Ouch. It's like Bambi vs. Godzilla, where Luskin is the frolicking innocent baby deer and Thunderf00t is the giant rampaging reptile. Luskin tries to claim that ID is distinct from creationism, and he gets squashed.
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
That church [Catholic] teaches us that we can make God happy by being miserable ourselves…
[Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1, p. 492]
Recent Posts
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
- More bad science in the literature
- An open letter to the Indiana legislature
- One Carnival of Evolution, coming right up
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- Everbleed on Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- CherryBombSim on Our illness is their profit
- I'm sorry, thank you on Our illness is their profit
- https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlg3ZrAn0yJktAa1txQLOB6bCND-AfW0pA on Our illness is their profit
- mandas on Our illness is their profit
- sue.welsh on Our illness is their profit
- Amphiox, OM on Our illness is their profit
- Amphiox, OM on Our illness is their profit
- symball on Our illness is their profit
- echidna on Our illness is their profit
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Friday Cephalopod: Fractal | Main | Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Thunderf00t vs. Casey Luskin
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 29, 2009 7:49 AM, by PZ Myers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/111118
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: Kel | May 29, 2009 7:55 AM
Thunderf00t brings the awesome yet again. Excellent takedown
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 29, 2009 8:00 AM
I have a healthy man crush on Thunderf00t.
Which makes the fact the video won't play that much more upsetting.
I'm sure there was lots of SQUEEEEKING from Luskin
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 29, 2009 8:11 AM
I'll have to see the video later. Have to get to work where videos don't play...
Posted by: Stanton
|
May 29, 2009 8:13 AM
I wouldn't say that Thunderf00t is squashing Casey Luskin: it's more along the lines of him pelting the mouse with pumpkins.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 29, 2009 8:15 AM
Have you ever pelted a mouse with a pumpkin? There is a high squash outcome percentage.
Posted by: Stanton
|
May 29, 2009 8:23 AM
It's the same percentage of squash if you used hubbard, honeydew, bottle gourd or acorn.I prefer to throw live cats at a mouse.
Posted by: revatheist | May 29, 2009 8:24 AM
Watching the sheer logical destruction of Luskin's ideas and the exposure of his hypocrisy, brought a funny feeling over me. When the feeling had passed, I looked down and found I was covered in some sort of white goo. Am I going to hell now?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2009 8:25 AM
I prefer to do that the other way round... less scratches that way, and still quite entertaining.
Posted by: Kel | May 29, 2009 8:28 AM
Even without him showing that he endorses creationism, his use of the word "Darwinism" to characterise evolution shows how much of a deceptive tool he truly is. Though it's hardly surprising to see a Liar for Jesus working at the Discovery Institute. It's like trying to find a Muslim in Saudi Arabia.
Wish religious moderates would be stronger in raising concerns about the dishonesty that these liars pedal.
Posted by: MadScientist | May 29, 2009 8:47 AM
Luskin just doesn't get it, thus proving the old Latin saying that a fool persists in his mistakes.
Posted by: LC | May 29, 2009 8:50 AM
Mmm, Luskin is really just a generic creotard.
It's enjoyable to watch T-f00t stomp him, but it just doesn't have the same visceral pleasure of watching him rip PCS-Mk 1 into little pieces and urinating on the remains (PCS 2.0 is just boring).
Posted by: arensb | May 29, 2009 8:51 AM
I was going to say that Thunderf00t made a mistake: that Luskin said "we do not support requiring the teaching of intelligent design", but the summary caption replaces "requiring" with an ellipsis. IDists consider this an important distinction, especially now that they're pushing ID creationism as an "academic freedom" issue.
But then I remembered that this was exactly what Behe kept doing at the Kitzmiller trial: he'd make some long-winded statement that, technically speaking, is true (like his statement about ID being as scientific as astrology; IIRC what he really said was that ID is as much of a legitimate field of inquiry now as astrology was before we learned a bunch of stuff about stars). Then the prosecuting attorney would ask "Do you then agree that X?" and Behe would say no, because the attorney had omitted one or more of the bazillion qualifiers in his original statement. In other words, ID is the answer, but only if you phrase the question very very carefully.
This seems to be a big problem among cdesign proponentsists: they have to keep compartmentalizing their thoughts, to keep what they believe separate from what they know they can get away with in court and at school board meetings.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 29, 2009 8:53 AM
Honeydew is the money melon
/Krusty
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 29, 2009 8:55 AM
Thunderf00t's not mean, or brusque; in
Fact, when he exposes Luskin,
Leaving just a tattered husk, in
Pieces on the floor,
He does so in his usual Thunder-
F00tish manner; Luskin's blunders
Neatly listed. It's no wonder
All of us want more.
Posted by: Bitchfinder General | May 29, 2009 9:02 AM
Heh, I love how in the microclip of PCS (we can't call him VenomFangX any more)he pronounced 'billions' with the Kent Hovind 'Biiiiilions of years ago'.
Posted by: Brian | May 29, 2009 9:06 AM
This reminds me of what The Amazing Atheist said to How The World Works on You Tube: If there's one motherfucker on the web I don't want coming after me, it's Thunderf00t.
Brian
Posted by: Kel | May 29, 2009 9:16 AM
I agree with his sentiment. But that fool went after DonExodus2 and got absolutely pwned. TAA needs to learn how to pick his battlesPosted by: chris | May 29, 2009 9:19 AM
Not totally off topic but I thought this was wonderful: http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 29, 2009 9:26 AM
Pathetic. Why waste brain cells debating with a moron whose sheer imbecility just might cause you to rant with incredulity. To debate someone with an opposing but logical viewpoint is one thing, but to argue with an idiot debases one's intelligence to the point of senselessness.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
May 29, 2009 9:28 AM
Every time i see some stupid creotard i just have to wonder.
Are they really _that_ stupid?
Can anybody really be _THAT_ stupid?
Or are they doing it on purpose.. and are they afraid of something?
Posted by: Dr Benway | May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
I wonder what it would take for Luskin to quit his doublethink shtick. What keeps him stuck in an obviously losing position?
Are they paying him a lot of money at the DI? Constant pats on the back from co-religionists? Wife would divorce him if his beliefs changed? What's the win for him in this embarrasing charade?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 29, 2009 9:32 AM
@arensb: Not only does the question have to be posed very carefully, but very stupidly as well - the question must preclude vast amounts of already established evidence. Only a creatard can ask the questions a creatard would like to answer.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | May 29, 2009 9:41 AM
CUTTLEFISH!!!!!!
Are you back for good, or is this just a curtain call?
Posted by: Lance | May 29, 2009 9:43 AM
This guy makes really good points, at the cost of my sanity. He drones on with a whispering style narration, that drives me crazy. What the hell are you hiding from? Why do you sound like you're whispering these points to avoid being heard? It's damn annoying, and because of it, I won't be passing this video along, no matter how many good points he makes. Sound off like you have a pair, Mr. Narrator!
Posted by: littlejohn | May 29, 2009 10:01 AM
I think it's a little ironic that xians, who claim morality is impossible without magical beliefs, have no problem simply lying about ID. Luskin comes across as dishonest, not especially stupid.
BTW, it's a shame T-fOOt kept misspelling "creationists" (he omits the final "s") in the graphic he uses repeatedly. Just a typo, of course, but if we're pointing creationists errors, we should be careful not to make any of our own.
Posted by: bobxxxx | May 29, 2009 10:01 AM
I always knew Luskin was a liar and a retard. Today I learned Luskin looks like a retard. Before he even opens his mouth it's obvious he's retarded.
Posted by: littlejohn | May 29, 2009 10:05 AM
Oops. Speaking of ironic typos, I made my own at #25. I left the apostrophe off "creationists' errors." Just goes to show...
Posted by: JD | May 29, 2009 10:20 AM
Luskin has enough stupid to fill up a flatbed truck with just enough room left over for some drool.
Posted by: AF | May 29, 2009 10:22 AM
Wow PZ, I thought you were exaggerating by comparing this to Godzilla vs Bambie... guess not! I also didn't know that the ID peer-reviewed journal stopped right after the court case... something smells fishy ...
Posted by: Brian | May 29, 2009 10:27 AM
"Are they paying him a lot of money at the DI? "
Maybe not a lot, but enough. I think that the reasons that the DI, and ID folks keep doing what they're doing are:
1) Beats working for a living.
2) Emotional and religious gratification for their Proselytizing. The fact that they contradict themselves all the time is irrelevant. They know what they're really about and what message they are trying to spread.
Posted by: Zeno | May 29, 2009 10:29 AM
Luskin is such a wienie. It's sad. How fortunate for him that he found an evolutionary niche in which he can thrive.
Posted by: NoFear | May 29, 2009 10:32 AM
It seems to me that Luskin is very effeminate .... I'd lay odds that he is a closet homosexual, not that there is anything wrong with that, at least in the minds of intelligent people, ... but alas Luskin is not intelligent enough to know that it is OK to be gay thus he will forever deny his true nature. It's so sad really.
Posted by: Kitty | May 29, 2009 10:35 AM
Lance
It's Thunderf00t's quiet delivery which makes him so effective. There are enough ranting lunatics on the other side of the argument. The last thing that's needed is fire and brimstone on the side of reason.
Posted by: bobxxxx | May 29, 2009 10:41 AM
If anyone gets bored writing about the stupidity of Luskin where everyone already knows he's an idiot, why not go visit this blog right now and explain it to his Christian audience. Wouldn't it be nice if a few dozen people from this blog visited beliefnet and told the truth about the dishonesty of the Christian Discovery Institute.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/05/friday-is-for-friends-logan-pa.html
This two-part series on Intelligent Design, in part a response to our ongoing discussions about evolution, is by Logan Paul Gage, a policy analyst at the Discovery Institute and who has written extensively on evolution.
Contrary to popular assumptions, ID is not Biblical creationism. It does not get into the recesses of Old Testament exegesis, nor is it meant to reveal the full nature of God. ID is more modest, asking a simple question: When all of the scientific (not religious) evidence is put on the table, are certain features of nature better explained by an intelligent cause or by unintelligent causes like natural selection?
Here's the comments I left there:
bobxxxx
May 29, 2009 10:27 AM
"Questions for our readers: What do you make of intelligent design?"
"Intelligent design" are fancy words for supernatural magic. It's an idiotic childish idea that doesn't belong in the 21st century.
The only reason the mentally retarded professional liars of the Discovery Institute (a Christian creationist organization) call their magic "intelligent design" is because they are trying to sneak their childish religious beliefs into America's science classrooms. They will never get away with it. They will only waste taxpayer money losing in court, like they wasted one million dollars of taxpayer money in Dover in 2005.
If anyone wants to see what a Discovery Institute retard looks like, please see this video. It's Casey Luskin, the Liar for Jeebus, who proves that retarded people actually look retarded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpL1dmfVoGA
Posted by: Geoff | May 29, 2009 10:50 AM
Kitty @33
I totally agree. Thunderf00t is the voice of reason on youtube and he sounds like it. But behind the smooth English delivery, hides a pretty sharp edged sword and he wield it well.
Posted by: Tulse | May 29, 2009 11:06 AM
This takedown is excellent, but it seems that the Disco Institute has already given away the store with their "Faith and Evolution" website, which clearly demonstrates their religious foundation.
Posted by: Lance | May 29, 2009 11:06 AM
Kitty @33
I'm not advocating "fire and brimstone." I just hate the way his voice sounds, and his delivery is crap. It's as though he's overly excited, and the only way he knows how to come across as calm and rational is by whispering. It is anticlimactic, to say the least. It's almost as though he has a creationist living with him and he doesn't want to offend them while he's recording this video.
I love his points, just wish he would have used a different medium to get them across--perhaps writing--so that I wouldn't be soothed to sleep by his droning, monotone voice.
Since when do well reasoned, rational people have to be so boring, in order to be considered reasonable and rational? Richard Dawkins doesn't have this problem...
Posted by: bunnycatch3r
|
May 29, 2009 11:07 AM
I hope Casey and the Discovery Institute flags him for DMCA infringement. I would love to see a Casey Luskin Apologizes to the Internets video.
Posted by: TorgoGuy | May 29, 2009 11:14 AM
Sorry, this isn't going to be popular here, but I think this is one of your Thunderf00t's weaker efforts. There's good material in there, but...
I *hate* to be seen as a defender of Luskin or ID, but some of the arguments made here would make us all complain if made in our direction. I watched this video earlier this morning (I'm a Thunderf00t subscriber), but I recall being upset at the sloppiness several times. As just one of several examples (going from memory) of how Thunderf00t was sloppy. There was a sequence that went something like this:
* Video clip of Luskin saying something about ID's arguments aren't necessarily Christian arguments.
* Mention that Luskin founded IDEA and is one of the leaders.
* Show IDEA's website says they believe the designer was Yahweh.
* Therefore, ID is Christian creationism.
WTF? Contrast that with:
* Video of me saying that evolution doesn't say anything about one race being superior to another.
* Mention that Darwin proposed evolution.
* Show some of Darwin's racist statements.
* Therefore evolution is racist.
In fact, creationists routinely argue such things (evolution leads to racism, and led to the holocaust).
I could give you other examples if I rewatched it. (e.g., I think I had an objection with the Fox video clip sequence.)
To be clear--I think Luskin is a creationist and ID is vacuous, but *come on* we've got stronger arguments out there than some of this stuff to show that ID isn't scientific. In this video there was good material and bad material. The problem is that ID folks *jump at* the bad material, argue just that (ignoring the good arguments) and that helps them win in the court of public opinion. We've got to be more careful than this.
Posted by: Zeno | May 29, 2009 11:34 AM
Perhaps my gaydar was off-line (and it's never been that reliable anyway), but Luskin doesn't really peg the meter. Perhaps NoFear is correct, but Luskin seems more like the hapless high school geek whose social clumsiness gave him plenty of alone time, as well as the opportunity to catch up on his homework on prom night. (And I say this as someone with his own full share of high-school geekiness.) Unfortunately for both society and Luskin, however, he didn't channel his geekiness into science or computers, where he might have made a positive contribution. Instead he stumbled into a weird amalgamation of creationism and law, becoming both a laughing stock and semi-famous. (And on TV!) Perhaps he's okay with this.
Posted by: slpage | May 29, 2009 12:17 PM
Luskin is certainly a YEC.
Years ago, he co-authored a paper with John Bracht in which it was quite clear that they advocated a YEC position. In a short email exchange I had with Bracht, he put on the 'I'm not a creationist' facade, and when I mentioned that paper, he claimed that Luskin wrote it all and he just put his name on it as a favor, or something like that.
However, that paper seems to have been scrubbed from existence. I do not remember the name of the paper, but it was authored by Luskin and Bracht, probably around 2000 or so.
Anyone remember reading a paper by them?
Posted by: Libbie | May 29, 2009 12:21 PM
Holy WOW.
RARRR THUNDERF00T SMASH!
I almost feel sorry for Casey. I wonder if he'll make any feeble attempts to respond to this in any way? Some try at mitigating the damage...?
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | May 29, 2009 12:33 PM
Cuttlefish, even once per month, is worth the wait.
Hugs, hugs, yes, yes.
Posted by: MattB | May 29, 2009 12:40 PM
Video not working after 54 seconds.
Posted by: Dr Benway | May 29, 2009 1:01 PM
ToroGuy:
I think thunderf00t is arguing that the DI fellows aren't honest about their own motivations. They want to convince us that a creator-God exists. However, they will claim in some venues that their agenda is "academic freedom" or a fair hearing of design theory or of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
As you point out, a speaker's purpose in making an argument isn't relevant when examining the logic of an argument. But it's entirely relevant in a legal setting, where it forms one prong of the Lemon test, as applied in Kitzmiller v Dover.
I can see how thunderf00t's point about motivation can seem like an ad hominem fallacy. For that reason, he might want to tighten up his language in this video. Or perhaps he'll just make the next one even more awesome.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 29, 2009 1:12 PM
Just listening to Luskin you know he's a lying putz.
Posted by: TorgoGuy | May 29, 2009 2:54 PM
Dr. Benway:
Fair enough for me! My quibbles with the video are minor, but I felt compelled to air them since people started doing the Internet equivalent of whooping and hollering screaming, "Checkmate." I guess that's a sign that Thunderf00t is accomplishing some of his goals.
However, I just hated to see him walk into a situation where he gives Luskin the perfect opportunity to do what he does best when responding to critics--ignore the central argument by nitpicking some detail here or there. That is Luskin's MO and if he chooses to respond, Thunderf00t made it easy on him.
Posted by: eddie
|
May 29, 2009 3:01 PM
On a youtube theme, please see this vid made by young people threatened with jail for refusing to kill civilians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNjggLhQo6w&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: eddie
|
May 29, 2009 3:03 PM
On a youtube theme, please see this vid made by young people threatened with jail for refusing to kill civilians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNjggLhQo6w&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: eddie
|
May 29, 2009 3:19 PM
Yes, it bears repeating. Please spread the word. Also, maybe visit their site, at the end of the clip there's an URL.
Posted by: Zar | May 29, 2009 3:26 PM
Luskin's delivery is so awkward. He looks like a kid reciting lines in a school play. That what he looks like to me---a simpleton just reciting material he doesn't really understand.
Though understanding has nothing to do with it. I don't think "lying" is the right word for what creationists do---I think the right word is (as suggested by Harry G. Frankfurt) "bullshit". Just plain old bullshit. "Lies" suggests some sort of awareness of the truth, I think, and these guys don't really care to acquaint themselves with the truth. It's just bullshit.
Posted by: James F | May 29, 2009 3:44 PM
For those who haven't seen it:
Bambi Meets Godzilla, by Marv Newland.
Posted by: -nm | May 29, 2009 4:00 PM
Brilliant.
When I navigate to Thunderf00ts You Tube channel and I see the subscriber and channel view stats, I smile that so many people are taking note of his truly excellent work. Well done. Thunderf00t, you should write a book (forward by Aronra). Just make sure to include a chapter on the false DMCA claims and other creationist shenanigans.
As a side note; morning shows in general ooze stupidity at every turn, but Fox+Friends makes about as much sense as a football bat. Inane questions, sycophantic interviews, distortions, childish logic... and Steve Doocy. Just looking at that clowns face makes me want to hurt myself.
Posted by: Cokehead | May 29, 2009 4:25 PM
#39 Toroguy:
You're right in that it's a weak argument being made, but I don't think that was the point Thunderf00t is making. He's made that point in several other videos, and has done a great job of it.
This video, to me, comes off as just proving Casey Luskin is another Liar For Jesus. In doing that, it's incredibly effective.
As for TF's voice, it's sort of the way he talks. There's a certain since of maniacal joy in his voice - if you can pick it up, it's much more entertaining.
Posted by: fffysmthg | May 29, 2009 4:42 PM
I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that there are still people like this out there.
I better call my sponsor, I feel a bender coming on.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 29, 2009 5:34 PM
@ PZ:
With all due respect I must strongly object to you comparing Luskin to a"frolicking innocent baby deer".
This is clearly giving him far to much credit...
A plague ridden rat would have been a far more accurate comparison.
Thank You.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 29, 2009 7:45 PM
Also, comparing Luskin to the mentally retarded is not fair on the innocent and pitiable mentally retarded.
Posted by: Lorkas | May 29, 2009 9:12 PM
#39 Toroguy:
You're right that this is an invalid deductive argument, but it's a perfectly valid inductive argument, because it presents defeasible evidence that Casey Luskin is being dishonest when he claims that there is a difference (to him) between ID and creationism.
Posted by: Lorkas | May 29, 2009 9:24 PM
#12 arensb:
Eh... I'm not sure where you heard that. I hear Luskin say (at 3:24 and following):
"Contrary to claims you may have heard, we do not support the teaching of creationism, nor do we favor putting intelligent design, which is different from creationism, into the Texas science standards"
The text Thunderf00t puts up is:
"we do not support ... putting intelligent design ... into the Texas science standards"
He doesn't actually say the word "requiring", which you said Thunderf00t replaced with an ellipsis. Are you talking about a different part of the video?
Posted by: Lorkas | May 29, 2009 9:26 PM
I see it now ... :(
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 29, 2009 9:28 PM
Oh well...
As I explained at length in the "Holier than thou" thread, I don't believe that the Discovery Institute (possibly even Luskin himself) actually care if he is shown to be a liar in public. They don't even really care if they don't win court cases.
Their real goal (IMO) is just to make money by maintaining the divide in the USA between the religious & the scientifically inclined. Showing Luskin to be a liar doesn't threaten this, but people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins do. This is the reason for their site proclaiming religion and evolution to be incompatible, and many of their other actions that seem bizarre to the outsider. Their real fear is that the religious in the USA will begin to accommodate their religious beliefs to the science, as has already happened in much of the rest of the world. For them, anything else is just free publicity and publicity = money.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 29, 2009 9:44 PM
Sorry I should clarify... When I just recently posted "their site proclaiming religion and evolution to be incompatible".
I was referring to their new site "Faith and Evolution", not to their older sites where they have tried to put on a secular face.
Didn't want to cause any confusion.
Posted by: rich | May 29, 2009 10:27 PM
Luskin is so far in the closet he's in Narnia, that's my take on him.
Posted by: rich | May 29, 2009 10:29 PM
Luskin is so far in the closet he's in Narnia, that's my take on him.
