradictory, you know.  Take L. Ron Hubbard, for example.

Date: 2006/10/17 20:34:25, Link
Author: djmullen
Dembski has teaching chores to be sure.  Take a gander at the Fall 2006 class details:

This is interesting:

Spring 2006

Critical Thinking and the Art of Argumentation (SBTS #28970)

<> As indicated in class and in the previous note, the final is to be a 2000-word critical review of Richard Dawkins’s 2-part series “The Root of All Evil?” (For examples of critical reviews see the previous note below.) The word limit is absolute. The exam is open-book in the sense that you can use any books in the course as well as any other materials that you find useful. There is one exception, however, which is that I don’t want you looking at other reviews of this series (on the internet or elsewhere) or talking to fellow classmates about the exam. You can spend as much time working on this review as you like. But it is due by midnight Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 as an email attachment sent to me at the following email address: wdembski AT designinference DOT com (my SBTS email account has in the past proven unreliable for such assignments). If you need to view the series again and don’t have it readily available, Jiri Prochazka is on campus and will be able to assist you (his email address is: chrochy AT hotmail DOT com).

To the best of my knowledge, no legal copies of this series are available in the United States.  I checked Amazon and they don't have it, nor does Amazon UK, nor does BBCAmerica shop.  That makes me wonder where Jiri Prochazka got his or her copy.  Could it be (gasp) an illegal bootleg copy?(/gasp)

This also makes me wonder how many illegal pirates attend that seminary: "If you need to view the series again and don’t have it readily available..." sort of implies that many of the students do have copies readily at hand.  However, the idea of writing a two thousand word review of something you've apparently only seen once fits right in with that type of "educational" institution.

Signs of the times: Since the early 1990’s, for example, young male elephants in Pilanesberg National Park and the Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Game Reserve in South Africa have been raping and killing rhinoceroses;

Date: 2006/10/17 21:05:46, Link
Author: djmullen
Talk about honestly named books!
New book: Complete Idiot’s Guide to Intelligent Design
by O'Leary on October 17th, 2006 · 1 Comment
December 5, Penguin is coming out with The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Intelligent Design

.Author Christopher Carlisle is the Episcopal Chaplain at the University of Massachusetts and W. Thomas Jr.l, is a freelance writer.

This book is badly needed!  At last, a book for the average IDer.

As leebowman reports in the only comment, so far,  
At least the title is fitting, since we now know that there are a plethora of ‘idiots’ out there that still require elucidation.

And, very helpfully, many of the idiots are right there on Uncommon Descent.


Date: 2006/10/18 00:39:45, Link
Author: djmullen
Thanks to dharmabum:

It just gets weirder and weirder.

Date: 2006/10/20 01:48:18, Link
Author: djmullen
They're resurrecting the 2nd Law canard again.  Unbelievable.

Like Dempski, Sewell is a mathematician who can't handle story problems.

Date: 2006/11/08 02:36:01, Link
Author: djmullen
Michaels7 raises an important question:
Afterall, who is contributing to society more? Pornographic sites or UD?

Pornography.  It's reducing the number of rapes:

Three cheers for Internet porn
Here's some food for thought for conservative groups demanding restrictions on Internet porn to safeguard the minds of innocent boys (an oxymoron if ever there was one): As it turns out, all those clips on may be protecting womens' safety. A reader tipped us off to Slate columnist Steven E. Landsburg's analysis of how the increase in use and availability of Internet porn has, contrary to popular opinion, contributed to the national decline in reported rapes. As he puts it, "The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments." The results, according to a study by Clemson University professor Todd Kendall, indicate that a 10 percent increase in Internet access yielded around a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes, with states that had greater Internet access seeing the largest and fastest declines.

Still, as Landsburg points out, how do we know the Web use-rape link is connected to porn? Maybe online gaming, sports chat rooms or other male-dominated sites are in fact catching the attention of potential rapists. Kendall responds to this argument by offering murder rates; while the data consistently ties increased Internet use to decreased rapes, no such correlation exists for homicides. "It's hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time," Landsburg noted. "On the other hand, it's easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape." Coming as no surprise, the effects are strongest among boys ages 14 to 19, a demographic that Kendall, and common sense, identify as the group that relies most heavily on the Internet for porn access.

True, plenty of arguments remain for placing restrictions on the content and availability of sexual material on the Web. One primary concern, the potential luring and sexual victimization of minors, has hardly lacked for attention these days. Nonetheless, this study points to some pretty strong evidence that freedom to broadcast and access Internet porn, in addition to being protected by the Constitution, can result in tangible benefits for both sexes.

As for psychological studies showing that male subjects are more likely to articulate misogynistic attitudes immediately after viewing pornography, Kendall dismisses the results by pointing out defects in the experiments themselves. As Landsburg delicately rephrases, watching porn in a controlled laboratory setting with teams of researchers looking on is hardly comparable to "the experience of viewing porn on the Internet, in the privacy of one's own room, [which] typically culminates in a slightly messier but far more satisfying experience."

-- Melissa Lafsky

[17:41 EST, Nov. 3, 2006]


I read the Slate article when it came out last week, but couldn't find it.

Date: 2006/11/13 06:52:38, Link
Author: djmullen
From Joel's blog (which has closed the comment section, by the way):  

"For those not familiar, BTK is Dennis Rader of Wichita, Kansas. He was a serial killer dubbed as “BTK” for “Bind Torture and Kill.” Without going into too much detail, the name gives away how he murdered his victims. He did all of these killings in the 1970’s and 1980’s and was not caught until two years ago."

Hmmm, seems like Joel left something out ... oh yes, here it is, from Wikipedia:

"Rader led a dual life, one of a church-going family man and the other, a narcissistic sexual sadist and cold-blooded serial killer."


"He was also a member of Christ Lutheran Church, a Lutheran congregation of about 200 people. He had been a member for about 30 years and had been elected president of the Congregation Council. He was also a Cub Scout leader."

and here's another one:

"In 1991 Rader ran and was elected as a Republican supervisor of the Compliance Department at Park City..."

Good thing he wasn't an atheist.  He might have killed somebody.

Date: 2006/11/14 03:20:10, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 13 2006,06:56)
To those who comment (or lurk) in support of Intelligent Design on Uncommon Descent. I'm banned for posting off-topic comments off-site instead of either remaining silent in the face of slurs against another commenter, or participating in the distraction.

You really need to look hard at yourselves and decide just what sort of persons you want to be. Many of you realize that the atmosphere  at Uncommon Descent is bitter and polluted, and that dissent is being suppressed. People have to walk on tiptoes for fear of the consequences of their questions or comments.

Some of you I have personally communicated with, and you know what I say is true. For some reason you accept this state-of-affairs. Think hard.

I quit posting there months ago when three successive polite, accurate (and devastating to ID) comments in a row were never posted without so much as an email to me to tell me they were being eaten.

I still lurk, though, just as I still gawp at auto accidents, train wrecks and The Best Minds of ID in Action.  I noticed that in the "Spetner proves he can't handle story problems any better than Dembski" thread that in post #8, DLH thanks you for your previous post.  Of course, your previous post has been removed, in purest ID/UD fashion.

If you still have a copy of what you wrote, can you post it here?  I've been thinking that I might start replying again and post everything deleted here.  If we all did that, it might make a very interesting display.  Perhaps we should open up a new thread, "Deleted by UD" or "Too Hot for Dembski to Handle".

Date: 2006/11/16 04:05:31, Link
Author: djmullen
From the "The Empire Strikes Back..." thread.  I posted this, [as Houdin] but it won't see daylight, so I'm reposting it here.

Salvador quotes John Stewart Mills's "On Liberty": ]
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. … "

If you truly believe that, then stop deleting comments from non-IDers.  You're depriving the ID community, posterity as well as the existing generation, of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth or a clearer perception and livlier impression of truth.

No blog in the known universe deletes as many posts as Uncommon Dissent.  Every one they can't answer, in fact

Date: 2006/11/16 04:45:26, Link
Author: djmullen
The Church Lady writes here:      
But the convenient analogy to democracy fails. In the first place, the secrecy in which peer review operates make it a poor analogue to democracy.

To which I can only say, who the heck were the anonymous reviewers that Richard Sternberg used to approve Stephen Meyer's piece of crap?

Date: 2006/11/16 05:52:38, Link
Author: djmullen
This is kinda fun.  GilDodgen wrotehere:  
GilDodgen: "If, in a hard science like this, previous assumptions can be reexamined and even overturned, how about the assumptions of a soft, philosophical “science” like Darwinism?"

Simple, do some experiments (like Stardust) that generate some data and watch those assumptions get overturned.  But without data, don't expect science to roll over for you.

Date: 2006/11/16 06:50:31, Link
Author: djmullen
What was Dembski's complaint when we did?  Something about literature bombing, IIRC.

Nothing will ever satisfy a faker.

Date: 2006/11/17 04:32:31, Link
Author: djmullen
BUZZ FLASH!  Salon Magazine names Richard Dawkins as one of the sexiest men living!

Wonder is sexy. Knowledge is sexy. And embodying both as much as any man in the world today is a man in a tweed jacket riding his bike around the Oxford University campuses, the damp English breeze sweeping a curtain of silver hair from the delicate bones of his face. Yes, those cheekbones, those piercing eyes, that pursed bow of a mouth -- but that brain, oh that brain, oh, god, that brain -- is what makes Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and the most famous atheist in the world, the sexiest man around.

Others selected (in order listed):

Stephan Colbert
Sacha Baron Cohen
Alton Brown
Neil Patrick Harris
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Sufjan Stevens
Richard Dawkins
James Blake
Bruce Springsteen
Mark Ruffalo
Noah Baumbach
Alan Rickman
Jon Stewart

Not mentioned at all (in any order):
William A. Dembski
Dave Springer
Salvador Cordova

Date: 2006/11/17 19:12:30, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 17 2006,08:35)
Good Math, Bad Math does Salvador Cordova, via Pharyngula

He starts off with a typically clueless statement

In information science, it is empirically and theoretically shown that noise destroys specified complexity, but cannot create it.

Except of course that Sal's definition of "specified complexity" is roughly something like "stuff that seems really complex, but which I can describe imprecisely using very few words".

And then this (from Goodmath, Badmath):    
And mysteriously, Cordova's post has disappeared. Whodathunkit.

Posted by: John Lynch | November 16, 2006 04:49 PM

I think this captures the very essence of Uncommon Descent.

Date: 2006/11/20 05:56:42, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Freelurker @ Nov. 17 2006,19:28)
From later in that same thread:
Cordova's post didn't go away; the link was just in error. Try the following:

(without the "6" at the end).

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 16, 2006 07:34 PM

That mistake was entirely my fault.  I should have realized that UD doesn't ban threads for being stupid, they ban them when the stupidity is exposed.  Carry on, Salvador.

Date: 2006/11/22 05:24:11, Link
Author: djmullen
People who read DaveScot's thread on Paul Meyers shouldn't neglect the post just below that, where non other than William A. Dembski asks for help from the team of crack researchers gathered on Uncommon Descent:
Junk DNA that isn’t
by William Dembski on November 21st, 2006 · 15 Comments

I suspect that the “junk DNA” hypothesis was originally made on explicitly Darwinian grounds. Can someone provide chapter and verse? Clearly, in the absence of the Darwinian interpretation, the default assumption would have been that repetitive nucleotide sequences must have some unknown function.

I would think that anyone who makes his living criticizing evolution should know something about the topic before he opens his mouth.  Apparently that's only true in non-Evangelical circles.

I would also think that in the presence of Darwinian interpretation, the default assumption would have been that repetitive nucleotide sequences must have some unknown function else they would have been attrited by mutations long ago.  I think Dembsk is missing a whole new line of whinging here.

Date: 2006/11/26 18:23:23, Link
Author: djmullen
People trying to psychoanalyze DaveScot should go to Google Groups and search for "david springer dell" without the quotes.

Date: 2006/11/29 00:38:37, Link
Author: djmullen
I don't believe for one second that Dembski denies the HIV-AIDS link (I think I read somewhere that his wife is a nurse?)

I don't know what Dembski's position on HIV/AIDS is, but Phillip Johnson's position is clear - he believes they have nothing to do with each other.

Don't think a high powered ID theoretician like Phillip Johnson would be that Uncommonly Dense?  Read the Gory Details here.

Date: 2006/11/29 00:47:13, Link
Author: djmullen
Reading some of the papers I linked to above, I came across this paragraph here.  Does this remind anybody of any particular group?

My starting point is a study of jury behavior, reported for the public in a New York Times article by Daniel Goleman. To the surprise of no one with trial experience, it seems that many jurors employ what the researchers described as "faulty reasoning." Specifically:

These jurors decide on a version of events based on a preliminary story they find convincing, often at the time of the opening arguments, which then colors their interpretation of the evidence so much that they seize on whatever fits their verdict and discount the rest. Such jurors tend to make up their minds far earlier than others, and by the time they enter the jury room for deliberation they cannot be budged.

Those mental problems are not restricted to jurors!  The condition is called having an idee fixe.  A multitude of examples of people with Fixed Ideas that lock them into predetermined beliefs and protect them from reality can be found here.

Date: 2006/11/30 17:57:27, Link
Author: djmullen
That Dembski bio on Wikipedia makes for some very interesting reading for people trying to psychoanalyze Dembski.  For example:    
Dembski was born in Chicago, Illinois. He was brought up as a Catholic, the only child of a college biology professor (who accepted and taught evolution). He was educated at Portsmouth Abbey School, at the time an all-male Catholic preparatory school in Rhode Island, but left the school a year early before graduating to enter the University of Chicago, which admitted exceptional students who had not graduated high school (Kurt Wise, who heads Dembski's former theology and science center at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was in the same 1977 incoming class at the University of Chicago as Dembski). In 1988, as a postdoctoral fellow at MIT, he delivered Portsmouth Abbey's Dom Luke Child's lecture for that year. After the lecture, the school awarded him his high school diploma, ten years after he would have graduated.

He struggled socially at the college level and dropped out at the age of seventeen to work in his mother's art dealership. He says that he did not initially accept the precepts of Christianity, but during this "difficult period" he turned to the Bible in an effort to understand the world around him.  [Shades of Phillip Johnson, who found Jesus in the middle of a difficult divorce. djm]  Later, after becoming an Evangelical Christian, he read creationist literature. He did not accept the doctrines of literal creationists, though their criticisms of evolutionary theory did strike a chord in him. He says of Young Earth creationism:

"Nonetheless, it was their literature that first got me thinking about how improbable it is to generate biological complexity and how this problem might be approached scientifically. A.E. Wilder-Smith was particularly important to me in this regard. Making rigorous his intuitive ideas about information has been the impetus for much of my research." [8]

He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics at the National Science Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992–1993. He was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996.

So here's the Catholic son of a professor of biology and an artsy business woman who's so little loved that his parents send him to an (all-male) Eastern prep school.  He's smart, so he does well at the prep school and actually enters college a year early.  Unfortunately, he's way too immature for the University of Chicago and bombs out at age 17 and winds up working in his mother's flower shop.  This is circa 1977.

During this period of feeling totally inadequate, he turns to the Bible and ends up rejecting his father's religion and becoming an Evangelical Protestant.

He returns to college, this time at the University of Illinois in Chicago and gets a B.A. in 1981 and and M.S. in 1983.  He then gets an S.M. (?what is an S.M. - I assume it's not a degree in Sado Masochism?) in 1985 and a Ph.D. in 1988.  He's a post doc from 1988 to 1991 and from 1991 to 1993.  He gets an M.S. in philosophy in 1993 and another Ph.D. in 1996 and finally falls right into the intellectual gutter and gets an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996.

What this all means is that Dembski was a professional student from 1977 to at least 1996!  Nineteen years in college!  Has anybody every known anybody who wasted nineteen years in college who ever amounted to anything?

How does Dembski do when he's finally forced to leave the Halls of Ivy and try to make his way in the real world?  Not too well:    
During the three years after completing graduate school in 1996 Dembski was unable to secure a university position and so until 1999 he received what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute's, Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "I was one of the early beneficiaries of Discovery largess," says Dembski.

So after nineteen years of higher education, he was essentially unemployable at any non-crank company or institute.  Which is about par for the course for professional students.

Ah, but in 1999, after 22 years of academic unemployment, Dembski strikes paydirt:    
In 1999, Dembski was invited by Robert Sloan, President of Baylor University, to establish the Michael Polanyi Center at the university. Named after the Hungarian physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), Dembski described it as "the first intelligent design think tank at a research university".

How did he meet Sloan, the first person in history to offer him a real job?

Dembski had known Sloan for about three years, having taught Sloan's daughter at a Christian study summer camp not far from Waco, Texas.

So after two decades of education, Dembski was tutoring young fundamentalists at a summer camp!  Again, about what you'd expect from a professional student tossed out into the cruel world.

And who was Sloan, the man who hired him?    
Sloan was the first Baptist minister to serve as Baylor's president in over 30 years

Of course, both he and, eventually, Sloan, completely bombed out at Baylor and both were eventually fired.  Dembski, in fact, was fired by Sloan and he and the Polanyi Institute were instrumental in getting Sloan fired.

And today?  Why, today he's the Czar of the dippiest blog in blogdom.  Again, about what you'd expect from a professional student.

People who are psychoanalyzing Dembski should study the Wikipedia article closely for clues to his rather warped psyche.

Date: 2006/11/30 18:03:24, Link
Author: djmullen
Another thing I just thought of while reading the above article: Assuming that Dembski rejected his real father, could he have emotionally "adopted" Sloan as a father substitute?  If so, think of how he felt when his "new father" rejected him too and fired him from the only real job he'd ever had!

Date: 2006/12/07 05:36:02, Link
Author: djmullen
History according to Denyse:

In the Harvard’s origin of life project: Taking intelligent design seriously - sure, but what follows? thread, Denyse re-writes history:

Just as NASA spent billions trying to disconfirm the Big Bang, Harvard will spent at least millions trying to disconfirm ID, where origin of life is concerned.

Considering that NASA was formed after Sputnik was orbited in late 1957, when the steady state/big bang argument was already nearly settled and that the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation in 1964 utterly settled the controversy, I'd like to know when NASA had the time to try to disprove the Big Bang Theory.

I'd post a message on UD asking Denyse to substantiate this claim, but such wanton anti-ID tactics would never make it past the tard-filter.

Date: 2006/12/11 00:49:46, Link
Author: djmullen
Arden, what is your newest avatar?  It's too small for me to make it out exactly, which is a relief, because it looks to me like a mutant tree-beaver falling off a limb.

Hmmm.  Is that a depiction of Dembski's academic career?  Or Salvador's latest (1998) encounter with reality?

Date: 2006/12/12 02:52:00, Link
Author: djmullen

:O  I blogged about the pinched schoolmarm behind this little nugget without even connecting it to Denyse! She's behind Christianity.caca? DO'L!

If you read her er... piece carefully, you'll see it's worse than you think:    
What's the difference between the original 400,000 statistic and the updated 26,000 figure? Primarily, it's that the new study uses more recent data. The 400,000 number took data from as long ago as 1948 and didn't adjust for improved medical care.

So you see, obesity isn't dangerous because improved medical science can save you from most of the diseases it causes.  This is ID Logic™

She does have one comment relative to the ID movement in her piece, though:    
It's said that a lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

How true, how true.

Date: 2006/12/12 03:57:42, Link
Author: djmullen
bFast blunders into Denton: (from Comment # 6)
I still find his discussion of the cytochrome C dilemma to be a compelling case for what amounts to a “copyright signature” in the DNA. His case seems to be badly misunderstood by a very dismissive scientific community.

Mario A. Lopez conveniently gives us a look at a portion of Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis which contains the error.

A few moments googling for Denton cytochrome c brings up a page by Gert Korthof which describes Denton's error and even draws nice pictures.  (Scroll down to "Remarkably Schwabe repeats Michael Denton(1985)'s illustration of cytochrome differences" to see the pretty pictures and also get a taste of ID's plagiarism problem.)

Without posting pretty pictures, Denton is amazed that horses, pigeons, tunas, silkmoths, wheat and yeast all have cytochrome c molecules that are equally different from bacteria!!  Denton apparently believes that yeast cytochrome c should be the closest to bacteria, because yeast are so much like bacteria, and then wheat should be next closest because wheat is more different from bacteria than yeast and so on with silkmoths, tunas, pigeons and horses.

Denton's logic would be sound IF all those organisms were descended from modern bacteria, but of course they are not.  The common ancestor of yeast, wheat, silkmoths, tunas, pigeons and horses split off from bacteria several billion years ago and the cytochrome c of bacteria and the other organisms have been picking up mutations independently from each other ever since.

Thus we see why, "His case seems to be badly misunderstood by a very dismissive scientific community."  Blunders do tend to be dismissed by the scientific community.

I remember when Denton's "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" came out twenty years ago and he was roundly criticized for this and other blunders.  A simple Google search will pull up some of those criticisms, but searching for evidence that contradicts an ID assertion does not fall under the definition of "research" as used in the ID and Creationist communities.

Had they succumbed to the temptation to test their ideas before posting, the same Google search described above finds the posting referred to above
AND This one from the NCSE AND This one at Talk Origins all on the first page of results.

And of course, even more thorough research would have found Denton's following book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he takes back most of what he wrote in "Theory in Crisis".  But that's asking a little bit too much of ID, I guess, especially of Salvadore who started the thread.

Date: 2006/12/15 08:22:31, Link
Author: djmullen
Now now, boys.  It's just a bit of street theater.

Date: 2006/12/15 09:39:47, Link
Author: djmullen
You know, Dembski might actually be proud to have done the vocals for "Judge Jones School of Law".  Look at what he says on Overwhelming Flatulence:    
The Latest & Greatest
Christmas came early this year!
From Bill Dembski:

"The Judge Jones School of Law" is the brainchild of brilliant professional flash animator (I think of him as the "Rembrandt" of flash animation; for now he will remain anonymous until he sees the fallout from his handiwork) as well as of me and my lovely wife Jana (who came up with the name).

I wonder who did the fart sounds.

Date: 2006/12/15 09:44:02, Link
Author: djmullen
I think we just passed post 300.

Edit: Page 300.

Date: 2006/12/18 01:50:01, Link
Author: djmullen
“As a parent, when I want a high school teacher to be their role model, I’ll write it into the teacher’s job description. Until then stick to teaching the subject that’s assigned to you and leave the role modeling to us. Thanks in advance.”

As told to Jack Krebs, school teacher.

It just keeps getting better and better.

I wonder how long it's going to be before Ms. O'Leary fades out of the picture.  I'll bet joining up with Dembski seemed like a good idea at the time.  Can you imagine what must be going through her mind now as she looks at this train wreck?  Especially this train wreck with her picture at the top of every page?

Date: 2006/12/18 02:10:21, Link
Author: djmullen
From the Wayne Campbell of Oxford Thread
#idnet senses danger
3. // Dec 17th 2006 at 4:34 pm

I feel that this episode may not advance our cause.

Comment by — December 17, 2006 @ 4:34 pm

#But not good ol' bFast
4. bFast // Dec 17th 2006 at 4:56 pm - let levity reign! Tis the season to be jolly, after all. Often a little levity allows for a new perspective to be seen anyway.

Comment by bFast — December 17, 2006 @ 4:56 pm

I think a lot of people are getting a new perspective on ID and Dembski from all this.

The Judge Jones School of Law is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

Date: 2006/12/18 02:51:17, Link
Author: djmullen
Flatulence removed"

Flatulence removed from “The Judge Jones School of Law”
by William Dembski on December 17th, 2006 · 7 Comments

The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance “The Judge Jones School of Law.” As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution’s demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians).

Dembski has documented the fart that brought down evolution and began the reform of all science.

In other news, the Iraq war is going splendedly, the Republican Party did not lose Congress in the last election and several prominent conservative preachers did not declare that they use crystal meth.

Date: 2006/12/18 08:59:36, Link
Author: djmullen
N.Wells speculates on a national Drop Trou for Jesus Day.  Well, those clever writers at UD are way ahead of him:

14. Scott // Dec 18th 2006 at 9:03 am

There once was a judge in ol’ Dover…

Comment by Scott — December 18, 2006 @ 9:03 am
15. tribune7 // Dec 18th 2006 at 9:09 am

Who was certain he was related to Rover,

So he saw his chance

Dropped his pants

And when the ACLU arrived, bent over.

Comment by tribune7 — December 18, 2006 @ 9:09 am

Date: 2006/12/18 10:16:03, Link
Author: djmullen
I just posted this to Denyse O'Leary's Post-Darwinist web site.  I'm posting it here just in case it "disappears" at that site.  She goes into more detail on her charge at UD, but I can't post there.

Could you give us some more information on this professional society that is supposedly hassling a member because he's an IDer?  You don't have to identify the person, but what professional society is it and what are they trying to do to him?  Just criticise him?  Or are they threatening his job?

As far as your comparing ID support to criticizing the Virgin Mary in a Catholic church, I think a better simile might be the old joke about two bums trying to get into a pot luck supper at a Catholic church.

The first bum goes in and comes out an hour later, stuffed full of food.  He tells the second bum, "It's easy!  They ask you if you're a Catholic and you just say, 'Yes I am!' and you go right in and eat."

Five minutes later the second bum comes flying out the door.  The first bum asks him what happened.  The second bum says, "They asked me if I was Catholic and I said, 'I sure am!  Why, my father was a priest and my mother was a nun!'  And then they threw me right out!"

Scientific animosity towards ID has nothing to do with ID insulting anything precious to science.  It comes from ID constantly claiming to be scientific while dropping big obvious unmistakeable clues that it's anything but that ticks science off.

Date: 2006/12/18 17:43:30, Link
Author: djmullen
Better farts coming!

23. William Dembski // Dec 18th 2006 at 6:21 pm

Calm yourselves everybody. An enhanced flatulent version is being worked on at this very moment. I will make it available. I do want to say this for the record, however. Many people regard the flatulent version as unsophisticated and even infantile. I want to suggest that in this postmodern age the flatulence in this animation actually serves as a sophisticated rhetorical device that mirrors the subtext of flatulence that runs throughout Judge Jones’s decision.

Comment by William Dembski — December 18, 2006 @ 6:21 pm


I swear I am not making this up.

Date: 2006/12/19 15:21:15, Link
Author: djmullen
From the Nick Matzke: NCSE Public Information Project Director thread    
4. francisbeckwith  // Dec 19th 2006 at 11:00 am

As the term “creationist” becomes ever-expanding to include anyone who believes that some creator played some role in the universe’s coming to be, it is time we expand the term even further to include Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Matzke. Because they maintain that no creator was involved, or need be detected, to account for the universe in any way, they too are creationists, since “no” merely modifies the sort of creator they believe in. We are all creationists now! Creationists unite!

Comment by francisbeckwith — December 19, 2006 @ 11:00 am

Wow!  I thought I was losing my hair, but I'm not.  My hair color is just changing to "bald".  I don't understand why this man had problems getting tenure.

Date: 2006/12/21 12:38:08, Link
Author: djmullen
Someone has posted a Flash response to "Judge Jones School of Law" at

The "Full Flatulence Version" had me laughing till my sides hurt.

Thanks to for the tip.

Date: 2006/12/21 23:15:17, Link
Author: djmullen
Turn your irony meters to OFF:

Denyse O'Leary: "Right now, the ASA is making much of genome mapper Francis Collins, whom I regard as an intellectual lightweight."

Date: 2006/12/24 11:15:23, Link
Author: djmullen

I'm missing Dumbski's point with posting this.  Actually, I miss the point of most of his blog entries (along with the points of all of Morphodyke's posts).

Missing the point of Dembski's and O'Leary's posts is fairly common.  They often miss the point themselves and the posting you're referring to is an example.

Apparently Nick Matzke has done a comprehensive search of the literature on the evolution of the flagellum.  (This is the literature that doesn't exist according to Behe.)  He found at least one evolutionary pathway in that data that produces a modern flagellum.

And the pathway looks pretty plausible.  The video points out that,

1: Of the 42 proteins required to make a flagellum, 40 have been found so far to have homologues in other systems, so the proteins don't have to be made from scratch.  

2: Every step in this evolutionary pathway requires the modification of only one protein at a time.  

