Troy Britain smacks Casey Luskin

| 93 Comments

Troy Britain at Playing Chess with Pigeons flays a post by Casey Luskin about a recent paper on proto-feathers on dinosaur fossils. Britain shows how Luskin doctors a quotation by replacing a comma with a period, uses strategic ellipses in quotations to conceal relevant context, and in the end questions the common descent of dinosaurs. Yup, that means that Luskin really did imply something like the separate creation of ornithischians, saurischians, and theropods, three major clades of dinosaurs.

In other news, dog bites man.

93 Comments

Gerbil misuses his sources?

You’d almost think he was a member of the DI or something.

Glen Davidson

But did he define birds as a separate kind? :p

Sounds like Luskin has the makings of a good(?) lawyer, no? And that period versus the comma trick always comes up when he, and they, try to quote Darwin and the both sides argument.

Richard B. Hoppe Wrote:

Luskin doctors a quotation by replacing a comma with a period,..

Impossible. Anti-evolution activists would never do that. ;-)

OT: Talking Points Memo has an article up on the Texas BOE battles that should be of interest to everyone here.

Surprise, surprise, comments are open on Casey’s analysis! I dropped a gentle suggestion for a reply to criticism. We’ll see if it appears (doubt it) and if Luskin has the little Gerbil balls to reply (also doubt it).

The most interesting thing for me is that they found definitive, unambiguous evidence for a bushy-tailed dinosaur not closely related to the avian dinosaurs, and the inference that most any dinosaur line may have had fuzz or bristly feathers.

And, of course, they named the genus after squirrels.

All connections between creatures is based on agreed, or not, anatomical indicators for heritage and relationship. In short, educated guessing.

I don’t agree there is any reason to see any connection between very unlike creatures commonly called dinosaurs. There are just kinds. I don’t think there are reptiles or mammals either. These are man made connections based on the points of like details in unlike creatures.

Dinosaurs were first thought strange new creatures of variety and size and reptile. There is no reason to say they are reptiles or cold blooded and anyways again its just making biological connections based on a premise of connections being indicated by like details. A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana. they are just kinds of creatures with like details for like needs in minor ways. Laying eggs don’t identify you any more then it does today with snakes or lizards.

Mr Luskin is a accomplished mover and shaker in the origin revolution we are living in right now. if he reclassify’s dino’s then good. Yet the whole classification system is wrong because the presumptions were never proven but just presumed.

Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light!

BTW, you obviously didn’t bother to read Troy Britain’s flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

Robert Byers said: Mr Luskin is a accomplished mover and shaker in the origin revolution we are living in right now.

The most astonishing sentence I’ve ever seen around here.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

Robert Byers said: Mr Luskin is a accomplished mover and shaker in the origin revolution we are living in right now.

The most astonishing sentence I’ve ever seen around here.

Yea, he moved from idiocy to lunacy and shook his private parts. Byers has once again ignored entire fields of biology, including phylogenetics, cladistics, comparative anatomy, genetics, population genetics, molecular phylogenetics and many others. IT must be hard work ignoring everything around you for one hundred and fifty years.

oh i forgot, genetics is “atomic and unproven”, except for paternity cases which bobby is apparently familiar with enough to know you cant fool the judge with crap like that just another drive by where the bullets missed the mark

Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain’s done is slap himself silly with a non-take down.

Its rhetorical turtles all the way down.

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

Gawd, this is good stuff.

Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said:

Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light!

BTW, you obviously didn’t bother to read Troy Britain’s flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

SteveP. said:

Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain’s done is slap himself silly with a non-take down.

Its rhetorical turtles all the way down.

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

Gawd, this is good stuff.

Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said:

Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light!

BTW, you obviously didn’t bother to read Troy Britain’s flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

Way to address the scientific issues, asshole.

So what was wrong about Troy Britain’s criticism of Casey Luskin’s latest verbal bowel movement?

That Britain is a Hellbound idiot for daring to doubt what the Discovery Institute’s sacred herald says lies about science?

That Britain supports what you consider to be a useless waste of time that somehow still produces things you hypocritically consider useful?

Then again, SteveP, what is your purpose here, other than to troll and expose to the world your mindless hatred of science?

