…and this is a 
Uh-oh, we're in trouble now: we're all four-eyed 97 pound weaklings, and ID is pumping up
Category: Creationism • Humor • Weirdness
Posted on: July 19, 2007 9:31 PM, by PZ Myers
OK, this is the final straw. The Intelligent Design creationists send out press releases, they peddle textbooks in our classrooms, they publish dishonest books of pseudoscience, and now … and now, they've come out with a popular magazine.
I'd complain some more but I'm afraid they'd kick sand in my face and beat me up.
(via ERV)
Comments
I can't imagine that's real. Wouldn't these evangelicals think the seductive model on the front is sinning? (Not that they're against hypocrisy or anything.. just seems too fakish.)
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | July 19, 2007 9:35 PM
Hurk! *Freezes up, twitching an eyelid*
The brain you are searching for is busy or experiencing technical difficulties.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 19, 2007 9:37 PM
God will, PUMP YOU UP!
Posted by: rich | July 19, 2007 9:37 PM
God wants you to abuse steroids! Hallelujah...
Posted by: Paul Mannering | July 19, 2007 9:43 PM
Apart from the title of the mag, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with ID. I think the "designers" they are talking about are the individuals who work out until they are so bulked up that their biceps get in the way of trying to drink from their bottles of powerade.
Posted by: Skarn | July 19, 2007 9:45 PM
Thank you for the laugh, it made my day. I've had a really rough couple of weeks and when I read this post I laughed out loud.
Tom, I had the same thoughts about the seductive model on the cover. But the magazine is selling ID and sex sells!
Posted by: Honjii | July 19, 2007 9:47 PM
Look, muscular Christianity.
Posted by: Bob L | July 19, 2007 9:50 PM
ROFL! Now I dont think they have any religious affiliation (bodybuilders are usually rabidly atheistic... or rabidly theistic). I think its just a play on their supplements-- Intelligently designed supplements, intelligently design your body, etc.
Awesome cover, though. Oooh if someone Photoshopped Dembski onto the cover dude... hehehehehe!!
Posted by: ERV | July 19, 2007 9:52 PM
I remember eons ago when I was in college having a conversation with some youngster from Campus Crusades assuring me with a dead-straight face that being over-weight was sinful. I guess this is just the logical progression of that idea.
Posted by: Merle Insinga | July 19, 2007 9:54 PM
A Calorie is a Calorie...OR IS IT?
(I knew some of those Calories were BTUs in disguise!)
The Case for Casein: underrated no more!
(I've always felt that casein was kind of overrated...there are a lot of proteins that are just as good, just as complete, and yet they are constantly overshadowed by the big media hype over casein.)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 19, 2007 9:55 PM
It must really suck having a target audience that can't read...
Posted by: DaveX | July 19, 2007 10:01 PM
I'd believe the "sex sells" thing if I thought for even a second that the cover model here was sexy. But...ugh. The lumpiness, the leathery skin, the ridiculous hair, ugh. I've always wondered if any women really go for the over-developed veins-sticking-out-all-over look.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 19, 2007 10:04 PM
I just got done skimming through the 131 page second issue of the magazine posted. Though humorous, the magazine is from a "fitness pill" company by the name of Designer Supplements (their site). So don't worry; IDiots won't resort to unnecessary violence yet.
It's tempting to put Dembski's face on the muscle man, though
(in muscle-head voice): "Look like this after 10 years of digesting this sh-err...good stuff".
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 19, 2007 10:04 PM
Seriously, wouldn't it be like humping a pile of medicine balls?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 19, 2007 10:12 PM
Well,I don't know about the whole sand business but, if somebody would hand Jamie Eason some fur-lined handcuffs, the beating can begin!
Posted by: John Pieret | July 19, 2007 10:19 PM
Weight gain 4000
Beefcake! BEEFCAKE!!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 19, 2007 10:20 PM
Lee Priest (the model) is an intimidating 5'3"
Posted by: Chris | July 19, 2007 10:31 PM
Did you notice the text across the top of the magazine:
Synergy - Performance - Adaptation - Progression - Evolution
Maybe they are trying to the the DI all worked up...
Posted by: Brett McCoy | July 19, 2007 10:31 PM
This isn't all that surprising. They've been pretending to be science nerds for so long, trying to beat back real science. Now they're pretending to be beefy schoolyard bullies, trying to beat up real science. And yet, this Cargo Cult coolness will be just as effective as their Cargo Cult science.
Honestly, I really just feel sorry for them. I mean, it's as if someone polled the DI and put all their insecurities onto one page. Yes, Bill Dembski, tell me about your workout regime.
Posted by: Tom Foss | July 19, 2007 10:46 PM
What this shows is that after all the millions the DI has spent, the only thing they've managed to achieve is to get the phrase "intelligent design" into the popular lexicon--unfortunately wholly detached from the meaning they intended it to have.
Posted by: H. Humbert | July 19, 2007 10:50 PM
Humbert: I think it's more than that. If you type "intelligent design" or "evolution" into a search engine, you get a zeitgeist of what PZ and the rest of us are all talking about every day. This magazine (if it's real) is trying to get to the top of the search engine pile by piggybacking on very popular terminology. It the SEO equivalent of plastering the neighborhood around a popular bar with your posters.
Besides, did you notice the advertisement for the magazine on the supplement site? "Intelligent Design is a evolution of Internet reading!" [sic]
Yeah, that's literacy at its finest.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | July 19, 2007 10:54 PM
I like the design of that Jamie Eason! I think I could talk to her about design all night long.
Posted by: J-Dog | July 19, 2007 10:57 PM
And I'm sure that people get magazines like this to read the articles and check out the advertisements for nutritional supplements, not to look at the pictures of the body builders.
Posted by: Zeno | July 19, 2007 10:57 PM
Posted by: Stanton | July 19, 2007 11:20 PM
Proven - every theory known to any species! SEX SELLS! So we see just how "fundamental" IDists really are - procreation (in a very sexy format) to sell ID. No way can I keep a straight face. Is this for real? The Playboy/Playgirl of IDists. LMAO!
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | July 19, 2007 11:21 PM
Posted by: Stanton | July 19, 2007 11:33 PM
He must be compensating for his tiny cross.
Posted by: soteos | July 19, 2007 11:37 PM
Actually, soteos, it was a lot bigger before he started using the steroids...
Posted by: RavenT, Adjutant Minion | July 19, 2007 11:48 PM
Surely this is an Onion-esque joke, right? RIGHT?
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | July 19, 2007 11:59 PM
Stanton #26
Honestly, did not think about the "absolute" I used, i.e., any species.
Any species which reproduce asexually may really have the right idea!
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | July 19, 2007 11:59 PM
I saw this magazine at the bookstore the other day, and had to do a double-take:
https://secure.palmcoastd.com/pcd/document?ikey=0768VIN17
Isn't it weird that an I.D. magazine would have a pirate on the cover?
Posted by: tinyfrog | July 20, 2007 12:20 AM
The bodybuilded guy on the front cover obviously suffered some irreducible complex early in his ontogeny.
Posted by: Quentin S. | July 20, 2007 12:21 AM
Future articles:
Locusts and Honey, Bulk Up Now!
Catholic Mass- Kneel, Sit, Stand. Kneel, Sit, Stand. 23 Psalms to Stunning Legs!
Vinegar- Is a Rag The Best Way?
Confidential: God Says- "Yes, I can lift that rock that I made that is so big that I can't lift it. But I couldn't always do it." Do It Yourself! In Six Days!
Posted by: Rich | July 20, 2007 12:25 AM
Haw haw.
Thats pretty much all I can think of.
I'm sure it'll sell very well.
phat
Posted by: phat | July 20, 2007 12:36 AM
Depends on what they say, if the say God created the world in 6 days instead of six epochs then they are full of BS otherwise ok.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 12:45 AM
I gave the omnonivore 2 extra days for his rebuttal, if he don't answer it why don't you give it a shot PZ, you know everything. Friday is zero hour. http://topicaloctagon.blogspot.com/
You couldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole either, I don't expect much out of 22 year old, but 50 year old biologidt couldn't rebut it either. You said Physics is a subset of biology, now your learning that is BS. Each specialty has its own place.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 12:51 AM
You Lose!
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 12:53 AM
This kind of supidity makes my day.
Catholic Mass- Kneel, Sit, Stand. Kneel, Sit, Stand. 23 Psalms to Stunning Legs!
The Catholic Mass isn't about sitting and standing it is the book of Revelation.
Confidential: God Says- "Yes, I can lift that rock that I made that is so big that I can't lift it. But I couldn't always do it." Do It Yourself! In Six Days!
First a day means an epoch ask any Jewish scholar. And as far as rock lifting goes, God can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible. He could make it where none us would die, but he decreed we would all die therefore God cannot make man immortal. You people have a third grade philosophical education. "Can I have some more sir"
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 1:04 AM
Hey, it's "The Physicist." Hi, Gregg!
"a day means an epoch...God can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible. " Ah, now I see! I guess that's Teh Physics.
"He could make it where none us would die, but he decreed we would all die therefore God cannot make man immortal." Man,you're right, that makes no sense to me at all...sure wish I had moved on to 4th grade philosophy.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 20, 2007 1:34 AM
.sure wish I had moved on to 4th grade philosophy.
Yeah you must, because Hod made man immortal until the fall, and unlike you he isn't a liar, God cannot sin. therefore you will die. Goodnight.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 1:57 AM
But since you are your own God, save yourself. Just a little addition there.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 1:59 AM
Who's Hod?
Man, I miss that "they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love" stuff they *used* to do...
Posted by: RavenT, Adjutant Minion | July 20, 2007 2:02 AM
"God cannot sin. therefore you will die.
uh...what? Is that kind of logic covered in 5th grade philosophy?
and...what was I lying about, again?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 20, 2007 2:04 AM
Pseudorandom comments:
Hod is the god of bricklayers.
LOL@ Bronze Dog! (#2)
Rich (#33): I thought it was "Lean to the left, lean to the right, stand up sit down FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!"
Any creature that can reproduce asexually must be a budding genius!
Hello, Tom Foss! Long time no see?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 20, 2007 2:13 AM
Don't you people understand that it wasn't for the fall there would be no free will, no freedom of choice, just robots. I'm s poor Catholic,but I try. and this obsessive thinking of Hell (which there is) is way over used. Jesus came to save the non believers, not the faithful. This isn't rocket science, its so easy a fool could find his way.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 2:15 AM
what was I lying about, again?
You misunderstood, we are all liars including you, and you know you have lied at one time or another.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 2:18 AM
ThePhysicist wrote:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you really need to go, learn archaic Hebrew, and read the damned book before commenting on it. "Hayah erev vehaya boker yom echad" is pretty unambiguous in meaning.
It's also what we call literary device. It's not clear how much the Genesis author actually believed the cosmology put forth in the introduction to the Moses epic. In fact, there is some scriptural evidence to suggest that the Genesis author was at least skeptical about the existence of God.
I'm not sure which is more deplorable; the fact that IDists aren't familiar with science, or the fact that IDists aren't even familiar with the book they worship.
Posted by: JDP | July 20, 2007 2:23 AM
The Physicist wrote:
Interesting trivia: Original sin wasn't introduced into Catholic doctrine until Augustine of Hippo wrote On the City of God Against the Pagans subsequent to the sack of Rome in 410 by Alaric I. Prior to Augustine's influence, Christians did not consider humans doomed to commit evil acts.
Posted by: JDP | July 20, 2007 2:29 AM
its so easy a fool could find his way.
you're living proof.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 20, 2007 2:30 AM
The Physicist wrote:
Really? The Christian gnostic movement of the 1st through 4th century CE would strongly disagree with you.
Posted by: JDP | July 20, 2007 2:32 AM
Er...didn't the Fall happen after Adam & Eve's exercise of free will? How would it have turned them into robots if God had simply given them a spanking instead?
For that matter, are the unfallen angels robots? Is Jesus? Is God? If not, why is a fall necessary for free will?
For that matter, what's your definition of free will? We could build a robot which took data from a geiger counter as an input; its behavior would then be unpredictable. Is it free?
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 20, 2007 2:44 AM
Please don't take this the wrong way,
Oh. I don't take it personally until I am hacked, and everyone takes that personally, say say ever you eant, just leave my machine alone.
I'm not depending on my knowlege of Hebrew, but I can do Latin. I am depending on Jewish scholars for my answers. Like Jacob Nuesner A Rabbi Talks with Jesus Instead of fools on the Internet like yourself. Get the friking book and read it and come back and tell me how much smarter you are than him on the Torah.
Geeze you people. don't you know what you are looking for is right in front of your face. But instead we get people who make fun of misspelled words and claim to be Hebrew scholars that know more about Genesis than anyone else.
You people are ignorant, because you won't get out of your rut.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 2:52 AM
Really? The Christian gnostic movement of the 1st through 4th century CE would strongly disagree with you.
Gnosticism was a heresy,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
Posted by: the physicisr | July 20, 2007 2:59 AM
And that's AD and BC, Common era has no meaning. Don't you know how colanders were constructed. Did Jesus death on the cross become CE, well if so you acknowledge it any way.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 20, 2007 3:04 AM
Mine's made out of aluminum, but I'm going to buy a ceramic one one of these days.
Posted by: RavenT, Adjutant Minion | July 20, 2007 3:07 AM
LOL!
(Stainless steel, here!)
Posted by: Kseniya | July 20, 2007 3:12 AM
Suggested caption: "We are absolutely not gay!"
Posted by: anon | July 20, 2007 3:40 AM
Second, a calendar is only constructed from a reference point. It is easier to adopt a single calendar for academic purposes in order to ease communication. Other calendars do exist in different regions which have their own origins set around a specific event in history. Like in mechanics, the origin is arbitrary and only affects the time passed since the event. America could be egotistical and say year 231 of independence.
The "calendar argument" is detrimental to the apologist. if we take it for granted that the origin is used because the event actually occurred, does this also mean that the days and month names truly give honor and appease the various deities they are named after?
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 20, 2007 3:59 AM
wow, Gregg, you're a lot lairier over here than you are at my place. am i some sort of favoured heathen? =]
Lepht
Posted by: Lepht | July 20, 2007 4:03 AM
Rey Fox @ 12 and 14:
Agreed, the veins in particular are ewwwww.
But I'm amused at your taking eight minutes to think about it after the first question, only to be so puzzled that you had to ask it again.
Posted by: Jennie | July 20, 2007 4:58 AM
I don't know about you lot, but I'm living in 2760 AUC (ab urbe condita, after the founding of the city of Rome) so I take that as clear, unambiguous proof that Romulus and Remus existed, and were begot of Mars with the whole existence of the Roman pantheon that that implies.
I made the mistake of clicking through to the debate, and the first sentence of the Einstein section had me shouting "This is so f-ing stupid!" It tells me that the person who wrote it, by thinking that the observer is a 'constant' cannot think outside the basic textbook problems they were given. At the universities I've attended, that sort of basic conceptual problem would be fatal (unless amended) to progressing in the class, let alone getting a degree.
Posted by: Nullifidian | July 20, 2007 6:01 AM
Physicist, I distinctly remember reading yesterday in one of your weirder post (if such a distinction can be made) that you would leave this blog and not post again. Please tell me why you've changed your mind.
It's obviously not to give any new insights into theology, that's for sure. Or maybe you're not doing it out of free will, and god is guiding you to enlighthen us. In that case, ask him to give you new material because the stuff you're using now is decidedly unimpressive.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | July 20, 2007 6:04 AM
"a kilocalorie is a kilocalorie" will be about the endless feud on how to define one calorie. I bet.
Posted by: xenowolp | July 20, 2007 6:05 AM
And that's AD and BC, Common era has no meaning. Don't you know how colanders were constructed.
Personally I still use the Christian colander. It's not very good, though. It's only got five holes in it, but they're pretty big. It's like someone pounded nails into it or something, I dunno.
Posted by: ajay | July 20, 2007 6:31 AM
Likewise. Mr Physicist, please stop using that handle. You don't deserve it. I strongly advise you to pick up introductory texts on GR and cosmology before you pontificate further on subjects you know absolutely nothing about.
Posted by: MartinM | July 20, 2007 6:38 AM
The muscles are all in their head....
Posted by: Ian | July 20, 2007 7:00 AM
Some of us are humor impaired. Could someone tell me if this is real or a satire?
Posted by: Dianne | July 20, 2007 7:56 AM
Dianne; as far as I can tell, the magazine is real, but it's not actually related to Intelligent Design creationism.
Posted by: MartinM | July 20, 2007 8:04 AM
Whew.
Posted by: Dianne | July 20, 2007 8:12 AM
Question: doesn't it cramp up your fingers to constantly type out the silly phrase "intelligent design creationism?" (Ow ow ow!)
Posted by: DSM | July 20, 2007 8:16 AM
What's silly about it? Concept, yes. Phrase, no.
Posted by: MartinM | July 20, 2007 8:18 AM
What's silly about it?
1. According to most Creationists, they aren't IDers.
2. According to most IDers, they aren't Creationists.
3. According to you, "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" mean the same thing anyway, so you're just being redundant.
That's what's silly about it.
Posted by: DSM | July 20, 2007 8:37 AM
Physicist:
"didn't" does not equal "couldn't"
unless you just forgot to include "waste the time to" between "couldn't" and "rebut".
Posted by: John Marley | July 20, 2007 8:44 AM
DSM, your three reasons cancel out quite nicely. Were it generally accepted that ID is a form of creationism, the term IDC would indeed be unnecessarily redundant.
Posted by: MartinM | July 20, 2007 8:48 AM
"your three reasons cancel out quite nicely."
By what leap of [il]logic did you come to that conclusion?
Posted by: DSM | July 20, 2007 8:51 AM
That would be what the second sentence of my post explains. Try reading it.
Posted by: MartinM | July 20, 2007 8:54 AM
Funny, any time you form complete sentences it's most likely a copy and paste.
Posted by: Steel Rat | July 20, 2007 8:58 AM
FREE! WWJB (what would Jesus bench?) bracelet inside this month's issue!
Posted by: mojojojo | July 20, 2007 10:25 AM
What are people so upset about? That's certainly not Behe or Dembski on the cover. Hell, I think we should come out with dueling cheesey-beef calendars! We'd win, especially if GilDodgen balks. I'd like to get a gander at some of these ID folks (not the ones who've splashed their photos all over, thanks, enough, and Denyse, the new look is better, but please). Then, put them on a dance floor and make them shake it. Yeah, that would rawk. We have nothing to worry about. ;-)
On a serious note, I find it amusing that "intelligent design" is invading the larger culture to signify anything but science.
Posted by: Kristine | July 20, 2007 10:29 AM
#60:
Actually, I was waiting out the buffer period during which you cannot post a second time, and I got distracted with something else. :P
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 20, 2007 10:42 AM
Rey, as if we needed more proof of your quick wit? It would have taken me at least eight minutes to come up with a "medicine balls" quip. ;-)
Posted by: Kseniya | July 20, 2007 10:46 AM
#38 - The Physicist scribbled..."And as far as rock lifting goes, God can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible."
I suppose repelling iron chariots is intrinsically impossible.
"Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
It appears your god isn't as powerful as the Greek phalanx. That must suck.
Posted by: paleotn | July 20, 2007 10:49 AM
The Phys posted between 12:45 am and 3:04 am. I'm guessing he sneaked out of his room and had free run of the office before the attendants tranqed him.
Make sure he actually swallows the pill next time. Or give his meds intravenously.
-- CV
Posted by: CortxVortx | July 20, 2007 10:59 AM
Wow. God is on anabloic steroids?!
Roid rage might explain some of his biblical behaviour.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 20, 2007 11:11 AM
Is it me, or does that look like a freakishly pumped up William H Macy?
Posted by: Evan | July 20, 2007 11:13 AM
Homo erectus + HGH = Homo sapiens?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 20, 2007 11:27 AM
Not knowing what you look like, Evan, I'm going to have to go with the freakishly pumped-up Macy.
Posted by: RavenT, Adjutant Minion | July 20, 2007 11:28 AM
LOL
Posted by: Kseniya | July 20, 2007 11:30 AM
Don't you people understand that it wasn't for the fall there would be no free will, no freedom of choice, just robots.
You gotta problem with that, Phyzzie?
Posted by: Kristine | July 20, 2007 11:34 AM
Hehe. The free will concept is hysterical.
"God created us to be fallible, so he could demand us to bend to his will or otherwise perish in hell."
God is a sick fuck then.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 20, 2007 11:41 AM
"Obey or Die" gives the tyrant an out: "The poor things chose their doom. I tried to save them from an eternal agony, but they wouldn't let me."
Posted by: Kseniya | July 20, 2007 11:46 AM
The Physicist wrote:
Only in retrospect, after Constantine redefined Christianity in a manner which would support his reign subsequent to the Nicean Council.
Posted by: JDP | July 20, 2007 12:13 PM
The Physicist wrote:
I'm not depending on my knowlege of Hebrew, but I can do Latin. I am depending on Jewish scholars for my answers. Like Jacob Nuesner A Rabbi Talks with Jesus Instead of fools on the Internet like yourself. Get the friking book and read it and come back and tell me how much smarter you are than him on the Torah.
Geeze you people. don't you know what you are looking for is right in front of your face. But instead we get people who make fun of misspelled words and claim to be Hebrew scholars that know more about Genesis than anyone else.
You people are ignorant, because you won't get out of your rut.
I don't claim to be a Hebrew scholar. I claim to be a phylogeneticist studying paleontological taxa. However, I do have some knowledge of archaic Hebrew and some knowledge of a few other early semitic languages. I also have a great interest in the function and evolution of the epic literary form, and thus, I've read quite a few epics from various nations. This includes biblical precursors, such as the Akkadian epic poems Enuma Elish and Gil-Gamesh. And while you may think that an opinion (other than your own) posted on the internet is inherently worthless, I can assure you that there are many people on the internet who actually do know what they're talking about.
As for Jewish theology, I will point out that not only do most Jewish theologians consider B'reishit highly metaphorical and not in fact a chronicle of actual events, but that the theologians who do consider it accurate, even metaphorically accurate, are highly biased in the reading of the book. One must read the Torah as an Ancient Hebrew would have, not as a modern scholar 3500 years later would have.
Posted by: JDP | July 20, 2007 12:23 PM
Dont youo understnad JDP the resto f you that you're detaisl an fact don';t mean aanything with your science beecause only the tRuth matters that is God so if you deny that God is good and Jesus Died for us because we have all sined then it is hersey,
Its so simple that's why you wont tryu to understand it because you dont want to see the truth if randmo considnece is real then how can we see teh evidence in ffront of your faces.
Your to close-minded to try you wont try to understand so this is my last post since your to dumb to realise its not your faulte its the schools which ahve Aids and Rape drugs and the rest sicne we'er NOT ASLOWED to pary in school and this is the world you wanted now you got it.
I wont say more becayuse your not interensted in debate just insulfts sicne thats all your feeble minds can do but God is lvoe so love ya all....
Posted by: Brownian | July 20, 2007 12:25 PM
The Physicist wrote:
First, BC and AD stand for Before Christ and Anno Domini, and set the zero at the Birth of Christ, not the death. Additionally, this date was adopted as the "birth date of Christ" for unrelated reasons, and the actual date of Christ's birth was several years prior. So, all we have is an arbitrary date (January 1, 0000) and an increment (365.25 solar cycles = 1 anno) and then an indication of whether or not we're before or after the zero-date. We could name it "Era of the Slug" or "Post-Classical" and it wouldn't matter. All we need to know is the zero-date, the increment, and the direction from the zero-date.
Posted by: JDP | July 20, 2007 12:32 PM
Sorry about that folks.
I seemed to have been afflicted with religious ferver for a moment. Mine eyes were opened, and the truth was revealed via the Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, the Holy Spirit's grammar and spelling are so poor I am at a loss to be able to read just what the hell the truth was.
Great. I guess that's just more divine wisdom lost to the ages.
Posted by: Brownian | July 20, 2007 12:32 PM
JDP, I may be mistaken, but I have always thought that there is no year zero: December 31, 1 BC is followed by January 1, 1 AD.
Posted by: Brownian | July 20, 2007 12:34 PM
Steel Rat wrote:
Funny, every time I bring up a well-documented objection to the validity of Catholic doctrine, you completely ignore it.
That was, by the way, not copied and pasted, but even if it were, it's still a serious objection to The Physicist's blathering.
Posted by: JDP | July 20, 2007 12:35 PM
You might be right about that one, actually. My mistake.