3: Each step produces a selective advantage to the bacteria.

So Matzke's theory is pretty good stuff and it's definitely something that the evolutionary community wants to advertise as much as possible.

Now, Enter the Dembski: Apparently, a videomaker named "cdk007", who has posted several pro-evolution videos to YouTube, made a video illustrateing Matzke's proposed evolutionary pathway using an animated slide show and darn, it all looks pretty plausible!

Dembski apparently finds out about this video, skims through it, definitely not viewing for comprehension, and decides it's an unconvincing digital EMULATION or SIMULATION of evolution and posts it to UD, leaving out the audio, which is a copyrighted song - click on the picture to go directly to YouTube and see it in full.

Not recognizing the difference between a digital ILLUSTRATION and digital EMULATION or SIMULATION, Dembski also posts a link to the Michigan State University Digital Evolution lab for information on Avida, which has absolutely nothing to do with this video.

Then, just in case anyone might think that he has even a fraction of a clue about what he's doing, he posts a link to his 2002 article, "Evolutionary Logic" in which he resorts to his usual "argumentum ad throwing up mocking scarecrows only an ID theorist would believe".

After the dust settles, the score looks like this:

1: A lot of people never would have heard of Nick Matzke's evolutionary pathway to a flagellum or this video if not for Dr. Dembski.  They have now had an opportunity to see a very good illustration of Nick's theory and have information on where to find out more.

2: Anyone who clicks on "cdk007" to the right of the YouTube picture, will go to the videomaker's home page where he has posted several other videos explaining reality to creationists.

3: A lot of ID sympathisers have been exposed to a good video covering a good theory of how the flagellum could have evolved.  The hard core won't be swayed, of course.  Like Dr. Dembski, they won't even watch it for comprehension.  But someone who's on the fence and who thinks that ID might be right because how else could you get something like a flagellum, now knows one pretty good way it could have happened.

All in all, I thank Dr. Dembski for this very welcome Christmas Present and wish him and his family the happiest of holidays.  And the same to Denise, Salvador, Dave and all the other UD regulars.

Date: 2006/12/25 10:07:36, Link
Author: djmullen
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

Richard Feynman

Date: 2006/12/26 05:33:44, Link
Author: djmullen
phonon notes:  
I love this little tidbit from TRoutMac:

The video also claims this…

“Of the 42 proteins required to make a flagellum, 40 have been found so far to have homologues in other systems”

Isn’t an argument of homology between particular proteins a little silly in a context where every protein in a cell is made from combinations of the same 20 amino acids? What about THAT homology? The amino acids are homologous, are they not? Even in different proteins, the same pool of 20 amino acids might be used. (albeit differently)

I guess what I’m saying is that if I can explain the homology of amino acids which make up proteins which are completely DIFFERENT via Intelligent Design, then why should I be afraid of the homologous protein argument? Wouldn’t that be EVEN EASIER to explain via ID?

The Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Comment by TRoutMac — December 24, 2006 @ 9:37 am

Speaking of homology, TroutMac should see what I can do with English sentences, in a context where every word in the sentence is made from combinations of the same 26 letters.

I guess what I’m saying is that if I can explain the homology of letters which make up words which are completely DIFFERENT via Intelligent Design, then why should I be afraid of the homologous word argument? Wouldn’t that be EVEN EASIER to explain via ID?


Date: 2006/12/27 03:03:29, Link
Author: djmullen

I’m a big fan of the Telic Thoughts blog, and I would encourage UD readers to visit TT.

For me, one of the great joys of visiting TT is Joy, one of my favorite TT authors and commentators.

Joy is the only person in the Known World who makes Salvador look smart.

Date: 2006/12/28 00:29:53, Link
Author: djmullen
[quote=Mr_Christopher,Dec. 27 2006,13:34][/quote]
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2006,13:19)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 27 2006,13:07)
They forgot one:

The location of the eyes of a house cat are exactly where two holes in the fur are located.  Chalk up yet another win for Intelligent Design.


ooohhh that tickled me.

Plus, Oranges are orange coloured..
Flies do actually fly
Bangs Sound like they are spelled..

ID wins again, good one Richard.  Being a Design Theorist is easy, I can do it and so can you!

I'm pulling out the big guns on this one:

Notice that a human's nostrils are located EXACTLY where the sinus passage is?  Hands down ID wins!


Danged atheists keep missing the Really Big Clue to ID!

There are over three billion people on this planet.  Some of them are teeny tiny little short people, some of them are great big giant people, most of them are in between height people, like me.  


And you try to tell me that we're not designed?

Dembski will explain this profitably and at length in his next book.  He's writing that book as an intrument of grace for you atheists.  Read it or burn in h3ll.


Date: 2006/12/28 03:52:09, Link
Author: djmullen
O'Leary writes:

2. Another recent ChristianWeek column:“Made in the image of God”? What does that mean?

Ever hear of a “humanzee”? Some would hail the hybrid of a human and a chimpanzee as a crowning achievement.

I believe there are some posting at UD.

Date: 2006/12/30 14:16:41, Link
Author: djmullen
I was astonished to read, in a biography of Alan Turing, that Muggeridge was one of the code breakers at Bletchley Park in WWII.  It's amazing that we won the war!

Date: 2006/12/30 14:24:55, Link
Author: djmullen
I just Googled for "bletchley" and "muggeridge" and it looks like the book was wrong or I misread it.  Muggeridge did get transcripts of decoded messages from them, but I'll have to recheck to see if he was actually ever assigned to Bletchley.

One interesting tidbit - Muggeridge was in the SIS (security services) in WWII and his supervisor was Kim Philby, the notorious spy and turn-coat.  I presume he didn't know that at the time.

Date: 2007/01/01 06:50:02, Link
Author: djmullen
Denyse O'Leary quotes from a book she admires:

Chapter 6 – The Mind
The eminent microbiologist, Herbert Jennings, in his studies of bacteria, paramecium, and amoebas found that their responses to stimuli were strikingly similar to those of large-brained animals. He concluded that if these tiny, one-celled creatures were enlarged to the size of dogs, we would readily see them to possess conscious choice, perception, memory, intelligence, and emotion.

Excerpt from: "The Vital Dimension"

Date: 2007/01/01 07:01:54, Link
Author: djmullen
Further down the page, Denyse finds some more prime quality tard:

At Phi Beta Cons Carol Iannone asks,

- 0 -

I hold no brief for ID, but why isn’t it scientific to say, as IDers do, that certain biological mechanisms are irreducibly complex (i.e., inexplicable by random mutation and natural selection)? Why aren't the probability models that show that the components of life would take a trillion times the age of the earth to evolve by chance, why aren't they science?

And this is from the National Review, no less.  

As a New Year's courtesy to the people at National Review, I'll answer the questions:

1. It's not scientific to say that "certain biological mechanisms are irreducibly complex (i.e., inexplicable by random mutation and natural selection)" because none have been found yet.  Apparently saying things that aren't true violates some vague scientific-type principle.

2. Why aren't the probability models that show that the components of life would take a trillion times the age of the earth to evolve by chance, why aren't they science?  

Because they're bogus calculations made by people who don't understand what they're criticizing.  Those calculations are for how long it would take to form a complete molecule in one swoop.  Evolution doesn't work like that.  It forms its molecules a few base pairs at a time, which is billions of times faster than waiting for it all to form at once.

Did anybody else think that the con in "Phi Beta Cons" means a con game?  I did.

Date: 2007/01/02 00:25:39, Link
Author: djmullen
Keiths: "He knows there's no danger of Forrest accepting his challenge."

Not a callenge to a debate perhaps, but Dembski has just upped the ante:
Mats: Actually, I would like Forrest to have Eric Rothschild there (head ACLU attorney in the Dover case) and an attorney of my choice there as well. Then Eric can do the deposition of me that the other side has been crowing about, and our side can finally implement the Vise Strategy on Forrest. What fun. Let’s be sure it’s all video taped and made available online. I’m up for it Barbara — how about you?

If I had a chance to depose Dembski, with him being under oath and unable to evade cross examination, I might jump at the chance.  Especially if it was all taped and made available on line.  

It could be the end of Dembski.

Date: 2007/01/02 00:30:00, Link
Author: djmullen
This probably isn't news to anybody on this board, but L. Ron Hubbard didn't spend his entire life interrogating tomatoes.  For a chilling look at his life, go to

Compared to Hubbard, Dembski is actually pretty ... well, not good, but not nearly as evil.

Date: 2007/01/02 00:40:21, Link
Author: djmullen
How on earth can you say that Klansmen aren't Christians?  It's a REQUIREMENT for joining!

What the heck do you think they burn, Stars of David?

Newton didn't believe in the trinity.  Was he a Christian?

How can you say the Nazis weren't Christians?  Where else did their anti-Semitism come from?  Do you think that all started with Hitler?

Date: 2007/01/02 03:54:20, Link
Author: djmullen
Mats: Actually, I would like Forrest to have Eric Rothschild there (head ACLU attorney in the Dover case) and an attorney of my choice there as well. Then Eric can do the deposition of me that the other side has been crowing about, and our side can finally implement the Vise Strategy on Forrest. What fun. Let’s be sure it’s all video taped and made available online. I’m up for it Barbara — how about you?

Hey Bill, I know you read this blog, so let me remind you of something that seems to have escaped your steel trap mind: Barbara Forrest has already been deposed.  

Surely you remember it - you were in the same room, advising the lawyers who were deposing her.  Remember now?  She took an oath, she had to answer the questions, she could have been jailed if the lied - does that ring a bell?

And then she went on to an actual trial and testified under oath again and then withstood a cross examination from a hostile attorney.  Again, she was under penalty of perjury, she couldn't refuse to answer any question, she could go to jail for endulging in "street theater" and this time a judge and jury were watching her testify.

Maybe you've forgotten because you and almost every other ID supertard fled for the hills when they were offered a chance to be deposed and testify in court.  Remember now?

Barbara has already met your challenge.  Now we'd all like to see you do the same thing.  

We don't expect you to, of course, because you've seen what happened to Behe when he foolishly took your challenge and encountered the Vise of Science Strategy.  It wasn't very pretty.  "Mincemeat" comes to mind.

Remember him admitting that under the Standard Rules of ID, your morning horoscope is scientific?  And all those books and articles they showed him and how silly he looked when he testified that they weren't real evidence of anything?

It would take real courage for you to be deposed now, and we don't expect that from you.  It's much safer to sit behind your keyboard and challenge people to do things they've already done that you were afraid to do and then call them cowards for not taking your challenge.

And that really impresses Salvador and Dave.

Date: 2007/01/02 04:10:42, Link
Author: djmullen
By gosh, I find myself agreeing with GilDogen on something!

From the Buckle thread:  
GilDodgen // Jan 1st 2007 at 8:10 pm

I’ve read Forrest’s writings. She comes across as, at best, a second- or third-rate intellect. She is not even close to being in the same league as Dembski, Behe, Johnson, or Meyer.

I suspect that she is aware of this. How could she not be?

Comment by GilDodgen — January 1, 2007 @ 8:10 pm

She's not a second rate intellect, Gil, you just think so because you're constantly exposed to third and fourth rate intellects.  But I have to agree with you that she is not even close to being in the same league as Dembski, Behe, Johnson, or Meyer.  And, like you, I suspect that she is aware of this.  How could she not be?

Date: 2007/01/03 00:45:27, Link
Author: djmullen
[quote=2ndclass,Jan. 02 2007,16:14][/quote]
A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish — stay tuned.)

What does it mean for a research center to be "ID friendly"?  How does Dembski know beforehand that the results of their research will be favorable to ID?

Because their "research center" won't do any research.  It will be devoted solely to PR, like every other ID institution.

Date: 2007/01/03 05:57:56, Link
Author: djmullen
Somebody pointed to this thread on where Sal gets into an argument about plumes of hot rock like the one that built the Hawaiian Islands, which are impossible, according to Sal, because he found a web site run by a cute girl (he posts her picture, of course, because a picture is worth a thousand words of argument, if Sal is doing the arguing) who disagrees with current theory.

The thread kind of meanders, as threads with Sal in them tend to do, and finally gets down to a question of whether rock can flow under intense heat and pressure.

Finally, in his ultimate posting, Sal states:
Post 157

You're using Argumentum Ad Nauseam from the swamp battle tactics manual.  

You're repeating something I already corrected Joe Meert on.

Originally posted by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU:

JM: Despite the many silly assertions in this quote, it is interesting to note that Walt sees no problem with solid salt moving as a plume so I wonder why he is so troubled by mantle materials?


FYI to Joe: Wet sediments are not the same as solid rock. Just thought you should know the difference.

Brown was discussing supersaturated water and pasty layers of salt, not solid rock. The plumes here were not owing to density differences created by temperature but by differing densities of the substances involved.

Thus again you appeal to phenomena of plumes in a watery context to suggest they exist in solid rock.

But you misrepresent what Walt is actually saying:


Joes inaccurate representation:

Walt sees no problem with solid salt moving as a plume so I wonder why he is so troubled by mantle materials?


But Walt is not talking about solid salt in isolation is he? Here it is in Walt's words:

(Colorful drawing of a salt dome deleted)

Salt Dome Formation

Figure 56: Salt Dome. Just as a cork released at the bottom of a swimming pool will float up through water, wet salt can float up through denser sediments. It begins when a small part of a wet salt layer rises. That causes other salt in the layer to flow horizontally and then up into a rising plume, called a salt dome. If the salt and sediments are mushy and saturated with water, friction offers little resistance. The upturned (or bowl-shaped) layers next to the salt dome can become traps in which oil collects, so understanding salt domes has great economic value.


I do appreciate however you read Brown's work, but you should make a better effort to represent his correctly. Brown was discussing supersaturated water and pasty layers, not solid rock. There is a difference you know.  

So Joe, Walt is talking about plumes formed by the assistance of liquid, which is consistent with my prvious assertion that plumes don't form in solid rock (except in the imaginations of geologists).

Again, I encourage the lurkers to take a stone and heat it up and tell me if plumes like the one pictured with the salt start appearing. Or take some layered rocks and tell me if heating the rocks forms a plume.

That was posted Aug 9, 2005.

In the next message, posted by Connor J an hour later, we learn that      
Do you ever read what your hero, The Great and Terrible Brown, wrote?
"Pressures in the crust 5 miles or more below the earth's surface are so great that the rock, if not rigidly contained, will flow like highly compressed, extremely stiff putty."

On August 15, Bill A writes:      
So what did Walt actually say? From Walt's book:    
Assumption 1: Subterranean Water. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth’s surface. Excluding the solid structure of the interconnected chambers, the subterranean water, containing a large amount of dissolved salts and carbon dioxide, would have approximated a thin, spherical shell, averaging about 3/4 of a mile in thickness.31 Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was a layer of basaltic rock. (See Figure 53.)

Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were generally in the positions shown in Figure 51 on page 109, but were joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean. On the crust were seas, both deep and shallow, and mountains, generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.

We don’t need to assume the temperature of this subterranean water. Subsequent events, as you will see, rapidly increased its temperature and that of the rock above and below. Minerals and gases were dissolved in this water, especially salt (NaCl) and carbon dioxide (CO2).

Some have asked, “How could rock float on water?” The crust did not float on water; water was trapped and sealed under the crust. It was like a thin slab of rock resting on and covering an entire waterbed. As long as the water mattress does not rupture, a dense slab will rest on top of less-dense water. Unlike a waterbed’s seal, which is only a thin sheet of rubber, the chamber’s seal was compressed rock almost 10 miles thick. Pressures in the crust 5 miles or more below the earth’s surface are so great that the rock, if not rigidly contained, will flow like highly compressed, extremely stiff putty. The slightest crack or opening, even around a small chunk of rock, could not open from below.

Walt must have the worst spell checker in the world. He keeps typing 'rock' everytime he means to say 'supersaturated water and pasty layers of salt'.

I don't know Sal, it sure seems like Walt's saying that the tremendous pressures help keep his subterranean water contained by allowing rock to "flow like highly compressed, extremely stiff putty", sealing any potential leaks.

That was August 15, 2005.  Strangely enough, Sal hasn't posted on that thread since.  Wonder why.

Date: 2007/01/05 05:55:01, Link
Author: djmullen
What bugs me is that the monkeys and typewriters have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.  The idea was apparently first brought up in the twenties by an astronomer.  However, some Young Earth Creationists insist that Huxley invented it and that's enough for The William.

I did love the monkeys and typewriters routine that Bob Newhart did on one of his comedy albums in the sixties.  

From memory:

"We've all heard that an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite length of time will eventually type all the works of William Shakespeare.  But if anybody ever tries that experiment, they're going to have to hire some people to examine the monkey's output, looking for Shakespeare.  Here is my idea of how this might happen:"

Monkey Checker: "Dum dum de dum dum de do ... hey, Frank, this might be something!  'To be or ... not to... be, that... is the.... gezortenplat.' "

Date: 2007/01/11 02:21:27, Link
Author: djmullen
Heddle's crushing condemnation of the whole ID scene:

By the way: have I ever mentioned that, in my opinion, Telic Thoughts is the web's best ID site? (Not just because they haven't banned me, although that's nice of them.)

When you say Telic Thoughts is the best of anything, you are really damning with faint praise!

(From the "Sammy Harris, you old rational son of a gun, you!" thread.)

Date: 2007/01/12 00:55:07, Link
Author: djmullen
From the "Truly Programmable Matter" thread:  
4. antg // Jan 11th 2007 at 4:32 am


In your hypothetical university, would you be happy for for the faculty to freely follow any research avenue they wish, including (naturalistic) evolution?

Comment by antg — January 11, 2007 @ 4:32 am
5. William Dembski // Jan 11th 2007 at 9:00 am

antg: Yes, provided the university doesn’t have to pay the bill for their research.

Comment by William Dembski — January 11, 2007 @ 9:00 am

Yeah, why pay people to do research that's just going to disprove Bill's cherished illusions?

I think the main point of this whole thread is that Bill has finally figured out that he's never going to get tenure.

Date: 2007/01/13 08:14:34, Link
Author: djmullen
We really shouldn't be making fun of people's personal appearances.  None of us are supermodels.  

I think Denyse was in the swimsuit edition of Tard Illustrated.

P.S. If you want to see what Enya will look like when she's sixty and having a really bad day ...

Date: 2007/01/13 09:42:27, Link
Author: djmullen
Salvador Cordova is a consultant/engineer in the aerospace, defense and financial industry.

Wasn't Salvador a student a year or so ago?  What happened to that?  I didn't hear of any graduation or degree being awarded.

I wonder if he was "discriminated against" by some materialist professor who insisted on real answers on his exams, not tapdancing, obfuscation, changing the subject, unilateral declarations of victory, running away or any of the other standard IDC B.S.?

Free Joel!

Date: 2007/01/15 00:25:09, Link
Author: djmullen
Doonesbury chimes in on Conservative "Science".

1st Panel: student hunched over calculator:
   "That can't be right!"

2nd Panel: Calculator flies into wastebasket.
   "Time for a new calculator!"

3rd Panel: Student bent over book
   "Drat!  These pesky scientific facts won't line up behind my beliefs!"
              Stranger seen from behind:
   "Then challenge them, Stewie!"

4th Panel: Stewie looking at Dr. Null
   Stewie: "Holy Flat-Earther!  It's White House Situational Science advisor, Dr. Nathan Null!
   Null: "That's right Stewie, and I'm here to remind you..."

5th Panel: Dr. Null: "Situational science is about both sides of a scientific argument, not just the one supported by facts!"

6th Panel: Dr. Null: "That's why I always teach the controversy!  Like the evolution controversy, or the global warming controversy..."

7th Panel: Dr. Null: "Not to mention the tobacco controversy, the mercury controversy, the pesticides controversy, the coal slurry controversy, the dioxin controversy, the Everglades controversy and the acid rain controversy."

8th Panel: Stewie: "You're right, Situational Scienceman - I'll never trust science again.      It's just too controversial!"
               Dr. Null: "Stewie gets it now, folks!  Do you?"

Situational science.  I like it.  Beware of those facts that only support one side of an argument!

(Edited to change Hull to Null.  [Kind of an appropriate name, actually.])

Date: 2007/01/24 04:49:19, Link
Author: djmullen
Near the beginning of the same post quoted by Bebbo and Richard:
The first thing Webb does is claims to know better than the president and all the president’s advisors how to effectively fight terrorism because, well, Jim was a Marine in Vietnam.

Yeah, who would ever think that a Marine that had actually served would know more about warfare than a President who used his family's influence to get into the Air National Guard (FANGs as we regular Air Force people used to call them), checked the box that said he did NOT volunteer for overseas assignment (where people might shoot at  him) and spent a few years flying jet fighters every fourth weekend at the taxpayer's expense until he got grounded for failing a drug test and then just lost interest and stopped attending drills altogether after that.  It's hard to beat that kind of combat experience.

Of course, he had plenty of help and advice from Dick Cheney, who "had other priorities" and took about a dozen different draft deferments to stay out of the military.  Which would be okay, if he had opposed the Vietnam war, but he was in favor of it, he was just opposed to having to risk his personal ass fighting it.

But Bush did have Rumsfeld, an actual Fighter Pilot, advising him.  (I think Rummy was a non-combat pilot, just like Tard is a non-combat Marine.)  Of course, Rumsfield's advice was to go in with less than half the men needed and then flop around for the next four years, losing over 3000 American dead and killing over a half million Iraqis in the process, before being fired.

Jeeze, too bad he didn't have a genuine U.S. Marine Corp Avionics Technician to give him advice!  We could have ten thousand dead and a million dead Iraqis!

My Grandmother knows more about waging war than all of them put together, including The Tard, and she's been dead for 30 years.

Date: 2007/01/26 04:48:34, Link
Author: djmullen
24 January 2007
McGrath vs. Dennett on the future of atheism
William Dembski
This year’s Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum pits Alister McGrath against Daniel Dennett (last year’s pitted me against Michael Ruse):

The Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in Faith and Culture is a pilot program of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dennett is really slumming.

Date: 2007/01/26 05:33:03, Link
Author: djmullen
The writing of Quizzlestick and Kazmer Ujvarosy has been commented on, but I want to post some extensive excerpts of their work here because this is A1, First Quality, Bottled in Bond, ID Grade, Straight From the Locked Ward, Flatulating Gibberish.

From Overwhelming Word Salad:

I'd like to introduce one of the scientists who will ensure that it is so. He is building on the work of Behe and Dembski. He is also one of the best communicators that the ID community could ever wish for. I would like to introduce Dr. Kazmer Ujavorsy, chief scientist of the Frontline Science Institute, one of the most prestigious research organizations dedicated to Intelligent Design.

While mainstream science predicts that we would not be able to make testable claims about ID, Kazmer has done exactly that. His astonishing predictions unify areas of science which were previously considered unrelated. He may be, in the opinion of many ID researchers, at the verge of discovering a “theory of everything”, one of the goals of high-energy physics. This is a challenge which even Einstein and Hawking have failed.

But let's examine some of his discoveries – these extracts from a recent peer-reviewed paper published at the American Chronicle show the depth and breadth of his important research:

“Dark energy, that drives the expansion of the universe, is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in modern science. We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum’s zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed’s biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed's biophotonic field or "dark energy" is equally coherent.”

“The elusive Higgs boson – so vital to the Standard Model of particle physics that it is dubbed “the God particle” – is identical with the genotype of the phenotype universe, and each human genome is its reproduction. Based on this identification we posit that mass-giving is life-giving because the elementary particles that come into contact with the cosmic seed's biofield or quantum vacuum receive their mass and property as a result of that interaction. “

Both of these are 100% testable scientific statements. For example, to falsify we merely have to observe a Higgs boson to see if it has the expected properties. What could be simpler?

If Kazmer were still laboring under the shackles of materialism would any of this have been possible? Of course not – these are the kinds of discoveries that can only come about when we first reject the rigid dogma of the philosophy behind atheism and Darwinism's only life-support.

And the good Mr. Kazmer does not disappoint:

Why Rational Thinkers Value the Theory of Intelligent Design
Because logically the existing most advanced form of life constitutes the cosmic system's input and output -- just as an acorn constitutes the mighty oak's input and output --, and because we have no knowledge of a more advanced life form than human life, the necessary inference is that human life or intelligence generated the universe for the production of human life in its own image, just as a seed generates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.

Thus, whereas the theory of evolution posits common descent from a simple beginning, the scientific theory of creation posits common descent from the most advanced form of life that exists. As we have no confirmable evidence that a life form superior to human life exists, we are constrained to propose that human life constitutes the seed of the universe, pending the discovery of a superior non-human form of life.

Of course it is not mandatory to take it for granted that human life constitutes the seed of the universe. This theory of creation is testable and can be falsified. After all the proposed sole actor, namely human life, most definitely exists, and is available for observations and experiments.

To conclude, if we posit common descent from the highest form of life that exists, we have a rational theory which is consistent with the data we have.

But Kaz's best is yet to come.  Here's his (rather unusual) cure for cancer:      

When we diagnose cancer, the treatment is still primarily surgical, commonly
combined with radiation therapy and anticancer drugs. The aim of these
treatments is to suppress, or arrest, the unrestrained growth of cells in
the body organs or tissues. In the case of many man-made systems we are
similarly faced with situations where processes deviate from the normal
operation of the system. But the remedy for such deviations is surprisingly
simple: negative feedback.
So how can a human being transform himself into a closed-loop control system
for the proper regulation of his cell production? The answer is the feedback
of his body's genetic output. What is the genetic output of his body?
Answer: the reproductive cells.
The literature on the subject reveals that the feedback of reproductive
cells for the regulation or revitalization of the human organism was
recommended by folk medicine and alchemy as well. Traditional medicine
attributed transformative powers to the human reproductive cells and often
termed that product of the body "universal medicine," "elixir," or
"philosopher's stone." It is also on record that:

   1.. The Yellow Emperor of China (c. 2697-2598 B.C.) practiced the
feedback of his own reproductive cells for therapeutic purposes. (A.
Ishihara & H. S. Levy, The Tao of Sex, Harper & Row, New York, 1970.)
   2.. Christ partook of his own semen to show that "we must so do, that we
may live." (Interrogationes Maiores Mariae, quoted by St. Epiphanius in his
Panarion, XXVI, cap. VIII.)
   3.. A Gnostic sect celebrated the Eucharist (spiritual communion with
God) by eating "... 'their own sperm,'
declaring it to be 'the body of
Christ.'" ("Gnosticism," Encyclopedia of Erotic Wisdom, R. C. Camphausen,
Inner Traditions International, Rochester, Vermont, 1991.)
   4.. "Semen, or Bindu, is held to be the true elixir of life by Yoga and
Tantric schools alike."
(J. Mumford, Sexual Occultism, Llewellyn, Saint
Paul, 1975.)
   5.. "Human semen, as medicine, is used by many peoples, as by the
Australians, who believe it an infallible remedy for severe illness.
It is
so used in European folk-custom " (E. Crawley, The Mystic Rose, Macmillan,
London, 1902.)
   6.. Dutch missionaries in New Guinea observed that among many tribes
"the male's semen was regarded as a sacred substance" and was used in
healing and in fighting epidemics
("Sperm Magic," Encyclopedia of Erotic
Wisdom, R. C. Camphausen, Inner Traditions International, Rochester,
Vermont, 1991.)
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Academia Consulting
konzultant at

You heard it from quizzlestick.  He's "building on the work of Behe and Dembski."  I can't help but comment that all four of these gentlemen appear to be 100 percent cancer free.  Come to think of it, so are Sal and DaveTard.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Edited to bold some of the more interesting sections.

Date: 2007/01/26 06:08:52, Link
Author: djmullen
Egads!  I found quizzlestick's picture here.  Is he a she?  What a pity if she is.  If she gets cancer, how will she cure herself?

Date: 2007/01/29 00:40:21, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2007,13:52)
I think what irritates me about Dembski is, it's not that he's a con man, it's that he's an uninspired, low-rent conman. He's gotten a job at Bible Thump U, he's made a few thousands off books, got a dozen or so rubes suckered into thinking he's the new Einstein, he's gotten a few dozen free plane tickets and comp'd meals to sell his snake oil.

What a lame dream. What a halfassed career. Why do something halfassed? Don't bunt, swing for the fences.