SteveP. said:

Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain’s done is slap himself silly with a non-take down.

Its rhetorical turtles all the way down.

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

Gawd, this is good stuff.

Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said:

Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light!

BTW, you obviously didn’t bother to read Troy Britain’s flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

DS said:

SteveP. said:

Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain’s done is slap himself silly with a non-take down.

Its rhetorical turtles all the way down.

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

Gawd, this is good stuff.

Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said:

Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light!

BTW, you obviously didn’t bother to read Troy Britain’s flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

Way to address the scientific issues, asshole.

SteveP has repeatedly made it clear to us that he would sooner commit suicide by eating his own eyes and tongue than dare to devote even the smallest amount of brainpower to address any scientific issue in a thoughtful manner, instead of using inane snark and petty insults.

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

Do

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

Do remember that Robert Byers is a Compulsive Liar For Jesus who is utterly determined to come up with any statement, no matter how inane, or how false, in order to magically convince us that Evolution is wrong.

He does not give a literal damn that his statements make him look like a brain-damaged idiot in the process. Other than as fodder to whine at us about, because we won’t take his inanity seriously.

SteveP. said:

Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain’s done is slap himself silly with a non-take down.

Its rhetorical turtles all the way down.

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

Gawd, this is good stuff.

Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said:

Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light!

BTW, you obviously didn’t bother to read Troy Britain’s flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

Please answer ALL questions or none at all.

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) 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?

A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Best. Creationist line. Ever.

How many people beside me think that Steve P. wasn’t even aware or either the Luskin article, or the Troy Britain article, until he saw this post, hasn’t read either, and couldn’t understand either if he did read them?

SteveP. said:

Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain’s done is slap himself silly with a non-take down.

Its rhetorical turtles all the way down.

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

It appears SteveP has a convincing counter-argument to Britain’s dissection! Mind sharing with the rest of us, Stevey boy? On second thought, what is considered convincing to you (pseudoscientific clap trap) and what is considered convincing to the rational audience (evidence based scientific analysis) are two completely different things, so maybe you shouldn’t waste your time, lest you risk dissolving this entire thread into raucous laughter.

There is no, “vast right-wing conspiracy”, regarding quote mining Creationists, and I suspect you know this as well as anyone. However, it is fairly well established that Creationists have this nasty tendency to ‘misuse’ their sources. You can’t justify Luskin’s dishonesty by accusing those who expose him for the fraud he is as endorsing some kind of conspiracy.

Chris Lawson said:

Robert Byers said: A t-rex is no more related to a triceratops then to a banana.

Really, Byers, this is too ridiculous even for you.

One of these things is not like the other…

Seriously, Robert. Even Big Bird was able to figure this one out.

I know what he’s trying to say here. But, because of the comments made over the past few days, I’m convinced now that Robert is a Poe. Even Big Bird and Elmo are smarter than this. Even a crow can tell the difference between a reptile and a banana. (Though I’m not convinced that a pigeon could.) No semi-sentient being could possibly be this clueless. At this point, Robert is going beyond Poe-ness and is just plumbing the depths of our credulity.

I salute you, sir. You have put on a great show until now.

SteveP:

Does this sound familiar?

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?

If you supplied any kind of meaningful answer, it would go away.

Robeert Byers:

You’re more honest and less snotty that SteveP. Maybe you can help me by answering these:

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?

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

I argue that this is a perfectly fair description of contemporary Christian creationism in the US and other anglophone countries.

It is almost all currently associated with the political right; that is true of Christian creationism (and actually true of Islamic creationism in Turkey as well). That is a somewhat of a coincidence; in other societies, evolution denial has been associated with communist dictatorship. However, I would point out that any political movement that voluntarily incorporates outright and/or tacit support for science denying dogma is by definition authoritarian, whether extreme right or extreme left in terms of economic policy. Supporting a demand that scientific reality be denied and that science be censored or suppressed is by definition an authoritarian position.

Deceptive tactics, possibly employed without conscious awareness but nevertheless highly deceptive, such as quote mining/quote mangling, but also straw man creation, misuse of mathematics/probability, misuse of terms from physics and computer/information science, false accusations, false equivalence of the theory of evolution with philosophical atheism (note - I am not religious personally but that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution), and even mis-statements about the Bible, are common.

