Video: The atheist’s nightmare
posted at 9:22 am on May 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
This isn’t another gratuitous religion-versus-atheism post, I promise. It’s actually prep for the big showdown on Wednesday at ABCNews.com, where the two men below will square off with two people from that stupid group that encourages people to tape themselves saying “I deny the Holy Spirit” in a debate on whether God exists. Many of you will have seen this clip before; those who haven’t will recognize the guy on the right as Kirk “Growing Pains” Cameron. The dude with the banana is Ray Comfort, a minister from New Zealand who says he’s going to prove, scientifically, on Wednesday that God exists. I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that the “proof” might run along these very lines, which, needless to say, will do the cause of belief no favors.
I’m tempted to accuse ABC of sandbagging Christians by tapping these two to make the case for religion, but according to the CNS article it was Comfort and Cameron who approached them with the idea, not vice versa. But fear not: if it’s deck-stacking you want, check out whom the New York Public Library enlisted to tangle with Christopher Hitchens on the same subject tonight in NYC.
What I wouldn’t give to be there.
There are plenty of critiques of this at YouTube if you’re interested, most notably here and, in a rare YouTube appearance, since-banned atheist Nick Gisburne pondering the wonders of the pineapple.
For the record, my own personal nightmares have less to do with bananas than peanut butter.
I’ll have the ABC link for you Wednesday so you can watch it live. They’ll be airing parts of it that night on Nightline too, but I suspect it’ll be all over YouTube by then.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
I think all it proves is that selective breeding of banana trees over the years have produced a more consistent human-friendly product. Obviously trees with other shaped fruits would not be cultivated or germinated as often as those with better results for food production.
SO all they have proven is how influential humans are in adopting the environment to suit their own needs.
BTW tomatoes used to be tiny little berry-like things when they grew wild. Today’s tomato is the result of hundreds of years of genetic manipulation.
Neo on May 7, 2007 at 9:28 AM
I’m in the mood for a peanutbutter and banana sandwich.
csdeven on May 7, 2007 at 9:30 AM
I was thinking the “proof” might be along the lines of quantum physics, non-local communication, and such.
mikeyboss on May 7, 2007 at 9:31 AM
I submit that the evolution toward larger tomatoes began when stage acting began.
csdeven on May 7, 2007 at 9:32 AM
No aliens in the peanut butter = proof of God’s existence.
Well, I’m glad we cleared that up.
flipflop on May 7, 2007 at 9:32 AM
“non-slip surface”…
God invented teflon? Who knew…
JetBoy on May 7, 2007 at 9:40 AM
I thought that’s what additives and preservatives did to food – prevent random life from spawning.
I’m being silly, for certain but do these debates really change anyone’s minds? Seriously?
Hoodlumman on May 7, 2007 at 9:44 AM
And wouldn’t Comfort’s banana demonstration hold true for primates, too.
I’ll just continue to take my belief in God as a matter of faith, as intended, thanks.
Hoodlumman on May 7, 2007 at 9:47 AM
And then there are plantines which look like bananas, but are smaller, not as curved and starchy instead of sweet. If God created bananas to be a perfect human food, why bother making a similar food with less-desireable qualities?
Is it evidence of John Edwards’ Lord creating two Americas; one America where you get divinely designed bananas, live in massive houses on secluded estates and another America where your neighbors own guns, vote republican and refuse to tear down the house they were born in, where they may have eaten the inferior plantaines as a child?
Neo on May 7, 2007 at 9:52 AM
That’s not very nice. Only an atheist could have arranged that mismatch of brains and character. I call BS!
As for Kirk and his odd little friend, I love their analysis of the incredibke, edible, banana, in its own handy carrying case. Heck, I even liked the peanut butter lesson. Good point!
For the record, I didn’t like the guy in the toupe very much. I don’t like toupes, or hair dye. Why do you suppose that Tommy Thompson has gone that route with his orange hair? Gray’s ok, Tom.
Jaibones on May 7, 2007 at 9:53 AM
AP, you are a fantastic pot-stirrer. There’s a “dinosaurs are in the Bible” video on Youtube as well.
Krydor on May 7, 2007 at 9:56 AM
btw…How would the guy in the banana video explain the ease of opening and ergonomic genius of the coconut?
JetBoy on May 7, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Nope.
Bob's Kid on May 7, 2007 at 10:05 AM
As a Christian, I have to say that I look at these videos and shake my head and wonder what in the world they’re talking about. I mean, come on…a banana? Worst nightmare?
Come back here with my faith…
nailinmyeye on May 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM
csdeven…with mayonaise !
DoctorDentons on May 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Welcome back AllahPundit. See-dubya did a masterful job of stirring up the religious flame wars while you were gone, but somehow it’s just not the same without that caustic element that you add (when we can get you to participate, that is).
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Teleology reduced to fruit analogies? Please! Neither side can “prove” their presuppositions, by definition of presupposition. They are unprovable axioms which serve as the framework upon which other theories are built. The question is: which presuppositions are best able to explain the world around us?
common sensineer on May 7, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Kirk Cameron isn’t one of the ones I would have had on my list of “faith-defenders.” There are more brilliant minds out there like Ravi Zacharias. O well…ratings push.
Rarely does anyone change there mind over debate. It does more to strengthen a person’s stance as Christian or atheist, even when holes have been poked into arguments. I assure atheists will hold stongly to what tickles their ears, and Christians will do the same. Banana trees can’t prove my faith. My love must.
danarchy on May 7, 2007 at 10:26 AM
All right, JetBoy, credit where credit is due: this was your finest post to date. Welcome! and,
Heh.
Jaibones on May 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM
The trouble here is that religious people are trying to use a type of knowledge that doesn’t apply to their domain.
It’s almost as if scientists tried to use faith to prove their points about global warming. Wait a minute…
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 7, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Watch out, Thomas Aquinas, we have Mike Seaver to put things a little more accessibly to the masses. Jesus was a populist, dontchaknow. What a circus. How many pinheads can dance upon the head of an angel? Clearly about four.
Drum on May 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Comfort and Cameron aren’t exactly St. Augustine & Thomas Aquinas. They’re morons. ABC jumped at the chance. If ABC were serious about a debate, they’d put serious theologians into the mix. Instead, Christians are represented by these two idiots and we’re all going to suffer for it. My only hope is that the debate exposes the stupidity of Cameron & Comfort, instead of anything inherent in Christianity.
Sydney Carton on May 7, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Oh my, I think they made us watch that video in sixth grade sex ed! Please guys, go back to something more productive, like making really cheesy, yet family friendly, TV sitcoms. This is an insult to the Faith. But alas, what in American pop Christianity isn’t?
Drum on May 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Aren’t evolutionists who stupidly claim Darwin explained the origins of all time and space as blindly naive as “believers” (Christian or otherwise) who claim they have any idea of what “God” could possibly be? Neither side ever seems to give this much honest thought.
Halley on May 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Wow. Focus on one small thing a little more, Allah, and ignore the rest of their ministry. That well just isn’t poisoned enough.
JinxMcHue on May 7, 2007 at 10:45 AM
The Peanut Butter argument is like saying that since my newspaper didn’t spontaneously combust, there is no such thing as fire.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM
The Cadillac ad wins for best proving the existence of God.
Hey, Chuck Missler, I’m gonna suck your brain dry, the Scanners way!
Drum on May 7, 2007 at 10:49 AM
I think I posted that banana video in a comment. Hopefully nobody takes it seriously.
Nonfactor on May 7, 2007 at 10:49 AM
People that have dedicated there lives to finding nuance in a piece of fiction.
*sigh*
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 7, 2007 at 10:49 AM
So how does he explain the awkward and relatively difficult to eat oranges (spherical, no easy opening tab, skin often sticks to the pulp, contains pips)? Did god mean us to eat only bananas and not oranges?
And what about mangos? Very hard to tell when theyre ripe, the meat sticks to the large stone something fierce, an awful mess to eat. Ah but hang on, only asian heathens eat those so god probably created them to give the heathens a hard time.
Ok, in all fairness I found it quite funny, but anyone who takes this at all seriously needs their head examined.
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Hmmm….methinks the fact that cows make tasty cheeseburgers disproves Hinduism.
Buck Turgidson on May 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Since the new life in the peanut butter is most likely microscopic (since the experiments along this line have produced amino acids, not monkeys, with energy and matter), what moron thinks that by opening it and looking inside that’s proof of anything?
shirgall on May 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Good point. I could think of about 100 theologians that are more qualified and better prepared to offer an explanation of Christian faith than these two trying to “prove” it. It is remarkable how legitimate Christian scholars get overlooked in favor of putting tv personalities and banana toting ministers on television.
nailinmyeye on May 7, 2007 at 10:53 AM
But the peanut butter video … wow! I mean I’m convinced. I’m never buying a jar of peanut butter again! Who knows what alien life forms might be lurking in there, waiting to take over the planet. Maybe my jar will have evolved a jihadi who’ll jump out and cut off my head.
Oh hang-on, that would be ‘devolution’ from peanut butter wouldnt it?
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 10:57 AM
With mayo? I don’t know if I would take that chance. It could ruin PB & B sandwiches for life.
csdeven on May 7, 2007 at 10:57 AM
>what moron thinks that by opening it and looking inside that’s proof of anything?
O ye of little faith. Knowest not that thine foodstuffs art filldst with the matter that bringeth not eternal life, but eternal hearburn? Seek not eternal life in that which resideth ‘tween two pieces of bread and sticketh upon the roof of the mouths of dogs.
Drum on May 7, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Who was it who said you’ll never go broke under-estimating the taste (intelligence?) of the American public?
It is revealing as to the cult of celebrity in our country. This Cameron person was on some lame sitcom a couple decades age and hence has the magic ticket to yammer on and on about religion. Dear God.
honora on May 7, 2007 at 10:59 AM
WHAT ABOUT THE MANGO??????????
The mango must be tacit proof of God’s non-existence.
Mangos have a huge, unwieldy, inedible stone in the middle. The flesh of the mango sticks to this stone and is impossible to prize off and the mango is so juicy that any attempt to eat it ends up in a sticky mess.
If banana’s are proof of God’s design brilliance, then was he having an off-day when he designed the mango?
Peaches are also pretty much crap as are cashew nuts.
In reality, of course, Bananas have evolved their ape-friendly ergonomics.
uptight on May 7, 2007 at 10:59 AM
More seriously, when evolutionists talk about evolving life from energy and matter, theyre thinking like every coupla million years or so, not during the shelf life of a jar of peanut butter. But ok, that’s pretty complex logic for some and many religious people seem to prefer their logic nice n simple.
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 10:59 AM
for those of you who are blinded by the evolutionist religion, there’s a video which answer’s your idiotic little bon mots about the peanut butter vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXfAduDQpn0&mode=related&search=
jummy on May 7, 2007 at 10:59 AM
HEY! I had the mango one first!!! Stop plagiarising my mango posts!!! ^^
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Plus, would any sane, loving God invent hornets and wasps?
They don’t even give us bloody honey!
uptight on May 7, 2007 at 11:01 AM
lol, you just posted another version of the same video jummy-boy, proving our point even more. I.e. that certain creationists have not succeeded in evolving a brain.
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Nailinmyeye
Legitimate Christian scholars tend to not put lame videos on Youtube using peanut butter and bannanas as proof of young earth creationism. The problem is that legitimate Christian scholars have little issue with science because legitimate Christian scholars have spent some time studying philosophy and logic. This is why legitimate Christian scholars don’t worry about too much about sciencey stuff outside of ethical connotations.
In other words, legitimate Christian scholars are dull as dirt. Legitimate scientists suffer from the same problem. The guy with the zazz gets the press.
Krydor on May 7, 2007 at 11:06 AM
>Plus, would any sane, loving God invent hornets and wasps?
Well, He did give us the Christian rock band, Stryper. Oh wait, strike that. They were the result of the consistent devolution of pop music in general, and Christian pop music in particular.
Drum on May 7, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Dammit, not this stuff again…
There are enough sneering condescending atheists in the world already, don’t give them anymore ammo. This banana thing is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.
/evolutionist
//doesn’t mock creationists
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Typical christian, deliberately missing the point. No evolutionist would argue that life is capable of evolving inside of a jar of peanut butter, yet the creationists pretend that they do claim that in order to then satirise a ficiton of their own invention.
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 11:11 AM
You’re absolutely right, but it sure is annoying the way people seriously portray this nonsense and make videos about it. They’re only preaching to the already converted (and not very intelligent), furnishing them a means of persuading themselves that ‘science’ is somehow on their side. It just kinda irritates and then one can’t help but comment on the garbage, like scratching an itch.
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 11:15 AM
[lowers head and massages temples]
you must be a liberal atheist.
jummy on May 7, 2007 at 11:16 AM
dang, put the wrong post in the quote. I was referring to
not to Jummy’s inane post.
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Hey if you take;
Atheist nightmares
bread
butter
honey
bacon
you’ve got a tasty Elvis sammich, and he was the King. Uh huh!
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I’m not actually an atheist at all. I genuinely don’t care what people believe. I guess you’d probably call me agnostic. I just get irritated by dishonest pseudo-scientific arguments.
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM
oh … and I’m defintitely not a liberal (was it really necessary to stoop to using insults??!!).
Aylios on May 7, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I guess you could say those ingredients evolved into a delicious and very healthy sandwich, or they were divinely inspired by God…
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Dear God? HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAA!
I’m pretty sure if there was a God, He wouldn’t be sending these two yahoos and their banana on television to make His case, but what the hell do I know?
Enrique on May 7, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Bananas and peanut butter would never have convinced me of anything but the existence of lunch. One day, many years ago, the Holy Spirit tapped this former agnostic on the shoulder and said, “You!…I want You! It was an indescribable feeling I nonetheless resisted for years. Eventually I gave it a chance. Now my life is better than I ever thought it could be. That Spirit is my beloved friend. I don’t care who thinks what about my belief in Him. I know what I know. If you invite him in with all your heart, He’ll show. Time for lunch.
Buck Turgidson on May 7, 2007 at 11:30 AM
I submit the insidious pickle as proof of Satan’s existence. Not only is it universally agreed that pickles are nasty, but it’s not like you can just take them off your sandwich like you can onions or tomatoes. The juice just gets all over everything and contaminates it all with nasty pickledom anyway. (In fact, the vile thing needn’t even be directly on the sandwich. The juice creeps out and ruins everything if there’s pickle anywhere at all on the plate.)
If that’s not Evil, I don’t know what is.
Blacklake on May 7, 2007 at 11:46 AM
There’s a Presleyterian joke in here somewhere.
Krydor on May 7, 2007 at 11:46 AM
True enough…In Seminary some of the dullest classes were both taught by world class scholars, and dull as dirt.
However, I might take issue with ascribing “zazz” to Kirk Cameron, and his “Left Behind” buddies.
Also – it seems that legitimate scientists get a hearing much more often than legitimate theologians…regardless of the degree of dullness, or zazz.
nailinmyeye on May 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM
I’ve heard that it is better to open bananas from the other end
sirmyth on May 7, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Pretty much.
PRCalDude on May 7, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Regarding Hitchens vs. (I won’t tell you, you won’t believe it, it’s way too good to spoil, hit AP’s link) at the library, I’m not seeing the deck-stacking. In fact, I’m seeing a rather intriguing alignment of things that the left usually strives to avoid: (1) a nominal man of God who does not usually make a point of his belief in the public-of-liberals, forced to do so; (2) the politically correct position being opposed by the debater who belongs to the ostensible-victim group. It’s lose-lose for the left; either their preferred argument goes down, or one of their preferred demagogues of victimhood goes down likewise.
I’m really surprised it’s happening, and I’d like to be there too, if only to see for myself that it wouldn’t be called off when some leftie figured out the problem.
Splunge on May 7, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I’m a creationist, and I have to agree with anyone that thinks the banana bit is stupid. No offense to Cameron and Comfort, but that proves nothing at all. I just hope he doesn’t decide to use that in his debate. Maybe he has something new? But the problem with the idea of him PROVING that God exists is that I don’t even believe its possible to prove. There maybe many things that point toward there being a God, but that’s not the same thing as proof.
j_ehman on May 7, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Blasphemer! Burn ‘im at the stake! Pickles are divinely inspired and delicious. Onions on the other hand, are the Devil’s fruit. Only a purely malevolent force could devise such a perfect evil. Well, that and bats.
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 12:02 PM
I liked the examples. However, Comfort is holding the banana upside down. I guess he’s from down under. All the primates peel the banana from the other end – the flower end versus the stem end. Try it, its much easier, and you’ll exlaim, “well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.”
Even hardened athiests have to admit there is a wondrous beauty and apparent design throughout the universe – from the molecular level to the spiral galaxy level.
Texas Mike on May 7, 2007 at 12:11 PM
OT:
PinkyBigglesWorth for some reason got banned and wanted me to say ‘good-bye’ to you all.
PRCalDude on May 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Ray Comfort is an evangelist who created a series of videos on evangelism called The Way of the Master. Having this guy represent Christians in a debate with atheists makes about as much sense as asking Harry Reid to take over at Centcom, as I think that ridiculous banana clip proves.
I’ll say this for him, he has moxie. If he doesn’t get slaughtered in this debate, I’ll consider it a miracle.
John on May 7, 2007 at 12:14 PM
I’m sorry, but have you ever even READ the Bible? I’m betting your answer is either no, or maybe once. You can’t call a book that is well known as one of the most accurate historical literary works in existence a piece of fiction. Do some research. Many Biblical stories have been proven, and none have ever been dis-proven (as much as people have tried).
j_ehman on May 7, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Dang! You will be missed Big Pink.
Buck Turgidson on May 7, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Five people who would be better representatives for the Christian position:
1) William Lane Craig
2) JP Moreland
3) Greg Koukl
4) Stephen Barr
5) Steve Meyer
I’ve heard Christian vs. atheist debates by #3 and #5 and both made strong arguments for faith. 1 and 2 are Christian philosophers, JP Moreland is someone I would describe as “scrappy.” #4 is a physicist who has written extensively about science and faith.
Instead we get Ray Comfort…? Unless the atheist side is being presented by Pee Wee Herman, I think we’re in trouble.
John on May 7, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Well stated. I completely concur. (You see Sydney, I’m not as bad as you think I am.)
Do not speak evil of mangos. I love mangos. Mangos are completely Holy.
Onions are not so bad if you eat them with garlic to ward off the evil spirits and werewolves.
Speaking of bats… can we truly say that Comfort and Cameron are a mis-representation of Christians, and then in an adjacent thread make a gleeful and sweeping generalization that ALL liberals are just like Rosie O’Donnell? Is that fair?…
H*ll yes. Sure it is. Go right ahead. (Makes sense to me.)
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I think Michelle accidentally banned him. The last thread he was on was here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/01/may-day-open-thread/
PRCalDude on May 7, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Without onions and pickles, one cannot make a proper hamburger. A properly made hamburger, in conjunction with an ice cold beer, is about as close to heaven as mortal man can get.
Krydor on May 7, 2007 at 12:36 PM
There is already concensus on this issue, denier.
Blacklake on May 7, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Heretic! Heretic!
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Yeah, onions are great until you accidentally eat one. Damn things make me violently ill.
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM
forget the peanut butter, if Darwinism is “true” and another beleif masquerading as ‘science’, that some people are “born gay”, then why are there still homosexuals? Wouldn’t they have weeded themselves out by now?
Evolution is a scientific theory, not science.
jp on May 7, 2007 at 12:56 PM
The onions don’t make you ill, Satan does. He does not want you to experience the divine revelation of complete BBQ.
Krydor on May 7, 2007 at 12:58 PM
It’s unfortunate that people of faith must not only transcend billigerent aetheists, but goofball believers, as well. Time and again, I’m encouraged to realize that faith is deeply personal and unfazed by either camp.
I might also add that faith and religion are two entirely different things.
nico on May 7, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Mangos are grown natively and are found in large numbers in the Philippines. Michelle Malkin’s parents are from the Philippines, the land from whence all good things flow. Anyone speaking evil of the mangos, risks incurring the wrath of the hostess and her family. Fear of the hostess is the beginning of wisdom, lest ye suffer the same fate as the PinkyBigglesWorth.
(Do I get an Amen? Okay, so I’ll keep my day-job.)
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Oy. As a Catholic, I’m embarrassed. Of all things, these two, as someone else said “yahoos”, use bananas? (Cue banging head on table).
amerpundit on May 7, 2007 at 1:08 PM
That Bastard!
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 1:08 PM
They never ask me about the evolution thing. They always drag out some Fundie looney with a jar of peanut butter or a banana.
Evolution’s got problems, but genesis of life has even bigger problems. And it all centers around the idea that there was a random occurrence 4 billion years ago that made a single-cell organism. And given just how complicated single cell organisms are, having all the right parts aggregate in the same location long enough for life to self-assemble, complete with cell walls, reticuli, nuclei, chormosomes, etc, is a statistical improbability that’s absurd to calculate, especially given that it’s a reducing atmosphere and the amino acids generated have to generated in concentration in conditions that allow it to survive and then replicate to populate the planet.
If the Gibbs free energy equation is accurate, then the entropy that must be overcome to make it a spontaneous reaction is so high the process itself is absurd to occur randomly.
Nethicus on May 7, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Somebody DID get banned during that thread, but the nick was Ringmaster. And I saw nothing in Pinky’s comments that should have pulled that trigger. Then again, the comment that got Ringmaster banned was deleted as well, but I never read anything from Pinky that crossed the line. Could we call for a reprieve?
Freelancer on May 7, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I’m Catholic too, so, yeah, *Clinton Voice* I feel your pain.
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Nethicus on May 7, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Finally! Intellect takes a seat at the lunch-room counter. Hooray! Welcome to the vegen looney bin.
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Don’t they have little jar thingys you can make where you take water and basic elements needed for the building plocks of life andby applying a bit of electricity they’ve actually been able to generate basic compounds needed for life? Dunno, think I read it in science class.
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 1:18 PM
What he said.
Buck Turgidson on May 7, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Your logic is flawed; you conveniently omit that pickles are created through a man made process! Therefor, man creates this evil. Unless you refer to Satanic impulse.
Really? Too bad, always an entertaining and interesting commenter.
SouthernDem on May 7, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Let’s threaten a Digg Riot if he doesn’t get reinstated. Heheh. Yeah, I think Michelle just made a mistake. How about a reprieve, Allah?
PRCalDude on May 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM
HaHa! Used in the public schools all the way back in the 1960s, which most you here are too wet behind the ears to remember.
It has been COMPLETELY discredited. Ranks in there with “the ether” and Mickelson-Morley. You really MUST update yourself on evolutionary dogma. (Sorry. I don’t mean to be snarky here. It’s just that all of this stuff is SUCH a moving target.)
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 1:24 PM
If you people will just READ the FOSSIL RECORD this will all be PERFECTLY CLEAR.
see-dubya on May 7, 2007 at 1:27 PM
All we are saying is give Pink a chance.
Buck Turgidson on May 7, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Is there an echo in here? I didn’t know HotAir had its very own reverberation chamber.
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Another Stand to Reason fan? I was thinking J.P. Moreland would be an excellent choice for the debate as well.
TXRedhead on May 7, 2007 at 1:31 PM
What they couldn’t find any Jesuits?
Iblis on May 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Taking on possibly the greatest issue of our time—the malignant force of Al Sharpton in the world—Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case against Al Sharpton through a close and learned reading of the major religious texts, citing numerous historical instances in which sexual repression and outrageous acts of violence have been committed in the name of Al Sharpton.
saint kansas on May 7, 2007 at 1:37 PM
AP must have had a few peanut butter and banana sandwiches while he was away.
infidel4life on May 7, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Really? I didn’t know that. I just remember reading about it in high school. Oh well. I don’t really pay attention to science because I suck at it, mostly cuz I suck at math. Of course, I’m only in my 20s, so I’m not sure its as old a thing as you think. Of course, my school was a poor catholic school, half the books probably WERE from the 60′s.
Bad Candy on May 7, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I read some interesting arguments based on physics, can’t remember where though. One of the bases for the argument was to consider all of the physical constants in physics and answer the question, why are they what they are?
For example, the gravitational constant. Just a little bigger, and the universe would have collapsed by now. A little smaller, and the universe would be a completely different place. How did the gravitational constant just happen to be exactly what was needed for a coherant universe to form?
taznar on May 7, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »