# Assessing email

Here’s a useful formula devised by Jessa to evaluate creationist hate mail, called the Creationist Rant Absurdity Phenomenon Index:

CRAP Index = M + 10(µ + Ω + I) + 10(F + σ + ρ) + (H)(1.0 x 106)

Where:
M = number of words in all capitals
µ = number of misspelled words
Ω = number of superfluous quotes around words or phrases
I = number of exclamation points
F = number of factually incorrect statements
σ = number of times the words “Darwinist,” “evolutionist,” etc. are used (double points for “evilutionist”)
ρ = number of insults
H = number of statements that the recipient is going to/will burn in/will rot in Hell

Somebody needs to code up a mail plug-in that will automatically score incoming mail for me…although I fear that F, σ, and ρ are probably difficult for software to recognize at this point. I also think there ought to be extra points for sequential exclamation points. Maybe we need a simplified index that is machine-calcuable.

1. says

Hmm. This has crap index directly proportional with length of the email. I suppose if it’s hate mail, that is quite correct.

2. Anon says

I suggest another email plug-in, focused not on rating, but on translating; some of those fundy rants are nearly indecipherable. It would be nice to have something that does the brainwork for you. Something like a “Fundamentalist Universal Cipher, Keeping The Animosity Readable” Device… but I don’t know what you’d call it for short.

3. Scrofulum says

I just take it on faith that an email from a creationist is going to be full of crap. I don’t need no steenking evidence!

4. says

σ is easy to compute: it would need just a simple string search. F and P would be more difficult, but if you can find a pattern in the insults (___ are a ____ and because you ____ you will go to ____), those can be sorted out too. Factual statements can be easier to filter out because you would just have to search for terms such as thermodynamics that are guaranteed to be miss-used.

5. NOTDARWONISTSTEVE!!! says

YU CRAZY EVILUTIONISTS!!! HOW CAN YOU PREECH YOUR “SCIENCE” AND “TRUTH” WHEN THE REEL TRUTH IS STAIRING YOU IN YOUR UGLY DARINIST FACES!!!!!!!!! YOUR “SO-CALLED” “E-MAIL MATH”!!!!! IS GONNA MAKE BABY SQUIDS “CRY”!!!!1!!!!!!! OMGBBQ!!! THERE IS NO PROOF FOUR YOUR STUPID “SCIENCE” AND YETT YOU STILL INSINST ON SENDING LITTLE CHILDREN TO HELL FOR YOUR FUN AND PROFIT! YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW “GOOD BIOLLOGY”, WHICH IS BASED ON THE BIBLE AND NOT ON YOUR DUM “EVIDENCE”!!!!! REPENT NOW FOR THE KINGDOM OF HELL IS WAITING UNTO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

6. says

NOTDARWONISTSTEVE!!!:

Yeah, that’s pretty much the kind of stuff I’ve been getting. Well, except for the squid part.

7. Kampar says

He missed a key expression …

… +(V/L)

where V is the number of bible references divided by L, the number of lines in the message.

8. Billy (A Liberal Disabled Vet) says

Try this. Copy the text. Use babelfish (or some other translation software) and convert it another language. Then translate that result to yet another language and then back to English. It won’t make it make any more sense, but it can be amusing:

“YU EVILUTIONISTS FOL! ! ! LIKE IT CAR PREECH ITS “SCIENCE” AND “TRUTH”, IF THE COIL TRUTH IS STAIRING IT IN YOUR UGLY ONE!!!!!!!!! _ OF DARINIST FACE IT “”!!!!! “APPARENT” OF E-MAIL-MATHE!!!!!!! FROM CRY”!!!!1 FAIR ONE of the KALMARBABYS GOES the” OMGBBQ! ! ! IT A there NO PROOF FOUR YOUR “STUPID SCIENCE” AND IT ALWAYS INSINST ON SMALL CHILDREN at HELL FOR YOUR PLEASURE AND PROFIT TO SENDING! IT KNOWLEDGE “EVEN PROPERTY BIOLLOGY”, THE ON OF THE BIBLE IS NOT BASED AND NOT “!!!!! Of “REPENTING you OBVIOUSNESS IT, which MAINTAINS FOR the KINGDOM of HELL, EXPECTING at THEM ON YOUR DUM!!!!!!!!!!!!”

It still makes no sense, but it is a little more amusing.

9. says

Not to quibble, but it looks like that third term is going to wipe out any significant contribution by the first two.

