What do Mill Ave’s Creationists and Avatar: The Last Airbender have in common?

Turtle_ducks Turtle-ducks.

Almost six-months ago, Al, one of the street preachers who dispenses his wares on Mill Ave arrived with an odd replica animal that appears to be a mythological hybrid between modern ducks and modern turtles. It’s difficult to tell if it has a turtle shell instead of wings, but it definitely has turtle-flippers instead of webbed duck feet. And, I should point out, two of the limbs grow out of what would be mid-ribcage on humans, a skeletal location that neither avian nor reptile skeletons support.

We see hybrid animals from a lot of ancient mythology: the gryphon (lion and eagle), the chimera (lion, snake, and goat), harpies (human and bird), etc. The origin of the turtle-duck, however, is not from modern Creationist folklore—although, it would be very amusing if this subculture would generate its own mythological creatures—but instead from a contemporary Japanese animé Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Al uses the turtle-duck from this cartoon as part of his ignorance about a strawman form of biology. It’s the sort of sideshow freak-animal that might have convinced backwoods yokels during the 19th century as a circus traveled around rural areas—and, when it comes to Avatar, it’s an adorable fictional animal imagined by an artist to up the cute factor. Al, however, vacillates between claiming it’s “faked evidence” or at least an expected organism according to his strawman biology. If Al had actually done any observing of modern biology, he wouldn’t be professing such an obviously inaccurate assertion. He has been overheard claiming that people believe it’s a “transitional form,” but when pressed for the names of actual biologists who have made this claim he deflects.

The reason is obvious: no credible biologists have ever made this claim. Turtle-ducks are not used as evidence for biology; they’re part of a children’s Japanese animation fantasy cartoon.

The meat of one of his claims is that the Avatar animé turtle-duck represents a transitional form between turtles and ducks as it contains components of both modern turtles and modern ducks. Actual students of biology would probably immediately object at this point based on the fact that it contains fully-formed structures from two modern animals belonging to genera separated by millions of years. No known transitional fossils ever do, and anyone with even one class in modern biology under their belt would be able to explain why one will never emerge.

Let me introduce everyone to an actual transitional fossil: Tiktaalik roseae. It’s species lived during the late Devonian period, approximately 375 million years ago, and it represents a transition between fish and tetrapods. As you can see, it has almost no highly complex, fully formed features represented in modern species—but it does have similar basic structures that modern species build their complex structures on. Like all species, Tiktaalik is fully formed in of itself, but differs both from ancient fish from which its species descended and ancient tetrapods into which its species branched and evolved.

For those of you who don’t study comparative anatomy, you’ll also see that unlike Al’s turtle-duck, even Tiktaalik doesn’t have its upper limbs growing out of the middle of its ribcage.

There’s a problem here and it’s not an issue of just sheer ignorance; it’s that Al is deliberately ill educated and he wants you to be just as ignorant as he is. Look at him, he’s walking around with a cartoon animal, claiming that biologists would find it as credible evidence for a transitional form, failing to support that statement with any actual biologists, and when pressed he retreats into himself.

He’s a fool, proud of his ignorance, and he wants you to accept his "real science", taken from theologians rather than reality, so that you will be just as ignorant and misinformed as he is.

Someone should let Al know that Avatar: The Last Airbender also has turtle-seals, wasp-vultures, pig-sheep, ad nauseam…the list goes on. Maybe he’d like to bouquet his ignorance with some other hybrid cartoon animal from the series in the future.

Mill Avenue Resistance: Saturday, November 29th 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Saturday, November 29th 2008.

After I arrived on Mill Ave and got to work with my usual interviews and observations, I noticed that the STFS—in the form of the Resistance—arrived with their amplification to locate the evangelicals gathering in front of Border’s. Kazz, Rocco, Rachel, Todd, Kyle, Brian, Kevin, and Ashley making up the Resistance; and the preachers had some familiar faces in Erin, Al, Suzanne, and a few others.

I really like having Suzanne around because she’s a good speaker, actually spends the time to converse with people, and listens thoughtfully to what they have to say—of course, she found herself locked in a conversation most of the night with Rocco and in spite of his geeky expression he is extremely good at holding a conversation.


