Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Crazier than Osama Bin Laden...

...and Hitler and Charles Manson and Kim Jong-il and Pol Pot and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad all put together. Yeah, that's kairosfocus (gordon e mullings of Montserrat). The main difference between gordo and all those other murderous monsters is that he doesn't have enough followers who are willing to wage war or murder people for him, or does he? He did say the other day that he has friends who are former murderers. Compared to those other monsters, gordo is only limited by his location and lack of means of carrying out what he would surely like to do; wipe out anyone who doesn't worship his tyrannical, authoritarian, dictatorial, Dominionist, totally corrupt, worthless, LYING ass.

In this thread, and many others, and on other sites, including his own, he is showing just how much of a raging lunatic he is:


I pointed out here the other day that he had arrogantly puked "for record" or "FOR RECORD" in that thread several times, as though what he says is the official record and authority on everything that matters. Well, now he has added:

"I have written for record"

"I need to speak for record"

"not least, for record"

"I now speak, FOR RECORD."

"For record."

gordo is totally out of his rotted, feeble mind. He's the very definition of evil. He has LIED and contradicted himself and distorted things so many times in that thread and at so many other places that I can't keep track of it all. He has made a career out of blaming and demonizing atheists, evolutionary materialists, methodological naturalists, scientists, evolutionists, "Darwinists", nihilists (whatever that is), science supporters, homosexuals, and many other people, including other christians who don't see things his way.

When I've said that he should be permanently committed to an insane asylum I meant it and still do. He is a menace and a danger to any decent society, and it's scary to think that he has children and is around other children on a regular basis.

I am unable to see any comments in that thread past number 10.2 or I would likely have found even more "FOR RECORD" crap from him and a lot of other insane spewage. He really does believe that he IS a god. He just uses his imaginary christian god to justify and authorize his own god-like (in his mind) behavior. And he actually DOES act like that imaginary god in the worst ways in which that god is depicted in the bible. If it were up to gordo, and if he could get away with it, he would order or personally carry out the destruction and genocide of everything and everyone that doesn't please him.

gordo is a FIRM believer that all the monstrous acts that the imaginary christian god carried out or ordered to be carried out (as depicted in the bible) were and are good, and morally justifiable. It doesn't matter whether any god actually did that shit. All that matters is that gordo and his fellow religious zombies believe that their imaginary god did that shit, and that they approve of it.

And don't forget that none of the IDiots stand up to him and tell him he's wrong or out of line, and that the people who own and run UD allow him to post his maniacal tirades there. gordo's "ilk" (a word he loves to use) obviously don't have any problem with the rancid shit he spews.

One more thing for now. In that thread, gordo says:

"So, madam, let me be direct, I explicitly deny — having warranted it yet again — that I am:

promoting the libel that atheists (or “evolutionary materialists) are dangerous amoral nihilists"

That is just one of his BLATANT, WILLFUL LIES. He CONSTANTLY accuses atheists and evolutionary materialists of being dangerous, amoral nihilists and a long list of other horrible things.

Monday, January 30, 2012



Look at the retarded responses in that thread. There are only three so far. The first one, from axel, especially leaves me wondering what his comment has to do with the topic. Oh wait! He's an IDiot and what IDiots say is irrelevant gibberish! That explains it.

And what the fuck is joe-blow drooling? There's life thriving on other planets but he refers to a book that says Earth is the privileged planet? What?

massive facepalm


gordo not only LIES at UD and his blog, but on Yahoo Groups too. I did NOT threaten him or his family "Mafioso style" or in any other way. And, even after I pointed out that the people (her family members) who viciously attacked that young woman are THOROUGHLY RELIGIOUS, gordo STILL goes on and on with laying the blame for the attack, and her lack of "rights", on evolutionary materialism and atheism. Neither evolutionary materialism nor atheism are to blame in any way whatsoever. Extreme RELIGIOUS beliefs and practices are.

Notice that in all those words he spewed he never actually dealt with my very valid points. He just went on his usual twisted rampage against evolutionary materialists and atheists.

Hey gordo, do you want to see what you call blasphemy? How about this:

Fuck you and your imaginary, god damned, worthless, monstrous, genocidal, petty, insane, evil, scum sucking god.

never ending bullshit

gordo (kairosfocus) continues to demonstrate his arrogance, dishonesty, insanity, and absolute lack of a conscience in this thread. He's a legend, and a god, in his own deranged mind:


gordo really shows his utter disregard for the truth in that thread, and so do other IDiots, like gildo. gordo and the rest of the IDiots are completely morally bankrupt. There is nothing they won't stoop to to push their Dominionist agenda.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Absolute madness

In this thread...


...kairosfocus (gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat, formerly of Jamaica) is spewing one of his usual maniacal tirades. As you read his massively hypocritical, sanctimonious, deranged, dictatorial blather, notice these:


"I have already spoken for record"

"I have spoken enough for record"

He often pukes "FOR RECORD", as though HE is THE ultimate authority and that whatever he says is the official record of everything that matters. He is absolutely INSANE and a menace to society. His god complex is way off the charts. Permanent commitment to an asylum for the incurably insane is certainly warranted, and the sooner the better.

Friday, January 27, 2012

joe 'the mouth' gallien

joe the arrogant douchebag slobbered:

"Who are you to make such a claim?"

Hey joe, who does he have to be? And who are YOU to make any of your claims? It obviously hasn't occurred to you that you're just a loud mouthed, basement dwelling, delusional nobody who has been ranting against science (especially evolutionary theory) for years, but hasn't changed anything in science (including evolutionary theory) in any way whatsoever.

joe also barfed:

"If we cannot inquire into that then why even have science?"



No one but you IDiots are stopping you or any other IDiot from inquiring into anything you like. You morons are always accusing someone of preventing you from looking into things. You're not going to find anything by sitting at your computer every day ranting against science.

Tell me joe, what, in nature, have YOU ever discovered, studied, documented, and published that has contributed something positive, and previously unknown, to science? List, and direct me to, all of YOUR scientific discoveries, publications, and current studies, and especially the ones in the fields of biology, paleontology, archeology, geology, hydrology, astronomy, meteorology, and physics. You try to pass yourself as the ultimate expert in those fields and others, so let's see your credentials.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

The most vile, corrupt cult on Earth


On second thought, maybe it's a tie between the catholic cult and islam.

Interesting articles



Tuesday, January 24, 2012

A challenge to kairosfocus

I know you read my site so I'm issuing a challenge to you here. I challenge you to come here and defend your assertions about CSI, or FSCI, or dFSCI, or dFSCO/I or whatever you're calling it this week. Surely someone with your self-proclaimed knowledge of science and nature will have no fear of facing me and defending your claims? If you don't chicken out and you actually do show up, I'll start the debate with a question.

I'm also submitting a copy of this post in a comment on your blog.

I await your response.


Wednesday 12:25 am

What, no response yet? I'm shocked! :)


Thursday 1:27 am

Still no response? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you! :)


Friday 4:27 am

STILL no response. I'm aghast. :)


Saturday 6:45 am

STILL no response, and of course he blocked the copy of this post that I submitted as a comment at his blog, and he will block the one that I just submitted, just as he blocks all of the comments I have submitted there. And to think that HE has the audacity to complain about censorship and being "Expelled". I'm not blocking him, but he is blocking me.

Sunday, January 22, 2012


Is there anyone out there who could copy this thread...


...and make it available to me somehow? Last night I was able to get to comment number 17.1 but now I can't get any of the thread to load at all. It starts to load but then I get a "The connection was reset" page.

A PDF, or text file, or whatever would be fine. If necessary I'll get a yahoo email address to send it to. I would really appreciate it if someone could do this.

gordo threatens Elizabeth Liddle with physical violence

January 21, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Dr Liddle:

I am astonished that you would enmesh yourself in something like the game ES is evidently trying.

Please, do better than this next time.


Elizabeth Liddle
January 21, 2012 at 5:43 pm

What are you talking about, kf? tbh I’m not even sure what comment of mine you are referring to. But, whichever it is, I assure you I am not playing “games”.

