Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 27, 2010 5:56 PM

The only thing worth knowing from this correspondence is that this is the creationist strategy, lying to kids and, above all, poisoning the well of knowledge that may become available to them in school.

A "missing link." Yeah, that highly disingenuous Jonathan Wells plays the same game, essentially by saying that Archaeopteryx means that we need to supply links to and from it. A little more sophisticated, just as dishonest (not as poor little Joey, who likely has been badly misinformed--as dishonest as his teachers).

Of course the case for evolution was successfully made without any of the great transitional fossils that we now have. I don't quite agree with Dawkins that transitional fossils are merely a bonus, since we really should have found some by now given the ability of bones to fossilize, feather impressions to be made, etc. And they have been, so that's additional evidence beyond what was sufficient evidence to convince the non-ignorant in the past.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded | December 27, 2010 5:58 PM

"...you've just invoked a major magic trick by a deciever god."

C'mon, PZ. He is 12! Don't mock his spelling by misspelling back at him.

:-)

Posted by: Jordan | December 27, 2010 6:01 PM

I just find it amusing that people write in:

- Use the same tired old arguments. You'd think they'd at least look up the argument and modify it a bit or at least EXPECT the standard, proper atheist/scientific response

- The tone of the email makes the same tired old arguments with such absolute certainty, showing that they themselves have no actually examined the argument, but have simply rehashed it without thinking about it. This puts them in an undefendable position when someone actually breaks down their argument since they never thought about it in the first place

- They've not bothered to see how Pharyngula addresses emails of this nature in the past, and do they expect anything different?

- Do they really expect him to respond tiwht "Holy crap, I never thought of that argument, it all makes sense now ?

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 27, 2010 6:01 PM

creationist kids, how do they work?

oh, that's right, they don't.

they're broken.

makes me really sad to see arguments like this coming from kids, since you know where the arguments REALLY come from.

Posted by: rkr | December 27, 2010 6:03 PM

PZ, isn't your career older than this kid? I thought religion was about subservience to higher authorities. Maybe suggest that the kid at least make it through seminary before he tries to argue against a career evo-devo biologist.

Posted by: Iris | December 27, 2010 6:03 PM

man is created in gods image and any other species are not.

[Citation needed.]

[Evidence of existence of deity needed.]

[Better science education needed.]

Posted by: V. infernalis | December 27, 2010 6:05 PM

I'm not sure that demolishing the arguments made by a 12-year old really does anyone any favors, other than illustrating that your typical creationist doesn't employ arguments with any greater sophistication than said 12-year old.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 27, 2010 6:06 PM

It's pretty distressing that were you to remove his claim regarding age I would have totally accepted this as the letter of an 'educated' creationist. It's pretty easy just replace "being a twelve year old" with being a "college graduate", "engineer", telephone salesperson" or what have you.

Posted by: Alverant | December 27, 2010 6:10 PM

Ever notice that when creationists talk about "alternate theories" of evolution they just mean one "theory", theirs. They don't just need science lessons, they need English lessons to know the difference between singular and plural.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 27, 2010 6:11 PM

Joe, you're 12 now and keeping with the spirit of the Christmas season, let me try and draw a parallel. (Spoiler alert, all children under the age of, say, ten need to stop reading now.)

For your entire life, your parents and family have most likely been feeding you a lie about the Jolly Ole' Elf; Santa Claus. About all of the wonders and joy and happiness he brings. And when you were just a little kid and didn't know any better, you believed whole heartedly and didn't require any evidence of his existence at all.

Then, if you were anything at all like me and my brothers, when you hit the age of seven or eight, you started to have your doubts. "How can Santa make it around the whole world in one night?" you might have wondered. "Why does Santa care if I'm good or bad?"

At this point, your family had to give you false stories and bad clues to protect you from the truth. "But then if Santa is false, where are the cookies?" they might have asked you. "But these presents say 'From Santa" on them. "So complex is this XBox 360 that it cannot be any less complex. It's ether an XBox 360 or it isn't."

Yet, buy this point in your life you have realized that although you might think it would make for a better world had he existed, Santa Claus is a fairy tale. A myth. A story passed down from generation to generation to help keep people in line and manage to both make them fearful and hopeful at the same time. Sound familiar?

Posted by: azumahazuki | December 27, 2010 6:13 PM

@15

Ergh, yeah...reading this I was struck by how similar it sounded to older creationists' arguments. Sad, really.

If some 40% of the USA reasons on this level no wonder we're going to shit :(

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | December 27, 2010 6:15 PM

The spelling mistakes are erratic. It misspells "Eve" as "eave" but get "irreducible complexity" correct.

_Poe.

Posted by: Richard Wolford | December 27, 2010 6:16 PM

If the writer really was 12, they need to grab a dictionary and look up "hubris", considering that they are lecturing a professor of biology when they themselves lack even a high school diploma.

Posted by: Iris | December 27, 2010 6:18 PM

V. infernalis:

I'm not sure that demolishing the arguments made by a 12-year old really does anyone any favors, other than illustrating that your typical creationist doesn't employ arguments with any greater sophistication than said 12-year old.

It does the 12 year old a favor. PZ addressed the kid as directly and forthrightly as he would any other creationist. Joe has not and will not ever get this level of honesty and respect when he questions those who have been indoctrinating him. Perhaps this difference will be apparent to him, and lead to some meaningful analysis of the evidence for evolution - and a critical evaluation of his sources of information.

All to the good.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 27, 2010 6:19 PM

I'm not seeing it as a Poe. I've got $2 on it being a sad indictment of the USian school system. The learning is far from important. The main thing is knowing where to look up the words that we don't know.

Punctuation, grammar and spelling don't show up on the elementary-aged standardized tests very much. I guess I'm not that surprised that he can't spell "Eve" but was able to copy and paste "irreducible complexity" off of some other website.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 27, 2010 6:23 PM

Do they really expect him to respond tiwht "Holy crap, I never thought of that argument, it all makes sense now ?

Possibly not, but creationism is about how dimwitted evolutionist arguments really are, which is because evolutionists only really want to deny God and conduct drugged-out orgies, or whatever.

So yes, they actually think that educated professors like Myers think in a hopelessly stupid manner, which even a "properly educated" 12 year old can best.

You have to realize how shot-through with dishonesty creationism actually is. Almost anyone raised creationist as I was can back up how colossally arrogant and stupid creationism is in practice, and how trivially dumb "arguments" are supposed to show up those horrible atheist scientists.

Yes, evilutionists are supposed to realize that they have bypassed very simple reasons why evolution cannot be true in their zeal to deny God and to serve themselves. But they won't recognize the "truth" in the vast majority of cases because they remain opposed to God and to Jesus' sacrifice for them and commands regarding their lives.

There isn't the slightest bit of truth about evolution and the scientists who accept it in at least 99% of creationism. It is every bit as dishonest as they project honest science as being--totally.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Monkey Genes | December 27, 2010 6:23 PM

Ooh, what I'd pay for the tracking code on this email.

2 to 1: it came from AIG HQ.

Evens: it came from Kent Hovind's cell.

Of course if it's the second then I might have to retrct my call of "fake" as it would be no surprise that Hovvy has a 12 yar old boy hanging round his living quarter.

Posted by: blu | December 27, 2010 6:27 PM

when I see things like this, whether from kids or adults, I am always intrigued in just how they came about this knowledge. There is never anything new, just the same old, tired arguments. Where do they get them from? Sunday School? Services and sermons? Who is it that is lying to these people?

Posted by: dpattersonmonroe | December 27, 2010 6:28 PM

"Lets teach how Allah created the world by cleaving Earth from the Heavens, let teach how Odin created the world out of the body of Ymir, let's teach how Gaia (The Earth) gave birth to Ouranus (The Sky), lets teach how YAHWE said let there be light,... but is biology class really the place to do it ?!"

Well, I teach all this stuff to my four year old. As a matter of fact, he asked me just last night if jotuns really chased the moon around the sky, and I gave him the same answer we always give him - "No, some people used to believe that, but now we know better. But it's still a good story, isn't it?" The idea is to get all the fairy tales out of the way LONG before he hits his first biology class.

Posted by: ecurve | December 27, 2010 6:30 PM

That poor kid. I want an Emergency Science Response Team formed for cases like this. PZ turns on the Bat-Signal, and trained NCSE educators in dandy spandex costumes swoop down and whisk the afflicted child off to the California Academy of Sciences or local equivalent.

A girl can dream...

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 27, 2010 6:32 PM

It's pretty distressing that were you to remove his claim regarding age I would have totally accepted this as the letter of an 'educated' creationist. It's pretty easy just replace "being a twelve year old" with being a "college graduate", "engineer", telephone salesperson" or what have you.

QFT.

Good on you for treating him like an adult. Much like Hitchens taking to those fundie kids while dr. dr. Dumbski whined at them. That's more respect than his creobot overlords are every likely to show him.

QFT.

NO 12 year-old uses words like 'literary devices' ..

I most definitely would have.

The spelling mistakes are erratic. It misspells "Eve" as "eave" but get "irreducible complexity" correct.

Cupertino Effect. Also, comment 29.

Never mind understanding science, the adult writing this wasn't even intelligent enough to maintain a consistent style.

Regurgitating predigested arguments doesn't produce a consistent style.

It does the 12 year old a favor. PZ addressed the kid as directly and forthrightly as he would any other creationist. Joe has not and will not ever get this level of honesty and respect when he questions those who have been indoctrinating him. Perhaps this difference will be apparent to him, and lead to some meaningful analysis of the evidence for evolution - and a critical evaluation of his sources of information.

All to the good.

QFT.

Posted by: Alex P. | December 27, 2010 6:34 PM

I recall making much more cogent arguments when I was twelve, and with far fewer spelling errors. Regardless, he's not necessarily stupid, just passionate. Good on you for taking him on like an adult; as a younger guy (19) I distinctly remember the sting of being dismissed based on my age on Internet forums.

As for the comments claiming a Poe: I'm unconvinced. I constantly make erratic spelling errors when I'm typing, and the only reason they don't appear in my comments is because I check over my comments before I submit them. If I didn't edit, it would be an illegible mess. I assume that in his passion he forgot to edit himself.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 27, 2010 6:40 PM

Not all kids are idiots, you know.

QFT.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawldwmovODFlShEevnYi8YKjMvSjWpr1QJs | December 27, 2010 6:45 PM

PZ,

Why don't you mention some of the emails that you have no answers to offer in response?

Btw, I thought Tiktaalik was dead in the water - if you excuse the pun.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/tetrapods_are_older_than_we_th.php

The best example of a "transitional fossil" will always be.... "Piltdown Man".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUaJeNSkbC0

When you don't have the evidence to support your hypothesis, all you have to do is make it up!

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | December 27, 2010 6:48 PM

I find it difficult to believe&trade that a real god-botherer has not read enough of the bible to know how "Eve" is spelled. And I'm pretty sure that not using "G" for god is a sin.

Posted by: rover serton | December 27, 2010 6:49 PM

Gosh, I feel stupid, what is POE? I'm not a creationist or a 12 year old kid so, please be kind in your responces.

The acronymn lists are too extensive for me to pick it out.

Thanks,
Rover.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 27, 2010 6:51 PM

#49,

From my experience many of the most fervent of God-botherers have never read the entire Bible.

Posted by: Robin J | December 27, 2010 6:53 PM

Owlmirror, #40:

The composition, OTOH, is decidedly... adolescent. I'm pretty sure he's a kid.

Or a creationist.

The idea of God creating the world six thousand years ago and 'pre-ageing' it to four billion (by popping it in the cosmic microwave for a few minutes, maybe?) is an interesting nonsense. What would be the measurable difference? And is God really too impatient to wait out a few billion years, and unable to jump across them at will?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | December 27, 2010 6:54 PM

Isn't that special. Yahoomess is here with Piltdown Man is his pocket.

Yahoomess, this has been dealt with plenty of times. Piltdown Man is an example of how the use of the scientific method can filter out fraud.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 27, 2010 6:55 PM

Gosh, I feel stupid, what is POE?

Copied from Wikipedia:

Poe's law (religious fundamentalism) — "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."[5] named after Nathan Poe who formulated it on christianforums.com in 2005.[6] Although it originally referred to creationism, the scope later widened to religious fundamentalism.[7]

Posted by: Randomfactor | December 27, 2010 6:58 PM

I just find it amusing that people write in:

- Use the same tired old arguments.

I call this the Fitzwilly Effect. In the movie "Fitzwilly," Dick Van Dyke plays a conman in need of a financial stake. He sends his guys out to bars to pretend to be drunk, and bet folks that Delilah didn't cut Samson's hair (she didn't--she called for a barber.)

One guy comes back beaten to a pulp--like the creationists trolling here, he thought he was the *FIRST* one to pull that scam in that particular bar.

Posted by: AJS | December 27, 2010 6:59 PM

Poe: As in Poe's Law, which states, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

A "Poe" can refer to a parody of religious fundamentalism that gets mistaken for the real thing, or its poster.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | December 27, 2010 7:00 PM

I refuse to believe that man evolved from any other species because man is created in gods image and any other species are not.

Here we have a classic example of argumentum ad I-ain't-descended-from-no-damned-dirty-ape!.

If this Joe really is twelve years old, then this is a chance for him to learn an important life lesson; a conclusion based on evidence is not rendered invalid just because you find it distasteful or upsetting.

There are many things that I find upsetting about the world. Anthropogenic climate change is a case in point. I am very worried that the planet seems to be heading for a catastrophic enviromental disaster while we humans argue and argue and succeed in actually doing very little about it.

It would be grand if our global climate was not being destroyed by pollution, or if easy economic development and ecological concerns went hand in glove. Unfortunately, saying 'well, I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, so there' is not a viable strategy for dealing with the problem (not that this stops denialists trying). Those aspects of reality that a person may find troublesome exist whether we humans find them agreeable or not. It is not some bogeyman that may be banished by hiding under the bed clothes.

The same holds for Joe's dislike for the evolutionary history of our species. We are a form of ape, descended from a common ancestor with other species of ape on this planet. As apes, we are also mammals, and so have a common ancestor with other modern mammals, and so on all the way back to the earliest forms of life that were the precursors to all modern species. Just because it makes Joe queasy or makes him feel that his supposed connection to his unevidenced god has been weakened does not in any way alter the fact that evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the evidence.

It is best to come to this realization early. It prevents years of painful cognitive dissonance. Hopefully, this exposure to rational thinking will help Joe avert a future life ruled by woo-mongering con-artists - assuming that Joe actually is twelve, and is not a dishonest adult creationsist pretending to be a kid in hopes of PZ going easy on him...

Posted by: Qwerty | December 27, 2010 7:02 PM

Unfortunately, if this 12 year-old boy remains a creationist as an adult, his arguments will not get any better than the ones he has now.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 27, 2010 7:05 PM

The idea of God creating the world six thousand years ago and 'pre-ageing' it to four billion (by popping it in the cosmic microwave for a few minutes, maybe?) is an interesting nonsense.

Yes, but it's nonsense with a history. See the Omphalos hypothesis.

What would be the measurable difference?

Presumably, none. It's not falsifiable -- it posits a god that is omnipotent, and a liar; an extremely skilled liar. A perfect liar, in fact.

Posted by: CJO | December 27, 2010 7:14 PM

Among much other silliness, I was told in the church Youth Group that men had one less rib than women, because that's what God took from Adam to make Eve. That's not biblical, and it's not true. It was a trivial matter to count my own ribs.

People are strangely attached to that pseudo-factoid, likely because amid so many other etiologies in Genesis surely the detail must have been included to explain something. Amusingly, however, it could be that there is supposed to be an etiology there. The Hebrew word doesn't mean "rib" or even "bone" at all, it means most literally something like "side" whence English "rib" since we feel our ribs in our sides. But, more idiomatically, it could also mean "[something] protruding from of the side" like an appendage (the same word is used elsewhere for the wing of a building). So it just might be that crazy ol' Yahweh took Adam's baculum* and that's why human males, in contrast to many mammals, don't have one.

I've got that one filed under Things I Wish I'd Known In Sunday School.

*penis bone

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | December 27, 2010 7:21 PM

Owlmirror, Xylophone of Death @ 69;

It's not falsifiable -- it posits a god that is omnipotent, and a liar; an extremely skilled liar. A perfect liar, in fact.

Once you find yourself trying to have a discussion with someone who resorts to a line of argument such as;

"Well, god is omnipotent. He could have [insert ludicrous claim about the development of life/age of the universe/origin of reality/whatever the creationist is blathering on about today], and then falsified the evidence to make you poopeyhead rationalists think he didn't do it, and you would never know. So there."

Then you know that further debate is a waste of time. If they want to claim that their god is a conveniently unfalsifiable trickster who moves the goalposts for the hell of it, then they are so far down the yellow brick road that they will have been fully vaccinated against reason long ago. It is nothing more than a transparent, and rather childish, attempt at a 'gotcha' argument - something that adds nothing of worth to the debate but allows the idiot in question to pretend that they have 'won' the discussion.

At this juncture, I usually find it best to leave the moron to their delusions and get on with my life. Of course, I live in the UK, and so I am less likely to encounter such a moron with the power to shape education policy, at least at the moment. It seems that many American rationalists do not enjoy the luxery of simply ignoring these kooks lest the inmates take over the asylum.

Posted by: A Pedant | December 27, 2010 7:26 PM

I think I took out the quotation marks. Lack of attention to detail, 10 years of using this username in various places has made me a walking example of Muphry's law.

Posted by: Quodlibet | December 27, 2010 7:29 PM

'the bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis "days" could also be read as "ages".'

This entire portion has been copied from any of many sources easily located online. And to be fair, PZ's correspondent enclosed it in quotes, so it's clear that he was quoting it.

It's nonsense, of course, regardless of source.

Posted by: David B | December 27, 2010 7:32 PM

Hey, Joe, assuming that you are indeed a 12 year old, I have a little advice for you, based on what my ex fundamentalist Christian friends tell me.

That advice - read the Bible. Read it with the curiosity of a 12 year old, keeping in mind the questions of whether it is internally consistent, and whether the god of the Bible - and not just the god of the OT - could reasonably be described as good.

A large majority of my now atheist but once fundamentalist Christian on-line friends tell me that the crucial factor that led them to lose their faith was studying the Bible.

If you would take the trouble to seek out some BBC documentaries presented by David Attenborough then that would be an advantage, too.

David B

Posted by: Turdus | December 27, 2010 7:47 PM

I'm glad a 12-year-old kid of creationist parents is sneaking a peek at Pharyngula. Now we just let nature take it's course.

Posted by: Quodlibet | December 27, 2010 7:55 PM

"He made his hit-and-run ... to PZ, but he has no interest in dealing with anything any of us say."

Cut from the same cloth as Tim Moyle.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/bad_diagnosis.php

Posted by: evilDoug | December 27, 2010 8:00 PM

'the bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis "days" could also be read as "ages".'

Now let us all use some of our science type skills to look for evidence. There are two types of little icicle thingies there: single ones and pairs. They seem to be used appropriately. All the words twixt first and last are spelled correctly, even if the syntax is a little off.
I am kind of inclined to suspect a cutting and a pasting. We have seen that before. Rarely is there a comprehension engine or a dictionary anywhere in the process.

I think puzzlecraig @78 is probably correct with regard to the origin of PZ's email. Maybe something for extra credit over the Xmas holidays.

Posted by: Quodlibet | December 27, 2010 8:02 PM

evilDoug @#85: see my post at #77.

Posted by: bastion of sass | December 27, 2010 8:06 PM

Joe, You're a bit older than I was when I started to ask questions about God. One of the questions that bothered me from the time I was young was why God made rules for humans that he didn't follow himself, and why he acted in a way that offended my sense of justice and kindness.

Why would any God except a horrible one try to trick humans, and if they fell for his really-clever trickery (as he, being all-knowing, knew since the beginning of time that they would because of the way he designed them) make them suffer eternal torment?

Why would an honest God create a world designed in such a way that every piece of evidence discovered supported the position that the earth (and the entire universe) is very, very old---billions of years old--when it was really only a few thousand years old? Why would God design the earth so that every piece of evidence supported the Theory of Evolution and not the creation story in Genesis? Isn't that lying or fraud? Is lying and committing fraud OK?

You can either continue to swallow unquestioningly the stories misinformed or miseducated adults may have told you about how the creation myth in Genesis is true, or you can use your brain and look at the overwhelming evidence provided by biology, geology, cosmology and other sciences. You have access to the Net, use it.

Posted by: Uglyhip | December 27, 2010 8:14 PM

The rib thing is the only example I know of a "reverse etiology", where people assume some fact about reality because of an etiological story that would "explain" that fact, if it were true.

It also shows the degree to which people can be intuitively Lamarckian, especially when it comes to legendary events and people. If Vincent Van Gogh had had children after cutting off part of his ear, it somehow wouldn't seem right for them to be born with a complete pair.

Here's Greg Laden on the question of the rib story's origins.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 27, 2010 8:18 PM

Btw, I thought Tiktaalik was dead in the water

There were tetrapods before than Tiktaalik -- therefore, what, exactly?

Tiktaalik itself is still valid, and since we don't have any skeletal elements of the tetrapod that left the footprints, Tiktaalik is stil useful in analyzing and discussing the evolution of tetrapods.

The best example of a "transitional fossil" will always be.... "Piltdown Man".

You joke, of course, but I'm not sure that Joe realizes that. He's a bit young, yet.

Joe, science is a self-correcting method of studying the universe, and "Piltdown Man" is an example of a mistake that science did indeed correct.

This, on the other hand, is a article by a palaeontologist explaining exactly what a transitional fossil is, and how Tiktaalik fits in the fossil record as a transitional organism as one small element involved in the evolution of the tetrapods.

When you don't have the evidence to support your hypothesis, all you have to do is make it up!

Right. Just like all creationism is made up, and very badly made up at that.

Posted by: Judy L. | December 27, 2010 8:29 PM

@#19 (your entire comment was brilliant)

Yet, buy this point in your life you have realized that although you might think it would make for a better world had he existed, Santa Claus is a fairy tale. A myth. A story passed down from generation to generation to help keep people in line and manage to both make them fearful and hopeful at the same time. Sound familiar?

However, given that this poor kid has been raised by religious fundies to parrot what they've taught him and probably not public school-educated, he has more than likely been protected from the fantasy icons whom these fundies hate: Mickey Mouse, The Easter Bunny, and most definitely Santa (he is not the reason for the season).

Posted by: Judy L. | December 27, 2010 8:37 PM

@#19 (I loved your entire comment; it was very well written)

Yet, by this point in your life you have realized that although you might think it would make for a better world had he existed, Santa Claus is a fairy tale. A myth. A story passed down from generation to generation to help keep people in line and manage to both make them fearful and hopeful at the same time. Sound familiar?

However, given that this poor kid has almost definitely been raised by religious fundies to parrot what they've taught him and probably not public school-educated, he has more than likely been "protected" from those dangerous and wicked secular fantasy icons whom fundies hate: Mickey Mouse, The Easter Bunny, and worst of all, Santa (he is NOT the reason for the season).

Posted by: awalden0808 | December 27, 2010 8:40 PM

The kid's right about the fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven, but not in a way that helps his argument... :\

Posted by: Legion | December 27, 2010 8:51 PM

Glen @31:

So yes, they actually think that educated professors like Myers think in a hopelessly stupid manner, which even a "properly educated" 12 year old can best.

No shit. I spent two hours on xmas eve talking to a creobot. Despite his advanced education, his arguments were no better than Joey's, and yet, he really believed he was making a strong case for his sky wizard.

This guy has read the bible cover-to-cover at least three times, by his own account, but I eviscerated his arguments one after the other (blessed be Pharyngula) and showed him up to be the liar for jeebus that he was.

He was really fuming by the time we parted company. I'm pretty sure I wrecked his xmas. LOL.

Posted by: Robbie | December 27, 2010 9:09 PM

It really is amazing that at this period in human development that there are people that really believe the nonsense in the bible. It's so obviously a completely man created pile of poop. It has as much relevence as a horse in a car race. It's designed for silly people that need some sort of crutch, or special 'invisible' friend. Those people need our sympathy and assistance, then derision.

Posted by: Deluded Creodont | December 27, 2010 9:11 PM

What happens when they discover that they have been lied to?

One of two things: one, the light finally dawns and they realize that they're wrong and cease to support creationism; or (more likely) two, they simply decide that it proves that they're right because the ebil libril evilutionists are covering up the truth.

I worked with a guy who was a big time fan of Kent Hovind. Knowing that I was an atheist who didn't believe in creationism, he came up to me with some little ass-pull he'd heard from one of Kent's videos, which I proceeded to demolish, and a week later he was back trying to convince me with the exact same argument!

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 27, 2010 9:19 PM

People who are raised in a religion and who aren't exposed to other ideas believe it, the same way we believe that cleanliness is a good thing because we were trained to believe it, not because we rationally thought about the germ theory of disease. Now we know that's why we were told, but we'd still feel cleanliness was right, as a general thing, even if there were no germ theory, because that's the way our family did things. Presenting the other point of view by being visible, teasing, pointing out logical inconsistencies, and using analogies (e.g. Santa Claus) will help aerate those closed minds. Calling them delusional will not. Tradition and culture aren't delusional in the way that insanity is, even though they may not make logical sense and may be harmful. They are as unthinking and automatic as cultural food choices.

Posted by: vodkamuppet | December 27, 2010 9:30 PM

Christians who acknowledge Genesis is just literary devices and figures of speech, a Fairytale, are actually the most pathetic of them all. If Genesis is a Fairytale then original sin is a Fairytale. The story goes that Jesus died to redeem us from our sins. Since original sin is a Fairytale, why the fuck do we need Jesus to save us from something that never existed in the first place. I feel sorry for people who can't make this leap in logic. Seriously, it bothers me to no end when people don't understand their own religion. When ever I explain this little nugget to Christians their eyes just glaze over. They look drunk, not fun drunk, like 2:30 AM time to go pass out drunk. Most Christians don't posses the intellectual curiosity to ask what exactly Jesus is supposedly saving them from. They just shrug and say hell. They don't ask why they're going to hell

Posted by: Aliasalpha | December 27, 2010 9:42 PM

"Hello. This is not Spam."

Not the best start to an email, especially with contents that make no real sense

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmd0JQT5RGH9tw98hgR4Au80-RC1x_9wWY | December 27, 2010 9:49 PM

fireweaver comenting:

PZ, et al, if you really want to have some fun with this creo-kid, send him to this website, written by a 13yo atheist who wants to be an evolutionary biologist. It appears that he is also a reader of this blog as well. Just a thought.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | December 27, 2010 9:57 PM

Joe sounds like a precocious young fellow and I hope that his demonstrably teachable mind continues to learn and to rightly divide the word of truthiness and edge ever closer to reality. Why, someday he might discover something really cool that is also really real. Could even involve irony or serendipity.
Tough work, I know, but, hey! Kids these days . . .

Posted by: GuitarGuy608 | December 27, 2010 10:18 PM

the sad thing is this is coming straight from the kids parents.

poor guy :'(

Posted by: DaveDodo007 | December 27, 2010 10:23 PM

There is a reason why I'm an anti-theist rather then an atheist and this is it. Yes the religious are evil scum, authority driven Nazis who would rather kill humans than let someone insult their imaginary dictator in the sky. Uphold archaic laws while suppressing the rights of women, homosexuals and well all of humanity actually. This is really driven home when to perpetuate this sick fantasy they prey on the young and corrupt what could be an inquiring mind. There is no sense to religion, no morality, no decency, no intelligence, no evidence either well it's a fairy tale how could it have. Religion is evil personified an all that is wrong with humanity it really does poison everything but the greatest crimes is destroying the potential of young minds.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 27, 2010 10:26 PM

scornucopia #116

There's a couple more points to consider.

Jebus was god. God, by definition, can't die. So all Jebus did was spend an unpleasant afternoon and three days later he's good as new. What's the sacrifice? A good torturer (and the Romans had some) could keep somebody alive and in agony for days. So what's the sacrifice?

Jebus was god yet part of the same god as Yahweh.* Ol' Yahweh is the one who was originally offended. So he sacrifices himself to himself? Fucking redemption, how does it work?

Also according to the propaganda Yahweh is all powerful and all merciful. So why have a sacrifice in the first place? Yahweh could have just poofed himself unoffended. What's the advantage of being omnipotent if you don't use it, especially to make yourself happy by not sacrificing someone else (or yourself, depending on how the trinity is defined)?

Fucking redemption, how does it work?

*For some odd reason the Christians try to mix monotheism and polytheism. It doesn't really work.

Posted by: scornucopia | December 27, 2010 10:53 PM

'Tis Himself, OM:

There's a couple more points to consider.

Indeed. The inevitable conclusion must be: this piffle was made up by a bunch of semi-literate goatherds without regard to even the most rudimentary self-consistency. And people believe it. Where's the eye-roll emoticon when you need it?

Posted by: Macallan | December 27, 2010 11:13 PM

Poor kid. Doesn't that count as child abuse?

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 27, 2010 11:15 PM

I've heard that he once wrote lucidly about the Congo.

:)

always good to recall that when Greg's name is mentioned, anywhere.

Posted by: Felix | December 28, 2010 12:49 AM

@128 by Joe Bloe: I sure hope that run-on sentences and "it's" errors are not a sign of "normal adult language" where you come from. I learned that stuff in my elementary English class. To me it does appear consistent - more like a 12 year old copypasting bits and pieces of jargon. But at least he isn't plagiarising entire essays or paragraphs, as some of his would-be mentors do.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | December 28, 2010 1:12 AM

Homer Simpson on trainer wheels.

Posted by: Athyco | December 28, 2010 1:17 AM

Felix @129:

But at least he isn't plagiarising entire essays or paragraphs, as some of his would-be mentors do.

Indeed. Prestonwood Academy put out a 44-page "study guide" for their reaching-across-the-aisle Hitchens/Dembski debate. The only part of it that was attributed turned out to be mostly plagiarized from three Christian websites.

It was a vile, lying, hypocritical document from beginning to end--and directed at 12-year-olds like our Joe.

Posted by: raven | December 28, 2010 1:28 AM

There's a couple more points to consider.

Jebus was god. God, by definition, can't die. So all Jebus did was spend an unpleasant afternoon and three days later he's good as new. What's the sacrifice?

There are more logical inconsistencies than that.

1. Why is jesus dying for 1 1/2 days supposed to redeem or save us? Far as we know, it made no difference in how humans behave.

2. So what did jesus dying accomplish? We are still the same old humans we always were. We do behave noticeably better in the last few centuries. Slavery and animal torture are illegal as is stoning heretics and disobedient children to death. All of which have little or nothing to do with religion and a lot to do with religions waning influence.

3. If we are cursed with original sin and defective creatures, whose fault is that? According to Genesis, we were made in god's image by him. He is blaming us and punishing us for his incompetence.

4. If god is all powerful, why couldn't he just poof a few miracles and fix his mistakes?

If you really try to make sense of xianity, it doesn't work.

Posted by: Liquid | December 28, 2010 2:54 AM

@135

1 + 2 = He got the magic keys of death and hell from the devil, thus freeing people from having to go to hell and die as there was no real way for them to go to Heaven prior to that. God would see sin, now he just sees Jesus' sacrifice.

The sacrifice would be that Jesus had all the sins of everyone, who ever lived or would live, placed upon him yet he had done no sin. His death wiped the slate clean, as it were... Provided you divorce yourself from your mind and bow down like a slave before the magical tyrant in the clouds, of course.

Read The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe and the part about Aslan's death to get the gist of it all.

3. Christians would say it was ours, since Adam and Eve ate the fruit and thus introduced sin (disobedience from God) into the world. Obviously, though, since God rigged the game, it is really his fault.

4. He could, but the story wouldn't work if he just did that. Bad writing and a poorly thought out story are always responsible for plot holes in crap fiction.

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | December 28, 2010 3:19 AM

Joey - ask what part of the Bible has been contradicted by science - starting at Genesis 1:1

Posted by: It'spiningforthefyords | December 28, 2010 4:53 AM

[Shouted, but very muffled, indistinct]

I.. AM.. SURE... GOD... CREATED... MAN... IN... HIS... IMAGE.

MY... MA... AND... PA... SAY... THE... BIBLE... IS... 1000%... TRUE.

WERE... YOU... THERE... "PROFESSOR" MEYERS????

MY... PA... SAYS... YOU... ARE... AS... FULL... OF... BALONEY... AS... YOUR... RELATIVE... OSCAR!!!

[indistinct laughter]

I... KNOW... GOD... AND... JESUS... ARE... THE... TRUTH.

AND... I'M... STILL... A... FETUS!

ENJOY... HELL... SATAN'S... PAWN!

WITH... RESPECT...

-- FETUS TO BE BAPTIZED KENNETH "ROE" HAM

Posted by: Moggie | December 28, 2010 6:32 AM

Hello. This is not Spam.

I recommend this opening to Kent Hovind, should he ever attempt another doctorate.

Posted by: Cowcakes | December 28, 2010 7:13 AM

(god dint create Adam and eave as babies, he created them pre-aged

mmmmmmmm yum aged adam and eve, but he doesn't mention if they were dry aged. I finf dry ageing produces the most tender succulent and flavoursome meat :-P

Posted by: AJS | December 28, 2010 7:57 AM

Am I alone in thinking Zeno (of Elea, that is, not the regular here!) was kind of a dick?

I mean, there he is, thinking about smaller and smaller intervals of time and how things move less and less distance in them; but instead of actually doing something useful and inventing bloody calculus like a reasonable person would have done, he just uses the whole thing as an excuse to invent fallacies and act like a colossal dick. "Ah, but you see, Achilles never really catches up with the tortoise because the tortoise has moved ahead just a little while Achilles was getting to where the tortoise used to have been, and even if we allow another 0.000001 of a second ....."

I can't help wondering, did he get punched in the face a lot by people screaming "Oi! Zeno! No! Try allowing more time, not less, and it's self-bleeding-evident that Achilles has moved further than the tortoise while you were busy looking for ever-smaller values of δt, you naffing great ponce!"

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 28, 2010 8:16 AM

Joey - ask what part of the Bible has been contradicted by science - starting at Genesis 1:1

Well to begin with, Genesis 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

We know the earth came about way later than the rest of the universe.

Posted by: thesynapticcleft.wordpress.com | December 28, 2010 8:46 AM

Also, santa isn't real..

Posted by: danielm | December 28, 2010 9:12 AM

This is the point at which you suggest, gently, that he practice what he preaches and research both sides of the "evidence" and hopefully he will happily trot off and find that one side - science, reason and critical thinking - has all the evidence and the other, religion, ignorance and myth - does not.

It's a good sign that at 12 he's more literate and at least as well versed in the dog and pony show most IDiots are, so perhaps he'll grow out of it.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 28, 2010 9:23 AM

Also, santa isn't real..

Yeah, that was pretty much the gist of my point at #19.

Posted by: MacTurk | December 28, 2010 9:34 AM

Levis gives you pre-faded jeans, my furniture was pre-distressed, and Dog gives us a pre-aged planet?

Kudos to PZ Meyers for dealing with the abused child on an equal basis. And any child who can spout such propagandadistic cant at his age has been terribly abused.

On the positive side, he has a long time in front of him to grow out of it.

Posted by: raven | December 28, 2010 9:55 AM

I realize you are just expanding xian apologetics but it still doesn't make much sense.

Liquid:

1 + 2 = He got the magic keys of death and hell from the devil, thus freeing people from having to go to hell and die as there was no real way for them to go to Heaven prior to that.

Why did the devil have the magic keys in the first place? I thought god was the powerful one of the Spooks. What did those keys look like? Could you carry them around in a bag. If there was no way to get to heaven, why didn't god fix that before he even started? And why can't All Powerful leave a concise, understandable instruction manual behind and update it every once in a while. Even Bill Gates can do that or Toyota.

God would see sin, now he just sees Jesus' sacrifice.

I thought god was all powerful. If all he sees is jesus sacrifice (however that works), then how does he tell good xians from bad xians. And presumably all the nonxians go to hell no matter how good or evil they are. If jesus can be a sponge and soak up all xian sins forever, why should xians bother to be good? Seems like they have figured that one out. That aren't.

The sacrifice would be that Jesus had all the sins of everyone, who ever lived or would live, placed upon him yet he had done no sin.

How does that work? Were they in a bag. Or painted on him? The sins of the people who lived after jesus get placed on him how? He is now in an invisible place inaccesible to living humans.

His death wiped the slate clean, as it were...

How? We are still what we always were, humans. The more you try to understand xian theology, the more pointless and strange it appears.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | December 28, 2010 10:18 AM

So god created us with all our memories Last Thursday

Heretic! It was Tuesday. My magic book says so. At least, if I turn my head sideways and squint. And make shit up.

Posted by: Thorne | December 28, 2010 10:39 AM

10 years of using this username in various places has made me a walking example of Muphry's law.

If this misspelling was deliberate, BRILLIANT!

If it was a typo, EPIC!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 28, 2010 11:27 AM

Young Mr. Wilko returned to the other thread, briefly, this morning. He ain't larned nothin' yet.

Posted by: Silent Service | December 28, 2010 11:50 AM

Oh, and about lying ...

NO 12 year-old uses words like 'literary devices' .. We ALL know that this hasn't been written by a 12 year old. Let's stop pretending we believe a 12 year old wrote this.

Come ON!!!

I did by age 12. And my son did by age 9. Of course neither of us bought into the creationist screed, but that's not the point.

Posted by: Lambert | December 28, 2010 12:31 PM

12 years old my foot. I'm inclined to think that he (she? It?) is at least as old as any undergrad at Liberty "University" and more than likely a bosom buddy of Mr. Behe.

What 12 year old, in particular one who is "schooled" in creationsism, ever came up with expressions like It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story .

Posted by: iDodd | December 28, 2010 1:01 PM

PZ-Several months ago you got an email from a young man named Andrew Rosenburg whom you summarily dismissed. I found him on Facebook. I engaged him in a lengthy discussion of our respective viewpoints and, not that he's a confirmed atheist, at least now he has had to consider that his beliefs are not based on anything tangible. I planted the seed of rationalism.

If you will send me young Joe's email address I will be happy to try to engage him on an appropriately 12 year old level (my wife is an elementary teacher and can help) to assist him build a more logical viewpoint.

Posted by: CJO | December 28, 2010 1:11 PM

The whole "three days" business comes about because the Romans counted inclusively. Thus, if a date was "three days before the Ides of March", the day of the Ides itself was included in the count. In Jesus' case, you count the day he was strung up and the day he rose, plus the day in between, and you get three days.

And the Nones (from "nine") was only eight days after the Ides, and the Greek word for a fortnight literally meant "fifteen days." Everyone in antiquity (well the Jews and the Greeks, as well as the Romans; everyone relevant) counted inclusively, but it's more complicated than that in the case of the gospels. The first reason it's important is that three days was traditionally regarded as the time when death was absolutely certain and in most climates the corpse would have begun to decay. Lazarus was in his tomb for three days too, and it's specifically said that the body smells bad. This was an issue before coroners and medical examiners, as it was a not unheard of occurrence for someone in a deep coma to be declared dead, only to revive. So three days was conclusive: this was an ex-Messiah. The earliest narrative (Mark) makes no bones about it, appears to count inclusively, and probably just wants to show that there was no trickery or uncertainty: Jesus is dead and buried.

