Why Was Turkey at the Bottom of That List?

June 10, 2007 By 55 Comments

Remember this graphic?

Evolution

(Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S (2006) Public acceptance of evolution. Science 313:765-766.)

Now we know why Turkey was more ignorant than America.

Tarkan Yavas.

It’s his fault.

The Washington Times reports this:

[Yavas'] aim in life is “to cleanse Turkey of the atheist materialism and the immorality Darwin opened the door to.”

Yavas is the “public face” of the Science Research Foundation (BAV). That’s a misnomer if ever there was one… it’s run by college dropout Adnan Oktar. BAV churns out books:

… BAV’s latest publication is “Atlas of Creation,” a 770-page, 13-pound tome the group sent to scientists, journalists and schools in Britain, France, Scandinavia and Turkey in February.

Much of the book resembles Western creationists’ work, which appears to have been brought to Turkey by Western fundamentalist Christian groups in the mid-1980s.

Though details vary, the account of creation in both the Bible and the Koran says God created everything in six days.

In the atlas, page after page juxtaposes photographs of fossils and living species, arguing that the similarities disprove assertions that species adapt over time.

The political message is different, with evolution blamed for communism, Nazism and — under a photograph of the Twin Towers in flames — September 11.

Yep. Evolution caused 9/11. Thank you, “science.”

Turkey’s Education Minister Huseyin Celik supports Intelligent Design. He also notes:

Given that polls show only 1 percent of Turks are atheists, not allowing intelligent design into science textbooks would be tantamount to censorship…

Worst. Argument. Ever. Isn’t that statement implying that Intelligent Design is a strictly religious concept that has nothing to do with science? Not including bad science in a science book is not censorship. It’s the way education works. Just because most people believe in angels, you don’t include their points of view on the matter in a science book.

Creationism proponents are copying Americans in other regards, too. They’re hosting Creationism conferences and building “museums.”

There are some wise opponents to all this nonsense, but they’re in the minority:

Opponents of creationism, meanwhile, also are increasingly taking their arguments to the Turkish public.

A series of scientific conferences have been held in central Anatolian towns during the past few months. One popular science magazine has devoted its past two issues to answering the claims in “Atlas of Creation.”

Haluk Ertan, a geneticist at Istanbul University, adds these important words:

“These people say science cannot answer all the questions. Fair enough, perhaps, but a science stripped of its basic principles is not science anymore. And without science, modern civilization is impossible.”

Good to know some intelligent people are out there. Can’t wait until the rest of the country catches up.

(Thanks to Becksi for the link)


[tags]atheist, atheism, Turkey, America, Tarkan Yavas, Charles Darwin, Science Research Foundation, BAV, Adnan Oktar, Atlas of Creation, Britain, France, Scandinavia, creationist, fundamentalist, Bible, God, Evolution, Huseyin Celik, Intelligent Design, Haluk Ertan, Istanbul University[/tags]

Filed Under: General 55 Comments
  • Darryl

    The United States poses the greatest threat to the truth. As our power and status wanes, as it is now doing, perhaps our more reasonable fellow nations will do what we have not seen fit to do.

  • Mriana

    Don’t tell me? Anywhere I move to in the U.S. to get away from the Bible Belt, I’m going to find the same standards of education? This chart is discouraging and the comments within the article are almost as bad. :( Oh well. On the bright side, I’m not in Turkey.

  • Maria

    Mriana if you came up here (Washington DC) you wouldn’t find much of the bible belt. We have everyone from all backgrounds here. I’ve run into some bible belters but they are a minority and don’t do much……..

  • Mriana

    Well, my only complaint about the north is that it is VERY cold in the winter, but such a crowd would MUCH preferable. Maybe I could find someone who can carry on intelligent conversation.

  • Helena

    Adnan Oktar says Darwinism will be just a fairy tale after 10-15 years later. I totally agree with him. In my college when teachers tell about evolution, students begin to laugh. Most of the student has awakened by Harun Yahya’s (Adnan Oktar) book ‘The Evolution Deceit”

  • Helena

    Adnan Oktar says the best: “if there is a single intermediate fossil, show off in front of Eiffel Tower” yes they can’t do this because all so-called intermediate fossils are fake like Archaeraptor and Piltdown Man.

  • argonist

    It is up to every conscientious, intelligent person who can think and see to call on Darwinists and their followers to listen to the voice of reason and to consider the scientific facts. Those who heed the call and consider the facts without prejudice, and with an open mind, will certainly perceive the plain truth, I mean The truth of creation!!

  • Richard Wade

    Go Iceland!

  • argonist

    When the subject of evolution comes up, many people imagine that this is a scientific problem—and that for anyone less knowledgeable than scientists, Darwinism is impossible to understand. They assume it’s pointless to argue the issue, one way or the other. Indeed, Darwinists employ Latin words and scientific terms generally unfamiliar to the public in order to encourage this mistaken idea. They engage in complicated descriptions and frequently resort to demagoguery and hollow slogans in order to give the impression they are discussing a highly scientific matter.
    In fact, however, Darwinism’s basic claim is completely unscientific, and its logical poverty is so obvious that even primary school age children can see it. According to Darwinism, in some unexplained manner, the first cell supposedly formed in the Earth’s primeval environment, in a pool of muddy water. And out of that single cell, a literally endless series of coincidences later gave rise to animals, plants, human beings and civilizations. In other words, all of mankind, as well as the entire plant and animal kingdoms, are supposedly the work of an ideal quantity of mud, a long period of time and plentiful coincidences.

  • Maria

    LOL, feel free to visit anytime. I think you’d like it here (just bring a jacket :) ) Richard, are you from Iceland?

  • http://fivepublicopinions.blogspot.com AV

    Shorter argonist: “We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.”

  • http://eclecticsanonymous.wordpress.com ben

    For anyone looking for a little more background on this story, might I recommend the far more in depth article at the NCSE?

    The authors point out that Turkey has had problems with science education for decades including not only Creationist “issues” but Lamarckian concepts in high school textbooks.

    I’d recommend the read. And perhaps a visit to the wonderfully vulcanic island, where, it seems, people still think some science is appropriate. So I agree. Go Iceland!

  • Richard Wade

    Maria, no I’m from sunny southern California. But I’ve been fascinated with Iceland since I was a kid, for some unknown reason. It features in my volcano presentation to kids and it just seems like a very beautiful place.

    Maybe the Icelanders accept evolution because they’re good examples of it in action. Their population has been almost wiped out by disease and hardship more than a few times and they are the very hardy, well-adapted survivors.

    Go Iceland!

  • Richard Wade

    I’m not entirely sure I agree with what I”m going to say here, but let me be, if you’ll excuse the expression, the devil’s advocate just to see what insights people have to offer:

    You know, if the people of the Islamic world want to slip back into the sixth century, should we try to stop them? Their scientists who follow wherever the empirical evidence leads them will continue to emigrate to the West, as they are now doing in droves, while those who follow only where their scripture allows them to go will deteriorate into irrelevance. All the sciences enrich and support each other. Having to censor or ignore more and more data that conflicts with scripture will cripple more and more of their sciences. Their universities will be increasingly hampered in what they can research. Their home grown technology won’t work. They’ll produce less and less of their own and have to borrow or steal more of it from the West. Then they’ll have to keep secret the underlying theories that don’t fit scripture and a kind of schizophrenia will set in. The rest of the world, once it learns to do without oil will leave them far behind. Besides oil, what do they have that we would want? Instead of the awful manipulation that western nations have done against them in the past, in the future the worst crime would be neglect.

    The only challenge for us is to not let the Creationists here in the West corrupt our science too.

    Just a cold, heartless sounding thought from a warm-hearted guy.

  • Mriana

    vulcanic island

    Does this mean Vulcans are on the island? Sorry, I’ve studied the English language and Trek far too long. I’ll be one of the first to notice Vulcan and volcanic.

  • searchreality

    Complete Press Conference of Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya)

    I would rather you watch all these videos before writing any comments. Harun Yahya is an democratic, peace defender, sincere writer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmPTMMUr_4

    [Hemant's note: There were ~30 other YouTube links. If you want to watch them, just click on the YouTube sidebar from the first video]

  • Martin

    After the news in Reuters and Washington Times about Adnan Oktar, just as anyone who would be interested in what he was saying, I entered his website at http://www.harunyahya.com. In essence, I have no belief in Darwinism and I share the author’s very well structured arguments that turning people into animals is an ideological conditioning in order to cause more terror and war in our world. I long for the love, compassion and peace that Adnan Oktar is talking about in his press conferences broadcast on YouTube.

