…and this is a 
Some online news organization has revivified the Cincinnati Zoo/Creation "museum" controversy, and they have blamed me for it all. Thank you, thank you, I appreciate the credit, but really, it must be shared with the thousands of people who responded with their letters, and particularly with the zoo administrators, who so quickly saw the folly of forming an affiliation with an anti-science/anti-education organization like Answers in Genesis.
However, Mark Looy of the Creation "museum" generously credited me by name as the ringlea…um, criminal mastermi…uh, instigator of the campaign to separate science from irrationality.
"I think so much pressure came on the zoo -- not only by local residents, but [from] all over the country, including an email campaign instigated by a professor in Minnesota, several hundred miles away," notes Looy.
"He got many of his colleagues to send very angry emails and made some nasty phone calls to the zoo -- so much so that the guest relations people at the zoo were just overwhelmed with how to deal with this."
According to The Associated Press, University of Minnesota-Morris biology professor P.Z. Myers urged readers of his blog to contact the zoo. In an email to the news service, he expressed his pleasure that the zoo moved so quickly and stated that someone in the zoo's marketing department "lost sight of the educational mission of the institution while trying to make money."
You know what this means. It means a new flood of angry emails from aggravated creationists. I guess the site where this was posted gets a lot of right-wing traffic, because the loons are calling. I've tossed a few of these letters below the fold — have fun. It's the weirdest thing, too — the majority of them are actually written in Comic Sans. You didn't think I picked that font for posting ridiculous comments on accident, did you?
First, who is this Mr Morris?
I guess it feels good to stamp your feet and get your way. When you can show physical proof of your foolish belief in your religion evolution you may impress me but we know you can't. If you think you can prove your false belief why don't you debate Mr. Morris publicly in front of a real audience. I do know you won't do this because of your high and mighty unfounded pride. You ought to be ashamed of yourself forcing your religion on others this is a free country and it should not happen. If your religion is so faultless and absolutely correct then debate with a professional from a creationalist Mr. Morris. Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible. So as long as people like you think you are an infallible god and socialism is the way you chose to deal with unproven fact there are always people that won't and can't believe another false religion. Please don't bother to respond to this email unless you will have an open debate with Mr. Morris because I choose to deal with you like you dealt with the Zoo but I won't stamp my feet and call all my friends to intimidate somebody I'm afraid to face and have an honest conversation with. Coward.
This one is very enamored with the idea that we must teach all the drivel, no matter how inane it is.
Dear Professor,
I am so very sorry that your belief in evolution is so weak, that you have to pressure anyone and everyone who wishes to present the Biblical version of the beginning of life. Are you afraid that evolution will be disproved? Afraid of the Facts? Does the weakness in evolution scare you so much that you have to scare people away from genuine scientific discovery by exploring all avenues how life began? One can only derive that you are actually a Satanist. As only a Satan worshiper would fear the teaching of Christ! What does an atheist fear? A true atheist would think that Christians (or other religious persons) were just wasting their time and would truly not be bothered. I will pray for you all your colleagues. Obviously, you all need a lot of prayers to see the REAL TRUTH. I have no problem with teaching evolution side by side with Creationism (or intelligent design), but for some reason, the evolutionists are afraid to let Creationism (ID) to be taught side by side, so that the students can derive their own opinion. You certainly have forgotten what true scientific research is really about. You know, exploring ALL avenues and not a single approach. This tells me that you are not truly qualified to teach because you are too biased to allow your students to learn all of the facts.
This one hits all the right-wing high notes.
I read about the recent attacks on Christianity from your department. I am referring to the trouble that was made over the Creation Museum in Kentucky and their joint venture with the Cincinnati zoo. My only words are : The Cincinnati zoo should let their monkeys go and cage the evolutionists because they act more like monkeys than the real ones.
This nation is going crazy with left wing attacks on traditional America and the Christian principles on which it was founded (not the revisionist historian separation of church/state myth). The war on Christmas every year, the blatant attacks on Christianity, and all the insane excuses people come up with to attempt to avoid God.
Evolution is the biggest lie Satan has ever told. Have you ever even read about where the idea of "millions of years" come from? It wasn't entirely Charles Darwin's idea. He simply used that idea to justify his own personal revelation to discount God. In other words, the only way his idea of evolution (it is not a theory because it is not testable in a lab environment) would work is if there was an massive expanse of time for it to happen in. Up until Darwin and a few others before him the idea of an old earth was ridiculous - and don't call me a flat earther because that term in itself is incorrect. Even the prophet Isaiah knew that the earth was round. (Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science)
Plainly, these attacks on normal people such has been instigated in this case is downright silly and totally uncalled for. It is amazing that ultra-left wingers believe in nothing, yet support a 'separation of church and state". I too believe in this. I believe that the state, including university professors, should stay out of the church's business. Liberals complain about creationism being taught in school. Well, you know what, we do not want evolution taught in our churches and if we want to build a museum dedicated to the creator, then that's our right and our business. If you don't like it, don't look at it. It's as simple as that.
Evolution is used now as a tool to promote the vulgar and disgusting homosexual movement that has recently become violent. By claiming that evolution is real, the gay community can claim that they were born gay, which is absurd. No one is born gay. it is a psychological problems that stems from early childhood scenarios. Even the APA used to say this until they were pressured by the far left to change history and change science. That's what they do best.
I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified. I am not a terrorist (BillAyers) and do not worship the environment(global warming nuts), do not seek monkeys as my creator (evolutionists) and do not brainwash other people (Marxists). I suppose I am disqualified from teaching. Maybe someday, America will wake up and fire every hippy liberal brainwashed professor and hire real teachers who teach the truth rather than a mock version of reality. How did that terrorist Bill Ayers not get executed for treason in the 1960s anyway? It is amazing that a man of his sickening stature could get a job teaching. Thank you ACLU! (Allied Communist Lickers Union). You have destroyed America. Maybe someday there will be an uprising and real Americans can take back this country from the slaves of deceit and aggressors who seek the destruction of their own well-being. I guess all that dope in the 1960s just hasn't worn completely off yet. Maybe one day America will wake up after the 60s generation is dead and gone and realize that we need to reclaim America again.
Until then, happy monkey! (or what ever non Christmas evolution people say)
P.S. MERRY CHRISTMAS! (It's about calling it what it is!)
Name deleted
DOWN WITH COMMUNISM!
DOWN WITH SOCIALISM!
DOWN WITH MARXISM!
DOWN WITH DARWINISM
DOWN WITH ISLAMIC TERRORISM
This one is fairly representative of the succession of tirades I'm getting right now.
I just found out that you were one of the main reasons that the Cincinnati Zoo cancelled its partnership with the nearby Creation Museum. How dare you!!! And you should be ashamed of yourself, but since you are obviously an intolerant, left wing liberal, I can probably count on the fact you have no conscience, at least not one that would make you ashamed of something like this. You know I have heard many people talk about how Christians are such hypocrites, and true some are. But people like you are even worse hypocrites. You spout your speech about how people should be tolerant of others. Of course what you mean by this is that Christians should be tolerant. Well, sir (and I use that term extremely loosely), Christians are probably the most tolerant people on the planet. If we weren't, and if we spoke up more, then asinine liberals like yourself wouldn't be trashing this once great country. Your intolerance (which you denounce so vehemently in others) for people who believe differently than you is what led you to your massive e-mail and phone campaign by you, and readers of your blog, to the Cincinnati Zoo that made them cancel their partnership with the museum. I would think that as an educator you would want people to see different viewpoints, take them all into consideration, then choose for themselves what they believe. But it has gotten to the point that college and university professors today are no longer educators. All many of you do is spout your viewpoint as if it is the truth, and you don't tolerate (there's that word again) or even encourage open and honest discussion on topics among your students. All you do is force them to listen to you and what you believe and pass that off as education. Since you place so much stock in e-mail campaigns, don't be surprised if you suddenly become the recipient of one yourself. And I hope you have the courage to answer this e-mail, but then again I'm sure you don't. You, just like so many other pea-brained, pinheaded liberals I know, just want to make your stupid little comments then go into hiding and not take any responsibility for what you say or do. But then again, why would I expect you to answer this e-mail. You have no argument against what I have said. Your actions have proven that you are an intolerant, pseudo-intellectual snob.
That's probably enough. I expect I'll be getting a lot more of these over the next few days.
Comments
Posted by: LordJiro | December 18, 2008 1:37 AM
I confess, I only skimmed, but something from the third letter caught my eye: "Christians are probably the most tolerant people on the planet."
*ahem*
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*wipes a tear* Oh my, I think I hurt myself laughing. Funniest damn thing I've read all night.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 18, 2008 1:38 AM
I'm upset. . .I want the stupid creationists to go away. :(
Posted by: Nick | December 18, 2008 1:39 AM
Ha ha ha! Pure comedy genius.
Posted by: Peter S | December 18, 2008 1:39 AM
One thing all of these letters have in common:
The authors put words in that they only loosely understand the definition of.
Posted by: LordJiro | December 18, 2008 1:39 AM
Hmm, apparently staying up late messes with my counting skills. Fourth letter, not counting the article.
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | December 18, 2008 1:39 AM
Notable evolutionary biologist, Bill Ayers. Even Faux News has stopped beating that manufactroversial drum, but the name of Ayers will echo back and forth inside the cavernous intracranial space of Wingnuttius americanus for a generation.
Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2008 1:40 AM
Hahahaha.
Posted by: Chuck | December 18, 2008 1:41 AM
That hurt my brain.
Posted by: Nick | December 18, 2008 1:41 AM
To quote Father Ted:
"DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!"
"Careful now"
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 18, 2008 1:41 AM
Clearly the second one didn't get the memo from the Disco 'Tute, since s/he openly admits that ID is just another name for creationism. The 'Tute needs to get its act together; herding sheep is much harder work than it looks from the farmhouse, evidently. My grandmother had a folk saying that sums this situation up perfectly: "They're just as organized as a bag full of gnats."
And where do these loons get the notion that calling someone a liberal is an insult? Thomas Jefferson and I are very happy to be liberal, thanks very much.
Posted by: Jay | December 18, 2008 1:43 AM
"Well, sir (and I use that term extremely loosely)"
Yeah, more like "M'am" if anything, Mrs. Paul Zachary Myers! BA-ZING!
Posted by: LordJiro | December 18, 2008 1:43 AM
The meaning of the word 'liberal' has changed recently. When used by a right-winger, it now means 'Someone I dislike'. Or possibly 'Poopyhead'.
Posted by: rs | December 18, 2008 1:52 AM
"Mr. Morris" would probably be Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation "Research." Somewhere between Ken Ham and Kent Hovind on the creationism BS scale.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2008 1:52 AM
I am so very sorry that your belief in evolution is so weak, that you have to pressure anyone and everyone who wishes to present the Biblical version of the beginning of life.
yet another classic example of projection.
that makes over 2000 entries in my database of self-identified xians engaging in projection.
It's so common as to be classifiable as a "trait" of evangelical xians.
Posted by: blf | December 18, 2008 1:52 AM
The meaning of the word 'liberal' has changed recently. When used by a right-winger, it now means 'Someone I dislike'.
Nah, too difficult of a concept to grasp.
Or possibly 'Poopyhead'.
Nah, too many syllables.
Posted by: Kassul | December 18, 2008 1:55 AM
That third letter needs some hard returns.
WALL OF TEXT much?
Additionally, the third letter repeatedly calls you a leftist liberal loonie(eg: unamerican), but yet he has the following to say:
"If we weren't, and if we spoke up more, then asinine liberals like yourself wouldn't be trashing this once great country."(emphasis mine)
He hates what America is now PZ, maybe as much as you(you liberal scumbag!)
Perhaps this can be the common ground on which to build on? :P
Posted by: Ick of the East | December 18, 2008 1:55 AM
C'mon P.Z.
Don't let the fact that Morris is dead keep you from debating him.
What are you afraid of? Zombie Morris?
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 18, 2008 1:56 AM
It's hard to pick a favorite. It's hard even reading any of them. Don't these potatoheaded yokels ever go to school to learn how to read and write?
Seriously. I think we desperately need to sneak some basic grammar and logic lessons into their Bibles.
It would help.
Posted by: gabriel | December 18, 2008 1:56 AM
First, who is this Mr Morris?
Most likely John Morris, son of the late Henry Morris. John is the current president of ICR.
C'mon, PZ, don't you keep up with the latest in creationism? ;o)
Posted by: Jim Bob | December 18, 2008 1:59 AM
I am wishing everyone I know "Happy monkey!" instead of happy holidays now. Confusion will run rampant, like in the heads of eighth graders who are being taught that ID is science. Hilarious and depressing simultaneously.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2008 1:59 AM
of course it was the liberals who trashed this once great country.
all those liberals de-regulating the banking industry, airline industry, auto industry...
wait...
oh, THAT'S right, it was the rethuglicans who did all that.
billy-joe-bob-jeeter apparently likes to shoot himself in the head.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 18, 2008 1:59 AM
You know, the Cincy Zoo hasn't yet thanked us for convincing them not to throw in their lot with people like these e-mail writers.
"Evolution is the biggest lie Satan has ever told."
You're welcome, Cincy Zoo.
Posted by: Jason A. | December 18, 2008 2:00 AM
From the 3rd letter:
Yeah, no kidding? Never would have guessed...
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2008 2:07 AM
oh, and before I forget...
Bravo PZ, for walking through the flames of the inane yet again.
I swear I'm going to find you a pair of fireproof longjohns someday.
Posted by: William Gulvin | December 18, 2008 2:09 AM
You know, the Bible is some fairly challenging reading, especially the KJV. Based on their astonishingly inept writing abilities, it causes me to wonder if PZ's Xtianist correspondents have a.) read their Bible, at all, and b.) been able to comprehend the least bit of it.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 18, 2008 2:09 AM
It doesn't hurt that other bloggers wrote about the zoo aligning with ignorance.
Come on. We all hate anti-science organizations.
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | December 18, 2008 2:10 AM
There is that argument among homosexuals, that their sexual orientation is not a matter of choice or other things that we can control. I wonder if this guy thinks anyone is born heterosexual.
PZ, I envy you so much for getting these letters. I realize you get way too many, and are fed up, but I bet I am not the only reader who would like to write an email to a couple of those 'tards.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 2:12 AM
*Pores over letters*
I think my brain shrank from reading all that garbage. How does one put up with this amount of stupidity and vitriol on a regular basis without going insane?
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2008 2:15 AM
I am not the only reader who would like to write an email to a couple of those 'tards.
phht. that's way too easy to do, given how many of them there are.
just go register at one of the more inane xian fora, like the one for christianexodus.org, and seek to engage.
you'll get plenty of choice rubes to rail on, should you wish.
just remember they will boot your ass at the first sign of contrariness, so wait until you can really sink your teeth into one of them.
Posted by: John Morales | December 18, 2008 2:17 AM
I like the 3rd letter: 34 words, then (my bold)
Then another 608 words.Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2008 2:17 AM
How does one put up with this amount of stupidity and vitriol on a regular basis without going insane?
meh, sanity is overrated.
;)
Posted by: H.H. | December 18, 2008 2:18 AM
I liked when the zoo canceled the ticket deal how they were so quick to point out that the deal in no way implied an endorsement or relationship between the two facilities. "It's not about us endorsing them or them endorsing us," said Chad Yelton, a zoo spokesman. "That wasn't the intention of anything we were doing."
Yet when you listen to the creos talk, they imply the exact opposite: "A spokesman with the Creation Museum says it's a shame that intolerant people caused a partnership between the museum and a large zoo to be dissolved."
Hear that? A partnership between the Cincinnati Zoo and this snake oil stand. And that's exactly what we all said the creos wanted--to trade on the Zoo's good name by claiming a collaboration. Transparently dishonest bastards. Any fools duped by this smokescreen are beyond hope.
Posted by: Jason A. | December 18, 2008 2:19 AM
William Gulvin #25:
I think it's pretty well accepted that no, they don't actually read their bibles. They hear the sunday school and sermon stories, they keep a copy handy, they list it as their 'favorite book', but they look dumbstruck if you mention anything about god ordering the murder of infants in the Midianite war or even jesus' "I come not to bring peace, but the sword" passage.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 18, 2008 2:20 AM
At least we know it's not concerted. For one guy, people thought the Earth was flat only 500 years ago. For another, prophet Isaiah already knew it wasn't so. It seems that not all of them have read the political and incorrect guide...
Posted by: woodstein312 | December 18, 2008 2:24 AM
I almost tire of ripping on letters like this because these folks so obviously live in a fish bowl of self-satisfied ignorance. But, I too have to confess that I like the expression "Happy Monkey" and I will probably use it from here on out.
Happy Monkey, everyone. Happy Monkey indeed.
Posted by: woodstein312 | December 18, 2008 2:28 AM
I almost tire of ripping on letters like this because these folks so obviously live in a fish bowl of self-satisfied ignorance. But, I too have to confess that I like the expression "Happy Monkey" and I will probably use it from here on out.
Happy Monkey, everyone. Happy Monkey indeed.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 2:29 AM
@William Gulvin
With the way these nuts parade around biblical passages they think push their agend while disregarding its specific cultural context, or any conflicting verse in the same book, I doubt it.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 18, 2008 2:30 AM
"Happy Monkey, everyone. Happy Monkey indeed."
Pervert. ;)
Posted by: pcarini | December 18, 2008 2:31 AM
PZ's cyberpistol must be very, very large indeed if it's attracting this much attention!
Posted by: Alison | December 18, 2008 2:32 AM
Long-time reader, first-time commenter. I realize you're the one who has to deal with the waves of hatemail, but I must say that it's a relief that the Zoo called off the deal. Good job, Mr. Myers.
(I also second the motion to use "Happy Monkey" from here on out.)
Posted by: Jeff | December 18, 2008 2:33 AM
How could PZ be a satanist when he doesn't believe in Satan?
Thats just silly.
People (meaning creationists) need to realize there is a difference between having something exist (the creationist museum) and allowing it to gain credibility from leeching off the credentials of a scientific entity (the zoo).
This is ridiculous. Science has no objective. Science exists to understand. If science pointed towards the earth being 5000 years old and Jesus riding around on a Brontosaurus then Science would support that.
Religion has the agenda. Religious people preach intolerance. Science teaches accepted knowledge. If it changes, science will change with it. Religion rejects change. CHange is scary to religion. Thats why early christians tried to destroy all knowledge except what the church was teaching (thank you Islam for preserving it!)
So, as cool as I think Romans riding around on Raptors fighting T-rexes is. It just didn't happen.
Fossils aren't the work of the Devil.
pssst, the devil isn't even real.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 18, 2008 2:35 AM
Alison, are you starting a War on Squidmas?! GRrr ;)
"PZ's cyberpistol must be very, very large indeed if it's attracting this much attention!"
/facepalm
Pervert!!
Posted by: pcarini | December 18, 2008 2:42 AM
Happy Monkey to you too, pal!Posted by: Tully | December 18, 2008 2:43 AM
...wow. My brain hurts. I couldn't make it through the third letter, some paragraphs would have been nice.
What really makes me want to kill kittens is the passage in the second letter about evolution being only an idea, not even a theory, because it's not 'testable in a laboratory environment'. What a stupid bastard.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 18, 2008 2:46 AM
I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified. I am not a terrorist (BillAyers) and do not worship the environment(global warming nuts), do not seek monkeys as my creator (evolutionists) and do not brainwash other people (Marxists). I suppose I am disqualified from teaching.
Please do not dispare. I am sure you are qualified to teach at Liberty University.
And to everyone here, I just want to say "Happy Monkey".
Posted by: RickrOll | December 18, 2008 2:47 AM
"Happy Monkey to you too, pal!"
And a happy New Year, jackass! ;)
seriously, anyone reminded of Oceans 11:
"who you calling pal, friend?"
"Who are you calling friend jackass!"
Posted by: happycetacean | December 18, 2008 2:48 AM
Another good forum to find these types of inane idiots is:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/
You can spend an entire lifetime with great entertainment on there if you choose to engage with the fauna and flora.
Posted by: Ms Constantine | December 18, 2008 2:52 AM
I just stumbled upon this website yesterday and while I love the articles I must say the like minded comments truly make it a whole. You guys are great.
Sarcasm, atheism and education all in the one site!
Also, I continue the motion of "Happy Monkey".
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 18, 2008 2:52 AM
When I read the
I could almost hear all the rationalists of the world saying in one voice, the word Lenski.
Sweet.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 18, 2008 2:54 AM
Well looks like we might get some entertainment for the next few days...
A while ago I read that Dawkins didn't do formal debate with creationist because he didn't want to legitimize them. In my naïveté, I thought that creationist, while wrong, were interested in debate and could perhaps be persuaded. After months of participating in the creation-evolution war online I have come to the conclusion that Dawkins was right.
They have no interest whatsoever in honest debate. They'll make stuff up. They'll flat out lie. They'll repeat the same points that have been refuted over and over again (e.g, evolution is disproved by the second law of....). Rather than the 'scientific method' they prescribe to the 'crackpot method'. Assume your position is true and than twist logic as far as you can to make the facts fit that position.
Oh, and the projecting! "Darwin is your God" "Evolution is your religion" "You believe in a fairytale". Do these people do anything but project!!! Does religion destroy a person's imagination so much that they can't even conceive of someone living life differently from them?
The last gambit the creationist's handbook is to steer the conversation to the idea of "respect". We must "respect" other people's beliefs. Of course, in their twisted dictionary "respect" means "never criticize in any way".
No, creationist are not interested in debate. They are merely interested in manufacturing a controversy and scoring public relations points. Debating them is using reason to try and persuade those who have abandoned reason.
The best thing we can do is point and laugh.
/cranky late night rant
Posted by: Robin Zebrowski | December 18, 2008 2:58 AM
I seriously don't understand how the cognitive dissonance doesn't just cause these people to spontaneously combust. It's one thing to live with a pile of implicit contradictions, but it's quite another to spell them out in great detail, explicitly, and still completely fail to see them.
Posted by: Kel | December 18, 2008 2:58 AM
idiots, every last one of them.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 2:59 AM
...Because it's no fun picking on a retard
Posted by: Pluto Animus | December 18, 2008 2:59 AM
Christians are always so eager to show how pitifully ignorant they are. Why is this? Isn't ignorance something to be ashamed of? I guess it's what they think their magical, invisible friend wants of them.
How sad.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 3:02 AM
Oh, c'mon - at least one of these letters has to be a Poe!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 18, 2008 3:03 AM
I know they're not necessarily the same people, but did any of them consider that their moral Christian leaders attempted to do the very same thing (and worse) to PZ during Crackergate.
Is a modicum of ethicality too much to ask from the people who supposedly chat with the Supreme Moral Authority on a daily basis?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | December 18, 2008 3:06 AM
"Inane"? I think we're missing a letter here.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 18, 2008 3:11 AM
apparently it really is a nightmare to herd sheep. my boyfriend says so, and he was forced to do it by his cranky old Lithuanian grandmother. and now he hates sheep.um. does that make us sound like complete hicks? :-p
Posted by: LL | December 18, 2008 3:11 AM
Whether is is inane, insane or hypocritical, these all apply to them
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 3:12 AM
@Alan
"Inane" (via Miriam-Webster Online):
Posted by: Paper Hand | December 18, 2008 3:14 AM
In my naïveté, I thought that creationist, while wrong, were interested in debate and could perhaps be persuaded.
I know what you mean. I, too, used to think that creationists were simply mistaken, and that if the evidence for evolution were explained to them, they would realize their mistake. While there are certainly some ordinary creationists who that applies to (mostly, I presume, individuals with inherent intellectual honesty who have simply been insulated from the evidence), it certainly doesn't hold true for the leaders of the movement, the "researchers" and "debaters".
Posted by: Kel | December 18, 2008 3:15 AM
Think you missed the joke there Twin Skies ;)
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 3:17 AM
@Kel
/facepalm
I have much to learn about this blog's brand of humor.
Posted by: InTheImageOfDNA | December 18, 2008 3:22 AM
They don't teach basic grammar in Sunday School do they?
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | December 18, 2008 3:26 AM
" in Minnesota, several hundred miles away"
That's so close, only one day's trip away!
Me too likes "Happy Monkey", even though "Happy Money" might be more accurate.
Posted by: cactusren | December 18, 2008 3:27 AM
Well, reading that just killed some brain cells. Pretty soon, I'm gonna have to start choosing between drinking and reading stuff like this: I can only afford to loose so many neurons...
Posted by: Tory D | December 18, 2008 3:30 AM
I cannot conceive how it is possible for there to be people this stupid in the world and them be able to survive. Even working customer service and the raving retards that I talk to on a daily basis. These creationists make those people seem like legions of Einstein's and Tesla's. It makes my brain hurt and I can only say to things.
OUCH!!!
Happy Monkey to all
Posted by: porci dio | December 18, 2008 3:31 AM
Mark Looy has an 'N' missing in his surname
Posted by: Tim | December 18, 2008 3:40 AM
What's lamentable about the replacement of snail mail with email is the lack of secondary utility of an email, you can't burn it in the fireplace, it has no R-value as insulation. I'm reminded of a book review Spider Robinson did years ago, where he evaluated the performance of books in his wood-burning stove (Search phrase "Spider vs the hax of sol III").
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 3:46 AM
@Tim
Flaming the author is the closest we've got to burning said letter. It leaves one feeling warm and fuzzy too.
Posted by: Brian English | December 18, 2008 3:50 AM
PZ, these emails are chock full of logical fallacies. They need to be used as exemplars of how not to think! It hurts! Worse than my caffeine addiction!
Posted by: Cactus Wren | December 18, 2008 4:00 AM
#15:
How about "U SUK"?
#50:
And since formal debates are timed, a well-programmed creationist can spew out two dozen fallacies in the time it takes a scientist to thoroughly refute one. Then the creationist can go home and claim that most of his "points" went unanswered.
Posted by: Maja | December 18, 2008 4:03 AM
They're just all over the place, aren't they, science is socialism is satanism, how very interesting. I feel for you having to deal with that kind of stupidity.
Posted by: MH | December 18, 2008 4:06 AM
Off topic, but I think readers will get a chuckle out of this Harry Hill sketch.
Posted by: Pete UK | December 18, 2008 4:08 AM
Excellent, PZ. You're an "intolerant liberal"!
The last writer has put the "moron" in oxymoron.
