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 Jason F.
February 23, 2009

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?
#2 windy
February 23, 2009

“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.

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”.
#3 ERV
February 23, 2009

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’.
#4 LanceR, JSG
February 23, 2009

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.
#5 Science Avenger
February 23, 2009

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.
#6 ERV / Abby Smith is Got her A$$ Kicked (and everyone here knows it)
February 23, 2009

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
#7 Jason F.
February 23, 2009

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.
#8 Citizen Z
February 23, 2009

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.

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.
#9 Citizen Z
February 23, 2009

Hey Cindy/F2XL/teacher/Lambchop? Did you read comment #106? Do you consider that comment a convincing piece of evidence in favor of evolution?
#10 mike
February 23, 2009

I would bet that comment 106 has the same IP address as cindy/f2xl/etal
#11 Rhology
February 23, 2009

#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”?
#12 ERV
February 23, 2009

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.
#13 Lee
February 23, 2009

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.”"
#14 Lee
February 23, 2009

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.
#15 Prometheus
February 23, 2009

RE: #106
Wow. Kid you need an exorcism STAT and I don’t 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. Anselm’s a priori proofs into his philosophy Rene Descartes had shouted “Pencils down!” 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 Einstein’s best friend gave him for his 70th birthday to understand the “worldview”(yuck) you keep talking about.

I have complained about your style before. You can’t 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 Buckley’s novels and see how long you can go before you feel like there are hot needles in your skull.
#16 Ciaphas
February 23, 2009

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.

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.
#17 ERV
February 23, 2009

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!
#18 John Phillips, FCD
February 23, 2009

wOOt indeed. Nice one. I shall look forward to the download.
#19 LanceR, JSG
February 23, 2009

#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!
#20 Dustin
February 23, 2009

windy– You arent using PUA right.

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.
#21 Science Avenger
February 23, 2009

“#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.
#22 paragwinn
February 23, 2009

isnt the “TITS or GTFO” the same as saying “SH*T or GET OFF THE POT” in meaning?
#23 Rhology
February 23, 2009

#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
#24 waldteufel
February 23, 2009

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.
#25 Citizen Z
February 23, 2009

#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”?

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.
#26 windy
February 23, 2009

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.”

Hypothesis!=assumption. Observation!=hypothesis. I know, shocking stuff.

Same problem remains. How do you get from “they share similar genes” to “they are descendants from past
organisms”?

“Similar genes” is the observation, common descent is the hypothesis or theory.
#27 Tommykey
February 23, 2009

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.
#28 LanceR, JSG
February 23, 2009

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?
#29 ERV
February 23, 2009

Please direct future Rho-specific posts here, unless directly applicable to the OP.
#30 windy
February 23, 2009

Goody boy, there is fun happening over on Rhology’s blog

Rho’s new friend is quite a piece of work.
#31 The MadPanda
February 23, 2009

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
#32 LanceR, JSG
February 23, 2009

Please direct future Rho-specific posts here, unless directly applicable to the OP.

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>
#33 Dustin
February 23, 2009

Hey, does anyone remember the name of that band Phil Collins was in?
#34 Joshua Zelinsky
February 24, 2009

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.
#35 clinteas
February 24, 2009

All those professional liars for jeebus and their endless persecution complex.
It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
#36 Azkyroth
February 24, 2009

I think we should get back to the tits… ;/

We’ve had enough boobs show up in the thread already, heh. x.x
#37 Joe Fatzenyatz
February 24, 2009

#133) Flaming Youth?
#38 clinteas
February 24, 2009

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….
#39 Sili
February 24, 2009

How do you know she wasnt banned for posting nothing but Indian food recipes?

Why on earth would you ban anyone for that?!

Now, excuse me while I snigger.

“Mrs Harbl” – heh heh heh
#40 ERV
February 24, 2009

Josh– I agree 100%

But I forgive myself There is nothing wrong with making mistakes as long as you learn from them
#41 Rhology
February 24, 2009

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!
#42 Joe
February 24, 2009

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-mature/

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-embarrassment/
#43 Dustin
February 24, 2009

Flaming Youth?

Curse you. Now I’ll never get to see your tits.
#44 James F
February 24, 2009

#73

Belated thank you to Ranson – that was Monty Python, I only ~~steal~~ borrow from the best!
#45 Joe Fatzenyatz
February 25, 2009

That is probably for the best, Dustin.
#46 who is your creator
February 25, 2009

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
#47 LanceR, JSG
February 25, 2009

By Chance,<irrelevancies snipped>

There is no Chance. Until you understand that “Random Chance” plays no role in evolutionary theory, we have nothing to discuss.

Tits, or GTFO
#48 AL
February 25, 2009

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.
#49 LanceR, JSG
February 25, 2009

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.
#50 Joe
February 25, 2009

Another stupid tool spreads more verbal diarrhea on the subject:

http://oudaily.com/news/2009/feb/25/your-views-column-reveals-ignorance-about-intellig/
#51 neil
February 26, 2009

‘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?
#52 Rayven Alandria
March 1, 2009

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.