PZ Myers. 2005 Jun 14. If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/if_you_doubt_this_is_possible_how_is_it_there_are_pygmies_dwarfs/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, June 14, 2005

If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

Can you stomach a little more Jim Pinkoski? He's ranting in the comments most amusingly.

You guys LIE about Java man, you LIE about Lucy, you LIE about the horse ancestary chart, you LIE about fetuses mimicking evolution stages, you LIE about upright trees sticking through different geology layers, you LIE when you ignore the arguments about the earth's magnetic field, you LIE when you respond to the rotation of the moon orbiting the earth -- SO WHY SHOULD I EVER CONCLUDE THAT ANY OF YOU ARE ACTUALLY "RIGHT" ABOUT ANYTHING? All I see is repeated pathological LYING done by evolutionists in the evolution vs. poor old Kent Hovind's Creationism!

Those are his words, but I added the links myself—each one addresses these old creationist canards. Evolutionists are not lying; rather, the creationists are not comprehending.

His comic book flings out absurd claims at a frenetic pace, in exactly the same way. He just babbles, echoing tired old creationist stories, each of which does nothing but reflect the ignorance of these people. Here is a partial list of some of the crap he flings at the wall in the space of 15 pages. None of it sticks; I've linked to a refutation for each from the Talk.Origins archive.

Pinkoski isn't exactly lying. He's merely pretending to a competence that he does not have, in matters that he doesn't understand at all. He's just not very bright.

When he isn't making up bogus arguments against evolution, he's inventing silly fantasies about his creation model. Pinkoski is a big fan of the pseudoscientific "vapor canopy" idea of Walt Brown, even though it doesn't make sense, wouldn't work, and is completely unsupported by the evidence.

He's inconsistent and more than a little hypocritical. Note that above he attacks the fossil record in multiple ways, but here's an interesting reversal:

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!

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…

giants in the earth

I gotta say, though, that that little "note" is one of my favorite bits of the book, and it tells us so much about Pinkoski's illogic. In case you can't read it, it's his supporting evidence for his claim that Adam was 15 feet tall:

NOTE: If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

Man, the existence of pygmies and dwarfs has nothing to do with whether men were 15 feet tall 6000 years ago, and I had to laugh out loud. 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??"

There are more ridiculous creationist fantasies in the book, including his devil-driven dinosaur assault on Noah's Ark and some malarkey about how T. rex could breathe fire, but it's the same old evidence-free babble. Or rather, the evidence is all along the lines of, "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"

Posted by PZ Myers on 06/14 at 06:29 PM
Creationism • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
  1. Man, the existence of pygmies and dwarfs has nothing to do with whether men were 15 feet tall 6000 years ago...
    Unless, of course, he means to imply that pygmies and dwarfs come from the future - where, in about 5,000 more years, everyone will be only about 3 feet tall.

    Of course, if this is true, I think that I might start praying at all like Hell for a sooner-than-later date of Rapture...

    ...I'm short enough as it is, damnit!

    Regardless, I gotta thank you, Dr. Myers. This post really made my day (allowed me a clinging shot at sanity), especially having nearly lost all hope after reading Pinkoski's latest comment in the above-mentioned thread.

    Next round's on me.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  06:54 PM
  2. I just can't figure out why Jim would accuse "evolutionists" in general of "lying." One thing I learned on Usenet is never to call anyone a liar unless you can convincingly prove that (1) what he is saying is untrue and (2) that he knows that it is untrue but says it anyway. Notice that PZ didn't accuse Jim of lying, just of spouting off about stuff he clealry doesn't know or understand.

    In any case, Jim's rant calling so many people "liars" without evidence seems mighty un-Christian to me.
    #: Posted by Orac  on  06/14  at  06:56 PM
  3. I love creationists. They're a hoot.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  07:04 PM
  4. Dear Sir,

    Having consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the Nigerian Chambers Of Commerce And Industry, I have the privilege to request your assistance to transfer the sum of $47,500,000.00 (forty seven million, five hundred thousand United States dollars) into your accounts. If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  07:13 PM
  5. I didn't see how it was possible to resist the urge to shout quoted creationist idiocy after the fashion of Mr. Gumby, until I asked myself, HOW... IS... IT... THERE... ARE... uhh... uhh... PYGMIES + DWARFS??
    #: Posted by Ken Cope  on  06/14  at  07:13 PM
  6. The real reason that Tyrannosaur didn't breathe fire, of course, is that God only allows a certain amount of badass in the world at any one time, and fire-breathing would most certainly have caused an overload.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  07:19 PM
  7. When you look at the range of intellectual capacity in mankind, how is it that there are mental PYGMIES + DWARVES who believe in cretinism (oops, I mean creationism)?
    #: Posted by No More Mr. Nice Guy!  on  06/14  at  07:19 PM
  8. JIm isn't uncomprehending, he's marketing his product. We often make the mistake of assuming what matters to folks is accuracy and integrity; i.e. that they're scientists or interested in science. But when you're in the PR and Advertising game all that matters is exposure and name recognition. If Jim had asked PZ to make an annoucement on Pharyngula abut his products knowing that's it's now the one of the highest traffic science sites in the US being watched by both friend and foe (Potential customers in both camps BTW), Dr Myers would have laughed at him.

    Al he has to do is ratchet up the pretend insanity and outrage each time and he'll milk it for all it's worth. Personally I think it's woth giving him some exposure just to see how far he'll go in shedding all dignity. It's like making a rummy dance for nickels in a bar.
    #: Posted by DarkSyde  on  06/14  at  07:32 PM
  9. So relieved. Now I understand why I never got taller than 5 feet--I'm either a pygmy or a dwarf. Or am I missing something here?
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  07:36 PM
  10. Or am I missing something here?

    Yes. Three vertebrae. The government harvests them occasionally; they're ground up to feed Congressmen.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  07:51 PM
  11. Tired creationists canards on show too at a "debate" <a href="http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001149.html>hosted by the Sydney Morning Herald</a> between Answers in Genesis and the Aust Skeptics. Opening statements up, the rest to follow in the coming days. Ho hum but someones gotta do it.
    #: Posted by Amanda  on  06/14  at  08:20 PM
  12. Eh. Code. Apologies. http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001149.html
    #: Posted by Amanda  on  06/14  at  08:21 PM
  13. I personally like how modern man is in a suit and modern woman is in a skirt. We couldn't be nake or anything.
    #: Posted by Laura  on  06/14  at  08:30 PM
  14. Priceless. It's amazing to see how many long-debunked creationist claims can be compressed into a comic strip at one time without causing people's heads to explode.

    If it weren't for the fact that some people actually people actually believe that crap it would be hilarious.
    #: Posted by Les  on  06/14  at  08:36 PM
  15. This Jim P guy is so far over the top it is hard to believe he isnt putting on an act. Ive been reading his spiels for days and find it really hard to believe that he is even half serious.

    If not, I hope he is under close supervision.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  08:42 PM
  16. I know they exist... I still can't believe it. Mr. Pinkoski refuses to observe, learn and understand. His tone tells it all. He has it all figured out and he is done thinking about it.

    Imagine what that is like for a moment... knowing that you will never gain insight of the world around you. You will never discover, or wonder. You will never doubt or question your position. You are satisfied and refuse to seek more data.
    He is the hamster on the treadmill; the angry hamster on the treadmill.
    How depressing. I can't help but feel sorry for the man.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  08:43 PM
  17. Laura
    I personally like how modern man is in a suit and modern woman is in a skirt. We couldn't be nake or anything.

    A proper (god-fearing) ankle lenght skirt at that.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  08:46 PM
  18. I think DarkSyde has it right. JP is hamming it up for his customers. Maybe even some of us will buy a copy or two for the giggles. Not me, but maybe you.

    Of course this is how I interpret the rantings of televangilists and Republicans, too; they are all hucksters who understand the weaknesses of their customer base.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  08:54 PM
  19. JIm isn't uncomprehending, he's marketing his product.

    Of course he is. Why anybody would assume otherwise is beyond me. (I think he's one of Ron Wyatt's sidekicks.)
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  08:54 PM
  20. from the Kansas Kreationist Kangaroo Kourt transcript:
    Irigonegaray asked [Warren Nord], "Is it important to have religion taught in economics class?"
    Nord: "Yes."
    Irigonegaray: "What about math class?"
    Nord: "I can make a case for that."

    PYGMIES + DWARFS = ADAMS/2

    Do I get a gold star now, Prof. Nord?
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  08:56 PM
  21. "you LIE about Lucy"
    Okay, Pinkoski, I admit it -- I knew all along that she was going to pull the football away just as Charlie Brown was trying to kick it!
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  08:56 PM
  22. Adam is hot.
    #: Posted by Wayne  on  06/14  at  08:57 PM
  23. I realize I'm thinking WAY too much about this whole "pygmies and dwar(ves)" thing, but:

    The Mbuti people are considered to be the only true Pygmies since they are under 150 centimeters. That's 4'11" tall. To be a dwarf under current medical standards, you need to be 4'9".

    Since researchers are able to determine the average height nation-by-nation, it's pretty well-established that different populations differ in height, even in the same general geographic area. For instance, Dutch men average about 6'0" in height, but German men are about 5'9". So not only are the Mbuti not unique, their being shorter than the surrounding population isn't even that unusual, particularly since they don't mix with the other peoples. That means they've been (yes!) naturally selected to be shorter.

    Dwarfism is a whole different issue -- it's a medical condition, usually a result of genetics.

    So my question is -- why are people taller today than they were 200 years ago if Adam started at 15 feet tall over 6,000 years ago? Shouldn't people be shorter today than they were 200 years ago if we're progressively shrinking since Adam's day?
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  10:13 PM
  24. If Noah, and presumably other members of his family, was 12 feet tall that adds yet another problem to the story of the Ark, namely that 12 foot tall people would require more calories than smaller people simply to move the additional mass around. Hence the Ark would need to be stuffed with even more supplies than an Ark crewed by 6 foot tall humans.
    #: Posted by tim gueguen  on  06/14  at  10:18 PM
  25. I am ashamed to confess that I spent nearly a minute trying to figure out how the existence of PYGMIES + DWARFS fit in to the whole "Adam was a giant" thing. ("So, um...Adam was a giant. And pygmies...prove this...somehow...or other...and...err... huh?") Man, there's not even an internal logic to that one.

    I could at least respect a coherent, seamless mythology as a nifty exercise in worldbuilding, but I'm not buying any fantasy comic that doesn't at least make a stab at internal consistency, damnit.
    #: Posted by UrsulaV  on  06/14  at  10:18 PM
  26. Oh-oh! So, if ALL animals were twice the present size, than the Ark had to be twice as big. What is 2 X impossibly large?
    #: Posted by coturnix  on  06/14  at  10:31 PM
  27. LOLOL. Oh my goodness. Who is this guy? It's not often you have so much stupid in one body. I feel so guilty laughing.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  10:38 PM
  28. Jim's thought process is explicable (ignoring dwarfism):
    If there exist today, pygmies that are significantly (and naturally) shorter than western humans, then it's not impossible that there were people that were incredibly taller in the past. The mere lack of any scrap of evidence has never been an impediment to Jim's imagination.

    The Genesis quote works against him. A person can only be a giant relative to the norm for the person(s) writing the account, otherwise his/her stature is unremarkable. Did the Genesis writer say "There were giants in the earth in those days, but everybody was big so there was no need to be embarrassed"? Since the accounts supposedly come from descendants of Adam, what logic requires us to think that the descendents of Adam were themselves taller than people living today? It's easier to make a case for Adam's tribe being pygmies who called other people giants.

    BTW, I think we could also make a case for grasshoppers being bigger in the past:

    Numbers 13:33 "We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."


    Quickly as you can, snatch the pebble from my hand.
    #: Posted by Virge  on  06/14  at  11:13 PM
  29. I don't know how many of you folks took a gander at his website but it makes it obvious we are not dealing with a well human.

    Go read the stuff on his new banking system, and read it all. In it he says it would be such an astounding event he would be awarded the Nobel prize.

    No really it says it. Look for the section on 'A beautiful mind'

    Oh and he loves this Wyatt fellow and his 'discoveries'.

    You can't make this stuff up.
    #: Posted by  on  06/14  at  11:44 PM
  30. hey, let's build an ark out of wood according to the appropriate dimensions and put all the YEC's on it, then launch it into the north atlantic in january. problem solved.
    #: Posted by jamie  on  06/15  at  12:15 AM
  31. Mnemosyne: it's the fall.

    12 foot tall people would require more calories than smaller people simply to move the additional mass around
    I don't know... larger animals tend to have slower metabolisms. Maybe they just slept a lot.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  01:49 AM
  32. I strategically finished my coffee before opening this thread, so I can still read from my screen. But ultimately, as hilarious as it is, it's depressing, as Les said, that people believe this stuff; and frightening that such beliefs affect the world all of us live in as they do.

    Kudos to PZ for going to the trouble of rationally rebutting Pinkoski's fairy tales. Not that it's likely to change his mind- debating Pinkoski (and other creationists) is like punching a tar baby- but maybe some more thoughtful and logical minds will think twice about swallowing this nonsense. And the choir can have fun in the meantime pitching sticks and stones at the tar baby.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  02:10 AM
  33. A quick look at mummies of ancient Egypt should settle the matter adequately. Unless of course, early Egyptians were a notoriously short people who subsequently failed to shrink as others did over time.

    It is difficult to debate a person not embarrassed by facts.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  04:06 AM
  34. It's funny, but definitely very sad. It doesn't bother me that a person here or there believes some of this crap--it bothers me that a lot of people will believe it. There are thousands of people wanting to believe that evolution doesn't exist, terrified that it will disrupt their belief system, and waiting for someone to tell them why they are correct.

    This why the overlapping rubrics of scientific thinking, analytical skills, and deductive reasoning need to be introduced to children at a younger age. We're raising a country of people who decide "truth first", usually based on emotion and religious brainwashing, and then back-pedal to figure out how to put the "T" in their truth. I personally have no problem with having beliefs, faith, and some sort of religion, but you should not try to extrapolate those beliefs into every facet of life and physical matter just because you are insecure and feel threatened by that which does not fit nicely into your system.
    #: Posted by SFTR  on  06/15  at  06:22 AM
  35. One day, I was with a two of my friends looking around a used car lot. One of the sales people comes up, and asks if we need help - we say "no, we're actually just killing some time, we're not really looking to buy anything." The sales guy is actually bored himself (slow day), so we end up chatting about cars. I don't know much about cars, but my buddies do, so I wouldn't have been that interested in the conversation except the guy was totally weird. "So, that your Cobra? Man, that's a baaaad hammer!" "Yeah, that SHO is a bad hammer." "That Countour is a pretty bad hammer too." "When the 98s came out, we were like 'woah, that's a bad hammer' but when we saw the 99s, we were like 'man, that's really a baaaaad hammer.'" Anytime I see either those two guys I was with that day, we say something about "bad hammer" and laugh till we pass out, and everyone looks at us like we're crazy.

    I'm going to become that salesman now, except instead of "bad hammer", it will be "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"
    #: Posted by fwiffo  on  06/15  at  07:15 AM
  36. Ummm. There is lots of data readily available, and I thought it was common knowledge that people are getting TALLER. Better diet and prenatal health care is primarily responsible. (Not to mention that whole natural selection of the taller people) Just look at the NBA of 25 years ago! Wilt the Stilt wouldn't appear so tall if he played NOW! If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS?
    #: Posted by DouglasG  on  06/15  at  08:01 AM
  37. Wow -- you guys can't even accept a simple illustrated fact?

    Let me explain (seeing that all of you just seem to be too darnsmart to have gotten it) why I included the terribly upsetting note about there being "pygmies and dwarfs [or dwarves]". . .

    The Bible says that Eve was tempted by a Serpent that could talk -- a snake -- then a number of years later God decided to destoy the world and just save a few people to start over again (I guess God didn't like their attitudes or their blogs or something)-- so what would have happened if Noah refused to let a couple snakes crawl on board the ark?

    What if no snakes/serpents ever survived (and no fossils were found)?

    All of you people would think that the story of Eve being tempted by the serpent was crazy because all of you would be oh-so-sure that nothing like a serpent ever existed because, hey, you've never seen one . . .

    Now, the Bible also tells us that there were "giants" in those early days, and after all the large fossils of other animals were dug up, we would be faced with having to understand that God created mankind in relation to the other life forms He created, i.e., they were all LARGER than they are currently -- so to drop a "hint" that this can actually happen (and for God to show that He really does have the power to control and adjust our genetic structure) God let there be pygmies and dwarves (I still perfer the words "dwarfs," I vote that we get it changed in Websters!) -- so they might be a simple visual lesson that the size of humanity has been "adjusted" over time!

    I'm truly amazed that you guys can find the most simple statement to be something to argue over -- you guys are really incredible -- just as PZ originally stated that evolution took "no intelligence" to make life, you guys are giving it your best to prove that you all seem to life that phrase to the utmost . . . your rally cry should be, "NO INTELLIGENCE! NO INTELLIGENCE! NO INTELLIGENCE!"

    Regarding trying to sell my books, I much prefer selling my stuff to people with an open mind -- dealing with you guys is like dealing with psychic vampires, you only exist to suck the life out of me regarding our "disagreements" over all of this! So is it far for me to say that you guys really SUCK? Suck, suck, suck . . . boy, this is tiring to deal with . . .

    Oh well, this is what God forewarned us about -- in the Last Days there would be "scoffers" -- so all of you folk are just doing what God warned us you would be doing. And obviously there is not much that will ever change your minds, you guys are hardcore and will probably be just like this all the way up until the point where God shows up to "prove" He's real -- except then it will be too late for any of you to change your minds and switch sides -- and that's really unfortunate.

    BTW, not one thing here has caused me to alter even one of my opinions about God or evolution -- I don't listen to people who won't listen to the various Creationists (which nowadays are many scientists in many fields) --

    Ever see the first Creature from the Black Lagoon movie?

    It starts out by quoting the first verse of the Bible, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..." -- and then it tosses in the "million of years" garbage about all life evolving, AS IF THE SCIENTISTS OF THE 1950s WERE SUPER-BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS WHO HAD IT ALL UNDER CONTROL! The scientists of the 1950s were CHILDREN compared to now -- and today's intelligent scientists can see that science CANNOT answer all the questions! And there's a good chance that the science of the 1950s was INCORRECT with many of its conclusions!

    And godless evolution by "chance" and "NO INTELLIGENCE" is an error, a complete and total error when it tries to claim that Life was created by it -- and the God that you guys reject (many of you) is going to show up soon, and He's not going to be happy about your low opinions of Him or the people who believe in Him!
    #: Posted by Jim Pinkoski  on  06/15  at  08:03 AM
  38. We're supposed to accept something as fact because it is illustrated in a comic book? Wow. So that's where the Christianist mindset comes from.

    We're not upset. We're amused.

    Um, if people had never seen snakes or fossils of one, then the people who wrote the Bible wouldn't have had one tempt Eve. We'd be reading about evil frogs or something in Genesis.

    Oh, and your rationalization for why there are dwarfs and pygmies? Dumbest. Idea. Yet.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  06/15  at  08:11 AM
  39. Not that I agree with him at all, but I think that the human size issue is not what most of you are making it out to be. I don't think he's saying that humans started out bigger and progressively shrank since that time. I think he's saying that all animals living during the time of no sin and big cloud cover were able to live hundreds of years and in that time keep growing. I think the basic idea is that in the special ultra-healthy, no sin state there was no limit on potential.

    And before anyone points out that you stop growing by the time you're about 20 (or younger), don't forget about the special vapour canopy! It does... something. We have a decent vapour canopy here in Vancouver, but I stopped growing at 15. Could be because of the sin and not the sun. I had a girlfriend whose boobs kept growing into her early twenties, so maybe that's a point is his favour. (They caused me to sin, too!)
    #: Posted by pough  on  06/15  at  08:13 AM
  40. ...he did NOT just try to use the intro to "Creature From The Black Lagoon" to discredit modern science.

    Well, I'm officially speechless.
    #: Posted by UrsulaV  on  06/15  at  08:14 AM
  41. Dance rummy, dance! Now, pee on the floor and roll in your own urine and I'll pitch you a shiny new half-dollar.
    #: Posted by DarkSyde  on  06/15  at  08:16 AM
  42. Cube-Square rule, people. 2x linear height means 8x body mass and calorie requirments.

    Which means The Ark must've been the size of a Nimitz-calss aircraft carrier.

    fusilier
    James 2:24
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  08:16 AM
  43. 12 foot tall people would require more calories than smaller people simply to move the additional mass around
    I don't know... larger animals tend to have slower metabolisms. Maybe they just slept a lot.


    Mebbe calories were bigger then, too?
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  08:35 AM
  44. Jim wrote: "I don't listen to people who won't listen to the various Creationists"

    I wondered when the defense shields would go up. It seems that anyone who points to nasty FACTS about buddy Hovind upsets Jim.

    At least he's honest about closing his mind.
    #: Posted by Virge  on  06/15  at  08:46 AM
  45. The ark was measured in cubits. Scaling a human up to 2x height would mean the ark was 8x volume.
    Maybe Noah could have fitted a few small dinosaurs in there too. ;)

    *runs screaming from the Creationist from the Black Lagoon*
    #: Posted by Virge  on  06/15  at  08:54 AM
  46. The cube-square law also makes a joke of his illustration of Adam.

    Note, too, that he uses the fossil evidence when he wants (giant cockroaches!) and ignores it when he doesn't like it (the hominid fossil record shows that our lineage has been getting larger, not smaller).
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  06/15  at  09:03 AM
  47. Wouldn't it kickass if T-Rex REALLY did breath fire?? Right now, he's ranked among my top 5 dinosaurs, but if he breathed fire...He'd be #1 instantly.

    Of course fire breathing is ridiculous...but maybe if he could fly..
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  09:07 AM
  48. Oh, and earlier in his book, he does a silly calculation of the number of animals that would fit in the ark, and he estimates that the average size of an animal is that of a cat...and explicitly states,
    It has been estimated (we are not counting extinct animals, only those that are alive now) that not more than 290 are above the size of a sheep…
    Inconsistent, hypocritical nonsense.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  06/15  at  09:08 AM
  49. (the hominid fossil record shows that our lineage has been getting larger, not smaller).


    True and good find, our lineage is growing taller slowly but surely..and I believe thats still true for mainly the past few thousand years (of atleast recorded history) where men averaged on the low end of 5 ft.

    And please, none of the "OMG THEN MEN WILL B3 15 FEET IN 100 YRS!11".
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  09:10 AM
  50. Both Pinkoski and his critics here overlook that Pinkoski's been quote-mining:
    Gen. 6:4: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    Just think of the cinematic (and comic book) possibilities in recounting the amorous adventures of Jesus's older half-brothers and his [apparently giant] nephews...

    Get back to your drawing board, Jim!
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  09:13 AM
  51. Mebbe calories were bigger then, too?

    You might be onto something there, CrispyShot. Maybe the Earth was bigger then too! Maybe the entire Universe was bigger then...
    I still perfer the words "dwarfs," I vote that we get it changed in Websters!

    Well, Jim, I've given up winning you over to the Darwin side of the force, but if we can talk about language, not all is lost. If you want "dwarfs", do you also want "wifes", "wolfs", "lifes", "glofes", and "dofes"?

    For "dwarf", I actually prefer JRR Tolkien's "dwarrows". My wife, who is 4' 10 1/2", doesn't like any of these for some reason. LOL
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  09:14 AM
  52. Y'know, this is just too much for me. I'm so disappointed to see this from Jim. The hypocricy of claiming we have closed minds is truly brain-hurting. Especially as he says he won't listen to US. I don't think he's capable of it anyway...either through his own limitations or, I think more likely, his own psychology. And so many words...to say so very little.

    This latest comment makes it clearer than anything thus far that Jim's creationism is religion first, science an astronomically distant second. The thing that saddens me most is knowing that far too many of the rank and file creationists out there thing (or fail to think) in just the same fashion. This is the mind we're trying to teach. :(

    I shouldn't sidetrack this discussion...but Jim raises a question in his textbook God-is-coming-and-then-you'll-be-sorry rant that has always bugged me. Jim seems (amusingly) to scoff at us scoffers for wanting proof of God, that it will be "too late" for us when He comes down here to smack some sense into us. I have never understood the logic of that. Why does this concept of "too late" even exist? How, in the typical Christian context of salvation through faith and deathbed conversions, can it possibly matter when and if a person believes. Doesn't it sound terribly suspicious when it's claimed that the point at which it's too late is the point at which one would get absolute proof, i.e. death or the return of Christ?
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  10:08 AM
  53. And godless evolution by "chance" and "NO INTELLIGENCE" is an error, a complete and total error when it tries to claim that Life was created by it -- and the God that you guys reject (many of you) is going to show up soon, and He's not going to be happy about your low opinions of Him or the people who believe in Him!
    We're all very scared of this, Jim. Quaking in our boots. I almost peed myself out of sheer terror.
    Oh well, this is what God forewarned us about -- in the Last Days there would be "scoffers" -- so all of you folk are just doing what God warned us you would be doing.
    So we're in the last days, eh Jim? I'm sure you religious people are right this time. Wrong every other time you've said that, but right this time.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  10:14 AM
  54. Hey, Jim, did you check out your friend Kent's "Ph.D"? Could you maybe talk him into releasing his dissertation, so we can read it? He refuses. One person has seen it, though. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

    PS--please do a sequel anti-evolution book. And put them online so us poor students can read them.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  10:23 AM
  55. Zilch, I said earlier that I have NO PROBLEM with micro-evolution over the past 4,000 years! That's the only version of "evolution" that you guys can study anyway! All of the attempts to extend evolution back to include "millions of years" is impossible to validate and study! SO I AGREE WITH THE SHORT TERM VERSION OF "EVOLUTION"!

    Regarding the size of Adam, the pre-Flood world, whether it had a vapour canopy or not, the air pressure level was more like a hyperbaric chamber, which promotes better cellular growth and giantism! That's simple science, guys!

    Regarding the size of Noah's Ark, the account was written by Moses who was a normal 5-6 foot tall man -- so the "300 cubits" was a measure of Moses's arm -- but when God told Noah to build the Ark, if Noah was 12 feet tall all God had to tell Noah was "Make it 150 cubits long"!

    And by the way, a 12-foot Noah would have found it much easier to build that giant ark -- 6-foot guys would have had a much harder time of it!

    So when will all you guys get together and decide I'm to be tied to a stake and burned? Pretty much none of you have liked a single word I've said or written or published -- when are you guys going to get your lynching party together?

    You folks really don't like it that we live in a free country where people are free to believe in God and worship Him how we wish -- wow -- I'm really glad that one of these days God is going to show up again and settle all of this, it's really all too much for me to do . . .
    #: Posted by Jim Pinkoski  on  06/15  at  10:24 AM
  56. Rainbow = God won't destory the world with flood
    Short People = World was once full of really tall people.

    OK. Got it

    I, for one, welcome our evil ant overlords ... I mean ... end of days. Take them all! Leave us to our planet! Perhaps we'll finally have some peace!

    However, I'm afraid we're stuck with them for the long hall...
    #: Posted by DouglasG  on  06/15  at  10:24 AM
  57. So are the NBA God's chosen people?
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  10:24 AM
  58. Pough, we can't make any sense of the pygmies + dwarfs argument because there is none. Is Jim saying that because P + D exist today, that our size must be the norm and P+D must be the lower extreme? Is he saying that we all have P+D genes, except for the P+D's who have a double dose? Is he saying that P+D's are even more fallen than the rest of us? Who can tell what he means?

    I predict that if we attempted to pin him down on this, his logic would contort and struggle until with one mighty bound it would leap free of all mundane requirements to make any sense whatsoever, and he'd start talking in tongues.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  10:46 AM
  59. Jim, we think you're a fool. But no-one wants to burn you, just make fun of you until we're bored, and then ignore you.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  10:48 AM
  60. Jim:

    I wondered when the paranoia and persecution complex would come out. That's frequently the reaction of fundamentalists when they are informed that science is not compatible with their beliefs and they run out of pseudoscientific justifications defending their Biblically literal idea of the world. No, none of us want to "lynch" you. That's all in your mind.

    It's also a straw man argument to claim that we don't like it that we live in a free country. In fact, we like it very much. What we don't like is when fundamentalists like you try to mess up that freedom by imposing their religious beliefs upon us and forcing our children to be taught a religious belief as science, which is what your compatriots are trying to do in Kansas, Georgia, and a number of other states.

    Finally, isn't pride one of the seven deadly sins? I'm referring to your statement that "I'm really glad that one of these days God is going to show up again and settle all of this, it's really all too much for me to do . . . " I didn't realize that you were so high up that it was up to you to try to take care of all of us "evil" evolutionists until the day the Almighty returns.
    #: Posted by Orac  on  06/15  at  10:51 AM
  61. I'm all for brutal smack-downs of brain-impaired zealots, but why even spend the time on a guy like this.

    On the other hand, that was thoroughly entertaining.
    #: Posted by Tbag  on  06/15  at  10:59 AM
  62. Jim, buddy, please stop! My sides are aching from laughing too much this morning. I needed a good guffaw, but this is getting to be like exercise! Whew! That felt good.
    #: Posted by Les  on  06/15  at  10:59 AM
  63. I'm all for brutal smack-downs of brain-impaired zealots, but why even spend the time on a guy like this.


    Question asked...


    On the other hand, that was thoroughly entertaining.


    ... and answered, all in the same post.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  11:48 AM
  64. Not only are there pygmies... they can really dance!! I had the priviledge of meeting some on my recent trip to Uganda. I also met the mountain gorillas, I wonder how many of these guys have met gorillas and the wild and honestly though we couldn't be related to them...!

    Have a look at my piccies:

    http://www.ugandagg.blogspot.com/
    #: Posted by Cruella  on  06/15  at  11:59 AM
  65. #56: Jim Pinkoski — 06/15 at 10:24 AM
    Zilch, I said earlier that I have NO PROBLEM with micro-evolution over the past 4,000 years!

    holy mary mother of gawd, where to start with this. I fail to comprehend how anyone can admit evolution is occurring within the last 4000 years but didn't before, but then I don't believe in invisible cloud beings either. You need to look a little closer at the science of phylogeny, you can start with Carl Woese. Familiarize yourself with the idea of molecular clocks.

    What am I doing your just going to draw something insipid again aren't you?

    I'm really glad that one of these days God is going to show up again and settle all of this, it's really all too much for me to do . . .

    Then don't get your panties in a bunch. Evolution loves you. Deal with it!!!
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  11:59 AM
  66. Jim -

    Let's not get too wrapped up in the details of vapor canopies, and whether hyperbaric chambers do or do not make giants, and the mechanisms by which pygmies breathe fire (or whatever). You need to understand that science is not (just) a collection of facts. It's mainly a rigorous process by which truth is discovered. Truths that are not subject to this process are nothing but opinion or superstition.

    Your side does not subject its superstitions to the scientific process because it cannot. Prove us wrong. Do your research. Until you do, you're nothing but an object of amusement and diversion. You're over your head.

    Example: You postulate a carnival barker theory of God: He created dwarves to demonstrate to (later) human kind how good he is at resizing us at whim. What's your evidence? (Not speculation, evidence.) I'm going to go way out on a limb and state publicly that you can't do it. Prove me wrong. Do science.

    Side note - you're probably making a good living selling your lies. Nobody is persecuting you, and the comments you made earlier about scientists burning you at the stake are, of course, absurd. You will not be stopped from telling your lies (although we will fight you every last inch wherever and whenever you attempt to use public schools to peddle your superstitions). And scientists will not stop the hard work of discovering and documenting the truth.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  12:08 PM
  67. AS IF THE SCIENTISTS OF THE 1950s WERE SUPER-BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS WHO HAD IT ALL UNDER CONTROL! The scientists of the 1950s were CHILDREN compared to now ...

    Did he just say that?

    Someone better tell Einstein and Feynman.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  12:19 PM
  68. Hi--I'm new here--just found your site yesterday (6/14/05)--I got a "D" in rocket science so--instead got degrees in History.

    Giants--What about the nephlim that are mentioned just before Noah in the Bible? I looked it up once in a Bible dictionary and it said they were also called the sons of Anak--like Goliath--anyways IMHO these giants are neanderthals.

    Noah--saw a documentary on the Red Sea--After the last ice age and sea levels rose the Red Sea was created--Perhaps Noah's worldwide flood?

    But--what is the truth about Java man, Lucy, and fetuses mimicking evolution--for the scientifically challenged (like me) what would you say to that person who says scientists lie? What are the facts that refute the accusations?

    Anyways--hope you all can tolerate someone who likes science but can't do the math...
    #: Posted by SweettP  on  06/15  at  01:07 PM
  69. Jim P is not only ignorant of science, he is ignorant of history. The liberals and free thinkers of the time were not the ones burning people at the stake - they were the victims. The perpetrators were the conservative and reactionary religious authorities. The liberals and free thinkers of the time were not the ones lynching people in the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries - they were the conservative religious people. No one in history has been burned at the stake or lynched by scientists.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  01:09 PM
  70. Jim, I'm shocked that you believe in any evilution at all, given what your hero Kent Hovind said in his dissertation (thanks for the link, steve- the quote is from Karen Bartelt, PhD, who actually read the thing):
    Hovind then begins the actual purported history of evolution, starting with Satan, whom he believes fell from heaven about 100 years after the creation of Adam and Eve. It is alleged that the snake brought the theory of evolution to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. No Bible verses are cited to substantiate this assertion.

    It sounds to me as if any evolution is the work of the Devil, Jim. Maybe you can work it into the corrected edition of your comic- the snake says to coyly coiffed Eve: "Forget the apple, babe- you wanna cop some Darwin? She then goes to her hunk, Adam, reaches down, and whispers: "There's a way of improving our differential fitness with this- shall I show you?"
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  01:12 PM
  71. Dear Mr. Pinkoski:

    As someone who loved comics as a child, please let me first say that I find your comic artwork compelling—you have real talent.

    You say that you're fine with evolution over the last 4,000 years. I'm posting to ask you if you'd share your views about the recent confirmation by NASA of predictions made by the inflationary theory of the big bang (please see my gravatar image to the left). By measuring the random fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background, NASA measurements from the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Prove (WMAP) show that the universe is 13.7 billion years old [see NASA's website http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html].

    MIT professor Alan Guth, discoverer of this theory, explains that because the negative energy stored in gravity exactly balances the positive energy stored in regular heat and mass,


    "The universe could have evolved from absolutely nothing in a manner consistent with all known conservation laws."

    "The question of the origin of the matter in the universe is no longer thought to be beyond the range of science ... everything can be created from nothing ... it is fair to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch."


    Would you agree or disagree with these statements?

    Also, here on earth, satellites measure that the sea floor spreading of the mid-Atlantic ridge is about 1 inch per year. If the earth is 6,000 years old, that would mean that the America's should be about 6,000 inches from Europe/Africa, which is about 1-1/2 football fields away. But you can look on any map and see that these continents are thousands of miles—not inches—away. Are you able to explain this discrepancy? The most accurate scientific estimate of the earth's age is about 4.5 billion years.

    Personally, I'd love to see any comics that address the WMAP data and satellite measurements of continental drift, and synthesize these facts with Genesis. Do you have any yet?

    Also, one last question, and a little bit of a challenge for you. You must be familiar with Dick Chick's tracts—he's not a tenth of the artist that you are. But he has addressed quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in his work, and in fact says that gluons don't exist [see "Big Daddy", http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp]. What do you think of Chick's work? Any professional rivalry there? Do you think you could one-up him by addressing the cosmic microwave background and continental drift?
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  03:17 PM
  72. Can someone talk Charlie Wagner into drawing comics? Those would be funny too.

    Hey, Jim, did you check out Hovind's alma mater? Still think "Dr." Hovind is reputable?
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  03:28 PM
  73. So the fact that there are Pigmies and Dwarves! today means that adam could have been 15 feet tall. I guess that's good logic. And the fact that I had an erection earlier, and now I don't, means my wang was the size of a baseball bat yesterday.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  03:31 PM
  74. (post #38)

    Wow -- you guys can't even accept a simple illustrated fact?"

    Let me explain (seeing that all of you just seem to be too darnsmart to have gotten it) why I included the terribly upsetting note about there being "pygmies and dwarfs [or dwarves]". . .

    …
    [stuff about talking snakes snipped]
    …

    Now, the Bible also tells us that there were "giants" in those early days, and after all the large fossils of other animals were dug up, we would be faced with having to understand that God created mankind in relation to the other life forms He created, i.e., they were all LARGER than they are currently -- so to drop a "hint" that this can actually happen (and for God to show that He really does have the power to control and adjust our genetic structure) God let there be pygmies and dwarves (I still perfer the words "dwarfs," I vote that we get it changed in Websters!) -- so they might be a simple visual lesson that the size of humanity has been "adjusted" over time!


    I understand, Jim – I just don’t agree. You’re making an assertion from prior belief and asking that it be accepted without proof. You just made up a bunch of stuff here which you feel needs to be true in order to support your belief system, and then claim it must be true because nobody has disproved it yet. I’m quite happy for you to believe all of this stuff as a matter of faith – but if you want me to accept it as a matter of science you’re going to have to provide some actual evidence, not an analogy to explain why it might not necessarily be wrong.




    Oh well, this is what God forewarned us about -- in the Last Days there would be "scoffers" -- so all of you folk are just doing what God warned us you would be doing. And obviously there is not much that will ever change your minds, you guys are hardcore and will probably be just like this all the way up until the point where God shows up to "prove" He's real -- except then it will be too late for any of you to change your minds and switch sides -- and that's really unfortunate.

    BTW, not one thing here has caused me to alter even one of my opinions about God or evolution -- I don't listen to people who won't listen to the various Creationists (which nowadays are many scientists in many fields) –


    So, you’re criticizing everybody else for not changing their minds, and then saying that you never listen to anybody you disagree with? Ok. I got it.


    (post #56)



    Regarding the size of Adam, the pre-Flood world, whether it had a vapour canopy or not, the air pressure level was more like a hyperbaric chamber, which promotes better cellular growth and giantism! That's simple science, guys!


    No, Jim, it's "stuff you just made up". There is no justification for any of these things except your belief. See also above.



    So when will all you guys get together and decide I'm to be tied to a stake and burned? Pretty much none of you have liked a single word I've said or written or published -- when are you guys going to get your lynching party together?


    actually Jim, that would be a religious thing. Scientists don't typically go in for burning people at the stake for heresy. Heretical thought is the process by which science advances. There is a long history of scientists being burned at the stake (or threatened with same) for insisting on disagreeing with a church imposed doctrine. I’m not aware of any examples of the reverse occurring.




    You folks really don't like it that we live in a free country where people are free to believe in God and worship Him how we wish -- wow -- I'm really glad that one of these days God is going to show up again and settle all of this, it's really all too much for me to do . . .


    this seems to be a clear example of projection, Jim: you hope for a future in which all of us who disagree with you are permanently shut up by a "higher power", and then accuse us of not liking living in a free country.

    I like very much living in a free country, and entirely respect and support your freedom to a) believe in God, b) "worship him how you wish" and c) talk about your beliefs freely. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I wish that somehow you weren't able to say it. I support your freedom to present your views just as much as I support mine to disagree with you.

    Regards
    Duncan
    #: Posted by Duncan Kitchin  on  06/15  at  04:08 PM
  75. Wouldn't it kickass if T-Rex REALLY did breath fire?? Right now, he's ranked among my top 5 dinosaurs, but if he breathed fire...He'd be #1 instantly.

    Of course fire breathing is ridiculous...but maybe if he could fly..


    But Geral, with those tiny arms, how would he do against a flying crocodile and shark?
    #: Posted by Raven  on  06/15  at  04:40 PM
  76. And the fact that I had an erection earlier, and now I don't, means my wang was the size of a baseball bat yesterday.


    Err...thanks for sharing.

    And if I´d doubt that was possible...
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  04:42 PM
  77. Fair play now, there's a fair bit of evidence that people got smaller and less healthy after the "neolithic revolution". Remnants of earlier populations might well have seemed like giants. You could [danger, crank alert!] read much of Genesis including the Garden of Eden story as a folk memory of the mesolithic / neolithic transition.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  04:46 PM
  78. Adam sure does have nice pecs and abs doesn't he? Was he modeled on Roger Daltrey of The Who?
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  05:10 PM
  79. The existance of pygmies and dwarves is just a theory.

    New hypothesis on what happened to the dinosaurs: Their rate of shrinkage was extreme. You can still see them if you use a very very strong magnifying glass and look behind the lilac bush.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  05:20 PM
  80. Adam sure does have nice pecs and abs doesn't he? Was he modeled on Roger Daltrey of The Who?

    Wait a minute! Roger Daltrey is a short guy, about 5'6" IIRC. He couldn't be the model for the 15 foot Adam!
    Of course, if Roger were around in 4000 BC, I guess he would have been 15 feet tall. Imagine the live show!
    Incidentally, a 15 foot tall human wouldn't live very long. The tallest human ever, Robert Wadlow, who was almost 9 feet tall, died in his early 20's. Most people over 8 feet tall die in early adulthood, and are severely disabled by back and joint problems.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  06:01 PM
  81. Gav,
    when did homonids develop language skills (a genuine question from a non-biologist)? Wouldn't language skills of some sort be required for such memories to be passed down between generations?

    Regards
    Duncan
    #: Posted by Duncan  on  06/15  at  06:06 PM
  82. I'm really glad that one of these days God is going to show up again and settle all of this...


    Me too. I can't wait to see the look on these guy's faces when the Almighty says, "Of course I devised evolution, and Darwin is among my prophets!" Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  07:20 PM
  83. Regarding the size of Adam, the pre-Flood world, whether it had a vapour canopy or not, the air pressure level was more like a hyperbaric chamber, which promotes better cellular growth and giantism! That's simple science, guys!

    I stopped breathing for a minute when I read this...

    Jim:
    I once asked someone, (after a frustrating conversation), "Is a moron too stupid to know he is a moron?".
    Thanks... I finally have the answer.
    #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  09:22 PM
  84. Been scanning over this. This Jim guy is absolutely hilarious. Does he honestly believe that Noah was 12 feet tall? (In addition to all the other wackiness he spouts.) What an assclown. With his combined lack of education plus headfirst submersion into superstitious absurdities, I wonder how this guy can make it through a day without inadvertently killing himself. How can someone make it to adulthood being so stupid, much less survive once he's gotten there? The mind reels.
    #: Posted by Martin Wagner  on  06/15  at  10:53 PM
  85. I just feel sad that people like Jim make Christians look daft :/

    I don't really have any other comment.
    #: Posted by Joseph ODonnell  on  06/15  at  11:17 PM
  86. I, too, am compelled to come out of the woodwork solely to remark that this has been some of the most entertaining internet lurking I've ever done. Our friend Jim is truly one of the most spectacularly ignorant people on the net, no mean feat.

    And if you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

    I am only saddened by the fact that nobody in the real world will know what I'm talking about as I repeat that classic line to myself, over and over again.
    #: Posted by John S  on  06/16  at  02:58 AM
  87. New hypothesis on what happened to the dinosaurs: Their rate of shrinkage was extreme. You can still see them if you use a very very strong magnifying glass and look behind the lilac bush.

    Oh, god! That's just so CUTE!

    'Course, I can see them being a problem in the house. "Yeah...exterminator? Somebody left some food out, and now I've got dinosaurs crapping in my silverware drawer. Can you come spray the crawlspace with Saurian-B-Gone or something?"
    #: Posted by UrsulaV  on  06/16  at  07:07 AM
  88. Joseph ODonnell wrote:
    I just feel sad that people like Jim make Christians look daft.

    If there were more Christians standing up to the extremists and making strong public statements against idiocy, they'd get more respect. As it is, in silence you let the extremists represent Christianity to the world.
    #: Posted by Virge  on  06/16  at  07:18 AM
  89. Virge, I think the general problem is that if you aren't extreme and fundamentalist, if you don't "stand firm" on such powerfully absolute principles, you seem weak, vague, vacillating, compromising. The question becomes, if you can't claim the Bible to be absolute truth in as simple a way as possible, then how can you be sure what the truth is? They need that certainty.
    #: Posted by  on  06/16  at  09:00 AM
  90. The 15 feet figure for Adam may be a bit high as an interpretation of his source. But if you want to know where he comes up with the notion, it's essentially from the prophetess Ellen White. Here's one of her statements regarding Adam's height:

    He was more than twice as tall as men now living upon earth, and was well proportioned. His features were perfect and beautiful. His complexion was neither white, nor sallow, but ruddy, glowing with the rich tint of health. Eve was not quite as tall as Adam. Her head reached a little above his shoulders. She, too, was noble--perfect in symmetry, and very beautiful. {3SG 33.2}
    (The author is Ellen White, and "3SG" refers to Spiritual Gifts vol. 3)

    "More than twice" no doubt gives Pinkoski enough leeway in his mind to say Adam "may" have been 15 feet tall. Noah is around 12 feet tall in Jim's tale, no doubt because Ellen White, the prophetess, fully buys into the ancient beliefs about an original perfection and decline since "the fall".

    Someone had noted that Jim wasn't really following the Bible, which only states that "there were giants in those days", not that everyone was "giant". No, it isn't the Bible, it's the Seventh-day Adventist prophetess Ellen White.
    #: Posted by  on  06/16  at  09:39 AM
  91. Given the recent statements from Gitmo, I would've thought there was a lot to shout about from non-fundie Christianity. Regardless of the rest of the Bible, a few more people shouting "love thy neighbour" wouldn't go astray.
    #: Posted by Virge  on  06/16  at  09:47 AM
  92. Duncan asked "Gav, when did hominids develop language skills (a genuine question from a non-biologist)? Wouldn't language skills of some sort be required for such memories to be passed down between generations?"

    I don't know. I'm not a scientist. With apologies to Dr Myers for abusing his fine site:

    - farming in the Middle East is generally reckoned to have started about 6000 yrs BC, so on both sides of the "neolithic revolution" we're talking about people of the anatomically modern kind, not Neanderthals or anything.

    - we don't know what language or languages they would have spoken. Hey, we've no direct evidence that they had any language skills at all.

    [- a family member has drawn it to my attention that there's no direct evidence that I had any ancestors alive at any time before the late 17th century AD. This is most distressing. If anyone can propose a way of proving to my satisfaction that I did, I shall make a small cash donation to the University of Aberystwyth.]

    - there is direct evidence that they had acquired language skills by the time they had invented writing around 3000 BC, although we've only their word for it.

    Anyway, back to the actual question. A few years ago our local hill farmers had to re-stock after a bad outbreak of foot & mouth. Chatting to one of them at the time, I asked how it was going. Ofnadwy ... the new stock didn't know the hills and were getting themselves into all kinds of trouble. I asked if this was because of the lack of old, experienced sheep for the newcomers to follow. Partly, he said, but there was always a fair old turnover anyway - it was the flock itself that held the experience going back way beyond the lifetime of any individual sheep. It would take generations for the new flock to get this knowledge back again.

    OK, so he saw me coming, but if there is anything in the idea that a modern flock of sheep can have a corporate memory then it seems to me we should not rule this out for your troop of pre-language hominids. But that's
    (literally) a million years away from the question of whether, say, the Garden of Eden story has a basis in recent pre-history as a lament for an irrecoverable way of life.
    #: Posted by  on  06/16  at  12:36 PM
  93. New hypothesis on what happened to the dinosaurs: Their rate of shrinkage was extreme.


    And as Seinfeld fans know, severe shrinkage severely limits the reproductive capacity of males of any species.
    #: Posted by moioci  on  06/16  at  02:26 PM
  94. What I don't understand is why, if humans could have been 12-15 feet tall, there are no fossils of humans that size. There are monkey fossils, dinosaur skeletons, evidence showing that alligators and sharks and some other creatures may have been much larger in the past than they are now. Yet somehow the record just isn't there for humans. Have Jim et al. just not thought of this, or am I missing something? Is God hiding the 15-foot human bones in a secret vault?

    Eugene Volokh has an interesting post on this topic today... much more sensible than this "vapor canopy" crap.
    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_12-2005_06_18.shtml#1118942329

    PS: PYGMIES + DWARFS!!
    #: Posted by  on  06/16  at  02:54 PM
  95. Gav,
    thanks for the explanation - interesting stuff

    Regards
    Duncan
    #: Posted by Duncan  on  06/16  at  03:12 PM
  96. Don't you guys just love the process of getting to the truth about things? People publish their articles and books, others critique them, the authors reply to the challenges, people call each other names, sometimes they really want to attack people (like PZ said he'd like to be able to kick Kent Hovind in the balls) -- then after people calm down, maybe they take some time to see if new evidence has surfaced regarding certain fields of study like whether anybody has actually done a better job of measuring the size of the sun or if there's a better argument against or for Lucy or Java Man or whether T-rexes had feathers or if Neanderthals grunted themselves those big brow ridges because the ladies thought they looked sexy -- and then we all hope that all these arguments between Evolutionists and Creationists can be settled "sometime in our lifetime" . . .

    I've decided that the deciding factor in all of this is whether a person WANTS to see God's handiwork in the world around us, or if the person does NOT want to see God's handiwork!

    The mind filters facts and things in ways we don't completely understand -- on both sides of the Creation/Evolution argument I think that the people involved in it in a certain way "self-hypnotize" themselves into believing things -- and this ultimately affects the "stubbornness" factor in the search for knowledge! The human mind likes to think that it's RIGHT, no matter what it is learning -- and this is what is happening with both Creationists and Evolutionists (whether we use 10% or 40% or 90% of our brain capacity!)

    For the people who believe in God, they do so because they sense something "supernatural" in the world around them -- the Bible tells us that guardian angels exist, and then when we search out like-minded believers we start to hear the most amazing personal stories of miraculous healings and angel interventions! I met a woman who was about to step off a curb and get hit by a speeding bus, but an invisible being grabbed her and turned her around in mid