Can you clarify?

January 22, 2012 at 1:16 am

Dr Liddle:

Sorry, that will not wash.

You plainly enmeshed yourself in what is obviously a derail attempt on a thread that is SUPPOSED to be about the front-loading hypothesis.

You provided what seemed to be the innocent aside that I accommodated by giving a simplified explanation, making a pause in a fairly busy day for that. ES then dropped the other shoe, and you neatly referred to his comments as though nothing was out of order.

If this were a thread on something more closely related or a theme that was not significant and largely new to many of UD’s readership, and a guest post by someone who is somewhat of a critic of UD and the debates/tone that too often crop up here, I would be far more tolerant.

But right now, this looks uncommonly like dumping garbage on your neighbour’s newly mown lawn, when he is entertaining guests. (And, remember, I just had to call Joe and PG to order. Is this any way to treat a guest? Can you understand how I feel like the parent having to correct a child who decides to act up in front of guests? [That noise you hear is foot tapping and old Mr Leathers being limbered up to be applied to the seat of learning with vigour. Six of the best is about right . . . ])

I hope you understand why I went livid on seeing such, repeated.

The Caribbean word for this is: broughtupcy.

As in, the plain want of it. And, no less than FOUR UD regulars have been implicated.

Surely, we can do better than this!

(And a bunch of other blather)

From here:


So, gordo has resorted to an implied, if not explicit threat: "and old Mr Leathers being limbered up to be applied to the seat of learning with vigour. Six of the best is about right . . ."

If anyone were to say ANYthing like that to him you better believe that he would totally freak out and would be SCREAMING I've been threatened! I've been threatened! I've been threatened Mafioso style! He even claims that it's a threat, slander, and outing tactics when someone simply addresses him by, or mentions, his real name!

His threatening desire to dish out a beating with "old Mr. Leathers" ("good Guyana cane") is obviously not only aimed at Elizabeth Liddle, but also at the other three in the "FOUR", and I don't believe for a nanosecond that he's thinking that joe is part of that "FOUR". He's obviously referring to Peter Griffin, eigenstate, Elizabeth Liddle, and woodford. He must have forgotten about Petrushka.

And think about the fact that he has named his instrument of abuse, "old Mr. Leathers". Obviously it's a near and dear friend that he turns to on a regular basis, to enforce his tyrannical demands.

That UD let's that maniac (gordo) post there is all that anyone should need, to see that the IDiots who run and promote that site and its dishonest agenda are the lowest of the low. ALL of the IDiots are mental cases.

Keep in mind that gordo uses the 'guilt by association' crap all the time, including in that thread with his "enmesh" and other attacks on Elizabeth Liddle. Consider that when it comes to all the birds of a feather IDiots who associate with gordo on UD.

I'm sure that gordo would also like to beat me with his "old Mr. Leathers", and I really wish he would try. Man do I wish he would try. I'm also sure that if he and I were face to face that he would run away screaming in fright. "Bydand", my ass. He's a sniveling, spineless COWARD.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Thoroughly enjoyable Smackdown

In this thread...


...gordon e. mullings (kairosfocus) is getting his worthless ass thoroughly kicked by eigenstate, Peter Griffin, woodford, and Elizabeth Liddle. Notice that cowardly gordo won't take on eigenstate's challenge to actually demonstrate his ridiculous claims, and also notice that gordo is resorting to his usual false accusations and dictatorial demands.

gordo is a child. A bratty, incorrigible, extremely immature, whiny, jealous, dictatorial, tantrum throwing, hateful, abusive, crybaby child, yet he spews false accusations of: "unhinged rage and no-broughtupcy spoiled brat misbehaviour that we routinely see from fans of Darwinism [up to and including professors!], and have to control for.."

gordo's hypocrisy, cowardice, dishonesty, and totally off the chart insanity, are truly astonishing. And to think that he claims to have the proper "grounded morals". Yep, his morals are grounded alright; grounded in his belief in and worship of an imaginary DESPICABLE, MONSTROUS god.

And did you notice this from gordo?:

"And yes, if some of my students were to carry on like that, something like the old fashioned washing out of a foul mouth or even the old six of the best with good Guyana cane, would have been under consideration at either of my [top flight] high schools. At minimum, in my classes, I would have some volunteers for clean-up duty. And, worse than this has happened.)"

"Worse than this", eh? Sounds like gordo is admitting to abusing/beating students in his classes (he has claimed to be a teacher). His own children have likely been beaten by him too, with "good Guyana cane" or worse. His kids must be some of the most oppressed and abused kids on Earth, and they will probably be just like him when they get older. What a shame.

I wouldn't be surprised if he kills them (or already has) since that's what gordo's chosen god commands be done to disobedient children, according to the bible that gordo believes is the inerrant word of his god that must be obeyed to the letter. All children are disobedient at times and I'm sure that gordo's are no exception. If his kids are still alive, intervention by the appropriate authorities and removal of his kids from his abusive tyranny is certainly warranted. They might still have a chance of a fruitful and happy life if they could get some competent counseling and are raised in a normal, loving, foster household instead of the concentration camp style prison life gordo must force on them.

One more thing for now, I am unable to get to the comments past number 17 in the above thread at UD, and I encounter the same problem with all the other threads there.

gordo's murderous friends
January 19, 2012 at 1:20 pm

In addition, think hard about what it is to be caught up in a time and tide beyond your ability to anticipate, and what it is like to find yourself caught up in the gears of a brutal totalitarian machine that would kill you in a heartbeat. Then, understand what it is like to be a researcher with a vision who set out to gain support of the most respected institution in the country — the army — and won it, then succeeded at first level, then found himself enmeshed in the clutches of the SS. I get the strong impression that much of the above simply does not understand what it is like to be caught up in an evil day like that. I guess living through an ideologically driven civil war makes a difference in outlook, though I freely admit it has poisoned my view of politicians, all but a very few of them. In addition, I get e distinct impression that much of the above simply does not understand moral-spiritual transformation. I guess having friends who are former murderers transformed by grace helps.

From here:



I read that post by gordo the other day but I took another look at it after Troy reminded me of it (thanks Troy). A look at the thread it's from will show you that gordo is vigorously defending werner von braun, the nazi rocket specialist.

When I first read gordo's post I thought he was referring to von braun in the part about "living through an ideologically driven civil war" and "having friends who are former murderers", but after a second look I realize that gordo is talking about himself.

So, gordo hangs out with murderers, and it's just peachy keen because they have allegedly been "transformed by grace". I'm not too surprised that gordo would have murderous friends, since he zealously worships and promotes an imaginary murderous god. It also isn't surprising that gordo has friends who have committed what is considered by decent people to be the most amoral, heinous act that anyone could ever commit. After all, even though gordo constantly goes on and on and on about morals (and their 'grounding') and maliciously accuses all "evolutionary materialists", atheists, "Darwinists", and others of being "amoral", HE is the one who is grossly amoral. He hypocritically PROJECTS his own despicable amorality onto whatever convenient target he can conjure up, to demonize anyone who doesn't worship him, and to divert attention away from his own monstrous thoughts, behavior, agenda, and associations.

And when it comes to the so-called "civil war", gordo is stretching reality (as usual) to make it look as though he is some kind of war hero who bravely fought, and still fights, on the front lines in an actual "war". On many occasions he has spoken as though he has repeatedly and fearlessly faced the massive enemy war machine (LOL) of the 'evil Marxist regime' of his homeland Jamaica, while yelling Bydand! Bydand! Bydand! as he single-handedly slew, and slays, the evil oppressors with his mighty, magic sword of purity and justice.

In reality, he writes dictatorial letters to the editors of newspapers and to the heads of TV networks, bitches over and over and over about a multitude of innocuous things, including a statue of a nude in a city park, and he endlessly whines, exaggerates, brags, makes shit up, falsely accuses, proselytizes, LIES, and bosses people around on a few websites, all from the safety of his spittle stained armchair in Montserrat.

