Creationist Silliness: The Rest

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to end this. I originally was going to do a full twenty two part series dissecting each of these questions, but alas, my iron constitution has eroded against the waves of stupidity.

Here are the final questions packed neatly into a somewhat lengthy post riddled with links.

I'll be posting on a slightly broader range of topics after this, so stay tuned.

And if you get tired of waiting, make sure you check out Slightly Evolved.

And away we go!

"Why have we found only 1 "Lucy"' when we have found more than 1 of everything else?"

I've already covered this question here, in "Part Eleventy." If you missed it, you can go ahead and click the link; if you've already read it, I'll spare you the repetition, and just summarize that Paler Lautner and his brooding face here are wrong. It took me approximately three and a half seconds to find the actual data on Lucy, the FIRST of FUCKING MANY Australopithecus fossils found. Granted, with Lucy in particular, they only found "several hundred pieces, representing about 40 % of the skeleton."

Next:

Our next dainty-bearded contestant wants to know, "Can you believe in the Big Bang without "faith?""

Yes. Yes, you can. Do you know why? Aside from the fact that what you believe is of no consequence, which I covered in "Part Upside-down 6,.."

And "Part Cinco..."

There's another little detail.

Evidence.

That's right, it's been fucking proven.

Repeatedly.

There's evidence for the big bang theory smeared all over the place like soft shit of a bored 2 year old. It's all over the walls. It's in your hair. It's in your mouth. And it's going to keep popping up in the most unexpected places for the rest of your life. Get over it.

NEXT!

Spacey McVapid wants to know "How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's Amazing!!!"

Well, despite your superfluous use of three question marks to get your point across, I look at the world and I see a shit ton of obese Americans thanking god for the food a whole fuckload of farmers grew on land that originally belonged to a now all but extinct people their ancestors violently skooched over to make room for the savages they bought from their own families to work the land and toil to get things started.

Of course, that's only here in my country.

In many others around the world, people are fucking starving.

To death.

Whose fucking brilliant divine plan was that?

P.S. I've already covered this in parts "I, Deux, and H8."

FUCKING NEXT!

Hey... Wait a minute... This guy looks an awful lot like the first guy!

Oh, and look! Another damned repeated question complete with the requisite begging thereof:

"Relating to the big bang theory, where did the exploding star come from?"

There was no exploding star. There was a singularity (which basically is a name for a thing to which we can't quite nail an identity). That's right, cupcake... we don't know.

That's the difference between we who seek the truth, and you who think you know it already.

We can say such audacious and monumental things as "we don't yet know..."

See any of a dozen other posts of mine for an answer that you still won't find satisfactory on the big bang.

Moving on...

Oh, for fuck's sake...

I...

I can't...

Last one, folks, and it's a doozy...

"If we came from monkeys [come on, everyone, say it with me!] then[sic] why are there still monkeys?"

Fuck...

You got me.

Oh, wait... no you didn't.

Yeah, it turns out, we're NOT from monkeys. We (humans) are great apes. a line descended from a common ancestor et cetera, et cetera, I know you've stopping paying attention by now, so fuck it.

Those of you who are interested in actual information regarding this subject can read it here.

Or here.

there comes a point where you simply MUST yield to scientific fact in lieu of superstition. Your god is NOT going to descend to Earth and rapture you on the basis  that you've posted more trite religious crap on Facebook than the other members of your cult... er... church. Furthermore, the Earth is FAR older than six millenia. It's been proven. People constantly remind me that "evolution is just a theory," but so are heliocentrism and gravity. Furthermore, if that's the basis of your argument, where, prithee, is your concrete, indisputable evidence to the contrary that you so vehemently present as fact? I'm all for a lively debate. I welcome intellectual discourse, but when your side begins to falter, you simply can not retreat to the bible as the apex of your argument.

This concludes this series... FINALLY!

Creationist Silliness: Salvation

Oh, dear...

Today's question  brings us to one of those typical Christian ripostes that just pisses me off.

"What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?"

My dear butt-chinned, empty-eyed lady:

 Do you truly think that the only reason for your existence is to be saved? To grovel for mercy from some ethereal deity who created you for the sole purpose of worshiping him?

Isn't that dangerously close to idolatry?

If the aforementioned sky wizard is truly all-powerful, why does he need your approval?

Make no mistake about it; worship is indeed approval. it's approval on the grandest of scales. It's tantamount to saying, "Not only are you great, you're so great that I am beneath you."

Some would argue that that's humility. They are what I like to call "wrong."

That's not humility. That's being a sycophant. You're singular purpose for prostrating yourself is to gain an advantage. To get something. You're belittling and denigrating yourself exclusively for divine reward.

To be "saved."

Saved from what? Whom?

You don't need to be saved. Your "mortal soul" (don't even fucking get me started on that phrase) is not in danger. You are not broken. You are not unworthy of  the love of a magical being.

And if such a being were to deem you so (or even exist, for that matter), it would be he that was unworthy of your love. I've seen this kind of devotion before. Only in human-to-human terms, it's more commonly known as the cycle of abuse.

"He punishes me because he loves me. He just wants what's best for me. It's my fault, I shouldn't upset him like that. If I were better, he'd love me more."

These things sound ridiculous to some of us, no? Especially strong, independent women who have been encouraged to break free of the chains of antiquity and convention.

Why would you clap those chains back on?

Why would you, who would not say these things about a man who's physically present in your life, accept them as normal for one who's presence is debatable at best?

If you would not accept that someone who loves you might punch you in the face for displeasing them, why would you accept that someone who loves you might cast you into an eternal pit of damnation and fire for displeasing them?

Wake up.

You don't need salvation. You don't need divine forgiveness. You don't need to grovel and beg for the love of an imaginary being.

Save yourself. Forgive yourself. Love yourself.

You'll find you have a much greater purpose. I can't tell you what that is, though.

You have to find that for yourself.

And you can only do that if you look.

Creationist Silliness: Part Whatever - I've Lost Count

Today's question comes from a lady who (I'm nearly certain) is Gary Busey in drag.

"What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?"

 To be perfectly honest, it's not her appearance that puts me off. It's her use of the word "evidence" as a verb. I understand that it's not technically incorrect, but it's still icky. It's the linguistic equivalent of an adult chewing with his mouth open. It gets the job done, but that doesn't make it less disgusting.

I'm trying to approach this question with some semblance of logic and kind rationale, but I just can't. Every stage of human evolution from the moment our common ancestors stepped out of the sea until now has demonstrated an increase of genetic information. Every adaptation to every environment is an increase of information.

Every. Fucking. Mutation...

Every. Fucking. Evolutionary process...

Is an increase of genetic information.

I know this because I have a rudimentary grasp of biology.


Every mutation; every evolutionary process, is an increase of information. It's either a new piece of information modifying the biology of the organism, or a new piece of information telling the genetic code to skip one or several parts,

Genes don't disappear over time, they're switched off. In order for them to be switched off, more information has to be written into the genetic code. Think of your genetic code as a series of roads or paths. New roads may be built for easier access to more necessary areas (mutation and adaptation). If a road is closed, it doesn't simply disappear; typically, a sign is put up (new piece of information) telling passersby to go around (skip) the road. Sure, there's always the occasional asshole that has to go down that road anyway, but generally, the road is passed by. Over time, perhaps it even becomes overgrown with vegetation. That doesn't mean it's disappeared. It's still there. It's just buried under a whole lot of other shit. You know... an increase of stuff.

I guess the simplest way to answer this question is: "Evolution."

Evolution is the mechanism science has discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information in every mutation or evolutionary process (let's just pretend for a moment that all the florid verbiage is necessary).

You answered your own question by asking it, Mrs. Busey.

You had the answer all along.

You're dismissed.

Creationist Silliness: Part Fourteen (Don't Worry, It's Almost Over)

Today's question comes from a lady who either has one hell of a worried smirk, or doesn't actually believe the nonsense she's scrawled out. I'm hoping for the latter, in which case, well played, troll... well played. I'm going to feed it anyway. It's kind of what I do.

"Because science by definition is a "theory" - not testable, obsevvable [sic], nor repeatable" why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?"

Fuck me gently with a thirty year old textbook!

Science, by definition, is not a theory. It's the process by which we test hypotheses that will either be proven, and subsequently become theories (evolution, the big bang, et al), or fail and be shit-canned as bad fucking ideas with no merit (creationism, intelligent design, etc).

I'm not even certain from where you get the "-not testable, obse[r]vable, nor repeatable" bit. As a matter of fact, by definition, a scientific theory IS testable, observable, and repeatable.

