PZ Myers posted Entry 1896 on January 10, 2006 01:54 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1891

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

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

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #69737

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 2:01 PM (e)

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

(Off Topic) Mr. Christopher is no longer with us

People writing things like this ( http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/intelligent_des_19.html#comment-68872 ) are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Christopher will fit right in at Panda’s Thumb.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 8:43 am

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

Comment #69738

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 2:02 PM (e)

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

Comment #69741

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 10, 2006 2:13 PM (e)

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

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

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

Too funny!

Comment #69746

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 2:31 PM (e)

1) regarding PZ’s post:

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

2) regarding the Mr. Christopher situation:

This is Frickin Awesome.

Comment #69748

Posted by Corkscrew on January 10, 2006 2:42 PM (e)

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

Comment #69751

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on January 10, 2006 2:49 PM (e)

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

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

Comment #69754

Posted by Russell on January 10, 2006 3:06 PM (e)

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

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

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

Comment #69763

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 4:00 PM (e)

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

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

Comment #69767

Posted by Nurse Ratchet on January 10, 2006 4:15 PM (e)

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

Comment #69768

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 4:20 PM (e)

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

Comment #69774

Posted by keiths on January 10, 2006 4:47 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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

Dave has banned four people in the last four days.

Comment #69775

Posted by Ed Darrell on January 10, 2006 4:48 PM (e)

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

Comment #69780

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 4:58 PM (e)

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

Comment #69786

Posted by AntiScot on January 10, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

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

Comment #69788

Posted by keiths on January 10, 2006 5:19 PM (e)

I got banned yesterday for merely showing (by direct quotes) that Dembski, Behe, and Phillip Johnson do not think the idea of a supernatural designer is nonsensical. See the Bradley Monton thread on Uncommon Descent for the results.

DaveScot, despite being an ID supporter, thinks that the idea of a supernatural designer is nonsense and outside the scope of ID. In his usual deranged way, he believes his personal opinions trump those of Dembski, the owner of the blog, so he’s reduced to banning folks for simply explaining to him what his fellow ID supporters believe.

As Feederbottom put it (on the Dembski blog),

Feederbottom wrote:

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

In Dembski’s defense, I’ve been posting critical remarks for the past 40 days and 40 nights (an auspicious number, but not by design, as Judge Jones said) and Dembski never banned me, removed a comment of mine, or warned me. In return, I kept my comments civil and always backed up the points I made.

Things changed when Dembski handed over the reins to Dave. As PT regulars are all too aware, Dave gets a bit, shall we say, touchy when he is proven wrong. Putting him in charge of a blog is like having Pat Robertson’s finger on the nuke button.

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

Comment #69789

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on January 10, 2006 5:21 PM (e)

Russell wrote:

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

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

Comment #69795

Posted by caerbannog on January 10, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

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

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

Comment #69799

Posted by Alan Fox on January 10, 2006 6:05 PM (e)

Welcome Keiths.

I must have supernatural powers of prediction :)

Alan (Renard)

Comment #69802

Posted by Alan Fox on January 10, 2006 6:12 PM (e)

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

Comment #69805

Posted by Alan Fox on January 10, 2006 6:22 PM (e)

Keiths wrote:

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

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

Comment #69808

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 6:32 PM (e)

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

Tell it to the judge.

Oh wait, you already DID.

(snicker) (giggle)

Game over. Whine all you want. (shrug)

Comment #69814

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

DaveScot banned Josh Bozeman? HA!

Comment #69823

Posted by keiths on January 10, 2006 6:58 PM (e)

I wrote:

DaveScot has banned four people in the last four days.

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

LOL.

Comment #69825

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 10, 2006 7:02 PM (e)

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

Dave “I am watching you” Scott said,

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

Well at least he admits I acted “all polite and kindly there in order to participate” at uncommon poop. Well duh. I act polite and kindly every where I go so I can participate. Being a jerk has never improved my odds.

Anyhow, I am honored to have been banned by Dave “I am watching you” Scott. I only wish Demsbki, chief intelligent design creationism theologian, had done it himself.

Keep in mind, fellow PTers, Creepy Dave Scott is watching you….

.

Comment #69830

Posted by keiths on January 10, 2006 7:22 PM (e)

Alan Fox wrote:

Welcome Keiths.

Hey Alan/Renard,

Nice to meet you again, this time on friendlier territory. I was still invoking your memory (comment #143) on Uncommon Descent shortly before I got banned.

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

Comment #69851

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 10, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

Funny that I kept reading what seemed to be intelligent, enlightened people at Dembski’s common creationism blog who made very persuasive arguments and comments. How the heck was I supposed to know they were all from here? :-)

Who the heck knew?

Anyhow, it is a pleasure to be reacquainted with everyone here and to be a part of this exclusive banned from the common creationism blog club.

And it is so funny (still) to see all these people getting banned who do not argue, who are not disruptive, who generally make very good points get banned. Even the hard core ID supporters are getting banned.

Patrick (another admin on uncommon poop) quoted Dave “I’m Watching You” Scott saying,

I’d suggest the only rule for now is that anyone who has author rights also have banning rights, swing the axe at their own discretion, and the rest of the authors don’t question it. If that doesn’t work out we can always have some kind of democratic process but that’s time consuming and I’d rather avoid overhead when practical

I like the don’t question the axe swinging (banning) part the best. That’s the Golden Rule of Intelligent Design Creationism - Do Not Question What We Tell You.

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

Comment #69873

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 10:05 PM (e)

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

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

Ban me.

Comment #69874

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 10:07 PM (e)

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

Yep, that’s the fundie attitude towards “democracy”, alright ….

No wonder Howie Ahmanson keeps writing them checks.

Comment #69879

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 10, 2006 10:16 PM (e)

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

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

Comment #69880

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 10, 2006 10:18 PM (e)

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

Gotta love the fundies’ commitment to freedom of speech…

Comment #69881

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 10:19 PM (e)

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

Comment #69883

Posted by Zarquon on January 10, 2006 10:34 PM (e)

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

Comment #69884

Posted by keiths on January 10, 2006 10:40 PM (e)

I wrote:

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

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

Mr Christopher wrote:

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

I predict that he’ll stage a coup and try to ban Dembski.

Dave is an interesting case psychologically. He’s obviously very insecure about his image, hence all the boasting and the inability to admit when he’s wrong. You’d think this would make him careful about what he writes, but for a prideful person, he’s amazingly able to shoot himself in the foot in an embarrassingly public way.

In one morning alone he posted all of the following hemorrhoidal invective on Dembski’s blog:

DaveScot wrote:

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

I posted the list and asked Dave:
“Life is short; why put yourself through this sort of stress over a weblog?”

His answer was predictable:
“Your concern is touching but touch someone else with it.”

Comment #69887

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 10:54 PM (e)

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

Comment #69888

Posted by keiths on January 10, 2006 10:59 PM (e)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

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

Here’s the thread where Josh gets the axe:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/624#comments

Benjii gets booted on the same thread for defending Josh and calling DaveScot a Stalinist (folks, you can’t pay for this kind of entertainment):

Benjii wrote:

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

That was probably the only time I ever agreed with something Benjii wrote.

Anyone know why Dembski almost kicked DaveScot off the blog?

Comment #69889

Posted by H. Humbert on January 10, 2006 11:01 PM (e)

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

Comment #69892

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 11:07 PM (e)

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

Comment #69894

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 10, 2006 11:09 PM (e)

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

2) Is Dave Scott a theology student?

Comment #69903

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 11:36 PM (e)

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

Comment #69904

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 10, 2006 11:38 PM (e)

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

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

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

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

Comment #69944

Posted by keiths on January 11, 2006 1:50 AM (e)

I wrote:

DaveScot has banned four people in the last four days.

I later wrote:

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

They’re now up to six banned in four days on Dembski’s blog.

This time Dembski did the honors, booting someone who calls himself ‘infamous’. I don’t know what infamous wrote, because Dembski deleted his comment.

Dembski wrote:

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

Can you feel the love?

Comment #69978

Posted by k.e. on January 11, 2006 4:32 AM (e)

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

Reminds me of an old Cold War Joke

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

Comment #70001

Posted by Tim Hague on January 11, 2006 8:34 AM (e)

Dave Scott is an engineer I believe.

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

Comment #70011

Posted by Renier on January 11, 2006 9:02 AM (e)

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

Comment #70016

Posted by Moses on January 11, 2006 9:17 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #70029

Posted by Tim Hague on January 11, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

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

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

Comment #70094

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 11, 2006 12:39 PM (e)

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

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

Comment #70097

Posted by AC on January 11, 2006 12:43 PM (e)

Dembski said it himself:

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

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

Comment #70109

Posted by Daniel Kim on January 11, 2006 1:13 PM (e)

Hmmm …

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

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

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

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

Comment #70176

Posted by Ocellated on January 11, 2006 4:17 PM (e)

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

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

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

Comment #70183

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

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

hmm, this suggests a fun game:

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

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

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

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

anybody game?

Comment #70185

Posted by steve s on January 11, 2006 4:37 PM (e)

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

Comment #70197

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 5:01 PM (e)

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

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

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

but hey, that’s just my opinion.

Comment #70200

Posted by Ocellated on January 11, 2006 5:14 PM (e)

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

Comment #70202

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

make it 7:

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

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

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

ES: 1

dembksi: “Do such events happen all the time?”

ES: Such events do happen all the time.

Shall we continue?

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

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

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

Comment #70205

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 11, 2006 5:21 PM (e)

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

Comment #70206

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

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

of course, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a bit of fun in the process, does it?

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems what DS and Dembski are doing right now is either the result of:

a specific shared psychological malady

or (more likely?)

a specific plan of action, perhaps designed as an alternative way of “mothballing” the blog, and allowing Dembski to end up getting the last word in?

hmm.

Comment #70207

Posted by Dave Scot on January 11, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

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

hmm, this suggests a fun game:

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

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

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

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

anybody game?

I’m in!

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

Comment #70208

Posted by Not Dave Scot on January 11, 2006 5:28 PM (e)

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

The above was just a bit of street theater.

I’m really not Dave Scot.

Comment #70209

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 11, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 04:35 PM (e) (s)

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

hmm, this suggests a fun game:…

post as Dave Scott on ALL the boards he randomly monitors,…
hell, even reading this post is probably giving him fits already.

anybody game?

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

Comment #70210

Posted by DaveScot on January 11, 2006 5:31 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #70211

Posted by DaveScot on January 11, 2006 5:32 PM (e)

(Off Topic) Mr. Steve is no longer with us
People writing things like this

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

are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Steve will fit right in at Panda’s Thumb.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 2:35 pm

Comment #70212

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 5:36 PM (e)

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

perhaps… but wouldn’t getting banned for posting as Dave Scott be delicious irony in and of itself??

Comment #70214

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 11, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 05:36 PM (e) (s)

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

perhaps… but wouldn’t getting banned for posting as Dave Scott be delicious irony in and of itself??

Yes it would.
But then again, it could turn out that we would be mocking someone who has a serious mental problem.

Comment #70217

Posted by Ubernatural on January 11, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

it could turn out that we would be mocking someone who has a serious mental problem.

But, but… there’s a Dembski thread here like every week!

Comment #70233

Posted by steve s on January 11, 2006 6:20 PM (e)

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

Comment #70236

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 6:25 PM (e)

just as fun, but same logistical problems.

Comment #70237

Posted by steve s on January 11, 2006 6:27 PM (e)

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

Comment #70244

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 6:36 PM (e)

have you figured out a way to actually register as a poster on UD these days?

maybe I’m missing something, but i tried 3 times over the last 3 months with no “love”.

Comment #70250

Posted by DaveScot on January 11, 2006 6:52 PM (e)

(Off Topic) Mr. Steve is no longer with us
People writing things like this

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

are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Steve will fit right in at Panda’s Thumb.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 2:35 pm

You know what, DaveScot? I’ve always thought you were an a**hole!

DaveScot is no longer with us.

–DaveScot

Comment #70252

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

I think i heard a popping noise, followed by a slight whiff of singed hair…

Comment #70268

Posted by steve s on January 11, 2006 7:32 PM (e)

LOL. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked,
have been sacked.

Comment #70271

Posted by geoffrobinson on January 11, 2006 7:36 PM (e)

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

Comment #70303

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 11, 2006 8:22 PM (e)

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

Heck, if the IDers had *won* in Dover, then the blood would REALLY be flowing in the pews …. .

Fundies haven’t changed an iota since the Inquisition. (shrug)

Comment #70327

Posted by geoffrobinson on January 11, 2006 9:17 PM (e)

Ha now one of Dembski’s acolytes is trying to tell me “Understand that a design inference cannot prove absolutely that a pattern is intelligently designed or tell who or what the designer is. Are you familiar with Dr. Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”?”. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/643#comments] I guess that guy’s never read Dembski’s No Free Lunch pgs 24-25, where he says there are no false positives IE a design inference can prove absolutely a pattern is intelligently designed.

Like the lawyers do, you just give these Uncommon Descent people enough rope and they hang themselves.

Comment #70358

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 11, 2006 10:24 PM (e)

ID is dead. Why are they even bothering to keep the IV hooked up?

Comment #70365

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 11, 2006 10:40 PM (e)

What I’d be more curious about is why that the Discovery Institute’s press releases are still being listed on Google News– without the “press release” tag that groups such as the ACLU are marked with there…

Comment #70391

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 11:29 PM (e)

ID is dead. Why are they even bothering to keep the IV hooked up?

Dembski would have to edit all of his books and remove references to ID if he gave up on it.

er, kinda like they did with pandas.

I think in dembski’s case, he won’t bother until the cash stops rolling in from his book sales.

Comment #70450

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 1:51 AM (e)

I really don’t like the posting as someone else idea.
It is dishonest. You would be handing them a legitimate complaint on a plate.

If you wish to maintain a high standard of integrity. Descending to subterfuge is a low idea. ;)

Comment #70497

Posted by guthrie on January 12, 2006 5:28 AM (e)

I agree with Stephen Elliot about how silly it would be to post in the way that has been suggested.

On the other hand, it would I think be legitimate to have several people post similar questions about a topic. The difference between the questions would be simply in how comprehensive and how much they disagree with the party line. The idea being to calibrate how much you can disagree before you get banned, what level of argument they permit etc.

Comment #70567

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 10:48 AM (e)

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

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

Dishonest, perhaps, but it’d be a true thing of beauty if someone pulled it off correctly.

Sadly, by discussing it here, we’ve probably already blown our cover so it’s no longer feasible. Darn.

Comment #70581

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 10:48 AM (e) (s)

Dishonest, perhaps, but it’d be a true thing of beauty if someone pulled it off correctly.

Sadly, by discussing it here, we’ve probably already blown our cover so it’s no longer feasible. Darn.

Well up until now the ID mob have had a monopoly on the lying.
Do you really want to follow their methods.
What do you think would happen the next time we accused them of dishonesty.

Sorry to sound like a tight-assed party pooper. I do see the funny side. But is a laugh for a day or two worth the cost? I seriously doubt it.

One of my favourite points in this argument is, the creationists lie while claiming to be the moral people. In fact that was a major thing that made me “convert”. I first came to this site as an ID supporter. The honesty on this side that was a big factor in making me a turn-coat.

Comment #70692

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 12, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

Well up until now the ID mob have had a monopoly on the lying.
Do you really want to follow their methods.
What do you think would happen the next time we accused them of dishonesty.

Sorry to sound like a tight-assed party pooper. I do see the funny side. But is a laugh for a day or two worth the cost? I seriously doubt it.

One of my favourite points in this argument is, the creationists lie while claiming to be the moral people. In fact that was a major thing that made me “convert”. I first came to this site as an ID supporter. The honesty on this side that was a big factor in making me a turn-coat.

Yeesh, ruin our fun, why don’t you… I’m never inviting you to one of my keggers again…

Anyway, I doubt I’d try to do this – it’s too complicated, it’d be too time consuming, and DaveScot’s probably already read all this by now anyway.

Hi, DaveScot! Are you feeling the love?