Luskin's ludicrous genetics

Posted 10 January 2006 by PZ Myers

I mentioned before that IDEA clubs insist that expertise is optional; well, it's clear that that is definitely true. Casey Luskin, the IDEA club coordinator and president, has written an utterly awful article "rebutting" part of Ken Miller's testimony in the Dover trial. It is embarrassingly bad, a piece of dreck written by a lawyer that demonstrates that he knows nothing at all about genetics, evolution, biology, or basic logic. I'll explain a few of his misconceptions about genetics, errors in the reproductive consequences of individuals with Robertsonian fusions, and how he has completely misrepresented the significance of the ape:human chromosome comparisons.

Continue reading "Luskin's ludicrous genetics" (on Pharyngula)

83 Comments

steve s · 10 January 2006

Without something like a Bathroom Wall there's nowhere else for me to put this but OMFG DaveScot has just taken Dembski's Blog to a Whole New Level:

(Off Topic) Mr. Christopher is no longer with us People writing things like this ( http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/intelligent_des_19.html#comment-68872 ) are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Christopher will fit right in at Panda's Thumb. Filed under: Intelligent Design --- DaveScot @ 8:43 am

Yes, that's right, DaveScot just banned someone from Dembski's blog, for something the person wrote at Panda's Thumb.

steve s · 10 January 2006

Okay, so I went to AtBC to post it, but Mr. Christopher himself beat me to it. Mibad.

Mr Christopher · 10 January 2006

What a total crack up, huh? I could not stop laughing when I read it this morning. Next Dave "I warn you" Scott will be trying to read people's minds in an attempt to weed out others who might not just say something naughty about William Dembski, theologian and sunday school teacher at Southern Baptist Theology Seminary, but also ban those who harbor naughty thoughts :-)

They should make you sign a pledge of obedience before allowing you to post anything over there.

Check out this thread where Dave gave me a warning that questioning the motives of my owngovernor would get me banned from Dembski's uncommon poop.

Too funny!

steve s · 10 January 2006

1) regarding PZ's post:

Database Error: Unable to connect to your database. Your database appears to be turned off or the database connection settings in your config file are not correct. Please contact your hosting provider if the problem persists.

2) regarding the Mr. Christopher situation:

This is Frickin Awesome.

Corkscrew · 10 January 2006

Mr Christopher: congrats on the credibility boost that comes from having been banned from UD :)

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 10 January 2006

Yes, that's right, DaveScot just banned someone from Dembski's blog, for something the person wrote at Panda's Thumb.

Hmmm - Panda's Thumb allows anonymous and unregistered commenting. I I wasn't hindered by ethics, it might occur to me to see whom else I could get banned from Dembski's blog.

Russell · 10 January 2006

Luskin certainly does nothing to improve my opinion of lawyers. Here's a subject I know a thing or two about, and it's plain as day that Luskin knows less than nothing* about. Yet he has no qualms about organizing clubs all over the country to share and spread his ignorance.

Imagine you're called to jury duty, and you're asked to sit in judgment of some body of facts you're not particularly acquainted with. (Must happen all the time with DNA evidence.) Now imagine that you know the data is going to be presented by lawyers with the integrity of this guy. How much confidence will you have in your verdict, relative to, say, a coin toss?

"Less than nothing" - may seem like hyperbole, a mathematical impossibility. But if I know nothing about subject X, but I'm willing and able to learn, I'd say that puts me a step ahead of someone obviously precommitted to the wrong answer regardless of how much evidence and logic to the contrary is available.

steve s · 10 January 2006

Just had a weird moment there. I googled reverend and luskin to try to find evidence Casey Luskin is a reverend, which I vaguely remember to be true, and among the first few results was a comment of mine here on PT from November 2004. Whew. It's been a while.

Anyway, the point remains. Casey refers to himself as an attorney, and I seem to recall he used to be / call himself a reverend, which now he perhaps doesn't for the same reason their little IDEA club pretends religion isn't important.

Nurse Ratchet · 10 January 2006

Oh for God's sake you people are still talking about creationists!? No wonder those retards never go away.

steve s · 10 January 2006

I forgot to add to the end of my previous comment, "Can anybody find evidence that Casey is/was a reverend?" Referring to him as Reverend Luskin would be even worse than calling him Attorney Luskin, methinks.

keiths · 10 January 2006

Yes, that's right, DaveScot just banned someone from Dembski's blog, for something the person wrote at Panda's Thumb.
— steve s

Dave has banned four people in the last four days.

Ed Darrell · 10 January 2006

Lawyers and attorneys everywhere would breathe more easily were the world to call him "Reverend" instead of "Mister."

steve s · 10 January 2006

DaveScot, since taking over Dembski's blog, has banned as many people as Panda's Thumb has in nearly 2 years? No surprise. Keeps the Potemkin Science all clean and shiny.

AntiScot · 10 January 2006

DaveScot is a fascist, so what else would one expect? Surely, it is not by chance that Dembski likes DaveScot.

keiths · 10 January 2006

I got banned yesterday for merely showing (by direct quotes) that Dembski, Behe, and Phillip Johnson do not think the idea of a supernatural designer is nonsensical. See the Bradley Monton thread on Uncommon Descent for the results. DaveScot, despite being an ID supporter, thinks that the idea of a supernatural designer is nonsense and outside the scope of ID. In his usual deranged way, he believes his personal opinions trump those of Dembski, the owner of the blog, so he's reduced to banning folks for simply explaining to him what his fellow ID supporters believe. As Feederbottom put it (on the Dembski blog),

Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot! This blog is a sham.
— Feederbottom

In Dembski's defense, I've been posting critical remarks for the past 40 days and 40 nights (an auspicious number, but not by design, as Judge Jones said) and Dembski never banned me, removed a comment of mine, or warned me. In return, I kept my comments civil and always backed up the points I made. Things changed when Dembski handed over the reins to Dave. As PT regulars are all too aware, Dave gets a bit, shall we say, touchy when he is proven wrong. Putting him in charge of a blog is like having Pat Robertson's finger on the nuke button. Interesingly, two of the people he banned in the last four days are rabid ID supporters (Josh Bozeman and Benjii) who just happened to rub Dave the wrong way.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 10 January 2006

Imagine you're called to jury duty, and you're asked to sit in judgment of some body of facts you're not particularly acquainted with. (Must happen all the time with DNA evidence.) Now imagine that you know the data is going to be presented by lawyers with the integrity of this guy. How much confidence will you have in your verdict, relative to, say, a coin toss?
— Russell

I served jury duty and went through jury selection for a trial in the mid-90s. The prosecuting attourney planned to use DNA evidence, which was somewhat novel at the time. She was tossing off anyone who could even spell DNA.

caerbannog · 10 January 2006

This latest attempt by Luskin to "rebut" the testimony of a top-notch research scientist is all the more amusing when one considers the fact that Luskin himself got flushed out of a Ph.D. program with a "consolation" Master's degree. (Luskin was awarded an MS from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, an institution that awards Master's degrees almost exclusively as "consolation prizes" for Ph.D. washouts).

And thanks to the generosity of wealthy religious loons who are paying Luskin's salary, we get to watch this clown who flunked out of his Ph.D. program keep trying to "challenge" some of the best scientists in the business! This is definitely "popcorn-worthy" entertainment (now excuse me while I go pop another bag).

Alan Fox · 10 January 2006

Welcome Keiths.

I must have supernatural powers of prediction :)

Alan (Renard)

Alan Fox · 10 January 2006

Oops don't know how that happened, try here, Keiths.

Alan Fox · 10 January 2006

Interesingly, two of the people he banned in the last four days are rabid ID supporters (Josh Bozeman and Benjii) who just happened to rub Dave the wrong way.
— Keiths

I suspect they were too overtly religious for DaveScot who states "While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion."

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 January 2006

DaveScot who states "While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion."

Tell it to the judge. Oh wait, you already DID. (snicker) (giggle) Game over. Whine all you want. (shrug)

steve s · 10 January 2006

DaveScot banned Josh Bozeman? HA!

keiths · 10 January 2006

DaveScot has banned four people in the last four days.
— I

Make that five. He just ousted beervolcano, who has one of my favorite blognames of all time. See the "Jews clash over the intelligence of intelligent design" thread on Uncommon Descent. LOL.

Mr Christopher · 10 January 2006

Dave "I am warning you" Scott has made it offical. Saying naughty things on ANY blog or web site aboutWilliam Dembski, theologian and sunday school teacher at Souhthern Baptist Theological Seminary, will get you banned from uncommon poop.

Dave "I am watching you" Scott said, "... yes I do occasionally check up on commenters here to see what they're saying elsewhere and it will get you axed if you talk badly about this blog elsewhere then act all polite and kindly when here in order to participate. Such duplicity is unwelcome."

Well at least he admits I acted "all polite and kindly there in order to participate" at uncommon poop. Well duh. I act polite and kindly every where I go so I can participate. Being a jerk has never improved my odds. Anyhow, I am honored to have been banned by Dave "I am watching you" Scott. I only wish Demsbki, chief intelligent design creationism theologian, had done it himself. Keep in mind, fellow PTers, Creepy Dave Scott is watching you.... .

keiths · 10 January 2006

Welcome Keiths.
— Alan Fox

Hey Alan/Renard, Nice to meet you again, this time on friendlier territory. I was still invoking your memory (comment #143) on Uncommon Descent shortly before I got banned. Also, hello to my recent fellow exiles Mr. Christopher and cogzoid (aka beervolcano).

Mr Christopher · 10 January 2006

Funny that I kept reading what seemed to be intelligent, enlightened people at Dembski's common creationism blog who made very persuasive arguments and comments. How the heck was I supposed to know they were all from here? :-) Who the heck knew? Anyhow, it is a pleasure to be reacquainted with everyone here and to be a part of this exclusive banned from the common creationism blog club. And it is so funny (still) to see all these people getting banned who do not argue, who are not disruptive, who generally make very good points get banned. Even the hard core ID supporters are getting banned.

Patrick (another admin on uncommon poop) quoted Dave "I'm Watching You" Scott saying, I'd suggest the only rule for now is that anyone who has author rights also have banning rights, swing the axe at their own discretion, and the rest of the authors don't question it. If that doesn't work out we can always have some kind of democratic process but that's time consuming and I'd rather avoid overhead when practical

I like the don't question the axe swinging (banning) part the best. That's the Golden Rule of Intelligent Design Creationism - Do Not Question What We Tell You. I suspect Dave Scott is a garden of psychopathology. We should start wagering who he will ban next.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 January 2006

Dave "I am warning you" Scott has made it offical. Saying naughty things on ANY blog or web site aboutWilliam Dembski, theologian and sunday school teacher at Souhthern Baptist Theological Seminary, will get you banned from uncommon poop.

Dembski is an evasive deceptive dishonest lying sack of cow cakes. Ban me.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 January 2006

we can always have some kind of democratic process but that's time consuming and I'd rather avoid overhead when practical

Yep, that's the fundie attitude towards "democracy", alright . . . . No wonder Howie Ahmanson keeps writing them checks.

Arden Chatfield · 10 January 2006

Josh Bozeman banned at an ID site. That is beyond priceless.

Does anyone know what comment he made that finally got him axed.

Arden Chatfield · 10 January 2006

"... yes I do occasionally check up on commenters here to see what they're saying elsewhere and it will get you axed if you talk badly about this blog elsewhere then act all polite and kindly when here in order to participate. Such duplicity is unwelcome."

Gotta love the fundies' commitment to freedom of speech...

steve s · 10 January 2006

maybe i'll start assuming the names of Uncommon Pissant posters and start posting fake comments on science sites.

Zarquon · 10 January 2006

You should use the name 'Dave Scot', then he would have to ban himself.

keiths · 10 January 2006

Also, hello to my recent fellow exiles Mr. Christopher and cogzoid (aka beervolcano).
— I

My goof. 'Feederbottom' was cogzoid's alias, not 'beervolcano'. Beer still has posting privileges, AFAIK. I should probably check -- he may also have gotten the axe in the last hour or two. A serial banner is on the loose, after all.

I suspect Dave Scott is a garden of psychopathology. We should start wagering who he will ban next.
— Mr Christopher

I predict that he'll stage a coup and try to ban Dembski. Dave is an interesting case psychologically. He's obviously very insecure about his image, hence all the boasting and the inability to admit when he's wrong. You'd think this would make him careful about what he writes, but for a prideful person, he's amazingly able to shoot himself in the foot in an embarrassingly public way. In one morning alone he posted all of the following hemorrhoidal invective on Dembski's blog:

You're revealing yourself as a bit of an ass... As one ass to another I suggest you shape up before you get shipped out. Now ditch the lame assertion that... You chance worshippers can't prove your arguments... Or maybe he's just stupid and says the first stupid thing that enters his mind. If you've got tired old crap we've already heard take it to Panda's Thumb... Your incessant insistence...is tiresome, old, unwelcome... Drop it or get lost. Your statement...is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. I'm going to right [sic] you off as some kind of moron. Got it? You're going down in flames...
— DaveScot

I posted the list and asked Dave: "Life is short; why put yourself through this sort of stress over a weblog?" His answer was predictable: "Your concern is touching but touch someone else with it."

steve s · 10 January 2006

I don't think DaveScot's tenure at UncommonPissant is going to last long. As bad as Dembski made himself look, DaveScot's making it worse.

keiths · 10 January 2006

Josh Bozeman banned at an ID site. That is beyond priceless. Does anyone know what comment he made that finally got him axed?
— Arden Chatfield

Here's the thread where Josh gets the axe: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/624#comments Benjii gets booted on the same thread for defending Josh and calling DaveScot a Stalinist (folks, you can't pay for this kind of entertainment):

Are you going to ban me just because I disagree with your position? You did the same thing to Josh. That's unfair. Bill didn't do that to me. All you're doing is just banning people because they question your beliefs. It's a free country. The advantage you have is defense, and more power to it if you can. Remember, DaveScot, you were almost kicked out as well from this blog. Keep in mind that Dr. Dembski gave you this priveledge. Nobody else! You shouldn't domineer over people who disagree with you. If you want to kick me out, fine! I'd rather be on a blog where there is freedom of thought and expression, not on a Stalinist one.
— Benjii

That was probably the only time I ever agreed with something Benjii wrote. Anyone know why Dembski almost kicked DaveScot off the blog?

H. Humbert · 10 January 2006

You see what always happens when small men get their hands on a little bit of power? They create small fiefdoms.

steve s · 10 January 2006

From Keiths's link, it looks like DaveScot is even further off the deep end than I knew. DaveScot's tenure is not long for this earth.

Mr Christopher · 10 January 2006

1) I love it when the creationists start eating their own.

2) Is Dave Scott a theology student?

steve s · 10 January 2006

If anybody wants to start a dead pool on DaveScot's administration, I'm in for the last week of January.

Arden Chatfield · 10 January 2006

My god, that link was the funniest thing I've seen in ages! I have to give DaveScot credit for that, at least --he's done the impossible, and made Uncommondescent interesting.

If nothing else, it was mightily fun to see Bozeman publicly humiliated.

I agree it can't last, tho. It looks like an asylum that's been taken over by the lunatics. If Dembski cares about what's left of his reputation, he'll pull the plug.

I see DaveScot professes to be an agnostic -- is that true? If so, why on earth did Dembski 'hire' him? And what the hell is he doing shilling for Intelligent Design? He comes across like a man who's been powerless, resentful, and pissed off his entire life and now that he's got control over something for the first time, he's determined to be as much of a tyrant as possible. Not an unheard-of pattern.

keiths · 11 January 2006

DaveScot has banned four people in the last four days.
— I

Make that five. He just ousted beervolcano, who has one of my favorite blognames of all time.
— I later

They're now up to six banned in four days on Dembski's blog. This time Dembski did the honors, booting someone who calls himself 'infamous'. I don't know what infamous wrote, because Dembski deleted his comment.

Infamous: I just decided to do DaveScot a favor and boot you myself. The deal with this blog, since I've given it over to my friends, is to build community and "feel the love." Unfortunately, that requires recalcitrant elements to be purged. That's a price I'm willing to pay.
— Dembski

Can you feel the love?

k.e. · 11 January 2006

oooohhhhhh
Dembski does Herr Scott a favor ? hahahahahahaha
The Der Durher is going all twitter and bisted with Scottbels his master of ~~propaganda ....er mind control~~ ...der Reich's blog at the wheel.
Priceless.
Banning super-naturalists and just leaving gnawed out agnostics(but still a believer in Pascals' Wager).
Man that has to be the smallest tent in the land.
Dr Strangelove "feel the love" take me away to the funny farm where life is wonderful all the time.... not the arm..... no no no no ....not the arm
BWHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Reminds me of an old Cold War Joke

Stalin asks Beria (NKVD Chief)
"If we opened the borders and let everyone who wanted to go,go, how many would stay"?
Beria says "2 Comrade Stalin"
Stalin says "Oh, and who would they be?"
Beria says "Well there would be me"
and Stalin says "Yes, and who else ?"

Tim Hague · 11 January 2006

Dave Scott is an engineer I believe.

I too was ousted from Dembski's blog a few months ago. No warning, no message, just not allowed to logon any more. Because I was never allowed to reply to the responses made to my final comment, I saved it and replied on my own blog.

Renier · 11 January 2006

Tim. I went and read the stuff on your blog. It was a VERY good argument that you posted at uncommoncrap. I cannot believe you got knocked off for a good post like that. It just again confirms the view I have of the uncommon IDiots.

Moses · 11 January 2006

Josh is no longer with us.

Benjii - "why be moral"

Because if you treat others badly they are likely to treat you badly in return. What goes around comes around. That's basically "the golden rule" and it's endorsed by most of the world's major religions and few irreligious people argue with it. The golden rule is a self-evident truth sort of like all men are created equal with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Comment by DaveScot --- January 8, 2006 @ 11:26 am

The irony of this post... "Put it up to eleven."

Tim Hague · 11 January 2006

Renier, to be fair I was also suggesting in the same thread that ID is religious because Behe (as well as other IDists) believes the designer to be God, and it could have been that line of argument that got me booted.

I think the 'rarified' design argument is a good one, and it's good fun to pin the IDists down with.

Arden Chatfield · 11 January 2006

I too was ousted from Dembski's blog a few months ago. No warning, no message, just not allowed to logon any more.

I would say that being banned from Dembski's blog has become a basic credential for any self-respecting evolutionary biologist, but the recent banishment of Bozeman and Benjii would seem to undermine that argument...

AC · 11 January 2006

Dembski said it himself:

The deal with this blog, since I've given it over to my friends, is to build community and "feel the love." Unfortunately, that requires recalcitrant elements to be purged. That's a price I'm willing to pay.

"Unfortunately", as if it's not up to him, and yet it's "a price he's willing to pay". Sounds a lot like a national leader saying "Unfortunately [insert unjust things] must be done, but it's a price our great nation is willing to pay." At least Dembski's instance of fascism is personal, and thus laughably inconsequential. Still, it gives an insight into his philosophy and what he values.

Daniel Kim · 11 January 2006

Hmmm . . .

"Unfortunately, wiretaps without benefit of warrants or judicial review must be done, but it's a price our great nation is willing to pay."

"Unfortunately, extreme rendition must be done, but it's a price our great nation is willing to pay."

Hey! It fits very comfortably! Cut from the same cloth, I guess.

(Does someone referee the comments? If this is inappropriate insertion of political material, I apologize.)

Ocellated · 11 January 2006

I left that original comment on the post at Uncommon Descent, questioning the hostility towards dissent. I find this all so funny because Josh Bozeman came over to my blog from a trackback on Uncommon Descent and left angry messages because I don't agree with intelligent design.

I just blogged about this myself here: The Implosion of Uncommon Descent. (My attempt at a trackback didn't work... Errr.)

It's been entertaining (to say the least) to see Davescot turning on his own readers.

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006

You should use the name 'Dave Scot', then he would have to ban himself.

hmm, this suggests a fun game: post as Dave Scott on ALL the boards he randomly monitors, post various inconsistent drivel (er, I mean even MORE inconsistent and "drivelish" than what Dave already posts, just to be clear). then let's see how long it takes him to blow a gasket, trying to post that all those posts aren't his. this would lead to all of us accusing the real Dave of trying to discount the posts of the "real" Dave on the various blogs, etc. hell, even reading this post is probably giving him fits already. anybody game?

steve s · 11 January 2006

Oh hell yeah. But I don't want to piss off any administrator I like, such as the ones at PT, Pharyngula, DftCW, etc.

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006

well, perhaps we could get special permission for just this case?

We could ask Reed, Wes, and Pim if they might be willing to make an exception in order to make an example.

I for one have not seen anything quite like what Dave Scott is doing in all my experience on the web (and I'm an old guy). It's quite unique, and I think reflects a serious mental instability on DS's part that he himself would be best off being forced to confront. Besides which, just think of the humor potential!

but hey, that's just my opinion.

Ocellated · 11 January 2006

I wouldn't bother with doing anything. When you're kicking off your biggest supporters, the problem will take care of itself, one way or another.

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006

make it 7:

ES dares challenge the Isaac Newton of Information theory on standard probability:

ES: OK, we are getting somewhere. Glad to see a response from you!

dembksi: " Now toss a coin N times. What is the probability of that event?"

ES: 1

dembksi: "Do such events happen all the time?"

ES: Such events do happen all the time.

Shall we continue?

[I'm afraid you would fail an introductory probability course. At any rate, you've failed the requirements to continue with this blog. You're out of here. ---WmAD]

while this is the tail end of the "argument"; basically what ES was pointing out is the simple conclusion that regardless of the specific probability value assigned to a specific event, given enough time, the actual probability of that event occurring becomes 1.

I'm sure all here know what he was refferring to wrt to Dembski's claims.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 11 January 2006

Just as a reminder, posting as someone else is grounds for being banned from PT. I know it's all in jest, but it'd be kinda dumb to get yourself banned here just to make fun of a vest-pocket tyrant.

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006

I wouldn't bother with doing anything. When you're kicking off your biggest supporters, the problem will take care of itself, one way or another.

of course, but that doesn't mean we can't have a bit of fun in the process, does it? Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems what DS and Dembski are doing right now is either the result of: a specific shared psychological malady or (more likely?) a specific plan of action, perhaps designed as an alternative way of "mothballing" the blog, and allowing Dembski to end up getting the last word in? hmm.

Dave Scot · 11 January 2006

You should use the name 'Dave Scot', then he would have to ban himself.

hmm, this suggests a fun game:

post as Dave Scott on ALL the boards he randomly monitors, post various inconsistent drivel (er, I mean even MORE inconsistent and "drivelish" than what Dave already posts, just to be clear).

then let's see how long it takes him to blow a gasket, trying to post that all those posts aren't his.

this would lead to all of us accusing the real Dave of trying to discount the posts of the "real" Dave on the various blogs, etc.

hell, even reading this post is probably giving him fits already.

anybody game?

I'm in!

I'm Dave Scot
No, I'm Dave Scot
I'm Dave Scot, and so's my wife!

Not Dave Scot · 11 January 2006

I'm Dave Scot
No, I'm Dave Scot
I'm Dave Scot, and so's my wife!

The above was just a bit of street theater.

I'm really not Dave Scot.

Stephen Elliott · 11 January 2006

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 04:35 PM (e) (s) You should use the name 'Dave Scot', then he would have to ban himself. hmm, this suggests a fun game:... post as Dave Scott on ALL the boards he randomly monitors,... hell, even reading this post is probably giving him fits already. anybody game?

I would be very dubious about doing this. Sounds like it has the potential to backfire.

DaveScot · 11 January 2006

(Off Topic) Mr. Steve is no longer with us People writing things like this
I'm Dave Scot No, I'm Dave Scot I'm Dave Scot, and so's my wife!
are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Steve will fit right in at Panda's Thumb. Filed under: Intelligent Design --- DaveScot @ 2:35 pm

DaveScot · 11 January 2006
(Off Topic) Mr. Steve is no longer with us People writing things like this
I'm Dave Scot No, I'm Dave Scot I'm Dave Scot, and so's my wife!
are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Steve will fit right in at Panda's Thumb. Filed under: Intelligent Design --- DaveScot @ 2:35 pm

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006
I would be very dubious about doing this. Sounds like it has the potential to backfire.
perhaps... but wouldn't getting banned for posting as Dave Scott be delicious irony in and of itself??

Stephen Elliott · 11 January 2006
Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 05:36 PM (e) (s) I would be very dubious about doing this. Sounds like it has the potential to backfire.
perhaps... but wouldn't getting banned for posting as Dave Scott be delicious irony in and of itself?? Yes it would. But then again, it could turn out that we would be mocking someone who has a serious mental problem.

Ubernatural · 11 January 2006
it could turn out that we would be mocking someone who has a serious mental problem.
But, but... there's a Dembski thread here like every week!

steve s · 11 January 2006
Don't post as DaveScot. Go to Uncommon Pissant and get a regular commenter's name and start posting anti-Dembski comments at science sites. Pretty soon, DaveScot won't know who's real and who isn't.

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006
just as fun, but same logistical problems.

steve s · 11 January 2006
Then, go to Uncommon Pissant and complain that someone's posting lies on science sites about you, causing the real you to complain that the other you is a lie, as well as the lie on the science site. Instawreck.

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006
have you figured out a way to actually register as a poster on UD these days?
maybe I'm missing something, but i tried 3 times over the last 3 months with no "love".

DaveScot · 11 January 2006
(Off Topic) Mr. Steve is no longer with us People writing things like this I'm Dave Scot No, I'm Dave Scot I'm Dave Scot, and so's my wife!
are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Steve will fit right in at Panda's Thumb. Filed under: Intelligent Design --- DaveScot @ 2:35 pm You know what, DaveScot? I've always thought you were an a**hole! DaveScot is no longer with us. --DaveScot

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006
I think i heard a popping noise, followed by a slight whiff of singed hair...

steve s · 11 January 2006
LOL. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked,
have been sacked.

geoffrobinson · 11 January 2006
I hope Crazy Dave is not watching Panda's Thumb too closely. I comment occasionally at UncommonDescent, asking pseudo-innocent questions. If you're subtle enough, they don't notice. I don't expect to get banned any time soon.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 11 January 2006
1) I love it when the creationists start eating their own.
Heck, if the IDers had *won* in Dover, then the blood would REALLY be flowing in the pews . . . . . Fundies haven't changed an iota since the Inquisition. (shrug)

geoffrobinson · 11 January 2006
Ha now one of Dembski's acolytes is trying to tell me "Understand that a design inference cannot prove absolutely that a pattern is intelligently designed or tell who or what the designer is. Are you familiar with Dr. Dembski's "Explanatory Filter"?". [http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/643#comments] I guess that guy's never read Dembski's No Free Lunch pgs 24-25, where he says there are no false positives IE a design inference can prove absolutely a pattern is intelligently designed.
Like the lawyers do, you just give these Uncommon Descent people enough rope and they hang themselves.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 11 January 2006
ID is dead. Why are they even bothering to keep the IV hooked up?

Andrew McClure · 11 January 2006
What I'd be more curious about is why that the Discovery Institute's press releases are still being listed on Google News-- without the "press release" tag that groups such as the ACLU are marked with there...

Sir_Toejam · 11 January 2006
ID is dead. Why are they even bothering to keep the IV hooked up?
Dembski would have to edit all of his books and remove references to ID if he gave up on it. er, kinda like they did with pandas. I think in dembski's case, he won't bother until the cash stops rolling in from his book sales.

Stephen Elliott · 12 January 2006
I really don't like the posting as someone else idea.
It is dishonest. You would be handing them a legitimate complaint on a plate.
If you wish to maintain a high standard of integrity. Descending to subterfuge is a low idea. ;)

guthrie · 12 January 2006
I agree with Stephen Elliot about how silly it would be to post in the way that has been suggested.
On the other hand, it would I think be legitimate to have several people post similar questions about a topic. The difference between the questions would be simply in how comprehensive and how much they disagree with the party line. The idea being to calibrate how much you can disagree before you get banned, what level of argument they permit etc.

Arden Chatfield · 12 January 2006
Don't post as DaveScot. Go to Uncommon Pissant and get a regular commenter's name and start posting anti-Dembski comments at science sites. Pretty soon, DaveScot won't know who's real and who isn't. Then, go to Uncommon Pissant and complain that someone's posting lies on science sites about you, causing the real you to complain that the other you is a lie, as well as the lie on the science site. Instawreck.
Dishonest, perhaps, but it'd be a true thing of beauty if someone pulled it off correctly. Sadly, by discussing it here, we've probably already blown our cover so it's no longer feasible. Darn.

Stephen Elliott · 12 January 2006
Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 10:48 AM (e) (s) ... Dishonest, perhaps, but it'd be a true thing of beauty if someone pulled it off correctly. Sadly, by discussing it here, we've probably already blown our cover so it's no longer feasible. Darn.
Well up until now the ID mob have had a monopoly on the lying. Do you really want to follow their methods. What do you think would happen the next time we accused them of dishonesty. Sorry to sound like a tight-assed party pooper. I do see the funny side. But is a laugh for a day or two worth the cost? I seriously doubt it. One of my favourite points in this argument is, the creationists lie while claiming to be the moral people. In fact that was a major thing that made me "convert". I first came to this site as an ID supporter. The honesty on this side that was a big factor in making me a turn-coat.

Arden Chatfield · 12 January 2006
Well up until now the ID mob have had a monopoly on the lying. Do you really want to follow their methods. What do you think would happen the next time we accused them of dishonesty. Sorry to sound like a tight-assed party pooper. I do see the funny side. But is a laugh for a day or two worth the cost? I seriously doubt it. One of my favourite points in this argument is, the creationists lie while claiming to be the moral people. In fact that was a major thing that made me "convert". I first came to this site as an ID supporter. The honesty on this side that was a big factor in making me a turn-coat.
Yeesh, ruin our fun, why don't you... I'm never inviting you to one of my keggers again... Anyway, I doubt I'd try to do this -- it's too complicated, it'd be too time consuming, and DaveScot's probably already read all this by now anyway. Hi, DaveScot! Are you feeling the love?