It’s very short. It only has to cover 6000 years to describe all of creation.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
It’s very short. It only has to cover 6000 years to describe all of creation.
I think it’s important to note the (living) history of the coyness of creationists, too.
Their ranks are comprised of so many outright liars.
They ought to have included Behe’s favorite creation, P. falciparum.
Jesus loves the little children, and cares especially for the sick ones. Why else would he have ensured that there’d be so many sick and dying children?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Well done!
A favorite of mine is the cartoon at
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/evolution-i-spent-ages-on-that/
Before reading/viewing/whatevering the link, I’ll guess(? predict?) it’s basically Dog farted. The end.
They must have been thinking in terms of mice years, or cockroach years or “there you have it, splat, there you don’t” kind of years. That’s what they will say tomorrow after reading your site today. Oi, doesn’t sound like fun being Mr. Cracker. Just most of the time!
That about sums it up.
How about a quick overview including more serious creationists, like this one?
Someone ought to do this in Darwin’s bicentennial. That would be even more funny, to show that his contemporary creationists where more worthy opponents than today’s, because, well, today’s creationists shouldn’t exist? :)
I always wonder who they think designed the English language. Sure, it’s similar to German, Dutch, etc but there is no way that all of those languages could come from a common ancestor due to half a word not having a useful function. Sure, slang happens but it’s such a small change that it really doesn’t matter.
Interesting. Of course, creationism is much older than Darwin – it is the basis of religion. I suppose the anti-science creationist movement is what is now thought of as “creationism”.
As to the Pope, I wonder if the soul has also evolved. Do all animals (or mammals only) have some degree of soul? If not, at what point in human evolution did the first human with a soul appear. If the Pope could share that it might shed some intriguing light on human evolution.
Did Neanderthals have souls?
Scientific tech-heads I need your help. I figure some of you must be audiophiles. I have a ‘discussion’ with a coworker about my car amplifiers. They are 1981 and 1982 model Kenwood units that are still operating. I have them in my 98 Mazda now, but they were originally bought for my 1981 Chevy Citation. He thinks there are tons of car amps as old or older still in use. I disagree.
I’m just curious if any of you have, or know of anybody, that is using anything older than these?
It’s just a curiosity to me, but given how harsh an environment car audio stuff has to deal with, I can’t help but believe that I may have a couple of the oldest operational car amplifiers in America.
The dam things are almost as old as creation itself…..depending on who is defining creation…..lol.
Post with pics of amps on my website where you may leave comments:
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=346
Enjoy.
I think I like this “God” character, I also think he lives down the street, smells of incense,has dreads, and love reggae…
A real quick run of creation:
The Big Bang
Evolution of humans to create the god shit
The Big Crunch, and humans and the god shit gone
The article was great, some of the comments are disturbing (nicely trounced by other commenters though).
That was amusing. Heh.
Posted by: Mena | January 20, 2009 5:50 PM
I always wonder who they think designed the English language. Sure, it’s similar to German, Dutch, etc but there is no way that all of those languages could come from a common ancestor due to half a word not having a useful function. Sure, slang happens but it’s such a small change that it really doesn’t matter.
Mena: For an initial answer to you question I suggest you read (very very carefully) Stephen Pinker’s The Language Instinct. The ability to ‘language’ is an evolutionary product. Chomsky once remarked that were an alien to come to earth and analyze our languages that alien would conclude that earthlings were merely speaking dialects of the same language. As I like to tell my students ‘languages are all the same only different’, the ‘differences’ being local. Example: The Eskimos had no need for a word for ‘grass skirt’; those living in the tropical regions no need for’whale blubber.’ And so it goes. Even though English puts prepositions before nouns (by and large) and a language such as Japanese puts them after nouns, this is NOT a fundamental ‘difference in thinking’ thing, its just local happenstance. The actual mental machinery of all humans is fundamentally the same. But Professor Pinker states the case much much better than I could ever do. Read him.
I say, you chaps, you’re a bit harsh, what? I think evolution is a fairy tale, but I don’t think you’re _____________ (substitute invective of choice). Really, I’m not particularly stupid or evil. We might even get along if we met!
June McIntosh @ 16
“Irrational” Sort of deluded your expected reply, eh?
lewis e. haymes @15:
Actually I was referring to the level of disconnect that Creationist have. They go on and on about watchmakers and microevolution but wouldn’t recognize a similar process if it was (which it is) right in front of their faces. Ancient Latin is nothing like the modern Romance languages, but it’s obvious that it’s a common root. The French that the Normans used is different from modern French, plus it got sucked into English with some interesting results. The English that is spoken around the world is different place to place, especially in areas where native languages have mixed in with it. Well, there’s also Australian English but we’ll just have to use that as an analogy for allopatric speciation or something. ;^)
June, please cite me five articles from the journals Science and Nature in the last five years showing creationism is a scientific theory. I now I could find one issue of either magazine in that period showing five papers supporting evolution to be a scientific theory.
You religion (creationism is a religious idea) doesn’t negate science, any more than science negates religion. But your religion looks silly because it is out of touch with reality.
June McIntosh (#16)
Probably not. What you do appear to be, however, is very badly misinformed.
Hello Mr. Myers:
Unfortunately, you, and just about all theologians and creationists, have no idea what Biblical Creation is. It is not what the world of creationism teaches. In no way at all does Genesis support a 10,000 (or less) year old Earth. Therefore, you are speaking from ignorance.
It’s obvious that you favor the evolution theory. But you are not aware that creation is not the opposing view of evolution. The “Observations of Moses” is the opposing view, which, by the way, reveals that mankind has been on Earth, in his present likeness, for over 60 million years. Secular science can’t even trace mankind past 8 million years ago.
So, please!! Get your facts straight before preaching your thoughts to others.
Herman Cummings
[email protected]
Herman, please cite five articles from the last five years of the scientific journals Science and Nature supporting creationism as a scientific endeavor. If you can’t do that (and you can’t, they don’t exist), you have a religious theory which cannot refute science. Your religion looks silly if science says otherwise. Time to change your religion around to meet the facts.
Herman, don’t include your email address in the text of a post. Bots crawl the internet looking for such things so they can send them spam. You’re in for some unpleasantness.
Back to your comment: in a way you’re correct; Genesis, in and of itself, does not make any claims as to the age of Earth; that particular idiocy comes from someone’s extrapolation of years which have passed, based on the number of generations. So you got that right at least.
Of course, that being said, you’re still an idiot. Secular science? Until some sort of god gives us physical evidence of his/her/its existence then that’s the only kind there’s ever going to be.
60 million years? Evidence, please.