Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Casey Luskin Thread started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 13 2006,13:06

Bizarre ignoramus Casey Luskin has provided entertainment for years. I'm probably remiss in not starting this thread sooner.



"ISSUE ONE: < CASEY ATTACKS CARL ZIMMER. > ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"
Posted by: Altabin on Nov. 13 2006,14:09

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,20:06)
ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two more than Dembski (who scores a "9")?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Nov. 13 2006,17:28

Once on UD I pointed out that the human chromosomal fusion was a prediction of evolution and someone pointed me to < this article >, which is probably the most stupid thing ive ever  read apart from that Carl Weiland article that AFDave linked to once. After that I didnt read anything he wrote, but this piece trying to rebut Carl Zimmer looks pretty funny.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,17:38

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Nov. 13 2006,17:28)
Once on UD I pointed out that the human chromosomal fusion was a prediction of evolution and someone pointed me to < this article >, which is probably the most stupid thing ive ever  read apart from that Carl Weiland article that AFDave linked to once.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. That article (aside from completely misrepresenting Miller's testimony) is some fine, vintage tard. He says he enjoyed Miller's testimony, which is puzzling, because based on his discussion of it, he didn't read it at all.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 14 2006,12:19

I hearby nominate Casey Luskin for the Joseph Goebbels Award.
Posted by: mcc on Nov. 15 2006,04:26

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,13:06)
ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this a linear or a logarithmic scale?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 15 2006,10:34

Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 13 2006,15:09)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,20:06)
ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two more than Dembski (who scores a "9")?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ANSWER IS TWELVE AND A HALF.

ELEANOR CLIFT!

Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 15 2006,13:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He says he enjoyed Miller's testimony, which is puzzling, because based on his discussion of it, he didn't read it at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He enjoyed it for its soporific effect.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2006,02:25

< Carl Zimmer vs Casey Luskin continues to look like Evander Holyfield vs Screech. >
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on Nov. 21 2006,01:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...
Posted by: mcc on Nov. 21 2006,02:16

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 21 2006,01:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. Did Donald M steal that from the DI or did the DI steal that from Donald M?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 21 2006,18:28

< http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat...._or.php >
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 21 2006,21:05



< Mike Dunford! >
Posted by: qetzal on Nov. 21 2006,22:26

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 21 2006,01:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dunno. What holds up the clouds?
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 26 2006,13:15

< Casey hates the FSM >

May Casey realize the error of his ways and be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 26 2006,17:43

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2006,13:15)
Luskin:
While much of this is witty and fun, these comments reveal an underlying anti-religious mindset by these Darwinist academics who "endorse" FSM in a tone which mocks traditional Judeo-Christian religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But ID ain't about Judeo-Christian religion.  No sirree Bob.  It's just them lying atheist darwinists who say it is.  And those ACLU-quoting activist judges.

(snicker)  (giggle)

I'd sure love to see these guys on a witness stand again.  Alas, since ID is as dead as a mackerel, we will unfortunately never get that chance.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 26 2006,17:59

The problem with Dover is, it was such an a55-whooping, any school board who now uses the words 'Intelligent Design' will be subject to hysterical phone calls from their lawyers demanding they drop it. So yeah, we're probably not going to get to see a Dover 2 with new cast members like Dembski. No chance to see the expression on a federal judge's face as he watches Dembski's pooty little insult to the judge's colleague, while Dembski sits on the witness stand and counts down the hours to Big ID Loss 2. No chance for ID Expert Denyse O'Leary to take the stand. Rothschild would probably let his intern Bobby do that cross, just to give her a fighting chance.

They will change their name and get some fresh faces and be back, obviously. But my favorite thing is that all the heavy ID advocates are contaminated with the title.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 26 2006,19:32

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2006,17:59)
They will change their name and get some fresh faces and be back, obviously. But my favorite thing is that all the heavy ID advocates are contaminated with the title.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sticking to my prediction that the fundies will now drop anti-evolutionism altogether -- they've lost that fight so many times that it would be simple-minded masochism to keep fighting it.  Instead, they will turn to anti-cosmology-ism, by giving us some privately-defined version of "The Anthropic Principle" which, they will say, proves that the universe was specially created . . . uh . . .  I mean designed . . . er . . .  I mean . .  um . . .  "adjusted", yeah, *that's* the word, "specially adjusted" . . . just to produce us.

There are several advantages to the fundies for that strategy.  First, it completely sidesteps all of their crushingly long list of anti-evolution defeats.  Just because anti-evolutionism has already been repeatedly ruled to be non-science religious dogma doesn't mean that anti-cosmology-ism is, right, Your Honor?  

Second, if you think people misunderstand evolution, just WAIT till the fundies start spouting out all sorts of sciencey-sounding bullshit about cosmology and quantum physics.  

Third, the very name "The Anthropic Principle" sounds vaguely sorta kinda like "Created For Man", so all the members of the Big Tent (remember, The Anthropic Principle says nothing at all about . . . oh . . .  how old the earth is, whether or not life evolves, or even whether or not the Big Bang happened) can read into it whatever they like, in whatever form they like it.  

And fourth  -- and most beautiful of all -- the term "The Anthropic Principle" was itself produced by real live cosmologists, not by foaming fundie nutters, and has actually been used in real science publications.  That'll keep the fundie quote-miners employed for years.  It'll also allow them to argue in court, "But Your Honor, this is just THEIR OWN SCIENCE that we want to have taught !!!!"

Gee, if I were a dishonest person, I'd write the book myself laying out all those arguments, and thus take credit (all the way to the bank) for starting ID's successor.  ;)

Alas, though, the anti-cosmology-ist strategy will ultimately fail too, just like the anti-evolutionist campaign did, and for much the same reasons. There will, for instance, be a documented history tying anti-cosmology directly to fundie anti-evolutionists, going back several decades (there were a couple ICR nutters who wrote articles declaring that Einstein's relativity is wrong and therefore the Big Bang is wrong, and then there's Gonzalez's "universe-was-designed" tome and Heddle's blitherings about "cosmological ID").  

And any version of The Anthropic Principle put out by fundies will, of course, be inherently religious, since none but a deity is capable of producing or adjusting a universe  (no "maybe the space aliens diddit" this time).  And you can be sure that in every "scientific" discussion where the fundie version of "The Anthropic Principle" appears,  *some* fundie nutter will stand up in the middle of it and shout "JESUS SAVES !!!!!!" at the top of his lungs, and thus give the whole game away.  Just like Intelligent Design, The Anthropic Principle gambit depends for its success completely and totally on the ability of its supporters to shut up about their religious motives.  Alas, they simply can't do it.  They don't WANT to do it.  Their incessant compulsion to preach, will kill them every time.  Just like it killed ID.

Of course, without the political support of the Republicrat Party, the fundies are nothing but a sewing circle anyway, and it appears as though the Republicrats will not have real political power again for a long long long time . . .

Indeed, the Republicrat Party itself will likely be in for some awfully rough times ahead.  Basically, the Repugs are the "Party of the Angry White Man".  Unfortunately for them, by the middle of this century if not sooner, white people will themselves be firmly a minority in the US -- and then the angry white men can stamp their feet all they want, they simply won't have the numbers at the ballot box to win.  Women and ethnics will then decide elections, and they're, uh, not very friendly to the Republicrats (and vice versa).  

I look for the Republicrats to decline drastically over the next few decades, and either remake themselves completely, or be replaced by an actual conservative political party ("conservative" in the Eisenhower sense, not in the radical Dubya/fundie sense).  The alternative would be for the angry white fundie nutters to seize power undemocratically, without elections.  I do not dismiss that possibility.  Indeed, I think open fascism in the US (as compared to the fig-leaf fascism that we've recently had under Republicrat single-party rule) is a very real option.

Which is why I keep my hunting rifle well-oiled.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 01 2007,13:43



"ISSUE FOUR. NEW ALLEGATIONS BY LUSKIN THAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SINCE KITZMILLER, VINDICATES ID...

< ED BRAYTON!!!!!!! >"
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 22 2007,23:02

Poor J-Dog has been Luskinized:

(first comment)

< http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/01/how_generous.php >
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 22 2007,23:18

And Luskin takes only the "Larry King" approved line of questioning to peddle his propoganda.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question (1): “Does the DI have any religious affiliation? (My understanding is DI is specifically neutral on religion and open to all scientific teaching and research regardless where the evidence leads)”

Question (2): “Has DI taken a stand on the enforcement of the 'church / state establishment' rules banning from public schools and colleges the teaching of evolution if it is being taught as a religion?”

Question (3): “When does teaching science cross the line from speculation to indoctrination?”

Question (4): “What kind of test can a teacher / parent / student use if they are trying to avoid being indoctrinated or being agents of religious indoctrination?”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thoughtful and challanging questions that Mr. Luskin certainly had to tread carefully with his answers. :O

[innocence]
"Maybe I'll write some questions to Mr. Luskin.
Then he'll publish the answers for ALL to see."
[/innocence]
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 23 2007,14:47

I believe the "REAL Question" should be: In a Battle of the Tards, who would win?

a.) DaveScott
b.) Casey Luskin

Please compare and contrast.  Please leave DaveScott's "Unnatural Love For Another Man", Dembski, out of the equation, as this HOMO love should not interfere with your discussion.  Unless, of course, you ARE a homo.

Let me begin.  In my book, they are equi-tards. However, as DaveScott has @ 5,000 tard- post lead over Young Luskin, you have to give the nod (or slap upside the head) to DS, becasue of his body of work.  Certainly NOT because of his body, such as it is, due to the preponderance of cheesey-poofs ingested over the course of his amassing his millionaire status.

Luskin however, will, in my opinion, be the bigger tard over time, as he has his hand on the ....well, call it "pulse", of the DI, and I believe his essential weasle essence will develop over time.  You can already see he is a suck-up, and a brown-noser.  

I believe it will help to visualize: Luskin closely resembles "Greg Marmalade",  the brown-nosing Frat character on Animal House, where as DaveScott is closer to Niedermayer, the ROTC frat-jerk in Animal House that was fragged by his own men in Viet Nam after he graduated.

I think the discussion of which of these tards would win a locked-cage match , where only the winner comes out alive could be a entire thread on it's own.

It could be even more fun to speculate whether Dave's arteries will clog from cheesy-poofs first, or Casey Luskin asphixiate from his head up his glutious maximus first.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 10 2007,10:17

Somebody watch < this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, > and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 10 2007,14:10

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2007,10:17)
Somebody watch < this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, > and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got halfway through the darned video, now  I want a prize!  

ps:  Casey looks a pretty small on the video... could Casey be a Homo  floresiensis?  He certainly looks microcephaloc to me... I am just saying....
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 10 2007,15:26

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2007,14:10)
He certainly looks microcephaloc to me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He looks PHALLO-cephalic to me . . . .
Posted by: snoeman on Feb. 10 2007,15:32

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2007,10:17)
Somebody watch < this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, > and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


dont wach it.  saw 3 minutws, eyes roled to far, got stuc.  cant se keybord well enougk to type now.

*snap*

Ouch.

It's bad enough that at some point even the camera had to be thinking, "jebus, this is retarded."
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 12 2007,13:57

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 10 2007,15:26)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2007,14:10)
He certainly looks microcephaloc to me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He looks PHALLO-cephalic to me . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Calling Casy a PHALLO-cephalic is an insult to dickheads everywhere.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 12 2007,14:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May Casey realize the error of his ways and be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



well, maybe Casey was abused by what he thought was a noodly appendage as a child?

We should interview his childhood priest/pastor.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Feb. 12 2007,18:58

I have referred to Casey Luskin as a "baby attorney" on more than one occasion.  I intended only to address his education, experience, and expertise.

Now that I've seen the video, I realize that Casey Luskin actually, physically is still a baby--well, okay, maybe a toddler.  He's about two feet tall, and clearly wearing a toupee intended to lend him the air of being in junior high.

Maybe from now on I'll have to refer to him as as "embryonic" attorney...

Sheesh.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 12 2007,19:29

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 23 2007,14:47)
I believe the "REAL Question" should be: In a Battle of the Tards, who would win?

a.) DaveScott
b.) Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having read Luskin's, um, thoughts on human evolution I'm going with Luskin. It would go 15 rounds and be decided, narrowly, on points, but Luskin would win.
Posted by: stevestory on May 17 2007,18:52

< A question for Luskin

Category: Evolution Denialism >
Posted by: J-Dog on May 22 2007,08:44

From Carl Zimmer on Sci Blogs:

Once More Into The Flaming Pinto My Friends!

< http://scienceblogs.com/loom....pin.php >

Casey, Casey, Casey... Once again he breaks new ground in tardism, and seriously gives DaveScot a run for his money for the Lifetime Tard Acheivement Award.
(Although DaveScot linking to an article that disproves his very own quotemine attempt this morning is soooo "tres tard".
Posted by: stevestory on May 22 2007,13:24

If you haven't read that Carl Zimmer piece, go read it. Casey couldn't more perfectly represent Intelligent Design if he tried.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 10 2007,19:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being Casey Luskin

Category: Anti-Creationism
Posted on: August 10, 2007 5:09 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

Sometimes I wonder what it is like to be a blogger for the Discovery Institute. Imagine the strain of getting up every morning, swallowing every ounce of pride and intellectual integrity you might possess, and searching desperately through the media for something, anything, you can present as hostile to evolution or favorable to ID. It's exhausting work. Yet somehow there are folks like Casey Luskin who seem not just able, but actually willing to do it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php >
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 10 2007,20:36

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 10 2007,19:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being Casey Luskin

Category: Anti-Creationism
Posted on: August 10, 2007 5:09 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

Sometimes I wonder what it is like to be a blogger for the Discovery Institute. Imagine the strain of getting up every morning, swallowing every ounce of pride and intellectual integrity you might possess, and searching desperately through the media for something, anything, you can present as hostile to evolution or favorable to ID. It's exhausting work. Yet somehow there are folks like Casey Luskin who seem not just able, but actually willing to do it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jeez. It must suck to be Casey Luskin almost as much as it does to be Bill Dembski.  

We could have a Pathetic Loser contest between the two.  Some sort of mindless Reality TV show - it's perfect for them and their audience.

I can picture the red faces, the stuttering, the hillarity  that ensues when the Blond Bimbo asks them "So, Bill and Casey, please tell me, how many times have you have received a wedgie?  So, how many were from kids younger than you?  For extra Bonus Credit, How many times have you received a wedgie from a member of the opposite sex? (Bill, that means, like girls?  You know?"

This could be a true Show For The Ages.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 14 2007,19:30

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 10 2007,20:36)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 10 2007,19:14)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being Casey Luskin

Category: Anti-Creationism
Posted on: August 10, 2007 5:09 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

Sometimes I wonder what it is like to be a blogger for the Discovery Institute. Imagine the strain of getting up every morning, swallowing every ounce of pride and intellectual integrity you might possess, and searching desperately through the media for something, anything, you can present as hostile to evolution or favorable to ID. It's exhausting work. Yet somehow there are folks like Casey Luskin who seem not just able, but actually willing to do it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/being_casey_luskin.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jeez. It must suck to be Casey Luskin almost as much as it does to be Bill Dembski.  

We could have a Pathetic Loser contest between the two.  Some sort of mindless Reality TV show - it's perfect for them and their audience.

I can picture the red faces, the stuttering, the hillarity  that ensues when the Blond Bimbo asks them "So, Bill and Casey, please tell me, how many times have you have received a wedgie?  So, how many were from kids younger than you?  For extra Bonus Credit, How many times have you received a wedgie from a member of the opposite sex? (Bill, that means, like girls?  You know?"

This could be a true Show For The Ages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know. Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology. Dembski, on the other hand, is just sad...
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 14 2007,19:35

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 14 2007,20:30)
Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You probably know about this then

< http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2005/4/1/luskin_human_origins.php >

Casey's anthropology 'paper' from the late, fake ID journal PCID.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 14 2007,20:40

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2007,19:35)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 14 2007,20:30)
Luskin cracks me up when he starts talking about anthropology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You probably know about this then

< http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2005/4/1/luskin_human_origins.php >

Casey's anthropology 'paper' from the late, fake ID journal PCID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Fisked about half of it on my blog sometime back. It took an incredible amount of time just to do that. I had to provide background information so that I could then go on and explain why and how Luskin was wrong. Which meant one background post for each post where I specifcally talked about what Luskin had to say. Casey made a lot of errors ??? in that paper - most of which are recycled creationist arguments.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 12 2007,08:40

"You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap."

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/more_luskin_whining.php >
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 12 2007,09:49

The SMU page Casey's whining about replays one of our all-time favorite moments:

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
--Ray Mummert
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 12 2007,10:04

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2007,08:40)
"You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap."

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/more_luskin_whining.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Best line from Casey's whining  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The “rant” is actually a letter to the editor, and the person they call the "IDiot" who wrote it is me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



boo fricking hoo
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 12 2007,10:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey said: The “rant” is actually a letter to the editor, and the person they call the "IDiot" who wrote it is me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your point?

:p
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2007,10:12

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:04)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2007,08:40)
"You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap."

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/more_luskin_whining.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Best line from Casey's whining  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The “rant” is actually a letter to the editor, and the person they call the "IDiot" who wrote it is me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



boo fricking hoo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, give him a little credit - self-knowledge is very important.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,18:42

< I say decrepit because Luskin's post is, to put it charitably, pitiful. >
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,19:05

I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,20:42

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:05)
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you have to be smart, which is perhaps why creobots are not?

Smoochies!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 22 2007,21:16

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:05)
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, there are an unspecified number of theists at ScienceBlogs. I find, however, that a mind unclouded by a reliance on magical sky pixies certainly helps one write a better science post... :D
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,21:17

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,20:05)
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Well, there's this one dude, whose site your currently at....
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,21:21

Maybe she meant scienceblogs.com, not science blogger. In which case, well,

I don't think that guy's an atheist. Or John Wilkins.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 22 2007,21:26

I don't think Wilkins is a theist. Was there something in particular that made you think so?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,21:31

Ed's a Deist. MarkCC is Jewish...
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 22 2007,21:32

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,21:21)
Maybe she meant scienceblogs.com, not science blogger. In which case, well,

I don't think that guy's an atheist. Or John Wilkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm assuming she did mean ScienceBlogs.com. I think Wilkins has mentioned in public that he is an agnostic, other than that I can't say - confidentiality and all. Our recruiter doesn't much care if a person is religious or not, the key is to write good, interesting science posts.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,21:50

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,22:26)
I don't think Wilkins is a theist. Was there something in particular that made you think so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's not a theist. He's an agnostic. FtK asked if you had to be an atheist. Wilkins argues with PZ that he's not an atheist. While I personally put all non-theists into the atheist category, Wilkins doesn't identify as an atheist.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,22:43

Is there a list of science.bloggers?  I'll have to go check one of there sites and see if there is a link to all of them...just wondered how many there were.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,22:54

We don't know what 'science.bloggers' means. Do you mean everyone who blogs about science? Or everyone who blogs at ScienceBlogs.com?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,22:55

If you want a list of everyone who blogs at ScienceBlogs.com, there's a list at...guess where?...ScienceBlogs.com
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,23:21

Yeah, yeah, I meant ScienceBlogs...silly IDiotic me.  I'm gonna go try to find me a theist out of that bunch...anyone wanna place bets as to whether there are any?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,23:23

Yes, we will bet that some sciencebloggers aren't atheists.

Ed Brayton. What do we win?
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,23:35

I said I'm looking for a theist....personally, deists don't cut it in my book.  I'm doubtin' Ed's seen the inside of a church for a while.  If MarkCC is Jewish, you'd win...never heard of the guy.  I'll have to go check it out.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,23:41

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,23:35)
I said I'm looking for a theist....personally, deists don't cut it in my book.
.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


erm..



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism >

Hope this helps.

Deism <> Atheism.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,23:43

you originally said



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you say

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said I'm looking for a theist....personally, deists don't cut it in my book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We don't care if Episcopalians don't cut it in your book, in reality, where the rest of us live, deists aren't atheists.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,23:55

HAR HAR I JUST SPOONED SCOOPED STERNBERGER STORY.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,23:59

Yes, you did scoop me. And if the nickname Sternberger Story catches on, Blipey and I will show up on your lawn and there'll be hell to pay. Trust me. Nothing is so menacing, so fear-inducing, as a clown and a drunk triathlete.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 23 2007,00:06

Erm, Tarden Chatterbox came up with that name, and he says you eat chili like a girl.

Clown visits only scare interweb cyber-hooligans.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,00:16

There are about 70 people blogging at ScienceBlogs.com. How many of them, FtK, have displayed the atheist logo?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 23 2007,00:34

last sentence:

< http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat....ous.php >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And as a religious Reconstructionist Jew, I fully support religious gay marriage in the Reconstructionist community.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jasper on Sep. 23 2007,01:20

Rob Knop of < Galactic Interactions > is a Christian.

Added in edit: Here's a < post > that provides evidence.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,10:08

Well, there you go, Rob Knop. FtK, what do we win?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles.
--Bill 'Welsh' Dembski
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We never got that bottle of scotch, FtK, and we sure are thirsty.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,10:43

That's a very interesting post of Rob's.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So imagine this queasy cognitive dissonance. Here are things that are directly in contradiction with what the Bible says. Well, as a modern thinking person, it's really not very difficult to accept that a literal reading of the Bible is childish and nonsensical; heck, one only need read a couple of chapters into the Bible itself before you have to go into contortions trying to maintain that the Bible is consistent with itself. If the Bible is to be read as a central set of writings around which our faith is based, there's a pretty strong tipoff that we're supposed to think harder about it than accept it mindlessly from the fact that (a) the Bible is self-inconsistent, and (b) a literal reading of the Bible as "what happened" is blatantly at odds with what we know to be true through other avenues of inquiry.

How do we hold on to something? Some lose their faith. I've seen it happen; kids, especially kids who are raised in fundamentalist families who insist on special creation and a 6,000-year-old world, get to college. They struggle. Some figure out that there is no way to reconcile their beliefs with full participation in the modern world... and they lose their faith altogether. You hear some on the Christian Right bemoaning how "secular" colleges are destroying their children's faith, but in reality the problem is that they didn't do a very good job of providing a religious education to their children. They taught them a form of faith that is childish and backwards, and incompatible with modern knowledge. No wonder that the kids didn't hold on to it when their minds were opened to other things!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Sep. 23 2007,10:45

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 23 2007,00:34)
last sentence:

< http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat....ous.php >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And as a religious Reconstructionist Jew, I fully support religious gay marriage in the Reconstructionist community.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That means he's not just Jewish just for the jokes.
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 23 2007,11:12

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,23:21)
Yeah, yeah, I meant ScienceBlogs...silly IDiotic me.  I'm gonna go try to find me a theist out of that bunch...anyone wanna place bets as to whether there are any?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, please I would like to bet you a lot of money that there are theists at Science Blogs!

I know for a fact that there is at least one:  < Rob Knop >.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Mark Chu-Carrol of < Good Math, Bad Math > is also a theist of some type.  

I'm sure there are more that I don't know about.

edit:  I see that I was beaten to the punch.  Oh well.  We can all split the take, right guys?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 24 2007,17:09

A plethora of Luskinalia:

< Luskin's Latest Lie >

< Fiskin' Luskin >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 04 2007,21:46

< Casey, Your Slip is Showing >
Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 04 2007,22:10

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,21:46)
< Casey, Your Slip is Showing >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, that is just hilarious, Elsberry.  

". . And here’s the weakness of the entire Atheist Darwinist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted indocrination entertained."

Picking at a typo, huh?  That's as nasty as quote mining.

Let it be known that Darwin once said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Grow up.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 04 2007,22:13

Watch out! Casey has FtK to protect him!
Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 04 2007,22:15

Oh, btw Bill...  Do you want to come in here and tell Wes what a prick he's being?

Thought not.

I think I'll stick with Sal rather than your buddies.
Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 04 2007,22:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 04 2007,22:13)
Watch out! Casey has FtK to protect him!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jealous.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 04 2007,22:16

FTK, what is this daddy complex you seem to have with Luskin? It's messed up.  :O
Posted by: Ftk on Dec. 04 2007,22:21

Edit:  indoctrination / indoctrinated.   :angry:
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 04 2007,22:26

Casey is the IDers' jarhead.

Anyone who's seen him in person knows what I mean. 1000-yard-stare.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Dec. 04 2007,22:35

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,22:15)
I think I'll stick with Sal rather than your buddies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you spend all your time here.

Edited to add: I guess the discussion at Young Cosmos moves too fast for you. Sal really appreciates open discussion, doesn't he?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 04 2007,22:35

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,22:15)
Oh, btw Bill...  Do you want to come in here and tell Wes what a prick he's being?

Thought not.

I think I'll stick with Sal rather than your buddies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you buzz around him in an elliptical orbit?

I think you make a good couple!
:p
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 04 2007,23:10

Typo? Luskin was talking to a reporter. I don't think writing implements had anything to do with that.

I've told FtK before that I'm not investing anything in obtaining her approval.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 04 2007,23:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,23:10)
Typo? Luskin was talking to a reporter. I don't think writing implements had anything to do with that.

I've told FtK before that I'm not investing anything in obtaining her approval.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Duh! It was a mental typo, Ed. Like that fella who said "creationism" when he meant "ID" on the TV..
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 04 2007,23:13

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 05 2007,00:12)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,23:10)
Typo? Luskin was talking to a reporter. I don't think writing implements had anything to do with that.

I've told FtK before that I'm not investing anything in obtaining her approval.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Duh! It was a mental typo, Ed. Like that fella who said "creationism" when he meant "ID" on the TV..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< You mean this guy? >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 04 2007,23:17

Aye. That'd be him. Poor typo man, he got ousted for our edumacation a year ago, wont somebody stand up for him?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 04 2007,23:39

I wrote Kyle Miller, lead author on the article, asking him to confirm the quote. Kyle says it was their slip-up, so I have updated the PT article to let everyone know that.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Dec. 04 2007,23:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,23:39)
I wrote Kyle Miller, lead author on the article, asking him to confirm the quote. Kyle says it was their slip-up, so I have updated the PT article to let everyone know that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good job, Wesley. That's a lot easier than simply deleting the post or posting a bunch of crap until the article disappears from the page.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 22 2008,19:10

In a piece titled < Lacking a Middle-Ground, the Swiss Devolve into Evolutionary Dogmatism >, Casey the < Earth scientist > laments the rejection of young-Earth creationism by a school district in Switzerland and pleads for the introduction of ID as a middle ground.  I like this line in particular:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since young earth creationism is so controversial, the article reports that “[t]he school authorities in canton Bern quickly revised the brochure included in the textbook” and removed the young earth creationist materials, leaving students to be told that “evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey, wake up!  YEC isn't controversial, it's brain-dead.

And this line from the < article > at swissinfo, quoted by Casey, really caught me by surprise:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to Scheidegger, evangelical Christian churches are the driving force behind a literal translation of the book of Genesis and the rejection of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ya don't say?!!
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 28 2008,10:30

It appears Casey Luskin is not happy about his picture being posted on the internet and has been rattling his lawyer sword at those who realize he is a public figure.

 



We should have a "Is Anyone Dumber Than Casey Luskin Day" where everyone who owns a blog does a story using their favorite (dumbest) Luskin quote ever and of course post his picture.   Maybe whoever receives the most interesting threat from Luskin wins a prize or something.





This is Luskin at a recent Amway for Jesus Festival, here he draws those circles we all love to see and hear about to potential converts:


Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 28 2008,10:49

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 28 2008,10:30)
It appears Casey Luskin is not happy about his picture being posted on the internet and has been rattling his lawyer sword at those who realize he is a public figure.

We should have a "Is Anyone Dumber Than Casey Luskin Day" where everyone who owns a blog does a story using their favorite (dumbest) Luskin quote ever and of course post his picture.   Maybe whoever receives the most interesting threat from Luskin wins a prize or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wouldn't it always come down to Casey vs Denyse?
Posted by: nuytsia on Jan. 29 2008,03:22

< LOL! >
Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 29 2008,04:54

There seems to be some confusion about whether Luskin is an attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy.  What do you think is the best description, along the lines of "The DI's fearsome attack gerbil".
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 29 2008,09:33

Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 29 2008,04:54)
There seems to be some confusion about whether Luskin is an attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy.  What do you think is the best description, along the lines of "The DI's fearsome attack gerbil".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey Luskin = The Discovery Institute's Chief Lap Poodle
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 29 2008,10:02

Oh god that closeup is hi-larious.

Casey dude your lips look like two hotdogs stuck together by a pimply piece of wonder bread with razor burn.  And you be sportin the Uni-Brow, dog.  Daaaaaaaaaaamn.  I be pickin that shit out with some tweezahs yo.  You be lookin like one of the goddam Muppets man.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 29 2008,10:02

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 29 2008,09:33)
Casey Luskin = The Discovery Institute's Chief Lap Poodle
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Sal hadn't ruined it for us, I'd have to nominate

Casey Luskin = The Discovery Institute's Chief Lap Peccary

but it's just too disturbing to think about...
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 29 2008,13:01

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 28 2008,10:30)
It appears Casey Luskin is not happy about his picture being posted on the internet and has been rattling his lawyer sword at those who realize he is a public figure.

 
We should have a "Is Anyone Dumber Than Casey Luskin Day" where everyone who owns a blog does a story using their favorite (dumbest) Luskin quote ever and of course post his picture.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I obtained this secret photo from a recent seminar...


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 29 2008,15:19

q: Who's dumber than Casey Luskin (aka "Lucy")?
a: Not Casey Luskin

I love it!
Posted by: Steverino on Jan. 29 2008,15:27

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,22:10)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2007,21:46)
< Casey, Your Slip is Showing >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, that is just hilarious, Elsberry.  

". . And here’s the weakness of the entire Atheist Darwinist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted indocrination entertained."

Picking at a typo, huh?  That's as nasty as quote mining.

Let it be known that Darwin once said:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Grow up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK,

Honing up those quote-mining skills???

Full context of Darwins Puppy Beating Days:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before
that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply
from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have
been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as
the spot was near the house.  This act lay heavily on my
conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where
the crime was committed.  It probably lay all the heavier from my
love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a
passion.  Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing
their love from their masters."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




FTK, you really are pathetic.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 29 2008,15:33

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 29 2008,15:19)
q: Who's dumber than Casey Luskin (aka "Lucy")?
a: Not Casey Luskin

I love it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are referring to the photo, it is the plant making the disclaimer.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 29 2008,16:45

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 29 2008,15:33)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 29 2008,15:19)
q: Who's dumber than Casey Luskin (aka "Lucy")?
a: Not Casey Luskin

I love it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are referring to the photo, it is the plant making the disclaimer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I missed that piece, which makes it even funnier :-)
Posted by: BopDiddy on Jan. 30 2008,09:54

Why concentrate on photos when you can see < Casey in full video >.

Is it just me, or is the height difference reminiscent of Gandalf and Frodo?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 30 2008,10:46

Quote (BopDiddy @ Jan. 30 2008,09:54)
Why concentrate on photos when you can see < Casey in full video >.

Is it just me, or is the height difference reminiscent of Gandalf and Frodo?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but he acts like an orc, and speaks like Grima Wormtongue.
Posted by: ERV on Feb. 03 2008,18:55

Okay, so you all know how I wrote a post on Casey being a miserable loser with no life that just plays on the internet all day?

Miserable loser has a new hobby: screwing around with ERV on Google.

The past week:
1. I write a post making fun of Casey for being a loser
2. ERV disappears from Google
3. I reregister with Google-- everything is back to normal
4. ERV disappears from Google
5. ERV reappears with new descriptions:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ERV blogs page is all about attacking me personally-otherwise theres no substance to any of it other than trying to mock me and attack me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lower on the page, ERV description is links to the sites Casey is obsessed with (see his hit-job letter)
6. I 'claim' ERV with Googles webmaster tools, reregister ERV with the proper description.  He shouldnt be able to change anything again.  Sent a nice letter to Google to inform them someone was maliciously altering Google searches for sites they do not own/operate.  Asked them how to protect my site and for any information on who was altering my site.

*shrug*

Sums up Casey perfectly: Annoying.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 03 2008,19:10

Sums up Casey perfectly:  Mayor of Loserville
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 04 2008,12:10

If you visit the DI blog < Evolution News & Views >, you'll be stunned to find the < ResearchBlogging.Org > icon displayed prominently on the front page.  You see, Casey now blogs on peer-reviewed research.  Except that he doesn't.  

Casey's post is about a posthumous < essay > by Leslie Orgel that was printed in PLoS Biology.  Orgel's article is an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed research paper.  Which means that Luskin is simply using the ResearchBlogging.Org icon to look legit. Nice try, Casey!



Folks at ResearchBlogging.Org are aware of this situation.  Stay tuned for further developments.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 04 2008,14:24

From < Dave Munger's post at bpr3 >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I should point out that Evolution News & Views has not registered with ResearchBlogging.org and has made a copy of the icon and placed it on its own server. Since we own the copyright on the icon itself, in principle we have the authority to ask them to stop using the icon because we only give permission to use the icon to blogs following our guidelines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I detect the merest trace of irony here?

Bob
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 04 2008,15:18

< Mike Dunford > on Luskin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone who wants to use the icon is welcome to. All you need to do is make sure that your post meets the guidelines for the project, register at the ResearchBlogging.org website, and follow the simple instructions that are provided. Casey did all but three of those things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Feb. 04 2008,22:43

Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 05 2008,09:19

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 04 2008,22:43)
Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm using this image from now on:


If anyone else wants to use it, here's the code:
<a href=”http://www.cbebs.org/”>
<img src=”http://www.cbebs.org/images/bpsdb.png” alt=”BPSDB” align=”left” height=”87? width=”117? />
</a>
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,10:09

I use this icon for Luskin's posts:




edit: last one was a .png

edit2: I just wanted to do a poo joke, will no image work?
Posted by: ERV on Feb. 05 2008,10:12

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 05 2008,09:19)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 04 2008,22:43)
Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm using this image from now on:


If anyone else wants to use it, here's the code:
<a href=”http://www.cbebs.org/”>
<img src=”http://www.cbebs.org/images/bpsdb.png” alt=”BPSDB” align=”left” height=”87? width=”117? />
</a>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


omg.

LUV!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,10:49

Has you seed this:

< http://www.caseyluskin.com./ >

?
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 05 2008,11:04

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 05 2008,10:12)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 05 2008,09:19)
   
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 04 2008,22:43)
Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm using this image from now on:


If anyone else wants to use it, here's the code:
<a href=”http://www.cbebs.org/”>
<img src=”http://www.cbebs.org/images/bpsdb.png” alt=”BPSDB” align=”left” height=”87? width=”117? />
</a>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


omg.

LUV!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just a prototype... I'm going to do another one without the coffee cup stain and a big red "FAIL" instead of the "X". I'll probably end up going with the "X", since it's a nice counterpart to BPR3's green check mark.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 05 2008,12:55

What a whiner
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Update on the status of our application with ResearchBlogging.org

Here are the facts of this situation:
(1) On Feb. 3, I posted this blog post. A co-worker had recommended that I include a graphic that said this was discussing peer-reviewed research. At the time, I was unaware of ResearchBlogging.org and the fact that they requested registration in order to use their graphic. Important note: It should be clear that when I first posted my post, I had not yet seen ResearchBlogging.org and was unaware of how it worked.

(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic, and I immediately attempted to register--twice. Both times when I tried to register, when I submitted the request, I was directed to a page that looked something like garbled code, so it wasn't clear to me if the registration process was working properly. I then submitted an inquiry to ResearchBlogging.org wondering if they could correct the problem. I asked them for guidance, requesting direction for how I should proceed.

(3) On Feb. 5, I received a response from ResearchBlogging.org that, among other things, directed me to a discussion page which stated that the graphic I originally used was copyrighted by them. At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. Nevertheless, I never had any intention of violating anyone's copyright, and so I removed their graphic from this page and the EvolutionNews.org server at my own choice.

(4) In the response from ResearchBlogging.org, they also told me that, (a) they did receive my registration requests, (b) registration requests were granted at their discretion, and © a discussion thread was taking place about whether I should be granted registration. I was told that, "At present, after 26 comments, the consensus appears to be that your post is in violation of our guidelines. If you believe your post does meet our guidelines, I would encourage you to post your explanation in the discussion there." The conclusion was therefore: "We can't approve your registration at this time because your post does not appear to follow our guidelines, but if you can show us either that your post does now follow the guidelines, or if you can append the post itself so that it follows the guidelines, then we'll proceed with approving your registration."

(5) I then went to the discussion thread and replied back to the users ResearchBlogging.org as follows: (I am in the process of composing this response right now).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< What an ass >

So he was "unaware" of ResearchBlogging.org but is happy to steal the logo in question and add it to his post?

Why, Casey, why? If you wanted a logo then you could have created your own!

I can't wait to read his "response", especially his justification for the "no comment" policy on the post in question (and all others!)

I guess his response will appear < here > at some point.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 05 2008,13:00

< Luskin explains all >.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic,
...
At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. (emphases mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, so he was aware that one should be registered to use the icon, but wasn't sure whether one could use the icon if one was not registered.  Got it.

Bob
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Feb. 05 2008,13:02

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,11:49)
Has you seed this:

< http://www.caseyluskin.com./ >

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha ha.  From there:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The official purpose of this website is NOT to create a narcissistic URL with my name. Quite frankly I could care less if there is a "caseyluskin.com" out there. The purpose is to have some measure of quality control over the first hit people see on internet search engines if they have the odd desire to search for my name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, nothing says quality control like having a superfluous dot after your URL ("caseyluskin.com."), or a top-notch graphic like this:

Ouch.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 05 2008,13:11

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 05 2008,13:00)
< Luskin explains all >.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic,
...
At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. (emphases mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, so he was aware that one should be registered to use the icon, but wasn't sure whether one could use the icon if one was not registered.  Got it.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So... first he pubjacked, now he's offering a notpology. What's he gonna do to pull off the hat trick?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,13:13

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 05 2008,13:00)
< Luskin explains all >.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic,
...
At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. (emphases mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, so he was aware that one should be registered to use the icon, but wasn't sure whether one could use the icon if one was not registered.  Got it.

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's hoping they Sternberg him.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,14:14

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,13:55)
< What an ass >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From whence he speaks:




Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,14:14

His post is up:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Let me say that this website--which I just discovered yesterday--is both fascinating and useful. A wide variety of scientific topics are apparently discussed, ranging from science of the mind to cancer and disease research, to geology to evolution. I will most certainly revisit this site in the future, if for no other reason than the fact that it's a great way to stay informed about new scientific developments.
Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: "Casey Lying For Christ" and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about "about how terrible Luskin is"). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.

I am thus faced with two conflicting desires here: I have no desire to involve myself in a discussion that allows personal attacks, even allowing further personal attacks after warnings from the moderator, who is apparently permitting such personal attacks to stand. Nonetheless, I do desire to honor Mr. Munger's invitation to make a comment here and his attempt to keep the conversation focused away from personal attacks. My compromise is that I will make one, and only one comment. If people want to continue to make personal attacks, cite irrelevant issues like the Wedge Document, etc., so be it. I'm not here to engage in personal attacks.

I frequently discuss peer-reviewed research related to evolution at www.evolutionnews.org. In fact, when I posted my post at EvolutionNews, that's all I thought I was doing--I had no idea that rules, including copyright issues, existed for using the graphic nor did I have any idea that by using the graphic, I would be accused of breaking rules. Given my ignorance prior to using the graphic, I would not necessarily expect my post to conform to rules that I wasn't even aware of when I posted my post. Nonetheless, I believe that my post does not break any of the 9 rules. Here's why:

It satisfies Rules #1 and #2: Dr. Orgel’s paper was clearly a respectable "armchair theorizing" paper by an eminent chemist in a mainstream biology journal that represented his views after a lifetime of prestigiously-funded research. It was reviewed and edited by another eminent chemist from the same field, Gerald Joyce. Thus, the paper states: "This manuscript was completed by the author in September 2007. Gerald Joyce provided comments to the author on earlier versions of the manuscript and edited the final version, which was submitted posthumously. The author received longtime research support from the NASA Exobiology Program and benefited from many helpful discussions with Albert Eschenmoser."

It satisfies Rules #3, #6, and #7: My post provided the complete formal citation in my post, and I also linked back to the original source. The post also contained original material that I wrote. These are black-and-white questions. Some people concede that I satisfied these. But the fact that some people have claimed that I did not satisfy a single rule makes me wonder about the fairness of some of the analyses presented here.

It does not break Rules #8 or #9: There is also the issue of my using the ResearchBlogging.org graphic. As I mentioned earlier, not having visited ResearchBlogging.org at the time I posted my post, at that time I was unaware that there was anything wrong with my using the graphic. However, I now have learned that ResearchBlogging.org has certain rules for using the graphic. Apart from using the graphic before registering (something I did not know I was supposed to do when I posted my post, but I tried to register as soon as I learned of the rules), I do not believe I have violated any of the rules: Even though Dave Munger never asked me to do so, I've removed the graphic from my post. Moreover, rule #9 indicates that a single instance of breaking a rule (in my case, unknowingly) does not warrant expulsion from ResearchBlogging.org. (Rule #8 is simply a rule stating that users may report abuses, and is not violable.)

It satisfies Rules #4 and #5: Many people on this thread have said that these rules represent the key issues. One would expect that therefore this would be the focus of the discussion. But it wasn't. Only 3 of the 30 posts here actually quoted my article, or discussed it in any meaningful way, to allege, using direct evidence, that I made any errors or misunderstood anything. Here are those posts with my response:

Post # 9: Claims I was wrong to state, “Again, Orgel essentially assumes that cyclic metabolic pathways are irreducibly complex systems that require a large number of parts in order to function”

My response: My comment is not mistaken. For example, Orgel states, "At the very least, six different catalytic activities would have been needed to complete the reverse citric acid cycle. It could be argued, but with questionable plausibility, that different sites on the primitive Earth offered an enormous combinatorial library of mineral assemblies, and that among them a collection of the six or more required catalysts could have coexisted." That seems to meet the definition of irreducible complexity.

Post # 11: “Just like the case of the ribosome, the evidence shows that the complexity of life requires an intelligent cause.”

My response: This was my personal commentary on the data (which is permitted by the rules), and was not intended to represent Dr. Orgel’s viewpoint. In fact I never claimed Orgel supported ID. In fact, I explicitly stated precisely the opposite, stating that "Orgel is no proponent of intelligent design. In fact, the purpose of his paper is to offer sage advice to those seeking to explain the origin of life via evolving metabolic pathways." In his e-mail back to me, Dave Munger stated, stated: "We welcome a variety of divergent opinions at ResearchBlogging.org, as long as posts follow our guidelines, designed to encourage reasoned and thoughtful discussion of peer-reviewed research." So there is no violation here, unless the pro-ID opinion is fundamentally disbarred from participation. In fact some users may seem to desire censorship of the pro-ID viewpoint, as one person wrote, "This is blatant abuse of the program to lend an air of credibility and should be stopped." In short, they just don’t want my application approved because it might “lend an air of credibility” to my views.

Post # 12: "Again, Orgel essentially assumes that cyclic metabolic pathways are irreducibly complex systems that require a large number of parts in order to function—including many side pathways that can remove products that will disrupt the cycle. Saying that cycles need side pathways is the exact opposite of what Orgel said in the original - cycles need to avoid side pathways to maintain themselves."

My response: In fact I quoted Orgel accurately, including the portion where he explicitly said that side-pathways must be avoided or they will disrupt the cycle. My comment, "including many side pathways that can remove products that will disrupt the cycle," was intended to show that there must be other parts present to avoid allow the cycle to avoid these side-reactions. But I can see how my statement is unclear and does not communicate that very well. In his e-mail back to me, Mr. Munger stated that I may amend my post if I feel it is necessary. In this regard, I've amended my post to fix this unintended unclear statement as follows: "Again, Orgel essentially assumes that cyclic metabolic pathways are irreducibly complex systems that require a large number of parts in order to function—including parts that allow them to avoid many side pathways that will disrupt the cycle."

I read and understood the article. I studied origin of life research in both my undergraduate and graduate studies at UC San Diego studying earth sciences, and taking courses and seminars learning from people like Jeffrey Bada, Stanley Miller, and others. I also conferred with a biochemist friend about the paper.

I won't enter a philosophical discussion about how "understanding" or "accuracy" might be a function of whether people agree with my commentary, which is obviously pro-ID. I'll just say that I am not so presumptuous to assume that if someone comes to a different conclusion than I do, that they therefore do not understand the topic, or were therefore necessarily inaccurate.

Regarding rules #4 and #5, I see no evidence that I have broken rules #4 or #5 here. Given that these were the only complaints, I can only conclude that in fact my discussion was actually quite accurate.

My final conclusion:
In conclusion, these are your rules. I didn't know about them when I posted my post, but I think I nonetheless have not violated any of them. I'll respect Mr. Munger's decision, whatever it is, and whatever its stated or unstated justification is.

If you decide to allow my registration--superb! I’m not doing this to get “credibility” but because like all of you, I too love science and I’d like to think that this is a website worth contributing to. If my registration is permitted, I'll gladly contribute to what I hope this website is all about.

But if you don't want to follow your own rules, that is saddening, and it would not be the first time that a different set of rules has been applied to ID proponents vs. other scientists. Indeed, I find it most likely that one user admitted the most forceful reason why my registration would be denied: "This is blatant abuse of the program to lend an air of credibility and should be stopped."

But I’ll respect Mr. Munger’s decision, whatever it is, and the stated and unstated reasons are. I just hope that this does not become another example where, as in many corners of academia, "We welcome a variety of divergent opinions," as long as those opinions do not support intelligent design.

