Casey Luskin

Re: update #2 - really? I'd kind of like to see how that was attempted. On the other hand it may be better not to know, since I'm sure somebody in the audience will be buying it and I'd rather keep the remnants of my faith in humanity.

Re: update #2 - Hey, they tried to dismiss the Wedge Document. Nothing surprises me.

Okay, that is all fine, well, and good, but get to the important details. Did the creationist bingo cards put in an appearance? What about the Australopithecus aethiopicus masks? Inquiring minds want to know.

"Casey is trying to justify 'cdesign proponentsists'. Srsly. Srsly."

O rly?

"Shit. I'm hungry" Yup, that pretty much sums up life in Kingdom Animalia.

"Casey is trying to justify 'cdesign proponentsists'"

LOL. Would love to know how he attempted that.

I think you have a unibrow fetish.

"Update #2: Casey is trying to justify 'cdesign proponentsists'. Srsly. Srsly."

Srsly? How did he attempt to justify that particular clusterfuck, exactly?

I thought his prez was pretty decent, not as good as West's.
I didn't think, however, that his treatment of your blog was all that provocative, actually. I understand that annoying trolls are worth some mockery now and then, so I think his point would have been better made by showing the way that commenters here have responded to someone like me, with gratuitous and tireless insults and ignoring of arguments made and answers given, rather than what he used. But oh well. Nice to meet you, though. I figure it had to happen sometime. Sorry I couldn't go get a beer with you and your other friend so as to continue the discussion (my wife is due any day now), but I appreciate the invitation.

"Update #2: Casey is trying to justify 'cdesign proponentsists'. Srsly. Srsly."

Oh, please tell me you're going to share the details.

This sounds worse than attending the anti-vaxer's conference. Are you sure you should be doing this? I have visions of your poor cortices writhing around like a ferret with a sock on its head.

Apart from that, I'm hoping you tell us everything! Well, in shorter form, of course - I sympathize, but I know my limits :)

ignoring of arguments made and answers given

Rho, sweetcheeks, nearly every single one of your assertions has been addressed. It's not our fault that you're far too thick to understand the points being made.

Now go run off to another thread and sulk some more.

UPDATES LATER, drunk now (after I arrived home safely)--
Rho, I think youre brainwashed and your church is a creepy cult, however, you, sir, are honorable for standing up for me and ERV, as are several other Trinity members that apologized to me afterwards (I dont know why, they didnt do anything wrong, but thank you to them). I wish I could have bought you a beer for that.

Also, tits.

**lol at the inside joke no one will get but she and Rho until she posts the update**

hehehehehehe tits.

hehehehehehe tits.

That's one of my favorite teasers.

I think his point would have been better made by showing the way that commenters here have responded to someone like me, with gratuitous and tireless insults and ignoring of arguments made and answers given

Rhobot may well be the least introspective person in the entire history of our species. Abbie, do you suppose you need a dungeon, ala' PZ?

To those wanting to know how Casey defends "Cdesign proponentsists," go read his mind-numbing article over at US News, as he offers it there. It's buried in the middle of that morass, starting about nine paragraphs after a lengthy inset quoting Monton's testimony and rambling on quite a ways afterwards. He mainly bases it on excuses offered by Thaxton at Dover. My best effort at summarizing (with maybe just a hint of editorial snark):

--We'd adopted ID as a term before the Edwards decision. In fact, the Greeks invented it so we're just copying them. So no court-evasion was involved.

--ID is not creationism, so we needed a term that wasn't "creationism."

--It was VERY IMPORTANT that we stick to the "empirical domain" and so not mention creationism.

--Did I mention it was VERY IMPORTANT we stick to the empirical domain? 'Cause it was. But not because of Edwards! Nuh-uh. It was just because...um...because.

--We always meant to use ID in Pandas, but because (even though we've been using ID as a term since the Greeks) all of our friends who we wanted to interview and work with us on it didn't know what ID WAS and only understood "creationism," we used that as a placeholder and planned to replace it with ID later. That way they'd know what the book was about. You know, kinda like "From Darwin to Hitler" as a working title for "Expelled?" But it was never about creationism!

--We did a lot of hard work on fitting our arguments to only the empirical domain (I did mention how VERY IMPORTANT but NOT AT ALL ABOUT EDWARDS that was, right?)

