…and this is a 
Wow. Creationists can surprise you with a rare flash of imagination — like this argument that because you don't drool, god exists.
Ok, I have an Evolution Challenge for you. Make your mouth produce a bunch of spit, let it dribble down your face and time how long it is before you simply have to wipe it off. Go ahead; try it! I promise you it won't be very long. It's extremely uncomfortable to have it sit there.
Think about the babies in your life. Have you ever thought about the fact that they stop drooling after the first couple years of life? Have you ever imagined what life would be like if we didn't stop? Some, sadly, know what this is like. Children with cerebral palsy that don't stop drooling or those that begin drooling due to loss of facial muscle control know the horrors of this. Have you had to endure watching people stare at your parent or child as they experience this humiliating social embarrassment? Have you tried to alleviate the irritating sores that develop from skin being constantly wet? Have you tried to keep them in presentable clothing when saliva keeps staining their clothes?
What evolutionary advantage is there to developing the oral neuromuscular control at age 18-24 months? What if drooling, the default condition at birth, was the way our lives always are? How would you like to date, make love, run a business meeting, ride horses, grocery shop and take care of kids while drooling? How cool would you feel driving your fancy car down the road with sunglasses and drool? How would your wedding go with everyone trying to be discrete with their designer drool cloths or bibs?
The human body is designed to give us dignity. These specific designs and abilities point to a Creator who cares about even whether we are embarrassed or not. There's no evolutionary advantage to not drooling. It's the gift of dignity.
Gosh. Here's a phenomenon that the author himself notes is a consequence of loss of facial muscle control, that is uncomfortable, that is a social deficit, and that can lead to irritating sores (he also missed one, probably the most important one in an evolutionary context: it's wasteful and makes one more prone to dehydration), and then he says, "There's no evolutionary advantage to not drooling"? It's always nice when the creationists noisily refute themselves for me.
By the way, this silly claim comes from a source that is notable for its history of weird arguments, Bibleland Studios. They have a museum that features a dead cat, and they publish the legendary Jim Pinkoski, who argues that having two eyes refutes evolution, and also wrote the popularly obscure catch-phrase, "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??". It's nice to see they still haven't lost their touch.
Comments
Posted by: Geb | May 30, 2009 8:03 AM
I would have a lot more respect for arguments similar to this, the "evolution shouldn't produce trivial conveniences in the body" arguments, if the body was more consistently convenient.
Posted by: Kel | May 30, 2009 8:09 AM
Pretty terrible, but hey. At least it's one step up from the Argument by Banana.
Posted by: JDStackpole | May 30, 2009 8:12 AM
And I'll bet if we all did drool as a normal state of affairs it would be a snap to come up with good evolutionary arguments that it has a survival (or reproductive) advantage. Purging oral cavities of harmful bacteria, for example, rather than ingesting them.
And we would all be repulsed by the occasional deviant who kept his/her chin dry and accuse him/her of gross immorality.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 30, 2009 8:14 AM
What is the possible adaptive value of drooling? Removal of dirt? Lubrication of breastfeeding? Perhaps excess salva is produced as an aid to swallowing, since babies can coordinate drinking with solid food? Cleaning the breast of the mother?
Posted by: EVolutiAN | May 30, 2009 8:17 AM
Yeah, well, every time I take an awful shit after eating too much Mexican food, I think how ridiculous it is to believe a supreme being designed something as ridiculous as defecation. Surely it could have been done cleaner, less inconveniencing, and less filthy.
It's clearly a mechanism designed by nature; good enough to get by.
Posted by: Macaroni | May 30, 2009 8:17 AM
The fact that there are children with cerebral palsy is strong evidence for the 1. the absence of a god, or 2. that he is incompetent or sadistic. Anyway, it does nothing to substantiate an intelligent designer.
Posted by: Stefan | May 30, 2009 8:19 AM
Now we can add to the Monty Python Hymn:
O Lord please don't burn us,
don't gril or toast your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue,
or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us
or stir fry us in a wok.
Oh please don't lightly poach us
or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
or boil us in a vat,
and please don't stick thy servant Lord
in a Rotissomat.
And Lord, please don't let us
drool.
Amen
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 30, 2009 8:19 AM
Just a suggestion: take a look at a dog on a hot day.
Posted by: Yoritomo | May 30, 2009 8:20 AM
His "dignity" argument is even more nonsense: If we all did drool, we probably wouldn't consider it embarassing. Last time I checked, the Bible didn't contain a commandment that "thou shalt not drool". So even the Creationists should accept that any social conventions related to drooling are man-made.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 30, 2009 8:20 AM
It's actually not.False premise.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 30, 2009 8:24 AM
PZ,
"Just a suggestion: take a look at a dog on a hot day."
Hmm, a suckling babies cheek muscles do get pretty hot.
Posted by: mikecbraun | May 30, 2009 8:31 AM
And maybe...I'm probably taking PZ's hint the wrong way here...but maybe, drooling/panting was our main mechanism or at least one of the mechanisms for cooling our bodies before our sweat gland and pore system was perfected by natural selection. Or is that too far-fetched?
Posted by: Big City | May 30, 2009 8:35 AM
So I guess what they're saying is that God didn't want people with palsy to have dignity? Also, why did God, in his infinite wisdom, give me terrible, undignified allergies in an environment filled with pollen? Oh yeah, probably to test my faith.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2009 8:36 AM
Dogs, cats and other furry critters can't cool themselves with sweat like us naked apes can. So they pant (and drool) instead. My 15 year old cat drools on my lap all the time. ("No, honest, I didn't have an 'accident,' that's cat drool.")
Posted by: mikecbraun | May 30, 2009 8:41 AM
@'Tis Himself
Dogs do have sweat glands, although they are few--I think most of them are on their pads. So they are the opposite of us, right? They use drooling and panting as the main cooling mechanism, and just sweat a bit, whereas we sweat as the main mechanism and just drool a bit. But what I'm thinking is maybe there was a time when our ancestors used drooling and panting as a significant part of their cooling strategy.
Posted by: DuckPhup | May 30, 2009 8:43 AM
Thankfully, I only slobber and drool in the presence of gorgeous women.
Posted by: DaveL | May 30, 2009 8:45 AM
What's so dignified about farting, or menstruation, or childbirth, or snoring, etc?
Posted by: MadScientist | May 30, 2009 8:45 AM
The drooling stopped! Hallelujah! Goddidit!
I've just finished reading John Allen Paulos' book "Irreligion" in which he explains the various arguments for the existence of god and why he thinks they're silly and doesn't believe in them. Despite thousands of years of superstition, there aren't all that many original arguments and really not much needs to be said to dismiss every single one.
Posted by: DebinOz | May 30, 2009 8:49 AM
WTF?
Not drooling is evidence of a god?
This must be the lamest argument evah! I must tell my friends who have children with CP: 'god must not like you, because your kid drools.'
* has another glass of wine and bangs head on keyboard *
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 30, 2009 8:50 AM
What if drooling, the default condition at birth, was the way our lives always are?
And what if all the other attributes of babyhood remained with you as you ages. What if your skull remained soft? What if you could not sit up? What if nearal path ways did not develop so that you had a hard time telling the difference between sight and sound?
This is a silly game.
Posted by: Health Physicist | May 30, 2009 8:51 AM
There is also a POLL on that webpage....CHECK IT OUT!!!!
Posted by: AdamK | May 30, 2009 8:56 AM
If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still PYGMIES + DWARFS who DON'T DROOL???
Slam dunk.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2009 9:02 AM
I can fart with perfect aplomb.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 30, 2009 9:05 AM
Some of us drool in our sleep. Some folks drool when they grow very, very old.
The author is a 'drooling' idiot.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 30, 2009 9:09 AM
There's no dignity in his argument.
Posted by: Too much personal info to use my name | May 30, 2009 9:25 AM
""Have you had to endure watching people stare at your parent or child as they experience this humiliating social embarrassment?""
Actually, yes I have. My father was born with cerebral palsy a few things in this article unfortunately hit rather close to home. My father has been striving throughout his life to maintain as much dignity as possible, insisting on doing things himself for which there would be no shame in asking for help.
He is also extremely active in his church -- members have often compared his long-suffering to Job, because I guess that sick fucking story about a God who is willing to torture, maim, and kill an entire guy's family on a dare is somehow inspiring to people other than Hannibal Lecter? -- and now, to make matters worse, as old age begins to catch up with him and he needs to go through the difficult process of letting go of some of that dignity in order to get help that a nearly 80-year-old handicapped man desperately needs, he continues to pay thousands of dollars in tithing to LD$ Inc., even as he should be spending that money on healthcare. Oh yeah, and don't forget, that fucking magic underwear that is supposed to be a big secret, well, he doesn't want to get home health aide that is not a Mormon because then they will see the secret magic underwear.
So anyway, when I see this fucking soul peddler imply that there is some kind of "loving God" who not only chose to give the rest of us the "gift of dignity" while trying his goddamnedest to rob it from my father, who tried so hard to worship His non-existent genocidal ass... well, let's just say this is one of the most offensive Creationist arguments ever.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
May 30, 2009 9:33 AM
So is he arguing that god forget to give people with palsy dignity, or did he take it away?
Posted by: arensb | May 30, 2009 9:34 AM
This person has never had sex, have they?
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | May 30, 2009 9:36 AM
I think arensb wins the counterargument.
Posted by: Willendorf Venus | May 30, 2009 9:37 AM
In my experience, human babies don't drool from birth, anyway. There is a window of human baby drooltime. It starts some months after birth and continues until an individual develops teeth in the lower jaw to hold back the droolpool. Newborns don't drool. Drooltime varies, but I would estimate 3-9 months, on average.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 30, 2009 9:38 AM
The author has yet to convince me that he/she doesn't drool.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 9:49 AM
If everybody drooled all the time, nobody would be bothered by it, just like nobody thinks you're icky because you blink your eyes occasionally. And, indeed, get a little freaked out if you don't blink enough.
Posted by: dimestore | May 30, 2009 9:49 AM
If there's a god, then why do I have to wipe my ass?
Posted by: DebinOz | May 30, 2009 9:59 AM
At #26,
I can SO relate to all of your feelings. In my case, it is my son who was born with any number of physical problems. His family on his father's side are fundies, and have attributed my son's birth defects to 'the lord moving in mysterious ways' and any number of platitudes. However, not once have they ever done anything practical to help him!!! (other than praying!!) They have never given a dime, or even 10 minutes of their time, to actually help him live a productive life.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | May 30, 2009 9:59 AM
The stupid! It drools!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 30, 2009 10:00 AM
I knew a girl, in business school,
Of perfect constitution;
Her looks made all the fellas drool--
Refuting Evolution!
Her outfit at the swimming pool
As everyone could witness,
Left mouths agape, and made a fool
Of reproductive fitness!
She gave to every slavering tool
A ticklish, warm sensation
Which they relieved, cos nature's cruel,
In furtive masturbation.
It's God's design, not nature's rule,
When life has left you clobbered;
We know that Darwin wasn't cool--
In fact, I'll bet he slobbered.
(Yeah, I know, it makes no sense at all. Should it?)
Posted by: enlitnd99
|
May 30, 2009 10:01 AM
Wow that might be the worst argument I've ever heard for God. Also, if everyone drooled it wouldn't be that embarrassing.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | May 30, 2009 10:09 AM
If the capricious old man in the sky was so interested in my dignity why am I so often chagrined?
From awkwardness when talking with the opposite sex to the things poised to exit my orifices when least welcomed embarrassment is a fairly close companion.
More importantly; if a god did exist, why are there still pygmies + dwarfs with plenty of dignity?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 30, 2009 10:11 AM
***spit-take***
(pauses to wipe screen and chin)
Posted by: Wayne Robinson | May 30, 2009 10:16 AM
I don't know. When I fall asleep during meetings (which is most of the time), I always drool. Fortunately, I don't snore, so all I have to do is to change my coat after the meeting, and no one notices (most of the time), that I wasn't actually there...
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 10:21 AM
@Wayne Robinson #40: I envy your ability to get something useful out of meetings.
Posted by: Walton | May 30, 2009 10:23 AM
I think I've figured this out! God designed the female body with perfect dignity, since, as we all know, defecation and flatulence are things which beautiful women simply don't do.
Men, on the other hand, were evidently designed by God's incompetent apprentice. I must have been designed on Monday morning when he had a hangover and couldn't be bothered to make any effort.
(Yes, this is supposed to be a joke. Contrary to popular belief in these parts, I do have a sense of humour.)
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 10:29 AM
This reminds me of the "argument" posted here a few months ago proving God exists because our anuses don't leak all the time, or something like that.
Posted by: Mark | May 30, 2009 10:33 AM
As far as the poll on that page. Giant Humans all the way! ;-)
Posted by: Edward | May 30, 2009 10:39 AM
Everyone here thinks God is behind all the world's problems. You give him too much credit.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 30, 2009 10:46 AM
Oh no, there's nothing about drooling in the Index to Creationist Claims!
Or even in the index to the Holy Origin of Species!
We all might just as well traipse down to BibleLand and surrender now...
Posted by: Silver Fox | May 30, 2009 10:47 AM
"There's no evolutionary advantage to not drooling. It's the gift of dignity."
What a strange sense of reasoning. Of course, it does render some dignity. But, more importantly, because God is the author of the evolutionary process, it is precisely for that reason that there are evolutionary advantages to not drooling.
Posted by: Sparkomatic
|
May 30, 2009 10:49 AM
Cuttlefish,
As always, thanks for the smile...
Posted by: DJ | May 30, 2009 10:53 AM
One of these days, when you continue to make extraordinary claims here, you should provide some evidence to back it up. It gets old just seeing your assertions without evidence.
Posted by: blf | May 30, 2009 11:02 AM
giggles…
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 30, 2009 11:07 AM
argent fuchs, still lying and delusional. You haven't shown your proof for god yet, therefore you can't use your imaginary deity as an explanation. Such presuppositions aren't allowed. Time to put up or shut up. Given your previous history, just fading into the sunset (sets in the west, remember?) sounds appropriate.Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 30, 2009 11:14 AM
So, I'm confused now. Does this mean adult diapers are an argument for or against the existence of God?
Posted by: Paul Burnett | May 30, 2009 11:14 AM
"arensb" (#28) commented to "The human body is designed to give us dignity." with "This person has never had sex, have they?"
This person has never given birth, have they?
Posted by: blf | May 30, 2009 11:18 AM
People have made a living doing it: Le Pétomane
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 30, 2009 11:19 AM
Yeah, I remember that one too. One of PZ's all-time great lines of snark, as I (dimly) recall.
So we've got the Argument from Not (Usually) Drooling, and the Argument from Functional External Anal Sphincters.
This seems to open the door to a plethora of Arguments from Not Always Having to Deal With Embarrassing, Inconvenient, or Uncomfortable Bodily Functions.
Hmmm, perhaps I could get the ball rolling here...
The Argument from Moderate Rates of Snot Production
The Argument from Continence
The Argument from the General Lack of Protruding Cylinders of Extruded Cerumen
say, this is kind of fun...
Posted by: MIKE | May 30, 2009 11:20 AM
seconding Mark @44. It's already ahead of everything else.
Posted by: The Countess | May 30, 2009 11:24 AM
"The human body is designed to give us dignity." - I guess that's why after getting spanked by the sky fairy because they ate the apple Adam and Eve saw their nakedness and were ashamed, and then invented clothing.
Posted by: Steve L | May 30, 2009 11:26 AM
Human dignity (and specialness) seems to be very important to creationists. How much do chimpanzees drool? More or less than humans? Would it influence this person's thinking if the drool amount, rate, frequency was the same?
Posted by: carey | May 30, 2009 11:29 AM
Ah, yes. An amusing little argument, though lacking in cogency. Swirl it in the glass. Nice legs, good bouquet, faint aroma of bull shit, heavy after-taste of anti-intellectualism.
Could I get two cases?
Posted by: Steve P | May 30, 2009 11:38 AM
"The human body is designed to give us dignity."
I'm betting he just turns his head whenever someone rips a fart, and pretends it never happened.
Posted by: Rowen | May 30, 2009 11:40 AM
"You've got no dignity, Muriel."
Posted by: blf | May 30, 2009 11:41 AM
Argument from not Having a Functioning Brain.
Argument made with a pile of Shite/Snot/Drool/….
Argument by Bad Eyesight.
Argument of Tangled Hair.
Proof by Tripping Over Your Own Feet.
Reasoning from Toothache.
Assertation by by Diarrhea.
Posted by: MattB | May 30, 2009 11:44 AM
Ray Comfort has the same virus this dude has. Primary symptom = poor arguments based on low IQ.
#36 Cuttlefish,
very nice!
Posted by: Interrobang | May 30, 2009 11:46 AM
For what it's worth, not everybody with cerebral palsy drools, even when they're children (unless we sleep with our mouths open or something). Quite a lot of us pass for temporarily-able-bodied quite a lot of the time. :) (Stealth gimps are among you! Fear us!)
That guy, well, I'm not sure his brains aren't drooling out his ears. In which case, unless statistics lie, he is less smart than me, and more drooly than you.
Posted by: Joe
|
May 30, 2009 11:47 AM
My, my. That website is hilarious. There's a poll on the main page asking what type of articles we'd like to see more of:
http://www.biblelandstudios.com/nuke/
(I recommend the "giant humans" option)
And a hilarious page using a photoshopped kitten as evidence for creationism.
https://www.lnfbooks.com/~bls/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=104
It's a shame the site hasn't been updated in forever, though.
Posted by: Rowen | May 30, 2009 11:49 AM
"You've got no dignity, Muriel."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 30, 2009 11:50 AM
Cuttlefish, if writing your poems makes you happy, and Pharyngula reading your poems makes us happy, what else is there to worry about?
Posted by: IainW | May 30, 2009 11:58 AM
enlitnd99 (#37):
There's a lot of competition out there. For example, try the Argument from Love (and yes, this is meant to be a Serious Theological Argument).
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | May 30, 2009 12:05 PM
Of course the human body is designed to give us dignity.
Look at the male genitalia:
Internal organs dangling in a sac outside the body where they smack against your thighs when you run, and are vulnerable to getting smashed in a straddle fall or by a well placed kick.
An external organ that operates through a complex system of plumbing and looks ridiculous when on standby. It also does double duty as a sewage pipe. Oh yes, it also betrays your thoughts despite your best intentions.
A gland that encircles the urethra, blocking urinary flow as we get older, and having a distressing tendency to become cancerous. All this in a non-vital organ.
Yep, definitely dignified.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 30, 2009 12:09 PM
Dentists (when I went to them) always remarked on how wet my mouth was. I haven't been to one since I left school and began to have to pay for it. I haven't needed to. BTW I am 43. Is there a causal connection between my wet mouth and that I have healthy teeth to the extent that I don't need a dentist? Be interesting to know.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | May 30, 2009 12:15 PM
Oh yeah? If we're going to make the Argument from Personal Comfort Level, then why do I have allergies?! What was the Intelligent Designer thinking when He designed my immune system's responses to substances that couldn't hurt a flea if they tried? Why do I have to dope myself to the gills before I visit a friend who has a cat? Where does "dignity" come into the picture of me struggling in vain with my own nasal passages?
I still want to know where's the Intelligence in menstruation. It's not the cramps or the mess that really bugs me; it's the waste. Why do I have to get more iron in my diet than a man of the same size? Why can't my dumbassed uterus just reabsorb its lining every month?
And since I've never known the joy of pregnancy, I won't even bother expounding on the many signs of unintelligent non-design there.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 30, 2009 12:20 PM
To whit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq1z5yko5HI
Posted by: Virtual Lee | May 30, 2009 12:34 PM
So, people with cerebral palsy are, what, born that way so god can teach us something about dignity? How's that for a dignified concept of god's power. & certainly an argument for intelligent sadistic design. Hard to deal with this stuff.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 30, 2009 12:38 PM
"At least it's one step up from the Argument by Banana."
I don't think so. At least there I could be thankful for a delicious fruit that's loaded with potassium, can be made into a wonderful milkshake, and revolutionized the world of comedy. Here, it's just "Praise God! You don't drool (most of the time)!" Uh...thanks? I could have gone my whole life without even having to think about that, and the less I have to think about drool, the better.
Posted by: kev_s
|
May 30, 2009 12:48 PM
In Irian Jaya the various tribes collectively referred to as 'Dani' seem to have an aversion to blowing their noses. Obviously Kleenex are hard to come by in the cloud forest but the cold, humid atmosphere combined with the fact that they live in huts that have an open fire in the centre and no chimney, tends to encourage the production of copious nasal goo. They tend to leave this dangling from their noses but I have seen lucky individuals that have a stuffed hummingbird through their nose. The bird's body mops up the snot from that side of the nose and I guess they can wring it out and turn it round around after a while and mop up the snot from the other side. The creationist claims that, "The human body is designed to give us dignity." would seem to be confounded by the observation that those unlucky enough *not* to have a hummingbird nose plug just leave the snot dangling down and seem not to care about it. I have seen green strands dangle down more that 0.25m from the nose and then the man sniffed and the whole lot shot back up into his nose!
If Creationists think a little drooling lacks dignity, they should get to grips with some Irian Jayan nose snot.
Posted by: AdamK | May 30, 2009 12:50 PM
If you have a sense of humor, it's not evident.
Sexist cliches aren't humorous.
Posted by: komokda | May 30, 2009 12:54 PM
As many others have pointed out, some people drool in their sleep. I do, quite a lot actually. Oh sure, I wipe it off, but how exactly does that disprove evolution? Doesn't it, in fact, prove evolution, as we grow from a baby having someone else wipe it off for us to a point where we can do it for ourselves?
More to the point, this argument completely overlooks mentally disabled people - having worked with them I know there are some that drool almost nonstop and don't immediately wipe it.
Posted by: Walton | May 30, 2009 12:58 PM
Well, I apologise. I didn't mean to cause any offence.
Posted by: Notagod | May 30, 2009 1:34 PM
Christians claim their god idea provides society with a sense of morality. If that were true they would be outraged by drooling idiots and would be speaking against such obviously demeaning dribble, instead of agreeing that it is evidence in favor of their god idea. If christians want people to see them as more than just stupid they need to stop being stupid.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 30, 2009 1:44 PM
Obviously this person hasn't been to Bourbon Street at 4 AM.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 30, 2009 1:48 PM
Hey, I've been there! God definitely does not exist on Bourbon Street at 4am, and nobody misses him, either.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 30, 2009 1:57 PM
Well I meant the one posing the argument.
And yes God does not exist there. If he does he's a fucking asshole because I've seen people calling for him and he in no way stopped their world from spinning out of control.
"A man is not drunk if he can lay on the ground without holding on."
Though there were a few times I thought I saw god there.
After about 6-8 hours it wore off.
Posted by: Lynna | May 30, 2009 2:08 PM
Cuttlefish @36 rules. Perfectly cooked poetry.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2009 2:13 PM
Emmet, how do you know that guy's name is "Whit"?
Posted by: Seifer | May 30, 2009 2:34 PM
"The human body is designed to give us dignity. These specific designs and abilities point to a Creator who cares about even whether we are embarrassed or not."
Really? So what about those he cited with cerebral palsy? Does god just simply not give a shit about their dignity? If anything cerebral palsy could be a sign of god not existing.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2009 3:05 PM
If the human body were designed for dignity, we probably wouldn't uncontrollably shit ourselves when we die. Kind of ruins the drama and pathos of the whole scene, don't you think?
Unless Jesus shat himself all down the length of the cross when he finally kicked the bucket. Then it's cool. *waits for the First Church of Shitting Yourself to be founded*
Hmm... would that be better or worse than all the churches of Shitting Other People?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 30, 2009 3:12 PM
See, creation science just gives and gives.
Has evolution ever produced something comparable to this?
I mean, when has evolutionary theory ever been funny?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: kev_s
|
May 30, 2009 3:15 PM
Drooling and dribbling seems to be necessary for sex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQAuw4NYLA
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 30, 2009 3:22 PM
"If you have a sense of humor, it's not evident. Sexist cliches aren't humorous."
What sexist cliche? I'm pretty sure Walton was joking on the perception of beauty and the standards to which "beautiful women" are held and the pressure to maintain that beauty.
You don't think he was serious when he said beautiful women don't fart or shit, do you?
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 30, 2009 3:23 PM
Must be Whil's brother.
Posted by: Grimalkin | May 30, 2009 3:24 PM
Sex is rarely particularly dignified. Also, where is my dignity while I poop?
If I were God, and if I truly cared about human dignity, two people having sex would look like a ballet (and neither party would make funny faces and emerge panting and covered in sweat). Pooping would not happen (particularly not with faces that are sometimes far too similar to the sex faces for my comfort).
Posted by: articulett | May 30, 2009 3:58 PM
So, when people with cerebral palsy, Bell's palsy, recent dental work, dementia, etc. drool-- it's because god doesn't want them to have dignity?!
What an odd god these people worship.
Posted by: Zach | May 30, 2009 4:08 PM
I guess avoiding dehydration isn't a good enough reason to not drool all the time?
Posted by: coasterpro | May 30, 2009 4:34 PM
Unintentional self-refutation is my favorite symptom of creationism.
Posted by: The pelagic argosy sights land
|
May 30, 2009 5:10 PM
Imagine if certain malodorous gases, a by-product of digestion, perhaps, were to regularly leak out of the appropriate sphincter, or built up pressure so that it would be necessary to voluntarily expel them. How undignified. Imagine further that they made an unfortunate sound upon doing so. That's the sort of thing we would have to put up with if god hadn't designed the body to give us dignity.
Posted by: Marc Abian | May 30, 2009 5:14 PM
Is there anything that can be done to fix that?
Posted by: astrounit | May 30, 2009 5:52 PM
Wait until the terrestrial Creationists see what the Spit-Slime-Puss Drool-Beings from Zubenelgenubi consider aesthetically preferable, socially mandatory and even sexy.
They would be appalled.
And the Alpha Libraens wouldn't dream of wearing "clothes" to hide their moistiness and fragrant exhudations from each other - that would constitute extreme antisocial behavior. (Besides, all communication would come to a grinding halt). Leakiness is noble and virtuous and next to The Great and Juicy Succulence.
Okay, now you may rinse and spit.
Posted by: DingoJack | May 30, 2009 5:52 PM
Steve P (#60) - And if he farts I bet he pretends it never happened, before turning the other cheek. :)
Rev. BigDumbChimp (#82) - God has porcelain courtesy phones on Bourbon Street?
Marc Abian (#96) - Lots & lots of dry (just freakin') crackers. - DJ
Posted by: Lyric | May 30, 2009 6:12 PM
Ok, as far as evolutionary value, my first thought was that a leaving a trail of drool would have made humans a sitting duck for predators, like leaving big arrows that said, "she went that-a-way!" I train my dog for tracking (finding lost kids, etc), and one of the things used to train beginning dogs is to take a water spray bottle and spritz points on the track, maybe even leave a hand print in the damp spot. Moisture ramps up the scent trail and makes the person much easier to find. Drool would be even more obvious because of the scent. I'd say there's definitely an evolutionary advantage to not being picked off by large, hungry, tracking predators!
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
May 30, 2009 6:13 PM
Awesome! I love it!!
He asks:
And two sentences later, he asks:
Hahahahahaha!!!!! Thanks for coming folks. Be sure to tip your waitresses!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2009 6:30 PM
@ #65: that's not photoshopped. The cycloptic kitten really did exist (although it only lived a few days - it suffered from a severe facial deformity).
However, Cy-Kitty's magical powers could do nothing for the illogical stream of thought that is "evolution says some mutations are good, and this is not a good mutation, hence evolution is wrong!"
Posted by: BdN | May 30, 2009 6:57 PM
According to the same author, god must not love hemophiliacs since they may bleed to death... I guess platelets and cloting couldn't be the result of evolution neither and there are no reason to think that those lacking it who died left less descendants...
Posted by: wasd | May 30, 2009 7:38 PM
Ok, I have an Evolution Challenge for you. Put on a winter coat and start running. Go ahead; try it! I promise you you won't do it very long. It's extremely uncomfortable to run while you are soaked in sweat.
Think about the babies in your life. Have you ever thought about the fact that they stop sweating after the first couple years of life? Have you ever imagined what life would be like if we didn't stop? Some, sadly, know what this is like. Children with ADD that don't stop sweating or those that begin sweating due to a loss muscle control know the horrors of this. Have you had to endure watching people stare at your parent or child as they experience this humiliating social embarrassment? Have you tried to alleviate the irritating stickiness that develops from skin being completely wet? Have you tried to keep them in presentable clothing when sweat keeps staining their clothes?
What evolutionary advantage is there to developing the control over sweat at age 18-24 months? What if sweating, the default condition at birth, was the way our lives always are? How would you like to date, make love, run a business meeting, ride horses, grocery shop and take care of kids while drooling? How cool would you feel driving your fancy car down the road with sunglasses and big sweat stains? How would your wedding go with everyone trying to be discrete with their deodorants and expensive perfumes?
The human body is designed to give us dignity. These specific designs and abilities point to a Creator who cares about even whether we are embarrassed or not. There's no evolutionary advantage to not sweating. It's the gift of dignity.
Posted by: wasd | May 30, 2009 8:04 PM
Yet again it takes an Atheist to remind the creationist what the bible actually “teaches” about the issue:
God created humans in his own image, naked and without embarrassment... but with a strange a lust for fruit. Its only after Adam and Steve* ate gods apple that they realized there was all sorts of embarrassing things about their body and that covering them up would be the polite thing to do. Adam: “Hmm this whole “gods image” design really has some odd protrusions wouldn't you agree Eve?”
Eve: “indeed it does Adam, indeed it does”
God: Yeah sorry about that, Oh you can just cover up those god-like shapes in some skins I got of a dead goat, here try this on and remember from now on you will have to go trough a couple of what I would like to call “childbirths”, dont worry its all rather dignified.”
Eve: “oh yeah, no that dead animal skin is totally more dignified, thanks god!”
So again it all boils down to gods idiotic landscaping decision to put a poisoned tree in the middle of his favourite flock and then lie and tell a bounch of creatures who have never seen death that eating an apple will kill them while in fact he knew all along he would end up letting them live for while and taking out most of his anger on their children and their children's children.
Hey, no biggie, its only the source of morality and all scientific knowledge that some christians didn't bother to read so who can blame them, right?
*) no really thats what it actually says, I mean I guess you could check but...
Best google hit ever?
Fig Leaf Forum Responds To Answers In Genesis
Fig Leaf Forum - A newsletter for Bible-believing Christian nudists and Christian .... concerning Adam and Eve originally being naked in the Garden of Eden. ...
www.figleafforum.com/resources_critics_aig.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2009 9:06 PM
I don't think its necessary to find an evolutionary argument as to why babies do drool. They can't survive by themselves and so parenting is constantly sheltering them from selection pressure.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 30, 2009 11:33 PM
Anonymous#105,
"I don't think its necessary to find an evolutionary argument as to why babies do drool. They can't survive by themselves and so parenting is constantly sheltering them from selection pressure."
Thanx for the reminder. Yes, the human infant has a number of features that would negatively impact its evolutionary fitness on its own, if not for the niche reduction that is mammalian parental care.
Posted by: e | May 31, 2009 12:03 AM
Wow. An article brought to you by people who believe Jesus manifests himself via chapati bread and tortillas: http://jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/358/index.html
Jesus on chapati=Ebay=ka-ching ka-ching
Posted by: Reynold | May 31, 2009 12:06 AM
Ah, I remember this guy.
He's not as annoying (insulting) as some other creationists. Whether he's any more open to reason than they are, uh....
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 31, 2009 12:26 AM
Like a tendency to conduct themselves in a way that, were we not programmed to find them "cute" and "precious," would get them handed to the nearest predator on a sesame seed bun within half an hour. >.^gt;
Posted by: africangenesis | May 31, 2009 12:44 AM
Azkyroth,
"Like a tendency to conduct themselves in a way that, were we not programmed to find them "cute" and "precious," would get them handed to the nearest predator on a sesame seed bun within half an hour"
Get off it! You know damn well, that human infants, hands down, are the cute-ist things on this planet! They are so cute that even dingo's steal them! Human females may be the epitome of beauty (ask any giant guerilla), but when it comes to cute, human infants got it! The slobber and little heart wrenching cries are just toppings on the cake. Human infants ROCK! It's an absolute. 8-)
Posted by: John Sully | May 31, 2009 1:28 AM
Hey, if evolution is true, why do we have COKE + PEPSI?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 31, 2009 4:15 AM
Why would I wish to? It causes me no problems and indeed may be beneficial. It is also normality to me, I would find it weird and uncomfortable to have a drier mouth.
Posted by: Petzl
|
May 31, 2009 6:05 AM
pretty obvious that females arent going to mate with drooling males, so the evolutionary pressure selects for non-drooling males: ergo, easy answer for why drooling is rare. how can the original framer of this question be this stupid?
Posted by: Petzl
|
May 31, 2009 6:24 AM
altho, nature definitely selects against people who have deficit of drool (dry mouths). dry mouths lose their teeth (ever see a meth head's teeth? their bad teeth are due to the side effect of meth's mouth drying effects). a dry mouth lets in bacteria at the base of the teeth that would otherwise be shunted out by saliva.
so: too much drool isn't passed on, too little drool isn't passed on. goldylocks-like, evolution selects for a drool rate that is just right.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 31, 2009 7:07 AM
Petzl,
"pretty obvious that females arent going to mate with drooling males"
Fickle females, they are passing on the males that have demonstrated that they want them the most.
Posted by: Rafael Cintron | May 31, 2009 12:26 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but te guy said "There's no evolutionary advantage to NOT drooling", so he's not actually refuting himself, he's just wrong. There is an advatange in "not drooling" and PZ actually identified it: it's wasteful, and could lead to dehydration. Had he said "There's an evolutionary advantage to not drooling" then he would have refuted himself.
Posted by: BdN | May 31, 2009 4:00 PM
@Rafael Cintron 116
He says there is not advantage to not drooling and says lack of dignity if drooling while dating or having sex could impair said sex life, hence reproduction. So there it is, not drooling enhance your reproductive life, so there is an advantage. Here is the self-refutation.
Posted by: BdN | May 31, 2009 4:11 PM
I should add that, of course, the fact that the real selective pressure against drooling most probably doesn't have anything to do with dignity (if drooling was the default condition, maybe we wouldn't find it disgusting, even if that's not sure [see gas on this thread]), the important thing to point out is that he doesn't understand what is an evolutionary advantage. Even it was only for the fact that it is "inconvenient" during business meetings or while going to the grocery shop, peer pressure could be considered as a selective pressure. Of course, social pressure has more to do with behavior than sweat glands, but that would be going too far for the sake of the argument. And I'm not sure he would understand...
Posted by: Alex Pryce | May 31, 2009 5:30 PM
Is it wrong that I tried this? Drooling until it dropped off my chin. I am currently in trouble with the missus, but have successfully refuted his argument.
Worrying thing is, in a strange way I like it.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 31, 2009 6:47 PM
alex pryce,
"Is it wrong that I tried this? Drooling until it dropped off my chin."
Now if you could manage to do that with a full beard, any woman would have to be impressed!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 10:20 PM
This sounds exactly like the "Spitty Slurpy" argument parodied by the "Kids In The Hall"!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/bane_of_the_scientific_communi.php
(video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4935465590961790255 )
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 10:22 PM
This sounds exactly like the "Spitty Slurpy" argument parodied by the "Kids In The Hall"!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/bane_of_the_scientific_communi.php
(video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4935465590961790255 )
Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2009 2:33 AM
I'm 23 years old and I still drool pretty heavily. I have since I was a kid. Up until about the age of 14 or so I had little control of it. I'm better at it now, but I still drool a hell of a lot more than your average person. Does this mean God made me defective?
Posted by: Kyle the Recession Guy | June 1, 2009 8:24 AM
Yes, of course discomfort, sores, and dehydration doesn't justify "evolutionary advantage", retards like these really make me wish eugenics was enforced.
Posted by: blf
|
June 1, 2009 8:36 AM
Sesame seed? Sesame seed? Heathen! Rye.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2009 1:49 PM
Speak for yourself...Posted by: ZacharySmith | June 1, 2009 4:40 PM
Jumping in late here....
If drooling were the norm, then the "argument" is moot.
Of course, in the drooling universe, creationists would be arguing that not drooling renders you undignified and unsexy.
Speaking of dignity... the human body was designed for dignity?? So why do we need under arm deodorants and toilet paper? Yeah, those dried dingleberries do enhance one's dignity, don't they?
Posted by: latsot | June 2, 2009 12:05 PM
Oh it's lovely to have bibleland studios back on the radar. I got banned from their forum five or six times before it was cool to be...well...banned....from...shit...
Shout out to bibleland john, you creepy, mentally ill fuck.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 4, 2009 9:09 AM
Apparently there's dignity in being uninformed and stupid, considering how common it is.