Saturday, December 31, 2011

Were you there, gordo?

December 31, 2011 at 6:52 am


And your observational — not inferred, and not censored by a priori evolutionary materialism — case that NS can and does account for a novel body plan is ___________ ?


From here:


gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat is resorting to the old and lame 'Were you there?' crap.

Hey gordo, were you there when your imaginary god designed and created anything or everything? Do you happen to have any actual, observational, not inferred, testable evidence or are your insane a priori religious beliefs and extreme arrogance all you've got?

By the way, you're still a rancid piece of lying shit.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

o'leary, stupid beyond belief

"But if such studies don’t enable us to predict anything, why are they important for understanding the outcomes of anthropogenic climate change?"

Hey dumbass, it obviously hasn't occurred to you that one study combined with other studies, and the continuation of data gathering and studies, will enable and already has enabled scientists to make predictions about anthropogenic climate change.

I predict that when you die you'll be just as incredibly stupid as you always have been.

All science so far!

What on Earth is the point of that gigantic mess?

Wednesday, December 28, 2011


...says (on his blog):

"So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”."

Well, joe-baby, with your unsurpassed knowledge of science and evolution (LOL), tell me exactly how every living thing evolved and what every living thing evolved from.

And be sure to live up to your own demands of evidence and proof, and show that your "position" actually meets those demands:

"Science requires POSITIVE evidence, Nick."

"ID is stronger than ever and supported by more data."

"I bet you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis for that.


"Now you say what I said is not sufficient yet that is all you do- declare it, without evidence.

Your position isn’t supported by anything but imagination. There still isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates a multi-part system can arise via accumulations of random mutations- you can’t even test the claim!

You are so gullible that you really believe your position has the evidence yet when push comes to shove you cannot produce it.

As a matter of fact there isn’t any way to test the claim that random mutations/ random variations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to the diversity of life starting from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes.

So where can one find this alleged evidence that you speak of? It ain’t in textbooks and it ain’t in the journals, is it in some top-secret vault?

And MORE spewage- no evidence, just spewage.

Now I understand whty the vast majority of people know your position is a joke.

The evotard substance and evidence-free points are adding up."

"As I have been saying for decades-> you can only scientifically model what you thoroughly understand.

Kudos for trying but it should be impossible to model the "shit happens and other shit emerges from it", ie materialism, position."

"BTW the fictional scenario is your sorry-ass, evidence-free position. You have no way to account for anything except to imagine it, attack people and drool on your keyboard.

Thanks for the entertainment though."

"So where can one find this alleged evidence that you speak of? It ain’t in textbooks and it ain’t in the journals, is it in some top-secret vault?"

"Kevin misrepresents Creation and gets kudos. Then falls back on the nonsensical claim “My position has hundreds of years of evidence”, yet strange taht it cannot get published."

"You are so gullible that you really believe your position has the evidence yet when push comes to shove you cannot produce it."

"There is plenty of evidence that one designer did exist at one time."

"Any evidence for the accuracy of your claim?"

"Bald claims are meaningless to science."

"ID claims that it occurred by design, ie via genetic algorithms directing mutations to achieve a pre-specified result."

"Yup and you shouldn’t throw stones as your position has absolutely nothing."

"They are losers because they spew a lot of nonsense and NEVER support the claims of their position."

"Umm that is speculation, not evidence."

"And the evidence says whales had hind fins and the Bible says day 5 of the Creation week (for whales)."


So, joe-boi, let's see YOU support your ID "position" with "plenty" of scientifically testable stronger than ever "POSITIVE" evidence and data, and a scientific, testable hypothesis/theory, and scientific models of what is thoroughly understood about the actual design process of living things, and make sure that there's plenty of "substance" in all of your claims and that it's all "published". Well, joe?

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Take a look at... (more added)

...this thread:

And this one:

And this one:

Friday, December 23, 2011

gordo's enemy

December 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm

When the truth becomes your enemy, watch out!

From here:


Yeah, gordo, you better watch out.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Absolutely astounding stupidity and arrogance

My responses are in bold type.
December 20, 2011 at 6:01 am

(dmullenix): JoeG, like it or not, ID has already made a whopping big statement about The Designer. You claim that he is Intelligent.

Unlike yourself.

(dmullenix): This necessarily means that He is billions of times more complex (and hence unlikely) than the whole DNA system.

Reference please. Or admit you just made that up. As for “unlikely” THAT ONLY PERTAINS TO YOUR POSITION. Probabilities do not apply to design as it is a given that designers know how to design what it is they are dsigning.

(dmullenix): Meanwhile, I’m waiting for ID to produce any kind of positive evidence for their position.

ID has presented plenty of positive evidence. OTOH your position doesn’t have anything, nothing at all.

(dmullenix): When and where did The Intelligent Designer create the DNA system?

Thank you for proving my point. Ya see in order to determine the when and where we FIRST have to study the design. And THAT is ID-> the detection and study of design.

(dmullenix): You show me your evidence and I’ll show you mine.

Except you don’t have any evidence and you don’t have a testable hypothesis.

All you “have” is somethings happened sometime in the past and these things kept accumulating over vast eons of time and here we are.”

Ya see dmullenix, the way to a design inference is THROUGH your position as required by Newton’s First Rule. And taht means if you had some positive evidence then ID would be a non-starter. Yet here we are.

You lose…

From here:

"Reference please. Or admit you just made that up."

WHAT???????? Did you really say that joe-boi? Tell you what, you shit-for-brains loser, since you're so concerned about a "reference", how about you supplying a "reference" that proves that your MADE UP designer/god actually exists?


Reference please. Or admit you just made that up.

Dave is correct, and he's being a lot more generous than I would be. I'd say that your imaginary chosen god/designer is impossible.

"Probabilities do not apply to design as it is a given that designers know how to design what it is they are dsigning."

Reference please. Or admit you just made that up.

There isn't a shred of honesty or intelligence in you joe-boi. You IDiots CONSTANTLY rely on arguments about probability to push your "design" bullshit.

"ID has presented plenty of positive evidence. OTOH your position doesn’t have anything, nothing at all."

Reference please. Or admit you just made that up.

You are certainly one of the DUMBEST wastes of oxygen that has ever existed. Of wait, I need a "reference" from you to prove that you do exist. How about it, joe-baby?

And then show the "plenty of positive evidence" that has been "presented" by "ID", with 'references'.

"Ya see in order to determine the when and where we FIRST have to study the design. And THAT is ID-> the detection and study of design."

Reference please. Or admit you just made that up.

Hey joe-boi, when are you IDiots going to get around to studying "the design" and publishing your findings in legitimate peer reviewed journals? And when are you IDiots going to get around to studying 'the designer' and publishing your findings in legitimate peer reviewed journals?

By the way, is there some sort of natural law or command from your imaginary god that says "we FIRST have to study the design" or did you just make that up? You really do like to make shit up, don't you joe-boi? Your entire self is based on made up shit. The only thing real about you is that you're a loud-mouthed, lying, cowardly, two-faced, arrogant turdball that likes to make shit up.

And who the fuck is "we"?

"Except you don’t have any evidence and you don’t have a testable hypothesis."

Reference please. Or admit you just made that up.

Let me guess. You were looking at a mirror when you said that. If you weren't, you should have been. Science, including evolutionary biology, has lots of evidence and testable hypotheses.

ID has NO evidence and NO testable hypothesis, and it isn't science. Hey joe, if you pray real hard maybe you can get your imaginary sky friend to give you some evidence and a testable hypothesis. Try telling your imaginary friend that if it will do that you'll stop molesting goats for a week or two. It's worth a try, unless you just can't go for a week or two without molesting goats. You can always temporarily substitute them with an inflatable party pig.

"Ya see dmullenix, the way to a design inference is THROUGH your position as required by Newton’s First Rule. And taht means if you had some positive evidence then ID would be a non-starter. Yet here we are."

Reference please. Or admit you just made that up.