It's exactly the fucking opposite of what you think it is.

And this is why we can't teach our kids properly. They go home, and parents like you tell them exactly the opposite of everything you've sent them to school to fucking learn! YOU'RE SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE GOD DAMNED FOOT! Those kids are going to choose your nursing home. You'd do well to remember that.

That being said, I personally do not object to teaching about (there is a difference) Creationism and / or intelligent design in school. Just not in science class. It doesn't belong there. Teach about (again, emphasis on "about") these things in psychology and sociology, even philosophy classes. That's absolutely legitimate. After all, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, no?

This is why it's perfectly acceptable to teach about bloodletting, home remedies, and divining rods in school, BUT NOT IN MEDICAL SCHOOL.

It's the very same reason we teach about geocentrism, but we don't teach geocentrism. We now know that heliocentrism is the truth. We give pupils the information that the common knowledge used to be that the sun revolves around the Earth, but now we know better.

You know why?

Way back when they were figuring out how best to prepare our kids to take over the reigns as they become adults (believe it or not, this was before the whole No Child Left Behind debacle, which I like to think of much the same way Germans think of the 1930's and 40's - they don't exist), someone came up with the spec-fucking-tacular notion that it might be a great idea to give them comparative examples for growth. I.E. "Everyone makes mistakes, and look at how we learn from them."

You want to teach kids about creationism and intelligent design? Fine. I think that's a swell idea. Just don't teach them that things we can prove to be true are wrong because some bronze-age tribal elder knew better than the scientists who can take him or her by the hand, lead them to a telescope, and pop them up on a stool so they can look directly at the evidence themselves.

Do you realize that you're essentially teaching them not to believe their own eyes?

Teach kids to question, yes. Teach them to think critically, and not accept that what they are being told is true because someone larger with more body hair says so, absolutely. Do not teach them to dismiss scientific facts because the fairytale is easier to grasp. That's wrong, and you're doing them and everyone that will eventually be around them a great disservice.

This is why teachers ought to be paid more. Part of their job is unraveling the clusterfuck of nonsensical shit being crammed into our children's skulls like a sad, aging ex-homecoming queen's cottage cheese ass being shoved into her old cheerleading outfit before they can give them the actual, real information.

It's a messy fucking job.

Creationist Silliness: Part Triskadecasomethingorother.

I don't even know where to start with this fuckwit.

"If Evolution is a theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is Evolution taught as fact." [sic for all of that].

Seriously...

Do I start with the grotesqueness of your lack of (and / or improper) punctuation?

Do I start with the provable assertion that evolution is, in fact, a motherfucking fact?

How about I go for the obvious...

Neither creationism, nor the Bible, are theories.

There, I said it.

Creationism is a hypothesis, and at that, one that's been all but soundly disproved (it's generally accepted that you can't prove a negative. It's as difficult for me to prove there's no god as it is for you to prove I'm not him; but I digress). Sorry, kids, (actually, I'm not. Not even remotely) but the big bang has been proven. That's right, it's an actual thing. Your move, cultists.

The Bible, by stark comparison, isn't even that. It's not a theory. It's not a hypothesis. It's not even an idea. It's a fucking book, and it's not even a good one. It's been edited, translated, rewritten, condensed, abridged, and so drastically mutilated from its original form that I'm reasonably sure none of the original authors (all humans who lived a century or more after the protagonist's death, by the way) would recognize it in its current form. 

That's why neither creationism, nor the Bible are taught as fact.

They aren't factual.

Next fucking question.

Creationist Silliness: The Dirty Dozen

In a wild deviation from the norm, I'm not going to attack today's question with hyperbolic snark an ad hominems.

Yes, you read that right.

The more I stare at this question, the less I feel the need to seethe and be flamboyantly acerbic. I think it's because the young lady pictured doesn't have a vapid, "ignorance is bliss" look in her eye, or a smug "go ahead and answer that one" smirk. She looks like a thirteen year old on a class trip who genuinely wants to know, "does metamorphosis help support evolution?"

As inclined as I am to simply say "Yes. NEXT!" I feel compelled to provide an actual answer. It's as if this child is actually, legitimately seeking information, and it would be calloused and irresponsible not to provide it. After all, isn't that what science is about?

Yes. Metamorphosis does, in fact, help support evolution.