But I won’t presume that Mr. Munger will make such an inappropriate decision, and I’ll respect whatever he decides in the future. If anyone would like to contact me personally, please feel free to do so at [EMAIL=cluskin@discovery.org.]cluskin@discovery.org.[/EMAIL]

Sincerely in good will and friendship,

Casey Luskin


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,14:27

Linky?

edit, Luskin first claimed he was going to reply on the bp site, did he do that or just post it on the DI site?
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 05 2008,14:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it would not be the first time that a different set of rules has been applied to ID proponents vs. other scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


preparing to sell himself as EXPELLED!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 05 2008,14:37

Casey:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Important note: It should be clear that when I first posted my post, I had not yet seen ResearchBlogging.org and was unaware of how it worked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given my ignorance prior to using the graphic, I would not necessarily expect my post to conform to rules that I wasn't even aware of when I posted my post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the time that I posted my post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also on Feb 5th, I posted the following comment at ResearchBlogging.org to state my position on this matter:

   Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Let me say that this website--which I just discovered yesterday--is both fascinating and useful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So yesterday is Feb 4th. But
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On Feb. 3, I posted this blog post. A co-worker had recommended that I include a graphic that said this was discussing peer-reviewed research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, let me get this straight. Casey does not go to the website in the logo but uses the logo in his website instead?

If this is the care and attention they go to when searching for the "designer" then no wonder they've not found anything yet!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given my ignorance prior to using the graphic, I would not necessarily expect my post to conform to rules that I wasn't even aware of when I posted my post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,14:49

Casey has detailed his reply here:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....logging >

but I can't see it here:

< http://bpr3.org/?p=80 >

Yet.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 05 2008,14:51

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,14:37)
Casey:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, Oldman.  Mike Dunford was 4 minutes faster < on the draw >.

But, isn't it interesting that Casey chose to answer on Evolution News, where no comments or discussions can take place?  For all their big talk about teaching both sides, they run like little girls from any forum where they can be openly challenged.  I guess it allows him to ignore any critical commentary by saying "Oh, I wasn't aware that they were still talking about little ole me."
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 05 2008,14:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2008,14:37)
Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Casey's defense, he was too busy typing "Casey Luskin" into Google's image search engine.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,15:18

Lushkin is now yapping at < BPR >
Posted by: Chayanov on Feb. 05 2008,15:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Luskin's reading comprehension skill is only matched by his keen legal prowess.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 05 2008,15:20

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 05 2008,14:51)
But, isn't it interesting that Casey chose to answer on Evolution News, where no comments or discussions can take place?  For all their big talk about teaching both sides, they run like little girls from any forum where they can be openly challenged.  I guess it allows him to ignore any critical commentary by saying "Oh, I wasn't aware that they were still talking about little ole me."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey's < response > is now up at bpr3.org.  

It has a AFDave vibe about it.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,15:33

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 05 2008,16:20)
Casey's < response > is now up at bpr3.org.  

It has a AFDave vibe about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read Luskin's three or four comments, then refreshed the page.  It's hardly loading now.

I guess their server is getting slammed about now.

I suspect Casey is, too.  Silly boy.  You'd think he'd know to stay behind the DI's skirts.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 05 2008,15:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#40  Miles Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Casey, you’re on record for attacking plenty of people, Barbara Forrest for one. It’s not like we don’t read what you write.

Your public lies and distortions are well documented on various web sites, you lie through your teeth, sir. Please spare us the “personal ethic” lecture. History indicates your ethics are marginal at best.

And your one set of rules for ID and another for science is laughable. Do you ever put your persecution complex to bed?

Good grief.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,15:35

Lushkin is claiming he never makes personal attacks.  WTF?  For starters how many times has he personally attacked Barabare Forrest?  The DI has called her names, made fun of her, written all sorts of nasty shite about her.  I am floored by what a liar this guy is.

What a lying sack of shite.

edit = that "Miles" guy seems to be in the know. ;-)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 05 2008,15:48

Casey Luskin at BPR:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis in < original >.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Source >

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,16:00

As I mentioned in my post at BPR, I think the simplest method of getting to the heart of the matter is to focus on rule #5. In terms of being a 'blog post', Caseys post is hardly reasonable or fair towards the original author and doesn't even bother presenting anything in it. Of the actual article, only two quotes are used and both are presented out of context devoid of discussion of the authors opinion as to why he says what he does. This alone shows that Casey didn't treat the material fairly and shouldn't be allowed to use the icon.

But that's just my impression.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 05 2008,16:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,15:14)
His post is up...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has the whiff of notpology about it, it does.  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In conclusion, these are your rules. I didn’t know about them when I posted my post, but I think I nonetheless have not violated any of them. I’ll respect Mr. Munger’s decision, whatever it is, and whatever its stated or unstated justification is.

If you decide to allow my registration–superb!...But if you don’t want to follow your own rules, that is saddening, and it would not be the first time that a different set of rules has been applied to ID proponents vs. other scientists...

But I’ll respect Mr. Munger’s decision, whatever it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,16:05

I wonder if Casey thinks that not allowing comments on his posts, while nearly everyone else allows responses to their posts is having different rules. I don't think a news site qualified as a blog myself...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,16:08

I would encourage you guys to post some of these most excellent comments where Luskin can see them.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,16:14

Since this is the Casey Luskin thread, I thought copying the source Wes linked too was relevant.  it really shines some light on Mr Luskin.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
x x x x clip begin x x x x
Date: 23. marraskuuta 2000 08:56

Oheiset raportit osoittavat miten evolutionistien leiri alkaa olla todella
huolissaan

x x x snip x x x

Sorry it's a bit late, but this is a report on weeks 7 and 8 of the UCSD
anti-creationism seminar,and also on the wonderful "Darwinism, Design, and
Democary" conference in Clearwater, Florida on 11/10-11/11.

On November 9th, Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for
Science Education (an anti-creationist political activist group) came and
spoke at the UCSD anti-creationism seminar and then gave a public lecture
at Scripps Institution for Oceanography.  24 hours later I came up for a
breath in Florida at the "Darwinism, Design, and Democracy" conference
hosted by Tom Woodward, Trinity College of Florida, and the Foundation for
Thought and Ethics. And then the following Thursday (11/16) I had the
pleasure of discussing Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" at the
anti-creationism seminar again with special guest star Wesley Elsberry
presiding. I'd like to share some highlights of these experiences with you
all.

Eugenie C. Scott's lecture:

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist,
which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She
is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what
she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past
I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of
internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful,
persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the
dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name
of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet.  It's
certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small,
understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However,
the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most
importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe
in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the
common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the
desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves
in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was
under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an
earth sciences major.)

You will hopefully find this encouraging:  The first thing Scott did at the
seminar was hold up a copy of "Icons of Evolution" and say (this is more or
less verbatim), "I want you all to see this book.  This book will be a
"Royal Pain in the Fanny" for those who want to be teachers of evolution
[in the schools]"  I had to take a double-take to make sure that she had
really just said that.  She then said that most high school bio teachers
don't want to be controversial, and if the book shows some things in a
textbook to be controversial, then many k-12 teachers who "don't know a lot
of science" will be "intimidated"--especially if parents use the ammo
provided by the book to check the school board--and then the teacher will
just avoid the subject altogether.  She said that many textbooks might not
publish as much on the subject of evolution if it will be controversial and
cause the textbook to not get sold to school districts (which, implicitly,
have read Icons and understand what it is saying).  She laid the blame for
this "at the foot of the university profs".  She also spoke of it at the
public seminar, saying people should watch out for it.

Also she said that the author (whom we all know very well) "works hard to
hide the religious underpinnings" and like many other ID people had done
his homework well.  Was that a compliment to you Dr. Wells?  I'm not so
sure.  According to Scott ID is still "a religious movement" whose "goal is
to replace scientifric materialism with theism".  Apparently ID people are
"using evolution as a talking horse" to achieve that goal.  The false
notion that ID is religion, and the claim that "methodological naturalism
and theism aren't mutually exclusive" form the basis of her attacks upon
the arguments made by the pro-ID.

At the public lecture she went through the differences between YEC, OEC,
and ID.  She showed a quote from Henry Morris saying that all science must
be based upon Scriptures, and a quote an address by someone who used to be
the director of the discovery institute (I missed the name) discussing the
importance of bringing theism back into the intellectual life.  This was
part of her usual attempt to show that ID is purely religiously based, and
nothing more.

Scott criticized ID because it doen't say what happened.  Well, Dr. Scott,
ID says that an object was intelligently designed.  "Yeah," she replies,
"but what happened?." "Like I said, It was intelligently designed". "But
what happened?"  Scott doesn't get it--Intelligent Design theory is a real
theory that doesn't overstretch itself--it doen't say exactly how the
design was inserted into the real world because at this point it
can't!  But IT CAN say that it was designed, period.  Of course that isn't
enough for Scott, but she just proved another point of pro-IDers that the
design inference can stem questions which could lead to fruitful research
(i.e. how was the design accomplished).

Scott also claimed that the famous Colin Patterson quote is grossly out of
context.  Not sure how she knew that, but I'm serious about this--someone
at ARN should send her a free copy of the transcript of his talk.

The worst point she made, repeatedly was saying that the ID people say,
"It's just an Intelligence" "wink wink nudge nudge".  She's trying to
convince people that ID is nothing but religion.  She said ID says
evolution is a bad idea.  Not true.  She said ID doesn't make any
practically helpful statements.  Not true--especially if you're not
interested in truth.  I think we need to do all day workshops at many
universities around the country to show people what ID really is, to stop
the lies of Scott, if ID is going to work.  Otherwise she's going to go
around the country spreading this garbage, and scientists who don't know
better will undoubtedly buy it.  She used a lot of standard criticisms of
ID, irred comp, and other things I won't go into.  But if anybody wants
more details, please e-mail me and I'd be happy to provide them.

She concluded by asking everyone present to help out by joining the NCSE
(similar to what seemed to happen in Marcus Ross's experience with the NCSE
at GSA), to write letters to the editor fighting creationists whenever
possible, and encouraged all scientists to go back to their churches,
synagogues, temples, etc., to make sure they all get the right perspective
on evolution.  She later said that profesors need to leave philosophical
materialism out of the discussion as much as possible.  Statements like,
"Life is here by chance without a plan or purpose" (as I've had one upper
division evolution prof, who attended her lecture, say) are now off
limits.  She made that very clear that scientists need to check philosophy
out at the door.  I think that's good, but she never addressed the question
of whether some of the science itself is based upon philosophy.  So that is
where Scott is coming from: don't tell your students they can't believe in
religion, but do tell your fellow church members they can't believe in
creationism.  What's wrong here?

I was able to talk with Scott one on one for about 3 minutes while she
walked from our class seminar to her public lecture.  I asked her why she
thinks ID isn't science.  She said it isn't science because it does not
refer to natural law (a reference to Ruse's testimony which he later
recanted).  She also said that it isn't testable and she doubts that
Dembski will be able to really formulate "detectable design' (even though I
think both evolution and Design are inferences, epistimologically
equal).  Scott also opposes the teaching of ID because it would cause
"chaos" in the classroom curriculum.  In my opinion, that is a copout
answer, for a well-organized presenter could present all the material in
Icons and allow for a good discussion of the issue in at most two class
periods.

Here is something very interesting that I found out about the NCSE:  From
what I understand, the NCSE tries to coordinate the effort to fight people
who effectively challenge the one-sided teaching of evolution (OSToE) in
the schools.  When the NCSE finds out that somebody is attacking the
one-sidedness of a curriculum in an area, they apparently then contact
local university professors and local CLERGY (who, from what it seems, tend
to be catholics, lutherans, or episcopalians who tend to see evolution as
religiously neutral with regards to origins, and also see
creationist/ID/anti-evolution ideas necessarily as religious doctrine
rather than empirical science).  The NCSE then gets these local clergy and
university profs to go before the school boards to effectively testify that
any anti-OSToE ideas are purely religiously based and/or not science.

She specifically mentioned bringing in clergy, because it seems to be an
effective way of convincing school boards.  That makes sense to me, because
if I was on an innocent school board member trying to do the best thing for
the community, and saw that the religious people are OK with evolution,
then I wouldn't have trouble thinking that there must be no scientific
problem with evolution.

I think that by looking at what Scott's group does, a good strategy can be
developed which might be very successful for pro-ID people, creationists,
and any others who want to end the OSToE but don't necessarily know where
to begin.

I think that the place to start is where they start--with the local
university scientists and clergy.  Go to the local university scientists
and host a half-day workshop for the local biology profs / other professors
with the sole intention of educating them about Intelligent Design,
problems with evolutionary theory, answering any questions or reservations
they might about ID with the intention of helping them and befriending
them, not winning an argument or making them out to be the enemy.

The same should be done for the clergy, and emphasize to them the
scientific problems with evolutionary theory, and show them that this stuff
has nothing to do with religion or causing unnecessary conflict, but with
real scientific truth and fairness and truth in science
education.  Hopefully they would be behind that.  This could diffuse any
future potential objections these people might have to ID.

After talking to the local clergy and university scientists, give each
member of the local school board a free copy of Icons.  Let them read it
and say, "We'll be back in about 2 weeks to present all of this stuff all
over again and make our case, but we just wanted to give you a chance to
read up on this before we come."  In 2 weeks, come back, make the case, and
get the OSToE out of the curriculum and perhaps even get some ID ideas into
it!  These are just some thoughts I had.  What do you all think is the best
strategy?

One last thing--someday on some website there may appear a picture of Scott
with some students, and one student in the back smiling to himself, "My
gosh what am I doing in this picture".  If you ever see it, it was taken at
the seminar by Wesley Elsberry.  (Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Wesley
Ellsberry, devoted critic of William Dembski and others, came.  He was her
ride from the airport.  He videotaped and photographed her 2
performances.  I did get a chance to meet him (he had e-mailed the IDEA
Club a few weeks earlier) and he did seem like a nice enough guy in
person.  We had a long talk after his revisit to the seminar during week 8,
which I'll go into in a bit.

Florida Design Conference:

In the words of Eugenie C. Scott, I attended this pro-Intelligent Design
Conference because, "it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it".  That's
what she said during the public lecture about a design conference she had
once attended.  Well, attending this conference near the beach in
Clearwater, Florida wasn't a dirty job, and I was happy to do it!

The conference was organized by Tom Woodward of Trinity College in Floriday
(see his website at "www.apologetics.org") and by the Foundation for
Thought and Ethics.  The keynote speakers were Tom Woodward, George Lebo,
and phylo Scott Minnich and Paul Chien.  The theme for the conference
seemed to be the quote, "In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the
government, in America you an criticize the government but not
Darwin"  Apparently this infamous quote was said by Chinese paleontologist
Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen.  I didn't get the exact location or circumstances of the
reference, but if anyone has it that would be great!

George Lebo spoke on Friday night about evidences for design in the
universe.  He made some interesting points--that the universe must be
sparsely populated because life couldn't exist in most parts of the
universe.  Apparently our solar system and galaxy are special, because the
solar system exists away from the center of the galaxy, where high levels
of radiation would prevent life, and also because the solar system is in a
somewhat synchronous rotational orbit with the rest of the galaxy, such
that the gravitational forces on the sun and planets are constant, allowing
for the earth to have a stable orbit.  Otherwise, we'd be in big
trouble.  Apparently this situation is very unique among stars, and that it
is unlikely that it would commonly be found in the universe.

On Saturday Paul Chien gave a great lecture on the Chenjiang Cambrian
fossils.  The undisrupted yellow mudstone these fossils are found in has
allowed for much better preservation than their counterparts in Canada,
which are found in metamorphosed shale.  Paul Chien estimates that the
entire layer, which is less than 4 feet in height, was deposted in less
than 2 million years.  On an evolutionary timescale, that's an
instant.  Chien noted that Chinese scientists have doubted evolutionary
explanations for the Cambrian explosion, but said that American scientists
are "in denial" saying "maybe we'll find more fossils".  One interesting
point made, which many of you might know (but I didn't so I'll say it
anyways) is that Simon Conway Morris has become a Christian.  That doesn't
necessarily mean he's pro-ID or anything even close to that, I just found
it interesting--and encouraging--that a foremost researcher into the
Cambrian life has become a Christian.  Chen said, "[Chinese scientists] go
where the evidence leads because they cannot deny [the scientific
evidence]".  It's a blessing to have Paul Chien on the side of ID on the
Cambrian explosion.

Scott Minnich also spoke on Saturday on the bacterial flagellum.  This talk
was fascinating, as I'm not a biologist, and was amazed as he told us some
statistics on the flagellum.  The flagellum is a self-assembled and repair,
water-cooled rotary engine consisting of 30 structural parts and driven by
a proton motor force.  In some cases it has 2 gears--forward and reverse,
and operates at speeds usually around 17,000 but has been seen as high as
100,000 rpm.  Wow--Ford motorcompany should take notes!  There are
apparently no papers discussing the origin and evolution of the
flagellum.  The Designer is apparently a lot better than we are!  Scott
noted that the base of the flagellum is used in the mechanisms that some
viruses use.  Thus, it is designed, but also designed to kill.  No one said
we lived in a pretty world.  Scott also made a great point that many people
often complain that design theory is just old arguments being
re-used.  Yes, Scott said!  And now those formerly dismissed arguments are
being revitalized by new data!

I could say a lot more on the conference, but as far as the talks go these
were definitely the highlights!  I missed the talk on ID in Public
Education and law, given by Tom Woodward, so sorry that I can't report on
it to you all.  Why did you go all the way from California to Florida for a
weekend conference on ID you ask?  Well, AS of UCSD helped to cover a good
portion of our trip costs, as we went as representatives of the IDEA Club,
a student organization which can receive AS funding for that stuff.  So, it
wasn't a free trip, but it was free enough so I'd go!  My friend Nate and I
had a great time, and really enjoyed meeting Scott Minnich and Paul Chien
in person!  The trip was an amazing blessing for me, and if you ever go to
Clearwater, go to Frenchy's on the Beach and try the grouper sandwich!

UCSD (anti)Creationism seminar Week 8:

Wesley Elsberry (San Diego chauffeur for Eugenie C. Scott), a graduate
student and marine biologist who works for the Navy came and sat in as the
resident expert on Intelligent Design.  This meeting started off VERY
INTERESTING. I walked in a bit late as I have a class beforehand that ran
overtime.  I sat down and what to my surprise did my little eyes see, but a
copy of the IDEA Club website being printed around!  It got passed to me,
and I passed it along.  I now am fairly sure I know what happened.

About 3 weeks ago Wesley Elsberry e-mailed the IDEA Club to suggest a link
for our links page.  It was a brief, but friendly e-mail correspondence. At
Scott's talk I introduced myself and said that I was the one he had just
been e-mailing with.  So now that Elsberry knew that I was in the class and
also the IDEA Club guy, he told the professor, who then printed out the
club website and brought it to the class the following week. The
intellectual doubters of evolution page had also been printed out, so
thanks to all of you who have helped me get it up to an impressive 125
people in just a few hours of work over the past few weeks!  Hopefully that
number can be tripled that before its completed.

Anyway, the discussion topic for last week was the Ch. 4 "Naturalism and
it's cure" from Dembski's book "Intelligent Design".  It's probably a good
thing I didn't know about the reading assignment, because if I had read it,
I would have probably been a little too zealous for the class.  Dembski's
chapter 4 is very Christian, and makes some very challenging points --both
on a personal level and on a philosophical level, to the naturalist.  These
points need to be made, but they are more of a Christian philosophical
discussion of Intelligent Design rather than a scientific one of what
Intelligent Design theory really is.  So needless to say a lot of the
people in the class probably didn't like reading about our sinful nature.

Dembski does make the point, that "neither theology nor philosophy can
answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is
empirically detectable. ... To answer this question we must look to
science" (Pg. 104-105)

Wesley Elsberry is convinced that God's interaction with the world, if it
ever happened, isn't detectable.  He apparently plans on submitting, or
already is submitting a pre-emptive paper to some journal somewhere in
which he distingiushes between what he calls "ordinary design" and
"rarified design".  Ordinary design is the design of things we
understand--sculpture, buildings, language signals, etc." while rarified
design would be design in the realm of biology, which he would probably say
we don't understand.  Elsberry says that "rarified design /= ordinary
design".  He calls equating the two an inductive leap.  As far as inferring
a simple intelligent cause, I don't think it's a leap at all, and I don't
think that Elsberry can rigorously distinguish between the two types of
design without assuming that biological design can't exist.

One girl said still didn't understand how the ID people didn't mean God
when they talked about the Intelligent Designer and she cited the fact that
Dembski constantly refers to God in "Intelligent Design".  I said that's a
valid point, but I said that while this may not be too constructive or
consistent as far as rigorously promoting ID theory goes, it is perfectly
legitimate in a popularized version of "The Design Inference", which is
basically pure math and doesn't even mention God.  Apparently no one in the
class had yet even heard of "The Design Inference."   Fortunately Wesley
Elsberry had brought a copy along, so he actually came to Dembski's defense
for mentioning God saying that Dembski did write another technical book
which is more rigorous and doesn't mention God, and that the "Intelligent
Design" book is meant to be a "bridge between science and theology" so it's
probably OK for him to mention God.

The anti-creationist professor said to the class that an evolutionary
worldview doesn't imply a personal God.  Oh no.  I'm confused!  Eugenie C.
Scott says it's OK to believe in evolution and God, but you, Dr. professor,
say I cannot!  Actually the AC-prof committed the very blunder that Scott
told him not to.  Enter William Dembski, with the bridge between science
and theology.

We talked about the explanatory filter ideas, and how Dembski is arguing
that certain things are too improbable to have happened due to pure
chance.  I love how Dembski basically wrote a very long technical
mathematical book to take the excuse away from atheists that "It was just a
coincidence".   We didn't get too far into debating the technical aspects
of it, although I did bring up Specified Complexity at one point (not sure
if it would have come up otherwise).  Elsberry claimed that these ideas are
not good science because they haven't spawned any further papers or
research.  But aren't you responding to them in print Wesley?  If they're
so useless or bad science, why the needed refutations?  I didn't realize
this until after, but apparently nobody ever mentioned that "The Design
Inference" was printed by Cambridge University press.  I found that out
after the class, as a classmate was very surprised to find out who the
publisher was!

At one point the AC-prof said that the human backache affliction is
evidence of a history of natural selection (I happen to have one as I write
this as I've been sitting at the computer for 2 hours).  I noted that these
are theological claims, not scientific, and that there are many theological
answers for why we have backaches.  But the AC-prof mainained it is science
and evidence of natural selection because we have backaches because our
back uses parts that look like other parts in the body, and natural
selection can only build with things that are already there.  Is this
true?  Why do we have backaches (in a physiological sense?).  I'd really
like to know, and can somebody get me a tylenol right now while you're up?

Sersiouly, the AC-prof merely exchanged one theological answer for another,
as if to imply that the Designer can't re-use parts!  Perhaps there's been
some devolution over time--what do you all think of that?

Two last interesting points were that Elsberry said that the ACLU believes
that one day there will be a court case that they just won't win, because
these slippery creationists will be able to come up with something
legitimate.  That was interesting to hear--I wonder who is sources are!

Also, Elsberry said that we shouldn't teach ID because as Scott said, we
should "teach the best science that is avaialble."  This "best science" is
apparently determined by a "consensus" of scientists.  So now we decide
what is true and what isn't true by committee?  I know that's sort of how
science works, but who will be on the committee?  This sounds like the NAS
committee who wrote the book I'll be reporting on for the class next week
"Science and Creationism a vew from the National Academy of sciences".

According to an article in the Sept 99 issue of Scientific American, only
5% of NAS members believe in a personal God.  That says something when you
compare it to polls saying that 40% of practicing scientists at large
believe in God.  Plus, I think that Zero of that 5% were on the committee
that wrote, "Science and Creationism a vew from the National Academy of
sciences".  Regardless, next week it's my turn.  I get to present on the
booklet, so if any of you have any comments, or helpful suggestions for
strategy, it would be very much appreciated.  Does anybody know anything
about Rodhocetus, an alleged land-mammal-->whale transition?  That would be
very helpful.  In any case, I've got some good materials already, but I
might ask for some more help in a few days.  Take care all and be thankful
to the Designer for all you have this Thanksgiving--even the backaches!

Sincerely,

Casey

x x x x clip end x x x x

--TJT--



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,16:14

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 05 2008,16:08)
I would encourage you guys to post some of these most excellent comments where Luskin can see them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone already posted the darth vader attack. That's going to be fun.

Edit: Casey made a response, my resolve broke and I made a snarky comment. I couldn't help it.< oops >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,16:19

Strange he doesn't directly link to the discussion board from his blog press release.

???
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,16:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:19)
Strange he doesn't directly link to the discussion board from his blog press release.

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He does. It's just buried in the reply somewhere.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,16:25

Based on his comments in that thread it's pretty easy to conclude Case Luskin is a pussy.  Seriously.  Being the chief of propaganda for the DI is probably the most meaningful thing he's ever done in life.

And if there is any question, yeah that's a personal "attack".
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,16:26

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 05 2008,16:22)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:19)
Strange he doesn't directly link to the discussion board from his blog press release.

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He does. It's just buried in the reply somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry Casey. Please don't send your attack flagella after me.
Posted by: Nerull on Feb. 05 2008,16:37

Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer? He should know better than to use a graphic if he doesn't know where it comes from and that he has permission to use it.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,16:43

Quote (Nerull @ Feb. 05 2008,17:37)
Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer? He should know better than to use a graphic if he doesn't know where it comes from and that he has permission to use it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given his recent foray into copyright infringement regarding other people's images of him...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,16:43

Quote (Nerull @ Feb. 05 2008,16:37)
Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer? He should know better than to use a graphic if he doesn't know where it comes from and that he has permission to use it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey Lushkin = the Joseph Goebbels of design Theory.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Feb. 05 2008,16:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am willing to consider further participation in this thread, if Mr. Munger is willing to start enforcing a moderating principle that removes any personal attacks from both past and future posts on this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't do us any favors, Caseykins.

What are you willing to consider doing if we give you a pony?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 05 2008,16:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:26)
I'm sorry Casey. Please don't send your attack flagella after me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dey comin' fer ya!



H/T: Albatrossity
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,16:53

Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 05 2008,17:01

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's easy to see why FtK thinks Casey's the man - his posts read pretty much like FtK's would if they were run through a spell checker.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,17:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,17:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt.
Posted by: slpage on Feb. 05 2008,17:51

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis in < original >.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Source >

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,17:56

Quote (slpage @ Feb. 05 2008,17:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis in < original >.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Source >

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was tempted to ask that myself, but decided that it was going off on an irrelevant tangent and there were better things to discuss.
Posted by: Ftk on Feb. 05 2008,18:03

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 05 2008,17:01)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's easy to see why FtK thinks Casey's the man - his posts read pretty much like FtK's would if they were run through a spell checker.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Drop dead...

Hey, this has always been my favorite Genie quote...

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.  I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.

Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.

[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]

Hey, Dave:  < Kaboom! >
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,18:10

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:03)
That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it shows up a common creationist lie that you have to be atheistic to accept science?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So contradicting a lie that creationists commonly spread is being dishonest?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Considering I've never met a creationist who can accurately or fairly represent the science they are criticising, I find that more than a little humorous.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which God, the one that tells you not to bear false witness? He doesn't seem popular with creationists these days.
Posted by: Ftk on Feb. 05 2008,18:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because it shows up a common creationist lie that you have to be atheistic to accept science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That. is. a. riot.

Eugenie IS an atheist.  She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.  I heard the woman lecture at KU on how Darwinism and religion can work in harmony...blah, blah, blah...there are no conflicts or controversial issues....blah, blah, blah...but, then turns around and blasts anyone whose religion doesn't jive with her philosophical views.

Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.  She said yes, and said some of her friends believe that the anthropic principle lends support that there may be a designer of the universe....she smiled condescendingly, waved her hand, and said that the AP doesn't sway her in the least.

She got an A+ from the secular humanists with that little lecture for sure...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 05 2008,18:39

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28)
Eugenie IS an atheist.  She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the millionth time, here's something you agreed to, but apparently have now forgotten

SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM.

So turning people on to science, whether via clergymen or via blogs or via the brain transplant that it would take in your case, is not "evangelizing for atheism".

Quit tilting against this windmill, and you might start to make sense sometime soon.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2008,19:01

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:03)
Hey, Dave:  < Kaboom! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what Jesus would do.
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,19:21

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28)
That. is. a. riot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, you'd have to wonder why creationists keep repeating it if it's so easily shown up to be a complete lie then wouldn't you?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eugenie IS an atheist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who cares.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So? In the end, there are a great number of religious people who have no issues with evolutionary theory (or science in general, creationism doesn't just completely ignore basic facts of biology, but also physics, chemistry and nearly every other field of science). It is irrelevant as to her personal opinions beyond this, even if the great atheist conspiracy declares religion and evolution is incompatible it doesn't actually change this fact. The opinion of the great atheist conspiracy is irrelevant to the basic fact that a large number of religious people have no issue with evolution.

That makes the creationist dual model canard of either creation (God) or evolution (atheism) a lie.

Simple.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again.

Nobody cares (certainly not me, my faith has or was never challenged by anything I learnt from science. People lying for Jesus (IE the Discovery Institute), people dying in my life in absolute pain, the awful actions of others to me and people I care about etc, did more than ANY scientific book ever could).

The factual statement I have said above is X. Your irrelevant babble in this post is Y.

X (the point) ----------------------------------------------------------- > Y (your argument).

Can you see the problem?
Posted by: Ftk on Feb. 05 2008,19:21

Go blow wind somewhere else, Dave.

Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.  

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”

So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...

“...received the Isaac Asimov Science Award from the American Humanist Association, the First Amendment Award from the Playboy Foundation, the James Randi Award from the Skeptic Society.”

Go Genie.  She has her mission....mission impossible.

She's more than welcome to preach from the university podium, but she has another goal...other than a scientific one.  She's out to "enlighten".

Good for her, but every one of you atheists better shut your mouths when you talk about IDers supporting ID for religious reasons.  

There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,19:26

Hey FtK I have a question for you.  What's wrong with being an athiest or advocating atheism?

Either seems to get your panties in a bunch.  How come?

Why do you seem to hate or at least fear atheists?
Posted by: Zarquon on Feb. 05 2008,19:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course there fucking is. Dembski doesn't have any scientific inferences. He's just another scamming preacher.

edited: spelling
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 05 2008,19:29

Notice how FtK is using one of her common tactics - attempting to change the topic of the discussion away from one she finds uncomfortable.

So, FtK, do you agree that perhaps, on just this occasion, Luskin has done something that does not meet the highest standards of honesty? (Predicted reply, if any, along the lines of 'I see far worse every day on AtBC'.)
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,19:32

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:21)
Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still, nobody actually cares. I could meet her in person, I wouldn't come away thinking any differently about my faith than I had before.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So?

Who cares.

Are you going to point out where this is relevant to her pointing out the [solid] argument that many people of religious belief do not feel there is a conflict between their beliefs and science?

Are we going to be treated to more inane babble?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OH DEAR.

Again, you argue so far away from any relevant point it's rather disturbing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good for her, but every one of you atheists better shut your mouths when you talk about IDers supporting ID for religious reasons.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because they do. It's that simple and it's been proven again and again. It didn't take the Wedge Documents hillarious leaking out onto the internet to clearly show Intelligent Design as nothing more than poorly dressed creationism.

On the other hand, as has been stated time and time again



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Atheists reject creationism: News at 11.

That just about the only people who accept Intelligent Design and Creationism [in it's biblical Christian form] are Christians is also News at 11.

The difference is that evolution (as a science) is accepted by a large number of religious faiths (including individuals who do not possess such a faith), based entirely on the strength of their evidence. It was after all, people who were originally creationists themselves who realised the geological record was in direct conflict with the biblical records about things like a global flood. Evolution won on evidence and has become the dominant scientific idea on the origins and mechanisms of change in life today because  it's one of the most successful scientific theories developed.

If there was any merit to creationism or intelligent design they would have done more than whine about a scientific orthodoxy, would have gone into some labs and produced some actual science. That they have failed to address critical problems with their biblical based theories, have not developed practical testable predictions (in the case of ID, biblical creationism has testable predictions that are found to be false, which is at least an improvement) and have become dead ideas worldwide except with certain minorities and the fundamentalists in America.

Therein lies the key difference between Dembski and Scott.

And none of this at all changes the original point Scott made that many people of religious faith have no problem with evolution. You can whine about that point all you want. It's not changing.

Edit: Just for curiosities sake, as I'm not 'atheist', does that mean that I can say whatever I want about the obvious parallels between biblical creationists and the members of the Intelligent Design movement?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,19:37

Mr Luskin has spoken his last at BPR3.  And he's gloating about upcoming posts where he'll portray himself as a persecuted victim.

Sweet!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 05 2008,19:40

Casey got caught with his pants down, AGAIN, for copyright violation and procedure violation and had to both recant and beg forgiveness.

What a total loser.  He received a Masters in Prevarication, right?

Certainly earned THAT degree!

The sordid story is < here. >
Posted by: ERV on Feb. 05 2008,19:44

omg you guys-- that is the BEST THREAD EVAH!!!  Poor David Dude has no idea what hes gotten into.

Also funny-- Caseys 'excuse' post mirrors his hitman letter to Mike LaSalle about me.  Same damn sentences/phrases-- its very odd.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 05 2008,19:45

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:21)
Go blow wind somewhere else, Dave.

Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.  

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”

So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but the wind is blowing back at you.

Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"? None of the stuff you cite above has any evidence in your favor on that point. The fact that she signed a document, and may or may not be an atheist, does not translate (in any logical mind, at least) into the conclusion that in her day job as an advocate for science, she is also advocating for atheism. That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists. And, again for the millionth time, please let us know what difference it makes if a person is a Buddhist, Baptist, Anabaptist, or atheist. We still have the right to our own personal beliefs in this country, don't we?

So prove it. Cite me one place where Eugenie Scott has said, in her capacity as an advocate for science, that one has to be an atheist to be a scientist, or to understand science. We'll all be waiting for that evidence while we watch Casey climb up on his cross (again).
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,19:54

Wasn't that the point from the beginning in all honesty? Either they can keep the icon and give themselves the impression of reporting scientifically, or they get a nice persecution story.

In either event, my post there (which I'll reproduce here) sums up what I thought (all quotes are from Luskin):

“It’s amazing to me how angry some Darwinists are eager to get over a 117 X 87 pixel graphic that was immediately removed after an ID-proponent learned that he had unknowingly used it — for only about 2 days — in an inappropriate fashion. ”

To be honest. The “unknowingly” part is being disputed, given the obvious and large “Researchblogging.org” website label on it. I still find it incredibly hard to believe you failed to notice that or check it before using it, being as familiar with copyright law as you like to appear when you threaten others with it…

“(1) A large number of the people on this thread continue to oppose approving my request for registration, explicitly admitting that they simply don’t want to allow ID proponents to be part of these discussion”

In many cases from individuals in this thread, this is certainly not the opinion that was expressed and is a gross simplification (in fact strawman) of many of the arguments presented. The simple fact of the matter is that you did not appropriately represent the original paper or discuss the authors opinion in a fair context.

Others expressed that they do not agree with allowing a news blog that does not permit comments or opposing views on it (despite complaining about such things itself) to use the logo. Again, another fair argument that you have not properly addressed.

“This thread has given another example of the intolerance that ID proponents face in the academy. ”

If we completely ignore that the primary arguments against your allowance of using the icon were not the inappropriate use of it originally, but that you do not permit comments on the blog in question and that you did not present the authors opinion fairly. At the moment, all you are doing is convincing us that you are not going to address the arguments presented and are merely taking the persecution angle.

“If ID proponents aren’t even allowed to “officially” blog about peer-reviewed research on the internet, who can say that their research would get a fair hearing from the actual peer-reviewers in the real world of science?”

If this had any relevance to the two primary arguments bought up by a large number of people in this thread, then it would be worth answering. Perhaps before asking us this you should first address the questions already posed to you.

Again, you are showing a flagrant dishonesty if this is going to be how you discuss this in future, because you’ll be ignoring the substantial critiques of what you did do in favour of a fantasy ‘oppression’ scenario that never occurred as you will claim.

For what it’s worth, your final post and refusal to acknowledge the points raised have convinced me you shouldn’t be allowed to be registered.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 05 2008,20:51

Jesus FtK if you are going to change the subject at THE VERY LEAST tell us whether or not Jesus yanked his own chain.

We need to know, so that we can evaluate the claim that he was fully human and fully god.

If he was fully human, then he without a doubt punched the monk, which is a sin.

If he was fully God, then he could not have sinned, so he could not have beat the donkey.  

Mutually exclusive.  Just like you like them.  Will you at least explain to me how it is possible for both to be true?  You can cite Walt Brown I don't give a damn.  Inquiring minds simply need to know.  And your current topic is stupid and shows that you aren't paying close attention.
Posted by: Ftk on Feb. 05 2008,20:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where, exactly, has Dembski shoved religion on the  public when addressing science and ID in a secular setting as Scott does when she lectures at universities, etc. on Darwinism?  

When asked, Scott will give her philosophical views when lecturing just as, when asked, Dembski will give his philosophical views when lecturing.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
None of the stuff you cite above has any evidence in your favor on that point. The fact that she signed a document, and may or may not be an atheist, does not translate (in any logical mind, at least) into the conclusion that in her day job as an advocate for science, she is also advocating for atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sigh...are you being deliberately dense?  I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job, but her science supports her philosophy perfectly.  BTW, she *is* an atheist...there is no "may or may not" about it.  

Again, no different than Dembski....in the secular setting, like Genie, Dembski is all about science.  On his own time, like Genie, he advocates his on philosophical or religious ideas...and, for both Genie and Dembski, their day jobs support their private philosophies.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That connection is not just in my head, dear.  The debate rages ALL OVER THE WORLD.  There are even atheists and agnostics who think that Darwinism is a crock.  Why the heck would they question Darwinism unless there were really good scientific reasons.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, again for the millionth time, please let us know what difference it makes if a person is a Buddhist, Baptist, Anabaptist, or atheist. We still have the right to our own personal beliefs in this country, don't we?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, my freaking goodness....red herring.  Who in the bloody hell said that you don't have rights?  I'm trying to stand up for my rights, not stifle yours!  For the "millionth time", I have no intention of banning evolution from the classroom.  Why do you throw in these ridiculous statements?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So prove it. Cite me one place where Eugenie Scott has said, in her capacity as an advocate for science, that one has to be an atheist to be a scientist, or to understand science. We'll all be waiting for that evidence while we watch Casey climb up on his cross (again).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,21:03

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,20:52)
Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like writing textbooks filled with creationist dreck intended for classrooms? I think that's a big strike against the "Dembski not trying to push religion into classrooms" column there.

Incidentally, something I'm wondering, would you mind having Buddist, Muslim, Hindi, Scientologist and other forms of creationism/religious origins/religious 'science' introduced into classrooms. After all, Scientologists claim they have evidence that psychology is all a lie and that it doesn't work (just covered up by an orthodoxy...hey this nonsense sounds familiar).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 05 2008,21:07

FtK

Listen carefully.

Intelligent Design is All Creationism and No Science.

Since that is true and has been demonstrated over and over and over and over and over, everything you say about Dembski leaving his God-complex in his street clothes while he is in the lab sciencing and stuff is bullshit.  

Of course you know that it is bullshit.  you are more than happy to take a bullshit line of reasoning and run it into the ground rather than think for yourself.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Feb. 05 2008,21:13

Holy crap--do you suppose the pirhana lady doesn't know what "evangelize" means? Of all people? First she says,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then less than an hour later says,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 05 2008,21:20

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,20:52)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where, exactly, has Dembski shoved religion on the  public when addressing science and ID in a secular setting as Scott does when she lectures at universities, etc. on Darwinism?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quit evading the question. You made the claim about Scott. Back it up.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sigh...are you being deliberately dense?  I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job, but her science supports her philosophy perfectly.  BTW, she *is* an atheist...there is no "may or may not" about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm not dense, but according to you I am mentally ill, remember? Again, her personal beliefs about a deity are irrelevant to science, protected by the Constitution, and may or may not be a cause or an effect of her scientific outlook.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That connection is not just in my head, dear.  The debate rages ALL OVER THE WORLD.  There are even atheists and agnostics who think that Darwinism is a crock.  Why the heck would they question Darwinism unless there were really good scientific reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact that others share your delusion does not make it any less delusional. And as for your last rhetorical question, please consider the possibility that they question "Darwinism" (a word you have never been able to define other than as a synonym for atheism, BTW) for the same reason that you do. They have an irrational fear, based on an ignorance about the science, that their religious worldview is threatened by acknowledging biological facts.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, my freaking goodness....red herring.  Who in the bloody hell said that you don't have rights?  I'm trying to stand up for my rights, not stifle yours!  For the "millionth time", I have no intention of banning evolution from the classroom.  Why do you throw in these ridiculous statements?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why do you continually use "atheist" as a pejorative? Why does it matter to you what the religious views of a scientist (or anyone else) might be? Your rights are not endangered in the slightest by the religious beliefs and practices of scientists, and yet you seem to act as if they were. Guess what? You're wrong about that too.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you have no evidence for your statements about Scott being an evangelical atheist, and you hope to cover your tracks with a red herring named Dembski.

You said she was an evangelical atheist. Prove it.
Posted by: Ftk on Feb. 05 2008,21:26

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 05 2008,21:13)
Holy crap--do you suppose the pirhana lady doesn't know what "evangelize" means? Of all people? First she says,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then less than an hour later says,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, for the love of Darwin...

sigh...

How to communicate with a DD (Darwinian Dodo)?

hmmm....

Okay, let's try this...

When you equate ID with religion and claim that Dembski is trying to push religion onto our poor public school children (evangelizing), I will continue to assert that Genie is also pushing her philosophical beliefs (philosophical naturalism) in our science classrooms (evangelizing).

Capisce??!
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 05 2008,21:28

I thought this was a Casey Luskin thread.  Wrong door, apparently...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 05 2008,21:28

I think asking FTK to prove anything other than how she hasn't a clue is not fair.  Only because, well, she truly is clueless.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 05 2008,21:29

Although off topic relative to Luskin's use of the icon in question (itself a tempest in a teapot - although watching him don a halo during his notpology was fun), I think some here understate the implications of evolutionary theory for aspects of faith, and overstate their compatibility.

As I understand it, the statement that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change," taken together with the reality of common descent, absolutely DOES correctly encapsulate our understanding of human evolution and does contradict the central tenets of many faiths: man was created in God's image; human beings have a special ontological status, as possessors of souls, that is distinct from that of other animals; there is a moral structure to the world that mirrors the hopes expressed in our traditional belief systems, etc. Scientific causality more generally excludes theism (to the extent that it postulates a God who intervenes). These views may leave a detached deism intact, but present severe challenges to theism. I don't see theistic views of the human being coexisting easily with these realities.

What is important to understand is that it isn't Eugenie Scott or other adovates who present this disquieting challenge to believers; it is the natural world itself, and the history of same.

Joseph Campbell:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no hiding place for the gods from the searching telescope and microscope...this work cannot be wrought by turning back, or away, from what has been accomplished by the modern revolution; for the problem is nothing if not that of rendering the modern world spiritually significant - or rather (phrasing the same principle the other way round) nothing if not that of making it possible for men and women to come to full human maturity through the conditions of contemporary life.  Indeed, these conditions themselves are what have rendered the ancient formulae ineffective, misleading, and even pernicious. (The Hero with a Thousand Faces)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Foremost among these conditions are the revelations of science of the last several centuries, revelations which have rendered many previously viable mythologies untenable - includuding Christianity as literally construed. Campbell describes the current dilemma as the presence of too much light, rather than too much darkness.
Posted by: Ftk on Feb. 05 2008,21:31

Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.

Heil Darwin!!!
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,21:32

Casey Luskin is immensely frustrating to deal with I've discovered. I don't think he's even addressed the original point I actually made quite a few posts ago. There is no way he can possibly argue he's represented Orgels opinion fairly before inserting his own into the post, clearly breaking rule #5 (which does not prohibit one discussing the post from their viewpoint, only presenting the authors viewpoint in the authors OWN words first or fairly).

That he can't see this is rather mind boggling.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 05 2008,21:35

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,21:31)
Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Herrings aren't birds. My favorite bird, the Wandering Albatross, might eat herrings...

Your favorite must be the ostrich.

But sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the world go away. Here it comes again.

You said Eugenie Scott was an evangelical atheist. Prove it. Help us "follow the evidence".
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 05 2008,21:36

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,21:31)
Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.

Heil Darwin!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want you to know, that people like you convinced me Christianity was false.

Just so you know.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 05 2008,21:43

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,22:31)
Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.

Heil Darwin!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My favorite bird? The sardine. Nothing like a bird on a cracker.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2008,22:13

Ftk,

< Here, you said >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, Dave, you need to WAKE UP.  Seriously.  There is no one “lying†in the pulpits or anywhere else.  They believe what they put forth.  So, if they are wrong, it’s not deliberate.  And, to refuse to acknowledge the part that Dawkins, et. al. plays in this deliberately burying your head in the sand.  The other side thinks that Dawkins et. al. are a bunch of liars as well - I don’t.  I believe that they support their true beliefs on the topic just like the preachers from the pulpit do.   The point is that BOTH sides believe the other to be devious liars so it’s kind of ridiculous for you to make a statement like evolution is “seen by some as a threat to their religious beliefsâ€.  While that may be true, those from the opposite end are just as threatened by the notion that evolution may not answer the question as to how everything in nature came to be.  They base their philosophical and faith beliefs on this “factâ€, so anything opposing it brings about as much tension and repulsion to them as it does to those who believe their religious beliefs are threatened by evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Beginning < about here, > you spent pages and pages defending the indefensible and reprehensible attack Sal made on Skatje Myers with outright lies like

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's disgusting to you, Dave.  But, copulation with man, woman (she's bisexual), beast, and relative is okay with Skatje.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, over the last few pages you've made quite a few scurrilous accusations against Eugenie Scott, such as

 
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:28)

That. is. a. riot.

