…and this is a 
Dutch creationists have put up a foolish little poll — surprise them with a little adjustment.
Hoe is het leven op aarde ontstaan? (How did life arise on Earth?)
God schiep het leven in zes dagen (God created life in six days) 69.4%
Door Evolutie (By Evolution) 20.7%
Door Spontane Generatie (By Spontaneous Generation) 5%
God stuurde de evolutie (By god-directed evolution) 4.1%
God schiep het leven in langere tijd (God created life some time) 0.8%
Er is een intelligente ontwerper maar onbekend wie (There is an unknown intelligent designer) 0%
Comments
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
February 8, 2010 10:06 PM
Voted. Evolution around 31% now.
I would have guessed the Dutch thought Gouda created life . . .
. . . *ahem* . . .
Is this mic on? Hello?
Still learning,
Robert
Posted by: steve
|
February 8, 2010 10:08 PM
I'm always surprised that the "goddidit" type answer always starts out highest on these kinds of polls.
I doubt, however that I'll be surprised by the end result. :) :) :)
Posted by: uscwaller
|
February 8, 2010 10:09 PM
hehehe, this will be fun
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
February 8, 2010 10:14 PM
Oh right, no scientific answers allowed at all. "Spontaneous generation" is an old magical notion, not unlike creationism.
Still had to vote it, though.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Nineveh
|
February 8, 2010 10:14 PM
I hope that, when science and reason fully engulf the world's population, Creationists don't completely disappear. Hopefully a few will still be around, angrily arguing their case on Internet forums, for our entertainment.
(That was specifically for Gerard Alexander.)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
February 8, 2010 10:15 PM
"Door Evelutie"? A great name for a rock band. At any rate, it seems to have moved rather smartly into the lead. heh heh heh
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
February 8, 2010 10:16 PM
Well, ok, the "evolution" answer isn't bad, but not really right for "How did life arise?"
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
February 8, 2010 10:18 PM
For some reason the Dutch People seem to have changed their minds and selected Evolution!!!!
Posted by: Ellie
|
February 8, 2010 10:19 PM
But... but....
Life didn't "arise" by evolution. Once it had arisen, there was something for evolution to act on, but it had to be there first.
I'd go for spontaneous generation except that, as Glen points out, they almost certainly don't mean what I do when think about it.
I can't do it. This poll has broken me, the only possible science answer is too wrong.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlJWpTNvwEdfIQpUtfJ7GSr-qCqjBiDfOM
|
February 8, 2010 10:20 PM
looooooooool, door evolutie it is!
Posted by: Steve Eylar
|
February 8, 2010 10:22 PM
Door Evolutie 67%
Since the question was worded poorly, I interpreted it as life "as we see it today" arose via evolution. It would be hard to say when primordial molecules became "life" anyway.
Posted by: CurlersRock
|
February 8, 2010 10:25 PM
76% By Evolution
Posted by: NoFear
|
February 8, 2010 10:29 PM
Ditto ... Life did not arise by evolution, but evolution is responsible for the diversity of life. But then again, I guess you could say life arose by the evolution of inorganic molecules into organic molecules and then into cellular life. Door evolutie it is, by default not design.
Posted by: Ellie
|
February 8, 2010 10:30 PM
@Steve Eylar
Yeah, after I wrote that I decided you could argue that small self-replicating molecules can undergo evolution before they can be called "life", which means it can arise via evolution anyway.
I feel better now. Science crisis averted.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
February 8, 2010 10:39 PM
Door evolutie at 87%!
Posted by: lochsloidh
|
February 8, 2010 10:40 PM
The Dutch poll appears to have been "reformed".
Posted by: Stardrake
|
February 8, 2010 10:41 PM
Door evolutie at 87%!
Posted by: Stardrake
|
February 8, 2010 10:44 PM
Dammit--I reloaded the page TWICE and didn't see my post @15, so I resubmitted it.
Sorry!
Posted by: Leofwine
|
February 8, 2010 10:56 PM
Voted evolution now at around 84.4%
Posted by: o|o
|
February 8, 2010 11:06 PM
My apologies on behalf of... well, whatever, no country is immune to woo woo I guess.
There is also a Noah's Ark floating around in the Netherlands... off course it is mounted on a metal barge or else it won't float or something, oh irony...
Posted by: chrstphrgthr
|
February 8, 2010 11:06 PM
I didn't realize the Dutch had creationists. I wish there were some kind of expatriate exchange program. I would SO gladly change places with ANYONE currently living in a liberal state that wanted to live in this superstitious, conservative shit-hole.
I guess the problem would be that if there were suddenly an overwhelming majority of shit-for-brains in the country with the most and biggest guns, Europe would cease to be a safe getaway anyway.
Posted by: jrberg
|
February 8, 2010 11:11 PM
Holy Cow! I finally got registered. Thank Cow!
As a chemist, I think "spontaneous generation" is a very valid approach to life. Molecules getting sexy with each other really appeals to my approach to the world, and life. After all, without molecules, you don't exist....
So that's how I voted.
Posted by: Levi in NY
|
February 8, 2010 11:15 PM
I didn't even need your translations, but I don't speak Dutch. It's a very easy language to understand if you know some German, because it shares a recent common ancestor with German and a slightly less recent common ancestor with English.
I think it's fascinating how languages develop different dialects and speciate like that. And it's a useful analogy when arguing for evolution, since even creationists won't deny linguistic macro-evolution.
Posted by: Senator Bam.
|
February 8, 2010 11:39 PM
-Well what would you[s] call it &/or how briefly describe it if not evolution?
-Can you[s] give your own analogous poll questions?
-The options obvious to me are [just labels not "dumb-down" description]:
evolution &/or spontaneous
creation/intelligent design
theistic-evolution
life-force/vitalism &/or emanation
panspermia/transplant.
-Polls etc for public aren't supposed to be technical/"scientific".
-The big bang/expanding universe theory is called "evolving universe" so evolution (wide/loose/public) is not just Darwinian evolution (narrow) of life.
Posted by: asad137
|
February 8, 2010 11:49 PM
The big bang/expanding universe theory is called "evolving universe"...
Ahem. I'm a cosmologist, and I know lots of cosmologists. Nobody I know refers to Big Bang cosmology as "evoving universe: theory.
Posted by: DethB4DCaf
|
February 8, 2010 11:53 PM
Evolution has 1361 votes for 88.4% of the 1540 votes cast so far...
Posted by: Ellie
|
February 8, 2010 11:59 PM
@Senator Bam
They don't have to be technical to be accurate. Spontaneous generation would have done fine for me if it weren't that it's associated with something else.
Posted by: mothwentbad
|
February 9, 2010 12:01 AM
You'd think "unknown intelligent designer" would be doing so much better, since that's exactly what all the credible, non-religious, and totally academic fuss has been all about.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
February 9, 2010 12:06 AM
Levi in NY #23:
I know a little Dutch and can often understand German for the same reason.
Posted by: Agi Hammerthief
|
February 9, 2010 12:13 AM
you are just encouriging them by voting against gawd
I wonder if the would just lean back, self satisfied, if all their polls showed "goddidit"
Posted by: Jim Purdy
|
February 9, 2010 12:16 AM
I voted. Thanks for telling us about this silliness.
The 50 Best Health Blogs
Posted by: Cacille
|
February 9, 2010 12:16 AM
I took German for 4 years in High School. I then went to Germany that next summer, we had to stop over in the dutch airport twice. I was pleasantly shocked to find that I had little trouble reading Dutch myself. To this day, I still have little trouble understanding Dutch. As long as I understand the German-ish equivalent to the word, I can get the general idea from a Dutch webpage. It's funny, I spent 4 years learning a language and got 2 for the price of 1!
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
February 9, 2010 12:31 AM
Most of the categories on the poll massively overlap. What a poorly worded poll (assuming the translation is right).
Posted by: Daffyd ap Morgen
|
February 9, 2010 12:36 AM
Heaqds up! The poll is gone. (Surprise, surprise)
Posted by: Andrew T
|
February 9, 2010 12:51 AM
@#34 Um nope, it's still up. I just voted. Look in the left column, about midway down the page.