10. says

Actually, σ is very easy to detect algorithmically. Much like the sequential exclamation points. The only “tough” ones are the insults (you can’t just look for specific words, as they can be used in other ways) and, of course, factually incorrect statements.

11. says

Actually, σ is very easy to detect algorithmically. Much like the sequential exclamation points. The only “tough” ones are the insults (you can’t just look for specific words, as they can be used in other ways) and, of course, factually incorrect statements.

12. A few more suggestions…

Points for the appearance of certain well-trod phrases that reveal ignorance/indifference/hostility to the actual practice of science: “secular science”, for example.

And (I can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet) points for every reference to unsavory historical characters allegedly influenced by or influencing Darwin, with a special million-point multiplier on any sentence in which Darwin and Hitler both appear.

13. David Marjanović, OM says

And what is the factor of a million doing at the end?

14. David Marjanović, OM says

And what is the factor of a million doing at the end?

15. says

And what is the factor of a million doing at the end?

Because it really annoys me when they throw Hell at me.

16. ChrisKG says

I’d like to see this implemented. What is the range of the formula, zero to 1,000 where ‘0’ is safe and 1,000 is Kool-Aid drinking? Also, what will be the measure in ‘units’?

17. Euripedes says

Why not just something simple like;
2xDarwinism + 5! = Automatic offensive reply?

Has anyone ever received an e-mail with more than three exclamation marks in it?

(I started losing my mathematic powers when I was introduced to + and – in the same equation, nevermind imaginary numbers and the joy of Boolean algebra.)

NOT NOT NAND NOR AND NOT NAND OR AND NOT ;)

18. CalGeorge says

Let’s try it out.

You continue to edit out my posts on your stupid-ass forum. You (and you at least intuitively know this) are on the proverbial “sinking ship”. You are either naiive or stupid, or even both, if you are honestly proclaiming that the darwinistic philosophical VASTLY, INCREDIBLY UNSUSTANTIATED (with REAL scientific data) proclomations have any kind of even fucking micro minute (to the hundreds of power) significant explanitory ability in explaining how the living ecosystems we (GOD DAMN IT , THE VIRTUALLY UNEXPLAINED WE!!!!!!!!!! YOU BELLIGERANT FUCK-HEAD) can observe at this point in (by the way, where the fuck did ‘TIME” COME FROM YOU ARROGANT FUCKING JACKASS”) time. (you pencil dick shithead). I know you and your sympathizers are ON THE GOD DAMNED ROPES and are being fucking (proverbally) punched all over the ring. Just listen to anything Richard (the god of the macro-evolutionary paradign) has to say in public anymore. He has to rely on a bunch of fucking irrelevant non-scientific rhetoric in order to even stay in any kind of legitimate scientifically relevant discussion on the matter. After all he has on his side the momentum of the philosophical assertions that have been force fed and rammed down the publics throats for so many years that I am sure he must be trying, just like you, you dickhead, to profit off of that “momentum” of this RAPIDLY dissolving conglomeration of unsubstatianted claims (based on presuppositional preferences of it’s major constituancies. (you stupid ass) ) before it becomes apparent to (the ignorant) masses that they have been duped by your pathetic ilk. Look, I understand you desire to profit off of something you are passionate about and is consistent with your day to day activities. But when you insist on (for whatever reasons) perpetuating the VASTLY UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT regarding “chemicals to ecosystems” then, my friend, you have stepped into an infinitely vast pile of shit you can not even remotely pull out of. you dumb fuck.

CRAP Index = 29 + 10(7 + 3 + 1) + 10(11 + 1 + 7) + (0)(1.0 x 106) = 329

Awesome! It works!

19. MarcusA says

I’m still trying to understand the equation:

father + guilt = sweaters

20. Tony Popple says

I think we should have a more sophisticated system for identification of creationist rants.

I propose a 3-dimenional vector. The x-axis will be for dishonesty. The y-axis will be for ignorance. The z-axis will be for general lunacy.

Of course, it would be hard to differentiate between someone who is playing dumb to hide the truth and someone who is genuinely stupid.

21. says

Just out of curiosity… how would one go about sending little children to hell for fun and profit? It sounds fun. And profitable.
Not that I would. Of course not. *whistles innocently*

22. David Marjanović, OM says

CRAP Index = 29 + 10(7 + 3 + 1) + 10(11 + 1 + 7) + (0)(1.0 x 106) = 329

No. It is 29 + 10*(7 + 3 + 1) + 1011 + 1 + 7 + 0*1,000,000 = 139 + 1019 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,139. Ten quintillions, in other words.

