Fun on Facebook

Unlike! Unlike! Unlike!

At least it hasn't gone down the memory hole ... yet.

For us unfacebooked barbarians, can someone repost the takedown?

It's unfortunate, but alas instructive, that certain Darwinists find it difficult to defend their position without resorting to ad hominem or otherwise personal attacks. ...we ARE serious about enforcing the rules of civility. Vigorous presentation of scientific evidence and arguments are welcome. Snarky comments about people's motives (or false claims about ENV's moderation policies) are not appropriate. I've allowed some of your recent posts because they do make some substantive arguments, which are welcome here. But they also contain comments that are basically false personal attacks. ...if you continue to include the uncivil material, future comments will NOT be posted.

...certain Darwinists find it difficult to defend their position without resorting to ad hominem or otherwise personal attacks. ...Snarky comments about people's motives...false personal attacks... uncivil material, future comments will NOT be posted.

So it goes with the community of Darwin boosters. Their ranks are heavy with bullies and their leaders are almost all cowards, who flee from a fair fight on the merit of the ideas that are up for debate. [David Klinghoffer, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/when_you_cant_a061271.html]

There is something deeply dishonest about this. Can their [Coyne and Garwood's] readers and their students really be so foolish as to fail to understand that they are being hoodwinked? ...Stop trawling the Internet for silly stuff from Pakistan or Turkey, when you've got a very different and serious intellectual and scientific challenge waiting outside your front door. We've talked about academic bullies...the David Coppedge affair... the other face of bullying for Darwin: the refusal to pick on someone your own size even as you go around beating up on "creationists"... [Klinghoffer, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/darwins_cowards_1059851.html]

Sociopaths on Facebook (a social media platform)?

Oh, wait, they ran away. Never mind, all is well in Mudville.

Biologic Institute - 143 like this July 6 at 4:38pm - From the scientific evidence, it is stubbornly uncertain how the first humans arose, whether from a lineage including ape-like creatures and far humbler ancestors or not. A Veil Is Drawn Over Our Origin as Human Beings www.evolutionnews.org Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution. Like - - Share 2 people like this. Nicholas J. Matzke It's only "stubbornly uncertain" if you ignore most of the fossil evidence. Here's some of the evidence. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/fun-with-homini-1.html Follow the evidence wherever it leads, guys. Fun with Hominin Cranial Capacity Datasets (and Excel), Part 2 - The Panda's Thumb pandasthumb.org Due to popular demand I have made some more charts that are slightly more complex than the hominin cranial capacity chart from yesterday's post. Yesterday at 7:35am - Like - 3 - Biologic Institute Welcome, Nick. Your link deals only with cranial capacity, and seems mainly to be concerned about showing a progression in brain size across the hominins. It doesn't address any of the the other arguments about a sudden change in morphology between australopithecines and Homo. Yesterday at 11:15am - Like Nicholas J. Matzke Considering that there are a number of cases where the exact same specimen/species has been put in both Australopithecus and Homo, depending on the researcher, I think the gap you wish was there doesn't actually exist. 22 hours ago - Like Biologic Institute Homo erectus or Homo habilis or ? 22 hours ago - Like Richard B. Hoppe Be nice to see a list of the characters that show "a sudden change in morphology between australopithecines and Homo," with appropriate references/citations. 20 hours ago - Like - 1 Nicholas J. Matzke Typically they go by Homo habilis, "early Homo", or habilines, but some paleoanthropologists argue they should be in Australopithecus. Also some Australopithecines, e.g. some argue that A. sediba should be H. sediba. For evolutionary biolo...See More 19 hours ago - Like Nicholas J. Matzke Or listen to Kurt Wise, one of the few creationists with actual paleontology training: 19 hours ago - Edited - Like Nicholas J. Matzke It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument Of Darwinism's four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin's second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and [p. 219] Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. 19 hours ago - Like - 1 Nicholas J. Matzke http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/honest-creation.html Honest creationist Kurt Wise on transitional fossils - The Panda's Thumb pandasthumb.org I rediscovered a 1995 article by creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise in respons...See More 19 hours ago - Like - Richard B. Hoppe I'm glad you archived the Wise material on the Thumb; the paper itself seems to have disappeared. 18 hours ago - Like Biologic Institute The citations about sudden change are in the book "Science and Human Origins," Chapter 1. 18 hours ago - Like Nicholas J. Matzke Data trumps quote-mining, I'm afraid, and the habilines are in-between the Australopithecines and Homo erectus/Homo sapiens almost any way you slice it. The quotes in "Science and Human Origins" are mostly from an old-fashioned debate about the definition of the genus "Homo", whereas the actual modern field of evolutionary biology is basically ditching Linnean taxonomic ranks like "genus" precisely because they lead to silly debates about forcing gradually-changing specimens into rigid categories. 18 hours ago - Like Biologic Institute Not the citation I am thinking of. They list 15 traits that first appear in the Homo lineage (H habilis to H erectus) that are important for running. Dennis M. Bramble and Daniel E. Lieberman, "Endurance running and the evolution of Homo," Nature 432 (2004): 345-352. 15 hours ago - Like Nicholas J. Matzke Looking at their table now, "Table 1. Derived features of the human skeleton with cursorial functions." Well, sure, 15 traits appear in Homo erectus, but 6 appear in H. habilis, 4 appear in "Homo?", and of the 15 H. erectus traits, 4 are "H. erectus?" So I don't see any kind of argument for all-at-once origin of "humans" with H. erectus there. H. habilis has some but not all of the traits, which is what I said before. Plus, the traits are mostly matters of degree rather than kind, e.g. "long legs". And the article mentions that a variety of features key to human running -- namely bipedalism and walking -- predate the whole genus Homo. Also, H. erectus includes a lot of individuals spread over a million years or more, and the ones at the beginning of the species aren't the same as the ones at the end. So just saying a trait appears first somewhere during Homo erectus isn't an argument for sudden change and gaps. And as if all this weren't enough, there are a variety of fossils that are sometimes put in H. erectus and sometimes not, because they're on the edge, so what are we supposed to do with those? This comes up again and again and again with creationists, you can't just naively assume that because someone came and stuck a label on some fossil that it is safe to essentialize that name and assume all the features appeared at once all of the sudden wherever that name appears. The names just refer to rough collections of roughly similar things and are somewhat subjectively applied because we need some kind of name to talk about them at all. 14 hours ago - Like Nicholas J. Matzke And, there is no claim about "sudden" or "abrupt" in the article anyway. 14 hours ago - Like Biologic Institute From the paleoanthropologist John Hawks: "In sum, the earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details. Insofar as we can tell, the changes were sudden and not gradual." Hawks et a...See More 13 hours ago - Like - 1 Biologic Institute The whole thesis of the article by Bramble and Lieberman was that a constellation of traits adaptive for long-distance running appear only in Homo, and that they constitute a significant change from australopithecines. The figure illustrati...See More 13 hours ago - Like - 1 Nicholas J. Matzke So Hawks "says that H. habilis was for the most part too recent to serve as a transitional species" -- but "for the most part" = "some of the habilis are earlier than erectus". Evolution is a branching process, you don't get to rule out early members of a taxon just because later members are too late. 6 hours ago - Like - 1 Nicholas J. Matzke The other Hawks quote is about that silly Linnean issue which was going on back then. Here's Hawks now: 'I don't see any difficulty deriving Homo from Australopithecus, especially given the likely effects of body size evolution on the locomotor pattern. And at least one or two early Homo femoral specimens, like KNM-ER 1481, share most of the Australopithecus-like pattern of proximal femur anatomy.' http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/habilis?page=1 Homo habilis | john hawks weblog johnhawks.net The Orrorin identity Fri, 2008-03-21 09:55 -- John Hawks There's noth...See More 6 hours ago - Like - Taylor Portnoy Kessinger nick "ownage" matzke 6 hours ago - Like Nicholas J. Matzke And (a) no one believes in a one-to-one correspondence between morphological traits and gene mutations, well except you guys. One mutation can change several or many traits. E.g. changes in body size will affect all kinds of things together, as Hawks notes. 6 hours ago - Like Nicholas J. Matzke And (b) you've provided no evidence that all those changes had to go together, anyway, which is the bare minimum requirement for making your IC-like argument. You can't just assume multiple simultaneous mutations would required for any random thing you like, yet this is done, completely without evidence, throughout your book. At least Behe made an argument that you really could not have a bacterial flagellum without having a certain list of basic parts. Do you really expect us to believe there is no in-between for states which are things like leg length? 6 hours ago - Edited - Like - 2 Biologic Institute The evidence and the arguments are there, Nick. You are misrepresenting the book. And where is your evidence for how many mutations are required to get functional change? You are conveniently ignoring Durrett and Schmidt. 4 hours ago - Like Nicholas J. Matzke Oh, and (c) is: the whole model of the problem as "population starts with zero of the traits of interest, and has to evolve them completely from scratch starting with mutations with a frequency of 1/population size" is only the province of highly abstracted toy models used for research purposes on very specific situations, and creationists who brazenly throw the model at anything they like. In real life, all of these morphological traits likely show a range of continuous variation in both the ancestral and descendant populations, all of the traits are the result of a complex interaction of several to dozens of loci, and the phenotypes vary as the result of both environmental factors and a large amount of standing genetic variation in the population in these loci. When selection comes in, it acts on the standing variation mostly. New mutations might play a role but it is much less than you think. We are in the situation where quantitative genetics (shifts in the distributions of mean and variance of continuously-distributed traits) is the more appropriate tool. 3 hours ago - Like Biologic Institute You are misrepresenting Durrett and Schmidt. And you haven't given any evidence for your story either. "could well be due to" is not evidence. I am closing this discussion because we are talking past each other. Our responses will be posted separately at www.biologicinstitute.org. 3 hours ago - Like Jeffrey Shallit You're closing the discussion because you're losing the argument badly, it seems to me. 2 hours ago - Like Biologic Institute No, it's because I have other work to do, and these comments will be addressed in the other forum. 2 hours ago - Like Jeffrey Shallit ...where comments are not allowed. 2 hours ago - Like Biologic Institute You are free to write your own critique elsewhere. 2 hours ago - Like Jeffrey Shallit We all admire your strong dedication to open discussion and criticism! about an hour ago - Like - 4 Nicholas J. Matzke Thanks for the discussion, although I think I've shown that Science and Human Origins has severe problems in every issue we've looked at so far, and thus will have absolutely no success convincing anyone who is aware of the relevant science. One last issue, on the topic of misinterpreting Durrett and Schmidt. In Science and Human Origins, you write:

================= Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo-Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkey, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria), it would take a *very* long time for even a *single* beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don't have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site14 and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years.15 The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire *two* mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.16 [...] 14. A nucleotide-binding site is a piece of DNA eight nucleotides long. Durrett and Schmidt (see below) calculated how long it would take for a single mutation to generate a seven out of eight match for an eight nucleotide binding site (with six out of eight nucleotides already correct) in a stretch of DNA one thousand nucleotides long. Creation of such a binding site might affect the behavior of genes in the region, thus affecting the phenotype of the organism. 15. R. Durrett and D. Schmidt, "Waiting for regulatory sequences to appear," Annals of Applied Probability 17 (2007): 1-32. The relevant information appears on p. 19, where the time to fixation is factored in. 16. R. Durrett and D. Schmidt, "Waiting for two mutations: With applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution," Genetics 180 (2008): 1501-1509. =================

(pp. 24-25 of Science & Human Origins) But this leaves out all kinds of crucial details! 1. This assumes a selection coefficient of only 0.01, whereas we know of numerous cases where larger selective coefficients have been observed in nature. 2. This assumes that this one mutation (a) doesn't exist in the standing variation anywhere in the population, and (b) that this one mutation is the only possible one that could ever have produced the observed change in phenotype, whereas we know (as Durrett and Schmidt note) that binding and binding sites are not all-or-nothing things, and that a great many different mutations can make a limb bone grow a little more or a little less. 3. Even if the problems with #1 and #2 didn't apply, and thus selected fixation events are pretty unlikely, it is invalid to argue from "these are the observed changes" to "these exact changes had to occur". Some changes will occur regardless, and if selection is operating, the changes that occur will be filtered through selection. Durrett & Schmidt write: In reality the probability of fixation is approximately the selective advantage conferred by the mutation s and even for strongly beneficial mutations we have s < 0.01. This means that the mutation would need to arise more than 100 times in order to achieve fixation, which would increase the waiting time to 6 million years. In the other direction, our study has focused on changes in the regulation of one particular gene, but there are more than 20,000 genes in humans and chimpanzees, and changes in even 1% of these genes could be enough to explain the observed differences. If it had been a different 1% that changed, then potentially creationists would be sitting around claiming that those changes were impossible, because they failed to realize that a large number of other unlikely changes could have happened instead. about an hour ago - Like Nicholas J. Matzke I am signing off now as they plan to shut down the thread apparently about an hour ago - Like Ben Bennett science cannot answer every single fine-grained question about X that a creationist can possibly think up, therefore jesus. that's what it all boils down to, folks. about an hour ago - Like Ben Bennett "they plan to shut down the thread" is pretty much the main rhetorical strategy of ID I've noticed about an hour ago - Like - 1 Biologic Institute Nick, this is not the place for a substantive discussion. But we are open to have the discussion in another arena. This forum is intended for quick sharing of information and things that might be of interest, not intense debates or hostile comments. In the meantime, many of your criticisms will be addressed in up-coming posts at Biologic's website and Evolution News and Views. You will be invited to participate in an exchange there. about an hour ago - Like Biologic Institute In the meantime, comments should be kept under 100 words. Comments over the limit and personal attacks will be deleted. Repeat violators will be banned. I will post this policy at the top of the page. 54 minutes ago - Like Carl Zimmer Where is a place for substantive discussion? You presented a link above to a site that has no comment thread. The writer there makes all sorts of puzzling claims with no evidence. For example, he claims that DNA that is evidence for chromosome fusion "appears in a 'degenerate,' 'highly diverged' form that should not be the case if the joining happened in the recent past, circa 6 million years ago, as the Darwinian interpretation holds." Where is the scientific evidence for this? Or is this merely the opinion of the author? If we can't ask these questions at the site you linked to, then why can't we find out here? 9 minutes ago - Like

Nick Matzke, our hero!

diogeneslamp0 said: Nick Matzke, our hero!

Quite an amusing comment thread!

Nick, this is not the place for a substantive discussion.

Yeah, they made the mistake of allowing contrary evidence. The only way the DI can have a "substantive discussion" is with the ignorant.

Nick Matzke quoted: ...this is not the place for a substantive discussion.

Troy Britain said:

Nick Matzke quoted: ...this is not the place for a substantive discussion.

I say we present both sides of the controversy over whether their Facebook page is the appropriate place for a substantive discussion to public school students and let the children decide for themselves who is right!

John Pieret said: Nick, this is not the place for a substantive discussion. Yeah, they made the mistake of allowing contrary evidence. The only way the DI can have a "substantive discussion" is with the ignorant.

Biologic Institute No, it’s because I have other work to do, and these comments will be addressed in the other forum.

If they ever hope to actually become anything close to scientific they need to engage with experts in the fiel and take feedback seriously. Their refusal to do so is the epitome of anti science.

I'm having a bit of fun on a newer post.

Ann Gauger decided to present her material on "Human Origins and Population Genetics," but not at a science conference, such as that held by the Paleoanthropology Society back in April 2012. Rather, she decided to present that material to the Westminster Theological Seminary in that month: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=8391

Starbuck said: If they ever hope to actually become anything close to scientific they need to engage with experts in the fiel and take feedback seriously. Their refusal to do so is the epitome of anti science.

Flint said:

Starbuck said: If they ever hope to actually become anything close to scientific they need to engage with experts in the fiel and take feedback seriously. Their refusal to do so is the epitome of anti science.

Why would they want to be scientific? Science is their enemy. What they realize (they're not stupid) is that science has become so advanced and specialized that the ordinary layman might have general ideas, but he's taking the details on faith. Science works, it must be good, whatever it is. So the creationists want to piggyback on the rather uninformed but substantial respect science has earned, and call themselves science. Their target audience knows science is a Good Thing and God is a Good Thing, and so this is a marriage made in ignorance heaven.

Carl Zimmer is having fun with the same BioLogic Facebook thread (he quotes enough for the FB haters to see the full glory).

I should add that Carl's exchange went on beyond what Nick quoted above.

I'm pretty sure it was Luskin commenting on the Bio-Illogic Tute FB thread judging from the squeaky gerbil-esque outrage expressed.

However, it's true. All Luskin does is play Reference Pong. Shades of FL! "My three citations beat your two citations!" Hey, you didn't provide a citation for your unfounded assertion, Mr. So-called Scientist. Thirty-four citations later it's ignore and flounce. (Hat Tip to diogenes)

They talk big about being uncivil because we call them sociopathic liars, gerbils and weasels (apologies to gerbs and stoats) but they are downright insulting with their childish "read my book, read his book" arguments and claims to have "already addressed your argument earlier" or to just ignore the subject at hand and move on to something irrelevant.

So, then, you've got these people who lack all kinds of social skills getting on social media. As they say, hilarity ensues. Seriously, all you can do with creationists is laugh at them.

Doc Bill said: I'm pretty sure it was Luskin commenting on the Bio-Illogic Tute FB thread judging from the squeaky gerbil-esque outrage expressed. However, it's true. All Luskin does is play Reference Pong. Shades of FL! "My three citations beat your two citations!" Hey, you didn't provide a citation for your unfounded assertion, Mr. So-called Scientist. Thirty-four citations later it's ignore and flounce. (Hat Tip to diogenes) They talk big about being uncivil because we call them sociopathic liars, gerbils and weasels (apologies to gerbs and stoats) but they are downright insulting with their childish "read my book, read his book" arguments and claims to have "already addressed your argument earlier" or to just ignore the subject at hand and move on to something irrelevant. So, then, you've got these people who lack all kinds of social skills getting on social media. As they say, hilarity ensues. Seriously, all you can do with creationists is laugh at them.

And of course I forgot -

12) Use of sock puppet accounts to falsely exaggerate number of independent commenters supporting a given position and

13) If legitimately banned from a forum for some of the above, efforts to return for more bad behavior using a new username.

Richard B. Hoppe said: I should add that Carl's exchange went on beyond what Nick quoted above.

“In sum, the earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details. Insofar as we can tell, the changes were sudden and not gradual.”

Well, harold, my old friend, you just described what all creationists do and we've seen it time and time again over the years.

In fact, I've been following this for about 40 years and it hasn't changed. Yes, I'm older than dirt.

These dirtbags are after the kids which is why they focus on K-12. We've got to stop them and it's tireless, unsatisfying work to ensure that they don't distort science at an early age and turn our kids away from careers in science and engineering.

The creationists talk about "evilutionists" destroying America, but it's the creationists themselves who are doing that in their fever to promote their ideology. I'm sure we'll be fighting this battle 40 years from now but there might come a time where the argument is moot.

Let's hope.

Don't worry Doc Bill there will always be young folks like me who will gladly be there to take the reins long after you feel like the struggle is too much. We will be sure to stand up on the shoulders of giants and stare into that empty abyss know as creationism. We will not be stopped, we will not surrender, we will always fight on even when all hope is lost. Don't lose hope, there will always be someone standing by your side, ready to keep the struggle alive.

Corney as hell, I know, but it's true.

It seems the original FB article has, indeed, disappeared down the "dev/null" hole. I had no problem going to it yesterday, and I even captured the text as of 8 pm EST last night. Now? Nada. If you go to the overarching Biologic Institute FB page, you'll see articles for today, and for several days going back to July 12th. Then they jump to June 25th. That original article, which is from July 6th, appears to have disappeared. I'm glad Nick captured all of the most important parts above.
Now Zimmer is taking Klinghoffer and Luskin to task. I don't think Klinghoffer realizes he brought a tunafish sandwich to a gunfight. Yet, Klinghoffer is declaring victory against Zimmer. As usual.

@Doc Bill: What Rando said. Only louder.

I thought I felt feet on my shoulders.

Well, the Disco Tute just made a tactical error, rare for them, by opening a page on FaceBook and they are getting slaughtered. Klinghoffer even made an appearance and got demolished. I think they've given up for the night but the community is still hammering them. I'd encourage a visit to Biologic Institute on FB and drop some snark bombs if nothing else. They certainly don't deserve respect.

And, on the up side a group of us in Texas are actively supporting candidates for the State School Board and are putting our time and money into those campaigns, and in getting out the vote in November. It's worth the time, expense and effort to do this as it will affect kids for years to come.

This is a public forum on a controversial topic, so comments are allowed. But for the sake of those that visit, rules of civility will be enforced. Comments must be kept under 100 words, and comments that engage in name-calling and ad hominem attacks will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Rando said: Don't worry Doc Bill there will always be young folks like me who will gladly be there to take the reins long after you feel like the struggle is too much. We will be sure to stand up on the shoulders of giants and stare into that empty abyss know as creationism. We will not be stopped, we will not surrender, we will always fight on even when all hope is lost. Don't lose hope, there will always be someone standing by your side, ready to keep the struggle alive. Corney as hell, I know, but it's true.

This is a public forum on a controversial topic, so comments are allowed. But for the sake of those that visit, rules of civility will be enforced. Comments must be kept under 100 words, and comments that engage in name-calling and ad hominem attacks will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Well that's cute. How long do you think it will take for them to start banning people and then crowing about how the "Darwinists" were frightened off?

Troy Britain said: Unlike! Unlike! Unlike!

Stevie, remember that simple question I had for you? Do I need to remind you of it?

What is interesting is that Nick Matzke thinks that by replying to Gauger, Axe, and Luskin's arguments, that he wins.

Wrong.

Ann Gauger is doing a fantastic job of putting paid to your(pl) infantile 'they are all IDiots' schtick.

But hey, keep rebutting. We love it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not the best of worlds to be in, is it? Well, there's always Mars.

Just Bob said: Stevie, remember that simple question I had for you? Do I need to remind you of it?

SteveP. said: But wait, Richard Hoppe is taking one from ENV playbook. Im apparently too much like the resident posters here. So he allow a single post now. Puts the rest on the bathroom wall. A nice stealth move that allows him exculpation from claims of censorship. Dishonesty from the PT nunnery. Who woulda thunk? No, the problem is you're an intellectual coward. You won't respond to anything of any substance, and when you do, it's only to make one of your stupid rants about how we won't cowtow to your stupid opinions. Then, you slink off like the slime you are, only to come back later to whine about how you're being unfairly treated. Everytime you open your mouth you say some pathetic insult, or rattle off one of your conspiracy theories. You want to know why you got sent to the BW, it's because you're just a pathetic, little whiny fool, who no one takes seriously. Sorry, I won't waste my time on a pathetic rambling idiot. If you don't have anything of any substance to add, you're just wasting everyone's time, and that's exactly what the BW is for, so you can bounce around in a little rubber room that we can occasionally laugh at. Have fun...

Rando said: This is a public forum on a controversial topic, so comments are allowed. But for the sake of those that visit, rules of civility will be enforced. Comments must be kept under 100 words, and comments that engage in name-calling and ad hominem attacks will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. Well that's cute. How long do you think it will take for them to start banning people and then crowing about how the "Darwinists" were frightened off?

Oh, I got it's attention, I'm touched. Now how about you answer some questions before you rattle off another of your infamous rants. Inquiring minds are curious, why is you only feel the need to complain and never seem to get around to actually answering some of the harder questions you get? I know you won't answer, you bing an intellectual coward and all.

Banned!

It was probably my "nanny nanny boo boo! You can't ban me!" taunt on their home page that did it. All my snarky comments gone, too. They were good snarky comments. Good thing I saved them! I'm going to print them out and frame them like I did when I got banned by Dr. Dr. Dumbsky his own self some years ago.

So, what people care about their worthless FB site is going to drop off to zero in a few days. They are social outcasts and yah, boo, sucks to you!

Doc Bill down the rabbit hole again.

Please do come up for air every once and a while.

SteveP. said: Douglas Axe has just layed down a gauntlet. On pins and needles. This oughta be better than Prison Break.

