Sunday, July 31, 2011

Running away, as usual

See this thread for some examples of the evasive, arrogantly accusatory, chicken-shit behavior of IDiots. Notice the posts by woodford, Elizabeth Liddle, and William Roache, and the responses to them from the cowardly, deranged, sanctimonious losers mung and ilion.

UD is just a haven for psychotic, game playing losers who are insanely jealous of people who actually know something about nature and reality and aren't afraid of it.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Clear the area!

kairosfocus-the-flatulent, farted through his god:

"It is time to either come up with something that makes empirically grounded sense or conclude that modern thought on evolution made a major blunder when it brushed aside the co-founder, Wallace’s framework of Intelligent Evolution.

The evolutionary materialist tail is plainly wagging the origins science puppy."

So gordy, religious beliefs, yours or Wallace's to be exact, are "empirically grounded" and should replace the theory of evolution. Yep, ID is strictly scientific, not religious. Got it.

By the way, you really should quit wagging your puppy, and get a life.

thump, thump

born-to-be-a-tard77 drooled:

"I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, “Since you ultimately believe that the ‘god of random chance’ produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?”"

phil-boi, if you had a mind, you'd be out of it.

You also slobbered:

"John 1:1-3
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made."

Well, phil-boi. I just made a a big juicy fart. Did that fart pass "through" your god?

By the way, don't you IDiots say that you accept evolution? joe g says so and so do other IDiots. If so, why do you have a problem with evolutionists?

And don't you IDiots also say that ID is strictly scientific, and not religious? Maybe you can explain what is scientific, not religious, about the bible quotes and other religious nonsense you regularly post. And if ID is strictly scientific, not religious, maybe you can also explain why you and other IDiots have such a problem with atheism/atheists. Well?

Questions to IDists/creationists

If science is all wrong about evolution and Darwin was all wrong about evolution, and all scientific theories are also wrong about the origin of life, then:

How did life originate?

How did/does life diversify?

How long ago did life originate on the Earth?

What were the first life forms?

Why are most of the organisms that ever lived on the Earth extinct?

Why don't all the organisms on the Earth live everywhere on the Earth? Why are they adapted to certain niches/environments?

If the organisms on the Earth were created/designed, why aren't the same organisms living now that lived in the beginning and throughout the past?

Why did or does the alleged creator/designer allow or cause organisms to go extinct or to be extirpated?

Did humans live alongside dinosaurs?

Did humans eat, ride, or domesticate dinosaurs?

Did all the species of dinosaurs live at the same time?

Did humans live alongside trilobites?

Did humans eat, ride, or domesticate trilobites?

Did all the species of trilobites live at the same time?

Did humans live alongside mammal-like reptiles?

Did humans eat, ride, or domesticate mammal-like reptiles?

Did all the species of mammal-like reptiles live at the same time?

Did humans live alongside the earliest bacteria and viruses?

Did all the bacteria and viruses live at the same time, including all the extant ones?

Did humans live alongside creodonts?

Did people eat, ride, or domesticate creodonts?

Did all the creodonts live at the same time?

Were flowering plants and grasses created/designed in the beginning?

Are the plants currently on the Earth the same species as were created/designed in the beginning?

Did people used to live for up to about a thousand years as the bible claims?

Do you think there's life anywhere else in the universe?

Do you think there's 'intelligent' life anywhere else in the universe?

If there are other 'intelligent' beings in the universe, do you think that they would have exactly the same religions/gods and history of religions/gods that the people on the Earth have come up with and endlessly fight about?

Does the alleged creator/designer ever create/design new species?

Has the alleged creator/designer created/designed any new species during your lifetime?

When was the last time the alleged creator/designer created/designed a new species here on Earth? What species is or was that?

Who or what is the alleged creator/designer?

How about one piece of evidence, gildo?




7:50 pm


The problem with you and your ilk in the Church of Darwin, is that you offer nothing of any substance concerning the creative powers of the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection, only speculation based upon further speculation about what could have speculatively happened in the distant past.

This line of argumentation will only be effective when trying to convince those who are ignorant about the real state of affairs concerning Darwinian “theory,” and who are equally ignorant about the fundamentally information-based nature of living systems.

This is why Darwinists are so vehement about keeping any questioning of Darwinian orthodoxy out of the public schools, because they know that bright, young, inquisitive students will question: “What? Are you joking? Tell me that you’re joking. This makes no sense. What are you trying to sell?”

An ersatz materialistic theocracy has been established in academia. It permits no dissent, no matter how well reasoned. Infidels are promptly excommunicated for the sin of questioning the orthodoxy.

This is pernicious and very dangerous concerning the advancement of legitimate scientific investigation.


Hey gildo, let's see even one actual piece of scientifically testable evidence, from you and your "ilk", that supports your ID/creation/religious claims. And what the fuck do you know about "legitimate scientific investigation"?

As Allen MacNeill said to your remarks above:




8:00 pm


What bearing does your comment have on the discussion taking place here? Have you added anything at all of substance to the discussion? Have you clarified anything at all about the nature of information, either “meaningful” or otherwise? Or have you attacked an entire group of people with pure, unadulterated character assassination? What’s up with that, Gil?


Yeah, gildo, what's up with that? Don't you claim to be a christian? Are christians supposed to be like that?

Friday, July 29, 2011

What a maroon

My responses are in bold type.



10:05 pm

I thought birds were descended from crocodiles.

Not sure where I got that idea.

Out of your ass, just like all your other ideas.

Probably some stupid evolutionist who didn’t know better.

See the bold-type sentence above.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Born with his pea brain backward




11:00 am

Perhaps what the “study” is telling us is that ‘atheists’ are generally smart enough to be sheeple, but not quite smart enough to recognize the wool being pulled over their eyes?


Uh, troy-boi, it's you religious nutcases who call yourselves a "flock" and "lambs", and it's your imaginary buddy jesus that you call your "shepherd", which of course means 'sheep herder'.

True and false

kairosfocus: "The historic, authentic Christian faith is an established fact of 2,000 years standing."

Well, gordo, the "faith" part is true, at least when the "faith" is "authentic", but that doesn't make the claims of christians true or "authentic". There's a HUGE difference between "faith" in 2,000 year old fairy tales and "authentic" evidence or proof of those fairy tales, and there is no authentic evidence or proof of those fairy tales.

Nothing bad ever happened in the entire universe....

...before Darwin wrote his book.

kairosfocus (gordy) says so:

"In this context, let us be careful to observe the subtle influence of the devaluation of human life, respect for rights, respect for liberty, etc etc, that can all be significantly traced to the subtle cultural effects of the rise of evolutionary materialism as a “scientific” view over the past 150 years."

According to all the bullshit gordy spews, the world, no, the universe, was a peaceful, loving, wonderful Eden before Darwin published On The Origin Of Species. All of the bad things that happen are Darwin's fault.

Let's dig up the bones of that British devil and put them on trial for crimes against humanity and nature! And when those bones are convicted, which they surely will be, let's stone and burn them! That'll teach 'em! (LMAO!)

A fitting description of gordy....

in his own words:

"...murderous right-wing fundy theocratic Christofascist nut."

And since gordo presents himself as the savior of the entire world, and as a politician, this statement of his seems appropriate here:

"This madman is evidence that this thing is still with us yet, just underground. Who to tell, with a cleverer lunatic, it may yet surface in the face of a charismatic politician presenting himself as saviour of the nation or a continent or a civilisation."

And this one:

"The real issue on this point seems to be that social darwinist thought has simply gone underground, it is not truly dead, so it needs to be killed."

And then there's this from Ben (for a good laugh):


ben h


9:27 am


I appreciate your profound insites of the mind of a madman. Don’t let these darwinists tell you that you don’t know what how such insane peopl think.


The meaning of that was lost on gordy.


To see some radical, maniacal insanity from gordo and other IDiots, go here:

Have you noticed...

....that the Idiots on UD are getting crazier every day? I know, they were crazy a long time ago but it appears to me as though they're reaching the limits on insanity. They sound like the lunatic who shot and bombed people in Norway, and all the other lunatics who do that sort of thing. They really do sound that crazy.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if a news headline said: 'Regular contributors to the Intelligent Design website Uncommon Descent go on shooting and bombing spree at peaceful atheist picnic'. Or, 'Insane evangelical fundamentalist Gordon E. Mullings of Montserrat murders random people on the street, while shouting ATHEIST NAZIS! and some gibberish about Plato!'. Or, 'Right wing fanatic Glenn Beck busted at secret meeting with Intelligent Design promoters, plotting to kill all non-believers!'

Or, 'Denyse O'Leary, Canadian female impersonator and pseudo-journalist, found to be ringleader of Intelligent Design terrorist cell!' Or, 'Intelligent Design proponents William Dembski, Clive Hayden, Gil Dodgen, Troy D. Hailey, and an insane asylum escapee known only as "Mung" arrested for plotting world takeover and public circle jerk in the name of Jesus!'.

