…and this is a 
Three dopes sitting around a table
Category: Creationism
Posted on: June 26, 2008 9:41 PM, by PZ Myers
Eric Hovind is continuing his father's tradition of utterly inane arguments against evolution. In this case, it's a video of Hovind and two of his bland buddies sitting around talking about…cephalopods. Oh, it is painful to witness.
They show excerpts of some perfectly lovely videos of cuttlefish swimming about, exercising their camouflage, and they talk about its specialized defenses and sophisticated behavior. In classic creationist form, they watch all this beauty and throw up their hands in surrender, and exclaim that they don't see how this could have evolved, and ask, "How does evolution explain that?"
I would turn that question around: "How does creationism explain that?" And I'm sorry, "God did it" is not an explanation. It says nothing about the processes used to create the cuttlefish's capabilities, and it does nothing to explain limitations — why can't the cuttlefish fly? Why doesn't it have three eyes? Why does it use similar genes to our own? You can't just posit an omnipotent creator who can create anything without also having an explanation for the constraints on his creations.
At one point, they are talking about the mechanisms the animals use to camouflage themselves, and they express dumbfounded ignorance about how they do that (and babble incorrectly about some of the details — they do not see everything in shades of green). Did Eric Hovind's two researchers ever think to look up the science? Roger Hanlon has been doing some marvelous work on cephalopod behavior and camouflage; I have no idea what Hanlon's religious beliefs are, and it doesn't matter, but he clearly sees these as natural phenomena generated by natural processes.
We do have explanations of cephalopod evolution. I don't expect Hovind and cronies are at all aware of them. In fact, in this interview Hovind reveals a common and significant misconception about how evolution works. He speculates that an evolutionary explanation would be that "…one of them decided while he was sittin' there getting munched on, hey, I need to evolve a defense mechanism to overcome this…".
I hear this all the time. The only way they can imagine evolution working is by an act of will, that every adaptation must be a product of an individual organism doing something special and directed towards acquiring that ability. They miss the key insight Darwin had.
No, one of them getting munched on did not decide anything, and the action was done: it was being eaten. It would not reproduce. The properties of that specific individual would have a diminished influence on the next generation. It was the other cephalopods that were not being eaten who would propagate, and it would be their genes that would continue on.
The idea is right there in their very own scenario, and they lack the intelligence to grasp it. They keep talking about features of the animals that help them survive better, and they are blind to the fact that survival is the key. It's depressing to see such hopeless ignorance in these three, each reinforcing the other, when the answers to the questions they ask are in books anyone can get.
Politics
Comments
What the hell would a creationist do with a fact?
creationists don`t want facts,don`t need facts ,they need soppy stories ,lovely stories about Adam and his lovely wife Eve ,about smiting ,smoting ,human sacrifice ,talking snakes ,child rape and of course MURDER.
WTF do facts have to do with it?
Posted by: RT NZ | June 26, 2008 9:50 PM
Science makes baby Jesus cry.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 26, 2008 9:54 PM
Santa Claus throws his hands up and exclaims, "How does the Tooth Fairy explain that"?, and the Easter Bunny with a smirk, exclaims "We're not going to tell you!" If it wasn't so outlandishly ridiculous, it still would not penetrate the creotards demented skulls.
Posted by: Holbach | June 26, 2008 9:56 PM
Ooooooookay, that Hovind moron needs to be slapped with a damp squid.
Stoopid is as stoopid speaks.
Eric, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a moron , no ?
Posted by: RT NZ | June 26, 2008 10:01 PM
It looks to me as if they know they are lying, but seems hellbent on fooling themselves to the bitter end. What a strange way to behave.
Posted by: BicycleRepairMan | June 26, 2008 10:02 PM
It's all in how you look at the world, IDers see a hole in evolutionary theory when they look at a damned interesting problem. Folks like you are not likely to run out of interesting things to investigate in biology, and malign fudpuckers are going to see that as a flaw. Not much room for boredom, though.
Posted by: Tim | June 26, 2008 10:04 PM
Everyone here (well - ALMOST everyone) already knows this - but I usually respond to nutjobs like this:
"Why is your lack of imagination seen as a valid reason for deciding that evolution cannot happen?"
These freaks are decidedly unimaginative.
Cafe Scientifique next omnth in Newburgh, NY: "Why people believe strange things" - I can't wait.
JC
Posted by: JackC | June 26, 2008 10:06 PM
So, it all comes down to "I'm scientifically illiterate, therefore god exists." These eraserheads don't even have the wisdom to be embarrassed by their dumbassitude.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | June 26, 2008 10:08 PM
"...why can't the cuttlefish fly? Why doesn't it have three eyes? Why does it use similar genes to our own?"
God probably filled up the complexity meter too fast and had to cut some stuff. I know it always happens to me.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | June 26, 2008 10:09 PM
Ugh... The whole time I was watching that, I just wanted to say, "Have you tried... Science??"
Posted by: strangebeasty | June 26, 2008 10:10 PM
re #6, only intellegent people are capable of real boredom, the stupid find security in it.
Posted by: Lynnai | June 26, 2008 10:11 PM
I'm struggling to explain what I'm thinking here, but it goes along the lines of how do creationists explain predation? I'll try to flesh the concept out a bit but if anyone can see what I'm getting at and has some thoughts on the subject that'd be great.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 26, 2008 10:11 PM
I`m no biologist , but even I know god did`nt pull this out of his arse .
Posted by: RT NZ | June 26, 2008 10:12 PM
The "will of God." Perfect answer for everything. And nothing. Especially nothing.
Posted by: amphiox | June 26, 2008 10:12 PM
One must admit, I think, that there is far too much (well-meaning) literature about evolution that uses terms such as "strategies" and the like that suggest, to the layman, evolution as purposeful and goal-oriented. To some extent, that perpetuates the misconceptions that allow the IDiots to make the comments you rightly ridicule. Not that they wouldn't anyway, of course, but I'd still like to see a lot more care taken in how things are described.
Posted by: Glenn | June 26, 2008 10:12 PM
OK. That was... Um, sad, to say the least. Those three weren't simply not trying to get it, they seemed to actively attempt to be seen as more devout than the other because they were even less likely to come up with an answer that wasn't "God did it!" Some really bizarre version of oneupsmanship.
Towards the end I was waiting for one of them to put their fingers in their ears and start up the mantra "I think God did it more than you do. I think..."
Posted by: azqaz | June 26, 2008 10:13 PM
That video is so stupid it hurts. I love the pen and paper they have at the ready in case one of them busts into prophetic utterances explaining why god created so many douchebags to populate this planet. What a moronic circle jerk.
Posted by: Matthew | June 26, 2008 10:15 PM
Wowbagger is infinitely correct.
If God didn't want the cuttlefish to be eaten, then God would have made it so other animals didn't eat the cuttlefish.
Now that really would BE something of a proof of creationism is creatures regularly starved themselves to death instead of choosing to eat an abundant food source.
And God would get EXTRA points from me if the creatures so starved didn't end up dying.
When's my research grant from the Discovery Institute coming?
Posted by: inkadu | June 26, 2008 10:15 PM
"Does the cuttlefish agree with evolution?"
Well, I don't know, Eric. Why don't we ask him and find out?
Posted by: fsb | June 26, 2008 10:18 PM
inkadu, cheques in the mail
Posted by: RT NZ | June 26, 2008 10:18 PM
These three have obviously never been to a Detroit Redwings hockey game. Otherwise they would have marveled at how the octopus gets on the ice at the beginning of each game. God is an octopus chucker.
Really, this video is a perfect example of what happens when you put three morons together in front of a camera.
Posted by: DavidD | June 26, 2008 10:19 PM
Clearly, you can. It just isn't a particularly good, (or useful) idea.
[/pedant]
Posted by: John Marley | June 26, 2008 10:19 PM
Remember, many of these poor suckers are, well, just that -- suckers. They've been promised an afterlife of sunshine and happiness, but that promise is, for them, conditioned on belief in a particular interpretation of a particular document. To accept the overwhelming evidence that things just don't work that way would upset the house of cards they've built to support the notion that they never have to die. Perhaps they are genuinely too dense to grasp evolution -- but they may also be too terrified of oblivion to make an honest attempt. They've been taken in by an ancient conspiracy far nastier than anything Dan Brown could come up with. Sell people another "life" and steal this one from them.
