…and this is a 
The big field trip to Ken Ham's amusement park is on Friday morning — we'll be meeting at 10am at the parking lot, just look for the mob.
Be ready. This is exactly what you can expect if any of the creationists engage with you.
Expect them to be smug in their ignorance, and recite the same old tripe they always do. But remember: don't get angry, just be amused. We are not going there for a rumble, this is a reconnaissance mission, in which we will harvest many stories.
I have another request: anyone who is joining us for this event who is also a biologist, please email me. I'd like to coordinate a little bit and make sure we're well distributed in the group — there are a lot of people going, and we won't be able to troop through in one big mass.
If you aren't going, I will be twittering away on my iPhone as we go through, so you can follow along vicariously. I'll use the hashtag #CreoZerg, and welcome any other twittering attendees to use it, too.
People are worried that there won't be pictures. I just charged up FOUR batteries for my Nikon D50; I'm bringing my iPhone with its camera; I will have my Flip camera; and I'm thinking about bringing my digital video camera (although I may not, since it's feeling like overkill so far). I'm sure others will be doing likewise. The press will be there. There will be photos, do not fear.
Comments
Posted by: John Yates | August 5, 2009 5:55 PM
Ugh, that was excruciating to listen to. When she asks, halfway through, in that smug, smiley sing-songy voice, "and where is the evidence of one species to another species", I really just wanted to smack her one. Good thing I'm not going to the "museum".
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
August 5, 2009 5:57 PM
like talking to a mp3 player on endless repeat.. fucking frustrating
Posted by: Ray S. | August 5, 2009 5:59 PM
That was so hard to watch. If humans were made on a factory floor, that one would have gone into the defective bin.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | August 5, 2009 6:00 PM
Me too John. The urge to puke overwhelms me around these people. About as bad as the morons on the other thread against animal testing. There is no real difference in the way anti-evolutionist act and the AAT morons. The refusal to look at the evidence. It's the "I'm stupid and proud of it" syndrome. And "I'll tell everyone I know that they need to be as stupid as I am" tendencies that rile me up.
Posted by: CatBallou | August 5, 2009 6:00 PM
I really wish I hadn't watched that. I could feel that knot in my stomach that indicates complete revulsion and anger. I think I got an ulcer just listening to her.
Prof. Dawkins must have endless patience.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
August 5, 2009 6:00 PM
They’re all just as dumb as she is, too. The anti-science movement has organized their stupidity into a constant circulation of emails, publications, sermons and radio shows, and the only thing they use science for is in the spreading of misinformation—they have that down to a science.
Posted by: Killua | August 5, 2009 6:02 PM
The arrogance, the smugness, the vile woman.
I couldn't sit through this in one go, I kept having to take breaks to calm down. I'm elated I'm not going to the museum, an entire museum of people like this, it's downright scary. Although, at least there will be plenty of friendly faces who know just how mindbogglingly stupid this woman is. "It's almost like a religion" yeah, and I'm a giant squid you fucking lunatic >.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 5, 2009 6:03 PM
Oh god, censorship blah blah, pig's tooth--gee, we can go back 3/4 of a century to find a ridiculous example. Censorship? Really can't find significant censorship at all.
I love how differently you will treat people if you believe you were created--along with tapeworms and HIV to kill you. In fact, the viciousness of
godthe designer appears to be behind the constant stream of defamatory and dehumanizing language coming from that bitch and the rest of her ilk.Good luck in keeping your cool as she lies constantly about you.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Mr T | August 5, 2009 6:07 PM
Have fun stormin' the castle!
Posted by: Lance | August 5, 2009 6:10 PM
Ouch. Horrible vile woman. You think her answers weren't prepared? lol. "No, I wasn't going to talk about Haeckle's embryos but I would like to talk about drawings of a pig fetus." Self pwnage all the way. Yeah, Dawkins must have amazing patience. I wanted to punch her in the face and (caveman style) drag her by her hair to a biology lab. How's that for your persecution complex, c**t? Good thing I'm not going with you all. :)
Posted by: Doc Bill | August 5, 2009 6:10 PM
I haven't looked up part 2, assuming that there is a part 2, so I don't know if Dawkins ever asked her what she would consider evidence.
I've often used that question very effectively with creationists because generally they've never thought that far and are stumped to come up with something.
On another note, I very much admire Dawkins' restraint. I would have been tempted to ask her how she stuffed so much stupidity into such a tiny, little blonde head, but oh, I see it went into your nose.
Posted by: lazlow | August 5, 2009 6:13 PM
This clip just stops a little too soon. I love the part when Dawkins mentions the jawbone. The look on her face is as if he just raped her children and married her husband.
I just wonder though, when will she present some evidence?
Posted by: Bill | August 5, 2009 6:14 PM
She's like a female Ted Haggard. She even has that same zombie look in her eyes.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | August 5, 2009 6:16 PM
And people say Dawkins is shrill and smug and blah-dy blah-dy blah. My spaghetti monster, the man has the patience of a saint. (And I'm talking Roger Moore here, not one of those fakety-fake Catholic saints.) I woulda lost it about halfway through that. Certainly by the time she said "no no no [not Haeckel's embryo's], I want to talk about [Haeckel's embryo's]."
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 5, 2009 6:17 PM
What she neglects to say, and most neglect to acknowledge to themselves, is that they begin with a "worldview" which requires that they think anyone who accepts evolution is against God/for Satan. About the best they'll allow is that some were "deceived" into that position.
Her religion won't allow her to think open-mindedly about the evidence, even if she could do so.
The dishonesty is so thorough that there's even a kind of integrity in her lies, as in that these falsehoods embody her very life.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Johnny Vector | August 5, 2009 6:17 PM
Apostrophe fail. Sorry. Told you these people get me worked up.
Posted by: Holbach
|
August 5, 2009 6:18 PM
Damn, I got through that bullshit from Wendy Wright with gritted teeth and cursing like mad. I wish I could make it to the deranged museum on Friday, and I would use the oft repeated comment of Wright with her "show us the evidence" bullshit with my own at the door: "Show us your god"!
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 5, 2009 6:21 PM
I'll be tweeting at jennifurret and blogging away at Blag Hag! Man, I can't wait!
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 5, 2009 6:22 PM
Don't forget to post your mugshot on Saturday morning.
Posted by: Holbach
|
August 5, 2009 6:23 PM
On a related note:
Richard Dawkins has his new book coming out on September 22, titled "THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH: THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION". Barnes & Noble sent me a preview of the book and you can check it out on their website. Sounds good!
Posted by: tweetbirdietweet386sx | August 5, 2009 6:23 PM
I don't normally watch these things all the way through, but already I am so disgusted that I'm going to see it all the way through, just so that I can see if she is "pwned" by Mr. Dawkins at any point in the video. Even if it is a very small "pwnage" (if I have the vernacular correct).
Posted by: Al Glover | August 5, 2009 6:23 PM
heh, ad hominid
Posted by: Lakafaith | August 5, 2009 6:23 PM
I wish I had a fraction of his patience and eloquence... my hero!
Posted by: Kim van der Linde | August 5, 2009 6:25 PM
I lasted about 7 minutes through the video. What an empty drone that women. She is the best reason to be concerned for America.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 6:25 PM
Be nice. She can't help it. Where she's from, the family tree is more like a shrub, if you catch my drift...
(and she's probably scanning over every entry here at Pharyngula as we type.)
Posted by: Nohm | August 5, 2009 6:25 PM
What was frustrating me so much is that Dawkins wasn't calling her on her crap. It was obvious that she's done absolutely no research whatsoever, and that she's simply repeating the script that she was taught.
Anyone know why Dawkins didn't stop her multiple times and ask her, "and how do you know this?" Also, I wish he had mentioned ERVs, as that would have made her head pop.
I wish he had just asked, "what do you think the theory of evolution is?"
Posted by: Mr Jack | August 5, 2009 6:26 PM
pzmyers "Hmmm. All I have to do is mention that I've got a twitter account, and suddenly I get a flood of new followers."
Not quite. It's more the idea of receiving live updates from the creation museum that made me join twitter.
Subtle difference.
Posted by: AdamK | August 5, 2009 6:27 PM
Are you trying to tell me I share a common ancestor with that pig-ignorant lapdoodle? A slime-mold, certainly, but this?
Posted by: RPJ | August 5, 2009 6:27 PM
Typical: "Show me the evidence." "It's all right there in the DNA. It's spelled out; it shows a blatant hierarchy". "No it doesn't. It doesn't show anything. You can't interpret anything out of that. Because I say so". It's not that they deny the existance of the meteor on top of their flattened house; it's that they deny that the meteor's presence on top of their flattened house is evidence that a meteor squished their house.
Particularly infuriating is the time-honored tactic of "bloviate endlessly across as many subjects as I can so my opponent has no chance to refute me". State 5 points, opponent starts refuting one, then fire off another 5 before he can even finish that. Sure-fire way to avoid having to actually defend yourself, while convincing those with no understanding of logic or debate that you're right simply because of the number of words in your diarrhea.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 5, 2009 6:28 PM
Janitor, you aren't forgetting about posting stupidity. So far, great job. Keep it up. Maybe someday you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Posted by: Mike | August 5, 2009 6:28 PM
I would rather be taken out into a field and have someone perform bowel surgery on me with a stick than listen to any more of that bullsh!t. Seriously I just want to vomit into her ignorant smug Botox filled face.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 6:31 PM
Wendy Wright ain't right.
Posted by: Zeno | August 5, 2009 6:32 PM
Repeat the mantra: No transition from one species to another. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Toss in a really good zinger: No transitional forms from birds to mammals! (Damn! She's right about that one.) Do not listen to what Dawkins says. Repeat the mantra. Nebraska Man! Repeat the mantra. Haeckel!
Sure beats sticking fingers in the ears and going "La, la, la, la"!
Arrrrggghhhh!
Posted by: Tao Jones | August 5, 2009 6:33 PM
Al Glover caught it too: "Ad hominid attacks" ha ha ha !
At 6:08
Posted by: Sastra | August 5, 2009 6:34 PM
At the last Randi convention, there was an opportunity for the attendees to watch a real, live, physic challenge for the $ 1 million. We were well and repeatedly cautioned in advance that we had to be very, very quiet, and very, very respectful. Any snickers or noticeable movement and the European woman testing her ability to dowse for playing card (yeah, I know) might say that the test was null and void, her abilities were interfered with, etc -- and all the elaborate preparation would be for nothing.
The consequence was that a room of something like 500 people basically held their breath and played living statues for well over 30 minutes. Virtually no sounds, no movements, not even coughs. People watching live on the internet hadn't realized that there was anyone else in the room.
We were a freakin' model of skeptical non-interference. The woman failed without any possible way to say it was because of us and our loud and bad attitude (she later said that the test was rigged, and the moderator cheating, which was flat-out not true, so of course she could have said that anyway, I suppose.)
So I picture Friday's museum trip the same way: dozens and dozens of atheist evolutionary skeptic minions marching through the halls in eerie silence, saying nothing, laughing at nothing, making no sudden movements at all -- just observing in clinical and detached restraint so that nothing may be disturbed, no cause for complaint possible, and the FAIL placed squarely and only on the heads of the creationists, where it belongs.
Oh, that would be so cool. Do consider it. If nothing else, it would freak them out.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 6:35 PM
Oh, I dunno 'bout that, mate. I seen a bunch of big titted birds in me life!Posted by: Owen | August 5, 2009 6:36 PM
Hilarious. That's all I have to say about that.
Posted by: GenieO | August 5, 2009 6:37 PM
You gotta love her very first argument. People who believe they were created by a loving god will treat other humans with respect and dignity. I wonder if she's ever read a history book from say, medieval Europe? Or if she has ever read the old testament. Lots of dignity and respect there. Not!
Whenever some Alaskan blogger posts something negative about their beloved Sarah, how do her dominionists followers respond? With dignity and respect, right? More like vile name calling, hate mail and death threats. Yup - I'm feeling the love.
Posted by: Physicalist | August 5, 2009 6:37 PM
To help prepare, people might also want to look at others' accounts. I recommend Scalzi.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
August 5, 2009 6:37 PM
wait a sec.... did she really ask for evidence for the evolutions of birds to mammals...?! (and nevermind that she seems to think that's an example of evolution of one species to another)
*headdesk*
Posted by: Ragutis | August 5, 2009 6:37 PM
Where does Prof. Dawkins get his patience? I would've been rolling my eyes within a minute of her vapid regurgitation, banging my head against the wall in 5, and certainly screaming by the 5th time she made her bullshit claim of no evidence for evolution.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 6:38 PM
She keeps saying "show it to me show it to me" but then she obviously hasn't looked, nor will she ever.
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 5, 2009 6:38 PM
Dear Sister Wendy Wright,
My name is Brother Smoggy Batzrubble and I have been your greatest fan since I first saw you in the Stepford Wives and cracked a Christian fat-one! Everyday I praise Jesus for your advocacy group Perky Concerned Women for America, and thank Him for the wonderful things you are doing to keep America a Godly Christian Nation--bright, white, uptight and ready to fight!
I'm sure you'll agree with me that there is no more important task facing we Christians than our responsibility to educate out children in everything they need to know to survive and participate in a bronze-age culture. Your Christ-like prejudices and prayerful perversion of logic will do much to ensure the death of the foul demon of science and repair the evil ravishes of rationality upon the soft and sacred body of your great and Godly Republic. Bananas all round, I say!
As one of your chief supporters, I wonder whether you would consider sending me a pair of your panties? Don't bother washing them...I'd like to hang them on my prayer wall next to my Sarah Palin brassiere collection and Ann Coulter studded leather strap-on. I find that being in the presence of garments that have been in close contact with some of the Godly women I most admire makes it easier for me to feel intimate with Jesus. In return I would like to send you a free sample of BIBLE™ and a pair of 'Abstinence Pledge' nipple rings.
Do you feel as I do that Christ wants to bring us together? I am currently single as I don't enjoy sex with American sheep, but for some reason you remind me a tremendous amount of a happy wee ewe I used to love in Noo Zillund. I know you hate condoms, so I promise not to use one. If you would prefer that we sign an abstinence pledge together, I would be okay with that also, as I have no objection to anal sex performed in a prayerful manner.
Your faith-filled fan,
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 5, 2009 6:42 PM
But...but...when you're a Jet you're a Jet, from your 1st cigarette to your last. Wait -what was the topic again?Posted by: St.B | August 5, 2009 6:44 PM
If those of you going are allowed to take pics, PLEASE, I beg, do so. I’m thinking a nice diorama shot of a Homo sapien, standing tall and proud, next to a dino should make for some stellar desktop wallpaper. Nothing like a daily reminder of the idiocy that makes me laugh.
I also wouldn’t be surprised that this hasn’t put them on high alert and the museum may be suddenly found to be closed due to technical difficulties. Another one of those blasted intrinsic human frailties, when you know you can’t win… RUN and HIDE.
Posted by: Calliope | August 5, 2009 6:45 PM
I could not watch more than a few minutes of that ignorant woman regurgitating her crap at Richard Dawkins. He has got to be the most patient man on earth not to grab her by the shoulders and try to shake some sense into her.
Posted by: jemand | August 5, 2009 6:45 PM
Dawkins has far more patience than I ever could. I couldn't even finish listening to it... lie, lie, lying for Jebus.
Posted by: apoLOLgetics | August 5, 2009 6:47 PM
Jesus Christ. I'm glad that you all are slogging through this shit instead of me.
Posted by: Chris Stephens | August 5, 2009 6:51 PM
Dawkins' patience is impressive. I'd like to hear what such folks say when asked about historical linguistics - e.g., "do you understand why people think that French and Spanish are more closely related to one another than either is to German?" and then explain the parallel with DNA (I think it doesn't do much good to simply say that the DNA is the evidence without explaining the logic of how arbitrary similarities are evidence of a common ancestor).
Once you can get them to agree that one can make good inferences about common ancestors on a non-emotionally charged topic (historical linguistics), then you can point out that the logic is the same - e.g., no one today can directly see the common ancestors of French and Spanish, etc.
Posted by: JackC
|
August 5, 2009 6:54 PM
How does he do it? How does he remain sane after talking to people like this.
They must have filled that woman full of sugar before meeting with RD.
JC
Posted by: HidariMak | August 5, 2009 6:59 PM
Doc Bill (#11)
I won't brave part 2 either, but noticed that there's a related video titled 'Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright (Part 7)' running at another 7 minutes and 48 seconds. And Creationalists have referred to Richard Dawkins as being intolerant.
Posted by: Dahan
|
August 5, 2009 7:00 PM
Warriors! Come out to PlayyEEaaa! Warriors! Come out to PLayyeeeeAaaa!
I wish you the best and hope it's civil, but those bastards sure do know how to ask for it, don't they? Where's the Riffs when you need them...
Posted by: Brock | August 5, 2009 7:05 PM
Sometimes I wish we could revoke the right of some people to use the word "species", until they let go of it as some concrete concept.
Same goes for chemical bonds, and especially anything involving quantum mechanics. The lay public seems to assume that all scientific terms are always used in an extremely narrow, rigidly-defined sense. But really, in some cases, short nouns are just placeholders for very complex ideas that can (and do) fill entire books, and fuel centuries' worth of scientific debate.
Is that so hard to grasp? Maybe it is, because the phrase "wave-particle duality" causes most people to wrinkle their faces in confusion or shrug in dismissal -- and that concept is probably much more straightforward than "species".
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
August 5, 2009 7:06 PM
I remember hearing a lot of her silly arguments decades ago, but back then it was mainly people saying “I didn’t come from no ape!” Now it’s an orchestrated and unyielding smugness that is epidemic, and it’s the result of an intense and very successful campaign designed to convince the millions of the faithful that scientists are stupid.
Welcome to the information age.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist | August 5, 2009 7:09 PM
It's true--Dawkins has the patience of Job. Obviously, the woman is close-minded, ignorant, and smug, but I found it sad how necessary it is for her to build her morality on bogus theories about the physical world. It reminds me of people who get religion on their (or even more tragically--their childrens') death beds. Yes, it's ignorant. Yes, it bespeaks a lack of intellectual character, but a part of me feels for the poor wretch who feels the loss so strongly they need to embrace superstitions and magic.
Or maybe she's a vindictive, evil charlatan cashing in on the emotional weakness of others... but it's impossible for me to know which she is from that clip.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 5, 2009 7:10 PM
I am terribly disappointed that this has come to be defined as a conflict between Science and Religion, between Evidence and Faith with no concern given to other views... such as mine.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/08/last-tuesdayism.html
Posted by: Emily | August 5, 2009 7:13 PM
"There's no hostility, there's no hidden agenda..." as her voice shakes in rage.
Posted by: K.R. | August 5, 2009 7:13 PM
Ugh, that horrible high-pitched sing-songing voice. My ears are burning.
She's Delores Umbridge!
Posted by: Brock | August 5, 2009 7:15 PM
Oh Cuttlefish, Last Tuesdayism is so last Thursday.
Posted by: Crewvy | August 5, 2009 7:16 PM
What she is really saying is, I can`t hear you lalalala.
These people are terrified of reality,when she mentions that the Smithsonian is failing to provide scientific evidence she is basically admitting she does`nt want to know the truth, they can`t handle the truth.
Posted by: Newfie | August 5, 2009 7:17 PM
two minutes into the second one... I couldn't take any more.. I need a drink.
Posted by: skeet | August 5, 2009 7:17 PM
I've never been able to make it more than 20 minutes into that interview. Her voice and mannerisms makes me want to get my Darwin Inc. timecard and clock the fuck out for good.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 7:19 PM
Last Tuesdayism -
"And they haven’t a clue that they haven’t a clue."
You are a treasure, Cuttlefish.
Posted by: Newfie | August 5, 2009 7:19 PM
.. and somebody give PZ a friendly "boot in da arse" for me.. take pics. :)
Posted by: jj | August 5, 2009 7:20 PM
There is actually 5 partsPosted by: Arnold T Pants | August 5, 2009 7:21 PM
Sweet Jebus, these people are walking goto loops. When presented with evidence they say that it isn't evidence, fail to produce any evidence of their own, march out Haeckel, and claim that they have disproven evolution. Ugh.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 7:21 PM
I can't take it either. I'm watching the "Richard Dawkins interviews Richard Leakey" one instead. I don't think anybody can finish the other one.
Posted by: nfpendleton | August 5, 2009 7:22 PM
Dear Brother Smoggy,
You need to take your savior's word to the people. Everytime I read one of your posts, I get to giggling in the Spirit.
Last night in a vision Jesus told me to tell you to start a podcast right away and spread your message to the godless masses.
Yours in Christ,
N.Pendleton
Posted by: Diego | August 5, 2009 7:22 PM
Seems like she's more of a Wendy Wrong to me.
Posted by: Thomas Winwood | August 5, 2009 7:24 PM
#49: There was an article on AiG which was brought to my attention some time ago which managed to trot out two canards which basically demonstrate what these numbskulls think of historical linguistics.
1. The ludicrous and by now thoroughly discredited idea of three major language families descending from Noah's three sons - Semitic, Hamitic (= Afro-Asiatic) and Japhetic (= Indo-European).
2. The old "Chinese character for boat has 'eight' in it referring to eight people on the ark" spiel, which is amazingly wrong (the symbol in 船 "boat" is a representation of something being divided, like in 分 "minute", not the character 八 "eight".)
In other words, to them linguistics is little more than a wankrag - use it incorrectly to bolster a bullshit story and toss it aside.
Incidentally, it was recently demonstrated that there is a familial link between the Yeniseian languages of Siberia and certain languages of the northwest coast of North America, exactly as might be expected given the predicted movement of early H. sapiens over a land bridge from Asia into the Americas.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 5, 2009 7:29 PM
An extraordinary and fascinating display of wild, righteously-ignorant indignation and hubris. Seldom do we see such open stupidity and barely concealed contempt and disdain for intellect and knowledge. I assume that this is because Dawkins and his field team were filming the beast in its natural habitat with the rest of the pack nearby.
I just love these natural history shows.
Well done sir.
Posted by: Brooks | August 5, 2009 7:29 PM
Sigh. I tried.
Couldn't finish it. Can't afford to replace the monitor I was going to punch. What an annoying idiot. "where's the evidence, where's the evidence." Then just zones out when Dawkins explains the evidence.
Parts 2 through 5? I can't imagine the effect.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 7:32 PM
Parts 2 through 5? I can't imagine the effect.
There's actually 7 parts. I just don't think it's possible for anyone to watch them all.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | August 5, 2009 7:34 PM
That syrupy, pious voice repeating the same tired old mantras over and over made me want to throw up. I think I need a shower.
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 7:35 PM
I made it halfway through part 3...of 7. I need a drink.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 7:39 PM
I was trying to think of who she reminds me of, and then I focused on the nose. And then finally it dawns on me: Ashley Tisdale.
Posted by: coodgee | August 5, 2009 7:39 PM
There are parts 2-7(7!) on you tube. it only gets worse, but but Dawkins pwns her.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 5, 2009 7:42 PM
Ahh, another proud member of Know Knothing Knation.
These people are so dangerous. They're not merely anti-science, or even merely anti-intellectual. They decry the very concept of expertise.
If they feel something is correct in their gut, then they feel qualified to assert that something as fact, and to claim that their understanding is equal to, and just as worthy of air time as, the understandings of experts in any subject.
Even Stalin had the common sense to recognize that, if they wanted to keep the nukes from blowing up in their hands, "bourgeois science" and "Western formal logic" would have to be employed. Not these folks. If they don't like something, it just isn't true. Their understanding qualifies them to make claims on everything from medicine to foreign policy.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 5, 2009 7:46 PM
Sastra: "No sudden movements" cracked me up. Now I kind of want people to make sudden movements. Inexplicable, random sudden movements at odd moments.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
August 5, 2009 7:46 PM
Cuttlefish:
Praise Chronos! A fellow believer in last-weekism. Of course, since I am the only one who actually exists in this universe, I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised that a figment of my imagination also has the wisdom of the ages.
Hey, I guess that means I’m a genius poet, too. Goody!
Posted by: george.w | August 5, 2009 7:47 PM
Egad, the smugnorance. I couldn't finish it and admire the self-confidence of those who are going to the museum.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 7:48 PM
Father Jonathan Morris of Fox News:
http://legrc.org/regnum_db/imagenes_db/testimonies/frjmorris2.jpg
Ewan McGregor, the evil priest from Angels & Demons:
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00803/SNA15EWAN1_280_803589a.jpg
Pretty spooky huh!!
Posted by: Dan | August 5, 2009 7:52 PM
Then show her already, take her to a museum. (Not the creation museum, of course)
Posted by: neutron | August 5, 2009 7:52 PM
4 mins 27...sorry couldn't continue because it was making me almost stop enjoying my beer. However I may try watching this woman again tomorrow without the sound...I'm pretty sure that just those incredibly exaggerated facial expressions themselves will demonstrate that she is quite simply BOGUS.
Posted by: Jim | August 5, 2009 7:53 PM
I couldn't even make it through that whole video. I was chewing the air.
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 5, 2009 7:55 PM
Dear Sister/Brother Pendleton @ 69
Thank you for passing on a message from the Son of God. I will try to do as He commands as soon as I complete the biography He commanded me to write.
I have finished Chapter 1. Here is a synopsis:
Chapter 1 of "The Blessed Life of Smoggy Batzrubble": Part1: In which my heavily pregnant mother slips on ice and knocks herself unconscious on the erect penis of a lewd garden gnome; Part2:In which my father is absent because he is looking for an obese nun to murder; Part 3: In which my unconscious mother is discovered by the local voyeur, who decides to steal her underwear; Part 4: In which my unconscious mother goes into labor and her waters break while her underwear is being stolen; Part 5: In which the pantie-thief suffers pangs of conscience and calls an ambulance; Part 6: In which my father murders the very plump Sister Cherubim Butter by choking her with a Rosary smeared in chicken fat; Part 7: In which I am born and my dying mother, in her final breath, attempts to name me 'Dragon' in Polish; Part 8: In which the nurse misunderstands my mother's last dying words and names me Smoggy; Part 9: In which my father arrives at the hospital (late and smelling of incense and chicken fat) to discover that his wife is dead and he has a son with a weird name; Part 10: In which my father is arrested as a serial killer of fat Brides of Christ just as he is about to cradle me; Part 11: In which my Mama Batzrubble and Sister Cherubim Butter meet in heaven and have a catfight; Part 12: In which I am sent to be raised in the Christian Brothers' Orphanage and Sodomy School.
As you can see, I have a lot on my plate. It will be some chapters before I even get to my arrival in this hellish blog as a missionary. I will get to the podcasts as quickly as possible.
Yours in Christly obedience
Smoggy
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 5, 2009 8:04 PM
Wright: You say that this person was murdered, but show me the evidence.
Dawkins: Sure. Here's the corpse. It has a bullet wound in its chest, and a bullet lodged in its heart. Given the angle of the wound, it's impossible for him to have committed suicide.
Wright: Well, that proves that this is not a living body, sure, but how do we know it ever was a living body?
Dawkins: Are you serious?
Wright: Of course, I'm serious, and I don't appreciate your arrogant tone as though I'm stupid.
Dawkins: This is a body. A human body. It has all the organs you and I have. It has nerve endings, a spinal cord and a brain. The only reason it is no longer living is that a massive hole has been blown through its torso.
Wright: What you're showing is commonalities among living people and this thing. But where is the real, physical evidence that this thing actually lived and walked the earth? The real tangible proof?
Dawkins: Good grief, it's not like you need a degree in forensics to understand this.
Wright: And that's another thing. See there's this conspiracy going on among the government scientists who do autopsies, who argue that only forensic experts can speak on forensic matters. They censor those of us who believe that there has never been a murder in this great country, and that all these so called corpses are dead bodies of once-living people.
Dawkins: So, witnesses to the murder, witnesses who claim to have known this person when he was alive, his children, all that doesn't matter to you? That's not evidence to you?
Wright: It's closed-minded and one-sided. What about all the people who are censored, and not even allowed in the courtroom as experts? The ones who say that they believe that all the witnesses are lying, and that if you really look hard at the corpse, it's not really a body of a once-living person. Courtrooms should teach the controversy.
Dawkins: There is no controversy.
Wright: Of course there is. You say it's a corpse. I say it's not. Thus, there is a controversy.
Posted by: Holbach
|
August 5, 2009 8:06 PM
Janitor in a drum with christ turd @ 19
Your mug shot will be with a cow turd with your jeebus on it surrounded by blow flies, with the Wanted poster reading:
"To be seen dead or alive, but the state is the same."
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 5, 2009 8:06 PM
(I tried to sign in through TypePad but it crapped out on me.)
"Just show the evidence..."
"Just produce the birth certificate..."
That's really all they ask. Why don't scientists just produce the evidence for evolution and then they will accept it. Why is that so hard?
Oh. Wait. We're talking about a denialist mindsent. Never mind.
Posted by: No BS | August 5, 2009 8:07 PM
Watch out for pastor tom estes.
He threatened to come and hang out and debate.
Don't get baited by this twit.
Picture of him here:
http://hardtruth.squarespace.com/pictures-of-me/
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 5, 2009 8:08 PM
Dan @ 83:
Impossible. You could take her to a museum, but it wouldn't matter. Hell, you could take her back in time, and it wouldn't matter.
To her and her ilk, the evidence will always be insufficient.
Posted by: Ben | August 5, 2009 8:10 PM
I was just like this woman for most of my life. I believed what I was told on Sundays and never allowed myself to read a book or listen to a speech by anyone who wasn't the right kind of Christian. Then an amazing thing happened. I decided to stop being content to just take every pastor's, church elder's, and creation seminar speaker's words as fact. It was amazing how just a little bit of research refuted everything I had been told. Now I can't get enough science to satisfy my cravings for more knowledge about this amazing universe of which I am a very tiny part. I just hope that someday I can make a contribution to our collective understanding rather than just accept and repeat the nonsense I grew up believing.
Posted by: maxamillion | August 5, 2009 8:11 PM
simple minded certitude.
http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/01/examples-of-simple-minded-certitude.html
Posted by: Richard Healy
|
August 5, 2009 8:11 PM
Dawkins: So, witnesses to the murder, witnesses who claim to have known this person when he was alive, his children, all that doesn't matter to you? That's not evidence to you?
Wright: It's closed-minded and one-sided.
--------------
I had to stifle a laugh at that point (It's late everyone else is in bed) - a perfect parody.
Have fun on recognisance guys!
Posted by: Josh
|
August 5, 2009 8:14 PM
I just watched all seven parts. Did her parents have any children that lived? The entire interview was basically the same 20 sentences strung together in various combinations of meaningless babble.
What I loved most was "and now, it's only scientists who are allowed to teach science to the rest of us." Right...
Honey, I've got more fancy degrees than you can imagine, including the big one. But none of them qualify me to go into a school and, I dunno, teach automotive repair. And I wouldn't. Nor would I ever be so arrogant as to walk into a shop and tell an auto repair person how to do their fucking job. Why? Because--wait for it: I--haven't--studied--mother--fucking--auto--repair. It doesn't really matter how much I know about science at that moment. I don't know anything about auto repair.
Is understanding that point really that fucking hard? Seriously, is it? All you creation-types? What about this point do you fail to understand? I know that education is teh hard and thinking makes baby Jesus cry and all, but fuck.
Know Nothing Nation indeed.
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 5, 2009 8:14 PM
No BS @ 90
What lovely Christian kiddies Pastor Testes has, their little brains like a great library of empty shelves waiting to be filled with all the knowledge we possess. Oops...my mistake...Daddy has filled their mind library already. There... the bookcase in the middle...the one with one book on it...
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 5, 2009 8:16 PM
I'm not going to watch the videos (I've seen too many similar ones already, and that still image of her is enough to give me nightmares) but I must ask the people who have managed to sit through some of them: Does this deranged harpie actually know who Dawkins is? And does he smack her down at any point or just let her waffle on endlessly? If there is a Dawkins whammy in part 7 I might consider watching just that one, but I'll pass on the rest, thanks very much.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
August 5, 2009 8:16 PM
I just did. half of it is either Dawkins listing all the fossil evidence she should be looking at, and her looking back at him and saying that if this stuff really existed, the museums would be overflowing with transitional fossils(i.e. she thinks Dawkins is just making stuff up). The other half is Dawkins explaining that "darwinism" would make for a horrible social theory, but that doesn't change the fact of evolution existing, and her responding that "darwinism" is a horrible philosophy and caused stalinism and therefore we must teach kids about god.
The woman has no flaming clue how reality works. she seems under the impression that facts are malleable and can be adjusted to a suitable worldview, and that people shouldn't be taught about reality if reality is unpleasant.
also, she seems to have piked up some hints from M7K about how it's all the scientists fault for not presenting the evidence crearly to non-scientists. good job accomodationists, you've given the morons another talking point to add to their repertoire. and you know even if we invented a time-machine-camera and could watch real "macro-evolution" on the local IMAX, they'd still trot that one out. reality has no influence on creationists talking points.
Posted by: Demitri | August 5, 2009 8:20 PM
To all who go to the Creation Museum, you need to do this in the parking lot after the torture you have put your brain through is done with:
SING THE FLINTSTONES SONG!
Yes, sing it. And somebody give PZ a harmonica so he can set the key.
Posted by: Adzam | August 5, 2009 8:24 PM
I nearly made it through Part 3 - UGH!
The man has the patience of a...kind and caring man. Just wow.
Good luck to all on Friday!
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 8:24 PM
Yikes! Pastor Estes sure is u -um- not very photogenic. The kids are really cute though, poor little soon-to-be brainwashed darlings.
Posted by: peter | August 5, 2009 8:25 PM
She's pretty hot for a creationist.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 5, 2009 8:32 PM
E.V.@101 - ...poor little soon-to-be brainwashed darlings.
There's a pretty good chance that at least one will rebel and with today's Satanically-inspired civil laws against stoning the disobedient childrens to death, the Rev's options are limited.
Posted by: tubbolard | August 5, 2009 8:32 PM
Looking forward to your report on this colosul waste of time.
Posted by: Ben | August 5, 2009 8:39 PM
I just read the comments Pastor Estes made about this video on his website. He seems to think this woman worked Dawkins over pretty well. Maybe in parts 2-7 she turned things around after her crummy start. I may never know. After watching her crap out her mouth for ten minutes, I don't think I could watch the rest without a bottle of vodka in hand.
BTW considering all I had heard about Dawkins during my days of ignorance (I'm a former YEC), he really comes off as a pleasant and well-mannered guy.
Posted by: Raynfala | August 5, 2009 8:42 PM
I got to the beginning of part 3, but then my brain's steely exterior broke down into choking fits of weeping, and started begging me for the sweet release of death.
I do not think I can re-enter that cesspool of willful ignorance, misdirection, ceaseless parroting of previously-disproved talking points, and projection.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 5, 2009 8:43 PM
Ben,
Congratulations on exiting the cave.
Posted by: Lance Christian Johnson | August 5, 2009 8:49 PM
I really wish I could be there with all of you folks. I'm looking forward to reading all about it.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 5, 2009 8:49 PM
SING THE FLINTSTONES SONG!
The Weird Al variant, Bedrock Anthem, is even more contagious. Can you imagine 200+ pharynguloids singing only the chorus?
Yabba dabba, yabba dabba dabba do now
Yabba dabba, yabba dabba dabba do now
Yabba dabba, yabba dabba dabba do now
Don't know what it means but I say it anyhow
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 5, 2009 8:56 PM
Oops, sorry about the broken Bedrock Anthem link.
Barney Rubble, laughin' like a hyena
Barney Rubble, what a little weiner
Where's Wilma? anybody seen her?
Got a baby elephant vacuum cleaner
Posted by: Caine | August 5, 2009 8:56 PM
Oh, my brain. My poor, poor brain. Must go bathe damaged cells in alcohol now.
Posted by: LawnBoy | August 5, 2009 8:58 PM
I liked his analogy that has frustration with the insistence on teaching creationism is like the frustration that a Classics teacher would feel if someone taught that the Romans didn't really exist.
Did she respond by saying that the analogy is invalid? Or defend her position? Nope, it was just "I'm offended by your analogy."
So, her entire defense of teaching lies is that she would be offended not to be allowed to. Well too f---ing bad. You don't get what you want simply for putting yourself in the role of victim.
I wish he had called her BS on that.
Posted by: Jeff J. | August 5, 2009 8:58 PM
Heres Michael Shermer @ the Creation Museum talking with a research geneticist for AiG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic
Its a bit long @ 24+ minutes, but well worth it to watch. Early on she denies that bacteria changing from symbiotic to pathogenic is evolution, then states she wonders what genetic change occurred to cause such a transition post fall.
A PhD from Ohio St, and hopelessly lost.
Cant wait to you see you Ladies and Gentlemen on Friday. Only a 90 minute drive from Louisville!
Posted by: Uerba | August 5, 2009 8:58 PM
Wait, did she say "Birds going to mammals"?!
Also, is she seriously suggesting that people are cruel to others because they accept evolution? Is she aware that people were cruel to others before they even knew what evolution was? Does she know that Hitler didn't accept evolution? Does she know about the brutality within the bible, and how it wasn't often condemned? Also, why is Richard Dawkins being so lenient?
Posted by: Sastra | August 5, 2009 8:58 PM
The clue to the entire mindset is in the import of her first few sentences: if we believe that we were "created out of love" by a loving creator, then we are worthy of love, and can love. If not, then not. Like only comes from like.
If we are material and physical, then nothing can come out of that but material, physical things. No values, no morals, no thoughts and no feelings. Mind comes from mind. Life comes from life. Fish come from fish. Monkey come from monkeys. People come from people. Love comes from love. If the universe wasn't a kind of love to begin with, then there would be no real love in it at all, ever.
Their views are impoverished by their lack of imagination, and the almost infantile inability to see that small changes can accumulate till they are big changes, and novelty can grow out and emerge from something not at all like it.
Posted by: applescrapple | August 5, 2009 8:58 PM
Just stay cool and have fun
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 5, 2009 8:59 PM
I hope this doesn't seem spammy, but since it's sort of on topic and people here were asking for it... I'm the one who did the PZ vs. Ken Ham epic battle at the Creation Museum comic. People were asking for shirts of the panel of PZ riding a giant squid vs Ham riding a T-Rex, and they're available at my new store.
I guess the ones that say "I survived the Creation Museum" are jumping the gun a bit. Let's just say that's my way of wishing I do survive.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
August 5, 2009 8:59 PM
it's the "stay the course = win" logic; Dawkins made a few good points, was willing to find some common ground, and was otherwise trying to be helpful. she just repeated her talkingpoints at him and treated any common ground as a victory. therefore, Dawkins not pulling out a "transitional fossil" out his ass and admitting that social darwinism is fucking dumb means to those idiots that she won.
Posted by: applescrapple | August 5, 2009 9:01 PM
Just stay cool and have fun.
Posted by: GMacs | August 5, 2009 9:03 PM
Prof. Dawkins must have endless patience.
No, he probably doesn't, and it is somewhat evident in this video. Right when he starts talking about the "fact of evolution" part (I'm not saying it isn't a fact, since it is) he has kind of an exasperated "this is why you're wrong" voice.
Listening to tone and body language in the first couple minutes, she seems nicer, but that's probably because Dawkins has faced off against too many of these idiots and kept it in.
Listening to content and words, this woman is a moron and has a poor concept of social dynamics. It's also quite weird to imply that we should treat each other as our creator treats us. Remember: set your neighbors on fire and send them to hell, kill those who disrespect you, and act indifferently to suffering.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | August 5, 2009 9:03 PM
Nice, Jen!
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 5, 2009 9:05 PM
OK, I have just finished watching the video and (wholly coincidentally you understand) just finished swearing loudly at my monitor. The sheer wilfully ignorant, deliberately obtuse, brain liquifaction-inducingly smug stupidity of this woman is almost beyond belief. She demands evidence for evolution. Professor Dawkins provides her with references to the overwhelming weight of fossil and DNA evidence. She claims that this somehow does not qualify as evidence without elaborating as to why this evidence is insufficient. She then demands evidence for evolution again and repeats the cycle as nauseam.
She also claims, without providing any proof to back up her claim, that evolution deniers are being censored - a deliberately charged term - and in almost the same breath implies that an evolutionary perspective on life dehumanises mankind to such an extent that it is unacceptable.
Despite endlessly demanding proof of evolution while ignoring the crushing mass of evidence that the Prof. points out to her, she fails to provide even one iota of scientifically credible evidence to support her own creationist position. She does try to misrepresent the significance of DNA but this only serves to highlight her scientific illiteracy. The unit of heredity itself as proof of intelligent design? I am lost for words.
She claims it is arrogant and hostile for Professor Dawkins, a world reknowned academic who has made a lifelong study of evolutionary biology, to point out that he is more qualified to understand the nature of the development of life than Wendy Wright is, when it seems eminently possible that she has made a lifelong study only of her own navel.
Oh and she also witters on nonsensically about porcine teeth. The funniest thing of all is that she actually appears to believe that she is getting the better of the debate. That somehow her mind numbing pseudo-logic and mulish refusal to accept the evidence staring her in the face will succeed in convincing someone whose capacity for reason has not been corrupted by creationist indoctrination.
'Teach the controversy' indeed! Outside the hardcore evolution (and by extension, reality) deniers there IS NO CONTROVERSY.
Posted by: hje | August 5, 2009 9:08 PM
Wow, gotta love the faux niceness/super-duper passive aggressiveness. She would just as soon stick a knife in Richard's back.
Posted by: GMacs | August 5, 2009 9:11 PM
In regards to my previous post, got past the first few minutes: he gets to the point pretty well. I'da probably lost it. She crazy.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 9:15 PM
Ahhaa she's the president of Concerned Women for America. I was wondering why she seemed so savvy with "on camera" public speaking. (Albeit to the point of looking like a spazzed out robot.) You can tell she practices in the mirror and stuff.
Posted by: AndrewB | August 5, 2009 9:20 PM
Richard Dawkins' level of patience far surpasses any sleazy saint.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 5, 2009 9:21 PM
I'm being dragged reluctantly into trendy tech. I've finally dusted off an old twitter account (residualecho) so I can follow PZ and Jen to the Museum from a safe remove here on the Left Coast, and now I have to save money for a coupla spectacular T-Shirts commemorating the Zerg.
At least Pastor T.Estes won't be able to sneak up on anybody--just be on the lookout for a Baby Huey clone.
Posted by: Susannah | August 5, 2009 9:22 PM
#81; "smugnorance". Good word! Fits perfectly.
I kept watching her neck; the artificial sweetness ends where she has no control, and the neck is all tense and angry muscles.
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 5, 2009 9:22 PM
This is an ad hominem (don't you just love the two or three cretinists who have learned that term and say it very clearly so that everyone can be impressed by that fact), but if her eyes were any closer together, she'd be a cyclops.
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | August 5, 2009 9:26 PM
I'll second those who found this interview nerve-wrecking to watch. What a load of toe-wringing awfulness.
For those of you who are going to the museum and are met with the same question of one species to another (macroevolution), take a look at
Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource
Anthony Herrel*†‡, Katleen Huyghe†, Bieke Vanhooydonck†, Thierry Backeljau†§, Karin Breugelmans§, Irena Grbac¶,
Raoul Van Damme†, and Duncan J. Irschick
4792–4795 PNAS March 25, 2008 vol. 105 no. 12
One Croatian lizard population changed morphologically in 30 generations on one island, while they remained the same on another, and it was all observed by scientists. They are now different species. Had a creationists seen these two populations without knowledge that they came from the same population just 36 years earlier, they would no doubt have claimed God created them as separate kinds.
Posted by: recovering catholic | August 5, 2009 9:28 PM
heh--"smugnorance"--love it
Posted by: Doc Bill | August 5, 2009 9:29 PM
UPDATE:
I found all 7 parts on YouTube but you only need to see part of Part 1 because the remaining hour or so is more of the same. Dawkins repeatedly asked her to go to a museum and look at the "evidence" and she steadfastly refused.
"Tried to make me go museum but I said No, No, No!"
The Amy Winehouse of Creationism.
Wright raised one strawman, logical fallacy, lie, falsehood and misrepresentation after another and Dawkins simply plowed through them. All the while Wright was doing her Ann Coulter "ha ha" laugh whenever her argument was smashed.
I wish Dawkins had arranged a "date" with her to visit the Smithsonian and get her reaction to real evidence. Of course, she would have declared it a forgery.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 9:31 PM
mikecbraun, some people are probably going to come on here and tell you that it is not "ad hominem" because if it is true then it is not "ad hominem". Don't believe them!! It's still the abuse fallacy!
Two things on the internets you can be sure will always rear their heads in debate:
1) The "Godwin's law" police.
2) The "ad hominem" police.
Posted by: Grook | August 5, 2009 9:40 PM
Wow, just watched the entire thing. I must be nuts.
What I find interesting is that she claims to be so open minded and willing to look at evidence, and yet even just within the context of the interview (not considering evolution) she is not. She claims several times that Darwinian principles would make for a bad society, and Dawkins agrees with this. Yet she keeps ignoring him and bringing it up again and again, all the while repeating how she is an impartial judge of the evidence. I just don't understand how these people manage to be wrong on so many levels at once.
Posted by: AnneH
|
August 5, 2009 9:44 PM
One of her points that I haven't seen mentioned yet, is that 'belief' in Darwin is a root cause of evil behavior.
Holy Scriptures of whatever faith have been used to justify destructive behavior for as long as we've had them.
It hardly started with Darwin.
Posted by: Mixter | August 5, 2009 9:59 PM
I decided not to watch the video. I wanna save all the surreal fun for Friday!
Mixter
Posted by: Heather | August 5, 2009 10:02 PM
Evolution leads to systems that cause hostility towards human beings?
It's ridiculously easy to think of many times when societies based upon the Judeo-Christian ideals were particularly good at treating human beings with hostility.
Pogroms?
Witch burnings?
Inquisition?
All come from one of those so-called "enlightened" belief systems that believe that every human is created by a loving god and should be created with respect.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | August 5, 2009 10:11 PM
Why on earth didn't he ask her to show him the "evidence" for a creatOR? I actually watched all 7--OK, I'm a feeling a bit masochistic today.
Nowhere did he ask HER to present evidence for her philosophy.
Why didn't he call her on her use of the word "philosophy" in terms of evolution?
He really was quite saintly in his treatment of her. He quietly presented the evidence to her and she still said since she's not convinced the evidence is lacking. That's the cyclical argument people like her pose--show enough evidence to convince me and I'll agree it's true. No way to accomplish that.
I'm going to bed soon, I need to rest after that assualt on my sensibilities--I wonder how Dawkins felt after that?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | August 5, 2009 10:12 PM
Um... that wouldn't be a certain iPhone with an engraving on the back that you received courtesy of Mr Hovind now would it?
Ah, the irony of using it to take evidentiary photos of creationist crap. I'm loving it!
Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | August 5, 2009 10:13 PM
Awesome Jen
Posted by: Epikt | August 5, 2009 10:13 PM
Boy, boy, crazy boy
Stay loose, boy
Breeze it
Buzz it
Easy does it
Turn off the juice, boy
Go man, go
But not like a yo-yo school boy
Just play it cool, boy
Real cool
Posted by: formosus | August 5, 2009 10:19 PM
"You're going to talk about peppered moths and you're going to talk about Haeckel's embryos."
"No I'm not... You see there were these drawings that appeared in textbooks...."
It's like a fucking broken record.
"Show me the evidence"
WE ARE SHOWING YOU! You're just ignoring it.
Posted by: Ray Mills | August 5, 2009 10:19 PM
May I make a suggestion and have attendants bone up on their Ken Ham quotemines, and if possible get you hands in the correct context on whatever e-device you are carrying, because the people seeing through god tainted glasses will try and use them at you and probably have never seen the original version before.
Posted by: foxfire | August 5, 2009 10:21 PM
Josh @ 95
That's an understatement - I bought the interview DVD set and I can hardly wait....(only had the patience to watch the first the segment PZ posted on my PC, without succumbing to screen destruction).
What we need are Wendy Wright jokes in the "dumb blond" tradition:
Q: How many Wendy Wrights does it take to identify a Tiktaalik ...
Posted by: Jesusaurus | August 5, 2009 10:22 PM
More creationist scum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJofLHbqqbM
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 10:25 PM
"If the magic pink banana monkey is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove his existence. The non-belief in the magic pink banana monkey itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason."
Substitute the italicized words up there with the words "God" and "Atheism". And then take a wild guess which former atheist that quote came from, and whether or not if he even knows what an atheist is, even though he claims to be a former atheist, and he is appointed to be the head of the NIH. Without using google, take a wild guess who this person would be.
Posted by: cartologist | August 5, 2009 10:26 PM
I say mock these assholes unmercifully. You can't have dialog with a squirrel.
Posted by: No BS | August 5, 2009 10:26 PM
Just breezed back from pastor tom estes site. He has the same interview up. But hidden in the comments section some guy who signs as "hunter" put these quotes from pastor tom up. Took me a second to figure out what "hunter" was up to:
"This blog has and always will be about logic, reason, and rationality"
"ATHEIST SCIENTIST DISPROVES EVOLUTION!"
"And the biggest reason her theories are an issue for the scientific priestly hierarchy is because her theory of the aquatic ape would by necessity prove all the sacred theories of yesteryear invalid."
"I suspect that none of you atheists will take the time to even think about my responses, but will lash out irrationally as soon as you get done reading it. I hope I'm wrong, because civil debate is a worth-while endeavor in my opinion, and I hope you all feel the same, and that's the HardTruth."
"The Bible possess the answers to all the problems we face in America, and across the world."
".... just like Ben Stein learned that scientists have to ignore the mountains and gobs and heaps of evidence that God created the world in six days if they would like to keep their jobs at a secular university."
Posted by: fluffybunnyfeet | August 5, 2009 10:27 PM
Oh. My. FSM.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/creationist-dinosaur
I'd say this proves there is a god - and she HATES freaking creationist liars.
But you know, this is much, much better!
Posted by: sqlrob
|
August 5, 2009 10:28 PM
Not one of the assertions I'm used to seeing. Do you have any cites?
Posted by: Kirk | August 5, 2009 10:30 PM
I already watched this whole thing on the Dawkins DVD - first as a short on the original Darwin DVD, then the whole thing on the uncut interviews. Man is this bitch passive-aggressive or what?
What I was frustrated by the most was how the interview just faded out at the end. As the whole thing was going on, as I sat there grinding my teeth and fuming my brains away, I was wondering: how is this going to end? I couldn't imagine a happy ending (sic), and yet the fade out was a disappointment.
Also, I wonder how prepped this lady was for the meeting. Did she know who Richard Dawkins was? If so, how on earth did she agree to meet with him?
Richard was too polite and patient, but as she had the home field advantage he behaved as the polite guest. NO WAY was she going to go out to a museum with him! No way she was going to leave her protective bubble
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 5, 2009 10:30 PM
Watching that video was like watching a snake challenge a centipede to an ass kicking contest.
Posted by: tmax | August 5, 2009 10:31 PM
Finally! A reason to get on Twitter. Thx PZ. I'll be following your tour with drink in hand.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 10:33 PM
Glad to hear you're a Nikon man PZ.
Teach the manufactroversy!!!!!1111one!1
Posted by: Laura | August 5, 2009 10:33 PM
Alright I just watched all 7 parts... and am now going to finish this bottle of wine. HOW Dawkins did not pull one of these is incredible.
Good luck to everyone on Friday!
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 5, 2009 10:38 PM
Every time she says "show me the evidence" she's providing evidence to future generations of her movement's stupidity.
Posted by: joe | August 5, 2009 10:39 PM
"Show me the evidence for evolution"
Show ME the evidence for Goddidit. You don't have a shred. The "you only have holes to put in our theory" thing drives me up the wall.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 5, 2009 10:44 PM
Wonder if she's had her appendix out.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 10:44 PM
look... I really don't like saying this... but watching that... ugh... what a smug, ignorant little b*&$%.
She talks over Prof. Dawkins continually, refuses to answer a single direct question (we never did get an answer to the question "where did you study science"), interrupts incessantly, yet at the first indication that she is being talked over she snaps at him "excuse me" and her face turns like Bilbo trying to snatch the ring from Frodo...
Classic alpha debater technique. Jeebus help the poor bastard who gets involved with her.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 10:45 PM
Ok part one done. Really makes me thing of Lewis Black.
I have a feeling that the remaining parts will require significant amounts of Whisky (or whiskey for that matter).
Posted by: Kagato
|
August 5, 2009 10:46 PM
I made it no further than a minute and a half into the video before deciding I had no interest in hearing anything else she had to say.
Posted by: Attila | August 5, 2009 10:46 PM
I managed to get through the first 2 videos. I am looking forward to going. I am back to posting youtube.
I went with Greg Laden's suggestion to get a Flip. Here is the intro on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I94ZaT1TVwo Now I actually will have to do something cool at the "museum."
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 10:46 PM
I found a quote that is very fitting except that it relates to meteorology (I love storms, sorry). As you read it just replace "weather reports" with "evolution" and you'll see how it fits. From Mark Svenvold's "Big Weather": "...this second problem, a matter of rhetoric, where hard science bumps into the suspect terrain of human nature: ignorance, outmoded habits of thought, Luddite sympathies, old wives' tales, the congeries of cultural biases and myths, all mired in a slough of doubt and skepticism regarding weather reports."
Hits the nail on the head with this woman, no? "What I was raised to believe trumps all."
I love it when Dawkins, in part 2 or 3, can't remember, tells her that he doesn't "want her respect, I want her to look at the evidence."
Maybe I had a few too many of those drinks earlier. Cheers!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 10:47 PM
Ok started part two.
I'll take Appeal to consequences for 1000 Alex.
Posted by: Billy C | August 5, 2009 10:48 PM
Just made it through part 2.
Summary of the first half:
Wright: We don't have an agenda! We just want evidence! Show us the evidence! You scientists and your museums never show us the evidence!
Dawkins: Well, there's ancient homo sapiense, australopithecus, homo erectus ..
Wright: Well, what really concerns us is the philosophy.
Dawkins: You asked for evidence. There's ancient homo sapiens, australopithecus, homo erectus ..
Wright: You scientists are always shoving evidence in our faces! Why are you so aggressive?
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 10:48 PM
Sorry, that should be "...you look at the evidence."
Posted by: Euterpe | August 5, 2009 10:49 PM
Good luck kids. I wish you many interesting stories. And that those who need to rant about the video above do it here, and not at the event.
In other news, drove by an exit to that museum once. Was sorely tempted to make a sidetrip and go inside, but could not muster up the courage (or the will of my passenger).
Posted by: Rorschach | August 5, 2009 10:52 PM
Talk about "warm-up" for the trip,
so 10am local time there,right?
What's that in other timezones? Is that 2400 AEST?
That means I could sit here
smashedanimated and enjoy the show, that will be just as cool as the "Expelled" thread, yay !!Posted by: Uerba | August 5, 2009 10:52 PM
sqlrob: I don't know how much you know of Aronra, but he is an invaluable source of information on the subject. Here's one of his videos which mentions Hitler's beliefs n the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y&feature=channel_page
Posted by: CW | August 5, 2009 10:52 PM
Couldn't do it. Half way through part 3 and I started getting a seriously unpleasant knot in my gut. The Toothpaste Twins may love to paint Dawkins as shrill and strident but this was truly a display of almost superhuman patience. I couldn't even watch it, forget about standing there and politely conversing with that... person. You're a better man than I am Gunga Dawk.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 10:53 PM
Oh... one other thing... Wendy Wright, get in the fucking box.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 10:55 PM
Err... I mean, get in the fucking sack...
*walks away sheepishly*
Posted by: Marc Buhler | August 5, 2009 10:55 PM
In the issue out today of the journal Nature, an interesting comment is made about "self awareness" in evolution and the ability to deny one's potential demise.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/pdf/460684c.pdf
It is this very denialist ability that allows such world views as fundamentalists express to exist. Hold this mirrow up to them and see if it helps - that their ability to hold their belief against all evidence is an evolutionary trait itself.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 10:55 PM
At the beginning of the video, you can see that she had the floor marked off with tape in the spots where she had planned they would stand during the interview. But yet she was acting all coy and nonchalant, as though it had not been planned out. "OMG, well, hey how about we stand over here OMG I hadn't planned on this at all!!"
Posted by: foxfire | August 5, 2009 10:55 PM
Jenni @ #117
Very Nice! I ordered the one with words because, although I cannot be physically there, I rationalize one survived it by continuing to intellectually exist in the same universe as that black-hole of ignorance and superstition.
Good luck to you all, take care, and have fun (at least meeting and being with one another).
Posted by: Lance | August 5, 2009 10:57 PM
Anyone who didn't go on and watch the other videos is missing out. While frustrating, it's also funny (funny sad not funny haha). Ok, maybe funny haha as she pwned herself a few times in some of the other videos. RD asked if there's a hidden agenda and she calls that an ad hominem followed by her asking if evolutionists have a hidden agenda. lol
Yes, he does try to explain genetics to her and somehow she twists DNA to being evidence for creatardism. RD got a little upset and even commented that he's repeated himself over and over at which point she changes the subject and starts talking philosophy.
You should watch the rest...if you have enough alcohol.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 10:59 PM
Ok. I'm having a hard time not imagining a family of Australopithecus fossils falling on this woman's head.
Posted by: AnneH
|
August 5, 2009 10:59 PM
I can't believe I watched the whole thing...
Professor Dawkins finally expresses his frustration with her obtuseness at the beginning of part 7, just after she repeats (for the umpteenth time) that 'there is no solid evidence for evolution.'
He responds with 'That sends me close to despair..'
Posted by: Christopher | August 5, 2009 11:02 PM
That was "horrendic".
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 11:04 PM
Oh hell, there's a part 8 somewhere, #7 cuts off in mid-sentence.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 11:04 PM
Look... I forced myself to watch the thunderfoot / ray comfort insanity in its entirety less than a week ago... I just... I just can't. My wife will not tolerate another night of me tossing absurdly loud f-bombs at the computer screen.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 5, 2009 11:05 PM
I have an unpleasant feeling I'm not going to online when this takes place - and no doubt when I click on to the site to see what's happened it'll be after everyone's made hundreds of comments.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 11:06 PM
holy shit
you...watched.. the ...whole......thing?
I'll bare the scars of just trying for years.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 5, 2009 11:06 PM
Sorry, Wendy-- if that is your real name! Here's a bird/mammal transition right here! Behold, the chickmouse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnPKIc9lWiY
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 5, 2009 11:12 PM
lolI remember when I watched that Dispatches doco about the British fundies In God's Name. I had a similar reaction. After about 10 minutes, I drowned myself in alcohol, then for the remaining 40 I was constantly swearing at the screen.
As for Thunderf00t / Comfort, I got through two of the parts then just got too frustrated to watch more. Seeing Ray Comfort being so stupid is one thing, seeing Thunderf00t not calling it out is another. Though I guess it's hard to catch all the errors when one does a Gish Gallop.
The 30 seconds of her talking on the documentary was more than I could handle of her breathtaking inanity.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 11:13 PM
Ok part three. Reminds me of a Pete Seegar song
"If I had a hammer. I'd hammer in the morning. I'd hammer in the evening. I'd hammer my forehead!"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 11:13 PM
yup... start to finish... showered for a straight hour and couldn't get the feeling of icky slime off.
Unfortunately, some things cannot be unseen.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 11:14 PM
At the beginning of the video, you can see where she had the floor marked off with tape on the spots where they would stand, (I'm guessing) so that she could see the teleprompter, and for the trap door in case Mr. Dawkins got too out of hand. (I would guess.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 11:16 PM
um
bear the scars....
grumble
Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2009 11:17 PM
Smoggy:
If only your name was Smoggy Banzrubble. Then your gloriously God-inspired anagram would be:
N.Z. Boy Buggers Lamb
Sure there isn't a typo on your birth certificate?
If you married Floyd Rubber and became Smoggy Rubber, we could make that:
Mr. Buggers Boy
Yours with lifetime devotion to the Church of the Eternal BlowJob,
Mr. Fire
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 5, 2009 11:20 PM
I know it seems bad not to listen to what the other side has to say, but as Bill Maher said for something completely unrelated: this is sentient beings versus the lizard people.
Listening to say Dawkins and Gould battling it out over Punctuated Equilibrium - worth listening to. Listening to Paul Krugman and Michael Shermer talking about the global financial crisis - worth listening to. Listening to Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss discussing string theory - worth listening to. But listening to these people when it comes to evolution? It would be like going to a lecture on socialism given by Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. When a moron speaks on an issue they clearly don't have the first clue about, why should we waste our valuable time on such nonsense?
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 5, 2009 11:22 PM
I think deep down she realises, but will not admit, is that there are those that without the fear of a god would have no constraints for violent acts against other people, yet there is no need to fear unbelievers because they have shown that coping with life's daily struggle can be effectively handle with logic and reason while those susceptible to unreality's can not deal with the same situations.She is afraid of what she believes the world would become without these constraints.
Their is a small part of me that would agree that some religious followers do not respect the laws of man and would go completely nuts without a god to hold them accountable.
I find it quite interesting that as religion senses the demise of itself that it struggles to survive with lies and deceit when in their own book it tells that it will end, and yet they look forward to that end. That is completely illogical, religion promotes illogical thoughts in order to save and condemn the human race.
The whole premise of end game religions is contradictory to the survival instinct, religion will destroy itself in time or it will end the genetic line now existing.
There are so many bad lessons subconsciously learned from religion and self accountability is only one.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 11:22 PM
Yeah... it was pretty clear that thunderfoot was unprepared for the debate style of people like Comfort and Wendy Wrong here. I think he was anticipating a fair give and take, point / counterpoint style debate, and what he got was the well rehearsed misdirection, subject change, refusal to answer questions and general obtuseness of a person who's practiced for countless hours the fine art of slight-of-hand debate.
Not that he did all that bad, and he got comfort to say some pretty epically stupid stuff, but it just seemed like he was out of his element somewhat and it was painstakingly uncomfortable at times.
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 11:23 PM
Why does Smoggymcwhogivesashit still get attention? It's not funny.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 11:28 PM
@ tohellwithyourturtle #194
I think someone needs a hug...
Posted by: Cat's Staff | August 5, 2009 11:30 PM
She exemplifies an American creationist who feigns an interest in the facts and reality in order to push for a different agenda. That's why you can talk to them for an hour (like Dawkins did) or a hundred hours (like I have) and it won't matter. They don't care about the facts, they have more important things to worry about. She alluded to it all throughout the video... abortion and the rights of people who she says we say have no soul...THAT'S HER REAL ISSUE...you could carry her on your back to the NMK and show her the Lucy fossils...it wouldn't matter...she doesn't care...how will it save little baby's from being aborted! In the video you see her constantly drawing the connection between evolution and these issues. If she could make the connection between gravity and abortion she would be just as staunchly against gravity.
On the other hand...here's an honest creationist... when Dawkins was interviewing Adrian Hawkes in the Root of All Evil (part 2, 13 mins) he admits he doesn't care about the facts. In reality American creationists don't care either, but they put on the pretense that they do in order to make their emotional appeal more believable.
This is why it's so hard to argue with a creationist...you're usually arguing against the wrong thing.
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 11:31 PM
Nah, I'm just tired of the flavor of the week being drawn out to being the (dis)tasteful flavor the last four months.
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 11:33 PM
Ah shit, I fucked that last post up completely and don't feel like fixing it. Boo on me.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 11:33 PM
Yup... GRREEEEEEAAATTT big hug...
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 5, 2009 11:34 PM
Yeah, I don't want to be too critical on Thunderf00t. It's not like he said anything stupid, and when he did give answers they were very well thought out. The way he talked about morality in terms of murder and lying in terms of mathematics is something I hadn't considered before.It's different to watch him on his "Why do people laugh at creationist" series and to watch him in that one-on-one situation. Because in his series, he very much does play the attack dog role where he hammers every point and gives it the intellectual spanking it deserves. But there he didn't and I found myself creating in my mind what answers Thunderf00t would have given if that were one of his videos.
I kind of hope that he will do something like that, use what Comfort said and turn it into half a dozen or so new episodes where he rips Comfort a new one which he didn't / couldn't do in the "discussion".
Posted by: gwen | August 5, 2009 11:36 PM
I painfully watched the first 10 minutes, but I you couldn't get me to watch the rest for 10 million dollars. It would take a hefty dose of Pavulon to make sure I didn't move coupled with about 4mg of Versed, so I can forget what I heard and maybe another 50mcg of fentanyl to get rid of the pain to my brain and the concurrent drop in IQ...see I CAN watch it, under the right circumstances!
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 11:36 PM
Aww, shucks, gibberish gibberish. Look at that, you made the real me come out. Once again, cheers!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 11:41 PM
Agreed... I'm not trying to be overly critical of thunderfoot, as taking on a professional liar like Comfort in a situation like that takes real cajones, and I certainly don't think I could have done any better... but like you, I went in with an expectation based on thunderfoot's prior videos. The reality was quite different... and I felt like Comfort's mere style of debate so frustrated him at times that it made it difficult to pin him down on specifics like I think thuderfoot intended to.
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 5, 2009 11:43 PM
Hey PZ, I'm glad I can help you with your blog. You've shadowed me three times in three days. Keep up the good work! BTW, I will say hello and attempt to shake your hand on Friday. The question is, will you return the kindness?
Posted by: Uerba | August 5, 2009 11:44 PM
I just watched the whole thing (well, what was availiable, anyway...). All I can say is, don't bother. You wanna know what it was like? Just watch parts 1 and 2 in a continuous loop while bashing your head against a wall as hard as you can. Yes, that should be a sufficient description... lot less painful too, now that I think about it...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 11:47 PM
Wasn't there something about humility in that cult you belong to?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 5, 2009 11:47 PM
Tom Estes, you aren't worthy to shake PZ's hand. Renounce your imaginary deity and fictional babble, and see light of reason. Renounce creationism and all other religious ideas. Then, and only then, will you be worthy.
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | August 5, 2009 11:48 PM
tohellwithyourturtle@197
I agree! Smudgy Buttfucker has far outlived his use-by date and should be banned. He lowers the tone of this blog and detracts from the serious scientific debates taking place. As well, he gives New Zealanders a bad name.
Posted by: Sastra | August 5, 2009 11:49 PM
Tom Estes #204 wrote:
Based on what I've seen of PZ, almost certainly. He is, you will perhaps be surprised to discover, a very nice, kind, and gentle man (but don't let it get around ;)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 5, 2009 11:50 PM
It's a reminder of the truth in the old adage: 'you can't reason a person out of a position they weren't reasoned into'.
And when you throw in the vacuity of arguments such as 'there are other ways of knowing that are just as valid as real evidence' and rubbish like this one, by one Anthony McCarthy on The Intersection: 'I don’t think the program to associate science with atheism couldn’t help but hurt science in the general population whose experience leads them to conclude that there is a supernatural of some kind. Knowing something experientially is the basis of the most compelling and convincing form of knowledge.'
Which I'm guessing means he takes alien abduction stories seriously.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 11:52 PM
Wow, Pastor Tom... nothing like stacking the deck, huh? Ask a meaningless question which you should already know the answer to, acting like you had to ask the question (which of course you didn't).
How very christian of you... not to mention typical.
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 11:52 PM
Therein lies the problem, those that debate on the side of truth are completely unprepared for lying bullshit artists. My advice, know what to expect, have a few good soundbites prepared to counter theirs that make them look like the uneducated buffoons that they are. The point is not to convince those that already embrace truth, it's to reach out to and convince those that don't. Scoring points that the average christian indoctrinated fool won't understand doesn't count in this war. In other words, fight dirty, but truthfully. The average American craves a "oh no he didn't" phrase more than a 10 minute lecture about how they are wrong, and, as such, will ignore the extended statement of facts in favor of a short soundbite that reinforces their childhood indoctrination. That's where those of us who actually understand how scienece works and what it is are failing: sometimes you have to play to the lowest common denominator. Do I like this route? No. How else are you going to get your point across?
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 5, 2009 11:52 PM
Sastra,
I hope you're right. I know a conversation will be pretty much impossible because of the circus of the whole situation, but I figured a simple greeting shouldn't be too hard.
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 5, 2009 11:54 PM
For fuck sake I spelled science wrong...
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 5, 2009 11:55 PM
For fuck's sake, so you did.
Posted by: Sastra | August 5, 2009 11:58 PM
Wowbagger, OM #210 wrote:
Yes -- it it happens to him.
This is what most theists and supernaturalists fail to understand. People make mistakes. All of them. And when you understand how unreliable our memories, interpretations, and senses can be, you don't make an exception for yourself.
You don't say "if that guy thinks he saw an angel, he's hallucinating -- but if I see an angel, why, that's completely different. I'm hard to fool. I'm smart. Honest. Alert. Careful. Reliable. So I would not make a mistake, there. Like all the other people."
This idea that personal experience trumps all the scientific testing, knowledge, and collected wisdom of the world leaches itself from religion and into alternative medicine and other forms of pseudoscience.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 5, 2009 11:58 PM
While I understand your point here, and don't necessarily disagree, you also must understand that those of us like thunderfoot, who are by their nature thoughtful, honest, and fair, are loathe to stoop to this level, even for the advancement of their correct point of view. It's as unnatural for them to act that way as it would be for Comfort to debate with fairness, integrity and intellectual honesty.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 6, 2009 12:00 AM
I don't know how people get nominated for awards around here, but you deserve one for that.
Posted by: Lynna | August 6, 2009 12:00 AM
Josh @95
After that Josh said "fuck" in various ways and with creative emphasis. I think watching all seven parts just about drove Josh 'round the bend. Holy crap, he's brave and then some. Walking through the minefield, that's it.
Josh, I hope you recover.
The Wrong woman gives everyone the shudders. Imagine what it's like to live surrounded by her ilk. Help me, Smoggy.
BTW, Smoggy is in fine form on this thread.
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 6, 2009 12:00 AM
tohellwithyourturtle hereby reserves the right to admit his own typos without a lame ass parody's attempt to score points based upon said posters level of intoxication. Cheers smoggy buttstubble!
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 6, 2009 12:03 AM
BTW, there's an intentional typo there. Have fun Douchey badsatire.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 6, 2009 12:06 AM
Dear Brother Yertle @ 220
Sadly it is only 4 p.m. in Noo Zillund and I have not yet had the chance to become intoxicated, so you are doing better than me. Equally sadly, my lame ass scores no points correcting your typos. If, however, you were a person of faith or profound credulity I would joyfully point my crippled buttocks in your direction, shit on your delusions, and paint a Christian turtle on my fuselage.
Yours, in constant irritation,
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Kagato
|
August 6, 2009 12:08 AM
I'm not even sure it was the stupid wrongness of what she was saying that snapped my patience, it was the blind parrot approach to saying it.
If I was there in person, I'd feel like responding:
"STOP. Just stop. Not only is everything you have said so far wrong, it is completely unoriginal. You're not even engaging in a conversation, you're just parroting sound bites. Everything that has come out of your mouth so far has been said, and debunked, many times before. Say something, anything, in your own words.
Cut to the chase: assume I am familiar with the whole issue -- because I am -- and give me your most unique, original and creative argument."
(Response will most likely be summarised as 'Argument from ****')
"I see. Goodbye."
Posted by: arrakis
|
August 6, 2009 12:09 AM
"Creationist Replies to Evil Darwinist Satanist Elitist Scientist Closeminded-Liberal Atheists", a modern instructional record.
Side 1: "Where's the evidence?" Turn record to side 2.
Side 2: "That's not evidence." Turn record to side 1.
Posted by: Lynnai | August 6, 2009 12:11 AM
wow... she doesn't think darwin is wrong because that isn't how it is... she thinks it's wrong because she thinks that isn't how it ought to be and she can't tell the difference! Aaarrgghh! Frustration!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 6, 2009 12:11 AM
Wendy takes great pride in her ignorance and doesn't seem much different from Tom Estes (who bears a striking resemblance to Eric Cartman in more than one way). Tom just left this shiny little turd for the horde that has been zerging his blog over the past few days:
Both Wendy and Tom are anti-gay, anti-atheist, anti-intellectual, passive-aggressive, manipulative, lying jackasses of the highest order. The scientific evidence we possess is overwhelming and they could at least admit they might be wrong, but instead they continue to ignore it to maintain the purity of their delusional beliefs. They even have the nerve to turn our requests around and tell us to study their claptrap musings. How do you get through to such bullies? I'm not sure it's entirely possible.
Posted by: DonRocko | August 6, 2009 12:12 AM
Everyone who is going to Kentucky:
Video please! Nothing would make my week more than sitting on youtube Sunday night and watching coverage!
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 12:14 AM
I think Wendy sorta looks like Queen Peuta:
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Queen_Peuta
Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | August 6, 2009 12:14 AM
Creationist, no, not here. Neither do lame attempts at satire abide here either.
Your character is lame and always has been,
tohellwithyourturtle
...which, btw, is not a character, it's a moniker based on a highly unique experience from long ago, and by the standards of the internet is ancient, having been in use since 1999.
Posted by: Kagato
|
August 6, 2009 12:15 AM
By the way, Celtic_Evolution, I think the word you're after is cojones.
Cajones means drawers (as in, 'chest of').
Posted by: Dan W | August 6, 2009 12:16 AM
Hope thinks go well for the "horde", PZ.
Posted by: Dan W | August 6, 2009 12:19 AM
Gah, I meant to type "things", not "thinks"!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 6, 2009 12:19 AM
getting hard to tell who's the parody...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 12:21 AM
Kegato #230
dammit
it's been that kind of night.
guess i'll take my cajones and get in the fucking box. :/
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 12:23 AM
AND I spelled your name wrong, Kagato.
*sigh*.
OK... one more drink and I should be passed out anyhow, so...
Posted by: Bwe | August 6, 2009 12:23 AM
That was an exhausting watch. I think I could feel my brain trying to break out of my skull.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 12:24 AM
Sastra, @209 I don't want you or anybody to encourage any contact with Estes at the museum, or anywhere else.
I really hope Tom Estes can show us he's smarter than he looks and avoids the zerg on Friday, after the story from Jennifurret on the AIG thread @347--509. I hope she's followed Raven's advice and filed a report on the creep.
Posted by: jONESEY | August 6, 2009 12:25 AM
For those who couldn't stomach watching all seven videos, here's a summation:
"Where's the evidence"
"Here it is"
"Where's the evidence"
"Here it is"
"Where's the evidence"
"Here it is, would you like me to show you more?"
"No, because there is no evidence"
While I give credit to Dawkins for showing amazing patience, I do think he should have called her out more on her obvious complete lack of knowledge of biology. For instance, when she said that DNA was evidence of god, and that it was so amazing that a couple could have 16 children that all look different. I'd have stopped her right there and said, "Its called meiosis you stupid hag!" This isn't advanced learning in evolution or systematics or anything too "sciency", its basic fricking 8th grade biology!
The irony is that she kept acting like he was attacking her intelligence, yet he showed amazing restraint in not pointing out how little she actually understood. She clearly demonstrated how little she understands of science, and Dawkins was a better man than I for not just shoving it back at her.
Posted by: Dan W | August 6, 2009 12:29 AM
Watching the video now... and my goodness, that Wendy Wright woman is so stupid! Ugh! And she seems ridiculously well at dodging questions Dawkins asks and turning it around into her idiotic points. I don't know how Dawkins can stand debating with her, particularly in such a calm way. She's so typical of creationists, ignoring his statements of evidence and restating her illogical bullshit. She is such a smug, arrogant... and so dumb! The number of times I facepalmed upon hearing her comments... gah!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 6, 2009 12:31 AM
Dear brother tohellwithyourturtle,
You have a decade-old ancient internet moniker! What a thing of beauty and a joy forever, I can see why you would be proud of it. It must be the internet equivalent of owning a penny black.
For myself I have only recently ventured into the cut and thrust of the internet and am still finding my halting way around. I think I am what they call a gnubee. I will do my best to emulate your example--I am sure you, with your highly unique experiences, have much to teach me.
Smoggy
PS Celtic_Evolution appears concerned that you need a hug. I have a friend named Floyd Rubber who specializes in hugging the needy. He's not lame, but does have a couple of interesting deformities. Shall I send him your way?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 12:33 AM
I've been trying to put a finger all night on what her smug, phony, serpentine forced smile reminded me of... something I'd seen recently... and it finally hit me... it's eerily reminiscent of the face carried by Harry Potter's Dolores Umbridge (movie version, of course).
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 6, 2009 12:36 AM
Remember the name for the next time a Molly thread comes around.Posted by: KiwiInOz | August 6, 2009 12:36 AM
I made it to 5, with a break at 2 for a cup of tea and some chocolate for sustenance. By 5 it was necessary to go to the gym and punish myself, and let the endorphins sooth my physical soul.
Did RD realise that he was pulling her chain by keeping on mentioning bishops and archbishops (her cult hates them - not ChristiansTM) and the liberal tradition that he subscribes to (her cult hates them as well)?
Posted by: Lynna | August 6, 2009 12:42 AM
The smile behind which no kindness lies.
Ms. Wrong must sleep with a hanger in her mouth.
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 6, 2009 12:42 AM
You guys all need to know that Jennifer totally fabricated that whole thing in attempt to get attention. Let me break it down for you.
I had never heard of her.
She writes an article about me, sort of mocking, but not horrible.
I point out that her, and another atheist blog, Freethinker wrote articles about me.
I then learn of PZ's trip to the Creation Museum.
I also keep reading Jennifer's blog after she wrote about me.
I see through reading her blog that she was going as well, and that was when I learned PZ was bringing a group with him.
I write an article about the trip, and at the end I said I would see PZ, Jennifer, and the rest of the group at the Creation Museum.
I'm checking my referrers on my blog the other day, and I see Jennifer's twitter widget as a referrer.
I go to her site, and see that she said she was scared.
I felt bad, so I tweeted her, and said she didn't have to be scared, I was just talking about saying hello.
She says, yea I'm just 21 and paranoid.
I say, I understand completely, my wife is 25.
Then, she comes to my blog, and makes very kind remarks.
She obviously seemed nice, so I told her in passing that I was looking for to chatting.
She said, that's cool, I'll probably just say hello because I want to goof off with my friends.
I'm like, cool.
It's over, right.
No.
She comes on here, after all of that, and acts like I was stalking her. Complete lie.
Then, she devotes an entire post to me, saying how at first she thought I was stalking her. Another lie.
Bear in mind on my blog are pictures of wife and I, and my two little girls.
Of all the things said about me on here, what she tried to pull is by far the worst. I know if a Christian came on here with a sensational story for attention they would get ripped to shreds. I don't care if she gets ripped to shreds, but she at least should be called what she is, a liar.
I know some may think this bothers me too much, but I have a family, and I take this very seriously, as I think most of you would too.
Anyway, I just felt like my side needed to be heard on that one.
Posted by: Kagato
|
August 6, 2009 12:46 AM
Speaking of "getting in the fucking box/sack", I had an amusing thought the other day.
Some guy was asking for direct linear fossil evidence of transitional forms, which as far as anyone could figure out meant, in effect, one fossil from every generation showing a smooth progression from one form to another.
This is of course essentially impossible, as you'd need to have at least one representative from each generation heading down to a swamp and throwing themselves into the peat for pristine preservation.
That left me thinking of some senior specimen of the example species marching his great-great grandson down to the swamp, then shouting at him,
"Get in the fucking bog!"
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 12:48 AM
Yeah, just between you and me and the other guys, you know how young girls are. Always lying, and making up sensational stories, just to get attention.
Well, glad that's all cleared up, then.
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | August 6, 2009 12:51 AM
Have to say, Tom. I tend to buy your side of the story. I don't ascribe to your beliefs, and I think you can be a bit disingenuous when proselytizing, but there's nothing on your blog, or in your posting behavior to suggest for a second that you're a stalker or the harassing type. Low life's don't tend to post family photos (unless they're politicians)and I don't get the sense you are using your family for your own seedy ends.
Go along. Shake hands with those who want to. Keep an open mind... and most of the atheists there will likely do the same.
HK
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 12:52 AM
Pastor Tom...
Do you even realize that by posting that whole diatribe you just increased the discomfort level concerning the whole thing up another notch?
Friendly advice to you, keep a kindly distance from Jennifer and stop feeding into an already uncomfortable situation.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 12:58 AM
OT, but filed under the heading of "duh":
The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective. In addition, the report, covering 87 peer-reviewed studies, said such efforts may cause harm.
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 6, 2009 1:00 AM
Happy Kiwi,
Thank you very much. But for obvious reasons I have no desire to say hello to Jennifer.
Celtic_Evolution
Say what you want, but how do you think you would feel? Lies like these can destoy a person. I have no problem being bashed for my beliefs, that's fair game. But character assaults like this would bother anyone.
Posted by: Trekkinbob | August 6, 2009 1:01 AM
Thanks, PZ, for posting this. It represents the argument (even if some of us aren't as articulate, nor as cogent as Professor Dawkins) that many of us are currently having among people we actually live and work with. Please keep posting these.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | August 6, 2009 1:01 AM
"a loving crea-TOR"
Hahaha, it reminded me of the skit from Kids in the Hall... "Eeeeeradicator"!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 1:04 AM
Pastor Tom...
I'm not questioning the merits of your account of things... I'm trying to gently point out to you that in making sch an overt attempt at "defending yourself", especially in this forum, at this time, you are increasing the discomfort level, and may not be helping yourself at all.
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with your beliefs or convictions.
Posted by: Andyo | August 6, 2009 1:06 AM
Gah! I can't comment now with my typepad thing? I have to do Movable Type?
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 6, 2009 1:09 AM
Celtic_Forum,
You may be right about that. I've just never felt so blind-sided. It is worth noting that I didn't bring it up, Ken Cope # 237 did. I'll take your advice, and go get some air. I just haven't learned how to handle this kind of stuff yet. Later folks.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
August 6, 2009 1:13 AM
Pastor Tom, please get a grip. You're a person on the internet who has suggested that you'd like to meet someone you do not know. in the real world, that may be normal and harmless, but on the internet, it screams "creep!!!!", cutesy family pictures or not. so jen got freaked out and then posted about having gotten temporarily freaked out. because, you know, posting your thoughts and experiences is what bloggers do.
at no point did she say you WERE a stalker, or has otherwise defamed you. let go of it.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 6, 2009 1:15 AM
The practice and promotion of Creationism is an inherently dishonest enterprise.
Posted by: Dr. P | August 6, 2009 1:17 AM
To everyone going I'm looking forward to hearing about your experience but please be safe and very careful.A significant percentage of these people are bat shit crazy and their deity no doubt talks to them;I'm a little concerned about what he might be saying on that particular day. As for the video, I couldn't even stand the still shot of the dragon lady, why punish myself further?
Posted by: Dr. P | August 6, 2009 1:20 AM
Besides, one eye seems pasted on her face a little lower than on the other and that just creeps me out a little.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 1:21 AM
Tom Estes
I would also caution you that launching into your diatribe by calling Jennifer a liar just looking for attention is a giant red flag.
Whatever you feel has transpired, what should be more than clear to you is that if nothing else, you have made her more than a little uncomfortable. Whether that was your intention or not, that is what happened. At that point, the only thing it should occur to you to do is to apologize for making her feel that way, convey that it was not intended, and then offer to refrain from talking to or about her in any way, shape or form going forward.
Attacking her for feeling threatened, whether you feel it was warranted or not, is simply wrong.
If, after having done all that, you feel that you continue to be defamed, there are better ways to handle it than coming to a blog sympathetic to that person and calling her a liar.
There... that's really all the advice I can dish out to you... you may take it or leave it.
Posted by: Andrew Brown (No not the whingeing one!) | August 6, 2009 1:26 AM
In part 4 she describes the importance of using her "critical factories". I assume that's where you make the ad hominid attack weapons!!! TSTKYS and then some. She has the wit and wisdom of a freshly toasted rock
Posted by: Caine | August 6, 2009 1:26 AM
tohellwithyourturtle @ 163
Ol' Wendy Wrong put me in mind of a line from Futurama: "I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe!"
Posted by: Dan W | August 6, 2009 1:27 AM
I have to say, I'm always glad to see Smoggy around here. Back when I was but a lurker/reader on Pharyngula, there were times when I thought he might be a Christian troll, but I've since realized the satirical nature of his posts and taken a liking to them. Much like how I enjoy reading Cuttlefish's wonderful rhyming poems.
Posted by: Ryne | August 6, 2009 1:27 AM
Oh my god, she just ignores everything Dawkins says. This was truly, and in the purest sense, painful to watch.
Posted by: omnipasje | August 6, 2009 1:32 AM
I wish you all a good day on friday. I'll be away for the weekend myself (something about running around in medieval clothing in a forest with rubber weapons ;) )
Make lotsa pictures and movies!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 6, 2009 1:37 AM
I also enjoy Smoggy. He adds much needed comic relief to what can be very heavy, frustratingly ignorant comments. Satire beats SIWOTI sometimes.
OT,
I just noticed a new troll has been plonked in the dungeon: Guardian of the Poll/Concerned Conservative. It looks like it was competing for the most handles ever by a single troll.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 6, 2009 1:39 AM
Nice. I would have said, 'she hasn't got the brains the gods* granted a mango'.
*It's just an expression; I don't believe in gods, mango or otherwise.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | August 6, 2009 1:47 AM
Wowbagger, OM - How can you not believe in mangos? I have two mango trees in my backyard. Admittedly they didn't fruit this season, but that's not the point!
Posted by: Andrew Brown (No not the whingeing one!) | August 6, 2009 1:48 AM
Oh shite, she's just gone the goo to you route!!! I wish she would say what evidence she would accept to change her mind. Ray Comfort pulls the same trick. Say you want evidence, but you will not say what will change your mind because nothing will!
And the irony of being told how her ears evolved when she is doing everything she can to avoid using them! Beautiful!
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
August 6, 2009 1:53 AM
Kagato (#223)
But it's so much fun watching her pause her brain and rewind to the beginning of each talking point because she can't even get them out at all if she starts in the middle.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 1:56 AM
Celtic_Evolution, I wish I could play good cop now and again, but I can't really think of anything nice to say to or about any anti-gay birther creationist AGW science-denialist who is so out of touch with reality that I seriously doubt that he has the sophistication to be joking upthread @204.
I've got young kids too. My youngest starts pre-school in a couple of weeks, thriving and lucky to be alive after a bout with a cold, one that she caught from her brother when he was at preschool, which nearly killed her at 6 months, running up an $80K hospital bill that the insurance company took 2 years to reluctantly pay. My oldest is going to a magnet school in the district where they sneak science and music programs under the radar of NCLB. I've picked a heckuva time to return to school in California (for a BA from SFSU so I can teach my craft in public schools). I'm just in time to watch classes canceled left and right, lecturers let go and professors on forced leave, while tuition gets raised with every expectation that it's going to get a lot worse. These aren't abstractions.
It's getting harder and harder to try to make the world better for my kids, in the face of smug know-nothings who just want to be all smiley and friendly and pray for us, and shake everybody's hand. I don't know how Richard Dawkins musters a gram of civility either.
Posted by: Ragutis | August 6, 2009 2:02 AM
tohellwithyourturtle :
Just killfile Smoggy. That way, you don't have to read his posts, and we don't have to read your complaints. Everybody wins.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 2:04 AM
I find Smoggy's posts ever so much more entertaining when read aloud in the original Kiwi.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 2:16 AM
This, linked from Watertiger over at Dependable Renegade:
Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.
Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.
Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”
This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”
Posted by: eyespy | August 6, 2009 2:32 AM
Be careful out there tomorrow, everyone.
These people are truly sick and I fear they may be waiting in ambush somewhere near the "museum."
I'd be with you but I'm in Australia.
Can't get there from here...
Posted by: Constant Mews | August 6, 2009 2:35 AM
Tom Estes,
No lies were told by Jennifer. You apparently have little experience with the web; here you should be extremely careful of anything that can look like stalking. Talking about going out of your way to say hello to a young woman you've never met in what you have indicated will be a hostile environment appears to be a threat.But stop accusing her of lying or defaming your character; you were in the wrong. You should apologize and withdraw from any communication with her.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 6, 2009 2:38 AM
KiwiInOZ wrote:
I don't believe in mango gods. I'd have to be experiencing creationist-level denial to claim not to believe in mangoes - for starters I'm originally from Bowen, which - if you aren't aware - is where the best mangoes in Australia come from.
The first house I lived in had three trees in the backyard, and we had so many of them they used to pile up and rot in the backyard, where rainbow lorikeets would gather in squawking dozens to feast on them - and, if the mangoes had fermented - get completely plastered.
Let's just say I know exactly why the expression 'pissed as a parrot' exists.
In high school my friends' parents had a small orchard and I went out there to work picking them one summer. But it turned out I was highly allergic to the sap and came out in an itchy all-over rash as a result - the doctor said it was the worst case he'd ever seen.
Oddly enough, I don't actually like mangoes very much. I think the flavour is kind of sickly.
Posted by: The Defenestrator | August 6, 2009 2:51 AM
I think it's worth going through the videos just for the part where she explains the key flaw of socialism: that it doesn't recognize the importance of taking care of those who can't support themselves.
Posted by: Marcie Dietrich
|
August 6, 2009 2:58 AM
I can't believe I watched all seven parts.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 6, 2009 3:01 AM
Arghhh....just watched the entire interview. Now I got a headache for banging my head on the wall so many times. Richard Dawkins would bring up concrete evidence for evolution and she would continually just reply "there's no evidence". Very frustrating, but I kept watching. Kinda like seeing a car wreck.
Posted by: Grant N | August 6, 2009 3:04 AM
Physicalist@39
"To help prepare, people might also want to look at others' accounts. I recommend Scalzi."
I haven't finished John's post from 2007 yet, but the 'horseshit' intro to the expose is most entertaining.
He also has a picture archive of around 100 images.
Slideshow here
Make sure you click "Show info" in the upper right corner.
Some of the image descriptions are priceless.
My guess is that some of these displays may have changed, which would make an interesting comparison.
Posted by: Susan | August 6, 2009 3:07 AM
No fucking kidding. I just watched the whole thing, so I could feel somewhat like a participant in this grand adventure. They are dumb as a box of (extremely repetitive) rocks. I loved how Dawkins kept throwing Bush and the free market in her face. I wonder if she ever realized how many times we'd laugh at her expense while watching that interview. Lady, no one could possibly be more condescending than you, with less cause.
Posted by: Cowcakes | August 6, 2009 3:09 AM
She must be a bottle blonde. The peroxide has completely dissolved her brain.
Also the manner in which she speaks makes we want to vomit.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 6, 2009 3:17 AM
I recommend staying away from Tom Estes, and asking him to stay away from the group, during the filed trip, for all I know he might be the agent provocateur we expected.
Posted by: mandydax | August 6, 2009 3:20 AM
Wow, turn that video into a drinking game, and I'd be smashed sooo fast. "Teach the controversy," "microevolution," "closed minded," "censorship," etc. *hic*
Posted by: Susan | August 6, 2009 3:29 AM
Wendy's a liar, too. A simple Google search turns up what she and her little crew actually do to get arrested:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-21/news/mn-917_1_operation-rescue
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 3:40 AM
for all I know he might be the agent provocateur we expected.
At the very least, it smells like an avoidable ugly scene just begging to happen, which nobody needs. Hope for the best, be prepared for the worst.
Posted by: Dorkman | August 6, 2009 4:02 AM
I'm surprised that after all her repetitions of "where is the evidence," RD didn't throw that right back in her face when she invoked a god.
Or when she said "the evidence against evolution," where was the "such as?"
It's probably smart on his part, but I still would have loved to see the look on her face when actually forced to go off-script.
Of course she probably just would have dodged over to "I just look at the cultures that come from a belief in" blah de blah.
Posted by: Timothy | August 6, 2009 4:06 AM
Thanks, PZ. I was feeling far too smart today. Luckily I just got stupider watching that woman.
Posted by: Sorin | August 6, 2009 4:15 AM
I'm a good liar too. But if don't have the proof than I like blah blah and if you offend me in my lie I'll smack you. Sure I can be a scientist and of course I have the wright . Who's better wins,that's an fact,that's what created my specie. So take care if any of the infamous get's wright you're wrong and that's an fact. But there is a kind of infamous fool who never get's wright and it's never wrong because he never lies. So if I want to be a scientist I sure like that kind cause when I'll die I knew what worth living for and behalf of all I know who I am and where I stop. Now is not today but allways mine and more offten never.
Posted by: Dora | August 6, 2009 4:31 AM
I have been reading The Political Brain by Drew Westen, and it has helped me order my thoughts on logic & emotion and conveying one's message effectively.
You can dismiss this woman as stupid but I don't think she is. And I'm very sorry to say that most people watching this will be swayed by her and not Dawkins. People are not interested in pure logic, they are content with minimal internal logic of a position that resonates with them emotionally.
I think anyone in Dawkins' position should have some good soundbites ready like someone here said and be prepared to take some below-the-belt shots at their opponent. You don't get points for integrity. Hire Sacha Baron Cohen!
Posted by: The Woo Master | August 6, 2009 4:34 AM
Seven youtube videos later, and she finally convinced me that atheists are evil and violent because I want to kick her in the head.
What an idiot.
Posted by: Escuerd | August 6, 2009 5:01 AM
"What you're talking about are commonalities."
Creationists can never seem to get the difference between nested hierarchies and overall similarities. They're mostly just too ignorant and/or too dumb to get that far.
Posted by: Fedor | August 6, 2009 5:15 AM
Urgh! After this tripe I have to watch some wonderful videos of potholer54debunks on YouTube!
Posted by: shadow | August 6, 2009 5:41 AM
If you people want to believe you are monkeys, that's fine, but just reading these comments show others the violent intolerant side of you. You truly are acting like you are animals. keep up the good work, you have just boosted my faith in Jesus Christ. I hope people who believe in the "THEORY" of evolution seriously look into it because the fossils they use as proof are just fossils of dead animals, they do not prove anything evolved into anything.
Posted by: James Birkett | August 6, 2009 5:48 AM
I think I understand why she believes that atheist society must be brutal. I certainly wanted to violently beat her every time she smugly implied that evolution dictated philosophy rather than fact, or asserted that there was somehow a choice between believing in evolution and believing that all humans should be treated with respect.
I was hoping Dawkins would actually demand an answer to why she thinks that believing nature acts uncaringly implies that human beings should act that way too. He said time and time again he didn't want to live in a society ran on Darwinian lines, but never got an answer to why anyone would want to.
He should have pointed to the largely secular societies such as Denmark or the Netherlands, which are blatantly less ruthless towards and provide better for their less able citizens. Ever see a trailer park in northern europe? Thought not.
Posted by: Drosera | August 6, 2009 5:53 AM
Tom Estes,
You can pretend to be a harmless idiot, but you have given so much evidence that you are in reality a deceitful and vindictive death cultist, that nobody is going to believe you. And that's the Hard Truth.
Posted by: Cheb Ghobbi | August 6, 2009 5:58 AM
I have a suggestion. Why not have everyone in attendance bring one small bit of evidence with them, for example if assailed by a creationist, simply whip out a diagram showing the (and I'm not a scientist so don't expect the correct terms used here) 'fused' chimp chromosomes that correspond to a single human chromosome and how that is evidence of a common ancestry.
If everyone brings one little factoid with them, adequately presented and explained, you may just get a couple of them to scurry away to question their infantile beliefs.
At the very least, it could be good for morale and a giggle.
Posted by: Drosera | August 6, 2009 6:00 AM
Shadow,
You must be one of those idiots whose faith becomes stronger the more its inherent stupidity is demonstrated.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 6, 2009 6:00 AM
Dear Brother Shadow,
Thank you for your brave and eloquent witness on this hellish blog. I've been trying to raise the standards for our side, so it is heartening to have a fellow Christian turn up here who can actually spell and doesn't use all caps all the time. Like you I am disappointed that the atheists have never paused to look at the fossils of live animals. What are they going to learn from something that has been dead 65 million years (oops [blush] sorry...I meant 6500 years).
I'm certainly relieved to learn you have had your faith in Jesus boosted. Was it running a bit low? I know myself that over time faith can trickle away slowly, like a leak in one's Godly gas tank, particularly when there's so much evidence against what we believe that to most thinking people we must look really stupid. Still, the Lord wants us to be fools for him, and you are doing a fantastic job keeping your end up.
Thanks and praise to Jesus for saving us from monkeydom and eternal damnation. Won't it be wonderful when the atheists are being tortured for eternity? They won't feel so clever then will they? We'll be able to stand on our heavenly clouds and throw peanuts down at them.
Yours in Christian anticipation,
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Joolya | August 6, 2009 6:01 AM
From Part 6 (I am a masochist):
WW: The way to inculcate respect, for human beings, is by, um, seeing that they were created, uh, by a loving creator.
RD: Would you actually distort the scientific fact in order to create respect for human beings?
WW: There's no need to distort, because as I've mentioned, uh, science in a technique, a tactic, for discovering and unlocking the keys of how this world works. And so we don't need to deny any facts, because, um, the facts end up bearing out, uh, uh, our beliefs. So, it would take, sometimes it takes time for science to catch up with the, um, the, the beliefs that have made the best societies. Sometimes is takes a while for science to ... the may stumble across something and, and take the wrong interpretation from it, build a philosophy on it, and then say, oops, that, uh, that wasn't correct. So sometimes science changes its own beliefs [laugh] based on new evidence that comes forward. But often times what ends up happening is, as science progresses, it backs up the belief that there's an intelligent designer.
[I just ... wow.]
Posted by: Rorschach | August 6, 2009 6:12 AM
fundie moron @ 296,
I have good news for you,we are not monkeys !
We are apes, actually.
Impressive spelling skills though.
Posted by: Joolya | August 6, 2009 6:18 AM
From Part 7, and this poses the question: Does WW have any idea who it is that she's talking to? Has she heard of Richard Dawkins? Has she ever (she who is offended at the implication that she does not read) glimpsed even one of his many books on evolutionary biology written for the popular lay audience (never mind any of his peer-reviewed research publications)?
WW: So what is your, what is your cause in life? It, it, I would think that if your cause were to convince others that evolution is correct, not just a theory but a fact, uh, then you'd be devoting yourself to finding this information and making it readily available - what I find is that you're spending a lot of time arguing with me, trying to convince me ...
SERIOUSLY?????????
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | August 6, 2009 6:18 AM
Honestly, this was one of the funniest things I've seen in a long while. I don't know how Dawkins kept a straight face. GOLD, JERRY, GOLD.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 6, 2009 6:28 AM
Enjoy the "museum" visit folks!
Posted by: JennyAnyDots | August 6, 2009 6:44 AM
Totally unrelated to the topic under discussion, but I thought some of you might be interested to read this - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6740831.ece - yet more people picking on the scientologists! But just to say something relevant too, hope you all have a great time at the museum, and I look forward to reading the reports when you get back.
Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2009 6:47 AM
As I sit here watching the early morning sun struggle to peak through an impressive stack of rainclouds, I do feel rather better, thank you. It required sleep and the better part of a bottle of wine, but the stupid was strong in that one...
Posted by: puseaus | August 6, 2009 6:55 AM
Concern is often a good thing. But concern built upon a false world view will have its costs. And to admit one's failure in choice of world view and to start all over again... (with that kind of income) that's an investment for the brave ones.
Isn't this intelligent lady arguing that because we can only see the dots there ain't no lines, and she won't recommend trying to find one either. (is that what they call faith?)
Posted by: AZ Geo | August 6, 2009 7:11 AM
Ugh. That imbecilic smile, that vapid stare.....AAAHHHHHH, MY BRAIN! Whew. Sorry, I was frightened for a moment that stupidity of this magnitude might actually be contagious!
She called Dawkins "closed minded". What a BITCH! I'm glad I'm not going to the museum now. If I ran into a person like this I'd have to slap them.
For a long time I've wanted to have one of these people hooked up to a functional MRI while they make their arguments. I've heard before that fanatics show decreased activity in the frontal lobe while defending their stance. I'm not sure if this is true or not, though. If anyone's seen the Thunderf00t/Ray Comfort discussion, wouldn't it have been great to do that with a side-by-side fMRI scan?
Posted by: Ema | August 6, 2009 7:16 AM
#13
HAHAHAHA
Yes! I knew there was something...SOMETHING off about her -- and that's exactly it!!! Too bad she doesn't have the weird mouth movements that Ted Haggard does...
And oh, I wonder if she's been up to similar behind the scenes activities as him....
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
August 6, 2009 7:27 AM
We do not. All we say is that Genesis is not an accurate description of how we came to be. It does not. Nowhere is violence threatened to anyone. We leave that sort of thing to the adherents of organised religion. I have no idea how that works. We've had a good laugh at the expense of someone who lies, refuses to listen and basically revels in their ignorance. That is all. Where do you find the spiritual nourishment in that? Right on! Now you're getting it! Scientists treat this forensic evidence as material that proves or disproves the theory of evolution. It just so happens that the hundreds of thousands of fossils we've found provide ever-increasing support for it, allowing us to further refine and improve on our understanding of its mechanisms. Rest assured: if the Crocoduck ever turns up they'll bin everything that the evidence doesn't support, 'cos that's just how they roll. (Also, the discoverer would become rich and famous - so don't worry that they'd suppress the evidence) On the other hand, the continued discovery of clearly transitional forms like Tiktaalik, or the fossils of walking whales, etc. means that unfortunately for you,Tom and Wendy makes this unlikely to ever happen. You wish. Unfortunately the fact that, for example, you can clearly see in successive generations of the whale's land-dwelling ancestors the nostrils move further and further back over the skull to become the blow-hole of modern whales, or the hind-limbs evolving into their flukes, is proof, and very persuasive proof at that.Finally, please note that I am not a scientist, nor am I a "militant" atheist. I'm just someone who has had the wonderful luck to have my eyes opened by educators and experts like PZ, Dawkins and many of those who post on this blog. The world doesn't become less wonderful, nor humanity less precious or inspiring just because the bible's creation story is a fable. Many, many Christians outside the US embrace the truth of what the evidence tells us without it threatening their faith. You can too.
Unless you're one of those people who likes the fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality, or gets satisfaction from the idea that people who think differently from you are going to suffer torture in an imaginary afterlife, or wants armageddon to wipe humankind out of existence. In that case I hope you'll see that it is you who are the monster.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 6, 2009 7:30 AM
That was actually about 1/4 of the way through. I know, because coincidentally that was the line that caused me to turn it off. Blech. Nothing new to see here, folks. The only reason to watch this video is to be impressed by Dawkins' patience.
Although, one line from Dumb Lady was new for me: At the beginning, she says, "We believe humans were created from Love." (I presume a capital L...?)
What does that even mean? How can an abstract concept be the component parts of a physical object?
"Right now, I'm sitting in a chair made from the number Five, using a laptop created from Purple, which is resting on a table constructed purely out of semantics..."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 7:34 AM
I thought Pastor Tom said he wasn't going to post here again?
Posted by: DistendedPendulusFrenulum | August 6, 2009 7:36 AM
Surely every system that's designed for political control is jealous of its fictions--we can see the Liberal Bashing Industry trying desperately to return its constituents to its tired, old slogans while the problems of the world keep shifting, damning the politico-religionists to irrelevance.
Yet this whole anti-science movement relies on a new set of apologetics--the fictions this woman speaks are a new discourse that has been created out of thin air. I guess that's what's so shocking about the whole thing. I dunno--we don't let plumbers design bridges, and we don't let piano tuners do brain surgery. I'm not sure why we need to trust wharrgarblists to dictate what is science and what isn't.
Posted by: Katkinkate | August 6, 2009 7:37 AM
Have lots of fun tomorrow guys and gals. Don't let them intimidate you. Hasn't Dawkins got a sexy accent?
Posted by: James Sweet | August 6, 2009 7:42 AM
Good point. It's just like those silly faithless cops in a murder investigation. I saw this episode of CSI where they found a body with a bullet hole in it. But that body was just a corpse of a dead human, it doesn't prove that anybody was ever shot by anybody.
Personally, my theory is that God must have raptured the deceased's soul up to heaven. The bullet hole doesn't prove anything (the "victim" could have been shot after he was raptured!) and since there is not complete and certain proof that he was shot, I'm thinking there is a 50/50 chance between the Got Shot Theory and the Got Raptured Theory.
Why don't those closed-minded cops Investigate the Controversy? Sheesh...
Posted by: Ranson | August 6, 2009 8:09 AM
@Dahan #52
Now you've got me picturing PZ standing up outside the "museum" (perhaps on top of his car) and yelling, "CAN YOU DIG IT?" before they go in.
Posted by: toomanytribbles | August 6, 2009 8:23 AM
i actually watched them all last night... 7 -- count'em -- 7 videos and, in fact, it looks like there should have been an 8.
fear not... i'm alive.
sickened, but alive.
Posted by: C M M | August 6, 2009 8:24 AM
"You just listen to each other!"
So very true.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 6, 2009 8:32 AM
I want to set up a website with a questionnaire similar to the religious one shown here a while ago, but which will lead people to question their beliefs instead. Maybe some people here can fill it out a bit more, but it might go something like this (with a separate question on each page of the site):
OT:
Q1: Do you believe that the bible is 100% true?
YES:
- Q2:Do you believe that animals can give birth to striped offspring simply by making them look at striped poles (GEN: 30 37-39)?
- NO: So you admit that the Bible contains falsehoods. Go back to Q1
- YES: Impossible. Try it and prove your results or go back to Q1
NO:
- Q3: Do you believe that the OT is 100% true?
- YES:
- - Q4: - Do you believe that both Creation stories are true?
- - YES: Illogical. They contradict each other. Go back to Q3
- - NO: You have contradicted yourself. Go back to Q3
- NO:
- - Q5: - Do you believe that at least one of the Creation stories is true?
- - NO: OK, so you don't believe either of the Bible creation stories is true. Good for you. Go to Q6
- - YES:
- - - Q6: Do you believe the story of Adam and Eve?
- - - NO: Fair enough. Go to NT
- - - YES:
- - - - Q7: Do you accept the story that Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden?
- - - - YES: Go on to NT
- - - - NO: You have contradicted yourself. Go back to Q6
NT
Q8: Do you believe that the NT is 100% true?
- NO: Fair enough. Go to Q12
- YES:
- - Q9: Do you believe that Jesus Christ existed?
- - NO: You have contradicted yourself. Go back to Q8 -
- - YES:
- - - Q10: Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God?
- - - NO: You have contradicted yourself. Go back to Q8
- - - YES: -
- - - - Q11: Do you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross?
- - - - NO: You have contradicted yourself. Go back to Q8
- - - - YES:
- - - - - Q12: Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins?
- - - - - NO: In that case, if he did exist, what did he die for? If you believe he didn't exist, congratulations! You are either already an atheist or you are starting to question your beliefs, which can only be a good thing.
- - - - - YES: What sins? You have already agreed that the story of Adam and Eve is false. The concept of "Original Sin" derives from that tale. If it is false, then Jesus died for nothing. Sorry, you fail the test!
need to set it out as a proper flowchart, and add a few more interesting questions. Anybody care to help out?
Posted by: Greg | August 6, 2009 8:32 AM
I made it through all 7 parts. What I can't believe is that Dawkins made it through without slapping her.
Posted by: Thorne | August 6, 2009 8:35 AM
@Smoggy Batzrubble #240
"I think I am what they call a gnubee."
Isn't that the transitional form between mammals and insects? Proof of evolution!
Posted by: Justin | August 6, 2009 8:44 AM
Wow. Just wow. Using Darwin in the context of racism (pt. 2) and evolution 'followers' (for the lack of a better phrase) thereafter. That takes some serious gall to say that, or perhaps an endless pit of ignorance. I'm inclined to pick the latter.
Good thing Hitchens didn't interview her otherwise she would have ended up in the hospital with Hitchens being in prison.
Posted by: Troy | August 6, 2009 8:49 AM
Dawkins forgot to state a simple powerful point-
Christianity overwhelmingly consists of catholics and Catholic church officially accepts evolution.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 8:52 AM
Except that Wendy and a lot of the super fundy creationists tend to not consider Catholics Real Christians™, and they both don't like and don't trust the Pope.
I bet if anything that would weaken Dawkin's stance from her view point.
Posted by: Porco Dio | August 6, 2009 8:54 AM
that was possibly one of the most brilliant example of ignorance and stupidity i have seen dawkins do battle with...
Posted by: puseaus | August 6, 2009 9:04 AM
When did the catholics accept evolution?
Posted by: Troy | August 6, 2009 9:07 AM
No, one of their arguments in the sloppy thinking they have is argument from popularity and it just fits in. They are the ones who are not true Christians and they are the marginal ones.
It would just show how ridiculous she is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 6, 2009 9:09 AM
Well, we all know what truthtellers (*snicker*) the godbots are...Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 6, 2009 9:12 AM
James Sweet @ 313,
Is your chair red?
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0/v-s-ramachandran
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 9:18 AM
as long as the popularity is their brand of popularity
Not to them it doesn't.
Who are the True Christians™?
Depends who you ask. Their viewpoint is rather popular and their influence isn't something to sneeze at. I'd say they are far from marginal. Unless you mean marginal in the sense that they are " close to the lower limit of qualification, acceptability, or function : barely exceeding the minimum requirements". If that's the definition you were using, then yes. They are marginal.
Not to her and that's my point. Dawkin's doesn't need to quote another religious figure to make her look ridiculous. He's doing fine showing what a loon she is by just sticking to the science.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | August 6, 2009 9:25 AM
Why did you make me watch that? Why? I may never recover.
Posted by: MartyM | August 6, 2009 9:34 AM
All I can say is complete rubbish! I'll watch the rest of the series later.
Posted by: Holydust | August 6, 2009 10:32 AM
Why did she keep saying "Crea-TOR"? I've never heard anyone say that. @_@
The smiling in her voice as she ignores everything he says really infurates me.
What a dingbat. What a hateful, harmful dingbat.
Posted by: Deconverted | August 6, 2009 10:35 AM
I cant believe I watched almost 3 parts of that thing. It was painful. What a stupid bitch.
Posted by: Jake | August 6, 2009 10:41 AM
It's beautiful isn't it?
It's marvelous that I'm not going to be there, I punched my monitor, I'd love to sock idiots like this in the face.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 10:47 AM
sigh
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 10:49 AM
thanks, Jake...
I'm sure that comment won't be mis-construed by those who want to continue to insist how violent and evil we are.
You're a huge help.
Posted by: Derek Rodgers | August 6, 2009 10:58 AM
Hey Guys, about pics and video.
Myself and one of the other interns at the Center for Inquiry are coming, and we're bringing two high-end Canon HDV Cameras with us.
We plan to make a fun video project of it.
Posted by: John Salerno
|
August 6, 2009 11:07 AM
Good to hear about the pictures. I was wondering if maybe they will take away all cameras or something.
Posted by: Chemgirl
|
August 6, 2009 11:13 AM
Urrrrrgh. It's like he's trying to talk to a recording. Dawkins is being perfectly polite, yet she won't let him get a word in edgewise, snubs him when he tries, and repeats herself over and over.
It almost doesn't matter what she's saying, I just grind my teeth listening to people who consider that discussion.
Posted by: Philip1978 | August 6, 2009 11:25 AM
Ladies, Gentlemen and Pastor Tom
I send my biggest Tea Fuelled regards to all you magnificent godless people for your adventures tomorrow.
Have fun,point and laugh!
:)
Posted by: Tom's crew | August 6, 2009 11:26 AM
PZ's Godless crew had better be watching their backs
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 11:31 AM
Part of the problem is the format of the interview--him on her turf, asking her questions, rather than the other way around. If she had approached him with questions, I think it would've worked out much better.
Something along the lines of:
Wendy: But why do you believe in evolution? I just don't understand.
Dawkins: Well, simply because there is a mountain of evidence that supports the theory--real, scientific evidence, not dogma--and none of the scientists who have discovered this evidence are driven by any sort of agenda other than verifying reality. If even one scrap of legitimate evidence had ever been found that disproved the theory, the news of such a finding would spread rapidly in the scientific community, and the scientist who discovered such evidence would gain a place in history for him- or herself. Science, you see, is self-correcting. Creationists like you, on the other hand, reach a conclusion first, then attempt to find evidence to support it. You can't, of course, because you are a brain-dead zombie...(oops, don't want to get uncivil)...
But I can envision it working out much better if she had approached him.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 6, 2009 11:32 AM
Troy, that wouldn't be powerful at all. In the US, most Christians are Protestant, and many of them consider the Catholic Church to be heretical if not Satanic.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 11:33 AM
@344: If you were trying to make that sound like a threat, like assault, you succeeded. If that wasn't your intent, you might consider rephrasing.
Posted by: Wry Mouth | August 6, 2009 11:34 AM
PZ: Enjoy!
Posted by: Conan the Librarian | August 6, 2009 11:37 AM
Oh Noes - they have taken Twitter down already - what next ??
Twitter site seems to be under DOS attack at the moment - hopefully it will be back in time for tomorrow's trip.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 6, 2009 11:38 AM
@ 344,
Tom's crew threatening violence or interference ?
There will be cameras mate, press, 200+ people with phone cams, and posts like this one on a public forum traceable back to you.
Better think again.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 6, 2009 11:40 AM
Tom's crew, we all know that Tom Estes is lying and wants to do nothing other than proselytize to atheists to win his Baptist merit badge.
Tom has already proven that he is as obstinate as Wendy in the video and has no qualms with lying to our faces or disavowing evidence in front of his nose, but then again who doesn't at Ken Ham's place? It is standard Trolling for Jesus that we see all the time.
It is highly doubtful Tom and his "crew" (the Shaun from Tom's blog I suppose you are talking about) will be able to be any more ridiculous than the Creation "Museum" when they preach to the godless horde, although such antics will fit right in with the surroundings and be documented just the same.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 6, 2009 11:45 AM
Thank you, Tom's Crew, for informing us how desperate you are. Just like these people are desperate. Good thing cameras will be on scene so that people can see if and when you move up to the desperation of those witch hunters.
Posted by: How | August 6, 2009 11:52 AM
Very revealing @7:10..."those in favor of evolution can't show us the evidence that WE'RE looking for..."
Obviously, since scientists haven't been able to dig up a fossil of dolphins with fully-developed arms & legs, or a chimp with a human head, there is ZERO EVIDENCE for evolution, because THIS is the kind of evidence we require!
Posted by: Tom's crew | August 6, 2009 11:55 AM
Take it to mean what you will.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 11:57 AM
Maybe if we're lucky well get a West Side Story style musical performance.
On one side we have the young upstart Squids. They're tough, proud and full of ignorance busting knowledge... oh and song. Beautiful beautiful song... and dance. They spend their days and nights fighting against the prejudice and thickheadedness of the ingrained Fish who seek to ruin education....
Actually that's probably not a good Musical to pick.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 11:57 AM
Tom's crew, do you understand how easy it would be for law enforcement to uncover your identity? You have committed a felony.
Posted by: Tern | August 6, 2009 11:58 AM
Tom's crew is a poe, don't feed it.
Posted by: Lynna | August 6, 2009 11:59 AM
Josh @308
AZ Geo @310
DGKnipfer @333
Gotta say I told you so. The danger is psychological/neurological. Antidotes should be dispensed to everyone after the visit to the Creation Museum. Rev BDC and Patricia can probably suggest specific brands of said antidotes.
Posted by: Tom's crew | August 6, 2009 12:00 PM
You're assuming we're being co-ordinated from your jurisdiction.
Posted by: Susan | August 6, 2009 12:01 PM
@puseaus
I'm not sure-- but I was raised Catholic and was told in the early 1960's that "we believe" (I love that phrase) that if evolution happened, that's the way God planned it all out-- much as Dawkins explains to Wendy in the video. No Catholic I've ever met has any problem with evolution.
Frackin' Crackers on the other hand...
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 6, 2009 12:08 PM
Tom, learn to fucking read before you decide to go smearing my name on someone else's blog. I NEVER said I thought you were stalking me. In fact, let's take direct quotes from everything I DID say:
"I mean, it's not like he stalked me - my twitter feed is clearly placed on my main page."
"I really don't think Pastor Tom is a bad guy"
Actually, I may have to take that last line back, because the more you keep this up, the less I think of you.
I invite anyone who doesn't know what the hell is going on to go read my post, and go read all the lovely comments Tom Estes left on said post. Including the one where he said "I'm done," yet he came back and posted repeatedly there and on other sites. Who's the liar, Tom?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 12:11 PM
PZ... I think it's time to pull out the banhammer... i'm pretty sure direct threats are dungeon-worthy almost immediately, and this schoolyard bully is simply boring.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 6, 2009 12:13 PM
Oh dear, that is quite a challenge Lynna. Something more fortifying than Mrs. Pinkum's Miracle Cure no doubt.
Posted by: DR K | August 6, 2009 12:21 PM
PZ is taking his biggest step yet to hell.
Posted by: How | August 6, 2009 12:22 PM
Very revealing @7:10..."those in favor of evolution can't show us the evidence that WE'RE looking for..."
Obviously, since scientists haven't been able to dig up a fossil of dolphins with fully-developed arms & legs, or a chimp with a human head, there is ZERO EVIDENCE for evolution, because THIS is the kind of evidence we require!
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 6, 2009 12:24 PM
And sorry guys, I know I really shouldn't feed the trolls by responding, but I guess I'm just too stubbornly honorable to let him come in here saying crap about me and stay quiet.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat cookies or something to cheer myself up.
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | August 6, 2009 12:24 PM
Wendy Wright has got to be Jeff Dunham’s best act yet; he doesn’t even appear to be in the room.
Posted by: AC | August 6, 2009 12:35 PM
A drive-by troll, true, but I always get a kick out of this phrasing. On the contrary, I want to believe I'm immortal and universally well-liked, but the evidence doesn't support that position.
A position that is supported by evidence? People are able to feel anger and frustration, even intensely, and yet not act violently as a result. Amazing!
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
August 6, 2009 12:35 PM
RBDC (#314)
That's one of those fundamentalist colloquialisms that just doesn't translate correctly into normal English. What it really means is "You're trying to get me to substantiate my arguments or you've exposed a massive flaw in my logic so I'm running away for now, but I'll be back when you're focused on something else so I can fart out more unfounded stupidity and whine about how persecuted I am."
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 6, 2009 12:35 PM
Jennifurret, do not worry about it. You have ably stood up to Tom Estes' bulling tactics and his plea that he is the innocent bystander. You are the one being honorable.
Just keep a record of the statements by Tom Estes, DR K and Tom's Crew.
Posted by: Tern | August 6, 2009 12:42 PM
DR K has been banned and is a poe, so is Tom's Crew.
DO NOT FEED THEM PEOPLE !!!
Tom Estes himself may be real, but I don't think he is a real threat.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 6, 2009 12:45 PM
#367
Nice... ;>
Posted by: Mitch | August 6, 2009 12:55 PM
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know how numerous PZ's Zerg horde is currently set to be?
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 6, 2009 1:03 PM
I think it's currently around 250, Mitch.
Posted by: Dancaban | August 6, 2009 1:09 PM
Good hunting!
Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2009 1:16 PM
Cripes! I don't think Ham's museum is that bad.*btw: your syntax could use some work.
Posted by: Paul Claessen | August 6, 2009 1:18 PM
#360 (Puseaus) "No Catholic I've ever met has any problem with evolution."
Well, there are quite a few. For instance (and you may never have met the man, but surely heard of him!): Michael Behe! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe)
Of course Romand Catholics SHOULDN'T have any problem with evolution, since the church's official dogma is that (theistic)evolution happened. And for catholics to NOT follow official dogma, well.. ALMOST makes them non-catholic! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2009 1:27 PM
You qualify a handshake as an act of kindness? You must that the Japanese and Howie Mandel are cruel.PZ will be kind as usual bet he retains the right to not shake hands - who knows where yours have been?
Posted by: Ewoo | August 6, 2009 1:31 PM
I love Dawkins the most, but I would be more entertained be a match between her and Hitchens. She'd get gin spit in her eye by the time it was done.
Posted by: Sarah | August 6, 2009 1:33 PM
Dawkins is such a gentleman. How on earth does he manage it in the face of such smug stupidity?
Posted by: Tezcatlipoca | August 6, 2009 1:35 PM
I could only make it to the two minute in mark. Even with a 20mg dose of quinapril I felt my bp rising to hypertension levels. I could hear Mr Furious starting to speak, "Don't mess with the volcano my man, 'cause I will go Pompeii on your... butt."
Wow! Good luck PZ.
"Rage... taking over... "
"Ya, ya, ya. Ve've heard all that before."
"No, no, no. Rage... *really* taking over...
Posted by: Troy | August 6, 2009 1:40 PM
I was actually disappointed that Dawkins as an experienced educator and accomplished science writer didn't develop any didactic method to deal with people like this in face-to-face conversation.
She didn't budge a tiniest bit towards the most evidence based scientific theory in the whole history of science.
Isn't that just bizarre?
Posted by: Lynna | August 6, 2009 2:14 PM
Love the reference, Patricia, to Pinkum's Miracle Cure. But I think we have a winner. We combine a reading of Sam Harris' essay with a brew selected by Rev BDC and, hey presto, Ms. Wrong no longer troubles our dreams.
Ms. Wrong reminds me of my mother when all Mom had left in her Alzheimer's brain were talking points from Rush Limbaugh. Repetition is the key -- wed, of course, to various expressions of hate-filled emotion. And all must be delivered with a smile of condescension.
Pie, though. Pie would be good to add to the official formula for an antidote to Wendy Wright. You have ripe peaches, yes?
Posted by: 386sx | August 6, 2009 2:16 PM
I was actually disappointed that Dawkins as an experienced educator and accomplished science writer didn't develop any didactic method to deal with people like this in face-to-face conversation.
He probably tried it. But she's not dumb and has conditioned herself, cultist that she is, to deflect anything headed in the general direction of her intelligence. She knows the routine quite well, I'm sure.
Posted by: MaxH
|
August 6, 2009 2:18 PM
She makes me so angry... it's like she's not even listening...
My POV of what happened:
Her: "There's no evidence of one species evolving into another!"
Him: "Yes, there IS, it's EVERYWHERE!"
Her: "There's no evidence of one species evolving into another!"
Him: *looks for her on/off switch... not finding one, he manages to combat her lunacy despite what must be an overwhelming desire to grab and shake her*
Posted by: Lynna | August 6, 2009 2:18 PM
Uh-oh. Disaster. I just realized that I advocated drinking beer while eating one of Patricia's homemade pies. I'll go now. Must find a rock under which to hide.
Reading Sam Harris while eating peach pie -- that would work. I'll take a printout of the Harris essay under the rock with me.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 6, 2009 2:51 PM
A white wine, maybe a dessert wine, would go well with pie.
Posted by: pedanticguy | August 6, 2009 2:57 PM
Rorschach wrote:
Apes are monkeys ...Posted by: Ned | August 6, 2009 3:03 PM
This video gives me an angry. A BIG angry.
Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2009 3:03 PM
Pedanticguy:
Are you sure about that?
Posted by: RtPt | August 6, 2009 3:09 PM
If anyone else has been watching the video Dawkins/Brainwashed Zealot, here is Wright's contact page.
http://is.gd/25kx8
Posted by: DingoJack | August 6, 2009 3:19 PM
Someone cotact the Mayor of Stepford, one of the 'wives' has got loose! - DJ
_____
PS: Imagine the Stepford Wives vs The Westworld Cowboys. :)
Posted by: DingoJack | August 6, 2009 3:23 PM
Bah!
cotact = contact
(stupid dingo paws!) - DJ
Posted by: Seeker | August 6, 2009 3:28 PM
Wow! At times, you can just see the sun shining through her eyes, went in one ear and out the other, never hit an obstacle in the way.
Posted by: Chris P | August 6, 2009 3:32 PM
What happened to Pastor Tom's website?
It says "No Access"
Didn't he have god on his side - or didn't that work? Did god give him hell for lying?
Chris P
Posted by: gingerbeard | August 6, 2009 3:50 PM
Hey Chris...
You must have your stupidity filter turned on in your browser, as I am still able to access his site.
Try going to settings and click "Allow creationist rhetoric"
That should resolve your issue
Posted by: Lynna | August 6, 2009 3:50 PM
@391: Thanks for the link to Ms. Wright's website. I sent her this email message:
Here is an excerpt:
Link: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php
Posted by: Bryson Brown | August 6, 2009 3:51 PM
If that doesn't disabuse people like Chris Mooney of the notion that RD is some kind of hyper-aggressive, nasty guy who will turn off the audience and damage efforts at science education, I can't imagine what would.
It's easy to play the 'that's not evidence' game, but there are some chinks in her armour worth exploiting: she kept insisting that there was no evidence of evolution from 'one species to another', but what she really seemed to want was evidence of evolution at a much higher taxonomic level (birds to mammals was her example). I imagine the idea is to avoid outright refutation (given the many observed instances of new species forming) while simultaneously being prepared dodge the higher taxon question (where the fossil evidence is beautiful, along the with DNA) by denying that well-known intermediate fossils actually 'prove' anything. But leading her through that exercise might be illuminating for a lay audience...
Posted by: Sili | August 6, 2009 3:54 PM
GAaaaahh.
My. Brain. Hurts.
How on earth does Dawkypoo do it? Is he tweeked out on ludes or summat?
Posted by: Qwerty | August 6, 2009 4:01 PM
I forced myself to watch all seven parts. Needless to say, neither side totally convinces the other.
The most annoying thing about her was her continual saying that "if evolution were true, there should be substantial evidence", but then she would ignore Dawkins plea that she examine some of it.
It boggles the mind to think about how much evidence would be sufficient for a Wendy Wright. I would guess the fossilized records of all existence still proably wouldn't be enough.
And yes, as some posters suggested, her smugness was hard to stomach.
Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 4:13 PM
Bryson Brown #398 wrote:
Dawkins failed to tell Ms. Wright that the study of evolution will only strengthen her faith in Christianity, and bring her closer to God. That's what the audience wants to hear. He should have respected that.
Posted by: gingerbeard | August 6, 2009 4:17 PM
Actually Sastra,
RD does tell her exactly that. That understanding evolution will only strengthen her belief.
Posted by: MelM | August 6, 2009 4:18 PM
I hope Georgia Purdom is available for the tour.
Posted by: Blondin | August 6, 2009 4:31 PM
Please forgive me for posting off topic but the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers could use some support via this poll:
http://www.kcci.com/index.html#
Posted by: Sherry
|
August 6, 2009 4:32 PM
Not only do I not debate creationists, I really don't even talk to them at all. I do not have the patience.
Besides that, I want to punch Testis in the nose for being so rude to Jennifer. THAT'S NOT A THREAT! It's just a desire.
Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 4:34 PM
gingerbeard #402 wrote:
He did? Oh. I watched it last night, but either missed or forgot that part. I stand corrected.
So then yeah, Chris Mooney ought to be quivering with joy and relief.
Because Dawkins apparently didn't add "but it shouldn't."
Posted by: BlueMonday | August 6, 2009 4:37 PM
Bad move watching this while recovering from a stomach bug. What's the deal with the Marilyn Monroe voice? Was she trying to make him sound abrasive by comparison? It was reminiscent of a preschool teacher talking down to a 3-year-old. It's been said hundreds of times, but Dawkins is a remarkable patient and compassionate man for making it through that.
Ad hominem=saying an argument is inaccurate based on the person(s) making it
Ad hominids=anything I don't want to hear about my own argument
Posted by: MaxH
|
August 6, 2009 4:40 PM
I just noticed, as I sucked it up and continue to force my way through all the parts of this "interview" (if you can actually call it that), that the "Views" on the bottom get less and less as the parts go on...
I am now a member of a very selective club of people, barely over 3000, that can stomach watching this woman 'argue', down from the 18,690 that began this journey. It's like the Oregon Trail.
[Truthfully, I'm just continually amused by Dawkin's facial expressions after pretty much everything she says]
Posted by: Smidgy | August 6, 2009 5:02 PM
Hmm. Dawkins shows an EXTREME amount of patience there. These would be my responses to some of the things she said that caught my ear.
'Scientists are saying they're the only ones that can speak about this.'
Well, this is science we're talking about here. Those who have studied science on a professional basis, otherwise known as scientists, are the most qualified to talk about it, in much the same way that lawyers and judges are best qualified to talk about legal matters, electricians are most qualified to talk about electrical matters, and plumbers are most qualified to talk about plumbing.
'Where is the evidence of evolution from one species to another?'
Are you completely ignorant of...well, basically, the entire field of biology? Or are you using the creationist canard that anything less than a horse giving birth to a dog, or something similar, is NOT evolution from one species to another? If it's the latter, I suggest you educate yourself as to what evolution actually is, rather than the creationist distortions of it.
'What about the ad hominem attacks done by those who favor evolution?'
Erm, WHAT ad hominem attacks? The only ad hominem attacks I have seen in the creation-evolution 'debate' is in the opposite direction. The nearest I have seen in the direction you indicate is people calling creationists fools for things like not seeing evidence that is all but jumping up and slapping them across the face, or only listening to 'evidence' from creationist sources.
Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 5:13 PM
Blue Monday #407 wrote:
Yes, I think that's exactly what she was doing. This was the head of the group "Concerned Women For America" and she was using what's more or less the standard tone and inflection that certain groups of women use to each other, when they want to be persuasive.
In these circles, attitude is vitally significant. If you get angry or upset, then that means you must be wrong. You're being egotistical. People can tell that you're not experiencing that deep sense of peace, harmony, and selflessness which comes from being spiritually attuned. It is very, very important in some of these feminine circles to ooze love with every look, every sigh, every word and gesture of your argument. It means you can be trusted. You're not arguing. You're sharing. You're not self-seeking. You're God-seeking.
I halfway expected her to make a remark about how Dawkins was standing, or holding his arms. "Did you notice the way you leaned forward just there, and how hostile it was? And your voice, so bitter. What does that tell us about your state of mind, and how secure you are? Ladies?"
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 6, 2009 5:15 PM
Huh, Tom's blog no longer works for me either. I really hope no one hacked it or anything.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 6, 2009 5:23 PM
That, in a nutshell, is what gets me so frustrated with the touchy-feely woos out there. It doesn't help that when I tell them why I'm justifiably angry, they typically start becoming what I like to call militantly apathetic: "Why do you care if Creationism is undermining our children's futures? You're not one of them," or "You've never been cheated out of money by a chiropractor, so why do you care if someone you don't even know is hurt?"
Posted by: C | August 6, 2009 5:24 PM
Wendy Wright is stultifyingly ignorant, obtuse, and disingenuous. She continually attempts to 'trap' Dawkins with various ill-determined arguments and falls embarrassingly flat each time. And that smile... good grief.
I needed that rant after watching the whole thing!
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 6, 2009 5:34 PM
Rev. BDC said,
I have watched all seven reels without any mind altering chemicals and suggest you drink copious amounts of something to try and make sense of her inability to cope with facts and reality.
Reels six and seven are especially insightful should you like to see Dawkins rip her a new hind-end...or should you run low on rye.
Posted by: Lynna | August 6, 2009 5:45 PM
Sastra @410
I recognized Wendy Wright's softened voice, strained smile and self-censoring mode as soon as the video started. I've seen similar "be sweet" attitudes, (developed sometimes overtly and sometimes subliminally) exhibited by women in cults, in various religions, and even in workplaces. It can get to be too much, causing psychological damage as women try to live up to impossible standards of sweetness and light. This is not just true within the women's circles, but it also applies at every level of a woman's life if she is a member of a strict religion.
I experienced just a drop of pity for Wendy, knowing how she's been pressured to become a sweetness robot. But she's a grown woman, with a functioning brain (albeit sidetracked at the moment), and she is responsible for her actions and her attitude.
Here's a quote from an ex-mormon woman:
See http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon455.htm for the complete post.
Women have been advised to "walk like swans" and to "wear light colors pleasing to the eye" -- and on an on. These last two came not from Mormons, but from a different cult. They're all pretty much the same when it comes to how a woman should conduct herself, how soft her voice should be. Bleh.
Posted by: Holbach | August 6, 2009 6:20 PM
Oh crap, I had to stop half way through Part 3 of Wright's insane puking as I could not stand any more of that insane religious bullshit. I have a low tolerance for religion of any stripe, but even lower when I stand there listening to the ravings of a religion sapped brain refusing to listen to normal rerasoning. If I was standing next to Richard, I would interject with, "all right, enough of this insane ranting; let's see your god. Your imaginary god is supposed to be all powerful and transcends evolution, so let's see it right here and tell us that evolution is a made-up idea and it is the power behind it all. Come on Wendy, let's see your god right now or shut your deranged mouth and crawl away on the legs evolution provided you with for such a situation. Show me your god."
Posted by: Tyler | August 6, 2009 6:32 PM
Doesn't anyone else feel bad for that poor cameraman? Having to not only keep switching back and forth between these two, but also having try and figure out where the hell Wendy was looking. I hope he got paid extra.
Posted by: qball | August 6, 2009 6:35 PM
What a classy performance from Dawkins. How he was able to stay polite and unemotional throughout the entire interview is beyond me. I think his reasoning and arguments are even more potent because of his likable and mild-mannered disposition. But I'd have hit her.
Did anyone else think she looked like she was about to cry in a few places?
Posted by: Shadow
|
August 6, 2009 6:40 PM
shadow @ #296:
Raised Catholic, watched mother die over a 9 year period - not Catholic (or christian) anymore.
WW seemed to be talking in the endless loop to avoid stomping her feet and screaming.
I had broken records that were at least entertaining (if the right substances were consumed) when they repeated.
Posted by: Shadow
|
August 6, 2009 6:45 PM
Watched only part of the first video, had to stop when Shadow-spouse complained I was screaming "Yes, there is! whenever WW said "No evidence for evolution."
Watching more hurt my brain.
Posted by: James G | August 6, 2009 7:05 PM
This lady creeps me the eff out.
Posted by: Lee Nelson | August 6, 2009 7:09 PM
If you don't understand english you might be fooled into thinking that she made some points. She sure talks a lot, and she smiles smugly the whole time. In contrast Richard Dawkins becomes visibly annoyed.
Alas innane babbling is not the same as a well reasoned argument.
Posted by: Caymen Paolo Diceda | August 6, 2009 7:11 PM
That was very hard to watch and I also watched in short chunks as the repetitive regurgitation of the same tired stuff makes my blood boil. She asked only one good question - paraphrased: Why do scientists spend time engaging at all in debates with the creationists if we know evolution is fact?
We have no emotional investment in what creationists think. They can just pound sand if they mind their own business. The only substantive issue is whether they interfere in science education and standards.
I had thought that time spent on Eric Hovinds and Ray Comforts blog might elicit some logical discussion, maybe some common ground. I should have known. Just like Wendy above, it's diamond hard zombies all the way and reasoned discussion is futile, so I'm going to stop bothering.
You can't reason with them. You'll never convince them with any logic. You can only fight them. If they mess with my kid's school I'll be there, but it's a waste of time to debate them.
Posted by: simplicio | August 6, 2009 7:13 PM
If you mob of atheists is looking for some fantastic gelato after the big event, some good friends of mine just opened up a gelateria in downtown Cincinnati at Findlay market.
Their website:
http://www.dojogelato.com/find-dojo.html
Posted by: MikeM | August 6, 2009 7:18 PM
Have a great time there.
I'm still jealous.
Posted by: The BeadKnitter | August 6, 2009 7:20 PM
I tried watching it. Couldn't get past part 2. It's not a case of stupidity. It's a case of out right denial. They won't even LOOK at the evidence. No wonder it's so frustrating.
Posted by: Jamie | August 6, 2009 8:38 PM
@ Liveliest Crib #83
Love that post. I've heard the analogy used before, but that was VERY WELL DONE. I know the crazies will never see what they are actually doing, but I think sharing the analogy can get reasonable people to see the irrationality of the "controversy".
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 8:45 PM
It's been driving me nuts. This woman reminds me of somebody. Last night I thought it was Queen Peuta, but I'm not so sure.
I think it might be Big Bird instead:
http://www.evilscale.com/vote.aspx?nomineeid=154
Posted by: David | August 6, 2009 8:49 PM
Best of luck to you godless fiends!
Posted by: GodlessHeathen | August 6, 2009 8:49 PM
"Argument from consequence" again?
*weeps from frustration*
Posted by: Jamie | August 6, 2009 9:03 PM
@ Liveliest Crib #87 (not #83)
Love that post. I've heard the analogy used before, but that was VERY WELL DONE. I know the crazies will never see what they are actually doing, but I think sharing the analogy can get reasonable people to see the irrationality of the "controversy".
Posted by: kodyfrog | August 6, 2009 9:06 PM
I can't even get through the first 30 seconds of the interview. She doesn't even ask him to sit down, what a miserable, ungracious hostess.
Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 9:17 PM
Ben in Texas #428 wrote:
Maybe it's Nora Dunn's talk show host, Pat Stevens, from Saturday Night Live. That's who I saw -- well, that and just about every touchy-feely spiritual lecturer helping women get in touch with their
angelsGodhigher naturethemselves.Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 9:27 PM
I'm thinking it's more the physical appearance. She reminds me of some character in a movie. A puppet, I think, not a real person. IOW, just like her. Funny how I can honestly say she does in fact remind me of some puppet, and she is also figuratively speaking a puppet.
It'll come to me....
My wife suggested it was one of the puppets from Dark Crystal. Close, but not quite.
This is really bugging me.
Posted by: Frank | August 6, 2009 10:04 PM
i have a hunch that she would fail a turring test
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 10:09 PM
i have a hunch that she would fail a turring test
Dammit Frank, you beat me to it. It was in my cue. Wendy is one of those people (and I've met a few) who couldn't possibly pass the Turing Test, not even in person. Why do you think we call them creobots? It doesn't take a very advanced script-kiddy to code a Wendybot, and it really didn't matter much what Richard Dawkins said, she only had so many lines to spew. Coding a creobot should be the sort of first year project any beginner could whip up.
Posted by: 386sx | August 6, 2009 10:10 PM
I can't even get through the first 30 seconds of the interview.
I like her she's really polite with the way she says "excuse me" a lot.
She doesn't even ask him to sit down, what a miserable, ungracious hostess.
She didn't have a choice because by sheer coincidence there was some tape on the floor marking where they were supposed to stand. (You can see at the start of the video.)
Posted by: co | August 6, 2009 10:25 PM
As to what Wendy reminds me of, well, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 10:39 PM
I think my wife was right. She looks like a creature from The Dark Crystal:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm797677824/tt0083791
Tell me that doesn't look like her.
Posted by: kodyfrog | August 6, 2009 10:47 PM
"She didn't have a choice because by sheer coincidence there was some tape on the floor marking where they were supposed to stand. (You can see at the start of the video.)"
So, since the rudeness was preplanned it is some how better?
I haven't seen any interviews lately that were as long as that one where the guest was forced to stand awkwardly in the middle of an office.
Posted by: cyan | August 6, 2009 10:54 PM
Kodyfrog @132,
Yes - that was the first thing I noticed, too. And then all her following actions reinforced it. All her learned debating tactics that she has assiduously practiced in order to superficially "take down" her opponent, yet she does not use the most basic strategy of making your supposed opponent feel welcome and comfortable, in case that is all that might be needed to get that supposed opponent to agree with your views.
That ingracious start, and then all of her non-social mannerisms afterward, are evidence to me of defense mechanisms rather than coming into the situation as being willing to listen and evaluate. She was all about defending her territory and nothing about trying to understand the views of another person.
Inviting RD to have a seat, and therefore relax some, as in ordinary civil exchanges, would have meant that she, too, would sit, and so relax somewhat. Instead, her lack of invitation to do so enables her to remain on her feet, on highest alert to fight to defend her territory; because of this inhospitable behavior, I envisioned throughout the interview the rudimentary hairs on her neck hackled. If evolution were false, why would she exhibit these behaviors? A person born of her what she has decided to label "Love", conversing with another born of "Love", would have no such animalistic mechanisms that they would either display or overcome.
Watching her engenders such a mixture of contempt and pity for her; as so many other commenters have felt and mentioned, it almost makes one physically ill to see her elaborate actions & to hear her rehearsed, memorized phrases to try to deceive herself and others.
A logical, scientific view of life makes me feel clean and radiant and optimistic. She and people like her make feel dirty, covered with dirt and hopelessness.
Posted by: 386sx | August 6, 2009 11:19 PM
Posted by: Jake | August 6, 2009 11:40 PM
Derek @ #340
Problem is, I'm a peaceful guy everywhere else, but this kind of thing infuriates me so much. Which is why, in real life, I keep myself WELL AWAY from religiotards and the like. Fortunately where I live, that's easy.
Posted by: Dr. P | August 6, 2009 11:55 PM
Rev. BDC,
.......*snap* Fish! *snap* Fish! *snap* Fish! *snap* Fish!Posted by: Tako | August 7, 2009 12:22 AM
She's f*cking Horrific. How could one person be SO stupid..?
Posted by: whitedevilbrewco | August 7, 2009 12:24 AM
55 seconds. Or, more usefully, about 10 seconds of her talking. How Dawkins manages to do these interviews is amazing to me.
Posted by: Kiddo | August 7, 2009 12:27 AM
PZ and the rest of you, keep an eye out for the new irreducibly complex animal part: the chameleon's tongue. I saw it when I went through the freebie part last year. It's just another thing that needs to be addressed and debunked; preferably by someone with a background in biology.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 1:07 AM
If Weird Al's Bedrock Anthem and its "yabba dabba do now" chorus isn't enough of an earworm for those braving the CreoZerg, how about Weird Al's Jurassic Park? A parody of a parody is way too much recursion, however...
I recall the time they took those creepy bronze-age stories
And before long, they were treating them like facts
Now I'm being harassed by some smug creobot cretins
And believe me folks, I shoulda packed an axe.
Noah's Ark is glowing in the dark
All the black light dioramas, wow
Someone told me I should just believe
I don't think that I can think straight
But I'll really fall down prostrate
If I have to read one Bible verse again!
Oh No!
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
August 7, 2009 3:01 AM
(Achievement Unlocked! *blip!*)
Well - I did it... listened to all 7 episodes.
Talk about frustrating, but I was able to stick with it. I think, as a father of a 5 year old, I am getting used to trying to talk to someone who has their hands over their ears and is going "nya nya nya nya I can't hear you!" and says "No it isn't!!!" to everything you try to tell them.
Of course, I've found that a five year old can actually eventually be reasoned with, and will of course grow out of the phase... unlike this self-deluded, willfully-ignorant Wendy person.
Posted by: AdrianT | August 7, 2009 4:29 AM
I sat through two parts of this and really couldn't take any more. The woman is an ignoramus. As for stating how tolerant and loving she is - well, what total hypocritical nonsense! It was her organization that organized a massive rally in support of sally Kern in Oklahoma last year after Kern was secretly recorded saying gays are a bigger threat than terrorists.
The woman is a dolt and a dangerous idiot.
Posted by: Gorogh | August 7, 2009 5:23 AM
I just love that part.
I wonder how crushing all of the valid evidence for evolution would appear if placed next to the valid evidence against evolution. If there is any of the latter anyway.
These ignoramuses have to place the only bet they have on the uneducated and likewise ignorant. As Sastra has memorably (for me) pointed out in another thread, though, that might only be half the truth: it might not be (individual) stupidity but social psychology that's at the root of the problem.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 7, 2009 7:32 AM
PZ:
I would love to folow you on twitter today; but wow, it's really hard to read! I love the cephalopod background (cuttle fish cuddling, isn't it?) but the text just disappears into the background: Both are dark blue and/or black. Yikes. How about a nice red cephalopod with pink coral behind it instead?
Thanks!
Posted by: Holydust | August 7, 2009 8:07 AM
JBlilie: read it from your own Twitter page.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 7, 2009 11:02 AM
Tip: If, like me, you need to make this woman's face disappear from the Pharyngula front page, Flashblock does the trick nicely in Firefox.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | August 7, 2009 11:13 AM
Caine: All too true. Humans may be remarkably flexible animals, but we can be programmed with the best of them ...
Joolya: An interesting example of logorrhea.
Susan: Except the previous pope, who is quite clear that he believes that human psychological faculties did not evolve. This is a creationist position, albeit a mild one compared to the YECs, etc.
Troy: Unfortunately, it isn't bizarre. Humans are very stubborn animals.
Posted by: Alex | August 7, 2009 11:35 AM
The "Oh really" part is my favorite, too. You just have to love the way this clueless person lectures Prof. Dawkins and the endless patience with which he takes it.
Posted by: CM | August 7, 2009 12:21 PM
She reminds me of the dog in the Far Side cartoon with the "what dogs hear" which you can see at
http://aviary.com/artists/Drogue/creations/far-side-what-dogs-hear
Same vapid stare you'd get from a dog.
Sadly, there are another 6 segments to this debate with Dawkins on YouTube.
Posted by: Steve_1 | August 7, 2009 2:11 PM
Wow. I should have made up a creationist bingo card before watching this.
Posted by: Chris Haynes | August 7, 2009 3:34 PM
In order to prove that there's no controversy about the fact of evolution, could someone (i.e. Prof. Dawkins) arrange for hundreds, possibly thousands, of evolutionary scientists to state on video that they agree that evolution is a scientific fact? Just one or two seconds each.
All we need is a video that shows all these scientists who agree that evolution is a fact.
As Prof. Dawkins stated, there may be controversy over certain parts of evolution, but there is no controversy that evolution is a fact.
Also, her eyes are wonky. They made me feel ill.
Posted by: bill Leaman | August 7, 2009 11:52 PM
I gotta say the lady made a good point!
That old dude was frustrated with her point about the DNA from one spieces to another!!! Hey I'm no religious fanatic,but based on the footage I just watched... That guy got creamed in the debate!He was a terrible listener,was forming opinions,interupting before the lady made her point.Very sorta left wing Obama dogma! Yes?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 7, 2009 11:58 PM
yawn
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 8, 2009 12:07 AM
And the Culture Wars come down to this.
Posted by: qball | August 8, 2009 12:31 AM
@Bill Leaman, 460
You're kidding, right?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 8, 2009 12:50 AM
Something tells me Bill may be new to this whole "evolution" thing. Just a hunch. Maybe science in general too.
Posted by: evilchemistry | August 8, 2009 3:05 AM
Do yourself a favor and read it. You paid for it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/13/8742.long
Posted by: ian | August 8, 2009 10:13 AM
She is perfect. She begins with a lie. Her opening salvo is a variant of "Pascal's Wager" argued from the perspective of social engineering. She promotes this crap not because she believes in it but because without it civilization as she knows it would collapse and dogs would lie down with cats and people would eat the brains of their neighbours, or some such.
Posted by: ian | August 8, 2009 10:21 AM
This interspecies evolution is such a strong point. Shorter Wendy Wright: Elephants don't evolve into butterflies therefore evolution is a lie. Therefore Creationism is true. Can the logic be clearer?
Posted by: anaxagoras | August 9, 2009 4:17 PM
Oh why can't I reach into the screen and throttle her!!! Props to Richard for maintaining such composure--a marathon exercise in self-control and patience.
Posted by: Anti-theist | August 11, 2009 8:19 PM
This lady is a disgusting pig.