…and this is a 
Yeah, poor Ken — he's still distressed that his attempt to prop up his credibility with the Cincinnati Zoo's was foiled. He's also complaining about an "atheist (a professor from the University of Minnesota-Morris)" who engineered his defeat. I wonder who that might be?
Even more foolishly, though, he cites an online poll to back up his claims.
The news website NKY.com (http://nky.cincinnati.com/) ran an online poll on the controversy. They gave the following options:
YES--The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission.
NO--The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo.
As of last night, 86% voted "NO--The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo." I know this is not a statistically valid poll, but I think it does show, as we have seen many times before, that most people are not intolerant. Sadly, it is an intolerant minority that can intimidate people to give in on matters they should take a stand on.
Crazy innumerate wacko. He notes that it is not "statistically valid", and then in the same sentence claims it "does show". No, it doesn't, Ken. All it shows is that creationist fans beat science fans to this particular poll.
But we can fix that, can't we, boys and girls?
The poll currently stands at 17% yes, 83% no, with a bit over 400 votes total. I suspect we can scramble that all around within an hour.
Comments
Posted by: Bonobo | December 3, 2008 3:06 PM
Voted!
Posted by: Kubenzi | December 3, 2008 3:07 PM
I was about to get mad at us,until i saw "1 comment" for this.Let the crashing begin!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 3:07 PM
I think Ken Ham spends more time whining and crying than he does preaching.
Maybe this is having a dual positive effect.
Posted by: Ken | December 3, 2008 3:08 PM
Voted! shows 24% now.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 3, 2008 3:08 PM
Your wish is my command, oh Tentacled Overlord!
The tide turneth as we speak.
Posted by: Jon | December 3, 2008 3:09 PM
woo hooo 28%
Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | December 3, 2008 3:09 PM
Whining and Crying doesn't count as preaching?
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 3, 2008 3:09 PM
Quite amazing how fast that is changing. Literally swung 10% in the time it's taken me to write this. Ooops 15%.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 3:09 PM
Voted. And will hit it with each browser when I get home.
Posted by: GumbyTheCat | December 3, 2008 3:10 PM
No time to comment - must crash poll -
Posted by: broxster | December 3, 2008 3:10 PM
It's moving!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 3:11 PM
Well it jumped to 35% yes in less than 10 mins.
Posted by: Cujo359 | December 3, 2008 3:11 PM
There are about 60 new votes in that poll, so I'm guessing that the votes to comments ratio is about 20. This one is well on its way to being freeped.
Posted by: jeremy | December 3, 2008 3:11 PM
I think we've crashed the site already... (can't load up the page)
Posted by: quasarpulse | December 3, 2008 3:13 PM
Is this one cookie-based or IP-based?
Posted by: Ley | December 3, 2008 3:14 PM
Wow. 15 minutes later and its almost tied!
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | December 3, 2008 3:14 PM
28 minutes out, and we're up to 48%. This should be easy.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 3, 2008 3:14 PM
The "yes" and the "no" aren't even true opposites, since "yes" could conceivably be true along with the "no" being true.
I do not think that the promotion was at all intended to actually endorse the museum, but of course it implicitly does.
And of course, even if the poll were properly worded and statistically meaningful and the still "no's" predominated, it would nevertheless probably mean nothing other than that you can fool most of the people some (or possibly most) of the time.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | December 3, 2008 3:14 PM
Over 50% Go Fighting Cephlapods!
Posted by: David | December 3, 2008 3:15 PM
When I popped over to pharyngula, there were zero comments. I then watched the poll gain a little over 35 Yes votes in 60 seconds. PZ, you the man.
Posted by: JackC | December 3, 2008 3:15 PM
Voted. Nearly 50/50 now. I trust piggie will be as direct with his quoting and commentary when the numbers are reversed?
Well - it was an interesting thought...
JC
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 3, 2008 3:15 PM
... and .... 51%. That took about 8 mins from 3:06 - 3:14. Nice work.
Posted by: Jason, Cincinnati | December 3, 2008 3:15 PM
And 15 minutes later, Yes takes the lead.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 3, 2008 3:18 PM
The numbers sure have improved, never mind what a bad poll it really is. Obviously I voted "yes," no matter that "no" is arguable, simply because of how lying boobs like Ham like to spin meaningless numbers.
I suppose I should state the obvious for any missing it--Ham's use of statistics is as intelligently done as all of his "science" is.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Shamar | December 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Woo Hoo, 54% yes! Last time I checked at least!
Posted by: mus | December 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Sweeet, cookie-based poll!
Posted by: chiral | December 3, 2008 3:18 PM
What a whiny bitch. He'll probably cry about crashing the poll too.
I still don't see how insisting on scientific rigor at scientific institutions is intolerant, but maybe I'm just too elitist.
Posted by: Teleprompter | December 3, 2008 3:19 PM
58% yes, 41% no...and I have now voted.
Posted by: AJ Milne | December 3, 2008 3:20 PM
Well, I think it's totally awesome Ken Ham figures online polls are to be taken so seriously.
In that spirit, please answer my poll: should Ken Ham take a flying leap off a really high cliff?
_ Yes.
_ Not if there's a higher building available.
Vote early and often. And thankee kindly. (Tips hat.)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 3, 2008 3:21 PM
"Yes" currently leads "No" by 634 to 358.
Posted by: VOTE YES | December 3, 2008 3:22 PM
i think a ton of folks probably read it as "yes, this is a ridiculously discrimnatory event" and thusly voted yes. it's ok, problem now fixed. merry squidmas!
Posted by: Baudi | December 3, 2008 3:22 PM
Well that changed quickly haha 66% Yes 33% No.
Posted by: Kobra | December 3, 2008 3:23 PM
Poll CRASHED!
:D
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 3:23 PM
Oh goodie, goodie! More excuses for foul language and denigrating gawd.
May the farce be with you, christian freaks.
Posted by: co | December 3, 2008 3:23 PM
Mmm. Cookies.
They made the big mistake of showing percentages to 1/100th of a percent. Never mid how valid that is for small (in this case, less than 10^4) sample sizes; it shows that one's vote has an impact, no matter how small. It's much more fun to crash than a poll where there is no discernible impact.
Posted by: Platypus | December 3, 2008 3:24 PM
OT: Here's a webcomic that uses the Wizard of Oz to make fun of creationists.
http://www.legorobotcomics.com/?id=36
(Note: the rest of the webcomic is a bit like Jhonen Vasquez' Happy Noodle Boy, in that it is trying very hard to be badly drawn and deliberately moronic to make fun of the medium of webcomics. This strip is a stark deviation from that shtick. The rest of the archives aren't really worth perusing unless you find badly drawn dick jokes amusing.)
Posted by: Alex | December 3, 2008 3:24 PM
Voted. Well over 60% now.
Posted by: Boomer | December 3, 2008 3:24 PM
As of this afternoon, 61% voted "YES-The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission." I know this is not a statistically valid poll, but I think it does show, as we have seen many times before, that most people understand that science education is an important institution that should not be undermined by stone age superstition. Sadly, it is an ignorant minority that can intimidate people to give in on matters they have no expertise on or business meddling in.
Posted by: Kobra | December 3, 2008 3:25 PM
As soon as I read the title, a large Cheshire smirk appeared on my face.
Posted by: co | December 3, 2008 3:26 PM
What's even worse (better?) is that the poll results open in a new window (or tab, here), *and this doesn't steal focus from the main page*. This means you can *keep clicking on the poll button* to keep changing the results. There's no need to keep closing new windows or tabs.
Posted by: David | December 3, 2008 3:26 PM
It's a slaughter 71%
Posted by: 8teist | December 3, 2008 3:26 PM
What a pack of whiny crybabies these gibbering creationists are when they get a taste of their own medicine .
Posted by: Platypus | December 3, 2008 3:27 PM
Boomer @ 38: "...most people understand that science education is an important institution that should not be undermined by stone age superstition."
Now now, be fair. These are at least Iron Age superstitions.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | December 3, 2008 3:28 PM
It's up to 73% YES now. Shall we inform Ken Ham so he can update his article?
Posted by: Nightsky | December 3, 2008 3:28 PM
73-26% split! Go Forces of Righteousness, go!
Posted by: Boomer | December 3, 2008 3:29 PM
Platypus @ 43:
I stand corrected. Actually, I was demonstrating by example how cretinists make authoritative statements about subjects they know nothing about. Yeah, that's it!
Posted by: mus | December 3, 2008 3:30 PM
There, I did my part(s) and helped it reach 75%. Now I gotta go study organic chemistry (eep!)
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 3, 2008 3:31 PM
Allright! That will show the Kentucky Enquirer! I really feel like we accomplished something here.
Posted by: Pete UK | December 3, 2008 3:32 PM
Just added my "yes" vote. Interesting choice of colour in the bar chart showing the cumulative voting: red for yes, blue for no. I venture to suggest the other way would be more natural, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Posted by: Steve P. | December 3, 2008 3:32 PM
The horde is making a mark! Up to 76% now! Why is this so much fun?
Posted by: RR | December 3, 2008 3:34 PM
Yes 1152 (76.19%)
No 360 (23.81%)
Wow... that was fast!
Posted by: Jackie | December 3, 2008 3:35 PM
I am quite amused that this poll has been completely owned and then clicked refresh only seconds later shows more yes votes. XD 78% now.
Posted by: jj | December 3, 2008 3:35 PM
From Ham's blog that PZ linked to, this caught my eye:
I wonder if this "unbiased" and adamant defender of free speech, Bill Cunningham, asked PZ for an interview? If not, he should've. I'd like to hear PZ's response to this though maybe Ham just wants more publicity good or bad.
Posted by: CaptainKendrick | December 3, 2008 3:35 PM
Gangrened Jesus on a 2x4!... we're such pricks.
There's no way that stupid-ass poll even has cookie counters.
If I had the time before I go home today, I'd write a bash script to do all my dirty work. But as it stands, I might as well answer a few of my boss's emails, and keep hitting 'refresh' in between while pretending to do real work.
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 3:36 PM
"No" isn't moving, and another 500 "yes" votes will put it at 80%. Another 1500 on top of that will make it 90%.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 3, 2008 3:38 PM
It's really amusing to keep refreshing the poll and watch the "yes" numbers climb (it's gone up 2% while I watched, now over 81%) while the "no" number holds steady at 360 votes.
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 3:38 PM
Stupid arithmetic. That should be "150 'yes' votes".
Posted by: Carlie | December 3, 2008 3:39 PM
It's curtains for you, poll. Lacy wafting curtains.
Posted by: SteveM | December 3, 2008 3:41 PM
currently at
Yes = 1587 (81.51%)
No = 360 (18.49%)
Posted by: Kristine | December 3, 2008 3:42 PM
Poor Ken hasn't figured out that news organizations only sponsor polls like these so that PZ will blog about them , sending Pharyngulites to them and upping their number of site hits. ;-)
If the "promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo," why do it at all? Isn't that rather like "we here at the Disco 'Tute don't want to push ID in schools"?
Posted by: Ben Edmans | December 3, 2008 3:43 PM
WooHoo! 82% !
Kentucky Fried Creationists - Hamming it up one again.
Posted by: marty | December 3, 2008 3:44 PM
OK, Ken Ham, you can point to the poll now.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | December 3, 2008 3:44 PM
[CylonVoice]
By. Your. Command.
[\CylonVoice]
I think we've officially left Ham with (green) egg on his face for the day.
Posted by: BpB | December 3, 2008 3:46 PM
I love poll crashing...
Posted by: Isherwood | December 3, 2008 3:47 PM
Well, it's more than fully reversed now at 86/14, though Ham has already extracted what he wanted from it and thrown it away.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 3:47 PM
A big cyber *smooch* to all of you unseen Pharyngulites that don't post but vote like the naughty savages we all know you really are.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 3:47 PM
Wow, that was a poorly constructed poll. It practically invites stuffing. All you have to do is block cookies from cincinnati.com and then just keep pressing the "submit vote" button -- no closing windows or anything else. I personally moved the value by 2% in like ten minutes.
Posted by: c-serpent | December 3, 2008 3:49 PM
Over 86% yes now.
Posted by: Mozglubov | December 3, 2008 3:49 PM
I really don't get how people are trying to spin this as a "free speech" and "intolerance" issue. No one advocated that the Creationist Museum needs to be shut down... people just got upset that it is so laughably wrong that it shouldn't be linked to the operation of a secular, publicly funded (I'm assuming, since I believe most zoos are), ostensibly scientific organization. This is not about free speech and tolerance at all.
Posted by: s_mander_r | December 3, 2008 3:50 PM
I notice that the poll is approximately opposite from where it was when the post went up.
About 86% yes, 13% no : )
Posted by: J-Dog | December 3, 2008 3:52 PM
As of 2:50 CST, it is Yes 2567 = 87.58%, and No = IDiots = 367 or 12.42%.
Nice poll results Ham you ignoramus butthead...
