1. Comment #72913 by LawJik on September 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm

The National Geographic story that they seemed to be obsessed with is online here:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html.
Great read, supports Darwin, not sure why these people with imaginary friends would lead skeptical people towards such a great pro-evolution/reason article...


Seems like other wing nuts have attacked the same story.. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
(Scroll down to conclusion)

Other Comments by LawJik

2. Comment #72915 by Cartomancer on September 23, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Out of Thin Air? Load of Hot Air more like...

I do so hope anyone going to this will remember their handy Pharyngula ID/Creationism Bingo card.

And is it just me who wants to punch the smug, grimacing presenter of this piece repeatedly in the face until he expires?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

3. Comment #72920 by Charlie Wiederhold on September 23, 2007 at 2:13 pm

That's a nicely done webpage, I have to admit.

I wonder if it is sheer dumb luck that this is happening at the same time as the AAI event in Washington DC.

Other Comments by Charlie Wiederhold

4. Comment #72927 by PrimeNumbers on September 23, 2007 at 2:32 pm

He doesn't look too bright, does he? Is he really arrogant enough to think he has "the answers"?

As I know for certain that if there was a God, a creator of everything God, a unique creator of everything else, itself uncreated, then surely it cannot believe in a higher power than itself, and hence it cannot have it's own personal God. Surely, if any religion or belief or lack of belief could be attached to that God, it would be (strong) Atheism. Quite frankly, if Atheism is good enough for God, then it's good enough for me!

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

5. Comment #72929 by _J_ on September 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Wow! The devil may have the best tunes, but god's doing alright for web designers. (Though I wouldn't trade Josh for a million fancy-pants fundie code mercenaries.)

Was it Anne Druyan that I remember saying that we could do with having the case for science and rationality put forward with the best media presentation we can muster? I think (just personal opinion) that a lot of people associate high-quality presentation with high-quality content. To be honest, I'm a bit of a sucker for this myself. If it's impressive-looking, tastefully presented, well designed, neither OTT nor amateurish, I just instinctively put a bit more trust in it. I know I shouldn't, I know I'm being Homer Simpson, and I can generally tell myself off while I'm doing it, but the inclination is there, nevertheless. And for anyone unsceptical enough to be a creationist, I kind of think the impulse to think twice about such assumptions won't be too strong.

One of the old wing chun kung fu masters said: 'Your enemy will show you how to hit him'. Cheers, creationists! We need more Flash and sequins.

(BTW, for British users: not such a flashy design, if they're stealing their backgrounds from Blockbusters.)

EDIT: Afterthought: perfectly chosen name, Out of Thin Air. In my experience, that's exactly where creationist arguments tend to come from.

Other Comments by _J_

6. Comment #72939 by Koreman on September 23, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Nice webpage, funny to see how these things evolve.

After seeing a few previews I saw the light. If he exists God must be an atheist. He must be a busy fellow too, listening to billions of people simultaneously all the time, changing the course of planned history in order to answer a few questions every now and then. Therefor it's nice to have some faithful people building flashy websites doing monkeybusiness.

Other Comments by Koreman

7. Comment #72948 by Ironwolf on September 23, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Wow... I had no idea that Max Headroom is a creationist.

Other Comments by Ironwolf

8. Comment #72955 by Yorker on September 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm

5. Comment #72929 by _J_

Web pages are put together by people who use packages that create the web sites. So don't be overly impressed by fundie 'package users' J, the coding involved, if any, is minimal.

Other Comments by Yorker

9. Comment #72961 by Aidan86 on September 23, 2007 at 4:09 pm

LawJik: "Great read, supports Darwin, not sure why these people with imaginary friends would lead skeptical people towards such a great pro-evolution/reason article..."

Because it helps them to prove that the theory of evolution is still an open question, rather than settled science.

Once that's established, they merely have to provide some sensational sounding claims about creationism and people are hooked.

Other Comments by Aidan86

10. Comment #72975 by alexmzk on September 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm

on the website, i like "Out of Thin Air - Coming Sept 28, 2007".

is it still coming "out of thin air" if they give us a week's warning, or is the air of anticipation detrimental to their campaign? maybe i'm reading too much into it.

as an afterthought, the National Geographic article includes an interesting statistic:
"According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

is there a correlation between gullibility and whether or not you respond to a telephone poll?

Other Comments by alexmzk

11. Comment #72983 by steveroot on September 23, 2007 at 5:18 pm

1. Comment #72913 by LawJik on September 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm
The National Geographic story that they seemed to be obsessed with is online here:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html.

Seems like other wing nuts have attacked the same story.. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

I got 404'd on the NG site, but god let me see this on AiG:

Darwin was partially right about natural selection explaining the origin of species. But because he didn't pay attention to the Bible (but rather rejected it because of his rebellion against his Creator), he didn't understand that speciation is simply the God-designed way for the original supernaturally created kinds to produce wonderful variety and perpetuate themselves in the changing environments of a sin-cursed world that would be radically changed by a global year-long Flood at the time of Noah.

I'm glad *that* got cleared up!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

12. Comment #72993 by Michael P. on September 23, 2007 at 5:50 pm

The way his face keeps moving is quite creepy.

For better or worse (ok, likely worse), I feel compelled to follow this site... hopefully to its eminent demise.

Other Comments by Michael P.

13. Comment #72994 by Bandon B. Decker on September 23, 2007 at 5:51 pm

I read the National Geographic article when it came out. The first page of the article said, in a very large font,: "No. The evidence for evolution is stronger than ever." I assume these people did not bother to open the magazine.

Other Comments by Bandon B. Decker

14. Comment #73010 by stevenlebeau on September 23, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Basically this event is designed to help Christians refine their knee-jerk reactions when the subject of evolution comes up in conversation.

Did anybody else cringe at this part: "...the tools necessary for exploring the meaning of life on your own." As if they're trying to convince people that their "event" is designed to teach people how to think critically!

Other Comments by stevenlebeau

15. Comment #73030 by BT Murtagh on September 23, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Well I'm not on my home machine, so I'm viewing the site on Internet Exploder with no Flash.

Under those circumstances, the site is, to use a phrase a fundie would understand, "as ugly as home-made sin."

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

16. Comment #73042 by vertigo25 on September 24, 2007 at 12:23 am

8. Comment #72955 by Yorker on September 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm

(in response to 5. Comment #72929 by _J_ )

Web pages are put together by people who use packages that create the web sites. So don't be overly impressed by fundie 'package users' J, the coding involved, if any, is minimal.

Huh? This kind of rings of "the software does all the work." I can tell you from considerable experience, that someone actually did put a lot of effort in to that site. I would, however, argue that it really isn't all that well designed (it may be neat, and attractive to some, but it is poorly designed).

At any rate...

I think I may actually call the church listed as closest to me to ask some questions about the event. I want to see if there's a price to get in the door and whether there will be a collection during the event. I'm also wondering if they'll have any kind of discussion afterwards.

Other Comments by vertigo25

17. Comment #73045 by vertigo25 on September 24, 2007 at 12:31 am

Oh... BTW, the creepy dude is named Shawn Boonstra. He's a Seventh-day Adventist and the current speaker/director of It Is Written.

Other Comments by vertigo25

18. Comment #73062 by Harko on September 24, 2007 at 2:56 am

PrimeNumbers wrote:

He doesn't look too bright, does he? Is he really arrogant enough to think he has "the answers"?

Interestingly though, he seems to be quite careful to not offer any answers. Only that after the presentations:

You'll have some of the tools necessary for exploring ..... on your own.

Funny how he makes it sound like he's asking the flock to be rational :-)

Other Comments by Harko

19. Comment #73066 by Corylus on September 24, 2007 at 3:18 am

Comment #5 by _J_

(BTW, for British users: not such a flashy design, if they're stealing their backgrounds from Blockbusters.)

Whoa - flashback!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-880uWIk_hI

Other Comments by Corylus

20. Comment #73136 by irate_atheist on September 24, 2007 at 8:33 am

Is he referring to the thin air located between his ears?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

21. Comment #73364 by Voltaire on September 24, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Hey guys:

I think you've got this guy pegged wrong. I've heard him speak before, and he's not from the same batch as the fundies. And frankly, the "punch him in the face," "wingnut," and "thin air located between his ears" comments don't make us look altogether bright - especially when we haven't heard what him yet. This discussion is looking a little knee-jerk for people who are supposed to be rational. These comments are a kind of embarrassing, especially when we say stuff that simply isn't true. I checked out the website, and he's NOT saying that NG disclaimed Darwin. He's saying they're wrong for affirming Darwin. It would seem we're the ones not doing our homework....

Other Comments by Voltaire