ERV is apparently attending a talk by John West and Casey Luskin right now. Would you believe that West actually cited the New Scientist “Darwin was wrong” cover? That’s going to have to be one of the new hallmarks of creationist idiocy: West couldn’t have read anything between the covers.
We’ll have to tune in later to find out what else they talked about. I predict West will have accused “Darwinists” of being behind Hitler, and Luskin will have complained about the viciousness of proponents of evolution.
Be sure to check the updates to ERV’s posts above — I called it perfectly. In the case of Luskin, even more perfectly than perfect. Luskin actually accused ERV specifically of being something like a meanie-pants poopie-head.
Creationists need to develop some originality. The same old canards are getting boring. I guess repetition is necessary to get the BIG LIE across.
Some people can handle that level of stupidity much better than I can. I give PZ kudos for handling his daily e-mail with good humor, and now ERV in the middle of a pool of–gasp, I don’t even have the words for it. Let’s just say a crazed monk, a diseased llama, and something to remain nameless come to mind. Shudder.
Exactly. Creationists are only good for being laughed at. But like anything worth mocking, they do get repetitive.
Which is why for fun I like to GIVE advice to creationists and then watch them try desperately to use the sources I provided them while the rest of us have our laugh.
Case in point, back a few weeks ago, bored with the usual creationists I have to deal with, I provided them with that youtube link of Durston’s mis-use of that functional complexity equation. Sure enough that thought it was a ‘interesting’ video, as we proceeded to tear into them for defending liars. It got so bad that two of them were reduced to cry babies while one of them went off topic and ranted on nothing what so ever.
Ahhh yes…. baiting creationists can be fun when done right.
Video pleeeeeease !
And I thought she was more focused on the “Watchmen” movie at the moment LOL
I just got The Counter-Creationism Handbook in the mail today.
Just sayin’.
Quotemining the headline of an article which the entire contents don’t support their view. They really go after the credulous ignorant religious market, don’t they?
FFS
Oh Christ – not John West again. PZ you should not have let him get a look at your fangs and horns at the anti-science speech he did at the U last year.
Did you say Luskin? Hahahahahahahahaha. Sorry. Hahahahahahahaha.
#6
Yep. West doesn’t care what the article says. It doesn’t matter. He knows his audience hasn’t read it and almost certainly WON’T read it. All that matters is the headline.
Stupid, petty spin like this is the only way they ever even come close to approaching a “victory” and New Scientist handed it right to them.
What, did they expect these people NOT to twist it to their own ends? Did they expect people to think critically or consider reading the actual article? Creationists are either liars or ignoramuses. In the words of Malcolm Reynolds, don’t credit them with an overabundance of brains.
He’s not the first to cite that journal cover as evidence against evolution. And the other guy is a medical doctor.
This really happened?!?!? I guess the DI’s funding is further removed from reality than Lenny Flank originally thought…Did the shit finally hit the fan? Wow. Speechless.
I’ll say it again and again: creationists have to resort to emotional appeals and other useless tactics because they have no good arguments to support their inane beliefs. Lying is also quite popular.
So basically the evening was mind numbingly boring. Was it Nisbet that said Creationists were ‘persuasive’? Meh, anyway, the night ended with me flipping off Casey Luskin, and a Creationist regular on my blog defending me.
Youll have to tune in tomorrow for details, cause I am drunk now. LOL!
Teaser: I made Casey Luskin say ‘tits’.
Abbie:
Don’t forget, Nisbet is the same person who thinks “denialism” is a loaded word and “atheist literalist” is a valid and coherent description of the activist faithless.
Totally random, and an odd fleeting fascination, but did anyone else have trouble saying “She really shouldn’t be sober…”? My tongue gets all twisted for some reason.
‘Tits with fingers I say NO!, Casey Luskin tells me so.’
Such prognosticatory risks, PZ! You’re really going out on a limb with those, but I’ll go you one better. I predict that…
The sun’ll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There’ll be sun!
And to be event bolder, I also predict that water will remain wet!
Er, make that “even bolder” without the spurious ‘t’. Buzzed snarkiness error.
“Meh, anyway, the night ended with me flipping off Casey Luskin, and a Creationist regular on my blog defending me.”
Prepare the Discovery Institute Fainting Couch!
Brian X@15: My favourite bit of Nisbet FAIL was when he claimed that Sasha Baron Cohen annoying red-necks by having a black model portray Jesus made him (Nisbet) embarrassed to be an atheist in America. SBC is an extremely observant Jew. And English. Chicken-shit Nisbet wouldn’t even publish my comment pointing this out.
“I guess repetition is necessary to get the BIG LIE across.”
Absolutely, Gilgamesh. That’s what we call ‘catapultin’ the propaganda.’
Slightly off topic, but did anyone else catch the piece with Egnorance and Steven Novella on ‘All things Considered’ yesterday?
Doubting Darwin: Debate Over The Mind’s Evolution
I thought NPR knew better than to put a creationist hack on the same platform as a scientist.
I guess they decided they had to compete with Faux news in being ‘fair and balanced’. Sad.
I see that Nisbet is linking to Carl Safina’s defense of his ‘kill Darwin’ article.
But when it’s time to make the case against atheist ‘literalists’ suddenly we are supposed to draw “lessons” from Darwin’s life like he’s some damn prophet or saint:
I’m confused.
Ive updated the post on Casey.
Also, tits.
Updated John West post.
Alas, no tits.
@sachatur –
NPR isn’t the only gullible stooge. Take a look at the recent opinion pieces written by Luskin, attorney Katzkee and philosopher Pennock over at US News and World Report’s website.
Here’s a couple of relevant examples:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/room-for-debate/2009/2/18/creation-of-christian-soldiers-a-chilling-sidelight-of-darwin-bashing/comments/3
and here:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/room-for-debate/2009/2/13/intelligent-design-is-religion-and-thats-fine-but-not-in-science-or-public-schools.html
and here:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/room-for-debate/2009/2/12/darwin-believers-hide-fears-of-intelligent-design-behind-a-wall-of-denial-and-ridicule.html
OK, the bit about the creationist law student (in the Casey Luskin update) totally made up for reading Michael Egnor’s tripe.
This is slightly off topic, but PZ did not mention this as far as I know:
http://news.aaas.org/2009/02112008-aaas-public-understanding-of-science-and-technology-award-presented.shtml
IMHO this is an honor long overdue for Ken Miller. He was nominated in part, for his excellent testimony as the lead witness on behalf of the plaintiffs at the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial (On a personal note, in the interest of full disclosure, I had the privilege of assisting Ken in his very first debate against a creationist, when he was a newly-arrived assistant professor of biology and yours truly, an undergraduate, at our Ivy League undergraduate alma mater. Neither then nor now has Ken given me any inclination that he is a “creationist”. Instead – and I agree with him – he believes that it is important that we recognize that we are all in this fight together against the Dishonesty Institute and other, equally mendacious, creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis.)
“Creationists need to develop some originality. The same old canards are getting boring.”
When you think about it, why we expect creationists to use anything but old, outdated information? After all, their main source of info is a 2,000 year old work of fiction.
Twelve Titted Sow of the Week Award to her for putting up with that guys rude bullshit. It never ceases to amaze me how atheists are called shrill, when it’s the gawdists that always resort to yelling.
So, if I stick a label on the cover of the bible that says “Jesus was an alien from a small planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse” – then that counts as evidence for what is inside, does it?
No, obviously not, no more than the cover of New Scientist is evidence of the contents.
ERV deserves a medal for listening to Casey Luskin without ralphing!
I agree, she deserves a tentacle cluster for her efforts. All I can do is to raise my libation in salute for her action. Salute!