…and this is a 
Over the last few days, I've been reading the articles in the latest issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach. This is a fairly new journal with the mission stated in the title, and I have to say that it is very, very good — the articles are almost always easily readable, and they address significant issues in the public understanding of evolution. This particular issue focuses on transitions, and not just on transitional fossils, but all kinds of evidence for change over evolutionary time. It's been commented on by Larry Moran and Jerry Coyne, and they're entirely right that these are extremely useful articles, not just in providing helpful data when addressing arguments about evolution, but they're also loaded with figures that I'll be stealing using for my own lectures.
I have to say something a little peculiar, though. It's not really a criticism, because I'm not going to argue against these articles at all—I repeat, they are informative and useful and great to read! However, I am concerned that they address one audience, but it's not the audience we have to really worry about. The kinds of people who will read and enjoy those articles are scientists who appreciate a good overview of a field, the kinds of informed citizens who would, for instance, read a science blog, and educators in general who want more substance about evolution to include in their classes. Creationists are not the journal's clientele. That means that sometimes the articles miss the mark on who we need to persuade.
For example, T. Ryan Gregory's overview of the principles of natural selection, Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions, makes an important point: selection is surprisingly difficult for many people to grasp. This is entirely true, but we sometimes mislead ourselves because once you get those few basic principles, and I mean really understand them, suddenly selection seems simple and even intuitive…and most of us doing the teaching and public outreach are solidly in that blissful state of easy comprehension.
And this isn't at all unusual. Gregory provides a taxonomy of common conceptual errors, and points out that many of these errors, such as the idea of inheritance of acquired characters, have been held by some of the greatest minds of Western civilization, from Aristotle to Darwin.
Here's the catch: we can see how to explain selection to Aristotle and Darwin now, but unfortunately, creationists are not a collection of Aristotles and Darwins. I wouldn't go far the other way and say they're all stupid, but they do have lots of ideas that are so egregiously wrong that they don't fit into Gregory's schemata.
For instance, here's a nice diagram of correct and incorrect views of how selection works.
A highly simplified depiction of natural selection (Correct) and a generalized illustration of various common misconceptions about the mechanism (Incorrect). Properly understood, natural selection occurs as follows: (A) A population of organisms exhibits variation in a particular trait that is relevant to survival in a given environment. In this diagram, darker coloration happens to be beneficial, but in another environment, the opposite could be true. As a result of their traits, not all individuals in Generation 1 survive equally well, meaning that only a non-random subsample ultimately will succeed in reproducing and passing on their traits (B). Note that no individual organisms in Generation 1 change, rather the proportion of individuals with different traits changes in the population. The individuals who survive from Generation 1 reproduce to produce Generation 2. (C) Because the trait in question is heritable, this second generation will (mostly) resemble the parent generation. However, mutations have also occurred, which are undirected (i.e., they occur at random in terms of the consequences of changing traits), leading to both lighter and darker offspring in Generation 2 as compared to their parents in Generation 1. In this environment, lighter mutants are less successful and darker mutants are more successful than the parental average. Once again, there is non-random survival among individuals in the population, with darker traits becoming disproportionately common due to the death of lighter individuals (D). This subset of Generation 2 proceeds to reproduce. Again, the traits of the survivors are passed on, but there is also undirected mutation leading to both deleterious and beneficial differences among the offspring (E). (F) This process of undirected mutation and natural selection (non-random differences in survival and reproductive success) occurs over many generations, each time leading to a concentration of the most beneficial traits in the next generation. By Generation N, the population is composed almost entirely of very dark individuals. The population can now be said to have become adapted to the environment in which darker traits are the most successful. This contrasts with the intuitive notion of adaptation held by most students and non-biologists. In the most common version, populations are seen as uniform, with variation being at most an anomalous deviation from the norm (X). It is assumed that all members within a single generation change in response to pressures imposed by the environment (Y). When these individuals reproduce, they are thought to pass on their acquired traits. Moreover, any changes that do occur due to mutation are imagined to be exclusively in the direction of improvement (Z). Studies have revealed that it can be very difficult for non-experts to abandon this intuitive interpretation in favor of a scientifically valid understanding of the mechanism.
This is very nice. I can see using this in my freshman biology class right away — it's very handy to be able to contrast correct and incorrect views, and it would provoke some thinking and discussion, since I know many of my students think just like the right panel illustrates (at least, before I'm done with them they do). Of course, my students tend to be motivated to understand, with some background in biology already, or they wouldn't be biology majors.
Unfortunately, whenever I sit down and talk with full-blooded creationists, their views aren't even incorrect. They're so wrong, they're completely off of Gregory's charts.
For a public example of this phenomenon, look at Ray Comfort's ideas about the evolution of sex. He seriously believes that every kind of animal had to independently evolve all of its primary properties in one sudden sweep. When elephants evolved, they had to simultaneously evolve female elephants; the idea that some traits do not have to evolve anew because they are shared with the parent population is incomprehensible to him.
Another fellow with a similar misconception is Jim Pinkoski, who states this idea rather baldly.
If "evolution" is true, then each major life form would have to evolve it's own eyes (as well as every other major organ of its body)!
He illustrates this with a picture of a T. rex that has evolved a single eye, and then "wants" to evolve another eye. This is a really common belief, that new features arise as a consequence of desire by individuals.
These are the beliefs of the people doing public outreach on behalf of creationism, and the ordinary guy who passively accepts this stuff is even weirder. Every time I've had a one-on-one conversation with a casual creationist, there is always a moment when I am weirded out to the max by some genuinely twisted irrationality they trot out in their defense. We make a mistake when we look to the intellectual history of an idea to figure out how they rationalize creationism, because there is virtually no intellectual history there. They are not building on a foundation of ideas at all — they have a religious preconception of how species arise, and their vision of evolution is a hodge-podge of ad hoc contrivances chosen specifically to be absurd and unbelievable. They are not trying to explain, as Aristotle and Darwin were; they are trying to invent reasons to reject.
Like I said, this is not a criticism of Gregory's paper, which does an excellent job at its purpose of making reasonably knowledgeable people even better informed. I think, though, that there's a missing piece in the story: how do we turn grossly ignorant people into reasonably knowledgeable people? That's a really difficult problem.
This is an even bigger problem in the other articles in the issue. For instance, probably my favorite article in the whole issue was Edgecombe's Palaeontological and Molecular Evidence Linking Arthropods, Onychophorans, and other Ecdysozoa, which weighs the evidence in the great dispute between the cladists who favor a grouping of invertebrates into an Articulata clade, vs. an Ecdysozoan clade. It's grand, big-picture macroevolution, discussing the relationships of whole phyla in deep time, and it also promotes the importance of multi-disciplinary thinking, basing conclusions on molecules, morphology, and fossils. It isn't shy at all about bringing up the problematic taxa (where the heck do tardigrades belong, anyway?) either. It's a wonderfully chewy article that helped clarify my perspectives on the discussion.
Again, not a complaint — this article is going straight into my file of very helpful reviews. But now imagine sitting down over coffee with an enthusiastic Hovind supporter right after church; this article is going to lose him right at the title. He doesn't know what you mean by arthropod, let alone onychophoran. Throw articulata, cycloneuralia, and ecdysozoa at him from the abstract, and he's going to tell you how much smarter the Hovinds are than you, because at least what they say is in English and makes sense to him.
This is tough stuff. How I would explain this paper to you, the readers of a blog like Pharyngula, would be close to what Edgecombe wrote, but how I would explain it to a run-of-the-mill church-going creationist would have to be very different. I think the way I would try it would be to start with figure 1 from the paper, which shows diverse representatives of the Ecdysozoa:
Examples of the phyla of molting animals grouped with arthropods in Ecdysozoa. a Nematoda (Draconema sp.); b Nematomorpha (Spinochordodes tellinii); c Loricifera (Nanaloricus mysticus); d Onychophora (Peripatoides aurorbis); e Tardigrada (Tanarctus bubulubus); f Priapulida (Priapulus caudatus); g Kinorhyncha (Campyloderes macquariae).
Then I would explain that the paper describes the multiple lines of evidence that support macroevolutionary explanations for how all these extremely different kinds of invertebrates had a common ancestor, and then let him raise any questions about how it was done. And I would brace myself for some radically weird questions that I would never have imagined ahead of time. This is a business where flexibility is a requirement.
I am not saying that my hypothetical creationist conversationalist is stupid at all — but that he is grossly uninformed and misinformed, and comes from a background that did not provide him with the rational history of the ideas that would give him any reasonable context with which to even consider the paper. It's a missing piece of the mission for evolutionary outreach: how do we wake those people up?
Don't let that dissuade you from reading the journal, though. I think that where it helps most is that it will give non-experts with a reasonable grounding in science more information that they can use in arguments with creationists. When it comes to communicating the information to others though, you're on your own…and in a lot of ways, that part, getting complex ideas across to people who are actively denying the evidence, is the hardest part of the story.
Comments
Posted by: ajbjasus | June 11, 2009 11:32 AM
Great stuff. In marked contrast :
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dsc01978.jpg
When will you uplaod the first article with a PZ impersonator ?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 11, 2009 11:40 AM
ajbjasus writes:
(...)
What's that on the kid's chin? A duct-tape beard? That's just so WTF...
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 11, 2009 11:41 AM
Has Nisbett been critical of the Journal yet ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 11, 2009 11:42 AM
I'm going to drop an f-bomb
FRAMING
/ducks and runs
Posted by: Divalent | June 11, 2009 11:43 AM
The one criticism I have of Gregory's figure (the first one in your post) is that it down plays the random nature of natural selection. (He also glosses over this in the rest of his article.) In the first step, ALL of the lightest colored individuals get eliminated, and none of the darker ones. It is easy (with anecdotal evidence) to counter that.
Making the cut a little less stark would have still allowed differential selection to be illustrated, but made it qualitatively more representative of how natural selection actually proceeds. And so a better figure for use in the classroom.
Posted by: JD | June 11, 2009 11:47 AM
God > zap > done. This makes it soooo much easier.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 11, 2009 11:47 AM
I could be wrong, but I don't think they're publishing information that is supposed to be shared with creationists. I think that they're educating educators, hence material that the average creationist wouldn't grasp.
Because the fact is that science and scientists have had huge amounts of evidence for evolution stacking up that did little but sit in journals and get used by scientists. There seemed no point in providing even more evidence for evolution, since what was known was already so good (they didn't realize how that well was poisoned by creationists), and there really isn't any doubt about evolution.
So educators haven't known about evolution to the level that they needed to in order to respond to IDiotic challenges to evolution. And since educators are being targeted, they don't mind going over the creationists' heads, they're just trying to give the teachers solid information and lots of it, and presumably these people know how to dumb it down enough for each audience they address.
Perhaps they should have called it "Evolutionary issues for biology teachers," or something like that.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Allison | June 11, 2009 11:47 AM
"This is a really common belief, that new features arise as a consequence of desire by individuals."
You mean this isn't true?! Dang it. I have been desiring and desiring to evolve the ability to choose winning lottery numbers.
Posted by: Robert Woerheide | June 11, 2009 11:48 AM
Jim Pinkoski also needs to learn that "it's" is a contraction of "it is," rather than the possessive (its).
*gnashes teeth*
Posted by: bunnycatch3r
|
June 11, 2009 11:56 AM
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." --Morpheus
Posted by: Alexander | June 11, 2009 11:57 AM
excellent article!
Posted by: Aquaria | June 11, 2009 11:58 AM
I'm not a creationist, and most of the terms in these articles go over my head, but you know what?
I can look them up if I don't know what they are, and I often do.
If it were a normal conversation, I would ask the person who used the term to explain it to me.
The problem, of course, is that too many people are afraid of looking stupid by simply asking, "Hey, what's Ecdysozoa?"
Posted by: Fire Ant | June 11, 2009 11:58 AM
I'll agree with Glen.....from what I've read of the Journal (all of the articles are avaialable for free so far), it seems to be geared towards educating the educators, giving them the tools they need to reach students.......
Posted by: FitzRoy | June 11, 2009 11:59 AM
PZ, the cause is worthy. But we must acknowledge that few people will change the views they hold on evolution/creation after they've reached the age of perhaps 25 or so. Efforts should be focused instead on educating college, high school, and younger students. They still have the ability and flexibility to learn new concepts that may not fit with their pre-conceived notions. Later in life, few minds will change. Some will, it's not always a lost cause, but there's more bang for the buck in reaching students.
On a related topic, Darwin remarked in the final chapter of Origin:
Posted by: saradasensei
|
June 11, 2009 12:01 PM
"This is a really common belief, that new features arise as a consequence of desire by individuals."
I was once told that my eyes changed from light brown to hazel green because I "have always wanted green eyes so badly." I think that proves said belief, and I didn't even have to pass on my light brown/hazel green eye genes!!
Seriously though, this is a GREAT resource, and comes at a perfect time because literally 5 minutes ago I was wishing something like this existed. Pharyngula strikes again!
Posted by: Eric T | June 11, 2009 12:01 PM
The problem is that those people who you want to 'wake up' prefer their simplified but wrong notions and revel in their rejection of the information. They will fight you fossilized tooth and claw if you try to take away their security blanket.
Posted by: Alexis
|
June 11, 2009 12:05 PM
IMHO, it starts with inadequate education on the primary school level. Instead of dumping facts (testable by the no child left ahead program) children need to learn how to weigh facts and draw inferences. Then they need to be able to express their conclusions in a coherent sentence, paragraph or essay as needed. In other words, they need to learn how to think, not just regurgitate 'facts'. The reliance on rote learning also promotes the fallacy of authority. My text book, the teacher, the bible says it's true, so it must be so.
Also IMHO, the the invention of the multiple choice question is one of the great tragedies of the educational system.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 11, 2009 12:06 PM
Yes, I know all that. I am not criticizing the journal, they fulfill their specific mission admirably. I'm saying that there is another, harder mission that it does not address, and I'm not blaming it for that.
Posted by: Janet Factor | June 11, 2009 12:08 PM
You are right that ordinary people out there have bizarre ideas that, I think, they have concocted to fill gaps in their knowledge. For instance, I had a conversation with people who believed in dowsing, in fact were dowsers. When I expressed my skepticism, they said, who cares if we don’t know how it works? Does anybody know how a compass works either? [Honest! They really said that!]
Of course I had to reply “As a matter of fact, yes…” and go on to explain it. But I was forced to go all the way back to the formation of the earth to do so. Moral: with the public, you have to start from the ground up. ;-)
Posted by: inkadu | June 11, 2009 12:11 PM
If only we could put people in some buildings for 8 hours a day while they are children and try to educate them for twelve years, maybe the stupid wouldn't be so pronounced.
Snark aside, education has always had, and always will, have great difficulty countering the ideas of society. Teachers, administrators, and PTA members are all part of that society.
And the goal of outreach shouldn't be to convince creationist. The goal should be to convince everyone ELSE that creationists are just plain WRONG. A depressing number of people think creationist arguments are legitimate merely because they don't understand evolution.
Posted by: inkadu | June 11, 2009 12:15 PM
If only we could put people in some buildings for 8 hours a day while they are children and try to educate them for twelve years, maybe the stupid wouldn't be so pronounced.
Snark aside, education has always had, and always will, have great difficulty countering the ideas of society. Teachers, administrators, and PTA members are all part of that society.
And the goal of outreach shouldn't be to convince creationist. The goal should be to convince everyone ELSE that creationists are just plain WRONG. A depressing number of people think creationist arguments are legitimate merely because they don't understand evolution.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 11, 2009 12:16 PM
we must acknowledge that few people will change the views they hold on evolution/creation after they've reached the age of perhaps 25 or so.
I know what you're saying here, but I wouldn't say that it's the people over 25 who are unreachable. In fact, there's a case to be made that those under 25 are most unreachable. These are the people whose families have been able to wrap their children inside a cocoon of religion that is impervious to the outside world. There are whole swaths of young people who have exclusively Christian education (all the way through postgrad), watch nothing but Christian TV, read nothing but Christian books, listen to nothing but Christian music, and etc. The fracturing of media and culture has made this all-too-easy for them. At least most of the adults have access to the secular world through work.
The fundies have figured out that if they can block out reason until their kids are 21 or so, then the fundie lunacy will most likely be set for life, which goes to your point.
Yes, plenty of fundie youth break away. But not all of them, and that's what scares me. I fear what kind of fanaticism we'll see from the next generation of fundies, raised in such a toxic environment.
Posted by: Kate | June 11, 2009 12:16 PM
Urgh, yes...that first diagram. I had to deal with that kind of idiocy all the time from one of my friends until I put it to her this way:
"Say you're pregnant. You go out and get a tan. You tan often, you tan long, you tan until you've got a nice dark bronze going on. Then the baby's born. So...is she born tanned too?"
She finally got it, but her dumb assed husband asked me if it was some kind of a trick question.
Posted by: Guy G | June 11, 2009 12:16 PM
You'll never be able to create evolutionists out of creationists.
You might be able to evolve a population of evolutionists from a population of creationists though.
It'll just take a while.
Posted by: Geds | June 11, 2009 12:16 PM
Back during the early days my transition from fundie to atheist I was dating a pastor's daughter whose entire science education was from private Christian schools and who once told me she thought Ken Ham had a really good idea of what was going on. I didn't even know who Ken Ham was at the time. I went to public school, took honors biology, chemistry, and physics and had taken a couple additional science courses in juco and at university and had always assumed science had the right idea. We had a few discussions/debates on the topic. All I had to fall back on was my high school biology from about ten years earlier and my more recent recollections of things like physics, astronomy, geology and whatnot that didn't necessarily explain evolution but certainly support the idea that the universe and planet are much older than 6000 years.
The thing that consistently amazed in those debates me was how quick she was to come up with random, totally off-topic rationalizations and explanations for everything. One that I recall was the assertion that there have been no new species in the last 6000 years and that if anything there's been a massive amount of extinction. Sadly, it didn't occur to me at the time that you don't need science to explain the extinction part of that equation and being a historian works just fine. People cause extinction and the more we spread and change our environment the more pressure we put on everything else with which we share the planet. I also remember she made the, "God just made everything look old," argument. There is no scientific answer to that. You need a theological answer, which basically boils down to, "So you're calling god a liar to preserve the truth of the Bible? What do you actually worship?"
A few months later I saw a Ken Ham lecture on YouTube. He was trying to argue that we only think there are different species because of recessive and dominant genes. I realized within about two minutes that my half-remembered biology class from my freshman year of high school was actually far more knowledge than I needed to refute Ken Ham.
PZ is fundamentally correct in his assessment of the issue. The problem isn't that we need to overcome a lack of education. It's that we need to overcome a powerful, entrenched, willful ignorance. And he's also correct that if the purported goal of Evolution: Education and Outreach is to reach people like my ex, it's going to fail.
The thing is, I don't know that there's much of anything that will work.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 11, 2009 12:19 PM
IMHO - This is where Richard Dawkins gets lost with American creationists, he doesn't seem to understand that adults can be so piss-ant stupid.
When they say there is no such thing as natural selection I ask them if the
National Human Breeding Program
choose their husband or wife for them? In the arguement that always follows, even the dimmest creotard stomps off with a small glimmer that natural selection is possible. My payoff from the discussion is the certain assurance that I am going to hell.Posted by: CJColucci | June 11, 2009 12:27 PM
"Some people, if they don't already know, you can't explain it to them."
attributed to Yogi Berra
Posted by: Victor
|
June 11, 2009 12:45 PM
I've used cattle as an example, and how they can be bred for traits, like selecting cattle that don't have horns. Being a big farming state, they're usually aware of the breeding of hornless cattle. Then they argue that that's not evolution because man made the selection of the breeding cattle, and I agree. Then I say, "Ok, now, instead of man making the selection, a force in nature makes the selection. That's Natural Selection". I've never had anyone argue after that point, so I imagine that it works.
Posted by: Darby | June 11, 2009 12:50 PM
I'm beginning to think that a clear example of artificial selection (rife with potential design-related problems that it might have) is really useful for introducing selection - students can grasp the process needed to breed miniature horses, for instance, and know that you don't get tiny critters in a single generation, that you would be developing a group because working off a single pair of starting parents presents understandable problems, etc. It helps that these concepts were foundations of Darwin's understanding as well, with pigeons, so they can be worked into the history of the ideas.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 11, 2009 12:55 PM
That's it, in a nutshell. The emphasis should be placed on willful - before you can convince them to accept your beautiful reason, you need to overcome their visceral and radical aversion to (what they believe to be) the consequences of giving up their current irrational worldview.
Posted by: truculentandunreliable
|
June 11, 2009 12:57 PM
I think that we need to realize that some people are just arguing in bad faith, as well. I find it hard to believe that all creationists out there actually believe the pseudo-scientific bullshit that the spew. They know it doesn't sound reasonable to say, "NO! This is what the Bible says and that's IT! NO NO NO NO!!!" so they make some semi-scientific sounding crap up to legitimize their positions. This way, normal, everyday people who aren't decently educated in science but aren't fundies think, "Well, that sounds reasonable. Why wouldn't we want to teach that as an alternative viewpoint in schools?" It's specifically catered toward the average low-information person, not the True Believers.
A fundy has the capacity to understand evolution, especially if it's explained to him or her in lay terms. And there are a lot of fundies out there right now who understand evolution. The problem isn't that they don't understand it, the problem is that they don't believe in it. You can't change that.
So, I think this is good for the general public, but not for the True Believers(as some have mentioned). It's not about fundies being stupid or uneducated (though plenty of them are). It's about them valuing ideology/religion/tradition over knowledge and science and nothing's going to change that.
Posted by: truculentandunreliable
|
June 11, 2009 1:01 PM
I see that others have already said what I did, but better.
Look, there are always people who fight back against progress and, apparently, want human beings to be miserable and ignorant. Education isn't going to change that--we just have to try to tip the scales in our favor.
Posted by: mikka | June 11, 2009 1:02 PM
About what to do to convince the staunch creationists, the consensus that seemed to arise from the Symposium on evolution at Cold Spring Harbor a couple of weeks back (from people like Kevin Padian) is that there is no reasoning with them. We have to convince the ones that actually have a shot at moving from the "God didditt!1!one" stance.
So, in answer to your query "how do we turn grossly ignorant people into reasonably knowledgeable people?", you simply can't because if they did it would go against the founding principle of their lives. You may see them as grossly ignorant, but this phenomenon is not even on the ignorant-educated scale. For them remaining loyal to their passed-down cosmovision trumps acknowledging reality. They see this as a virtue, and call it "faith". Can't move them from that, just like you won't get them to permit abortion in any case, no matter how extreme. If you meticulously disarm every point they had, even if they conceded that you are right about the rational and scientific reasoning, they would not see it as a failing of their model but as a failing of themselves to come up with good arguments to support what they know is the truth.
So, in that respect, these articles are aimed at the right audience. People that are actually curious as to where the weight of the evidence lays. Plenty of people in that category.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 11, 2009 1:05 PM
PZ wrote:
What is the difference between ignorance and stupidity? Usually I see it expressed as the difference between not knowing something and not having the capacity to know something. If we make a minor tweak from "doesn't have the capacity to learn" to "can't bring himself to accept", then I'd argue that your hypothetical creationist conversationalist is, in fact, stupid.
Posted by: tsg | June 11, 2009 1:06 PM
As long as blind faith, especially in the face of contradictory evidence, is seen as a virtue little is going to change.
Posted by: Noadi | June 11, 2009 1:11 PM
As I learned last night you can't convince a die hard creationist. Reaching those on the fence is easier.
Example 1: Guy I was shooting down last night when I mentioned the age of the universe basically said that it doesn't matter what science says about it, because God could have just changed things. You can't convince someone that deluded.
Also I found a new logical fallacy: appeal to etymology. He really tried to argue that the word "universe" proves creation because 'uni' means one and 'verse' is spoken word and so that means god's word created the universe. Aside from that logic making no sense that isn't even close to the actual origin of the word universe.
Example 2: Talking on twitter about this someone said they didn't see the difference between creation and the big bang since both are speculation. I said that the big bang has evidence for it and linked her to the Astronomy Cast episode on the Big Bang which she said she'd listen to and consider. That's the sort of person you can reach with a good argument.
The trick is trying to figure out which type you're faced with before you potentially waste your time.
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 11, 2009 1:14 PM
PZ, you've got past experience in newsgroups. You should know that when you're arguing with people there on the more contentious-for-newsgroups issues you're not trying to convince the person you're arguing with, you're after the lurkers.
Same here. Convincing creationists of the Comfort/Hamm/Wells type isn't going to happen. You want to be able to convince casual believers, those who don't know much about the subject and with a superficial glance at the subject find the creationist arguments compelling. Sounds like this journal is, like Talk Origins Archive, set up to give people the info they need to convince the lurkers, the casual "what's science about" audience.
Posted by: John Harshman
|
June 11, 2009 1:22 PM
Natural selection does seem to be a difficult concept to understand, though I'm not sure why. At the Evolution meeting a few years ago (the one in Alaska) there was an interesting symposium on another difficult concept: tree-thinking, the ability to comprehend a phylogenetic tree. Apparently that too is seriously hard to teach and learn.
The symposium highlighted operational research on common misconceptions and the best way to teach so as to counteract those misconceptions. And that convinced me that we need lots more research of that sort, and that what there is needs to be more widely disseminated to teachers. Education is the enemy of creationism, but it has to be effective education, and we need to find out what "effective" is.
Here's a web site: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/donovan/index.html (I have no idea how to embed this in the text.)
Posted by: BigMKnows | June 11, 2009 1:25 PM
In one sweep, this is the most illuminating statement about creationists that I've ever heard.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 11, 2009 1:29 PM
Hummm...I think I'll add my bean to the jar for willful ignorance = stupidity.
Posted by: Revyloution | June 11, 2009 1:44 PM
PZ, I think you nailed the issue when you refer to speaking to the creationists directly. People with that mindset will not ever take the time to read books, journals, articles, or even a pamphlet that doesn't agree with their personal viewpoint. The only way they would ever examine evidence is during a one on one conversation with another person.
Its a horribly inefficient way of educating people, but it's the only way with folks of that mindset.
I've had the pleasure of seeing a few people slowly open their minds. It takes far too long to get that crack in their armor, once it starts, everything else falls away easily.
Posted by: tsg | June 11, 2009 1:47 PM
I disagree only because I think that being capable of learning and refusing to is a far, far worse thing than not being capable.
Posted by: bpilgrim | June 11, 2009 1:52 PM
A recent issue of Natural History has an article (issue #, author, & title not available to me as I type this) that discusses the basis for an individual's understandings/beliefs. Not everyone who holds a belief can explain its underpinnings (including some who "believe" in evolution). The author asserts that it is all about received wisdom from trusted authority figures.
This implies that creationists will never be swayed with scientific arguments or critiques of their reasoning, and that wide-spread acceptance of evolution starts with winning young people's trust of scientists over religious authorities when it comes to scientific matters.
Posted by: Geds | June 11, 2009 2:08 PM
you need to overcome their visceral and radical aversion to (what they believe to be) the consequences of giving up their current irrational worldview.
Exactly.
The thing that's hard to understand, especially for those who haven't lived in that world, is that the consequences have very little to do with giving up an irrational belief in creationism. One of the biggest problems I had with my own journey out of Christianity was coming to terms with the fact that I would lose friends. Ultimately the fact that I was already living with one foot in both worlds meant that I could simply say, "Okay, I'm done with this now."
A large chunk of the Christians I knew didn't do that. They lived in isolation from the wider culture, which was sometimes self-imposed. So for them the idea of leaving it behind is terrifying. If you then take the specific example of my ex, she had to contend with the fact that she was worried (irrationally so) that her parents would stop loving/talking to/approving of her. One of the things that I had a hard time coming to terms with was that on a fundamental level she (thought she) would have to choose between me and everyone else in her life, especially as I moved farther and farther from Christianity.
I'm not mad at my ex about what happened. Mostly the whole thing saddens me, especially because other factors caused the end of the whole thing to be really, really bad. I don't blame her for her own levels of ignorance, willful or otherwise. I probably find people like Ken Ham to be far more abhorrent than the average person who thinks this is just about evolution and creationism. There is a dreadful human toll that his stupidity creates that you can't appreciate unless you've seen it up close.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 11, 2009 2:10 PM
tsg - I think we can have more than one bean jar on this issue. *grin*
Posted by: tsg | June 11, 2009 2:17 PM
No, we can't *evil grin*.
The point I was trying to make was that I think calling the willfully ignorant "stupid" is giving them too much credit.
Posted by: Steve H | June 11, 2009 2:25 PM
I think it would be difficult to alter the mind of someone who has formed a fundamental bias against science. For instance, my five year old was cursing at the weather radio last night because they always say severe winds and hail and what not, but we haven't been getting them. And then he went on to call them liars. I had to explain to him probabilities, which seemed to appease him. I have no idea if he truly understood, but he at least knows there's an alternative answer to the forecasters being liars. If I would have let it go, would he have formed a strong bias against scientific forecasting? I doubt it, as he's pretty sharp, but I can understand where some kids could have these thoughts reinforced by their parents which would form a strong bias over time.
Perhaps we need to start teaching probability in pre-schools.
Posted by: FastLane | June 11, 2009 2:26 PM
PZed, I'm not sure how anyone can realistically expect a web site with a lot of words to reach out to creationists, when the significantly smarter group here at Pharyngula can't seem to refrain from making multiple posts....
(Tempted to submit this more than once for the irony factor....)
Posted by: Josie | June 11, 2009 2:31 PM
My hope is that this journal, and others like it, will give educators and others another resource to present information to people who're still open and willing to understand evolution before creationism gets so hard-wired and immovable.
As far as the language goes, I'm in the same boat as Aquaria (#12). I don't yet know a lot of the terms, but there are definitely resources available and I know I can find out. Of course, we can't expect hard-wired creationists to do the same, so that becomes a bit irrelevant in that case.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 11, 2009 2:38 PM
That depends. Sometimes selection really is that strong. To use an extreme example, some mutations lead to complete infertility; none of them ever get passed on.
:-O
(Fixed using <span> instead of <p>.)
Don't you mean sexual selection here?
Would surprise me, because it's very vague. Instead of "force in nature", what happens if you say "environment" or "conditions of an environment"?
That I want to see.
Kurt Wise and Marcus Ross might (!) count, and perhaps the self-admitted bullshitter Jonathan Wells does. But the rest? Hard to imagine.
Of course. If you believe in evolution, you're doing it wrong. :-|
Posted by: James F | June 11, 2009 2:51 PM
I think that the NCSE's web site and the Understanding Evolution web site at Berkeley are better for entry-level debunking of creationism; this is the more advanced level. I also think that it must be driven home that evolution works on populations. I'm so tired of arguments like "I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat" and the Tyrannosaurus wanting to evolve another eye.
Posted by: tsg | June 11, 2009 3:17 PM
From Terry Pratchett:
"She knew gods exist. She dealt with them every day. But she didn't believe in them. It would be like believing in the mailman."
That said, I'm not buying into that "believing = irrational" crap, no matter how much the religious try to co-opt the word. If you believe something, you think it's true. Whether or not that belief is based in reason and rationality is what the argument is about.
I'm tired of people saying "it's what I believe" as if it's the final word and examination of those beliefs is not allowed. I'm taking the word back and I'm starting right here, right now.
I believe in evolution because it's very strongly supported by scientific evidence.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 11, 2009 3:26 PM
Here you go.
(a href="address of web site")Text(/a)
Replace the brackets with the greater than and lesser than signs.
Posted by: Kuro | June 11, 2009 3:43 PM
Quite off-topic but not that much, another "misunderstandings about evolution" article has been published recently, and well... it does show that some ideas are difficult for some people to grasp:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/twelve_misunderstandings_evolution
Posted by: Michael Kingsley | June 11, 2009 4:02 PM
Thank you, bpilgrim and Geds, for your insightful comments (#43 & #44, respectively). As a child and teenager, I grew up in a creationist environment, and it took a while for me to finally accept concepts like plate tectonics and evolution. It probably wouldn't have happened at all, though, if belittlement for even considering alternative viewpoints had not been a part of my Christian "education." That disrespectful attitude from "authority" figures is what really soured me to the YEC movement.
Posted by: John Harshman
|
June 11, 2009 4:51 PM
Janine:
Thanks. Let's try it:
Here's a web site which I apparently now do have an idea how to embed in the text.
Posted by: Michael | June 11, 2009 4:56 PM
Re: #34 - My old immunology professor put it very succinctly:
"Stupidity is permanent. Ignorance we can cure."
Posted by: i_am_toast
|
June 11, 2009 4:57 PM
An excellent post. I was discussing this morning Ben Goldacre's (fascinating and highly recommended) book Bad Science. My quibble was that he treats 'humanities student' as an insult equivalent to stupid. Personal bias here, naturally (I'm an English Literature graduate, albeit one with at least some science education and a friendship group almost exclusively composed of scientists) but I have to question anyone who alienates the audience most likely to become better informed through reading their work.
The popularization of science has problems but the benefits of educating - at least a little - the general public on extremely important scientific concepts are huge. Die-hard creationists might be lost to rationality but there are plenty of others who just need access to easily comprehended explanations of these ideas.
Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 5:05 PM
I've been waiting for this time in science, where the technology of molecular biology would begin to deeply inform us about the nature of life.
Things are moving fast now, really fast. And this journal is just the resource I've been looking for to help me keep up.
Posted by: M | June 11, 2009 5:30 PM
Sexual selection is normally considered a specific form of natural selection. I grant is not obvious that is the case, but if you look at genes as the unit of selection it starts to make sense.
Posted by: Guy | June 11, 2009 5:51 PM
getting complex ideas across to people who are actively denying the evidence, is the hardest part of the story.
Isn't it just! And it's even harder on a bus.
I was recently in LA and was taking a bus ride from Union Station towards Sony Studios for a tour (incidentally what is it with the attitude and shock of many Californians that I would prefer to use the very good, clean and regular public transport on my holiday rather than drive?).
Anyway, myself and my girlfriend were the only people on the bus until an older couple got on and we're also obviously tourists but originally from another part of America (now living in Mexico). One thing led to another and they started talking to us and at first were generally pleasant and interested.
Then they asked what I did, I put my foot in it and told them I was studying for a PhD in Biosciences, specifically in the fields of evolution, phylogen-etics/omics and bioinformatics (it's more in the reverse order but I generally get blank faces from people if I say bioinformatics so have taken to saying something they might understand first).
That's when it started. I got a long and boring diatribe about how 'scientists' have disproven evolution specifically something to do with the way DNA is translated into proteins as it's too random and the probability of it happening is so low and on and on. Then Behe was mentioned and a couple of other nuts too.
I mainly stopped listening at this point as I was a little taken aback, it was my holiday after all and the closest I come to crazy fundies in the UK are the local Evangelicals (who I've been having some fun with recently https://xmedia.ex.ac.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=20978) also the bus was very jerky, clearly one drives by repeatedly pressing the acceleartor and then the brake. Maybe that's why Californians drive? Hrmm.
It really was a case of, as PZ mentions, "...not trying to explain...[but more]...trying to invent reasons to reject".
I did everything I could to explain evolution and natural selection and how Behe shouldn't be used as an evern remotely good example. Nothing worked, they then tried to convince me that they didn't believe in intelligent design but insisted something started the universe and evolution (but a minute ago that was disrpoven) and which we might as well call 'God'. Also neither of them were Christian (in fact he claimed to be an Atheist!) but it just so happened they used the Bible to teach the poor Mexican kids morality.
We couldn't take it much more and got off the bus a few blocks early. Funny times, otherwise the rest of the trip was great! Plus that journal looks interesting. :)
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 11, 2009 6:04 PM
What is somewhat difficult to understand about natural selection is not how it will influence the state of a single character, like color. This is easy enough to explain using the kind of diagram that you reproduce. However, imagine a second character, like length of body hair. Just as a darker color could increase fitness, so could also a more elaborate fur be advantageous. But if these characters are genetically independent, one can imagine that short-haired, dark individuals are just as fit as long-haired, light individuals. This will slow down the trend to a predominance of dark colored individuals. Eventually, given enough time, a dark colored and long-haired race will probably arise, assuming that these characters do not adversely influence each other. But since an organism does not have one or two, but thousands of characters, there may not be enough time for even a single character to reach an optimal state. This implies that in a realistic time span natural selection will not necessarily lead to a maximally fit overall 'design' (even if the fitness landscape is considered static.)
This, I think, is a strong argument against creationism. You would expect a creator to do better than natural selection.
Posted by: AlgaeGirl
|
June 11, 2009 6:34 PM
Re: tsg @ #52
This was actually a question that I posed a while back on another post. In casual conversation, people in our camp will often reflexively say "I believe in evolution". I try not to do it, but it still slips out every now and then. What can we say in place of "believe" that succinctly conveys the strength of our understanding and readiness to defend rationality and evolution? It seems to me that the crux of this conversation is how to get our message to those on the fence and turn them to our way of understanding. By using the word "believe" I think we send a mixed message on what we are trying to get across. I know I'm not saying this very well, but I hope someone out there knows what I'm getting at here. If we're going to push the discussion of greater understanding of evolution, then one of the most important things we can do (IMHO) is to keep the language consistant. Belief is a word that means to accept without understanding. To my knowledge, no one who accepts evolution does not understand it, even at a very basic level.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 7:06 PM
Some people will spin anything to prove their point. Poin not yet proven by the way. Creation is still fact and evilution is still a decrepid old man's fantasy.
Shave the hair off your tongues and learn something.
Posted by: CJO | June 11, 2009 7:07 PM
Belief is a word that means to accept without understanding.
No it's not. It can mean that; but it doesn't have to, and when people use it in ordinary language and are not talking about religion they usually do not mean that.
To my knowledge, no one who accepts evolution does not understand it, even at a very basic level.
There are bad arguments for, and stupid misunderstandings of, practically everything. And they're all on the internet.
Posted by: Steve L | June 11, 2009 7:17 PM
Maybe a way to deal with the big problem of reaching creationists, at least in part, is to borrow from the creationist strategy of innoculating the young before anyone is even aware of what's happening. For example, take the math and computing of natural selection and evolution out of high school biology and put it into math and computer science classes in junior high; selection coefficients and heritability in biological examples could become quality control and copy integrity in some manufacturing example. Get students to understand the mechanism before anybody has a chance to close their minds by calling it evolution. If they understand the mechanism, it will be harder to deny its operation in biology.
Am I dreaming?
Posted by: CMFlyer
|
June 11, 2009 7:55 PM
Regarding that first diagram, I can see having students use multi-colored beans (that I have on hand for allele frequency labs) to lay out several generations in an environment favorable to darker beans. That would reveal and help bust misconceptions.
Posted by: LivingWithMormons | June 11, 2009 8:12 PM
In danger of sounding extremely stupid, I'd like to ask an honest question to anyone who would dare answer seriously.
Based on the very simple explanation you provided, PZ, of how natural selection works, at which point do species become new species to the point where they can't breed anymore with the previous species (does that make sense)?
I'm sorry, I don't know how to better put that question, but I get asked that a lot by Mormon creationists (yes, there are plenty of them) and I'm not able to articulate a fair answer.
Thanks,
LWM
Posted by: Spadoodle Noodle | June 11, 2009 8:19 PM
How many of you want to execute or imprison a "global warming denier"?
Website says “execute global warming deniers”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers%E2%80%94Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
Posted by: LivingWithMormons | June 11, 2009 8:26 PM
Re: AlgaeGirl
To say you "accept" evolution/evolutionary theory already implies, in my opinion, that you've done due diligence to study and consider it to your best abilities.
I try to stay away from the word "believe" as well, so not to give the impression of equality between evolution and creationism.
I usually reply that I accept evolution to be the best explanation we have for the diversity of life in the planet based on the large amounts of evidence in various scientific fields.
Posted by: Don R | June 11, 2009 8:39 PM
There's two 'tools' I use when attempting to reason with Creationists are:
1. I let them argue themselves into debunking their own arguments. I find that a high proportion of the people I'm arguning with are intelligent, rational people; except when it comes to religion. With a few open-ended, guiding questions, it's frequently easy to inch them towards open mindedness.
2. I reuse their analogies and stories to correct their perspective. A really obvious example is the human eye and how perfect and designed it must be. It's really easy to rattle of 3-4 reasons the eye is poorly 'designed'. You can also throw in how squid have better eyes than us, etc.
The counter-arguments from the likes of us don't need to begin with "That's not how it works..." or "You've got it wrong..." to be effective.
Educating Creationists is about taking the fight to them because they won't look for the answer on their own. In the context of this post, the Journal is the ammunition to mount the attack, but the attack must come from each of us openly engaging god-fearing folk at every opportunity.
Thank you for reading my first post. :)
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 9:13 PM
Squid have better eyes than us becuase they were created that way. How often do yu have to catch food in a dark mirky environment? If you needed eyes like a squid you would have been given them.
Why does a human have soul and is accountabe for his/her actions, but not apes?
Posted by: Brad Walters | June 11, 2009 9:27 PM
I have to agree with PZ. While I will thoroughly enjoy reading the articles, but if you really want to diminish the hold creationism has on the masses, you need to teach elementary school children about science... history, method, and a little Karl Popper for good measure. Teach these kids to be skeptical and to think critically and demand evidence and hopefully less of them will turn into the mush minded faithful wondering who they should write their next check out to in return for tele- or internet-evangelism. Oh, and if I were a judge at that kid's science fair, not only would he get last place, I'd hang around to watch him rip that duct tape off of his face, maybe he'd learn that stupidity has consequences... even if in real life it doesn't usually.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 11, 2009 9:28 PM
Humans don't have souls until you demonstrate the scientific evidence to back up your assertion. Cite the peer reviewed scientific literature to show your souls exist. Until then, you are just an example of an idiot on hallucinogens.Posted by: Ariel | June 11, 2009 9:28 PM
"conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence" is also a belief. (The being could as easily be Leonardo DiVinci as God.)
Many atheists attempt to make a false distinction regarding the word belief in order to distance themselves from religious belief (faith belief) for reasoned or rational belief. It's a waste of time, and makes atheists look silly to anyone with a dictionary. All of us have irrational beliefs alongside the rational, its the quantity that makes the difference. Atheists that think otherwise are fooling themselves.
I realize that was OT from what worried you on sending a "mixed message", but no matter how well you parse the language, others will twist it back on you. Creationists are irritatingly proficient at that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 9:36 PM
It's a waste of time, and makes atheists look silly to anyone with a dictionary.
If that were actually the case, all debate could easily be solved by simply referring to the dictionary.
Strangely, this is not the case.
Oh, I'm sure it's all just bluster and bother, right?
phht.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 9:42 PM
Why does a human have soul and is accountabe for his/her actions, but not apes?
one, we don't.
two, to whom are we actually accountable to?
answer: only ourselves. Fictional deities didn't make the laws of any given country, the people that live in them did.
likewise, I have seen the repercussions of "bad" behavior within populations of primates and other social animals, including eusocial insects (yes, there is unacceptable behavior, and there is punishment, too), so obviously there actually IS "accountability" there.
so, bottom line, you're playing cards with an empty hand.
care to actually draw some cards from the deck, first?
meh, probably not.
Moving on...
Posted by: Ariel | June 11, 2009 9:45 PM
Ichthyic,
Phht back at you. Your argument is specious, and not applicable to what I wrote whatsoever. The debate is not won by trying to distort the meaning of words, which simply gives an opening to Creationists to make you look silly and dishonest.
What part of "scientific beliefs" don't you understand?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 9:45 PM
How many of you want to execute or imprison a "global warming denier"?
this has absolutely fuck-all to do with this thread.
Posted by: Kendo | June 11, 2009 9:48 PM
As a casually interested layman, my biggest problem with understanding natural selection was my misguided emphasis on environmental advantage. For some reason I had it in my head that natural selection was all about environmental advantage, and I gave short shrift to the whole topic of sexual selection. A mammal living in cold latitudes might undergo a mutation that causes thicker fur, but that trait won't be passed on if (for some irrelevant reason) its potential mates are repelled by that trait. On the other hand, a mutation that causes a trait that is neutral in terms of environmental advantage, but attractive to potential mates will be passed on. This provides a whole spectrum of possibilities that are not accountable from the concept of environmental advantage alone.
Now this could be a case of me being extraordinarily thick, but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of other people are in the same boat.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 9:50 PM
Cite the peer reviewed scientific literature to show your souls exist.
---------------
Cite the peer scientific literature to show the universe invented itself and all life on earth came from a magic group of amino acids that just so happeend to find one another in just the right spot IN THe OCEAN at the right time under the right conditions and at the right place in the universe.
I think you will find that a soul's existance is better explained.
I suppose a can of Lysol will evolve from something if given enough time eh? Why not? A can of Lysol is not near as complex as a simple cell. Why can't it evolve from nothing? Explain that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 9:55 PM
Cite the peer scientific literature to show the universe invented itself
Burden shifting. Did not answer question.
followed by enough red herrings to make a tasty dinner for a family of 4.
I suppose a can of Lysol will evolve from something if given enough time eh?
here's a nice red herring for YOU:
well, maybe not lysol, and maybe not hairspray, but how about a bacteria that EATS hairspray:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/new_bacteria_contaminate_hairspray
I suppose it was intelligently designed to eat hairspray?
LOL
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 11, 2009 9:56 PM
There is no soul just as there is no god. Both are delusions in your mind. No physical evidence for either, which makes them a nullhypothesisidea. Until you can cite the peer reviewed scientific literature for both, you are just an ignorant deluded fool.Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 10:05 PM
Algaegirl
Do I believe in evolution?
Evolution is a fact, proven beyond all doubt. Natural selection is a most plausible explanation of how evolution occurred.
Evolution denier
Go read the rock record. I have been in the stone pit, digging the fossils with my own hands. To deny evolution is to deny cold, hard reality.
The "soul" is a fantasy of those who can't face the cold, hard reality of the finality of death.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 10:11 PM
Peer cited scientific journals do not exist anymore. They died out when darwinists hijacked science.
-------------
Yes all life, including bacteria was created. How bout that can of lysol? I'm waiting for one to pop up in the universe spontaneously out of nothing. Do you realize that this Lysol in cident would stand a better chnace of happening than evolution?
-----------------
Atheists still have not explained how the universe began. I do not want a theory or idea. i want a 100 % definite proof positive answer of how the uinverse began. Big bang? Fine. How did that bang happen? What caused it? What was before the big bang? Anyone? Go ahead and make a miniature universe in the lab. I would love to see it. Until then, I'll stick to a creator.
A
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 10:15 PM
Peer cited scientific journals do not exist anymore.
ROFLMAO
you might as well have said books themselves don't exist anymore.
Yes all life, including bacteria was created.
the bacteria was created to eat hairspray?
Can you ask your god what the motivation would be for us, plz?
Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 10:17 PM
What was before the big bang? Anyone?
Yah, there is someone. Someone smarter than you by far.
Read it. "The Life of the Cosmos" by Lee Smolin.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 10:18 PM
Do you realize that this Lysol in cident would stand a better chnace of happening than evolution?
can you do the math for us?
I can't believe anything you say without seeing the math, first.
Don't forget to show your work.
Posted by: Evolution deniar | June 11, 2009 10:20 PM
If I told you would you believe me?
-------
The bacteria was created long before hairspray existed. As a result of sin we see the negative effects of everything in nature - even bacteria that eats hairspray, human flesh, etc.
In the beginning there was no negative aspects of life. Only peace, harmony, love. Sin messed it up. It messed up the harmony of the entire world including bacteria and other things.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 11, 2009 10:22 PM
Darwinsts don't exist. Nobody worships Darwin. Religious liars like yourself try to pretend that Darwin is worshiped, but they are WRONG. Darwin was a fallible man, and made mistakes in his idea. Mistakes which have been rectified with 150 years worth of science. Things that weren't available to Darwin, like genes, DNA, sequenced genomes, radiometric dating, and many other things. They all point to evolution being true. And the million or so scientific papers directly and indirectly confirm evolution, or "modern synthesis".Compare that evidence to the lack of physical evidence for souls, fairies, deities, Santa Claus, and other imaginary things. You have a busted hand and we know it.
Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 10:24 PM
Sin messed it up.
The stupid is strong in this one.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 11, 2009 10:26 PM
Clueless troll squealed:
A creator? But, which one? There are so many to choose from.
Can you outline exactly which methods of analysis and selection did you apply before you came to the conclusion that this one creator being - as opposed to all the thousands of others from the different religions - was the one responsible?
How would you know if you were wrong?
Posted by: Ariel | June 11, 2009 10:29 PM
kamaka wrote: "The "soul" is a fantasy of those who can't face the cold, hard reality of the finality of death."
Yep, but it does give them comfort, up until the last breath.
PZ Myers wrote: "I wouldn't go far the other way and say they're all stupid, but they do have lots of ideas that are so egregiously wrong that they don't fit into Gregory's schemata."
And no matter how hard you try, you are not likely to dissuade many, if any, of them from those egregiously wrong ideas. I do think the trend line, overall, is to the acceptance by the public of Evolution as one of the foundational theories. I'm happy to read you won't call them all stupid, the hubris in thinking they are is distasteful.
Posted by: Evolution Denier | June 11, 2009 10:30 PM
As long as creationists are are dogged down and made fun of and punished for what we beleive, we will refer to you as Darwinists. We do not like the term evolutionist becuase it makes it sound like evoltion is real and since Darwin is praised for having all the answers we choose to call his followers Darwinists. We refuse to change.
We Chrustians get called xians all the time. We do not worship the letter X just like you do not worship Darwin.
We celebrate Christmas, not happy holidays. Yet, you hate us for that as well. If you don't like it don;t participate, bust the other 97% of us alone.
Yes we will continue the terms BC and AD becuase that's what they are.
Yes, we will continue to use the term Darwinists as well unless we get more respect. Until then, forget it. Nohing will change.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 10:39 PM
"A creator? But, which one? There are so many to choose from. "
------------
nope. Only one. The father of Jesus Christ.
Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 10:40 PM
punished for what we beleive
Yah, right, you are indeed a victim.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 11, 2009 10:41 PM
The problem is one of belief without evidence, versus looking at the evidence and making conclusions based upon the evidence. We keep asking creobots like yourself for evidence to back up you inane ideas. We have even had a 4000+ posts over multiple threads with a creobot. No real evidence is ever presented other than your belief in a book with scores of authors over several centuries, and finally assembled by a committee. Not exactly something I would put my belief into.You want respect. Earn it with physical evidence, not statements of belief.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | June 11, 2009 10:42 PM
tb;dr (too busy, didnt read whole thread)
Darby @29
Check the Australian Lowline breeding program (origins back to 1929, but not really a size beeding pgm until 1974.)
http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/australianlowline/index.htm
I find this a great example of artificial selection because CSIRO took the trouble to start with a genetically clean gene line (no dwarfism etc). Essentially they bred a "lowline", a "highline" and a control line. Divergence meant that there is now no overlap between the lowline and highline populations' sizes. And they did it scientifically, over a very long period and documented the process as they went.
PZ - in high school (30 years ago!) we played a card game where every generation (dealing the cards) produced a mix of phenotypes, these we culled (selected) via a dice throw. If you work with pairs of cards you can show geneotype vs phenotype also dominant & recessive. Every now and then we added a few new cards to the deck (mutation). It is simple and gives students (well, me anyway) hands on experimentation that tends to bring home the concept better than textbooks and lectures only. It is however abstract and a little simplistic, but gets the fundamentals across. It may even be possible to work a predator/prey model into it if keen.
I will have to leave the thread for other activities (planning meeting to set up a local sceptics society, and I have 7 acres of paddock to mow before it rains again.) I will check back but am unlikely to respond for 12-24hrs.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 11, 2009 10:47 PM
Creationists get no respect because creationism is complete bullshit.
You have no evidence for anything you assert creobot.
You never will.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 11, 2009 10:48 PM
Clueless troll continued squealing:
You mean Joseph? Because I thought that Jesus was god, not technically his 'son' - though I imagine that differs depending on which of the 30-something-thousand sects of Xinanity out there. Which leads to the question: how do you know you've got the right interpretation when there are so many? What makes you confident yours is correct and the others are wrong?
And you didn't answer the other question - how did you come to this conclusion? How much do you know about Hinduism to know that it isn't the correct religion? What about Voodoo? Zoroastrianism? Ásatrú? Bokononism? Pastafarianism?
What methodology did you use to ascertain that, if there was a creator, it could only have been Yahweh and not one of the others?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 11, 2009 10:49 PM
You ever really read the old testament. Yahweh is an amoral thug that makes a gang leader who rapes, steals, and kills at random look good. Yahweh condones slavery, genocide, sexual slavery of conquered virgins, and death for minor infractions (by the way, if you are wearing a cotton/polyester blend, when can we arrange for your stoning?). You wish to worship such a bad example? Sane you are not.Posted by: Ariel | June 11, 2009 10:50 PM
Evolution Denier:
I'm an atheist and I don't hate you for anything you practice or believe. However, I do dislike: willful distortions; quote mining; refusal to accept physical evidence; and sophistry.
I read Gish and Morris years ago, and the deceit was rampant. The DI continues the tradition set by Gish and Morris.
Creationist will be made fun of so long as your arguments show wilfull ignorance. Beneficial mutations are one example, as Icthyic pointed out, which you sidestepped into the irrelevant Original Sin argument. It was creative though.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 11, 2009 10:51 PM
Evolution denier,
Meh, a satisfactory attempt at a Poe. Not enough mistakes in spelling or grammar. No words are in CAPS. Paranoia, meandering thoughts and obsession are accurate however are made too forceful. Be more subtle.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 10:53 PM
As a result of sin we see the negative effects of everything in nature - even bacteria that eats hairspray, human flesh, etc.
why is bacteria that eats hairspray a negative?
and if it is, negative from whose perspective?
Certainly not the bacteria's.
The bacteria was created long before hairspray existed
um, nope. Read the article, it's a new species, just like the bacteria that eats nylon.
so you'd have to say that if you believe the idea of spontaneous creation, these organisms were created after the advent of hairspray and nylon.
Shouldn't you be claiming that as a miracle or something?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 11, 2009 10:56 PM
Dear Brother Evolution Denier @ 85,
The Lord bless you and multiply you for coming into this blog of perdition and daring to dip your feet in the noxious tide of evolutionistic filth that sloshes backwards and forwards in the minds of these deluded sinners.
In my talk with Jesus this very day I asked him where all the modern martyrs had got to. He promised me that they still existed. He even said that, metaphorically speaking, they were still experiencing torture and the flames of the burning faggots as they endured suffering for their courageous fundamentalist ignorance, and ascended to the pyre to protest the heresies of rationalism and science. And then HEY PRESTO! here you are Mr ED, sacrificing yourself for Jesus and tearing the evilutionists a new bung hole.
Just as well the torture is metaphorical, though, isn't it? We Christians wouldn't really want to experience the hellish mutilation, dismemberment and burning our Godly forebears inflicted on the rationalists and atheists back in the good old days when God's anointed didn't have to pretend to ascribe to any crap about Christian love, and witches made for smelly bonfires, and a pear was not a fruit but a device for ripping a scientific sinner's anus apart.
Anyway, you'll be pleased to know that God looked down from Heaven, saw all the bleeding atheotards you had knocked into the seventh circle of hell through your impenetrable reasoning, and as a reward he delayed a nasty road-smite he'd been planning for your cat.
For your bravery I'd like to offer you some BIBLE™ at no charge. You'll need plenty of it if, like me, you and your family are steering clear of all the modern medicines those evil scientists have invented in their satanic laboratories.
Please email smoggy@ewejuice.com and I'll send my assistant Floyd Rubber around with a tankerfull of BIBLE™. Floyd's easy to spot, he's seven foot tall, he has skulls tattooed on his eyelids, and he floats six inches off the ground because not only does he not believe in the theory of evolution but he had a message from God commanding him to stop believing in the theory of gravity as well.
God bless you again Mr Ed, from your brother in simple faith.
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 10:56 PM
We Chrustians get called xians all the time. We do not worship the letter X
So, the level of persecution Christians are embracing is that of substitute a letter for a word, even though it's still pronounced the same way, and actually comes from the Greek name for Christ, Xristos.
Come a long way from being thrown to the lions, eh?
LOL
Posted by: Steve | June 11, 2009 10:59 PM
Uh, just some basic things missed. You don't know where the universe's original matter came from. You don't know how life began. You don't know where all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods are. You don't know where dinosaurs came from. I could go on and on. Yours is a faith to faith to dogma to your own type of Inquisition. Such anger. So irreconcilable to God.
Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 11:02 PM
Paranoia, meandering thoughts and obsession are accurate however are made too forceful. Be more subtle.
Hah! Cuts to the chase with this worthless turd!
Sorry, PZ, for responding to the troll.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 11, 2009 11:04 PM
Steve... you sully our name!!!
Have at thee!!! En Garde!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 11, 2009 11:08 PM
Stave @ 107
"your own type of Inquisition"
YES!...YES! Just what I was saying. These bloody rationalists are going to take over the world, aren't they Stevo? And then they'll have us all cast into dungeons and start taking to our fleshy bits with hot pincers and superheated steel pipes in the best Christian tradition.
God needs us Stevo. He needs me, you and Mr Ed—to stand up for... for... for something-or-other. They can't explain it and we're not even going to try. The big guy can't turn up, he's got fornicators to worry about (not to mention all the abusive priests to buy out of trouble). But don't worry I'm here ready to fight the good fight. Do you want to be Curly, Mo or Larry.
Yours with Godly loins girded for battle.
Smoggy
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2009 11:10 PM
Well, geography was pretty different back then. Is that what you mean?
Or, like, from what kind of animal? Because there are plenty of known fossilized diapsids and archosaurs.
Although I don't doubt it?
No, thanks.
wait...what?
Posted by: Steve | June 11, 2009 11:10 PM
How often do creationists (the ones who know what they are talking about) call evolutionists infantile playground little dirty names filled with punkish hate? And the paranoia intimidation does not work at all. Again, such anger. So irreconcilable to The Truth. (without even an effort to answer any one of the four basic knowledge, true science, seeking questions.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 11:12 PM
You mean Joseph? "
---------
Nope. Joseph was the earthy parent of Jesus, but Jesus was the divine Son of God - God manifest in flesh. Remember Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived (life begins at conception).
Jesus chose to come here.
How can you discount the credibility of the Bible. Did not the prophet isaiah fortell of the baby Jesus who would be born of a virgin? What do you think of a prophecy like this and numerous others coming true?
-----------------------------
You don't know how life began. You don't know where all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods are. You don't know where dinosaurs came from"
Life began with God speaking it into existance.
There are no transitional fossils. Are you referring to Piltdown man? Nebraska man? Ida?
There is no precambrain and cambrain periods. The earth is less than 6500 yeas old.
Dinosaurs were created all other land animals were created and walked the earth at the same time as all other animals and humans. What did not drwon in the flood died out as a result of the ice age following the flood and to hmans who hunted them for sport and food.
Any more questions?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 11:13 PM
You don't know where the universe's original matter came from.
we're working on it.
You don't know how life began.
we're working on it; even have some good testable ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
You don't know where all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods are.
Nope, hard to find all those things under tons of earth; have to get pretty lucky. So far, though, all the ones we expected using the ToE have been found where we predicted they would be, and pretty much look like what was predicted too.
Didn't you catch the earlier post just today on the open access journal listing current knowledge of transitionals?
I guess not. Try here (it's free!):
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1r804782707/?p=3d45207ea6724d2e9211a5a2df89e527&pi=0
You don't know where dinosaurs came from.
got a pretty good idea. Again, check the link above.
so, with that said, science IS making progress on all of these things.
religion?
*crickets chirping*
Posted by: Steve_C | June 11, 2009 11:13 PM
Steve. It won't work. You can't shame us into respecting your lies and bullshit.
You have no evidence of any gods. You can't claim anything was created.
It's really that simple.
We call you names because you deserve it.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 11, 2009 11:13 PM
Steve wrote:
Huh?
Maybe you should pray to your Jesus, or your god, or your Mary or your magic cracker or whatever it is your particular flavour of wacky-woo prays to, and ask to be given some basic writing skills.
Oh, and while you're there, ask for a better brain. Yours is clearly defective.
God doesn't like anger? I'm guessing you haven't read any of the old testament then. Still, most Christians don't seem to know very much about the rest of the bible; why should you be any different?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 11, 2009 11:14 PM
"creationists (the ones who know what they are talking about"
**Snort!!**
Hahahahahahahaha....
Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 11:15 PM
You don't know where the universe's original matter came from.
I repeat: "The Life of the Cosmos" by Lee Smolin
Read it.
Until then, have a nice hot cup of STFU.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2009 11:20 PM
Wow. I don't know. That's a pret-ty powerful argument right there.
Posted by: Steve | June 11, 2009 11:21 PM
You are trying to infer certain evolutionists don't act like Inquisitors. When the Creation Museum opened they sure lined the road with signs and other expressions. Just one example.
And then consider this. If the evolutionary establishment truly wanted to finally invalidate creationists, they would be more than willing to have national debate (PBS or similar) on the clear, scientific evidence from specialists, chosen from each side. Their excuses for not wanting to are dishonest and hypocritical. It's time to state the case as it really is, not forgetting that what we believe about our origins significantly impacts our view of God and others (different from us) and life itself.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 11, 2009 11:23 PM
Baby Jesus?
Good grief. Fuck off, Poe. Seriously. You aren't funny and you add nothing. We've got a new idiot (Steve) here to deal with; we don't need your nonsense as well.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2009 11:23 PM
Yeah, that's "imply," Steve.
"Imply."
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 11, 2009 11:23 PM
ED @ 113
"Remember Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived"
Oh yeah...explain that one to me Mr Ed? God impregnates an underage virgin (these days he'd be locked up) it sounds like he's the "earthy parent" not the schmuck Joseph who agreed to the cover up. What happened at the moment of conception? I guess Mary didn't enjoy it--girls weren't allowed to enjoy rumpy-pumpy in those days. Or did the Big Guy get Mary drunk first? And here's another question. If God is a trinity (three-in-one, Father-SON-and Holy Pigeon) then what was Godjesus doing while Godgod was doing it with his Mother Mary? I hope at least the poor boy was able to look away. No wonder he grew up a confused lad who liked to hang out with fishermen and had a martyr complex!
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 11:24 PM
we're working on it."
---------------
Why? I already know. I don;t have to work on it.
In the Beginning God ...
There, saved you billions of unnecessary spending and a whole lotta time.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 11:25 PM
You are trying to infer certain evolutionists don't act like Inquisitors.
define "Inquisitor" using historical context.
funny, I don't recall the Catholic Inquisitors protesting heretics with signs.
you?
maybe you think they put them in comfy chairs or poked them with soft cushions?
they would be more than willing to have national debate (PBS or similar) on the clear, scientific evidence from specialists, chosen from each side.
you mean like this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
you're not paying enough attention to the world around you, Steve.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2009 11:27 PM
My take is that "Evolution denier" is an obnoxious Poe, but that "Steve" is a true idiot.
for the record.
not that there's a record or anything.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 11, 2009 11:27 PM
Master Evo-Deny @ 81 has written what, I believe, are for many the very very magic words that ground all questions of origin in a single simple idea along the lines of
So inspired, I offer this driftwood--
A spot IN THe OCEAN
At the right time
Cascaded a lineage
That I now call mine.
er, ours. ("Close the curtain, Fred!")
C'mon in! the water's warm as toast!
IN THe OCEAN is precisely where I think life got a firm hold on this rock. The evidence points demonstrably and repeatedly that way. How it got IN THe OCEAN I do not know and cannot say.
But I am so happy to be still IN THe OCEAN of my ancestors. I am well suited to the water. So well that THe OCEAN exists within me in and between my cells, nestling against my synapses, salting my lips on a hot day.
Master Evo-Deny so eloquently shows how THe OCEAN of impulsive chemistry, trained up by the elder physics (under even more subtle control) not only enables life and species, but is inhabited by life while simultaneously being an inhabitant of life. This is a profound insight.
But the Master just couldn't leave it there. No, he had to fall into lock step with popular dogma and try to create a trinity by invoking an immaterial soul. He just can't resist it. Maybe it's something about the structural properties of triangles and the Master is a closet engineer. No matter.
Dear Master, I will accept your notion of a human soul when you capture one, paint it green, and place it in my hand. And if it pops when I stick it with a pin and smells like yesterday's beans then it is not evidence.
Sleep well, Master. And dream . . . of when you were IN THe OCEAN. Rolling, drifting upon the breast of the sea, the snot green sea, the scrotum tightening sea.
Posted by: Ariel | June 11, 2009 11:29 PM
Steve,
No, it is because in debates with Creationists, Creationists often show themselves to be dishonest and hypocritical. Sorry, but that is the history of debate with Creationists. They are still distorting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics after years of being shown how they are wrong. And they will be doing the same next year, and the year after that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 11:31 PM
Until then, have a nice hot cup of STFU.
or, in case you can't read well:
Posted by: Steve_C | June 11, 2009 11:31 PM
Science is based on reality. Creationism is a fairy tale based on deception.
The Creation Museum poisons children's minds. It deserves no respect. There's no "science" in that museum.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 11, 2009 11:31 PM
Sven's right, I think.
I'm an overt idiot
Mr Ed's a covert idiot
And Stevo's a poorly read, close-minded, scared-of-his-own-mortality, superstitiously deluded genuine IDiot.
Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 11:32 PM
You are trying to infer certain evolutionists don't act like Inquisitors.
This is the verbiage of an abuser, playing the victim while making vile, unfounded accusations.
Posted by: William McBrine
|
June 11, 2009 11:33 PM
Don't think of it as children becoming unable to breed with their parents' generation. Think of a single population being divided -- by geography, environment, whatever -- and then changes gradually accumulating separately in the daughter populations. At no point do these mutations result in the mutants losing fertility with other members of their own group; but over time, the two populations go in different directions.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 11:34 PM
Smudgy batstinkle:
You have serious phsychological issues dude. You nee to See a the/rapist before you hurt someone - mainly yourself.
All these 'millions of years" of evolution and all you can say is stuff like this. I think Darwin needed to see this site. he might have stayed here instead of adventuring around the world to make theories. One of these days I'm going to show this site to a prominant pshychiatrist and have some of you put in the nut house.
Bye ape-like creatures.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 11, 2009 11:36 PM
bacteria that eat hairspray existed before there was hairspray? poor critters, I wonder what they ate before what they ate even existed!
*snort*
You are trying to infer certain evolutionists don't act like Inquisitors. When the Creation Museum opened they sure lined the road with signs and other expressions. Just one example.
oh yeah. non-violent expression of opinion is EXACTLY like torturing people to death.
pathetic.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 11:37 PM
There, saved you billions of unnecessary spending and a whole lotta time.
...and answered absolutely nothing.
If you taught your bible as science, what would you expect would be the actual, real result?
seriously.
I want to see you figure out what we, as a population of thoughtful individuals, can practically DO with the answer:
goddidit.
go ahead.
does it give us information useful to combat diseases?
nope.
does it help us predict where earthquakes or volcanoes will be?
nope.
does allow us to figure out which animals are more closely related to us than others, in order for us to better figure out how we ourselves work?
nope.
so, uh, what EXACTLY are the practical applications of...
Goddidit.
does it
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 11, 2009 11:38 PM
bacteria that eat hairspray existed before there was hairspray? poor critters, I wonder what they ate before what they ate even existed!
*snort*
oh yeah. non-violent expression of opinion is EXACTLY like torturing people to death.
pathetic.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 11, 2009 11:40 PM
Not ape-like, just ape.
So, go fuck yourself. And then die in a fire.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 11, 2009 11:45 PM
Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. Creationists believe in natural selection. it explains the differences in speciation of animals but it does not turn one animals into another completely (dinos to birds, etc.).
Birds are birds, reptiles are reptiles, fish are fish, etc.
In order for evolution of animals to occur and turn a dinosaur into a bird, the genetic code has to gain information. Instead it loses information. The direct opposite.
I'm going to bed. i rest my case.
Evolution is impossible. natural selection is real. They are not the same.
I thank Ken ham for his work. i have contributed more than $500 dollars plus many books from AIG and plan to see the museum. I hope the Souther baptists can convince most baptist churches to start adopting AIG literature and make a once a year field trip to the juseum for kids and adults.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 11, 2009 11:46 PM
Please, let us know your true identity. This is because you must truly be a powerful person if you are able to have us committed.
Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Posted by: Smudgy Batstinkle | June 11, 2009 11:47 PM
Dear God,
I though My ED and I were brothers in the Lord, but then he launched an attack on my name! Why is this happening to me, oh my God? I weep and wail in this dark night of the soul. Never in all my years of Christian-missionaryism has my name been the butt of so many jokes. I feel lower then I did the night Floyd Rubber first walked into my cell and said "Hi there, chuckle buns!"
Dear Mr Ed, let us pray together like true Christians, I'll put my psychological issues before Jesus, and you can flop yours out as well, and we could see whose issue is bigger.
Yours in the love of Mary's...um...son, Jesus Christ(who was certainly not there with God the Father at the moment of divine impregnation...oh no...not ever...never).
PS I suppose that means you don't want to buy any BIBLE™
PPS I'll never say such offensive things again Mr Ed. I promise I'll stick to acceptable things like religious pogroms, child mutilation, old testament smitings and priestly rape.
Posted by: Steve | June 11, 2009 11:50 PM
Some of you guys really don't know how to love. I wonder how much you hate yourselves. No Inquisition language? How about the Creation Museum "poisoning" children's mind's? If you really believed that, you'd be out for "justice" for the little ones. Thus, you are a hypocrite, on top of all your other inconsistencies and sins.
And those dinosaur and other "transitional" web links: much of the same. Voluminous verbiage not hard to find words in them like "assume" or "may be" or "inferred" or several others, and no proof of voluminous transitions that would be needed to prove your case. It's all in your interpretation. And then to look at your photos of a skulls or skull fragments that prove your view? So many look distorted by time and forces of nature and broken and significant pieces missing and cracked and twisted and like fossilized clumps of clay or whatever; and that is your evidence? It is your interpretation because you WANT IT TO BE SO BAD! That's your anger and separation from God coming through...again. (Oh, and by the way, in the Old Testament God was angry at sin and unrighteousness. Your problem is you think you are righteous, or you don't even care. So, His anger is on you; which makes you defensive and then your anger comes through, quite often with hate and filth.)
I will have to think and pray about going on here. The Bible does say it can, at times, not be good to rebuke fools. One can only get insults in return.
Posted by: kamaka | June 11, 2009 11:50 PM
Yeah, Smoggy, go see a psychiatrist.
You're too funny, you need a dose of reality.
Reality is in no way funny. Your soul needs some tending.
Pray to Jeebus, He will fix you up.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 11, 2009 11:51 PM
You have no case. Only ignorance. Everything you stated is wrong. Everything you think you know is wrong.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2009 11:51 PM
Don't you see????
It's KWOK!!!!
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 11:54 PM
Some of you guys really don't know how to love.
Of course we do! you just taught us all about how to be an Inquisitor, right?
wait, you mean you weren't teaching us how to love by calling us all inquisitors?
Posted by: Kseniya | June 11, 2009 11:55 PM
You are all fools. FOOLS!
Porthangul was the divine spawn of D'Naglu-Cha - the Cha manifest in flesh. Remember Vanshalla was a k'nell when Porthangul was conceived (chai begins at conception). Porthangul chose to come here. How can you discount the credibility of the Koob Doogeth?. Did not the prophet Br'sh'ka'teur fortell of the baby Porthangul who would be born of a k'nell?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2009 11:56 PM
Now I see.
Thanks.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 11, 2009 11:59 PM
Hahaha. He can't be serious.
Calls US fools. Classic. Stick around Steve. We can bat you around like a cat with a mouse for days.
But we'll get bored with you quickly. You're not even that interesting or special. You're a dime a dozen. Logically challenged and deluded by your mythology.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 12, 2009 12:01 AM
"The Bible does say it can, at times, not be good to rebuke fools."
Well it got that right Stevo. We've been rebuking you for ages and it hasn't done you any good at all.
It's given us a really good laugh though.
Please don't go--we haven't got to the good bits yet.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 12:02 AM
Aw, jeez, K.
I didn;t know you were a Porthangulian.
I'm pretty sure I'm suppoesed to shun you now that I know that.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 12, 2009 12:04 AM
How old is the earth Steve?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 12:05 AM
Birds are birds, reptiles are reptiles, fish are fish, etc.
and what practical knowledge does the idea that all these things were specially created give us, exactly?
seriously, tell us.
I can tell you many things the theory of common descent has lead to that are quite practical in application.
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-are-practical-applications-of.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-in-the-everday-world
so what are the practical applications of: Goddidit?
why do you refuse to answer such a simple question?
Surely Ken Ham has the answer to it over at AIG, right?
No?
maybe you need to pay him just a little more money?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 12:06 AM
Maybe - but we know how to think, which is more appear able to manage.
Ah, a Christian calling someone a hypocrite. I guess that makes it Hypocrisy2.
Again with the hypocrisy. It doesn't matter how often science, history, logic and common sense shows the bible to be almost entirely fictional, you cling to it anyway and claim that it's reality that's wrong.
Why was your god angry? According to your ooga-booga creation fairy-tale he created humans; and, since he is perfect, we turned out exactly how he wanted us to. Plus, he's omniscient, so he knew exactly what was going to happen even before that.
How is it possible angry when something does what you wanted it to, and when you knew it was going to happen? It's like me turning on a tap and yelling at the water for coming out - and I'm just a fallible human, not a perfect god.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you're far more familiar with the latter than the former. Because if it were the other way around you wouldn't bother with praying as you'd have worked out it does nothing except waste time and effort.
But I like nothing more than hearing Christians inform me they're going to pray. It keeps them from doing anything that's actually going to work to prevent their stupid, archaic superstition from fading away.
You get back what you put in. If you had anything resembling an argument then you'd receive an appropriate response. As all you have is barely-coherent babbling about superstitious nonsense, you're going to get crapped all over, time and time again.
Don't want to be ridiculed? Stop holding ridiculous beliefs.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 12, 2009 12:06 AM
projection isn't even interesting anymore...
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 12, 2009 12:09 AM
"Surely Ken Ham has the answer to it over at AIG, right?"
I'll ask Cousin Ken when I get there. He says he's got a job for me, and I'm hoping his museum might want to set up a vending machine for BIBLE™. Floyd Rubber has got me a hog and the two of us are hitting the road for Petersburg tomorrow.
How exciting. We Batzrubble's have never had much to do with the Australian arm of the family. After I've been to see cousin Ken, I'm heading on to catch up with Cousin Ray.
Pray for me sinners!
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 12:10 AM
projection isn't even interesting anymore...
It's rather much like saying a clear sky is blue.
I'm playing the "put up or shut up" card today.
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 12:10 AM
No fool would refuse to state in a sentence or two the answers to the four questions I posited in #107. If the answers are factual, that could fit in a couple sentences, too. Like: "We now know that one human cell is far more than Darwin could have imagined. High tech microscopes reveal an amazing factory, not to mention the DNA workings." See, not to complicated. Go for it! (but don't side-step it again with fanciful fairy tales and conjectures based on imaginations with not a shred of evidence out there to lend any proof at all.)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 12, 2009 12:17 AM
Ichthyic, I used to think projection was an interesting way of looking inside their heads, since I could never imagine that kind of mindset myself.
but now it's getting boring and predictive; should have figured such minds are rather shallow. not much interesting psychology there
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 12, 2009 12:18 AM
The stupid is indeed shining bright when my shallow knowledge of biology is insulted. Is it alright for bacteria to eat non human organic matter? Is human flesh composed of different material than animal flesh? Why is it bad that some bacteria eats human flesh? It would seem that it would be very unhealthy for human corpses to not decompose.
Why does Evolution Denier (I spelled your moniker correctly.) think that we should show respect for his ignorence?
Posted by: Steve_C | June 12, 2009 12:18 AM
The evidence exists. You're just ignorant of it. You like it that way. If you truly tried to understand what science shows us, your little creationist bubble would pop.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 12:20 AM
Tell you what, Steve, you give us an answer as to why you think there's a god - but it has to be an explanation that doesn't involve an argument from vast ignorance, incredulity or intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, you may consult a dictionary to find out what those big words mean.
And as for the answers you're chasing, try the Talk Origins FAQ.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2009 12:22 AM
neither do you
neither do you
what?
you mean the ancestors of the animals that show up in the Cambrian? They were small and soft-bodied and their fossils have not been found yet. Except for the ones that have, in the form of fossilized embryos and trace fossils.
Archosaurian sauropsids.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 12, 2009 12:22 AM
Steve. Age of the earth? roughly. Go on. Answer.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 12, 2009 12:24 AM
Steve! How can you lay such an accusation at the feet of your fellow man, your neighbor, your brother? You actually said
Man, you are breakin' my heart.
I have always loved you as I have always loved those who came before me, who now walk with me and those who will someday walk together where I cannot go! What deeper love for my fellow humans, only a tiny fraction of them I know personally, could I have?
And you have it already, without even asking or even knowing about it.
How, while having at least some modest regard for myself, could I not love you and all the uncountable kin of mine when I know quite certainly that I simply could not be here without all of you?
I think you owe me an apology. And one to my kinfolk, too.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 12, 2009 12:28 AM
"No fool would refuse to state in a sentence or two the answers to the four questions I posited in #107."
You're probably right Stevo, no FOOL would refuse to state such answers in a sentence or two. But if you want fools who can give you sound bite answers then you should go back to the blogs you usually frequent, where the deluded, dormant and disabled no doubt think you're some sort of genius.
Only a book that is a tissue of ancient desert superstitions is going to sum up the complexity of the universe in a series of unsubstantiated metaphors and euphemisms.
Real knowledge scares you Stevo. You can't comprehend actually sitting down for years and years and using your wonderfully evolved mind to comprehend even one minute facet of this world, which is what great scientists do. You'd rather spout unprovable nonsense, and cling to prehistoric stories, than come to terms with the things we do know and can prove.
Fair enough. But understand that we find you pathetic for your credulity. And we find you despicable for your part in crippling the minds of the impressionable and the vulnerable.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 12:29 AM
Sven, if there's any shunning to be done around here, it's gonna be done by me, a true and devout Porthangulian. I promise that I will pray for you all once more before I set the kindling ablaze.
Posted by: Notagod | June 12, 2009 12:29 AM
The Springer site has a book coming in July 2009,
A Natural Calling
Life, Letters and Diaries of Charles Darwin and William Darwin Fox
I would love to have it but, it is only $139 :(
Maybe if I read enough of their free content I can use that to con myself into a justification for buying A Natural Calling.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 12:42 AM
Does the creator know that you're playing with the superglue again?
It amazes me to see how some - no, many - people revel in the certainty of myth, for they cannot live with the uncertainty inherent in the acquisition of real, if incomplete, knowledge.
Nobody has. Myths are not explanations.
Try applying this standard to the things you accept without question. Do you have 100% definite proof positive of the existence of a universe-creating deity?
I thought not.
Even a layperson can understand this.
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 12:44 AM
My answer: about 6,000 years. This is what the Scripture reveals. God is the only one who was there (with His angels) at the time and He gave us the only truthful record. Dating methods are very inconsistent and falsifiable in themselves. Like lava or strata sample from Mt. St. Helens dated into the thousands of years through at least one accepted method of testing from an outside source. I could site other examples. (C14 found in diamonds formed about 100 miles beneath the earth's surface, etc.) More and more and more proofs could be noted for a young earth.
Now, to quote from the famous Talk Origins site: "Paleontologists clearly consider the occurrence of evolution to be a settled question, so obvious as to be beyond rational dispute, so, they think, why waste valuable textbook space on such tedious detail?"
Oh I know. The devil is in those nasty details. What a cop out when their interpretations will do.
And that PBS link about evolution? That was no debate! That was more biased dogma that's on TV all the time. So then, why not have the best from AIG or ICR debate IN A USUAL DEBATE FORMAT for a couple hours on PBS with the "best" PBS can muster? The answer is FEAR. It would intimidate you evolutionists beyond belief. Truth said.
Posted by: Notagod | June 12, 2009 12:46 AM
However, I know the christian expresses love as torture but, I can't convince myself that is acceptable behavior.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 12:52 AM
This is what the Scripture reveals.
without referring to anything Ken Ham has written, and just to the copy of the bible you posess (you, uh do have one, right)?), show us exactly how IT proves the earth is 6000 years old.
or do you really mean that this answer was "revealed" to you not by the bible, but by people who told you what the answer was?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 12, 2009 12:57 AM
Dear Stevo,
I have to nip off, some sheep need a bath.
But before I go God asked me to say, "Keep up the good work!" Even he thinks you have the brain of..of...of...a young earth creationist (I was going to say lemming, but that would insult lemmings), but despite this HE admires your blind stupidity. "Religion would never have got off the ground," he told me, "if it weren't for the blindly stupid."
May the blessings of a thousand lepers rain down upon you.
Yours in Christian credulity
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 12:57 AM
Uh, let me guess. You have been smitten by the gap theory, or the "day age" theory in relation to biblical ages. No, I have been listening carefully and reading the Bible carefully. Even Jesus spoke of the One who made them "from the beginning" male and female.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 1:00 AM
So, you take a book written by humans over a thousand years ago - remember, that's all the bible really is - as more reliable than the science available today, the same science that has provided you with the technology to even be communicating with us over the internet right now?
If you truly believe science has no answers, why aren't you praying for us to receive your thoughts rather than using a device created by science? Surely if science can do it it would be simple for your god's magic to achieve the same ends, wouldn't it?
All of those lies are debunked at Talk Origins. Why not try actually reading some of the explanations instead of accepting the DI/AIG propoganda? What are you afraid of?
Except that the science is explained, thoroughly, over and over again. In simple terms. Only someone deluded and/or intellectually dishonest could claim otherwise.
When you are sick, what do you rely on? Medical science or the bible? Do you visit a doctor or a priest? Do you take drugs/antibiotics or pray?
Well, duh. That's because there is no 'debate' about the age of the earth or the fact of evolution, any more than there is a debate that electricity works because of demons, or that gravity is actually the work of magical hovering pixies, or that flight is achieved through the work of helpful elves - and there is as much evidence for these creatures existing as there is for your god and the creation fable.
Only if intimidate suddenly has a new meaning. As it is creationism has all the intimidatory power of a weevil squaring up against a fully functioning M1 Abrams tank.
And it's not like you haven't had your chances. Are you familiar with the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial? Creationism had its chance and it was shot down in flames of humiliation - presided over by a Christian judge, no less.
How do you explain that?
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 12, 2009 1:02 AM
The whole concept of deferring to revelation is essentially saying 'I'm too lazy to try to figure it out, just tell me the answer.' It doesn't matter who the revealer is.
When even your acceptance of the authority of the revealer lies in revelation, you're pretty much basing your life on the idea that you've guessed the one source that has everything right, out of hundreds of thousands of alternatives making the same kind of claims, by sheer luck.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 1:05 AM
Hahahahahahaaa! Good one!
You wouldn't know "truth" if it crept up behind you, tapped you on the shoulder, said "Steve! I am Truth!" and showed you its "I Am Truth" tattoo and a photo ID.
You're the one who's afraid, Steve. You're afraid of what the evidence shows, and you'll swallow any lie that promises to insulate you from that fear.
The validity of scientific theories are not settled in televised "debates". Do you know what a Gish Gallop is, Steve?
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2009 1:05 AM
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
Say!
Would you accept an explanation of how radiomentric dating and other dating systems work if it was written by a Christian?
No, that's wrong. And the essay above explains why the dating method used was in fact done incorrectly.
Sorry, no. We've also covered this: Carbon-14 usually forms from radiation sources above the ground (cosmic rays), but of course, there are indeed radioactive elements below the ground as well! The amount of C14 formed that way is very small, and that's what is detected in those diamonds.
There are no proofs whatsoever of a young earth. Sorry. None, zero, nothing.
No, all that creationists have is lies and misinterpretations. Sorry. There is too much actual science in support of evolution, so creationists have to ignore it, or lie about it.
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 1:07 AM
The things you call lies have not been debunked. So, you have exchanged the truth for lies. And that Dover trial means nothing concerning the truth of God as Creator. That was a decision someone made for political and "Constitutional" reasons. Not debate with facts.
And again, if evolution is so important to you and so certain, don't you think the best thing to do would be to debate the best creationists on national television? Just think how this could sway the masses to your side! Come on. Own up.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 12, 2009 1:09 AM
Because the proper place to settle questions of science is televised debate.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 1:13 AM
Even Jesus spoke of the One who made them "from the beginning" male and female.
that doesn't answer my question to you. Here, I'll repeat it for you:
Show me exactly how YOU derive the age of the earth as being 6000 from YOUR copy of YOUR bible.
if you like, you can use this handy reference to support your contentions:
http://www.biblegateway.com/
well?
or were you lying when you said SCRIPTURE reveals the age of the earth?
c'mon now, the baby jesus hates it when you lie, you know.
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 1:14 AM
The things you call lies have not been debunked. So, you have exchanged the truth for lies. And that Dover trial means nothing concerning the truth of God as Creator. That was a decision someone made for political and "Constitutional" reasons. Not debate with facts.
And again, if evolution is so important to you and so certain, don't you think the best thing to do would be to debate the best creationists on national television? Just think how this could sway the masses to your side! Come on. Own up.
And the science of the internet is part of true science. Not evolutionism fables of worm holes and multi universes and quantum smoke. The best of foundational scientists, who helped bring us to where we are today, were creationists! They had the reasons of exploring the handiwork of God in creation for our blessing and benefit (and indeed it has), not because they wanted to determine if there was a God who created it all. So, stick with true science (knowledge, which is really what science means). It got us to the moon and brought us computers, but did it through God given human minds. May be you can ask Bill Gates sometime what he likens the genetic code in one human cell to.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 1:18 AM
Listening? To what, exactly? Are you claiming that you have experienced your god speaking to you directly? What did he sound like?
So, your argument for the validity of a work of fiction is...a character from that work of fiction. Bravo; using that logic you should be able to go to King's Cross Railway Station in London and use Platform 9 and 3/4 so you can catch the Hogwart's Express.
Which, as mythologies go, would be far preferable; Harry Potter would kick pissant Jesus's ass anyday.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 12, 2009 1:20 AM
Ah, the ever-popular 'that isn't True Science ©' argument.
What's True Science ©, you ask? Why, True Science © is exactly what he says it is!
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 12, 2009 1:22 AM
Whoops, bad link.
True Science
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 1:25 AM
Wowbagger, OM: You may have a demon dealing with you. Yes, they are real. Would that demon have a name? (not the cartoon demons with horns and tales, but the ones that deceptively appear as angels of light and whose ministers appear as ministers of righteousness, but they are used by the demon from the unseen spiritual realm around us to live and practice lies). So again, is there a name for this demon you may have using you?
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 1:26 AM
Yes, just keep telling yourself that, and keep your fears at bay.
Don't you see what a specious argument that is? You might as well also that the best of foundational scientists didn't own radios, therefore electromagnetic theory is suspect. It's technically true, yes, but does it mean what you are trying to make it mean?
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2009 1:27 AM
They most certainly have been.
No, you've swallowed the lies and called them truth.
Yes and no. It indeed was not about God as Creator -- It was about whether "Intelligent Design" was in fact a form of "Creationism", and of course, "Creationism" is nothing more than religion. Free exercise of religion is permitted, of course, but you cannot call religion "science", nor promote (preach) religion in the public schools. And of course the trial was based on facts! That's the whole point of having a trial!.
Nah. Why have a debate when we can just educate?
You are completely confused. Worm holes and multiverses have nothing to do with biological evolution. And the "true science" of the internet is pretty dependent on quantum mechanics (WTF is "quantum smoke"?).
And true science includes biological evolution and all of the dating systems the are evidence for a 4.5 billion year old Earth, and all of the cosmology and astrophysics that are evidence for a 13.7 billion year old universe.
It's all the same process, and it all works, and it's all true.
You can't pick and choose some science and call the rest false just because you feel like it.
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 1:29 AM
Wowbagger, OM: You may have a demon dealing with you. Yes, they are real. Would that demon have a name? (not the cartoon demons with horns and tales, but the ones that deceptively appear as angels of light and whose ministers appear as ministers of righteousness, but they are used by the demon from the unseen spiritual realm around us to live and practice lies). So again, is there a name for this demon you may have using you?
Why would you call Jesus what you did? There has never been a man as good as Jesus, if you read the Bible. This may be the use of that demon in your life in saying that about Jesus. So again, any name perhaps?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 1:29 AM
Steve wrote:
We don't need to work very hard to make Steve look foolish; with this one line he does a great job of illustrating exactly how stupid he is - since it appears he doesn't even know the difference between biology and physics.
Here's a hint, Steve - wormholes, quantum physics etc - has nothing to do with evolution. Or are you admitting you don't know what evolution is?
Besides, there are plenty of Christians who accept the fact of evolution, and one of them even writes textbooks about it. How do you explain that?
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 12, 2009 1:30 AM
Well gosh, I hope I don't have a demon. Though I do get email from this strange character named 'daemon' sometimes who seems to know who I've been sending emails to.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 12, 2009 1:31 AM
lol, looks like we have pilty's long lost YEC twin.
demons, my ass...
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 1:39 AM
Oh, c'mon Wowbagger - "own up" now. What's the name of your demon? I like to call me mine is called Pantalaimon. (Ok, he's a dæmon, not a demon, but don't tell Steve! He thinks demons are real!)
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 1:40 AM
This site is not limited to biology, is it? It's about atheism? So there is no point in criticizing the use of quantum smoke (figure for fluff, made up stuff).
And to Owimirror: They were wrong just several years ago about the age of the universe with an age that DID NOT overlap their resent belief. And if the universe is 13.7 b. years old, how do you account for the edge of the universe at 10s of billions of light years away, so far? Nothing travels faster than the speed of light we are told REPEATEDLY. You can't say inflation does because Einstein tried to demonstrate any physical movement from any reference point shows the speed of light the same. Now you will use your given belief someone told you to account for this. You guys just espouse and have a way of making it sound so original.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 1:41 AM
(wow. serious edit fail. what the heck?)
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2009 1:41 AM
Why on earth would you say something so monumentally off-topic? (And mind-bogglingly dumb.) Really, where did that nonsensical question even come from?
Posted by: kamaka | June 12, 2009 1:44 AM
Yes, indeed, I am possessed by demons.
Oh, wait, I'm not suppossed to know about my daemonic possession!
So if I think I'm possessed, I'm not?
Err, umm, if I think I'm not, I am??
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 12, 2009 1:48 AM
PZ asked:
Given that a small child is grossly ignorant of things beyond childhood, here is one possible answer--
My eldest daughter is now in her mid thirties, married, two boys in grade school. She has just begun her second year of college. She called me a couple of days ago to tell me that more than one of her instructors have mentioned her unique outlook, her insistence on sufficient information when making claims and her way of expressing herself on the page. She told her teachers that she had learned to enjoy learning because knowledge ties together experience and understanding something new is a deep pleasure.
She told me that upon hearing herself speak so she told her teachers that her father had spoken to her often, with anecdote and example, why it was a good idea to pay attention and learn about as many things as possible. She remembered that I had told her that someday stories about bugs and birds and rocks and stars would fit together in unexpected ways, exciting ways.
She just called to tell me that and to thank me for reading essays by Lewis Thomas and Carl Sagan after dinner. Dish washing came next, frequently accompanied by wide ranging speculation and giggles.
She is also a novice teacher herself, laboring as a substitute and teacher's assistant.
I like to think that the reason that she is improving her understanding while at the same time helping children to develop valid perspectives is due in some part to my efforts. And I am allowed that sweet indulgence because she told me so. And thanked me.
I'm sure the day will come when she will be thanked.
Teach your children well. Can you think of a better way to influence the future?
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 1:49 AM
If you had read the post in context, it had to do with the Wowbagger OM characterized Jesus as. That's where it came from. What would move him to do that? Look at his #183 posting.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 1:50 AM
And you, Steve, are offering... what? UNADULTERATED DOGMA. Good lord. You are so blind to yourself. You silly, silly man.
The visible edge? Citation, please. I suspect you are confused. (Evidence already gathered strongly suggests it.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2009 1:53 AM
Oh! You mean like religion and God and Jesus!
OK, sure, I'll agree that religion af God and Jesus are all quantum smoke.
Do you mean where the estimate was more like 15 billion rather than 13 billion? Yes, that was a less precise estimate. Science does that: It changes when it gets new evidence (which it did: the WMAP system gathered more evidence about the universe). Note that changing when you get new evidence is the same way that learning works.
Quite right. This is pretty complicated cosmology: The universe is expanding, and it is expanding faster than the speed of light. The reason that it can in fact happen is because that which is expanding -- space itself -- is neither matter nor energy. Or to put it another way, it is, quite literally nothing itself that is indeed travelling faster than the speed of light.
So! Do you indeed agree that the universe cannot possibly be only 6000 years old, given that we do indeed see many things much further away than 6000 light years?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Space itself does expand, and we do have the evidence for it.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 12, 2009 1:53 AM
hmm... yeah, what could POSSIBLY explain that we can see light that seems to have traveled over 10 billion years, in an universe that's over 10 billion years old, but not older than that, thus giving the impression of an edge at ca. 13 billion years... hmmmm....
*snortle*
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 1:54 AM
If you had read the post in context, it had to do with the Wowbagger OM characterized Jesus as. That's where it came from. What would move him to do that? Look at his #183 posting. Also, consider this from the Bible: the New Testament book of Ephesians, chapter 6 verse 12. Of course, you can only truly see that if you are a believer to begin with. But that does not lessen its truth.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 1:54 AM
If they're real that means there's evidence of them you can provide. So, where is it?
Why would I listen to a minister of anything, let alone 'righteousness'? These are nonsense concepts and I would no more listen to anyone matching that description than I would to a Jesus-soaked fool like yourself.
There has never been a man
as good aswho did what Jesus is said to have done,if you readdespite what it says in the Bible.Fixed it for you.
Ah, but you weren't making a general reference to the site; your comment about quantum physics came directly after you mentioned evolution - because you, in your vast ignorance, think they're related. Which you were called on and are now trying to squirm out of.
Which makes you a liar. Funny, I thought you Christians were supposed to feel bad about bearing false witness.
Has one of your demons taken you over? Because that makes even less sense than the rest of the rubbish you've been spouting. And that's one heck of an achievement, even for a shit-for-brains Christian idiot like yourself.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 12, 2009 1:54 AM
lol, because he called Jesus a pissant. Only a person possessed by a demon would say something like that. Makes perfect sense, right?
I suspect, Steve, that you could find several more demons here if everybody said what they thought of your god and Jesus...
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 1:55 AM
My explanation: Wowbagger isn't a Christian, he doesn't believe in Christian mythology, therefore Jesus means very little to him.
Steve's explanation: ZOMG TEH DEMON!
Let's take a poll. Which explanation is more plausible?
Posted by: wheatdogg
|
June 12, 2009 1:57 AM
I was a high school teacher for a long time. Granted, I taught physics and not biology, but there are plenty of misconceptions about physics and astronomy among the population, too. One of my hardest jobs was to dislodge wrong ideas from students' minds to replace them with correct ideas.
It ain't easy, even when they are willing to learn. Movies, TV and cartoons (the worst offenders!) present innumerable wrong ideas about physics and astronomy in entertaining, visually appealing, exciting ways. Kids learn these wrong ideas from a very young age, so the teacher has a superhuman task before him or her to re-educate the students. Consider, for example, that few if any teachers have Hollywood-sized budgets to teach real science.
If you add religious dogma to the equation, the job becomes exponentially higher. One student, an avid believer in astrology, had a momentary lapse of her faith when I managed to convey the enormous distances separating the stars. I am sure that immediately following her understanding of the vastness of space, she quickly rationalized that understanding somehow to maintain her astrological belief system. Fundies' belief system runs so deep, and is reinforced so often, that convincing them to "see the light" is well nigh impossible.
The people we need to educate are the fence-sitters, or the doubters, who question fundamentalism but do not have the scientific education required to finally reject fundie beliefs.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 2:03 AM
Right! Steve is obviously too far gone to ever reach. Yet I applaud Owlmirror (and others) for doing a much better job than I of responding to him in a constructive, educational way that may benefit the many silent readers among us.
And with that, I big you all good-night. (You too, Steve.)
Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2009 2:07 AM
(I bid... bid you all good night)
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2009 2:08 AM
You mean "Harry Potter would kick pissant Jesus's ass anyday"?
Technically speaking, I think it may be true. I mean, if you read Harry Potter, you see that the wizards learn some spells that are quite powerful. Jesus, when asked to jump from a height and fly (or let God let him fly), said "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God", which certainly sounds like he couldn't do it and was just making excuses. But Harry Potter would have easily performed Wingardium Leviosa!, and flown around mocking the devil (or Voldemort).
Of course, Harry was not able to raise anyone from the dead. But he does know spells like Petrificus Totalis! that make someone look like they're dead, and then take the spell off, making it look like they're brought back to life. That's pretty much what Jesus did anyway, I think, if you read the story of Lazarus carefully, except he (or rather, they) used the spell called "making believe" or "acting".
And so on. So, I think Wowbagger may well be right.
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2009 2:09 AM
Well, I am going to bed now. I will pray that you will be saved from your sins and trust Christ who died for your sins and defeated death for us too when He rose from the grave. If you do not and were to die the next hour or another time, you would be consciously sensing condemnation and things would get worse in hell for you, forever. With all science tries to tell us about time, eternity is a state with a lot of endlessness to it. And you will know why you are there. That's why it is a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Forever. Time on earth is short. Now is the time of salvation for anyone willing to come to Christ. Tomorrow, or the next hour, could be too late for you. Read John chapter 3.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 12, 2009 2:11 AM
#211 = fundie flounce
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 12, 2009 2:14 AM
How much endlessness, exactly, fits in eternity?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 2:26 AM
Cowardly Steve, a pissant like his Jesus, wrote:
Indeed - too damn short to be wasted in church, in prayer, or in supplication to a non-existent sky-fairy of unparalleled malevolence. I prefer to spend it enjoying myself and/or learning about the true wonders of existence.
That fools like you waste your time on earth thinking there'll be time anywhere else is truly sad.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 12, 2009 2:30 AM
Well, kiddies! There we have it. The true true magic according to Steve @ 203:
So, buddy, were you born true or did you just wake up one day and find an extra measure of veracity suddenly attendant? Or was it a tangible process enabling you to recall the important connections?
*i'll bet he was taught it, got spanked if he questioned it or, failing the early teaching, simply found himself unable or unwilling to do anything other that opt for the easy way out. first step; disengace brain*
Sorry, man. I do love you as my own kind, and it pains me to observe that what you claim as truth has a 2000 year history of failure in terms of making life better, by any measure.
You're still cool. Your mother loves you. But you are not even wrong. You lack familiarity with a narrative far larger than the poor dessicated story that you have decided to cling to in spite of . . . everything.
Peace, man. Anyway.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2009 2:30 AM
If you must.
Sure, whatever. But why would I trust someone who can't even fly?
I mean, Superman, there's someone you can really trust. And he died for our sins and defeated death, too!
Nah, not really.
You know what? Tomorrow, if we're both still alive (and reading and posting to Pharyngula), we can pick where we left off.
But I'm not going to let worry about a fictional punishment from a fictional character upset my sleep for an instant.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 12, 2009 2:31 AM
Awwwwww... fuckit!
How come Wowbagger gets a demon and I don't? I did my level best to offend the fundies. I even suggested that the virgin Mary's under-age impregnation might have been a foursome, with the rest of the holy trinity along for the ride. And what do I get? Mr Ed makes fun of my name (and who the fuck would think it was a cutting riposte to make fun of someone calling themselves "Smoggy Batzrubble"?)
Surely if anyone deserves to be called demon possessed it's me.
C'mon Wowbaggy, what's your secret?
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2009 2:36 AM
I think invoking Harry Potter gets you doubleplus Satanic condemnation points. !!++
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 2:40 AM
Daily afternoon snack of blackened, cajun-seasoned Christian baby.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 12, 2009 2:41 AM
Be brave, Smoggy. Things will get better.
Haven't they always?
Posted by: wheatdogg
|
June 12, 2009 2:42 AM
I submit Steve's comment #211 as anecdotal evidence for my advisory in #207. Steve has built such a bulwark of belief around him that no arguments we can offer here will penetrate his defenses. (I was going to say shields, but that belongs to the StarTrek thread elsewhere here.)
Steve, as a former believer, I can appreciate your concern for our immortal souls, but you are cutting yourself off from a valuable discussion. The Bible also counsels us to use Wisdom (Sophia) as well as faith. Perhaps you can drink from the well of Sophia, too.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 12, 2009 2:48 AM
WOWBAGGER!!!!! you're ruining my diet with such suggestions. just hearing the words "Christian baby" makes my cholesterol go through the roof
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 12, 2009 2:54 AM
Sorry. I guess you could use the leaner cuts of baby meat, but it's not the same. All that juicy Christian fat - sweet as Jesus' tears - is what makes it so tasty.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 12, 2009 3:30 AM
Ohhhh,I missed all the fun !!!
We had a live one,and Wowbagger is really possessed by a demon !!
Damnit,I knew it !
Fair shake of the sauce bottle mate !!
:-)
Posted by: embertine | June 12, 2009 4:04 AM
PZ, I absolutely agree. I'm not a teacher, and when a creationist friend of mine tells me that she doesn't "believe" in evolution because she's never seen a dog turn into a cat, I just..... Well. I stand there with my mouth open like the idiot I'm sure she thinks I am. Basically because I don't even know where to start addressing the misconceptions of someone who could come out with something like that.
As regards Steve..... AW BLESS. Let's sum up his argument:
"If you read the Bible, you'll see that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. Which is true. Because it says so in the Bible." Awwwwww. It's like listening to a five-year-old talk about fairies.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 12, 2009 4:11 AM
Evolution Denier @94,
Yeah, 'Chrustians' is much better. Better still, why not make it Crustyans, as in Crusty the Clown?
Posted by: Eric Tetz | June 12, 2009 4:13 AM
Guy G wrote:
Absolutely. It's hard enough even for trained skeptics. As Max Plank put it, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Thankfully, kids growing up today have the Internet, giving them access to ideas outside their local cultural bubble. The pro-science voices on media hubs like YouTube are vastly more articulate and knowledgeable than the Creationists, and I think the kids recognize that.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 12, 2009 4:14 AM
Wheatdog @ 221
Good on you for your generous and measured response to Steve, particularly after the ridicule the rest of us have rained down on him.
But we both know your advice will fall on deaf ears. Trolls like Stevo and Mr ED come here for some sort of perverse affirmation. No one forces them--they love their masochistic wallow in the evil of atheism, and they tally up the Jesus points they earn as they go.
The real value of such trolls is the perspective on Christian delusion and blindness they present to the wavering 'believers' who anonymously surf a thread like this, testing the religious indoctrination inflicted upon them against their experience of the real world.
Steve and Mr ED are wonderful recruiters for a rational approach to life.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 12, 2009 4:48 AM
Is Steve really Billy Graham? He sounds just like him: the same cliches about Christ who died for our sins, the same mobster-like threats when we don't let him control our lives. "Love me or I'll have you tortured forever." There's
ChristianCrustyan morality for you.People like Steve make me wish that the Romans had done a better job at suppressing the Christians. On the other hand, I'm sure Steve would then be proselytizing in the name of Jupiter. That would have been just as insipid. Bah. There is probably a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Posted by: Rick R | June 12, 2009 5:07 AM
Wow, Steve was a black hole of perfect stupid, a bukkake shower of religious brain paralysis. So glad not to be him.
Oh, Smoggy? I was wondering if you'd do something for me. Since you and Floyd are over and out, could you get me his phone number?
Posted by: me | June 12, 2009 5:15 AM
"The problem isn't that they don't understand it, the problem is that they don't believe in it. You can't change that."
This is profoundly wrong. The majority of fundies do not understand evolution. If they are engaged with it at all (most aren't: Phil 4:8, 1 John 2:15-17), they actively pursue doublethink in order not to understand it. Those who do understand it are simply cynical liars who are using their knowledge and understanding of belief as a political tool.
Posted by: me | June 12, 2009 5:17 AM
"The problem isn't that they don't understand it, the problem is that they don't believe in it. You can't change that."
This is profoundly wrong. The majority of fundies do not understand evolution. If they are engaged with it at all (most aren't: Phil 4:8, 1 John 2:15-17), they actively pursue doublethink in order not to understand it. Those who do understand it are simply cynical liars who are using their knowledge and understanding of belief as a political tool.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 12, 2009 6:45 AM
Rick R @ 230
Sure, Floyd's his own man.
His business number is 0900 TWINKS4FREE or you can email him at floyd.rubber@bemybitch.com.
If you're into mano-a-mano on a Harley while it's doing the ton on the freeway he'll be pleased to hear from you.
Yours in a Virtuous Christian Life
SB
Posted by: Matt Snodgrass | June 12, 2009 7:13 AM
So, Pinkoski believes in a form of dinosaur pirate; how sweet is that.
Posted by: Adam M. Goldstein | June 12, 2009 11:30 AM
Hi. The intention of Evolution: Education & Outreach is not primarily to reach and convince creationists or supporters of Intelligent Design, and in general, is not directed at an audience of those otherwise skeptical about whether evolution occurred, whether natural selection is responsible for adaptation, and the like. Certainly it would be good if someone who had these sorts of views changed them as a result of reading our publication. The central audience we are aiming to reach is the educated general public who wants to learn about evolution, teachers at all levels, including college teachers, scientists outside of the field of evolutionary studies or whose specializations in evolutionary studies prevent them from having adequate time or access to knowledge of other fields in evolutionary studies, scholars of the Humanities, social scientists, and (last but not least) researchers in science education.
In the post, Prof. Meyers states the following:
\begin{quote}
However, I am concerned that they address one audience, but it's not the audience we have to really worry about. The kinds of people who will read and enjoy those articles are scientists who appreciate a good overview of a field, the kinds of informed citizens who would, for instance, read a science blog, and educators in general who want more substance about evolution to include in their classes. Creationists are not the journal's clientele. That means that sometimes the articles miss the mark on who we need to persuade.
\end{quote}
This seems to me to underestimate the need for more resources of the kind that appear in EE&O. While it's true that those in our audience do not need to be convinced that evolution occurred and is occurring, etc., it's not true that those needing information about evolution mentioned above are always as informed as they would like to be and as they should be about the subject. Many professionals do not merely "want to add more substance about evolution to their classes"---they desperately need to, a need of which they are aware. They need help. This is particularly important in the case of teachers, many of whom may not feel that they have adequate grasp of the concepts, a deep enough stock of examples, or well-worked out explanations of ideas in evolution that might help help students get beyond whatever initial skepticism they bring to their classes. This is why we aim in each issue to publish lesson plans accompanying some of the general articles. However popular and accessible evolution blogs and books such as The Beak of the Finch or the excellent works by Carl Zimmer are, finding and learning from these sources requires a significant investment in time spent researching for someone who doesn't know where to begin. Adapting blog content or material from books into classroom activities, handouts, slide shows, or exam questions also requires significant investment, probably more than most teachers can afford. The materials for teaching evolution must be particularly excellent, because skeptical students, teachers, and administrators may raise questions the answers to which are not obvious or intuitive. We also seek to call attention to artistic expressions of ideas about evolution and events and venues such as museum exhibits or installations offering evolution information.
Without going into too much detail, part of the strategy of EE&O is to address topics about which those not entirely confident about their understanding are likely to be puzzled. One recent issue has focused on the evolution of eyes, which, as is well known, has been a case often pointed to as counter evidence to the claim that natural selection has occurred. The most recent issue focuses on transitional fossils, guest-edited by Don Prothero, recently the author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters.
Finally, the obligatory plug: readers can get EE&O's content online for free at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/120878/.
and, to engage in some shameless self-promotion, you might want to visit our blog---which is administered and whose posts are due entirely to yours truly---at
http://blogs.springer.com/evoo/.
There is no doubt that it will be less exciting than Pharyngula, but I hope that it will become a more and more useful Internet resource as I become more used to the blog format.
Best to all
Adam M. Goldstein
Associate Editor
Reviews Editor
Evolution: Education & Outreach
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 1:39 PM
That's ok, Dr. Goldstein. We could use with less excitement around here.
By the way, Guy G at #24:
That was pithy and insightful. And concise. Thank you, Guy G.
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 2:17 PM
Fixed.
No, you are, because otherwise your "argument" crumbles into dust. No transitional fossils? You can't be serious.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Posted by: Watchman | June 12, 2009 2:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls.
Evolution of Cetaceans.
Posted by: CJO | June 12, 2009 2:46 PM
And then to look at your photos of a skulls or skull fragments that prove your view? So many look distorted by time and forces of nature and broken and significant pieces missing and cracked and twisted and like fossilized clumps of clay or whatever; and that is your evidence? It is your interpretation because you WANT IT TO BE SO BAD!
Yeah, science is hard, what do you know? The universe happens not to just offer up easy answers on a platter, and that's what you fuckers can't deal with. That a paleontologist has to study for years to be able to make sense of what looks like a meaningless jumble to you never occured to you? Nope, just settle for your cozy ignorance, and childishly deny that a highly trained expert could be in possession of tools and knowledge you are not equipped to use or even understand.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 12, 2009 2:51 PM
Yep, exactly. There's also a nice quote from the Book of Mormon (!!!) to that effect:
I'm talking about believe in, not about believe. That's why I bolded the whole thing.
Posted by: Evolution Denier | June 12, 2009 8:29 PM
List of transitional fossils? Wikipedia? HA!
Hominid skulls? HA!
The "hominid" skulls were either human or ape-like. One or the other. Perhaps some species of ape that is now extinct, but certainly not a hybrid unless someone lusted after a monkey in the past, whereby we would all be dead with AIDS by now.
Even I could debunk you silly "transitional fossils". It has been done already at:
explanationblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/the-dry-facts-about-transitional-fossils-debunking-wikipedia
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 12, 2009 8:39 PM
We're supposed to be impressed by a guy who can't even give a link?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 12, 2009 8:48 PM
ED, try Science or Nature. More believable. No creationist made up evidence (lies) there. Good hard science only.
Posted by: John Morales | June 12, 2009 8:54 PM
Adam M. Goldstein, Associate Editor, Reviews Editor wrote:
That's a bit of a worry; I had imagined editors were punctilious.
Posted by: kamaka | June 12, 2009 9:06 PM
but certainly not a hybrid unless someone lusted after a monkey in the past, whereby we would all be dead with AIDS by now.
What a worthless, stupid thing to say. It sounds as if a demon is speaking through you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2009 9:10 PM
Even editors must succumb to the curse placed on PZ's family name.
Posted by: SDS | June 13, 2009 4:04 AM
Let's have a good laugh! Check it out. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: SDS | June 13, 2009 3:08 PM
Hmmmm. Those annoying big problems remain like: all those craters on the moon are about the same age; those outer big planets of Uranus and Neptune should not be there based on dogmatic interpretation of solar system formation. Certain ones are turning the "wrong way!"
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 3:17 PM
in other words, you know shit about solar system formation, but will claim it's wrong anyway, just because you don't like it.
Posted by: SDS | June 13, 2009 8:23 PM
Jadehawk: I got it from the Science Channel about solar system formation.
Posted by: SDS | June 13, 2009 8:25 PM
Jadehawk: They acknowledged these big problems for them. Can you?
Posted by: Steve_C | June 13, 2009 8:45 PM
SDS is probably the same type of creationist that'll accept honest scientific questions and then turn around and not accept that science also says the earth is over 4 billion years old.
Posted by: John Morales | June 13, 2009 8:54 PM
SDS: (my link)
I suppose so, if events hundreds of millions of years apart are considered to be happening at about the same time.Posted by: Owlmirror | June 13, 2009 8:55 PM
OK... and so? Even assuming you are summarising what you saw correctly, and that they were summarising current astronomical and astrophysical knowledge correctly... it means that current astronomical and astrophysical models are incomplete. Therefore... what? What exactly is your argument?
Posted by: Josh
|
June 13, 2009 9:11 PM
Wait, what?
Ohhhh...the science channel. Color me fucking impressed. I recently saw a "documentary" on the science channel that called pterosaurs "flying dinosaurs." Please try to look a little deeper than television documentaries.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 13, 2009 9:18 PM
It's called the peer reviewed scientific literature. Available at college/university libraries near you. You will find it in the science area, not the religion/theology area.Posted by: John Morales | June 13, 2009 9:24 PM
SDS:
Solar system formation is a work in progress. cf. the Nice model.BTW, there is no such thing as "dogmatic interpretation" in science. Scientific theories are provisional, which is why they're theories, not dogma.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 13, 2009 9:25 PM
@ 245,
*snicker* Dont scare him !
Fossils
Posted by: SC, OM | June 13, 2009 9:28 PM
giant-clam chowder
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 9:31 PM
what big problems? your perspective is off. those a minor gaps in a well-fitting puzzle.
not to mention that you must have pulled the "all craters on the moon are the same age" out of your ass (or you simply completely misunderstood something):
Copernicus crater: 1 billion years old
Tycho crater: 108 million years old
in case your math sucks as much as you science comprehension, that means that Copernicus is 892 million years older than Tycho.
same age, my ass...
Posted by: Josh
|
June 13, 2009 9:32 PM
I know it probably sounds unfair of me to say that, and someone is sure to get their boxers in a bunch. After all, the point of television documentaries is to educate, right? Well, guess what? A lot of them fail miserably at that task. Really, they do. I know how bad the ones in geology and paleo can be because I know enough about the subject to know when they're spouting complete bullshit, which they do all the time (e.g., "flying dinosaurs). Given that, why the fuck would I trust that the makers of the history or physics documentaries have their shit together?
They might be useful as a good starting point (as people will often assert about Wikiblabbia). Fair enough. Go for it. Use them as a starting point. But if we're in a serious discussion on a topic, don't expect me to take you seriously if you're citing documentaries as evidence to support your argument.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 9:36 PM
Josh, once upon a time I wanted to be an archeologist... and if you think the geology documentaries are bad, watch a few archeology ones
*gets all worked up at the mere memory*
Posted by: Josh
|
June 13, 2009 9:47 PM
I know. It's depressing as hell. Young impressionable, science-interested kids what those shows and trust them.
Fucking awesome.
Posted by: Kel | June 13, 2009 10:23 PM
As far as TV documentaries go, I grew up on the likes of Attenborough. Lost Worlds, Vanished Lives made me want to be a Palaeontologist. Then I got into computer games and forgot about looking for bones in the rocks.
Even today, I still spend time watching documentaries. Recently been watching The Trials Of Life.
Posted by: John Morales | June 13, 2009 10:42 PM
Josh,
Alas, there are competing goals - education and entertainment.Consider the portmanteau term infotainment.
Posted by: Josh
|
June 13, 2009 11:05 PM
Indeed.
Indeed.
Posted by: Zarquon | June 13, 2009 11:49 PM
Better still, why not make it Crustyans, as in Crusty the Clown?
Yeah one's a fictional Jewish comedian and the other's in The Simpsons.
Posted by: Rich | June 14, 2009 1:46 AM
I don't think that any of the content of article or the principles expressed above are difficult to understand nor do I think that evolutionists or creationists have a corner on the truth. Much of the comments and content above fly in the face of "the scientific method". It is as equally absurd to assume that creationists hold their views purely out of ignorance as it is to assume that every assumption made by evolutionists is correct. Many of the conclusions formed by evolutionists are drawn from "some very questionable and scant evidence" which is often proved incorrect. In fact much of the evolutionist debate is set up using "straw man" arguments and are easily refuted.There has simply not been enough compelling evidence from the fossil record to prove evolutionists 100% correct and there is certainly more than enough evidence to challenge the claims of some creationists for a six, 24 hour day creation period. Remember according to the Bible creation took six days, not seven and many creationists take this to mean six periods of time. Believe it or not, creationists also realize that the earth is not the center of the universe.
The bottom line is that there is a real tendency for evolutionists to become less objective to the point that "evolution" itself has become a religion, which is the very objection they have with creationists. It is very easy to sit on one's high horse and poke holes through any hypothesis. The real trick is to do it with irrefutable evidence. Seemingly, the universe had a beginning....the "big bang". Since it is still not settled "where or how" despite the claims of string theory, branes or parallel universes...it is going to come down to a matter of faith and that is really what is in question here. Life is meant to be a search for truth...no one has proved, to my knowledge, that something can be created out of nothing or that extreme complexity can arise out of chaos. If you are truly searching for truth...get the evidence first.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 1:52 AM
bullshit. the God of the Gaps has been a losing argument since the first time some poor sod came up with it.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 14, 2009 1:52 AM
We don't claim creationists only hold their views out of ignorance. There's a strong dishonesty component to some of them.
Your own straw man, as none of us would make that claim. We do claim, however, that the fundamental ideas are very, very solid.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 14, 2009 1:54 AM
Not all of them.
Posted by: Kel | June 14, 2009 2:05 AM
Yes, there are some old earth creationists who accept that the age of the earth is in the billions of years. There are some creationists who believe that live does evolve from a common ancestor but God occasionally steps in to guide the process... thanks for bringing about a revelation there Rich. It still doesn't mean that there's even a kernel of truth in the claims at all, at best these claims come from when they have to reconcile certain lines of evidence with their holy book.
Yes, there are intelligent creationists and there are stupid non-creationists. There are also people of all different colours and different people speak different languages. Should we keep pointing out more obvious things or actually discuss the evidence for evolution and for creationism? Lets see which hypothesis as to the history of the world is supported by the evidence and which one is contradicted...
Posted by: John Morales | June 14, 2009 2:24 AM
Rich:
The former is not an assumption, but a conclusion; the latter assumes only what science assumes - i.e. that there is an external reality, that the laws of nature are consistent, and that these can be empirically determined.
Posted by: Rich | June 14, 2009 6:11 PM
John,
I appreciate your comments but please understand I am not falling on either side of the argument. Scientific method attempts to distance itself from assumptions and that is the real "casuality" here...a conclusion can not be based on an assumption. Science is to be objective...the laws of nature certainally seem to be consistant but the question of how or why has not been conclusively settled. This fairly throws a shadow over the assumption that all things in nature may be "empiracilly determined". Such conclusions ignore scientific method which ultimately leads to bad science and this is my only point. Assumptions belong exclusively to the realm of "hypostases", not conclusions. If scientific method is ignored, science then becomes "theology". A fine example of this is found in such statements as "the science on global warming is settled". Many would disagree with this based on the inconclusive evidence.
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 9:04 PM
For PZ: Your imaginary conversation with a creationist after church in your top article not understanding some of your terms? At least readers should be aware of creationist responses.
Here's an answer for arthropod:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/mystifying-mosaics
Here's an answer for articulata:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0526.asp
It didn't take much time finding these. I am guessing there are several others that do just as adequate a job or better out there in responding to your "gotcha" opinions.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 9:13 PM
quelle surprise, the troll is an AGW denier, too.
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 9:13 PM
And for your title, Pharyngula:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/textbooks.asp
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 14, 2009 9:16 PM
You have got to be kidding me, Douglas.
Your first article utterly mangles arthropod diversity by taking a quote from SJ Gould out of context. It doesn't say anything coherent about the creationist explanation for the origin of different arthropod body plans (other than "goddidit", of course).
The second article -- even worse. It says nothing about the Articulata hypothesis. It simply includes a quote from Darwin that happened to have mentioned the word.
Is this the best you can do? You did a search for two words, found them embedded somewhere in AiG where they simply quoted scientists, and you claim the creationists have made a response? You really are an idiot.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 14, 2009 9:16 PM
S. Douglas, AIG is not a scientific site. No truth to be found there, just quote-mining distortions and out and out lying. Try this site where real science is presented.
Only science can refute science. Which means any refutation for evolution must appear in the peer reviewed scientifif literature. Religion and religious belief cannot refute science, nor can science refute religion. But religion looks silly if it is out of touch the the facts as presented by science.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 9:18 PM
Answers sure, but wrong ones.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 9:29 PM
your "gotcha" opinions.
*sniff*
*gak!*
smells like...
projection.
Still stinks like rotten cabbage, even after so many times.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 9:36 PM
This fairly throws a shadow over the assumption that all things in nature may be "empiracilly [sic] determined".
They said the same thing, I'm sure, when first speaking of developing a realistic model for the atom.
That said, why don't you show us answers to observational questions NOT obtained via empiricism?
At least then you would have something for comparison.
well?
Shall we compare, say, divine revelation to empiricism as methods?
seriously, WHY even make the assumption that there would even BE observable things not explainable via the scientific method?
regardless of whether or not such an assumption at some point (hasn't yet) become accurate, why even make it to begin with?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 9:39 PM
"the science on global warming is settled". Many would disagree with this
that's because it's a strawman.
don't know what your point is, but I'm sure it's hiding behind all the red-herrings and embattled strawmen.
care to get to it?
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 9:44 PM
Aw come on, PZ. Listen to your quote: "It doesn't say anything coherent about the creationist explanation for the origin of different arthropod body plans (other than "goddidit", of course)." BUT, You have no factual evidence they are proof of general evolutionary Darwinism, and they are simply explaining what is clearly there. Mosaics. Something defensive goes on inside of you to call someone an idiot when you don't have the facts to validate what you even referred to as your "hypothesis." It's all in the interpretation of the same observation. Why can't you at least acknowledge that on this "wise" blog of yours?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 14, 2009 9:48 PM
We seem to have discovered a new species - the red straw-herring, Clupea palea roseus*...
*Apologies for what is most likely mangled Latin.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 9:50 PM
False Equivalence
Posted by: Steve_C | June 14, 2009 10:02 PM
No S. Douglas. You're an idiot. Anyone who claims there's no evidence for evolution is an idiot. Anyone who thinks that AiG has any science cred is an idiot.
You're an idiot.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 14, 2009 10:09 PM
S. Douglas, the peer reviewed scientific literature, with a million or so paper supporting evolution directly or indirectly, beg to differ on whether factual proof for evolution exists. Science requires hard physical evidence, unlike the ethereal evidence used to believe in imaginary deities and inerrant books that are a collection of fables.
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 10:27 PM
Idiot.....idiot......idiot. Such mature thinking! Actually, it is defensive thinking. You have a conscience that is constantly accusing; then defending itself. And where you cannot use truthful, clear, evidential knowledge (what true science is anyway), you think like a child and have a tantrum. That's truth clear and simple.
If someone off the street argued with you that he was a god and made the world and the universe and all life by saying he did because he just believed he did with the help of his pet dog, you would have pity on him. You would not react with anger and call him an idiot. Get the point? It is your defense mechanism going off because some bit of truth is trying to enter your mind you can't stand for, and your only recourse is to defend, thus attack, with childish name calling; or else you would not do it. Like you would not do it to the aforementioned mentally deranged man off the street.
You know there are things dealing with truth and conscience and defensiveness going on with you, so, not as armed as you want to believe you are with specific voluminous evidence that would have to be there to make your brand of evolution true, instead it's "idiot, stupid, cretin, foul words, etc. etc. etc." because at that point of a reasoned challenge, that's all you've got, but you won't admit the truth of it. I hope you are smart enough to digest this......truth. Yes, it's science (knowledge) of the mind and the true human condition involved here, too.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 10:32 PM
Such mature thinking!
*sniff*
more projection.
dude, change your clothes and take a bath, eh?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 10:34 PM
No Douglas it's that you are not saying anything new. It's the same refuted nonsense from AIG and their ilk over and over. It's frustrating having to hear the same non-science put forth like its science over and over.
You're just another in a long ling of creationists flopping out the same debunked canards.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 10:35 PM
If someone off the street argued with you that he was a god and made the world and the universe and all life by saying he did because he just believed he did with the help of his pet dog, you would have pity on him.
only if he didn't repeat the claim over and over and over again, and follow us around like a lost puppy, and then piss and shit on the floor whenever he felt like it.
More likely, someone would come to take him away to get treatment for his obvious mental health issues.
Oh wait, is that why you're here?
you might try this then:
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/databases/
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 10:36 PM
Rev. Big said: It's frustrating having to hear the same non-science put forth like its science over and over.
It sure is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 14, 2009 10:39 PM
This from a man who doesn't understand the meaning of scientific evidence? Some of us are scientists, and we know what evidence is and how it is obtained. Not through any books of fiction like the bible.
Try the peer reviewed scientific literature. Found in college and university libraries the world over. With titles like Science, Nature, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Cell, and et al. This often takes up several floor of the libraries. Not in refuted non-scientific web sites like AIG.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 10:40 PM
nope.
still not feeling sorry for you Douglas.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 14, 2009 10:42 PM
Up is down in S. Douglas's world.
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 10:43 PM
Some of you are proving my post on 289. You are trying to be clever at it, but we know it's still there.
A question: Archeopterix. Did Gould say it was a mosaic type of species and not a transitional fossil, or not?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 14, 2009 10:43 PM
Dear Sister Douglas, bless you for coming here to sort out the delusions of these atheists. It is wonderful to see some clear Christian thinking on this evil blog.
I wonder, are you the same Sister Douglas who used to teach me piano at the Holy Convent?
Yours in Christ
SB
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 10:43 PM
Cute, but creationism is the non science Dougie.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 14, 2009 10:46 PM
Jesus?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 14, 2009 10:51 PM
Who says Gould is the last word in anything, particularly since he is dead? Science doesn't stand still unlike religion. More fossils are being found making big gaps smaller. This requires revision in connections, but no big deal. The changes are small making the overall picture look better. That is the way of science. Things change as new evidence comes along and gets published.Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 10:52 PM
Rev. Big said to my post: "Rev. Big said: It's frustrating having to hear the same non-science put forth like its science over and over"
It sure is.
Cute, but creationism is the non science Dougie.
Oh now Rev Big you didn't have to say that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 14, 2009 10:59 PM
Don't worry S. Douglas, you will not be taken seriously until you show signs of intelligence. That starts with you realizing you are the one making a statement that evolution is wrong. So the burden of proof is upon you. Now, you have to back this up with either fresh physical evidence, say a pre-Cambrian rabbit, or by citing the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your points. This is not a philosophical argument, since science and evolution can only be refuted by more science. Until you show that evidence you are just spouting nonsense. Start showing real scientific evidence for your inane assertions.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 11:00 PM
Oh now Rev Big you didn't have to say that.
first thing anybody here would agree with you about.
uh, you do realize at this point we're all just laughing at you, right?
So, could you make your next post a little louder? I'm having trouble hearing you over all the laughter, mine included.
thanks ever so much.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 14, 2009 11:04 PM
Dear Sister Douglas,
Don't let the atheist evolutionists bully you. As I recall you were only educated to fifth grade, and no one expects a Bride of Christ to have to back up her assertions with written down fact. Good on you for learning to use a computer though!
You might point out to the evilutionists that your disbelief in theories has served you well in the past. Wasn't it your disbelief in the theory of gravity that allowed you to become the world's first bona fide flying nun?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 14, 2009 11:05 PM
And yet he has as much evidence to support his claim as you do yours - what, precisely, makes him any different from you? At least he has the excuse of a psychological/psychiatric condition; what've you got?
The reason you are being treated so poorly is not because of your claims, but because in order to present your ridiculous and perpetually refuted claims you must be, at best, profoundly intellectually dishonest; at worst, a willful Liar for Jesus™.
Why do you think we should condone lies and tolerate liars?
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 11:15 PM
To Nerd of Redhead: Gould did not die THAT long ago, and he was sure one of your "PEERS", right? There is more and more evidence coming out for ID or creation, PhDs from places you would respect. But they are not regarded at PEERS because they cannot reveal the invisible God; only what is evidence of what He made. The mainline PEER people will have none of that. So, all those shelves of PEER papers at certain Universities are on a quest for a naturalistic origin so full of holes its pathetic. I know you want to tighten the gaps, but you keep running into those Mosaics and more questions you cannot answer.
BTW, I know at least one qualified true scientist, retired recently, from APL's Space Department. In fact, he was the head of the navigation system that landed a craft on an asteroid and is sending another to Pluto due in a few years (Horizons mission). He believes in God and Christ and is not an evolutionist based on the evidence he has studied. This is one reason some of you would fight to keep a PBS or ABC prime time two hour debate off the air between a creation scientist (of THEIR choosing, not the networks) and an evolutionist of your choosing. The types of men and women out there who would make a reasonable stand for creation and flood evidences is amazing; their fields and degrees and backgrounds. But we know it would be very difficult to come off, if not impossible due to the indoctrination of evolutionism with its holes and/or lies in the media and education establishment and politicians. If this is not so, and you are so, so sure of your "evidences," then go for it. What have you got to be defeated by? Couldn't you gain a bunch of converts yourselves? I think we know why you would not want a national debate like that. Be honest with yourself, at least.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 14, 2009 11:25 PM
Whoopie shit. That means nothing except he has cognitive dissonance.Gould was not one of my peers. He was one of PZ's peers. I am a chemist. Still, science moves on unlike your static religion, based upon imaginary deities without physical evidence, and a book that has been shown to be wrong again and again.
Show us the evidence from the peer reviewed scientific literature. You may want to start with your imaginary deity. After all, if he doesn't exist, you whole inane idea falls apart.
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 11:27 PM
It appears that individuals from Wards (posts) #290, 292, 300, 303, 304, 305, 306 thus far have escaped from Ward (post) #289. They couldn't stand the truth in there. WARD 289. IT'S THERE TO HELP!
Posted by: S. Douglas | June 14, 2009 11:31 PM
Warning! It appears #308 just left Ward 289, too!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 14, 2009 11:34 PM
S. Douglas, you have presented nothing but assertions, much less the truth. Time to put up or shut up like an honorable man. But, given you are a godbot, we expect you to be dishonorable.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 14, 2009 11:34 PM
Funny, I knew of more than a thousand named Steve who know evolution is true.
And you do realise that engineering isn't biology, don't you?
No doubt your 'friend' will be publishing his findings in a peer-reviewed science journal sometime in the near future; and you'll be there at the Nobel awards ceremony where he gets the appropriate recognitiion for his groundbreaking work. He'll probably get to meet Uwe Boll, who'll be receiving the newly-created Nobel prize for achievement in cinema...
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 14, 2009 11:35 PM
Dear Sister Douglas,
I'm so relieved there's 'more and more evidence coming out for ID or creation' because I've searched for years and haven't found a shred. Indeed I'd started to fear God had forgotten us and gone to some planet where his followers weren't quite so retarded. Can you tell me, do we creationists have any "PEERS", or are all of our ones 'peers' in the lower case? One of my ancestors was a Peer, (Lord Pancreas Batzrubble) but unfortunately he was also Catholic and the good old protestants tortured him to the point of death and had his entrails ripped out in the name of our loving Savior Jesus Christ.
I was very excited to hear you know a 'qualified true scientist'. I have always wanted to meet one of those. I would certainly expect a space engineer to be able to make expert deductions about evolution. I am a humble sheep farmer myself, but it hasn't stopped the government getting me to design a new space station to orbit Mars.
You can certainly count on my support in a knock down slug fest between the brave Creationists and the evil Scientist Atheists. Indeed I dream of seeing Ray Comfort, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind putting their strongest case before the world, and seeing them pitted against the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Sir David Attenborough et al. What a pounding that would be! A chance to establish the TRUE power of God once and for all.
PS Between us, Sister D., don't you quietly wish just once in a while that God would...you know...take off His invisibility cloak and scare the crap out of these unbelievers once and for all? That would shut the smart-arses up wouldn't it? Ah well... I guess he knows what he's doing allowing himself to be represented by so many people who are as thick as shit. In the end we'll be proved right and we'll go to our eternal reward happy in the knowledge that 97.6% of all humanity will burn in Hell for one obscure transgression or other.
PTL!!!!!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 14, 2009 11:40 PM
S. Douglas, our esteemed host of this blog wants us to be uncivil to those who are uncivil to science by saying it is wrong. If you want civility and a philosophical debate, try the sophist society or something equivalent. You can leave at any time. Keep that in mind.
Posted by: Douglas | June 14, 2009 11:40 PM
I am afraid Ward 289 is being emptied. Even the clever ones can't avoid detection.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 14, 2009 11:47 PM
Dear Sister Douglas, you are so funny I nearly wet my pants. "Ward 289"!!! Brilliant!!! There hasn't been a joke that good here for...oh...at least a couple of posts.
For the pleasure you have given me I'd like to offer you a consignment of my wonder product BIBLE™. You will find this has no end of uses, and in particular it is good for repairing the effects of familial inbreeding which I fear you may suffer from. Call me on 0900 Ewejuice and I'll send my assistant Floyd Rubber around to give you some treatment.
Posted by: Douglas | June 14, 2009 11:52 PM
Nerd: I have never said science (true verifiable knowledge) is wrong. You were not at the beginning; only God was. This involves knowledge. No one will ever show you the face of God. Even miracles may not work at all (Jesus performed them and they killed Him for His truth). And you will never have proof of a pre (falsifiable) big bang, nor proof of how the first cell came to be. You were not there. But your god is evolutionism and/or yourself. It is your faith, and THAT has nothing to do with science (verifiable knowledge). So, what you accuse me of not producing, you likewise are not producing on your side in this pitched battle of conflicting faiths. If you want to talk about science, then you tell me where matter first came from, and the first cell. You cannot, but you believe as fact a process going back to what you cannot prove. This is not the work of science. It is the work of attempting to prove there was no supernatural God involved. That's all. If this is troublesome to you, go back to 289 and reflect.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 14, 2009 11:57 PM
"No one will EVER show you the face of God"
Ahhhh... truth at last!
Posted by: Douglas | June 14, 2009 11:59 PM
Smoggy: And no one will EVER show you the start of it all.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 12:00 AM
thanks for yelling PEER so loudly Doug.
sill having trouble hearing you over the laughter though.
perhaps just yell out your entire posts?
just use the caps-lock key.
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:03 AM
Smoggy: And no one will EVER show you the start of it all. Oh, but you will be before God as judge when you die.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:03 AM
It would seem that under Douglas' definition, science is impossible to do BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THERE! So the only way to get TRUE SCIENCE would be to have faith in the big sky daddy and get true knowledge beamed straight into your head.
Douglas' method it the death of inquiry. Is anyone surprised by that?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 15, 2009 12:05 AM
*yawn*
I've seen the start of it all more than once.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 15, 2009 12:08 AM
Hey Dougie,
Would it be fair to assume that you weren't there at the beginning either?
And also fair to assume you have never clapped eyes on god?
And that all you really have to go on is a rather sad bronze-age book that was badly translated and contradicts itself?
And that hanging around here vomiting out your inane arguments is the closest you'll get to biblical truth? Proverbs 26:11: "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly".
You're a fool Dougie. Your religion is folly, and I fondly anticipate a future where believers in God and Jesus (fools like you) are seen to have been as credulous as believers in Zeus, Thor, Odin and Amun Re.
You don't convince anyone here Dougie. You are a sad, silly desperate believer in a tissue of silly superstitions.
And..oh yes..I love you in the Lord.
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:09 AM
Dear Janine: Your science is to try and show you the start of it all. You will never get there. And this is outside the realm of science. You were not there and you will never test it. Ridiculous.
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:09 AM
Dear Janine: Your science is to try and show you the start of it all. You will never get there. And this is outside the realm of science. You were not there and you will never test it. Ridiculous.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:09 AM
How quickly Douglas is reduced to threats of hellfire. Sorry Douglas, that is the action of an immature thinking, trying to curtail speech through threats. And damned sadistic.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 15, 2009 12:12 AM
So feel free to postulate any causal shit you wish - the more ludicrous and ill-defined, the better.
Then worship it.
(I would be angry with myself for feeding the troll, but for the fact that this is basically Ken Miller's argument to Pigliucci. Perhaps Miller is f*c*l*s...)
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 12:13 AM
Let's test this hypothesis, then.
We call Tom Cruise an idiot, therefore we secretly serve Xenu and we know L. Ron Hubbard was a great prophet.
We call the Pope an idiot, therefore we secretly know the Roman Catholic Church is the one true holy and apostolic church.
We call Raelians idiots, therefore we secretly know benevolent space aliens are visiting this planet.
We call Jenny McCarthy an idiot, therefore we secretly know vaccines cause autism.
We call Muslims idiots, therefore we secretly know the Quran is the final and most authoritative word of God.
We call the Bush-did-9/11 conspiracy theorists a bunch of idiots, therefore we secretly know that thermite charges brought down the twin towers.
We call Ken Ham an idiot, therefore we secretly know that piglets are God's sexiest gift to mankind.
We call the Washington Times editorial board idiots, therefore we secretly know that Sun Myung Moon is the second coming of Christ.
And your mother was right; all the kids who made fun of you on the playground only did it because they were really jealous of you.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:14 AM
It seems that Douglas has Douglas' own private definition of science. You just need to share the same faith as Douglas to understand the definition.
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:14 AM
Janine and Smoggy: Go to Ward 289 and get something helpful before you fall asleep. Oh, and Janine, there is judgment after death. Otherwise, let's just live like we want here.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 15, 2009 12:15 AM
Nerd: I have never said science (true verifiable knowledge) is wrong. You were not at the beginning; only God was.But you weren't there either; how do you know your god (or anyone else's for that matter) was there? At least Nerd's idea has evidence to support it; all you have is the archaic mythology of a tribe of scientifically illiterate goat-herders.
Why can't God show us the face of God? If he truly wants us to believe he exists, he wouldn't skulk in the shadows and limit his appearances to poorly-lit caves, coffee scrolls and the occasional taco.
Well, except for the mountains of evidence in numerous subfields of biology (such as genetics) which reveal to everyone (or, at least, the intellectually honest) that evolution is a fact beyond any doubt. That we haven't found out everything about how it works (yet) may have something to do with the fact it's only been a field of study for slightly more than 150 years.
Your Christianity has has more than 20 times that amount of time to resolve its issues and yet it hasn't; a fact illustrated by the number of different interpretations (sects and subsects) there are.
Wrong. There are many millions, if not billions of Christians who believe in evolution. It is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, for crying out loud - or are you going to claim that they aren't Christians? And if that is your claim, what is your evidence? Why is your interpretation of exactly the same set of events correct and theirs incorrect?
If there was evidence for your god (or anyone else's god or gods) then it would be included. But there never has been and never will be, because your god only exists in the minds of ignorant and deluded fools like you.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 15, 2009 12:22 AM
"Oh, but you will be before God as judge when you die."
Oh no! I'm going to have to stand before Dougie's god. And he will sentence me to hell. And then I will know unbearable torment for eternity. And Dougie will feel happy and vindicated.
Are you a parent Dougie? Busy terrifying and brainwashing small children just like you were when you were little? Why does the thought of other people suffering get you so excited Dougie? Is it because you know that secretly you'd like to be a bad, bad boy yourself?
I'd love to meet your God. I'd ask him why he was such a small-minded savage? And why he made Eden and put a death-tree in it, like putting a live power cord in the middle of a nursery school. And why he gets such a kick out of killing people. And why he's so obsessed with human sex acts when there's a whole cosmos to worry about. And why he raped a virgin to have his son conceived (it's not like he asked her). And where was the rest of the trinity while God was doing it to Mary.
Oh yes, Dougie. Your loving God is quite the ticket. What's worse? Being in hell with all the interesting people, or in heaven with a psychopath. Sure is something to look forward to.
God Bless you and all who sail in you Dougie.
PS Next could you write about me having demons? Wowbaggy has some, and I've read Harry Potter seven times and can say "Expelliarmus" and "Corpus Callosum"!
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:25 AM
Oh WowBagger. Stop in at 289 before bed. Because the Roman Church accepts evolution, so what? What does that have to do with knowledge (science)? God calls His own to live by faith. He has revealed His nature in creation and in the Good News of Christ. If we saw Him, where would faith be in His promises? This is a heart matter. The people of Israel saw amazing miracles. Jesus performed them. But still they, like you, reject God. So, it's a heart matter. God wants a relationship with people in their hearts, as with any true relationship. Please read John 3 in the Bible. Truth comes in unseen ways, too.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:26 AM
Douglas, you have provided nothing useful. All you have done is celebrate your own ignorence and expect the rest of use to respect it. But as I stated before, your method is the death of inquiry.
And, sorry, your talk of judgment is a threat. If I do not believe as you do, I will suffer eternal torment, compliments of the big bad bully you kowtow to.
Your protests does nothing to change the real progress that real scientists have made. You have nothing but religious invective. Burn in your imaginary hell. I have better things to do.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 12:28 AM
Are you afraid to live like you want, Douglas? And what exactly are you afraid of, having to make your own choices and being responsible for the results?
We have a court system to deal with people hurting each other.
Beyond that, you should live like you want to live. This life is the only chance you'll ever get.
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:31 AM
Janine, did you stop in at 289 yet? And please read John chapter 3 in the Bible. Before you do, try this. At least pretend to pray, or really pray, and ask God's Spirit of Truth to speak to you in that chapter. I care for you and don't want you to burn. Life is so very short. Any day now. It happens to people unexpectedly every day.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 15, 2009 12:32 AM
Douglas - There is no judgement after death you idiot. There is only death, rot and worms.
Get off Janine you fuckhead. How about Me the Great Whore of Babylon?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 12:33 AM
Did you read 329 yet, Douglas?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 15, 2009 12:36 AM
Delusional Dougie wrote:
How do you know? What evidence do you have to support your claim? If you cannot provide evidence, why should we believe you?
To illustrate, here is my claim: I have, in my possession, magic rabbit named Clancy who can read your mind and then tell me what your thinking by projecting it telepathically.
Do you believe me? If not, why not?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:36 AM
And please read John chapter 3 in the Bible. Before you do, try this. At least pretend to pray, or really pray, and ask God's Spirit of Truth to speak to you in that chapter. I care for you and don't want you to burn. Life is so very short. Any day now. It happens to people unexpectedly every day.
Been there. Done that. I have moved on.
Do not ever tell me again to follow your example.
One last word, you have earned all of the mocking you have received here, you brain dead dope.
Get you head out of your deity's ass and live, you dumb fuck.
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:37 AM
Patricia. I hope you will stop in at 289. And please read the third chapter of John in the Bible. If death is what you say, then Hitler and all others, who think they have done good or are truly righteous, all went to the same place. No judgment for Hitler or anyone else who has done wrong. Now that is not reason in the universe of life. So, God have His Word on it all in the Bible. But don't misunderstand. You don't earn salvation. We all need it. But it is a gift. We are all condemned until we take the gift, as John 3 says.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:39 AM
How do you know? Were you there?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 15, 2009 12:40 AM
"I care for you and don't want you to burn"
Awww...that's very sweet Dougie. Christian love in a sweet-scented basket. We care for you too Dougie...but the only thing burning around here is the stupid. (Well, actually, we care for the vulnerable minds you're perverting).
Please don't pretend you're trying to do us all a favor with your condescending faith. Your deluded arguments have been given a good solid kicking--and if the said arguments had a brain stem they'd realise how badly damaged they are.
So now you're praying for us in Christian love because you fear for our immortal souls. Crap! You just want to earn jeebus points, and have something to feel a martyr about.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:42 AM
Douglas has just challenged Patricia to a bible fight. Douglas has no idea what he is in for.
'grins'
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:42 AM
On no, Smoggy. You would never have to tell me, if that would help. I know God sees you.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 15, 2009 12:44 AM
Hey Dougie, you just played the "Hitler" card.
Well done ticking all the boxes!
Oh, and when you've done visiting 329, don't forget to stop by 666 for some chardonnay and canapes.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:44 AM
I know God sees you.
How do you know? Are you there?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 12:47 AM
That means we have to take seriously our responsibility to avert future genocide, Douglas. Is that what you're afraid of, this responsibility? Yes, the world can be a scary place without a benevolent god watching us. It's kind of like growing up and realizing your parents won't always be there to protect you.
Please tell me English is not your native language.
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:47 AM
Janine: The truth of His Word is where he reveals Himself in hearts, and minds, open to Him and His love and forgiveness, desperately needed. Like in John 3 and many other places.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 15, 2009 12:47 AM
"I know God sees you."
Yeah, and I know god's a cruddy old voyeur who is obsessed with sex and probably has a penchant for sniffing little girls' bicycle seats.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:48 AM
I almost feel betrayed when Smoggy breaks character.
Posted by: Travis | June 15, 2009 12:50 AM
Janine, don't be silly using Douglas' own statements against him. You know they only apply to your arguements. He is free of those questions.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 15, 2009 12:51 AM
Delusional Dougie wrote:
It's 2.15 in the afternoon where I am, moron; I live on the other side of the planet - or does your sect's version of the bible tell you the earth isn't spherical?
How about because you wrote this: 'It is the work of attempting to prove there was no supernatural God involved.'
If a person is a Christian who accepts the truth of evolution, how can they be 'proving there is no supernatural god'?
Maybe you should pray for a better brain, or at least an improvement in your reading comprehension skills and/or memory.
Hahahaha! I have some very bad news for you, Delusional Dougie. Patricia knows the bible better than you probably ever will. Oh, this is going to be hilarious. Dougie, I hope you know somewhere you can obtain a new asshole, because yours is about to be reamed beyond repair.
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:51 AM
Smoggy does not know the truth about God. Read John 3, but first Romans 1 may be helpful before you see your need for John 3.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 15, 2009 12:53 AM
"The truth is he reveals Himself"
A voyeur AND a flasher.
You're breaking up Dougie. The last bit of coherence is deserting you. You're falling back on cliches and jesusjargon. Soon you will do a fundy flounce and tell us you'll pray for our damned souls but right now you have to go off and feed your pet python.
You're no more fun Dougie. Just predictable... deluded... pathetic.
Byeeee
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:54 AM
After I told Douglas not to tell me to read the bible, like a fucking parrot, Douglas squawks at me to read John 3.
Reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. Douglas also lack of respect. How very surprising.
Dumb fuck comes to tell us what true science is and ends up preaching. I can hear this kind of drivel from street preachers.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 12:55 AM
Douglas, I have it on the highest authority (L. Ron Hubbard talks to me) that Janine is going to hell. Her heart is much heavier than a feather. She's already damned beyond all hope.
Patricia is practically begging you to save her, though. Get to it!
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 12:57 AM
Janine, and with your 289 problem, you speak of respect? You are the one still responding.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 12:58 AM
Oh Smoggy! You just gave Douglas too much credit, there was never coherence to be had.
Also, I am sorry Travis. I had to give it a try though I knew that Douglas was using those words from a position of strength.
'snort'
Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | June 15, 2009 12:58 AM
Now Dougie do you claim to know the truth about god?
And please stop the presching. It's incredibly boring.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 12:59 AM
329, Douglas. Read it. Respond. Now.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 15, 2009 1:00 AM
Oh this is where everyone is playing !
Could you sum it up in a few words,maybe,for the ones here who dont own that particular mythology book?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 15, 2009 1:01 AM
Douglas you nasty small minded bastard. Oh yes, I have read your bible chapters. How many prizes for scriptorial knowledge have you won? My well fill blouse rattles with about 20 pounds of them.
Why do you continue to support christianity? Why do you support the words of the gospel of John: If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. Do you sanction the burning of people that has been supported since 1231? How about hanging? Since 1262 the tortured have died because the devil broke their necks. Your gospel is delightful. Got another one?
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 1:04 AM
Strange gods: No truth there. Only God is Truth and He is Spirit, too.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 15, 2009 1:04 AM
"I almost feel betrayed when Smoggy breaks character."
Oops
Dear Brother Douglas,
I need to head out onto the farm and root a sheep or two for Jesus. But I'm confident that while I'm gone you'll keep the Godly end up. Don't let the blows you are taking discourage you. What's a little blood in the service of our Lord? Just think of Stephen's martyrdom--he was all the better for a few rocks in the head.
If you'd like the assistance of a mighty prayer warrior, let me offer you the services of my business partner Floyd Rubber. He will come to your place. How will you know him, you ask? He is seven foot tall, immensely fat, completely bald and he has skulls tattooed on his eyelids. But that could be anyone, you say. Well, don't worry, you'll recognise him because he wears a t-shirt that says "Fuck with Jesus and I'll Fuck with You." Actually, he may well want to fuck with you. If he starts calling you "cuddle buns" the best trick is to close your eyes and think of England (or whatever your equivalent is...Petersburg KY?).
Yours in Christian warriordom
Smoggy
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:06 AM
Think, Douglas. If making fun of those people doesn't prove that we secretly believe they're right, then making fun of you doesn't prove that we secretly believe you're right.
Do you comprehend this?
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2009 1:10 AM
I obviously did my part. And you will be accountable for it, even if we never converse again and you were never to see me. You heard. You rejected. For now, at least.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 15, 2009 1:10 AM
Strange gods,
Say what?
Have I missed something?
:-)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 15, 2009 1:11 AM
I prefer that Ol' Janx Spirt myself.
And how can you possibly have become less coherent? Are your meds wearing off? Perhaps you should page the nurse - or are you in a room you're not supposed to be in?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 1:14 AM
Oh and how heavy it is. I am so top heavy I have a hard time standing up right.
Let the flouncing begin!
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:15 AM
Rorschach, I swear, Smoggy's got me all wrong!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 1:23 AM
You heard. You rejected.
You are an arrogant little git. You have said nothing that all of us have not heard all of our lives. You have gave us nothing new, different nor unique.
You tried and you got mocked for your effort. You are not a martyr. You will get no reward. And your feeling of superiority over we heathens is unearned.
You are just an other fool who expects other people to paid heed to your ignorance. Now go find a cave and live in fear of offending your savage god and being sent to hell.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:23 AM
Now it's your fault that we're going to hell, Douglas! If you hadn't told us the Word, then we would have been judged as heathens, accountable to nothing more than the Noahide laws.
Our damnation is on your hands! You've failed in your responsibility. And you'll be judged for making us stumble (Romans 14:13). Now you're coming to hell with us.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:26 AM
In hell, Douglas, you will take the form of a piglet.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 1:26 AM
I've seen the start of it all more than once.
I was so tempted to post this as soon as doug first spewed forth...
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 1:27 AM
Does that mean that Douglas will meet Ken Ham?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 15, 2009 1:28 AM
Dammit!
See there goes Janine flouncing and bouncing off - Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always by her love. 5 Proverbs 19
SHOW OFF!
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:29 AM
Sinner Douglas is drunk on pride.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 1:31 AM
Sorry Patricia. I just had to show off my heavy heart that will sink me straight to hell.
It has been a while since I was last slutty.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:31 AM
Ken Ham will be his personal demon.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:36 AM
I think the dirty little sinner may have actually run away.
What a shame. I was getting ready to pray from John 3. And all I needed was a little support from a soon-to-be fellow Christian.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 15, 2009 1:40 AM
What is it about the halfwit assclowns that makes them think that telling us to read the bible is going to make any difference? I mean, it's not like we aren't aware of the claims it makes.
And it's not like it's a science textbook that describes something for which there is evidence. It's like giving someone a copy of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell* and expecting them to believe that, because it includes a few actual historical characters, everything in it must be true.
*A great book, by the way - a fantasy novel for the more literary minded.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:47 AM
It's a primitive superstition that the words themselves have magic powers.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 15, 2009 1:50 AM
Did not like,very slow ! Maybe Im not literary minded enough.:-)
More like a copy of the Iliad or something.
What a dork,that one.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 15, 2009 1:51 AM
What? He bravely turned and ran away?
This is in excusable, and Douglas is going to hell.
And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. Leviticus 5:17
There goes all that false witness bother again.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 15, 2009 2:12 AM
That's a fair call; it's not by any means fast-paced. But my love of elegant prose construction (which JS&MN features a lot of) means I'm okay with long, drawn-out description because I'm happy to read anything written in that style.
I'm pretty easy when it comes to books (i.e. I read just about anything if I can't get my hands on something good) - and, while I laugh out loud at the execrable prose of something like The Da Vinci Code, I can still understand the appeal of a fast-paced plot.
My pretentious literary snobbery is often overcome by my curiosity about books. Hence why I intend to borrow the first Twilight from a co-worker who just won't shut up about it. I need to know what all the fuss is about.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 15, 2009 2:12 AM
Janine - Now that you mention it... it's been a while since I've been inspired to make a slutty remark myself.
That won't do. Part of that has to do with the pace of the blog: He came even unto them, and cometh not again: and the driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi; for he driveth furiously. 2 Kings 9:20
Somebody needs to drive like Jehu and crank this thing up.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 15, 2009 3:15 AM
Oh,same here,same here,always curious about books !
Currently on the bedside table are "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" and Alastair Reynolds' "Century rain",talk about fast-paced hardcore SciFi !
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 15, 2009 7:44 AM
Douglas was worthless. Terrible troll. Went from the creation conversation which is at least interesting in the sense of here "here Doug look at this, see you are wrong" to him preaching which is booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring. As soon as the I'll pray for you God loves you vomiting starts I lose interest immediately.
Dougie if you're going to be troll at lease be an interesting one.
I'm assuming he pulled the classic fundy move and ran away but we'll see.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 8:28 AM
Liar-for-Jesus S. Douglas's quote-mining from S.J. Gould on Archaeopteryx is dealt with at:
The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines - Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes: Quote #3.3 [Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil]
In brief, Gould was talking about what we should expect transitional fossils between previously known taxonomic groups to look like - viz, like "curious mosaics" with some features of the ancestral and descendant groups, rather than like intermediates with regard to every feature. This is classic liar-for-Jesus stuff: present arguments about the details of evolutionary processes as if they cast doubt on the well-established facts concerning evolutionary history and mechanisms.
Posted by: XC1 | June 16, 2009 4:06 PM
I was just wondering if you ever heard of Mendel. If you have, how would that mesh with Gregory's schemata?
Posted by: Steve | June 17, 2009 11:50 PM
For all the supposedly laughable comments about God, here's a good laugh for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI&feature=player_embedded
Ha Ha Ha.
Posted by: Douglas | June 17, 2009 11:59 PM
From 374, what a false misuse of Romans 14:13. Way out of context, to put it mildly.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
June 18, 2009 7:00 AM
@ XC1:
Do you mean Mendel as in the discoverer of the basics of genetics? I don't see how it really an issue since, by my understanding, Gregory's "schemata" applies to natural selection. Which is about what traits get eliminated (or at least reduced) in a population.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your question.
@ Steve:
So then... Still no logic from you. Still no evidence from you. Also, you're still incapable of even getting close to making an argument that isn't based on a logical fallacy.
The best you can come up with is a lame music video making unsubstantiated assertions. For what bizarre reason would you think that your childish attempt at committing the fallacy of "Appeal to Emotion" is in any way compelling to any thinking individual? How very pathetic.
You really belong in the "Bride of the Thread That Will Not Die". Since Alan Clarke got himself kicked off a little bit ago, we need more idiots there for practice showing people how religion rots brains.
Thanks for proving one of PZ's points through your inane attempts at an argument.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 7:33 AM
Wow thanks.
That... uh... sucked.
Was there supposed to be a point to that?
Posted by: Zetetic
|
June 18, 2009 7:38 AM
@ RevBDC:
I think the point is that not only can't Steve make a rational argument for his position, but his taste in music sucks (IMO).
Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 7:46 AM
Douglas:
Really.
Please, enlighten us. What is its context, and how do you justify such explanation as you might provide?
Atheists wish to be amused, honest Christinans wish to be enlightened, and Smoggy wishes to be validated.
O godbot, enlighten us the heathen, sway the honest Christians away from delusion, and hearten Smoggy.
Have at it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 7:53 AM
Yeah the Music is not my style, but the use of that as some sort of argument was fantastically shitty.
Posted by: Bill | July 7, 2009 11:09 PM
Where do tardigrades belong? They're ecdysozoans:
http://tardigrades.bio.unc.edu/treeoflife/