Newton, schmewton, where the fuck is your positive evidence and testable hypothesis for ID, joe-boi? If YOU had any positive evidence then non-ID would be a non-starter.

This is an interesting and revealing statement joe:

"...the way to a design inference is THROUGH your position..."

It's further proof that you want and expect science to change its inferences to support and conform to your religious beliefs. All that matters to you is that your chosen imaginary god gets credit for whatever it is you want to give it credit for.

Science is NOT going to change any inferences, hypotheses, or theories just to make you IDiots happy, and it is NOT going to do your work for you. Do your own fucking work, find your own testable evidence for ID, and put together your own testable hypothesis for ID, and 'present' it all in a scientifically acceptable manner. Otherwise, just shut the fuck up!

"You lose…"

Reference please. Or admit you just made that up.

Wishful dreaming on your part joe. Your lost "position" has had at least two thousand years to come up with testable evidence and a testable hypothesis for ID (god), yet here we are, with you god zombies still flailing around like spastic fish out of water and still spewing your non-evidential, insane fairy tales.

Since I'm....

...not able to post on Panda's Thumb, I'll post this here.

Reed Cartwright posted an article about language here:

Here's my response:


I'm amazed that you would say this:

"Humans have a unique form of complex communication called language."

Not only is language not unique to humans, but some of human language (both "spoken" and body language) is understood by many other species.

Now, you can argue that language is unique to humans because the sounds humans make are uniquely labeled as "language" by you or some others, but that is a lame argument. Since your points are mainly about "spoken" communication, then all "spoken" communication (sounds) by or between any species must be considered. Apparently you think that the sounds that non-human organisms make are not "spoken", are not communicative, and are therefor not "language".

You also mentioned hand gestures. Gestures, facial expressions, and many other non-"spoken" actions and positions are called 'body language'. Humans aren't the only ones who engage in that either. Far from it in fact.

By the way, do you really think that the "spoken" sounds (language) and the gestures/actions/positions (body language) that non-human organisms use are not complex? 'Complexity' is a matter of opinion but it can easily be said that the 'languages' used by many non-human organisms are too complex for humans to understand.

And what do you think of communicative sounds that are made, and understood, by non-human organisms that are not produced from their mouth?


P.S. I tried a lot of things to be able to post my response at Panda's Thumb but nothing worked. Maybe they don't want to hear from me. :)

Lying for jesus

December 20, 2011 at 11:41 am


Why don’t Darwinists just say what they mean?

Maybe they are too smart for that…

Gil, you always say really what you mean, and very clearly too, and that’s why I like you! But you would be a bad darwinist (me too, I am afraid) :) .

From here:


Hey gpukio, why don't YOU and the rest of the IDiots HONESTLY say what YOU mean? After all, you and I and a lot of other people know that your real agenda is to force your religious beliefs into every aspect of everyone's life, and that you're lying when you claim anything to the contrary. Do you think that your imaginary god approves of your lies? Of course you do!

Since you IDiotic god zombies are chronic liars I'm sure that you easily find ways to convince yourselves that your imaginary god approves of ANYTHING you say or do. That's one of the benefits of your god being imaginary. You can apply whatever YOU imagine into or onto that god.

By believing that your imaginary god approves of your thoughts and behavior you can conveniently shirk personal responsibility for thinking, saying, and doing things that decent people would call dishonest and wrongful. By creating an imaginary supernatural god, you godbots have conveniently placed all responsibility for your thoughts and actions OUTSIDE of yourselves, and you have created a so-called 'ultimate' authority figure who, according to you thumpers, condones or forgives whatever you say or do. How nice for you liars.


My responses are in bold type.
December 20, 2011 at 3:36 pm

Well, perhaps it is time to venture out of the confines of an ID friendly blog, carry out some research, and present your findings to the scientific community. Maybe write a paper or two for publication. Oh, that’s right, the whole mainstream scientific community are brainwashed/engaging in an intellectual conspiracy. Well, at least you can “prevail” here…

Well said.
December 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Carry out research as opposed to your position’s propensity of throwing unresearchable eons of time around to solve all problems?

Who needs research when you have the “Father Time” trump card? All that is left is “cleanup on aisle 7″….

joe-boi, you missed your calling. You should be a professional comedian. The things you say are hilarious.

WHERE is YOUR research, or any research by any other IDiot? Come on joe-boi, show all the ID "research" that has been and is being carried out. It will take you a lot less than a nanosecond.

You religious wackos are the ones who throw "God" around to solve all problems, and who try to use "Father God" as a "trump card".

joe-baby, you're a JOKE, a LIAR, a DULLARD, a COWARD, and a TWO-FACED BLOVIATING BULLSHITTER. And those are your good traits!
December 20, 2011 at 4:43 pm

You sound like a YEC

joe-boi IS a YEC. He just won't admit it.


Monday, December 19, 2011

Speaking of the looney bin

William J Murray
December 19, 2011 at 6:02 am

It gets even worse when they attempt to argue about first principles, necessary assumptions, logic, free will and morality. Their argument centers around the view that there is no objective basis or means from which or by which to argue such concepts, but then directly imply that views which differ from theirs are “wrong”.

If it is all just subjective interpretation by biological automatons as they process input into output, and none of it ultimately means anything more than how a rock happens to roll down a hill, what are they arguing about, and why, and how do they expect to reach a meaningful conclusion?

The self-denying self-deception is staggering. They obliterate the capacity of anyone to make objective-value based arguments about anything, or to make them from any independent, uncaused or non-programmed perspective, while simultaneously believing they’ve made some kind of “valid” argument or point that others should recognize and acquiesce to.

A Darwinist arguing that darwinism (and, in fact, all of science) is in essence anything different from any other belief (meaning, a set of views and interpretations and conclusions generated by a long history of biological interactions) is engaged in self-deluding hypocrisy. Under the materialist/darwinist/subjectivist mandate, Darwinism = fundamentalist Christianity = Fundamentalist Islam = New Ageism = what anyone in a looney bin believes.

From their perspective, it’s all just views and beliefs generated from the same source: biological interactions – yet they argue as if we have some capacity beyond those interactions to recognize the validity of their arguments and change our own views; they argue as if, even if we could do so, it would matter in some way.

If it is all just a bunch of rocks rolling down hills one way or another, and set to do so by the relentless march of physics, why argue?

All of their arguments become nothing but material sophistry – rocks rolling down hills that happen to make sounds that appear to be “arguments”, no matter how inane or self-defeating.

From here:


Apparently willy got tired of getting his ass kicked at Elizabeth Liddle's blog so he went back to the UD echo chamber where his fellow IDiots will pat him on the back for being inane, self deluding, and self defeating.

gordo's specialty: IDiotic word salad

December 19, 2011 at 5:46 am

PS: If you want a theory of design [ID is not that, it is a theory of inference to design (design being a fact of observation) as causal source on validated empirical signs], please cf TRIZ, as has been pointed out several times.

From here:


Ah, so ID is "a theory of inference to design", not the design inference, or the design hypothesis, or the design theory, or the theory of design, and since gordo-the-bloviator claims that it has been pointed out several times it must be true, even though he's the only one who has described it that way. What the fuck is a theory of inference? Is it the same as 'god-did-it'?

And of course he claims: "design being a fact of observation) as causal source on validated empirical signs" even though it's no such thing. It's all in his (and the other IDiots') feeble, delusional minds.

Isn't it interesting that gordo never even tries to get his bloviating word salad published in a legitimate scientific journal?

Want to see...

....joe-boi defending "the Flood" and young earth creationism? Of course he LIES and says that he's not a YEC but it's obvious that HE IS.

Check this out:

How can anyone... this backassward and fucked up?

Upright BiPed
December 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm

Street Theater,

You seem awfully confident as you run your mouth. Do you throw stones in hiding, or are you willing to come out and talk about some of the actual evidence for design?

From here:


downright braindead does nothing but run his mouth and throw stones while he hides like a sniveling coward in the UD sanctuary, and there is NO "actual evidence for design" to talk about.

Notice that downright braindead posted his blustering, impotent bullshit AFTER Street Theater had been banned. Yeah, he's a real courageous guy. NOT.

Hey downright braindead, if you're so brave, and confident in your assertions, and want to "talk about some of the actual evidence for design", why don't you come here, or go to Larry Moran's site, or to The Panda's Thumb, or ATBC, or Dawkins' site, or Jerry Coyne's site, or the other sites that challenge ID, and bring up your alleged "actual evidence"? Are you just a fairy tale believing chickenshit punk who's afraid of the reality bogeyman, or are you going to come out of hiding in the UD sanctuary and face the challenges like a man?

I'm not afraid of you (or any other IDiots) and I seriously doubt that anyone on those other sites is. Come on out, cry baby. You can always run back to your protective sanctuary and get a hug from the other IDiotic cowards there after you get your ass spanked. If you're afraid to come out by yourself, feel free to bring your IDiot comrades with you. Oh wait, they're sniveling cowards who only feel safe throwing stones and running their mouths while hiding in the UD sanctuary, just like you.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

joe-boi, the caring, compassionate IDiot

December 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm

Then if Hitchens was correct he can RIP because in his non-existent state he no longer has to put up with people like ______________…

“I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

(However now that Hichens knows he was wrong he may not be resting in peace (cue maniacal laughter)…)

From here:


That's mighty christian/muslim of ya joe-boi.

By the way, don't you claim that you're not religious? If that were true you wouldn't believe and say "now that Hichens knows he was wrong" and you wouldn't be laughing maniacally with the thought that Hitchens (an atheist) has been judged by your chosen god and is now suffering in hell.

You also wouldn't say (on your blog) "God, the "Creator of DNA and living organisms" and "It has been said that saying "God did it" (the God hypothesis) is not scientific because we cannot test God, obviously forgetting that science was once a methodology for understanding God's Creation." and you wouldn't defend "the YEC global Flood" (and "Noah's Ark"), and you wouldn't have said this:

"A note to all atheists hoping to get adopted by a Christian family- this is what they are going to ask of you.

The problem for you is if you don't respond they win and if you do respond, they win because your response will just be the sillyness of "They just are (the way they are)"."

including a link to this:

From here:
(Likely the most incorrectly named site on the web)

joe-boi, not only are you a chronic LIAR, but you're a typical two-faced god zombie to boot.

Ultimately retarded

Ultimately Real
December 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm

I can’t claim to be a scientist or a philospher but as a lay person interested in ID, it is obivious to even me the two instances you refer to are not the leaps vjtorley is referring to. Both Thalidomide and Rubella, upon reading your links, are destructive changes, one by a man-made drug and the other by a virus. The leaps I believe vjtorley is referring to are structures that move from less complex to more complex with the “instant” addition of multiple parts.

One big mystery I always ponder is the supposed evolutionary move of a land mammal to an ocean dwelling animal. I have heard arguments that these creatures at one point developed fully functional land breathing capability at the same time they had fully functional water breathing capability, so the transition was easy and the air breathing apparatus began to evolve away. (My bold)

Here is what I can’t wrap my head around from an evolutionary standpoint. How many generations of my kids, grandkids, great grandkids and so on and so forth would have to spend everyday in the ocean before they would develop the ability to remain in the ocean full time. My gut says it would never happen. But let’s just ask another question, what percentage of the 7 billion humans alive on the planet are born with fully functional fins, aqua lungs or digestive systems capable of living on eating fish alone? Well, other than some sensational stories in a National Enquirer-type publication, I am inclined to believe that no humans are born with any of these fully functional parts. I have limited knowledge of recessive genes but even if my great, great grandkid to the nth power did pop out with a fully developed mutations for water life, if it was the wrong type of gene or genes, wouldn’t it be gone with the next generation?

Here is another thing I think is amazing: All the amazing human pieces and parts FULLY develop in the womb. The lungs, the eyes, the digestive system, the fingers, etc. all assemble into fully developed structures prior to being called into use!! If the eye is missing one component, the child is either blind or their vision is severely restricted. The gestational assembly of a human with functionally structures should give us all pause.

The final scenario I play out in my mind is the Provine statement that a dog could turn into an elephant with enough time. I am still left wondering what the intermediate mutations between a dogs nose and fully functioning trunk with muscular structures capable of grasping peanuts like a hand would look like. Even if a dog was born with a bump on his noise, how would that bump get larger and longer over successive generations and develop the musculature we see in an elephant. Simply preposterous!!!!

From here:


The amount of tard in that post is what's preposterous. I'm glad he doesn't claim to be a scientist. In the emboldened paragraph he appears to be talking about cetaceans, but he apparently doesn't know that cetaceans don't breathe water and never did. If he's not talking about cetaceans, then what the fuck is he talking about?

Oh, and it's interesting to hear that unborn babies have "fully developed structures prior to being called into use". Doctors should announce that all of the growth and changes that occur after birth are a figment of our imaginations.

I wonder what he thinks of "structures" that 'develop' (or can 'develop') in the womb that will never be "called into use", like an extra head, extra limbs, nipples on a man, etc.? And why is it that godbots NEVER give their chosen god credit for all of the horrible things that 'develop' in many babies while they're in the womb, like diseases, disfigurement, disabilities, and death?

I also wonder if he would change his mind about ID and evolution if all human babies were to start developing eyes only after they're born? Apparently he thinks that development beginning at conception proves ID, and that there's something miraculous about humans having things like eyes at birth.

And what about premature babies?

And what about animals that 'develop' inside an eggshell (or egg membrane), not in a "womb"?

And what about Lepidopterans, that not only don't "FULLY develop" in a womb, but don't produce a fully developed adult straight from the fertilized egg? One minute the IDiots claim that multiple stages of development after 'birth' (metamorphosis) proves ID and the next minute an IDiot claims that so-called 'full' development in the womb proves ID. Which is it?

Another look at...

...dembski's definition of IC:

"A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core.

We can therefore define the core of a functionally integrated system as those parts that are indispensable to the system’s basic function: remove parts of the core, and you can’t recover the system’s basic function from the other remaining parts. To say that a core is irreducible is then to say that no other systems with substantially simpler cores can perform the system’s basic function.


Hmm, if he's right, a four bladed propeller on an outboard motor couldn't have any blades cut off and still "perform the system’s basic function".

A monkey cannot climb a tree if it's missing an arm.

A butterfly cannot fly unless all four wings are present and complete.

A millipede, a dog, or a duck cannot walk (propel itself along the ground) if it's missing a leg.

An airplane without landing gear cannot land, or land safely. "Safely' meaning without harm to the occupants.

Of course he would say that some parts are dispensable while some parts are indispensable. Well, I could argue that an elephant without a head wouldn't function but that wouldn't prove that elephant heads are designed, or that they're designed by some imaginary supernatural god.


There's something else to consider:

What are 'parts'? Who determines where the exact line is drawn between 'parts'? Can anyone say that there are parts that can't be reduced to parts? A starter in a car is called a part, but it's made of many parts. A 'one piece' brass propeller is a combination of 'parts' - the atoms within it, and the atoms are a combination of parts. Seems to me that pretty much everything is a combination of parts. The search for the Higgs Boson comes to mind. And if it's found, what part will be looked for then?

Something else that comes to mind is the endless debate about the exact line between 'species'.

vjtorley, blustering lying coward

Hey vince, why don't you ask Moran at his website? Why are you hiding at UD? Didn't you say that you "believe in arguing rigorously"? Preaching yet another one sided sermon at UD isn't "arguing rigorously".

You said that you want to hear from Moran. Then go to his site with your questions and assertions. What are you afraid of, a 'rigorous argument'?

You also said:

"Let me state up-front that I am a philosopher, not a scientist."

You really don't need to state that you're not a scientist. It's already abundantly clear. You're just an IDiot who thinks that applying the label "philosopher" to yourself gives you and your crazy religious beliefs some sort of credibility.

joe-boi is irreducibly IDiotic

vjtorley posted this definition of irreducible complexity (by dembski)...

"The basic logic of IC [Irreducible Complexity] goes like this:

A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core.

We can therefore define the core of a functionally integrated system as those parts that are indispensable to the system’s basic function: remove parts of the core, and you can’t recover the system’s basic function from the other remaining parts. To say that a core is irreducible is then to say that no other systems with substantially simpler cores can perform the system’s basic function.

Then, after a post by Neil Rickert, joe-boi came along and said this:

December 18, 2011 at 6:04 pm


ALL living organisms are IC.

From here:


Notice first that joe-boi didn't contest the definition of IC posted by torley (as originally stated by dembski). Since joe-boi asserts that "ALL living organisms are IC" I'll proceed on the basis that he thinks that all parts of ALL living organisms are necessary for them to 'function'.

So then, according to joe-boi, if a person loses (or is born without) a finger, a hand, an ear, an eye, both eyes, their hearing, a toe, an ovary, a testicle, their legs, any part of their brain, a lung, a kidney, all of their hair, and/or an appendix, they can't 'function'.

If a butterfly or other flying insect loses or is born without an antennae, a leg, an eye, and/or any portions of its wing(s), it can't 'function'.

If a cat or a dog loses or is born without a tail, it can't 'function'.

If a rattle snake loses or is born without a rattle, and never grows a rattle, it can't 'function'.

Any organism with anything missing or damaged can't 'function'.

joe-boi is proof that an IDiot with most of its brain missing or damaged can barely 'function' but not thrive.

The madness of mullings


Therefor jesus. LOL

The tard is with you, gildo


Wow, what a stupid, ass backward, self serving bucket of swill that post is. It's just another pile of dishonest crap from a deranged IDiot who wants his fairy tale religious beliefs to be taught in public schools, instead of science. And to think that he calls himself a scientist. That's a laugh.

Hey gildo, you IDiots haven't made any good points.

Why don't you IDiots say what you mean? You know, like tell the truth about your dishonest maniacal religious agenda instead of trying to fool people into believing that your motives are strictly scientific? You're the ones with "fantasies", "transparent irrationality", and "orthodoxy", and you're the ones who want to indoctrinate everyone with your ridiculous religious bullshit.

Tell me, gildo, what is "scientific, rational, evidential, or mathematical" about your completely retarded and impossible religious beliefs, and what is "intellectually honest" about trying to shove them down everyone's throat using LIES, empty rhetoric, strawmen, red herrings, and every other asinine game you IDiots constantly play?

It's funny that you would use the word "commitment" because you should be committed to an insane asylum.

Hey gildo, I just said what I mean. How do you like it?

Saturday, December 17, 2011

What do you think?

According to gpukio:

"It is rather obvious that any function, however defined, needs some information to be implemented."

From here (number 8):


I'd like to hear what you readers think of his statement.

I'm also going to pose some examples and questions for your consideration:

1. When someone dies of natural causes, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

2. When someone burps or coughs, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

3. When rain falls from a cloud onto the ground, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

4. When two people have sex with each other, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

5. When a person breathes, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

6. When a river floods because of heavy rainfall, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

7. When a volcano erupts, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

8. When a star forms, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

9. When an apple falls from a tree, is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

10. When a rock erodes into small particles (e.g. sand), is it a "function" and does it need some information to be implemented?

Friday, December 16, 2011

joe-boi is so funny

December 16, 2011 at 6:06 am


If you don’t like analogies nor the design inference all YOU have to do is actually step-up and demonstrate that stochastic processes can account for what we say is designed.

OR you can continue whining.

Your choice…

From here:


joe-boi, one of these days you should actually study the evidence for evolution. You should also realize that there are still things to learn and that science isn't done looking for those things. On the other hand, you moronic, religious IDIOTS just sit there in your basements, thumping your bible with one hand while wanking with the other. You do NO science AT ALL. You'll NEVER find ANYTHING that adds to scientific knowledge.

So, if you don’t like the ToE all YOU have to do is actually step-up and demonstrate that a designer (your chosen god) can and does account for the origins and diversity of life. (I added origins because you often say that ID is ALL ABOUT origins). You can't even calculate (or "demonstrate") the "CSI" in a banana.

OR you can continue whining (and wanking).

Your choice…

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Want to see what godbots are really like?

Go here and read the comments:

There's a big hole in joe-boi's sock

December 15, 2011 at 2:39 am

Joe, I notice that clicking on your name takes me to That blog belongs to JoeG, who was kicked off this site a few weeks ago for consistent unprovoked rudeness. Is he a friend of yours?

From here:


Just in case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, joe (formerly joseph) absolutely, positively is joe g.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

What a phony, LYING goon

In that post, gordo shows yet again what a two-faced, cowardly, lying, sanctimonious piece of crap he is.

Here is what he barfed:

"Pardon a moment.

Just a notice to let the abusive spammers know that the price tag for serious dialogue is basic civility. (And in some cases, a lot of uncalled for stuff — for cause — would have to be removed and apologised for. Why should I or any sensible person let you do the verbal equivalent of repeatedly dumping garbage on my front lawn?)

Oh, a follow-up snippet from my comment inbox, to see some of why I say this:

. . . Where’s the “serious dialogue” here on your worthless site and in your threads on UD? Blocking and banning people who speak the truth isn’t “serious dialogue”. You don’t have the slightest clue as to what “serious dialogue” is, you LYING [vulgarity] dictator.

Your ONE SIDED LIE-FILLED sermons are NOT “serious dialogue”. Every word you spew just makes you look more and more like a cowardly, LYING lunatic. You should be thoroughly embarrassed by your reputation as a big mouthed blowhard with no courage, morals, or integrity whatsoever. You’re a deranged loser.

On the contrary, it should be quite clear that I am simply insisting on a modicum of decency and — in this case — correction of a lot of already existing harmful commentary. How, I wish we were able to focus on how we could work together to call for reformation to deal with the problem of human trafficking exposed by the Bibi Aisha case, but instead we again have to pause to deal with abuse.

And, BTW, irresponsible, out of context misreadings of Deut 22 etc are not “speaking the truth.”

No surprise, evolutionary materialism is inherently self referentially incoherent and radically relativist (thus amoral and entails the absurdity: might makes right).

It cannot acknowledge the obvious implication we face, that any sound worldview must start from the premise that morality is objective, that our fellow human beings have comparable moral worth to ourselves, so we have duties of care and respect to one another, and that being under such moral government strongly points to a ground of Being who is the inherently good and wise Creator and Lord of the cosmos.

And, FYFI, venom, vulgarities, personalities, poisonous side-tracks and false accusations, of course, are not serious dialogue. G’day. END"


The "snippet" from his "comment inbox" is some of the things I said in a submitted (but not published) comment on his blog. He's way to cowardly to publish any of my comments or face me here so he instead seeks safety in the UD sanctuary, where I'm not allowed to respond, and proceeds to preach another bloviating sermon that STILL misses and/or distorts the points I've made.

Notice too that his post on UD is closed to any comments. So much for "serious dialogue". He knows that I can't post anything on UD, so what is he afraid of? He also knows that all of the IDiots on UD will either agree with him and add to his one sided sermon or they will ignore him, so what is he afraid of? Why are comments off for his post, and why are they off in his post of a few days ago, and why did he close comments in another of his recent threads? AND, why isn't there a single published comment on his blog from someone who questions his assertions or challenges them? WHERE is the "serious dialogue"? With comments off or never published, where is the OPPORTUNITY for "serious dialogue"?

To gordo, "serious dialogue" is him preaching yet another lie filled, dictatorial sermon, and the only commenters allowed are ones that kiss his sanctimonious, lying ass. He and the other IDiots are the ones employing the "might makes right" attitude and actions. They are the ones who block and ban people just because those people don't or might not agree with them. They (and especially gordo) exercise their "might" by making "Comments off" posts, barging into other people's posts with bold type (often red) dictatorial tirades, and preaching one sided bossy sermons.

It's pretty funny (in a sad sort of way) that gordo hypocritically preaches about "abuse", "basic civility", "insisting on a modicum of decency", "harmful commentary", "duties of care and respect to one another", "venom, vulgarities, personalities, poisonous side-tracks and false accusations", and "a lot of uncalled for stuff" even though HE and his fellow IDiots/godbots constantly and "repeatedly" ridicule, insult, abuse, attack, denigrate, lie about, demonize, and 'repeatedly dump garbage' on Darwin, "Darwinists", atheists, agnostics, evolutionary materialists, science, scientists, science supporters, "personalities", and everyone else who doesn't blindly worship their authoritarian, narcissistic asses, AND he and his IDiotic religious comrades conveniently ignore the fact that they have been "repeatedly dumping" that uncivil "garbage" for a very long time.

Tell me gordo, Why should I or any other sensible person let you (or any other god zombie) do the verbal equivalent of repeatedly dumping garbage on science's lawn and on everyone who doesn't obediently agree with you and your insane, dictatorial, religious bullshit?

Notice that gordo brought up and attacked "evolutionary materialism" shortly after my quoted words, even though evolutionary materialism has absolutely nothing to do with my words and nothing to do with what happened to Bibi Aisha. She was mutilated by RELIGIOUS nutcases in her own family! Those maniacal freaks are NOT evolutionary materialists!

I'd be willing to bet that if Billy Graham mutilated a young woman, gordo would blame "evolutionary materialism" AND bring Hitler, "100 million ghosts", and Lewontin into it somehow.

Oh, and gordo? What about your "false accusations" toward me? You know, the ones you repeatedly assert about me allegedly "threatening your family Mafioso style". Are those "serious dialogue"?

"...the inherently good and wise Creator and Lord of the cosmos"

Fuck you and your monstrous imaginary lord.

gordo opens his mouth and inserts both feet

According to gordo:

"And until there is a credible and serious explanation backed up by repeatable actual experiments — computer sims will not do — the evolutionary materialist narrative will properly belong to the world of origins myth, not science. never mind the current ideological dominance of such myth-makers and myth propagators in institutions of science."

From here:

(near the bottom of


Where is the "credible and serious explanation backed up by repeatable actual experiments" for ANYTHING in the ID "narrative"?

I'm STILL waiting for ANY IDiot to calculate/measure the "CSI" in a banana (or anything else), let alone back up any of their other non-scientific assertions. gordo, gpukio, joe-boi, and many other IDiots claim that they have specifically defined "CSI", "dFSCI", "dFSCO/I", etc., and they claim that it IS measurable, but they NEVER actually measure it in anything in nature. They also NEVER do ANY "repeatable actual experiments" on anything else and they regularly rely on arguments and evidence pertaining to "computer sims" to promote ID.

Hmm, I wonder (not really) why IDiots don't apply the SAME standards to their own bald assertions that they apply to, and demand of, science and the ToE? It couldn't be because they are a bunch of two-faced, dishonest, non-scientific, arrogant, shallow, biased religious lunatics, could it? ;)

shysters, charlatans, liars, and freaks

In this post...

...barry 'shyster' arrington says:

"The problem with Miller’s response is that even if one takes it at face value he still appears mendacious, because no ID supporter has ever, as far as I know, argued “X is improbable; therefore X was designed.”"

Now, take a look at comment number 8 by DrRec:

December 13, 2011 at 1:50 pm

“because no ID supporter has ever, as far as I know, argued “X is improbable; therefore X was designed.”

“The question remaining is how improbable does a specified thing have to be before we know it was designed? … That means we set the bar very high, meaning the thing in question will have to be extremely improbable to pass our design test.”

Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-To-Understand Guide to the Controversy By William A. Dembski, Jonathan Witt p. 67

Am I missing something?


arrington and his lying IDiot comrades just never know when to shut the fuck up.

Virtually all of the arguments for ID are based on probability/improbability (in addition to all of the religious BS and Darwin bashing of course).

The IDiots at UD are getting their asses kicked on a daily basis by just the few non-IDiots who are allowed to post there. Imagine what would happen if all non-IDiots were allowed to post there.

Whenever I look at the posts and comments by IDiots at UD (or anywhere else) I am amazed that those morons actually expect sane, thinking, educated people to swallow the absolutely INSANE, RETARDED, DISHONEST bullshit they spew. As crazy as their spewage has been for a long time, it appears to me that it's getting even crazier. They not only keep repeating the same old bullshit that has been shown many times over to be totally wrong and thoroughly dishonest, but they're also adding new and even more radical nuttiness to their assertions, and they are being more and more sloppy at keeping their religious agenda hidden.

If those dullards had even the slightest amount of intelligence, conscience, and awareness, they would realize that they were exposed as the shysters and charlatans they are a long time ago, and they would also realize that the "ID movement" has been dead and decomposing since the moment it was illegitimately conceived. Instead, they persist in their agenda, regardless of how foolish, stupid, deranged, and dishonest they and their agenda look.

The IDiots have a one track mind, and that is to push their religious insanity into every aspect of everyone's life. They obviously believe that they are on a mission for their chosen god. They're all mental cases, and I'm sure that they will continue to show that they are lying, narcissistic, sanctimonious freaks that want to control the world.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

gordon mullings, shit spewing LIAR

In this thread (closed to comments)...

gordo shat:

"J knows or should know that detailed Bible discussions are well off topic for UD, and that his posing of an out of context misreading from Deut 22..."


J (Jello) was NOT "off topic", did NOT post an "an out of context misreading from Deut 22" (it was in context, read correctly, and relevant), was NOT trying to "derail" the thread, was NOT "simply rudely disruptive and distractive; making no genuinely positive contribution to serious dialogue", did NOT make a "gross and irresponsible misrepresentation" of what happened to him (BANNED) for bringing up "Deut 22", nor did he do ANY of the other things that gordo is accusing him of. gordo just won't see or speak the TRUTH. His entire life is based on LIES.

To see what Jello (now BANNED) originally posted see this thread (now closed to comments):

And then go to the uncommonly dense thread on ATBC, where there is more on this subject.


gordon elliott mullings is doing the same old shit he always does. He's accusing others of the things that HE actually does. gordo is as low a lowlife as a lowlife can possibly be. He's a LYING, cowardly, despicable punk and a danger to society.

By the way, if "Bible discussions" are "off topic" on UD, then WHY do the IDiots there, including gordo, regularly bring up bible/religious topics? ba77 brings up bible/religious crap in every one of his posts, but for some reason gordo doesn't chastise or ban ba77.

gordo just wants to PREACH and DICTATE his sermons and commands and he has NO problem with other bible thumpers bringing up bible/religious topics. His extreme malignant narcissism and god complex makes him think that he can say and do whatever he wants and that NO ONE can question or challenge him. gordo wants to rule the world and force everyone to obey his orders. He's a total fucking loon who deliberately will not face the TRUTH about his beliefs, words, and actions. gordo is the one making "gross and irresponsible misrepresentation(s)", and HE is the one who is absolutely terrified of "serious dialogue" and NEVER engages in it.

gordon mullings and his IDiot comrades have no morals or integrity whatsoever. They will say and do ANYTHING to try to get away with their dishonest, maniacal agenda. They are the ones who won't allow uncomfortable dissenting comments or will block all comments and/or ban people who speak the truth. Truth scares the shit out of religious zombies like gordo and his fellow IDiots because it exposes and threatens their insane fairy tale beliefs and world conquering agenda.

To gordo and his "ilk", a "serious dialogue" is just them putting themselves on a pedestal and shouting unquestionable dictatorial commands and fire and brimstone threats. He and his "ilk" are authoritarian tyrants without the backbone to engage in "serious dialogue" with challengers. They hide behind a wall of blocking and banning while dishonestly saying that they welcome open and honest discussion. They are the very definition of COWARDS.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Lies, distortions, and unresponsive bullshit

In this post on UD...

...gordo links to this...

That sure is a lot of words that are completely unresponsive to what I said.

You (gordo) keep conveniently ignoring the FACT that the people who committed the horrible acts you referred to are religious zombies, just like you are. They are NOT evolutionary materialists and/or atheists.

No matter how much you dishonestly try to distort the FACTS, you won't succeed in fooling anyone with a properly functioning brain.

And do you really think you're fooling anyone with your outrageous, willful, blatant, libelous, self serving LIES about me threatening your family?

gordo, you are a LYING, cowardly, two-faced, insane, big-mouthed, narcissistic, abusive maniac with an extreme god complex.

Among other things, gordo said:

"Unfortunately, this commenter, TWT (the same who threatened my family mafioso-style some months ago), amply underscores just how hateful, recklessly irresponsible, angry, and potentially dangerous -- please, listen to the podcast, here -- are all too many of today's new atheists.

Let us hope -- and pray -- that he will now learn to restrain himself, and has enough conscience left to be ashamed, and maybe will open up his heart and mind to the evident truth. But also, let us rise up and stand up for the right in the community, pausing to look soberly at our own hearts, minds and lives."

gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat, you're the one who needs to repent and reform, and you're the one who needs a conscience, and you're the one who should be ashamed, and you're the one who needs to see and speak the "evident truth", and you're the one who needs to look soberly at your own heart, mind, and life. You are severely sick in the head.

In another post on his site, gordo said:

"So, Dr Dawkins and co, kindly note: the direct implication of these anti-God, anti-Bible arguments, is that they are implicit attacks on Jews and Judaism, not just Christians and Christianity. Those who would make them, need to ask whether they would be willing to explicitly substitute terms directly accusing or challenging Jews, for those that accuse or challenge Christians."

I don't know what Dawkins would say but I'll lump jews with christians and muslims when it comes to being deranged screwballs who believe in and promote ridiculous fairy tales and a genocidal, monstrous god. There gordo, does that answer your curiosity?

Hey gordo, are you a hateful, dangerous bigot for constantly attacking atheists, Darwin, "Darwinists", evolutionary materialists, naturalists, scientists, science supporters, agnostics, and all the others you put in your cross-hairs, including some members of your own religion and other religions?

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Another example of christian morals

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Invasion of the body snatchers

December 7, 2011 at 1:20 pm

Methinks they should carry on regardless-> regardless of what other people may think. However me(also)thinks they need to evolve their methodology and include looking into the evidence for ETs on Earth.

From here:

Hmm, maybe joe-boi is an ET, from a planet named Stupid.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

gordo has a mutilated pea brain

The whole diatribe is just another one of his insane tirades against the WRONG people (atheists/evolutionary materialists). For now, at least, I'm just going to quote one of his paragraphs.

gordo barfed:

"Let us focus the main matter, by looking at what our intuitive recognition that something has gone seriously wrong here is telling us: this young miss has rights, even is she has been wayward, and those rights have been massively violated, tantamount to rape — multiplied by the fact that the destructive mutilation of her face is visible for life."

gordo, the "main matter" you keep conveniently and dishonestly ignoring is that the people who did that to her DO believe in a god and it's the SAME god YOU believe in. The god worshiping monsters who imprisoned, 'raped', and mutilated the woman are NOT evolutionary materialists, "Darwinists", atheists, naturalists, scientists, agnostics, satanists, or any of the other imaginary bogey men you constantly condemn.

They are RELIGIOUS, just like YOU! They believe in the abrahamic god, just like YOU! They are TOTALLY immersed in insane religious fairy tales and practices, just like YOU! They are god zombies, just like YOU! The woman does NOT have "rights" because she is CONTROLLED by deranged religious lunatics who think that they ARE a god, just like YOU!

RELIGIOUS beliefs, and the use of them to control, mistreat, and kill people, IS the problem, NOT evolutionary materialism.

YOU and your ILK are the scummiest of the scum, the lowest of the low, the, the dregs of society, and your incomprehensible, lying, hypocritical, blustering, sanctimonious bloviating on UD or anywhere else won't change that or fool anyone with a clue.

By the way, gordo, what the fuck does any of your god pushing maniacal bullshit have to do with a so-called 'scientific' ID inference/hypothesis/theory? Do you really think that being a raging religious nutcase is going to 'scientifically' support ID? Don't you IDiots claim that ID has nothing to do with gods and religious beliefs? Your LIES are obvious.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Am I the only one who...

...wishes gordo would just shut the fuck up?

Check out this thread:

Notice the comments from gordo (kairosflaccid), ba77, and the rest of the IDiots. Do you see what the IDiots are completely missing?

Yeah, what they're missing is that the Afghans (muslims) who did that to the young woman DO believe in a god and it's the SAME god that christians like gordo, ba77, and the rest of the IDiots believe in. The particulars of their religious beliefs may be different but the god is the same one. The "Abrahamic" god. The god with all the alleged 'morals'.

Notice also that gordo plays the oppressed and attacked victim yet again and lies about, well, pretty much everything, even though he condemns lying. He also flips about gay marriage, but tries to do it in a covert way. On his websites and some other sites he comes right out and says gay marriage or homosexual or whatever term is direct, and is very vocal about being against homosexuality, but on UD he dances around and won't even respond to direct questions about his stance on homosexual people.

He also brings up the accusations against herman cain (without actually saying cain's name) and calls them a "hornet’s nest of vicious attack, and/or subjected to the politics of personal destruction" against "a member of one of the designated scapegoat classes". cain is black and claims to be a devout christian. gordo is black and claims to be a devout christian. cain is a liar. gordo is a liar. cain claims he's being persecuted. gordo claims he's being persecuted. Hmm, I wonder why gordo supports cain? Who's being a discriminatory bigot?

The funniest thing gordo puked is this:

"If we have no free, responsible choice, we can have nothing more than programming by genes and memes or the like: nature and nurture pushing us around like clay. And so, the heart and mind are confused and benumbed, leading to the loss of confidence in ability to stand up in the face of any sufficiently strong theme pushed by sufficiently powerful manipulators."

That is from the blowhard who constantly whines about being oppressed and pushed around by "powerful manipulators" (evolutionary materialists) but for some reason he doesn't have the guts to stand up in their faces. He HIDES in the UD sanctuary, and on his own websites where no comments from challengers are allowed. On other sites where I have found him commenting (in the past) he always ended up running away when he couldn't just preach his bloviating sermons without being questioned or challenged. He's a gutless, blustering liar with a god complex.

And don't forget that the vast majority of the IDiots actually defend genocide of men, women, children, and even animals in the name of their god. The same god that the muslims believe commands them to abuse women simply because they're women, and to cut off the nose and ears of a woman simply because she tries to flee the abuse. They also KILL women (and children and men) for various stupid reasons in the name of their god. Religious zombies are the most dangerous and blood thirsty monsters on Earth.

Dumber than a turd

In this post...

...News (o'leary) stupidly asks:

Question: These planets are unlikely to support life, and no one has suggested they do. But what if we find 18,000 planets that don’t support life and none that do? Would it be time for a revisit of the basic “They’re Out There” hypothesis?

“They” may very well be out there. Or not. But at what point would we be justified in using cold analysis – as opposed to brave, faint hopes – to make a decision?


What an incredibly small mind. I'd be willing to bet that if o'leary's head were split open there wouldn't even be a quark's worth of brain matter in it.

Hey o'stupid, the universe is a LOT bigger than you think it is, and humans have just begun to discover other planets. There are bound to be trillions of planets throughout the universe whether humans ever verify it or not. 18,000 or even 18,000,000 is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's really funny that you stupid, ignorant, brain dead, moronic IDiots constantly argue that the entire universe is fine tuned for life but also argue that life, and especially 'intelligent' life, and really especially specially created life in your chosen god's image, only exists on the Earth.

Even though your bullshit religious beliefs and assertions have already been refuted by science (no adam and eve, therefor no original sin, etc.) the discovery of even a microbe, let alone 'intelligent' life, on another planet would crush your religious fairy tales even more, and that's why you cringe at the thought that life exists on other planets.

You IDiots slobber on and on and on about 'probabilities' and make up ridiculous numbers to push your asinine arguments about the improbability of whatever it is that you want to deny the existence of. You obviously think that life, and especially 'intelligent' life, only exists on the Earth and that humans, and only humans, were specially created in your chosen god's image.

Why is it that you don't apply 'probabilities' to the existence of life, including 'intelligent life', on other planets? Even when only considering what humans can currently see in the universe, the probability of there being trillions of planets and the probability of life on many planets is virtually certain, and the probability of 'intelligent' life is too. And don't forget, you IDiots are the ones who claim that the universe is fine tuned for life. I'd tell you to make up your mind but you don't have one.

ID is not religious!

barfagain77 says so:

December 4, 2011 at 6:13 am


Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011
(41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet God’s objective moral code)

Objective Morality – The Objections – Frank Turek – video

Poem and Song:

Ten Foot Tall and Bulletproof:

Ten foot tall and bulletproof
He lived by the bloody swords edge
Ten foot tall and bulletproof
with the manners of a sledge
To take by force, to have it all
Were his only creed and call
Ten foot tall and bulletproof
My Oh my how hard they fall
No love for life, no love to be
Save the love he had for he
Ten foot tall and bulletproof
My Oh my he could not see
Any need for God, any need for Jesus
Despite his mother’s plea
Survival of the fittest, and dog eat dog
Or so he thought, thought he
Thus, Ten foot tall and bulletproof
Came to meet his fateful day
With no clue of the fate
For all of the hate
That he had called his play
Yes, Ten foot tall and bulletproof
Without any slight delay
Soon found that the cost
For all that he had lost
Was not in his strength to pay
Yes, Ten foot tall and bulletproof
Despite his mighty strength to prevail
Soon found out without any slight doubt
That he was in the mouth of hell!

Heather Williams – Hallelujah – Lyrics

From here:


All science so far!

Friday, December 2, 2011

Wow, just WOW

gildo, the self proclaimed "scientist" shat:

"It’s weird that people are even talking about the nature of the earth’s primordial atmosphere, as though this would have anything to do with explaining the origin of life."

Yeah, gildo, you incredibly stupid ignoramus, there's no point in even thinking, researching, and especially, "talking about the nature of the earth’s primordial atmosphere". After all, what could the atmosphere have to do with life?

mytheos added his 'scientific' conclusions to the highly 'scientific' discussion:

December 2, 2011 at 9:34 pm

I think the early atmosphere was quite GODish.

A GODy atmosphere I think would have been conducive to the emergence of life.

Studies have shown that those who dwell in environments with high levels of GOD tend to live longer and acquire less disease.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Birds of a feather


FYI, some background on durston and chiu:

According to william dembski:

"David Chiu is a design theorist. As a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (see is a card-carrying member of the ID movement."

From this page, about a quarter of the way down, under "2.4 ID’s Contribution to Science":

And check out who chiu associates with here:

Sniveling coward

Upright BiPed
December 1, 2011 at 12:34 am

Come on Rosenhouse. Log on to UD and let’s talk about it. Surely you have nothing to fear from the dead, right?

Upright BiPed
December 1, 2011 at 1:21 am

Jason, I just read your post. You really need to log on to UD and school me about the current state of the argument for design. I’m just one of those poor souls fallen into the vacuity of ID; it should be easy for you verify your opinions on me, right? A day in the park. I promise to only bring up one or two subjects, and I’ll even beg the UD moderators not to bannish you for being too powerful an intellect. Let’s test your opinions against the observable evidence, it’ll be fun.

From here:

Hey downright braindead, why don't you respond at Rosenhouse's site? Comments are allowed there. Surely you're not afraid to step outside of the UD sanctuary, right?

Actually, you IDiots are just a bunch of cowardly, whiny crybabies that are scared to death to face challenges to your dishonest, ignorant assertions. That's why you hide in the UD echo chamber.

You could come here too if you weren't such a pansy. I'm not afraid of you or any other chickenshit IDiot. Bring all the other IDiots with you if it will make you feel more brave. Go ahead, show me what a courageous godbot you are. I'm waiting.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

the fixity of tard

is continued here:

On UD, joe-boi responded:

November 29, 2011 at 6:56 pm

One thing is clear, evolutionists promote the idea that their opponents argue for the fixity of species.

The fixity of species is what Darwin argued against in “On the Origin of Species…”.


Actually joe, you IDiots do argue for the fixity of species, IF you even accept the designation of 'species' at all. If species aren't 'fixed', then evolution (speciation) does take place.

Now, I know what you're thinking and will say, and that is that ID has no argument with "evolution", but with "blind watchmaker evolution". Trouble is, joe-baby, most IDiots deny that ANY evolution/speciation has ever taken place and YOU preach baraminology, which doesn't even recognize 'species'. It uses the word "kinds", like the bible does.

Tell me joe, are "kinds" fixed, or do they evolve? If they do evolve, is it 'micro' or 'macro' evolution? Are humans a "kind"? Did (or do) humans evolve? If so, what "kind" did humans evolve from?

From Wikipedia:

Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.[1] Baraminology developed as a subfield of creation science in the 1990s among creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise.

IDiotic strawmen

My responses are in bold type.

November 29, 2011 at 3:18 pm


I would definitely say that the falsification of the current absurd paradigm for the generation of biological information is a compelling research result.

Well, gpukio, what you definitely say is definitely irrelevant to science's results and further pursuit of knowledge.

Neil Rickert
November 29, 2011 at 5:14 pm

As best I can tell, what has been falsified is the strawman that the ID folk have been erecting.


November 29, 2011 at 5:21 pm

WOW a strawman of a strawman, nice move Neil. Can you do that trick while standing on one foot and rubbing your head???

Your christian 'civility' is showing, phil. Can you go potty all by yourself or does your mommy have to help you?

November 29, 2011 at 6:57 pm

OK Neil- what is this alleged strawman?

The one(s) that you IDiots keep ignorantly erecting, because you're too brain-dead and religious to actually learn anything about science and the ToE.
November 29, 2011 at 9:30 pm

I wouldn’t be so quick to attribute the strawman to design. Perhaps it evolved over time from a pile of sawdust that was struck by lightning.

A good example of an IDiotic strawman. NO scientist has ever claimed that life evolved over time from a pile of sawdust that was struck by lightning. You IDiots continue to demonstrate how little you know about the ToE and science in general. No wonder science doesn't take your bald assertions and strawmen seriously.

If anyone ever wonders if the IDiots actually have a good argument, think about this: VERY few of them EVER step outside of their carefully controlled sanctuaries and argue their "position" on forums where scientists can (and would) debate them. If the IDiots are so sure that they're right, why don't they present their arguments to the people who actually work on evolutionary biology and other aspects of science? NO ONE is stopping them from doing so, except THEM. They simply don't want to hear critiques of anything that they assert.

They're too chicken to argue their "position" on open forums because they know that their arguments are impotent and/or dishonest. If I wanted to present or argue something about any topic and felt that I was right or at least had a reasonable opinion, I wouldn't be the slightest bit afraid to present it ANYWHERE and to ANYONE. The fact that MOST IDiots hide in the UD sanctuary (or others like ENV) shows clearly that the IDiots are a bunch of cowardly authoritarians who just want to preach their religious, political, non-scientific gobbledegook without facing disagreement.

