Pharyngula

I'm surprised that their "No" item doesn't register as a "Yes." Or maybe come up with "Are you sure you want to go to hell?"

Posted by: Brent | July 1, 2008 8:42 PM

Aye, aye Cap'n! The skewin' has begun. We're down 29% to 71%

Posted by: firemancarl | July 1, 2008 8:43 PM

Yes 110
No 57
That was a short flight.
Back to the slut party.

Posted by: Patricia | July 1, 2008 8:45 PM

The first poll I actually attempted to skew. It seems one can vote only once a day.

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | July 1, 2008 8:49 PM

I note that we're beind by about 2/3. I further see that they aren't missing a trick; the Christian Icon, as always, lurks at the bottom of the page: DONATE

Even at a conference of bigwigs, they go for the purses of the no-wigs-at-all.

doov

Posted by: Duvenoy | July 1, 2008 8:51 PM

Now at 110/57.9% for yes, 80/42.1% for no.

When I voted the front page had a link to an article titled "7 Reasons Why We Should Not Accept Millions of Years, Dr. Terry Mortenson;" with the tagline "The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal 24 hour days a few thousand years ago." Is it just me or did the ID movement stop pretending recently that it's not overtly religious?

Posted by: Frank | July 1, 2008 8:52 PM

Wow, 151 to 110. The noes nose ahead! I was 151. Hee hee heeee.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 1, 2008 8:53 PM

Voted, skewed, conquered.

Posted by: Dennis N | July 1, 2008 8:56 PM

Creationism
Because science makes baby jesus cry

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 1, 2008 8:58 PM

"uh oh, they're blocking additional votes, the curs!"

Hmm. Smarter than I thought....

doov

Posted by: Duvenoy | July 1, 2008 9:02 PM

Just tried again; "you already voted once today" Damn, the retards are going to outvote us! Anyone else having trouble getting another vote in?

Posted by: Holbach | July 1, 2008 9:04 PM

kick ass! I just checked again (not 20 minutes after i first checked and the 'no's are now at about 3X the yes's. How long before they take down the poll results?

Posted by: aaron | July 1, 2008 9:06 PM

Thank you, ajrw. I was able to help push the "no" vote to over 300.

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | July 1, 2008 9:06 PM

317 (74.2%) - No
110 (25.8%) - Yes

mwa haha i love a poll crash before bed. now i'll have sweet dreams of the creationist theme park burning to the ground.

Posted by: khops | July 1, 2008 9:08 PM

The problem is, the way it's worded it can look like this: No, I do not want creationism taught in schools, along with evolution, because I do not want evolution taught in schools.

Posted by: Ted H. | July 1, 2008 9:10 PM

No
416 79.1%

Yes
110 20.9%

How long before it crashes?

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | July 1, 2008 9:12 PM

It's the tardensity staff of '08.

Posted by: Danley | July 1, 2008 9:16 PM

This is too much fun.

Posted by: Danley | July 1, 2008 9:20 PM

No 598 84.5%
Yes 110 15.5%

You don't have to clear all your cookies. In Firefox, go to Tools -> Preferences -> Privacy -> Show cookies, and delete the one for rememberthycreator.com

Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 1, 2008 9:23 PM

No
578 84%

Yes
110 16%

Did anyone else notice that one of the minions from their main page actually teaches plant genetics at Cornell (Dr. John Sanford)? Why hasn't Big Science taken care of him yet? No really. I'm kind of serious here.

Posted by: Andrew JS | July 1, 2008 9:24 PM

No
578 84%

Yes
110 16%

Did anyone else notice that one of the minions from their main page actually teaches plant genetics at Cornell (Dr. John Sanford)? Why hasn't Big Science taken care of him yet? No really. I'm kind of serious here.

Posted by: Andrew JS | July 1, 2008 9:27 PM

No
578 84%

Yes
110 16%

Did anyone else notice that one of the minions from their main page actually teaches plant genetics at Cornell (Dr. John Sanford)? Why hasn't Big Science taken care of him yet? No really. I'm kind of serious here.

Posted by: Andrew JS | July 1, 2008 9:28 PM

No 730 86.9%

Yes 110 13.1%

Posted by: JoJo | July 1, 2008 9:31 PM

no, seriously:

what's the story with the sanford guy at cornell?

yeah, he's only a 'courtesy assoc' now, but he was regular faculty for a long time.

furthermore, a quick look at his bio suggests that he actually knows or at least knew some real science at one time.

so was he just roped into something under false pretenses?

or did he go dotty in his old age?

there's an interesting story behind all this.

Posted by: kid bitzer | July 1, 2008 9:38 PM

You people do realize what's going to happen, don't you? They're going to get a landslide of No votes to the question of whether "Creation should be taught, along with Evolution."

Then, they're going to champion the results of their poll which conclusively shows The American People don't even support keeping evolution alongside creationism when the Good Christians finally introduce their curricular reforms.

Posted by: Nentuaby | July 1, 2008 9:40 PM

I'm currently experiencing pollgasm.

Posted by: Danley | July 1, 2008 9:45 PM

oh dear. here's the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

"dotty in his old age" is definitely the answer.

Posted by: kid bitzer | July 1, 2008 9:46 PM

So the Sanford guy is a class A kook that has already been skewered in Evolgen back in 2006: http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/06/the_creationists_discover_the.php

Posted by: Brigit | July 1, 2008 9:46 PM

"No" is currently at 1017 = 90%

"Yes" is at 113 = 10%

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Posted by: ChrisKG | July 1, 2008 9:48 PM

His title, according to his Cornell webpage, is Courtesy Associate Professor. What the heck does that mean?

He has pictures of a dean in a Bangkok brothel? Honestly, I've never heard of this title before.

Posted by: SC | July 1, 2008 9:50 PM

OK. Only three Yes votes in the last hour. Someone musta snuck them in while I was typing.

But still . . .

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 1, 2008 9:53 PM

No
1146 91%

Yes
114 9%

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | July 1, 2008 9:56 PM

It's 91.1% now.

Comment #2 has what I think is the real reason creationism is an incurable disease. They believe accepting evolution equals eternal torture in hell. Why risk that? For them it's better to know nothing about science.

Posted by: BobC | July 1, 2008 10:07 PM

Oh my. This is some great creotardbabble.

If you click on "Something to Think About" at the bottom, you get a nice little tard-rant which attempts to use a "big word" (syncretistic) but fails miserably (synchronistic).

I was tempted to mock them about it using their contact form, but I think it's more fun from a distance. And I didn't want to give it away.

Posted by: oh my | July 1, 2008 10:08 PM

Ref: "Why risk that? For them it's better to know nothing about science."

New Poll:

If the Professor (Gilligan's Island) and Ken Ham (AHole) were stranded on a desert island, and hated each other. Of Course. Who would you choose to be on your Team? Who would be voted off the island.

Science, Bitches!

John

Posted by: John | July 1, 2008 10:11 PM

**so if God (a capable entity) isn't responsible for the existence, what is? I would like an answer.

ALL AT ONCE NOW! -------> All hail F.S.M. !!
In his noodly name, RAMEN.

Posted by: John | July 1, 2008 10:17 PM

Screw your false pasta god!

Everyone knows it's the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless Her Holy Hooves).

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 1, 2008 10:20 PM

Wow PZ, I think you increased their traffic by about 15 times today.

Posted by: Timothy | July 1, 2008 10:21 PM

No
1500 (92.9%)

Yes
115 (7.1%)

Well, I've done my part.

Too bad it won't affect anything...

Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 1, 2008 10:25 PM

#61so if God isn't responsible for the existence, what is, wackos?

Posted by: stan | July 1, 2008 9:52 PM

When you solve the theological problem of infinite regression, let us know, asshole. Until then, STFU, because at least we try to answer the questions.

Also, you gain no chachet by the idiotic harping of a religion that is, frankly, as much a fantasy as unicorns. If you had ANY idea of the precedents of your religion and how how it's history of changes from a polytheistic, child-sacrificing religion to a monotheistic whack-doodle religion of today, you'd probably be pissed for a decade at the cultural and institutional lies that have been promulgated for over 3000 years.

Hell, if you took a comparative religion course in college, with an open mind, you'd have found out that Christianity has stolen much of its doctrine and gospels from other religions. The Jesus story is recognized as way too parallel to Krishna to be mere coincidence and there is good archaeological evidence that Krisha's death and resurrection was known to the Essene Jewish movement from which Jesus allegedly arose around 600BC. Making the coincidence too strong for casual dismissal as there are scores, or hundreds, of points in which the two myths converge. And there is good evidence that much symbolism and at least some doctrine was borrowed from the Mithraic Mysteries. And other mythos abound, preceding Christianity, from which stories were borrowed. Here are just SOME similarities:

Mithra, Sungod of Persia

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:

Mithra was born on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper"

That not enough for you to pause, you prick, let's continue:

Krishna of India

The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are many. It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One")
His father was a carpenter.
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.54a
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
He was of royal descent.
He was baptized in the River Ganges.
He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
"He lived poor and he loved the poor."
He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."
He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."
Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.

See, if you'd studied ancient religions and cultures you'd find they weren't like us. That the borrowed liberally from other faiths. That myths were, literally, transportable and fungible. Gods were local/regional and changed from town-to-town, city-to-city all while borrowing liberally from prior religions and surrounding religions.

Only in modern times have these ancient religions achieved some sort of rigidity of doctrine. Zeus is Zeus wherever you go, now. Back then, not so much. He might be El for the Canaanites. Or Jupiter for the Romans. Or some other god, under a different name, in Persia. But those ancients recognized them as, more or less, the same god.

Now, are you ready for more? Tough. I'm not... You're just another ignorant Internet wanker who doesn't have a clue but has his deluded head so far up his ass he can't hear a word, so I'd be wasting my time. Because you're an arrogant piss-prick who relies on his ignorance to hound those who know far, far, far more about nearly everything.

And I have better things to do that to try to beat the stupidity and ignorance out of your head.

Posted by: Moses | July 1, 2008 10:29 PM

I'd also like a Porsche, please.

Oh Lord,
won't ya buy me
a Mercedes Benz?

My friends all drive Porsches,
I must make Amends.

Worked hard all my lifetime,
no help from my friends.

So lord,
won't ya buy me
a Mercedes Benz?

-JJoplin

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 10:39 PM

I love what they have to say about radiometric dating. "It's a recent development, so we can't trust it!"

Posted by: Grook | July 1, 2008 10:46 PM

No - 93.8%

Yes - 6.2%

So very satisfying.

Posted by: Deborah | July 1, 2008 10:47 PM

For those who think Atheists are disproportionally represented, with minorities having a small impact, just look at all those idiotic faces below the poll vote on the rememberthycreator website. It's funny how an abjectly idiotic belief belonging to an archaic still backwater region of the middle east greatly influences (and in turn, is incfluenced by, and through the masses) people whose appearance is anything but middle eastern. As many have mentioned before, these bastards are either liars, cowards, psychologically unstable, ignorant, idiotic, or a combination of any or all of those traits. These morons deserve nothing more then a swift kick to the groin (I'll concede Holbach's imagination here and use Darwin's statue).

Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 1, 2008 10:51 PM

Thanks. (94%-No) I needed that laugh after the Obama stuff. The poll says the first vote happened back in March. Awww, has it been waiting all this time for us? heheheheh...

Posted by: aratina | July 1, 2008 10:54 PM

[delurks]
Voted "no" using Safari and Firefox, will do so again tomorrow morning using Internet Explorer from work. I don't think these clowns expect any opposition to their idiocy.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | July 1, 2008 10:58 PM

I don't call it voting multiple times, I call it voting for my friends who would vote my way, but don't read this blog.

Posted by: matt | July 1, 2008 10:59 PM

If you mean everything, well you're welcome, I wished it into existence this morning. At about 9am.

well, thanks for nothin'!

personally, I'm having a terrible day.

bastard.

:p

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 11:05 PM

...ayup.

just delete your cache and cookies, go back and vote again... and again... and again...

I'm sure by now someone is working on linking a script that will do it automatically.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 11:08 PM

"I don't know," is the only valid answer that anybody can have to your question

actually, i was gonna go with "starstuff".

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 11:11 PM

so if God isn't responsible for the existence, what is, wackos?

This question is actually asking something about the nature of the universe. It's not asking about a specific event, but about why the physical laws are such that we have existence instead of not. My suspicion is that the answer to this question must eventually boil down to a simple statement like, "Everything that can logically exist must exist." For something to logically exist, it must be fully and completely self consistent. What sorts of things are fully and completely self consistent? Mathematical structures! This dovetails nicely into Max Tegmark's idea of the mathematical universe hypothesis:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe.html

If Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is correct, it could mean that everything exists simply because the above statement is true: everything that can exist does so.

Then we have a different question: "What event led to the beginning of existence?" First it must be stated that a potential answer is no event at all: the universe could potentially have existed forever. Or it could be in line with Hawkings' no boundary hypothesis, where the universe as a whole is finite, but wraps back on itself with no boundary, and thus still has no beginning (imagine, for example, the surface of a sphere: it has no beginning or end, and yet is finite).

But what if there was a specific event that started it all off? If so, the answer may lie in quantum mechanics. Within quantum mechanics, for instance, we find that if a particular form of matter can exist within a region of space, then it must pop in and out of the vacuum. This is, however, within a background space-time. If we want to talk about the beginning of everything, we can't talk about any background: we have to talk about the beginnings of space-time!

Well, we know from simple observation that space-time can exist. If we had a quantum theory of gravity, might we find that space-time must necessarily be generated, by analogy with quantum vacuum fluctuations in quantum field theory? And the neat thing about all this is that quantum vacuum fluctuations are only short-lived because their energy is finite: due to the energy-time uncertainty relationship, they can't last long before they disappear. But a space-time doesn't have to have any total energy at all, and it can still be interesting. Our own region of the universe has no net energy, for instance! So maybe the event that started it all was a quantum gravity analog to a quantum vacuum fluctuation.

Anyway, musings over.

Posted by: Jason Dick | July 1, 2008 11:20 PM

actually, i was gonna go with "starstuff".