Of course, to what extent the Hovinds (both Hovind the Elder and Hovind the Younger) are pitiable dupes or malicious con-artists is up for debate. I think they suck either way.
Posted by: Jeph | June 26, 2008 10:20 PM
You know those color blind tests where the numbers in red or whatever pop out at you if you have full color vision? That's what creationists remind me of--not color blind but logic blind.
The mechanics of evolution really aren't that hard to comprehend--you just explained the core of it beautifully--and yet we still hear questions like "How did things know how to evolve?" and "Why are there still monkeys?"
I do not think the majority of people are born with logic blindness; it is cultivated--purposely.
Posted by: RamblinDude | June 26, 2008 10:23 PM
Is it just me, or does Hovind the Younger pronounce his name differently from Hovind the Elder?
Posted by: Cooper | June 26, 2008 10:23 PM
Wowbagger: I do believe a common creationist theory is that predation wasn't in the original design, but that it got shoehorned in with Original Sin:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/fish_feet/t_rex_ate_coconuts
Posted by: efnord | June 26, 2008 10:24 PM
To #19: Cuttlefish reply: "Well Eric, it doesn't matter what I think since I can't talk, live out of water, and other environmental constraints, but I appreciate you asking. I will say that regardless of the correct answer I sure am glad I have leagues of water in between myself and your utter stupidity. If I ever found myself in the same room with you I would use my mysterious, baffling defense mechanisms and make myself look like your missing brain. By the way, your t.v. show sucks my front, left tentacle."
Posted by: Matthew | June 26, 2008 10:24 PM
Wowbagger, predation is Gods way of keeping he world from filling up. See, wasn't that easy.
I'm only on my 3rd shot of rum. Let me get three or four more in me and I may have my IQ suppressed enough to sound like a real creatard.
Posted by: azqaz | June 26, 2008 10:25 PM
I suppose that one might try to make the argument that the FSM made the cuttlefish in it's image. This would explain perhaps the perfection of form.
Posted by: Turingheuristic | June 26, 2008 10:29 PM
Exactly. If it's god's will that a species survives and nothing to do with the competitive/adaptive aspects implicit in survival via natural selection, why do cuttlefish have camouflage ability? Surely they'd just sit around waiting to be eaten; similarly, the creatures that eat them would know exactly how many of them not to eat so they could survive in order to maintain god's beautiful diversity.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 26, 2008 10:29 PM
Predation is most def due to sin. Shoot, Adam named all the animals one by one before Eve tempted his ass with apple juices. I love me some apple juice as well so I don't hold it against him. However, Jebus and his superstar angels will come back one day and then the lion will lie down with the lamb and we will all bend are guns into plows and Dr. Strangelove will ride the bomb as a jet ski. I love me some Jebus.
Posted by: Matthew | June 26, 2008 10:29 PM
Why don't they talk about these "researchers" research? Besides the obvious. Nevermind.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 26, 2008 10:29 PM
Realizing Poe's law, 'twas a jest.
Posted by: Turingheuristic | June 26, 2008 10:31 PM
According to CSE a cuttlefish is not a fish at all it is a robot.
'Because it operates with such sophisticated technology that scientists don`t understand'
Posted by: RT NZ | June 26, 2008 10:32 PM
I think I ran some mormons of my lawn that looked just like those "researchers". Those two better hope they get raptured because they would get their asses ate for lunch in a post apocalyptic world.
Posted by: Matthew | June 26, 2008 10:32 PM
That's going to be an uphill struggle. Language and the way human beings think about things make it very difficult to describe a process without making it seem goal-oriented. Instead of saying "the cuttlefish evolved camouflage in order to avoid predators" you'd have to say, "the genetic pool of the cuttlefish population grew through natural selection and mutation to support camouflage mechanisms," or something like that. Points for accuracy, but you just lost your audience.
I think that's why a lot of people explain first the blind process of it, and then say, "And in the rest of the class, we'll use the short hand 'such and such' evolved."
Unavoidable, I'm afraid. Maybe we should be talking this over with linguists instead of biologists; maybe they can come up with a new super-passive voice.
Posted by: inkadu | June 26, 2008 10:32 PM
In addition to the Argument from Ignorance, I think they're also pushing a version of what could be called the Argument from Wonder and Amazement: those who are very, very impressed with the natural world have a special sensitivity which allows them to recognize God. Or, if you want, reverse it: those with the special sensitivity to recognize God are VERY, VERY impressed with the natural world. They feel things more. That's where evolutionists stumble -- insufficient Wonder and Amazement.
And when we take a look, even at a humble sea creature such as the cuttlefish, we are amazed at the complexity and genius of His creation. In fact, when we look at something as amazing as the cuttlefish, in a way, we see God. And the last part of Romans 1:20 tells us that when we look at His creation and see Him, we are "without excuse" for not believing in a Creator.
The sin, therefore, is not being filled with enough wonder and amazement. It's basically the "unweaving the rainbow" argument again. Looking for -- and accepting -- a natural explanation means there's something cold and calculating about you.
Posted by: Sastra | June 26, 2008 10:35 PM
Strikes me that their idea of evolution has more in common with Lamark--or, if you want to do interesting head-games to them, Lysenko--than with Darwin.
Posted by: W. H. Heydt | June 26, 2008 10:36 PM
OK, it's one thing to be this willfully stupid when so much information on the subject is available, but to put it on display, as though they were being profound or something, just makes my hair hurt.
Posted by: JohnB | June 26, 2008 10:38 PM
Okay. Hang on. Wait.
...
...
Kent Hovind has managed to reproduce???????!!!!!!!!!!11111one
Oh man. We're all screwed. Something about Kent Hovind dipping so much as a pinky toe in even the shallow end of the human allele pool makes my skin itch all over.
Posted by: Ubiquitous Che | June 26, 2008 10:41 PM
Sastra -- You're right on the money there.
PZ's brought this up before, I think, and said there is no "merely" about anything in science. There is no "merely" evolved camouflage any more than we "merely" evolved consciousness or the universe "merely" exploded out of some weird singularity. It's all fantabulous.
There's something stupidly childish about people who can't hold awe and understanding at the same time. As if the world is only magical if you fail to understand it.
I remember the first time I realized what shadows were -- spots where light didn't reach because it was blocked... I was probably pretty young, but I was pretty amazed by that. for some reason.
Posted by: inkadu | June 26, 2008 10:43 PM
Azqaz, #28, wrote:
Of course - what was I thinking? I mean, there I was expecting that a so-called just, loving and benevolent entity would prefer to minimise the number of animals that go through the unpleasant process of being eaten. Especially if that eating's being done by a Komodo Dragon - and the meal is still alive.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 26, 2008 10:44 PM
This script sounded just like the letters to the editor column in my home town paper.
Posted by: Patricia | June 26, 2008 10:52 PM
Father and son. Dumb and dumber.
Posted by: hje | June 26, 2008 10:56 PM
One of the common threads in fundie pseudoscience is a complete lack of appreciation for the idea of deep time. Even assuming entirely random mutations, a lot can happen after tens of millions of generations. It seems the key to their lack of understanding, like a child's inability to comprehend just how big a number a billion is. Young-Earth creationists make this lack of comprehension into explicit doctrine, but I think it is nearly universal among IDers of all stripes.
Posted by: idlemind | June 26, 2008 10:57 PM
I watched the video again just to hear the word "Wow" used several times to "exclaim" for the freaking lord! And the idiot with the ever poised and moving pen, ready to jot down a revelation from his "lord" at a moments notice! Every time these retards think, they weaken our country! "Hey, look at that crown of thorns starfish chomping on the coral; isn't that what our jeebus wore on his head when he let mere mortals pound him to that wood"? "Yes, yes, praise the lord"! Oh, the neverending insanity of it all!
Posted by: Holbach | June 26, 2008 10:59 PM
Sastra, you make a valid point. Carl Sagan made a plea for the marriage of wonder and a scientific outlook on the world, and so did John Burroughs around a hundred years ago. No reason the two can't exist together, and they should.