Hey gordo, have you had thoughts of having your murderous friends take me out? Have you discussed it with them? Have you used intelligent design methodology (LOL) to come up with a foolproof plan for my demise? I'm really worried. NOT.

gordo's LIES never stop

January 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm

NOTICE: In addition, PG has chosen to misrepresent the design inference. This is a disciplinary warning, as his behaviour is verging on being trollish. If he is serious, he should now take time to say work through the introductory summary here. The FAQs in the resources tab top of this and every UD page will also be helpful. If PG does not fix tone and substance, disciplinary steps will be taken, escalating from the level already taken. KF
January 21, 2012 at 1:24 am

Seriously? Disciplinary action? Really? LOL. What you going to do? Six lashes? KF, this is just a blog, and an entertaining one at that. Nobody is really taking much notice of this blog, let alone seriously. Don’t be such a pompous twit.
January 21, 2012 at 4:43 am

W: You evidently do not realise how rapidly uncivil activity derails serious discussion. I will only mention, the habitual resort of darwinist objectors to name-calling, outing tactics, slander and worse. In my case, my family have been threatened. That is serious enough to verge on criminal conduct, I am afraid. And, despite your dismissal the blog is known to be quite serious, and obviously is taken to be sufficiently serious that it is being treated as a threat; thank you. KF

From here:



So, Peter Griffin challenges ID, and gordo-der-tyrannical-fuhrer flips out and threatens Griffin with "disciplinary steps". Then, when woodford says what needed to be said to gordo, gordo goes on a LYING spree and makes up more false accusations and other ridiculous bullshit. And can someone show me where Peter Griffin or anyone else threatened gordo on "the blog" UD?

When he says his family was threatened he is of course referring to me, but the truth is that I NEVER threatened him or his family, and HE KNOWS IT.

Criminal conduct? Slander? Outing tactics? Threats? Hey gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat, formerly of Jamaica, let's see you DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT if you think you can, and have the evidence. Come on, BIG MOUTH LIAR, sue me, or get the Jamaican constabulary force (LOL) or Interpol or Scotland Yard or The FBI to arrest and charge me. And let's see the "Mafioso style threats" that I allegedly made to you and your family. Go ahead, show them! Oh wait, you can't, because there were NO threats!

You're a fucking lowlife LIAR and a completely unscrupulous phony and a cowardly crybaby from top to bottom and inside and out. A rancid dingleberry stuck on a rotting corpse's ass sphincter is a MUCH higher life form than you are.

I'm going to be posting some real interesting things about you in the next few days gordo. Watch this site for more of the TRUTH about you.

Friday, January 20, 2012

This is fun...

...exposing joe g (John Paul) as the created kinds and front loading pushing young Earth creationist he actually is, but regularly lies about.

The following are from this thread:


John Paul
Inactive Member

John Paul Posts Only
Message 26 of 98 (73138)
12-15-2003 8:33 PM

Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that.

What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that. If we knew the answers we wouldn't need science. What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species. However once new niches were found variants of the original would form. This would be due to the adaptive ability designed in to the organisms. However just because variations can form doesn't mean new body plans can come about.

As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling. I know this is confusing to most evolutionists, just like their "explanation" of where the genetic information came from in the first place is confusing (or rather non-existant) to us.

John Paul
Inactive Member

John Paul Posts Only
Message 29 of 98 (73163)
12-15-2003 9:29 PM Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
12-15-2003 8:50 PM

Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that.

Oh, this is news to me. I didn't know the issue had come up that far back.

Could you offer some references and more details on this?

John Paul:
I am sure it is news to you. Most evolutionists don't even know what is being debated. That's not meant to be a slam, it is just an observation.
References? Well Linne, a Creationist, was looking to define the created kind when he originally came up with binomial nomenclature. It was after research that he concluded that the Created Kind was more at the level of Genus.

What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species.

LOL, of course they would be the same as species. There isn't anything BUT species (although there is fuzz in when something is a new species and when it isn't). All higher taxa are just groupings of species for convenience.

John Paul:
The definition of species is still pretty fuzzy.

What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that.

So we have this big argument about variation "within kinds" but creationists don't know what they are? When you have a bit more detail sorted out then you can make statments about what has and has not happened.

John Paul:
There is a basic idea. What I meant (and I know I should be more specific) is that we don't know exactly what they were. Do you know exactly what the alleged first population was in the evolutionary scenario? Or was it populations? I mean by your logic we can't know if we evolved from a common ancester if we don't know what it was.

As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling.I know this is confusing to most evolutionists,...

So if there is only a "little reshuffling" between existing species then they have come from one created kind? Is that what this means? Can you put some quantitative values on "little reshuffling"?

How much reshuffling is needed before it is not "little" anymore? What causes the reshuffling? What evidence for it is there? What consitutes "reshuffling"? Is it just the recombination of genomes? What part do new mutations play in this "reshuffling"?

John Paul:
What we do know is that reshuffling does not bring about any novelty. That is why "random mutations" had to be added. This is basic genetics NosyNed.

Gee, sorry about all the questions but since it turns out creationists don't know what "kinds" are I thought I would see if they have a clue about what "reshuffling" is.

John Paul:
As I have said, we don't know exactly what they were. If we did we wouldn't need science. However if you would like you should read some of the articles at AiG.


Also there is a book available:


Ya see NosyNed for all of your questions evolutionists still can't answer this one:
What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the range of changes they insist have occured?


There's a LOT more of joe's creationist beliefs on that site. He pushes catastrophes, 'the flood', the ark, created kinds, etc.

For example:

John Paul
Inactive Member

John Paul Posts Only
Message 9 of 196 (6209)
03-06-2002 5:44 PM Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-05-2002 3:50 AM

maybe some enlightened one (the all-faithful creationist) could tell us how many species were on the ark, and explain their reasoning...

John Paul:
You do realize there is a book published that answers your questions. It is called Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe.

He puts the total number of ‘invited’ organisms at 15, 754. 7,428 mammals; 4,602 birds and 3,724 reptiles (including dinosaurs). From what the book states the Hebrew terminology in the Genesis account rules out invertebrates having been taken on the Ark. It goes on to say the same holds true for marine and amphibious vertebrates.

He talks about the bigger animals taken aboard as juveniles, dwarf species and even as eggs.

then they can tell us how the carnivores were fed

John Paul:
How do people feed their cats & dogs? How are the carnivores fed in a zoo? Could be close to the same way that is done.

how herbivores were fed (man that's a lot of food)

John Paul:
Ever see how cows, pigs and horses are fed? How are herbivores fed in a zoo? Could be pretty much the same way.

how the boat stayed afloat in waters that could have overturned cruisse ships

John Paul:
Um, it wasn’t a boat. It was a barge shaped Ark. Flat bottomed and rectangular in shape. According to the study that was done in 1994 by Hong et al. and published in Creation Ex Nihlo Technical Journal 8(1): 26-36, the Ark would not flip and was very seaworthy.

and how insects, like the fig wasp, that live for 3 days and require the fig fruit of the fig tree to reproduce, survived

John Paul:
Please show us the scientific evidence that the fig wasp existed as such before the Flood. Why can’t today’s fig wasp be a descendant of the wasps that survived the Flood? It’s a fig wasp now because it filled that niche that was opened by the Flood and resulting landscape changes.

how insects like fruit flies and mosquitos, that reproduce unimaginably quickly, were kept from being a monstrous pest

John Paul:
From the correct reading of Scripture, insects were not invited guests. IOW, they weren’t necessarily on the Ark.

how Noah was able to repopulate the entire planet in 300 years

John Paul:
You do realize the exact date of the Flood is not etched in stone.

how he was able to restore all cultures to their pre-flood state

John Paul:
What’s your evidence for that?

how this small population was able to rebuild all cities

John Paul:
Evidence of that also.

how noah and other biblical figures were able to live for 100s of yearsa, despite the finding of the contrary after the examination of mummies

John Paul:
I was unaware we found Noah’s mummified body. Actually I was unaware we found any mummified bodies of Biblical figures- you know the ones who lived for hundreds of years. No one said everyone lived that long.

how noah was able to collect all the animals

John Paul:
Who says he did? The animals could have migrated to Noah’s place and/ or Noah could have hired other people to collect them.

how all the animals were able to move from turkey to australia, the americas, etc. without food (all vegetation would have been wiped out during the flood, and would have taken many years to regrow)...

John Paul:
Please provide the scientific evidence that it would take years to re-grow the vegetation. Are you telling me that when farm land gets flooded it’s years until anything grows there?
The most likely scenario for the distribution of the fauna after the Flood was a planned distribution carried out by Noah’s descendants. As in put the animals on big boats and take them to their destination.

how fish, most who cannot tolerate even the slightest change is salinity, survived
how marine mammals survived

John Paul:
I see. You are imposing what we observe today onto what existed in Noah’s day.

how coral survived (coral core measuring goes well beyond the estimated time of the flood, about 4000 years ago)

John Paul:
First you have to realize there isn’t a set date for the Flood.

how the americans and chinese and egyptians, not to mention their fabulous structures, survived...

John Paul:
What structures and how do you know they were built before the Flood?

there are more... maybe you could quote me and then answer each question one by one... answer each one... and perhaps you could give a link or two to back up your claims...

John Paul:
Actually all you have to do is read the book I mentioned earlier. Then if you have issues with it at least we will have something to debate.

Here are some of the numbers (from the book) of the Ark’s contents:

Empty Ark- 4,000 tons (all the pens, support beams, etc.); biomass at the start of the Flood- 111 tons; biomass at the end of the Flood- 411 tons; food at the start of the Flood- 2,500 tons; water at the start of the Flood- 4,070 tons. According to the study by Hong et al., the spare mass would be 6,000 tons.

One more thing- I am neither a Christian nor a fundamentalist, yet I am a Creationist. As a matter of fact I know many Muslims, Jewish people, Hindus and Buddhists that are also Creationists. That shoots down one of your claims in another thread (that Creationists were Christians).

John Paul

From here:



Yeah, joe claims to be a muslim creationist (but also denies it) yet he pushes christian stories of creation, the flood, etc. What a fucking screwball.


And how about some more of joe's (John Paul's) beliefs:

John Paul
Inactive Member

John Paul Posts Only
Message 20 of 152 (106008)
05-06-2004 4:58 PM Reply to: Message 17 by sidelined
05-05-2004 2:37 PM

Re: Science defined
Could you clarify how life and math sre evidence Of a God in your view?

John Paul:
Good question. My view is based on the scientists of early days:
(on mathematics)
"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the ratioal order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics." Johannes Kepler

Galileo obeserved " the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics."

In his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty Morris Kline states this about Newton , Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus: "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."

Life itself is irreducibly complex. Even if we get self-replicating nucleic acids we still need a cell membrane to contain it. Not only do we need nucleic acids and a cell membrane but their are organelles to consider. Add to that there isn't anything in physics, chemistry or biology that shows non-living matter can become a living organism. So by deduction if life couldn't arise from non-life via purely natural processes (and we observe that life exists) what are the alternatives?

John Paul
Inactive Member

John Paul Posts Only
Message 21 of 152 (106009)
05-06-2004 5:01 PM Reply to: Message 19 by SRO2
05-05-2004 6:43 PM

Re: Science defined
Right on target. Science doesn't seek God for the same reason it doesn't seek Zeus, Unicorns, Santa Claus, Giant Cyclops, Big Foot, Witches, Vampires, Flying Saucers, Flying Pigs etc., etc.. It's because there isn't a shred of evidence that any of them exist(ed).

John Paul:
That is false. It is due to the evidence that I and millions of other people are Creationists and/ or IDists. Read the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.

From here:


And from the same thread:

John Paul
Inactive Member

John Paul Posts Only
Message 27 of 152 (106239)
05-07-2004 8:50 AM Reply to: Message 25 by Loudmouth
05-06-2004 6:01 PM

Re: Science defined
By "that evidence" I am assuming intelligent design.

John Paul:
Id and / or Creation is the conclusion based on "that evidence".

This is the problem with ID theory, and why it isn't science.

John Paul:
From what I have read most alleged problems with ID and Creation aren't really problems at all.

You must first believe without evidence that an intelligence designed things in order to believe it.

John Paul:
Wrong. It IS the evidence that leads people to the conclusion a designer was involved.

As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: ”Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

In science, you need no such pre-existing belief.

John Paul:
Correct but the beliefs or philosophies of scientists do effect the conclusions they come to. Naturalism is a philosophy.

Science sees a designer all right, just not an intelligent one.

John Paul:
That should read "scientists (as in the scientists with a naturalistic bias) see a designer all right, just not an intelligent one." However there are many scientists that do. Also there are sciences that have have processes in place that enable us to determine whether or not an intelligent agent was involved. When those processes are applied to life the logical conclusion is ID.

As for unobserved mechanisms what mechanism moved the nostrils from the tip of a snout to the top of the head? How can that be objectively tested? Ya see the door swings both ways. The theory of evolution can't be objectively tested or measured or verified. All of it grand claims have never been observed. By your logic it ain't science.


That's strange, I could have sworn that joe regularly claims that ID and creation aren't the same thing, yet he says "Id and / or Creation". As joe would say, 'Go figure'. LMAO!

joe g, the muslim young Earth creationist

"John Paul" is joe g:

John Paul
Inactive Member

John Paul Posts Only
Message 60 of 128 (109748)
05-21-2004 7:21 PM Reply to: Message 58 by JonF
05-21-2004 6:27 PM

Re: Summary
Unfortunately for you Humphreys' "cosmology", while perhaps seeming reasonable to the uneducated and prejudiced audience he's aiming at, is incompatible with the observations and General Relativity.

John Paul:
Again with the assertions. Care toi give any specifics?

IOW, Humphreys is a psuedoscientific crank who knows not whereof he speaks.

John Paul:
And who are you? I would love to see you debate Dr. Humphreys about his cosmology.

From here:


And how about this one:

John Paul

Inactive Member
John Paul Posts Only
Message 72 of 128 (110667)
05-26-2004 12:07 PM Reply to: Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object
05-21-2004 8:59 PM

Re: Summary
We creos MUST relent to an old earth/universe. The scientific evidence is irrefuteable.

John Paul:
That's a joke, right?

What is this irrefutable evidence of an old earth? Or is it just unfalsifiable conclusions based on one worldview?

From here:


"Dr. Humphreys" is Dr. Russel Humphreys, a STRONG believer in a 6,000 year old Earth. As can be seen above (and in other posts of his in that thread), joe (John Paul) staunchly supports the "cosmology" of Russel Humphreys. Want to see the cosmology of Russel Humphreys? Just Google his name.

Here's a bit of info about Humphreys:

Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Creationist physicist

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist.


* Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, President
* Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 award
* Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory
* Adjunct professor of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego
* board member of the Creation Research Society


Dr Humphreys has published some 20 papers in secular scientific journals, as well as many creationist technical papers. He is also the author of Starlight and Time, in which he proposes a model that the universe may only be thousands of years old even though light from distant stars appears to have taken billions of years to reach Earth. He is also author of “Evidences for a Young World.”

From here:


Russell Humphreys
Born David Russell Humphreys
February 2, 1942 (1942-02-02) (age 69)
Wyandotte, Michigan, USA[1]
Occupation Independent Researcher for Creation Ministries International
Known for Advocate of Young Earth Creationism
Religion Baptist

From here:


Creationist work full-time
Dr Humphreys retired from Sandia in 2001 to work full-time for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) where he was appointed an Associate Professor of Physics. In this time, he operated mainly from his home office in Albuquerque, NM, USA, while still continuing to write for Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) and assisting several other creationist organisations with questions and information concerning physics, astronomy and cosmology.

In August 2008 he resigned from ICR to work for Creation Ministries International (USA) while continuing to be mostly located in New Mexico, continuing his research, plus writing and speaking ministry.

Dr Humphreys has been a longtime member of the Creation Research Society and is on its Board of Directors.

From here:



I recommend reading the whole thread at EvC (Creation versus Evolution), especially if you want to see joe make a fool of himself, as usual.

And here's a page that lists the threads that joe (John Paul) was involved in:


And just to further show how fucked up joe is, here are some comments by him:

John Paul:
You obviously have no clue what ID is. Ignorance is one thing. Wilfull ignorance is a shame. ID does NOT go against common descent. But you would know that if you had a clue.

And this:

John Paul:
Funny from where I sit it is you who flings the shit. One more time for the reading impaired- ID does not say anything about common descent- for or against it. IOW using any common descent arguments against ID just shows ignorance.

From here:


So, according to joe, ID "does not say anything about common descent- for or against it" but it "does not go against common descent". And of course joe has said at many other places that ID is okay with common descent and that ID isn't okay with common descent and that ID doesn't say anything about common descent and, well, he can't make up his feeble mind. It's abundantly clear to me, based on all of the crap that joe has spewed over the years, that he is totally against common descent. Like a typical creobot liar, he just can't keep track of his lying contradictions, and he figures that no one will notice or be able to find what he has said on various websites.

The bullshit he said on the EvC website is classic joe g (John Paul) tard and well worth a read. In his posts there he makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that he's a young Earth creationist, and a delusional blowhard.

Hey joe-blow

You said:

"No one uses Shannon information to describe anything in biology. Shannon information was only for transmission and storage. Content & function are not even considered. Biological information is obviously concerned with content & function."



(as Joe G)

So then, why are you using Shannon information to describe something in biology and why are you saying that "CSI" is a subset of Shannon information, here?:


"Measuring Complex Specified Information with Respect to Biology"

By the way joe, I see that you STILL haven't calculated the "CSI" in a banana, or anything else.

Thursday, January 19, 2012


January 18, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Elizabeth’s 4.1 cited in this thread by VJTorley:

“Yes, the rejection of methodological naturalism is religious. / What would a non-religious rejection of methodological naturalism be?” – Dr. E. Liddle

Would VJTorley respond to my initial probe that prompted Liddle’s comment or not?

There in 4.0 I asked: What if someone had an ‘alternative to ID’ vision before they had even heard of ID? Would the IDM seek to ‘expel’ that idea from circulation if/when confronted with it? Or would they invite it to be shared, allowing even themselves to ‘follow the evidence where it leads’?

Liddle’s claim that rejecting MN simply (in her neurosphere) ‘is/must be religious’ is far less important to this Blog than VJTorley confronting the possibility of an ‘alternative to ID’ based on evidence.

What would VJTorley say about an ‘alternative to ID’ outside of MN?

January 19, 2012 at 4:08 pm


Thank you for your post. The ID movement would not expel someone with an alternative view: ID is a big tent, as I stated above, and we believe in exploring new possibilities. All those who believe that design is empirically detectable are welcome in that tent.

From here:



Gregory didn't ask you if people would be expelled or not as long as they believe that "design is empirically detectable", you dishonest piece of crap. He asked if someone would be expelled if they have an alternative view and whether you IDiots would invite it to be shared and 'follow the evidence where it leads'.

You certainly provided the expected answer. Unless a person believes that design is empirically detectable, they will be expelled from the ID movement. I'm glad that's settled.

By the way, vince, I believe that Fifi the pink unicorn, with the help of the FSM and Bigfoot, designed and created the universe, along with billions of other universes, and everything in all of them, and I believe that their design and creation is not only empirically detectable but a proven fact. Can I join the ID movement and live in your big tent?

vince torley, delusional IDiot

January 19, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Dr. Matzke,

I have to say I laughed when I read your response – and I don’t do that often. Your reply is a perfect example of the Pegasus thinking I warned against in my essay: “if you can picture it, then it’s possible.” You wrote:

The Designer didn’t have to square a circle, he just had to put the freakin’ birth canal somewhere other than right through a tiny hole in the pelvis. Why put it through the skeleton at all? A portal a few inches higher up in the lower belly would do nicely. No tearing and incontinence, no jamming the baby’s head through the pelvis, no problem with breach births, etc.

That’s not a demonstration of possibility. To do that, you have to find the genes responsible for building the birth canal, show how they could be re-programmed to build a portal through the lower belly, and show that doing so would not render the animal less viable. I don’t know of any animals that give birth in the way you describe, so I’m highly skeptical that the arrangement would even work.

Evolution doesn’t just occur at the macro level, as you are well aware. Showing how a design could be improved on isn’t enough; you have to show how the code for it would have to be re-written.


Hmm, let's take a look at these words:

"That’s not a demonstration of possibility. To do that, you have to find the genes responsible for building the birth canal, show how they could be re-programmed to build a portal through the lower belly, and show that doing so would not render the animal less viable."

Hey vince, why is it that you and the rest of the god pushing IDiots don't apply the same level of demand to your non-evidential assertions?

Tell you what, how about you go find the alleged intelligent designer (your chosen god yhwh), and show how it designed the birth canal, and how it programmed and built all the body parts of everything that has ever lived, and don't forget to show the "code" and how it was written for everything that ever lived and all of their parts and everything else in and of the universe. After all, you god zombies do believe and claim that your chosen god designed and created everything.

Since your chosen designer/creator god is allegedly all powerful and all knowledgeable, and since you have its private phone number, a quick call and request from you and I'm sure that you'll get, and be able to provide, all of that information.

If you can't, I guess I'll just have to laugh at you.

Lies, lies, and more lies from gordo

My responses are in bold type.

January 19, 2012 at 9:44 am

F/N: if PG means me by that [though due to his misbehaviour there is now only correction for record . . . ]

Liar. Any "misbehaviour" is attributable to you and the rest of your IDiot comrades.

— and he cannot mean Joe as he holds UCD;

Liar. joe does NOT accept universal common descent, and the only thing joe holds is a master's degree in TARD.

in fact my challenge is that as a test case for Darwinists seeking to warrant their theory for macroevo the origin of lungs needs to be explained on empirically (observationally) warranted chance variation and natural selection or the like, and so far we have had much evasion and a few Creationist strawmen, but no cogent answer.

Liar. You've never studied ANYthing about biology and evolution, have you?

Apparently PG is unaware ( by refusing to heed easily accessible information) that design theory is consistent with common descent, even, universal common descent, as say Behe — should be familiar! — holds.

Liar. Neither you nor the vast majority of IDiots accept UCD. And NONE of you accept that UCD is strictly natural.

If he means me above, I quite literally have no firm view on universal common descent as such

Liar. You are an extreme creationist/fundamentalist who believes and has said that the book of genesis and the rest of bible is an inerrant record of origins and history and is the literal and truthful word of your chosen god yhwh.

(just as I have no firm views on much of the scheme of dating of the earth [too many circularities, too much consensus thinking . . . ]

Liar. You are a young earth fundamentalist creationist who believes that the bible is the inerrant record of origins and history. You believe that the book of genesis and all the rest of the bible is exactly right and that scientific dating methods are wrong.

, but a much higher respect for the dating of major features of the observed cosmos [try the HR diagram for clusters, for instance in light of H-ball models for stars] . . . ),

Liar. See above. And you're contradicting yourself.

save that the FSCO/I in the world of life on best empirically warranted explanation points to design.

Liar. There's no such thing as "FSCO/I" and there is no 'warrant' to point to intelligent design in nature.

This I know, for certainty, we were not there to observe the remote past of origins, we have no generally accepted record of it, and we are forced to reconstruct a model past on evidence and inference from the present.

Which completely shoots down EVERY word you and your fellow god zombie IDiots have ever spewed about the bible, the history of your religion, anything about ID/creation, anything about the origin of the universe, anything about the origin of your chosen god, and anything else about the past. You were NOT there. And you're a LIAR, since there IS a "generally accepted record" of the evolution of living things and many other "origins".

So, we are looking at inference to best — abductive — explanation, and no serious option should be ruled out by ideological a prioris.

Liar. YOU and your fellow IDiots are NOT looking at or for the best explanation. YOU god zombies are the ones with ideological a prioris and YOU are the ones who rule out anything that doesn't match your insane religious beliefs. Supernatural fairy tales are NOT a "serious option".

That design is a patently serious option is seen by how Dawkins has had to concede that the world of life, as studied by biologists, strongly gives the appearance of design.

Misrepresenting what Dawkins said just shows you to be a Liar, and he didn't "had to concede" anything. But you're right about one thing, biologists do study the world of life, unlike you science attacking ignorant LYING godbots.

So, one should not a priori lock out that possibility on the sort of flimsy excuses in the OP and elsewhere.

But it's perfectly okay for you and your fellow god-goons to "a priori lock out" anything that doesn't match your deranged religious beliefs, eh, Liar?

Ever since Plato, it has been known that the issue is not “natural vs supernatural,” but instead chance and necessity vs art. And each of these has characteristic observable signs.

Liar. It has nothing to do with "art". And when are you going to shut the fuck up about Plato? By the way, were you THERE when Plato allegedly said the things you attribute to him? How do you know he even lived? Were you THERE?

The problem for materialists, is that the world of life — as the very co-founder of the theory of evolution pointed out — is full, chock full of that an unbiased mind would unhesitatingly see as strong signs of clever design in any other context.

You're full of shit, Liar, and you IDiots are the ones with a problem.

Lo and behold, when we look in this context, we see that the reason for the difference is an a priori imposition, cf here on.

Who's "we"? And you god pushers are the ones with an "a priori imposition". cf this: Lo and behold, fuck you, Liar.

In short, we have a smoking gun, in a hand standing above the victim lying on the ground.

Is that a threat?

If we do in fact have universal common descent, on the implications of FSCO/I it is of a variety that was programmed, ab initio or at various points or even both; such makes but little difference to the material issue.

There you go again, LYING about your creationist/fundamentalist religious beliefs. Your beliefs leave no room for UCD or any other scientific explanation of origins or evolution.

And BTW, there is a strawman game at work on the initial post. The crucial issue of methodological naturalism is its imposition of an a priori philosophical, question begging constraint that blocks science from inferring to the empirically demonstrable best explanation for FSCO/I: ART, not chance + blind necessity.

Oh shut up, Liar. You don't know a goddamn thing about science. All you want to do is destroy it and replace it with your retarded, dangerous, abusive, religious fairy tales.

My key concern on the imposition of Meth Nat in the world of life is that a mechanism that is patently inadequate has been allowed, by imposition of ideological, question begging a priori materialism, to lock science into a box of censorship, instead of leaving it to pursue the truth about the remote past on warrant.

Liar. Your "key concern", in fact your only concern, is to shove your stupid religion into every aspect of everyone's life and to censor anyone who questions or opposes your tyrannical dominionist agenda.

Science held captive to materialist ideology is not genuinely scientific.

Liar. The supernatural god zombie pseudo-science you and the other IDiots push is genuinely UN-scientific.


You are a LIAR, a CHARLATAN, a FALSE ACCUSER, a COWARD, a NARCISSIST, an ABUSER, and a complete NUTCASE, period.


"KF", also known as the LIAR gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat, formerly of Jamaica.

kairosfocus the prejudiced lumper
January 18, 2012 at 2:02 pm



Why do you try to lump all “religions” together?

Or, even all people of any one cultural religious tradition?

Do you not see that you are indulging in broad-brush stereotyping and prejudice, of the worst kind?

Let’s get this straight: the vast majority of Iranians would want to be rid of the regime they have had, which rode the backs of a popular uprising and seized power then imposed a totalitarian system under the name of a specific religious tradition, Khomeni’s twists on Shia Islam. But, they are under a dictatorship, that does not shun to let snipers loose on peaceful street protesters, in case you conveniently don’t remember headlines from just a few years ago: i distinctly remember the days of the parallel to that in China at Tienanmen square. I can object to the mullahs and their henchmen without implying anything about the people under their dictatorship, just as I can object to what the Chinese communists did when they crushed protesters under tank treads, while deeply admiring the Chinese people. Just like, I can deeply admire the people of Germany, Poland, Russia and France, or even my native Jamaica, without losing the right to point out wrongs that need to be set right.

All of this is elementary.

Just so, you will notice how careful I always am to distinguish Muslims and IslamISM, a supremacist Jihad, settlement and Dawah ideology that admittedly has significant roots in the Muslim founding era. But I full well know that many Muslims do not go along with the Muslim Brotherhood, or Boko Haram, or Al Qaeda of the advocates of .

You should also know what I have had to say about the sins of Christendom, and those who would like to exploit the historic sins of the faith, to dismiss it. In that regard, you should know that I am one of the persons who exposed a particular destructive sect in the Caribbean region. You should also note that I have just had occasion to refute the smear that Hitler was a Christian acting out of the teachings and examples of that faith, as is slanderously promoted with malice aforethought by some new atheists.

In the haste to stereotype, demonise and dismiss, somehow it has yet to get through that I have repeatedly pointed out — for years, it is almost a stock phrase for me — that the key problem we face is that we are finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed. that means that we all have to face some pretty unhappy things about our selves, and get to work on the moral struggle to walk towards the true, the good and the right, however stumblingly.

In that struggle, ideological systems that hijack science and impose on them materialistic worldviews that imply that there is no good and no right above might and manipulation make ‘right,’ are not a help. Let me make it clear from Hawthorne in reply to the new atheists, again:

Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)

Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.

Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’.

For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.

Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit.

Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from [[a material] ‘is’.

I trust this is clear enough.

What we are looking at here is amoral nihilism, that lends itself to undermining of morality and justice in the community, especially for those who are voiceless, or can be robbed of a voice.

Remember, in the end, a fundamental right is a moral expectation that we be respected in light of our inherent dignity as human beings, made under moral government. See where that leads, here on.

Good day


January 17, 2012 at 8:22 pm

The intellectual virtues approach to epistemology distinguishes legitimate inquisitiveness and investigations from vicious curiosity and invention of ways to do evil. this is again an issue that points to the science, worldviews and ethics in society cluster of themes. BTW, I think it was Hahn (discoverer) who tried to kill himself on learning what use fission had been put to in 1945.

From here:


What's abundantly "clear enough", gordon elliott mullings, is that you lump ALL people who don't kiss your arrogant LYING ass into one image of "evil".

ALL evolutionary materialists, "Darwinists", evolutionists, athiests, nihilists, naturalists, evolutionary scientists, science supporters, communists, liberals, non-evangelical fundamentalists, non-biblical literalists, non-rabid bible thumpers, non-gordo ass kissers, non-supernatural believers, non-miracle believers, non-your chosen god (yhwh) believers, non-jesus believers, non-IDiots, and anyone else who doesn't have exactly the same beliefs and worldview as you do are "evil", to you. You LUMP everyone who isn't just like you together.

You're okay with some nazis though, like von braun.

And by the way, gordo, the "Iranian powers" that are responsible for the research and development of nuclear weapons are EXTREMELY RELIGIOUS CREATIONISTS, just like YOU. They are NOT evolutionary materialists, or atheists, or "Darwinists", etc., etc., etc.!

As far as I'm concerned, gordo is as insane and dangerous as any terrorist or tyrant who has ever lived. If I were to see a news story that showed that he went on a killing spree, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

If anyone wants to see more of gordo's maniacal insanity, read the rest of his posts in that thread.

By the way, isn't it interesting that in all of the accusations that gordo and the other IDiots throw at evolutionary materialists, etc., the Japanese (during world war 2 and other wars of aggression) are never brought up? Why is it always Hitler, and Stalin, and Marx, and Pol Pot that are conflated with "evolutionary materialists", etc.? I know why. It's because the Japanese were openly and undoubtedly RELIGIOUS during world war 2 and other wars! Isn't it convenient of the IDiots to leave the Japanese out of their accusations?

And was Pol Pot an evolutionary materialist? Were any of those guys actually evolutionary materialists?

And how about all the other tyrants who oppressed, terrorized, and murdered people throughout history? Were they all evolutionary materialists, and were they all influenced by Darwin even though they lived before he was even born?

And how about "God"; the most vicious, sadistic, petty, terrorizing, ruthless, destructive oppressor, torturer, destroyer, and killer of men, women, children, animals, and even plants, of all time, according to the bible (the book that gordo believes is inerrant as "God's" word and as a record of history). Is "God" an evolutionary materialist? Is "God" a "Darwinist"?

gordon eillott mullings IS a LYING lunatic, and OUGHT to be permanently committed to an asylum for the incurably and dangerously insane.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012


gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat spewed out of one of his faces:

"Duck it, duck the huge raft of implications on what we know about history and science, and even the current climate change debates, and try to play rhetorical attack games. That tells me more and more that we are dealing with irresponsible agendas and ideologies, not those who are docile before the truth. (FYI, TWT & Anti Evo et al, docile here speaks of humble “teachableness.”)"

From here (16.1):



gordo, the only thing you could teach is how to be a sanctimonious, goose stepping, two-faced, obnoxious, amoral, unscrupulous, repulsive, impotent, incorrigible, cowardly, pontificating, brainwashed, reality denying, fairy tale believing, proselytizing, deranged, pompous, rhetoric barfing, erroneously accusatory, fanatically narcissistic, LYING, maniacal fascist, and I have no interest in learning how to be like you. Go fuck yourself.

Isn't it interesting that...

...the IDiots at UD always say that people who question or oppose ID are only blocked and/or banned from UD if they are "uncivil", even though they have blocked and banned many people who were not "uncivil".

Even more interesting is the MASSIVE double standard UD has when it comes to the uncivil behavior they allow from their usual gang of IDiots. Here's just one example:
January 18, 2012 at 7:06 pm


I’m surprised it took you that long to pull that quote out. You must be feeling very pleased with yourself!

I have been using that for a long time Peter. Again your ignorance is amusing.

So, Joe, if “natural selection” can be removed from the equation with no effect then what is left?

That would be your problem, not mine, duh.


You’ve already said that mutations are not random.


Everything must be preordained in that case. Your designer must be very busy, going around the Gal├ípagos Islands. Trapping finches, making their beaks big when required to crack nuts and then shrinking them down again. You’d think such an entity would have better things to do. Or that it could design a system to do it for it. But no. Joe says evolution don’t do squat, so down in the woods it is.

You are truly demented and a liar to boot. No intervening required, duh. ID accepts mutations happen.

You are one dense dude.

And Peter, you couldn’t lead anyone anywhere. You are nothing but a strawman creating liar.

Go pound sand- if you ever come up with a testable hypothesis for anything your position claims I would be interested in that.

From here:



In case you don't know, joe is joe g, joe gallien, joseph, joseph gallien, john paul, jim, frisbee kid, ID guy, etc., at UD or other sites. He's a muslim/christian young earth creationist god-wannabe, and is afraid of clowns. He's also afraid of unmoderated challenges to his deranged, blustering, ignorant, dishonest sermons, which, of course, is par for the course for an IDiot.

Calling all IDiots


Monday, January 16, 2012

Who do you think said... (Update)


"And, if such debaters switch to "implausibility," we have a further right to challenge the underlying question-begging assumptions and to expose the associated self-refuting philosophical ideas."


Okay, the answer is: kairosfocus (gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat).

Keep his statement in mind when you see him or any other IDiot using arguments that rely on implausibility, plausibility, probability, improbability, likelihood, etc.

That would be most or all of their arguments.

This thread deserves...

...special attention. In it, gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat (kairosfocus) goes by the user name "Dictionary":


In that thread (and at many other places) he abundantly demonstrates his extreme evangelical fundamentalism. He obviously believes that the bible is THE words of his god and that the bible is inerrant. When you read that thread, watch for the following words by gordo:

"...the Bible is in major respects — both OT and NT — historical record, and abundantly confirmed as good record too."

"For, God is gracious and has given us many points of evidence whereby we may see just how credible and authentic — thus trustworthy and authoritative (even as as a top class dictionary is trustworthy and authoritative) — is the witness of the Scriptures, NT and OT."

"As we turn to the OT, it is worth noting again that we have some rather direct authentication in hand, from the Lord of truth Himself."

"But also, yesterday, I put up a useful summary slide show, by Hugenberger; which shows case after case where skeptical dismissals of the OT record run up against subtle clues and subsequent discoveries."

"Against that backdrop, genesis is a cosmology that sets the real record straight on origins, and in so doing just happens to lay out a unique ground of existence in the Morally upright Creator God who provides an IS that is an adequate foundation for OUGHT."


And the topper:

"Indeed, instead, he doubled down on false accusations and slanders, playing the Hitler card."

Yeah, like gordo never slanders or falsely accuses anyone by playing the Hitler/nazi card (and the Stalin, Marx, Pol Pot, Breivik, etc., etc., etc. cards).

Could anyone possibly be more a TWO-FACED, LYING piece of trash than gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat?

Also see this:


And this (gordo promotes it on his website):


kairosfocus admits that...

...the "Intelligent Designer" is "God":

"The gaps in Secularist thinking

First, Dawkins' indulgence in "village atheism"-style rhetoric unintentionally brings into focus several underlying gaps in secularist thinking: Evolutionary materialism attempts to assert that we know beyond reasonable doubt that we got here through random and deterministic natural processes without recourse to a Creator/ Intelligent Designer, a.k.a. God."



Also see these:

http://bajan.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/remembering-the-second-coming-of-christ-at-christmas-time/ (kairosfocus' user name is "Dictionary" there)









There's a LOT more of gordo's religious insanity and agenda if you follow the links on those pages.

Hey gordo, do you still want to say "...the design of life itself, standing by itself, is sufficiently [note the logical subtlety] accounted for on say a molecular nanotechnology lab some generations beyond Craig Venter’s recent efforts." which you have said on many occasions when you're asked who the "Intelligent Designer" is? Do you still want to WILLFULLY LIE about who YOU believe the "Intelligent Designer" is?

See this: http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2011/08/example-of-gordos-crazy-bullshit.html

At UD, gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat tries to sound all sciency (although his extreme religious beliefs often spill into his ramblings) but when he posts elsewhere, his posts are overflowing with his religious insanity.

gordo is an unscrupulous, two-faced, conniving, blame shifting, projecting, deranged, maniacal, LYING butt chunk.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

vjtorley says...

"There is nothing wrong with the question: “What caused the beginning of the cosmos?”"

Here (



Sure, there's nothing wrong with asking that question, but there's a LOT wrong with claiming that you KNOW the answer, which is what you god zombies do.

There's also nothing wrong with asking the question:

What caused your chosen god?

After all, you said in your post linked to above, "a beginning of existence is an event which cannot explain itself, because a thing cannot be prior to itself – either logically, ontologically or chronologically."

Yeah, I know, you're going to claim that your chosen god is eternal and had no beginning. Well guess what vince? Anyone could claim that the "cosmos" is eternal and had no beginning but you wouldn't like that, would you? You (and your fellow godbots) would expect them to prove it with a ton of detailed, irrefutable, scientific evidence, wouldn't you? You'd say that unless they do that, their assertion is baseless and ignorant.

Hey, I know, you can bring up the insane ramblings of your hero, the genocide supporting william lane craig, or the oh so retarded lunatic and master of link spamming bornagain77, to try to support your bald assertions about "Creation". Yeah, that's the ticket.

Oh the tard

January 15, 2012 at 5:54 pm

Vilenkin has not had a change of heart. He still holds to a a ‘tunneling from nothing’ view, and a Level II Tegmark multiverse. I believe his work in showing that the universe has a beginning is in keeping arguing for the continued relevancy of his original research.

He seems to take no side with regard to who or what is responsible for creation. In his popular level book “Many Worlds from One”, he suggests that creation is an unsolvable paradox.

January 15, 2012 at 7:29 pm

“He seems to take no side with regard to who or what is responsible for creation. In his popular level book “Many Worlds from One”, he suggests that creation is an unsolvable paradox.”

What other side – other than an omnipotent God – is there to take, with regard to who or what is responsible for Creation, sinclairjd? He seems to be just eschewing metaphysics, perhaps for fear of offending against the secular-fundamentalist, scientism zeitgeist.

Moreover, Creation is an unsolvable paradox from the sole viewpoint of the analytical intelligence. The more fundamental spiritual truths, like their empirical counterparts, are paradoxes, which latter, by definition, are all absolutely imponderable, whatever the sphere of knowledge. If they were untrue, of course, they would be simply oxymorons.

The primary means of accessing spiritual truths was described by Aldous Huxley in his essay on comparative religion, as the ‘unitive intelligence’, in some measure, achievable by modifying ones goals and behaviour.

I doubt, however, its applicability, at least proximately, to the paradoxes of physics, which physicists are nevertheless able to accept as part of their world-view in relation to their field, using them as staging posts towards further discoveries.

From here:


This (by Axel) is what really jumps out at me:

"What other side – other than an omnipotent God – is there to take, with regard to who or what is responsible for Creation, sinclairjd?"

It's the very old and totally lame 'Unless you can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the universe and everything in it came about by some other process, then my chosen imaginary god must be the omnipotent creator of the universe and everything in it.' assertion.

God zombies think that whatever version of their religious insanity they believe in is THE default. They think that everything else, including scientific evidence and theories, must be compared to their beliefs and can only be considered credible if there's mountains of detailed scientific evidence about everything on Earth and in the rest of the universe that PROVES their non-evidential, non-scientific, fantasy-based religious beliefs to be wrong.

Hey Axel, how do you know that Fifi the pink unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or an alien named Fred from another universe didn't create this universe? There's just as much evidence for them being responsible for alleged "Creation" as there is for your chosen god.

joe g said it, I believe it, and that settles it. NOT!

January 15, 2012 at 7:47 am


Right now, ID remains a philosophy, not a scientific theory.

The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, can be tested and either confirmed or falsified.

OTOH ypour position is not based on cause and effect relationships and cannot be tested. Yet you consider your position to be scientific.

And if you want to model something you have to understand it first…
Elizabeth Liddle
January 15, 2012 at 9:32 am

The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, can be tested and either confirmed or falsified.

I don’t think so.
January 15, 2012 at 9:38 am

I know and have demonstrated so.

And if your position had something then ID would be a non-starter. Yet here we are.

Zippiddy-do-da, zippiddy-a, my oh my ID is here to stay…

From here:



joe-baby, the only thing you've ever demonstrated is that you're a delusional, dishonest, arrogant, cowardly, blustering, ignorant, uneducated, insane fool.

Yeah, ID is 'there' to stay, in the puny minds of you brain damaged IDiots and in the obscure websites and books that 99.999999999% of the world's population has never heard of and couldn't care less about.

Science has "something", joe, and it's a lot of "something", and that's the reason that science doesn't give a rat's ass what you fairy tale believing morons think (well, except the parts of science that study mental illness). You IDiots are the ones with NOTHING but your bald, insane assertions. Science is here to stay, joe. Get used to it.

By the way, I still haven't seen you calculate the amount of "CSI" in a banana, or a tick, or a watermelon, or your fat ass, or anything else. Why is that, especially if you can 'test' and 'confirm' ID in nature?

I have to admit that it's a lot of fun watching you make a gigantic fool of yourself on UD and your site. You obviously believe that you can just baldly assert shit and that somehow the world, and science, will bow down to you and accept whatever you say as 'the gospel'. You actually believe that you're affecting and/or advancing science and that you and your fellow IDiots are the ones who get to direct which way scientific research should go. You couldn't be more wrong.

Tell you what, joe-blow, look back at the last few decades of the ID agenda and then try to convince me that the 'ID inference' has affected and/or changed the way scientific research, and especially evolutionary research, is done.

And while you're at it, let's see you "model" your chosen god and associated fairy tales.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

If anyone doubts...

...what I've said about gordon elliott mullings wanting to cram his insane religious and political agenda into every aspect of everyone's life, read this:

"Consequently, in our families and churches, we should emphasise the fullness agenda: Christ came to fill all things. That means that we must seek to learn how to bring the transforming and blessing power of the gospel to bear on each aspect of our lives: Individuality Family Church School and campus Workplace/business and career Finances Arts, sports, entertainment Media General community and culture Politics and government Environment and development Etc.
To do so, we will need to develop and implement comprehensive, soundly biblical training programmes based in the home and church (but not neglecting other contexts: school, campus, media, public). Such programmes should work out how to pursue discipleship, perhaps in the three overlapping phases below:
  1. Consolidating commitment to Christ, his church and his mission.
  2. Living, serving and leading in families, and in service-oriented small groups/cells and ministry teams.
  3. Living, serving and leading in the wider community and world.
To that end, this web site is dedicated."

From here:


There's a lot more on that site about his maniacal beliefs and agenda.


Hey gordo (kairosfocus)

I know that you're aware of this article already and I also know that you're avoiding it in the hope that you can keep on spewing your dishonest bullshit about nazis, Hitler, and "evolutionary materialists" without anyone noticing that you're full of shit in your claims that the nazis weren't religious.


Thursday, January 12, 2012

Check out these threads





Hey gordo, why don't you have the guts to come here and face me when you have a complaint about me?  Why do you instead go to UD and your site and have your usual hissy fit with "Comments off" or comments blocked?

I've tried to confront you at your sites, and on other sites where you post comments, but you always run away or block my comments like the chickenshit coward you are. Where's all that big brave bydand crap you like to spew, you gutless, lying, spineless, yellow-bellied, wussy, sniveling coward?

Come on, shit for brains and mush for a backbone, show me what a big brave man you say you are. You talk real tough while you hide in your sites or in your favorite sanctuary at UD, but you're actually just a pansy-ass sissy who's afraid to face your opponents and the people you falsely accuse.

Ya know, gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat, it's a relief to know that you have no effect on science no matter how much barf you projectile vomit. No one with a clue will ever accept anything you say as being valid. You're a laughing stock now and always will be.

Dumbass joe
January 12, 2012 at 8:02 pm

Science defines nature as this observable universe.

From here:



joe-tard, you really do believe that you can just make shit up and that everyone should, and will, take your word for it, don't you?

Nature is everything that exists, everywhere, whether it's "observable" or not.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

What a huge pile of steaming shit


No vince, evidence it certainly is NOT. You don't have the SLIGHTEST clue about what "evidence" actually is. Get your head examined. You need it.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012



Yep, I'm the 'vandal'. Imagine gordo's shock and anger when he saw that my comments had been on that site since November 18th. I wish I had been there to see the look on his face.

See this thread for more info:


Monday, January 9, 2012

A rich vein of tard


kairosfocus and a few other UD regulars are involved in the debate, including PaV (aka Lino D’Ischia).

Saturday, January 7, 2012


...for children and adults:


Apparently, the allegedly all powerful christian god isn't able to communicate his bullshit without videos.

P.S. I tried to make the url above into a hyperlink but nothing showed up. The space above where the hyperlink should have been was totally blank.

Friday, January 6, 2012

joe-blow gets caught...

..trying to dishonestly change what he said and gets pissed at NickM for catching him and calls Nick a liar:


Yep, chronic willful liars like joe always blame and attack the people who catch them at their lies.

The other threads on joe's blog are also very revealing of joe's insanity, ignorance, arrogance, lies, and pretty much every other bad trait anyone could have. If you're looking for a good laugh, go there and see joe make a gigantic fool of himself.

joe-blow also likes to call people cowards even though he is the one who regularly blocks relevant comments and bans some people just because they call him on his bullshit. joe is the sniveling crybaby coward.

Cowardly joe has blocked all of my comments on his blog for a long time, and even though he has allowed some over the last couple of days, he has blocked several that I have submitted.

Update: Since shortly after I posted my comments above, joe has blocked all of the comments I have submitted at his blog.