So remember how last night Casey Luskin was all for freedom of speech? Academic freedom? This is what ID Creationists do to students that dare to speak out against them.
Casey is allowed to post here to defend himself and his actions, but because he cannot defend his behavior, hes decided to lick his wounds and revise history via press release at EN&V. Please note the obvious: EN&V is bitching about a troll being unable to post on ERV, yet no one is allowed to post on EN&V.
On the bright side, its easy to tell when Casey is lying. His lips are moving. So Im not particularly interested in refuting every sentence of Caseys revisionism.
However, Casey retardedly admits that slandering me and ERV is just a publicity stunt.
I didn't know exactly what Ms. Haberle was posting because I can't read her comments...
Then how do you know Ms. Haberle wasnt banned for suggesting we solve the worlds energy crisis by using the corpses of dead babies?
How do you know she wasnt banned for posting nothing but Indian food recipes?
How do you know she wasnt banned for trying to get everyone to invest their retirement funds with this cool 'Madoff guy?
Oh, you dont.
You just know shes a Creationist, and I made a naughty joke (**GIGGLE!**).
Everyone else actually knows what happened because they have been able to read 'Ms. Haberles' comments for months because I didnt update sharpshooter, so Casey has been presenting 'CREATIONISTS ARE PERSECUTED ON ERV! TITS!' for 4-6 months, when he has had no idea why 'Ms. Haberles' was banned. In forums where I have not been present to defend myself and ERV.
But Casey isnt a spite filled, vindictive ass. He 'forgives' everyone.
Casey, newsflash: You can say I raped a toddler on stage and fed the mangled corpse to my rabies-infected pit bull. It doesnt matter. It will never make you right. It will never make me 'shut up'.
The one point I am going to address is Caseys misrepresentation my Q (which I also didnt get out due to a screaming moderator and Trinity Baptist members). Kids arent 'dumb'. Kids are kids. Kids cannot discuss most real scientific controversies. Thats why there are no fourth graders working in research laboratories. Kids cannot discuss the validity of the quasispecies model to describe RNA viruses (note, when I said 'quasispecies' to Casey, he didnt know what the word meant, and assumed I misspoke). Kids cannot debate on when/where/if B-cells de-differentiate to a pluripotent state, and re-differentiate into macrophages.
Kids need to learn the Earth goes around the sun, not debate the validity of string theory.
Kids need to learn organisms change over time due to random mutation and natural selection/genetic drift, not whether 'quasispecies' is a useless/valid/idiomatic term.
Kids need to learn what a blastocyst looks like and the stages of cell division, not whether/how terminally differentiated cells dedifferentiate to a stem-cells.
But the point of Academic Freedom bills isnt to have 4th graders 'debate' string theory.
The point of those bills is to allow Creationist teachers, in a position of influence and authority, to stand in front of a classroom and say 'SCIENTISTS THOUGHT JUNK DNA WAS USELESS BUT CREATIONISTS DIDNT!!!!'
Academic Freedom bills allow non-controversies, like the ones brought up by Sexy Casey and John 'I want Hitler to bone me hard' West brought up last night, to be introduced into classrooms to confuse kids.
THAT was my point. Kids 'dumbness' is fixed over time through education. Caseys dumbness is forever.
EDIT TO ADD: I wish, I wish, I wish I had written this post. This stuff is important!
- Log in to post comments
So Luskin tells his own version of the story in a closed-venue where comments aren't even allowed and, thus, no one can challenge his description of the evens in front of people reading him as the only source.
And who's supposed to be the one against free speech, again?
Thanks for being out there on the front lines Abbie.
IMHO, Casey's Dumbness = Lying For Jesus.
It's what he knows. And unfortunately, all he'll probably ever know.
Good thing we have watchers like you though, to stay on top of him. In a good, wholesome Christian-like chaste way.
But I would still recommend washing my hnads @ 100 times after you were in the same room with him.
And of course, that's exactly the point. There are no links to your blog in that press release. This is damage control, mostly for their credulous and already sympathetic audience. They obviously don't want anyone to see a different account of the events that transpired.
I'm sorry you have to deal with that moron Abbie ... but Thank you! :-)
These people have a really warped sense of what a "civil discussion" is. Lying your ass off is extremely rude. Casey and his type give up any claim to being polite or demanding politeness because of it.
The reason Casey and his fellow Liars for Jeebus keep peddling the civility issue is because they've got nothing else to fall back on. It's not like they've ever bothered to produce a single scrap of evidence for their claims.
No, tell us what you really think of Casey ...
I like this part:
Of course, calling scientists "Darwinists" while, at the same time, saying that Nazis were Darwinists isn't a personal attack or intended to "intidimate" (don't you guys even own a spellchecker?) anyone. It certainly isn't the stuff of a civil discussion on any issue. Moaning from the DI over the low level of discourse is a little like Karl Rove decrying partisan politics.
And, excuse me, but wasn't Luskin and West just speaking at the University of Oklahoma? It doesn't seem that anyone is stopping them from freely and openly speaking out. Once they enter the rough-and-tumble of public debate, however, they get no free passes.
And who said that challenging Darwin is dishonest? Scientists do that all the time. But the converse is not true ... not everyone who challenges Darwin is honest, which Luskin has demonstrated too many times to count ... not least of all when he claims that ID is not intended to bring "the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" into the public classroom.
Self-awareness has never been the strong suit for anyone involved with the DI.
Casey and West will whine that they can't open up their site to comments because the comments will be vulgar and nasty and, shock horror, Darwinist!
But, that's not the issue because they can read all that at After the Bar Closes on the PT.
No, what they fear and the reason their site is closed to comment is because of their fear of the truth. Yes, commenters will post the full context of the quotes they mine showing Luskin and West to be the liars they are. Quote mining is lying, pure and simple. A conscious attempt to deceive.
All you have to do is provide the original reference and these fools are unmasked.
Nice try Luskin and West. Do you think we're all as stupid as you?
Awww...you mean woman! You seem to have given poor little Casey the vapors by flipping him the bird. I hope he had a fainting couch nearby.
So the whiny little bitch Casey had to write home to daddy that the mean students in Oklahoma said naughty things about him, and Abbie flipped him off.
What a weak, simpering, smarmy little piece of bat shit.
One can only hope that Casey, Crowther, and West get the drizzling shits and live forever and ever. Amen.
Abbie, is it true that You and Casey made out in the disabled toilet?
XD
Luskin would be the perfect target for the Internet Hate Machine. If I were the pray for anything, I'd pray for him to do something that pisses off anon.
Flipped Luskin the Bird, didja, Abbie?
Good for you! I consider that my Proxy Bird. Let the lying bastards see our passion for truth!
Abbie, you've done a great service by bringing the evolution-creationism debate to its inevitable climax. This bird-flipping episode elegantly and eloquently summarizes and rebuts all of the scientific content of the creationist movement. The controversy can be taught, and the whole thing should only take about ten seconds of classroom time.
All that remains is to see which of us can figure out a tasteful way to work this graphic into a post.
So all I have to do to get an evening with you including the finger and TITS is to mumble some creationist BS and to lie and quotemine and whine a little in a Uni auditorium?? Let me work on that lol....
Let me get this straight. Luskin, who has a whole freaking "think" tank at his back, is having vapors over the fact that you, a student, flipped him the finger, and has put up a post about it over at the DI's website - the same place they put up their press release etc. WTF?
Abbie, I must admit that while I love you and your writing, I have underestimated how much the DI fears you. Good work.
I <3 U Abbie.
Nicely done Abby. It's also nice to see you visit the Curmudgeon's place.
Don't you just love Luskin? We evilutionists could not even dream up such a perfect target let alone play the part.
I can't quite figure out why DI hasn't fired the man yet, he certainly isn't doing them any good.
Wow, I totally blew that post. There was a heart there, but I guess it got read as html.
Sorry.
Kisses
I donno about this bird-flipping episode. I was running a classy blog until this came up. Now ...I can't resist this event. It's the greatest!
Nicely done Abby. It's also nice to see you visiting the Curmudgeon's place.
Don't you just love Luskin? We evilutionists could not even dream up such a perfect target let alone play the part.
I can't quite figure out why DI hasn't fired the man yet, he certainly isn't doing them any good.
Butt I repeat myself.
Sorry Abby, you got me so excited the post replicated.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/room-for-debate/2009/02/18/creation-of-chri…
More bad press for Casey
Seriously? Screaming? The moderator was milquetoast. Either you, ERV, have incredibly thin skin or you are engaging in theatrical exaggeration. I was there. No one was screaming at you. The worst was by my best friend, who was right beside me, and he raised his voice but hardly "screamed". And you got far more time than any other questioner. And the presentation dealt with quite a bit more material than you and your blog. The stated topic was not "The way ERV treats people", so your long-term microphone grandstanding was not particularly helpful to anyone. One would think your actions could speak for themselves (and believe me, they do) and that you could let it go. But nnnoooooo, you take half the allotted Q&A time for yourself and then want to complain about mistreatment?
Rho, I was there also. I was watching Ewert. I wouldn't say he was screaming, but he had clearly raised his voice to a loud volume. It was my observation that he was very angry with Abbie for taking over the microphone and he was demanding that she yield it. Which leads to your comment about her taking over the Q&A.
I find it reprehensible that Luskin would make a character attack on Abbie and then Ewert would demand that she not be allowed to respond. Regardless of the truth of the allegations, basic human decency should allow someone, once so charged, a chance to respond. What Luskin and Ewert did in trying to silence her in the Q&A after attacking her in the presentation was pure intellectual cowardice. You did stand up and defend her in front of your peers, which was a courageous thing to do. To see you defend those cowards is a little disappointing.
When I started talking, Don Ewert was yelling over me and refusing to let me speak. The first minute or so I was speaking, I was ignoring and speaking over him.
Almost the entire time I was at the mic I was speaking over Ewert and/or Trinity Baptist members, constantly repeating myself and rephrasing my questions to suit *them*. If I was allowed to speak freely, I would have taken three minutes. But I wasnt. But gorsh golly, they werent 'screaming', so theyre pretty cool guys.
Also, no one was allowed to ask questions because there was no time, long before *I* took up 5 minutes at the mic. Luskin and West went over time over 30 minutes on their own. And think of all the time Casey could have saved by not bringing up internet drama that no one in the audience cared about. 15-20 minutes?
You want to bitch about not having time to ask Qs, you need to bitch at those boys, not me for attempting to defend myself for five fucking minutes.
And your friend is a fucking moron. Yeah, I know PUA slang. I also know that guys who read that shit and reference it in common conversations are sexually frustrated losers who cant get pussy.
"Then how do you know Ms. Haberle wasnt banned for suggesting we solve the worlds energy crisis by using the corpses of dead babies?"
-- because nobody would get banned for that suggestion, it sounds like a splendidly modest proposal.
Tatarize, consider this your first and only warning.
Babies are for eating, not to be wasted as fuel for some turbine.
You disgust me.
JanieBelle | February 22, 2009 11:54 AM :
♥ is displayed as: ♥
Oh, and do not trust preview when you're using character entity references like the above. It will ruin the character entity references in the edit box.
I should add:
<3 is displayed as <3
A simpler, more traditional heart. Again, preview will ruin it.
ERV, well it does depend on how well fed they are. You could always render the fat ones, as they do with whales, and use that as fuel and still have the lean meat left for eating :) After all, if we just let the creotards and their quiverful strategy get on it with it, just think of the possible yield. Not only food and fuel, but at long last, a genuinely beneficial use for IDiots, a win win win.
/Swift
So *that's* why they want to bring biological (and hence medical) science to a screeching halt.
Abbie, I just wanted to thank you for giving me some ammunition to PROVE that Darwinists have no substance or intellect way of responding to critics, hence the reason they try to stop all debate in the first place. Just yesterday a friend asked me "So just what do they do to people they disagree with [referring to ID critics]?"
Was it by chance or design that the next day I would find the perfect way to answer his question? If you don't mind, I will be recommending those who have no opinion on this issue to your blog, since they all seem to think, "Yeah, but PZ Myers is just an exception..."
My hope is that you keep blogging and do for the ID movement what Anita Bryant did for gay rights.
-F2XL
Feel free to scramble the comments on here and ask me to post a nude photo of myself. You'll only dig yourself a deeper hole and make people wonder why you haven't heard of Midol. ;D
Oh yeah, on a second note: There are better ways to manage PMS then to flip someone off and call someone ELSE a troll.
http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/premenstrual-syndrome.cfm
HAHAHAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS. BACK TO FAPPING TO MY FAVORITE PORNO.
Hey Abbie,
I'm friends with the guy who left the previous two comments, and while I'm not saying I feel the critics of ID are all out of there minds, and I won't judge you if you call him a troll for doing once what you (supposedly, from what "ID'ers" say) do everyday, but I was just wondering if you really feel your actions are helpful for your side. Personally if I was debating a flat-earther, I wouldn't insult them, I would just let the facts speak for themselves, but here this does not seem to be the strategy you're following.
I'm currently being persuaded to join an IDEA club, and I didn't think it would serve any useful purpose, but you seem like the final straw that breaks the camel's back. Not saying you're dissuading me from the pro-darwin crowd, but a lot of people such as yourself just seem a little "uncivil" as the Discovery Institute has said.
-Trevor
PS: the "Midol" comment was inspired by a teachers impression of you. It wasn't F2XL's idea, but he seemed to have some pretty good reasons for justifying it. :/
Question: What's the best argument in favor of ID?
Answer: Abbie shot a bird at Casey.
Well, 'Trevor', sock-puppetting is considered bad form on the internet. Its usually a banable offense.
I suppose F2XL is your 'roommate' and you 'share a computer', and thats why you have the same IP address?
Any reason why someone in Tacoma/Seattle Washington cares about internet drama irl in Oklahoma? Did you, your 'roommate' and your 'teacher' fly in for Caseys presentation? Thats nice!
Abbie, I want to warn you. Many ID'ers (which don't include me, though I've been asked to be a "critic" at an IDEA Center) are watching what you do on this blog, and if you don't want to make it easy for F2XL to "recruit" classmates into an IDEA center/club (I forget which of the two since I normally care less), then I think that comment you made just before me might be just what he's looking for.
Why not take advice from Randy Olson? I'm more on the pro-evolution side and it seems like he's not so detrimental for people like me who would LIKE to say they accept evolution and support the modern synthesis, but are afraid of being viewed as totally intolerant of other views and beliefs with respect to both ID and religion.
It's hard for people like me (and Michael Ruse, etc.) who are skeptical of religion, and mostly supportive of Darwinian thought to win people over if others keep telling the other side to shut up.
BTW: F2XL's probably going to brag the next day about how he got an angry response from you. I can guarantee you're giving him exactly what he wants.
PS: Search his room a couple months ago, and trust me, F2XL doesn't have porn. He claims the "Design of Life" is even better. ;)
HAHAHAHAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS. PLEASE POST MY ADDRESS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEND ME PIZZAS.
Trevor, if there really are some thinking people on the pro-darwin side of all this, then I would love for you to show me some examples. Looking above, it seems like Abbie is very contempt even with those who agree with her.
"It's hard for people like me (and Michael Ruse, etc.) who are skeptical of religion, and mostly supportive of Darwinian thought to win people over if others keep telling the other side to shut up."
No kidding Trevor. Now that you've been disenfranchised from your own side of the debate, do you really have a choice in this matter?
So 'someone' from 'Seattle' is threatening me and leaving sexist comments, including a comment from a 'teacher', ie someone at the DI, 48 hours after I cut of Casey Luskins balls.
And you think I would be deleting anything?
JUST STOP RESPONDING TO F2XL. HE'S USING YOU AS A RECRUITING TOOL BY CITING SOME OF YOUR MORE OFF-HANDED COMMENTS AGAINST ID AND RELIGION IN GENERAL.
AND NO "F2XL" THIS DOES NOT MEAN I WILL JOIN YOUR IDEA CLUB/CENTER/WHATEVER THE HELL IT'S CALLED.
YOU DO REALIZE THAT EVERYTIME SOME DICKWAD ON SCIENCEBLOGS GETS "UNCIVIL" IT GIVES THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE MORE TO BITCH ABOUT???
"Looking above, it seems like Abbie is very contempt even with those who agree with her."
Looks like this guy's grammar is right on the money.
So... Cindy lives in the same house and uses the same computer as 'Trevor' and 'F2XL'... I guess I take back that 'sexually repressed' comment. You cats know how to swing!
I forgot to mention that the Internet is Serious Fucking Business. I am very concerned.
Yes, we're in the same exact house, using the same damn computer and RJ (F2XL's real name) is laughing his ass off and asking me why I bothered to type in all caps and prove his point even further.
Now he wants his turn.
Not that I have anything important to say Cindy. Just wanted to point out the spelling error pointed out by Tyler is actually something to be blamed on Firefox.
Prediction: by the end of this night, I will have made two fellow students who are currently critical of ID feel disenfranchised by someone who holds the exact same views as they do..............
Boo-hoo, Trevor's got something to say...
Cindy, you might want to make sure that there's no kiddy porn on that computer your using. Your roommate did admit to fapping to lolicon above. I'm just sayin...
Like I said before. Design of Life is F2XL's porn.
*From Cindy: see the above point.
That has got to be the most disturbing, disgusting, and dissatisfying concern troll EVAR!!1!!!eleven
Why can't these people at least TRY to act rationally? (Rhetorical. I know.)
"Like I said before. Design of Life is F2XL's porn."
Moar liek the Design of Prepubescent Vaginas, amirite?
Yeah something like that.
Told him I thought it was poor design. Why did the clit have to be soooo separate from the point of entry???
Oh my god you are a high school kid!
Oh my god!
Dude, go outside and play! Why are you trolling on the internet? Oh my god, dude, get 'Ninjatown' for your DS-- its only $20 and it rocks. Or get 'Professor Layton' used, its a bunch of logic problems, super fun.
Youre too smart to waste your youth on trolling, dude.
blech, concern trolls. They're as dishonest and disgusting as overt trolls.
"Oh, Abbie, I'm not a creobot, but you say bad words, so maybe I'll just join them."
Yeah, everybody bought that schtick, moron.
llewelly,
I appreciate the info. Is there some code for a long, wet, passionate tongue kiss? I'd like to say thank you. :)
(oh, and if you could hook me up with a little something more for Abbie... don't tell her though, I want it to be a surprise) ;)
No worries. RJ went home. And Trevor is getting suspicious about the contents of RJ's computer.
ITT, trolls should get behind 7 proxies.
Congratulations Abby - looks like you riled them up a bit. I guess they are a bit aggressively depressed what with the passage of HR 1:
Science: Beaucoup bucks (around $21B?)
Woo: $0.00
Maybe you were just giving them a "Science #1" signal and they took it wrong?
If the Discovery Institute had a blog where one could post a question and get an answer, I would ask them for an example of something they have actually discovered that produced any kind of advancement in human civilization.
Wait, wait, wait-- OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! You are a high school kid. This event happened Friday night. This is Sunday. You havent spoken to any 'teachers'.
So this means Will is in direct contact with West or Luskin, one of which described me as needing 'Midol'. Fantastic.
I am not new the debate over evolution, but I am new this crude arena of the debate. I dont think I'll stay long. Anyone who talks about rape and a toddler in such a way and in such a context is really a damaged soul.
In passing, I wonder why those who are so bent on seeing the world in purely biological terms, that is that life is no more than a collection of cells, even have the motivation to study science, write blogs, or do really anything that is not entirely for self gratification. If we are just a collection of cells than none of this matters anyway. The motives of this blogger suggest otherwise and rather confirm my suspicion that existence is, at its core, the conflict between good and evil.
Dear Freddy Grisewood, Bagshot, Surrey. As a prolific letter-writer, I feel I must protest about the previous letter. I am nearly sixty and am quite mad, but I do enjoy listening to the BBC Home Service. If this continues to go on unabated ...Dunkirk... dark days of the war... backs to the wall... Alvar Liddell ... Berlin air lift ... moral upheaval of Profumo case ... young hippies roaming the streets, raping, looting and killing.
Yours etc., Brigadier Arthur Gormanstrop (Mrs.)
So this means Will is in direct contact with West or Luskin, one of which described me as needing 'Midol'. Fantastic.
Who's Will?
Maybe they sent high school students to troll here in hopes that they could get some juicy "OMG they are being inappropriate with minors!!" quotes? What's next, little old ladies?
Basic 101 question.
What is meant by flipping as in "Abbie flipped him off."
Isaac Newton was an asshole. But nobody cares about that.
Science isn't politics. Civility is nice, but not required. What's required is evidence.
So long as you DI wankers continue making blah blah blah noises without answering the call for scientific evidence, real scientists will spank you. Repeated spankings may involve some experiments in language, gesture, and graphic art, merely to relieve the tedium.
No one here will fall for the "civility" distraction, though it may play well in church.
Doug, it's apparent that you are not comfortable in the reality based world. I suggest that you re-immerse yourself in your Wholly Babble, pray to your sky fairy, and leave the real world to the rest of us. I'm sure Jeebus will love you, and take care of your gentle soul.
Professor Layton indeed rocks. I felt this point must be reiterated.
Wait, wait, wait-- OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! You are a high school kid. This event happened Friday night. This is Sunday. You havent spoken to any 'teachers'.
To be fair, their 'teachers' might have their own interpretation as to what 'home visitation' means.
Abbie, would you be my platonic friend? I cook like a madman and the immunology articles always were some of my favorite NatGeo material...
Seriously, I just luuuuuuurve the decorum argument. It's the last refuge of the lost argument -- once they run out of facts, opinions, word games, and blatant lying, they have false dignity to fall back on. Luskin probably knows all about that... betcha he files Expelled with his porn collection.
Professor Layton Puzzle No. 666:
This puzzle is worth 20 picarats.
How many Disco'tute Fellows does it take to screw a light bulb?
Hint 1:
A light bulb is imagery for a good idea.
Hint 2:
Screwing is a euphemism for fucking over.
Hint 3:
The Disco'tute's Mission Statement makes it clear they're all determined to fuck over some pretty good ideas.
The phrase
springs to mind.
PS - I keep getting popups from someone called 'safecount.net', but only on sciblogs. Is it spam? Who do I eviscerate?
Urban Dictionary is your friend.
Though for us Brits, the word flipping (or rather flippin') is used as a more acceptable version of fucking, in the same way as fecking and fricking are.
Re: the repressed and retarded Trevor/F2XL/Cindy.
Seattle?
Casey, just use your real name. Have some courage for once.
James F,
I just wanted to send you some kudos for the win that was your comment.
Also, keep it up, Abbie. As I've pointed out to many others, sometimes court jesters are the only ones who can speak truth to power without retribution. That you happen to be a well-informed scientist with a personality who understands "them damn kids and their rock-and-roll and internets" is icing on the cake.
...
Mmmm. Cake. I'd say "Abbie and Cake", but then my wife would hit me. And not in the "Happy-fun-time" way.
Wow the DI is even harder up for arguments than I thought.
ERV woz mean, therefore Goddidit?
pitiful.
"Looking above, it seems like Abbie is very contempt even with those who agree with her."
I think Abbie is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills tards and doesn't afraid of anything.
If anyone claims to be a little old lady, you'll know they're lying: I'm giving a test today, so all of the world's grandmothers have keeled over and died.
To get back on topic I an grateful to ERV for standing up for what she believes and the digitus impudicus has a long honorable and time tested tradition as protected speech. His objections confirm my former assertion that Luskin esq. Is a bad writer, a poor scholar and an irredeemably shitty legal theorist.
â The official purpose of this website is NOT to create a narcissistic URL with my name.â I know megalomaniac drag queens with websites less self referential than caseyluskin.com
But this is all so mind numbingly familiar.....
1. A Tard with a pretty clear agenda asks a loaded question.
2. That question is answered thoughtfully and at length.
3. The Tard accuses their opponent preemptively of bias, claims their question wasnât answered and themselves a âWinnnnarâ in sarcastically obsequious terms.
4. The very appropriate response to that kind of wicked dishonest filth is âthe fingerâ
5. This results in a wall of spinsterish text about civility and mutual respect..
This procedure is to be repeated until everyone is sleepy and gets on with their lives.
The exchange will be embroidered by the erstwhile god warrior as another victory against the oppressors. In a life of apparent mediocrity this counts for a lot.
Random certificates from third rate institutions that hang Latin flowers on cattle ramp graduates mean a lot.
Bloodless marriages, stepford children and failed attempts to âmake itâ in the real world of business, law or academia post facto described as real word experience, mean a lot.
When you crave attention, acceptance and recognition and have nothing to merit those things, you turn to the only public or private sector institution left available. There is an open admissions policy in charismatic kindergarten Christianity and a ready made audience of the lowest common denominator. You can live as a one eyed Paris Hilton on the island of the blind, pontificating on the sins of the binocular.
I would be fine with this but part of one eyed Paris Hiltonâs self proscribed job description involves blinding babies and running for the legislature.
#72, To be fair, it could also be DI's Anika, who is trying to defend her boytoy.
Hey, is Casey Luskin a short dude? He always looks short in his photos. I'm just wondering. I mean, I'm not saying that he's a prick because he's diminutive -- I'm just saying he's probably a diminutive prick.
Nick Matzke looked like he could put Casey on a keychain during the media circus of the Kitzmiller Case and Nick is about my height... so yea Luskin is kinda short.
That's no excuse though, in Oklahoma some of the most terrifyingly succinct and eloquent legal minds come in small packages.
Google Justice Opala
Luskin would still be stupid if he had to duck when passing under the St.Louis arch.
Dustin's right. Luskin is short. Why didn't anyone bring that up at the presentation. If he's short, he must be totally wrong about everything.
Which brings me to a mean-spirited point. I have noticed that Atheists are usually the socially awkward, poorly dressed, ill-kept types that sit in the chairs as the club while Nits is out showing off his moves. Even the ones I see on shows like John Stewart are usually pimply-faced spastics, not the kind of guys that are up at the bar competing with the Fire Fighters and Police Officers for the good looking.
Such individuals have to look for a way to feel good about themselves, which I do not begrudge them. That way may just be something like this
Atheist: "sure the other kids are better looking, more accomplished, and have higher SAT scores, but they are really stupid because 90% of them believe in a God they can't see. So I guess I am top 10....snort...snort"
I am not saying that Dustin, erv, and their ilk are losers who can't cut it in the real world, but Dustin did bring up the "dimunitive prick" standard, and I am just telling you where I have seen the most dimunitive pricks in my tenure.
And it's been my experience that whenever someone makes that big a point of saying how ugly and pathetic other people are, it says much more about them than it does about the other people. Nitsud? Is that all you've got is being the opposite of someone else? Try getting your own life, and you won't feel so bad.
The substantive responses to Luskin's case found here are overwhelming. On the other hand, such profane Darwin-cheerleading as are virtually all of the comments here do serve to prove that Luskin was unwise to spend even any time in his presentation on the subject of this blog. So in a backhanded way you're proving your point, but I don't think it was the way you were intending. It was the unintended self-caricaturing way (but heck, maybe that's the vibe you were going for. Mission accomplished, in that case).
Easy Killer (LanceR),
Nits is just having a little fun. Don't take it so personally. And judging by the comments on this site, I would say that you are in very poor company. But you seem classy ;)
ERV: I'm still a bit confused here. How could this Casey person be upset that you showed him that he's "number one"? People show me I'm number one all the time when I'm driving. I always thought it was awfully nice of them .....
Pdiff
Nitsud wrote:
"Which brings me to a mean-spirited point. I have noticed that Atheists are usually the socially awkward, poorly dressed, ill-kept types that sit in the chairs as the club while Nits is out showing off his moves."
Characterizing atheism as some sort of overcompensation for social awkwardness or physical shortcomings is dismissive phenotypic bigotry on a level with racism.
Investing in an essentially rationally indefensible, incurably flawed and falsifiable position when you have virtually nothing else to recommend you personally professionally or academically is a demonstration of bias for the sake of aggrandizement.
What I guess I am trying to say is that your post is an example of ethical bankruptcy.
P.S. My mother was a beauty queen, my father was ripped like Adonis....and I am so handsome I make the sun weep in envy.
Sometimes I think I must be the Angel of Death, given the mortality rate among my students' family members. Taking one of my classes virtually guarantees a loved one will die, you'll end up in the hospital, or both.
Nitsud said: I have noticed that Atheists are usually the socially awkward, poorly dressed, ill-kept types that sit in the chairs as the club while Nits is out showing off his moves
As opposed to those wimpy tards that populate Jesus-on-campus clubs? Surely you jest.
You see, Rho, Luskin doesn't *HAVE* a case. He's got nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. On top of all of that nothing, he's a whiny, obnoxious twit with a serious case of persecution envy. (Not unlike yourself) There is no case to substantively respond to. If he were ever to present anything remotely resembling evidence, then we might have something to substantively discuss. Until then, all we can do is try to educate, and mock those (not unlike yourself) who refuse to learn.
Rhology, I'd love to know what case you think Casey has. What evidence for ID creationism has he ever presented?
I'll save you the trouble of trying to find Casey's evidence. There is no positive evidence for ID or any other form of creationism. None.
Take a Bronze Age creation myth, wrap it in sciency sounding language, and *Poof* you have Intelligent Design Creationism.
Wow....great drama folks!
So there was yet another ID creationist conference, but no data supporting ID creationism, nor means of differentiating "designed" from "undesigned" was described? They just waxed philosophical about "Darwinism", how mean its advocates are, how it leads to Hitler, and such?
Gee....I can't imagine why anyone...anyone would conclude ID creationism is a social/religious movement and not a science.
So Mr. Lushkin's 'forgiveness' materializes when he both runs out of legitimate arguments for his position and he can't match the well-crafted and -deserved invective, right?
"Casey's dumbness is forever ..."
... and, excavated, in the proper fitting, and dangling at your neck (where it belongs), your brightest sparkling gem!!!
#89-90,
See my challenges here.
I encourage you to answer where one has failed and others have neglected even to try.
Rhology,
I could understand you saying that no one has given sufficient or convincing answers to your "challenges". But to claim no one even tried?
That's not very honest of you.
If you want a 'response' to Casey, Rho, why dont you start with the post Casey himself brought up: IDiots and ERVs.
Youll note that the topic of that post is Casey Luskin misrepresenting the findings of a scientific paper to make it look like it was a fruitful ID 'hypothesis', when in fact, 'parts of ERVs maintain functionality' was known by 1990 at the latest, AND that paper supports common descent even WORSE than humans and 'monkeys'-- humans and MICE! *GASP!*
Youll also note that Casey Luskin AND John West both brought up 'DIRP! JUNK DNA HAS FUNCTION AND WE PREDICTED IT!", even though I corrected Caseys territorial claims the end of August last year (many others have corrected IDiots on that point before me). Casey is aware I did so because he read that post and took screen-shots of those naughty, naughty comments.
And yet, February 2009 he (and West) both presented 'DIRP! JUNK DNA! FUNCTION! DIRP!' as if I hadnt said a word.
They are lying sacks of shit. But I posted an ancient 4chan meme, and thats SEXIST!, so I guess that means what I say doesnt matter.
First of all, Rho, your first statement there; "a naturalist worldview can't justify such statements at all" is a strawman. Find me, anywhere, where a "naturalist worldview" says any such thing? Before we delve into solipsist bullshit, admit that you made that part up in your own mind.
"prove that you can discover truth using your senses" Okay. Is fire hot? I put my hand near the fire. It feels hot. Duh. Trying to push it back to "you just imagine the heat" is just solipsism.
Trying to argue against a bogus version of "naturalist worldview" is impossible. You have set the conditions as such that any answer can be ignored. Dishonest again.
In the real world, (wo)mankind has been working out moral/ethical questions as far back as we have history. One of our oldest written documents is Hammurabi's Code, which dates back to about 1750 bce, and is a codified set of laws.
When you decide to be honest, I will endeavor to answer your questions. As long as you keep breaking your *own* commandments, any discussion is fruitless.
#94 - Prometheus tried in one post, kind of, and then gave up after that. No one else tried.
Thanks ERV, maybe I'll check that. Hopefully it'll be more relevant than the previous document you linked for me, which had nothing to do with the question I'd asked.
I'm in fact quite interested in your justification of this statement:
that paper supports common descent even WORSE than humans and 'monkeys'-- humans and MICE!
I took me a gander at this page and the very first sentence seemed to be the product of a massive leap of assumptions:
"Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related."
No, universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are descended from one or a few common ancestors. Thus the term "descent". I know, shocking stuff. Funny thing is, they don't seem even cognizant at first of the obvious challenge - just b/c organisms have similar genetic code doesn't mean that they are descended from the same ancestor, or that they have a common ancestor at all. It means...that they have similar genetic code. If you want to assume what's under debate, then sure, by all means, neo-Darwinism. But that's begging the question. So I'm interested in how you justify that assumption, actually. Links are OK too.
Goody boy, there is fun happening over on Rhology's blog: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13358611&postID=46832058479054…
Okay, Rho. Suppose you tell us the difference between "genealogically related" and "having a common ancestor". Simple question. I've got 5 bucks says you'll be wrong.
Rhology,
No one else tried? Anyone can click for themselves and see the number of people who "tried". The fact that you're claiming otherwise speaks to either blatent dishonesty or delusion to extreme degrees.
Either one is ample reason to conclude further attempts at discussion would be a fool's venture.
At his blog, Rhology stated: "My disbelief in evolution begins and ends with God's acct of how it all went down in Genesis. There's no "proof" to be found in the natural world over and against the Word of the infallible God."
Need anyone say more?
That's the same hypothesis in different words. If you're trying to be snarky with science, it helps if you know what the heck you are talking about. Same goes to your friend (or should I say beta) of the "five amino acids".
windy-- You arent using PUA right.
'Beta' isnt always a derogatory term (unless you are also implying that the girl your talking to is an alpha male and the 'beta' is her bitch-- what was Christian Law Student saying about 'sexism' again, Rho?). Betas can, in theory, become alphas, under different circumstances, or in time.
The tag appropriate for that 30 year old boy is 'omega'.
Rhology stated: "My disbelief in evolution begins and ends with God's acct of how it all went down in Genesis my inability to understand biology. There's no "proof" to be found in the natural world over and against the Word of the infallible God my invincible ignorance."
There, fixed that for ya.
Like I said elsewhere Rhology, try that shtick in a custody hearing and see how far it gets you.
As for your challenged, warmed-over Berkeley is really, really, lame.
I thought I had seen the beatdown of the night with the portly gentlemen who could not answer a basic yes or no question regarding his own opinion, (someone who can't do that is an obvious liar or hypocrite) but then came Abby Smith.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Abigaile.
Now some flatter themselves that they can push buttons. And some learn to tease at a very young age, but Luskin delivered blow that sent Lil Abby crashing down into the flames of a self-imposed meltdown. Someone described LA in their post as a "court jester," but she was a buffoon when she took the microphone. For Lil Abby the result was more tragic than comic.
The Q and A period, presumptively for questions, turned into a tirade of pure flustration, not unlike a stream of profanity from a middle-schooler who has had his pants pulled down around his ankles and all his "shortcomings" exposed to the entirety of the schoolyard.
Lil Abby could find no composure. She swung aimlessly, made hopeless accusations against the person she had censored on her blog [on her blog Lil Abby had stated "show us your tits or Get the F*ck Out"], that no one in the audience could reasonably believe from a "moderator" who posts "show us your tits." Abby truly might have been better off if she hadn't scrambled the comments of the poster. Lil Ab floundered, accusing the censored poster of violating the rules of her blog, and, get this, of being impolite. She shook with fear and frustration as she refused to pose an actual question when reminded this was Q & A and not a soapbox for her, and simply repeated "he slammed me," and "Behe called me a brat."
The shear hypocrisy of such a reaction to having her own PUBLISHED statements aired in this forum demonstrated to any objective ear in the audience that she no integrity whatsoever. (she never denied posting "show us your tits or GTFO") One was reminded of Bill Clinton biting our beloved Peter Jennings' head off over the news-media's portrayal of his indiscretions. Clinton, however, did his best to conceal his activities, but Lil Ab's were published for all the world to see. Then she came undone when the statements were shown to a group that only half consisted of people who agree with her politics and don't care what she posts, however crass and classless it is. Lil Ab made the Howard Dean scream look like a mere whisper. She capped the whole performance off with a dizzying display of intellectual horsepower, flipping Luskin the "bird."
I can't wait for the video footage to come out. The most ironic part of the whole floor show is that Lil Ab had at least 5-10 minutes to get a respectable 3 point argument together before taking the mic, she either chose not to or is not capable of presenting herself well under pressure. "Abby Unhinged" as I have already titled the video, will make an excellent addition to youtube, but maybe it would be better titled "The Bird is the Word." These antics may be amusing to those who think they share Lil Abby's exact viewpoint, but to objective eyes, she will be seen as not as an intellectual lightweight, but rather a total non-qualifier.
LUSKIN 1: LIL AB: NADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Again, I'll make the observation that ID creationists seem to have all sorts of time and money to put on these tent revival, circus side-show "conferences", yet precious little to do any real research into ID creationism.
Of course, that's exactly what one would expect from a social-religious movement disguised as science.
Well, if you had bothered to read past the first sentence of that link, you would have read this sentence: "Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool." It's the third one. For Pete's sake.
Hey Cindy/F2XL/teacher/Lambchop? Did you read comment #106? Do you consider that comment a convincing piece of evidence in favor of evolution?
I would bet that comment 106 has the same IP address as cindy/f2xl/etal
#108 - "Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool."
Same problem remains. How do you get from "they share similar genes" to "they are descendants from past organisms"?
mike-- Its not :) I doubt that kids coming back :)
But I quite agree with new troll. My response in the Q&A is not the same response I would have given had I not been sucker punched. I bitched Casey out cause I was pissed, and on top of it, I was dealing with screaming 'yelling' Baptists.
My response was not ideal, in any sense of the term.
But unlike our best friend and thief, William Dembski, I am not embarrassed by my response, or the video, should they make it available. I was sucker punched, got pissed off, and didnt hit Casey with the weapons in my arsenal. I recognize that I should have kept my head, looked up that post to refamiliarize myself with what happened, and gone from there. But I was pissed.
Anyone can get sucker punched. Its a matter of learning from the experience so you can defend yourself better the next time.
Please note, however, how proud Creationists are that they got a sucker punch in. Honorable creatures.
re 104: is Rhology really citing the infallibility of God and the text of genesis as the basis of his belief system? "God's acct of how it all went down in Genesis?'
Really?
I cant find where Rhology makes the statement that LanceR attributes to him at 104, but if he did - whoo boy.
Is Rhology aware that the foundational text is in a language that contains no vowels, that contains no punctuation. Is he aware that one literally can't get three words into the first sentence of Genesis 1 before one encounters multiple meanings in the text, and not only multiple possible translations, but multiple NECESSARY translations. Is he aware that the multiple and layered meanings are part of the meaning of that text - and that to that extent that G_d's words form the text of genesis, that G_d spoke in contradiction and ambiguity?
Genesis transliteration 1:1:
Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets
Bereshit: In the beginning of / at the top of, the height of
Bara: created / cleared ground / brought to fruition / looked with pleasure upon
Elohim: G_ds (note the plural - this continues through Genesis)
A close literal translation is :
"Beginning filled G_ds..." or G_ds filled the beginning..."
Another equally valid close literal translation is:
"Beginning looked with pleasure upon [the] G_ds.." or "[the] G_ds looked with pleasure upon beginning..."
That's just the first 3 words.
Hashemim or Hashemayim, usully translated as 'Heavens" is equally difficult, beign eqully validly translated as 'heights ' or 'high ground" and as 'cultivation / that which is cultivated.
So, G-d may have created or been in the process of creating, or looked pleasurably upon, or been looked pleasurably upon a creation process that was ongoing, and upon high cultivated grounds - or heavens...
I'd like to understand how Rhology gets a clear cut world view from this - especially a 6-day creation story clearly revealed by G_d's word.
As the Rashi argued:
""And if you come to explain this text literally, this is how you should explain it: 'In the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth, when the earth was void and without form, and there was darkness...and God said, let there be light'. And thus the text does NOT come to tell us the order of the creation, what came first." The crucial thing here is that Rashi disagrees with the classic explanation, and refuses to read 'Bereshit bara Elohim' as meaning 'In the beginning God created', which would then mean that the first thing God did was to create the heavens and the earth. Rather, we are told that the Torah begins its narrative somewhere in the early stages of the creation process, when there already is, at least, a heaven, earth, and waters; it is at this point that the Biblical narrative picks up with the creation of light, the first actual act of creation recorded, according to Rashi, in the Torah. Rashi then goes on to argue that his 'pshat' (reading of the text) is correct. His first proof is linguistic - 'Bereshit bara Elohim' does not mean 'In the beginning God created', but means, rather, 'in the early stages of the process of God's creation of [heaven and earth]'. Bereshit cannot, therefore, refer to the very beginning of the creation of the world, but, rather, to some point within the process of creation, after God has already created such things as heaven, earth, and water. His second proof is very straightforward. If Bereshit means 'in the beginning', 'at the very start', and therefore the first things created were the heavens and the earth, then where did the water mentioned in verse 2 come from? When was that created? And what about fire, which, together with water, is, according to Aristotelian physics, what the heavens are made of ? When was fire created? Rashi, after bringing these two proofs, concludes by saying: "and so you must accept that the Biblical text teaches us absolutely nothing about the order of what was created before what.""
Rhology:
"How do you get from "they share similar genes" to "they are descendants from past organisms"?"
By way of massively internally consistent patterns of nested hierarchy.
Duh.
RE: #106
Wow. Kid you need an exorcism STAT and I donât men one of those fruity Pentecostal ones either but a big burly Mexican style exorcism. Not that there are any demons but you could use a good slap and some cold water on la cabeza
RE: #97
Rho,
Just for sport I will make an effort not to be nasty and explain something for what feels like the hundredth time in a very very lineal and remedial way.
When you write about naturalism you are writing about an interesting construct from the classic metaphysical epistemology of Plato and Aristotle and the area you address most often is cosmology or cosmogony. They belong to classical teleological arguments and the contradictory positions in ontological naturalism.
These are all perfectly viable basis for the dialectic if after cutting up live animals, describing the pineal gland as housing the soul and shoe horning St. Anselmâs a priori proofs into his philosophy Rene Descartes had shouted âPencils down!â and everyone had spent the last 350 years twiddling their thumbs.
Present Methodological Naturalism is informed by Bayesian probability, has powerful internal bias checks and filters like falsifiability, parsimony, utility and recursion.
Before developing a legitimate critique of what you perceive as an inferior way of knowing things to a priori knowledge, please consider that scientific inquiry is the only epistemological form that attempts to quarantine bias whether it is always successful in that attempt or not. Think about what Einsteinâs best friend gave him for his 70th birthday to understand the âworldviewâ(yuck) you keep talking about.
I have complained about your style before. You canât keep cramming an old German gal in a French frock and Roman sandals. If you want to see what it sounds like try reading one of Bill Buckleyâs novels and see how long you can go before you feel like there are hot needles in your skull.
The fact is, if it isn't common descent then you'd expect to find bird/mammal transitional forms and other things we don't find. It's not just the fact that the genetic code is similar, scientists spend a lot of time looking at the ways they are uniquely different. This has led to the construction of a genetic tree that has demonstrated excellent predictive power.
Oh! I have a 'bright side' to getting cold-cocked by Casey, for everyone!
Ill be presenting at this years Oklahoma Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, on the same topic as CASEYS presentation, Academic Freedom!
Im pretty sure it will be recorded and available online for everyone (again)!
w00t!
wOOt indeed. Nice one. I shall look forward to the download.
#113 Lee: Rho made that statement on his blog. BTW, thank you for bringing the difficulty of taking Genesis as literal.
Questions for Rho:
1. Why do Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 differ so widely? Is this not literal?
2. Why does Genesis 1 refer to "Elohim", which is plural, and Genesis 2 refer to "El", which is singular? Do we have two creation stories?
3. Why do the oldest Hebrew altars have a space for a female deity? (Sorry... not exactly kosher to the discussion at hand (pun intended)).
4. What issue do you have with the "Theistic Evolution" argument? Is it just too complicated for you?
As always, Argumentum ad ignorantiam will not be acceptable.
Thanks in advance!
Hehe. I'd pay good money to watch you kick Mystery in the balls until all of his cluster B personality disorders fall out of his head.
"#106 said: I thought I had seen the beatdown of the night with the portly gentlemen who could not answer a basic yes or no question regarding his own opinion, (someone who can't do that is an obvious liar or hypocrite)"...
Right out of the gate we see this commenter has no credibility, being of the simpleminded black/white, yes/no mindset (great for politics, lousy for science). It gets no better when the context of the "tits GTFO" episode are treated as irrelevant.
Abby shows great tolerance to allow such verbal masterbation to pollute her blog, and her middle finger salute was exactly what the ID scam artists deserve.
isnt the "TITS or GTFO" the same as saying "SH*T or GET OFF THE POT" in meaning?
#106 - It was weird, but aside from the flamboyance, I'd say it was a fair recounting of how it all went down on Friday, actually.
#113 - I said that here. Maybe you could explain how human observation could be valid against an infallible omniscient being?
That would be interesting.
Is he aware that one literally can't get three words into the first sentence of Genesis 1 before one encounters multiple meanings in the text
Whatever that means. You're transmitting your prejudices and the fact that humans are not robots, nor totally objective, and project their own desires sometimes onto the text. Or maybe you think it'd be valid for me to say that:
1) You were expressing your repentance over your sin and were trusting Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
2) You were asking if you could join my church.
3) This is a valid and legitimate interpretation of your words.
If you'd say no to #3, you know the reason why your statement is nonsense.
G-d may have created or been in the process of creating, or looked pleasurably upon, or been looked pleasurably upon a creation process that was ongoing, and upon high cultivated grounds - or heavens...
Let's see, we could go with you, anonymous commenter on a blog filled with ignorant invective, or we could go with 1000s of Hebrew scholars who've been studying this for millennia. Tough call...
we are told that the Torah begins its narrative somewhere in the early stages of the creation process
that would be difficult since the earth doesn't exist at the beginning of Gen 1.
And what about fire, which, together with water, is, according to Aristotelian physics, what the heavens are made of ?
Didn't realise Aristotle had a hand in writing the OT.
Thanks for the try Lee, but it wasn't very good.
#114
By way of massively internally consistent patterns of nested hierarchy.
And...how does that tell you anything other than the fact that there exist massively internally consistent patterns of nested hierarchy?
#115 Prometheus,
They belong to classical teleological arguments and the contradictory positions in ontological naturalism.
Ontological naturalism is not necessarily directly contradictory to a teleological argument. The designer could be a natural being. Just speaking hypothetically, and that's enough to disprove your statement.
Present Methodological Naturalism is informed by Bayesian probability, blah blah blah
And how does it account for the existence of the laws of logic?
Are they conventions of human thinking? Or how did they "arise" in the universe? Why think that the universe, in a chaotic explosion, would "form" into a universe where the laws of logic are in operation?
Further, why think that you, a collection of atoms banging around, can think logically? And no, "Well, duh! I think logically to write this!" won't cut it, as you're begging the question. Shake up 2 cans of Dr Pepper, put one on either end of a stage, open them; does it occur to anyone to ask who's winning the debate? Your brain is emitting brain gas, why think that it is capable of or made for producing true thoughts?
#116
It's not just the fact that the genetic code is similar, scientists spend a lot of time looking at the ways they are uniquely different.
Thing is, Ciaphas, that a designer accounts for those similarities and differences just as well, if not better, than your unguided natural selection. Thus its failure to act as evidence for your position.
#119
1. Why do Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 differ so widely? Is this not literal?
We're going to have a dialogue, Lance, or we're not going to interact at all. I'll answer this if you'll answer one question of mine. We'll proceed that way.
Here is my answer.
Now, a question for you: What is the single strongest line of evidence, in your mind, for Darwinian evolution?
Peace,
Rhology
Rho . . .you might gain a lot by taking a seventh grade biology class. I'm hoping you are capable of learning, although your posts don't indicate that ability.
Your statement: "My disbelief in evolution begins and ends with God's acct of how it all went down in Genesis. There's no "proof" to be found in the natural world over and against the Word of the infallible God."
What a load of ignorant batshit. I'll bet you also think the earth is flat, and that the sun orbits the earth. That's what your infallible Wholly Babble teaches. You might also learn a little if you actually read the fucking thing. OH! Don't forget the talking snake, 'cause he'd be hurt.
First of all, it is not the same problem. You need to work on clarity. You stated "No, universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are descended from one or a few common ancestors. Thus the term "descent"." You were trying to point out a mistake that they had not, in fact, made. It would show some integrity for you to admit your mistake, but I doubt you will do it.
Now the separate argument: How do you get from "they share similar genes" to "they are descendants from past organisms"? First, scientists did not go from "they share similar genes" to "they are descendants from past organisms", they already had evidence from the morphology of living creatures and the fossil record well before the structure of DNA was even discovered. That was strong enough evidence for evolution by itself. DNA evidence is a separate line of evidence that alone shows that life descended from a common ancestor. It shows the same thing. We have evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, and they agree with each other. One way we can see that from genetic evidence is when we look at pseudogenes. One of the most common examples is the GULOP pseudogene shared by humans and other primates. Other mammals have this gene, but in human and other primates it is broken by mutations. But it is broken in the exact same place. Common ancestry is the best explanation. It's one thing to argue that, well, fish would have similar genes to another fish because they both swim in the ocean and breath underwater, etc. But when you have a gene that does nothing, yet is still similar to another species, the simplest explanation is that it is a leftover from a common ancestor with that broken gene.
This is but one example, it is repeated over and over and over again in the genetic code of different species. I recommend you read Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll for a good layman's explanation of how the genetic record supports evolution.
Hypothesis!=assumption. Observation!=hypothesis. I know, shocking stuff.
"Similar genes" is the observation, common descent is the hypothesis or theory.
What a load of ignorant batshit. I'll bet you also think the earth is flat, and that the sun orbits the earth. That's what your infallible Wholly Babble teaches.
In all fairness, the Bible does not specifically say that the Earth is flat or that the sun orbits the Earth, though a believer in geocentrism might think that it supports such a view.
What it does say, at least in the English language versions that most of us are familiar with, is that the planet Earth was created before the sun that it orbits and that the Earth was populated with plants before the sun was created.
Rather than being a revelation of a being powerful and intelligent enough to create a virtually infinite universe filled with hundreds of millions of galaxies each filled with billions of stars and planets, the text reads just as we would expect it would from the perspective of a Bronze Age person who could not even conceive of the enormity of it all, and for whom the stars and planets twinkling in the night sky were nothing more than so much cosmic window dressing. (Apologies for the run on sentence.)
As I wrote elsewhere, if there are intelligent beings on other planets in the Milky Way, they would probably be amused to find out that a Biblical Literalist believes that the suns around which their planets orbit exist only to provide a neglibible amount of light to those of us here on Earth during the nighttime.
Rho,
Did you ever notice that all of your "answers" require a complete reinterpretation of what words mean? For instance, the word "then" generally denotes a time order. First this, then that. To assume otherwise in order to explain away the obvious contradictions in Genesis is flatly dishonest. I don't know if we can even *have* a dialogue if you can't be honest. Bearing false witness? Remember?
The single strongest evidence for evolution, to me? Pharyngula stage embryos. Also see the Hox genes, which are somewhat related.
I will freely answer reasonable questions honestly. Can you do the same?
Please direct future Rho-specific posts here, unless directly applicable to the OP.
Goody boy, there is fun happening over on Rhology's blog
Rho's new friend is quite a piece of work.
Wowsers. Luskin being a git, followed by abuse from petty little D'Orcs here...sounds like business as usual, alas.
ERV, you are definitely earning several pints of whatever you prefer to drink!
The MadPanda, FCD
Oh, crap. What was the OP again? Oh... Casey Luskin's Aching Ass. (Which would make a good name for a band.)
My most humble apologies, my dear ERV. I suffer from a chronic case of SIWOTI syndrome, and can't help myself. Will this make up for it? <evil grin>
Hey, does anyone remember the name of that band Phil Collins was in?
Ok, we're getting some serious concern trolls in this thread but it is minimally possible that they might have a teensy tiny point in this case.
The vast majority of people aren't going to have time to look in detail at every argument about ID or even close to that. They are going to therefore employ certain heuristics to judge who they should listen to. For example, I know at least one person who decided ID was wrong more or less simply from witnessing first hand how they ban any dissenting views at Dembski's blog. In general, lack of civility by one side is also a common heuristic. In this particular case, if Abbie had maintained complete control and hadn't flipped the bird it would likely look much better for her to people who were present. In that situation, we would have Luskin engaging in ridiculous and uncalled for attacks and Abbie keeping her cool. That would look a lot better to bystanders. This is especially important for two reasons: First, while Abbie liked to refer to herself a D-list blogger, those days are long past. You are at this point a potent symbol of the young researcher who has to do hard work as opposed to the DI shills. As a symbol of rationalism and science, your behavior has a larger impact. Second, at this point Luskin and his compatriots aren't ever trying to present actual science. They are only reduced to appeal to emotions or vague heuristics. So it matters that when possible we can we get the heuristics to favor us.
(That's not to say that Abbie's behavior isn't understandable. Frankly, if I were in her position I suspect I'd go at least two steps beyond flipping Luskin off. But weighing about as much as Arnie with much less muscle, I'd probably be in any even fist fight with Luskin if it came down to that)
Overall, I'm quite happy with things overall. When Casey Luskin is reduced to claiming that there's an academic freedom problem because a troll got banned from a grad student's blog he really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. This is about as absurd as Egnor being listed as being "Expelled" in the eponymous piece of junk because people had said nasty things about him on blogs. As long as this sort of behavior continues and we respond to it forcefully and rationally ID will not survive long. So yes Casey, by all means, please keep complaining every time someone says something rude to you.
Now, I'm not Abbie and am thus not an increasingly important symbol of the forces of sanity and rationalism against the sweeping tides of ignorance. Therefore, I have less reason to worry about what people think of my profanity or uncivil behavior. So let me just say this: Casey Luskin, kindly go fuck yourself. People like Abbie are spending their lives improving the knowledge of the human race while you waste time and money spreading lies ignorance and then whining when people respond to that. If you need assistance figuring out how to screw yourself I'm sure Ted Haggard would be happy to help you.
All those professional liars for jeebus and their endless persecution complex.
It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
I think we should get back to the tits... ;/
We've had enough boobs show up in the thread already, heh. x.x
#133) Flaming Youth?
Joshua Zelinsky,
nice post !
I agree re Abbie being an important lighthouse in a sea of ignorance these days and the increased responsibility of presenting yourself as the rational one making actual arguments that comes with that,but I also agree that when facing the sorts of Luskin etc lying and distorting and making shit up while youre in the same room and listening,can make you want to just cry out in despair,or beat the shit out of the lying sack of crap.
I still giggle over the fact that he mentioned this episode in a talk about "academic freedom".Its so mindbogglingly whiny 2nd grader style....
Why on earth would you ban anyone for that?!
Now, excuse me while I snigger.
"Mrs Harbl" - heh heh heh
Josh-- I agree 100%
But I forgive myself :P There is nothing wrong with making mistakes as long as you learn from them :)
Thank you LanceR.
Your answer #2 - 2. Why does Genesis 1 refer to "Elohim", which is plural, and Genesis 2 refer to "El", which is singular? Do we have two creation stories?
Because God is a Trinitarian God. The "Let us make man..." and such plural imperatives in Genesis 1 are examples of intra-Trinitarian communication.
Yes, we have 2 creation stories, see the link I gave you before. One is broader, the other has a narrower focus. 2 stories, one set of events.
Now, my question for you: You cited your two best evidences for evolution, for which I thank you.
According to a source I presume you'd think reliable:
"(Hox genes) are a set of genes that are recognizable by a number of features: they all share a common 180 base pair sequence called the homeobox (from which their name is derived), they are all DNA binding proteins that act to turn other genes on or off, and they have a unique organization. They are all laid out in an order on the chromosome that matches the order of their expression: that is, a Hox gene that is turned on in the head is at one end of the cluster of genes, a Hox gene that is turned on in the tail is at the other end, and all the genes in between are in corresponding spatial order (Figure 3). These genes are involved in patterning the organism, laying down the general body plan."
Since you cited this as one of your 2 strongest lines of evidence for your position, please explain how specifically this supports the idea that there *WAS* a common ancestor many billions of yrs ago and please explain without recourse to argumenta ad incredulum or preconceived ideas of what you think a Designer's characteristics might be, how a Designer could not account for these data?
Thanks!
Some ignorant douchebag IDiot wrote another op-ed in the OU Daily today, go flame him since he's obviously a stupid freshman who's bought the line: http://oudaily.com/news/2009/feb/24/column-keep-discussions-civil-matur…
I think Zac Smith is a pretty mediocre writer, but he wrote a good piece, probably his best, on the same topic from the perspective of someone who is not an idiot. In the Daily? O RLY?
http://oudaily.com/news/2009/feb/24/column-intelligent-design-lecture-e…
Curse you. Now I'll never get to see your tits.
#73
Belated thank you to Ranson - that was Monty Python, I only steal borrow from the best!
That is probably for the best, Dustin.
Since 'ERV' is the name of your site, why don't you address my original questions about them?
You didn't give them a good shot before you decided to corrupt my posting (which have now been restored), so I would think you would love the opportunity to educate your readers:
How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?
By Chance, What Made ERVS Evolve into "The Cure," Instead of Remaining Disease Related Viruses?
By Chance, What Made ERV Elements Change From Viral Activities to Cellular Activities and Create New Essential Genes?
ERVS Created the Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner. What Came First, the Host or the Regulatory Network?
By Chance, What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?"
By Chance, What Made LTRS Gain Transciptional Abilities for Essential Genes?
Please note that there are about 50 + research articles referenced so we look forward to your rebuttal.
Hi, Harblz!! Your comments were restored out of my laziness. You still have to post tits before you are allowed to spam any more. --ERV
There is no Chance. Until you understand that "Random Chance" plays no role in evolutionary theory, we have nothing to discuss.
Tits, or GTFO
LanceR,
Chance does play a role in evolutionary theory. Genetic drift (arguably one of the major mechanisms of evolution) is entirely chance by any reasonable use of the word. Also, very trivially, Creationists really use the word chance to mean "non-teleological", judging from every context I've ever seen them use the word in. So yes, evolution is entirely chance in their sense of the term. Nothing wrong with that though -- this doesn't make the theory wrong. Creationists have to give a name to their incredulity, and they've settled on Chance.
I would argue that there is no such thing as "random". Even genetic drift is simply transcription errors and the like. Not really "chance" at all.
Letting them get away with calling it "Chance" lets them use the "tornado in a junkyard" argument, which is completely irrelevant.
I'd rather force them to actually use the argumentum ad incredulum.
Another stupid tool spreads more verbal diarrhea on the subject:
http://oudaily.com/news/2009/feb/25/your-views-column-reveals-ignorance…
'explain how specifically this supports the idea that there *WAS* a common ancestor many billions of yrs ago'
Because of the pattern of those genes in living organisms. There is a clear predictable pattern of their distribution. Patterns of differences in sequence and duplications are perfectly consistent with what common ancestry predicts.
This is the same pattern repeated for other genes, ERVs, for pseudogenes (found out what they are yet?) etc.
Now could you please show even one example of a gene etc that's pattern of distribution is impossible if common ancestry is true. The genetic version of the precambrian bunnie.
Rho' if you want to argue biology then use biology, that's how it works.
Not that I see any point as you seem to have created a false dichotomy for yourself, evolution or god.
Many seem to be quite happy with evolution and god.
Try to separate the god question from the evolution one and then look again at the evidence for common ancestry.
Are you really rejecting the evidence on the grounds of that evidence, or because you can not accept it no what what that evidence is?
Abbie, just promise me you'll never attend any of the whacko ID conferences alone. I wouldn't put it past these IDiots to resort to violence in an attempt to silence their critics.