The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory

Since it's a stock photograph from a commercial photo site, do you suppose they paid for its use? It would be perfectly in character for them to have stolen it, rather than paying for its use. How can we find out?

The use of the photograph isn't the real issue, assuming they paid for the right to use it rather than just stealing it. The issue is why they don't even have an appropriate lab looking environment that they could use to film the actual interview in. They are basically admitting that no such thing exists in the entire organization. With the "research" budget these guys have, they should be ashamed. I have a small lab that would be perfect for such a background and I don't even have a big grant let alone the type of money these guys waste, er I mean spend, on "research" every year. That's the real issue here. We should drive that message home every time someone is fooled into thinking that they are anything other than charlatans and cheats. No wonder they never publish any research. I'm surprised they didn't just break into a real lab somewhere and then claim that that university "sponsored" their "research". If they want the respectability of science so much, why don't they do something about it instead of just faking it and hoping that no one notices?

Then there is the issue of the mangling that she did of the actual topic of her little tirade, but that's something else altogether.

It speaks more to the moral character and integrity of the kinds of people who are immersed in ID/creationism.

Back when they were still doing debates, ID/creationists would often be caught telling bald-faced lies not only about the things they said about science concepts but in their penchant for quote mining and blatantly distorting facts and the statements of others.

And what did these ID/creationists do about that? Well, they turned right around in the very next venue and told exactly the same lies without flinching. There was no hint of remorse or any recognition of the fact that they were caught red-handed and exposed and so maybe they shouldn’t do that again. They just bulled ahead as though nothing happened.

The same has been true about thoroughly debunked ID/creationist misrepresentations of science concepts. All the debunking could be in print and on record; nevertheless ID/creationists, while occasionally issuing a word of caution to their followers to not use the debunked notions, would nevertheless proceed to ram them through again; debunking be damned.

There is something about these rabid fundamentalists that screams mental illness of some sort. I know of a character like this being shown a video of his demeaning other religions in front of his classroom; and while watching that video, denying ever doing it even as other people sit there watching him doing it and denying it at the same time.

It is almost impossible for normal, healthy minds to grasp what must be taking place in the minds of the people caught up in ID/creationism. It is clear, however, that when ID/creationists clump together and reinforce their collective illusions – witness the activity that goes on every day over at UD – they can be engaging in a continuous stream of intellectual atrocities while at the same time demonizing and accusing the scientific community and “atheistic materialists” of doing exactly what they, the ID/creationists themselves, are doing with impunity and with total lack of self-awareness.

Propaganda has been around for centuries, but ID/creationism has become a different kind of template for propaganda organizations like Fox News and the Far Right here in the US. Lee Atwater and his protégé Karl Rove immersed themselves in these kinds of fundamentalist subcultures and learned the tactics of fundamentalist mind control from these kinds of people. There is something about fundamentalist religious thinking that is far more deadly to rational thinking than any non-religious political ideology. Mix in a hint of Satan along with fundamentalist fear and loathing into any attempt at political dialog and the result will be nothing but dogged eternal gridlock.

We snicker at the blatant stupidity of videos like this; but when we consider the monetary cost and deadlock this behavior has imposed on our national political dialog, it ceases to be funny. This kind of idiocy has serious consequences.

Extremely cheap fraud, to boot. They couldn't even spring for Gauger to have some photos shot in Behe's lab?

Since it’s a stock photograph from a commercial photo site, do you suppose they paid for its use? It would be perfectly in character for them to have stolen it, rather than paying for its use. How can we find out?

The picture at the website has a "Shutterstock" watermark on it and is probably too small to use as a background. It only costs $19.00 to get it and even the DI can probably swing that.

Can we say “pathetic”?

I think "hilariously appropriate" is also a good description.

eric said: Extremely cheap fraud, to boot. They couldn't even spring for Gauger to have some photos shot in Behe's lab?

There is something about these rabid fundamentalists that screams mental illness of some sort. I know of a character like this being shown a video of his demeaning other religions in front of his classroom; and while watching that video, denying ever doing it even as other people sit there watching him doing it and denying it at the same time.

It's bizarre, they rail against "materialistic science," then fake a photo as if they were doing it.

When you don't need evidence of design in order to claim "design," you hardly need to bother with a laboratory.

Glen Davidson

You're confusing the Biologic Institute with a science laboratory. It's in fact an apologetics laboratory and I should think that green screen in entirely appropriate for apologetics.

I saw an interview with one of the Republican pollsters. The gist was that these polls have two distinct purposes. The primary purpose is to tell voters in key jurisdictions that your guy is well ahead, so you are in good company when joining theirs, etc. But the secondary purpose was to figure out what issues people had with Romney, in the hopes of recovering late in the campaign.

What was deeply disturbing to the interviewed pollster was that he had Romney anywhere from slightly to comfortably ahead (in thie "real" evaluation) in all eight "toss-up" states, yet Obama won every single one of them. His tentative conclusion was that he and other Republican poll takers, designers, and analysts were suffering from genuine conformation bias, despite every attempt to face hard facts. Somehow, somewhere along the line, they were introducing it. Maybe in the wording of the questions, maybe in the locations or other aspect of responder selection, whatever.

Now, I noticed that the Obama folks had Obama winning all these states. Yes, in fact he did win them all, but surely Republicans have no monopoly on confirmation bias.

As for the stock lab photo, it was probably a cost measure and the ID folks saw no harm done, anymore than the car wax people who dressed an actor up in a white coat and put him in front of an oscilloscope! And you never see real beer in the beer ads, because the head doesn't last long enough for the shooting. Most food and drink in ads is faked to look more appealing than the real thing. Green screens are replacing location shots throughout the movie and advertising biz if just for cost reasons.

Of course, we all realize that in creationland it's props all the way down.

Flint said: Of course, we all realize that in creationland it's props all the way down.