The average walking around guy, who doesn't necessarily know anything about how nature works, finds things like camouflaged creatures to be somewhere within the realm of amazing, precisely because they don't understand how it could come about. Ignorance begets a kind of bemused state of wonder that one finds in children, but which has a tendency to diminish as one understands more. But as inkadu so beautifully pointed out, it's childishness itself in not being able to hold wonder and understanding at the same time.
Posted by: JohnB | June 26, 2008 10:59 PM
what don't they get about a couple of billion years worth of complilation and mutation??
Posted by: genesgalore | June 26, 2008 11:00 PM
Ya know, you'd think it would get easier to see arrogance under the guise of humility (read: pretentious assholes) over time... but no... it's the same every time... makes the adrenaline start going...
The thing is, when these people are alone, face-to-face with someone who is obviously more intelligent/educated than they are, they shut up... they shut off...
But the second they get a chance, they're spouting their mouths off without a second thought (literally).
So annoying. Gah....
Posted by: Spinoza | June 26, 2008 11:02 PM
The cuttlefish evolved camouflage because a series of random mutations, acquired over generations, in the genes of its ancestors were advantageous to not being eaten, unlike its fellows, because it was better able to control its chromatophores. Those who had those mutations had a greater chance to survive and pass those genes on to their descendants. Those who didn't were removed from the gene pool by the chlorine of predation. If anything the one being munched on wouldn't be thinking "I need to develop camouflage." so much as "why didn't evil sadistic God give me good camouflage mutations like that other cuttlefish over there. The lucky bastard."
(See, even cuttlefish have their creotards.)
Posted by: azqaz | June 26, 2008 11:04 PM
A lot of people have problems with deep time. The creationists exploit it, but it's a characteristic of the population at large. Part of the problem is that the word "million" or "billion" flows off the tongue too easily without a conceptual appreciation of what it really means. I tell people the dinosaurs went extinct "65 million years ago", and they for the most part agree - but won't get all tingly over it. If you change the terminology and say they went extinct "650,000 centuries ago", their brains really think about how long that is and it tends to blow their minds. They instinctively grasp that one century is a long time from our individual perspective, and they can, in that small way, better appreciate what "65 million years" really means.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | June 26, 2008 11:06 PM
Modern creationists are boring.
I liked the old fashioned ones who lapsed into teleology. "Cuttlefish, as we all know, were created so we'd have something to eat during Lent. They were given camouflage so they are hard to find except during holy fasts."
Even better were the ones who extracted moral lessons. "Cuttlefish teach us the importance of accepting our place in the world humbly, and relying on camouflage and tentacles to protect us from the more powerful and vicious."
If these guys are going to spout nonsense, at least they should be entertaining.
Posted by: Kaleberg | June 26, 2008 11:12 PM
I can't watch the video. I think the last thing I need to see is yet another drooling creationist circle jerk. Besides, it's always the same thing: "I'm too stupid to understand, so god must exist."
Now, Azqaz' run sounds like a good idea. I've got mint growing like a weed, so I'm good for some mojitos.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 26, 2008 11:20 PM
I wonder if the choice of subject here was coincidence, or a deliberate shot across the Pharyngulite bow. Apparently one can be martyred for Christ just by undergoing the auto-da-fe of our bad attitude. It must be hard to resist.
Plus, all this talk about cuttlefish makes me long for a good bit of verse from our Cuttlefish, OM. Must have gone into lurk...
Posted by: Sastra | June 26, 2008 11:25 PM
Messing with cephalopods is just not cool.
I have an experiment to propose. Let's find out if humboldt squid find creationists palatable?
Posted by: Noadi | June 26, 2008 11:30 PM
You can tell an idiot by his need to surround himself with other idiots in order to feel intelligent.
Brian
http://www.godless-heathen.com
Posted by: Brian | June 26, 2008 11:40 PM
how about this dumb thread...any evo care to present even one scientifically-validated example of a mutation that could create a cuttlefish, or any of its assorted structures? Or hoow about for any other creature? Your dumb theory is no better than "God-did-it." PZ is a hypocrite.
