Is Uncommon Descent Dying?

For the last three weeks I have been away and then working flat out – with very little opportunity to post here or comment elsewhere.  It seems that in that time Uncommon Descent has gone into some kind of decline – possibly terminal.  Looking at the first page – which goes back to 27th of February – there are 11 posts from Denyse O’Leary and just two others – one from Cornelius Hunter and one from Robert Deyes.  These 13 posts attracted a total of 18 comments – 5 of which were on the Robert Deyes post.  The overwhelming impression is that this blog has turned in Denyse O’Leary’s diary (well actually a copy of her diary – she posts the original on her own blog).  I think a neutral observer would accept that Denyse is not the sharpest tool in the box (although one of the most aggressive).  What happened to those participants who were interestingly wrong?  Gpuccio, vjtorley …. without you the debate dies.

Update Barry Arrington has just provided a post which is worth a response.

Advertisements

28 Responses to “Is Uncommon Descent Dying?”


  1. 1 Neil Rickert March 3, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    UD seems to have become yet another O’Leary blog. Perhaps this is just a temporary phase.

    • 2 Mark Frank March 3, 2011 at 10:26 pm

      I see we now have some posts from other authors and I responded to one. But I miss the authors who have something new and interesting to say – however bizarre and irrelevant to ID – such as vjtorley or steve fuller.

  2. 3 Alan Fox March 5, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    The problem is there is nothing new to say about ID. I used to enjoy reading the comments because there were often interesting exchanges of view between proponents and critics. As there are few critics (I still stop to read your comments, Mark) laft, it is less interesting to read variations on “good post, I agree, oil-soaked ad hom, turn shroud, etc”. I think there is a generational issue, too. Maybe current proponents will continue banging on about ID but they don’t seem to be winning any new converts. One day soneone might come up with something that validates ID as more than a clever catch phrase. Somehow I doubt it.

  3. 5 Alan Fox March 5, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Turin shroud

  4. 6 Toronto March 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Neil:

    “UD seems to have become yet another O’Leary blog. Perhaps this is just a temporary phase.”

    I believe that UD will saw-tooth it’s way down to O’Leary type of statements as they appear to have run out of arguments.

    We now have several different versions of CSI, all sharing one common parameter and that is that they can’t be calculated!

    This is the best they have, a characteristic about an unmentionable designer that can’t be tested.

    • 7 Neil Rickert March 5, 2011 at 6:44 pm

      I don’t expect to see any scientific advance on UD. I follow it to see what the ID types are talking about. However, I can do without the bitter cynical sarcasm of O’Leary. I prefer reading the occasional clever argument from others, even if that clever argument is wrong.

    • 8 Eugene S June 8, 2011 at 3:17 pm

      “That can’t be tested”

      Well, you can reliably test for human or animal intelligent agency and then use induction. I can agree that it is not testable only in the extreme case of the origin of life. But testability is not a must for a scientific theory, is it? Phylogenetic macroevolution is untestable either.

  5. 9 Pachyaena March 7, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Uncommon Descent is an echo chamber for religious zealots. Sites like Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula are echo chambers for atheists. Those sites and many others (and most of the people on them) don’t give a rat’s ass about science. Science is just used as a facade in hopes that gulllible people won’t see their real agendas. It’s all about control, or at least the desire for control.

    O’Leary is a lot like PZ Meyers. They’re both so hung up on themselves that they can’t see past their own fingertips. They think that having the same people pat them on the back on a daily basis makes them superior and royal. Most of the crap O’Leary writes isn’t even understandable. PZ Meyers is usually understandable but he’s so arrogant and self righteous that it doesn’t really matter what he says. It’s just the same old crap every day, and the responses are the same old crap every day.

    UD, Panda’s Thumb, and Pharyngula either ban or threaten to ban people on a regular basis if someone doesn’t worship the party line. What is said on those sites, and many others, is so tilted to one side that it’s impossible to get a true picture of the way many people think. A real discussion, with responses from all sides, isn’t ever going to happen on those sites.

    Something that I think is interesting, and kind of funny, is that O’Leary says she doesn’t have the time to keep posting on her own blog for awhile but she posts constantly on UD.

    PZ Meyers seems to have plenty of time, even though he said awhile back that he doesn’t have much time, and he even found time to post about butt plugs. Wow, what an intellectual subject. Scientific too. I’m impressed, not. His wife and the college where he teaches must be proud.

  6. 10 Alan Fox March 7, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Pachyaena

    Its P Z Myers

    I’ll agree with you to the extent that PZ’s comment section is not for the faint-hearted. I strongly disagree that Pandas Thumb’s moderation policy is at all comparable to that of Uncommon Descent.They have a “bathroom wall” where comments deemed inappropriate are moved. They have moderators who can be contacted to discuss meta issues. UD does not consider any of these niceties necessary. Comments (and occasionally, whole threads) disappear, comment facilities are revoked without acknowledgement or explanation.

    Have you tried commenting at Panda’s Thummb? Myself I read the articles, rarely the comments, and don’t comment at all now because there is little of interest I can add other than “great post!”

    Have you read their about page?

    PZ’s blog is his own personal playground. It’s very popular, though. He seems to have identified a need in the market.

  7. 11 Pachyaena March 8, 2011 at 2:38 am

    Alan, it’s Panda’s Thumb.

    Yes, I have commented at Panda’s Thumb, and was banned. I was later banned at The Bathroom Wall and ATBC.

    PZ Myers, and the people who run Panda’s Thumb, are every bit as narrow minded as the people who run Uncommon Descent, if not more so.

    The “need” that PZ Myers has found is to simply provide a place for militant atheists to express their arrogance and anger. Even a cursory look shows that the same people comment over and over and it’s not very many people. Even if a post from Myers gets 200 responses, they are not from 200 different people. They’re more like multiple responses from 30 or 40 people, if that many. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. PZ Myers isn’t anywhere near as popular or significant as he thinks he is.

    No matter who you are or what your agenda is, surrounding yourself with ‘yes men’ or ‘yes women’ is simply an exercise in self promotion and self righteousness. It’s an ego trip.

  8. 12 Alan Fox March 8, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Pachyaena:

    I was later banned at The Bathroom Wall and ATBC.

    Really!

    You really have to work hard to get banned at AtBC. Why, Joseph Gallien, the nec plus ultra of internet trolls can still post there. Do you have a link?

  9. 13 Alan Fox March 9, 2011 at 7:48 am

    Pachyaena

    Had a look through walls at PT and AtBC. Were you posting under another name?

  10. 14 Alan Fox March 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Pachyaena

    Further research so far unproductive.

    Moderation crew at PT and AtBC are baffled. Can you provide more info?

  11. 15 Alan Fox March 13, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    hyaena has responded in another thread.

  12. 17 Vincent Torley March 14, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    markf: A very quick comment. I’ve been busy at work on a major project. I will be back soon.

  13. 19 Pachyaena April 4, 2011 at 3:10 am

    If only I could post on UD. Oh well, maybe someone there (like kairosfocus/bornagain77) will find the guts to respond here.

    kairosfocus said (or was it bornagain77? Those guys are clones.):

    “So if you believe in evolution please present your one knock down piece of evidence that you think seals the deal.”

    I would also like to see that, but where’s your one knock down piece of evidence for ID that you think seals the deal?

    “And exactly why would you consider that particular ‘soul’ question off limits to science? It would seem that that particular question should be very important to you since if you do in fact have a soul that lives eternally (forever and ever; ‘somehwere??) then that should be very important to you. Do you presuppose that it is not possible to deduce if we have a soul ‘scientifically’ though it you hold it to be possible for science to deduce practically all else???”

    Where’s your evidence for a “soul” and that it lives forever and ever? How could science verify the existence of souls?

    “Second, you seem to be caught up in a classic trap, of authority by credentialism.”

    Look who’s talking.

    “FYI, there are three main sources of persuasive power in argument, pathos [~ emotions], ethos [~ perceived credibility of an authority], logos [~ weight of the facts and logic]. Emotions are no better than the underlying perceptions, no authority is better than his or her facts, assumptions and reasoning, and it is only when the material true facts are duly entertained and reasoned upon correctly, that conclusions are well warranted.”

    Wow, talk about not looking into a mirror. Where are your material, true, non-emotional, non-assumptive, reasoned facts that support ID?

    “So, the proper focus is not who has what credentials, but what is the relevant degree of warrant; on scientific matters, amounting to well (albeit provisionally) warranted, credibly true belief; i.e. what we could cal soft form, revisable knowledge.”

    Yeah, and you need to consider all that when promoting ID.

    “In this context, Both Mr Dodgen and I hold relevant experience and knowledge of information systems and the likelihood of a random walk feeding into trial and error encountering what has come to be termed islands of specific function in a large configuration space.”

    Yep, you and Gil know everything. LOL

    “Therefore, on complex functional information as an empirically reliable and analytically credible sign of design, design is the best current explanation for the origin of life and that of major body plans.”

    Now it’s CFI. What happened to CSI? A “best explanation”, in your opinion, isn’t evidence or proof. You ID proponents like to say that no one has ever seen evolution occur. Have you seen the act of design occur?

    “But also, on the merits, design is a strong contender for explanation of origin of life and of major body plans including our own.”

    And your “knock down piece of evidence” is, what?

  14. 20 Pachyaena April 10, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    The more I read Uncommon Descent, the more I realize that the ID proponents there are nothing more than insane, self-righteous, narcissistic, extremely religious zealots.

    Frankly, it’s very difficult for me to comprehend just how fucked up those people are and how they got that way. The religious craziness they spew on a daily basis is simply mind-boggling.

    I can’t help but wonder if those guys ever step outside and observe some of the real world. They seem to spend every minute of every day on UD, preaching, proselytizing, and trying to convince each other (and any “onlookers”) that they are 100% right in everything they believe and say. They obviously see themselves as all-knowing, chosen messengers and disciples of their god.

    UD is essentially dead to anyone who is rational and sane. It’s more for amusement than information, and it’s a study in irrational behavior and terminal brain damage. Unfortunately, there will always be crazies who will jump at the chance to follow and promote their nutty beliefs from behind a mask of alleged ‘science’. Even if ID ‘theory’ has any merit scientifically, and that’s a big if, it will never be taken seriously as long as the people promoting it act like patients in an asylum for the religiously insane.

    I have said before that I think the possibility of a designer of some kind should remain open unless proof of the contrary is found, but I do not swallow any of the religious garbage that people spew and it really irks me that they claim to know that their god and their religious beliefs are the right ones and the only right ones.

    If there is or was a designer, it would very likely be something that we humans can’t even imagine, and it wouldn’t be the ridiculous, two-faced, shallow, petty, jealous, vicious, murdering, idiotic, impotent monster depicted in the bible or any other religion. The shit people make up to deal with their fears and to control others is truly amazing. Maybe someday science will discover the religion gene and will come up with a cure. One can only hope. 🙂

    Oh, and for a site that claims that ID has nothing to do with religion, there sure is a lot of religion going on over there.

    Want to see something interesting and revealing? Check this out:

    http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Leading_Cells/Evangelism/ABCD.htm

  15. 22 Pachyaena April 10, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    Be sure to click on all the buttons and links on that site. Some don’t work but some do. For anyone who doesn’t know already, Gordon E. Mullings (G.E.M) is kairosfocus on UD.

  16. 23 Pachyaena April 11, 2011 at 7:46 am

    The ID proponents on Uncommon Descent are fond of saying that they and the ID movement have no ulterior motives and that all they want to do is have ID ‘theory’ accepted as being scientific and for “Darwinism” to be tossed out. According to them it’s all about doing good science.

    Well, let’s take a look at what Gordon E. Mullings (kairosfocus), a strong supporter of ID on Uncommon Descent says (my bold):

    “The Spiral Learning Webs Training Curriculum Architecture

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

    5.6 Regional Training Network/ “The School Without Walls”: The proposed renewal strategy requires systematic, integrated training in discipleship for the whole church, with a special emphasis on the small group dynamic. This is only to be expected, as our Mandate is to “disciple the nations . . . teaching them to obey [Christ].” Unfortunately, training is precisely the weakest single area of the Church’s ministry in the Caribbean.

    To remedy this, I propose the gradual formation of a regional training network integrating development and consultancy teams, churches, parachurch ministries, people in small discipleship-oriented groups, and support resources. The teams would first develop an overall framework and pilot training modules and resources for the win-nurture-send discipleship phases, including curriculum development strategies and standards. These would then be tested, upgraded, standardised and diffused across the region. As a reasonable estimate, this would take several years of effort and a significant, but not unreasonable, quantum of resources.

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

    The power and cost-effectiveness of modern microelectronics, microcomputers and communications networks are vital to this process. Powerful print, audio- and video-tape, and CD-ROM/multimedia resources are now relatively inexpensive to develop, especially if voluntarism and sharing philosophies — perhaps, adapting the shareware software marketing strategy — dominate the ethos. The hosting of a website and the use of fax and E-mail facilities would, very rapidly, tap the global potential of the strategy: nor should we neglect the capability to do radio and television on the Internet (though we should also be aware of the potential for hostile surveillance).

    6. Concluding Remarks

    The fulness view of our discipling Mandate, as drawn from Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, outlines an effective biblical integrated operational strategy for the church’s mission in the Caribbean, and world.

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

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

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

    That’s from here (and there’s a lot more):

    http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Leading_Cells/MISSION.htm#bodylife

    It’s downright scary to think that this guy has access to children and other impressionable people. Massive brainwashing and control is all it is, and of course his focus is mostly on people of poor, less educated countries, because they’re easier to brainwash and control. And doesn’t what he says sound a lot like a terrorist organization (cells, teams, etc.)?

    By the way, for those who don’t know, GEM of TKI stands for Gordon E. Mullings of The Kairos Initiative.

    Am I the only one who wonders if bornagain77 and kairosfocus are the same person?

    • 24 tjguy September 9, 2011 at 10:20 am

      “Am I the only one who wonders if bornagain77 and kairosfocus are the same person?”

      And because they both have similar religious beliefs, your astute conclusion and accusation is that they are the same person?

      Wow! With “scientific” reasoning like that, no wonder you are an evolutionist!

  17. 25 Pachyaena April 12, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Speaking of “fluff”, ID believers “follow the evidence wherever it leads” according to bornagain77, including to the insanity of believing Hell actually exists and “the reality of the soul” and the other religious nonsense bornagain77 spews:

    bornagain77

    04/11/2011

    9:16 pm

    “Bruce David, so I show evidence for the reality of the soul, the trustworthiness of NDE testimonies, the consistency of hellish accounts of Near Death Experiences in pantheistic countries, the structure of reality, and yet this matters not one iota to you for you just set up a bunch ‘fluff’ axioms that have your preferred conclusion built into their premises, and Wah La!!! Hell disappears for you??? Man, Bruce what in the world are you doing on an ID site??? Most people here, who believe in Design, are here because they follow the evidence wherever it leads no matter what others may think, yet you in this instance with panthesim, just like the neo-Darwinists with evolution, find evidence against your position just to be so much of a trivial thing to be rationalized away with whatever excuse you can imagine. I can tell you for sure that I certainly would not find such comfort so easily in ‘devised axioms’ when the evidence presented for hell against your pantheistic position was so strong, especially strong for those living in a completely foreign culture with no exposure to Christ.”

    I thought ID is supposed to be ‘scientific’ and not tied to religious beliefs. Yeah, right.

    • 26 tjguy September 9, 2011 at 10:24 am

      I thought ID is supposed to be ‘scientific’ and not tied to religious beliefs. Yeah, right.”

      Just like evolution has nothing to do with humanism I reckon.

      I mean, get real. Many religious people gravitate find the evidence of ID quite compelling just like many atheists find the evidence of materialistic evolution quite compelling. We’re all biased and blinded by our worldview.

      Atheists are not willing to even consider the possibility of supernatural activity in creation. It is an a priori commitment that comes from their worldview. It has nothing to do with evidence. When they seek to interpret something they see in nature, only naturalistic explanations are allowed – ones that fit with evolution.

  18. 27 Pachyaena April 14, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    Here are some examples of the “honest” and “civil” discussion UD “welcomes”:

    Joseph

    04/14/2011

    7:54 am

    It is obvious that you are a loser and a liar. Dissent? You lies are not dissent. Your intellectual cowardice is not dissent. Your ignorance is not dissent. Your bald assertions and false accusations are not dissent.

    Joseph

    04/14/2011

    8:31 am

    However what tards like you say is “we don’t know but we know it wasn’t designed”.

    You are a joke- evolutionary theory doesn’t ask that. Imbeciles ask that.

    Joseph

    04/14/2011

    7:00 am

    This moron pollutes my blog on a daily basis. It has claimed it will come here to get me banned.

    Do we really need this pap here?

    Joseph

    04/14/2011

    6:46 am

    You are an obtuse equivocator.

    Joseph

    04/14/2011

    6:41 am

    Liar.

    Joseph

    04/14/2011

    5:29 am

    Another lie and another non-sequitur.

    I know more about evolution than you do idcurious.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    3:44 pm

    I ignore bald declarations.

    And your bald assertions and lies sum up the level of your argument quite perfectly.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    3:11 pm

    Stop lying about me. You are pathetic.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    3:06 pm

    Nope, you are lying, of course.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    2:07 pm

    Methinks you are lying.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    2:01 pm

    What the heck is your problem?

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    1:59 pm

    If you noticed MathGrrl didn’t comprehend what I posted. Apparently neither do you.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    8:32 am

    Man you are pathetic.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    8:22 am

    Yes, you seem to be ignorant about many things.

    Throwing deep time at issues is not scientific and your avoidance of that proves my point- that you are an intellectual coward.

    Sed the ignorant evo.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    7:17 am

    Throwing deep time at issues is not scientific and your avoidance of that proves my point- that you are an intellectual coward.

    It is a safe bet that I know more than you do.

    Except that is not what I said. You have serious mental issues and should seek help.

    Joseph

    04/13/2011

    5:22 am

    And talkorigins isn’t a valdrfence.

    Either that or you are too much of an intellectual coward to step up an deal with it.

    Joseph

    04/12/2011

    3:41 pm

    I say the nonsense is all yours.

    And if all you have is to throw deep time at any issue then your position is ludicrous.

    Upright BiPed

    04/12/2011

    3:27 pm

    You are a bullshit artist and I am gonna be here to call you on it.

    Joseph

    04/12/2011

    3:00 pm

    You have reading comprehension issues.

    So smile…

    Upright BiPed

    04/12/2011

    2:28 pm

    I suppose when the chips are down, nothing soothes the materialist’s soul 🙂 like telling bald-faced lies.

    PaV

    04/12/2011

    1:42 pm

    To say something like this is either gigantic hubris, or gigantic cognitive dissonance.

    Is this how liberals act? They keep spouting the same tripe no matter how many times there shown to be wrong or in error?

    Oh, . . . I forgot. Yes, that is how they behave.

    PaV

    04/12/2011

    5:06 pm

    Only liberals persist in such inanity. They’re very convinced of how right they are. Just ask them.

    PaV

    04/13/2011

    11:21 am

    QID: this comment exhibits quite a bit of ignorance on your part;

    In answering MathGrrl’s ridiculous demands—and that was, and is, what they are; no more, no less

    Let’s remember, poor old MathGrrl was complaining that she didn’t know how to do any of these calculations.

    MathGrrl’s tactics are just that: tactics. She should know better. That she doesn’t know any better is an indictment of her; not ID.

    I went through an artificial example for MathGrrl’s comprehension.

    Joseph

    04/12/2011

    10:54 am

    You do understand how science operates, right?

    OR you can continue to whine and act all obtuse and stuff…

    Joseph

    04/12/2011

    7:57 am

    What a crock. If you really wanted to know about CSI you would read “No Free Lunch”.

    So the only people you are fooling are yourself and our loyal followers.

    And until you demonstrate some understanding of he topic the only peple that will listen to you are yourself and your loyal followers.

    Joseph

    04/12/2011

    9:08 am

    CSI cannot be expressed by an algorithm. So get off of your strawman already.

    And until you demonstrate some understanding of he topic the only peple that will listen to you are yourself and your loyal followers.

    People can say whatever they want. The problem comes when they cannot support what they say, which is the case when people say stuff about the ID community.

    kairosfocus

    04/14/2011

    6:11 am

    F/N: Onlookers,

    observe the continued silence from objectors on the analysis of the Dembski CSI metric as boiling down to a measurement of information in bits beyond a threshold of 398+ – 500 bits; thus a metric of being on an island in a config space sufficiently deeply isolated that the only empirically credible explanation is design.

    kairosfocus

    04/14/2011

    9:00 am

    Onlookers:

    IDC clearly has nothing further of substance to say, and has begun to resort to recirculating atheistical talking points that have long since been corrected, and re-corrected just this morning.

    14 April 2011
    Mathgrrl Lives Down to Expectations
    Barry Arrington

    In my last post I asked Mathgrrl the following direct and unambiguous question:

    “OK Mathgrrl. I will put it to you: Was Orgel’s concept of specified complexity coherent or meaningful?”

    I then made the following prediction as to her response: “My prediction: More dancing, evasion and obfuscation.”

    My prediction was confirmed. Mathgrrl placed two comments on the thread to that post and she did not even address the question posed.

    Mathgrrl is unwilling to engage in a good faith debate on these pages. Case closed.

    ———————————–

    Yeah, real civil and honest. LOL

    Hey MR. Dishonest Gordon E. Mullings (kairosfocus), most objectors are silent because they have been banned from posting on UD, or because your statements are so stupid and redundant as to not warrant a response, and if anyone is resorting to recirculating talking points that have long since been corrected and re-corrected, it’s you and your fellow ID proponents. You’re a broken record.

    Hey Barry, you’re a gutless coward who won’t allow “honest” discussion on UD and you also have a massive double standard when it comes to civility. So much for “good faith”. By the way, did it ever occur to you that MathGrrl just might want to stay on her original topic and not get detoured by your goalpost moving bullshit. She also likely has better things to do than to respond instantly to your idiotic questions and comments. She really got under your skin, didn’t she?

    I know you guys are reading this. Too bad that none of you have the guts to respond here, and that you hide in your UD sanctuary where you can control what is said.

    Hey Joe, what is a “valdrfence”?

  19. 28 Ric May 26, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    What has made me laugh recently is how Denyse O’Leary has taken to posting under the name “News,” so that it seems that someone besides her actually writes for the blog. She is trying to disguise the fact that 90% of posts on UD are O’Leary. Oh, and O’Leary is a horrible, horrible writer.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: