It’s hard to believe, but there is more information on the absurd board game designed by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.
Cameron said, “We are very excited about this game because it presents both sides of the creation evolution argument, and in doing so, shows that the contemporary theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest hoax of modern times.”
Uh, sure they’re going to show “both sides”: you can get an idea of what they think is the evolution side by the illustrations. There is a frog with bull horns (a bullfrog! Get it? Ha ha.), and a couple of other chimeras whipped up in Photoshop, and unless they’re using them to illustrate what evolution does not predict and what would constitute evidence against evolution—which I doubt—these are examples of utterly bogus creationist arguments, and do not bode well for the intellectual content of the game. Which promised to be pretty much nonexistent, given the identities of the authors.
I wonder if there’s a banana in the game?
When I first read the banana argument, I thought it was the most asinine parody of a Creationist argument I’d ever seen. Then I saw the video, and realized it was for real.
I love how only “evolutionists” use conditional language, and that it makes us wrong! Idiots.
The link at the bottom of the article takes the reader to the “Way of the Master” homepage. The video intro on the site is quite interesting – as they are quite proud of the fact that they use the “powerful process of bypassing the intellect”.
Oh – and they can “finish” the “age old” debate between evolution and ID in just three minutes (actually it says that they can prove that there is a god in three minutes without any reference to faith or the bible).
Given that there’s a landmark court case that strikes down the entire concept of Intelligent Design as Science, isn’t there some kind of libel-analogous law that can be used to shoot this down before it hits shelves?
I mean, let’s face it: the science-front battle of the ID War has been won> – no real, definitive or solid research or publication by the ID side, every “scientific” point Behe put up in court a year ago shot down and now a matter of permanent legal record…
… given that there’s now this piece of legal ammunition in stock, why not use it? I mean, don’t tell me there’s some kind of “artistic protection” clause to use when this thing claims to be discussing matters of actual academic merit… is there?
Well Troff, it’s not as if they’re getting this game introduced into school curricula. If they tried, then there’d be a way to attack it legally. Right now though, it’s just another stupid thing from creationists. And there’s no law against stupid people being stupid, and publishing stupid books and releasing stupid games in which their stupidity is laid bare for the world to see.
The game is actually one more thing for us to mock. I’m hoping to see it turned up used somewhere (no way am I giving one penny to those “way of the master” charlatans).
Cameron said, “We are very excited about this game because it presents both sides of the creation evolution argument, and in doing so, shows that the contemporary theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest hoax of modern times.”
If this continues, I’m afraid I’ll be compelled to give up any aspirations of a research career and devote a temple to the worship of Kirk Cameron. If people can be so stupid as to believe the feigned impartiality that is contradicted no more than a sentence later in the statement, then I might as well make some dough on this religion gig. Why waste energy in a futile attempt to shovel the tide?
I seriously doubt you could stop this game through that means. Anyway, I don’t think anyone should try it. It will just whip up the creationist into claims that they are unfairly discriminated against. Besides, if history is any guide, this game will crash and burn anyway. (On a similar note, I noticed that “Eternal Forces” – that Christian real-time strategy game – got 3.4 out of 10 on a Gamespot review. Reader reviews seemed to back that rating.)
And I thought Alan was Thicke.
Oh, and the first sentence in the gamespot review of Eternal Forces is: “Another good thing about the Rapture is that it will take you away from disastrous, buggy games like Left Behind: Eternal Forces.”
Are there left-handed bananas as well as right-handed ones? Why would god have made people both left- and right-handed and then made bananas for just right-handed people (or do the lefties have to shove the banana in backwards)? This worries me, and I will find it very hard to accept “god” until I have an answer to this problem. If god really did design these things, then the ratio of left-handed to right-handed bananas should be the same as the ratio of left-handed to right-handed people. Is that too much to ask from an omnipotent designer? (signed) marc
Anybody who wants to read some good stuff on the comedy duo of Comfort and Cameron ought to head on over to the Iron Chariots counter-apologetics wiki, where an entry for Way of the Master presents point by point fisking of a couple of the episodes dealing with evolution and atheism. It’s a great site.
“Intelligent Design versus Evolution” also comes with a free award-winning DVD called “The Science of Evolution,” in which Comfort and Cameron take an orangutan to lunch and discuss the theory of evolution.”
I see they are using the same method Anne Coulter used to research her last book.
Does anyone have an email address for Kirk Cameron? I would really like to bitch slap him directly at this point…
they never did answer, if the banana was proof of god’s existence, what, then, is the pineapple.
Originally posted by MartinC:
Hilarious! But wait, isn’t Ann Coulter an orangutan herself?
tribbles: Proof of a vengeful Old Testament God?
I am glad Kirk Cameron finally weighed in on the whole Evolution/ID thing.
Before I make any intellectual decision I always ask myself “What does the guy who who played Mike Seaver on ‘Growing Pains’ think about this?
I’m withholding a position on Global Warming until I find out Tracey Gold thinks about it.
“This is because the average person doesn’t know that the evolutionist lives by a blind faith in an unscientific theory . . .
But Cameron and Comfort know, because they’re way smarter than the average person!
The two sides being “creationism is right” and “evolution is wrong”?
Coin, that is the most pithy description of their stance that I’ve ever seen. Also puts me in mind of the great Blues Brothers line: “What kind of music do you have here?” “Oh, we got both kinds, country and western!”
Wait! The rules are that you have to e mail KIRK first and ask him what he really meant by the game!
Has Screech declared his position on any of this yet?
I wonder how they would react if they found out that the banana was man-made in it’s present form.
Watch this lecture about genetically modified food by Toby Bradshaw at UW and you’ll never look at food the same.
http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2512&fID=1473
That bullfrog image was indeed unimpressive.
I’m waiting for the PYGMIES + DWARFS Photoshop.
Has Screech declared his position on any of this yet?
Posted by: Lago
I believe that he is on the record as professing to having a big banana.
What?
I notice two things they say that are fascinating:
“…the brainwashing of an entire generation.”
IDists, or any religious persuasion should be the last people to accuse any one else of that. Isn’t their mantra “Give me a child from 3 to 8 and I’ll give you a man”?
And:
“…the contemporary theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest hoax of modern times.”
I guess he’ll have to argue with Jim Inhofe about that.
Cameron said, “We are very excited about this game because it presents both sides of the creation evolution argument, and in doing so, shows that the contemporary theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest hoax of modern times.”
Lago,
I think you mean ‘Boner’. Screech was a different show…
No, I didn’t watch too much TV growing up. Why do you ask?
Tsk, tsk, another child star gone wackadoof.
If ever they bring back Celebrity Boxing, they’ll have Camaroon (as in Ma-roon, from Bugs Bunny) going rounds w/some1 like Barry Williams.
My money’s on Williams.
Apologize, right now, for the terrible insult you just did to the entire species Pongo pongo.
Comfort said:
“This game didn’t happen by accident. It was intelligently designed…”
I’m not so sure about that.
Actually a board game that teaches the difference between Intelligent Design and evolution is a really good idea. I’d like to see a version designed by Richard Dawkins and P.Z.
Could we, as progressives, please avoid expressions like “bitch slap”? It must be possible to use expressions without sexist corronations.
Gee people should educate themselves, so we can finally move on to neater things like lets say disputing gravity. The whole evolution argument is a joke, and like saying the sun does not exist even though it supplies us with all energy.
Even their lame ass attempt of photoshopping underwent an evolutionary process.
I think part of the problem with the discussions nowadays is that those who oppose Creationism publicly, do so based on narrow and insufficient worldviews. The whole evolution discussion would be smashed into pieces if biologists etc, were more knowledgeable in other fields like physics and the insight we got throughout the last 100 years, radically changing our worldview.
But i may just be ignorant, and in fact one could not reason with creationists any other way than on the basis of biology.
Could we, as progressives, please avoid expressions like “bitch slap”? It must be possible to use expressions without sexist corronations.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
Get over yourself…
BBCs current program: “Heroes from the past”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/broadband_only/heroes/interviews/
I have had enough of the ID-BS, especially since i am from central Europe where hardly anyone actually has ever heard of ID or creationism for that matter – besides at the university where they are shamelessly bashed (“as the scientific community is more international”)…i wanna ask you whom you would wanna meet.
I would have to say Rosalind Franklin would be my scientists of choice……
Isaac Newton would be too bizarre of a character for me, so if anything my choice would revolve around scientists of the past century. Oh yeah Erwin Schrödinger or Ludwig Boltzman would be high up my list as well with a lot of questions i would like to have answered.
…Lewis Wolpert is interviewed again as well! his textbooks are awesome, and there is someone else whose fav choice would be “Rosi” as well… okay nuff said
Never mind pineapples, what about the durian. That must surely haunt the nightmares of any creationist who encounters it.
BTW… While Ray & Kirk have gained a lot of Internet fame for their argumentum ad bananum, they didn’t come up with it themselves.
I distinctly remember quite a few years ago (possibly early ’90s) seeing two creationists on some TBN show make the exact same argument. I don’t remember who they were, but their show’s set was a backdrop with astronomical photos and a table strewn with scientificalish detritus (rocks, bones, maybe a dinosaur toy or two). Unfortunately, no banana holding demonstrations, but they did cite it as a devastation argument against the evils of Darwin.
I also remember they cited the fact that a person sitting in the back row of a lecture hall was functionally able to hear a speaker speak up front as proof of the divinely created nature of the human ear, apparently since it allowed for the teaching of people about creation in lecture halls.
jpf et al, even if so did anyone ever bring up the argument that this is merely a product of evolution where natural selection is being carried out by certain animals who like bananas, like hmm let`s…phuu….that is tough ….ants?…..
I mean in an argument where creationists did not start to get postal before the other party just came to say banana.
So just like we selected our females to be ever more hairless and beautiful (or according to the alternative theory our prayers were answered ;) ), we selected only the bananas which were most appealing to us. It is only the cultivated bananas that are seedless (…parthenocarpic), whilst of course wild bananas did – sorry must- have seeds. AS NOTHING IN NATURE WHICH MUST COMPETE CAN AFFORD TO WASTE RESOURCES! And with nature i mean the cosmos and any product of it.
Then again the shape of bananas where probably explained long before creationist were even smart enough to recognize it as a fruit, or do they?.
Lago, if a Jew suggested that another verb would be preferable to “jew” in a sentence such as “I jewed the price down,” would you tell that person to “get over” it? Is there any reason to use language that perpetuates stereotypes–sometimes very hateful stereotypes–when other language choices exist that communicate every bit as clearly?
“Lago, if a Jew suggested that another verb would be preferable to “jew” in a sentence such as “I jewed the price down,” would you tell that person to “get over” it? Is there any reason to use language that perpetuates stereotypes–sometimes very hateful stereotypes–when other language choices exist that communicate every bit as clearly?”
Do not tell me how to speak, and/or write. Also, do not make suggestion as to what I meant by what I said that I did not say or imply. Next, do not strawman attach what I said to other issue I have never stated or implied. Finally, do not make claim I am perpetuating a stereotype, for any such belief that I have is in the mind of the observer, and that observer, should, “Get they hell over themselves”.
I’ve always had to concede that the banana is, in many ways, a good example of intelligently design.
Of course, the intelligent design in question comes from thousands of years of selective breeding by humans. Those original God-made bananas were small, full of seeds and nasty-tasting.
lo:
Speaking on the behalf of Al…
I have no clue about the history of banana cultivation (I’m sure much was said on this here back when that video first made the rounds, presumable with cladograms and such), but using it as a hypothetical example, sure, its shape could have been the result of selective breeding by humans, intentional or not.
The problem is, Mike Seaver’s passionate banana thumping not withstanding, the idea that bananas are somehow perfectly or even conveniently shaped for the human hand is purely subjective. Our hands can grasp a wide variety of things and any fruit without spines or too large is just as manually compatible as a banana (and those fruit that are not are the ones we don’t hold, as per the Weak Banopic Principle and the Many Fruit interpretation of Cumquat Mechanics).
How do you know they didn’t select us males to like hairlessness and to find them beautiful? Could we, as evolutionists, please avoid such sexism?
OK – It’s 2007 here in Sydney, so Happy New Year to you all.
(signed) marc
First of all, nobody told you what to say or write – we asked you to refrain from using certain words. Second of all, isn’t a bit ironic that you tell other people that they are not to tell you something?
You used a word that that perpetuates stereotypes. This is what we focused on. Not on whatever you implied with its use. Words carries their own historical and cultural weight, no matter how their users think of them.
Lago, a speaker’s intentions are of course her own, and only she can know for a certainty what they are. Yet regardless of one’s intentions, one can perpetuate a stereotype through one’s choice of words. The gentleman who complimented me for ‘jewing’ down the price of a pumpkin at a farmer’s market was no doubt unconscious of the implications of his words; nevertheless, the verb he chose both reflects and perpetuates the age-old stereotype of the Jew as money-grubber. In that setting, I did not bother to raise the issue; however, one would hope that a polite conversation on the subject of connotation would be possible in this venue. Might I also point out that communication involves both speaker and listener, so a speaker desirous of communicating most effectively might wish to be concerned with how her words are received. Of course, it is one’s prerogative NOT to be concerned, but then one is choosing to forfeit part of one’s audience. Yes, one is free to make such a choice, but does that mean that one cannot simultaneously appreciate that some members of the audience are troubled by the implications of one’s language?
I said: “Do not tell me how to speak, and/or write.”
“”First of all, nobody told you what to say or write – we asked you to refrain from using certain words.””
Um?
“”Second of all, isn’t a bit ironic that you tell other people that they are not to tell you something?””
Why the hell is that ironic? You came in and told me what I should or should not say, not the other way around…
I said “Also, do not make suggestion as to what I meant by what I said that I did not say or imply.”
“”You used a word that that perpetuates stereotypes. This is what we focused on. Not on whatever you implied with its use. Words carries their own historical and cultural weight, no matter how their users think of them.””
What freakin’ sterotype are you even talking about? What meaning have you decided to give this word?
Words work for us, not the other way around. If you feel the word “bitch” perpetuates a sterotype, then fine, do not use the word then if you care not to, but do not freakin’ tell me how to speak, or what words to use when I do. If I say, “Kirk needs a bitch-slap”, and this bothers you, well maybe you need to see someone about explaining to you that you “Need to get the hell over it”.
I found this quite telling about why they are like they are: “18. Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.” (from “101 of the World’s Funniest One Liners”, available in their store) Also check out their “Atheist Test” and “Hey Kids” tracts. Classics. http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=WOTM-TRACT
I found this quite telling about why they are like they are: “18. Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.” (from “101 of the World’s Funniest One Liners”, available in their store) Also check out their “Atheist Test” and “Hey Kids” tracts. Classics. http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=WOTM-TRACT
There is a fabulous resource called a “thesaurus”. It is very useful in finding alternate words to express a thought, and some versions of it are even available online. There really isn’t any censorship as such on this site regarding word choices; you’ll see quite a bit of profanity here and there. However, it tends to be of the equal-opportunity offense type. The phrase “bitch-slap” perpetuates a stereotype regarding approximately half of the audience here, and you were politely asked to refrain from doing so. If you indeed have no idea what “freakin’ stereotype” is being referred to, try looking it up in the Urban Dictionary to find the etymology of the phrase.
Dear Elf, I used the word “bitch” as in to “bitch-slap” Kirk for claiming there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record, and did not use a word like “jewed”, as claims a group of people all share a unique, and not very noble, trait. If you see these two separate issues as the same, I suggest you maybe get a cup of coffee and wipe the sleep out of your eyes.
As to losing part of an audience, I do not care. I am not posting in here to gain an audience. I am simply coming by to see what PZ is bitchin’ about, as in the same thing that make him irritated, also usually irritate me. Watchin’ him bitch away usually makes me feel better for a while…
I also never claimed to be polite. I grew up with fishermen, rock musicians, and drug addicts, and have the personality of a drunken sailor with Tourettes. If you do not like me, fine, but do not lecture me on your self-righteous bull crap. Do not make me your strawman so you can feel good about yourself..
“The phrase “bitch-slap” perpetuates a stereotype regarding approximately half of the audience here, and you were politely asked to refrain from doing so. If you indeed have no idea what “freakin’ stereotype” is being referred to, try looking it up in the Urban Dictionary to find the etymology of the phrase.”
I do not care that you asked me to not use the phrase. I see no sterotype in it, and if you do, well goody for you.
Now, show me how this is a sterotype for half the people here…
I prefer “Stooge Slap” myself, as in the Three Stooges. Line Cameron and Comfort up and use one smooth motion across. I think Moe would be proud.
Living Waters. Hmmm. I just remembered another silly attempt at witnessing that Ray Comfort was doing a few years ago…
At one time Ray Comfort had a porn site.
It was called “lustpleasure.com”, tagline “The hottest site on the net!”
Only it wasn’t really a porn site. If I remember correctly, the front page had silhouettes of presumably naked ladies and some sort of come on to enter the site. It also had lots of hidden, search-engine-baiting porn-centric keywords, including names of porn stars (how did Ray know all these, one wonders…)
But when you entered the site you got proselytizing text (in image form, so search engines wouldn’t discover them and warn would-be porn seekers) telling you about how you are committing the sin of lust and breaking God’s commandments, etc. If you clicked through the pages of text, each one asking you questions trying to steer you into repenting, you eventually ended up on Ray’s Living Waters site.
lustpleasure.com is long gone (if he has another version at a different URL it would be difficult to find since he was intentionally making its true nature undetectable to search engines), but I did find one crusty old reference to it on a site of links to evangelical tracts that hasn’t been updated since 2001.
From the Urban dictionary:
“To open handedley slap someone. Denote disrespect for the person being bitch slapped as they are not worthy of a man sized punch. Suggests the slap was met with little resistance and much whining” and also,
“Contrary to most definitions, the “bitch” is describing the “slap” rather than the destination.”
Also, a bitch-slap, is used generally between males, and NOT male to female, if you are so confused.
Get it?
Lago, the example of the verb ‘jew’ is just that: an example, one meant to serve as an analogy for the phrase “bitch slap.” My use of it does not raise a ‘separate issue’. The issue remains connotation and audience awareness as factors in successful communication. However, you indicate that you are concerned with neither audience nor communication. Fine. My observations therefore have no relevance for you. Might I conclude, however, by pointing out the irony of the fact that you assert that no one can know your intentions while claiming to have insight as to mine, suggesting as you do that I am “self-righteous” and am writing to “feel good about [my]self.” Is this a case of “What’s sauce for the goose NOT being sauce for the gander”?
“they are not worthy of a man sized punch. Suggests the slap was met with little resistance and much whining”
There’s the problem right there: The insult depends upon the notion that the recipient can’t ‘take it like a man’–i.e., is ‘girly’, a quality that is presumptively inferior to being properly ‘masculine’. Yes, one man ‘bitch slaps’ another–to show that the slappee is a whiny, weak woman.
Get it?
Elf, the word “bitch” means female dog” and has been used in numerous ways, some of which have been applied to women in a derogatory manner. The word can be worked around to many different applications, like to bitch, as to mean to bark at someone. This does not mean female, as in it can also be used on males, as in “My boss Bob was bitchin’ at me all day today…”
Now, to be “Jewed” comes from the term “Jew”, that has a root meaning that implies people of a religious, and also, often enough, of a particular ethnic background. This is night and day different, as one is rooted only in a demeaning way towards a group, and the other can be applied in such way, but does not need be. The “jewed” bit, can only be derogatory, and the “bitch” bit, can be many different things…
Um, no Elf, not being a man enough does not imply “girly”. In common terms this generally means they’re a “punk”, not “girly”…
Don’t live in an Urban environment there guy, but still trying to make it so?
For example, from the Urban Dictionary again:
“When you bitch slap someone, you make them a punk.”
Notice it was not, “You make them a girl?”
Well, I got a life to get to, so have fun people..
Yeesh, who the hell invited the Political Correctness police aka the Etymology Squad?
Words only have the power you give them.
Next whiny topic: use of gender-specific pronouns.
“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.”
– Phillip K. Dick.
http://www.primalseeds.org/agricult.htm
How did plants domesticate humans?
From the cultivated plant’s point of view, the active assistance of humans was affording them a competitive advantage. The plants responded by evolving traits that increased their suitability for human cultivation. Plants have evolved many strategies to use animals to disperse their seed more efficiently than wind or water. The seeds of many wild species of plants must pass through an animal’s gut before they can germinate. Some plants are reliant on just one species of animal to disperse their seed.
So maybe some bananas have made a major mistake by evolving to depend on IDiots as their sole means of dispersal?
Well, what do you know, I’ve actually learned something from creationists and IDiots: Quote mining!
Oh, cool! We’re in that fundie world where when one person says whatever the hell they want it’s free speech, but when someone else criticizes them the critical speech is suddenly oppression and censorship. Notice that no one has threatened banning or disemvoweling, no one has claimed you don’t have the right to use any phrase you want, there was simply a request to avoid a particular category of misogynistic words. No need to get all riled up and “Help, help, I’m being oppressed!” about it. Most people do have language they avoid in certain company based on who may be offended. (Most also have language they do not use at all because they realize it’s generally offensive to everyone including themselves, but I don’t want to get too far advanced for you here.) It’s not oppression, it’s courtesy. I bet you’re really fun at family reunions, weddings, funerals, and baptisms if you can’t tell the difference.
Wonder how the disco folks classify this one – is it peer reviewed or peer edited?
To me it seems the people who are saying that using the phrase “bitch slap” is demeaning to women in the same way as the verb “jew” is demeaning to jews are implying that women == bitches, which I find rather odd, for most women aren’t bitches and not all bitches are women. If anything, the phrase is demeaning to bitches, but IMNERHO they’ve really got themselves to blame, much in the same way as pimps do when it comes to pimp slapping.
Also: check out this comic on what words to use instead of “bitch”: http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=824
brtkrbzhnv | December 31, 2006 11:25 AM
Sorry, but the fact is that “bitch slap” has entered the lexicon about as well as “welsh on a bet,” “dutch treat” and many other terms have. They have lost–transcended, if you wish–their original references to race, creed, color, sex, etc., etc., etc.–might have suggested.
Will you all please stop your bitching!
brtkrbzhnv | December 31, 2006 11:25 AM
Oh, and I forgot “paddy (actually patty, for St. Patrick) wagon” referencing the Irish.
Our hands can grasp a wide variety of things and any fruit without spines or too large is just as manually compatible as a banana
Does this mean male masturbation is proof of intelligent design?
Wow. Just wow.
Aside from Cameron and Comfort’s insipid Christianist “cosmology”, their ham-fisted strategy of proselytizing via a {chortle} board-game {snicker}, and their thick-as-a-brick misinterpretation and misappropriation stone-cold facts, one would think they could have, at the very, least shelled out the ducats to get somebody who actually knows how to use Photoshop to design the graphics. If you’re going to waste time making silly chimeras, then at least take the time to do it well.
Daft, arrogant, and cheap is no way to go through life, kiddos.
The Banana video is one of my all time favourites. Years ago I remember hearing or reading about someone who thought White tailed deer were created by Gawd for man because it made them easier to hunt.
I’d really love to see the game but I would have to get it free.
The best part of the press release was the comment that the authors were having lunch with an orangutan and would debate evolution with him. My understanding is that the orangutan’s press people report the orangutan won the debate handily and is now suing the authors for defamation of species.
It’s too late for Christmas, but if you have a birthday coming up, perhaps you can drop a hint in some religious friend’s ear (we do all have friends or family members who are religious, don’t we?) that this would be the perfect gift for you. Sure they’ll spend a few bucks on it, but those are dollars that won’t otherwise go into the Sunday collection basket. It’s zero sum. And you’ll have your very own Intelligent Design versus Evolution game.
Oh, no. I have no religious friends — first mention of Christ and I get all Goodfellas on ’em, don’t you know.
Ah, evangelical Christianity. The ultimate invasive species. (You can witness “witnessing” clips via the linky! What a blast! *Snore*)
Of course, in order to convert, a nonbeliever would have to transition into a believer–kind of like that bullfrog. So, how many transitional converts are there walking around?
What good is half a Christian, Kurt?
(Isn’t this the guy who tried to run his own sitcom into the ground by insisting that his character, being a Christian like himself in real life (I guess Kurt’s not much of an actor?), would never sin, never do this or that, thus almost sucked the life out of the sitcom because there would as a consequence be no interesting problem, and therefore no plot?)
Ah, prudery. The ultimate zebra mussel. No wonder these dorks don’t accept evolution. Most evolution is coevolution, something they’re no good at.
Lets try a little word replacement, shall we?
Still feel like backing up that fucking idiotic line of reasoning, jackass?
Carlie:
Yes, a request that nattered on for quite a bit, nearly hijacking the thread.
Request was made. Request ignored.
I ain’t riled: peeved is a better word.
Any time you want to match advanced concepts, I’m up for it.
I’d bet good money I’m a helluva lot more fun than you are, miss manners.
Mostly because I’m honest, I say what I think, & 99% of the time, I’m clearly not being malicious when I’m kidding around. & yeah, I’m dynamite at social gatherings.
“Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.” – Lenny Bruce
Now STFU.
Eeek! I’m going to STFO of this conversation.
Just watching the Marx Brothers with my sweetie while surfin’ and thought I’d share some other board games. Which are a stitch. Which I hope are jokes.
Jeff, that “Hey Kids” tract was hilarious.
Alas, Kristine, if you follow the links in that blog-post, you’ll discover that those games (Kosherland, Catholic-opoly, etc) are all genuine products being produced by genuine people…
What? Those are real?
Religious people are so much weirder than I can imagine.
@PZ: Honestly, if you’d like a huge helping of “Really? I can’t believe this” all you really need to do is visit your local Evangelical bookstore.
@PZ: Honestly, if you’d like a huge helping of “Really? I can’t believe this” all you really need to do is visit your local Evangelical bookstore.
“brtkrbzhnv | December 31, 2006 11:25 AM
Oh, and I forgot “paddy (actually patty, for St. Patrick) wagon” referencing the Irish.
Posted by: raj | December 31, 2006 12:26 PM”
Well no, it is Paddy, as in “Padraic” or “Padraig”.
In Ireland, most “Patricks” are actually named “Padraic”, hence Paddy, and not Patty. Patty is almost always a girls name, while Paddy is male.
Paddy Wagon (an American term) is debated to come from at least 2 places, and both are most likely correct, as in most of the Police around the turn of the century were Irish, hence the “Paddys” = Cops, and most of the drunks they were to pick up were Irish as well, hence, once again, the “Paddys” = Drunks.
“If it’s longer than it is wide, therefore God” (who know creationists were Freudians?)
Seriously though, this does raise a problem for Ray & Kirk: if their position is that things that people tend to hold in their hand that fit well within it (however subjective that estimate may be) were necessarily designed by God for that purpose, then it obviously follows that the penis was designed by God for male masturbation and hand jobs (since people do do those things and they are at least as ergonomical as banana eating).
Sure, the penis’ shape has other explanations one could point to, but that is also true of the banana (e.g. it’s a unavoidable developmental pathway if you want to breed larger, edible bananas from the pre-cultivation species).
However, considering that the banana is just one fruit among many which man could choose to grasp — some of which may fit the hand, others may not — whereas there’s not a lot of other options available on a man other than the penis, the argument that it is only a coincidence that the human penis just so happens to fit the human hand in such a way as to allow for masturbation and hand jobs seems far fetched, at least relative to Ray & Kirk’s banana/hand co-creation theory.
So you have to wonder if they really thought through the contra-Biblical implications of their argument. Then again, given Ray Comfort’s apparent familiarity with porn star names and searchable porn terms, maybe this outcome wasn’t the result of a premature explanation.
Oh, I probably should mention, so I do not sound arrogant from my last post, I am Boston Irish, and my name actually is “Paddy-Sean”. This is why my name here is Lago, from my on-line name “Lagomortis”
Can we try and get Kirk in here to debate us? I would love to debate him on the transitional fossil claim of his. I want to drag him through the mud in a very public manner.
Here’s some more topical board games (I suppose I should post this at that AAA site, but I’ll do it here):
* Bibleopoly
(meh.)
* Left Behind: The Movie Board Game
(Note: this is the board game of the movie of the book, not the board game of the book, or the board game of the video game of the book. In other words, you get to play Kirk Cameron in this one.)
* BibleMan: The Board Game
(Note: BibleMan is played by Willie Aames, who played Scott Baio’s buddy on the sitcom “Charles In Charge”.)
* Armor of God Board Game
* America: The Game
(Produced by the Providence Foundation, a Dominionist organization.)
And in the spirit of ecumenicalism…
* Know Islam, Know Peace Board Game
Because that’s been working out just swimmingly.
* Krishna Land – The Board Game
Seriously though, any game that involves avoiding monkeys has got to be good. In fact, every game should have monkeys! Imagine how much better “Chutes & Ladders” would be if packs of wild monkeys hindered your progress.
* The Settlers of Zarahemla
Instead of dice, turns are decided by pulling numbered seer stones out of a hat. (Ok, not really.)
And one more Christian one…
* Morality – the Gospel Game
I take back what I said on that first post about what game the Flanderses would play. “Morality” clearly has Rod and Todd’s best interests at heart:
Regarding the game…anything I would have to say has pretty much already been said.
Regarding the argument over word usage…well, I can sympathize with both sides, honestly. On one hand, I tend to find moralizing about word choice in this sort of tangential way sort of tiresome, and I can certainly agree that political correctness as a general policy leads to absurdity (a case in which the words “hard-working” and “enthusiastic” were alleged to discriminate against the disabled being a case in point), and, like any other policy that lends itself to being used by the least reasonable person present to hijack and hold hostage the discussion at hand, generally becomes undesirable even before it reaches that point. On the other hand, sexist language is one of the things I personally find frustrating. More to the point, though, idiots who respond to criticisms in a sneeringly belligerent fashion without even addressing the substance of those criticisms (which “get over it” and similar sentiments do not); who regard a statement to the effect of “I wish you wouldn’t” as an intolerable, fascist infringement on their rights; and who feel, for whatever reason (while I can’t THINK of one that doesn’t involve them regarding themselves as “special” somehow, I will charitably grant that there may be such), that the burden is on their listeners to interpret their statements “correctly,” not on themselves to express themselves clearly and understandably; irritate me to no end even when they’re civil and articulate–and frankly, Lago, the tone of your first response in particular was such as to implicitly end in a silent “so yah!”
I learned a lot from board games as a child, so I am skeptical that these will have the intended effect. Why?
From Monopoly I learned that capitialism is cruel.
From Game of Life I learned that lucky is too big a factor in life.
From Payday I learned that bills are seriously annoying and seem to occur at random.
From chess I learned that there are always better, wiser, stronger people.
From Trivial Pursuit I learned that I don’t know everything. (Okay, okay, that’s a “good” effect for everyone, even fundies.)
etc.