Blithering IDiot

My responses are in bold type.




10:28 pm

Damn! Ever since I got religion and figured out that Darwinism is junk pseudoscience I’ve obviously lost at least 20 points of IQ.

gildo, you grossly underestimate your ongoing deterioration.

Just think of what I could have done in aerospace R&D software engineering if I had just remained an atheist and bowed at Darwin’s altar!

Oh, so now you're claiming that being a religious IDiot, bowing at your imaginary god's altar, somehow helps with aerospace R&D software engineering? Maybe you can describe how?

And gildo, how many times are you going to bore the readers at UD with your braggadocios self promotion? By the way, you apparently forgot to bring up your alleged piano playing skills. I'm thinking that playing 'chopsticks' would be too demanding for you.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

kairosfocus, the dehumanizer

kairosfocus said:

"Experts attribute the destructive nature of anonymous online mobs to group dynamics, saying that groups with homogeneous views tend to become more extreme as members reinforce each other’s beliefs, they fail to see themselves as individuals, so they lose a sense of personal responsibility for their destructive acts, they dehumanize their victims, which makes them more willing to behave destructively, and they become more aggressive when they believe they are supported by authority figures."


Damn, did he describe himself and the rest of the IDiots on UD, or what? Whether "anonymous" or not, the homogeneous IDiot mob at UD claims to have support from "God", the ultimate 'authority figure', and they have certainly lost any sense of personal responsibility for their destructive nature (if they ever had any, which I doubt). And no one tries harder to "dehumanize their victims" than gordy and the rest of the IDiots do.

Monday, July 25, 2011

My ancestors were apes

On UD, eocene said:

But more importantly as the old saying goes , “a picture is worth a thousand words.” This of course brings us to every illustration depicting some type of imaginary Ape-type human ancestor with the vivid imagination of a Soothsaying Darwinist who colours the artwork of the half human half animal creature with Negroid features. Seriously, why are all these transitionals given African features ???

My other comment was – “they unconsciously do anyway when they promote all those racist evolutionary graphs & charts which depict someone from Africa with a Negroid background as being the living transitional proof between white Europeans and Apes.”

So again, the illustrations speak for themselves. Now tell me these pics have no effect on the minds and hearts of young people in schools across the planet ??? I can tell you for a fact that African Students I work with hate it.


Tell me, eocene, what should the "transitional(s)" look like or be depicted as? Bright white skinned, red haired, freckled, green eyed people wearing business suits?

I'm white, and it doesn't bother me at all that my prehistoric ancestors were "Negroid" or apes. The evidence amassed so far strongly supports human origin in Africa, and if you look at people native/indigenous to Africa, they're "Negroid" and have "Negroid" features. It's simply a fact. Colors of skin and some other features are just variations within the human species.

Going farther back, we're all related to a fish, and some of them are darker or lighter than others. So what? Should scientists depict all prehistoric fish as having light colored skin just to satisfy your weird hangups about race?

The whole 'racist' thing causes a huge problem with science, and especially with the pursuit and explanation of our origins and evolution. To not offend the ridiculous demands of many people, scientists are expected to deny or modify the truth and walk on eggshells, for fear of pissing off people who are either way too sensitive about race, or get bent out of shape when it's shown that we evolved from an ape. NO WAY! WE WERE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, BY GOD! WE'RE SPECIAL AND SUPERIOR TO APES AND EVERYTHING ELSE!

Here's a question for you, eocene:

Since humans come in a variety of colors and other features, which 'race' and features correctly represents the image of god? And exactly which person of that 'race' most accurately represents the image of god?

When any of your "African" students have a problem with the way our ancestors are depicted by science, you should tell them that the depictions are based on the study of the features of the skeletons and the evidence of our origin in Africa.

It's pretty funny that you racist and species-ist godbots are quick to notice and point out the differences between humans and apes, and loudly proclaim that humans are vastly superior to apes and all other life forms, and that humans are the only life forms that are made by god in his image, but when science simply points out the fossil and genetic evidence of our origin and evolution, and depicts the "transitional(s)" as having "transitional" color and other features, you get all huffy and have a tantrum. You're a racist, and so is everyone else who thinks they're above the evidence.

Liar for god

kairosfocus shat: "... remember the fulminations of TWT et al and their thereat made against my family only a few weeks back?"

From here (number 25):


As I've said before, gordon e. mullings is a blatant, willful liar. I made NO threats against his family. Notice too that he says "et al and their thereat" (sic).

gordon e. mullings, I challenge you to produce evidence that I or anyone else threatened your family "only a few weeks back", or that I EVER threatened your family. Put up or shut up, and retract your accusations and apologize, you lying piece of shit.

I submitted this on gordy's blog too. Of course the lying coward won't publish it.

I also submitted a comment telling him what I think about him using the shooting and bombing in Norway to bash "Darwinism" and to promote his insane religious agenda. Of course that comment won't be published either.

A very interesting read

Aw, isn't she a sweet catholic?

dense o'leary puked:

"I am not the least concerned with credibility."

"I’m for legalism and fear, myself."

For more fire and brimstone (and massive dishonesty and hypocrisy from o'leary), see this:

Be sure to read her comment number 5 too.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Go live like a caveman then, ilion




7:47 pm

‘Science’ is a toy for little boys … men do philosophy. And theology.


He says that while enjoying and benefiting from all the things that science has discovered, accomplished, and provided.

Wouldn't it be great to take all the religious IDiots and put them on a very remote, inhospitable island, with absolutely no benefits or traces of anything that science has ever discovered, accomplished, or provided? In other words, the religious IDiots, who love to bash and dismiss science would have only their naked bodies and whatever natural resources the island had to offer, including the dangerous natural resources.

Picture it. A group of marooned bible-thumping IDiots, with no bibles, and absolutely nothing but their own delusional beliefs and hatred of science, left to their own abilities (or lack thereof) to fend for themselves without any help or benefits from science in any way whatsoever. How long do you think it would take for them to either die, or use whatever scientific means they could think of to make it possible for them to survive?

I would really like to see them volunteer for such a situation, to test their 'faith', and see them rely on prayer and other religious bullshit for survival, with the promise that they wouldn't use anything but philosophy and theology. Enforcers could be sent to the island at times to make sure that the science hating IDiots are relying only on philosophy and theology for survival.

The IDiots wouldn't last a week.

an example of christian goodness




5:30 pm

Most cultures around the world generally find the design argument compelling. It with primarily white men that live in the US and England that get their panties in a bunch over it. Take a look at the new atheists from an ethnicity and economic perspective, basically they are all a bunch of well off cracker ass honkeys from the US and England.


From here:

Yeah, I'm being sarcastic about "goodness".

ilion, lower than the lowest scum

troy-boy (ilion) said: "one has the multi-faceted duty to have done “due diligence” with respect to determining the truth of and establishing the rational warrant of the things one chooses to assert are true … and moreso when chooses to attack those who offer cogent criticism of the assertions."

Now, if only troy-boi would live up to his own words.

I see that you're running from Patrick too, troy-boi. Your extreme cowardice is obvious.

You're quickly showing yourself to be as crazy and cowardly as kairosfocus and the rest of the gang of IDiots on UD. Like them, you're a gutless malignant narcissist with delusions of god-hood.

When I try to figure out how anyone could be as sanctimonious and dishonest as you are I of course have to consider the fact that you were born with an inverted penis, no balls, and a deranged mind, and are still in that condition.

Apparently that makes you extremely angry and frustrated, so you take it out on anyone who doesn't suffer from such debilitating physical and mental problems.

Your jealousy of others, who are superior to you, is obvious in every word you speak. Your inferiority and childishness, along with your arrogance and self-righteousness make you a miserable, unlikable freak.

You lack all of the qualities that make a person deserving of respect and friendliness. Your behavior is grossly despicable and destructive, and behaving as you do in the name of christianity makes your malicious words and actions even more deplorable, dishonest, and hypocritical.

You, and people like you, are lower than the scum of the Earth. Much lower.

You're a liar, a deceiver, a pompous blowhard, a sanctimonious uneducated turd, a chicken-shit crybaby, and a disgrace to humanity and your religion. The world would be way better off without you and your ilk.

For some exampls of ilion's hypocrisy, dishonesty, and arrogance, see this thread:

Outing, privacy, and gordy's tirades

Is everyone aware of the NUMEROUS times that kairosfocus has flipped out because someone used his real name (gordon e. mullings) in a comment? Is everyone aware of the NUMEROUS tirades kairosfocus has projectile vomited about him and his family being 'outed' and their 'privacy' invaded? Is everyone aware of the ridiculous, unlawful reproduction/permission notices he posts on the pages of his websites?