Luskin has responded to one of the issues I noted. I’ll work on a counter-response when I can.

Troy - thanks for the update.

For folks who don’t want to go to the link - Casey’s response is to say that he omitted a reference to Caudipteryx because (i) he wasn’t comparing the new find to C., but to the other dinosaurs mentioned in the excerpt, and (ii) because C. isn’t (in his opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

What a howler. I wonder if it occurred to Casey, as he was writing his response, that he just asserted that an early form of bird had a combination of dinofuzz and true feathers.

eric said: Caudipteryx…isn’t (in (Luskin’s) opinion) a dinosaur at all - its a bird.

Recall that Luskin is a geologist, not a biologist. His “opinion” isn’t worth squat.

harold said:

SteveP. said:

Flaying???!!! ha. ha. gotta be kidding! the best Britain’s done is slap himself silly with a non-take down.

Its rhetorical turtles all the way down.

Oh, and a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear evolution, fraught with purposefully misplaced commas, and periods.

Gawd, this is good stuff.

Britain, the queen needs you!

Rolf said:

Robert said

I don’t think

Congratulations, you have seen the light!

BTW, you obviously didn’t bother to read Troy Britain’s flaying of the accomplished quoteminer Casey Luskin at the link in the OP.

Please answer ALL questions or none at all.

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) 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?

Damn it, harold! You know he’s going to answer “none at all”, just the same as always.

Just a quibble and a question:

harold said: That is a somewhat of a coincidence; in other societies, evolution denial has been associated with communist dictatorship.

I have heard people say this, but do not know of a good example. Of course there was bizarre denial of genetics in Russia in the form of Lysenkoism, and in its subject states and in China. And at the end Lysenko was moving toward denial of evolution itself. But generally there was not denial of evolution in the Soviet system or in China (as evolution had the explicit backing of Marx and Engels). People who grew up in those states will tell you they were taught in school about evolution. I don’t know about North Korea, but exactly where were these societies in which there was this denial of evolution?

apokryltaros said:

Troy Britain said:

SteveP. said: Now I understand why you didn’t answer Luskin directly at ENV when you had the chance.

Its not that you didn’t have the balls. You didn’t have the letters!

Sorry, I don’t follow. I saw what Luskin wrote and thought that it would make a good thing to blog about, so I did. That’s what bloggers do. Where do balls or letters, or a lack of either come into it?

SteveP is verbally attacking you because he thinks you missed an opportunity to directly attack Luskin in a debate, nevermind that the majority of professional Intelligent Design proponents scrupulously and unscrupulously avoid any and all opportunities for fair debates.

That, and SteveP is an internet troll Panda’s Thumb who is obsessed with verbally attacking anyone and anything that stimulates his mindless hatred of Evolution, science, and scientists.

And I think the comment about not having the letters is an attempted humourous reference to the fact Troy is an underemployed printer.

Incidentally Troy, SteveP runs a hugely successful textile business somewhere in the Far East. As a good christian soul he might be able to put some work your way if your skills extend to fabric printing.

apokryltaros said: That, and SteveP is an internet troll Panda’s Thumb who is obsessed with verbally attacking anyone and anything that stimulates his mindless hatred of Evolution, science, and scientists.

Yeah, I figured as much…

Troy Britain said:

apokryltaros said: That, and SteveP is an internet troll Panda’s Thumb who is obsessed with verbally attacking anyone and anything that stimulates his mindless hatred of Evolution, science, and scientists.

Yeah, I figured as much…

Good for you, Troy, and thanks for the great write up. As for Stevie Pee, he’s dropped by James Shapiro’s HuffPo blog replete with “scientific” breathtaking inanity, merely to condemn me and to praise Shapiro for being such a useful IDiot on behalf of the Dishonesty Institute. That’s when, of course, Stevie Pee isn’t busy conferring with his Taiwanese colleagues in the textile business, all of whom, I presume, probably know a lot more science than he’s been demonstrating either here or over at HuffPo.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on July 16, 2012 1:02 PM.

Anthracoceros coronatus was the previous entry in this blog.

Fun on Facebook is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter