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.