Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work?

There are crackpots, and then there are people who go far beyond crack and shatter the pot so intensely that no two molecules of pot remain connected. That latter type of crazy aptly describes Chibuihem Amalaha, who has disproven gay marriage using…magnets.

So, who is this Chibuihem Amalaha fellow?

I was the first to publish report about the 2006 total solar eclipse in the newspaper in Nigeria when I was writing for the defunct New Age newspaper. I also reported the true situation about the 2010 acid rain in Nigeria. I carried out analysis and found out that there was nothing like cancer of the skin attributed to the acid rain and by 2011, I emerged the best science reporter in Nigeria where I won Nigeria Media Merit Award in the energy category as a science editor with Compass newspapers.” He continued: “Ever since then I have been doing a lot of researches in the country. There are many discoveries and inventions I have made in science and technology. I have also been able to prove that the mathematical symbol pi which people thought of as 22 over 7 is not actually 22 over , but  rather a transcendental number while 22 over 7 is a rational number. I also proved that watching television in the dark impacts negatively on one’s eyes and by God’s grace, I was the first person to use scientific instruments to prove it in the whole world. The Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) featured me on this in one of their programmes on January 12, 2013, where I demonstrated to millions of their viewers that watching television in the dark damages the eyes. Usually when it’s around 10pm, many families in Nigeria will switch off their surrounding lights to use the light from television or the light from computer alone thinking that they will see images brighter. But from experiments I found that it’s not true and experts both at the University of Lagos and elsewhere have found my work to be true. The reason for this is because there is a lot of difference in illuminants (brightness) between the television screen and the dark background in the room known as the periphery,” Amalaha said.

Yup. Sounds trustworthy. I mean, you can always trust a “scientist” who refers to lumens as “illuminants”, right? It’s like going to a dentist who calls your teeth “those bitey things.” I can’t imagine what could go wrong. (And who the fuck ever said pi was 22/7?)

Anyways, on to the scourge of gay marriage!

“A recent publication on May 3, 2013 shows that France is the 14th country in the world that have legalised gay. I asked myself why should a man be marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman, does it mean that there is no more female for a man to marry or there is no more male for a woman to marry?

If men marry men, and women marry women, then there are no more men or women; therefore, no one lives in France. Given that France has a population of something like 64,000,000, I think there might be a flaw in your logic there, Buck-O.

And recently, Britain told Nigeria to legalise gay marriage of forfeit international aid. I thank God for our lawmakers who refused to sign the bill legalising gay marriage. And so God gave me the wisdom to use science as a scientist to prove gay marriage wrong.

Science! As a scientist! She blinded me with science as a scientist! Now you cannot get gay married as a gay!

“In the area of physics, I used physics with experiments, I used chemistry with experiments, I used biology with experiments and I used mathematics to prove gay marriage wrong.

I’m getting these hilarious mental images of busy little worker bee Amalaha puttering around his lab randomly mixing chemicals and flipping switches on and off while visions of Nobel Prizes dance in his head–and everyone else in the lab just shakes their head and turns away from the pathetic spectacle.

“To start with, physics is one of the most fundamentals of all the sciences and  I used two bar magnets in my research.

Gay.

A bar magnet is a horizontal magnet that has the North Pole and the South Pole and when you bring two bar magnets and you bring the North Pole together you find that the two North Poles will not attract. They will repel, that is, they will push away themselves showing that a man should not attract a man.

The right wing, after declaring that blastocysts and corporations are people, are now hopping on the Magnets Are People bandwagon. We’re all fucking doomed.

Even in physics when you study what is called electrostatics, you found that when you rub particles together they don’t attract each other but when you rub particle in another medium they will attract each other.

You’re invited to rub my particles, you ignorant son of a bitch.

That is how I used physics to prove gay marriage wrong.

“Next I’ll use geology to prove that my wife is totally wrong about my impotence.  Devil’s Tower, here I come!”

But in chemistry I used a simple one known as neutralisation reaction which is a reaction where an acid reacts with a base to give you salt and water. For example, when you bring surphuric acid and you reacts it with sodium hydroxide which is a base you are going to have salt and water.  That tells you that the acid is a different body, the base is a different body and they will react. But if you bring an acid and you pour it on top of an acid chemistry there will be no reaction.  If you bring water and pour it on top it shows that there will be no reaction. If you bring a base either sodium hydroxide and you pour it on top of a sodium hydroxide you find out that there will be reaction showing that a man on top of a man will have no reaction. A woman on top of a woman will have no reaction, that is what chemistry is showing.

I’ve seen some very compelling pornographic evidence to the contrary.

I hope this guy’s wife reads this shit. Next time she doesn’t feel like sex, rather than claiming a headache, she can just pour random chemicals together and say it proves his boner doesn’t exist.

“In biology, I used simple experiments and I came down to a lay man.

Gay.

We have seen that the female of a fowl is called hen and the male of a fowl is called a cock.

Dude, seriously, you’re making this too easy for me.

We have never seen where a cock is having sex with a cock

Yes we have, in both senses of the word.

Now if animals that are of even lower creature understand so much, how come  human being made in the higher image of God that is even of higher creature will be thinking of  a man having sex with another and woman having sex with another woman?

More importantly, what does this say about God?

That shows that it’s a misnomer and when you come to real biological standard, when you see a lady you love there is what is called the follicle stimulating hormone. The follicle stimulating hormone in a man triggers what is called spermatogenesis through your brain which is called hypothalamus.

Wait. You think spermatogenesis takes place in THE BRAIN? Someone’s parents never gave him “the talk”.

The sperm in the man alone doesn’t produce a child and ovary in the female alone does not produce a child, they need each other for reproduction to occur.

So fucking what? Marriage doesn’t always involve reproduction. Duh.

In mathematics which is another core area of science, I used what is called the principle of commutativity and idepotency.

You know what’s sad? There are people out there dumb enough to fall for this shit. He just throws around big, science-y sounding words that anyone with two neurons to rub together knows he doesn’t understand, but somewhere out there is someone who sees words like “spermatogenesis” and “idempotence“–errr, I mean “idepotency”–and “lumens”–errrr, I mean “illuminants”–and immediately thinks, “Ooooo, this here fella’s a smart one!”

Sigh. It makes me sad for humanity.

Commutativity in mathematics is simply the arrangement of numbers or arrangement of letters in which the way you arrange them don’t matter.

Uh…..no. There’s a bit more to it than that.

For example, if you say A + B in mathematics you are going to have B + A. For example, if I say two plus three it will give five. If I start from three, I say three plus two it also give you five showing that two plus three and three plus two are commutative because they gave the same results. That shows that A + B will give you B + A, you see that there is a change. In A + B, A started the journey while in B + A, B started the journey. If we use A as a man and use B as a woman we are going to have B + A that is woman and man showing that there is a reaction. A + B reacted, they interchanged and gave us B + A showing that commutativity obeys that a man should not marry a man and a woman should not marry a woman.

And if you let A be a shaved walrus, and B be that sinking feeling you get when you realize you’ve got diarrhea but the bathroom’s occupied, then you know that marriage can only be between utterly randomly assigned variables and anything can marry anything.

If you use idempotency, it’s a reaction in mathematics where A + A = A. Actually in abstract algebra, A + A =2A but we are less concerned with the numerical value two.

Math doesn’t have reactions. You seem to have confused it with chemistry. And addition is only idempotent for the number 0. You could have just said that. And nothing you are doing is related to abstract algebra, much less fucking gay marriage. You’re a very confused little man, aren’t you?

But in the case of idempotency A + A will give you A showing that it goes unreacted. You started with A and you meet A ,the final result is A. Showing that a man meeting a man A + A will produce a man there is no reaction, it goes unreacted and in chemical engineering you have to send the material back to the reactor for the action to be carried out again showing that it goes unreacted.

Uh, I was just joking about you confusing math and chemistry, but judging by this paragraph…you really can’t tell one from the other, can you?

“If you go on the Internet to check whether there is anybody who has used physics to prove gay marriage wrong, you find out there is none.

Can’t imagine why that might be…

“I want to be able to publish it in international journals. The finance has been a problem in this area because I found out that you you have to pay in dollars for international journals to publish you. You know finance is a factor and I don’t have money to start paying in US dollars and I need sponsors so that I can pay for the journals to be published.”

Pony up, fundies! You know you can’t get that idiotic bogus science you love so much if you don’t fork over a little dough.

“Nigerian sector does not encourage scientific research so much but what God has given me I am using it effectively to touch Nigerian nation. All the scientific researches I have been doing  have not yielded any encouragement to do more.

Speaking about his ambition, Amalaha after taking a deep breath said “My ambition is to go beyond the sky. I want to reach the level God has destined me to reach. I want to be the first African to win Nobel Prize in science because as I am talking to you now African has ever won Nobel Prize in science.

I hate to break it to you, but I don’t see a Nobel in your future. A paid gig on Fox News on the other hand…

Today, I used science to prove that Amalaha is an Amalaha. I dropped a glass. By gravitationalism, it acceleratronimated to the groundination and enbrokenified. It was very stupid. Amalaha is the glass. What an idiot!

Advertisements

If only there were no more popes…

So, WingNutDaily, what do you have in store for me today? (And by “in store”, I mean an article that is actually a thinly veiled attempt to sell me something.)

WND EXCLUSIVE

Ancient ‘Prophecy of the Popes’ coming true?

Documentary explores intrigue that has lasted for centuries

That’ll do. I’m sure there’s plenty of crazy shit in this article to make fun of. Whenever WND brags of getting the scoop on some Huge Fucking Prophecy that has boggled the mind of scholars for centuries, it almost always turns out to be some obscure bullshit that they dug up and no one but them gives a shit about. This will not be an exception.

What I find especially interesting from the get-go is that this apparently wasn’t the original intended title for the article. The URL seems to show us what they really wanted to say:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/will-the-antichrist-be-the-pope/

That’s a bit more provocatively stupid, but might alienate some of WND’s crazed Catholic readers, so I can see why they might change it. But it’s not like WND to show restraint. Usually they try to be as provocatively stupid as possible. The fact that they apparently tried to rein this article in is a bit intriguing.

A new documentary is the first effort to take an objective look at the prophecies of a 12th century Irish Catholic saint and what they portend for the future of the Church and Pope Francis.

See that link at the beginning? It goes to the WND SuperStore where you can buy the DVD. Because WND knows that their audience is stupid enough to trust a purported movie review from a source that is actively trying to sell the movie they’re reviewing.

Next WND will be taking a totally objective look at unicorns and what they predict for the downfall of the Obama administration, please send money. Because that’s how objectivity works, right?

According to the Prophecy of the Popes, a time of vast biblical significance is now at hand.

You fucking Christians have been saying this shit for 2,000 god damn years. It’s about god damn time to put up or shut up. Jesus ape-fucking Christ, I was climbing the walls when League of Extraordinary Gentlemen shipped just one year late. Note: The “Jesus” at the beginning of that sentence was not a profanity. It’s a fucking ultimatum. Hey, Jesus. Either come back already or tell your obnoxious followers to shut the fuck up. Todd fucking MacFarlane is more punctual than you are.

“The Last Pope?” includes medieval historians, Vatican-affiliated experts and authors. From Ireland to Italy, “The Last Pope?” tells a riveting story of eschatological intrigue. The film is based on the book, “Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope is Here,” by Tom Horn and Cris Putnam.

So it’s a low rent version of The Da Vinci Code for people dumb enough to think it’s real. (Note: The Da Vinci Code is already quite low rent. A renowned scholar told me so.)

“The Last Pope?” delves deeply into the prophecies of St. Malachy, an Irish saint and archbishop of Armagh who lived from 1094 to 1148. Malachy’s “Prophesies of the Popes” is said to be based on a prophetic vision of the 112 popes following Pope Celestine II, who died in 1144.

Malachy’s prophecies, first published in 1595, culminate with the “final pope,” “Petrus Romanus,” or “Peter the Roman,” whose reign ends with the destruction of Rome and the judgment of Christ. A modern version of Malachy’s prophecies was published in 1969 by Archbishop H. E. Cardinale, the Apostolic Nuncio to Belgium and Luxembourg.

The film examines Malachy’s prophecies, which are a series of statements that purportedly provide clues as the identity of each of the 112 popes, in a critical light. Some of the statements refer to a particular town, while others make references to the coat of arms representing each pontiff.

More accurately: The prophecies are full of vague references and “symbolism” that could be interpreted 38 gajillion different ways. What matters is that we included two more links to the WND SUPERSTORE. BUY BUY BUY!!!

Skeptics have said the book is nothing more than a collection of phrases similar to the writings of Nostradamus. Putman says people have a right to be skeptical, and if Malachy’s revelations are correct, they should stand up to scrutiny using the scientific method. He goes on to say that they provide a fascinating insight into the history of the popes.

Here’s the six-step scientific method according to these people:

  1. Assume there’s such a thing as prophecy.
  2. Read obscure passage.
  3. Connect symbolically to some modern day occurrence.
  4. Prophet!
  5. Profit!

Why the fuck are we talking about scientific method regarding some specific prophecy when there isn’t a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that there is any such thing as prophecy? This is like a scientist frivolously doing experiments to see whether his DNA is enboobulated, without ever bothering to see if enboobulation is even a real thing.

“The way the scientific method works is you develop a hypothesis and you don’t try to prove a hypothesis, you try to disprove it,” Putnam said. “It’s easy to find some kind of confirming evidence if you go fishing around. In a lot of these prophecies, I think that’s a valid criticism.”

There’s a hell of a lot more to scientific method than that. For one thing, any scientific inquiry needs to be fully embedded in the context of what we already know. It needs to be not only evidence-based, but also based on and derived from other concepts which are fully evidence-based and supported by evidence.

But kudos to you for at least acknowledging the rampant confirmation bias that infects all talk of “prophecy”. I fully expect you to maintain this rational state of mind at least into the next sentence.

However, he says one pope in particular stands out in the prophecy surrounding his reign. For Pope Benedict XV, who was pontiff from 1914 to 1922, Malachy’s prophesy says “Religio Depopulata” or “religion depopulated.”

“Religion depopulated, now that is a bold prediction. With all things being equal, you wouldn’t expect religion to be depopulated,” Putnam said. “It might go up and down a little bit, the church might grow it might fall off a bit, but that is a risky position. It is easily falsifiable. If nothing happened during his reign, I would think that this prophecy would’ve been falsified, but what happens during Benedict XV’s reign?

“This was the onset of World War I, which was devastating. In the Soviet Union and Russia, we see the Bolshevik revolution. This is the beginning of militant atheism and the time that 200 million people left the church. Probably more than in any time in history, religion was depopulated, exactly when this prophecy predicted it would hundreds of years before.”

I should’ve known better. He acknowledges that all prophets do is retroactively find modern day events which sound vaguely like some abstruse passage in an old book, acknowledges that this is a valid criticism, then turns around and does the exact same thing.

What the fuck does “religion depopulated” mean? Well, it could mean zillions of different things. I hope it means “No more religion”, but I’m not naive enough to think that could happen. But it doesn’t necessarily mean the atheism of the Bolsheviks (which would have involved Orthodox rather than Catholic religion). The mass suicide of the Heaven’s Gate cult, the Holocaust of the Jews, the Jonestown mass suicide and the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas, are also examples of non-Catholic religions being depopulated. But they don’t fit with the right Pope, so they get ignored.

It’s called confirmation bias, bitch. Look it up. Hell, I already did it for you. Just click and fucking read.

While the Catholic Church has had more than 400 years to dispute the procedures, a least one pope seemed to take stock in the prophecy. Pastor Angelicus, or the “Angel Pope,” was given to describe Pius XII, who was a fierce anti-communist.

Pius XII had a documentary made about himself, which he titled “The Angel Pope.”

There’s that Christian humility we hear so much about.

“He was intimately involved in this project, and it even said how it exemplifies a day in the life of St. Malachy’s angelic shepherd in the heading,” Putnam said. “The Catholic Church has had 400 years to make a statement disputing [Malachy’s predictions], but here we have one of their infallible popes who obviously claimed it for himself. That begs an explanation from any scholar who wants to dismiss it.”

No, it doesn’t. The motherfucker called himself “The Angel Pope”. He was clearly delusional. That in and of itself means scholars are free to ignore his bullshit.

This is classic conspiracy theorist reasoning. I’m being ignored, therefore I’m important! They can’t accept the fact that Malachy was just some obscure dingbat who was lucky enough to have his drooling ramblings recorded. The fact that he’s ignored, which usually is evidence of insignificance, is taken to be evidence of his earth shattering relevance.

Conspiracy theorists and fundamentalists live in Opposite Land, where irrelevance is significance, obedience is freedom, ignorance is knowledge, and faith is reason.

Malachy’s prophecies appear to even have an eerie prediction regarding John Paul I, who was only pope for just more than a month. Describing John Paul I, Malachy says he is “of the half moon.” Interestingly, John Paul I ascended to the papacy on the day of the half moon.

We need to have a talk about what “interesting” means.

And since when are you goons into astrology? Didn’t that used to be evil devil worshiping sinful shit?

Following the death of John Paul I, evidence suggested that the pontiff may have been poisoned. The details are covered in the book “Murder in the Vatican” by Avro Manhattan. Regardless of the cause of his demise, a statement made by John Paul I seems to indicate he had some knowledge of his impending death.

Cardinal Luciani, patriarch of Venice, was asked in Latin, “Do you accept your election as Supreme Pontiff, which has been canonically carried out?” His reply was unexpected as he said, “May God forgive you for what you have done in my regard.” In just more than a month, he was dead, supposedly dying in his sleep.

Yes, that PAST TENSE sentence is a prediction of the future.

Objective scientific method, ladies and gentlemen.

While Malachy’s prophecies have been around for centuries, Pope Francis is the final pope mentioned by the archbishop. If his prophecies are correct, Francis could be the last pope before the return of Jesus Christ.

That “last pope” thing sounds nice. That “return of Christ” thing sounds fucking childish and idiotic.

Dr. George Grant, a historian and former pastor who has written more than 60 books, says regardless of whether there is any validity to the prophecies, sooner or later Pope Francis and the Vatican will have to deal with issue.

“It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s true; it matters whether people think it’s true and that they act in light of it,” Grant said. “Francis and the Vatican will have to deal with this in some way, and in dealing with it they are in a sense giving credence to it. Do I think we need to pay attention to it? Absolutely.”

Fuck truth! We’re the Catholic Church!

And that’s where the article ends. Presumably they feel like they baited the hook enough and this should get their clueless, fuckbrained, rube readers to buy the DVD.

Speaking of clueless, fuckbrained rubes, WND usually has “interesting” comments on their articles. Let’s take a look at a few…

Junie32 hours ago
Pope False Prophet, anti- Messiah will be a Jew from the tribe of Judah, King Solomon is a type of Anti-Messiah. Here’s your picture of him. http://watch.pair.com/solomon….

He want be an alien. The bible gives us an example, a picture of everything. Jews will not allow anyone who is not from the tribe of Judah. Sadly they will follow hm before most people.

Nope. Fuck this. I’m done.

How to be a Christian asshole, Part 2

Look at this face.

Ray Comfort: Heartless Assdouche

Ray Comfort: Heartless Assdouche

See him, all smiley and pretend-friendly looking? This is how he presents himself apart from his words. This is the face of the politician who kisses babies when he’s not slashing the Welfare budget that would feed them. This is the face of the used car salesman who isn’t capable of thinking anything other than, “How can I rip this guy off?”

I’ve spoken before about what a loathsome, hideous human being Ray Comfort is. But I want to make sure something is crystal clear. Ray Comfort hates you. He hates your mom. He hates your dog. He absolutely despises humanity and anything that’s good in this world. There is not a fiber of his being that doesn’t want to see you and everyone else burn and die. And until the day comes when we are all immolated and all of human history is dust, his only concern is to find a way to squeeze money out of his gullible Christian followers. He is not capable of thinking or doing anything else. He is composed of cynicism and hatred. He can’t be any other thing. He is the worst thing humanity has to offer. And he probably eats puppies.

He shows it whenever he transitions from plastic smile to using actual words in the English language. Take, for example, his regular column at WingNutDaily, which is called “Atheists Ask”, and which purports to be his answers to questions from “atheists” (which in his vernacular means anyone who doesn’t believe exactly what he believes). His most recent entry, from 2 days ago, shows beyond the shadow of any doubt that he hates each and every one of us.

ATHEISTS ASK

How could a man stone his own son?

Exclusive: Ray Comfort answers biblical questions posed by skeptics

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Any time WingNutDaily claims some story is “exclusive”, that means that it’s so bad that no other news website would ever publish it. This is no exception.

“Deuteronomy 21:18-21: ‘If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.’ – What’s the context of this, Ray?” – Bridgette Patterson

Bridgette is being way, way too nice. Do you really need context to a passage that states that parents should murder their own son? And that the whole town should join in on giving him a painful, tortuous death? There is no context in which that’s okay. None whatsoever. If the Bible commands people to do that (and it does), then the Bible is evil. Full fucking stop.

These kinds of questions are usually answered with mealy-mouthed equivocation and vague excuses by Christians. But not Comfort. Oh, no. He wants you all to know that stoning disobedient children is A-OK with him.

Israeli law was meant to produce fear. And it certainly did because it would seem that no youths mouthed off at or beat and murdered their parents. No doubt they showed respect, because there are no incidents in the entire Bible of any youths being stoned for disobedience to their parents. Again, this was because their criminal law produced a fear of consequences.

You know what society needs? More fucking fear. That sounds great!

I love how he thinks that the Bible not mentioning the victims of this draconian law means that they don’t exist. That’s not how oppression works, Comfort, and you know it. The victims weren’t recorded because they were the dregs of society. They were tortured, murdered, and forgotten, right down the Orwellian memory hole. What are the names of all the people Stalin killed? What are the names of all the people burned as witches in the early modern period? What are the names of all the black people lynched in the United States in the early 20th century? We don’t know. And we never will. The people who killed them didn’t even consider them to be proper humans, and didn’t see fit to record their names any more than they would the names of the cattle or sheep they slaughtered.

At this point, most Christians become moral relativists and say, “Well, things were different back then. So killing your kids was okay in ancient Israel, even though it’s not okay now.” This is because of cognitive dissonance between their barbaric belief system and their upraising as decent human beings. They don’t realize it, but they want to put the Bible’s barbarism in the past and live decently in today’s world. But not Comfort.

In recent years American criminal law has become spineless. It has lost its ability to produce fear. Murder someone and you may get six years in prison and be released in four. Richard Ramirez was found guilty of murdering 13 people. One of his victims was mutilated with multiple stab wounds, and her eyes were gouged out and placed in a jewelry box. On May 30, 1985, Ramirez attacked Malvial Keller, 83, beating her to death with a hammer. For his heinous acts he got free board and food for life and was allowed to get married and have conjugal rights.

When the law isn’t feared you have a nation that has had more than 380,000 people murdered since 1990. You have a nation where mass murder is so commonplace it hardly gets time on the news. Welcome to lawless America – who is afraid to take the life of a guilty mass murderer like Ramirez, but will fight tooth and nail for the right to take the lives of babies in the womb.

I want to emphasize that I am not being hyperbolic in any way when I call Comfort a loathsome human being who is filled with hatred. He lacks the basic decency that causes most Christians to want to find excuses for why the most barbaric shit in the Bible doesn’t apply today. Comfort wants it to apply. He wants people to live in fear, and he wants us to kill more people. He also wants us to put the value of fetuses that don’t have developed brains (and therefore lack experience and personality) over the lives of actual humans who really do have life experience.

Ray Comfort longs for the day when parents could viciously murder their sons. That says all that you ever need to know about him, really. But we can go further in analyzing this.

Note how, when asked for context, his only response is, “People should live in fear.” That’s all the context he needs, and he apparently believes that this is an adequate answer. He honestly thinks that he’s given a sufficient answer to this “atheist’s” question. He is fully in the authoritarian mindset. He read Machiavelli without realizing that Machiavelli wrote The Prince under the premise “Authoritarianism is awful, but if you must be an authoritarian, this is how to do it.”

Anyways, on to the next atheist’s question:

“Ray, you are an idiot. Your opinions on creation have no basis in reality. In order to understand what we are and where we come from we must study every detail of our planet and beyond, not close our minds and [say answers that] were spoon-fed to us by sheep herders that loved slavery and murder.” – Big Mike

I like you, Big Mike.

Studying every detail of nature shows design and order – from the atom to the universe, and that speaks of an initial cause that is unspeakably intelligent. I believe that was God. An evolutionist or an atheist doesn’t know what it was and usually closes his mind to even the possibility of it being God.

I loathe you, Ray Comfort.

No, there is not any sign of design in the atom or the universe. And there is no order in the universe. There is regularity, but that is not the same as order. Just go into any natural setting and look at the way plants grow to see what I mean. Plants will grow in any place that they can. Out of crevices, between randomly strewn boulders, off of other plants. Hell, there’s a pipe 7 feet off the ground against a cinder block wall in my apartment complex, but some dirt got wedged between it and the wall, and a plant grew in the dirt. Of course, it died after a few days. But life can’t predict something like that, because it has no purpose and no order.

Life spreads out wherever it can. It’s like a fluid splashed across the surface of the Earth. It is anything but ordered. It’s beautifully controlled chaos, with the only control being the principles of chemistry that determine its molecular make-up and the imposition of natural selection. No one designed it. Only an idiot would make life the way it is, and that’s part of what makes life so fascinating.

Creationism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism because it wishes to impose false order on something which is much more properly chaotic and free. It is no coincidence that the guy who thinks we should all live in fear is also the guy who thinks that an invisible being micro-manages the universe. He’s just taking his view of how laws should be imposed on humans and applying it to the natural world.

“If I were God, I wouldn’t sentence you to eternal torture just for not worshipping [sic] me. What an evil, egomaniacal god you worship.” – Tristan Miller

Ah, the doctrine of Hell, another Christian precept that many Christians find embarrassing. The reason they find it embarrassing is the same as before. No decent person would ever want to torture someone forever for any reason. Torturing someone forever just because of what they believe is even worse. On some level most Christians realize this, so they try to rationalize Hell away.

But, again, not Ray Comfort.

You are minimizing your crimes against God by just speaking of “not worshipping” Him. The truth is that if you die in your sins you will be damned for lust, lying, fornication, stealing, blasphemy, ingratitude, covetousness, idolatry, etc. You don’t realize it but you have a multitude of sins (as we all have).

Did you know that every single time you have lusted after a woman you have committed adultery as far as God is concerned? Did you know that each time you have done that you are “storing up His wrath”? Think of your secret sins that you thought no one knew about. God has seen them. Every one of them. Think of how many times you have done things you knew were morally wrong – because of the voice of your God-given conscience. He has seen each one, and the Bible says that His just wrath “abides” on you (see John 3:36). That’s why you need a Savior. Please, take the time to do the test on

This is the entirety of Comfort’s answer. Yes, even that broken sentence at the end (at least at the time I’m reading it; maybe they’ll fix it later). WingNutDaily needs a better editor. I have no idea what test Comfort might have been referring to, and honestly don’t give a fuck. Whatever he meant to say before the column got cut off, it was almost certainly just more horribleness.

Comfort is basically just affirming Tristan Miller’s charge. God is an evil egomaniac. Why else would he insist that his wrath abides in us, and condemn us to eternal torment just for masturbating while thinking of Angelina Jolie? Like Ray Comfort, he hates everyone. He’s a judgmental, selfish, arrogant prick, and no one in their right mind would ever worship the Christian God that Ray Comfort describes. God is a wannabe dictator, ruling through fear and intimidation, who wants to control every aspect of your personal life and make you feel constantly guilty and afraid over every single move you make and every thought you think. In other words, he’s just a projection of Comfort’s authoritarian fantasies, a simulacrum of a truly horrible man.

God hates flop

Creationists are a special kind of crazy. Their entire fucking belief system centers around gullible acceptance of fanciful stories, and their lack of self-awareness and intellectual reflection means that they view everything else in the world in terms of unquestioning acceptance of imaginary tales. They just aren’t capable of thinking any other way. If they were, they wouldn’t be creationists.  And since they write hoping to influence (i.e. corrupt) young children, their prose is geared towards generating simple-minded mnemonics and catchphrases rather than eloquence or mellifluousness. Hence the title of this recent article from creation.com:

The 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange, Remove, Ruin—in other words, no evolution!

The genetic changes observed in living things today could not have turned bacteria into basset hounds—ever

Alliteration nourishes the lazy brain.

Mr. Catchpoole is clearly hoping to add another catchphrase to the creationist repertoire. Maybe “Rearrange, Remove, Ruin” will join other creationist stalwarts like “From Goo through the Zoo to You” and “Were You There?” and “Design Implies a Designer” and other empty bromides that creationists endlessly regurgitate without ever actually thinking about. But probably not.

Anyways, let’s look at what Mr. Crotchpull has to say.

Evolution textbooks cite variation as being something upon which ‘evolution depends’.1 However, when one examines closely the claimed ‘demonstrable examples’ of ‘evolution’, they actually fall into three categories, which we can label here as the ‘3 Rs’.

Spoiler: He doesn’t actually look at any demonstrable examples (in scare quotes or otherwise). In fact, there is no discussion of any recent experimental evidence anywhere in the subsequent article. I’m sure you’re shocked to learn this.

‘R’#1: Rearrange existing genes

Careful examination of many purported instances of ‘evolution in action’ shows that such ‘variation’ actually already exists, conferred by genes that already exist.

In science, careful examination means looking at evidence gathered from experiments or collected from nature. In creationism, careful examination means ignoring distinctions and nuance and creating false dichotomies.

Of course evolution involves variation that is already there. It wouldn’t work the way it does if it didn’t prominently involve pre-existing variation. Natural selection does not create out of nothing. It modifies what already exists. This has been a core principle of the theory ever since fucking Darwin himself proposed it over 150 years ago.

Creationists want us to believe that there’s some kind of XOR relation between pre-existing variation and new variation. But there is nothing of the sort. Evolution involves both pre-existing variation and new variation. Both are essential to the theory.

Here’s a simplified example that shows this, and also how such genetic variety might be misconstrued as ‘evidence of evolution’. The two dogs in the top row of Figure 1 are a male and a female. They each have a gene that codes for short hair (inherited from its mother or father) and a gene that codes for long hair (inherited from the other parent). In combination, this gene pair for fur length results in medium length hair.2

Congratu-fucking-lations, you’ve achieved a less-than-rudimentary understanding of partial dominance. And need I even mention that he’s not referring to any actual dogs that were part of any actual experiment, but rather just to a cartoon drawing that accompanied the article? Keep that in mind.

A casual observer, looking only at the outward appearance, i.e. unaware of what is happening at the genetic level, might think: “There were no long-hair dogs in the parents’ generation. This long hair is a new characteristic—evolution is true!”

You’re operating under the assumption that the casual observer is even dumber than you are. People had noticed this phenomenon long before the theory of evolution came along, and Darwin was well aware of it.

But such a view is incorrect. The only thing this ‘evolution’ has done is to rearrange existing genes. There’s simply been a sorting out of pre-existing genetic information. There’s no new information here of the kind needed to have turned pond scum into poodles, Pekingese, pointers and papillons.

But such a view isn’t what evolutionary biologists are talking about. Your make-believe situation with the dogs is utterly fucking irrelevant. Experiments such as Richard Lenski’s long term E. coli experiments have demonstrated again and again organisms evolving new genetic traits which weren’t there before. Unlike your make-believe dogs, they did this with real organisms and used real genetic tests to see what genes were there already and what genes appeared in later generations. Why is it so hard for creationists to understand that reality trumps Magical Pretend Land?

I’ve got actual experimental evidence. You’ve got cartoon dogs. I win.

‘R’#2: Remove genetic information

What about natural selection, adaptation and speciation?

None of these represent the generation of any new microbes-to-mastiff genetic information either. In our ‘hairy dog’ example, if we were to send our new population of dogs, some with short hair, others with medium or long hair, to an icy, very cold location, we wouldn’t be at all surprised to see natural selection at work, killing off any dog that didn’t have long hair (Figure 2, Line 1). When the survivors reproduce, the only fur-length genes passed on to the offspring are those that code for long hair (Figure 2, Line 2).

Thus we now have a population of dogs beautifully adapted to its environment. Biologists encountering our ice-bound population of dogs, observing them to be isolated3 from other populations of dogs, could argue that they be given a new species name.

So here we see natural selection, adaptation, and possibly even speciation—but no new genes have been added. In fact, there’s been a loss of genes (the genetic information for short-and medium-length hair has been removed from the population).

We don’t see anything here, because you’ve demonstrated nothing. You’ve taken a completely imaginary scenario and invented arbitrary rules for it. And here’s where you really fuck up…

Note that such examples of natural selection, adaptation and speciation are often portrayed as evidence for evolution, but the only thing this ‘evolution’ has done is to remove existing genes. If this population of exclusively long-hair dogs were now forcibly relocated to a steamy tropical island, the population could not ‘adapt’ to the hot climate unless someone re-introduced the short-hair gene to the population again, by ‘back-crossing’ a short-or medium-length hair dog from elsewhere.

You have your imaginary bullshit. I have actual evidence. The precise situation you describe has actually happened in real life, and guess what? The result was exactly the opposite of what you say.

In 1971, lizards were transported to the island Pod Mrcaru from the island Pod Kopiste in the Adriatic Sea. In 2008, the lizards on Pod Mrcaru were examined, and were found to have evolved a number of new traits, the most striking of which was a cecal valve in their stomachs. A whole new valve, in under 40 years! Genetic tests showed that they did not interbreed with any other lizards–they were wholly descended from the Pod Kopiste lizards, even though those lizards do not have a cecal valve (in fact, cecal valves are extremely rare in any species of lizard). This is exactly what the creationists insist cannot happen, and yet it does.

Once again, you have some cartoony shit that you pulled out of your ass. I have actual evidence taken from nature. I win.

This is exactly the sort of thing that our crop and livestock breeders are doing. They are scouring the world for the original genes created during Creation Week4 but which have subsequently been ‘bred out’ (lost) from our domestic varieties/breeds of plants and animals because of breeders artificially selecting certain characteristics, which means other features are de-selected (lost).

This just downright idiotic. Here’s an example. In the picture below, on the right is an ear of corn. On the left is corn’s wild genetic ancestor, which is called teosinte.

499px-Maize-teosinte

There is clearly more going on here than just a few genes being missing. The entire overall structure has been radically altered.

Strike three for your bullshit cartoons and imaginary scenarios.

So how about that third R?

However, there are forms of dog genes today which were not present at Creation but have arisen since. But those have not arisen by any creative process, but by mutations, which are copying mistakes (typos, we might say) as genes are passed from parents to offspring. You would expect such accidental changes to wreck the existing genes, and that’s what happens. For example, the dog pictured in Figure 3 has just such a mutated gene, resulting in ‘floppy ear syndrome’.5

“Wreck”? What the hell does that mean? That’s not a scientific term, and it is never defined in this article. Instead, the buttfuckingly stupid example of floppy ears on dogs is somehow supposed to explain how mutations “wreck” genes.

Dogs with this genetic mutation have weaker cartilage and cannot lift up their ears. So they just hang, floppy before dinner, and sloppy after it—unless their owners are diligent in cleaning them. Such regular attention to ear hygiene is necessary, as dogs with floppy ears are prone to serious ear infections, which can even lead to hearing loss.6 Not that their hearing was especially good anyway. As you might expect, dogs with erect ears are far superior to floppy-eared dogs at detecting prey by sound.7

So fucking what? The dogs that have floppy ears have no need to hunt prey by sound, so they aren’t harmed by this at all. This is like saying that a dolphin is “wrecked” because its limbs aren’t strong enough to walk around on land. When would it ever need to do that?

I can remember reflecting on this when I was an atheist/evolutionist, and wondering how such floppy-eared dogs could have ever evolved and survived in the wild.

You must have been the stupidest atheist in the universe.

I now know that they didn’t.

Yeah, no shit.

Instead this mutation in the genes has arisen since the original “very good” world (Genesis 1:31) was cursed as a result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17–19). The floppy-eared mutation in dogs is but one example of how a post-Fall world is very much “in bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–22).

How the fuck did you get from floppy ears to bondage?

And, no, that is not the explanation.  Floppy ears are an example of paedomorphosis, which can result from developmental processes like neoteny or progenesis. This involves alterations to regulatory genes which alter the time or pacing of sexual development and cause juvenile traits to be retained in the adult animal. It’s been the subject of experimental research ever since Dmitri Belyaev was able to recreate how dogs evolved from wolves, except this time using foxes. And he did this 50 years ago.

It’s not “wrecking” the genes. It’s making alterations which, if adaptive, will be preserved by natural selection. In the case of floppy ears, for domestic dogs “adaptive” means “humans like it”, and that’s what we see with dogs.

Why is this so important to consider, in the context of evolutionary claims that no Creator was necessary?

It’s not. Evolutionary biologists already understand floppy ears much better than you ever will, and unlike you, they have actual experimental evidence to back up their claims.

Evolutionary biologists, when pressed with the facts about natural selection, will concede that natural selection by itself can only remove existing genetic information. However, they argue that in tandem with mutations, natural selection would be a creative process.

