…and this is a 
Was that fun, or what?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 31, 2008 5:59 PM, by PZ Myers
That radio debate was a hoot and a half, but I can't take credit. All the joy came straight from the mouth and brain of my lovely opponent, who obviously didn't do a lick of research for either the debate or for his books. I was shocked for a moment when, after I'd mentioned the recent discovery of Indohyus, he went on to claim that there were no intermediates between that deer-like artiodactyl and modern whales … and when I tried to mention Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodcetus, Basilosaurus, etc., he seemed to have never heard of them, claimed his information came from a Scientific American article some months ago (way to plumb the depths of the scientific literature, Dr Simmons!), and then started making stuff about them not exhibiting dorsoventral flexion in swimming, and not having dorsal blowholes. He wrote a whole book about "Billions of missing links"! His other book, What Darwin Didn't Know, needs to be retitled in a new edition, What Geoffrey Simmons Doesn't Know. It will be a very large book.
I shouldn't have been surprised at his performance, though. I have a secret: I read part of What Darwin Didn't Know before the show, and knew exactly what kind of creationist I was engaging.
I have to share a few tidbits with you from that hilarious book. It has a chapter titled "Purposeful Design" which purports to list 81 examples of design. He has very low standards. Basically, anything that works is evidence of design.
The mouth, vagina, urethra, and anus are sealed by mucus when not in use and yet can open and close in controlled ways as needs arise.
This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.
The book is full of confessions like that.
Menopause: Are women designed not to have babies when they age or are physically less fit, or is it the reverse, that babies shouldn't be born to women who might not live until their children have grown up? Most women go through menopause around 52 years of age, and they all go through menopause in much the same way. It is clearly programmed. A similar pattern is found in men. As they approach 50, many have lower testosterone levels, lower sperm counts, and less interest in having sex.
What a bizarre argument. So, when the life expectancy was around 30 or 40 (say, in the time of Jesus), shouldn't women have entered menopause around the age of ten or twenty? And if a designer is setting the timers on women's fertility for optimum utility, I have a complaint: I want daughters' fertility switched off until they're old enough to handle it. Like around 30.
All women don't go through menopause in the same way. There is an underlying similar cause, but the symptoms and expression of that mechanism is different in everyone.
And, umm, how old is Geoffrey Simmons?
His age might not matter. I don't think he knows very much about sex. Look at this argument: women's bodies are perfectly designed to maximize their enjoyment of the missionary position!
Intercourse: Face-to-face intercourse is relatively rare in the animal world, found only among whales, dolphins, dugongs, manatees, beavers, sea otters, centipedes, some crustaceans, a aNew Zealand songbird, and some primates like orangutans and bonobos [and squid. "Relatively rare," huh? -- pzm]
One might ask, how did human males and females evolve to be so perfectly compatible? Pelvic thrusting during intercourse stimulates both individuals and deposits the sperm in the deepest possible spot. Vaginal rugae (folds) stimulate the penis. Every male aspect of intercourse—from the initial excitement set off by visual cues and pheromones, to a good mechanical fit, to stimulation, to the placement of sperm—matches up well with the female's equivalent interest, her means of being stimulated, the delivery of the egg, and her mechanisms to help the sperm on their voyage. Dopamine, a chemical responsible for feelings of reward and pleasure, is released into the bloodstream in males and females after sex, just as it is released after ingesting a good meal or certain illicit drugs.
Please, somebody, show Dr Simmons where the clitoris is and explain female orgasms to him…for the sake of Mrs Simmons!
After that mercy is taken care of, explain evolution to him. I will note that Dr Simmons is the product of parents who had sufficient interest in sex and sufficiently compatible plumbing that they could generate him, and that they in turn had parents with compatible genitalia, and they came from parents likewise, and on and on back into the past. There was never a point where anyone had two parents who did not have sex with each other, so his observation, from an evolutionary perspective, is completely trivial. Design is unnecessary.
I was really tempted to turn this debate into a sex education discussion, which would have been good for the Christian listeners. Imagine a Christian talk station that patiently explained to the male listeners what a clitoris was … there would be many happy smiling ladies in church.
Comments
Will the segment be uploaded to the internet for us to listen too?
Posted by: Geral | January 31, 2008 6:03 PM
I just keep expecting to wake up and find out that creationists are a bad dream or a parody. But it doesn't happen.....
