Suck my balls you stupid creationists!

[Mr Stabby]

Not all Christians are creationists, I doubt any prominent Christian scientist takes creationism seriously.

 

[Jintor]

To answer your question, yes, I have 'studied' some Creationist stuff, and I've read the New and Old Testement - I haven't exactly memorised it, but I got the gist of it.

If you posted stuff, I'd read it, then I'd debunk it, unless it was undebunkable, in which case I would explode.

And for Darkseid's sake stop being so bloody pretentious.

 

[[Matt]]

Wait a minute, how can you "study" creationism? Read the bible?

That makes no sense to me.

There are quite a few self proclaimed scientists who try to use the scientific method to prove creationism and intelligent design can be the only reason we're here. However they all have a religious agenda and the papers they publish just simply dont stand up to critical thinking and every paper ever published in support of intelligent design has been debunked and torn to pieces by the scientific community. One such self proclaimed "scientist" is a buy named Michael Behe who's major argument is based around the idea of irreducable complexity which is a wholly flawed argument.

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

But science has proven that irreducable complexity doesnt apply to evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU <--- taken from the previous ken miller video i posted which im sure sarturos is avoiding watching.

 

[Jintor]

Is irreducable complexity the retarded supposition that because we are alive, there must be a creator, because the odds of being alive are bad? D:

 

[Saturos]

There are quite a few self proclaimed scientists who try to use the scientific method to prove creationism and intelligent design can be the only reason we're here. However they all have a religious agenda and the papers they publish just simply dont stand up to critical thinking and every paper ever published in support of intelligent design has been debunked and torn to pieces by the scientific community. One such self proclaimed "scientist" is a buy named Michael Behe who's major argument is based around the idea of irreducable complexity which is a wholly flawed argument.

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

But science has proven that irreducable complexity doesnt apply to evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU <--- taken from the previous ken miller video i posted which im sure sarturos is avoiding watching.

Your right, I am avoiding the video. Not because I'm close minded, however, but because I'm on a dial-up connection.

 

[Jintor]

Close minded! Close minded! *blames Saturos*

Srsly Matt, post moar articles. We're not all blessed with the holy gods of bandwidth. (Well, not until my cap resets next week)

 

[[Matt]]

Is irreducable complexity the retarded supposition that because we are alive, there must be a creator, because the odds of being alive are bad? D:

As one of the christian mathmaticians called up in support of the creationist argument in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case said. Yes! But for the most part not really. Watch the video i posted

 

[[Matt]]

Your right, I am avoiding the video. Not because I'm close minded, however, but because I'm on a dial-up connection.

maybe you should pray to the gods of bandwidth for more bytes per second !!! Sorry couldnt resist! :bounce:

EDIT: the last vid i posted is only 6 mins long and well worth watching...

 

[Jintor]

I, too, must make a shrine to the Bandwidth gods for my bps.

 

[Raxxman]

Perhaps not. I will study evolution more someday to see if I understand where they(The researchers with PhDs, not you people) are coming from. But right now, I have more pressing issues to tend to. Good day.

But I am a researcher with a PhD.

I don't understand how people can be so closed minded about evolution when evidence is all around. Selective breeding of livestock, bacterial adaption to antibiotics are two such cases that spring to mind. While I'm not against religion on a whole, I don't agree with the in doctrine belief that everything written thousands of years ago must be an absolute truth. Sticking your head in the sand because evolution disagrees with genesis to me is just one step along the extremist path to suicide bombing because you honestly think god wants you to...

 

[Jintor]

You got a PHD Raxxman? D:

 

[Saturos]

maybe you should pray to the gods of bandwidth for more bytes per second !!! Sorry couldnt resist! :bounce:

EDIT: the last vid i posted is only 6 mins long and well worth watching...

No offense taken.

 

[evil^milk]

I cant belive how religion can be such a huge factor in a modern developed civilisation (talking about USA now)? Here in europe we laugh at american schools teaching creationism like its fact. Tbh i cant belive how people can belive in those fairy tales, its ridicilous..

Fun fact: 75% of Americans are religious.

 

[[Matt]]

Fun fact: 75% of Americans are religious.

Thankfully the US has a secular constitution

 

[mchammer75040]

'Dont hurt 'em hammer'

No, actually I spelled it right, because I meant to take a piece out of everyone in this Thread. Hahahaha, get it? piece? ha,ha,.Hell, nevermind. Oh yeah, you want evidence about Charles Darwin? I just don't like the guy and thats all that matters. You evolutionists can like him if your want. But riddle me this. If we evolved from monkeys and apes sic then why are there still monkeys out there? And no, not HomoErectus. I mean monkeys. There are different species of avions, but not all birds are related either. And why hasn't the crocodile evolved?

Oh har har, you dont know anything about evolution do you? I mentioned that it is an applied science as much as electricity.
Dictionary definition of evolution:
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

the dictionary definition of genetic engineering:
1. the development and application of scientific methods, procedures, and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population.
2. a technique that produces unlimited amounts of otherwise unavailable or scarce biological product by introducing DNA isolated from animals or plants into bacteria and then harvesting the product from a bacterial colony, as human insulin produced in bacteria by the human insulin gene.

you see if we didnt understand how evolution worked than we wouldnt have something as common place as insulin for diabetics! Now I know what you're thinking "well hammer we arent bacteria its not the same thing! blah blah BLAH!" What we are talking about is DNA:

DNA
Genetics. deoxyribonucleic acid: an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes and is the material that transfers genetic characteristics in all life forms, constructed of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other in a ladderlike arrangement with the sidepieces composed of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose units and the rungs composed of the purine and pyrimidine bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine: the genetic information of DNA is encoded in the sequence of the bases and is transcribed as the strands unwind and replicate.
DNA is proof of evolution simple as that, if you havent found that out by the myraid of other posts in this thread then I dont know what to say.

It's just THEORY!

Again another example of how you know nothing about science. Have you ever heard of atomic theory?

In chemistry and physics, atomic theory is a theory of the nature of matter, which states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms, as opposed to obsolete beliefs that matter could be divided into any arbitrarily small quantity.

So I guess to you that means the law of conservation of mass is just a theory! And I guess the atom bomb is just a theory as well! All of that basic understanding is still called theory, its an interpretation of facts and observations not just some random idea.

evolution, just like these physical laws, is founded upon easily provable principles:
1) do individual lifeforms mutate? 2) do such mutations cause qualitative changes? 3) do those qualitative changes affect that individual's ability to survive? 4) are these changes scalable? These are all answers with yes/no questions, easily proven through observation.

Hell we have OBSERVED evolutionary speciation directly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

The bible does not intend to give us a means to unlock the secrets of the universe with loads of scientific data, it is a guidelight to salvation. Have you ever heard of Dark Matter or Creation energy? Not all Christian scientists are rigid in their research you know.That sounds weird, I know, but there are Christian scientists

Correct! Hell one of the most important ones, Francis collins, opposes creationism and ID in his book " The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" And what is he? A physician-geneticist! He is director of National Human Genome Research Institute which has charted our genetic history over the last 10 years! Sure he may have different views than others like dawkins, but unlike creationists he doesnt let his beliefs and preconceptions keep him from moving forward and asking questions about genetics! Its not like everytime hes put in a corner he just says " Oh I dont have time for this! Good day!"

Oh and by the way the judge that made it a law to teach evolution was a christian as well. Do your research:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387

 

[Saturos]

Oh har har, you dont know anything about evolution do you? I mentioned that it is an applied science as much as electricity.
Dictionary definition of evolution:
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

the dictionary definition of genetic engineering:
1. the development and application of scientific methods, procedures, and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population.
2. a technique that produces unlimited amounts of otherwise unavailable or scarce biological product by introducing DNA isolated from animals or plants into bacteria and then harvesting the product from a bacterial colony, as human insulin produced in bacteria by the human insulin gene.

you see if we didnt understand how evolution worked than we wouldnt have something as common place as insulin for diabetics! Now I know what you're thinking "well hammer we arent bacteria its not the same thing! blah blah BLAH!" What we are talking about is DNA:

DNA
Genetics. deoxyribonucleic acid: an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes and is the material that transfers genetic characteristics in all life forms, constructed of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other in a ladderlike arrangement with the sidepieces composed of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose units and the rungs composed of the purine and pyrimidine bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine: the genetic information of DNA is encoded in the sequence of the bases and is transcribed as the strands unwind and replicate.
DNA is proof of evolution simple as that, if you havent found that out by the myraid of other posts in this thread then I dont know what to say.


Again another example of how you know nothing about science. Have you ever heard of atomic theory?

In chemistry and physics, atomic theory is a theory of the nature of matter, which states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms, as opposed to obsolete beliefs that matter could be divided into any arbitrarily small quantity.

So I guess to you that means the law of conservation of mass is just a theory! And I guess the atom bomb is just a theory as well! All of that basic understanding is still called theory, its an interpretation of facts and observations not just some random idea.

evolution, just like these physical laws, is founded upon easily provable principles:
1) do individual lifeforms mutate? 2) do such mutations cause qualitative changes? 3) do those qualitative changes affect that individual's ability to survive? 4) are these changes scalable? These are all answers with yes/no questions, easily proven through observation.

Hell we have OBSERVED evolutionary speciation directly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm



Correct! Hell one of the most important ones, Francis collins, opposes creationism and ID in his book " The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" And what is he? A physician-geneticist! He is director of National Human Genome Research Institute which has charted our genetic history over the last 10 years! Sure he may have different views than others like dawkins, but unlike creationists he doesnt let his beliefs and preconceptions keep him from moving forward and asking questions about genetics! Its not like everytime hes put in a corner he just says " Oh I dont have time for this! Good day!"

Oh and by the way the judge that made it a law to teach evolution was a christian as well. Do your research:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387

My, my. It must've took you quite a while to type all of this. You've been a busy little beaver haven't you? I'm too lazy to type this much in one post, so I automatically yield to you. (bows)

 

[jverne]

I wish I weren't so damn lazy, or I'd re-do the research and post it. Yes, I'm supposed to be busy right now, but this philosophical BS sucks me in like a "Black Hole". (no pun intended).Save the Stephen Hawking stuff for another discussion. Before I close out, I just want everyone to know that the guy who started this tread has no class or self-respect. Why didn't he start the thread with a title like, "Creationism vs. Evolution" instead of "Suck my balls stupid Creationists!":hmph: No class.

I made this thread as a ridicule of creationists, who have a big black cock stuck in their asses and don't want to acknowledge it.

You obviously fit pretty well in the category of stupid.
Just listen to yourself:

"I'm to lazy to post evidence, but i'm sure Darwin is an idiot, because i don't like him"


Please go into solitary and think it out a little, hopefully you'll realize what an idiot you were and change for the better. hopefully but i'm not counting on that.


Look i have nothing against you until you keep your believes strictly to yourself and nobody else. But on second thought i should be against you by default since you are a potential moderate religious person who has the right to vote. Let me guess whom are you more inclined to vote?
So if you (will, or had) vote someone who will restrict progress due to religious belief

i can without guilt or second thought call you an:
"Moronic piece of oxygen depleting shit, who needs to be composted as fresh ground fertilizer"

But i don't know who you voted or supported so i won't call you that, not yet.

My hate is purely practical in nature. Ok deep down i don't really hate anyone but i can pretend pretty good.

 

[mchammer75040]

Most of that is copy and pasted from the dictionary. Thats not good enough anyways I like to see people grovel at my feet.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Children!

Read, and be alleviated of all your doubt and inquiries: http://elftor.com/elftor.php?number=195

(Good god I lol'd)

 

[[Matt]]

My, my. It must've took you quite a while to type all of this. You've been a busy little beaver haven't you? I'm too lazy to type this much in one post, so I automatically yield to you. (bows)

But yet you still wont do any research into evolution? by not doing so your blind faith with remain just that... Blind!

 

[kirovman]

With regards to "Just a theory"

A scientific theory is a strong model supported by facts and evidence.

As opposed to an everyday theory (or unsubstantiated speculation as I prefer to call it) where you say "Dur I think the sky is pink lol"

Educate yourself here before you spout off such nonsense in future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

I don't like Isaac Newton, he was a twatish bully, but I agree with his scientific theories (up to the point where they breakdown anyway) because they are supported by centuries of evidence.

Quite frankly I don't know why anyone would hate the character of Charles Darwin, he hasn't really done anything to offend anyone as far as I'm aware.
Except contradict creationism.

 

[Dan]

There are a lot of personal attacks in this thread rather than actual input or arguments/counter arguments

 

[jverne]

There are a lot of personal attacks in this thread rather than actual input or arguments/counter arguments

i think it's quite evident that changing opinions of some people is futile since nothing works.

 

[Seagull]

Dear Saturos,

http://www.venganza.org/

Yours truly,

Seagull

 

[Cavalry]

I am not a religious guy,and I don't know how we got here,but now Science is breaking away from the whole "we come from monkeys" to "we are similar to dogs...."
only in their dreams

 

[Cole]

Yes evolution is a thoery.
Hey gravity is also a theory! Omgz gravity is a thoery!! it doesn't exist!!

Evolution is considered fact. The Theory of Evolution, is a theory to explain how evolution works.
Gravity is considered fact. The Theory of Gravity, is a theory to explain how gravity works.

You may ask why evolution isn't happening to us humans?
-Evolution happens due to DNA mutations, adapation to new enviroments, and co-evolution.

Let me ask you something, when your cold what do you do? You put on a jacket to keep warm. You do not need fur to keep warm do you, because you have a jacket! Therefor, why would you evolve to gain fur if you don't need it because you have a jacket? You wouldn't. Human evolution has slowed down because of "technology".

However, where does evolution? There is that one moth thing. You'll have to google moth and evolution to find it. There is also those chimps that learned how to craft and use spears. And most of all,
BACTERIA EVOLVES ALL THE FRICKEN TIME.

How do you think new viruses, colds, and flu's spawn up? Magic? No. It's called evolution. To be more precise its called microevolution. Bacteria can evolve quickly because it is constantly reproducing. I would imagine bacteria reproduce more in a single day than humans have there entire existance. So when you take some medicine to kill a cold... not all of what caused that cold dies. What survives reproduces, and now you have a strain that doesn't die to the medicine you just took. It has just evolved into a new strain that requires new medicine to kill it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Yes evolution is a thoery.
Hey gravity is also a theory! Omgz gravity is a thoery!! it doesn't exist!!

You damn right Scully.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

 

[[Matt]]

Evolution is considered fact. The Theory of Evolution, is a theory to explain how evolution works.
Gravity is considered fact. The Theory of Gravity, is a theory to explain how gravity works.

^probably the best way to quantify how science looks at evolution^

 

[Sulkdodds]

In a slightly related note, I met the Archbishop of Canturbury today. His eyebrows were ace.

 

[[Matt]]

I consider this thread officially won over by the followers of reason.

 

[evil^milk]

Lol check out this e-mail I got.

Who is Jesus?
HE IS JESUS
WHO IS HE?
IN CHEMISTRY, HE TURNED WATER TO WINE.

IN BIOLOGY, HE WAS BORN WITHOUT THE
NORMAL CONCEPTION;

IN PHYSICS, HE DISPROVED THE LAW OF
GRAVITY WHEN HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN;

IN ECONOMICS, HE DISPROVED THE LAW
OF DIMINISHING RETURN BY FEEDING 5000 ME N WITH
TWO FISH & 5 LOAVES OF BREAD;

IN MEDICINE, HE CURED THE SICK AND THE
BLIND WITHOUT ADMINISTERING A SINGLE DOSE OF DRUGS,

IN HISTORY, HE IS THE BEGINNING AND THE END;

IN GOVERNMENT, HE SAID THAT HE SHALL
BE CALLED WONDERFUL COUNSELOR, PRINCE OF PEACE;

IN RELIGION, HE SAID NO ONE COMES TO
THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH HIM;

SO. WHO IS HE?
HE IS JESUS!

JOIN ME AND LET'S CELEBRATE HIM;
HE IS WORTHY.

THE EYES BEHOLDING THIS MESSAGE SHALL
NOT BEHOLD EVIL, THE HAND THAT WILL
SEND THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYBODY SHALL
NOT LABOR IN VAIN, AND THE MOUTH SAYING AMEN TO THIS PRAYER SHALL SMILE FOREVER.
REMAIN IN GOD AND SEEK HIS FACE ALWAYS.
AMEN

IN GOD I'VE FOUND EVERYTHING!

The Greatest Man in History
Jesus had no servants, yet they called Him Master.
Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher.
Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer.
He had no army, yet kings feared Him..
He won no military battles, yet He co nquered the world.
He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him.
He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today.
I feel honored to serve such a Leader who loves us!
If you believe in God and in Jesus
Christ His Son .. send this to all on
your buddy list.
If not just ignore it.
If you ignore it, just remember that
Jesus said .
'If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my Father in Heaven

 

[Jintor]

Virus it and return the favour.

 

[Nemesis6]

I consider this thread officially won over by the followers of reason.

But there are no creationists here...?

 

[Dan]

I tried arguing reason for like 3 pages and I got a lot of insults and stubornness

 

[Absinthe]

I tried arguing reason for like 3 pages and I got a lot of insults and stubornness

But you got extremely pedantic and were arguing into a dead-end. Everybody agrees that nothing can be claimed with 100% certainty. That said, we live different practically. Facts are claims we consider true beyond any reasonable doubt. There's no point in considering whether or not gravity exists or if rocks are solid. We accept their natures as fact and we go on our merry way.

Yes, people do need to have a degree of trust in others when it comes to learning some things. But that shouldn't lead you to doubting all second-hand information. Is the claim corroborated? Does it have verifiable predictions of reality? Is it logical or does it fail to make sense on fundamental levels? Although we sometimes find ourselves to be wrong in retrospect, a person who has approached such claims with a scientific mind will adapt to the new information.

Science has, at the very least, yielded technological advancement, improved medicine, a deeper understanding of ourselves and other species, and all sorts of conveniences. It produces tangible results. It produces an understanding of many things, if often in layman's terms. And seeing as how there's no reason to think everybody with credentials is trying to misinform you, I fail to see how you could compare "faith" in science to that of religious dogma. Pressing the debate any deeper than this is pointless, as you'll only get into an existential jerkaround that has nothing to do with the original topic and is pretty much a stupid and impractical way of viewing life. It may even get to the point where logic itself no longer applies because "You only accept logic as true! You can't actually prove it!". Yeah, sounds great.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Also, nobody flamed you. As Pi might say: "Get down off that cross."

This is an interesting argument.

 

[kirovman]

I don't recall anyone insulting Dan. Although I can't be bothered to check 3 pages of posts to be sure.

 

[Dan]

But you got extremely pedantic and were arguing into a dead-end. Everybody agrees that nothing can be claimed with 100% certainty. That said, we live different practically. Facts are claims we consider true beyond any reasonable doubt. There's no point in considering whether or not gravity exists or if rocks are solid. We accept their natures as fact and we go on our merry way.

Yes, people do need to have a degree of trust in others when it comes to learning some things. But that shouldn't lead you to doubting all second-hand information. Is the claim corroborated? Does it have verifiable predictions of reality? Is it logical or does it fail to make sense on fundamental levels? Although we sometimes find ourselves to be wrong in retrospect, a person who has approached such claims with a scientific mind will adapt to the new information.

Science has, at the very least, yielded technological advancement, improved medicine, a deeper understanding of ourselves and other species, and all sorts of conveniences. It produces tangible results. It produces an understanding of many things, if often in layman's terms. And seeing as how there's no reason to think everybody with credentials is trying to misinform you, I fail to see how you could compare "faith" in science to that of religious dogma. Pressing the debate any deeper than this is pointless, as you'll only get into an existential jerkaround that has nothing to do with the original topic and is pretty much a stupid and impractical way of viewing life. It may even get to the point where logic itself no longer applies because "You only accept logic as true! You can't actually prove it!". Yeah, sounds great.

I was saying that verifiable results for 2nd hand information are also based on 2nd hand information. That is why "ignorant" people can exist in the world who think that Iraq is in Australia, and that Elvis is still alive. It simply doesn't have any meaningful affect on the immediate world that they live in, so they accept it as true. If you told them otherwise, they might change their mind, but it is only because of what you told them, not because of any observable evidence in front of them.

That is also why a child can be raised to be very religious does not see contradictions in the world all around them. The contradictions only come from other people (like you guys) claiming that the world is different than they learned. Of course they will trust what their parents told them over what you tell them. Humans now are the same as humans 500 years ago. We think that we are dispassionate just because of the way we are raised and taught in this society, but we are still taking what we learn as children as the absolute truth, just like a child who is taught creationism accepts it as truth and ingrains it into their identity. The same applies you are taking all of the science as truth. It has to be taught to you because if it was immediately obvious and verifiable, you wouldn't need to be taught it, you would see it for yourself. The "proof" for something that isn't immediately verifiable by yourself is also 2nd hand. You can explain electromagnetism and then point to a magnet and say its proof. But if someone explained that invisible gnomes pull together magnets and then pointed to a magnet, they would have the same proof.

 

[Absinthe]

All you're saying is that stupid people will believe anything. No shit.

 

[[Matt]]

I was saying that verifiable results for 2nd hand information are also based on 2nd hand information. That is why "ignorant" people can exist in the world who think that Iraq is in Australia, and that Elvis is still alive. It simply doesn't have any meaningful affect on the immediate world that they live in, so they accept it as true. If you told them otherwise, they might change their mind, but it is only because of what you told them, not because of any observable evidence in front of them.

That is also why a child can be raised to be very religious does not see contradictions in the world all around them. The contradictions only come from other people (like you guys) claiming that the world is different than they learned. Of course they will trust what their parents told them over what you tell them. Humans now are the same as humans 500 years ago. We think that we are dispassionate just because of the way we are raised and taught in this society, but we are still taking what we learn as children as the absolute truth, just like a child who is taught creationism accepts it as truth and ingrains it into their identity. The same applies you are taking all of the science as truth. It has to be taught to you because if it was immediately obvious and verifiable, you wouldn't need to be taught it, you would see it for yourself. The "proof" for something that isn't immediately verifiable by yourself is also 2nd hand. You can explain electromagnetism and then point to a magnet and say its proof. But if someone explained that invisible gnomes pull together magnets and then pointed to a magnet, they would have the same proof.

I more or less agree with you but your argument is what Daniel Dennet would call a 'murky'. This isnt an argument about philosophy. There are degrees of trust you simply have to work with in science. By all means be skeptical when using the ascientific method as thats simply what science is about. But when someone tells you that mount everest is the highest mountain on earth is it really worthwhile travelling to nepal to see for yourself when you can simply trust the thousands of scientists, geologists and satellite data analysts who have already done the work for you?

I simply trust the scientific argument against creation for this reason. On the one side you have a bunch of religious zealots basing their opinion on what a hugely mistranslated book tells them. On the otherside you have millions of published papers from scientists simply interpreting the data from what the entire planet is telling them. Of course science does often make mistakes... but when it does its proudly the first to admit it has done so. This is in direct opposition to the stance creationism takes which simply claims its right no matter what the evidence says otherwise.

A formative influence on my undergraduate self was the response of a respected elder statesmen of the Oxford Zoology Department when an American visitor had just publicly disproved his favourite theory. The old man strode to the front of the lecture hall, shook the American warmly by the hand and declared in ringing, emotional tones: "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." And we clapped our hands red. Can you imagine a Government Minister being cheered in the House of Commons for a similar admission? "Resign, Resign" is a much more likely response!

Richard Dawkins, FRS

Can you imagine a creationist also bieng so proud to be wrong?