This is probably old hat to a lot of you, but I was browsing through the Pharyngula archives, near-fainting at the snarky scientific tastiness contained therein, when I came across the most awesome catchphrase ever while reading this tasty bit of Creationist debunking:
If you can't read it the parenthetical note, it says: "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"
I gave a startled yelp of laughter when I read it. This, ladies and gentlemen, encapsulates why Creationists suck at teh science. OK, not so much suck, as lack any working understanding of it.
Myers' suggested use of this phrase also had me hooting with glee, GLEE.
What makes all this funnier is the awkwardness of the sentence. Pinkoski's syntax is as tortured his understanding of biology.
MY GLEE CANNOT BE DOUBTED, MUCH LIKE THE PYGMIES + DWARFS.
Edited to add: Man, I need to see if I can modify the boilerplate CSS for this style so that the blockquotes at least get their own color background so I don't need to do this [quote]...[end quote] malarkey.
[quoting PZ Meyers]
[Pinkoski is] inconsistent and more than a little hypocritical. Note that above he attacks the fossil record in multiple ways, but here's an interesting reversal:[PZ Myers quoting Pinkoski]
FACT: The FOSSIL RECORD shows that nearly everything grew LARGER before the flood--"GIANTISM" flourished--(they've found 18 inch cockroaches, 3 ft. dragonflies, 2 ft. grasshoppers, 8 ft. beavers, 15 ft. turtles, 80 ft. sharks, etc., etc.!) ACCORDINGLY, THIS CONDITION COULD ALSO APPLY TO MANKIND!
[end quote]
This is one of the hallmarks of creationism, cherry-picking the data. He only accepts the scattered bits of the fossil record that fit his predetermined view. At the same time, while rejecting the reasonable, consistent, and tested interpretations of evolutionary theory, he feels free to hare off and make up any ol' bit of nonsense he wants. For example…
[end quote]
If you can't read it the parenthetical note, it says: "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"
I gave a startled yelp of laughter when I read it. This, ladies and gentlemen, encapsulates why Creationists suck at teh science. OK, not so much suck, as lack any working understanding of it.
Myers' suggested use of this phrase also had me hooting with glee, GLEE.
[quoting PZ Myers again]
It's an incredibly useful phrase that's going to come in handy.
Ever wonder how the hell a moron like George W. Bush got elected? "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"
How can people be so gullible to believe the nonsense peddled by the Discovery Institute? "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"
"Kids, go clean your rooms." "Awww, do I have to?" "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"[end quote]
What makes all this funnier is the awkwardness of the sentence. Pinkoski's syntax is as tortured his understanding of biology.
MY GLEE CANNOT BE DOUBTED, MUCH LIKE THE PYGMIES + DWARFS.
Edited to add: Man, I need to see if I can modify the boilerplate CSS for this style so that the blockquotes at least get their own color background so I don't need to do this [quote]...[end quote] malarkey.

no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 01:53 pm (UTC)