Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute lying on the TeeVee



Uploaded by: AronRa
Video Description:
I'm mirroring this video for DonExodus2, because I debated Casey Luskin briefly, until I proved he was lying on multiple points. Then he broke off the discussion saying that I was being mean to him. This is the same willfully ignorant shit-head who says that paternity tests don't work because if they did, they would challenge his religious nonsense. Now he's lying through his teeth on national TV. DonExodus2 caught him on it, as you can see, and the amoral bastiches at DI filed false -and illegal- DMCA against him. No. It ain't that easy.
Casey comments on Haeckel's embryos. Please see my video on the 13th foundational falsehood of creationism for more accurate information about that.
The Luskin/wrist bone comedy can be found here: pharyngula/2009/05/casey_luskin_smirking_liar.php
From New Scientist:
"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not."


Tags for this video: DonExodus2 discovery institute creationism evolution intelligent design fox news haeckels embryos horizontal gene transfer casey luskin

Find more videos in the "People" category
See more videos uploaded by AronRa

Related Videos
Ida KnowEvidence Against Evolution (discoveryinstituteid mirror)The Texas Board of Indoctrination
ida-know.htmlida-know.htmlida-know.html
An Archaeological Moment in TimeSorry thunderf00t - I have to say no!Discovery Institute - Casey Luskin - Ignorance or something else?
ida-know.htmlida-know.htmlida-know.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
Yes, I think we are ... ( 4 weeks ago by middlekk)
Yes, I think we are.
Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.
Amazingly, ... ( 1 week ago by Mortison77577)
Amazingly, Haeckel's embryos are presented as factual and as evidence for common ancestry in the book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism publish by Stanford University press and written by Tim Bera who was or is a full professor at Ohio state. It's copyright 1990, but the book is still in print. I saw it in a bookstore today.
Array ( 1 week ago by types10000)
@Mortison77577
- Heckels embryos are an example of fraud because they overemphasise similarities.
- however to claim that there is NO similarities is an outright lie.
Array ( 1 week ago by Mortison77577)
types10000:
I agree they there are similarities. What they mean is not something that's really well worked out as far as I know. In terms of what they put in the textbooks, a good case could be made that they should just use the pharyngeal pouches and all that.
Haeckel's embryos ... ( 1 week ago by Mortison77577)
Haeckel's embryos are also presented as factual in the book What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr which has a copyright date of 2001 and is still in bookstores. He mentions that Haeckel switched a dog embryo with a human embryo for at least one drawing, but he still presents them as factual.
Most of them are. ... ( 1 week ago by AronRa)
Most of them are. Haeckel only 'accentuated' certain features of a half dozen of the hundred such drawings he did.
Most of them are ... ( 1 week ago by Mortison77577)
Most of them are factual? What is greatly distorted is the real early stage pictures seen in textbooks where the embryos look nearly identical when in fact, in reality they look quite different. In that sense, creationists do have a legitimate point because the evidence for common ancestry for that aspect of embryology is being exaggerated. Ken Miller, Stephen J. Gould, and Talk Origins openly admitted that it's a mistake and PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott did as well, but more grudgingly.
This nonsense with ... ( 1 week ago by j0kerman2)
This nonsense with Haekels drawings has gone on too long. Haeckel most certainly did not forge hos drawings, as Luskin believes. Some features were exagerated and some were played doen, but they are all there!! If Haekel was alive today, Luskin and everone else at the DI would be sued as what they are saying is an outrageous lie.
they do look ... ( 1 week ago by ajgrovery)
they do look identical, that is the point
Are you STILL on ... ( 1 week ago by middlekk)
Are you STILL on this red herring?
REALLY?
After being SCHOOLED over and over and over again?
Haekel was a visionary scientist. The accuracy or inaccuracy of his drawings in NO WAY diminishes his seminal scientific findings, which DIRECTLY led to MASSIVE improvements in our understanding of embryology and evolutionary developmental biology.
Period.
Mortison has no ... ( 1 week ago by middlekk)
Mortison has no other issue. He trots it out like somehow the entire ToE is invalid because Haekel may have "fudged" a drawing or two.
Haekel also drew blastophores, but no one complains about their accuracy.
Mortison is a joke. He thinks this one issue somehow disproves evolution and proves...what exactly, I have no idea, since he never proposes his own positive assertions regarding anything.
blastopore, not ... ( 1 week ago by middlekk)
blastopore, not phore.
Middlekk, my ... ( 1 week ago by Mortison77577)
Middlekk, my favorite Haeckel fanboy, how's it going? Haven't heard from you in a while. No, you got me wrong, I'm not saying the whole theory of evolution is wrong, I'm just saying it's got a lot of holes. Don't get too worked up about Haeckel's embryo's. The whole theory doesn't rest of them. It's just one of the holes in some books.
Haeckel fanboy, I ... ( 1 week ago by Mortison77577)
Haeckel fanboy, I mean middlekk, google "Evo Devo is the new buzzword" and click on the first link. What do they say: "Embryology was divorced from evolution, devo from evo. Even the discovery in the 1950s of the nature and role of DNA did not bring them back together. In the late 1970s, however, all began to change as several revolutions in theory and technology produced a mind shift as dramatic as the one that followed Darwin's The Origin of Species". No straight line from Haeckl to Evo Devo.
Array ( 1 week ago by Mortison77577)
@j0kerman2
Yeah, Haeckl did fudge his drawings. It's a mistake in science textbooks to present them as factual. Google "Kenneth Miller Haeckel's embryos." Science should be about a search for the truth, not a political fight with creationists. Turning science in politics just demeans and perverts science.
Array ( 1 week ago by Mortison77577)
@middlekk
Saying the Haeckl had some important ideas or that other drawings he did were not inaccurate it completely irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the issue here.
Most of the time, ... ( 6 days ago by j0kerman2)
Most of the time, they arent Haeckels originals, but updated computer models or photographs.
Haeckel fudged certain aspects of his drawings (not forging, although still very unscientific, which is why I actually agree that they shouldnt be in textbooks)
Array ( 6 days ago by Mortison77577)
@j0kerman2
Stephen J. Gould described them either as "forgeries" or "fraudulent" or something similar. Sometimes the ones in textbooks are slightly better, but often they are incorrect for essentially the same reason. Check out Josh Rosenau's Thoughts from Kansas blog post on this topic. Everything he types is pretty much the opposite of the truth. Interestingly he files it under the head "culture wars".
You DO realize that ... ( 4 days ago by middlekk)
You DO realize that Gould has been dead for many years, right?
How could Haekel's drawings POSSIBLY be "forgeries"? He drew them...he didn't copy someone else's drawings.
And HOW does ANY of that invalidate his work or raise even the merest concern over the ToE?
Doesn't.
But your insistence on using a red herring argument is clear evidence that you haven't the intellectual capacity to understand that point.
Name a CURRENT ... ( 4 days ago by middlekk)
Name a CURRENT EDITION of a science book that presents the ORIGINAL Haekel drawings as "factual".
The BEST you've come up with are old editions of texts where OTHER representations of Haekel are presented.
And it must be pointed out that Haekel died in 1919. And NOTHING discovered since that has invalidated his science. And NOTHING about the drawings invalidates the ToE.
Red Herring argument. Meaningless.
Alright, middlekk ... ( 4 days ago by Mortison77577)
Alright, middlekk now you're the one bringing out a bunch of red herrings. Gould died in 2002, but that's not the point. The point is that he openly admitted that the drawings are a mistake and they shouldn't be in science textbooks. Unlike other people, he didn't just view it as a fight with creationists. He was honest. It's amazing to see so many people on youtube trying to defend Haecke's embryos just because creationists are taking the opposite stance. You're just like the creationists.
The reason why ... ( 4 days ago by Mortison77577)
The reason why Haekel's embryos are forgeries is because they are forgeries. He didn't draw them from embryos, he made them up, or he used an embryo from one species for all of them, or he just drew what he wanted to see - I don't know the details. But they are fraudulent. And no, the drawing themselves do not invalidate the TOE. But that's not the point. The point is that it's a mistake in textbooks and science books intended for the general readership and maybe even in scientific papers.
Middlekk, you're ... ( 4 days ago by Mortison77577)
Middlekk, you're the one missing the point. The point is not about the theory of evolution generally or really about Haekel generally. It's about honesty and integrity in science. Just coming up with any excuse that one can think of to not grant creationists any point on any issue shows a lack of integrity. It shows that some people don't really view evolutionary biology as a science unto itself, but rather as a fight against creationism.
Step 1-- Open ... ( 14 hours ago by mmmmmarcus)
Step 1-- Open luskin's mouth
Step 2-- Jam funnel down throat
Step 3-- Allow him to "discover" the feeling of battery acid in his stomach.
Fuckin swine. I fucking HATE TV!



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code