Posted by: Brian English | January 31, 2008 6:06 PM
haha!
From http://www.kkms.com/blogs/JeffandLee/11566451/:
"www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula ***Warning: This website contains profanity and may be offensive to some listeners."
Posted by: mlf | January 31, 2008 6:07 PM
"Dopamine, a chemical responsible for feelings of reward and pleasure, is released into the bloodstream in males and females after sex, just as it is released after ingesting a good meal or certain illicit drugs."
So God wants me to do blow?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 31, 2008 6:09 PM
Christ you fucking slayed him. Did I mention the word fucking?
Posted by: danley | January 31, 2008 6:09 PM
But...but...Christian sex isn't supposed to be about stimulation!
(And no, I don't buy it that Simmons isn't one.)
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 31, 2008 6:10 PM
DI FELLOW + SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN = CLUSTERFUCK.
Posted by: Rich | January 31, 2008 6:12 PM
Sounds to me like you're perfectly entitled to take credit, Dr. Myers.
Oh, and P.S.: Fuck.
Posted by: Brian | January 31, 2008 6:13 PM
This is what I got from Simmons: Whales are magic and Darwin is a bad, bad man. He did, however, take note of your book suggestion...though it would have been nice if he read anything before the debate began.
Posted by: danley | January 31, 2008 6:13 PM
"This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree."
After listening to his performance in that debate, I kind of agree, too!
Posted by: Chayanov | January 31, 2008 6:13 PM
I've had several vigorous debates with my peers about menopause and its origins. The problem is that there are so many competing evolutionary hypotheses that all make sense, it's hard to know which one (or which three or five) of its benefits caused it to be selected for. That he points to it as evidence of design, as if it couldn't have evolved, is quite absurd indeed.
Posted by: secularskeptic | January 31, 2008 6:14 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 31, 2008 6:17 PM
And why, for the love of Pete, did you not?
Wow, this is basically the funniest posting you've had in... Okay, ya got me.
Posted by: MikeM | January 31, 2008 6:18 PM
I guess it's a bit late to suggest this tactic:
http://cectic.com/105.html
Posted by: Jim Baerg | January 31, 2008 6:20 PM
"There was never a point where anyone had two parents who did not have sex with each other..."
Umm, Louise Brown? Or didn't Doctor Patric Steptoe win the Nobel prize for the first test tube baby?
Posted by: Kimpatsu | January 31, 2008 6:22 PM
Hoping someone finds a podcast upload.
Posted by: rpm | January 31, 2008 6:22 PM
I must protest:
"This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree."
This (or rather my reaction) got me many stares from my co-workers.
Fuck!, keep it SFW PZ!
;P
Posted by: Fedaykin | January 31, 2008 6:23 PM
Yeah, someone get a recording of this up PLEASE. I *NEED* to hear the carnage.
Man all the human effort they waste trying to prove their garbage ideas about life, and they won't just sit down, look at things unblindered for 5 seconds, and let reality set in.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 31, 2008 6:27 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | January 31, 2008 6:28 PM
"there would be many happy smiling ladies in church"
you're assuming that women would actually *want* to be felt up by these christian losers?
i don't know--if i had to sleep with a clueless creationist, i might prefer to just leave him in ignorance and get it over with quicker.
Posted by: kid bitzer | January 31, 2008 6:30 PM
Well, that might almost have been funny if I had put in the
Posted by: James Hanley | January 31, 2008 6:31 PM
PZ Myers and Geoffrey Simmons. The Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce for a new generation.
Brilliantly played, professor, brilliantly played. One hour on the radio was a journal's worth on the subject of good science advocacy. I can only hope that it made even one close-minded person stop and think.
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 6:31 PM
Made me think of this.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | January 31, 2008 6:33 PM
It's common knowledge that males and females of no other animal species--those that are limited to non-missionary sex positions such as, say, doggies--fit together nearly as well as We do.
Now I really want to see some beavers doin' it though. (I mean real beavers--Castor, Brownian)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 31, 2008 6:33 PM
This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.
Goddamn it, PZ! First the cracker comment and now this. I'm about to send you the bill for the shirts you're going to make me ruin from spitting out my drink because I'm laughing so hard.
Posted by: Ric | January 31, 2008 6:34 PM
The carnage at the UD blog is laughable. FtK is there and assumes she will be ill after listening to the debate. I can only hope so.
As for the other commenters I hold my head in shame for them. Someones argument against knowledge of brain evolution is "Where are all the brain fossils?"
Another twit, argues "'Looks like this and that, therefore is a transitional between this and that' is a clear logical fallacy. (Undistributed Middle)" and believes it to be a strong counter argument. He apparently has never heard of genetic mutation, or natural selection and yet still argues against it.
Well, I guess that's par for the course. Of the humanity of the UD blog...
Posted by: Michael X | January 31, 2008 6:39 PM
"If I had to use this debate to judge the validity of NeoDarwinism, I would be a Darwinist. Simmons is a terrible dissappointment. I shall pass on his books, though they haven't been on my short list." - from Uncommon Descent.
Looks like even the ID folks agree PZ pwned.
Posted by: Engima | January 31, 2008 6:39 PM
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191
I'd say "Dr" Simmons just set his cause back, I don't know, about 6000 years. Even over at UD they now think he's a wanker.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | January 31, 2008 6:39 PM
Now I really want to see some beavers doin' it though. (I mean real beavers--Castor, Brownian)
I'm sure I haven't the foggiest as to what you're getting at, Sven.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 31, 2008 6:41 PM
http://www.stampandshout.org/_gfx/_mts/_ex/we-have-fossils.gif
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 6:41 PM
This made me laugh, twice.
I would have laughed, but my mouth was sealed by mucus.
Posted by: windy | January 31, 2008 6:41 PM
What I want to know is whether or not he was wearing his face makeup like he did when he was in Kiss?
Posted by: fardels bear | January 31, 2008 6:43 PM
I think he meant uterus there...
Posted by: raatrani | January 31, 2008 6:43 PM
makes it hard to shit your pants, too. ;P
Posted by: raatrani | January 31, 2008 6:45 PM
Face-to-face intercourse ... beavers ...
The Christian ladies will be even happier when they hear about this.
Posted by: D. Scarlatti | January 31, 2008 6:46 PM
Enjoyed the "debate." Listened to a bit of the comments from the host(s) afterwords where they had some callers. When the host expressed the opinion that Dr. Simmons was an expert on fossils, I gave up and stopped listening.
Posted by: Ron | January 31, 2008 6:47 PM
From the way the station's site is designed and the hosts' comments, I expect they'll have the recording up pretty soon for the enjoyment of all. A very enjoyable broadcast and top notch demonstration of the thorough basis for evolutionary theory from both sides. Doctor Simmons in particularly made such a good case against ID that one had to wonder if he wasn't some sort of plant. To present "evidence" for ID that anyone could disprove while simultaneously allowing Dr. Myers (or "Professor" Myers as the hosts seemed to prefer. I mean if you're going to try and make one of your guests look less qualified than the other...try not to forget that you've stated their degree already). In all seriousness, I was pleasantly surprised by the professionalism of the discussion compared to other such "debates." While some clear dirty tricks were used such as Simmons only attacking evolution rather than making any defense of ID and the hosts setting up the debate to focus on that, overall they were far more professional than many of the radio hosts in the business. Granted I live in the Louisiana in a city with more christian radio stations than any other variety so my perspective may be skewed. Nonetheless, kudos to Dr. Myers (and Dr. Simmons) for expertly demonstrating the strength of evolutionary theory over the infantile ignorance of creationism.
Posted by: Patrick Lingenfelter | January 31, 2008 6:47 PM
I listened as well... lunch-time!... and was utterly aghast at how poorly the DI dude did. What got me even more though was how clueless the radio host were, too. They tried to broker the peace and weigh in on matters far outside of their pay-grade. I chuckled, right up until I realized they were examples of the -above average- listener to that show. They walked out of there thinking they knew what was science and what wasn't. We still have a long, long way to go.
Posted by: Jody | January 31, 2008 6:53 PM
One Simmons, a fellow by duty blessed,
Battled PZ and just had his booty stressed
By a kick that did rend
Stem to stern, now he's spend
ing some quality time with his beauty rest.
Hmmm, what's the opposite of a Molly...?
Posted by: Johnny Vector | January 31, 2008 6:53 PM
aaaaaand that would be #3.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 31, 2008 6:53 PM
"makes it hard to shit your pants, too. ;P"
Shit, I nearly peed myself . . .
Posted by: LadyH | January 31, 2008 6:55 PM
Sealed by mucus? Are there *any* openings on the human body that are sealed by *mucus* when not in use? We're not snails: we tend to use sphincters of various types, or other muscular sealing systems.
Posted by: Nix | January 31, 2008 6:58 PM
Nix - yes. The uterus. Actually it's the cervix which builds up a mucous plug, not the vagina.
Posted by: raatrani | January 31, 2008 7:01 PM
Yeah, but if PZ had brought that up you just know he would have replied, "A sphincter says 'what'"
Posted by: Johnny Vector | January 31, 2008 7:02 PM
#42: cervix?
Posted by: octopod | January 31, 2008 7:02 PM
Google
Posted by: raatrani | January 31, 2008 7:07 PM
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the people over at uncommon descent have actually posted some slightly favorable comments about you PZ on their post about the debate. They have a hard time doing so, but they actually agree that you beat Simmons' ass in the debate. You rock and I cant wait to listen to the beat down.
Posted by: Azazel | January 31, 2008 7:10 PM
Brain fossils? They're over at UD, except for a dozen or so at ICR headquarters in Texas.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 31, 2008 7:12 PM
Is there any way I can listen to this? Did anyone record it?
Posted by: Gary F | January 31, 2008 7:17 PM
He uses the Missionary Position as evidence for God?
Since dopamine is released after a good meal, I guess a Big Mac is also proof of the existence of God.
"You want fries with that?"
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | January 31, 2008 7:18 PM
"You want fries with that?"
No, cunnilinguis. (Oops, is that one of those words that might offend?)
Posted by: Dianne | January 31, 2008 7:22 PM
PZ, would you please be so kind as to start a new thread when you get the audio? Much appreciated.
Posted by: Alex | January 31, 2008 7:25 PM
Must... hear... audio......
Oh, also: Fuck. And not missionary position.
Posted by: Siamang | January 31, 2008 7:35 PM
The new holy trinity: Doing blow off a woman's forehead during an old-school missionary position climax.
How's that for design?
Posted by: Dan | January 31, 2008 7:55 PM
The more I think about this interview, the funnier it gets.
Missionary position. Great snort.
Sphincters as evidence of ID. Wow.
Posted by: MikeM | January 31, 2008 7:57 PM
Tune in next week, when Geoffrey Simmons debates Stephen Hawking on the subject, "Are Newton's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?"
Posted by: James | January 31, 2008 8:04 PM
Oh, no.
A giant, rampaging, mucus-dripping vagina, opening and closing at will, is going to haunt my dreams, I just know it...
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 31, 2008 8:09 PM
Anyone thats ever had haemerroids would argue that not all sphincters are perfectly designed.
...although I am touched Dr Simmons considers my vagina to be divinely inspired.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | January 31, 2008 8:18 PM
Now that one made me laugh so hard I almost lost control of my mucous...
Posted by: raatrani | January 31, 2008 8:18 PM
Is anyone familiar with the religious nut who holds lectures, teaching good christian men how to make their semen taste good?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13834042/
Posted by: raatrani | January 31, 2008 8:21 PM
Raatrani, that won't help. Their religion will always leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth. (right, relurking now).
Posted by: Matthew | January 31, 2008 8:27 PM
Ahh yes. The eventual spiral into smuttiness has finally begun.
Posted by: Alex | January 31, 2008 8:31 PM
I'm afraid I can't join in the general merriment. You lost an opportunity to neutralize this ID blather in front of an audience of which perhaps a good quarter would have been receptive. You came off angry and superior instead of confident and expert. You should have reminded the audience that the modern world depends on the scientific virtues of respect for evidence and careful thought, and that their lives and their prosperity depend on science. You began down that road with your framing away from "Darwin" and towards "biology", but you should have raised points at every turn that linked what these people hold dear to the Enlightenment values you seek to defend.
How about using some simple analogies to make your case? When we hear complaints about "missing links", remind them that we've been looking for fossils for less than 200 years, and only over a tiny fraction of the earth's surface and depth. Would someone be right to interrupt a Bingo game after 2 minutes, shouting that it was fixed because no one had won yet?
In short, this was not an academic debate. It was an opportunity to persuade. You seemed to misunderstand that.
Posted by: Jim Tobias | January 31, 2008 8:32 PM
Over at UD they are licking their wounds. One of the contributors bemoans that they will never be able to establish ID through debates and "education". They then go on to say what they need is a "BIG EVENT." Kind of makes you wonder just what sort of "event" they have in mind.
Posted by: jeh | January 31, 2008 8:33 PM
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | January 31, 2008 8:18 PM
This atheist considers all vaginas to be divinely inspired, and oneself to be blessed upon encountering them.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | January 31, 2008 8:34 PM
So God wants me to do blow?
He designed the coca plant, didn't he? Get the sacred straw ready.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 31, 2008 8:34 PM
I'd like to third (4th) having it uploaded somewhere.
Posted by: Aaron | January 31, 2008 8:39 PM
"This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree"
That is a freaking awesome burn. Please help me come up with insults for my enemies and those who defy me.
Posted by: October Mermaid | January 31, 2008 8:43 PM
Is there any way to hear it now? I could not find a link to the debate on the xian website. Please post the audio link when/if it becomes available.
Thanks!
Posted by: Scholar | January 31, 2008 8:48 PM
Interesting. I'm only familiar with sphincters as proponents of ID.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 31, 2008 8:48 PM
But ... weren't fingers obviously designed to hold cigarettes after sex?
Posted by: June | January 31, 2008 8:49 PM
What about those of us (male and female) who like doin' it doggy style?
Posted by: A | January 31, 2008 8:52 PM
I always found semen tastes good just the way god made it. If that isn't offensive enough: fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck!
Posted by: wrpd | January 31, 2008 8:52 PM
Posted by: Dustin | January 31, 2008 9:29 PM
See, that's a simple, plain, obvious, straightforward statement — that Christians would argue must be false because of Jesus as a counterexample.
Sigh.
Posted by: Owlmirror | January 31, 2008 9:32 PM
And mouths, you know, work damn well for stimulating the penis and clit, too, so I guess that proves design.
Don't forget anuses, God looks out for homosexuals as well, both with those and with mouths. There's no reproductive need to make things work for gays too, so there must be a god.
Or, has the doofus never thought that penises actually evolved to fit cloacas, and gee, maybe even vaginas and penises co-evolved when the vagina evolved to supplant the cloaca for reproductive purposes.
Evolution, Simmons, is a kind of parallel computing genetic algorithm, and the only thing more surprising than the idea that vaginas would not stimulate the penis, would be if, you know, there were any kind of evidence for design of the reproductive system at all. You know, something rational, something purposeful, maybe put the damn clit where it would be easily stimulated during vaginal intercourse instead of in some default position whenever the genes and hormones make the phallus into a clit instead of into a penis.
Indeed, reproductive organs are a fine example of evolution and not design, as the testes, rather than being able to make sperm at body temperatures as testes do in birds, have to move from a roughly ancestral position down into the scrotum, causing the male hernias and exposing testes to possible mechanical damage.
Oh well, the man's an idiot. He actually has a license to practice medicine, when he apparently knows almost nothing about the human body (mouth sealed by mucus, as others pointed to)?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 31, 2008 9:40 PM
There was never a point where anyone had two parents who did not have sex with each other
Actually, it happens all the time, and is commonly called "artificial insemination." Not to mention in-vitro fertilization.
Posted by: Daisy | January 31, 2008 9:42 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 31, 2008 9:42 PM
The parents' gametes had sex with each other.
Posted by: Owlmirror | January 31, 2008 9:48 PM
Science -- where do you _think_ they get these ideas, eh?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/2233310665_ee4aba928c.jpg?v=0
Posted by: Hank Roberts | January 31, 2008 9:50 PM
I recorded the debate. So, if anyone was interested in wanting to hear it, I could e-mail them to you.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | January 31, 2008 9:50 PM
im not sure how simmons accepts ID because of what hes seen as an MD, does he not spend all day looking at failures of so called ID ie bodies that arent working properly.
With every possible intermediate between self destructing fertilised eggs (well i think they kindof do that) to people living to 100+ years youd think he'd have realised theres no real ID involved, well thats because he WANTS there to be an intelligent designer. The slope of the human condition from long lived types to those who never get born to those born with no heads and all inbetween is just the sort of thing that evolution would predict, certainly not the thing youd predict from a loving god.
Posted by: extatyzoma | January 31, 2008 9:50 PM
A cretin named 'vesf' at the UD blog recently writes in to say
"I agree with FtK - the Discovery Institute should put out a transcript of the debate with notes rebutting the lies of the atheist PZ Meyers."
Aside from the expected misspelling of PZ's name, I thought that the Disco Instructors had nothing to do with religion? So why link them to the Crucible-esque description of PZ as "the atheist?" They seem to be coming apart at the seams over there, dropping the ball every chance they get.
Posted by: Michael X | January 31, 2008 9:53 PM
I can imagine simmons overlooking some young womans anus, 'nicely designed little piece there'.
Posted by: extatyzoma | January 31, 2008 9:54 PM
Posted by: Ryan | January 31, 2008 9:57 PM
ryansyp@gmail
Posted by: Ryan | January 31, 2008 10:00 PM
I'm sorry for making an off-topic comment, but I thought this might be interesting.
A Presidential candidate is actually standing for Church/State Separation.
Posted by: D.M. | January 31, 2008 10:01 PM
Here's a serious, on-topic question.
So, when the life expectancy was around 30 or 40 (say, in the time of Jesus)
Is this really true, though? I read that the average life expectancy was so low not because people died super young (though some dead) but because so many died in infancy and childhood, dragging the average down. I could be completely wrong here, though. Clarification?
Posted by: Ric | January 31, 2008 10:02 PM
FYI, the MP3 link is working, but not posted yet.
http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/15013108-Simmons%20&%20Myers.MP3
Posted by: rpenner | January 31, 2008 10:04 PM
Face-to-face intercourse:
also found in black-handed spider monkeys; gorillas do so occasionally, as do woolly spider monkeys. Sea otters do not, although researchers have said "it would seem simpler".
And of course there are a number of variations used in human sexual intercourse (and some people use gadgets, like the rarely used "mucus plug").
Posted by: QrazyQat | January 31, 2008 10:05 PM
***Warning: This website contains profanity and may be offensive to some listeners.
Posted by: jfatz | January 31, 2008 10:06 PM
If your mouth is sealed by mucus, I think you're doing it wrong.
I *wish* the vagina could be closed, though... that would make close to a quarter of the adult lives of half the human race (without Nuvarings or other beautiful things, at least) that much easier.
There was one brilliant kid (actually, he was damn smart, just... not well informed?) in the wilderness first responder class at my high school who, when we were discussing genito-urinary stuff, asked, regarding menstrual blood flow, "can girls, like, control it or hold it in or what?"
Our female ex-marine-medic instructor, after laughing until she cried and catching her breath (the way he said it was.. just so earnest, so I-hadn't-thought-about-this-before, so hilarious...), wound up drawing the relevant section of anatomy on the board and explaining exactly which areas had control sphincters.
Oh, and we gave his girlfriend shiiiit the next day.
Granted, it was more shocking when a friend of mine (who was a college sophomore at the time) asked her boyfriend, in response to college-dinnertable-humor jokes, what the clitoris was.... ay yi yi.
Posted by: Falyne | January 31, 2008 10:07 PM
'Snot funny!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 31, 2008 10:12 PM
I recorded the debate. So, if anyone was interested in wanting to hear it, I could e-mail them to you.
I'm interested. My email is camnchar (AT) gmail.com
Posted by: Chuck Morrison | January 31, 2008 10:16 PM
So....if the missionary position was designed to be all that and a bag o' communion wafers, and we're supposedly the ones who brought death, sin, suffering, etc. into the world...
What on earth did the mallards do to deserve their lot?
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1277
Posted by: Corncob | January 31, 2008 10:19 PM
rpenner, thanks for that, ive started listening, so seems that the debate title was changed when simmons realised that he actually had no evidence for ID, sneaky little monkeys. i also laughed when i heard P Zee myers name, being a brit ive always said P zed myers, but anyway I should have know from watching all that sesame street.
Posted by: extatyzoma | January 31, 2008 10:20 PM
rpenner, thanks for that, ive started listening, so seems that the debate title was changed when simmons realised that he actually had no evidence for ID, sneaky little monkeys. i also laughed when i heard P Zee myers name, being a brit ive always said P zed myers, but anyway I should have know from watching all that sesame street. dear god simmons talks a lot and has said nothing in his 5 minute slot. pz got a lot in in that 5 minutes, impressive.
Posted by: extatyzoma | January 31, 2008 10:32 PM
You are AWESOME. That is all. :D
Posted by: unwords | January 31, 2008 10:39 PM