Posted by: stanish | June 26, 2008 11:48 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about this rat-rimmer: since it's clear that he has daddy's knowledge of biology, we can assume that he has daddy's knowledge of tax law. If so, I'm sure he'll follow in his parents' footsteps... into federal prison.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 26, 2008 11:53 PM
#57
I call Poe.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 26, 2008 11:56 PM
Here's a question for you stanish: which grain of sand makes a sand dune a dune? Makes as much sense as your question, doesn't it?
Posted by: JohnB | June 27, 2008 12:00 AM
You darwinists, of course, cannot answer my challenge, and thus have assumed your positions as world-class losers...losers who believe in a world-class lie...a lie propped up by a bunch of world-class liars.
While you're at it you can't show me even one example of natural selection creating fitness in a population, nor can you point me to even one of the millions of supposed common ancestors. You people and your little origins fairytale are pathetic.
Posted by: stanwich | June 27, 2008 12:02 AM
OMG OMG OMG cuttlefish are NOT FISH!!! AAAAGGGHHHH!!!!
They called it a fish three times!!!!
Posted by: Uncephalized | June 27, 2008 12:08 AM
Poe, a most palpable Poe, I do confess it!
"You people and your little origins fairytale are pathetic."
And lo, my irony meter maxes out.
Get thee to a library, thou scoundrel, and insist not that thy betters do thy homework for thee.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 27, 2008 12:11 AM
Asspotter @#57, #61
Begone, thou whoreson! Sell thy brain for tuppence and 'tis dear. Would thou wert clean enough to spit upon, thou pig-felching puke-stocking.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 27, 2008 12:13 AM
Well, at least our liars world class at something. Yours are crap.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 27, 2008 12:18 AM
are. our liars are world class.
Our typists: not so great.
Damn hubris.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 27, 2008 12:19 AM
Tuppence? Nay, a farthing! And that too dear a price for such an weak and ill-used organ.
But soft, my good Sir Emmet! 'Tis plain that with yonder three we are in the presence of those too cunning to be understood...were they half so wise as they pretend, they could make scarce one scholar between the four!
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 27, 2008 12:20 AM
so evos....do you people believe in information when it comes to biology? Does the genome contain information? If so, where did it come from? And is the information physical? if not, how can it be seen, measured, tested, or otherwise be labeled as "scientific?" Does the information that resides in genomes arise magically out of thin air or what?
Posted by: stanimator | June 27, 2008 12:24 AM
"3 dopes sitting around a table"
...and apparently another one who appears to be lost.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 27, 2008 12:28 AM
#61 and #68:
Well, obviously it was placed there by our saucy & noodly Lord and Master, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If you look carefully, foolish unbelievers, you'll realise that the amount of information contained in each cell relative to that cell's size is the perfect ratio, the same as the garlic:oregano ratio in Divine Bolognaise Sauce.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 27, 2008 12:31 AM
Divine Bolognaise Sauce.
has that recipe been published yet?
or is it already part of "The Book of Sauce"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 27, 2008 12:33 AM
We're being Poe-bombed and it's raining sock puppets!
Posted by: Dennis N | June 27, 2008 12:35 AM
Forsooth, sirrah, thy ignorance of learned matters doth show. Get thee hence! To a library go and thus improve what little brain thou hast. Else return to thy hovel and plow like a good husbandman and trouble us not.
Thou art but a troll, and worth fewer XP than the effort should be due.
The MadPanda, FCD.
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 27, 2008 12:36 AM
They miss the key insight Darwin had.
not surprising, given they haven't the ability to be insightful to begin with.
It's like saying my dog missed Darwin's insight.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 27, 2008 12:41 AM
OMG, Stan is coming up with questions and arguments we've never heard before! Whatever shall we do?!
Posted by: Kseniya | June 27, 2008 12:45 AM
MadPanda @#67,
Such lack-wit parrots! Four frontal lobes ill-used, aye, but not oft-used. Boil-brained clack-dishes all and 'twixt them found not learning for one scullion, the droning gorbellied measles!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 27, 2008 12:49 AM
Well, I'm convinced. I'm going to cancel my membership in the Atheist Church, stop praying to Charles Darwin and start putting my faith in One True God™.
Stan, can you help me with that? Really? I mean, can you give me a thorough, cogent, unassailable explanation for why your particular interpretation of your deity is the One True God™ and not any of the thousands of other deities/interpretations?
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 27, 2008 12:50 AM
Heck, I'll convert right now if He will magically fix the lack of tag closure in my previous post.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 27, 2008 12:51 AM
Y'know, I just can't watch those things. I got thirty seconds in and I just wanted to poke knitting needles in my eyes to make it stop.
Well Eric, you may as well actually ask the cuttlefish the question for all the sense that your panelists make of the answer. Seriously, where do these people get educated?
Posted by: anaglyph | June 27, 2008 12:53 AM
Sometimes, I wish that a machine designed to add logic to people would exists, but then, people like Hovind would want to die after a 24 hours exposure of logic. I know his father's lectures very well, since I have been shown those videos, and have read the creationist magazine. They are nonsensical.
Posted by: IBY | June 27, 2008 12:55 AM
I got mint, bronze fennel, rosemary, garlic, lavender, basil and all sorts of herbs - but - what the hell is a 'mojito'?
A naughty fellow on this blog offered me one... what is it?
Whoreson, pig-felching, puke-stocking... damn it, I wanted to say that.
Next thing you know PZ will let loose the sluts & strumpets.
Posted by: Patricia | June 27, 2008 12:56 AM
where do these people get educated?
you mean they actually WERE educated somewhere?
I thought they learned everything they needed to know from their parents.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 27, 2008 12:56 AM
Sometimes, I wish that a machine designed to add logic to people would exists, but then, people like Hovind would want to die after a 24 hours exposure of logic.
and?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 27, 2008 1:00 AM
Anaglyph wrote:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...homeschooling?
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 27, 2008 1:02 AM
A mojito is a delicious cocktail from Cuba that is much like a mint julep.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 27, 2008 1:03 AM
Oh. I thought a mojito was an immature mojo.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 27, 2008 1:05 AM
Mint juleps always make me think of the Simpsons episode where Homer become the Beer Baron. He sends liquor in bowling balls to Moe's - and there are three southern gentleman dressed like Colonel Sanders in the bar.
Gold.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 27, 2008 1:11 AM
Isn't it nice how careful they are to refer to "Doctor" Hovind in the videos on that site, as if Kent Hovind actually held a valid doctorate instead of a piece of scrap paper from a diploma mill? That's real Christian charity.
Posted by: Zeno | June 27, 2008 1:15 AM
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 27, 2008 1:15 AM
The same religious freaks in this video are the same ilk running our country. (USA)
Posted by: Patricia | June 27, 2008 1:16 AM
Oh yummy! Now I got a grip on the mojito.
Doo'in it.
Posted by: Patricia | June 27, 2008 1:23 AM
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 27, 2008 1:24 AM
You're absolutely right, there is a fundemental breakdown of understanding, in the processes of evolution.
When I read things like:
"evolution can be used to sample the given environment and end up with an even improved mechanism."
I want to pull my hair out.
Possibly some of the problem lies with the term "Natural Select".
Creationists can't seem to get beyond thinking that there must be a 'selector' guiding evolution to a goal.
Posted by: alloy | June 27, 2008 1:33 AM
Alloy, #93
Creationists can't seem to get
beyondto the part where thinking happensthat there must be a 'selector' guiding evolution to a goal.fixed it for ya.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 27, 2008 1:41 AM
They can't get beyond thinking that there must be An Almighty God in charge of every damned thing that ever existed, exists, or will exist.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 27, 2008 1:41 AM
Wowbagger @#93,
Creationists can't
seem to get beyond to the part wherethinking happens that there must be a 'selector' guiding evolution to a goal.Better.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 27, 2008 1:49 AM
So God sits up there creating creatures to outwit his other creations, that is to say, Himself. "Hah, fooled Myself there with that cuttlefish! Aren't I sly?"
Posted by: antaresrichard | June 27, 2008 2:37 AM