Part of the basis for biological evolution is the ability for a species to adapt and survive. If, for instance, you take butterflies as a crude example; they start out as caterpillars, or larvae (yes, I know they start out as eggs, but that has naught to do with the point of metamorphosis that I'm trying to make here, thank you very much, Bib), before pupating and metamorphosing into butterflies. This increases the likelihood of survival of the species as a whole, because (to put it very simply) an increase in the environments in which an animal can survive exponentially increases that animal's chances of survival. monarch caterpillars (to use a specific example) have a much more limited range than their adult butterfly counterparts. While the larvae are typically limited to the area of a few plants in a field, after metamorphosing into the fully grown monarch butterfly, they migrate...

...Up to six thousand miles...

How's that for broadening your horizons?

Where I feel you may be hung up here, is in assuming that evolution can be studied on what amounts to a microscopic scale, and while the mechanisms are similar, that isn't the case. Evolution isn't changing and adaptation over the course of an animal's lifetime, or even the course of a generation or two. It's a fundamental, biological adaptation of a species over a much more grandiose timescale. Think millennial. It's a very, very, VERY slow process, and while the same mechanisms can be observed on a psychological level (think in terms of seagulls transition from primarily oceanic scavengers to primarily aggressive, boardwalk-dwelling vermin that hunt funnel cake in just the past few decades), actual biological evolution is a process that takes place over several hundred, (or even thousand) generations. It's a macroscopic phenomenon, not a microscopic one (generally).

Metamorphosis can be thought of simply as a much more dramatic form of puberty. All it is is the transition from juvenile of a species to adult of the same species. Girls become women (sometimes), boys become men (on occasion), tadpoles become frogs, and caterpillars become butterflies. And it's all for the same primal purpose:

Sex.

But that's a discussion I'll let your parents handle.

Creationist Silliness: Part Eleventy

I was trying to calm down enough to approach this next question from Buzzfeed's 22 from a reasonable, rational angle (sans snarky sarcasm and sharp vitriol), but fuck it...

"There is no inbetween... [sic] The only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds neccessary [sic] for an "official proof.""

... Only... are you... ...

Right...

Young lady, have you ever been anywhere near something called the internet?

It took me approximately three and a half seconds to find the actual data on Lucy, the FIRST of FUCKING MANY Australopithecus fossils found! Granted, with Lucy in particular, they only found "several hundred pieces, representing about 40 % of the skeleton", but still. A bit more than "a few."

If you don't believe me, here's this link. If you don't like Wikipedia, that's fine, because here's this link, too. National Geographic is fairly well known, by the way, but if you still require yet more evidence, here's this fucking link as well. You might have heard of the Smithsonian; I'm not certain. However, if that's still not enough, here's this motherfucking link, too.

And just to help you out... you know, bring you into our wonderful modern age, here's another great fucking link.

If you can manage to click on that last one (I know you're probably averting your eyes to avoid accidentally beholding my blasphemy in all its hellish glory), you'll see that to date, over three-hundred fifty Australopithecus have been found.

That's 350.

That's at least 349 more than you seem to think were discovered.

By the by...

I don't think it's a wise idea to argue that evolution can't be true because we've discovered what (in your opinion) only amounts to a little bit of evidence. Why? Because "a little bit of evidence" when compared to NO FUCKING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, seems to me to be substantially more.

Pesky things, those facts, huh?

You're fucking dismissed.

Creationist Silliness: X

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH FUCK!

Not this again!

Continuing on with my tedious, particle by particle address to Buzzfeed's 22 Questions... which, for some reason, you people (Yeah, that's right, I said "you people") keep reading, we have this clusterfuck of an attempted posit. If I wrote "[sic]" everywhere it belonged in here, it would take up the rest of the space Google has allocated for this blog, so I'm just going to give you a blanket "[sic]" right here, and you can take it as read wherever it's needed.

"Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial sources?"

Don't look at that question for too long, or your fucking head will explode.

Give me a minute. I need a cigarette after having my eyes dicked with like that.

...

Okay, I'm going to explain this in small terms and hope you understand, but I'd be remiss if I didn't warn you that they will be the right words, and thanks to the awesome power of second-grade English, they'll be spelled correctly.

Where do I even start? I suppose it's worth it to point out that a majority of evolutionists, secularists, humanists, and non-believers actually don't subscribe to the idea of intelligent design via extra-terrestrial creation. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what we DON'T believe. It's Christians, and indeed, theists of all kinds who believe that.

I can sense your looks askance.

You want proof.

Okay.

I'm going to cite a point here brought up my a friend of mine, and I'm going to take you through it in baby steps.

If God / Jehovah / Vishnu / The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not of this Earth (I.E. not physically present and not having originated on this planet), and extra-terrestrials are not of this Earth (see aforementioned), then by definition, your god is an extra-terrestrial. Extra - outside of, or beyond. Terrestrial - of, on, or relating to the Earth.

Apes, plants, rocks, trees, oceans, rivers, mountains, and seas are all terrestrial.

Your sky wizard is not.

And that's your belief, not ours. That's definitively the theist point of view.You're assuming we subscribe to the idea of an off-world creator when we very fucking distinctly declare that we don't.

So what's actually your question?

There seems to be a correlation here between how young you think the Earth is, and the degree to which you abysmally butcher the English language.

why is that?

Do you simply not care?

I genuinely want to know why these people repeatedly choose to slough off opportunities to expand their knowledge.

How can anyone be content with one vague and rudimentary answer to cover all the questions that existing in this universe provokes?

Creationist Silliness: Part Upside-down 6 (because fuck you)

I'm just going to jump right in here:

"I believe in the big bang theory. God said it and BANG it happened!"

Emphasis (and lack of comma) once again, not mine.

I'm not sure what Miss Too-much Face here is trying to get at. What this (ironic quote) question (close ironic quote) really says to me is: "I can't think of a viable question, so I'm going to write down something I saw on a bumper sticker once in 1983 and grin sheepishly."

Jesus H Fuck.

No, cupcake... just no.

I'm not sure if it's my blood boiling, or my sugar dropping, but this stupidity is so overwhelming, I've got the shakes. Hopefully the Goldfish crackers will sort it.

Why is this even included? It's almost as if Buzzfeed is daring us to ridicule this.

Well...

I'm not one ot pass up a dare.

[cracks knuckles]

Alright, sweetheart, listen up: God didn't say anything. The big bang happened without him, just like every other thing that's ever happened in the history of EVER. You'd know that if you'd ever gotten a big bang yourself, but I suspect the only way you'd ever encounter that is by way of some frat house dare. That being said, what you believe is of no consequence. Beliefs do not change facts. Period.

Go away.

Go find your handler, and stop wandering around when adults are trying to talk.

I'm done. You're dismissed.

I know you readers are probably wondering why I'd even address this one instead of skipping it (and if you're not, tough shit, I'm going to tell you anyway).

The simple fact is that this fluffy, Marty Feldman-eyed cat lady completely screwed someone out of a stimulating evening listening to a very logically sound (if not one-sided) debate, and that pisses me off. She obviously wasn't paying attention to anything that was said by either party (let alone her eighth-grade science teacher). She took up space and wasted it.

Instead of being at this debate vapidly looking about the room and blissfully nodding her head every time she heard the "G" word, someone else could have had that ticket and maybe learned something. It was an educational opportunity completely squandered.

Thankfully, the debate was live-streamed.

This does raise a question though, for which I've not yet gotten a satisfactory answer. This is posed at all of you believers:

Aside from the fact that your preacher, pastor, priest, or parent has told you so, WHY do you believe that one single book written by several authoritarian members of a bronze age tribe is the divine word of a creator? Never mind the mysticism, and don't give me that "I feel it in my heart" shit. What is it that makes this explanation the only one your minimally convoluted brain will allow?

Creationist Silliness: Part H8

Well, well, well...

It seems after the great Blogger crash of 2014, I've returned.

Thanks for your patience (I'm assuming you've been patient, because it's easier on my ego than realizing you likely didn't notice the lack of new material). 

I'm still plugging away at Buzzfeed's 22 Questions... because, let's face it, I enjoy it (sort of).

Today's question is the ninth one down, and the eighth I'm answering, since the first one was pointed directly at Mr. The Science Guy, and I am not he. It comes from a young woman who appears to be a hair's breadth away from full-blown anaphylaxis...

Or, she's not-so-secretly a Cabbage Patch doll...

"If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By Chance?"

Well...

Yes.

...technically, but there's just a teensy-weensy bit more to it than that.

You see, Mitzy (or whatever they named you at the factory), science is oodles of fun, and super-neat, but it isn't quite as cut and dry as some other "explanations" for stuff. In other words, things like life, the universe, and everything are a bit too complex to just boil down to a simple "forty-two." That's just an easy way to dismiss the question and move on to more amusing stuff.

Like mauling children with bears for making fun of a bald guy...

This question has already been covered multiple times. 

Seriously.

Over, and over, and over again.

Quite notably, as a matter of fact, by National Geographic (they started out as a much more sciencey publication many, many moons ago) who covered this question FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO!

This isn't a "claim." it's proven data:

"... The probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000 power."

Let me put that into perspective for you:

There is a 

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

...chance that a magical fucking sky genie scooped up some dust, formed it into a dude, then forgot to give that dude something to shove his cock into, put him to sleep, snatched his rib, and made him a playmate.

There are metric fucktons of organisms out there with varying cell counts. You know why?

The fucking Earth has been around for 4,500,000,000 years.

That's billion.

With a "B."

There's we, the homo sapiens sapiens...

My dog, who has far fewer cells, because she's only eight weeks old...

And because she's only eight weeks old, she has tiny turds full of dead parasitic worms with even fewer cells...

who in turn have bacteria in their own gut...

bacteria which, I'm willing to bet, has a better grasp of rudimentary biology than you do.

You're dismissed.

Creationist Silliness: Part Se7en

In my quest to undo the damage caused by ignorami (I don't care if that isn't a word, I'm using it) with internet access (and at the behest of a good friend of mine), I've  been forced to  decided to tackle Buzzfeed's 22 Questions...

Exhausting as this might be, it's a necessary evil.

Today's question comes from yet another dainty-bearded fellow who looks like he's just opened a shop in Colorado and smoked all the inventory.

"Where do you derive objective meaning in life?"

I'd like to point out that the emphasizing underline is his, not mine.

To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not even sure how to answer this; mainly because I don't really understand the question. I mean... dude... do you even science? Scientific study, by its nature, is objective. So, I suppose the answer to that question can be boiled down very succinctly to, "Science."

Then again...

The question is: "Where do you derive objective meaning in life?"

So, I'm confused...

Scientists usually use a laboratory or research facility of some kind, so I suppose that could be the "where."

But enough silliness... I suspect this cheeky, glassy-eyed fellow wants some sort of comparison to that poorly plotted out, edited-beyond-belief, exalted necronomicon-cum-moral guidebook they all seem to fancy.

While it's true that we rational types don't rigidly and blindly follow the Bible, that doesn't mean we have no source from which to derive objective  meaning in our lives. As a matter of fact, now might be a good time to point out that there are actually many, many, seriously fucking MANY books that aren't the Bible.

Many.

And most of them have better story lines, plot twists, and cohesion.

And better moral examples.

Might I recommend Aesop?

I know this might make your brain kind of sting, but one book written by hundreds of people thousands of years ago (and several decades after the death of its main character) is nowhere to derive objective meaning for anything.

It's quite SUBjective, in fact.

Here's where it gets a little complicated...

You can't derive objective meaning in life.

Why?

Because that's no fucking life. That's simply existence. Even if you zip off to your fortress of solitude and ponder the meaning of your own role in the world, by the very nature of what you're doing, you're being subjective about it. You have to.

You want objective meaning?

Objective?

As in "without personal feelings or biases?"

Fine.

Eat, shit, fuck, sleep, repeat.

There's your your objectivity.

Now, if you want meaning... true meaning... well, you have to find that out for yourself.

Everyone's path is different.

Everyone's purpose is different.

If you haven't found yours yet, don't give up.

Keep looking.

Maybe putting the only book you've ever almost read down will help.

Look up once in awhile. take some deep breaths, Ponder. Think without being told what to think.

Let your mind wander.

You're dismissed.

Creationist Silliness: Part Upside-down 9

Continuing with my diatribe on Buzzfeed's 22 Questions, we have this gem, offered up by a woman who looks like she has magic crystals hanging on every sash, curtain rod, and door jamb of her house:

"What about Noetics?"

What about it?

Just because you've given a ridiculous idea a special name, doesn't mean it's no longer a ridiculous idea.

What about excremeditation (deep thought while taking a shit)?

What about sphincto-vegetation-induced epiphanies (the realization that maybe you shouldn't stick a bell pepper in your asshole while you have a bell pepper stuck in your asshole)?

See?

Fancy names don't give things merit. Quantifiable data does.

There is merit to the idea that you can change the course of your own life via changing your own thought process, but that has everything to do with the nature of positive actions following positive thoughts and producing positive results. The same can be seen in a negative loop. That's just basic psychology and willpower, and it has nothing to do with telekinesis.

You cannot affect the physical properties of actual things by thought alone.

You can "think you can" like the little engine that could all you like - and you can be right - and sometimes wrong, but c'est la vie, no?

What you can't do, is think something to be true, and have it become true because you thought about it hard enough.

That's why they (never mind who they are, we all know they're experts) say "wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills faster."

That's called magical thinking.

I believe children are able to overcome this mental deficiency at about three. You might as well be insisting that something isn't there because you can't see it.

But isn't that basically what young Earth creationists are known for anyway?

Things don't appear because you want them to, and they don't disappear if you choose to ignore them.

Don't believe me?

Take a long walk off a short cliff, but before you get to the end, wish really hard that the edge would extend under your feet, and see what happens.

Let me know how that works out for you.

You're dismissed.

Creationist Silliness: Part Cinco

Continuing with my 21 pat series on Buzzfeed's 22 Questions, much to your chagrin and mine (seriously, what the fuck did I get myself into?), we have the following tired old rhetoric:

"If the big bang theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theory?"

They don't.

You just don't understand the big bang theory, evolution, or the laws of thermodynamics. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to wager you don't understand the words "true," or "science" either.

I initially found it amusing that this person chose not to include themself in the photo, but after waking from my facepalm-induced nap, I can understand.

Shame.

Obviously, whomever scrawled this ridiculous question (for the 3,141,592th time) already knows it's bullshit.

You're a troll, aren't you?

Certainly, you must realize that the laws of thermodynamics do NOT debunk the big bang theory or evolution, right?

RIGHT!?

Fuck this question.

Fuck it right in its squeaky clean balloon knot.

With something sharp.

If you really want to know the answer to the question you're trying desperately to pretend to ask, see my earlier post on this same slimy turd of a question.

That's right, some other dainty-bearded douche already beat you to it.

You're dismissed.

Creationist Silliness: Part IV

If you've made it this far into my slow, tedious series answering Buzzfeed's 22 Questions... congratulations! You're to be commended on your iron constitution.

Today's question comes from what might just be Fox's new anchor woman.

"How do you explain the sunset if their (sic) is no God?"

Oh. My. Fuck.

Really?

REALLY!?

Okay, listen up, future-ex-mrs.-O'Reilly, there's a well known (though apparently not as well-known as I'd hoped) concept called heliocentrism. We've known about it since Galileo, but folks weren't too keen on it back then.

It describes the Earth's orbit around the sun (Stay with me; I know this is making the air in your head whoosh around a bit).

Since the Earth is a solid object through which light cannot pass, about half of it gets sunshine (barring a cloudy or overcast day) while the other half goes night-night.

As the Earth (that's the rather large, spherical rock on which you amble about spreading the horror of ignoring the use of the proper "there") rotates on its (that's another homophone, don't let it trip you up, cupcake) axis, the area upon which the sun shines changes.

Still with me?

Okay, here's where it gets a little confusing.

The sun is always shining. It doesn't go out, or switch off. It's actually not even shining, so much as in a state of constant fusion and on fire, but that's another lesson altogether. It's the Earth (remember that planet thingy you're standing on?) That actually both spins on its axis, and circumnavigates (that's fancy talk for "follows a set, predictable path around") the sun.

Now, since your blessed little house with all its cats (because let's be honest, you have a dozen, don't you?) Doesn't circumnavigate the big planet thingy in the direction opposite the one in which the big planet thingy circumnavigates the sun (that's the big, bright, fiery thingy in the sky during the day), it appears that the sun is setting when it's time for you to rest your weary head.

In fact, the sun is not setting at all. It is moving on an elliptical path of its own, but thanks to gravity (another theory with which I'm certain you're unfamiliar), our big planet thingy keeps near enough to the big fiery thingy to be warm enough to sustain life without being cold enough to destroy it (with the exception of some parts of New Jersey, apparently)

For sunrise, just try to understand that since the big planet thingy continues to spin (because it doesn't stop), and it's a sphere (think of a circle, but three-dimensional, and solid), the big fiery thingy appears to come back up on the other side of your cat-infested hut.

You know what?

Fuck it.

Just pray to it, and don't have any children.

You're dismissed with a condescending pat on the head.

Creationist Silliness; Part drei

Continuing with my answers to Buzzfeed's 22 Questions... we have the following posit, which boils my blood every fucking time. I mean, it really steams me.

"Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?"

Yes, it does not.

Or, more succinctly, no.

The second law of thermodynamics details the flow of entropy with regard to a closed, isolated system in a non-gravitational environment.

In other words, if you were ejected into space (which, incidentally, might be a splendid idea for many people), you would not evolve.

One thing it certainly does NOT do, is disprove evolution. If you think it does, you have no idea how either evolution, or thermodynamics work.

"But if thermodynamics mandate that systems break down, how come evolution? Science that!" You say?

Have you ever fucking seen an old person?

Our bodies break down.

In part, due to biology. In part, due to environment. In part, due to physics (and yes, even thermodynamics).

Not, however, solely because of the second law.

Unless you're willing to agree that God can't exist, because light can't escape the event horizon of a black hole, don't try to assert that science disproves science because of science, even though sometimes it does.

Just shut your facehole.

Dismissed.

Creationist Silliness: Part Deux

So, I'm tackling Buzzfeed's 22 Questions by Creationists, a list of questions that people actually took the time to write down, and had the audacity to be photographed with, that can be seen here (of you've got the stomach for it).

I've already skipped the first one, because it was pointed directly at Mr. The Science Guy, and answered the second yesterday. Scroll up, or use your supernatural powers of deduction to find yesterday's post.

Today's question comes from a dainty-bearded fellow who looks like he's had one too many paint chips for breakfast:

"Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature? I.E. trees created with rings, Adam as an adult..."

Yes.

Oh, you need further clarification?

Okay, fine.

I understand if biology isn't your thing (personally, I only passed with a B-), but some things are very basic.

There are processes of maturation for living things, and the process is different for each type of living thing. Even related members of the same species don't mature at the same rate. Rings in trees are a result of seasonal change, and available nutrients in the soil from one growing season to the next. Physical maturity in human adults is a combination of genetics and environment as well (mental maturity is, too, but it's sometimes noticeably absent, especially in human males).

If your position is that there's a logical possibility for mature creation, you must then explain the logic behind procreation and development. Often, theists purport that a divine creator is a simple, logical explanation for the origin of the universe (citing Occam's razor). However, that argument falls apart like a leper with epilepsy when you are then faced with the task of logically explaining the development of maturity over time.

It makes no sense, nor is it even remotely logical or simple to assert that a long-bearded mystic in the clouds created everything in a mature state, then went back and reverse engineered it all so that beings could create copies of themselves in a lesser state of development. If your God is perfect, why the need for correction and reverse engineering?

A claim that it's logically possible for a sky genie to create everything in a mature state so that all those things could mix and mingle and procreate other things (all to give him glory) is ridiculous. Especially when you consider that logically, having to nurture and care for your young takes oodles of time away from your ability to stroke this needy divine wizard's perfect ego.

Seriously.

Fucking oodles.

In other words...

You, sir, are dismissed.

Creationist Silliness, Part 1

A friend of mine asked me very specifically to tackle this issue, and I've no intention of disappointing him.

Also: it's pretty fucking important.

A Buzzfeed writer asked self-identifying creationists to pen questions to Bill Nye following his debate with the bewilderingly daft Ken Hamm, and posted twenty-two of their questions. They can be seen here.

I'll not answer the first one, because it's explicitly aimed at the science guy. I'll start with number two.

This will be a twenty-one part series.

"Are you afraid of a divine creator?"

No.

Notwithstanding the fact that such an archaic magical being doesn't fucking exist, I am not afraid of a divine creator.

Nor should you be.

Why?

Quite simply: a divine creator (let's assume a loving, nurturing father-figure type, like the new testament, not a raging alcoholic who punches sad, wobbly-eyed baby bunnies like in the old testament) would want to see his creations (children) grow and improve. Perhaps even beyond his control. One fundamental guiding principal of procreation is the natural drive for improvement and sustainability, both on a mental and genetic level.

Why should anyone fear their progenitor?

I've learned quite a few things in my years, and one that I've learned very well the hard way is this:

Fear is NOT love.

If our sky-daddy exists, and wants love, then by fearing him, we're insulting him, and not loving him.

You, madam, are dismissed.