This part of the night made for an interesting environment for the Resistance because the preachers did not set up any sort of amplification. They just stood around passing out tracts and talking to passersby as per normal operations. This lasted about two hours or so at most, and occupied most of the time of the Resistance during that part of the night.

I spent most of my time getting to know the various players, movers and shakers actually in the region, keeping track of people; I’ve collected some tracts from the preachers but they’ll be stowed amid my other documented manuscripts and missives from the Ave.

This was something of a social gathering pretty much for all involved.

Pamphleteering seems to be the primary role of that part of the night.

Post Office

Eventually things moved out in front of the Post Office after the pianist vacated his location. Al moved from Border’s out to there. I found him because I had holed up there primarily to get a soda from the Thirsty Dog, but to also see what the pianist was up to (since he had mentioned he was also a street rat at some point.) He is part of my observation now because he seems to also have been proselytizing to the crowd around him and I’m sure the Resistance would like to know about him.

Unfortunately, I didn’t learn much—he didn’t stick around long enough for me to speak to him.

Instead, I got myself into a conversation with John—who came out with Lee—and we talked about some nostalgia about the Ave and other interesting tidbits about anthropology and how to study people. The conversation seemed to turn into one of those of Biblical misanthropy. I am becoming a little bit concerned about this particular product of the religion: beginning at a base state of dehumanizing other people by presenting them as evil and unruly seems like a good way to dismiss them as peers and as respectable people.

I hate to quote Ayn Rand, but I believe that the evanescent saying would be, “You cannot rule an innocent man.” A great deal of the meme here seems to be that everyone is wicked and therefore they need to be ruled by something; and, unsurprisingly, that something is going to be whatever religion made the unsupported assertion that everyone is bad.

I don’t believe that people who promulgate this meme realize that they are deliberately dismissing everything good that anyone does by trying to shackle it to their religion.


I met him last week and I have the same criticism of his presentation as the above; that people drown themselves too deep in this misanthropic meme they are setting themselves up for dangerous, xenophobic separation from the rest of what could be a loving community. By approaching the world, and other people, as if they were terrible, horrible things we are essentially becoming Aristotle’s “lover of war” because we are immediately judging other people as evil rather than peers.

People who say things like this may spend their time saying things like, “I am just as bad,” but this is a sallow and cowardly divorce from what they just said before—really, we do not approach other people from a philosophy that suggests that we’re both evil and actually have a sane relationship.

I am being unfair to him at the moment, though, as we didn’t get a lot of time to speak.

It’s difficult to talk to him because he is so deep in his mirrorspeech that I’m not sure when the real person is going to surface. Today he wanted to know when I would, “Start preaching the gospel,” when his god would “raise me from the dead and bring me to life.” Perhaps I am just looking at a profound form of culture shock with these weird metaphors that he uses; because I am not sure that even the most diplomatic person that he talks to would take metaphors like that as proper conversation.


Wow. He misspeaks a lot.

At about 11:30pm amplification was set up outside the Post Office and first Trevor took to it—but I didn’t hear much of it because I had interviews to do—but then finally when the Resistance arrived on the scene, having moved from Border’s, they came head-to-head with a new evangelical preacher named Brant.

He has a somewhat square face and punchy cheeks, real farmboy build, short but slicked up brown hair, flat matte in the Mill Ave lights. He had a white sweater and blue jeans; amid his support crew were a pair of girls carrying tracts. He showed distinct signs of being barely trained to speak in front of crowds, although he seems to have practice; but he had little way in preparation for the siege that the Resistance was bringing with them.

For some parts Vince decided to speak with Brant on the microphone; he’s pretty good at what he does and he’s a real raconteur so that one didn’t go so well for proselytizing. Vince is a street rat, extremely into mystery religions, well studied, and excels at standing on his own turf—while he’s not distinctly part of the Resistance, he certainly helped them hold their own with some fun and interesting criticisms.

Brant to Vince, “If you’re not a Christian, then I can talk it over; but if you aren’t a Christian, then I don’t care.”