Eugenie IS an atheist.  She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.  I heard the woman lecture at KU on how Darwinism and religion can work in harmony...blah, blah, blah...there are no conflicts or controversial issues....blah, blah, blah...but, then turns around and blasts anyone whose religion doesn't jive with her philosophical views.

Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.  She said yes, and said some of her friends believe that the anthropic principle lends support that there may be a designer of the universe....she smiled condescendingly, waved her hand, and said that the AP doesn't sway her in the least.

She got an A+ from the secular humanists with that little lecture for sure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



which doesn't jibe at all with the first quote about both sides truly believing what they say.

You are a liar, and I'm calling you on this one.  You are weaseling and hold advocates of the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax to a standard of honesty so low that I'd have to tromp around in the sewers to find it.  You then have the audacity to question the integrity of Eugenie Scott, and accuse her of deception?  I think not.

Now you can defend that third statement with actual evidence, or you can retract it and apologize, or you can talk to the bathroom wall until you do.

ETA:  Notpologies not accepted.


Posted by: Jkrebs on Feb. 05 2008,22:18

I dropped by to read a bit, and found this about Genie Scott on the previous page, from ftk:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I heard the woman lecture at KU on how Darwinism and religion can work in harmony...blah, blah, blah...there are no conflicts or controversial issues....blah, blah, blah...but, then turns around and blasts anyone whose religion doesn't jive with her philosophical views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know Genie well, and I know that the bolded part above is not true.

Of course, I could ask for some evidence from ftk to support her statement, but I know that is entirely fruitless.  Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 05 2008,22:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 05 2008,22:44

I also know Genie Scott and will confirm that FtK is lying, again.

Making stuff up, FtK, when will you learn?  Are you really that stupid?

Scott's religion bashing record is less than mine.  How about my record, FtK? Where do I stand on your Scale of Piety?

As we have said many times on this thread, FtK, put up or shut up.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 05 2008,22:50

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2008,22:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep.

FtK:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, this has always been my favorite Genie quote...

       
Quote
"I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"


That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.  I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.

Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.

[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That wasn't a statement of disagreement, or that Genie Scott was wrong.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 05 2008,23:06

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 05 2008,22:32)
Casey Luskin is immensely frustrating to deal with I've discovered. I don't think he's even addressed the original point I actually made quite a few posts ago. There is no way he can possibly argue he's represented Orgels opinion fairly before inserting his own into the post, clearly breaking rule #5 (which does not prohibit one discussing the post from their viewpoint, only presenting the authors viewpoint in the authors OWN words first or fairly).

That he can't see this is rather mind boggling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have dealt with Casey a few times in person, and I know what you mean. The best way to deal with him and not get enraged is to treat him as if he's completely insane. For instance, when he presides over a club, and in order to be an officer in his club you must be a christian, and the club used to be called the Creationist Club and is now called the ID Club, and the web page for the club says "Don't be afraid of us creationists", and he looks you in the eye and says the club has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion or christianity, and how on earth could you possibly think it did, there's no reason to be mad or upset that he's lying to you. When the guy over at Dorothea Dix Mental Institution sticks his hand in his shirt and tells you he's Napoleon, you can't get mad at him. He's not lying to you. He's just fucking crazy and doesn't know any better.
Posted by: UnMark on Feb. 06 2008,00:39

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2008,22:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed!

If anyone can find it, the essay "On Bullshit" by H.G. Frankfurt is an interesting read.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 06 2008,02:36

Quote (UnMark @ Feb. 06 2008,00:39)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2008,22:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed!

If anyone can find it, the essay "On Bullshit" by H.G. Frankfurt is an interesting read.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He ended up publishing it < as a book >.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 06 2008,05:32

Well, I think we have < the answer >. Casey, in part:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, based upon what I was told, I had no reason to presume there were “rules” behind using the 117 X 87 pixel graphic that would result in the eruption of much anger when they are violated.

When various blogs erupted in a firestorm yesterday because I used the 117 X 87 pixel graphic for about 24 hours, I first learned that there were rules about using the 117 X 87 pixel graphic. It was then that I first visited ResearchBlogging.org, and it was at that time that I tried to register with ResearchBlogging.org so that I could legitimately use the 117 X 87 pixel graphic. This morning, when I learned that Mr. Munger felt I had used the 117 X 87 pixel graphic inappropriately, I immediately removed the 117 X 87 pixel graphic.

This isn’t complicated: I never knowingly misused the 117 X 87 pixel graphic, and as soon as I learned I had misused it, I removed it. Thanks again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Darwinists are so mean and nasty that they forbid me to use a 117 x 87 icon.  117 x 87!! That is tiny!  Miniscule even!  Is there nothing so insignificant that the materialists won't use it to persecute (dare I say EXPEL!) the ID proponents in order to shore up the crumbling edifice of their discredited theory!
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Feb. 06 2008,06:50

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 06 2008,05:32)
Well, I think we have < the answer >. Casey, in part:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, based upon what I was told, I had no reason to presume there were “rules” behind using the 117 X 87 pixel graphic that would result in the eruption of much anger when they are violated.

When various blogs erupted in a firestorm yesterday because I used the 117 X 87 pixel graphic for about 24 hours, I first learned that there were rules about using the 117 X 87 pixel graphic. It was then that I first visited ResearchBlogging.org, and it was at that time that I tried to register with ResearchBlogging.org so that I could legitimately use the 117 X 87 pixel graphic. This morning, when I learned that Mr. Munger felt I had used the 117 X 87 pixel graphic inappropriately, I immediately removed the 117 X 87 pixel graphic.

This isn’t complicated: I never knowingly misused the 117 X 87 pixel graphic, and as soon as I learned I had misused it, I removed it. Thanks again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Darwinists are so mean and nasty that they forbid me to use a 117 x 87 icon.  117 x 87!! That is tiny!  Miniscule even!  Is there nothing so insignificant that the materialists won't use it to persecute (dare I say EXPEL!) the ID proponents in order to shore up the crumbling edifice of their discredited theory!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he really feels argumentum ad file size is acceptable, perhaps someone should point out that the text 'THIS SITE IS ENDORSED BY THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE' is far smaller than that tiny icon.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 06 2008,08:12

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 05 2008,19:29)
So, FtK, do you agree that perhaps, on just this occasion, Luskin has done something that does not meet the highest standards of honesty? (Predicted reply, if any, along the lines of 'I see far worse every day on AtBC'.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about it, FtK? So far, it looks like my predictive success is at least as good as that of ID.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 06 2008,09:15

I always assumed Casey Luskin was a reasonably bright guy who was purposefully dishonest in order to advance his religious cause.  We see people like this all the time, those who will stoop to anything as they answer to a "higher calling".

After reading his comments at BPR3 I'm now convinced he's simply dumb, I mean really dumb.  He's no different than FtK, sceptic, afdave tard, or vmartin.  The only thing they don't have in common is Casey does stupid for a living, the other tards do it as a hobby.

The thread at BPR3 goes down in my book as the best ever.  At least for now.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how Lushkin spins this into an example of IDC persecution.

Casey, thanks for the memories!
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Feb. 06 2008,10:00

I have no reason to presume there are “rules” behind using any 117 X 87 pixel graphic.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 06 2008,16:49

New thread on Luskin at BPR3 < here >
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 06 2008,17:24

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2008,16:49)
New thread on Luskin at BPR3 < here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 06 2008,17:25

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2008,16:49)
New thread on Luskin at BPR3 < here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Should I just copy and paste what I already pointed out about the deficiencies in Caseys first post? There doesn't really seem much more to discuss, especially as his second part isn't much better.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 06 2008,17:31

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,17:24)
I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which they undoubtedly planned to do from the outset.

This will play well among the science-haters on UD, of course. But I doubt that it will make a bit of difference in the long run.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 06 2008,17:49

Whether they planned it or not the DI needs to be hammered at every opportunity.

Expel?  Yes!  Kick their asses out.

I have no problem with this.  Luskin and the other DI minions need to be called out at every opportunity.

Quite simply, Luskin violated copyright by using the BPR3 logo inappropriately without following any of the guidelines.

Luskin did it intentionally and was caught.  He deserves any thrashing he gets.

Obviously, the heat was a little too much for our attack gerbil Luskin as he has pulled the logo from his original posting.  Luskin is dishonest.  How he lives with himself I have no idea.  Must be a small planet, his world.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 06 2008,18:06

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 06 2008,17:31)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,17:24)
I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which they undoubtedly planned to do from the outset.

This will play well among the science-haters on UD, of course. But I doubt that it will make a bit of difference in the long run.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it was a win/win scenario for Luskin. If he got accepted, it would make ID seem more "sciencey" to the rubes. If he got denied, it's another opportunity to play the martyr.

Since the persecution card is such powerful currency in the ID world, Luskin's probably quite satisfied with the decision.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 06 2008,18:15

I bet luskin is laffing his ass off about the whole ordeal.
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 06 2008,19:01

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,18:06)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 06 2008,17:31)
 
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,17:24)
I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which they undoubtedly planned to do from the outset.

This will play well among the science-haters on UD, of course. But I doubt that it will make a bit of difference in the long run.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it was a win/win scenario for Luskin. If he got accepted, it would make ID seem more "sciencey" to the rubes. If he got denied, it's another opportunity to play the martyr.

Since the persecution card is such powerful currency in the ID world, Luskin's probably quite satisfied with the decision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it seems "designed" for this outcome from the start.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 06 2008,22:01

I am laughing mine off.

What a douche bag.  

That's the important part.  Showing your ass in public, for free, upon provocation:  Priceless.

Smile, asshole.  You be on candid camera.  At least that is what they say at ye olde 4-way intersections around here in this Free State.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 06 2008,22:31

I don't think Casey's exactly laughing, because he was forced to remove the icon from his posting.  The DI got a public whipping.  Again.

Casey wasn't expelled from discourse;  none of his comments were censored or removed from the BPR3 thread.  In fact, Casey was invited to the dialog.  He chose to slink off on his own accord.

By the same token, Casey, Behe, Dembski and the entire Rat's Nest is invited to participate at PT or PZ's blog or at ERV or any science blog.  Nothing's stopping them.

By the way, that reminds me, whatever happened to Paul Nelson?
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 06 2008,22:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

By the way, that reminds me, whatever happened to Paul Nelson?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Brave sir Nelson has bravely run away from the looks of things.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 06 2008,23:33

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeyiiiiiiiit.

Casey don't give a damn as long as jesus be the reason he be skeezin'.  you bettah recognize fool.

Paul, bless his little old shriveled up trepidatious old jump startin heart, he can't be standing up to the Spanglish Inquisition and shit.  Y'all be screamin evidence, that nicklah be frontin on some ol Genesis and whatnot whatall whathaveyou whatsaysyouns whattyaknow etc etc insert the power of christus here.  

liars for jesus have already gone and warranted justified etc etc their own moral eschatology.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 07 2008,08:08

Larry "I'm not mentally ills" farararafafafaman just weighed in.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 07 2008,20:14

For all you bloggers, Mr. DNA gives us this at < The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog >:

< >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because Intelligent Design provides us with a never ending cycle of asshattery, because there are so many variants of woo available on the internet and because there are those of us who love vivisecting all forms of pseudoscience, it had to be done.

Inspired by Casey Luskin’s recent bout of Douchebaggitude, I created a little graphic “riffing on” - as Denyse O’Leary would say - BPR3’s “Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research” icon. Here is the “Blogging on Pseudo-Scientific Douche-Bags” graphic, Mark II.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More at the link...

ETA- He's even registered the pictured url for future use.


Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 08 2008,08:42

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 07 2008,20:14)
For all you bloggers, Mr. DNA gives us this at < The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog >:

< >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because Intelligent Design provides us with a never ending cycle of asshattery, because there are so many variants of woo available on the internet and because there are those of us who love vivisecting all forms of pseudoscience, it had to be done.

Inspired by Casey Luskin’s recent bout of Douchebaggitude, I created a little graphic “riffing on” - as Denyse O’Leary would say - BPR3’s “Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research” icon. Here is the “Blogging on Pseudo-Scientific Douche-Bags” graphic, Mark II.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More at the link...

ETA- He's even registered the pictured url for future use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a heads up: < Blogging on PseudoScientific DoucheBags > is up, with some posts for ideas and suggestions on how to best implement the concept.

JanieBelle asked about using the graphic for older posts. Personally, I think that's a good idea, and if anyone wants to try it out, just use the image, linking it to "http://www.bpsdb.org/" and add the tag "bpsdb.org" to your post. If your site is crawled by Technorati, the post should be aggregated at bpsdb.org...
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 08 2008,09:21

unfortunately, the code didn't work in blogger and I had to use the < picture >. I hope nobody will complain about this Luskinesk behaviour at < bpsdp.org >
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 08 2008,09:33

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 08 2008,09:21)
unfortunately, the code didn't work in blogger and I had to use the < picture >. I hope nobody will complain about this Luskinesk behaviour at < bpsdp.org >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not a problem at all. In fact, I'd rather people host the image on their own servers, linking the image to bpsdb.org when possible.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 08 2008,11:12

Much as I like the underlying concept, the execution is going to prevent me from using this logo. If it were simply phrased as "Blogging on Pseudoscience", the nice cheery "FAIL" would be a welcome addition to various posts of mine. However, the "Douchebags" part is something I'm just not down with as a general addition to my prose, no matter how well-deserved the sobriquet might be for the target of the moment. Sorry. Would you mind providing a toned-down icon for wimps like me?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 08 2008,11:17

And how about one with Ben Stein's ugly mug that says

No Intelligence Allowed
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 08 2008,11:24

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2008,11:12)
Much as I like the underlying concept, the execution is going to prevent me from using this logo. If it were simply phrased as "Blogging on Pseudoscience", the nice cheery "FAIL" would be a welcome addition to various posts of mine. However, the "Douchebags" part is something I'm just not down with as a general addition to my prose, no matter how well-deserved the sobriquet might be for the target of the moment. Sorry. Would you mind providing a toned-down icon for wimps like me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem at all, Wesley. I'll post links to the updated graphics once they're ready.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 08 2008,12:07

For our Benevolent Overlord, Wesley Elsberry:

and


Will that work?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 08 2008,13:19

< Excellent... >


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 08 2008,13:33

Plus there are probably many douchebags in the world who would rather not be associated with pseudo-science bloggers. They have feelings too.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 08 2008,13:48

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 08 2008,13:33)
Plus there are probably many douchebags in the world who would rather not be associated with pseudo-science bloggers. They have feelings too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if anyone else saw The A Daily Show last night, but Jason Jones did a segment on "Why Mitt Romney Dropped Out".  Why?  He's a Douchbag.

< http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=156319 >
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 08 2008,14:53

Is this blogging on pseudoscience thing free to use? I could probably stick it to a couple of my posts.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 08 2008,15:07

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 08 2008,14:53)
Is this blogging on pseudoscience thing free to use? I could probably stick it to a couple of my posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. Right now, there's a few requirements which are negotiable if you think I'm being a hardass:

1) The image - whether you're using the one from bpsdb.org or hosting it on your own site - links to < http://www.bpsdb.org > (the code for using the images hosted at bpsdb.org are at the site)

2) Any future posts using the image contain a "bpsdb.org" tag

3) You're willing to - at the very least - have the headline of your post aggregated at bpsdb.org. At the most, it will be your post's headline and the first paragraph or first few sentences - the post will contain a link back to your site for readers wishing to read the entire article.

Is that agreeable?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 08 2008,19:03

I'm down with it.
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Feb. 08 2008,19:17

Yes, that is.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 09 2008,22:01

I think I've got things running at bpsdb.org. The site won't officially be "open" until Tuesday, but here's the basics for those of you who are interested.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Take your pick of the graphic you want to use. Code for the icons and links to downloadable .png images for those of you who want to host the graphics on your own site can be found < here >. When at all possible, make sure the graphic links back to < http://www.bpsdb.org/ >

2) When you tag, label, and/or categorize your post, make sure you add the "BPSDB" tag. If you create a "BPSDB" category on your blog, your posts in that category should show up, but tags are the best way to go (labels if you use blogspot).

3) By using the BPSDB graphic, you agree to the following:

  • The headline of your post, along with a summary paragraph (or couple of sentences) will be aggregated here at bpsdb.org
  • Your site will be added to bpsdb.org's blogroll
  • You won't run your blog like a douchebag and ban people just because they disagree with you. (For more details, see the fourth paragraph < here >)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read the rest < here >.

I apologize if it seems like I've hijacked this thread... I'll do any future blogwhoring on The Bathroom Wall.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 09 2008,22:34

Sometimes I'm downright proud of you guys.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Feb. 10 2008,00:49

I am so in.  Excellent (said Hermagoras, rubbing his hands)
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 10 2008,01:22

Hermagoras - are you aware that this means you'll have to write posts on your blog?

Are you aware that you still have a blog?

Mister DNA - how about setting up a thread here to discuss your latest plans?

Arab Hobo
Posted by: Hermagoras on Feb. 10 2008,07:29

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 10 2008,01:22)
Hermagoras - are you aware that this means you'll have to write posts on your blog?

Are you aware that you still have a blog?

Mister DNA - how about setting up a thread here to discuss your latest plans?

Arab Hobo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch.  

Actually, this is is just the carrot I need.
Posted by: JAM on Feb. 10 2008,20:27

Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 10 2008,07:29)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 10 2008,01:22)
Hermagoras - are you aware that this means you'll have to write posts on your blog?

Are you aware that you still have a blog?

Mister DNA - how about setting up a thread here to discuss your latest plans?

Arab Hobo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch.  

Actually, this is is just the carrot I need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks more like a stick from here.
Posted by: pwe on Feb. 12 2008,10:55

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 08 2008,15:07)
 
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 08 2008,14:53)
Is this blogging on pseudoscience thing free to use? I could probably stick it to a couple of my posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. Right now, there's a few requirements which are negotiable if you think I'm being a hardass:

1) The image - whether you're using the one from bpsdb.org or hosting it on your own site - links to < http://www.bpsdb.org > (the code for using the images hosted at bpsdb.org are at the site)

2) Any future posts using the image contain a "bpsdb.org" tag

3) You're willing to - at the very least - have the headline of your post aggregated at bpsdb.org. At the most, it will be your post's headline and the first paragraph or first few sentences - the post will contain a link back to your site for readers wishing to read the entire article.

Is that agreeable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it ok for anyone to join the fun?

I have made a couple of blog posts about William Dembski and might like to add the icon to them.


- pwe
Posted by: Mister DNA on Feb. 12 2008,11:18

Quote (pwe @ Feb. 12 2008,10:55)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 08 2008,15:07)
 
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 08 2008,14:53)
Is this blogging on pseudoscience thing free to use? I could probably stick it to a couple of my posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. Right now, there's a few requirements which are negotiable if you think I'm being a hardass:

1) The image - whether you're using the one from bpsdb.org or hosting it on your own site - links to < http://www.bpsdb.org > (the code for using the images hosted at bpsdb.org are at the site)

2) Any future posts using the image contain a "bpsdb.org" tag

3) You're willing to - at the very least - have the headline of your post aggregated at bpsdb.org. At the most, it will be your post's headline and the first paragraph or first few sentences - the post will contain a link back to your site for readers wishing to read the entire article.

Is that agreeable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it ok for anyone to join the fun?

I have made a couple of blog posts about William Dembski and might like to add the icon to them.


- pwe
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. Basically any one who has a blog and isn't a douchebag can join in the festivities.

If you don't have a blog, and want to participate, PM me. Maybe something can be worked out...
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 20 2008,13:23

Damn!  I forgot there WAS a Casey Luskin Thread!  I think the Attack Gerbil maybe needs some HGH or steroids so he'll register more on my radar screen.

I posted this on it's own thread, but it really should be here:  (Thanks Lou!)

So, in light of the Florida school news, and the predictable DI reaction, give you   Luskin’s Law:  The longer the whine, the better the sign.  

First, the latest from the Gerbil Luskin:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008...._1.html >

You can quantify Luskin’s Law  by counting “Scare quotations”, with a direct correlation between the amount of scare quotations, and the amount of the Discovery Institute’s hate for the subject of Luskin’s post.

Please help develop this so that it is a more useful law.  At first, I liked it because of the alliteration, and of course it makes a lot of sense, but then realized that “Luskin’s Law” could be improved, and added to.

On further review, to make it actually a law, I thought to throw it out to the crowd, whose ideas are much smarter and more scientific that Luskin could ever hope to be.

We could also consider:

Dembski’s Dilemma:  Am I the smartest man in the world, or am I the smartest man ever?

Springer’s Principal:  More Tard Is Better.

Springer’s Corollary:  If you don’t understand it, ban it.  

Springer’s Last Stand:  The Banninator Button Is There To Be Used.

Discovery Institute’s Principal – None.  This is a non sequitur.

O’Leary’s Law: Like, never let them know what you really mean when you write.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 20 2008,13:27

Casey went to bat but he struck out?

Or am I mixing him up with somebody else? :p
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 21 2008,11:45

Which Casey Luskin are we talking about?

Look at me, I'm a lawyer (and not ghay) Casey?


I am not a liar Casey?


Post my picture and I'll sue you Casey?


I am not a potted plant Casey?



Which?
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 21 2008,12:14

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 21 2008,11:45)
Which Casey Luskin are we talking about?

Look at me, I'm a lawyer (and not ghay) Casey?


I am not a liar Casey?


Post my picture and I'll sue you Casey?


I am not a potted plant Casey?



Which?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm talkin' bout "The Casey that is the Biggest Douche that anyone that has every met him has ever met".  That Casey.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 21 2008,12:24

Oh you mean that casey luskin


Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 21 2008,12:33

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 21 2008,12:24)
Oh you mean that casey luskin


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!  

We have visual evidence that Casey is teh gay.*

He's clearly forming the "Y" from the Village People's YMCA.

Added in edit:  * Not that that's wrong....

Ok?  Now you can all stop PMing me right?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 21 2008,13:07

I actually sent him an email yesterday and asked (politely) if he was gay.  Seriously.  He has not responded.

Last week I was chatting with a gay friend of mine about the DI and he insists Luskin is a closet case (pure speculation on his part).  So I naturally became curious and thought I'd ask him.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 21 2008,14:34

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 21 2008,13:07)
I actually sent him an email yesterday and asked (politely) if he was gay.  Seriously.  He has not responded.

Last week I was chatting with a gay friend of mine about the DI and he insists Luskin is a closet case (pure speculation on his part).  So I naturally became curious and thought I'd ask him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt about it.*

I haz Gaydar, and you can easily tell by the foot stamping and bitchy tone of his posts. (Didn't he write one time, that he wanted to "just scratch PZ's eyes out?" )

The only evidence against him being gay is his serious   caterpillar eyebrow problem.

But then, I figure he just might be into the "rough" trade, right?




* Not that that's wrong...
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 21 2008,14:36

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 21 2008,13:07)
I actually sent him an email yesterday and asked (politely) if he was gay.  Seriously.  He has not responded.

Last week I was chatting with a gay friend of mine about the DI and he insists Luskin is a closet case (pure speculation on his part).  So I naturally became curious and thought I'd ask him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With apologies to all - I must have been front- pants loaded to do this:

By the DESIGN PEOPLE
   I-D-E-A Lyrics

Design Man, there's no need to be smart.
I said, Design Man, try to pick science apart.
I said, Design Man, 'cause you're a big liar
There's no need to be so dorky.

Design Man, there's a place you can go.
I said, Design Man, when you're short on your dough.
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
I. C.  ways to have a good time.

It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.
It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.

They have everything for you kidz to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys like Behe...

It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.
It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.

You can get yourself mentally reamed, you can whine a great deal,
You can make ID whatever you feel ...

Design Man, are you listening to me?
I said, Design Man, what do you want to be?
I said, Design Man, you can make it all up.
But you got to know this one thing!

No Baylor Boy does it all by himself.
I said, Design Man, put your pride on the shelf,
And just go there, to the I.D.E.A.
I'm sure they can help you today.

It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.
It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.

They have everything for you kidz to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys like O’Leary ...

It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.
It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.

You can get thrown out of Dover, you can whine a great deal,
You can think science is whatever you feel ...

Design Man, I was once in your shoes.
I said, I was down and without a clue too.
I felt no Dembski cared if I were alive.
I felt the whole world was The Logos Of John ...

That's when Moonie Wells came up to me,
And said, Design Man, take a walk up the street.
There's a place there called the I.D.E.A.
You can lie today back on your way.

It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.
It's fun to stay at the I-D-E-A.

They have everything for us real kidz  to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys like Casey Luskin...

I-D-E-A ... you'll find it at the I-D-E-A.

Design Man, Design Man, there's no need to feel down.
Design Man, Design Man, get DaveScot off the ground.

I-D-E-A ... you'll find it at the I-D-E-A.

Design Man, Design Man, there's no need to be smart.
Design Man, Design Man, you can just play a part.

I-D-E-A ... just go to the I-D-E-A.

Design Man, Design Man, are you listening to me?
Design Man, Design Man, what do you wanna be?


Thank you Casey - You were such an inspiration.

edited 12/30/08
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 21 2008,15:14

Thank you J-Dog, that was truly an inspiration.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 07 2008,14:43

Casey on chat now < here >.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 07 2008,14:55

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 07 2008,14:43)
Casey on chat now < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid to listen here at work - Casey's way with words will melt my speakers.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2008,19:47

Here's the archive:

< http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20080307-1413-idchat.html >
Posted by: Amadan on Mar. 11 2008,06:11

Using the Discovery Institute Quote-Extraction Algorithm, I found the following statement by Casey Luskin:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I . . . like . . . a long muscular body. . . a pelvic paddler
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Source: < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007...._k.html >

So now we know.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 11 2008,10:47

Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 11 2008,06:11)
Using the Discovery Institute Quote-Extraction Algorithm, I found the following statement by Casey Luskin:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I . . . like . . . a long muscular body. . . a pelvic paddler
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Source: < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007...._k.html >

So now we know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He also has an unhealthy focus on "poster children".

I think he has designs on them.  So, do we call Homeland Security, or the Washington State Sex Offenders Department to warn them?

Attention all units:  Be on the look out for a turd-brain with eyebrows that look like a giant caterpillar.  Warning - Do not attempt to handle without a Full HazMat suit to avoid Tard-spatters.
Posted by: wetlabmonkey on Mar. 11 2008,11:22

Hi all,

 I was looking over Casey's latest < parody > where he beats up on a puppet-"Darwinist", and I had an epiphany. I've been a lurker since Dover, and his little dialogue unwittingly encapsulated a lot of what I've come to detest about the ID movement. He rambles off buzzwords rather than forming a coherent argument, and of the pages and pages of critiques that others have leveled against the ID movement, only a word or two makes it past Morton's demon. I think it's weird how the ID side is obsessed with creating straw-opponents and defeating them, but I thought I'd return the favor and fill in what I think a real "Darwinist" would say. This is mostly from the top of my head, so let me know if I left something major out.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Studying the precursors to DNA is currently underway. Assuming the conclusion doesn't help your cause, and it's why many people feel ID would slow or stop scientific progress.

ID Proponent: Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Do you know over what span the Cambrian "Explosion" took place? If you did, it might help you understand why evolutionists are not really quaking in their boots over this.

ID Proponent: Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: I remember when irreducible complexity was all about how you couldn't remove any part of the bacterial flagella.< Oops > . I also remember when irreducible complexity covered a receptor and it's ligand. < Oops >. And why does specified complexity seem to change depending on how much I, the observer, know about the system?

ID Proponent: Human intelligence. Creative Genius. Love. Music. Art. Leonardo da Vinci. Beethoven.

Darwinist: I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Is human intelligence supposed to be impossible to evolve?

ID Proponent: Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: This is one of the longest running and crappiest analogies because the machines you are comparing do not reproduce! There is no evolutionary process so its apples to oranges.

ID Proponent: Science. Evidence. Data. Observations. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Actually it's more like Pseuodoscientific Buzzwords. Ignore Evidence. Hide from Data. Bias Observations. Intelligent Design.

ID Proponent: Atheism: Richard Dawkins. Daniel Dennett. Sam Harris. Eugenie Scott. Barbara Forrest. Stephen Jay Gould. E.O. Wilson. Michael Ruse. P.Z. Myers. Many others. Wedge? Irrelevant.

Darwinist: Notice how none of them wanted to "renew" science in a manner which removes the basic tenet of testability nor have any of them stated that they will use evolution as a wedge to change the government into a theocracy of their liking? I'd say it's a significant difference.

ID Proponent: Judges can’t settle science. Courts can’t change data.

Darwinist: Man, does your side keep whining about this. Remember how your side was so gung-ho before the trial and all excited about the "vise" it would put scientists in? Then you guys screwed up at every chance, and Dembski didn't even make it to the stand. Just par for the course for the cdesign proponentsists, I guess.

ID Proponent: Judge adopted false definition of ID.

Darwinist: He adopted the position argued by the ID expert witnesses. You better get some better experts then.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored positive case for design.

Darwinist: Rather, your side has ignored how the case for ID was demolished and have resorted to character attacks rather than substantial intellectual defense.

ID Proponent: Judge copied many errors into ruling from ACLU. Judge ignored ID rebuttals. Judges make mistakes all the time.

Darwinist: This is a perfect example of the above. Judge Jones included the Facts and Finding which he found were supported by evidence. The dearth of arguments on your side has more to do with the facts than Judge Jones, and the quicker you catch on to this, the less petulant you will look.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored peer-reviewed pro-ID publications. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Dembski, The Design Inference. Beye/Snoke, Protein Science. Others.

Darwinist: The prosecution showed how ineffectual those papers were as a basis to attack evolution. You need to catch up.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored pro-ID research. Minnich's flagellum research.

Darwinist: Nick Matkze has shown how your side has ignored significant research into homologies between proteins and the minimal number of required components.

ID Proponent: Not an explanation. Huge Leap.

Darwinist: Well, it's not the little storybook you want, but it's a start. It's also shows that co-option is a viable explanation for the evolution of the flagella.

ID Proponent: Flagellum: Rotor, Stator, Bushings, Motor, Propeller, U-Joint, Rotary Engine 100,000 RPM. Irreducibly complex.

Darwinist: See the above about minimum required proteins. Also, you're impressed by the RPM on a flagellum? Go check on the hz on one of those fancy cesium atomic clocks. Is that more proof of ID?

ID Proponent: Then provide step-by-step evolutionary model.

Darwinist: Ahhh, moving the goal-posts. It's the only intellectual work-out an IDer seems to get.

ID Proponent: Minnich. Axe. Dembski. Marks. Meyer. Behe. Snoke. Gonzalez. Biologic. Others.

Darwinist: The striking link between most of the above is how quickly their scientific productivity dropped when they got involved in ID, especially Behe and Gonzalez. And what is with all the secrecy around Biologic? And as the puppet-darwinist you set up said "NAS rejects. AAAS rejects. “Steves” reject."

ID Proponent: That’s Politics. Thomas Kuhn was right. “Science not a democracy” –Eugenie Scott. All majority views started off as minority views.

Darwinist: That is so ironic considering how the major pusher of ID is basically just a PR machine.

ID Proponent: ID also has science. Plus Darwinism has politics: NAS anti-ID edicts; AAAS anti-ID edicts; Witch hunts (Sternberg, Crocker, Gonzalez, others).

Darwinist: Witch hunts? Please. Your persecution complex is so sensitive it goes off when legitimate steps are taken in policing peer-review, preventing creationism from being taught in the classroom, and choosing what assistant professors will be productive scientists.

ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Not Bible based.

Darwinist: Did you just reboot?

ID Proponent: Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Not Faith based.

Darwinist: Why is your mind so impenetrable to facts which contradict your position?

ID Proponent: Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Not Divine Revelation based.

Darwinist: Please, just apply a little creativity to your arguments. Surprise me with your fallacies.

ID Proponent: Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Not Religion.

Darwinist: Oh man, I plead with you not to use this stupid analogy again...

ID Proponent: World’s most famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins (who is anti-ID): “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Darwinist: I think the puppet-Darwinist you set up said it best. "Hmmf. TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project."

ID Proponent: DNA Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who is anti-ID): "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.“

Darwinist: TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project.

ID Proponent: Former NAS president Bruce Alberts (who is anti-ID): “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.”

Darwinist: Have you clued in that if the person is anti-ID, then you might be taking the quote out of context? Alright, let's play a little game. Who designed the designer?

ID Proponent: Theological Objection—Irrelevant. Theological Answer: God is eternal, has no designer.

Darwinist: Is God irreducibly complex?

ID Proponent: Knowledge of designer not necessary for design inference.

Darwinist: Well, then how come you keep using examples like SETI, archeology, or crime-solving when those all assume something about the designer?

ID Proponent: Why does the universe exist?

Darwinist: I don't know. Try using that as an honest answer sometimes and stop trying to ruin science.

ID Proponent: Science seeks truth. If ID is right, ID is progress.

Darwinist: Science strives to understand the material world because that is all it can test! If ID is right and wants to be science, it will need positive results in a material context.

ID Proponent: That’s my point: Naturalism failing. How did flagellum evolve? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: No, evolution fills gaps with hypothesis which can be tested and revised. The current hypothesis may not be totally (or remotely) correct, but we can find ways to check and update our ideas.

ID Proponent: Where are Cambrian ancestors? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: If we're really lucky, some were fossilized and have survived. If we're not lucky, we can look for genetic clues. Again, we can form testable hypothesis and you can't.

ID Proponent: How did the first cell arise? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: Again, we can form testable hypothesis and you can't.

ID Proponent: ID is positive. DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Human intelligence. Love. Music. Art. Leonardo da Vinci. Beethoven. Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Science. Evidence. Data. Observations. Information in nature requires intelligent design.

Darwinist You have totally misunderstood what it means to look for positive evidence. Try some predictions instead of retrodictions.

ID Proponent: How did any single biochemical pathway arise? Evolution of the gaps. ID dramatically superior.

Darwinist: Take a < look > at some of the resources compiled to answer that question because I'm done trying to reason with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 11 2008,13:37

Wetlabmonkey - Pretty damn good for a first post!

I'm thinkin' you might have a little science and/or posting  background somewhere.

Care to share with the class?
Posted by: wetlabmonkey on Mar. 11 2008,19:54

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 11 2008,13:37)
Wetlabmonkey - Pretty damn good for a first post!

I'm thinkin' you might have a little science and/or posting  background somewhere.

Care to share with the class?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks J-Dog. I do have a science background, and I'm currently a graduate student in a molecular biology lab, but I don't have any posting experience, at least not in comparison to the several thousand posts that some of the regular here clock in at. Maybe one day, after I'm done with my thesis  :p
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 14 2008,07:59

Quote (wetlabmonkey @ Mar. 11 2008,19:54)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 11 2008,13:37)
Wetlabmonkey - Pretty damn good for a first post!

I'm thinkin' you might have a little science and/or posting  background somewhere.

Care to share with the class?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks J-Dog. I do have a science background, and I'm currently a graduate student in a molecular biology lab, but I don't have any posting experience, at least not in comparison to the several thousand posts that some of the regular here clock in at. Maybe one day, after I'm done with my thesis  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honesty is the Cheapest Policy

Guess I owe Casey an apology.  Being a little lier like he is can cost you, something I just failed to appreciate - before I read this paper:

< http://ebbolles.typepad.com/babels_....ml#more >


Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 14 2008,11:46

Had you all seen this?



< There are more. >


Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 14 2008,12:25

No, I had not seen that, nor the others, so thanks for the link.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2008,13:04

HAHA BLIPPY IS A CLOWN HOMO



there's some good shit there.  thanks.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 18 2008,13:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Wall Street Journal has an article discussing the high scores received by Finnish students in a test measuring science knowledge and intelligence. However, part of the test, which was created by the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, may be a measure of nothing more than whether a student believes in evolution. For example, see the sample test question, Question 3, Evolution:

Which one of the following statements best applies to the scientific theory of evolution?
A The theory cannot be believed because it is not possible to see species changing.
B The theory of evolution is possible for animals but cannot be applied to humans.
C Evolution is a scientific theory that is currently based on extensive evidence.
D Evolution is a theory that has been proven to be true by scientific experiments.

According to the answer key, the correct answer is C, the one that pledges allegiance to evolution as a well-supported scientific theory. I think there are problems with all four of those statements. But if one is closest to the truth, it’s probably answer A...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....or.html >
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 18 2008,13:24

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2008,13:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Wall Street Journal has an article discussing the high scores received by Finnish students in a test measuring science knowledge and intelligence. However, part of the test, which was created by the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, may be a measure of nothing more than whether a student believes in evolution. For example, see the sample test question, Question 3, Evolution:

Which one of the following statements best applies to the scientific theory of evolution?
A The theory cannot be believed because it is not possible to see species changing.
B The theory of evolution is possible for animals but cannot be applied to humans.
C Evolution is a scientific theory that is currently based on extensive evidence.
D Evolution is a theory that has been proven to be true by scientific experiments.

According to the answer key, the correct answer is C, the one that pledges allegiance to evolution as a well-supported scientific theory. I think there are problems with all four of those statements. But if one is closest to the truth, it’s probably answer A...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....or.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The entire article is a non-story Casey!  Jesus Christ on a flaming crutch, is he an idiot!  

ps:  Hey Casey - The sky is blue, and the grass is green.
Posted by: wetlabmonkey on Mar. 18 2008,18:14

< Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss "evangelize" for Evolution at Stanford >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I use the word "evangelize" because there were numerous mentions of "evangelizing for science" during the event. Now promoting science to the public is great and I am all for that. But they defined “science” as necessarily including pure and unfiltered neo-Darwinism, and they hoped to use television, film, kids’ camps, and other means to "evangelize" for evolution to the masses, especially children. They aren't interested in promoting a scientific dialogue over evolution, they want to "evangelize" for evolution as a "fact." Thus, they repeatedly asserted that neo-Darwinism is a "fact," at one point asserting that evolution was as much as a "fact" as the existence of the table on the stage on which they were speaking. With such evangelism, fear, and self-assured dogmatism, it was quite apparent that they resembled the very thing they feared: religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's beautiful is he says it so innocently.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 19 2008,16:31

Quote (wetlabmonkey @ Mar. 18 2008,18:14)
< Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss "evangelize" for Evolution at Stanford >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I use the word "evangelize" because there were numerous mentions of "evangelizing for science" during the event. Now promoting science to the public is great and I am all for that. But they defined “science” as necessarily including pure and unfiltered neo-Darwinism, and they hoped to use television, film, kids’ camps, and other means to "evangelize" for evolution to the masses, especially children. They aren't interested in promoting a scientific dialogue over evolution, they want to "evangelize" for evolution as a "fact." Thus, they repeatedly asserted that neo-Darwinism is a "fact," at one point asserting that evolution was as much as a "fact" as the existence of the table on the stage on which they were speaking. With such evangelism, fear, and self-assured dogmatism, it was quite apparent that they resembled the very thing they feared: religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's beautiful is he says it so innocently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think Luskin is very bright and obviously he doesn't realize he just characterized religion as "evangelism, fear, and self-assured dogmatism"

Sometimes I wonder if Luskin works for our side only because he does so much damage to their side.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 19 2008,17:29

But do the people on their side notice that damage?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 19 2008,17:45

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 19 2008,18:29)
But do the people on their side notice that damage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, they just like the way he looks in a cheerleading skirt.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 25 2008,09:40

< Casey throws in the towel >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonetheless, it seems that the alleged products of blind Darwinian processes are outperforming human technology, which is the product of intelligent design. Some might marvel at the alleged ingenuity of blind and random processes. Others will see this as clear evidence for intelligent design. Either way, it seems clear that biologists and engineers who still believe in neo-Darwinism need to continue to repeat Francis Crick’s mantra: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Industrial use of evolutionary algorithms has gotta cause so cognitive dissonance, or at least deep denial.
Posted by: wetlabmonkey on Mar. 25 2008,16:14

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2008,09:40)
< Casey throws in the towel >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonetheless, it seems that the alleged products of blind Darwinian processes are outperforming human technology, which is the product of intelligent design. Some might marvel at the alleged ingenuity of blind and random processes. Others will see this as clear evidence for intelligent design. Either way, it seems clear that biologists and engineers who still believe in neo-Darwinism need to continue to repeat Francis Crick’s mantra: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Industrial use of evolutionary algorithms has gotta cause so cognitive dissonance, or at least deep denial.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome to the Discovery Institute where atheism is a type of religion and stupidity is type of intelligence.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 25 2008,20:43

Quote (wetlabmonkey @ Mar. 25 2008,17:14)
Welcome to the Discovery Institute where atheism is a type of religion and stupidity is type of intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and "I wish I could get some" is a type of sex.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 26 2008,04:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2008,10:40)
< Casey throws in the towel >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonetheless, it seems that the alleged products of blind Darwinian processes are outperforming human technology,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury...."
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 26 2008,16:04

Re "Nonetheless, it seems that the alleged products of blind Darwinian processes are outperforming human technology,"

Well, nature does have much more resources and time than any human built laboratory.

Henry
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 26 2008,17:22

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 26 2008,16:04)
Re "Nonetheless, it seems that the alleged products of blind Darwinian processes are outperforming human technology,"

Well, nature does have much more resources and time than any human built laboratory.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More than THIS kind of Sciencey Lab?





Posted by: BCtheEra on April 08 2008,14:01

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Casey brought Jonathan "Ignignokt" Wells to discuss Darwinism's war on "traditional" Christianity on a recent ID the Future podcast?

< Darwinism and the War on Traditional Christianity >
Posted by: J-Dog on April 08 2008,14:37

Quote (BCtheEra @ April 08 2008,14:01)
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Casey brought Jonathan "Ignignokt" Wells to discuss Darwinism's war on "traditional" Christianity on a recent ID the Future podcast?

< Darwinism and the War on Traditional Christianity Stupidity >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 08 2008,15:12

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2008,12:33)
   
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 21 2008,12:24)
Oh you mean that casey luskin


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!  

We have visual evidence that Casey is teh gay.*

He's clearly forming the "Y" from the Village People's YMCA.

Added in edit:  * Not that that's wrong....

Ok?  Now you can all stop PMing me right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay then, which one of these is Casey?



(Probably not the 'Y' this time.)
Posted by: J-Dog on April 08 2008,18:20

I LOVE that picture!  I saw it a while back, and should have saved it.  Thanks for bringing it back - I think it's a miracle, and it is obvious that Jesus is working the Prophecy thing pretty good, predicting that #1 hit by The Village People.

I think Ol' Jesus is also working the "Other" part of the Village thing pretty good too, so it clearly means that Dembksi, FTK, Denyse and DaveScot should   also be into the "rough trade" if they want to be like Him.

Me, I think I'll pass.  All that time outside on the cross, would just ruin my complextion.
Posted by: Casey Luskin on April 18 2008,20:02

Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin
Posted by: hooligans on April 18 2008,20:08

Thanks Casey!

I haven't said much about you, but I sure thought some bad things about you. You are dishonest. Virtually everything that comes from your mouth is a lie.

Have a nice day.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 18 2008,20:21

Quote (Casey Luskin @ April 18 2008,20:02)
Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Casey. Will you be 'discussing the controversy here' or do stick to comment free press releases?

Fond Regards,
Rich.
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 18 2008,20:31

Quote (Casey Luskin @ April 18 2008,21:02)
Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the best laugh I've had all day.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 18 2008,20:35

Dear all,

I could thay much in defenthe of mythelf here, but thith ith neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do tho.  In thith regard, I have one, and only one potht to make, and one, and only one thing to thay: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and motht of all I forgive Wethley Elthberry and Thteve Thtory.

Thincerely and fabulouthly!

Cathey Luthkin
Posted by: godsilove on April 18 2008,20:54

Quote (Casey Luskin @ April 18 2008,20:02)
Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Victim!
Posted by: stevestory on April 18 2008,23:49

Quote (hooligans @ April 18 2008,21:08)
Thanks Casey!

I haven't said much about you, but I sure thought some bad things about you. You are dishonest. Virtually everything that comes from your mouth is a lie.

Have a nice day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never thought Casey was a liar, personally. He seems more crazy. Have you seen him in person? If not, watch him on Booknotes. He's got this stare, like he's actually believing the things he's saying while he's making them up. Like when he's got a club and you have to be a christian to join and the webpage says they're creationists and then he tells you "Why on earth do you think this has anything to do with religion?" You get the sense that he's actually cracked, and can somehow believe the words that are coming out of his mouth. Like he really believes his creationism somehow has nothing to do with religion. It's almost impossible to believe, but that's what makes it kind of compelling to watch.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 19 2008,00:04

Casey doesn't mention he works for the DI..

< http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/18/915146.aspx >
Posted by: Quidam on April 19 2008,01:34

I apologize in advance to any and all librarians who might be offended by the following


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 19 2008,07:35

Quote (stevestory @ April 19 2008,00:49)
I never thought Casey was a liar, personally. He seems more crazy. Have you seen him in person? If not, watch him on Booknotes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky?
Posted by: Louis on April 19 2008,07:46

Quote (Casey Luskin @ April 19 2008,02:02)
Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{whistles}

Hey Casey,

Since all I know of you is you public pronouncements (almost exclusively standard dishonest creationist soundbites and canards) and since I cannot remember if I have ever mocked you here or elsewhere (pretty likely given your proclivities re: honesty) I have a message for you:

Please take your patronising, supercillious sanctimony and forgiveness and place them in a location I am sure your head will find familiar. It's dank, dark and full of precisely the same material that fills your comments.

