Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fun from Facebook: Fake ID pages

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For months, some ID-friendly Facebookers have been trying to draw my attention to fake-ID Facebook pages. But Facebook is one of those systems I use without fully understanding it, so resisted getting involved.

Well, yesterday, I got clear enough information to have a look:

… you are still listed as a member on the fraudulent group. Could you please post a Warning message to that wall stating “Official Page here is a FAKE ID group run by an atheist with a FAKE account. Please do not support his fraud”.

Possibly, even a short write-up about the profile in this OP, as we have been trying to get this fraud shut down for a year?

Okay. So far as I can see, these are legitimate ID-oriented Facebook pages:

The Official ID Facebook Page (over 7000 members).

I don’t know what makes that page official. The ID community has no governing body. But it is probably representative of a large section of lay interest.

I also commend to your interest (775 members) Natural Genetic Engineering, which is named in honour of well-known molecular biologist and Darwin critic James Shapiro.

And Intelligent Design – Consistent with the program Discovery Institute (790 members) I don’t think the Discovery Institute sponsors the page; more likely, the members feel they are more in line with its goals.

Readers may wish to suggest other such pages; these are only the ones I have been asked or permitted to post links to, to spur discussions.

Okay, now about fake pages, here is one: It has 2780 members, and the artwork looks like it could be from an official page. Indeed, as the founder of the “official” ID page put it, “That’s the other thing is that since they stole our name, and copy our cover photos, it causes some members to do a double take not sure just exactly which board they’re on.”

When I posted links yesterday from Uncommon Descent to the Official ID Facebook Page, those links were appearing a sidebar at the fake page  (that, of course, may not continue hereafter). So it might at times look very much like the actual page.

It turned out I was even a member (no longer). How did that happen? I have been informed,

The purpose of his FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts is to collect creationist friends that he dumps into his fake group without permission (that’s how you ended up there) and the purpose of his FAKE group is to mock ID while booting everyone who defends ID, …

I have since left the group I never intentionally joined.

You wouldn’t even really notice what the page was unless you happened to read the intro copy written by Christopher Hartsil:

Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.

So it obviously isn’t an ID page and one wonders how many of those some thousands of supposed members have any idea they have been enrolled.

There was a fake Mike Behe page quite recently, but it has been removed, I am told it will likely be replaced by another. Other ID theorists also have/have had/will have fake pages dedicated to detracting them as well. The Genesis Key was offered as another example, apparently from the same shop.

Some ID opponents defend the practice of fake pages. For example,

I would support ID if its claims were based on actual science. I am here because it is clearly not science, and I cannot allow ID to use MY cloak to fool its victims.

So instead of making clear that he does not support ID, he belongs to a fake ID page…

Two takehome points: People would not engage in these antics if they thought they could compete in an open forum.

Second, if they get a tighter hold on the whip hand, expect more than fake Facebook pages from them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
All except the part about me booting anyone who tried to defend ID. I didn't boot them, they just couldn't defend ID because it's not science.CHartsil
January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Anybody interested in legitimate discussion regarding Evolution and Intelligent Design can find honest people at these 3 facebook groups: https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Staying on point with the main article: The "original" Official Page is a legitimate Pro-ID endeavor that was established on facebook 6 years ago and approximately a year ago "Chartsil" (using the fake name Ethan Metzger) was booted for the exact same kind of spam trolling that he displays in the above thread. In retaliation, he dishonestly created a copy / cat group using the Official Page artwork and identical name for the purpose of fooling people into thinking it was the original group. Hartsil then created fake Behe and Meyer accounts to collect unsuspecting religious folks to dump (against their knowledge) into his fake group. Hartsil then proceeded to ban anyone who defended ID. The individual who operates over 65 fake accounts routinely makes copy / cat groups of already existing Pro-religion groups for the purpose of spreading lies and hate and fraud. Does that about cover it, Mr Chartsil?Paleysghost
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
The Southern California Chapter of the Discovery Institute's Discovery Society invite evolutionists to engage in a logical scientific debate based on findings of fact not philosophy. We ask evolutionists to explain the sudden appearance of thousands of various life forms in the Cambrian layer of geologic strata without evidence of precursor organisms. Until evolutionists can explain the "Cambrian Explosion" without speculation, and answer the 10 questions that follow, Intelligent Design must be considered the explanation that best fits the evidence. Ten Questions: Nucleotides and proteins are entirely different molecules. How can evolution explain the concomitant production of one by the other i.e. the chicken-and-egg-relationship of DNA, RNA and protein in the "primordial soup." It is impossible to produce one without having produced the others first. 99.9% of mutations are deleterious. How can evolution work upstream, i.e. fortuitously producing an improved mutation and protecting it from further deleterious mutation, while producing yet more new fortuitous mutations? If there is such a thing as "natural selection", then why are 30 percent of the genes in a genome polymorphic? If Darwinism is right, then why do so many evolutionists say it's wrong; and why is Motoo Kimura's theory of neutral mutation with random drift the current favored hypothesis among evolutionists? If evolution is right, then how can there be so many differing explanations for the hypothesis, i.e. Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, symbiogenesis, and neutral mutation with random drift? Isn't it true that the basic axiom of science is one phenomenon, one explanation? Therefore, isn't it true that if the hypothesis of evolution has multiple explanations, it must be wrong; otherwise there would be only one explanation? How can evolutionary hypothesis explain the irreducible complexity of complex biological systems which require the simultaneous integration of multiple structural and enzymatic components, i.e. the concomitant production of alveolar lungs (structural genes), and, surfactant type phospholipids (enzymatic genes), and proteins necessary to neutralize the effect of lung surface tension? Premature infants die unless both are present. Wouldn't the first primordial mammals have died, also? How can evolutionists circumvent the demands of the Hardy-Weinberg law (the incidence of a gene in a genome remains constant generation after generation, no matter whether it is dominant or recessive, or rare). Trying to use "gene flow," bottle-neck or founder effect hypotheses is untenable because Muller's ratchet demands that isolation and founder effect destroy a genome if a population's genome becomes smaller and smaller? How can a contralateral-functioning cortex and the basal gangliar systems of a telencephalon be successfully superimposed on an ipsilateral-functioning cerebellum and rhombencephalon? How can lateral vision, with complete decusation of optic pathways, at the optic chiasm undergo transition to forward facing binocular vision, using a partially decusating optic chiasm, a step at a time, and still remain functional while undergoing the transition? Wouldn't the information directed to the optic cortex from each eye become contradictory, and produce a nonfunctioning organism? And, what about the need to produce a new eye socket, a new wiring system, and a new method of integrating the concomitant focusing of both eyes on the same object, and properly directing the information from each retina to the proper locations in the paired optic radiations? (See figures 2 A and 2 B by clicking the Irreducible Complexity button) Purpose of This Web Site The purpose of this web site is to present reliable information in support of intelligent design, and irreducible complexity as the proximate causes of life and its diversity. Information provided here is based entirely on empirically derived fact. Irreducible Complexity is an indisputable fact of biologic function. Irreducible Complexity is indicative of intelligent design. Therefore, the world in which we live is better understood in terms of design, as opposed to spontaneous origin and evolution. Our efforts are dedicated to disseminating factual information, and answering the question: are we the result of chance or design? It is our objective to confirm and propagate scientific truth: that which is correct now; has always been correct; and will always be correct. We encourage all who love science to condemn the actions of those who pervert the truth and use the prestige of their positions in urging students to disregard evidence of design in biologic systems, and instead see evolution. Teachers have an obligation to present facts and let intelligent minds decide their significance. To do otherwise is too insult all the science that has gone before and turn science upside down. http://irreduciblecomplexity.org/index.htmlPaleysghost
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
But, there are a few unanswered questions in regard to the main article, Andrew Lowe. Such as "Why do you create so many 1 member groups (like "Test" and "Plenty of Fish") and then promote a single fake account to be admin and then let them linger in hiatus? Is this all part of a facebook marketing scam? The authorities we are contacting will want to know the answers to these questions. https://www.facebook.com/PhysicsPanda/groups?pnref=lhcPaleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Do you understand what the main article above is about, Andrew Lowe (oops), I mean Chartsil? The main article is all about your fraud and kiddie games on facebook, which not only have been proven above, but have your full admittance and even gleeful thumbs up. End thread/Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Account number 10 on it's way, huh? There is no debate here, Chartsil, as you ADMITTED to making fake Michael Behe accounts and then ADMITTED to running fraudulent groups and then your spam comments above have been refuted by just about everyone under the sun. You honestly look like a clown at this point who’s only goal is to get a rise out of someone. Grow up and get a life.Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
­CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
"nobody actually expects you to have a job or life anytime soon. Please, continue with your spam." Again, says the person that is compulsively after the last word. Notice you haven't actually addressed anything I've said?CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
There is no debate here, Chartsil, as you ADMITTED to making fake Michael Behe accounts and then ADMITTED to running fraudulent groups and then your spam comments above have been refuted by just about everyone under the sun. You honestly look like a clown at this point who’s only goal is to get a rise out of someone. Grow up and get a life.Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
I'll see you later when you sign in with your 9th account, as nobody actually expects you to have a job or life anytime soon. Please, continue with your spam. "Lenski is an optimistic man, and always accentuates the positive. In the paper on mutT and mutY, the stress is on how the bacterium has improved with the second mutation. Heavily unemphasized is the ominous fact that one loss of function mutation is "improved" by another loss of function mutation -- by degrading a second gene. Anyone who is interested in long-term evolution should see this as a baleful portent for any theory of evolution that relies exclusively on blind, undirected processes." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.htmlPaleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Are you not aware that getting booted 7 times might be an indication that this blog does not want your troll spam here? "Well, don't forget, he could be making a mistake targeting a private not-for-profit. We pay fees to a provider to provide a free service, supported by donations. If someone comes along and disrupts it, that might not just be Let the Facebook Games begin! If he ends up creating a problem, he might want to get legal advice."Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
"You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh?" Coming from the person compulsively commenting to try to get the last word. http://twitter.com/UncommonDescent http://www.facebook.com/UncommonDescent http://www.facebook.com/groups/UncommonDescentCHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Did you seriously just sign in with your 8th account to make a bigger fool out yourself? You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh? https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
"Heavily unemphasized is the ominous fact that one loss of function mutation is "improved" by another loss of function mutation -- by degrading a second gene." I would expect for you to be this stupid but Behe actually has a degree from, somewhere I guess. The 'degrading' of the second gene was on a duplicate gene. No function was lost.CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Funny how according to you I've been corrected on everything but you can't address a single bit of it here. Your'e finally right about one thing, there's no debate. ID is crap you suffer from Dunning-Kruger. "You honestly look like a clown at this point who’s only goal is to get a rise out of someone." Says the one that broke in on someone else's conversation to repeat the same garbage.CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
There is no debate here, Chartsil, as you ADMITTED to making fake Michael Behe accounts and then ADMITTED to running fraudulent groups and then your spam comments above have been refuted by just about everyone under the sun. You honestly look like a clown at this point who's only goal is to get a rise out of someone. Grow up and get a life.Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
You were also corrected 30 times on your sham group in regard to your complete misunderstanding of Lenski' e.coli, but you just keep on ticking. You are apparently a POE account. ...as nobody legitimate could actually be this stupid. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.htmlPaleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
I made the short list even shorter for your comprehension ability level: Michael Behe, “Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes” (Evolution News and Views, Sept. 14, 2009) Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions” Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics” Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin” (Philosophy of Science, March, 2000) Michael Behe, “A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics” Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays” Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller” Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010) Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller” Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
You missed the point that you’ve been refuted 10 fold and nobody cares about your ridiculous pinned OP on your bogus ID page. Get a life.Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Did you seriously just sign in with your 7th account to make a bigger fool out yourself? You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh? https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
"Do you think archaeology, forensic science and SETI use gap arguments?" No, they're comparing apples to apples, systems and products of known design to systems produced by the exact same process. They're not making inferences from non-living systems to living systems.CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
"the only definitions of IC that matter of those approved by Dr Behe and not one says what you said." That's not the way science works. If the progenitor of a model had final say then we would be stuck solely with descent with modification. Science is not authoritarian. "And Lenski didn’t do what you think he did." His E. coli underwent multiple, complementary mutations which conferred novel function due to the addition of information. To say that it's not an increase in information would be akin to saying "People can breathe, so breathing underwater would not be a new trait" It was just a promoter mutation, it produced a novel regulatory module in the cit* population.CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
The best Lenski et al. have is some of their E. coli can get to the citrate in their environment. They already had that ability in an anaerobic environment. They already had the ability to digest citrate. All that happened was the gene for the citrate transport protein is off in the presence of oxygen and it was duplicated and the duplicate was under the control of a promoter that was on in the presence of oxygen. It doesn't even support unguided evolution.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
CH- the only definitions of IC that matter of those approved by Dr Behe and not one says what you said. And Lenski didn't do what you think he did. Do you think archaeology, forensic science and SETI use gap arguments? You must.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
As far as a testable hypothesis, I'm arguing against IC specifically. We already know that biological systems comprised of interdependent interacting components can evolve. Lenski did it numerous times with his E. coli.CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
I was using the definition used by the admin of the other ID group. Are you saying that IC systems can evolve? "That may be a description of why it is evidence for ID" That's why it's a gap argument.CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
LoL! @ CHartsil- your position doesn't even have a testable hypothesis for IC systems. The definition of IC does not contain the words "a system with no evolutionary pathway". That may be a description of why it is evidence for IDJoe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves. Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component. This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems. Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system. This is in direct contrad­iction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolu­tionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.CHartsil
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
We understand that reading the material is not your strong point, but you can begin here on the short list: Michael Behe, “Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes” (Evolution News and Views, Sept. 14, 2009) Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions” Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics” Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin” (Philosophy of Science, March, 2000) Michael Behe, “A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics” Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays” Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller” Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010) Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller” Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays” Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller” Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010) Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller” Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply