Creationist Physics 101


A weird anti-evolution crank seems to be ramping up his efforts around the blogosphere recently: C. David Parsons has been leaving comments at Florida Citizens for Science, and Wesley Elsberry directly addresses his “conflict driven” views. Parsons has apparently been trying to raise his profile because he has a new book out, and he wants creationists to buy it.

It’s being put out by Tate Publishing, which seems to be a vanity press dedicated specifically to bilking Christian authors. If you have $40 and a complete lack of sense, you too can be the proud owner of The Quest for Right: The Adventure of a Lifetime, although I think you can tell from the title that it’s not going to be well-written. If you need a further clue, the author lists his qualifications on the cover: “Biblical Scholar and Scientist Extraordinaire.” I wonder if that’s anything like a super-scientist?

Anyway, you can browse through the table of contents and a sample excerpt. It’s bizarre. C. David Parsons is a young-earth creationist and biblical literalist; he doesn’t like those Christians who try to shoe-horn dinosaurs into the bible. I suspect he’s alienated a lot of his potential audience right there. He also has some peculiar notions about the origins of the earth.

Unveils the fundamental truth, based on the scientific record of creation, that the earth accreted from a watery nebula; the great surging mass of water and chemicals had no particular shape and covered thousands of square miles of interstellar space.

The “watery nebula” is probably an invention to rationalize the flood myth, but I’m afraid I don’t have any of the details. I also suspect some profound innumeracy: shouldn’t we be concerned about cubic miles in a volume of space, and “thousands of square miles” doesn’t sound like much—the earth formed out of a sheet of water a hundred miles on a side?

The book looks to be full of ranting against a conspiracy out to bury the truth, variously called a “scientific council” and the “league of scientists”. I wish. Wouldn’t it be cool to be a Super-Scientist in the League of Scientists?

I’m afraid, though, that most of his book isn’t for me. He doesn’t seem to say much about biology or evolution, but instead focuses the bulk of his complaints on — and this will thrill some of the readers here — physics. He doesn’t like quantum mechanics. He dedicates a whole chapter to debunking the photoelectric effect — photons aren’t real. Heck, this guy is going right down to the basics: he rejects Rutherford and Bohr, wants nothing to do with electrons, and wants us to know that God is doing it all.

The backbone of obstructionism is electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electronic structure of the atom which, in turn, can be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics as outlined in quantum mechanics. The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Scientific obstructionism is judged on these specifics: electronic interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view of separatists that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view, however, is not tested by the definition of science, as determined by the court, but by the weightier principle of verifiable truths.

You’ve got to appreciate an honest kook. He knows that, in order to support biblical creationism, it’s not enough to critique biology — you’ve got to get right down to the roots and revise all of physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy to take down the perfidious lies of the League of Scientists.

Comments

  1. says

    Conversely, the view of separatists that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied.

    Pretty handy, if he revises all his facts 1st to suit the former.
    A ‘watery nebula’. Oh yeah, those are easy to find in outer space. (Rolls eyes)

  2. Reginald Selkirk says

    I also suspect some profound innumeracy: shouldn’t we be concerned about cubic miles in a volume of space, and “thousands of square miles” doesn’t sound like much…

    Of course you would say that, you silly round-Earther.

  3. says

    Dude! A League of Scientists would be awesome! I mean, you guys could have a lair beneath a volcano, and maybe you could get your hands on a secret super-jet prototype that fires lasers and smart bombs. You could hide it beneath the basketball court.

    I think we need to create a League of Scientists.

  4. Reginald Selkirk says

    The book looks to be full of ranting against a conspiracy out to bury the truth, variously called a “scientific council” and the “league of scientists”. I wish. Wouldn’t it be cool to be a Super-Scientist in the League of Scientists?

    Nothing personal, but I don’t think you would look good in spandex.

  5. carey says

    Damn it. I spent all those years at university, and now am undone by a crackpot theory based on a book written by sheep-shaggers some two to three thousand years ago. When will I learn?

  6. Jim Wynne says

    The possibilities are unlimited for kooks like this; their imaginations are bound only by the need to make their stories sound sciency enough to fool the lowest rung on the intellectual ladder. Might as well just say that God made a gigantic cistern full of water, suspended it over the earth, and tilted it to make the flood. That makes slightly more sense than a Watery Nebula, but it doesn’t sound like something a Scientist Extraordinare would say.

  7. Rasputin says

    I think that should be the League of Extraordinary Scientists which is, of course, led by a Super Scientist.

  8. raven says

    Conversely, the view of separatists that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall…

    This is hardcore crackpottery. He has god pushing electrons around and transporting photons and so on. There are a lot of atoms, electrons, and photons in the universe.

    Sort of demotes god to a quantum mechanical substitute keeping matter and energy in existence and doing what they do. Not seeing it. Surely on omnipotent, omniscient deity has better things to do with its time. Hmmm, maybe the deities invented quantum mechanics and the rest of physics so they could spend their time tinkering with evolution or creating disobedient children that people are supposed to stone to death but never do.

    This nutcase’s theology is so wacko, it is hard to take it seriously enough to think through the corralaries. But if god is everywhere, everything, doing everything, then where is free will? Makes existence look completely arbitrary and pointless.

  9. Mooser says

    Conversely, the view of separatists that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied.

    Okay, I’ll bite! Sure, God did it all, but is the phenomena consistent and able to be explicated mathematically? Than we can use it for our piddling secular purposes. When you can short-cut this by affecting the phenomena of the universe through prayer, get back to me. If it’s repeatable and consistent it could be useful.

  10. says

    C. David Parsons can’t demonstrate that he exists. At least, that’s the ramification of the reasoning in his spam. Therefore, I conclude that he is actually J.R. “Bob” Dobbs.

  11. says

    The theory of evolution, emerging in the 18th Century…

    The first sentence I read, and he’s already off by a century!

  12. says

    Nothing personal, but I don’t think you would look good in spandex.

    Very few people do. Honestly, I’m of the opinion that the material should be banned for the manufacture of clothing.

  13. alex says

    The view, however, is not tested by the definition of science, as determined by the court, but by the weightier principle of verifiable truths.

    wow.

    wow.

  14. natural cynic says

    Very few people do. Honestly, I’m of the opinion that the material should be banned for the manufacture of clothing.

    But those few who DO look good in spandex wear it very well.

  15. freelunch says

    I know that I’m always thrilled to see another religious zealot telling me that ‘truth’ trumps facts. The next one that can tell me how to arrive at ‘truth’ will, of course, be the first.

  16. jimmiraybob says

    I am pleased with the revelation of watery nebulae and look forward to the discovery of tomato saucy nebulae. All praise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  17. Mike from Ottawa, Scientist Extraordinaire! says

    The nice thing about Mr Parsons is that if he meets the minimum standard for being a “scientist extraordinaire”, then so do all of us.

  18. Ferrous Patella says

    If I run across this book on my own, I would have assumed it was a parody. Still not sure it is not.

  19. says

    The “watery nebula” is probably an invention to rationalize the flood myth,

    PZ, you really must bone up on your Bible. The watery nebula has nothing at all to do with Noah’s flood:

    Genesis Chapter 1

    1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

    9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

  20. Bjorn, James Bjorn says

    I don’t think his “watery nebulae” have anything to do with the flood myth. I recently read the first few lines of Genesis 1. It says there was water, and then light and earth was created.

    Genesis 1 is so clearly a standard creation myth, comparable to the ones of many nature religions. “Earth” in Genesis 1 most likely originally referred to “the flat ground that we are sitting on”, just as it did in e.g. Norse and Shinto creation myths.

  21. BlueIndependent says

    PZ: “…I wonder if that’s anything like a super-scientist?”

    Think “Super genius”…as in Wile E Coyote. This guy sounds about as challenged scientifically speaking.

  22. Snoof says

    I’m sorry, I’m just not following. How exactly is science _different_ to evaluating ideas based on whether they’re verifiably true? I think that’s what he’s saying, anyway. Does he think there’s some International Conspiracy of Scientists (perhaps a “League of Scientists”?) who decide what the scientific orthodoxy is? Some kind of Vatican II?

    “Very well, gentlemen. On the matter of the existence of the luminiferous aether, the nays have it. Michelson, Morley, this council expects you to publish a number of papers to that effect. *bangs gavel* Adjourned.”

  23. says

    Wait, wait! Parsons says that God controls each particle personally? Uhm. It sounds like Parsons’ God is actually Maxwell’s demon!

    I’d guess the book reviews will run both hot and cold.

  24. Moses says

    Unveils the fundamental truth, based on the scientific record of creation, that the earth accreted from a watery nebula; the great surging mass of water and chemicals had no particular shape and covered thousands of square miles of interstellar space.

    The earth has approximately 196 MILLION square miles of surface area. It has, approximately, 26 BILLION cubic miles of material.

    There is no fracking way his theory even reaches the tier “bone-head stupid.” Hell, it’s so wrong that the expression “it’s not even wrong” fails to encompass the error.

    (And, bwa-ha-ha, all those geology and oceanography electives pay off!!! So it took me seven years to get a bachelor’s degree…)

  25. BlueIndependent says

    @31:

    Yes, really, they do think there are international/global/national conspiracies determined tp oppress them *SPECIFICALLY* and *BY DESIGN*. This can be seen in the panacea of fear-mongering conservative world view. The thesists constitute a conspiracy, as do the gays, the lesbians, scientists now, social unions of any sort outside of Christian conservative ones, opposing political parties, etc. I can’t honestly think of an evil the religious conservatives have ever identified that didn’t at one point constitute a dark shadowy conspiracy greater in scope than the person or persons that identified it.

    It’s the assumption of the truth-telling righteous underdog messiah mantle they so love bathing in. Think the guy that stands on a busy Vegas strip street corner holding up a sign about the coming armageddon and to reserve your seat in Heaven ASAP. It’s a more institutionalized form of that.

  26. says

    Holy ball of gibberish, batman: “Scientific obstructionism is judged on these specifics: electronic interpretation and quantum mechanics” Can anyone parse that for me?

  27. Cat of many faces says

    Here’s a new word for you all:

    Occasionalism

    This is the name for the basic premis this moron supports.

    This is a theory of causation which purports that no cause actually has an effect. instead when a cause happens god sneaks in and makes the effect happen.

    It looks like our ‘Scientist extraordinaire’ is proposing the physics equivalent.

    Here’s the wikipedia article on occasionalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism

    Heh, you may not like philosophy too much, but at least we name ways of being stupid pretty well :P

    -An occasional cat

  28. says

    You’ve got to appreciate an honest kook.

    Honest?! He’s saying “There is no electricity, only Zuul God” and seemingly hasn’t insisted on the worship of electricity as the divine Hand of God, or the relevance of Thor and Zeus to that particular faith. =/

  29. says

    This is hardcore crackpottery. He has god pushing electrons around and transporting photons and so on. There are a lot of atoms, electrons, and photons in the universe.

    Sort of demotes god to a quantum mechanical substitute keeping matter and energy in existence and doing what they do. Not seeing it. Surely on omnipotent, omniscient deity has better things to do with its time.

    You’d think.

  30. truthseeker says

    It’s very weird that everyone can mock and taunt this book when no one has read it yet. Shows me that none of you know anything about this book and are just making up a bunch of “negative, silly comments” because you’re afraid of what it might be bringing forth in the way of the Truth. The Truth always scares people and especially people who have believed a lie for so long they call it truth.

  31. Todd says

    Hey PZ, you plan on having auditions to pick a plucky side-kick?

    You have to admit the headline “PZ and Beagle Boy Defeat Dr. Evil-devo” reads a whole lot better than “Science Blogger Takes On Creationist.”

  32. astrolieber says

    @truthseeker:
    wht we see stinks.why should the book
    be any differe,huh,Mr Troll ?

  33. Chris Thompson says

    Come on, PZ. This guy isn’t a total nut. Sure he’s a little off the edge, but we all have our little quarks.

  34. Moses says

    It’s very weird that everyone can mock and taunt this book when no one has read it yet. Shows me that none of you know anything about this book and are just making up a bunch of “negative, silly comments” because you’re afraid of what it might be bringing forth in the way of the Truth. The Truth always scares people and especially people who have believed a lie for so long they call it truth.

    Posted by: truthseeker | January 1, 2008 2:24 PM

    :rollseyes: Oh please, give me a fraking break. You’re so goddamn inane in your concern trolling, or whatever the hell you call it, that it is a damn joke.

    We’re talking incredible order magnitudes of wrong in materials with his creation of the earth from the “water nebula” creation story. Nobody who calls himself a “scientist extraordinaire” should make that kind of error.

    It would take BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS, of cubic miles (not thousands of “square miles” with which you don’t make volume measurements anyway) of nebula to come close enough just to make the Earth. THEN there’s the whole problem of the moon and the rest of the solar system which wasn’t addressed in the quote nor my mocking of his idiotic error.

    It’s like claiming all the lumber you need to build a 4,000 square foot home can be found in a small box of matches. A claim that would, frankly, a prime example of pulling stupidity out of your ass.

  35. Carlie says

    MikeG – I know, but they’re so swishy! And quite slimming. Besides, if you were wearing a spandex outfit, wouldn’t you want a cape to cover it up with?

  36. mothra says

    Super Scientist, after conferring with the League of Scientists via cell phone flies to Florida (in an Airplane). Once in Florida, he drives to a particular location by employing his vehicles on-board computer with internet access and GPS unit. Arriving at a local church, he finds the bespectacled Scientist Extra Ordinary masticating on the front steps and surrounded by the boys choir. He is creating BABTOBOTS(TM)!!! Super Scientist steps out of his mirror black Chevy Volt, iridescent cape coruscant in the sunlight and balmy Florida breezes, silver-white spandex rippling, as in Days of Yore(TM) with the de- and re-polarization of a billion neurons.

    “Curses,” says SEO in a fulminating rage, “How did you find me”…. and makes good his escape while the Super Scientist is helpless- convulsed with laughter.

  37. Falyne says

    #44: Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww….

    And yet, I feel compelled by the great Ceiling Cat to say this: Teh book haz a flavor, and it is strangely charming.

  38. says

    A CULTURAL NOTE ABOUT AGNOSTICS AND ATHIESTS. The following text is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of 7 scientific textbooks designed for the public schools.

    “A marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned,

    “For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who ‘hold the truth in unrighteousness’] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20-22).

    The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.” In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God.

    There are, however, men who do “not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty:

    “Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21, 22).

    In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient – willful, “done on purpose; deliberate.”

    Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity -objectively, “uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas.” In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he “could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.

    In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here: http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html

    You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.

    Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the “constant inculcation” (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God” during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as “for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.”

    With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an “agnostic.” The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.

    The Old Testament did not escape Darwin’s inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that “the manifestly false history of the earth….was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale.

    As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the “volumne (sic) on the origin of species…light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God – there is no God.

    The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified in the full text of Volume 1 of The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com.

  39. Heather says

    My New Year’s resolution is to find and mock one troll a week. Truthseeker(#41), you get the honor of being the first one.

    I call baloney on your persecution complex. Even the run of the mill creationist should be laughing at the author. There’s is Biblical literalism and than there is outright quackery. This guy, he’s a quack and I don’t need to read his tripe to know it.

  40. says

    The theory of evolution, emerging in the 18th Century…

    The first sentence I read, and he’s already off by a century!

    No he isn’t! Go away and learn some history of biology, the theory of evolution did emerge in the 18th Century.

  41. Ichthyic says

    I think that should be the League of Extraordinary Scientists which is, of course, led by a Super Scientist.

    oh! oh!

    can i be the invisible scientist?

  42. raven says

    Crazyseeker:

    It’s very weird that everyone can mock and taunt this book when no one has read it yet.

    Not really. C.D. Parsons is the internet equivalent of some guy dressed in 3 coats, holding a bottle shaped brown paper bag, sitting in front of a shopping cart filled with plastic bags, and ranting and raving.

    It is possible the homeless guy is really a new prophet or an alien from an advanced civilization as he claims. More likely he is a victim of a malfunctioning brain and what appears to be gibberish is, in fact, gibberish. The odds favor the latter by almost infinity to 1 and it is not worth the time to figure out what he is saying.

    What is odd is people who can sit around in 2008 surrounded by technology developed by modern physics, using a computer connected to the internet thanks to modern physics, and denying that modern physics even exists. Like it or not, understanding physics has lifted us from the stone age. Parson’s theory might get one committed to an insane asylum if anyone believed it or run over by a car which, according to him, doesn’t really exist or work.

    So truthteller what is your connection to Parson? My guess, you are either Parson himself or a mental patient who is too fogged up to make up their own delusions and has to borrow someone elses.

  43. Ichthyic says

    No he isn’t! Go away and learn some history of biology, the theory of evolution did emerge in the 18th Century.

    you are either referring to the very idea of evolution itself (which debatably in one form or another, came much earlier), or you, like the author, are mistaking 18th century for 1800’s.

    *psst*

    the 19th century covers the 1800’s.

    Darwin published Origin in 1859.

  44. Ichthyic says

    I feel inspired – and I just bought the domain. Watch this space. ;o)

    cool.

    so many interesting things could fit there, aside from the obvious graphic novel interpretation.

  45. mothra says

    @51. Is your hostility based on ignorance?? Evolution as a idea goes back to Aristotle (or further). The mechanism of evolutionary change known as natural selection was proposed by Darwin in the 19th century. When CREATIONISTS use the term “theory of evolution” or “Darwinism” they are referring to Darwin’s proposal

  46. Ichthyic says

    Is your hostility based on ignorance??

    I rather think it’s based on advertising, given what his professed interests are if you visit the link attached to his sig.

  47. BlueIndependent says

    36: “…Can anyone parse that for me?”

    Sure. Here’s how I would rewrite Parsons’ “Scientific obstructionism is judged on these specifics: electronic interpretation and quantum mechanics” passage:

    “Because in reality I find real science difficult and too shattering of my religious indoctrination to accept, its active obstruction of my beliefs leads me to challenge it by arbitrarily selecting two metrics upon which I place immeasurable weight, so that if (or when, as I see it) the obstructing party fails one metric or the other, the guilt of the offending party is obvious.”

    41: “It’s very weird that everyone can mock and taunt this book when no one has read it yet. Shows me that none of you know anything about this book and are just making up a bunch of “negative, silly comments” because you’re afraid of what it might be bringing forth in the way of the Truth. The Truth always scares people and especially people who have believed a lie for so long they call it truth.”

    Anyone passing himself off as a “Scientist Extraordinaire” on the cover of his book deserves overt mocking and derision. Did Einstein ever fancy himself a “Scientist Extraordinaire”? Hawking? Darwin? Those two words together make me almost laugh. It’s an absurd claim from someone thinking absurdly. And what qualifies any scientist as “Extraordinaire”? I didn’t know that term was something more than a meaningless adjective with unverifiable weight. If I sleep, eat, breath and talk am I “human extraordinaire”? Parsons is self-congratulatory (like pretty much all creationists who think they can deconstruct reality with a single insipid question) before even reading the book.

    As to your presumptive statements on truth, you seem to think you know it more than anyone here, or at least that you detect this Parsons person is on to something most of the rest of Humanity has missed. Further, what lie are you referring to? You are horribly unclear. As for fear, the only thing most rational posters here fear is the proliferation of idiocy as intelligent thought or scientific work.

    On the contrary, there are many trolls that come in here expressing fear about science, the “evils” of evolution, and all kinds of other things they have no experience or expertise in. They fear discovery in favor of top-down revelation (otherwise known as being told what to believe in). You’ve doubtless already found that few here tolerate such errant thinking. That you haven’t yet learned is instructive.

  48. says

    A ‘watery nebula’ — presumably he misunderstands the likes of this from 1998:

    Discover of Water Vapor Near Orion Nebula Suggests Possible Origin of H20 in Solar System

    A team of U.S. astronomers, including a member of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has discovered a large concentration of water vapor within a cloud of interstellar gas close to the Orion nebula.

    The concentration is 20 times larger than that measured previously in other interstellar gas clouds and may provide an important clue to the origin of water in the solar system.

    The discovery was reported in an article published Monday in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

    Using the European Space Agency’s Infrared Space Observatory satellite, ISO, which was launched in November 1995, the astronomers observed water vapor within the Orion Molecular Cloud, a giant interstellar gas cloud composed primarily of hydrogen molecules. The new observations were carried out in October 1997 with the Long Wavelength Spectrometer, one of four instruments on board ISO.

    “The Orion Molecular Cloud is a site of particularly active star formation within our galaxy,” said Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a member of the team that reported the finding. “Several thousand stars have been born in this region in the last million years — which is very recent from the cosmic perspective.

    “For reasons that aren’t entirely understood, when stars are born, their birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. When this outflowing material eventually impacts the surrounding gas, the shock waves that are created compress and heat the gas. The water we observe is rapidly produced in this warm dense gas.”

    The concentration of water vapor measured by the U.S. team was some 20 times larger than that measured previously in other interstellar gas clouds.

    “An enhanced concentration of water is precisely what we expected in this gas cloud,” said Melnick “We are looking at a region of interstellar space where shock waves have made the gas abnormally warm. For the past 25 years, astrophysicists have been predicting that whenever the temperature exceeds about 200 degrees Fahrenheit, chemical reactions will convert most of the oxygen atoms in the interstellar gas into water. And that’s exactly what we’ve observed in Orion.”

    Melnick also noted that the strength of the water radiation detected from Orion was in perfect agreement with theoretical predictions.

    The high concentration of water measured in Orion may have

    implications for the origin of water in the solar system. “The interstellar gas cloud that we observed in Orion seems to be a huge chemical factory, generating enough water molecules in a single day to fill the Earth’s oceans sixty times over,” said Professor David Neufeld of Johns Hopkins University. “Eventually that water vapor will cool and freeze, turning into small solid particles of ice. Similar ice particles were presumably present within the gas cloud from which the solar system originally formed; it seems quite plausible that much of the water in the solar system was originally produced in a giant water vapor factory like the one we have observed in Orion.”

    Copyright 1998 President and Fellows of Harvard College

  49. says

    If you need a further clue, the author lists his qualifications on the cover: “Biblical Scholar and Scientist Extraordinaire.”

    He forgot “Head of the Spaceology Department at the Correspondence College of Tampa.”

  50. CortxVortx says

    “Spandex is a privilege, not a right.” — Anon.

    Scientific obstructionism

    Love it!

    — CV

  51. flounder says

    This guy is trying to sell his books to school teachers!

    Note the “Fsm” in the first url. Do I sense the effect of a noodley appendage?

  52. ZenMonkey says

    Oh, joy! The only thing that diminishes my delight in reading Mr Parson’s excerpts — and I agree that they are so incoherent and flatline brain dead that they fail to even reach the level of Stupid With a Capital 2 — is the thought that somewhere, somehow, some inbred lackwit is going to decided that these are just the perfect books for homeschooling her kids.

  53. MikeG says

    Carlie, MAjeff,
    How about this: everything modern Batman-style moulded rubber (nipples optional). He’s been brought up in this thread already, and is the closest superhero to being a scientist, plus he has all kinds of cool toys.

    I don’t know how we overcome the tights tendency, though. The cape will naturally have to be break-away. We’re SuperScientists, so we should be able to figure that out. Besides, a cape would be a good place to put our Science Scouts badges. Maybe those could be our rank designators?

  54. Moses says

    No he isn’t! Go away and learn some history of biology, the theory of evolution did emerge in the 18th Century.

    Posted by: Thony C. | January 1, 2008 2:56 PM

    The Theory of Evolution dates back to the Greeks and Romans. The Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxiamander (611-547 B.C.) and the Roman philosopher Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) coined the concept that all living things were related and that they had changed over time. The classical science of their time was observational rather than experimental so Evolution, like many other Greek discoveries didn’t progress further. It was primarily the Christians who were stuck with their “biblical inerrancy” and “special creation” of the world in a literal six days that kept the Theory of Evolution suppressed for over 2,000 years.

    As for your 18th Century assertion, I’m guessing you’re talking about Darwin’s Theory. It was published in the 1800’s which is correctly referred to as the 19th Century.

  55. ZenMonkey says

    Oh. My. God. Please, please, please, in the name of all that is holy, go check out his promos on youtube. You too will be enlightened about the “Dark Forces of Quantumm Mysticism.” At one point he even gets the formula for the area of a triangle wrong.

  56. Watt de Fawke says

    San Bernardino County in California has an area of 20,000 square miles, which perhaps make it larger than the ‘watery nebula’ his tiny little mind imagines to be unimaginably large. Is he one of those people who’ve never been more than 10 miles from where they were born?

  57. Kevin says

    “When man does not regard the creator, the results of his studies will always contain errors.” – C. David Parsons

    This statement perfectly sums this whole thing up. Start with a conclusion and work backwards.

  58. Ichthyic says

    in the name of all that is holy, go check out his promos on youtube.

    the very first comment on the first promo is one I wish I had made myself:

    Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.

  59. says

    Although Greek biological writings contain thoughts that are in some ways related to the later concepts of evolution, biological evolution in the modern sense first emerges in the 18th Century in the works of various natural historians most notably Bonnet, Monboddo and Buffon. Erasmus Darwin’s Lamarckian theory of evolution was first published in 1796.

  60. says

    The ‘watery nebula’ is obviously his attempt to account for
    Genesis 1 ii-x:
    2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.

    6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the second day.

    9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

    Lo, and behold, the ‘watery nebula’!

  61. Carlie says

    MikeG – I like that idea, as long as the rubber is Neoprene. Might as well be acid-resistant while you’re at it, and then there’s no annoying outfit changes when you do work in the fume hood! MAJeff, yours can have nipples if you want. :)

  62. says

    @#71: At one point he even gets the formula for the area of a triangle wrong.

    Maybe, ZenMonkey. Maybe not. I suspect Parsons just copied a bunch of formulas down and might not be aware what they represent. The expression b*h/3 could be a mistaken version of b*h/2, the area of a triangle, or it could be a correct version of the volume of a pyramid (where b is the area of the base of the pyramid and h is its height).

  63. Sastra, OM says

    C. David Parsons #51 wrote:

    In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient – willful, “done on purpose; deliberate.”

    You cannot have a dialog with someone you are accusing of lying. An honest discussion can only be had if both sides assumes the other is basically honest. You can argue with someone you think is wrong, and try to persuade them to change their mind, but all you can and will do with a liar is scold them.

    Could you be wrong — and if so, would you be able to tell?

  64. Crudely Wrott says

    Brand new year, same old shit.

    How can someone go through life, that is, live, eat, prosper, buy, sell, et cetera and still assume that there is a great plot against them? Could it be because it feels empowering, or just warm and snuggly?

    I dunno. Welcome to the future.

  65. waldteufel says

    I made the mistake of wasting a couple of minutes watching the drivel churned out by C. David Parson’s videos ballyhooing his volumes of pure bullshit.

    I’ll bet the credulous zombies who populate the big round churches will eat Parson’s shit up.

  66. Larry says

    Humbly submitted for your approval is my theme song for the League. Please note that the use of any alcohol during the creation of these lyrics was purely medicinal in nature.

    Superscientist,
    Supersicentist,
    Does whatever a superscientist does
    Can he swing from a web
    No he can’t
    He’s a superscientist
    Look out!!
    He’s a superscientist.

  67. Carlie says

    Re: Superscientist theme song

    I submit that
    WHEREAS the superscientist theme song refers to superscientists only with a male pronoun, and
    WHEREAS many superscientists are female and/or transgender and/or cross-dressers who might just want to wear heels and be called ma’am every now and then, and
    WHEREAS the song makes no room for said female and/or transgender and/or cross-dressing superscientists, even though the English language has no good human neuter gender pronouns and so this problem always comes up and it’s incomprehensible that no one has made up a word that has spread in the general population so as to have solved it yet, and
    WHEREAS superscientists ought to take anybody they can get, because there are far too many IDiots and homeopaths and UFOlogists out there, that it be
    HEREBY RESOLVED that the superscientist theme song be somehow reworded as to be gender-inclusive, or we shall be forced to begin to research possible actionable responses including, but not limited to, splintering off from the League of Superscientists into the Superscientist League.

  68. raven says

    C.D.Parsons aka truthseeker:

    Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is a God.

    Parsons, thinking just isn’t your talent. You are using your premise to prove your premise. If agnostics and atheists don’t believe the bible is inerrant much less the word of god, then using the bible to prove anything is pointless.

    Make yourself useful. There are 2 creation myths in Genesis that contradict each other in details. No one has ever been able to explain that contradiction. One minister said god must have screwed up the first time and erased everything and started over. A not uncommon belief among Xian cultists. So what does your cult of one say?

    Also if everyone is born knowing god is a Xian, why don’t the majority of the world’s population believe it? There are 6.7 billion people on earth, 2.1 billion are Xians. Pretty sloppy of a creator god IMO.

  69. Carlie says

    Hidden aside to Larry: I’ll back you if you can get Hank Azaria to record it in the voice of Homer Simpson.

  70. Ichthyic says

    splintering off from the League of Superscientists into the Superscientist League.

    bloody splitters.

    :p

  71. Ichthyic says

    Parsons, thinking just isn’t your talent. You are using your premise to prove your premise. If agnostics and atheists don’t believe the bible is inerrant much less the word of god, then using the bible to prove anything is pointless.

    easy:

    Satan tricks you to think the bible isn’t inerrant.

    There are 2 creation myths in Genesis that contradict each other in details. No one has ever been able to explain that contradiction.

    one was written by Satan, but was included by God as a lesson. God is fond of using Satan as his tool, just read Job.

    Also if everyone is born knowing god is a Xian, why don’t the majority of the world’s population believe it? There are 6.7 billion people on earth, 2.1 billion are Xians. Pretty sloppy of a creator god IMO.

    again…

    Satan.

    see how easy it is when you have a fictional villain to pin the blame on?

    Satan made me write this, but I am still allowed to say:

    Long live Dagon.

  72. Ex-drone says

    Parsons writes:

    The backbone of obstructionism is electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electronic structure of the atom which, in turn, can be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics as outlined in quantum mechanics.

    She may have been an electronic obstructionist, but none of the boys could resistor.

  73. ZenMonkey says

    @80: I suspect Parsons just copied a bunch of formulas down and might not be aware what they represent. The expression b*h/3 could be a mistaken version of b*h/2, the area of a triangle, or it could be a correct version of the volume of a pyramid (where b is the area of the base of the pyramid and h is its height).

    Agreed, though in that case it should be A*h/3. Considering the slick production values of his website and videos, I suspect that the man has little to do with any of the imagery involved. Just look at all those bright young students, so excited to learn all about true physical science, not that silly fact-based Obstructionist Science. Where is he getting the money for all of this, do you think?

  74. Ichthyic says

    … OTOH, if Satan really is just an endangered catfish, one wonders why the xians get so worked up about him.

  75. Ray C. says

    6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

    So the Earth is flat, and surmounted by a dome (firmament, defined), rather like a giant snow globe. Funny how even the Ptolemaic cosmos postulates a round Earth, and how the Divine Comedy places Purgatory at the antipodes of Jerusalem, implying a round Earth, since no point on a flat Earth can have an antipodes.

    Oh, yes, of course, them’s those darned Papists for you.

    Are the cdesign proponentsists going to have to get in touch with the moon landing hoax crowd?

  76. Carlie says

    spurge – my bad. But wouldn’t Hank Azaria trying to imitate Dan Castellaneta doing Homer Simpson be pretty cool?

  77. Ichthyic says

    Are the cdesign proponentsists going to have to get in touch with the moon landing hoax crowd?

    well, they’re already in bed with holocaust deniers and HIV deniers (Nelson himself, no less), so why not go for the trifecta?

    I do believe there have been threads, both here and on PT, discussing the similarities in logic behind the denialists.

  78. spurge says

    Carlie

    That would be interesting indeed.

    If anyone could pull that off it would be Hank Azaria.

  79. Ichthyic says

    …oh, almost forgot the global warming denialists, the ozone depletion denialists…

    actually, the list is quite long, and all have quite similar patterns of denial and projection.

  80. Spider Pig says

    Superscientist,
    Supersicentist,
    Does whatever a superscientist does
    Can he swing from a web
    No he can’t
    He’s a superscientist
    Look out!!
    He’s a superscientist.

    Posted by: Larry

    Hey, stop steppin’ on my 15 minutes!

  81. says

    Hey, stop steppin’ on my 15 minutes!

    Not to worry, Harry Plopper, if he’s really a superscientist, he’ll be able to construct a strong enough fiber, as well as to figure out a pattern of fiber netting that will be most likely to sustain his wait, and he’ll be able to swing from a web. Your 15 minutes are still running. (Well, but this time, it’s about 30 hits of the “play” button at my house)

  82. Azkyroth says

    God is fond of using Satan as his tool

    Perhaps we should ask Mary if that’s true. It might explain a lot. :P

  83. Fernando Magyar says

    Azkyroth, yeah but if Satan is a blind catfish the whole story gets really fishy. You can thank Ichthyic.

  84. says

    While I tend to agree with the No Capes! rule, I have to say that Batman’s cape is very useful.

    It is apparently bulletproof, heatproof and possibly several other -proofs that I can’t think of at the moment. I can also become a rigid gliding wing. Plus it looks really cool whaen he emerges from the shadows with it wrapped around him (I’m thinking of the Animated Series (Diniverse)now)

    So, if your cape has practical uses, then it’s fine. If it just flaps in the wind, buy a duster instead.

  85. BlueIndependent says

    #51 (whether the real or fake CDP) is a perfect example of why I no longer have anything to do with religion in my life. I keep hearing how I need to conform to this old 1000 page book that was written in a time nobody alive now lived in, by people nobody living now knew. The thing has been translated and retranslated countless times, has pieces written by quite a few different people, has been edited by countless groups, and has been interpreted countless different ways.

    None of what you wrote means anything. All you’re saying is that those rejecting your god already knew him to begin with, and chose otherwise. But the problem is nobody would know your god if nobody was ever told about him. We see this far and wide across the planet. Your god has never been presented to the majority of humanity. Your god is not accepted by the vast majority of humanity. In fact, nobody’s god is accepted by more than a high-20s percentile around the world. Even if Christianity was accepted by 40% of the world’s population, it would still be a near super-majority without your god.

    Further, people have known your god and been left holding the keys wondering what he’s really all about anyways. Much like myself.

    Your cited Bible verses don’t even define atheism by its literal meaning, which means the authors of the Bible don’t even know the definition of those rejecting deities in general. Atheists amount to nothing more than pissed off children of a god? I’ve heard this expressed by religious people here “on Earth” in reference to atheists as well, but it never goes any farther than an annoyed under-the-breath jab. No evidence. No proof. Because, really, there’s nothing outside of a few passages in a book people ascribe magical powers to, that never truly saved anybody.

  86. BlueIndependent says

    #51 (whether the real or fake CDP) is a perfect example of why I no longer have anything to do with religion in my life. I keep hearing how I need to conform to this old 1000 page book that was written in a time nobody alive now lived in, by people nobody living now knew. The thing has been translated and retranslated countless times, has pieces written by quite a few different people, has been edited by countless groups, and has been interpreted countless different ways.

    None of what you wrote means anything. All you’re saying is that those rejecting your god already knew him to begin with, and chose otherwise. But the problem is nobody would know your god if nobody was ever told about him. We see this far and wide across the planet. Your god has never been presented to the majority of humanity. Your god is not accepted by the vast majority of humanity. In fact, nobody’s god is accepted by more than a high-20s percentile around the world. Even if Christianity was accepted by 40% of the world’s population, it would still be a near super-majority without your god.

    Further, people have known your god and been left holding the keys wondering what he’s really all about anyways. Much like myself.

    Your cited Bible verses don’t even define atheism by its literal meaning, which means the authors of the Bible don’t even know the definition of those rejecting deities in general. Atheists amount to nothing more than pissed off children of a god? I’ve heard this expressed by religious people here “on Earth” in reference to atheists as well, but it never goes any farther than an annoyed under-the-breath jab. No evidence. No proof. Because, really, there’s nothing outside of a few passages in a book people ascribe magical powers to, that never truly saved anybody.

  87. Robert M. says

    To 51 (C. David Parsons)

    You know David, I contend that you got it the other way around – we are all atheists, and people like you are just deluding themselves into believing there is a God. Proof: when things get serious, when people like you are sick, what do you do? Do you run to church and pray to your god “please God, cure me of this disease?” Of course not, what you do is run straight to the hospital, straight into the hands of good ol’ materialistic science! But why would you put your life in the hands of something you claim is false? If you believe in an all-powerful god, then why not make use of it? Could it be that you know deep inside that materialism works, atheism is true, and that your religious beliefs are just that – beliefs?

    As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating… Or the other thing about the duck…

    It reminds me of an interview once on the radio with an astrologer who “specialised” in business. When she was asked if she would close down her business if the stars told her that she should, she kept changing the subject. But after being asked for the 5th time, she eventually answered that no, she would not…

    Again, pudding, duck…

    Robert M.

  88. jeh says

    To quote the good book, “There is nothing new under the sun,…” Anyone remember Immanuel Velikovsky, Eric von Daniken, and the numerous individuals that would advertise books purportedly refuting Einstein?

  89. Christianjb says

    It is now possible to do so-called ab-initio calculations of the electronic structure of molecules, where ab-initio translates as ‘from first principles’. Essentially, the only input required is epsilon0 (which determines the strength of the electrostatic interaction), the charge and mass of the particles and Planck’s constant- and hey presto the computer programs can predict with great accuracy the structure of many molecules, such as water, benzene, ozone etc.

    We essentially understand EVERYTHING about the physics and electronic structure of atoms and molecules, which lead to chemistry. The remaining hurdles are mostly computational.

    If you’re going to use God as an explanation, then I suggest you leave physical chemistry out of your list of unsolved scientific problems. It’s one of the most well-understood branches of science. At the risk of annoying my fellow physical chemists- P-Chem is essentially a solved problem. It is a clear-cut example of the success of quantum mechanics in describing nature.

    Maybe God should spend more time on solving the Riemann hypothesis instead.

  90. MikeM says

    Greetings from Kauai, where a winter storm has hit. It’s about 70 and raining a lot. Could have saved a bunch of money and just driven to San Diego…

    As far as I can tell, I’m PZ’s second reader from NorCal who went to Kauai around now.

    No, we didn’t buy a timeshare.

    Anyway, my comment on this topic is hardly original, but I still think it’s pretty appropriate:

    THE STUPID! IT BURNS!

    You didn’t read it here first, folks.

  91. CG says

    How very odd that C.D.Parson’s ad (#51) would use pictures of scantily clad teenaged girls to try to sell his books. I wonder who he could be trying to appeal to there?

    Surely not Xian moms! Any self-respecting Xian lady would tell those girls to wipe off the make-up and go put on some decent shirts.

    Who on earth could this silly thing be aimed at? Xian pedophiles–Goodness, isn’t that an oxymormon?

  92. Kytescall says

    Speaking of vanity presses, does anyone else enjoy the Author House adds in the New York Times Book Review? I just love reading the poorly written blurbs that the authors themselves seem to write, whose works clearly went through no editors.

  93. astrolieber says

    @everyone:
    sorry for the typo in my post-it should’ve been “different”-
    I stand corrected

  94. Azkyroth says

    How very odd that C.D.Parson’s ad (#51) would use pictures of scantily clad teenaged girls to try to sell his books. I wonder who he could be trying to appeal to there?

    Surely not Xian moms! Any self-respecting Xian lady would tell those girls to wipe off the make-up and go put on some decent shirts.

    Who on earth could this silly thing be aimed at? Xian pedophiles–Goodness, isn’t that an oxymormon?

    You mean “ephebophiles.”

  95. windy says

    One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God.

    God is a kitschy landscape painter?

    Thony C & Ichthyic:

    “the theory of evolution did emerge in the 18th Century” ….you are either referring to the very idea of evolution itself (which debatably in one form or another, came much earlier), or you, like the author, are mistaking 18th century for 1800’s.

    Or Thony could have referred to the pre-Charles evolutionary ideas of Buffon and E. Darwin. Equating them with “the” theory of evolution is a stretch, though.

  96. DLC says

    No spandex required. See ref : The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
    The League of Scientists would have white lab coats.
    Not just any white lab coats, but Super-Scientific white lab coats! And of course, the Secret Lab would have to include Sharks. Not just ordinary sharks, mind you, but Sharks with Frickin Lasers !

  97. CG says

    You mean “ephebophiles.”

    Who knew they had subspecialities? Thanks, Azkyroth. I always learn something new at Pharyngula!!!

  98. says

    #123: “The League of Scientists would have white lab coats.”

    Ahem. Some of us would be wearing sensible outdoorsy stuff, with a lot of Gore-Tex. Also I expect there’ll be the occasional eccentric professor in patterned shirts and uncombed hair.

  99. Jim A says

    #80 That’s a good guess since he’s confused by the distinction between two and three dimensions….”Thousands of square miles.”

  100. says

    Goddammit.

    I’ve been batting around the idea of starting up a Landover Baptist-style creationist website for a laugh – maybe even write a book to go with it – but the reality has reached a level of weirdness as to render any such attempt at satire fundamentally redundant.

    The world came from a “watery nebula”. Jon Stewart on his best day (and no writer strike) could not effectively lampoon such a wild premise.

  101. says

    Also I expect there’ll be the occasional eccentric professor in patterned shirts and uncombed hair.

    I want my cardigan!

  102. says

    No spandex required. See ref : The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
    The League of Scientists would have white lab coats.
    Not just any white lab coats, but Super-Scientific white lab coats! And of course, the Secret Lab would have to include Sharks. Not just ordinary sharks, mind you, but Sharks with Frickin Lasers !

    Strapped to their heads?

  103. says

    Or Thony could have referred to the pre-Charles evolutionary ideas of Buffon and E. Darwin. Equating them with “the” theory of evolution is a stretch, though.

    As I have already posted, #76, I did. Charles Darwin made the same “equation” so why should it be a stretch when I do it? ;)

  104. stogoe says

    Are we talking about New Batman(Christian Bale)? Or 90s Batman(Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney)? Either one is okay for these purposes, I guess. Just as long as we’re not talking Adam West’s Tapdancing Batman.

  105. Tim P says

    I didnt read every comment, I hope I am not repeating someone else…but i found this very funny.

    “the great surging mass of water and chemicals had no particular shape and covered thousands of square miles of interstellar space.”

    ANY “Scientist Extraordinaire” should know that water in space would cover CUBIC miles not SQUARE miles!

  106. says

    Either one is okay for these purposes, I guess. Just as long as we’re not talking Adam West’s Tapdancing Batman.

    Can a superscientist not be campy?

  107. says

    Just as long as we’re not talking Adam West’s Tapdancing Batman.

    Oh come on how can you beat Adam West? Really. Many an afterschool afternoon was filed with the campy battles of Cesar Romero and Adam West.

    BIF

    BOOM

    BAP

  108. says

    I’m sure he meant “thousands of cubic miles” — which equates to tens of miles high, wide and deep — truly a miracle that you could create an earth of 260000000000 cubic miles out of a few thousand cubic miles of water.

  109. Tom G says

    Considering that the volume of the Earth is 1.0832×10^21 m3 at an average density of about 5.5 g cm-3 (the highest in the solar system)that watery sheet (density of about 1), would occupy approximately 6X10^13 km^3 of space, or a l km thick, square sheet of water-saturated space (oxymoron alert) of approximately 7,720,000 km per side.

    And WHERE did THAT come from?

    Tom

  110. Carlie says

    Oh come on how can you beat Adam West? Really. Many an afterschool afternoon was filed with the campy battles of Cesar Romero and Adam West.

    You do know that he’s having a resurgence in popularity now as Catman on The Fairly Oddparents? He’s almost as good at capitalizing on his own stereotype as William Shatner. More power to him.

  111. Jim A says

    #134 Tim P: “ANY “Scientist Extraordinaire” should know that water in space would cover CUBIC miles not SQUARE miles!”
    NAAH, God hadn’t added a third dimension yet. That’s HOW He separated the water and the land. God isn’t bound by your silly Earth-logic. ; )

    #140 Tom G. Of course since liquid water can’t exist in a vacuum, it must have been in the form of ice, which is a little LESS dense.

  112. jim a says

    Rev BDC, to heck with Caesar Romero, what about Eartha, Kitt? Now she was a purrrfect villain.

  113. mothra says

    The little blurb (#49) was written with a League of Nations idea. However, to avoid copyright infringement issues it could be “The League of Exemplary Scientists” (TM).

  114. says

    Now she was a purrrfect villain.

    I love Ms. Kitt, be it as Catwoman, on-stage Diva, or subject of drag queen impersonation!

  115. anonymous dave says

    The watery nebula has nothing to do with genesis. Obviously, this guy is a disciple of Thales.

  116. windy says

    Charles Darwin made the same “equation” so why should it be a stretch when I do it? ;)

    His predecessors had theories of evolution but not yet THE theory of evolution :)

  117. CortxVortx says

    Re: #74

    Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.

    I thought I would asplode, trying to keep from laughing out loud at work.

    That descriptive metaphor moves right up to the top of my list, next to “ugly as a bucketful of buttholes.”

    — CV

  118. Teenage Lobotomy says

    Lsd,Reefers,60’s-Batman Zap! Pow!Fluuurb!

    Kids today don’t no shit!-Mary weiss(2007)

  119. Ichthyic says

    Ahem. Some of us would be wearing sensible outdoorsy stuff, with a lot of Gore-Tex. Also I expect there’ll be the occasional eccentric professor in patterned shirts and uncombed hair.

    well, I claimed the invisible superscientist position, so until we invent some invisible clothing…

  120. stogoe says

    I’ve only seen Adam West’s Batman: The Movie and not his TV series, thankfully. Too much camp can be a bad thing.

