1. Comment #120183 by Mango on February 1, 2008 at 10:15 am

Dr. Simmons read an article in Scientific American about the evolution of whales -- he devoted literally minutes and minutes to researching this subject. And he seems so confident in his depth of knowledge. Pathetic.

Other Comments by Mango

2. Comment #120184 by acidhouser on February 1, 2008 at 10:18 am

Listened to this last night. PZ absolutely creams the guy. It's almost as if we've started throwing christians to the lions again. I nearly felt sorry for Dr Simmons, but then I remembered he's a creationist. Well done PZ.

Other Comments by acidhouser

3. Comment #120189 by sarah95 on February 1, 2008 at 10:24 am

'respected authorities on each side of the issue"??? bah!

I understand why PZ wants to totally slam down this "Discovery Institute" ID nonsense, but WHY do the people on this show want to give any credence to such STUPID non-scientists?!?!

This is just SO infuriating that time after time, people who I know don't really question evolution and know ID is nonsense just put ID people on their shows, presenting them as "experts" or equivalent to real scientists. I know it grabs your attention, but I have to doubt that this KKMS station has any sense of ethics at all.

Other Comments by sarah95

4. Comment #120193 by sarah95 on February 1, 2008 at 10:26 am

All smashing of ID-enablers aside, PZ still did a great job!

Other Comments by sarah95

5. Comment #120211 by soul_biscuit on February 1, 2008 at 10:37 am

Judging by the filler, I'm fairly confident that KKMS is a Christian radio station, and if they're having fellows from the Discovery Institute on their shows, probably a fairly fundamentalist one. I think they would be classed more as "ID sympathizers" than "ID enablers."

Other Comments by soul_biscuit

6. Comment #120215 by Devolution on February 1, 2008 at 10:41 am

I listened to the entire show live and it was an utterly pathetic performance by the cdesign proponentist. It think they called PZ "DR." maybe one time, while Simmons was repeatedly called "Dr. Simmons". And dont even get me started on Simmons closing argument! I need a drink, is it 5PM yet?

Other Comments by Devolution

7. Comment #120222 by pzmyers on February 1, 2008 at 10:44 am

KKMS is definitely a Christian talk radio station --young earth creationists through and through. They're promoting a trip to Ken Ham's Creation "Science" "Museum"! Simmons didn't do his research, but that didn't stop him from writing a whole book claiming that there are no transitional fossils...and that kind of tells you all you need to know about the ID movement right there.

Other Comments by pzmyers

8. Comment #120224 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 1, 2008 at 10:46 am

How PZ manages to keep his cool I'll never know. I've only got an amaturistic enthusiasm for biology and evolution, but I reckon even I could have had a crack at refuting some of the bull that was thrown in his direction - it was that simplistic. However I'd have been too hacked off to be coherent.

Never heard his voice before (though I've read pharyngula from time to time), but the chap is an excellent speaker, very clear and very direct. I hope his students consider themselves lucky.

edit - ah, hello Dr Myers, great job.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

9. Comment #120230 by Phoenix42 on February 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

I still wonder whether debating these people really helps! Here's a personal view:



My parents are Christians and they look at the occurance of debates such as this. They see there's a debate and assume, fairly naturally, that there's a genuine split between two groups of scientists. They don't care for the details, listening to the arguments etc. The argument from authority is all they need - the preacher says ID is correct and they see the debates as evidence that scientists are changing their world-view.



Edit: don't get me wrong. I'm very grateful to the various scientists who stop their research and teaching to refute this kind of nonsense. But, I wonder what the overall goal of engaging is!

Other Comments by Phoenix42

10. Comment #120232 by Devolution on February 1, 2008 at 10:50 am

KKMS's byline for their logo is "Spirited Talk Radio" and guess which show was on right before PZ's debate? Thats right, everyones favorite banana loving duo, Kurt Cameron and Ray Comfort! We should all go on the Creation Science Museum trip! Think about how much fun we will have. We can all wear our scarlet "A" t-shirts and sing Bad Religion songs on the bus! Come on who's with me?

Other Comments by Devolution

11. Comment #120240 by Godless Heathen on February 1, 2008 at 10:55 am

PZ servin' up the Simmons meatloaf!

Stick a fork in him, he's done!!!

Other Comments by Godless Heathen

12. Comment #120244 by AnthSynthasome on February 1, 2008 at 11:00 am

PZ - You made this Minnesotan nonbeliever proud. How did you resist the temptation to hang up?

Other Comments by AnthSynthasome

13. Comment #120247 by jakelovatto on February 1, 2008 at 11:01 am

Is there a clearer demonstration of incompetence and wilful deception of the creationist critique of evolution. It would be laughable if it didn't have so much political power.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

14. Comment #120248 by Storeo on February 1, 2008 at 11:03 am

Lovely to listen to.

Well played PZ.

Other Comments by Storeo

15. Comment #120274 by decius on February 1, 2008 at 11:31 am

Excellent job, PZ.
In spite of the hostile environment, you literally steamrolled the "ignorant wacko".

Other Comments by decius

16. Comment #120281 by scoobie on February 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

Thank you and god bless you both...

What?!!!!
Nearly spat my coffee out when he said that at the end.

Other Comments by scoobie

17. Comment #120282 by Richard Dawkins on February 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

PZ is magnificent. Brilliant. Well-informed, good-humoured and devastatingly effective.

I was amused at how, when he called Simmons ignorant (of whale fossils) both Simmons and the chairman objected as though PZ had violated the decencies of debate by using a word like 'ignorant'. To call somebody 'ignorant' as a generalised insult might be ruled out by the rules of politeness. But to call somebody ignorant when he has just unequivocally DEMONSTRATED his ignorance, in a subject about which he had written a whole book, is simply a matter of fact, and not impolite at all.

Well done PZed.

Interestingly, Dembski's 'Uncommon Descent' website carried a thread to discuss the debate on the fly, as it happened. However, when they saw that their man Simmons was being slaughtered, and when they saw that even their own posters were (however reluctantly) recognizing this, they abruptly closed the thread down. Fortunately, somebody had saved it, and you can see it at
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=24870#entry95440

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

18. Comment #120291 by jaytee_555 on February 1, 2008 at 11:44 am

About the kindest thing anyone can say about Dr. Simmons is that if he were a geographer, he would be a flat-earthist. If he owned a telescope, he would be an astrologer. If he were a chemist, he would be trying to turn lead into gold. If he were a presidential advisor, he would be examining the entrails of a goat. It appears he is actually a medical man; I wonder who was keeping an eye on his leeches while he was busy debating?

It was really quite pathetic. He just didn't have a clue, did he? To say he had got everything utterly wrong would be to compliment him.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

19. Comment #120292 by AllanW on February 1, 2008 at 11:45 am

I posted on pharyngula but wanted the chance to echo the praise here, PZ. It was very welcome to hear the muscular way you dealt with obvious and deliberate lies as well as being unequivocal in reply to the various canards being repeated. Nice job.

BTW I think you get to crack open a nice bottle of wine and bask in the glow of the well-earned praise of the poster above :)

Other Comments by AllanW

20. Comment #120295 by AnthSynthasome on February 1, 2008 at 11:45 am

Why is Simmons so offended by being called "ignorant"? Dawkins writes, I believe correctly, that "Not only is ignorance no crime. It is also, fortunately, remediable." It is not as if PZ called Simmons "...stupid, insane, or wicked." I daresay, Simmons should be thankful for PZ's merciful word choice - he could have used other equally accurate terms, albeit more acerbic (e.g. stupid). Good riddance.

Other Comments by AnthSynthasome

21. Comment #120298 by BAEOZ on February 1, 2008 at 11:48 am

Simmons seriously is ignorant. If that's the level of knowledge on a subject required to write a book. Look out Hawkins and Penrose. I'm gonna write about unifying the theories Quantum Mechanics and Relativity! I suck at Math, have very little idea of QM and Relativity. But who cares? I'll just make it up and sound upset when someone says I'm ignorant.....Profit!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

22. Comment #120302 by decius on February 1, 2008 at 11:52 am

Please join me in a standing ovation to the mighty PZ.

P.S. Josh, do we really need to replicate the disclaimer regarding the alleged profanity contained in Pharyngula, that originally appeared in the creotards' website?
I think people here have tougher skins and may more likely take offence from the patent nonsense paraded in Uncommon Descent.

Other Comments by decius

23. Comment #120306 by Steve Zara on February 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm

While we are in a praising PZ mood, I would like to recommend his "There is no Ghost in your Brain" lecture, available from Google video:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8809660521227813170
and
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1800447793352878072

I recently discovered this, and it is a real pleasure to listen to.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

24. Comment #120307 by Geoff on February 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Simmons was so weak, it was cruel to set PZ up against him. Just about anyone on this board has seen his tired points destroyed time and time again.

Just a theory!
Descended from monkeys!
Gaps in the fossil record!
No transitional fossils!
Argument from design!

and that's just his opening!

Other Comments by Geoff

25. Comment #120311 by robotaholic on February 1, 2008 at 12:33 pm

awesome - I love pz's blog- read it everyday heh

Other Comments by robotaholic

26. Comment #120313 by Eamonn Shute on February 1, 2008 at 12:54 pm

I posted this comment in the forums:

"Should PZM have taken part in this broadcast?

Richard has said that he refuses to debate with creationists because it gives then the oxygen of publicity and gives the impression that there is a genuine scientific issue. On the other hand, if PZM (and others) had refused to debate with Simmons then Simmons would have been able to spout his nonsense unopposed (which was the original plan by the radio station).

I am undecided."

I wonder if Richard is having second thoughts after PZM did such a good job in this debate?

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

27. Comment #120317 by Deepthought on February 1, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Whenever I hear debates I take someone seriously up until they say something so stupid that a ninth grader can refute them. In this debate I stopped taking Simmons seriously when he cited the "evolution is just a theory" argument. I just listened to the part about "teach the controversy" and I have to say that Intelligent Design isn't actually being considered in the scientific community. THE FLAWS YOU CITE DON"T EXIST!!!!! Sorry just heard him saying that there are "flaws" in evolution.

Oh it's clear that they are more supportive of Simmons just by merit of reading out all his books and only saying that PZ is a proffessor of biology.

This is the first time I heard the "birth" complexity argument. What is the proper refutation because I don't know the science behind it?

Other Comments by Deepthought

28. Comment #120321 by Lana on February 1, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I read PZ's blog every day and I am definitely not a scientist. I think he and other scientists should debate these guys because they just might reach someone - not necessarily the participants but the kids who may be forced to listen to this stuff.

I know you risk giving credence to the other side, but I think it's worth it. Information is always good.

Other Comments by Lana

29. Comment #120322 by Skep on February 1, 2008 at 1:07 pm

P Zed was outstanding. I especially appreciate his willingness to go on the offense and call attention to the tactics of his opponents and even calling Simmons' proposed topic "Is Darwinism fact or faith?" the stupid attempt at deflection that it was.

PZ seems especially well suited in temperament to take on this ignorant Fellow who would have tried RD's patience. What works for PZ may not work for others without his style and knowledge.

Go P Zed!

Other Comments by Skep

30. Comment #120323 by ohdaddy on February 1, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Oh my, that was painful.

I always start to feel sorry for these people that attempt to debate solid science with supposed legitimate challenges to established scientific theorem, my compassion quickly evaporates as they endeavor to maintain how objective they are, how they are not Christians, have no belief in a creator and are only attempting to enforce the rules of justifiable scientific inquiry.

They all seem to have the same shtick. It’s very disingenuous to say the least.

I though PZ was wonderful, even though it was shooting fish in a barrel.

Other Comments by ohdaddy

31. Comment #120324 by Adam Morrison on February 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm

"Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute"

That pretty much sums up his integrity as a scientist. I wonder if he's also got a degree in 'Pixie Studies' or maybe he's a 'Genieologist'.

UGGGHHHHH!!!
PZ comes across a little rude at first, but it's certainly justified. Though I think the poofist listeners probably jumped to the 'arrogant evolutionist' assumption right away.

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

32. Comment #120325 by shad0w on February 1, 2008 at 1:13 pm

No PZ should not have taken part in this.

Otherwise we should have 'debates' whether gravity is real or not, whether the earth is flat or not,whether the earth revolves around the sun or not , etc etc. I hope you get my point.

These charlatans should be locked up and chained not on airwaves spreading mis-information to young children that can easily be coerced by 'fear of god'.

Especially they should mot be given credence by scientists like PZ trying to debate these folks. There must be 2 sides of a story to have a debate. There is NOT 2 sides on this issue. Label them as the crackpots that they are and untill they can provide _evidence_ for their arguments ignore them.


I am however pretty happy that he ridiculed that charlatan in the way that he did.

Other Comments by shad0w

33. Comment #120326 by Peter Mogensen on February 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Why is the link to PZ's blog marked as offensive? ... I mean... nobody warned me that KKMS is a christian radio with obscene commercials which I found rather offensive.

Anyway... it showed a really important point. Even though PZ wiped the floor with Simmons it often wise not to debate creationists.
1) They lie
2) It often boils down to what we in the computer field call "FUD" (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). Simmons gladly presented false claims knowing full well that most of his religious listeners wouldn't know how to check the facts anyway. ... and thus getting the impression that there is a real scientific dispute.

Other Comments by Peter Mogensen

34. Comment #120327 by Quine on February 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm

When speaking to the public, one simple thing needs to be repeated in every address:

It is a fact that species evolved, as proven by the fossil record. How that happened is the subject of the theory of evolution.

Any gaps or flaws in the current theory (understanding the 'how') does not impact the fact that species evolved.

Other Comments by Quine

35. Comment #120332 by ianmkz on February 1, 2008 at 1:34 pm

You're a better man than I am PZ Myers

Other Comments by ianmkz

36. Comment #120339 by ClemIsMe on February 1, 2008 at 1:37 pm

I have a thick skin and no love for creationists, but I felt... almost sorry for everyone but Mr. Myers.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

37. Comment #120341 by monoape on February 1, 2008 at 1:40 pm

... and one rather lovely result of the debate is that the 'cdesign proponentsists' at Ucommon Descent (aka 'Uncommonly Stupid') deleted a post where all their loyal followers agreed that Meyers wiped the floor with Simmons - http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dr-geoff-simmons-vs-pz-myers-debate-link-to-listen-to-it/

Other Comments by monoape

38. Comment #120360 by Teratornis on February 1, 2008 at 2:10 pm

In reply to Comment #120230 by Phoenix42:

I still wonder whether debating these people really helps!

If we want to win a battle, the first step is to show up. The reason we have creationism, intelligent design, etc., is because millions of people sit in churches every Sunday and hear nothing else. As Daniel Dennett says, every time we read or hear something, our brains make another copy of it.

Obviously one radio show isn't going to instantly reverse years of anti-scientific indoctrination all by itself, but we have to start somewhere. For centuries, scientists have mostly tried to steer clear of religion, but that has not encouraged a vocal minority religious people to keep up their half of the implied NOMA bargain.

I'm beginning to think that atheists should consider attending church, and do what the Intelligent Design advocate suggests: debate the issues! Churches are cesspools of one-sided groupthink, designed to encourage mutual delusion reinforcement.

There are plenty of questions to raise in church, even before we get to the dreaded "A" word. For example, if we are free to interpret the "Dark Sayings of Jesus" (about plucking out our sin-causing eyes and cutting off our wicked hands) so as to water them down to mere metaphors, how exactly do we know which sayings of Jesus to take seriously? Do we just guess? If the commands to self-mutilate were just Jesus indulging in some poetic license, how do we know he meant what he said about issues like salvation, hell, and all the rest? Obviously someone must set himself up to rule on which parts of the Bible we accept and which we ignore - who is that person and what is the basis for his authority? (I say "his" because almost certainly that person is a man.)

The Bible says women must not be in authority over men, must not teach men, and must keep silent in church. If we ignore those verses, as the vast majority of Christians obviously do, then how we they know souls magically appear in laboratory glassware? Might it not be possible that souls appear sooner, for example "in the loins of their fathers"? Clearly, the Lord takes sperm very seriously, because he slew Onan for spilling his on the ground. One can make a scripturally sound case for the claim that every sperm is sacred.

Other Comments by Teratornis

39. Comment #120369 by Gallstones on February 1, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Now I truly understand the meaning of the phrase, "Ooh, the stupid, it burns!"

I wish there had been twice as much time for this debate. I don' feel that PZ was allowed enough time to fully explain his arguments and rebuttals.

RE: Geoffrey Simmons, MD
Did he have a position? Because it seems that his only intention for participating in the debate was to make negative statements and repeat the ID talking points about evolution. And he has the gall to claim that he is not an advocate for ID. What a blatant liar.

I am astonished that a medical professional is so ignorant of biology, let alone evolution. Medicine is a scientific discipline. When a medical professional--especially one on the level of a licensed physician--chooses to be ignorant of current, established, applicable scientific knowledge, s/he is willfully incompetent. And, should be required to disclose this fact to patients.

Other Comments by Gallstones

40. Comment #120370 by SmartLX on February 1, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I think it's time to remake an old chestnut:

PZwned.

Other Comments by SmartLX

41. Comment #120372 by Gallstones on February 1, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #120325 by shad0w
No PZ should not have taken part in this.

Otherwise we should have 'debates' whether gravity is real or not, whether the earth is flat or not,whether the earth revolves around the sun or not , etc etc. I hope you get my point.

Actually this might prove a valuable strategy in pointing out just how absurd the anti-evolution viewpoint truly is. Why shouldn't we invite creationists to debate spherical earth, geocentrism, the "flood", gravity etc.? Re-train the mentally sound members of society to recognize bullshit when they hear it.

Other Comments by Gallstones

42. Comment #120388 by Teratornis on February 1, 2008 at 2:53 pm

In reply to comment #120325 by shad0w:

No PZ should not have taken part in this.

Otherwise we should have 'debates' whether gravity is real or not, whether the earth is flat or not,whether the earth revolves around the sun or not , etc etc. I hope you get my point.

And that would be a problem how? People have every right to know and understand the arguments for scientific theories which are not always instantly apparent. The Earth certainly does look locally flat to humans on the ground, and the Sun, Moon, and stars certainly seem to go around the fixed Earth. Furthermore, the Earth intuitively seems to have been designed (which is why virtually every religion invented some sort of creation story). Why exactly do we believe that things are not as they seem?

I think your position is roughly analogous (not perfectly analogous, of course) to saying physicians should not go into primitive cultures and use modern medicine to heal the sick. Sometimes physicians have to overcome skepticism when they go around trying to do good. They have to teach the primitive people basic ideas about sanitation and germ theory, and then prove what they are talking about by delivering some results.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to debate ideas like the flat earth, geocentrism, etc., because these debates recapitulate the greatest story ever told: primitive man learning to reason, and lift himself out of ancestral confusion. It's not enough, as we see clearly by the strength of the religious right, merely to recite some final conclusions of science to children and laypeople. Everybody deserves to have some exposure to the process which led to those conclusions.

We need to distribute science with some "DVD Extras" so people can get some idea about "the making of" science. Taking a lofty, solipsistic "Resistance is futile!" attitude fails to meet people where they are. The whole point of critical thinking is to teach people to think things through for themselves, because there won't always be a room full of 500 eggheads who have established scientific consensus on every issue, and whom we can blindly trust. Once in a rare while, even the experts make a mistake.

It seems too many scientists have the fantastical view that once something is "known," that's all there is to it. As if getting scientists to agree writes the end of the story. Exodus 1:8 says, Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. Even in Biblical days, people understood no issues were ever permanently settled. Old people continually die, and young people with initially blank minds (blank with respect to the details of science, or back then, the details of superstition) replace them. The deal you had with the last guy isn't the deal you automatically get with the new guy.

Physicians don't go around scolding sick people because they are sick. Instead, they diagnose the various ailments, and treat them. There doesn't seem to be a recognized branch of science which diagnoses and treats unscientific thinking, but there should be. Otherwise simply ignoring the ignorant would be like simply ignoring all the people with malaria and so on.

These charlatans should be locked up and chained not on airwaves spreading mis-information to young children that can easily be coerced by 'fear of god'.

Here in the United States a lot of us take our First Amendment seriously. Freedom of speech is an extremely fragile right, and is constantly under attack from all sides. Too many people want to replace the free marketplace of ideas with a planned economy of their ideas. Unfortunately when that happens, the result is rarely what the minority of rational thinkers would want.

There are a lot more people who want to silence people like Richard Dawkins (and let's not even start with the porn industry) than there are people who want to silence religious points of view. Without the First Amendment, you are more likely to end up with Iran or Saudi Arabia than some sort of science paradise.

In the U.S. we are free to state any facts we want to state, precisely because everybody else is free to state whatever nonsense they want to state. In the U.S., everyone has a Constitutional right to believe whatever nonsense they choose to believe, and I like it that way.

Other Comments by Teratornis

43. Comment #120389 by Aidan86 on February 1, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Money quote from a Christian at the Uncommon Descent site:

"In my opinion we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened."

Other Comments by Aidan86

44. Comment #120392 by Sturmunddrang on February 1, 2008 at 3:02 pm

The title of this post just makes me feel like I see no point in listening. What an absurd waste of time. Perhaps it might be fun listening to someone like PZ Meyers crushing a creationist's "arguments." However, the debate should not have to happen at all. It's a joke... " Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?" is a joke. The only time that this kind of debate should happen (between a scientist and a creationist) is when they are threatening education directly. For example, Ken Miller served an honorable role when he served as an expert witness in Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. Granted, one could argue that we should not let it get to that point. However, I like Richard Dawkins's approach to such things. He has stated that he refuses to debate with such people. I think that this is a better approach for scientists. Scientists simply should not grant creationist ideas so much credence.

Other Comments by Sturmunddrang

45. Comment #120399 by Gustaf Sjoblom on February 1, 2008 at 3:12 pm

*OBS! Simplifyed*

Simmons: The Brain is complex, I cannot figure out how it could have evolved, so it couldn't.
PZ: Sure it could.
Simmons: Then explain.
PZ: *explains how it works*
Simmons: But you cannot be sure! It COULD also have been designed!
PZ (and myself): Hahahahahahaha!


This is probably the most clear case I've ever seen of dismissing a natural explanation for the preferance of dogma.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

46. Comment #120415 by ianmkz on February 1, 2008 at 3:48 pm

From Pharyngula

I shouldn't have been surprised at his performance, though. I have a secret: I read part of What Darwin Didn't Know before the show, and knew exactly what kind of creationist I was engaging.

I have to share a few tidbits with you from that hilarious book. It has a chapter titled "Purposeful Design" which purports to list 81 examples of design. He has very low standards. Basically, anything that works is evidence of design.

The mouth, vagina, urethra, and anus are sealed by mucus when not in use and yet can open and close in controlled ways as needs arise.

This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.

Aww, PZ! You made milk come out my nose!

Other Comments by ianmkz

47. Comment #120416 by dawgdoc2000 on February 1, 2008 at 3:49 pm

#26 Eamonn

Another argument for debating them is that their ignorance can be exposed as PZ did so brilliantly. Look at the comments from the UD site. Even those morons saw that Simmons was an idiot. I say debate 'em and show the world what they are all about.
dd2k

Other Comments by dawgdoc2000

48. Comment #120419 by Geoff on February 1, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Teratornis:

I think the idea is not that evolution shouldn't be debated, but rather that people like PZ and RD have much better things to do. As we saw in particular in this 'debate', it's using a sledgehammer to crack a nutter. Half the people on here (not me, I hasten to add, but the likes of Steve Zara, epeeist, annabanana, Paula, to name but a very few) could have shot that guy down almost as well as PZ did.
If PZ spent all his time debating the fleas, we wouldn't get Pharyngula; if RD does the same, we won't get "Son of god delusion" or whatever is coming next.

The "big guns" are wasted on fleas.

Other Comments by Geoff

49. Comment #120420 by Sans foi ni dieu on February 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm

"Darwin,s theory is full of holes" Dr Simmons

"If it were a fact they would call it a fact" Dr Simmons

"darwin came from an era of time when from frogs were born of mud puddles and birds flew to the moon for the winter. And so even though darwinism as progressed, lot of people believed Darwin as it was. He was not peer reviewed, he lacked the bibliography, he violated every aspect of scientific method, he was bigotted, he had a lot of nasty thing to say about women and blacks, and he probably wouldn't be published today. And yet, he is a revered as somebody significant." Dr Simmons

Baloney! It's disgusting to think that someone would call himself a doctor with such limited intellect. Bravo to Dr. PZ Myers. Simmons is nothing but a church goer, not even a high school graduate.

Other Comments by Sans foi ni dieu

50. Comment #120425 by phasmagigas on February 1, 2008 at 4:06 pm

ive commented several times over on pharyngula so wont bother here. Simmons managed to convince me of his utter ineptitude as a speaker (and thats irrelevant of course) but importantly that one of the DI's main men had absolutely ZERO to say, that whole manic, flailing, almost begging summary at the end was one of the most pathetic thigs ive ever heard anybody say about anything.

PZ wiped the floor with him and he knew it, even the follow up (now deleted!) thread on uncommon descent had creationists admitting that simmons 'lost' the debate. the ID bunch are a strange lot when even though the average 14 year old could whip them in a debate for lack of content they still keep plugging those lies, and they do a lot of that.

Other Comments by phasmagigas