Well, lookey what I found:

"Gordon Mullings

A telling point!
I find it interesting that people who VOLUNTARILY disclose all sorts of information in public [including titillating dress and behaviour, as well as statements and financial matters] then wish to control the use of that information.
To a certain extent there is a legitimate claim to confidentiality and to civility and basic decency and respect.
But when the same culture is busily imposing the view that anything goes and right/wrong and truth/falsehood are mere convention or perception backed by social power, what is happening is a fundamental inconsistency in relativism is being exposed.
Grace to all"

"Gordon Mullings

KTK [And David]:
An interesting point or two. Your We have fallen into the habit of using the word “privacy” to mean “freedom from interference” is a key insight. David picker it up with his: Many people confuse privacy and freedom . . . Privacy must be sacrificed in order for freedom to flourish.
As I argued in the thread in which the SWIFT programme came up, we need to distinguish what is properly private from what is CONFIDENTIAL or at a higher level, CLASSIFIED.
The former is immediately sacrificed once we voluntarily disclose information to a third party, e.g. to set up a checquing account or make a major bank transfer or take up a big loan, or seek advice and help from pastor, psychologist or doctor. But these in turn have a duty of not disclosing sensitive information to those who do not have a legitimate right to it, especially if they may use it for harm.
As David points out to Suzi, too,if one deceives by holding back legitimately required disclosure, it imposes a cost on others that is undue."

gordy has VOLUNTARILY posted his name (gordon e. mullings), his place of residence, (Montserrat), information about his family and friends, information about his work/projects/agenda/beliefs, etc., in many PUBLIC places on the internet, yet he wishes (actually expects and demands) to control the use of that information.

His comments above are from here (scroll down a bit when you go to this page):,+2006+%E2%80%93+Gordon+Mullings.+Joe:+A+telling+point!+I+find+it+interesting+that+people+who+VOLUNTARILY+disclose+all+sorts+of+information+in+public&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1

Hey kairosfocus

Do these words look familiar?

"F: Consistent Score 7 or less: Do not trust this source, period. Warn others about the evident distortion, bias, deception and agenda. If the source has significant institutional power and is unwilling to be corrected, make the creation of an alternative that will consistently correct and expose the errors and agenda a top priority."

How about? >

"Straight or Spin?"

And? >

"Is the presented information: (1) accurate, (2) fair, (3) kind and (4) balanced?"

And? >

"agenda-driven (and not truth-driven, nor fair-minded in assessing claimed facts, nor even truth-seeking)"

And? >

"So, the question in their minds is not what is true, fair, gracious or balanced, but whose spin -- thus, whose agenda -- will prevail. The resulting ruthless deception and manipulation are all too apparent to those with even a modicum of the background context that allows us to sense when we are seeing propagandistic spin rather than straight news and commentary. If deception and distortion continue to prevail, the destructive consequences, too, will be all too apparent."

And? >

"I therefore trust that being so fore-warned, we will be fore-armed to personally address the issues of interest to us with a critically aware eye that first seeks those things that are true, fair, just, virtuous, wise, praiseworthy and of good report"


Well, gordy, I think that those words should be seriously considered when reading anything else you write.

It's revealing that you never apply your stated 'standards' to yourself. You obviously think that you're exempt from what you expect and demand from others. That's typical of a god-bot.

busted lying

kairosfocus: "BTW, the only rape accused I have ever known and attended the trial of...."

From comment number 154 in this thread:

kairosfocus: "...I have dealt with incest-rape cases too..."

From comment number 49 in this thread:

"the only", and then "cases" (plural).

Saturday, July 23, 2011

(more added) gordon e. mullings of Montserrat is a SERIAL RAPIST

By their own description of what rape is, ALL of the IDiots on "Uncommon Descent" are SERIAL RAPISTS, and especially gordon e. mullings (kairosfocus). gordon e. mullings of Montserrat is the most serialistic rapist on UD, but he is followed by his fellow serial rapists on UD so closely that it's a virtual tie amongst them all.

Every day the IDiot rapists BRUTALLY and MALICIOUSLY RAPE Charles Darwin, Darwinists, Darwinism, naturalists, materialists, atheists, agnostics, liberals, nihilists, theistic evolutionists, evolutionists, astronomers, scientists, science, evolutionary theory, the theory of evolution, evolutionary biology, accommodationists, the truth, and selected teachers/professors, schools and school administrators, authors/writers, peer reviewers, book reviewers, journals, journalists, publishers, bloggers, philosophers, thinkers, politicians, government officials, physicists, theorists, researchers, other religions, and anyone else they want to willfully victimize.

Their sadistic and vicious propensity for the SERIAL RAPE of the people or ideas they disagree with shows how perverted and unrepentant they are. They should write letters of profound apology to every person they've ever raped and they should publish profound apologies regarding the ideas they constantly rape in all newspapers, magazines, journals, and relevant websites every day for at least ten years. They should also write letters of profound apology to Charles Darwin and personally place the letters and fresh bouquets of flowers on Darwin's grave every day for at least ten years. While at his grave they should get down on their knees and beg for forgiveness from Darwin and his supporters and solemnly promise to never rape him, anyone else, or anything else, ever again. They should also pay substantial restitution to the many, many people they have RAPED.

The IDiots on UD are also scurrilous and slanderous, which makes them SCURRILOUS, SLANDEROUS, SERIAL RAPISTS of the worst kind. Shame on them!

Oh, and since Darwin and some of the other people they constantly RAPE are dead, they're also necrophiliacs. Double shame on them!!

How do you like dem apples, gordy, and all you other IDiots? :)

See this thread:

Pay special notice to comment number 36 by kairosfocus, and the subsequent comments by kairosfocus and others. There are also some relevant comments on the uncommonly dense thread on ATBC.

Keep in mind that barry arrington is a bloviating, dishonest asshole and that he hasn't shown any actual evidence that the alleged incident ever occurred, or any evidence of both sides of the story if it did occur. Also notice that arrington doesn't respond to any comments in the thread and that he doesn't chide kairosfocus for his accusation of "rape" against the professor or any of gordy's other asinine and accusatory remarks. barry arrington just spun a one sided story and then sat back and watched the other IDiots stoke the fire.

arrington is a lawyer, yet everything he said about the alleged incident is hearsay. What kind of lawyer would publicly post such a one sided, accusatory, steaming pile of hearsay shit? A delusional, dishonest, fairy tale promoting, bible-thumping, reality hating, insane IDiot, of course.

Friday, July 22, 2011

dung from mung

mung likes to play childish games, and insult and accuse Elizabeth Liddle and other people who don't worship his every word, which is typical behavior of the IDiots on UD. And like the rest of the IDiots, mung thinks he's ALWAYS right.

mung's own words show that he doesn't know the slightest thing about anything, except that he knows how to be a belligerent, uneducated, two-faced, ignorant narcissist who argues just for the sake of arguing. The traits he shows are just like the ones the other IDiots posses and show. Being an insufferable, inbred asshole is obviously a prerequisite for being an IDiot.

IDiots all have superiority complexes and look down on anyone who doesn't worship them and their delusional, religion-based assertions. They believe that they get their authority and righteousness directly from their chosen god (and many think they are a god) and that they have the absolute 'god-given' right to dictate what others should think, believe, and do.

To them, their beliefs and agenda are so perfect that they are deaf in advance and they won't tolerate any opinion, belief, or fact that is or may be contrary to their own self-righteous beliefs and agenda. The only reason they want to fuck with science is because scientific discoveries are or may be a threat to their delusions. The fact that they're so afraid of science, and so hateful of it, clearly demonstrates their insecurity about their beliefs. In other words, they know their beliefs are bullshit, but they are desperate to protect them anyway. Trembling fear of reality, knowledge, and death, and the belief that they are superior to all other living things ('made in the image of god'), underlies their every thought and behavior.

It's pretty obvious that many of them spend virtually all of their time on UD or other sites because they have no life, no friends, and no worthwhile purpose. I'm so glad that I'm not kairosfocus, bornagain77, dense o'leary, mung, uptightbiped, gildodgen, vjtorley, pav, ilion, or any other IDiot. It must be extremely unfulfilling to exist, but not live a rewarding, fruitful, happy life. To be obsessed with their belief in ancient fairy tales and the agenda to spread those fairy tales and inject them into every aspect of everyone's life, and to push people away in the process, must be debilitating.

I don't feel a bit sorry for them though. They are adults and they choose to be the way they are. In fact, they are the ones who constantly claim to have free will, and they exercise it by being the biggest assholes they can possibly be. Of course there are lots of assholes in the world with many kinds of beliefs, or none, but religious zealots (IDiots) are as bad as any. They commit their dishonesty, hypocrisy, sanctimony, and pomposity from a self-erected pulpit of self-proclaimed righteousness, and they selfishly believe that they are specially selected and appointed by their chosen god to carry out his will.

Even if I had no other reasons to reject religion, the behavior of many religious people and especially that of the IDiots/creationists would be more than enough to push me away from religion. The last thing I would want is to be allied with such two-faced, dishonest, arrogant, paranoid, despicable narcissists.