23. David Marjanović, OM says

CRAP Index = 29 + 10(7 + 3 + 1) + 10(11 + 1 + 7) + (0)(1.0 x 106) = 329

No. It is 29 + 10*(7 + 3 + 1) + 1011 + 1 + 7 + 0*1,000,000 = 139 + 1019 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,139. Ten quintillions, in other words.

24. says

NOTDARWONISTSTEVE!!!, you stole my idea. :(

25. Epikt says

More relevant to blog comments than email, I suppose, but how about an additional index based on the number of times a creotroll promises to go away, but doesn’t?

And shouldn’t the dependence on the number of exclamation points be a recursive factorial of some kind?

26. says

Ten quintillions, in other words.

Okay, so it could use a bit of tweaking. This all really came about because of insomnia + a new equation program. I think I really meant to have the third (exponential) term be a simple factor like the second term, but I’ve always had a thing for exponents.

Such is the fun of the sleep-deprived geek.

27. CalGeorge says

No. It is 29 + 10*(7 + 3 + 1) + 1011 + 1 + 7 + 0*1,000,000 = 139 + 1019 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,139. Ten quintillions, in other words.

That will teach me to copy-and-paste a formula.

CRAP!

28. RonBrown says

Missing variables: number of references to scripture and “teaching the controversy”.

29. TheBlackCat says

Try making the exponential to the power of 2. And I would multiply it by the rest of the terms. That way you have two sections, one about banality and one about anti-evolution, and the two multiply together. So something like this:

CRAP Index = ( M + 10(µ + Ω + n) + 2^ρ + 4^n + (H)(1.0 x 106) +v )*2^(F + σ + q)*(1/(L/s)*2^(L/s))

Where n is the number of references to Hitler, Nazi’s, Stalin, Communism, Lysenkoism, and Eugenics (summed), q is the number of quote-mines, L is the length of the email, and s is a scaling factor. That way the email gets a really high score for very short emails packed with crap, goes down for normal-length emails (“normal” being determined by s), and then goes back up if the post gets really long.

30. says

That formula is obviously, nay, fatally flawed:

The whole damn thing needs to be multiplied exponentially, to the power of CS. How can you forget the most important variable?

31. ed says

What would you get if you applied the CRAP factor to the bible?

32. says

One of my favorite key CRAP indicators seems to be missing. The word “Neo”. As in “Neo-Darwinist” or “Neo-Atheism”.

Shoot, using the word “Neo” alone you’d get a number in the hundreds from Wells’ “Icons of Evolution”.

33. says

What would you get if you applied the CRAP factor to the bible?

That would be bad. It would be like crossing the streams of your particle throwers from two proton packs. Every molecule in your brain would explode at the speed of light.

Or at least it would feel that way while wading through the whole bible to apply a formula to it.

34. John C. Randolph says

GREAT IDEA!!!! SOMEONE SHOULD WRITE THAT MAIL “FILTER” RIGHT AWAY!!

-jcr

35. Ross Nixon says

I get the impression that you don’t like the term “evolutionist”. Is there an alternative one word term that describes someone who believes in evolution? Scientist or Biologist is insufficient, as some of them don’t believe.

36. Skwee says

Computers would be able to recognize words like “Darwinist”, because they can, thankfully, recognize words like “vi@6Ra” and “h0+ st0x.”

I’m no programmer, but do any of you programmers out there know if F and ρ can be calculated?

37. says

You could set up a form letter to autoreply with their score and percentile.

38. Katrina says

Or, rather than using Babelfish, you could put it into the English-to-12-Year-Old-AOLer Translator before posting. It would be especially nifty with the Comic Sans.

Before

YU CRAZY EVILUTIONISTS!!! HOW CAN YOU PREECH YOUR “SCIENCE” AND “TRUTH” WHEN THE REEL TRUTH IS STAIRING YOU IN YOUR UGLY DARINIST FACES!!!!!!!!! YOUR “SO-CALLED” “E-MAIL MATH”!!!!! IS GONNA MAKE BABY SQUIDS “CRY”!!!!1!!!!!!! OMGBBQ!!! THERE IS NO PROOF FOUR YOUR STUPID “SCIENCE” AND YETT YOU STILL INSINST ON SENDING LITTLE CHILDREN TO HELL FOR YOUR FUN AND PROFIT! YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW “GOOD BIOLLOGY”, WHICH IS BASED ON THE BIBLE AND NOT ON YOUR DUM “EVIDENCE”!!!!! REPENT NOW FOR THE KINGDOM OF HELL IS WAITING UNTO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

After:

YU CRAZY AVILUTIONISTS!!!1!!!!1!!!11!1!!!!! WTF LOL HOW CAN U PRECH UR SCEINCE AND TRUTH WH3N TEH REL TRUTH SI STARENG U IN UR UGLEY DARINIST FAECS!!!!!!11!1!!1!11!11!!!!11!111!!!!111!!!!!1!1!1!1!!1!1!111!!111111! OMG LOL UR SO-CALAD E-MALE MATH!!!1!!1!1!!1!1!!!!!!!!11!1!11!1! OMG WTF LOL SI GONA MAEK BABY SQUIDS CRY!!1!!!!11!!1!111!!!!!!1!!!!11 WTF OMGBQ!!1!!1!!1!1!!! OMG WTF THEYRE SI NO PROF FOUR UR STUPID SCEINC3 AND YET U STIL INSINST ON SENDNG LITLE CHILDRAN 2 HEL FOR UR FUN AND PROFIT!!111! WTF U DONT EVAN KNOW GOD BIOLOGY WHICH SI BAESD ON DA BIBL3 AND NOT ON UR DUM EVIEDNCE!!!111!!!!11!11!111!!!1111!1!!! OMG WTF REP3NT NOW FOR TEH KNGDOM OF HEL SI WATENG UN2 U!!11!11!1!11!111!!1!1!!!!!!1!!1!1!!1!!!!!11!1!!!111!1111!1!!!11!1!!11!!!11!1! LOL

Hm. Actually, there isn’t much difference, is there?

39. Donnie B. says

I propose the “Nixon Adjustment” to the formula: multiply by a factor of e when the phrase “believe in evolution” occurs in the message.

40. Pyre says

BUT WHAT IF I POST A MISPELED RANT AGAINST!!! CREATIONISTS IN WHICH I ASK “”WHAT!!!”” THEY’RE DOING POSTING INSULTING RANTS CALLING DARWINISTS / EVOLUTIONISTS “FOOLS” AND THREATENING HELL FIRE WHEN THEIR OWN BOOK’S MATTHEW 5:22 SAYS “THAT WHOSOEVER IS ANGRY WITH HIS BROTHER WITHOUT A CAUSE SHALL BE IN DANGER OF THE JUDGMENT: AND WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY TO HIS BROTHER, RACA, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF THE COUNCIL: BUT WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY, THOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELL FIRE.” ???!!!???

Since that wouldn’t be a Creationist rant at all, why would it get such a high “Creationist Rant Absurdity Phenomenon” rating? (!!!)

41. MartinDH says

Is there an alternative one word term that describes someone who believes in evolution?

I don’t “believe in” evolution…I accept that there is sufficient evidence to take common descent as a fact.

With some additions, the mechanisms described by the neo-Darwinian synthesis make a well supported theory.

No “belief” or “faith” involved.

Scientist or Biologist is insufficient, as some of them don’t believe.

What working biologists (producing papers in peer reviewed journals) don’t accept common descent?

Anyway, a good word is REALIST. As opposed to god-smacked, delusion nit-wit.

42. MartinDH says

Is there an alternative one word term that describes someone who believes in evolution?

I don’t “believe in” evolution…I accept that there is sufficient evidence to take common descent as a fact.

With some additions, the mechanisms described by the neo-Darwinian synthesis make a well supported theory.

No “belief” or “faith” involved.

Scientist or Biologist is insufficient, as some of them don’t believe.

What working biologists (producing papers in peer reviewed journals) don’t accept common descent?

Anyway, a good word is REALIST. As opposed to god-smacked, delusion nit-wit.

43. Pyre says

Ross Nixon @ 33:

I get the impression that you don’t like the term “evolutionist”. Is there an alternative one word term that describes someone who believes in evolution? Scientist or Biologist is insufficient, as some of them don’t believe.

The problem is the implication that evolution is an article of faith, something one is supposed to “believe in”, rather than:

1. a physical fact (with bountiful physical evidence), and
2. an observed fact (in present time, e.g. bacteria), and
3. a theory which explains such facts, has survived all testing so far, and has usefully predicted new discoveries.

One also needn’t “believe in the theory of gravity” — which also has undergone refinement over time, and may continue to do so as new discoveries are made.

Scientists aren’t “gravityists” any more than they’re “evolutionists”; they follow the evidence wherever it leads.

That’s different from Creationism, which disregards evidence in order to believe in Creation as an article of faith — which is why it’s coming from churches and their devout believers, not from labs or paleontology digs.

44. David Marjanović, OM says

I get the impression that you don’t like the term “evolutionist”.

Indeed not, because it makes us look like followers of an ideology.

Is there an alternative one word term that describes someone who believes in evolution? Scientist or Biologist is insufficient, as some of them don’t believe.

None of them believes, as explained above.

Maybe the Book of Mormon says it best:

Alma 32:17-18 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

45. David Marjanović, OM says

I get the impression that you don’t like the term “evolutionist”.

Indeed not, because it makes us look like followers of an ideology.

Is there an alternative one word term that describes someone who believes in evolution? Scientist or Biologist is insufficient, as some of them don’t believe.

None of them believes, as explained above.

Maybe the Book of Mormon says it best:

Alma 32:17-18 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

46. Ross Nixon says

MartinDH, Georgia Purdom is one such biologist. (Other Creationists with science degrees are her peers).
Pyre, thanks for confirming that major (non-observable) aspects of evolution are held by faith. And Creationism does not disregard evidence, it interprets it; the same as evolutionists do.

47. David Marjanović, OM says

and s is a scaling factor. That way the email gets a really high score for very short emails packed with crap, goes down for normal-length emails (“normal” being determined by s), and then goes back up if the post gets really long.

This is awesome. Just how do I derive a scaling factor?

48. David Marjanović, OM says

and s is a scaling factor. That way the email gets a really high score for very short emails packed with crap, goes down for normal-length emails (“normal” being determined by s), and then goes back up if the post gets really long.

This is awesome. Just how do I derive a scaling factor?

49. David Marjanović, OM says

Pyre, thanks for confirming that major (non-observable) aspects of evolution are held by faith.

Nope, “macroevolution” is a linear extrapolation from “microevolution” mandated by the principle of parsimony, which is one of the two pillars of science.

The other is falsifiability. Go ahead, find me a Silurian rabbit, and watch the theory of evolution throw convulsions.

And Creationism does not disregard evidence

Sure it does — it just doesn’t necessarily knowingly disregard evidence. Show me a creationist who actually knows all the evidence that is known, or even just all the evidence that I happen to know! I haven’t found any so far.

50. David Marjanović, OM says

Pyre, thanks for confirming that major (non-observable) aspects of evolution are held by faith.

Nope, “macroevolution” is a linear extrapolation from “microevolution” mandated by the principle of parsimony, which is one of the two pillars of science.

The other is falsifiability. Go ahead, find me a Silurian rabbit, and watch the theory of evolution throw convulsions.

And Creationism does not disregard evidence

Sure it does — it just doesn’t necessarily knowingly disregard evidence. Show me a creationist who actually knows all the evidence that is known, or even just all the evidence that I happen to know! I haven’t found any so far.

51. Sven DiMilo says

Her creation research interests are the role of microbes before and after the Fall and the speciation of animals after the Flood.

The Fall, the Flood, the Fool.

52. Dustin says

Ross Nixon’s CRAP score for #42 is 10,000.

Billy:
Try this. Copy the text. Use babelfish (or some other translation software) and convert it another language. Then translate that result to yet another language and then back to English. It won’t make it make any more sense, but it can be amusing.

Genius! I did this to the clip from CalGeorge’s Post #16.

This is what came out (English-Dutch-French-English):

You continue to spend my stations on your stom-ezelsforum of. You (and you know at least intuitive this) are on proverbial “the ship in fall”. You are or naiive or dumb, or even him, you proclaim honestly that darwinistic ENORMOUSLY, INCREDIBLY with the TRUE scientific data) proclomations philosophical UNSUSTANTIATED any kind even the fucking of microphone – (of the hundreds of to the capacity) explanitory important tiny how life us (IT of the VLOEK of GOD, PRACTICALLY UNEXPLAINED US!!!!!!!!!! you fuck-HOOFD BELLIGERANT) on this point in (by the manner, where fuck ‘ TIJD ‘ OF you ARROGANT FUCKING JACKASS “() time has the ecosystems (you outline if dick shithead) can perceive the capacity in the explanation of CAME. I know you and your sympathizers are were beaten ON GOD CURSED the CABLES and fucking (proverbally) entirely about the ring. The glare must announce only anything Richard (the macro-evolutieve god of paradign) in publicly more. It must be based on a forest of the fucking retoriek unimportant not-scientist even in any kind the scientifically relevant conference legitimates to remain about the question. After them, at its side the impulse of the philosophical assertions it has which forces it nourished was and packed downwards publicskelen so much many years which I am certain it, only if you, unsubstatianted you dickhead, to benefit from this “impulse” of the this QUICKLY resolution the left conglomerate must test the requirements (this on presuppositional are it is based the preference of the important constituancies (you it stomme ass)) before him (ignoramment) the clear masses is that them duped was by your ilk pathetic. The attitude, include/understand me you part of something wishes to profit impassioned to you are approximately and with your activities of day until the day is compatible. But when you insist then at the time for (reasons) ENORMOUSLY maintaining UNSUBSTANTIATED the BULLSHIT concerning the “chemicals with the ecosystems”, my friend, you in an infinitely enormous pile of shit walked cannot far withdrawing even you to you of stomme fuck.

“Fuck-hoofed belligerant.” Heh. It’s more fun than disemvowelling.

54. I also think there ought to be extra points for sequential exclamation points.

Simple. Replace the factor “number of exclamation marks” with “ratio of exclamation marks/sentences”.

55. Lyle G says

Long ago, after reading a number of extreme conspiracy notion publications, I decided to reject any publication that was filled with CAPITALIZED WORDS!!!

56. says

I guess I would prefer if it came to a simple 0 to 1.0 ratio while 0 (0%) represents a valid argument and 1.0 represents 100% CRAP!

57. Noni Mausa says

Very evocative, but the scaling needs adjustment, as others have said.

Terry Pratchett has said (Maskerade) that it takes five consecutive !!!!!s to take the writer beyond the sanity event horizon.

BTW, what’s with the !!!s having occasional 11s mixed in? Don’t you just hold down the caps key, hit ! and go for coffee?

Also, why do you suppose it is that logos and grammaros seem to go together? Does mastery of spelling, grammar and punctuation somehow make people more thoughtful and temperate, or what?

Noni

58. Sastra, OM says

Now we need one for Deepak Chopra and the New Age/Vitalist/ Transpersonal/ Spiritual crowd. And if there’s a translation feature perhaps James Randi could use it to figure out some of the applications which come into the JREF for the \$1 million challenge.

59. Miko says

You can get a good first-order approximation to F by counting the number of punctuation marks. The main source of error will be incorrect use of punctuation.

60. DLC says

Unfortunately the program for such a filter would be rather long. The list of words and phrases to watch for is quite long. particularly so given the disproportionate amount of misspellings in most cdesign proponentsists rants. Not to mention the punctuation errors. Sometime when I have a week or so with nothing to do maybe I’ll have a look at it.

61. Kelly says

This calls for an evolutionary algorithm.

62. Skwee says

Sastra, let’s get on it. I was recently in a debate with one of these guys on Youtube, but had to stop before more of my brain cells killed themselves. The comments (which have every thing except ALL CAPS TYPING WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!) are classic.

63. David Marjanović, OM says

I guess I would prefer if it came to a simple 0 to 1.0 ratio while 0 (0%) represents a valid argument and 1.0 represents 100% CRAP!

This presumes that there’s an upper limit to crap.

But there isn’t.

64. David Marjanović, OM says

I guess I would prefer if it came to a simple 0 to 1.0 ratio while 0 (0%) represents a valid argument and 1.0 represents 100% CRAP!

This presumes that there’s an upper limit to crap.

But there isn’t.

65. Owlmirror says

Go ahead, find me a Silurian rabbit, and watch the theory of evolution throw convulsions.

I’ve seen this before, and I am not sure it is entirely correct as a “falsification” of evolution.

Given how well evolution is supported, would one anomalous fossil really be sufficient to disprove it?

Every theory that has been advanced is an explanation for given natural phenomena. Each new explanation has to be shown to explain natural phenomena better than the previous explanation, in that it explains the previous phenomena as well, in addition to phenomena which are not explained by the previous theory.

General relativity is a better explanation than special relativity, which is a better explanation than Newtonian gravity. Germ theory is a better explanation than demon infestation or imbalance of humours.

What theory would explain all observations of evolution that have been made, and would also include an explanation for a rabbit fossil being dated to the Silurian era? Would it necessarily be that evolution is entirely false? Would it necessarily be creationism?

I’m not entirely sure of the answer myself, but I think it’s a question that requires a bit more thought and reasoning. I do think that error, deception, geophysical anomalies, and time travel, are all better explanations than the alleged actions of an otherwise untestable god. But I would be interested in seeing if there might be other, better arguments.