De evolutie is in het lood bij 89.7%!
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
February 9, 2010 12:57 AM
Where's the "We don't know" answer? There are a lot of theories of abiogenesis, but none (that I'm aware of) have been confirmed.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
February 9, 2010 1:09 AM
What 36 posts already and no troll has showed up to bitching about the inherit nastiness of Pharyngulating polls? Trolls these days are just bloody slack if you ask me.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 9, 2010 1:21 AM
Voted. Door Evolutie at 90.2%.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
February 9, 2010 1:27 AM
Probably too late if you're already this far down in the comments, but they see to have rejigged the order of the poll.
"Evolution" is no longer the second option; it's down near the bottom.
Posted by: blf
|
February 9, 2010 1:37 AM
Trolls these days are just bloody slack if you ask me.RogerS just showed up in another post. Slack and with bad aim—just like Teh Grat Skie Fairy.
Posted by: Squiddhartha
|
February 9, 2010 1:43 AM
Levi in NY: "I think it's fascinating how languages develop different dialects and speciate like that. And it's a useful analogy when arguing for evolution, since even creationists won't deny linguistic macro-evolution."
Careful, there -- they have a "God did it" reply for that one, as well. Tower of Babel, remember?
Posted by: j.peschier
|
February 9, 2010 2:09 AM
http://twitter.com/peSHIr/status/8839441176 Glad to see the.. ehh... "least non-sensical" answer is now where it should be: in the lead.
Posted by: Bill
|
February 9, 2010 2:21 AM
My first poll pharyngulation! 90.8%. Interestingly, the option they were hoping for has slipped to third behind spontaneous generation.
Posted by: Day
|
February 9, 2010 2:32 AM
Ha! I like how Evolution has slipped down as the fourth option.
Posted by: lxanderl
|
February 9, 2010 3:08 AM
spontaneous generation.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
February 9, 2010 4:09 AM
*gasp* we have creotards in the Netherlands.
sorry about that guys...
Posted by: Lars
|
February 9, 2010 4:09 AM
A poll with no correct answers. Bite my sniny fetal mass.
Posted by: FrankT
|
February 9, 2010 4:19 AM
The ordering moves around, look for the "Door Evolutie", not the order of answers.
In any case, it seems 91% of people found the right answer.
Posted by: rewarp
|
February 9, 2010 4:23 AM
I can't bear to click on evolution for this question.
[Brain breaks]votes for spontaneous generation[/Brain breaks].
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 9, 2010 4:44 AM
rewarp, here's some brain-glue: spontaneous generation and evolution (in the more general sense, rather than the purely biological one) are not mutually-exclusive.
Posted by: ermin.kloppenborg
|
February 9, 2010 4:53 AM
Apparently, they are getting a guy named Philip Bell to give a lecture at some high school in Apeldoorn.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXH1FhNuEbHlrcDwhhegMqKOqy7AT6-mc
|
February 9, 2010 5:01 AM
Goedzo, Pharyngulites! "Zes dagen"? Helemaal gek!
Posted by: martijn
|
February 9, 2010 5:05 AM
Thanks Pharyngulites for teaching them dutch creatinists douchbags a lesson on internet polling :)
I'm dutch myself, so i died of shame when I saw the website.
Posted by: dersk
|
February 9, 2010 5:19 AM
I'm not sure if it was the same group, but a bunch of creationists had a protest a few weeks ago outside the Free University hospital (one of the major hospitals here in Amsterdam). They insisted on having a debate, and the reply was pretty much 'You've got to be kidding me.'
One of the big surprises living here is how conservative so much of the country is, especially a stretch in the middle of the country that's really the bible belt. Makes me appreciate being an Amsterdammer that much more..
Posted by: Quotidian Torture
|
February 9, 2010 5:19 AM
Oh come on, I expected better of the Netherlands. Stupid creationists, ruining everything.
Anyway, yeah, this poll has been successfully pharyngulated.
Posted by: cvp
|
February 9, 2010 5:22 AM
As a dutchman, I have to hang my head in shame now.
@54: Considering that the Free University is actually a protestant university that reply is that much funnier.
Posted by: progjohn
|
February 9, 2010 5:24 AM
Odd how evolution is now the last option in the list. Maybe they have sussed that some evil foreign athiest types are responding and think we are as thick as they are so can't understand "Door Evolutie". It's not working very well, evolution is now at 91.4%.
Posted by: dersk
|
February 9, 2010 5:27 AM
I'm not sure if it was the same group, but a bunch of creationists had a protest a few weeks ago outside the Free University hospital (one of the major hospitals here in Amsterdam). They insisted on having a debate, and the reply was pretty much 'You've got to be kidding me.'
One of the big surprises living here is how conservative so much of the country is, especially a stretch in the middle of the country that's really the bible belt. Makes me appreciate being an Amsterdammer that much more..
Posted by: Mr. Mxpklk
|
February 9, 2010 6:15 AM
Woohoo. At last I'm a pharyngulyte.
And the poll's up to 91.6%. The dyke's leaking big-time now!
Love the company at this blog.
Keep up the splendid work PZ.
Posted by: peter.jeaiem
|
February 9, 2010 6:27 AM
Yeah poorly voted poll.
The option "I don't know" i missing. Voted "By (prebiotic) Evolution"
Posted by: Marcus
|
February 9, 2010 6:33 AM
If you haven't done it yet, hurry up and get your vote in - I have a feeling they might be taking this poll down soon it's becoming so embarrassing for them.
Posted by: Peter B.
|
February 9, 2010 6:34 AM
In view of having read (and agreed with) some of the discussion above, I went back and voted for "Door Evolutie" after having intially cast a vote for "Door Spontane Generatie" - a bet each way if you like. Apparently my second vote was also accepted. Sadly, these were no options for anything resembling "Natuurlijke Abiogenesis". BTW - is there an appropriate Dutch translation for Abiogenesis?
Posted by: Draken
|
February 9, 2010 6:41 AM
Oh yes, there are Dutch creationists. Last year they tried to distribute a folder titled 'Evolution or Creation' to 6-million households- remember the population is only 16.5 million!However, they had not counted on a counter-action organised by a number of weblogs, aptly called Terug naar je Maker (Back to your Maker), inciting people to return the thing.
The folder itself rehashed the same tired nonarguments they got from their American brethren. Looking around a bit on their websites, it's often the same people you find in the incrowd of Dutch Crea. The famous Johan Huibers, who built a halfsize non-seaworthy Ark, is currently building a realsize one- whether it will be sailing by itself remains to be seen.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 9, 2010 6:45 AM
Draken, interesting. Alas, it's not a real replica, because¹:
--
¹ (from your helpful link)
Posted by: RijkswaanVijanD
|
February 9, 2010 6:46 AM
The building blocks to life probably did evolve through steps of information contents, probability and stability of certain forms giving rise to ever more complicated combinations.. eventually making up life in the process.
Evolution it is!
I was not aware we even had creationists here so advanced as being able to use computers and such.. Most disturbing!!
Posted by: Thomas Winwood
|
February 9, 2010 6:51 AM
Never underestimate the depth of idiocy. Have you seen what they do to Chinese in their efforts to find support for Biblical nonsense? I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that all language came from the three sons of Noah heading off in different directions, forming the Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic language families. (Modern linguistics calls "Hamitic" languages the Afro-Asiatic family and groups the Semitic languages as a subset, whereas "Japhetic" languages are now better known as the Indo-European family.)Posted by: Draken
|
February 9, 2010 6:56 AM
Ah yes, Huiben's been topicified here before. Another insane Dutch creationist is Peter Borger, who invented a Grand Unified Theory of Biology (involving God) which is going to change biology as we know it Real. Soon. Now.
Posted by: MJ
|
February 9, 2010 6:56 AM
That creationists piss me off. I used to think those idiots only lived in the US.
Thanks PZ, for putting this poll on. Did you translate yourself?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 9, 2010 6:58 AM
Door Evolutie, 3682, 91.8%
Door Spontane Generatie, 164, 4.1%
God schiep het leven in zes dagen, 86, 2.1%
God stuurde de evolutie, 48, 1.2%
God schiep het leven in langere tijd, 22, 0.5%
Er is een intelligente ontwerper maar onbekend wie, 10, 0.2%
Aantal stemmen : 4012
Posted by: plien
|
February 9, 2010 7:09 AM
Yes, i know it's awful. I didn't know this site though.
My ex-motherinlaw-who-wasn't-in-law took me/her granddaughter/couple of nieces/friends to the Ark;
http://www.arkvannoach.com/
Apart from the book she lent me, that was the first time i met creationism, with Hovind video's.
When i talked on my then job about the experience there where 2 collegues who knew who Hovind was and one of them had his video's...
I knew the stuff was bull, but could not place my finger on WHY it was bull.
Creationism could easily become big in the Netherlands, there is NO education on evolution until the last classes of VWO biologie. Only a small minority is thus familiar with the science behind it. And even in those books, evolution is kinda watered down because publishers pander towards the wishes of christian [state funded] schools.
(voor nl-ers zie oud artikel skepsis;
http://www.skepsis.nl/anwevol.html# )
But then again, our former queen helped spread the evangelical message;
http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/article2477439.ece/Wilhelmina_hielp_evangelicals_uit_VS
Seperation of church and state, what ever do you mean?
Posted by: JerryM
|
February 9, 2010 7:11 AM
Luckily the creationist are not a big force here.
Posted by: conelrad
|
February 9, 2010 7:32 AM
Another vote for 'spontaneous combustion'.
GOPHER WOOD'S ON FIRE!!
Posted by: Haruhiist
|
February 9, 2010 7:35 AM
humm... apologies for the crazy countrymen.
But yeah, as has been said before, most religious Dutch ppl (a large part of the society) don't take evolution seriously and, unsurprisingly, know next to nothing about it.
I had a very interesting converstaion with a friend once (he was about 17), about how evolution was not about the beginning of the universe. He admitted knowing nothing about the subject, but still didn't believe me....
Posted by: Nebula99
|
February 9, 2010 7:40 AM
Convenient dodge for people who hate the wording:
The theory of evolution was the first big use of the idea of emergent complexity: "bottom-up" development of complex things/systems from the interactions of smaller ones. Abiogenesis is thought to have worked on the same principle. Thus, the origin of life was not by evolution, but by a similar (emergent) process.
Posted by: kalox
|
February 9, 2010 7:44 AM
Ooo, how do say 'Your poll has been Pharyngulated' in Dutch
Posted by: progjohn
|
February 9, 2010 8:03 AM
Love the Ark idea. Given the threat of flooding due to sea level rise I wonder if our creationist friends will ignore the rescue plans and all embark on their Ark instead. That could improve the gene pool a bit.
Posted by: IanM
|
February 9, 2010 8:06 AM
When a friend and I arrived at Schipol Airport a few years ago we immediately lost and asked a bus driver how to get to Amsterdam. The driver, made a furtive glance at his passengers then turned back to us and announced in a dramatic stage whisper, "Oh... I never go to Amsterdam!"
A few days later, heading down to Paris on the train, we struck up a conversation with a fellow passenger, a Dutch businessman and told them the story of the bus driver's shocked response to which our fellow passenger replied, with a chuckle "Ah yes... Amster damned."
Posted by: Haruhiist
|
February 9, 2010 8:15 AM
@kalox: "Jouw enquête is gepharynguleerd"
But I'm taking the liberty of creating a verb here...
If you want to be polite: substitute 'Uw' for 'Jouw' ;)
Posted by: shonny
|
February 9, 2010 8:19 AM
Abiogenesis was kinda evolutionary too, just inorganic, from what I can see.
So just go for it!
Posted by: Steve Eylar
|
February 9, 2010 9:06 AM
The poll has interesting results anyway:
4% of us think "Door Spontane Generatie" is the best answer; 96% think it's "Door Evolutie". (Very unscientific of me to just assume all the numbers in those two categories are from us :) )
Posted by: steve
|
February 9, 2010 9:39 AM
@80
It's a ambiguously-worded question, as other people have mentioned. Do they mean, how did the whole process of life begin, or how did we get all the diversity of life that we see today? The answer to the latter we know, the answer to the former, not so much but we're working on it.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
February 9, 2010 9:59 AM
Draken @ #63:
And what, pray tell, are the dimensions of a "real size" ark?
I know, I know...just had to rib you a little.
I'll show myself out now.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
February 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Slightly more recent, in fact, with English than with all of German except the northernmost dialects.
I have. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in them.
Anyway, current results:
Also, evolution is the bottom choice now.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
February 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Aren't there Calvinists in the Dutch government?
Either way I think the creationists now regret trying to "resolve" the matter by a poll.
Posted by: recovering catholic
|
February 9, 2010 10:40 AM
@Nebula99--Thanks! Your rationalization enabled me to rationalize enough to vote for evolution. Well done.
Posted by: shonny
|
February 9, 2010 10:41 AM
Something else that needs a bit of help seems to be The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski @ Amazon UK
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0465019374/ref=s9_cpic_co_ir02?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=left-4&pf_rd_r=18Z8N4Q31A821KWZVP77&pf_rd_t=3201&pf_rd_p=466496433&pf_rd_i=typ01
The godbots are vaxing on about the book, and if anyone a bit more critical has read it, some counterbalance would not go astray.
Also fun to be the foxes in the hen house!
Posted by: shonny
|
February 9, 2010 10:51 AM
U heeft vandaag al gestemd in deze enquête!
Yeah, I know that, but fuck you too, I wanted to try! Even at 92.4%.
And Dutch, like Danish, is not a language, it's a throat disease.
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
February 9, 2010 10:57 AM
Paging shonny to the endless thread.
Posted by: Steve Eylar
|
February 9, 2010 11:18 AM
@81 steve
I was one of the first to point out it's poorly worded (#11). And I said "best answer" purposefully, not to be confused with any thought that there's a "right" answer in this poll. They only presented non-scientific answers that their audience is likely to recognize.
This was eluded to by Senator Bam. Although his conclusion where he says "...evolution (wide/loose/public) is not just Darwinian evolution (narrow) of life" is wrong, because the question is specifically about biology, not cosmology.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
February 9, 2010 11:37 AM
Insightful Ape,
Do not use the C word. Use the C word and Heddle turns up, spouting his usual drivel, and then the post turns to crap with only Sastra's take down of Heddle to redeem it.
Posted by: Senator Bam.
|
February 9, 2010 1:33 PM
25 Posted by: asad137 Author Profile Page | February 8, 2010 11:49 PM
The big bang/expanding universe theory is called "evolving universe"...
Ahem. I'm a cosmologist, and I know lots of cosmologists. Nobody I know refers to Big Bang cosmology as "evoving universe: theory.
One of the sources I've seen it in is Gerald Hawkins if my memory/understanding isn't wrong.
89 Posted by: Steve Eylar Author Profile Page | February 9, 2010 11:18 AM
@81 steve
.... This was eluded to by Senator Bam. Although his conclusion where he says "...evolution (wide/loose/public) is not just Darwinian evolution (narrow) of life" is wrong, because the question is specifically about biology, not cosmology.
Thanks.
What other better (wide) label is there to cover materialistic/atheistic/naturalistic/"scientific" big bang/etc, solar nebula/etc, abiogenesis?, evolution?
I think the (semi) scornful/ridiculing/nit-picking/etc "ahem" etc attitues of most "evolutionists" comments/posts are unnecessary and unattractive.
"in the last days there will be many scoffers and mockers".
Posted by: steve
|
February 9, 2010 3:13 PM
Aww, the poll seems gone. The pharynguloids break another poll! It's what we do, darlin'. :)
Posted by: Vidar
|
February 9, 2010 3:16 PM
Yeah, my country has an idiot brigade too.
Good thing I'm no longer part of that.
Anyway, the poll has been removed after a sound pharyngulating.
@Kalox#75:
Jullie enquete is gepharynguleerd.
Posted by: tekhiun
|
February 9, 2010 3:18 PM
yep pools gone, I wonder what they are thinking now "maybe we should post it without the evolution option , so the result actually agrees with out deranged ideas"
Posted by: Draken
|
February 9, 2010 6:43 PM
I don't know how long their polls normally stand, but remember it's past midnight here.
Posted by: Steve Eylar
|
February 9, 2010 7:01 PM
@91 Senator Bam
The ridicule comes from continuous and belligerent efforts by some to misrepresent science. Perhaps your example was minor, but remember that many of us hear the same crap day in and day out. We're frankly tired of people that incessantly misrepresent the facts and pretend they know "the truth". This may or may not describe you, but that's the cause of the attitude and rude(ish) comments.
As for the use of the term "evolution", it's a word for general use when used generically (meaning "change over time"). If I were to say the "evolution of art" (67M hits in Google), surely you aren't confused about the context. (Hint, it's not about biology.) If someone talks about the evolution of the cosmos (rarely used in scientific circles, btw), it's the generic "change over time" definition. In a biology context, it can mean the generic "change over time" or The Theory of Evolution itself. In the poll, the context was clearly "The Theory". Unfortunately, the poll audience probably haven't the slightest idea what the Theory actually says. (Yet they feel qualified to comment on it.)
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy!
|
February 9, 2010 7:03 PM
I once lived in Amsterdam for 6 months and managed to pick up a smattering of Dutch... my favorite phrase is "God verkanker Jesus" (may God give Jesus cancer.) Apparently Dutch curses center on diseases rather than sexual or excretory acts.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
February 9, 2010 8:49 PM
I have no problem understanding Dutch. After all, English is his first (and so far only) language.
Don't know where he picked up the nickname of "Dutch" from, though.
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
February 9, 2010 11:58 PM
Aaand the poll is down. Ta-da, I s'pose?
Posted by: Senator Bam.
|
February 10, 2010 2:13 AM
@96 Steve [how do you show quotes in replies?]
Thanks.
"The ridicule comes from continuous and belligerent efforts by some to misrepresent science. Perhaps your example was minor, but remember that many of us hear the same crap day in and day out. We're frankly tired of people that incessantly misrepresent the facts and pretend they know "the truth". This may or may not describe you, but that's the cause of the attitude and rude(ish) comments."
I was just meaning words/comments/attitudes like "foolish" in the opening sentence. (Was also a hang over after the christians & hate crimes one on Digg.)
Hope I didn't misrepresent anything myself.
Even so, I've thought rude ridicule (words) of them is not very funny/goo/great.
I've found some "misrepresent" claim(er)s not very genuinely-good, (in other not evolution of life topics).
Well, no one definately knows the whole truth. :)
"... change over time ..."
So evolution is development of not origin of?
[I saw Pears Cyclopedia calls Big Bang the Evolutionary Theory/Theories like Gerald Hawkins.]
"(Yet they feel qualified to comment on it.)"
I wouldn't agree that supposedly unqualified people don't have a right to comment (if meant like that).
Posted by: AJ
|
February 10, 2010 4:26 AM
Cant even acces the website from a collage computer.
Forbidden Category Hacking/Proxy Avoidance Systems
Posted by: anik
|
February 10, 2010 8:17 AM
Door Evolutie = 92.6%. Mission accomplished!
Posted by: Steve Eylar
|
February 10, 2010 4:33 PM
@100 Senator Bam [I don't know how to quote either]
"evolution" is change over time. It is never "origin of".
Gerald Hawkins did his work on Stonehenge over 40 years ago. There are many better people to quote. Likewise, Pears Cyclopedia is not an authoritative source.
Sure, unqualified people can express their opinion all they want, but that doesn't give their ideas any weight. It was a poll with a lay audience, so you can forgive some of this, but on this thread we know how ridiculous (and outright wrong) all the scientific-sounding choices were. Some snickering is bound to happen. You see the same, if not worse, on religious sites where they not only ridicule scientific posts, but also claim they know more about science than the scientists.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 10, 2010 4:43 PM
Quoting in html is as follows:
<blockquote>Whatever is quoted.</blockquote>
which shows as