    Iceland is a beautiful country with wonderful people inside. Each one of them, as well as their ancestors, are known to be beautiful people also. I am sure that these people have no “monkeys” in their families, and I am sure not even one of them would be pleased to be called a member of the “monkey family”.

    There is no transition from monkey to human beings, there are no intermediate fossil records, the mechanisms of evolution which are mutations and natural selection are not able to bring any bit of new information into the existing genetic code, mutations are only harmful to organisms as seen in aftermath of Chernobyl or Hiroshima disasters, natural selection is only able to select among what is living, it has no power of imagination or creation, etc. etc.

    I believe it would be unjust to call any nation or any people as descendants of monkeys. This is degrading and scientifically not true. It is up to each one of us right now to think sincerely on the evidence:

    1– millions of creatures with marvelous qualities and intricate systems – and
    2- evolution that says the wind, seas, air, climate and thunder storms which have no eyes to see, no minds to think with, acted together to invent the complex structures like protein synthesis, DNA and the genetic code, photosynthesis, immune system, the eye, the liver, the cell, the endocrine system and hormones, brain and the nervous system, etc..

    It is time to listen to Turkey and what Adnan Oktar says in his clear wording. Evolution is a deceit.

  • Ash

    Martin, you may be interested in Adnan Oktar’s biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar). I am not sure that you meant to admire a man who could not even complete his interior design qualification, who is accused of being anti-semitic, and has been arrested, imprisoned and a detainee at a mental hospital.

    to argue with science because you do not understand it – ‘darwin theory=we are monkeys’ – ???, to further those arguments by using the example of someone who does not understand it (Oktar, see previous link), leads not only to bad science, but a self-satisfied justification of such.

    may i refer you to a christian scientist, Ken Miller, also to be found on youtube, for a better understanding of science – one that doesn’t challenge you to drop your faith, just your ignorance of science.

  • HappyNat

    I share the author’s very well structured arguments that turning people into animals is an ideological conditioning in order to cause more terror and war in our world.

    Turning people into animals is your major concern? I don’t even know where to start. Maybe here
    http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=2022

  • Ash

    HELP HEMANT! my posts aren’t working…

  • http://friendlyatheist.com FriendlyAtheist

    Spam catcher goes crazy sometimes. I think I caught your post, though!

  • Ash

    got it now, thanx…

  • Mriana

    But we are animals. Have you watched animals, esp apes? Then observed humans. The behaviours are pretty much the same, with two differences- we have bigger brains and books. I’d say schools, but fish have schools too.

  • Mriana

    In essence, I have no belief in Darwinism and I share the author’s very well structured arguments that turning people into animals is an ideological conditioning in order to cause more terror and war in our world.

    Um… I don’t think you have observed the animal kingdom very well. There is no terror and war among animals, except maybe the higher species such apes, which includes us. Yes, we are animals- see my previous post- and I happy to be related to apes. Koko was very nice and good to her kitten, just as I am. Koko also talked very well- with her hands, but I can understand her.

  • Darryl

    You know, if the people of the Islamic world want to slip back into the sixth century, should we try to stop them?

    I don’t think that isolationism will work anymore. The world is now too small, and we are too interdependent. We also know that to ignore a problem now means that it will come back to bite us later. Haven’t we learned this vividly by recent events?

    We do not have the luxury to ignore the backward religionists. It would be preferable if we could let them do what they have been doing for a long time–to let them suffer the consequences of excessive religiosity. They are a threat not just to themselves. Unfortunately, the confrontation between the fighting faiths and modernity is unavoidable. There seems to be no place for agreement. When fundamentalists put their beliefs above everything else, they will not compromise or be satisfied with consensus on what we share.

  • argonist

    MANY evolutionist sources from time to time carry the claim that humans and apes share 99 percent of their genetic information and that this is proof of evolution. This evolutionist claim focuses particularly on chimpanzees, and says that this creature is the closest monkey to man, for which reason there is a kinship between the two. However, this is a false proof put forward by evolutionists who take advantage of the layman’s lack of information on these subjects.
    BUT 99% similarity claim is misleading propaganda
    For a very long time, the evolutionist choir had been propagating the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature, you could read sentences like “we are 99 percent identical to chimps” or “there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human.” Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.
    A study in October 2002 revealed that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue-like many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are not “99% similar” as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com, entitled “Humans, chimps more different than thought,” it reads:
    There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.
    Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.
    Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.
    This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent.
    New Scientist, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled “Human-chimp DNA difference trebled”:
    We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
    Biologist Boy Britten and other evolutionists continue to assess the result in terms of the evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of an “intelligent design.”

    Human DNA is also similar to that of the worm, mosquito, and chicken!

    Moreover, the above-mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present, not just in chimpanzees, but also in very many completely different living creatures. The structure of the proteins in all these species is very similar to that of the proteins present in humans.

    For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man. This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms!

    On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila genus and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%.

    When living things other than man are studied, it appears that there is no molecular relationship such as that claimed by evolutionists. This fact shows that the concept of similarity is not evidence for evolution.

    It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

    This “common material” is the result not of evolution but of “common design,” that is, of their being created upon the same plan.

    It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings “evolved” from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well.

  • Richard Wade

    Argonist and Martin,
    From your remarks it is apparent that you both have some misconceptions about Darwinism and evolution. You will be better able to argue your viewpoints if you actually understand what you are attacking. You can find a good source of basic explanation of evolutionary theory at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Read about it and then you can present more well-informed arguments.

    Both of you invoke “science” or “scientific thinking” to bolster your opinion. What Tarkan Yavas and you are referring to is not science. Proper science looks at things in the world around us and comes up with tentative explanations. Upon more observation it continuously alters and improves on those explanations. The science goes wherever the evidence leads. If new evidence contradicts the current explanation, the explanation is altered or even abandoned for a better one. Many people think this willingness to change is a weakness in science; actually it is its greatest strength.

    Yavas and other creationists do this process of observation and explanation backwards . They already have their explanation in scripture and look only for evidence that supports it. They ignore or discount enormous bodies of evidence that contradict their explanation. As time passes, they spend more and more of their time ignoring or discounting the ever growing body of evidence against them. It is a battle of steady retreat that has dragged on since the time of Galileo.

    Both of you rely heavily on remarks about what you suggest are the dishonest or evil motives of scientists, i.e. wanting to fool lay people with fancy latin terminology, or wanting to promote war and terrorism in the world. These tactics do not address the merits of the views you are trying to dispute and they do not support your own views. They are merely obvious attempts to promote prejudice against the personality of your opponents. Such tactics are used only by people who have weak arguments of their own.

    Get a clear understanding of the theory you disagree with first, before you attack it. Don’t get your information from sources that already agree with you; that is a cowardly and childish way of protecting your misconceptions. Get your education about evolution from the experts in the theory you disagree with. Then you can attack their arguments rather than ineffectively and unfairly attacking their character.

    From your remarks I suspect that it would not matter how much evidence was laid at your feet, you would still reject it out of hand. If a perfect sequence of transitional fossils for every ten generations of mankind were presented to you, you would still try to claim they were fakes, or a ten generation gap was too long, or they were for some other irrelevant reason not valid, or you would trump up an evil hidden agenda of the people showing you the evidence. You are deeply stuck in a cul-de-sac of self-protecting ignorance. Until you are willing to use science forwards instead of backwards and until you are willing to argue the ideas rather than the personalities, further discussion is futile and pointless.

  • Darryl

    Richard, QED.

  • Miko

    Personally, I wouldn’t have found argonist’s argument compelling, except for the fact that it was bold and italics. That made it seem so much more convincing. And the fact that the italics tag wasn’t ever closed just made it that much better. :-)

  • Mriana

    1. It’s 98%

    2. how can anyone say we are not related to apes. Look at them. They look like us with more fur. I knew this as a child and did not need science to tell me we were related.

    I hardly believe for a moment it is false proof. We are apes plain and simple. My sons were never fighten of that thought and to say it brings on terror and war is just not true. As kids, my sons could look at apes and they could see us in them.

