…and this is a 
Standard creationist tactics, as expected
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 31, 2008 2:36 PM, by PZ Myers
Two days ago I was asked to participate in a radio debate with a Discovery Institute fellow. I asked about the topic and the format, and they said, "the evidence of Evolution vs. evidence of Intelligent Design" and "each would get a 5 minute opening statement and then we would debate the issues brought out in the opening statements." OK, sure, I said, while rolling my eyes at the ridiculous expectations.
I'm supposed to call in in an hour and a half. I just got this email.
I just received an e-mail from Dr. Simmons requesting the title of the debate to change to "Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?" When you agreed to the debate I proposed the title and format to you but did not consult with Dr. Simmons. I was corresponding with you while I was in the middle of a show that day and didn't think to pass that specific information to Dr. Simmons. When he learned of the original title he requested this change but sent it to our Producer last night and I just learned of it now.
Well, isn't this just so incredibly typical of frauds? Bait and switch, juggle the terms, move the goalposts, play games.
The show will go on. I had absolutely no respect for my opponent's intellectual honesty in the first place, so I can't argue that this has diminished it.
Comments
Go on yersel', P-Zed. Rip that Cdesign proponentist a new one!
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | January 31, 2008 2:41 PM
Indeed I think the first thing you should say when you get on the air is to ream them over this typically dishonest bullshit.
Posted by: Martin | January 31, 2008 2:47 PM
Will the switch in topics be mentioned in the debate section? I'm wondering if this happened at this late time because they thought that it would throw you off your script, that's what would happen to one of them after all. Evolution isn't sound bites and memorization/recitation of debunked arguments but unfortunately that's all the US public responds to nowadays.
Posted by: Mena | January 31, 2008 2:47 PM
You should just insist that he stick with the original topic. The host didn't get his request in time. That is either the fault of the host or his own. Don't let him squirm out of the corner he's put himself in.
Besides, my mouth is watering thinking of hearing someone try to provide the evidence in support of ID in the presence of a professor of biology. >:)
Posted by: schmeer | January 31, 2008 2:48 PM
Good luck on the radio "debate." All that reasoning and those mountains of evidence won't do you a bit of good, you know.
Posted by: Doug | January 31, 2008 2:48 PM
Pffft. Same sheisse, different title. You've heard the "arguments" before. Do they think we're going to pray to Charles Darwin on your behalf? *sigh* Go get 'em, PZ!
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 2:49 PM
Not surprising at all.
I do hope you use the first few seconds of your time to expose the bait-and-switch, though.
You'd even be within your rights to just tell them off and leave, but then they'd declare victory.
So at least make it be known that the discussion going on is not the one you agreed to. Then clean his clock.
Posted by: John Marley | January 31, 2008 2:51 PM
I think you should refuse. Tell them you'd be happy to take part in a fair debate where both sides have to present evidence, but freeing up one side of the debate from any burden of proof is not acceptable.
Posted by: Sebastian | January 31, 2008 2:53 PM
Best wishes to PZ from Finland. I forfeited my bedtime to listen to this one live.
As we finns say: "show them the jay's balls".
Oddly, that's roughly the equivalent of "break a leg".
Whichever suits you better.
- Henri
Posted by: Henwli | January 31, 2008 2:53 PM
I just looked for a streaming audio option on the website for that radio show and found something interesting. They have put up the title for the debate and it looks like the request by "Dr." Simmons has been honored. Goalposts moved.
It's also interesting to note that they provide a warning that listeners may be offended by the profanity on this dangerous site.
Fuck.
Posted by: schmeer | January 31, 2008 2:56 PM
PS: Please try to get a recording or transcript for those of us who cannot listen to it live.
Posted by: John Marley | January 31, 2008 2:57 PM
Well, I think this actually works in your favour. Now you can make your first point the fact that your opponent has so little confidence in his own side's 'theory' he isn't willing to discuss it.
Posted by: MartinM | January 31, 2008 3:00 PM
Yeah, I giggled to myself when I saw the warning about this site...
Oh noes! Not profanity! Protect yourselves, protect yourselves!Also, is it standard to list someone as "M.D." if they are one? Maybe it's not, it just seems like they're trying to conceal the fact that the "Dr." in front of his name has almost nothing to do with the topic he's supposed to be debating.
Posted by: Eric | January 31, 2008 3:05 PM
If you're calling in, don't fail to mention the change of topic, no matter how many times it's been mentioned before you're on the air.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | January 31, 2008 3:07 PM
While you are at their site, everyone should sign up for the "Win Lunch with Dr. James Dobson" contest.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 31, 2008 3:07 PM
I LURVE how they had a warning after the link to Pharyngula saying that the site "contains profanity and may be offensive to some listeners." By "profanity" they must mean the blasphemy definition instead of the naughty language definition.
Posted by: dannyness | January 31, 2008 3:07 PM
OK, I'm turned into 980 KKMS and it's Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort discussing A Few Good Men. Wha....? Is it not on for another hour of something?
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 3:09 PM
Just a little title change- what's the problem? It's not as if there will be a format change or they would have told you about it.
;-)
Posted by: dNorrisM | January 31, 2008 3:19 PM
Ask for a clarification statement from Geoffrey Simmons as to why he wants to switch topics from biology to --- ? philosophy ? Isn't Simmons supposed to be a "trained biologist (from the DI site - Geoffrey Simmons (BS in biology, coursework completed for MS in microbiology, University of Illinois; M.D., University of Illinois Medical School; Internship and Residency in Internal Medicine, LAC-USC Medical Center; Boarded in Internal Medicine since 1974)). We'd all like to hear is reasoning for sliming out of the real issue.
Posted by: David Denning | January 31, 2008 3:21 PM
And if one of the guests, say the creationist, disreguards the topic or the format, then what happen ? The talk show host will let it slide.
Posted by: _Arthur | January 31, 2008 3:24 PM
James,
I'm guessing its 3:00 Central. As I type, it's 2:26 PM.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 31, 2008 3:26 PM
Any chance of getting Simmons to explain Darwin's theories first? That might get some laughs.
Posted by: flynn | January 31, 2008 3:28 PM
I am assuming it's central time also. I am listening now, and it's both hilarious and sad.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | January 31, 2008 3:28 PM
Hmm...PZ or "All Things Considered"...PZ or "All Things Considered"...
What's an America-hating godless liberal to do?
Posted by: Frank Anderson | January 31, 2008 3:32 PM
Careful there, PZ.
He's going to try the old "if I cain't see it happen, then I must have faith that it done happen." argument.
He'll take a selective definition of faith ("something that is believed especially with strong conviction" or "complete trust") at which point you can roundhouse kick him by discussing either:
1) the justifications (subjective vs. objective)
2) that 'trust' doesn't factor in so much as the evidence does (religious vs. scientific thinking)
...But look at me. Lecturing you of all people. You'll do fine.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 31, 2008 3:34 PM
Typical shyster tactics. Tell 'em to shove it PZ. If they want to mark the deck so far in this assholes favour (by not having to offer any evidence in favour of ID) then refuse to debate; it's either as level a playing-field as possible or no debate.
Remember, this will look good on his c.v. not so much on yours.
Posted by: AllanW | January 31, 2008 3:35 PM
Thanks, Ryan - I misread PZ's post and thought it began in half an hour.
Frank, that's what podcasts are for!
"I don't hate America first...I have a cup of coffee, I burn a flag, perform a few abortions...then I hate America." - Bill Maher
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 3:36 PM
Good fucking God, you're supposed to "debate" whether or not evolution is a religion, in essence? What assholes, what lying stupid manipulative fuckers!
As if a biologist is supposed to be discussing faith in the first place. OK, I'm sure PZ can give them enough trouble over "faith," but they know damn well it's not his area of expertise, whereas the evidence for evolution is (no one's an expert on evidence for the Crass Imitator).
Well, I wouldn't do it, though I don't think I'd do it anyway, unless there were strict safeguards against manipulations that they usually effect. They like debates because it circumvents the care and attention to detail that occurs in the literature.
Assuming you're going on with it, if the bastards complain about science being limited to "naturalism," just ask the idiots what "non-natural evidence" they want to present in favor of ID.
Ask them, too, where they think that evolutionary theory could come from except for fact. How the hell would anyone even suppose that one could come up with criteria for checking whether or not a gene has been under selective pressure using faith?
Anyway, it's a stupid question whether or not evolution is a matter of faith, which is why they want to switch to that question. It's barely even worth "asking" if ID is a matter of faith, since it so obviously is, but at least there you could provide mountains of evidence and argumentation to demonstrate that it is religious in nature.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 31, 2008 3:38 PM
No prob James.
BTW: Is anybody planning on recording this?
It could be fun to pick apart later.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 31, 2008 3:41 PM
I have to ask, why did you not simply turn them down flat after this so obvious dishonesty. This skews the whole debate from something fair and honest (not balanced, of course, since if that were the case the IDiot would get no time at all...) to a skewed one that puts you on the defensive from the get go. You agreed to the original title and have no obligation to continue after a fundamental change like your opponent made. Oh, it doesn't matter, I guess. You'll clobber him anyway.
Posted by: Randy | January 31, 2008 3:46 PM
Quite appropriate, really, since apparently neither one of them can handle the truth.
Posted by: thalarctos | January 31, 2008 3:48 PM
Not that I'm any sort of expert, but I did try to "answer" this "question" for Jeff (of "Jeff and Lee") during a private email exchange recently:
Jeff: Doesn't it require a certain element of faith to believe in Evolution? It hasn't been proven scientifically has it?
Me: [The] answer to both of these questions is "yes and no." ALL KNOWLEDGE requires a "certain element of faith," if by that we mean we must make assumptions. We have to assume that our senses don't constantly fool us and that logic can basically work, for example. The trick is to make as few assumptions as possible, and then add to those assumptions only on the basis of merit. If basic initial assumptions lead to additional logical assumptions on the strength of solid evidence, then we consider those additional assumptions justified.
This is different from starting with a great many initial assumptions which can not then be challenged on the basis of evidence, which is what Creationism must do. Starting only with the assumption that our senses work pretty well and logic is essentially sound, evolution is a justified further assumption, and creationism is not.
Nothing in science is ever "proven." It is only demonstrated. The fact that every time I drop a ball it falls does not "prove" gravity, it only provides evidence for it. The evidence for some things is so strong that it attains the high status of "theory" (which in science is much more exalted than a mere "fact"--I know we use "theory" on the street to mean something like "hunch," but when scientists use it, they mean that every time they've dropped the ball, it falls--thus the "theory of gravity"). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and comes from a variety of disciplines--paleontology, genetics, developmental biology, and so forth--and so it is as established as any other theory in science.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | January 31, 2008 3:49 PM
Look at their description for pharyngula:
Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?" > Dr. John MacArthur > "The Minnesota Caucus"
3:00 Hour - "Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?"
Dr. Geoffrey Simmons, Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute and Dr. PZ Myers, Biologist and Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris will debate Darwin's theory of evolution.
www.discovery.org
www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula ***Warning: This website contains profanity and may be offensive to some listeners.
Posted by: Alric | January 31, 2008 3:50 PM
Alric,
you fucking forgot to fucking say fuck. We don't want to let them down when they come here to see what kind of profanity godless heathens use. fuck.
Posted by: schmeer | January 31, 2008 3:57 PM
Next "debate"?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 31, 2008 3:57 PM
Oh dear, I was just listening to this because I couldn't get it to work with Opera or Seamonkey and finally broke down and used IE. They just convinced some idiot named Trey that he is a worthless human being because he didn't follow the Ten Commandments and that he was going to go to hell. Way of the Mental Masturbation!
Posted by: Mena | January 31, 2008 3:59 PM
Well, isn't this just so incredibly typical of frauds? Bait and switch, juggle the terms, move the goalposts, play games.
Note that down in your copybook.
Posted by: amph | January 31, 2008 4:00 PM
Doesn't it seem funny that they would ask an atheist to defend the "faith" of Darwinism?
Posted by: David vun Kannon | January 31, 2008 4:00 PM
The first thing you say is that they've changed the title, and therefore the terms, of the debate at the last minute to deliberately put you on the defensive. This is a standard creationist tactic (hey, that would make a good title for this blog post). This forms the basis of your argument.
Creationists have no evidence to present. Science doesn't recognize their "anti-evidence" arguments (i.e. arguments about gaps in the fossil record and Bible quotes) for all the usual reasons. Therefore, they resort to trickery and deception in order to attempt to discredit their opponents. Expelled is a good example of this.
Or, simply refuse to go on the air. The debate they're going to air is not the debate you agreed to do. And you will not be baited into defending the whole of biology against a credulous nitwit. You won't get invited back, but something tells me you wouldn't lose any sleep over that. Actually, that's exactly what I'd do.
But if you do go on, give 'em hell, PZ, because that's certainly where they think you're going, you cunning evilutionist, you.
Posted by: Scooty Puff, Jr. | January 31, 2008 4:01 PM
Regarding "profanity" — they are, I think actually technically correct on that account:
I mean, PZ has often cheerfully profaned the name of the Lord. Heck, he does so just a few posts earlier in quoting Dawkins. Let's just paste that in here:
The God of the bible is "a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully," as Dawkins says.
There we go. Profanity.
Posted by: Owlmirror | January 31, 2008 4:01 PM
PZ, you shouldn't be giving the time of the day with this.
Posted by: Evolved | January 31, 2008 4:02 PM
It is pretty clear that Evolution has no issues with any facts. Actually all facts are welcome. In fact, that is all that Evolution is based on, facts.
Do faiths have issues with Darwin's theory? That is not a question that it is appropriate for PZ to answer, not being a person of faith.
Posted by: daedalus2u | January 31, 2008 4:02 PM
Did anyone else just hear the nut-job Australian bloke who accosted the poor redneck sucker, and made him admit that he's destined for an eternity roasting in hell? It was utterly hysterical, and I think I might listen to this radio station more often for sheer comedy value. We don't get this sruff here in Britain. Unbelievable.
Posted by: John Yates | January 31, 2008 4:04 PM
"Audio will be posted on the web site" - Sweet.
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 4:04 PM
PZ Meyers.....Dr. Simmons
I think this says a lot about how this is going to go.
Posted by: BMatthews | January 31, 2008 4:06 PM
Hey PZ, I have full *faith* in you being able to turn "Dr." Simmons into a crying, gibbering, baby by the time you're done! ;-)
Posted by: Lledowyn | January 31, 2008 4:09 PM
GO PZ!
Keep them bent over the barrel!
Posted by: jeb, FCD | January 31, 2008 4:09 PM
I can't listen live...it seems corrupted.
I hope someone is recording or has figured out how to listen to live.
Posted by: healthphysicist | January 31, 2008 4:10 PM
I'm really really pissed I have to leave work (not really its only 4 and I GET to leave). I'll have to wait till tomorrow.
"Biology is."
enjoyable quote
Posted by: BMatthews | January 31, 2008 4:11 PM
Starting off strong!
Posted by: Traffic Demon | January 31, 2008 4:11 PM
Agree with AllanW et al.
He gets to claim he debated with PZ and will then go on to interminably claim all kinds of vacuous points scored.
You, well ...
The Dawkins/Gould concensus comes to mind.
Posted by: Don | January 31, 2008 4:12 PM
"Faith-based reasoning"
PWNED.
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 4:12 PM
PZ just owned them all.
Posted by: zer0 | January 31, 2008 4:13 PM
PZ,
That was beautiful!
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | January 31, 2008 4:13 PM
Of course you're not here to defend ID. You can't.
Posted by: zer0 | January 31, 2008 4:14 PM
Listening to the program now. BRAVO TO P.Z. calling them on the carpet for the last minute changing the topic.
Posted by: Ray | January 31, 2008 4:15 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA he just said scientific theories are "just a theory".
Posted by: zer0 | January 31, 2008 4:15 PM
Evolution is not a fact? Who didn't see that coming?
Posted by: Traffic Demon | January 31, 2008 4:15 PM
haha.
The 'general population' considers evolution to be Darwinism. And fact vs. theory. More problems of education vs. actualities.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 31, 2008 4:15 PM
Descended from Monkeys...
Theory / Fact.
My creobot bingo sheet is filling up.
Posted by: Rich | January 31, 2008 4:15 PM
Simmons does have a hate-on hard-on for Darwin.
And, he's a moron.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | January 31, 2008 4:15 PM
Keep the updates coming!
Posted by: healthphysicist | January 31, 2008 4:16 PM
Oh, oh! MORE gaps in the fossil record over the past 200 years.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | January 31, 2008 4:16 PM
This is already a beautiful example of the equivocation fallacy.
Posted by: Chayanov | January 31, 2008 4:16 PM
I can't listen while at work. This is killing me.
Posted by: JIm S. | January 31, 2008 4:17 PM
Lie count:
Evidence is accumulating against evolution.
Darwin said we were descended from monkeys.
The fossil record is now even more incomplete.
Dammit, I lost count a long time ago.
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 4:17 PM
Holy cow. Simmons is clueless. 11 minutes in and I'm hurling pillows off the sofa.
Does he start making sense at some point? My brain is in pain.
Posted by: Henwli | January 31, 2008 4:17 PM
"I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in the Bible, but..."
Posted by: Chayanov | January 31, 2008 4:17 PM
God what a wanker this guy is.
Evolution is a walk from NY to LA by jumping to St. Louis???
Posted by: JRQ | January 31, 2008 4:18 PM
NO "pre-whale" fossils?
Where's Laelaps?
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | January 31, 2008 4:18 PM
No "pre Whale fossils"...
*sigh*
Posted by: Rich | January 31, 2008 4:18 PM
PZ for the rebuttal. I hope Simmons has a change of undies.
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 4:19 PM
It's so awesome that someone as obviously BRILLIANT as you spends his time as an associate professor at a rural ag university. I mean, with your brain the size of a planet -- and 100% of the facts on your side to boot -- what's to stop you from making as much money, or holding as prestigious a position as you want? That's right, nothing. It is sheer magnanimity that holds you to Cowtown U (it sure isn't Morris' dreadful sports teams), bringing your enlightenment to the huddled masses of the northern prairie.
Bravo, I say. Bravo.
Posted by: Captain Science | January 31, 2008 4:19 PM
Heh, this Simmons dude is an eejit.
'No pre-whale fossils' did he say?
Posted by: melatonin | January 31, 2008 4:19 PM
What's to respond to in that DIdiot's pointless ramble?
Posted by: lone.pilgrim | January 31, 2008 4:20 PM
Someone needs to send this liar a copy of Prothero's new book.
Posted by: Randy | January 31, 2008 4:20 PM
Gosh, of course trial and error doesn't make sense if you start out thinking that species exist in a vacuum. ::headdesk::
Posted by: Traffic Demon | January 31, 2008 4:20 PM
Don't let them always put you first, it's a slimy tactic to make sure the defense doesn't answer what they are supposedly defending.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 31, 2008 4:20 PM
Wow. I didn't expect much from an IDist, but the guy is intellectually dishonest to a ridiculous degree.
Posted by: Hank | January 31, 2008 4:20 PM
"I know it's not about Darwin, but let's go ahead and make it about Darwin so I can set up my strawman."
Posted by: Chayanov | January 31, 2008 4:20 PM
Anyone believe Simmons is "not a Christian" and formerly "believed in evolution"? I'd love to see some past written statements.
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 4:21 PM
He can argue for evolution as well as anyone else but still used the "it's only a theory" argument and then goes on and on about being an MD? Right...
Now he's doing the thing about a trait developing. Sad. I would think that someone who went through medical school to be at least smart, let alone curious about how things work and not rely on canned memorized answers. Oh, Kaopectate stops diarrhea fast. What an appropriate ad.
Posted by: Mena | January 31, 2008 4:21 PM
All, thanks for all the updates. Keep them coming for us folks that can't listen to this at work. :)
Posted by: Lledowyn | January 31, 2008 4:22 PM
Wow, talk about nailing the stereotype, this guy laid out the same refuted ad nauseum crap that was in creo vogue a decade ago. "Just a theory", "no whale transitions", more and more gaps!? Wow. Just wow. How can anyone be so incredibly stupid as to take a yahoo like this seriously? And of course he's not there to present evidence for ID... OY!
Posted by: JD | January 31, 2008 4:22 PM
One of the ads just started with 'Do you hear that sucking sound?'
Yes. Yes, I do.
Posted by: MartinM | January 31, 2008 4:22 PM
It would seem to me that if you took a single step per year for 4 billion years you'd easily get to LA from NY. If you bothered to scrawl your name on the wall of a restroom in each town, your signature in St-Louis might survive 4 billion years but might not survive in the other towns.
Posted by: HPLC_Sean | January 31, 2008 4:22 PM
He claims he's not a Christian. As a physician he looks at fact and doesn't see natural selection, (lists several items) as anissue or botony or geology, just the theory of evolution is the .problem
Fossil record - Darwin said it was incomplete - now it is more incomplete (!!)
Take human birth. First breath --- valve the shifts blood to lungs - couldn't have been trial and error.
Posted by: celdd | January 31, 2008 4:23 PM
Sorry about Simmons preferring a different topic - which we granted him.
lmfao
Posted by: Bob | January 31, 2008 4:24 PM
Seeing all these comments, and me stuck at work. Please tell me we are going to get a recording of this.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | January 31, 2008 4:25 PM
For those who cannot listen, this show is supposed to be available for download tomorrow. Stay tuned for details.
No evidence of giraffes evolving longer neck vertebrae? What about everything the IS evidence for? Oh ... sorry ... I keep expecting logic.
Now back to our program ...
Posted by: Dan | January 31, 2008 4:26 PM
"A theory is a good thing. A theory is an idea, a conceptual framework, that integrates a large body of evidence... This is a powerful tool that we use in our work."
I wish I could type faster. Well put.
Yes! He's now calling him on the "more incomplete" fossil record. Hit him with genetics, PZ!!!!
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 4:27 PM
Mwuahahahahahahh!
Getting reamed!
Posted by: Rich | January 31, 2008 4:27 PM
So far Simmons has unsurprisingly dragged out several of the classical creationist canards:
1. Evolution's a theory.
Yes, yes it is.
2. There aren't any transitional fossils, and "the fossil record is even more incomplete than it was 200 years ago".
This was a poorly formed sentence intended to express a thought that's just plain false. I gather that he means that there's less evidence for evolution in it.
3. X doesn't tolerate variation and so must have been designed in place.
Of course, because it's a basic principle of evolution that every aspect of life can only become less specialized with time.
Posted by: Escuerd | January 31, 2008 4:28 PM
Bravo PZ.
We know where whales evolved.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | January 31, 2008 4:28 PM
"No land whales = no pre-whale fossils" LOL
Posted by: Chayanov | January 31, 2008 4:29 PM
PZ Meyers.....Dr. Simmons
Exactly. Notice that it's always Dr. Simmons and it's always PZ whenever the DJ's mention their names?
And Simmons is playing it perfectly -- spray the airwaves with lies and/or errors and force PZ to try to correct them. Exactly what he wanted, I'm sure...
And um, hello, Basilosaurus???
Posted by: Frank Anderson | January 31, 2008 4:29 PM
So, Simmons has made his strategy very clear now. Lie big, lie often.
Didn't see that one coming.
Posted by: MartinM | January 31, 2008 4:29 PM
simmons: "Oh noze!! We missing all the speciez!!
Posted by: me | January 31, 2008 4:29 PM
Wow, simmons is getting really angry
Simmons:
"Yeah there are whale bones, and they're like deer fossils, but no blowholes"
Only a quarter-million fossils against the vast that are missing. - BS
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 31, 2008 4:29 PM
waaaaah waaaaah, have a good cry, Fundie!
Posted by: Rich | January 31, 2008 4:30 PM
After PZ explains the wealth of fossils, dumbass creo: No there aren't any giraffe or whale fossils!
When explaining theory I like using:
Theory in science is the highest form of scientific truth. Yes, evolution is one of these just like the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravity.
Posted by: JD | January 31, 2008 4:30 PM
"Dr. Simmons just made stuff up!" said PZ.
Simmons is getting huffy.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | January 31, 2008 4:30 PM
"I don't know all the fossils!" - and Scientific American.
Posted by: Rich | January 31, 2008 4:31 PM