Fish Story

According to Christians, god flooded the Earth 4,359 years ago, destroying every living thing on Earth save for two of every species, Noah, and his family. This means that, according do the sole source that Christians rely on for their theory of human origin, Noah's three sons, and their three wives repopulated the Earth to the tune of ~7 Billion people in just under four and a half millenia. That's BILLION... with a "B."

Does anyone else see a problem here?

Let's break it down, shall we?

So far, we've got eight people... 8... as the entire population of the Earth in 2348 BCE (for those unaware, BCE is "Before Common Era"). We've got a lineage on Noah's sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, but no indication Noah had any more children. Let's go ahead and assume he didn't, given the unlikelihood of someone living six centuries, let alone being able to get it up at that age (hell, most octogenarians even need a little blue boost). I think that's fair.

Okay, so Noah had Ham, Shem, Japheth, and their three wives to start the world population again, and get it to ~7 BILLION people in a matter of 4,359 years. Japheth had 7 sons (again, no mention of daughters), Ham had 4, Including Canaan (whom many Christians claim was cursed and is therefore the origin of black people), but again, no gals, and Shem had 5 vaginaless offspring. this brings our total for one generation to 24. That's the original 8 of Noah's family, and 7+4+5 (16) grandkids. A generation is generally accepted as 25 to 30 years, but for the sake of ease (and to give Christians yet another edge in the argument) let's assume the shorter of the two - 25 years. the quick and dirty math suggests that two people can, in the course of 25 years, bring their number up to 24. That's a dozen people for every one original. By this extrapolation, Noah's kids could each add 11 to the pot - a total of 33 additional hominids that we add to the 24 for 57.

But wait... let's give the Christians an even bigger edge, and assume their biblical account to be true.

If we do that, we get 3 boys from Gomer, and 4 "offspring" from Javan (both sons of Japheth). Japheth's other sons had no kids of note, so that means Big J only had 7 grandkids. How he got those grandkids, I don't even want to think about, because the only logical conclusion you can draw from the biblical account is that Japheth's kids were tapping his wife and sisters-in-law. Ew. Regardless, that brings our total people count from the 1st generation of 24 to 31 so far in the second generation. Ham... oh, poor Ham. 3 out of Ham's 4 kids gave him grandbabies. Again, let's not think about how. We don't want to offend Christians by pointing out the obvious need for incest in their story. Cush had 6 boys, Mizraim had 7 "offspring" which I'll accept as girls so we can start to try to get away from the incest... oh, shit, we can't. Oh well. Anyway, Canaan was a very busy little fella and had 11 kids, 2 sons, and 9 offspring. Are you keeping track? Let's add those 24 to our tally and we've got 55 - 24 from the first generation, and 31 so far from the second. Now we come to Noah's youngest, Shem. One of Shem's kids gave him 4 boys. That's it. They weren't very busy at all. Slap those 4 onto our running tally of 55, and we've got a whopping total of 59. Almost 60 people in the course of two generations, or 50 years. This does not look good. It does, however, give a two person advantage to the bible... but we're not done with the math yet!

50 years has gone by! GET BUSY, PEOPLE! IT'S TIME TO BE FRUITFUL AND FUCKING MULTIPLY! It's already 2298 BCE, we've got about 3,000 years to get up to ~7 Billion! Two generations - 50 years - has gone by, and we've only gone from a world population of 8 to 59. We've only added 51. One person per year. I'll grant you, this is originating from two, so it's pretty good, let's see how it pans out. I'll tell you what... let's forget gender altogether and assume that out of the 59 people we now have on Earth, we have 25 even couples. Why 25? because Noah and his wife are dead by now, and Japheth, Ham, and Shem's peckers have withered (It's been 25 years, and we're assuming the bible is true, therefore, no more kids, right)? So 25 couples, or 50 people, reproducing at the given rate of 11 per couple per generation will give us 275 after the the first generation. Subtract the original 50 people (because Viagra hasn't been invented yet), and we have 225 viable reproducing people for the next generation, if we throw in an extra one (let's assume someone had twins) that brings us to 113 couples reproducing at the same 11 kids per couple per generation rate. at the end of four generations - a hundred years - we have 1,243 people. Now, Christians, I know at this point you start getting excited. I mean, it DOES look possible. Except for one thing. We can't exponentially increase on people.

Nope.

The original 59 are dead by now. That brings us to 1,184.

The last generation of 225 people can no longer reproduce. That gives us 959.

It's now 2248 BCE. Time is ticking away.

960 people (again, let's assume someone had twins) gives us 480 couples, which at the end of the next generation gives us a total of 6,239 people (5,280 new ones and 959 old ones).

It's now 2198 BCE.

If things go on like this, and we ignore the other extinction level events in the bible, it might be possible. If there actually was an equal amount of women to men... and stillbirths and defects didn't happen... if birth didn't kill so many mothers in premedicinal times. You could reach 7 Billion in a few thousand years. If it weren't for these and other things, like Sodom and Gomorrah, Countless civil wars all over the globe, World War I, World War II, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, Serbia, Bosnia, Lebanon, Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, The First Gulf war, Afghanistan, Iraq (Again), and too many genocides to count.

You see, Creationists, your logic can work... if the world actually knew peace... which it doesn't.

Oh, and incidentally, you need women to reproduce. Sorry, guys, that's just science.

Homosexuality is Evidence for Fucking Evolution.

That got your attention, huh?

Here's the thing: Homosexuality actually is necessary from an evolutionary perspective.

How, you ask?

Survival of the species.

From a perfectly natural, scientific stand point, the FACT (yes, I'm using that word on purpose) that some people (and even some animals) are born gay is a matter of genetics, and biological imperative. It really is that simple, and there isn't a fucking thing wrong with it. Pun completely intended.

I know there will be people that blink angrily at the very notion that as a straight man, I'm talking about homosexuality, but hear me out. I'm not claiming to know what it's like to be a gay man or a lesbian in today's bigoted society, and I'm not claiming to know firsthand of the atrocities and prejudices they all face. In fact, I acknowledge the opposite. I'm speaking from a scientific and evolutionary angle.

So here's the thing: A great many Christians like to point out what they perceive as a fact that homosexuality disproves evolution because it dead ends survival of the species. (Cue obnoxious game show buzzer sound).

Wrong.

In reality, it actually proves survival of the species. Homosexuality is the most natural form of population control there is. Overcrowding will choke out the species - any species. It's that simple. I know, Christians, I know... "If evolution makes people gay, why isn't everybody a fag, then, huh Mr. Smartypants!?"

Simmer the fuck down.

I didn't say evolution makes people gay, I said homosexuality is a result of evolution and biological imperative. Survival of the species does demand that animals reproduce, but that isn't the only thing necessary for survival. Food, water, shelter, and space are also all necessary. This is why some of the population is born homosexual, and some are born heterosexual. Evolution is a series of genetic variants. if it weren't for these variants, we'd all still be one-celled organisms.

Make no mistake: Survival of the fittest, and survival of the species are two different (yet obviously linked) things. One, survival of the species, is the idea that from the point of biological imperative, members of a given species will act in such a way as to ensure the survival of the entire group. This is evidence that morality and altruism are in fact byproducts of evolution, and we don't need a magical tome to tell us what to do and not to. The other, survival of the fittest, is a matter of natural selection as well as an explanation of who eats who and why. This is the one with which Christians like to try to disprove evolution.

The ultimate point here, and one that science has backed up, is that it really doesn't matter who you as an individual fuck. What matters is that enough of the population of a given species fucks in such a way as to keep the species going. The laws of nature are not bigoted, and as a result, everyone is given an equal opportunity to fuck whomever they wish, it's just that some of that fucking will not result in progeny. It really is just a matter of evolution and survival of the species.

More Questions Than Answers.

Will someone PLEASE explain this to me? Please?
I ask for reasons, and this is what I get:

I believe in an intelligent designer through evidence; believe this designer is revealed in the Bible for many profound reasons. However a skeptical mind will never accept the Bible but taking that view would also make them a poor scientist; one not to be trusted! I believe in God for many reasons. Some... I believe there is proof of God in his creation, I believe there is proof of God from the Bible because of prophecies foretold; which have come  to pass; the way it is written is definitely not from the mind of man. To believe the latter takes reading & study; but a closed skeptical mind will never find truth.

 The perpetrator of this astonishingly myopic tripe also purports there is "scientific proof of a biblical god."

Where? I want to see it. If you have such proof, isn't it your duty as a christian to come forth and share it? Are you telling me that you have evidence that will change the world as we know it, but you're not willing to share it? And you're going to call me selfish and arrogant? Really?!

 If you want to believe in god, go ahead. I can't stop you. You have a right to believe what you wish. If you are a practicing scientist (this person is), and you deny scientific fact, you are in the wrong field, and you are turning back the clock on humanity's progress... unless, of course you have scientific evidence of god, in which case, you need to share that shit. If you've discovered scientific evidence of a biblical god, wouldn't all the amazing rewards humanity would bestow upon you for such a profound discovery be further proof of his blessing?

Holy Shit!

As a courtesy, I left the entire run of babble up there uninterrupted, but now it's time for a break down:

 I believe in an intelligent designer through evidence;

 What evidence? Show me this evidence. Where is it? Don't say "The Bible is evidence" because it isn't. It's one book. It's a single text that has been edited more times than the script for the pilot episode of "Soul Man."

  believe this designer is revealed in the Bible for many profound reasons. 

 What are your reasons, and why are they profound?

However a skeptical mind will never accept the Bible but taking that view would also make them a poor scientist;

What?

one not to be trusted!

 WHAT?!

I believe in God for many reasons. Some... I believe there is proof of God in his creation, I believe there is proof of God from the Bible because of prophecies foretold; which have come  to pass; the way it is written is definitely not from the mind of man. To believe the latter takes reading & study; but a closed skeptical mind will never find truth.

 So to sum up, you believe in god because you believe in god and furthermore, you believe in god because you do. Really. Seriously, dude, that's what you just said, but with a lot more unnecessary words. As far as your position that a "closed skeptical mind will never find truth." Um... Not so. A skeptical mind searches for truth. A Cynical mind may not. Moreover, you silly little man, if you are insisting that your god is truth, and no one will dissuade you regardless of how much evidence they shovel on top of your head, and you continue to point exclusively to your magic tome for answers AND NO OTHER TEXTS OF ANY KIND, who is it that's being close-minded? 

 Ladies and gentlemen, I've said this at least a few hundred times. You can NOT wave one book around, cherry pick parts of it you feel apply to your current argument, and declare it as divine truth. There is no such thing as divine truth, and when you're satisfied with accepting magic as fact, you close way more doors than you open. If you have evidence, present it. Hell, I'm not even using the old "get it peer reviewed" line on you (though, it does apply). I'm just saying present your evidence. ANY evidence. 

Rise of the Planet of the Dust People (Questions 3 and 4 of 21)

 Awhile ago, I set out to answer these 21 questions that "stupid scientists can't answer." It's been pointed out to me that this video was in jest... a trolling attempt. Nonetheless, I've found, much to my chagrin, that there are people who actually believe this shit. So, I will continue my evil, hedonistic, blasphemous plan to burst the bubbles of the ignorami (my preferred pluralization of the word "ignoramus") world-wide... or at least in my immediate vicinity. Again, these questions are copied and pasted from the video without alteration (in other words, I didn't even correct spelling errors in the questions. I did that on purpose, because I'm an asshole).

 Question 3: "Have you ever seen a mountain form?"

 No one has. Unless you count those childhood science class experiments with growing crystals, and even that is only a tool for showing the science behind the evidence. That's right, I said "science" and "evidence." It's the study of things... the deliberate seeking out of knowledge in order to explain things we don't quite understand, rather than throw our hands in the air and say "Sky wizard musta done it..." that enables us to better grasp the world around us. Mountains formed over millenia, not overnight, and not over a few meager decades. Don't level this question at us non believers unless you're prepared to answer one of equal caliber: Have you ever seen a human formed from dust?

 Question 4: "Why doesn't new life show up in a jar of peanut butter?"

 I've actually had people ask me this question in this exact phrasing. It always amazes me, and I love rebutting this one. After I collect my bottom jaw from the ground, I typically issue my regular answer. Preservatives and an airtight environment. Period. If the Earth were sealed in an airtight container, and injected with chemicals deliberately engineered to inhibit life, life wouldn't show up here either. It's actually a very simple answer. That being said, given enough time, and a slight modification of the conditions (and I mean only slight) life could in fact show up in a jar of peanut butter. Very easily. All you have to do is leave the lid off, and let it sit in the vast expanse of the world around it. If it isn't eaten, life will be along relatively shortly. It might even be as simple as a fly that deposits bacteria when it lands on the rim. That's all it takes. Now picture that the jar of peanut butter, with its modified conditions (the lid being opened) is Earth, and the fly (with its bacteria-laden legs) is an asteroid. When the two meet, viola! you've introduced life to an environment that can sustain it.

 This isn't a very difficult concept to grasp. What is difficult to grasp is that some magical sky ghost scooped up a bunch of dust (that, by the way, he created a couple days before) and molded it into a living, breathing organism, or that he then took a bone (where the fuck he got the bone, I don't know, because I don't recall anything about him changing the physical properties of dust) out of that man and created its counterpart. That, to me, is a little far fetched. There's no way that you can get six BILLION people with such a variety of traits from two completely homogeneous, white dust people in the course of six millenia. Especially when you take into account that your cloud wizard smote the entirety of mankind (according to the fairy tale) and started from scratch because we weren't doing it right. Sorry, kids, but that sounds a lot to me like pissing on a chalk drawing because someone else put a mark on it.

Challenge Accepted... (Questions 1 & 2 of 21).

 Okay, so the first question asked by this science doubting buffoon is:

"Why are planets round?"

 Here's the thing: The planets are round for a variety of reasons, all of them scientifically provable. Over billions of years of formation, accretion, gravity, and centripetal force have resulted in an inherent roundness of planets, stars, and other cosmic bodies. Not because god's hands are perfectly round, and smooth since he doesn't actually do anything, (or exist) but because it is a simple and fundamental law of physics. Gravitational pull keeps the planets in position and orbit - both the gravity of the planet itself, and its surrounding moons (if any) also bear part of the responsibility of keeping a given planet in check and spinning properly. This spin, when compounded by the planet's natural gravitational field, gives the astral body its iconic roundness. The sheer size of the planet is also a factor, but in general, the gravitational pull of the planet's centre, as well as its surrounding bodies in conjunction with its spin and geological properties, as well as a host of other physical factors all keep the planet "round." If you want evidence to gravity's part in this cosmic dance, all you have to do is notice the tides on our own planet. High and low tides are a result of the moon's gravitational pull on the planet, and actually make it more oblong than truly "round," since the vastness of Earth's oceans ebbs and flows with direct correlation to the moon's proximity to a given area of the Earth at any particular time.

Next.

"Go to the zoo and tell me, why doesn't a chimpanze give birth to a man?"

 Because Chimpanzees (there ARE two Es in that word, by the way) are not men.
Next question.
What, you want more?
Okay, fine.

 Chimpanzees, while also classified as greater primates, are not humans. Humans belong to the species Homo Sapiens, while chimpanzees are Simia troglodtyes. Humans are, therefore, a different species that are closely related to, without being, chimpanzees. They are in the same family, Hominidae, but not of the same species. Put succinctly, we are two separate offshoots of the same evolutionary master strain.

 Let me put it in terms you might understand better: Your devil, according to the greatest lie ever told, was once an angel. He technically still is an angel, just a different variant of one, as are all of his accomplices, now labelled as demons. So while his ancestry is the same as that of the angel Gabriel or Micheal in your fairy tales, he is also not of the exact same makeup. He is also different. To put it even more simplistically, a house cat does not fuck a tiger, or give birth to a lion because while they are all cats, they are different variants, or species, of the same family, Felidae.

 I don't even have to go to the zoo as you suggest to tell you this, although perhaps by throwing you into the gorilla habitat (also family: Hominidae, incidentally) you might understand the concept of close relation without exact duplication.

 This is all basic, elementary school science. it isn't magic. These are things that we now have an understanding of, whereas our ancestors didn't. While they may have needed a fantastic sky ghost to explain things they didn't understand, we do not. We know now that the Earth revolves around the sun, a star that is one of several billion in the galaxy, which is also one of several billion.

 It is pure arrogance to think that an omnipresent, omniscient being decided to create what equates to a few atoms on a grain of sand lying on an entire beach full of similar grains just to worship him and give him praise of their own free will or suffer eternal damnation at his hands even though he loves us so dearly.

Challenge Accepted.

 Over the next several weeks, I will be tackling "questions" put forth by a youtube user on his / her video "21 Facts Evolutionists Can't Answer."The video will make people who are capable of thought scream with rage. It is tedious, dangerous, and at times, simply infuriating with its deep right wing, ill (or non) educated bullshit and hyperbole. So why am I doing this? For the same reason I do most things. Education. I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that education is the key to progress, and by answe ring these questions thoroughly, I truly hope to dispel all of the myths about we evil, godless atheists, and demonstrate what cold hard fact, experimentation, study, research, and science can accomplish in so much as true peace and progress. Also, I do for the same reason anybody does anything. For the lols.

 A few key points:

I will present the "questions" as they are written in the video. Completely unaltered.
I will present my answers with references to verifiable data as well as off color jokes.
I will have fun at the expense of the uploader, and quite possibly also at the expense of fundamentalist creationists.

This blog is in part to educate, but admittedly also in part to amuse both myself and hopefully others, so I will not be taking this on from the exclusive angle of a dry, mirthless argument.

This series will offend some of you, but I truly hope that it instead opens your eyes, For others, it will provide catharsis, and chuckles. This is your only warning.