Monthly Archives: November 2007

A Sad and Empty Place

Posted on by

Hot on the heels of the bizarre weirdness that it Kent Hovind’s “Knee-mails” to the mythical, I found a website which appears to try and parody the always entertaining Fundies Say the Darndest Things site (FSTDT). This site with the oh so funny title “Atheists Say the Weirdest Crap (ASTWC)” (very droll) is entertaining on many levels – although not, I suspect, in the manner its creator intended.

For those who haven’t visited FSTDT, have a look. It is a hilarious insight into the twisted things which rattle around inside the heads of fundamentalist theists (not just fundies either it includes a generous helping of racists and other idiots). There are hundreds of pages, each full with idiotic outpourings written by people who often have little or no understanding of the holy book they are claiming is the TRUTH.

Pitched against that, we now have the ASTWC. This has the sum total of six (count ’em) quotes. Four of them come from Richard Dawkins. There appears to be a forum with some posts (and a section titled: “Politics No liberals allowed”) but every time I try to view them, my connection times out. Obviously the internet has some level of taste after all. Because ASTWC is so, frankly, small, I am more than willing to fisk the whole “quotes” page. What is really funny is not the atheistic quotes he tries to ridicule, but how the site owner tries to ridicule them. It will have you laughing for minutes.

In the hate section, titled “The obvious silliness from Richard Dawkins” we get:

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” [It actually teaches us the opposite of that, as anyone with working synapses can explain]

Blimey. Pure, 100% school ground retort. No evidence or proof of his claims, so he resorts to an assertion and an ad hominem. Brilliant way of supporting an argument. If you are under 10 years old.

“What has ‘theology’ ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has ‘theology’ ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?” [The Word of God, the story of the crucifixion, and the fact that it is.]

Straight from the department of not understanding the quote you are arguing against. The “Word of God” is meaningless and could easily be argued as already falsified by biblical inconsistencies, transcription errors and the need for human interpretation. The story of the crucifixion falls squarely in the not of the smallest use to anybody and “the fact that it is” is childish nonsense. I am now reasonably sure that ASTWC is written by a 9 year old.

“Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility.” [Included for the sheer hypocrisy.]

Pointless. What is hypocritical about it?

“I’m not sure this conversation can go any further.” [Rallying cry of the defeated atheist.]

A return to the school playground. Theists use this just as much. Anyway, that is pretty much the limit of the “weird crap” he (or she, but I think he) can accuse Dawkins of saying. Interesting considering how much Dawkins has said, but we now move on to the attack on FSTDT. This produces the longest bit of continual writing on the site:

FSTDT is one of the most truly disturbing websites I have ever seen on the internet. Please don’t visit unless you want to be mocked, ridiculed, and persecuted just because you are a moral person with faith.

“Guess we’re more popular than jesus” – malicious_bloke [Guess you don’t remember what happened to the last guy that said that. Or that Jesus is capitalized. I imagine there is a great deal that you don’t remember, or else never knew in the first place.]

I suspect that the ASTWC author really doesn’t get FSTDT. I am a bit confused here though. What did happen to the last guy who said he was more popular than Jesus? I know loads of people who have said it in the last (say) six years and I can’t think of anything particularly bad which happened to any of them. What is he talking about here? As for the capitalisation bite, well that is just lame. We could allow this to descend into a long argument about internet vs Internet, but that would be equally lame. Suffice it to say, if his strongest argument is the lack of a J at the start of Jeebus’ name he has no argument at all.

Finally, the ASTWC idiocy ends with this priceless gem:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Steven Roberts [Nice cop-out, there Steve. Unfortunately, comparing the God of Abraham to, say, Shiva, is comparing apples to false gods. So you’re not excused.]

Wow. I am going to chortle about this all day. I was going to write a bit more about this, but I have just discovered that FSTDT has already picked up on this line of nonsense, so I will leave it to them to pull this to shreds. The idiocy in the statement is amazing – sadly it also speaks of someone who will never actually understand why they are an idiot.

Painfully Weird

Posted on by

Mooching around the internet today allowed me to stumble upon a site I’ve visited in the past but largely had forgotten about – despite the fact it reaches a new level of bizarreness. The site is CSE Blogs, for those of you who (like me) wondered what CSE stood for, it isn’t “Combined Services Entertainment” or even the “Centre for Sustainable Energy.” No, it stands for the complete headcase Creation Science Evangelism promoted by “dr” Tax-Dodger Hovind. Surely some one can sue the creation “science” nuts over the use of CSE?

Anyway, as I said, this is a painfully weird site. The posts seem to be made by a lackey of Hovind called “pabramson” (which seems to be missing a “h” in my mind but …) and are largely examples of weird imagined conversations between Hovind and various mythical figures. When I say weird, I don’t mean in the nice, funny sort of way. While the larger part of me assumes that Hovind and his lackeys all know it is a load of crap, there is a little bit which is screaming that the gullible rubes visiting the site and leaving gushing comments (example follows) actually believe the nonsense. Now that is scary.

Thank you Brother Kent, and Brother Paul, Brother Eric, and everyone else at CSE. I needed this today! I have my own ministry and I speak about Creation, evolution, and share the salvation plan with everyone who will listen, and I have never been backed down or proven wrong. (from Micheal Deas)

Great isn’t it. I suspect the reason he has never “been backed down or proven wrong” is mostly down to the fact he preaches to other idiots.

The main thing I find weird about this site, is the sheer volume of Knee-Mail posts. First off, the play on words is one which would embarrass a mildly educated ten year old after a while (which could explain why these lunatics nice people are still getting kicks from it) but each and every one seems to think it is a brand new and funny way to open a “sermon.” That, in effect, is all the posts are – a sad attempt by a criminal to try and preach to the public over the internet in the style of some one in an electronic conversation with a mythical figure.

Take the latest one, the one I came across first, which presents itself as a conversation between “Kent and the Captain.” This is how it begins (note the attempt to recreate an e-mail header at the start, how funny…)

From: Kent Hovind
Sent: August 17, 2007
To: Captain of Ship to Italy with Passenger, the Apostle Paul
Subject: Re: Discussions on the Wisdom of Sailing Against the Advice of the Prisoner Paul and the “Preserved Word” from which He Preaches
(Read Acts 27:6-44)

KH: Hey Captain! I hate to bother you at this busy time, but can you talk for a minute (between verses 11 and 12)?

Captain: Sure, knee-mail suspends time; so it won’t effect me at all.

KH: I understand that you own the ship that is headed to Italy.

Like I said, it is weird but I will try to identify all the things which I think are odd – please feel free to correct me if you think I am missing the point…

First off, it was posted on 19 Nov 07. Why does the faux-header say 17 August? Is that when Kent sent the message out of prison? Does “knee-mail” suspend time but take three months to get anywhere? More importantly, why is the Captain of the ship carrying the supposed Apostle Paul getting a message in 2007? Are creationists unable to maintain a coherent line of fantasy? (Oh, yeah, scratch that one…)

I am bit thrown by the reference to “between verses 11 and 12,” when Kent then goes on to make references to verses after Acts 27:12. Having said that, Acts is a bit of a mixmash anyway – trying to read the verses in chronological (or any logical) order is like hammering a nail into granite with your forehead. For example look at the flow between Acts 27:34 – 38: (this is after they had apparently been starving for 14 days)

34: Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
35: And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.
36: Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat.
37: And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.
38: And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea. (source Biblos.com, KJ version)

That is one of the more readable sections, yet it still manages to insert a seemingly out of place head count and have some drivel about baldness. (Also, as they are starving, not having eaten for 14 days Acts 27:33, why did they throw their wheat into the sea – in fact, as they obviously had bread, meat and wheat, why had they starved themselves for 14 days!)

From this bit of biblical madness it becomes a touch easier to see where Hovind gets his writing style from. The thing I can’t understand is why is he being allowed to carry on doing this? Surely there are some regulations on what inmates can and can’t do with regards to contact with the outside world?

Great irony can be found in the comments, especially where Paul Abramson is talking about people writing to Kent in jail (to lift his spirits etc) and he writes:

Do not put “Dr.” on his name, or it may get thrown away by the guards, unfortunately.

Oh, how that made me giggle.

Less funny, although giving a better insight into the minds of the creationist, is the reaction to Dermot’s comment. Basically Dermot writes creationism is not scientific, so Paul Abramson cuts him off (yet doesn’t delete the post, just slices it) to say they are not going to talk about creationism, then talks about creationism. Weird but true.

I like this bit in particular:

For a *believer* then creation is non-negotiable. Either the Bible is true (including Exodus 20:11) or it is not true. Either God is strong or weak. One cannot have both. That is what makes this non-negotiable – for believers.

The God of the Bible is strong. The god of evolution is weak and bumbling or is non-existent. It is incoherent to try to mix evolution with Christianity, I would contend.

Great, isn’t it. Just like six year olds in a play ground arguing whose father is the toughest. I am starting to get an idea of the mental age of these creationists…

Edit to add: Seriously, if this was anyone else, or if it wasn’t supposed to be a hommage to the great sky pixie, people would have put Kent in a padded cell and be force feeding him all manner of chemicals. The man is either a callous con artist or criminally insane. You chose which. 

Junior High

Posted on by

Hat tip to Gullibity blog for a link to a site that tests the reading age that your blog is aimed at.

So…when I did this blog readability test I was surprised at it’s assessment of the reading level needed to make sense of what I was writing. The widget says you are at Genius level if you read Gullibility – WOW!. Just a note, I would have posted the icon but it comes with an un-announced advertising link. The other thing that comes to mind is whether that means the Gullibility readership are Genii or Geniuses…but what the heck, being a Genius you’ll know anyway! (quoted from Gullibility blog)

Well, I got slightly on the self-critical defensive on reading this. I want to write clearly. I think I change my wordy blogdrivel into plain English, on the second pass, but I have to admit that a fair amount of the blog evidence contradicts the success of this venture.

But, I can take it. I’ll run the blog through the reading age thing and learn from it.

Junior High level?

Well that sounds good in terms of the readability objective, but this puts me slightly on a new para about maybe having very banal content.

(Not a hundred per cent sure what this means really, which is a bit of an obstacle. How old are students in Junior High? In any case, hang your dumb heads in shame, readers.)

So, how is it that Gullibility blog can only be read by geniuses? I scan this very interesting site, looking for posts from Schroedinger or, at least, casually inserted calculus problems that are way beyond my puny mortal understanding. No, can’t see any.

Oh, wait. I see a thoughtful post on the Popper/Kuhn debate. Mention of “paradigms”. A link to a Princeton page of sociology fun? (Admittedly, you really do need to know a fair bit about academic sociology to find any of the Princeton jokes funny or even to understand the references. But I like the concept of sociological humour, in principle.)

w00t \0/. It’s official. It comes from the Internet, which is not allowed to lie.

Sociology=genius.

I can’t argue with that. In your faces, other scientists.

(Bah. This may make me seem a mite Gullible….)

7 worst blog scraper tricks

Posted on by

Hah, I lied. I was using one of the top x ways to get people to look at a post.

(There must be lots of people who think – “Ah, 5 secrets of reaching new customers? That’s an interesting number. Not too many for my poor little brain to take in. But big enough to have some meaningful content. And, secrets? Oooh, I love secrets! I love them so much that I will suspend the inner voice that is screaming out that, by definition, it can’t be a SECRET if it’s on the Internet.” Well, SEO experts seem to assume there are lots of these people. :-D)

In fact, there’s only one evil trick that I’m going to bitch about here.

Blog comment spam goes with the blog commenting territory. Akismet is pretty good at stopping most of it, at a cost of losing a few real comments. Otherwise, if we are too stupid to see the difference between a real person and an advert for some spurious Internet products embedded with links to online pharmaceutical sales, we don’t deserve to stop them. Maybe its some sort of Turing test game spammers are playing, examining our capacity to tell whether we are interacting with a human or machine .

Standard comment spam now half-heartedly tries to convince you it’s from a human by saying things like “I loved reading about Whydontyoublog though I can’t say I understand all of it” (I stupidly deleted a good few of these, just before I decided to write this, so no direct quotes. My bad.) Obviously, if you hadn’t seen the same words in a few dozen spams, and if the “insert blog name here” bit made sense – unlike in our examples – you might let this through.

Other ones are from scrapers. I really don’t care if scrapers take our text and present it in sometimes comically inappropriate situations.

The ones for “jokes” scrapers used to be entertaining in themselves. The blog would have a righteous rant about something and say something like “They must be joking” talking about Uncommon Descent or some such unfunny creationist nonsense. A Jokes scraper would spot the “joking” keyword and put the post on its Jokes sites. If there was anyone reading them who expected a punchline to these posts, they must still be waiting.

Indeed, we would sometimes deliberately used the J word just to see how unfunny an atheist rant had to be to avoid getting scraped. We never found a limit. The jokes scrapers just seem to have withered away.

However, these scrapers couldn’t do us any discernible harm. A few sites with no real content seemed just a waste of somebody else’s Internet bandwidth.

But their next-gen offspring really annoy me. These do the same thing but with a subtle difference. They attribute the post they’ve taken and stuck on their blog to somebody else. These sites say things like “romanianbride wrote an interesting post today” and follow it with a post from my/your blog.

You blink in disbelief a few times. You think “Wow, what an amazing coincidence, romanianbride also had an argument about atheism with her son Xavier’s teacher today and met her fundy neighbour Mr Roberts in the supermarket and had to have her cat CuddlySnowballIII dewormed. And she’s written about it in the exact same words as I did!” (Well, assuming that’s your blog content…)

I started out thinking this doesn’t matter, given that it’s not as if we want our noms de blog used anyway and that it’s unlikely that anyone would visit these scrapers except by mistake.

But it does matter a bit. It matters in terms of Google rank for a start. One of the things search engine spiders look for is “uniqueness of content.” If your blog has the same content as half a dozen scrapers – at least some of which will be phishing traps and/or pathways to online sales of probably fake pharmaceuticals, casinos or pr0n – how are the search engine spiders and spam detecting algorithms supposed to know that your site is legit? Your blog starts to look like just another scraper site. In fact, it doesn’t matter if Akismet bins the spam that announces this to you. It’s already damaged your reputation. Giving them the spurious “authority” of a link from your comments, if you use “follow”, is not going to hurt you any more.

Looking for some subtle way to strike back, I first thought of posting the IPs of every one of them here. Bah, way too naive a solution. I followed up some of these IPs using a map lookup IP program. They were pretty clearly spoofed or wireless drive-by linkages. Unless, that is, there really are people, universities and companies so dumb that they steal and misattribute other people’s content, but still operate their legitimate blogs and websites from those addresses. Not likely is it? So, I won’t post the IPs of these people, who are most likely to be victims themselves.