If you're going to swindle the fools, Swindle the Fools.

Oooh!  Reverand Moon is Jesus Christ too!  When he hears there's another Jesus, the fur is going to fly!

God fight!

God fight!

Date: 2007/01/30 00:28:22, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 29 2007,15:25)
OE has had 6 posts in a day! It's gone viral, dudes!

Tipping point! Tipping point!

More like one True Loon has descended to provide entertainment to all.

Date: 2007/01/30 06:19:40, Link
Author: djmullen
I would come to your blog and gratefully recieve a piece of your mind etc but I'm worried that you're really one of Lou's characters and I'd get all excited for no reason, leave my wife for you and then discover that I was marrying some American electrician. Again.*

The internet:  Where men are men and so are the women.

Date: 2007/01/30 17:16:14, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 29 2007,13:20)
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 26 2007,15:11)
It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. Wesley Elsberry appears to be denying convergence, but that can't be true. If he has an explanation for convergence then let's hear it. If not, then admit it. Here is the question for evolutionists: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?

Sorry for coming in late on this (just got back from a workshop in the wilds of Finland).  Anyway, I just want to complain that the marsupial and placental mouse are totally different: there's not the same colour for a start.


If you check that .pdf file, you'll see why Dr. Hunter has trouble telling them apart by color.  He's using a coloring book as a reference and it hasn't been colored yet.

By the way, Dr. Hunter has his own thread going on this now.

Date: 2007/02/02 02:20:54, Link
Author: djmullen
Gah, first social strictures make me quit smoking and drinking and mainlining PCP

WHAT!!!  (Sputters)  When the h3ll did THIS happen?  

I'm not standing for this facist crap.  They'll have to pry my midafternoon pickmeup from my cold, dead fingers!

Date: 2007/02/07 00:45:27, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2007,15:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2007,16:09)

Please, kids, pack up your houseboats and go.

I would love to see Christian Exodus become really successful. Nothing would make me happier than for 10 million theocrat freakazoids to both remove themselves from our political system, and take the worst state in the union off our hands. That would kill two birds with one stone. Probably wouldn't be the last thing they killed with stones, either.

Sadly, I don't think enough wackos will bother.

Our Big Mistake was fighting the Civil War.  Every immoral nut in the country LEFT the country and we fought the most expensive (in human lives) war in our history to bring them back.  BIG mistake!

This time, we'll say "Yes!" to secession and spend what we otherwise would have wasted on a New Civil War on building a really, really big fence.  I'm thinking of a fence about a hundred feet high with foundations sunk at least 100 feet into the ground.  We'll plant minefields about a mile deep on both sides of the fence, put guard towers with machine guns every 100 feet or so and every one of our nuclear missiles will be targeted where they will do the most good.

P.S. Does anybody know why the Original Bible Belt consisted solely of the slave states?  Because Southern style chattel slavery was 100% Biblically Approved.  Enslave foreigners?  Check.  Own them?  Check.  Kill them if you want to?  Check. (only let them live a day or two after the beating)  Own the slave's children?  Check.  And their wives?  Check.  Leave them to your children when you die?  Check.  Don't believe me, Dave Heddle?  Just ask and I'll quote chapter and verse.  Check!

Date: 2007/02/07 05:40:47, Link
Author: djmullen
Uncommon Descent has a little blurb on one of their sidebars titled, "Darwin on genocide Tony Barta on Robyn Williams’s program".  If you click on the link, you wind up here, an Australian website called Ockham's Razor (I'm jealous of the name) which seems to be part of ABC radio.

The website contains a transcript from Dr. Tony Barta, a "Historian" at LaTrobe University in Melbourne.  Dr. Barta's intent seem to be to accuse Darwin of condoning genocide.  I'm not saying that Dr. Barta is a mite prejudiced, but here's the first few paragraphs of his screed with one important substitution.  See if you can spot it.

Robyn Williams: Remember the date 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue? When the Christians invaded the Americas, it was bad news for those so-called Indians who lived there. Do you know how many perished as a result of Christian Cortez and disease? It was, in all, 90% of the indigenous people of America, or a full fifth of all mankind then alive on Earth.

Ronald Wright, the Canadian author, quotes historian Francis Jennings: 'Christians did not find a wilderness there, they made one.'
With such a scale of killing one must ask how come? And how is it that later in the 19th and 20th centuries, things didn't improve. Here's a modern take, from La Trobe University's historian, Tony Barta.

Tony Barta: When did you first notice that the leaves of gum trees hang vertically? Charles Darwin did, on a brief, observation-packed visit to Australia. He thought it must be to let the light through to the grass. I think of him whenever I walk along the Yarra. I also see him back in England, taking his children to the zoo, or puzzling over the curious 'irritability' of the tendrils in his garden. There is no man of science more justly respected or easy to love. Must he also be counted among the founding fathers of genocide? I fear so, and Australians should understand their part in how it happened.
Let's not, for a moment, think of the old man with his long white beard. Try to imagine Darwin before his fame, before the years in his dark study, and very importantly, before On the Origin of Species. Meet a much younger Charles Darwin, son of the new, enterprising Christian middle class, who is about to encounter, and reinterpret, the whole natural and historical world.

His passion as a student was not studying, it was hunting. Only 22 when he was offered the position of naturalist on the round-the-world voyage of the Beagle, his skill with a firearm brought down the birds that started him thinking about the differences of species.

The Beagle initiated Darwin into the long drama of evolution, and into another drama quicker and more dire. While he was shooting specimens in South America, the Christians there were shooting the Indians. Amidst the remains of long-dead megafauna, Christian colonists were doing their best to make the indigenous people extinct.

So before Darwin understood species, he understood genocide. The word would not be invented for a hundred years, but his diary, and his published account of the voyage, are clear. The ruthless realities of colonialism would enter his world view, and his science, in the most fundamental and pervading way.

It took him more than 20 years of ever-widening research, distracted by poor health, the death of a child (his beloved daughter, Annie), worries about the reception of his heresy – more than 20 years to complete an outline of a theory that decisively shifted modern consciousness to the realities of a world where divine intervention played no part. Life and death belonged to nature; the causing of life and death could be construed as rational, natural and even moral within nature's harsh, amoral laws. His own summary could hardly be clearer:

As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive, and as consequently there is a frequently occurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself ... will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected ... This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.

It is not the case, as is generally assumed, that humans and human history entered Darwin's explanations as a kind of afterthought; they were there from the beginning, based on indelible early experience. His initial outrage could change to acceptance in part because of his overall acceptance of extermination, the disappearance of numberless varieties and species, in natural selection.

But Darwin was also fascinated by intervention in nature, and the observable effects in plants, animals and peoples. From the outset he recognised the spread of Christian civilisation as an historic human intervention, a global process of unnatural selection. Like colonialism, it belonged to the modern project of dominating nature; it celebrated the power of nature while promoting its disempowerment.

While the Beagle was anchored off Patagonia for much of 1833, he rode inland and came face to face with the Christian policy towards indigenous peoples defending their lands against expropriation. General Manuel de Rosas, a Christian cattle rancher who served as governor of Buenos Aires, and later dictator of Argentina (and who, later again, retired to Swaythling in Hampshire) was engaged on what Darwin recognised at the time as a mission 'to exterminate the Indians'.

Some 112 women and children and men were 'nearly all taken or killed, very few escaped. The Christians pursue and sabre every man. Like wild animals however they fight to the last instant. The reason was to be made plain:

This is a dark picture; but how much more shocking is the unquestionable fact that all the women who appear above 20 years old are massacred in cold blood. I ventured to hint that this appeared rather inhuman. The Christian answered me, 'What can be done, they breed so.

It is the sadly familiar language of genocide. To the Christians, Darwin noticed, the killing was reasonable and even moral in the larger scheme of things. Civilisation decreed the sacrifice of barbarians who stood in its way. The Christian shooters were the shock troops of progress, productivity and profit:

If this warfare is successful, that is if all the Indians are butchered, a grand extent of country will be available for the production of cattle, and the valleys ... will be most productive of corn. The country will be in the hands of white Gaucho Christian savages instead of copper-coloured Indians.

This is about half the screed, but I'm not going to bore you with the rest.  Can anybody spot the one key clarification I made to it?

Date: 2007/02/07 05:58:55, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 07 2007,01:10)
This time, we'll say "Yes!" to secession and spend what we otherwise would have wasted on a New Civil War on building a really, really big fence

ooop, too late.

Wrong border!

Date: 2007/02/08 00:03:23, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 07 2007,17:40)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 07 2007,10:39)
Duh, unless in the four billion years between now and then, our descendants happen to begin living on other planets.

I hope not.  We've already managed to ruin THIS planet.  I hope we don't get to ruin ANOTHER one too.

But if we do move to another planet, I at least hope that ALL of humanity goes, and leaves all of earth life behind.  They'all would have a much better life if we'all went somewhere else.

--edit--   And I hope we'd at least have the common decency to clean the place up a bit before we left.

So we take all the creationists, ID or other, and tell them how lucky they are to have won a berth in the Fabulous B Ark, which is loading right now ...

Date: 2007/02/08 06:15:51, Link
Author: djmullen
Words of wisdom from Joseph:
Between the internet and infomercials people are starting to pull those gov’t imposed covers away from their eyes.

Thank goodness for infomercials!

By the way, who are the two dufii in the "" video?  Is that the real Casey Lufkin?  If those two actually work for the DI, then I can finally begin to understand their problems.

DaveTard headline:  
7 February 2007
The American Cancer Society FINALLY Notices DCA

This is written one entire month after the first DCA story hits the public media.

Date: 2007/02/12 05:25:33, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2007,22:05)

Judges Darwin by his picture; Plugs her book.

Haeckel’s embryos - if his drawings had been accurate - would have shown that vertebrate taxa start out very similar, which supports Darwin’s theory.

But they DO start out very similar.  I wonder if Denyse ever goes to the Pharyngula web site.  If she does, I wonder if she ever wonders what "pharyngula" means?  Probably not.

And generations of Darwinists have kept the pious lie going, like a legend of a saint who never really existed.

The legends of saints who never existed came out of ... erm ... Denyse's Catholic Church.  Oops.
Oh? You want to know what is true? Well, then, by definition, you are not a convinced Darwinist because you think that your brain is adapted to discovering truth, not to leaving descendants.

Ahh, yes....  I can see my non-ancestor now.  "Is that a lion or a strangly shaped shadow.  Well, I'll believe it's a shadow because otherwise I'd have to run for my life and that's tiring."  Denyse, our brains evolved to accurately understand the world around us because those who didn't have that capability got eaten.        
Okay, here’s a stab at a possible truth: Embryo development does not particularly support Darwin’s theory. It argues rather for a yet undiscovered law, principle, process, or … what? What does the dance of embryogenesis argue for?

Have  you ever heard of evo-devo?  No?  Why am I not surprised.
Still, the fraudulent Haeckel embryo series must be true in the eyes of Darwinists, just as any miracle story that supports a cult must be true in the eyes of believers.
I heard a good one the other day.  Seems a lot of people believe that a man who was executed came back to life three (or more likely two) days later.  Seems kind of unlikely to me, but then I'm not in the cult.
(For a detailed explanation, you will have to see The Spiritual Brain by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, Harper, 2007). I will provide links for that shortly.
1. Address marketing issues for non-materialist neuroscience book (Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, The Spiritual Brain, Harper 2007).    
Check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?.

Richard Hughes: Plugs her book

Plugs her TWO books a total of THREE times.  This may be a UD record.

Date: 2007/02/13 06:46:08, Link
Author: djmullen
whole rows of pasty-faced profs spluttering the formulas for selling out to materialism on behalf of dying institutional churchianity to increasingly empty pews are now … obviated.

How many people immediately though of an old Jack Chick track when they read this?

Date: 2007/02/15 00:45:05, Link
Author: djmullen
I was listening to NPR news about 10 pm tonight.  The story was on Kansas dumping their old Intelligent Design friendly science standards and replacing them with ... well... science.

But the best part was the dude from the Discovery Institute who was threatening a lawsuit!!!

Yeehaw!!  Dover II, here we come!

Date: 2007/02/16 05:34:43, Link
Author: djmullen
Denyse gets one right!      
Thinkquote of the day: Avoiding simple, obvious truths

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest & most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, & which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

- Leo Tolstoy

Isn't that a perfect description of ID/Creationism?  Once you've woven religion into the fabric of your life and explained how it means you are God's favorite and one of the very small elite that really understands what's going on to all your colleagues, you just can't accept even the most obvious truth that demotes you to an ordinary human being.  Better endless deception, obfuscation and self delusion than admitting that you're just a very ordinary small time hack writer.  Or a once promising scholar who thought he'd set the world on fire and ended up making an ass of himself on a world-wide stage.  Not to mention DaveTard.

Date: 2007/02/19 00:24:14, Link
Author: djmullen
Courtesy of Boing Boing ( here's a page that gives flow charts for the Scientific way of thinking vs the Religious/ID way of "thinking".

Date: 2007/02/20 05:23:33, Link
Author: djmullen
Are you talking about this "debate" from last August?

And could you give us a link to Denyse admitting she hadn't read Dawkins?  I mean, it's pretty obvious from what she writes about him, but I'd like to see her admitting it.

Date: 2007/02/22 05:54:33, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 22 2007,02:44)
Seriously, I’m serious considering dropping all my debate with Darweenies since I saw this from with the youtube video:...

from poster "Borne" on UD

So I presumed Borne's blog would have some sparkling interplay between him and those "evilutionists". The reality is the only input from "Darwinists" I can find is one comment from Ed Darrell to which Borne responds majestically with " bull shit".

I bow to your debating skills, Borne.

I notice that Borne quotes an article (Hellish Holland) from the Society of Saint Pius X, an organization started by Marcel Lefebvre, the archbishop who was excommunicated by the Catholic church for extreme naughtiness.

Date: 2007/02/23 01:01:47, Link
Author: djmullen
Richardthughes: Typo?

Could be.  here, from the IDArts people is a description of a science article:
Past Gas-R-Us! (Eerie theory…Breaking Wind)
Recently, a team of geo-microbiologists at Penn State University discovered that the origin of life on Earth may not have dropped out of the blue via some sort of extra-terrestrial panspermian planting, or accidentally (magically?) popped into existence when lifeless primordial goo was zapped by a purposeless and random prehistoric lightning strike.

While experimenting in the lab, the Penn State scientists discovered that a lifeless microbe (Methanosarcina acetevorans) actually passed gas which conceivably …(no pun intended!)….could have somehow attracted enough randomly available DNA/RNA-type molecules to itself to have produced real, self-replicating life on planet Earth!

According to this theory… (hold on to your “whoopie-cushion”, folks)…, we are basically nothing more than the accidental (and unintelligently designed) offspring of tiny, dead microbial ‘flatulence’.

(You may read about it here.)

Go to the article, here, and you find scientists who found a LIVING (not lifeless) microbe that uses a new metabolic path that changes carbon monoxide into methane and vinegar, freeing up energy for the microbe in the process.

The article then goes on to show how this discovery can join two theories of the Origin Of Life together, compensating for the weak points in each theory.

Not quite "a lifeless microbe (Methanosarcina acetevorans) [that] actually passed gas" after all.  

I think the reviewer watched the Judge Jones animation a few times too often.

Date: 2007/02/27 05:07:09, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 26 2007,06:11)
When my wife makes chili, she counts out exactly 239 beans and adds them to the pot because just one more
bean makes it 240.


Are you sure that's not 420?

Date: 2007/02/27 05:24:52, Link
Author: djmullen
But should god be proved (and you guys seem to have given up the 'designer' being anyone BUT God) then that's great, assuming that God isn't some sort of genocidal, 'grudge bearing for stuff that happened before you were born' type entity.

The Bible, Exodus 20:5  
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

Oops.  And that's part of the Ten Commandments, too.

Date: 2007/02/27 05:36:33, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 26 2007,16:08)
It's a little puzzling to me how bad they are at the PR. I mean, would you ever put Davetard in charge of your movement's website? Denyse O'Leary, who writes like one of the least promising 6th graders in the english class? Patrick, Gil, Salvador, any of those dimbulbs?

I had a section here that started "If the Discovery Institute were smart,..." but I deleted it, because they're hopeless. And I think they probably know it. At least, if they do, it explains why their fake scientific journal came to a halt the same month Judge Jones issued his opinion.

I think they're doing the best they can with what they can get.  After all, smart people don't generally fall for ID.

Date: 2007/02/27 05:52:20, Link
Author: djmullen
DO'L foams at the mouth:

But one of her repliers actually makes sense:

I do not have much intellectual sympathy with atheists, and I do not support their cause. But on the other hand, those of us who are theists and non-materialists need better arguments if we ever want to convince anyone.

I always point to ID and parapsychology.

Funny, I like to point to parapsychology and ID too.


Date: 2007/03/05 04:58:48, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (argystokes @ Mar. 02 2007,20:10)
Funniest post on OE yet.

I'll withhold further comment.

Second runner up

Date: 2007/03/05 05:41:05, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (don_quixote @ Mar. 04 2007,15:39)
Download a whole website you say?

HTTrack is a great, free program.

Spiderzilla is a Firefox extension, based on HTTrack, which does the same thing.

They are both feature-rich, but you shouldn't need to alter the settings.

I'm just mirroring ISCID now (with Spiderzilla and default settings). Seems to be working okay.

How do those programs handle a site like UD, which does a lot of message deletions and alterations?

Date: 2007/03/06 19:46:49, Link
Author: djmullen
Don't know about their musical talent, but I get the impression that they're the White Power version of the Shaggs, with mommy and daddy just bound and determined that they're going to be stars, durn it.

My life will never be the same. :p

Date: 2007/03/12 02:50:36, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2007,21:29)


That's pretty good Texas beer.  Tastes a lot like Pabst Blue Ribbon.  Legend has it that there used to be a pipeline from the Pabst brewery in Milwaukee all the way to the Lone Star Brewery in Texas.  Whenever a batch of Pabst didn't turn out quite right, it would go straight to the pipeline and wind up in Lone Star Bottles.  The nice thing about Texans is that they'll drink anything.

Note that Lone Star got the Pabst if it "wasn't quite right".  If there was a real disaster in the brewery, like a dead rat floating in the vat, it all got dumped into the Coors pipeline.  What Coors didn't want went to Budweiser.

Now that Pabst is mostly out of business, we all went organic and grow dope nowadays.  Makes reading UD more entertaining.

Date: 2007/03/13 03:43:37, Link
Author: djmullen
Dembski's current employer, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, is in the news because they:

a: Fired a female professor for being a woman.
b: Were dumb enough to tell her that they fired her because she's a woman.

"Sheri Klouda, who taught Hebrew since 2002 at the seminary, was forced out last year allegedly because she was a woman teaching men. She filed a federal lawsuit Thursday accusing the seminary and its president, Paige Patterson, of fraud, breach of contract and defamation.

Klouda, now teaching at Taylor University in Upland, Ind., was refused tenure at Southwestern and was told her contract would not be renewed because of her gender. Her contract was terminated in December 2006.

The dismissal has spawned unexpected public outcry and widespread media coverage, even to the surprise of Klouda.

Southwestern trustee chairman Van McClain had explained that the seminary is taking the "traditional" position that women should not teach men in theology or biblical languages and thus only men should instruct future pastors. The seminary follows the Southern Baptist statement of faith which limits the pastorate to men. Consequently, Patterson said that instruction of future pastors is limited to men."

"The suit contended that Patterson, who became president in 2003, assured Klouda that her position was secure. But in 2004, she was informed that she would not get tenure because she was 'a mistake that the trustees needed to fix...' "

She's suing, of course.  Fine institution you're working for, Dr. Dembski.


Date: 2007/03/14 04:52:07, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2007,14:39)
Discussions of booze will never impose on my good nature. I could use some knowledge about wines, given that I drink 2 bottles of red a day (don't bother inquiring, it's just cheap table wine).

Ummmm, Ripple!

Tuesday was always the best vintage.

Date: 2007/03/14 05:01:27, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 14 2007,02:24)
We interrupt this thread for a missing person bulletin.

Missing:      Joel Borofsky
Occupation: Research Assistant (heh) and Public Obsessor of Hoo-Hoos
Last seen:   November 11, 2006

Fifteen minutes of fame:  Am I Really That Important?

If you have seen Joel, please call his mother.

Is this your boy?

Date: 2007/03/14 05:14:18, Link
Author: djmullen
Attention all Uncommon Dissent members who are reading The Great Global Warming Swindle” thread:

You might want to read this article from the British "Independent" newspaper entitled, "The real global warming swindle".  


"A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.

Note: None of the above should be taken to indicate that DaveScot jumps to conclusions or inadequately investigates his charges.  We already know he does both.

Date: 2007/03/14 05:19:52, Link
Author: djmullen
My prediction for the next topic at UD:

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

"Air pollution laws cause global warming!"

Date: 2007/03/14 23:34:33, Link
Author: djmullen
Courtesy of Talk Reason: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement.

"Ann Coulter's treatment of evolutionary biology in her book Godless is best interpreted as a hoax, providing a scathing satire of the antievolution community.

By Peter Olofsson"

Date: 2007/03/16 06:29:52, Link
Author: djmullen
Dembski moans:

On a slightly different subject, I loved this quote from your citation:

For example, one popular argument was “Okay, buster - can you do better?” The idea here seems to be that until you know a solution to the problems faced by string theory, you shouldn’t point out these problems - at least not publicly.

Sounds like the administration replying to critics of the war in Iraq.

ID's problem is that a better theory than ID was proposed in 1859 and it's gotten stronger every year.

Date: 2007/03/18 03:02:25, Link
Author: djmullen
I see Dembski is running his class on UD principles:
(1)  Mid-term exam — 20 percent positive.  
(2)  Final exam — 30 percent positive.  
(3)  Exercises — 50 percent positive. Exercises appear at the end of each chapter in  NCM. Answers to all these exercises need to be written out and handed in each  week.  
(4) Single-page executive summary of YOU (with clearly recognizable embedded  picture of yourself) — minus 5 percent if not handed in. Due beginning of second  week of class.  
(5) Active class participation — up to 10 percent negative.  

Or, in English, active participation can't possibly help your grade, but if you participate anyway and Dembski doesn't like what you say, it will cost you grade points!

Date: 2007/03/19 06:28:06, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Jake @ Mar. 18 2007,05:04)
I see Dembski is running his class on UD principles:
(1)  Mid-term exam — 20 percent positive.  
(2)  Final exam — 30 percent positive.  
(3)  Exercises — 50 percent positive. Exercises appear at the end of each chapter in  NCM. Answers to all these exercises need to be written out and handed in each  week.  
(4) Single-page executive summary of YOU (with clearly recognizable embedded  picture of yourself) — minus 5 percent if not handed in. Due beginning of second  week of class.  
(5) Active class participation — up to 10 percent negative.  

Or, in English, active participation can't possibly help your grade, but if you participate anyway and Dembski doesn't like what you say, it will cost you grade points!

To be fair, this could also be read this as 'if you do not participate actively in class discussions, you will lose marks', which is fair enough. The course outline PDF has this written as 'full class participation', next to 'punctual attendance' - surely people arent going to lose marks for being on time!

To be even fairer (and more realistic), using UD rules, any poor kid who commits science or any other intellectual activity will lose a grade point.  He'll probably have DaveScot proctor his lectures and personally escort any malefactor (at least any who are weak enough) to the door and toss him or her out (up to three feet if the perp is light enough).

You'll note that I'm assuming here that Dembski is, if not right, at least consistent.

Date: 2007/03/20 00:54:30, Link
Author: djmullen
A free and frank exchange of ideas :) Teach the controversy!
The mods - Bill, O'Leary - we know who they are. Just.
Samuel - could be anybody
Micah - Hum, unusual name

I thought it was probably Micah Sparacio, Managing Director of the Highly Important (and Highly Moribund) ID website,

Which reminds me, I was going to write Micah on the anniversary of his kicking me off the site for insisting on labeling Johnathan Well's web site as "CRANK".  Now that ISCID is essentially dead in the water, taken over by JAD and company, and with Chris Langan still a Fellow, I was wondering if he wanted to reconsider.  

But then I asked myself if I wanted to post to a site dominated by JAD and Company that still had Chris Langan as a member and decided, "Ick!".  Sorry Micah.

Date: 2007/03/20 01:50:49, Link
Author: djmullen
"Hi class, welcome back. I'm sure you're all interested in how you did on last week's test. Well, here's the grade distribution. There were 3 A's, 7 B's, 9 C's, 2 D's, 1 F, and 6 bannings."

Absolutely ROTFLMAO!!

Date: 2007/03/21 04:41:22, Link
Author: djmullen
It's even worse.  Here's Dembski's OP in the same article:
Every now and again when I want to feel good about our shared humanity, I curl up with Darwin’s DESCENT OF MAN and read passages like the following:

The reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ’struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.”
– Charles Robert Darwin, The Descent of Man, Great Minds Edition, 123

Here's some samplings five minutes googling brought up from the right wing press:

Mexicans first:
Quote  (Judicial Watch)
"we have 30+ million breeding mexicans here now, most all are haters, racist, and with violent tendencies. Take the L.A. riots after OJ, 70+ percent mexican, rest black, white, asian. Let no one tell you most illegal mexicans are good hearted family people"

Quote (A liberal blog reporting on events at US English)
Warning of a Hispanic political takeover through high birthrates, the founder of U.S. English wrote:

Gobernar es poblar translates “to govern is to populate.”… In this society where the majority rules, does this hold? Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile? … Perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down! … As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? (Tanton 1986)

The chairman himself was forced to resign following disclosures about his network of nonprofit organizations and their financial backers. The latter included foundations dedicated to promoting eugenics, limiting the reproduction of Third World peoples, distributing white supremacist tracts, and sponsoring research purporting to prove the inferiority of nonwhites

Striking back against liberal and moderate incumbents, they made 1994 the Year of the Angry White Male. Targets of middle-class rage included taxation, welfare, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and immigration policies – all deemed to benefit “undeserving” minorities at the expense of the dominant group. California confirmed its reputation as a trend-setter by adopting Proposition 187, an initiative that sought to bar the children of “illegal aliens” from the public schools and turn educators into virtual deputies of the Border Patrol

The same election swept Republicans to power in both houses of Congress
 That's as much Mexican baiting as I can take.  There's plenty more left, but let's look at Muslims and conservatives now:

Quote (Judicious Asininity)
The welfare state is paying for a terrorist to breed 8 more likely terrorists or terrorist incubators while taxing its most productive citizens to the hilt to pay for such lunacy.

The bind that the European welfare state finds itself in is that it makes it almost impossible for the productive Europeans to breed at replacement rates but helps Muslim immigrants out-breed native Europeans by a 3:1 ratio or better.

The educated European woman with a career, a high tax burden, and a husband similarly encumbered, has little chance to have more than a child or two. An uneducated Muslim immigrant woman restricted to her home by her husband, sustained by welfare payments, has little choice but to have children.

Thus does civilization betray itself to a barbaric invader.

We are happy that there is a slight reduction in the muslim population in Pakistan due to earth quake, and world should work in methods to sterilize the muslim population to eliminate Islamic terrorism.  Otherwise the  fast breeding muslims will take over the West.

That's all I can stand.  Your turn, Dr. Dembski

Date: 2007/03/21 04:48:40, Link
Author: djmullen
I guess that means he waited tables and napped on the floor of the women's restroom to put himself through college, too.

I doubt it!  His father was a professor (of biology!) and his mother ran an art gallery.  I doubt if the good Dr. Dr. slept on many restroom floors.

Date: 2007/03/22 06:32:07, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 22 2007,04:30)
Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”

You may scoff, but I've always admired Dembski in his tireless struggle against racism.  That is why I will support his upcoming efforts to remove Abraham Lincoln from the penny and the five-dollar bill.  After all, Lincoln was a racist, like Darwin, and we know that Dembski is nothing if not consistent.  

So much for the critics who claim that Dembski is just jealous of Darwin's success or suffering from a case of theory envy.  How do they account for the fact that Dembski was speaking out against racism, loudly and often, long before Martin Luther King had his Dream?

Let's not forget the one dollar bill, with the picture of that old slave owner, George Washington on it.  Dembski should convert his ones to tens (Hamilton, a non-slave owner) immediately and burn any left overs.

Date: 2007/03/23 00:08:14, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 22 2007,17:11)
Uncommonly Denyse:
The skinny: Materialist neuroscience argues that the mind does not really exist. The mind is merely the functions of the brain or a simulacrum thereof. The mind is merely the functions of the brain, so you do not really have a mind, let alone a soul or free will.

Thanks for posting that rare example of Canadian Logic™ *.  In a similar vein:

Light is merely the function of a light bulb so you do not really have any light, just a light bulb.

* Named after MinLogic, a word coined by the BibleScience Newspaper** people a couple of decades ago.  It was supposed to stand for Minnesota Logic, but it turned out to mean MINimal LOGIC.

** A group of pre-ID creationists from the Minneapolis, Minnesota area.

Date: 2007/03/26 06:47:14, Link
Author: djmullen
However, I have every so often seen fundies literally saying that if not for fear of cosmic punishment, they'd be completely amoral, and wouldn't worry about killing or robbing anyone. It's telling that they seem not to think that this implies anything bad about them.

Has anybody else noticed that fundamentalists are always afraid of the temptation of homosexuality?

I almost hate to tell them that heterosexual men are not normally tempted by the idea of sex with males.  In fact, it's much more of an "ick!" than anything else.

Then I see Reverand Ted Haggard exposed and I understand.

Date: 2007/03/30 01:45:59, Link
Author: djmullen
Das Tard:    
Hogwash. A class of devices called the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) has been around for almost 25 years. I remember when my Intel Field Service Engineer was hyping Xilinx FPGA’s to me in the mid-1980’s. I presumed Intel had a financial stake in Xilinx. They were way too slow for anything I was doing but they can be reconfigured on the fly, in-circuit, running hot.

That's interesting because five or ten years ago, New Scientist had a cover story on a laboratory evolution demonstration using FPGAs.  They used one to evolve a pair of audio tone detectors, utterly unaided by human intelligence.

Some background: A Gate Array is a chip with a very large number of basic logic gates on it - AND gates, OR gates, flip-flops, etc.  These gates are not interconnected as they come out of the factory.  Instead, the outputs of all of the gates go to a series of switches and crossbars that allow the output of just about any gate to be connected to the input of just about any other gate.  That means that you can "wire up" a custom circuit by setting the switches.

The first gate arrays were programmed at the factory.  You worked out which switches needed to be set to which positions to produce the circuit you wanted, then you sent a list of those switch positions to the factory and the factory "flipped" the switches while it was manufacturing the chip.  You got your chips a month or two later and the minimum order was usually a thousand chips.

In the next advance, Gate Array chips were produced whose switches could be Programmed in the Field by inputting a string of ones and zeros.  Typically, a circuit would have a Field Programmable Gate Array chip plus a small memory chip.  At startup, the memory chip would feed a string of ones and zeros into the FPGA which would flip all the switches necessary to produce the circuit you wanted and you were off.  This was a lot faster and cheaper than sending a list into the factory and getting your programmed chips two months later, especially if you didn't need a thousand of them.

The New Scientist article told how some scientists decided to evolve a series of ones and zeros that would convert a FPGA into a circuit that took in an audio signal and made one output pin go high if a certain tone was detected and a second output pin go high if a second tone was detected.

To do this, they loaded a computer with a string of totally random ones and zeros.  They programmed the computer to feed this string into a FPGA, input a series of audio tones and watch the output pins to see if either went high when the appropriate tone was detected.  If either pin failed to give the appropriate output, the string of ones and zeros was mutated slightly and fed back into the FPGA chip and the test was repeated.  At this point, the experimenters went out for a cup of coffee.

As I recall, one of the first steps towards evolving a tone detector circuit was when the outputs of two gates were connected together (normally a big no-no) and one was set to give a high output and the other a low.  This effectively short circuited the power supply, screwed up all the voltage levels in the FPGA chip - and the screwed up voltage levels converted the chip from digital to linear!

Several thousand iterations later, the chip was reliably detecting the first tone and a few thousand iterations after that, it was detecting both tones properly, exactly as desired.

It's kind of scary to think that DaveTard could have performed a pioneering labratory experiment demonstrating Darwinian evolution twenty five years ago and blew it.  I'd hate to think of him on our side.

Date: 2007/03/30 01:51:23, Link
Author: djmullen
"Rev Dr." Lenny Flank:
Aw, come on -- haven't you ever heard of a  "bedroom conversion"?

I'd have Ann quoting from "Das Kapital" within weeks

I'd have her saying, "Dave, if I put my clothes back on, will you stop vomiting?"

Date: 2007/03/31 15:37:34, Link
Author: djmullen
Bebbo: "More to the point, why would any woman, let alone an Inuit, be attracted to Dave?!"

DT: '...once you've had a few Inuit wives of other men yelling at you in the throes of passion, "I want to have your blubber", then you'll understand.'

Date: 2007/04/03 04:01:37, Link
Author: djmullen
Dr. William Dembski on charity:        

William Dembski


3:58 pm
Russ: The non-religious may give less financially, but I’m not so sure about time. They seem quite committed to their political causes, and readily devote their time to them. And why give money if it can be taken by political force from the religious?

Anybody smell the equivalent of quote mining here?  Let's look at the Opening Post that Dr. Dr. Dembski is referring to here:      
Commenting on Sam Harris and his facile denunciations of religion, Mike Gene hits the mark:
 Okay, now that we KNOW it's bogus, let's see WHY it's bogus.  Scoot down to reply #4 and see what The Scubaredneck has to say:      
Here’s an interesting tidbit about charities in general: each year, Money Magazine does a special issue talking about charities in America. In the article, they rate various charities in terms of how much of the money donated actually goes to program.

The perinnial winners? Religious charities (specifically such groups as Campus Crusade and The Navigators). In fact, secular charities such as The United Way and the American Red Cross never even deserve significant mention because so little of their money actually goes to program.

Campus Crusade?  A charity?  Go to their website and see if you can find any traces of charity!  CC is a proselytizing organization.  The Navigators?  They do some charitable work, but they're better known for ... proselytizing.

Even more interesting: The United Way and The American Red cross, to name the two (real) charities that Scubaredneck trashed, have to account for every penny they take in and if they spend too much of it on a new Jet for their managers, they can go to jail.  But the religious "charities" can buy Benny Hind a new $20 million jet every month if they want to and they don't even have to tell the government that they've done it because they're, you know, religious, so we'll just trust them.

For those who are interested in what real charities do with their money, here's a list of how some of them are doing.  Note that the Red Cross spends about 91% of the money it takes in on real charity work, although that's apparently not good enough for Scubaredneck.

Date: 2007/04/07 21:01:20, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (steve_h @ April 07 2007,17:42)
Parody site owner (possibly Dembski under an assumed name) promoted to contributor status at  Is this the best the ID movement has?

Galapagos Finch, Galapagos Finch, William Dembski, William Dembski, Demsbki/Finch

Judging by this sentence in the "Galapagos Finch" production, the author has got to be Dembski:

"Charles Darwin Institute of Technology (CHIT)..."

Between farts and chits, this man has a serious anal fixation.

Date: 2007/04/13 02:54:31, Link
Author: djmullen
Dana McGee:




2:27 pm
“survival of the fittest”?

Darwinism is a religion of death.

Dana, a mother that takes better care of her children so that more of them survive to reproduce is fitter in Darwinian terms.

Hardly religion and hardly death.

It's alright to criticise Darwinian evolution, but if you don't want to constantly make a fool of yourself, learn something about it first.  This will also make you much less likely to criticize it.

By the way, you are reading the worst blog in the world for learning anything useful about evolution.

Date: 2007/04/13 06:23:55, Link
Author: djmullen
This doesn't strictly have anything to do with UD, but it's too interesting to pass up.

On Dvorak Uncensored, we find this story:

"U.S. divorce rates: Want to Stay Married? Go Atheist."
Barna’s results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise “questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families.” The data challenge “the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage.”

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said: “In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. …Just being born again is not a rabbit’s foot.”

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been “saved.”

So, if you want to strike a blow for true family values, lose your faith in God.

P.S. Barna is a religious opinion poller.  He's been reporting virtually the same facts for the last several years, but the point about us virtuous atheists having the lowest divorce rates is new.

Date: 2007/04/16 06:00:07, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 15 2007,23:11)
I love it so!

Read the comments.

Got that? Write it down!

From the article: "I make small children cry, but I am kind to squid."

Dog bless him!

Date: 2007/04/17 01:27:41, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,18:12)
Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Many years ago, I read an article in the first incarnation of "Psychology Today" called "The Sauce Bernaise Effect".  The author had eaten something with sauce bernaise on it for the first time and got deathly ill a short time later.  Ever since, the taste or even thought of sauce bernaise made him nauseous.

I had a similar experience, which I would label "The Strawberry Soda Effect".

Apparently, developing a revulsion to a new food that makes us ill shortly afterwards is built into our genes as a method of keeping us from eating a poisonous food a second time if we survive the first experience.

Date: 2007/04/18 04:21:00, Link
Author: djmullen
From  Goosing the Antithesis (with a hat tip to Pharyngula)
Zachary Moore went to a "Darwin vs. Design" conference and struck up a conversation with an employee of the discovery institute:
In fact, it was so friendly that as I was waiting in the auditorium lobby for the conference to start, I struck up a conversation with Todd Norquist, one of the Discovery Institute's employees in the Center for Science and Culture (the department that advocates for Intelligent Design). I asked him how many of these conferences were planned by the Discovery Institute, and he seemed hesitant, telling me that he didn't know if any more of them were going to be possible, since the costs were too high for the Institute to handle. He mentioned something about it costing $70,000, although I don't recall if that was the amount to produce the Dallas event alone, or if that was the current cost for the whole series thus far (the only previous event being in Knoxville). He complained that there had been virtually no money allocated for advertising, the sole contribution being $1000 paid to Scott Wilder for an "interview" of Stephen Meyer a week previously. He then told me (quite openly, also, which I thought was odd) that the financial situation of the Discovery Institute was grim, and that they were "bleeding money" and were "barely able to keep the lights on in Seattle."

I think it was at about this point that he may have realized that he probably shouldn't be advertising this, and so he abruptly asked me if I was a Christian. I shook my head no, and said, "not anymore, but I used to be." He nodded silently, and then quickly found somewhere else to be.

Jeeze, they may not be able to continue paying Dembski $60,000.00 to write bad books.  (Insert sobbing here.)

Date: 2007/04/19 04:28:02, Link
Author: djmullen
"Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
Cho Seung-Hui

He was also upset about other people's morals:

You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything.

Same URL as above.

Have there been ANY school shooters who weren't right wing reactionaries?

Date: 2007/04/24 00:12:49, Link
Author: djmullen
The downward spiral of a scientific career:

Publish "The Physics of Immortality"

"My good friend Frank Tipler’s new book THE PHYSICS OF CHRISTIANITY is coming out shortly (see the listing here at I’ve invited Frank to contribute to this blog about this book and any other topics of interest to him."   William Dembski

"Thank you so much Bill for highlighting Tipler’s work. Even though I probably don’t agree with all his ideas, I think Frank’s contribution to ID has been invaluable. I count his book Anthropic Cosmological Prinicple as one of the 3 ID foundational books along with Thaxton’s Mystery of Life’s Origin and Denton’s Evolution a Theory in Crisis


Date: 2007/04/24 05:22:26, Link
Author: djmullen
Found an interesting tidbit on O'Leary's religious beliefs:

Note: My lack of experience with unusual spiritual phenomena is despite the fact that a recent Toronto Star article referred to me as a fundamentalist author. As a matter of fact, I am a Roman Catholic (since 2005) and was formerly an Anglican (Episcopalian), not what most people would think of as a fundamentalist.  (Under "Spirituality: Speaking in tongues")

So she's a recent convert.  That says loads for her mental and emotional stability.

Date: 2007/04/26 00:41:44, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2007,22:24)
Quote (J-Dog @ April 25 2007,21:32)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2007,19:48)
ETA: Here is a quote from superspurt fresh today:

I don't have time to dig up a link at the moment but I've heard coal actually does have carbon in it.

Hey Doc - Excellent catch!  Looks like SuperTard is indeed, a diamond in the rough.   In fact, I see lots more potential tard, which may very well be beyond our wildest dreams

Should we tell him? Diamonds are known to harbor trace quantities of carbon, too.

Bullcrap!  GRAPHITE has carbon in it!

Get your facts straight, evilutionists!

Date: 2007/04/26 03:28:11, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,02:38)
DaveTard is a weak excuse for a human being.

Well, it looks as if DaveTard is going to duck our meeting after all.  What a pussy.  There's a nice pic of him though, with his dogs, and a nice Texas size, 13 mpg truck.

That offer to meet you was just a piece of street theater.

Date: 2007/05/02 07:05:18, Link
Author: djmullen
WAD's former coffee drone and office duster has returned to tell us all about the evils of not being Christian.  Three new posts (not at the level of insanity that I was accustomed to last year, so maybe he's turned over a new leaf) are now available.

I notice he has the comments turned off.  He's learned well from Uncle Dembski.

Uhh...  Excuse me.  Uncle Dr. Dr. Dembski

It's a pity because I was going to ask him a few questions about Dennis Rader, the BTK killer that he goes on about.  Like, what position did he hold in his Christian church?

Also, I was wondering what God's word says about owning slaves, killing people for gathering sticks on the Sabbath and several other hot topics in morality.

As I said, he's learned a lot for Uncle Dr. Dr. Dembski.

Date: 2007/05/03 06:44:21, Link
Author: djmullen
About a year ago, there was a mild kerfluffle because a new piece of software was offered that allowed you to "leave notes" on any web site.  I didn't pay too much attention at the time, but apparently you would log onto one web site and give it a URL for a target site.  You would then browse that target site more or less normally, but the first web site would past notes, messages or whatever on top of the content.  

A lot of web site owners complained about the "defacement" of their web sites, but so far as I could see it didn't do anything at all to their web sites, probably didn't violate copyright and seemed to be 100% legal.

I ignored it at the time, but that was before I discovered Uncommon Descent.  Now that I have a use for it, I can't find the software.  Can anybody help me?

Imagine browsing UD and finding hundreds of comments from the saner part of the internet pasted on top of Dave Scot, Slimador and Dr. Dr. Dr.!  Let's find that software and start using it!

Can anybody help me with the name of the software or a URL pointing to it?

Date: 2007/05/04 00:36:59, Link
Author: djmullen
But your avatar is gone.

Date: 2007/05/07 04:49:56, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (guthrie @ May 06 2007,05:45)
Quote (Kristine @ May 05 2007,23:43)
Someone in the comments with the moniker somewaterytart (what a great name) has an idea here.

Thats a Monty Python reference, (When Arthur, King of the Britons, is arguing with some peasants) so there is a good chance they are a man.

I recognized it, and I was enraged that I had not thought of it!  :D

So if you please, everyone call me
a) Wellididn'tvoteforya
b) Itoldthemwe'vealreadygotone!

Thanks for reminding me that Monty Python forsaw Dave "Sir Robin" Tard's encounter with Blipey over 30 years ago:

Minstrel: [singing] Brave Sir Robin ran away...
Sir Robin: *No!*
Minstrel: [singing] bravely ran away away...
Sir Robin: *I didn't!*
Minstrel: [singing] When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Sir Robin: *I never did!*
Minstrel: [singing] Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.
Sir Robin: *Oh, you liars!*
Minstrel: [singing] Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.

But they didn't forsee the Attack Pooches.

Date: 2007/05/07 04:58:34, Link
Author: djmullen
Someone in the comments with the moniker somewaterytart (what a great name) has an idea here.

Thats a Monty Python reference, (When Arthur, King of the Britons, is arguing with some peasants) so there is a good chance they are a man.

I recognized it, and I was enraged that I had not thought of it!

"Some watery bint" is still available.

Date: 2007/05/07 05:42:30, Link
Author: djmullen
The End Times are Upon Us!

Date: 2007/05/09 02:03:30, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (2ndclass @ May 08 2007,15:34)
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 08 2007,15:19)
Dave's not religious, just bored.

Dave, JAD, and LifeEngineer (from ARN) have convinced me to never retire.  Not that I would necessarily fall into the same abyss as them, but you never know.

Life engineer is retired?  Judging from his writing, I thought he was still pre-pubescent.

Date: 2007/05/13 01:58:01, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 12 2007,14:05)
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 12 2007,12:39)
We're gonna have to face it folks, we're addicted to Tard.

ouch,  I just had a mental picture of what the music video for

"addicted to Tard" would look like.


That picture was taken at a recording session.  Their song can be listened to at

Some reviews:
"Music like this has never been heard before!" Rolling Stoned

"You MUST be sober when you listen to this!" Stoney Rolled

"It is just [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] [even more and longer expletive's deleted] [mutha...] damn!"  ID Review

"Jesus died for their sins." World Nut Daily

"I am not making this up." Dave Barry

"HOMOS!"  Dave Tard

Date: 2007/05/28 15:09:00, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 27 2007,20:59)
Quote (someotherguy @ May 27 2007,15:55)
Quote (dhogaza @ May 27 2007,15:15)
Quote of the day ...
Anthropogenic warming through CO2 is a fallacy. It can’t stand up against the evidence even now and all it’s going to take to make a laughingstock of the consensus science and agenda driven politics behind it is finding the real cause of climate heating and cooling. When the anthropogenic global warming hoax falls it’s going to give consensus science a black eye that will IMO take down other consensus science just-so stories along with it. NeoDarwinian macro-evolution is one of those other stories.

I won't bother identifying the author of this gem.  Y'all have already figured it out :)

That would be the latest piece of paradigm-shattering, autodidactical research from our much-beloved DaveScot.

I like how Dave's now throwing around the phrase 'consensus science' like it's a dirty word. Shows he's continuing his descent into straight crackpottery, which pleases me.  :)

Consensus science is the latest right-wing shibboleth.  I heard Rush Limburger use it last week.

Here's a key to understanding consensus science, from the Little Red Right Wing Dictionary:

consensus science   [kuh n-sen-suhs [sahy-uh ns]
    noun, conservative

1. In conservative idiology, the idea that no unpleasant scientific theory is valid unless every single scientist in the world agrees with it in every respect.  Any objection to any part of the theory by anybody who calls himself a scientist automatically totally invalidates the entire theory, even if that person is a crank.

Scientific theories that support conservative beliefs are automatically valid no matter how much the atheist liberal devil worshipping church burning ebola boys whine about them, including those that have won Nobel Prizes in Sympathy for Communism.

Date: 2007/06/02 19:31:21, Link
Author: djmullen
The mark of dogmatism is to reward conformity and punish dissent.

If anybody would like to see dogmatism in action, post a dissenting reply to Uncommonly Dense.  Don't expect a reward.

Date: 2007/06/02 19:48:24, Link
Author: djmullen
DT can't seem to get his arms around the concept of randomness.  For example he says here

First of all prove it’s random. As far as physics can tell us, at the atomic scale and upwards there is no such thing as random - every effect has a cause and this chain of cause and effect is in principle traceable back to the origin of matter. There is some debate whether quantum events are truly random but the mutations you refer to are chemical changes at the atomic scale and completely deterministic as far as anyone knows.

Hey Dave, try this:  Set up fifteen pool balls and try to knock the last ball into a hole by hitting the first ball.  You can't do it except by sheer luck because each time one ball hits the next ball, any error in its trajectory is magnified.  By the time you get to the fifteenth ball, the magnification is so great that the random motion of the molecules in the first pool ball is enough to completely destroy your aim.  Remember Heisenberg's uncertaintly principal?  It'll get you in the end and it's all at the atomic level or higher.
Secondly, random mutation plus natural selection has NEVER been observed creating a new cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. Each and every one of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans must be accounted for in evolution. The proposition that RM+NS is responsible is purely an argument from ignorance i.e. “if not RM+NS then what else”?

Dave, have you ever seen a cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan produced by ANYTHING?  I'd guess no.  So why do you single out RM+NS?  Do I get any points by accurately pointing out that nobody ever saw Jesus produce a new tissue type?  I'll bet not.

P.S. The pool ball example is not mine, but I can't remember who originated it.

Date: 2007/06/03 11:53:10, Link
Author: djmullen
Regarding pool balls and randomness - if you take examples like this and add in other utterly fundamentally random events such as the impossibility of knowing exactly when a particular uranium atom will fission, you are led to he realization that the future is only partially determined by the present.  That kills determinism dead.

Let me give you an example of something in the future that will affect your thinking that you cannot predict in advance: take a geiger counter and set it near a weak source of radioactivity, one that only gives a click every second or two.  Unless quantum mechanics is fundamentally wrong, it is utterly impossible to predict exactly when the next click will occur.  

That click is a macro event, it can be heard by a human and it will affect the human mind.  That means that the human mind cannot be totally deterministic because some of the inputs that affect it are impossible to predict ahead of time.

The whole "human mind is either deterministic or we have free will" argument is bull feathers anyway.  The human mind is a fallible material system that operates with incomplete inputs from the world, making an "educated guess" at what's actually going on out there.  It can't be deterministic because, among many other things, it doesn't have an accurate view of the world which supposedly determines it.

Ask someone who uses the "deterministic or free will" argument what "free will" means sometime and watch him get confused.  Or rather, watch him show his confusion.

Date: 2007/06/12 01:20:38, Link
Author: djmullen
Did anybody notice anything odd about the poll that Denyse refers to?  Look at the results:

A.    Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

Definitely true | probably true | all the rest of the responses
    18                   35                  blah

B.    Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

Definitely true | probably true | all the rest of the responses
    39                   27                  blah

So 18+35 or 53 percent of all Americans believe that "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" and 39 + 27 or  66% believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

That seems to indicate that 13% of Americans believe both!

Date: 2007/06/12 01:31:32, Link
Author: djmullen
Denyse: "Something happened to human beings relatively recently (less than ten thousand years ago) that did not happen to lemurs, toads, or ants."

Ahh... yeah... it was called the Agricultural Revolution.  It was when we learned to grow our food and forsook our wandering ways and started settling down in cities.  Ever hear of it?

Denyse, may I ask you a personal question?  Were you home-schooled?

Date: 2007/06/15 00:01:15, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Zachriel @ June 14 2007,12:21)
I point out why certain functional systems will be nearly if not completely invisible to natural selection.

See: Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail
You didn't even get your own argument right.

Backup systems help ensure the survivability of the airplance and its occupants. Without the backup system you would have been personally de-selected. What your argument showed was that knock-out experiments may not accurately test expendability of genes or other biological structures. Your example actually showed that backup systems are visible to Natural Selection.

I think the key point that Salvador was trying to make was in this line:  "I was piloting a small airplane in the spring of 2002."

It's a man's life in ID.

Date: 2007/06/15 00:15:38, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 14 2007,15:29)
Quote (Ftk @ June 14 2007,15:07)
Hey, argystokes, I just noticed it's your birthday today.  HAPPY BIRTHDAY!  You're only 24?? Sheesh...just a pup.

Have a good one...


Only 24! By god, you young punks don't know anything! Why, back in MY day, we had to walk 20 miles in the snow to attend the Scopes trial, and 25 miles back again! And when WE went to the Galapagos Islands, we didn't have no fancy AIRPLANES or CRUISES, we had to SWIM there! Damn punks. I swear...


Have a great birthday.  :)

And we had to swim FAST because of the parasitic candiru fish that were trailing us!

Date: 2007/06/15 00:17:09, Link
Author: djmullen
Which reminds me - were those parasitic candiru fish really designed?

Date: 2007/06/20 01:53:34, Link
Author: djmullen
WAD: "Where is the honor in Jones’s honorary doctorate?"

Translation: Where's MY honorary degree?

Date: 2007/06/21 01:18:59, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Gunthernacus @ June 20 2007,11:58)
I received an e-mail from an acquaintance, who has a PhD in biology, saying he calculated that the human genome could contain about 6.25 Mb of information...and he was wondering if that could be right. I don’t know why he thought I would know...

Maybe he believed you when you said you were a mathematician?     

Dearest Granville,

Regarding your recent post:  There are four different codons in DNA.  That's two bits per codon.  (Elementary boolean logic.)  There are approximately 3 billion codons in the human genome. (Google)  3 billion x 2 = 6 billion bits.  6 billion bits/8 bits per byte = 750 megabytes, a little over one CD's worth of data.

Since you claim mathematics capability and pontificate on evolution, yet don't know these simple facts, I regret to inform you that you are a tard.

Regarding the rest of your post:      
On a completely different topic, Dave, you (I believe it was you) had a post many months ago where you suggested that if evolutionary simulators wanted to better simulate reality, they should subject everything to random errors, their entire program, the compiler and OS and the hardware (well, that was the idea anyway). I thought that was one of the most significant points ever made at UD (though as I recall no one else seemed to).

Subjecting the program, compiler and/or OS to random errors while simulating evolution would be the equivalent of changing the laws of physics during real-life evolution.  The reason few others thought that was a good idea is because they aren't quite as ignorant as you are.

You, on the other hand, are a full-blown tard, a tard wearing a gorilla suit and a diving helmet, one with a sign saying, "Kick me, I'm a tard" on your back and shouting "Look at me, aren't I wonderful!" as you ride your bicycle off a clearly marked cliff.  

Or in other words, pretty much the run of the mill Uncommon Descenter.

Date: 2007/06/21 01:32:18, Link
Author: djmullen
But not as big a tard as DaveTard, of course.

Date: 2007/06/21 01:47:02, Link
Author: djmullen
Is anybody going to the AAI 2007 convention in Washington DC?  Featured speakers include Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett and Sam Harris.

Details at

And Kristine, are you in the picture near the bottom of that page?

Date: 2007/06/22 01:46:59, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 21 2007,10:18)
Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2007,04:01)
Quote (djmullen @ June 21 2007,02:18)
Granville said:          
On a completely different topic, Dave, you (I believe it was you) had a post many months ago where you suggested that if evolutionary simulators wanted to better simulate reality, they should subject everything to random errors, their entire program, the compiler and OS and the hardware (well, that was the idea anyway). I thought that was one of the most significant points ever made at UD (though as I recall no one else seemed to).

Because it was dumb as hell.

Holy shit. This unbelieveably stupid notion was wrestled to the ground at UD [URL=

iology/]here[/URL],  here and   here.  GilDodg'em was reduced to claiming that he was just funnin'.

I got banned somewhere along the way, along with several others.  The tumbleweeds were permitted to stay.

I just had a look at that thread.  I think Tom English got it about right: "I say categorically, as someone who has worked in evolutionary computation for 15 years, that Gil does not understand what he is talking about."

Gil, of course, was the originator of the whole "mutate the OS or you're not doing it right" idea.

Date: 2007/06/22 02:00:12, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 21 2007,15:55)

Why has WAD posted an image of a friar writing on the blackboard while balancing his package on his forehead? Is this metaphorical?

The Friar represents Dembski being repressed by Darwinism.  The reason his "package" is on his forehead is because it just stuck there when he pulled his head out of his ...

Date: 2007/06/22 02:58:43, Link
Author: djmullen
Laugh of the day:

Pharyngula displays the cartoon at
which is about Stupid Design.

I just love the line in the fifth panel: "A malevolent or FEMA-like creator is an intriguing idea - one that should be explored in philosophy or political science class."

I think this would be a good topic for Unconscious Descent: Is the Designer also Director of FEMA?  Or do you think that highly effective Storms of Mass Destruction are just accidental?

Date: 2007/06/27 00:31:58, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 26 2007,12:04)




9:19 am

Johannes Lerle was not convicted for teaching ID. He was not convicted for comparing abortion to the Holocaust. He was convicted for denying the Holocaust, period. If you actually look at the two web pages which formed the basis of the case against him (and can read German), you’ll learn he called Auschwitz a deception, and questioned whether the gas chambers could have killed so many Jews. Like it or not, that’s a crime in Germany.

Now, if it were me, I wouldn’t want to be seen portraying a Holocaust denier as some kind of Christian martyr, but then I’m not a Christian. In any case, you’ve now been informed of the problem; I’ll be watching to see if you fix it.

Expect to see a sflurry of new posts, now the UDites realise what WmAD's done.