IDiots and other religious wackos think that they should be in charge of everything and dictate all the rules, but if they were in charge we would either all be dead, or exist like peons under religious tyrannical domination.

same old, same old

See these threads:

Take special notice of all the comments by kairosfocus, and keep in mind his constant complaints about 'drumbeat repetition of rhetorical talking points'.

Is there anything gordo won't stoop to to demonize people who don't kiss his sanctimonious, lying, accusatory ass?

gpuccio, homo idioticus

gpuccio says:

"Remember again, science is about known facts, not fairy tales or dogmatic hopes and beliefs."


Then why do you IDiots want to cram your fairy tales or dogmatic hopes and beliefs into science? Why do you IDiots call your so-called "theory" or "inference", which is just a religious/political agenda, "scientific"? What exactly are the "known facts" in your dogmatic religious fairy tales and in "ID theory"? You are the ones acting on "blind faith".


See number 150 here:

Thursday, July 21, 2011

More bullshit claims, no evidence or facts

vjtorley says:

"For example, I have defined dFSCI in a completely empirical way, using the empirical concept of a conscious intelligent being both to define design and to define functional specification, two key steps of my definition. And yet, no metaphisical theory of consciousness is required for that, only the practical acceptance of the fact that conscious intelligent agents exist, that they can be observed either directly (inwardly) or indirectly, that conscious processes can be described and that common words we use (meaning, purpose, function) have a well defined correspondence with specific observed subjective conscious representations, while they cannot be defined objectively in any way.

This is all empirical, for me. Observed facts, and reasonable inferences on the observed facts. The only important point is that I include consciousness and its representations in the observed facts. And I am very happy with that.


Hey vince, I'm still waiting for you IDiots to calculate the alleged dFSCI in a banana (or CSI, FSCI, FSCO/I, or whatever other bogus term you IDiots are using this week).

By the way, vince, have you ever observed (factually) a demon, an angel, and a spirit?

You do say:

"Angels, for instance, can do nothing but know and choose. The love they have for God is a choice; it is devoid of passion. Demons’ wills, by contrast, have been fixed in hate ever since their Fall from grace."

"A human being isn’t a spirit, but a human being has a spirit. However, this spirit is also the form of a living body – which is why we can do so many other things apart from thinking an choosing."

"Second, a spirit doesn’t have a location as such; nevertheless it can be said to be wherever its power extends."

"spirits – good and bad – are quite real"

And I have to add this statement from you so that others can have a good laugh too:

"For my part, I don’t equate personal identity to brain identity. If my head could be transplanted to someone else’s body, I don’t think it would be me. I think my identity is bound up with my nervous system as well as my brain, and if someone’s brain were transplanted into my body, I think that body would still be me."

If anyone wants to see how insane vince is, and what his actual (religious) agenda is, look here:

He says on UD: "Third, spirits – good and bad – are quite real. You want evidence? Take a look at this":

joe g., the muslim creationist IDiot

joe g., john paul, joseph, and ID guy are all the same person. Here's an exchange between joe and someone named crystal on (link below):

John Paul

* Member
* PipPipPip

* Group: Banned
* Posts: 241
* Joined: 08-June 05
* Age: 44
* Muslim
* Creationist
* Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 05:01 AM

crystal: Uh, that's a bit confusing to me. You're NOT a Christian, but you're a creationist? Maybe I'll find out later what that means after I read some more of your posts John Paul.

Creationists come in many denominations. I happen to be a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam. I know of Hindu Creationists. Islam, Judaism, and Christiantity all share Abraham and they all share Genesis.

Creation is not a Christian thing. I also know of IDists that are agnostic...


Yet joe said elsewhere: "Creation has a specific definition and is based on the Bible."


The exchange with crystal is from here:

The statement from joe about creation being based on the bible is from this page (toward the bottom):

Read that whole page if you want to see joe-boi playing his usual dishonest games.

gordy the IDiot creationist

"The Bible has much to say about God's intimate relationship with the world. And it is not, as Professor MacKay has shown so clearly in ‘Science and Christian Faith today’, the relationship of mechanic to machine; God is rather the One who holds the whole universe in being. He upholds the whole universe 'by his word of power', says Hebrews l :3. 'In him we live and move and have our being' quotes Acts 17:28, 'since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything' (Acts 17.25). 'Every single thing was created through, and for, him. He is both the first principle and the upholding principle of the whole scheme of creation' (Colossians I :16, 17, Phillips). That and nothing less is the Christian conception of God. He is at work in the natural processes of growth just as he is present in human personality - for 'we are indeed his offspring (Acts 17: 29). And this creating and sustaining God, who is not less than personal (however much beyond personality he may be), desires a personal relationship with every man, woman and child in this world, as the beings who most nearly reflect his own nature, and yet have the power of rejecting him."

From this link on his blog:

And this:

"God is the eternal, holy, perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, loving Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, who made humanity in his image, to be his stewards of the earth."

"We hardly need to detain ourselves with the circular argument that miracles are “impossible” because they violate “exceptionless laws of nature.” For, why should it be “impossible” for the All-Powerful, All-Wise Creator of the cosmos to sometimes act beyond the usual course of nature as we — all too fallibly — perceive it?"

From here:

There's lots more. Just go to his blog and click on the links on the right hand side:

gordy's actual agenda


"2.1 Ministry Strategy: Our evangelistic, follow-up, discipling, nurturing/pastoral and general outreach ministries should work together to encourage, train and coordinate disciples who progressively understand and apply the above fulness of Christ agenda to every activity, relationship and involvement in their lives, communities, nations and world."

"Therefore, let us break out of the mentality of sitting in pews and passively receiving from the few "Ministers" within the four walls of "the House of God." Instead, let us follow the NT: penetrate and disciple our communities as the Spirit-energised and gifted body of Christ, coached and coordinated by teams of leaders given by Christ to the church for its maturation, as we work to fill "all things" with Christ."

"People in the community can be reached through natural links: family, friends, workplace; the street, mall, market or other places where people come together; institutions, homes and neighbourhoods, interests, and needs."

"In our teaching, training and working, the call to serve Christ lovingly as a member of the body must come first. This call speaks into each sphere of life: in family, church, community and world. Gifts are manifested as we serve Christ (often so quietly that they may not be explicitly recognised), working as a supernatural inspiration or empowering that transforms the quality of our loving service beyond merely human skill, wisdom, dedication or good intentions. [Cf. 2 Sam. 23:1 - 4, in context.]"

"Content is critical. In the win phase of the discipling cycle, the truth of the gospel and how to respond to it by receiving Jesus as Lord and Saviour are the central issues. In the nurture phase, first the consolidation of commitment and then basic service and leadership should be emphasised -- for all Christians, with a small group/team focus. [Cf. Heb. 5:11, 12 & 2 Tim. 2:2.] As disciples begin to grow in spirituality and service, the question of calling and sending out in service in family, church and community naturally leads to a lifetime focus on general leadership and specific areas of service, ranging from family life, church auxiliary and artform-based team ministry to serving in business, education, the professions and prophetic/intercessory involvement in the public policy/political arena, including serving in missionary teams or other full time Christian service. In particular, major intellectual, ethical, apologetics, media and public policy issues must be systematically and vigorously tackled, to multiply the effectiveness of disciples in the battle to fill the culture with Christ."

"Then, over time, systematically targetting age- and life- stage groups, cultures and languages, we could extend the system. Thus, gradually, we would develop a "School Without Walls" discipling network, first across our region, then perhaps globally [with the aid of the Internet], especially in the two-thirds world."

"Our point of departure is the insight that the church "is [Christ's] body, the fulness of him who fills everything in every way." Indeed, Jesus came, descending, serving, dying for our sins, rising and ascending "higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe." Accordingly, he has given us leaders -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, "to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up . . . attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ. . . . as each part does its work." Thus, Christ, working through the church, is an inexorably rising tide in history, overwhelming an increasingly desperate satanic chaos. Sadly, this picture too often must rebuke present praxis, which is Theatre-like -- performers, stage and audience, suffers from our history of divisiveness and isolation from positively impacting "real-world" culture, and tends to slip into Apocalyptic speculation, fatalism and escapism. Therefore there is significant need for repentance, reconciliation and renewal as we seek to obey our Lord and Saviour."

"Operationally, small outreach, nurture and ministry groups, ideally starting with the family (the paradigm), will facilitate mobilisation, training and coordination as we seek to win, nurture and send out effective disciples to fill the world with Christ. Such groups work best when they are balanced by being integrated into larger scale church networks, in a context emphasising the unity of the church and repenting from our all too pervasive sectarian betrayal of the gospel. Given the lack of systematic, biblical, non-abusive discipleship training systems and networks, a need for training development and consultancy teams is recognised, as is the power of modern technology to accelerate and amplify our efforts, though these technologies also heighten the threat of hostile surveillance."

"Thus, the Fulness Vision leads to a powerful biblical integrated strategy for renewing the church and obeying our mandate to disciple the nations. May we, by God's grace, receive wisdom and strength to fulfil it."


All science so far!

Want to read some crazy shit?

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Try that with a banana, gordy




11:59 am

PS: Here’s my FSCI test. Generate true and flat random binary digits, feeding them into an ASCII text reader. Compare against say the Gutenberg library for code strings. Find out how long of a valid string you are going to get. So far, the results are up to 20 – 24 characters, picking from a space of 10^50 or so. We are looking at spaces of 10^150 and more.


When someone uses or suggests using a computer and a computer program to model or test evolution, or any particular aspect of evolution, gordy, at last resort, will claim that computers and their programs are not biological and cannot rightfully be used to model, simulate, or test biological evolution. But, when he argues his insane claims, he uses nothing but non-biological things, like computers and their programs and code, readers, mathematical equations, alleged probabilities based on guesswork and made-up math, etc., to do so.

He has NEVER personally examined, studied, or tested any organism in nature. He has NEVER spent any time in nature, learning about nature. He has NEVER worked in a biology lab. He has NEVER published a scientific paper or a book on biology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, history, or anything else, but he thinks he's the ultimate expert on all those things and everything else.

He has NEVER observed, studied, tested, calculated, or determined the alleged CSI, FSCI, or FSCO/I in any living thing or anything else in nature. EVERYTHING he claims comes strictly from his delusional imagination, which is entirely based on his creationist christian religious beliefs, and on his hatred, fear, and ignorance of science and reality.

Hey gordo, how many "true and flat random binary digits" are there in a banana, a frog, a galaxy, a rock, a bird, a river, a volcano, a fish, a tree, a black hole, your drool, and a butterfly? And how much alleged CSI, FSCI, or FSCO/I is there in those things?

Here's a comment from Indium on UD:



12:10 pm

Why do you always talk about letters and not about real biological objects. Go ahead and demonstrate how gpuccios dfcsi definition can be put to work.

And here is gordy's response:




12:28 pm


Why is it you “never” follow the links or pointers to the places where I do deal with biosystems, e.g. the citations on Durston et al and related calcs in the OP above?

Why do you erect and knock over strawmen arguments, in other words?

I give cases from text to illustrate patterns that coded text faces whether it is biological or technological or human in origin. The relative rarity of meaningful or functional complex coded strings is a capital case in point; as compared to the space of all possible configs.

Remember, for a conceptual 100 k base genome, we are looking at 4^100,000 = 9.98*10^60,205 possibilities. the Planck time resources of the observed cosmos — 10^150 states — could not sample more than 1 in 10^60,000+ of that.

So, unless functional states are absolutely overwhelmingly abundant to the point where they are practically falling off the tree into our hands, we have a zero scope search for a needle in a haystack problem. And, we know from the decades of observation of coded digital strings that meaningful strings are credibly going to be quite rare.

I think you will see that if you start with say 3-letter clusters you can easily go like:

rat — cat — bat — mat — eat — ear — car, etc.

(I have given this or similar examples many times. The fatal errors in Zachriel’s example are that he is plainly intelligently directing the process and is relying on short words where the function is easy to bridge; so the analogy breaks down very rapidly. When you have to do a real world system control, you are not going to get it to fit into 70 or 130 bytes or so, not to control a serious system, never mind one that is going to be self-replicating. I am sick of strawman arguments.)

But just you try the same with 73 ASCII letter strings that need to be meaningful every time.

Try changing the first 73 letters of this post into say the last 73, preserving meaningfulness every step of the way.

In short as string length — a measure of complexity — is increased, and functional specificity is required, the functional strings become naturally far more isolated.



Notice that gordy refers to work done by others and that he doesn't reference any work done by himself on any organisms. Also notice that he just adds more made-up math and other gobbledegook.

And isn't it funny that when he's asked to actually apply his claims to "real biological objects", he instantly accuses Indium of erecting and knocking over strawmen arguments, and also says "I am sick of strawman arguments". That right there should tell everyone everything they need to know about gordy's evasive, dishonest, childish games and the fallacy of CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCO/I, the EF, and any other ID claims. It's ALL bullshit.

Asking IDiots to apply their claims to "real biological objects" is NOT a "strawman".

gordy is a 'fine tuned' obnoxious gasbag




4:55 pm

F/N: I have responded to DM’s intemperate remarks at 20 above, in the proper thread, here at no 68. DM is hereby notified of his status if he refuses to clean up his act: Strike Two. GEM of TKI


What happens at strike three, gordo? Will DM cross the 'nuclear threshold'? Will you stomp your feet and wail like a baby like you always do? Will you report him to Scotland Yard, Interpol, and the local police, just for not kissing your sanctimonious ass? Will you repeat for the millionth time your whiny tirade about ruthless factions, Lewontin, Sagan, communists, nazis, Stalinists, Marxists, Darwinists, materialists, jack boots, internet thuggery, mafioso style threats, and all that other insane blather you love to projectile vomit?

Will you also shout Bydand and proclaim yourself to be the noble guardian of all that is moral and good, taking a stand on the hill, even though you're actually just a lying, amoral, chicken-shit sissy that hides behind a protective wall of blocking and banning at your chosen sanctuary UD? Will you call for the public stoning or burning of DM and all others who don't worship you?

Your meek, loving, humble christianity is just gushing out of you.

humans and tube worms

kairosfocus loves to go on and on about the alleged fine tuning of the cosmos, and planet Earth. Other IDiots do the same thing.

gordy, like other religious zealots, assumes that humans are the ultimate being and that everything was created and fine tuned for human life, by his chosen (christian) god. Since most or all IDiots and other religious zealots think that there's no life, and especially human life, beyond the Earth, I find it strange that they would argue that the entire cosmos (universe) is fine tuned for life.

Now, let's take a look at some so-called 'fine tuning' for human life, and other life.

Here on the Earth there are many environments that would instantly kill any human, yet other creatures, and/or plants, bacteria, viruses, etc., live and thrive in them. For instance, if gordy were instantly transported to a black smoker deep in the ocean he would die a sudden, violent death. If the tube worms that live on black smokers were instantly transported to the surface they would die a sudden, violent death.

If gordy were instantly transported to our moon, or to Saturn, or Mars, or Mercury, or Europa, etc., etc., etc., he would die a sudden and violent death. If any organism that may live on another planet or moon in the cosmos were instantly transported to the Earth, it would die a sudden, violent death unless the conditions it was transported to on the Earth were just like the conditions at the location it came from.

If gordy were instantly transported to a planet or moon in another galaxy, he would die a sudden, violent death unless the location on that planet or moon that he's transported to is just like a livable (for humans) environment on the Earth.

So, is the cosmos or the Earth fine tuned for life, and especially human life, or does life adapt (evolve) to survive in some niches?

And if the Earth was fine tuned for humans, why didn't "God" provide houses, cars and trucks, paved roads, grocery stores, brothels, theaters, restaurants, cell phones, TV sets, airplanes, ships, submarines, cameras, electric lights, heaters, matches and lighters, razors, video games, trains, bulldozers, wrenches, screwdrivers, microscopes, wheels, medicines, government buildings, business buildings, bridges, liquor, porn, churches, computers, guns, bombs, cartoons, dildos, tampons, toilet paper, eye glasses, wheel chairs, lawn mowers, velcro, super glue, schools, cigarettes, beer, crayons, baseballs, shoes, clothes, bars, violins, trombones, false teeth, mini-skirts, bras, stop signs, communication satellites, gps units, maps, books, DVD players, radios, lipstick, back braces, clocks, ipods, hats, air conditioners, outboard motors, sneeze guards, buttons, zippers, deodorant, tooth paste, beds, furniture, carpet, refrigerators and other appliances, lasers, medical equipment, paper, pots and pans, forks, spoons, cups, cans and can openers, bottles, sun screen, disinfectants, refined fuels, refined metals, toilets, and everything else we need or want right from the start?

ilion and mung should get a room

ilion said:

"Mung: “But wouldn’t that entail that Darwinism is necessarily a metaphysical argument?”

Only for the past 150 or so years.

“God wouldn’t have done it that way” and “A tidy-minded Designer wouldn’t have done it that way” are not scientific statements or arguments."


In that case, "God did it that way", and "The designer did it that way", are not scientific statements or arguments either.

What goes around, comes around.

huffing and puffing




7:47 am

Dr Liddle:

Pardon, but how many times have we had to go over misreadings of the design filter, the sequence of its nodes, and the point that the inferences are (1) hi/lo contingency then (2) presence/absence of FSCI?



Hey gordo, I applied the explanatory filter to you and it determined that you're an obsessive/compulsive, malignant narcissist with delusions of god-hood. It also says that your nodes are moldy and diseased, that your agenda is contingent (dependent) on religious fairy tales, and that your brain contains no FSCI. I guess it works well after all.

uptight repugnant asshole

uptightbiped said: "What can be said to someone who simply refuses the observations? What can be said to someone who summarily rejects the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for? Honestly, what else can be said?"

Well, uptight, since that person is you (and your IDiot comrades), how about FUCK YOU? Your dishonest, childish games are the problem, not Elizabeth Liddle's reasonable and immensely patient quest for an IDiot's definition of information.

And to show what a liar and repugnant asshole you are (as if it needed any more confirmation) here are a couple of your recent, contradictory comments:

"In any case, I have come to the end of my contributions in trying to describe the phenomena of information."

"..................... With that said, I thank you for the talk and bid you farewell."

And after Dr. Liddle continued to try to work out an agreeable definition of information, with no response from you, she asked: "Well, as Upright BiPed has lost interest, is anyone else interested in taking up my challenge?" to which you responded with:

"Dr Liddle, your characterization of my involvement in this conversation as “having lost interest” is not only patently opportunistic, it is also intellectually repugnant. It is exactly the kind of output from Darwinian ideologues that has been documented at UD for years on end, even if those putting it up are nice little old ladies practicing neuroscience in the United Kingdom.

In truth, my wife and I have had a medical emergency with our 21 year old daughter for the past two days, and is it happens, concerning myself with some tomography and a spinal tap was slightly higher on my list than debating with you."

So, uptightshitface, you lost interest (actually ran away because you weren't getting away with your ridiculous games), but when it was correctly pointed out that you lost interest you made up another story just so that you could insult EL and "Darwinian ideologues" even more, and try to blame her for not being a psychic (telepathically knowing that your alleged daughter was allegedly ill). What's "repugnant" is you using your alleged daughter as an excuse for your own cowardice and stupidity.

I say that you're making the whole spinal tap story up, and that you're a childish brat who is pissed and having a tantrum because you aren't smart enough to even define the "information" you IDiots claim is in living things, that is allegedly detectable, measurable, and demonstrable by using the so-called "ID theory".

One way or another, both of your excuses for leaving can't be true, and you're only responding again now because you're a jerk who wants the last IDiotic word.

And I see that you've conjured up yet another term, "recorded information", and you say:

"At the very start of this conversation, I made the remark that the search for an operational definition is just as fallible as any other of man’s good ideas. Dr Liddle wondered at the time what I meant by that. Apparently it never occurred to her that asking the questions might not be the problem. In any case, it should not go un-noticed that the person who is struggling against all odds to find a way to detect recorded information is the same Dr Liddle who ignores how it has been found before – every time it’s been found before."

You IDiots are the ones struggling against all odds to weasel out of having any of your claims tested, and it has certainly been noticed by science and its supporters.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to at least define the information you claim can be detected, measured, calculated, and demonstrated by using "ID theory"? It's obvious that you don't think so, and that's why your so-called 'theory' will never be scientific or accepted by science.

jonathan m., god-zombie

My responses below are in bold type.

I clicked on his user name on and it took me here:

There, I found this:

Definition of Intelligent Design

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Which IDiots exactly are actually doing "study and analysis of a system's components" to "determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof", and especially novel research that doesn't rely in any way on what real scientists have researched? And if ID is a "scientific research program", why are "philosophers and other scholars" involved?

"....a design theorist is able to determine...."

A "design theorist" is a religious wacko who can't determine jack shit.

"Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act."

That's a laugh! You IDiots won't even agree on a definition for "information". And what "research"? Attacking Darwin, science, scientists, science supporters, and atheists isn't "research", and neither is spewing religious nonsense.

What "intelligent agents"? Remember, you're talking about "various natural structures". Assuming intelligent agents (which of course, to you IDiots, is the alleged christian god and/or his elves) isn't "scientific".

"Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties...."

Hey, wait a minute. I though you religious kooks claim that your chosen god created and designed EVERYTHING! Why would only some "objects" or "natural structures" have "informational properties" that are or were designed, or have "informational properties" that allegedly support your crazy religious agenda called "ID theory"?

"Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design....."

What "scientific methods"? You don't have or use any "scientific methods". You can't even calculate the alleged "CSI" in a banana. You IDiots haven't "applied" ANY "scientific methods".

"...the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe..."

What? There's life throughout the universe? Doesn't that go against the bible and other religious beliefs and claims?

"....the Cambrian explosion...."

The so-called "explosion" took many millions of years.

Also on that site:

"Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it."

Which is EXACTLY what many of you IDiots do, or you dismiss and denigrate science entirely!

One more thing from that site:

"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?"

Only in your dreams.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

thomas cudworthless, typical lying ID/creationist

Check out this thread:

My responses below are in bold type.

In that thread cuddy-boi is caught lying about Eugenie Scott, but of course he tries to squirm out of it by saying this:

No, it was not a lie. However, it was an error. My memory betrayed me. I haven’t looked at the video in several months.

I remembered two things: (1) That Ms. Scott did not answer Berlinski’s question, but rather brushed it off; (2) that she was very angry at him for asking it.

My memory of the first point was correct.

Nothing you say is "correct".

My memory of the anger was clearly wrong, so I apologize to Ms. Scott for misrepresenting her reaction.

I have no idea why I remembered anger; perhaps I conflated the memory of that episode with the memory of some other event where Ms. Scott showed anger. In any case, I misreported what happened, and I thank you for correcting this misrepresentation before it spread any further."

Well, cudworthless, conflation is a ubiquitous trait in IDiots, and since you just made it up and were clearly wrong, you lied. Just ask gordy and the rest of the IDiots. When one of their opponents says something allegedly wrong or even something that is not wrong, they accuse that person of willful lying. Why is it a 'willful lie' for ID opponents, but only an "error" for you?

Some other barf you spewed in that thread:


Thomas Cudworth


5:23 pm


We are not communicating. Are you sure that you have read what I wrote? Do you realize what I mean by an evolutionary pathway?

Get off your high horse and just shut the fuck up.

By an evolutionary pathway to the flagellum, I mean a step-by-step recipe for building a bacterium with a flagellum, out of a bacterium with no flagellum, not even a partial flagellum. I want to see the flagellum going up in stages before my very eyes, as I can watch a skyscraper going up in stories before my eyes. I want a morphological description of the bacterium for each intermediate stage, an explanation of the selection advantage of each stage, and a list of DNA bases that had to be altered to get to that stage, and what the substitutions were, and the exact locations where all this took place along the bacterial genome. And of course that implies I need a count of the number of necessary stages (10? 20? 100?), and also I need a full discussion of mutation rates and the time-frame that is being hypothesized, so that I can see whether wildly optimistic estimates of favorable mutations are being employed, etc.

Now, has Nick provided a pathway *in accord with my specifications*?

If so, *where*?

(It wouldn’t be in a journal article, I can tell you that. A 500-page book, minimum, complete with many diagrams of both DNA sections and morphological changes, would be needed to cover the details I’ve asked for.)


It is true that there might be many evolutionary pathways from artiodactyl to whale, some of the involving maybe 300 steps, some 325, some 275, etc. But there won’t be any that involve 10, or 12, or 20 steps. Without a ballpark figure, you can’t even get started.


And this is what ID people find so frustrating with Darwinists; they constantly avoid getting down to nitty-gritty, especially in public debates.

And of course you go on and on and on about how Eugenie Scott or any other evolutionary biologist should provide numbers and nitty-gritty details that meet your "specifications" of every single step in the evolution of every part of organisms. Otherwise, in your delusional and arrogant opinion, evolution automatically fails and "God-did-it', right?

My point is that any evolutionary biologist who claims to be certain that a land mammal became a whale by neo-Darwinian mechanisms must *at a minimum* be able to tell me the main differences (anatomical, physiological, etc.) between the land mammal and the whale. If he is not certain whether the number of major differences is 57 or 58, I’m not going to quibble. But if he’s not sure whether the number of differences between a primitive deer or hippo and a modern whale is 10 or 1,000, then I’m certainly not going to have any confidence in his ability to give me an evolutionary pathway from the one to the other.

Now listen carefully cuddy-boi:

For many years people have been asking IDiots/creationists to provide nitty-gritty details, numbers, evidence, and explanations of their claims. NONE that make any sense have been provided, and IDiots/creationists always just use bluff and bluster, lies, distortions, strawmen, red herrings, ad hominems, and every other trick in the book to avoid providing anything of substance.

You expect massive amounts of detail and proof of every detail from science, throughout time, but your 'side' also expects people to simply accept 'God-did-it, I believe it, and that settles it' as the one and only truth! It doesn't work that way tommi-boi.

How many steps did it take for your chosen god to think up, plan, design, and create/build every life form that has ever lived, and all of their parts, right down to the tiniest particles and forces? I want to see every step and stage of that recipe/process, with scientifically testable and verifiable evidence for each and every step/stage. I expect EXACTLY what you expect, right down to the "nitty-gritty", except that I want to see it for YOUR position and claims.

Neither you nor any other IDiot can show even ONE piece of actual evidence that shows that any of your IDiot claims have any merit whatsoever. You're just another bloviating, dishonest, delusional ID/creationist who thinks you're a god.

You also arrogantly puked:

Instead, she conveyed the view that it was ridiculous to expect evolutionary biologists to have even a rough idea of the number of basic differences between the animals they are discussing. And that’s just silly. If you claim to be a whale evolution *specialist* and can’t enumerate the main differences between whales and hippos, or whales and deer, you shouldn’t be in the evolutionary biology business. Not knowing the exact number off the top of your head is understandable; not having *any idea* of the number, even the order of magnitude, is inexcusable.

Hmm, isn't it interesting that you went from your extremely demanding "specifications", to "basic differences" and "main differences"? I'm pretty sure that Eugenie Scott and any other evolutionary biologist would have a "rough idea of the number of basic differences between the animals they are discussing" and could "enumerate the main differences between whales and hippos, or whales and deer", if it actually matters, and of course it would depend on how "basic" and "main" are defined. I'm damn sure that ES knows a lot more than you or any other IDiot about evolutionary biology.

Tell me, cuddy-boi, would it make any difference if there were 5, 50, 500, 5,000, or 50,000 differences (main, basic, or otherwise) between whales and deer or whales and hippos? If so, why?

How many differences (main, basic, and extremely specific) are there between you and a whale, you and a deer, and you and a hippo? Don't forget to show your ID based calculations in figuring it all out. If you can't do it, then you and ID are just silly.

gutless lying wimps (mung/ilion)

My responses are in bold type.




6:47 pm

Mung: “Do you believe it is possible for someone to perpetuate a lie without knowing it’s a lie? I do. Does that make it less of a lie?”

Or, to put it another way, had Seinfeld’s George Constanza discovered a loophole in the general prohibition against lying (*) when he counseled/rationalized, “It’s not a lie if you really believe it”?

One has an obligation to have done “due diligence” regarding the things one asserts; one has the obligation to have proper rational warrant for believing what one believes and especially regarding what one asserts.

Well, troy d. hailey, you certainly haven't fulfilled your "obligation", and neither have your fellow IDiots.

Thus, even if one “totally believes” something but hasn’t the rational warrant for believing it, one may indeed lie in asserting it – even if the belief is objectively true.

Since your beliefs, and those of your fellow IDiots, are not objectively true (they're not even objectively testable), and since you have no reasonable warrant for believing them, and since you constantly and willfully assert absolute crap, you're a liar, and so is mung-boi.

Isn’t it curious, the things one can learn, if one thinks carefully about what one already knows?

First you have to know something, which you obviously don't.

Equally curious will be the reaction to the above by persons who do not wish to understand it.

And you and mung are two of those persons.

(*) Not every act of lying is immoral; sometimes, morality *requires* one to lie: the famous test case being the Nazis-at-the-door looking for the person(s) you have conspired to hid from them.

IDiots, and other religious zombies, always have lame excuses for their lies, because they never accept that they are lying, even though their entire thought process and life are based on and driven by lies.

Hey troy, what's it like being a sanctimonious, cowardly, uneducated eunuch, and why aren't you and mung and the other IDiots chastising thomas cudworth for lying about Eugenie Scott? After all, isn't he 'obligated' to have done “due diligence” regarding the things he asserts before erroneously accusing her of literally flying into a rage?





4:44 pm

“My goal in supporting Origin of Life research is to help scientists solve one of the great remaining problems in biology. A solution will give every science teacher in the world, from high school to college, a fundamental understanding of how life probably began on the Earth. In time, the world will learn that the laws of chemistry and physics, and the principle of evolution by natural selection, are sufficient to explain life’s origin.”

ha ha ha ha ha ha …. ha ha ha ha ha

ONE of the great remaining problems?? As if neo-darwinian theory has solved anything.

Gimme a break. I think the brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen would have had a better shot… Let’s call this what it is, a fool’s errand. Any proposal could also be called a fairy tale.

In time the world will learn that the Logos is sufficient to explain life’s origin. Don’t be late for that one.


"the Logos is sufficient to explain life’s origin"

Really? It's only "sufficient" to brain-dead god-bots like you.

And don't you IDiots vehemently say that ID isn't creationism, and that you're not creationists, and that ID is "scientific"?

You might want to think a little before using the term "fairy tale", but then you're incapable of thinking.

What have you IDiots ever "solved"?

Definitely a dumb hick




3:59 am

well golly gee whiz dmullenix, I guess you schooled us old dumb hicks; :) You don’t mind producing some actual empirical support for your position to ease my doubts that you may not be as smart as you think you are???


Hey boringagain, you dumb bible-thumping hick, you don’t mind producing some actual empirical support for your position to ease my doubts that you may not be as smart as you think you are, do you?

gordon e. mullings, homo troglodytes turdinmouthicus

kairosfocus: "What is material is that you are resorting to a multiverse speculation, for which you have not a shred of empirical data, in a question-begging attempt to impose evolutionary materialism as the “only” viable answer."

gordo, you don't have a shred of evidence or empirical data of ID, CSI, FSCI, FSCO/I, specified complexity, god or any other claim of your religion, etc., and every word you spew is a question-begging attempt to impose your religious dogma as the “only” viable answer.

kairosfocus: "What is plainly emerging is that the real alternative to taking the observed evidence pointing to fine tuning seriously, is to quietly slip across the border from science into speculative philosophy, insulating the speculations from comparative difficulties analysis by wearing a lab coat. Then, act as though speculation is fact. Doesn’t work."

gordy, you and your IDiot comrades have nothing but delusional speculation and mental difficulties and you're the ones who act as though your speculation is fact. You have no evidence whatsoever of any of your ID and/or religious claims. Fine tuning is a speculative assumption. ID is a speculative assumption. Any god is a speculative assumption. Actually, calling your insane beliefs speculation is being way too kind.

kairosfocus: "Sorry, while I am thankful to be alive, when I see that the cosmos that enables this looks suspiciously set up, I want to know why, and why in a context of real evidence not conveniently unobserved or unobservable speculations and models."

Well, gordy, in that case, you're going to have to rid yourself of all of your ridiculous fairy tale religious beliefs and do some real science with real evidence. Observable, scientifically testable and verifiable evidence, not bible-babble, poorly done math, delusional speculation, arrogant proclamations, lies, distortions, strawmen, red herrings, drumbeat repetition of rhetorical talking points laced with ad hominems, false accusations, sanctimonious preaching, and being a gigantic asshole. Oh, and it only "looks suspiciously set up" because you want to convince gullible people into believing that it was or is set up by your imaginary god.

kairosfocus: "Our observed universe began, is contingent and has a cause external to itself. Ultimately, per logic, that chain of cause terminates in a necessary being, one that is not contingent."

Prove that it's contingent. Prove that it has a cause external to itself. Prove that you and your beliefs have any logic. Prove that chain of cause. Prove that there's a necessary being. Prove that that chain of cause terminates in a necessary being. Prove who that being is. Prove that that being is not contingent. You're all talk and speculative assumptions (actually insane religious beliefs), with no evidence whatsoever. You bash science because you don't know a thing about it and because you want to cram your bullshit beliefs down everyone's throat.

Monday, July 18, 2011

In other words

kairosfocus: "Special Creation (whether from within the cos-mos or beyond it) differs from abiogenesis in holding that the source which produced life was intelligent."


In other words, when IDiots use the word 'intelligent', they're referring to "Special Creation". The "source", of course, is 'God'.

Evasive, pompous gasbag ( thomas cudworth)

Elizabeth Liddle asked thomas cudworth: "Can I ask what your field is, Thomas? It might help us understand each other."

cuddy-boi answered: "I’m an intellectual jack of all trades, much like yourself, all over the map, winning a science scholarship but then criscrossing boundaries between Arts and Science, leading to a Ph.D. I studied Music, too. (How can anyone love music and be a Darwinian? What a metaphysical mismatch! Unless maybe the music you love is Wagner, or Strindberg.) But more on my biography another time."

Later he said to EL: "However, from what you tell me, your undergraduate degree was in Music and your graduate study was in neurology or neurological imaging technology. That does not give me confidence that you have enough knowledge in the field of Probability Theory (in which Dembski holds two Ph.D.s, one from a Philosophy Department, one from a Math Department) or Information Theory (which Dembski has been working on for years now in collaboration with several specialists in that field) to be sure that you have refuted or even fully understood Dembski’s arguments. The mere fact that you are a scientist doesn’t make you any more than a layman in scientific specialties that are not close to your own area of research. But in any case, if you do have knowledge enough to refute Dembski, you are free to publish your arguments. Let us know when and where. Until you do produce such a publication, I disregard your claim to have found fatal flaws in any of his work. Claims like this are a dime a dozen on the internet."