Hey SteveP!

Fuck you.

SteveP. said: You sound a lot like Stanton. Is that you, apo/Stanton? I wonder if Hoppe will send your insults.. er comments to the BW. Level playing field? Lets see.

Rando said: Oh, I got it's attention, I'm touched. Now how about you answer some questions before you rattle off another of your infamous rants. Inquiring minds are curious, why is you only feel the need to complain and never seem to get around to actually answering some of the harder questions you get? I know you won't answer, you bing an intellectual coward and all.

apokryltaros said:

Rando said: Oh, I got it's attention, I'm touched. Now how about you answer some questions before you rattle off another of your infamous rants. Inquiring minds are curious, why is you only feel the need to complain and never seem to get around to actually answering some of the harder questions you get? I know you won't answer, you bing an intellectual coward and all.

SteveP never answers any questions. It's against his religion under pain of death and eternal damnation. As is science. And rudimentary etiquette and social skills. All he is capable of doing is rant about the alleged stupidity and uselessness of science and scientists, insult and sneer at us for not worshiping him, and do everything to us what he falsely accuses us of doing to him.

Doc Bill said: Hey SteveP! Fuck you.

SteveP. said: But wait, Richard Hoppe is taking one from ENV playbook. Im apparently too much like the resident posters here. So he allow a single post now. Puts the rest on the bathroom wall. A nice stealth move that allows him exculpation from claims of censorship. Dishonesty from the PT nunnery. Who woulda thunk?

Rando said: No, the problem is you're an intellectual coward. You won't respond to anything of any substance, and when you do, it's only to make one of your stupid rants about how we won't cowtow to your stupid opinions. Then, you slink off like the slime you are, only to come back later to whine about how you're being unfairly treated. Everytime you open your mouth you say some pathetic insult, or rattle off one of your conspiracy theories. You want to know why you got sent to the BW, it's because you're just a pathetic, little whiny fool, who no one takes seriously. Sorry, I won't waste my time on a pathetic rambling idiot. If you don't have anything of any substance to add, you're just wasting everyone's time, and that's exactly what the BW is for, so you can bounce around in a little rubber room that we can occasionally laugh at. Have fun...

Rando said:

This is a public forum on a controversial topic, so comments are allowed. But for the sake of those that visit, rules of civility will be enforced. Comments must be kept under 100 words, and comments that engage in name-calling and ad hominem attacks will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Well that's cute. How long do you think it will take for them to start banning people and then crowing about how the "Darwinists" were frightened off?

Steve P -

Let's have a discussion in this forum. If get sent to the Bathroom Wall, we can continue there. Feel free to suggest another forum, too, if you want.

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Why can the Bible be symbolic about a flat earth etc, but constrained not to be symbolic when it talks about creation?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Bad editing, my apologies; there are two versions of question 9). Feel free to answer either one.

harold said: Steve P - Let's have a discussion in this forum. If get sent to the Bathroom Wall, we can continue there. Feel free to suggest another forum, too, if you want. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? 9) Why can the Bible be symbolic about a flat earth etc, but constrained not to be symbolic when it talks about creation? 10) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Time for a permanent dump to the bathroom wall for Stevie Pee Pee.

Rando said:

harold said: Steve P - Let's have a discussion in this forum. If get sent to the Bathroom Wall, we can continue there. Feel free to suggest another forum, too, if you want. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? 9) Why can the Bible be symbolic about a flat earth etc, but constrained not to be symbolic when it talks about creation? 10) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Every time you post this list of questions, creationists run in terror. Can I barrow this list? It will be fun using it to make creationists run in terror.

Can't improve on Harold's list, but I like to tag aolng with this one:

If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP?

What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable?

What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up?

What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result?

In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?

Stevie, if we can't realistically expect a net positive gain in the utility or effectiveness of science, then WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Leaving out YEC craziness, and going with the most vanilla, Big Tent version, I can, I believe, foresee NEGATIVE impacts from a universal application of ID.

Aside from more people agreeing with your religion, what would we gain?

Doc Bill said: Sociopaths on Facebook (a social media platform)? Oh, wait, they ran away. Never mind, all is well in Mudville.

Rando said:

harold said: Steve P - Let's have a discussion in this forum. If get sent to the Bathroom Wall, we can continue there. Feel free to suggest another forum, too, if you want. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? 9) Why can the Bible be symbolic about a flat earth etc, but constrained not to be symbolic when it talks about creation? 10) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Every time you post this list of questions, creationists run in terror. Can I barrow this list? It will be fun using it to make creationists run in terror.

Harold,

I would add to your list the following questions.

1. With your theory, how do you mathematically predict the probability that any *SPECIFIC* nucleotide was mutated or changed by an invisible, intangible intelligent designer, for any nucleotide from any genome of any species anywhere?

2. Has the point mutation of any single nucleotide been observed in any laboratory experiment to be caused by the "design" of any invisible, intangible intelligent agent, for any nucleotide from any genome of any species anywhere?

3. If you believe we cannot observe any genetic change being produced by an invisible, intangible intelligent designer in any laboratory experiment today, then mustn't you consider the possibility that the intelligent designer is dead or retired? If so, do you have a research program to measure or estimate his time of death?

4. Comparing the genomes of human and chimp: there are perhaps 35 million single nucleotide differences (out of 3 billion bp total). Is there a SINGLE nucleotide difference between the genomes of human and chimp which you can identify for sure as intelligently designed? Any nucleotide on any chromosome? How do you distinguish any single designed nucleotide difference from a single evolved difference?

5. If you cannot distinguish the designed differences from evolved ones, mustn't you accept it as possible that human compassion, altruism, intellect, brain size, language, self-consciousness and religious belief may have been created by evolution?

John said: ...I would also demand from creationists how they'd do a better job in accounting for Planet Earth's biodiversity as reflected in its prior history, current structure and current composition.

Just Bob said:

John said: ...I would also demand from creationists how they'd do a better job in accounting for Planet Earth's biodiversity as reflected in its prior history, current structure and current composition.

Aside from "God did it that way", which doesn't really help all that much, you know?

John said:

Just Bob said:

John said: ...I would also demand from creationists how they'd do a better job in accounting for Planet Earth's biodiversity as reflected in its prior history, current structure and current composition.

Aside from "God did it that way", which doesn't really help all that much, you know?

Agreed, Just Bob. They'd have to explain how their "scientific creationism" "scientific theory" - including of course Intelligent Design cretinism - would do a much better job scientifically than current evolutionary theory. Of course, to invoke "GOD" is no different than invoking "Klingons", and, on the face of it, there is indeed far more proof for their existence than there is for having a "GOD" as an "Intelligent Designer" IMHO.

TomS said:

John said:

Just Bob said:

John said: ...I would also demand from creationists how they'd do a better job in accounting for Planet Earth's biodiversity as reflected in its prior history, current structure and current composition.

Aside from "God did it that way", which doesn't really help all that much, you know?

Agreed, Just Bob. They'd have to explain how their "scientific creationism" "scientific theory" - including of course Intelligent Design cretinism - would do a much better job scientifically than current evolutionary theory. Of course, to invoke "GOD" is no different than invoking "Klingons", and, on the face of it, there is indeed far more proof for their existence than there is for having a "GOD" as an "Intelligent Designer" IMHO.

Just a couple of quibbles. ID (and to a lesser degree, YEC) doesn't do any of a job at accounting for things. It isn't that it doesn't come up to the standard of (1) doing a job better than evolutionary biology, rather it doesn't do the job at all (it doesn't do the job about as well, or almost as well, or somewhere in the same league as, or ...); or up to the standard of (2) doing a job scientificially (it doesn't do the job theologically or esthetically or historically or athletically or ...). ID doesn't even try to. YEC, at least it sometimes it makes an attempt.

diogeneslamp0 said: Harold, I would add to your list the following questions. 1. With your theory, how do you mathematically predict the probability that any *SPECIFIC* nucleotide was mutated or changed by an invisible, intangible intelligent designer, for any nucleotide from any genome of any species anywhere? 2. Has the point mutation of any single nucleotide been observed in any laboratory experiment to be caused by the "design" of any invisible, intangible intelligent agent, for any nucleotide from any genome of any species anywhere? 3. If you believe we cannot observe any genetic change being produced by an invisible, intangible intelligent designer in any laboratory experiment today, then mustn't you consider the possibility that the intelligent designer is dead or retired? If so, do you have a research program to measure or estimate his time of death? 4. Comparing the genomes of human and chimp: there are perhaps 35 million single nucleotide differences (out of 3 billion bp total). Is there a SINGLE nucleotide difference between the genomes of human and chimp which you can identify for sure as intelligently designed? Any nucleotide on any chromosome? How do you distinguish any single designed nucleotide difference from a single evolved difference? 5. If you cannot distinguish the designed differences from evolved ones, mustn't you accept it as possible that human compassion, altruism, intellect, brain size, language, self-consciousness and religious belief may have been created by evolution?

Carl Zimmer has another post on this IDebacle. It seems that rather than providing an answer to the simple question Zimmer asked ('What's your (Disco 'Tute's) evidence indicating that chromosome 2 doesn't appear as it should if the fusion event that produced it happened ~6ma?') Klinghoffer wants a debate. Zimmer declined.

And PZ Myers at Pharyngula reminds us that he took Casey Luskin to task for Luskin's ignorance regarding chromosome 2 six years ago. They never do learn.

Richard B. Hoppe said: And PZ Myers at Pharyngula reminds us that he took Casey Luskin to task for Luskin's ignorance regarding chromosome 2 six years ago. They never do learn.

Oops; meant to reply to Richard's post immediately above the one I grabbed.

I'm a day or two late with this, but Paul McBride has dissected Ann Gauger's response to his critique here, adding to the fun.

This whole shtick by the ID/creationists goes in repeated cycles every few years. They drag up really bad, refuted arguments; and they somehow manage to be roughly in synch with each other. We have Axe, Gauger, and Luskin bringing up this chromosome thing and we just had Sewell dredging up the old second law thing.

Are they on the Mayan calendar or some other cyclic schedule that we don’t know about yet?

Man, this has been going on since the 1970s. The crap gets set aside for a while after it gets shot down and then hauled right back out again as though nothing ever happened. Do they forget; or do they think we forget?

Or maybe it has something to do with each new batch of rubes being graduated and sent out into the world as point persons destined for slaughter as the Lieutenant Fuzz leaders of ID sit back in their plush offices and watch to see what happens to their “theories” in battle. That would put rube boot camp graduations on about a 5 to 8 year cycle.

harold said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Harold, I would add to your list the following questions. 1. With your theory, how do you mathematically predict the probability that any *SPECIFIC* nucleotide was mutated or changed by an invisible, intangible intelligent designer, for any nucleotide from any genome of any species anywhere? 2. Has the point mutation of any single nucleotide been observed in any laboratory experiment to be caused by the "design" of any invisible, intangible intelligent agent, for any nucleotide from any genome of any species anywhere? 3. If you believe we cannot observe any genetic change being produced by an invisible, intangible intelligent designer in any laboratory experiment today, then mustn't you consider the possibility that the intelligent designer is dead or retired? If so, do you have a research program to measure or estimate his time of death? 4. Comparing the genomes of human and chimp: there are perhaps 35 million single nucleotide differences (out of 3 billion bp total). Is there a SINGLE nucleotide difference between the genomes of human and chimp which you can identify for sure as intelligently designed? Any nucleotide on any chromosome? How do you distinguish any single designed nucleotide difference from a single evolved difference? 5. If you cannot distinguish the designed differences from evolved ones, mustn't you accept it as possible that human compassion, altruism, intellect, brain size, language, self-consciousness and religious belief may have been created by evolution?

I will probably expand my list slightly due to some of the feedback in this thread. I am working on similar lists for other kinds of denialists as well. I like your questions a lot. Your questions are an example of how the conversation would develop if I could get honest answers to my questions. I ask what the designer did, and how. Your questions expand on those. I am dubious about the prospects of ever getting a creationist within a million light years of saying something that specific, but I will include them as potential followup to the initial questions about what the "designer" did, when, and how. I will also add a question about how creationists account for the fact that the evidence that exists coincidentally (from their point of view) falls into the narrow range of findings that would support evolution.

Richard B. Hoppe said: And PZ Myers at Pharyngula reminds us that he took Casey Luskin to task for Luskin's ignorance regarding chromosome 2 six years ago. They never do learn.

Rando said: One of my first (questions to creationists) will be "What is a Kind?" Can you give a clear unambiguous definition for the word "Kind"?

Paul Burnett said:

Rando said: One of my first (questions to creationists) will be "What is a Kind?" Can you give a clear unambiguous definition for the word "Kind"?

For instance, considering that there are about a half million species of beetles around today, how many "kinds" of beetles were on Noah's Ark? More specifically, how many species of wood-eating beetles were on Noah's wooden boat?

Mike Elzinga said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: And PZ Myers at Pharyngula reminds us that he took Casey Luskin to task for Luskin's ignorance regarding chromosome 2 six years ago. They never do learn.

Good for Carl! IDiots ALWAYS want to debate. That’s what they spent their lives training for; instead of learning science.

Paul Burnett said:

Rando said: One of my first (questions to creationists) will be "What is a Kind?" Can you give a clear unambiguous definition for the word "Kind"?

For instance, considering that there are about a half million species of beetles around today, how many "kinds" of beetles were on Noah's Ark? More specifically, how many species of wood-eating beetles were on Noah's wooden boat?

Just Bob said:

Paul Burnett said:

Rando said: One of my first (questions to creationists) will be "What is a Kind?" Can you give a clear unambiguous definition for the word "Kind"?

For instance, considering that there are about a half million species of beetles around today, how many "kinds" of beetles were on Noah's Ark? More specifically, how many species of wood-eating beetles were on Noah's wooden boat?

Give Byers a little more time and he'll have it down to half a dozen "kinds"--or maybe just one. After the Flood they just super-macro-evolved into cows, whales, thylacenes, grizzlies, koalas, snakes, mosquitoes, whatever. That would certainly solve the impossibly-crowded Ark and animal care problems.

The problem with asking for a clear definition of "kind" is that they might then ask for a single definition of "species" that can be used by anybody in any context. But there's several of those; which one to use depends on context.

I do not apologize for my "fuck you" comment to SteveP who well deserves it but perhaps I do owe an explanation.

That particular explicative is meant as a general dismissal. Like, Go Away, I vant to be alone. Nothing rude about it other than "talk to the hand."

Thank you, PT, for not sending that to the BW although I expected it when I wrote the dismissal.

So, what happened Thursday night was very interesting in the Blogosphere. The Disco Tute had a meltdown. They got on a social media site and totally screwed the pooch. They moderated comments and banned commenters. Just like their own sucky sites. They can't handle the truth!

When the insufferable SteveP made his stupid remark I had enough and threw some sand in his face. He deserved it for being a perpetual asshole. Oh, am I being uncivil AGAIN? Seems to be a trend!

Richard B. Hoppe said: I'm a day or two late with this, but Paul McBride has dissected Ann Gauger's response to his critique here, adding to the fun.

Doc Bill said: I do not apologize for my "fuck you" comment to SteveP who well deserves it but perhaps I do owe an explanation. That particular explicative is meant as a general dismissal. Like, Go Away, I vant to be alone. Nothing rude about it other than "talk to the hand." Thank you, PT, for not sending that to the BW although I expected it when I wrote the dismissal. So, what happened Thursday night was very interesting in the Blogosphere. The Disco Tute had a meltdown. They got on a social media site and totally screwed the pooch. They moderated comments and banned commenters. Just like their own sucky sites. They can't handle the truth! When the insufferable SteveP made his stupid remark I had enough and threw some sand in his face. He deserved it for being a perpetual asshole. Oh, am I being uncivil AGAIN? Seems to be a trend!

Don’t worry Doc Bill there will always be young folks like me who will gladly be there to take the reins long after you feel like the struggle is too much. We will be sure to stand up on the shoulders of giants and stare into that empty abyss know as creationism. We will not be stopped, we will not surrender, we will always fight on even when all hope is lost. Don’t lose hope, there will always be someone standing by your side, ready to keep the struggle alive. Corney as hell, I know, but it’s true.

Rando said:

Doc Bill said: I do not apologize for my "fuck you" comment to SteveP who well deserves it but perhaps I do owe an explanation. That particular explicative is meant as a general dismissal. Like, Go Away, I vant to be alone. Nothing rude about it other than "talk to the hand." Thank you, PT, for not sending that to the BW although I expected it when I wrote the dismissal. So, what happened Thursday night was very interesting in the Blogosphere. The Disco Tute had a meltdown. They got on a social media site and totally screwed the pooch. They moderated comments and banned commenters. Just like their own sucky sites. They can't handle the truth! When the insufferable SteveP made his stupid remark I had enough and threw some sand in his face. He deserved it for being a perpetual asshole. Oh, am I being uncivil AGAIN? Seems to be a trend!

Don't worry Doc Bill we understand. If anyone deserves the honor of the phrase "Fuck off" it's StevieParasite. I've already explained why he deserves exile, and why everyone laughs at his pathetic "arguments." Trust me no one here thinks what you said is wrong. And hey, I'll be glad to say it again...

Don’t worry Doc Bill there will always be young folks like me who will gladly be there to take the reins long after you feel like the struggle is too much. We will be sure to stand up on the shoulders of giants and stare into that empty abyss know as creationism. We will not be stopped, we will not surrender, we will always fight on even when all hope is lost. Don’t lose hope, there will always be someone standing by your side, ready to keep the struggle alive. Corney as hell, I know, but it’s true.

"Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo-Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations."

This is asked about in the comments of an Amazon 5-star review. Gauger makes an appearance (as 'Playfair') but ignores the issue. What is the scientific rationale for each of these new features 'probably' requiring multiple mutations? Ann 'Playfair' Gauger isn't saying.

John said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: And PZ Myers at Pharyngula reminds us that he took Casey Luskin to task for Luskin's ignorance regarding chromosome 2 six years ago. They never do learn.

Good for Carl! IDiots ALWAYS want to debate. That’s what they spent their lives training for; instead of learning science.

Exactly. There's no sound reason to give them a legitimate playing field, and, unfortunately, judging from the comments of several people over at Carl's blog (which RBH has linked to), some do think erroneously that Klinghoffer and his pathetic fellows at the Dishonesty Institute Ministry of Propaganda are worthy of such a playing field.

SteveP. said:

Ann Gauger is doing a fantastic job of putting paid to your(pl) infantile 'they are all IDiots' schtick.

Got a question for you Stevie. Are you man enough to handle it?

NManning said:

SteveP. said:

Ann Gauger is doing a fantastic job of putting paid to your(pl) infantile 'they are all IDiots' schtick.

How do you KNOW that, SteveP?

No, the problem is you’re an intellectual coward. You won’t respond to anything of any substance, and when you do, it’s only to make one of your stupid rants about how we won’t cowtow to your stupid opinions. Then, you slink off like the slime you are, only to come back later to whine about how you’re being unfairly treated. Everytime you open your mouth you say some pathetic insult, or rattle off one of your conspiracy theories. You want to know why you got sent to the BW, it’s because you’re just a pathetic, little whiny fool, who no one takes seriously. Sorry, I won’t waste my time on a pathetic rambling idiot. If you don’t have anything of any substance to add, you’re just wasting everyone’s time, and that’s exactly what the BW is for, so you can bounce around in a little rubber room that we can occasionally laugh at. Have fun…

Aw, StevieP are we having a KumBahYah moment?

I seriously hope not!

Jackass.

SteveP. said: Oh, but Gauger and Axe are worthy of a level playing field. Truly, they are putting paid to that 'don't deserve a platform' nonsense. Hence, the increased frequency of Hoppe posts using ridicule as the tool of choice. Poor if understandable tactics. To be sure, Gauger and Axe, like Behe won't take the bait.

John said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: And PZ Myers at Pharyngula reminds us that he took Casey Luskin to task for Luskin's ignorance regarding chromosome 2 six years ago. They never do learn.

Good for Carl! IDiots ALWAYS want to debate. That’s what they spent their lives training for; instead of learning science.

Exactly. There's no sound reason to give them a legitimate playing field, and, unfortunately, judging from the comments of several people over at Carl's blog (which RBH has linked to), some do think erroneously that Klinghoffer and his pathetic fellows at the Dishonesty Institute Ministry of Propaganda are worthy of such a playing field.

SteveP. said: Oh, but Gauger and Axe are worthy of a level playing field.

Truly, they are putting paid to that 'don't deserve a platform' nonsense. Hence, the increased frequency of Hoppe posts using ridicule as the tool of choice.

Poor if understandable tactics.

To be sure, Gauger and Axe, like Behe won't take the bait.

SteveP. said: Oh, but Gauger and Axe are worthy of a level playing field. Truly, they are putting paid to that 'don't deserve a platform' nonsense. Hence, the increased frequency of Hoppe posts using ridicule as the tool of choice. Poor if understandable tactics. To be sure, Gauger and Axe, like Behe won't take the bait.

John said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: And PZ Myers at Pharyngula reminds us that he took Casey Luskin to task for Luskin's ignorance regarding chromosome 2 six years ago. They never do learn.

Good for Carl! IDiots ALWAYS want to debate. That’s what they spent their lives training for; instead of learning science.

Exactly. There's no sound reason to give them a legitimate playing field, and, unfortunately, judging from the comments of several people over at Carl's blog (which RBH has linked to), some do think erroneously that Klinghoffer and his pathetic fellows at the Dishonesty Institute Ministry of Propaganda are worthy of such a playing field.

apokryltaros said: By opening their mouths in order to attack Evolutionary Biology with lies and distortions, Gauger and Axe have already proved themselves to be liars and fools. Scientists and supporters of science don't need to offer Gauger and Axe any bait, anyhow.

Axe, Behe, Dembski, Gauger, and the whole lot of ID advocates already have access to multiple "level playing fields". As far as I know, nobody is preventing them from publishing, nobody is preventing them from blogging about their work, and nobody in blogs critical of their work is preventing them from commenting based on their ID claims. They have the opportunity to respond to criticism, either from the safety of their own highly moderated blogspace (where the playing field is rigged in their favor) or out in the real-world rough-and-tumble of actual dialogue.

Doc Bill said: So, what happened Thursday night was very interesting in the Blogosphere. The Disco Tute had a meltdown. They got on a social media site and totally screwed the pooch. They moderated comments and banned commenters. Just like their own sucky sites. They can't handle the truth!

garystar1 said:

Doc Bill said: So, what happened Thursday night was very interesting in the Blogosphere. The Disco Tute had a meltdown. They got on a social media site and totally screwed the pooch. They moderated comments and banned commenters. Just like their own sucky sites. They can't handle the truth!

I had said in an earlier comment that I thought that they'd pulled down the FB thread in question. I hit the link, but didn't recognize it because Nick's and Richard Hoppe's comments were gone. Since they were the ones who had originally posted comments to the site, that's what I was looking for to make sure I was on the right page. As I scrolled down, I noted that the only person who was on their page now was Frank Pettit. Everyone else who has taken them to task (Nick, Richard, Doc Bill, some others) has been banned. I forgot that, when you're banned by a particular FB user, their comments go bye-bye. Fortunately, between Frank, Carl Zimmer, and a handful of others, they're still not getting any peace. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the science classroom.

SteveP. said: Oh, but Gauger and Axe are worthy of a level playing field.

Guys, you know SteveP. never engages in debate here, just jimmies-rustling. Why even bother yelling at him anymore?

Gary_Hurd said: The Facebook page form only shows the most recent comments. There is a button to show older comments in 50 item increments.

garystar1 said:

Gary_Hurd said: The Facebook page form only shows the most recent comments. There is a button to show older comments in 50 item increments.

Okay, except I've looked all over the page and I don't see any "load more" icon or link. Maybe you have to have a FB account (I don't.) to see that?

As far as I can tell, all of the comments over at the Biologic Institute FB page are there. I've quickly glanced at Richard B. Hoppe and Gary Hurd's latest comments and just posted there a comment urging David Klinghoffer to start practicing credible journalism instead of relying upon his modus operandi of mendacious propaganda.

SWT said: Axe, Behe, Dembski, Gauger, and the whole lot of ID advocates already have access to multiple "level playing fields". As far as I know, nobody is preventing them from publishing, nobody is preventing them from blogging about their work, and nobody in blogs critical of their work is preventing them from commenting based on their ID claims. They have the opportunity to respond to criticism, either from the safety of their own highly moderated blogspace (where the playing field is rigged in their favor) or out in the real-world rough-and-tumble of actual dialogue.

SWT said: I think Biologic Institute made the subject post as a “Note” rather than as a wall post, and these seem to function differently. If I go there while logged in to FB, I can see the prompt to show more comments … if I’m not logged in I can only see the most recent comments with not prompt to show the older ones.

As of last night, I've been banned from the Biologic Institute FB page after posting two comments critical of Klinghoffer. Even if I click the "Like" button, that still won't allow me to post. I reminded Klinghoffer that, as a former editor and writer at the National Review, he should have recognized that Carl Zimmer was well within his rights to use [sic] when Carl opted to post Klinghoffer's e-mail invitation to debate. I also urged him to start acting as responsibly as several fellow Brunonians - including two who had overlapped with him in college - who are now credible, responsible journalists. Needless to say, it seems as though BI and Klinghoffer lack thick skins. They can dish it out, but they can't stand the "heat" when it is aimed right back at them.

garystar1 said: As I scrolled down, I noted that the only person who was on their page now was Frank Pettit. Everyone else who has taken them to task (Nick, Richard, Doc Bill, some others) has been banned. I forgot that, when you're banned by a particular FB user, their comments go bye-bye. Fortunately, between Frank, Carl Zimmer, and a handful of others, they're still not getting any peace.

I'm working on getting banned so far they have deleted six of my comments, only one of which was over their 100 word limit.

Carl Zimmer has been asking David Klinghoffer (DI functionary) and Luskin, et al., for a reference supporting a claim Klinghoffer made about the telomeric sequences in human chromosome 2 that support the hypothesis that C2 originated in a fusion of two chromosomes in our ancestral line. He's been met with dodging, bobbing, and weaving from the Disco 'Tute folks. Finally, however, he got an answer to his question, and dissects it here. Not surprisingly, the proffered 'evidence' doesn't say what the Disco 'Tute folks claim it does.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Carl Zimmer has been asking David Klinghoffer (DI functionary) and Luskin, et al., for a reference supporting a claim Klinghoffer made about the telomeric sequences in human chromosome 2 that support the hypothesis that C2 originated in a fusion of two chromosomes in our ancestral line. He's been met with dodging, bobbing, and weaving from the Disco 'Tute folks. Finally, however, he got an answer to his question, and dissects it here. Not surprisingly, the proffered 'evidence' doesn't say what the Disco 'Tute folks claim it does.

I just think it is priceless how Carl concludes his discussion of DI chicanery courtesy of Klinghoffer and Luskin in his last post on this episode, which RBH linked to earlier today:

"After five days of stonewalling and name-calling, Klinghoffer points us to a passage from a book published by his employer, the Discovery Institute, written by someone else at the Discovery Institute. The passage he points us to cherry-picks another book and a 2002 paper. Reading the original sources quickly reveals that Luskin’s interpretation of those quotes is wrong. Luskin also nods to another Discovery Institute fellow, who makes a comment that is clearly contradicted by peer-reviewed research. Luskin has nothing to say about any of the research that has come out in the past ten years. Klinghoffer has nothing to say, either."

"For Klinghoffer to say that you have to read the entire book to appreciate the weight of the evidence about human chromosome two is absurd. Klinghoffer himself made a specific claim, and the evidence he offers actually shows that he’s wrong. Unless the rest of the book provides better evidence concerning human chromosome two, it’s irrelevant to my question."

"And if the rest of the book is as wrong as this passage, then I hardly see why it’s worth reading."

"And that is why I ask for evidence."

AGREED!

diogeneslamp0 said: No, Frank Pettit was also banned. Those ~100 comments, with a detailed take-down of Luskin's Chapter 4 on genetics, including scientific references and citations, were all deleted. So they'll get more peace now. Details here: http://www.facebook.com/notes/frank-pettit/i-got-banned-by-the-creationists-at-the-discovery-institute/3889768935448. So far the ban list includes at least John, Doc Bill, and Frank Pettit. If you have not been banned, you might want to drop a comment at their FB page about this?

Well, I've officially been banned. I knew if I threw that stupid Expelled movie at them this would happen. It was fun while it lasted though.

garystar1 said:

diogeneslamp0 said: No, Frank Pettit was also banned. Those ~100 comments, with a detailed take-down of Luskin's Chapter 4 on genetics, including scientific references and citations, were all deleted. So they'll get more peace now. Details here: http://www.facebook.com/notes/frank-pettit/i-got-banned-by-the-creationists-at-the-discovery-institute/3889768935448. So far the ban list includes at least John, Doc Bill, and Frank Pettit. If you have not been banned, you might want to drop a comment at their FB page about this?

...Are your comments still on your own FB wall? If so, you could put them together with the comments from other people's walls (Doc Bill, Nick, Richard) and start your own comment thread.

Since the other thread is closed I'd like to post this message here if I may.

Seems th kwokster is entering into serious personal territory. It's ok though. He thinks he will rattle me by revealing my real name. Truth is I have already given my full name. But now that he knows where I work, i invite him to take a trip to Taiwan so I can give him a our of our office and factory and I can explain he textile biz in a nutshell.

Alternately, I will be in manhatten this Saturday nite and will stay at the Weston on 1st ave. let's have a drink at h lobby bar or maybe a Sunday brunch. U can tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research. Then u get to call me your favorite pejorative extended name rigt to my face.

What a wonderful opportunity. What do u say Mr. Kwok? Are u game to man up to yr juvenile rhetoric?

SteveP. The Hypocrite said: What a wonderful opportunity. What do u say Mr. Kwok? Are u game to man up to yr juvenile rhetoric?

What was that Stanton? I am proposing exactly what Britain and Mcbride seem reluctant to do; speak directly to their opponents, face to face if possible. True, ENV articles are often not open to comments but in this case they were but no one here took them up on it.

Regarding yr unchanging writing style, seems it is u who is flinging feces for maximum effect. U deserve all the snark that comes yr way. You are the perfect profile of the angry atheist hiding behind a scientific veneer.

SteveP. said: Since the other thread is closed I'd like to post this message here if I may. Seems th kwokster is entering into serious personal territory. It's ok though. He thinks he will rattle me by revealing my real name. Truth is I have already given my full name. But now that he knows where I work, i invite him to take a trip to Taiwan so I can give him a our of our office and factory and I can explain he textile biz in a nutshell. Alternately, I will be in manhatten this Saturday nite and will stay at the Weston on 1st ave. let's have a drink at h lobby bar or maybe a Sunday brunch. U can tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research. Then u get to call me your favorite pejorative extended name rigt to my face. What a wonderful opportunity. What do u say Mr. Kwok? Are u game to man up to yr juvenile rhetoric? What was that Stanton? I am proposing exactly what Britain and Mcbride seem reluctant to do; speak directly to their opponents, face to face if possible. True, ENV articles are often not open to comments but in this case they were but no one here took them up on it. Regarding yr unchanging writing style, seems it is u who is flinging feces for maximum effect. U deserve all the snark that comes yr way. You are the perfect profile of the angry atheist hiding behind a scientific veneer.

tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research

I stand corrected. So Stanton is an angry Darwinian evolution affirmer.

Actually, I am well liked in my industry, by my family and friends. You guys just simply have this knack for bringing the snark out of people.

but you know that. its your way of trying to run everybody outta town when the counter arguments hit too close to home. Snark starts it off then the charges of ignorance, misuse, misunderstanding, lying, etc. start kicking in.

That why I stick around. Profiling. Documenting. Analyzing. Truly an interesting cross-section of teleology denial.

Would be good to understand more what makes TDers tick.

bbennett1968 said:

tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research

Results to date from a "teleological approach" to science (whatever that means): Zero Results to date from a normal, uh, "non-teleological" approaches to science: All of science. The computer you're using, the plane you're flying to NYC, the mere fact that you exist--thanks to modern medicine, hygiene, and agriculture; all discovered and developed using no Jesus whatsoever. And you have the nerve to assert that anyone needs to justify why a "non-telological" approach is better. Pathetic idiot, you won't even give the slightest hint of what a "teleological approach" even consists of, while strutting and preening like you've already won the match.

SteveP. said: Bullshit Bennett. Man designs. He is embedded in nature. Nature designs. This has been confirmed by our observations of what is happening in the cell. guys like you have to repeat the mantra 'It not designed. Its just and illusion of design." so you don't have to consider the implications. What the point in denying the obvious? Because you are sure there is a counter-intuitive solution there somewhere? Is that it?

bbennett1968 said:

tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research

Results to date from a "teleological approach" to science (whatever that means): Zero Results to date from a normal, uh, "non-teleological" approaches to science: All of science. The computer you're using, the plane you're flying to NYC, the mere fact that you exist--thanks to modern medicine, hygiene, and agriculture; all discovered and developed using no Jesus whatsoever. And you have the nerve to assert that anyone needs to justify why a "non-telological" approach is better. Pathetic idiot, you won't even give the slightest hint of what a "teleological approach" even consists of, while strutting and preening like you've already won the match.

SteveP. said: What was that Stanton? I am proposing exactly what Britain and Mcbride seem reluctant to do; speak directly to their opponents, face to face if possible. True, ENV articles are often not open to comments but in this case they were but no one here took them up on it.

Regarding yr unchanging writing style, seems it is u who is flinging feces for maximum effect. U deserve all the snark that comes yr way. You are the perfect profile of the angry atheist hiding behind a scientific veneer.

SteveP. said:I stand corrected. So Stanton is an angry Darwinian evolution affirmer.

Actually, I am well liked in my industry, by my family and friends. You guys just simply have this knack for bringing the snark out of people.

but you know that.

its your way of trying to run everybody outta town when the counter arguments hit too close to home. Snark starts it off then the charges of ignorance, misuse, misunderstanding, lying, etc. start kicking in.

That why I stick around. Profiling. Documenting. Analyzing. Truly an interesting cross-section of teleology denial.

Would be good to understand more what makes TDers tick.

SteveP. said: Bullshit Bennett. Man designs. He is embedded in nature. Nature designs. This has been confirmed by our observations of what is happening in the cell. guys like you have to repeat the mantra 'It not designed. Its just and illusion of design." so you don't have to consider the implications. What the point in denying the obvious? Because you are sure there is a counter-intuitive solution there somewhere? Is that it?

bbennett1968 said:

tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research

Results to date from a "teleological approach" to science (whatever that means): Zero Results to date from a normal, uh, "non-teleological" approaches to science: All of science. The computer you're using, the plane you're flying to NYC, the mere fact that you exist--thanks to modern medicine, hygiene, and agriculture; all discovered and developed using no Jesus whatsoever. And you have the nerve to assert that anyone needs to justify why a "non-telological" approach is better. Pathetic idiot, you won't even give the slightest hint of what a "teleological approach" even consists of, while strutting and preening like you've already won the match.

SteveP. said: Bullshit Bennett. Man designs. He is embedded in nature. Nature designs. This has been confirmed by our observations of what is happening in the cell. guys like you have to repeat the mantra 'It not designed. Its just and illusion of design." so you don't have to consider the implications. What the point in denying the obvious? Because you are sure there is a counter-intuitive solution there somewhere? Is that it?

SteveP. said: Since the other thread is closed I'd like to post this message here if I may. Seems th kwokster is entering into serious personal territory. It's ok though. He thinks he will rattle me by revealing my real name. Truth is I have already given my full name. But now that he knows where I work, i invite him to take a trip to Taiwan so I can give him a our of our office and factory and I can explain he textile biz in a nutshell. Alternately, I will be in manhatten this Saturday nite and will stay at the Weston on 1st ave. let's have a drink at h lobby bar or maybe a Sunday brunch. U can tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research. Then u get to call me your favorite pejorative extended name rigt to my face. What a wonderful opportunity. What do u say Mr. Kwok? Are u game to man up to yr juvenile rhetoric?

Steve Proulx whined and moaned: Actually, I am well liked in my industry, by my family and friends. You guys just simply have this knack for bringing the snark out of people. but you know that. its your way of trying to run everybody outta town when the counter arguments hit too close to home. Snark starts it off then the charges of ignorance, misuse, misunderstanding, lying, etc. start kicking in. That why I stick around. Profiling. Documenting. Analyzing. Truly an interesting cross-section of teleology denial.

Steve Proulx whined and moaned: Bullshit Bennett. Man designs. He is embedded in nature. Nature designs. This has been confirmed by our observations of what is happening in the cell. guys like you have to repeat the mantra 'It not designed. Its just and illusion of design." so you don't have to consider the implications. What the point in denying the obvious? Because you are sure there is a counter-intuitive solution there somewhere? Is that it?

bbennett1968 said:

tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research

Results to date from a "teleological approach" to science (whatever that means): Zero Results to date from a normal, uh, "non-teleological" approaches to science: All of science. The computer you're using, the plane you're flying to NYC, the mere fact that you exist--thanks to modern medicine, hygiene, and agriculture; all discovered and developed using no Jesus whatsoever. And you have the nerve to assert that anyone needs to justify why a "non-telological" approach is better. Pathetic idiot, you won't even give the slightest hint of what a "teleological approach" even consists of, while strutting and preening like you've already won the match.

SteveP. said: What was that Stanton? I am proposing exactly what Britain and Mcbride seem reluctant to do; speak directly to their opponents, face to face if possible. True, ENV articles are often not open to comments but in this case they were but no one here took them up on it.

SteveP. said: What was that Stanton? I am proposing exactly what Britain and Mcbride seem reluctant to do; speak directly to their opponents, face to face if possible. True, ENV articles are often not open to comments but in this case they were but no one here took them up on it.

John said:

SteveP. said: Since the other thread is closed I'd like to post this message here if I may. Seems th kwokster is entering into serious personal territory. It's ok though. He thinks he will rattle me by revealing my real name. Truth is I have already given my full name. But now that he knows where I work, i invite him to take a trip to Taiwan so I can give him a our of our office and factory and I can explain he textile biz in a nutshell. Alternately, I will be in manhatten this Saturday nite and will stay at the Weston on 1st ave. let's have a drink at h lobby bar or maybe a Sunday brunch. U can tell me face to face why a non teleological approach to biology is more advantageous in doing research. Then u get to call me your favorite pejorative extended name rigt to my face. What a wonderful opportunity. What do u say Mr. Kwok? Are u game to man up to yr juvenile rhetoric?

You may find me at Lincoln Center Out-of-Doors Festival between 2 and 5 PM on Sunday. Two of the surviving brothers of my favorite high school teacher will be participating in a program on Irish and Irish-American culture. But that's a 50/50 proposition. But if you and I are there, I hope one of them yells obscenities into your face. (Knowing the one I am thinking of, I am sure he will.) Otherwise, do you honestly think I want to meet a moral degenerate like yourself, Steve Proulx? Someone who insists on disseminating mendacious propaganda and conducts himself here at PT like a petulant infant rolling around in feces.

DS said:

SteveP. said: What was that Stanton? I am proposing exactly what Britain and Mcbride seem reluctant to do; speak directly to their opponents, face to face if possible. True, ENV articles are often not open to comments but in this case they were but no one here took them up on it.

Pretty rich coming from a guy who refuses to answer legitimate questions about topics he raises. So he is a coward and a hypocrite. Why am I not surprised?

SteveP. said: Man designs. He is embedded in nature. Nature designs. This has been confirmed by our observations of what is happening in the cell.

guys like you have to repeat the mantra 'It not designed. Its just and illusion of design." so you don't have to consider the implications.

What the point in denying the obvious? Because you are sure there is a counter-intuitive solution there somewhere? Is that it?

dalehusband said: ... we still have things like the appendix which is not only useless, but a potential source of danger.

Looks like this thread has deteriorated beyond repair, too. Thanks for playing, folks.