  121. JimS says

    This guy is good but I still love Alfred E. Lawson from the 1930’s with the law of Penetrability, Zig Zag and Swirl movements.

  122. dogheaven says

    I will keep posting this link until PZ or some other science blog does a story on this. http://www.commonsensescience.org/contradictions.html
    These guys are a little less quacky in their approach than Parsons. Parsons goes after the little children. I think these guys are going after more. Their bios scare me.

    Commenter at # 79 should be interested.

    Shout out to #122 for the Kinkade reference.

    Skipping all the Batman stuff though. Poor Parsons. Really, I do pity these poor “souls.”

  123. Jim A says

    154: Boy, they REALLY don’t positivist nature of science do they? As if descriptive analogies and metaphors were the goal and those pesky “mathematical equations,” didn’t constitute much better descriptions in their own right.

  124. says

    I couldn’t resist. I just registered leagueofscientists.org.
    There will be a blog and other shenanigans there shortly.
    Now who’s going to supply the secret cave with helipad and the cool embroidered lab jackets?

  125. David Marjanović, OM says

    So… when will http://www.leagueofscientists.com be online?

    Never. It will, obviously, be http://www.leagueofscientists.int.

    And on the clothings issue… white lab coats, safety goggles (preferably worn above one’s own glasses), and GEOLOGIST HAMMERS!!!1! Stupid combination, I know, but much more intimidating than the mightiest stupid cape.

    Alternatively, use gene guns instead of geologist hammers.

    and I agree that they are so incoherent and flatline brain dead that they fail to even reach the level of Stupid With a Capital 2

    s”pid?

    The Theory of Evolution dates back to the Greeks and Romans.

    The idea that evolution happens goes back that far. But when people talk about the theory of evolution, they mean the theory of evolution by mutation and selection, and that starts in 1859. Even Lamarck’s is simply not the same theory.

    It reminds me of an interview once on the radio with an astrologer who “specialised” in business. When she was asked if she would close down her business if the stars told her that she should, she kept changing the subject. But after being asked for the 5th time, she eventually answered that no, she would not…

    ROTFL!

    I’ve been batting around the idea of starting up a Landover Baptist-style creationist website for a laugh – maybe even write a book to go with it – but the reality has reached a level of weirdness as to render any such attempt at satire fundamentally redundant.

    The idea already exists: Objective Ministries. It is a failure. Everyone who looks at it believes, at least for the first few hours, that it’s genuine. Satire is really becoming impossible.

  126. David Marjanović, OM says

    So… when will http://www.leagueofscientists.com be online?

    Never. It will, obviously, be http://www.leagueofscientists.int.

    And on the clothings issue… white lab coats, safety goggles (preferably worn above one’s own glasses), and GEOLOGIST HAMMERS!!!1! Stupid combination, I know, but much more intimidating than the mightiest stupid cape.

    Alternatively, use gene guns instead of geologist hammers.

    and I agree that they are so incoherent and flatline brain dead that they fail to even reach the level of Stupid With a Capital 2

    s”pid?

    The Theory of Evolution dates back to the Greeks and Romans.

    The idea that evolution happens goes back that far. But when people talk about the theory of evolution, they mean the theory of evolution by mutation and selection, and that starts in 1859. Even Lamarck’s is simply not the same theory.

    It reminds me of an interview once on the radio with an astrologer who “specialised” in business. When she was asked if she would close down her business if the stars told her that she should, she kept changing the subject. But after being asked for the 5th time, she eventually answered that no, she would not…

    ROTFL!

    I’ve been batting around the idea of starting up a Landover Baptist-style creationist website for a laugh – maybe even write a book to go with it – but the reality has reached a level of weirdness as to render any such attempt at satire fundamentally redundant.

    The idea already exists: Objective Ministries. It is a failure. Everyone who looks at it believes, at least for the first few hours, that it’s genuine. Satire is really becoming impossible.

  127. Kseniya says

    Best Batman line: “Some days, you just can’t get rid of a bomb!”

    That’s the extent of my exposure to the Adam West Batman, and why I can only picture Lee Meriweather as Catwoman. I can’t even picture what Eartha Kitt or Julie Newmar looks like. Eartha Kitt’s “Santa Baby” is the best evah, though. :-)

    Too much camp can be a bad thing.

    Only if it rains for two weeks. ;-)

  128. Jim Thomerson says

    I’ve seen Satan (more than one). They come up from time to time in small artesian springs in San Marcos, TX. Doesn’t the Bible mention the four corners of the earth? If so, why is there not a tetrahedral earth society?

  129. says

    Re: the “watery nebula.” Several have already pointed out that Parsons simply dresses up Genesis 1:1-2 in scientific-sounding language to get his “watery nebula.” A watery chaos is pretty much standard material in ancient Near Eastern creation myths from several cultures, across Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia. Curiously, Genesis 2 starts with the opposite, an arid chaos (cosmic desert) instead of a watery chaos (cosmic ocean). It’s incredibly difficult to be a thoroughgoing biblical literalist …

  130. says

    jeh: Actually, von Däniken has had one positive effect – it helped me develop my own skepticism because it was just so outlandish. I found myself asking – “why should I believe this guy” and so it went.

  131. Pyre says

    “The view, however, is not tested by the definition of science, as determined by the court, but by the weightier principle of verifiable truths.”

    Oh, that should become a .sigline!

    After all, what do scientists or courts have to do with testing or verifying truths, when your/my/our own sublimely self-assured assertion of certitude ought to settle any matter forever?

  132. David Evans says

    Mothra:

    Your name of The League of Exemplary Scientists” is a good one. Someone ought to write a screenplay about this, and shop it around in Hollywood (or Bollywood, if someone could include a series of song-and-dance numbers).

  133. says

    In addition, Darwin was a FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL. Do you want your kids to learn theorys by a raging
    HOMO? Fags want to insert there penises into other mens anuses. Is that what you want taught in
    public schools? Sounds like it to me. Have fun in hell.

  134. says

    Plus Evolution implies that blacks and whites came from the same ancestor. The Bible clearly states that Blacks came about as a result of sin and punishment. That’s why they are cursed with inferior intelligence. However God is merciful and gave them physical characteristics of animals so they could survive . Also Black people do not have souls as white people do. Read the Bible once in awhile smarty.

  135. Steve_C says

    Racist little fucker, this one is.
    Go fuck a flaming cross or something.

    Fucking dumbass godbot waste of space.

  136. Ichthyic says

    Darwin was a FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL. Do you want your kids to learn theorys by a raging
    HOMO?

    I think you’re confusing Darwin for King James.

    you know, that guy that sponsored the most popular version of that book you all idolize so much?