Sarcasm is officially dead.

Sounds like deliberate and clever satire to me.

hahahah oh man: "The Truth is that we came into being after God created Adam and Eve several hundred years ago" shit..

cheese is chist

I found the following review even more amusing (and sad), especially the existance of "non-biological animals" and "invisible species" :

Creation may be contradicted by facts, but facts don't necessarily add up to truth. Evolution itself is flawed on several counts, for example it cannot explain:

1) Why heavy fish, like whales, don't just sink to the bottom of the ocean 2) Why most trees are so much taller than necessary 3) How non-biological animals, like crocodiles and ostriches, came into existence 4) Why sharks haven't grown legs, moved onto land and taken over the world 5) The existence of invisible species that remain undiscovered

So go ahead and read Dawkins' lucid prose in 'The Ancestor's Tale' - but remember there are some occasions when facts are wrong.

I just read through a number of the reviews on Amazon for this book, and sadly, I don't think that was meant as satire. Or if it was, a number of other people had the same idea as there are quite a few reviews taking the same approach. Also, I know people, quite a few in my family actually, who would say something like that, in all seriousness. Hard to know for sure, but I would bet at least some of those reviews are meant sincerely.

just my thoughts.

The one I love, "4) Why sharks haven't grown legs, moved onto land and taken over the world "

Simple answer: Sharks are slackers and they deserve their place in life.

If they are serious, then they're the reason we love Norm for posting lucid links disputing religion and the faith/fact falacy. Keep it up, Norm! Too few people doing the kind of thoughtful blogging that you do.

although i can see how this qualifies as humor in religion, it's an excellent example of how something can be funny and sad at the same time.

What's truly amazing is how some of these people manage to get a computer turned on in the first place.

There's a much better explanation for sharks not moving onto land and taking over the world: to do so would imply a 'niche' into which they could move, but any such niche was long ago filled by lawyers.

I've always understood that sharks actually evolved from lawyers. This can be demonstrated by the fact that sharks don't eat their young.

This sent me looking at amazon and I found another kooky review:

"Dawkins presents an excellent and informative account of evolution in this skillfully crafted and well-written tome. However, as some recent reviewers have noted, Dawkins is operating within benighted scientific orthodoxy and is therefore completely wrong. A simple syllogism proves that existence must have been Created:

Things that exist must have been created Existence exists Therefore existence must have been created

Another problem with evolution is the well documented 'dinosaur problem'. If the world was based on survival of the fittest, humans (and most other animals still around today) would have been killed off by the dinosaurs several hundred years ago.

So in conclusion: an excellent book despite its wrongness."

Wait, wait, wait, this one's even funnier (whales are fish, ostriches are non-biological and sharks might take over the world) because "facts are wrong":

"...Creation may be contradicted by facts, but facts don't necessarily add up to truth. Evolution itself is flawed on several counts, for example it cannot explain:

1) Why heavy fish, like whales, don't just sink to the bottom of the ocean 2) Why most trees are so much taller than necessary 3) How non-biological animals, like crocodiles and ostriches, came into existence 4) Why sharks haven't grown legs, moved onto land and taken over the world 5) The existence of invisible species that remain undiscovered

So go ahead and read Dawkins' lucid prose in 'The Ancestor's Tale' - but remember there are some occasions when facts are wrong."

" we came into being after God created Adam and Eve several hundred years ago"

Several hundred years????? What? Not even 6/10 thousand?

Does this mean that the historical record (ie. the bit in writing by humans) is just as "questionable", just as "filled with gaps" as the fossil record? [Well yes it is, but we'll let slide ....]

So maybe our written record of Magna Carta (about 1000 years ago I think) is just a "false memory planted by G-d to test our faith"???

How long will it be before these nutbags ask me to believe that my parents early childhood memories are purely illusionary relics implanted by a deceitful and capricious deity?

Where is the Pope when we need him? Bring back the Inquisition and put the whole heritical framework of Protestantism up on the block. I'm sure we'd get the evangalican President's approval:- he appears to like torture.

Now that would be a real test of faith. We could all bring popcorn [Is there an emoticon available that combines disgust with contempt? I'd like to use it here]

This has got to be "Ann Coulteresque" fictitious writing/humor. It can't be real - he has to be yanking everyone's chain.

That has got to be fake. Even ID has better arguments than that. Satire is my guess. Hmm...perhaps Jamie Barlett is a pseudonym for Norm. If so, great post. If not...

" we came into being after God created Adam and Eve several hundred years ago"

So maybe our written record of Magna Carta (about 1000 years ago I think) is just a "false memory planted by G-d to test our faith"???

Yes, since time was created only a few hundred years ago, the Magna Carta is a false memory to test your faith.

Just like the Bible.

I am not at all surprised that these reviews by some blogger at Amazon.com were made sincerely. I have no doubt that it is not a hoax; sad, but true. These kinds of statements can be found all over the internet on the Christian web blogs. The poor fellow had read somewhere about the earth being 2000 years old (I found that date mentioned at one of the Christian web sites) and his poor memory had him saying that it was 200 years old. There are hundreds of Christian web sites that preach against evolution. I did a search of these sites and everything that I read sounded very familiar as they are the arguments used by many of the Christian posters here at onegoodmove.

Here is the conclusion of the last Christian web site which is linked below: "Thus, evolution is not really a science but a religious philosophy. Although it may be the religion of many scientists, this is not because of the actual data of their science, but because of their intellectual and moral preference for this kind of faith."

If you check out these websites (and there are hundreds more just like these), you will quickly recognize some of the arguments made so often here at this web blog by people such as "Your Dad"

http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/evolutionaryProblems.htm

">http://www.csinfo.org/Christian_Evolution.htm>

In the words of George Carlin: People are fuckin dumb.

Anyone else get a visual of George Washington battling a t-rex?

no, it's definitely got to be just very good satire...

nobody who uses the phrase 'lucid prose' would turn around and claim those five examples of reasons why evolution is wrong.

Jamie Bartlett, however, I suspect is real.

Better yet, the pilgrims eating a pterodactyl at the Thanksgiving Feast.

Maybe my my great great grandparents really did ride a dinosaur to school and it wasn't a joke.

Here is another review of the book I found here - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618005838/002-2135608-9892823?v=glance&n=283155

Reviewer: Dwight T. McGriff (Eggville, Mississippi) - See all my reviews This work may be a fine and lucid account of biological history from a evolutionary standpoint, but it fails to address many of the gaping fallacies behind modern secular theory; the principle shortcoming being irreducible complexity.

Many of nature's wonders - such as the motor-driven tails of the bacterium Helicobacter - simply cannot be accounted for by the incremental genetic framework proposed by evolutionists such as Dawkins. Like a George Foreman GRP4P Next Grilleration 4-Burger Grill, if you remove the functionality of a single component (such as the grease tray) then the organism (grill) will fail to operate, and hot burger fat goes literally everywhere. Thus, how can complex organisms, whose existence relies on the functionality of many thousands of different biological mechanisms (such as legs), come into being through minor genetic mutations? The answer: they can't! Only a divine creator (a.k.a. God) can have been responsible.

Way to go Mississippi!

When someone tells me that Dawkins fails because he relies too heavily upon the materialistic view, I must laugh. Oddly enough, that is what science is about, the physical universe. Not the imaginary one.

The 'round number ten' did not exist until a human perceived it. This wacko guy has Adam and Eve perceiving round numbers, before they were created. An eight or 12 based system would be quite natural to us if we had that many digits. People with computers and pocket calculators still count on their fingers.

Jim, I hear you and I will not mock you. I do think that facts are undeniable truths and do help construct a true picture of reality.

I do think that the examples you give do not highlight the shortcomings of evolution.

1] Why heavy fish, like whales, don't just sink to the bottom of the ocean

This has nothing to do with evolution. You might as well as why we can build ships that weight thousands on tones and they stay afloat. Whales don’t sink because of their oil content i.e. blubber and the fact that their body contains air. Notice that they breathe out before they dive or that submariners release their ballasts of trapped air before they dive. It's science imitating life : >

2) Why most trees are so much taller than necessary

Your question is not clear in that what do you mean by "what is necessary". The height of trees vary with their age, fertility of the soil, water and sunlight of their location.

3) How non-biological animals, like crocodiles and ostriches, came into existence

You have to define what is non-biological as these creatures do have ancestors. There have been flightless birds since the Age of Mammals and crocodiles have ancestors as well. Here’s one of them that is newly discovered. He looks more like T-rex to me though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4424734.stm

4) Why sharks haven't grown legs, moved onto land and taken over the world

Could it be because they are at the top of ecological foodchain in their natural habitat? Kindly note that the law of natural selection states clearly that animals change to survive or adapt to new environments. Was there ever a need for a shark to eat on land?

5) The existence of invisible species that remain undiscovered

There will always be new species to be discovered as science is about investigating old and new natural phenomena. And such new species are still appearing because of evolution is still happening as we speak. Kindly refer to this groundbreaking research on the evolution of Adelia Penguins in response to changes in the environment:

www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3480951a7694,00.html

I have 2 questions for you.

If God is a perfect being who created us, why did he gives us an appendix or a vestigal tail that does nothing for a human?

Why do modern whales have stunted legs in their skeleton?

Evolution gives us an answer in that we shared the same common ancestor as monkey and apes, who had a tail and live in trees.

Evolution let us see trace how living things move from sea to land and vice versa and evolved into new beings.

To insist that God creates us and whales, you will have to admit that God is fallible and could make mistakes by giving things we don’t need. God is always seen as perfect.

And evolution is not. That is why it is a universally accepted idea as it is never too arrogant to prevent people from testing and verifying its statements, theories and observations for verifiable predictable results.

This is why religious fundamentalist have it all wrong. Instead of developing new verifiable research to support their stand, all they can do is pin-point holes in science to avoid facing the truth that they have no real proof for their Creation story.

Let me put it this way. I can accept that Someone created us but he was sloppy in that he ignored the fact that our planet’s climate, geography and ecology are always changing in ways that may even harm the existence of its denizens.

The fact that countless species have gone extinct is proven by the fossil record.

So my statement to this effect is simple.

It is ok to claim God created us as long as you accept that evolution as a process saved us from extinction.

It allowed men to constantly change and adapt to our environment when the need arose. We are masters of our planet because we evolved the fastest.

I will always honour who gave me life. My parents. I will also respect the things and people around me who helped me grow.

To me, religion and science do not need to clash at all.

I'm sure many others have come to this conclusion as well.

What i don't understand is why evolution cannot exist with a belief in God. assuming that the bible is true (which i don't actually believe, but for the sake of argument) isn't it possible that the time periods in the story are not true to our current understanding of time, and a day could be thousands or millions of years? also, it is kind of pompous to think we cannot be animals.

yes, we are animals. we have instincts as animals do. we may fight them, but we still have them. they showed that new ape or gorilla at one of the zoos. has almost no hair. and it sure looks a lot like a baby. acts like a baby. i should know. i have a two month old right now, and she does a lot of the same things that baby gorilla was doing. it's vanity to think we cannot be animals. and i think the desire to NOT be animals might be fueling this creationism ID bullsh!t!

it never ceases to amaze me how people can alter the facts to suit their own ideas! god help us all! we are slipping, and kids today aren't gonna have the ability to compete with other countries because of this crap!

This is a good one:

"Challenging even the main tenets of postmodern epistemology, of men such has Nietzsche, Derrida, Foucault or Lyotard (who say that the thinking self is a metaphysical construct and even natural sciences are nothing more than power/knowledge functions mediated through texts, inter-texts and interpretations of texts ..."

Derrida. Derrida?? Creationists now use Derrida to attack science??? Deconstructing reality????

Wow. If they're that much into relativism, then I'm getting on that bus. Personally I'm becoming an Olympian (got a soft spot for Zeus's thunderbolts you know), and after I told my girlfriend she informed me she's going Wicca (hey a little bit of sex magick would go down well in Utah don't you think - certainly welcome in my bedroom)

Had I known "faith" allowed so much leeway for tailoring morality to suit an individuals personal obsessions, I'd have been there years ago. Makin' up for lost time baby!!! Jus' gonna make it up as I go along. Whoa.

Seriously now, I would have thought that belief in an absolute and revealed truth (such as the Bible is purported to be) would have precluded this sort of nonsense. Where are the Jesuits when we need them?

i can't conceive of a more perfect "god" then one that takes a little sound wave, a spark of energy, and five basic shapes and throws them into a void and it creates all that we know.

the problem with religion it seems is that it demands god to be like us. if you lose that thought then it makes perfect sense that a god created man. imagine the fun it must have been to sit back and watch all this evolve from so few things.

it's really a pity that christians can't see the perfection in that.

wm

Amazing arguments made against science. Absolutly amazing. Just like our own administration, fundamentalist creationists are excellent at showing the world what they are against, but of course not what they're for, and "facts" are always subjective to whatever they want them to be. Next I'm sure will come the ever-logical argument method of [plugs ears] "la la la la I cant hear you!!!"

After reading many of this "Amazon" posts, I came to the conclusion that there is no doubt that "God" created this people, if they would have come to life through evolution they would have own some brains today....

Since when does W have time to write Amazon reviews?

My question would be, since when does W read books?

wacko . . . if it is real. sadly i believe. sadly they believe.

Good day gentlemen and gentlewomen,

It is sad to see ignorance. However, I am somewhat puzzled at the overweening desire to point and laugh. I find it quite hypocritical that "open-minded" individuals mock religion and faith. Science is a belief system, which interestingly, has no absolutes. It is an excellent tool for predicting the truth, but it is not truth in itself. So while evolution is a good theory for describing our perceptions of life, creationism also poses a plausible theory. A person is far better off to question everything and find answers for oneself than to cling to convention and belittle another's ideas.

And so, like everyone who has posted, I have spouted off my little stream of drivel. I wish that I knew why I have to feel self-rightous, and everyone else does too.

Science is a belief system? Ha ha ha ha! (points finger and laughs) ha ha ha! Would you mind explaining a little more carefully how you arrived at this conclusion? (cups hands over mouth and tries to contain her overweening desire to laugh and her smug sense of self righteousness)

Hi Hubert, science is not a belief system not does it just describe the world. Regardless of whether you believe in science or not does not affect the fact that if you drop an apple, it falls. That is science. It is a theory that consists of a body of related facts, which can be tested to produce the same results by different people anytime and anywhere.

Come right down to it, science is as close to universal law.

Creation has utterly no facts. It is not plausible for theologians calculated the the chronology in the Bible fix the age of the word at 4004BC i.e. 6000 years old. Geologists and practioners of countless practioners all support the fact that the earth is millions of years old.

You won't get millions of fossils in 6000 years, which can only happened over a period of millions of years.

However, I do keep open the possibility that Someone created us but it may not be the God as described by the Bible.

P.S. Jo, naughty, naughty naughty : >

By the way, God or gods could have created such universal laws. It's probably a She though as guys are lousy with details and normally don't care as much for their kids : >

Well at least someone laughed!

1) Science is a belief system. It provides a framework in which to believe that one's interaction with physical things will follow a certain order, which is defined by beliefs in theories and postulates.

2) Science contains no absolute truths. To me that is what defines science. Science allows for any possibility; however, it utilizes only that which has the greatest probability.

If one morning gravity had changed, or better yet, our understanding of gravity had changed, science would implore its followers to change their beliefs. This is the power of science, but those who scream that it is "truth" are, I feel, misguided and no different than any other religous fanatic.

Hi Hubert, I don't agree with everything you said as I said knowledge or the lack of it in science does not stop people from testing to gain the same result.

You know the earth revolves around the sun. Do you need to prove this or have faith or you know people has proven this as a fact already and you know it's true?

Btw, science is like maths. 2 + 2 =4. Absolute?

Mathematics is science, so I agree with you, Kestrel. You also bring up two very good examples. I take it more-or-less on faith that the earth revolves around the sun. I have not personally done any calculations. Much of my knowledge is not from first hand experience. Furthermore, even if it were, that does not mean that it is true.

Secondly, 2+2 = 4 is not an absolute. Take most of nuclear physics for example: 2 objects grouped with 2 more objects equaling no object.

Most of this is semantic quibbling I suppose, but I enjoy it every now and then. Thanks for the memories.

Hubert, You don't have to do any calculations to know that the Earth orbits the sun. Didn't you ever take a science class in high school where they do that little experiment with a lamp and some Styrofoam balls? Here, read this link, do the experiment, and you will KNOW that the Earth revolves around the sun!! This is NOT a matter of faith! http://www.eyeonthesky.org/lessonplans/09sun_moonclass.html

The Earth has a spherical shape. Believe me on this one, or go out and do your homework and find out for yourself!!! That is the truth, and the prophets of the Bible were wrong. The Earth is not flat. Scientists are not going to suddenly find out one day that planets have some other shape. But even if Christians wanted to believe that the Earth was flat, scientists would just laugh at them. The Christians, on the other hand, wish to put people in jail and punish them for not following the beliefs of the Church. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 in Rome for teaching that the Earth orbited the Sun. It is the truth that the Earth orbits the sun. This was not Bruno's belief system, it was a fact. The Church, however, had a belief system which contradicted the truth, so they burned this astronomer at the stake for teaching the truth. Copernicus' works were banned by the Roman Church. During the Inquisition, Galileo was placed under house arrest in 1633 for the research he was doing.

So here we are now. The year is 2005 and the Church will not accept evolution and insists on claiming that it is just a theory which cannot be proved. And Hubert is here saying that he takes it on faith that the Earth orbits the sun! And this, my friends, is the problem with the debate over Intelligent Design!! Kids are going to be taught that there are no truths, just beliefs, and anything goes!

The more things change, the more they remain the same. :( :( :((

Objective subjectivity. Or is that subjective objectivity. I think I object.

As for kids being taught that there are no truths, just beliefs...ahhhhh! Damn that Socrates, he never was any good. I actually agree with you, too much subjectivity is a bad thing. You cannot live your life without making decisions based on your perceptions. However, it is dangerous to presuppose that you are "correct" when applying absolute objectivity. Science is not infallable.

And now for another digression: I'm sensitive about people who capitalize church. You seem to be referring to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. They aren't nearly as big of hard-asses as you might think. Check it out: Catholic Church's Position on Evolution

A one step program for the aptly-named Hypocrite:

1) Remove bulbous head from asshole.

This is semantic masturbation. You're arguing with laymen on the topic of science. I smell a philosophy school dropout, or just a prick who's found a cute loophole in language that illusorily supports his weak, played argument. We've all heard it before -- "Science is a belief just like creationism" -- you working for Behe, Hubert?

Your epiphany has already been neatly summed up. There's nowhere else your argument can go. This thread is moot. How about either dropping the stick you're beating the horse with, or signing up at the Discovery Institute? Hell, I live 2 minutes from it -- I'll give you a ride.

No thanks for the memories -- I've seen your post many times elsewhere. Your stream of drivel is contagious!

Hey! Now you're calling me names. That's mighty un-gentlemanly of you, and very ungracious for refusing my thanks.

You will have to take it on faith that I am neither a "philosophy school dropout" nor "a prick." I'm a doctoral candidate at MIT in mechanical engineering. As for the semantic masturbation. Ack! I've been caught!! But it pleases me greatly if my tirades are contagious, and surprises me not the least that I'm unoriginal.

I am curious tho' what is Behe? And the Discovery Institute? I suppose this is my lack of culture showing through.

P.S. - I didn't mean to offend, I merely wished to express my own views about science and religion.

Hi Hubert, you did not cause any offense. From my short time here, I can tell that most of the people are quite nice. Overly opinionated maybe (of which I'm guilty as sin) maybe, but they are ok people.

I'll give 1 last try to separate science from religion and lets move to maths as it more neutral.

Science is when I tell you that the world is like XXXXX. You can prove the veracity of this by a formular or an experiment or you can just take another look at the phenomena.

This will work for everyone, anytime and anywhere. Science is not a belief system as people with no religion and with religion can recreate the same results regardless of race or religion. That's why there are Buddhists, Confucian, Shintoist, Hindu, Catholic, Christian, Muslim scientists.

Creationism and its offspring Intelligent Science are beliefs. When they can't explain, the only explantion is that God did it. They can't prove it though. You have to go on faith.

That's means if I'm not a Christian, i can't believe in it. I can't work with it. That means that it is unlikely if not impossible to have non-Christian creationists.

That's my inference. Correct?

Creationism or ID right now exists as a form of uncollected cricisms against science. Some are valid but that does not automatically give them a same place as science.

For example, I noticed that the referee on the soccer field made a bad call on a foul from my seat at the stands. Does that make me as qualified as the referee?

ID is a name given to a set of disorganised criticisms against science, which has never claim that it knows everything.

It does not give verifiable facts and thoughts that other people can recreate for the same results.

And its criticism gets obsolete with the progress of science.

Behe's claim of the bloodclotting agents and bacterial flagellum as non-reducible entity has been recently discovered to be false.

He claim if the bacterial flagellum would be useless if it misses just 1 component of its make-up. Research has shown that bactieril flagellum can be reduced further as some of its proteins are evolved in certain cells as mechanism to inject toxins into other cells. And blood-clotting agents are actually evolved from proteins in our intestine.

That was really an own goal by Behe. His weakness. He did not verify his findings.

His example that the mousetrap as proof of an intelligent designer will not work if it misses any of its parts are also proven wrong. You can use the etal part itself as a fishing hook, paper clip. You can also lose a few parts to create an even more basic moustrap

I'll leave this as that. Let's talk maths, which I flunked in high school. I'm from the liveral arts btw.

Dembski is the mathematician for ID. I really don't understand what he's trying to say. Here's a quick peeak at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentdesign#Fine-tuneduniverse

I agree with pro-ID and creationists that science is not perfect, although it never claims to be.

And I accept that science is true or correct. But I don't need faith or even facts to belief maths is universal.

When I look at people who designs planes and ships that weighs hundred of tonnes and yet can soar through the skies and waves, I have to really say that's magic. That's maths.

If creationists can come up with a divine formula that can systematically account for everything and anyone, I will tell you that I will become a believer.

Let's talk on Dembski whenever you want. And thanks for the physics lesson.

A little background. I only took biology alongside with Histroy, literature, economics and geography. My honours major is Chinese maritime history.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing you here again. Let's agree to disagree : >

Hubert, do drop me an e-mail when you can.

Oh crap...those people scare the hell outta me.

And...and...and...THEY MAKE OUR LAWS!

Two words: We're fucked.

Upside: since they believe in the sinfulness of sex so much, maybe they'll wipe themselves out by not breeding? I can hope, can't I?

Hi! Just my penny's worth. They are just trying to share their experiences in the way they experience it. There's nothing wrong with that. I think it's good people keep talking to keep the channels open. If the liberals don't, I have to say that they are just as close-minded as the conservatives. And like it or not, they are all Americans.

Hey Hubert, are you that crazy Russian? Yes, indeed, I think you are! You're too funny. I don't think you really believe much of what you say and that you are just messing around. Kestral, please don't be fooled by Hubert; he's fun loving but not at all serious I don't think.

Crazy Russian?