Wednesday, November 30, 2011

the fixity of tard

is continued here:

On UD, joe-boi responded:

November 29, 2011 at 6:56 pm

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

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


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

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

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

From Wikipedia:

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

IDiotic strawmen

My responses are in bold type.

November 29, 2011 at 3:18 pm


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

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

Neil Rickert
November 29, 2011 at 5:14 pm

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


November 29, 2011 at 5:21 pm

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

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

November 29, 2011 at 6:57 pm

OK Neil- what is this alleged strawman?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



November 29, 2011 at 4:33 pm

I don’t even believe in multi-vitamins.


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


Tuesday, November 29, 2011

o'leary is nuts

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

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

And with her poetry in mind, check this out:

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

The complete paper o'leary quoted from:

And other stuff:

In the following article Gabora says:

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


I'm not sure I understand her point.

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

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

The ignorance and arrogance of godbots

November 28, 2011 at 9:16 pm


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

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

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

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

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

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

Just some thoughts.

November 28, 2011 at 9:22 pm

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

From here:

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 28, 2011


My responses are in bold type.

November 28, 2011 at 3:50 pm

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

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

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

November 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm

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

A mind is a horrible thing to close.

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

November 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm

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

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

November 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm

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

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

IDiots NEVER think before they speak

November 27, 2011 at 9:19 am

In what reality is an alternate explanation even required in order to dismiss a poor, inadequate one? How odd.

(and a lot of other non-thinking crap)



Okay scotty, in that case I'm dismissing, without offering an alternate explanation, a poor, inadequate explanation for the diversity of life. It's called ID, and it's one of the poorest and most inadequate pseudo-explanations ever conjured up. Thank you for making that so easy.

If joe-boi was designed in god's image...

..then god must be a seriously insane, stupid motherfucker.

November 25, 2011 at 4:53 pm

suppose I’m most curious why the Designer gave disease causing organisms the ability to evolve around and even subvert the immune system.

Perhaps that is due to generations of random effects on our immune system.


And in his very next post in that thread, joe-boi puked:

November 28, 2011 at 8:23 am


Your continued equivocation is nauseating. The point of ID is that “evolution” is directed- ie it has a goal/ target.

That said there still isn’t any evidence that the immune system evolved via accumulations of random variations- there isn’t any way to even test that premise.

So when you say “evolution” you need to be more specific as there are several types- for example there is blind watchmaker evolution, intelligent design evolution and front-loaded evolution.

So enough with your equivocating and it is time you buy a vowel.



joe, you need a LOT more than a vowel. You need a brain. First you claim that the ability of disease causing organisms to evolve around and even subvert the immune system is perhaps due to generations of random effects on our immune system, but then you say there still isn’t any evidence that the immune system evolved via accumulations of random variations and that there isn’t any way to even test that premise. Contradict yourself much?

You also slobbered:

"The point of ID is that “evolution” is directed- ie it has a goal/ target."

BZZZZT. Wrong. Many, if not most IDiots deny that any evolution of any sort has ever occurred, and virtually all of you deny that 'macro' evolution has ever occurred. You IDiots can't even agree on what your stance on evolution is and you can't agree on what the "point" of ID is, except that you all agree that 'god-did-it' whether you'll admit that or not.

"So when you say “evolution” you need to be more specific..."

That is absolutely hilarious coming from you. You regularly LUMP the word "evolution", or "evo". Many people have pointed that out to you for a long time but you just go on and on and on with your NON-specific lumping anyway and then get pissy when people can't read your non-existent mind. Whatever you do though, don't wake up and see your own failings. Just keep on being the ignorant, blind dumbass you've always been and keep providing me and others lots of entertainment watching you make a gigantic fool of yourself.



November 28, 2011 at 6:18 am


I can’t say life wasn’t designed until a model of how that process might have worked is put up.

Evos say the stupidest things. Timbo sez he cannot support his position until ID supports its position.

Timbo doesn’t just have an empty plate, it appears it also has an empty head…

From here:


Lame try joe-boi, and it won't work. Timbo didn't say any such thing but you essentially have. You regularly say that the first thing you IDiots must do is refute/eliminate the ToE, before ID can be considered. In other words, you can't support your "position" independently. The ToE, on the other hand, does not depend on refuting/eliminating ID or on whether you IDiots can support your "position". The ToE is as independent of ID as it is of assertions about Bigfoot or little green men from Mars.

You claim that ID is valid unless and until someone proves it to be invalid AND proves the ToE to be true. Well, joe-boi, by that criteria ANY opinion, assertion, speculation, etc., is valid unless and until you IDiots prove it to be invalid AND prove your "position" to be true. Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

the design "hypothesis"...

...according to scottandrews2:

"How do you model design? Tell me something you’ve designed, and then model the mental activity of designing it.

If you can’t then you’re making this up as you go along. If you can then you’ve just written the hypothesis."

From here (34.1):


So, design is mental, just like scotty. :)

Hey scotty, since YOU are an IDiot, let's see YOU support YOUR own claims and "model the mental activity" of the alleged designer AND write a scientifically testable hypothesis for ID and the alleged designer's mental activity. Or are YOU just making shit up as you go along?

joe-boi is showing his mentality in that thread too, and it ain't pretty.

Like trying to pull teeth with non-existent pliers

Timbo, like MANY others over the years, tries to get scott andrews, or any IDiot, to come up with a testable hypothesis for ID:

November 27, 2011 at 5:10 pm

An explanation would be nice, let alone a more detailed one.

Science works by making a hypothesis and then modelling that. Can you even come up with a hypothesis that can then be modelled and tested?

November 27, 2011 at 5:11 pm

I pity the frustrated soul who wrote the FAQ that no one reads.


scotty, the FAQ on UD are just more of the usual, dishonest, blustering, bald assertions that you IDiots constantly spew. There's no testable hypothesis in the FAQ and there's no testable hypothesis in anything you lying morons claim about the so-called ID inference/hypothesis/theory. You dullards don't have the slightest clue as to how science should be done.

You godbots can't even agree amongst yourselves on whether ID should be labeled as an inference, an hypothesis, or a theory. At the most it's an inference, but a totally unsupported one, which actually makes it a worthless opinion, based on a variety of interpretations of crazy religious beliefs.

You IDiots can barf your ridiculous religious assertions until the end of time but you'll never get anywhere with science unless you actually do some science and come up with positive scientific evidence and a testable inference, hypothesis, or theory that credibly explains that evidence. Endlessly preaching the same old unsupported, non-scientific, religious bullshit to the choir in the UD echo chamber is NOT science.

joe g's user name change at UD

As I mentioned the other day in one of my posts, joe g has changed his user name at UD from Joseph to Joe. In this thread...

...joe-boi is the first one to comment and he did so as Joseph, but later in the same thread (and others) he posts as Joe:
November 27, 2011 at 9:41 am

Cannot be built incrementally via blind and undirected chemical processes.

If you cannot grasp that then you do not belong here.


The wording alone of that post is enough to be sure he's joe g but if you're not convinced just hover your cursor over either one of his user names on a post of his at UD and you'll see a little doohickey that says, or you can click on either of his user names and you'll be taken to his waste of bandwidth blog. Yeah, his blog is grossly misnamed.

Why he changed his user name I don't know. Maybe he was banned and snuck back in, or maybe he thinks that changing his user name will make people think he's not the same IDiot.

By the way, doohickey is a very technical scientific term. Really it is. LOL

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Lest we forget

Just the tip of the iceberg.

Too funny for words

Be sure to scroll down to all the other god-approved sexual acts.

And how about this?:

A pussy is the gates of heaven?:

o'leary, the poster twat for brain damage

"...the ID community, which is committed to a traditional evidence-based definition of science."

HUH? WHAT EVIDENCE is there for ID, and since when is the "ID community" "committed to a traditional evidence-based definition of science"?

"He and his audience desperately need to believe that it is, and will accept any dogma or speculation that justifies their choices."

Oh man, how could anyone be so blind to their own dogma, speculation, hypocrisy, and projection?

By the way, if ID isn't a religious agenda, why do the IDiots constantly bitch about atheists? Why is atheism such a HUGE concern of theirs? Why does atheism or theism matter at all to them if they're "committed to a traditional evidence-based definition of science"? What do non-evidential, imaginary, fairy tale gods have to do with evidence-based science?

gordon e. mullings, the infinitely IDiotic monkey

He could have saved himself a lot of typing by just saying god-did-it.

Hmm, I wonder why gordo doesn't submit a paper about his log-reduced-chi-log-metric-chi-toilet-log-gobbledegook to a legitimate scientific journal? Oh wait, if he did that his bullshit would be scrutinized and critiqued by real scientists, and that just wouldn't be acceptable to such a cowardly bloviating IDiot who just wants to preach to the choir.

and speaking of crazy...

What a steaming pile of contorted, delusional excrement. That lunatic has WAY too much time on his hands and really needs to get a life.

Whenever I check on this...


I really try not to laugh, but there's just no way that I can keep from doing so. The insanity in that thread, especially from barfagain77, is just hilarious. Ya know, being a man, I've always thought that men are the logical, more grounded in reality gender, and that women are more likely to be illogical fairy tale believers, but after reading a lot of the crazy shit spewed by religious members of the male gender, I'm not so sure.

I know women who are vastly more logical, more grounded in reality, and more sane than ba77 and the rest of the male religious kooks on UD or anywhere else. Sure, there are lots of women who believe in and push religious nonsense, but it's mostly males who are vigorously pushing that crazy shit.

That thread is a likely contender for being the craziest thread ever on UD, although picking any particular thread for that title out of all the nutty crap on UD would be a tough call.

william dembski, ID pushing god zombie

Some of you have probably seen this already, but if you haven't, read it and keep in mind that it's written by dembski (except for the forward), one of the main pushers of ID. Yeah, ID, the so-called inference/hypothesis/theory that is alleged, by IDiots, to be strictly "scientific", not religious.

It's a PDF:

Saturday, November 26, 2011

gpukio is unaccomplished, except as a blustering moron

November 25, 2011 at 4:09 pm

Hi, UB,

You are right, the modest potentials of natural selection are however the consequence and result of the existing replication process, that implies a lot of already existing information: not too much in the case of computer viruses, a huge amount for biological replicators.

And yet, even so, that limited power of NS cannot generate any significant new functional information, least of all true dFSCI. If my proposed simulation were accomplished, I am really sure that no results could be observed: the computer replicators would remain simple computer replicators, and would develop no new functions, certainly no complex ones.

I am sure of that. Our darwinist interlocutors, IMO, are as sure as I am of the same thing. That’s why they try in all possible ways to dismiss my model for testing the powers of NS, and seek refuge in their ad hoc, self-serving, useless GAs, whose results, although extremely modest, are nothing else than wonderful examples of intelligent design.

From here:


It's mostly just the usual blustering bullshit from gpukio, but there are a few things that stand out, and they're in here:

"...that limited power of NS cannot generate any significant new functional information, least of all true dFSCI. If my proposed simulation were accomplished,..."

Hey gpukio, precisely define "generate", "limited", and "significant" in the context of biological entities and in the context of your points, er, I mean bald assertions. Precisely define "new functional information" and "functional information" in the context of biological entities and in the context of your bald assertions. Precisely define "true dFSCI" or just plain old "dFSCI" in the context of biological entities and in the context of your bald assertions.

And where oh where is your "proposed simulation" and why isn't it "accomplished"? I'm sure that the entire scientific community has put aside all other work in anticipation of it, and won't rest until they see it.


November 25, 2011 at 4:53 pm

suppose I’m most curious why the Designer gave disease causing organisms the ability to evolve around and even subvert the immune system.

Perhaps that is due to generations of random effects on our immune system.

From here:


Yet joe-boi regularly pushes the front loading argument and others that deny generations of random effects.

And why would an allegedly perfect, loving, merciful, forgiving, omnipotent, omniscient, designer/creator god allow "random effects" to occur in the immune system, especially when they cause suffering and/or death? Oh yeah, 'the fall'. The alleged act of one or two people that were allegedly created by that god in that god's image that all of humanity and countless other organisms are 'lovingly', 'mercifully', 'forgivingly', viciously punished for. Makes perfect sense. NOT.

joe-boi, you and your imaginary god SUCK, and there's no perhaps about it.

November 25, 2011 at 8:19 am

Here you go Bruce. Since you believe that evil does not really exist and thus in subjective morality, here’s the moral of the story;

Bruce Almighty (2003): Moral of the Story – video clip

Bruce: There were so many. I just gave them all what they want.
God: Yeah. But since when does anyone have a clue about what they want?

From here:

All science so far!

(That whole thread should be saved for evidence at the next Dover type trial)


And more 'science' from ba77:

Verse and Music:

“There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:1-7).

Newsboys – Born Again -

From here:

Does "PaV" stand for petrified ass varnish?

November 24, 2011 at 9:50 am

Studies suggest that “beneficial” mutations rarely occur. The vast majority of mutations are either neutral or deleterious. This is the Achilles Heel of Darwinism/neo-Darwinism.

From here:


"Studies suggest...". Hmm. "...rarely occur". Hmm. "The vast majority...". Hmm. "...either neutral or deleterious...". Hmm.

That's all pretty vague for an "Achilles Heel".

Hey pav, exactly how commonly does a "beneficial" mutation have to occur for a wild population of organisms to evolve or keep from going extinct? Calculate that for every (or any) organism on Earth. Show your work.

Hey pav, what would happen to the population numbers of wild organisms if all mutations were beneficial? Calculate that for every (or any) organism on Earth. Show your work.

Hey pav, exactly how many mutations are neutral, or deleterious? Calculate that for every organism on Earth. Show your work.

Hey pav, why do you and the other IDiots rely on whichever "studies" you think will give you ammunition against "Darwinism/neo-Darwinism" and ignore and/or denigrate many other studies that contradict your religious beliefs (including the ID agenda)?

Hey pav, when are you IDiots going to produce any positive, scientific evidence for ID and stop bitching and whining about "Darwinism/neo-Darwinism"?

Friday, November 25, 2011

Speaking of weak and feeble

November 25, 2011 at 8:22 am

Yes the weak and feeble get eliminated. The stillborn get eliminated. But that says absolutely NOTHING about what lives and reproduces, which can any number of different variations.

From here:


Uh, joe-boi, weak, feeble, and especially stillborn individuals (since they're DEAD) are really unlikely to reproduce, except when it comes to some humans and that's because healthy, live born people help keep many weak and feeble people alive long enough for many of them to reproduce. Also, fewer individuals are stillborn than in the past (especially regarding humans and domesticated animals) due to science and helpful people.

Being weak and feeble, or dead at birth certainly DOES say SOMETHING about who or what lives and reproduces, especially when there's no human intervention. Of course there are other factors involved in evolution (and selection), but then you know that, don't you? You're just trying your usual asinine tricks and making it sound as though evolution and the ToE are limited to whatever tiny box you put them in.

joe, you were stillborn mentally, but you just don't realize it.

(I see that joe has changed his UD user name.)

illegitimate IDiot

gildo upchucked:

"My response to this esteemed “professor of science” — who purports to educate those of us involved in legitimate science and not Darwinian speculation and fantasies..."



gildo is involved in legitimate science? What science? The science of believing and spewing religious insanity?

gildo's concept of science is playing a victim and a martyr, bragging about himself, and bitching about anything (e.g. science) that contradicts or challenges his wacky religious beliefs. He and the rest of the IDiots are as illegitimate as it's possible to be when it comes to science. ALL they have is speculation and fantasies, and that's putting it nicely.

ba77 also shows his 'scientific' prowess in that thread with his usual 'scientific' commentary. LOL

Yeah, what he said.

Oh shut up!


I'm just pissed because Obama didn't praise and thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Ra, Krishna, Odin, all the gods on this page...

...and every other god ever conjured up, and most of all the one and only true god, my left nut, which created and rules over all of the universes. Sheesh!

The window closes in 18 months

According to glenn beck:

beck and bachman, the looniest of the loony?

Thursday, November 24, 2011


November 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm

But of course Bruce, your forever mold-able pantheistic philosophy, where you highjack every scrap of evidence you can get your hands, and ignore, or severely ‘adjust’ your philosophy to accord to, every piece of evidence that directly contradicts your pantheistic philosophy.,,,

From here:


But of course barfagain77 and the rest of the IDiots NEVER do that. Pfft.

I want to add that I'm not agreeing with any of the stuff that bruce david says but ba77 and the rest of the IDiots do exactly what he's accusing bruce david of. All of them ignore, manipulate, hijack, conjure up, adjust, and/or lie about evidence (and/or their "philosophy") so as to justify their agenda. In other words, they will say or do anything in their attempt to rule the world.

The problem is you IDiots
November 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm

P, The problem — as has been pointed out repeatedly — is we do not have the resources of ATOMS and TIME in the observed cosmos to do the calculation for novel body plans. And, there is no good reason to accept that a smooth incremental path exists from first life through the body plans, starting with the major characteristics of both protein fold domains and the fossil record. KF

From here:


Who's "we"?

Since MANY body plans, whether "novel" or otherwise, actually do exist right here on Earth and are likely on many other planets, there obviously are enough atoms and time to produce them, let alone 'calculate' them, and there is no good reason to think that a supernatural designer god produced them in the way (and time) described in the bible (that you vigorously believe in and promote).

Are you ever going to produce any actual evidence to support your assertions, or are you just going to keep on belching bullshit?

gordo is a laugh a minute
November 20, 2011 at 10:23 pm


but common descent requires the transitions to be incremental

See the “it MUST have been like that” rather than, on evidence this is what was the case?

One assertion to substantiate another, do you not see the circle of argument?

There is but one definite fact about the world of the deep past, however deep is was: fossil life is the only directly evident life from the time beyond prehistory.

The evidence, as Gould et al have admitted and as the Cambrian fossils plainly say [cf the Meyer PBSW paper . . . which passed proper peer review by renowned scientists], is, sudden appearance of diverse forms [top down at that], stasis of body plans, disappearance or continuity into the modern era.

If there was common ancestry, the actual evidence does not support Darwin’s incrementalism. And, common descent is compatible with common design, e.g. by frontloading or even episodic engineering [try using viri as vehicles for directed mutations], etc.

The issue is that the dominant mechanism proposed cuts clean across the actual directly relevant evidence.

And if we go for more indirect evidence, the protein domains also fit in with islands of function.

As does the very nature of complex digital code.

But, some will insist, this is the way it MUST have been . . .

Darwinian a priorism . . .



Look who's asserting "it MUST have been like that" (god-did-it). All you ever do is assert your non-evidential religious crap to try to substantiate your non-evidential religious crap. You don't actually succeed of course, and never will.

I see your "circle of argument" in pretty much every word you spew. It's hilarious that you expect evidence (which is already substantial regarding common descent and evolution) but you don't have ANY to support your ID or other religious claims.

gordo, what is the exact measure of an 'increment'?

Gould isn't the last word on evolution, and meyer is a wacked out IDiot.

The "issue" is that you and your fellow IDiots don't have a clue about science and reality and are trying to force your religious and political agenda into every aspect of everyone's life.

And speaking of islands, I sure would like to put you on a barren one that is far, far out to sea.

Delusional religious a priorism . . .

Twt of planet Earth

outright blowhard
Upright BiPed
November 23, 2011 at 9:16 pm

Petrushka, you need to focus. The evidence of a semiotic state is staring you in the face. It has physical entailments. They are observable. These entailments place requirements on any explanation proposed as to how they came about.

It is not my job to provide you with examples of anything. The evidence is observable, and the observations are coherent. It is your job to show how material causes can satify those physical requirements.


Actually, downright braindead, it isn't Petrushka's job to show you IDiots a damn thing. You're the ones trying to replace science with your religious bullshit. You're the ones who "need" to support your claims. You also need to grow up and learn that your fairy tale religious beliefs aren't scientific or realistic.

And you're the one with the assertions about "a semiotic state", whatever that is.

Let's see you coherently connect "a semiotic state", in the way you refer to it, to the origin and diversity of life on Earth (both extant and extinct) with scientifically testable, observable, physical, verifiable evidence, and to your chosen god with an equal or greater level of evidence. Your religiously motivated bald assertions don't count.

Why don't you write up a paper about your assertions and submit it to a legitimate scientific journal? What's stopping you?

Someone forgot to flush the IDiot toilet

Check out the comments in that thread so far by tragic mishap, gildo, and ba77. tragic mishap (an appropriate name for such a stupid IDiot) said:

tragic mishap
November 23, 2011 at 8:02 pm

“There’s no principle built into the laws of nature that says theoretical physicists have to be happy.”

My how far we have come from the Scientific Revolution. It is not ID theorists who threaten the future of science. These people are giving up.


What the fuck kind of brain altering drug is that IDiot on? Oh wait, I know, he's high on his imaginary god! That explains his incoherence and insanity. I can't even imagine where he got the idea that scientists/physicists are giving up. It's religious zombies like tragic mishap who have given up, on ever learning anything except how to parrot whatever mindless shit they're told by other religious zombies.

batshitcrazy77 is down to his usual flood of links and quotes, and obviously thinks that that somehow makes him an expert on Quantum Mechanics/Entanglement (and everything else), and his nauseating habit of including bible quotes and links to religious music is just further proof that ID is a religious agenda.

Every time the IDiots put their fingers on a keyboard they reveal more and more about how ignorant they are and the real motive behind their ID agenda, yet they arrogantly and delusionally believe that they can pass off their religious, political agenda as science. They're so fucking crazy and wrapped up in their fairy tale beliefs that they don't even realize they are providing all the evidence anyone would ever need to prove that their agenda has NOTHING to do with advancing science.

Apparently, if someone is blind enough to believe in impossible, insane, religious fairy tales, they're also blind to their own words and actions, even when their words and actions are destructive to their agenda. The IDiots are their own worst enemy.

Something different

Cephalopods are awesome.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

This thread should be...

...required reading for EVERYONE.

eigenstate makes some of the best points I've ever seen:

Unfortunately, I am unable to see any comments past number 12.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

joe-boi's parents begat an IDiot

According to joe-boi:

"Well, seeing that humans are designers, it goes to show that only designers beget designers- that is if we lean on our observations."


"Humans beget humans and bunnies beget bunnies- how does that help your positon?"


So then joe, since only designers beget designers, which designer begat the designer (god) that you IDiots promote as the designer (god) of our universe and everything in it? And which designer begat that designer? And which designer begat the designer that begat the designer that begat the designer that begat the designer that begat......................?

Oh, and have you ever observed your chosen god or any other god designing anything? Just wondering.

An exchange between joe-boi and DrRec in the same thread:

November 22, 2011 at 6:29 pm

Computers, cars, Stonehenge,-> all beyond the UPB, all designed, all observed.

November 22, 2011 at 6:35 pm

All human. Funny you can’t find an example in nature-of design exceeding the UPB arising at once.

I suspect you know what I meant.
November 22, 2011 at 7:30 pm

Umm cars, computers and Stonehenge all exist in nature.

And your strawman is still meaningless.


joe-tard seems to have a problem figuring out what "in nature" means, and a lot of other problems too.

Check out the comments by ba77 in that thread too. All science and no religion so far!

The games IDiots play

On this page...;act=ST;f=14;t=7305;st=1230

...sparc brings up an excellent point. If ID isn't a religious agenda (or "expression") then how can Coppedge sue on the basis of religious discrimination?

Monday, November 21, 2011

christian 'morality'

mind boggling irony, dishonesty, and lack of self awareness

Check out this post by o'leary, including her comments as "News":


ALL of her bitching and whining applies much, much more to the way HER posts and comments are written, and to the ID agenda.

I just thought of a means of torture to get terrorist suspects or other criminal suspects to spill the beans that would be far more effective than water boarding, flogging, keel hauling, and burning at the stake combined. Just lock the suspect in a room with o'leary, gordo, and ba77 for a few minutes and the suspect would admit to ANYTHING just to get out of there!

christian love and free will

IDiots, who are actually just religious zombies, constantly argue that their "loving" god gave humans free will. Free will is the ability and the right to choose freely, but if a person chooses not to worship the "loving" christian god, well, here's what christians are commanded to do by their "loving" god:

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.


Choose me, obey me, worship me, carry out my commands, or die!

So much for god given 'free will'.

drumbeat repetition of blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

gordo hacked up this hairball:

"In short, design theory is that scientific discipline that studies empirical signs of design, and in applying the findings to certain features of the natural world finds in these, tested and reliable signs that point to cause by a process of design."

Here (6):

That's a pack of LIES. There is NO "design theory"! A scientific theory requires positive, supporting evidence. Tested and reliable? Did he really say that? WHAT "tested and reliable signs" of design in nature have IDiots ever found? They can't even define the bogus terms they use (like dFSCO/I) and have NEVER "tested" ANY of their ID claims. Scientific discipline? gordo, you are totally out of your mind. There is absolutely NOTHING scientific about ID, which is STRICTLY a dishonest religious and political agenda, and you are one of the most insanely religious lunatics on Earth.

"So we have...". "..and we have...". "..else we may...". "..which we may...". "..what we can...".

WHO THE FUCK IS "we"? You and your pet turd?

Hey gordo, you good for nothing butt chunk, to use some of your own words: See your lies and strawman caricatures, insistently repeated in the teeth of corrections over and over again? What does that tell anyone with a functioning brain about your underlying attitude? I suggest, to start afresh on a sounder footing and get a fucking clue. So, kindly cease and desist from lying and erecting strawmen and knocking them over. After this, if you resort to the same lies and strawman caricature, you will plainly be willfully persisting in misrepresentation in the teeth of relevant correction, which is what you ALWAYS do.

And a few more of my own words: Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

o'leary is a sick, rotten bitch


"We"? "Us"? Who's we, and us?

"seen from a UD News perspective"? Yeah, o'leary's twisted, Darwin and science hating perspective.

"Darwin lobby"? What Darwin lobby? Are there registered lobbyists working for Darwin?

And why does o'leary show no concern whatsoever for all the corruption, expulsions, killings, abuses, rapes, scandals, theft, bigotry, racism, genocide, culture destruction, and other atrocities that have been and are being perpetrated by the catholic church (cult) she belongs to and supports, and all the same kinds of horrible things perpetrated by other religious zombies for thousands of years?

And your point is?


Hey o'leary (News), why is there so much variation in humans (skin color, hair color, hair texture, hair amount, eye color, blood type, height, weight, DNA differences, hand and foot prints, physical ability, intellectual ability, life span, health, attitude/emotions, and many other things) even though we are all the same species? Why aren't all humans exactly the same, especially if we were all designed and created in "God's image"?

Get this IDiot a mouth diaper
November 20, 2011 at 3:40 am

F/N 2: P, kindly, lose the strawman about “reducing” biochemistry to computer programs. That is outright disrespectful

(and a lot of other ignorant, arrogant bullshit)



Hey gordo, kindly, or unkindly, go fuck yourself, you pompous, two faced shit spewer.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

All science so far (part two)
November 19, 2011 at 4:39 pm

We cover this stuff because it could play a role in influencing voters or shaping policy. For example, in 2004 (?) Rick Santorum added a teach-both-sides amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. Someone else may do something similar in either direction in 2012. If Paul runs as an independent, he won’t win but – as you say – he could influence the breakout. Some people may owe him. We just keep an eye on it – when something specific happens.

From here:


Notice the parts about "shaping policy", "influencing voters", and "teach-both-sides", yet the lying IDIOTS claim that ID is a scientific inference/hypothesis/theory that has nothing to do with religion, politics, or an agenda to shove their religious beliefs into public schools. Their 'side' is a completely dishonest agenda that tries to illegally cram religion into every aspect of everyone's life, and of course the religious zombies really want to get to children so that they can program them while they're young and easy to manipulate.

The reason UD covers stuff like that (and other selected political stuff) is because the IDiots desperately want someone who hates Darwin, the entire concept of evolution, science, and the ToE, in the White House and every other political office.

Religious wackos think that electing an evolution denying godbot will somehow get the entire country to go along with changing or ignoring the Constitution and a lot of case law, and will instantly make their religious beliefs admissible into public education, government, and everything else. What they NEVER consider is that once any religion is admissible, they ALL are.

Who would decide exactly which religion and which interpretation of that religion would become the 'official' religion? Not even religious zombies would agree on who should make those decisions. And that's just one of the reasons why religion, and education/government/etc., MUST be separate.

All science so far
November 19, 2011 at 6:32 pm

Well, in reality it is found that infinite knowledge (omniscience) and infinite power (omnipotence) are required to cause the collapse of a single photon from its quantum wave state to its particle state:

Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity

Considering that the quantum waves of photons are collapsing to each unique point of ‘central observation’ in the universe, that pretty much settles the case for me that omniscient, omnipotent, God created, and is sustaining, the universe. But even creating and sustaining the universe, as awesome as that is for us to consider, fails to capture the essence of just how Great our God truly is (as if our finite minds could ever truly grasp that infinite greatness). In fact it is impossible for us to measure God’s Greatness for His Greatness is infinitely unlimited, and thus, just when one thinks they may have a handle on just how Great God is, His greatness, of logical necessity, will infinitely exceed even that measure, no matter when one should be naive enough to ‘this is how great God is’!;

Hillsong Live – Greatness of Our God – Music Videos
November 19, 2011 at 6:34 pm

correction: no matter when one should be naive enough to proclaim ‘this is how Great God is’!;

From here:


Yep, ID is strictly scientific, and has nothing to do with religion. LOL

If only batshitcrazy77 and the rest of the IDiots could understand what a "Real Physical Entity" is, instead of trying to shove their unreal, non-physical, non-existent god into everything.

Yeah, like the pope and the catholic cult...

...have any room to condemn corruption, injustice, mutilating lives, ethical problems, revenge, acts of violence, manipulation, misery, death, abuse, bad governance, deeper problems, aggravating the AIDS problem, wars, tensions, robbing citizens of hope, scandals, greed, ills, cutting people off from their future, or any other atrocity. The catholic cult has an entire planet's worth of logs in its eyes.

More bald assertions, no evidence

Comment on Just in: Faster than light neutrinos confirmed for now, contra Einstein by gpuccio (at UD).

gpuccio slobbered:


Nobody can really say.

But the point is, materialist reductionism is dogmatically stuck to a vision of the world were already existing scientific knowledge is considered the only religion. Any expansion of that knowledge, any new, unpredicted insight, is potentially dangerous for a dogmatic religion based on what science believes today.

ID, on the contrary, is truly empiric and scientific, and in no way reductionist. Therefore, any new understanding can only be truly welcome :)


Yeah gpukio, that's why science makes new discoveries and finds new, unpredicted insights, new understanding, confirmation of some predictions, and better explanations for many things every day, while ID is still limited to ancient, asinine 'god-did-it' dogma.

ID "is truly empiric and scientific"? LMAO!

ID is "in no way reductionist". Well, I guess that's true if one considers that ID makes no effort to find, study, and explain any parts of any systems in nature. IDiots just lump it all into 'god-did-it'. Oh sure, you IDiots say that you scientifically find, study, and explain all kinds of things but where's the beef? I'm still waiting for you to calculate the alleged "CSI" in a banana, let alone showing any original science that you IDiots have actually done and any real evidence of intelligent design in nature.

The only thing you IDiots find is work done by scientists and then you look for gaps (whether real or imagined) that you try to shove your god into. And you don't even know what study or explanations actually are. You think that bald assertions, sermons, and attacking science is doing science. Religions rely on sermons, in the sense that religious people want to just tell others what to think and be, and they don't want to discuss it or be challenged. Science, on the other hand, is open to discussion and challenges. What it's not open to is people who want to replace it with NON-scientific, NON-empirical, religious insanity.

Friday, November 18, 2011

blind asshole

November 18, 2011 at 7:15 pm


I wouldn’t consider your point of view unreasonable if not for the double standard.

Like so many, you are skeptical of what you cannot see even when its effects are evident. Half of astronomy would vanish under the weight of such disbelief, if effects could not be followed to unseen causes.

But while ID does not even require a miracle, you insist in explaining biology with one under the strict condition that it must be without cause. A bunch of molecules rubbing together and starting a three-billion year party with decorations and music doesn’t even raise your eyebrow.

Don’t show off your skepticism badge. You haven’t earned it.

From here:


What a fucking jerk.

ID absolutely DOES require a miracle, or a series of miracles. Without a miracle or miracles the so-called ID inference/hypothesis/theory is a non-starter. How can you possibly say, with a straight face, that the alleged design and creation of the universe and everything in it by a supernatural god is not based on a miracle or series of miracles?

Hey scotty, let's see you or any other IDiot 'follow' the alleged effects of your alleged god TO your "unseen" designer/god. You IDiots spew a LOT of bullshit claims but you NEVER actually provide ANY evidence to back them up. You're ALL talk and NO action, and you religious dolts are the ones with massive double standards.

You're definitely showing off your bloviating-religious-IDIOT badge, and you have certainly earned your place in the ID hall of shame.

Never ending insanity

My responses are in bold type.

Yep, it's more tard from gordo the almighty bloviator:

"..the Biblical record is not a matter of easily dismissed fiction, and that evolutionary materialism is self-referentially incoherent AND amoral. Thus it is not only necessarily false but a gateway to evil and a menace to our civilisation."

gordo is a creationist:

9 –> going on, Hb 11 speaks of how by faith — trust in God based on his Word [warranted by a chain anchored on the resurrection as described and linked many times . . . ] — “we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command.” That is, the God of the Bible is the Creator.

11 –> But that is not the most relevant issue, which is in Heb 11:6: “without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him [note the direct implication that here is but ONE true God, the Creator of the Universe] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

When asked where in the bible the double slit experiment is mentioned, he says:

On this latest topic he has been directly told — many times — by several people, that the Bible is not a Physics textbook [which is of course where the Double Slit experiment on interference of light waves -- and sometimes of electrons -- is commonly discussed], though it does set the context in which we can be confident that the Creator God of order created a world in which nature is orderly and intelligible. (And, this comes from careful exegesis . . . )

That Biblically anchored view is a basis for doing Science: thinking God’s creative thoughts after him.

And a hypocrite:

TH: You are skating on very thin ice. I counsel you to be very careful in judging Another’s servant. We are reasonably called to look at arguments and at the ways of life (bearing in mind not only the issue of growth across time, but also the planks in our own eyes) but we are in no wise in a position to dismiss another person eternally. Which is why a certain often encountered profanity is so blasphemous, BTW. In your case it is very clear from the above and previous threads that you have made some serious conceptual and biblical errors, and need to correct them, seeking forgiveness for sins: do not let foolish wounded pride get between you and the truth and the right. For all of us, there is need to grow in penitent faith that turns from wrong to right and from discovered error tot he truth, instead of resisting correction. G’day. D (the D stands for Dictionary)

And a screwball:

Of course, what is artfully being dodged here is that he creeds are precisely the result of generations of serous biblical scholarship and reflect precisely – and demonstrably — the teachings of the Bible.

He describes himself as a "creedally orthodox Christian" on that site and as an "evangelical Christian" on his sites. He has a huge problem with mormonism and other versions of christianity, and he pushes the "end of days" crap.

More creationist admissions:

In short, the Bible is not a physics textbook so is not to be expected to discuss operational science topics like the double slit experiment.

However as a book that addresses the origins of the cosmos and the ground of our existence in our Creator God and loving Lord and Saviour, it does have some very telling things to say about the ultimate origin and nature of the cosmos, which grounds true science and in interesting ways points to the designer of the cosmos.

In so doing, it warns us against so-called “science,” which is in reality speculative and deceptive philosophy that as we have seen has from time to time been imposed on science and scientific issues on and off for the past 2300+ years. In particular, in Rom 1 and related texts, it warns against those who would exclude God from the province of knowledge, cautioning us that — never mind professions of brilliance — they suffer an endarkened understanding and loss of control over their moral compass, i.e the same basic point that Plato also observed on Alcibiades and co from a different perspective

This precisely fits what evolutionary materialism is, and on this, with reference to the pretense that evolutionary materialistic origins science allows us to accurately reconstruct the remote, unobservable past of origins [and imposes Lewontinian a priori materialism to block effective rebuttal in the institutions dominated by the ideological materialists] the Bible in Job 38 is very plain:

Job 38: 2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?

3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand . . .

So, especially since evolutionary materialism — as shown above in reply to Mr Sherman [who like the other open or evident advocates of this ideology has been unable to reply cogently] — is inherently self referentially incoherent on the credibility of the materialistic brain to ground reasoned thought, we should not be intimidated by the materialists, never mind how they shake out their Lab coats at us.



He also promotes this page of his (and a lot of other ones):


more nuttiness from gordo

Similarly, to see why Christians hold this understanding of God, we first need to understand why Christians are Christians, i.e we must first address the central warranting argument of the Christian faith: the salvific death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christos/ Messiah, leading to his appearing to over 500 witnesses and pouring out his Spirit in power according to the prophecies of the Scriptures, so that across 20 centuries millions have come to know the one true living God personally and in life-transforming ways “according to the Scriptures.”

Thus, Jesus of Nazareth is Lord of Life, Saviour and Eschatological Son of Man, who is the Anointed — what Christ and Messiah mean — of the Ancient of Days of Daniel 7. The OT scriptures (the Hebrew Tanakh) that prophesied Messiah’s coming and passion, up to and including salvific death, burial and resurrection [cf Is 53 etc] are thus shown to be the Word of God, profitable to teach us truth, correct error and coach us in righteousness. Similarly, the writings of the Anointed One’s authorised represetnatives,t eh apostles are scripture. From these we learn — as ZSoe has outlined — how the nature of God is complex unity, one God manifest inthreee persons.

A profound mystery, and not wholly comprehensible. but, already we know that it powerfully answers to the problem of the one and the many, with particular relevance to the value and dignity of the individual human being that gives us rights.

And in fact, implicit or explicit trinitarian monotheism is the ONLY live option worldview that gives a solid answer to this longstanding philosophical problem. (Cf the already excerpted discussion on that.)

So, if we can swallow quantum “wavicles” and transfinite sets where the cardinality of the subset is equal to that of he whole set [1, 2, 3, . . . "obviously" has the same "number" of elements as 2, 4, 6, . . . (a proper subset,the evens), namely Aleph-null! And, Cantor had a whole philosophy of the eternal that exploits things like that!] — similar cases of complex unity with properties of he whole manifest in the parts — we can humble ourselves to swallow the equally counter-intuitive doctrine of the trinity too, in light of its warranting basis.

“There are more things in this world than are dreamed of in your philosophy!”



From here:

Gawd what a tard

gordo spewed:

The first point of relevant ignorance is basic grammar and the systematic parsing of sentences so that we can read with instructed understanding of words — what types there are, and how they work together to form a sentence that makes structural sense. (Making meaningful sense builds on that, and beyond lies the issue as to whether what is asserted, assumed or implied — each of these is different — “says of what is, that ti is, and of what is not, that it is not.”)

And, I am not talking of doing so in Greek or Hebrew. I am talking of doing that in good, plain standard English.


He's talking about to how to read the bible, and the ignorance he refers to is the alleged ignorance of anyone who doesn't agree with him as to how it should be read and understood. Yeah, as if the bible is written "in good, plain standard English".

Apply what he said to the way he writes too.

In the same comment he says:

"But, my rule of thumb for those who wish to hold forth in public on bible related matters is this: if, when you hear a significant scripture read, you do not automatically also internally hear the parallels, and do not automatically recognise the key concepts, ideas, issues and onward connexions to other themes and applications, you do not know enough to stand up to teach." (his bold)

Besides the obvious arrogance and insanity in that, he's saying that some scriptures are "significant", which must mean that some others are not. Maybe he was busy thinking god's creative thoughts at the time and didn't realize what he was inadvertently admitting. :)

In a later comment on the same topic, gordo says:

"And yet, i still find that nothing really beats having the knowledge base going in your head, live. And that, backed up by a humble, prayerful attitude that asks God the Spirit of Truth to illuminate your knowledge — how many times have I seen one and the same Scripture come alive in a fresh, deeper and more powerful way?"

Humble? gordo? I think my head just exploded.


gordo's "basis for doing science":

That Biblically anchored view is a basis for doing Science: thinking God’s creative thoughts after him. (his bold)

Indeed, it is the historically demonstrable framework for the likes of a Newton or a Boyle or a Pascal or a Pasteur or a Kelvin or a Maxwell. This too, for many practitioners of science today who are utterly uncomfortable with the self-referential incoherences and amoral context of the reigning orthodoxy of today’s neo-magisterium, Lewontinian a priori evolutionary materialism.

And of course he can think "God’s creative thoughts". Hmm, I wonder if gordo can bend spoons with his mind? ROFLMAO!


I've never heard of it until now. For a closer look here's an excerpt from one of gordo's posts at:

Posting with the username "Dictionary", gordo says:

As a first stop off, I therefore suggest you work your way through the Blue-Letter Bible Don Stewart FAQ here, and in particular on the matter in question from you, the set of questions on Angelology. (the word "here" is a link to this):

Rule of thumb: the Christian Faith has been around for some 2,000 years, and has always had in it men of the top rank of intellectual capacity, while being challenged on many points by critics and worse than critics. So, regardless of whether or no the particular Christian in front of you has a good answer to a question you raise just now, there will as a rule be a serious answer to the question. So, do some research.

The FAQ in question answers on the subject of Evil Angels, beginning:

Who Are the Evil Angels?

The beings whom we now call “evil angels” were part of God’s original creation of spirit-beings. Though they were originally created as sinless, holy beings, these angels decided to rebel against God.

Power Of Choice

The evil angels, like the good ones, were all given the power of choice or moral judgment. They were placed under a period of probation where they could decide whom they would follow.

[I add: they were created as moral beings, with the power to love, which requires the power of choice. In exercising that, they chose instead the way of selfishness . . . thus evil. And, the onward issue of evil is best looked at through Plantinga's Free Will Defense, on which I have previously linked. Kindly, do not allow yourself to be distracted by rhetorical rebuttals that confuse a defense with a theodicy. A defense shows logical coherence and has no need to assert premises that skeptical objectors will be inclined to accept. It turns out that on augmentation with a logically possible state of affairs across possible worlds, the theistic set of propositions is demonstrably coherent. On the related inductive forms of the problem, the pivot turns on the issue I have again raised yesterday: the core gospel issue [at this point the issue is specific to the Christian faith], and the power of redemptive trinitarian monotheism to resolve the philosophical problem of the one and the many comes into play. Bottomline, there is no good reason to reject the contention that a world in which virtue is possible and the required free creatures on balance do more good than ill, has a greater good-making potential than a programmed world in which there is no true freedom, so no virtue. But getting to that bottomline requires some pretty serious thought.]

Left Their Rightful Place

Under the leadership of Satan, certain angels sinned and left their rightful place. The sin of these evil angels was their revolt against the Lord and His commandments. The Bible says.

And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, He has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great Day (Jude 6).

They left their proper habitation – the reason for which they were created. When they chose to do this and sin against God, it was at that point they became evil angels. They were not created as evil beings . . .


I don't know about any of you but I just hate it when angels go bad. satan must have a better sales pitch than god.

Hmm, angels on probation. Makes perfect sense. LMAO! Is gordo crazy, or what?! He wouldn't know a "pretty serious thought" even if one were to hit him with the force of a super nova.

Let's take a look at gordo's...

..."abductive inference to best explanation".

According to gordo the wannabe a lordo:

The NT’s central claim is that he good news of Jesus is authenticated through his death, burial and resurrection with 500+ eyewitnesses and the poured out transforming power of the Spirit in the light of the promised s of the gospel, as is classically described in 1 Cor 15:1 – 11, in light of precise predictive prophecies, in the OT, esp those of Isaiah 53, c. 700+ BC. [And, only God can so control history as to prohesy like that.]

12 –> So, the root challenge for those who would object is to address the focal issue of 1 Cor 15:1 – 11, in light of what Gary Habermas and others have identified as the cluster of core facts that are generally accepted by both conservative and the majority of skeptical scholars, e.g.:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

13 –> On abductive inference to best explanation [the standard way of making sense out of empirical facts in logic and of seeing what is the warranted credible truth about the past etc], the historic, C1 NT contention that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, rose form death as triumphant Lord, with 500+ witnesses easily explains the above. BY CONTRAST NO SKEPTICAL THEORY IS CAPABLE OF EXPLAINING THE CLUSTER OF FACTS, OR EVEN KEY SUBSETS OF THEM.

So, on inference to best explanation, we are entitled to conclude — no mind who may be inclined to indulge in selective hyperskeptical dismissals of one form or another [cf more in the just above linked] — that the core gospel is well warranted, and that he apostles and prophets are indeed authenticated spokesmen of God.

But if one is committed to a different worldview, and especially if one has accepted certain errors as the truth, when one hears the real truth, it will seem like nonsense and foolishness. In short, there is none so blind as he who will not see.

That is why prayer to help us open our hearts and minds so that we will be open to corrective truth, and it is why taking time to examine the reasoning — logic — and evidence — facts — on a matter carefully in light of the principles of comparative difficulties analysis of alternative [world]views, is also so important.


Dictionary (aka gordon e mullings/kairosfocus)


Do I really need to comment on this? :)

gordon elliot mullings (Dictionary) likes to play twister

My responses are in bold type.

gordo said:

"The key thing about evil is to see it as in large part the privation or twisting to selfish ends of the good.

For instance, the power of choice is a necessary condition of the ability to love and think for oneself. use this aright, and you love and serve the truth.

Twist it to your personal ends, and it becomes selfishness and deception to gain advantage.

Put that on steroids, and voila, Lucifer to Satan, hey presto — poof!


One thing for sure is that gordo twists the truth and everything else possible to gain the advantage for his selfish, deceptive, "personal ends", and his dishonest twisting is certainly on steroids. Lucifer/Satan/gordo, hey presto - poof! Simple.

If you want to see gordo displaying his insanity and arrogance in all it's gore, read that whole thread. He posts there with the user name Dictionary. I'll be 'critiquing' some of his posts from there as time goes on. There's a vast amount of tard by gordo on that site.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Interesting read

From here:

Maybe someone can bring it up on UD, especially in one of the threads where the IDiots (like gordo) are blaming all the world's ills (including Hitler and the Nazis) on Darwin, atheists, and evolutionary materialism? I would but I'm not allowed to post on UD.

frilled IDiot (gildo)

My responses are in bold type.

Comment on Web site honours Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial by GilDodgen

Why so much hostility? Get a grip.

Get a mirror.

I came to the conclusion as an engineer in multiple engineering disciplines that the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection is a hopelessly pathetic hypothesis regarding the obviously highly sophisticated technology found in biological systems.

Well la de freakin' da. Science doesn't give a rat's ass about your "conclusion". And are you ever going to shut the fuck up about your alleged engineering skills? Go engineer a new personality for yourself and leave biology to biologists. (No offense meant to engineers in general)

Apparently, Antony Flew came to the same conclusion shortly before his death.

So? Evidence is what matters, not personal conclusions or appeals to so-called authority.

I have followed the evidence to a reasonable design inference.

What alleged "evidence" would that be, gildo? The bible? Your imagination? Your insanity?

You have followed unsupported speculation to an unreasonable conclusion that design cannot be considered as a possible explanation.

It's not so much that it "cannot", it's the fact that you IDiots have no evidence or working hypothesis to support or even test your ID claims, and you IDiots make it abundantly clear that your agenda is just a dishonest religious and political one. As long as that's the case, ID will not be considered by science.

How dumb can the IDiots get?

scottandrews2, one of the moronic IDiots, said:


There are plenty of sciences that seek non-natural explanations. A coroner who rules a death as a homicide is making a declaration that the cause of death was non-natural, even though he may not have complete information regarding the who, how, or why of the cause."

Hey scotty, you ignorant dumbass, the coroner doesn't look for SUPERNATURAL causes. Twisting the word "natural" into something that is completely irrelevant to the debate just makes you look stupid and desperate. Even if the cause of death isn't called "natural" by a coroner, it's still MATERIAL. There's no hocus pocus from some supernatural sky daddy involved. You IDiots come up with the most asinine arguments imaginable, and you're making damn sure that science will never accept your dishonest religious and political agenda. Keep up the good work.

Lies and matches

Timbo said:

KF, you need to get over yourself. Eigenstate is producing some fascinating material in his discussions above with WJM, and this discussion should be an illustration to you as to how to debate like an adult. Your endless faux emotive self righteous exclamations are boring and narcissistic.

kairosflaccid lyingly and crazily barfed:

Timbo: Sorry, but you are indulging in enabling behaviour. I have been repeatedly falsely accused of lying/willful and/or reckless deception (including in the post in that I have responded to on points, to which you replied as just above) — by someone who, when he turned to substance, failed to pass the test of being able to soundly diagnose what is happening when one strikes a match — and have a full right to require satisfaction. Unless, you imagine that it is fine to make such false accusations. Good day. KF


Uh oh, gordo is pissed. He said "Good day", which is a sure sign that he is having a tantrum. Poor baby.

Hey gordo, you ARE a WILLFUL LIAR and you constantly engage in WILLFUL RECKLESS DECEPTION. And what the fuck does striking a match have to do with it? Your insanity is WAY off the charts.

"have a full right to require satisfaction"? You think that YOU have a full right to require satisfaction? Hmm, I'd say that you have proved the multiverse theory. There's simply no way that your INFINITELY FAT HEAD could fit within one universe.

You LIE constantly, and just one of your LIES is about me threatening your family and holding your children hostage. Isn't it interesting and revealing that in all this time you haven't shown ANY evidence to support that LIE? I guess it's like everything else you spew. You expect people to believe it just because you say it. After all, you're perfect, you're infallible, you're the messiah, you're GOD, right?

I've been reading the Barbados Underground site and have found a lot of revealing things about you. I will be posting some of your crap from there as time goes on. Stay tuned gordo.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

gordo believes that disobedient children deserve to die...

...along with a lot of other people (I bolded some of the text for emphasis):

"Thus we may see in outline — notice onlookers how the objectors protest ever so loudly when a detailed exposition is either developed or linked — why it is that Judaeo-Christian redemptive theism is a solid ground for morality. We also see why pagan and neopagan altenatives and skeptical evolutionary materialistic — which last, on the testimony of Plato in the Laws Bk X, go back to 400+ BC and men like Alcibiades — alternatives are inherently amoral, thus the pattern of moral disintegration of Rom 1:

Rom 1:19 . . . what can be known about God is plain to [men],42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed45 to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings46 or birds or four-footed animals47 or reptiles. [whether put up as Egyptian or Babylonian-Syrian-Canaanite Graeco-Roman gods in temples and pantheons, or as purported ancestral life forms in museums makes but little difference . . . ]

1:24 Therefore God gave them over48 in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor49 their bodies among themselves.50 1:25 They51 exchanged the truth of God for a lie52 and worshiped and served the creation53 rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,54 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women55 and were inflamed in their passions56 for one another. Men57 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God,58 God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.59 1:29 They are filled60 with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with61 envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers,62 heartless, ruthless. 1:32 Although they fully know63 God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die,64 they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

resemblance ot the trends of our dying civlisation arte NOT coincidental.

How sharp a contrast do we have in the One who died for our sins on a cros, was buried, and rose triumphant with 500+ witnesses and then ascended and poured out he Spirit in power, sot hat millions — including many of our neighbours have met God in the (very Middle Eastern, ROK: we’se be talking the Number One Jew here . . . !) face of Jesus!


Sounds to me like gordo's kids, and any other kids who are or may be disobedient to their 'christian' parents, are in grave danger.

Has anyone ever seen or heard of a kid who is NEVER disobedient to their parents?


gordo's words above are from this page, which contains a lot of very revealing things about him:

His user name there is Dictionary.


Based on some of the words he's using, he deserves to die too, since they fit him to a T:

without excuse

futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

exchanged the truth for a lie

depraved mind

filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice

rife with envy, strife, deceit, hostility

gossips, slanderers, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless

And "murder" may apply too, especially if or when he kills his kids or anyone else's kids for being disobedient. Maybe he already has.

I guess his parents didn't kill him because he is perfect and infallible and has NEVER been disobedient to them. LOL