Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ride 'Em, Jesus!
For those of you who can't get by without your daily dose of H&R irreverence, here are some fascinating cultural artifacts:
"A Supreme Court in Georgia ruled that high school biology teachers were permitted to continue using the term 'evolution' when teaching their classes. However as a compromise, they must now refer to dinosaurs as 'jesus horses'." -Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update
What better way to turn a concept with frightening intellectual implications into a testament to the beauty of free markets than selling tee-shirts?
Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey on the Young Earth Creationist's love affair with the dinosaur. Managing Editor Jesse Walker on the secret lives of Creationist dinosaur parks.
Shout out to Chevans for the Digg link.
|6.17.08 @ 11:50AM|#
So where did they put the brontosaurus's on the Ark? How did they keep the tyrannosaurus rex from eating everything else?
|6.17.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Those images are so awesome I almost cried a little bit. Of course, if you don't account for irony, I'm not even sure a response is possible.
|6.17.08 @ 11:52AM|#
brontosaurus's on the Ark?
Brontosaurs=Loch Ness Monster. They swam through The
Flood.
How did they keep the tyrannosaurus rex from eating everything else?
A muzzle.
|6.17.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Mad props for the Diva Village auto-ad hottie for this
story.
What better way to turn a concept with frightening intellectual
implications into a testament to the beauty of free markets than
selling tee-shirts?
That almost makes me want to buy a Che t-shirt. Almost.
ktc2|6.17.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Gotta laugh a little everyday at the batshit crazy fundy lunatics who sadly have been running our country for years.
|6.17.08 @ 12:08PM|#
RC Dean, if you don't want the Che shirt, one of
these might interest you.
Don't worry... it's definitely SFW.
|6.17.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Tina Fey is a terrible actress, and pretty unfunny as a
comedian, but damn she's a funny-ass writer.
That shit almost made me choke on my Diet Mountain Dew.
|6.17.08 @ 12:23PM|#
This is an anthropologist's site that deals with creationist's
babble. Some of you may find it
interesting.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html
|6.17.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Rhywun,
Maybe you've been purchasing the wrong
crayons.
I'm pretty sure they have Crown of Thorns Red and Whip Black in
there, too.
|6.17.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Didn't Jesus fly a pterodactyl?
Seems to me that if you're the son of god and all, you should at
least ride in luxury.
Johnny Lawrence|6.17.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
You may be strong in American Kenpo Karate, but you are no match
for my Cobra Kai style.
You have insulted Tina Fey. When we meet at the tournament, I will
show you no mercy. I WILL sweep the leg!
Shannon Love|6.17.08 @ 12:41PM|#
If you really want some fun, stop teasing the hicks and take
your copy of Origin of the Species to the liberal arts college of
any secular university and then suggest that natural selection
provides any understanding of any human attribute or action beyond
providing a non-religious origin for humanity.
Watching them try to pretend to be driven by science while they
reject absolutely everything they find inconvenient to their pet
theories is a hoot.
ed|6.17.08 @ 12:42PM|#
The world would be a solemn place indeed without our comical Christian retards.
Episiarch|6.17.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Tina Fey is a terrible actress, and pretty unfunny as a
comedian
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks she's massively overrated
and utterly over-hyped right now. She's not even hot. I don't get
it.
|6.17.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Pour me a glass of the Tina Fey hatorade. The Tina Fey/Jimmy
Fallon Weekend Update lineup comes a close second in
suckitude to the Colin "Comic timing? What's that?" Quinn
Weekend Update. And yes, I'm taking the Charlie Rocket
Weekend Update into account.
I used to wonder if I would be less irritated by Bob Hope laughing
at his own jokes if his jokes were actually funny. Tina Fey and
Jimmy Fallon answered that question for me.
|6.17.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Now this brings up the obvious question of why Adam wasn't riding dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. If I could ride dinosaurs naked whenever I wanted, I wouldn't bother ever stopping to eat fruit with my wife. But I guess Adam's not like me (unfortunately).
Episiarch|6.17.08 @ 1:06PM|#
You're kind of wrong about that.
I guess there's no accounting for taste if people find Fey hot.
She's not ugly, but she's not good looking.
I used to wonder if I would be less irritated by Bob Hope
laughing at his own jokes if his jokes were actually funny. Tina
Fey and Jimmy Fallon answered that question for me.
Family Guy felt the same way but they used Carol Burnett.
SNL is the suckiest, shittiest sketch comedy show of all time. The
first, second, and possibly third casts had some good moments. But
the most recent ones have been so spectacularly awful I must wonder
who watches them; it seems to only be high school kids and fellow
comedy writers. MAD TV, especially starting around 1998, kicks
their ass so bad it's gotta hurt.
|6.17.08 @ 1:12PM|#
You may be strong in American Kenpo Karate, but you are no
match for my Cobra Kai style.
I use crane technique. If do right, no can defense. Stick that up
your Cobra Kai ass.
thoreau|6.17.08 @ 1:19PM|#
If you really want some fun, stop teasing the hicks and take your copy of Origin of the Species to the liberal arts college of any secular university and then suggest that natural selection provides any understanding of any human attribute or action beyond providing a non-religious origin for humanity.
Watching them try to pretend to be driven by science while they reject absolutely everything they find inconvenient to their pet theories is a hoot.
OTOH, watching people go beyond suggesting that Darwin has
relevance in neurobiology and into the realm of claiming Darwinian
support for pet theories is also fun!
LarryA|6.17.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Hey! My box of Crayolas didn't have a Flesh of Christ, just
a Flesh :(
Different color. Crayola "flesh" is pink. The actual "flesh of
Christ" would be considerably darker. Not that the Young Earth
folks would ever admit that.
|6.17.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Whoa, thoreau, I totally missed that S. Love post.
suggest that natural selection provides any understanding of
any human attribute or action beyond providing a non-religious
origin for humanity.
Care to explain what you mean by that? Are you advocating social
Darwinism?
|6.17.08 @ 1:50PM|#
No, Marcvs, they didn't get rid of "flesh" color. Instead, they
started producing "multicultural" flesh colors.
Your comment did make me want to look and see if they still make
Indian Red, though... anyone know?
|6.17.08 @ 1:59PM|#
So where did they put the brontosaurus's on the Ark? How did
they keep the tyrannosaurus rex from eating everything
else?
They used baby ones and just kept giving them cigarettes.
|6.17.08 @ 2:07PM|#
"Hey! My box of Crayolas didn't have a Flesh of Christ, just a
Flesh :("
Do they have a "bread" color? How about "cracker"? (As in Ritz or
Saltine).
That substitution ought to work.
|6.17.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Sugarfree, that picture was bizarrely touching and sweet. "All God's Children" and all that. Love the pterodactyl in the back, too.
|6.17.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Epi,
You're one of those people who always hate a band's second album,
aren't you...
|6.17.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
Strangely, that's the exact expression my cat always has on her
face when I pick her up.
|6.17.08 @ 2:29PM|#
I'm going to Godwin
this thread and still stay on topic.
(From Superman is a Dick)
Episiarch|6.17.08 @ 2:36PM|#
I'm just trying to understand you, NutraSweet.
And no, I really like Hanzel Und Gretyl's second album
Transmissions
From Uranus.
|6.17.08 @ 2:42PM|#
"All kidding aside, weren't brontosaurs able to swim?"
Unless things have changed since I was a lad, I think they were
more waders than swimmers.
The Nessie-style swimmers were Plesiasaurs.
|6.17.08 @ 2:44PM|#
weren't brontosaurs able to swim
Nope. You're probably thinking of Plesiosaurs, the best
cryptozoological match for Loch Ness Monster sightings.
Brontosaurs
were elephantine, but possibly spent time in shallow swamps and
delta to support their weight.
economist|6.17.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Good job Shannon
And I thought I was the only one to make that observation.
Generally, whenever I suggest that intelligence might be partially
genetic and that intelligence might contribute to decisions that in
turn produce dependency (drug addiction,single motherhood, not
being able to hold down a job), I get shouted down as a social
Darwinist.
economist|6.17.08 @ 2:47PM|#
And I went to an engineering school, where people are smarter about that kind of thing!
|6.17.08 @ 2:47PM|#
"Yeah, but Jon H didn't have links!"
No time for links when I'm dropping the science.
|6.17.08 @ 2:55PM|#
"No time to spell Plesiosaur correctly, either..."
Dangit, I even Googled my spelling, and got hits.
Time to purge society, I guess.
|6.17.08 @ 2:56PM|#
She's not ugly, but she's not good looking.
She is smart, and I find smart to be an turn-on.
|6.17.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Generally, whenever I suggest that intelligence might be partially genetic and that intelligence might contribute to decisions that in turn produce dependency
You shouldn't. However, as soon as someone proposes their 'grand social program' based on genetic traits, they unfortunately step into all-too-familiar territory.
|6.17.08 @ 2:58PM|#
"Didn't Jesus fly a pterodactyl?
Seems to me that if you're the son of god and all, you should at
least ride in luxury."
A more luxurious ride was the quetzocoatle, which was the size of a
small jet.
thoreau|6.17.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Intelligence almost certainly does have a large genetic
component. The problem is when social darwinists start making
generalizations about ethnic groups. There's also a
social/environmental component to cognitive abilities, or at least
the cognitive abilities that we measure when we ask people to
perform tasks in a particular setting. Given that mean IQ scores
for different groups have been known to change over time, it's hard
to disentangle genetic and environmental factors, at least
for group comparisons.
Also, human history strongly suggests that groups (unlike
individuals) probably do not vary too much in the genetic
components of cognitive ability:
1) As much as we like to point to the intellectual contributions of
various civilizations over time, even in the advanced civilizations
of the past most people lived in villages, and only a small subset
of the population got to participate in the cultural, intellectual,
and scientific innovations that we point to. Which is not to say
that villagers don't have to be tech-savvy (any skilled craftsman
maintaining tools has technical aptitude), just that you can't
point to the intellectual products of a particular civilization as
evidence that the members of that group (and their descendants)
have better genes.
2) For all of the cultural differences between groups, most farmers
in villages have faced a lot of similar challenges in their daily
lives, and hence probably faced similar selection pressures. Ditto
for fishermen and herders. And farmers, fishers, and herders
account for most of the recent ancestors of most modern
humans.
3) The ethnic groups that we think of today are large conglomerates
of people with different histories and selection pressures: Within
an ethnic group you will find people descended from farmers,
herders, city dwellers, villagers, craftsmen, traders, etc. And
going back through several centuries of an individual's family tree
you'll probably find all sorts of ancestors from all sorts of
social strata, inter-marriage, etc.
It's plausible that we might find different genes with intellectual
significance if we compared, say, an isolated population that spent
millenia farming with an isolated population that spent millenia
herding. However, if that population was not isolated, and over
centuries of changing economic circumstances went through different
phases and migrations, then it's likely that the modern members of
that group are descended from a variety of individuals who faced a
variety of selection pressures.
So color me skeptical that evolution has much to say about
intellectual differences between groups, at least when we're
talking about large ethnic or racial groups with complicated
histories.
|6.17.08 @ 3:01PM|#
She is smart, and I find smart to be an
turn-on.
Ha! Did you just validate your own rule, or someone else's? I can't
keep track of all the rules. Can't someone add them to the wiki?
|6.17.08 @ 3:04PM|#
bookworm,
Actually,
Quetzalcoatl had a lot of the same problems as a
pterodactyl.
WWQD?
What Would Quetzalcoatl Do?
He'd eat you.
|6.17.08 @ 3:09PM|#
I start to almost believe in a Collective Unconscious when I think of dinosaurs, European dragons/Chinese Dragons and Quetzalcoatls. Coincidence much?
|6.17.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Uh, SugarFree, the Wikipedia article you link to says the swamp-dwelling brontosaur/apatosaur model has been discredited, and they actually probably lived in forests walking with their tails up. Doesn't say anything about swimming, though...I seem to recall them swimming across rivers in a Discovery channel special I saw during my formative years.
|6.17.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Generally, whenever I suggest that intelligence might be
partially genetic and that intelligence might contribute to
decisions that in turn produce dependency (drug addiction,single
motherhood, not being able to hold down a job), I get shouted down
as a social Darwinist.
Basing any serious opinion on two "mights" and a "partially" is
hardly scientific. You seem to be trying to say something,
economist (and Shannon), why don't you come right out and say
it?
The problem I have with these types of theories is that there's so
little evidence to support them that proponents try to piggy-back
them onto the theory of evolution and natural selection -- to which
they have a tenuous connection at best -- so as to make them look
more respectable than they really are.
|6.17.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Art-POG,
There's really not much resemblance between dinosaurs and dragons.
They're both large reptilish creatures, and it ends there. I
suspect the dragons are the result of hundreds of thousands of
years of playing "telephone" with stories early humans told about
African crocodiles.
thoreau|6.17.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Chris Potter,
They know the evidence is weak, so they will always insist that
they're "just tossing out an idea to consider." The one thing that
they have going for them is that they can provoke a reaction, and
so they get to play the "Look at poor misunderstood me!" card, as
victims of an alleged PC establishment.
It probably is true that it would be difficult for a well-executed
study of genetics and abilities would get a very tough reception if
it came to certain conclusions, even if it was well-executed and
modest in its claims. That is indeed unfortunate. However, those
who want to float unsupported ideas to get a reaction are merely
contributing to the poisoned atmosphere. They aren't clearing the
way for controversial but supported ideas to get a fair
hearing.
thoreau|6.17.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Aarrghh, bad grammar from typing and then re-typing but not
deleting. Let's try this again:
It probably is true that it would be difficult for
a well-executed study of genetics and abilities would get a very
tough reception if it came to certain conclusions, even if it was
well-executed and modest in its claims.
|6.17.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
I've always been partial to the hypothesis that ancient cultures
found dinosaur bones and explained them with convergent dragon
myths. Traditional Chinese medicine used dino bones, as well as
Gigantopithecus
teeth, so they weren't that uncommon. Alligators also probably
played a part, like Chris suggested. They can get up to 17
feet.
Chris Potter,
I don't read my own links. It's how I stay sane... I like to see
one crashing around. And how they fed that huge body with that
little-bitty head.
|6.17.08 @ 3:47PM|#
I suspect the dragons are the result of hundreds of thousands of years of playing "telephone" with stories early humans told about African crocodiles.
Which is sort of the reverse of how the croc came to be in the
first place, right? Several evolutionary steps from dinosaur?
Facinating.
But the pterodactyl, the Quetzalcoatl and the Chinese dragon share
several traits (although the pterodactyl's body is far from
serpentine). I will admit myths are big on flying shit.
|6.17.08 @ 3:52PM|#
I will admit myths are big on flying shit.
It's our oldest dream. Stupid birds.
And find just one of these fossilized, Feathered
Dinosaurs, and you kick start myths for centuries.
|6.17.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Well, I don't know about the wings. But crocodiles were probably the most fear-inducing predators early humans faced, even more than big cats. Something about a giant ferocious thick-skinned creature that can remain essentially invisible until it's too late.
|6.17.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Another interesting thing is that dragons were seen as having wings more bat-like than bird-like.
|6.17.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Since we're talking about dragons...
I fucking hate Anne McCaffrey.
"They're not dragons! They're aliens who look and behave
exactly like dragons! Can't you see the difference?!?"
Guh.
|6.17.08 @ 4:10PM|#
"There's really not much resemblance between dinosaurs and
dragons. They're both large reptilish creatures, and it ends there.
I suspect the dragons are the result of hundreds of thousands of
years of playing "telephone" with stories early humans told about
African crocodiles."
A creationist once told me that dinosaurs were mentioned in the
Bible. I checked it out and found that it was obviously talking
about a crocodile expecially in that it referenced it living in the
river.
Mike Laursen|6.17.08 @ 4:12PM|#
She is smart, and I find smart to be an turn-on.
I'm with R C on this one.
Mike Laursen|6.17.08 @ 4:14PM|#
It's gonna backfire when all of these Creationist kids get so interested in dinosaurs that they start reading books about dinosaurs that didn't come from the approved list.
Fluffy|6.17.08 @ 4:15PM|#
I've always been partial to the hypothesis that ancient
cultures found dinosaur bones and explained them with convergent
dragon myths.
China has geologic formations where dino skeletons are occasionally
visible at or near the surface, and also has some of the richest
fossil fields in the world generally, so I wouldn't be surprised if
this hypothesis had a lot of truth to it.
There's also a European equivalent - I thought it was generally
accepted now that mythological tales of cyclopean giants were
rooted in the discovery of mammoth skulls without tusks. If you
look at a mammoth skull without knowing what it was, it looks like
it could belong to a giant cyclops.
|6.17.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Even assuming they found a fully intact skeleton, why would they relate it to a reptile rather than a mammal in coming up with the idea of dragons? There are and were at that time far more large mammals in the world than large reptiles.
|6.17.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Mike Laursen,
That's nothing that can't be solved by a little pre-innoculation.
Just warn the little brood that the devil has tricked unbelievers
into believing ungodly theories about dinosaurs.
Episiarch|6.17.08 @ 4:24PM|#
I thought it was generally accepted now that mythological
tales of cyclopean giants were rooted in the discovery of mammoth
skulls without tusks
Yes. It is highly likely that fossilized remains are one of the
greatest contributors to the fantastic creatures of human culture.
Polyphemus, baby!
I fucking hate Anne McCaffrey.
"They're not dragons! They're aliens who look and behave exactly
like dragons! Can't you see the difference?!?"
I thought they were genetically engineered fire lizards. Not that
that's much better.
|6.17.08 @ 4:28PM|#
"She is smart, and I find smart to be an turn-on."
Considering non-physical attributes makes the woman seem like a
human being, and interferes with proper objectification. It's like
all those porn videos where they start off with an interview.
Hello, if I wanted to hear some slut's life story I'd watch
Springer. How am I supposed to beat off to a girl after she
explains how her dad was a drunk and left her mom when she was six
blah blah blah...
Mike Laursen|6.17.08 @ 4:37PM|#
That's nothing that can't be solved by a little
pre-innoculation. Just warn the little brood that the devil has
tricked unbelievers into believing ungodly theories about
dinosaurs.
I suppose you could keep that going for most kids as long as you
keep them engaged within a local community where everybody thinks
alike.
Quinn Abercromby|6.17.08 @ 4:39PM|#
I thought the dragons periodically went into hibernation in deep underground caverns, only to return again when life had recovered enough to destroy it.
|6.17.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Ha! Did you just validate your own rule, or someone
else's?
Maybe my own, although I'm not sure that "I find smart to be an
turn-on" is funnier than the correct post.
Not a joe'z law instance, though, since I wasn't insulting someone
else's intelligence.
C'mon, people. Try to keep up.
|6.17.08 @ 5:03PM|#
He was, too, you boys. I installed two-way mirrors in his pad on the Island of the Cyclopes, and he come to the door in a dress.
|6.17.08 @ 5:11PM|#
That doesn't mean he was a homo, Pro Libertate. A lot of straight guys like to watch their buddies fuck. I know I do.
|6.17.08 @ 5:15PM|#
OTOH, watching people go beyond suggesting that Darwin has
relevance in neurobiology
Ya cuz we all know brains are immune to selective forces.
Humanists really should be drug out into the street a shot.
|6.17.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Yes. It is highly likely that fossilized remains are one of
the greatest contributors to the fantastic creatures of human
culture. Polyphemus, baby!
Well that and that there really were fucking huge birds on
Madagascar in recent history.
thoreau|6.17.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Ya cuz we all know brains are immune to selective
forces.
Well, your brain apparently wasn't selected for reading
comprehension.
BakedPenguin|6.17.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Wow. Almost one hundred posts and no one links to Jesus Lizard? I'm disappointed.
|6.17.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Humanists really should be drug out into the street a
shot.
I wouldn't recommend it. Humanists tend to have the smart genes.
You cannot think to thwart Teh Darwin.
Syd|6.17.08 @ 6:39PM|#
I once saw a creationist children books that argued that the Dinosaurs must have been vegetarian in the Garden of Eden and the T. Rex's teeth were perfect for eating melons.
|6.17.08 @ 6:53PM|#
"There's also a European equivalent - I thought it was generally
accepted now that mythological tales of cyclopean giants were
rooted in the discovery of mammoth skulls without tusks. If you
look at a mammoth skull without knowing what it was, it looks like
it could belong to a giant cyclops."
Hardly needs to be a mammoth. A regular Elephant would do.
There were dwarf Elephants on Crete and Cyprus and other islands in
the Mediterranean, around 11,000 BCE.
The key is the big schnoz hole in the middle, which was taken as
the eye socket.
|6.17.08 @ 6:56PM|#
"I thought the dragons periodically went into hibernation in
deep underground caverns, only to return again when life had
recovered enough to destroy it."
I think that's the Tarrasque.
|6.17.08 @ 8:46PM|#
I thought they were genetically engineered fire lizards. Not
that that's much better.
No. It really isn't.
Michael Ejercito|6.17.08 @ 10:43PM|#
Too bad Noah did not keep records of exactly how he managed to deal with all those animals. All the information about animal keeping, including waste disposal, would have benefited humanity for the next eight thousand or so years.
|6.18.08 @ 12:50AM|#
Ejercito. Cloning. Noah merely stored the animals' genetic information on the ark. It was several years before the Israelites had the technology to recreate life in a laboratory setting.
economist|6.18.08 @ 1:08PM|#
I wasn't suggesting anything about intelligence differences among races, just pointing to the scientifically supported idea that there are significant genetic components to intelligence. Considering that genes play significant rolls in physical, risk for physical, and mental illness, is it at all unreasonable to suggest that genes might help make someone more or less intelligent, and that intelligence might contribute to one's success (or lack thereof) in life? Wasn't saying all poor people are stupid or that all rich people are genius's, just that people who are apparently incapable of making intelligent decisions might have started out less intelligent anyway.
economist|6.18.08 @ 1:10PM|#
I can see, of course, where other libertarians might be leary of people claiming to see genetic causes for social differences, given the often racist overtones such claims have taken in the past.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245