RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (28) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2017,02:07   

Klinghoffer's hurt over at EN&V because I appear in Wikipedia and one of their guys is having issues there.

If Klinghoffer wanted to know about "notability" and Wikipedia, he could have consulted Wikipedia. Ironically, Klinghoffer bringing up my name (again) on EN&V adds another data point for my notability.

And Klinghoffer's sneering is, as usual, off the mark. I have a track record in marine biology that is itself not erased because I have changed my career path. Besides collaborating in published research, this includes professional recognition by the Society for Marine Mammalogy and professional involvement in a NOAA workshop on harm to cetaceans from Navy SONAR. It's almost as if Klinghoffer is assuming that whatever place you end up is the only place you ever could have been, which would probably discomfit any number of DI Fellows were it to be applied uniformly and without hypocrisy.  

Additionally, if Klinghoffer had bothered to examine the "Talk" tab for my Wikipedia page, he might have seen that I had noted my change in employment there quite some time ago. It isn't as if I have been keeping it a secret known only to people who can visit LinkedIn. And property managers are noting my current employer, thanks. At least some small part of that has to do with my bringing evolutionary computation to analysis and forecasting there.

ETA: Point on hypocrisy.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 16 2017,08:04

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2325
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2017,14:41   

Your Wiki page ought to mention TO archive, and Panda's Thumb.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2017,16:13   

Way down at the bottom, there are mentions of my association with them.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2017,22:26   

Thinking about it further...

My notability in Wikipedia terms has more to do with my public opposition to religious antievolution efforts (and press and other notice of such, including the DI's own intermittent ragging on me) than with the details of what I did as a marine biologist or am doing now with real estate. As Klinghoffer notes with frustration, just being good at a job doesn't make someone necessarily notable. Lots of people do good to superb jobs in their chosen profession without ever coming near having "notability" in the Wikipedia sense. It's entirely fair to say that had I only stuck to marine biology, or real estate, or medical research, or photojournalism, or aerospace, or digital cartography, or statistics, or web design and programming, the odds are that, no, I wouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I'm proud of what I have accomplished in my marine biology career, which has spanned work on histology and epidemiology of fin whales, biosonar sound production in dolphins,  hearing sensitivity in dolphins, white whales, and sea lions, and data integrity for records of manatee mortality, but I would have to say that that alone would not have made me notable for Wikipedia. (As mentioned previously, I have received recognition within the field of marine mammalogy, so whatever notability can be said to be attached to having your peers commend you for an award in innovation in research methods covering a two-year period is mine.) Because I have been an effective advocate for science in a public controversy, yes, that does makes a difference for notability. So the Wikipedia formulation of "X is a notable Y" isn't necessarily that X is notable solely for Y, but rather that X is a notable person (someone who verifiable sources have actually taken notice of) who does Y. Klinghoffer would like people to be incensed about that.

Klinghoffer can, though, look forward to Bechly becoming notable in exactly that way as he does publicly foolish -- and thus notable -- stuff for the Discovery Institute involving undermining science education. Bechly has a ways to go to catch up with DI Fellows who have broken that path before, including Dembski and Behe, whose pages at Wikipedia certainly meet anyone's standards of notability concerning exactly that public controversy, and their notability for Wikipedia is, just like mine, not based upon whatever degree of success they've had in the academic careers they have chosen (more for Behe than Dembski, certainly). The "top scientist" label Phil Johnson wanted to hang on them simply doesn't fit. In the meantime, I would think Bechly could be added to the DI C®SC page noting his affiliation, like Casey Luskin is noted there. It would be a start.

For my own involvement in the public controversy, I can point folks at TalkOrigins, Panda's Thumb, and The Austringer, in addition to this site. What is not up for debate is whether I have actually been a marine biologist, or any of the other things I have successfully turned my hand to over my lifetime.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sparc



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2017,08:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 17 2017,22:26)
Thinking about it further...

My notability in Wikipedia terms has more to do with my public opposition to religious antievolution efforts (and press and other notice of such, including the DI's own intermittent ragging on me) than with the details of what I did as a marine biologist or am doing now with real estate. As Klinghoffer notes with frustration, just being good at a job doesn't make someone necessarily notable. Lots of people do good to superb jobs in their chosen profession without ever coming near having "notability" in the Wikipedia sense. It's entirely fair to say that had I only stuck to marine biology, or real estate, or medical research, or photojournalism, or aerospace, or digital cartography, or statistics, or web design and programming, the odds are that, no, I wouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I'm proud of what I have accomplished in my marine biology career, which has spanned work on histology and epidemiology of fin whales, biosonar sound production in dolphins,  hearing sensitivity in dolphins, white whales, and sea lions, and data integrity for records of manatee mortality, but I would have to say that that alone would not have made me notable for Wikipedia. (As mentioned previously, I have received recognition within the field of marine mammalogy, so whatever notability can be said to be attached to having your peers commend you for an award in innovation in research methods covering a two-year period is mine.) Because I have been an effective advocate for science in a public controversy, yes, that does makes a difference for notability. So the Wikipedia formulation of "X is a notable Y" isn't necessarily that X is notable solely for Y, but rather that X is a notable person (someone who verifiable sources have actually taken notice of) who does Y. Klinghoffer would like people to be incensed about that.

Klinghoffer can, though, look forward to Bechly becoming notable in exactly that way as he does publicly foolish -- and thus notable -- stuff for the Discovery Institute involving undermining science education. Bechly has a ways to go to catch up with DI Fellows who have broken that path before, including Dembski and Behe, whose pages at Wikipedia certainly meet anyone's standards of notability concerning exactly that public controversy, and their notability for Wikipedia is, just like mine, not based upon whatever degree of success they've had in the academic careers they have chosen (more for Behe than Dembski, certainly). The "top scientist" label Phil Johnson wanted to hang on them simply doesn't fit. In the meantime, I would think Bechly could be added to the DI C®SC page noting his affiliation, like Casey Luskin is noted there. It would be a start.

For my own involvement in the public controversy, I can point folks at TalkOrigins, Panda's Thumb, and The Austringer, in addition to this site. What is not up for debate is whether I have actually been a marine biologist, or any of the other things I have successfully turned my hand to over my lifetime.

Blechly has his own entry in the German version of Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günter_Bechly) I guess self-written. The funny thing about him is the fact that he followed Darwinian paths in his published scientific work and organized an exhibition celebrating Darwins aniversaries back in 2009.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2017,09:15   

My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2017,10:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 16 2017,16:13)
Way down at the bottom, there are mentions of my association with them.

Nope, just TO is mentioned, and this site. PT ought to be, too.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2017,14:22   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 18 2017,09:15)
My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

Hey, whatever you care to share about your work would be appreciated.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
k.e..



Posts: 5428
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2017,10:08   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 18 2017,22:22)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 18 2017,09:15)
My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

Hey, whatever you care to share about your work would be appreciated.

Insperperation it's 98 percent of work, something ID fails by a large margin except when it comes to bitching. All the chaffing in the barn down on the plantation results only in horse shit.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2017,06:24   

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 19 2017,10:08)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 18 2017,22:22)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 18 2017,09:15)
My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

Hey, whatever you care to share about your work would be appreciated.

Insperperation it's 98 percent of work, something ID fails by a large margin except when it comes to bitching. All the chaffing in the barn down on the plantation results only in horse shit.

I rarely insperspire now. It's too cold in Trondheim, where I live now. Mind you, the view from my office isn't bad.

At the start of the year I moved to Trondheim to become a professor of statistics. I think this means I can't be fired for staring out of the window all day.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2017,15:22   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 23 2017,06:24)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 19 2017,10:08)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 18 2017,22:22)
       
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 18 2017,09:15)
My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

Hey, whatever you care to share about your work would be appreciated.

Insperperation it's 98 percent of work, something ID fails by a large margin except when it comes to bitching. All the chaffing in the barn down on the plantation results only in horse shit.

I rarely insperspire now. It's too cold in Trondheim, where I live now. Mind you, the view from my office isn't bad.

At the start of the year I moved to Trondheim to become a professor of statistics. I think this means I can't be fired for staring out of the window all day.

It can't be all that bad; I breathed both in and out there from my birth in 1930 and even on my visits there earlier this year. I think the beauty of the city and the landscape Byåsen more than compensate for the sub-subtropic climate.

I am quite familar with the building pictured; working at a place with one of the two Ozalid copying machines in the town in the late 1940's, I rode my bicycle between the shop in the city and up there every day with mostly students drawings in a tubular container on my back.

BTW, we did a lot of copying of drawings for entrepeneur Zager und Woerner for the U-boot bunker Dora2. They even gave us a brand new copying machine near the end of the war.

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki....ora

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2018,20:59   

The DI nibbles on the "most animal lineages are the same age" news

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2325
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2018,02:16   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 10 2018,18:59)
The DI nibbles on the "most animal lineages are the same age" news

Oh good grief

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2020,00:21   

In bone-idle toe-rag news, Michael Egnor blithers about what "intelligent design research" would look like for COVID-19.

Quote

The Principle of Irreducible Complexity
Let’s look at what intelligent design research on the origin of COVID-19 might look like.

According to the principles of fine-tuning and specified complexity, the specified functional complexity of a biological system can only be attributed to random (undesigned) natural selection if each step in the hypothetical evolutionary process produces a phenotype favored by selection. ID researchers could apply something like these principles to what is known of the molecular structure of the COVID-19 virus, the natural occurrence and natural variation of this viral structure, and the specific circumstances of the emergence of the COVID pandemic. ID research on COVID-19 would be, like all scientific research, an evidence-based inference to the best explanation. For COVID-19, the scientific question to be answered is this: Is there evidence for intelligent human agency in COVID-19, given its structure and what is known about its emergence?

There are two distinct questions here: (1) Do viruses in general indicate some form of intelligent design underlying their overall structure and functions? And (2) Does the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself show evidence of human design that distinguishes it from other known naturally occurring viruses? As to the former question (1), we have already addressed it at Evolution News and answered in the affirmative (see here and here). My colleagues and I have also written a few posts clearing up some misunderstandings about the implications of viral pandemics for our understanding of evolution.

But obviously it’s the latter question (2) that Shapiro and so many others care about at the moment. This ID question and these ID methods, Shapiro seems not to have noticed, are what the entire scientific community has been addressing and using in every lab in the world that studies the emergence of the virus. This design science is, quite naturally, the cornerstone of all of the design research currently underway at the CDC, the NIH, the WHO, and in virology labs across the globe. This is implicit ID research, and it has been conducted with unparalleled vigor. I will say more on the subject tomorrow.


Meanwhile, I had a look at Google Scholar. There have been lots of actual research papers published about SARS-CoV-2.

Quote

About 70,500 results (0.09 sec)


I don't know how exclusive Google is about items indexed in Scholar. So let's say only a third of those represent actual peer-reviewed articles. Or a fifth. Or a tenth. Going much lower than that, and it starts to become incredible to deny that real research is that rare

Even if you credit the small ratio of papers as fitting the term "reasearch", that's pretty good for a topic that did not exist a year ago. And within that, there are even multiple results concerning "engineering" and SARS-CoV-2. If the Discovery Institute had a research program, they would be able to point to actual research, not posting wankery on their comment-averse blog about what a unicorn might look like... sorry, what ID research would look like.

Fish or cut bait, guys. Like I said in 2002, maybe the DI is just funding the wrong people.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2020,04:39   

You can probably get a better estimate of papers from MedRxiv, which curently lists <a href="https://connect.medrxiv.org/relate/content/181">7706 preprints in MedRxiv and bioRxiv</a>. This is going to be an underestimate of the total number of papers and pre-prints, of course. e.g. it excludes Zelenko's study, as well as the contributions I've been a part of.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Henry J



Posts: 5766
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2020,10:48   

Well of course scientists would have looked for evidence of human engineering in that virus - seriously looking for it and not finding it is the only way to rule it out.

That's my 3 cents.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2020,12:58   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 15 2020,04:39)
You can probably get a better estimate of papers from MedRxiv, which curently lists <a href="https://connect.medrxiv.org/relate/content/181">7706 preprints in MedRxiv and bioRxiv</a>. This is going to be an underestimate of the total number of papers and pre-prints, of course. e.g. it excludes Zelenko's study, as well as the contributions I've been a part of.

So probably somewhere between that fifth and tenth part of what Google Scholar returns. Good to know.

I found the species distribution model paper. Are there others of yours to look for?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2021,05:08   

I hope this is the correct thread - I checked the Sensuous Curmudgeon for the first time in a long while and was intrigued by the current top post: Guess Who’s Returning to the Discovery Institute.

It's unverified, unconfirmed information for now, but guess who he's talking about?

Hint: you know who.

Edited by Ptaylor on Jan. 16 2021,22:33

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2021,18:42   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 16 2021,05:08)
I hope this is the correct thread - I checked the Sensuous Curmudgeon for the first time in a long while and was intrigued by the current top post: Guess Who’s Returning to the Discovery Institute.

It's unverified, unconfirmed information for now, but guess who he's talking about?

Hint: you know who.

Yep, he's baaaaaaack!  

Casey Luskin AKA Lacy Cuntskin AKA the DI's Attack Gerbil is back and rarin' to defend ID against all enemies both foreign and domestic!

I’m Excited to Return to Discovery Institute to Find Intelligent Design Stronger Than Ever!

How about that!  ID is stronger than ever!   I can't wait to see what the monobrow barfs up for his first hit piece.   :)

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
KevinB



Posts: 524
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2021,05:35   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 25 2021,18:42)
Yep, he's baaaaaaack!  

Casey Luskin AKA Lacy Cuntskin AKA the DI's Attack Gerbil is back and rarin' to defend ID against all enemies both foreign and domestic!

I’m Excited to Return to Discovery Institute to Find Intelligent Design Stronger Than Ever!

How about that!  ID is stronger than ever!   I can't wait to see what the monobrow barfs up for his first hit piece.   :)

I'm afraid I can't see the name "Casey Luskin" without thinking of this song....

Squirrel Nutkin

  
sparc



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2021,05:12   

I don't quite get how he seemingly can accept the scientific consequences  of billion year old traces of changes of the magnetic field while at the same time he keeps ignoring the obvious impications of the fossil record.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2021,12:13   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 27 2021,05:12)
I don't quite get how he seemingly can accept the scientific consequences  of billion year old traces of changes of the magnetic field while at the same time he keeps ignoring the obvious impications of the fossil record.

He's a Creationist.  Logical thinking isn't their forte.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2021,20:57   

The DI's attack gerbil Casey Luskin has published his first piece at EN after his long hiatus.    He immediately starts in right where he left off, with the same whining bullshit "Darwinists are mistaking ID for Creationism!!".  He may as well have been frozen in carbonite for the last five years.  :D



--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
sparc



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2021,06:54   

What would the ID movement be without Casey Luskin:
Quote
When attacking ID these pro-Darwin activists are very happy to use the “creationist” label in an apparent attempt to marginalize or sideline ID. But when measuring the degree of support for evolution in the culture, they’re happy to count ID proponents as not as “creationists” but as “scientifically literate” supporters of “evolution” — especially if that means the support-statistics go higher.

Why would anybody count cdesign propentionists as suporters of evolution when their scientific illiteracy has been exposed during a trial and in a court judment back in 2005.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2021,08:22   

I’m in my mid-40’s. About every 3 weeks i use a #2 guard on my eyebrows. And I apply some Just For Men Medium Brown. Every man should take care that his eyebrows be socially acceptable. I’m not sure why Casey Luskin made me think of that.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2021,08:27   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 04 2021,21:57)
The DI's attack gerbil Casey Luskin has published his first piece at EN after his long hiatus.    He immediately starts in right where he left off, with the same whining bullshit "Darwinists are mistaking ID for Creationism!!".  He may as well have been frozen in carbonite for the last five years.  :D


Quote
The DI's attack gerbil Casey Luskin has published his first piece at EN after his long hiatus.    He immediately starts in right where he left off, with the same whining bullshit "Darwinists are mistaking ID for Creationism!!"
i’m sure BatShit77 will be along any minute now with a bible verse about how that’s not true.  :p

   
Lethean



Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2021,04:30   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2021,08:22)
I’m in my mid-40’s. About every 3 weeks i use a #2 guard on my eyebrows. And I apply some Just For Men Medium Brown. Every man should take care that his eyebrows be socially acceptable. I’m not sure why Casey Luskin made me think of that.




Co-inky-dink strikes again. I was just digging around on an old drive a couple of days ago and spotted that image in an archive. Can't recall the artiste, wasn't me.

I guess the petroleum oligarch funded think-tank figured out Casey is fucking useless for authoring climate change and potential mitigation denial in service of monkey-wrenching any attempts to govern our way out of this shit.

Back to the only thing he's "good" for, I guess.

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
sparc



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2021,01:43   

Maybe it's old news for you but I was not aware of it: Do the IDiots pretend running some kind of university?
If not why would they start a web site named DiscoveryU and offer online courses?
https://www.discoveryu.org/....ryu.org

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2021,03:58   

They're playing, aren't they? 5 courses, 3 of which you have to pay at least $100 for.

I wonder how many domain names they have for education: discoveryU, discoveringID, faithandevolution, scienceandgod, whathathdarwinwrought, intelligentdesign, and probably a few more.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5454
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2021,10:14   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 03 2021,04:58)
They're playing, aren't they? 5 courses, 3 of which you have to pay at least $100 for.

I wonder how many domain names they have for education: discoveryU, discoveringID, faithandevolution, scienceandgod, whathathdarwinwrought, intelligentdesign, and probably a few more.

And for which you get, upon completion, a “special digital certificate”. Oh my, sign me right up.  :D

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
  815 replies since Jan. 20 2011,10:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (28) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]