But then it gets convoluted. Paul, prior to the gospels, and apparently reproducing even older material, says unproblematically that Jesus rose "on the third day." But in Matthew 12, in reference to the mysterious "sign of Jonah" it says explicitly and exclusively that just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish, "so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (12:40) clearly contradicting later passages in the same narrative. (There's no way you can get three nights out of Friday afternoon to Sunday morning, however you count.)

So along comes the author of Luke, who, perceiving a problem, re-interprets this sign of Jonah in Chapter 11 to mean that just as Jonah converted Ninevah, so will the Son of Man be a sign to this "evil generation" and the text omits reference to three days in this passage, otherwise roughly parallel in setting and content to Matthew. They agree that the sign of Jonah is somehow important, but not at all on what it is supposed to mean, and the author of Luke wants nothing to do with this "three days and three nights" business, so he would appear to recognize that it flatly contradicts what is actually supposed to have happened. Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 28, 2010 1:16 PM

There is plenty reason to use the book of genesis as a legitimate source, its the same reason that you use an average history book as a legitimate source... Because it has the correct information. Even if you dont see it a a legimate sorce, it is still seen by many, many people as one so dont go around dis-respecting it.

Do you say the same thing for the Qur'ran? If not, why not? There's as much evidence that it has "the correct information" as the first 11 chapters of Genesis has for its veracity, which is zilch.

but creationism is science to, in fact some of the worlds top scientists are creationists... so how can you see that some of the worlds smartest people believe something different to what you strongly believe.

No top biologist is a creationist, and they're the only scientists who would matter for testimony.

And we don't "strongly believe." We're not ignorant saps believing garbage like creationists are, we accept evolution like we accept chemistry and physics, because it has the evidence.

how can you see that some of the worlds smartest people believe something different to what you strongly believe.

If badly mangled English, it's a good point for you. Why don't you consider the fact that the experts (like many of us) accept something that is completely different from your dogma?

Don't lie about us, either, by claiming that we're prejudiced like you are. You don't know that, and yes, we do know that about you--because you haven't even a clue about evolution, or even the fact that if evolution were shown to be false that wouldn't give us any reason to believe Genesis at all. The flood would still be impossible given the evidence we have, and there's not a smidgeon of evidence for design of life, other than what we've done.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 28, 2010 1:17 PM

One of my main problems with most evolutionists is that they think that evolutionism is scientists and creationism is religious people, but creationism is science to, in fact some of the worlds top scientists are creationists... so how can you see that some of the worlds smartest people believe something different to what you strongly believe.

How is creationism science? It posits nothing testable. It makes no predictions. It can't be scientifically tested.

Meanwhile, the theory of evolution through natural selection has made many testable predictions over the last 15 decades, many of them predicted by Darwin at the beginning. That's what makes it science: the discovery of new knowledge predicted by old knowledge.

As for the rest: very smart people believe very stupid things. And the smartest of them seem to believe that evolution occurs, but God has a hand in it somewhere. The smartest accept the knowledge that science provides, and just try to slip their beliefs in the cracks.

So maybe the ones you admire, the ones that believe a "kind" can't evolve into another "kind," aren't as smart as you think.

Posted by: josephwilko | December 28, 2010 1:26 PM

Captin Smug... Everything is testable, Creation ism needs no predictions because it already has answers and it can be scientifically tested just as well as evolutionism

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 28, 2010 1:28 PM

Thanks for a response I was just expecting an ignorance

That sound you all just heard from somewhere on the South Carolina coast was an irony meter exploding.

my point with the missing link is that there in no evidence of evolution between species. There is no evidence of transitional forms and all of the examples there are not examples at all.

Yes Joe, yes there is. Despite you not knowing about something it does exist. Arguments from personal incredulity are not really good form, even for a creationist.

All of these have a missing link and are therefore not provable.

God of the gaps huh? Not very impressive Joe. Again, despite you ignoring the existence and failing to understand transitional forms, the fossils do exist. You've been given examples and chose to ignore them. But, like the fact that there are people who know more than you on this subject, they really do exist.

There is plenty reason to use the book of genesis as a legitimate source, its the same reason that you use an average history book as a legitimate source... Because it has the correct information. Even if you dont see it a a legimate sorce, it is still seen by many, many people as one so dont go around dis-respecting it.

I know you're claiming to be 12 Joe, but this is the dumbest thing I've read here today. It doesn't even make sense. Circular reasoning at its worse.

Bad form again Joe.

One of my main problems with most evolutionists is that they think that evolutionism is scientists and creationism is religious people

,

Well it is? Are creationists not religious?

but creationism is science to,

No Joe, no it is not. It's theology. There is not one shred of scientific evidence that backs creationism. Not, one.

in fact some of the worlds top scientists are creationists...

Really? Such as? Please list them, it shouldn't take you long.

so how can you see that some of the worlds smartest people believe something different to what you strongly believe.

Because they're deluded.

Posted by: raven | December 28, 2010 1:33 PM

but creationism is science to, in fact some of the worlds top scientists are creationists... so how can you see that some of the worlds smartest people believe something different to what you strongly believe.

This is false. It is a lie.

Acceptance of evolution and the old earth runs around 99% among relevant scientists in the USA. It is higher in Europe.

The few scientists who don't freely admit they don't on religious grounds. And they are not "top scientists". They are mostly fifth rate or never weres and most stop being scientists when they start being creationists.

Posted by: josephwilko | December 28, 2010 1:36 PM

creationism has been around for just as long as evolution and even though evolution has about 80 (not 99) percent of USA scientists on it, creationism is still around. Goes to show that it is a pretty strong theory dosnt it?

Posted by: josephwilko | December 28, 2010 1:41 PM

Bigdumbchimp - go in to detail to test creationism go into evidence for god, evidance for the bible and evidance for genasis

Posted by: josephwilko | December 28, 2010 1:43 PM

apologetics

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 28, 2010 1:46 PM

Captin Smug... Everything is testable, Creation ism needs no predictions because it already has answers and it can be scientifically tested just as well as evolutionism

It's so cute how you call it "evolutionism." That's just darling.

So tell me, Joe, what predictions are made by creationism? As I understand it, "creationism" is merely the proposition that there is an all-powerful creator that started the universe. Now, what kind of predictions can you get from that?

If you take young-earth creationism, then yes, it makes all kinds of predictions -- and all of them have been shown to be false. No evolution between "kinds?" False. (In fact, I have yet to see a decent definition of what constitutes a "kind.") This was disproven long ago, but the test breaks down like this:

Evolution predicts that we'll find fossils that have traits intermediate to other known species. For instance, it predicts a fish that had lungs and the beginnings of traits that will lead to legs. Further, it predicts that this fossil will be found in substrate around 375 million years old.

Young earth creationism predicts there will be no such fossil.

Lo and behold! Just such a fossil was recently discovered, exactly where evolution predicts it should be. Since creationism predicts it shouldn't even exist, that's a mighty big blow against young earth creationism.

This is just one little piece of evidence, Joe. Just one. That doesn't count all the multitudes of genetic proof, such as the correlation in genetic divergence based not on "kind," but on how long ago two species shared a common ancestor. It doesn't count the fossils linking ancient land animals to whales. It doesn't count 15 decades of research that supports evolution every time.

Name one unequivocal prediction made by creationism, Joe. Just one. If you can further provide data that supports this prediction, I will take you seriously.

Until then, I can only assume you have no clue what you're talking about.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 28, 2010 1:52 PM

apologetics: Using a pre-determined conclusion, namely that the Bible is inerrant, and working backwards to support that discarding any evidence that does not support the pre-determined conclusion.

That is 100% against science. That is anti-science.

Posted by: raven | December 28, 2010 1:57 PM

those assertions are not assertions, im stating that there is no evidence if transitional forms of life...

You just made another assertion.

"im stating that there is no evidence if transitional forms of life" This is an assertion, a claim without data or proof.

just another theory

There are countless transitional fossils. And that is a fact, not a theory. You don't quite know what these words mean.

creationism has been around for just as long as evolution and even though evolution has about 80 (not 99) percent of USA scientists on it, creationism is still around. Goes to show that it is a pretty strong theory dosnt it?

You are wrong on your fact, although you finally managed to drag one out. Acceptance of evolution among relevant scientists is over 99%. The source for this is http://ww w talkorigins.org among other places and you can read it there with the accompanying data.

This is relevant scientists. It doesn't matter what a mechanical engineer or computer programmer thinks about biology. They don't necessarily have any more expertise in biology than you do.

BTW, many people on this site are scientists including myself, we do know what we are talking about.

Creationism predates modern science by several millennia. That it is still around is irrelevant. The flat earthers are still around. 20% of of the US population thinks the sun orbits the earth (Geocentrism) and couldn't diagram the solar system if they had to. 15 million USaians claim to have been abducted by UFO aliens.

We don't vote on what reality is. That creationism is still around shows that a lot of humans are irrational and will let religious doctrines dictate their thoughts rather than the real world.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 28, 2010 1:59 PM

Joseph Wilko: "Everything is testable, Creation ism needs no predictions because it already has answers and it can be scientifically tested just as well as evolutionism"

Joe, that is utterly false. In order to be a scientific theory, a theory MUST make testable predictions. We can explain any data post hoc by simply making our existing theory more complicated--just like every time you add a point in a plane, you can fit it exactly by adding another pamameter in the polynomial fit to the data.

This is precisely the problem with creationism. It is incapable of making predictions, because everything is contingent upon the whim of the creator.

Evolution, on the other hand has made many predictions, and they've been found to be true uniformly.

Posted by: josephwilko | December 28, 2010 2:01 PM

80 is an estimate, 99 seems incorrect like " Buy our Hand sanitizer, it kills 99.99 percent of germs!"

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 28, 2010 2:04 PM

Joe,
You don't get to estimate when there is real data available just because it seems wrong to you. What is 740 out of 480k? It sure isn't 20%.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 28, 2010 2:09 PM

80 is an estimate, 99 seems incorrect like " Buy our Hand sanitizer, it kills 99.99 percent of germs!"

Joe, the percentage I gave of relavent scientists who support creationism, 0.146%, is from a survey of relavent scientists. It might seem incorrect, but it is very correct.

Less than two relavent scientists in a thousand accept creationism, Joe. it's a fact. It's not a theory that's up to debate. It's not an estimate. It is an established fact.

This is the problem with your viewpoint: you think everything is up to interpretation, up to debate. It is not. Some things are established as fact.

This is one of those facts: almost all scientists with any knowledge in the matter accept evolution.

Your 80% isn't an estimate. It's a number you pulled out from between your seat-cheeks. And it's just plain old-fashioned wrong.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 28, 2010 2:12 PM

CJO @#71:

The Hebrew word doesn't mean "rib" or even "bone" at all, it means most literally something like "side" whence English "rib" since we feel our ribs in our sides.

Er... citation needed (that it doesn't mean rib). "Side" is a meaning, but the context makes it clear that it is a rib, or rather, one thing of many.

(וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה׃)

(And he took one [of/from the]tsal'o[masculine plural possessive] and he closed the flesh behind/below.)

David Marjanović has referenced that the myth is an explicit borrowing from the Sumerian, where "rib" is a pun, since ti means "rib" and "life" in that language, and "Eve/Chava" -- made from that very rib -- indeed means "life" in Hebrew.

I certainly have no expertise in Sumerian to be able to dispute this, and it does makes a certain sense.

But, more idiomatically, it could also mean "[something] protruding from of the side" like an appendage (the same word is used elsewhere for the wing of a building). So it just might be that crazy ol' Yahweh took Adam's baculum* and that's why human males, in contrast to many mammals, don't have one.

This interpretation can't work, given the explicit plurality of that which Yahweh Elohim took from.

InfraredEyes @#164

The whole "three days" business comes about because the Romans counted inclusively.

Yes, but are we Romans? (Well, maybe some of us are.)

People called Romanes, they go the house!

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 28, 2010 2:18 PM

BARELY over one tenth of a percent. This was over a couple decades ago, the trend was very much downward and chances are that it's not even a hundredth of a percent now, assuming that any credible scientist still believes Creationist bullcrap.

From the Wikipedia link I provided before:

Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.

Between 1987 and 1999, the percentage dropped by two-thirds, and that's only if you include the dissenting scientists who were not biologists.

There are so few actual scientists that don't accept evolution, they are a tiny statistical blip.

Posted by: Kemist | December 28, 2010 2:23 PM

There is plenty reason to use the book of genesis as a legitimate source, its the same reason that you use an average history book as a legitimate source...

So, which genesis is the legitimate source ? There are two different genesis stories in your bible, and they say different things. Have you even read the thing ? I had by the time I was twelve. Even then I could see that it was full of crap. I much prefered the Lord of the Rings to it. At least it has dwarves and elves.

Because it has the correct information.

How can you know ? How can you test it ?

You see, what I learned in chemistry I could test for myself.

Is it because you feel it's true ? I have a bipolar aunt who, when off her meds, is convinced the sun is malevolent and causes bad things to happen to her. Is she right ? On or off her meds ?

Even if you dont see it a a legimate sorce, it is still seen by many, many people as one so dont go around dis-respecting it.

So ?

Hindus believe a different creation myth than yours. There's nearly a billion hindus - are you ready to go to temple and give an offering of milk to Ganesh now ? Have you stopped eating beef ?

but creationism is science to, in fact some of the worlds top scientists are creationists...

Depends what you mean by "top". I've met and discussed, had dinners with real scientists who are as "top" as they come in their own fields. Guess what : none of them are creationists. Few are religious at all.

The only "scientists" who are creationists never publish anything in legitimate journals because they never do any scientific work. They waste their time and ours by trying to get their favorite fairy tale taught as science in schools to waste minds like yours.

so how can you see that some of the worlds smartest people believe something different to what you strongly believe.

No, I do not see. I just see a dull twelve-year-old with so little curiosity that he repeats arguments he's read on creationist sites without even cross-checking what he's been told is a "fact".

A dull twelve-year-old who still thinks the dumb adults around him know more than people who have spend years studying and experimenting in a field he knows nothing about. Who fails to understand something that I grasped by age seven : that parents, teachers and priest don't have all the answers.

Posted by: CJO | December 28, 2010 2:39 PM

Owlmirror:

It was my recollection that the source where I first read that as a possible interpretation said there was another Hebrew word used elsewhere that specifically meant "rib" but perhaps I am mistaken.

This interpretation can't work, given the explicit plurality of that which Yahweh Elohim took from.

Okay, maybe not, unless "appendages" is intended (God took [the bone from] one of Adam's appendages and made Eve), but I defer to your knowledge of Hebrew. The idea appeals just because it seems like there must be an etiology somewhere there, as the persistent belief in the "missing rib" attests.

But the Sumerian loan/pun theory makes sense too.

Posted by: raven | December 28, 2010 3:35 PM

I'm sorry, but "Joe" has got to be a poe - this is just too perfect.

Maybe. He could be 12 though. He doesn't know the actual meanings of a lot of common words including assertion, fact, data, lie, theory and so on.

And the concept of providing data and facts for claims eluded him.

Posted by: Kemist | December 28, 2010 3:57 PM

@214

Well, this goes to show how childish creationist "reasonning" is.

Maybe there should be an addendum to Poe's law. You can't tell whether it's an adult or a child arguing the creatonist point. Or a sane adult pretending to be a none-too-bright child creationist.

Posted by: Liquid | December 28, 2010 3:59 PM

@159, Raven:

Yes, I am just explaining Magic the Gathering: Christianity Edition, basically. Also, yes, it does not make sense. :)

Why did the devil have the magic keys in the first place? I thought god was the powerful one of the Spooks. What did those keys look like? Could you carry them around in a bag. If there was no way to get to heaven, why didn't god fix that before he even started?

The devil had the magic keys because we gave them to him. When God made the Earth and then made us he gave us dominion over everything and when we sinned we gave our birthright to the devil. I don't think it ever describes the keys, which is sad. Although, you could probably just say that the keys were just a symbol of authority or power.

God fixed the issue with Jesus, prior to that everyone would go to hell. However, the "good" people, didn't go to the brimstone part of hell, but another part. Jesus brought them up to Heaven with him when he left hell. What is really funny is that the devil was there taunting him while he was in hell, but according to Christianity, the devil doesn't reside in hell, but on Earth. He won't go to hell until he is thrown in their during the end times.

Although, since the devil would routinely pop into Heaven to taunt God I guess he just used his frequent flier miles to go down there and poke fun at Jesus.

And why can't All Powerful leave a concise, understandable instruction manual behind and update it every once in a while. Even Bill Gates can do that or Toyota.

Christians would say he did, but we both know that isn't true.

I thought god was all powerful. If all he sees is jesus sacrifice (however that works), then how does he tell good xians from bad xians. And presumably all the nonxians go to hell no matter how good or evil they are. If jesus can be a sponge and soak up all xian sins forever, why should xians bother to be good? Seems like they have figured that one out. That aren't.

He sees the "blood of the lamb" when he looks at a Christian. It does not matter if you're good or bad, all you need do is believe in Jesus and you will get into heaven "by the skin of your teeth."

You can be the most vile person you can ever imagine and still get into Heaven because you believe, or you could be the most saintly person in the world and go to hell because you do not. Christianity does not require someone to be good to get their reward, they just ask nicely on pain of getting a smaller reward. :)

Of course, if you asked some Christians if evil people get to Heaven they will say no. Those Christians have probably never read the Bible, however. I wish more of them would as I imagine that would be the best way to get them out of the cult. Hmmm... Instead of arguing against it we should just instead encourage them to read their Bible and then come and talk to us. :p

How does that work? Were they in a bag. Or painted on him? The sins of the people who lived after jesus get placed on him how? He is now in an invisible place inaccesible to living humans.

lol, I could not tell you how any of this worked, I might be able to if the Bible were a scientific document of some sort, but, it is not. Suffice it to say, the only real answer is... "God did it" *shrugs* :p

Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

How? We are still what we always were, humans. The more you try to understand xian theology, the more pointless and strange it appears.

It didn't change us in anyway, just the conditions by which we could gain salvation. According to the Bible, we will get a "new, heavenly body" once Jesus returns, or when you go to Heaven, or after the end times. That body will be free of sin, sickness, death, and disease. I imagine God will probably open the debug mode and give us all a 150% bonus to our CON attribute.

Hmmm... I have rambled quite a bit but have barely even scratched the surface of D&D: Tyrannical God edition. I will conclude by saying, yes, it is strange, yes it is pointless, and yes it is stupid.

Talking about this always brings to mind an argument between a Trekkie and a Star Wars fan, or someone going way to deep into their copy of The Forgotten Realms campaign setting. :)

Posted by: Kemist | December 28, 2010 4:16 PM

@216

Oh, you'd be surprised at the stuff some people find funny.

Take ventrilo harassment for instance. Some people have lives so dreary and pointless they waste vast amounts time trying to make people who play online games angry.

The first couple give me a few chuckles, but after 10 of them, you begin to wonder - especially if you dare to visit their websites, which are shrines to racism and other forms of hatred ponctuated with pathetic begging for money.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | December 28, 2010 4:21 PM

Kid.... you dumb. With some hard work and effort you could smarten yourself up, but arguing your doofus-ass positions here ain't doing you any good. Read, motherfucker.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 28, 2010 4:27 PM

Liquid #217

You can be the most vile person you can ever imagine and still get into Heaven because you believe, or you could be the most saintly person in the world and go to hell because you do not. Christianity does not require someone to be good to get their reward, they just ask nicely on pain of getting a smaller reward. :)

Of course, if you asked some Christians if evil people get to Heaven they will say no. Those Christians have probably never read the Bible, however. I wish more of them would as I imagine that would be the best way to get them out of the cult. Hmmm... Instead of arguing against it we should just instead encourage them to read their Bible and then come and talk to us. :p

Catholics, Anglicans, and some other sects have a different idea. They not only require faith but being good as well. This is based on James 2:17-22 (NIV):

In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 28, 2010 4:30 PM

I hope you don't expect more than a copypasta from AIG or ICR in response?

Response? That's asking for way too much! Heck, I doubt it will be read (which isn't surprising given how many replies are coming in)

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 28, 2010 4:45 PM

I've proposed an additional rule to Poe's Law- assume a potential Poe is indeed a Poe until proven otherwise.

in response, I give you Hanlon's Razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Posted by: erminate | December 28, 2010 4:57 PM

80 is an estimate, 99 seems incorrect like " Buy our Hand sanitizer, it kills 99.99 percent of germs!"

What we have here, Joe, is you refusing to accept the evidence when presented with actual statistics, (a real survey of real scientists in relevant fields), while making up the 80% figure that you quote to support your view.

Real scientists call that lying, Joe. Do you understand why yet?

You've already been provided with more than one list of transitional fossils, you might learn a lot if you actually followed some of the links that have been offered to you and educated yourself.

The link I provided above is a link to a simple Google search for "list of transitional fossils". How hard would it have been for you to do this simple search yourself before insisting to people who know better that there isn't any such thing? I suggest you read the wikipedia and talkorigins links for some long, well-documented lists of the very things that you have repeatedly claimed did not exist.

How will you react when the evidence to the contrary is laid right in front of you? Will you follow the links and learn, or will you continue in your willful blindness? One is the act of an adult when they discovers their ignorance on a subject, while the other is the act of a child who wishes to remain in their comforting ignorance.

Which do you want to be, Joe? Which do you want to be?

If you want to be taken seriously by real scientists or educated adults, you're going to have to learn what words mean before you start insisting you have the answers, especially words like: theory, fact, evidence, data, proof, peer-review, lie, science (& the Scientific Method!), and assertion. Most of us here would be glad to explain what those words mean in scientific parlance if you ask us, (and how and why you are using them incorrectly), but if you continue to insist that you know better than we do, you're going to continue to get taken to the cleaners each time you post here.

Why are you here, Joe? Do you want to actually learn something, something that the people around you have been lying to you about all your life, or do you want to continue to make yourself look like a deluded idiot by accepting their word without any evidence, while rejecting all the evidence that we can, will, and have been offering you here?

This choice is up to you. Choose wisely.

Ermine!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/dekWCy0AzJ8eq_tpw4pgT77cRaIZb6S3MHbY2DI-#35783 | December 28, 2010 6:10 PM

I would like to thank Fire weaver for mentioning my blog, I will do a post tearing apart this email, for any one who missed the earlier link:
http://evolutionguide.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | December 28, 2010 7:19 PM

As reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23

And that was twenty-three years ago!

Seven-hundred scientists do not constitute 20%.

And from the Pew Research Centre 2009:

"87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."

It's certainly true the general public is stupid and uninformed and values religious belief over foundings confirmed repeatedly by the rigorous standards of the scientific method. The opinions of those people don't matter. Evolution isn't a matter of opinion at all!

Now, take the word "scientists" and replace it with "scientists studying life and it's origins" and you will get a number well over 90%.

I tend to feel sorry for these kids who are completely oblivious to the ignorance they spew and how ridiculous they make themselves look to informed, knowledgable individuals. All any of Joey's arguments demonstrate is his lack of grasp on what evolution actually is and postulates. His understanding of evolution is exclusively founded in the completely false caricature creationism has created of evolution in order to "debunk" it.

They tend to just be so rude though, it's hard to feel empathy for them. They refuse to listen and can't handle being corrected. You approach them with respect and knowledge and they bark at you and call you names. It's horrifying and heart-breaking.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 28, 2010 7:43 PM

Christianity does not require someone to be good to get their reward, they just ask nicely on pain of getting a smaller reward. :)

Of course, if you asked some Christians if evil people get to Heaven they will say no. Those Christians have probably never read the Bible, however.

Tsk, tsk.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 28, 2010 9:38 PM

oh.holy.hell.

poor kid, so ignorant it actually hurts. and none of it his own fault :-(

well, let's start at the beginning, with the most basic of basics:

1. We have lots of evidence between evolution with in a species BUT NOT BETWEEN SPECIES its called the missing link!

the word "evolution" in biology means "descent with heritable modification". it merely means that a child will have mutations that its parent didn't, and that it can give those mutations to its own children later in life. this is not a theory. it's a fact that has been observed in laboratories all over the world. Look up the Lenski experiments, as well as read about mutations in humans

I suspect that what you're thinking of is the Theory of Evolution. Now, let me first explain what "theory" means in science. A scientific theory is not "a guess" or "a belief"; it's a very well-tested explanation (the not-so-well tested ones are usually referred to as a Hypothesis) that explains facts and observations (in this case, the observation of evolution). Such an explanation must explain all available evidence, and it must be falsifiable. That means that you need to be able to answer the question "how would I know if I were wrong?". this is usually done by using a hypothesis to make predictions, and then do experiments/make observations that, if your hypothesis is wrong, would not make the predictions/observations come true. If the predictions do come true, you at least know that on this point, you're not wrong. Once many people do many such experiments and make many such observations, and none of the predictions turns out to be completely wrong, you got yourself a Theory. If the predictions are wrong, two things happen: if only some are wrong, while many others are right, scientists will look for flaws in the hypothesis, and once they find them, they correct them. That's how Darwin's original Theory of Evolution became the Modern Synthesis. If most or all of the predictions turn out to be wrong, then the hypothesis is completely discarded as useless and wrong.

So, the modern Theory of Evolution explains how evolution does what it does. In fact, you got your assumption backwards: FIRST there was evidence for life on earth changing slowly over time; and if you arrange the different found animals by similarity (of shape, habitat, internal structures, etc.) and by time, you get a tree-shape. not a circle, not a random network, not parallel lines, and not a hour-glass, all of which could have happened, but didn't. so people took this observation and made the hypothesis that this is because all the different life-forms they've been finding had a common descent. this hypothesis has also been tested often over time, and has not yet been contradicted. And so, scientists went looking for an explanation as to HOW all these lifeforms could have descended from a common ancestor. Many different men had different ideas about how this might be happening ("Lamarckism", for example), but only one hypothesis has been able to explain all evidence and not be falsified: Darwin's theory of descent with heritable modification AND natural selection acting on these modifications, weeding out the less useful modifications and spreading the more useful ones (by making the animals with the less useful ones more likely to die before they can have kids, or less likely to be able to have and raise kids for other reasons).

In short: 1)a lot of "missing links" were found before there ever was such an idea as the Theory of Evolution; 2)The ToE was tested over and over by scientists, for example by saying that such-and-such an animal should be found in such-a-such layer in such-a-such place, then going out to see if they can find such an animal, and actually finding it (that's how Tiktaalik was found), thus proving their prediction correct; 3)Gradual small change, over long periods of time, always results in large changes, unless there's something to stop it. that means that if microevolution is true, then macroevolution is true, too, unless you can show evidence for something preventing the change to go on-and-on, generation by generation.

3. The compound eye is an example of irreducible complexity so complex that it cannot be any less complex its ether an eye or it isn't there is no evolution in the middle. Another example of irreducible complexity is blood clotting.

Irreducible Complexity doesn't mean anything for evolution. Think of it this way: if you have a stone-arch, and you remove one of the stones that make the arch, the whole thing will collapse. But the arch was not built all at once, but in steps, with one stone being put in place after the other. It didn't collapse while being built because there was scaffolding holding it all up; once all the stones were in place, it didn't matter if the scaffolding was still there or not, because now the arch wouldn't collapse anyway.

The same thing happens with mutations. sometimes, you end up with a gene duplicating more than necessary. and so you have a spare gene, that isn't needed for anything, because you have another one that will do the job of what needs to be done by this gene. so this spare one will mutate a lot without causing any problems to what the gene originally did. and sometimes, after a lot of that, it accidentally mutates into something that's just a wee bit more useful than the original gene, maybe interacting with another one to make the organism work a bit better. And so natural selection acts on that animal, making it survive better and have more children than other animals of the same species. These kinds of mutations stack up eventually, and maybe even result in something that the species now can't survive without, because some other mutation made the original gene go bad. But originally, there was scaffolding because there was more than one gene that did the same job. now there's no scaffolding (but we can sometimes see that scaffolding in its cousin-species. the best example of that is the evolution of ear-bones and jaw bones between reptiles and mammals by means of "scaffolding" where there was a double-joint on two jaw-bones at one point.

4. It is true that some creationists think that 'the bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis "days" could also be read as "ages".' but I don't see what the newspapers point is there.

if they were seen as "ages", they would still be wrong. for example, the sun was created "ages" after the plants? how did the plants survive, without sunlight? plants need sunlight for photosynthesis, without it they die.

Evolutionists have not, cannot ant will not prove evolution yet creationists have, can, and will continue to disprove it simple.

no one has ever, in a scientific experiment/prediction, disproven the ToE. But even if creationists did manage to do so, that wouldn't prove creationism (or specifically christian creationism, as opposed to Native American, Hindu, Aboriginal, etc. creationism) true. If the ToE were to be disproven, we'd simply have no theory at all, since there's no evidence for creationism of any religion, plenty of observations and experiments that have already disproven some creationisms, and many others aren't falsifiable (remember, that means that you can answer the question "how would i know if i were wrong?") and so aren't scientific to begin with.

I have a problem with many science teachers teaching evolution. If you are going to teach students evolution you need to teach students all the opposing theories.

there aren't any opposing scientific theories (I've already explained what a scientific theory is). There's a lot of different religious stories that tell of how the world has supposedly come to be, but there's no evidence for any of them, they do not make predictions that can be tested, and they've either already have been falsified (and are therefore wrong) or are unfalsifiable (and therefore aren't science). The place for these stories is a comparative religion class; not a science class.

There is no evidence of transitional forms and all of the examples there are not examples at all. All of these have a missing link and are therefore not provable.

every generation is a transitional form between the generation before it and the generation after it. Transitional forms are simply snapshots of this long chain of tiny tiny changes. To say that they're not transitional because we don't have one animal of every generation of every species is like saying you cannot have developed from a baby because there isn't a picture of you on every day of your life, showing the sloooooow and very tiny tiny steps by which you grew and stopped looking like a baby.

There is plenty reason to use the book of genesis as a legitimate source, its the same reason that you use an average history book as a legitimate source... Because it has the correct information.

history textbooks are not "sources". a source is a document or a piece of evidence that something exists/was said/was done. the best sources are "primary sources". For example, De Bello Gallico is a primary source for the war Julius Caesar fought in Northern Europe, because he was there and he wrote the book about his own experiences there. There's also secondary and tertiary sources, which are more and more removed from the thing they're supposed to be evidence for, and are therefore weaker evidence. but even primary sources are not 100% reliable, since people lie and make things up, or sometimes just make a mistake and get something wrong. The strongest sources are those that have other independent sources and physical evidence from archaeology confirm their stories as true.

A history textbook is not a historical source. It's just a summary of information we have from sources and physical evidence for things that happened in the past. The bible is also not a historical source. For many of the things that supposedly happened in it there's no other sources telling us about them, there's no physical evidence for it happening, and there's plenty of contradictory stories (even within the bible itself). For example, there's absolutely no sources and no evidence for a large tribe of Hebrews having lived in Egypt, and no evidence for a sudden disappearance of such a slave population. There's no sources and no evidence for a pharaoh having drowned with a large entourage in the red sea (and we have excellent records on most Egyptian pharaohs and how they lived and died).

On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence and primary sources of different languages existing before the story of the Tower of Babel was supposed to happen. There's also evidence for a thriving, continuous (i.e. there wasn't a mass death) civilization in India (google "harappa" and "mohenjo-daro") and a continuous line of pharaohs (6th dynasty) at the time that the Flood was supposed to have killed all humans and animals on earth.

So: the bible is not a historical source: it's a collection of religious stories which contradict the historical record. Your history textbook is also not a source. If you want real sources for the things in your textbook, you can ask your librarian, maybe they'll be able to direct you to information on where to find the actual sources and evidence.

Even if you dont see it a a legimate sorce, it is still seen by many, many people as one so dont go around dis-respecting it.

that's not how it works. the world isn't subjective, so that one person can have one reality and another person can have another reality. there is only one reality. as such, something either is or isn't a legitimate source. and the only way to tell if it is is the method I just explained: see if it's a primary source or a secondary, tertriary, etc; see if other, independent sources confirm what's in it; see if there's physical evidence that confirms it. and even then, that only confirms parts of it. For example, the ancient historian Livy wrote a HUGE book on the history of Rome. And a lot of the stuff from his own time and recent past was confirmed as true, but his story of how Rome was founded (the story of Romulus and Remus) is in fact just a story: it's not true, it's a "foundation myth".

Also, many people believing something doesn't make it true. There's 1.6 billion people who believe the Quran is a source for finding out god's will and that Muhammad was a prophet of god; there's almost a billion people who believe there's many gods and who believe that the stories about gods and about creation in the Vedas and Upanishads are true. does that make them true? no. the same way, just because a lot of people believe the bible is true, doesn't make it true. To make that claim is to commit a logical fallacy called the Argumentum Ad Populum. It is not a valid argument.

One of my main problems with most evolutionists is that they think that evolutionism is scientists and creationism is religious people, but creationism is science to, in fact some of the worlds top scientists are creationists... so how can you see that some of the worlds smartest people believe something different to what you strongly believe.

evolution is a mere observation. the ToE is a scientific theory because it makes predictions, it is falsifiable, and lots of people have failed to prove it wrong. Creationism is a religious idea because it doesn't make predictions, it is not falsifiable (do you know how to answer the question "how would i know if creationism was wrong?" if not, it's not science), it's not testable, and it contradicts the evidence we do have.

Everything is testable, Creation ism needs no predictions because it already has answers and it can be scientifically tested just as well as evolutionism

you don't understand the meaning of the words you're using in this sentence. A scientific prediction is meant to see if the answers you have is actually true: you make a prediction, you test it, and if it's wrong then your answer was wrong; you cannot have a scientific theory without making such predictions. That's one of the reasons creationism is not science. It's not enough to just have answers: you need to have a way of telling whether the answers you have are actually the right answers.

nd those assertions are not assertions, im stating that there is no evidence if transitional forms of life... just another theory

again, you don't understand what the words you're using mean. an assertion is a claim made without providing any evidence for the claim being true. that's exactly what you're doing, since you're not showing your reasoning and your evidence to support your claim. a theory on the other hand is an explanation that must account for all available evidence, must make predictions that can be tested, and must have already been tested many times and not been falsified during those tests. if you don't have that, you don't have a theory.

creationism has been around for just as long as evolution and even though evolution has about 80 (not 99) percent of USA scientists on it, creationism is still around. Goes to show that it is a pretty strong theory dosnt it?

by that logic, Hindu creationism, being even older, would be an even stronger theory.

That's not how it works. The age doesn't matter, in and of itself. What matters is whether the idea has withstood many many scientific tests by many scientists, and not been falsified. It also doesn't matter if a small group of people, even scientists, "believe" in something personally: if they cannot demonstrate their belief in a scientific way, it's still not science, and most definitely not a theory.

go in to detail to test creationism go into evidence for god, evidance for the bible and evidance for genasis

what evidence for god, and how does that evidence make testable, falsifiable predictions? what evidence for genesis, and how does that evidence make testable, falsifiable predictions? if not, then your belief is just a belief, not a testable scientific idea.

also, be more careful with your wording. I'm guessing when you say "evidence for the bible" you mean evidence for the things written in the bible being actually true. But what you've written means evidence for the existence of the bible, which is trivial.

apologetics

what about apologetics? they're just words: no repeatable observations, no testable predictions, nothing that we can test to see if it's actually true. apologetics are not scientific, they're just talk.

80 is an estimate, 99 seems incorrect like " Buy our Hand sanitizer, it kills 99.99 percent of germs!"

that's not how you determine whether something is correct or not. it doesn't matter whether something "seems" wrong or right. what you do to tell whether something is correct is to look for facts and data. you made up the 80%. The people responding to you provided data for their 99%. unless you can show that the data is somehow wrong (by showing other data, and showing evidence for how the data the people gave you is wrong), this means your number is wrong even if it "feels" more correct.

Posted by: TimKO,,.,, | December 29, 2010 3:42 AM

"I have a problem with many science teachers teaching evolution. "
vs.
"given better evidence I may be able to accept that idea "

Joe, how can somebody "give" you the evidence if you have a problem with them doing so? This is one of several contradictions in your letter. Xtians teach you to compartmentalize you mind; which means they teach you that it's OK to believe two opposite concepts can both be true (and do so on many topics and subjects). In doing so, they teach you that logic and knowledge are opinions, or subject to a majority viewpoint, when in fact they are not. Opposites are not both true. It's a form of brainwashing and it sometimes takes people until late in adulthood to de-compartmentalize and become "smarter" (In terms of logic and objective knowledge). But if you realize this now, you'll someday be a much more honest adult. Thou shalt not give false testimony.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming because it is has been gathered for over a century now. There has been no contrary evidence presented. You only need to open your brain and study. It's all there.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 29, 2010 4:45 PM

Wow PZ, you really showed that twelve-year-old, you fucking douchebag.

way to entirely miss every conversation with it that came before.

who's the douchebag?

why that would be YOU.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 30, 2010 12:33 AM

Irreducible Complexity doesn't mean anything for evolution. Think of it this way: if you have a stone-arch, and you remove one of the stones that make the arch, the whole thing will collapse. But the arch was not built all at once, but in steps, with one stone being put in place after the other. It didn't collapse while being built because there was scaffolding holding it all up; once all the stones were in place, it didn't matter if the scaffolding was still there or not, because now the arch wouldn't collapse anyway.

I suspect that creationists will deliberately misconstrue the above analogy. "Ha! Arches are too intelligently designed! Take that, evolutionists!"

Unfortunately (for creationists), not all of them are. Consider the plethora of natural arches and "bridges", in Arches National Park, as well as many other places.

Were they all "designed", by "intelligence", or were they formed by various rocks of differing hardness being eroded by wind and water that had a greater effect on the central part than on the top and sides? The "scaffolding" of the material that was in the center eroded away while the top and sides remained eroded to a lesser degree, leaving behind an arch -- no intelligence required.

In the biological world, multicellular organisms also use "scaffolding" -- not just in the evolutionary sense, but also in the developmental sense. When humans (and other animals) are developing in their mothers' wombs, fingers develop as a ridge of tissues, which looks sort of like a paddle. The bones begin to condense inside of this paddle. Later in in development, when the bones are better defined, the cells between the fingers -- the "scaffolding" -- simply die off. Every human that has unwebbed fingers, has them because the cells acting as "scaffolding" committed suicide.

The general principle remains true with regard to evolution: A structure or system can evolve with multiple parts, and some part that is redundant can then be eliminated, or be used for something completely different.

No intelligence required.

Posted by: pl.werdna | December 31, 2010 4:29 PM

Wow PZ, you really showed that twelve-year-old, you fucking douchebag. How much time do you have to be able to respond to some fundie twelve-year-old's email? Shouldn't you be in a lab trying to actually contribute to your field? I mean, I can understand your mindless blog followers having the time to worry about this bullshit, but you need tenure!

You're right. The five minutes he spent replying is five minutes he'll never get back. Whoa is the scientific community! That five minutes of time could've been used to advance some epic finding of developmental biology in the lab! I wonder where else PZ wastes five minutes? Did he brush his teeth this morning? Damnit, PZ! Stop brushing your teeth! You're wasting time!

Posted by: Taemon | January 3, 2011 5:53 AM

Joseph. A forum discussion like this might not be the best way to talk about these things. Maybe you'd like a one-on-one e-mail discussion? I would enjoy the opportunity to answer your questions and discuss them without a yelling crowd in the background.
If you'd like that let me know here and I'll get you my e-mail address somehow.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | January 8, 2011 1:50 AM

Jadehawk, you and me both. I hoped the kid would at least be curious to hear opinions outside of the usual range of what he is exposed to at home.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | January 16, 2011 6:42 PM

As long as he doesn't take a shit on the dean's desk, he should be secure in his employment.

Or bugger the Bursar