Posted by: rich | May 29, 2009 10:37 PM
Luskin is so far in the closet he's in Narnia, that's my take on him.
Posted by: MTGAP | May 29, 2009 10:50 PM
"I have a healthy man crush on Thunderf00t."
Who doesn't?
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
May 29, 2009 10:56 PM
Just a guess... women?
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
May 29, 2009 10:58 PM
Lots 0' lulz experienced from 5m35m to 5m48s. Also, Thunderf00t has a nice Butt-head-esque "uhhh" at 8m58s.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
May 29, 2009 11:04 PM
[err, 5m35s, that is]
Posted by: atomjack
|
May 29, 2009 11:18 PM
Somewhere, somehow, I got the impression that this Thunderf00t guy was an xtian. Damfino where or how, but after this, he's one of my new heroes in the conflict! Truth to tell, I didn't know who this Luskin guy was either. Chalk it up to intertubes ignorance. Man, I might be ignorant in some circumstances, but that Luskin guy is just snake oil, pure and simple. If he's really published on Radon activity dating and then slamming other radiodating methodologies, he's off the old trolley.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 29, 2009 11:45 PM
@ atomjack:
Luskin is once of the Discovery Institutes main front men for talking with the public. Here is part of the Disco Tute's description of him....
I agree, Luskin is a pure snake oil salesman, I'm just not certain whether he believes in his own "product", or not. As for Thunderf00t being a xian....maybe it's the bunny he uses as an avatar?
;-)
Posted by: Tom | May 29, 2009 11:57 PM
Whatever Darwin thought about race 150 years doesn't matter as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. Darwin may have been wrong about everything else he ever thought about, may have wished he never wrote about the TOE, may have agreed with what Hitler would do in WW2, but it doesn't change the fact that he was right about evolution. It just seems so stupid to keep dragging up how the people in the past viewed the world. Everything keeps evolving. ThunderfOOt is one of my favorites.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 30, 2009 12:16 AM
@ Tom:
While you are correct that evolution would be true regardless. Most of the rest of what you said about Darwin is just anti-evolution lies. I'm not saying that you believe them, just that they are a common rhetorical trick. Creationists have a vested interest in trying to "smear" Darwin since they have nothing else by fallacies and smear tactics to defend their position.
Posted by: Sauceress | May 30, 2009 2:00 AM
Listen all you heathen eeevilutionionists, Creationism IS different to ID!
Creationism is a literal reading of Genesis right? But basis of ID is John 1:1 !
From the horses mouth, the *Father* of the modern ID movement:
"Johnson cites the foundation of intelligent design is the The Gospel According to Saint John, in the New Testament, specifically, Chapter 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (KJV)."
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy." Phillip E. Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
So there!!11!!!111
Posted by: blf | May 30, 2009 3:00 AM
Now we know where bats came from! A mouse, whizzing through the air towards a evilly grinning cat, is under enormous pressure to evolve wings and fly away…
Posted by: DebinOz | May 30, 2009 4:10 AM
Having been married into a fundie (yet academic) family for a number of years, I have come to the following conclusion:
Just as (us) scientists may chant pv=nrt in our sleep, knowing that each variable actually exists, fundies 'know' that variable 'g' exists. And 'g' = 1 (god exists). And when you challenge them for evidence, they get huffy and try and make you sound like a pedant. To them, g = 1 is like saying that there is gravity or time. It exists and doesn't need to be proven any more.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 30, 2009 4:28 AM
Abbie will love this !!!
LOL
Never actually saw Luskin before,but agree with prev commenters,"snake oil salesman" comes to mind.
Posted by: Ray Mills | May 30, 2009 6:17 AM
I dont think I would buy a used car from c.l.
Posted by: Ray Mills | May 30, 2009 6:28 AM
Actually re the possibility of him being gay, wouldn't he and ted haggard make a cute couple?
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 30, 2009 4:26 PM
@Ray Mills:
What makes you think that they already aren't?
;-)
Posted by: jhbbunch | June 6, 2009 11:26 PM
Has Luskin found that wristbone yet? I thought it was a dirty trick to hide it from him.
Posted by: arleightow | August 20, 2009 9:45 AM
home seasonal agreement cost proxy 2007 [url=http://www.mieb.uscourts.gov]main forcing ruddiman slowly technology[/url] http://www.patternedspeedhorse.com