--(actual Casey quote): "Any arguments that ID is creationism because early pre-publication drafts of the Pandas textbook used "creation" terminology are false conspiracy theories based not upon substance, but semantics and revisionist history. The very fact that Darwinists must resort to such arguments shows just how weak is their case that ID is creationism."

The whole mess is one of the most muddled, incoherent, laughable exercises in excuse-making and "I meant to do that!"-claiming I've ever seen. But the real gem is the bit about "creationism" being used as a placeholder for their friends. That paragraph deserves reprinting for full admiration (and remember, this is Thaxton speaking):

"I realize that the charge was that we were trying to just use a substitute word for creation, but that isn't the case at all. In the early days of writing the Pandas book for example, although we understood what we were doing, most other people who we were talking to didn't know our objectives really. And if you have a whole culture that knows about creation as a term ... So we used that word early on, not for deception so we could later switch on them but because we wanted the materials to be understood that we were focused on. It was always clearly within the empirical domain, even the things that we wrote early on."

I hadn't read this part of the transcripts before. I understand even better now how Jones could end up so pissed. He knew how dumb they thought he was.

What, Eric, you don't find this kind of argument compelling?

"I find it ironic that on the one hand, atheists will tell you that while there is no grand Meaning in the universe, we can still enjoy our lives. We can still create our own meaning, for ourselves and by ourselves, generally within ourselves. This is simply another example of atheists believing in creating something out of nothing"

Let's see, a failed understanding of the word "ironic," a worthless premise, and a lie, all in one paragraph. Looks like Rho doesn't fuck around when it comes to nailing the Religious 'Tard low points.

tits

You have my attention... :P

"I realize that the charge was that we were trying to just use a substitute word for creation, but that isn't the case at all. In the early days of writing the Pandas book for example, although we understood what we were doing, most other people who we were talking to didn't know our objectives really."

How would they not know their objectives? Same ol' objectives as the old objectives!

Creationist: "Hey thanks dude for callin it creationism. I didn't know the objective!"

IDer: "Well, no problem. Instead of calling it creationism I could explain the objective but you don't know the objective so I better call it creationism."

Creationist: "Ummmmmmmmm, yahhhhhhhhhhhh... Okey dokey!"

@rrt #15

So, "creationists" is synonymous with "design proponents", but intelligent design is not creationism?

I don't know whether that demonstrates how stupid they are, or how stupid they think their followers are. Either way, it burns.

And did someone say "tits"?

Tits are great!
For example: Clickedy

@MH #19

Of course ID is not the same as creationism.

After all, creationism is about God creating everything.
ID is about the Designer designing everything. And then subcontracting the actual creation. To himself.
...
See? All empirical and sciency, now.

Also, tits.

I totally missed him trying to defend cdesign proponentists. He was talking way too fast and I was trying (and failing) to keep up in my written notes. I thought his whole PnP talk was about how the book was demarcing God outside of science.

Moth Eyes @#20:

I agree...tits are great. But wouldn't it have been better to post a picture of a nice pair? Never mind, here's a great big pair of boobies.

Abbie:
I kind of feel sorry for CasLuskiney...he reminds me of the clown with the shovel and wheeley-bin who follows the elephants.

--
Martin

"she needs to do billboards"

What has poor Mr Boards done to deserve pleasuring by this strange lady?

I should clarify that I wasn't at the talk, so what he said there might have been a little different--though reading Abbie's third update, it sounds like he went with the "It's always been ID!" and "I meant to do that!" defenses.

Way to stand up to 'em, ERV. You truly rock.

Rhology said: I think his point would have been better made by showing the way that commenters here have responded to someone like me, with gratuitous and tireless insults and ignoring of arguments made and answers given

Riiiiiight, which is why every thread you visit ends up with tons of counter arguments you ignore (eg my dismantling of your claim that we need absolute morals) as you happily bop over to another one to start the process all over again.

I must make a point of trekking up for one of these tardfests, just to see how far down his throat Abbie can ram Casey's foot.

Oh, and tits.

After reading the full update, ERV, you are full of win. I only wish I could've been there. :)

Creationist law student-- YEAH! Name the five amino acids!

Lucky for me that I finished my soda before I read that. Now I only have to clean saliva off my monitor.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Rhology was compelled to "defend" ERV in real life, albeit in the context of what apparently degenerated into a freak show (well, I suppose it had little choice). I have wasted some time reading his blog and comments, and such behavior is basically what you'd expect from someone whose entire online existence revolves around incessantly posting misinformation and lies on the Web for the dubious benefit of people far more qualified to speak on science than he is.

It drives him crazy, I'm sure, that someone who goes overboard with the LOLS, ellipses, curse words, caps and assiduously avoids apostrophes--and is a CHICK, mind you!--is not only more widely read, but more knowledgeable. So the ersatz chivalry put on display is hardly a surprise; it's about the only way insecure people like Rhology can work through their own not-so-well-concealed consternation over the conflict between THEIR reality and REAL reality.

Hey there Ms. Smith.

It was a pleasure talking to you last night outside of the museum. I'm sorry that some of my friends in attendance were less than cordial. I really appreciate you being patient and talking with us (even if we don't know how many amino acids there are).I think Mr. Luskin's presentation was more fair than you give him credit, but i appreciate your coverage on the event.

I hope to see you at the Dembski-Ruse debate next week!

also: Props to Rho for standing his ground in the QnA.

Abbie, it's time for you to get a cape. You're a fucking superhero.

Reading this, I kept waiting for the [/jking] tag to appear. Un-freaking-believable. I was stunned enough that USNWR gave Casey a forum for his brand of idiocy, but now I get to see what happens when Casey operates without an editor.

Is it good that our opponents are so pathetic, or sad that they have any sort of traction?

So now the most important questions are:

1) Is there a video tape of the event?

and 2) if so, then when and where will it be posted?

I think everyone would love to see it; it's must see TV.

I would have (and did) laugh at that picture, too. But that doesn't make it right. I haven't seen Julie's posts, but if her only crime is putting billboards up, well, so what?

At least ERV and MarkCC let my posts go up, which is more than I can say for PZ who doesn't like being challenged over gate crashing incidents, or PalMD, who doesn't want to be bothered with counter examples to his arguments.

I still don't understand why you hate Behe so much. He put forward a falsifiable hypothesis, and you claim that you falsified it (though I still cannot find where you disproved his claim).

In contrast, I just watched a Nova documentary on a dispute among scientists regarding some creature that has feathers on its arms and legs. While I did sense that there may have been dormant and seething hostility than what was reflected in the documentary, they didn't seem to be as vitriolic toward each other as evolutionists are toward creationists.

Yet it is hilarious to watch scientists behave as though their composite three-dimensional sculptures become scientific since they use a wind tunnel at MIT.

On what basis do they think that the creature they're studying was optimized for aerodynamics?

And if no basis, what scientific good does wind tunnel testing do?

At best, you could say something like "If these creatures were aerodynamically optimized by evolution, and if our sculptors did their job, the creatures probably looked like this."

Didn't once hear a justification for the assumption that the creatures were aerodynamically optimized, though.

If a creationist were to build a "scientific" model of a water-dwelling creature that could hold a man alive for three days in its stomach, and evaluated the model using scientific tools, it would be ridiculed immediately as ridiculous by the evolanders.

Wow, the internet really IS serious business. Just ask Mr. Luskin. Did he make any reference to his nickname of "attack mouse" over at Pharyngula?

Also, seriously? Their big martyr is the whoisyourcreator lady? Jeez, what's next, the crazy street preacher who shouts that we're all going to Hell? Good ol' Disco Institute, always aiming high.

William, would you volunteer to live in a marine creature's belly (whatever lives in the Mediterranean that is actually large enough to accomplish the feat) for the three days to test the theory?

Did you say Casey Luskin? Hahahahahahaha. Sorry. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

"While I did sense that there may have been dormant and seething hostility than what was reflected in the documentary, they didn't seem to be as vitriolic toward each other as evolutionists are toward creationists."

It's simple. It's because we know that creationists are liars and frauds.

Butane? That's not a particularly difficult molecule to visualise, is it? Or am I missing something?

Yet it is hilarious to watch scientists behave as though their composite three-dimensional sculptures become scientific since they use a wind tunnel at MIT.

So from Casey Luskin and tits to microraptor. That's quite a thread derail even for a creationist. Course, that's their stock-in-trade especially when their losing.

On what basis do they think that the creature they're studying was optimized for aerodynamics?

I saw this film most recently on the Discovery channel. I don't recall them trying to determine if it was "aerodynamically optimized" for flight. Evolution isn't as much about optimization as it is about "good-enough-for-the-job-at-hand". Biological niches and environments are rarely static.

From what I remember, they where trying to determine the possible flight/glide posture that the four-winged microraptor may have used. It wasn't an exercise in proving or determining optimization. If you knew anything about science, then you'd know that it was really just an exercise in hypothesis generation. Bounding potential solutions so that more specific questions could be addressed and providing physical evidence for favoring some possible glide postures over others.

Didn't once hear a justification for the assumption that the creatures were aerodynamically optimized, though.

Can you provide a reference where they made that specific assumption?

oops,

That's quite a thread derail even for a creationist. Course, that's their stock-in-trade especially when their they are losing.

WW said: I still don't understand why you hate Behe so much. He put forward a falsifiable hypothesis...

And then expected others to do the experimental work for him, because he had more "fruitful" things to do with his time than...science.

WW said: I still don't understand why you hate Behe so much. He put forward a falsifiable hypothesis...

And then expected others to do the experimental work for him, because he had more "fruitful" things to do with his time than...science.

Come on, you expect a scientist to do science? What wacky world do you live in?

Of course, if by "fruitful" Behe means making himself money by fleecing the wackaloons that buy his books, they he is correct, not doing science is more fruitful.

This is quite possibly the greatest thing I've ever read. EVAR.

opps, they = then (above)

Optimus Primate @#31: NO CAPES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68ndaZSKa8

...they didn't seem to be as vitriolic toward each other as evolutionists are toward creationists.

Or indeed, creationists are towards evolutionists, eh William? I really think you're the last person to complain about people being nasty to others.

Casie, I mean Casey - REALLY had slides of ... disemvowelled posts???? No shit??? In abn actuual real, PRESEN-FREAKIN - TATION???111 Beautiful work no doubt.

Thanks for making them sweat Abbie - and NOT in a good way!

ps: Thanks for the shout out to one of us Watchers too! XOXOX!

Didn't once hear a justification for the assumption that the creatures were aerodynamically optimized, though.

That's because they didn't. You obviously weren't paying close enough attention. If you follow the link you yourself provided, at the end of Part 4 the Narrator says "The question is, "Could it fly any other way?". Part 5 starts "One way to find out is to create a model that can be flown in a wind tunnel to see how it performs. And for that they'll need more than a skeleton."

They found a fossil with feathers, and made a model to find out if it could fly, and if it did, how it could've flown. That shouldn't be that difficult of a concept.

NelC #39,

No, you're right, it's easy to visualize. But remember, this is a guy who thinks there are only five amino acids. I wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face either.

Good for Rhology for not letting a bald-faced lie about ERV go unchallenged. Earlier, we had an antievolution type at Panda's Thumb admit she made a massive math error. It's a trend I appreciate. Fair warning, though, neither of you guys can work for the Discovery Institute now! Admitting mistakes there is strictly verboten.

I could draw butane (&c) with my eyes closed. And on a good day I might be able to name (and match!) the five nucleic acids.

But the aas? Never managed to pick them up.

I did once learn to name octahedral coördination compounds, though.

Abbie, you're the Genie Scott of the Future. Brava!

William, scientists tend to be vitriolic about creationists for much the same reason that geographers would get a tad testy if the flat-earth society demanded equal time in the classroom while refusing to provide any actual maps.

Mr Wallace @#34,

You state

"In contrast, I just watched a Nova documentary on a dispute among scientists regarding some creature that has feathers on its arms and legs. While I did sense that there may have been dormant and seething hostility than what was reflected in the documentary,

There isn't hostility. There's a difference of opinion about the interpretation of evidence. Sometimes it's emotional, but no more so than a discussion between fans of opposing sports teams. That's natural: scientists are people.

they didn't seem to be as vitriolic toward each other as evolutionists are toward creationists.

They are all engaged in the same pursuit: knowledge. They have opinions but they are open to being convinced by the evidence that others offer. (In case it's not clear, it's about evidence and testable predictions, not opinions.)

Yet it is hilarious to watch scientists behave as though their composite three-dimensional sculptures become scientific since they use a wind tunnel at MIT.

On what basis do they think that the creature they're studying was optimized for aerodynamics?

It was optimised through evolution; through the accumulation of traits over time.