    Actually, you could try and say I’m related to my cats and I would not bat an eye. There is a variability that I (and you) am related to them too, but I would prefer having a kidney donated to me by my gorilla relatives, if I needed one that badly AND as long as they did not kill my furry buddy doner. You know there is a gorilla out there with very compatible DNA as yours or even mine. Their kidney could be very well a perfect match for you or even me if we needed one.

    It has nothing to do with common design, but rather we are all part of the earth. Something I think our ancestors knew thus the creation myths.

    However, Richard is right, neither one of you understand Darwinism, but I truly believe one does not need science to know we are apes and are related to the apes. All it takes is observation. Jane Goodall could even tell you this and give you even more information as to how we are very similar to apes.

    Proper science looks at things in the world around us and comes up with tentative explanations.

    First step is observation, second is formulating a hypothesis, third you test that hypothesis and get the results, then you repeat it to find out if you get the same conclusion.

    Well, children have done this observation and those who became scientists as adults have done empirical testing. I’m not sure why one has to dispute this idea so much. I don’t know why it is so appaulling to people to know that they are animals and are related to animals.

    I’m proud to be a mother of three beautiful feline girls, even though they are adopted, but they are no different to me than if they were my blood relative 2 y.o. They just can’t speak English, which ok because we have our own special communication.

    I have observed them and I can tell you how much alike we are than unlike, even without DNA analysis. Their behaviours tell me a lot as to how they are like humans. Although their brain structures are smaller than ours and they lack some things we do, their physiology is not so much different that if push came to shove, I would not be afraid for a vet to treat me in an emergency medical situation.

    In fact, many a vet treated slaves during slavery. They know enough about physiology to treat a human IF they had to do so. I even had a vet tell me that all they have to know is if the patient is two-legged or four-legged and they can treat them. Keep that in mind if you are ever involved in a major disaster and the only dr. around is a vet. S/he just MIGHT save your life.

  • Richard Wade

    Darryl,
    Now I can address your response to my devil’s advocate suggestion that we let the Islamic world slip into the past:

    I agree that the world is smaller and we can’t afford extreme isolationism. But this is a struggle of cultures for dominance. Different ways to see it include a struggle between East and West or between democracy and totalitarianism or between Islam and Christianity or between religion and science. Whatever angle you use it’s an adversarial process. I wish we could get along and help each other, but I don’t see it happening soon. The isolationism is being chosen by the Middle East, not by the West. They are rejecting the 21st century, isolating themselves in the past.

    What, besides tourism and oil brings significant money from the West to the Islamic world? Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t think of much. Without oil the Islamic countries will return to exotic tourist destinations. Starting in our lifetimes, the oil-based economy will end soon either because we run out of it or we choke ourselves by burning it too fast. Non-fossil fuel sources of energy will be developed when it pays to, the oil exporters will suddenly have no power over the West, and we will have no further interest in them. The world is splitting in two. One part wants to go back to dirt farming and goat herding, the other part wants to go to the stars. I’d like to take them along, but you can’t forcibly modernize people if they want to live in the past. It’s possible for them to drag us unwillingly down, but not possible for us to drag them unwillingly up.

    Look at the way Creationists even in America think. It is self-perpetuating and self-protecting. I think it will be far easier to come up with a cheap, safe, non-polluting source of energy than to bring science education to billions of superstitious people who don’t want it anyway.

    We’ll have a vital non-oil based economy long before Creationism and its superstitious cousins disappear from the backwoods of the world.

  • http://off-the-map.org/atheist/ Siamang

    This evolutionist claim focuses particularly on chimpanzees, and says that this creature is the closest monkey to man,

    I will not accept a biology lecture from someone who thinks that Pan troglodytes is a monkey.

  • Miko

    What, besides tourism and oil brings significant money from the West to the Islamic world?

    Capital gains. Many rich arabs have their money in American companies.

    Non-fossil fuel sources of energy will be developed when it pays to, the oil exporters will suddenly have no power over the West, and we will have no further interest in them.

    They’ll be heavily enough invested in our economy that ticking them off would still not be in our best interest.

  • Richard Wade

    Oh yeah, dammit. Well when their people throw out the ruling families their investments will be frozen, our debts will be declared null and void. We’ve got to get off of oil fast for several reasons.

  • Darryl

    Richard, I take your points. I just wish that we could find a way to help them to release themselves from the stranglehold that religion has on their cultures. I know a little about the glory days of the Arabs in antiquity. What good might come from that part of the world to enrich us all and to add balance to our world if they could only come of age?

  • Matthew

    those who don’t believe in shouldn’t be named as ignorants. Evolution is already a theory so its hasn’t been proved. if its a theory there should be alnernative theories includes the origin of life. I think Creationism is really logical approach. Especially the fossil records revute evolution. If Evolution was right there would be a lot of transitional forms but we haven’t seen them yet.. You have to visit Harun Yahya’s site its really great http://www.harunyahya.com

  • drew

    Do people have to be scared of religion? Do you REALLY think that religion caused 9/11? Religion has been around since 5000 years and do you people think problems we have are couses of religion? I am an MD and I trully believe that, individuals who want to be recognised as modern and scientific hold on to the theory of evolution like a lifebelt. Just stop it man! Evolution theory is not getting you anywhere. Can you let alone controlling, understand the staff that is going on inside your own body? How can you be able to evolve it? You need a superior power to do that if such a mechanism exists, which is God!

  • Richard Wade

    Does anybody know how to make a smiley that has an expression like, “WTF was that?!”

  • Ash

    BTW, anyone who’s interested – god actually lives upstairs from me. kid you not. it’s just everytime he tells anyone, they think he’s crazy + send him to hospital. i don’t get it i guess – they let Yahya (well, eventually….), Yavas, the people who idolise them, etc. free to roam the streets, but being god is a classed as a danger to yourself and others.

    actually, maybe they do have a point there after all…

    *needing that WTF smiley more than ever now*

  • Miko

    You know how they have warning labels on packs of cigarettes? We should have something like that for MDs. Maybe just pick a blog post they write and frame it in the reception area of their office/hospital. I, for one, would refuse to see any doctor who thought there was a staff inside my body, not to mention one who not only thought there was a staff but who didn’t want to understand it either. Not that I think drew is really an MD or anything.

  • Mriana

    Drew, if you really are a doctor, I’m glad you aren’t my doctor. Humm… Not sure if we can do other images here but let’s see, will this work for WTF? Depends on what is allowed of course, but let’s give this a go:

    How’s that for WTF? If you like it, I’ll tell you how to do it.

  • Mriana

    OK it worked in the preview. :(

    Try this: http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/6.gif”

    If that doesn’t work then there’s not much I can suggest. :(

  • Mriana

    DRAN I left a quote. :( I give up.

    http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/6.gif

  • Richard Wade

    Notice how the spelling and grammar errors are very similar in the comments by Matthew and Drew, as well as their only marginally making sense? Is that a regional language thing or are they the same person?

  • Karen

    Notice how the spelling and grammar errors are very similar in the comments by Matthew and Drew, as well as their only marginally making sense? Is that a regional language thing or are they the same person?

    Richard! It’s your very first sock puppet outing. Woo-hoo! Congratulations, man. We knew you could do it. ;-)

  • Mriana

    Now he knows what a sock puppet is. Pity, they seem cuter on children’s hands as they use the backs of chairs as stages. Well, I guess the ones who still enjoy playing sock puppets never truly grew up.

  • Richard Wade

    I’m so proud. I feel like one of the big bloggers. :)

  • Richard Wade

    Yes, Mriana, please tell me how to make that WTF smiley. It’s excellent.

  • Mriana

    Well, the problem is, I got it from Best Smilies and unlike a board, this blog won’t accept img links. :(

    Guess you could use :mad: which is colon mad colon.

  • Richard Wade

    How about
    :( WTF???

  • Richard Wade

    DRAN (sic) it didn’t work.

  • Mriana

    :lol: It was suppose to be DARN! but I made a typo and well, I couldn’t edit. :(

  • Siamang

    Can you let alone controlling, understand the staff that is going on inside your own body?

    I have staff in my body?

    Dang! Time for antibiotics.

  • Ash

    for ‘staff’ read ‘stuff’. it’s a technical term that us non MD’s wouldn’t get anyway.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » Someone Plan a Convention in Sweden