Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Yes, evolution is indeed science. Actual evolution, not whatever stupid bullshit you've made up and try to pass off as "evolution."IOW, when you say anything about "evolution", you're lying.  How can you tell when a creationist is lying? His lips are moving. 

Because, unlike you, I have studied evolution -- actual evolution, not your bullshit misrepresentation of "evolution". And I have studied how biology works. And unlike you, I have tested what I have learned. What I have found is that evolution not only describes population dynamics, but examination of population dynamics, especially walking through how populations reproduce, leads directly to biological evolution.But what about your bullshit misrepresentation of evolution? It has no connection with reality and your bullshit lies that you call "Evolution" is nothing but fantasy. There is no truth to your bullshit lies and fantasy that you call "Evolution", despite it having almost nothing whatsoever to do with actual evolution.On the other hand (OTOH), actual evolution is spot-on.You need to dump your bullshit lies and try to learn something about actual evolution.

Yes! ACTUAL EVOLUTION!What evolution actually is and what it actually teaches. NOT the stupid bullshit strawman nonsense that you call "Evolution". I am on the side of evolution and reality. Because they are inseparable.OTOH, you are on the side of stupid bullshit lies about what you misidentify as "Evolution".Your bullshit strawman "Evolution" is pure fantasy, entirely unlike what evolution actually is, which you know nothing about.Please, pull your head out of your ass and learn something about the subject!For one thing, you should go back to TalkOrigins and learn from those articles.

What bullshit are you trying to pull this time?Come up with something that is not change and has nothing to do with change, but which you will nonetheless call "change"? Just as you have come up with something that has nothing to do with evolution, but you call it "Evolution". For what purpose? For the standard creationist purpose of generating confusion.That is the same as if you renamed cobras "kittens" and then repeatedly insisted how deadly kittens are and how many people die annually from "kitten venom" and how we must kill kittens as soon as we find them to keep them from infesting our communities and killing us all. By using the word "kitten" you trick others into thinking that you're talking about actual kittens, whereas you are instead talking about something totally different.How did we spot your deception? Because it's nothing new. It's a typical creationist deception. 
So, change is when something does not remain the same (AKA "unchanged"). It's obvious. We see it all the time, we have studied it, we can determine and work with rates of change, etc.Now you're going to develop your deception by redefining it into something totally different from change. And, I have no doubt, you will invoke your tree spirits, pixies, kami, etc., as "required intelligent agents" that you will claim must exist and must be involved for change to happen. For your edification (yeah, I am yet again casting pearls before you, a swine), here's a Mexican saying:

quote:

---

"It's been a long time since we've worn feathers."

​

(Mexican President José López Portillo in a 60 Minutes interview circa 1980)

---

IOW, you are going to put on your feathers and just engage in more of your stupid bullshit nonsense. Seriously, if you want to argue against evolution, then argue against evolution itself AND NOT SOME STUPID STRAWMAN LIE YOU HAVE MADE UP!Of course, that would require you to learn what evolution actually is, something that your creationist self-delusion will never allow you to do. Which tragically leaves you incapable of anything except spewing the same old stupid lies.

Reminds me of what Stan Lee said in an interview. I think I saw that in a PBS miniseries on the history of superhero comic books, Superheroes: A Never-Ending Battle, which is still available on Amazon Prime.Quoting him from memory from 5 years ago:

quote:

---

I am perhaps the most unscientific person you've ever met. I wouldn't know a gamma ray if it came up and bit me. But I thought, "Hmm, gamma ray, that sounds good." So I used it.

---

Looks like MrID missed his calling. He should be writing comic books.To which someone will reply: "What makes you think he isn't writing comic books?"

Using established terminology is always far superior to making up new words and then refusing to define your made-up words (eg, "evolutionist"). That should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers.Honest discussion depends on both sides understanding and agreeing to the definitions of the terminology used in the discussion. Without that mutual understanding and agreement, discussion cannot happen. Introducing made-up or misdefined primary terminology without providing their new/fabricated meanings can have no other possible effect than to generate confusion.Confusion serves no function in honest discussion and hinders honest discussion. Confusion does however serve a purpose in deception. Honest discussion hinders the practice of deception in that honesty and the presentation of actual facts ends up exposing the deception for what it is. Therefore, those who wish to practice deception (eg, creationists) have a vested interest in generating as much confusion as they possibly can as they do everything they can to sabotage attempts at honest discussion.A very common creationist tactic is to make up new words or to redefine existing words to mean something completely different ... and then to refuse to share that new definition/redefinition with others especially when directly requested to do so. That is why they are all so terrified of our simple direct question: "What are you talking about?"BTW, not all creationists are in on the deception, but rather are themselves victims of it. All they know is the lies that the creationists have taught them. They have memorized the claims and the words (eg, "evolutionist") but never learned any of what's behind those claims nor what those words mean. That is why they are so terrified of our attempts to discuss their claims with them: They literally do not know what they are talking about, so they are literally incapable of discussing those claims. Or the meanings of the terms that they use.Banned member Faith was one of the most flagrant violators, making up nonsensical geological terminology while explicitly refusing to even try to learn the actual terminology. She ended up a victim of her own confusion, incapable of understanding anything, including her own false creationist claims (again, "false creationist" is redundant). Now sensei is following in her meandering footsteps.And it is those creationists abysmally ignorant of their own creationism who show up here and in other forums. The smarter more self-aware creationists who fully realize what they are doing know better than to expose themselves to those of us who know what they are up to. It's only the dumb and ignorant ones who think they have a real argument behind them and not just pure bullshit. "Evolutionist" is nothing but more creationist bullshit which they deploy in their efforts to deceive.They do so to serve their god, a god who must be served through lies and deception. Christian doctrine clearly identifies who that god is ... and it sure as hell ain't YHWH (יהוה)!

They actually mean for it to be redundant, like "dishonest creationist". In four decades of watching creationists use that term and refuse to define it, I have seen them constantly equate "evolutionist" with "atheist" ... not that they understand what an atheist is either.From my field observations, they divide the world, in re "origins", into two opposite and opposing camps: creationists and evolutionists. Basic definitions are that evolutionists accept evolution and creationists don't, but in their minds they're thinking, "Creationists accept God while evolutionists, who are atheists, reject and oppose God. Evolutionists are atheists and atheists are evolutionists. They are one and the same thing."A side benefit for them -- and purely by accident, I'm sure -- is at "debates" or wherever a creationist can have his opponent introduced as an "evolutionist", at which point the same thought clicks in the mind of every creationist in the audience: "The opponent is an atheist!" Regardless of the opponent's actual theistic position, to the audience he has all be admitted to them that he's an atheist. IOW, the word "evolutionist" is mainly just a dog whistle.But we haven't gotten the weird part yet. Yeah, it gets weird! Because according to creationists, the vast majority of Christians are atheists because they accept evolution and hence are evolutionists!This stems back to their Two Model Approach (TMA) which asserts two-and-only-two mutually exclusive "models": the "Creation Model" and the "Evolution Model". The TMA formed the basis for all creationist tactics: "Only one of the two models can be true, so if I can disprove (or at least cast doubt on) the Evolution Model, then I have proven Creation." Creationists Drs. H.Morris and Gish would start every debate by establishing the TMA. When I wrote to Dr. Henry Morris asking why no positive evidence for Creation, he responded emphatically that negative evidence against evolution is "positive" evidence for Creation. Thus, they think they can prove Creation by taking a few pokes at "evolution" without ever having to present any evidence for their "Creation Model", or defend it, or discuss it, or even to present it at all. They think they can prove Creation without ever having to tell anybody what it is.In their "two-models balanced treatment" school materials and books intended for the general public, they creationists are very careful to be extremely vague about their "creation model". Officially, they just wave their hands and make vague references to "some unnamed Creator". The reason for this is that they had started out being honest about what creationism was based on, Bible verses and all. But part of the aftermath of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) et alia, besides the demise of their "monkey laws", was the Lemon Test which disallowed their religious beliefs as a basis for barring the teaching of evolution in the public schools. So they took their already written textbooks and superficially scrubbed all explicit Christian references from them in what has been described as "The Game of Hide the Bible." Part of that game was to create the Two Model Approach and "creation science" as a deliberate legal deception to get around the courts (Lie: "Our opposition to evolution is based entirely on scientific reasons. Nothing religious about it.").That is why they keep their public description of their "Creation Model" so vague, to maintain the public face of their deception. But amongst themselves they are more forthcoming; my page on the Creation Model which quotes directly and verbatim from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR):

1. Special creation of the universe and earth (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence.
2. Application of the entropy law to produce deterioration in the earth and life, on the basis of scientific evidence.
3. Special creation of life (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence.
4. Fixity of original plant and animal kinds, on the basis of scientific evidence.
5. Distinct ancestry of man and apes, on the basis of scientific evidence.
6. Explanation of much of the earth's geology by a worldwide deluge, on the basis of scientific evidence.
7. Relatively recent origin of the earth and living kinds (in comparison with several billion years), on the basis of scientific evidence.

That page follows the ICR presentation by also including their "Biblical Creation Model" which, point for point, is exactly the same as their "Scientific Creation Model" listed above except each point is "on the basis of Genesis". The 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law included the same definition of the "Creation Model", which helped the judge to identify creationism as being religious and hence failing the Lemon Test. Note that the Louisiana law passed shortly after that trial was identical to the Arkanasa law (both were based on the same model bill) except it left out the definition for the "creation model" -- that one went to the US Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987) where it was found to be unconstitutional, creating the legal precedence that creationism is indeed religious, which led to the new creationist game of hiding behind "intelligent design" (ie, creating the new game of "Hide the Creationism").That is relevant because it shows that the "Creation Model" is very narrowly defined as young earth creationism (YEC), which includes both the Global Flood and a young earth (no more than 10,000 years, because saying "6,000 years" would reveal the deception). And according to the Two Model Approach, that makes their "Evolution Model" everything else, everything that isn't in their YEC "Creation Model". Dr. Henry Morris even expressed it explicitly, saying that the "atheistic" "evolution model" includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern." That means that according to creationists as per the Two Model Approach, the vast majority of theists are actually atheists, including the vast majority of Christians since they are not YECs.So then through the logic of the Two Model Approach, an "evolutionist" would be one who is not a creationist. And in order to be a creationist you must be a YEC -- even if you believe in the Christian god and Jesus and in Divine Creation but not in the Flood or in a young earth then you are an atheistic "evolutionist".So then, as we already knew, their term "evolutionist" is nothing but stupid bullshit. It don't mean a thing.

Jessica H. Christ! Just admit already that you have no clue what you are talking about! Then you will no longer feel the need to stupidly try to bluff your way out of not knowing what your own stupid made-up word means.What's wrong with you?

Intelligent design does not create complexity, but rather parsimony and elegance. There is nothing elegant about life's complexity, which is by far much better represented by Rube Goldberg machines ... except for the fact that life's complexity is immensely too great for any intelligent designer, even Rube Goldberg himself, to match.In experiments with evolutionary processes (I feel confident enough to say "in all such experiments") the outstanding characteristic of the products of those evolutionary processes has been high levels of complexity, especially complexity in the interaction between components of those products.When we see something highly complex in nature that's living, it's a sure bet that it had evolved. Intelligent design would not have been able to produce such levels of complexity.If you learn nothing else: We intelligent designers know this from direct work experience.

Nor have I ever heard of such dogma, because it's not dogma. It's based both on the results of numerous experiments using evolutionary processes as well as my own 35 years of professional experience as an intelligent designer, AKA "design engineer".So no dogma involved, but rather real world results. While all you have is bullshit.Many of those experiments have been reported in engineering professional publications. Search keywords would include genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolutionary programming, artificial life (a-life). These experiments involved actual devices designed with evolutionary algorithms and those resultant devices were both fully functional and extremely complex, even to the point of being irreducibly complex. Another common feature of these devices was that their designs were completely unlike anything that an intelligent designer would have come up, not only in the total absence of the hallmarks of intelligent design (eg, elegance, parsimony, modularity, well-defined structures), but also by using components in very novel ways that no human designer would have even thought of nor would ever have been able to develop.One experiment used evolutionary programming to evolve an FPGA design for a balanced amplifier. As you will recall from your engineering classes or experience, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) is an integrated circuit of programmable digital circuits (eg, logic gates, flipflops) that can be "connected" by code in a PROM -- we used them all the time in our products. The amplifier that they created worked perfectly, but it was unlike anything achievable through intelligent design. It was extremely complex filled with interdependencies that made it irreducibly complex -- any change at all would completely break it. Its complexity would make the worst spaghetti code appear to be perfectly structured. Looking at the design, nobody could figure out how it worked or how it even could work, but it worked!But the most astonishing thing about it was how it had used the FPGA: it made extensive use of the analog properties of the FPGA's digital circuits! No living intelligent designer could have ever been able to do that!Here I'm referring to my electrical engineering (EE) training as you should with yours (oh yeah, that's right, you don't have any such training, do you?). While circuit analysis uses ideal components (eg, resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes, transistors, wires, connectors), such ideal components do not exist in the real world. Rather, every real-world component contain other stray properties. For example, an inductor (coil) not only has inductance, but also an internal resistance and stray capacitances between the coils. Resistors can also have stray inductance. Conductors have internal resistance as well as inductance and stray capacitance with other conductors (a problem addressed with twisted pairs). A EE will use ideal components to design and analyze circuits, but he will need to deal with stray properties to solve the odd problems that will arise. And part of his problem will be that two components that are nominally the same will have different stray properties due to minute differences in their manufacture; ie, .But digital circuits are something of a special case. They normally operate within two voltage ranges, one representing a binary "1" and the other voltage a binary "0". Between those two voltage ranges is a range of voltages that must never be used; my instructors in tech school called that range the "Forbidden Zone". Digital circuits need two very distinct logic levels, so voltages outside those very distinct ranges will be ambiguous and cause unexpected and unreliable results such as garbled data, computer crashes, etc.What this amplifier design did was to operate those digital components in their Forbidden Zones! Now, every transistor in any digital device is designed and intended to operate at valid logic levels so they have highly specified digital properties, but they still have undocumented analog properties. Furthermore, each transistor's analog properties are unique to that individual transistor; "identical" transistors will have different analog properties. And it was those analog properties that the design used.No human designer could possibly have designed that amplifier. Only evolutionary processes could have created that design.Thomas Ray's a-life simulation, Tierra, created an environment for "organisms" which are virtual CPUs whose "DNA" is the program for them to reproduce while competing for resources. They quickly evolved different types of organisms such as parasites, non-parasites that are resistant to the parasites, and hyper-parasites that prey on the parasites, etc.The point to bringing up Tierra is that the researchers had worked out the smallest possible program, but Tierra evolved an organism that had a greatly smaller program that used an approach that nobody had foreseen.And in my own professional experience, we would use a kind of evolutionary approach to creating new software systems -- I worked primarily in embedded programming, working close to the metal. When we needed a new product (and hence new software) we could not afford the time and effort to write the new software from scratch, but rather we would copy over an existing product's software as our baseline and then modify it to perform the new tasks. The analogy is to how evolution works by taking something that already exists (or a copy thereof) and modifying it to perform a different or entirely new function. That repeated process of copying and modifying source code resulted in increasing complexity of our software, making it more difficult to maintain or to modify. Of course, it differed from evolution in that we could arbitrarily violate any nested hierarchy by completely rewriting or replacing entire sections of code, something that evolution cannot possibly do in nature.So there is a great wealth of evidence that evolutionary processes generate complexity. And there is nothing about intelligent design that would cause us to expect it to generate such complexity, but rather just the opposite.So then, no dogma involved here. Except by you.Do you really think that intelligent design would generate complexity to the order of magnitude that we see in nature? Can you explain how the properties, goals, and criteria of intelligent design would not be violated by complexity?Of course you will not even try, since you are a creationist and a troll.

Silly creationist. As always, you have turned everything completely around in order to maintain your own self-deception upon which you have foolishly made your faith totally dependent. At exposure to the first gleam of Truth, your faith disintegrates. 1 Thessalonians 5:21: From commentary on 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (my emphasis added):

quote:

---

That are said by the prophets, all the doctrines which they deliver; hear them, though they have not the gift of tongues, and all desirable advantages; do not reject them on that account, and refuse to hear them, for so, many useful men may be laid aside, and the Spirit of God in them be quenched; try their gifts, and attend to their doctrines, yet do not implicitly believe everything they say, but examine them according to the word of God the test and standard of truth; search the Scriptures, whether the things they say are true or not. Not openly erroneous persons, and known heretics, are to be heard and attended on, but the ministers of the word, or such who are said to have a gift of prophesying; these should make use of it, and the church should try and judge their gift, and accordingly encourage or discourage; and also their doctrines, and if false reject them, and if true receive them.

---

In addition, arch-creationist Dr. Duane Gish when guest on a radio talk show, The Ray Briem Show, on 30 May 1985, cited philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, claiming that he said that Judge Overton's judgement (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982, Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act 590)) was wrong and it would have serious repercussions on science for years to come. Upon request, Gish sent me a copy of that article (Science at the Bar -- Causes for Concern by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19). Upon reading it, I saw how Gish had misrepresented the article, which is actually a strong indictment of "creation science". What Laudan was criticizing was Overton's definition of science and of what was scientific, including the claim that creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable -- in short, since creationism makes claims about the real world it is both testable and falsifiable with regard to those claims.From that article with my emphasis added:

quote:

---

At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact.

​

Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence -- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.

​

In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.

​

. . .

​

What counts is the epistemic status of Creationism, not the cognitive idiosyncrasies of the creationists. Because many of the theses of Creationism are testable, the mind set of creationists has no bearing in law or in fact on the merits of Creationism.

​

. . .

​

Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them. The core issue is not whether Creationism satisfies some undemanding and highly controversial definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether the existing evidence provides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory than for Creationism. Once that question is settled, we will know what belongs in the classroom and what does not. Debating the scientific status of Creationism (especially when "science" is construed in such an unfortunate manner) is a red herring that diverts attention away from the issues that should concern us.

---

And from a later article (More on Creationism by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 8, no. 42 (1983):36-38 (my emphasis added)):

quote:

---

...the soundness of creation-science can and must be separated from all questions about the dogmatism of creationists. Once we make that rudimentary separation, we discover both (a) that creation-science is testable and falsifiable, and (b) that creation-science has been tested and falsified -- insofar as any theory can be said to be falsified. But, as I pointed out in the earlier essay, that damning indictment cannot be drawn so long as we confuse Creationism and creationists to such an extent that we take the creationists' mental intransigence to entail the immunity of creationist theory from empirical confrontation.

---

Rather, we have listened to creationist claims, have examined them, have tested them, have found them to utterly fail those tests, and hence reject them as being false, in agreement with 1 Thessalonians 5:21.In doing so, we insist on the truth and on honest evaluation and methods.In sharp contrast, you creationists never test your claims (and indeed will continue to use them long after having found them to be false and with full knowledge that they are false, simply because they sound "so convincing").In doing so, it is you who insist on (and persist in) lies and foolish tactics (such as your mindless trolling in service of your silly troll god).What is wrong with you?

Even when creationists do read the papers, they don't. And I do realize that the vast majority of creationists "citing" scientific articles have never ever seen those articles, let alone read them (eg, Dr. Henry Morris' bogus moon dust claims based on a "1976" NASA document which he have never ever seen until I sent him a xerox copy of the front page (twice, since they ignored it the first time ... and also the second time) which alone refuted his basic claim).However, there is at least one creationist who had seen those articles before "citing" them for the first time. And it is that creationist who commits the first lie in a long chain of creationist lies.In her videos examining Bones of Contention, Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" discusses how the author lied about the articles he "cited", because she looked them up herself (second nature for her as a post-grad student in primatology, or a closely related field). She explains how the author only read the article's abstract and only the very first part of it, misrepresenting that as the article's conclusion.The abstract is a summary of the article which basically (but not necessarily in all cases) consists of:

1. A statement of the purpose of the paper. This would normally include a statement of a problem or question that the paper seeks to solve or answer.
2. A summary of the methods used to solve/answer the problem.
3. A short statement of the conclusions of the paper, including whether an answer was found or not.

What Erika found with that creationist author and with many other creationists as well is that they only quote the abstract's statement of the problem, but make no mention of the paper having solved that problem. They quote the problem as being the conclusion of the paper, not that which the paper was able to answer.Thus those creationists make the paper say the opposite of what it actually says. IOW, they lie!Here's a YouTube search page, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gutless+gibb... , linking to her videos discussing Bones of Contention.And here's a list of videos where she participated in a discussion of a creationist video, Dismantled ( https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gutless+gibb... ), where she describes this example of dishonest creationist "scholarship" . I seem to recall especially in the part on The Human/Chimp Similarity -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m9Dc4k9qYU&list=PLvBy0PB...

"an sich" is German for, roughly, "to itself", and which is translated as "per se" by my phone's Translate app.What's wrong with this guy? His email address looks Vietnamese, he calls himself "teacher" (Japanese "sensei", which literally means "previous life", so someone who has lived it before can now help you to learn), and now he wants to be German?Mir erscheint's, daß der 'nen Vogel hat!

I think that what we've witnessed and been through on this topic is because we have forgotten the Cardinal Rule of Dealing with Creationists: Never assume that both sides are talking about the same thing:

• A creationist poses an assertion or "asks a question" or issues a "challenge" about a subject; eg, "evolution".
  ​
• We take that assertion/question/challenge at face value and respond honestly.
  ​
• Unbeknownst to us, what that creationist means by the name of the subject is quite different from what everybody else means by it, often entirely different.
  ​
  For example, we know what evolution is, but a creationist's "evolution" is something entirely different. Just what a creationist means by "evolution" is a closely guarded secret; just ask any creationist saying that word (or any other word, like "evolutionist") and he will go to great lengths to avoid telling us (as we have all witnessed here). In most cases, even the creationist doesn't know what that word means, but rather only uses it as a dog whistle (same as what MAGAts do constantly) to fire up his own base while "owning the evolutionists" and generating as much confusion as possible (confusion is a creationist's best friend).
  ​
• By having redefined the subject as being something different, the creationist can reject our responses out of hand as "not answering nor addressing the question."

Examples of that last abound, so let's look at this particular "discussion."Common descent and universal common descent (LUCA, last universal common ancestor) are actually different subjects, albeit very closely related.The evidence for the observation and conclusion of common ancestry is very strong and borders on blatantly obvious, whereas evidence for a universal common ancestor, the logical extrapolation of common ancestry is more tenuous, though still strong. For that matter, LUCA refers to the last universal common ancestor, which is still more proximal than an ultimate universal common ancestor.It is that ultimate universal common ancestor that our creationists have been demanding detailed solid evidence of. They will reject anything less than that, misrepresenting it as proof against evolution (whatever that's supposed to mean coming out of their mouths, but they ain't saying).We need an honest discussion of this subject, not the typical creationist attempts at "got-cha!"