Posted by: Snark7 | December 18, 2008 4:08 AM
"The meaning of the word 'liberal' has changed recently. When used by a right-winger, it now means 'Someone I dislike'."
Or possibly 'Poopyhead'."
Nope. It means: Everyone that is brighter than me.
Posted by: Rick R | December 18, 2008 4:09 AM
I'm still reading the letters, but I wanted to drop down and comment on letter #3.......wow. Just fucking WOW. That cretin has swallowed the radical right wing koolaid to an extent I wouldn't have thought possible.
It's soooo ridiculous, I'm seriously considering the possibility of Poe.
Posted by: jon | December 18, 2008 4:13 AM
Comic Sans : The font more religious nutjobs use.
Posted by: Geospiza | December 18, 2008 4:16 AM
Don't knock Comic Sans MS. I like that font, because it's funny looking. Not that I would use it for sending a letter to a total stranger...
Seriously, these people need to understand that science is not a democratic process, it's a merit based process. Heck, the scientific process is probably less forgiving than our economy right now.
Posted by: Chris | December 18, 2008 4:19 AM
PZ,
How dare you or people that read Pharyngula send emails expressing displeasure with an action you disagree with! That is so terribly intolerant. Thank goodness there are now tolerant christians sending you emails to express displeasure with an action they disagree with.
See, the intolerant evolutionists send emails when they are upset about something. The tolerant christians compose emails which are sent. The actions could not be any more different.
*dripping sarcasm*
Chris
Posted by: Rick R | December 18, 2008 4:23 AM
pcarini @ #39- "PZ's cyberpistol must be very, very large indeed if it's attracting this much attention!"
As a gay man, I find PZ's ample cyberpistol....strangely interesting.
I blame evolution.
Posted by: Snark7 | December 18, 2008 4:29 AM
If there WAS a god, there wouldn't be such stupid people.
Posted by: Holydust | December 18, 2008 4:34 AM
I am so EFFING SICK of idiot Godbots parroting this. "What are you afraid of? If you weren't afraid you'd just leave us alone! This proves that you're really terrified of the FACTS!" Bullshit.
Of course, they can't understand that we FEAR them because they are RAISING PEOPLE TO BE IGNORANT MORONS. We fear them because THAT IS DANGEROUS.
I am going to go punch a wall. Excuse me.
Posted by: Kilian Hekhuis | December 18, 2008 4:36 AM
It is so ironic that he/she seems to think that what is the strength of science, viz. it's non-dogmaticness and progress, is its weekness, not realizing that his/her own believe is justified only by circular reasoning ("The Bible contains the truth, therefore I believe in the Bible, therefore I do not question its contents, and since its contents is never questioned, therefor it contains the truth). Sigh.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | December 18, 2008 4:40 AM
Happy Monkey, to everyone except the Librarian, who I wish Happy Ape. He demands precision in his primate references.
Posted by: Rick R | December 18, 2008 4:40 AM
Kilian- I hit on that one, too. Unbelievable. This person actually sees progress itself as a negative, a weakness, a fault. How such an idiot even manages to tie their shoes in the morning is a mystery.
Posted by: shonny | December 18, 2008 4:42 AM
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what kind of jobs the IDiots do.
Even the most menial task generally demand some level of comprehension. Not much, but at least the ability to understand that black is not white, up is not down, and back is not front.
Which seems way beyond the letter writers' capability. Ugh!
Posted by: Rick R | December 18, 2008 4:48 AM
At my moments of greatest empathy, I look at the cloud of irrational fear of the world people like this must live in, a kind of constant, low-grade terror of everything. And I feel sorry for them.
Then I zero in on the damage they do, usually to children, and I become enraged once again.
Posted by: Gilian | December 18, 2008 4:49 AM
[quote]Evolution is the biggest lie Santa has ever told.[/quote]
Sometimes being slightly dyslectic and/or lazy has its advantages. It did make sense with the War on Christmass posts though !
Posted by: Chris Davis | December 18, 2008 4:51 AM
There's one bright spot in all of this: a great number of Christians, it seems, have tied their religious colours to the mast of ID/Creationism/Anti-evolution.
And they're fucked, ultimately: they're battling against something that only a severe imagination and/or knowledge failure could fail to see the truth of.
Yes, at present silly arguments like 'it's only a theory' or 'micro good; macro bad' may sustain them briefly. But in reality they simply haven't a leg to stand on.
It may be too much to hope for that they'll all drop their 'faith' along with their opposition to the Fact of Evolution, but it should cut at least some of 'em off at the knees.
Posted by: Snark7 | December 18, 2008 5:01 AM
"It may be too much to hope for that they'll all drop their 'faith' along with their opposition to the Fact of Evolution, but it should cut at least some of 'em off at the knees."
And what good would that do? Just makes it easier for them to grovel before their idiotic idols ;)
Posted by: Serafina | December 18, 2008 5:04 AM
PZ, how do you manage? I can't imagine being faced with that email avalanche of stupidity on a regular basis. Just from reading those letters my brain already hurts. Any second now it's going to curl up in a semi-foetal position, start whimpering and hide in a far, far away corner.
Oh, and to the rest: Happy monkey!
Posted by: Mikael HafO | December 18, 2008 5:05 AM
Thanks for sharing, PZ. Until now I had a bad day, but those letters made me laugh. I especially liked the "Happy Monkey" and "DOWN WITH" letter. So much anger, so much stupidity. O, sancta simplicitas, to quote Jan Hus.
The article that you link to begins with
Intolerant people? Well, if you were honest and called the Creation Museum by its true name, Fairy Tale Museum of Inadequate Creation Myths, we wouldn't bother to protest. It's when you claim that your display is scientifically valid, that we have to stand up and point out what is real and what is not. The process of evolution is the only rational, provable and disprovable explanation for the origin and development of life. Religion provides a nice set of fairy tales and the subjective interpretation of those, nothing else. Present a hypothesis on the origin and development of life where the parameter "god(s)" can be isolated and tested, and subject that to the unbiased scrutiny of science. Or, since you can't do that, keep your ideas in the Childrens' Books department, where they belong.
Posted by: brett | December 18, 2008 5:09 AM
I love how they make it an issue of 'tolerance', as if teaching religion and junk in a science class deserves to be tolerated.
Posted by: chris | December 18, 2008 5:11 AM
#9
To quote Father Ted:
"DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!"
"Careful now"
Ha ha I love Father Ted it's the one of the funniest sitcoms ever
My favourite Ted quote is "That's the great thing about Catholicism. It's so vague and no one really knows what it's about"
Posted by: Steven | December 18, 2008 5:26 AM
The stupidity, it burns.
Posted by: Elwood | December 18, 2008 5:35 AM
Oh. My. Monkey.
Posted by: Kitty | December 18, 2008 5:37 AM
Samantha Vimes
Happy Monkey, to everyone except the Librarian, who I wish Happy Ape. He demands precision in his primate references.
Yes (s)he does!
Before retirement I ran a large school library and was given a huge poster of The Librarian by my pupils to thank me for keeping the shelves well stocked with the Discworld novels.
Under The Librarian they wrote in large letters '(S)he who must be obeyed' and all the new pupils were duly indoctrinated into the 'Cult of The Librarian'.
I displayed it with pride behind my desk, alongside an equally large poster of Darwin as an ape.
I'm glad to say my successor has continued the tradition.
That has made me a very Happy Ape indeed.
Posted by: Snark7 | December 18, 2008 5:37 AM
Very nice Father Ted quote!
To tell the truth I rather felt like quoting Father Jack, when reading this inane crap:
"Drink!" "Ass!"
Posted by: clinteas | December 18, 2008 5:38 AM
The dumb is strong in those ones.
And there is way too many of them in your country.
Posted by: Kitty | December 18, 2008 5:43 AM
Mikael HafO keep your ideas in the Childrens'(sic) Books department, where they belong.
No. Wrong logic, we need to get them out of the children's book department. Creationists don't see their works as fantasy and want to be in the non-fiction section (they come supplied with Dewey numbers so you know where to place them).
I have no problem with feeding fantasy to children (see above) but it should be honest fantasy and not disguised as fact.
Posted by: BobC | December 18, 2008 5:47 AM
One of the creationist retards was very honest: I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified.
Posted by: SEF | December 18, 2008 5:57 AM
@ #65
£500 to be precise. Though Douglas Adams reckoned that, on the whole, it wasn't the pieces of paper which were unhappy. So the "happy" qualifier is somewhat redundant there.Posted by: strangest brew | December 18, 2008 6:07 AM
What is obvious is that the ilk that scribble this nonsense do not do so out of personal discovery, but all the classic creationist lines are regurgitated to each other ad hoc and only verbally.
It is a word of mouth campaign with no checking of either fact or point.
It is not based of even cursory research it is the truth because it suits a world view.
But mainly because in their circle of society everyone repeats this nonsense to each other ad infinitum,like a comforting mantra that stops the reality from peeking in, tis one reason why the same stuff is trotted our year after year it has no base it is in the Creationist lexicon and as a word of mouth mantra it is impossible to stop the rumour, even AiG has problems getting the clones to drop fallacies like 'Paluxy' et al.
This crap is what they endlessly blurt to one and other when the atheists are circling, like a mantra, they never read the refutation on line, they never question the snippets of crap they use...the pastor told them that so that must be true!...
It was in a tacky DI pamphlet it must be true!...I heard from some representative of a Creationist ministry it must be true cos christians do not lie!...some bimbo quoted it on Fox it must be true!...
But it is also used as a defensive reaction, it is their dilapidated shield and wonky blunt sword, they do not really trust it so they never actually analyse what they wield, that way lies madness, but it is all they have against an intolerant world.
It also means that they are very frightened and fear that the delusion is near to falling apart,
The hook up with a scientific organisation was a plank to cross the respectability void, that got pulled from under and that is a bitter blow to the delusion, Christians do nor forgive as easily as they boast, but that retraction of gravitas has also left them out in the cold of a increasingly secular world!
Bit of panic setting in because they now know that in future it will not be quite as easy to dupe a similar institution...so near ...yet so far away!
Posted by: Mikael HafO | December 18, 2008 6:07 AM
Kitty: That was the basic message of my comment. Call it by its true name, and then use it to amuse children, as with any other fairy tale. Reading my first comment again, I can see that it wasn't very clear on that point, but that is my opinion on the matter :)
I teach among other things evolutionary biology and genetics at my university, and there are more and more creationists among the students for every year. It's pretty tiring having to explain even the most basic concepts to grown men and women, that have devoted their lives to block out any other ideas than those of their respective religion, and as a result of that have avoided learning what they should have learnt in ground school and high school. Although we try to be polite and respectful, there comes a point in the A level course where we have to say "Stop! We will not discuss this matter any further, on the basis that what you say is no more than mythological bollocks", since any scientifically valid argument seems inadequate to penetrate their armour of ignorance. And furthermore, since it's an A level course in biology and evolution, and not in theology/literature.
I guess that makes me pretty intolerant, but I try to teach science, reason and rationality.
Posted by: Miguel | December 18, 2008 6:25 AM
Must... stop... reading... The stupid... it burns... *collapses*
It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 18, 2008 6:42 AM
What would be nice is if pharmacists and doctors put signs up around their practices and stores that read something like this:
Antibiotics only work because of the theory of evolution. By using them to treat your illness you are endorsing evolution and rejecting intelligent design and/or creationism. If you wish to honour your god then you need to go home and pray for him to heal you.
Posted by: Paul Browne | December 18, 2008 6:45 AM
The part that made me laugh was the lines "I have no problem with teaching evolution side by side with Creationism (or intelligent design), but for some reason, the evolutionists are afraid to let Creationism (ID) to be taught side by side, so that the students can derive their own opinion." in the second letter you posted.
So finally the IDiots admit that ID and creationism are the same thing.
Posted by: Kitty | December 18, 2008 6:49 AM
Mikael
You're not intolerant at all, and apologies if I was a bit harsh.
Decades ago as a Zoology A-level student I and my contemporaries would have laughed at the notion of 'teach the controversy'. Keep being intolerant of this crap.
It's why I kept all creationist, new age, alternative medicine, King Arthur is alive and well and living in Glastonbury, aliens made us what we are, most haunted house... crap off the non-fiction shelves in my library. I had a special section called 'Out of their Minds?' after Z in the fiction library.
It caused absolutely no 'controversy' at all, but then I live in Wales - or perhaps I was just a really scary Librarian!
I've mentioned before on another thread that people like yourself should write more for children - I'd have given my eye teeth for an Eyewitness Guide to Evolution, for instance.
If you want to educate you have to provide the materials to the educators and that includes us lowly librarians as we can often provide more than a class text book. We are the ones who point the kids at the shelves and shout 'GO'.
The free stuff coming into schools from the woo pedlars, even here, is glossy and very attractive. Let's have more real stuff please, written by real scientists.
Posted by: John Pieret | December 18, 2008 6:55 AM
Didn't they claim the "museum" was within a day's drive of 2/3 of the American population? Being only "several hundred miles away" would make you practically a next-door neighbor then.
Posted by: Carlie | December 18, 2008 6:58 AM
In addition to saying "Happy Monkey", you could present people with the traditional Happy Monkey Day gift of Anti Monkey Butt Powder.
Posted by: BobC | December 18, 2008 7:00 AM
Chris Davis (#90):
Many Christians greatly fear the teaching of evolution to their children because they correctly believe it threatens their religion. They are so terrified of evolutionary biology, they try to get laws passed to dumb down science education, and they yell at biology teachers. Where I live in Florida, thousands of Christians became very upset when our public school science standards were changed to make evolution one of the big ideas of science.
Many atheists dishonestly tell Christians they can accept both evolution and their magic god fairy. They shouldn't do that in my opinion. Why not be honest and say it's virtually impossible for a person to understand how evolution works and still believe in supernatural magic. The older totally brainwashed creationists are going to remain creationists anyway. The younger Christians, if they have any intelligence at all, might be convinced to both accept the facts of evolution and throw out their medieval religion. I think the world becomes a better place every time a Christian grows up and throws out Jebus. Why not encourage this?
Posted by: Mikael HafO | December 18, 2008 7:08 AM
We've actually discussed the possibility of writing a book on evolution for toddlers (in Swedish), but as it seems such a book would be suitable for some of our students as well :)
Posted by: Dave Newton | December 18, 2008 7:09 AM
It'd be comical if it wasn't so irritating.
Debate that creationalist (eh?), I say!
Posted by: Benoit | December 18, 2008 7:11 AM
I'm going shopping tonight, and seriously considering saying "Happy Monkey" to every salesperson I meet.
Posted by: Kel | December 18, 2008 7:20 AM
What about people such as Francis Collins, Ken Miller and Robert T Bakker? Is it dishonest to tell Christians it's one or the other when there are many biologists who are theists and many religious who accept the theory of evolution? It seems it's dishonest of us to play the dichotomy when the options can and do coexist.Posted by: DoctorOHM@gmail.com | December 18, 2008 7:20 AM
As i like alliterations, i'd rather say Merry Monkey!
Posted by: Mikael HafO | December 18, 2008 7:20 AM
I just noticed that if you use Google Translate for translating the Swedish word for "creationists", kreationister to English, it comes back as "creation lard" (kreation + ister). Oh, the irony :D
Posted by: True Bob | December 18, 2008 7:22 AM
That's fine for you biologists, but as a mechanical engineer, I subscribe to the religion of F=mA.
Happy Monkey!
PS I thought these were actually pretty well written, considering the genre. Most of these screeds are really, really, pitiful, witness PZ's prior examples. Still plenty of burning stoopid, but comparatively, somewhat more coherent than the standard. Thanks, PZ, you rock.
Posted by: DoctorOHM | December 18, 2008 7:23 AM
@118
Hahaha. That is funny, never thought of that.
Posted by: Carl | December 18, 2008 7:30 AM
PZ, Please post the name of the author of the "Happy Monkey" letter so that when it enters common parlance, the Wikipedia article will be able to attribute it.
"A Christmas Carol" would have been vastly improved if only Tiny Tim had said, "And a Happy Monkey to us each and everyone!"
Posted by: BobC | December 18, 2008 7:31 AM
Scientists like Collins and Miller are rare. I noticed most biologists are atheists.
Collins is a wacko. I don't know what Miller's problem is. I wouldn't be surprised if he was really an atheist who found a way to make big money selling books to gullible Christians.
One big problem with an atheist telling a Christian he can accept both modern biology and magic fairies is the Christian knows the atheist is lying.
There are Christians who accept evolution, but most of them invoke their fairy to guide it. Or they say god invented evolution, or god uses evolution. I would prefer they remain creationists than pollute my favorite branch of science with their disgusting adjective "theistic".
Posted by: keri | December 18, 2008 7:33 AM
One of the common threads among creationists, other than the fact that they're creationists, seems to be a fear of socialism and communism. I guess I can understand this fear of communism (it hasn't exactly worked out to be pleasant for the people wherever it's been tried), but what on earth is the problem with socialism? They toss it around like a bogeyman, but it doesn't seem to be anything bad to me. Maybe I just need to go back to school and study political science or something. :/
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | December 18, 2008 7:35 AM
Ichthyic @ 14
Can you post that data somewhere or are you going to publish soon ;-)
Posted by: Kel | December 18, 2008 7:38 AM
I don't feel like I'm lying when I say that, as I pointed out above. Indeed I would feel dishonest by saying they are incompatible. Maybe the Christian feels I'm being dishonest but really that's their loss. My acceptance of evolution has noting to do with my rejection of the magic sky daddy.Posted by: Red Dragon | December 18, 2008 7:40 AM
Chebus. I'd rather get scams from Nigeria.
Posted by: John | December 18, 2008 7:42 AM
Oh man....now I'm going to buy a bunch of blank christmas cards and send them to all my friends and relatives with "HAPPY MONKEY" written inside! That guy just gave us all a new holiday!
Happy Monkey!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 7:44 AM
Oh goody.
*sharpens his flaying knife.
I'll have to say Happy Monkey made my day.
*sulks off grumbling about unintentional rhymes
Posted by: Hannah | December 18, 2008 7:48 AM
Bloody hell mate, the crap you have to put up with sometimes. Whoo.
Posted by: allonym | December 18, 2008 7:48 AM
From the 3rd letter
I see the problem here: Isiah must not have read Revelation 7:1. The Bible is consistent and true, so sayeth the Bible!
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | December 18, 2008 7:49 AM
Evolution (and modern cosmology) can certainly pave the way for loss of faith (as it did in Dawkins' case), because if objects that look so complex that they "must" have a designer can be explained without one then that's a major argument against religion- especially the literalist variants.
Its dishonest to say you can't reconcile science and religion, many people do, and can do good science. But it should be recognised that science can erode religious belief.
(And in the words of Steven Weinberg "A good thing too").
Posted by: Matt Davies | December 18, 2008 7:49 AM
These guys couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, unfortunately they can manage to pressure their reps to insert some inane crap into your legislation and to attack basic scientific education. Wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately another export of the US of A seems to be that branch of non-existent mindedness.
I wouldn't replacing the monkeys in the zoo. Lots of food gets thrown at me and as long as I can get wireless then I'd have a fine old time reading all those journal articles I never have the time to read while in the lab. Maybe even take 'On the Origin of Species' in there for a bit of a laugh.
Happy Monkey one and all.
Posted by: BobC | December 18, 2008 7:51 AM
How can a person honestly say evolution is not a threat to theism when that person is an atheist? The Christian knows the atheist is lying. Christians are the most stupid people in human history, but they are at least smart enough to know when they are being lied to.
I tell Christians they are correct to say evolution threatens their religion because I'm in favor of eradicating their death cult. Telling a Christian it's possible to accept modern science and still believe in miracles is just sucking up to the religious insanity that's destroying our country.
Posted by: Bennie | December 18, 2008 8:01 AM
I think that these letters show even more evidence of our primal relations, as some homo sapiens sapiens apparently still like to fling their own poop.
Merry Monkey!
(Or should I say Happy Primate Days? Is this a War on Monkey [copyright foxnews])
Posted by: True Bob | December 18, 2008 8:01 AM
If you feel you really must address the concept of holding evolution and religion in one mind, why not just say "Sure, evolution & religion can coexist in your mind. You just need to have sufficient cognitive dissonance."?
Happy Monkey, one and all.
Posted by: Kel | December 18, 2008 8:10 AM
I don't see the conflict with evolution any more than any other branch of science.Posted by: Busby SEO Test Gary Viray | December 18, 2008 8:11 AM
Glad to know you are holding up pretty well with all these attackers bugging you through phone and e-mail. Stay cool!
Posted by: Craig Boak | December 18, 2008 8:11 AM
Dr. Meyers,
The "Mr. Morris" refered to in your posting is Henry M. Morris, Phd. the founder of the Institute for Creation Research of Santee, California. His degree, professional experience and journal articles are in civil engineering specifically in the area of hydralic engineering. How would this make him an expert in biology let alone evolution?
Posted by: Colonel Molerat | December 18, 2008 8:11 AM
But I thought Comic Sans was 'The Font of the Devil™'?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 8:15 AM
Who is Dr. Meyers?
Posted by: Baudi | December 18, 2008 8:19 AM
//Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago//
Hahaha I can't stop laughing! This is fantastic!
Posted by: dead yeti | December 18, 2008 8:22 AM
I just wished someone in my office a 'happy monkey'
now they think i'm drunk
Posted by: Thoracantha | December 18, 2008 8:23 AM
Does a creationalist believe in the theory of creational? And #138, a debate with Henry Morris would be awfully boring, seeing how he has been dead for two years.
DOWN WITH LOWER CASE LETTERS!
Posted by: Riman Butterbur | December 18, 2008 8:24 AM
Whether any individual can reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific knowledge is their own responsibility. It's not the job of a science teacher to try to pressure them, one way or the other.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | December 18, 2008 8:40 AM
Yay, a seasons greeting I can get behind and suggested by a theist dullard to boot.
Happy monkey everyone, atheists, theists and don't knows alike.
Posted by: defectiverobot | December 18, 2008 8:45 AM
There it is in a nutshell: they believe in the separation of state and church. The separation of church and state, however, is a different matter entirely.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 18, 2008 8:45 AM
a debate with Henry Morris would be awfully boring, seeing how he has been dead for two years. Thoracantha
Actually, having seen Morris debate John Maynard Smith, I can testify that the occasion would have been much less boring had Morris been a corpse at the time: Maynard Smith could undoubtedly used the time to give a fascinating lecture.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 18, 2008 8:55 AM
To hold the view that Evolution and Religion can co-exist is a dishonesty at the highest level of cognitive dissonance.
They cannot and do not compliment one and other, at best the claim is a rather blatant attempt to hide the knife behind the back of the atheist and no evangelical Christian will buy it anyway.
It seems that it is even less likely to sell now because mainstream Christianity appears to be losing ground to the evangelistic 'born again' bunnies and they have absolutely no intention in calling a truce they are for the most part highly ignorant, politically right wing and full of spite!...they are not gonna give up jeebus because apart from just 'discovering' the delusion they do not see any advantage in accepting the monkey part in all the rapture!
At worst it is an attempt to assuage ones own cognitive dissonance by claiming such an unlikely scenario.
Pontificating thus...'I believe in Evolution but I think we should teach the controversy' is a unicycle to hell...but not back!
'Teach the controversy' is slang for denigrating Evolutionary theory to an also ran...with the express aim of replacing the Darwinism in Biology with a goddidit...that is the top and bottom there is no in between!
It is not an exercise in fairness it is a push to infect every kid in the US and elsewhere with this delusion in god.
Science is the 'auld enemy and the tactics are to infiltrate and erode and replace...simple like so!
That is and always has been the evangelical version of shang-gri-la...they do not want a fair fight because they would lose...and they know that, but if they can undermine education they have a slim chance of fooling enough folks to extend and carry their dogma into the next millennium at least.
Anyone that does not see that is either very naive or a liar!
Posted by: JackC | December 18, 2008 9:02 AM
"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible."
Perhaps if anyone is thinking about what to get me for Squidmas, a new Irony Meter would be useful. Mine just left this mortal coil.
JC
Posted by: Aaron | December 18, 2008 9:06 AM
"Happy Monkey"
ROFL
Man these people are clueless. :)
Posted by: Ex Partiot | December 18, 2008 9:07 AM
I see that someone has left the asylum door open again. I am going to open a new quart of Jack reading some of those letters was painful. Happy Monkey to all
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | December 18, 2008 9:07 AM
I'm looking for some funding; gonna open up a zoo
With cages of creationists, all blithely flinging poo
They're much more fun than pandas--much more active in their cages
With a longer line on Sundays, when they all sing "Rock of Ages"
The children love to point and laugh--they say "Hey look! They're praying!"
And when they talk, you almost feel they know what they are saying
But clearly it's just gibberish, not language like a man's;
(It shows itself--in transcripts, it comes out in comic sans!)
Posted by: ennui | December 18, 2008 9:09 AM
Typical type 1A supernova of teh creationist stupid.
the goggles... they do nothing!
In fact, I think we need a new font just for them: Comic Sans Crayola Fundie
Anyway, Happy Monkey everybody!
Posted by: Dagor | December 18, 2008 9:10 AM
"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible."
That quote is pure gold. I'm just sad, that you find this kind of stupidity only on the internet. Would be too funny, if someone would use that kind of argument in a real discussion.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 9:12 AM
@BobC #133
It depends on the Christian you're talking to. Most of the ones I know don't have any problems with the theory of evolution, or science in general. For the ones I do know, science works as a means of understanding the intricacies of our surroundings. It doesn't make the world any more or less - they just explain how it works.
As to how this is worked into the faith, well, it begins to sound disturbingly close to ID: there is a belief in a greater being that may have had a hand in creation.
The big difference is that unlike ID, the theology I've grown up with explained that as vast as the universe is, there's still much we have to learn, and that there's very little room for prejudice or rash judgement. There is no assumption of irreducible complexity - everything should be subject to study and reflection. It's only through understanding how our surroundings work that we begin to get a grasp of how God may work.
I apologize in advance if this may sound like a load of bull for some, but I'm just laying down the basics of how Catholicism has been passed down at least within my community.
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 18, 2008 9:12 AM
Happy Monkey!
I really think we should thank this guy for giving us what we so obviously need, an atheist holiday (you know, apart from New Year's, the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, Halloween, and Christmas. And Darwin Day, and Festivus). Maybe send him back a "Merry Christmas" greeting card.