Brant did attempt to run the Good Person Test on Kyle—which was not going to go well because as a member of the Resistance he’s wise to the misinterpretations of scripture; the emotional blackmail; and the general immoral structure of the test. That ran a strange gambit as Kyle’s replies were split between Brant and Kazz/Todd as they replied themselves on the Resistance’s amp. Score another point for the siege style criticism that the Resistance brings. Of course, a bit of this was in part that Brant was just not prepared for this sort of encounter.

Eventually Todd took over—and that just went downhill for Brant. During the Good Person Test against Kyle it was brought up by Rocco (and others) that the very basis for the test didn’t even apply to Gentiles (that’s anyone who is not from the tribes of Israel.) They even went to a bible and found the part of Exodus that says so.

Brant to Todd, “Todd is going to read from the Bible, and he professes to be an atheist—but he knows in his heart that there is a god.”

It was actually Rocco who found it; but he had a lot of trouble getting the Resistance microphone or even Brant’s attention in order to reply to the challenge. Normally, I don’t think that it’s proper to debate the evangelicals on the Bible (as Kyle and/or Joe pointed out once) because it’s just psychic masturbation and doesn’t really lead anywhere. A lot like how Jewish people deal with Christians is by totally dismissing the New Testament; the atheists and other cultures really shouldn’t be going into that book in order to prove points—cross culturally there is only culture shock and the scriptures of either mythology aren’t as important as the social bridge between them.

However, this was an interesting blow because it did manage to point out a serious flaw in the design of the Good Person Test.

Brant may have some training in crowd control and speaker mollification but he’s not very good at deploying it. He tends to use, “Fair enough,” too often in the wrong places and mistakes it not for the affirmative that it is because he uses it and then contradicts what the person said. This creates a sort of backlash from the entire crowd who hear him say “yes,” and the in the same breath “no.”

For anyone who is familiar with the Good Person Test, here’s something that you should never accept from them. If they’re doing the bit where they ask, “Have you ever stolen anything?” And you’re hemming and hawing because most people have never actually stolen anything and the questioner says, “Have you ever downloaded music illegally from the Internet?” If you have: You have not committed theft.

Don’t let people get away with this stupid, ignorant-of-the-law meme. Copyright infringement is not theft. It’s not. Assault is not theft; murder is not theft; arson is not theft; vandalism is not theft. There are millions of illegal acts that are not theft and copyright infringement is one of them. The Supreme Court of the United States themselves has rendered decision after decision to make this clear to the public and the judicial system as if it were necessary.

The entire concept of Intellectual Property is an extremely infantile idea; the Bronze Age culture and dogma from which the Ten Commandments is derived had no conception of what IP was—it is not covered by any of them.

Brant: You are on notice. You have been told twice now that it’s not theft. Learn or be left behind. I expect you to be a rational, intelligent, and healthy peer of mine and actually do your homework and learn why copyright infringement cannot be theft. Stop trying to say that it is simply because it is convenient for this immoral, toxic, and psychologically abusive tool “The Good Person Test.”

The Resistance did not take well to Brant, probably because he’s particularly loud and refuses to be conversant—probably all part of his training in crowd control. This is particularly galling to the members of the Resistance who are there to create a public dialogue. Certainly I’ve heard others mention that they’re, “Not here to debate; but preach the gospel.” Okay, but what is not being understood here is that they’ve entered into a public forum and part of the function of the forum is to become part of a play-by-play of interaction and conversation.

Break that and you’re going to cause friction, and here’s the friction.

Some of the things that I noticed was that Brant would fall quickly onto saying, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

And more than once he found irritated fury in the mouths of the Resistance who had faced up to his crowd control techniques and didn’t like what they were hearing; except that he absurdly replied with, “I’ll take that as a compliment,” to things like Rachel’s flagellations:

Rachel to Brant, “You are an ignorant airhead!”

Brant said, “I take that as a compliment.”

Well… “Oh, how clumsy of me: I meant to insult you,” Captain Von Trapp, The Sound of Music.

I don’t know what he said to elicit that reaction, and I didn’t get a chance to post interview Rachel to find out; but there was shortly some sort of dialogue about brainwashing involved. I fear that Brant misspeaking and his use of crowd control techniques was causing abrasions, which spiral rapidly into frustration on both sides. I’d warn people to use caution with flat ridicule “on the first date” but since I missed part of that exchange I cannot properly comment on it.

If I see more of this sort of sparks between the two groups I will try to make comments on how social critique and public rebuke work—especially in the context of siege protests. Irony, sarcasm, parody, and other swift, sharp kicks in the delicate sensibilities have to be tempered with careful contextualization. Both groups are producing a sort of production for an audience; like a pair of entertainment troupes playing off of each other.

Castigat ridendo mores,” Jean-Baptiste Poquelin.

If anyone can give me experiences, how they feel when these events are going on, and what they can remember from their interaction and what they want to present and what obstacles they feel they have I will try to include that in my future critique.


I almost want to call the Resistance “The Résistance” instead just to be funny but … I think that I’ll stick with the less high faulting’ name.

Mill Avenue Resistance: Friday, November 28th 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Friday, November 28th 2008.

Nothing to report.

As for the acts of the Resistance tonight, the SFTS gathered and marched from the meeting of the SFTS on ASU common ground to Mill and discovered absolutely no opposition. The lone, littered giant thousand-dollar bill, but nothing of any substance for them to converse with appeared.

They eventually went to eat and cajole after patrolling the Ave. The football game must have lured away the usual visitors. There were several suggestions to go check the entrance to Sundevil Stadium, because as with most marketing it is best to go to where the people are, therefore if any evangelicals did happen to come out they would be there–but none revealed themselves.

The group eventually petered out and went their own merry ways; after spotted conversations with passersby the residuals finally melted into the night.

Mill Avenue Resistance: Saturday, November 22st 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Saturday, November 22nd 2008.

The SFTS invited out some reporters from the New Times tonight to observe what they do and get some time to talk to everyone.

Tonight we saw a varied crew: Jim and his wheelchair, Edwin, Al, Suzanne and her daughter, even Vocab Malone (—btw, both of us missed each other because we don’t know what we look like, even though we stood within close proximity to each other several times!)

From what I observed the two who came out got photographs of many people. Spoke with Al, Jim, and others to get notes and quotes. I pretty much stayed out of their way. I tend to find my position on Mill Ave to be one as more an observer when it comes to the SFTS and the evangelists; I spend most of my intimate time with the Mill rats. It seemed to go well.

By and large very little happened. According to Kazz they moved from Borders at 8:30pm to the Post Office because Al had set up there. Shortly after they left (about 5 mins) Edwin set up amplification in front of Borders and started talking but that didn’t last long. Al also gave up the ghost pretty shortly and simply played some sort of tape of from his amplification that I couldn’t make out and unfortunately didn’t get a chance to ask him what it was about.

One of the best encounters of the night happened between Trevor (an evangelist I will go into shortly) and a Latina woman who started talking about the conception of Jesus. I may have misheard her initially but she seemed to start out by talking about the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ. For those who don’t know what this is, it is a part of Catholic doctrine that Mary, mother of Jesus, was without sin thus that she should give birth to Jesus (i.e. a sinless vessel to bring their god into the world.) There is a Wikipedia article on this for those who don’t understand the terms in this paragraph.[1]

I probably did mishear her because Trevor immediately jumped on her for this because the Bible does not support this, from what I hear it is entirely Catholic doctrine and does not show up in the scriptures. An assumption based on passages readings, as it were. So, every time the conversation moved away from it, he brought it back up again, until she reneged on it (or basically said she hadn’t said that which could have been the case.)

Eventually Trevor came to talk to me and his disciplined mirror-speech was something profound.

In spite of the thickness of his mirrorspeech which was crystalline and sheer in quality, I was able to tease out some personality from him. According to him he’s been doing this about four years, ever since he went into Alcoholics Anonymous because of his lifestyle of party going and drinking and drug use—but he found the teachings of the AA to be “false teachings” because they suggested that people become gods unto themselves, or seek out some ambiguous higher power in order to drag themselves out of the hole their addition left them in.

“They hate Jesus there,” he said, “you start talking about Christ and they’ll throw you out.” I actually have never heard that, but I suppose that in a very important way the AA groups might need to keep themselves as even keel as possible and allowing highly controversial Christianity into their midst could destroy the fragile balance they have with helping people. I fear that he may have taken this as a form of persecution rather than the social protocol that it probably was.

However as much as I tried I could not determine the first time that he picked up a Bible or how he actually came to start doing what he does. He deflected or misunderstood every question of that vein, turning it into more mirrorspeech at every turn. I eventually gave up and just listened. It would have been nice to know how he came to decide upon Christianity, and his singular type of evangelism in particular.

His speech was steeped in strong metaphor as well. Saying that his heart had been stone and replaced with a heart of flesh—and that if I accepted what he did the same would happen. In trying to draw me into a discussion about religion he ran into my normal observations about mythology and made the lay-mistake of thinking that the connotation of “myth” is tied up with mythology. I tried a little bit to dance around talking about his mythology, though, as I don’t think that I could have educated him in the proper use of the term without him unthinkingly taking insult.

Eventually I told him about my work on Mill Ave. How I spend a lot of time observing and getting to know people. “I love people, they are wonderful—amazing creatures who make up our social landscape.” He wanted to tell me that if I wanted to study people that the biggest thing was their wickedness. He went on about how people were selfish, and horrible, and awful and into themselves, and so on.

Trevor, if you read this I want you to know that in a very powerful sense that you are drowning yourself in soot colored glasses when you do this. I tried to tell you last night, but you don’t want to listen to me: you want to sell your religion to me. I’m not buying. I observe people and I don’t see evil and horror and choking weeds ravaging the world; because that’s not what’s going on. You are strapping on an outmoded morality that demands good of people by comparing them to an arbitrary “perfect.”

The perfect is the enemy of the good. We will never be able to set a proper morality, nor love and embrace our fellow creatures if we set upon them such rigidified, uncaring, and unsympathetic strangling mores. By painting other people with a brush tarred in the differences you think are flaws and ignoring their triumphs, their adoration, their love, and the wonder in them you have condemned yourself to an extremely dismal experience. This kind of escapism will end only in your self-destruction as you asphyxiate in your own self-imposed bubble.

The biggest problem with all of this is that clearly you are aware of the world around you; you can respect and interact with other people; if you really do recoil from everyone you meet and think them horrible and awful then you are condescending everyone you speak to.

When I study people I do get the good and the bad, by leaps and bounds different metrics for “good and bad” persist—and few of them reach the scary “everyone is wicked” meme that you have injected into your blood and it will poison you. Instead of being the mouthpiece of rigid vulgarity maybe one day you can decide to be the amazing person that surely you must actually be.

(I love the word “wicked” by the way; it’s such a beautiful word, linguistically thorny, and anthropologically powerful—this is probably why evangelists are so in love with it themselves.)

At the end of our conversation he cheerfully offered me his hand and we shook where he asked me my name. As per usual I gave him my Crystalian name, which is also my street name, and handle. “Amerist.” Which he instantly took as exotic and expressed incredulity that it was my “real name.” By which, I think, he means my family name, but he’s using an old-hat linguistic trick to disenfranchise any other name than family names. Then he requested my birth name, which I don’t even have anymore—then tried to guess it, and he did really badly because my birth name is actually even more exotic than my street name.

Eventually he went away flustered at not learning my name; and even tried to tie some weird metaphor to my explanation of what my name means (“her [stone] purifying tears”.) I tried to explain to him that my name essentially is a variation of a name that meant “she who bears [away] the sorrows of the world.” To which I said fit in with my healer tradition, taking away suffering, helping and mending people. And click on came his mirrorspeech again—as I fully expected—“There is only one healer! And that’s Jesus.”

(I wrote a lot more about Trevor in my Mill Avenue Nights blog.)

Why are evangelists so hung up on your “real name”?

Psychologically names are powerful things; they are how we interact socially with other creatures, they become the labels by which we represent ourselves, they are not just our identity within the group, but they are also the handles by which others attain and attract our attention. Saying a person’s name is attractive to their mind—say a name in a crowded room and that person will likely take notice, turn their head—so I’d like to introduce everyone to what is basically a dirty trick.

It’s called false intimacy.

Salesman and flimflam artists are well versed in the false intimacy trick. It is a staple of confidence men and anyone who is attempting to convince you of something—or sell you something like an evangelist is. What they will ask you for is your name, generally your first name if you give them your last name. I would love to see some staunch British aristocrat berate someone for being rude by not accepting “Mrs. Strahan” and requesting a first name. By using your first name they are psychologically trying to put themselves on the same level as your close and intimate friends.

Mythology about “true names” isn’t too far off the truth. Names may not have metaphysical or supernatural power—but they do have psychological power. We are social creatures and are more likely to accept what our friends tell us without much corroboration (they are our friends, after all) and our friends use particular protocols of speech that acquaintances and strangers do not know. One of these things is our familiar name.

In the conversation a person endeavoring to gain your confidence will say your first name over and over again in an attempt to cause your social brain to link what they’re saying to something you should be confident in. Of course, if they’re your friend they will use a familiar name, therefore they must be familiar if they’re using that name—and if they use it over and over again they keep and rapt your attention to what they’re saying.

Listen to a used car salesman work sometime.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using whatever name you want in any encounter with any person; and it is good for you to be aware of how you control the various compartments of your life with your own identity. In our society we have at least two names to start with that we use on a general basis. A great deal of people find their family name “Mrs. Strahan” or such to be stuffy and enjoy being called by their first names. It is just important to realize that when a person attempts to use your name against you to listen to your instincts.

If you are an evangelist and you have received training in this sort of psychological hack, take a moment to realize that applying this is the razor’s edge of dishonest behavior.


Mill Avenue Resistance: Friday, November 21st 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Friday, November 21st 2008.

Tonight there were only two preachers for the SFTS to face off against: Jim and Valerie.

I’ve been talking to Valerie for years now, but I don’t know quite enough to get into any gross detail about her. And Jim I am not familiar with. Therefore this will mostly outline my observations of their interaction with the SFTS.

They brought with them a little trolley to truck some props out to Mill Ave including a small little amplified speaker that looks like an electric-torch-cum-tweeter. The microphone worked out pretty well for them, and the SFTS didn’t bring their amplification so they didn’t have any. It didn’t matter much because everyone could hear each other just fine.

The only crowd that gathered was the SFTS which did an excellent job of locking up the evangelists the entire time. Not a single passerby actually stopped to listen to them, and both the evangelists spent most of the previous night handing out pamphlets so they had none to hand out when the stage show came on. As a result only SFTS tracts were handed out.

Between the ordinary religious memes there was an unfortunate amount of scientific and basic knowledge ignorance being bratted from the soapbox. Which, I fear, is just Valerie repeating known-bad propaganda from Answers in Genesis. Including several that I believe they have modified to say: Do not use these arguments.

I hope anyone reading this understands that there is absolutely no need for a God vs. Science dichotomy. Evolution and religiosity are not diametrically opposed nor are they contradictory unless someone has tied up their supernatural in natural explanations, which is exceedingly foolish as our knowledge of the natural expands and tends to discount or dismiss the supernatural as flimflammery. If a thing is actually immeasurable, don’t start trying to give evidence of it in measurements or you’ll get laughed at.

It may be extremely important to stop people and tell them that framing discussions as Evolution vs. Christianity is not truthful. Science is totally agnostic towards the supernatural, and by agnostic I mean exactly that: nothing in science attempts to provide evidence for or against gods or spirits or anything else supernatural. If evidence were to arise for the supernatural: it would then be natural.

If anyone ever tries to say, “Ah you, you guys are believe in evolution not god.” It is important to follow that up with, “Those two things aren’t related.” Don’t ever get drawn into a discussion of Evolution vs. God/Religion. It is not a real discussion, at best it’s spinning wheels, at worst it’s simply psychic masturbation for both parties.

The coelacanth is an embarrassment to scientists because it was named a ‘living fossil;’ since this would tend to disprove evolution because here is something that should have been long gone. A fish, growing legs.” I believe she’s confused the coelacanth with another fish—this line of fish descended from some well known fossils has never been seen to be growing legs. Yes, they are “lobe finned fish” which are believed to be the descendants of fish that eventually grew legs, but the coelacanth is a descendant of the lobe finned ancestor that did not in fact go that direction—their lineage did stay pretty much totally fishlike. So, really, she’s got it backwards.[1]

Finally, the “living fossil” reference is no embarrassment to anyone. Coelacanth are in fact one of the oldest direct lineages from a known fossil that we’ve seen today—the only problem with her speech was that she suggested that the modern coelacanth is the same fish as the fossils, which it is not. In fact, modern coelacanth are a different species from the fossilized fish and show distinct and notable morphological differences from the fossils. We have today a distant, distant descendant and not the original “fossil.” This is actually predicted by evolution.

[In reference to the Big Bang,] Scientists have never seen explosions result in greater order. Nothing has ever exploded and produced more information.” More failed memes. Primarily because this one uses a weird description of the word “information.” And, really, nothing stops a disorderly explosion from resulting in order after it has occurred. Detonate something in a gravitational field, eventually many of the particles will form into a very orderly ring, or join up with the gravitational mass, creating a fairly orderly object.

Worse: information is what we make of it. Take a safe that I cannot penetrate. I blow it up and whatever flies out is more information about that safe than I had before. When I heard her say the information phrase I wanted to tell her that some Particle Physicists would like to talk to her about her misapprehension of exploding things.

Finally—for anyone who doesn’t know this yet—the Big Bang was not an explosion.[2] People who refer to it as an explosion have listened to too much Kent Hovind or are repeating propaganda so ignorant of the cosmological theory that they are hopelessly lost in their own misunderstanding. The term “explosion” has a rather specific definition that does not fit the event of the Big Bang. In fact, the Big Bang is currently considered a cosmological fact—not as a cosmological origin, but as a current state: the observable Universe is expanding.

Since the Big Bang cosmological origin says: “In the beginning Space-Time rapidly expanded; and it’s still expanding today.”

A lot of these memes are directly from Answers In Genesis. Most of them flimsy or failed, steeped in gross ignorance that even a layperson could educate themselves about. The primary problem is that the AiG information is couched in philosophical wording and interesting metaphors that are attractive to people who do not really want to learn much about these things. They are fed them as if they contradict their religiosity, they want to be skeptical about them, but they end up instead swallowing poison and thinking they’ve learned something.

The worst part about it is that none of these theories and facts that they call out with special attention have anything to do with their religiosity. Science as whole is not concerned about the veracity of that which cannot be detected, that which does not manifest, or that which cannot have evidence.

A good deal of these failed memes include usages like:

Increase/decrease in information.” Gross misapprehension of what the word “information” means in scientific or even conversant contexts.

The origin of life and the origin of species.” A terrible misunderstanding of the fact of evolution and Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, both of which are agnostic as to the origin of life itself. Abiogensis is a totally different field of study than Evolutionary Biology. All evolution requires is living things, since they’re already here it’s good to go.

The origin of everything vs. the origin of species.” The most bizarre misunderstanding I have ever encountered: trying to tie cosmological facts and theories to the fact and theory of Evolution. The irregularity is so staggering that it’s hard to even respond to these types of conflations.

Really, the most unhealthy part of this propaganda is that a lot of the people who want to espouse nonexistent or totally debunked problems with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the fact of evolution are specially pleading that evolution itself is wrong—while reaping the benefits of Evolutionary Biology every time that they take an antibiotic, or get a flu-short, or get their blood tested for a particular virus or protozoan.

Question for people

I also receive some tracts and things from the preachers when I go out to Mill. Normally I just collect these into yearly paleo-samples of the dialogues and manuscripts of their behavior—would anyone be interested if I dissected or gave observations on some of the tracts?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang