Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Beyond comprehension

born-to-be-a-tard-again77 is so far off the deep end that it is really beyond comprehension. That UD allows him to spew his pompous insanity on their site and insultingly talk down to REAL scientists shows just how fucked up UD and the people who run it are.

Considering his GARGANTUAN lack of knowledge of science and reality and his insane belief in NON-evidential religious fairy tales, his post below is one of the most arrogant and asinine things I have ever seen.



8:19 pm

Elizabeth, once again you are ignoring the evidence. This is science Elizabeth, this is not stating what you ‘feel’ is right. If you disagree with the conclusion you have to present evidence not just disagree. Moreover you have to specifically counter the studies I cited with studies of equal or greater weight!!!. For you to fail to grasp this simple point of the scientific method shows me that you either don’t know how to properly weigh evidence, or that you are operating under a philosophical bias. There is no other option. You may protest this, but it really matters not to me for my eye is staying on the evidence first and foremost, not your feelings of being upset that i call you of unfair weighing of the evidence!


That post of his is from here:


So sayeth joe g

Here is a list of statements from joe g (aka joseph, john paul, IDguy, joe gallien) and at the end I'll make a comment or two about them:

ID is based on observations and experiences. It can be tested and refuted.

Strange how some scientists are saying they are testing it and refuting it.

I and others have explained EXACTLY what ID argues for and against and EXACTLY what would refute ID.

ID is not Creation

Paley isn't any patron saint. IDists say he went to far- We say that arguments for design are not arguments for any specific designer.

.. Intelligent design already incorporates that- not everything in the universe has been nor had to have been directly designed.

I wouldn't run to any "God" hypothesis and I would fight to the death anyone who attempted to make ID into a religious argument.

And again IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant

But anyway ID is based on observation and experience. It can be tested

So just as the origin of life is kept separate from the theory of evolution ID keeps those questions separate from the detection and study of the design

ID is primarily concerned with ORIGINS

The theory of evolution is silent on origins.

The theory of evolution is silent on ORIGINS- common ancestry does not equal ORIGINS.

The theory of evolution starts with some number of populations already in place. And that means it does not speak of "biological origins"- ie the origin of those unknown populations, aka abiogenesis.

But yes baraminology and the ToE disagree on the starting points of the diversity. Baraminology can support theor points of origin whereas your position cannot.

Even the experiments evolutionists are conducting support baraminology- that is the point.

The theory of evolution stole its classifiction scheme, its genetics and ntural selction. That would mean the theory of evolution is the parasite. Oh and the theory of evolution doesn't have any evidence to call its own.

Atomic Chimp: Do you base all of your conclusions on wild assumptions? Joe: I never have.

The reason I choose ID is because it is a non-religious approach to the prigins and diversity questions.

Key DI people have spoken of ID as NOT being a religious view. And I have provided the quotes.


In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.

OK so we have RichTard saying the painting in the sistine chapel is a religious painting. Richtard openly admits it was sanctioned by the Pope- a CATHOLIC Pope.

Neither ID nor YEC are anti-evolution.

Umm Biblical passages are supposed to be actual historical events. Obviously you are too stupid to understand that.

The Bible is supposed to depict actual historical events- period. thta is how it was written- as an actual historical account of past events.

The Bible doesn't say anything about a "literal 7 day creation" that is meaningless tard.

Ummm I am not upset with evolution. ID is not anti-evolution- your ignorance is meaningless.

I wouldn't want my children taught religion as science either.

I support teleological design in biology for what I believe to be sound scientific reasons.

Where is the testable theory of ID?

joe: We can test for IC and CSI. If it can be demonstrated that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, ID would be falsified. (Dr. Behe's criteria would have been met)

If ID is so good, why does it spend most of it's efforts trying to disprove another theory rather than proving it's own?

joe: Now you are confusing what IDists do with ID. Also science isn't about proof. It is about coming to a reasonable inference given the data.

That is what you are doing by denying the design inference. We exist. There are a very limited number of options that can explain that existence. Nature could not have originated via natural processes.

No one is saying we have to study the supernatural. The design is here in this universe and can be studied. That the data will lead to the non or super natural is inevitable.

Just because a willing judge accepted the BS of the ACLU does not mean much in the real world.

Do you have anything that remotely resembles ID reality?

But science can tell us that the metaphysical does/ did exist, even though it is an obvious conclusion. Ya see THAT is what ID is saying- if the data leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. The ONLY way to truly understand something is to study it in the light of the reality behind its existence.

Also as I said how Earth and living organisms originated directly impacts any and all subsequent change.

Natural processes only exist in nature and cannot account for its origins. And science says it had an origin- meaning something CREATED it-

Creation has a specific definition and is based on the Bible

Also the debate is about conducting scientific research and being allowed to reach a design inference based on the data.

ID doesn't have any issue with the fossils nor the pattern evolutionary paleos make of them.

Once AGAIN- Intelligent Design is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry-

From the Intelligent Design authorities it is clear that ID is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry

ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information.

And if you weren't trying to indoctrinate kids to atheism you wouldn't have any worries at all.


Nazi Center for Spewing Evolution

Nazi Center for Stifling Education

Nobody Cares for Students' Education

National Center for Shitting on Education

the painter was not present when God created Adam

Deal with it. Atheism sucks, grow out of it...

I told you you ignorant fuck- the artist was not present when Adam was Created and never saw God Creating Adam.

Yet no one has seen God so no one can paint God.

And even at 7 I knew God was not a man. Yup that is pretty good design detection work.

Just because you and the nazi thought police at the NCSE can be disingenuous pricks that does't impress me.

If I am ever involved in an ID court case you bet your ass the anti-IDists are going to face some serious questioning that ill expose their position as the bullshit it is. By the time they get to me the point will be moot.

Are you really that ignorant? I have to wait for a Court case you moron- one that involves me.

Said the materialistic atheist.

What is your retarded and twisted definition of religion?

I am still waiting for some atheistic nut-job to try to stop my Intelligent Design Awareness Day. It's not my fault they are chicken-shit cowards- or perhaps they realize they don't have a case...

So when is the NCSE going to admit is represents the Nazi thought police of atheism?

Baraminology is real science. Also Linneaus was looking for the Created Kinds when he came up with binomial nomenclature. IOW evolutionists "borrowed" that from Creationists- and they also "borrowed" Mendelian genetics and natural selection.

1- I was just linking to an authorative site on baraminology

2- Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.

3- And if Lenski's work is any indication baraminology is a safe and sound biological model.

Whined the materialistic atheist who is also a proven liar and intellectual coward. Same scene, different tard.


What a contradictory, inconsistent, dishonest, nonsensical, ignorant mass of bullshit.

Did you all notice this one especially?:

"I wouldn't run to any "God" hypothesis and I would fight to the death anyone who attempted to make ID into a religious argument."

Isn't it strange that joe-boi isn't telling his buddies on UD (and everywhere else) to stop making ID into a religious argument? Shouldn't he be "fight(ing) to the death" to do that? And if ID isn't a religious argument, why does joe-boi have such a problem with atheists?

joe, you are the poster boi for "tard".

Free thinkers, etc.

gildo (gil dodgen) has posted another lame and misleading article on UD. In the title he asks, "Who are the Real Freethinkers, Darwinists or ID Folks?"

Notice that he's comparing "Darwinists" to ID Folks". You know, those evil, rotten, Hitler-esque, baby murdering DARWINISTS to the folksy, down home, god fearing, baby lovin' ID Folks. Why doesn't he put someone's name on the "ID Folks"?

Maybe it's time to label "ID Folks" as Dembski-ists, or Luskinists, or Hunterists, or Hamists, or whatever name is most appropriate. What name do you think would be the best fit?

On free thinking: I think it's obvious who the free thinkers are. Anyone who actually thinks freely of religion or any other belief 'in' or worship of a person or deity. For instance, I don't 'believe in' Darwin, or Dawkins, or Sagan, or Einstein, or Hawking, etc., and I certainly don't worship them or anyone else. I don't see science or the ToE as a religion and I don't pray to Darwin, nature, science, or anything else.

I listen to what lots of people say (don't we all?) but that doesn't mean I automatically believe everything they say or that I think of them as some sort of god that should be worshiped. I don't label myself with someone's name (e.g. Darwin-ist) and I think for myself. How about you?

Monday, May 30, 2011

The voice of ID

bornagain77 on uncommon descent obviously thinks of himself as the voice of ID and the christian god, and of course so do most or all of the IDiots there. borntosuckgodscock77 may be even more pompous and self-righteous than gordy (kairosfocus), although that's a tough call.