Hmm, isn't it interesting that cuddy-boi won't say what field he's in? I wonder what his education, training, research, and actual work is in "scientific specialties" like evolutionary biology? I wonder if he has published any papers or books on evolutionary biology? I also wonder if he has published any papers or books on ID, music, Darwin, probability theory, information theory, neurology or neurological imaging technology, or anything else?

I'd hate to think that he's just a "layman" who is not qualified to speak on matters of evolutionary biology, or anything else. LOL

Here's some more crap from cudworthless:

"But all the really useful advances in gene sequencing, gene function determination, cell physiology, biochemistry, ecology, medicine, etc. can proceed quite well under six-day creationism."

"kairosfocus (237): I agree with you. I’m on your side both in the culture war and on the scientific question of design."

"So yes, I’m against Dawkins’s biology *and* against his shallow and ignorant attacks on religion"

"I do theory, not culture-war politics."

"I’m on your side both in the culture war and on the scientific question of design."


"In the post-Dover world, the focus of ID has been greatly sharpened. It’s now more than ever a theory of design detection. Its proponents now hold regular conferences in which heavy-duty science is discussed in serious papers — evolutionary computer algorithms, genetic entropy, molecular evolution, organism-centered vs. gene-centered evolution, etc. The peer reviewed papers are starting to come out. The books are slowly getting grudging attention from at least a few non-doctrinaire scientists."


Stop, cuddy-boi, my sides already hurt from laughing at all your other insanity!

Anal retentive




2:22 pm

Dr Cudworth

Sadly, we need to do both.

On long observation, I have found that the favourite and most consistent rhetorical tactic of the evolutionary materialist Darwin defenders is to distract attention from a cogent response or point, by dragging a red herring away towards already set up strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited by incendiary rhetoric to cloud, poison, polarise and confuse the atmosphere.

To win, they plainly need confused, angry people drunk on toxic materialist rhetoric.

This of course is exactly what Alinsky espoused in his Rules for Radicals.

Especially in the aftermath of having had an attack on my family by way of the mafioso tactic we know you, we know where you are, we know those you care for . . . and other vile and slanderous things I will not summarise; where my family has absolutely nothing to do with the issues I have addressed, e.g. in the foundations series that has a new post here today, but such outing tactic thuggery is going to have an intimidatory and chilling effect on others.

(SIDEBAR: If they had bothered to ponder on what my given name means and why I got it as a Jamaican, they would have learned that they picked the wrong man to try to intimidate or hurt by personal abuse and threats to his family — just look up “bydand” and the Jamaican national hero of the same name of that regiment to see why — but this tells me we are dealing with exactly the sort of ruthless amoral materialist thuggery that Plato warned against: “the highest right is might.” NOT. Bullies like this only understand the equivalent of a swift bloody nose from an intended victim in the school yard, and those who egg them on or harbour them will only understand seeing that such tactics backfire bigtime and cost them more than they can afford to pay. They are going to have to learn that when they go nuclear like that, they are going to pay a stiff price, one they have only just begun to pay. The first down payment is that these have now totally lost all credibility and respect, and are now known enemies of the civil peace of justice; in the case of one of my would be tormentors, he is trying to hold up the fig leaf that the girl he took dubious pics of is 23 years old, i.e. half his age, and plainly her face says 1/3 his age or so; so when he came out spewing hate over an expose of damage wreaked by cyber porn, that tells me all I need to know. We need to understand this is what we are dealing with and we must understand that the pretence of civility or morality in such mouths is going to be simply a subterfuge. Until there is clear evidence of repentance and transformation of life, we are dealing with those who have crossed the line beyond mere personal insult to being threats to the civil peace of justice. That is, they have become criminal. The Christian duty is to love sinners while dealing firmly with sin and its destructive effects. That implies a right of defense of the innocent and of the civil peace of justice; why the Magistrate bears the sword as God’s servant. Starting with the friendly local police. [Updating the technology, SA 85s and MP 5s. Don't forget, Paul accepted protection of the equivalent of a reinforced armoured cav troop.])

So, yes, we have to get the scientific issues right.

We have to get our tone right:polite but firm.

We have to deal with worldviews and ethics issues right, and correct a lot of fallacies.

Yes, where we make mistakes, these jokers will try to pounce.

So, if we see errors, let us correct them, making sure we have the vital points right.

But, we have to understand that even where we are right we are going to deal with those who will be willfully deceitful and will construct handy strawmen laced with poisonous ad hominems they can ignite.

Such as Dr Matzke et al have plainly done for YEARS in the teeth of all corrections on the “ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo” smear.

What we have to do on this one, is that when we see those who are patently dishonest like this, we have to stop simply trying to please and plead with such to be reasonable and civil.

“Nay, my sons . . . ” does not work.

He who insists on poisonous rhetoric like this in the teeth of correction has identified himself as an enemy of the truth and the right, and as an ally of the sort of internet thugs I am dealing with.

Such a person — hard as it is for me to have to say so — is, by his persistent actions, a slanderer and a willful deceiver.

And yes, Dr Matzke, regrettably, by your actions, that means you. And until you amend your ways, it will continue to mean you. So, please amend your ways before it is too late.

Those who cross a nuke tripwire by indulging in thuggery or willful slander and willful deception — refusing all correction — have to live with the consequences of the path the have insistently taken.




I'll have some comments on this later. In the meantime, comments from readers are encouraged, and especially from Lou.

If any of you would like to see what gordy thinks is pornographic and immoral, take a look at these very nice photos of some attractive ADULT women, including the 23 year old:

And what the fuck does Lou's age have to do with anything? He was just the photographer for crying out loud, and anyone 18 or above (or younger in many places) is a legal adult anyway! Whatever Lou does with any willing woman who is at or above the age of majority is legal and none of gordy's business. Young ADULT women hire photographers all the time who may be older than they are. So what?!? gordy must get bent out of shape when people photograph their naked babies! OH NO, it's baby porn!

Scientific data? What scientific data?

joseph (joe g, john paul, ID guy) the muslim creationist IDiot says:

To sum up the people who know the most about ID and Creation know and understand the differences between the two. And teh only people who try to conflate ID with Creation are the people with an agenda.

ALL formal definitions of “Creationism” state it relies on the Bible. OTOH if the Bible were falsified today ID would not be phased.

Creationism satnds and falls with the Bible. ID stands and falls with the scientific data.


Hey joe-boi, tell me about the ID scientific data you're researching in your basement laboratory. LMAO!

A real argument?

mung drooled:

Sheesh. Never believe anything a ‘New Atheist’ proposes as a premise for an argument.

The problem is not that they would be less hostile to religion if only they understood religion better.

The problem is that the arguments they put forth are blatantly WRONG because they are ignorant about basic aspects of theology.

Study up, get rid of the ignorance, and come back with a real argument.


Hey mung, maybe you could show me something "real" about your ignorant fairy tale religious beliefs? Maybe you could also show how and why your religious beliefs are more "real" than all the other religious beliefs held by other people? What's the definitive test that is used to determine whose beliefs are real and whose are unreal?

And what's there to "study"? Bullshit is bullshit, and no amount of "study" is going to change that.

Sunday, July 17, 2011


vjtorley: "All I will say for now is that your argument contains certain assumptions. Hence I would regard the notion of a necessary omniscient being as a philosophically defensible one."


Yeah, and "the notion of a necessary omniscient being" doesn't rely on "assumptions", does it? Pfft.

troy d. hailey (ilion)

ilion puked: "Cheer up, Stringies! ‘Modern evolutionary theory’ still has True Believers after 150 fruitless years; you can do it!"


Tell me something, dipshit, what have YOU ever done to contribute to science? What have YOU ever done that was 'fruitful' to mankind's quest for knowledge?

Never ending tard

After another long tirade about the usual pile of dung, kairosfocus barfed:

"At this stage, Dr Matzke owes us all not only a serious explanation, but patently, an apology and retraction for what he and his ilk have done."

gordy, you bloviating creationist scumbag, nobody owes you or your "ilk" a retraction or an apology. You're the one, along with your ID/creation buddies, who is lying and trying to deceive. Your malignant narcissism is way beyond extreme and your fat head is expanding faster than the universe.

You keep saying that Nick Matzke and his "ilk" have some explaining to do, and now you expect a retraction and apology, but if anyone has some explaining to do and retractions and apologies to make, it's YOU and YOUR "ilk". Your entire agenda and thought process is based on and driven by lies, deceit, deceptions, distortions, strawmen, red herrings, ad hominems, drumbeat repetition of rhetorical talking points, malignant narcissism, religious insanity, your insatiable desire for control, and your expectation and demand of agreement and submission of your 'opponents', and blind worship of you and your chosen god by all people everywhere.

Your mental derangement is entirely out of control.

See number 222 (and others by gordy) in this thread:

There's even more Lewontin! LOL