Cheers

Louis

P.S. Is this the real Casey Luskin? I hope not. I hope even someone so deluded as Luskin has more sense than to post such a holier-than-thou container of ordure.
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 19 2008,08:03

Quote (Louis @ April 19 2008,08:46)
P.S. Is this the real Casey Luskin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 19 2008,08:19

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Casey Luskin @ April 18 2008,20:02)
Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin

Casey you ignorant cheap poxied floozie*,

I have no doubt that you actually could say much in your defense.  However, I sincerely doubt that what you say would be accurate, where accurate = non-truth-telling*.

In this regard, I have one comment, and only one comment to make to you at this time:  I do not forgive you for being a little whiny, lying-for-Jesus defecation* sack.  Most of all I do not forgive Dembski, Moonie Wells, you and your entire Dishonest Institute.

Sincerely,

J-Dog
(Forced to be anonymous by sanctimonius prigs* like you so I don't get expelled by lying little weasels like you, so sod* off you mangy piece of human excrement*, and kiss my glutius maximus*.)

*Edited to slide through swearing moderation.
Posted by: 1of63 on April 19 2008,09:38

Quote (hooligans @ April 18 2008,21:08)
I never thought Casey was a liar, personally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin's a lawyer.  Ever noticed how similar 'lawyer' is to 'liar'?

Lawyers are trained to win arguments not to worry about metaphysical notions like 'truth'.

That makes it hard to judge whether they actually believe what they're saying

But, the best way to sell a lie is to convince yourself first it's the truth.  If you believe it's true then you're more likely to persuade others.

Then, if you really believe it's true, is it really a lie?
Posted by: Amadan on April 20 2008,10:32

Speaking as a trained lawyer, I must endorse this remark. Lawyers are mendacious putes. Most probably think scruples are some sort of new breakfast cereal.
Posted by: Amadan on April 20 2008,10:36

Speaking as a trained lawyer, I must object to the above libel of my learned and noble colleagues. Their commitment to the higher virtues and their selfless work in defence of those in adversity is universally admired.
Posted by: Amadan on April 20 2008,10:37

Either of the above arguments is available for use for a reasonable fee, plus expenses and outlay.

Credit cards and pleadges of child labour now accepted!
Posted by: Louis on April 20 2008,12:11

I knew I liked lawyers for a reason.

Could you prove black is white for me please and then go on to cause Lacey Cuskin to vanish in a puff of logic?

Louis
Posted by: 1of63 on April 21 2008,00:00

Don't underestimate Mr Luskin.  He probably sees this as a good career move.  

Defending the indefensible is an excellent proving ground for a lawyer.  If he handles this well, who knows where it could lead.

The Supreme Court, maybe.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 21 2008,08:34

Quote (1of63 @ April 21 2008,00:00)
Don't underestimate Mr Luskin.  He probably sees this as a good career move.  

Defending the indefensible is an excellent proving ground for a lawyer.  If he handles this well, who knows where it could lead.

The Supreme Court, maybe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not unless he does something about that caterpillar over his eyes (and excrement for brains).  Supremes don't have unibrows and are generally smarter than a potato.
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 21 2008,13:19

Coincidentally, potatoes don't have caterpillars over their eyes either.
Posted by: dochocson on April 21 2008,16:40

Quote (Bob O'H @ April 21 2008,11:19)
Coincidentally, potatoes don't have caterpillars over their eyes either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh sure, but some Darwinian evilutionist will glue a dead caterpillar to a potato and put the picture in a textbook.

You know how they are...
:p
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 21 2008,16:58

I obviously haven't been keeping up. Was there something specific Steve and I have done to Casey lately, or is that generically for not suppressing a free and open exchange of views?
Posted by: Quidam on April 21 2008,17:47

Quote (dochocson @ April 21 2008,15:40)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 21 2008,11:19)
Coincidentally, potatoes don't have caterpillars over their eyes either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh sure, but some Darwinian evilutionist will glue a dead caterpillar to a potato and put the picture in a textbook.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What - who would do that?

Posted by: Richardthughes on April 21 2008,18:01

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 21 2008,16:58)
I obviously haven't been keeping up. Was there something specific Steve and I have done to Casey lately, or is that generically for not suppressing a free and open exchange of views?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not enough Jesus in your science, maybe?
Posted by: stevestory on April 21 2008,20:16

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 21 2008,17:58)
I obviously haven't been keeping up. Was there something specific Steve and I have done to Casey lately, or is that generically for not suppressing a free and open exchange of views?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know either. I assume Casey just likes hanging out on his cross.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 21 2008,21:18

Quote (stevestory @ April 21 2008,20:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 21 2008,17:58)
I obviously haven't been keeping up. Was there something specific Steve and I have done to Casey lately, or is that generically for not suppressing a free and open exchange of views?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know either. I assume Casey just likes hanging out on his cross.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More like hanging out at the YMCA... not that that's wrong...
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 21 2008,21:20

Quote (stevestory @ April 21 2008,21:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 21 2008,17:58)
I obviously haven't been keeping up. Was there something specific Steve and I have done to Casey lately, or is that generically for not suppressing a free and open exchange of views?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know either. I assume Casey just likes hanging out on his cross.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He ought to get together with Ftk.

It'd be much easier if they worked together.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 21 2008,21:27

Quote (Quidam @ April 21 2008,17:47)
Quote (dochocson @ April 21 2008,15:40)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 21 2008,11:19)
Coincidentally, potatoes don't have caterpillars over their eyes either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh sure, but some Darwinian evilutionist will glue a dead caterpillar to a potato and put the picture in a textbook.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What - who would do that?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ALL NEW and Improved Face of ID...

Thanks Quidam!
Posted by: Quidam on April 21 2008,22:56

Back to the Autin Powers theme

Posted by: J-Dog on April 22 2008,09:27

Quote (Quidam @ April 21 2008,22:56)
Back to the Autin Powers theme

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and the Eternal Theme - YOUNG LOVE!

As they gaze adoringly into each other's intelligently designed eyes... for what use is half an eye...

...Not that that's wrong...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 26 2008,01:25

< Casey Luskin and Hypocrisy >
Posted by: olegt on May 30 2008,20:55

Non sequitur, anyone?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Do Car Engineers Turn to Darwinian Evolution or Intelligent Design? >

Casey Luskin

Don’t read into this post too much, but take it as a series of curious observations. We’re often told that Darwinism is like a scientific magic bullet that can solve anything. Darwinists love to quote Theodosius Dobzhansky saying, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” We’re also told that intelligent design threatens to destroy science. Nonetheless, I can’t help but notice that when engineers design technology to be sold to the public, they prefer to tell them about processes of intelligent design over unguided selection and random mutation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: EyeNoU on May 31 2008,11:35

Do you think that Casey remembers that extinct make of car called the Yugo? When the car buying public was offered that intelligent design, they NATURALLY SELECTED something different.......
Posted by: nuytsia on July 16 2008,03:33

(sigh)

Casey finds science paper too full of "sciency jargon".

< Carl > and < PZ > try to help.


For some reason < this > this came to mind.
Posted by: olegt on July 17 2008,20:25

Over at Panda's Thumb, Nick Matzke describes how < Luskin has lost it (on Altenberg) >.  A totally unforced error, even funnier than < Where's the Wrist? >
Posted by: stevestory on July 17 2008,20:41

Oh man. What a disaster.
Posted by: Nerull on July 17 2008,20:45

I'm sure FTK will be along shortly to tell us how Pivar really was one of the 16.

And he gave a presentation on evolution of balloon animals.
Posted by: stevestory on July 17 2008,20:46

The rate of stupid mistakes Casey's making these days, this thread might eventually overtake the UD thread.

:p
Posted by: Ftk on July 17 2008,23:38

Boy, Nick spewed out quite the little rant there ...

Teh gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

His post provided the usual hysterical desperation heard from the Darwinist camp lately.   “Oh, hey, those guys who Mazar questioned about evolution are just big meany cranks!  She calls herself a “journalists”??!!!111!!!  Don’t listen to them....listen to ME, ME, ME!  I am evolution, hear me RRRROOOOOAAAARRRRR!!

Then he unfairly accuses Casey of dishonesty because of how he introduces Pivar...

“Altenberg 16 participant chemist and engineer Stuart Pivar...”

Casey described Jerry Fodor in the same way, and Fodor wasn’t one of the actual 16 either.  They were both “participants” of the conference....not two of the 16.   There is nothing wrong with the way he phrased that sentence.  Heck, I’m not sure how anyone could have misunderstand it the way Nick did as Casey includes several links that give the names of the 16.  

Darwinism = Intellectual Cult....< Alpha Male > says so. :p  :p  :p
Posted by: Quack on July 18 2008,03:58

I sometimes get this eerie feeling, that some people have an uncanny knack of entirely missing the point(s). But as always I may be wrong, while insisting that I am right until proven otherwise.
Posted by: keiths on July 18 2008,05:11

Quote (Ftk @ July 17 2008,21:38)
Then he unfairly accuses Casey of dishonesty because of how he introduces Pivar...

“Altenberg 16 participant chemist and engineer Stuart Pivar...”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Ftk, Nick did not accuse Luskin of being dishonest about Pivar.  He accused the untalented Mr. Luskin of being wrong about Pivar.

Nick wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pivar wasn’t part of the Altenberg 16, read the friggin’ list of the 16 right here... Fodor is another Altenberg attendee that was completely imagined by Luskin. Can someone please inform the guys at the DI that just because one silly journalist mentions Fodor & Pivar in the same article as the Altenberg meeting, that doesn’t mean they were participants?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk again:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey described Jerry Fodor in the same way, and Fodor wasn’t one of the actual 16 either.  They were both “participants” of the conference....not two of the 16.   There is nothing wrong with the way he phrased that sentence.  Heck, I’m not sure how anyone could have misunderstand [sic] it the way Nick did as Casey includes several links that give the names of the 16.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk, where did you get the idea that Pivar and Fodor participated in the conference?
Posted by: olegt on July 18 2008,06:37

Quote (Ftk @ July 17 2008,23:38)
“Altenberg 16 participant chemist and engineer Stuart Pivar...”

Casey described Jerry Fodor in the same way, and Fodor wasn’t one of the actual 16 either.  They were both “participants” of the conference....not two of the 16.   There is nothing wrong with the way he phrased that sentence.  Heck, I’m not sure how anyone could have misunderstand it the way Nick did as Casey includes several links that give the names of the 16.  

Darwinism = Intellectual Cult....< Alpha Male > says so. :p  :p  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK, neither Fodor, nor Pivar were “participants” of the workshop in any sense or form.  Here's a direct < link > to the authoritative source (Pigliucci) who explains what this was all about:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The so-called “Woodstock of evolution” (not my term, and a pretty bad one for sure) will see a group of scientists, by now known as “the Altenberg 16” (because there are sixteen of us, and we’ll meet at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for theoretical biology in Altenberg, near Vienna) has been featured on blogs by a variety of nutcases, as well as the quintessential ID “think” tank, the Discovery Institute of Seattle. They have presented the workshop that I am organizing in collaboration with my colleague Gerd Müller, and the proceedings of which will be published next year by MIT Press, as an almost conspiratorial, quasi-secret cabala, brought to the light of day by the brave work of independent journalists and “scholars” bent on getting the truth out about evolution. Of course, nothing could be further from the (actual) truth.

The workshop is part of a regular series organized by the KLI (they do a couple of these a year), that has been going on for years now. Each workshop is limited to a small number of participants, both for logistical reasons (the Institute is small, and they have to budget the costs of paying for travel and lodging for all scientists involved) and because the idea is to get people to focus on discussing, rather than lecturing (hard to do with large groups). Articles and commentaries on the web have also made much of the fact that the meeting is “private,” meaning that the public and journalists are not invited. This is completely normal for small science workshops all over the world, and I was genuinely puzzled by the charge until I realized (it took me a while) that a sense of conspiracy increases the likelihood that people will read journalistic internet articles and ID sympathetic blogs. You’ve got to sell the product, even at the cost of, shall we say, bending, the reality.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have run workshops and Pigliucci's explanation totally makes sense to me.  A typical workshop features a small number of people and is often run on a shoestring budget.  The press is not invited: a workshop is not a conference, people come there to explore new directions, not to show off results. Here are < workshop guidelines > for the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, CA.  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
* The workshop should begin within about six months of the time of the proposal.
* The duration of the workshop should be 1-3 weeks, usually 2 weeks.
* There should be 10-30 participants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mazur made stuff up and Casey swallowed it hook, line and sinker.  Totally his fault.
Posted by: JonF on July 18 2008,07:26

Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,00:38)
“Altenberg 16 participant chemist and engineer Stuart Pivar...”

Casey described Jerry Fodor in the same way, and Fodor wasn’t one of the actual 16 either.  They were both “participants” of the conference....not two of the 16.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only the Altenberg 16 were particiapnts.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is nothing wrong with the way he phrased that sentence.  Heck, I’m not sure how anyone could have misunderstand it the way Nick did as Casey includes several links that give the names of the 16.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, and Pivar and Fodor were not on the list. Duh.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 18 2008,07:32

Quote (JonF @ July 18 2008,07:26)
 
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,00:38)
There is nothing wrong with the way he phrased that sentence.  Heck, I’m not sure how anyone could have misunderstand it the way Nick did as Casey includes several links that give the names of the 16.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, and Pivar and Fodor were not on the list. Duh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's sorta like saying that even if Walt Brown got it wrong about the asteroid belt or the Oort cloud in one section of his book, you need to read the rest of it, just in case he didn't make that mistake later.

If Luskin (or Brown) get it wrong once, I don't really see that one has an obligation to look further to see if they get it right later. Once should be enough to allow someone to say "That's wrong".
Posted by: Ftk on July 18 2008,07:36

I'm going to try to get in touch with this Mazur chick and find out what's really going on here.  I've never heard of the gal in the ID camp, so I don't know why she would be out to stick it to you guys.  It certainly couldn't be good for her career to do so.  We've all seen you guys throw around the crank/liar/insane label often enough to know that you'll work at destroying her reputation as a journalist if she questions your theory.

Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.  

DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.  Bow before Darwin you fools!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 18 2008,07:44

Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,07:36)
DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.  Bow before Darwin you fools!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too funny!

Before you contact Mazur, maybe you should look up projection!
Posted by: olegt on July 18 2008,07:50

Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,07:36)
I'm going to try to get in touch with this Mazur chick and find out what's really going on here.  I've never heard of the gal in the ID camp, so I don't know why she would be out to stick it to you guys.  It certainly couldn't be good for her career to do so.  We've all seen you guys throw around the crank/liar/insane label often enough to know that you'll work at destroying her reputation as a journalist if she questions your theory.

Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.  

DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.  Bow before Darwin you fools!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go ahead, FtK, get to the bottom of this controversy.  

And while you're at it, ask Mazur to explain how < the mormons were behind G. W. Bush's rise to power >.
[snicker]

As to why some people were invited and others were not, it's up to the workshop organizers to decide whom they want to invite.  You want to organize a workshop with Fodor and Pivar, raise the money and have a ball.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 18 2008,08:14

Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,07:36)
Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have any actual evidence that that is the case? Or are you just copying what others are saying as today's talking point?

How much money do the Disco Tute pay you FTK to repeat their talking points for the day?

FTK, do you have any more information on how Pivar and Fodor applied to go to the discussion and were rebuffed?
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 18 2008,08:16

The "16" excluded Walt Brown, too.

Talk about closed-minded non-academic not-freedom.  Why a so-called "world class" conference wouldn't invite a Certified World Class Crackpot like Brown is scandalous. Shocking, I say.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 18 2008,08:18

FTK, this might help

< http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Pivar+Fodor+"Altenberg+16" >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 18 2008,09:24

Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,07:36)
I'm going to try to get in touch with this Mazur chick and find out what's really going on here.  I've never heard of the gal in the ID camp, so I don't know why she would be out to stick it to you guys.  It certainly couldn't be good for her career to do so.  We've all seen you guys throw around the crank/liar/insane label often enough to know that you'll work at destroying her reputation as a journalist if she questions your theory.

Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just read this again, and it really is characteristic of the ignore-the-evidence-at-all-times school of creationist thought. Who said that Mazur was trying to "stick it to" anyone? Who said that she needed to be in the "ID camp"? Why are those possibilities considered to be at a higher probability level than the explanation that dozens of people had put forward? Why are you ignoring that evidence in favor of your own bizarre opinion?

FtK, have you considered the possibility that she is just incompetent as a science journalist? There's plenty of evidence for that conclusion in the posts that you claim to have read on this topic. Furthermore, have you considered the possibility that being incompetent as a journalist these days is a relatively common thing, and that some folks manage to keep going in some niche or other long after their journalistic reputations are in tatters? Have you heard of Geraldo Rivera? Bill O'Reilly? Has your long association with the UD denizens made it impossible for you to recognize incompetence?

Besides, you have < other fish to fry >. Why is common design the scientific equal to common descent, considering that it lost in a head-to-head competition in the latter half of the 19th century? Any evidence for your opinion from < here >?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To claim that common descent is a fact that scientists must adhere to in order to advance scientific research   just seems silly, IMHO
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thought not.
Posted by: Chayanov on July 18 2008,11:39

First the Altenberg 16 were going to put all us Darwinists in our place.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We see an upheavel occuring again as ID is breaking it's way into the scientific community and evolutionists are coming to the realization that their theory is inadequate in explaining our existence.  

Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But now it seems they're also part of the conspiracy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And in other news, we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by: Quack on July 18 2008,11:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We've all seen you guys throw around the crank/liar/insane label often enough to know that you'll work at destroying her reputation as a journalist if she questions your theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? So we are a "we" now, huh? "We" haven't even been able to destroy your reputation as a crackpot yet...

Unable to see the difference between not having a clue, and just questioning "your theory"?

Is it too much to ask that people invest some time and effort to study 150 years of work by thousands upon thousands of scientists?

Who do you think you are, singlehanded to invalidate 150 years of science, without even looking at the evidence? Not to mention that when it is staring you in the face, you still don't see it.
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 18 2008,12:04

Rational people:  Haha Luskin made a silly mistake.

FTK:  He's not a liar.  They were there. They just weren't part of the 16.

Rational people:  We didn't say he was a liar, we said he made a silly mistake.  And they weren't there at all.

FTK:  Of course they weren't there!  You're all afraid of the Truth!!!!1111!!one

Rational People: <Sigh>
Posted by: Quidam on July 18 2008,12:38

Who IS Suzan Mazur anyway.  She has been described as a 'science reporter' and she says  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
her interest in evolution began with a Cessna single engine flight into Olduvai Gorge, across a closed Kenyan-Tanzanian border, to interview the late paleoanthropologist Mary Leakey. Their meeting followed discovery of the 3.5 million year old hominid footprints by Leakey and her team at Laetoli < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli. > Mazur says Leakey was the only reason the Tanzanian authorities agreed to give landing clearance
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

yet a < Google search > brings up mostly politial and religious stories.  It's strange how her writings are treated as Gospel and apparently trump direct quotes from the people she discusses in her article.

Much like the credentials of the DI really.  We all know that jounalists and lawyers know more science than scientists.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on July 18 2008,13:56

The piranha lady is the perfect example of Luskin's target audience, and proof that he can aim as low as he wants and still hit the target squarely.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 18 2008,14:24

Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,07:36)
I'm going to try to get in touch with this Mazur chick and find out what's really going on here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's that going btw?
Posted by: silverspoon on July 18 2008,14:44

Where does Luskin get this from?

In his EV news & views column he wrote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pigliucci's comment sure sounds like damage control. In fact, according to Suzan Mazur, a journalist experienced in covering evolution who was invited to report on the conference, there is patently politically-motivated damage control taking place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(my bolding)

According to Pigliucci journalists were not invited. Help me out here, ftk. Is Luskin mistaken yet again?
Posted by: JohnW on July 18 2008,15:22

Quote (silverspoon @ July 18 2008,12:44)
Where does Luskin get this from?

In his EV news & views column he wrote:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pigliucci's comment sure sounds like damage control. In fact, according to Suzan Mazur, a journalist experienced in covering evolution who was invited to report on the conference, there is patently politically-motivated damage control taking place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(my bolding)

According to Pigliucci journalists were not invited. Help me out here, ftk. Is Luskin mistaken yet again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin doesn't say who did the inviting.
Posted by: silverspoon on July 18 2008,15:36

Quote (JohnW @ July 18 2008,15:22)
Luskin doesn't say who did the inviting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose all we can do is guess. We can start by listing those who we know didn’t invite Mazur and work backwards from there. I’ll strike the Archduke Franz Ferdinand off the list for starters.
Posted by: Nerull on July 18 2008,20:09

I knew it.

I can predict FTKs every move! Time to call up JREF....
Posted by: olegt on July 19 2008,10:47

This week's Science has a two-page story on the Altenberg workshop < Evolution: Modernizing the Modern Synthesis > by Elizabeth Pennisi.  A tease:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Massimo Pigliucci is no Jimi Hendrix. This soft-spoken evolutionary biologist from Stony Brook University in New York state looks nothing like that radical hard-rock musician whose dramatic guitar solos helped revolutionize rock 'n'roll. But to Suzan Mazur, a veteran journalist who occasionally covers science, Pigliucci is the headliner this week at a small meeting she believes will be the equivalent of Woodstock for evolutionary biology. The invitation-only conference, being held in Altenberg, Austria, "promises to be far more transforming for the world" than the 1969 music festival, Mazur wrote online in March for Scoop.co.nz, an independent news publication in New Zealand.

That hyperbole has reverberated throughout the evolutionary biology community, putting Pigliucci and the 15 other participants at the forefront of a debate over whether ideas about evolution need updating. The mere mention of the "Altenberg 16," as Mazur dubbed the group, causes some evolutionary biologists to roll their eyes. It's a joke, says Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago in Illinois. "I don't think there's anything that needs fixing." Mazur's attention, Pigliucci admits, "frankly caused me embarrassment."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on July 19 2008,11:00

I went back to check < Luskin's post > and Mazur's story to which Luskin linked.  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

According to Mazur, the same thing happened to Altenberg 16 participant chemist and engineer Stuart Pivar: "Stuart Pivar has been investigating self-organization in living forms but thinks natural selection is irrelevant – and has paid the price for this on the blogosphere." Once again, Mazur reveals that Darwinists are commonly intolerant towards people who doubt Darwin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pivar's also a keen observer of some of the conflicts of interest tainting science. He accuses the National Academy of Sciences of excluding other approaches to evolution but natural selection in their recent book Science, Education and Creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Mazur also reports > that Altenberg 16 participant, Rutgers philosopher Jerry Fodor, "essentially argues that biologists increasingly see the central story of Darwin as wrong in a way that can’t be repaired." Mazur < recounts > that Michael Ruse condemned Fodor for even printing such thoughts in a mainstream publication – not because of the empirical data, but because of politics: In Ruse's words, "to write a piece slagging off natural selection in that way, is to give a piece of candy to the creationists." Apparently Ruse would suggest that scientists banish from their minds—and certainly from their pens—any real doubts about the sufficiency of natural selection, for purely political reasons.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess what? Mazur never identified either Fodor or Pivar as participants in the Altenberg workshop.  That's Casey's totally own, unforced error.  

Most likely he read < another of Mazur's articles > on the subject, which lists the "Altenberg 16" with photographs and then shows a few more photos of people unrelated to the workshop, Fodor and Pivar among them.  

Discovery Institute should fire those fact checkers.  On second thought, maybe they should hire them in the first place.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 19 2008,11:14

Quote (olegt @ July 19 2008,09:00)
I went back to check < Luskin's post > and Mazur's story to which Luskin linked.  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

According to Mazur, the same thing happened to Altenberg 16 participant chemist and engineer Stuart Pivar: "Stuart Pivar has been investigating self-organization in living forms but thinks natural selection is irrelevant – and has paid the price for this on the blogosphere." Once again, Mazur reveals that Darwinists are commonly intolerant towards people who doubt Darwin:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pivar's also a keen observer of some of the conflicts of interest tainting science. He accuses the National Academy of Sciences of excluding other approaches to evolution but natural selection in their recent book Science, Education and Creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Mazur also reports > that Altenberg 16 participant, Rutgers philosopher Jerry Fodor, "essentially argues that biologists increasingly see the central story of Darwin as wrong in a way that can’t be repaired." Mazur < recounts > that Michael Ruse condemned Fodor for even printing such thoughts in a mainstream publication – not because of the empirical data, but because of politics: In Ruse's words, "to write a piece slagging off natural selection in that way, is to give a piece of candy to the creationists." Apparently Ruse would suggest that scientists banish from their minds—and certainly from their pens—any real doubts about the sufficiency of natural selection, for purely political reasons.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess what? Mazur never identified either Fodor or Pivar as participants in the Altenberg workshop.  That's Casey's totally own, unforced error.  

Most likely he read < another of Mazur's articles > on the subject, which lists the "Altenberg 16" with photographs and then shows a few more photos of people unrelated to the workshop, Fodor and Pivar among them.  

Discovery Institute should fire those fact checkers.  On second thought, maybe they should hire them in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry Fodor? He's a < cognitive scientist > who spends time in linguistics. He's not a friggin biologist.

Next week the IDers should enlist some hydrological engineers and tax lawyers to make pronouncements on the weaknesses of 'Darwin'.
Posted by: silverspoon on July 19 2008,11:30

Quote (olegt @ July 19 2008,11:00)
 Discovery Institute should fire those fact checkers.  On second thought, maybe they should hire them in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you see, you can trust everything you read at the evolution news-org. All you need do is read what’s at the bottom of each post there.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: carlsonjok on July 19 2008,11:57

Quote (olegt @ July 19 2008,10:47)
This week's Science has a two-page story on the Altenberg workshop < Evolution: Modernizing the Modern Synthesis > by Elizabeth Pennisi.  A tease:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Massimo Pigliucci is no Jimi Hendrix. This soft-spoken evolutionary biologist from Stony Brook University in New York state
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One has to wonder if he has ever crossed paths with < this fellow > (of the world renowned Discovery Institute).
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 19 2008,11:58

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 19 2008,11:14)
Next week the IDers should enlist some hydrological engineers
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like Walt Brown?
Posted by: olegt on July 19 2008,18:07

Quote (silverspoon @ July 18 2008,14:44)
Where does Luskin get this from?

In his EV news & views column he wrote:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pigliucci's comment sure sounds like damage control. In fact, according to Suzan Mazur, a journalist experienced in covering evolution who was invited to report on the conference, there is patently politically-motivated damage control taking place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(my bolding)

According to Pigliucci journalists were not invited. Help me out here, ftk. Is Luskin mistaken yet again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, it appears quite likely that Luskin misunderstood what Mazur was saying.  Here's an excerpt from Mazur's article < Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry > cited by Luskin:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pigliucci again brought up the subject of the Austrian talks at our meeting and suggested I contact organizers in Europe to see if press was being invited. Later realizing something extraordinary might be brewing, I contacted Konrad Lorenz Institute.

     I got Werner Callebaut on the phone. Callebaut is a Belgian philosopher and KLI’s scientific manager. He was friendly – like his autobiography on the institute’s web site – and told me that he knew the paper I was writing the evolution debate piece for. He also said that one or two journalists did attend KLI sessions sometimes.

     Callebaut has been involved with KLI workshops for years. He knows the public is interested in such intellectual events and he has coordinated radio shows of these kinds of brainstorming conversations in the past. Callebaut’s Altenberg paper is on non-centrality of the gene.

     I next received the letter of invitation from KLI that was originally sent to A-16 scientists. It was signed by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd Mueller and described the talks as "a major event" and "a major stepping stone for the entire field of evolutionary biology".

[Emphasis mine --OT]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One might conclude from the last paragraph that Mazur was invited.  That wasn't the case, however.  She simply had a copy of the invitation letter sent previously to the 16 participants.  Here's yet another of Mazur's articles, < The Invite -- "Altenberg 16" Evolution Summit >, containing the invitation letter in full.  This paragraph makes it clear that the letter is addressed to the participants and not to a journalist:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The goals of the workshop are two-fold: first, to bring a highly stimulating group of people together in Vienna to foster an open dialogue about the MS and the EES. Second, to produce a high-impact edited book (published by MIT Press), having the ambitious aim of providing a laboratory for ideas about what the EES might eventually look like. Since the intention is to have the book out for the Darwin anniversary year 2009, a prerequisite for accepting participation will be to agree to have a manuscript ready for the time of the workshop.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Casey, you're overworked.  Slow down, dude.
Posted by: Reed on July 19 2008,21:03

Quote (olegt @ July 19 2008,16:07)
Again, it appears quite likely that Luskin misunderstood what Mazur was saying.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice catch
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Casey, you're overworked.  Slow down, dude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now. The tard must flow, whatever the cost ;)
Posted by: slpage on July 20 2008,13:59

Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,07:36)
I'm going to try to get in touch with this Mazur chick and find out what's really going on here.  I've never heard of the gal in the ID camp, so I don't know why she would be out to stick it to you guys.  It certainly couldn't be good for her career to do so.  We've all seen you guys throw around the crank/liar/insane label often enough to know that you'll work at destroying her reputation as a journalist if she questions your theory.

Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.  

DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.  Bow before Darwin you fools!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As you bow down to Brown?  And Cordova?  And Behe?  And whoever else with irrelevant qualifications who also happens to be a bible-nut happens to spew some erroneous gibberish that props up your religioous fantasies and martyr complex?

Sorry - only creationuts are that weak willed and brainwashable.  Pity that your superior morals continue to allow you to endorse and promulgate fabrications.
Posted by: slpage on July 20 2008,14:03

Quote (Chayanov @ July 18 2008,11:39)
First the Altenberg 16 were going to put all us Darwinists in our place.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We see an upheavel occuring again as ID is breaking it's way into the scientific community and evolutionists are coming to the realization that their theory is inadequate in explaining our existence.  

Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But now it seems they're also part of the conspiracy.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And in other news, we have always been at war with Eastasia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hilarious.

These people (creationuts and their kind) are so laughably predictable and dense.

Just as Judge Jones was 'one of us' who was going to put 'Darwinnism' in its place, until he looked at the evidence and declared ID to be creationism to be non-scientific and suddenly he was a left-wing activist...

Retards.

Sorry, but that is the only word that comes to mind when I consider folks like FtK.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 20 2008,20:43

Quote (silverspoon @ July 18 2008,15:44)
Where does Luskin get this from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same place he gets everything else:

His butt.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 22 2008,02:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does evolution have any practical benefits for science? In this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin reveals that the answer, surprisingly, is no. Listen as Luskin discusses past biological discoveries, reviews recent surveys of biologists, and quotes several scientists, including noted Professor of Biology and intelligent design critic Jerry Coyne. All three sources agree: the theory of evolution has yielded few practical benefits for scientific discovery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Luskin reveals that the answer, surprisingly, is no
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the theory of evolution has yielded few practical benefits for scientific discovery
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.idthefuture.com/ >

It's always amazed me how IDiots can't see the difference between "none" and "few".

Also seen in the "there are very few beneficial mutations" argument. So, not "none" then?

How many practical benefits has intelligent design brought to the table?

None!

Not "few".

None!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 22 2008,15:22

It did move biology and geology out of the realm of stamp collecting. Or, to use Darwin's metaphor, pebble counting.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 25 2008,19:57

Like a cat spotting a disabled mouse, < Erv sees a new Casey Luskin post and thinks NOM NOM NOM! >
Posted by: ERV on Aug. 25 2008,22:43

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2008,19:57)
Like a cat spotting a disabled mouse, < Erv sees a new Casey Luskin post and thinks NOM NOM NOM! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made that post in between time-points in the experiment Im running today-- I cant believe it makes any sense... LOL!
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 25 2008,23:04

if you are a blogger like ERV or Afarensis feel free to put links to your stuff here. It'll give us more to do. The ID folks haven't been doing much lately.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 27 2008,21:53

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2008,23:04)
if you are a blogger like ERV or Afarensis feel free to put links to your stuff here. It'll give us more to do. The ID folks haven't been doing much lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here is one... >


Notice the dedication...
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 28 2008,07:55

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 27 2008,21:53)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2008,23:04)
if you are a blogger like ERV or Afarensis feel free to put links to your stuff here. It'll give us more to do. The ID folks haven't been doing much lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here is one... >


Notice the dedication...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a Beautiful dedication.
Excuse me while I go hurl....But Srsly - good stuff dude!  

In the big picture, it looks like Luskin is a True Beliver™ and it colors every post he makes.  

OR,

Is he just in it for the money, and if he doesn't make a fool out of himself 10 times a month for the DI, he's out on the street, and forced to get a real job?
Posted by: bort on Sep. 02 2008,22:45

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2008,23:04)
if you are a blogger like ERV or Afarensis feel free to put links to your stuff here. It'll give us more to do. The ID folks haven't been doing much lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, here is my take on < Luskin's ERVs >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 02 2008,22:47

Quote (bort @ Sep. 02 2008,22:45)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2008,23:04)
if you are a blogger like ERV or Afarensis feel free to put links to your stuff here. It'll give us more to do. The ID folks haven't been doing much lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, here is my take on < Luskin's ERVs >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome! Great first post and great Blog.

ETA:

< http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com/evolution-resources/ >

*cough cough*
Posted by: bort on Sep. 03 2008,10:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Welcome! Great first post and great Blog.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thanks, and yes the resources page has been updated.  

I usually peruse the Discovery Institute's blogs to try to find their most ridiculous post.  Funny how it is usually Casey Luskin.  Well, sometimes Anika Smith provides some absurdity.  I am continuously amazed at how Luskin, with no real biological credentials, feels like he can tell others about evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 03 2008,10:23

I know - everyone knows you need an engineering degree for that!*


*Or just be an engineer, really.
Posted by: KCdgw on Sep. 03 2008,15:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather, ID predicts function because the basis for ID's predictions is observations of how intelligent agents design things, and intelligent agents tend to design objects that perform some kind of function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So..what's the function of the human chin again?
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 03 2008,15:14

Quote (KCdgw @ Sep. 03 2008,13:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather, ID predicts function because the basis for ID's predictions is observations of how intelligent agents design things, and intelligent agents tend to design objects that perform some kind of function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So..what's the function of the human chin again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's to grow a beard on, if you're Louis' mother.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 03 2008,16:11

< Afternoon Delight With The Discovery Institute >
Posted by: intelekshual on Sep. 03 2008,20:47

Luskin's as much of a fanatic and lunatic in person as he is in writing.
Posted by: csadams on Sep. 03 2008,21:24

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 03 2008,16:11)
< Afternoon Delight With The Discovery Institute >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Delightful, indeed . . . !  That lil' ol' lady is one helluva storyteller.
Posted by: intelekshual on Sep. 05 2008,20:25

Thank you. I'm delighted people are reading it, and excited to get to the conclusion. :)
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 05 2008,20:51

Quote (KCdgw @ Sep. 03 2008,16:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather, ID predicts function because the basis for ID's predictions is observations of how intelligent agents design things, and intelligent agents tend to design objects that perform some kind of function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So..what's the function of the human chin again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


to indicate extreme awesomeness?


Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 05 2008,22:52

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 05 2008,20:51)
 
Quote (KCdgw @ Sep. 03 2008,16:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather, ID predicts function because the basis for ID's predictions is observations of how intelligent agents design things, and intelligent agents tend to design objects that perform some kind of function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So..what's the function of the human chin again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


to indicate extreme awesomeness?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that chainsaw-hand?  Obviously designed.  There's no way random mutations could generate the information for that!
Posted by: bystander on Sep. 06 2008,01:20

Quote (intelekshual @ Sep. 06 2008,08:25)
Thank you. I'm delighted people are reading it, and excited to get to the conclusion. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I liked the description of Anika ... Can't wait to read the rest of the story.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 07 2008,12:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My favorite part of this is that despite the fact that it should have been obvious that they were both drunk and lying, Casey quickly becomes their hero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Two girls get drunk and go have a laugh at Casey Luskin? Who are these mysterious sirens...I must know more....

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/casey_gives_a_tour.php >
Posted by: intelekshual on Sep. 07 2008,17:40

The final installment is up now. :)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 07 2008,18:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When Kate expressed her interest in the legalities of teaching ID, Casey's beady eyes lit up as I imagine they might were he presented with proof of a creator. Like a toddler having just managed to make poopy in the toilet for the first time, he proudly exclaimed that he was a lawyer, and could really, really, honestly for reals tell us anything we wanted to know about the legal issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hysterical.
Posted by: csadams on Sep. 07 2008,18:50

< Outstanding >, intelekshual.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bulk of the conversation was just a rehashing of Luskin’s nonsense statements on the subject, which means it wasn’t terribly interesting. Until Kate said, quietly but with obviously sincere indignation, “But that judge was supposedly a Christian.”

It was like turning on a light switch. Luskin’s face darkened, his brow furrowed, becoming (if possible) even more prehistoric in appearance, and his slightly high pitched whine turned into something much darker, and passionate. From his next sentence, everything you need to know about the difference between their public portrayal of ID and it’s roots in religion, and the reality of the situation.

His tone strident, leaning across the table to get as close as possible, he said “I know! But he wasn’t a real christian, he was a country club christian! I even heard that he referred to his church as his wife’s church. So that explains that. A real christian wouldn’t have sided with the ACLU the way he did. It was sickening.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



. . . interesting that Luskin has appointed himself Sole Arbiter of who's a "real Christian."  Matt 7:1, Matt 23:13
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 07 2008,19:20

Oh man. Casey can really bring it home, can't he?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 07 2008,20:47

I remember a lunch with Casey in 2004 where we talked about IDC's legal prospects. The Darby, Montana incident was over, but Darby demonstrated that IDC could be at the center of a legal challenge. Casey thought that since IDC didn't talk about religion explicitly, it would pass all legal scrutiny. I took the line that IDC's history of reliance on previous antievolution arguments plus the history of IDC advocates telling religious audiences that it really was about religion would do for it.

The continuous record of religious antievolution argumentation documented in the drafts of "Of Pandas and People" -- and the manuscript of its successor -- was icing on the cake. A real Christian really, really dislikes liars. This is a lesson Casey has not yet learned.

So if someone wants to talk IDC and legal issues, they can talk to Casey and they can talk to me. I'm one up on Casey about what happens in reality when IDC meets jurisprudence, though.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 07 2008,21:04

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 07 2008,20:47)
So if someone wants to talk IDC and legal issues, they can talk to Casey and they can talk to me. I'm one up on Casey about what happens in reality. when IDC meets jurisprudence, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.  And I think we all know it's a lot more than one.
Posted by: intelekshual on Sep. 08 2008,01:40

And, delightfully, PZ Myers has linked to the story again, so plenty of people are reading it. I can't say how excited I am, and I'm quite enjoying the picture in my head of all the people at the Discovery Institute reading the little note I sent them... :)
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 08 2008,10:44

Quote (intelekshual @ Sep. 08 2008,01:40)
And, delightfully, PZ Myers has linked to the story again, so plenty of people are reading it. I can't say how excited I am, and I'm quite enjoying the picture in my head of all the people at the Discovery Institute reading the little note I sent them... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I feel strongly both ways.  Yeah, we poked the stick at Casey and the DI and had some good laughs, and Annika got blasted too.

BUT...

I am afraid this will ruin it for the rest of us that wanted to just drop in on the DI and enjoy the Casey Luskin Experience face to face eyebrow to eyebrow.  

The next time we get somebody on the inside it will probably take a court order, or sneak in with a disguise like this -


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 08 2008,12:05

That might be my favorite photoshop evar. Hard to say. The one of Ruby's shooting of Oswald turned into a musical arrangement is pretty good.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 08 2008,14:37

Quote (intelekshual @ Sep. 08 2008,07:40)
And, delightfully, PZ Myers has linked to the story again, so plenty of people are reading it. I can't say how excited I am, and I'm quite enjoying the picture in my head of all the people at the Discovery Institute reading the little note I sent them... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your work with the Discovery Institute and La Luskin, it was teh funneh. You can has complimentary LOLCat as sign of AtBC approval and admiration:



Well done!

Louis
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 08 2008,14:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 07 2008,21:47)
I remember a lunch with Casey in 2004 where we talked about IDC's legal prospects. The Darby, Montana incident was over, but Darby demonstrated that IDC could be at the center of a legal challenge. Casey thought that since IDC didn't talk about religion explicitly, it would pass all legal scrutiny. I took the line that IDC's history of reliance on previous antievolution arguments plus the history of IDC advocates telling religious audiences that it really was about religion would do for it.

The continuous record of religious antievolution argumentation documented in the drafts of "Of Pandas and People" -- and the manuscript of its successor -- was icing on the cake. A real Christian really, really dislikes liars. This is a lesson Casey has not yet learned.

So if someone wants to talk IDC and legal issues, they can talk to Casey and they can talk to me. I'm one up on Casey about what happens in reality when IDC meets jurisprudence, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even when you hand them the answer key, they still get it wrong.

Where's Lenny when you need him?

*cue Lenny's famous recitation that no matter how many times you tell them, they JUST CAN'T SHUT UP ABOUT THE ESUSJAY*
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 14 2008,15:38

Luskin (accompanied by his favorite cheerleader, FtK), showed up to comment at < Thoughts from Kansas. > Per usual, he whines about being persecuted and overworked.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 14 2008,15:47

Now you be nice to Casey.  Your angry old man style behavior isn't very appealing.  

Stop talking down to people as well.  Gives you that arrogant Darwinian persona...bleck.

Be good.  Think happy thoughts...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 14 2008,16:17

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,15:47)
Now you be nice to Casey.  Your angry old man style behavior isn't very appealing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Willful ignorance and concern trolling are even less appealing.

Here's a quote from Antonin Scalia, who is probably Luskin's favorite Supreme. Perhaps he (and you) can learn from it. When asked about the most common mistakes lawyers make, he replied  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In written arguments, it's verbosity. Brevity is crucial. In oral arguments, it's the inability or unwillingness to answer a question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pass that along to Casey, will ya? And don't you have some questions on your own thread that you have been unable or unwilling to answer for many months now?
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 14 2008,16:39

I love the fact that Casey is verbose!  That's why he's one of my favs.  He's thorough and always links to great supporting articles providing more information to study and learn from.  

OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

Of course, most of the time, ya'll prefer to carry on about religion and Jesus rather than discuss evolution.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 14 2008,16:53

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,22:39)
I love the fact that Casey is verbose!  That's why he's one of my favs.  He's thorough and always links to great supporting articles providing more information to study and learn from.  

OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

Of course, most of the time, ya'll prefer to carry on about religion and Jesus rather than discuss evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL do you really believe that FTK or are you smoking something special again?

Any time you want to discuss the science, the misconceptions in your post, the modes and mechanisms of evolutionary change or indeed any scientific topic, please feel free to go ahead. We'll all join in, nice as pie. We're just waiting. You don't mind if we amuse ourselves in the interim do you? The offers have been made to you time and time again.

So where do you want to start?

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 14 2008,16:54

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,16:39)
I love the fact that Casey is verbose!  That's why he's one of my favs.  He's thorough and always links to great supporting articles providing more information to study and learn from.  

OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, them mice and fishes and such just aren't going to teach us anything about evolution. We should definitely only study humans, who are the pinnacle of creation. Too bad about that 15-20 year generation time...

It is interesting that the willfully ignorant prefer to talk only about humans, because they think that they are experts on humans (which is also not true). "Taking the time to learn about the other critters?  Well, they just can't be bothered. Why would we want to learn about those things anyway?"

Actually, FtK, if you had ever learned about any of those things, you might have a chance to learn something at one of those lectures you attend. Without that knowledge, you are just wasting your time, and taking up space in a seat that would be better filled by someone with a little more knowledge and a lot more humility. Your attitude is arrogance and ignorance rolled into one.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, most of the time, ya'll prefer to carry on about religion and Jesus rather than discuss evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pure projection. As you are well aware, I steadfastly refuse to get into a discussion of religion with the likes of you. And you are equally adamant about moving off that ground to talk about science.

Why do you think that lies like that help your cause at all?

Why don't you go on over to your own thread and deal with some of those unanswered questions?  One of them is even about humans, as I recall. No more excuses about mice and fish and other critters about which you remain willfully ignorant.
Posted by: bystander on Sep. 14 2008,16:54

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 15 2008,04:39)
I love the fact that Casey is verbose!  That's why he's one of my favs.  He's thorough and always links to great supporting articles providing more information to study and learn from.  

OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

Of course, most of the time, ya'll prefer to carry on about religion and Jesus rather than discuss evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says the person who runs away  from every discussion about macroevolution and who over the years has not learnt enough elementary physics to know that Brown is a crank.

Just another liar for Jesus.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 14 2008,16:59

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,16:39)

I love the fact that Casey is verbose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about the blatant < lies >? So blatant that even Davescot is compelled to point them out.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's why he's one of my favs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A proven liar. You said it. I believe it.       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 He's thorough and always links to great supporting articles providing more information to study and learn from.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shudder to think you hold that option of the work they "produce". No doubt you recommend it in homeschool forums along with your "lies about dinosaurs" books. Do you have an opinion on < this >? Where I note Casey is distorting the facts so much even commenter's at UD revolt!
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In order to be able to learn you have to be able to learn. Would you like a complex example of evolution then? Is the problem simply that it's all been beneath you so far? Your entire post is a parody/joke right?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you explain what you mean?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that all? What lectures have you attended, specifically? Will this be like "peer review"?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We already know that microevolution is fact.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Upon what basis has it been proven as fact then? What primary sources have you used that have lead you to that conclusion?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets say that the amount of *facts* about *macro*evolution can be a number. Let's call that number "1".

Now, lets consider the empirical evidence backing up your set of *facts. No "million articles" to read. No thousands of books, at all levels, to study. Lets call that number "0".

Upon what basis should your version of events be considered?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course, most of the time, ya'll prefer to carry on about religion and Jesus rather than discuss evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As opposed to the wholesale political talking point regurgitation currently going on over at your blog? I'll take the jesus talk here any day. Had many donations yet?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 14 2008,17:02

Ftk:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just because you < don't understand it > doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist or is "lame".
Posted by: Wolfhound on Sep. 14 2008,17:03

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,16:39)
I love the fact that Casey is verbose!  That's why he's one of my favs.  He's thorough and always links to great supporting articles providing more information to study and learn from.  

OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.    You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

Of course, most of the time, ya'll prefer to carry on about religion and Jesus rather than discuss evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Puh-LEEZE!  You have absolutely no desire to learn science.  Your interest in real science extends only so far as looking for gaps and perceived "flaws" to insert your "Aha!  Goddidit!" crapola.  So spare us.

Simple examples are used because you are supposed to teach small children, household pets, and fundies things slowly that they might better understand.

And if gods and messiahs are brought up by "Darwinists", it's because religidiots who are trying to undermine science keep trying to insert the supernatural into it.  Please, do give us one person who promotes creationism and/or ID as "science" who is NOT religiously motivated.  Betcha' can't.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 14 2008,17:11

Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 14 2008,23:03)
[SNIP]

Please, do give us one person who promotes creationism and/or ID as "science" who is NOT religiously motivated.  Betcha' can't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DaveTard?

Berlinski?

Steve Fuller?

{ducks and runs}

Louis

P.S. I suppose one could cogently argue that each of them promotes this crapola for religious reasons, they're just not the same religious reasons that the FTKs of this world would use. ;-)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 14 2008,17:16

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,16:39)
OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well ftk, you could always get off your lazy ass and take a class on it

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
  Stanford University
   Biology 136 - Evolutionary Paleobiology
   Evolutionary Paleobiology presents a paleontological approach to evolutionary theory. Macroevolution, speciation, heterochrony, evolutionary constraint, coevolution, the Cambrian Explosion, and mass extinctions are amongst the topics that are covered. The course format is lecture with a weekly discussion section focused on assigned primary literature. This course is intended for upper division and graduate students. This class meets for lecture twice a week, with an additional one-hour discussion per week.

   Wake Forest University
   639. Principles of Biosystematics. (4) An exploration of the current theoretical and practical approaches to the study of macroevolution in plants and animals. Topics include theory and methods of constructing evolutionary trees, sources of data, and cladistic biogeography.

   Yale University
   G&G610b Advanced Topics in Macroevolution. Elisabeth Vrba

   University of Pennsylvania
   GEOL 535. Macroevolution

   BIOL 411. Adaptation, Speciation, and Systematics. (J) Dunham/Cheney. Prerequisite(s): BIOL 230 or permission of instructor.
   Adaptation, phylogenetic systematics, and macroevolution of molecules, organ systems, and species. Emphasis is on current topics and debates.

   Wesleyan University
   Pattern and Process in Macroevolution
   BIOL 369 SP
   This course will begin with a history of ideas and growth of evolutionary theory and then focus on the intrinsic processes that underpin organic evolution. We will then examine the history of life on earth focusing on the mechanisms that have generated morphological variation. This will include the origin of life, the appearance and disappearance of major taxonomic groups, rates of evolution, the differences between morphological and molecular evolution, the role of regulatory genes, and developmental mechanisms as a source of evolutionary novelty. Readings will include recent as well as classic papers drawn from the primary literature that students will be expected to discuss.

   Rowan University
   Methods in Macroevolution
   (Prerequisites: 0401.100, 0401.101)
   This laboratory course investigates how we investigate and interpret patterns of macroevolution (evolution above the species level). The course will cover a variety of topics, including systematics, species concepts, evolutionary mechanisms, and phylogenetic analysis. Laboratory exercises include the demonstrations and actual applications of investigative techniques used to study macroevolutionary patterns. This course may not be offered annually.

   University of Southern Indiana
   BIOL 481: Organic Evolution (3) A discussion of the science of evolution and how evolutionary theory can explain the diversity of life on earth. Topics include evidence for macroevolution, the history of evolutionary thought, adaptation, population genetics, speciation, and human evolution. (3-0) Prereq: BIOL 215; junior status in science or consent of instructor. F, Sp

   University of Virginia
   BIOL 301 - (3) (S)
   Genetics and Evolution
   Prerequisite: BIOL 300; CHEM 141, 142.
   Examines the inheritance of genes, the genetic basis of traits, and mechanisms of evolutionary change, with an emphasis on the genetic and evolutionary principles needed to understand the diversification of life on earth. Major topics include the Mendelian inheritance, mutation, linkage and recombination, as well as the genetics of natural populations, adaptation in various forms, molecular evolution and macroevolution. Required for all Biology majors.

   University of Rhode Island
   350 Evolution (I, 4) Introduction to evolution as the unifying thread in the biosphere. Processes and patterns discussed, including microevolution and macroevolution. Social impact of evolution discussed from a biological perspective. Pre: GEO 102 or one semester of biological sciences, or permission of instructors. Twombly and Fastovsky

   Southwestern University
   BIOL 481: Organic Evolution (3) A discussion of the science of evolution and how evolutionary theory can explain the diversity of life on earth. Topics include evidence for macroevolution, the history of evolutionary thought, adaptation, population genetics, speciation, and human evolution. (3-0) Prereq: BIOL 215; junior status in science or consent of instructor. F, Sp

   Victoria University of Wellington
   BIOL 403 – Evolution
   This course focuses on classic questions in evolution including speciation processes, reconstruction of biological history from modern specimens, macroevolution, the origin(s) of complexity, and human evolution. Special emphasis is given to the impact of data produced by modern molecular techniques, including DNA sequences.

   Western Illinois University
   503 Biosystematics and Evolution. (3) Philosophy of science, review of evolutionary theory, taxonomy, modern systematics, phylogenetics, macroevolution, and applications of phylogenetic systematics. Prerequisite: Graduate standing in biology.

   University of Toronto
   ZOO 362H1F
   Introduction to Macroevolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are hundreds of more examples, but it's easier for you to remain an ignorant blustering Servant Of Da Lawd, right?   :D
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 14 2008,18:45

Macroevolution? FTK, I was under the impression that the fish-amphibian transition one of the topics of discussion before you fled your thread. Come back and we can discuss the reptile-mammal transition, the evolution of whale, crocodiles, elephants, sirenians, etc.
Posted by: raguel on Sep. 15 2008,12:17

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,16:39)
OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because,outside of paleobiogeography, morphology, genetics,evo-devo, and ERVs, and the consilience of evidence thereof, evolutionists got nothin'.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 15 2008,12:35

Luskin is incompetent as a lawyer - every time he opens his mouth on law he makes a fool of himself. Even the Discovery Institute has to backtrack and say he was wrong. Which would be why they don't allow him to work as a lawyer in any official capacity. He's an idiot, and they know it.

Now why on earth would you trust anything he says about biology, a subject he knows even less about?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 26 2008,22:29

Another gem from ERV < Creationist almost discovers promoters/enhancers >
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 26 2008,22:38

Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 26 2008,22:29)
Another gem from ERV < Creationist almost discovers promoters/enhancers >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here's one more up your alley, Dood. >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The latest retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance comes on the heels of a published re-analysis of the bones of Panderichthys. The study used CT scans to show Panderichthys apparently had a few well-defined radial bones in its pectoral fins. (Radial bones are found only in fish fins, but evolutionary paleontologists contend that radial bones are homologous to digits in tetrapod limbs.) When commenting on this new find, the paper’s lead author, Catherine A. Boisvert, boasted in an interview with The Scientist that "it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod." Boisvert also praised her findings, stating: "The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik."

Confident that her fossil showed evolution better than Tiktaalik, Boisvert and other Darwinists then proceeded to admit striking criticisms of Tiktaalik. The interview with Boisvert at The Scientist states, "Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well -- although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other." (emphasis added)

The "quality" of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was “poor”? When did we see Darwinists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn't dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better.

Moreover, now that we have Panderichthys, Darwinists are openly admitting that the orientation of Tiktaalik's radials do "not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint." That's a good point, but it's old news for readers of ENV: in August, I observed that Tiktaalik’s radial bones could not be likened to tetrapod digits unless you "[d]ramatically repattern, reposition, and transform the existing radials by lining them up, separating them out."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe that's why they don't seem to show the *exact* Tik fossil bone representing the "wrist" at Shubin's website...."the quality of the speciman is poor".  

But, what about those hiccups, huh?  I'm sure he got that idea right. :p
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 26 2008,23:09

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,22:38)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 26 2008,22:29)
Another gem from ERV < Creationist almost discovers promoters/enhancers >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here's one more up your alley, Dood. >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The latest retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance comes on the heels of a published re-analysis of the bones of Panderichthys. The study used CT scans to show Panderichthys apparently had a few well-defined radial bones in its pectoral fins. (Radial bones are found only in fish fins, but evolutionary paleontologists contend that radial bones are homologous to digits in tetrapod limbs.) When commenting on this new find, the paper’s lead author, Catherine A. Boisvert, boasted in an interview with The Scientist that "it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod." Boisvert also praised her findings, stating: "The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik."

Confident that her fossil showed evolution better than Tiktaalik, Boisvert and other Darwinists then proceeded to admit striking criticisms of Tiktaalik. The interview with Boisvert at The Scientist states, "Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well -- although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other." (emphasis added)

The "quality" of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was “poor”? When did we see Darwinists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn't dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better.

Moreover, now that we have Panderichthys, Darwinists are openly admitting that the orientation of Tiktaalik's radials do "not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint." That's a good point, but it's old news for readers of ENV: in August, I observed that Tiktaalik’s radial bones could not be likened to tetrapod digits unless you "[d]ramatically repattern, reposition, and transform the existing radials by lining them up, separating them out."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe that's why they don't seem to show the *exact* Tik fossil bone representing the "wrist" at Shubin's website...."the quality of the speciman is poor".  

But, what about those hiccups, huh?  I'm sure he got that idea right. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Careful FTK, I have the  Panderichthys paper and will be doing a post on it and Luskin's views. I have to do one on the same paper and Luskin post ERV talked about first. Suffice to say, Luskin should really refrain from talking about sciences he knows nothing about.

Edit: fixed a typo.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 27 2008,08:28

Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 27 2008,00:09)
Suffice to say, Luskin should really refrain from talking about sciences he knows nothing about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


redundant.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 27 2008,08:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Suffice to say, Luskin should really refrain from talking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There, I fixed it...
Posted by: dnmlthr on Sep. 27 2008,08:33

Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 27 2008,14:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Suffice to say, Luskin should really refrain from talking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There, I fixed it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disagree. With friends like Luskin, who needs enemies?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 27 2008,08:40

Good point.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 27 2008,12:48

I'm surprised that Luskin has any time at ALL, what with doing the usual Bible Reading and then getting ready for the new "Dover Trap Dance" scheduled to kick off soon in SC...

And as a Special Bonus - A Lenny Flank Sighting in teh comments.

< Darksyde Post >
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 27 2008,21:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe that's why they don't seem to show the *exact* Tik fossil bone representing the "wrist" at Shubin's website...."the quality of the speciman is poor".  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Say, uh, FTK, here is a crazy idea, totally insane in point of fact, but well, let me run it past you and you tell me what you think. Bear with me, I know you will flip your wig and all, but please, keep an open mind. This picture of the wrist you and Luskin are looking for, don't close yourself off to the radicalness of this idea - stick with me now, perhaps you could:




< Oh, I don't know, check the supplementary material, which is freeking freely available for download! >

Strange, crazy, radical, I know, creationist actually doing research and finding something on their own. Too off the wall to even contemplate...  :p
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 29 2008,20:34

< My take on Luskin's latest Junk DNA argument. >

Edit to add: I'm working on a response to his latest Panderichthys silliness but that may take a while since I have a ton of stuff on the fish/amphibian transition - especially as it relates to the limbs and I haven't made up my mind on how much or how little to include. Don't want to loose sight of the forest for the trees and all...
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 30 2008,08:38

Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 29 2008,20:34)
< My take on Luskin's latest Junk DNA argument. >

Edit to add: I'm working on a response to his latest Panderichthys silliness but that may take a while since I have a ton of stuff on the fish/amphibian transition - especially as it relates to the limbs and I haven't made up my mind on how much or how little to include. Don't want to loose sight of the forest for the trees and all...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bonus Points for you, if you can affix DaveScot's face to a visual of it!
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 14 2008,00:48

UD is nothing but politics. In desperation I go to Evolution News and Views. Agh! Casey hasn't written anything in nearly a week. I'm starting to get tard withdrawal!
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 14 2008,07:45

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2008,00:48)
UD is nothing but politics. In desperation I go to Evolution News and Views. Agh! Casey hasn't written anything in nearly a week. I'm starting to get tard withdrawal!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on Casey's past performance,he must be helping to work on the McCain Economic Plan, or the Palin Ethics Panel...
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 14 2008,11:12

Quote (raguel @ Sep. 15 2008,12:17)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,16:39)
OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because,outside of paleobiogeography, morphology, genetics,evo-devo, and ERVs, and the consilience of evidence thereof, evolutionists got nothin'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is this micro vs. macro thing some people are complaining about?

If you slice the path of your car going from LA to Chigago thin enough, you will find that it moves only a millimeter or even less at a time. but nevertheless, in due time you will get to Chicago anyway! That is quite some macro movement - executed in micro steps, just as we find in evolution...
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 02 2008,12:18

Luskin did not post anything on ENV last month, so I was getting worried about him.  I'm happy to report that Casey has been accounted for.  He's been < fighting little green men > at a local library.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recently I went to a public library to do some work, and I saw a book featured on top of a reference desk titled Life on Other Planets (by Rhonda Lucas Donald, Watts Library, 2003). The title page featured little green men with big alien bug-eyes, the kind of picture you might see on some nutty UFO website. The book and its display were clearly aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged. Fun and silly pictures don’t bother me if they get kids interested in reading about science. The problem here was that when I opened the book, what I found was not science, but science-fiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not making it up.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 02 2008,15:14

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2008,12:18)
Luskin did not post anything on ENV last month, so I was getting worried about him.  I'm happy to report that Casey has been accounted for.  He's been < fighting little green men > at a local library.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recently I went to a public library to do some work, and I saw a book featured on top of a reference desk titled Life on Other Planets (by Rhonda Lucas Donald, Watts Library, 2003). The title page featured little green men with big alien bug-eyes, the kind of picture you might see on some nutty UFO website. The book and its display were clearly aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged. Fun and silly pictures don’t bother me if they get kids interested in reading about science. The problem here was that when I opened the book, what I found was not science, but science-fiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not making it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Epic Fail Again For Casey

What an idiot!

Casey finishes up his screed with what for him is a blistering comment, and to all normal people is a whiny little chirp...about how the book should be filed as fiction in the 800s.

Well, Casey, you Ignoramus, the Dewey Decimal system does not classify fiction as "800".  Fiction is not affected by the Dewey System, fiction is alphabetized by author's last name.

The "800s" for Dewey is Literature. - see the link

< Casey Fails Again >

Maybe he can come here again and apologize for insulting librarians and libraries all over the country.

You know, I seem to recall stories about the Library Of Alexandria being burned by Christians, so maybe Casey is just living up to his traditions.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 02 2008,17:33

The funniest thing is this: Casey thinks that the book is "aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged."  The publisher recommends it for ages 9-12.

< Life on Other Planets > on amazon.com.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 02 2008,18:02

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 14 2008,12:12)
If you slice the path of your car going from LA to Chigago thin enough, you will find that it moves only a millimeter or even less at a time. but nevertheless, in due time you will get to Chicago anyway! That is quite some macro movement - executed in micro steps, just as we find in evolution...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[Behe]

No it didn't. It appeared in Chicago by Magic Poof Theory. If you would like to dispute that, you Conservation of Mass zealot, please provide me with evidence giving , for every single minute, the car's position, the car's speed, the wind speed, how much gas was in the tank, and what was on the radio. Only then will I be satisfied with your dogmatically materialistic explanation.

[/Behe]

Speaking of Casey i emailed EN&V and asked them how much traffic their site gets. No reply.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 02 2008,18:31

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2008,18:02)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 14 2008,12:12)
If you slice the path of your car going from LA to Chigago thin enough, you will find that it moves only a millimeter or even less at a time. but nevertheless, in due time you will get to Chicago anyway! That is quite some macro movement - executed in micro steps, just as we find in evolution...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[Behe]

No it didn't. It appeared in Chicago by Magic Poof Theory. If you would like to dispute that, you Conservation of Mass zealot, please provide me with evidence giving , for every single minute, the car's position, the car's speed, the wind speed, how much gas was in the tank, and what was on the radio. Only then will I be satisfied with your dogmatically materialistic explanation.

[/Behe]

Speaking of Casey i emailed EN&V and asked them how much traffic their site gets. No reply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can email casey, ask him why he hates libraries and learning so much.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Dec. 02 2008,19:55

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2008,17:33)
The funniest thing is this: Casey thinks that the book is "aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged."  The publisher recommends it for ages 9-12.

< Life on Other Planets > on amazon.com.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, there's the problem. Casey is too young to be in the Adult section. A good librarian would have provided better guidance. No wonder he was having difficulty-that book was WAY too advanced* for him.

*credit to MiB
Posted by: ERV on Dec. 02 2008,20:22

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2008,17:33)
The funniest thing is this: Casey thinks that the book is "aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged."  The publisher recommends it for ages 9-12.

< Life on Other Planets > on amazon.com.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I loled at that.  Thanks oleg!
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 02 2008,21:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The funniest thing is this: Casey thinks that the book is "aimed at students ? perhaps junior high or high school-aged."  The publisher recommends it for ages 9-12.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a one year overlap there - what more do ya want? :p

Henry
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 02 2008,22:46

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 02 2008,15:14)
   
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2008,12:18)
Luskin did not post anything on ENV last month, so I was getting worried about him.  I'm happy to report that Casey has been accounted for.  He's been < fighting little green men > at a local library.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recently I went to a public library to do some work, and I saw a book featured on top of a reference desk titled Life on Other Planets (by Rhonda Lucas Donald, Watts Library, 2003). The title page featured little green men with big alien bug-eyes, the kind of picture you might see on some nutty UFO website. The book and its display were clearly aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged. Fun and silly pictures don’t bother me if they get kids interested in reading about science. The problem here was that when I opened the book, what I found was not science, but science-fiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not making it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Epic Fail Again For Casey

What an idiot!

Casey finishes up his screed with what for him is a blistering comment, and to all normal people is a whiny little chirp...about how the book should be filed as fiction in the 800s.

Well, Casey, you Ignoramus, the Dewey Decimal system does not classify fiction as "800".  Fiction is not affected by the Dewey System, fiction is alphabetized by author's last name.

The "800s" for Dewey is Literature. - see the link

< Casey Fails Again >

Maybe he can come here again and apologize for insulting librarians and libraries all over the country.

You know, I seem to recall stories about the Library Of Alexandria being burned by Christians, so maybe Casey is just living up to his traditions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry to correct you J-Dog, but fiction is classified under Dewey - it's just that most libraries create a separate fiction section for various reasons, including ease of use and space (the 800s can get awfully long).

Of course, Casey is an idiot for wanting to shelve it in "childrens literature" if he's upset that it's aimed for kids.

Disco Decimal System?
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 02 2008,23:41

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2008,17:33)
The funniest thing is this: Casey thinks that the book is "aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged."  The publisher recommends it for ages 9-12.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey was a late bloomer.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 03 2008,02:07

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 02 2008,22:46)
Of course, Casey is an idiot for wanting to shelve it in "childrens literature" if he's upset that it's aimed for kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that is the thing, isn't it?  His real issue is that they are working what he thought was his side of the street.  And even though ID doesn't speculate to the identity of Teh Designer and is open to the possibility that he/she/it may be a space alien ( wink! wink!), Casey doesn't want anything out there that might actually lead someone to the conclusion that it is.  That will not do. No sir, that will not do at all.
Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 03 2008,07:29

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 03 2008,07:41)
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2008,17:33)
The funniest thing is this: Casey thinks that the book is "aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged."  The publisher recommends it for ages 9-12.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey was a late bloomer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah a late bloomer that grew hair all over his body  at 8 years old.
When all his mothers friends offered to take him under the bleachers he weaseled his way out.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 03 2008,08:10

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 02 2008,22:46)
Sorry to correct you J-Dog, but fiction is classified under Dewey - it's just that most libraries create a separate fiction section for various reasons, including ease of use and space (the 800s can get awfully long).

Of course, Casey is an idiot for wanting to shelve it in "childrens literature" if he's upset that it's aimed for kids.

Disco Decimal System?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


NOES!!!!!!

Do you think I have to actually apologize to Casey?????

Dear Lacey Buskin,

I am sorry that I thought you were wrong once and that I thought you were a doo-doo head.

However, I currently hold the view that you are a lying disingenuous sack of shit, and for this I offer no apologies, only proof.

Sincerely,

J-Dog
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 22 2008,20:42

< Awww, Casey's dream is dead. >

I'm sure there is a lolcat out there somewhere that is appropriate for the occasion.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 22 2008,21:13

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 22 2008,21:42)
< Awww, Casey's dream is dead. >

I'm sure there is a lolcat out there somewhere that is appropriate for the occasion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Waterloo! Waterloo! Any day now!

lol, that's brutal.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 22 2008,21:26

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 22 2008,18:42)
< Awww, Casey's dream is dead. >

I'm sure there is a lolcat out there somewhere that is appropriate for the occasion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh very well:




Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 23 2008,08:03

Bwa ha ha!  I liked Casey's comment about how he would love to stay, and chat, but he has to go wash his hair...

"And brave Sir Casey ran away, ran away, ran away..."


Posted by: Leftfield on Dec. 23 2008,14:06

I like Casey's comment that:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This week alone the IDEA Center received requests to start about 3 new IDEA Clubs.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



About 3? That's the sort of mathematical and scientific precision I've come to expect from the DI and its mouthpieces.

< http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008....5888201 >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 23 2008,14:24

If the DI is actually funding these clubs, they might want to keep some of them more "on-message". The < website > for the chapter in Baraboo, WI has this on its list of purposes.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
? Promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an Intelligent Designer

? Hold, through other arguments, that the identity of the Designer is consistent with the God of the Bible

? Educate people about scientific problems with purely natural explanations for the origins and evolution of life

? Challenge the philosophical assumptions of Darwinism, naturalism, and materialism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interestingly, the "statement of purpose" in the < Sample Club Charter > at the national IDEA center has a duplicate entry in the list of purposes.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Statement of Purpose: The purpose of this organization shall be to:

  1. Promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligent designer,
  2. Educate people about scientific problems with purely natural explanations for the origins and evolution of life,
  3. Challenge the philosophical assumptions of Darwinism, naturalism, and materialism,
  4. Challenge the philosophical assumptions of Darwinism, naturalism, and materialism,
  5. Support academic freedom for legitimate intellectual viewpoints in academia and the culture as a whole;
  6. Facilitate discussion, debate, and dialogue over these issues in a warm, friendly, and open atmosphere where individuals feel free to speak their personal views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this another typo by ace lawyer Luskin, or was there another purpose in the orginal list that has been fossilized in the Baraboo club's website?
Posted by: jeffox on Dec. 23 2008,14:56

Baraboo isn't big.  This link to my blog shows a little of what it's like nearby.  Kinda.  :)  Anyways, I think that the local amateur geology club is bigger than the IDEA chapter anyways.  :P

Anyways, enjoy:  < Barabooboo >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 24 2008,08:27

< Blood in the water as Casey takes on Ken Miller >

Someone should tell Casey that self-flagellation should come after swimming.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 24 2008,08:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 24 2008,08:27)
< Blood in the water as Casey takes on Ken Miller >

Someone should tell Casey that self-flagellation should come after swimming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's only Episode 1 in the series, but Casey has already jumped the shark:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I like to explain the "irreducible core" using the analogy of a bicycle: A bicycle has an irreducible core that requires a frame, two wheels, a motor mechanism (like legs on pedals), and a steering mechanism (like handle-bars attached to the front wheel). A bicycle also has a seat, but obviously you can ride a bike without a seat (though it wouldn't be very fun). So, while the seat sure helps a lot, it is not part of the irreducible core of a bike. Same could be said for light deflectors, etc. So the fact that a bike has a couple dispensable parts doesn't mean that there isn't an irreducible core to a bike.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Image: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Torker_Unicycle.JPG >
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 24 2008,08:57

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 24 2008,08:48)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 24 2008,08:27)
< Blood in the water as Casey takes on Ken Miller >

Someone should tell Casey that self-flagellation should come after swimming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's only Episode 1 in the series, but Casey has already jumped the shark:  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No gears. No pedals. No seat.


Posted by: dochocson on Dec. 24 2008,13:43

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 24 2008,06:48)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 24 2008,08:27)
< Blood in the water as Casey takes on Ken Miller >

Someone should tell Casey that self-flagellation should come after swimming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's only Episode 1 in the series, but Casey has already jumped the shark:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I like to explain the "irreducible core" using the analogy of a bicycle: A bicycle has an irreducible core that requires a frame, two wheels, a motor mechanism (like legs on pedals), and a steering mechanism (like handle-bars attached to the front wheel). A bicycle also has a seat, but obviously you can ride a bike without a seat (though it wouldn't be very fun). So, while the seat sure helps a lot, it is not part of the irreducible core of a bike. Same could be said for light deflectors, etc. So the fact that a bike has a couple dispensable parts doesn't mean that there isn't an irreducible core to a bike.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Image: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Torker_Unicycle.JPG >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAH! SILLY DARWINIST!

You clearly have fallen victim to Casey's diabolical trap! Your obviously staged photograph is of a unicycle! The Hero of the IDEA revolution was talking about a bicycle! Has anyone ever seen a unicycle evolve into a bicycle?

But seriously. Does Casey even read what he writes? And what are "light deflectors"? Does his bike have shielding technology?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 24 2008,16:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does his bike have shielding technology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Reality shields.

Discovery Institute standard issue.
Posted by: BopDiddy on Dec. 25 2008,16:08

Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 02 2008,19:55)
 
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2008,17:33)
The funniest thing is this: Casey thinks that the book is "aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged."  The publisher recommends it for ages 9-12.

< Life on Other Planets > on amazon.com.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, there's the problem. Casey is too young short to be in the Adult section. A good librarian would have provided better guidance. No wonder he was having difficulty-that book was WAY too advanced* for him.

*credit to MiB
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY

/too little, too late, but I tried
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 26 2008,19:47

Question:  Once you've jumped a shark successfully, does that make you an idiot, a fool or an Expert Shark Jumper?

Our pal Casey gives us the answer out at Evo News and Views with his "review" of Edward Humes book "Monkey Girl" where Casey references such stellar intellectual, scientific and historical websites as ...

... wait for it ...

FTK!

Yes, Casey offers as PROOF ReasonableKansans!!

Go, Casey!
Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 26 2008,20:01

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 26 2008,19:47)
Question:  Once you've jumped a shark successfully, does that make you an idiot, a fool or an Expert Shark Jumper?

Our pal Casey gives us the answer out at Evo News and Views with his "review" of Edward Humes book "Monkey Girl" where Casey references such stellar intellectual, scientific and historical websites as ...

... wait for it ...

FTK!

Yes, Casey offers as PROOF ReasonableKansans!!

Go, Casey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hume's < "Monkey Girl" > was first published on January 30, 2007, just a month and a few days shy of two years ago. Just a week or so ago, Luskin was flailing away at Judge Jones three year old ruling in the Kitzmiller case.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think these guys keep recycling the same old crap since they don't have any recent ground breaking scientific discoveries to share with us.  Good thing I know better.  ;)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 26 2008,20:10

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 26 2008,20:47)
Question:  Once you've jumped a shark successfully, does that make you an idiot, a fool or an Expert Shark Jumper?

Our pal Casey gives us the answer out at Evo News and Views with his "review" of Edward Humes book "Monkey Girl" where Casey references such stellar intellectual, scientific and historical websites as ...

... wait for it ...

FTK!

Yes, Casey offers as PROOF ReasonableKansans!!

Go, Casey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


holy crap.

That's all I got.
Posted by: khan on Dec. 26 2008,20:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 26 2008,21:10)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 26 2008,20:47)
Question:  Once you've jumped a shark successfully, does that make you an idiot, a fool or an Expert Shark Jumper?

Our pal Casey gives us the answer out at Evo News and Views with his "review" of Edward Humes book "Monkey Girl" where Casey references such stellar intellectual, scientific and historical websites as ...

... wait for it ...

FTK!

Yes, Casey offers as PROOF ReasonableKansans!!

Go, Casey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


holy crap.

That's all I got.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great hot heaping hunks of TARD.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 26 2008,20:29

Oh, < the irony is thick > as Casey goes on a longwinded rant about how Monkey Girl is partisan and inaccurate, all the while using for support.... Discovery.org and his own articles at EN&V, with a few references to F'theKids as gravy on the TardSandwich.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the most pernicious aspects of Monkey Girl is its extensive use of caricaturing, consistently indulging stereotypes that portray Darwin-skeptics as “yahoos, religious zealots, and scientifically suspect charlatans” (p. 28) while portraying evolutionists as interesting, intelligent, and cool scientists. I have no objections to Humes' positive portrayals of evolutionists, but it's difficult to believe Humes' complaints about stereotyping when his selection and portrayal of pro-ID characters encourages the reader to accept those negative stereotypes about Darwin-skeptics. For example, Humes contrasts a favorable description of a theistic evolutionist geologist with a fundamentalist preacher who preaches that it's “a sin (not to mention tasteless, unpatriotic, and downright rude)” (p. 21) to accept evolution. Humes characterizes the preacher as close-minded, saying, "the devil with Charles Darwin. Literally.” (pg. 22) Humes gives inordinate amounts of print-space to discussing other extremist examples like the "creationist evangelist" Kent Hovind. Humes admits that Hovind is “probably the last person with whom advocates of design at the Discovery Institute would wish to see their cause associated.” (pg. 67) That may be true, which makes it highly suspicious that Humes spends so much time to discussing Hovind in a book about intelligent design. For details on these "Inherit the Wind Stereotypes," see Phillip Johnson, “< Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds >," and for commentary about Monkey Girl's use of stereotyping, see Reasonable Kansans blogs at < http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/03/just-thinking.html > and < http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007....rl.html >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey Casey, nice move using F'theKids to argue that Monkey Girl is wrong in its "extensive use of caricaturing, consistently indulging stereotypes that portray Darwin-skeptics as “yahoos, religious zealots, and scientifically suspect charlatans”'

That's pretty damned funny right there. Comedic gold.

Oh, and

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
inordinate amounts of print-space to discussing other extremist examples like the "creationist evangelist" Kent Hovind
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?

You're absolutely right. He should have, in all fairness, spent more time on more mainstream cdesign proponentsists.  Like Uncle Walty or F'theKids, right?

Thanks, Casey. Happy Holidays, dude.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 28 2008,10:34

Luskin and reality have never really been friends. Sure, he winks and makes flirty noises at reality, but has never been able to seal the deal. My favorite qoute from the article is this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where does Humes get this false idea that we promote such a "conspiracy" theory? He doesn't say. This seems to be more imaginative journalism on the part of Humes, who gives no documentation whatsoever to back up his claim that Discovery Institute postulates such an outlandish "vast conspiracy" theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe Hume saw Expelled?
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 30 2008,18:58

Apparently, Casey is in worse shape than I thought.  He knows that unicycles exist, but he < still insists > that a bicycle is irreducible:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, consider again the bicycle. Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you'll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A round of applause, please!

And now, for Casey's sake, here's a < video > of a bicycle with one wheel that functions pretty well.  Enjoy!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 30 2008,19:16

Quote (khan @ Dec. 26 2008,18:14)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 26 2008,21:10)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 26 2008,20:47)
Question:  Once you've jumped a shark successfully, does that make you an idiot, a fool or an Expert Shark Jumper?

Our pal Casey gives us the answer out at Evo News and Views with his "review" of Edward Humes book "Monkey Girl" where Casey references such stellar intellectual, scientific and historical websites as ...

... wait for it ...

FTK!

Yes, Casey offers as PROOF ReasonableKansans!!

Go, Casey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


holy crap.

That's all I got.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great hot heaping hunks of TARD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great hot heaping steaming hunks of tard. :O
Posted by: bystander on Dec. 31 2008,01:49

I'd love this to be referenced on UD with all of the true believers being forced to defend it ( being as they have to defend everything any other IDist says).

I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 31 2008,08:14

Quote (bystander @ Dec. 31 2008,01:49)
I'd love this to be referenced on UD with all of the true believers being forced to defend it ( being as they have to defend everything any other IDist says).

I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that anyone that has Luskin working for them would do your "wack in the back of the head" several times a day.

Top 10 Other Habits of Casey Luskin's Bosses

10.) Drink heavily, early and often
9.) View Travel Posters longingly
8.) Update resume and send out on a regular basis
7.) Send out Casey's resume to other employers every day
6.) Evolve from fervent ID Creationist to Type 1 Atheist (How could a good and loving God inflict a Luskin on me???!!!)
5.) Develop an unreasoning fear of caterpillars
4.) Finally begin to realize what Shakespeare meant with his line about "the lawyers".
3.) Start to re-read old legal cases with verdicts of "justifiable homicide".
2.) Pressure HR to start hiring disgruntled Postal Workers
1.) Start writing fiction books as an escape from reality - first book called The Design Of Life
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 31 2008,08:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alas, this is clearly not the case.  Our uni-browed, pinheaded friend, Luskin, has found his ecological niche.  He is Nature's answer to What's a Creationist Propagandist look like?

From observations in the wild I give you Luskin's boss, Rob Crowther, who writes excitingly about

< New Research >

Rob writes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is another hilarious example of a just-so story from Science Daily. (In fact, this one is more just so-so.) Substitute the words "made up" whenever you read characterized. Were they in court, a judge would surely say: "Show me the evidence."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He hasn't even read the article in Nature because it's not out yet.  He's commenting on a report of a report.

What Rob is saying is that the researchers "made up" their report.  Invented it.  Fabricated.  Just-so.

I don't know about you but in my book that's intellectual slander.

Returning, now, the main thesis, based on Rob's behavior I conclude that Casey isn't an idiot, he's an apprentice!
Posted by: csadams on Dec. 31 2008,09:15

Casey Luskin, victim:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On a personal note, I am familiar with these kinds of attacks. In one single forum at Antievolution.org, created and owned by a former National Center for Science Education staff member, I have been called no less than "Bizarre ignoramus," "retarded," "suck-up," "Pathetic Loser," "attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy," "an orc," "Annoying," "a miserable loser with no life," "an idiot," "dishonest," "ignorant cheap poxied floozie," "fanatic and lunatic," "A proven liar," "incompetent," and many other far more colorful attacks which are probably best left unprinted here on Evolution News and Views.

I don't list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me, and in fact my main response to this behavior is sadness for how it brings the ID-evolution debate down into the gutter. Rather, I raise this example to point out that this example alone finds no counterpart anywhere in the ways that ID proponents have treated Darwinists. The internet Darwinist track record of name-calling against ID proponents speaks for itself, and Humes has portrayed the nature of personal attacks in this issue exactly backwards from reality.

It is a travesty when anyone — whether a supporter of evolution or ID — is attacked in a mean-spirited fashion in this debate. Humes aims to shock his readers with how evolutionists are treated, while taking no interest in reporting how ID proponents are treated--which is dramatically worse than the treatment of Darwinists. This shows his partisan bias against ID proponents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This alternative reality in which ID supporters don't harass science supporters is brought to you by < EN&V >.

According to my copy of "Monkey Girl," it looks like Casey would like us to ignore these bits:

p. xi - Rev. Jim Grove calling the court proceedings "the Devil's work."  

p. xii - Grove stating that "you're sure not going to hear [the truth] in there" referring to the courtroom.

p. xiv - "Children have been ridiculed in the school yard for being open to the concept evolution, taunted and mocked for being related to monkeys.  A Dover High School student's senior project, a sixteen-foot mural depicting the ascent of man from lower forms, which had been donated to the school and displayed in a science classroom, was taken down and burned - not by vandals, but by a school district official, with the  tacit, if no gleeful approval of school board members."
Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 31 2008,10:06

""Bizarre ignoramus," "retarded," "suck-up," "Pathetic Loser," "attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy," "an orc," "Annoying," "a miserable loser with no life," "an idiot," "dishonest," "ignorant cheap poxied floozie," "fanatic and lunatic," "A proven liar," "incompetent,"

Com'on! We can do better than that!

Here, I'll get the ball rolling...."AV Club dropout"...."Pseudo-Nerd"...."Intellectual Wannabe"....
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 31 2008,11:09

Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 31 2008,10:06)
""Bizarre ignoramus," "retarded," "suck-up," "Pathetic Loser," "attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy," "an orc," "Annoying," "a miserable loser with no life," "an idiot," "dishonest," "ignorant cheap poxied floozie," "fanatic and lunatic," "A proven liar," "incompetent,"

Com'on! We can do better than that!

Here, I'll get the ball rolling...."AV Club dropout"...."Pseudo-Nerd"...."Intellectual Wannabe"....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But....

When You've Said Luskin .. You've Said it All!

except maybe for poopy head, which of course he is and will always be.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 31 2008,12:45

Quote (csadams @ Dec. 31 2008,09:15)
Casey Luskin, victim:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On a personal note, I am familiar with these kinds of attacks. In one single forum at Antievolution.org, created and owned by a former National Center for Science Education staff member, I have been called no less than "Bizarre ignoramus," "retarded," "suck-up," "Pathetic Loser," "attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy," "an orc," "Annoying," "a miserable loser with no life," "an idiot," "dishonest," "ignorant cheap poxied floozie," "fanatic and lunatic," "A proven liar," "incompetent," and many other far more colorful attacks which are probably best left unprinted here on Evolution News and Views.

I don't list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me, and in fact my main response to this behavior is sadness for how it brings the ID-evolution debate down into the gutter. Rather, I raise this example to point out that this example alone finds no counterpart anywhere in the ways that ID proponents have treated Darwinists. The internet Darwinist track record of name-calling against ID proponents speaks for itself, and Humes has portrayed the nature of personal attacks in this issue exactly backwards from reality.

It is a travesty when anyone — whether a supporter of evolution or ID — is attacked in a mean-spirited fashion in this debate. Humes aims to shock his readers with how evolutionists are treated, while taking no interest in reporting how ID proponents are treated--which is dramatically worse than the treatment of Darwinists. This shows his partisan bias against ID proponents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This alternative reality in which ID supporters don't harass science supporters is brought to you by < EN&V >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey ought to be happy that we didn't compare him to a member of a evil, fascist political party that was responsible for starting a world war and engaging in the mass extermination of millions of people.  Us Darwinists have our limits, you know.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 31 2008,13:06

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 31 2008,12:45)
Casey ought to be happy that we didn't compare him to a member of a evil, fascist political party that was responsible for starting a world war and engaging in the mass extermination of millions of people.  Us Darwinists have our limits, you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Cassey should be sacrificing a herd of oxen a day to Zeus that he lives in a kind of world that allows people to give in to some weird inner fantasy that says it is okay to talk to Magic Unseen Beings.

And of course, not get burned at the stake for wearing a caterpillar on his face, or acting totally lame and behaving like an asshat.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 31 2008,14:56

Doc Bill:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our uni-browed, pinheaded friend, Luskin, has found his ecological niche.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahem.

If he's never been recognized or adopted by the clan mothers, he simply ain't a Pinhead, sorry.

A moron, a lowlife, a scumsucker, sure.

All those things that (probable distant relation and "honorary" pinhead) Steverino called him, no doubt.

But a Pinhead, no...

The clan's lawyer's are calling the doc's lawyers, even as we weep!
Posted by: Bueller_007 on Dec. 31 2008,15:27

Quote (bystander @ Dec. 31 2008,01:49)
I'd love this to be referenced on UD with all of the true believers being forced to defend it ( being as they have to defend everything any other IDist says).

I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your wish has been granted.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....plexity >
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 31 2008,16:13

Steviepinhead wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ahem.

If he's never been recognized or adopted by the clan mothers, he simply ain't a Pinhead, sorry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




If I had a soul it would surely be damned by this transgression of mine.  May the fleas of a thousand camels nest in my armpits.

However, calling Luskin a moron is an insult to morons, so I guess everybody's on the hook.

Curse that Luskin!  Da goober's downright uninsultable!
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2008,16:40

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 31 2008,09:14)
Top 10 Other Habits of Casey Luskin's Bosses

7.) Send out Casey's resume to other employers every day
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL.
Posted by: bystander on Dec. 31 2008,20:31

Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 01 2009,08:27)
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 31 2008,01:49)
I'd love this to be referenced on UD with all of the true believers being forced to defend it ( being as they have to defend everything any other IDist says).

I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your wish has been granted.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....plexity >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha ha. So translating it they agree that it is still OK because even though it functions with parts removed, it is a different function and therefore evolution is false. and when somebody pipes up and says this is what we expect from evolution they accuse people of bending meaning. (Head hits keyboard)

Do these guys have feet left? There are so many bullet holes in them.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 31 2008,21:51

In < another outing >, Casey cites his thread on this forum, then spouts this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me, and in fact my main response to this behavior is sadness for how it brings the ID-evolution debate down into the gutter. Rather, I mention this example to point out that this example alone finds no counterpart anywhere in the ways that ID proponents have treated Darwinists. The internet Darwinist track record of name-calling against ID proponents speaks for itself, and Humes has portrayed the general nature of personal and ad hominem attacks in this issue exactly backwards from reality.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis added.

Casey, your < ignorance > is showing. As usual.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 01 2009,07:53

I love dear, sweet Casey's "argument"* in all of this:

1) Someone was mean to me on Teh Intarnetz
2) Therefore IDC is persecuted
3) Therefore Darwinists = Teh Nazis
4) Therefore IDC is correct
5) Therefore Jesus (A Jesus, in an ID argument? Schtum, schtum!) Tehdesignerdunit.

QED.**

Louis

* By insinuation and appeal to prejudice as per usual.

** Qasey Est Doofus.***

*** And you can quote me on that.

P.S. Does Casey really, really, think that all "Darwinists" (Who they? Ed.) have is argumentum ad hominem? Does he need explaining to him that a) no one I've ever seen/read/listened to has EVER used the argumentum ad hominem, to refute any IDCist claim, and b) that abuse =/= argumentum ad hominem.

It's like a Monty Python sketch, I think that Casey is unaware that he stumbled out of the Argument room a long time ago and has instead found himself in the room marked "Abuse". It's a lovely room, reserved for people determined to make an utter berk of themselves in public.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2009,09:03

Hey, when was the last time one of us Church Burnin Ebola Boys called the Department of Homeland Security on an IDiot?

Oh wait. Yeah, that wasn't us, was it?
Posted by: RupertG on Jan. 02 2009,21:20

Meanwhile, Ken Miller is being < extremely unfair > to Casey over on the Loom, by actually reading what Casey says, comparing it to what Casey's talking about, and pointing out one or two minor discrepancies. You know, like where Behe didn't say what Casey said he said, but wrote it down in his books anyway.

As it's on the Loom, of course, Casey is entirely at liberty to enter into a discussion on these and what promise to be some substantial further points.

I hope we can get this unpleasantness tidied away in time for ID's next science report.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 03 2009,12:19

It's nice that the antievolutionists are still getting drubbed by Ken Miller (who has some guest posts up at Carl Zimmer's The Loom). Casey Luskin is now learning some stuff about cetacean blood clotting from Miller. I was there at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002 when Ken Miller surprised Michael Behe with the fact that cetaceans lacked Hagemann factor. It shouldn't have surprised Behe, as it was in the literature since 1969. And I was there at a dinner earlier in 2002 when my friend Mark Todd pointed out the cetacean blood clotting difference to Ken Miller. We were talking about the various IDC arguments, and when it came around to blood clotting, Mark said, "But whales and dolphins don't have one of those factors." Ken asked for the reference, and we got that from < Sam Ridgway > shortly thereafter.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 03 2009,12:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Luskin is now learning some stuff about cetacean blood clotting from Miller.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Learning?  You think?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 03 2009,13:34

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 03 2009,12:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Luskin is now learning some stuff about cetacean blood clotting from Miller.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Learning?  You think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is Luskin even self aware enough to realize the magnitude of the whupping he is taking? Or will he continue in blissful ignorance?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 03 2009,13:59

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 03 2009,13:34)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 03 2009,12:39)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Luskin is now learning some stuff about cetacean blood clotting from Miller.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Learning?  You think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is Luskin even self aware enough to realize the magnitude of the whupping he is taking? Or will he continue in blissful ignorance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The correct answer is "continue in blissful ignorance" -

Now what do I win, and what is my prize???
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 03 2009,15:34

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 03 2009,13:59)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 03 2009,13:34)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 03 2009,12:39)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Luskin is now learning some stuff about cetacean blood clotting from Miller.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Learning?  You think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is Luskin even self aware enough to realize the magnitude of the whupping he is taking? Or will he continue in blissful ignorance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The correct answer is "continue in blissful ignorance" -

Now what do I win, and what is my prize???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was going to say the gift of fire, but then I remembered that, unlike Neanderthals, australopithecines didn't make fire ???
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 04 2009,20:55

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 03 2009,15:34)
I was going to say the gift of fire, but then I remembered that, unlike Neanderthals, australopithecines didn't make fire ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stereo-type!  

You're just lucky Geico could't prounouce your name right...
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 05 2009,00:45

< http://scienceblogs.com/strange....lus.php >

With William Dembski, Mike Gene, and Michael Behe pretty much quiet these days, Casey's becoming the go-to guy for creationist dumbassery. It's like an attrition thing.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 05 2009,08:08

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2009,00:45)
< http://scienceblogs.com/strange....lus.php >

With William Dembski, Mike Gene, and Michael Behe pretty much quiet these days, Casey's becoming the go-to guy for creationist dumbassery. It's like an attrition thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the Panda's commentators to Nick Matzke's dismantling of Luskin's lies mentioned that the DI - and Casey - are doing this to try and help their cause in The Next Dover Case, by trying to get information about "teach both sides" out in front of the public prior to a TX or LA test case.

I hope that the next Good Ol' Boy Judge is as smart as Judge Jones hisself.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 05 2009,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hope that the next Good Ol' Boy Judge is as smart as Judge Jones hisself.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd think the greatest fear the ID movement has is getting a dumbass judge to side with them and having that opinion overturned on appeal.

I've followed the right wing argument for some time and know they were expecting Supreme court replacements to be appointed by a conservative. Now that ain't gonna happen.

The next time this gets to the Supreme Court, it will be strike three.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 03 2009,19:06

Ack! Gasp...cough...snort...< should have never tried the pure stuff > ... brain cells dying as the concentrated tard erodes neurons...synapses melting into pile of jello...cough...gack.... :O
Posted by: khan on Feb. 03 2009,19:08

Medic!
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 03 2009,21:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Medic!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He knew the job was dangerous when he took it! ;)

Henry
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 03 2009,21:48

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2009,19:06)
Ack! Gasp...cough...snort...< should have never tried the pure stuff > ... brain cells dying as the concentrated tard erodes neurons...synapses melting into pile of jello...cough...gack.... :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, at least Luskin DOES write to go see the exhibit!

Everything else he writes is the company line, but if little johnny student DOES go see Lucy, there is a chance that (s)he might be the next Afarensis of J-dog.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 03 2009,22:08

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 03 2009,21:48)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2009,19:06)
Ack! Gasp...cough...snort...< should have never tried the pure stuff > ... brain cells dying as the concentrated tard erodes neurons...synapses melting into pile of jello...cough...gack.... :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, at least Luskin DOES write to go see the exhibit!

Everything else he writes is the company line, but if little johnny student DOES go see Lucy, there is a chance that (s)he might be the next Afarensis of J-dog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, well, in that case I'm not quite dead yet. I'm feeling better. I think I could recover...Yes, as a matter of fact I think I'll fisk this tomorrow evening.
Posted by: JLT on Feb. 04 2009,07:27

Surprise: < Casey Luskin thinks Ben Stein was EXPELLED by the University of Vermont. >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, Fogel’s denial that this bears upon academic freedom has a huge credibility gap: Fogel claims this isn’t about freedom of expression, but it seems clear that scholars aren’t free to express support for intelligent design or they are charged with “ignor[ing] the basics of scientific inquiry.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously, my academic freedom is restricted by my university (and every other university). Never got a honorary degree. QED.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Feb. 04 2009,09:00

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 04 2009,07:27)
Surprise: < Casey Luskin thinks Ben Stein was EXPELLED by the University of Vermont. >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, Fogel’s denial that this bears upon academic freedom has a huge credibility gap: Fogel claims this isn’t about freedom of expression, but it seems clear that scholars aren’t free to express support for intelligent design or they are charged with “ignor[ing] the basics of scientific inquiry.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously, my academic freedom is restricted by my university (and every other university). Never got a honorary degree. QED.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ben Stein == scholar?

When did that happen?
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 04 2009,09:09

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 04 2009,07:27)
Surprise: < Casey Luskin thinks Ben Stein was EXPELLED by the University of Vermont. >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, Fogel’s denial that this bears upon academic freedom has a huge credibility gap: Fogel claims this isn’t about freedom of expression, but it seems clear that scholars aren’t free to express support for intelligent design or they are charged with “ignor[ing] the basics of scientific inquiry.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously, my academic freedom is restricted by my university (and every other university). Never got a honorary degree. QED.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, Casey, whastsamattah? Can't get an IDEA club started at Vermont to sponsor Ben Stein?

Ben ran away, baby. Academic freedom, huh? Well, < how 'bout that >.

*Edited to add: Now Ben Stein says < I never wanted to give that speech anyway >!" We have a flounce-out! We have a flounce-out! :D


Posted by: khan on Feb. 04 2009,10:27

I could have lived a long time without that image in my brain.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 04 2009,16:55

< http://ideaclubok.org/academic-freedom-day >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This February 12th - Darwin Day - will be followed on its heels at the University of Oklahoma by Academic Freedom Day on February 20th. IDEA Club will have a display accompanied by discussion on the South Oval of the OU campus, as well as lectures by John West and Casey Luskin, advocates for intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please let there be photos.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 04 2009,17:02

< Elsewhere > they say


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
William A. Dembski, a known proponent of Intelligent Design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A known proponent? I'd say.....

That phrasing makes it sound somewhat seedy. And surprise surprise, it's a < book > signing opportunity too.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It will include book signings by both speakers
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 04 2009,17:37

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2009,16:55)
< http://ideaclubok.org/academic-freedom-day >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This February 12th - Darwin Day - will be followed on its heels at the University of Oklahoma by Academic Freedom Day on February 20th. IDEA Club will have a display accompanied by discussion on the South Oval of the OU campus, as well as lectures by John West and Casey Luskin, advocates for intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please let there be photos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can someone help me out here?  Why would the website for the IDEA club at the University of Oklahoma be < registered > by someone at < The Apologia Project > in California?

Especially since the OU IDEA Club already < registered a domain name > almost two months earlier.


Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 04 2009,18:47

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 04 2009,17:37)
Please let there be photos.[/quote]
Can someone help me out here?  Why would the website for the IDEA club at the University of Oklahoma be < registered > by someone at < The Apologia Project > in California?

Especially since the OU IDEA Club already < registered a domain name > almost two months earlier.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I ever need a Private Eye, YOU are hired!

That there's some beautiful design detection!

Perhaps Abbie can stop by and ask your question if /when they ever show up on campus.  I'm sure Dr. Dr. D would also be happy to autograph a Sweater Picture while he's there too.
Posted by: ERV on Feb. 04 2009,21:27

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2009,16:55)
< http://ideaclubok.org/academic-freedom-day >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This February 12th - Darwin Day - will be followed on its heels at the University of Oklahoma by Academic Freedom Day on February 20th. IDEA Club will have a display accompanied by discussion on the South Oval of the OU campus, as well as lectures by John West and Casey Luskin, advocates for intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please let there be photos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The 'website' you all are linking to has disappeared.

Oh please, PLEASE Baby Jesus, let this be real!!!!

*eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeegiddyclappingeeeeeeeee*
Posted by: ERV on Feb. 04 2009,21:30

ITS BACK UP! ITS BACK UP! IM GOING TO PASS OUT IM SO HAPPY!!!!!
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 04 2009,23:51

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 04 2009,07:27)
Surprise: < Casey Luskin thinks Ben Stein was EXPELLED by the University of Vermont. >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, Fogel’s denial that this bears upon academic freedom has a huge credibility gap: Fogel claims this isn’t about freedom of expression, but it seems clear that scholars aren’t free to express support for intelligent design or they are charged with “ignor[ing] the basics of scientific inquiry.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously, my academic freedom is restricted by my university (and every other university). Never got a honorary degree. QED.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(ahem) < Me >, the other day:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The UVM commencement thing is all over. Stein has backed out.

What's the bet that this gets spun as yet more persecution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For my next trick I predict the sun will rise tomorrow in the east!
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 04 2009,23:59

I'm still waiting on my prediction to come true  :angry:
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 05 2009,00:45

And look who registered the IDEA Club-OK.  Mario Lopez, one of the UDiots.

(OK, perhaps calling him an UDiot is unfair - he's by no means the worst over there)
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 05 2009,05:57

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 04 2009,18:47)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 04 2009,17:37)

Can someone help me out here?  Why would the website for the IDEA club at the University of Oklahoma be < registered > by someone at < The Apologia Project > in California?

Especially since the OU IDEA Club already < registered a domain name > almost two months earlier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I ever need a Private Eye, YOU are hired!

That there's some beautiful design detection!

Perhaps Abbie can stop by and ask your question if /when they ever show up on campus.  I'm sure Dr. Dr. D would also be happy to autograph a Sweater Picture while he's there too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I can get a day pass from the warden, I may just go and see Casey's little talk on the 20th.
Posted by: JLT on Feb. 05 2009,13:42

Welcome to our latest edition of "Did you know...?" < with Casey Luskin >. This week:
Did you know that constitutionality is a strenght of science supplementary textbooks?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Leave it to a Darwinist biologist to spin constitutionality — a strength — into a defect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Luskin seems to be a bit agitated about Brian Metscher's review of Explore Evolution which is freely available < here >.*

If you don't know how an ad hominem argument looks like you should read Luskin's post.
Because Metscher cites  < Lenny Flank's take on EE > and Lenny Flank had said some things about creationists Luskin didn't like (Luskin doesn't provide a link to Metscher's article or Lenny Flank's treatment of EE, instead he links to two comments Flank left at the Panda's Thumb two years ago) none of Metscher's critic points merit any consideration.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Demonstrating that the < paranoid style >** isn’t just limited to American politics, Austrian biologist Brian Metscher has adopted Lenny Flank’s advice on avoiding discussing the science and painting his intellectual opponents as extremists who are conspiring to skirt the law. I suspect that Metscher’s outlandish rhetoric in his attack on EE would make Lenny Flank proud. Let’s just hope that Metscher doesn’t decide to adopt Flank’s militant recommendations for defending evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I also liked this bit:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Metscher doesn’t specify precisely what those [creationist] “talking points” are, but if EE is so wrong, surely Metscher can give us a scholarly refutation of the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But of course. No problem there. Surely everyone can refute an entire book in a single article.


* If that link doesn't work,  < try this one > and scroll down to the book review section. The article is called: "Postcards from The Wedge: review and commentary on Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism by Steven C. Meyer et al.". Metscher B., Evolution and Development Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 124-125

** Obviously, a link to an article from 1964 about "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is more important than a link to the review that is "discussed".
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2009,14:58

Y'know, if I had the time and a (free) copy, I'd give a review of the book from the point of view of a first year Biology student. Somehow, I doubt Casey would care for what I had to say, however.
Posted by: JLT on Feb. 05 2009,15:39

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2009,20:58)
Y'know, if I had the time and a (free) copy, I'd give a review of the book from the point of view of a first year Biology student. Somehow, I doubt Casey would care for what I had to say, however.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a safe bet, I'd say.
I liked < John Timmer's review > of the book. He actually addressed some examples from EE in more detail.

Neither Casey Luskin nor < Paul > < Nelson > < really > < appreciated > < his > < effort >, though.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 05 2009,18:00

Paul Nelson.  Hmmmm, Paul Nelson.  The name rings a bell.  Can't quite place it.

Is Paul Nelson the unemployed dilettante who lurks around here to get his ass kicked every few years?

Or is Paul Nelson, to use John Kwoks description, the mendacious intellectual pornographer who, actually, has never produced anything?

At one time I thought Paul Nelson was the cameraman for the Girls Gone Wild videos and I was going to hit him up for some pirate copies but, alas, it was the OTHER Paul Nelson.

How come the OTHER Paul Nelson doesn't hang around here, huh?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 08 2009,13:56

< In case any one is interested, I have fisked Luskin's post on his visit to Lucy >  :)
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Feb. 08 2009,14:01

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 08 2009,13:56)
< In case any one is interested, I have fisked Luskin's post on his visit to Lucy >  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry ERV, I will pass on that one. I've had my tard dose for the week-end....

And yet again: If you don't know what you miss, you miss nothing!*


*That's why every missionary should be shot on sight...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Feb. 08 2009,14:04

Oups, not ERV, Afarensis...Sorry again
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 08 2009,14:05

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 08 2009,14:01)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 08 2009,13:56)
< In case any one is interested, I have fisked Luskin's post on his visit to Lucy >  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry ERV, I will pass on that one. I've had my tard dose for the week-end....

And yet again: If you don't know what you miss, you miss nothing!*


*That's why every missionary should be shot on sight...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, not ERV - I can't do that eye blink thing (last time I tried I got my eyelids tangled up, had to go to the ER and everything)*


* Don't ask what happened when I tried that forehead smack thing she does...

Edit to add: Damn he corrected it before I could publish my response  ???
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 08 2009,16:01

Whenever replying to Luskin, you must save a copy of whatever prose you are responding to. Luskin is a believer in an Infinitely Plastic Past, at least wherever he can edit stuff to suit himself.

Having someone claim that they never made the mistake you point out, and have them impugn you for making stuff up, will likely cure you of laziness in archiving.
Posted by: JLT on Feb. 08 2009,16:53

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 08 2009,19:56)
< In case any one is interested, I have fisked Luskin's post on his visit to Lucy >  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I like me my combination of Luskin bashing and actually learning something. Thanks!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 08 2009,17:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2009,16:01)
Whenever replying to Luskin, you must save a copy of whatever prose you are responding to. Luskin is a believer in an Infinitely Plastic Past, at least wherever he can edit stuff to suit himself.

Having someone claim that they never made the mistake you point out, and have them impugn you for making stuff up, will likely cure you of laziness in archiving.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I should have been more clear, I was talking about Schroedinger's Dog's correction. I always, always, always save whatever creationist post I am responding to - especially when it is someone connected with the DI in any way, shape, or form.

Edit to correct typo - which I seem to making a lot of lately.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 09 2009,09:42

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 08 2009,17:03)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2009,16:01)
Whenever replying to Luskin, you must save a copy of whatever prose you are responding to. Luskin is a believer in an Infinitely Plastic Past, at least wherever he can edit stuff to suit himself.

Having someone claim that they never made the mistake you point out, and have them impugn you for making stuff up, will likely cure you of laziness in archiving.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I should have been more clear, I was talking about Schroedinger's Dog's correction. I always, always, always save whatever creationist post I am responding to - especially when it is someone connected with the DI in any way, shape, or form.

Edit to correct typo - which I seem to making a lot of lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was a beautiful, outstanding bit of posting dude!  I ama sure Casey will be working on his notpology all day to day.

When you go to accept your Pullitzer, don't forget to thank Casey and all the little people that made it possible!
Posted by: Kristine on Feb. 09 2009,11:25

To view Lucy, did Casey walk, or...


Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 21 2009,14:04

YAY!!!

CARLSON - WHERE IS YOUR REPORT???

Abbie reports at her blog on the Luskin Wells Lies & More Lies Live in OK last night.

Visit her blog for the details, but we also have to thank Casey for his shout-out to us here at ATBC!

Thanks, Casey, you lying sack of IDiot!

Did I mention he hates it when we abuse him for lying?

Oh did I mention the gratuitous mention of "tits"?

Go here:


< ERV Blog Report On Casey "Liar " Luskin >
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 21 2009,14:47

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2009,14:04)
YAY!!!

CARLSON - WHERE IS YOUR REPORT???

Abbie reports at her blog on the Luskin Wells Lies & More Lies Live in OK last night.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is coming. I am typing up my notes on John West's talk while I watch the OU-Baylor women's basketball game. I hope to have at least part of them up tonight.  I am trying to take my time so that they are understandable. It isn't clear right now when I'll have my notes from Luskin's session available.

Oh, did I mention Casey said "tits"?  Okay, I admit it is a bit juvenile for a 43 year old man to get such a kick out of that choir boy saying tits, but I do. So sue me.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 21 2009,14:52

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2009,14:47)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2009,14:04)
YAY!!!

CARLSON - WHERE IS YOUR REPORT???

Abbie reports at her blog on the Luskin Wells Lies & More Lies Live in OK last night.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is coming. I am typing up my notes on John West's talk while I watch the OU-Baylor women's basketball game. I hope to have at least part of them up tonight.  I am trying to take my time so that they are understandable. It isn't clear right now when I'll have my notes from Luskin's session available.

Oh, did I mention Casey said "tits"?  Okay, I admit it is a bit juvenile for a 43 year old man to get such a kick out of that choir boy saying tits, but I do. So sue me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey - A picture is worth 1,00 words - It's some sort of Designer rule or something I think.  Watch that game closely BTW - make sure nobody gets into the Baylor Cafeteria unless they have proper documentation...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Feb. 21 2009,14:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I watch the OU-Baylor women's basketball game. I hope to have at least part of them up tonight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You naughty, you!

Edit: quote-mining, I has it!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 22 2009,14:16

< Luskin brutalized in yet another venue. >

Owie.
Posted by: ERV on Feb. 22 2009,14:33

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 22 2009,14:16)
< Luskin brutalized in yet another venue. >

Owie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey was butthurt over Pennock I think, too.

Youll have to wait for Carlsons good notes :P
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 22 2009,23:23

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2009,22:33)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 22 2009,14:16)
< Luskin brutalized in yet another venue. >

Owie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey was butthurt over Pennock I think, too.

Youll have to wait for Carlsons good notes :P
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah expect him to claim he was a rape victim in the culture wars .......dial 911.....call the TBI (Theocratic Bureau of Investigation)
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Feb. 23 2009,06:03

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 22 2009,15:16)
< Luskin brutalized in yet another venue. >

Owie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An awesome comment from "Rob of CA":
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.T.   D.E.S.I.G.N. = "If Nanotechnology Takes Engineers Let's Logically Infer God Engineered Nature Teleologically! DNA's Engineering Shows Ingenius Guidance Needed!!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Acronym Regarding Design?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 24 2009,17:53

bug hunting, please ignore.

Luskin is a dishonest twit, though.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 25 2009,10:27

But did you catch any of them bugs you wuz hunting? :p
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 26 2009,21:15

Don't you love it how the mendacious intellectual pornographer and attack gerbil for the Kristian Kreationist Establushment commits scientific slander in the cause of "fair and balanced" reporting?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even if they're right about the fossil reconstruction, we're still talking about an evolutionary story based upon two millimeter-sized ankle bones — not exactly a shining example of transitional features.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, here we have a lying lawyer bloviating about a research article he can't possibly understand, but he can throw his primate feces, and he does.

"Oh, doesn't look transitional to me!  And I'm a creationist lawyer!  I noze stuff."

What an idiot.  

If it weren't for Casey's eyebrow deformity I'd be even more harsh.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 27 2009,00:53

IDC advocates and cheerleaders always claim to want teensy-tiny details...

Except for when they get them, at which point they can be ignored because they are teensy-tiny.

I think we may have another entry for < The Quixotic Message >.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 27 2009,01:35

Urggh... I made the mistake of reading some of Casey's text concerning fossils. Casey tried to quotemine Niles Eldredge so as to say that Prothero's book wasn't complete, therefore Prothero's examples must not be trustworthy. Bleccchhh.

Here's something else Niles Eldredge said of Prothero's text, stuff Casey didn't bother to pass along:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In the same way that visitors to the American Museum’s Dar-
win exhibition (now traveling the world in several iterations) have
tended to resonate deeply with the comparative osteology of ver-
tebrates (“I GET it!,” more than one visitor has announced when
confronted with a series of vertebrate arm skeletons), Prothero’s
clear, compelling and well-illustrated presentation of The Fish
With Legs (the Upper Devonian Tiktaalik) comes replete with a
reconstruction and a cladogram showing where it fits in phylo-
genetically. Other highlights include his discussion of that still-
and-increasingly-marvelous succession of “mammal-like” rep-
tiles from the Permo-Triassic (“Karroo”) of South Africa; early
whales, not only with legs, but also with tell-tale artiodactyl
“double-pulley” astragali pointing to their terrestrial origins; and
insectivorous bats without echolocation—a discovery so new that
that it did not even make it into Prothero’s text.

And of course, Prothero goes to town with that bane of
every creationist’s existence (because, of course, all they re-
ally care about is where we humans came from)—the spectac-
ularly rich, dense, and diverse stratigraphic record of hominids
over the past 4 million years. The hominid fossil record is a
tremendous boon in the unending battle against the anti-evolution
forces.

Simpson would, I think, have been gratified: his “quantum
evolution” explained why it would be unlikely to find such clear-
cut intermediates (living in transitional environments for short
times in highly localized places)—and not that such intermedi-
ates never existed. Finding them is the icing on the cake—not a
refutation of Quantum Evolution.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you suppose that was coincidence?

I don't think so.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 27 2009,11:17

It appears that Casey the DI's attack gerbil is excreting a new tactic, at least I haven't noticed it until his recent scat.

Example:  the Tree of Life is fixed!  Fixed, I say!  Any change to it is admission of a Darwinian retraction.

See what he's doing?  If a report comes out describing how Luskin is related to an onion, then later, with new data, a report comes out describing Luskin distantly related to an onion but closely related to a turnip,

that's a "retraction."  An admission that the Darwinists Got It Wrong.

It's a bird!  It's a plane!  No, it's Superman!

EN&V headline:  Two Out of Three Darwinists Get It Wrong
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 09 2009,10:45

Quote (XRumerTest @ Mar. 09 2009,10:44)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,13:06)
Hello. And Bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello. And Bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 09 2009,11:39

It's a < spam program >, one that can answer CAPTCHAs. Further references or quotations will be deleted.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 11 2009,12:36

Proof that evolution theory has no applications in medicine:

< http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305150917.htm >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 22 2009,00:52

From here:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009....bo.html >

to here:

< http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/02/opponents-not-enemies/ >

get this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Luskin says:
February 26, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Hi Nick,

It’s interesting that you defend Pennock. He cited Antievolution.org as a repository of incivility of ID proponents. I found that most interesting, because that website actually shows precisely the opposite trend: in one single thread on Antievolution.org I personally have been called unprintable names including, “Bizarre ignoramus,” “retarded,” “bigger tard,” “suck-up,” “brown-noser,” “Casey Luskin asphixiate from his head up his glutious maximus first,” “microcephaloc,” “PHALLO-cephalic,” “an insult to dickheads everywhere,” “a baby–well, okay, maybe a toddler,” “Pathetic Loser,” “attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy,” “Discovery Institute’s Chief Lap Poodle,” “Discovery Institute’s Chief Lap Peccary,” “an orc,” “Annoying,” “a miserable loser with no life that just plays on the internet all day,” “an a**,” “a lying sack of sh***,” “a pussy,” “a total loser,” “f***ing crazy,” “attack gerbil Luskin,” “douche bag,” “a**hole,” “the Biggest Douche that anyone that has every met him has ever met,” “so totally gay,” “dorky,” “He also has an unhealthy focus on ‘poster children’,” “an idiot,” “dishonest,” “ignorant cheap poxied floozie,” “fanatic and lunatic,” “A proven liar,” and “incompetent.”

Sadly, that’s just the beginning. That’s the only thread I’ve tried to catalogue, but that’s the point: it’s just one thread on one of many similar anti-ID websites.

I made only one post to this forum in response, in which I stated:

“I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so. In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry…”


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He keeps a list, bless! Casey - less faux martyr, more science, 'kay?
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 22 2009,01:24

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2009,08:52)
From here:

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009....bo.html >

to here:

< http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/02/opponents-not-enemies/ >

get this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey Luskin says:
February 26, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Hi Nick,

It’s interesting that you defend Pennock. He cited Antievolution.org as a repository of incivility of ID proponents. I found that most interesting, because that website actually shows precisely the opposite trend: in one single thread on Antievolution.org I personally have been called unprintable names including, “Bizarre ignoramus,” “retarded,” “bigger tard,” “suck-up,” “brown-noser,” “Casey Luskin asphixiate from his head up his glutious maximus first,” “microcephaloc,” “PHALLO-cephalic,” “an insult to dickheads everywhere,” “a baby–well, okay, maybe a toddler,” “Pathetic Loser,” “attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy,” “Discovery Institute’s Chief Lap Poodle,” “Discovery Institute’s Chief Lap Peccary,” “an orc,” “Annoying,” “a miserable loser with no life that just plays on the internet all day,” “an a**,” “a lying sack of sh***,” “a pussy,” “a total loser,” “f***ing crazy,” “attack gerbil Luskin,” “douche bag,” “a**hole,” “the Biggest Douche that anyone that has every met him has ever met,” “so totally gay,” “dorky,” “He also has an unhealthy focus on ‘poster children’,” “an idiot,” “dishonest,” “ignorant cheap poxied floozie,” “fanatic and lunatic,” “A proven liar,” and “incompetent.”

Sadly, that’s just the beginning. That’s the only thread I’ve tried to catalogue, but that’s the point: it’s just one thread on one of many similar anti-ID websites.

I made only one post to this forum in response, in which I stated:

“I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so. In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry…”


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He keeps a list, bless! Casey - less faux martyr, more science, 'kay?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hahahahahahahaha

Does my ego look big in this sack cloth
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 22 2009,02:33

Perhaps Casey and < Clive Hayden > should get together for a bit of mutual martyrbation.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 22 2009,04:29

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2009,00:52)
He keeps a list, bless! Casey - less faux martyr, more science, 'kay?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Luskin (MS, JD, Esq) used the same list at his Academic Freedom Day talk at OU last month.  He affected the nice little Christian boy pose right before launching into a nasty bit of character assassination on ERV.  Apparently, at the DI, being more Christ-like means pretending you are up there on a cross muttering "Science, Science, why has Thou forsaken me?"

Although, you do have to admire someone who can actually print the "unprintable."  That surely must take a towering intellect.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 22 2009,09:50

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 22 2009,04:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2009,00:52)
He keeps a list, bless! Casey - less faux martyr, more science, 'kay?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Luskin (MS, JD, Esq) used the same list at his Academic Freedom Day talk at OU last month.  He affected the nice little Christian boy pose right before launching into a nasty bit of character assassination on ERV.  Apparently, at the DI, being more Christ-like means pretending you are up there on a cross muttering "Science, Science, why has Thou forsaken me?"

Although, you do have to admire someone who can actually print the "unprintable."  That surely must take a towering intellect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I imagine that Casey hires an agnostic, non-English speaker to type that out safely for him.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 22 2009,10:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“A proven liar,” and “incompetent.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know about the rest of the list but these two are factually correct...
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 22 2009,12:48

What can we do about the quote-mining? (By "we" I mean everybody, not just us.) It just sickens me. I would never quote-mine Dembski or Luskin or Behe. Plagiarism has gave consequences for journalists (or should), but these guys just keep getting away with misrepresenting the work of others! Ben Stein's stupid film with that chopped-up quote from Darwin and that chopped-up interview of Dawkins and that "speech" before movie extras portraying "Pepperdine University students" is still going around! Quote-mining should be forbidden in publishing and on the internet, but I have no idea how that could be enforced.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 22 2009,22:16

You know, I've been out there on the Intertubes for quite a few years and the worst, or best, I've ever been called is a "hot hunk of man-scientist stud" by Louis.

Srsly.

OK, maybe Larry Moran called me "tiresome" but consider the source.

So, considering my studly tiresomeness, and my proclivity to make asinine comments, and considering your own collective experiences at being maligned by Moran or others less scholarly, do you think it ever occurs to Casey Luskin, Attack Gerbil for the Liars Institute of America who only employ liars and attack gerbils, that it might be something HE DOES to engender such love?

Possibly?  Maybe?

Gerbil food for thought, at least!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 23 2009,18:01

No sooner do I have an unkind thought for the Attack Gerbil than he squeaks!

But not at poor old Doc Bill!  No, Gerb goes after Genie Scott!

Run, Genie, run!

The Gerb threatens, "Eugenie Scott better reign in her staff members ..."

Yeah, Genie, reign in those staff members.

No, hang on a moment, shouldn't the Gerb, aka Attorney for Grammar, have said reign OVER those staff members?

Or maybe Mr. Nits for Wits meant RAIN ON those staff member's (parade), one assumes.

Or did our Minister of Gerbil Propaganda mean REIN in those staff members?

We may never know.  We may never, no.  We may nevah, Noah!

how long is a reign in Spain? or

how long is a rein in Spain? or

how long is a rain in Spain?

Oh, and Casey, TITS or GTFO.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 23 2009,18:12

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 23 2009,19:01)
No sooner do I have an unkind thought for the Attack Gerbil than he squeaks!

But not at poor old Doc Bill!  No, Gerb goes after Genie Scott!

Run, Genie, run!

The Gerb threatens, "Eugenie Scott better reign in her staff members ..."

Yeah, Genie, reign in those staff members.

No, hang on a moment, shouldn't the Gerb, aka Attorney for Grammar, have said reign OVER those staff members?

Or maybe Mr. Nits for Wits meant RAIN ON those staff member's (parade), one assumes.

Or did our Minister of Gerbil Propaganda mean REIN in those staff members?

We may never know.  We may never, no.  We may nevah, Noah!

how long is a reign in Spain? or

how long is a rein in Spain? or

how long is a rain in Spain?

Oh, and Casey, TITS or GTFO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And these are their 'intellectuals'?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 23 2009,20:20

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 23 2009,18:01)
No sooner do I have an unkind thought for the Attack Gerbil than he squeaks!

But not at poor old Doc Bill!  No, Gerb goes after Genie Scott!

Run, Genie, run!

The Gerb threatens, "Eugenie Scott better reign in her staff members ..."

Yeah, Genie, reign in those staff members.

No, hang on a moment, shouldn't the Gerb, aka Attorney for Grammar, have said reign OVER those staff members?

Or maybe Mr. Nits for Wits meant RAIN ON those staff member's (parade), one assumes.

Or did our Minister of Gerbil Propaganda mean REIN in those staff members?

We may never know.  We may never, no.  We may nevah, Noah!

how long is a reign in Spain? or

how long is a rein in Spain? or

how long is a rain in Spain?

Oh, and Casey, TITS or GTFO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You left off the best part of Luskin's statement:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eugenie Scott better reign in her staff members or the NCSE will not only lose its religion-friendly image—it may land some school districts or state boards of education in court if their advice is followed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I should have warned you to turn down your irony meters before reading that, eh. Actually, there is another goody in there (umm, those of you who still have irony meters left should turn them down):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I don’t think that science should adopt supernatural explanations...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:O


Edit: To add a < Link >
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 23 2009,21:11

Hey, Casey Luskin, I'm calling you out, you pathetic Gerbil.

You are illiterate.

Get a dictionary, dude, or take a class at the local junior college up there in dumb bunny Washington.

Seriously, you are an embarrassment to propagandists everywhere.

Proofread much, Casey you bucktoothed, caterpillar eyebrowed moron?  Hey, Casey, I didn't realize that Cheerios granted JD degrees.  Can I haz one?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 23 2009,21:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And these are their 'intellectuals'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They can has grammar school?

Henry
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 24 2009,07:10

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 23 2009,04:16)
You know, I've been out there on the Intertubes for quite a few years and the worst, or best, I've ever been called is a "hot hunk of man-scientist stud" by Louis.

Srsly.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I deny this utterly. Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, if there is conclusive proof!

Louis
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 24 2009,13:49

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 23 2009,21:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And these are their 'intellectuals'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They can has grammar school?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They certainly don't seem to have had a comprehensive education.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Mar. 24 2009,16:42

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 23 2009,20:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eugenie Scott better reign in her staff members or the NCSE will not only lose its religion-friendly image—it may land some school districts or state boards of education in court if their advice is followed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I should have warned you to turn down your irony meters before reading that, eh. Actually, there is another goody in there (umm, those of you who still have irony meters left should turn them down):

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I don’t think that science should adopt supernatural explanations...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:O


Edit: To add a < Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that's some sweet and serious tard. It took me fifteen minutes to gather my composure. I think ID's finnish fans deserve to suffer-, I mean, hear of this as well.
Posted by: Quidam on Mar. 24 2009,17:16

He has now corrected the reign/rain/rein error.  Indeed it never existed and was just another ploy by immoral Darwinists to make him look illiterate
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 24 2009,17:32

Quote (Quidam @ Mar. 24 2009,17:16)
He has now corrected the reign/rain/rein error.  Indeed it never existed and was just another ploy by immoral Darwinists to make him look illiterate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed -



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by Casey Luskin on March 23, 2009 7:48 AM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Komputer agrees.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 24 2009,17:44

AFAIK, I'm the only one on the Entire Intertubes who pointed out the error which means Casey reads this thread and my more flattering assassinations of his caricature.

What, no H/T from the DI?

I'm insulted!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 24 2009,19:33

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 24 2009,17:44)
AFAIK, I'm the only one on the Entire Intertubes who pointed out the error which means Casey reads this thread and my more flattering assassinations of his caricature.

What, no H/T from the DI?

I'm insulted!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For what it's worth, you did < get a hat tip from me > :D
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 24 2009,21:02

Thanks, Bones, my life is complete!
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 01 2009,09:09

Today, Google released Caddie, "he world's first Cognitive Autoheuristic Distributed-Intelligence Entity."

Caddie produced all by itself this remarkable < Web Site >

and I can only describe it as the first concrete example of Intelligent Design.

Why I'm mentioning it on this thread is that if Casey Luskin designed a web site, this would be it!  You know, maybe we've got ID all wrong after all!
Posted by: ERV on April 17 2009,17:58

< YOU DONT KNOW ME.  I AM ON AN AIRPLANE.  TITS. >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 17 2009,18:03

Quote (ERV @ April 17 2009,17:58)
< YOU DONT KNOW ME.  I AM ON AN AIRPLANE.  TITS. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rhiggs said Casey didn't understand, but Casey has a master's degree... in earth science!
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 17 2009,20:44

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 17 2009,18:03)
Quote (ERV @ April 17 2009,17:58)
< YOU DONT KNOW ME.  I AM ON AN AIRPLANE.  TITS. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rhiggs said Casey didn't understand, but Casey has a master's degree... in earth science!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the world's longest plane flight.




Posted by: J-Dog on April 17 2009,22:09

and a little bit of this I think:

Ground control to Major Casey:
Your brain is dead, there's something wrong.
Can you hear me Major Casey?
Can you hear me Major Casey?
Can you hear me Major Casey? Can you ...

Here am I floating round my tin can, far above the moon
Planet Earth is blue - and privaleged -  and there's nothing I can do
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 17 2009,22:15

Quote (ERV @ April 17 2009,17:58)
< YOU DONT KNOW ME.  I AM ON AN AIRPLANE.  TITS. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That link seems to be broke so here is another < Casey Luskin email debate >

I think what ERV meant to say is that Luskin is as useless as tits on a boar... I could be wrong though...  ;)
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 17 2009,22:29

Quote (afarensis @ April 17 2009,20:15)
Quote (ERV @ April 17 2009,17:58)
< YOU DONT KNOW ME.  I AM ON AN AIRPLANE.  TITS. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That link seems to be broke so here is another < Casey Luskin email debate >

I think what ERV meant to say is that Luskin is as useless as tits on a boar... I could be wrong though...  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought she was going to show us ......

Never mind.
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 17 2009,23:08

Quote (afarensis @ April 17 2009,22:15)
I think what ERV meant to say is that Luskin is as useless as tits on a boar... I could be wrong though...  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coming soon to an Academic Freedom Day presentation near you!!!  But don't worry none, Arfie, Casey fergives you! He is good that way.  In fact, I am pretty sure I saw stigmata when he was presenting at OU*.

* Speaking of which, the < OU IDEA Club > appears to have gone off the grid after it's Academic Freedom Day program.

EDIT:  The website for the OU IDEA Club is < registered > to a Mario Lopez in California.  The current registration information does not indicate if Mr. Lopez is affiliated with any specific organization. This is in contrast to the registration information current at the time of Academic Freedom Day. See for yourself. At that time, Mr. Lopez could be contacted at The Apologia Project.  I wonder why they changed that?


Posted by: Lou FCD on April 18 2009,00:23

Surprise. < The Apologia Project > is a blog with one contributor (Mario Lopez) and comments turned off.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on April 22 2009,14:36

< Casey Luskin on a roll in Texas. >
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 22 2009,14:54

< Cynthia Dunbar: Methinks she's a weasel >
Posted by: J-Dog on April 22 2009,15:04

A.D. & richard - I'm getting to the point where I am getting inured to their pathetic level of non-detail,and too depresed to listen to either link all the way through.  It might be low blood sugar or a bad bio-rythem cycle, or maybe it's just depressing as hell to listen to the same utter bullshit over and over and over and over and over....

So I'm going over to the libations thread and get some appropriate ATBC ideas on getting drunk.
Posted by: ERV on April 23 2009,07:53

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 22 2009,14:36)
< Casey Luskin on a roll in Texas. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"teeters and students"

Creationists are such charismatic speakers.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 23 2009,10:40

Quote (ERV @ April 23 2009,07:53)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 22 2009,14:36)
< Casey Luskin on a roll in Texas. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"teeters and students"

Creationists are such charismatic speakers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He IS quite the tool.

Like nails on a blackboard - personified.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on April 23 2009,12:46

Quote (ERV @ April 23 2009,07:53)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 22 2009,14:36)
< Casey Luskin on a roll in Texas. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"teeters and students"

Creationists are such charismatic speakers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he was thinking of the phrase "Teeters or GTFO".
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 23 2009,22:19

It's been a day and has ace junior scientist and caterpillar brow journalist commented on Puijila darwini?

Not a word.

Could it be that Puijila darwini is a True Transitional fossil impervious and immune to Luskin's insightful insight?

Only time will tell.

Of course, Luskin has NO ACCESS to the original fossil material or information, not that it's stopped him in the past.

Oh, we await Luskin's "seal" of approval on this report.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 23 2009,23:17

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 23 2009,22:19)
It's been a day and has ace junior scientist and caterpillar brow journalist commented on Puijila darwini?

Not a word.

Could it be that Puijila darwini is a True Transitional fossil impervious and immune to Luskin's insightful insight?

Only time will tell.

Of course, Luskin has NO ACCESS to the original fossil material or information, not that it's stopped him in the past.

Oh, we await Luskin's "seal" of approval on this report.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even more surprising is that he has not said anything, as far as I know, about the recent ichthyostega/acanthostega paper. Since he has embarrassed himself in the past on the subject I was sure he was going to do so again with this paper. Alas, so far nothing  :angry:
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2009,03:59

I watched that video of Luskin. I am now measurably stupider for having done so. IQ tests before and after the video revealed a 50 point drop. Happily I have begun the slow painful recovery needed after exposure to serious T.A.R.D.

One day at a time.

Louis
Posted by: keiths on April 24 2009,05:14

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2009,01:59)
I watched that video of Luskin. I am now measurably stupider for having done so. IQ tests before and after the video revealed a 50 point drop. Happily I have begun the slow painful recovery needed after exposure to serious T.A.R.D.

One day at a time.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis, that's a 98% drop!  You must be on life support.

ETA: Sorry.  I couldn't resist that gift of a setup.
Posted by: Louis on April 24 2009,05:40

Quote (keiths @ April 24 2009,11:14)
Quote (Louis @ April 24 2009,01:59)
I watched that video of Luskin. I am now measurably stupider for having done so. IQ tests before and after the video revealed a 50 point drop. Happily I have begun the slow painful recovery needed after exposure to serious T.A.R.D.

One day at a time.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis, that's a 98% drop!  You must be on life support.

ETA: Sorry.  I couldn't resist that gift of a setup.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I serve them up, you smash them down.

I am happy to be generous.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 24 2009,07:40

caterpillar browed journalists  rofl

casey probably calls them neeners or mum-mums or some shit like that.  what a junior butt sniff
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 06 2009,20:29

< Luskin Lies for Jesus >... again. On Faux News.
Posted by: Ptaylor on May 06 2009,21:21

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 07 2009,13:29)
< Luskin Lies for Jesus >... again. On Faux News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a wanker. The only encouraging thing there is the low star ratings and the bulk of the comments - most are not buying Casey's bullshit.
Posted by: ERV on May 06 2009,23:09

Quote (Ptaylor @ May 06 2009,21:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 07 2009,13:29)
< Luskin Lies for Jesus >... again. On Faux News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a wanker. The only encouraging thing there is the low star ratings and the bulk of the comments - most are not buying Casey's bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it when Casey uses words with 's' in them.
Posted by: sledgehammer on May 07 2009,00:29

Quote (ERV @ May 06 2009,21:09)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 06 2009,21:21)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 07 2009,13:29)
< Luskin Lies for Jesus >... again. On Faux News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a wanker. The only encouraging thing there is the low star ratings and the bulk of the comments - most are not buying Casey's bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it when Casey uses words with 's' in them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean wordth like "thienth"?
Posted by: JohnW on May 07 2009,10:54

Quote (sledgehammer @ May 06 2009,22:29)
Quote (ERV @ May 06 2009,21:09)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 06 2009,21:21)
     
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 07 2009,13:29)
< Luskin Lies for Jesus >... again. On Faux News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a wanker. The only encouraging thing there is the low star ratings and the bulk of the comments - most are not buying Casey's bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it when Casey uses words with 's' in them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean wordth like "thienth"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or "titth"?
Posted by: J-Dog on May 07 2009,15:21

Quote (JohnW @ May 07 2009,10:54)
I love it when Casey uses words with 's' in them.[/quote]
You mean wordth like "thienth"?[/quote]
Or "titth"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey would NEVER say "titths"!

He would say "breathtss"- and then get all red in the face and stammer! :)
Posted by: Doc Bill on May 07 2009,16:13

I've seen that backdrop before.  Casey must have gone down to the Fox studio in Seattle.

He was really pumped, wasn't he?

Notice how he tried to maintain a smile the whole time.  He's sitting there grinning like a baboon that just pulled out a "plum" but he can't maintain it.

He must have been coached on smiling into the camera.  Maybe it went something like this ... (cue dream sequence music)

OK, Casey, just relax and smile.

No, no, no, too much smile.  You look like an idiot.  Less idiot, Casey.  That's it, less idiot, less, less ...

Oh, no, you went too far.  A little more idiot, more, teensy bit more.  That's it!  Hold it.

OK, now, relax your eyebrows, it looks like you're hosting a wooly caterpillar convention on your face.  Oh, they are relaxed?  

Hey, Grip!  Can we get some eyebrow wax over here or a hedge trimmer or something?  It's too late?  OK, we'll go with what we have.

Camera in three, two, one ...
Posted by: JohnW on May 07 2009,16:17

Quote (J-Dog @ May 07 2009,13:21)
 
Quote (JohnW @ May 07 2009,10:54)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love it when Casey uses words with 's' in them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean wordth like "thienth"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or "titth"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey would NEVER say "titths"!

He would say "breathtss"- and then get all red in the face and stammer! :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He motht thertainly < did > thay "titth".
Posted by: J-Dog on May 08 2009,10:54

Quote (JohnW @ May 07 2009,16:17)
Quote (J-Dog @ May 07 2009,13:21)
 
Quote (JohnW @ May 07 2009,10:54)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love it when Casey uses words with 's' in them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean wordth like "thienth"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or "titth"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey would NEVER say "titths"!

He would say "breathtss"- and then get all red in the face and stammer! :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He motht thertainly < did > thay "titth".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thand corecthed!
Posted by: Steviepinhead on May 08 2009,15:11

Thaying hith own name mutht prove challenging:

Cathey Luthkin?

Hmm, maybe I'll have to get started on a version of the Casey Jones train song just for Cathey...
Posted by: Texas Teach on May 08 2009,17:41

#473 on Casey's list of ways those evil Darwinist internet hoodlums are mean to him:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Made fun of the way I thay thtuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Aardvark on May 09 2009,03:44

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 22 2009,14:36)
< Casey Luskin on a roll in Texas. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




A < response > from < DonExodus2 > (haven't actually watched it yet).
Posted by: Doc Bill on May 09 2009,10:34

Very nice take down.

I was dismayed (OK, somewhat annoyed) how the commentator said several times that "100% of the textbooks get it wrong."

I checked out my 1962 HS Biology textbook (yep, still have it) and no Haeckel.  I checked out my college biology texts and no Haeckel.  I did find a Haeckel illustration in my History of Science textbook, however.

This is another case of Luskin relying on the ignorance of his audience to cover his lies.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 29 2009,17:49

Casey, you're a star!

< Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? >, installment #30.

Bwahahahahahahhaa
Posted by: nuytsia on May 29 2009,18:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 29 2009,09:49)
Casey, you're a star!

< Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? >, installment #30.

Bwahahahahahahhaa
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Casey seems to becoming a big hit on Youtube

< Science Vs. Casey Luskin (Haeckels Embryos, Fox News) >
< Casey Luskin: Liar, Hypocrite, Imbecilic Assclown. >

Happy Days!  :D
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 29 2009,19:42

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 29 2009,17:49)
Casey, you're a star!

< Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? >, installment #30.

Bwahahahahahahhaa
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One interesting point in the video is that PCID stopped publishing after Dover. I hadn't made the connection before...
Posted by: bort on June 05 2009,10:07

Here is a happy coincidence: I wrote a couple days ago defending phylogenetic trees against < Casey's attacks. >  One way that I showed that phylogenetic trees match other data is by creating a tree based on cytochrome B and comparing it to the ERV data by Lebedev et al 2000 (The one from < 29+ evidences > of evolution fame).  Unsurprisingly, they matched.  

So I get to part 5 of Casey's evidence-less, quote mined, and prejudiced series of posts, and I found this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I about fell out of my chair when I read this.  He references some 1999 paper from Trends in Ecology and Evolution as a reference.  I will have to check it out sometime.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 05 2009,10:16

Quote (bort @ June 05 2009,18:07)
Here is a happy coincidence: I wrote a couple days ago defending phylogenetic trees against < Casey's attacks. >  One way that I showed that phylogenetic trees match other data is by creating a tree based on cytochrome B and comparing it to the ERV data by Lebedev et al 2000 (The one from < 29+ evidences > of evolution fame).  Unsurprisingly, they matched.  

So I get to part 5 of Casey's evidence-less, quote mined, and prejudiced series of posts, and I found this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I about fell out of my chair when I read this.  He references some 1999 paper from Trends in Ecology and Evolution as a reference.  I will have to check it out sometime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't bother Bort....


< Adios muchachos....?vot de hey >
Posted by: ERV on June 05 2009,12:16

Quote (bort @ June 05 2009,10:07)
Here is a happy coincidence: I wrote a couple days ago defending phylogenetic trees against < Casey's attacks. >  One way that I showed that phylogenetic trees match other data is by creating a tree based on cytochrome B and comparing it to the ERV data by Lebedev et al 2000 (The one from < 29+ evidences > of evolution fame).  Unsurprisingly, they matched.  

So I get to part 5 of Casey's evidence-less, quote mined, and prejudiced series of posts, and I found this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I about fell out of my chair when I read this.  He references some 1999 paper from Trends in Ecology and Evolution as a reference.  I will have to check it out sometime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wheres ur blag, bort???
Posted by: bort on June 05 2009,12:58

oops

< Here it is >
Posted by: J-Dog on June 05 2009,15:02

Quote (bort @ June 05 2009,12:58)
oops

< Here it is >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rats!  I was hopin' you was THIS guy!

< Link To a Bort Blog >

ADDED IN EDIT: ps- Kidding!  Your REAL stuff is great!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 10 2009,08:31

The IDEA Center "staff" < can't stand criticism >. In their response to Forrest and Gross's "Creationism's Trojan Horse", there's a lot of hilarious spinning. Two particularly egregious points:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


5. Factual Error: Francis Beckwith on IDEA Center Advisory Board
The book states that Francis Beckwith is on our Advisory Board. When the authors accessed our website in April of 2003, he was on our Advisory Board. However, as of August of 2003, Francis Beckwith is no longer on our Advisory Board.

6. Factual Error: IDEA Club at the University of Hawaii-Hilo:
The book states that there is an IDEA Club at the University of Hawaii-Hilo. While our website may have stated that there is such a club when the authors accessed it in April of 2003, at the time of the book's publication (January, 2004) there is not to our knowledge an IDEA Club at the University of Hawaii-Hilo, as is currently reflected on our website.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Forrest and Gross are supposedly making "factual errors" by relying on what the IDEA Center website actually said at the time that the manuscript was being written? Whoa.
Posted by: Henry J on June 10 2009,20:41

Really! How dare them take an anti-evolutionists word for something. (Not always a safe thing to do, but still...)

Henry
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on June 11 2009,20:48

Disco Institute censor YouTube video criticizing attack hairball Casey Luskin. < Details at Pharyngula > and < My post on the subject >
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 12 2009,07:19

Quote (afarensis @ June 11 2009,21:48)
Disco Institute censor YouTube video criticizing attack hairball Casey Luskin. < Details at Pharyngula > and < My post on the subject >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< From the Skepchicks >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ignorant slimeball Casey Luskin appeared on Fox News to peddle some tired lies about evolution and creationism. YouTube user Donexodus2 recorded a thorough, point-by-point takedown of Luskin using clips from the Fox News show. The Discovery Institute filed false (and therefore illegal) DMCA claims, successfully convincing YouTube to remove the video despite the fact that they do not own the copyright to those clips. Now, Donexodus2 needs users to mirror the original video and help with suing the pants off the lying creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on June 12 2009,08:49

Quote (afarensis @ June 11 2009,20:48)
Disco Institute censor YouTube video criticizing attack hairball Casey Luskin. < Details at Pharyngula > and < My post on the subject >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another case of "Lying Luskin" lying for Jesus.  In other words, just another day at the DI.

Based on all the comments about this at Pharyngula though, maybe this one will come back to bit him in his butt.  Couldn't happen to a more deserving "guy".
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 12 2009,11:18

Here's an old post of theirs. Can you guess what it's about?


< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/03/censorship_is_wrong.html >
Posted by: keiths on June 19 2009,03:49

A glimpse into the rich fantasy life of Casey Luskin, from the < ID Arts > blog:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A Dialogue Concerning Intelligent Design

July 15th, 2008 by Casey Luskin

Somewhere a dialogue is presently taking place concerning intelligent design, and it may be going something like this:

ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Human intelligence. Creative Genius. Love. Music. Art. Leonardo da Vinci. Beethoven.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Science. Evidence. Data. Observations. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Atheism: Richard Dawkins. Daniel Dennett. Sam Harris. Eugenie Scott. Barbara Forrest. Stephen Jay Gould. E.O. Wilson. Michael Ruse. P.Z. Myers. Many others. Wedge? Irrelevant.

Darwinist: Hmmf. Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judges can’t settle science. Courts can’t change data.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge adopted false definition of ID.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored positive case for design.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge copied many errors into ruling from ACLU. Judge ignored ID rebuttals. Judges make mistakes all the time.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored peer-reviewed pro-ID publications. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Dembski, The Design Inference. Beye/Snoke, Protein Science. Others.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored pro-ID research. Minnich’s flagellum research.

Darwinist: Hmmf. Type III Secretory System has ¼ flagellar parts.

ID Proponent: Not an explanation. Huge Leap.

Darwinist: Type III Secretory System has ¼ flagellar parts.

ID Proponent: Flagellum: Rotor, Stator, Bushings, Motor, Propeller, U-Joint, Rotary Engine 100,000 RPM. Irreducibly complex.

Darwinist: Type III Secretory System has ¼ flagellar parts.

ID Proponent: Then provide step-by-step evolutionary model.

Darwinist: Hmmf. ID has no research.

ID Proponent: Minnich. Axe. Dembski. Marks. Meyer. Behe. Snoke. Gonzalez. Biologic. Others.

Darwinist: Hmmf. NAS rejects. AAAS rejects. “Steves” reject.

ID Proponent: That’s Politics. Thomas Kuhn was right. “Science not a democracy” –Eugenie Scott. All majority views started off as minority views.

Darwinist: Hmmf. ID = Politics.

ID Proponent: ID also has science. Plus Darwinism has politics: NAS anti-ID edicts; AAAS anti-ID edicts; Witch hunts (Sternberg, Crocker, Gonzalez, others).

Darwinist: Hmmf. ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Not Bible based.

Darwinist: ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Not Faith based.

Darwinist: ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Not Divine Revelation based.

Darwinist: ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Not Religion.

Darwinist: ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: World’s most famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins (who is anti-ID): “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Darwinist: Hmmf. TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project.

ID Proponent: DNA Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who is anti-ID): “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.“

Darwinist: TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project.

ID Proponent: Former NAS president Bruce Alberts (who is anti-ID): “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.”

Darwinist: Hmmf. Then who designed the designer?

ID Proponent: Theological Objection—Irrelevant. Theological Answer: God is eternal, has no designer.

Darwinist: Who designed the designer?

ID Proponent: Knowledge of designer not necessary for design inference.

Darwinist: Who designed the designer?

ID Proponent: Why does the universe exist?

Darwinist: Hmmf. Progress of science. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: Science seeks truth. If ID is right, ID is progress.

Darwinist: Progress of science must be NATURALISTIC. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: That’s my point: Naturalism failing. How did flagellum evolve? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: Progress of science. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: Where are Cambrian ancestors? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: Progress of science. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: How did the first cell arise? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: Progress of science. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: ID is positive. DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Human intelligence. Love. Music. Art. Leonardo da Vinci. Beethoven. Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Science. Evidence. Data. Observations. Information in nature requires intelligent design.

[Empty Silence; Crickets]

ID Proponent: How did any single biochemical pathway arise? Evolution of the gaps. ID dramatically superior.

[Empty Silence; Crickets.]

Darwinist: Wedge. You’re ignorant, insane, and wicked.

——————————–

Note: This was intended as a parody only, although sadly it represents the many fallacious objections to ID raised by Darwinists. If anything, this parody underestimates the amount of name-calling and personal attacks that a Darwinist would have probably leveled (in this case, the Darwinist refrains from personal attacks until the very end.)

A real scholarly debate between those on both sides of the intelligent design controversy would have much more technical arguments. Nonetheless, the sad truth is that when many criticize intelligent design in the media, courtrooms, classrooms, and even scientific journals, their arguments often fail to rise above those of the “Darwinist” antagonist presented here. For those interested in serious, scientific discussions of intelligent design, check out any of these two books that have both pro- and con- arguments regarding intelligent design:

·  Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, Edited By: Campbell, John Angus and Meyer, Stephen (Michigan State University Press, 2003).

·  Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, Edited By: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 19 2009,08:38

Any update on the DMCA claim shenanigans?
Posted by: J-Dog on June 19 2009,09:30

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 19 2009,08:38)
Any update on the DMCA claim shenanigans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rich - So, just pop over to the Discovery Institute's Open Forum, where I am sure with a name like that they encourage an open and free exchange of ideas, and I am sure Casey would be happy to repond to any reasonable question.



Wait, What?  Oh.  Never mind.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 19 2009,11:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Luskin Fail:"ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Darwinist: Nonsequitur.  Code does not equal language.  

Information is the result of applying information theory (formally or from an intelligent being applying context), and implies nothing about intelligence being related to the phenomenon it was applied to.

and so on...
Posted by: Henry J on June 19 2009,13:11

"Darwinist":

The same nested hierarchy followed both by anatomical structures and DNA sequences.

Presence of fossil series in geological layers.

Some fossils predicted before their discovery.

Information: an evolving gene pool acquires information about what worked from its environment.

Presence of unanswered questions: Unanswered questions will exist regardless of what model is correct.

"Intelligent Design": It doesn't explain anything.*

*Tip to IDer: find some consistently observed pattern of observations that would be a logical consequence of life being deliberately engineered by somebody or something.
Posted by: JohnW on June 19 2009,15:20

Quote (Henry J @ June 19 2009,11:11)
*Tip to IDer: find some consistently observed pattern of observations that would be a logical consequence of life being deliberately engineered by somebody or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given the usual ixnay-on-the-odgay formulation of ID (an unidentified designer did unspecified things at undetermined times for unfathomable reasons): all the observations you mentioned are consistent with ID.  So are any other observations, hypothetical or actual.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 19 2009,15:24

The shorter Luskin:


"Comments are closed."
Posted by: Henry J on June 19 2009,16:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all the observations you mentioned are consistent with ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even the one about I.D. not explaining anything?  :)
Posted by: JohnW on June 19 2009,17:40

Quote (Henry J @ June 19 2009,14:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all the observations you mentioned are consistent with ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even the one about I.D. not explaining anything?  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.  GodThe unknown designer could have disguised everything.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 19 2009,20:56

I assume that Casey Luskin reads this site.  How else would he know we call him an Attack Gerbil, DI Shill and Fuckwit?

I also assume that Casey Luskin is not banned from posting here.  He could defend himself, call us fuckwits or invite us to help him serve soup to the homeless in Seattle.

Thus, freedom of speech, academic freedom and teach the controversy is alive and well at the Panda's Thumb.  Come on over, Casey, we'd love to play.

I don't have to assume, because I know for a FACT that freedom of speech, academic freedom and teaching the controversy is BANNED at the Discovery Institute's website.  Yes, a standard of free speech for us and a different standard for the proclaimers of free speech and academic freedom at the DI.

Not surprising, though.  In every forum where Luskin has squeaked he's had his little furry ass kicked by people who actually know what they're talking about because Luskin is invariably WRoNG.

So my challenge to Luskin and the DI is to come here and do your best.  Show us that we're wrong and demonstrate why.

Somehow I think it's going to be summer crickets at night time.
Posted by: Reed on June 19 2009,22:19

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 19 2009,18:56)

So my challenge to Luskin and the DI is to come here and do your best.  Show us that we're wrong and demonstrate why.

Somehow I think it's going to be summer crickets at night time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey did grace us with his presence once, in this very thread < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y104779 >

As should be plain to any reasonable person, this is simply not the right venue* but he does very generously forgive us all.

* For unspecified reasons which undoubtedly have absolutely nothing to do with the fact there is no ID friendly censorship here!
Posted by: raguel on July 09 2009,11:43

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-K_VY6VZZw >


hahahaha
Posted by: J-Dog on July 09 2009,12:19

Quote (raguel @ July 09 2009,11:43)
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-K_VY6VZZw >


hahahaha
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good catch - thanks for the link.... I am sure that Casey will pray for you and forgive you too!:)

Perhaps this means that I have to update Casey's YMCA song to a Casey is an asshat / DMCA song.
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 09 2009,14:02

Notice how Casey the Wonder Gerbil and aspiring Legal Begle doesn't tweak that the call may be recorded until the very end, even though qDragon1337 clearly states that he's a YouTube user right at the start of the conversation.  Get a clue, Casey!

Also, Casey not very skillfully avoids answering the question which was directed at activities by the DI, not Casey personally.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 09 2009,14:40

Quote (raguel @ July 09 2009,11:43)
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-K_VY6VZZw >


hahahaha
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's great.
Posted by: keiths on July 09 2009,16:41

Casey Luskin and the forgiveness reflex:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the end, I can cheerfully forgive Kevin Beck...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[To Tiana Dietz]:
I get called unjustified names all the time on the ‘net and so I made my peace with such people and such incidents long ago; so I’m not angry about this, and as I said in my prior e-mail to you, I forgive you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Second email to Tiana Dietz]:
Regardless of where you choose to go from here, I want you to know that I forgive you, I wish you the best in your life, and I also hope, for your own sakes that you can join the culture of civility and friendship that is very real and very vibrant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In one single forum at Antievolution.org, created and owned by a former National Center for Science Education staff member, I have been called no less than “Bizarre ignoramus,” “retarded,” “suck-up,” “Pathetic Loser,” “attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy,” “an orc,” “Annoying,” “a miserable loser with no life,” “an idiot,” “dishonest,” “ignorant cheap poxied floozie,” “fanatic and lunatic,” “A proven liar,” “incompetent,” and many other far more colorful attacks which are probably best left unprinted here on Evolution News and Views.

I don’t list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I forgive Wesley regardless of whether he does the right thing here, and I will continue to be nice to him in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[To qdragon1337]:
I'm hanging up this phone right now 'cause you have made an illegal action against me and I appreciate your time. If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today. Have a nice day.  Thank you very much. Bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey Casey,

It seems like you've forgiven everyone but me.  I feel left out.  You even forgave Wes and Tiana Dietz twice.  What do I have to do to be granted your forgiveness?  If I call you a sanctimonious douchebag, will you forgive me?  Oh, wait -- that would be true, so there would be no need for forgiveness.

Never mind.
Posted by: J-Dog on July 09 2009,16:48

Quote (keiths @ July 09 2009,16:41)
Hey Casey,

It seems like you've forgiven everyone but me.  I feel left out.  You even forgave Wes and Tiana Dietz twice.  What do I have to do to be granted your forgiveness?  If I call you a sanctimonious douchebag, will you forgive me?  Oh, wait -- that would be true, so there would be no need for forgiveness.

Never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


keiths... You go calling Casey a "sanctimonius douchbag" and he'll make you a BFF.  I think that is   the nicest thing anybody has ever called him. :)
Posted by: keiths on July 09 2009,16:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm hanging up this phone right now 'cause you have made an illegal action against me and I appreciate your time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


qdragon1337,

Thank you for taking the time to pwn me.  I appreciate it.

Love,
Casey
Posted by: keiths on July 09 2009,16:58

J-Dog,

I think you may be on to something.  If Casey forgives everyone, maybe one of these days someone will be moved by the gesture, and then Casey will have a friend of his very own, like all of the other kids.
Posted by: ERV on July 09 2009,17:00

< AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: deadman_932 on July 09 2009,17:07

Quote (ERV @ July 09 2009,17:00)
< AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


times infinity.

Casey...it's great to know that your bullshit is captured online for decades to come. You'll be long dead and your bullshit will live on, indicting you and your masters, you toothless butt-sniffing fuckin' teacup poodle
Posted by: Henry J on July 09 2009,17:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on July 09 2009,17:15

Quote (ERV @ July 09 2009,17:00)
< AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the link and the kind words!  We only do it as partial payment for you making Dembski cry and making Behe stamp his feet and throw a hissy fit.

Ah - Good times!
Posted by: keiths on July 09 2009,17:25

Quote (Henry J @ July 09 2009,15:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys entertains them so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on July 09 2009,17:32

Lot of misinformation, you say? So, where are the updated honest-to-Designer facts about this youtube debacle?
Posted by: hobgot on July 09 2009,17:36

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 20 2006,23:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is obviously Intelligent Design. It's also obvious that the intelligent designers cared more about making money then the safety of  the passengers of the Pinto.

The question is, if it is ID, what does it say about the character of the Designer ?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 09 2009,18:51

Casey Luskin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Casey, perhaps you ought to have a word with fellow IDC advocate < Forrest Mims > on whether publication of recordings taken without permission are a bad thing or not.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 09 2009,18:53

Quote (keiths @ July 09 2009,16:58)
J-Dog,

I think you may be on to something.  If Casey forgives everyone, maybe one of these days someone will be moved by the gesture, and then Casey will have a friend of his very own, like all of the other kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having seen him perform in person, all I can say is that he wields forgiveness like a cudgel and delivers it with all the gusto of Master Thespian.
Posted by: Badger3k on July 09 2009,18:57

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2009,18:51)
Casey Luskin:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Casey, perhaps you ought to have a word with fellow IDC advocate < Forrest Mims > on whether publication of recordings taken without permission are a bad thing or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wasn't Luskin a lawyer, or am I thinking of someone else?  Of course, the legality of taping a conversation varies from state to state (and by country too), so his threat is probably empty.  I am also not sure if the legality only applies towards admissibility as evidence or if the taping itself is considered illegal.
Posted by: keiths on July 09 2009,20:19

Quote (Badger3k @ July 09 2009,16:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2009,18:51)
Casey Luskin:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey, perhaps you ought to have a word with fellow IDC advocate < Forrest Mims > on whether publication of recordings taken without permission are a bad thing or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wasn't Luskin a lawyer, or am I thinking of someone else?  Of course, the legality of taping a conversation varies from state to state (and by country too), so his threat is probably empty.  I am also not sure if the legality only applies towards admissibility as evidence or if the taping itself is considered illegal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin is a lawyer, but given his performance as DI attack gerbil, I wouldn't conclude that he knows anything about the law.

In-state phone calls in Washington cannot be recorded without the consent of both parties.  However, qdragon1337 was calling from Canada. Presumably, federal law applies in that case. Under federal law, the consent of only one party is required. However, a couple of the sites I consulted caution that it is unclear whether federal law preempts state law in these cases.

< For example >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recording Telephone Calls with Parties in Different Jurisdictions

Federal law may apply when the conversation is between parties who are in different states, although it is unsettled whether a court will hold in a given case that federal law "pre-empts" state law, but either state may choose to enforce its own laws. Therefore it is better to err on the side of caution when recording an interstate telephone call.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And as we all know, Canada is really just the 51st state.
Posted by: didymos on July 09 2009,21:13

keiths, in Canada they only require < one-party consent >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interception of Communications

Interception

184. (1) Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Saving provision

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to

(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There're probably some other laws that could apply in particular circumstances, but I am not a Canadian lawyer.

Still, even if Casey could manage to get the kid charged in the US, I have trouble believing that anything much would come of it.  Casey would also look like a ridiculously petty and giant dick who was picking on a disabled 15-yr old in retaliation for being exposed, yet again, as a dumbass.  I would dearly love to see him try, though.  *crosses fingers*
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 09 2009,23:53

< http://www.caseyluskin.com/facts.htm >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Greetings. My name is Casey Luskin. Thanks for visiting my website. I am an attorney who works in Seattle, Washington as Program Officer in Public Policy & Legal Affairs with The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's a Program Offer in legal affairs, but doesn't know about the false DMCA claims. Okay. Jebus weeps.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 10 2009,00:02

from my rather limited skillset of personal observation it was apparent that the unibrowed little queef was lying his ass off about the DCMA whatevers.

i can't wait to see the stuffed shirt jesus throbber DI response to this.  absolutely brilliant pwnage and i enjoyed it over and over.
Posted by: Louis on July 10 2009,06:29

Sorry folks but I'm failing to see the big deal here.

Legal issues of recordings aside, some internet kid phoned up a proven liar and promoter of lies and said proven liar and promoter of lies lied again. Film at 11. Dog bites man. Dogs and cats still living separately, mass apathy. Sure Lasey Cuskin's* "I forgivemerise you" routine is hilarious, and hilariously sanctimonious and hypocritical, but isn't this standard fare? Wake me when someone catches him in a compromising position with a donkey or telling the truth.

Louis

* I still maintain this JADerisation of Casey's name makes him sound like an obscure, specialist merkin, which in effect he is. After all what else is he for than the covering up of a rather wilted dick (i.e. the efforts and output of the DI)?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on July 10 2009,06:57

Quote (Louis @ July 10 2009,06:29)
Sorry folks but I'm failing to see the big deal here.

Legal issues of recordings aside, some internet kid phoned up a proven liar and promoter of lies and said proven liar and promoter of lies lied again. Film at 11. Dog bites man. Dogs and cats still living separately, mass apathy. Sure Lasey Cuskin's* "I forgivemerise you" routine is hilarious, and hilariously sanctimonious and hypocritical, but isn't this standard fare? Wake me when someone catches him in a compromising position with a donkey or telling the truth.

Louis

* I still maintain this JADerisation of Casey's name makes him sound like an obscure, specialist merkin, which in effect he is. After all what else is he for than the covering up of a rather wilted dick (i.e. the efforts and output of the DI)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After Luskin claimed that the issue was being misrepresented, the kid should have asked what the real facts were, as it is he let Luskin off the hook several times.
Posted by: J-Dog on July 10 2009,08:29

Quote (afarensis @ July 10 2009,06:57)
After Luskin claimed that the issue was being misrepresented, the kid should have asked what the real facts were, as it is he let Luskin off the hook several times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Afe - You should invite the kid here - we could educate him and look forward to round 2 of kid vs. douche!
Posted by: tsig on July 10 2009,08:36

Quote (keiths @ July 09 2009,16:41)
Casey Luskin and the forgiveness reflex:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the end, I can cheerfully forgive Kevin Beck...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[To Tiana Dietz]:
I get called unjustified names all the time on the ‘net and so I made my peace with such people and such incidents long ago; so I’m not angry about this, and as I said in my prior e-mail to you, I forgive you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Second email to Tiana Dietz]:
Regardless of where you choose to go from here, I want you to know that I forgive you, I wish you the best in your life, and I also hope, for your own sakes that you can join the culture of civility and friendship that is very real and very vibrant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In one single forum at Antievolution.org, created and owned by a former National Center for Science Education staff member, I have been called no less than “Bizarre ignoramus,” “retarded,” “suck-up,” “Pathetic Loser,” “attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy,” “an orc,” “Annoying,” “a miserable loser with no life,” “an idiot,” “dishonest,” “ignorant cheap poxied floozie,” “fanatic and lunatic,” “A proven liar,” “incompetent,” and many other far more colorful attacks which are probably best left unprinted here on Evolution News and Views.

I don’t list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I forgive Wesley regardless of whether he does the right thing here, and I will continue to be nice to him in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[To qdragon1337]:
I'm hanging up this phone right now 'cause you have made an illegal action against me and I appreciate your time. If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today. Have a nice day.  Thank you very much. Bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey Casey,

It seems like you've forgiven everyone but me.  I feel left out.  You even forgave Wes and Tiana Dietz twice.  What do I have to do to be granted your forgiveness?  If I call you a sanctimonious douchebag, will you forgive me?  Oh, wait -- that would be true, so there would be no need for forgiveness.

Never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He whines like a beaten dog. What do they do to him at the DI?
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 10 2009,09:56

Quote (tsig @ July 10 2009,08:36)
Quote (keiths @ July 09 2009,16:41)
Casey Luskin and the forgiveness reflex:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the end, I can cheerfully forgive Kevin Beck...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[To Tiana Dietz]:
I get called unjustified names all the time on the ‘net and so I made my peace with such people and such incidents long ago; so I’m not angry about this, and as I said in my prior e-mail to you, I forgive you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Second email to Tiana Dietz]:
Regardless of where you choose to go from here, I want you to know that I forgive you, I wish you the best in your life, and I also hope, for your own sakes that you can join the culture of civility and friendship that is very real and very vibrant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In one single forum at Antievolution.org, created and owned by a former National Center for Science Education staff member, I have been called no less than “Bizarre ignoramus,” “retarded,” “suck-up,” “Pathetic Loser,” “attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy,” “an orc,” “Annoying,” “a miserable loser with no life,” “an idiot,” “dishonest,” “ignorant cheap poxied floozie,” “fanatic and lunatic,” “A proven liar,” “incompetent,” and many other far more colorful attacks which are probably best left unprinted here on Evolution News and Views.

I don’t list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I forgive Wesley regardless of whether he does the right thing here, and I will continue to be nice to him in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[To qdragon1337]:
I'm hanging up this phone right now 'cause you have made an illegal action against me and I appreciate your time. If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today. Have a nice day.  Thank you very much. Bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey Casey,

It seems like you've forgiven everyone but me.  I feel left out.  You even forgave Wes and Tiana Dietz twice.  What do I have to do to be granted your forgiveness?  If I call you a sanctimonious douchebag, will you forgive me?  Oh, wait -- that would be true, so there would be no need for forgiveness.

Never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He whines like a beaten dog. What do they do to him at the DI?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever it was before, after this I'm guessing it will not be "answering the phone".
Posted by: deadman_932 on July 10 2009,13:29

Quote (afarensis @ July 10 2009,06:57)
After Luskin claimed that the issue was being misrepresented, the kid should have asked what the real facts were, as it is he let Luskin off the hook several times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, "dragon" was close to getting PLushkin to say something a trifle more stupid than usual, if he'd pressed the point a bit more. Pretty good performance, though.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 10 2009,14:54

It's interesting how Casey's one refrain was that there was misinformation out there, without ever offering to provide the correct information. In this case, the actual DI letters to YouTube.

I'm not sure why the DI would sit on those if, as Casey implies, the letters make no false claims of coverage under DMCA. It would seem the simple, straightforward way to demonstrate that the DI was in the right... if they actually were in the right.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 10 2009,14:57

Its going to be happy-happy-party day here when the DI gets told off for breaking the law with false DMCA suits here..
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 10 2009,14:58

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 10 2009,15:54)
It's interesting how Casey's one refrain was that there was misinformation out there, without ever offering to provide the correct information. In this case, the actual DI letters to YouTube.

I'm not sure why the DI would sit on those if, as Casey implies, the letters make no false claims of coverage under DMCA. It would seem the simple, straightforward way to demonstrate that the DI was in the right... if they actually were in the right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


its possible that he is so stupid that he doesn't understand the content of the letters

or he is so dishonest that he would never admit that they filed those claims knowing full well that they did not have any basis for doing so.

or both.

or perhaps casey is just the janitor up there.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 10 2009,14:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2009,15:57)
Its going to be happy-happy-party day here when the DI gets told off for breaking the law with false DMCA suits here..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


how does that work out?

my understanding is that youtube is barraged with these suits every day and that many are fraudulent, yet they still pull the content pending resolution.  its like SLAPP only against media communication.

if the suits are thrown out or found lacking merit, is there a penalty for filing?
Posted by: Henry J on July 10 2009,15:45

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 10 2009,13:59)
if the suits are thrown out or found lacking merit, is there a penalty for filing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If not there should be, imnsho. Not just the against the one pressing the suit, but also the lawyer, since they should know when the suit is bogus.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 10 2009,16:50

i like it when you are not so humble henry
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 10 2009,18:24

Quote (raguel @ July 09 2009,12:43)
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-K_VY6VZZw >


hahahaha
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heh heh, Casey Luskin, worst frontman in the universe.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 10 2009,18:34

Quote (ERV @ July 09 2009,18:00)
< AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
21

Fanks 4 stikin up 4 mez, Wee Willy. *smooch*

Posted by: Lacey Cuntskin | July 10, 2009 7:24 PM

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on July 10 2009,19:24

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 10 2009,18:34)
Quote (ERV @ July 09 2009,18:00)
< AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
21

Fanks 4 stikin up 4 mez, Wee Willy. *smooch*

Posted by: Lacey Cuntskin | July 10, 2009 7:24 PM

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the Lacey Buskin post better :)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why don't you all leave Mr. Luskin alone!

You are so mean to me, I mean HIM, and just because he's a Christian you hate him! Well, being a Christian, and a douchebag. Well, maybe he DOES tell a little "fib" for The Baby Jesus now and then - is that so wrong?

But he forgives you all for making him a martyar and he wants you all to know that the Electrolisist will finish up his eyebrows as soon as the new heavey-duty machine gets delivered.
And then you'll all be sorry! You won't have my Unibrow to kick around anymore! I mean HIS eyebrows.

Yours In Christo-Fascism,

Lacey Buskin


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: raguel on July 21 2009,14:57

OT: I've experienced the mixed emotions that come with being moderated by a creationist, even though one's response was well within the reported policy.

Apparently that QD vs Luskin really stung, so user CreationistsWON created a hit piece that only an attack gerbil could love:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8xJa6RSJ04&feature=related >

It's pretty tedious, so I'll forgive you (lolz) if you don't make it to the last clip featuring the Q v L vid. If you do, you'll notice something missing, You might think, as I did (posting as NiallCosgrach, don't tell anyone  :p) that this was intentionally edited out. Not so!!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not edited my friend, the middle part is missing because it wouldn't fit the range of 11 min, i explained that in the response clip. Lusking sayd he? didn't do it, and didn't answer the question if someone from their side did it, he only sayd things about misinformation.

But i know why you're willing to believe yourself, this clip does show you truth, and it hurts you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



After I stopped giggling, I checked out his "response clip", where he even admitted to "removing" the bits (in order to fit within 11 min max). So I made two responses:

1. What's the difference between "editing" and "removing"

2. If his video shows truth, why does he claim (in the video) that Luskin tried to answer the questions, but admits in his reply to me that he didn't answer the question (in fact, he didn't answer any questions at all).

I wish I had used screenshots for what happened next. About a day went by without my responses showing up, but others were. Eventually they did show up, and I was going to thank him for this. When I had time to reply, they were gone again.  :D

So, I'm feeling a bit upset about being censored, but I find his silence particularly delicious, given his "the truth hurts" crack.  :)
Posted by: Henry J on July 21 2009,16:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. What's the difference between "editing" and "removing"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Editing is replacing some things with something else, such as "creationist" -> "cdesign propopentcist".

Removing is simply chopping out something without changing what's left.

Clear as mud?  :p
Posted by: Doc Bill on July 22 2009,12:58

Gerb goes after James Carville.

Now, there's a debate I'd pay money to see!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 31 2009,18:59

Casey Luskin is an ignorant MORON.

OK, dog bites man.

In a recent raping of history, boy gerbil Luskin who is In Charge of defending the World against the misrepresentation of the reporting of evolution, as his Very Own Tagline states, well,

what does he do?

Misrepresent evolution and the reporting of evolution.

Casey, you Idiot, I've been to the Burgess Shale.  Twice. I've also been to the museums in Canada.  You've done none of this you gravy sucking creationist.

To say that Walcott was "hiking" in the Canadian Rockies and "stumbled" upon the Burgess Shale fossil site is a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION of what actually happened.

Tell you what, Casey, instead of correcting your poor scholarship for the Nth time I'm going to be generous and let you research and tell us all what really happened.

p.s.  I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: DiEb on Oct. 22 2009,13:48

If you like Casey, you'll love him when he teams up with William Dembski:

< Information and Clear Accounting in Evolution: An Interview With Dr. William Dembski >

< How Information Theory Is Taking Intelligent Design Mainstream: An Interview With Dr. William Dembski >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2009,11:34

< Luskin calls for civility >

Comments are open.

Remember to mention < http://antievolution.org/invcomp > early and often.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 13 2009,11:40

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 13 2009,11:34)
[URL=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996


9312.html]Luskin calls for civility[/URL]

Comments are open.

Remember to mention < http://antievolution.org/invcomp > early and often.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First link is broken.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 13 2009,11:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2009,12:40)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 13 2009,11:34)
[URL=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996





9312.html]Luskin calls for civility[/URL]

Comments are open.

Remember to mention < http://antievolution.org/invcomp > early and often.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First link is broken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


link should read < http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/ >
Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996
9312.html

ETA: Grrrrr!!!!! put all that on one line.


Posted by: khan on Nov. 13 2009,11:44

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 13 2009,12:34)
[URL=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996

9312.html]Luskin calls for civility[/URL]

Comments are open.

Remember to mention < http://antievolution.org/invcomp > early and often.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


404
there's some extra stuff in the URL
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 13 2009,11:45

Still nothing...

EDIT:

Here: < http://tiny.cc/oVijx >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 13 2009,11:45

Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2009,12:44)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 13 2009,12:34)
[URL=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996


9312.html]Luskin calls for civility[/URL]

Comments are open.

Remember to mention < http://antievolution.org/invcomp > early and often.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


404
there's some extra stuff in the URL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Ikonboard hates long urls.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2009,11:46

This works: < http://tinyurl.com/ykwgfl3 >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 13 2009,11:46

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 13 2009,12:46)
This works: < http://tinyurl.com/ykwgfl3 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, good link for me.
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 13 2009,11:51

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 13 2009,11:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2009,12:40)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 13 2009,11:34)
[URL=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996






9312.html]Luskin calls for civility[/URL]

Comments are open.

Remember to mention < http://antievolution.org/invcomp > early and often.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First link is broken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


link should read < http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/ >
Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996

9312.html

ETA: Grrrrr!!!!! put all that on one line.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A request to regain civility in this debate coming from a person who is associated with an organization and with people that link the acceptance of the ToE with Nazis and Stalin and murder and amorality and the like rings pretty hollow.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 13 2009,12:25

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 17 2009,23:08)
Quote (afarensis @ April 17 2009,22:15)
I think what ERV meant to say is that Luskin is as useless as tits on a boar... I could be wrong though...  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coming soon to an Academic Freedom Day presentation near you!!!  But don't worry none, Arfie, Casey fergives you! He is good that way.  In fact, I am pretty sure I saw stigmata when he was presenting at OU*.

* Speaking of which, the < OU IDEA Club > appears to have gone off the grid after it's Academic Freedom Day program.

EDIT:  The website for the OU IDEA Club is < registered > to a Mario Lopez in California.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, I was reading back through this thread and came across one of my comments referring to the University of Oklahoma IDEA club, which popped up to support the infamous Academic Freedom Day program featuring John West and Casey Luskin.  I thought I would take a look and see what mischief the OU IDEA club was getting into lately.  

See for yourself.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2009,13:04

Casey has a cheerleader:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Matteo

Nov 13, 2009

If there is any incontrovertible empirical fact that has been established in this debate, it is that the Darwinist crybabies will always, always pile on at the first sign of even mild criticism against their blatantly unscientific fantasizing. They illustrate quite well the aphorism, "If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the facts are not on your side, pound on the table!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 13 2009,13:46

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,11:06)
Bizarre ignoramus Casey Luskin has provided entertainment for years. I'm probably remiss in not starting this thread sooner.



"ISSUE ONE: < CASEY ATTACKS CARL ZIMMER. > ON A SCALE FROM ZERO TO TEN, ZERO BEING ALBERT EINSTEIN AND TEN BEING DONALDM, HOW RETARDED IS LUSKIN?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the third birthday for this thread.

Happy Birthday !
Posted by: someotherguy on Nov. 17 2009,13:36

Luskin < ventures > into the Darwinist Abyss that is The Intersection:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want to echo Chris’s call for people to read and review Meyer’s book Signs of Intelligence. And I appreciate Chris’s candid admission that the book “is scarcely being refuted” so far. As far as I can see, Chris is pretty much right on that point.

As an ID proponent myself, I feel it would be great to see some serious critiques of Meyer. I’ll give critics three tips on how not to critique Meyer:

First, don’t call Meyer a young earth creationist, because he isn’t. (Jerry Coyne tried that tack and had to retract the claim.)

Second, don’t try to cast Meyer’s argument as a mere negative argument against material causes, as Mooney claims that Meyer “throws up his hands, and says, it’s so improbable, God must have done it.” Meyer arguments for design is unmistakably a positive one, and is not merely a negative argument against evolution. (In The Republican War on Science, Mooney affirmatively quoted authorities similarly trying to misrepresent Meyer’s PBSW paper as “simply lacking” a “positive case for the necessity of ID”. Seriously? See Part 12 of “Whose War is it Anyway”, which is linked from my name, for a lengthy refutation of Mooney’s claim.)

Third, don’t attack Meyer’s book before you read it. Anyone who claims or insinuates that Meyer’s argument for design is merely a negative critique of evolutionary mechanisms has clearly skipped a lot of chapters.

There are other common fallacies in most attempts to refute Meyer, but I look forward to someone who respectfully critiques Meyer without misrepresenting his arguments, and has read the book.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Heh.  This could get entertaining.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 17 2009,14:46

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 13 2009,12:25)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 17 2009,23:08)
   
Quote (afarensis @ April 17 2009,22:15)
I think what ERV meant to say is that Luskin is as useless as tits on a boar... I could be wrong though...  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coming soon to an Academic Freedom Day presentation near you!!!  But don't worry none, Arfie, Casey fergives you! He is good that way.  In fact, I am pretty sure I saw stigmata when he was presenting at OU*.

* Speaking of which, the < OU IDEA Club > appears to have gone off the grid after it's Academic Freedom Day program.

EDIT:  The website for the OU IDEA Club is < registered > to a Mario Lopez in California.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, I was reading back through this thread and came across one of my comments referring to the University of Oklahoma IDEA club, which popped up to support the infamous Academic Freedom Day program featuring John West and Casey Luskin.  I thought I would take a look and see what mischief the OU IDEA club was getting into lately.  

See for yourself.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Find a booty call, eh?  Dembski must have referred that one to IDEA's sponsor list.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Nov. 24 2009,18:30

evolution< Luskin on whale evolution >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whales "have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," Luskin said. "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and shame on National Geographic for giving him space to spout his rubbish.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 01 2009,16:56

Casey was misquoted by National Geographic.  Can you imagine?

What he actually said was this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... Mathematically that's like totally not freaking possible, dude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 01 2010,18:45

NEWS FLASH 2010!

LUSKIN SOILS DIAPER!

So, what else is new?

The Unibrow Attack Gerbil (note to Luskin:  that's an insult, not an ad hominem attack.) just discovered a year-old YouTube video that takes apart the Famed Discovery Institute List of Darwin Doubters, aka the Cheap Shot List.

< DonExodus2 Rips Disco >

Luskin is so flustered he can't even manage to cite the video nor the author!

What is it about creationists that as they get older they get stupider and more infantile?  Seriously, Luskin, we demand more Entertainment Value out of you than bitching about year-old YouTube videos!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 01 2010,20:11

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 01 2010,18:45)
NEWS FLASH 2010!

LUSKIN SOILS DIAPER!

So, what else is new?

The Unibrow Attack Gerbil (note to Luskin:  that's an insult, not an ad hominem attack.) just discovered a year-old YouTube video that takes apart the Famed Discovery Institute List of Darwin Doubters, aka the Cheap Shot List.

< DonExodus2 Rips Disco >

Luskin is so flustered he can't even manage to cite the video nor the author!

What is it about creationists that as they get older they get stupider and more infantile?  Seriously, Luskin, we demand more Entertainment Value out of you than bitching about year-old YouTube videos!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link to Casey Luskin shitting his drawers over this < here >.
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 01 2010,21:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That video has some major misunderstandings about the Dissent from Darwinism list. It's creator seems to be following what Michael Behe has called the “principle of malicious reading,” which “ignores (or doesn’t comprehend) context, ignores (or doesn’t comprehend) the distinctions an author makes, and construes the argument in the worst way possible.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I laughed.

Don't these guys ever take a fucking break?  It's 2010 for Christ's sake!  We only have 2 years and 30 days left on planet Earth before Jebus comes back!

I think soon I'm going to pen a 600-page book entitled "Uncommonly Dense: The Neverending Story".
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 01 2010,22:15

Quote (RDK @ Jan. 01 2010,22:20)
I think soon I'm going to pen a 600-page book entitled "Uncommonly Dense: The Neverending Story".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'd be forced to write about 5 pages and then just repeat it over and over.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 02 2010,10:28

Well, it took a while but I finally figured out what the little Gerb did.

I was curious why the little Gerb failed to provide either a link to the NCSE's supposed argument against the DI's Master List of Kooks and Kwaks or a link to the offending video.

I guessed that it was the video by DonExodus2 based on Gerb's description but without a link I wasn't sure.  

The little rat fink only listed a title "Evaluating an antievolution petition" posted by a "would-be internet critic," again curious because it's very easy to find out who posts videos on YouTube because their freaking name or handle is right there on the page!

So, a little Googling came up with this:  a little debate between the DI and the NCSE at a website called Opposing Views

in September, 2008.

Yes, 2000 plus 8.  Sixteen.  Months.  Ago.

< Opposing Views (this is it) >

Furthermore, the title associated with the video came from Opposing Views.  Had the little Gerb taken the time or had enough working neurons, he would have discovered that the title of the video is

"List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?"

You get paid for this, Gerb?  Srsly?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 03 2010,16:05

Ha!  It keeps getting better!

Turns out that the DI filed a false DMCA claim against DonExodus2 for using the DI's logo in one of his videos.  We'll get to see how "false" false is when DonE takes them to court.

So, how rich is that?  Luskin is crabbing about a guy the DI is attempting to CENSOR under the flag of "academic freedom" and, I'm certain, Viewpoint Discrimination.

All together now, how many times has the DI used copyrighted material without permission or attribution?  Geeze Louise I ran out of fingers.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 03 2010,16:33

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010....ml#more >

The fact they're still trying to prop up their 'dissent from reality' list just makes me laugh.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Jan. 03 2010,17:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The critic also claims that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) provide unequivocal evidence for common descent, even though biologists are beginning to suspect ERVs have function and are not merely functionless genetic "junk."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



- Gerbil

Is Luskin really this stupid? ERV's are evidence for common descent because of their supposed lack of function?

WTF, man?

I've only seen brainless creationists spew such nonsense and apparent straw men.

Oh, I get it now.
Posted by: csadams on Jan. 04 2010,06:54

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Jan. 03 2010,17:08)
Is Luskin really this stupid? ERV's are evidence for common descent because of their supposed lack of function?

WTF, man?

I've only seen brainless creationists spew such nonsense and apparent straw men.

Oh, I get it now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin has < this thing > about ERVs.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 04 2010,18:11

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 04 2010,06:54)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Jan. 03 2010,17:08)
Is Luskin really this stupid? ERV's are evidence for common descent because of their supposed lack of function?

WTF, man?

I've only seen brainless creationists spew such nonsense and apparent straw men.

Oh, I get it now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin has < this thing > about ERVs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cue RichTard and his ERV pic in 3...2...1...
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 04 2010,19:53

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 04 2010,18:11)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 04 2010,06:54)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Jan. 03 2010,17:08)
Is Luskin really this stupid? ERV's are evidence for common descent because of their supposed lack of function?

WTF, man?

I've only seen brainless creationists spew such nonsense and apparent straw men.

Oh, I get it now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin has < this thing > about ERVs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cue RichTard and his ERV pic in 3...2...1...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you have to mention John Kwok to get the picture...
Posted by: raguel on Jan. 10 2010,01:06

Will Casey join Hovind in the pokey?  :D


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ture=iv >
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 10 2010,11:11

The beef with DonExodus2 is that he used an 8-second clip of the DI logo parodying it as a LOL Cats picture titled "Invisible Research."

Would have been funnier with a cat, I must say.

Copyright!  That's Casey's Achilles' Ingrown Toenail.  Unfortunately, Casey missed Copyright Day at Buford's Law School, Tire Center and Hair Care and he's been struggling with the concept ever since.

Remember when he abused a science bloggers logo and went on and on and on how the logo was only 120 by 80 pixels or some such nonsense, as if size matters?

(Hey, Casey, news flash:  size doesn't matter.)

(Cue Louis for obvious retort.)
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 03 2010,18:25

Casey does the Time Warp again!

Has anybody been following the News and Views at the DI's website?

Seems that Casey Luskin is stuck in a time warp.  Recently he's been reporting on old court cases and rulings and putting together a "rebuttal" to, get this, Ken Miller's critiques of Mikey Behe that must be five years ago.

Oh, and Kitzmiller!  Blah, blah, blah, Kitzmiller, blah, blah - is what creationist's hear.

What's up, Casey?  You paid by the word or something?   Or could it be that there's nothing new under the ID sun since Kitzmiller.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 03 2010,22:34

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 04 2010,13:25)
Casey does the Time Warp again!

Has anybody been following the News and Views at the DI's website?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I noticed that too. The EN&V site has it that the article "...was to give you an alternative viewpoint on many of Ken Miller’s arguments and to help you critically evaluate his claims." However the PDF itself is a continuation of Casey's many-years-long whine about the Kitzmiller case.

Rather than wade through the dreck I did a quick word count - sure enough "Dover" comes up 13 times; "testimony" 15 times and "jones" 6 times. That was enough for me.

Get over it Casey - your side lost, and it was fair and square.

Edited to add a figure.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 04 2010,04:23

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 04 2010,13:34)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 04 2010,13:25)
Casey does the Time Warp again!

Has anybody been following the News and Views at the DI's website?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I noticed that too. The EN&V site has it that the article "...was to give you an alternative viewpoint on many of Ken Miller’s arguments and to help you critically evaluate his claims." However the PDF itself is a continuation of Casey's many-years-long whine about the Kitzmiller case.

Rather than wade through the dreck I did a quick word count - sure enough "Dover" comes up 13 times; "testimony" 15 times and "jones" 6 times. That was enough for me.

Get over it Casey - your side lost, and it was fair and square.

Edited to add a figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not surprised really. It was probably the last time the NYTimes rang for an interview.

If I was at all talented, I would write something to the American Pie tune

... that was the day that ID died
   that was the day that ID died
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 11 2010,13:51

In a totally unexpected move, Casey < takes the fight directly to Judge Jones >, in the first of a series of 8 posts!  Can you feel the hurt coming?


Posted by: Louis on Feb. 11 2010,14:14

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 10 2010,16:11)
[SNIP]

(Cue Louis for obvious retort.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Logo size does matter? Huh? I don't get this...

...oh wait, you mean this is a penis joke? Ohhhhh. Like penis size doesn't matter?* I get it now, yeah that's funny! Penises are funny.**

Louis

*Not what your mum said.

**What your mum said.
Posted by: nmgirl on Feb. 11 2010,14:28

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 11 2010,13:51)
In a totally unexpected move, Casey < takes the fight directly to Judge Jones >, in the first of a series of 8 posts!  Can you feel the hurt coming?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i rarely click these links because my tard tolerance level is very low but i had to check this one out.  I've read the dover decision a couple of times and sure don't remember jones talking about dr dr d or his stupid idea.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 11 2010,14:45

[quote=carlsonjok,Feb. 11 2010,13:51]In a totally unexpected move, Casey < takes the fight directly to Judge Jones >, in the first of a series of 8 posts!  Can you feel the hurt coming?


Casey should try to cut back on his ID Ecstasy drug consumption and lay off the hard stuff.  No, Casey, we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 11 2010,17:43

< Luskin on Information: Part 0 >

Casey Luskin has decided to treat us to an agony in eight fits, wherein he will whine mightily concerning “information”. I don’t know how many of those I’ll be taking note of, but I might as well have a look at the first one.

It does not augur well for the series. Luskin leads with a lot of bluster, claiming that citations to the scientific literature on the topic of genetic information were “bluffs”. It seems dubious to me that Luskin will be able to do more than try to spin armchair philosophy stuff from William Dembski and Stephen Meyer as somehow putting actual research in doubt.

Here’s an example of Luskin innuendo, complete with scare quotes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   Virtually all of those “publications” mentioned by Judge Jones came from one single paper Miller discussed at trial, a review article, co-authored by Manyuan Long of the University of Chicago.4 The article does not even contain the word “information,” much less the phrase “new genetic information.” 5

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, a publication is still a publication, and a peer-reviewed one to boot, even if it is cited in a review article, so it is unclear what, exactly, Luskin is trying to do with the scare quotes. Usually the Discovery Institute (DI) is all for counting any odd scrap of paper with print on it as a publication, even inventing meaningless phrases like “peer-edited” to try to put some cachet on obvious partisan near-vanity press dreck. Perhaps the DI respect for articles and books only goes so far as to cover those that toe the “intelligent design” creationism (IDC) party line.

One can see that Luskin managed to shoot himself in the foot in that sentence-as-paragraph. Notice the footnote. That goes down to this text:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   [5.] The word “information” appears once in the entire article—in the title of note 103. Id. at 875 n. 103. See Manyuan Long, Esther Betrán, Kevin Thornton, and Wen Wang, “The Origin of New Genes: Glimpses from the Young and Old,” Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 4:865-875 (November, 2003).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Casey, how is it that you can get all huffy about someone not including a specific phrase of “new genetic information” when the title promises that the article is about “new genes”? Do you suppose that “new genes” are never associated with new genetic information? If you were that nit-picky about things being different you wouldn’t have been making those claims about the degree of “near-verbatim” passages in the Kitzmiller decision. It appears that the one trait that runs through both of the aspects of Luskin’s text discussed above is hypocrisy.

It gets worse from there.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   But are Judge Jones’s, Ken Miller’s, and the NCSE’s bold proclamations supported? Does Long et al. actually reveal the origin of new biological information? Is Explore Evolution wrong? A closer look shows that the NCSE is equivocating over the meanings of the words “information” and “new,” and that the NCSE’s citations are largely bluffs, revealing little about how new genetic functional information could originate via unguided evolutionary mechanisms. This bluff was accepted at face value by Judge Jones, who incorporated it in his highly misguided legal ruling.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




No, Casey, the equivocation about “information” comes from antievolutionists like your colleague William Dembski. As for “new”, this point can be found in the transcript of the Kitzmiller trial, where Scott Minnich was cross-examined by Pepper Hamilton’s Stephen Harvey. When asked about the evolution of a DNT breakdown system that evolved in bacteria, Minnich agreed that the multi-part system developed naturally, but dismissed it as an “adaptive response” rather than being evolution per se. But the IDC mindset comes through clearly there, as Minnich testified:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   Q. And if you look on — at figure 1, which is on page 113. And Matt, perhaps if you can bring that up for us. These researchers, based on their own original data, have published the organization and evolution of the bacteria that breaks down DNT?

   A. Right. This is an adaptational response.

   Q. And that’s a DNT — this process by which these bacteria breakdown DNT, that’s a biochemical pathway?

   A. Correct.

   Q. So we do have published information in this scientific literature about the evolution of biochemical pathways?

   A. Steve, you’re extrapolating from the data here. I mean, not all these enzymes evolved specifically to break down this compound. I mean, you’re mixing and matching enzymes, I’m sure, from pathways that had some other property.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




It’s pretty simple, really. A gene is new if it was not there in the population before but is now. A system is new if it does something that was not done before. Evolution, if Luskin had paid attention in class (and I don’t know what excuse Minnich could claim), works by modification of what exists. And sometimes those modifications result in novel functionality.

As for the stuff we don’t see happening in living systems, as alluded to in Minnich’s testimony, the de novo injection of systems that had no precursors, that’s what is known as “special creation”. It’s pretty ironic that when trying to figure out what they want from evolutionary science, quite commonly the antievolutionists are really asking that biologists demonstrate that creationism is observed.

Casey Luskin again:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   In fact the origin of new functional biological information is perhaps the most important question in biology. As origin of life theorist Bernd-Olaf Kuppers stated in his book Information and the Origin of Life, “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”8

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Now, I think someone introduced the word “equivocation” into the discussion. Right, that would be Casey. And here we see why Luskin introduced “equivocation” into the discussion: he’s projecting. There’s something a bit different between the processes that we see happening in the evolution of living things (the subject of discussion) and pre-biotic chemistry when talking about new genetic information. That would be that there is a system of inheritance established and operating in living things, something that is not available as an assumed starting position in origin-of-life research. So dropping origin-of-life into the discussion is simply a non sequitur, though one that has strong misleading properties.

Casey Luskin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   Judge Jones was not merely in error. Worse than any simple mistake, the misinformation he propounded in his ruling entered media and academic culture, becoming enshrined as a Darwinian myth, alongside many others. This myth holds that perhaps the most important question in biology has been solved, when really (as this series of 8 total posts will show), that is far from being the case.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is what the lawyers call “an appeal to facts not in evidence”. In fact, parts of this have already been proven false just in the discussion above, and Luskin hasn’t even gotten around to much more than a quote-mine, some projection, and a double dollop of hypocrisy. Nor do I have any expectation that the parts yet to be published will do any better than Luskin’s initial poor showing.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 11 2010,17:52

I just want to say thank you for using "toe the line" correctly, Wes.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 11 2010,18:04

I always thought it was "tow the lime" and had visions of Lilliputians dragging this giant lime across the sands, Egyptian-style, to a pitcher of margaritas.

Or was it a picture of Margaret Thatcher?

Man, I gotta lay off those mushrooms.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 11 2010,19:31

Great, now I have Nilsson's "Coconut" stuck in my head.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 11 2010,19:37

I just want to say "Thank You Wes" for making Casey cry.
Again.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 11 2010,19:38

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 11 2010,16:04)
I always thought it was "tow the lime" and had visions of Lilliputians dragging this giant lime across the sands, Egyptian-style, to a pitcher of margaritas.

Or was it a picture of Margaret Thatcher?

Man, I gotta lay off those mushrooms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here I always thought it had something to do with orthodontry.
You know "tooth align".
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 11 2010,20:18

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 11 2010,17:43)
< Luskin on Information: Part 0 >

Casey Luskin has decided to treat us to an agony in eight fits, wherein he will whine mightily concerning “information”. I don’t know how many of those I’ll be taking note of, but I might as well have a look at the first one.

It does not augur well for the series. Luskin leads with a lot of bluster, claiming that citations to the scientific literature on the topic of genetic information were “bluffs”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 12 2010,10:24

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 11 2010,18:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always thought this is one of the most pompous, arrogant things the Gerbil has ever said.

No-one gives a flying whether you forgive us or not, Lacey.

edit: spelling mestake.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 12 2010,11:18

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 12 2010,10:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 11 2010,18:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always thought this is one of the most pompous, arrogant things the Gerbil has ever said.

No-one gives a flying whether you forgive us or not, Lacey..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but his nice, Christian boy act plays well with the church-basement crowd.   < My prior comment on Luskin's grandiloquent forgiveness. >
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 13 2010,01:43

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 12 2010,09:18)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 12 2010,10:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 11 2010,18:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always thought this is one of the most pompous, arrogant things the Gerbil has ever said.

No-one gives a flying whether you forgive us or not, Lacey..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but his nice, Christian boy act plays well with the church-basement crowd.   < My prior comment on Luskin's grandiloquent forgiveness. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cudgel? Hah. Nerf bat, more like. You're right though.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 06 2010,18:52

On the count of three I want to hear some sympathy from you lot (yes, Louis, I'm looking at you.  I'm looking at you.) for poor, pitiful Casey Luskin.

Come on!  I want to see real tears.

Poor little attack gerbil Luskin has obviously suffered a huge blow to his ego having lost the inaugural NCSE UpChucky Award to Don McLeroy.  By golly, Luskin has paid his dues and deserves more than third runner-up after Ray Comfort.  I mean, it takes more than a banana prop to misrepresent all of science day after day.  

And when it comes to looks Luskin has more hair between his eyes than McLeroy has on his entire body.  (Disclaimer:  we do not have a visual confirmation re: McLeroy.  Based on an extrapolation only.)

Down, but not out, Luskin is determined to win the award for 2010 and he's off to a great start with an insightful series of articles about the devastating effect "Academic Freedom" bills are having on the Darwinian lobby intelligentsia.  Yes, quaking in their boots, the Darwinists only managed to crank out about 50,000 biology majors in 2009 in the United States alone.  Worldwide, numbers are probably equally depressing.

Meanwhile, Dembski has bet a bottle of single malt that a PhD in "Intelligent Design" will be granted within the next 20 years.

Buck up there, Luskin!  Ride that "Academic Freedom" bull.  You can do it!  We're all pulling for you.

Srsly.*










*Except for Louis, but we'll bring him around, jolly him along, buy him a pint and a pork pie and he'll be better.  Rly.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 07 2010,10:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Meanwhile, Dembski has bet a bottle of single malt that a PhD in "Intelligent Design" will be granted within the next 20 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Luskin could probably get his PhD in ID done within 3 years if he crosses the right palms with the right amount of money at Falwell U, and Southwest Seminary State - and yes, Luskin's PhD in ID really will stand for Piled Higher and Deeper.[
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 08 2010,06:44

Oh I'm sympathetic. Reeeeeeallly sympathetic. Why doesn't Lasey Cuskin* come over here and I'll show him just how sympathetic I am with the aid of a rolled up newpaper and a biology textbook.

Wait....did I just mess up being sympathetic again? Is sympathetic the one where you hit them on the nose with a rolled up paper every time they make a mistake? Or is that house training an intellectually sub-normal puppy? I always get the two mixed up when talking about Lasey Cuskin.

Louis

* In the case of Lasey Cuskin I feel it is appropriate to use the JADism and swap the letters of his first and last names. I have no idea what a Lasey Cuskin might be, but I have an inkling it is some kind of lace doily thing, used as a merkin, that's more than slightly soiled. Whatever it is, it's frilly, insubstantial, dirty and more than a little disgusting. Encountering a Lasey Cuskin is likely to leave one feeling mildly disturbed and in need of a shower. In bleach. Twice. With heavy scouring and a quick post shower sand blast.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 08 2010,14:04

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 08 2010,06:44)
Oh I'm sympathetic. Reeeeeeallly sympathetic. Why doesn't Lasey Cuskin* come over here and I'll show him just how sympathetic I am with the aid of a rolled up newpaper and a biology textbook.

Wait....did I just mess up being sympathetic again? Is sympathetic the one where you hit them on the nose with a rolled up paper every time they make a mistake? Or is that house training an intellectually sub-normal puppy? I always get the two mixed up when talking about Lasey Cuskin.

Louis

* In the case of Lasey Cuskin I feel it is appropriate to use the JADism and swap the letters of his first and last names. I have no idea what a Lasey Cuskin might be, but I have an inkling it is some kind of lace doily thing, used as a merkin, that's more than slightly soiled. Whatever it is, it's frilly, insubstantial, dirty and more than a little disgusting. Encountering a Lasey Cuskin is likely to leave one feeling mildly disturbed and in need of a shower. In bleach. Twice. With heavy scouring and a quick post shower sand blast.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OUCH!  I didn't realize that "Lacey Cuskin" and changing the first / last first initials was a JAD procedure.  I just thought it sounded funny, yet appropriate, for Casey to be a Lacey.  Damn.  Now that I know it's linked to JAD, I will have to stop using it.  Thanks Louis. :( And I didn't even make a "Louis's Mum Joke".  Well,  not too many anyway...

I love it so!
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 08 2010,15:14

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,12:04)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 08 2010,06:44)
Oh I'm sympathetic. Reeeeeeallly sympathetic. Why doesn't Lasey Cuskin* come over here and I'll show him just how sympathetic I am with the aid of a rolled up newpaper and a biology textbook.

Wait....did I just mess up being sympathetic again? Is sympathetic the one where you hit them on the nose with a rolled up paper every time they make a mistake? Or is that house training an intellectually sub-normal puppy? I always get the two mixed up when talking about Lasey Cuskin.

Louis

* In the case of Lasey Cuskin I feel it is appropriate to use the JADism and swap the letters of his first and last names. I have no idea what a Lasey Cuskin might be, but I have an inkling it is some kind of lace doily thing, used as a merkin, that's more than slightly soiled. Whatever it is, it's frilly, insubstantial, dirty and more than a little disgusting. Encountering a Lasey Cuskin is likely to leave one feeling mildly disturbed and in need of a shower. In bleach. Twice. With heavy scouring and a quick post shower sand blast.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OUCH!  I didn't realize that "Lacey Cuskin" and changing the first / last first initials was a JAD procedure.  I just thought it sounded funny, yet appropriate, for Casey to be a Lacey.  Damn.  Now that I know it's linked to JAD, I will have to stop using it.  Thanks Louis. :( And I didn't even make a "Louis's Mum Joke".  Well,  not too many anyway...

I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always liked "Lacey Cu__skin".  Rude, disrespectful, and therefore funny.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 08 2010,15:27

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 08 2010,13:14)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,12:04)
 
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 08 2010,06:44)
Oh I'm sympathetic. Reeeeeeallly sympathetic. Why doesn't Lasey Cuskin* come over here and I'll show him just how sympathetic I am with the aid of a rolled up newpaper and a biology textbook.

Wait....did I just mess up being sympathetic again? Is sympathetic the one where you hit them on the nose with a rolled up paper every time they make a mistake? Or is that house training an intellectually sub-normal puppy? I always get the two mixed up when talking about Lasey Cuskin.

Louis

* In the case of Lasey Cuskin I feel it is appropriate to use the JADism and swap the letters of his first and last names. I have no idea what a Lasey Cuskin might be, but I have an inkling it is some kind of lace doily thing, used as a merkin, that's more than slightly soiled. Whatever it is, it's frilly, insubstantial, dirty and more than a little disgusting. Encountering a Lasey Cuskin is likely to leave one feeling mildly disturbed and in need of a shower. In bleach. Twice. With heavy scouring and a quick post shower sand blast.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OUCH!  I didn't realize that "Lacey Cuskin" and changing the first / last first initials was a JAD procedure.  I just thought it sounded funny, yet appropriate, for Casey to be a Lacey.  Damn.  Now that I know it's linked to JAD, I will have to stop using it.  Thanks Louis. :( And I didn't even make a "Louis's Mum Joke".  Well,  not too many anyway...

I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always liked "Lacey Cu__skin".  Rude, disrespectful, and therefore funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you mean < Casey "Tits" Luskin >.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 08 2010,15:38

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,14:04)
OUCH!  I didn't realize that "Lacey Cuskin" and changing the first / last first initials was a JAD procedure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could anyone forget < Dilliam Wembski > or < Spravid Dinger >?

For that matter, what about our very own < Elsey Welsberry > or < Falan Ox >?

It's hard to believe, isn't it?
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 08 2010,15:51

hmmm something went wrong here. Ignore this!

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 08 2010,16:31

Louis,

Suppressing yer feelings like that can be bad - tell us how you really feel! ;)

Henry
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 08 2010,16:36

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 08 2010,15:38)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,14:04)
OUCH!  I didn't realize that "Lacey Cuskin" and changing the first / last first initials was a JAD procedure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could anyone forget < Dilliam Wembski > or < Spravid Dinger >?

For that matter, what about our very own < Elsey Welsberry > or < Falan Ox >?

It's hard to believe, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carlson - you are my hero - you must have the World's Best Filing System!!!111 - to preserve and link to some outstanding past history.  

And if there are any new "onlookers",  perhaps from Dr. Dembski's Philo class - I recommend giving the links a good look.  There is some classic stuff, including the Rich vs DaveScot thread, where Brave Sir Davey ran away, and JAD exploded and took over the thread.

and BTW Carlson - thanks!  Good stuff.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Mar. 08 2010,16:39

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 08 2010,15:51)
hmmm something went wrong here. Ignore this!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should have told me to ignore it before I read it.  :angry:
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 08 2010,16:51

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 08 2010,21:39)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 08 2010,15:51)
hmmm something went wrong here. Ignore this!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should have told me to ignore it before I read it.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My bad entirely.

For the record, I will also get off your lawn. I am fully congniscent of the fact that my music is basically a load of noise, and that I know nothing about nothing.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 08 2010,16:52

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 08 2010,21:31)
Louis,

Suppressing yer feelings like that can be bad - tell us how you really feel! ;)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Basically I typed something that went into some memory hole somewhere due to a quirk of software or me mistyping something. I decided that telling people to ignore a post was funnier than the original post, so I went with that.

I also punched a wall, so we're all good!

Louis
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 08 2010,18:48

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 08 2010,13:27)
Oh, you mean < Casey "Tits" Luskin >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, ERV (sigh).

"Smart women are so hot." -- Xander Harris.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 08 2010,18:53

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,14:36)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 08 2010,15:38)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 08 2010,14:04)
OUCH!  I didn't realize that "Lacey Cuskin" and changing the first / last first initials was a JAD procedure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could anyone forget < Dilliam Wembski > or < Spravid Dinger >?

For that matter, what about our very own < Elsey Welsberry > or < Falan Ox >?

It's hard to believe, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carlson - you are my hero - you must have the World's Best Filing System!!!111 - to preserve and link to some outstanding past history.  

And if there are any new "onlookers",  perhaps from Dr. Dembski's Philo class - I recommend giving the links a good look.  There is some classic stuff, including the Rich vs DaveScot thread, where Brave Sir Davey ran away, and JAD exploded and took over the thread.

and BTW Carlson - thanks!  Good stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMFG.

The Dilliam Wembski link led me to "Devastatin' Dave, the Turntable Slave."

You guys are awesome (sniff).
Posted by: sledgehammer on Mar. 09 2010,00:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 08 2010,16:53)
Carlson - you are my hero - you must have the World's Best Filing System!!!111 - to preserve and link to some outstanding past history.  

And if there are any new "onlookers",  perhaps from Dr. Dembski's Philo class - I recommend giving the links a good look.  There is some classic stuff, including the Rich vs DaveScot thread, where Brave Sir Davey ran away, and JAD exploded and took over the thread.

and BTW Carlson - thanks!  Good stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMFG.

The Dilliam Wembski link led me to "Devastatin' Dave, the Turntable Slave."

You guys are awesome (sniff).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And of course ... we love it so!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 09 2010,20:20

I am determined to help Luskin win the NCSE UpChucky Award for 2010.

If we all clap I'm sure he can do it!

Luskin continues his series on Court Cases Where ID Lost Big Time with a 1,400 word review of the Selman vs Cobb County, Ga. decision in which a school board was forced to remove stickers it had placed on biology textbooks declaring the Theory of Evolution to be "only a theory" etc etc, praise ID and buy my book.  Love, Denyse.

Well, breathlessly, I read Luskin's 1,400 word essay in which our favorite attack gerbil went to great lengths to describe why the NCSE was wrong, why the judges were wrong* and why EVERYBODY was just plain wrong in not on the decision, but the analysis and reporting of the decision which, after all, was decided

On.  Other.  Grounds.

What "grounds" (play grounds?  coffee grounds?  grounds for divorce?) Luskin, alas, never says.  I guess it's a mystery or a secret or something.

So, well played, Gerb!  By leaving "On Other Grounds" open he can pen another 1,400 word essay or two.  There could be an entire series, like 24.

Srsly.  Give me a Sharpie and I can make Jack Bauer look like Luskin. I just need a few minutes.



*extra points for working Judge Jones and Kitzmiller into this essay, although totally irrelevant.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Mar. 18 2010,04:28

Casey < defines the scientific method and shows how ID is science >. Same old, same old. However, the only relevant quote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We don't recommend pushing ID into the curriculum in public schools
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 18 2010,05:08

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Mar. 18 2010,05:28)
Casey < defines the scientific method and shows how ID is science >. Same old, same old. However, the only relevant quote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We don't recommend pushing ID into the curriculum in public schools
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey is such a moron.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A biology educator recently wrote me asking how blah blah blah...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear [Snip],
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Casey you fucking moron, if you don't want the public to know to whom the letter was addressed, you might not want to announce that it was you in the very first sentence of your post. If the letter was not addressed to you, then why say that it was? Are you just a compulsive liar? ....oh, nevermind.

Note that the letter goes on about finding CSI and IC and "large amounts of novel information", but never actually mentions how that calculation is done, or suggesting an example. The omission of "...by counting the such and so" or "...such as the bacterial flagellum" is so glaring it could blind someone. I don't think anyone is going to believe that's a letter from some random "biology educator".

Who really wrote it, Casey? Dembski?
Posted by: Jasper on Mar. 18 2010,10:18

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 18 2010,06:08)
Casey is such a moron.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A biology educator recently wrote me asking how blah blah blah...
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear [Snip],
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Casey you fucking moron, if you don't want the public to know to whom the letter was addressed, you might not want to announce that it was you in the very first sentence of your post. If the letter was not addressed to you, then why say that it was? Are you just a compulsive liar? ....oh, nevermind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um...Lou.

Casey posted his response to the "biology educator." The [Snip] is the biology educator's name.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 18 2010,18:15

Quote (Jasper @ Mar. 18 2010,11:18)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 18 2010,06:08)
Casey is such a moron.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A biology educator recently wrote me asking how blah blah blah...
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear [Snip],
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Casey you fucking moron, if you don't want the public to know to whom the letter was addressed, you might not want to announce that it was you in the very first sentence of your post. If the letter was not addressed to you, then why say that it was? Are you just a compulsive liar? ....oh, nevermind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um...Lou.

Casey posted his response to the "biology educator." The [Snip] is the biology educator's name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, I misread. Mibad, Casey. You go on with your bad self.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 18 2010,19:42

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 18 2010,18:15)
Yep, I misread. Mibad, Casey. You go on with your bad self.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou..



thanks carlsonjok...
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 30 2010,18:57

This installment of Casey Reports, aka the Attack Gerbil Squeaks, finds our junior scribe scouring the media for negative reporting against his pal and fellow theocrat Stephen Meier.  Now, to be fair, Steven Mayer has received quite a number of negative reviews for his book, Something in the Cell, so it's been difficult for the Casemeister to find positive, impartial scholarly reports.

HOWEVER!  Leaving no stone unturned the Casester found not one, no, not one, boys and girls, but TWO, count 'em, TWO positive reviews of Something or Another in the Cell or Whatever.

Casekey reports in Evo Snooze and Booze the following:  

Two Articles Defending Stephen Meyer and Signature in the Cell in Salvo Magazine

Yes!  Two positive reviews written by some science and legal scholar named

Casey Luskin

Isn't that amazing???  Casey found his Own Stuff with his bare hands.  Wonders never cease!

Here's a summary of what Casey wrote boiled down to the nitty gritty:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------








---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Wow, just wow!  Stephe Moyer is certainly to have someone like Casey as a fiend.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 09 2010,14:01

Casey has been attacking Michael Zimmerman, founder of the Clergy Project.

The link is his response to the crazed gerbil.  

< Luskin & Discovery Blasted >
Posted by: Doc Bill on April 09 2010,16:00

I got a note from Future Casey about the article he's going to post on his academically censored, locked-down, no comments permitted, no dissenting views permitted, no nothing no how permitted website about how Michael Zimmerman committed the following egregious errors:

1. misrepresented the Disco Tute
2. misrepresented "intelligent design"
3. conflated "intelligent design" with unScientific Biblical Kreationism
4. used ad hominid attacks on Casey calling him an "attorney"
5. incorrectly construed the DI as a "right wing biblical think tank" rather than a "right wing Biblical think tank"
6. was mean, insulting and uncivil
7. built strawmen out of canards
8. unfairly references the Wedge "oh, what, that old thing?" Document

Squeaks to commence in three, two, one ...
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 09 2010,16:04

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 09 2010,16:00)
I got a note from Future Casey about the article he's going to post on his academically censored, locked-down, no comments permitted, no dissenting views permitted, no nothing no how permitted website about how Michael Zimmerman committed the following egregious errors:

1. misrepresented the Disco Tute
2. misrepresented "intelligent design"
3. conflated "intelligent design" with unScientific Biblical Kreationism
4. used ad hominid attacks on Casey calling him an "attorney"
5. incorrectly construed the DI as a "right wing biblical think tank" rather than a "right wing Biblical think tank"
6. was mean, insulting and uncivil
7. built strawmen out of canards
8. unfairly references the Wedge "oh, what, that old thing?" Document

Squeaks to commence in three, two, one ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did Casey say whether or not he was going to forgive Zimmerman?
Posted by: J-Dog on April 09 2010,16:37

carlsonjok et al:  If we had Zimmerman's email address, we (meaning you, as it's " creator designer,) could send Z the Famous Luskin Kitteh Furgives You!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on July 29 2010,19:48

< Is it me or does Luskin just keep getting dunmber and dumber? >

My favorite part comes at the end of the post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In both cases, we're talking about strong selection pressure causing a couple changes (or even just one change) in the amino acid sequence of structural proteins. No new functions or structures are evolving and all we've seen is the loss of the ability of a toxin to bind to its target -- a protein involved in sodium channels. This is similar to the breaking down of a function -- losing the ability to bind through a mutation. Interesting and important research for sure, but if we're trying to showcase ""just what is the evidence" for the grander claims of Darwinian evolution, this will not suffice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, according to Luskin gaining tetrodotoxin resistance is a loss of functions? WTF?
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 29 2010,20:56

Quote (afarensis @ July 29 2010,19:48)
< Is it me or does Luskin just keep getting dunmber and dumber? >

My favorite part comes at the end of the post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In both cases, we're talking about strong selection pressure causing a couple changes (or even just one change) in the amino acid sequence of structural proteins. No new functions or structures are evolving and all we've seen is the loss of the ability of a toxin to bind to its target -- a protein involved in sodium channels. This is similar to the breaking down of a function -- losing the ability to bind through a mutation. Interesting and important research for sure, but if we're trying to showcase ""just what is the evidence" for the grander claims of Darwinian evolution, this will not suffice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, according to Luskin gaining tetrodotoxin resistance is a loss of functions? WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two possibilities:

1) It's losing the ability to die and go be with Bacterial Jesus.  

2) It's a loss of the "gap" function in which Casey's god can hide itself.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 29 2010,22:17

Quote (afarensis @ July 29 2010,19:48)
< Is it me or does Luskin just keep getting dunmber and dumber? >

My favorite part comes at the end of the post:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In both cases, we're talking about strong selection pressure causing a couple changes (or even just one change) in the amino acid sequence of structural proteins. No new functions or structures are evolving and all we've seen is the loss of the ability of a toxin to bind to its target -- a protein involved in sodium channels. This is similar to the breaking down of a function -- losing the ability to bind through a mutation. Interesting and important research for sure, but if we're trying to showcase ""just what is the evidence" for the grander claims of Darwinian evolution, this will not suffice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, according to Luskin gaining tetrodotoxin resistance is a loss of functions? WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, ask any IDiot:   It lost the ability to not resist tetrodotoxin.
Posted by: Amadan on July 30 2010,04:45

And I read Caseykin's screed, lost 10 IQ points, but in Darwinian terms gained dumbness.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 30 2010,10:57

Quote (afarensis @ July 29 2010,19:48)
< Is it me or does Luskin just keep getting dunmber and dumber? >

My favorite part comes at the end of the post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In both cases, we're talking about strong selection pressure causing a couple changes (or even just one change) in the amino acid sequence of structural proteins. No new functions or structures are evolving and all we've seen is the loss of the ability of a toxin to bind to its target -- a protein involved in sodium channels. This is similar to the breaking down of a function -- losing the ability to bind through a mutation. Interesting and important research for sure, but if we're trying to showcase ""just what is the evidence" for the grander claims of Darwinian evolution, this will not suffice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, according to Luskin gaining tetrodotoxin resistance is a loss of functions? WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And lactose tolerance would be losing the information for lactose intolerance.

Heads I win, tails you lose!
Posted by: fnxtr on July 30 2010,12:13

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 30 2010,08:57)
And lactose tolerance would be losing the information for lactose intolerance.

Heads I win, tails you lose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure, see, you lost the ability to shut off lactase production.

Resistance/immunity to any disease is the loss of binding ability.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by: Sealawr on Jan. 11 2011,17:15

Christians call Casey Luskin out his credentials and the DI out on its science.  Where's the love?

Alas, for Casey, they are already furgiven.

< http://www.patheos.com/communi....omments >
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 12 2011,07:41

Quote (Sealawr @ Jan. 11 2011,17:15)
Christians call Casey Luskin out his credentials and the DI out on its science.  Where's the love?

Alas, for Casey, they are already furgiven.

< http://www.patheos.com/communi....omments >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the link - it's always good to see Luskin get served, especially from the theo side.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 12 2011,08:14

Why am I so weak?  Drawn to the tard, I am.

Here's what the Boy Gerbil, Casey, says about his own self on that site:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who are the experts? Well, I’m an evangelical Christian and I hold two degrees in earth sciences from UC San Diego where I studied evolution, including the fossil record, extensively at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. If I was a neo-Darwinian evolutionist, you’d probably call me an “expert.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I guess it's not Tooooooo bad.  At least he put "expert" in scare quotes where it belongs.

Luskin studied the fossil record EXTENSIVELY????


Bwahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!  What a total, fucking liar.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist on Jan. 12 2011,09:53

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 12 2011,08:14)
Well, I guess it's not Tooooooo bad.  At least he put "expert" in scare quotes where it belongs.

Luskin studied the fossil record EXTENSIVELY????


Bwahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!  What a total, fucking liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Casey !  BTW, someonething is looking for you ...

< http://www.youtube.com/user/LuskinsConscience >
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 12 2011,12:54

Quote (darvolution proponentsist @ Jan. 12 2011,09:53)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 12 2011,08:14)
Well, I guess it's not Tooooooo bad.  At least he put "expert" in scare quotes where it belongs.

Luskin studied the fossil record EXTENSIVELY????


Bwahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!  What a total, fucking liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Casey !  BTW, someonething is looking for you ...

< http://www.youtube.com/user/LuskinsConscience >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool!  I hadn't seen this before, but it was excellent and well worth the time and fun of viewing the DI Takedown.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 12 2011,16:01

Quote (darvolution proponentsist @ Jan. 12 2011,09:53)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 12 2011,08:14)
Well, I guess it's not Tooooooo bad.  At least he put "expert" in scare quotes where it belongs.

Luskin studied the fossil record EXTENSIVELY????


Bwahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!  What a total, fucking liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Casey !  BTW, someonething is looking for you ...

< http://www.youtube.com/user/LuskinsConscience >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Casey's bolted.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 12 2011,17:50

Casey has learned a modicum of self-preservation when he detects he's about to be buried under a shit storm.

Luskin is such a jackass.  He started to downplay the whole credential thing after he spent a paragraph trying to inflate his.  No disrespect intended, but what the hell is a degree in "earth science?"  You may not believe this, but Luskin has described himself as a scientist.  Yes, total lie.

The DI is all about credential inflation.  How many times have you read, "Hey, Louis got a couple of papers published" and nobody bats an eye.  Totally normal. Yea, Louis!

In DI speak it would have been "World-renown scientist and five-time Nobel nominee Dr. Dr. Dr. Louis published two peer-reviewed pro-intelligent design papers challenging the dogmatic-Darwinian orthodoxy in the prestigious International Harvester Journal of Molecular-Schmecular Complexitation Review Letters Acta (Czech)"

Wow, Louis, really?  Five-time nominee?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 12 2011,18:40

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 12 2011,23:50)
Casey has learned a modicum of self-preservation when he detects he's about to be buried under a shit storm.

Luskin is such a jackass.  He started to downplay the whole credential thing after he spent a paragraph trying to inflate his.  No disrespect intended, but what the hell is a degree in "earth science?"  You may not believe this, but Luskin has described himself as a scientist.  Yes, total lie.

The DI is all about credential inflation.  How many times have you read, "Hey, Louis got a couple of papers published" and nobody bats an eye.  Totally normal. Yea, Louis!

In DI speak it would have been "World-renown scientist and five-time Nobel nominee Dr. Dr. Dr. Louis published two peer-reviewed pro-intelligent design papers challenging the dogmatic-Darwinian orthodoxy in the prestigious International Harvester Journal of Molecular-Schmecular Complexitation Review Letters Acta (Czech)"

Wow, Louis, really?  Five-time nominee?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Six times Nobel nominee actually.* But one doesn't like to brag.

Louis

*Claim made safe in the knowledge that a) serious nominations are confidential, b) nominations will remain secret until waaaaay after my death.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist on Jan. 12 2011,18:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2011,16:01)
Casey's bolted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, but not very far.

::: cups ear :::

I can hear something gnawing away over in the corner.
Posted by: JonF on Jan. 12 2011,19:33

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 12 2011,18:50)
 No disrespect intended, but what the hell is a degree in "earth science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PC geology. It's a valid scientific field. Doesn't make Casey a scientist, of course.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 13 2011,09:03

My degree in is Earth Science.  At my school (Lamar University, SE Texas), Earth Science is kind of 'science lite' mainly for teachers.  There's not a lot of hardcore science (experimental labs, student designed work, etc), most students take the easiest possible science classes (mainly geology) and the required bio 1&2 and chem 1&2 and then go teach middle school.

I majored in Earth Science because it is a fairly open degree plan, so I got to take a bunch of extra physics and biology courses that I wanted to take, rather than a very specific program.

Of course, it is basically useless as an actual science degree.  Scientists really have to specialize first, then get to broaden their horizons when they are established... I'm a generalist.  On the other hand, I take a few hundred tests a year ranging from 3rd grade up through nursing exams and I rarely get a question wrong (unless it's a bad question... which is my job, more or less).

Hope that helps
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 13 2011,09:56

As I wrote, no disrespect to earth scientists, however, great heaping gobs of disrespect for the lying little Gerbil fucker.

That said,

at my undergraduate university, Northern Arizona, they had a geography degree which touched on geology, paleontology, surveying and mapping, oceanography and all sorts of interesting things.  One of my favorite courses was geography taught by a "desert rat" of a guy.  Field trips were fascinating.

Probably makes me an expert or in Gerb's parlance an "expert."  Know what I mean?
Posted by: madbat.089 on Jan. 13 2011,14:11

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 13 2011,07:56)
As I wrote, no disrespect to earth scientists, however, great heaping gobs of disrespect for the lying little Gerbil fucker.

That said,

at my undergraduate university, Northern Arizona, they had a geography degree which touched on geology, paleontology, surveying and mapping, oceanography and all sorts of interesting things.  One of my favorite courses was geography taught by a "desert rat" of a guy.  Field trips were fascinating.

Probably makes me an expert or in Gerb's parlance an "expert."  Know what I mean?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have a deep dark horrible past with gerbils that makes you wish on them Casey Luskin and his parts?
:O
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 26 2011,08:05

(Copied from DI EN&V thread...)

Casey Luskin < doesn't like it > that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!

I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.

Here's an interesting fact: every single one of the papers at the link Casey gave was < published after we submitted our essay to Synthese >. Ooops. Will Casey admit error in claiming that we were "out-of-date"?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 26 2011,08:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Will Casey admit error in claiming that we were "out-of-date"?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is the Pope Lutheran?

Is it the End Of Times?

Will FTK ever change her spots?

etc... ad nauseum
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 19 2011,16:48

Some while ago I wrote < a short review of some crap published by Steve Meyer. > I found the other day that the DI attack gerbil made a response.

< Reply by Casey Luskin. >

I'll get to it soon.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on May 19 2011,17:02

J-Dog:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Will FTK ever change her spots?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bathroom Wall sayz no...

GH: keep us updated!
Posted by: paragwinn on May 19 2011,18:16

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 19 2011,14:48)
Some while ago I wrote < a short review of some crap published by Steve Meyer. > I found the other day that the DI attack gerbil made a response.

< Reply by Casey Luskin. >

I'll get to it soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Casey's reply:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question is whether such oxidation inhibitors or pH buffers were available on the early Earth. A pro-ID chemist critiqued this paper privately to me as follows:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Watch out, Casey has his super-secret research team on the case!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 20 2011,14:15

Quote (paragwinn @ May 19 2011,18:16)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 19 2011,14:48)
Some while ago I wrote < a short review of some crap published by Steve Meyer. > I found the other day that the DI attack gerbil made a response.

< Reply by Casey Luskin. >

I'll get to it soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Casey's reply:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question is whether such oxidation inhibitors or pH buffers were available on the early Earth. A pro-ID chemist critiqued this paper privately to me as follows:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Watch out, Casey has his super-secret research team on the case!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another paper discusses the impact of meteorites on the earth's early atmosphere but did not discuss the composition of the earth's prebiotic atmosphere or the formation of prebiotic monomers. (Genda and Abe 2003.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Carbon from carbonaceous chondrites is carbon, as in carbon with an oxidation number of zero, as in reduced carbon.  IDiot.
Posted by: OgreMkV on May 20 2011,14:23

Quote (paragwinn @ May 19 2011,18:16)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 19 2011,14:48)
Some while ago I wrote < a short review of some crap published by Steve Meyer. > I found the other day that the DI attack gerbil made a response.

< Reply by Casey Luskin. >

I'll get to it soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Casey's reply:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question is whether such oxidation inhibitors or pH buffers were available on the early Earth. A pro-ID chemist critiqued this paper privately to me as follows:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Watch out, Casey has his super-secret research team on the case!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoops... better forget that argument...

< Darwin's Warm Little Pond >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 20 2011,14:53

Quote (paragwinn @ May 19 2011,18:16)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 19 2011,14:48)
Some while ago I wrote < a short review of some crap published by Steve Meyer. > I found the other day that the DI attack gerbil made a response.

< Reply by Casey Luskin. >

I'll get to it soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Casey's reply:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question is whether such oxidation inhibitors or pH buffers were available on the early Earth. A pro-ID chemist critiqued this paper privately to me as follows:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Watch out, Casey has his super-secret research team on the case!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin again:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another paper discusses the formation of ribose, not the earth's early atmosphere. (Ricardo et al. 2004.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Ricardo et al in the first paragraph

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That RNA could form spontaneously and persist
under prebiotic conditions has been doubted,
however (4, 5). Ribose and its sister pentoses
(arabinose, xylose, and lyxose) are made under
alkaline conditions from simple organic precursors
(formaldehyde and glycolaldehyde) (6)
known in interstellar space and presumably available
on early Earth (7). Pentoses do not accumulate
under these conditions, however; they rapidly
decompose in a “browning” reaction to generate
largely undescribable polymeric mixtures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds like discussion of ribose formation in abiotic environments.  Let us see what Reference 4 has to say about oxidizing/reducing:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In addition,
aldoses are easily oxidized to sugar acids and they react readily
with low concentrations ofHCN (Kiliani reaction) to form the
next higher sugar acid (32, 33). These and other decomposition
pathways make it unlikely that sugars played a role in early
prebiotic syntheses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

The reason that the Benner group did not mention a reducing atmosphere is because the target audience is expected to be able to look up references and understand them.  The reason that Miller did not mention a reducing atmosphere is because the later work had not come out yet.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 20 2011,15:08

Quote (paragwinn @ May 19 2011,18:16)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 19 2011,14:48)
Some while ago I wrote < a short review of some crap published by Steve Meyer. > I found the other day that the DI attack gerbil made a response.

< Reply by Casey Luskin. >

I'll get to it soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Casey's reply:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question is whether such oxidation inhibitors or pH buffers were available on the early Earth. A pro-ID chemist critiqued this paper privately to me as follows:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Watch out, Casey has his super-secret research team on the case!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luskin:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4 papers focus on the earth's post-biotic atmosphere (i.e. the atmosphere after life already existed on earth) and were irrelevant to investigating the nature of earth's atmosphere prior to the origin of life. (Catling et al. 2002, Kasting and Siefert 2002, Pavlov et al. 2001, Wolf and Toon 2010.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Kasting and Siefert 2002



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, microorganisms have probably determined
the basic composition of Earth’s
atmosphere since the origin of life. During
the first half of Earth’s history, this may have
resulted in a planet that looked much like
Saturn’s moon Titan (Fig. 2).2 During the
latter half of Earth’s history, microorganisms
created the breathable, O2-rich air and clear
blue skies that we enjoy today. Atmospheric
evolution on an inhabited planet is determined
largely by its microbial populations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Translation: the atmosphere was not oxidizing until 2.3 Gya, hence it was reducing before, verily back to to abiogenetic regimes.
Posted by: Doc Bill on May 20 2011,19:28

Over at Evo Whine and Snooze, DI attack gerbil and World Unibrow Queen, Casey Luskin, actually wrote this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People often invent conspiracy theories when they feel dejected and disenfranchised, but are unwilling (or politically unable) to admit the possibility they are wrong. Such theories are often an attempt to save face by inventing opponents who can then be blamed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Words fail me.  This guy who espouses the "Darwinian lobby" and the "Darwinian Pressure Group*" and "Darwinists this and that" has described in his own words his own self.

A.  Mazing.



*Actually, the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, exists and we accept donations.  Cash only.
Posted by: Henry J on May 20 2011,23:13

Delta Pi Gamma?

How about Delta Alpha Rho win.

Henry
Posted by: dvunkannon on May 21 2011,18:13

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 19 2011,17:48)
Some while ago I wrote < a short review of some crap published by Steve Meyer. > I found the other day that the DI attack gerbil made a response.

< Reply by Casey Luskin. >

I'll get to it soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice of Casey to respond where Gary can't counter, instead of on Amazon. Attack gerbils need a nice safe place to work, where too much reality won't bother them.

BTW, you've made me go back over the new reviews to SITC on Amazon and give some feedback to those I feel deserve some.
Posted by: noncarborundum on May 21 2011,19:04

Quote (Doc Bill @ May 20 2011,19:28)
Over at Evo Whine and Snooze, DI attack gerbil and World Unibrow Queen, Casey Luskin, actually wrote this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People often invent conspiracy theories when they feel dejected and disenfranchised, but are unwilling (or politically unable) to admit the possibility they are wrong. Such theories are often an attempt to save face by inventing opponents who can then be blamed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Words fail me.  This guy who espouses the "Darwinian lobby" and the "Darwinian Pressure Group*" and "Darwinists this and that" has described in his own words his own self.

A.  Mazing.



*Actually, the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, exists and we accept donations.  Cash only.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfamiliar with < psychological projection >, are ye?
Posted by: Henry J on May 21 2011,19:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nice of Casey to respond where Gary can't counter, instead of on Amazon. Attack gerbils need a nice safe place to work, where too much reality won't bother them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but the noise of that wheel going around can be annoying sometimes.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 25 2011,13:46

< http://blogs.forbes.com/johnfar....unk-dna >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UPDATE: 5.24.11 At the Discovery Institute’s site, Casey Luskin is apparently claiming this post was a review of their new book.  “John Farrell has written a critique of Jonathan Wells’ new book The Myth of Junk DNA. The only problem is that many of the arguments Farrell critiques aren’t ones that Jonathan Wells makes in the book.”

The only problem is, the post is about other science bloggers discussing the topic in light of the book’s release. In the comments, I invited Casey to send me a copy of the book to review, but as yet he has not responded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



D'Oh!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 22 2011,00:37

< Casey Luskin Doesn't Do It Again >

Casey Luskin doesn't bother to comprehend what someone else says before shooting off his mouth... again. This time, he's misrepresenting Genie Scott, and before he's through, he has himself misrepresented the law.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 22 2011,10:55

Wes, good item on Luskin. Could you add the direct link to Genie's talk? I hated clicking to Luskin, to UD. I wanted to wash my keyboard.

< http://youtu.be/WgJX8g-huVE >

(The comment about teaching "evidence against evolution" starts about 45:30min)


Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 17 2011,10:26

Hey, Gerb's got a new job, er, title, er, function, er, whatever.

According to this article in the prestigious news organ,

< Christian Post >

Luskin is now, drum roll please ...

Research Coordinator!!!!!

Go, Gerb!  < Ride that spicy research! >
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 18 2011,02:05

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 17 2011,08:26)
Hey, Gerb's got a new job, er, title, er, function, er, whatever.

According to this article in the prestigious news organ,

< Christian Post >

Luskin is now, drum roll please ...

Research Coordinator!!!!!

Go, Gerb!  < Ride that spicy research! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stupid fast food commercial.

The comment section of the Christian Post has been interesting. If the creto chewtoys won't come to you, you must go to them.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.