September 19, 2012

"Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy."

Says Slate, indicating that it's fun to taunt religionists.

245 comments:

1 – 200 of 245   Newer›   Newest»
Christopher in MA said...

OK, I'm off to bomb the Slate offices. Don't wait up.

Bob Ellison said...

Jurassic Park would've sucked if T. Rex had been all fluffy.

Freder Frederson said...

What exactly is a "religionist"? You seem to be equating religionist with young-earth creationists and evolution deniers. Both groups deserve to be taunted because their beliefs are factually wrong.

bagoh20 said...

Even when you agree with them, leftists are offensive. Civility.

Saint Croix said...

Can we please have a society where we don't add "ist" to the ends of normal words? Thank you.

Shouting Thomas said...

Yes, I'm sure the religionists are in great turmoil.

Another imaginary political hubbub.

I'm sure the Mormons will storm Broadway any day now to shut down the "Book of Mormon."

Saint Croix said...

You lawyerists are drivingist me upist the wallist. It's reallyist annoying. Stopist. At onceist!

Saint Croix said...

Don't make me call you an atheistist.

TosaGuy said...

I am not a religious sort, but the over-the-top attacks by leftists and their escalating of trivial crackpots like this Ham guy into something significant is not only tiring, but eternally BORING!

stan said...

It's fun to taunt religionists as long they're not the kind that lop off heads or burn embassies. At least in this country the religionists are bitter clingers and all that, but otherwise harmless.

Nathan Alexander said...

I don't see how this drives Creationists crazy.

If God can put the dinosaur record in the earth, he can put a feathered dinosaur record in the earth.

If an intelligent designer can have a dinosaur period, he can have a feathered dinosaur period (like Picasso's "blue" period, right?)

It seems to me like this should drive evolutionists crazy:

Almost everything evolutionists said about dinosaurs and their place in evolution over the last 100 years is wrong, null, and void with the discovery of feathered dinosaurs.

Chris said...

So, dinosaurs evolved into birds. Yeah.. that's it. That's the ticket.

TosaGuy said...

It has gotten to the point in places like Slate, Salon and their ilk that anyone, no matter how miniscule their overall impact, that if they disagree with the site's bubble then they are a danger to not only the republic, but the universe itself.

Don't such people ever tire of thinking that way?

David said...

Dumist.

Icepick said...

Can we please have a society where we don't add "ist" to the ends of normal words? Thank you.

No we cannot, you anti-istist!

Nomennovum said...

Oh, finally! I guess Slate has had its fill of being all apologetic to the fundamentalist Muslims who get mad and kill Americans (which is, like, so last week) and is now back to what matters:

Trashing fundamentalist Christians.

Freder Frederson said...

Almost everything evolutionists said about dinosaurs and their place in evolution over the last 100 years is wrong, null, and void with the discovery of feathered dinosaurs.

This is simply not true.

TosaGuy said...

My first comment disappeared into the blogger netherworld.

Essentially, I agreed with Bagoh.

Cedarford said...

Christian Fundies are as wrong and as ignorant as their Muslim "every word of our Holy Book is the literal truth" counterparts...But at least they don't kill people, blow up things, and burn embassies.

And for all their "laughable ignorance", a typical white Christian Fundie is still far better educated and more knowledgable than a typical black graduate of Chicago US public schools and the Hero Teachers there...Or any school for that matter. If fundies are laughably ignorant to Slate sophisticates or Manhattan dwellers...where do blacks truly rank on their laughter scale??

Something that drives the liberals and progressive Jews at Slate when it is pointed out to them - even crazier than than a creationist confronted with a feathered dinosaur. All they are left with is sputtering words about victimhood, more money for teachers, and anyone pointing out Fundies top blacks in brainpower is a vile racist

David R. Graham said...

"lawyerists.". I like that. Never forget when someone called me a theologist. Dumbsquat. The suffix is to create a separate "group" to push around a political game board. I ain't playing'.

Andy R. said...

Creationists are dumb and should be made fun of. If this makes them feel bad, they should reconsider their dumb beliefs.

Icepick said...

Jurassic Park would've sucked if T. Rex had been all fluffy.

Yes, it would have. But JP II would have been even funnier! Imagine a giant fluffy T-Rex careening through San Diego!

Icepick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andy R. said...

Even when you agree with them, leftists are offensive.

Are dumb religious people ever going to stop complaining that someone hurt their fee-fees?

acm said...

It's all fun and games til somebody loses an Ambassador.

David R. Graham said...

How about a blog-based Embarass Mohammed Day.

AndyN said...

People who think me exhaling has more of an impact than solar activity in changing the earth's temperature are mocking others for not understanding science. heh

Scott M said...

Both groups deserve to be taunted because their beliefs are factually wrong.

Do Muslims deserve to be taunted on the same grounds?

Cedarford said...

...Or (the typical black) in any (public) school for that matter

Nathan Alexander said...

This is simply not true.

This is such an in-depth and fact-filled explanation, I find myself unable to counter any of your well-explained points.

Unfortunately for you, only someone who clings to evolution like a religion could say something like you did.

Scott M said...

This is simply not true.

In other words, his statement was factually wrong. Does he deserve to be taunted? If he's taunted and blows something up, is it the taunter's fault?

Nomennovum said...

"Are dumb religious people ever going to stop complaining that someone hurt their fee-fees?"

Look who's calling someone dumb.

Nathan Alexander said...

Remember when Andy R. thought that insulting a religion was against the 1st Amendment?

Good times, good times.

Nonapod said...

I'm a conservative and believer in evolution. And I get frustrated by the fact that a great deal of science and tech sites and blogs seem to take a special, perverse pleasure in conflating all conservatives with creationists. They enjoy ridiculing anyone who may be even mildly skeptical of climate change. They also often either heavily imply or outright state that all conservatives are anti-science, anti-reason,and are generally ignorant and/or evil. It's tedious, predictable, and sad.

Cedarford said...

Andy R. said...
Creationists are dumb and should be made fun of. If this makes them feel bad, they should reconsider their dumb beliefs.


As a smug gay Jew...how do you feel about the even more ignorant blacks, Andy??
If we make fun of dirt-ignorant blacks and their dysfunctional 'hoods...will that laughing at them make the darkies reconsider their dumb beliefs??

Or will they act like Muslims act and riot and burn things?

Dante said...

Maybe Slate feels the Creationists are a threat. I can understand, that a person with a weak leftist religion might be offended by the deeper seated religious views, like Creationism.

Scott M said...

Are dumb religious people ever going to stop complaining that someone hurt their fee-fees?

Maybe dumb progressives should have thought twice (or once, even) about building their church on the rock of self-esteem.

bagoh20 said...

"Essentially, I agreed with Bagoh"

Clearly you've evolved beyond common human limitations. Does your species have females, and if so, where are they hiding?

chuck said...

I'd like to see them make fun of global warming. stirring up those religious nut balls takes real courage.

Tim said...

What is the evolutionist argument for homosexuality?

Anyone?

Andy R. said...

Remember when Andy R. thought that insulting a religion was against the 1st Amendment?

What are you talking about? This is the exact opposite of my position.

chickelit said...

Andy S. said...
Sullivanists are dumb and should be made fun of. If this makes them feel bad, they should reconsider their dumb beliefs.

FTFY

Freder Frederson said...

And for all their "laughable ignorance", a typical white Christian Fundie is still far better educated and more knowledgable than a typical black graduate of Chicago US public schools and the Hero Teachers there.

Can you provide any evidence for this assertion (that doesn't rely on a link to Stormfront)

Andy R. said...

What is the evolutionist argument for homosexuality?

You can go read the science if this kind of thing interests you. It's not a secret or anything.

chickelit said...

But poking fun at Sullivanists like Andy is just gross.

AJ Lynch said...

Christopher- Perhaps I'll see you there!

Tim said...

"Are dumb religious people ever going to stop complaining that someone hurt their fee-fees?"

What do homosexuals think about campus speech codes?

Pragmatist said...

It is fun to taunt people who think that the bible has all the answers, even if those answers are questions of fact and the facts disagree with their interpretation of the bible. Not everyone who has religous faith (religionists??) disagree with science and facts, only a small sub-set. Don't lump all believers in with the dummies.

Andy R. said...

What do homosexuals think about campus speech codes?

If you're asking me, I don't like them. If you are curious what other homosexuals think, you will have to ask them.

Pragmatist said...

It is fun to taunt people who think that the bible has all the answers, even if those answers are questions of fact and the facts disagree with their interpretation of the bible. Not everyone who has religous faith (religionists??) disagree with science and facts, only a small sub-set. Don't lump all believers in with the dummies.

Cedarford said...

Nonapod said...
I'm a conservative and believer in evolution. And I get frustrated by the fact that a great deal of science and tech sites and blogs seem to take a special, perverse pleasure in conflating all conservatives with creationists. They enjoy ridiculing anyone who may be even mildly skeptical of climate change. They also often either heavily imply or outright state that all conservatives are anti-science, anti-reason,and are generally ignorant and/or evil. It's tedious, predictable, and sad.

===============
It is my experience that liberals that excoriate conservatives as scientifically ignorant - tend to come from educations and workplace experiences that put them far less in a position of science and engineering knowledge and costs of technology knowledge than the conservatives they smear.

I would trust an Amish farmer with horse and buggy lifestyle to have a vastly superior understanding of science, engineering, energy cost budgeting than a liberal female with a graduate degree in education or a gay in the media..

Freder Frederson said...

As a smug gay Jew...how do you feel about the even more ignorant blacks, Andy??
If we make fun of dirt-ignorant blacks and their dysfunctional 'hoods...will that laughing at them make the darkies reconsider their dumb beliefs??


At what point will Ann and Meade say "enough is enough" from Cedarford. How has he managed to turn this thread into a racist and anti-Semitic screed?

jdniner said...

Plain wrong and illiterate proposition. The vast (VAST) majority of creationist believe in evolution. There are are young earthers in that category who own the non evolution viewpoint. But even within that grouping the members still reconcile their faith with an intellectual understanding of evolution.

Mike said...

Slate is factually incorrect as usual. And both sea monsters and land dwelling "giant creatures" are mentioned in the Bible, with no detailed description so -- as a Christian (no -ist please!) -- it matters not to me what kind of texture extinct creatures had.

I reject your istism as well.

Freder Frederson said...

Not to mention misogynist and homophobic.

antiphone said...

As a smug gay Jew...how do you feel about the even more ignorant blacks, Andy??
If we make fun of dirt-ignorant blacks and their dysfunctional 'hoods...will that laughing at them make the darkies reconsider their dumb beliefs??


No racism here, no way. It's all a liberal conspiracy.

Nathan Alexander said...

I'm a conservative and believer in evolution.

I'm a conservative, agnostic, and I'm pretty much agnostic about evolution or Intelligent design.

Both have good points and clear weaknesses.

I'm open-minded and logical about it, unlike the spittle-spewing true believers who go off the rails when confronted with inconvenient facts contradicting their unproven belief system.

Like, say, Frederson is.

Freder Frederson said...

The vast (VAST) majority of creationist believe in evolution.

This statement is an oxymoron. By definition creationists do not believe in evolution.

jr565 said...

If creationists really want to stop all that talk about evolution and the stupidity of crationism they should start killing those promoting the theory. Hey, it works for the Muslims.
Also, why would having feathers on dinosaurs be a problem for creationists? The point is always made "As we learn more about dinosaurs, we learn...". Maybe more dinosaurs had feathers than we initially thought. Maybe the T Rex doesn't look like the T Rex of our imaginations and neer did.

Christopher in MA said...

Are dumb religious people ever going to stop complaining that someone hurt their fee-fees?

How fortunate for you, Hat, that you are a spoiled, privileged, white boy free to taunt any and all religious believers who won't introduce your neck to the sharp edge of a sword.

It's quite easy to play brave, clear-eyed, rationalist seeker of the truth in America. Your act wouldn't last very long in a number of other countries

Freder Frederson said...

Both have good points and clear weaknesses.

There are no clear weaknesses in evolutionary theory and intelligent design is not falsifiable and thus fails the first test of being a valid scientific theory.

antiphone said...

It's quite easy to play brave, clear-eyed, rationalist seeker of the truth in America. Your act wouldn't last very long in a number of other countries

Neither would yours.

Scott M said...

By definition creationists do not believe in evolution

That depends on whether or not you're talking about the verb or the theory.

jdniner said...

Pluto is still planet.
10 people in China or India offset any carbon credits Al Gore earns by flying jets.
I think the science is defective or limp.

A creationist in this article is a lot like a flat earther. But as Hitchens say in his free speech speech be prepare to support ones own beliefs and question them individually.

The dinosaur discussion is only useful to me as a sensational story to grab attention. The real point to me is how the young erathers came about their education. How are they different from the Halley Bop comet cult? This is a baptist belief, I know baptists. all the ones I know believe in evolution.

acm said...

"Are dumb religious people ever going to stop complaining that someone hurt their fee-fees?"

----------

Probably not. The smart religious people, and the gays (smart and dumb both) and the vegans and every other group probably won't stop, either. They don't have to, just like you don't have to.

Now, will violent people ever stop blowing shit up when their feelings are hurt? And will people ever stop trying to shut up speech when that either happens or appears (to some, as in Benghazi and when everyone just *knew* that Columbine was the fault of Marilyn Manson and that Gabby Giffords was shot by a Palin fan) to have happened?

bagoh20 said...

Jurassic Park was a great idea. I hope it happens before I die. It would be cool to see a 5 ton chicken with teeth. A T-Rex would gain 1300lbs a year. Tastes like chicken.

Cedarford said...

Freder Frederson said...
"And for all their "laughable ignorance", a typical white Christian Fundie is still far better educated and more knowledgable than a typical black graduate of Chicago US public schools and the Hero Teachers there."

Can you provide any evidence for this assertion (that doesn't rely on a link to Stormfront)

=============
Gee sorry, Feder, I confess I was also mentally lumping in the 50% of blacks who fail to graduate Chicago public HS into the collective lack of black educational attainment and pervasive ignorance. (Or at least, a lack of education and level of ignorance that greatly surpasses the Fundies own shortcomings.)

As for "links", I can link you to Google or Mapquest so you can travel to a S Chicago neighborhood as well as a white Fundie town in Illinois and see the difference for yourself.

Justin said...

At what point will Ann and Meade say "enough is enough" from Cedarford. How has he managed to turn this thread into a racist and anti-Semitic screed?

Never! This post is a worm on a hook for people like Cedarford. I think Ann knows that. In fact I think posts like this are purposefully designed to generate flame wars, which tend to result in a lot of comments.

jdniner said...

Moderate Muslim op eds that blasphemy should be illegal. As stated earlier people don't really understand the threat. Dinosaur talk stalks free speech.

Nathan Alexander said...

This statement is an oxymoron. By definition creationists do not believe in evolution.

This is demonstrably false.

Intelligent Design is evolution run by a creator.

acm said...

At what point will Ann and Meade say "enough is enough" from Cedarford. How has he managed to turn this thread into a racist and anti-Semitic screed?

---------------

He's only managed because people respond to his crap. The street doesn't become a church just because some loon is preaching on the corner.

It's better if everyone just rolls their eyes and ignores him, especially if that means the word verification stays off.

Bryan C said...

"Dinosaurs are unlikely symbols of religious fundamentalism." he says.

I wondered why those Arab guys burning down our embassies were waving around those pictures of a non-feathered triceratops. Now I get it.

TMink said...

Andy wrote: "Creationists are dumb and should be made fun of. If this makes them feel bad, they should reconsider their dumb beliefs."

Fair enough. We believe that the Supreme Being of the universe created everything. You see that as laughable.

You guys believe in spontaneous generation, which is to say that life rose up from non-life. Like people used to think that basil would generate scorpions if placed between two bricks and left in the sun.

Your beliefs also posit the view that the closed system of the universe grew more complex all on its own, going from a state of chaos to meticulous order. This violates the second law of thermodynamics, or entropy. I see those beliefs as unscientific and laughable.

But as a Christian, I am not that likely to make fun of you. Maybe I would mention your eternal damnation if you fail to accept Christ as your savior, but I would refrain from making fun of you. 8)

Trey

Cedarford said...

Freder Frederson said...
As a smug gay Jew...how do you feel about the even more ignorant blacks, Andy??
If we make fun of dirt-ignorant blacks and their dysfunctional 'hoods...will that laughing at them make the darkies reconsider their dumb beliefs??

At what point will Ann and Meade say "enough is enough" from Cedarford. How has he managed to turn this thread into a racist and anti-Semitic screed?

===================
Nice try Freder. The Manhattan cognosienti wish to single out and target Fundies and conservatives as unique reserviors of special level ignorance.
While controlling the argument to exclude discussion of other groups that have levels of ignorance that exceed that - as racist or "teacher-bashing".

As for Andy, there are IMO, tens of thousands of smug liberal gay Jews just like him stamped out on a cookie cutter. The more fortunate ones got membership in JournoList.

Shouting Thomas said...

Creationists are dumb and should be made fun of. If this makes them feel bad, they should reconsider their dumb beliefs.

All well and good, Andy.

How do we get you to reconsider your dumb beliefs?

Bob Ellison said...

Freder Frederson, you started off badly. "Both groups deserve to be taunted because their beliefs are factually wrong." I don't like to bother with editing, especially because I make mistakes, but "factually wrong" is a rully silly thing to bother typing.

It's also wrong scientifically. I'm probably on your side, but science does not agree with Al Gore that facts are facts and wrong is wrong when it comes to theories.

This is a problem for evolutionary theory. It is demonstrably probable, but it is not provable. The difference is crucial, and creationist wackos keep hitting that drum.

Andy R. said...

By the way, can we get a thread about how Chick-fil-A has caved? As long as we're mocking dumb Christians, we might as well mock the Christian bigots as well.

Bryan C said...

"Creationists are dumb and should be made fun of."

Andy, did you know that fundamentalist Islam is also creationist? You should make a movie.

antiphone said...

This post is a worm on a hook for people like Cedarford. I think Ann knows that. In fact I think posts like this are purposefully designed to generate flame wars, which tend to result in a lot of comments.

You betcha, and don't forget to use the Amazon links so she gets paid.

Nathan Alexander said...

There are no clear weaknesses in evolutionary theory and intelligent design is not falsifiable and thus fails the first test of being a valid scientific theory.

Also false.

Insurmountable weaknesses of evolution:

1) Irreducible complexity.

The people who claim to have refuted it haven't even come close to doing so. They pick the easiest example, say that since the irreducibly complex structures we have are the result of evolution, that means it is possible to be the product of evolution, so irreducible complexity is therefore refuted!

The most simple (but probably the most difficult to refute) is:
creatures of a certain size do not need a circulatory system. Above a certain size, you do. So below that size, there is no evolutionary advantage to a circulatory system, much less the components of a circulatory system, so a mutation that produced a few wouldn't survive to combine in a fully developed circulatory system that would allow creatures to grow bigger.
Plus, there are zero examples of any transition animal for circulatory systems.

2) Genetic science tells us that nothing can be passed on to offspring that wasn't already present in the genes. Even at the most liberal estimates, the world isn't old enough for random mutation from background radiation to have resulted in the ecosystem we see. If evolution were possible, then so would most of the Marvel Universe (X-men, cosmic rays causing mutations that result in Invisible Girl, Johnny Torch, etc)

There are more, but I don't to humiliate the evolutionists.

BarryD said...

Creationists are dumb, no matter what their religion.

So is Andy.

Can't we all just get along?

TMink said...

Freder wrote: "There are no clear weaknesses in evolutionary theory"

There are indeed clear weaknesses in evolutionary theory. The critiques come from non-Christian scientists. You need to become familiar with those (mathematical, the paucity of the fossil record, mechanical) to not look, well, so comically uninformed.

Trey

EMD said...

By the way, can we get a thread about how Chick-fil-A has caved?

Get your own damned blog and you can talk about irrelevant fast food chicken all you want.

Shouting Thomas said...

By the way, can we get a thread about how Chick-fil-A has caved? As long as we're mocking dumb Christians, we might as well mock the Christian bigots as well.

You're a dumb twat, Andy!

CJinPA said...

I saw the headline of this post just as I finished watching the Hitchens video below (and a related video on the Muslim Cartoon Riots.)

Christian believers will get right on with bombing the Slate building as soon as they finish stocking the pantry in the homeless soup kitchen.

Bob Ellison said...

Andy R. seems to be referring to this statement.

Shouting Thomas said...

So that fucking asshole, Andy, is proud of this kind of Stalinist thought police action.

Jesus, what a fucking idiot!

Dante said...

This is a problem for evolutionary theory. It is demonstrably probable, but it is not provable. The difference is crucial, and creationist wackos keep hitting that drum.

Science only has models. None of it can be proved, and probably all of it is inaccurate.

Bob Ellison said...

Nathan Alexander and TMink, evolutionary theory is complex, interesting, and scientifically sound, and it has predictive power. You look foolish when you criticize it.

Try, instead, to correct it. Don't be the idiots you appear to be.

Rabel said...

From the article:
"This isn’t about science. It’s about marketing."

Aspiring author and amateur paleontologist Brian Switek manages to get published in Slate by wrapping his area of interest in a swipe at creationists/ Christians.

I wonder if he was smiling when he wrote that line?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Will the sheriffs be stopping by Slates offices at midnight?

traditionalguy said...

Educated Christians need never defender the rediculous new earth fundies, who function as convenient straw men to be knocked down by a Clarence Darrow ove rand over in the superiority of science to scriptures lesson of the Darwinists.

The Earth was here and so were many life forms created from Cambrian explosion forward. So what?

The Genesis account is about the recent creation of the new species named for Adam. That time is to geologic time as the thickness of a sheet of paper is to the height of the Empire State Building.

phx said...

Jurassic Park would've sucked if T. Rex had been all fluffy.

That made me laff. You rightwingers should make me laff more.

jdniner said...

Evolution is scientific theory it is falsifiable. Darwin negated a lot of his own research. The theory though will most likely evolve not thrown out and replace by intelligent design as advocated by young earth creationists. Intelligence design as advocated by young earth creationists has been thoroughly refuted by science. People stick with it because of faith while they pretend to reason and argue.

My belief is that there is a intelligent design to the universe which is supported by science in jungian psychology and quantum mechanics. But it is a belief. Science has to reach into a belief in observation of the unknown. From that effort scientists are not much different than the faithful. And often act out even worse when their beliefs are questioned. human nature.

phx said...

Get your own damned blog and you can talk about irrelevant fast food chicken all you want.

Fast food chickens are related to the dinosaurs. Tastes like Stegasaurus.

edutcher said...

And here I thought the Bible only talked about the birds and the beasts of the field.

Nothing about dinos.

Freder Frederson said...

What exactly is a "religionist"? You seem to be equating religionist with young-earth creationists and evolution deniers. Both groups deserve to be taunted because their beliefs are factually wrong.

that would fly better if evolution wasn't so full of holes and archeologists have found more than a little evidence the Bible was right about some things.

Andy R. said...

Creationists are dumb and should be made fun of. If this makes them feel bad, they should reconsider their dumb beliefs.

Let's all pass the hat (no pun) so we can send Hatman over to Libya and Tunisia and he can tell all the creationists there how "dumb" they are.

Who wants to pick up the flowers for the funeral?

wef said...

But it is fun to taunt superstitious dupes. So I will take the opportunity.

Now it might be imprudent to taunt them. Let sleeping dogs lie. Don't stir up a hornets nest. And so on. But it's often an amusing pastime to poke fun at those who are (as someone famous and dead said) cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation.

A better argument is that such taunting also could be cruel - like taunting the mentally subnormal. It would be low and mean to make fun of those who are otherwise peaceful and docile, but so deeply stupid or so unable to reason scientifically that they really, truly believe in revelations, angels, resurrections, eternal souls and other silly things like the laws of nature respond to prayers and incantations.

Real creationists are so few and far between - and they fall usually into the category of those one would not want to taunt because it would be cruel. And besides, the feathers and dinosaur combo would not seem to me to be an obstacle to anyone who is committed to creationism.

(By the way, for those who follow the intelligent design debate - the rigorous, mathematical and philosophical speculations - you know that it is sometimes fun to taunt those faithful, evangelical atheists who don't quite understand the deeper questions that hide beneath natural selection and Evolution. Just watch the head scratching if this year's medicine Nobel is awarded to the epigenetists.)

Freder Frederson said...

archeologists have found more than a little evidence the Bible was right about some things.

For example? And there is no evidence, in fact abundant contrary evidence, that either of the two contradictory creation myths in Genesis have any basis in fact.

Cedarford said...

These are tough times for Fundies.

Fossils of feathered dinosaurs are just one of several hundred shovelfuls of dirt that the 19th, 20th, and now 21st century have thrown on the literal belief in the Jewish fairy tales that made it into the Bible...or the collection of silly myths in the other "Good Book of the Pure Truth of Things - The Qu'ran" .

Creationism, the Flood, the Red Sea Parting, Jews even spending time in Egypt...all thrown in great doubt or scientifically disproved.
Even the divinity of Jesus...as God's ONLY SON sent to die on an insignificant little flyspeck in the tillions times trillions times trillions of locales the universe. Which Hubble has expanded our understanding of the awesome vastness of. Is now in doubt. A vast universe that other tools of cosmological exploration have shown no sign of intelligent design, or a Creator.

A vast universe that is for the most part, exceptionally hostile to a bag of water and weak carbon bonds that can only exist in a narrow temperature range protected inside a shield from the universe bathed in ionizing radiation.

Fossils themselves are, while still important since they were the 1st physical evidence and widely studied..fading in understanding evolution next to DNA, mutation clocks, computer analysis of cell structures and other basic structures that have evolved as different species are brought into being.

jdniner said...

One theory I like is that the super conciousness of humanity is recent. We moved out of the animal stage when we started tuning into a higher form of being. This is what genesis describes. The planet was there for billions of years, but life evolved slowly into self consciousness. We are still primitively sorting that out. EG gay marriage. The gay conundrum is the result of holding onto an emotional past and incarnating in the present life. There is only the now, the present. The gay past life represents an unconscious jungian polarity. It is part of experience, part of God, but still represents a movement against a natural inclination to procreate the species and evolve. Letting go of that deep past and getting fully into the now will move a person in the right direction of love.

Chip Ahoy said...

Why is Cedarford being trashed? What he said makes sense. Yes that is racist and harsh and it also shows when you're looking for ignorant fuckage to poke fun at and to antagonistically smear larger groups you have your own right there already neatly packaged and labeled.

Cedarford, I have always appreciated your angle.

Christopher in MA said...

antiphone said...

It's quite easy to play brave, clear-eyed, rationalist seeker of the truth in America. Your act wouldn't last very long in a number of other countries

Neither would yours.


Care to elaborate? Or is that just a drive-by smear?

Shouting Thomas said...

These are tough times for Fundies.

You left out the "ist!"

Fundyist.

If you're going to be a fucking idiot, go in all the way.

phx said...

And here I thought the Bible only talked about the birds and the beasts of the field.

Nothing about dinos.


Why is that? I wonder why that would possibly be?

edutcher said...

Freder Frederson said...

archeologists have found more than a little evidence the Bible was right about some things.

For example? And there is no evidence, in fact abundant contrary evidence, that either of the two contradictory creation myths in Genesis have any basis in fact.


OK, how about evidence life began in the mud?

As God made Adam from the clay?

Stuff like that.

PS Having seen some on the History channel, I can advance the opinion the creationists come across as a lot better educated and versed in their field than many of the evolutionists here.

Calypso Facto said...

A T-Rex would gain 1300lbs a year. Tastes like chicken.

Next best thing to your plan to grow chix nuggets directly, bago: economies of scale!

Nathan Alexander said...

Bob Ellison,
I respect your opinion on many other matters.

But:
Nathan Alexander and TMink, evolutionary theory is complex, interesting, and scientifically sound, and it has predictive power. You look foolish when you criticize it.

I agree that evolutionary theory is complex and interesting, and quite probably is scientifically sound.

But predictive power is nonsense. On an evolutionary scale, 100 to 200 years isn't enough to see a new species emerge, and in fact: we haven't seen any new species spontaneously emerge.

It may be predictive in 1000 years. If my notions of health medicine advances turn out to be correct, we may be around to see it.

But when I bring up two good examples of problems with evolution, your reaction is to just dismiss them?

Is that scientific?

Two paragraphs of good logic should be enough to refute, if it is possible to refute at all.

Occam's Razor and all that.

But if you really think you need 10 pages to refute the two simple points, please provide a link to a refutation that doesn't end up with circular assumptions: "evolution is true because everything we see is the result of evolution, so therefore evolution is true."

Which is what every refutation of challenges to evolution turn out to be, in my experience: scientific people using scientific jargon to try and confuse laymen.

Show the math, or shut up.

Andy R. said...

Show the math, or shut up.

Most smart people have realized by now that creationists are too dumb to argue with. So creationists get ignored, and they stamp their feet and whine and tug on scientist's shirt sleeves and demand people pay them attention. It's funny and sad all at the same time.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

Andy R. said...
By the way, can we get a thread about how Chick-fil-A has caved? As long as we're mocking dumb Christians, we might as well mock the Christian bigots as well.



I'm trying to decide if your total lack of self awareness is incredibly funny or unbearably sad.
Right now I'm leaning toward funny, but I'd pay money to be there when the little light bulb goes on. If it ever does.

antiphone said...


Care to elaborate? Or is that just a drive-by smear?

Can't you figure it out? Read your comment at the top of the thread. Have you been spoiled by too much freedom of speech?

furious_a said...

C4: Jews even spending time in Egypt...

Scientific research explains how the Ten Plagues of Egypt may have actually happened.

And the 'parting of the waters' may have a meteorological basis.

Saint Croix said...

Notice how we can't focus on the feathers? Nobody gives a fuck about feathers.

If we tar-and-feather Slate fuckwits, that would be blogworthy.

We tar-and-feather them, and then they get a visit from the brownshirts for pissing us off.

I might go religious nut just for funsies.

Chip Ahoy said...

on the literal belief in the Jewish fairy tales that made it into the Bible

Even there, that sounds antagonistic but it's not. That's how literature was collected. But they were not fairy tales, that part is antagonistic, they were the oral tradition passed down from centuries that attempted to make sense of the world. The Jews wrote that down. They were very serious people. They captured for us the oral traditions of the day, kept the best of it, and organized that and argued about it, reorganized that and reorganized their reorganization. They were really the only people on earth with a truly serious religion. All the other peoples had religions, of course, and they were serious about it, of course, but nothing that matched the Hebrew people, those people were serious. Speaking of evolution, the Bible does show the development of man's understand of God, from beginning to end you see the relationship between humanity and deity develop. Except the very end, leave out Revelations, that's anomalous. It was a mistake. Nobody gets that. Comparatively, the other religions were idol worship and often had licentious elements to them.

AndyN said...

Freder Frederson said...

The vast (VAST) majority of creationist believe in evolution.

This statement is an oxymoron. By definition creationists do not believe in evolution.


And yet the forward to second edition of On the Origin of Species contained a quote from a theologian explaining why his belief in creationism doesn't preclude evolution. It's almost as if you don't have a clue what people who don't agree with you think.

Bob Ellison said...

Nathan Alexander, thank you for your polite response.

"Which is what every refutation of challenges to evolution turn out to be, in my experience: scientific people using scientific jargon to try and confuse laymen."

This betrays the problem. "I don't know what you mean" is not an argument. I don't think what I said was hard to understand. Did you fail to understand it? What jargon did I use? Is jargon proof of bullshit?

Creationists tend to use the opposite argument: "It's just a theory, so it's not the truth." That is also not an argument, because, as Dante said above, science is all models. Get over it.

n.n said...

Evolution as a description of origin is used as a prop to mock people with an alternate faith. Neither has a scientific basis. Both are philosophical constructs derived from articles of faith.

Curiously, evolutionary principles are simply inconvenient, yet inviolable truths. I suppose perspective is the distinguishing characteristic of each faith.

While we may not observe the emergence of a new species in our lifetime, we will witness the consequences of normalizing behaviors which are antithetical to evolutionary fitness. They will become painfully obvious after just a few succeeding generations. However, throughout, individuals who possess better judgment will subordinate our culture with their own, and, eventually, will complete replace it and us.

It's funny how little evolutionary principles matter to people. While the eternal conflict between competing faiths garners an incredible emotional response.

Nathan Alexander said...

This betrays the problem. "I don't know what you mean" is not an argument. I don't think what I said was hard to understand. Did you fail to understand it? What jargon did I use? Is jargon proof of bullshit?

I understand fuzzy logic.
Before I even finished my bachelor's degree, I took a Master's level test in Electrical Engineering, got an A, and the instructor said I understood algorithms better than his doctoral students.

I was a National Merit Scholar.

I qualify for the Triple9 society.

It's safe to say an inability to understand science/math on my part is not the problem.

So show the math on how the array of species we see today could be the product of random mutation + natural selection within the time frame of life on the planet since the dinosaurs disappeared.

Or else that is a tacit admission that your belief in evolution is every bit as faith-based as a Creationists.

That goes triple for you Andy R. If you can't explain it, you are just bandwagoning concepts you cannot comprehend, like a dog thinking he is a master of transport technology because he can ride in the back of a truck.

Alex said...

I agree in mocking creationists.

n.n said...

Bob Ellison:

Evolution as a description of origin can neither be tested nor reproduced, which is certainly true for human beings. For anything other than simple lifeforms with short life-cycles, it is unlikely we will ever witness the origin of a new species.

Perhaps the validity of this theory depends on how we define "species."

In any case, the various theories purporting to explain the origin of human beings are actually philosophical constructs derived from emergent patterns observed in physical and historical evidence, coupled with creative manipulation. One or both may be true, simultaneously. It is not within the scientific domain to either confirm or deny them.

On the other hand, evolutionary principles can be observed, reproduced, and tested; and, they establish and enforce largely inconvenient constraints on many if not most people, both men and women. This is probably why more time is allocated to discussing the philosophical props than the scientific facts.

Nathan Alexander said...

All that being said:
Survival of the fittest?

Makes perfect sense.

Creatures adapting to fill ecological niches?

No question or doubt.

Many of the basics propping up Evolutionary Theory make sense.

The math doesn't work when taken as a macro theory.

Bob Ellison said...

Nathan Alexander:

"Or else that is a tacit admission that your belief in evolution is every bit as faith-based as a Creationists."

OK, I'll go for that. I'm faith-based, even though I'm not aware of the faith on which it's based, except for science and logic and common sense. But good. I'll sign on the dotted line.

Bob Ellison said...

Oh, and Nathan Alexander, I have a ribbon for second-place in my elementary school shot-put competition from fourth grade. I have the ribbon!

Chip Ahoy said...

But really, though, do creationist really exist? Because if they do, then that's really fucking stupid.

Christopher in MA said...

Can't you figure it out? Read your comment at the top of the thread. Have you been spoiled by too much freedom of speech?

I see the concept known as a "joke" is foreign to you.

David R. Graham said...

An ugly growl ripples along the line from end to end. Counter-attack is in the air, deeply desired.

Lawyers to the front. Mothers and young people to the flanks. Farmers and industrialists make rolling barrage and cover. Professional and skilled workers in reserve, ready to exploit the enemy's logistics. Retirees make air and ground support.

The hinge in the line of the attacking force is the overlap between the international eliminationist left and the international mullah minions. Rustle their flanks then hit that hinge, excite it into a frenzy, and the line will split open. Then roll up both parts and deliver their remnants to humiliation.

Spengler is right, All-Out Middle East War is as Good as it Gets.

Jump off 0400 Eastern US Sunday 23 September 2012.

Freeman Hunt said...

My husband and I once thought it would be funny to make a YouTube video mocking evolution. We believe in evolution, but we also like funny things.

A man would say something like, "So you're telling me, I just take, say, this bag of trash here, and leave it outside, and in 10,000 years a dog tears out of it?" Here there would be footage or an animation of a dog leaping out of a trash bag, shaking its head the way dogs do, and trotting off. Then the man would continue, "That's stupid!"

We found this uproariously funny. I am laughing about it even now.

As for the evolution debate, it always seems like most of the people debating it on both sides have no idea what they're talking about, so rather than add to that, I'll leave them to it.

Saint Croix said...

I'm faith-based, even though I'm not aware of the faith on which it's based, except for science and logic and common sense.

Atheists routinely deny any evidence--or even discussion--about intelligent design. That's not science, it's political and/or legal fear. And the conceit that atheists are not emotional about their own belief is quite annoying to the rest of us. If you're going to be a scientist, you have to be honest. And focus on facts.

Journalists get into similar trouble. When you get away from facts and start getting into ideas/ideology, that's when you lose your monopoly on truth.

And disguising ideology as "science" (or "journalism") bugs the shit out of people who do not share your ideology.

Two obvious examples of secular people being rather fanatical about their "science" is global warming and the gay gene.

Christopher in MA said...

Most smart people have realized by now that many gay rights advocates are too self-absorbed in their martyrology to argue with. So they get ignored, and they stamp their feet and whine and tug on people's shirt sleeves and demand people celebrate their lifestyle. It's funny and sad all at the same time.

Sometimes, Hat, I don't know whether you're throwing silliness out for the sake of argument or whether you really are unfamiliar with the object known as a mirror.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Show the math, or shut up.

Most smart people have realized by now that creationists are too dumb to argue with. So creationists get ignored, and they stamp their feet and whine and tug on scientist's shirt sleeves and demand people pay them attention. It's funny and sad all at the same time.


Then it should be no problem to show the math.

There are plenty of Conservative atheists and agnostics here who will be happy to check your work.

Andy R. said...

Then it should be no problem to show the math.

Here. Knock yourself out.

Lyle said...

I know what Slate needs... a good Molotov cocktail.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Bob Ellison,
even though I'm not aware of the faith on which it's based, except for science and logic and common sense.

The "faith-based" part is that you have posted 3 comments without even taking a half-hearted attempt to refute the 2 points I brought up.

Not even a link.

So even though you claim to base your reasoning on math, science, and common sense, I begin to suspect that you don't understand the concepts enough to argue anything about it.

Thus, you are accepting someone else's insistence that the math, science, and common sense make sense. You understand it when explained, but you seem to be unable to take the next step of comprehension and explain it to someone else.

You are accepting an argument based on someone else's authority.

That's fine, and not an insult: I can't reproduce a silicon chip for a computer, and so I accept that there are other knowledgeable that can.

But we aren't arguing about silicon chip construction.

So you trust your "high priests" (the scientists you listen to), believing that they can't be wrong on this issue, because it fits with what you understand of the world (the "common sense" you cite, which, based on the history of mankind, is neither common nor sense most of the time).

That's where it is faith-based.

I don't feel you are disparaging me, and I hope you don't feel I am disparaging you.

But if you are going to push back on my statement, you should bring the math.

It isn't scientific to expect me to just take your word for it because you trust a scientist.

David said...

Feathers!

It bad enough that they existed. Were they gay too?

Cedarford said...

C4: Jews even spending time in Egypt...

Scientific research explains how the Ten Plagues of Egypt may have actually happened.

And the 'parting of the waters' may have a meteorological basis.

===============
I am skeptical of that. I am skeptical of Jesus being divine and God's only son he let die in a meaningless little flyspeck in the universe.
But while I will argue it, or the drivel about how Allah had the Prophet ascend from Jerusalem on white steed on a beam of light....I do not mock Fundies or Muslims for fun.
In in the hatred certain Jews and gays show in their mocking of Muslims or Christians..

And in the middle if this, there is politics in liberals and progressive Jews relentlessly trashing the opposition as ignorant in certain demographic groupings......while insisting that mockery in return against there own certain demographic groups with ample evidence of ignorance, low attainment, lower than average IQ's, or lack of any real science or engineering involvement in their lives is RACIST! BIGOTED! BASHING THE HERO TEACHERS WHO NURTURE THE CHILDREN!!

Objectively, if you took 100 white Christian Fundies and 100 black South Chicago denizens and put them to 3 different tasks...

1. Fix a broken car.
2. Budget, prepare food for, and cook a picnic up for your 100 Fundie pals or black comrades.
3. Field a basketball team.

1. The white Fundies would get the car running. The blacks would be unlikely to get their car running, there would be fights and perhaps even gunplay over who was to blame, and unless the government came in at the last minute and gave them free hispanic mechanics they'd still have a broken car.

2. The whites would get the food bought within budget...prepared...and still have time to sing Jesus songs over their bland food.
The blacks would blow the budget on beer, shrimp and chips..while the men would drink the beer and eat the chips while yelling at the women doing the work that it was unfair the ho's were only cooking shrimp while whitey had chicken, ribs, hamburgers, potato salad and all sorts of fixin's they were washing down with lemonade.

3. The black basketball team would dust the Fundies.
However, only 5 black men, who intimidated other black men from playing, would get the right to play. And they would argue which of the 5 was the Real Superstar...with possible gunplay or fistfighting due to who dissed who.
The whites would try to let everyone play, try to have a good time while losing...then clear out before the black fighting started.

bagoh20 said...

"What is the evolutionist argument for homosexuality?"

A congenital anomaly, like cleft pallet or club foot. Neither is likely to improve the chances of reproducing, yet they keep recurring???

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Man's understanding of our world is evolutionary.

That recently it has been discovered that certain dinos had feathers should not come as a shock.

I don't see this as proof that strict evolutionists are right. It means we still don't have the entire picture, and that we may never due to forensic limitations and so forth.

I think there is room for opinions that involve intelligent design as well as evolution. If you must be right, your task either way is a daunting one.

Saint Croix said...

Science only has models. None of it can be proved, and probably all of it is inaccurate.

What the fuck?

science is all models. Get over it.

I'm not driving over your bridge.



Lem said...

Creationists are dumb and should be made fun of. If this makes them feel bad, they should reconsider their dumb beliefs.

If God is all powerful and created everything... surely a feathered dinosaur is not beyond the realm of his power... isn't it?... logically speaking... follow the logic... I realise that might be too hard.

What if God uses evolution to create? I mean, even Bob Ross is always saying (I'm paraphrasing) "just do it the way you feel comfortable, you don't have to do it the way I do it, just as long as you have fun".

Omniscient, Omnipresent, and the omni with the power slips my mind right now... as it seems to have some of you too.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Of course feathered dinosaurs drive creationists crazy. They tickle.

bagoh20 said...

C4,
I was there that day. It went down exactly like that. You were that guy that got beat up. We told you to just eat the potato salad and be quiet, but you wouldn't shut up with shit - you kept going. Anyway, I'm glad you made it home OK.

phx said...

A congenital anomaly, like cleft pallet or club foot. Neither is likely to improve the chances of reproducing, yet they keep recurring???

Nice.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Lem

Bob Ross is dead.

Where in the world have you seen Bob Ross?

Do you have Bob Ross art videos?

He can't be on public access TV anymore...can he???

Saint Croix said...

That's what science needs, deconstruction. In the name of Marx!

This is how we get people saying that gay people are breeding. Like rabbits!

There actually is a reality. It's worthy of study. We might call that science. (Or journalism!) But when you impose your ideas on the world--and ignore any facts that get in the way--then you are not actually a scientist. Or a journalist.

furious_a said...

AndyR: ...that someone hurt their fee-fees?

Sullivanists always have to bring up their private parts.

Smilin' Jack said...

As for the evolution debate, it always seems like most of the people debating it on both sides have no idea what they're talking about, so rather than add to that, I'll leave them to it.

Amen. Show me someone debating evolution, on either side, and I'll show you an idiot.

Cedarford said...

Chip Ahoy said...
on the literal belief in the Jewish fairy tales that made it into the Bible

Even there, that sounds antagonistic but it's not. That's how literature was collected. But they were not fairy tales, that part is antagonistic, they were the oral tradition passed down from centuries that attempted to make sense of the world. The Jews wrote that down. They were very serious people.
================
I agree. The Jews were serious people in a primitive existence 2-4,000 years ago who were trying to make the best sense possible of the world with the limited tools and understanding of things they had at the time.
So were the Mayans and Aztecs...more recent, another sort of serious peoples in which faith was also life or death - trying to gain a better existence by a different belief set.
Or the Arabian peninsula nomads - who took in whatever local or nearby religion had things they liked...set into stories by storytellers that later became Prophets until the last, and greatest storyteller and prophet..Also serious people.

The problem sort of came when sets of holy books were given to people that were for the most part illiterate and without any other book to judge the Holy junk against.
It was easy for them to elevate the words of story tellers into higher and higher importance until the words became the words of God himself..true in every Fundamental way. Various tall tales the story tellers inserted to make their stories more interesting over tribal fires and wedding feasts or Aztec human sacrifice ceremonies became miracles..that tribesmen believed actually happened.
In a sense, both the Christian and Muslim Fundies are relics of past times.
We did the world a favor and wiped out the Aztec Fundies, so at least they are not in the conversation today.

Cedarford said...

bagoh20 said...
C4,
I was there that day. It went down exactly like that. You were that guy that got beat up. We told you to just eat the potato salad and be quiet, but you wouldn't shut up with shit - you kept going. Anyway, I'm glad you made it home OK.

================
That could well be true if any of the white Fundies were dumb enough to be laughing at and ridiculing the blacks fucking up.
A lesson perhaps to those who think it is great sport to laugh in the face of Muslims and find Muslims react like black thugs would...discretion makes more sense than insisting on your right to free speech to incite...

antiphone said...

I see the concept known as a "joke" is foreign to you.

You can explain all that to Homeland Security.


wef said...

Chip, while I agree with the general thrust of your remarks on Jewish "fairy tales," I think you are claiming way too much when you say, They were really the only people on earth with a truly serious religion. The influence of the religious-philosophical traditions of the Zoroastrians and others appears to predate Judaism as we know it. Jainism is old, old and subtle. Buddha. The Greek religio-philosophical tradition was way more "rational" than old Judaism, and likely influenced it heavily after the Alexander eruption. Even the super-old Egyptian polytheism was evidently very thoughtful. And then there was the Aten cult.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...

Genesis timeline:

Day 1: Fiat Lux -- elements created.
Day 2: Planetary bodies coalesce out of the primordial cloud.
Day 3: Land masses emerge from primordial oceans. Land-based lant life. (without photosynthesis?)
Day 4: Stellar bodies populate the heavens. (light from Day 1? see also 'Day 3')
Day 5: Sea-based life and birds. (flying fish?)
Day 6: Land-based life. Man, dominion, etc.
Day 7: All good.

Move 'Day 4' ahead of 'Day 3' and they might have something.

Lem said...

Bob Ross is alive on DVD.

furious_a said...

C4: That could well be true if any of the white Fundies were dumb enough to be laughing at and ridiculing the blacks fucking up.

The White Fundie team would be sharing the ball.

furious_a said...

C4: and find Muslims react like black thugs would...

Was Danny Pearl's execution video produced by the Crips?

bagoh20 said...

Bagoh20:" A congenital anomaly, like cleft pallet or club foot. Neither is likely to improve the chances of reproducing, yet they keep recurring???"

Phx: "Nice."

I'm serious. I'm not suggesting it's an ugly deformity, but that it occurs in the same way. Thus it gets around evolution - never being selected one way or the other.

Still butt hurt?

Freder Frederson said...

The "faith-based" part is that you have posted 3 comments without even taking a half-hearted attempt to refute the 2 points I brought up.

Here and your second point is simply not true. 4.6 billion years is plenty of time for evolution to occur.

Dust Bunny Queen said...


Are dumb religious people ever going to stop complaining that someone hurt their fee-fees?


Are homosexuals ever going to stop whining that people don't accept their unnatural lifestyle?

See....we can all play this game.

Andy R. said...

Are homosexuals ever going to stop whining that people don't accept their unnatural lifestyle?

Gay people in this country are fighting for legal equality.

bagoh20 said...

" 4.6 billion years is plenty of time for evolution to occur."

Maybe, but multi-celluar didn't begin until 1.5 billion Years ago, and vertebrates less than 500 million years ago.
It's a lot of time, but considering all the species that have come and gone, evolution as a natural random process is an incredible thing to believe. I do believe it, possible, but the the idea of it being directed is easier to fathom.

Saint Croix said...

A congenital anomaly, like cleft pallet or club foot. Neither is likely to improve the chances of reproducing, yet they keep recurring???

Okay, several points.

#1 If homosexuality is a genetic defect, we should be able to spot it. We should be able to identify the gay babies. We can't do that. Nor can we identify the promiscuous babies, the celibate babies, the S&M babies or the transvestite babies. This suggests that sexuality is a free choice that people make.

#2 Of course sexuality is also biological, since sex is how human beings reproduce. But this is heterosexual sex, a.k.a. normal sex. Non-reproducing sex is abnormal sex, from a biological perspective. This is not a moral critique (celibate people die out too!) but rather a biological one. Nature wants us to have children, to keep our species going. If you focus on Darwin, you prize heterosexuality, breeding, and having children.

#3 The "gay gene" theory was put forth for political purposes, to achieve equality for gay people. It's always been really crappy science--or no science at all. When you get into discussing the science, you suddenly find yourself arguing that gay people have a defective gene. Now we're saying they're handicapped and abnormal. That's unlikely to help in the quest for political equality. Thinking about the science makes you consider the importance of reproduction. Which of course makes you think of the importance of heterosexuality, which defeats the whole purpose of gay equality.

#4 Saying homosexuality is a genetic defect opens some ugly doors. Now we're talking about genetics causing behavior. It destroys the idea of free will, which is the basis of criminal law and is a foundation of our belief in human equality. We are all responsible for what we do, because we have free will. But if genetics causes behavior, now we can punish people for existing. Those gay babies are bad! They're not going to reproduce anyway. Why not terminate them? Christians object to all of this. We object to the attack on free will and to the attack on human equality. And we deplore the idea that human beings are just another animal and we should talk about ourselves like we're an animal.

#5 Many gay people feel that Christianity is hostile to them (see Andy, any thread). And yet true Christianity is only concerned with sin. It does not define homosexuals as sub-human, or biologically deficient, or anything else. We view all human beings as damaged and sinners.

Not that I speak for Christianity, but that's what I heard...

Saint Croix said...

Also, I really like hot lesbians.

Nomennovum said...

"Gay people in this country are fighting for legal equality."


You mean marriage and I call bullshit. They are fighting (as leftists are always doing) for something else, I think.

They are certainly fighting to change (destroy?) current Western culture, but marriage, if it is a right (and I don't think it is), is a right with no significant benefits, other than religious ones. I tend to think you would disparage such religious benefits. Your feminist allies certainly have made marriage a net economic detriment -- to men, at least. About 25% of commenters here may agree.

bagoh20 said...

Saint Croix,

I relate it to a "genetic defect" not to insult, but because I think there is a genetic disposition, and being non-reproductive is almost by definition a defect (I have no kids, so that includes me).

I can't help but notice that it is usually not a choice consciously made. Most gays I have known since childhood were obviously different from a very early age. It's rarely a surprise to learn that a certain childhood friend grew up to be gay. You can go through a high school yearbook, and with much higher than random chance pick them out just from a head shot. There is something there.

Pastafarian said...

Jesus, there sure is a whole lot of name-calling going on, when we're supposed to be talking about biology.

How about a calm, rational discussion?

TMink: "Your beliefs also posit the view that the closed system of the universe grew more complex all on its own, going from a state of chaos to meticulous order. This violates the second law of thermodynamics, or entropy."

I'm not a biologist; but I know a little bit about physics. Systems can become locally more ordered, if that order is offset by increased disorder in other parts of the closed system.

It's also debatable whether the very messy and wasteful process of natural selection is really even a local decrease in randomness. We see something breath-taking and awe-inspiring, like a hawk, say, and that's counterintuitive, though.

Do you remember those little games for children, that consisted of a closed case of little ball bearings with dimples in the base, with those dimples forming a pattern? It had a clear plastic top to contain the balls. The idea would be that if you carefully tilted it back and forth, you could get the balls to drop into those dimples and make a picture of a fish.

Now, if you randomly tilted that back and forth, you'd eventually get them to drop into those slots too. And as you do that, entropy increases, because the balls drop into states of lower potential energy.

And yet a pattern emerges.

Evolution is like that. Sort of.

Nathan Alexander said...

Here and your second point is simply not true. 4.6 billion years is plenty of time for evolution to occur.

Said that man who can't do math.

You just googled "evolution of circulatory system", didn't you?

Because the link has a section mis-labeled with that, but all it contains is a hierarchy, no explanation of how an animal could evolve along the hierarchy.

Fail.

Math portion of the test:
65 million years since dinosaurs died
/8.74 million species currently on the planet
= one new species every 8 years, on average.

Or, if you prefer:
this link says that only about 1 out of every 150 mutations is beneficial. Harmful mutations occur nearly 3 to 1 over beneficial.

Consider the number of mutations you need for an eye to work as it does. Or for a spinal cord with flexible spine to be produced.

Let's say you only need 1000 mutations to end up with a full-functioning eye. I'm betting it is more like 100,000, but let's be generous to you.

So at the rate of 1 to 150, you need 150k mutations before you end up with a fully functioning eye.

For your benefit, let's completely ignore how much more difficult it is that harmful mutations appear nearly 3 times as often...let's assume that harmful mutations all die before passing on genes.

How often does a mutation happen?

Certainly not once/generation.

Stipulate 1/1000 generations. Again, I'm being generous, because it is probably more like 1/100,000.

Now we need to have 150 million generations before we end up with an eye.

Keep in mind, those mutation rates were for bacteria/viruses. Bacteria and viruses mutate quickly/easily because of their simplicity and small size. In large organisms, the mutation rate is less, and mutations are more likely to be harmful in complex systems.

Stipulate you get one generation every year. Probably more than that with one-celled creatures, but far more than 1 year/generation when you get as high up the evolutionary chain as even just salmon. Still, with 150 million generations needed to develop a new organ, you only have time for 23 organs/systems in 3.5 billion years.

That might seem like a lot, but not when you consider that eyes, skeletal structures, musculature, and are only going to come after mobility.

And only after the systems come into full functionality do you have the survival of the fittest resulting in less fit species being replaced.

And that only gets us to "eyes, lungs, extremities, mobility, excretion, musculature, skin, digestive system, skeleton, spine, spinal cord, brain, circulatory system, heating/cooling system, hearing, taste, smell, disease resistance, reproduction, hair, hormones, instincts...all the things all animals share, and most kingdoms have an equivalent of, and that's already 23 systems.

So on top of that, we have to get giraffe necks and tiger stripes and opposable thumbs and verbal communication and pheremones and sex drive and elephant trucks and herbivores vs carnivores vs omnivores vs carrion eaters...

You think 3.5 billion years is plenty?

You can't do math.




Saint Croix said...

It's rarely a surprise to learn that a certain childhood friend grew up to be gay.

It is a surprise if you can pick out the gay babies. I would be shocked. Nobody can do that. No way, no how.

I agree that early psycho-sexual development may predispose people to being gay very early in life. We don't know why that is. Sexuality is very mysterious. We don't understand lots of sexual behaviors.

None of this is science (or if it's science it's very soft, social science). Genetics is hard science. And there's no evidence for that. We spot genetic disorders in babies, yes? We're never going to spot homosexuality in babies. The whole idea is preposterous, I think.

And I hope I'm right. If I'm wrong, and science discovers the gay gene, we'll terminate even more babies than we do now.

Nathan Alexander said...

A note:
Frederson said 4.6 billion years.

But that is since the earth was formed.

Life didn't appear until about 3.5 billion years ago.

The beginning of life is a whole 'nother bag of worms that has nothing to do with evolution.

Now, if you separate out mutation from evolution, then how did the new information get in there? If you don't separate out mutation, you have to explain how the rate of beneficial mutations is higher than anything the 20th century has shown us about the effects of radiation and the biological world's inherent resistance to/rejection of mutation (if you make even minor changes, the offspring are often destroyed as alien, sometimes as part of the gestation process, sometimes after birth...and sometimes even prevents impregnation).

And if anyone wants to discuss the evidence of evolution in bacteria/viruses, please explain the difference between lab experimentation and Intelligent Design. Probably zero daylight there, but I'm open to arguments.

Freder Frederson said...

65 million years since dinosaurs died
/8.74 million species currently on the planet
= one new species every 8 years, on average.


Um, life on the planet didn't restart with the end of the dinosaurs.

Saint Croix said...

We may do this anyway. For instance, start terminating babies with high levels of testosterone. Build designer babies while killing off the undesirables. The whole idea gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Nomennovum said...

Nathan Alexander,

Compelling analysis. How do the evoluntionists account for the math as you laid out?

Nomennovum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nathan Alexander said...

@Bob Ellison,
Final point:
You said I should try to make Evolutionary Theory better.

What do you think challenging orthodoxy does?

I don't reject Evolutionary Theory in favor of ID or creationism, I said that above.

I question/challenge/doubt all the current theories. That's the right scientific approach.

Nomennovum said...

So, intelligent design is the fire and the pot that is held over it. Life is the soup inside the pot on slow boil. The boiling is evolution. Every once in while God gives the pot a stir -- and voila! -- the math works out.



John Lynch said...

Wait until Muslim creationism is the basis for attacking embassies.

Then let's see what Slate says.

Nomennovum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eustace Chilke said...

Creationists are funny. Muslims are funny too but they won't settle for laughing back at the other guys. I wish we had better sense than to be fucking around in the middle east at all and could just let them get on with killing each other so they would ignore us. Let's hope they don't latch onto creationism in a big way and ruin a good joke.

Nathan Alexander said...

Um, life on the planet didn't restart with the end of the dinosaurs.

How many species are holdovers from the dinosaur age?

Even 100,000?

Plants, insects, fish, birds...almost all are new.

So let's say 1 million species are holdovers from the dinosaur age.

That still means one new species every 9 years.

Yay. Huge difference.

I'll even give you half of the species on the planet right now were already here when the dinosaurs walked the earth.

That is still one new species less than every 20 years.

So...?

Nomennovum said...

"We may do this anyway. For instance, start terminating babies with high levels of testosterone. Build designer babies while killing off the undesirables. The whole idea gives me the heebie-jeebies." -- Saint Croix

That movie has already been lready been made: "Gattaca."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Nathan Alexander said...

Compelling analysis. How do the evoluntionists account for the math as you laid out?

Mostly by circular logic. This is the age of the earth, this is all the abundant life on the earth, evolution is a fact, so the favorable mutation rate must have been fast enough!

The less scientific minded say things like "4.6 billion years is plenty of time."

It isn't impossible, of course. But when you apply probability to the problem, it just gets worse.

On the other hand, 1 out of 300 billion still does happen once. We are here typing, after all.

AllenS said...

The reason that God put feathers on dinosaurs is because he has a sense of humor. Nobody at Slate does.

Nathan Alexander said...

Another point:

I referred to my objection as an "irreducible complexity" question, but it occurs to me it really isn't. An Evolutionist called it that, and tried to refute it using irreducible complexity refutations, but my objection really is more of a chicken or the egg argument: you need lungs to grow beyond a certain size, but how will lungs be a favorable mutation if you can't grow big enough to need it?

Has evolution ever actually solved which came first, the chicken or the egg? I've heard evolutionists get in figurative fistfights over what evolution theory "concludes" on that issue.

Big Mike said...

I don't know why creationists should be driven crazy by birds with teeth (Archaeopteryx, Hesperornis, etc.) or dinosaurs with feathers. An omnipotent God can create any fossils he (she?) wants anytime she (he?) wants and anywhere he (she?) wants. Moreover an omnipotent God can arrange it so that no matter what method gets used to date the fossils, the dates come out consistent, but off by tens of millions of years. After all, an omnipotent God can arrange anything -- that's what omnipotence means.

An omnipotent God can even create a fossil human skull inside the fossilized rib cage of an Allosaurus. Why not? Now that would drive a lot of people crazy (not to mention into churches).

But until we find something like that, I think we can stick with evolution.

Big Mike said...

@Nathan, it's the egg. God told me so.

Really.

AllenS said...

God didn't put feathers on all of the dinosaurs, just the gay ones.

Nathan Alexander said...

Another issue closely related to irreducible complexity is that an eye rotating in a socket with lubricating fluid is clearly an advantage over no eyes.

But is a movable eye in a socket really so much of an advantage over an eye whose focus can be shifted with muscles (like, say, your ears wiggling) to an animal with eyes on the sides of its head like a horse?

So much of an advantage that no example of an eye with anything less than a fully formed system survives?

So much so that we can't even see any intermediate stages in the fossil record?

We still have blind animals/fish. So eyes aren't so much of an advantage that those have died out.

So why are virtually all intermediate stages of every complex system in plants and animals and fish all missing...even from the fossil record?

Show the math, please.

jr565 said...

Nathan wrote;
I don't reject Evolutionary Theory in favor of ID or creationism, I said that above.

I question/challenge/doubt all the current theories. That's the right scientific approach.

You're a man after my own heart.

Freeman Hunt said...

Nathan Alexander, over his series of posts, has laid out what is also my current thinking on the issue.

It will be interesting to see what new theories come about regarding the specifics of evolution in the next few decades. There is still much to figure out!

Or we can just go on doing nothing interesting because we have the Received Wisdom and needn't bother. Ho hum.

Nomennovum said...

"On the other hand, 1 out of 300 billion still does happen once." -- Nathan Alexander

Who knows? Maybe it did. Once. A single time in this infinite universe did complex life arise. Maybe it's just another piece of evidence that we are the only ones here.

Are we here all alone on this tiny remote speck by freakish happenstance?

Freeman Hunt said...

God didn't put feathers on all of the dinosaurs, just the gay ones.

Few realize the dinosaurs were wiped out due to hate crimes committed by anti-gay mammals.

Eustace Chilke said...

I'm with the guy who said that when you see someone debating evolution on either side you're looking at a fool. I suppose it's possible someone might engage in it just from the pure enjoyment of polemics. Theories that engineers rely on to build bridges aren't controversial but biology, which doesn't even make sense without evolution, is plagued by Bible flapping buttholes. The whole thing got old to me forty years ago. Please just don't start offering rewards for the death of blasphemers. Keep away from that crapola and we'll get along fine because I will just nod and smile and keep clear of the silly people with a hard on for Darwin.

Nomennovum said...

Eustace,

We'll take your plea under advisement. Thanks.

chickelit said...

So why are virtually all intermediate stages of every complex system in plants and animals and fish all missing...even from the fossil record?

Show the math, please.


Intermediate stages are by nature short-lived and chimerical. Consider for example the evolution of mordern ship design. Sails and more briefly paddlewheels were the normal means of propulsion until screw propellers became the norm. The SS Great Eastern was a chimerical steamship which embodied all three means of propulsion. Here's a picture of her: link. There were very few like her if any compared to the numbers of sailing ships and screw propeller ships "in the fossil record."

Ironically, she too was destroyed--scrapped for her iron.



jr565 said...

chickelit wrote:
Intermediate stages are by nature short-lived and chimerical. Consider for example the evolution of mordern ship design. Sails and more briefly paddlewheels were the normal means of propulsion until screw propellers became the norm. The SS Great Eastern was a chimerical steamship which embodied all three means of propulsion. Here's a picture of her: link. There were very few like her if any compared to the numbers of sailing ships and screw propeller ships "in the fossil record."

Ships are designed, intelligently.

chickelit said...

Ships are designed, intelligently.

Yes but not all at once in one fell swoop.

I was merely answering Nathan's question, semi-quantitatively.

furious_a said...

...to an animal with eyes on the sides of its head like a horse?


Probably something to do with eyes-in-the-front predators needing to triangulate when running down, striking at or throwing things at prey. Eyes-on-the-side favor movement detection (critical for prey animals).

jr565 said...

Evolution of an idea is not the same as macro evolution of a species. A ship doesn't give birth to another ship. A designer, takes ideas and then changes the design for the next ship he would build. There could be no original ship built without the designer, let alone any expansion of ship design.

chickelit said...

Probably something to do with eyes-in-the-front predators needing to triangulate when running down, striking at or throwing things at prey. Eyes-on-the-side favor movement detection (critical for prey animals).

Two eyes in the front enables stereoscopic vision.

Michael K said...

Andy R. said...
"Creationists are dumb and should be made fun of. If this makes them feel bad, they should reconsider their dumb beliefs."

Gayists ?

Buggerists ?

Fudgepackerists ?

Yeah, it's fun.

Nomennovum said...

"Intermediate stages are by nature short-lived and chimerical." -- Chickelit

How do you know?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 245   Newer› Newest»