Monday, September 26, 2011

pav lies, and then brings out the god-did-it argument

My responses are in bold type.

September 26, 2011 at 2:41 pm


So ID theory has another challenge — how to explain chromosomal rearrangements outside of material evolutionary processes?

Actually, it’s the other way around. ID has never said anything other than the genetic changes leading to macroevolution must, perforce, by intelligently “guided”.

Oh really? That's ALL ID has ever said? And what does that mean exactly? Oh yeah, god-did-it, right?

ID can explain these “chromosomal rearrangements”, whereas material evolutionary processes cannot. All you have done is to say this is what must be happening; but you don’t posit any kind of driving force or mechanism.

Totally fucking hilarious! ID can't explain a fucking thing. All you IDiots have done is to say that god-did-it, but you expect and constantly demand a detailed driving force and mechanism for evolution from scientists and science supporters.

For example, quoting from the abstract:

With their capacity to drive non-adaptive host evolution, mobilized TEs can restructure the genome and displace populations from adaptive peaks, thus providing an escape from stasis and generating genetic innovations required for rapid diversification.

The obvious, pertinent, and unanswered, question is this:

If all of these changes are “non-adaptive”, then what is the driving force?

Well, it sure isn't your imaginary god.

ID would simply say that an intelligent agent is behind them.

Of course ID would say that, but saying god-did-it doesn't explain anything, dumbass!

They found more than 1500 genes that were expressed in the uterus solely in the placental mammals.

What is the probability of blind, non-Darwinian forces effecting even 100 promoter changes at once? Do you have any measure of the improbability of this happening through “random mutations” given the known mutation rates of mammmals?

There's the useless probability crap again. Hey dullard, what's the probability of a blind, delusional IDiot like you ever getting a clue?

chris doyle keeps showing what a wanking coward he is
September 26, 2011 at 12:51 pm

You are a time-waster, sir.

Yes, I often feel like I am wasting my time here ;)

I haven’t yet been blessed with a knighthood so you need only refer to me as Dr, not Sir.
Chris Doyle
September 26, 2011 at 2:09 pm

You certainly are if you think you’re saying anything that will trouble those of us who don’t share your blind faith in neo-darwinism. I mean, you’re not even giving us pause for thought. Just unsupported claims that are easily refuted. Evolutionists like you, Bot, only seek to reassure ID proponents like me, that the truth is on our side.

If you were half as qualified as you think you are this would simply not be the case. You’d present us with debate-ending evidence and cogent arguments, rather than bluffing and blustering your way through.

If this is the best that our critics have to offer, then we can be very confident indeed.


Hey doyle, you sure do talk big when you're hiding in the UD sanctuary, where the vast majority of your "critics" are banned and aren't allowed to speak. If you're so sure of your position, why aren't you man enough to argue your claims on an open forum where your critics can speak freely? You're just one of the typical big mouthed sniveling IDiotic cowards on UD.

Tell ya what chrisy-boi, why don't you show a 'supported' ID claim that isn't based on "blind faith", and that verifies your claim of your beliefs being "the truth". Let's see you present debate-ending evidence and cogent arguments, rather than bluffing and blustering your way through. Come on chrisy, show how "qualified" you are.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

You've got to be joking, scott

Daniel King
September 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm


Why is it so difficult to understand that intelligence or the lack thereof has nothing to do with mechanisms?

I was just wondering how a postulated “intelligence” might be a scientific explanation for the diversity and history of life on Earth. Without a mechanism, where’s the science?

September 24, 2011 at 7:23 pm


That’s a very good question, but it has nothing to do with ID. Read the FAQ and understand what ID is. Pick it apart if you wish to. But in order to do so you must correctly understand it.
Sort of like if someone said, “Evolution is stupid – fish don’t turn into frogs!” Even if one disagrees with something they must understand it in order to coherently argue against it.

From here:


Hey scott, NONE of you IDiots understand science, evolution, or the theory of evolution. That (and your belief in religious fairy tales) is why you can't coherently argue against them.

And your evasion of providing a mechanism for ID is noted. You IDiots claim that ID is "scientific". It is NOT scientific in any way, shape, or form. You IDiots don't know squat about how science works.

incredible hypocrisy

September 24, 2011 at 5:08 pm

F/N: Wikipedia, testifying against interest:

To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth . . . . even a true statement can be used to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being overall untruthful rather than the truthfulness of any individual statement that is considered the lie . . . . One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them . . . . One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation . . . . A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth . . .

Does anyone have any good reason to believe these people don’t know better, or that with a modicum of honest investigation they could know better? That is, that they know or SHOULD know the truth?

Theatre of the Absurd, indeed.

But then Plato exposed all of this, 2350 years ago in The Laws, Bk X. (Go look up the reference for details. And read up on Alcibiades, the poster boy for the underlying problems and prototype for Nietzsche’s superman.)

They are just telling us what they are.


From here:


That's from the blatant, willful LIAR who repeatedly falsely accuses me of threatening his family, in addition to his other numerous lies and false accusations. If I tried to list them all it would take days of typing.

It's obvious what YOU are gordo. You tell "us" every time you speak. You ARE, to the EXTREME, what you condemn.

chris doyle, godbot moron

Chris Doyle
September 24, 2011 at 8:31 am

Hi Nick,

Would you be so kind as to select a single piece of “scientific literature on some specific biological topic” that provides important evidence for your belief that human beings evolved from a single-celled eukaryotic ancestor mainly through a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations, and describe in your own terms how it manages to do that?

Many thanks.


Hey doyle, here's what you're looking for:

Oh, and would you be so kind as to select a single piece of “scientific literature on some specific biological topic” that provides important evidence for your belief that human beings were designed and created by your chosen god, and describe in your own terms how it managed to do that?

Many thanks.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Oh gordon, where are you?

Another comment I submitted on gordo's blog, today:

"Well, what's the hold up, gordo? Why aren't you on the Panda's Thumb, in that thread that I provided you a link to, arguing your claims about islands of function, and all the other sciency sounding bullshit you spew on UD and here?

If you have confidence in your claims, you shouldn't have any fear of facing people who actually study biology, chemistry, and evolution.

Preaching to the choir on UD doesn't prove squat about your claims, and it just shows what a coward you are. You talk like a big man on UD and here but do you have the balls to discuss and debate with real scientists? Come on gordo, go to that thread and let's see what you've got. I'm not one of the participants, so you don't have to be afraid of me there. That gives you one less excuse to weasel out of going there.

Just think, here's your chance to show those evolutionists how smart you are and how wrong they are. Or, you can just keep running away and hiding at UD and here. What's it going to be, gordo? Discuss and debate with scientists/evolutionists, or run away like a coward as usual?"

And this...

...from gordo, who blatantly lies about me threatening his family, lies about lots of other things, plays every dishonest game in the book, accuses others of all the despicable shit that HE actually does, doesn't have the balls to step outside of the sanctuaries at UD and his blogs, and who doesn't have the balls to post the comments that I (and others) submit on his blog:

That post of his is a classic example of his insanity, blustering, bluffing, posturing, dishonesty, and real agenda, which is the desire to force his religious beliefs into every aspect of everyone's life.

And don't forget that gordo claims that his motives for pushing ID are not religious or political.


...from gordon e. mullings, who says that 'foreigners' shouldn't try to influence politics in other countries:

gordo lives in Montserrat. Not the USA. Not Israel. Not the West Bank/Palestine.

He's quick to press rules and restrictions on other people, but they never apply to him.

To midwifetoad on ATBC

"It's a serious question. Is he Atheioclast and Joseph from PT and UD?"

joe g, and joseph on UD, are positively the same IDiot. Click on joseph's user name on UD and it will take you to joe g's blog.

Atheioclast is a different IDiot.

A challenge to gordo the chicken-hearted

kairosflaccid likes to push his assertions about islands of function and a lot of other sciency sounding crap on UD but he doesn't have the guts to argue his assertions with people on other sites who actually study biology, chemistry, and evolution. Over on the Panda's Thumb there's a thread, started by Joe Felsenstein, that deals with various aspects of biology/chemistry/evolution, including 'islands of function'. So, I just submitted a comment on gordo's blog and here is a copy of it:

"Here's your chance to argue your islands of function claims, etc., with people who actually study biology and evolution (like Joe Felsenstein):

Of course you don't have the guts to step outside of UD or your worthless blogs. You think that preaching to the choir is actually going to accomplish something.

Go ahead gordo, go to that thread and show them how smart you are!"

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

And just who are you, bantay?

September 21, 2011 at 7:39 am

Grouping Dawkins with “people who count” is being rather generous isn’t it? I mean, he’s discredited himself among his peers, and whatever book stores I see both The God Delusion and Stephen Meyer’s Signature In The Cell, there are always less copies of Signature In The Cell.

Dawkins prefers the Bible Belt, but won’t debate one of Christianity’s top scholars, William Lane Craig? My guess is, Dawkins prefers the poor and uneducated of the US south, not scholars from Christian universities of the south.


Do YOU count?

"he’s discredited himself among his peers"

Really? How so?

"there are always less copies of Signature In The Cell"

The proper word is fewer, not "less", and there are likely fewer copies because the stores don't want to stock crap that doesn't sell well.

"one of Christianity’s top scholars, William Lane Craig"

Top scholars? ROFLMAO!! craig is a delusional, arrogant dunce. Why should Dawkins lower himself to debate a dunce?

"Dawkins prefers the poor and uneducated of the US south, not scholars from Christian universities of the south."

That doesnt even make sense. Dawkins doesn't debate what you refer to as "the poor and uneducated of the US south", and there's no such thing as a scholar in the "Christian universities of the south", or in any other christian university.

Let's see you answer this, gordo

September 21, 2011 at 6:24 am

Prof. FX Gumby

Really now!

You know or full well should know that the issue at stake in both cases is freedom of speech for causes unpopular with elites and power brokers; by which rule games are being played to tilt the field and censor out what is not desired, knowing here that Christians will not riot.

As to the snide attempt to conflate design thought and Christian thinking with a cluster of terms that are code for “right wing theocracy,” that speaks volumes, none of it good.

You know or should full well know that the roots of the design inference lie in the likes of Plato, and that the inference to design is an inference to a causal process, not to any particular designer. But of course post Lewontin, materialists have to try something to project the a priorism that has been so unwittingly revealed.

A timeout for examination of the Weak Argument Correctives under the resources tab, is in order.


September 21, 2011 at 7:06 am

Prof.FX Gumby is merely presenting the other side of the story, the alternative viewpoint, and exercising his right to free speech. Why do you feel that the right to free speech should only apply to you – why are you so keen to engage in viewpoint discrimination?

From here:


Really now, gordo, why do YOU feel that the right to free speech should only apply to YOU and why do YOU engage in viewpoint discrimination, both on UD and on your blogs? Why does UD engage in suppression of free speech, and in viewpoint discrimination? Why do the other ID sites engage in suppression of free speech, and in viewpoint discrimination? Why do churches/religions engage in suppression of free speech, and in viewpoint discrimination? Where's the "freedom of speech" on UD, your blogs, other ID sites, and in churches/religions, and why don't religious "elites and power brokers" promote and allow "freedom of speech"?

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Don't the IDiots constantly say that...

..ID is not a religious belief or agenda? Somebody should tell that to braindeadagain77:
September 20, 2011 at 7:44 am

As to address the overriding materialistic/atheistic bias that Elizabeth has repeatedly shown in clinging to any shred of evidence, no matter how paltry it is, for a purely materialistic/atheistic origin of life, I would like to point out this fairly recent paper on the Bacterial Flagellum which, though not directly related to molecular machinery that would be necessary for the simplest conceivable microbial life to exist, none-the-less, severely compromises any hope that Elizabeth may have had for rationally maintaining her preconceived materialistic/atheistic bias against the Theistic origin of life;...................

From here:

chris doyle, lily livered coward and liar to himself and others

Chris Doyle
September 19, 2011 at 8:45 am

But some people lie to themselves, Scott. And atheists especially have to lie to themselves if they seek meaning, morality and an understanding of origins.
Chris Doyle
September 19, 2011 at 9:10 am

A strong indication that you are lying to yourself is when you can’t substantiate your claims (citation bluffing is not a substitute for substantiation) or can’t engage with arguments (plenty of threads have come to an end here on Uncommon Descent because you disappeared instead of providing evidence for your position or even a detailed, cogent counter-argument).

From here:


Well, doyle-the-chickenshit-dumbass, your second post above is especially funny, and very revealing since YOU and your IDiot buddies can't substantiate YOUR claims, and YOU can’t engage with arguments by providing evidence for YOUR IDiotic position or even a detailed, cogent counter-argument. And, YOU run away like a scared chicken when YOU are called on YOUR bullshit.

As usual, every derogatory thing that you IDiots accuse others of is what YOU are actually guilty of.

batshit crazy

batshitcrazyagain77 says:

But Elizabeth, I know where ‘certainty’ can be found!

Solid Rock – the 5th service band Featuring TRU-SERVA

Monday, September 19, 2011

Chris Doyle
September 19, 2011 at 9:51 am

You most certainly were citation bluffing, Elizabeth. That stunt combined with your recent “Trust me, I’m a scientist” tactic and your general, repeated unresponsiveness at crucial moments in various discussions are all clear indicators that you are wasting our time.


Hey doyle, let's see you provide a citation that verifies any ID claim with scientifically testable evidence. Well?

And it's absolutely hilarious, and so revealing of your lack of integrity and courage, that you would accuse anyone else of being repeatedly unresponsive in various discussions at crucial moments. You run away like a scared child every time you're confronted in discussions on any site other than UD. You're nothing but a whiny little crybaby coward, and you fit right in with all the other IDiotic cowards on UD.

You ran away from EL's blog and you're way to cowardly to come here and face me. From EL's blog, where you got your IDiotic ass kicked, you ran back to the UD sanctuary, like the wanking coward you are, and are now acting like you think you're a big man because you know that your sniveling coward butt-buddies will encourage your childish behavior and will help you gang up on EL. If I were to ever meet any of you weenies in person I'd show you what a bunch of gutless, wimpy punks you are while you cry and scream for your mommies.

You and your cohorts on UD are as cowardly and despicable as anyone could possibly be. You hide behind the wall of protection on UD and think that that makes you a tough guy. What you're actually proving is that you're a spineless sore loser, and you're taking it out on EL because you didn't get away with your arrogant, blustering 'Trust me, I know everything!' tactic on her blog.

Now go get your diaper changed, you little baby.

Religious zombies claim they have free will

Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

chris doyle, coward, liar, and arrogant wanker says:

Chris Doyle
September 19, 2011 at 7:41 am

Ha! As if an atheistic evolutionist has any choice about adopting that ‘view’.


doyle, you ignorant twat, you bible thumping morons are the ones who can only choose one view. Atheists can choose any view they want to, because they're not locked into a restrictive religious dogma that tells them what to think and do. While you and your fellow god zombies spew your arrogant crap about how you're the ones with free will, I and other atheists are laughing our asses off at you because we know that we are the ones who are free to think whatever we want.

It's obvious that you godbots do all of your blathering and blustering because you're trying to convince yourselves that you're the ones with free will, because deep down you know that you have no free will and are slaves to your religious dogma that was conjured up by superstitious, paranoid, ignorant, uneducated, barbaric, rag-headed goat molesters a long time ago.

I must admit that it's pretty satisfying to know that you pompous, sanctimonious fairy tale worshipers are living in your own self inflicted HELL and that you'll never know what it's like to be free of the oppression of your insane religious dogma. There's no doubt in my mind that one of the main reasons you thumpers try so hard to recruit others to your delusional, restrictive belief system is because you don't want to be the only one that suffers it. You want your misery, paranoia, and hallucinations to be shared by others, and you somehow convince yourselves that if others share your self inflicted misery that there's something noble in it.

You are sick, and twisted. You're a sadomasochist and so are your religious comrades. You actually like to suffer the extremely limiting dogma of religion and want others to suffer it too. You all need serious, effective mental treatment, and the sooner the better. I'm sure that you won't seek it out though, because if you did you might end up happy and free thinking and that would never do for willfully brain-dead sadomasochists like you.

gordon e. mullings, Hitleresque asshole

Hey gordo, aren't you the one who said that a foreigner shouldn't try to influence the politics/elections of another country? Then why are you involved in this thread and why are you promoting lies and bullshit about the history and politics of the USA?

Tell ya what gordo, stay the fuck out of USA politics and everything else regarding the USA. Just keep your insanity in your own shithole of a country and mind your own fucking business! The USA doesn't want or need anything from 'foreign' wackos like you!

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Totally off his rocker

In this thread, bullshit-again77 is really showing what a deranged, arrogant lunatic he is:

A few of the things he says in that thread are:

"DrREC, despite what you may think of my ‘hypocritical’ standard for science, the standard for empirical science is brutally unchanging in its threshold of satisfaction and requires nothing less than a actual empirical DEMONSTRATION for what you are claiming, and in such resolute firmness empirical science is the very antithesis of hypocrisy!!!."


"DrREC, you do not seem to grasp the most fundamental point of empirical science. For you to support your delusional claims for neo-Darwinism, you must actually demonstrate the origination of genes and proteins by purely neo-Darwinian processes. You cannot assume the conclusion you want to make in your argument, by merely alluding to sequence similarity. It is the very point being debated and is not satisfied by anything less than a actual demonstration."


"Prof. FX Gumby, perhaps you can entertain ‘this fool’ with a actual DEMONSTRATION of neo-Darwinian evolution generating genes/proteins, instead of just sequence similarity comparison that presupposes the very thing being asked into its conclusion???."

Tell ya what phil-boi, let's see YOU demonstrate ANY ID claims. And let's see YOU demonstrate that your chosen god or any god exists, that noah's flood actually occurred, that noah actually existed, that dinosaurs lived alongside humans and were on the so-called ark, that a dude named jesus was crucified and rose from the dead a couple thousand years ago, that two people now named adam and eve are the parents of all mankind, that the so-called garden of eden actually existed, that snakes can talk, that there's a heaven and hell, that angels exist, that spirits exist, that your chosen god can turn someone into a pillar of salt, that your chosen god can do anything at all, and that you aren't a raging, maniacal, pompous, self righteous, uneducated, ignorant, bloviating, fairy tale believing, insane nutcase.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Run for your lives!

September 16, 2011 at 8:16 am

Group think, intimidatory thought police in action, again in the halls of the academy; for the thought “crime” of daring to question the “consensus” in a student presentation.

Yes, a student presentation.

Notice, how having a student reduced to tears and shaking seemingly did not trigger any sense that they were going beyond any reasonable behaviour; a classic sign of thought police in self-righteous action, hoping to trigger fear and/or guilt as an emotional response on the part of one who has failed to toe the partyline, similar to the U Colorado case recently handled by Barry A.

I hope there were witnesses willing to speak.

We need to make some financial bloody-nose examples of a few intellectual bullies like this, to stop this sadistic –and I MEAN that term (“who di cap fit. let ‘im wear it . . . “, cf. senses 2 & 3) — grown up version of the school yard bully.

Bullies like that only respect superior force.

(And believe you me if you were to attack and intimidate one of my students in front of me like this — especially a young lady, and ignored warnings to back off, I would step in decisively. Bully-boy. And if you persist, you will get what you are asking for, jackbooted SS bully-boy. As in, student harassment with power/status abuse and obvious sexual intimidation overtones. Kiss your career goodbye. Bully Verbal rapist!)

See why dismissive rhetoric that pretends there is not a serious problem in science or science education, as can be seen above, have no impact on me?

I know too many cases in point of abusive behaviour, and I can tell the foul demonic stench of SS bully-boyism a mile off, upwind.

Ganging up on a GIRL to intimidate her for presenting a student presentation!

And, keeping at it till she is reduced to tears and shaking!

Frankly, you should be taken to the schoolyard wood-shed and thoroughly whupped, with a good old fashioned tamarind switch . . . one soaked in saltwater first.

Maybe, it has not got through your thick comfortable skulls that if you keep on doing that sort of thing, you are going to pick on the wrong girl one of these days and her bro or boyfriend or husband or dad or uncle or cousin is going to come for you and give you a very literal bloody nose.

Regardless of consequences.

Those are the matches you are playing with, academic bully-boys.

Lesson no 1 of half-decent broughtupcy: don’t pick on girls, or on someone who cannot hit back.


gordo is on the warpath. I'm scared, NOT.

Hey gordo, what you're bitching about is what you do everyday. You act like a bully and are a verbal rapist and try to force people to swallow everything you spew. You think you have some sort of "consensus" and that anyone who doesn't agree with you needs to be sadistically punished for thought crimes. Hmm, that's what your chosen god allegedly thinks too. No wonder you're that way. Actually, you think you are god, don't you? You sure do act like you do.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if you're a physical rapist, but maybe not of girls. Exactly what kind of porn are you looking at on the web?

Thursday, September 15, 2011

What is it with the IDiots?

They constantly accuse "materialists", "Darwinists", "naturalists", etc., of doing the things that the IDIOTS are actually doing. In the post linked below, barry arrington, liar and obfuscater for god, changes the wording yet again for his so-called "contest".

Here's his original wording:

"UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."

And here's what he says now:

"The point of UD’s contest (“UD Puts up $1,000 Prize“) is to demonstrate in a practical way that design theory does not depend upon a suspension of natural law (i.e., supernatural miracles)."

Notice the change in wording? Do the two paragraphs say the same thing? NO. Do they require the same thing? NO.

arrington is a lying, obfuscating piece of trash that had no intention of ever paying up, no matter what anyone says. His so-called "contest" is a deliberate fraud, just like him.

See this:

And in that thread, GailPlatt wonders:

"I’d like to know how a materialist would define “miracle”..."

Well, gail, I would define a "miracle" as you religious IDiots telling the truth, showing some integrity, facing reality, living up to the morals you're always preaching about, and shutting the fuck up about your religious beliefs and dishonest ID agenda.

kairosflaccid says...

...blah blah blah, blah blah blah, and then adds blah blah blah, and then more blah blah blah, and some yada yada yada, and then a lot more blah blah blah, the usual Lewontin quote mines and Plato bullshit, and then a whole lot more blah blah blah, yada yada yada, and blah blah blah.

an example of christian love, devotion, and fidelity


Yeah pat, just throw them away when they're no longer of any use to you, through no fault of their own. That's mighty christian of ya.

The contradictory, dishonest, hypocritical, convoluted ramblings of a deranged mind

September 12, 2011 at 4:19 pm

Mr Arrington:

Do you have a counter-prize, for showing the prize is un-winnable?

Let’s take:

UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).

The easy answer to this is that Venter et al have given proof of concept that a molecular nanotech lab could design cell based, Carbon chemistry aqueous medium life forms. That is, we know that relevant molecules can be manipulated by sufficiently sophisticated engineering techniques within the known laws of the cosmos, to engineer living forms.

All, therefore, without recourse to miracles.

So, it stands as empirically well warranted, that an intelligent agent or agents, in such a facility that is several technological generations beyond Venter, could be a SUFFICIENT cause for the living cell. As opposed to a NECESSARY cause.

Indeed, from the days of Plato in The Laws, Bk X c. 360 BC, and more recently from Newton’s General Scholium c. 1680 AD, up to the remarks of the likes of a Sir Fred Hoyle and others, up to Robin Collins currently, even through a speculative multiverse, the area of design thought and theory that does seriously raise the direct question of a designer beyond the cosmos, is cosmological origins.

Of course, if one infers to such a designer as the best explanation for a cosmos that seems to have had a beginning some 13.7 BYA, and which seems to be fine tuned for C Chemistry cell based aqueous medium life, then such a designer is a very strong candidate to be designer of life as well, directly or indirectly.

But inference to best explanation — a good basis for accepting matters of claimed fact and explanations for facts — is not a proof of necessity. Warrant is not equal to proof beyond all rational doubt. Howbeit, warrant (if we are lucky, to moral certainty) is what we have for living, making decisions and acting responsibly in the real world.

Or, are we “really” brains in vats or dream-state captives in the pods of a Matrix world? (That is, empirical experience under-determines absolute reality, but is sufficient for us to practically and confidently dismiss Plato’s Cave type speculative worlds of mass deception absent serious evidence to point to such. We have no good reason to believe that we live in a world of utterly unimaginable mass delusion; agit-prop aplenty from various parties, yes, Matrix or brains in vats, no.)

Nor is any of this new.

Right from the beginning of modern design theory in the early 1980′s, design thinkers on life and its origin such as Thaxton et al, and latterly Dembski et al, have repeatedly, freely, publicly and plainly stated that inference to intelligent design is not capable of inference on this to designer as necessarily beyond the cosmos.

Why then the “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” talking point?

Simple, it is the other party which has strongly emphasised how the theories of evolution put God out of a job. And, this by making the strong appearance of design in life SEEM illusory. So, given their a priori commitments, regardless of evidence, they cannot allow a “Divine [designer's] Foot” in the door.

Hence, the intensity with which this particular persistently continued willful miserepresentation is promoted.

And, that is a very serious moral issue: slander.


From here:

To see a lot more insanity from gordo, go to his blogs:

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Give me a fucking break!

September 13, 2011 at 9:34 pm


Darwinists don’t want us to have freedom of inquiry. If they are questioned or challenged, even on the most rational grounds, they want to destroy us.

Darwinists represent the real threat to legitimate scientific investigation, in the name of defending science.

It is disturbingly Orwellian.


gildo, you two-faced, arrogant, lying asswipe, you religious freaks are the ones who want to end freedom of inquiry and legitimate scientific investigation. You think you have everything figured out, that god-did-it, and that that's all anyone needs to ever know. Every accusatory word you ever spew should be aimed at yourself. Go jump off a tall cliff.

And absolutely NO ONE except YOU IDiots is stopping you or any other IDiot from inquiring into, or scientifically investigating, whatever the fuck you want to. Quit blaming "Darwinists" for your own failings!

DrBot makes mincemeat of gordo

September 13, 2011 at 5:13 am

The real issue surely is where the first non supernatural designer came from. We can see that humans can design things, and hypothesise that they might be capable of designing some new form of life, but that doesn’t answer the question of human origins. If we posit another non supernatural designer (one that operates within the universe) as the designer of life on earth then we still need to account for that designers origins in terms of non supernatural causes. We can’t keep invoking other designers, it has to stop somewhere, either with a non intelligent non supernatural cause like complex chemistry producing replicators, or by invoking a prime mover operating outside our own laws, which has to be super-natural.

I definitely see Barry’s challenge as one for the ID movement rather than mainstream science.
September 13, 2011 at 5:19 am

Nope, it is whether it is required to design C-chemistry, cell based life, one would have to break or supersede the known laws of the cosmos; i.e. resort to the super-natural as understood on a common-sense basis — a designer BEYOND the observed cosmos. Cf. 13 above. And the challenge is to the rhetors who have persisted in a talking point despite repeated correction by design thinkers [right from the very first design theory technical work, TMLO], year after year.
September 13, 2011 at 5:38 am

I don’t quite understand your reply. I don’t have an issue with the idea that an intelligent agent, operating within the laws of the universe could design life, and I don’t think many scientists would have a problem with that. It is just that positing such a designer begs the question over the origins of that designer. If an alien designed life on earth then how did that alien come to exist, or is it designers all the way down?


gordo, every word you type is just more destructive of your own beliefs. You're so determined to win every argument that you'll even attack and destroy your own beliefs to do so. You are a seriously stupid and delusional IDiot.

digging the hole deeper and deeper

September 14, 2011 at 12:05 am

F/N: Vocab correction needed:

MS: I think that saying, ” the laws of nature ie.- the suspension of natural laws”– is a very limited and inaccurate usage of the word supernatural. Supernatural definitely has the connotation of being supernatural as in above and beyond(exceeding) natural, not necessarily the suspension of.

Let’s go to the tape . . .

Am HD:

>> su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
That which is supernatural.
super·natu·ral·ly adv.
super·natu·ral·ness n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. >>

That is the NORMAL meaning of this term.

And, in that context, the work of engineers etc. is most definitely not regarded as supernatural, but instead — cf “state of the art” technology [a clue . . . ] — as art [Gk., TECHNE, in Plato's term in The Laws, Bk X], cf. here on and here on.

That we see this sort of attempted agenda-serving redefinition of supernatural is revealing as to what is really going on.



Yeah gordo, that is the normal meaning of the term "supernatural". What you obviously don't realize, you incredibly stupid moron, is that you just admitted that your belief in the christian god is a belief in a supernatural thing, and that your belief that the christian god is the designer and creator of the universe and everything in it, including all living things, is a belief that a supernatural thing (god) is the designer and creator of the universe and everything in it. So much for your claims that the so-called 'ID theory/inference' is not religious, and so much for the so-called "ID theory/inference' not depending on a supernatural designer/creator/god.

You IDiots are so fucking stupid that in your haste to try to make yourselves look smart in arrington's contest thread you instead are making yourselves out to be the dumbest dolts on Earth. You're actually arguing against your own beliefs! ROFLMAO!

By the way, do you have wet dreams about Plato?

barry arrington is destroying his own pet theory

My responses are in bold type.

In the "contest" thread on UD, arrington says:

Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 9:07 am

No prize. You have not demonstrated that the creation of a simple living thing is, in principle, more than an exercise in super-sophisticated physics and chemistry that is, in principle, beyond the capacity of, for example, human bio-engineers. The contest is not about the design of “all living things.” It is about the design of “a living thing.”

Then what the fuck is the point of your so-called "contest"? All you're doing is saying that TOTALLY NATURAL EVOLUTION can design living things, or "a living thing" if you want to get nitpicky. After all, the billions of years of evolution could be described as an "exercise in super-sophisticated physics and chemistry that is, in principle, beyond the capacity of, for example, human bio-engineers".

You're actually arguing AGAINST your own pet 'theory'!

And what's with the "a simple living thing" bullshit? Is a living thing always "simple"? You get all nitpicky when someone says living things or all living things but you changed "a living thing" into "a simple living thing"! And aren't you IDiots always saying that ALL living things are complex, in fact so incredibly complex that they couldn't have been designed and created by anything other than your chosen supernatural god?
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm

If by “intervention” one means “design,” I suppose it does. One might even say that the design hypothesis requires at least one instance of design. Yes, Mark. That is glaringly obvious, but I don’t see how it advances the ball.

What it does is show that you IDiots believe that a supernatural being (god) designed and created the universe and all the life within it. So, the "creationists in a cheap tuxedo" is an accurate description of you morons. The hole you're digging is getting really DEEP.
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm

“The problem is the contest doesn’t address the burning issue, which is whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention.”

This statement is absurd. The contest is: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).”

If that does not address the issue of whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention, it is difficult to imagine what would.

What's absurd is that your so-called contest doesn't make any sense, that you've deleted some responses, that you can't make up your mind about the wording or definitions, that you're mysteriously arguing against your own IDiotic beliefs, that you IDiots block many people from even responding, and that you had and have no intention of paying up no matter what anyone says. You're a liar, a dumbass, and a fraud barry arrington.
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Actually Petrushka, I and others have demolished the infinite regress argument so many times on this site that we no longer bother addressing it. It is boring.

You haven't demolished anything except your own beliefs and the so-called 'ID theory/inference'.

Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 4:13 pm

MI, you are still focused on the wrong end of the process. The issue is not whether “living things” were originally designed by a supernatural act. The issue is whether, in principle, A living thing, can be designed by a non-supernatural agent (such as a human being). You have not begun to demonstrate that this is necessarily impossible.

In principle? Another change? What's next?

And I'm glad that you agree that a living thing can be "designed, by a non-supernatural agent". Totally natural evolution is a non-supernatural agent, and it is responsible for the 'design' of living things.

a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause
b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle (Merriam-Webster)

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

check this out

Notice that gordo wants his religion (christianity) in schools (and everything else) in the Caribbean and beyond.

one of gordy's responses in the contest thread

September 13, 2011 at 3:11 am

Sorry: Creationists USED already existing design arguments — starting with “that Bible-thumping fundy” — NOT — Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC, they did not own or patent them.

The core of Creationism in the relevant sense is that it holds that we have an accurate revelatory report on the actual course of origins, which we are to accept and use to control scientific interpretations and explanations of evidence. Design thought works in precisely the opposite direction, from evidence in the present and validated dynamics, on the uniformity principle, to a provisional abductive explanation of the past.

If you insist on further talking points in denial of this patent fact, then that tells me a lot about you and none of it good, I am afraid. Insistence on slander in the teeth of cogent and accessible correction is not exactly a good sign of doing due diligence.

Finally, I find something that totally discredits your effort above, when you list among your implied list of dismissible “Creationist” works:

63. Thaxton CB, Bradley WL, Olsen RL (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, New York).

Sorry, TMLO is exactly the opposite of a creationist work, it is the first technical modern design theory work, and examines the evidence and arguments in exactly the way I described. If you want to say that because TBO were theists you can label their case as “Creationist,” then I have far more warrant to dismiss almost the whole modern evolutionary edifice as thinly disguised materialistic subversion of science; starting with DARWIN.

Do you really want to go here, to the infamous Oct 13, 1880 letter to Karl Marx’s son in law?

. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought [= in effect, in context, skepticism and atheism] is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. [of course, as redefined in materialistic terms, begging he worldview issues] It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.

I suggest that if you want to play at motive games and attack the man tactics, we have much bigger matches to light than you do.

Instead, I would suggest you focus on the actual merits.

As to your attempted derision of issues tied to thermodynamics by a fallacious appeal to collective authority, I suggest you work through the step by step argument here, starting from Clausius on the definition of and warrant for the 2nd law.

This is a matter to be settled on empirical and analytical merits, not the ruling of some magisterium dressed in the holy lab coat.

And, I find — on my own analysis as presented — that in fact the pivotal issue (as Thaxton et al stated) that emerges from such an analysis is the origin of energy conversion devices that exhibit functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. The only empirically well warranted explanation of such is design.

As in, we are right back to the issue of CSI.

So, FSCO/I is an empirically well supported and reliable sign of design, even when it is inconvenient for a priori Lewontinian Materialists dressed in the Holy Lab Coats and duly shaking them at us.

Get over it.


So, gordo, now that you've projectile excreted your usual ton of irrelevant, accusatory shit, how about answering these questions:

Do you believe that the christian god designed and created the universe and all living things within it?

Do you believe that the christian god is supernatural, or natural?

Do you believe that Venter created a living thing?

Come on gordo, stand up for what you believe and answer the questions.

By the way, is "Get over it." a phrase that is approved by jesus and god?

even more on the "contest"

To further clarify my previous comments and to point out the dishonesty and confusion in arrington's so-called "contest" I want to add this:

When arrington starts out his post on UD he says:

"ID is often disparaged as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” One assumes the point being made is that ID is a stalking horse for theistic creationists. Now, as has been explained on this site many times, while many ID proponents are theists, ID itself stands apart from theistic belief. For the umpteenth time, ID does not posit a supernatural designer. Nor does ID posit any suspension of the laws of nature."

He then goes on to say:

"To drive this point home UD is going to put its money where its mouth is. UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."

Now, look carefully at both quotes. They're not consistent. The first one is a rant against people who say that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo and that ID posits a supernatural designer.

The second quote is about something altogether different, even though it says "To drive this point home....". The second quote is about offering "a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."

Maybe the best way to explain would be to reword arrington's "contest" to the way he must have meant it in the first place:

*ID is often disparaged as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” One assumes the point being made is that ID is a stalking horse for theistic creationists. Now, as has been explained on this site many times, while many ID proponents are theists, ID itself stands apart from theistic belief. For the umpteenth time, ID does not posit a supernatural designer. Nor does ID posit any suspension of the laws of nature.

To drive this point home UD is going to put its money where its mouth is. UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that ID relies upon and posits that the intelligent design of living things by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act by a supernatural god/designer/creator (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).*

That version of the second paragraph would at least be consistent with the first paragraph of arrington's post. The way he worded the second paragraph actually challenges the claims of a supernatural creator/designer/god that the IDiots constantly promote! The guy is an IDiot! And the other IDiots don't seem to have noticed yet that he is challenging and insulting their (and his own) beliefs. In fact they're going right along with him and making it sound like all living things could have been designed/created by little green natural aliens or who knows what.

Because they're so quick to speak before they think, they just obediently went along with arrington and contradicted their own beliefs and their own claims about who the designer is (the christian god). They're so anxious to have ID thought of as 'scientific' that they won't and don't even stand up for their own beliefs when it counts! But what they conveniently forget is that their religious beliefs are thoroughly obvious!

No matter what, arrington has no intention of ever paying up. He's just a bullshitting, arrogant, delusional, dishonest, bible-thumping dipstick with no integrity whatsoever.

And of course IDiots do constantly rely upon and posit that the alleged intelligent design of living things by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act by a supernatural god/designer/creator, no matter what they say to the contrary. Their entire premise is 'God-did-it', which can easily be seen in all of the religious claptrap they regurgitate.

Monday, September 12, 2011


September 12, 2011 at 6:12 pm

Onlookers: Observe, no-one is even trying to positively show the Forrest claim.

No prizes for guessing why.

Spell this: S-A-U-L A-L-I-N-S-K-Y distortion and demonisation of design thought . . .


Onlookers: Observe that gordo is the poster boi for malignant narcissism, hypocrisy, and insanity.

and more

September 12, 2011 at 8:20 pm

I’ll take a stab at it.

Supernatural: that which exists outside of and apart from the universe, that is, time and space.

A supernatural act is a necessary condition for the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent because:

1) Living things must exist within the universe.

2) The universe requires a supernatural act.

3) Therefore the design of a living thing requires a supernatural act.

The universe requires a supernatural act because:

1) That which begins to exist must have a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Since time and space came into existence with the universe, it requires a cause that is outside of, and apart from time and space. By definition, the creation of the universe is a supernatural act.

Barry Arrington
September 12, 2011 at 8:27 pm

No prize. The contest does not challenge contestants to demonstrate that the universe requires a supernatural act. It challenges contestants to demonstrate that within the universe we already have “the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).”


barry, you no class piece of shit, if the universe was created by a supernatural entity (a god), like YOU religious zombies believe, then everything in it, like "a living thing", exists BECAUSE of a supernatural cause.

The more I look at your "contest" and your wording in it, the more I realize that the whole thing is just a bunch of IDiotic ass-backward crap. YOU IDiots are the ones who believe in the supernatural. YOU are the ones that should be proving YOUR claims. Your so-called "contest" actually challenges your own claims of a supernatural designer (god)! You're attacking you own claims! You're so fucking stupid that you worded your contest in a way that challenges your own beliefs and your so-called 'ID theory/inference'!

But, since you are the one currently (and dishonestly) saying that something supernatural has nothing to do with ID, in that case, any god can be ruled out, and all the claims, by you IDiots, of a god being the intelligent designer are therefor off topic, irrelevant, and inapplicable to ID.

And since you're stating that a supernatural god/designer has nothing to do with the so-called 'ID theory/inference', which includes IDiotic speculation about all living things, I'll expect you and the other UD mods to delete any and all references to a god, religious beliefs, or anything else regarding anything supernatural from UD, and to never allow any future references to a god, religious beliefs, or anything else regarding anything supernatural to be posted on UD. You better get busy deleting all of the religious, supernatural crap from UD.

Or, you can just admit that you and the other IDiots believe that a supernatural god created the universe and everything in it, including living things, which of course is actually what you believe and promote.

more on the "contest"

September 12, 2011 at 4:15 pm

“UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).”

The money’s safe. Designing a living thing is precisely what Craig Venter is doing, and he has already succeeded with his laboratory-designed microbe.

But if you mean, the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent – meaning a living thing considered by science to have evolved or arisen by abiogenesis, my answer is as follows:

If ID is correct and life could not have arisen without intelligence, then the first living thing must have been designed by an intelligence that was not living (otherwise it would not be the first living thing). The intelligence that was not living must either have been of natural origin or of non-natural origin (there being no other possibility). The only intelligence that has ever been observed in nature has either been alive or the product of life – but that cannot be true for the intelligence that designed the first living thing (by definition). Therefore the intelligence that designed the first living thing cannot have been natural and must therefore have been non-natural – and must therefore be supernatural by definition.

Barry Arrington
September 12, 2011 at 8:39 pm

No prize. The prize will be awarded to “anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).” It says “a living thing,” not the “first living thing.”


Hey barry, you fuckfaced no-integrity dishonest asswipe, the "first living thing" was "a living thing".

barry arrington's "contest"

Have you seen this?

What a fucking dishonest, empty bluff. Yeah, as if they would actually pay up. It doesn't matter what anyone says or shows in regard to the "supernatural" claims of the IDiots. The IDiots will just lie and evade and make shit up like they always do, and they will NEVER admit that their ID claims are ALL based on their belief in a "supernatural" god. Just look at the responses from the IDiots so far. All evasive, dishonest, goal post moving bullshit. And kairosflaccid even brought up "Sen McCarthy", "S-A-U-L A-L-I-N-S-K-Y", "Plato", and a LOT of other irrelevant, accusatory garbage.

Even though DrBot was just trying to get arrington to clarify some things, arrington puked: "UD Editor: DrBot is determined to sidetrack the contest onto the consciouness problem. We are just as determined not to let him."

But, it's obviously just fine for gordo or any other IDiots to "sidetrack" as much as they like. What a surprise, NOT.

And of course there's also the FACT that UD won't allow the vast majority of the people who might or would respond to the so-called "contest" to even post comments there.

Hey arrington, you bloviating brain dead coward, why don't you post your "contest" on ATBC, and Pharyngula, and WEIT, and here, and other sites that oppose your dishonest ID claims?

It should also be obvious to anyone with a clue that arrington's "contest" is about as well defined as the so-called 'ID theory/inference' itself. Like ID, the "contest" is so vague, undefined, and full of holes that it's all just a useless arrogant joke. And since arrington the dishonest IDiot is the one who has appointed himself as the judge of the "contest", what conclusion do you think he will come to?


See this:

Hey noam, if anyone is a coward, it's you. Why are you afraid to put your arguments in writing? What have you got to hide? What do you think you could accomplish by having a 'private' debate with EL? Are you afraid of being publicly shown up by a woman? Do you think that because she's a woman that you can be abusive to her and get away with it in a private debate?

Man up noam, and debate her on her website. You're not chicken, are you? Come on noam, show everyone what a courageous IDiot you are.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Just STFU phil, you inane, lying, spinning, wallowing piece of shit
September 11, 2011 at 7:38 am

Well David, I can see that you are dead set on spinning things as favorably for atheism/darwinism as you can, Thus I’ll let you wallow in all the lies you want and shall respond no more to your inanity.

From here:


What's the matter phil-boi, are you running away? What would your buddy joe think?

And by the way, you are exactly that which you condemn. That goes for the rest of you IDiots too.

The coward

September 11, 2011 at 6:55 am

Why did NickMatzke_UD run away from this thread?


Just because Matzke doesn't kiss your fat stupid ass and respond as quickly as you want him to doesn't mean he has "run away". And if he never responds again on that thread or any other thread on UD it would likely be because he has better things to do than to try to educate you retards.

You IDiot cowards are the ones that run away, joe-boi. You chickenshits hide in your echo chamber and won't face your opponents where you don't have moderation control. You block and ban people just because they don't agree with you, or because they question you. All you IDiots do is "run away", from your opponents, questioners, evidence, reality, and from testing or supporting (with real evidence) your ridiculous ID claims.

You're a joke joe, and a sniveling coward just like your muslim goat fucking brothers in islam.

The cult of materialism?

Right after bloviating-again77 goes off on another one of his IDiotic detours, and posts a bible verse, william murray (AKA meleager) excreted this:

William J Murray
September 11, 2011 at 5:28 am

The cult of materialism won’t go quietly into that good night.


Hey billy-boi, you and your fellow religious IDiots are the ones who are members of a cult. Every religion is a cult. You're just jealous, because you're unable and too afraid to think for yourself, like non-religious people do. Ya see, we atheists don't need to belong to a religious cult, which is actually a crutch for weak-minded, uneducated, ignorant, paranoid people, and of course a means by which some members of the cult can control and take advantage of the other members.

One thing I find funny is that you religious wackos think that any religion or denomination of a religion that differs from yours is a cult, and you also think that anyone who doesn't adhere to or practice any religion must be part of a materialist cult. You project your cult-ish thinking onto free-thinking non-theists, just like you project your other weird thoughts and actions onto anyone or everyone whether they are anything like you or not.

You just can't comprehend that many people aren't like you, don't think like you, don't behave like you, don't need the religious crutch you need, don't want to be subservient to an imaginary sky fairy (god), don't fall for asinine religious bullshit stories, don't want to support religious garbage in any way, aren't as weak as you, aren't as delusional as you, aren't afraid to face and understand reality, and don't want to be controlled, influenced, or directed by lunatics like you in any way, shape, or form.

I'm sure you believe that scientifically minded, realistic, rational people get together, hang out together, or join together against IDiots like you, whether on a website or anywhere else, simply because they feel a need to be a part of a group, what you call the materialist cult, but you're wrong.

For example, I'm not interested in science and nature because other people are. I'm not speaking out against IDiots like you because other people are. I'm not an atheist because other people are. I don't comment on websites besides this one because people who agree with me comment on those sites. Sure, it's always nice when others have similar interests or agree with me, but that is not what motivates me and I don't NEED that.

I do not go with a group just because the group says I should, or because I feel a need to be a part of a group. I go with the actual evidence and reality. Any other free thinking, scientifically minded, realistic, rational person would do the same thing. You, on the other hand, follow the group no matter which direction they go. You, and other religious zombies like you, fall for and will adhere to anything the group, or the leaders of the group, tell you to.

Weaklings like you like to be told what to think, believe, and do. You are a child who never grew up, and probably never will. You need a mommy to tell you and a daddy to make you. You need direction and discipline from an authority figure, and you want siblings (the other members of the group/cult) so that you don't feel alone.

Have you noticed that I never refer to myself as "we"? You IDiots regularly do. Why is that? Want me to tell you? Okay, it's because you religious weaklings can't stand the thought of being alone and you NEED to feel as though you have support from others and are a part of a group (cult). You wimps often say "we" even though there's no actual "we". You just assume that your brothers and sisters in religious IDiocy must agree with every word you spew so you say "we" to convince yourselves that you have support and agreement from the other members of your cult, and to make it look as though there are a lot of you with the same opinion, whether there are or not.

There are times when saying "we" or speaking for others may be appropriate but a lot of you IDiots do it when it's far from appropriate or honest.

People like you are followers. Even your so-called leaders are followers, although just not quite as much as you sheep in the congregation. You'd follow pretty much anything as long as it's popular and the more popular something is the more likely you'll follow it, just so that you can be a part of the popular group. Tell me, is your religion a 'popular' one?

You think and say that that's what 'materialists' do but scientifically minded, realistic, rational people (what you would call materialists) would run away from a group in a heartbeat if that group were to accept, adopt, or promote anything like the kind of bullshit fairy tales that you religious zombies believe in and worship. Frankly, I don't like the term 'materialists' and am only using it because you do. I don't label myself as a materialist. I think of myself as a free thinker who cares about real evidence and keeps an open mind about unanswered things as long as those things are within reason. In other words, I don't keep an open mind about the kind of crazy shit you religious zealots spew. I don't have all the answers about nature, and no one else does, and I can wait for real evidence instead of falling for and promoting asinine fairy tales that a five year old should abandon.

I may add more to this later.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

September 10, 2011 at 9:53 am

Aside from her inflammatory statements, she’s about as politically polarized as a person can get. ID is science, not political, but this could confuse a person.
Plus, remember that ridiculous photo of Michelle Bachmann on Newsweek? No one thinks she really looks like that. But I saw Coulter in a TV interview and she really did look like that. It was disturbing. She looked possessed.
(In case my comment raises the question, I’m not aligned with any political party or movement.)


scott, ID is not scientific. It is strictly a religious and political agenda, and a dishonest one at that. The posts and comments by the IDiots on UD alone are more than enough evidence to prove that.

bachmann and coulter are two pee-brains in a pod. They're both psycho, just like the rest of the republican party.

all science so far!

September 10, 2011 at 3:34 am

OT: This week on Unbelievable Christian Radio;

This week on Unbelievable : William Lane Craig answers listener Questions & talks about UK tour

also of note:

British Humanists (Toynbee, Dawkins & Grayling) Run from William Lane Craig – video

From here:


And born-to-suck-again says that Darwinists are irrational.

bornagain lusts after ann-the-man coulter

noam ghish appears to have at least a little bit of rationality:

September 10, 2011 at 2:09 am

it is not in UD’s interest to refer to Anne Coulter on their website. This woman is far too irrational to be referred to

But born-to-bloviate-again was sure to come along and show what a willfully blind, deaf, IDiotic dipstick he is:

September 10, 2011 at 3:29 am

noam_ghish states:

it is not in UD’s interest to refer to Anne Coulter on their website. This woman is far too irrational to be referred to.

Well if irrationality were a measure for being referred to on UD, then neo-Darwinists would never be referred to at all, since they have irrationality down to a science!


Actually noam, the irrationality of ann-the-man fits right in with the craziness of the IDiots on UD. In fact, some of the IDiots on UD make coulter look almost rational, and she's actually about as rational as a muslim suicide bomber who believes that he's going to get 72 virgins in islam heaven.

Hmm, I wonder if those are virgin women, or virgin goats.

Hey phil, do you lust after goats? Sheep? Inflatable party pigs?

Friday, September 9, 2011

astounding, really
September 9, 2011 at 6:36 pm


It seems that you think imagination is an OK substitute for scientific evidence. That alone casts aspersions on your scholarly ability if said ability just/only means the ability to conjure up an untestable story.

From here:


That comes from muslim creationist nutcase joe g. gallien, who believes that imagined, conjured up, insane, religious fairy tale stories and the associated, untestable ID pseudo-science that has no evidence whatsoever, should replace legitimate science.

joe, you are certainly one of the most delusional, ignorant, uneducated, non-scholarly, arrogant freaks that has ever existed. And your religion, islam, is a religion of murdering, raping, terrorizing, goat fucking scumbags.

Did you cheer, and praise allah, when your comrades in islam brought down the twin towers, caused the crash of another plane, and crashed yet another plane into the Pentagon on 9/11? Do the world a favor joe, kill yourself.

yoo hoo, gordeeeeeee

gordo (kairosflaccid) says (on his website):

"Consequently, we can easily see that [c] the attempt to infer or assert that intelligent design thought invariably constitutes "a 'smuggling-in' of 'the supernatural' " (as opposed to explanation by reference to the "artificial" or "intelligent") as the contrast to "natural," is a gross error; one that not only begs the question but also misunderstands, neglects or ignores (or even sometimes, sadly, calculatedly distorts) the explicit definition of ID and its methods of investigation as has been repeatedly published and patiently explained by its leading proponents."

So, gordo, your chosen god, the christian god, whom you and most or all other IDiots contend is the intelligent designer, is natural then?

born-to-be-a-sinner-again-and-again reveals himself

September 9, 2011 at 7:42 am

Well if Jason believes sin is merely an illusion forced upon him by a ancient religious text, I suggest that he perform a little experiment. I suggest that he try to live morally ‘perfect’ i.e. to live without ‘sinning’. Can he go a month without telling a single lie? Shoot can he go even one day without telling a lie??? Can he not lust for a month??? Can he not hate for a month??? etc.. etc.. etc.. ,,,

And there's more, here:


So phil cunningham, you admit that you're imperfect, and a sinner, that you live amorally or immorally, that your (daily) sins are not an illusion, that you can't go a single day without telling lies, that you lust on a regular basis (I just threw up in my mouth a little), and that you hate on a regular basis, etc.. etc.. etc.. ,,,

I dread thinking of what sins all those etceteras and ,,, are.

Have you considered committing yourself to an asylum for the dangerously mentally insane? Are you on a sexual predator list by any chance? Are you wearing a gps ankle bracelet? I hope that the police are keeping an eye on you.

IDiots are dysfunctional

Nick Matzke asked:

"Even under an ID hypothesis, plant carnivory ought to have some function, right?"

To which joe-boi answered:
September 9, 2011 at 6:29 pm

Under the ID hypothesis plant carnivory has two functions in one- to help keep insect population growth in check and to increase nutrients in nutrient poor conditions.

And to which scott andrews answered:
September 9, 2011 at 6:40 pm

Even under an ID hypothesis, plant carnivory ought to have some function, right?

Does everything that has ever been designed have a function?
If a thing was designed for a function, is that function always instantly apparent? If you found a pencil eraser but had never seen a pencil, would you start looking for the pencil eraser plant?
Is not knowing the function of something a solid basis for determining whether it was designed, or could it be an argument from ignorance?

The answer to your question is in there somewhere.


Let's see some IDiots answer those questions, scott!

Function, and the alleged obvious design of the function, are at the very foundation of the so-called 'ID theory/inference'. In other words, IDiots rely on "function" as one of the fundamental parts of 'ID theory'. You have seen the terms FSCI, FSCI/O, and dFSCI, haven't you? The "F" in them stands for functionally.

FSCI = functionally specific complex information
FSCI/O = functionally specific complex information/organization(?)
dFSCI = digital functionally specific complex information

Take a look at this page...

...and see how many times gordo uses and relies upon the words function, functional, functionally.

And on that page he says: "Indeed, this FSCI perspective lies at the foundation of information theory..."


Hey joe-boi, let's see how you used the "ID hypothesis" (in a scientific, detailed way of course) to come to your conclusion about the functions of plant carnivory.

IDiots never think before they speak

In this post...

...pav, the incredibly stupid IDiot says:

"And, of course, moving onto the whats and the hows is only more problematic. My grandfather used to say: “How do you build a house? Answer: You build four walls and a roof.” Simple explanation; but a whole lot of work, expense and details are involved. You can wave around Darwinian orthodoxy all day, but how many questions of the sort that Loennig asks does it really answer?"

Hey pav, you and the other delusional IDiots can wave around religious orthodoxy and your so-called 'ID theory/inference' all day, but how many questions of the sort that scientists and science supporters ask does it really answer?

You morons really ought to learn to think about how your bald assertions and stupid questions apply to YOUR worldview/agenda/beliefs before you IDioticly spew them.

Oh, and let's see you list all of the "details" of how your chosen god, er, I mean the intelligent designer (LOL), designed and created the universe, the Earth, everything that has ever lived, and every event and process that occurs and has ever occurred throughout the entire universe, with at least the same level of 'detail' and explanation that you expect and demand from science. Come on pav, show me that you know more about the "details" than science does. Let's see your whats and hows, in detail. I'm waiting.

One of the dumbest things I've ever read
Chris Doyle
September 9, 2011 at 6:22 am

Asking atheists to provide reasoned analysis and discussion points on the subject of theology is like asking Ayatollah Khomeini to write a detailed review of “the Satanic Verses”. Atheists cannot produce any original thought or clear thinking when it comes to theology. Most of them can’t even produce any original thought or clear thinking when it comes to atheism! Richard Dawkins’ quote about our existence (if the atheistic worldview is true) is one of those rare occasions when an atheist does utter something honest and coherent about their own beliefs:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

Any atheist who doesn’t realise that this outcome is entirely unavoidable when you embrace the atheistic worldview frankly needs to spend more time privately reflecting on their beliefs, instead of wasting time posting ill-conceived posts on the internet.

From here:


I have to admit that I'm stunned. I mean, I already knew that doyle and the rest of the IDiots are brainless beyond belief but doyle really shows his incomprehensible stupidity and arrogance in that post. He's actually saying that the death and suffering that animals and people go through on a constant (but normal) basis is because some people are atheists.

doyle, you are a sick, delusional, arrogant shithead, and your words are as ill conceived as any words could possibly be.

By the way, doyle has said that he's married to an atheist. Do you suppose he talks to his wife or husband that way?

o'leary, believer and purveyor of unbelievable beliefs

In this waste of bandwidth...

...o'leary drools:

"We can’t know why Venema shortchanges Christian students by promoting unbelievable beliefs instead of engaging facts, but he is a minor figure in a broad, and depressing, picture."

Engaging facts? As if o'leary engages facts? o'leary is complaining about someone allegedly shortchanging christian students by promoting unbelievable beliefs? I'm face palming and LMAO at the same time. A dingleberry has more brains and integrity than o'leary does.

I think it's also funny that she and the other IDiots on UD bitch about other religious people who accept scientific explanations of biological evolution, etc.

o'leary, you definitely are an airhead, and a minor figure in a broad and depressing picture.

Speaking of dull

robert byers says: "The platypus I say is just some dull otter."


Can anyone explain....

...what this irrelevant mess has to do with evolution, evolutionary theory, "Darwinists", or tax funded schooling?

And ann the man coulter again? Man oh man, are the IDiots desperate, or what?


Thursday, September 8, 2011

still no cigar

vince torley says:

"By objective I mean not purely in the eye of the beholder. More precisely, by ‘objectively beautiful’ I mean: anything that you derive pleasure from contemplating, for reasons independent of your own personal or cultural preferences, or your biological identity. If something is objectively beautiful, you would expect someone else to like it, irrespective of their identity, culture or species. I would expect a Martian to appreciate the beauty of Euler’s identity, for instance. See my reply to Elizabeth Liddle. I think I’ve made a strong case in this essay that mathematical beauty is objective, and that it is found in the cosmos."

That's nothing but gobbledegook and you should know it. You really don't have a clue when it comes to objectivity, but then, why would you? You believe in and promote totally subjective religious fairy tales. You think that your subjective beliefs are objective simply because YOU believe in them.

Tell me vince, is the smell of a well used outhouse or a sun baked corpse "beautiful" to normal humans? It could be said that an underlying law of nature has something to do with that smell. Is pleasure derived from smelling outhouses or corpses? Does the smell of an outhouse or a corpse have anything to do with personal or cultural preferences? It could possibly have something to do with personal preferences, but would anyone other than an abnormal person derive pleasure from smelling or contemplating the smell of an outhouse or a corpse?

To me, there are many beautiful things in nature, including some things that other people would call ugly (or worse) but there are many things that I would never describe as beautiful, and the so-called laws of nature are no different from anything else when it comes to "beauty". It's a matter of opinion. My opinion about what is beautiful is not scientific or objective and neither is yours. Ask a person who struggles with math if math is beautiful. It's also very likely that many people who are good at math wouldn't describe it as "beautiful", whether the math relates to the laws of nature, the cosmos, or anything else.

Oh, and going off on a "biological identity", "species", "Martian" sidetrack doesn't help your assertions.

And the bottom line is that alleged "beauty" in some things or everything doesn't prove anything about an alleged god.

You IDiots are showing more and more what's really behind your agenda. You long ago ran out ideas and arguments that you allege are scientific (but aren't), so you're resorting more and more to religious mumbo-jumbo in your desperation.

Ya know, if you guys would just keep your wacky beliefs to yourselves and quit trying to take over the world and cram your fairy tales into science and every aspect of everyone's life, you just might not get any shit from people who don't want anything to do with your bullshit beliefs and agenda.

nice try vince, but no cigar

My responses are in bold type.

vince torley says:

First of all, we need to define what we mean by “beauty” when talking about the laws of nature.

"we"? And you'll never come up with an 'objective' definition of beauty regarding the laws of nature.

Some people would regard beauty as a wholly subjective property.

Beauty IS a wholly subjective property.

However, it turns out that beauty can be given a clear and non-arbitrary definition.

Utter hogwash.

In his argument, Collins uses the definition proposed by the 18th century English painter William Hogarth, pictured above:

You're just appealing to authority and subjective opinion again vince. You're right, you're NOT a scientist.

The beauty of the cosmos suggests a fine-tuning argument.

In your delusional mind.

The key intuition here is that even if we put aside those possible universes that cannot support life and limit ourselves to those that can support life, the vast majority of these universes will have laws that are far less beautiful than our own.

Did you take too much LSD in college?

Collins argues that only theism offers a ready explanation of the underlying beauty of the laws of nature.

Well goodie for Collins! He sounds as delusional as you! Hey vince, can you tell me why the flying spaghetti monster isn't a "ready explanation of the underlying beauty of the laws of nature"?

For atheism, this beauty is a surprising and wholly mysterious fact, and as Collins argues, no version of the multiverse is able to render this beauty unsurprising:

Regardless of whether there are multiverses, you and Collins don't have a clue about atheism, or anything else.

Multiverse advocates have failed to address the beauty of the laws of nature.

Wow, you're really off the deep end.

In the meantime, theists certainly have nothing to fear from any future scientific discovery showing that our cosmos may be embedded within some larger structure.

Of course you have nothing to fear. You religious zombies can modify your beliefs to fit anything. Or, you can modify anything to fit your beliefs. No matter what science ever finds, you IDiots will find a way to ignore the parts you don't like and will keep on believing in nonsense.

The beauty of the laws of nature offers eloquent testimony to the existence of a Designer of nature.

LMAO! And don't you mean god? Do you really think that you're fooling anyone sane with your dishonest labeling? Why do you capitalize the word designer? It's because you think of your chosen god as the designer, right? And you think that your chosen god deserves a capitalized label, right? Why do you IDiots try to fool people with your deceptive, dishonest labeling of who or what you believe is the designer?

I'm including a post by allanius, which is one of his/her responses to torley's article:

July 24, 2011 at 6:47 am

Uh, not to seem unusually dense, but beauty itself must be accounted for and is the strongest argument against materialism after the complexity of life.

There's no "seem" about it. You are undoubtedly dense.

The simple fact is that men cannot make anything as beautiful as that which already exists. Why is that? In art, for example, the best they can do is to imitate nature.

Even if that's true, which is debatable, so what?

Science has nothing to say about the beauty of nature or its origin—nothing.

Why should science say anything about the "beauty of nature" or the origin of the "beauty of nature"?

"That’s why scientists shouldn’t pretend to be philosophers."

You say that there are no living philosophers (below), which includes all of you IDiots. Do you consider yourself or any of the other IDiots as being "scientists"? Answer that questions (honestly) and I'll have more to say on the subject.

Darwin’s attempt to account for the astonishing beauty of living things through sexual selection is idiocy or high comedy—take your pick.

Are you basing your opinion of that on philosophy, or science? If science, what science (evidence/research/etc.)?

We know about the classical Greeks and their enthusiasm for beauty. We know that beauty was the ground of Plato’s argument for the existence of the good. Throughout history, until, oh, say 1850, this was a fact universally acknowledged, as Crazy Jane might say. Then clever men—the wise men of their age—decided they didn’t need God and negated him. “God is dead,” they cleverly said. The upshot? A 100 years of desolation and ugliness in the arts.

Uh Oh, Plato! Shades of kairosfartus.

Now it is true that the concepts of “the good” described by the philosophers were hopelessly divided between sense and intellect, or as we would say today, being and nothingness. The Nihilists were quite right to negate the god of Plato and Aristotle, which was intellect. Intellect is a dividing power and therefore cannot produce an undivided description of the good. Men cling to the idea that intellect is the good because they are in love with themselves and their own thinking.

That has what to do with the original topic? And I thought you IDiots say that ID has nothing to do with religion?

But the Nihilists threw the baby out with the bathwater. In their eagerness to kill God, they also killed beauty. It is impossible to account for the beauty of nature without God.

Impossible? Is "the beauty of nature" a scientific term? After all, ID is a 'scientific theory/inference', isn't it? Is there a mathematical equation that describes or defines "the beauty of nature"? And, again, I thought you IDiots say that ID has nothing to do with religion? Your real agenda is showing.

If “God is dead,” then the beauty that exists either has to be the product of sex (Darwin), or is an illusion (Sartre, Nausea et al), or we just happen to be the lucky blokes who won the universe lottery and got the pretty one (multiverse).

Huh? The choice is between a god or sex or an illusion?

There are no living philosophers. Not one. No one currently pretending to the title will obtain the cachet of a Plato or Aristotle for the simple reason that philosophy is the pursuit of happiness. The beauty of nature makes us happy. If we acknowledge it and start asking the questions Plato asked about it, philosophy is possible. Otherwise all we have is navel-gazing.

Well then, since, according to you, there are no living philosophers, what label would you apply to all the balderdash that is constantly spewed by you IDiots? It sure isn't science, and you say it isn't philosophy. It must be navel-gazing then. Thanks for admitting that.