I'm quite puzzled why he would think PZ was in favor of Islamic terrorism. Or maybe he just signs all his correspondence that way?
Posted by: Stephen Foster | December 18, 2008 9:15 AM
Of course (and it has probably been pointed out already) the uneducated character of the negative response could be further evidence for evolution - after all, it is a somewhat sloppy process and leaves behind a multitude of structures for which atrophy is a good solution.
Yers, wandering in the Forest of Probabilities,
SHF
Posted by: Spalanzani | December 18, 2008 9:15 AM
"Evolution is used now as a tool to promote the vulgar and disgusting homosexual movement that has recently become violent. By claiming that evolution is real, the gay community can claim that they were born gay, which is absurd."
*head explodes*
Posted by: Richard Harris | December 18, 2008 9:16 AM
"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible."
What's really creepy is that these stupid, ignorant dorks think themselves to be reasonably knowledgeable people. At least, I presume that's so, otherwise, why would they write in the way they have to Dr Myers?
Posted by: AJ Milne | December 18, 2008 9:17 AM
We wish you a merry monkey / (Repeat 2x) / And a happy lemur / Good tidings to you / To you and your chimp / Good tidings to simians / And prosimians too...
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 18, 2008 9:18 AM
@147,
Memory FAIL. It was Duane Gish, not Henry Morris.
Posted by: unicow | December 18, 2008 9:18 AM
Letter writer #3 is my hero not just for "happy monkey", but also for the brilliant "Allied Communist Lickers Union."
See, a lesser mind might have called the ACLU the "Asshole Communist Lovers Union" or something ordinary like that. But LW3 understands that Communists are in fact very similar to Tootsie Pops, and knows that their true secrets can only be obtained via extensive licking.
Please, friends, lick a Communist today. Do it for America!
Posted by: kryth | December 18, 2008 9:18 AM
In all seriousness, I am saddened every time I read stuff like this . Theists that are glorious ignorant and proud of it. I mean it really makes me sad. Millions of people poisoned by bronze age myths is just disheartening. The fact that we have people in obit around the earth, have sent robots to Mars, and have people that think the earth is 6000 years old, just causes me so much cognitive dissonance. It's just sad.
Posted by: Larry | December 18, 2008 9:19 AM
#152:
Cuttlefish,
Bravo!
Posted by: druidbros | December 18, 2008 9:20 AM
I agree that we (scientists and friends) are intolerant. We base our beliefs on facts and evidence. Deal with it creotards.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 18, 2008 9:20 AM
AJ Milne@160,
Nice! But I suggest replacing "To you and your chimp" with "And your bo-no-boo".
Posted by: Random *facepalm*-ing Chimp | December 18, 2008 9:22 AM
Letter # 2
(I'm sure much has already been pointed out (tl;dr) but...)
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
*facepalm
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
This letter is (one of) teh [sic] most absurd pieces of sh** I have had the unfortunate displeasure of reading...
*epicFacepalm*
Posted by: MH | December 18, 2008 9:25 AM
Happy Monkey, everyone!
Posted by: Roger | December 18, 2008 9:28 AM
@144: where, oh where can you point to PZ "pressuring" individuals to think the way he does?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 9:28 AM
someone get that Chimp an ice pack.
Posted by: Stewart Paterson | December 18, 2008 9:31 AM
Joyeux Singe à vous tous
Posted by: Rowan | December 18, 2008 9:32 AM
Men can fly!!!!!!!
Wow, hold the front page...........
Posted by: True Bob | December 18, 2008 9:33 AM
Yeah, I will never forget my experimentation with heterosexuality, and that rational decision to work on developing a physical attraction to females and not males. It took some doing, since male and female were always equally attractive to everyone, and Teh Gay Sex is far more pleasurable*. Oh wait, that never happened. What a dipped thong.
*I refer here to Alan Keyes "selfish hedonist" remark here. I mean, if it's true that's why people are gay, it MUST be more pleasurable. I assume Alan knows of what he speaks.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | December 18, 2008 9:33 AM
Happy Monkey to all of you.
Posted by: Psychodigger | December 18, 2008 9:35 AM
Happy Monkey everyone!
Posted by: Stewart Paterson | December 18, 2008 9:36 AM
a monkey in a xmas hat
Posted by: IndyRacers | December 18, 2008 9:37 AM
What's interesting to me, in the article PZ links to at the start of his entry, is the issue that PZ is "a professor in Minnesota, several hundred miles away."
The relevance of the distance factor is sketchy at best, but this is a common strategy when one's position is weak: charge that the claims are being brought by 'an outsider'; and do so either directly or by implication. It's a weak strategy, no doubt, and should send up red flags to any neutral but critical observer (among the 100s of other red flags!).
Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | December 18, 2008 9:38 AM
No, AJ Milne got the scansion just right: bravo!
Merry Monkey to all, and to all a Great Ape!
Posted by: True Bob | December 18, 2008 9:39 AM
Stewart @ 176,
That's no monkey. It's a DAMN DIRTY APE!
Posted by: GK4 | December 18, 2008 9:43 AM
The "Happy Monkey" idea already has some web presence.
Just Googling for images I found an "actual" December holiday called "Monkey Day" ( http://www.monkeyday.com ), commentary on this with some great pictures ( http://www.jamesfinngarner.com/wordpress/?cat=2 ), a t-shirt company ( http://www.happymonkey.biz/ ), and a coffee company ( http://www.happymonkeycoffeecompany.com/ )
Amusing images here:
http://www.lovepics.it/postcard/happymonkey.jpg
http://www.stuckforwords.co.uk/content/designs/images/monkeypicto_000.jpg
http://picasaweb.google.com/cms10676/ThailandPhuketRailayBay#5143975413043058322
http://www.leblogue.ca/files/blog/323/ist2_1720262_happy_monkey%5B1%5D.jpg
This must be more fun than a barrel of--. Umm. Yeah.
Posted by: S. Fisher | December 18, 2008 9:45 AM
"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible."
Good thing we were able to read the Bible and correct all these deficiencies. Especially the part about man not being able to fly 200 years ago. How stupid could those scientists 200 years ago have been? Angels have been flying since The Garden of Eden.
Posted by: spyderkl | December 18, 2008 9:47 AM
Wow. Just wow. Letter #4 made my brain hurt the worst, particularly when they got to "Well, sir (and I use that term extremely loosely), Christians are probably the most tolerant people on the planet."
You can tell how tolerant they are by just those four emails. Mmm...tolerance.
Happy monkey, y'all.
Posted by: pete moulton | December 18, 2008 9:52 AM
"...but I bet I am not the only reader who would like to write an email to a couple of those 'tards."
We all would, Bjorn. The question is: could any of them read it?
Posted by: Multicellular | December 18, 2008 9:52 AM
@Twin-Skies
There is no assumption of irreducible complexity - everything should be subject to study and reflection.
Except, of course, for study and reflection on the scientific evidence for an assumed, irreducibly complex God. A topic which the Catholic church has consistenly put off limits. Sorry, but the church can't have it both ways.
It is cognitive dissonance like this by "rational" theists regarding science and religion that seeds fundamentalism. If just one aspect of religious belief is exempt from rational investigation then it serves no other purpose than to create the first wall that fundamentalists can hide behind.
Posted by: hje | December 18, 2008 9:53 AM
Re: "In all seriousness, I am saddened every time I read stuff like this . "
Alas, it appears to be an immutable aspect of our society. Kind of like "the stupid you will have with you always."
Posted by: Snark7 | December 18, 2008 9:54 AM
@Richard Harris, #159
"What's really creepy is that these stupid, ignorant dorks think themselves to be reasonably knowledgeable people. At least, I presume that's so, otherwise, why would they write in the way they have to Dr Myers?"
Thats because they suffer from the "Unskilled and unaware of it" syndrome. The more incompetent a person is regarding a subject the less he is able to comprehend just how incompetent he is.
Or inverted: The more you know about a subject, the better you know what you DON'T know.
In the case of Xians the symptoms are multiplied by an excessive amount of self-righteousness.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 9:56 AM
Dunning-Kruger effect
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 18, 2008 9:59 AM
Lets see. If one totals up the probable IQ of all the letters...Yep, still in the double digits.
Funny how they talk about debates, but when they come to the new (or old closed) Ken Ham Whines threads they just tell us how bad we are and run. No staying to actually debate us. Hit and run trolls are sooooo boring.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 18, 2008 10:01 AM
Nice one Cuttlefish!
Posted by: Nyxator | December 18, 2008 10:01 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that communism and gay people get dragged into these letters constantly. I have to get back to worshiping monkeys, now.
Posted by: Jeanette | December 18, 2008 10:01 AM
Happy Monkey! Ha-Ha, yet another atheist holiday celebration to add to the list... Monkey. I'm up for any non-theistic excuse to party. May you all have an ecstatic Monkey!
Posted by: slang | December 18, 2008 10:02 AM
Happy Monkey everyone! Merry Ape Appreciation Days!
Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2008 10:02 AM
Not to derail the thead but how on earth are they compatible?
#136
Perhaps there is some truth here but evolution does serious damage to Christianity especially the base claims. It, in my view, is virtually impossible to have a sane reconciliation.
Posted by: Random *facepalm*-ing Chimp | December 18, 2008 10:06 AM
@ Rev. BigDumbChimp
*receivesIcepack*
@ P.Z.
*seenTooManyLolcats* We can haz mail hedderz? plz...
@ Everyone else.
Happy Monkey to all!
And, if I may... I would like to hearby declare December 18th to be "Monkey"... Can I get a motion to second that.
Posted by: gribley | December 18, 2008 10:07 AM
Hey, can someone with some design skillz whip up a quick page with the excerpt from the letter, and a picture of a chimp with a santa hat and a big grin (and yes I know that chimps aren't monkeys -- it's all part of the in-joke), and maybe a link to cafepress, so that we can spread the joy of Happy Monkey and with any luck I can get a Happy Monkey! t-shirt in time for the 25th? Let's do this thing! I'd do it myself, but I'm grading papers today :-(
kthxbai
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | December 18, 2008 10:07 AM
OT: Greg Laden has an excellent piece on the recount in Minnesota. Go here.
Posted by: Joey | December 18, 2008 10:08 AM
Wow. Why do I feel that I should volunteer to teach kids about science and rational thinking when I go back to school for my degree? (Going for Bio now, then thinking about switching to Applied Plant Sciences and going for grad school).
I think teaching rational thought without even mentioning the word evolution would be useful. Maybe make my old age(not too far away!!!) a little more tolerable. Heh.
Posted by: Multicellular | December 18, 2008 10:09 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp Re: Dunning-Kruger effect
How perfectly sweet. I was beating my head for a good term besides "hypocrite" to express what these people were saying but couldn't come up with anything; although I knew someone, somewhere probably had, and I was right. The "Dunning-Kruger effect" is my new lexicon friend, but today you are my hero.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 18, 2008 10:14 AM
Honestly, do creationists ever come up with anything original?
If they're not cherry picking quotes from the bible, or simply parroting brainless dogma, they're stealing their arguments from the opposition.
We point out that they reach their conclusions a priori; they say, "Nuh huh, that's what you guys do!"
We observe that they have no evidence to back up their claims; they say, "Nuh huh, you guys don't have no evidence!"
We state the obvious: that their logic is circular; they say, "Nuh huh, that's what you guys do!" (and then repeat that most idiotic argument about evolutionists dating fossils based on an arbitrary historical appraisal of sediment layering.)
We point out that their beliefs are based on faith, not science; they say, "Nuh huh, You're the ones who just believe things on faith. YOU just want to believe things!"
Etc.
The evidence is clear: Creationists have no creativity.
HAPPY MONKEY, ONE AND ALL!
Posted by: jimmiraybob | December 18, 2008 10:14 AM
blah, blah, blah...hippy...blah, blah, blah...
It warms my heart to know that they're still so torn up about the hippies. The bonus is that this nutcase who now appears to worship Heysoos - a true hippy if ever there was one - would have, in the day, been with the Pharisees whining about the young upstart from Nazareth and his posse.
Peace out. Love your brothers and sisters. Question authority.
Posted by: mattb | December 18, 2008 10:21 AM
Those letters were pissing me off. But they are so insane that by the end I started to chuckle. I get furious thinking about how corrosive their thinking and actions are on our society. Unfortunately, dealing with these assholes is a life time commitment. So, you gotta just laugh at these losers and knock them down when you get the chance. Happy Monkey To All!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 10:23 AM
I see someone has already registered happymonkeyday.com
Posted by: AnthonyK | December 18, 2008 10:23 AM
To all of you Times Roman fascists out there:
Comic Sans is the one true font. For literally 1000s of years man has used Comic Sans for his most important pronouncements. When Jesus spoke English, he used comic sans. When Moses wrote the Old Testament, he wrote it in comic sans. Both versions of the 10 commandments were written in - well, what do you think? - that's right, Comic Sans. And even the divine PZ Meyers writes his most important extracts in this God-given font.
So I say, teach the controversy! Down with pseudo-classical seriffed letters! Let the true spirit of humanity speak! And our free voices will rise to proclaim our freedom - Comic Sans for everyone!
Posted by: Laurel | December 18, 2008 10:23 AM
I like letter #2. I'm perfectly willing to have evolution and creationism taught side by side...in church, so the congregation can "derive" its own opinion.
What's wrong, Christians? Is your faith so weak? Afraid of the facts?
Posted by: Lambert Heenan | December 18, 2008 10:24 AM
"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years"
No actually popes and their ilk decreed that the Earth revolved around the sun by promoting the the Platonic idea of the heaven spheres, yet somehow simultaneously supported ideas of flat Earths.
Posted by: Tasida | December 18, 2008 10:25 AM
My brain hurts, and I'm very afraid for my country.
I should have stayed in bed.
Next time, can we declare a war on Easter instead, please? The holidays in December are multiplying like rabits. Festivus, winter solstice, and now monkey? Do I have to give presents for all of them? Bah- humbug.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 10:26 AM
Turns out there is a Monkey Day already.
Looks like a good cause as well and it's close to today
Posted by: Jonathon | December 18, 2008 10:26 AM
These people really, really need help. I have never read anything that exposes the ignorance and fear that permeate the hearts of most "Christians".
Evolution scares the hell out of them, because it would make them have to actually question what their book says. They would have to think! They would have to try to understand the meaning behind words, not just accept their literal meaning!! That is hard work!!!
The "faith" that these people have is terribly weak. They are dependent upon a literal interpretation of scripture, and anything that challenges that literal interpretation is seen as a threat to them. They don't want to think! They want to be sheep!! They also hate and fear intellect - again, because it challenges them to really think about what they claim to believe.
I don't self-identify as a "Christian" because I don't want to be associated with the hypocrites who wrap themselves up in that label. I do, however, have a great love and admiration for the teachings of Jesus. If only those who claim to follow him would actually try doing the things he taught us to do, then perhaps "Christians" would spend their time doing good works instead of defending hatred and spreading lies. Jesus said a lot more about helping the poor and needy than he did about politicizing religion!
Posted by: Calton Bolick | December 18, 2008 10:33 AM
"Onenewsnow.com"? Oh yeah, the news site of the Rev Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, formerly known as the National Federation for Decency.
They have some interesting copy-editing history:
http://www.regrettheerror.com/online/man-wins-race-website-changes-his-last-name-to-homosexual
Posted by: Davey | December 18, 2008 10:35 AM
>>your foolish belief in your religion evolution...
Ha! It's very satisfying to see the word "religion" used in such a derogatory manner. If enough people use the word "religion" to describe what they despise, the word itself will become synonymous with "despicable."
Posted by: Wright N Zebutt | December 18, 2008 10:36 AM
Atheists from England to the West Coast of America are stepping up their efforts this year to make a bigger antagonistic splash on the Christmas scene. From London and Washington, D.C., buses to Colorado billboards, skeptics are skewering religions with little respect to the adherents of the religions.
At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that's their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?
If such words were written against any social minority group, protests would be ubiquitous. But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick.
Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for? Just because they post such verbal vomit, does that demonstrate intellectual superiority or the type of moral decency our Founders hoped we would perpetuate?
What profit would there be if I posted a taunt that atheists had no vital part in the founding of our country? As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."
What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?
What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?
What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?
What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"
What profit would there be if I posted that atheists are totally blind to the pristine beauty and ordered complexity of creation, so they cannot see the hand of a Creator? As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
What profit would there be if I posted the fact that atheists denigrate every religion and prayer that ever has been offered? To say God doesn't exist is to say every religious leader in every age was delusional at best. And it also is to say that not one prayer on any continent in any era of human history has been answered. That premise alone rules atheism preposterous and foolish.
Finally, what profit would there be if I posted that I agree with my friend Mike Huckabee, who said on his book tour via Fox News that atheists shouldn't be fighting for a holiday in December when they already have a holiday: April Fools' Day (a holiday also grounded in sacred Scripture, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'")?
We all know I would be labeled as an extremist, irrational and a bigot if I posted any of the preceding ideas. Yet atheists do and get away with First Amendment murder.
I'd like to remind our nation that it was only a short time ago when Ronald Reagan freely spoke for the majority by explicitly and passionately conveying belief in Jesus Christ during his presidential Christmas addresses. Compare the message in his Dec. 23, 1981, speech with that of the present day, when the very term "Christmas" is being erased from every corner of culture.
As long as different displays line the corridors of Washington state's Capitol like Christmas potpourri, let me posit this last idea as a final pre-Christmas posting. At the base of the bust of George Washington (which stands between the atheists' winter solstice sign and the Nativity scene in the Washington state Capitol), I suggest the posting of one more sign, which would contain the wisdom from George Washington's farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
Posted by: spence-bob | December 18, 2008 10:37 AM
Don't knock Comic Sans MS. I like that font, because it's funny looking. Not that I would use it for sending a letter to a total stranger...
I used to work for a software company that used Comic Sans for a decent amount of official correspondence with customers. Most of it came from one department - the customer service department - and was almost certainly a reflection of the personality of the woman who ran it.
As soon as I had the authority to do so, I made sure that all company communications had a standard look - and it did NOT include Comic Sans.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 10:39 AM
Chuck Norris?
Really?
What an idiot.
Posted by: PopeCoyote | December 18, 2008 10:39 AM
"Evolution is the biggest lie Satan has ever told."
Hmmmm...I thought the biggest lie Satan told was that he didn't exist. ::::shrugs::::
Maybe they next a "Satan's Greatest Hits" or need to go out and come back in again like in the Spanish Inquisition sketch.
Posted by: speedwell | December 18, 2008 10:39 AM
*yawn" so many words in defense of a lying morality tale told to subvert the gullible.
Posted by: dinkum | December 18, 2008 10:44 AM
If ZeButt hadn't yammered on so long, he/she/it might have made it in the first fifty posts...gotta hate it when you think you're done, but no, here comes another squirt...
Posted by: Escuerd | December 18, 2008 10:46 AM
This can be entertaining, but the inanity gets tiresome really fast. The saddest part is that these silly folks really think they have something intelligent, or at least relevant to say.
Posted by: AnthonyK | December 18, 2008 10:47 AM
Wright N Zebutt,
You're a poe, surely. If not, you're a moron. Doesn't seem any point in criticizing your post, it's all been dealt with time and time again....
Posted by: quasarpulse | December 18, 2008 10:50 AM
Yay! I'm building up my holiday collection. Happy Monkey!
I hope you'll all also join me in celebrating Isaac Newton's birthday on the 25th. It should go well with Squidmas.
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 18, 2008 10:50 AM
Of course he's a poe. Wright N Zebutt = Right In The Butt.
Posted by: Cheshire | December 18, 2008 10:51 AM
Pissed off creationists are like venereal diseases for the brain.
The stupidity...it burns. Like a bad case of herpes.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 10:51 AM
AnthonyK,
Wright N Zebutt copy and pasted and idiotic rant by genius Chuck Norris.
So not only is he an idiot, he decided to try and pass off his post by quoting an well known idiot.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 18, 2008 10:54 AM
Wright N Zebutt,
Slimy little creep, aren't you? You post a long series of lies and distortions about atheists and atheism, using the rhetorical device of "What profit would there be if I posted..." to evade responsibility for your words.
Posted by: mattb | December 18, 2008 10:54 AM
I say, YES to Happy Monkey Day.
Let's celebrate on December 25 of every year. Let's celebrate the birth of the very first monkey. Let's erect a tree with a cute little monkey under it, and let's place these symbols on our yards and in our state capitals.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 10:56 AM
"and" should be "an"
Posted by: Kitty | December 18, 2008 10:57 AM
Keri
One of the common threads among creationists, other than the fact that they're creationists, seems to be a fear of socialism and communism. I guess I can understand this fear of communism (it hasn't exactly worked out to be pleasant for the people wherever it's been tried), but what on earth is the problem with socialism? They toss it around like a bogeyman, but it doesn't seem to be anything bad to me. Maybe I just need to go back to school and study political science or something. :/,
Where socialism takes hold in a community religion often fades away. The support system offered by the church is replaced by the support systems offered by the socialist society. This was particularly observed in coal mining communities in the UK in the 20th century when the Labour Party began to gain power. It culminated in the formation of the Welfare State.
Many mining communities switched allegiance from church, often Methodist or Baptist, to Union run social clubs which provided for families in distress without requiring participants to abide by the 'Thou shalt not' rules of the Chapel.
If the local club will take care of you without telling you how to run your sex life or curb your alcohol intake , indeed if it provides cheap drink, good entertainment, a free library, and a youth club the pews will empty quickly and churches will close.
That's why so many 19th century chapels are now small business units or extremely desirable residences.
Posted by: Peter Mc | December 18, 2008 11:04 AM
Creationalist?
Are they specifying?
Posted by: Snark7 | December 18, 2008 11:05 AM
@Rev BigDumbChimp: Thanks ! I've only read the study püublished on the APA Website, but weren't familiar with this term.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 18, 2008 11:08 AM
@222
... or Chuck Norris' words, as the case may be!
Posted by: flaggle | December 18, 2008 11:09 AM
You mean I combed through that whole comment chain, looking for all the wacky creationists' comments, and all I get is Zebutt with his way too long post that no one in their right mind will read?
Very disappointing. I expect better crazy around here.
Posted by: Badger3k | December 18, 2008 11:10 AM
Peter Mc - that is apparently the correct name. We've been saying it wrong. Thus it is apparently an evolution-creationalism conflict.
Posted by: Jay | December 18, 2008 11:12 AM
#162
"Please, friends, lick a Communist today. Do it for America!"
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah!
LOL! Sorry, that reminded me of the theme song from "Team America - World Police".
Posted by: PK | December 18, 2008 11:14 AM
This may be an overgeneralization, but the impression I get from the right wing fundie faction is that they honestly couldn't give a rat's butt about animals, wildlife, nature, ecology, etc. (which they presumably file under "liberal" causes and the like). ...After all, animals, being infinitely inferior, have no "souls"; the Earth was created by doG for man; and we needn't be concerned with saving the environment since it's all going to go up in a big ball o' fire during the Battle of Armageddon anyways.
For Fundies, animals at best are used as props to make Bible stories more appealing to children -- just like the animatronic dinosaurs which have been disingenuously misappropriated for Ken Ham's "museum". Kudos to the zoo for recognizing the insincerity of it all.
Posted by: helvetica | December 18, 2008 11:15 AM
Achewood's take on Comic Sans:
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07052007
Posted by: Flonkbob | December 18, 2008 11:16 AM
I hate religion. It makes people so stupid. I really am losing patience with all these morons who claim to be 'open' and 'fair'. How can that be when their minds are made up (by ignorant shepherds of long ago) to believe whatever their Demon of the Desert (Jehovah, Yahweh, Jesus, whatever...pick a name already!) says to believe.
Yes, idiots, I do hate your religion. And when you try to force your ignorance on others I hate you too. Yes, hate. I don't have to pretend to be tolerant of fools who attempt to abuse everyone around them.
So screw you, your god, your jeebus, your holy spook, your pedophile priests, your gay ministers, your hypocrite parishioners, and your foolish foolish beliefs.
If you don't like people laughing at your beliefs, stop having such funny beliefs!
Posted by: Gilian | December 18, 2008 11:19 AM
As a professional lithographer (not sure that's a proper English word but can't be bothered to find the proper spelling ) I have this to say about the Comic Sans:
We feel the same way about the Comic Sans as most people on this board here feel about Intelligent Design/Creationism.
I'd rather set my headlines in Zapf Dingbats.
:)
Posted by: Mobius | December 18, 2008 11:20 AM
I tried to read through all those posts. I really tried. But, though quite humorous, my brain was becoming overloaded with the stupid.
Posted by: Bob L | December 18, 2008 11:21 AM
Are paragraphs some liberal thing? These writers certainly don't like them.
Posted by: Adam F | December 18, 2008 11:21 AM
I did try to leave a comment on their site, but to be surprised (yes, sarcasm) that it was not immediately posted (I doubt it will). I said something along the lines that the "museum" was more along the lines of "Santa's Village". At least the adults that go there know its just a theme park and not real.
Posted by: Cardinal Shrew | December 18, 2008 11:26 AM
I think you should post the full header of one or two of your most ridiculous emails every once in a while. I think we could have some serious fun with them.
Unleash the hounds every once in a while. We can do more than crash polls and sever ties between "museums" and zoos you know. ;-)
Posted by: Epikt | December 18, 2008 11:28 AM
Sad monkey. Sad, sad monkey.
Posted by: Jon | December 18, 2008 11:29 AM
Well that tears it! I'm going to march right up to the Capitol in Austin and DEMAND that they allow me to place a banana tree right next to the menorah and the baby Jesus. We celebrants of 'Monkey' have for too long been underrepresented and that needs to come to a screeching halt!
HAPPY MONKEY EVERYBODY!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 11:32 AM
Dead, dead monkey.
Posted by: AJ | December 18, 2008 11:35 AM
Yes, PZ, WHY wont you debate "with a professional from a creationalist Mr. Morris." Shame on you, indeed!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 18, 2008 11:37 AM
Henry M. Morris, Phd - Craig Boak
The "Phd" (as opposed to "Ph.D") is short for "Phraud", I believe.
Posted by: Don | December 18, 2008 11:42 AM
244 comments and nobody's used the obvious joke yet?
Sheesh... I guess I'll have to do it.
Two minutes for instigating and a game misconduct! Zing!
Posted by: Jeff | December 18, 2008 11:55 AM
245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!
Posted by: karen | December 18, 2008 11:58 AM
The world would be a better place indeed, if we all spent more time making our monkeys happy! Shouldn't Monkey Day be EVERY day?
Happy Monkey Day to All, and to ALL a Merry Monkey Night!
Oh, and please lick a communist; that can lead to more happy monkeys! And we certainly want the Commie Monkeys to be sated.
Posted by: Badjuggler | December 18, 2008 12:00 PM
We all know you can't spell "creationalist" without using all of the letters in "irrational". Or something like that.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 12:07 PM
@Multicellular
From what I've come to understand of the Jesuits, they subscribe to Stephen Jay Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria principle - the sciences and the faith are treated as two entirely different disciplines.
Theology and philosophy would fall under matters of metaphysics, which would be an entirely different animal from the sciences.
Once again, it depends on who you ask. The priests I've met didn't have qualms about criticizing and deconstructing how our theology worked. They felt that doing this would help their students better appreciate their belief system, and to curb the sort of religious dogmatism you mention.
On the other hand, said pupils may also end up disillusioned, and would eventually leave the faith altogether.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 12:07 PM
And one comment at 246 by a drive-by-idiot who can't make an argument and instead screams persecution like a child.
Care to address the actual topic? Jeffy?
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 18, 2008 12:07 PM
I'll just get my xtian friends to tell them.
Yes I do have xtain friends...
and they hate bible thumpers just as much as I do.
That's all that matters.
Posted by: Mikael HafO | December 18, 2008 12:08 PM
Jeff: Don't frown. It's almost Monkey. Have a banana.
Happy Monkey everyone!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 18, 2008 12:09 PM
Yes Jeff, please elucidate your point-if you have one.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 18, 2008 12:14 PM
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
No. The communist countries all called themselves "socialist" (to indicate they hadn't reached the predicted paradisiac stage in the development of society yet), and the US right wing eagerly lapped this up to demonize everything to their left.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
--------------------------
Now to the Chuck Norris ramble which someone cowardly posted as their own:
If you add emphasis to a quote, you must say so. To fail to do so is dishonest.
Harrassment? Where?
Hatred is protected by the First Amendment, never mind what's going on here is better considered contempt :-)
Yes, in fact... yes. Read Jefferson's and Adams' own words about their contempt for Christianity, for example.
It would reveal you to be breathtakingly ignorant of your own big-C Constitution, and that knowledge would be great profit to your readers. Shall Congress really make any law respecting an establishment of religion?
It would also reveal you to be remarkably stupid. If there were a state religion in the USA, what would happen to all others? Ever thought that far? Their freedom would be suppressed. Separation of church and state is the only way to ensure freedom of (as well as from) religion.
Few atheists have any missionary impulse. They just tend to speak up when a religion gets imposed on them -- and we know how Norris interprets all contradiction to his wishes.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Why is Christmas on December 25th? Ever thought about that? (Didn't think so.) Ever wondered about the fact that even in Galilee it's too cold in December to hang out outdoors with sheep? (Didn't think so.) It was deliberately placed, by the early church, on the day of the festival of the birth of Mithras, the savior-god of a Persian religion that was widespread in the Roman Empire, to blot Mithraism out of the calendar.
Personally, I don't want to celebrate the winter solstice. (What for, after all?) I want to celebrate Kurisumasu, the Japanese festival of love and rampant consumerism. =8-)
2) Not everything that a scientist says is scientific. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
1) Atheism, as most commonly understood by self-described atheists, follows from science theory: any sufficiently ineffable deity is not falsifiable even in principle, and unnecessary to explain anything, so, for the time being, the conclusion should be drawn that there simply is no such entity. Ockham's Razor -- look it up. Of course, this is what Davies appears to mean by "agnosticism"!
It would expose your muddled thinking. Atheists do not deny the pristine beauty of the universe any more than they deny the pristine beauty of a snowflake. But you know how snowflakes are formed, right? Right? There is nothing involved here except electrostatic attraction and repulsion. To completely understand the shapes of snowflakes, you need to understand the theory of quantum electrodynamics (fittingly abbreviated QED), and you don't need to understand anything else. It is not necessary to assume a god who puts each water molecule into its place in the correct orientation; electrostatics can do the job alone.
There is no reason -- no evidence -- to think the universe as a whole might be different.
Yep, that's something the Bible is wrong about, and I'm not even making a subtle statement about the oxymoron "invisible qualities [...] have been clearly seen" (emphasis added).
Correct.
Oh man, the argumentum ad populum. LOL! Look, here's another argumentum ad populum: "Eat shit -- billions of flies cannot err!"
It's a logical fallacy, and a damn obvious one at that. The currently most widespread denomination (of any religion) is Catholicism -- why isn't Chuck Norris a Catholic, then? Because he believes that that billion people is wrong, along with the billion Sunni Muslims and so on. Well, atheists agree on that point.
It would show that your sense of humor is around the level of that of Beavis & Butthead:
huh huh
heh heh
There is no connection between April 1st and that Bible quote. And besides, the wise man understands in his brain that there's no evidence nor logical necessity for any god, and says so... :-)
No. You are being labled ignorant and silly, and people point and laugh at you.
For example:
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Poor persecuted overwhelming majority. Wince, wail.
Well, George Washington was wrong about religion.
Are you shocked? Hey, he was just a fallible human being, like you or me. :-|
Do the godless Czechs not have political prosperity? Don't the Swedes, the Estonians, or the French?
Posted by: Metro | December 18, 2008 12:15 PM
Skimmed the letters. I'd rather reserve the brain space for something more useful, like the ingredients to the perfect Bloody Mary (which as I recall involved some Unholy Spirit). Or the last names of Weird Al Yankovic's backup band.
But the author of the "Happy Monkey" letter gave me a warm fuzzy feeling of peace and goodwill for all humankind, and I wanted to thank him or her.
Then again, maybe the warm fuzzy feeling was down to the Bloody Marys.
Posted by: Calladus | December 18, 2008 12:16 PM
I'd love to see Dr. Myers debate Dr. Henry M. Morris! But I think he'll need a Ouija board to do so.
Posted by: Jeeves | December 18, 2008 12:19 PM
Okay, so I don't know much about Satanism but how could they be atheists? If you worship Satan, the fella in the Bible, then doesn't it follow that you believe in the word of the Bible just a little bit and doesn't it further follow that you believe in God as well? Because Satan has got to fight against somebody. Satanists are just rooting for the other team. I guess that would mean atheists are one step worse (if only the letter writers knew!) because they don't believe in a man with a long white beard or a man with horns and a pitchfork.
Posted by: Candiru | December 18, 2008 12:25 PM
Or possibly Simon Conway-Morris?Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 18, 2008 12:26 PM
245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go! - Jeff
Gosh, Jeff, that's a cogent and convincing argument. I must throw myself on the mercy of The Lord, stat!
Posted by: Teh Merkin | December 18, 2008 12:29 PM
PZed, why is that last quote in Comic Sans? Isn't that *you* being quoted?
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 18, 2008 12:30 PM
Cuttlefish:
I would pay any price to see caged creationists singing Def Leppard.
As far as religion and evolution, I don't think it's a lie to say that they're compatible. Yes, it's cognitive dissonance, but it's the sort of cognitive dissonance that religionists have had to accept and incorporate for centuries. If you take the Augustinian position (reason and evidence > Bible), ignore "literal" interpretations, or reinterpret the Bible (see also the idiot above referencing Isaiah [40:22]: "the circle of the Earth" is very different from "the Earth is a sphere;" elsewhere in the same book, it talks about the Earth's "foundations," which is consistent with the rest of the Biblical model of the Earth: a flat disc on pillars with a firmament dome above), then you can accept any apparent contradiction with reality. Yes, evolution contradicts the Bible, but so does the round earth, heliocentrism, astronomy, botany, history, anthropology, geology, physics, and so on and so forth. If Christians can make their beliefs compatible with all the above stuff, then they can fit evolution in there as well.
If we're going to say that it's a lie that religion and evolution are compatible, then we should just get to the real point: religion is incompatible with reality.
Posted by: PK | December 18, 2008 12:39 PM
#246: Thank you for pointing out our errant hypocrisy -- us bad. So, in the spirit of free "thought," let us all now embark on letter-writing campaigns urging zoos to give away free copies of [Muslim] Harun Yahya's "Atlas of Creation", promote the animal-friendly tenets of Hinduism as well as the Shinto and Native American tradition of nature spirits.
Whaddya say?
Posted by: jimmiraybob | December 18, 2008 12:44 PM
245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!
Jeff, do you really think that Heysoos would be tolerant of worldly frauds and hucksters like Ham and the Creationist Shop (some refer to it as a museum but that is just plain silly) who look to turn a profit at his expense?
If so, then I should point out that there is a big book of Heysoos' finest words, I recommend it to you.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 18, 2008 12:48 PM
Posted by: Jeff | December 18, 2008 11:55 AM
"245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!"
I mean what you can say about the emails and Jeff above that isn't stunningly obvious? The ignorance and lack of any reasonable rational thinking is shocking to me but unfortunatley these people are convinced there perceptions have equal and superior weight to the educated.
In other words they are deluded wingnut idiots.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 18, 2008 12:49 PM
Of course it is.
Do you mean speciating?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 18, 2008 12:50 PM
SPELLING POLICE!
#264
unfortunately
their
Posted by: jimmiraybob | December 18, 2008 12:53 PM
As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago....
I could be wrong but I do not believe that there was a Bible 2,000 years ago. Perhaps he is referring to another document. Perhaps someone should give Chuck a call.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 18, 2008 12:57 PM
Chuch Norris is as dumb as a bag of bearded rocks.
Posted by: stevenb | December 18, 2008 1:07 PM
It's always tempting but usually not wise to fan the flames with people like this. I was wondering, however, if you have bothered to write a template response for the people that dare you to respond.
The arguments are always the same. It should be fairly easy to write a page or two which debunks all of their arguments.
I'm always a sucker when it comes to falling into these discussions so I'd probably choose the worst option.
Posted by: AnthonyK | December 18, 2008 1:15 PM
Of great importance. Remember this.
"ST JOHNS WOOD" is the only London Underground station you can spell without using any of the letters of the word "MACKEREL".
Happy Chrisimianus!
Posted by: HP | December 18, 2008 1:21 PM
As usual, I'm much too late to the thread to make an impact, but here goes anyway.
I live in Cincinnati. I have a colleague at work who is involved with several local atheist and secular organizations. He is also [blissfully?] unaware of the blogosphere. I asked him if he'd heard about the Zoo/CM dustup, and he told me that he'd gotten a phone call within hours of the original offer, and that he (as a sustaining Zoo member) and many other local atheists, secularists, and scientists mobilized, making personal phone calls or visits to contacts at the zoo itself. I mentioned PZ and the blogosphere response, and his reply was, "Oh, that's great to hear. I'm sure it helped."
But I suspect that the hard work of local organizations had more to do with the zoo's quick response than an inbox full of emails that were deleted without being read.
Posted by: Spiv | December 18, 2008 1:31 PM
Let me see if I read #3 correctly:
left wing attacks
traditional America
Christian principles
revisionist historian separation of church/state myth
The war on Christmas
attacks on Christianity
Satan
Darwin's
justify his own personal revelation
discount God.
it is not a theory (HOLY CRAP HE USED THEORY CORRECTLY!)
the prophet Isaiah
normal people
ultra-left wingers
believe in nothing
university professors
church's business
Liberals complain
our right and our business
vulgar and disgusting homosexual
the gay community
born gay, which is absurd
No one is born gay
the APA used to say this
far left
change history
terrorist
BillAyers
global warming nuts
evolutionists
brainwash
Marxists
hippy liberal brainwashed professor
teach the truth
terrorist Bill Ayers
treason
ACLU! (Allied Communist Lickers Union)
destroyed America
real Americans
take back this country
slaves of deceit
America will wake up
reclaim America
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
There needs to be a "Wingnut Density Rating" (take that however you read it). How many wingnut talking points are used in relationship to the filler words linking them together? From my count I get a SWDR of 0.25 if I stop at "merry christmas." I'd say that's pretty dense.
Posted by: Ktesibios | December 18, 2008 1:45 PM
I'd just like to say, clearly and on the record, that after reading those letters I have completely abandoned all hope for the future of the human species.
Oh well, Happy Monkey, everyone.
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 18, 2008 1:58 PM
Start a company, sell stock, report your profits on your quarterly filings with the SEC, let us know your company's stock symbol and we can find out for ourselves.We aren't your business consultants.
Merry Monkey to all and to all a good night.
Posted by: Ward S. Denker | December 18, 2008 2:01 PM
The ACLU is the fault of liberals? That's the first I've heard of it.
Last I checked it's slightly Libertarian leaning (not enough to really qualify as Libertarian). The ACLU takes positions that conservatives hold dear (especially concerning the 2nd Amendment). For the times that they actually support liberty, I am with them. Politically, they're all over the board. I don't think any one party can fairly claim that the ACLU completely represents them.
One thing that is easy to surmise from this is that the writer of the letter really has no clue how often the ACLU has come down on his/her side of the issues.
I doubt the writer of that letter will read this, but here's a link to some Christian support for the ACLU:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
My apologies if the link disturbs anyone, I am an atheist and the drivel is pretty hard for me to read too.
Posted by: nanahuatzin | December 18, 2008 2:01 PM
bobC @ 212
One big problem with an atheist telling a Christian he can accept both modern biology and magic fairies is the Christian knows the atheist is lying.
So far Catholic church has acepted evolution and big bang. simply, they understood the can deny the facts. And some other religion do not hae problems with it. It is the fundamentalist taht have problem with it.
I do not mind if they still belief in a god as the first source, as long as they accept the facts.
We can not make religion to simply dissapears, and since there is no logical way to prove or disprove the existance of gods, probably religion would survive in a way o other.
But we can (must) combat it most extreme forms, those letter make me feel sick. Those people are really dangeorus to any nation and society. For the moment, it is not religion the problem, but fundamentalism.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2008 2:02 PM
Can you post that data somewhere or are you going to publish soon ;-)
Naww, it's just for fun; there have been plenty of tangentially related studies already published in the psych lit. just for fun, though, I'll tell you that the dataset is based on initial observation of first postings from (and personal conversations with) self-proclaimed evangelical/fundamentalist xians, but only when they are obviously on the defensive; typically challenging something about science/evolution/atheism (so obviously there might be bias). I'll just summarize by saying that the employment of projection (as defined by the APA) and denial (again, as defined by the APA) does not require statistical analysis to note the significance (it's so close to 100% as to be not worth differentiating).
:)
I would add that because it tends to be a politically charged topic, the APA typically frowns upon attempts at measurement of mass-delusional thinking, or studying mass use of projection/denial (go read how religion is excluded from the APA's definition of "delusion" sometime; it's rather amusing, if not scary).
Posted by: Travdawg | December 18, 2008 2:04 PM
Happy Monkey guys!
Posted by: Bruce Blanton Breece | December 18, 2008 2:05 PM
I absolutely agree with #117. Merry Monkey to all.
Posted by: Brandon | December 18, 2008 2:05 PM
Reading these letters reminds me of what the moderator said in Billy Madison: "Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 18, 2008 2:10 PM
...and again different from talking about "the four corners of the Earth", a phrase that occurs in several places in the Bible; go here and scroll down to "Earth" for the complete list.
If the Earth is a "circle", it hasn't got any corners. Celebrity deathmatch!!!
Posted by: SaveOurSkyline | December 18, 2008 2:11 PM
Happy Monkey, everyone!
Posted by: Multicellular | December 18, 2008 2:13 PM
@Twin-Skies
I'd have to say that Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria is a copout. It dodges the issue that science and religion aren't nonoverlapping - many aspects of religion are testable using scientific methods and those that have been tested (like prayer) have come up short. It also breeds the idea that because they are perceived to be "nonoverlapping" that religious views based on belief carry equal weight as scientific evidence. This thinking simply feeds such idiotic ideas such as evolution and intelligent design having equal scientific merit.
While it is commendable that the Jesuits encourage investigation into their beliefs it seems to me that eventually it could, as you said, lead some to leave the faith. However, those that stay must, in part, disengage rational thinking in order to support a metaphysical view of the universe that insulates them from any possible contrary evidence (say, for example, the historicity of Jesus). This essentually means that the Jesuits differ from the fundamentalists only in the scope of their cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 18, 2008 2:15 PM
"Evolution is used now as a tool to promote the vulgar and disgusting homosexual movement that has recently become violent. By claiming that evolution is real, the gay community can claim that they were born gay." Ok that one just confuses me. Genetic predispositions to homosexuality are really hard to explain from an evolutionary perspective. Does anyone get what this guy is trying to say? I don't.
Posted by: Sili | December 18, 2008 2:16 PM
Remind me again: who was it funded Propostion 8 in California? Only local, loyal Californians, right? No undue, outside influence at all? No, sir, no, sirree bob!Posted by: Happy Kiwi | December 18, 2008 2:30 PM
Wonderful! I read and read and laughed and laughed until I cried. All the fallacies have been pointed out, so I will add just two things.
1. Religiots get upset when they're told atheists, rationalists etc. are more intelligent--but what more compelling proof do they need than these letters?
2. Merry Monkeymas and a Happy New Meme to you all.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 18, 2008 2:31 PM
Joshua, if keep up with science there is an explanation. With hominids, the females are the limiting factor for reproduction. A recent study showed the aunts of gay men had more children than women without gay relatives. Increased reproduction, not by the gays themeselves, but with their female relatives. The theory was that the woment relatives liked sex better. That is sufficient to keep "gayness" in the genome.
Posted by: gypsytag | December 18, 2008 2:32 PM
Happy Lemur everyone
Posted by: Leslie in Canada | December 18, 2008 2:33 PM
Evolution has clearly allowed the human brain to maintain several violently competing thoughts without injury. The very political letter-writer cited is impressive, hating the protection of civil liberties, Marxism and science all at the same time. It reminds me of the old Jewish World Conspiracy, apparentl engineered by a poverty-stricken communist mob and wealthy bankers in concert.
Happy Monkey, everyone!
Posted by: PK | December 18, 2008 2:35 PM
Re: Evolution and being born gay... I don't recall ever seeing an article linking evolution and homosexuality, and there is doubt upon the idea of a "gay gene". Perhaps the writer was associating the lack of rigid religious fundamentalism with greater tolerance for homosexuality. Nevertheless, I *can* see how "evolution" (or rather, the principles of genetics) could possibly be used as a rational hypothesis.
For the sake of argument, supposing there *was* some sort of genetic factor determining sexual orientation. Our social system -- where people often marry and reproduce due to social and cultural expectations -- would actually enable a greater chance of survival and perpetuation of those genes (or, conversely, phasing out whatever might determine strong orientation to the opposite sex).
If this were indeed the case, then, ironically, authoritarian, fundamentalist religions may have played a role in perpetuating such biological "diversity" among people, since there is an expectation that everyone ought to marry and reproduce!
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 18, 2008 2:38 PM
Nerd of Redhead, I know that. The point was that isn't at all easy to reconcile evolution and such genetic predispositions so the idea that somehow evolution implied that such genetic predispositions existed was hard to understand. I suspect we may be just overthinking this and the fellow may just be an idiot.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 18, 2008 2:43 PM
'This essentually means that the Jesuits differ from the fundamentalists only in the scope of their cognitive dissonance.'
Might as well apply that to any belief or sympathy for a belief in a deity...
It is cognitive dissonance all the way down...to one degree or another!
Posted by: CJO | December 18, 2008 2:48 PM
A genetic basis for homosexual orientation is only puzzling if you assume that a given gene is there "to do" one thing and one thing only, and to do it in isolation. First and most obviously, complex traits and behavioral dispositions are overwhelmingly unlikely to be controlled at only one or even just a handful of loci. What we have are probably complex interactions between many areas of the genome. And then too, remember that a gene may "do" one thing when found in a certain kind of body, but "do" quite another thing when found in another kind of body. So the interactions may behave quite differently in, for instance, a female versus a male body, or a young and developing body versus an old and senescent body.
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | December 18, 2008 3:05 PM
pete moulton @ #182
Writing for the laymen is an important skill. I guess writing for 'tards is as well?
Posted by: Mikael HafO | December 18, 2008 3:08 PM
I threw together this Happy Monkey card for you all: http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=PqHB93i
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 18, 2008 3:12 PM
letter #3
"I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified"
thank fuck.
Posted by: Jez | December 18, 2008 3:14 PM
Letters like these make me want to put on a nice suit and knock on these nuts' doors...
"I'm here to tell you the Good News! Have you heard the Good News? All these things that terrify you and your little brain -- you don't have to be scared anymore! Because they're not actually true, or even relevant! Oh, happy day!"
Posted by: stephanie | December 18, 2008 3:17 PM
DOWN WITH HAPPY MONKEY!
DOWN WITH THE WAR ON SQUIDMAS!
Posted by: Ward S. Denker | December 18, 2008 3:26 PM
While the letter had it wrong (we are both descended from, and still, apes and not monkeys), I feel compelled to point out that only our most recent ancestor would be the shared ancestor with other apes.
Merry Virusmas would probably celebrate evolution best - it encompasses the most likely progenitor of all living things, according to the most recent research. It also casts ironic aspersions on the fundamentalist wackos that believe we're waging a war on Christmas.
Posted by: WhenDanSaysJump | December 18, 2008 3:27 PM
Letter 3 sets new standards of bonafide batshitcrazitude by which any future Poe must be judged.
Posted by: Wright N Zebutt | December 18, 2008 3:27 PM
My Bad,
huh huh
heh heh
Me surprise you read da (up)Chuck Norris, Rev. BigDumbChimp
but now, for something completely disgusting,
http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/02503.htm
Merry SQUIDmas
No Happy Monkey for you
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2008 3:27 PM
Oh, happy -monkey- day!"
Posted by: blf | December 18, 2008 3:32 PM
Kitty the librarian @98: I understand it's now something of a tradition, at least in the UK, for librarians to wear "Ook!" badges.
Posted by: frog | December 18, 2008 3:34 PM
Icthyic: It's so common as to be classifiable as a "trait" of evangelical xians.
It's an important trait of the ideologue. Just look at the explosion of conspiracy theories through out the nutter world, and their tendency to form actual, real conspiracies.
Wingism depends hugely on not introspecting, not self-regulating but acting "from the gut", which inevitably leads to projection. It's the only outlet for thought they have.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 3:43 PM
For laughs sure. Why not. He's a joke, might as well laugh.
WND is full of idiots like him whose only measurable service to humanity is providing us canon fodder of sorts.
Posted by: Everbleed | December 18, 2008 3:43 PM
"You didn't think I picked that font for posting ridiculous comments on accident, did you?"
???????????????????"on accident"????????????????????
SERIOUSLY?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 18, 2008 3:52 PM
"DOWN WITH HAPPY MONKEY!"
"DOWN WITH THE WAR ON SQUIDMAS!"
/rhythmic chant
Posted by: Scott Hanley | December 18, 2008 3:53 PM
"Christians are probably the most tolerant people on the planet."
Well, considering that they're the only people on the earth who shouldn't have to be even the least bit tolerant, merely living in the same country with us is one hell of a concession. We ought to show a little gratitude.
Posted by: blf | December 18, 2008 3:53 PM
That's entirely possible. However, it is known that at least some of the e-mails were responded to (see the comments in the original thread). That doesn't mean they were read, but does suggest they were at least quickly skimmed before what appears to have been a boilerplate reply to the issue (giving the good news) was returned. Also, if memory serves me right, the local newspaper's article on the dust-up specifically mentioned the e-mails.
Posted by: FishNChimps | December 18, 2008 4:12 PM
It must be rather tiring having to put up with these attacks. Chin up Prof, you're doing a fine job.
Posted by: mattb | December 18, 2008 4:25 PM
Mikael at #295 - Great Monkey Day card
Posted by: Leftfield | December 18, 2008 4:30 PM
I'm reminded of columnist Eric Zorn, who claims to have replied to messages like these with a faux form email thanking the writer for their support and promising to add them to his mailing list. That might be a good answer to this guy.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | December 18, 2008 4:30 PM
PZ, I like your site, I like what you're doing, but you do know you are one of the biggest, most easily accessible targets in the Evo side of the Evo/ID war, right? Always online. Always posting. Always on the bleeding edge of what stupid thing the ID camp has going on, why they're ridiculous, etc.
In a sense, you perform a public service to those not involved in the war. That is,
"Look what religious people will do when science gets in their face."
It's an excellent ongoing demonstration of the general lack of critical thinking skills and ignorance of science which, over time, will do nothing but lend itself to your cause and not theirs.
So keep up the good work, kind sir, and Happy Monkey.
Posted by: GregW | December 18, 2008 4:33 PM
It's cold, rainy and dark so I can't quite bring myself to express happy in any sort of honest form so I'll merely wish everybody -
Pleasant Pongid
ook okk eek eek ook ook
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 18, 2008 4:37 PM
thank you, thank you sooo much! page bookmarked for future use against arguments that start with "even my 3-year-old knows..."err... can i lick an anarchist instead? the only communist in town already has a girlfriend, and she doesn't like sharing :-p
A Merry Monkey and a Happy New Ape to you all!! (I really need to get around to get that T-Shirt design business started... those things create themselves!)
Posted by: Jason | December 18, 2008 4:41 PM
Is there a compendium of creationist (creationalist?) arguments along with a debunking entry? I don't know enough about fossil dating and sedimentary layers to clearly articulate why they are wrong.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 18, 2008 4:43 PM
Jason, there's Talkorigins.org, but it's still not working at the moment. hopefully it'll be up again soon
Posted by: Mr Doubt(hell)fire | December 18, 2008 4:57 PM
In America, anyone can be an evolutionary biologist, even those that can't explain what a mutation is!
Creationists create. Evolution evolves. That's why evolution is taken seriously.
Posted by: raven | December 18, 2008 5:22 PM
You have to remember that creos are very stupid. They just sort of run on automatic pilot rather than think. One of their tribal rituals is to draw up lists of evil demons. The old list had blacks, browns, Jews, scientists, commies, Catholics, Irish, and gays among others.
As the decades go on, the list of demons changes slightly. Now it is Moslems, gays, scientists, as well as some of the older ones. The problem is, some of them are unable to adapt to a new century. They haven't updated their demonology since the late 20 century.
Communism is dead, the Soviet Union fell a decade ago and nowadays the Red Chinese hold trillions of dollars and sell us stuff cheap. You can bet anyone rattling on about commies this and commie that is some old fossil with all the mental agility of a rock living mentally in the 1950's.
Posted by: ndt | December 18, 2008 5:23 PM
Only to us educated elitists. To this segment of Christians (which, although large here in the US, is not all American Christians and maybe not even a majority), ignorance is seen as a virtue. No, I'm not kidding.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | December 18, 2008 5:32 PM
I wish to defend the inventor of Comic Sans. It is not his fault that it is so frequently abused. It may well be the fault of the company he worked for, though. Much may be laid at that door.
But without it, what font would PZ have to use for the creationists? It's perfect.
Posted by: raven | December 18, 2008 5:37 PM
Actually it is 245 examples of intelligent thought with only a few kiddies and morons with drive by insults or ranting and raving. Way lower than the general population which runs around 20-30% kids + morons.
Posted by: Bri | December 18, 2008 5:37 PM
I really like this quote from the first letter:
'Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible'.
Well, firstly, you got a detail wrong - the idea that the Earth was flat went out, for the most part, a few centuries B.C., thanks to the forerunners of modern scientists, the thinkers and philosophers of ancient Greece.
Secondly, you miss the fact that the reason we now know all those things are false is SCIENCE. After the ancient Greeks pretty much proved the Earth was round, most people accepted that, including most Christians. However, the most vocal of those who did not were in the first few centuries A.D., and they did so based on the Christian Bible, such as Lactantius.
Galileo, building on the earlier work by Copernicus, proved the Earth revolved around the sun and got excommunicated and by the church and put under house arrest for the rest of his life for his troubles, as well as having all his works, past, present and any he may write in the future, put in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
As for flying, whilst, as far as I'm aware, there have never been any religious objections to man flying, it was advances in science that caused people to realise that manned flight was possible, and the application of scientific principles that allowed the Wright brothers to build the first aeroplane - and they were not alone in seeking to do so, just the first to actually succeed. However, another detail you got wrong - they were not the first people to have flown, just the inventors of the first fixed-wing aircraft. The first recorded manned flight was actually by balloon, in 1783, and there are unconfirmed stories of people flying by balloon before then, so it is NOT true that scientists believed flight was impossible 200 years ago.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 18, 2008 5:37 PM
The bible is full of anti-intellectual sentiment, right from the start - Adam & Eve were forbidden to eat the fruit from the tree because it contained knowledge. Moral of the story: do as you're told and don't think for yourself or bad shit will happen. The medicine-man/wise woman/shaman/witch-doctor/priest always knows best because he/she has a 'unique connection to the ultimate truth'.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 18, 2008 5:47 PM
Never make an argument about behavior on the assumption that it only occurs in humans. (That should be given a fancy Latin name and listed among the classic logical fallacies... too bad argumentum ad hominem is already taken...) In every single species of at least vertebrates that has been watched for long enough, homosexuality has been found. And with a slight mutation you get gay lab flies, too.
Just send them here.
Posted by: SASnSA | December 18, 2008 5:51 PM
Is it Opposite Day already? I thought that was in January, but each of those letters appeared to say the opposite of what's in many cases been shown to be true.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 18, 2008 5:53 PM
Nonsense!!! For starters, if God had wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings! Don't tell me you've never seen that.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | December 18, 2008 5:55 PM
What are you afraid of? Zombie Morris?
Morris was a zombie?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 18, 2008 5:56 PM
As Michael Flanders put it: "If God had intended Man to fly, he'd have never let us invent the railway."
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2008 6:37 PM
Is there a compendium of creationist (creationalist?) arguments along with a debunking entry? I don't know enough about fossil dating and sedimentary layers to clearly articulate why they are wrong.
specifically, when talk origins goes back up, you will want to be checking out the Index to Creationist Claims, which is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
btw, much of that list was the source material used for the book:
The Counter-Creationism Handbook
which I would highly recommend as a nice, portable reference.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | December 18, 2008 6:37 PM
I checked out the website for the Cinncinati Zoo, and an individual membership is only $47, less than a really good one-night bender.
I am thinking of joining in order to show my support, and I will damn well put "PZ Supporter" on the check.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 6:42 PM
Mine is sitting right over there ------>
Posted by: Kel | December 18, 2008 6:58 PM
I was thinking of getting the Counter Creationism Handbook, then I realised it was mainly a print-out of Talk.Origins and I always have access to that resource since all my dealings with creationists is online.
Posted by: Qwerty | December 18, 2008 7:04 PM
Authors of the first two letters need remedial English, but I am sure this would tax their 18 brain cells. (They also wouldn't know what "remedial" means.)
As PZ correctly points out, the author of the third letter is up to date on all the talking points which also means he can't think for himself.
The fourth letter writer could sum by his letter in one sentence: PZ Myers, your tolerance is intolerable! (Or should that be: I can't tolerate your intolerance?)
Anyhow, Happy Monkey everybody.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 18, 2008 7:11 PM
@Twin-Skies
Like I said earlier, the theology I've studied went through great pains to dissuade us from looking at miracles or similar percieved divine incidents as being unquestionable. If there was ever going to be an explanation behind them, it will have to be empirical.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 18, 2008 9:30 PM
Mikael HafO @ 295:
Happy Monkey card created by Mikael: http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=PqHB93i
Really, this is the Cutest Thing Ever! "Poo, the herald monkeys fling!"
Posted by: druidbros | December 18, 2008 9:51 PM
Well I am honored to be called a colleague of PZ.
Posted by: Andy James | December 18, 2008 10:08 PM
Religious people trying to act intelligently is homologous to gay people trying to act straight. Its awkward, and glaringly obvious to everyone whats really going on betwixt the ears.
Sorry gay people, this is just an analogy of the activities, not an equivalence between homosexuals and the religious.
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | December 18, 2008 10:39 PM
"No one is born gay."
--"So you're saying you weren't born straight?"
PZ, this is the first I've heard about a phone campaign. Will all the setting of exams and final classes, I'm surprised you had time.
Happy Gibbon!
Posted by: DrBadger | December 18, 2008 10:50 PM
It looks like the person who wrote e-mail #3 is okay with other forms of terrorism, it's just islamic terrorism that bothers him... but I guess if muslims didn't do it, it isn't terrorism, right?
Posted by: BobC | December 18, 2008 11:32 PM
He got many of his colleagues to send very angry emails and made some nasty phone calls to the zoo
Colleagues? I thought we were minions.
Posted by: Rick R | December 18, 2008 11:35 PM
"Religious people trying to act intelligently is homologous to gay people trying to act straight. Its awkward, and glaringly obvious to everyone whats really going on betwixt the ears."
Then what are straight people trying to act like?
Posted by: Erin | December 18, 2008 11:43 PM
My favorite part was in the second letter when he/she said, "this country was founded under Christianity and it was rewritten to show the separation of church and state myth".
They love the separation of church and state when evolution is kept from their institutions, but when God is kept out of ours they freak.
And you call evolutionists hypocrites? Wow. Get in line Christians, the hypocrisy train starts now!
-Erin
Posted by: Rick R | December 18, 2008 11:59 PM
""this country was founded under Christianity and it was rewritten to show the separation of church and state myth"
OK, who rewrote the country? C'mon, fess up.
I think Brian DePalma did an uncredited rewrite, and Carrie Fisher was called in to polish the dialogue.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 19, 2008 12:25 AM
@Erin
Here's another clincher: Wasn't George Washington a Freemason?
Posted by: bastion | December 19, 2008 12:29 AM
At #284 Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
Without the gayness genes, musical theater would come to an end. And without musical theater, civilization as we know it would cease to exist.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 19, 2008 12:59 AM
Now that's a terrible stereotype, and I won't have it! Many gays are also involved in non-musical theatre...
Posted by: melior | December 19, 2008 1:00 AM
I think this person is moving backwards through time.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 1:03 AM
Wrong. Merlin moved backwards through time.
Posted by: bastion | December 19, 2008 1:27 AM
The writer of the Happy Monkey Day e-mail wrote:
EXACTLY!
Now, contrast what you wrote about evolution with creationism, by God!
Creationism is not an just a mere idea made up by some mortal, fallible scientist. No! Creationism is a "Proven Fact," as documented by what God wrote in His 100% true and accurate peer-reviewed journal "The Holy Bible."
And, creationism is not only testable in a lab environment, but it has been! Several thousand published peer-reviewed scientific studies done by thousands of the most eminent creationists done over many decades (if not hundreds of years) have provided ample evidence validating creationism and invalidating the "idea" of evolution.
And a Happy Monkey Day to you too!
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | December 19, 2008 1:58 AM
#341
"Colleagues? I thought we were minions."
Look at it from the point of view of the creationist: people like me, who generally hold similar views as PZ but AREN'T actual scientists... well, to them I'm a colleague. These are the people who think Ken Ham is a scientist.
Just saying something with a straight face and nothing but arrogance to back it up is enough to be a scientist for them.
Also, proven fact: God created slugs to test our faith. They look like penises and this makes any good Christian nervous. Scientists have said this. They've said it again and again. Prove me wrong, evolutionists. You can't. Because you know I'm right. You're denying it because you know I'm right and it makes you scared and angry. Is your faith in your god evolution so flim--
Ah, fuck it, I can't keep this up. I bow to the superior endurance that most creationists must have in order to be that big of an asshole for so long.
Posted by: Gliewmeden | December 19, 2008 2:12 AM
What IS it about these people that makes them virtually illiterate? Wanting to teach in a university? Start reading man. My mother used to tell me that if you could read (and read widely) you really did not have to go to school.
Obviously, these creationists don't read much.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 19, 2008 2:41 AM
"I bow to the superior endurance that most creationists must have in order to be that big of an asshole for so long."
Obviously Octobermermaid, you forget the length and rigorous process that comes with becoming a big asshole. Wah HA ha ha!
"Endurance" indeed! ;)
Posted by: Gliewmeden | December 19, 2008 2:49 AM
#351
"..proven fact: God created slugs to test our faith. They look like penises and this makes any good Christian nervous."
...Now wiping red wine from screen, and nostrils.
Thanks for this!
Posted by: shonny | December 19, 2008 3:49 AM
And as Sarah Mills retorted in Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines, 'But papa, we drive cars though God didn't fit us with wheels!'
Posted by: Scott | December 19, 2008 4:52 AM
What's the point in posting the emails if you leave out their name and contact info? I myself am not satisfied at reading such drivel and not having a means to take action.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 5:42 AM
Without the gayness genes, musical theater would come to an end.,/I> - bastion
Don't say things like that - you'll turn me into a homophobe ;-)
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | December 19, 2008 5:57 AM
Bri - since you beat me to it with the classical Greeks knowing the earth was round I will add that thanks to Erastothenes they even knew how big it was. The reason Columbus (a dufus who didn't know how big the earth was) had trouble getting support for his idea of saling west to get to China was because any of his contemporaries with any education knew that was the long way around the earth.
Also, a few of the ancient Greeks thought that heliocentrism made more sense because the sun was bigger than the Earth.
Posted by: Snark7 | December 19, 2008 7:44 AM
Hmmm, all-in-all Number 3 may have one valid point:
"guess all that dope in the 1960s just hasn't worn completely off yet. "
Yep, he's probably right there. His mail certainly does read like he's suffering from a rather severe LSD flashback.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | December 19, 2008 9:15 AM
Fixed that for you.
Monado @339:
Happy Gibbon!
Splitter.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 9:20 AM
With no God, and therefore no morals and no values, why do any of you really care? Why waste your time on some blog which consists primarily of bashing the things you people are so sure don't exist. Seriously, where does the motivation for that come from? Evolution? How can you people feel any "anger" toward people with whom you disagree? How do emotions even exist in your mind? I would think, if you truly believed in evolution, you'd be out doing whatever made you feel physiologically best. Ie: rampant sex with whoever you want (whether they want to or not), flooding your mind with as much food, drink and narcotics that you want, etc..
Also, since according to you, I am an evolved creature acting on nothing more than impulse and chemical reactions, why would it be wrong to track down one of you who post on here and rip your throat out? Seriously. The things posted here (and the attitude with which they are posted) make me angry (I'm sure someone here can help me out with the chemical explanation that cause me to be angry). And my next natural (evolved) reaction is to address that anger. Ripping out one of your throats and eating it for breakfast would alleviate some of that anger. Does it also support the survival of the fittest model? In the eyes of the evolutionist, why is that in any way wrong? Why would me raping your mother be wrong, or killing a kitten, or stabbing PZ meyers in the eyeball, or swinging a newborn infant into a telephone pole? Are these things wrong? And if so, why?
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 9:33 AM
Drew. Are you really that stupid? That morally vapid?
The ONLY reason you don't go around raping and killing is a fear of hell?
Really? If you say yes you're either a liar or a psychopath.
Fuck off.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 9:34 AM
Drew, thanks for stopping by and showing us how illogical Xians are. You are obviously scared to think that your security blanket known to you as god is a myth, and panic as a result.
All morals have always come from man. The tribal structures agreed to what was good and bad prior to writing being developed. After that, wisdom could be written down. But at no time was god involved. At some point fiat by authority was used, and using a god for backing morals was big as authority there was. Never mind the the god may be Zeus, not Yehweh.
So take a deep breath, and relax. Your god doesn't exist, your bible is a semi-historical work of fiction, but nothing else has changed. Men are still deciding what is moral and what is not.
Posted by: ChrisGose | December 19, 2008 9:49 AM
Zack Morris, Evolutionary Biologist.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 9:51 AM
That's fine guys. Just leave me your real name and addresses and I'll come by and show you the morals I have come up with. I'll rip your throat out, I'll feel better having satisfied my savage animal instincts, and if your family shares the same non-values as you do, they would be hypocritical to file charges.
(I am a man and since you informed me that morals come from man and the tribe, I should be ok with what I have come up with... no universal code to hold it up against right?) How many men or tribes have to agree on something before it is considered moral? 1/4 of population? 1/2 the population? 27 people, 6 tribes and a chicken?
Posted by: mattmc | December 19, 2008 9:54 AM
Wow Drew you really are a sick fucker... If you cannot see how most of the behaviors you used as examples are detrimental to living with others and therefore are on average selected against, then I guess the rest of us are lucky that your fear of retribution by an invisible sky fairy keeps you from acting on your sick, twisted, sociopathic desires. Now kindly go and remove yourself from the gene pool.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 9:59 AM
Drew, still showing us the famous Xian love. It should just make those in your church so proud to see you speak so nicely. After all, you are showing how the golden rule really works, correct?
The golden rule really works. Game theory has shown this. Most moral structures are built around this concept.
If your imaginary god exists, you should be able to show us some physical evidence for this. Can you do so? Something that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers? Otherwise, how do we know you aren't delusional?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 10:01 AM
With no God, and therefore no morals and no values
Since this first clause is complete garbage, I almost didn't bother to read any further. I really needn't have bothered, since the rest is equally garbage - and garbage which we've all heard a thousand times before. Do you really think none of your fellow godbots has posted this sort of stuff here before?
Belief in God is neither necessary nor sufficient for people to have morals or values:
Not necessary because morals and values are fundamental to normal human psychology, and our evolved nature as a social species. This latter phrase is key: we have evolved to care about things other than immediate physiological gratification; and in particular, about each other, and about equity: those who have cared about such things, and have preferred to associate with others who do so, have on average left more descendants than those who have not. Indeed, these features are found in many other social species.
Not sufficient (a) because of Euthyphro's dilemma (look it up if you haven't heard of it) and (b) Because religious believers do not agree on what "God" commands.
Ripping out one of your throats and eating it for breakfast would alleviate some of that anger. Does it also support the survival of the fittest model?
No. You would make yourself liable to be attacked in revenge, which would tend to reduce your inclusive fitness.
Why would me raping your mother be wrong, or killing a kitten, or stabbing PZ meyers in the eyeball, or swinging a newborn infant into a telephone pole?
Because this would hurt or kill your victims. If this does not seem intrinsically wrong to you, you're a psychopath.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 10:04 AM
You saying I don't have morals doesn't make it true.
You have no fucking clue what my morals are, what I value.
It's MAN as in the collective man. Each individual has a choice of following the collective's rules, and there's consequences that have nothing to do with a fictional god.
You could try and rip my throat out. But either the cops or my aluminum baseball bat will stop you. Either way, I win.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 10:07 AM
if your family shares the same non-values as you do, they would be hypocritical to file charges - Psychopath Drew
Stupid as well as psychopathic I see. If someone had no values, how could anything they did be hypocritical?
By the way, I use my real name here - unlike you. I'm sure with sufficient dedication you could find my address. I'm not scared of you, scumbag, even though you're clearly a real sack of shit.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 10:13 AM
I'm just asking why it would be wrong to stab someone in the eye who was causing me discomfort (emotional, physical, etc)? That's all. Why don't we prosecute lions for mutilating baby giraffes? And I haven't been to church since I was a kid so I don't think I'm disappointing anyone with my language. And I'm not a scientist, so I am not going to pretend to be and contrive some "physical evidence" which you seek. However, I have read some about the concept of irreducible complexity with regard to the motors of electrons. I imagine that gave you guys some trouble until you somehow (add a few billion years to the evolution scale) reconciled it with your evolution theory. The evolution of blood clotting systems in the body is another one of particular interest to me. Ie: why didnt everyone bleed to death prior to blood clotting evolving, etc.?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 10:24 AM
Drew, still no proof for your imaginary god. Still not understanding the concept of morals. It is not absolutes from above, but people telling other people not to unnecessarily hurt each other. If you are being physically hurt, you can morally defend yourself. But you can't use the "he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first" type of explanation either.
Science works by the claimant proving their case. The irreducible complexity concept has been refuted several times over. That makes your questions meaningless. Evolution has never had any problems explaining things. Watch the Nova show Judgement Day, which is about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. It shows how the ID people just plain lied. So if you believe ID, you believe in a lie.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 10:24 AM
Drew. You're out of your league. I'm not going to point out obvious facts to you. You're not interested in science. Fine. You don't understand natural selection, or what survival of the fittest means.
You're ignorance isn't interesting or compelling. It's mundane. We see your kind around here all the time. Rarely are they ever interesting in learning anything or true debate.
I'm sure many might engage you if you showed a real interest in the concepts we discuss here all the time. But I suspect you're just another AiG fan who thinks T-Rex had big teeth to crack coconuts, and the Noah's ark held dinosaurs too.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 10:27 AM
Psychopath? By whose definition Nick? And "intrinsically wrong?" Again, by whose definition? The tribes, the "collective man"? We evolved into caring about other things? Are we going to evolve into knowing that our earth can't sustain the exponential population explosion in the next few decades? If so, would it be considered moral at that time for me to start killing people off? Maybe just retarded children? After all, they really don't contribute to society do they? Or should we start by killing off asians, or Gay people? Wait, maybe we should keep the gay people as they won't harmfully contribute to the population problem...
And of course I know that many (most much more informed than myself) have come here and probably said the same thing. Am sure they haven't changed any minds either. Truth is, I was on another site reading something that stoked (thanks evolution) my anger and I simply came here to vent. I might hang for a few more comments and then be off into the the cyber world. I guess I just wanted to make sure that whatever the chemical reactions are that cause anger have not evolved out of us yet...
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 10:28 AM
I'm just asking why it would be wrong to stab someone in the eye who was causing me discomfort (emotional, physical, etc)? - Drew the psychopath
And you've been answered, moron: because it would hurt them.
Why don't we prosecute lions for mutilating baby giraffes?
Are you really as fucking stupid as you appear? Lions are not members of any human society, are not capable of understanding court proceedings, and are acting as they have evolved to do.
However, I have read some about the concept of irreducible complexity with regard to the motors of electrons.
The motors of electrons???? Yes, I see you really are as stupid as you appear. In fact, in the face of extremely strong competition, I nominate this as the stupidest godbot remark to appear on Pharyngula during 2008.
why didnt everyone bleed to death prior to blood clotting evolving, etc.?
Blood clotting systems evolved at the same time as blood, doofus.
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 10:31 AM
Drew #361 wrote:
You are confusing a lot of different ideas here. Which of the following do you accept?:
1.) All human beings share a common sense of good and evil, and right and wrong. We also naturally seek to do what is right, and what is right makes sense. God is needed to explain the where and why for that shared understanding.
2.) There is no common agreement on morals and values. There are hundreds of versions of God, all with different morals and values. The best anyone can do is try to find the right version of God -- the one that actually exists -- and the correct religion -- and then THOSE would be the proper morals, whatever they are. Good and evil are arbitrary from the human standpoint: Divine Might alone makes right.
3.) All human beings share a common sense of right and wrong, but they have no reason to do what is good, or avoid what is evil, unless they are rewarded for doing good, and punished for doing evil, by some outside authority. Those who do good for its own sake are actually being stupid and disobedient.
You cannot believe all of those. Nor can you switch back and forth between them, using each, in turn, as your argument needs it. They each contradict each other.
Remember, a theory does not change what the theory is about. If we start out agreeing there are common human values, you cannot say that, if it turns out that this universal sense evolved, then that means it doesn't exist. If you insist that humans have no agreement at all on what is Good, then you can't point to God as the source for what we don't have -- nor can you point to God as the "standard" for what we don't have.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 10:35 AM
Psychopath? By whose definition Nick?
Any psychopathologist. A psychopath is a person without conscience or compassion,. as you appear to be, from what you've said.
And "intrinsically wrong?" Again, by whose definition?
Pay attention, pillock. I said if you don't feel it to be intrinsically wrong, i.e., that its wrongness is not in need of justification, you are a psychopath. See definition of psychopath above.
Are we going to evolve into knowing that our earth can't sustain the exponential population explosion in the next few decades?
Stupidity upon stupidity. Evolution is not teleological. Sorry to use big words, you'll have to look them up if you don't understand. Incidentally, the world's population is not increasing exponentially.
And of course I know that many (most much more informed than myself) have come here and probably said the same thing.
No, they'll all been ignorant idiots like you - although few quite so stupid and unpleasant.
Posted by: Dahan | December 19, 2008 10:37 AM
Those letters could have been written by at least a dozen people in my immediate family.
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 10:40 AM
Drew #371 wrote:
Whether founded on God or not, all good moral systems come down to one thing: a choice to love each other.
If you make the choice to not love other people -- so that there is 'nothing wrong' with stabbing them in the eye -- then you are not be the sort of person who would choose to love God, are you? Adding "God" into your system would do nothing.
If you make the choice to love other people, then stabbing them in the eye is therefore wrong, as measured against your choice to love them. Adding "God" into the system is not necessary.
Think about this. Loving God and loving other people are the same kind of choice. If there is no God -- then there are still other people. And the choice.
Posted by: co | December 19, 2008 10:41 AM
I really hope Drew sticks around for a while. We haven't had a really good godbot bashin' in a while.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 10:42 AM
Nick, so our conscience and compassion has evolved also?
And sastra, after a cursory reading, I'd say it's #1 on your list. Also, I appreciate your evolved sense of written conversation. I think your buddy nick is a few evolutionary models behind you.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 19, 2008 10:46 AM
Hey Drew, the snide Christian "I'm just trying to understand your world man" act has been tried here thousands of times, to no avail. Why don't you save your energy, go get educated by going to a library on Sunday instead of the local pew warehouse, and start living life, K?
And if I must point out your flagrantly hyprocritical Christianism by labeling us rapists simply because we're athesists, than I guess I have to. But, in your world atheists aren't real humans anyways, so no reason to worry about following Jesus right? After all, how can such base animals demand the same respect you feel entitled to?
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 10:46 AM
Drew. Just stop. Try this out. They've found, through research, that dogs and monkeys have a sense of fairness. Yep, even dogs and monkeys know when something is unfair. Do they believe in god? Did god do that?
Obviously not.
Just listen to yourself. Humans are both violent and altruistic. We function well as social groups under stress, but we also create out groups that we compete with for resources and advantage. It's not hard to trace these behaviors through evolution. We see it in primates and other mammals.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 10:46 AM
Sastra, is love the product of evolution?
Posted by: clinteas | December 19, 2008 10:48 AM
Yumm,fresh troll....
Yes,well,it sure as hell beats yours.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 19, 2008 10:50 AM
"Sastra, is love the product of evolution?"
Yes. It is in part a survival mechanism. The real question is, why do you feel you must believe that something else created love in order for love to be real. Secondly, is it truly love stemming from that something if it has a ransom tied to it? How about you answer that one?
Posted by: Dahan | December 19, 2008 10:51 AM
Drew @ #384,
Yes. Go look up the research yourself. Must everyone do everything for you?
Sorry to step on your toes here, Sastra.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 10:54 AM
Nick, so our conscience and compassion has evolved also? - Drew
Yes. Have you finally managed to grasp this elementary point?
I think your buddy nick is a few evolutionary models behind you. - Drew
You fucking hypocritical pusbucket. You come on this blog, insulting and threatening everyone, and you expect people to talk nice to you?
Sastra, is love the product of evolution? - Drew
I'm sure Sastra will agree with my answer: yes.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 10:56 AM
Oh and Drew,
How old is the earth?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 10:58 AM
Drew, everything biological is a result of evolution. Love, hate, all the emotions too. Nothing comes from your illusionary god.
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 10:58 AM
Drew #384 wrote:
Yes. So is hate.
As an individual, you are what you are -- someone who can make choices. This is going to be the same -- whether God made you that way, or you evolved that way. How we got the way we are is a different question than "what should we choose to do?"
If you make a choice for love. over hate -- then it won't matter whether you think "Love" is an abstract human emotion, a Disembodied Spirit. What you do, would be the same in either case.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 11:09 AM
I feel bad for you guys. And Nick, if you can't see that my examples of killing, raping, etc. were an effort to prove a point, you're as dumb as you accuse me of being.
Steve, as to the age of the earth; don't know, wasn't there when it started.
Sastra - is "hate" or "love" an actual combination of certain chemicals in your opinion, or do you draw those labels by observing the outward behavior of others and then determine whether what you see is love, hate, anger, etc...?
All, what is your motivation for being on this blog? What is it you hope to achieve? Honest question..
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 11:17 AM
I feel bad for you guys.
You really find it hard to write a sentence without insulting people, don't you, scumbag.
Nick, if you can't see that my examples of killing, raping, etc. were an effort to prove a point, you're as dumb as you accuse me of being. - Drew the pusbucket
They were also deliberate insults, and intended to anger and/or frighten people, you lying toad. Apologise for them, and I'm willing to stop calling you the sack of lying psychopathic filth you chose to present yourself as.
Posted by: raven | December 19, 2008 11:18 AM
Morality doesn't come from god. Almost all of us are born with it. Atheistic and nonXian societies are no less moral than xian ones. In fact, the fundie Death Cults seem to be far less moral than the general human population. Which begs the question, "What good is your god if you don't pay any attention to him?"
The atheists and sympathizers don't bash god. They laugh at some of his more demented followers. Like you, who seems to be very stupid and none too sane.
Besides general amusement at how crazy and dumb fundies are, there is a serious purpose. Left to themselves, they would inevitably and cheerfully destroy our society and head on back to the Dark Ages. Fundie xians have nothing much to do with xianity and everything to do with Nihilism, the urge to destroy everything around them.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 11:18 AM
Drew, when you first arrived it was impossible to see any point, as you were so abusive. Not a good start to anything.
Since then you have avoided answering questions. Not a good continuation. What do you believe the age of the earth to be?
As to what we get from this blog. A sense of community. Most of here are atheists, and we either are scientists or admire the progress that the scientific method has done for hominids in the last century or two.
Posted by: co | December 19, 2008 11:20 AM
Honestly, I like to see if PZ has posted any relatively recent developments in biology.
More importantly, however, once in a while I wake up with the uncomfortable feeling of a mouth without a bit of bile washing about in it. I know that by coming here, or by going to Conservapedia (though that's a table so laden with easy pickings that I could too easily gorge myself), I'll see arguments so fundamentally flawed, self-contradictory, ignorant of all evidence, or horribly stated that my spleen and bile ducts start their rusty crankings, and my mouth again will know the sweet, sweet taste of ire and ridicule.
I'm glad you stuck around long enough to give me a nice dose for the day, Drew.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 11:25 AM
Drew, I'll give you multiple choice options.
a. roughly 4.5 billions years
b. less than 5 million
c. less than 50,000
d. less than 10,000
You can even give me two answers, the one you thinks science states and the one AiG states.
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 11:30 AM
Drew #392 wrote:
Both.
Look at something less 'controversial' -- hunger. What is "hunger?" Is it the result of chemical reactions in your stomach and nerves? Yes. Is it a way of feeling, a subjective sensation? Yes. Is it something you infer from observation, watching other people and species seek out food? Yes. Is it an abstract idea, where you pick out similar features in experiences and emotions and combine them in new ways, so that you can then talk about "hunger" for truth, or "hunger" for justice, and still make sense? Yes.
You cannot hold hunger in your hand -- but it is real. And, ultimately, physical. We can simply look at it in different ways, at different levels of understanding.
Could God have somehow given all living things which need to eat to survive something called "hunger," a mystical spiritual essense they then carry inside them that makes them want to eat? I suppose so. It seems a little strange to think this way, though. It's not very illuminating, ultimately explains nothing, and basically reduces to magic.
I think it's less simplistic -- but more reasonable -- to try to understand 'hunger' by looking at how cells and insects and animals all feel the sensation of hunger, because of lower level processes which are physical.
And these physical processes could evolve through a physical system.
Love is similar, in many respects, to hunger. They're both physical -- and abstract. Objective -- and subjective. But neither one requires a "spiritual" component, outlook, or vocabulary.
I'm trying to understand how everything works together into a harmonious whole. I've been finding more consistency, clarity, and satisfaction through a scientific approach.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 11:31 AM
All, what is your motivation for being on this blog? What is it you hope to achieve? Honest question - Drew the shitstain
You've yet to show you're capable of honesty, peabrain.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 11:35 AM
I'm sorry Nick. Hope you feel better.... although again, I don't know if we agree on the definition of "feel."
Red head, I personally believe in a young earth. 10000 years or so. You asked it, I answered it. And it was obviously asked in order to set off the next assault on my intelligence (or lack thereof that most of you will insinuate). And I'm sure there are plenty reading who do not feel the need to respond to such a lower level of intelligence. Although, some have already gone out of there way to post that they don't feel like I'm worth a rebuttal (which in terms of scientific evidence is probably true).
Co- glad I could crank your bile ducts. But, why, in evolutionary terms, would ridiculing someone else make you feel good?
Posted by: raven | December 19, 2008 11:36 AM
Drew doesn't even understand his own religion. According to xians, humans learned right from wrong by eating an apple from the Tree of Knowledge.
In the belief system, all humans are therefore born knowing morality. Whether you believe in god is irrelevant.
Of course, this gets in the way of him calling a group of people baby killing monsters. But since fundies are all about hate and lies instead of religion, that doesn't matter to him and them.
Posted by: BobC | December 19, 2008 11:38 AM
Drew | December 19, 2008 9:20 AM With no God, and therefore no morals and no values
Drew, you're right. Because I don't have your idiotic childish belief in magic fairies, I have become a serial killer. I especially enjoy killing shit-for-brains assholes like yourself.
Posted by: co | December 19, 2008 11:39 AM
Why, in evolutionary terms, would reading Dostoyevsky make one feel good rather than reading Proust? You might want to cast questions into a context where they may make sense.
Also, I could have posted absolutely nothing, and I'd still feel fine watching your arguments here. Why do I post? Palate-cleanser.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 11:41 AM
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008
Steve, as to the age of the earth; don't know, wasn't there when it started.
The ultimate in self-centeredness. "I" was not there so how can it be known.
Drew, people are free and encouraged to mock your intelligence. You have shown that you are proud of your ignorance.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 11:41 AM
Ok Drew. Cool. Thanks for playing. Anyone who thinks the earth is 10000 years old is obviously blinkered by religion. Only creationists, who are so deluded that they deny all of scientific evidence, would hold that belief.
No argument from the standpoint of evidence or reason would make a difference with you.
It's quite sad. However, it can be quite entertaining to see what comes out of a YEC's mouth. The stupidity and ignorance can be pretty amazing.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 11:46 AM
I don't know if we agree on the definition of "feel." - Drew
I don't see the need to define such generally understood words; nor do I think a watertight definition can be given. How would you define "feel"?
All, what is your motivation for being on this blog? What is it you hope to achieve?
I am fascinated by evolutionary biology (see the biological posts). I enjoy the discussions on topics ranging from evolution to politics, economics, sociology, history, psychology, literature... often highly intelligent and involving people with a great deal of knoweldge and expertise. I like hanging out with a group who mostly share a good part of my take on life. I find I almost invariably get at least one good laugh a day from something intended to be funny by its author; and another from something not so intended. I enjoy sharpening my wits by arguing with the religidiots, "libertarians" and other fools who drop in.
Posted by: Gustavus | December 19, 2008 11:46 AM
Nick Gotts,
Why do you persistently waste your time on these ignorant creationists? Every person here capable of persuasion knows full well that they're wrong. Are you so hateful and angry at the world that you must vent by beating up on creationists? Is it that your self-esteem is so low that you need the dose of self-confidence? Or is it both, perhaps?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 11:47 AM
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008
That's fine guys. Just leave me your real name and addresses and I'll come by and show you the morals I have come up with. I'll rip your throat out, I'll feel better having satisfied my savage animal instincts, and if your family shares the same non-values as you do, they would be hypocritical to file charges.
If humans were that unfettered at all times, this species would have been wiped out millions of years ago.
Oh, wait. You believe the Earth is 10,000 years old.
How do you know? Were you there?
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 11:51 AM
Come and get it Bob:
78 Vermilion Drive
Levittown, Pa 19054.
And I'm not saying that you will become a serial killer (as you have the knowledge of good and evil imprinted on your heart), I'm just asking why you would yield to any laws/morals/cultural practices, etc. Is it only because the group says it's wrong? Or does something inside you tell you to hold the door open for an old lady, or not take advantage of a weaker person? It would seem that you would be obligated (in order to fulfill your evolutionary dictate) to rid the species of these weaker, potential detriments to the herd...
And I'll be the first to tell you I'm not a born-again Christian evangelical by any stretch. I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it.
A side question that popped into my head: do evolutionists believe in Astrology?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 11:51 AM
Oh, Drew, despite you being a would be mass murderer, I still feel compelled to say this. Happy Monkey!
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 11:51 AM
Drew #400 wrote:
Since you're being nice and answering questions, I'll ask you one. I don't know how you'll answer:
IF it turns out that the scientists are correct, and evolution happened, and the earth is 14.5 billion years or so old -- and you come to this conclusion also -- THEN what would you do?
1.) Become an atheist. If evolution happened, then there is no need for God to explain anything.
2.) Remain a Christian. If evolution happened, then God must have used it to work His plan. The Bible wasn't "wrong" -- your interpretation of the Bible was wrong. You would then become a theistic evolutionist, and a liberal Christian who views much of the Bible as "metaphor."
3.) Change religions. If evolution happened, then the Bible has been contradicted -- no reinterpreting. Christ is no longer real to you. But there are other versions of God which could use evolution, and you won't reject the entire concept because there are still things you'd need a God to 'explain.' You'd start to look around.
---
In other words, how much is really riding on this issue for you? How significant is evolution vs. creationism?
Posted by: windy | December 19, 2008 11:51 AM
How do you explain it in theist terms?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 11:52 AM
Gustavus, what is your point? All of us can mock creobots. Nick just does it so well, which is why he won a Molly.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 19, 2008 11:54 AM
You also weren't present when you were conceived.
How do you know you were? Or do you think you weren't?
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 11:57 AM
So ummm, Drew why the fuck would you think the earth is younger than the average rock you can pick up off the ground?
There's ancient manmade structures that are older than 10,000 years old. The only reason one can say it's 10,000 years old is because some THEIST told them it was and they accepted that answer over ALL the scientific evidence. It's just willful ignorance to think that way. You seem quite happy about it actually. Like it's a big fuck you to more enlightened and educated people.
Man, that's goofy.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 11:57 AM
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 .
A side question that popped into my head: do evolutionists believe in Astrology?
The depths of your stupidity is staggering.
Posted by: raven | December 19, 2008 11:57 AM
Oh gee, this guy isn't even remotely sane. Another serial killer wannabe spouting god babble. OK Drew, let me know when you swing by my house. The local police will be waiting as well as something loaded with small devices known as "ammunition".
Drew lives where the lower reaches of fundie xianity blends in with homicidal insanity. Because jesus loves you, xianity is a religion of peace, love, and tolerance, and Drew wants to kill people. It all makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 11:57 AM
Drew, contrary to your paranoia, evolutionists do not get together once a month to plot how to take over the world and set policy. Any evolutionist can believe in astrology if they want. But, since most evolutionists use the scientific method for many things, astrology falls short of being scientific. So my guess would be some do, but the numbers would be less than the general public.Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 11:59 AM
Drew #409 wrote:
"Evolutionists" are a large group. It includes Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and New Agers as well as atheists (among others.) So it would depend. A Hindu who accepts evolution might also believe in astrology.
Most of the people on this blog are like PZ Myers -- secular humanists. Those are the folks who are atheists because they have taken a scientific and rational approach to life. Method is more fundamental to us than whether there's a God or not.
Since there is no good scientific evidence for astrology -- then no. Secular humanists do not believe in astrology. That could, in theory, change with amazing new studies -- but unlikely.
Posted by: God | December 19, 2008 12:00 PM
Hi Drew,
My real name is "God".
My real address is "Outside of your space-time continuum".
I invite you to track me down and try to tear out the throat that I don't actually have, any time you feel up to it.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | December 19, 2008 12:00 PM
Why has the "War on Christmas" suddenly made the phrase "Merry Christmas" the Christian equivalent of a five year old saying "poopy" at the dinner table?
Posted by: Iain Walker | December 19, 2008 12:01 PM
Drew (#371):
Electrons don't have motors, and have nothing to do with the concept of irreducible complexity. I assume that you are misremembering some reference to biochemical mechanisms that (amongst other things) involve the transport of electrons, since otherwise I can't think how you would arrive at such an idiotic misconception. And by the sound of it, whatever you've read about irreducible complexity is almost certainly wrong.
Er, no. Irreducible complexity was first posited by the German geneticist Herman Muller (although he called it interlocking complexity) as an expected consequence of evolution by mutation and selection. I.e., biologists have understood how evolutionary mechanisms can produce non-redundant biological systems for decades before Michael "I can't be arsed to do any proper background research" Behe came on the scene.
If you're genuinely interested (which I doubt), then we have a pretty good idea of how blood clotting evolved. No designers involved - just the addition, subtraction and modification of parts by mutation and selection.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 12:04 PM
Ryan, you are free to say all the Merry Christmas you want. However, some of us realize that not all the people we talk to are christians, and find that Seasons Greetings or Happy Holidays covers the beliefs of a larger number of people without unnecessarily insulting them. Simple politeness, if you will.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 12:05 PM
I think Drew has stated his morals are this: I do 'bad' things, feel bad about it, I'll let god take it up with me later.
Sounds like a typical run of the mill Xtian.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 19, 2008 12:07 PM
"And I'm not saying that you will become a serial killer (as you have the knowledge of good and evil imprinted on your heart), I'm just asking why you would yield to any laws/morals/cultural practices, etc. Is it only because the group says it's wrong? Or does something inside you tell you to hold the door open for an old lady, or not take advantage of a weaker person? It would seem that you would be obligated (in order to fulfill your evolutionary dictate) to rid the species of these weaker, potential detriments to the herd..."
Atheists yield to laws because the law is that murder is unethical, aside from being illegal. In part it is because the "group" says it's wrong, but it's also inherently repulsive an act. You don't need a god telling you that killing is wrong to know it is. The notion that we wouldn't know killing was bad without a god telling us it is, is preposterous. Holding a door for an old lady is also A) not in the 10 commandments, B) is common courtesy, and C) is an easy way of associating with fellow human beings, of recognizing them. Drew everything you are implying is that humans are but lifeless husks without purpose without a guiding divine energy dictating and puppeteering reality as it sees fit. Answer us: Why do you think this must be so for you or humanity to function?
"And I'll be the first to tell you I'm not a born-again Christian evangelical by any stretch. I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it."
You type this and are in the same breath asking us to take your questions seriously? You like doing things you think are wrong, but keep doing it, even though you "feel bad about it"? What are you talking about? I don't do any of the things you are supposedly copping to. I simply don't get those urges. I don't booze heavily because I've seen boozed people act dumb and get themselves killed. I don't need a god to tell me too much booze is bad. I see what drugs do to people. Again, I don't need a god to see and understand. Are you telling us your own sense of reality is so poor you need something to hold your hand through life, to tell you when and what to feel bad or good about?
"A side question that popped into my head: do evolutionists believe in Astrology?"
No. But then I don't know what an "evolutionist" is. I know the connotations that your use of the word implies, but I don't know what it actually means. What is an "evolutionist"?
Posted by: windy | December 19, 2008 12:07 PM
So you are not worried about burning in Hell, flames licking your skin FOR ETERNITY, as long as you 'feel bad about it'?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 19, 2008 12:08 PM
By the way, just to be pedantically correct, Sastra made a typo above: the earth is not 14.5 billion yeas old; it is approx 4.5 billion yeas old, and the universe itself is about 15 billion years old.
However, the question was valid as it stands.
Regarding astrology — PZ Myers used to post to a skeptic newsgroup, and when an astrologer posted that X would happen during various astrologically significant times, PZ actually did the experiment and showed that X did not happen.
Most on this particular blog are skeptics, as are most scientists in general.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 12:12 PM
Never said anything about Jesus. Janine, glad I could stagger you. What do you live for Janine? As much as I enjoy the company, I do have temporarily depart. I'll be back in a couple of hours to bestow some more ignorance on you guys.
But I still don't understand why any of you would care either way? Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least? At least from the Christian perspective that many of you (ignorantly) accuse me of propagating, they (Christians) have what on the surface appears to be a "moral" goal in mind. And I'm not paranoid Reds. I take solace in the fact that people of your intellectual persuasion are a mere fraction of society.
And thanks for all those atheist hospitals you guys have given to society... Oh wait, that wasn't you, it was...
Posted by: Satan | December 19, 2008 12:13 PM
Hi Drew,
My real name is "Satan".
By an astounding coincidence, my address is exactly the same as God's, and I extend the same offer that God made.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 12:16 PM
Nick Gotts,
Why do you persistently waste your time on these ignorant creationists? Every person here capable of persuasion knows full well that they're wrong. Are you so hateful and angry at the world that you must vent by beating up on creationists? Is it that your self-esteem is so low that you need the dose of self-confidence? Or is it both, perhaps? - Gustavus
Neither. Deliberate ignorance, bigotry and stupidity do anger me, and I feel they should not go unanswered - and I do enjoy an argument. If you review my entire oeuvre here, you'll find I take part in many types of argument and discussion apart from creationist-beating.
BTW, what's it to you, anyway?
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 19, 2008 12:17 PM
Drew:
The reason we don't go around ripping people's throats out is that we are atheists, and most of us have come to this worldview based on reason and insight. In pursuit of a rational lifestyle, we are therefore compelled to behave, in many ways, the opposite of religious people.
You won't find us justifying violence (wars against heathens, for instance) and then rationalizing the violence as the will of a higher power. This kind of ugliness is unacceptable and inherently destructive to order and peace. Strange that you don't see this.
You won't find people of reason training others to be subservient to them, and then further training them to be happy about it, or lying to people and taking advantage of their ignorance for personal gain. How utterly strange that you would see people who do not do these things as having no reason to be moral.
What difference does it make whether our emotions, our sense of right and wrong, evolved or not? It is undeniable that we have emotions and a built in moral compass (unless you are a psychopath, in which case there is something wrong with the machinery.) Scientists have applied themselves diligently to finding out the truth about the properties of the world and nature. It doesn't matter whether evolution appeals to you or not, and it makes no difference whether anybody wants it to be true or not--it is how the world works. We need to deal with this because it is the truth. Or is dealing with the truth anathema to you?
And why do you assume that hedonism is the only way to be happy? How do you know that being temperate, selective, eschewing vices and pursuing good health isn't also rewarding? Again, you are very strange in your assumptions.
It is obvious that you did not form your ideas about right and wrong, others did it for you. You have been infected by religion.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 19, 2008 12:19 PM
Oh, great. An idiot like Drew starts babbling, and next thing you know, all the riff-raff, like God and Satan, show up.
I am amused to note that I have the power to make all of you disappear. But I stay my hand, godlike in my mercy.
Posted by: Thomas Theobald | December 19, 2008 12:19 PM
I do believe I just shit myself.
T
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 12:21 PM
DREW! Jesus fucking christ on a stick!
Just because you can't comprehend people behaving morally and living happy fulfilling lives with a belief in a god doesn't not mean that they don't.
We do. It's actually a really good thing. The sad thing is that idiots like you think they need fear to keep them in line and the promise of an eternal afterlife to get through this life.
That's a sad existence.
Oh and just ignore all the atheist scientists that have done a vast amount of the modern research used in those hospitals, factories, farms, and labs.
Without science there is no medicine dumbass.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 12:24 PM
Never said anything about Jesus. Janine, glad I could stagger you. What do you live for Janine? As much as I enjoy the company, I do have temporarily depart. I'll be back in a couple of hours to bestow some more ignorance on you guys.
But I still don't understand why any of you would care either way? Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least? At least from the Christian perspective that many of you (ignorantly) accuse me of propagating, they (Christians) have what on the surface appears to be a "moral" goal in mind. And I'm not paranoid Reds. I take solace in the fact that people of your intellectual persuasion are a mere fraction of society.
And thanks for all those atheist hospitals you guys have given to society... Oh wait, that wasn't you, it was...
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 12:25 PM
... people behaving morally and living happy fulfilling lives WITHOUT a belief in a god doesn't not mean that they do...
damn it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 12:26 PM
Drew, since you asked why we post here, we can return the favor. Why are you posting here today? By the way, I'm the Nerd, the wife is the Redhead.
Posted by: BobC | December 19, 2008 12:26 PM
Drew, the uneducated brain-dead stupid asshole Christian hick:
You're a bit off moron. Multiply your 10,000 by 450,000 to get the correct age of the earth. This is why Christianity must be eradicated. The Christian death cult has made America a laughing stock.Posted by: Satan | December 19, 2008 12:29 PM
And what motivates you to come here and act like a fucking asshole? What, for that matter, pushes you to the drugs and the sex?
Is it Me? Are you going to blame Me for your foul temper and cruel instincts and moral incontinence? O, please do. I love getting credit! It makes Me feel all warm and special.
But if you actually read your Bible, you may note that God is something of a hardass. "The Devil made me do it" is not an acceptable excuse. So it looks like you'll be meeting up with Me no matter what you do.
See you soon!
Warmest regards,
Satan
Posted by: SteveM | December 19, 2008 12:30 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The question is, why has the "war on christmas" suddenly made the phrase "Happy Holidays" an attack on Christianity?
"The War" was not started by atheists objecting to "Merry Christmas", it was started by Christians getting all bent out of shape over "Happy Holidays".
Posted by: itwasntme | December 19, 2008 12:31 PM
I think we should give these fools something to really gripe about. I suggest we start a crusade to mandate that every Sunday (or Saturday or Friday) service be required to devote a half-hour to teaching physics.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 12:32 PM
It would seem that you would be obligated (in order to fulfill your evolutionary dictate) to rid the species of these weaker, potential detriments to the herd - Drew
You really do not understand the first thing about evolution. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary dictate" for a start. Moreover, natural selection does not select acts done for the good of the species. Do make some effort.
And thanks for all those atheist hospitals you guys have given to society.
I think you'll find that the proportion of atheists among doctors, and even more so medical researchers, is far higher than in the general population. The opposite is true of prison inmates. You might also be interested to learn that the two top philanthropists of our age, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are non-believers in religion.
Posted by: raven | December 19, 2008 12:33 PM
Because it hasn't. You are just fruitbat crazy.
Posted by: Natalie | December 19, 2008 12:35 PM
So, you claim that you're not a Christian, but you are apparently a young earth creationist and parrot the standard evangelical Christian misconceptions about both evolution and atheists...
OK, maybe this will actually penetrate your brain: THAT'S NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS. It's not a personally directed process. Individuals that are unable to survive in a specific environment either die before they have fertile offspring, have far less offspring then other individuals, or are unable to reproduce at all. The theory posits absolutely no conscious action by one individual to increase fitness of the group as a whole.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 19, 2008 12:39 PM
I see the problem now. You're an unthinking, intemperate, emotionally stunted womanizer and boozer who is slowly working himself into the hysteria needed to chance upon a church service some night and get saved by the Lord. You will listen to the sermon, some omen will present itself to you, and you will then run forward, banging your knees hard, as you fall on the ground crying "I do believe in Jesus! I do, I do, I do believe in Jesus!!
Well, good luck with that.
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 12:43 PM
It might be you Satan. I'm not sure.
If we've been around 4.5 billion years, wouldn't there be many more humans around here? Wouldn't there be millions of transitional versions of us as well? Am sure you guys have a scientific answer, but I'm just asking common sense questions.
I don't need fear to keep me in line. I'm obviously out of line with what a "Christian" is supposed to be, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing the logic in their worldview.
Like I stated earlier, I came from another site that frequently comments on the posts here and wanted to see what is was all about. Granted, I did start this off like an asshole and I'm fine with the gruff I've taken on that front, but never have I seen such vitriol espoused in defense of a belief system that, if logically extrapolated, would lead one to not really give a shit about any beliefs at all.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 12:44 PM
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008
Never said anything about Jesus.
So, you are not a christian. Fine, you are still a theist who has great respect for his own ignorance.
Janine, glad I could stagger you.
I am sorry, I have a low tolerance for the foolish and abusive.
What do you live for Janine?
The same things as most other people. Trying to have some fleeting moments of pleasure. Hoping that my existance does some good for my family and friends. Trying to be an ethical person. And never stop learning.
As much as I enjoy the company, I do have temporarily depart. I'll be back in a couple of hours to bestow some more ignorance on you guys.
Waiting with baited breathe, just hanging on my computer.
But I still don't understand why any of you would care either way?
Because there are people like you who are in positions in power who have a direct effect on our lifes. And these power abusing idiots keep appealing to the fools like you.
Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least?
You are a troll and some of the people here like to play troll stomp. You have come in here wearing a target and you got hit.
At least from the Christian perspective that many of you (ignorantly) accuse me of propagating, they (Christians) have what on the surface appears to be a "moral" goal in mind.
Because all non christians are incapable of having morals. It is just amazing that there were any non christian civilizations.
And I'm not paranoid Reds.
But it is just that you are afrai that all other people who do not believe as you do are going to rip out your throat.
I take solace in the fact that people of your intellectual persuasion are a mere fraction of society.
Because scientists and humanists are such awful people.
And thanks for all those atheist hospitals you guys have given to society... Oh wait, that wasn't you, it was...
And yet lots of atheists work at these places because they place the treatment of people above advocating for a particular religious believe of lack of believe. But please check for The Catholic Church and other religious groups trying to place restrictions on medical care.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 19, 2008 12:47 PM
Janine, you need to quit eating worms.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 12:49 PM
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008
If we've been around 4.5 billion years, wouldn't there be many more humans around here?
The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Humans, not so much. Please, have a coherent statement.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 12:52 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 19, 2008
Janine, you need to quit eating worms.
I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean. I though I was playing troll stomp.
Orc ball!
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 12:54 PM
Owlmirror #427 wrote:
Argh, right. I didn't mean for that '1' to get in there. Thanks.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 12:54 PM
If we've been around 4.5 billion years, wouldn't there be many more humans around here? - Drew
You are making it really hard to answer you politely. We have not been around that long. 4.5 billion years is the age of the Earth. Homo sapiens has been around approximately 200,000 years. Also, have you noticed, Drew, that people die as well as getting born? So however long we've been around, it wouldn't follow that there would be more of us than there are.
a belief system that, if logically extrapolated, would lead one to not really give a shit about any beliefs at all. - Drew
It's been explained to you numerous times why this is crap. I'm not going to go through it again, because it's obvious you are determined not to understand what you are told. You don't even come close to understanding an atheistic world view, or the theory of evolution, so of course, you are incapable of telling what they do and do not imply.
Posted by: Rrr | December 19, 2008 1:08 PM
Hey Drew, 3 quick questions for you, rabid learning-yearning you, Drew:
1. How old is the U.S. Declaration of Independence? (to nearest century)
2. When did World War I start? (to nearest decade)
3. Were you there?
Bonus question, just for random's sake:
Is your last name Blank?
Gotta run, it's Friday here
Posted by: Rrr | December 19, 2008 1:11 PM
Oh crab, thank dog I missed the pounding by a mere gram. phew.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 19, 2008 1:13 PM
We're getting a visit from the ghost of terminology past. Reds? Blow? Seriously? And aren't the booze and the sauce the same thing?
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 1:14 PM
Drew #435 wrote:
We also have a "moral" goal in mind -- truth, and the ethics of truth-telling, and ethics themselves. There is not one side defending Right, and the other side defending Wrong. Both sides think they're defending what is right, noble, good, and decent.
But the other side is wrong. ;)
And there are many values in Christianity (and religion in general) which atheists share, too. They're not religious ideas; they come from being human. We simply disagree on some facts. And when they use false facts to derive morals that make no sense without those facts, we object.
Welcome to the pro-science version of Tortuga, the pirate island.
And you're mistaken about what happens if the implications of evolution are "logically extrapolated" into a world view. That's like talking about logically extrapolating the world view which comes from molecular theory, or the theory of relativity, or car mechanics. Evolution isn't a "world view." It has no moral implications itself.
Secular humanism is a world view. And it's based on caring about a lot of things.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 19, 2008 1:17 PM
You are right. atheists don't tend to care about beliefs. (Nor do we care about faith.) We care about facts and evidence. We care about investigation and exploration and precision in our ideas. You have been infected by religion, and that is why you equate living a good life, and having morals, with adamancy of belief (in your particular god).
You're afraid not to believe in your god, aren't you?
You find this fear acceptable; we don't. We see very clearly that this fear is causing a lot of problems in the world, not the least of which is, obviously, a diminished capacity for rational thought. It is uncritical thinking that is tearing the world apart, not disbelief.
Posted by: BobC | December 19, 2008 1:28 PM
I don't think anyone would care about your childish ignorant beliefs, except unfortunately many Christian theocrats want to make every public school a Christian church. The theocrats want to dumb down science education with their medieval magical creation myth. Also, some Americans are a bit tired of the constant laughter coming from more advanced countries, including all of Europe. America has the most scientifically illiterate population in the Western world. It's not a coincidence that America also has the highest percentage of brain-dead Christians.
I'm just wondering, Drew, are you ever going to try to educate yourself, or are you going to remain an ignorant hick the rest of your pathetic wasted life?
Also, instead of wasting other people's time asking stupid questions, have you ever considered doing your own research? For example you could google "evidence evolution" and study it for years. Or do you prefer being an asshole who enjoys asking dumb questions, never caring what the answer is, because you're stupid Christian piece of shit?
One more thing, Drew, science is not a belief system. Scientific facts supported by massive powerful evidence are not beliefs.
Posted by: Mathurine | December 19, 2008 1:43 PM
Drew wrote: "I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the
blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it."
OK, I have a common sense question for you, Drew. You started off on this thread saying that morals don't exist without God. And I know you said you're not a Bible thumper. But my question is, you're claiming to like blow as much as the next guy. Well, first of all, on what do you base your claim that the average Joe enjoys snorting cocaine? Also, don't you think that following the laws of your state and country requires some sort of moral compass? you started out on the whole "no morality in atheism" jag, and yet you're admitting here that you enjoy breaking the law (doing cocaine, which I'm sure you purchase from some fine street corner purveyor) in your pursuit of chix. And booze (so much, you named it twice!). So where's the morality in being a law breaker who helps drug dealers who, we all know, just want to harm the children?
Why don't you like children Drew?
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 19, 2008 1:50 PM
Whether Drew is a YEC or not, I will say that I have talked to conservative types that are not religious themselves, but think that Christianity must be alright because of anti-slavery advocacy by Christians in the 19th century. I remember talking to a friend who identifies with many things republican, and he that while he's not religious, he thinks Christians are great and that religion is awesome. It doesn't make any sense, and had I pressed him on this a few years ago when it happened, I doubt he'd have a good answer why he felt the way he did.
Drew surely sounds like a YEC who's not willing to admit it to himself, but there are people who think as thinly as Drew does and actually honestly don't follow the religion. The crap they spew is in that sense purely politically sourced from a party whose name we all know.
Posted by: clinteas | December 19, 2008 1:53 PM
Im at work,and had to tone it down a little bit,but i havent laughed so hard in a long,long time !
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 1:59 PM
Why would it benefit humans to take care of those (handicapped, diseased infants, the elderly) who would otherwise be stamped out by "natural selection?"
And I'll take a risk and be honest here. I have said I am not a Christian in much the same way that the "ramblin Dude" described it. I can honestly see it going down that way. And I have no problem with it. Because as far as Jesus goes, he's either what he said he was, or the biggest fraud in homo-sapien history. I have an idea as to which of those two descriptions most in here would ascribe.
I don't know about you guys, but I do have a little (obviously unscientific) voice in my head that lets me know when I've done something wrong or should be doing something different. In fact, it spoke up when I tried to insult Bob and some others with "throat ripping" verbiage. Call it a conscience or whatever you want. Cue the cat calls and hateful laughter from you guys.
Also, I have been looking into religion more seriously lately and that is part of the reason i wound up on this site. Because I have questions as well.
I realize that this and all of my posts have been all over the place and I obviously haven't done the homework required to compete factually on this playing field. But that being said, I'm not sure any of the facts or figures you throw at me will eliminate the feeling that there is something greater out there that made all this. Who made the rules that the universe follows? And I'll never understand the pursuit of temporal, fleeting happiness. Maybe I do need the "crutch" that you refined academicians have withered yourselves off of. I can't begin to fathom that nothing we do on this planet has any repercussions on the larger scale. And for the record, I don't do drugs all that often. I smoke pot too much, but the rest of it is done on very rare occasions.
Ignorant? yes. Honest? most of the time. Hateful? Well regardless of how I began my posts here, I do tend to get along with people of all stripes on a daily basis.
I'll be checking back in. I'll put my tail between my legs and leave now. Keep up your "troll stomping" but also try to keep in mind that some of the trolls you stomp would give everything they had for your right to do so.
Posted by: co | December 19, 2008 2:28 PM
That sounds an awful lot like a breakup letter I once wrote. You ... you're not... breaking up with us, Drew, are you?!?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 19, 2008 2:33 PM
Cue the catcalls and hateful laughter from you guys.
That is all you deserve. But you do not get to call us hateful when you started with this.
Also, since according to you, I am an evolved creature acting on nothing more than impulse and chemical reactions, why would it be wrong to track down one of you who post on here and rip your throat out? Seriously. The things posted here (and the attitude with which they are posted) make me angry (I'm sure someone here can help me out with the chemical explanation that cause me to be angry). And my next natural (evolved) reaction is to address that anger. Ripping out one of your throats and eating it for breakfast would alleviate some of that anger. Does it also support the survival of the fittest model? In the eyes of the evolutionist, why is that in any way wrong? Why would me raping your mother be wrong, or killing a kitten, or stabbing PZ meyers in the eyeball, or swinging a newborn infant into a telephone pole? Are these things wrong? And if so, why?
You get along with people. Whatever. Even as ignorant as you admit to being, you had to have known you were asking for hostile reactions with that little gem. You got slammed. Now do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 2:34 PM
Natural selection isn't only the strongest survive. Start with that idea Drew.
There's many reasons why modern man takes care of it's sick and it's elderly, firstly, we all grow sick and old at some point if we don't die before we get old.
We could turn your idea around "why take care of the old and handicapped" to why take care of helpless children? There's a simple reason for that, you're genetic heredity doesn't survive if you don't.
Man existed long before religion or even written language. We got here collectively not because of a god but because we adapted and survived. Religion is early man's attempt to explain the world around us. Man created myths, heroes and villians to explain why bad things happened and religions probably created more cooperative social structures.
But religion is no longer beneficial as a whole. It's closed minds to reason and new ideas. It creates fear, paranoia, irrational belief in not just a god but demon and angels and a scapegoat (the devil) for why people do bad things. It also encourages behavior that's unhealthy to the society as a whole.
Coming to a blog full of atheists and then questioning how we could possibly be moral is unwise. God isn't the reason we do good things. It's common sense, it's the golden rule... treat people and want for others that you want for yourself. We don't do good things to score brownie points with some omnipotent being or out of fear of eternal torture.
We do it because it's right, and it makes our communities a better place. It's not a hard concept to understand.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 19, 2008 2:35 PM
You're understanding of "natural selection" is flawed. The program of eugenics you are describing is the "opposite" of natural selection; it is artificial selection. Also, it is not always the strongest--for some particular definition of strength--that survives. There is evidence that caring and empathy, even from "weak" individuals, has been instrumental to the history of our species. And no one is wise enough to know, anyway, who would be wiped out by natural selection--especially when environmental changes take place. In our "wisdom," (or ruthlessness) we may actually eradicate those who have survival characteristics.
Again, you have been infected by religion. Do not base your ideas on science by what you have heard on religious websites.
Why on earth is it unscientific? If it's the truth (the little voice inside you) then it's part of science. You have been infected by religious propaganda.
Everyone has these questions, but you can't just assume anything. That is what separates science from religion--the tossing out of assumptions and applying investigation to every possibility in order to get as close to the truth as possible. This includes the assumption that it was a "who" and not a "what" that made the rules the universe follows. It appears to be a what. This is not bias; it is the result of investigation. Investigation is good. Don't ever stop.
Yawn. Really, guy, religious people do not have a monopoly on appreciating the freedoms our secular constitution gives us.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 2:42 PM
Why would it benefit humans to take care of those (handicapped, diseased infants, the elderly) who would otherwise be stamped out by "natural selection?" - Drew
That's a reasonable question. Diseased infants can often recover if looked after (in many cultures, badly deformed infants would indeed be allowed to die). The elderly are (or were until very recently in evolutionary terms) valuable sources of knowledge. As for the "handicapped", they benefit (when they do - individuals and cultures differ greatly in how far they do look after people with disabilities), from our evolved compassion for the weak - which is adaptive so far as it relates to children, the elderly, and the sick or injured who may recover. Natural selection is limited in power - so it may be that it just hasn't been able to restrict our innate compassion to those cases where it actually pays off in evolutionary terms. There are other, more complex possible explanations, but until you have a grasp of the fundamentals, it would probably be a waste of time going into them.
as far as Jesus goes, he's either what he said he was, or the biggest fraud in homo-sapien history.
It's Homo sapiens - the italics and the upper-case "H" are both necessary, there's always an "s" at the end, and there's no hyphen. You are assuming that Jesus said all the words attributed to him in the gospels. This is extremely unlikely to be true - particularly as far as claiming to be the "Son of God" is concerned. Many serious biblical scholars, including Christians, would agree. None of the gospels were written less than about 30 years after Jesus' death - plenty of time for his words to get distorted, particuarly as no-one was writing them down as he spoke them. That's assuming he existed at all - some serious scholars doubt that he did.
Call it a conscience or whatever you want. Cue the cat calls and hateful laughter from you guys.
Why are you so determined not to take any notice of what you are told about what other people believe? Again and again and again, various of us have said that conscience and compassion are evolved human attributes. Drew, we know you have a conscience. We do too. We differ from you only in how we think it got there. Have you got it now?
Who made the rules that the universe follows?
Your question assumes that these "rules" are like the laws Congress passes and the courts enforce: that they have to have been decided on and enforced. This is an unjustified assumption. Do you think someone had to decide that 2+2=4?
I'll never understand the pursuit of temporal, fleeting happiness.
But you've told us you do pursue fleeting happiness - sex, booze, drugs. Among atheists as among religious believers, you'll find a wide range, from those who spend a lot of time and money on these things, to those who live rather monkish (or nunish) existences. This has little or nothing to do with atheism. It has a lot to do with age, health, libido, family responsibilities, moral principles, other interests, how far individuals are willing to take risks.
You're one confused guy, Drew. My advice would be to get some therapy or counselling, from someone who won't push a particular belief system - religious or otherwise - on you.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 19, 2008 2:49 PM
Among social species, individuals may contribute to the fitness of their relations, thereby ensuring that at least some of the genes they carry get passed on. See eusocial insects such as ants, termites, and bees for examples of how this may work.
Among human societies, the presence of elders can increase the survivability of the group by passing on learned information ("Look both ways before crossing", "Don't eat yellow snow", etc.), reducing morbidity and mortality because the younger individuals don't have to experiment to relearn these lessons (in short, anytime you can avoid an experiment in which failure is lethal or nearly so, it's in your best interest evolutionarily to have someone around to give you the answer instead. Think about how you know that rhubarb leaves are poisonous--it sure as hell ain't because you ate 'em, died, and returned to life.)
It pisses me off to have to explain this to trolls, because if they weren't so busy being smugly dense, they'd figure this out in all of about 3.64 seconds by thinking about the world they live in.
Only two options? Even C.S. Lewis saw three: Jesus could also have been insane.
But neither you nor C.S. Lewis manage to figure out that it's also possible that a few, some or all of those that wrote down Jesus story were frauds, or insane, or got some details wrong, or added details from other stories floating around, or embellished some of the stories, or editorialised them, or any combination of such.
Assuming you haven't lived in a cave with a rock for your only companion, you know that people do these things when recounting stories, even when trying their darndest to recount them accurately (hence eyewitness statements are one of the least reliable types of evidence in law.) Why it is you people seem to forget everything you know about people when considering the authors of the Bible, I'll never understand. (At least literalists with their belief that God himself guided the hands of the scribes have an excuse for this sort of foolishness. Of course, biblical literalism is far more foolish in its own right, what with the contradictions, inaccuracies, and just plain wrong things written in the Bible.)
Posted by: Everbleed | December 19, 2008 2:55 PM
!!! ! Sastra ! !!!
Always good.
Always beautiful.
Not by accident.
Mind itself.
No God needed.
Good by choice.
That's the difference.
The Fearless.
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 2:57 PM
Drew #462 wrote:
Humans are part of natural selection. Not outside of it. We have been shaped by the fact that we are a group dwelling species which requires empathy and altruism for long-term survival. Helping the unfortunate is no more "against evolution" than jumping up and down defies the "law" of gravity. Gravity explains jumping up and down, and evolution explains why we would want to help those who are too weak to survive without help.
Whether we choose to follow those values, or other values, will depend on specific factors at the level of personal choice. Understanding evolution won't tell us what to do, any more than knowing about gravity will tell us whether we should throw people out of windows or not.
So do atheists. We don't really disagree about conscience. But we think our sense of ethics evolved naturally, step by step. You and other religious people think it's supernatural, granted by magic, and can't be accounted for otherwise. "Like comes only from like."
We have learned that new things can grow and evolve from things that are very different. Looking for how morals evolved is a scientific process. "Morals come from a moral force" is simplistic, and tells us nothing.
Since I'm assuming that "the little voice in your head" is meant to be a metaphor -- and you didn't mean to say that you're hearing a real voice -- all we're doing is arguing about origins.
What we do matters to others, and has repercussions on family, society, history, and our planet, for many years after we are gone. And this is not enough for you? You want eternity, and cosmic significance, and a scale which measures humans and their actions as of supreme importance?
That is not a "crutch." That is a "ladder."
Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 3:05 PM
I take back most of what I just wrote to with regard to Janine. I had a vivid image of you being a vile bitch after your first post and you've given nothing to dissuade my opinion. And every one of your guys posts brings up more questions. Do the world a favor and you can all stay here and regurgitate the same crap back and forth to each other. Let me know what Christian/Theist blogs you guys frequent so I can go watch your spasms. When is the last time any of you debated an actual expert on the other side of your beliefs. Or do you just stay here and suck each other off and gang up on people? Your arguments are far more flawed than those you attack. Science (the kind that you advocate) is biased. You begin with the notion that there is no God and go from there.
Talk about brain-washed. This place is a bunch of PZ meyers worshippers and I've seen how he reacts to challenges to debate. He bitches out. Look at the way you guys cheer him on. It's pathetic. YOU SHOULDN'T CARE. But you follow "truth for truths sake" right? Why should truth matter one single bit?
I'd love to meet one of you guys when you're not hiding behind a computer. But you guys will come out of the wood work when the shit that you guys have propagated really comes to fruition on a grand, global, scale. You'll be running to Church.... and at that point you'll be thanking your "lucky stars" that the people already in church don't adhere to the same "religion" as you do.
I am sorry that many of you willingly suffer such a miserable, depressing existence.
Posted by: Rick R | December 19, 2008 3:09 PM
Drew @ $471- Thank you for that letter-perfect example of pure projection.
Honestly. That was awesome.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 19, 2008 3:10 PM
Goodbye, Drew.
And every one of your guys posts brings up more questions.
And that scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 3:14 PM
Everbleed #469 wrote:
Shhhh... I'm really BobC's alter ego.
(But thanks ;)
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 3:15 PM
Hey! I just got a new moniker!
Somehow, I doubt that Drew was out to actually learn anything. Troll bellows. Troll gets stomps. Troll whines. Troll complains that there is a cult.
My but you are a mean and stupid little git. But thank you for the new name!
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008 3:17 PM
Bitch Queen flying through....
Carry on, this is fun to read.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 19, 2008 3:20 PM
yeah, sorry, pretty obscure. That was in reference to:
heh.
I believe Drew was referring to his lifelong struggle with marinara.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008 3:21 PM
Vile Bitch! Whoo-who, that trumps my Queen any day. Congrats!
But how are you going to get that troll kack off your red shoes? Ewww.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 3:21 PM
Patricia, you may be the Bitch Queen, Queen of the Sluts, and Queen of the Typos but you are not Vile Bitch. Just ask Drew. He is an expert on this.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 3:26 PM
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008
But how are you going to get that troll kack off your red shoes? Ewww
No need to worry. With my new job, I have an unlimited supply of Guccis. Plus I will special order Troll Stomping Guccis dyes the exact shade of troll blood. That way the strains do not show. Plus, I have my servants to shine my shoes. It really is quite lovely.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008 3:28 PM
Janine, Actually I was admiring what a fiesty troll he was. You guys have really had some fun with Drew. He didn't look like a Dollar Store troll.
Vile Bitch trumps Queen. That makes you Queen Vile Bitch. Should go well with La Popessa. He, hee, he! Too bad about the shoes though.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 3:29 PM
Is this dude bi-polar?
WTF. He's like... "I'm a lost sheep looking for answers" to "You don't care about anything and your creating all the evil in the world!"
hehe... "You begin with the notion that there is no God and go from there.'
WOW! He got that right! Sort of. You can't be biased against something that doesn't exist... can you?
Happy Monkey!
Posted by: Sastra | December 19, 2008 3:32 PM
Drew #471 wrote:
Explain.
That's where your focus should be. Substance. Not style. Not personalities, but concepts. The issue is not us. It's not you. It's about something greater -- the ideas we're discussing.
Ok, there are a lot of us, and only one of you right now. Most of us are atheists, and so most of us are used to it being the other way around. So we can empathize. I've found the best way to deal is to take ego out of it. Focus on the issue. Ignore the rest.
The other way around. We begin with the scientific method, and see if "God" makes it out of the realm of hypothesis. It doesn't. It barely forms a hypothesis.
With any one of us, there would probably be either coffee, or beer -- and I bet you would have more fun than you think you would.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 19, 2008 3:38 PM
I'd smoke a doob with Drew. As long as he didn't talk too much.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 19, 2008 3:43 PM
"And every one of your guys posts brings up more questions."
...that you fail to answer when challenged. We ask questions; we don't take orders.
"Let me know what Christian/Theist blogs you guys frequent so I can go watch your spasms."
We typically don't bother, because they usually delete our comments so they can keep their intellectual lean-tos spic and span. We on the other hand, can tolerate dissenters such as yourself. We just don't give stupid ideas any quarter.
"Your arguments are far more flawed than those you attack. Science (the kind that you advocate) is biased. You begin with the notion that there is no God and go from there."
If you are so confident our arguments are flawed, lay it out. Man up, ya booze-swilling powder-sniffing 101st keyboard brigadist. Bring it. We don't start with the no god concept and go from there. We ENDED there, we didn't start there. Big difference. You START with a god; answer the question: Why? And do tell us of the sparkly white science you practice. Inform us as to how we can better ourselves, if we're getting it all wrong. After all, you do want to save us, right?
"YOU SHOULDN'T CARE. But you follow "truth for truths sake" right? Why should truth matter one single bit?"
We shouldn't care, yet we do. Your mental walls seem to be crumbling, because now you're begging the question about us, and are becoming confounded that you can't find anything wrong with what we're saying. Isn't that right? Truth matters because it is obvious when one looks for it and absorbs it. Truth is not a dusty book written millenia ago that contradicts itself from paragraph to paragraph, and from one fable to the next.
"I'd love to meet one of you guys when you're not hiding behind a computer. But you guys will come out of the wood work when the shit that you guys have propagated really comes to fruition on a grand, global, scale. You'll be running to Church.... and at that point you'll be thanking your "lucky stars" that the people already in church don't adhere to the same "religion" as you do."
No, I'd be much more interested in meeting someone like you, who is denouncing us for doing the same thing you are right now. You think we wouldn't bring our position in publlic? Do you think you'd be able to just walk right up and make us cry? Please stop with the stories of doomsday and your wet dream fantasies of armageddon over what we think. The problem is there are far too many people listening to old decrepit books in this world, and strangely enough they never find a way to agree on anything, or truly come together and stop killing each other over their pet text. No, the more read people in this world have much more to fear from god worshippers with nuclear fingers -Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or anything else, it matters not - than you have to fear from us. And no, I will not be thanking any church goers because they do. I will be thanking people like Salmon Rushdie for helping to destroy the idea that humanity must be beholden to something it cannot see or experience. Get up off your knees and start living.
"I am sorry that many of you willingly suffer such a miserable, depressing existence."
Our existence is darkened only because people with your poor level of critical thinking are in the majority.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008 3:57 PM
Without reading all of the posts (sorry), did he ever say which blog he came from?
Excellent point BlueIndependent, many people on this blog started out with god, went searching for him, and ENDED up here.
Posted by: raven | December 19, 2008 3:59 PM
We are all just run of the mill people. Some are MDs, Ph.D.s, lawyers, students, teachers, office workers and so on. The average education level, whether formal or self taught is probably way higher than the general population.
Science has nothing to do with religion. The former is a way of describing the world while the latter is philosophy of some sort.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 4:05 PM
Raven, a slight point of disagreement. Both science and religion try to describe the world. One is based on beliefs. The other is an attempt to get past bias and describe what is real. I think you can guess which is which.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 19, 2008 4:05 PM
"I can't begin to fathom that nothing we do on this planet has any repercussions on the larger scale."
What larger scale?
"When is the last time any of you debated an actual expert on the other side of your beliefs."
Depends on what you call an expert. Seeing as how the theist side doesn't have any actual knowledge and evidence to draw on, just a bunch of ancient scribblings of wildly divergent content, then I would think that just about anyone could be an expert. There's a fellow named Heddle that's the closest thing I can think of to an expert that comes here regularly, and him and the regulars get into it.
"Or do you just stay here and suck each other off and gang up on people?"
You seem like you could use some sucking off yourself. Well, here isn't quite the right place for it.
And of course, it's hard for me to muster up much sympathy for someone coming into the lion's den with obviously provocative rhetoric about how we're supposed to be as completely uncaring and nihlistic and violent as you seem to want to be. At every turn you just want to dehumanize us. We don't like that. Reminds us too much of organized religious attempts to dehumanize us or other minority groups.
"YOU SHOULDN'T CARE."
Time and time again you've proven yourself to be an extremely poor judge of what we do or don't and should or shouldn't care about. But you just go ahead anyway.
"But you guys will come out of the wood work when the shit that you guys have propagated really comes to fruition on a grand, global, scale."
And what shit might that be? I really truly wish I knew just what it was that theists are always accusing us of. I mean, hanging out with the atheist crowd and arguing theists with chips on their shoulders doesn't seem like it's really such a sinful thing, but it's all Drew is directly accusing us of, and it really seems to have gotten him wound up. So maybe I am just a pawn in an evil game. *shrug*
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 4:06 PM
I think he was meaning ... "I would love for you to meet my fists", as one might say.
I could be wrong.
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 19, 2008 4:07 PM
Drew,
At the risk of prolonging the list of ignorant questions you have, let me offer up this quote of yours way back at #409:
First, it isn't mine (or even our) dictate nor is it a mandate. We don't control it or manage it. Not in any real sense. I guess I could mate with lots of red heads and try to increase the number of pinkish haired peoples but I don't think that's what you intended.
Second, I think you may have confused "Survival of the fittest" with "The strongest person kills everyone and wins life". Severely confused. Severely ignorant. As am I on many scientific concepts. Skeptic fits me more closely Let's see if this helps any (and real scientists feel free to climb aboard):
Survival of the fittest implies the most likely to breed well within their population. The monkey with the strong teeth may breed better and produce more offspring because they can eat harder food items and be healthy in times of stress. Weak toothed monkeys in the same general habitat will be out-bred and out-paced by the ever increasing population of strong toothed monkeys. Over several generations the strong toothed ones will 'survive' because they were the 'fittest'.
Poor example but hopefully dispels the "King of the hill" mental block you appear to be having with "Survival of the fittest".
I'm only guessing here but your ideas about evolution appear to be related to some sort of mechanical construct much like The Borg from TV's Star Trek The Next Generation. We are not machines without compassion for our fellow man or without compassion for other living beings.
Maybe you need to think about a Chinese twist on the Golden Rule and instead of thinking about how you should do good things to get others to do good for you, let's mix it up a bit like this:
Don't do unto others as you don't want them to do unto you.
See? Now you don't need to buy me a Ferrari so you can get one too. No, all you need to do is not stab me in the eye with a knife and I won't do the same to you and it will also save me the time of gathering my tribe and tracking down everyone in your family and everyone you ever met and mounting them on pikes along the path into the village in retaliation.
Others have suggested that you might need to learn a little more basic things then come back with questions. The bulk of the people here are very intelligent and quite willing to share. On the other hand, the bulk of the people here simply do not tolerate repeated, willful, confrontational ignorance.
Why do you feel bad? To whom do you feel this way?
If you are an alcoholic or plan on driving or operating heavy machinery then don't drink.
If you are married or in a monogamous relationship then stay away from the girls. If the girls are underage then just stay away.
If you feel bad about doing blow then don't.
The 'sauce' may have already been covered by the 'booze' or are you referring to something else? Me, I prefer 'Ms.' Cholula - nice chili sauce and I think the wood on the cap is kinda cool.
And to answer another question of yours from 409: No, most intelligent people do not believe in Astrology.
As a pre-teen I realized the horoscope column in my local paper and any other paper I read was 'hinkey' and strangely similar no matter what your birth sign was. Most of the time it looked like the same entry for each sign and the author simply used a thesaurus to change them up a bit.
@428 you wondered:
Simply because, to paraphrase an old TV commercial, A mind is a terrible thing to waste. We in the survival of the fittest business see ignorance as a detriment to mankind's survival. Bringing all this to an end because of the actions of a large population of ignorant people would be very disappointing to most of us. Sort of like watching a jar of fruit flies increase their population until they all die. Please Drew, don't be one of those fruit flies and please don't create any as ignorant as you. Even readers of The National Inquirer were supposed to have inquiring minds.
@446 this bit of ignorance appeared:
Whoa there Drew. The earth has been around 4.5 billion years. It spent probably a few of those billion as a very inhospitable hell-like blob of very hot, partially molten, meteor impact zone.
@462 Began with this question:
What do you mean by 'benefit' here? Financially, it usually does the opposite. It can also cut into your leisure time so that's out too. The only quick answer (or this thread will be up to post 600 before I hit preview) would be that you have independently, if a few millennia later than others, discovered what makes us HUMAN. Call it a win, if you will for overcoming ignorance.
Then you also appeared to be learning something when this appeared:
Yes, exactly! Well close enough for today. Conscience - not fear of a smote from a god. Just good old-fashioned human compassion. Ever had a pet? A dog that hasn't been mistreated and turned into a psychopathic monster may nip someone or scratch them and if that person yelps out loud the dog will cower in shame and then try to apologize in their own way by licking the person they hurt. Even animals show compassion for others.
Who? Why does it have to be a 'who'? Who made the sky blue? Who made 'up' not be 'down'? Maybe the universe just is. And scientists study how the universe is and then make up the rules. Then the professors put questions on exams to make sure students learn the rules. Side note - great (sciency) bumper sticker: "186,000 miles per second - it isn't just a good idea; it's the LAW!" I can only offer my token comment to your revelation, but I sincerely hope you do check back in.
And, BTW, Janine may or may not be a vile bitch but she is the Insulting Sinner! ;)
See? We're actually quite a fun bunch too.
I apologize for the length and as I refresh the page I notice that many others more intelligent than I have also offered responses to your questions and comments so I'll close with a suggestion that if you are honestly curious then please stick around or check back in and lurk for a while. Read Dr. Myers' topic on the front page. If something seems interesting then hop on in and read through the comments. When someone you see often is making intelligent comments and they recommend another site for further info please go take a look. The world is quite large and there are people with knowledge and ideas that will open your mind for the better. Atheists aren't evil. Not believing in God(s) doesn't automatically imply a belief in The Devil. We have no use for either.
Then you go and write up post 471 and imply you aren't honestly looking to combat your ignorance - you're simply off your medication or have an undiagnosed mental imbalance. May Patricia and Janine have mercy on your soul.
If you find an expert then you and they will qualify for a Nobel Prize and I think they're up to US$1.5million these days so get cracking on that talent search. How much do you want to bet? Wait, how much do you have to bet? If a fan-forced feces event does start to happen and it looks earth-shatteringly severe then church is the opposite direction I'll be running. I will want the assistance of intelligent people who will help me survive - not a house of worship full of morons doing nothing by praying or actually encouraging the disaster. No, we'll need duct tape, lots of duct tape and shovels. And folks to man those shovels 'cause that shit isn't getting shoveled into those churches by itself. Miserable? Depressing? Sorry cap'n but from your posts here today you are one miserable fuck. Not too sure about depressed but whatever medication you forgot to take today certainly isn't helping with your delusions. I give you 0.01 martyr points for your presence here today. 100 martyr points gets you a gold star from your favorite (or closest) house of worship. 100 gold stars are redeemable for eternal salvation. You can also purchase eternal salvation and a supplemental rider against being eaten alive by an octopus for the low, low price of US$1.5million.Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 4:10 PM
Oh! Does he have L*O*V*E tattooed between the knuckles of his right hand and H*A*T*E on his left hand?
Children!
Chiiild-dreeen!
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 4:16 PM
WRMartin, I.S.
May Patricia and Janine have mercy on your soul.
Patricia, I think we need to recruit a third person so that we may become The Fates.
Posted by: Michael X | December 19, 2008 4:17 PM
I've debated many "experts". All pastors. But your question seems to assume that the majority of everyday believers that actually make up the body of the religion don't count as "informed enough" and thus if we are to count ourselves as truly solid in our stance we must debate an "expert". By even asking the question you admit what you're trying to pin on us; that most believers have no idea what they're talking about.
How very relative of you. I do wonder if you've ever built anything important. Like a sky scraper or a bridge? Then the truth of statements like, 'This rebar only holds this much weight" become very important. So that you could do what O' Follower of Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild? Turn the other cheek? Or do you think your arguments would be better off? Most of us talk faster than we type. Oh do tell! What have I propagated this week?Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 19, 2008 4:17 PM
Whoops, there goes a gasket, Drew.
Rather than indulge the thinking-impaired in their delusions that atheism = hedonistic nihilism, I like to turn it around on them and ask,
"So, when you tuck your kids in and kiss them to sleep at night, do you tell them you only do so because you're afraid of God's wrath in the afterlife? Do you tell your spouse, 'I'd rape you, kill you, and rob your corpse if I could, but I don't wanna go to hell'? Do you grit your teeth while helping an elderly person off the bus, knowing that if it weren't for the fear of eternal punishment, you'd be merrily dismembering their bodies and dancing in the blood? If not, why do you break the commandments in your dishonesty?
Or, perhaps you do all of these kind things for reasons beyond your fear of God. And if so, why is it impossible for you to consider that I might do the same things for all the same reasons you do, minus your fear?"
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 19, 2008 4:21 PM
Well, we are hoping for a lull in the action so we can all get the chips PZ planted in our brains adjusted. It is so hard to keep up with all these instructions.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 19, 2008 4:28 PM
I suspect that some time between 2:00 and 3:00 Drew got into the Alfredo.
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 19, 2008 4:29 PM
Janine, You actually read all that?! ;)
Happy Monkey! You too Drew.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 4:37 PM
Comparing #462 and #471, it seems clear that either Drew is on something he shouldn't be, given his evident psychological fragility; or he's come off something he's supposed to keep taking.
Posted by: J-Dog | December 19, 2008 4:40 PM
PZ - Thank you for being there and taking the heat from the godless Christians, so I don't have to.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 19, 2008 4:46 PM
Damn it. Busy as all hell today and i missed Drew.
But I love this mangled regurgitation of that piece of C.S. Lewis drivel
Are those really the only choices Drew?
Anyone who uses that quote to support their argument is a total buffoon.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008 4:55 PM
Who would want to admit to being as ornery as we are?
Looks like the troll has fled. Too bad, he's missing some damn good stuff.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 4:57 PM
Yeah what happened? He almost seemed to be actually thinking about what we were saying... and then WHAM. Maybe it was starting to make sense to him and that was too scary.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 19, 2008 4:58 PM
I missed the troll-stomp, too - or was it trolls? The contrast in tone between a few of those posts made me wonder if 'Drew' wasn't more than one person. Unfortunately, even between a couple of them there wasn't half a brain.
Posted by: Natalie | December 19, 2008 5:07 PM
Wow, that took an interesting turn.
Janine, you have the most fabulous attitude.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 19, 2008 5:10 PM
Patricia, I think we need to recruit a third person so that we may become The Fates. Janine, Vile Bitch
Bride of Shrek is the obvious candidate - is she still around?
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 19, 2008 5:14 PM
"When is the last time any of you debated an actual expert on the other side of your beliefs."
haven't run into one yet. unless you mean experts in contradiction and nonsense?
read this before going further:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 5:25 PM
Jebus, we had a live one and I was removing the 6" of snow that dropped on us overnight. By the time I was finished, he had left. I hope he comes back, as he sounds very confused.
Raven, I always say science ignores god and religion.
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 19, 2008 5:30 PM
Personally, I think Drew may have been upset and possibly insulted by some sinner (who shall remain nameless) between post 462 and 471. This may be due to a timing issue with folks reading and composing then getting comments out of sequence.
There is also the possibility that Wowbagger mentioned - someone snagged his name and posted in his place. If so, totally uncool and uncalled for.
Steve_C has probably hit the bull's eye with sense being too scary.
But in all honesty, I hope he is lurking and reading.
Drew, stay away from the blow, have a toke and a nice cold beer, if you have a pet give them a scratch on the head, relax for a bit then re-read some of the replies while taking into account the anger being dispensed at you was your own fault for being so vile in your first few posts. Read around the anger, if you must. Your questions have been answered. Maybe not in the manner you expected but people here have provided many examples and have attempted to be honest. Can you say the same?
Post 462 actually had me fooled. But I still think he may have some potential (Happy Monkey tends to make me too tolerant, maybe). Many people tend to over-react violently when their world view is turned upside down. If they can pass on through that anger then they might learn something and be a better person for it. Then he can pass along the knowledge to others who are/were like him and start his stories with, "I was once ignorant and stuck in my ways like you..."
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 19, 2008 5:42 PM
Drew:
so much projection, so little time to make fun of it.
2025...
Posted by: Steve | December 19, 2008 5:46 PM
There is a billboard for the creationist museum on I-71 as you travel from Columbus to Cincinnati. A group of us passed it one day. One of my co-workers (who is not from Cincinnati) remarked, "What the hell is that?" After I explained it to her, it took her at least 5 minutes and three people backing me up to get her to believe us. I still have problems from time to time.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 5:47 PM
Insulted by a nameless sinner.
*snort*
I went back and reread what I wrote. Harsh but it was meant to be. No one gets away with crashing in, get stomped and then say "Let us be civil". I did not even swear at him. Perhaps he needs thicker skin.
Posted by: hip hip array | December 19, 2008 5:57 PM
I misread one bit as ""lost sight of the educational mission of the institution while trying to make monkey."
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 19, 2008 6:01 PM
Oh, I agree. No argument from me there. I almost expect it from such an Insulting Vile Bitch Sinner, and dare I say (dare, dare, go ahead, say it) slutterific one as your self. Now, let's all head over to the latest and get our fancies tickled.Happy Monkey!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 6:03 PM
Janine, I prefer your Sinner moniker, thinking that the B-word is a little much, but it is your choice. Be happy with your selection.
I liked Drew's remarks about us just being PZ drones. I think PZ just posted once to scare off God and Satan. While I may agree with PZ on most things, I only obey, to a degree, the Redhead.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008 6:07 PM
Went back and read where Drew first appeared #361, and then on down. What a nasty bastard! I wonder what he would accept as credentials for a 'expert' on the christian side? My opinion is that we have plenty of experts here.
Thanks WRMartin, for noticing the claws. Bride of Shrek would be the natural leader of the Fates, Furies (9), or Wyrd Sisters, since she is the first slut to out herself. Sure do miss her...
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 6:08 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008
I liked Drew's remarks about us just being PZ drones. I think PZ just posted once to scare off God and Satan. While I may agree with PZ on most things, I only obey, to a degree, the Redhead.
You want to know what I hate most about being one of PZ's drones. It is the damned WiFi connection that I had to have placed in my head. And it was not even free. I had to pay for the connection and the operation. I would rebel if I could but PZ just sent new commands to me.
Posted by: Kel | December 19, 2008 6:09 PM
A brief timeline of the earth:- ~4.58 billion years ago - The sun was born out of a collapsed hydrogen cloud
- ~4.55 billion years ago - All the planets and celestial bodies were formed
- ~4.5 billion years ago - The moon was formed in a collision with earth
- ~3.5 billion years ago - The first replicating life began
- ~700 million years ago - The first multicellular life began
- ~530 million years ago - Life as we know it began to take shape
- ~375 million years ago - Our fishy ancestors first started to crawl out of the water and breathe air
- ~260 million years ago - Our reptilian ancestors first appeared
- ~230 to 65 million years ago - The dinosaurs were the dominant land animal
- ~65 million years ago - A meteorite hits the earth and wipes out most life, includian the non-avian dinosaurs
- ~4.5 million years ago - we share our last common ancestor with chimpanzees
- ~250,000 years ago - The first noticeably humans emerge
- ~70,000 years ago - The first migration of Homo Sapien out of africa
- ~10,000 years ago - The first domestication of crops and animals
- Today - The human population reaches near 7 billion
So why aren't there more humans? Well the first question should be to ask why there are so many humans? We have a staggering population - all requiring a hell of a lot of resources to sustain. Why can we sustain such a population? Well we can't really, we are pushing the limits of the earth to keep it this high. Through modern science and technology, we have made it easier to sustain a larger population. If we didn't have this reality available food sources, then we wouldn't be able to keep such a large group. It's only through our success as a species that we are this high.
This is where the work of Malthus comes into it, it inspired both Darwin and Wallace upon discovering Natural Selection. Species have more offspring than they can sustain, so there is a struggle for resources. Those individuals more suited to surviving will have more offspring than those who won't, and the weakest will be culled. Nature is a brutal struggle, it's only in the last 10,000 years that we've begun to pull ourselves away from that struggle. And really in the last 150 we've been able to have a large population. Why aren't there more humans? Quite simply we couldn't feed or shelter them in the past.
Posted by: Kel | December 19, 2008 6:11 PM
Oh and Drew. Are you saying that you know better than the entire geological community by thinking the earth is younger than 4.5 billion years? If so, what evidence do you have to support your assertion?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 6:13 PM
Janine, PZ's implants hold nothing compared to the Redhead's fry pans and knitting needles. Or tonight, her chile to warm worker in the cold.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 6:16 PM
I suppose that a well placed frying pan could disable the WiFi but I am concerned about the concussion.
Posted by: Diane G | December 19, 2008 6:18 PM
Jeez, still can't get a word in edgewise, here!
Tho with 500+ posts, very few people are going to see this, I'd like to point out that there's a very good rebuttal to this:
here:
http://www.americanatheist.org/aut03/T1/ittner.html
I saved that link a long time ago as it comes in handy so damn frequently. (I also find it an encouragement for us to "reframe" our thinking and start taking credit where credit is due. :) )
--Diane
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 19, 2008 6:20 PM
Drew,
Kel's post at 518 is one of the ones you'll want to re-read a few times and learn from. Then paste Thomas Malthus and Alfred Wallace into Wikipedia (at a minimum) and learn a little more. A refresher on Charles Darwin couldn't hurt - you might un-learn some half-truths and outright lies that you have been told in the past.
And no, please don't start calling us Wallaceists. ;)
Happy Monkey!
Posted by: Kel | December 19, 2008 6:25 PM
It's time for some Nietzsche. http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa042600c.htmI have a pretty wonderful existence really. I enjoy reality, I enjoy the time I spend on this earth. I enjoy food and drink, I enjoy conversing with others, I enjoy the company of friends and loved ones. I appreciate art, music, and books. I love losing myself into another's world. Yet I have no god, I never did and I never will. It's a mechanism of control, one that attaches itself to the very core of your inner being.
Of course you see nihilism in atheism, you are one who can't imagine meaning without God. I on the other hand can't see meaning in God, the concept of an afterlife trivialises this life. And this is the only life I know I have. We don't need gods or fairies to make our existence worthwhile, we are hardwired so we will always find something that makes our existence worthwhile - we are hardwired to find meaning. And you don't need God for that meaning, or need God to explain how we have that feeling. It simply is, it is great, and I urge you to embrace mortality so you don't waste the precious gift of life the universe has given you.
Posted by: John Morales | December 19, 2008 6:25 PM
Wow, just caught up with this thread.
I think Drew @471 is a case of in vino veritas (maybe some "blow" was guiltily enjoyed?).
So revealing.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 6:29 PM
Diane G, you can post what you want at anytime. Do not feel intimidated by the volume here. And thank you for that link, I learned from it. If you bring this kind of information when you post, you will make a lot of friends here.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 6:32 PM
Concussion? Sorry PZ, I can't hear you over the ringing in my ears. :)
Posted by: Kel | December 19, 2008 6:33 PM
The large number of posts is actually good, you can post and stay in relative anonymity for quite a while.
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 19, 2008 6:40 PM
Diane G,
Thanks for the link. Read and saved away for future use.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 6:47 PM
Diane G, we are a vocal group with lots of posts (we're helping PZ pay his trophy daughter's tuition with our views/posts). We will respond to you in time, meaning post and we will respond. Don't worry, you are welcome here. I came on board after lurking for while just before Crackergate, which was a "baptism by fire" for a newbie.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008 6:51 PM
Vile Bitch is out there, some. But I say keep it. The good christians are shocked by women flaunting such titles. It will prove interesting in the future when someone is insulted by it to point out a christian plastered Janine with it. Drew may have been a poor christian, but he was a christian none the less.
Besides, Janine will get a new name within a week anyway. I have faith.
Posted by: brightmoon | December 19, 2008 6:55 PM
(facepalm)
pz how can you stand it?
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 19, 2008 6:55 PM
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008
Vile Bitch is out there, some. But I say keep it. The good christians are shocked by women flaunting such titles...
Besides, Janine will get a new name within a week anyway. I have faith.
True enough. I do try to update my jokes.
Posted by: John Morales | December 19, 2008 7:03 PM
Patricia,
Um. It's only now you mention it that it strikes me :)I newly appreciate your defiance, Janine.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 7:05 PM
Brightmoon, you are going to have to be a little more specific after 500+ posts. And welcome, if this is your first post.Posted by: Michael X | December 19, 2008 7:17 PM
Thanks for the Hospital link Diane. That's just another weapon in the arsenal now.
Posted by: bastion | December 19, 2008 10:24 PM
At #520 Nerd of Redhead wrote:
Inquiring minds want to know: just where did the Redhead implant said fry pans (more than one!) and knitting needles?
Posted by: Ben | December 19, 2008 10:58 PM
A thought: If you were going to visit a blog and totally crap all over everybody, as Drew did, then give your address, as he did in #409, this is the safest possible place you could do something like that. I'm fairly new to these environs, but that makes me feel good about the people posting here. Thanks, people.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 19, 2008 11:02 PM
Bastion, certain things are not said in polite company. Especially any exaggerations made for comedic purposes.
I think the Redhead and I have been married longer than PZ and his trophy wife, although we first met later than elementary school-in Jr. High. Getting the trophy wife the first time around is always nice, as it saves a lot of heartache. She is a good cook and does knit up a storm. Can't carve a piece of cooked meat to save her soul though, and thinks the computer's mouse will bite her. So I'm her Nerd, master of all things electronic.
Posted by: BGT | December 19, 2008 11:25 PM
I haven't bothered to read through Drew's comments, since I am pretty sure (99.99999999999999999999999%) that they have been well eviscerated, but I will say this much.....
Drew, if you wish to come back and honestly defend your positions (honestly means that if you quote the bible that you can back up the bible with some peer reviewed research, say Bart Ehrmann) I would be willing to engage you.
Seeing that you have already caused Janine to change her post-name to Vile Bitch, I am not sure that you have actually presented any arguments further than pure troll flaming though....
Posted by: BGT | December 19, 2008 11:28 PM
BTW Drew....please tell me that you aren't a presuppositionalist.
Those are the funniest people to debate. There is no reason to presuppose that god exists, so I would not let you get away with that bit of tripe in your postings.
Posted by: God | December 19, 2008 11:50 PM
Hmph!
Just because PZ can see commenter e-mail addresses, IP addresses, browser strings (including embedded operating system info) (et cetera, et cetera), and also wields a mighty LART, does not mean that I (or my sockpuppet) was "scared off".
I simply recalled pressing business elsewhere.
Posted by: Satan | December 19, 2008 11:52 PM
Yes, exactly. I, too, simply remembered something else urgent that needed my immediate attention.
Posted by: SeanD. | December 20, 2008 12:52 AM
Shorter Drew:
"My God can beat up your science...NYA!!"
The tard is strong in this one.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 20, 2008 1:58 AM
Janine @512:
"Perhaps he needs thicker skin."
I think that he just really really can't stand to be told off by a woman.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 20, 2008 4:18 AM
well, that was the weirdest troll I've seen since reading this blog. though i think whoever said that he's one of those people who have messed up their life and are desperately looking for structure in their life to fix it again. he's one lonely drive through a stormy night and a giant neon cross away from turning into a fundie.
too bad. if he had introduced himself in any other way than by presupposing that we're all murderous psychos, there might have been a productive conversation. unfortunately it seems he's too unstable to be able to handle the questions that come with first discovering skepticism/humanism. he's far more likely to go hide out in some rigidly structured church until he's regained some balance, and then he'll probably be too hooked on fundyism and won't want to jeopardize his new-found stability
at least that's the impression he made on me.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 20, 2008 4:21 AM
er... that was supposed to be: "though i think whoever said that he's one of those people who have messed up their life and are desperately looking for structure in their life to fix it again, was probably correct."
oops :-p
Posted by: anonymouse | December 20, 2008 7:23 PM
Happy Monkey! And a deliriously blissful and ecstatic New Year to all.
Posted by: Nathan | January 6, 2009 3:17 AM
I was informed that this web site hosted some of the most intelligent dialogue on Evolution. Imagine my suprise when I stubled across this exchange. 549 comments. Really? How many of those 549 had to do with PZ Myers original comments on the Cincinnati zoo? Clearly 'Drew' was interested in provoking everyone, but I'll bet even he was suprised at how easy it was, and how low some of you went with him.
Posted by: Michael X | January 6, 2009 3:29 AM
Judge not friend unless you'd like your holier than thou attitude put under a microscope as well.
Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 4:07 AM
Ooooooh. A concern troll is concerned?
Posted by: Nathan | January 6, 2009 1:11 PM
Judge not? Why stop with me?
Posted by: Watchman | January 6, 2009 1:19 PM
Why so surprised? Did you really expect to find a blog where every post and every comment was about Evolution? It's a mixed bag, like most blogs. Stick around.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 6, 2009 1:24 PM
Part of the allure of the site is that it's like flypaper for creationists. We get to swat down their silly arguments, it's entertaining.
If you don't like the "tone" bugger off. You could try to "debate" a creationist at one of their sites but they either ban you or fail to approve your comments.
Posted by: Nathan | January 6, 2009 11:36 PM
You thought that exchange with Drew was a debate on creation?
Posted by: Steve_C | January 6, 2009 11:56 PM
Hehe. Nope. That was pure entertainment. Creationists don't debate. You really are a Noob.
Posted by: Nathan | January 7, 2009 11:23 AM
Whats the point of a creation/ evolution debate? It is no different than a political debate. Each side walks away convinced that they won.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 7, 2009 11:30 AM
Nathan, it's what we do here. If it bores you as much as you bore us, you should probably run along.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 7, 2009 11:35 AM
Nathan, stick around and watch for a few days. We are a very diverse group, ranging from college students to old farts like me, and range in jobs from scientists to computer experts to philosophers to lawyers to henmistresses. We all love science for the most part.
Creationists tend to be very repetitive when they post. They haven't had an original idea in years. When challenged, they have trouble thinking so they leave.
Posted by: Nathan | January 7, 2009 2:26 PM
Art and History have been my feilds of study and teaching, but I am fascinated by Science. I am always looking to learn whatever I can, whenever I can. I was simply pointing out my suprise at the tone of the exchange when I read thru these comments. There were a few informative answers that I enjoyed reading. I realise most of the people here are very knowlegable and I was interested to hear what you have to say. There were a few informative comments as I scanned thru which is what kept me reading. Thaks for those. Martin and Kel for example. I doubt I will be back however, although I could learn alot by simply watching, I was looking for a blog were I could ask questions and learn thru discussion as well. I have tried on a few other topics and apparently my ignorance bores most of the bloggers.
Posted by: Nathan | January 7, 2009 2:29 PM
Art and History have been my feilds of study and teaching, but I am fascinated by Science. I am always looking to learn whatever I can, whenever I can. I was simply pointing out my suprise at the tone of the exchange when I read thru these comments. I realise most of the people here are very knowlegable and I was interested to hear what you have to say. There were a few informative comments as I scanned thru which is what kept me reading. Thanks for those. Martin and Kel for example. I doubt I will be back however, although I could learn alot by simply watching, I was looking for a blog were I could ask questions and learn thru discussion as well. I have tried on a few other topics and apparently my ignorance bores most of the bloggers. Have a good week.
Posted by: Nathan | January 7, 2009 2:32 PM
Sorry about the duplicate post. My computer is slow and I thought it didn't go thru the first time.
Posted by: Deborah | January 12, 2009 12:35 AM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Deborah
http://termlifeinsurance2.com
Posted by: Katie | March 23, 2009 6:42 PM
Hello, I got this from a discussion board on facebook, a friend there(who is athiest) kept saying Happy Monkey. I was like, ok? But anyways, I have many "non religious" friends but I am, myself a believer in God. And you know what? I believe what I think is true, to BE true. But I also am sick of some of my fellow christians. Im sorry, but I am. I read the very first post, and this person has it totally right.
"I confess, I only skimmed, but something from the third letter caught my eye: "Christians are probably the most tolerant people on the planet."
*ahem*
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*wipes a tear* Oh my, I think I hurt myself laughing. Funniest damn thing I've read all night."
Its sad, but true. Most of us dont tolerate people who act, dress or believe the same way we do. My athiest friends and I get along just fine. We dont fight(well, we play fight) about God and evolution. Why should we? (for the christians) I know what the bible says about "spreading the word", but there's a diff between sharing love and shouting at a non believers and calling them stupid and stuff. Like it says, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Show love, not hate. (for the atheists)I am sorry for what most of you think of christians, Im sorry b/c most of it has good cause. We do and say things that are so mean and judgemental. I know this b/c I have seen it in action time and time again. I have been fighting this for a couple years now. Im really sorry. Now that I have said that, you all arnt perfect either you know. I have run into more then a few who, even though I respectfully didnt push them into religion, started throwing insults, both at me and my God. So we all arnt perfect. One day, I hope we all can live in harmony.
P.S Happy Holidays, and Happy Monkey for you guys!