In his incredibly arrogant, insulting, sanctimonious remarks below to Elizabeth Liddle (who is VERY civil), bloviatingagain77 clearly shows what a self-inflated IDiot is all about, and what a rancid christian asshole he is:



6:15 am

Elizabeth you state;

‘But good honest people can differ on their priors’

No Elizabeth, proper priors, or presuppositions, can only be formed by Theism. Thus malformed ‘priors’, or presuppositions, formed by anti-theism eventually, and always, lead to erroneous conclusions in the end;


Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.

This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

Proof That God Exists – easy to use interactive website

Nuclear Strength Apologetics – Presuppositional Apologetics – video

John Lennox – Science Is Impossible Without God – Quotes – video remix

Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:

Dr. Bruce Gordon – The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General – video

Can atheists trust their own minds? – William Lane Craig – video

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin – Letter To William Graham – July 3, 1881

“Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth.
As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain.” Creation-Evolution Headlines

as well, as I recently pointed out to you, it is a malformed ‘prior’ anti-theology, that was the basis of Darwin’s book:

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011

,, Thus Elizabeth your assertion that ‘good honest people can differ on their priors’ completely misses the fact that malformed priors must be addressed and ‘rooted out’ so that the weeds that spring from erroneous presuppositions ‘priors’ never spring forth again!


Am I the only one who would like to kick that IDiot's ass?

A little fun with fundamentalist creationist kairos-out-of-focus

gordon e. mullings (kairosfocus on uncomment descent) is extremely demanding when it comes to evidence for evolution. He expects perfect precision and proof and gets all self-righteous and pissy when it isn't provided to HIS satisfaction. He always thinks he's 100% right though when he is bashing evolution or presenting his case for ID or his religious beliefs.

Let's take a look at some examples of gordy's beliefs and how he judges evidence/proof.

Read this first:



2:48 pm


Were you there to know?

Do you have credible, contemporaneous records that will pass the ancient documents rule test?

Where also: “correlation is not causation.”

Do you appreciate the difference between a model of the past as filtered through the prevalent schools of thought and the real past?

And, do you see the significant parallels to other related topics where your side of the main issue is selectively very skeptical on much stronger correlations and KNOWN causal patterns?



Keeping that in mind, and especially the part, "Were you there to know?", now read this letter from gordy to deacon Peter Espeut:

"Serious misrepresentations, Deacon Espeut
published: Saturday | February 1, 2003


Catholic Deacon Peter Espeut writes in a recent Gleaner column: "One group of Christians called 'Fundamentalists'.... believe that the Bible is inspired by God in such a way that every word is literally, scientifically and historically true... Fundamentalists have their primary faith in a book, not the Lord of history who continues to reveal himself and his truth down to today." ["The religion of a book," Wed. Jan. 29, p. A4.]

This claim misrepresents the views of the vast majority of Evangelicals, Adventists, Pentecostals and other Christians who take seriously the Bible's claim that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." [2 Peter 1:21.] The article also fails to reckon with the direct link between Scripture and faith in the apostolic teaching: "you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise for salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." [2 Tim. 3:15 - 17.] Further, poetic language, imagery, context and other relevant factors must be reckoned with before one can conclude as to what any text (biblical or otherwise) affirms or denies.

Consequently, what is at stake is whether the text of Scripture as we have it materially preserves what God said through prophets and apostles, so that it authentically and authoritatively records God's revelation: the truth, in love, to us all.

Mr Espeut goes on to claim that "The Bible contradicts itself... in so many places, that a sensible person could not honestly continue with Fundamentalism." He then provides as a prime example of "thousands of contradictions... within the Bible" the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. (NB: let us bear in mind what is required for a logical contradiction to exist. It requires that accounts affirm and deny the same thing, in the same sense - diversity of perspectives, gaps in information or even difficulties are not enough.)

First, let us note that the idea that Christ could have been raised theologically, but not historically or scientifically, fails the test of basic common sense. As Paul put it: "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith." [1 Cor 15:14.]

What the Apostle affirms instead, is that there were over five hundred eyewitnesses. And, despite the arguments of Hume and many others that miracles violate laws of nature based on firm experience and so are impossible, there are millions alive today who have personally experienced or witnessed the miraculous power of God.

Second, we can simply check the text of the Gospels. What they show is devastating:

The accounts do NOT "disagree on the time of day." Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, & John 20:1 are all consistent with a group of women setting out for Jesus' tomb as the new day was dawning.

The names Deacon Espeut cites actually show that the Gospels collectively AGREE as to the members of the group of women.

Matt. 28 and John 20 do not STATE that any of the women saw the stone being rolled away, nor that an angel spoke to them while he was sitting on the stone that had blocked the entry to the cave-like tomb.

The accounts that speak of one angel do not deny that a second may have been present.

Mark 16:7 does NOT say the angel "told [the women] to tell no one," but instead "go, tell his disciples and Peter...."

Thus, the column reveals a lack of attention to the text, disregard for the inevitable diversity in eyewitness reports, and gaps in Deacon Espeut's logic - rather than "a mature Christianity born of deep understanding of the Scriptures." Perhaps, it is time for mutually respectful dialogue rather than contemptuous dismissal with an epithetical lance - "fundamentalist"-backed up by specious arguments.

I am, etc.,

1 Caribbean Close
Kingston 10
Via Go-Jamaica"

That is from here: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20030201/letters/letters3.html


Now read this from deacon Peter Espeut:

"An end to fundamentalism
published: Wednesday | February 5, 2003

Peter Espeut

I AM pleased at the many responses to last week's column. Fundamentalism has deep roots in Jamaica; many accept it unquestioningly as the correct approach to interpreting the Bible and I sincerely appreciate when persons with this background engage believers like me in debate.

Paul Thorbourne from Silver Springs, Maryland, USA (last Friday) does not dispute my assertion that "The Bible contradicts itself with respect to history and science in so many places, that a sensible person could not honestly continue with fundamentalism". He wants to know the source of Catholic teachings not found in the Bible; although he knows the answer, for he asks: "While I agree that God can reveal truths to mankind outside of the Bible, should they not be consistent with his revelations contained in the Bible?" The three non-biblical teachings he wants explained are, in fact, biblical (he could have used the Assumption of Mary, or the Immaculate Conception, which are non-biblical; and he is spot on: even though these are not revealed in Sacred Scripture, they in no way are contradicted by Holy Scripture, and are consistent with it).

The first non-biblical teaching he mentions is "that Mary is prayed to as a mediator to God when there is absolutely no mention of this in the scriptures". In fact, the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is a "mediator" between God and humanity, for there is only one such mediator - Jesus the Christ, who was true God and true man. What we believe in is intercessory prayer, that Mary - and the Saints - being in the constant presence of God, can intercede for us with Jesus.

Catholics are not required to pray in this way. We Catholics are expected to keep up a lively and close relationship with Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit through personal and public prayer. But who has not asked and sought and knocked, and not felt that God was taking a little long to answer? Intercessory prayer is an additional extra to grab God's attention. Look at the story of the wedding feast at Cana, where the guests "drank out the bar". Mary asked Jesus to restock the bar but He was unwilling, and almost rude to his mother; "Woman, what is that to me? My hour has not yet come". Like most mothers, she has influence over her son, and she totally ignores his refusal, and instructs the steward: "Do whatever he tells you". The rest is history! Mary can help to "change the mind" of her son, and that is why we pray to her; not because she has any power of her own, but because she has influence in high places.

His second question - about the meaning of Mat. 16:18 - is easy. For Greek scholars, the clear pun ("Petros" is "Peter" and "petra" is "rock") indicates that Peter is the rock referred to here. Of course, Jesus is the rock of our salvation (see 1 Cor. 10:4); but in this passage, Peter is the rock upon which Jesus will build his church.

I always find it interesting that Fundamentalists take everything literally - except where Jesus says: "This is my body", and "This is the cup of my blood". Nowhere does it say "a symbol of my body" or "a symbol of my sacrifice". Here, a literal rendering leads to Catholic belief in the Eucharist. Fundamentalists, where are you?

I can see (Saturday) Gordon E. Mullings of Trafalgar Park in Kingston, trying to come to grips with how Sacred Scripture can be 100 per cent true and still literally contradict itself on matters of history and science. The texts he quotes suggest that he thinks I disbelieve the truth of the Bible. We Roman Catholics believe the composers of the Bible were inspired by God (2 Peter 1:21.), in the direct link between Scripture and faith, and that all scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness - (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Mr. Mullings continues to miss the point: "What is at stake is whether the text of Scripture as we have it materially preserves what God said through prophets and apostles, so that it authentically and authoritatively records God's revelation: the truth, in love, to us all".

There is no doubt that Scripture as we now have it, materially preserves what God said through his prophets and apostles, so that it authentically and authoritatively records God's revelation. What is at stake is whether the eternal truth contained therein is literal, historical and scientific. I stated last week that the many indefensible literal contradictions prove that God did not intend us to automatically take every word in the Bible as history or science, but as theology. Sometimes theology means history, but not always as Fundamentalists believe.

Last week I named the three points on which the four accounts of the discovery of the resurrection agree, which are not in dispute (it happened on a Sunday, Mary Magdalene was there, and He had Risen). I fail, therefore, to understand why Mr. Mullings claims that I am denying the historicity of the resurrection. What I am successfully demonstrating are some of the thousands of literal contradictions within the Bible, and I am amazed at Mr. Mullings' denial of what his eyesight is telling him.

The accounts disagree on whether it was light or still dark. There is no mention of any "group" of women; the four accounts do not agree on whether it was one, two or three women, and which women. Mat. 28:2 says "Behold - which means they saw the stone rolled away, while the other accounts say the stone was already rolled away when they got there. They do not agree on whether the woman/women saw one person, two persons, or any person at all! I do not accept Mr. Mullings' denial of Scripture, that when it says "one" person it could mean "two". Mat. 28:8 states "So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples", while Mark 16:8 clearly states "and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid." Why is Mr. Mullings in denial? He will not get at the sublime truth to be found in Scripture this way.

I challenge all persons who really want to know the truth to abandon fundamentalism and to study all of Scripture, and not bury their heads in the sand when it comes to contradictions. A mature Christianity born of deep understanding of the Holy Scriptures will prevent the sort of simple literalism which has caused so many scandalous divisions in the broken body of Christ.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and an ordained deacon of the Roman Catholic Church, serving in Guy's Hill and Ewarton."

That is from here: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20030205/cleisure/cleisure2.html


So, if you made it through all that bible-babble without your head exploding you probably noticed that gordy (kairosfocus) is considered a fundamentalist even by another bible thumper. In other words, gordy believes in the bible as the literal words of god, which means he believes that noah's flood, the resurrection, the creation of the heavens and Earth in 6 days, adam and eve as the first humans, the garden of eden, a talking snake, the fall, the immaculate conception of jesus, and all the other stuff in the bible is literally true and is a precisely accurate account of history and the universe. Of course, like all christians, he believes that his interpretation and version of the bible stories is the correct one.

And this is a guy who calls himself a "scientist" and denounces real scientists and science on a daily basis.

Here's more of gordy the "scientist":



gil dodgen, profoundly stupid IDiot

In this uneducated post:


..gil dodgen says (along with other brainless tripe):

"In addition, we have positive evidence that intelligent design would certainly have been required."

Well gildo, let's see your alleged positive evidence!

Is your "positive evidence" just more of the Darwinist/Darwinism bashing you love to do?

mung, the game playing dolt

In this thread on UD:


..mung keeps showing what a dishonest game playing uncivil moron he is, and of course blowgodagain77 is there to really take the thread down the toilet, and insult Elizabeth Liddle. One of mung's posts is posted below. According to mung, the ID theory or hypothesis or inference or whatever the IDiots call it doesn't infer a designer. So, I guess it's safe to say that no designer is required to design anything! All of that design they infer or theorize or hypothesize about just happened by magic! god-did-it!! Oh wait, that would mean that god is the inferred designer! In that case, god can't be the inferred designer and neither can anyone or anything else, since no designer at all is inferred (required) for the design inference/theory/hypothesis (ID). What a lovely, scientific, well thought out ID inference/theory/hypothesis IDiots have.

Oh, you'll notice in mung's post below that he tries to move the goal posts by using the word "identified" instead of "inferred". Nice try mung-boi but it won't work on people with a brain.

mung also takes his game playing and goal post moving to further lows when he goes off about one versus multiple designers, etc. Hey mung, it doesn't matter how many designers you conjure up. A design inference/theory/hypothesis absolutely, positively INFERS a designer or designerS! Elizabeth Liddle's point still stands and her reference to an inferred designer is completely reasonable and relevant.

And the design inference/theory/hypothesis DOES IDENTIFY THE designer as the christian god. Just ask your buddies blowgodsdickagain77 and gordy and all the other bible thumping IDiots. You have also said that YOU are a christian god believer.

Hey mung, ID is all pretend.



6:24 pm

Elizabeth Liddle: For example, having inferred a designer, one might develop a hypothesis regarding the time-scale of the design process, and the mechanisms by which the design was implemented.

mung from here on: Where are you getting your ideas about Intelligent Design?

Here’s the link again. Please read the material, it’s not that long:


Where does it mention “having inferred a designer”?

If you are not willing to accept this definition of ID, please tell us why it is not acceptable to you.

Then please re-read my post at @50.

I try to keep my posts short, so there’s no reason not to have read it.

Where does it mention “having inferred a designer”?

In software development, it’s possible that there are multiple people who produce the design and multiple people who implement the design. It’s also possible that one person does both.

Some possibilities:

One designer multiple implementers.

Multiple designers multiple implementers.

Multiple designers a single implementer.

One designer, one implementer.

ID theory doesn’t even pretend to have identified “a designer.” So what are you talking about?

Where are you getting your ideas about Intelligent Design?

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Joe G = John Paul, muslim creationist

Here's a post from here: http://telicthoughts.com/aclu-wins-in-dover/

Joe G Says:
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:55 pm

Reality demonstrates that it has been done. Just read The Priviledged Planet.

cbell: So your reality is determined by one book I haven't even heard of? You've got to give me more than this.

Actually I don't have to give you anything. The information is there for you if you want it. Also there is more than one book. All I required was one book to refute your nonsense.

CSI- Complex Specified Information

Why come to discuss ID if you don't know about it? Just curious…

But anyway perhaps the following will help:


It is a link to an informal debate about ID. The first two posts are my opening which explain why ID is scientific.

Joe G
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:55 pm

When you go to joe's linked page at evolutionfairytale.com, you'll see that the first two posts are by "John Paul" and you'll also see that he describes himself as:

Age: 44
Maynard, Massachusetts

ID is scientific, not religious

Which is well represented by articles like this on a site that claims it serves the ID community:


And surprise of all surprises, o'leary plugs her book yet again!

bornagain77, god's cocksucker and ass licker

blowhardagain77 said:

"Elizabeth, I can assure you with 100% certainty, the reality of how life appeared on earth, is far, far, different from what you have pictured in your imagination of gradualness"

Yep, GOD-DID-IT!! Right ba?

Want to see blowagain making an uncivil, retarded, moronic, uneducated, insane, ignorant, self-righteous fool of himself, again?

Read this thread:


A challenge to kairosfocus-the-willful-sinner

gordo, you have directly or indirectly, maliciously accused MathGrrl of being a closed-minded and willful: liar, fraud, deceiver, Marxist/communist, and all around hyperskeptical troublemaker. You've accused her of "failure to address serious matters seriously, to provide even the smallest response to the request of Dr Torley, to explain evident blunders such as confusing a log reduction with a probability calculation, making some nasty snide suggestions, and her stunt of trying to brush aside the very foundational issues that led to the CSI concept have made her behaviour sink ever further in my estimation." (my bold)

I'll just pick one of those for now: I challenge you to show where she made any nasty, snide suggestions on UD. Let's see them gordy! I also challenge you to apologize (here, on UD, on Mark Frank's blog, and on all of your websites) for EVERY nasty, snide remark you've made about MathGrrl.

You say: "to spread a potentially damaging false impression that you know or should know is not true or fair is deceptive." You also said that to do that is a lie gordo.

Well, gordon e. mullings of the kairos initiative and scum sucking douchebag, you're a WILLFUL LIAR. Lying is a sin, isn't it gordy? You're going to burn!

Some, but by far not all, of the other false things you've maliciously, dishonestly, and willfully accused MathGrrl of being or doing:

disrespectful and hostile

grossly irresponsible and disrespectful

making unwarranted projections of dishonesty on the part of design thinkers

false talking points

red herring- strawman- ad hominem trifecta fallacy remarks

her behaviour is now unfortunately willfully insistent and deceptive

continued with a rhetorical strategy of ignoring substantial answers and corrections

MG was part of a co-ordinated group with KL and another

making some pretty nasty snide allegations or insinuations.

crudity of thought is fuzzed out by using indirection, allusion and suggestion

eagerness to play the rhetorical game of pushing persuasive talking points through the tactic of drumbeat repetition

lose sight of the duties of care to truth, fairness, and reciprocity in a serious discussion.

subtly willfully deceptive; tantamount to lying.

project talking points and play the game of selectively hyperskeptical objection, not to actually engage in genuine exchange of ideas.

drumbeat repetition of the many talking point objections

the face of a cloud of angry mosquitoes tanked up on talking points and spreading them far and wide

the whole debate is a massive exercise in self-referential incoherence on their part.

She simply refuses to accept that there are answers on the table.

MG has needed to explain herself

MG has persistently ignored.

One of MG’s tactics seems to be to wait until something is buried under enough posts in a thread, or has been continued in a successor thread, before repeating the assertion that was rebutted.

She knows or should know better than she has acted.

MG: Perhaps it has not dawned on you that the situation has now fundamentally changed, once your side has tolerated outing behaviour and increasingly disrespectful rhetoric leading to the creation of an attack blog that resorts to vulgarity as well as slander-laced outing behaviour as its main tactics. Madam, you are now associated with and unavoidably tainted by a cesspit of misbehaviour, and have a lot to answer for. As was already noted long since above.

simply rudely out of order and disrespectful

outing behaviour and crude vulgarities

You ought to be ashamed of the level your side has sunk to.

deliberately dodged aside

this sort of clever selection tactic has to be seen as a willfully deceptive strawman tactic, not a mere accidental oversight. It has happened far too many times.

you have so assiduously and cleverly ducked again

you resort to rhetorical tricks of distraction because you have no serious answer on the merits

snide allusion

Drumbeat repetition

not a responsible reply

MG cleverly refused to respond

the sort of vulgarity and outing behaviour already seen, comes across as disrespectful and uncivil.

The attempt to discredit and dismiss those on the other side without seriously addressing issues on the merits comes across as outright rude.

repeated refusal to address reasonable response, comes across as arrogant.

It is your side that has worked very hard to polarise the situation

You have a lot of fence mending to do, to even begin to come across as a reasonable person engaging a reasonable discussion on reasonable terms.

your ilk of objectors associated with MF’s blog

you and others of like ilk have to first establish that you are civil persons acting in good faith to be entertained for reasonable discussion.


And many more. I'll be adding more as I come across them.

You also blame her for things that other people have said on Mark Frank's blog. Guilty by association, eh gordy? Hmm, if you can use guilty by association, so can I!

You associate with joseph, barry arrington, dense o'leary, clive hayden, mung, uprightbiped, pav, nullsalus, chris doyle, gil dodgen, bornagain77, news (o'leary), stephenb, illion, cuntyuckianyankee, barrybowen, medsrex, allanius, junkdnaforlife, and all the other IDiots on UD, so that makes you automatically responsible for everything they say, and especially all the nasty and snide remarks they make or have made, anywhere, anytime. Of course you're also responsible for all your own nasty and snide remarks.

Joe G. (aka Joseph, John Paul, Joseph A. Gallien, IDguy)

Hey joe-boi-the-muslim-creationist, why do clowns scare you so? Why does reality scare you so? Why do I scare you so? Tell you what joe-boi, come on over here and try out your threats and blustering on me, and try to find out who I am and see if you can come up with something that you think will scare me. You're not afraid, are you?

Are you still living in a parking lot?

Interesting reading

Check out the articles concerning kairosfocus, etc., here:


And articles concerning ID, and science, here:


Right back at you gordy

In the mess (and cess) posted below, kairosfocus (gordon e. mullings) apparently believes that anyone who questions or challenges him and his pet speculation (ID) is an evil Marxist/communist radical and is using the methods in his list of rules to attack him and ID. Either that or he's saying the list of rules is bad and that his numbered comments below it are good, or the other way around, or both, or blah blah blah, or whatever the fuck incoherent garbage he's spewing. He's one of the most incomprehensible maroons I've ever encountered.

He blames and accuses MathGrrl, me, and anyone who questions or challenges him or ID of the things that HE is actually doing and has been doing for a very long time. His hypocrisy and insanity know no bounds. The guy is a total loon and a menace to society.

And what the fuck does his swill have to do with ID??

Hey gordy, you should take notice of the redwood trees that are in your eyes, you pompous gasbag.



1:20 am

F/N: What I now suspect has been going on:


>> Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

(When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.)

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. >>

1 –> These are of course some of Saul Alinski’s Rules for [Neo-Marxist] Radicals. (And, DK, since you are monitoring to try the Rules 3, 4, 5 & 11 credibility kill by red herring- strawman- ad hominem tactic game, when on p. xix RFR, Alinsky refers to the revolution, in the context of 1971 that strongly points to a modified marxian frame of thought, but in the ideas context of exactly that: the marxian frame of thought on revolutionary transformation by the masses towards the socialist and onwards the ideal, hypothetical golden age communist state. So, to cite p.10 on the marxian frame of thought is quite legitimate, even though he is not an orthodox, Moscow or Peking partyline Marxist Leninist or Maoist. Don’t forget that Marx and Engels saw ancient Christian communitarianism per Ac 2, 4 & 5 as a proto-communism, and that they actually argued that the rise of Christianity in the Empire was in effect a prototype of the triumph of socialism.)

2 –> The utter cynicism in rules 4, 5 and 11 easily explains the pattern of demands and unresponsiveness to reason and evidence we have been seeing over the past several months.

3 –> That is, the point has been to personalise, strawmanise and ridicule, not to seriously engage issues on the merits.

4 –> But the threshold of incivility was irrevocably passed this week gone, when an attack blog that imagines that vulgarity, abuse and outing behaviour are adequate responses to serious points on the merits, was spun off from MF’s blog.

5 –> Such destructive polarising incivility is a revelation of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the objectors who resort to it, and those who enabled it by using or tolerating attempted outing tactics and the disrespect of ignoring serious inputs on the flimsiest of excuses.

6 –> But what about the issue of living up to rules? Isn’t that failure a proof of hypocrisy and doesn’t it mean that any tactics that expose the hypocrites are warranted? Isn’t it true that we only act decisively when we think the angels are on our side and the devils on the other, and that we need to exaggerate even small points of concern in order to set the climate of retreat on the other side that makes for advantageous negotiations?

7 –> Not at all. All it reveals is the moral self-blindness of the radical objectors.

8 –> For, moral struggle to do the right is the lot of us finite, fallible, fallen, struggling and too often ill-willed sinners.

9 –> So, as Jesus of Nazareth highlighted, a key task is to be aware of the potential planks in our own eyes even as we set out to help our BROTHERS and SISTERS with the sawdust that has got in their eyes.

10 –> Once there is a failure to accept that partnership in moral struggle, the self-blindness we have been seeing leads to a destructive demonisation of the other, and this is a major root of the arrogance, disrespect, undue polarisation, outright rudeness, contempt, disrespect and hostility verging on hate we have so plainly seen.

11 –> And, these are of course precisely the sort of signs of might makes right amorality triggered by evolutionary materialism that Plato warned against 2350 years ago in The Laws Bk X.

12 –> And, it is precisely the same Plato’s Cave moral blindness that makes the person who launched an attack blog not see the irony of dismissively citing the clip from Plato but not recognising how aptly it applied to his sort of rude and disrespectful factionalism.


It is high time that we do better than that.


It's high time that you get off your high horse and stop being an insufferable, self-righteous prick, gordy!

Saturday, May 28, 2011

An explanation for readers here

I, like many other people, tried to post civil comments and questions on the website Uncommon Descent but was banned after a short time anyway. Over the years a lot of people have been banned from UD even though they were civil. When people are treated like that on a site that says it welcomes honest and open discussion/debate, it gets frustrating and irritating.

Of course the IDiots on UD blame it all on allegedly uncivil atheist evolutionists but what they don't seem to realize or won't accept is that by dishonestly banning people from their site, just for asking questions or for not displaying blind obedience to the religious ID party line, the only recourse those banned people have is to go elsewhere to say what they want to.

Sure, I and the other banned people could just ignore UD and forget all about the insufferable IDiots there but that would be running away, and running away just isn't in my nature. From what I've seen on other sites, it's also not in the nature of some other banned people.

Anyway, I created this blog to give the IDiots what they deserve. They figured they could silence me by banning me from UD but they are wrong. My comments here may seem over the top to some of you but I feel that I have good reasons for saying what I say in the way that I say it.

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to read this.

gordy the festering boil blames MathGrrl

That's right gordy, I called you a festering boil, and I was being nice. In your post on UD (link at the bottom) you blame MathGrrl for things I or others have said. Well, gordy-the-dickless-slubberdegullion, isn't that just typical of a cowardly bunghole like you? You haven't got the guts to face me here so you take it out on an innocent party (MathGrrl) because you can get away with it on your protected sanctuary (UD). MathGrrl is not responsible for what I or others say and you know it. As usual, you're just trying to evade the issues and place the blame where you think it will do the most good for you and your sycophants.

I'm sure you're viewed as a hero by your fellow cowardly dingleberries on UD but in the real world you're as low a slimeball as it's possible to be. Actually though, comparing you to a slimeball is an insult to a slimeball.

There really aren't words that do you justice, so I will have to settle for saying that you're a bloated, egotistical, self-righteous, willfully dishonest, brain-dead, chicken-shit, pompous, arrogant, hypocritical, insane, psychopathic, schizophrenic, delusional, destructive, deranged, severely cowardly, puke-faced, stench-emitting, mental disease ridden, jementous, ignorant, hopeless, farcical, willfully blind and deaf, unaccomplished, shit-spewing, self-inflated, self-serving, self promoting, self-flattering, snake-oil-selling, unscientific, scientifically illiterate, uneducated, domineering, perverted, primitive, useless, worthless, failing, sanctimonious, projecting, ungodly bible-thumping aeolist of immensely gargantuan proportions. And I'm still being nice.

I'm thrilled that my blog irritates you. You deserve it. This is fun!


CSI and imaginary evidence and kairosfocus' evasion

Hey gordy, you said (in reference to CSI): "It is evident to me that to those whose minds are closed, disrespectful and hostile, no evidence or argument suitable to issues that are based on matters of fact will ever be enough."

You also said: "But we already have the means to calculate the CSI for proteins involved in bananas etc, and we already have enough in hand to see that cell based life is on the CSI metric well inside the designed threshold."

To which I said: "Then do it, and don’t forget the “etc”. I suggested several things, not all of which contain cells or proteins. If you have a credible test for CSI, you should be able and willing to apply it to anything. A pebble, a mountain, a snake, a banana, a protein, a leaf, an atom, a cardboard box, a human, or anything else. It doesn’t matter what your preconceived notion is as to whether a thing is designed or not or whether it has CSI or not. For CSI to be a credible and useful metric it only matters that people can use your alleged test to objectively establish whether a thing has CSI or not and the actual amount (or measure) of CSI. Even if you were to claim that a particular thing has no CSI, you should be able to show exactly how you reached that conclusion. Of course first you need to establish what C, S, and I actually are."

Let’s see you and your buddies at UD put CSI or specified complexity or FSCI or bsc or ID or whatever other ID related initials or words there are to the test. An actual test. Calculate the CSI, etc. of a banana, a tadpole, a tree, a pebble, a cloud, a sandstone arch, a mosquito, and a human.

If you don’t like that list then how about a snake, a pitcher plant, a meteoroid, a mountain, a fossilized skeleton of a dinosaur, a virus, and a chimpanzee?

How about any one of those things?

Do it with no links and no convoluted sermons. Include all the details and results of your tests. Regardless of what I say here (or elsewhere) you should be able and willing to show here that you can calculate the CSI in the things I suggested and show exactly how you determined those calculations. You and the other IDiots ALWAYS run away from substantiating your position. You NEVER do actual tests and calculations on actual things in nature. You just pontificate and proselytize and expect people to blindly and obediently worship you and your religious ID fairy tale.

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you don't have a clue about the scientific method. You can't just say it gordy, you have to show it. Start with a banana.

gordo (kairosfocus) the bible thumping young earth creationist

One of his websites:


Yeah, and he calls himself a scientist (LOL):



mung, a regular commenter on UD, is typical of the two-faced cowards there. For one thing he accuses MathGrrl of running away to mark frank's blog and hiding in the alleged echo chamber there, but when it comes to him going to that blog, he says:

"Well, it’s not like I’m going to go over there to find out for myself. I feel no such desire."

So, he cowers in the UD echo chamber sanctuary, where the comments are heavily controlled by the moderators, but it's MathGrrl who is running away and hiding. Yeah, right. Pfft

It should be obvious to anyone that MathGrrl is not afraid to post on UD and that it is the UD IDiots who are the cowardly hypocrites.

Hey mung, have you got the guts to come here, or are you going to keep hiding on UD with the other sniveling snot-nosed spineless crybaby IDiots?

Friday, May 27, 2011


gordo-the-impotent (kairosfocus) has been a busy boi. He has posted several more nonsensical diatribes on UD and has even added some of his usual verbal sewage to mark frank's blog. In his recent posts on UD he amply demonstrates his religious and political motives, even though ID is alleged to be non-religious and non-political. In his post linked below he shows that he thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a Marxist, that they are poison, and that they should be removed from civilization.


In another post he said:

"I cut my critical thinking eye-teeth on Communists, messianistic charismatic pols and cultists, and have wariness about all three."

Methinks gordy needs to look in a mirror if he wants to see a cultist who thinks he's a messiah. He should be wary of himself. He's a god-wanna-be windbag.

I looked up Marxism and it doesn't sound nearly as bad as gordy implies. It seems to me that it promotes equality and freedom for everyone. Of course that doesn't fit into gordo's worldview that some people, like him and his fellow god pushers, are superior and should be treated special.


Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. Whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism and communism.

According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom. Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as action with content. According to Marx, communism's outlook on freedom was based on an agent, obstacle, and goal. The agent is the common/working people; the obstacles are class divisions, economic inequalities, unequal life-chances, and false consciousness; and the goal is the fulfilment of human needs including satisfying work, and fair share of the product.

They believed that communism allowed people to do what they want, but also put humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to exploit, or have any need to. Whereas for Hegel the unfolding of this ethical life in history is mainly driven by the realm of ideas, for Marx, communism emerged from material forces, particularly the development of the means of production.

Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and revolutionary struggle will result in victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society in which private property and ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. (Private property and ownership, in this context, means ownerships of the means of production, not private possessions). Marx himself wrote little about life under communism, giving only the most general indication as to what constituted a communist society. It is clear that it entails abundance in which there is little limit to the projects that humans may undertake.[citation needed] In the popular slogan that was adopted by the communist movement, communism was a world in which each gave according to their abilities, and received according to their needs. The German Ideology (1845) was one of Marx's few writings to elaborate on the communist future:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Marx's lasting vision was to add this vision to a theory of how society was moving in a law-governed way towards communism, and, with some tension, a political theory that explained why revolutionary activity was required to bring it about.

Oh gordy gordy gordy (kairosfocus)

gordon e mullings of the kairos initiative, you self-righteous delusional pompous little prick, don't you realize that you have no 'privacy' on the web when you plaster your name all over several websites?

Among a million other words, you said (on UD): "In short, neighbour love INCLUDES frank correction where it is warranted."

Well, gordo-the-lame, I'll correct you then, frankly. Virtually every word you say is wrong, and completely self serving. It's actually hard for me to believe that someone as fucked up as you actually exists, and are able to survive outside an asylum. You are outside an asylum, aren't you?

You should consider donating what's left of your brain to science. I'm sure there are some researchers that would like to have a such a diseased brain morsel to dissect and study. They could label your brain 'Abby'.

I'm curious. How and why did you become so mentally deranged? OOPS, I forgot for a moment that you are mentally deranged so you probably don't know how and why you got that way. Oh well.

By the way, you say: "In short, if one has not learned enough to disagree on a topic and address the merits without resort to unwarranted abuse and false accusation, then that person has disqualified himself from civil discussion."

Hmm, I wonder why you don't adhere to that when you're falsely accusing MathGrrl and others, and when you and other IDiots on UD are being accusatory, insulting, and abusive to people simply because they don't kiss your self-righteous asses. Your massive double standards are showing gordy. You and your UD buddies are the ones who resort to utterly unwarranted slanderous false accusations. My accusations, on the other hand, are certainly warranted and truthful and therefore not slanderous.

You projectile vomited this, for at least the thousandth time: "People who behave like that will poison any serious discussion by dragging red herrings out to strawman distortions and then will soak them in ad hominems and slanders, igniting through incendiary rhetoric. The better to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. Only in such a climate of hostility is ti at all likely to be forgotten that they have made no cogent answer on the merits"

In that mess you're describing yourself and most or all of the other IDiots on UD. Talk about drumbeat repetition of rhetorical talking points ad nauseum! Sheesh! You keep saying that same stupid arrogant things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and you're not fooling anyone but yourself and a handful of other mindless IDiots.

You wouldn't recognize or produce a "cogent answer on the merits" if your life depended on it. You are a master at spewing non-cogent religious pseudo-science and other pretentious gobbledegook, although you have some competition in that department from many of your fellow IDiots.

Hey gordo, my blog isn't gone. Breaks your heart, doesn't it? LOL

Lies and deception

cannuckianyankee (speaking on UD):

"I was intrigued by all of the complaints because I knew while some of the details regarding someone being moderated might have had some truth to them, there was no truth to the commonly repeated claims that UD intentionally keeps dissenters from being able to fairly voice dissenting views in order trump up the claims of ID. That is simply sheer rubbish spewed from the mouths of people who neither have any data to confirm such claims, but are demonstrating the very reason they were moderated on your own blog."

Actually, there is a LOT of truth to the commonly repeated claims that UD intentionally keeps dissenters from being able to fairly voice dissenting views in order trump up the claims of ID. I was banned at UD even though I was civil in all my comments, and so was my brother and a friend. Many other people have been banned there even though they were civil, and it has been happening for years. The lengths the liars there will go to to cover their deceptions is truly amazing. The "rubbish" being "spewed" is the false claim that UD welcomes open and honest debate. They're just a bunch of typical dishonest christians.

By the way cuntyuckianflunky, I'm still here. Ha Ha

denyse o'leary, one sick bitch

o'leary: "Why are these awful people a model for anyone?
Okay, so the Darwinists never seem to want to leave the kids out of it. Indeed, they’ll use the law to force the kids into it. Does anyone out there care about their own kids and want to do anything about that?"

But it's perfectly fine with you to subject kids to the mind-numbing brainwashing of religion and to force them into dangerous, life ruining situations like being raped by perverted catholic priests or other religious zealots? How many children, throughout time, have been brainwashed, tortured, enslaved, punished, bought and sold, oppressed, deprived, molested, abused, raped, killed, sacrificed, psychologically damaged, and had proper medical care withheld from them, in the name of religion? How many adults have gotten the same treatment in the name of religion? How many animals have been tortured, molested, killed, abused, and sacrificed in the name of religion? How many people have been robbed of their money and property and loved ones in the name of religion?

If you think that religion is a good model for kids or anyone else, you are a sadistic abusive psychopath, and even though you'd never admit it, you'd use the law in a heartbeat to force kids and adults into worshiping your sick religious beliefs and monstrous god. If there is a Hell, I hope you fry in it.

Who, of the IDiots on UD....

...is the:

1. craziest?

2. most obnoxious?

3. most arrogant?

4. most hypocritical?

5. most stupid?

6. most delusional?

7. most dishonest?

8. most closed minded?

9. most scientifically illiterate?

10. most cowardly?

11. most flagrant wanker?

To make it easy you can just copy the list and paste it into your comment and add the user names of the people you choose after the words in the list. From one to three user names per number seems reasonable. If you like you can do a second copy of the list for IDiots who don't post on UD. Have fun!

The standards of science and evidence, by IDiots

o'leary: "Recent Uncommon Descent posts reveal starkly different standards of evidence out there …"

"They reveal the difference between “science” and science."

Unfortunately for you, dense o'leary, and the other ID nutjobs, virtually all the posts on UD by you IDiots show that you don't have a clue about science. And then there's the fact that the biased, heavy handed moderation on UD keeps many people from commenting, so that makes your comparison completely unscientific, lopsided, and moot anyway.

o'leary: "From science by contrast, one expects rigor, not speculation based on a few possible pieces of evidence."

And bornagain77 quotes Da Vinci: “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci

Really? So why don't you IDiots answer MathGrrl's questions with a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI that aligns with dembski's claims, and apply it to MathGrrl's four examples?

And where's YOUR real evidence of ID or CSI or FSCI or DFSCI, etc.? No speculation. No few possible pieces of evidence. No theistic mumbo jumbo. No transcendental stuff. No quotes from the bible or links to christian music or other irrelevant crap. No bashing of evolutionists, Darwinists, the ToE, or atheists. No preconceived suppositions. No bullshit. Just REAL, testable, verifiable, scientific, positive evidence. Let's see it!

Do you suppose this priest believes in ID?


An invitation to barry arrington

Hey barry, you're a lawyer, and trained in the art of debate, aren't you? And you said this, didn't you?:

“It is my sincere hope that this site never becomes an echo chamber. Echo chambers are boring. We always welcome a (civil) discussion with those who disagree with us. We never run from a confrontation, because we are confident in our position. We will debate the issues here and let the chips fall.”

Well, barry, why not present your case for ID here and let the chips fall? You never run from confrontation, do you? You're confident in your position, aren't you? You do want an open and honest debate, don't you? Unlike on UD, everyone can comment here. You're not afraid of that, are you?

I'll even ask that participants remain as civil as is typical of you and the other ID supporters on UD. Bring it on barry!

An invitation to bornagain77

Hey ba, step outside your chosen echo chamber sanctuary (UD) and present your positive, scientific, testable, verifiable, non-theistic evidence for ID here. Come on big boy, show that you have the guts to face people besides your sycophants on UD. You do have positive evidence for ID, don't you? Or do you just have god-did-it and bashing evolution, atheists, Darwinists, Darwinism, materialists, etc.?

Your case isn't ‘just so’ asserted but not demonstrated, is it? You do have a foundation to stand on in science, don't you, and you do have more than circular rhetoric to deceive yourself with, don't you, and you are able to rise above the contempt I have for your ‘snake oil’ salesman type of science, aren't you, and you do want to actually ‘prove’ that ID actually has a proper place at the table of modern science, don't you, and you do want to show that everything you do is not mere ‘rationalization’ parading as science, don't you?

And you do want to explain and show the testable, verifiable, scientific, positive, non-materialistic but also non-theistic evidence of the quantum entanglement found in DNA and proteins, don't you?

And most of all, you do want to impress me, don't you??

Something tells me that even this extremely simple test is too much for you, and your horde, and that you will simply ignore this crucial test that you must pass to stay scientifically legitimate, simply because it does not fit your ID religion of god-did-it.

bornagain77: "...though ID itself is not based on a Theistic Inference."

bornagain77: "This is ‘just so’ asserted but is not demonstrated!"

bornagain77: "You know what is crazy DrREC is that you act like you got any foundation at all to stand on in science. Whereas you, in reality, have nothing but circular rhetoric to deceive yourself with!! If you want to impress me, and rise above the contempt I have for your ‘snake oil’ salesman type of science."

bornagain77: "Or better yet DrREC, if you want to actually ‘prove’ that neo-Darwinism actually has a proper place at the table of modern science, then simply falsify Alain Aspects falsification of local realism (materialism) so that you may be able to explain the quantum entanglement found in DNA and proteins by materialistic (neo-Darwinian) means!!! Until then, everything you do is mere ‘rationalization’ parading as science!!"

bornagain77: "Something tells me that even this extremely simple test is too much for you, and your horde, and that you will simply ignore this crucial test that you must pass to stay scientifically legitimate, simply because it does not fit your ‘religion’ of neo-Darwinian evolution"

An invitation to ID supporters

Do you think you have positive, testable, verifiable, scientific evidence for ID? If so, present it here in this thread. You're not afraid to step out from behind the protective wall of moderation at UD, are you? You're confident in your position, aren't you? Let's see what you've got.

Atheists, atheist science, evolutionists, and Darwinism......

....are the root of all evil if you listen to what is said by the bible thumping IDiots on UD. And isn't it interesting that those good christians complain about evolutionists and Darwinists and atheists being "uncivil" while they constantly bash and insult evolutionists and Darwinists and atheists?

What say ye about this blatant hypocrisy? And what say ye about the 'civility' of the constant insults aimed at atheists, Darwinists, and evolutionists by ID pushers on UD?

Just a small set of examples from UD (there is much, much more there):

News: "Darwinism is about fiction – publicly funded, court-ordered fiction"

bornagain77: “Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth.”

o'leary: "No, wait, this is the confused, illusory world of the Darwinist. It doesn’t have to make sense."

o'leary: "Come to think of it, Satan doesn’t like us either, for some reason."

o'leary: "Well one thing that certainly demonstrates, Cannuckian (hey, salut!!), is that many Darwinists are underemployed. Could that be because Darwinism is a useless obstruction to science, but the Darwinists themselves are entitled to be on one public payroll or another?"

bornagain77: "on atheism, humans have no control over the actions they take, and cannot make moral choices, or be morally responsible"

bornagain77: "only theists have a foundation for objective moral values and duties"

junkdnaforlife: "the glory days of atheism are long gone. gone are the days of the eternal universe and the jello cell glob. now time has a beginning and the cell is digital code. All they have left is neo-darwinsim. what is left of the glory days when atheism was the cool high school quarterback is the residual media mess. Instead, atheism is now the shirtless fan watching the game in the stands covered in paint making a lot of noise."

Ilion: "Of course, Darwinism is profoundly irrational — as are most of the silly “possible worlds” you posited (and so one muct use the quote marks around “rational”)."

nullasalus: "...I’d question the suggestion that atheist first principles are all that reasonable, even ones which allow for evolution."

nullasalus: "Then again, what doesn’t enrage the cult of gnu."

bornagain77: "I would like to point out that evolutionists have severely distorted this particular line of evidence to fit their preconceived bias"

bornagain77: "why are we continually sold a bill of goods as to the actually evidence by neo-darwinists???"

bornagain77: "I’m just left wondering exactly where evolutionists should place the kangaroos on their cartoon drawings that show man evolving from apes."

bornagain77: "Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences..."

bornagain77: "DrREC you say you aren’t a neo-Darwinists yet you defend every precept they preach with as much, or more, vigor than many of them do. So what should I believe??? your actions or your empty words???"

bornagain77: "DrREC, You tell more shallow falsehoods in defense of the other points, so I’ll go on to another point that is worth making"

bornagain77: "as well as this testifies against the neo-Darwinists"

bornagain77: "etc.. etc.. etc.. continued falsification of all claims is just the way life is for neo-Darwinists, but don’t worry they will be back tomorrow forgetting everything they have been corrected on. The circus never ends!"

bornagain77: "not that I don’t appreciate such blind faith in the almighty power of Darwinism"

bornagain77: "when you remove the neo-Darwinian just so story for how new human proteins may have evolved, and look at the cold hard facts of science itself, finding a ‘new human protein’ is anything but the easy as pie story that neo-Darwinists portray it to be!!!"

bornagain77: "Here is another question that will go unanswered by neo-Darinism..."

bornagain77: "You know what is crazy DrREC is that you act like you got any foundation at all to stand on in science. Whereas you, in reality, have nothing but circular rhetoric to deceive yourself with!! If you want to impress me, and rise above the contempt I have for your ‘snake oil’ salesman type of science. I suggest you change a bacteria into another species of bacteria by neo-Darwinian processes!!!"

bornagain77: "FALSE!!! This is ‘just so’ asserted but is not demonstrated!"

bornagain77: "So DrREC, does appealing to the unmatched levels of epigenetic information, in the genome, ‘calculating’ a ‘new’ protein/gene product in response to environmental stress constitute proof for that purely material processes of neo-Darwinism created the new gene and/or protein??? If you do accept this pathetic level of ‘proof’ it is clear that your religion of Darwinism is driving your science, But it was never about the science in the first place was it???"

bornagain77: "Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution – Jonathan Wells – video.."

bornagain77: "Failed Predictions of Evolutionists – Cornelius Hunter – audio.."

bornagain77: "Or better yet DrREC, if you want to actually ‘prove’ that neo-Darwinism actually has a proper place at the table of modern science, then simply falsify Alain Aspects falsification of local realism (materialism) so that you may be able to explain the quantum entanglement found in DNA and proteins by materialistic (neo-Darwinian) means!!! Until then, everything you do is mere ‘rationalization’ parading as science!! 2 Peter 1:16
‘For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,’"

bornagain77: "Something tells me that even this extremely simple test is too much for you, and your horde, and that you will simply ignore this crucial test that you must pass to stay scientifically legitimate, simply because it does not fit your ‘religion’ of neo-Darwinian evolution"

bornagain77: "But of course this will matter not one iota to you DrREC because??? because??? well because by-golly fudging genetic similarity is the only thing you got that can make it seem to the unsuspecting public that you got evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution!!!"

bornagain77: "Only if you take neo-Darwinian presupposition as true!!!. Remember you are the one who said I can look at the sequences myself. And when the sequences are looked at with ‘non-Darwinian’ glasses, your whole argument falls apart!!! But how did I know that any interpretation except a neo-Darwinian interpretation would not be accepted by you!!!"

bornagain77: "So??? Do you want to argue theology or science? At the base of your argument you are presupposing that you can design a organism better than God! i.e. God would not have done that way, therefore materialistic neo-Darwinism must be true! How very humble of you. NOT! ellazimm once again I remind you that you are using your theology to try to prove your scientific presupposition, instead of using science to try to prove your theological presupposition!!! This is completely backwards! You are completely blind to the fact that you cannot even show me one functional protein that was arrived at by purely materialistic processes!!! Nor can you using all you intelligence, or unguided materialistic processes in particular, even come close to generating the unmatched levels of programming we find in genomes!! Thus, Why don’t you address your science on its merits instead of using theologically based arguments to try to prove your point? Like I said, do you want to argue science or Theology???"

bornagain77: "Psalm 139: 14-15
“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;,,, When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.”

bornagain77: "..the only way that neo-Darwinists have been able to hood-wink the general public...."

bornagain77: "Indium, but of coarse I have no bearing for you because it is not a answer you want to hear, but regardless of the answer you want, let’s take a closer look and see that it gets worse for you."

bornagain77: "My exact point is that neo-Darwinists are EXTREMELY biased as to exactly which parts of the genome they will consider and which points they won’t.,,, Not an answer you want is it??? :) TOO BAD!!!"

bornagain77: "DrREC, (using the Fit DAMN YOU FIT!!! method of science),,, but of coarse, what else should I expect from a man who fully endorses this following study..."

bornagain77: "DrREC, (with sledge hammer, using the Fit, DAMN YOU, FIT!!! method of science to arrive at his desired conclusion),,, but of coarse DrREC, what else should I expect from a man who fully endorses the extreme bias of this following study...."

bornagain77: "Why DrREC, I am very certain the only one being very creative with there interpretation is YOU!!! No matter what the evidence says you will disregard anything that falsifies neo-Darwinism and exagerate anything that can be twisted to your neo-Darwinian bias. You could care less to establish a rigorous foundation to see what is actually true, for the conclusion is far to important to you to be left to the evidence to decide!!"

bornagain77: "you presuppose the human genome is just a cobbled together piece of junk don’t you??? put together by a trial a error process don’t you? Whereas I think God originally created the Human genome! Let’s look at a few points of trivia, and see whose view more accurately reflects reality?!?"

bornagain77: "DrREC, whose presupposition is supported by the evidence and whose is not?"

bornagain77: "DrREC,,, grits teeth, ignores all evidence of stunning craftsmanship, and with pure atheistic indignation says with scoffing defiant tone,,, TIS JUNK I TELL YA, JUNK, JUNK, JUNK!!!"

bornagain77: "Romans 1:20-23
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

bornagain77: "DrREC, what a laugh, you don’t even have a foundation in science to begin to make your neo-Darwinian conjectures with, and completely ignore that SCIENTIFIC fact, and then pretend as if you are being reasonable when you make completely unfounded conjectures as to what you want the percentage to be. And then you, having failed to have me fall for your ruse of creative accounting, have the audacity to label me as being unscientific for not accepting your atheistic games???"

bornagain77: "DrREC, in case you sneeze, God Bless you! Dane Cook – Sneezing Atheist – video..."

bornagain77: "It is completely biased for neo-Darwinists to be allowed to only keep that which matches their preconceived bias!!! For a man who has such a high opinion of his own intelligence, you sure seem to have a hard time with such a simple point!!!"

bornagain77: "Moreover DrREC, why don’t you face the following crushing evidence straight on instead of just ignoring it because it does not fit your neo-Darwinian worldview???"

bornagain77: "So DrREC to make it real clear how pointless your argument is,,, let’s rephrase it a bit to reflect where you are actually at as far as a solid foundation in science is concerned,,,, let’s make it real simple! :) ,,, we got a string of 1000, only 20 match, ,,, what does that make the price of tea in China???"

bornagain77: "Perhaps if some neo-Darwinists were not so busy trying to cram the ‘junky’ genome into their preconceived conclusions, they would have thought of such a elegant way to analyze the genome??? Just a thought DrREC!"

o'leary: "Why are these awful people a model for anyone?
Okay, so the Darwinists never seem to want to leave the kids out of it. Indeed, they’ll use the law to force the kids into it. Does anyone out there care about their own kids and want to do anything about that?"