Oh sure, a few people are 'allowed' to disagree on UD at times, but those people have to be careful of what they say or they will be blocked and/or banned. Letting a few people disagree gives the impression that UD is open to honest discussion, but it's just a ruse. If their forums were really open and honest there would be a lot more people debating and disagreeing with the IDiots there.

Preaching to the choir isn't going to show that ID is a credible 'inference/hypothesis/theory'. Only real scientific evidence and open and honest discussion would have a chance of doing that, and I am 100% sure that the IDiots will never produce any real scientific evidence or welcome open and honest discussion. Their track record speaks for itself.



November 29, 2011 at 4:33 pm

I don’t even believe in multi-vitamins.


I don't believe "in" multi-vitamins either. Does anyone actually believe "in" multi-vitamins? :)


Tuesday, November 29, 2011

o'leary is nuts

News (o'leary) apparently thinks that the person she quotes (Liane Gabora) in this post is an authority on biological evolution:

Hmm, well, here are some poems by Liane Gabora (especially notice the big red one, "STREAM NOT GONE DRY, Part One"):

And with her poetry in mind, check this out:

Here are some links to other stuff by Liane Gabora, for your perusal:

The complete paper o'leary quoted from:

And other stuff:

In the following article Gabora says:

"...not to mention popular culture, still equate non-Darwinian explanations for the forms and dynamics of living things with belief in intelligent design. This is unfortunate, not just because it is scientifically incorrect,..."


I'm not sure I understand her point.

From what I've found with a Google search, Gabora is obsessed with "creativity" and obviously considers herself to be 'creative'. The article linked to above about creative people and mental illness comes to mind, especially after reading a lot of the stuff (including a bunch of so-called poetry) she has written. Also, she seems to contradict herself in some of her writings when it comes to evolution. She seems to both accept biological evolution and not accept it too. Mostly she seems to accept it but has a problem with natural selection. Frankly, I can't figure out what she actually accepts or believes.

Regardless of Gabora's mental condition, I don't see how o'leary quoting part of one of Gabora's articles supports ID in any way. As usual, o'leary will post ANYTHING that APPEARS (in her delusional mind) to support ID simply because it questions or challenges natural biological evolution (and often it doesn't). o'leary has never produced ANY positive evidence that supports ID. ALL she does is attack Darwin, "Darwinists", and "Darwinism". She is absolutely maniacal in her obsession with Darwin. I wouldn't be surprised if she has a Darwin doll that she stabs with pins while screaming Hail Mary and Praise the Lord!

The ignorance and arrogance of godbots

November 28, 2011 at 9:16 pm


Pope John Paul II saw Thomas’ definition of man—a rational animal—as not fully adequate. He wrote his book, translated into English as “The Acting Person”, to amplify that which man represents: to give a fuller meaning to what man is.

Pivotal in this fuller description is the idea of “person”. I think it is pertinent here to ask the question: Was Jesus biologically human? Was he a rational animal? Or was he much, much more?

Traditional theology speaks of the hypo-static union, a union of Jesus’ humanity with his divinity. So, we have two natures united in one “Person” in the Person of Jesus. I think it good to reflect on this a bit. If, in Jesus’ “Person”—as the eternally Begotten Son of God—two “natures” can be united, then is it possible that in the “person-hood” of mankind, the animal nature and the spiritual nature are united?

Looking at all this from a different angle, “biological” animals—apes, dolphins, dogs, etc—have a kind of intelligence. Dogs, for example, can find ways to get at food. They employ strategies. So, as part of their animality there is also found a type, limited though it is, of rationality. To put what I’m getting at more forcefully, let me just say that I believe what truly separates us from the entire animal and plant kingdoms is our consciousness—that we are aware that we are aware. This is the central focus of the first 100 pages of Pope John Paul’s “The Acting Person”.

In the Divine dispensation of things, wherein, Christ will become all in all, a kind of summing up of all of creation in his sacred humanity, it would make “sense” (if you will) that the entire animal kingdom should be “summed up” in our humanity. Hence, I favor a kind of continuity of the level of beings, with man above the animal in a real and distinct fashion, but, still, at the same time, united to it. In similar fashion, then, our humanity, assumed by Jesus Christ, is united in his Person, so that he can be “all in all”.

IOW, I think it is entirely possible that there is a union of “natures” in man—with the animal united to, but yet distinct from, his spiritual nature, a spiritual nature that makes him self-aware, and that bestows upon him the capacity for freedom.

Just some thoughts.

November 28, 2011 at 9:22 pm

I should add that though there may be “two” natures united in man—a biological and a spiritual—they function in an undivided way. We, nevertheless, “feel” this distinction because of sin: “The Spirit is willing, but the Flesh is weak.”

From here:

Besides pav being an incoherent bloviator for his chosen imaginary god, I'd like to see him produce evidence that proves that animals and plants are not "aware" (whatever that means) and that they are not "aware" that they are "aware" or unaware.

It always amazes me when anyone (and it's mostly religious zombies) believes that humans are "above" animals (or plants). I would really enjoy watching pav walk right up to a Tiger in the wild, and try to talk it into believing that it is below him. I'd like to see him try to convince a Water Hemlock plant that he is "above" it by eating a mouthful of it and surviving. I'd like to see him convince the Bristlecone Pine known as Methuselah that he is "above" it by outliving it.

I'd like to see him outrun a Cheetah for speed or a Wolf for endurance, out swim a Great White Shark, out fly a Peregrine Falcon, out grow a Giant Sequoia, out see and out hear a Great Horned Owl, out climb a Gray Squirrel, out hop a Red Kangaroo, out smell a Turkey Vulture, out hover a Rufous Hummingbird, and out jump a Black Tailed Deer.

All the bullshit where humans label humans as being uniquely "aware", and "above" everything else, is just a way for humans (mostly religious ones) to convince themselves and other humans that "we" are special, and are "created in God's image". Animals, plants, viruses, bacteria, etc., have been around a LOT longer than humans and will be around long after humans are extinct, and "we" are hastening our eventual extinction with our ignorance and arrogance. So much for being "above" everything else.

Oh, and pav? Speak for yourself about feeling some imaginary "distinction because of sin". Man oh man, the crazy shit you god zombies come up with is mind boggling. Just because you lust for or actually sexually molest children and/or animals doesn't mean that everyone has your 'weak flesh' problem.

Monday, November 28, 2011


My responses are in bold type.

November 28, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Darwinist labs pride themselves on seeming to be legitimately scientific programs. They show off their shiny PhD-brandishing experts, and they sneak their religious ideas in under the guise of appealing to bones found all over the world, which are extremely seductive at first glance.

The academic community has long known of the real history and motives of the Darwinist movement, and because of this, it routinely places Darwinism in the same category as creationism and subjects it to a similar mocking.

Since when does the "academic community" mock "Darwinism"?

November 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm

I love how in all these rants by committed evolutionists the implicit ( and sometimes blatantly explicit ) assumption is to consider ID as a propaganda program. Never does he consider it from the standpoint of a legitimate competing theory of how we got here.

A mind is a horrible thing to close.

ID is NOT a "legitimate competing theory", and ID is absolutely, positively a religious and political "propaganda program". The ToE is about a lot more than "how we got here", and you godbots are the ones with closed minds. Is that "blatantly explicit" enough for you?

November 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm

I am so tired of arguments based on the supposed motivations of the proponents. Maybe the rest of the article had more substance, but Scanlan’s attack against the “real motives” of the ID movement is really tiresome.

But you're obviously not tired of you IDiots basing your arguments on the "supposed motivations" of science/ToE proponents. You are the ones with dishonest motives, and your lies and blustering are really tiresome.

November 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Questioning the motivations of the person making the argument is a logical fallacy; intelligent, rational people should know better than that.

Then why aren't you chastising "News" (o'leary), yourself, and the rest of the IDiots for not only "questioning" but constantly attacking the alleged motivations of persons making arguments in favor of science and the ToE? Obviously you and the rest of the IDiots are not "intelligent, rational people".