It speaks more to the moral character and integrity of the kinds of people who are immersed in ID/creationism.

Mike Elzinga said: Most food and drink in ads is faked to look more appealing than the real thing.

Piotr Gąsiorowski said:

Mike Elzinga said: Most food and drink in ads is faked to look more appealing than the real thing.

Well, in this particular case the props look rather old (from the 1990s?) and scarcely "more appealing than the real thing" by modern standards. They Disco Tute folks should've chosen something flashier and more 'spensive.

Flint said: As for the stock lab photo, it was probably a cost measure and the ID folks saw no harm done, anymore than the car wax people who dressed an actor up in a white coat and put him in front of an oscilloscope! And you never see real beer in the beer ads, because the head doesn't last long enough for the shooting. Most food and drink in ads is faked to look more appealing than the real thing. Green screens are replacing location shots throughout the movie and advertising biz if just for cost reasons. Of course, we all realize that in creationland it's props all the way down.

Flint said: Well, we have to understand that the background isn't supposed to look like a modern biology lab, but rather like what the audience (who have never seen one) THINKS a modern biology lab looks like. How could an oscilloscope help in developing car wax? Who cares, it LOOKS sciency as all hell - and precious few watching the ad have any clue what it is.

Flint said: Well, we have to understand that the background isn't supposed to look like a modern biology lab, but rather like what the audience (who have never seen one) THINKS a modern biology lab looks like.

I must step in here to defend the lady. I too would use a fake photo for my background, because in my la-BOR-a-tory I'm doing top secret work on my anti-gravity device, my time travel machine, and my faster-than light drive. I'd be a fool to use a real photo. So it must be with the Discoveroids.

raven said:

It speaks more to the moral character and integrity of the kinds of people who are immersed in ID/creationism.

My latest hypothesis is that fundie xianity causes serious cognitive impairment. There is a huge amount of data on this. 1. Michele Bachmann. Two degrees, on in law, passed the bar. These days she shouldn't even cross the street without her minder. 2. Creationist and fundie internet trolls. They never, ever seem very smart, educated, or even sane. 3. Even the statistics show it. Fundies score low on IQ and achievement tests. I originally came up with this hypothesis as a half joke. But the data set supporting it is large. Just look at the data yourself and decide. I don't think it is an organic dysfunction. Could be cognitive dissonance or maybe they just avoid thinking and facing reality. Or even self selection. People leave US xianity at millions a year and the ones leaving seem to be the best and brightest.

I just finished watching the Dover trial documentary "Judgement Day" with my students. IDC is fraud, inside and out, so this is no surprise whatsoever.

Piotr Gąsiorowski said: ...the props look rather old (from the 1990s?) and scarcely "more appealing than the real thing" by modern standards. They Disco Tute folks should've chosen something flashier and more 'spensive.

Flint said: I saw an interview with one of the Republican pollsters. The gist was that these polls have two distinct purposes. The primary purpose is to tell voters in key jurisdictions that your guy is well ahead, so you are in good company when joining theirs, etc.

Paul Burnett said: I'm almost surprised there wasn't a Jacob's Ladder sparking away somewhere in the background.

Flint said: I saw an interview with one of the Republican pollsters. The gist was that these polls have two distinct purposes. The primary purpose is to tell voters in key jurisdictions that your guy is well ahead, so you are in good company when joining theirs, etc. But the secondary purpose was to figure out what issues people had with Romney, in the hopes of recovering late in the campaign. What was deeply disturbing to the interviewed pollster was that he had Romney anywhere from slightly to comfortably ahead (in thie "real" evaluation) in all eight "toss-up" states, yet Obama won every single one of them. His tentative conclusion was that he and other Republican poll takers, designers, and analysts were suffering from genuine conformation bias, despite every attempt to face hard facts. Somehow, somewhere along the line, they were introducing it. Maybe in the wording of the questions, maybe in the locations or other aspect of responder selection, whatever. Now, I noticed that the Obama folks had Obama winning all these states. Yes, in fact he did win them all, but surely Republicans have no monopoly on confirmation bias.

Kind of reminds me of Yourdon, who wrote whole books predicting the collapse of computerized economies due to Y2K bugs, which he predicted would show up in embedded systems and debilitate everything from power generation to safety systems everywhere.

So along comes the stroke of midnight, and the TVs across the globe are following the date change from time zone to time zone, with wild parties and celebrations and light shows around the world.

And Yourdon writes that it must all be being done with batteries!

Another couple Disco videos, http://youtu.be/pnFs5D-vvnI and http://youtu.be/8ZiLsXO-dYo, are set in http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-70900591/stock-photo-business-meeting-room-in-office-with-modern-decoration.html.

I assume the actual “Biologic Institute” spends most of its time rolled up in the back of a closet.

Gauger hardly needs a lab to challenge darwinism. The sophistry that is darwinism is easily refuted from an arm chair.

So why did she do it? Its kinda like asking POTUS why they need to put a flag pin on. Or why they need to wear a red tie during speeches or kiss babies on the trail.

Steve P. said: Gauger hardly needs a lab to challenge darwinism. The sophistry that is darwinism is easily refuted from an arm chair. ...

A Bullshitter Bullshitted: Gauger hardly needs a lab to challenge darwinism. The sophistry that is darwinism is easily refuted from an arm chair. So why did she do it? Its kinda like asking POTUS why they need to put a flag pin on. Or why they need to wear a red tie during speeches or kiss babies on the trail.

A independent minded women in science and they are commenting about her spatial looks.
If its about labs then does it mean her ideas/criticisms could not be intellectually smashed even though claimed to be wrong?
A creationist would smash any evolutionists arguments if they presented themselves to public view!
Instead they are hiding in their labs.
Define fake!

Fake: a similitude, likeness, or imitation made to resemble the real thing. Like the picture of the lab that this "independent minded woman in science" is photographed against. It's a fake, a stock photograph bought on the internet. In this case, it's being used for fraudulent purposes, to give the impression that it's a real laboratory that she works in.

So it's not just a fake, it's a fraud as well. It's a lie. Didn't the man you call God tell you where lies come from, Byers?

"Hiding in their labs", yet! Doing real research and finding new knowledge, you mean, you miserably ignorant moron. They're benefacting humanity, improving technology, getting insights into the Universe, finding cures and saving lives. While you, you Dark Ages simpleton, retail the idiotic lies you have been fed with your mother's milk, regurgitating them because you're too ill-educated, too bigoted and too feeble-minded to see through them, and so much in thrall to the con-artists who perpetrate them that you can't even try.

That post from Byers is even more confused and nonsensical than usual. Sad, isn't it, that even when one of his heroes is caught in a flat-out deception he has to find some ridiculous reason to give them a pass.

Chris Lawson said: That post from Byers is even more confused and nonsensical than usual. Sad, isn't it, that even when one of his heroes is caught in a flat-out deception he has to find some ridiculous reason to give them a pass.

Creationism (biblical, that is...) is easily refuted from an armchair once you realize that there are two mutually exclusive narratives in Genesis. Intelligent Design is just a massive Argument from Ignorance (not to mention the numerous forms of dishonesty which accompany it).

DS said:

Flint said: Well, we have to understand that the background isn't supposed to look like a modern biology lab, but rather like what the audience (who have never seen one) THINKS a modern biology lab looks like. How could an oscilloscope help in developing car wax? Who cares, it LOOKS sciency as all hell - and precious few watching the ad have any clue what it is.

Agreed. But they could have at least found a shot with a computer that was younger than the person in the video. Even someone who knows nothing about biology should be able to spot that.

Steve P's rather disturbed comment causes me to have a thought.

I suspect denialism may be related to a psychological ratio, something like a narcissism:intelligence ratio (using the term "intelligence" in the common sense of academic ability).

Narcissists can't tolerate critical feedback, but understanding certain subjects and topics requires effort and feedback, and may require accepting ideas that conflict with emotional biases.

They can do well, even excel, academically, as long as the material is sufficiently non-challening to their egos. The higher the academic ability, the more complex and challenging the material can be, before the conflict with ego kicks in.

Eventually, though, the ego conflict will kick in, and a backlash of emotionally denying and disparaging the academic field that threatened the delicate self-esteem (ironically protected by the device of superficial overconfidence, arrogance, proclaimed security, and disdain for others) will take place.

Matt G said: Creationism (biblical, that is...) is easily refuted from an armchair once you realize that there are two mutually exclusive narratives in Genesis. Intelligent Design is just a massive Argument from Ignorance (not to mention the numerous forms of dishonesty which accompany it).

No. Only that science has a correction mechanism - repeatable observation of evidence and peer review of findings - that armchair speculators don't.

harold said: Steve P's rather disturbed comment causes me to have a thought. I suspect denialism may be related to a psychological ratio, something like a narcissism:intelligence ratio (using the term "intelligence" in the common sense of academic ability). Narcissists can't tolerate critical feedback, but understanding certain subjects and topics requires effort and feedback, and may require accepting ideas that conflict with emotional biases. They can do well, even excel, academically, as long as the material is sufficiently non-challening to their egos. The higher the academic ability, the more complex and challenging the material can be, before the conflict with ego kicks in. Eventually, though, the ego conflict will kick in, and a backlash of emotionally denying and disparaging the academic field that threatened the delicate self-esteem (ironically protected by the device of superficial overconfidence, arrogance, proclaimed security, and disdain for others) will take place.

Dave Luckett said: No. Only that science has a correction mechanism - repeatable observation of evidence and peer review of findings - that armchair speculators don't.

Jesus.

Those new meds are clearly a bad mix for him.

The majority of research is shown to be false.

Steve P. said: Gauger hardly needs a lab to challenge darwinism. The sophistry that is darwinism is easily refuted from an arm chair. So why did she do it? Its kinda like asking POTUS why they need to put a flag pin on. Or why they need to wear a red tie during speeches or kiss babies on the trail.

Robert Byers said: A independent minded women in science and they are commenting about her spatial looks. If its about labs then does it mean her ideas/criticisms could not be intellectually smashed even though claimed to be wrong? A creationist would smash any evolutionists arguments if they presented themselves to public view! Instead they are hiding in their labs. Define fake!

Steve P. said: Ah, so this is to say there is no dishonesty in science in general, or evolutionary biology in particular, right? Hmmmm. We have saints working in academia. Good to know.

Matt G said: Creationism (biblical, that is...) is easily refuted from an armchair once you realize that there are two mutually exclusive narratives in Genesis. Intelligent Design is just a massive Argument from Ignorance (not to mention the numerous forms of dishonesty which accompany it).

Steve P. said: you've...got...to...be...kiddiiiiing. The majority of research is shown to be false. And a minimum of 25% of experiments are shown to be unrepeatable. And thats being charitable. What the f*ck good are peer-review and correction mechanisms? They are worthless; jury jobs; insider trading. Why do you(pl) bother with the faux piety? its not fooling anyone.

Sooo... this research that's "shown to be false". Even if your assertion - I notice you provide no evidence for it - were true, how would it be "shown to be false"?

Steve P. said: The majority of research is shown to be false.

Didn't Ben Stein, in Expelled, preach to an audience that wasn't exactly he wanted us to believe it was? In other words, more cgi science?

Suddenly we are getting multiple comments from the Dishonesty Institute's two sockpuppets here, trying to distract us from the subject: The Dishonesty Institute's bogus research arm faked a lab picture behind Dr. Gauger. Let's not lose track of that.

I sent an email to Shutterstock, titled "Somebody May Have Stolen One Of Your Pictures!", asking if the picture had been stolen or paid for - I got the following reply:

Thank you for your email and the information. Unfortunately we can not provide any specific information regarding the licensing of this image. We will forward the information to our content department so they can review it.

Maarten Vandewinkel, Account Executive,
support@shutterstock.com

Well, at least now they know.

Paul Burnett said:

Steve P. said: The majority of research is shown to be false.

Please let us know which creationist website you got this lie from. Or did you just make it up?

Tulse said:

Sooo... this research that's "shown to be false". Even if your assertion - I notice you provide no evidence for it - were true, how would it be "shown to be false"?

By experts conducting empirical trials that demonstrate that objectively -- you know, by doing research... Hmmm... Wait a minute...

Steve P, I've got some great news for you...

If you're really as good at discrediting science as you think you are, you can make millions of dollars a year - from the Discovery Institute!

That's right. They're probably paying Casey Luskin a six figure salay, for designer's sake.

Imagine what a guy like you - a guy who can effortlessly discredit science from his own armchair - would be worth to them.

You need to get your resume to them as fast as possible. Maybe you should get an agent first. Shop it around, too. ICR. AIG. DI. Get a bidding war started.

harold said: Steve P, I've got some great news for you... If you're really as good at discrediting science as you think you are, you can make millions of dollars a year - from the Discovery Institute! That's right. They're probably paying Casey Luskin a six figure salay, for designer's sake. Imagine what a guy like you - a guy who can effortlessly discredit science from his own armchair - would be worth to them. You need to get your resume to them as fast as possible. Maybe you should get an agent first. Shop it around, too. ICR. AIG. DI. Get a bidding war started.

apokryltaros said: Oh, Steve P. doesn't need a job at the Discovery Institute: he's already too busy making bushels and bushels of money, hand over fist, in his fabric company in Taiwan, doing something when he isn't trolling the Internet.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False has been seized on by many creos as the last word in the validity of research, even though it's limited to a few areas and isn't all that could be said.

Folks, this thread is beginning to degenerate. (Kind of like the Disco 'Tute's "research" program, in Imre Lakatos' sense.)

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said: Oh, Steve P. doesn't need a job at the Discovery Institute: he's already too busy making bushels and bushels of money, hand over fist, in his fabric company in Taiwan, doing something when he isn't trolling the Internet.

As I recall, this is the middle school dropout and playground bully that threatened to come to New York and beat you up.

Jon Fleming said: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False has been seized on by many creos as the last word in the validity of research, even though it's limited to a few areas and isn't all that could be said.

apokryltaros said: No, you're thinking of the time John Kwok invited him to New York.

Mike Elzinga said: It speaks more to the moral character and integrity of the kinds of people who are immersed in ID/creationism. Back when they were still doing debates, ID/creationists would often be caught telling bald-faced lies not only about the things they said about science concepts but in their penchant for quote mining and blatantly distorting facts and the statements of others. And what did these ID/creationists do about that? Well, they turned right around in the very next venue and told exactly the same lies without flinching. There was no hint of remorse or any recognition of the fact that they were caught red-handed and exposed and so maybe they shouldn’t do that again. They just bulled ahead as though nothing happened. The same has been true about thoroughly debunked ID/creationist misrepresentations of science concepts. All the debunking could be in print and on record; nevertheless ID/creationists, while occasionally issuing a word of caution to their followers to not use the debunked notions, would nevertheless proceed to ram them through again; debunking be damned. There is something about these rabid fundamentalists that screams mental illness of some sort. I know of a character like this being shown a video of his demeaning other religions in front of his classroom; and while watching that video, denying ever doing it even as other people sit there watching him doing it and denying it at the same time. It is almost impossible for normal, healthy minds to grasp what must be taking place in the minds of the people caught up in ID/creationism. It is clear, however, that when ID/creationists clump together and reinforce their collective illusions – witness the activity that goes on every day over at UD – they can be engaging in a continuous stream of intellectual atrocities while at the same time demonizing and accusing the scientific community and “atheistic materialists” of doing exactly what they, the ID/creationists themselves, are doing with impunity and with total lack of self-awareness. Propaganda has been around for centuries, but ID/creationism has become a different kind of template for propaganda organizations like Fox News and the Far Right here in the US. Lee Atwater and his protégé Karl Rove immersed themselves in these kinds of fundamentalist subcultures and learned the tactics of fundamentalist mind control from these kinds of people. There is something about fundamentalist religious thinking that is far more deadly to rational thinking than any non-religious political ideology. Mix in a hint of Satan along with fundamentalist fear and loathing into any attempt at political dialog and the result will be nothing but dogged eternal gridlock. We snicker at the blatant stupidity of videos like this; but when we consider the monetary cost and deadlock this behavior has imposed on our national political dialog, it ceases to be funny. This kind of idiocy has serious consequences.

60187mitchells said: please don't lump honest advertisers/salepersons in with ID/Creationists - we have much more integrity than that. And by law the product being advertised must be real in ads for that product (actual cereal is cereal ads, actual Coke in Coke ads etc) the milk can be latex paint and the ice can be made of glass - but the food must be actual. so - to summarize - salespersons/advertisers are less smarmy than IDiots.

Mike Elzinga said:

60187mitchells said: please don't lump honest advertisers/salepersons in with ID/Creationists - we have much more integrity than that. And by law the product being advertised must be real in ads for that product (actual cereal is cereal ads, actual Coke in Coke ads etc) the milk can be latex paint and the ice can be made of glass - but the food must be actual. so - to summarize - salespersons/advertisers are less smarmy than IDiots.

I’m not sure how that comment to which you referred demeans salespersons. It was about the activities of ID/creationists. And as far as Steve P. is concerned, he claims that he is a peddler of Chinese made fibers and cloth of some sort (I don’t particularly care what). But he is also immersed in total woo-woo pseudoscience and applies it to his job; and he also spends much of his time trying to insult and bully others on the internet. He is a dishonest and arrogant ignoramus whose behavior demeans the work of salespersons. I suspect that if the company or companies he peddles goods for knew of his activities, they would not like to be represented by him.

Mike Elzinga said:

60187mitchells said: please don't lump honest advertisers/salepersons in with ID/Creationists - we have much more integrity than that. And by law the product being advertised must be real in ads for that product (actual cereal is cereal ads, actual Coke in Coke ads etc) the milk can be latex paint and the ice can be made of glass - but the food must be actual. so - to summarize - salespersons/advertisers are less smarmy than IDiots.

I’m not sure how that comment to which you referred demeans salespersons. It was about the activities of ID/creationists. And as far as Steve P. is concerned, he claims that he is a peddler of Chinese made fibers and cloth of some sort (I don’t particularly care what). But he is also immersed in total woo-woo pseudoscience and applies it to his job; and he also spends much of his time trying to insult and bully others on the internet. He is a dishonest and arrogant ignoramus whose behavior demeans the work of salespersons. I suspect that if the company or companies he peddles goods for knew of his activities, they would not like to be represented by him.

This farce made it into an Ars Technica article. What's the solution? More research? No. Just a better graphic designer.

60187mitchells said: my apologies - I replied to the wrong comment my reply is germane to FLINT'S comment "As for the stock lab photo, it was probably a cost measure and the ID folks saw no harm done, anymore than the car wax people who dressed an actor up in a white coat and put him in front of an oscilloscope! And you never see real beer in the beer ads, because the head doesn’t last long enough for the shooting. Most food and drink in ads is faked to look more appealing than the real thing. Green screens are replacing location shots throughout the movie and advertising biz if just for cost reasons." again - stupid mistake on my part - mea culpa

I've read through Steve P's comments. Fuel injected flamer with a severe case of
asbergers I'd say. There is nothing worthwhile and most creationists disappoint, especially ones who come on science sites and claim they have something valid.
I like the response "You have evidence to disprove evolution?" "You should write it down, submit it to a peer reviewed journal and collect your Nobel Prize".....:)
I think you guys are right though he should become a Discoveroid, although I like to just call them asteroids(my uncle had those really bad). It just seems so much more,,appropriate. The entertainment factor is tremendous mostly.:)

SensuousCurmudgeon, posted 12/18/12 5:40 PM I must step in here to defend the lady. I too would use a fake photo for my background, because in my la-BOR-a-tory I’m doing top secret work on my anti-gravity device, my time travel machine, and my faster-than light drive. I’d be a fool to use a real photo. So it must be with the Discoveroids.

Tulse,December 19, 2012 9:07 AM The majority of research is shown to be false.

This was great fun, Dick. Good detective work.

Gary_Hurd said: This was great fun, Dick. Good detective work.

na, its just that its sooooo easy to provoke you folks here. just add the word armchair in there and booooom, the comments light up. PT should be paying me for the page count!

But seriously folks, do your own googling. No secret agent man here.

By the way, Klinghoffer responded to Larry Moran's post with a pic of Gauger in her you know, actual lab. Ah shucks, she really does have a lab. Dammittall!!

Anyway, the stock photo used for Ann's interview seems a better choice than Dawkin's stock photo choice of a ferris wheel for his own interview.

You folks have poor memories. Can't keep things straight.

I offered to meet the Klingon in New York as I was gonna be there for a meeting. I did this to deliberately put him on the spot and see if he had to cajones to talk his darwinian trashtalk in person.

Taken aback, he of course declined and tried to counter by stating there was no way he would meet me as I was supposedly intent on provoking a physical confrontation, which was obviously not the case. Check previous posts to confirm it.

But I understand that when you are in enemy territory, your cyber adversaries will not be charitable in their recollection of events. Gotta roll with the punches.

By the way, Klinghoffer responded to Larry Moran’s post with a pic of Gauger in her you know, actual lab. Ah shucks, she really does have a lab. Dammittall!!

apokryltaros said:

Tulse said:

Sooo... this research that's "shown to be false". Even if your assertion - I notice you provide no evidence for it - were true, how would it be "shown to be false"?

By experts conducting empirical trials that demonstrate that objectively -- you know, by doing research... Hmmm... Wait a minute...

Steve P previously said that he has absolutely no obligation to support any of the inane false claims he makes here, as it's apparently against his religion. We, on the other hand, apparently are morally obligated to swallow whatever bullshit he craps without question.

Bullshitter bullshitted: More trash talk from stanton. The only people talking religioin on this blog are you and your cyber pals, Stanton.

Steve P. said: na, its just that its sooooo easy to provoke you folks here. just add the word armchair in there and booooom, the comments light up. PT should be paying me for the page count! But seriously folks, do your own googling. No secret agent man here.

Karen S. said: This farce made it into an Ars Technica article. What's the solution? More research? No. Just a better graphic designer.

Matt G said:

Karen S. said: This farce made it into an Ars Technica article. What's the solution? More research? No. Just a better graphic designer.

Who needs research when you have Go-, I mean an intelligent designer!

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. said: na, its just that its sooooo easy to provoke you folks here. just add the word armchair in there and booooom, the comments light up. PT should be paying me for the page count! But seriously folks, do your own googling. No secret agent man here.

In other words, you are just an asshole troll who has no proof for your own stupid lies, but you don't like it when we point out that you're lying or that you're full of shit.

Steve P. said: Likewise, Stanton has a litany of conjectures/speculations/circumstantial evidence he calls proof. Who's living in lalaland? Sheeesh! By the way, show me I lied about the current state of published science. Go on now, Stanton. Google it.

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. said: na, its just that its sooooo easy to provoke you folks here. just add the word armchair in there and booooom, the comments light up. PT should be paying me for the page count! But seriously folks, do your own googling. No secret agent man here.

In other words, you are just an asshole troll who has no proof for your own stupid lies, but you don't like it when we point out that you're lying or that you're full of shit.

apokryltaros said:

Bullshitter bullshitted: More trash talk from stanton. The only people talking religioin on this blog are you and your cyber pals, Stanton.

Then how come you don't have the testicles to actually demonstrate how "darwinism" is wrong, or how all published science is fraudulent, and not whine and spew about how we're all so mean and dogmatic for not agreeing with your lies? All you do here is strut around spewing bullshit, then turning around to whine at and trashtalk us because we didn't bend over backwards to kiss your ass for being a science-hating bigot. If you want to be taken seriously, support your claims, or be silent. But, you refuse to support your claims, and instead, do everything I predict you'd do.

Talk about chicken shit. Still waitin for you to describe homoplasy. Still waitin for you to prove even one paper wrong about anything. Still waitin for you to provide some evidence of a single solitary thing. Talk about chicken shit.

DS said:

Steve P. said: Likewise, Stanton has a litany of conjectures/speculations/circumstantial evidence he calls proof. Who's living in lalaland? Sheeesh! By the way, show me I lied about the current state of published science. Go on now, Stanton. Google it.

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. said: na, its just that its sooooo easy to provoke you folks here. just add the word armchair in there and booooom, the comments light up. PT should be paying me for the page count! But seriously folks, do your own googling. No secret agent man here.

In other words, you are just an asshole troll who has no proof for your own stupid lies, but you don't like it when we point out that you're lying or that you're full of shit.

FIrst you have to provide some evidence. I know, how about you take the current issue of Evolution and prove that half of the papers in it are false. Go ahead, then you can publish rebuttal papers. You'll be famous. Until then, STFU.

Bullshitter Bullshitted: By the way, you've been shown how darwinism's 'organisms have no purpose, goals' is wrong. Bacteria's quorum sensing is a simple refutation. The DNA rapid repair mechanism is another easy refutation. Your 'theory' is plastered with band-aids trying to keep up with the discoveries of intelligent systems embedded in organisms.

This small sampling of evidence for my side's view trumps big time your 'mountains' of evidence for darwinism's 'there's nobody home but us chickens'.

Bullshitter whined: Likewise, Stanton has a litany of conjectures/speculations/circumstantial evidence he calls proof. Who's living in lalaland? Sheeesh! By the way, show me I lied about the current state of published science. Go on now, Stanton. Google it.

Steve P. said: By the way, Klinghoffer responded to Larry Moran's post with a pic of Gauger in her you know, actual lab. Ah shucks, she really does have a lab. Dammittall!!

Bullshitter whined: Sly DS thinks I won't notice his changing the goal posts. DS, you need to brush up on your reading skills or perhaps you level of honesty. Until you finish your tutorials or get moral training, kindly refrain from opening your mouth unless its for energy intake.

Gary_Hurd said:

Steve P. said: By the way, Klinghoffer responded to Larry Moran's post with a pic of Gauger in her you know, actual lab. Ah shucks, she really does have a lab. Dammittall!!

I'll bet my immortal soul that I have done more science at home in my kitchen than Ann Gauger has done in the Discotute "Bioinformatics Laboratory."

DS said: Talk about chicken shit. Still waitin for you to describe homoplasy. Still waitin for you to prove even one paper wrong about anything. Still waitin for you to provide some evidence of a single solitary thing. Talk about chicken shit.

Steve P. said: There goes Harold again playing the psychologist again. Just can't stand the thought that intelligent people don't buy into the sophistry that is darwinism. But notice how he won't pyscho-analyse his own side to discover the bad philosophy submerged in the evolutionary gulash.... Probably because he thinks darwinism is oysters on the half-shell. you’ve…got…to…be…kiddiiiiing. The majority of research is shown to be false. And a minimum of 25% of experiments are shown to be unrepeatable. And thats being charitable. What the f*ck good are peer-review and correction mechanisms? They are worthless; jury jobs; insider trading. Why do you(pl) bother with the faux piety? its not fooling anyone.

apokryltaros said:

Bullshitter Bullshitted: By the way, you've been shown how darwinism's 'organisms have no purpose, goals' is wrong. Bacteria's quorum sensing is a simple refutation. The DNA rapid repair mechanism is another easy refutation. Your 'theory' is plastered with band-aids trying to keep up with the discoveries of intelligent systems embedded in organisms.

What experiments did you do to prove these claims of yours? Oh, wait, you're bullshitting, and whining that we're so mean for not mindlessly swallowing your bullshit.

This small sampling of evidence for my side's view trumps big time your 'mountains' of evidence for darwinism's 'there's nobody home but us chickens'.

How is bullshitting with no research or experimental verification to back it up supposed to trump actual science? Because you say so?

dalehusband said:

Steve P. said: There goes Harold again playing the psychologist again. Just can't stand the thought that intelligent people don't buy into the sophistry that is darwinism. But notice how he won't pyscho-analyse his own side to discover the bad philosophy submerged in the evolutionary gulash.... Probably because he thinks darwinism is oysters on the half-shell. you’ve…got…to…be…kiddiiiiing. The majority of research is shown to be false. And a minimum of 25% of experiments are shown to be unrepeatable. And thats being charitable. What the f*ck good are peer-review and correction mechanisms? They are worthless; jury jobs; insider trading. Why do you(pl) bother with the faux piety? its not fooling anyone.

Back those claims up or shut up! I think it's obvious you are lying out your @$$, like most Creationist hypocrites.

Steve P. said: google is your friend. invite it over for a cup of coffee.

dalehusband said: Back those claims up or shut up! I think it's obvious you are lying out your @$$, like most Creationist hypocrites.

Natural selection describes the process by which variations in a population of organisms are edited over time to enhance the ability of the individual organisms to survive and reproduce in an environment. Even if over 90% of all mutations, being random, are harmful to the next generation, natural selection can still eliminate those and keep those others that are beneficial, thus countering the destructive effects of mutations in general. It is the same with the scientific peer review process. Because science has made so much progress over the past few centuries, most people have the impression that scientists are unusually brilliant, nearly infallible, and totally objective in their views and methods. But in fact, that is simply not the case for most of them, at least as individuals. Scientists can be just as mistaken, corrupt, dogmatic, and failing in their efforts and assumptions as the rest of humanity. A few of them can even be downright stupid! If that is true, how can science be trusted to produce reliable facts and theories? Because the scientists use peer review as their means to test any new ideas put on the table by one of their number. No scientist’s word need be taken at face value. In order for his idea to be accepted as anything beyond a speculation, he must show observational or experimental data, clearly defined, that supports it. Thus, it should always be possible for other scientists to duplicate the results of the first scientist making the claim. If attempts to duplicate the observations or experiments do not produce the same result, the idea is rejected. Sometimes the peer review process goes too far in its skepticism, and a valid idea, such as continental drift, is rejected and even ridiculed by scientists even though it explains all the data collected and is contradicted by none of it. But that’s why repeated testing of that idea is required, as long as it is not outright falsified. Continental drift WAS accepted in the 1960s once an overwhelming amount of evidence was found to support it and those geologists who had been bigoted against it in the 1920s had died or retired, and a new generation had arisen that was more open-minded. Those who supported the continental drift theory were able to come up with a mechanism, plate tectonics, that explained it, and once they did opposition to it faded away rapidly. Individual scientists may fall so deeply in love with their own ideas that they refuse to accept the peer review process when it rejects their ideas. Then they become cranks who no longer do science, but instead put out propaganda to appeal to the scientifically illiterate. This is especially true of Creationists and global warming denialists who happen to have science degrees. They even go so far as to attack the peer review process itself! But it must be noted that they can never produce anything that would produce superior results in terms of seeking objective data in the universe and explaining it. Scientists who refuse to recognize that an idea of theirs is wrong are like a population of organisms that are too specialized in their lifestyle to adapt to any sudden change in their environment, resulting in their extinction. Fortunately, the progress of science continues even in spite of such incidents, just as life on Earth has continued despite the mass extinctions that have wiped out most species that evolved on Earth before.

The majority of research is shown to be false. And a minimum of 25% of experiments are shown to be unrepeatable. And thats being charitable.

Mike Elzinga said:

60187mitchells said: please don't lump honest advertisers/salepersons in with ID/Creationists - we have much more integrity than that. And by law the product being advertised must be real in ads for that product (actual cereal is cereal ads, actual Coke in Coke ads etc) the milk can be latex paint and the ice can be made of glass - but the food must be actual. so - to summarize - salespersons/advertisers are less smarmy than IDiots.

I’m not sure how that comment to which you referred demeans salespersons. It was about the activities of ID/creationists. And as far as Steve P. is concerned, he claims that he is a peddler of Chinese made fibers and cloth of some sort (I don’t particularly care what). But he is also immersed in total woo-woo pseudoscience and applies it to his job; and he also spends much of his time trying to insult and bully others on the internet. He is a dishonest and arrogant ignoramus whose behavior demeans the work of salespersons. I suspect that if the company or companies he peddles goods for knew of his activities, they would not like to be represented by him.

Bullshitter Bullshitted: Oh wait, it must be that Stanton has experimental proof that distant lines converging on the same development solution is caused by Darwinian NS acting on RV.

Bullshitter Whined: I'm not sure what you think you are trying to prove here Elzinga with your weak attempt at character assasination.

You've been steeped too long in your culture war to think straight now. You, like everyone else on this board desperately need to lump all design affirmers in the fundie camp. That's the only way you can argue. Heaven forbid intelligent people, who are not fundies, supporting intelligent agency in nature.

It really is getting harder and harder for you to argue against all the new discoveries taking place, isn't it?. Hence all the bravado about this and that not being a problem for evolution.

How many ad hoc explanations do you now have on record now? How many discoveries will Darwinism absorb into its theory before it collapses from the weight of its own hedge bets and convoluted reasoning?

By the way, the ignorance is yours. You ignore the impact of what we are discovering due to this blind hatred of fundies you have. Understanding quorum sensing as an intelligent process, or rapid DNA repair as an intelligent process is hardly ignorance but simply the logical consequence of our observations.

You know that but you don't care. Slamming fundies real or imagined is all that counts for you.

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.

What the f*ck good are peer-review and correction mechanisms? They are worthless; jury jobs; insider trading.

Steve P. said: I'm not sure what you think you are trying to prove here Elzinga with your weak attempt at character assasination.

I’ve read through Steve P’s comments. Fuel injected flamer with a severe case of asbergers I’d say.

I generally ignore Steve P. as a defective and evil human failure, a troll.

It's simply not worth my valuable time reading repetitive gibberish. I'm going to die someday and why waste a few seconds on nothing?

But the truth is:

We scientists lifted humankind from the stone age to the space age. We created our modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization.

What have the xians ever done? Nothing, except sponsor xian terrorism and shoot a few medical doctors. And get in the way whenever they can.

Steve P. said: It really is getting harder and harder for you to argue against all the new discoveries taking place, isn't it?.

raven said: I generally ignore Steve P. as a defective and evil human failure, a troll. It's simply not worth my valuable time reading repetitive gibberish. I'm going to die someday and why waste a few seconds on nothing? But the truth is: We scientists lifted humankind from the stone age to the space age. We created our modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization. What have the xians ever done? Nothing, except sponsor xian terrorism and shoot a few medical doctors. And get in the way whenever they can.

Steve P. alleged without providing any evidence whatsoever: The majority of research is shown to be false. And a minimum of 25% of experiments are shown to be unrepeatable. And thats being charitable. What the f*ck good are peer-review and correction mechanisms? They are worthless; jury jobs; insider trading.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: I'm not sure what you think you are trying to prove here Elzinga with your weak attempt at character assasination.

Hey, I don’t have to lift a finger to prove anything; your attempts to taunt, insult, bully, and pick fights do the proving all by themselves. All we have to do is just sit back and watch you make a complete ass of yourself. It’s not our fault you flunked out of school and hate smart people. That was your choice; suck it up and live it. I really don’t give a damn.

Flint said:

60187mitchells said: my apologies - I replied to the wrong comment my reply is germane to FLINT'S comment "As for the stock lab photo, it was probably a cost measure and the ID folks saw no harm done, anymore than the car wax people who dressed an actor up in a white coat and put him in front of an oscilloscope! And you never see real beer in the beer ads, because the head doesn’t last long enough for the shooting. Most food and drink in ads is faked to look more appealing than the real thing. Green screens are replacing location shots throughout the movie and advertising biz if just for cost reasons." again - stupid mistake on my part - mea culpa

In my defense, I submit this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeFood

Steve P. said: Sly DS thinks I won't notice his changing the goal posts. DS, you need to brush up on your reading skills or perhaps you level of honesty. Until you finish your tutorials or get moral training, kindly refrain from opening your mouth unless its for energy intake.

DS said:

Steve P. said: Likewise, Stanton has a litany of conjectures/speculations/circumstantial evidence he calls proof. Who's living in lalaland? Sheeesh! By the way, show me I lied about the current state of published science. Go on now, Stanton. Google it.

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. said: na, its just that its sooooo easy to provoke you folks here. just add the word armchair in there and booooom, the comments light up. PT should be paying me for the page count! But seriously folks, do your own googling. No secret agent man here.

In other words, you are just an asshole troll who has no proof for your own stupid lies, but you don't like it when we point out that you're lying or that you're full of shit.

FIrst you have to provide some evidence. I know, how about you take the current issue of Evolution and prove that half of the papers in it are false. Go ahead, then you can publish rebuttal papers. You'll be famous. Until then, STFU.

Still no answers Stevie Pee Pee?

Still haven't got a clue what homoplasy is? Google is your friend remember? You shouldn't defend charlatans and frauds if you have no idea what kind of lies they are spreading, asshole.

Still no rebuttal for the papers in the latest edition of Evolution? How predictable. I don't want to move the goal posts or anything, but how about the Journal of Molecular Evolution? Got any rebuttals for any of the papers in the latest issue of that? How about Molecular Biology and Evolution? How about anything at all? See the thing is that the people you are so incompetently defending publish nothing but lies and crap from their fake labs in their fake journals. Funny how that doesn't seem to bother you at all asshole.

Until you have answered these questions, any further responses by me to you will be on the bathroom wall where know-nothing assholes like you belong.

Paul Burnett said: Name two "new discoveries" that prove intelligent design creationism is true. Provide URLs.

Steve P. said: There is mountains of evidence piling up that 'no purpose, no goal' is out right wrongheaded and more pointedly preventing further insight into biology.

Or tell us what "intelligent design" scientists would actually DO -- that is, beyond proving design or disproving evolution. What would they ACCOMPLISH using the premise of design that could not be accomplished using the premises of evolution?

If you can't think of anything that "design" science could do better than evolutionary science -- then what's the point?

And if they can get us more quickly to, say, a cancer vaccine, then why haven't they?

Paul Burnett said:

Steve P. said: There is mountains of evidence piling up that 'no purpose, no goal' is out right wrongheaded and more pointedly preventing further insight into biology.

Name two items in the "mountains of evidence" that prove your contention. Provide URLs.

j. biggs said:

Paul Burnett said:

Steve P. said: There is mountains of evidence piling up that 'no purpose, no goal' is out right wrongheaded and more pointedly preventing further insight into biology.

Name two items in the "mountains of evidence" that prove your contention. Provide URLs.

Why would Steve P.'s mountains of evidence matter anyway, if as he says, "The majority of research is shown to be false. And a minimum of 25% of experiments are shown to be unrepeatable. And thats being charitable. What the f*ck good are peer-review and correction mechanisms? They are worthless; jury jobs; insider trading." After all if what Steve P. says is true (heh, heh), and "the majority" of evidence resulting from research is false, that would apply to ID research too, no? Actually, saying that a minimum of 25% of the experiments done by the DI are not repeatable is being charitable. It's more like 100%, especially since its kind of hard to do any experimental research without a real working laboratory.

Just Bob said: If you can't think of anything that "design" science could do better than evolutionary science -- then what's the point?

SWT said: I also propose that SteveP.'s comments go into moderation and not appear anywhere on PT until he provides something to support these claims.

Every year, at every talk, the Dishonesty Institute asks for donations to further their cause. The result, as we see in this article, is a fake lab that cost them pennies, if that, whereas the bulk of any donations from the rubes they sucker goes to their inflated, unearned salaries. It's a real, self-promoting con game they have going.

TomS said:

Paul Burnett said: Name two "new discoveries" that prove intelligent design creationism is true. Provide URLs.

How about just a description of "intelligent design"? Something positive and substantial. Rather than "something is wrong with evolutionary biology". Tell us what it would look like if an intelligent design event took place. Or even what it would look like if an intelligent design event did not take place.

Paul Burnett said:

Steve P. said: There is mountains of evidence piling up that 'no purpose, no goal' is out right wrongheaded and more pointedly preventing further insight into biology.

Name two items in the "mountains of evidence" that prove your contention. Provide URLs.

DavidK said: Every year, at every talk, the Dishonesty Institute asks for donations to further their cause. The result, as we see in this article, is a fake lab that cost them pennies, if that, whereas the bulk of any donations from the rubes they sucker goes to their inflated, unearned salaries. It's a real, self-promoting con game they have going.

Welp, this thread has degenerated into a troll fest. Thanks for playing, folks.