Thursday, May 26, 2011

chris doyle, liar for god and UD

Below are some statements from chris doyle, from this thread: http://mfinmoderation.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/does-uncommon-descent-deliberately-suppress-dissenting-views/

Any comments?

"Nasty and offensive remarks are made on both sides of this debate. However, the difference between evolutionists and their opponents is:

1. Evolutionists tend to produce much more offensive and nasty remarks – both in number of such contributions and the degree of rudeness that they reach.
2. Evolutionists tend to become nasty and offensive without provocation.

Put one evolutionist in a forum with ten of his opponents and he will have a far more pleasant experience than a creationist would have in a forum with ten evolutionists.

Given this background, can evolutionists really object or even express surprise when they are moderated over on Uncommon Descent? If double-standards are being practised there, then evolutionists can only blame themselves: reflect upon their own behaviour in countless other online forums and accept that double-standards may be unavoidable when the balance needs to be so severely redressed.

Let me assure you that, after 15 years of debating with evolutionists online, the last thing I’m interested in is exchanging insults with someone I’ve never met. I’d much rather stick to sound arguments and solid facts because this is a subject which absolutely fascinates me and one that I believe is much more important than people realise. On those rare occasions when I encounter an evolutionist who will put down the weapons and engage in proper, healthy debate I am the first to rejoice, congratulate that evolutionist and would personally intervene if such an evolutionist was on the receiving end of abuse [to date, I've never needed to]. I can count on one finger the number of times evolutionists have returned the courtesy."


"There is a far simpler explanation: most evolutionists find it incredibly difficult to engage in debate with their opponents without resorting to nasty and offensive remarks. We should not be surprised then if any website which enforces a strict moderation policy tends to weed out large numbers of evolutionists.

If evolutionists are genuinely interested in a rational, factual debate with their opponents then they will have no problems with moderation on Uncommon Descent. Unfortunately, this is a not a genuine interest held by most evolutionists."


"I repeat, if an evolutionist is serious about debating the issues without resorting to rudeness, then Uncommon Descent provides them with a place to do it."


".....then strive for a more decent, respectful and fact-based approach in future and maybe we can engage in a much more worthwhile discussion over on Uncommon Descent."

Dense O'Leary and the mongrel horde

DENSE o'leary said:

"Given the growing number of people who use and enjoy our service, I don’t feel any need to defend our moderation policies: People who resent them are free to express themselves elsewhere. Sometimes we make mistakes. But we can’t both get out news and comment and run a perpetually sitting grievance committee. Best solution: Write as if you were participating in an online discussion with courteous and intelligent people."

From here:


Growing number of people?? HA HA, that's a good one.

Your "service"?? News?? Don't you mean your fairy tale proclamations?

I'm pretty sure that people would write as if they were participating in an online discussion with courteous and intelligent people IF there were actually any courteous and intelligent ID supporters on UD.

UD blocks and bans people simply because those people question or challenge ID. UD sometimes lets one or two people question or lightly challenge ID just so that it looks as though they're being fair and open minded. If they were to let all people post comments and questions they would be swamped with questions and challenges. Anyone who knows about science also knows that ID is a fraudulent agenda to push religious creationism into schools, politics, and all of society. There is NO positive, testable, verifiable evidence for ID. The IDiots think that merely attacking science and the Theory of Evolution will make their baseless case.

Hey chris doyle, you're a lying sack of shit, and a sniveling coward. I see that you're still hiding behind the protective walls at UD, along with the other cowards there. What's the matter, won't your mommy let you play outside UD? Poor baby, maybe when you grow up you'll be able to venture out of your guarded sanctuary.

markf, you're a pansy ass butt licker. I'm starting to wonder if you're an IDiot who created your blog just to get ammunition for you and other IDiots to use against questioners and challengers of ID.

barry arrington, you obviously realize and admit that you and the other moderators at UD are blocking many comments and questions and banning people only because they don't promote your party line and agenda. Otherwise you wouldn't be worried about: "Option 2: Allow our blog to degenerate into a slimy hatefest like Panda’s Thumb."

Aren't you the same barry arrington who posted this pack of lies?:

12 March 2009
A Word About Our Moderation Policy
Barry Arrington

"Some commenters have raised questions regarding the propriety of recent posts and UD’s moderation policy. UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb. But if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.

What about the “God-bashing” and the defenses of God that have appeared in these pages? God can take care of Himself. We at UD feel no need to protect Him from defamation. Bash away. Those who are offended by (or disagree with) the bashing are welcome to post such defenses as they deem appropriate. There are limits, however. This site is not intended to be a forum for extensive religious debates. Religious issues inevitably come up from time to time and people should feel free to discuss them from both sides when they do. But the moderators will exercise their judgment and gavel discussions that stray too far a field from the purpose of this site for too long.

I personally find the God-bashing disturbing. So why do I allow it? As one of my colleagues has aptly said, the wiser course, when someone attacks God is to let those UD commenters who are theists respond to the charges. Our readers will then be in a position to see: (1) that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas; and (2) that theism in general and Christianity in particular is quite capable of defending itself against lies, distortions, illogical arguments, and misunderstandings. Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail.

Certainly there is risk to this approach. Some will reject truth and embrace error. But the consequences of pursuing the alternative course – ignoring or even running from the hard questions – would be far worse.

Finally, some have asked whether we should even discuss “peripheral issues” at UD, such as Darwin’s racism or the implications of ID for the theodicy. This site is devoted not only to scientific theories of origins, but also to the metaphysical and moral implications of those theories. Plainly BOTH Darwinism and ID have implications beyond the science. Certainly Darwinsts like “intellectually fulfilled” atheist Richard Dawkins understand the metaphysical implications of Darwinism and talk about those implications ad nauseum. What hypocritical balderdash for anyone to suggest a double standard prohibiting those of us with a different point of view from doing the exact same thing from our perspective – and we will continue to do so."

Speaking of a religious agenda

From gordon mullings' blog, specifically from his page On the Scientific Inference to Design:


NOTICES: This briefing note was originally created by GEM of TKI, in March 2006, for use in briefing Christian leaders and others interested in the ongoing controversy on Intelligent Design and related concerns. [NB: Because of abuse of my given name in blog commentary threads, I have deleted my given name from this page, and invite serious and responsible interlocutors to use my email contact below to communicate with me.] This page has been subsequently revised and developed, to date; so far, to clean up the clarity and flow of the argument, which is admittedly a difficult one, and add to the substance especially as key references are discovered one by one such as the recent Shapiro article in Sci Am. Thanks are due to the ad hoc group of regular commenters at The Evangelical Outpost Blog over the period since April 2005, for many useful comments, on both sides of the question. (DISCLAIMER: While reasonable attempts have been made to provide accurate, fair and informative materials for use in training, no claim is made for absolute truth, and mailto:kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk corrections based on factual errors and/or gaps or inconsistencies in reasoning, etc., or typos, are welcome.) FAIR USE: The contents of this note are in part intended for use as a support for learning about responding to the typical intellectual challenges to the Christian Faith and http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Leading_Cells/justification gospel that are commonly encountered in the Caribbean, especially in tertiary education, or on the Internet, or in commentary in the regional and international media: here, (i) as the evolutionary materialists have abused science over the past century and more http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Mars_Hill_Web/evolutionism in promotion of materialistic philosophies -- requiring a serious response on the merits; presented (ii) at a semi-popular, introductory technical level suitable to College level students and graduates with some background in the sciences and mathematics used. In turn, that is intended to support the ongoing work of reformation of Western and global cultures through the positive, corrective impacts of the Gospel - observe here, how Plato grounds his Laws in the implications of the inference to design, as cited, http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Memorabilia in context. In this case, as just noted, the contents are also intended to provide an accurate briefing on the actual merits of the case on the inference to design, as a basis for restoring balance to science, science education and linked public perceptions and policy. (It is also hoped that the presentation will stimulate students to dig deeper into the relevant sciences, as well, thus enriching their educational experience through developing their own perspectives and building deeper familiarity with key technical points, techniques and issues.) Permission is therefore granted to link to this page for fair use under intellectual property law, and for reasonable fair use citation of the linked content on http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/index for church- or parachurch- group related training and/or for personal or specifically institutional academic use. [But kindly have mercy on the available bandwidth at a freebie site . . . ask me to use the page whole or make significant excerpts on your own site as appropriate . . .] This permission specifically excludes reproduction, linking or citation for commercial, controversial or media purposes without the mailto: kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk Author's written permission -- especially where matters relating to the validity and value of Faith/Religious/Atheological Commitments and Truth-Claims are being debated or disputed.

Yep, all scientific so far!  And ID isn't religious!  LMAO!