Posted by: CaptainKendrick | December 3, 2008 3:52 PM
Ok kids, if you all work hard, we can get it to 99% by tomorrow morning. The poll does track your cookie, but not IP address, so just vote, flush cache/cookies, vote, flush cache/cookies, vote, etc. etc. Or if your browser blocks cookies, feel free to skip step 1.
I felt so bad about this, I gave one to the "No", just to be nice, but back now to being a prick.
Posted by: currie jean | December 3, 2008 3:52 PM
Hats off to Carlie, #58, for contextually quoting Captain Hammer. XD
Man, I'm disappointed I didn't get to participate in this one. It wouldn't been fun.
Posted by: bezoar | December 3, 2008 3:52 PM
added mine. 86% yes and rising!
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 3:53 PM
This is too easy. I'm going to start voting "NO" just to mess with Ken's emotions a bit. If you see "NO" rising, that's me.
Posted by: No One Of Consequence | December 3, 2008 3:53 PM
89.89% Yes after my vote
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 3, 2008 3:54 PM
Stop brethern STOP. This is simply senseless slaughter! Please, I beg of you, think of the children ....
Posted by: Shaden Freud | December 3, 2008 3:54 PM
#63
Indeed.
Wow. 91% to 9%.
Posted by: mus | December 3, 2008 3:55 PM
Ooohhh, the creationists are now mobbing the site!!!
WAAAARRR!!!!!!!!
Posted by: currie jean | December 3, 2008 3:55 PM
*would've been fun.
Posted by: Katie | December 3, 2008 3:55 PM
WTF? The vote counts are going up by, like, fifteen votes per second. Oh, and it's over 90% now, just under an hour from the post. Way to go PZ.
Posted by: CaptainKendrick | December 3, 2008 3:56 PM
WATCH OUT! Ken must have been reading our comments, and we revealed what we're up to, and now has his minions are jacking up the "No" column.
This could turn into a finger-click death-race to the finish....
Posted by: joeyess | December 3, 2008 3:56 PM
Apparently it no longer shows that most people aren't stupid, Ken.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 3, 2008 3:56 PM
"YES--The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission. "
They really did seem to design the poll to make us look bad, since unfortunately, a great majority thinks that science and religion are totally best buddies. How about a "YES - The museum presents outright fucking LIES" option?
Tolerance, you say? Kennie, your museum has dinosaurs with saddles on them. You should be in a mental institution.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 3:57 PM
No, it's just me. Every time I click "NO" it goes up one.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 3, 2008 3:59 PM
Again I state the obvious, but it might be forgotten to some degree simply because it is so obvious--the "poll" was aimed at Kentucky, which meant that it was already stacked in the creationists' favor from the beginning, which even Ken Ham is probably intelligent enough to recognize.
It's lying with statistics, one of the few intellectual tools (though dishonest ones) that Ham has at his disposal.
Poll crashing is not something in which I normally participate, but this was an exception, because the meaninglessness of the current poll results shows up the meaninglessness of earlier poll results in a manner that Ham will have to deliberately (and noticeably to some) ignore in the future. The good thing is that he might not dare to refer to the earlier results again.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: joeyess | December 3, 2008 4:00 PM
I think Ken should be forced to dress like Jebus in a cowboy hat and then saddle up on a T-Rex when the kiddies come in, and scream at the top of his lungs; Get along, little creature of Gawwwd!!!
Posted by: Gary Bohn | December 3, 2008 4:00 PM
Dehumanization of your opponent is an important war tactic. In this case they are trying to deAmericanize their opponent by claiming an anti-free speech tyranny is destroying their God given right to be stupid.
Posted by: kapumichael,Web USA | December 3, 2008 4:01 PM
We got a huge lead, but it seems that the jeebus lovers are try to crash now, too.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 3, 2008 4:01 PM
No, it's just me. Every time I click "NO" it goes up one.
Atta boy! Fairness at its very best. Although you seem to be tiring .... 9.5% just breached down to 9.46% .... click faster!
Posted by: Mike | December 3, 2008 4:02 PM
Over 80% yes. Hambone can stew on that now.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 4:02 PM
I doubled the number of NO votes, and still the YES is increasing in percentage.
Posted by: Dave H | December 3, 2008 4:02 PM
Ok, it is exactly one hour after PZ made the post and the yes column has 7157 (90%) votes and the no column has 764 votes (9%).
Impressive.
Posted by: joeyess | December 3, 2008 4:03 PM
Look at these numbers. i think that this has got to be proof that god's hand is involved in this poll:
You've already voted in this poll.
The Cincinnati Zoo ended a promotional deal between the zoo and the Creation Museum after protests. The deal offered tickets for both the Festival of Lights and a museum event called Bethlehem's Blessings. Should the promotion have been canceled?
Yes - The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission.
7771
(90.91%)
No - The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo.
777
(9.09%)
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Posted by: KH | December 3, 2008 4:04 PM
"Yes" is now above 90%. Given that there were only 400 votes as of PZ's original post today, Ken Ham's "86% no" statistic from last night must have been based on a grand total of 7 votes only--1 random "yes" vote and 6 "no" votes from his own various browsers.
Posted by: Scaryduck | December 3, 2008 4:04 PM
91.3% plays 8.7%
Job done.
Posted by: Lambert Heenan | December 3, 2008 4:04 PM
This is great. I just voted Yes a few times and every time the poll results window refreshes there's another 20-30 Yes votes and zero No votes - this is at half second intervals. :-)
Posted by: Blackbird | December 3, 2008 4:07 PM
Ha! This is fun!
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 4:07 PM
That's because I have gotten bored. Although someone added some NOs to bump the number up from the Godly 777 I left it at.
Posted by: Ben Edmans | December 3, 2008 4:07 PM
Dead mouse finger.
Can't wait to explain tomorrow why I can't hold a pen.
*Sigh*
The things we do for reason...
Posted by: Jaketoadie | December 3, 2008 4:07 PM
Looks to me that a bot may have gotten a hold of the site as I am seeing Yes increase by a decent amount every time I hit refresh. Something in the area of 5-10 per second
Posted by: Vegeta | December 3, 2008 4:08 PM
It's OVER NINE THOUSAAAANNNNND!!!!!!
Posted by: Robert W | December 3, 2008 4:08 PM
Love it! Up over 90% now. Take that, Ken.
Even though this isn't a statistically valid poll, I think it goes to show that the VAST MAJORITY of people are free-thinking, logical, reasoning entities not willing to blur the line between science and superstitious bunk.
Ha ha.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | December 3, 2008 4:08 PM
Yes - The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission. at 92.55% (over 10,000 votes cast)
Posted by: Hayate | December 3, 2008 4:09 PM
Does anyone else get the feeling that it doesn't have any sort of multi-vote protection on it? I waited two minutes, hit refresh, and the totals went up a LOT, then I hit it a couple more times, really quickly, and it went up a couple more.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 4:09 PM
Hey PZ, your ol' buddy at the Catholic League is warming up to fight the U.N. over the gay issue. Don't give Ham all the credit for being an idiot today.
Posted by: GumbyTheCat | December 3, 2008 4:09 PM
It's too bad that Ham doesn't allow comments on his blog, how intellectualy brave he is! I'd be happy to let him know that the poll results are now like 94% to 6% in reason's favor.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | December 3, 2008 4:09 PM
PZ, please post something else before this becomes an addiction that consumes your readers.
Posted by: kapumichael,Web USA | December 3, 2008 4:09 PM
Maybe Ken is the only one voting "no" (over and over again).
Posted by: tetracanth | December 3, 2008 4:09 PM
At this point it's obviously a farce which will be won by whomever gets a voting script running first. But them again, showing that was the precise point of poll crashing. Well done everyone!
Posted by: krztoff | December 3, 2008 4:09 PM
Woo-hoo! 93.5%
Posted by: joeyess | December 3, 2008 4:10 PM
Yes. How dare we deny the children the opportunity to ride a velociraptor?
Have we no sense of decency, at long last?
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 4:10 PM
93% to 7% now. It's going to take another 400 "No" votes just to get them back to double digits.
Posted by: Dale O'Flaherty | December 3, 2008 4:10 PM
I had fun messing with the system!
Posted by: dtlocke | December 3, 2008 4:11 PM
Wait a second... the two answers answer different questions! In fact, they're both right, depending on how you read "means" in the second answer.
Wow, what a crappy poll. I think it's just too crappy to answer. (Note that on one reading of "means", rejecting the second answer implies that you think the zoo DOES endorse the museum. Suppose someone says "X does not mean that Y" and you both agree that X happened. If you disagree, your saying that X DOES mean that Y and, since X happened, therefore Y. I don't think that's something the readers of this blog want to say. The second answer should have said "No--the promotion does not GIVE THE IMPRESSION that the zoo endorses the museum." Now that's something we would be happy to reject.)
Posted by: Mark | December 3, 2008 4:11 PM
Ham has just given us all further justification for crashing online polls: people actually cite them as evidence!
PZ, if anyone ever asks you again why you crash online polls, just refer them to this Ham example right here.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 4:12 PM
I don't think there's any need for a bot with this one. I was able to add a hundred NOs in a couple of minutes. Multiply that by a few hundred Pharyngulans and 5-10 per second seems resonable.
"Powered By Absolute Poll Manager XE!"
The XE apparently stands for Xtra Easy-to-cheat.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 3, 2008 4:12 PM
The thing that should not be lost in all this is the way Ham's blog entry is written... it seems as though his main interest, as listed out in bullet points, is how much publicity the story has generated.
Time and time again, it's clear what Hambone's motivations are. He's a publicity hound.
Posted by: Mandrellian | December 3, 2008 4:13 PM
Over 12000 for yes ...
Even though this isn't a statistically valid poll, I think it goes to show that the VAST MAJORITY of people think Ken Ham is a deluded, whiny little bullshit artist whom Australia is glad to be rid of.
HAMFAIL
Posted by: FastLane | December 3, 2008 4:13 PM
BwahahahahahahaaaaaPosted by: Big Mike | December 3, 2008 4:15 PM
Yes - The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission.
12640
(93.98%)
No - The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo.
809
(6.02%)
Posted by: GumbyTheCat | December 3, 2008 4:16 PM
COME ON, people! Let's get the "No" vote to a statistical 0%!
Posted by: Glenn | December 3, 2008 4:16 PM
Mission Accomplished, Sir!
Posted by: Joe S | December 3, 2008 4:17 PM
Closing in rapidly on 95% for yes. The Horde has outdone itself. Anyone know what the all time record for skewing a poll is?
Posted by: Naughty Savage | December 3, 2008 4:17 PM
@66 Thanks, Patricia! Our pleasure!
Posted by: God Retardant | December 3, 2008 4:21 PM
Ham is left with egg on his face!!
Yes:94.67%
No:5.37%
Great job guys
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 4:21 PM
They now need double the number of "No" votes to get back to double digits.
Posted by: mus | December 3, 2008 4:21 PM
OK, past 95% for rationality!
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 4:23 PM
This takes poll failure to a whole new level! Awesome work, comrades! Tonight, we feast on the flesh of the unborn children! Huzzah!
Posted by: TheOtherOne | December 3, 2008 4:24 PM
95.03% for yes.
Posted by: Seeker | December 3, 2008 4:24 PM
Well, that poll is bleeding dee-mised. It's at 95% YES now, and while I saw the yes vote jumping with tens to dozens at a time, I saw the NO column creep up from a measly 809 to 810 :D
Posted by: Brad D | December 3, 2008 4:24 PM
All your poll are belong to us.
Posted by: Le Jason Failes | December 3, 2008 4:24 PM
Science ! Raison ! Empirisme !
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 4:26 PM
What's the over/under on how long it takes Ken Ham to whine about the poll being crashed?
Whatever it is, I got a dollar on "under".
Posted by: folderol | December 3, 2008 4:27 PM
Our side has better poll hackers/script writers than their side. ;-)
Posted by: andyo | December 3, 2008 4:27 PM
I know that Ham is not stupid. On the other hand, he is stupid.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 4:28 PM
Here's the website of the company that made the poll software. They are selling it for US$69.95! What fool would buy this?
Posted by: Techskeptic | December 3, 2008 4:28 PM
Now the poll "does show, as we have seen many times before, that people" want religion extricated from science.
Right Ken? care to print a retraction now? Or shall we stop refering to online polls altogether?
Posted by: Sengkelat | December 3, 2008 4:30 PM
I kept clicking till it was 95%, then I declared boredom.
It's too bad the poll is cookie-based; I wouldn't mind seeing the results without multiple voting from either side.
Of course, that wouldn't change the fact that the poll is horribly worded.
Posted by: andyo | December 3, 2008 4:30 PM
I know there's a way to quote in Comic Sans! Lemme know!
Posted by: Eyeoffaith | December 3, 2008 4:33 PM
Creationists like Ham are such whiney hipocrites. They should try doing some science and go through peer-review. Then they may learn how to deal with criticism.
The poll is now at 95.6% and still going up.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 4:35 PM
Never!
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 4:35 PM
<blockquote style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">I know this is not a statistically valid poll, but I think it does show, as we have seen many times before, that most people are not intolerant.</blockquote>
Yields:
Posted by: Levi | December 3, 2008 4:36 PM
20000 yes votes! 96.09%-3.91%! Woohoo!
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 4:37 PM
Okay, "no" is now in "3% of poll respondents will pick anything" territory.
Posted by: John M | December 3, 2008 4:37 PM
Now you've all fixed that one, how about getting back to the Pledge poll that is still running against us. It's needing another 15,000 votes to draw level. Tha's just 15 votes from a thousand of you.
Posted by: SeanJJordan | December 3, 2008 4:40 PM
I do marketing research for a living, and so of course I'm horrified when I see anyone using an online poll to try to defend anything.
I love that things have swung from "83% no" to "96% yes" in the last half hour. But while this is all a lot of fun, I think the real lesson here is this:
Ken Ham knows that this poll is not scientific or useful, and yet he STILL brings it up in a half-hearted way as evidence that he's right. If he thought he could get away with claiming that it was true, he would. That's creation "science" in a nutshell.
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 4:42 PM
Yes - The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission.
As others have pointed out, this is phrased poorly.
The Creation Museum promotes a pseudoscientific point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission.
They want to make this about religion -- are you for religion, or against it? Should people be allowed to be Christian or not? Bushwa. That's not the issue.
It's about Young Earth Creationism. That's just flat-out wrong, whether you're Christian or not.
Posted by: Michelle | December 3, 2008 4:44 PM
Gave in my honest vote: BUZZ OFF, CREATIONIST!
Posted by: David in NY | December 3, 2008 4:46 PM
But, hey, it's not all bad in that paper. They tout their "Massive holiday event guide" demonstrating that, in the great War on Christmas, they're traitors to the right-wing side (didn't see the word "Christmas" anywhere -- all about "holiday").
Posted by: Traffic Demon | December 3, 2008 4:50 PM
We've gotten to the point where we're measuring victory not in votes but in tenths of a percent. Well done all.
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 4:50 PM
Another 3500 votes to get it to 97%.
Posted by: Chris | December 3, 2008 4:53 PM
I wonder what Ken's 'scientific method' is.
Posted by: Flerndip | December 3, 2008 4:53 PM
I'm a bit disappointed. I thought this was about intellectual honesty, not which camp has a better understanding of these new-fangled technolomagical computerized witchcraft contraptions.
I don't think it was necessary for anyone to cheat in order to make our point. Frankly, I can see the enemies of reason using that hypocrisy as ammunition against us. I certainly don't think it makes us appear intellectually honest. Intellectually superior, perhaps, but certainly dishonest as well.
At any rate, I voted 'yes' one time.
Posted by: Alex | December 3, 2008 4:54 PM
Dear Ken Ham,
I do hope you realize that to those with measurable mental faculties and a modest grasp of logic, reason, and reality, that you rate as a complete nincompoop. Ass.
Sincerely,
Alex
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 3, 2008 4:55 PM
This poll crashing simple renders the results meaningless. It is similar to to the mindset of the GM protesters who vandalize sites of *research* in Europe, despite stringent (and unnecessary) safety measures, because they are afraid of the results and desire to export their unworkable ideas of organic/sustainable farming to Africa where it has, up to now, failed so spectacularly. I voted no.
Posted by: JimB | December 3, 2008 4:55 PM
jpf - Might have caused Ham to just explode if you would have stopped at 666...
Posted by: davem | December 3, 2008 4:57 PM
97% for the win. We need a new word. "Pharyngulated" doesn't adequately describe this thrashing.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 3, 2008 4:58 PM
logic, reason, and reality . . . you rate as a complete nincompoop. A**.
How reasonable and logical of you.
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 4:58 PM
It's about online polls not showing anything useful. One good way to do that is to show how easily they can be cheated. That they can't point to it (as Ken Ham did) to support their claim is bonus points.
We aren't using the results of the poll to support any point other than "online polls don't show anything useful."
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 3, 2008 4:59 PM
If Ham is so swayed by argumentum ad populum, then why doesn't the lying, dishonest piece of shit leave whatever podunk, redneck, piglet-fucker Protestant congregation he taints by his association and become Catholic?
Or maybe even he, in an uncharistic lapse into lucidy, knows the truth isn't dictated by popularity contests. (Hell, he must, as even other creationists can't stand the dishonest human colostomy stoma.)
I so look forward to the day when that goat-faced fuckwit croaks.
Posted by: Alex | December 3, 2008 5:00 PM
"Frankly, I can see the enemies of reason using that hypocrisy as ammunition against us.
The years I've spent listening to their "reasons" and their "arguments" has proven to me that they will get ammunition anyway possible. They are liars, cheaters, and con men. They have no honor, character, or dignity. They only way to trump them is to shame them mercilessly.
Posted by: CJO | December 3, 2008 5:00 PM
This poll crashing simple renders the results meaningless.
Sweet mother of Mithras, you are obtuse.
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 5:01 PM
Peter Rooke #156 wrote:
The point, I think, is that the results were meaningless even before it was crashed. I voted yes (once.)
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 3, 2008 5:01 PM
"This poll crashing simple renders the results meaningless."
You catch on quick.
Posted by: cthellis | December 3, 2008 5:01 PM
You thought it would take us an HOUR to outweigh that? Have some faith!!
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2008 5:02 PM
The results were meaningless before we got to them. We're just making it bloody obvious.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 5:02 PM
pete pete pete
The very posting of this poll online renders it useless.
And your analogy is fucking ridiculous. But we know you have problems with the whole "understanding how analogies work" thing.
Posted by: Alex | December 3, 2008 5:03 PM
"How reasonable and logical of you."
So please do me the favor and point out the fallacy in my assertion. Ass.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 3, 2008 5:06 PM
If Ham is so swayed by argumentum ad populum, then why doesn't the lying, dishonest piece of **** leave whatever podunk, redneck, piglet-****** Protestant congregation he taints by his association and become Catholic?
It isn't meant to prove anything. It only serves as an indicator of what people, who would ordinarily frequent the site, think. No truth claim is attached.
Besides, a community of scientists should surely not find the idea (of taking comfort in the consensus of your peers) anathema.
Posted by: N. Milum | December 3, 2008 5:06 PM
I think poll crashing would be more fun if the goal was to keep the results as close to evenly split as possible.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 3, 2008 5:07 PM
In case you were wondering, the loud whoosh was the point flying over your head.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 5:07 PM
I was totally going to stop at 666, but I got into a trance like state watching the percentages that I only noticed the absolute number was 666 after I already hit the button, raising it to 667. So I went to the next best one, 777.
Anyway, I voted about an equal amount YES/NO (like 400 some each), canceling myself out, so if this very important online poll results in Africa falling into cannibalism or whatever as Pete Rooke fears, I am blameless.
Posted by: rob | December 3, 2008 5:07 PM
heh, heh, heh.
tremble before our mad poll crashin' skillz!
Posted by: GreenGrazing | December 3, 2008 5:09 PM
Must be that whole 'science and logic' thing that all this new-fangled computing malarkey had going on. :pPosted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 5:09 PM
in other words useless.
And pete, the poll is on a KY newspaper's site, not AIG.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | December 3, 2008 5:10 PM
Upon my vote it is now 29120 (97.24%) Yes and only 825 (2.76%) No. Geez PZ, its like you called Exterminatus on that poll. FOR THE EMPEROR!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 3, 2008 5:10 PM
There, see what happens when a person thinks instead of merely reacting?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: mirroreyes | December 3, 2008 5:11 PM
97.29% at this moment, yay Team Rationality!
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 5:13 PM
Pete Rooke, please read the quote from Ken Ham again. Here it is for you: 'I know this is not a statistically valid poll, but I think it does show, as we have seen many times before, that most people are not intolerant.'
Emphasis mine. Ken Ham is most definitely making a truth claim based on the results of the poll. We know it's not the truth, but his cadre of fellow believers in Flintstone science don't, and will accept the results as valid.
We're taking that away from him - and it feels so, so good.
Posted by: Alex | December 3, 2008 5:13 PM
"Besides, a community of scientists should surely not find the idea (of taking comfort in the consensus of your peers) anathema."
Word games and misrepresentation to prove your point.
Scientists take comfort in the efforts of their peers attempting to reproduce experimental results which will either confirm or disrupt a hypothesis.
Learn how science works you pretentious...Ass.
Posted by: Adam F | December 3, 2008 5:14 PM
I say this poll has been more than crashed. At current the yes is at 97% (29942) and no is at 2.6% (827)
Amusing but meaningless. If only we could do the same thing with Prop 8 :)
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 5:16 PM
Mozgluboy #69 wrote:
I think that people who consider "having faith" to be a great virtue have a bad tendency to slur the distinction between legal rights, and epistemic rights. People have the legal right to believe whatever they want about God, and practice their faith without being hindered by law or force.
But that doesn't mean that no matter what they believe, they should not be criticized, because they have a RIGHT to believe and no one can say they're wrong. "I have a right to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and you can't take that away from me by telling me it's not." You have to tolerate their views by letting their views alone. Religious freedom is translated into epistemic license.
The insistence that "God gave us the right to choose what we believe" ends up turning all beliefs into mush, with everything reduced to a matter of personal opinion, and, eventually, with no opinion more right than any other.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 3, 2008 5:17 PM
FOR THE EMPEROR!
With every passing remark of this nature I begin to think that the attitudes expressed by the scientists in Expelled may actually have been representative of your general population. Is this not what the Kamikaze pilots shouted as they dived their planes into our warships? Was that the point? Perhaps I do you a disservice and it was a subtly made ironic point...
Posted by: gr8googlymoogly | December 3, 2008 5:17 PM
31000 - yes
828 - no
Booyah!!
Posted by: robhoofd | December 3, 2008 5:18 PM
YES just passed 30.000 votes... I can't wait for Ken Ham's reaction! He won't be able to cry and point his way out of this epic failure forever.
Posted by: Alex McDonald | December 3, 2008 5:19 PM
December 3, 2008 5:14 PM 97% (29942) and no is at 2.6% (827)
Time this post; it's 31123 (97.41%) and 828 (2.59%)
Someone's botting this...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 5:21 PM
Yet again displaying that humor and sarcasm are lost on you.
Pete, for your sake and those around you including us. Please go out and get yourself laid.
Posted by: GumbyTheCat | December 3, 2008 5:22 PM
I so look forward to the day when that goat-faced fuckwit croaks.
Yeah, but another goat-faced fuckwit will just take his place.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 3, 2008 5:24 PM
Sastra: I think that people who consider "having faith" to be a great virtue have a bad tendency to slur the distinction between legal rights, and epistemic rights. People have the legal right to believe whatever they want about God, and practice their faith without being hindered by law or force.
I agree with the distinction between belief and knowledge although our beliefs may indeed correspond to what is actually the case in the world.
Knowledge is commonly held to be *Justified, True, Belief* and in many cases the belief is inextricably linked to the justification. This shouldn't invalidate it though.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | December 3, 2008 5:24 PM
Pete Rooke @184
Pete, meet gamer-fail, gamer-fail meet Pete.
Exterminatus - http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Exterminatus
FOR THE EMPEROR - http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Emperor_of_Mankind
And we Atheists are supposed to be the completely humorless ones. Now please don't make me explain in more detail how this poll being utterly crushed in its irrelevancy leads to an easy Exterminatus joke.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 5:25 PM
Pete Rooke @184, that was jocularity. It's a reference to a game - Warhammer 40k.
Sheesh.
Posted by: alextangent | December 3, 2008 5:25 PM
Pete @ #184
Allah Achbar!
With every passing remark of this nature I begin to think that the attitudes expressed by the godbots in Expelled may actually have been representative of your general population. Is this not what the suicide pilots shouted as they dived their planes into our buildings? Was that the point? Perhaps I do you a disservice and it was a subtly made ironic point...
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 5:27 PM
Pete Rooke,
If by 'The Emperor' you mean truth as supported by evidence then yes, we are for 'The Emperor'.
And while you've come a long way from the sickening analogies of your intial posts on this site you still have a ways to go before anyone would describe anything you write as a 'subtly made ironic point'.
Oh, and I'll point out to you the fundamental error in this comment:
Many of the posters here are not science professionals, either in research or education or even our spare time. But we accept and support the findings of science in areas like cosmology and biology, and see people like Ken Ham as an enemy of science and reason and treat him and his followers accordingly.
Posted by: waldteufel | December 3, 2008 5:28 PM
I love the sound of whining, sniveling creationist wacktards in the morning . . .in the afternoon, and in the evening.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 5:29 PM
Ahhh, Pete Rooke. Certifiable. Doesn't realise that creationism is the scientific equivalent to holocaust denial. But of course, his book of desert mythology tells him better.
Posted by: andyo | December 3, 2008 5:30 PM
Owlmirror #143,
(Don't know how to do it without blockquoting. *wink, wink*)jpf #142
I would have page-sourced your post's ass off haha I'm not that internet illiterate (or maybe I am, but I know that much).
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 3, 2008 5:30 PM
I think we can hope for something better and more in keeping with what we've come to expect from his ilk: being caught high on meth in flagrante dilecto with a gay prostitute.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 5:32 PM
Pete Rooke:
Not bad. Now consider the distinction between faith and belief - hint, the former is a subset of the latter.Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 5:33 PM
POUR L'EMPEREUR!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 3, 2008 5:35 PM
In the main, yes. For the most part, PZ and the other scientists were merely upholding the proper methods for determining what is to be assigned the value of "true." That several went beyond what I would say about religion is not to be denied, but mostly I do agree with them.
So yes, as usual you do your smearing with the pretense at being polite, but with the now-expected nastiness that we frequently experience from those who pretend that religion has any claim to be a "general truth."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 5:36 PM
I thought for a second you wrote dessert mythology there.
Mmmmm, dessert.
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 5:36 PM
Pete Rooke #190 wrote:
Right. My concern though is that, in over-valuing the idea of "faith," disagreement is seen as "intolerance." The Young Earth Creationists are claiming that their views are scientific, and yet still want to hide behind the idea that religion shouldn't be touched, because people "have the right to believe whatever they want." Meaning, not that they shouldn't be prevented by law, but they shouldn't be penalized in any sense at all.
Not true in science, not true in life, and, I think, it should not be true in religion either. I find it a bit ironic that the very people who sneer at "liberal Christians" and rip into their theology are so quick to cry foul when their own views -- religious and scientific -- are run through the grinder.
Posted by: Karen | December 3, 2008 5:40 PM
I have to say, after getting a little taste of real, useful things we can accomplish, crashing this poll seems a little less interesting.
Still, voted.
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | December 3, 2008 5:42 PM
OOh - Is that like "If you eat too many Pop Rocks you'll explode your stomach and die"? I bet there are a lot of dessert myths out there.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 3, 2008 5:43 PM
Pete Rooke,
If you're going to fucking quote me, have the decen-motherfucking-cy to leave the goddamn shitting profanity in.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 5:43 PM
@andyo #197
Try tags.
Although, if the blogging software here alows it, PZ should probably set it to strip styles out of tags, as that can be seriously abused.
Posted by: Last Hussar | December 3, 2008 5:44 PM
33700 something Yes= 97%- I think I voted 5 times in 6 seconds.
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 5:45 PM
er, that should have read "try <span></span> tags". Preview converted them to actual tags.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 3, 2008 5:48 PM
The Cincinnati Zoo ended a promotional deal between the zoo and the Creation Museum after protests. The deal offered tickets for both the Festival of Lights and a museum event called Bethlehem's Blessings. Should the promotion have been canceled?
Yes - The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission.
34070
(97.59%)
No - The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo.
843
(2.41%)
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 5:48 PM
Mentos and diet coke.Posted by: Bullet Magnet | December 3, 2008 5:49 PM
The poll seems to know whether you've voted before, but it's still going up by about 5 votes a second.
Posted by: noncarborundum | December 3, 2008 5:51 PM
That's a myth?Posted by: kamaka | December 3, 2008 5:53 PM
I read the post, I go to vote
35,000 yes votes! Yeesh, why did I bother?
Posted by: Gary Bohn | December 3, 2008 5:53 PM
Alright, it's time to whip up a script that will search out polls on the web and wrestle them to the ground to prove they are utter nonsense. Or should its target be just the religious polls?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | December 3, 2008 5:55 PM
Right. My concern though is that, in over-valuing the idea of "faith," disagreement is seen as "intolerance." The Young Earth Creationists are claiming that their views are scientific, and yet still want to hide behind the idea that religion shouldn't be touched, because people "have the right to believe whatever they want." Meaning, not that they shouldn't be prevented by law, but they shouldn't be penalized in any sense at all.
Not true in science, not true in life, and, I think, it should not be true in religion either. I find it a bit ironic that the very people who sneer at "liberal Christians" and rip into their theology are so quick to cry foul when their own views -- religious and scientific -- are run through the grinder.
This seems very fair, and I'm happy with the idea of faith being synonymous with belief which seemed to be the issue in most of these cases. In effect faith is the belief, but it also serves as the justification for many religious people. So I can see how it would concern people if this faith was then expressed as an absolute truth without additional justification - if other people were to accept this truth. However, on an individual level a belief manifests itself in the same way that a truth manifests itself within in oneself and you can't help feel that your belief is true - (or you wouldn't believe it).
Posted by: Son of a Nonymous | December 3, 2008 5:55 PM
97.64%
We came we saw, we KICKED IT'S ASS!
Posted by: Zeno | December 3, 2008 5:57 PM
The voice of the people has spoken! (And Ken sure won't like what it said.)
Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 5:58 PM
(Just testing if >blockquote class="creationist"< works in comments. If it does, this would be preferable to using dangerously annoying styles.)
Posted by: KiwiInOz | December 3, 2008 6:02 PM
35427 to 845. The ayes have it.
Posted by: Kristine | December 3, 2008 6:03 PM
CaptainKendrick, no bleeding hearting! How many times do you think Ken Ham flushed his cache (gaa, what an image) and voted? ;-)
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 6:03 PM
Sometimes myths can turn out to be true.Posted by: jpf | December 3, 2008 6:04 PM
It strips classes out of tags, which is sort of the opposite of how it should work. PZ should get it set up to strip styles and then have some allowed class declarations (such as creationist blockquotes) that work in the comments. That'd be safer.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 6:06 PM
Nope, it doesn't. You would think that it ought to be the other way around (leniently permit usage of "class", and strip arbitrary "style"), but it is not.
Scienceblogs. Go figure.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | December 3, 2008 6:07 PM
6:07 EST and the poll stands at
35923 - Yes (97.7%)
845 - No (2.3%)
Rock on Science!
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 6:08 PM
Pete Rooke #216 wrote:
I think there are important distinctions between ordinary beliefs, and faith beliefs, though. I wouldn't say they're all the same.
"Belief" is, I think, a neutral term. As you say, you can have 'justified, true beliefs.' You can believe something, think you know it, and then find out that you're wrong. There's no onus on changing a belief. In fact, it's a good thing, if you think you're mistaken.
Religious faith, though, is a different sort of thing. It's not just provisional assent, best guess, reasoned conclusion, or favored opinion. It's something you're supposed to hang on to -- in the teeth of evidence, if need be. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." When people commit to "having faith," they're making a personal commitment to themselves, to spin all events and outcomes into confirmation. It's dogma, seen as a virtue, like loyalty. And, if you "lose faith," that's seen as a very bad thing.
I think that the Young Earth Creationists who regard criticism of their beliefs as "intolerance" are allowing the idea of faith to make them invulnerable.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2008 6:11 PM
And 16 minutes later, it was scrambled around, showing that PZ misundreshtmates his own powers by a factor of almost 4.
And then it took another 4 minutes till someone found out the poll is cookie-based (so you can just switch off accepting cookies and can vote as often as you can be bothered to refresh the page).
Our number appears to be legion... nope, over
fivesix legions in fact.3207936368 (97.4497.73 %) yes,842846 (2.562.27 %) no as of what must be5:236:11. For the record, I voted just once.Comment 132 evidently says it best.
But think a little.
What makes you think that the about 320 "no" votes that were there before PZ posted really came from 320 separate creationists? What makes you think none of them noticed it's cookie-based and clicked 100 times?
That's another reason why online polls are pointless: if one side votes early & often, then probably all do; it's most likely not just one column that's exaggerated.
Besides, have you read any of jpf's comments? Scroll back up and read! In fact, they are the only evidence that comment 109 is not correct.
It is reasonable and logical to call a spade a spade -- not a stick, not a shovel even, but a spade. :-| Neither "reasonable" nor "logical" is a synonym of "polite".
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 6:12 PM
Dessert myth: If everyone else is having the same ooey-gooey nummy thing, then you won't gain any weight.
Posted by: BluegrassGeek | December 3, 2008 6:31 PM
Posted by: noncarborundum | December 3, 2008 5:51 PM
It's a myth that it can kill you. MythBusters did a good job with that one.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | December 3, 2008 6:31 PM
Theistards deserve to have the truth smashed in their face and if it must be acomplished by crashing polls to let the air out of their sails then SO BE IT!
Plus I like that its now at like ~39,000 to ~850.
What's the poll show now Ken?
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 6:32 PM
Pete Rook, the word you're looking for is banzai, which I have spelled very badly.
The only Emperor we've had in America was Emperor Norton of San Francisco. Since you're a blithering christian I don't expect you to know anything, and once again you don't disappoint me.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | December 3, 2008 6:35 PM
I voted just once (Yes - now over 97%) but clicked the radio button really hard.
Posted by: hje | December 3, 2008 6:41 PM
How about the following poll?
Who is more clueless?
1. Ken Ham
2. Ray Comfort
Not so easy?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 6:43 PM
Drat, I missed Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke. Oh well, the rest of you pointed out his idiocies. Good work. The religious mind seems to have trouble with what evidence is. Belief can be delusion if not backed up by evidence.
Too many creobot trolls with all these Hamykins threads. Not an original idea with any of them.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 3, 2008 6:44 PM
"If you're going to fucking quote me, have the decen-motherfucking-cy to leave the goddamn shitting profanity in."
Yeah, we're all fucking adults here.
Posted by: Troy | December 3, 2008 6:46 PM
97% voted yes over 40,000 votes whooo
only 2% voted no just 400 votes. awwwww
Posted by: andyo | December 3, 2008 6:53 PM
jpf #219,
Thanks, didn't know about the span thing. I did try though the "creationist" blockquote the first time, but it didn't take. Page-sourced PZ's post.
I don't intend to abuse though, I just thought it's more proper to quote creationists in their own style.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 3, 2008 6:54 PM
Okay, the poll is not at 98.00% yes, 2.00 no.
I'm more concerned with the comments about "did Obama forge his birth certificate?" The right wing nuts just cannot admit they lost the election.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2008 6:55 PM
Incidentally, the Kamikaze pilots were supposed to shout "10,000 years old", implying "may the Emperor live for 10,000 years (and I not)". I don't know how many of them actually did it. You know... "we had to volunteer".
Of course the French word for "penguin" is manchot. Unsurprisingly, however, the emperor penguin, Aptenodytes forsteri, is called manchot empereur in French, and that's the species that breeds in Antarctica.
Huh?
It seems you've had a feeling that I've never had. Please explain what you mean.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 3, 2008 6:57 PM
hahaha. im glad i came onto this late. the poll results were a not unexpected but funny bit of ... fun.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2008 7:00 PM
40208 (98.01 %) yes, 852 (1.99 %) no.
Will we reach 99 %?
Posted by: cadicusthedamned | December 3, 2008 7:12 PM
42787 (98.05%)
853 (1.95%)
The Creationists are crushed. Luckily, we know how to clear our cookies and recast our ballots, while Creationists only know how to eat cookies.
Posted by: littlejohn | December 3, 2008 7:26 PM
I did my part. Death to god!
Posted by: andyo | December 3, 2008 7:40 PM
Ubi Dubium #205, Kel #211, noncarborundum #213, Bluegrassgeek #229
Urban myths are myths.
Posted by: mothra | December 3, 2008 7:41 PM
I see that Pete Rook[i]e has been here. I have this coin I'll flip concerning his remarks: disingenuosity /sophistry. After each toss, it comes up disingenuoity.
Pete, there exists at least one belief such that belief does not equal faith. I believe I typed this post :) Faith is belief sans evidence.
Posted by: Ann | December 3, 2008 7:51 PM
Another new poll for your attention from the wannabe O'reilly, Lou Dobbs himself.
Do you think the ACLU is protecting your civil liberties or do you think the ACLU is carrying out its political and cultural agenda?
Go Vote! http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/
Posted by: Eclogite | December 3, 2008 7:54 PM
Currently over 44,000 votes for "yes..." and a mere 800+ for "no...". HA!
Posted by: buridan | December 3, 2008 7:56 PM
RE: littlejohn
"I did my part. Death to god!"
Funniest reply yet...
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 7:58 PM
Oh no, this is hard. I think the ACLU is carrying out its political and cultural agenda to protect civil liberties. Now what?
Fortunately, I was reassured, after I voted, that it was "not a scientific poll." Thank goodness.
Posted by: phil | December 3, 2008 7:59 PM
44433 yes, 864 no. HAH!
Posted by: MrMarkAZ | December 3, 2008 8:18 PM
"Sadly, it is an intolerant minority that can intimidate people to give in on matters they should take a stand on."
Yes: 45720
No: 864.
We are intolerant of dishonest ignoranuses who perpetually and deliberately exploit the credulity of those who don't know any better, Ken. And we are not a minority. You SHOULD feel intimidated. And hopelessly ignorant. And embarrassed, ashamed, filthy, wretched, and utterly sick to the point of throwing up in your mouth at your own sad self.
However, that would assume that fundamentalist Christians had the requisite moral center.
Posted by: JamesR | December 3, 2008 8:26 PM
Ha 47172 total votes 46307 yes 865 no.LMAO.They've been stomped.
If they had but the faith of a grain of mustard seed. Kinda like we do. Except different.
Posted by: Llor Tamai | December 3, 2008 8:35 PM
I don't see the need for all this spite. These guys were just trying to do what they thought was right. At the end of the day all your clever arguments don't count for much because the love of God is something you experience on a personal level - once you know it, it gives you strength and hope through bad times, it really changes your life.
No offense, guys, but the Bible isn't about thought and logic and stuff, it's about more important things.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 8:41 PM
Llor, tell that to the Jews. OH wait, most of them were killed in antiquity by application of the "important stuff" of the Bible.
Posted by: Qwerty | December 3, 2008 8:41 PM
PZ, your power overwhelms me. The poll is resoundingly YES now!
As for me, I am going to North Carolina from St. Paul on Friday, but I am staying for a whole week. So, have fun freezing on that LONG ride from MSP to Morris.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | December 3, 2008 8:41 PM
The Lou Dobbs poll at the moment:
Protecting Your Liberties 16% 343
Carrying Out its Agenda 84% 1736
Needs work.
But yes Sastra, lousy wording.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 8:42 PM
Llor, if the bible isn't logical, why should be believe it? Most of us here have probably read more of it than you have.
Posted by: buridan | December 3, 2008 8:42 PM
Of course Llor, Ken Ham and his ilk are just spreading God's love, and only if we would recognize this, life would be so much better...
No offense
Posted by: BeeLeaver | December 3, 2008 8:42 PM
Yes 47165/98.20%
No 866/1.80%
Uhm... how long did that take?
Posted by: maxamillion | December 3, 2008 8:43 PM
God doesn't like Ken Ham either, apparently.
Posted by: Wolfhound | December 3, 2008 8:44 PM
"...the Bible isn't about thought and logic and stuff"
No shit, Sherlock!
Posted by: Llor Tamai | December 3, 2008 8:47 PM
But God doesn't want you to think or question him. If we just stick to blind faith and killing children who insult their parents, our nation might start to drag itself out of this moral cesspool we find ourselves in.
;-) got ya RickrOll - thought the name gave it away
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 8:47 PM
Llor:
Oh, OK. You're a good Muslim, then. Bully for ya.Posted by: Dave | December 3, 2008 8:48 PM
Llor
What exactly are the more important things in the bible you refer to? Is it the rape, genocide, xenophobia, incest, murder, misogyny, ....?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 8:49 PM
It's about a lot of things, including, sometimes, killing people for being different.
If that's more important than thought and logic...
Well, anyway, secular humanists reject all of that killing people for being different.
It's all about love, really.
Posted by: kamaka | December 3, 2008 8:51 PM
Llor-- I almost got sucked in...almost
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 8:51 PM
Llor Tamai #253 wrote:
Ah, yes. But belief in God, any God, will work that magic, regardless of its truth. And, at the end of the day, I suspect you wouldn't care whether or not God exists. Believing in God is about more important things -- it's about how it works for you, in your life. How it feels. What it gives you.
We believe in something greater than ourselves. I'm not sure you would understand. But you should.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 8:52 PM
Llor, as I said, we probably have read more of the bible than you. One of the quickest ways to atheism is read the bible in its entirety. As I did twice.
Posted by: Llor Tamai | December 3, 2008 8:52 PM
OMG, I know this stuff too well. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Read my name again. And 262.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 8:53 PM
*snort*
You never met "Lluraa" the Mormon. Names on the internet are... just don't even ask.
Posted by: Llor Tamai | December 3, 2008 8:53 PM
Kamaka wins!
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 8:54 PM
Dang it Llor. It's about LOVE!
Oh, well. Suckered. Never mind.
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 3, 2008 8:54 PM
Hahah!
Probably the most honest statement by a theist I have ever read.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 8:55 PM
NO More Poes! It's so damned confusing! Aren't there enough idiots out there? Do we really need someone to imitate them?
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 8:56 PM
Like killing infants.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2008 8:58 PM
47290 (98.20 %) yes, 867 (1.80 %) no.
Posted by: Lance | December 3, 2008 8:58 PM
I'm sorry, but we freaking rock!
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 8:59 PM
Dave - One of my favorite things in the bible is Balaam's Ass. My favorite thing out of the bible is in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, where jezus says, "There is no sin."
Sweet huh!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2008 9:02 PM
Well, occasionally she spelled herself Llauraa, which almost makes sense...
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 9:04 PM
Llor Tamai, #253, wrote several things, including:
The KKK think thought they were right to lynch people with different coloured skin. Does that mean we should have let them keep doing it? Was it 'spiteful' for us to want them to stop?
Which god? People belong to non-judeo-christian religions and say exactly the same things about their gods. How can that happen if there's only one? Your christian god has shown that there's nothing he hates more than people worshipping gods other than him, so he wouldn't help those who directed their prayers to Shiva, would he? Does that mean that, if a prayer to Shiva helps someone through a bad time, Shiva exists? How does that work?
Really? Then why do so many apologists and theologists spend so much time trying to tell us there are logical and philosophical reasons to believe in god?
Like what? How to commit genocide? How to sacrifice animals in the correct manner? How incest is okay? Those things are all in the bible.
Llor, the (few) 'good' things in the bible are the product of humankind developing morality and compassion as survival traits. For us to accept that we only got 'better' as a species because a god in human form came and taught us how to be kind to each other undermines everything our ancestors achieved.
Posted by: MrMarkAZ | December 3, 2008 9:05 PM
"I don't see the need for all this spite. "
Well, there's statements like this, for one:
"Many Christians...don't understand the connection of evolution to the social ills of our culture...."
(Neither do most people, because there simply isn't a causal relationship between teaching evolution and what he defines as a 'social ill.')
And this:
"[M]any Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that evolution is factual science."
(Notice that he never mentions the evidence, the facts, that makes evolution a fact, not a theory).
And this:
"The more evolutionary ideas pervade the culture, the more a person's whole way of thinking will change. For them, right and wrong will be whatever they determine for themselves, if they can get away with it. If they are just an animal, then no-one owns them, so their body is their own. Thus, why can't they do what they want with sex? Also, if this life is all there is, and death ends it all, then if things get tough, why not commit suicide now and get out of it--after all, a person won't remember they ever had life, so what's the point anyway? And, if we get rid of spare animals by killing them, then what's wrong with getting rid of spare babies by abortion?"
(Basic objection here: people have been having sex with whomever and whatever they wanted, committing acts of murder and suicide, performing abortions, slaughtering animals, etc. since long before Darwin's time, and much of it by God's command, if the Bible is to be believed literally).
These are direct quotes from "The Evolution Connection" article on his website. I will not link to that vile piece of Creationist crap here.
This is why Ken Ham deserves contempt. He's not "doing what he thinks is right." He's lying, bearing false witness, and engaging in character assassination, and doing so deliberately for the sole purpose of getting money.
Posted by: kamaka | December 3, 2008 9:06 PM
My bibble favorite is the detailed instructions for selling your daughter into sexual slavery...the moral high ground of "family values".
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 9:10 PM
Llor Tamai, that was puerile. You're about as funny as the chap who recently told me my bike had been stolen, so that I went and looked (it hadn't).
Posted by: The Artist Formerly Known as Llor Tamai | December 3, 2008 9:12 PM
All right, I'm sorry it was a Poe. I'm in a serious discussion with a christian at the moment by email and all I'm getting is God...love...God...love...anti-intellectualism...God...love
Will look back at these comments, but I need a softer angle really, something persuasive.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 9:12 PM
Thor help us. Another cute little yappy dog, humping your leg troll. Yawn.
Posted by: kamaka | December 3, 2008 9:14 PM
Llor
Thank you for the object lesson...I am never tossing a Poe here.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 9:17 PM
Damn, it got me. I did wonder about the name 'Llor Tamai' but thought it might be the product of Welsh/Maori love - probably the result of an amorous adventure between an adoring fan and a touring rugby player...
Heck, I'm no fan of Poes but they're far less insipid than that Keith Allan pustule on the old Ken Ham thread.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 9:23 PM
What is it with third rate creobots and showing evidence? It's like asking superman to pick up the kryptonite.Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 9:24 PM
Wowbagger, it got a lot of us because it was nowhere outré enough to seem satirical.
Posted by: Not Llor Any More | December 3, 2008 9:30 PM
"nowhere outré enough to seem satirical"
My bad - it would have worked in the UK. Seriously though, what do you think's the best way of actually persuading these people, rather than winning debates?
Posted by: mothwentbad | December 3, 2008 9:39 PM
I feel sorry for the poor, pigeonholed creationists. There isn't an "it's creation SCIENCE! No really, it's all the same truth, and they BELONG together!" option. They sort of tacitly accept that they're wrong as they go ahead and click in favor of the promotion. It doesn't bother me, but if I were a creationist it might.
Posted by: kamaka | December 3, 2008 9:40 PM
"Seriously though, what do you think's the best way of actually persuading these people, rather than winning debates?"
Rational cannot get through to irrational, because it just keeps being irrational.
Posted by: James F | December 3, 2008 9:41 PM
Plugging another poll, again - it's in 14th place and needs only 74 more votes to make it to the second round. Ken Ham's head may explode....
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/create_nationally_required_science_standards
Create nationally required science standards
National standards on the teaching of Evolution and the origins of life, decided on and created by top scientists from significant scientific organizations, should direct curricula of all schools nationwide, overriding any state laws on the subjects.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 9:44 PM
NLAM,
Well, first of all, a lot depends on whether they approach you or you approach them.In the latter case, I think you have no hope at all.
In the former case, the only way I've found that sways such to any degree is to quote their own (previous) claims and contrast them with current claims, showing the contradictions or discrepancies. Even then, the mechanisms they've developed to assuage their cognitive dissonance are generally adequate for rationalising such away.
Most people don't actually develop their belief structures consciously, rather they try to defend existing beliefs post-hoc and ad-hoc, without examining their genesis.
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 3, 2008 9:47 PM
I'm probably just being dense and missing something, but I don't see where the poll is.Posted by: AndrewW | December 3, 2008 9:47 PM
I really need to check this site everyday.... I missed all the fun!!!
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 9:49 PM
I wish I knew. If I could only save a handful of people from a life wasted in delusion then I would. Having never been indoctrinated I can't comment on what I think does or doesn't work on convincing someone to toss aside the nonsensical superstition and revert to the natural state of atheism.
Argument will work on some, but for the rest? I don't know. They say you can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.
Posted by: Not Llor Any More | December 3, 2008 9:56 PM
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of some fantasy like giving them all a hug or reading them Santayana or something. We have to do it the hard way.
Don't they call this asymmetrical warfare?
Posted by: Mobius | December 3, 2008 10:02 PM
Hilarious. The "No" votes are now at 1.74%.
Of course, now Ham will claim the poll is meaningless (which of course it always was).
Posted by: Brandon | December 3, 2008 10:02 PM
Wow the more I read some of these responses I have to wonder what evidence and how knowledgeable your audience is Mr. Myers. Ever since I found out how outspoken this blog is about the Evolutionary hypothesis I have been coming here.
MrMarkAZ seems to see that Ken Ham gives no scientific evidence but that seems to remind me that most of the evolutionary hypothesis up cropping comes from unscientific areas. I mean look at the fact that evolutionist can't explain how stars formed, life evolved from non-life, sexual reproduction evolved and the whole macro-evolutionary tree is under complete debate, by evolutionist, about what evolved from what species. You didn't give any relevant evidence either should we discredit you for that too? And, the information you gave about the bible and the response just below yours shows how illiterate you are of the biblical data. You might want to try to read those stories because you might realize that Yahweh doesn't control every human decision. He even sees some of them as sin. NO Wonder we needed a Saviour. Oh well, I will let you go back to your world view thinking you have won the argument.
Have a good night! (I mean that sincerely, I am not being sarcastic.)
Posted by: penguins4atheists | December 3, 2008 10:06 PM
This is awesome. I live in Northern KY and I'm sooo proud of you guys!!!
49261 voted No (98.24%)
871 voted Yes (1.74%)
Total Replies : 50144
Can one be addicted to crashing polls that are ignorant? It's becoming my new favorite pass time ;)
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 10:07 PM
Llor?- we'll i know a cristian who might better listen to you, or indeed all of us:
http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/02/from-a-john-tesh-nod-to-me-being-gnawed/#comments
I highly recommend it, pharyngulites!
Brandon, NO MORE POES!
Posted by: rickflick | December 3, 2008 10:08 PM
Brandon you make me tired. What has the formation of stars and how life evolved from non-life got to do with Darwinism? Sexual reproduction is something of a puzzle but not a total mystery. No one but creationists "debate" macro evolution. You need a stiff drink Mr.
Posted by: Not Llor Any More | December 3, 2008 10:08 PM
Thank you Brandon for that. Stick around next time and argue - if not, then yes, we have "won the argument"
Theory, not hypothesis. Big difference: evidence.
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 3, 2008 10:09 PM
Are you really this stupid? Really? You do realize that the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with star formation or abiogenesis, right? Oh. You don't? OK then. I suggest you read a book other than the bible. Moron.Posted by: Monado | December 3, 2008 10:10 PM
There's a letter to the editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer titled, "Zoo was wrong to partner with Creation Museum."
Posted by: phil | December 3, 2008 10:14 PM
Brandon #300 sez:
Well, I'll give you that, seeing how evolution is biology, and star formation is not biology but cosmology and astronomy. On the other hand, cosmologists and astronomers have a pretty good understanding, I'd say you're a little confused.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 10:18 PM
I think Rick hit the nail on the head.
POE!
Posted by: Not Llor Any More | December 3, 2008 10:20 PM
How on earth could one theory explain everything? The point about science is that there are many interlocking explanations, consistent with each other (as far as we can make them). Can you even imagine what a theory that would explain everything would look like?
As short as...a book. This is the real "reductionism".
Posted by: Monado | December 3, 2008 10:20 PM
Here's another letter to the Enquirer: "We must be intolerant of ignorance in all its forms."
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 10:22 PM
Brandon makes me tired too. So does Llor.
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 3, 2008 10:24 PM
Oh and by the way, while it is quite true that biologists can't/don't/shouldn't explain how stars form, astronomers and cosmologists can do so quite easily. The fundamentals of star formation have been well-established for decades.
Actually, many biologists probably also have a good basic understanding of how stars form, but they wouldn't be able to explain it in as exact detail as an astronomer or cosmologist. Sort of like how an astronomer or cosmologist probably wouldn;t be able to give you all of the technical details of biological evolution.
SO THEREFORE HAH EVOLUTION IS INVALID IN YOUR FACE BIOLOGISTS!!!!1!! Q.E.D.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 10:26 PM
You do realise that evolution doesn't talk about star formation. Evolution is about the diversity of life, it has nothing to do with stellar formation. If you want stellar formation, go for astrophysics. As for life from non-life, again evolution has nothing to say on the matter. It's a matter for organic chemistry. As for this, this does fall under the category of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.htmlHow is it you can say something like:
"Wow the more I read some of these responses I have to wonder what evidence and how knowledgeable your audience is Mr. Myers."
When you don't even know the basics about what you are talking about?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 10:35 PM
Thanks, my soul is sustained ever longer, gabgab (yes i know, it's ggab, but it doesn't have the same feel when you say it {unless there is some particular meaning behind the name of which i know nothing- entirely plausible, due to the fact that there is a plethora of commentors here and will be many moons before i understand the background from which you guys all speak}. And no, i am not saying the words aloud as i write them, but i imagine writing to be as if it were in life, wherever possible. This is why i across the board like movies based on books, because even if the movies do no justice to the books, it gives some auditory qualities to the texts {and yes, this Was intended to give all readers of it a big-ass headache. Gwaa ha ha ha!}. I hope you don't mind)! It is so rare to find praise as opposed to scorn on this thread, though i rarely do myself any favors. But this is all readily apperant.
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 10:36 PM
Second chance at this one.
Need a few more votes for "Create Nationaly Required Science Standards" to make it to the next round.
Pharynguloid Hordes!!
This could solve a lot of problems.
PZ can you give this a bump?
http://www.change.org/ideas/browse
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 3, 2008 10:39 PM
ggab:
Is it possible to vote on the site you keep posting without creating an account there?
Posted by: SteveM | December 3, 2008 10:40 PM
Brandon, whether scientists can or cannot explain every possible mystery you may concoct does not mean the theory is worthless. By concentrating only on what is still unknown you completely ignore that which is explained by the theory. And every day the set of what is explained by the theory continues to grow. That is what makes it a convincing theory. Open your eyes and see that scientists don't just believe in the theory of evolution, they test it with every experiment. They use it because it works. It is a tool to understand how biological systems came about. Scientists do not "believe in it", they use it. It is like saying a carpenter believes in a table saw, he doesn't believe in it he uses it. And to ask how evolution explains the formation of stars is like complaining that a carpenter can't drive a screw with a table saw.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 3, 2008 10:43 PM
Poll dutifully swayed!
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 10:43 PM
Jimminy
I'm not sure actually.
I was already on the list from the election.
As a matter of fact, I joined up so I could e-mail to suggest this very thing.
If you don't want the Obama people contacting you, use a spam E-mail account (if you have one).
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 10:48 PM
Think of all the BOE's accross the country trying to pull this creationist/ID/strengths and weaknesses crap.
We have a chance to stop it all in one swoop.
Sign up on the page if you have to.
Hell, you can unsubscribe later.
National Science Standards!! This is huge.
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 10:50 PM
Someone wake PZed!!
Rally the troops!!
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 3, 2008 10:53 PM
SteveM:
Brandon seems to think that all scientists are the archetypal "super-scientist" like "The Professor" from Gilligan's Island or "Gaius Baltar" from Battlestar Galactica. All "super-scientists" on TV know everything about all subjects past present and future.
He doesn't seem to realize that science doesn't work that way at all. Scientists specialize in specific fields and they each develop hypothesis' and experiments solely within their own narrow specialties. Their conclusions and predictions are generally only applicable to their own narrow fields, and if their conclusions and predictions turn out to be correct after many many years of constant challenging, then their conclusions and predictions turn into a THEORY (within their own limited field of scientific study).
Brandon seems to be under the (frighteningly common) assumption that because scientists who specialize in one limited branch of science (read: all scientists) can't explain everything that has ever happened or ever will happen right now in all subjects, then that invalidates ALL of science as a whole.
It's utter insanity. We're fighting against the most egregious forms of stupidity and ignorance here.
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 10:55 PM
The link doesn't take you there for some reason.
Go to Browze Ideas by cause, to the right side of the page.
Under education, first or second page.
Posted by: ABR. | December 3, 2008 10:55 PM
May I just say that if a flywheel could be hooked up to on-line polls, pharyngulation could completely replace fossil fuels!
Posted by: kamaka | December 3, 2008 11:04 PM
"I mean look at the fact that evolutionist can't explain how stars formed"
Oh, star formation is intimately involved with the origins of life. Where do you think the carbon came from? Galaxies, like life, are dynamic, non-equalibrium, self-organised systems. Stars form in waves of coalesing matter, the waves driven by the energy released from supernova. Carbon plays an essential role in the heat exchange that allows stars to form. So, star formation and "life" both depend upon carbon.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 3, 2008 11:07 PM
"Go Vote! http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/"
For pete's sake, get over there and hammer this poll! Neanderthals who dump on the ACLU piss me off bigtime.
Looks like it's registering votes via IP, but we've only got to beat 2163 votes against the ACLU anyway.
Posted by: Not Llor Any More | December 3, 2008 11:09 PM
There you go, a vote for science education. Hope you don't mind me not being American. Any donations to our Atheist Bus Campaign in return would also be greatly appreciated, if that't not too blatant.
http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus
We're up to £125 000 now. It would be really great if this would catch on all over the world.
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 11:11 PM
Leigh
That poll has already aired. This one is far more important.
http://www.change.org/ideas/browse
Go to Browze Ideas by cause, to the right side of the page.
Under education, first or second page.
Create National Science Standards
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 11:14 PM
NLAM @237, it's already been discussed. Alas, it's an uphill battle for some nations.
Posted by: SiMPel MYnd | December 3, 2008 11:16 PM
I'm glad I was able to get my vote in. I think my 50,960th YES vote will be just enough to tip the scales the other way. :)
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 11:18 PM
I gotta get to bed.
If anyone can get the Obama poll to PZ, please do.
We can finish this silly shit once and for all.
Posted by: Annie C | December 3, 2008 11:19 PM
52,000+ votes later and we're at 90%+. I think that one is dealt with.
Posted by: Paper Hand | December 3, 2008 11:27 PM
Damn ... only 1.66% "no". :-)
But, this is weird.
Yes: 51,431 (97.19%)
No: 877 (1.66%)
Total: 52,919
But, 51,431 + 877 is 52,308 ... so where are those missing 611 votes?
Posted by: ggab | December 3, 2008 11:33 PM
Hold off on that obama poll guys, just noticed something.
change.org instead of change.gov
James F- where did this link come from?
Do you know anything about it?
I don't think it goes directly tro the Obama people.
Posted by: Sarah | December 3, 2008 11:36 PM
I love poll crashing. PZ, you've got me addicted!
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 3, 2008 11:36 PM
Okay, Gary, I'm with you on the national science standards (didn't notice the Lou Dobbs had aired; just being on his website made me feel icky, so I left as quickly as possible). We're fighting the science standards battle uphill under heavy fire from our cretinist state school board right now.
Let me see if I can get the link right:
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/create_nationally_required_science_standards
Posted by: Geral | December 3, 2008 11:37 PM
@ Paper Hand,
Theres the million dollar question, where do the missing votes in elections go...
Yeah I got an inaccurate total too. I think the poll is officially crashed. How did we manage to muster up almost 52,000 votes? The daily readership is only a couple thousand, no? Or are we all voting multiple times..
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 11:40 PM
what i want to know as what constitutes a "pass" on the voting? Is there a certain number that means it will be implemented? What garuntee is there that anything on that site means anything? I'm very suspicious.
All the same i voted.
Posted by: waldteufel | December 3, 2008 11:40 PM
Brandon,
You are really pretty much an ignoramus when it comes to science, aren't you?
You are exactly the target audience for Ken Hamboner. Pig ignorant, smarmy, and unwilling to learn.
Enjoy your Wholly Babble, dude.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 11:44 PM
dude people. Trolls come and go, but the standard of our education needs fixing NOW Dammit!
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/create_nationally_required_science_standards
Posted by: Dick | December 4, 2008 12:02 AM
As of 9:00 pm PST the poll shows that yes slightly leads the no votes, 51,934 to 877 votes, or 97.21 percent to 1.64 percent.
Posted by: Captain C | December 4, 2008 12:07 AM
Yep, 50K to under a thousand. That, as they say, is that.
Posted by: Shamar | December 4, 2008 12:19 AM
I just brought it down to 1.59% in a few minutes.....I've noticed that with Google chrome, with cookies blocked, you can just click the vote button as fast as humany possible and it counts every one, I can probably do 5 - 10 votes a second!!!
Posted by: nanu nanu | December 4, 2008 12:30 AM
"iamaT rolL"
lol
A while ago on another website was a troll named Llort
AND NO ONE GOT IT FOR LIKE A MONTH
Posted by: John Morales | December 4, 2008 1:44 AM
nanu nanu, Llort is actually a real surname.
Posted by: jagannath | December 4, 2008 2:00 AM
Coming a bit late but bible is about killing people and taking their stuff, done in the best possible taste and in the name of god so it is no sin.
Posted by: maxamillion | December 4, 2008 2:01 AM
YES 66080 , (97.79%)
NO 879 , (1.30%)
Posted by: jorge666 | December 4, 2008 2:06 AM
Gee Whiz, you get to the party late and most of the liquor is gone!
Thank you for voting.
The Cincinnati Zoo ended a promotional deal between the zoo and the Creation Museum after protests. The deal offered tickets for both the Festival of Lights and a museum event called Bethlehem's Blessings. Should the promotion have been canceled?
Yes - The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission. 66529 (97.81%)
No - The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo. 879 (1.29%)
Total Replies : 68019
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 4, 2008 2:08 AM
Dammit!!! I just got it to a nice round 66666 and some butt munch ran the number up again. Oh well, I think the math is broken.
97.82% yes, 1.29% no. I guess there is some third option that accounts for the remaining 0.89%
Posted by: blf | December 4, 2008 2:11 AM
Platypus@43:
I've always been under the impression the superstitions and stories were created during the Bronze Age and passed on orally, but probably not written down until the Iron Age. They have been heavily edited, corrupted (but accidently and deliberately), and reinterpreted ever since, so in a sense I suppose you could call them Ancient Myths of the Common Era?
I prefer pTerry--at least the Discworld is logical...
Posted by: Tim G | December 4, 2008 3:11 AM
yes
Posted by: Mongrel | December 4, 2008 4:12 AM
Poll now stands at 98% dead on
Posted by: Nibien | December 4, 2008 4:29 AM
Never heard of the Gettier problem, eh? Damn you Christians, learn something more than 2,000 years old.
Posted by: Vidar | December 4, 2008 4:34 AM
We lead with over 98% and over 70.000 votes. I think this poll is crashed.
Posted by: Walton | December 4, 2008 4:44 AM
Llor, as I said, we probably have read more of the bible than you. One of the quickest ways to atheism is read the bible in its entirety. As I did twice.
Fair point - the closest I ever came to atheism was when I read Numbers 31 (the slaughter of the Midianite women). While there is much in the Bible that is good and inspirational, there is also much which is vile - and I've never heard a really satisfying theological riposte to this problem.
If there were ever a scriptural passage that puts a stop to the idea of biblical literalism, Numbers 31 must be it. It's a passage that, in all honesty, few Christians ever read (and they're probably better off for it).
Basically, the Israelites fought the Midianites, and killed the warriors but spared the women and children. Moses was angry with them, however, and told them to kill all the male children and all the women who were not virgins; all girls who were virgins could be taken as slaves. I really hope that this passage isn't meant literally; I don't think I could stand to live in a universe governed by a God who wanted something like that to happen.
Posted by: Walton | December 4, 2008 4:47 AM
I've always been under the impression the superstitions and stories were created during the Bronze Age and passed on orally, but probably not written down until the Iron Age. They have been heavily edited, corrupted (but accidently and deliberately), and reinterpreted ever since, so in a sense I suppose you could call them Ancient Myths of the Common Era?
Off the top of my head: The Torah (the first five books of the OT) is generally thought to have been transmitted orally and only written down much later than the events it describes; the synthesis of the books into their modern form is thought to have occurred in the reign of Josiah of Judah, about 900 BC (long, long after the relevant events). Most scholars see them as a synthesis of several different oral traditions (the "Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly" sources). So yes, it's very possible - indeed likely - that they were corrupted and altered over time, both accidentally and for purposes of promoting Israelite nationalism. This is good, because it allows us to take some of the more unpleasant narratives with a pinch of salt.
Posted by: Muffin | December 4, 2008 4:53 AM
Yes - 79165 (98.14%)
No - 888 (1.10%)
Let's hear Ken Ham talk about "it does show" and so on NOW.
Posted by: BruceK | December 4, 2008 5:38 AM
Over 90,000 yes votes now.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 4, 2008 5:52 AM
The NO bunnies are hopping to under 1 %
Ken 'it does show' that you and the rickety old delusion you pan handle it not exactly popular...give it up kidda...maybe join the Jesuits for some much needed laughs...and the crackers of course...
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 4, 2008 5:56 AM
@Walton: I think you'll find the passage in question is meant literally but is not true, thus resolving your dilemma. You're living in a universe in which gods are fictional.
Posted by: Malcolm | December 4, 2008 6:08 AM
Walton #355
Don't worry
Its fiction.
Posted by: Liz #658 | December 4, 2008 6:24 AM
Thank you for my morning laugh. I voted then saw the results: 102446 Yes; 890 No. Hilarious. Never doubt the power of Pharyngula.
Posted by: NLAM | December 4, 2008 6:26 AM
Malcolm,
Seems pretty plausible for the standards of the time. Actually, what about Darfur, Cambodia, etc? What's abhorrent is that this is held to be admirable.
Posted by: Arno | December 4, 2008 6:33 AM
YES: 98,59%
NO: 0,84%
Total replies: 106347 votes.
...okay, that is isn't even crashing anymore. Now what I am curious about, is how much difference Pharyngula is making in a poll like this. I find it hard to believe that so many votes can be generated by such a small group as ours, you see.
Posted by: Jack | December 4, 2008 6:47 AM
I am very, very pleasantly surprised!
Once a resident of Ohio (Columbus! Cowtown is a wonderful place to be!) I know all too well the mean-spirited religiosity of Cincinnati. It would be a really great thing if the place lightened up a little caught some sanity.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 4, 2008 7:20 AM
'I find it hard to believe that so many votes can be generated by such a small group as ours'
I agree...it seems an awful drubbing for Kenny baby...he!....he!...he!
I voted when it was about 78%NO and 22%YES...and returned several times throughout the evening to either get depressed or ecstatic...sad git that I is...but it streaked ahead very sharpish...two visits in three hours saw it reverse the deficit and advance...
This result is beyond being fantastic it is a damning indictment of Creationism...I wonder if Kenny bubbles will try to enthuse the 'dial a drone hot desk' to add to the total and maybe allow 'god's will to be done' or rather 'Kenny's will' as it is officially known ...they seem rather conspicuous by their absence...or maybe they had already shot their bolt...as in the 890 odd racked up on their account...
That has got to hurt the delusion ego somewhat...tis a cracker...;-)
Posted by: Evolving Squid | December 4, 2008 7:26 AM
If you promise not to pray for my salvation, I promise not to masturbate to make your head explode.
To be fair, we do need salvation... salvation from irrational faith. A saviour who finally drills the point home to all humans that talking to an invisible friend is insane whether that invisible friend is named Yogsothoth or Yahweh.
Posted by: Fred Mounts | December 4, 2008 8:03 AM
I don't know if anyone has mentioned in yet, but apparently Ken is planning on expanding his Temple of Ignorance. The local Columbus NPR station had a blurb about it this morning.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 8:08 AM
Expand in what way?
Is he adding the Moon Landing Hoax wing?
Maybe a Holocaust denial Wing?
Anti-Vaccination wing?
Dinosaur amusement park rides? Will he be buying up hovind's leftovers?
Posted by: woody | December 4, 2008 8:12 AM
Results at 6:10 am, mst:
yes the promotion should have been dropped: 131, 757 (98%)
no, the promotion should not have been dropped: 894 (2%)
I declare this poll "PZ'd"
Congratulations. Mission: Accomplished
Posted by: clinteas | December 4, 2008 8:15 AM
Now I seem to have misplaced the actual statistics,but it was something like 40 hits a minute on Pharyngula,if you extrapolate that,we easily do 100000 votes on any given day....
Posted by: Seth | December 4, 2008 8:17 AM
Yeah at first glance I thought to myself "oh good, 13000 to 900 that's a CRUSHING defeat for creationism" Then I put on my glasses and just gaped at how badly things had gone for the crazy folks.
Posted by: CSBSH | December 4, 2008 8:20 AM
This is exactly the reason why you should crash polls: so that whackos like Mr. Ham cannot use it as fake support of his delusions. I voted of course, and to my delight I found that the "Yes" side is now completely dominating. Way to go!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 8:22 AM
It is not a crushing defeat for the creationist nor is it a win for those interested in good science other than those interested in showing the inherent uselessness of online polls.
All the crashing shows is that online polls aren't worth a bucket of saddled dinosaur spit.
The results don't show anything relevant on the subject matter in question.
The very point of the crashing is to show that they are worthless at gaging the validity of the question posed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 8:25 AM
english fail
The very point of the crashing is to show that they are worthless at gaging the validity of the answers to the question posed.
sort of better now
Posted by: Iain Walker | December 4, 2008 8:32 AM
Pete Rooke (#216):
The theological concept of "justification" (through faith or otherwise) is not remotely the same as epistemic justification. The former is a kind of moral state, in which one is cleansed of sin and becomes a righteous individual in the sight of God (and so on and so forth). The latter is the demonstration that there are good reasons to suppose that a proposition is true.
Faith is not a form of justification in the sense being discussed here.
Again, this is not epistemic justification. All you're describing is a subjective feeling of certitude. Simply feeling certain that something is true is no guarantee that your belief is correct, for obvious reasons. Epistemic justification depends on being able to appeal to public standards, methods or criteria for evaluating beliefs. So while certitude is subjective, justification is not.
Posted by: Ygern | December 4, 2008 8:50 AM
The poll is still going:
Yes 140945 (98.94%)
No 896 (0.63%)
Creationists are a statistical zero.
Well crashed!
Posted by: Dana Hunter | December 4, 2008 8:53 AM
Oh, dear. That didn't go at all well for poor Mr. Ham. Why didn't God warn him against citing online polls as support for his positions?
Tragic.
Now if you'll excuse me, I must go dissolve into gales of helpless laughter.
Posted by: Iain Walker | December 4, 2008 9:07 AM
Walton (#355):
What about a universe governed by a God who wants to be portrayed in some non-literal, figurative sense as committing, commanding or otherwise endorsing such atrocities?
This isn't just a problem for literalists - it's a problem for anyone who thinks that the bible is the inerrant word of God, whether it is intended to be understood literally or metaphorically. Even if one holds that a story like Numbers 31 is not a literal account of historical events, one still has the problem that the supposedly revealed word of God offers up an allegorical tale in which said deity is portrayed as commanding an act of genocide and then demanding his cut of the booty. What possible positive theological "message" is one supposed to take from this?
Even if meant to be non-literal, it's hard to see Numbers 31 (and indeed much of the Old Testament) as anything other than a major miscalculation in terms of public relations. If God isn't literally a genocidal psychopath, then he would seem to be either (a) remarkably stupid, or (b) a less than reliable source of literary inspiration. Neither is exactly an encouraging prospect for your average bible-believing Christian.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | December 4, 2008 9:10 AM
I am waiting for the poll to show that the "No" position is statistically insignificant . . .oh, damn, I missed it, went by like the stop light in a one-light town.
Posted by: Christopher | December 4, 2008 9:23 AM
>150,000 : 99.01% for 'No'.
That seems pretty conclusive.
Posted by: J-Dog | December 4, 2008 9:24 AM
Why does God hate Ken Ham so much?
YES: 150,887 = 99.01%
NO: 901 = .59%
Posted by: Tulse | December 4, 2008 9:38 AM
Do you think it is less likely to be literally true than, say, a virgin getting pregnant, or a dead person revivifying?
Posted by: marty | December 4, 2008 10:31 AM
Just voted. If nothing else, I hope this shows Ham why a statistically invalid poll means nothing. Of course given his approach to science, he's probably used to using invalid evidence that supports his position and dismissing valid evidence that contradicts it, so my hopes for him are low.
Posted by: oliver | December 4, 2008 10:38 AM
Yes - The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission.
169680
(99.11%)
No - The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo.
909
(0.53%)
Total Replies : 171200
Posted by: rpsms | December 4, 2008 10:40 AM
Perhaps this also shows how few readers and support he has.
Posted by: Katrina | December 4, 2008 11:10 AM
At the rate this is being Pharyngulated, we should go over 180,000 votes within the next five minutes.
Posted by: Katrina | December 4, 2008 11:13 AM
Aaaaaand. . . we're there.
Posted by: Ryan | December 4, 2008 11:19 AM
awesome i just saw this and we're way over 99%
SWEET - Put another one in the 'W' column for science
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | December 4, 2008 11:34 AM
Just Voted Yesterday!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 11:55 AM
SPAM! KILL IT!
Posted by: Alexis | December 4, 2008 1:53 PM
Lou Dobbs needs more attention from us. He is feeling lonely and neglected:
Do you think the ACLU is protecting your civil liberties or do you think the ACLU is carrying out its political and cultural agenda?
Protecting Your Liberties 16% 556
Carrying Out its Agenda 84% 2925
Total Votes: 3481
This is not a scientific poll
Posted by: Scotty B | December 4, 2008 2:19 PM
Poll is fast approaching a quarter million for yes. Still under 1000 for no.
Posted by: Jason A. | December 4, 2008 2:20 PM
Arno #364:
I left a bot running for about an hour last night while I was reading. A few hundred to maybe a few thousand votes are from me alone. I don't think I'm the only one doing that either...
Posted by: Adam | December 4, 2008 2:20 PM
Over 225k yes votes, and they continue to go up about 5 every second. I wonder is using a bot or something to keep pushing the poll up. It's kind of funny though. 99.32% answered yes.
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 4:00 PM
"I left a bot running for about an hour last night while I was reading. A few hundred to maybe a few thousand votes are from me alone. I don't think I'm the only one doing that either..."
Followers of PZ, LIE to make themselves appear to be the victors.....? Parish the thought.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 4, 2008 4:05 PM
County the thought.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 4, 2008 4:06 PM
Thus spake Frank the Imbecile:
The point is "online polls are stupid and pointless" and not "we are a powerful voting group", you dribbling gobshite.
Oh, and it's "perish the thought".
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 4:13 PM
Oh, thank you Emmet... you are ever so kind. And I agree, they are stupid and pointless, but "the point is" it appears that's just what most of the people in here thrive upon. Well that and not using spell check.
Posted by: cicely | December 4, 2008 4:18 PM
Iain Walker @ 379:
You've forgotten c) is completely unable to push through a simple edit (on the assumption that he is being either slandered or misquoted), which bodes not well for his Omnipotence.
Maybe he should have gone to a different publisher.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 4, 2008 4:20 PM
Did that just come from the person who wrote "Parish the thought"?
Frank... first rule when in a hole: stop digging.
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 4:27 PM
It's warming to see how willing everyone is to give such helpful advice in here. Here's your shovel back Celtic_Evolution, dig up some more fun insults,....well go ahead, it reminds of the good ole days back in middle school.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 4, 2008 4:39 PM
@ Frank
Insults? You are the one who came here and claimed we were liars because we intentionally skewed the results of the poll, while completely missing the point that the poll wasn't skewed to support our point of view but to show that online polls are not valid. Douche.
Posted by: cicely | December 4, 2008 4:40 PM
Frank @ 399:
Speaking only for myself, I see poll-crashing (educational aspects aside) as being a light-hearted, frivolous passtime, something like seeing how many people can be packed into a phone booth (see kids, once upon a time, before the ubiquity of cell phones, we had these things called "pay phone booths"....), or finding out just how many licks it does take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop (for Science!).
It's just not that big a deal.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 4, 2008 4:41 PM
When, to all appearances, your education stopped.
Posted by: Jason A. | December 4, 2008 4:42 PM
Frank
It doesn't make us "appear to be the victors", it makes the poll appear worthless. Ken Ham said directly he knows the poll isn't legitimate, then in the same sentence tries to make his point with it. No Ken, the poll really IS worthless, and here's your proof.
If he thinks using an invalid poll shows that most people agree with him, then by his own logic we've put him into the 0% range. The point is his logic is as worthless as the poll.
'Accept his premises and even a madman appears sane'
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 4, 2008 4:46 PM
Frank -
pointing out that your insulting people for spelling errors while completely botching your own insult with a spelling error is an insult?
No... sorry... that's 2 insults to zero... in your favor.
You're a little troll with little ability to grasp a point who's only recourse when cornered is to denigrate the conversation into whining and insults...
There... now THAT'S an insult. You may commence whining about it now.
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 4:57 PM
Ahhh, Emmet, you're my favorite. And Doo Shabag, When you put it in that light, I'd have to agree, using an online poll is lame. I was going to be insultd by you calling me a douche but then I saw your name and I don't think you'd use your name to throw an insult.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 4, 2008 4:58 PM
Frank, can I be frank? You're a douche, Frank. A complete assclown.
Oh, and a spell-checker wouldn't have picked up his mistaken use of 'parish' instead of 'perish' anyway, since parish is still a word. That's why you don't rely on spell-checkers alone.
Posted by: Kel | December 4, 2008 5:00 PM
Swing and a miss there Frank.
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 5:03 PM
WOW, I take it back! Emmet you need to take notes from Celtic_Evolution, he's now my favorite.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 4, 2008 5:06 PM
Frank -
flattery will get you nowhere... and you'll get no more satisfaction from me engaging you in this "middle-school" childishness.
Besides... you started it.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 4, 2008 5:07 PM
Thus spake Frank the Semi-Literate Troll:
I might've cared before your lobotomy.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 4, 2008 5:09 PM
Frank #408
If you weren't clueless, you would know that is the light with which online polls are viewed here. It's the main reason we crash them. You don't know me at all. People named Dick still call people dick, dick head, dick face, dick weed, dick wart, dick blister . . .
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 5:09 PM
No swinging here Kel, I'm only here waisting time, getting all these guys fired up. Someone has to take the target roll in here and let these guys shoot there childish insults. If not all that anger could get bottled up and they'll be the next ones shooting up some mall durring the holidays.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 4, 2008 5:12 PM
Posted by: Josh | December 4, 2008 5:12 PM
If not all that anger could get bottled up and they'll be the next ones shooting up some mall durring the holidays.
Nahhh...there's way too many atheists in this venue for that to be likely. The terrorist niche is so much more aply and commonly filled by religious-types.
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 5:13 PM
And just to show my good sportsmanship, Emmet you get 1st go at my "there" instead of their in my last post.
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 5:18 PM
Now Josh, that's a very uneducated assumption. Most of the terrorist acts that take place here in America have absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 4, 2008 5:21 PM
I don't need it, Frank. We've established that you're a semi-literate hypocrite; I don't feel any need to rub it in.
I am starting to get a sense of déjà vu, though.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 4, 2008 5:25 PM
@Frank
Really? Can you provide some examples? Because the most obvious ones I can think of: 9/11, and various abortion clinic bombings, had EVERYTHING to do with religion.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 4, 2008 5:25 PM
Frank babbled:
Oh okay. I get it. Frank's a Poe. No-one would genuinely be stupid enough to write this thinking it was true.
Posted by: Sastra | December 4, 2008 5:25 PM
There's another thing that bothers me about this poll (other than it being unscientific) -- the wording is phrased in a way that's rather misleading. If you look at what they mention re the Creation Museum -- a holiday display -- and if you look at their first option, it sounds as if they''re asking a very general question like "do religion and science conflict?"
YES--The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission. seems open to that misinterpretation. If you answer "yes," then you think religious "points of view" are not compatible with a "scientific mission." Science beats out religion. We all know where that will go, in our culture.
Of course, the real issue isn't about whether you can reconcile the Bible with science if you twist and turn enough. You can. It's whether a museum which promotes a specifically anti-evolution Young Earth Creationism is rebutting a zoo which promotes an evolutionary understanding of biological diversity, and vice versa. Yes, it does. You would answer yes even if you were a Creationist.
Whoever wrote the poll question may have been sympathetic to the idea that religion and science go hand in hand, and that there's nothing wrong with seeing a nativity play and then going to the zoo for a lecture on evolution. "Why can't God work through evolution? I bet those 'intolerant' people never even thought of that option."
Poll wording is tricky. The real problem with Creationism and Ham's museum may have whizzed by the people at the Kentucky Enquirer the way it seems to whiz by a lot of the general public. That's a problem.
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 5:27 PM
Come on Emmet, rub, rub rub rub rub. How long you think before I get booted from the post? Place our bets here.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 4, 2008 5:35 PM
Just in case you aren't a Poe, Frank, some facts:
Doo Shabag has already listed 9/11 and the numerous abortion clinic bombings as acts of religious terrorism. How about the Oklahoma City bombings? Timothy McVeigh was a good christian white supremacist. Speaking of which - the KKK, yet another proud christian organisation, performed numerous acts of violence in order to terrorise. You know what that makes them?
But I could be wrong. Can you list, for our elucidation, some of the non-religious terrorist acts in the US?
Posted by: Frank | December 4, 2008 5:41 PM
"Oh okay. I get it. Frank's a Poe. No-one would genuinely be stupid enough to write this thinking it was true."
May I ask what credentials you have that make you an expert in this area that you can say this with confidence. I could go in to how I'm a security professional with more contacts and resources to these events than there are posts in this blog. But I won't do that, you go on believing that being an atheist makes you better than everyone because most terrorist acts that take place across the ocean are religious. You don't need my connections read the news. These people shooting up offices, malls, schools, churches, are all domestic and or someone that got their feelings hurt.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 4, 2008 5:42 PM
Frank,
Snore. If you get booted it'll be for being tedious.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2008 5:45 PM
I can see the canonical religious evolutionary biologists (Miller, Ayala, etc) arguing that very point.
"The museum promotes an anti-scientific point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission. "
Fixed.
(I note that the front page of the site now has a poll about tasers; the older poll results are still accessible here. And I see that the script still appears to be running ; 275249 "yes" votes, increasing with every refresh. Oy.)
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 4, 2008 5:47 PM
You're a security professional? No wonder people don't feel secure.Shooting up your workplace because you got fired is not an act of terrorism, it's an act of revenge. Terrorism, by definition, is the use of terror to coerce. There is no intent to coerce in going postal.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 5:47 PM
Hell, i say boot Frank the poe. One less to consider.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 4, 2008 5:49 PM
Frank wrote:
Translation: I have lots of guns and am in contact with people who share my paranoia and love of conspiracy theories. I know the real truth!!1!
Tell you what, Frank, we'll all chip in and buy you a new tinfoil hat as a Yule gift.
Posted by: brandon | December 4, 2008 5:49 PM
Moral cesspool?
Are you kidding?
If you want to talk about moral cesspools, let's take a look into the past, and see exactly what kind of moral cesspool this country has incompletely emerged from, just to name a few:
Slavery - the most repugnant institution humans have ever dreamed up.
The disenfrancisement and de facto enslavement of women
The wanton destruction of indigenous cultures.
The enslavement of workers during early industrialization via Robber-Baron capitalism (now making a trendy, socialism draped come-back)
Jim Crow
Real religious intolerance (not this storybook playtime BS Ham and his ilk squeal about whenever they want to make a quick buck. The KKK, for instance, was as anti-Catholic as it was anti-Black)
Jeremiads are retarded; nostalgic Jeremiads are utter nonsense.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2008 5:52 PM
Religion never results in violence from hurt feelings?
Osama Bin Laden's "hurt feelings" about the US military presence in what he thinks of his holy land containing Mecca and Medina are what led directly to 9-11.
Don't underestimate the violence that can result from religious outrage. Calling them "hurt feelings" sounds disingenuous.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 4, 2008 5:56 PM
Brandon wrote:
Just on this point - the KKK is a proud christian organisation. Any distaste they have for catholics is purely sectarian, christian versus christian, not one of non-religious versus christian.
It's like saying Sunnis are anti-muslim because they kill Shi'ites.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 6:04 PM
KKK hates on Jews too! And someone at one point said that they were "teaming up with Atheist skinheads and Neo-Nazis", a likely story. It's hard to find someone they Don't hate.
---+----
"Osama Bin Laden's "hurt feelings" about the US military presence in what he thinks of his holy land containing Mecca and Medina are what led directly to 9-11.
Don't underestimate the violence that can result from religious outrage. Calling them "hurt feelings" sounds disingenuous." -OWlmirror
Indeed, but i think he wants the power as well. He is somewhat of a pope to the jihadists, and we all know how Great popes are!
Posted by: Kel | December 4, 2008 6:07 PM
Two strikes now, you just keep missing the point. Perhaps you should switch to t-ball.Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 4, 2008 6:13 PM
mall rent-a-cop...
remembers the names of the suits who came down on training day and told them not to move ticking parcels marked "Bomb" in the mall...
got a card with the "report a suspect package" hotline number...
pestered one of the suits for a pile of the cards to give to his buddies at the bowling alley.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 6:34 PM
What are you defining as terrorist acts?
And what non religion motivated ones are you referring to?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 4, 2008 6:42 PM
Where's Frank got to? Maybe he's trying to track down his friends Langley, Byers and Frohicke for some advice.
Frank, turn around! Quick! There's someone behind you!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 6:46 PM
Ok, I've read back over Frank's comments and I can't seem to find a point to them.
Forgive me Frank but do you have one?
A Point that is.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 4, 2008 6:50 PM
Meh. Frank is one of those trolls whose lobotomy was done with an anal speculum and tweezers. Not even enough amusement value to bother feeding.
Posted by: zed | December 4, 2008 8:45 PM
The poll seems to be off the front page now, but here's a link to the results...;.)
http://dunes.cincinnati.com/polls/xlaapmview.asp?p=1342&view=1
Posted by: Frank | December 5, 2008 8:24 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp if you had read all of my posts you would have caught that NO, I HAVE NO POINT. I quite enjoy firing these guys up and making them feel like they're getting somewhere in life by insulting me.
And just to return the favor wowbagger "Where's Frank got to?" Did you mean gone to? I think that's a typo bud and that is frowned upon here in the land of PZ.
And Emmet, once again, you have claimed my heart by calling my a mall cop. Are you gay, do you want to go a date? Perhaps we could stroll through the mall together. BOOM shakalaka, keep them coming boys, this rocks!
Posted by: Frank | December 5, 2008 9:08 AM
You know what, I change my mind. I've given you guys enough to go on for a bit, I'm bored and have better things to do. Not that this wasn't fun guys, I've enjoyed playing devil's advocate. I'm not in security, I work in scrap metals. Maybe we'll do it again sometime. Look me up on myspace, Frank Ellis. Reality check here, we athiests are not perfect, in all ways, most but not all.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 5, 2008 10:19 AM
Awww... Frank had to go...
I guess the bell rang.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 10:23 AM
Yeah. That's great Frank. You're really.. um... sockin' it to 'em.
Now instead of just acting like a child, how about answering some questions?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 5, 2008 10:26 AM
Lame frank.
Very fucking lame. You didn't do anything other than act like a teen aged idiot whose hormones got the better of him.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 5, 2008 12:38 PM
A self-confessed troll.
Posted by: Son of a Nonymous | December 5, 2008 12:54 PM
Looks like the bot racking up votes is dead. The poll is over. The final count was 99.63%/.23%. In absolute numbers, that's 411500/931. Well done, gang.
Posted by: ozzy | December 6, 2008 3:48 PM
Any of you call yourselves scientists? Give me a break. You are the mark of the very last thing that should be espoused in scientific pursuit. Dishonesty. Doesn't really matter that it is just a dumb poll... your actions are morally reprehensible.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 3:54 PM
Yeah and Ken Ham lying to children about science is morally A OK?
it's a meaningless poll that actually asks people to vote on it.
We voted.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 3:55 PM
Ozzy, PhD in chemistry plus 30+ years working. Learn some science before you try to con us. We will set you straight. There is nothing immoral with what we did. Now lets look at you coming to our blog and being a Liar for JebusTM, which is immoral since it is bearing false witness.
By the way, the poll is talked about on a thread on one of the front two pages. Why aren't you posting there?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 3:57 PM
Ignore my last paragraph, still dealing with an old HamyKens thread.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 7, 2008 5:17 PM
Thread's dead, but I'm going to write this anyway. Frank wrote:
'Where's Frank got to?' is not a typo; it's colloquial, conversational English. It appears your understanding of communication is about as good as your understanding of, well, anything else you've written about here - including the bizarre belief that you've 'fired people up'.
Dealing with you, Frank, is like flushing a toilet - hardly rage-inducing. Well, in me anyway. You, on the other hand, sound you like had difficulties potty-training.
Posted by: Liz | March 18, 2009 9:38 AM
Suck it up, you're whining also. Telling everyone to vote against Ken isn't going to make it "statistically valid" either. You, sir, are annoying. :]
Posted by: Liz | March 18, 2009 9:38 AM
Suck it up, you're whining also. Telling everyone to vote against Ken isn't going to make it "statistically valid" either. You, sir, are annoying. :]