... At best, you could say something like "If these creatures were aerodynamically optimized by evolution, and if our sculptors did their job, the creatures probably looked like this."

Didn't once hear a justification for the assumption that the creatures were aerodynamically optimized, though.

They did justify this. They analysed a number of ways the creature could have used feathers on the hind legs for flight. Some of the hypotheses didn't work. The raptor fell as quick as if it couldn't fly. Some did work. If none had worked and no new hypothesis was forthcoming, they likely would have admitted that the creature couldn't fly and sought alternative explanations for the features.

I'm sure if you sought out the papers written about this you'd see that clearer. It was, after all, a television program for the general public. And, it wasn't the scientists who made it. So, if you want to take someone to task for not presenting enough evidence, it would be the producers.

If a creationist were to build a "scientific" model of a water-dwelling creature that could hold a man alive for three days in its stomach, and evaluated the model using scientific tools, it would be ridiculed immediately as ridiculous by the evolanders.

If a creationist were to build a testable hypothesis and offer evidence, science would be happy, even eager, to consider it. We love to learn new things.

Stories are not evidence, though they may lead you to evidence. Carl Sagan wrote (in his novel Contact) "Any faith that admires truth, that strives to know God, must be brave enough to accommodate the universe." Admire truth. Learn about the universe. Then you will know God.

As you know, WW, as I believe you are partially literate, Behe's "claims" have been disproved over and over. His botched probability calculations in Edge have been written up and printed.

No matter. Behe doesn't care. He still tells the mousetrap story, for Monkey's sake!

Nobody "hates" Behe. By all accounts Behe is a nice and gentle family man and a good teacher. He also writes well, although I don't agree with his thesis.

I realize, WW, that you need "hate" so you feel persecuted and people will pity you. Whatever.

Behe is simply not respected and he has lost his standing in the scientific community. Nobody takes him seriously.

Same for Luskin, although in Gerbil Boy's case he never had any standing to begin with. Luskin, Behe and the rest of the creationists are insulting on an intellectual level, no matter how "polite" they appear. Like a turd in a punchbowl, they float like ice, but unlike ice are unwanted and revolting.

It's not "hate Michael Behe;" it's "despise Michael Behe." Once of science's unanswered questions is, "Is Michael Behe a liar or just an idiot?" In 2003, he perjured himself by testifying that there was no peer-reviewed scientific research. In the course of a simple Web search I
* found that the first major scientific conferences on molecular evolution were held in the 1960s,
* found universities with departments of molecular evolution
* located online copies of some of the classic papers in molecular evolution, and
* linked to 32 scientific journals with articles about molecular evolution. I mean different journals put out by different publishers, such as the Journal of Molecular Evolution, published for over 30 years, and the journal, Molecular Biology and Evolution, published since 1984. I stopped listing them after that because I was tired but I could easily have tripled that number.

In 2008, Ed Brayton found Behe contradicting himself by first by declaring that forcing students to subscribe to an idea [presumably evolution] was bad pedagogy and then stating that in case of conflict, the Christian Bible must override scientific fact.

He tortures mathematics and ignores the real world of chemistry to get it to produce the answers he wants, kind of like the engineers who "mathematically proved" that a bumblebee can't fly by assuming that it was a fixed-wing aircraft!

Finally, he uses facts that are just plain wrong to support his pre-determined conclusions. See "The Behe Blunder."

I hope that helps.

There isn't hostility. There's a difference of opinion about the interpretation of evidence.

Uh, you're not a paleontologist are you? There has been heated, sometimes caustic, hostility between the bird-to-dinosaur group and the no-bird-to-dinosaur group for decades. If anything, this got worse as feathered theropods started turning up in Liaoning. Overall, I thought your comment was really good (except for the use of the word "raptor" to refer to a dromaeosaurid--that's a personal pet peeve though, not your fault), but to say that there's no rancor between those two factions in the study of bird origins simply isn't accurate.

William Wallace, "affectionately" known as Limp Willy: Just another liar for jesus. Gets himself banned from Pharyngula, look up why, then whines over half the blogs here that he was banned for "challenged over gate-crashing incidents". What part of "He had an invitation" do you not understand?

Anyway, your inability to understand what your betters are doing does not in any way lessen their work. In short, you are a foul, ignorant, petty little man who cannot even follow his *OWN* commandments.

Liar.

Apparently Casey Luskin is still a bit butthurt, so he sent a BAAAAAW-mail to Michael Egnor

Josh at #55,

Nope, I'm not a paleontologist; just a guy that watched the show. I'm an engineer so I likely missed the social cues. ;-)

Sorry about the raptor reference. It was taken from the Nova episode too. I did say it was like fans of opposing sports teams, so maybe I did pick up on the hostility after all.

WW - "I haven't seen Julie's posts, but..."

Isn't this exactly the sort of "I wasn't there and you were but I get to tell you what happened" bullshit that got you into the pharyngula dungeon?

Please show signs you are at least trying to learn from your mistakes.

Wayne, no harm done. There was really no reason for you to have been in on the ridiculous of the dinosaur world.

Sorry about the raptor reference.

No worries. It has just driven me crazy since Jurassic fucking park ;)

Thanks Josh for setting the record straight[#55].

Can you provide a reference where they made that specific assumption?

My recollection was that they were trying to determine if the creature was sprawled or not by using a wind tunnel.

If my memory is correct, their reasoning was the feathers had a shape like an airfoil, and therefore must have been used for flight (as opposed to attracting mates, for example).

The two competing sculptures were tested in a wind tunnel to see which of them would be more conducive to flight.

I'll watch the documentary again. I of course am not a paleontologist and possibly did not pay enough attention.

[#56]What part of "He had an invitation" do you not understand?

LOL. PZ never claimed to have an invitation, not on his youtube video whinefest with Dawkins anyway. He claimed he registered like everybody else, viz., using the RSVP system.

Or do you mean an "invitation" as in the crash the private screening idea put forth by one of his commenters?

Dude, let it go. The Expelled crew displayed rank hypocrisy, just accept it and move on.

Fitz #46, d'oh! How silly of me to forget! I was originally going to suggest tights, but feared that might be taken the wrong way.

Casey didn't have the balls to write his own lame reply on the Disco website, so he had his Mama Crowther do it for him.

Poor Attack Gerbil Luskin! Must hide widdle body behind Mama Crother's skirt.

Freedom of Speech, of course, is NOT ALLOWED on the Disco website. No, that's for the little people, right Crowther?

Liar. Posting a public website is considered a public invitation. Anyone could register for an invite, and several people did so. When PZ showed up, the IDiots there decided to make a big deal out of expelling the feared PZ.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, right? Can't even follow your own rules?

I saw the Nova show on Microraptor.
Teh Controversy = Larry Martin.
WW's recollections are about right. They were testing a model in a wind tunnel with various wing and hindlinb postures and measuring total lift with a force transducer of some sort. The configuration that generated maximum lift was greeted as The One with great surprise and congatulations all around. I actually agree that the work (as portrayed) was laden with assumptions that were not discussed on the TV program. For one thing (and to be fair, they were explicit about this), they were testing its effectiveness at gliding, not in powered flight. No alternative function for the hindlimb "wings" were discussed: display, braking, etc.

But this is OT...nice job vs. Luskin, AS!

Teh Controversy = Larry Martin.

With Microraptor, yeah, it's mostly Larry. Regarding the dinosaurian origins of Aves, though, there are a bunch. This debate, while mostly over, isn't new.

I just came here for the tits.

/not disappointed

He claimed he registered like everybody else, viz., using the RSVP system.

You realize that the website registration offered open invitation to anyone who signed up, yes? Almost no one was "personally invited," if that's what you're trying to skew it as.

You logged on, signed up, and went. "You and your community are invited to attend FREE of charge!"

There were no litmus conditions.

Yup, that's what he's trying to skew it as. But if you aren't familiar with WW, don't bother trying. He lives in his own little ugly, righteous world.

And he's had this explained to him in clear simple terms numerous times but just keeps right on hauling up the dismembered corpse of his ridiculous assertion to publicly fellate it, as he's done here. It's an old, tired, moth-eaten shtick.

squeeeeeeeeeeeek

Sweet jeezus, Wee Willie Wanker, would you just shut your fucking trap for once? Still beating that dead horse to a fine, pink mist over your lies centering around an event you didn't witness at the screening for a piece of shit movie that was a critical and financial disaster I see. How many times must your ass be handed to you before you learn what even a flatworm could pick up after just one bit of negative reinforcement?

And he's had this explained to him in clear simple terms numerous times but just keeps right on hauling up the dismembered corpse of his ridiculous assertion to publicly fellate it, as he's done here. It's an old, tired, moth-eaten shtick.

Perhaps this is in fact the crux of the problem for all Creationists? That they lack short- and mid-term memories? Certainly they all seem to share the trait that they forget every point made in every debate with them since... like... ever, and just reiterate the same talking points they had in the beginning.

In case anyone is interested, I have posted my own review of the evening in question. Cheers!

Abbie, you'll never buy your own drinks in any bar I occupy at the same time. Thanks for some Monday amusement at the expense of the twits.

Butane? (Sorry if mentioned above- I havn't read them all) Cue Monty Python's Holy Grail routine:

Q: YOU MUST ANSWER 3 QUESTIONS: WHAT IS THE STRUCTURE OF BUTANE?
A: N or ISO?
Q: I DON'T KNOW THAT!
Q goes flying off into the ravine.

dNorrisM--
Q: YOU MUST ANSWER 3 QUESTIONS: WHAT IS THE STRUCTURE OF BUTANE?
A: N or ISO?
Q: I DON'T KNOW THAT!
Q: goes flying off into the ravine.

+5 internets to you sir/madame!

Just curious, who exactly is this "BlackBlogger" person? Is he just some random right-wing dumbass law student?

LOL on the Butane and and Amino Acid questions.

Though, I'm sure he meant nucleic acids instead of amino acids. Still - disturbing much!

Also, Abbie, I hope you don't lump me in with the IDiots because of the paper I'd sent you about large tracts of noncoding DNA containing functionally active RNA?

What, no recording?

Personally, I don't think that you should have flipped him off. I've been there with discussions with other people. I've felt like the only solution to a dispute or two involves Klingon Batleths and vows of slaying. But that strategy always loses on points on one of the Federated Planets. A sharp word from a quick wit (such as what you display on your blog here) does a lot more for diminishing your opponent than a finger. But he really is too sensitive, I almost feel sorry for him.

I'm glad that you tussled intellectually with the un-armed Luskin, and it is quite a compliment that the evidence they conjure up about censoring debate is a battle with a blog troll. Luskin is lying through his teeth when he says that he knows nothing about people being banned from Dembski's blog. They will complain loudly, angrily, and repeatedly, and fewer and fewer people will listen to them. And then we win. But slowly.

I really think Casey's response to this whole affair is a simple case of unrequited love. I'm sure Abbie can find something redeeming behind those unshaven jowls. In the meantime, here's my contribution in honor of a fine moment.

#82 - A recording was made, by Trinity Baptist. I don't know if they intend it for general consumption, but I think they do. When/if it becomes available, I'll post a link here.

"You cant draw butane so I dont believe anything youve said"

(1) Complete non-sequitur. You'd think a law student would know that.
(2) /\/ Easy.

"Another nasty character was some law school student and Creationist (he believes humans were specially created) who also took part in the screaming. After the presentation, I patiently waited for a break in the conversation a friend was having to ask friend if he wanted to grab a beer. As I was waiting, Creationist law student came up to me "Is he your beta?" (implying Im an alpha male and my friend was my bitch, ie PUA"

This gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

OK, I got linked here from your Rebecca watson post in which you mention "treefrog72". Treefrog is the name of my druid. And on here you mention gnomes; my main is a gnome shadow priest.

I am now scared for reasons I don't fully understand.

OK, after reading the comments, I think I know why the 5 amino acids question is laughed at.

It's easy to name all five of them, unless you do it in alphabetical order. Amirite? Am I?! *crosses toes*

I just read through this post and I am trying to see the difference between your actual harassment at this event, and Rebbecas feigned harassment in EVgate.

As far as I can see, you are a risk taker, which is far more feminist, far more more bold, and based in reality, not hypothetical supposition.

Your argument is from fact, not supposition, your risk entailed potential for actual sanctions or penalties, like censure, and possibly even someone callin' the law--I can relate to that, whereas hers was a cowardly snipe from a victim stance hidden behind te innernetz.

Oh: the other main difference is that you stood your ground alone instead of making your appeal to the alpha-male pretenders of science blogs.

Something to be said for building slow, and fighting your own battles--without that monolithic club ready to murder open minds.