SUCKERED

But how are we supposed to tell when advocates of ID are NOT joking? The arguments that are supposedly for real are just as silly as the ones that are supposed to be jokes. Is there some sort of 'design' test we can apply?

Wow, for a place that "accurately delivers misinformation" they do an awesome job. Now I know why realpc was always trying to tell us what Egnor really meant. Obviously he was in on this scam all along. No wonder his arguments were so absurd.

Just one question, doesn't Egnor really exist? Didn't we get all kinds of details about his publication record and hear all about the people in his department? Was he in on this as well? Man that guy must have a real sense of humor. Oh well, no matter who scammed who or why this still looks really bad for ID and the DI.

"Regardless of how ridiculous my posts were, the Darwinians seriously thought that I was sincere. "

I think it speaks volumes when a parody of a creationist cannot be distinguished from the real thing.

Bravo Guest Contributor, had me going for a little while.

Or is Egnor for real and the DI's April 1st press release claiming he's a parody the actual April Fool's joke?

Inquiring minds couldn't care less.

[yawn]

Oh, man, I should have known Egnor was too stupid to be true.

Do you think maybe he was selected because his name opened up a lot of very obvious jokes? Or was the name a clue, too?

We should check all those sites we used to determine that Egnor was an actual surgeon at SUNY Stony Brook. Maybe the DI also went to the trouble of constructing fake links to really sucker us in. (Nah, no one would be that elaborate, would they?)

Seriously, it is no surprise that people fell for Egnor's little joke. He sounded no different than the standard creationists, and people over at Uncommon Descent say the same things all the time.

Are you saying that UD is one big April Fools' joke? That would explain a lot.

Or is Egnor for real and the DI's April 1st press release claiming he's a parody the actual April Fool's joke?

Am I the only one who doesn't get the joke? We are supposed to believe that he was playing dumber than he really is to pull a fast one on us; while in his confession he still holds fast to a disbelief in macro-evolution. Ha Ha.

It is possible that as a liberal I am humour-impaired, but I think that this is even less funny than the Farting Jones.

"Street theater" indeed. Nice one.

April fool to you too!

I still think they are liars, and this latest lie is an effort to look a little less stupid.

How can anyone tell the difference?

So, their joke is that their arguments are so dumb they're indistinguishable from parody?

Wow. They showed us!

Ceejayoz: It is not their joke! See:

http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=622

Well played, panda's thumb, well played. You even had me fooled.

Or is Egnor for real and the DI's April 1st press release claiming he's a parody the actual April Fool's joke? Inquiring minds couldn't care less. [yawn]

— ben

Sorry, the April fools day joke is the April fools day joke. However, Dr. Egnor is the fool either way. His rhetoric was the same as any other creationist. The only difference between he and "any" other is the expectation that he knew some science.

For me, I think he remains a creationist in denial of reality.

Why does the banner change from 'Evolution Views and News' to 'Evolution News and Views' if you go from the 'coming clean' site to the main page? The URL also changes.

I'm sure that, as Greg hints, this is an April Fool joke. What I'm looking forward to now is the reaction from the real Egnor, Dembski and the rest of the gang.

OK, "Guest Contributor," you got me. But I still want to know how we would tell the difference between a parody of an ID argument and an actual ID argument. You wouldn't have been able to pull this prank off if that didn't present a real difficulty.

How would they fake this, and this?

Actually the joke is on the ID scam artist at the Discovery Institute, and they should be embarrassed to have perpetrated what they call an obvious fraud for the simple reason that the vast majority of their true believers probably thought that it was for real. Look how long they perpetrated the ID fraud and got people to think that they had something worth teaching in the public schools. Now, the claim is that teaching ID is "premature." Yeah, and Egnorance was just a joke, so what was ID all these years if they have to admit that ID is premature today? What was ID when the Discovery Institute scam outfit was founded in 1995? Why have they been pulling that joke on their supporters for over a decade?

It is a simple fact that you can't parody a creationist, no matter how outlandish you make their arguments there is always some boob that has gone that far. I bet that everything that Egnor put up has been proposed seriously by quite a few creationists at sometime or another. My guess is that they got the material from ARN and places like AIG and didn't even have to make it up.

I wonder if Jay Richard's presentation at Knoxville was "street theater?" How can anyone tell when his ID junk is just as verifiable as his "street theater" and probably suckered the same people?

Ron Okimoto

No one could tell the difference between a satire of their position and the real thing? Sounds like they missed the mark on just who was made the fool here.

it took a second or two to realize that this is not a DI joke but a Panda's Thumb joke on the DI. Was really great and a great big laugh was my response. You guys otdid yourself, Loved it. The phony URL and the "misinformation" statement at bottom of DI confession gave it away

THANKS, needed the laugh

Let me see if I understand this correctly? The DI trots out every ID argument ever devised to get everyone all worked up, then disavows it all as a practical joke? Stating, in effect, that they are aware that it's all bullshit.

By doing this, didn't they just deny their entire program? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we're such morons.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/
is the site for the DI; your link goes to
http://www.evolutionnews.net; that site gives me a 404 error.

Now, I get it. I just have to read a little more closely next time.

Didn't the whole Egnor thing begin with his views being critiqued by a science writer at TIME magazine? For this to have been a ruse,one would have to account for how TIME was brought into the game. Either DI got really lucky, or TIME was also in on it.

Is it more likely that there was no ruse, and that Egnor decided he wanted "out" - and rather than conceding that he was wrong, or simply disappearing, this story about "street theater" was concocted?

The cynic in me would suggest that Egnor thoroughly got his butt kicked, knows it, and is looking for a graceful exit. But that's just the cynic in me. Since when do April Fool's jokes start a month before April 1st? (or however long it's been ...)

Now we're supposed to believe that a real neurosurgeon and medical ethics instructor has actively participated in a weeks-long hoax that blithely jeopardized his own reputation and professional credibility?

Can anyone here think of a comparable case?

The closest parallels that I can think of are the creative flailings of Johns Kerry & McCain - but those are hardly the same, given how little dignity and respect accrue to the title of "Senator" any more: "just kidding" is only the blandest offering in the routine smorgasbord of political excuses.

Do medical-credentialing standards have anything to say about public deceptions for ideological causes?

I am of course ashamed of begin caught in the DI's web of deceit. Their wit sure made a fool out of me.

And for all of you out there who seem to be upset that you've been had, get over it. The DI proved that it was better than you. Just accept it graciously.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why they would do this. What were they trying to prove?
It appears they hoped to prove evolutionists (aka Darwinists) will respond knee-jerk to their postings. The proof is apparently in the correction of what they themselves characterize as blatently rediculous statements. So, they say clearly wrong things and when someone points it out, it's proof that they are credible? I'm a bit confused.

How can this be seen as anything but affirmation that it's impossible to tell the difference between the 'fake' incorrect statements and the 'real' incorrect statements.

steven.

Brilliant! Best April Fools prank ever. (This year, anyway.)

What it boils down to is that Michael Egnor is a liar. He lied about his own beliefs. IDiots will lie about anything. To wit: "Intelligent Design is not Creationism". Egnor lies again.

Almost forgot.

What will this say about the DI supporters who didn't get the joke either? Is there any chance that any of them will second guess their support of DI when they can't figure out the difference between approved DI content and intentional lying?
I suspect not. :-(

Okay - got it. I just didn't scroll down far enough. Good one... P.Z.?

By the way, the pirate patch on the eye is brilliant. I had not noticed it but one of my readers did.

My first instinct was that Egnor was a hoax because of the name and the arguments the DI had abandoned long ago. However, Popper's Ghost and others insisted he was real and there were the web sites that indicated the man really existed.

I don't think they were joking. I think Egnor is real and he was having a breakdown and he's now starting to come to his senses. The DI is just trying to cover their own and his ass. They don't want to own up to the fact that crazy religious belief really is a sign of mental problems.

No matter how many levels of leg-pulling you think is going on, the joke is quite funny.

And it still conveys the message that IDiocy is so astoundingly stupid, you can't parody it.

HAH, looks like I got suckered by you guys! That was really good.

Um, right. I'm supposed to believe that the Michael Egnor statements over the last two months were part of an April Fool's day joke? Seems much more likely that the April 1st claims that it was all a prank IS the April Fool's Day joke. I mean, we all know how ignorant creationist/IDist thinking can be on these topics, and Egnor does not reach parody levels of ignorance (though, admittedly, it's hard to say something so dumb that anyone - even creationists - will recognize it as a parody of creationist thought).

Wait -- you got me. This is a Panda's Thumb joke.

http://www.evolutionnews.net/2007/04/april_fools.html#entry-070401
http://www.evolutionnews.org/

The web sites are different. The real one is .org, the fake is .net

Wait -- you got me. This is a Panda's Thumb joke.

The web sites are different. The real one is .org, the fake is .net

Guys, it's Panda Thumb's joke.

The registrar of "Evolutionnews.Net" ... the site this post links to, is Wes.

I was expecting to find PZs name....

I plead nolo contendere.

Good joke, but my guess is that evolutionnews.org isn't laughing.

http://www.evolutionnews.net/2007/04/april_fools.html#entry-070401

The alteration of the standard DI disclaimer at the bottom was pretty good. A good joke has to be based on reality.

I had my suspicions when I couldn't find an author listed at the bottom. That plus the fact that Egnor has just posted some new stupidity:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/what_if_darwinism_were_right.html

So basically, a parody of ID and ID itself are not different? I've seen a lot of posts on overwhelmingevidence and other such sites praising Dr. Egnor. Were all of these posts in on the joke.

A simple solution to this problem. Dr. Egnor is a real person. Someone should simply email him and ask him what his involvement ....D'oh..... oh crap I feel stupid now.

Nothing makes sense anymore!!!! I can't tell ID parody from ID itself....Thinking too much.... Brain going to explode....Must read answers in genesis to turn of thought process.

It's a few years since I've been taken in by an April Fool, but you had me with this one. Congratulations to all concerned.

I'm linking to this! What a nice idea. I think I'll believe in it til midnight strikes: Discovery Institute, religious right, renounce 'Lying for Jesus'.

I'm so confused.

And I still can't tell the difference between a parody of ID and the "real" thing.

Next thing, you'll be telling us that the argument from peanut butter is a joke, too.

Please tell me it's a joke. I've heard so much dumb stuff over the years that I really can't tell if it's for real or not, and I'd like to think that people aren't so misguided as to think that new life forms should be appearing in jars of peanut butter...

But is this, from Egnor's latest 1st April posting, real or prank?

"I think intelligent design is true because of the science. I believe that some biological complexity --- the genetic code, the cellular nanotechnology, the astonishing integration of organs and systems --- is best understood as the consequence of intelligent agency. Those who claim that randomness can generate biological complexity seem to lack an understanding of the vastness of what statisticians call "combinatorial space." A grammatically correct, meaningful twenty-word English sentence cannot be generated by chance without an intelligently designed target that captures grammar and meaning. Did randomness generate the human beings who write English sentences? I have not seen any scientific evidence that would even suggest that it could or that it did."

I wonder if he's ever read Climbing Mount Improbable? And if he has - even if he's got reasoned objections to it - how on earth can he say that biologists have no understanding of combinatorial space?

Regardless of what one believes, it's statements like this - ones that experts in semantics categorise by the technical description "just plain wrong" - which defy even good faith attempts to get a discussion going.

R

Uh...so the real joke (by PT! on the DI! and us!) is that Egnor actually believes what he says? Dang.

That plus the fact that Egnor has just posted some new stupidity

"Christians deal with suffering" he says. *Phhht!* I think we're the ones dealing with this painful nonsense.

Vyoma, the peanut butter theory is for real. It apparently is a variation of the potato chip theory.

Good leading Christian creationist would never post on Sundays.
And seemingly they omit reading unholy PT on Sundays. Otherwise there would have been some reaction.

Wow, for a moment.... Clever...

You got me. For all of 30 seconds.

Then I remembered the date.

And that ideologues never, ever, ever, back-track on a claim, no matter how foolish. It might cause people to doubt their authority on other claims, don'tchaknow?

Most excellent...subtle humor expertly crafted with a delicate delivery!

Judging by all the swallowed hook, line and sinkers, the Flock of Dodos has us pegged.

Author, author!

Wow, the first ever meta-April Fool's Day joke! Well done, PT. Nice touch having the fake DI page link to the index page at the real one. I was fooled until I couldn't get back to the fake post.

And the eyepatch was brilliant too.

"Author, author!"

It was a group effort between PT and several other blogs. I'll let other people speak for themselves, but I did the faux page (eye-patch and all), getting help from a couple other people about the language of the "admission". I used a domain that Wesley has had for a couple of years. Evolutionnews.net used to redirect to PT, but has been offline since the start of the year. That is why people are getting 404 errors. It only has a single page and is not redirecting its requests anywhere at the moment. I'll fix it in a few days.

I am really surprised that we fooled so many people. I really thought that I had made too many changes to the ENV's style and people were going to catch on quickly.

I really enjoyed watching the sly comments of people who noticed the differences commented on them, but didn't come out an ruin the prank.

Thanks, Everyone.

Just so everyone knows, we faked this one too. C'mon, no neurosurgeon would say stuff that silly.

Congrats to Wes (and any other participants). One of the best April Fools jokes I've encountered. I know I'll be giggling about it for the rest of the month.

And as someone else already noted, I can't wait to see how Luskin, Egnor, and the rest of the IDiots respond.

How could we have know better?

Ever heard of Poe's Law?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law

Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

— Egnor

Outstanding. Tour de force. (i.e., some people just have way too much time). Really, this was a very clever leverage of the whole Egnor kerfluffle. Hats off to all who participated and who managed to trick even the clever PTers.
Now, how long do you think it will be before the DI will attempt to sic its lawyers on the PT for copyright infringement or libel or some other inflated indignation?

We wouldn't have done it if we thought that the DI didn't have a sense of humor. I'm not sure why they'd be angry because taken literally the prank makes us look like fools and makes them look like geniuses.

Even the footer (or should I say disclaimer) is part of this superb joke. Read the following aloud and very, very slowly:

"The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution Views & News presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers misinformation about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.Click here to read more. http://www.evolutionnews.org/>"

Wow. I was wondering why when I backtracked to the main page, the article wasn't listed. The absence of an author bothered me as well.

Touche' gents. I can't wait to see their reaction.

Believe it or not: Dr. Michael Egnor is real. There are all these comments that seem to indicate a degree of disbelief as to his existence (although their number does not really surprise me given his recent writings). The evidence offered by the Science Citation Index is, I bet, incontrovertible and gives such references as the following item (that has apparently been cited some 25 times since it appeared in 2002):

"Title: A model of pulsations in communicating hydrocephalus
Author(s): Egnor M, Zheng LL, Rosiello A, Gutman F, Davis R
Source: PEDIATRIC NEUROSURGERY 36 (6): 281-303 JUN 2002
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 60 Times Cited: 25
Abstract: The traditional theory of communicating hydrocephalus has implicated the bulk flow component of CSF motion; that is, hydrocephalus is generally understood as an imbalance between CSF formation and absorption. The theory that the cause of communicating hydrocephalus is malabsorption of CSF at the arachnoid villi is not substantiated by experimental evidence or by physical reasoning. Flow-sensitive MRI has shown that nearly all CSF motion is pulsatile, and there is substantial evidence that hyperdynamic choroid plexus pulsations are necessary and sufficient for ventricular dilation in communicating hydrocephalus. We have developed a model of intracranial pulsations based on the analogy between the pulsatile motion of electrons in an electrical circuit and the pulsatile motion of blood and CSF in the cranium. Increased impedance to the flow of CSF pulsations in the subarachnoid space redistributes the flow of pulsations into the ventricular CSF and into the capillary and venous circulation. The salient features of communicating hydrocephalus, such as ventricular dilation, intracranial pressure waves, narrowing of the CSF-venous pressure gradient, diminished cerebral blood flow, elevated resistive index and malabsorption of CSF, emerge naturally from the model. We propose that communicating hydrocephalus is the result of a redistribution of CSF pulsations in the cranium. Copyright (C) 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Author Keywords: hydrocephalus; cerebrospinal fluid dynamics; mathematical model; intracranial pressure waves; resistive index
KeyWords Plus: INFUSION MANOMETRIC TEST; CEREBROSPINAL-FLUID; BLOOD-FLOW; INFANTILE HYDROCEPHALUS; SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE; INTRACRANIAL-PRESSURE; PULSE PRESSURE; CSF ABSORPTION; BRAIN-DAMAGE; DILATATION
Addresses: Egnor M (reprint author), SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Neurosurg, 8122, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA
SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Neurosurg, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA
SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Mech Engn, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA

Publisher: KARGER, ALLSCHWILERSTRASSE 10, CH-4009 BASEL, SWITZERLAND
Subject Category: Clinical Neurology; Pediatrics; Surgery
IDS Number: 568XB

ISSN: 1016-2291"

Unless, of course Zheng LL, Rosiello A, Gutman F and Davis R conspired to create this chimaeric MD to act as their first author, but then, the abstract looks perfectly sensible to me.

Oh MAN!

I never checked!

Good one.

Evolutionnews.net; Discover Institute, and Evolution Views and News. BillyBoy is going to be mad with this parody - expect him to sanctimoniously blather as usual. As for his bootlicking brigade, they are too dense to catch the laugh - they will simply scream! science if hard work. Once in a while it is good to have a laugh at the expense of creationist kooks!

I completely egnored the eye patch at first reading.

To Panda's thumb and especially Reed Cartwright: clap clap clap clap clap...

Far, Far sweeter, would have been if Egnor had come out (a la Sokal) and claimed that weeks worth of posts had been his joke on the DI. Now that would have been a sight to see.

Sincerely,
Paul

It's a slight twist on an old joke, of course. Dembski wrote something rather like this a year or two ago, one of the few times when he seemed genuinely able to laugh at himself (to be fair, it's hard to do when everyone you want to have respect for you is laughing at you, never mind that it's his own fault).

The truth is that I looked at this several ways before deciding that my first impulse was correct, that it was indeed a joke by our guys, for it could have been a joke by them, could even be Egnor trying to redeem some of his more ridiculous claims, or it could be one of ours.

Well yes, not all that new or original, but then it's hard to parody ID as anything but a joke on the world. It seems that none who were in very deep, other than Denton, can even understand how it is a joke, really, aside from the very real consequences that they wish to impose upon the world.

And hasn't Egnor more or less been parodying himself recently? He looks at adaptation and says that's real and important to medicine, but evolution (in the meaningful scientific sense) is neither one. It's hard to think that a reasonably bright guy could fall for such a simple linguistic mistake, but there it is, he has to make some serious mistake somewhere along the line to be on their side.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

The folks at the Discovery Institute have, like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, been caught in a time warp (but April 1 rather than February 2) for many, many years.
He's not a fool in any season
Who criticizes fools with reason.
(Sebastian Brant, Ship of Fools

We wouldn't have done it if we thought that the DI didn't have a sense of humor. I'm not sure why they'd be angry because taken literally the prank makes us look like fools and makes them look like geniuses.

Perhaps the first clue is that, when egnor is written backward it is the cleverly misspelled word "[w]ronge". ;-) What day is this again?

Reed - a very nice touch where in these comments it apsears -you- are falling for it.

I may be mistaken but http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.htm seems substantially larger than before? I wonder what's their latest?

Well, the real Michael Egnor has posted an April Fools' Day message too. See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/what_if_darwinism_were_right.html#more

I suspect that is the cause for all their vitriol. Is Darwinism true? I'll believe it if I see it. Is intelligent design true? Atheists won't see it, because they won't believe it.

Sheesh! I've been sick all day and didn't touch the computer until now. I missed all the fun.

My first impulse was to wonder how the parody was distinguishable from the real thing. The joke turned out to be even better than that. It should put real stress on Dembski's filter.

Great job Reed and PZ.

Really good job guys, .net versus .org......

Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

I don't pretend to understand all his designs, and I have no reason to be confident that I understand any part of his design in biology. We impute randomness where we can't discern design. My ignorance of God's design in biology would look to me like randomness, and my failure to discern design in biology would not shake my faith.

What if intelligent design were shown to be right, by scientific evidence? Most atheists would feel their faith in materialism greatly endangered, if not untenable.

The eyepatch was the one that did it -- even before I got around to reading the whole thing.

I don't understand. What's the point in making a parody of themselves? Why was it a trap? In my opinion, the joke's on them. They just look stupidet than ever. They're totally clueless.

For anyone wondering if Dr. Egnor is real: he's listed here, which indicates he's real, but not for real. But you knew that.

Y'all are bad, bad people.

And proving once again ID has God on the brain:

"Good night and God Bless."

I agree with the comments that believe Egnor's claim about a hoax is a face saver or a ploy to confuse. After all, lying is their main weapon.
What Egnor admits to believing in is a minority view among IDists. If The DI adopted his views, they would be abandoning Creationism, and they would nover do that. The Biblical story the Creation is the whole point.

Hmm. Given the shock, I'm surprised you're not searching around for the Panda's impedicus.

Seems that, if ever there was a time to be displaying it, it is now.

I'm sorry, but anyone who actually believed that Egnor was some elaborate put-on just because this post said so is as much an idiot as any IDiot. Skepticism doesn't mean only questioning what "the other side" says. The claims in this post, and the fake (unsigned) DI piece it links to, were utterly fantastic and implausible, even without clicking on any of the links there and seeing the logo change before your eyes. A fine bunch of "scientists" you are.

We wouldn't have done it if we thought that the DI didn't have a sense of humor. I'm not sure why they'd be angry because taken literally the prank makes us look like fools and makes them look like geniuses.

Believe it or not: Dr. Michael Egnor is real. There are all these comments that seem to indicate a degree of disbelief as to his existence

You got me too. Now we just have to decide if Egnor's most recent article is meant seriously:

Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

— Egnor

Difficult, isn't it?

How could we have know better?

Just so everyone knows, we faked this one too. C'mon, no neurosurgeon would say stuff that silly.

Judging by all the swallowed hook, line and sinkers, the Flock of Dodos has us pegged.

And I still can't tell the difference between a parody of ID and the "real" thing.

My first instinct was that Egnor was a hoax because of the name and the arguments the DI had abandoned long ago. However, Popper's Ghost and others insisted he was real and there were the web sites that indicated the man really existed.

People here talk about Poe's Law; are they really unable to distinguish between a parody of Egnor's nonsense, which would have been uninteresting, precisely because of Poe's Law, and pretending that the real Egnor is a parody? They're vastly different.

— Popper's ghost

Reading this article about how silly we were to think a surgeon of all people could have such a 'cockamamie' (for lack of a better word) idea of evolutionary processes makes me think of a one man... Bill Frist. He is the perfect example of a man with an advanced degree, in charge of keeping people alive on the operating table, who has quite an odd idea of the reality of disease transmission, evolutionary process, and biology in general.
Also, (and I really do not intend any offense to anyone out there... but), we must remember that a physician is not actually an intellectually trained scientist. Medical school is a trade school, just like any other. Yes, physicians need to be very skilled at their job, as people's lives are at risk, but that is about all. As much as medical school trains one to be excellent at anatomy and diagnostics, it does not emphasize the intricacies and abstract ideas of science.
Parrishsd

Once you've bumped into this sort of a claim, Egnor's assertions don't seem nearly as bizarre.

You got me too. Now we just have to decide if Egnor's most recent article is meant seriously:Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

— Popper's Ghost

Difficult, isn't it?

uh words......words....hatred....words....so defensive......insults, and yet a chimp is still a chimp and evolutionists still claim origin of life doesn't apply and you still can't decide if homolgy is proof of common ancestry or not. what happened to your consensus?

Levi asked: a chimp is still a chimp

evolutionists still claim origin of life doesn't apply

and you still can't decide if homolgy [sic] is proof of common ancestry or not. what happened to your consensus?

Prank is over. Comments closed.