Welcome to my blog, the purpose of which is to talk... about--stuff. And... yeah. Skeptics and freethinkers welcome. And Lovecraft fans. And Star Wars fans. And Bruce Lee fans. And martial artists. And any one who prays to the Old Ones.

Monday, June 25, 2012



Marvin Olasky is an evangelical christian, and the editor-in-chief of WORLD Magazine. A few weeks ago, I dissected one of his idiotic rants against science. Now, with my latest issue of W.M. (my mother unexpectedly bought me a subscription), he has yet another episode of creationist stupidity on display. Let's start at the top, as usual.

"I went to two New York City churches on the last Sunday morning of May: First a Christian one, then the American Museum of Natural History, a towering steeple within the Church of Darwin."

*yawn* Whatever.

 "My first stopping point: The Spitzer Hall of Human Origins on the lower level, a dark and crowded chapel with hairy figures created to show man's purported hominid ancestry over several million years. Some parents were catechizing their young children: "Look, those are our relatives." (As I listened, one unbelieving girl, staring at the private parts of the hirsute mannequins, laughed, "We didn't come from them." A well-trained little girl said, "Mommy, they look like us.")"

Was she as well-trained as the little kids who are led to believe that early humans rode on dinosaurs--even though they died out long before our species' appearance in the fossil record? Oh, wait, you're a creationist; never mind. How about the kids that the CEF is conditioning into potential mass killers for Jesus? Or is it unfair of me to bring that up?

 'How definitive were the exhibits? One, titled "Interpreting the footprints," depicted two ancient, hairy hominids walking together. The larger male had his arm around the smaller female. The explanation in small print explained, "To create the scene in front of you, experts interpreted footprints left behind. ... Here a male and a female walk together. Was it a mother and child instead? Possibly. We'll never know for sure, but this scene is consistent with the evidence."'

In other words, it was bad because it didn't make a mindless appeal to authority like, "this exhibit is 100% accurate because it is proof of evolution". You know, the way christians treat their book of fairy tales scripture. Funny thing; lacking a time machine, scientists probably can't be certain of the age or genders of the beings who made the tracks, anymore than christians can be sure that the gospels are accurate, since they were written decades after Jesus' death by anonymous authors. Of course, we have footprints and physical remains in evidence of hominids; we're still waiting for independent corroboration of the gospels' miraculous accounts.

"Maybe we should be grateful for this defense of traditional marriage, but dozens of other scenes could also be consistent with the evidence."

How does traditional marriage come into this? At all? Really?

 'It was encouraging to see the small print on many of the display cases admitting uncertainty—"Perhaps ... perhaps ... may have been ... may well have been ... seems ... seems ... seems ... appears to be ... suggests ... suggests."'

Because mindless science-deniers are always encouraged when scientists don't commit logical fallacies by pretending to literally know everything (like most theists do on a daily basis) since, to their faith-addled minds, that is the only real way to argue. Sad. For starters, scientists piecing together fossil remains can't know everything there is to know about the appearance of the creature; unless there are other such specimens to compare it with, much of the details will remain a mystery. In the case of early hominids, some interpretations are most likely dead on while others are undoubtedly mistaken. Unlike religion, science is based upon rational inquiry, not faith, and is thus constrained by the limits of reality.

'But a video screen showed a continuous loop of genotype pioneer Francis Collins, the National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, and Brown professor Kenneth Miller expressing Darwinian certainty. Miller insisted that disbelievers in evolution want to turn biology into "little more than stamp collecting."'

This, readers, is what constitutes an argument in the murky pit of intellectual bankruptcy known as creationism. Olasky is insinuating that since scientists--oh, sorry, I meant "Darwinists" can't know everything, the entire theory of evolution is therefore suspect. Despite the fact that it's been observed in nature and the lab. Oh well.

 "With apologies to philatelists—the Hall of Human Origins exhibits are little more than stamp collecting, because the evidence for humans arising from animals is insufficient."

Because as we all know, hominids were magically poofed into existence by the Hebrew Sky God (geology/paleontology be damned!).
 And of course, he doesn't even touch the massive quantity of research supporting it--he just blithely dismisses it out of hand.

"While a big sign proclaimed "Our family tree," small print on one exhibit acknowledged, "Unfortunately, hominid fossils from the crucial period between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago are quite rare." Unfortunate for those who claim the evolution vs. creation argument is over, when recent discoveries of cell complexity mean that it's just begun."

Like most creationists, Olasky is far too obtuse to mention the fact that irreducible complexity--what he is alluding to in the above excerpt--has been utterly discredited by Richard Lenski's E. Coli experiment, wherein an evolved strain of E. Coli mutated the ability to metabolize citrate, something never before observed in that bacteria. The first cells in the fossil record, which Cretinist hacks never talk about, were incredibly simple in comparison to today's cells, having no nucleus or cell membrane, just protoplasm and DNA. But, hey, don't let that get you down, Marv; you can still claim that the debate isn't over even though them evil Darwinists refuted the basis of your nonsense over a century ago.

'Similarly, a display titled "The history of human evolution" admitted that "The web of clues is difficult to unravel," but then claimed, "It is clear that the human family has a rich evolutionary history."'

So because the display accurately mentions the continuing difficulty of unraveling our ancestry, instead of blithely saying everything there was the unquestionable truth and setting common descent on a pedestal (similar to what christians do with their dogmas), the whole thing must be a secular conspiracy to brainwash our young into using logic and integrity instead of ancient myths and logical fallacies.

'Clear as mud. One plaque stated that "Sivapithecus is a plausible direct ancestor of orangutans" and then admitted that the creature's body "suggests a more complex evolutionary relationship.'

Holy shit. Now our friend Olasky is making unfalsifiable claims about what the exhibit says, with a very obvious gap in between excerpts. How do we know that he isn't taking it out of context? Well, we don't since he neglected to include photos of the displays. What's the problem? Afraid your readers might convert to "Darwinism"? Of course, it's possible that scientists haven't yet determined where Sivapithecus belongs in the great tree of life, since there are signs that it could either be an direct ancestor to orangutans or be part of a different branch of apes, but of course, like most scientifically illiterate hacks, Olasky cannot accept anything less than dogmatic truth claims, since that is all he can understand.

"The honest curators of the Hall of Human Origins have my sympathy."

Indeed. One wonders how often they have to put up with stupid questions from people like Marvin.

 "They are like priests in a diocese destroyed by pederasty who have to cover up their concerns and pretend that all is well overall, despite the anomalies, uncertainties, and complexities."

Yup, creationists like to wax poetic when they can't think of any arguments against TOE; I suppose it's their way of coping with their intellectual impotency.

"I appreciated the half-honesty revealed in their perhapses and maybes—but they might have more fun if they could move from the lower level up to the fourth floor, where the dinosaur bones rule."

It's because of stuff like this that nobody with even a moderately high intelligence takes Cretinists seriously anymore.Their standard is that you either argue like a christian--appeal to authority, special knowledge, everything I say is completely true (because I say so)--or you're completely wrong and afraid to admit it. That's it. Never mind the fact that during Einstein's debates with other physicists, nobody was stupid enough to say that it somehow proved that particle physics was junk, since if it was true, why, scientists wouldn't debate it or show any uncertainty over it. Here's some truth, folks; science is forced to view the universe from a limited human perspective, which means that for now, all we can do is put together the most logical explanations for the evidence before us. Creationists have no explanation for the existence of hominids apart from "Goddidit". Same thing with everything else they can't explain or don't understand; God--an intangible, invisible, unfalsifiable being--did it. Which explains the fossil record about as much as saying "Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster did it". Seriously; just insert whatever made-up creator god you want, like Odin, and say that evolution is a "theory in crisis", or some crap, and you're a proud member of the Creation Club.

'On the fourth floor, one dinosaur exhibit announced, "Bones, teeth, tracks ... this evidence amounts to only a tiny fraction of information about what the living animals were really like. ... Naturally, we want to know everything about dinosaurs: What colors they were, what they ate, how they reproduced. ... The overwhelming absence of explicit data makes the questions that those intriguing animals arouse difficult to answer."'

Herp durp, them evolutionists can't know everything, herp durp, so our magical creation myth theory is just as valid. When you can actually suggest a better explanation that is consistent with the evidence, Mr. Olasky, be sure to submit it to peer review so we can finally put your allegations to rest--uh, I mean, "to the test".

'The fourth floor displayed not only dinosaurs but humility: "No one knows what the colors of dinosaurs were when they were alive. ... This evidence does not allow us to draw conclusions about parental care in extinct dinosaurs. We can only make guesses."'

*gasp* Look! They even admitted that they're not omniscient! DARWINISM IS SURELY DOOOOMED!!!

 "Astoundingly, the dinosaur experts undercut the Darwinist propaganda loop in the Hall of Human Origins: "We cannot be sure how pachycephalosaurs used their skull caps because theories about the behavior of extinct animals cannot be tested." That's what many creationists say: Scientific research emphasizes experimentation, and we cannot experiment on the past". That's what many creationists say: Scientific research emphasizes experimentation, and we cannot experiment on the past."

Thus, comrades, let us argue from this gap, this bit of ignorance, to assert our unfalsifiable goat-herder creation myths as proven fact, and disregard their godless "fossil record", laughing at those scientists all the way! TALLY-HO!

 'One sign on the fourth floor generalized rightly: "While it is important to make intelligent speculation about extinct animals, we are overstating the strength of the fossil evidence if we present these ideas as truth."'

I'd love to see the original context of that sign. Really. I'd also love to see the superior creationist interpretation of the fossil record; like, you know, how those horse ancestors aren't related, they're just "different kinds".

 "Students in schools should hear both evolutionist and creationist theories. They should then learn what we know scientifically—and what we do not"

Absolutely! And they should also learn both chemist and alchemist theories, round and flat earth theories, and both astronomy and astrology theories. And don't leave out geocentrism. Hey, let's present the debate. And once creationism gets the shit blown out of it, which will take roughly three or four class periods, we need never bring up the non-existent "debate" between science (fact and theory) and religion (bullshit propped up by more bullshit) ever again. Deal?

Wednesday, June 20, 2012


This is what the christian death cult truly is.

There are no fucking words to describe this. The only parallel is that of Nazi Germany and Militaristic Japan. The CEF, or Child Evangelism Fellowship, are a group of cultists fundamentalists who are set out to get converts in the time-honored tradition of all successful cults religions; by brainwashing teaching their potential new recruits while they're young. And thanks to the breakdown of Florida's education system, a new generation of good little Nazis fascists are going to spring up. Thank you, fundy fuck-buckets, for yet another display of why religion is inherently worthless and noxious to humanity.

Friday, June 15, 2012


 So my old friend over at Debunking Christianity, GearHedEd, has just recently demolished the existence of the Abrahamic god in one brief comment. Answer it if you can, theists.

"A: Perfection is complete; needs nothing. For YHWH to create something (anything) indicates a state of imperfection that needed to be redressed. Question for Christians, theologians, apologists and theistic philosophers: Given arguendo that the act of "Creation" entails at a minimum a CHANGE from a previous state, how do you reconcile the fact that this creates a dilemma for perfection? Either "perfect" wasn't good enough and therefore NOT perfect and in need of change, or alternately that change is a 'better' form of perfection. Now, given that "perfect" is already superlative (there can be no "degrees" of perfection; something is either perfect or less than perfect), how can change make perfection "better"? (=FAIL #1--God is not perfect, according to the Bible).
B: Exodus 20:3. There are other gods; YHWH admits as much through prohibiting worship of them.(=FAIL #2--YHWH is in competition with other gods for the attention, and gets jealous when He's not first in line).
C: Free Will (Christian version). We must have free will, because we must be free to "reject God"... Puhleeeeze... If YHWH is the Creator, and gave Man free will, He has no business telling us how to use it. To give a gift, and then dictate how it must be used is no gift. Furthermore, to say that we must have a "free choice" whether to love God (because He loves us so much that if we don't love him back He'll torture us for all eternity...) flies in the face of the idea that we'll be punished if we make the wrong choice. (=FAIL #3--*True Love* doesn't come with conditions, especially ones that cause those who "reject" it to burn for eternity).
D: "Evil" doesn't exist. Everything is relative. We call things "evil" when the results aren't favorable. But maybe it was favorable for someone else...? The whole concept of "evil" (definition includes malicious intent by some 'agent') is based on a conceptual framework that includes invisible malevolent "forces" that capriciously choose who gets fucked under and who doesn't. Here's a tip, Christians: everything is neutral, and randomized. There is no cosmic battle between the "Forces of Good" and the "Forces of Evil". Life sucks (or it doesn't--it's up to YOU), and then you die. (=FAIL #4--There's no "afterlife", Christians. Get over it and start living instead of pining for the grave)."

Thursday, June 14, 2012


"They're saying that the Ten Commandments have been taken out of the court houses and out of the school houses lest we offend the atheists. Let me be very clear: This country was not built for atheists nor by atheists. It was built by Christian people who believed in the word of God."

Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson would like a word with you. They were not atheists, but they sure as hell were not christians, and they sure as hell didn't intend for this country to be a theocracy. That is the reason why our Constitution is 100% secular. Because the Founding Fathers, christian and non-christian alike, were intelligent men who knew why their ancestors had come to America to begin with; to escape jerks like you. A secular nation protects all religions and religious sects equally; contrast this with every christian theocracy in history.

"To the atheist watching this telecast, if our belief in God offends you, move. {Applause.}"

Um, dumbass (and every dumb fuck who applauded)? Whatever imaginary friend you believe in is immaterial to me. Some of my best friends are christians. What offends me is when pompous pricks like yourself try to rewrite history to cater to your mindless congregations, and try to force your beliefs down my throat.

"There are planes leaving every hour on the hour, going every place on planet Earth. Get on one. We don't want you and we won't miss you. I promise you."

Go play a record backwards and kill yourself, you slimy dildo lizard. I have just as much right to this country as you and the moronic horde attending your church do. If my Constitutional rights offend you, move. I won't miss you.

"Our coins say in God We Trust."

A piece of unconstitutional propaganda left over from the McCarthy era.

"President Obama, you recently told the foreign media that America is not a Christian nation. You're absolutely wrong."

Treaty of Tripoli. QED.

"We were, we are, and always shall be a Bible-reading, praying, Christian people. {Applause and standing ovation.}"

It must be nice to attract such ignorant retards to your church. The Constitution, the First Amendment, and the Treaty of Tripoli disagree with you, dumbass. The fact that christians have always been the religious majority in this country has no impact on our law, or shouldn't, if we actually cared about preserving the Founders' values. Not of course, that scum like yourself give a shit about what they believed in and fought for.

"Several years ago, witchcraft and satanism were officially approved by the U.S. Military at the direction of the U.S. Congress. We have officially chosen to recognize another god."

Hey, if freedom, liberty, and justice for all offends you, move. There are planes leaving every hour on the hour. Get on one. Nobody with an IQ above the single digits will miss you. Go hang out with your theocratist buddies in Saudi Arabia.

"I call upon the members of Congress to outlaw the practice of witchcraft and satanism in the U.S. Military lest we offend the God of Heaven."

You're a fascist fuck-wad. Has anyone ever told you that? And so is your congregation. Never mind moving, just go back in time to the Dark Ages where you belong. And some evidence for your assertion of "witchcraft" (which doesn't exist) and Satanism (which is protected by the Constitution anyway) would be nice.

"I don't care about the atheist."

That's good, because we don't care about you either. Now go take a long walk off a short pier. And to people reading this, the next time some idiot tells you that Christian Dominionism doesn't exist, send him a link to Hagee's caterwauling. This is not the first time he's made such claims before the brainless mutants that flock to his temple every Sunday.


Wednesday, June 13, 2012



"The sky is falling! Many interest groups and journalists raced to tell that to the public when a modest but important bill became law in Tennessee early in April. The law instructs teachers and administrators to "create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues."
What's not to like? The law, similar to one in Louisiana, also protects teachers who help students (I'm quoting from the official legislative summary) "understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. ..." Oh, here's the problem: Evolution is one of the theories that can now be analyzed and critiqued."

Is that really the issue here? That evolution will be criticized? Certainly, if one gets their news from WORLD magazine and Marvin Olasky, that may appear to be the case; except for a teensy, weensy problem that Marvin fails to address. Which states are we talking? Tennessee and Louisiana, deeply religious states filled with science deniers (also known as "creationists"). So when a bill is passed that goes out of it's way to inform us that the theory of evolution will be subject to criticism, where the uninformed see nothing overtly sinister, the skeptical are already wondering if this law is giving creationists leeway to start undermining science education in that state.

"The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, and many others have gone ape over the inclusion of evolution. They revere critical thinking and the freedom to explore, but not when it might produce irreverence toward their idol."

You know what's funny, Marv? If the high schools of Tenn. are doing their job right, then they're already asking questions over how things like natural selection work. That's what I did these last two semesters at Midland College, and my atheist geology professor never batted an eyelid when I or anyone else asked questions over TOE. The issue is not whether evolution should be somehow held sacred and above question; the issue is how this bill will be used; to further science education, or give biased teachers a means of tainting it in a notoriously religious and anti-science state. And by the way, if evolution is such an "idol", what about creationism? I can't help but notice that your magazine has sometimes contained advertisements for Bob Jones University, the infamous religious diploma mill that was racially segregated right up until 2000, that teaches the discredited lie of YEC, and offers no courses whatsoever in geology, one of the essential earth sciences that coincidentally proved a long time ago that the earth cannot possibly be 6,000 years old. Talk about clinging to idols, namely racism and anti-science dogma...

"Those groups and many journalists brought up Tennessee's 1925 law that made illegal the teaching of evolution in public schools and led to the Scopes "monkey trial." They did not note that most public schools in the four score and seven years since then have gone to the other extreme by forbidding the teaching of anything but evolution."

Since evolution has been proven by paleontology and biology (see Richard Lenski's E. Coli experiment, for example, or the blind Texas salamander), what point is there is teaching unsubstantiated nonsense? Should geography teachers present modern flat-earth conspiracy theories to their class? Should chemistry teachers take time to lecture on alchemy? Should astronomy professors spend time on astrology and geocentrism? Eh? I certainly don't see you pointing out flaws in TOE, or suggesting a viable, alternative mechanism for biological diversity. Why is that?

"In states from Virginia to Washington true believers in evolution have harassed and driven away teachers who dared to teach both sides of the Darwin debate"

That's because teachers who teach discredited, debunked theories in order to promote personal religious views are violating the First Amendment, as well as their duty to teach facts, not fiction. As I have proven on this blog multiple times (namely herehere, here, here, here, here, here, and here), creationism, whether you call it that or intelligent design, is an inherently dishonest, disingenuous anti-intellectual dogma held solely by the woefully ignorant, the abysmally uneducated, and the criminally stupid. After 150 years, evolution via natural selection is held as a fact by over 99.999% of the scientific community. There are hundreds of thousands of peer-approved papers supporting it, and not a single bit of research compromising it. Meanwhile, Cretinists, instead of conducting research in the field and performing experiments like real scientists, attempt to combat the hateful theory of "Darwinism" through propaganda and wasteful court battles. Not of course, that they'll ever admit to the fact that if their cherished belief rested upon even a grain of truth, it would be capable of holding it's own against TOE in peer review.

'If macro-evolution were proven, the true believers would have a case, but more than 800 Ph.D.-bearing scientists have signed a statement expressing skepticism about contemporary evolutionary theory's claims that random mutation and natural selection account for the complexity of life. These scientists say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."'

Appeal to Authority. In other words, you, sir, are a moron. It's funny how Olasky, the Editor in Chief of WORLD, who has been touted as a great journalist, is committing elementary level logical fallacies and is sloppy enough to fail to provide a source for this 'statement'. Here's a link to the statement. Here's another link to evidence for macro-evolution. It's funny how he lacks the knowledge to actually point out any flaws in the theory himself: instead, he just blithely says that since people with Ph.Ds agree with him, evolution hasn't been proven. Never mind the fact that the veracity of an argument isn't determined by the credentials of the person making it, but by the internal logic and evidence it rests upon. Credentials merely mean that that person is better equipped to understand a specific field of study than someone who does not have them.

'As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to our troubles.' --Bertrand Russell

'The 1925 law tried to close off debate, but the think tank that has proposed laws like Tennessee's new one, the Discovery Institute, is working to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It wants evolution, including its unresolved issues, to be fully presented to students: "Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.'

So what evidence is there that it was being taught as a "sacred dogma"? Oh that's right; there is none.

'That gets to the heart of the hysteria. The New York Times editorialized in 1925 for "faith, even of a grain of mustard seed, in the evolution of life." The Times said evolution gives us hope for progress: "If man has evolved, it is inconceivable that the process should stop and leave him in his present imperfect state. Specific creation has no such promise for man."'

That sounds accurate to me. According to the mindless fundamentalist interpretation of the bible which virtually all creationists adhere to, man was created flawed, and has no hope of ever bettering himself, except by groveling before the very being who made him/her that way. Of course, this is just a philosophical nicety, and pretty weak as far as arguments for TOE go, but it makes a nice change from the fanaticism that has so marked this country.

"Specific creation, of course, has the ultimate promise: God cares."

Which is why he'll roast you alive for millions and billions and trillions of years to the power of infinity if you fail to worship him and stroke his ego (despite being a perfect being who should then, by definition, have no needs and no wants).

"Sadly, many look desperately for hope elsewhere, anywhere. Last month the New York Times editorial page editor, consistent with his predecessors, criticized critics of evolution who have "learned to manufacture doubt." The Times, of course, daily manufactures doubt regarding God, but thunders, "Thou shalt not doubt" evolution. If other states follow Tennessee's example, we'll have a robust debate instead of more attempts to suppress it"

There is no debate, dumbass. Evolution has been established as a fact for over one hundred years at this point. Just because you're too ignorant to comprehend the depth of research supporting it doesn't mean that it hasn't been proven. Biology, genetics, geology, and paleontology make no sense whatsoever if evolution is not true. Why don't you go to the nearest college and educate yourself?


Posted by b__e at Debunking Christianity, in response to Lucian;

"Lucian, but the Bible is no help with resolving good and evil anyway.  God kills infants while saying murder is wrong, sends lying spirits while telling people not to bear false witness, tells us we should not punish the innocent but curses all of Adam's decendants, has people killed in barbaric and horrible ways for such "crimes" as picking up sticks yet tells people to be kind, tortures people for eternity in hell while all while claiming mercy is essential.  He says he's "coming soon" when it has been 2000 yrs.  He gives us His "word" but it is intellgible and people have been fighting over what its contradictory message means for centuries.  This God not only does not exist-- but the myths about him have generated all sort of unnecessary and irrelevant arguments."