AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: rossum

form_srcid: rossum

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: rossum

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2008/12/11 06:48:53, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 11 2008,00:13)
Also, Dr. Dr. D, try running God through your Design Filter. †

Is He random? †Nope. †
Is He law-like? †Nope.
Conclusion: God is designed.

If I'm wrong, please show me my error. †

(Thanks to RBH for this one.)

No need to, already been done: God and the Explanatory Filter.


Date: 2008/12/22 10:49:54, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 21 2008,23:15)
That's it. Coal in your stocking, you bastard.


Just coal?


Date: 2009/01/09 17:24:10, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 09 2009,12:20)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 09 2009,09:49)
And, French and Spanish make...


I very much doubt it. †Euskara was there before any of the Indo-European languages arrived.


Date: 2009/01/18 06:53:09, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Jan. 17 2009,20:33)
This discovery is indeed Nobel caliber, but I am already girding my loins to be expelled from the Nobel process.

Irrelevant anyway - it is questionable whether or not Stockholm is a valid move in MC.


Date: 2009/01/24 08:49:54, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 23 2009,19:24)
BTW, Daniel, I'd be interested in seeing your code for a simulation of God Theory in action. Pseudocode will do.

Won't that amount to a hideously long series of assignment statements?

* smites the indicated object.
* @param object to be smited.
* @return object is returned to the void from whence it came.
* @throws see Thunderbolt extends Throwable.
public void smite(Object target) { ... }

†* inflicts the indicated number of plagues on the target object.
†* @param int the number of plagues to be inflicted in the range 1 to 10 inclusive.
†* @param object the target of the plagues.
†* @return long the number of dead bodies resulting.
†* @throws FrogException if the number of plagues is not in the correct range.
†* Note that this may as a side effect either result in a call to smite(programmer) or turn the programmer into a frog.
public long inflictPlagues(int num, Object target) { ... }


Date: 2009/02/07 06:51:57, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2009,19:47)
I could be wrong. †It's possible that there is no God and that all life accidentally appeared through sheer luck and coincidence.
I'm open to that possibility, but it's going to take a heckuva convincing case to make me switch to that position.

Why take such an either-or position? †An omnipotent God can make things happen any way He wants to. †If God wants something to happen by a miracle, then it happens by a miracle. †If God wants something to happen by natural laws, then it happens by natural laws. †If God wants something to happen by luck and coincidence, then it happens by luck and coincidence.


Date: 2009/04/03 07:47:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Quack @ April 03 2009,06:39)
I once had a link to a display of evolutionary relationships. It was circular, starting at the center with branches outwards to the periphery. It was possible to zoom in on details.

Anyone got the link?

Try and have a look at the "Download Graphic Images" link. †That seems to be something like what you are looking for.


Date: 2009/04/19 06:25:33, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 19 2009,04:28)
A box of rocks contributes to theology: † † † † †  




10:38 am

We need to show that an personal agent created the universe. To do that we must show that an impersonal, changeless cause could not have done so.

So, we begin with a self-evident truth as the premise and work our way through those things which necessarily follow:

Premise: For all impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed, none can begin in time.

1. Therefore: All effects that have always existed could not have begun to exist

2. Therefore: All impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed could not have begun in time.

3: Therefore, no effect can begin to exist if its impersonal, unchanging cause always was.

4: Therefore: No impersonal, unchanging cause can begin to exist if its effect always was.

5: Therefore, no impersonal, unchanging cause can exist without its effect.

6: Therefore, no effect can exist without its impersonal, unchanging cause.

7: Therefore, the impersonal, unchanging law cannot cause the universe to begin to exist.

8: Therefore, a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist.

If someone needs for me to demonstrate why each follows from the other, let me know.

Wow! Where to begin?

It might be enough just to change "impersonal" to "personal" and vice versa. †The argument works just the same whatever adjective is used, try it with "pink unchanging causes". †The important part is the "unchanging" nature of the cause.

An unchanging personal cause has exactly the same problem: †On the first day God said "Let there be light", and on the second day God said "Let there be light", and on the third day God said ...

Of course a changing cause, whether personal or impersonal, cannot be eternal since anything that changes cannot be eternal.


Date: 2009/07/20 08:47:34, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 20 2009,07:54)
O bama? †WTF

Make that "O'Bama". †He is Irish, which is why he can't find his birth certificate - he is looking in Hawaii or Kenya when he should be looking in Dublin. †:D


Date: 2009/08/03 08:59:40, Link
Author: rossum
How about a look at the Wedge Document and adding the "Five year goals" and "Twenty year goals" to the timeline.

The Wedge Document was released in 1999 so the Five year Goals can go under 2004:
  • To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
  • To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
  • To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.


Date: 2009/08/30 05:18:38, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 30 2009,04:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 29 2009,23:39)
Best not. †If Gordon found out about that video he would probably write a post so long that it would make Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" seem brief and to the point, arguing that what is plainly obvious to any reasonable person just ain't so. †And who would want that?

I think kf of The Kairos Institute is already aware of the video: was it him who claimed that the programme was changed between 1986 and 1987? †This was the last time Weasel came up, so I'm not going to be bothered to check for it.

I think he's now saying that this shows something about quasi-latching. †But I'm incapable of following his arguments.

The video is linked in Denise's OP to the thread:  
On the other hand,from a (video-run of the program , go to 6:15), it seems to be the latter.


Date: 2009/10/05 06:47:31, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,17:55)
Um, what's the square root of the real number -1 again?

That question is either imaginary, irrational, transcendental, unreal, or irreducibly complex.


So is that imaginary faith, irrational faith, transcendental faith, unreal faith, or irreducibly complex faith?


Date: 2009/10/17 16:14:27, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (khan @ Oct. 17 2009,15:40)
Quote (ERV @ Oct. 17 2009,16:31)
lol, wat?

She's here. †You guys are in trouble.

They are only in trouble if she is wearing the Leather Thigh-boots. †I just hope for their sake that she isn't wearing the full Doris the Dominatrix outfit...


Date: 2009/10/19 12:37:36, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 19 2009,11:39)
Um, not information as we know it, Jim.

<mode=Trekkie Nerd>Make that: "It's information Jim, but not as we know it."</mode>


Date: 2009/10/29 08:08:29, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

Floyd's problem is worse than that. †Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark 10:6 Jesus said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally. †On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at "the beginning", but more than a hundred and twenty hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female. †Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.


Date: 2009/10/29 10:48:20, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:55)
Both in Mark 10 and Matt 19, Jesus is quoting from straight Genesis verses.

My apologies for phrasing my thoughts badly. †Jesus was indeed referring to verses from Genesis, my point is that He did not interpret them literally.

Quote (Mortenson @ AiG)
In other words, Jesus is saying that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of history.

You have just lost the game Floyd. †If history started when Adam and Eve were created, then everything that is described in Genesis as happening before the creation of Adam and Eve, i.e. days one to five, cannot be history and should not be taken as history. †Yet, your case is that all of Genesis has to be taken as history, not just part of it. †Your own source is telling you that you lose.

Quote (Mortenson @ AiG)
.....Jesus is reaching farther back in history for the basis of his teaching on marriage. The Pharisees go back to the time of Mosesí writings in Deuteronomy, whereas Jesus goes back to the beginning of time.

So AiG are denying that days one to five were part of time and hence that they cannot have been 24-hour days as you insist. †Why are you quoting from such a heretical website Floyd? †Again you lose.

Quote (Mortenson @ AiG)
Jesus spoke these words about 4000 years after the beginning. †If we equate those 4000 years with a 24-hour day, then Jesus was speaking at 24:00 and the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth literal day of history would be equivalent to 00:00:00:35 (half a second after the beginning), in the non-technical language of Jesus here is the beginning of time.

In the technical language of science, Dr. Mortenson is accusing Jesus of making an error; he is accusing Jesus of lying. †Jesus, being omniscient as you believe could have said "near the beginning..." or "close to the beginning..." and been perfectly truthful. †Instead Dr. Mortenson is accusing Jesus of error.

I already knew that AiG was appallingly bad at science. †Until now I have never bothered to read their apologetics stuff. †From the look of this article you picked their apologetics are just as awful as their science.

So, Jesus is indeed saying that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of creation.

That is indeed what He said, and it shows that He did not interpret Genesis literally. †If He had interpreted Genesis literally He would have said "near the beginning...". †Are you going to follow Dr. Mortenson into heresy and accuse Jesus of lying?


Date: 2009/10/30 17:32:06, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 30 2009,10:15)
4.) Mornington Crescent

Saint Ockwell


Date: 2009/11/02 16:10:25, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,15:10)
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight. †How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?

You left out Philip Johnson:
I also donít think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thatís comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that itís doable, but thatís for them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006)

Make that four of the largest figures in ID.

Date: 2009/11/04 10:55:44, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)
Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.

The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us. †The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks. †Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.


Date: 2009/11/11 15:16:14, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 11 2009,14:43)
One of their 8 reasons ID = Teh Fail is Dembski's Sweater!!111!

That sweater is a fail, even in ID's own terms: †
Quote (Dembski @ ARN)
Attracting Talent. Are we continually attracting new talent to intelligent design's scientific research program? Does that talent include intellects of the highest caliber? Is that talent distributed across the disciplines or confined only to certain disciplines? Are under-represented disciplines getting filled? What about talent that's been with the movement in the past? Is it staying with the movement or becoming disillusioned and aligning itself elsewhere? Do the same names associated with intelligent design keep coming up in print or are we constantly adding new names? Are we fun to be around? Do we have a colorful assortment of characters? Other things being equal, would you rather party with a design theorist or a Darwinist?

Source: Becoming a Disciplined Science

Would you want to party with that sweater?


Date: 2009/11/12 12:27:16, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 12 2009,10:26)
Looking for a date, Joe? With grease or dry?

"If spit doesn't work, it's not true love."


Date: 2009/11/19 10:43:36, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 19 2009,09:49)
I've got the whipped cream and chocolate sauce covered.

Yeah, but you are meant to whip the cream after you cover yourself with it. †At least that is what my mother always did.


Date: 2009/11/24 09:15:34, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,07:46)
Apparently, by asking the question does God exists, we have proved his existence!

So, the question is "Does the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist?"


Date: 2009/12/07 13:55:01, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 07 2009,10:54)
I agree. †What I was trying to get at is the science-deniers' tendency to think that erasure is an appropriate (and logically sound?) response to criticism.

Since they seem to think that everything true and worth knowing is written in THE BOOK, it stands to reason that if something is erased from THE BOOK then it cannot have been true or worth knowing in the first place. †QED.


Date: 2009/12/18 06:51:37, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 18 2009,06:46)
Why does God hate Canada?

Because some of them speak French of course.


Date: 2009/12/22 11:14:01, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 22 2009,07:55)
I'd like to see her wrestle a seventh day adventist white pointer shark.

Shark wrestling? †Here you go.


Date: 2010/01/18 10:23:43, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 18 2010,09:52)
I think the original book review I paraphrased went like this:

This book is novel and good. However, the parts that were good were not novel, and the parts that were novel were not good.

It is an apocryphal quote from Dr Johnson: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."


Date: 2010/01/27 15:05:24, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 27 2010,06:52)
Also, if there is a plausible process by which left-handed amino acids are produced or selected (perhaps polarised light or beta decay), and a plausible process of assembly (perhaps mineral templating), then those exponents simply vanish.

Ask and it shall be granted: Freezing Effect on Chirality Generation of DL-Alanine-N-Carboxy-Anhydride Oligomerization in Aqueous Solution.

Our studies indicated that an enantiomeric excess of L- or D-Ala appeared in some oligopeptide fractions. Their excesses were significantly larger in the frozen than liquid solution.


Date: 2010/03/19 12:41:34, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 19 2010,04:00)
In addition, an example of the Explanatory Filter in action would be great.

Been there, done that, got the link: God and the Explanatory Filter.


Date: 2010/03/21 06:40:01, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 19 2010,14:12)
Hi Rossum,

I liked your link.

I don't suppose Dembski or any other big name ID proponent offered a rebuttal to this did they?

I have never seen any rebuttal offered, which does not mean that there isn't one out there somewhere that I have not seen yet.


Date: 2010/03/22 07:52:38, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 22 2010,03:42)
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 22 2010,00:31)
† †
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 21 2010,04:49)
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Mornington Crescent eh?

Tut tut.



Totteridge & Whetstone (Ha! It's still Sunday here! Bet you forgot about low tide too.)

It ain't Sunday any more, and it's the 22nd so ...

Mansion House.

A move into the City. †Interesting.



Date: 2010/05/25 18:55:36, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2010,16:06)
Quote (Henry J @ May 24 2010,19:45)
I'll try not to be a Bohr.

At least chemistry is an elementary subject - at least on a periodic basis.

Ignore him, he's just looking for a reaction.


Fermi la bouche?


Date: 2010/06/20 11:33:41, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Tom Ames @ June 19 2010,22:23)
It's not quite what I had in mind with the OP, but does anyone else remember Christopher Langan's* "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe"? It was sort of a verbal analog to TimeCube, and WMD seemed to think it was The Shit for awhile.

*Oops. By mentioning his name I may have just brought down upon our heads the wrath of his internet troll-posse (Hi Genie!). Sorry about that.

ISCID still remembers him:

But does ISCID have anything other than memories anyway?


Date: 2010/06/20 11:45:27, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (khan @ June 20 2010,10:19)
"watch us like hyenas" †?

Yeah. †They sit around looking at members of the Hyaenidae saying, "I really like that hyena," to each other. †We watch them doing it.



Date: 2010/06/29 04:39:25, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ June 29 2010,04:24)
So why do you claim junk-dna, generally, has no function?

Because Junk DNA generally has no function.

In round figures about 5% of our genome directly codes for proteins. †A further 5-10% is conserved and so likely has a function other than direct coding for proteins. †The remaining 85-90% is junk with no specific function.

The articles ID people, like Sal Cordova, promote are about new functions discovered for the 5-10%.


Date: 2010/08/02 07:43:25, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 01 2010,21:17)

I'm sorry, there is no station called "Harrumph".

I will invoke that Boris Extension (aka the Bonking Boris Extension) and play: †Hoxton.


Date: 2010/08/21 08:44:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 20 2010,18:17)
South Kensington. †I need a museum fix.

Tut tut sir. †There is a separate Mornington Crescent thread for that sort of thing. †Think of the poor innocent children who may be reading this thread, unaware of its nefarious contents.


Date: 2010/08/24 06:24:54, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 23 2010,20:46)
Now if only someone would set one of these bad boys loose in the Chicago River...

Too late, the French have it in Bordeaux...


Date: 2010/09/16 15:53:50, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 16 2010,15:26)
But above all else, just enjoy the game for its simple pleasures.

Which reminds me, has the Boris-Bike supplement to Stovold been approved yet or are we still waiting for the white smoke to appear? †Mind you, we have been waiting for that since they replaced the steam engines on the Circle Line.

Which inevitably brings us to the gateway to the south: Balham.


Date: 2010/09/20 07:55:29, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 19 2010,18:28)
I thought I understood it at one point, but researching the classic games I realize I'm kind of at sea.

I'm sorry, but sea areas are not allowed, so no Dogger, Fisher or Bight. †We might at a pinch allow Southend or Margate which would perhaps suffice as they are on the coast. †That would however require Kielmansegge's interpretation which many have questioned, including Rev. Thorpe-Fanshawe in his notable tome "Stovold for Experts".

Stockwell. †(The interpretation as St. Ockwell has been disallowed due to the Pope's visit.)


Date: 2010/09/20 12:35:41, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 20 2010,10:04)
btw rossum, don't think the Invigilators didn't notice your two sequential plays.

'cause they did.

(stern look)

Sorry sir. †I won't do it again sir. †[Stands in corner looking sheepish.]


Date: 2010/09/24 08:43:33, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 24 2010,05:34)
Finsbury Park (which had the same traditional role, though the claim of privilege in defamation cases is, sadly apocryphal).

Yes, a pity about that.  Your case come up next week I understand.

I think that a move to the south will impact certain not quite so well laid plans:



Date: 2010/09/30 11:01:37, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 30 2010,09:59)
I believe that Stephen has to amend his law of causality now to exclude human acts of free will. †I wonder why he hadn't thought of that before?

Maybe God only just gave him the free will to think it?


Date: 2010/10/01 07:53:47, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Seversky @ Sep. 30 2010,18:06)
On the one hand we have some one who follows a religion that involves stories about walking, talking snakes, sticks that turn into snakes, water turned into wine, a man raised from the dead, all created by an eternal, uncaused, self-sufficient deity who created everything out of nothing for no apparent reason.

Well that is obviously not Tru-Christianityô, no siree Bob. †Tru-Christianityô has all that and two magic trees as well.


Date: 2010/10/02 08:09:59, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 02 2010,03:25)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 02 2010,00:18)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2010,21:48)
10. The "higher," more complex animals must have been produced immediately by God, and God alone.



No, I think he means alpacas and bighorn sheep.

Oh, and yaks.

Yaks? †Oh, you mean Bigfoots (or is it Bigfeet?).

If we are in Yak country then it's probably Yeti.  Go to the back of the Cryptozoology class.


Date: 2010/10/13 15:11:34, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 13 2010,10:45)
Also, you don't type when you're sitting nekkid at a computer.

Or so I'm told.

They told you wrong. †You can type one handed.

Oh. †Erm... :O


Date: 2010/11/19 07:28:26, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2010,05:33)
† †
If I am involved in a Coirt case about ID vs the ToE your experts are going to have to answer all those questions you assholes have been avoiding.

And the best part is no one will be able to pin any religious motivation on me.

For me it is just a matter of time- once my kid gets to HS I will make sure this goes to Court.


Has JoeG been reading about the Vise Strategy?

You might want to study that a bit more first Joe. †Possibly some problems down the line.


Date: 2010/11/25 07:59:25, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 24 2010,09:57)
He has also published a pro-ID paper in Protein Science [M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.].

If I remember correctly, that paper supported evolutionary theory, not ID.

You do. †It did. †IIRC is was dealt with some time on day 12 of the Dover trial. †A simple IC system can evolve in about 20,000 years in a population of one billion bacteria. †There are a lot more than one million bacteria in one ton of soil.

The paper itself is here:

It is a useful one to refer ID creationists to.


Date: 2010/11/30 18:18:12, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 30 2010,15:37)
Yes indeed. †Shooting a large can of beans with a rifle to make the small can of tomato sauce you balanced on it fly up and then laughing at your brother who missed the flying can with a shotgun would be wrong.

Specially for Maya:

The Hello Kitty AK-47.

Me, I prefer the "Motha' T". †:)


Date: 2010/12/03 09:50:43, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2010,11:47)
1) Who is going to sue first for a First Amendment violation (you'd think a 300 cubit ark was a pretty obvious endorsement of one religion)?

AIUI the tax break is because it will bring tourists and jobs to the area. †In itself those are religiously neutral. †The problems might come when they start hiring and ask prospective employees to sign one of their fundie "Statement of Faith" things. †At that point non-fundies can start suing.

IIRC the Creation Museum has something like that for its staff so I imagine that Ham will go down the same route with the Ark experience.


Date: 2010/12/03 10:05:35, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 03 2010,07:03)
Or, here is the same program in APL.

'Hello World!'

Yeah, but Chuck Norris can do it in 11 bytes of Assembler (and a roundhouse kick).


(You may replace Chuck Norris with Bruce Schneier if you wish.)

Date: 2010/12/10 09:19:22, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 10 2010,07:48)
An Open Letter to some UD regulars †  
To: †vjtorley, Clive Hayden, tribune7, kairosfocus, StephenB, Upright Biped, Shogun, mynymn, allanius, Lamont, andrewjg, and Ilion

Re: †perceived dangers of Teh Buttsex

If it hurts, yer doin it wrong.


"If spit doesn't work then it's not true love."



Date: 2010/12/16 12:53:53, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 16 2010,06:44)
It's ISCID v.2.

Not quite. †It's ISCID v.3. †Remember the Journal of Evolutionary Informatics?

Announced, never published anything and all that is left is a dead web address. †Seems to sum up ID pretty well.


Date: 2011/01/21 08:20:07, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Correct. †Science cannot prove that an undetectable being of infinite power (Ubip) did something and then perfectly covered up her tracks.

Science cannot prove that Ubip is not going to turn the soap in your bathroom into the most delicious and nutritious food overnight. †Despite that, how many people do you know who try taking a bite out of their bar of soap every morning, just in case?

Science works within limits, which is part of what gives it its power to explain things within those limits. †A Ubip is outside the limits of science so the actions of the Ubip, or similar, are not susceptible to scientific enquiry.


Date: 2011/01/28 08:39:02, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 27 2011,21:01)
I believe that you could create a theological position that supports Abortion (As somebody wrote somewhere recently "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament").

Start by reading Numbers 5:11-31. †If you suspect your pregnant wife has been sleeping with someone else then take her to the Temple and the priests will procure an abortion for you.


Date: 2011/02/11 03:50:55, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 10 2011,17:45)
Any other things that could stop new life, besides being food and time to do so, that can be used?

Oxygen. †We no longer have a reducing atmosphere.


Date: 2011/02/16 06:04:55, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2011,17:05)
Got, guffaw, any worked examples of the Explanatory Filter in action?

Here's one I prepared earlier: God and the Explanatory Filter


Date: 2011/03/01 08:12:21, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2011,07:28)
"Islands of functionality" is one of those great metaphors being slowly strangled by facts.

"Continents of Functionality"?


Date: 2011/03/06 12:42:02, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2011,16:36)
That's part of why I wrote the response about information increase the way I did. I showed that the assertion failed for the two most-used formal definitions of information and an informal one as well. I don't have to wait around for a probably never-arriving definition from a religious antievolutionist. If they want to continue to claim no information increases are possible, they have to pony up their reason why not, not just assert it.

ISTM that the ID use of 'information' is a reincarnation of the old Creation Science argument about Biblical 'kinds'. †When ID dropped God and replaced Him with the Designer they had to drop all the Bible references as well. †Hence the replacement of "yes, but that is just evolution within a kind" with "yes, that is evolution but there is no increase in information".

The overall technique is still the same. †Pick something ill-defined. †Refuse to define it when asked. †When faced with an awkward question use the word du jour, still undefined, to refute the opposition's argument. †Since the concept remains terminally fuzzy it can be used to respond to a great many questions.



Date: 2011/03/16 16:28:18, Link
Author: rossum
Guitar Heaven: Nagoya Guitars


Date: 2011/03/17 18:29:16, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 17 2011,18:16)
Crap to creo?

Carp to creo.

Even creos are vertebrates, and it gets past the naughty word filters on some sites.


Date: 2011/03/31 13:05:05, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,11:37)
...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh)

Easily solved. †If you are female, move to Vermont. †If you are male move to Saudi Arabia and convert. †I suspect that it might be easier to persuade MathGrrl to move to Vermont.

Gender reassignment surgery and then Vermont perhaps?

rossum (who usually tries to be helpful)

Date: 2011/04/15 10:58:51, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 15 2011,10:11)
That makes him at least as intelligent as a crow.

I sense a new commercial opportunity:

Herbal Brainiac! †Specially formulated for Corvidae!! Increase your intelligence now!!! †Just send $44.99


Date: 2011/04/29 15:19:57, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Kristine @ April 29 2011,13:38)
And if the aliens are using public broadcasting to educate their own about contraceptives and abortion, what then?

The Pope is going to have some very strong words for them.


Date: 2011/05/11 17:19:41, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 11 2011,10:29)
Well, his version of evolution that actually has no relationship with any real version or theory of evolution.



Date: 2011/05/23 19:03:31, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (khan @ May 23 2011,18:59)
Don't mess with me, I've debugged COBOL in HEX.

COBOL? †Ha! †I see your COBOL and raise you Burroughs Extended ALGOL-60!


Date: 2011/06/15 07:29:07, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Quack @ June 15 2011,01:03)
What's up with newsgroup? Down?

I assume that the robo-moderator has a problem so no posts are getting through.


Date: 2011/06/15 11:58:05, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 15 2011,10:45)
<Wonders if flaming oil of ad hominem kills fleas>

Flaming oil of ad pulexium?


Date: 2011/06/16 09:05:52, Link
Author: rossum
Is there any news on the issue at beyond "the robo-moderator is on vacation"?


Date: 2011/07/21 07:28:25, Link
Author: rossum
I was trying to search the Talk Origins Archive site today, but Google is rejecting all searches:

"We're sorry...

... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now."

I can search Google normally from my computer.

Has someone hacked into


Date: 2011/07/22 07:26:34, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 22 2011,07:06)
I've updated the TOA search page with the new Google search. I'm not happy about it.

It may look strange, but it works now.

Thanks for the fix.


Date: 2011/07/22 08:19:00, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Patrick @ July 21 2011,18:16)
Many Individual Conservatives Helping Elect Leaders Everywhere

I think I prefer Barry's version:

Many Individual Conservatives Helping Elect Ludicrous Leaders Everywhere


Date: 2011/07/25 05:47:32, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Woodbine @ July 25 2011,00:15)
Same here. Using Chrome....
Quote contains content from, a site known to distribute malware.

Looking at the HTML, FtK's avatar image is from there:


Date: 2011/07/28 12:01:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 28 2011,10:48)
Interestingly this is why New Zealand is such a nice place to live.

Nothing to do with the sheep, then?

That's Wales.


Date: 2011/07/31 04:32:50, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (J-Dog @ July 30 2011,16:14)
with Kristine's foot in a fashionable pump

And Rex Ryan can't wait for the Non-UD Certified - Adult XXX Version*!

* And apologies for the redundency.

Here it is.

Date: 2011/08/04 12:24:47, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 04 2011,11:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 04 2011,09:08)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 04 2011,05:25)
yeah right like you lot don't do that afterwhile playing rugby

Fixed. †You've seen scrums, yes?

Yes. The "ot" is elided.

(waits for penny to drop...)

You mean your haven't yet? †Dropped that is. †:D


Date: 2011/08/08 11:26:26, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 08 2011,11:05)
How would you tell whether a random string is or is not a sequence from the expansion of pi? :p

Very easily. † :D


Date: 2011/08/23 17:51:06, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 23 2011,17:12)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2011,15:24)
Indeed Gents. For example the (non)calculation of CSI. I didn't actually see any, erm, numbers. Like the SI of an apple is 2.9 x 10^354, or whatever.

Man up Mullings!

PaV accidentally puts his finger on the gaping hole (one of them anyway) in the CSI argument:

† †

Does the Grand Canyon represent some specified pattern, known beforehand?

Go on PaV. †Give us the specified pattern for an enzyme or a protein that you knew beforehand, not one you measured and declared to be specified after the fact.

There is always a specification known beforehand. †The specification is in the mind of the Designer before he/she/it/they set to work.

Since we now have a specification, let's see the calculation.


Date: 2011/09/09 06:35:43, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,22:45)
Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

A hit, a hit, my kingdom for a hit!

<a href="">Shakespearian Baseball</a>


Date: 2011/09/12 08:58:50, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 12 2011,08:17)
Is Panda's Thumb down? or is it just me?

Me to, so it's not just you.


Date: 2011/09/23 06:42:48, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 23 2011,06:16)
Elizabeth Liddle destroys the "ID is too science" argument in [URL=ďthe-origin-and-relationship-between-the-three-domains-of-life-is-lodged-in-a-phylogenetic-

impasseĒ/comment-page-1/#comment-400613]one magnificent post[/URL].

Hopefully working link to her excellent post: here.

The link is


Date: 2011/09/26 11:50:58, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 26 2011,11:27)
As much as I have to admit Shakespeare and DaveTard shouldn't match, this is most likely a POTW...

Given the current state of Physics, shouldn't it be POLW (Post of last week)?


Date: 2011/10/06 06:10:16, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,04:28)
Please tell us where a Scientific Method has determined that a bacteria has evolved into anything but a bacteria

Try mitochondria.

or a fruit fly has evolved into anything but a fruit fly?

You don't understand common descent and the twin nested hierarchy, do you. †For your first piece of homework go and find out how many different species of fruit fly there are.

Fossil were accumulated and faked,

What do fakes prove? †Do the faked Hitler diaries prove that Hitler didn't exist? †There are plenty of non-fake fossils.

soft t-rex tissues disproved radiomagic dating, punctuated equilibrium was hypothesized to no avail, fruit flies were zapped but to avail, DNA hybridization is racked with fraud because its to no avail. The very fact that the basic tenets of evolution theory changes every decade is enough to expose its faith based pseudoscience.

We already know that creationist websites tell lies, and that some people believe that lies that they are told by creationists. †You don't need to tell us again.


Date: 2011/10/06 07:44:00, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,06:58)
Mitochondria? Why ya so hesitant to elaborate?

Why are you so hesitant to look? †Afraid that you might find some real facts that show you have been lied to by your creationist sources?

You dont have the slightest idea how many fruit flies there are but what is your point?

How many species of Fruit Fly. †You haven't done your homework. †You haven't even read the question correctly.

Micro-adaptations are stem from preexisting phenotypes selected via an intelligently designed survival mechanism?

And your evidence for this piece of wishful thinking is? †The answer to your homework question is relevant here. †If you don't understand the relevance then consider the phrase, "...or a eukaryote has evolved into anything but a eukaryote?".

Lies? Can you actually defend your defensiveness?

Yes. †Creationists have no evidence to support their position. †So they lie to try to concoct some evidence in their favour and they lie to try to disparage the evidence for evolution. †Google "Gish Bullfrog" for a notorious example of a creationist lying about the evidence.


Date: 2011/10/06 17:58:38, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 06 2011,16:31)
Looks like where chicken Joseph lives.

I thought he lived in the car park next door.


Date: 2011/10/14 07:30:50, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 14 2011,01:20)
Didnt Spain try that already with their pieces-of-eight? :p

That was Bytecoin.  Bitcoin is pieces-of-one.  :D


Date: 2011/10/21 11:01:50, Link
Author: rossum
So, lets have a closer look.
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
For instance:

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

Was your "superior designer" disordered? †If so then you are making order from disorder, which is what you are claiming cannot be done by evolution.

Was your "superior designer" ordered? †If so then where did that order come from, how did it originate? †Was there an even more superior "superior designer" designer to create that order?

ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

Evolution does not rely on miracles, that is the province of creationists. †Do some calculations on the size of populations and the number of mutations an individual carries. †The appearance of a specific mutation is not that unlikely over a few generations.


Date: 2011/10/25 15:39:23, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder yíall wont try †to explain to me †the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.

Some advice. †You really need to check your information before posting here. †We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian. †Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that. †Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.


Date: 2011/11/01 06:58:54, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms

A few points. †Was the description correct or incorrect? †A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct? †What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one? †For example, I disagree. †I think that, "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," was the original evolution of the first Metazoan, back well before the Cambrian.

Note that plant body forms are not mentioned. †All land plant phyla appeared after the Cambrian. †Why is that?

Note the word "virtually", not all but "virtually all". †Many animal phyla, but not all of them, and no land plant phyla at all appeared in the Cambrian. †Looking at the figures, nine animal phyla and no land plant phyla appeared in the Cambrian, of a total of 45 phyla. †Nine of 45 is 20% of metazoan phyla. †Important, but not overwhelmingly important.

Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla,

Animal phyla. †Again, your sources are omitting plant phyla. †Ever wonder why your sources are leaving out inconvenient data?

some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.

And some estimate a lot less. †Where is the evidence to support this estimate? †After all, the people giving the estimates are scientists, and you know that scientists can't be trusted when it comes to evolution and biology.

as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it † Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

Bwahahaha! †You don't read this stuff before you post it, do you. †1988 is not "recently", it is ancient history for biology. †We hadn't even sequenced the human genome in 1988. †That may be recent for theology, but it isn't recent for biology.

And they werenít ďallĒ squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

The non-fossilised ones were usually squishy. †I wasn't talking about the one that we have fossils for in that sentence. †You might also look at the dates for the Cambrian Explosion and the dates for actual early fish fossils. †We have probable chordates, such as Pikaia, from just after the Cambrian Explosion but no vertebrates. †The vertebrates appear later.

Your creationist/ID sources are supplying you with faulty information. †You really need to double check what they tell you before posting. †Be sure that we will check things if you don't.


Date: 2011/11/02 07:42:21, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment

And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?


Date: 2011/11/02 07:52:19, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

I have no hostility towards design. †I have designed things myself. †I have no hostility towards Jesus, though I think of Him as a Bodhisattva, which might be seen as hostile by some. †As you might have surmised from my avatar, I an Buddhist, and I can assure you that Buddhism has no problems with either evolution or atheism. †Both origins and gods are irrelevant to the goals of Buddhism.

I do have problems with unscientific explanations based on an unevidenced designer, whose proponents will not even put a date on when the designer/s worked.

ID is a political, not a scientific movement. †It has just enough 'scienciness' to make it look scientific to non-scientists and to make it politically plausible. †It does not have enough science to actually qualify as science.

If the designer did design the bacterial flagellum, then when did this event happen, and what evidence do you have to support that date?


Date: 2011/11/02 15:17:40, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:13)
According to Buddha, one shouldnt make haughty claims of whats the gods cant and cant do until one reaches a of very high plane of spiritual knowledge. Your passion for the teachings of materialists men over spiritual enlightenment prove that you havnt reached this plane

And where did you find this gem in the Tripitaka?  Buddhism generally tends to ignore gods.  They aren't particularly relevant to following the path.

Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler

Bwahahaha!  You lose - Poe's Law.  Your knowledge of Buddhism in general, and of Tantric Buddhism in particular, is obviously insufficient.

The Brahmajala Sutta seems to indicate creationism but maybe you can give us your take on the following...

Certainly.  A being dies from a very high plane and is the first to be reborn in a newly formed lower plane: "Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahm?."

Being on his own, since he was the first to be reborn in the empty palace in the lower plane, he wishes for companions: "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahm?, in companionship with him."

Since he wished for companions, and they duly appeared, he suffers from the delusion that he caused them to appear, when in fact it was the exhaustion of their previous karma.  However, he continues with his delusion and claims great powers for himself, on the basis of his mistaken understanding: "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'"

The being claiming to be Brahm? is mistaken.  This is nothing to do with creationism, but about the mistaken claims of a powerful god to be, "the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be."  You, or your source, has misunderstood the meaning of this passage.  The Brahmajala sutta points out a number of errors found among non-Buddhists.  This passage is from the section about the error of believing in an eternal creator-god who made the world.  Contemporary Buddhists often use it to argue against followers of the Abrahamic religions.

As I said before, your knowledge of Buddhism is insufficient.  All you have done here is to shoot yourself in the foot.  The god claiming to be the creator is making a mistaken claim, based on his own error.

You would do well to restrict yourself to arguing about topics where you have some knowledge.  Buddhism is not one of them.


Date: 2011/11/02 15:19:31, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:15)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment

And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?


Which ones?

Any land dwelling organism from the Cambrian will do.  Show us your evidence please.


Date: 2011/11/03 06:08:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:12)
Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims?

No. †The Abrahamic god, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Moslems, is mistaken and his claims are in error. †He claims to be the Immortal Omnipotent Creator, but his claims are wrong. † He is long lived, but not immortal. †He is powerful, but not omnipotent. †He didn't create the world, but is deluded in thinking that he did.

Tantric rituals involve ...

There are two possibilities here. †First, you have been initiated into one of the Tantric lineages, and in the process sworn yourself not to reveal its secrets to the uninitiated. †In this case you are an oath breaker and not to be trusted. †Second, that you have not been initiated and that you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge. †Again, what you say is not to be trusted. †I consider that the second possibility is more likely.

Tantras are secret. †Even when they are written down, they are written in coded language so that the uninitiated cannot understand them. †Knowing that the translation of "a red herring" is "a pink fish" does not help you get to the real meaning of the text. †The words of a written Tantra are deliberately designed to be misleading to the uninitiated. †You cannot learn Tantra from a book; you have to be initiated.


Date: 2011/11/03 16:19:25, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,12:39)
When you Buddhist and pseudist gonna explain why you dance to the tune of spontaneous generation from primordial soup that accidentally exploded into a super huge zoo? † Oh I remember. There was this thing called abiogenesis where spontaneous but accidental aggregation of lipids and proteins formed primitive spaghetti monsters from the fountain of soup.

You have already shown us that you do not understand either evolution or Buddhism.  We can now add abiogenesis and chemistry to the list.

Chemistry is not an "accidental" process.  Do you think is is "accidental" that exactly two atoms of hydrogen, not three, not four, but always two, combine with a single atom of oxygen to make a molecule of water?  Hint: valency.

Read something about abiogenesis and learn where proteins appeared in the process.  Hint: it wasn't either at the start or in the middle.

Many years later Chandra Wickramasinghe and fred Hoyle who calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes.

We now know that you can't even properly proof-read the stuff you cut and paste.  Go back to the original you copied this from and check those numbers.  You will see "10^40,000" and "10^80", or their equivalents.  You are distinctly failing to impress here.

Wickramasinghe and Hoyle were excellent astronomers.  They were less good biologists.  Their probability calculations included the effects of random mutation, but failed to include the effects of natural selection.  Since evolution includes both random mutation and natural selection, their numbers do not reflect evolution.  GIGO.  I suggest that you redo their calculations with the effect of natural selection included.