That being my first thought, I don’t have a second. I will try to find a suitable response though, in my quarter-skilled way and post it here if I ever come up with any reasonable suggestions.
If anyone else knows a solution, please let us know.

Mainly for Mana at Skepticum

Posted on by

Look what Google ads has added to a post with the title Praying for rain and wet t-shirts on Mana’s blog…..
Screen shot of google ad

Maybe your prayers have been answered, Mana/Black Sun/Billy and any other commenters who preferred the idea of an equally effective Dionysian alternative to the standard dull prayers for rain being offered by the governor.

I would have sent this as a comment but I can’t see any image getting past any working comments filter. I’ve cut out a bit of text and the post and left it at actual size so it stays legible.

Food fight between Europe and USA

Posted on by

It seems the World Trade Organisation is drawing back a bit from using its financial muscle against the EU over GM food**, according to an International Herald Tribune story.

.. the World Trade Organization said Thursday that the European Union would be given more time to end blockages on imports of engineered foods like corn.
“The period during which the EU was meant to have worked this out expired, and the parties decided to extend the deadline to Jan. 11,” said Keith Rockwell, a spokesman for the WTO.
The EU had been due to end the blockages by Nov. 21……
Argentina, Canada and the United States have sued the European Union at the WTO, which ruled last year that a de facto EU ban on imports of genetically modified foods between 1984 and 2004 was illegal.

This is quite a complicated, not to mention dull, story that I can’t really summarise without losing focus on the facts, but, basically, some EU countries and politicians object to having to open their markets to GM products on ecological grounds.

This has involved some heavy international pressure for “free trade” being brought to bear on the EU. From the BBC, in 2006, after the EU had even folded and allowed US sweetcorn in.

Two years ago the moratorium was lifted and a modified strain of sweet corn, grown mainly in the US, was allowed onto the market.
But Washington continued with the WTO case because it wanted to be sure approvals for GMO sales were being decided on scientific rather than political grounds.

Well, that sounds like a laudable aim, doesn’t it? Deciding issues on scientific rather than political grounds? Who could argue with that? Hmm. So the decision to push GM foods onto countries that really really don’t want them could not possibly be politically motivated then….. The wide antagonism to GM foods in Europe is “political” while the desire of big agribiz to sell seeds and crops is merely scientific.

In a reply to my comment on his blog, the Exterminator said:

heather, you said “In the UK, where atheism is more or less the default state “…
I don’t think you have any idea how envious that makes some of us feel.

Well, really, Exterminator, everyone in the UK, (nah in Europe, well, in the rest of the world really) is constantly jealous of America. You might have to face a fair bit more Christian lunacy but the lives of individual Americans are generally much better than ours. (Ignore the political leadership for a minute. I am talking about everyday living here)

The US has a widespread incomprehension of potential ecological crisis, a subject which occupies the minds of us Europeans a lot. (The conceptual average American, not anyone in particular.) While we in Europe are sorting through our garbage like starving raccoons* – washing out pickle jars and carefully separating soft cardboard from thick paper – you are living as if the world ‘s resources are infinite, maybe because you assume you have enough power to take what you need from the rest of the world when anything does run out.

Your cars are enormous by European standards. Even some of your ghettoes have detached houses with gardens. Your petrol is laughably cheap, even when you are facing a huge fuel price increase. FFS, you don’t even have to flush your own toilets. You have public restrooms where a sensor marks when you’ve lifted your butts off the pan and flushes the lavatory with more suction than the average vacuum cleaner. We’d all like to live like that.

The only problem is that your food is often shit. And I’m an English person speaking. The English have traditionally been associated with the worst food in Europe. Cheap food in the UK is usually rubbish. UK food makes even such European oddities like the Dutch willingness to put chocolate hundreds-and-thousands (sprinkles) on bread seem moderately tasteful. But, even we don’t have products like the clearly ironically named “cheese” in an aerosol can.

So, “protectionism” aside, Europeans generally don’t trust either your food or your commitment to the environment. Hence, we tend to pressurise our politicians to keep out GM food. My question here is whether Americans don’t also pressurise your politicians to make sure you can carry on driving huge vehicles, using infinite amounts of domestic power and finding magical “food” and household products available in supermarkets that feel as big as small European states?

Scientifically, it seems a mite doomed, unless the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate and ecosystem scientists are somehow mistaken. But, politically, maintaining the benefits of your way of life is a real imperative. So, how likely are we to see Washington pushing to make sure that any other major environmental issues are

being decided on scientific rather than political grounds?

*To quote the Simpsons – and, yes, even your best bloody television is infinitely classier than ours.
** How does anyone square the very existence of GM products with a creationist refusal to accept the evolutionary science behind genetics, by the way?

Creationist Idiots Get Everywhere

Posted on by

Well, I am back from my holidays now, suitably depressed at having to return to work in a cold, wet and miserable climate. It seems that while this blog was on hiatus, the lunatics and idiots were out in full force. A few weeks ago, Rob Crilly wrote a post on the Times Online Comment section titled “Church Row Evolves Over Fossil Boy.” In a nutshell, this post can be summarised as follows:

Turkana Boy, considered the most complete early human fossil, is being removed from his bomb-proof vault to take centre stage at an exhibition that curators say will provide the most complete record of the evolution of Man.

However, the collection, to be show-cased for the first time at the Nairobi National Museum after a £5 million renovation financed by the European Union, has drawn sharp criticism from evangelical Christians who deny the theory of evolution.

It is an interesting post, but as always the real insight into the nonsense which bounces around inside what ever some theists (note: not all…) use instead of brains comes in the comments. It would have made me happier if I could claim that the real off the wall comments were from Americans, but sadly this is not always the case. Take this wonderful bit of ignorance:

Any scientist who believes that evolution is the only explanation for the origins of life is more worried about his career prospects than actually conveying the truth about what is known about origins and the diversity of life.

Darwinian Evolution has minimal evidence, is statistically improbable, and because it inolves historical events is unproveable. Or as one NON Christian scientist described it a preposterous hypothesis.

Why do scientists who know the failings of the hypothesis continue to try and prevent any argument against it or stifle anyone who questions its validity?

Simply because it has become a tenet of faith for scientists which is being increasingly forced on the world and children in particular.

Everything we know about genetics tells us that Darwinian evolution is impossible so why persist in pretending it is possible let alone the only plausible explanation.
Martin, Isle of Skye

Obviously Martin has been living with his head buried to ensure no education has been allowed to seep past his ears since 1840. It constantly amazes me how people can try to sound off as if they know what they are talking about, then make phrases like “Darwinian Evolution has minimal evidence.” Even “Darwinian Evolution” is enough to show the person is an idiot. Shamefully, Martin has made lots of comments including “I did A Level Biology” at the same time as showing he failed to understand a single thing he was taught. Priceless.

Fortunately, the USA stages a comeback:

What the article is saying isn’t that these Kenyans are protesting the Theory of Darwinism/Accidental Evolution, but rather that this theory is presented as FACT or LAW. This puts a very different spin on the presentation, and you can not prove evolution. Primarily due to the lack of intermediate species to be found in today’s world or in the fossil record.

Having read quite a bit on history, I believe the Bible’s seven days mean seven ages. The specifics are not listed, nor need they be. The beginning of each age involves an explosion of life, and these can be traced in the fossil records. Every kind of fruit, tree, and animal creates more of the same, not completely different animals.
Steven, Danville, CA

Here we get the tired, repetitive issue of an idiot who doesn’t understand what a “theory” is (in the scientific sense at least). Thanks to uncountable numbers of self serving creationists trying to muddy the waters, people seem to think a scientific theory is something useless – obviously the Theory of Gravity, Quantum Theory, Theory of Relativity (and so on) are all equally false and should not be presented as “FACT or LAW.” More importantly, I cant for one second believe Steven has really read “quite a bit on history.” It strikes me as intellectually dishonest to have to re-invent choice parts of the “holy book” to keep it valid, but then that is just me.

Keeping to the creationist playbook we get:

Careful study of the bible shows that adam and eve were not mere allegorical characters. Jewish people kept accurate records of lineage in the temple and could trace their family trees back to Adam and Eve. It was one way the messiah could be authenticated and with the destruction of the temple in 70 CE no one else could claim to be Christ. When you extrapolate the time line of the bible it shows we came from adam and eve 6000 years ago. These so-called christians who believe otherwise are just that; so-called, not real, false christians.

As for spontaneous generation and evolution here’s how it sounds to me. I see a house. I notice that no matter how complex this house seems it is still countless times less complex than the simplest living organisms. You would have me believe that someone designed and built this house. I calculate the odds and come to the conclusion that if man spontaneously generated it is millions of times more likely that the house also did. Joey George, Mason City, IA

The wonderful argument from complexity. Great huh? Best part about it, is that it needs no education or understanding… “Careful study of the bible” is enough to falsify anything this nutter says.

Next we get the frothing theist, waiting for the rapture:

I’m reading all the comments and insults in this forum and I simply say the day is coming, who ever cares to believe it or not, that Jesus is returning to get the true believers who showed faith and endured hardships and yet still know in their heart, mind and soul that there shall be no more suffering for his namesake. As God created us, he gave us Free Will. He started with Adam & Eve and they disobeyed him just like man is doing today. God’s laws are basic So continue to waste your time and energy about the evolution of man because it does not matter. I’m just a grain of sand on a beach Christian woman who have that faith. I’m secure in Christ. Don’t be left behind. Syl, Ossining, USA/New York

Amazing. If heaven is going to be filled with people like this, I am happy I will stay here on Earth. Continuing the sense of nonsense we get:

Evolution is a false theory because its just a fairy tale for grown ups they tell you that a frog can turn into a prince but is not true that is impossible. The same applied to apes turning into humans.

Most of the articles I read these days about science only support the evolution theory and is very bias. The news today don’t show the other side and let creationist scientists defend creation, don’t be suprised there are hundreds of scientists in this world who support creation please let them speak also not just the evolution scientists don’t be bias thank you.

In conclusion based on the evidence that the creation scientists have presented to me I don’t believe in evolution theory I believe more in a intelligent designer. Also evolution and creation are incompatible with each other because both cannot be true so don’t try to put them together the bible don’t mention anything about evolution so don’t try to make evolution part of the christian faith.

knowledge is power. OldLiesForTheNewWorld, Providence, RI

Trying to follow this nonsense is painful. What is it with creationist/theists and appalling grammar/spelling? It is funny that this “person” concludes their opinion on Evolution is based on the evidence presented by creation scientists. It seems the fact the bible doesn’t mention evolution is the most damming evidence. How, I wonder, does OldLiesForTheNewWorld access the internet when I am fairly sure it isn’t in the bible…

The department of blind ignorance brings us this (actually, several comments allude to the same line of nonsense as this one) nugget:

The “faith” of evolutionists is greater than the faith of many Christians. Anyone who can believe that nothing plus nothing equals everything is truly an amazing person. An all-knowing, all-powerful intelligence is evident everywhere. Open your eyes and you will see. Open your hearts and you will know. Jim Thomas, Panama City, Florida

It confounds me that people can argue such a self defeating proposition. It seems that some people, however, can go a stage further:

So now evolutionists are saying gravity is just a theory! Where’s the logic? Without it everything not tied down would just float off into the atmosphere. Who determines what intelligence is but a group of scientists arguing with those who they think are less smarter than themselves. By saying that half the human race is below average intelligence is their way of reasoning that man evolved from apes! If half of the population were given the chance to increase their learning skills they would know a lot more. marilyn carrier, troy, mi

Argh! The stupidity burns! It is not evolutionists who say gravity is “just a theory.” “Science” says gravity is a theory. Creationists and IDers say theories are “Just a theory.” Argh. More madness from Florida:

There are some really ignorant comments being made. Evilutionists attacking for the sake of attacking. If evolution was held up to the same standard as creationism, it would fall flat on ts face. To use science’s own rules “if you can’t physically seit happen, then what you have is theory and conjecture.” Volution cannot be proven unless one stands around “for millions of years and documents it”. So its a theory. Theory. Get over it. vic, Palm Harbor, FL

What! I like the (un)original use of “Evilutionists” though. It made me giggle for all of a second. How clever Vic is. Evolution is held up to the same standard as creationism. That is why ID/Creationism is ridiculed…

More American brand madness comes with this bit of blinding nonsense:

Evolution is a theory. Period. The “science” behind it is really pseudoscience. If evolution were fact, there would be an abundance of fossils in transitional form found. There are none. Also, no living creatures today are in transitional form. Dogs are dogs, birds are birds, men are men, etc. There may be variations but, they are within their species. Also, the fact that bacteria become more resistant to antibiotics does not prove evolution, either. They are still bacteria. Vic, Moreno Valley, Ca

Again, the idiocy makes my head hurt. The “Dogs are dogs…” bit is amazing. Obviously there is only one type of dog, not different ones which are adapted to different climates, let alone the “transitional” types of animal where you get marsuipial lions for example. It really makes you want to cry.

I will finish my laugh at the madness with two comments. Both of which are funny enough to not need any further ridicule: (emphasis mine, minor ridicule…)

The theory of the conservation of matter states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. And the theory of the conservation of engery states basically the same thing about energy. We have the big bang theory etc… which was caused by an energy. Think about it folks. Science proves religion. If the big bang created everything wouldn’t that go against the conservation laws? that only pushes one closer to the fact that God exists and I’m not ignorant; I’m a biology major and I took an evolution class. Look at the bible and the ENTIRE theory of evolution…they complement each other and remember the earth was created in 7 GOD DAYS (1000 years to us is like a second to him) thus, those million of years that scientists say major geological/biological events occurred have occurred in God days. I think that both sides need to research the other before they open their mouths and I just want to say that you tell Christians to have open minds same to you and I pray for you. Becca, Tobyhanna

What makes everyone think that the crowning glory of evolution is the ability to manipulate one’s environment or absorb vast amounts of knowledge. We have done these things, and to what end? We still cannibalize our own species, sickness, disease,war,famine, crime, perversion is higher than ever before. Young men and women are hopeless, dying and killing in our inner cities, or turning to more exotic drugs to numb their emptiness. Marraiges and relationships are failing. People are indeed growing older, in a society that is not able to care for them. And everything that is born, dies. Everything that is fresh, becomes stale. Everything that is clean, becomes dirty. The snow falls as white, and turns to gray. Evolution is a myth in a world where everything proceeds to maximum entropy….by our own scientific observation. The world has been contaminated by men who thought they knew more than God. And only God, will return one day to fix his creation and the mess that we made of it. Mark Cognata, Medford, USA,Massachusetts

Wonderful isn’t it.

As an aside, while I was on holiday, I went to Seaworld where I overheard a conversation in the penguin enclosure. A little boy was asking his parents why God had made Puffins and Penguins rather than just one or the other. Sadly, I never heard the reply….

In your face, McCarthy

Posted on by

I am usually grateful to commenters who correct obvious errors of fact here, but there was a “correction” from a Catholic called McCarthy, on a post of mine (on the Pope honouring Spanish Civil War clergy* ) a while back, that I took to be anything but correct. So it’s sweet to find the top Spanish Catholic Bishop basically saying what I said.

To quote the Times:

Spain’s most senior bishop has issued an unprecedented apology for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the Spanish Civil War.
Until now the Church has always highlighted its role as a victim in the 1936-39 war, which ended in victory for Francisco Franco’s troops and marked the start of a fascist dictatorship that lasted until his death in 1975.
Last month Pope Benedict XVI beatified nearly 500 Spanish priests and nuns who were killed in the years before and during the conflict.
Yesterday, however, the head of Spain’s Episcopal Conference said that the Church must also seek forgiveness for “concrete acts” during the strife-torn period.

Respect is due to the Bishop for making an apology. Even more so, when there are still living human beings who were affected by the circumstances and who can hear it, in contradiction of current fashions for apologising for centuries old wrongs.

McCarthyism UK is a pretty dire affair. The current lead post is about how fathers can’t bring up babies properly and the one before worries about what will happen to unbaptised aborted foetuses. And so on.

Mr McCarthy’s blog profile sums himself up as being “For Church, Crown and currency!”

Hmm, an odd combination, albeit alliterative. If he’s historian enough to believe the Spanish church was unconnected with Franco, then he probably wasn’t aware that the British Crown is very specifically C of E. A British monarch isn’t even allowed to marry a Catholic, or wasn’t until recently, (hastily covering my back against any more expert pedants out there.) And currency? Does that mean any currency? Does the Yankee dollar count? Does the Euro count? Does the currency-I’ve-just-made-up of some-place_I’ve-just-made-up because I CBA looking through Wikipedia count? Is he for them all? Does it mean he wants loads of currency?

* A correction of my Rwanda mis-spelling would have been welcome, for example.

Tis the season to milk believers

Posted on by

Both these items are from Libby Purves in the Times (what an unfortunate surname) many of whose posts have been entertaining recently.

(I will pass gracefully over the slur to “guardinistas” in her recent post on a guardian blog about religion and how us atheists shouldn’t upset the bloggers Irish Catholic family with our strident atheism.. 🙂 Most of the comments she saw as ranting from enraged guardianistas seemed at least perfectly rational to me – whether I agreed with the commenter or not. Which is in itself a novelty, given the mad ranting that so often pops up on CIF)

First, the lasermonks who sell printer cartridges, with a range of other monk-producd products you can buy:

In the UK, more modestly, Gorton monastery will provide fridge magnets among other things, and Ampleforth offers Old Amplefordian braces, damson gin, cufflinks , and a link to some Norwegian Cistercian nuns who market moisturizer and “St Olav’s Skin Treatment”, made of pomegranate, aloe vera, peach kernel, yarrow, rosemary and green tea in a bottle with a “real wood” top. No flies on them. Get your Christmas shopping done now.

There’s a great comment from Philip in the USA:

Monks made a lot more money back in the day, when they sold penance. Oh, but then there was that Reformation thing. My bad.

Fridge magnets, braces, cufflinks and moisturiser? Small scale stuff. A bit charming and olde-worlde really. The church used to film “4 Weddings and a Funeral” is more up to date, using the advantages that come from being a Hollywood brand.

The Priory Church of St Gregory the Great (the church made famous by Four Weddings and a Funeral) has installed cash registers at its doors and is charging visitors to come in. It’s the first parish church to demand a fee, seven cathedrals already do so. £4 will get you in – if you’re not there for a service – or for £30 you can go as many times as you like in a year.

I’ll have to set aside the idea that anyone would be drawn by Four Weddings and a Funeral to want to do anything like visiting the church where the aforementioned rites of passage took place, as opposed to, say, giving the director and actors a good kicking. If anything, you would think the association would have driven even the most devout parishioner to think seriously about trusting their spiritual welfare to a different City church.

Turns out it’s for its roof – the archetypal church roof fund – rather than for massive US-pastor-style personal enrichment. What is it about church roofs? Why are they always so crap?

However, this is interesting in itself. It’s the City of London, (to you Americans, it’s like Wall Street, but generally richer….) A fair proportion of its regular visitors could probably buy a new roof without seriously breaking into their annual bonuses. Doesn’t this imply that the City of London’s Christian commodity traders may be a fair bit more in thrall to Mammon than to their supposed Christianity? Perish the thought.

Data protection?

Posted on by

The BBC website has a rather shocking article today. The title is “UK’s families put on fraud alert” There is a brief lead-in, pretty well guaranteed to induce paranoia in anyone who might be on the Child Benefit database, warning them to check their bank accounts, on the authority of a government minister no less.

Two computer discs holding the personal details of all families in the UK with a child under 16 have gone missing.
The Child Benefit data on them includes name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number and, where relevant, bank details of 25m people. (from the BBC article)

Blimey. 25 million people’s personal details fit on two disks? And these disks holding very personal information were getting sent to the National Audit Office? Slight aside while I wonder why? More of this vaunted “joined up government” in action? I assume that bit in the Data Protection Act about information only being used for the purpose for which it’s gathered is just too quaint for today’s new information society?

Doesn’t this infinitely foreseeable event call into question the whole ID card madness yet again? How long before the records held by the multi billion health service computer, the passport office, the criminal records bureau, the tax office, the humongous national DNA register or the vehicles and licence authority also go AWOL? How much easier will it be for everyone’s personal information on the vaunted unified national identity database to disappear at one fell swoop?

(Note to self. Stop posting questions.)

Back.. (bah)

Posted on by

Following today’s Guardian article on a film being made about Jesus’s “missing years”, I can reveal that this blog has also been wandering around on alien continents imbibing mystical wisdom in its missing fortnight*. Not unlike this story:

Hollywood is to fill in the Bible’s “missing years” with a story about Jesus as a wandering mystic who travelled across India, living in Buddhist monasteries and speaking out against the iniquities of the country’s caste system. …..
…The film, which is due for release in 2009, sets out to be a fantasy action adventure account of Jesus’s life with the three wise men as his mentors. Although the producers say the film will feature a “young and beautiful” princess, it is not clear whether Jesus is to have a love interest. (from The Guardian)

I have to admit, I am waiting for the kung-fu version with a bit more interest. That would be the one where Jesus joins a Shaolin monastery which is threatened by an evil other monastery. He has to do loads of water carrying and wood chopping before he learns the secrets of how to use his Qi to break concrete blocks. But then he kicks some serious evil-Shaolin butt. (Hollywood offers for the full screenplay welcomed.)

* OK, then if you must, this blog has in fact only been establishing that the Simpsons is in fact a documentary.

Face it

Posted on by

Faces are my topic de jour (Do you detect a hint of desperation?) A Pharyngula post started me on this track. He suggested googling for the images that came up when you put your name in the search box.

I had a quick check to make sure no images of me came up for my name. Phew. They don’t. But page after page of smiling healthy successful-and-popular-looking heathers sort of creeped me out. It put me in mind of a pretty good old film with that very premise, with Christian Slater and Winona Ryder.

And it started me thinking about faces. How we (OK then, I) pretty well tend to judge people by their faces. How “your face is your fortune” and so on.

Blimey, Nintendo are bringing out a video game based on facial yoga “to appeal to women”, according to the Guardian. So, men don’t have faces, then?

Well, it turns out they do. This is from the BBC. It related to something that has always stuck in my mind since I read a book about the “Guinea Pig Club” (World War II airmen with burnt or destroyed faces who underwent pioneering facial reconstruction.)

How devastating it must be to lose your facial features. Every interaction with the world must be so painful. And I suspect we are generally a lot vainer now than people were at that time. Although, our society can’t take all the blame. Have you ever read a folk tale where the heroine and/or hero weren’t beautiful? So, I guess vanity goes pretty deep.

It’s got the title “In pictures: Faces of Battle”. It’s about an exhibition showing pictures of men whose faces were destroyed in World War I. The BBC warn you it’s quite hard to take. It also tells about the surgeon – Harold Gillies – who pretty well invented plastic surgery to help them. The last slide says:

Appearance-obsessed
Faces of Battle opens to the public on 10 November.
“We know it’s a difficult exhibition to come to, but people should be able to see what these injuries looked like,” Ms Doty says.
“And we want people to reflect on their own appearance – what would it mean if that changed?
“We live in an appearance-obsessed society and if you say ‘plastic surgery’, people think Nip/Tuck. But when they see this they’ll hopefully realise what it’s really about.” (from the BBC slide.)

Birds

Posted on by

The RSPB has a really great website. (That’s the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.) This link is to the page where you can look up birds by name.

The pictures might only let you recognise a bird if you are very lucky but the sounds are great. I would like to reproduce some here but you can listen to any you want on the RSPB site.

The first one you play will startle you, making you suspect there’s a bird trapped in your room. It’s a mildly amusing trick to play on anyone else who doesn’t know what you are doing…..

If you live in the UK, you can volunteer to take part in the British Trust for Ornithology survey, a piece of research based on people’s reports of what birds they can see on a given day.

Hiatus Time

Posted on by

Once more holidays come round, even here at WhyDontYou. The slavedriving blog machine gives us a short reprieve and allows us some time to recharge our batteries.

I am away on a family holiday starting tomorrow and by a serendipitous coincidence, Heather will be away on holiday from Saturday. Both of us will be away for about 2 weeks, so it is unlikely normal service will resume prior to 18 Nov 07.

Hopefully this time off will give us the chance to recharge our batteries, top up our tans and prepare ourselves to resume the onslaught against the idiocy, insanity and logical torture that is religion and superstition.

Please, feel free to keep leaving comments (it worked for Null, his last post was nothing more than a graph and it now has 27 comments…) and I will be happy to blog people to death when I get back.