Casey Luskin: Butthurt

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!

Comments

  1. #1 Tyler DiPietro
    February 21, 2009

    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?

  2. #2 J-Dog
    February 21, 2009

    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.

  3. #3 Tyler DiPietro
    February 21, 2009

    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.

  4. #4 Stacy
    February 21, 2009

    I’m sorry you have to deal with that moron Abbie … but Thank you! :-)

  5. #5 Ciaphas
    February 21, 2009

    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.

  6. #6 The Chimp's Raging Id
    February 21, 2009

    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.

  7. #7 John Pieret
    February 21, 2009

    No, tell us what you really think of Casey …

    I like this part:

    I made the point that Darwinists use a vareity of tactics to shut down free and open debate on intelligent design (ID) and evolution. These tactics range from persecution of ID-proponents to fear-mongering that challenging Darwin is “dishonest” or brings religion into the classroom, to personal attacks on ID proponents designed to intidimate people from speaking freely in support of ID.

    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.

  8. #8 John Lynch
    February 21, 2009

    EN&V is bitching about a troll being unable to post on ERV, yet no one is allowed to post on EN&V.

    Self-awareness has never been the strong suit for anyone involved with the DI.

  9. #9 Doc Bill
    February 21, 2009

    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?

  10. #10 Jessa
    February 21, 2009

    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.

  11. #11 waldteufel
    February 21, 2009

    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.

  12. #12 Richardthughes
    February 21, 2009

    Abbie, is it true that You and Casey made out in the disabled toilet?

    XD

  13. #13 Tyler DiPietro
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  14. #14 HalfMooner
    February 22, 2009

    Flipped Luskin the Bird, didja, Abbie?

    Good for you! I consider that my Proxy Bird. Let the lying bastards see our passion for truth!

  15. #15 The Curmudgeon
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  16. #16 clinteas
    February 22, 2009

    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….

  17. #17 Kristjan Wager
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  18. #18 JanieBelle
    February 22, 2009

    I <3 U Abbie.

  19. #19 b_sharp
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  20. #20 JanieBelle
    February 22, 2009

    Wow, I totally blew that post. There was a heart there, but I guess it got read as html.

    Sorry.

    Kisses

  21. #21 The Curmudgeon
    February 22, 2009

    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!

  22. #22 b_sharp
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  23. #23 b_sharp
    February 22, 2009

    Butt I repeat myself.

    Sorry Abby, you got me so excited the post replicated.

  24. #25 Rhology
    February 22, 2009

    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?

  25. #26 carlsonjok
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  26. #27 ERV
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  27. #28 Tatarize
    February 22, 2009

    “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.

  28. #29 ERV
    February 22, 2009

    Tatarize, consider this your first and only warning.

    Babies are for eating, not to be wasted as fuel for some turbine.

    You disgust me.

  29. #30 llewelly
    February 22, 2009

    JanieBelle | February 22, 2009 11:54 AM :

    Wow, I totally blew that post. There was a heart there, but I guess it got read as html.
    Sorry.
    Kisses

    &#x2665; 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.

  30. #31 llewelly
    February 22, 2009

    I should add:
    &lt;3 is displayed as <3

    A simpler, more traditional heart. Again, preview will ruin it.

  31. #32 John Phillips, FCD
    February 22, 2009

    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

  32. #33 Azkyroth
    February 22, 2009

    Then how do you know Ms. Haberle wasnt banned for suggesting we solve the worlds energy crisis by using the corpses of dead babies?

    So *that’s* why they want to bring biological (and hence medical) science to a screeching halt.

  33. #34 F2XL
    February 22, 2009

    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

  34. #35 F2XL
    February 22, 2009

    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

  35. #36 F2XL
    February 22, 2009

    HAHAHAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS. BACK TO FAPPING TO MY FAVORITE PORNO.

  36. #37 Trevor
    February 22, 2009

    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. :/

  37. #38 The Curmudgeon
    February 22, 2009

    Question: What’s the best argument in favor of ID?

    Answer: Abbie shot a bird at Casey.

  38. #39 ERV
    February 22, 2009

    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!

  39. #40 Trevor
    February 22, 2009

    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. ;)

  40. #41 Trevor
    February 22, 2009

    HAHAHAHAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS. PLEASE POST MY ADDRESS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEND ME PIZZAS.

  41. #42 F2XL
    February 22, 2009

    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?

  42. #43 ERV
    February 22, 2009

    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?

  43. #44 Cindy
    February 22, 2009

    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???

  44. #45 Tyler DiPietro
    February 22, 2009

    “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.

  45. #46 ERV
    February 22, 2009

    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!

  46. #47 Cindy
    February 22, 2009

    I forgot to mention that the Internet is Serious Fucking Business. I am very concerned.

  47. #48 Cindy
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  48. #49 F2XL
    February 22, 2009

    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…

  49. #50 Tyler DiPietro
    February 22, 2009

    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…

  50. #51 Trevor
    February 22, 2009

    Like I said before. Design of Life is F2XL’s porn.

    *From Cindy: see the above point.

  51. #52 LanceR, JSG
    February 22, 2009

    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.)

  52. #53 Tyler DiPietro
    February 22, 2009

    “Like I said before. Design of Life is F2XL’s porn.”

    Moar liek the Design of Prepubescent Vaginas, amirite?

  53. #54 Cindy
    February 22, 2009

    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???

  54. #55 ERV
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  55. #56 JanieBelle
    February 22, 2009

    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) ;)

  56. #57 Cindy
    February 22, 2009

    No worries. RJ went home. And Trevor is getting suspicious about the contents of RJ’s computer.

  57. #58 Tyler DiPietro
    February 22, 2009

    ITT, trolls should get behind 7 proxies.

  58. #59 foxfire
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  59. #60 ERV
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  60. #61 Doug Olson
    February 22, 2009

    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.

  61. #62 James F
    February 23, 2009

    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.)

  62. #63 windy
    February 23, 2009

    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?

  63. #64 rimpal
    February 23, 2009

    Basic 101 question.

    What is meant by flipping as in “Abbie flipped him off.”

  64. #65 Dr Benway
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  65. #66 waldteufel
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  66. #67 Joe Fatzenyatz
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  67. #68 Brian X
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  68. #69 AL
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  69. #70 eddie
    February 23, 2009

    The phrase

    crack-smoking team of home schooled children

    springs to mind.

    PS – I keep getting popups from someone called ‘safecount.net’, but only on sciblogs. Is it spam? Who do I eviscerate?

  70. #71 MH
    February 23, 2009

    What is meant by flipping as in “Abbie flipped him off.”

    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.

  71. #72 MH
    February 23, 2009

    Re: the repressed and retarded Trevor/F2XL/Cindy.

    Seattle?

    Casey, just use your real name. Have some courage for once.

  72. #73 Ranson
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  73. #74 Fitz
    February 23, 2009

    Wow the DI is even harder up for arguments than I thought.

    ERV woz mean, therefore Goddidit?

    pitiful.

  74. #75 Dustin
    February 23, 2009

    “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.

  75. #76 Dustin
    February 23, 2009

    What’s next, little old ladies?

    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.

  76. #77 Prometheus
    February 23, 2009

    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.

    “ The official purpose of this website is NOT to create a narcissistic URL with my name.” 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 wasn’t answered and themselves a “Winnnnar” in sarcastically obsequious terms.

    4. The very appropriate response to that kind of wicked dishonest filth is “the finger”

    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 “make it” 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 Hilton’s self proscribed job description involves blinding babies and running for the legislature.

  77. #78 Paholaisen Asianajaja
    February 23, 2009

    #72, To be fair, it could also be DI’s Anika, who is trying to defend her boytoy.

  78. #79 Dustin
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  79. #80 Prometheus
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  80. #81 Nitsud
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  81. #82 LanceR, JSg
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  82. #83 Rhology
    February 23, 2009

    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).

  83. #84 Nitsud
    February 23, 2009

    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 ;)

  84. #85 Pdiff
    February 23, 2009

    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

  85. #86 Prometheus
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  86. #87 Chayanov
    February 23, 2009

    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.

    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.

  87. #88 Science Avenger
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  88. #89 LanceR, JSG
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  89. #90 waldteufel
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  90. #91 Jason F.
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  91. #92 Ben Breuer
    February 23, 2009

    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!!!

  92. #93 Rhology
    February 23, 2009

    #89-90,

    See my challenges here.
    I encourage you to answer where one has failed and others have neglected even to try.

  93. #94 Jason F.
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  94. #95 ERV
    February 23, 2009

    Rho– The substantive responses to Luskin’s case found here are overwhelming.

    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.

  95. #96 LanceR, JSG
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  96. #97 Rhology
    February 23, 2009

    #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.

  97. #98 Alan Smithee
    February 23, 2009

    Goody boy, there is fun happening over on Rhology’s blog: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13358611&postID=4683205847905485050

  98. #99 LanceR, JSG
    February 23, 2009

    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.

  99. #100 Jason F.
    February 23, 2009

    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.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.