Date: 2011/11/03 16:32:27, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,16:13)
Wow! I always heard that the Buddhist big wigs considered Jesus a great prophet but I didnt know that their scriptures cited him and Abraham as arrogant

You heard wrong. †Buddhism doesn't do prophets, we leave that to the Abrahamic religions. †Jesus is normally considered to be a Bodhisattva. †Abraham we don't think about much, since we ignore most of what he said. †All the best bits were repeated by Jesus anyway, and being prepared to make a human sacrifice of your own child to appease a bloodthirsty god is definitely un-Buddhist behaviour. †It is YHWH we see as arrogant, claiming to be what he isn't.

{list of Buddhists doing unwise actions}

Yes, some Buddhists fall short of the standards they should be following. †So? †People of all religions, and of none, do sometimes fall short of moral standards. †Timothy McVeigh was American, does that mean all Americans are morally wrong and that no moral person can be an American? †No, I don't think so either.


Date: 2011/11/03 19:31:31, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,18:12)
Oh yes Buddhist do have so called Messianic prophesies †

You are just showing your ignorance of Buddhism. †The Maitreya is a Buddha, not a Messiah. †A Messiah is a concept from Judaism, not Buddhism. †Please don't get you religions mixed up. †It merely shows up even further your basic lack of knowledge about the stuff you are copying from the Internet.

Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya

And his devotees were wrong. †The Maitreya Buddha has not come yet.

The Buddha gave him this prophecy:

The Buddha is a Buddha, not a prophet. †Again, you are misunderstanding Buddhism. †If you apply concepts from Judaism directly to Buddhism, you will usually be making an error.

Timothy McVeigh was just one agnostic who confessed: "science is my religion".

Irrelevant. †I said that he was an American, which is correct. †I said nothing about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof. †My point obviously missed you completely. †My apologies for my mis-estimate of your level of comprehension.

Buddhism is violent in essence and influences many.

Go through the Bible and count up the number of people God kills, or orders to be killed. †Go through the Tripitaka and count up the number of people the Buddha kills, or orders to be killed. †Compare the two numbers, and get back to us on which of the two religions "is violent in essence". †We can agree that Buddhism influences many.

Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells

And you know this how? †If they are secret, then you don't know what happens in them. †If you know what happens in them, then they aren't secret. †Or perhaps you believe that everything you read on the Internet is true? †That would explain a few things.


Date: 2011/11/04 07:07:21, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:53)
Wow! You you cut off your own scriptures to save your face.

You ignorance of the nature of the Tripitaka and its contents is manifest. †No Buddhist in the world accepts all of Buddhist scripture. †The Tripitaka is a collection. †Imagine that Christian scripture, in addition to the the Bible also contained the works of Arius, Nestorius, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Joseph Smith. †Nobody accepts all of that. †Buddhists use the parts of the Tripitaka that they personally find useful, and ignore the other parts. †Again, I will remind you that it is unwise to assume that Buddhism approaches things in the same way as Christianity.

Bottom line is that Buddhism references Messianic prophecy.

The Messiah is a Jewish concept, not a Buddhist one. †The Maitreya Buddha is not a Messiah. †Prophecies of the Maitreya have no connection to Jewish prophecies of the Messiah.

The phenotypic plasticity of epigentiic immunity (also referred to as the biological arms race) is another way of explaining the Hebrew war against the Canaanites.. This magnificently designed system sends out macrophages (myocytes, monocytes etc..) to encapsulate and destroy cells infected by antigens, viruses, bacteria etc..

Canaanites such as the Amalakites and the Mycenaean Greeks were given over to very depraved lifestyles such as fornication,necrophilia, bestiality, coprophillia, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest,, pedophilia, and human sacrifices. Thus it is more than likely that all the beast and children were slaughtered to prevent the spread of not only deadly behavior, but STDs. Lev 18:03-26.The Hebrews and other peoples of the Exodus were the immune system of God's creation and emerged from that immune cell known as the Ark, which inhabited that cleansing Flood--that great apoptosis which removed the malignant killers of the trees and megafauna

Is it just me, or is this meaningless word-salad? †forastero makes more sense when he is copying from Wikipedia.


Date: 2011/11/06 05:29:18, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:57)
Giant ice meteors †also hit the earth

And the heat resulting from the impact of these "Giant ice meteors" was enough to ...

You may fill in the dots once you have done the calculation.


P.S. If you really want to impress us, you need to learn the difference between 'meteor' and 'meteorite'.

Date: 2011/11/09 14:24:22, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,12:25)
I agree totally, though I think what he meant on the atoms things was 10^80.

I think that what he meant was to copy/paste something. †He was too lazy or incompetent to check that what he pasted read the same as what he copied. †That is an inclusive 'or' by the way.

Not that really changes anything.

Indeed not. †Copied rubbish is still rubbish, even with added typos. †After all, we all know that typos cannot add any extra information. †:)


Date: 2011/11/13 16:02:57, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2011,11:01)
I've started a fund to better understand Gallien-Tard Syndrome, to help those unfortunate souls who can bench 300lbs, but can't jump up and down.

Memory loss.  He forgets to put down the 300lbs before he tries to jump up and down.


Date: 2011/11/20 06:17:11, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 20 2011,06:03)
The link doesn't work well, I get redirected but canít find the article at †

I have located
That is issue 10, with subjects like Berkeley vs. Intelligent Design, and The Dawn of Multicellularity, but no 'evolution' article.

The Johnson quote is on page 33.


Date: 2011/12/04 12:32:15, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 04 2011,09:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2011,09:37)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 03 2011,21:58)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 03 2011,12:59)
My ex with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) and a friend who switched from outie to innie really brought that home to me... especially when -- let's call the new her "Deirdre" -- originally said she'd be a lesbian but later had a boyfriend.

James, my 6'4" ex-fiance with the sepulchral voice, now goes by the legal name of "Nova". †And she's married. To another woman.

your powers are amazing, are you a wizard?

Hey, now, *I* wasn't the one waving the wand!

But you could be .... †:)

Date: 2011/12/15 08:39:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 11 2011,20:17)
I would think that deliberate design (intelligent or not) would produce way more copying from one "lineage" into another than what is seen in biology.

But maybe that's just me?


It's not just you. †Look at designed animals: unicorns, dragons, pegasi and all the other fantasy animals humans have designed. †Mostly they are a mixture of parts taken from different lineages.  Avian wings on a horse makes a pegasus. †Bat wings on a big lizard make a western dragon.

The norm for a designed animal is to have way more cross-lineage copying than an evolved animal.


Date: 2011/12/31 05:23:26, Link
Author: rossum
Ryan FR-1 Fireball

P51 => FR-1 => F80


Date: 2011/12/31 10:39:33, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 31 2011,08:17)
you mean heartless athiest matreyanalists don't you know if you break their little shitty analogy toys they'll have nothing left but some stinky fingers and scattered pubic hair

All your analogy are belong to us.


Date: 2011/12/31 16:19:39, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 31 2011,12:34)
Do they think that their cousin can give birth to their sibling? :O

Well, daddy was very friendly with cousin Ellie-Mae a few months ago. †:D


Date: 2012/01/08 17:19:00, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 08 2012,16:30)
As for the "near-death experiences", isn't it interesting that some creationists would embrace occultism rather than science?

"The enemy of my enemy," perhaps?

Date: 2012/01/26 09:48:18, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 26 2012,09:32)
Please, finish and publish this novel. Here's your cover:

Hmmm, lets see. †ID is mostly political, so we'll need some politics in the novel. †Sex. †Yes, definitely sex. †Sex sells, and we want to sell. †Science? †No, science is boring and doesn't sell that well. †Better avoid science, this is about ID after all.

Here is my first draft: politics, sex and no science. †Warning, may contain naugahyde.

Sultry, pouting, Hillary Clinton ran her hands over her enormous twin Capitol Domes, causing her tight black naugahyde bustier to heave alarmingly as it struggled to restrain her ample assets. †Posing in the doorway, she looked at the man, sitting in his chair, crying.

"John, stop that now! †Or strict Mistress Hillary will be very annoyed."

"I'm sorry Mistress Hillary," he said, struggling to contain his tears as he nervously eyed the whip dangling from her wrist. †"It's just those nasty Democrat Representatives in the House. †They never do what I say. †And the Republicans are almost as bad."

Hillary strode masterfully over to where the Speaker was sitting in his chair, "Never mind John, let mommy Hillary take care of it." †She cradled his head into her softly billowing chest, as she felt his hands fondling her shapely legs in their tight leather thigh-boots. †'There's more than one way to skin a nauga,' she thought as her own hand moved decisively towards John's long leopardskin gavel and ...



Date: 2012/02/08 06:44:14, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2012,04:22)
I learned aeons ago that blood flow to the brain increase when a person is performing some intelligent action like kopfrechnen. (Got kopfrechnen from Duden, couldn't find an English translation of 'hoderegning'.) "Head calculation"? doesn't look good to me.

Try "mental arithmetic". †A case where English uses its Latin roots rather than its Germanic ones.


Date: 2012/02/14 16:33:08, Link
Author: rossum
ďCan the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?Ē

Let M = "the moon exists".

Let ~M = "the moon does not exist".

Let F = the formal relation "(M AND ~M) => FALSE

F is true.


You were saying, Mr Arrington?


Date: 2012/04/30 18:07:36, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (kn0808 @ April 30 2012,16:14)
Your criticism towards Dembski would be much more founded if you actually had an argument against him or his belief.

You are obviously not looking carefully enough. †Dr Dembski states that regular processes cannot generate CSI. †This is incorrect, regular processes can generate CSI.

CSI involves specified information, so we need a specification. †I will use the specification: The text of the King James Translation.

Now here is a piece of text:

Va gur ortvaavat Tbq perngrq gur urnira naq gur rnegu ... Gur tenpr bs bhe Ybeq Wrfhf Puevfg or jvgu lbh nyy. Nzra.

This text does not meet our specification. †It is of exactly the correct length, note the large ellipsis in the middle, but it does not contain the text of the KJV. †It is complex, because of its length bit it is not specified, hence there is zero CSI present in this text.

Now apply a regular process to this text. †ROT13 is a regular process, a MOD 26 alphabetic shift of +13: a <-> n, b <-> o etc. †What do we get when we apply this regular process to the text above? †We get this:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

That changed text meets the specification, and is the same length. †Hence it is complex, specified and it is information. †The transformed text contains CSI -- Complex Specified Information. †A regular process has gone from zero CSI initially to a large quantity of CSI after its application. †This invalidates Dr. Dembski's claim that regular processes cannot generate CSI.


Date: 2012/05/03 14:46:26, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (REC @ May 03 2012,13:18)
PaV blusters some BS:


We recently had a rehash discussion about that here at UD. The argument comes down to what constitutes an homologous protein.

One proteinĖcanít remember itís nameĖhad only ONE amino acid in common with another protein, yet it was termed ďhomologous.Ē

WTF is he talking about? Not only clueless about how homology is determined-but two proteins of, say, 300 amino acids can't share just 1 amino acid in common!

Two strands of Poly-A DNA would give two strands of nothing but lysine.

Perhaps that is what he meant, tough I doubt it.


Date: 2012/05/07 09:06:23, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Amadan @ May 07 2012,06:40)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 07 2012,10:14)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 07 2012,08:39)
dembski's 'office' will probably be one of the parking spaces, complete with a portable outhouse for him to do his research in.


Can someone please add the appropriate Judge Jones style sound effects.


Date: 2012/06/21 12:05:40, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,11:56)
The Darwinist must attempt to explain everythingrelated to the biological world, including human nature, †via his creation myth. That's never been in doubt.

The question is, are those explanations convincing?

The IDist must attempt to explain everythingrelated to the biological world, including the Designer, †via his or her creation myth. That's never been in doubt.

The question is, firstly, do those explanations even exist, and secondly are those explanations convincing?

For the rest of us, we who aren't Darwin fundies, the explanations remain far less convincing. We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk.

For the rest of us, we who aren't ID fundies, the explanations remain far less convincing. We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk.

Note here, that one of the ways to tell a content-free post is to take it and turn its arguments round to face the other way. †If it works just as well in the opposite direction, then the original post was just content-free rhetoric with no real substance.


Date: 2012/06/22 09:44:11, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life,

Somehow I doubt it. †Is the Designer alive? †If yes, then there is no ID explanation for the origin of life currently available. †If no, then you are proposing that something dead is capable of intelligence. †While an advanced supercomputer may well be possible, that begs the question of the origin of the advanced supercomputer.

ID does not explain the origin of life. †It assumes life, and uses that assumed life to explain other life.


Date: 2012/06/22 16:14:55, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.

False. †Or are you again asserting that the ID's Designer is not alive? †You are starting with an Intelligent designer, so you are starting with unexplained complexity, intelligence, information etc. †If you were proposing a theory of Unintelligent design, then you might have a chance of explaining the origin of these things. †However, we already have a good theory of Unintelligent design...


Date: 2012/07/29 12:20:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 29 2012,11:20)
UD moderators, please wipe Joe's arse for him.

Isn't there a law against cruel and unusual punishment, even for UD moderators?

Date: 2012/08/12 05:32:37, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 12 2012,02:57)
What, frozen? I'd rather use thawed.

But if we thawed than then, they wouldn't be crunchy.

Date: 2012/08/22 13:53:08, Link
Author: rossum

Date: 2012/09/01 17:19:47, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2012,13:15)
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 31 2012,06:30)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2012,01:32)
That's one way to toe the line?

Why? They're all lion down.

That's just purr-fect.

You're my mane man.

Date: 2012/09/10 11:51:50, Link
Author: rossum
[quote=Occam's Toothbrush,Sep. 10 2012,11:31]
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 09 2012,22:50)

Did you know you can calculate the CSI of water by counting the number of letters in the recipe? †


1 cup water

Directions: †

Add water.

Serves: 1 (serving size 1 cup)

Nah, this is the real recipe:



1 sachet dehydrated water

Directions: †

Add water.

Serves: 1 (serving size 1 cup)

Dehydrated water is very useful in the desert -- much lighter to carry.  Just add water and drink.

Date: 2012/10/04 07:04:43, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Bebbo62 @ Oct. 04 2012,04:54)
Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Correct. †I tend to phrase it as a question to the ID person quoting the 'prediction': †"Why is it not possible for the ID designer to make a genome with a high percentage of useless DNA?"

That very often bumps up against the "God can do anything" meme which tends to cohabit with the ID meme.

The same question usually works with many proposed 'falsifications' of ID when the discussion goes that way.

Date: 2012/10/05 16:13:17, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 05 2012,15:42)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2012,14:58)
what in the hell are you women doing try to work anyway? sinful and disgraceful

Ain't it? :p You should see the pr0n I've also been writing, brother! Check out my new avatar for the clue. ;)

Maybe the Government could sponsor pr0n to get people into work.

Hmmm, †That gives me an idea...


Sultry, pouting, Hillary Clinton ran her hands over her enormous twin Capitol Domes, causing her tight black naugahyde bustier to heave alarmingly as it struggled to restrain her ample assets. †Posing in the doorway, she looked at the man, sitting in his chair, crying.

"John, stop that now! †Or strict Mistress Hillary will be very annoyed."

"I'm sorry Mistress Hillary," he said, struggling to contain his tears as he nervously eyed the plaited leatherette whip dangling from her wrist. †"It's just those nasty Democrat Representatives in the House. †They never do what I say. †And the Republicans are almost as bad."

Hillary strode masterfully over to where the Speaker was sitting in his chair, "Never mind John, let mommy Hillary take care of it." †She cradled his head into her softly billowing chest, as she felt his hands fondling her shapely legs in their tight leather thigh-boots. †'There's more than one way to skin a nauga,' she thought as her own hand moved decisively towards John's long leopardskin gavel and ...

Continued on page 94.

I didn't say it was a good idea. †:)


Date: 2012/10/07 05:26:18, Link
Author: rossum
Possibly off topic, but this is a piece I keep for when the CSI argument pops up:

CSI and Regular Processes

Dr Dembski asserts that it is not possible for regular processes to create Complex Specified Information (CSI). †This is incorrect, it is perfectly possible for a regular process to create CSI in large amounts as I shall demonstrate.

The "S" in CSI stands for "Specified", so we need to have a specification for our example. †I shall use, "The text of the King James Bible" as the specification for this demonstration.

Here is some text which meets the specification:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

For practical reasons I have elided much of the actual text.

Here is some text of the same length which does not meet the specification:

"Va gur ortvaavat Tbq perngrq gur urnira naq gur rnegu ... Gur tenpr bs bhe Ybeq Wrfhf Puevfg or jvgu lbh nyy. Nzra."

The first text contains information and also meets the specification, hence it contains specified information. †The complete text, without the elision, would be long enough to be complex and so contain CSI, Complex Specified Information.

The second text contains the same amount of raw information; it is the same length and drawn from the same character set. †The calculation of Shannon information will give the same value. †However the second text is not specified information because it is not the King James Bible. †The second text contains information but it contains zero CSI because it does not meet the specification. †It only contains CUI: Complex Unspecified Information.

Now we will apply a regular process to the second text: an alphabetic barrel shift of 13 places, also known as ROT13. †If we apply this regular process to the second text it changes to:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

This of course now contains exactly the same amount of CSI as the first text. †Previously it contained zero CSI because it did not meet the specification. †After applying the regular process it meets the specification, so we have increased the amount of CSI present purely by applying a regular process.

Contrary to what Dr Dembski has stated, this simple example shows that a regular process, such as ROT13, can create CSI. †Since a regular process can create CSI it is therefore incorrect to assert that a regular process cannot be the origin of any CSI found in living organisms. †This is a major problem for ID's attempts to use the presence of CSI as a marker of design. †CSI can be generated by non-design processes such as ROT13.


Date: 2012/10/07 11:26:11, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 07 2012,08:14)
The are ways to demonstrate algorithmic processes generating CSI; Jeff Shallit and I have done that before. However, the example cited is not one of them. In fact, Dembski's "The Design Inference" devotes a chunk of text to the discovery of specifications for encrypted text.

It is always possible to find a specification for encrypted text: "The string which when decrypted with the Caesar cypher, key 13, gives the text of the King James Bible." †The problem is knowing the specification in advance.

However, using that specification, the actual text of the KJV does not meet the specification, and so has zero CSI. †The regular process of decryption will destroy CSI, but conversely, the regular process of encryption will create CSI.

If we are allowed to change the specification in mid-calculation then we can effectively set any value of CSI we want to zero; just switch the specification to: "A design for a working perpetual motion machine." †Such a specification cannot be met. †Hence it would be 'easy' to show that nothing at all had any CSI and there was no design to be found anywhere. †Hardly the result that the ID side wants.

Dr Dembski's search for specifications for encrypted text, without knowing the key, is effectively a search for a universal code breaker. †In cryptography, if the output of an encryption algorithm can be distinguished from random, then that encryption is considered to be broken. †A mathematically perfect encryption cannot be distinguished from random, without the key. †I am sure that both the NSA and GCHQ would be very interested indeed if Dr Dembski had made any progress in this area.

I agree that my piece is far from rigorous, but I think that it is at about right level for most internet discussion fora.


Date: 2012/10/16 04:00:18, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2012,19:59)
What's this about dembski and the flood?

Read Dembski's "Clarification" over pages 8 and 9.

That link is probably long enough to get munged, so here is a version with added spaces: documents/ AReplytoTomNettlesReview ofDembskisTheEndof Christianity.pdf

Date: 2012/10/17 08:12:14, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 17 2012,07:35)
Similarly, hospitals are designed, ergo babies must be too.

Come to think of it, supermarkets are designed too. That accounts for cows (including the loosely bound bovis hamburgensis sub-species), pigs, chickens, and Cheetos plants.

That's pretty much all of Nature right there! †

Evolution is doomed, suckers!

Don't forget Spaghetti Trees.

Date: 2012/10/18 11:54:12, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 18 2012,11:19)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 18 2012,09:06)
This little gem from gpuccio will brighten your fall day.
I donít what to elimimate subjectivity. The foundation of all my thinking is objective subjectivity, that is consious representations.


...that's the good stuff.

It is now available on prescription, just ask you doctor for Oxymaroon.

Date: 2012/10/24 10:26:04, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2012,08:24)
No, he recanted before they could yell, "no take-backs!"

If you look at the relevant SES page, Dembski is sharing with Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana, both from Reasons To Believe, an OEC organisation. †Perhaps SES is not as exclusively YEC as some other places, which might be why Dembski picked it. †He seems to be OEC or similar himself.

Date: 2012/10/24 16:43:56, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2012,14:02)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 24 2012,12:40)
Is it a common practice at US schools to run the same course under three different numbers and two designations at the same time in the very same room?
† † †

AP862 Intelligent Design [...] Start Date 1/14/2013 End Date 1/19/2013 Time MO,TU,WE,TH,FR 6:00pm-10:3 [rest not displayed] SA 8:00am-4:30pm

SC401 Evolutionary Biology & Intellige [rest not displayed] †[...] Start Date 1/14/2013 End Date 1/19/2013 Time MO,TU,WE,TH,FR 6:00pm-10:3 [rest not displayed] SA 8:00am-4:30pm

[... one other course by another instructor]

SC501 Evolutionary Biology & Intelligen [rest not displayed] †[...] Start Date 1/14/2013 End Date 1/19/2013 Time MO,TU,WE,TH,FR 6:00pm-10:3 [rest not displayed] SA 8:00am-4:30pm


Most colleges or universities will run an undergrad and grad course on the same subject at the same time, with the same teacher. †The grad students have extra work (lab time, outside research, etc) assigned.

I have seen some junior colleges offer the same course with two different designations in the same room with the same teacher at the same time.

This is because technical school programs (automechanics, cosmotology, etc) are not accepted by other colleges for transfer. †In auto mechanics, it's not that big a deal, but it is a big deal in computer science courses. †

You might have a 2-yr technical degree in computer programming. †Since it's a tech degree, no 4-yr school will accept it for a bachelor's degree. †But there is a 2-yr academic program specializing in computer programming. †If we say that both degree plans have a requirement for a course in C++, then you would need to give the students that are planning on transferring a different course number, one that is accepted by 4-yr schools. †

Why not have the technical degree take the academic course? †In some states, the entry requirements for technical degrees and academic degrees are very different. †Further, the state (like in Texas) may require that technical degrees only are allowed 5 academic courses (usually 2 semesters of freshman English, a social studies, a fine art, and speech).

So we have to have a special academic course with certain requirements and a technical course with different requirements... even though they are exactly the same course.

I don't think I could explain 3 different versions though. †But then, I'm willing to bet my new house that the school isn't regionally accredited and that's the only accreditation that matters.

I did a degree in Mathematical Physics. †About a third of the lectures were standard physics lectures which were shared with physics students and given by a physics lecturer. †Another third were applied mathematics lectures shared with mathematics students and given by mathematics lecturers.

Where there is an overlap in course material, then it makes sense for students on different courses to share classes.

Date: 2012/10/26 10:59:24, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 26 2012,09:46)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 26 2012,03:55)
1: The first talking head is Michael Cremo, author of "Forbidden Archeology". †I've read this book and it's pure crank. †Basically, if you carve some weird characters into a rock and rub dirt on it, Cremo will proclaim it genuine and build a story on how ancient civilizations visiting America before Columbus left it there. †Even if you're in Kansas.

So he's a Mormon, then.

IIRC, Michael Cremo is a Hindu -- Hare Krishna. †The universe is a lot older than a mere 13.5 billion years.

Date: 2012/11/06 15:15:12, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 06 2012,14:30)
And we are still no stinking apes!

Yeah, we take baths and they don't! (Well, some of us, sometimes.)

Every six months, whether I need one or not.

Date: 2012/11/16 15:15:42, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 16 2012,14:35)
I'm interpreting these graphs as Gary's Dunning-Kruger score over the last ten years.

That makes sense. †His Dunning score on the X-axis and his Kruger score on the Y-axis. †Or is it vice versa?

Date: 2012/11/20 09:56:02, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 20 2012,09:15)
So if this CSI thingie genuinely is the sure-fire Design-detection tool which you ID-pushers assert it to be, it seems to me that you should be able to use it to distinguish random garbage from meaningful text that only appears to be random garbage.

That is a very significant thing to do. †The NSA/GCHQ would be very interested in a distinguisher like that, which could tell the difference between an encoded message and junk. †It defeats one of the obvious ways to block traffic analysis -- just fill up the comm link with junk when it is not being used, so it always appears to be running at the same capacity.

The first attack against a cypher is often a distinguisher, that is a way to tell the output of the cypher from true random. †One of the attacks against the RC4 keystream (due to Mantin and Shamir) showed that the second byte of the keystream was 0x00 with a frequency of 1/128 instead of the expected 1/256. †Obviously that attack only works for RC4 and not for other cyphers. †What the Discovery Institute claims to have is a general distinguisher, valid for all current and future cyphers. †Hence they are in effect claiming to have a way to attack any cypher whatsoever.

If CSI really is such a distinguisher, then the Discovery Institute is being very unpatriotic in not offering it to the NSA immediately.

Date: 2012/11/21 10:41:09, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 21 2012,10:24)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 21 2012,06:03)
Pyramids are antennas.

Yes, it's well known that huge piles of limestone and marble blocks make excellent antennas. You can also make a little hole in the middle and stick dead people in - they're dual-function. And the dead people probably help with the reception.

If the Egyptians were so brilliant, why didn't they invent the tinfoil hat?

They did. †What do you think the pyramids were covered with before all that sand wore away the outer covering?

They thought big back in those days.

Date: 2012/12/04 15:47:37, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 03 2012,10:51)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:44)
Quote (onlooker @ Dec. 03 2012,08:23)
This comment by Reciprocating Bill deserves more visibility:
† †
If your definition of "plausible" is "That which UB and the Budweiser toads (Joe and Mung) find it plausible," Iíll pass.

That's the best assessment of those two I've seen yet, with the slight difference that the Budweiser Frogs have a certain charm.

I think Budweiser itself is a better comparison: gassy, tasteless and nausea-inducing.

watch it son

No, watch this instead:


Date: 2012/12/12 14:20:51, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 12 2012,09:08)
weasels without balls.

That's does, bitches or jills to you, mate. † :D


Date: 2012/12/19 15:03:28, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 19 2012,12:57)
I think Vincent Torley is just dumb, a Ph.D. in philosophy notwithstanding.
What it demonstrates is that there was a considerable difference between the public statements Hitler made about Christianity and his own private views, which were probably anti-Christian.

The removal of anti-Christian books from lending libraries was probably done to appease the Churches and to get them on side. Hitler would have viewed this as a small price to pay, to secure their support.

The removal of anti-Darwinian works may well have been for the same reason.

However, the fact that biology textbooks all taught Darwinian evolution during the Third Reich, and that Nazi publications taught human evolution and even criticized creationism surely speaks for itself. That ďtrumpsĒ the fact that Darwin-friendly books were banned from libraries. What was on the school curriculum (Darwinism) was what really mattered.

I have it on good authority that Newtonian mechanics and calculus were on the school curriculum in Nazi Germany. I wonder what Dr. Torley would make of it.

One of the problems about not having a lab is that a stock photo of a computer won't let you access Wikipedia. †In particular, it won't let you access the List of authors banned during the Third Reich: D.

Yet another example of the high quality of research we have come to expect from ID.

Date: 2012/12/31 11:43:02, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2012,07:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 31 2012,02:45)
And what the hell are "pyjamas"? † :p

It's a pervert thing. Some kind of getup worn by weirdos who don't sleep nekkid.

I suspect they wear them in the shower too.

I hear some people even wear special clothes to go swimmin'. †Kinda weird that.

Date: 2013/01/23 06:07:20, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2013,18:50)
UD is celebrating their 10,000th post.

Not strictly true. †Their 10,000th post was some time ago. †It is their 10,000th undeleted post.

Date: 2013/02/04 13:04:32, Link
Author: rossum
OT: King Richard III

"A hearse, a hearse, my kingdom for a hearse!"

Sorry, couldn't resist.


Date: 2013/02/04 14:26:15, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 04 2013,13:47)
KRIII seems to have been found buried beneath a parking lot. There's no accounting for taste in burial sites.

Not strictly true.  The site is in England where we say "car park".  Apparently certain upstart former colonial types across the pond call it a "parking lot".


Date: 2013/02/17 16:22:11, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 17 2013,15:56)
Hey Doc, did you find any rabbit fossils when you were there? †;)

Of course he did. †Darwinists only go there to pick out all the rabbit fossils and move then to some later strata. †We wouldn't want the DI people to find them now, would we?

Date: 2013/02/27 05:31:07, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 27 2013,04:18)
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 27 2013,03:10)
Whenever I see a scriptural reference to a verse from Ecclesiastes with the abbreviation "Eccles", I cannot help but think of the character from the Goon Show (a British radio comedy show from the 50's)
Eccles was a very silly person with a very silly voice -highly suited for reading out "scripture"

You've mixed up boy-scout extraordinaire Bluebottle with The Famous Eccles. Mind you, Eccles reading bits of wisdom from the Bible would still be amusing.

Both Eccles and Bluebottle are in "What time is it Eccles?"

Classic stuff.

Date: 2013/03/14 16:25:28, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 14 2013,13:34)
The latest procedure is to chant "Wanker" three times while looking at a picture of Barry.

Only three times?  Call me Wanker!

Date: 2013/03/19 05:23:49, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2013,21:38)
The question really is, how many possible combinations spell out an actual message in any language?

Which leads immediately to the question of how many possible languages there are in total.

Date: 2013/03/21 12:53:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 21 2013,11:41)
But, we live in a country where nearly half the public disbelieves evidence provided by fucking thermometers, so it shouldn't surprise me.

Well if that's what 50% of USAnians do with thermometers, it's no wonder America is such a weird place.

Date: 2013/05/28 15:12:17, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 28 2013,10:38)
yay... I may have home internet by Friday. †Supposedly, they are digging a trench now.

A trench? †Luxury!


Date: 2013/06/05 06:46:45, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ June 04 2013,16:51)
Quote (stevestory @ June 04 2013,14:01)
Quote (olegt @ June 04 2013,16:15)
This should tell you everything about Joe's patience:
I have yet to get beyond 10 rolls without hitting a 4.

One roll of a die is not a 4 with the probability of 5/6. Ten rolls in a row have no 4 with the probability (5/6)^10 = 0.16. So it takes about 1/0.16 = 6 trials of 10 rolls to succeed.

Roll the die a hundred times, Joe, and you will likely see 10 rolls in a row with no 4.

Bonus track:

And computer simulations are a different ballgame. When you are rolling a die you cannot exactly duplicate each and every physical movement- there are intangibles involved.

attach a muon detector to you computer, like I did in my senior year at NCSU in physics, and you will def get randomness involved.

Attach a stupidity detector to your computer, go to Joe's blog, and...

Since the quantum particle for intelligence is the anti-moron, then the particle for stupidity is the moron. †You need to attach a moron detector.

The exact statistics are still being looked at. †CERN are trying to determine the half-life of the moron as we speak.

For random number generation, I prefer LavaRnd, (no not Lavarand).

Date: 2013/06/07 15:00:25, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 07 2013,10:26)
Why won't this board let me use the word Nostrad@mus?

Mabus/Markuze is somewhat fond of it...

Date: 2013/07/05 15:47:36, Link
Author: rossum
Ray Comfort. †Wasn't he the guy up for a Best Supporting Actor award for his performance supporting a member of genus Musa?


Date: 2013/07/07 13:21:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fusilier @ July 11 2008,08:25)
It takes XIXth century bronze, cast iron, and tool steel to stand up to XIXth century TARD.

But are are allowed to apply a little XXIst century miniaturization:


Date: 2013/07/26 03:58:43, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ July 24 2013,16:34)
I was hoping for Elvis, or Earl.

Earl? †He's a Prince, not an Earl. †He was born into the purple, after all. †I wonder if he can sing?

Date: 2013/08/13 15:26:06, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2013,14:53)
PZ appears to have seriously put is foot in his mouth and it now kicking his own ass.

What a bucket of snakes. Is there any place to get the story of what PZ said and the background of what Shermer allegedly did, with all the hysteria?

I'm sorry, the the posters to all the discussions are too busy trying to hack each other to bits to deal with mundane things like facts.

Try: this.

Date: 2013/08/19 03:51:49, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 18 2013,22:07)
Quote (clamboy @ Aug. 18 2013,21:51)
Goodness, those two threads on morality have driven William J Murray into heretofore unwitnessed fits.

William J Murray, this is going to be harsh, but it needs to be said:

William J Murray, go have sex with someone. That's an order.

Preferably alive, and with their consent.

With IDiots you never know...

... and not with yourself either.

Date: 2013/08/23 04:01:09, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 23 2013,00:19)
Hi REC - I'm not a scientist and I don't understand the relevance/meaning of '1950' in your comment or on the PLOS ONE page. Is it the year 1950 or something else?

AIUI Carbon dates are measured before the year 1950.  After 1950 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests put too much C14 into the atmosphere.  1950 makes a convenient baseline for measuring from.

Date: 2013/08/28 03:57:23, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 27 2013,16:46)
This is a feature IDC inherited from its intellectual lineage of deceptive creationism. (Deceptive creationism being the clade of all creationisms that rely upon calling the existing body of antievolution arguments or a subset thereof "science" for the purpose of trying to insert them into USA public school science classrooms.) Part of the argumentation is the "oppositional dualism" noted by Judge Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas case: it is asserted that either evolution or creation is true, thus anything that puts evolution in doubt counts as evidence for creation. IDC is fully on board with the oppositional dualism seen in creation science.

Oppositional Dualism immediately puts IDC and the others outside science, since in science there is always a third option, "We don't know." †Dembski's 'Explanatory Filter' fell down on this point. †It always produced a definite answer by assuming a default. †If there is a default, then it should be, "We don't know".


Date: 2013/08/30 10:17:04, Link
Author: rossum
I would like to thank The Designer who gave us ... the Fall.

At last, we know the True Identity of the Designer! †It can only be ... Mark E. Smith.

Date: 2013/08/31 05:44:49, Link
Author: rossum
Another review of Meyer's book, by Michael Schulson: Creationism 3.0: Meet Intelligent Designís Huckster.

Date: 2014/01/01 04:25:40, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

Cantor is correct. †Pi gives an infinite stream of digits with no repeating pattern. †Any finite string of digits will be found in Pi an infinite number of times. †Of course, the longer your search string the more digits if Pi you have to calculate to find it.

Date: 2014/01/01 15:35:47, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 01 2014,07:40)
I'm afraid that it isn't proven yet that pi is a normal number (though most mathematicians would bet that it is one...) At the moment we cannot say that each finite number can be found in the decimal representation of pi - but every short string of numbers (birthdates, etc.) has been found :-)

I'm not sure that full normality is required. †Only base 10 needs to be looked at, and even then, equal proportions of each digit are not required. †If, for example, '1' occurred at twice the frequency of any other digit, then all the specified strings would still appear somewhere in Pi. †You might just have to search further to find them.

Date: 2014/01/04 10:29:11, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 03 2014,20:29)
TodAy, at skool, we lurned, commas:

And if science can only allow a certain amount of luck in any given model, the materialism, and by extension darwinism, are scientific non-starters as they rely on luck, so what is left, scientifically?

Maybe not just commas.  Perhaps s/the/then also?  It appears to have started life as an if ... then ... sentence, but somehow got morphed.  Random mutation in action, right in front of your eyes, boys and girls.

Date: 2014/01/17 16:19:55, Link
Author: rossum has PT down for everyone at 22:00 GMT

Date: 2014/01/22 05:48:15, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,19:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

Only in the south, on Tuesdays. †Otherwise they are Zoroastrian.

Date: 2014/03/26 15:24:03, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 26 2014,13:57)
How do you know it's the right "2"?

You don't.  But there will be a new 'Number Two' in the next episode.

"You are Number Six..."

Date: 2014/04/15 16:34:53, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (k.e @ Feb. 08 2007,18:12)

Too late I'm afraid, the HOMO STAMP COLLECTORS are all drooling over the new Finnish Tom of Finland stamps.

Date: 2014/04/26 12:36:29, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 26 2014,10:13)
Joey's really jumped the shark this time.

Really, e-mailing my wife and telling her I'm a liar. †Really?

What a maroon!

Joe, she already knew. †You don't think she actually believed him when he told her he had $30 billion in this bank in Nigeria and needed help getting it out?

You are teaching your grandmother* to such eggs, Joe.

* No, Joe, he didn't really marry your grandmother. †Look it up.


Date: 2014/05/14 05:34:07, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (George @ May 14 2014,01:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2014,15:52)
Quote (George @ May 12 2014,08:33)
Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)
Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
† †  
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they donít have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.

You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue

I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.

But will you ever get to the bottom of it?

No, just arsing around.

We need to get back to fundamentals here.

Date: 2014/06/06 05:14:53, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Quack @ June 06 2014,03:34)
I had to look twice at this because at first glance Torley was asserting that the entire ID movement was based on a fallacy. †What he's actually doing is advancing the facile argument that any scientific experiment, even Lenski's long-term work with bacteria, is actually evidence for intelligent design because they are organized and run by scientists who are intelligent designers. †In other words, even an experiment which demonstrated biological compounds emerging unaided †from inanimate precursors, would be evidence of †intelligent design because it was set up by scientists.

In that case, is there any experimental result we can trust was not the result of divine intervention? God's finger is everywhere, even when you wipe ...

What is means is that there is no possible experimental backing for non-human ID. †Any experiment they perform will show signs of design -- human design. †There is no way that they can perform any experiment uncontaminated by human design, and hence no way that they can, experimentally, show the presence of non-human design. †All their experiments must be contaminated and hence not capable of unambiguously showing non-human design.

Date: 2014/06/15 04:09:32, Link
Author: rossum
Quotes and apostrophes on old posts have decided to change to unrecognised characters.


"straight double quotes"

‚Äú66 99 double quotes‚ÄĚ

'straight single quotes'

‚Äė6 9 single quotes‚Äô

That works in preview.  Presumably the problem was related to the recent transfer.


Date: 2014/06/16 05:39:20, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 15 2014,15:10)
Yeah, stuff in the database apparently has a different Unicode encoding than the server now uses. I've done a little looking, but haven't found anything particularly useful on the topic. I did add the "en_US" locale to those the server has on hand; not sure why it didn't already have that.

Looking at the HTML for you pages, you don't seem to have a charset Meta statement:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />

You might also need to do some internal conversion on the files to put things right.  Character sets are a real nuisance.


Date: 2014/06/23 16:27:21, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 23 2014,01:26)
Moose DrJune 22, 2014 at 9:57 pm

They seem to think that not only is this amazing computer developed by random chance twiddling, but that every change along the way must, well, compile,

Erm...  Yes, every change does 'compile' into a protein sequence, even if it is the null sequence.  Every codon compiles, i.e. is recognised.  There is no codon sequence that does not code for the equivalent sequence of proteins.

Every DNA sequence compiles.  This guy may know computing, but he does not know biology.  Colour me unsurprised.


Date: 2014/07/04 17:55:40, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2014,16:11)
Homos.....homos everywhere!

Not quite: "Male homos.....male homos everywhere!"  Our Gordo doesn't think about lesbians.

Actually, thinking about it, those last two words were probably redundant.

Date: 2014/08/06 16:21:51, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 06 2014,12:18)
Shhhhhhhh, George is invisible.

So, the DI's big secret is finally out.  Their invisible designer is ... George Gilliand! :D

Date: 2014/08/15 03:59:59, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 14 2014,21:43)
Rec, you might also point out that cicadas (and probably other organisms) hatch out either every 13 or 17 years. Both numbers are prime, but no intelligence is involved.

But that's only a couple of individual prime numbers, not a long series of consecutive primes in ascending order.


It doesn't have to be primes.  Some plants have evolved to arrange their leaves in a Fibonacci sequence in order the catch the maximum amount of sunlight.


Date: 2014/08/27 05:33:16, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 27 2014,05:08)
Ha! I've just passed this Blue Plaque on the way to work.

This one is near me:

Not entirely official (read it carefully), but a lot more fun, allegedly.

Date: 2014/08/27 12:17:30, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 27 2014,08:16)
You Brits need to apologize, for having a better sense of humour than us Americans.  :angry:

The only people who ever went to Washington with honest intentions.

Date: 2014/10/02 14:54:32, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 02 2014,12:17)
said with *tilt of his head to the left* *gentle eye-roll* *hint of a smile* *slight rise of the eyebrows* *dilation of the pupils*

I experienced it as a nervous tic motion of the head to the left. A nervous tic motion, of the what? Of the head to the left.

The head to the left?  You mean Zaphod Beeblebrox posts at UD?  Hooda Thunkit!

And is that to our left or to his left?


Date: 2014/10/22 07:08:42, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 22 2014,06:14)
Can you walk us through some of the testable hypotheses for differing accumulations of genetic accidents, ie neo-darwinian evolution?

For a good illustration of differential accumulation of 'genetic accidents' google for the Luria-Delbr√ľck experiment.

Science does have a great track record. However NDE doesn't qualify as science.

It does and it does, respectively.


Date: 2014/10/22 13:15:41, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 22 2014,09:49)
Please provide the methodology that determined the changes were differential accumulation of 'genetic accidents'.

The different lines of bacteria developed immunity to the bacteriophage at different times, i.e. randomly.  Some lines developed it early, some developed it later and some didn't develop it at all.  The mutations did not occur in response to future need and happened at random times.

And in what way is NDE science? It doesn't make any predictions based on the mechanisms and it is untestable.

NDE predicts that we will not find a rabbit in Cambrian rocks.  NDE predicted that we would find the ancestor of amphibians in rocks that are older than the first amphibians.  Tiktaalik is the result.

Date: 2014/11/01 04:41:21, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 31 2014,19:26)
From here on, this thread should be considered

Uncommonly Dense: The ReBanninning!

How about: "Bannination II: The Carnage Continues"

Date: 2014/11/05 10:52:47, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2014,00:30)

That statement is true, and it could be easily falsified in a Popperian sense: just give me a 600 character long string, encrypted if you prefer, which has a perfect sense in any known language, and which has been generated by a random character generating software (with the evidence, I will not believe you on your word alone! :) ).

I'd prefer to modify it to 10 seperate 600 character strings, *some* or which are random some of which are not.

If he's serious then we should take him up. Obviously we wont use simple substitution ciphers. We may create our own.

Anyone in?

Any 600 character string randomly generated from {A, C, G, T} will make perfect sense in terms of amino acid sequences, with some Stop codons as punctuation to separate the individual sequences.

Alternatively randomly generate the encrypted string and then carefully design the decryption key for a One-Time-Pad.  It can decrypt to any text of the same length that you want it to, depending on the key.


Date: 2014/11/05 16:04:32, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2014,10:59)
With with a one time pad, we can arbitrarily map anything to anything?

OH DEAR. He's failed before he's started.

Correct.  Given a 600 character string, we can map it to any other 600 character string with a particular key.  It is that property which makes the OTP unbreakable without the key.  You cannot separate the real message from all the other possible messages of that same length.

Date: 2014/11/06 11:11:52, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2014,10:42)
They (Dembski) were sort of closer when they started talking about exogenous information. *This* is only specified IF YOU KNOW ENGLISH. The whole construct of specificity in ID.. lacks specificity

Defining what is, and what is not, a valid specification is a big problem for ID.  My favourite is: "A design for a working perpetual motion machine."

Since nothing can meet that specification, then all CSI in the universe is instantly reduced to zero, and the entire ID edifice disappears.

Date: 2014/11/06 11:15:42, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2014,10:36)
ID should easily be able to determine whether a string is random noise or intelligently designed encryption.

That would be worth a lot of money to the NSA.  A lot of secure Military communications systems send random noise to fill in the gaps between the real messages.  That prevents traffic analysis.

Being able to separate the random from the encrypted would allow the NSA to do much better traffic analysis, even if they couldn't decrypt the messages.

Date: 2014/12/29 05:08:03, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 28 2014,20:16)
Time flies, after all.

Time flies like an arrow.

Fruit flies like a banana.   :)

Date: 2015/01/16 11:03:21, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 16 2015,09:09)
My challenge is this.
Show me a computer model that models this process and shows new functions and information being added to the genome.

Certainly.  Dr. Lenski used the Avida program to show the evolution of new functions.

The cover page is The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features

The detail is line of descent.

For "new informaiton" you will need to tell us how you are calculating the quantity of information present.  Evolution can increase both Shannon and Kolmogorov information.  Are you using a different measure?


Date: 2015/01/17 15:26:10, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 17 2015,15:11)
the point I'm making about experiments (e.g. Lenski's) is that all they have shown is that variation within a kind has occurred ...

Everyone agrees.  It is just that we disagree about where the boundaries between the different kinds lie.  For biologists, all evolution occurs within the "Life on Earth" kind.

If you think that Dr. Lenski's experiments show only evolution within the "Eubacteria kind", then we are already in reasonably close agreement.  That implies that you also accept evolution within the "Eukaryote kind", since Eubacteria and Eukaryotes are at the same level of classification.

If you want to split things below that level, then you are going to have to list the different kind boundaries, and show how you arrived at those particular boundaries.


Date: 2015/01/18 04:10:42, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 18 2015,03:46)
New information is new and novel genetic material that codes for new function or traits in the organism i.e. not a point mutation in a control gene that switches other pre-existing functionality off/on or a trade/inheriting of genetic material between bacteria ...NEW genetic material that codes for new function; this has never been observed.

Yes it has.  Lenski's long term experiment showed bacteria developing a new function, the ability to digest citrate.  That function was not there previously, and that new function evolved during the experiment.

I can also point to the example of the  from Japan, "Nylon digesting bacteria" which happened naturally.

Date: 2015/01/18 15:00:45, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 18 2015,14:39)
Natural Selection is about death.

No, natural selection is about reproductive success, not death.  Death may be important, but only because of its impact on reproductive success.  Dying at 20, leaving two children is better than dying at 80, with no children.

The process of natural selection is a bit like compound interest.  As an example, take a stable population of 100 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation.  Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation.  For comparison I include a second mutated organism with a 1% disadvantage.  Start with a population of 1 deleterious, 98 neutral and 1 beneficial mutations.  See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Code Sample

Generation  Deleterious   Normal   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------   ----------
    0         1.00       98.00          1.00
    1         0.99       98.00          1.01
   10         0.90       98.00          1.10
  100         0.37       98.00          2.70
  500         0.01       98.00        144.77
  700         0.00       98.00       1059.16
 1000         0.00       98.00      20959.16

(That should be monospaced, but I can't get it to work well.  Sorry.)

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the beneficial variant spreads through the population.  The deleterious mutation disappears.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population.

Date: 2015/01/19 08:33:16, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JonF @ Jan. 19 2015,08:16)
You need to supply some serious support for E.4. Particularly, two proteins with different amino acid chains are often equivalent in function. Nobody has any idea how many proteins there are that perform some specified function, but the evidence suggest there's loads of 'em. Plus there are proteins that perform multiple functions.

The calculation has been done for Cytochrome C: Yockey (1992) calculated that there are  2.3 x 10^93 different amino acid sequences that could make a working Cytochrome C.

Date: 2015/02/13 03:50:42, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 23 2015,16:24)
ie.  => Rock Ferry (Birkenhead), which forces the next move to be Pier Head, due to the Gerry Marsden codacil.

"Why did Jesus not appear in Liverpool?"

"Because his miracle of walking on the water is nothing special in Liverpool."

"How come?"

"The quality of Mersey is unstrained."

Ba-dum, tish.

Date: 2015/03/19 04:36:33, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 18 2015,18:43)
We've lost.  Denyse has wheeled out the big guns.  She's claiming support from the scienciest sciencifier who ever scientised:
Dr Deepak Chopra on Friday challenged Darwin‚Äôs theory of evolution, saying it is ‚Äúconsciousness‚ÄĚ and not ‚Äúrandom mutations and natural selection‚ÄĚ that explains where the human beings today are.

Oh well.  Those checks from Teh Intercontinental Evilushonist Cabal were nice while they lasted.

Awwww...  Do I have to give back my Secret Decoder Ring as well?

Date: 2015/04/17 15:40:00, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ April 17 2015,15:35)
We're approaching Tard Singularity.

All your Tard are belong to us.

Date: 2015/04/18 10:23:56, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 18 2015,10:18)
So he's either lying (shocker!) or he's ignorant beyond any ordinary ignorance.

Is that an inclusive 'or' or an exclusive 'or'?

Date: 2015/04/22 15:09:10, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 22 2015,12:09)
Just as the original Hebrew and Greek were inspired by and overseen by the Deity, so was the translation of the KJV.

No, no.  You have it wrong.  The KJV is the original.  God gave Moses a copy of the KJV and a pair of magic glasses, so he could read it and translate it from English into Hebrew.

Date: 2015/05/19 07:43:07, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ May 18 2015,20:31)
Hey, maybe it's real-science instead of really science?

It certainly was designed to look real sciencey.

Date: 2015/05/29 03:41:29, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 28 2015,20:47)
This has had me scratching my head for a day now, and it is deadly quiet here, so I'll mention it:
UD regular Querius makes a typical comment on a DeNews post questioning human origins: apparently if you interpret this paper in a particular way, interpret that comment this way, throw away several relevancies and dispense with logic, it turns out that the most recent common ancestors between chimpanzees, humans, and bonobos were probably Adam and Eve!
But that's all dog-bites-man stuff for UD; what struck me was this statement near the start of the comment:
Now that Chimpanzees are becoming widely regarded as having 102% identical DNA as humans...

I just don't get it - how can anything be more than (100%) identical? Can someone please help me out - is this just standard UD fuckwittery, or am I seriously missing something?
UD link

Looks like UD has turned the stupid up to 11.

Date: 2015/05/29 18:11:55, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ May 29 2015,11:00)
God goes to 11.

God plays for Spinal Tap?  Hooda thunkit.  I hope He isn't the drummer.

Date: 2015/06/02 11:23:01, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 02 2015,10:01)
Yes, I would like to have a talk with the "designer" about the whole exposed testicle thing. What was he thinking?

He?  She deliberately designed them that way, and you know why.

Date: 2015/06/02 14:23:57, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ June 02 2015,13:19)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 02 2015,11:10)
I can’t wait to see how it unravels and crashes.

The phrase, get used to disappointment, comes to mind.

I've been watching this on the internet since 1998, and the same expectation of imminent demise of evolution has been a constant.

You could have been watching this on the internet in 1859, and seen it then.

According to The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism it has been going since 1825.  To quote the link: "Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?"

Date: 2015/06/10 12:22:49, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2015,08:30)
He Who Must Not Be Named (HWMNBN) sounds a bit like the trailing end of hounymnym.


But I suspect that the houyhnhnms are too intelligent to make the comparison work well.

Date: 2015/06/10 13:57:33, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2015,13:49)
Quote (rossum @ June 10 2015,12:22)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2015,08:30)
He Who Must Not Be Named (HWMNBN) sounds a bit like the trailing end of hounymnym.


But I suspect that the houyhnhnms are too intelligent to make the comparison work well.

I was referring to the posterior.

So was I.   :)

Date: 2015/06/28 11:13:04, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 28 2015,10:27)
You sound like Joe Gallien.

<mode="Spartacus">I am Joe Gallien.</mode> :)

Date: 2015/08/14 05:55:41, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2015,08:37)
Something about that bugs me.

Yeah, it really ticks me off.

Date: 2015/08/21 04:04:06, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Lethean @ Aug. 20 2015,16:21)
It loaded ok for me earlier and I didn't see the link farm bit. It must be because I use NoScript (script blocker) and Ghostery so I didn't get bounced. My uneducated guess is someone gave it a hackey-poo (don't suppose Gene is very security minded and uses the same email he has pasted all over the site) and added a little script.

Yes, there's an <iframe ...> added near the end of the page.  My pop-up blocker kills it.  When I turn off the blocker I get the link farm.  I suspect the Gene's HTML is not up to using <iframe ...>

I suspect the short delay is while the browser processes all the MS garbage on the page before it reaches the spam insert.


Date: 2015/08/24 14:49:29, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 24 2015,11:35)
"collagen" 33,570 ¬Ī 120 years and the carbonate fraction of "bioapatite" 41,010 ¬Ī 220 years

It often puzzles me how YECs can claim, with straight faces, that dates like this are accurate enough to disprove ancient dinosaurs, but are totally inaccurate when the age of the earth (and everything on it) is really 6,000 years or so and hence dates like 33,000 years old have to be completely ignored (except when convenient).

Cognitive dissonance?  No, can't be.  The words "cognitive dissonance" aren't in the Bible.


Date: 2015/08/25 03:45:46, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 24 2015,21:14)
Re "Those unicorn are sexy beasts...makes you wonder why they didn't survive...oh here's why."

See Simon de Myle's Noah's Ark.

Pay particular attention to the two lions at the bottom centre.  Mmmm... tasty.

Date: 2015/09/18 11:30:52, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2015,11:04)
It is amazing how well the bible is supported by .... the bible.

1. Write story
2. Have 1000 entities in the story attest to the truth of the story
3. Claim the story is supported by 1000 people.

Only 1000?  Peanuts.  There are 80,000 people attesting to the truth of Vimalakirti feeding 80,000 people from a single bowl of (interplanetary) rice.

See Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, Chapter Ten.

Date: 2015/10/02 03:43:00, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,17:13)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,17:03)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,07:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)
I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.

I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.

Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...

It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...

It would be fun...

Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.

Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?

Where's the fun in that, Ogre?  I, like Postrado, want to see a literal fight.  

It's traditional for the party who was challenged to choose the weapons: shall we say custard pies?


Flagella, fine.  But they have to be wearing Naugahyde thigh boots, and post the video on YouTube.



Date: 2015/11/19 10:00:08, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,09:37)
The molecule is IC.

Being IC is no bar to arising naturally through natural mechanisms.  Have a look at Behe and Snoke (2004) "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" -- yes, it is that Behe.  Professor Behe testified under oath that this 2004 paper showed that simple IC systems could evolve in around 20,000 years.  Lenski (2003) also shows the same thing, that IC systems can evolve.  Behe was correct in that they do not evolve by direct routes, but there are alternative, indirect, routes which can be followed to reach an IC system.

Your ID sources are lying to you.

Date: 2015/12/01 15:08:29, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Otangelo @ Dec. 01 2015,11:00)
DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology  that defies naturalistic explanations

Rearrange the following words to make a well known phrase or saying: GALLOP GISH.

Date: 2015/12/08 18:39:27, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 08 2015,13:16)
What Would Jesus Do?  Not sure exactly, but smiting would be involved.

Nah, you're mistaking him for his father.  Now the old guy could really do some smiting!

Date: 2015/12/29 03:55:56, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 29 2015,03:25)
For some reason using < and > doesn't work here. You have to use [ and ].

It is the difference between HTML and iB Code.  Click on the <a href="javascript:PopUp('','HelpCard','250','400','0','1','1','1')" target="_blank">iB Code</a> link below the box you type your comment in.

Date: 2015/12/29 03:57:31, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (rossum @ Dec. 29 2015,03:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 29 2015,03:25)
For some reason using < and > doesn't work here. You have to use [ and ].

It is the difference between HTML and iB Code.  Click on the <a href="javascript:PopUp('','HelpCard','250','400','0','1','1','1')" target="_blank">iB Code</a> link below the box you type your comment in.

Note to self: Do not use the "Preview" function before posting a link.  Try this one: iB Code

Date: 2016/02/15 06:24:32, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 14 2016,23:28)
Behe's error is not in defining "irreducible complexity" as a thing. The notion of a system whose proper functioning requires that every last one of its components be present & intact, is not particularly exotic or unreasonable. What is unreasonable, is arguing that "irreducible complexity" is a thing which can only be produced by an Intelligent Designer. Way the heck back in 1918, a gent name of Muller showed how bog-standard evolutionary processes can generate irreducible complex systems. Muller used the term "interlocking complexity" rather than "irreducible complexity", but by either name, it's the same concept: A system that consists entirely of critical failure points.

To give Behe credit, he did recognise his error.  He changed from his initial "IC cannot evolve" to "IC is unlikely to evolve" after his error was shown by good and useful work such as Thornhill and Ussery (2000) and Lenski (2003).

Behe then tried to determine just how unlikely IC was, which resulted in Behe and Snoke (2004). as featured in the Kitzmiller trial, and which showed that evolving IC wasn't really that difficult after all.

Behe was actually doing science properly.  He proposed a hypothesis, and amended that hypothesis when it was shown to be incorrect.  After investigation, the amended version didn't really say anything new or useful so it died, from the scientific point of view anyway.


Date: 2016/02/18 16:06:39, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Tomato Addict @ Feb. 18 2016,14:42)
Cubist and/or Rossum:
As it happens I have an ID blogger on the FB line, insisting that Behe's claims from 1996 have never been disproved. If Behe himself changed his claim, that's all the leverage I need. Can you walk me thru to the source where Behe says this himself?

I have the Behe and Snoke (2004) and Lych (2005) papers at hand.

Unfortunately, my reference is a link to the ISCID Encyclopedia definitions of IC (IIRC there were three, Behe1, Behe2 and Dembski), and the ISCID site is now dead.

There is a relevant quote from Darwin's Black Box: "Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitely rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously." (DBB, p40)

The obvious question is to measure just how unlikely it is.

The Behe and Snoke paper looked at the probability of evolving simple IC systems, though there they are called "novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues".


Date: 2016/02/23 15:59:38, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (KevinB @ Feb. 23 2016,11:06)
At least the next time Barry nukes a critic's account into toast, there will be pate to go with it.

Or perhaps fava beans and a big Amarone.

(Yes, I know.  Read the book.)

Date: 2016/02/29 05:55:41, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 28 2016,22:29)
By the way, who has ever died for a scientific idea?

Some Soviet biologists were executed during the period of Lysenkoism.

Date: 2016/04/19 16:18:34, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (JohnW @ April 19 2016,13:26)
Quote (stevestory @ April 19 2016,11:11)


April 19, 2016 at 8:12 am

Careful Barry, you might be prosecuted for climate denial.

Always the question: Lying, or extremely stupid?

Lying.  And extremely stupid.

So, an inclusive 'or' then.

Date: 2016/05/22 12:06:37, Link
Author: rossum
[quote=Otangelo,May 22 2016,08:37][/quote]
Irreducible complexity is a undeniable FACT.

Correct.  Irreducibly complex systems exist.

Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain  the origin of life and biodiversity in general.

False.  IC systems can and do evolve.  Even Professor Behe has agreed that IC systems can evolve.  He was correct to say that IC systems cannot evolve by direct paths, but he was incorrect to say that they cannot evolve by indirect paths.

The various indirect paths are covered by Thornhill and Ussery (2000).  An actual path, given mutation by mutation, is shown by Lenski (2003).  Behe himself has calculated some probabilities of simple IC systems evolving in Behe and Snoke (2004)

IC systems can and do evolve in reasonable timescales, about 20,000 years in the examples treated in Behe and Snoke.

Date: 2016/05/22 15:35:36, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Otangelo @ May 22 2016,14:48)
Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition ‚ÄĒ "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). ¬†The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." ¬†(A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, 2002)

This is Behe's second definition of IC -- note that it is from his "Response to Critics..."  It was this definition that he was using in his 2004 paper, which showed that IC systems could evolve.  In the example he used in the paper, a simple IC system evolved in about 20,000 years.

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned."

This is Behe's first definition of IC.  It was shown to be partly incorrect by Lenski and others.  Behe is right that IC systems cannot evolve directly, however they can evolve indirectly.

To make it clearer, Behe's first hypothesis said: "IC systems cannot evolve."  This was shown to be incorrect.  Behe then amended his hypothesis to read: "IC systems are unlikely to evolve, and can only do so by indirect paths."  His 2004 paper was an example of calculating just how unlikely those indirect paths were.

You are mixing up Behe's two different hypotheses.

Date: 2016/06/13 09:07:30, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 13 2016,06:02)
Robert Byers
ts the troublemakers who would use this to advance the gay agenda , gun control, interference in the middle east, or anything else.

How could these things be stopped. Stopping immigration or these third world immigrant, or Muslim ones? Stopping gay clubs or gay parades or anything of the gay agenda which provokes anger.?

Remember Dylann Roof?

How could these things be stopped. Stopping immigration or these third world immigrant, or Christian ones? Stopping Christian clubs or Christian parades or anything of the Christian agenda which provokes anger.?

Date: 2016/07/17 03:43:42, Link
Author: rossum
Page bug bump?

Date: 2016/08/28 03:39:06, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 27 2016,15:13)
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 27 2016,09:45)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 27 2016,05:40)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 26 2016,16:29)
A question that could be asked about this "necessary being", is, necessary to whom?

Theologians in distress.

Monks in tutus.

Boys in bikinis. Girls in surfboards.

Here comes the bikini whale.

Date: 2016/12/17 15:24:20, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 17 2016,12:25)
have worked for more than a decade to decipher and understand this knowledge and I have made great progress.

Didn't there used to be bonus points on the Index to Creationist Claims for how long you worked on on your theory?

John Baez Crackpot Index, #11: "10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)"



Date: 2017/03/30 03:33:53, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 29 2017,15:46)
Ah well, as One Stone once said, only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity. But he wasn't sure about the former.

I thought it was One Beer Glass said it.

Date: 2017/05/02 12:06:03, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ May 02 2017,09:16)
If somebody wants to practice English, they should move to England! ;)

Oh dear.  Looks like we're going to need extreme vetting for Canadians now.   :p


Date: 2017/06/09 07:01:19, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Dredge @ June 09 2017,04:38)
In the encyclical, Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII stated that Catholics are "by no means" free to accept polygenism. Yet many Catholics today embrace polygenism - including Bishops and Cardinals.  Satan has thoroughly deceived them.

Theological monogenism is not incompatible with biological polygenism.  Biological polygenism asserts the existence of many primates with human DNA who are all ancestors to modern humans.  Theological monogenism asserts that at one time two, and only two, of those primates with human DNA had divinely created human souls.

You are creating an issue where there does not need to be one.  An unsouled primate may be biologically a member of Homo sapiens, but is not theologically human.

Date: 2017/06/23 08:51:43, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2017,06:20)
PindiJune 23, 2017 at 5:05 am
... But marriage implies an equality ...

Equality?  Not Biblical marriage then.  Can't have equality when the male is superior to the female and she must obey him.

Date: 2017/07/05 14:17:19, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (Henry J @ July 05 2017,09:19)
That's too many pronouns!  :p

He he he he he.  Oh...

Date: 2017/07/19 03:09:58, Link
Author: rossum
Quote (fnxtr @ July 18 2017,21:54)
What I tell you three times is true.

No need to get Snarky.