Gerard and "Rob" are doing a pretty good job.  Dembski's apparently afraid to ban them.  Bourne continues to make an ass of himself, but that's not news.

Date: 2007/07/06 00:11:20, Link
Author: djmullen
Waaaaay off topic:

Wes, can you go to John Dvorak's blog at

and tell us what kind of bird is taking down what looks like an adult deer?

And also, how to stay the hell out of it's way!  Is there a repellant for those critters?

If it's scrolled off the bottom of Dvorak's blog, the original is at:

Date: 2007/07/07 11:06:50, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2007,11:39)
The next case involving IDC or other labels for DI-labeled and packaged bogus antievolution arguments, I think the pro-science side (the real ones, not the cybersquatters) would miss a trick if they don't call Bill Dembski as a hostile witness.

And give him some ball bearings to hold while he's testifying!

Date: 2007/07/08 23:58:25, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 07 2007,12:31)
Over at UD, crabapple makes me happy that I upgraded my irony meter to the industrial-strength version when he writes (re PvM's critique of Crowther)    
Neither Pim nor any other ID critic I have encountered has ever given an adequate explanation of just what evidence for a designer would look like, or if they have, I have yet to see it.

I had to read that several times, and since my skills at detecting parody websites are suspect, it is possible that I linked to some alternate-universe UD site. But I guess it was my impression that the IDiots were supposed to be providing us with "an adequate explanation of just what evidence for a designer would look like." What am I missing here???

That's an old MikeGene trick.  Whenever he got cornered on ARN, which was fairly often, he'd switch subjects by asking just what kind of evidence would convince the person he was bothering that ID was true.

That would leave most people spluttering and Mike would then announce that evolutionists either wanted impossible proof (if, for instance, the victim asked for something only a God could provide, like an e. coli bacteria with the tune to "Dixie" encoded in it's DNA) or (in the case of spluttering) that evolutionists were so totally blind and bound to their unscientific beliefs that they couldn't even tell the poor ID community what kind of evidence they were looking for.

That's one of the main reasons I don't bother with MikeGene anymore.

The correct answer to the question, by the way, is "Show us what you got."  This seems to be unanswerable by the ID community unless you're willing to accept blathering and BS as an "answer".

Date: 2007/07/11 03:06:28, Link
Author: djmullen
Poor DaveTard:  

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 11 July 2007
Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.

Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.

Perhaps that's why UD is down at this time - they're busy trying to erase that article in "The Independent".  Turns out they don't have a "BAN" button for that.

Date: 2007/07/12 03:09:24, Link
Author: djmullen
Massive New Source of Tard Discovered

I imagine I wasn't the only person who started to worry when my browser couldn't find UD's server for about twelve hours yesterday.  Sad to say, I've developed a pretty strong Tard jones lately and although I'm not mainlining yet, still the thought that Dembski might have come to his senses, burnt his server and sent out a press release saying he had nothing to do with UD and it was some other Dembski at East Jesus Bible Tech and BarBQ that did it chilled me to the bone.  What if the Tard Mine had closed forever??

Well, luckily, the site came back to life around dawn, but still, can we ever really depend on Dembski and UD for our daily Tard needs again?  I don't think so.

But luckily for us all, a brand new source of 200 proof raw, unrefined rotgut Tard has appeared!  Halleujah!  Better yet, it appeared in this month's Skeptic magazine, which will probably still be printing when Dembski and UD have gone to that Big Brazier in the sky.

Skeptic printed, "Two Reviews of The God Delusion", one by Norman Levitt and one by that Zen Tardmaster, Deepak Chopra.  And fellow addicts, this is A1 Prime Quality Tard, Tard fit for a Dembski.  Some examples:

"I presume that any reader of Skeptic Magazine will root for Dawkins and cheer his attack on pseudoscience, mysticism, religious superstition, and all things supernatural.  Which by implication means that there is no rational rebuttal to such an argument as The God Delusion presents."

"I once went to a university debate between an erudite philosopher and a Jesuit priest.  The philosopher stood up and delivered an hour's worth of arguments for why God didn't exist.  The Jesuit stood up and said, 'My mother told me He did, and I believe her.'  The audience gave him a loud round of applause."  

"...I must assume that my readers understand the basics of Darwinian evolution and its description of how life evolved.  The key terms are random mutation, competition, adaption, and survival."

"... to be truly viable, genetics has to be consistent with quantum physics..."

"The ability of objects and events to be everywhere at once seems like an attribute of God - omnipresence.  The ability of electrons separated by millions of light years to 'talk' to each other seems like another attribute of God - omniscience.  This doesn't mean that God explains the universe.  It means that there may be governing forces at work that allow the existence of universal consciousness.  The self-aware universe is a plausible theory.  Many writers have described it, although Dawkins disdains such theories."

"Dawkins argues vociferously that natural selection isn't random - the better adapted species are the one (sic) that survives - but he is equally vociferous that genetic mutation is random..."

"Dawkins argues, as any arch materialist must, that the universe is not conscious.  He holds that humans are conscious because chemicals complexly collide in the brain to proudce a phantom we ignorantly call the mind. ... Common sense finds it hard to take this argument seriously, however, because it leads to nonsense.  The brain contains an enormous amount of water and salt.  Are we to assume that water is intelligent, or salt is conscious?  If they aren't, then we must assume that throwing water and salt together - along with about six other basic building blocks of organic chemicals - suddenly makes them intelligent.  The bald fact is that Dawkins defends an absurd position because he cannot make the leap to a different set of assumptions, such as:

o Consciousness is part of existence.  It wasn't created by molecules.

o Intelligence is an aspect of consciousness.

o Intelligence grows as life grows.  Both evolve from within.

o The universe evolved along intelligent lines.

I realize I have dropped a [TARD]bomb into the discussion."

He goes on for another page and a half, but I have to stop here and just inhale some of this Tard With Gravy.  Get the Vol 13, No 2 issue of Skeptic if you're hungry too.  Hurry, before Sal beats you to it and steals all the best arguments.

Date: 2007/07/13 01:56:19, Link
Author: djmullen
If not, it would be good material for the journal we’ve been talking about informally.

What??  Are they going to start another journal that won't publish for a year at a time because of a "dearth of articles"?

Date: 2007/07/13 02:23:37, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (GCT @ July 12 2007,18:22)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 12 2007,18:48)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2007,17:11)
OOOHH.  I want graphic sex between the bene elohim and the daughters of man to produce those Nephilim dudes.

And that whole "Noah's daughters getting him drunk and trying to screw him" thingie . . . .

Ya know, in all honesty, I don't understand why the porn-meisters haven't made an XXX-rated version of the Bible.  Heck, just in Genesis, there's enough sex to make a 2-hour video.  Beats heck out of "Flesh Gordon".

I think you want to be Lot, not Noah.  Lot got his daughters preggers.  Noah had sons.

If anybody here wants to absolutely laugh their butts off while watching a good, straight forward exposition of (part of) the Old Testament, then you want to get a DVD of "The Real Old Testament", which is surely the funniest Biblical movie ever made.

It's shot as a reality show, where we get to watch episodes from the OT and then the characters are interviewed, documentary style, afterwards.  Lot and his randy daughters are very definitely covered!

Here's a very quick sample of what to expect, including two of the main characters, God (he's the one with the white beard) and the Serpent ("I go by Snake."):

As I recall, it starts in the Garden of Eden, with an introduction to God and then to Adam.  Problems soon arise (from memory):

Adam and God are talking, then...

Adam: "Look!  Sheep!  Excuse me... Hey, Sheep, oh Sheep!  Over here, Sheep!"

Next scene, God is walking alone: "I'm worried about Adam."

Next scene, Eve is born from Adam's rib.  ("I think he's so much happier with Eve than just a full set of ribs.")  Both are nude, by the way, but the naughty bits are blanked out.

Other scenes: Jacob gets screwed working for a wife

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, complete with Lot's Wife ("That's how everybody refers to me.  I have a name, I'm Myra.  Myra Lot.") turning into a pillar of salt

The seduction of Lot by his daughters (Lot: "Who's your daddy, who's your daddy!")

Abram's wife giving him her slave for sex, ("I'm young again!  I'm young again!)

Cain and Abel ("I had a stick and I had a brother I didn't like and you put them together...") and many more scenes I can't remember.

You might also look at:


If you don't love this movie, you're a tard.

Date: 2007/07/17 02:06:17, Link
Author: djmullen
A few months ago DT went on a jag about Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs).  Apparently, he invented them or at least was using them when the world was in short pants or one viciously attacked him at puberty or something.

I mentioned an article I'd seen a few years ago in New Scientist about people who caused a FPGA to evolve into a tone-detecting IC which would cause one pin to go high when one tone was fed into it and a second pin to go high when it received a second tone.

Here's an article on it:

Damn interesting!

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Dvorak Unlimited at

Date: 2007/07/17 23:34:44, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (J-Dog @ July 17 2007,13:55)
 Come on DaveScotty - Remind her that it's better to be dead than red!  Show us some Patriotism - at least ban her ugly butt... unless you're chicken?

Ah, but Dave lives in a RED STATE!  The whole conservaverse has turned commie.  Except for our President and Vice President, who are doing Al Queda's work by making every human being in the world despise America.

Date: 2007/07/23 05:04:03, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ July 20 2007,11:32)
Well, guys n gals, we had a decent run. However the scurrying lickspittle must be dispatched to update the sign on the TardMine floor:

This Facility has operated for 0 days without an irony-meter-related injury

OSHA regs.

Get well soon, Rich. Everybody else, PLEASE adjust the gain on your meters! Tard level is orange. Repeat: tard level is orange. Manual irony filtering is not recommended.

Do you have a gut feeling that Tard will attack this summer?

Date: 2007/07/23 05:29:56, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2007,16:40)
Davetard will Not be pleased.

I love this line: "Two agents (Chris and Steve) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations, San Francisco, arrived unannounced at about 11:30 am, on July 17, 2007 at our pest control office in Sonora California."

Date: 2007/07/23 05:44:24, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 20 2007,18:51)
Dembski's latest:      
Here’s a fun interview with my friend and colleague Robert Marks. I hope you catch from the interview the amibitiousness of the lab and how it promises to put people like Christoph Adami and Rob Pennock out of business (compare with

Let the comparing (DING!) begin!

Ok.  To begin with, all of the people that Dembski pictures on his lab's home page are dead, died without ever hearing of ID and are unable to protest being used to front an intellectual fake.  The rest appear to have been quote mined.  And, given Dembski's history with David Wolpert, I'm really surprised that Dembski dared feature his name there.  I wonder how he would respond to Wolpert's demanding that his name be removed?

The people at Devolab are all alive, presumably approve of being listed as lab supporters and appear rather distinguished.

Meanwhile, the people at Baylor must think "bad penny" every time Dembski re-appears at their door.

Date: 2007/07/23 06:01:51, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 23 2007,00:12)
But I'd better not try to reverse-engineer this.  They'll sic some patent lawyers onto me:

If they do, just claim it evolved naturally.


Naw!  Claim that Goddidit and threaten them with eternal hell-fire unless they repent and admit that you are right about everything.

Date: 2007/07/23 23:35:38, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Kristine @ July 23 2007,19:31)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 23 2007,18:02)
I dunno how many of you have seen this, but a commenter on Pharyngula today just made my day. Here is a link to a DI news release. Enjoy!

I saw it. I was eating. I got the hiccups. I nearly choked on my food. If I had, I would have died happy. I think the person responsible, "garth," has located his altruism, Dr. Egnor! :)

Now I need someone to scare me to get me to stop hiccupping, because once I start I continue all day. :p We'll see what the UDudes come up with. Skair me! Go on! I want you to! Booga booga!

You need a good scare?  Oh!  If only I hadn't destroyed that nude picture of DaveTard.  You'd never hiccup again!  Of course, you might never do anything again if it gave you a heart attack, so maybe it's just as well.

Date: 2007/07/24 08:10:45, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 23 2007,13:04)
A professional journalist
has written:
At Mindful Hack I have put up some information from a neurosurgeon on what the mind obviously isn’t merely the brain.

Unfortunately, there's nothing at all funny about the title:
Just how much brain do you need? Could you use that space for something else?

There's no way you lot are going to get a humo[u]rous jibe at Ms. O'Leary's expense out of that, is there?


Oh, this is Good Tard!  Feast on this: (describing brain surgeon Wilder Penfield probing a brain to find the speech centers and other places you don't want to cut out)
His insights are fascinating. He found that he could elicit all kinds of things from electrically stimulating the brain- memories, emotions, movements of the body, etc. The mental processes elicited were remarkably vivid.Yet in all instances, patients knew that the evoked response was not caused by their own will. Penfield called it 'double consciousness'. Patients always saw the response from a third person perspective, as well as experiencing the response in the first person. Patients always knew that the response was done to them, not by them. Penfield noted that patients always experienced their own responses as observers, as well as participants, and they could always distinguish their own coincident experience from the simultaneous induced response. There always remained a first-person subjectivity that was untouched by electrical stimulation of the brain.

Amazing!  People laying on an operating table with half their skulls sawn off and a surgeon poking electrified wires into their brains realized that the ancient memories that flashed into their minds were caused by somebody doing something to them!

You know, I think that Denyse O'Leary may be the only person in the whole wide world to be surprised by that.

Date: 2007/07/25 01:07:56, Link
Author: djmullen
J. G. Cox:      
Doesn't the current scientific research that the systems in the brain which make decisions about muscular movements, integrate sensory data, etc. are entirely separate from the system(s) which assigns those actions to the 'self.' Thus people with damage to certain parts of the brain believe that things that they perceive happening to other people (such as being touched) are happening to themselves, or others who believe that actions being performed by their own bodies are done at the direction of someone else. Is O'Leary not familiar with even that old research which showed that one part of the brain 'decides' to do a certain physical action before the person is even aware of making the decision? (Sorry, don't have time to find the links at the moment). These research subjects being aware that they were not in command of the psychological/behavioral phenomena which they were experiencing is not terribly surprising (although cool) given what is known.
Oh well, I suppose that you couldn't ask a science journalist to have a passing familiarity with the science upon which she comments.

No, I wouldn't expect too much from O'Leary when it comes to anything "sciencey".  

Regarding the "delayed consciousness", here's some info on that.

Number 5 is the classic test - subjects press a button and are surprised to see that the slide changes just before they press the button!  Turns out the button is a fake and the slide show was actually triggered by signals picked up from their cortex.  Evidently, the cortex "decides" to push the button, the signal is sent to the motor areas of the brain and signals to the various muscles in the finger emerge a fraction of a second later.  But in normal life, consciousness is "post dated" an equal amount of time so we are not conscious of our decision until the signals are sent to our fingers, a fraction of a second after we decide to press the button.

But you see, our real brains are in a vat orbiting Arcturus and that delay is the normal sub-etheric transit time for those sorts of signals.  ID predicted that and Denyse will explain it all in simple but incoherant words in her next book, which you can buy at the Intelligent Design for Business Seminar at Baylor.

Date: 2007/07/26 00:33:08, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 25 2007,18:42)
LoL! Denise opines
Shhhh!! It means that Darwinism is, like, dead.
What a top class journalist. Shame she has to make up the news.

From that link, a new entry in The Evolution and Intelligent Design Encyclopedia:
Brain - anachronistic junk? (Tyler)
"According to David Linden, the brain is a product of the tinkering blind watchmaker espoused by Darwinist biologists. Unfortunately, few readers will realise that this "central thesis" is a deduction from dogma and not empirical evidence. The data that is discussed is perfectly capable of being understood within a design perspective, including the tendency for our minds to distort reality and to act foolishly."

Yes, especially including the tendency for your  minds to distort reality and to act foolishly.

Date: 2007/07/28 06:21:56, Link
Author: djmullen
19 August 2005
My Retirement from Intelligent Design
William Dembski

The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I’ve done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world.

I hear that Dembski was responsible for all of the intelligence and planning on Iraq

Date: 2007/07/29 09:15:54, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ July 28 2007,19:37)
I haven't even had a chance to read this article yet, I just got this issue today, and already Grandma Bonehead is trying to ruin it for me:

Apes R Not Us, and we have to get used to it

In a beautifully written article in the New Yorker, Ian Parker describes how he shared the hot, damp work of studying the elusive bonobo (lesser chimpanzee) - long lauded as sexy and peaceful - with one of the only people in the world who actually knows much about them in the wilds.

Well, people who actually studied the “hippie ape”, came away with a different view.

Posted in Intelligent Design | No Comments »

Did you read "Dean of Death Row" in the same issue?  It's about recently retired Vernell Crittendon, who was in charge of all executions at San Quentin for the last decade or two.  Here's a chilling paragraph:
Crittendon's approval, on the other hand, can open doors.  Of the fifteen lifers he originally used in Real Choices [a 'scared straight' type program that uses cons to talk to 'troubled youths' about crime] four have been parolled, an unusually high percentage.  Crittendon had written to the Board of Parole Hearings on those inmates' behalf because each met his five criteria: being responsible while at San Quentin; pursuing an education; serving as a volunteer; having a solid support system on the outside; and believing in God or a higher power.  He asked Jerry Dean Stipe, a bearded Vietnam veteran known as Wolf, to be a co-founder of Real Choices - yet he didn't write a letter for Stipe, he told me, "because he was an atheist."  Crittendon said, "Without a belief in something larger than yourself, you backslide."

Christian mercy.  Read all about it in the July 30, 2007 "New Yorker".

Date: 2007/08/01 06:18:41, Link
Author: djmullen
O'Leary backpeddles like crazy on Bonobos.


Seems she got a bit more of a reply than she asked for from Susan Block, a primatologist who (surprise!) knows a bit more about the subject than O'Leary:

Of course, with fame comes defamation. So I wasn’t surprised to see Ian Parker gently but firmly attempting to deflate the bouyant, mystical aura of the bonobo in the esteemed pages of The New Yorker, subtly deriding the work of some of the bonobos’ best friends in the human world, and hinting ominously that his article would be debunking the central ideas of what I call “The Bonobo Way.”

But in the end, Parker’s article debunks nothing. He gives a few examples of bonobos committing acts of violence, but not murder, at least not with any real evidence. No one has ever said bonobos are angels, just that as primates, they are relatively peaceful. They have never been observed engaging in calculated murder or organized warfare such as has been observed in common chimps and, of course, humans. Parker’s piece doesn’t include anything even approaching a bonobo war party. Interestingly, almost all of the examples of violence mentioned in the article are perpetrated by females, buttressing the notion that females rule, at least in certain vital areas of life in Bonoboland.

My Favorite:  
Hohmann’s oddest observation is about female bonobo “g-g rubbing,” genito-genital rubbing, “hoka-hoka,” or what Parker refers to as “frottage,” when one female rubs her swollen vulva against the vulva of another. Hohman and his team have observed this numerous times, as have many other primatologists. “But does it have anything to do with sex?” Hohman asks and then answers himself, “Probably not.”

Since when is rubbing engorged genitalia against your partner’s engorged genitalia, often while embracing, French-kissing and/or having what looks like an orgasm, not “sex”? Is Hohmann limiting his definition of “sex” only to intercourse? That is hardly appropriate for a creature that is known for engaging in sex for pleasure (including what we might call “bisexuality”) more than reproduction.

To Denyse's credit, I can't even imagine Dembski eating this much crow, unless he had a court order requiring it.

Date: 2007/08/02 00:59:52, Link
Author: djmullen
Freudian Slip Department:



6:25 am
PPS: I think Mr O’Leary’s take here will also be helpful.

Date: 2007/08/02 02:24:50, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 01 2007,14:47)
You can't get enough of that Good Sal stuff?
Don't Click here

If you see me supposedly accept something as true, it may not be that I actually believe it, but I accept it only for the sake of argument in order to disprove it. If you google on "proof by contradiction" hopefully you'll have a better grasp of my line of argumentation.

As far as the 10,000 figure, it is only a personal opinion and not a scientific one, based on the geneology of Christ.

Sal has his own Ban Button now!

Here there be Tard          
Tiggy was not honoring the spirit of the forum rules. He is free to start threads here and if anyone wants to listen to him, they can. Thread starters are under no obligation to host participants on a thread who will not honor simple requests such as sticking to the topic at hand, or even showing courtesy to a thread starters wishes.

In that vein, so as to let Tiggy still have his say, but to keep the discussion orderly, I split Tiggy off to his own thread here: Tiggy's C-14 Independent lines of evidence. Everyone interested in what he has to say is invited to hear his side of the story.

However, with respect to this thread, he is un-invited. He is free of course to reciprocate and uninvite me from his thread.

This whole thread is Salvadorian in quality and anyone with at least a Class 30b TardFilter or better is invited to read it. [Pregnant and lactating women should observe the Standard Precautions.]  Sal begins by posting a pretty colored picture of a graph titled "Aspartic Acid Racemization Constant versus the Standard Geologic Timescale Associated Fossil Age"

It plots something apparently having to do with racemization for "Shell, Total Content", "Shell, Free Component", "Coral", "Bone", "Wood" and "Dung" (Yes, dung.  Don't ask.) and, as I say the colors are very pretty.  The horizontal axis is calibrated from 100 to 10 million years.  The vertical axis is calibrated from 0.01 to 10 and labeled "Racemization Constant".  

WTF all this has to do with Carbon 14, which only works to 70,000 years if you have an excellent sample and the very latest equipment I don't know and I don't think Sal does either.

Sal tells us that, "In 2004 some of my personal research augmented that of Loma Linda/GRI (the finest YEC organization on the planet)."  Please don't laugh.  The young man is trying to make a point.  He goes on to say, "Loma Linda/GRI is a real university with a hospital and staff of YEC scientists."  (Imagine!)  Furthermore, "The scientists in 2004 even made the cover of the prestigious scientific journal Geology....." (You can almost hear Darwinism crumbling.)

Sal further informs us that, "For example look at the BLUE dots slanted downward. This means C-14 is off."  How the f___ he comes to that conclusion, I don't know, since the blue dots start at about the 50,000 year mark and continue to about 5 million years.  I would invite Mr. Cordova to tell us how this squares with the 0-70,000 year range of carbon dating, but I don't want to be known as the man who triggered a Class 15 Interterrestrial Tard Rip with Oak Leaf Cluster.

Sal does have a ready explanation, of course: "I concluded the C-14 dates may as well have been pulled out of the air! And in fact it came as no surprise that one of the researchers who provided some of the dates did in fact pull them out of the air!"  And he goes on to name names of the miscreant who provides the bad data and provides a link to that well known Scientific Journal, WorldNutDaily to back that claim up.  Unfortunately, the data that Sal is discrediting is the data that Sal is presenting to us as confirming his er... theory.  I mean, he does say, "If C-14 dates were accurate, we would see the dots below line up horizontally, not slanted down."  And they do slant down, thus "disproving" carbon-14 dating.  Yet some of that slanting down data was pulled out of the air and Sal explicitly says that the data that proves Sal's point was plucked out of the air ... my head is spinning.

Unfortunately, after the Opening Post, things go downhill rapidly.

Date: 2007/08/02 03:04:06, Link
Author: djmullen
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]


Hermagoras: "I've been traveling for a couple of days and my crappy motel didn't have an internet connection in my room.  (The Comfort Inn in Newark, Delaware is a fleabag horror-show)."

Sorry, Mate, but THIS is a crappy motel:  About fifteen years ago, my Aunt and Uncle wanted to go to Oregon to visit some friends and also see their daughter in Great Falls, Montana on the way.  My mother decided to go along and I was "invited" to join them and handle the baggage and do all the driving.  So we took Amtrak (which was only six hours late leaving Wisconsin, a record, I hear) from Wisconsin to Great Falls, then rented a car and drove to some national park, then took a train, then a car and finally we ended up I don't remember exactly where, but it was a medium sized city where my Uncle (who, bless his departed soul was rather tight with a buck) had made a reservation at a Super-8 motel.

I found the address on a map and started tracking towards it and we couldn't help notice that the town, which shall remain nameless because I can't remember it, started out looking kind of pretty, but as we drove on it was starting to look rather ... industrial.  Low rent industrial.  And the closer we got to Ground-8, the more low rent and industrial things got.

We finally found the Super-8 motel and I swear, it had a refinery behind it, a quarry/rock crushing plant to one side of it and something that smelled like a skunk rendering plant on the other side.  The front faced a freeway interchange (with 24 hour semi traffic, of course).

We checked in ("Find another motel?  But we have reservations here!") and the place seemed to have been made by parking a bunch of double-wide trailers next to one another and punching a hallway through them.  The surface of the floor varied up and down by at least eight inches as we walked to our room (which was on the rock-crushing end of the motel).  I couldn't help but notice that our room (me and mom- don't ask) also had a floor that listed perceptibly, but that was okay because I like to sleep with my head higher than my feet.  So we all went to sleep.

We were awakened at about 6:30 am by a loud, piercing shriek coming from the connecting door that led to my aunt and uncle's room.  The loud, piercing shriek turned out to be coming from my aunt.  She had woken up, walked into the bathroom and stepped into something wet.  She turned on the bathroom light and discovered that the sewers had backed up and every bowel movement that every inhabitant of that cursed motel had taken in the last two weeks had gurgled out of the toilet and all over the bathroom floor and half of their bedroom floor.  (That was about the time the shriek started.)  When I got there, I noted that the bathtub was about two thirds full too.  My aunt was and is rather fastidious (think O'Leary, but with a sense of humor) and stepping into three inches of crap upset her a tad.  As did discovering that she had the remains of a turd squished between her toes.  IIRC, she didn't stop shrieking until exhaustion and fumes from the bathroom overcame her.

We left that enchanting place as soon as four people could use the one remaining non-BMed bathroom (and my aunt could pry the rest of the turd from between her toes) and my final view of that wonderful Super-8 motel, which was in my rear-view mirror as we headed for the freeway at about a hundred miles an hour, was of the sewage truck sucking out their cesspool.

Now THAT is a bad motel!

We now return you to your regular programming where I invite you to note the top of the page where young Salvador Cordova, YEC, reminds us all that his blog is "Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe(sic) and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Inteligent Design".

Now don't go calling ID Creationism again, you heathens!

Date: 2007/08/02 23:57:13, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 01 2007,14:12)
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 01 2007,12:40)
Sal: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)

From the Crackpot Index.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

40 points for including a known crank (Setterfield) in the name.  Possibly 60 points, depending on who Cheesman is.

Date: 2007/08/05 12:13:38, Link
Author: djmullen
John W: "Cows are insects."

Two words: Cow swatter.

Date: 2007/08/05 12:39:47, Link
Author: djmullen
Tribune 7 speaks:  
Now there is room for improvement, but you have to admit it is an interesting and worthy endeavor. Since, you have a background in statistics get in now on the pioneering stage and you might be mentioned in a textbook 120 years down the road.

"Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" Martin Gardner, 1957.

Date: 2007/08/14 00:51:19, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2007,22:07)
Sal Cordova:

Thanks Sal. I'll have a mushroom burrito and 2 power crystals, please. He even manages to get a deliberate lie in there - it must be he trademark.

That link 404s now.  Can't those people even run a blog?

Date: 2007/08/16 01:38:51, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 15 2007,11:22)
Gil gets theomological:
? ? ? ?
Cosmological ID — Who Designed the Designer?

Some insights can totally change one’s perspective. One of those insights for me was learning that time had a beginning at the origin of the universe. (Oops, “beginning” implies a point on the time line, so let’s change that to “a point of appearing.”) If time came into existence, then the cause of the universe could not have had a cause, or a history, or a beginning, or a designer, because all of these require that the cause of the universe be located on the time line of the universe, which did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. (Oops, can’t use “prior to” because that implies time.)

Thus, the question of who designed the designer is meaningless when it comes to the origin of the universe. The designer must be “it is that it is,” or if “it” is personal, “I am that I am.”

I realize that this twists one’s brain into a Mobius strip, but it does make sense if you think about it.

If moebius strip is the best you can muster, this may make sense. Those of us capable of being everted into a Klein Bottle understand the actual import of your musing is that the assertion of a cosmological "designer" is itself meaningless.

Look at the response from saxe17: Pure Tard! ?  
I don?t believe the concept of cause and effect dictates every cause requires a cause. It only requires that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause. Where does one get the idea that every cause necessarily belongs to an antecedent cause? The concept of infinite causes being mandatory is illogical and also just plain silly.
And thank you, Mr. saxe17. ?May I ask if you use a bong or roll your own?

Date: 2007/08/17 03:29:06, Link
Author: djmullen
Got them GilDodgen time-line blues: ?
Some insights can totally change one?s perspective. One of those insights for me was learning that time had a beginning at the origin of the universe. (Oops, "beginning" implies a point on the time line, so let's change that to "a point of appearing.") If time came into existence, then the cause of the universe could not have had a cause, or a history, or a beginning, or a designer, because all of these require that the cause of the universe be located on the time line of the universe, which did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. (Oops, can?t use "prior to" because that implies time.)

1: "(Oops, "beginning" implies a point on the time line, so let?s change that to "a point of appearing.")"

Oops - the beginning of a time line IS a point on the time line.

2: "If time came into existence, then the cause of the universe could not have had a cause, or a history, or a beginning, or a designer, because all of these require that the cause of the universe be located on the time line of the universe, which did not exist prior to the creation of the universe."

Oops. Something external to this universe, such as a meta-universe, could create this universe and its time line.

Thus, the question of who designed the designer is meaningless when it comes to the origin of the universe. The designer must be "it is that it is," or if "it" is personal, "I am that I am."

I realize that this twists one's brain into a Mobius strip, but it does make sense if you think about it.

That depends entirely on what drugs you're taking and how much you're using. ?Just a word of caution - ID is a very potent drug that has claimed lots of victims. ?It feels great at first, but it soon begins to rot your brain and corrupt your morals. ?I recommend you at least consider getting a medical checkup and attending a few ID-anonymous meetings.

Date: 2007/08/17 03:33:39, Link
Author: djmullen
Is anybody else getting a lot of extraneous question marks and other trash when quoting from UD?

Date: 2007/08/18 06:33:29, Link
Author: djmullen
Bob O'H quotes Denyse:  
The basic problem, in my view, is that Behe outclasses Dawkins. Behe is a working biochemist who knows exactly what Darwinian evolution has and hasn?t done. Unlike Dawkins, who has contributed nothing of substance to science for many years, he does not make Darwinian evolution a substitute for religion. So it is safe for him to know what it can and cannot do.

Jesus H on a bicycle! ?First coffee gushes out my nose, then uncontrollable laughter, falling on the floor, roaring with laughter until my sides ache, fighting for breath, passing out and finally I wake laying in a puddle of drool and find that my irony meter has exploded and set the dog on fire. ?DON'T DO THAT again without sufficient warning! ?Maybe play a recording of the klaxons on those WWII submarines, or something. ?"Tard! ?Tard! ?Tard! ?Flood forward ballast tanks! ?Planes full down! ?Tard! ?Tard! ?Tard!"

Now where's that dog extinguisher...

Date: 2007/08/18 06:35:07, Link
Author: djmullen
Hmmm... now those question marks didn't involve cutting and pasting at all.  Did something change on the last upgrade?

Date: 2007/08/20 04:59:05, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2007,21:29)

Denyse says:


Can you believe it? Darwinism is obviously in ruins, and they would actually make a statement like THAT?

For a journalist, Denyse is a terrible writer. Really substandard.

For a journalist, Denyse seems to publish mostly in religious magazines, an occasional trade journal and one co-write with a Canadian Dr. Egnor.

Date: 2007/08/23 03:08:57, Link
Author: djmullen
On the other hand, it is the [b]classical theist</b> in this regard who is at a loss to explain why he believes his thoughts - he, after all, posits the existence of the great deceiver Satan!  A being so devious he makes *good seem evil and evil seem good* - and the theist, being fallible, [b]has no way to discern between the lies of Satan and the goodness of God.
Excellent post, Franky.

This is a bit OT, but since our president has come out in favor of teaching ID, I think it's fair to point something out:

President Bush is pretty well on record as believing that he's following the commands of God with regard to Iraq, terrorism, etc.  Let's assume that some supernatural entity actually IS giving Bush commands and he's following them.

Given how following those commands has killed upwards of a half a million people, bankrupted the United States, earned Bush the well deserved ranking as the very worst president in history, convinced the entire sentient world that the United States is the biggest threat to peace in existence and sunk his party, hopefully for good, does anybody care to speculate on which supernatural entity is giving Bush his orders?

Date: 2007/08/23 04:31:47, Link
Author: djmullen
I haven't read "Edge of Evolution" yet, but from what I've seen in reviews, Behe comes pretty close to identifying The Designer with The Devil, at least with regard to nasty designs like the Malaria bug.

More News: RBH nails Sal:
Years ago when I was posting on ARN I regarded Sal as a reasonably honest but deeply ignorant run of the mill creationist. Having watched him sink over the years, I now regard him as a an irredeemably immoral intellectual slut.
I can but bow to superior wisdom and agree.

Date: 2007/08/24 06:19:08, Link
Author: djmullen
Denise reveals the truth: ?
Laboratory research confirms telepathy as a low level effect, and has done so for decades.
Proof:CSICOP changed their name to CSI.

Date: 2007/08/29 00:13:00, Link
Author: djmullen
Scordova at Young Cosmos:
I started getting interested in ID in 2001 when my father was terminally ill and I was searching for meaning in life. There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith. It bothered my conscience that if the Bible were false, I was merely encouraging them toward their doom. One of the missionaries was Heather Mercer who became world famous in 2001 when US Army rangers rescued her from the Taliban. Thus, I had to be assured that ID was probably true so I could sleep at night, for their sake. If ID were false, the moral thing to do would be to discourage them from being missionaries.


Sal, if the Bible is true, then you ought to be smuggling Bibles into Afghanistan right now. ?Slacker.

Date: 2007/08/29 00:20:09, Link
Author: djmullen
Whoever did the recent server work, I think you've got the wrong alphabet installed - hence the extra question marks we're getting.

Date: 2007/08/31 00:16:21, Link
Author: djmullen
Salvador tells the simple truth:

"...I'm just a dumb uneducated dolt who has an overinflated view of himself..."

And I'm not quote mining.  Check it yourself at

Date: 2007/08/31 00:20:20, Link
Author: djmullen
Granville S. asks:  
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: ?If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference??
Why should it? ?Evolution can produce irreducibly complexity. ?Ever hear of scaffolding? ?Co-opting? ?Dropping needless components? ?You haven't? ?TARD!

Date: 2007/08/31 00:45:34, Link
Author: djmullen
We've really got to do something about these extraneous question marks.

Meanwhile, "One Species? Genome Discovered Inside Another?s"


Scientists at the University of Rochester and the J. Craig Venter Institute have discovered a copy of the genome of a bacterial parasite residing inside the genome of its host species.

The research, reported in today?s Science, also shows that lateral gene transfer?the movement of genes between unrelated species?may happen much more frequently between bacteria and multicellular organisms than scientists previously believed, posing dramatic implications for evolution, pest, and disease control.

Seems there's a parasite called Wolbachia, which "has implanted itself inside the cells of 70 percent of the world?s invertebrates". Now they've "found at least one species where the parasite?s entire or nearly entire genome has been absorbed and integrated into the host?s. The host?s genes actually hold the coding information for a completely separate species.?

Didn't I mention something about co-option in my last message? ?Here it is, on a grand scale. ?Lynn Margulis is going to win a Nobel prize yet!

Thanks to for the tip

Date: 2007/09/01 11:01:55, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 01 2007,08:51)
Casey Luskin brings down the Evolutionary Informatics Lab:

O'Leary gives us a few hints on the ID death wish

Hint 1: Baylor kicks Dembski out and Marks brings him back in.

Hint 2: Marks is told that his lab is closed and he gets a lawyer and invites Baylor to have their lawyer meet with him.

Yep, bringing back a third rate "scholar" the university fought to get rid of and threatening a law suit are very definitely the ways to do science. As Sam Spade said to Wilmer, "This'll put you in solid with your boss."

Date: 2007/09/01 11:08:55, Link
Author: djmullen
This is too rich.  David Heddle has teamed up with Salvadore Cordova!

Look at "Hector, Hector, Hector", "Reply to Dave Mullenix" and "Another Awful Comment".

The last thing you ever want to hear when you're in a intellectual dog-fight:

Salvadore Cordova: "Don't worry, I've got your back!"

P.S. Dave Heddle, there was a reason why Jesus came down so hard on hating your enemies.

Date: 2007/09/01 11:59:20, Link
Author: djmullen
Hey, Denyse! I read your [URL=

fatal/]article[/URL] on how Baylor kicked the Evolutionary Informatics Lab off-campus. I've got an idea on how to get that lab back into action:

Baylor wasn't providing any actual support for the lab, right? No money, no lab space, nothing like that, right? And they didn't approve of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab web site being on their server either, right? Apparently Marks put it on a Baylor server without asking first. (Technically, this may be a felony, but hey, he's on the Baylor faculty and it's all in the cause of ID Science, so we'll cut him some slack.)

So since Baylor didn't actually support the Lab, all you need is a host for the lab's web site.

May I suggest that ISCID host the Evolutionary Informatics lab. They don't seem to have much traffic on their web site, so they can easily handle the EIL load. And I think their PCID journal should be able to handle what will surely be the voluminous output of the EI Lab, since it doesn't seem to have found enough ID-supporting material to publish even a single issue for the last year or two.

ISCID-PCID-Evolutionary Informatics Lab. Sounds like a marriage made in heaven to me! Best of all, Dembski seems is a co-founder of ISCID, so he's sure to give his own Lab's web site a warm welcome.

Date: 2007/09/05 01:32:05, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 04 2007,16:01)
Just had another thought...

The whole Dembksi / UD / ID saga is perfect for TV. ?

It's got pathos, gross stupidity, a guy everyone loves to hate... another guy everyone loves to hate... well, it's got A LOT OF GUYS (including Denyse) that people love to hate...

The zany UD madcaps are always in trouble, and hilarity ensues. ?Every week, Demsbksi and his "Igor" (DaveScot) try to get into another university, but just like Gilligan and his crew never got off the island, UD et al, never get in another University!

Standing joke: ?Casey Luskin (played by himself, cuz no one else could be as whiney) trying to say something smart, but it always comes out dumb... "Casey You struck out" will be the line on everyone's lips for the whole first season.

Call the show "Trainwrecked" and you've got yourself a winner!

In honor of stevestory's first post in the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread, call it "Everlasting Trainwrecked".

Date: 2007/09/07 01:27:57, Link
Author: djmullen
The Baylor administration is in a tight spot. They can still stop the bleeding by simply doing what they should have done from the start, namely, allow Robert Marks to leave the EIL site on his space on the Baylor server. Once media outlets like the NYT and WSJ start weighing in, to say nothing of O?Reilly and Hannity & Coombs, there won?t be any way to stop the bleeding. In fact, at that point I wouldn?t be surprised if the Baylor Board of Regents puts the present president out to pasture ? that?s what they did with Sloan, they made him Chancellor, a well-paying nice-sounding meaningless job with no real authority.

The sheer overwhelming block-headedness of Bill Dembski continues to amaze! ?Bill, ask yourself one question: WHY did the Baylor Board of Regents put president Sloan out to pasture? ?Answer: Because he hired YOU! ?Do you seriously expect his replacement to let you back in?

Has anybody ever heard of Asberger Syndrome? ?It's sort of a milder case of autism. ?It's characterized mostly by difficulties in understanding and getting along with other human beings. ?AS sufferers are often highly intelligent (WAD entered college a year early - though he also flunked out.) ?Wikipedia says they are also attracted to computer science and mathematics. ?(WAD has a PhD in mathematics.)

Here are some things Wikipedia says about people with AS. ?Does this remind you of anybody you know?:

"AS is characterized in the DSM-IV by impairments in social interaction and restricted interests and behaviors.

"Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody and intonation, and motor clumsiness are typical of the condition..." ?

Has anybody ever heard WAD speak? ?How was his intonation and prosody (rhythm, emphasis and similar aspects of speech)? ?Did he trip on anything?

"individuals with AS "have considerable verbal ability, they fail to utilize language appropriately in social interactions" (UCLA's Kasari and Rotheram-Fuller).

"These are kids who talk before they walk," according to Fred Volkmar, the director of the Yale Child Study Center." ?

"... one of the most striking features of individuals with AS is their passionate pursuit of specific areas of interest" ?

"...the lack of empathy demonstrated by AS patients is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of the syndrome". ?

"People with AS may find themselves socially isolated, although unlike those with autism, they are not usually withdrawn around others; they approach others, even if awkwardly, for example by engaging in a one-sided, long-winded speech about an unusual topic while being insensitive to or unaware of the other person?s feelings or reactions, such as signs of boredom or wanting to leave."

If Dembski has a mild case of AS, that would explain a lot about him.

Meanwhile, President Lilley, being a Christian, undoubtedly says his prayers every night before bed. ?I'll bet a common prayer nowadays goes something like, "Jesus, get this weasel OUT OF HERE! Please don't let him destory my career like he did President Sloan's!"

Date: 2007/09/07 04:41:21, Link
Author: djmullen
keiths - Right. ?Dembski just doesn't seem to understand how people's minds work.

Date: 2007/09/10 04:22:15, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 07 2007,08:02)
Quote (djmullen @ Sep. 07 2007,01:27)
If Dembski has a mild case of AS, that would explain a lot about him.

Is this a typo? ?Doesn't it make more sense to make that If Dembski has a wild case of AS, that would explain a lot about him?

But seriously, good catch and diagnosis - so, how are we coming along on the cure? ?And is DaveScot part of the problem, or part of the cure?

We'll know more about Dave's prognosis after the 30 gallon enema therapy.

Date: 2007/09/10 05:00:33, Link
Author: djmullen
"Salvador" Cordova:

"I'm listed at Hopkins under the last name 'Cordova', but you'll see me under my birth name, not under 'Salvador'."

So what is Mr. Cordova's real first name?

My guess?  L. Ron Cordova.

Anybody else got an idea?


Date: 2007/09/11 03:37:28, Link
Author: djmullen
Ben Stein, our favorite actor/comedian/voice-over artist for Fake Films, Inc., published an an exceptionally fatuous column in the New York Times on Sept. 9th.  The gist of his column is, "If I were the editor of the business section for just one day, I would run one immense headline: 'Everything Is Going to Be Fine. Go Back to Work.'"
Andrew Leonard of Salon and Felix Salmon of take him apart.  Leonard also recommends we read Martin Feldstein's closing remarks given at a Federal Reserve Conference.

Ben Stein sounds exactly like the kind of guy who should narrate a pro-ID movie!

Date: 2007/09/11 03:38:24, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (dochocson @ Sep. 10 2007,21:53)
Okay, Uncommon Descent is returning an error. Is this a common WordPress problem, or has our nefarious cabal brought Dembski to his knees?

That's pretty much S.O.P. at U.D. these days.  Unfortunately, they'll be back before dawn.

Date: 2007/09/12 01:01:15, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 11 2007,15:31)
IIRC, the SETI FAQ discusses how signal content is lost based on distance and power, and that by only looking for the narrowband carrier, they can expand their search radius for signals to something like 3000 light years. If they limited their search to signals to those where content could be recovered, the search radius would be a fraction of that.

IOW, the odds are that if SETI is successful, it will be because they picked up evidence of a narrowband carrier from a source too distant to extract content from.

If SETI finds narrowband carriers, then they've discovered a civilization that's not much more advanced than ours.  

In a standard AM transmitter, the carrier takes one half of the total power transmitted and it is a pure waste of energy.  The receivers beat/mix the sidebands with the carrier to recover the original modulation.  If you can generate a carrier locally, in the receiver, you can beat/mix the sidebands with it and the transmitter can stop transmitting the carrier and save the energy.

Single sideband transmitters and recievers do just that.  The transmitter just transmits one sideband and the receiver generates a signal to mix with it and the original audio pops out.

Presently, the earth is transmitting scads of high powered narrow band carrier signals.  They're called television stations.  That are all scheduled to go to digital modulation in a couple of years and that will be the end of their carrier signals because the digital transmitters don't waste energy transmitting them.

That would leave FM radio stations as just about the only source of carriers that make it through the atmosphere and they won't last much longer.  HD radio is ready to replace them as soon as enough people are equipped to receive them.  The HD signals don't transmit carriers either.  

Then there will only be high powered radars searching for incoming ballistic missiles for alien SETI researchers to hunt for.  Hopefully we'll get rid of the missiles soon and then the radars won't have anything to look for, so they'll be turned off.  What's that - about a 150 year window for a civilization to be easily detectable?

Date: 2007/09/13 02:36:24, Link
Author: djmullen
TARD FIGHT!  Who's got tickets to England?

From the hallowed halls of UD:      
Mary Midgley to debate ID in the UK, October 3rd, Kings College, London
The odd thing is that, thick as she is, even Mary Midgley realizes that ID is creationism.  However, she also hates Richard Dawkins, so I guess that's why Paul Nelson is pimping her.  

Midgley is a longtime lecturer in Philosophy at Newcastle upon Tard, where she has been a constant source of embarassment to that University, although not as big an irritant as Dembski has been to poor Baylor.  (For instance, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever been fired for hiring her.)  She hit the absolute peak of her career in 1979 when she published an attack on Richard Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" entitled "Gene-Juggling" which opened with this deathless paragraph:
Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological. This should not need mentioning, but Richard Dawkins’s book The Selfish Gene has succeeded in confusing a number of people about it, including Mr J. L. Mackie.

As it turned out, the person most confused by Dawkins was one Mary Midgley.  After slogging through most of a long paragraph of pure Tard, we find that she believes that      
...he resorts to arguing from speculations about the emotional nature of genes, which he treats as the source and archetype of all emotional nature.

Yes, she actually thought that Dawkins was arguing that genes have emotions!  She thus won the right to moderate Uncommon Descent over twenty years before UD was born, and the non-Tard portion of the philosophical world has spent the last twenty eight years trying not to laugh out loud.

With an intellect like that, it's a natural that the Dawkins hating ID world would latch onto her and not surprising that Nelson would be promoting her, but ID is so far off the rails that even Midgley can see through it and "...suggests that it does not have a place in the Science curriculum but may have a home in the Religious Education." (Ouch!)

Nelson may be attracted to this, however:        
She also discusses the work of prominent advocates of natural selection and suggests that, although natural selection is, in essentials, a scientific research programme, it has accreted metaphysical doctrines through the interpretation of some commentators such as Richard Dawkins and is, therefore, not entirely unproblematic as a candidate for the Science curriculum. Some of the claims of the supporters of versions of natural selection, she holds, might more properly belong in the Religious Education curriculum alongside Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Translation: Dawkins feels that evolution answers one of the Great Questions that Religion claims to answer, namely where did we come from, so to Midgley natural selection is a religious idea!  
...also believes that she is "lucky" to have missed out in having to undertake a PhD. She argues that one of the main flaws in doctoral training is that, while it "shows you how to deal with difficult arguments", it does not "help you to grasp the big questions that provide its context - the background issues out of which the small problems arose"

Link  Well, fair's fair and Dr. Dr. William A. Dempski has certainly proven that a PhD or even multiple PhDs are no guarantee of clear thinking, but I must say that Midgley's grasp of the bigger questions leaves a lot to be desired.

TravelZoo is advertising round trip airfare to London and 6 nights lodging for only $499.  If my passport renewal wasn't stuck in the crapstorm caused by requiring passports to enter Canada and Mexico, I'd be really tempted to witness this debate.

Date: 2007/09/14 00:38:01, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2007,10:50)
Before ID, he was tarding up some other fora...

Games design or something.

google "david springer" dell

I'm sure other combinations of "david springer" and whatever will be equally tasty.

Date: 2007/09/14 00:50:56, Link
Author: djmullen
After ID has defeated the Evil Darwinsit cabal, I predict a HUGE career ahead for Joseph is the exciting world of politics as aRepublican spokesman...

Date: 2007/09/14 01:53:01, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2007,13:15)
Buy my book:

Denyse, you are such a fibber!  And so is Doctor Beauregard.  Here's his description of his "research" from the outline of his publication:              
The main goal of this functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience. The brain activity of Carmelite nuns was measured while they were subjectively in a state of union with God.
But that's not really what you did, Dr. Beauregard.  Here's the description of your "research" from Science Direct:            
In the Mystical condition, subjects were asked to remember and relive (eyes closed) the most intense mystical experience ever felt in their lives as a member of the Carmelite Order. ... In the Control condition, subjects were instructed to remember and relive (eyes closed) the most intense state of union with another human ever felt in their lives while being affiliated with the Carmelite Order.

In other words, you CLAIM that your nuns were in a state of union with God, but you actually measured them while they were REMEMBERING such states!  There's a world of difference between actually experiencing something and remembering it.

Dr. Andrew Newburg studied the brains of Buddhist Monks during meditation and Franciscan nuns during prayer.  Here's how he did it:          
When the volunteers reached the apex of their meditative state, they tugged on a string, which was Newberg and D'Aquili's cue to inject a radioactive tracer into their blood through an IV line. This tracer traveled to their brains and became bound to the neurons that were most active, creating a snapshot of brain activity at that particular moment that could later be imaged through a technique called SPECT (short for single photon emission computed tomography). When the imaging was performed, it showed, unsurprisingly, that brain regions responsible for concentration were highly active. However, there was one other consistent result that stood out. In all eight subjects, a particular region of the brain, the superior parietal lobe, showed a sharp reduction in activity.

The role of this brain region was already known. As discussed in Part 1 of this essay, the superior parietal lobe is the brain's "where" system. Its job is to orient a person in three-dimensional space and help them move through the world; as part of this task, it must draw a clear distinction between "self" and "not-self". For this reason, Newberg and D'Aquili call it the "orientation association area", or OAA for short. In all eight volunteers, the OAA had been inhibited by their deep meditative state, deprived of the sensory information it needs to build a coherent picture of the world.

What would be the result of this? Without the OAA, the brain is unable to perceive the physical limits of the self - unable to tell where the body ends and the world begins. (One of the meditators who took part in the study described the experience as feeling "like a loss of boundary" (Holmes 2001, p. 26)). And "[i]n that case, the brain would have no choice but to perceive that the self is endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything the mind senses. And this perception would feel utterly and unquestionably real" (Newberg and D'Aquili 2001, p. 6).

Intrigued by the possibility of a biological basis for religious experience, Newberg and D'Aquili broadened their study to include Franciscan nuns who claimed they felt a sense of closeness with God while deep in prayer. The experiment was repeated, and the results were the same: both the Franciscans and the Buddhists experienced similar drops in activity in the OAA, producing a sense of infinite self which both groups then interpreted through the milieu of their own religious beliefs.

In words simple enough for even Denyse O'Leary to understand, in a REAL mystical experience, the part of the brain that orients you in space shuts down from lack of inputs.  This leads to the feeling that you are expanding outward and enveloping or merging with the universe or meeting God or whatever.

In Dr. Beauregard's study, he measured the brains of people who were REMEMBERING such experiences and, no surprise, he found that many areas of the brain were active - but he didn't find that the Orientation Association Area had shut down, which is what happens when you're EXPERIENCING deep meditation and prayer.

In fact, he found that,"This state was associated with significant loci of activation in the right medial orbitofrontal cortex, right middle temporal cortex, right inferior and superior parietal lobules..."

Why am I not surprised that a researcher who enlists Denyse O'Leary as a co-author doesn't know what the h3ll he's doing?


Date: 2007/09/14 05:00:39, Link
Author: djmullen
Honestly, I just can't see why Baylor doesn't want him.

Date: 2007/09/14 20:55:17, Link
Author: djmullen
Can you imagine what must be going through Professor Robert Marks's mind right now?  This time last year, he had a good reputation.  Then he moves to Baylor, teams up with Dembski and a year later his partner is dropping tard bombs on the Board of Regents!

I wonder what the Board of Regents at Southwest Baptist are thinking right now?  Are they happy to have a live bomb on their faculty?  Maybe Dembski will post their personal information so we can ask.

If Dembski leaves Southwest or if his contract isn't renewed, who on earth will hire him?  Even Bob Jones University has a Board of Regents.  For that matter, I'll bet the Discovery Institute has one too.

Date: 2007/09/15 00:25:01, Link
Author: djmullen
The Death Spiral begins:


EJ Klone


10:55 pm
I made a few, um, calls.

And Dembski leaves the numbers up.

Edit: Link

Date: 2007/09/15 10:56:09, Link
Author: djmullen
It's back up again and the Regent's home addresses, home telephone numbers and personal email addresses are still posted.

At this juncture, it looks like the only thing that can save Dembski's career is that almost nobody ever reads his blog any more.

Date: 2007/09/15 12:17:02, Link
Author: djmullen
Don't.  Let's leave this one entirely to the UDers.

Date: 2007/09/15 13:39:17, Link
Author: djmullen
Possible defense:

Dembski: We put the Regent's home addresses and phone numbers on the Uncommon Descent web site, where we knew only two dozen decent Christian people would ever read it.  But then the godless atheists started telling everybody about it and handing out our URL and all hell broke loose.

Date: 2007/09/18 06:32:19, Link
Author: djmullen
I can't wait to hear that tape.  I hope somebody had their camcorder running as Dr. Dr. Dembski met his Waterloo.  I want to see the look in his eyes.

Note to Dembski: You should screen your audiences very carefully!

Date: 2007/09/18 06:45:22, Link
Author: djmullen
I don't know if this is permanent or just more fluffing around, but UD has been up and down several times tonight and it is now up with a much simplified look.

Main new thing: none of the articles are signed!  This could be very, very handy for the UD crew.  Deniability could be very handy for them.

Of course, it's easy to guess who posted "Richard Dawkins Famous Long Moment of Silence".  There are very few people who append, "How is the spiritual brain doing?" to the end of a post.  Or who are about ten years behind the times with their postings.

Date: 2007/09/19 06:16:47, Link
Author: djmullen
Lovely design at the new, New NEW! UD.  The right hand column is in the middle of the screen and cuts off half of the message.  Perfect!

Date: 2007/09/20 01:04:53, Link
Author: djmullen
I happened to click over to, a fundamentalist "watchblog" that chronicles all the 'worldly' goings on in the evangelical church that offend them (and thereby God). Anyway, if you click through the link, you'll see that this site, which was fairly high profile and had solid traffic (lots of fundamentalist to keep on the lookout!), was wiped out, apparently due to the installation script left in an accessible place, allowing anyone who tried to re-initialize the blog.

She's baaack at  No signs indicating that she's doing backups on this one, either.  Why do backups when you've got God watching over your blog, I guess.

For those who don't know her, Slice of Laodicia was a blog of Ingrid Guzman, who, after she ignored Jesus's clear commands and got a divorce, remarried and became Ingrid Schlueter.  Ingrid and her father, Vic Eliason, are from the Milwaukee WI area and have started approximately ten thousand million Xian radio stations and distribute a truly bizarre program called "Crosstalk" to all of them and more via satellite every weekday.  More details at and

My personal hypothesis: if there really is a god and he really is on your side, you won't have to do backups.  And if your web log gets screwed up, it's a clear sign that you're actually working for the devil.  Dembski and Schlueter's misfortunes are prime evidence for this theory.

Date: 2007/09/20 01:21:51, Link
Author: djmullen
I don't know if this resurfaced after the UD crash/partial restore or if I just missed it before, but Dr. Dr. William A. Dembski has published a picture of Professor Marks that was taken at the exact moment he discovered that HIS PARTNER! had published the private home addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of the Baylor Board of Regents.

Marks is the one on the right.

Date: 2007/09/20 03:27:09, Link
Author: djmullen
“Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group. One more strike and you’re out. –WmAD”
Have you been getting anonymous email complaints, or is that appeal only wrong when issued by your enemies? -FJB
Comment by fbeckwith — September 19, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Could this possibly be the Francis J. Beckwith who pressured Baylor into giving him tenure?  Is this the beginning of a dividing line in ID?

Date: 2007/09/20 06:25:43, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Lufeld @ Sep. 20 2007,06:17)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 20 2007,08:41)
Does anyone aside from me think it is utterly hillarious to have a series of links to uncommondescent and evolutionnews and subsequently proclaiming this to be 'media coverage'.

You are not alone. Here is a link to an analysis of the "media coverage":

Dembski's worst fear: Nobody cares about him.

Date: 2007/09/21 09:15:57, Link
Author: djmullen
I can’t say I’m convinced that the YEC contingent is wrong. We appear to live in a universe that is governed by immutable physical laws and everything is understandable by those laws. Certainly if we apply these laws backward in time we see an old universe and common descent. Appearances however can be deceptive. There’s nothing that proves the universe, the laws that govern it, and its apparent history weren’t created any time from a moment ago to billions of years ago.

Dave succombs to Last Tuesdayism.

Date: 2007/09/24 06:03:30, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (dochocson @ Sep. 23 2007,00:54)
I had never visited O'Leary's blog before. Entertaining, in a dysfunctional ID sort of way.

Does any one know why she identifies herself as a "Roman Catholic Christian"? Is there another kind of Roman Catholic?

For the same reason she calls herself a "Toronto Based Journalist"?

Date: 2007/09/24 06:08:30, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2007,13:06)
Paul Nelson boils it down:
I was wondering how Michaelangelo did it…
Paul Nelson

A block of Carrera marble and a large crane, apparently...

Paul links to a little movie that depicts complex objects emerging accidently from singular random events, e.g., paint tipped onto a canvas creates the Mona Lisa.

This little movie perfectly encapsulates both the ignorance and the dishonesty of the ID movement, as it portrays a mechanism quite other than that proposed by contemporary evolutionary science (each example omits both reproduction and selection). Thanks, Paul.

Ditto with the Mount Rushmore example.  Rocks don't reproduce, therefore no evolution, therefore no intresting human-like shapes.

Date: 2007/09/24 06:14:04, Link
Author: djmullen
Genuine Frontier Gibberish from Denyse O'Leary:  
The one thing the Darwinists can do, in revenge, is keep an institution like Baylor from the honor and satisfaction of actually sinking it.
Must be some obscure Canadian dialect.

Date: 2007/09/25 00:41:17, Link
Author: djmullen
Denyse has published a review of her own book on Amazon - and it gets five stars!
 9 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Magnificent book, September 13, 2007
By  Denyse O'Leary - See all my reviews

[Note from co-author Denyse O'Leary - I did not write this review. I am posting it for a person whose initials are R.W., who has asked me to do so.]

It is a magnificent book. And it is written with the kind of confidence and intellectual assuredness that can only come from contact with reality. I think you and Mario Beauregard have won the argument with the materialists--and they are going to hate you for this.

Paradigmatically, then, I am convinced that the nonmaterialist standpoint adopted by Mario Beauregard is the correct one for interpreting spiritual experience--not to say the ontology of the mind.

I have a very personal response to this book, because it addresses an issue which has always been at the centre of my life since I was in my early twenties: the possibility of religion as having an objective existence.

For myself, I view `spiritual experiences' with some skepticism--not because they aren't `true': it is obvious something profound is happening to the person who has the kind of experience that Mario Beauregard himself describes at the end of the book. But the question is: if there is a personal God, to what extent is this Creator of the universe intricately and specifically involved in the causality of such an experience? And what source of intelligence and energy (other than God) could explain mystical experience?

Certainly any experience that can be induced by drugs (such as LSD) cannot mimic the authenticity of the true religious experience, and therefore I dismiss the validity of religious experiences that do not, on the face of it, provide strong evidence of a personally intervening intelligence that addresses the unique individuality of that person.

For instance, I think a very different thing is going on in the case of a Catholic saint versus the Dalai Lama; spiritual experiences (their veridicality) can only be decided on the basis of the evidence that the Creator himself has personally and intentionally acted on the consciousness of the individual. Therefore the spirituality of the Dalai Lama is not the spirituality of St Ignatius of Loyola.

I can only say that there is a vast difference between someone who has had the experience of "the ground of all being" and "the Absolute", and someone who is a saint. God has a reason for giving someone an experience of transcendence, and it has everything to do with that person's relationship to God--and thus, their ultimate destiny in relationship to their Creator.

But no doubt I am already making myself irrelevant to the argument because of my prejudice. This might just be the hottest book out there--I mean in terms of how successfully it challenges materialist neuroscience and the kind of impact it will make on any fair-minded reader.



Some of the commenters don't appreciate her self-posting of favorable reviews.

Date: 2007/09/25 03:53:30, Link
Author: djmullen
Man, I'm glad I grabbed a copy when I did!  Amazon must be keeping their eye on Denyse.  Or maybe they're reading us?

Date: 2007/09/25 06:15:48, Link
Author: djmullen
The comments to the review were 100 percent critical too.  Wish I'd saved them.

Date: 2007/09/28 16:48:37, Link
Author: djmullen



3:06 pm
I agree with you Paul,
Not all experiments are carried out in a laboratory… Not all knowledge is gained from a pen and paper…case in point…

This is one of my favorite miracles that I’ve seen so far in my life.
In March of 1989, I was living in Lancaster, California. This was right after I had gotten out of the military, and right after the Lord had revealed the fact that He is real to me. I was staying in a house, renting a room. One evening, one of my house mates, who happened to be a Christian also, confided in me that he was depressed. He told me he had been depressed for a long time, and did not know if he would ever get better. Well, since I was a brand new Christian, I got excited. I saw an opportunity for God to move. In the unrestrained enthusiasm of a man who has finally seen the light that God is indeed real, I told him, “Hey man! This is something we can pray about”. So we bowed our heads and prayed for his depression. Shoot, we prayed for all the people who are suffering from depression in the whole world. We prayed that God would touch everyone that instant. We prayed as we thought the Bible would have us pray. “Well”, he said to me, after we finished praying, “I don’t feel any different”. Right after that, on television, on the Christian Station, TBN, there was a group talking. One of the ladies in the group said “Excuse me, if you don’t mind, but I really feel that we need to pray for depression at this very moment”; They joined their hands, began praying for depression, asking Jesus to touch and heal everyone. Then, after they finished praying, my friend tells me that he still feels depressed. Well, sensing that God was up to something, I wasn’t about to let this go, So trying the best I could, in my own way, to cheer him up, I then started to sing, dance and clown around, trying to cheer my friend up. I was singing, dancing and clowning around to the children’s song “What makes that little old ant think he can move that rubber tree plant …. He’s got high hopes, He’s got high apple pie in the sky hopes….” “Well”, my friend said, after I was all done with my clowning around, “I still don’t feel any different”. Then I said, “Well, maybe a comedy on television will cheer you up”. I switched the channel to one of the major networks, and ALF was on. A few seconds after we started watching ALF, ALF started to sing and dance to that same exact song I had just finished singing. You see, ALF had an ant farm and he loved that ant farm. BUT sadly, he had left his ant farm on the windowsill, in the sun, and ally kills his ants. ALF was stunned by his mistake and started weeping. He said he had never been so depressed; and, he didn’t think he would ever get over his ants. Then the father figure, on the T.V. show, comes in and sees ALF weeping. He said ” ALF I know that you’re depressed; I know you think this can never get any better; BUT, tomorrow is going to be a little better; the day after that will be a little better; the day after that a little better, and when it is all said and done, everything is going to be…BETTER! Well, both my friend and I were completely amazed. I even ended up going down the street that evening, stopping complete strangers on the street, trying to tell them I had just seen a miracle, on the T.V. show ALF, with ants and singing and dancing. One of the strangers tried to assure me that he believed me, but I still wonder if he was just placating me as I related some of the “strange” singing and dancing parts of the miracle to him. The best thing about the whole situation was three days later when my friend came up to me and said, “MAN, I FEEL GOOD, I don’t remember the last time I’ve felt this good.” And that my friends is the end of my Alf Miracle story. God does indeed move in mysterious ways.

Science all the way.

Date: 2007/09/29 12:18:41, Link
Author: djmullen
I fear it is somewhat like trying to understand the jihadis. Friends have told me that, to understand jihadis, I must try, at least briefly, to see the world as they do. Similarly, to understand Darwin's most committed followers, I must undergo a similar mental exercise.

Not quite.  To understand the jihadis you must enter a religious state of mind somewhat like your own, only with some real oppression behind it to fill your mind with hatred, fear, rage, embarassment and violence.

To understand "Darwin's most committed followers", on the other hand, you must join the reality based world.

Date: 2007/10/01 05:26:58, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 01 2007,01:19)
Heddle earlier suggested that 616 might be the actual number of the beast. But I'm presuming he was just predestined to say kooky things, and 666 it is, so let the festivities begin!

664 and 668 next door to the beast.
667 across the street from the beast.
66600 = zip code of the Beast
$665.95 = retail price of the Beast
DCLXVI = Roman numeral of the Beast
666.0000 = Number of the High-Precision Beast
0.666 = Number of the Millibeast
/666 = Beast Common Denominator
-666½  = Imaginary number of the Beast
6.66e3 = Floating point Beast
1010011010 = Binary number of the Beast
6, uh . . . what was that number again? = Number of the Blonde Beast
1-666 = Area code of the Beast
666 mph = Speed limit of the Beast
$699.30 = Price of the Beast plus 5% state sales tax
$769.95 = Price of the Beast with all accessories and replacement soul
$656.66 = Walmart price of the Beast
$646.66 = Next week's Walmart price of the Beast
Phillips 666 = Gasoline of the Beast
Route 666 = Way of the Beast
666 F = Oven temperature for roast Beast
352 – Oven temperature for roast Beast in Europe
666(k) = Retirement plan of the Beast
666 mg = Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement of Beast
6.66% = 5-yr CD interest rate at 1st Beast of Hell Nat. Bank, $666 min. deposit
$666/hr = Beast's lawyer's billing rate
Lotus 6-6-6 = Spreadsheet of the Beast
Word 6.66 = Word Processor of the Beast
i66686 = CPU of the Beast
665.9997856 = Number of the Beast on a Pentium
666i = BMW of the Beast
DSM-666 (revised) = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Beast
1232 Octal, Apt. 29A = Beast's hexed address
333 = The semi-Christ

Date: 2007/10/01 05:27:24, Link
Author: djmullen
Ah hell!  Didn't make the new page.

Date: 2007/10/02 23:54:48, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 02 2007,16:45)
Oh, come on, now!

This is Dembski.  We know Waterloo Dembski of Judge Jones Flash fame.

Dembski doesn't apologize.  No way.  Especially not to Baylor.

What's in it for Dr. Dr. to apologize to Baylor?  Dembski is a turd in Baylor's punchbowl and there ain't no way, no how that he's going to set foot on campus ever again.

Do you really think that an insincere paragraph will soak up all the venom Dembski has spit Baylor's way?  NFW.

Au contraire, I think it's his current masters at Southwest who pointed out Dembski's distinctly un-Christianlike behavior.  And how it reflected poorly on Southwest Theological to have such an outspoken jackass on their staff.

Someone who has Dembski's jewels in a vise told him to wise up or ship out.  My theory.

Like, for instance, the Board of Regents of the Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary?  I wonder what they discussed at their last meeting?

"He actually posted the home addresses and telephone numbers of the Baylor Board of Regents!!"

"How long until he gets pissed at us and posts our addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers and mother's maiden names?"

"Can we say "pissed"?  After all, we're Baptists."

Date: 2007/10/06 10:29:42, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 05 2007,18:38)
If only jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event:




6:04 pm
off topic: has a story suggesting that the appendix does have an important use for the body.





6:35 pm
The appendix story isn’t being touted as an ID story by the mainstream media, but it should be. I’ll bet the authors are closet ID supporters. Can we get Mr. Scot to check that for us? (I don’t presume to boss anyone, but I just thought it might be a good idea?)

And it’s published in a peer-reviewed journal. Take that, Mr. Dawkin!


From the article:  
Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said.

That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said. If a person's gut flora dies, they can usually repopulate it easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.

Somewhere in my basement, I have a circa 1988 YEC book with a footnote that says the appendix does so have a use - it provides jobs for surgeons.  I swear this is true!

Date: 2007/10/10 00:15:16, Link
Author: djmullen
Hey!  The Panda's Thumb has a quote on the appendix and surgical employment that's very similar to the one I remember from that long ago creationist book mouldering in my basement:
”Its major importance would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession.”
—Alfred Sherwood Romer and Thomas S. Parsons, The Vertebrate Body (1986), p. 389.

That sounds like a real book, too.  Now I think I know where my creationists got their footnote from.

Date: 2007/10/11 06:21:05, Link
Author: djmullen
FtK, you forgot to answer Reciprocating Bill's question.  Here it is again:  
FTK, show us a blog, or any combination of blogs authored by advocates of evolutionary biology whose record of banning approaches 1/100th of this. Be sure to read all three pages.

I'll give you a bright shiny dime if you can find one.

Date: 2007/10/11 06:53:09, Link
Author: djmullen
I've got a question about the No Free Lunch theorems.  I hope somebody can clarify things for me.

I don't claim to understand the math behind NFL, but from reading the commentary, I get the impression that the theory says that there is no single search strategy that will work perfectly for ALL possible search spaces and data arrangements.  For example:

If you have an array set up like this:

1: apple
2: cow
3: echo
4: FTK
5: Geronimo
6: salivate

A simple binary search type algorithm will let you find the word "echo" in the array in three steps or less because the entries are in alphabetical order.

But if the array is arranged like this:

1: cow
2: salivate
3: FTK
4: apple
5: Geronimo
6: echo

The binary search algorithm won't work.

Furthermore, the NFL theorem seems to say that, averaged over all possible arrangements of the data in the array, no single algorithm will work better than a random search, where you choose a number at random, look at the word in that position, see if it's the word you're looking for and repeat the search if it isn't.

Finally, the big thing about the NFL theorem is that it was mathematically proven a few years ago.  Is this more or less right?

Date: 2007/10/11 23:36:15, Link
Author: djmullen
The things you get in your email.  Thanks and a tip of the hat to Truthout ( for tipping me off to this article in the LA times:

"They love to do their homework"

"You hear that a lot on the lush green campus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

God values men and women equally, any student here will tell you. It's just that he's given them different responsibilities in life: Men make decisions. Women make dinner."

It goes on...

Also, I had not realized that Paige Patterson was the president of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary.  Dr. Dr. Dembski, you've found yourself a home.

Date: 2007/10/15 00:27:57, Link
Author: djmullen
Strictly speaking, this is not UD related - but I'll bet we can get Salvadore to fall for it:

A bunch of YECs are going to Africa to hunt pterosaurs.  (They would go to Papua, New Guinea, but Reverand Carl Baugh is way ahead of them there - he's already got permits from the PNG government to capture a few pterosaurs.)  

They could also have hunted apatosaurs, which are "known" to live in the jungles of the Congo, but they're too big.

Plesiosaurs live in many lakes, and their carcasses have been found in the oceans, but they're too shy.

Trilobites live on the bottom of the ocean, but they'd need a sub.

Velociraptors "terrorize the goat herders of Puerto Rico and are rumored to guard the remains of the Ark on Mt. Ararat", but they've gotten very vicious since the fall due to "genetic entrophy".

So, pterosaurs are more or less "just right".  They're small enough for a single church to start a breeding colony and they don't live too long, which for some reason makes breeding them easier.

Also, check out for a picture of Confederate soldiers standing on the body of a pterosaur if you don't believe they exist.

Also, don't fail to click on the anti-triclavianist button on the left side of the first page.  Seems there's a bit of controversy about just how many nails held Jesus to the cross.

And remember, if anything on these pages looks like a parody to you, it's a sure and certain sign that you're going to hell.  Or that you'll go to heaven and Salvadore will spend all eternity explaining ID to you.

Date: 2007/10/15 16:22:12, Link
Author: djmullen
gpuccio admonishes the troops:
...recognize the point of view of other scientists, like Dembski and Behe, who have been having more courage and honesty than you, before you, and have never tried any final, desperate evasion from truth.

Just a little street theater.

Date: 2007/10/16 00:05:32, Link
Author: djmullen
Another off topic post, but this is just too funny not to pass on.  It was in the top five/most emailed list in the sidebar at pharyngula:

It's titled, "The Road to Sildenafil - A history of artifical erections" and it features "...what was likely the most outrageous scientific presentation of all time."

I'm dedicating it to you, Denyse.

Date: 2007/10/17 05:05:11, Link
Author: djmullen
DavidBrennan is a fine piece of work:    
Watson’s just saying what all Darwinists secretly think, including Margaret Sanger and a cast of thousands.

And these power-tripping Darwinists do far more than just think it….they act on their eugenic fantasies: reproductive rates are dropping rapidly, and it’s due to plummetting fertility in both sexes more than it is lifestyle choices.

Men’s testosterone levels have been PLUMMETTING for 25 years.

(If Rush Limbaugh’s wondering why he needs Viagara and Bill O’Reilly’s wondering why he has bizarre sexual predilictions….maybe they should look to the secret activities of their Darwinist, globalist, faux-Christian handlers.)

Make no mistake about it: in business, science, and politics, these social Darwinists are out to manipulate and control the population.

Can somebody just refresh my memory here?  I forget how the evil Darwinist conspiracy managed to make  testosterone levels plummet.  Did we put something in the water?

Also, how did we become social Darwinists?  I thought social Darwinism was a philosophy designed to appeal to the rich and powerful that has nothing to do with Darwin except misusing his name.

I don't think the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy can take credit for Limbaugh and O'Rielly's sexual preferences and problems, though.  They're just plain dorks.

Date: 2007/10/18 00:47:25, Link
Author: djmullen
Science for Tards:

I'd like to call this site's existence to DaveTard's attention.  It may well explain the cause of global warming.

I'd also recommend that Salvadore take a look at it.  I'm sure there's a major clue to the True Age of the Earth, the slowdown in the speed of light and the demise of the Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab in here somewhere, if you look hard enough and aren't too choosy about your facts.

I'd also like to thank The Straight Dope for calling my attention to this breathtaking information and Cecil at The Straight Dope would like to thank Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy for calling his attention to it.

Date: 2007/10/19 01:05:12, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2007,17:10)
Spin THIS, IDiots:

Ha!  Borne answers you thusly:    
The only possible way to prove the existence of a or many universes is by discovering them in reality - not by mathematical formula or invention.

In this case math can only predict a possible existence based on theory.

But more importantly, I see no problem with a multi-verse reality. It changes nothi ... oh gawd, my flesh is dissolving, aaaargh!!!  Oh!  Christ! Oh Christ! The pain the pa

The transmission ended abruptly at this point, but we believe Borne was about to utter a logical proof that not only can't you prove the existence of something from its possibility, but that two plus two does indeed equal five, given sufficiently large values for two.  At least, we think it's possible that he was going to.

Date: 2007/10/20 06:02:19, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 20 2007,05:38)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 20 2007,03:55)
Now how you use the video of Frank Skinner dancing in his pants, perhaps by replacing Skinner's face with Dembski's face to illustrate the acheivements of ID, iis your own affair. I would never suggest that you do such a thing I am merely planting seeds.

I think it is more likely you are committing the sin of Onan.

Shame on you, Louis.  You get right back in there and get your brother's wife pregnant.

Date: 2007/10/24 00:02:58, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 23 2007,10:40)

ht/#more-2758]Denyse O'Leary[/URL]:
To the best of my knowledge, young earth creationists (the accurate term for people who think that the earth is only thousands, not billions of years old) do not treat Ussher’s chronology as a form of prophecy.

I prophecy that she's post this on October 23rd.


The newspaper should have called either Oxford or Cambridge.  The geology department at one of those universities celebrates October 23 as the founding of their discipline.  The students commune with the (alcoholic) spirits on that day.

Date: 2007/10/24 00:17:54, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2007,21:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 23 2007,20:31)



Fuck me, is Davetard credulous.

The impression I'm getting from Davetard is that he'll just fall for any scam or hoax you come up with.

Is he really a millionaire?  Because you can really make money off of this type of guy, if he's got any to begin with.

Date: 2007/10/24 02:44:18, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote without comment:  
Unfortunately most all disciplines in science also deserve such a black eye, for closed-mindedly ignoring and denying anomalous evidence against prevailing paradigms in a number of fields such as psi (the “paranormal”) and cold fusion.

From here.

Date: 2007/10/24 23:57:35, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 24 2007,07:31)
News from the Nanny Filter

Looking at Bornagain77's latest contribution over at UD (all 1217 words) provides some interesting insights by looking at which words have to be disguised to get through his filter. Therein you will find:


And what is with his multiple commas?  Like ",,," and ",,".  Some sort of keyboarding punctuation dyslexia?

I think he would be better served by a filter that edits out everything after "bornagain77".  Less tedious to the readers and less embarassing to the author.

Date: 2007/10/26 04:00:27, Link
Author: djmullen

24 October 2007
Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”
As irksome as Richard Dawkins can sometimes be, one must nevertheless admire his occasional outbursts of honesty.  Over at First Things  Fr. Ed Oakes refers to an interview  Dawkins gave to an Austrian newspaper, Die Presse (July 30, 2005), in which he said: “No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws. . . . A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.”

I'm having a little trouble filling out my scorecard on this play.  When BarryA accurately quotes a quote miner, does he share credit for the quote mine with Father Oakes?  Or do I give Father Oaks all of the quote mining credit and just give BarryA ten sucker points?

Date: 2007/10/30 04:28:25, Link
Author: djmullen
That world famous philosopher and public intellectual, Ben Stein, is setting the financial world on fire.  Here's what Andrew Leonard says in Salon:  
Ben Stein's weekly column in the New York Times is the econoblogosphere's equivalent of a horrible car wreck on the freeway. Even though they know they shouldn't rubberneck, that they should just keep their eyes glued to the road ahead and go about their normal business, the financial news junkies of the world just. can't. look. away.

The resulting contortions are entrancing. In his regular "Ben Stein Watch" feature's Felix Salmon is so distraught by Ben Stein's most recent effort that he unloads 500 words of his own trashing Stein's "860 words of utter gobbledegook" without once even mentioning what the column is actually about. Likewise, Naked Capitalism's Yves Smith adds another 421 words of commentary labeling Stein "the Weekly World News of economics writing," but also can't bring himself to address the content.

I feel your pain!  Must.Look.Away!

From Salon (You may have to watch an ad to see his column.)

No doubt about it, ID leads the True Intellectuals of the world.

Date: 2007/10/31 00:40:33, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 30 2007,18:52)
Hey Zach!

right up your alley, chief!

Neat!  It found "dembski is a tard" in anywhere from 50 to 132 tries.  

BUT: when I told it to search for "bornagain77 is a tard", I cut it off when it got up to 1300 tries!

ID RULZ!  Take that,,,Darwin!

Date: 2007/10/31 05:57:37, Link
Author: djmullen
In the "Today's Class Project" thread, Bork has a brand new mathematics to share with us:            
Anyone else think that it is just lame that they use more than 26 iterations to achieve this?

If they just went through the alphabet in order they would be done so much faster…

If they converted the whole string to binary and kept the correct bits and then they could be done in 2 iterations!

Math for Tards: There are 28 letters and spaces in the target phrase and 26 letters plus a space, for a total of 27 characters in the alphabet.  If the Bork Method takes on average 1/2 of 27 iterations to get each character right in the target phrase, then going through the alphabet in order would take 13.5 x 28 tries to get "methinks it is like a weasel", or 378 iterations average.  

Try the program in question and write me if you ever find a run that takes even 200 iterations using Dawkins' method.

No, on second thought, write BarryA.

Now your binary method, that will take only two iterations, sounds very interesting.  I invite you to post it to Uncommon Descent so we can all learn.*

* As in "Rolling On The Floor, Learning."

Date: 2007/10/31 06:09:11, Link
Author: djmullen
I stand corrected.  In 25 tries, I got 214 once.  Write BarryA immediately!

Date: 2007/10/31 23:46:08, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2007,20:02)
A BarryA Bannination?




7:49 pm
Mickey, that’s it. If you have not been convinced so far your ignorance has been proven to be invincible. Please move along.

But he gets off a great parting shot:  
What, no lovely parting gifts? :>)

Date: 2007/11/02 02:59:37, Link
Author: djmullen
Arden on Casey:
On the other hand, I wonder if he concedes that the Designer™ could be Allah? I suspect not. Xenu maybe?

Well, since Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham, if he's honest he would have to.


Date: 2007/11/02 03:46:06, Link
Author: djmullen
Alligator man fired
Added by: Norbert, on 2007-10-29 09:03:46
After studying over 200 wild alligators and publishing over 100 papers I was denied tenure.

The Rest of the Story            
My alligator research was featured in the BBC TV documentary, A smile for the crocodile and my woodchuck studies were shown on the Today TV show. I was keynote speaker to a radio telemetry conference at Oxford University in England and took several research students with me. I had over 100 technical publications, more than anyone in the department yet was denied tenure. As often happens, that ended my professional career and marriage. I ended up driving 18-wheelers in order to retire. I now have 9 books accepted for publication.

Did you evilutionists read that?  Do you understand what you've done to this poor man?  He actually took several students to a telemetry conference at Oxford University and yet they STILL denied him tenure!

Oh!  The humanity!  
Oh!  The pain!
Oh!  The unfairness of it all!
Oh, WTF does this have to do with ID, anyway?  Were they intelligent alligators?  

Bless you, Ben Stein, for coming to this poor man's defense!

P.S. That is the funniest web site I have ever read.  Dave Barry is depressing compared to Ben Stein.

Date: 2007/11/05 04:34:52, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 04 2007,08:01)
Oh, boy. Davey is going to ban rrf so hard now that his/her children, grandchildren, and grandchildren's children will feel it.

Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Date: 2007/11/06 08:19:17, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 06 2007,06:28)
Has DaveTard jumped the shark? His new post at UD proposes what he calls an ID hypothesis      
The biological ID hypothesis can be stated as:

All complex biological systems are generated by intelligent agents.

and then alleges that Behe has tested it      
P.falciparum replicating billions of trillions of times in the past few decades represents the largest search to date for a “black swan”. This is orders of magnitude more replications than took place in the evolution of reptiles to mammals wherein there are many exceedingly complex biological systems that separate them. If P.falciparum had been seen generating any complex biological systems such as those that distinguish mammals from reptiles then it would have falsified the ID hypothesis. None were observed. This doesn’t prove ID but it certainly lends strong support to it. All perfectly scientific.

P.S. I understand that an actual black swan has been observed and Popper’s hypothetical example was indeed falsified. That is exactly how science is supposed to work. Now it’s up to the time & chance worshippers to falsify the ID hypothesis. Good luck.

Besides the math issues bolded above, I guess I missed the part where Behe had any evidence about an "intelligent agent". I hope that the commenters (so far none) can explain that a bit better. I suspect that they will identify the agent for us, per usual.

I wonder if it has ever occurred to Dave or Behe or any other IDist that p.falciparum, like every other organism on the planet, is the product of several billion years of evolution and that it might be about as well adapted to its host as it can get?


Date: 2007/11/07 00:45:00, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,10:35)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 06 2007,10:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 06 2007,10:23)
Question:  Why does it taste so good with peanut butter and not so good with tiny balls of shit?

Now this is an ID research program I can support!  Assuming, of course, that they do the experiments.

This explains alot actually.  You see Jeebus made chocolate taste good and poop taste bad so we would not eat one anothers poop.  If jeebus had not made poop taste so bad we'd all sit around doing poop shots.

Thank you intelligent designer!

Conclusion: Jesus hates bunny rabbits.  Even the fluffy ones.

Date: 2007/11/14 00:24:04, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 12 2007,23:10)
Aesahaettr, on the "blog reading level" thread, wrote:

Gosh, Barry, looks like you can’t catch a break today. It’s supposed to be “hoisted BY my own petard,” not “ON my own petard.” Why, it almost sounds like you don’t even know what a “petard” is.

Well, he certainly has the last 4 letters down.  :)

Aside, I wonder how long this comment will last there?

I always wondered just what a "petard" was, so here's's definition:

1. an explosive device formerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate, form a breach in a wall, etc.  
4. hoist by or with one's own petard, hurt, ruined, or destroyed by the very device or plot one had intended for another.  

But the fun part's the eytemology:

[Origin: 1590–1600; < MF, equiv. to pet(er) to break wind (deriv. of pet < L péditum a breaking wind, orig. neut. of ptp. of pédere to break wind) + -ard -ard]

So it's a kind of a farTard.

Date: 2007/11/15 01:11:38, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 14 2007,16:50)
My ID prediction:

WAD and Church Lady lead a frontal assault against Nova tomorrow.

I predict it will be Friday and hugely embarassing.

Date: 2007/11/25 16:07:58, Link
Author: djmullen
That's Dr. Dr. He Who Must Not Be Understood.

Great post!

Date: 2007/11/28 13:10:02, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 28 2007,09:26)

PPS: Into this morass arrives Michael "Slavery Wasn't So Bad" Medved. Ahhhh. 2008's looking good.

That is amazing!  Thanks for pointing it out.

Date: 2007/12/01 00:56:53, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2007,16:05)
I don't recall saying (1) that the meltdown in question was a sure thing or (2) that if it happened, that it would be *this* Friday.

Some things require time to develop. Wine ages. Pimples come to a head. Meltdowns are probably more like one of those than the other.

I thought that the "News Release: Harvard's XVIVO Video" and the DI's spanking was the Friday Meltdown™ coming a few days early.  You mean there's worse in the hopper?

"Tis the season to be jolly ..."

"And what do you want for Christmas, little Davey?"
"Oh, Santa, ID has been so generous to me, you can give my presents to the poor kids this year."

Date: 2007/12/01 04:22:14, Link
Author: djmullen
Here's my prediction for the next big Dembski Meltdown:  

A few months ago, Dembski overdosed on tard pills and posted the home addresses, home phone numbers and private email addresses of the entire Baylor Board of Regents.  He was operating under the theory that the Regents were really on his side and that if they only knew the truth about how the Baylor administration was stifling the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, they would smite the administrative sinners and Dembski and the lab would be redeemed.  Which, by ID standards, is not that wild a theory.  Unfortunately for the Dr. Dr., things didn't work out quite like he'd planned.

I remember musing at the time that if I was on the board of regents of Dembski's employer, the Southwestern Theological Seminary and BBQ, I wouldn't sleep easy until he was off the payroll.

Therefore, I predict that the next Friday Meltdown™ will be Dembski announcing that his contract with Southwestern Bible and BBQ has not been renewed.

Date: 2007/12/01 04:22:40, Link
Author: djmullen
And that will mean he's not welcome in TWO cafeterias.

Date: 2007/12/01 08:09:42, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Tom Ames @ Dec. 01 2007,04:31)
Quote (djmullen @ Dec. 01 2007,02:22)
And that will mean he's not welcome in TWO cafeterias.

I've heard that he's persona non grata at the Princeton Theological Seminary cafeteria too.

Oooh!  I never heard about that one.  What happened?

Date: 2007/12/03 14:24:33, Link
Author: djmullen
bornagain77 finds a tard-mate:

Nonlocal Effects of Chemical Substances on the Brain
Produced through Quantum Entanglement
Huping Hu and Maoxin Wu
Biophysics Consulting Group, 25 Lubber Street, Stony Brook, NY 11790, USA

Here we report that applying magnetic pulses to the brain
when an anesthetic or pain medication was placed in between caused the brain to feel
the effect of the said substance for several hours after the treatment as if the test subject
had actually inhaled the same. The said effect is consistently reproducible. We further
found that drinking water exposed to magnetic pulses, laser light or microwave when a
chemical substance was placed in between also causes consistently reproducible brain
effects in various degrees.

You have to read the rest for yourself.  Cage your irony meter and set your tard detector to OFF first.  About a quart of brandy applied internally may help dull the tard.  Through the process of quantum entanglement, of course.

Date: 2007/12/06 01:19:34, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Dazza McTrazza @ Dec. 05 2007,13:17)
From here:

Latest Religious Messages
"This is a college education that I can use," said sophomore Emily Felts, 19, as she praised the homemaking curriculum of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas (which leads to a Bachelor of Arts in Homemaking). Men and women may be equal, the school says, but they have different roles, and for women, that includes "how to set tables, sew buttons and sustain lively dinnertime conversation," or how to use the Internet to track grocery coupons, according to an October dispatch in the Los Angeles Times. Felts said she enjoys the work (except vacuuming), but it "doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the Bible says." [Los Angeles Times, 10-11-07]

Is this Dembski's college?

Yes, but I corrected a typo for you.

Date: 2007/12/06 01:53:46, Link
Author: djmullen
Kwok banninated - from!

Check the Amazon review page and you'll find that Kwok's review is gone.  The graph now shows 9 five star reviews and zero other reviews.  Dembski gloats here.  See comments #13, 14 and 15.  If anybody kept a copy of Kwok's review, please post it here.

Date: 2007/12/06 06:38:52, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 06 2007,06:35)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 06 2007,07:30)
Back to doing science and indoctrinating students!

Nah, I'm thinking I'll spend the day spreading ebola.  I haven't done that in a while.

And I can't remember the last time I burned a church.

Date: 2007/12/07 02:45:12, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 06 2007,22:32)

Dippy Joe Loves..

Woo Woo Woo! Pssst Joe, want to buy some POWER CRYSTALS...?

From the website:

"1. Start with a body cleansing. “Dual Action Cleanse” will work for those who do not want to opt for a colonic."

Go for the Colonic, Joe!  Use a fire hydrant!

Date: 2007/12/10 00:53:00, Link
Author: djmullen
In the meantime, medical doctors should prescribe multiple antibiotics for all infections, since this will decrease the likelihood that infectious agents can develop resistance through stochastic processes.
Strangely, materialist non-ID medical science is doing something like that now, only with AIDS medications.  They're hitting people with a cocktail of two or three different AIDS medications at once because a virus is much much more likely to snuffit than to become immune to all three of them at once.  

Curiously, the materialist scientists who thought of this tactic apparently had no need of ID theory.  Typical liberal tactic - putting curing the patient before defending the theory.

Date: 2007/12/10 05:27:57, Link
Author: djmullen
Why am I not surprised?   
Writer Quits NRO [National Review Online] After Fabrications Exposed
W. Thomas Smith., Jr., the controversial web-based reporter who wrote disputed stories from Lebanon, has resigned from his position as a contributor to National Review Online's The Tank blog. Smith had been the subject of a lengthy piece on the Huffington Post raising questions about the accuracy of his work.

Smith, in a statement published by NRO, wrote:

"This is my own decision. No one at NRO has asked me to do this, nor has anyone suggested or even hinted I should. But I believe this to be in the best interest of the publication which I have so much respect for. Both NRO and I have taken far too much heat for something which would never have happened had I been more specific in terms of detailing my sourcing while blogging about Lebanon at 'The Tank'. That is a responsibility I have to accept."

In addition to writing for NRO, Smith, a former Marine, is the director the Counterterrorism Research Center at the Family Security Foundation, and the executive editor of World Defense Review. He co-authored The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design.

Date: 2007/12/11 00:45:46, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2007,22:42)
ID interest back on the rise?

Perhaps it's "expelled the movie"

Should we defrost Lenny Flank?

I think that early November peak was caused by PBS's Judgement Day at Dover special.  Whatever it was, it didn't last long.

Date: 2007/12/12 01:02:59, Link
Author: djmullen
More on our Christian Killer Link:

"COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- Matthew Murray was kicked out of a missionary training program five years ago for strange behavior, and talked about hearing voices, according to a man who served at the center with him."

"Richard Werner, 34, said Monday he was a worker at the center in Arvada, Colorado, in 2002, the same time as Murray.

He said Murray was told in December 2002 he would not be allowed to join a mission trip to Bosnia. That was five days after Murray performed a pair of dark rock songs at a concert at the mission that made fellow workers "pretty scared," according to Werner."

"Werner, of Balneario Camborius, Brazil, said he had a bunk near Murray's and that Murray would roll around in bed and make noises.  

"He would say, 'Don't worry, I'm just talking to the voices,' " Werner said. "He'd say, 'Don't worry, Richard. You're a nice guy. The voices like you.' "

'Werner said he instantly suspected Murray when he heard the news of Sunday's shootings.

"I turned to my wife and I said, 'I know who did it. It's Matthew,' " he said. "It was so obvious.'

So Murray grew up in a crushing Christian atmosphere, started hearing voices in his head at least five years ago and go no help to speak of from his Christian family and community.  Wonder why he snapped.

Moral of this story: If you're going to come down with the type of schizophrenia that starts showing symptoms in your late teens or early twenties, try hard not to be living in a Christian environment when it hits you.

Hey GilDodgen, here's another clue for you:  Look at this guy's name: "Murray".  As in Madeline MURRAY O'Hair.  How's that for an atheist connection for  you?

Date: 2007/12/12 01:06:49, Link
Author: djmullen
One other thing: if a Fundamentalist Christian ever murders an innocent Muslim, I WILL blame the Conservative Christians who can't bring themselves to say "Muslim" when "Islamo-fascist" expresses their religious hatred so much better.

Date: 2007/12/13 04:02:12, Link
Author: djmullen
Ed Brayton tears BarristerA a new rectum over his recent post on the Colorado Christian on Christian Murders:
Small sample:    
Now let's take this statement from Arrington:

Hitchens calls religion a "poison." Isn't it axiomatic that poison is bad and should be eradicated?

And reword it a bit:

Jerry Falwell says that liberals, gays, abortionists and the ACLU cause God to withdraw his protection from the US and thus allowed the terrorists to destroy the WTC. Isn't it axiomatic that those responsible for invoking the wrath of God on our nation must be eradicated?

Don't tangle with Ed, Barry.  You're not even in the same class.


Date: 2007/12/13 04:15:57, Link
Author: djmullen
More leads from Ed's blog:
Lastly (for me, anyhow; I encourage anyone who reads this to do their own research on Youth With A Mission), DailyKos did a series of articles about YWAM's political connections back in 2006. Moreover, here's an article about connections between Ted Haggard and YWAM (perhaps this sort of thing is why Murray also shot up Haggard's former church?) and the charming story of YWAM member Paul Huberty who, according to the article (which links to the case documents):
...was convicted by officer members of consensual sodomy, fondling his genitals in a public area, indecent acts, and adultery, in violation of Articles 125, 133, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 925, 933, and 934. On February 11, 1997, the convening authority approved the sentence of dismissal, confinement for 6 months, and a reprimand, and the court below affirmed.
So what happened to Huberty after this conviction? Why, he became a YWAM Youth Pastor!
While in the Air Force Academy he married a girl who was in the youth group where he was part time youth pastor...maybe she was pregnant. He was courtmartialed in Germany and after serving 6 months in prison, he moved his family to Hawaii where he entered, get this, Youth With A Mission. He became a youth missionary and "served" in several places such as the Philipines while based in Hawaii...
And Huberty's last known whereabouts as of August 2006?

Colorado Springs, Colorado. Sound familiar? Did Huberty and Murray ever meet up? Hmmm. I don't know. Does anybody?

Your serve, BarristerA

Date: 2009/07/06 02:02:37, Link
Author: djmullen
I just posted this twice to UD's "Foul anonymous blogger exposed" thread and it erased both entries without even showing them as being in moderation.

Given the tard-pile that is UD, it may very well be a computer error that trashed what I wrote, but I took the liberty of saving my second try before hitting the button and I want to make sure it's seen.  

I think you'll find it interesting.

"Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?"

I think this explains why the Canadian Cynic used The Four Naughty Words to describe The Girl on the Right:

"Tuesday, June 26, 2007
As opposed to the other 364 days
When the Natives do absolutely nothing except smoke, drink and fuck their daughters. This Friday will mark the Native Day of Action™ here in Canada. It's their chance to whine and complain that us white guys [?] who pay 45% in income tax to support their smoking, drinking and daughter-fucking are ripping them off. How they can justify that, we're not entirely certain. But what we can be certain about is that it will cause a new committee or study group to be formed - also at our expense - and it will solve exactly nothing."

Denyse, do you know what this kind of talk is?  It's RACIST!  You know, racism, the kind of thing you've been slandering Charles Darwin's memory over, even though he was probably the least racist man in the 19th century.

If any of you bother to look those words up (try wikipedia), you'll find that they're all "...used informally as a derogatory epithet in referring to a person of either sex..."  One of them has been used that way for over a century, one seems to have only made the switch in the last decade or two.

Should the Canadian Cynic have used nicer language to The Girl on the Right?  He probably did at one time, but it bounced right off.  These conservative types are incorrigible.

His new language probably bounced off too, but at least he tried.

Shame on Girl on the Right and everybody who supports her.  Congratulations to the Canadian Cynic.  You described RightGirl perfectly!

Here's the link again:Girl on the Right: As opposed to the other 364 days

She also says they all huff gasoline and she's not too fond of Palestinians either.  She's my idea of an absolutely typical conservative.  Enjoy your new girlfriend, Denyse, you picked her, you live with her.  We won't because she's a cunt, douchebag, asshole and O'Leary think-a-like.

The Canadian Cynic has a few comments:  
P.S. Oh, and Denyse? With respect to Wendy Sullivan, someone who describes Canada's aboriginals as fucking their daughters 364 days a year really doesn't have the moral high ground to be criticizing anyone else's incivility. So howzabout you put a sock in it, you useless shrew?

P.P.S. I would have happily left a comment to that effect, but you and I both know that it would have been moderated out of existence. Profiles in uncourage, the lot of them.

P.P.P.S. If anyone has commenting privileges over at UncommonDescent, feel free to drop them a note, pointing out the incongruity of using Wendy Sullivan in any argument related to civility and decorum. See how long that comment lasts.
Zero seconds.

Date: 2009/07/06 02:06:05, Link
Author: djmullen
I just successfully posted this:




1:55 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

O’Leary, what’s your explanation for this?

Perhaps "cunt", "douchebag", "wanker" and "asshole" are acceptable language on Uncommon Descent, but "fuck" is not.

Date: 2009/07/07 01:09:24, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (khan @ July 06 2009,14:18)
I shook hands with Carl Sagan, and he autographed a book for me.

Same for T A Randi.

I once toured the Yerkes observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin.  Carl Sagan did some kind of post-doc thingy there.  The tour guide went into the library and came out holding a book which he proudly opened for all to see.  It had been checked out by Carl Sagan.  So my Sagan/Bacon number is one.  Carl Sagan is dead.  So is Jesus.  So my Jesus/Bacon number must be two.

Fall down and worship me, puny mortals!

Date: 2009/07/07 01:32:26, Link
Author: djmullen
I was going to fall down and worship you until I saw you snubbed Dennett.

But now?  DIE HERETIC!

Date: 2009/07/09 01:18:39, Link
Author: djmullen
I'd love to do a full compare and contrast between the two once "Hitler's Ethic" is out, but $68 is a ridiculous price to pay for Weikart.

I can only see three reasons for a book to be priced that high.

1: It might cost that much to produce the book.  Examples would be "coffee table" books, large format books full of color illustrations.  "Hitler's Ethic" doesn't appear to be one of those.

2: Because the publishers realize they've got a turkey on their hands and don't expect to sell many copies, so they price it high in order to make back their fixed costs.  "Hitler's Ethic" may very well be one of these.

3: Because any one who wants to refute the book will have to buy a copy first and few people have $68.88 to throw away on a piece of crap book.  This cuts way back on criticism.

I'd say it's either number 2 or 3.

Date: 2009/07/09 23:49:40, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Badger3k @ July 09 2009,07:49)

Other than that, I have a new measure (I hope) - I don't think I have a bacon number that is measureable, but I once saw Richard Dawkins on tour, who has met Ken Miller, who knows John Kwok - I have a Kwokfactor of 3!  (Or is that a bad thing?)

I think I have a negative Dawkins number.  He was scheduled to address the Freedom From Religion Foundation at their annual convention, which was in Madison Wisconsin.  I joined the foundation and signed up (and paid in advance) for the convention.  Unfortunately, the convention was held in September, 2001, a few days after 9/11 and nobody, including Dawkins, could fly to America, so I listened to a man read the speech Dawkins would have given, had he been there.

What's my Dawkins number?  -1?  No, that would be lower than 1, which is good.  Maybe my Dawkins number is imaginary?  j1?

Date: 2009/07/10 00:00:15, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (k.e.. @ July 09 2009,14:06)
How do you make a sig wave?

Throw her out



your ouse wit

a wisdom expresse

d over sign wave for afar

lal messes corrected with a tick

for  tok give me one please meek m

eee in 2 . 3 is better not go wher

er i man ur 2 wymen do th sings

all hollows are even if wrong wh

u divide yb t rees or 2

doted x es are espelled


Thats Mobey's dik I have a hook

I'm going to get u all off a book.


It appears to be harvest time in the ganja fields Down Under.

Date: 2009/07/10 00:01:42, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2009,14:43)
Quote (k.e.. @ July 09 2009,14:32)
dim  wits                                             4 slowman
dimwits                                             4 slowman
4 slowman

Futures makets. air out. eeeeesig in


My explanatory filter fails.   :(

See my explanation above.

Good stuff!

Date: 2009/07/29 05:11:07, Link
Author: djmullen
This never made it to the "Contest # 7" thread:        



3:23 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“An avatar blogger, “Canadian Cynic,” had been posting obscenities for years against Canadian women (wives, mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters) who espoused traditional values.”

“But the enterprising Wendy Sullivan, the “Girl on the Right”, found out, and allowed the world (his clients, colleagues, suppliers, acquaintances, neighbours, anyone who might be interested, really) to know that that is how he spends his time when he is not developing or writing about software.”

And here are the obscenities the enterprising Wendy Sullivan posts about (Native) Canadian men and their daughters:

“Tuesday, June 26, 2007
As opposed to the other 364 days
When the Natives do absolutely nothing except smoke, drink and f**k their daughters. This Friday will mark the Native Day of Action™ here in Canada. It’s their chance to whine and complain that us white guys who pay 45% in income tax to support their smoking, drinking and daughter-f**king are ripping them off.”

She goes on to tell us those immoral natives huff gasoline too and gets a few good ones in on the Palestinians.

And here are the obscenities you spew all over Uncommon Descent while quoting the enterprising racist, Wendy Sullivan:
“cunts”, “wankers”, “douchebags”, “assholes”

And then you ask, “Why do so many Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?”

You’re a real class act, Denyse!

I can't imagine why Clive killed this one ... unless maybe my utter disgust with O'Leary and all things UD just got too palpable to ignore.

Date: 2009/07/29 05:14:29, Link
Author: djmullen
The Davem guy who posted the current #3 in that thread is not me.  He's half right, though.

Date: 2009/08/06 00:17:59, Link
Author: djmullen
So many of my comments never see the light of day on UD:  



12:00 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Sal @ 32:

whole genome duplication happens pretty regularly in plants. is this random noise, or not?

“The problem in making this characterization is that sometimes it is presumed a duplication happened when in fact identity may have been there to begin with.”

The anti-gout medication colchicine can induce polyploidy in plants.

Normal plant plus colchicine = polyploid plant. We can be certain that the “identity” was not there to begin with.

Further along in 32:
“But one thing I will say, as a matter of policy, if the Darwinists have said it was an accident and cobbled mess, the chances are they are being hasty in their inferences.”

Who was too hasty to Google before hitting “Submit Comment”?


Date: 2009/08/06 23:49:05, Link
Author: djmullen
Quote (Barrett Brown @ Aug. 06 2009,21:31)

Thought you guys might enjoy this article I just wrote for The Huffington Post on the subject of Uncommon Descent and its general wackiness. Most of the stuff described therein probably won't be new to you since you're the world's greatest experts on Dave Springer, but perhaps you'll get a kick out it nonetheless. Here it is.


Barrett Brown

Springer was unfazed by the revelation. "To everyone who's pointed out that the ACLU story is a fabrication according to -- that's hardly the point," he explained. "The pictures of Marines praying are real."

Didn't that picture turn out to be photoshopped to increase the number of marines praying?

Also, does anybody remember the details of when Dembski got caught flat-out lying his little creationist head off and then claimed it was all really street theater?

Date: 2009/08/07 04:01:48, Link
Author: djmullen
Thanks, didymos!  You are a one man reference library!

Date: 2009/08/28 00:18:21, Link
Author: djmullen
[quote=deadman_932,Aug. 27 2009,19:16]        

ETA: That last bit is purely rhetorical, Billy. Anyone that would write their own book review (as you did) under a fake name at Amazon...well, it's a moot point. Try changing, now.

Speaking of which, Clive missed this reference:      
1:44 am

denyse, kairosfocus and reader from riesel, are you aware that you’re using the word “ratchet” instead of “latching”?

Darwinian evolution does “ratchet” information into the DNA. It’s been described that way by scientists for decades.

It does this ratcheting through the simple technique of making many copies of successful DNA strings and letting natural selection get rid of any unsuccessful mutations to those strings – such as restoring a former incorrect letter.

This is EXACTLY what happens in Dawkins’ program or any other program that successfully mimics evolution. That is why Dawkins did not have to put any kind of latching into his program – the latching / ratcheting is inherent in Darwinian evolution and his program merely simulates one part of it.

Spiny Norman: Dawkins wrote “Weasel” as a pedagogical tool to demonstrate how the cumulative selection that is used by Darwinian evolution is almost infinitely faster than the type of “all-at-once” selection that creationists and IDists typically use. (You know, where they calculate that it would take 20^100 tries to find a 100 amino acid length protein by chance or 4^150 tries to find a 150 base pair long stretch of DNA by chance.) Because it was a teaching tool, he selected a specific target for it to find rather than confuse the issue by cobbling together some sort of moving target.

However, as I’ve written on this blog, if you re-write the program to look into an external file for the “target”, you can change that target whenever you wish and the program will continue to find the new strings just as quickly as it finds the fixed “Methinks it is like a weasel”.

But then he killed these next two messages:    
5:01 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

feebish @ 63: “I don’t understand why so many here are arguing against letting Dr Dawkins release his program.”

The real question is why so many are demanding that Dr. Dawkins produce a piece of throwaway code written over 20 years ago when his description of the program is clear enough to enable any mildly competent programmer to duplicate it.

I think the basic problem is that it has been duplicated many times and it works as advertised.

I suspect that a lot of ID Defenders have duplicated the code and found to their dismay that it works as advertised. What to do, what to do?

Well, there’s a saying in the legal profession: “If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. And if neither is on your side, pound on the table.”

This demand for the original code is the ID version of pounding on the table. It distracts from the fact that the program is easily written from the description and works as advertised.

I predict that the next tactic will be to demand that Dawkins produce his original birth certificate. And you know what? It will prove that he was born in Kenya!

5:31 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Kairosfocus @ 66:

How do you know this? Have you EVER seen a run which displayed EVERY member of every generation?

Remember that because Weasel (and evolution) makes many copies of every improved piece of DNA, a mutation can revert any single improved copy back to its original form and that non-optimal copy just gets discarded by natural selection.

“3 –> On law of large no’s [the correct form of the layman's crude "law of averages"], that strongly supports the inference that the samples do not revert because the generational champions preserve correct letters very strongly.”

You seem to be agreeing with me here. Evolution’s secret is to make lots of copies of successful organisms so an occasional defective copy can be lost through natural selection without adversely affecting the main population.

“4 -> The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL . . . . What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection”

Right, that’s the secret to Darwinian evolution. You get an organism that barely reproduces. You make lots of copies of it and some of those copies inevitably mutate. If any one of those mutated copies out reproduces the original, lots of copies are made of it and it eventually replaces the original. If one of the copies suffers another mutation that knocks it back to the original, it’s discarded by natural selection. This is basic Darwinian Evolution.

“5 –> Weasel is targetted search that rewards mere proximity of non-functional phrases through a process of random variation of a seed to create a population and artificial selection based on mere proximity to a set target.”

Weasel is a pedagogical program written to illustrate the difference between cumulative selection (which it uses) and the type of all-at-once selection ID people seem to think evolution uses. Dawkins gave it a fixed target to simplify the program and help illustrate how cumulative selection works.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, you can put that target statement into a separate file and change it to your heart’s content and Weasel will ALWAYS converge on it. What you call “proximity to a target” corresponds to “ability to reproduce” in the real world. Think of the target string as being a very very good reproducer and the original random string as something that just barely copies itself. The closer the organism gets to the target string, the better it reproduces.
I think I’ll quit here and see if you have a response to what I’ve said so far.

All examples from (or should have been in) the "Where's the code for the goddamn weasel?" thread

Date: 2009/10/07 01:27:45, Link
Author: djmullen
I seem to have been silently banninated from Uncommon Descent.  Two messages disappeared without ever coming out of moderation and the last two messages I wrote vanished as soon as I hit return.  Long experience at UD has taught me to keep copies of every message I post, so here are the two that disappeared without coming out of moderation.

The first was for niwraD's "How to become an IDer in two weeks" thread:

6:41 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The big problem here is that computer architectures and the languages that run on them are DESIGNED. One of the goals of DESIGNING any computer language is to make it run as fast as possible and use as little memory as possible. This means that every last bit of redundancy is DESIGNED out of the language. This in turn means that these DESIGNED languages are incredibly brittle. Changing a single bit can often radically alter the operation of the program or make it crash spectacularly.

Life, on the other hand, is NOT DESIGNED and neither is the “language” of DNA. This means that changing a base-pair in most stretches of DNA makes no change in the organism’s operation at all. I think somebody (Clive maybe?) once stated on this blog that 1/2 of all mutations have no effect at all, 1/4 are deleterious and 1/4 are actually beneficial.

This means that fooling around with a DESIGNED language, such as a computer program is very bad training for fooling around with an UNDESIGNED organism and its DNA.

I do wish that people would continue to bash IDers over the head with this whenever they compare errors in DESIGNED languages, like computer languages with errors in UNDESIGNED languages, such as the "language" of DNA.  They really shouldn't have the free shot we're letting them have with this.

The second message was in the "Simply Not Credible" thread started by Gil Dodgem.  It was to tgpeeler, with whom I had been having a long discussion on what is and is not information:    
6:04 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

tgpeeler, I spent last night and tonight reading some new threads on this blog and I really have to ask myself, is it even worth my time, indeed, is it even moral to engage any IDCer in conversation?

I say this after reading the slanderfest of a thread that Barry Arrington has opened on a perfectly moral comment by Seversky (”Hatred of Religion By Materialists More Virulent Than Previously Thought Possible”).

Reading that thread, where Arrington takes Seversky’s perfectly moral and innocuous statement (… I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization [sic] as part of their program.) and twists it into “… would rather see a young woman live in sexual slavery if that’s what it takes to insulate her from the influence of Christians who would try to help her.” positively turns my stomach. No, it makes me so $#%^#@ angry I want to punch some sense into that fool’s head – and I am not by nature a violent person.

Then I see DonaldM’s vacuous “Materialism and Moral Clarity” on the same topic, filled with O’Leary’s drivel like “My obstetrician friend who cashed in her possibly lucrative and well-respected career in Canada to go teach midwives in Africa – using modern techniques – would not likely have done that if she were not a devout Christian, who wanted to serve her Lord by saving mothers and babies, via teaching midwives scientific medicine.” as if she’s never even heard of Doctors Without Borders and other secular groups.

Then I write a short response to niwraD’s “How to become an IDer in two weeks” which mentions that computer languages are intelligently designed to use as little memory as possible and operate as quickly as possible, which makes them incredibly brittle and prone to crash, unlike the evolved and very fault tolerant DNA system and it goes straight into the bit bucket without a trace and I have to seriously ask myself, is it worth the time to talk to you people?

None of you have attained your beliefs through reason and you’re all incredibly ignorant about evolution and full of false “knowledge” about it. Most of you are convinced that if evolution is true, your God is dead and there is no heaven. The rest know that if evolution is true then IDers have made mighty big jackasses of themselves and in public.

Now what chance do I have against that? I’ve thought of a few new ways to illustrate my points, but I don’t have the kind of emotional arguments that would have a chance against ID’s emotion based beliefs. And I know, from bitter experience, that if I make an argument that really puts intelligent design on the spot, my posts will join the hundreds of other posts that I and a host of others have made that disappeared right down the bit bucket and never even saw the light of day.

That censoring and especially Arrington’s thread have pretty well disgusted me on ID.

That last message pretty well sums up my attitude towards the moral midgets of creationism and ID creationism.  No logical argument or set of facts is ever going to budge any of them one inch.  They did not reason themselves into their current beliefs and no amount of reason will reason them out of them.  Better to use the ID technique of pure Madison Avenue P.R. and go for an emotional attack, which I am not well equipped to mount.  So screw them.