But the floppy-ear mutation, for one, is a classic example of the widespread degradation of the genome—a downhill process. For microbes-to-man evolution to be true, evolutionists should be able to point to thousands of examples of information-gaining mutations, an uphill process, but they can’t.8 Mutations overwhelmingly ruin genetic information. Therefore evolutionists looking to mutations as being evolution’s ‘engine’ do so in vain.9 Thus they are left with no known mechanism capable of ever turning microbes into mutts—i.e. no way of ‘climbing’ up the supposed evolutionary ‘tree’.

This is why creationist fail. They fundamentally misunderstand the theory they’re arguing against, and end up making stupid arguments like this.

Evolution is not teleological. It has no direction. There is no path. “Good” and “bad” mutations are only good or bad relative to the environment the organism lives in. What’s good in one environment might be bad in another.

For this reason, there’s no such thing as “degradation” of the genome. What counts as a “good” genome depends on what kind of environment we’re talking about. In the wild, floppy ears might not be good. But living with humans, dogs with floppy ears have been successful and bred widely, and from a natural selection point of view that’s all that matters.

Note that while mutations degrade genetic information, sometimes an advantage arising from such degradation can outweigh the disadvantage vis-à-vis survival. While a floppy-eared mutant mutt might not last long in the wild, under human care—i.e. with regular ear cleaning—the equation changes. And what about the key moment when a buyer is looking for the ‘cutest’, friendliest pup in the pet shop window? Indeed, there is increasing evidence that the floppy-eared characteristic is strongly associated with tameness.10,11 Little wonder then, that floppy-eared dogs are so common today.12

Wait, so you acknowledge what I said earlier??? Then in what possible way could you mean “degrade”? Obviously you acknowledge that floppy ears actually benefit dogs in their human environment, so they’re not bad. So they haven’t been degraded or wrecked. Or is it that even in your tiny little creationist head you’ve never bothered to clarify just what the fuck those words are supposed to mean in this context?

Look, you’re conceding the point here. You’re acknowledging that in the right environment, a mutation might provide a survival benefit and, as a result, be preserved by natural selection. You basically just said that the evolutionists are right and natural selection preserves adaptive variations. In just one paragraph you completely undermined whatever garbled, nonsensical point you were trying to make about “degradation”. And yet you go on after this to spike the football and celebrate your victory over evolution, like a team that never looked at the scoreboard and doesn’t realize that they lost the game long ago, and in fact that last touchdown was in their own end zone. It’s just sad, really.

The Three R’s fail spectacularly. They’re supported by no actual experimental or observational evidence. Instead, they stand on only imaginary scenarios which either do not have any real life counterpart or are just childish recreations of rudimentary concepts. They don’t propose anything that evolutionary biologists hadn’t already considered (and often rejected). And in the end they undermine their own point. They boil down to a self-contradictory collection of nonsense founded on imaginary tales with arbitrary rules.

In other words, they are typical of religion.

Cloning the Language

There’s a widely cited term in the skeptical community about a commonly observed phenomenon in the gullible dingleberry community. Crank Magnetism, as it’s called, is the tendency of those who accept one ludicrous pseudoscientific or otherwise demonstrably false belief to accept others as well. So a creationist like Phillip Johnson also turns out to be an HIV/AIDS denialist.  Or a global warming denialist might also be a stem cell denialist. Essentially fucktardation in one realm of thought correlates positively with other realms of thought also being fucktarded. Stupidity spreads through one’s brain like the virus you deny exists, and makes your thoughts on a whole range of topics utterly fucktarded.

This is certainly true of the Discovery Institute, the primary driver behind the ball-crunchingly fucktarded pseudo-theory of Intelligent Design. They also are fucktarded in several other scientific domains, including the one I’m looking at today: Human Cloning. It also provides a perfect example of another odious practice that the superstitious and bigoted like to do: Appropriating Language. Observe:

Some worry most about the eventual birth of a cloned baby—an event that is still a long way off. But therapeutic cloning already poses an acute threat to human dignity.

It’s starting to reach the point where I cringe whenever I hear the word “dignity”, because it is more and more being used to attack things that have nothing to do with dignity. The damn Catholic Church claims that IVF techniques are an affront to human dignity, for fuck’s sake. Generally, “dignity” is more and more starting to mean “some airy idea or arbitrary rule that we will treat as more important than actual physical human beings.”

As Charles Krauthammer, who served on George W. Bush’s President’s Council on Bioethics, warned in the New Republic in 2002, creating cloned embryos for research—now accomplished—is “dangerous” because it reduces the cloned embryo to “mere thingness,” justifying “the most ruthless exploitation.”

Quoting Krauthammer, eh? That’s fucking hilarious, seeing as he once called you guys’ pet theory “tarted-up creationism” and thinks you Intelligent Design nuts are scientific phonies. But let’s see what this Iraq War supporter has to say about “dignity”.

He went on to say:

It is the ultimate in desensitization . . . The problem, one could almost say, is not what cloning does to the embryo, but what it does to us . . . Creating a human embryo just so it can be used and then destroyed undermines the very foundation of the moral prudence that informs the entire enterprise of genetic research: the idea that, while a human embryo may not be a person, it is not nothing. Because if it is nothing, then everything is permitted. And if everything is permitted, then there are no fences, no safeguards, no bottom.

Hey, Charles. Hyperbole just called. He said he wants you to tone it down, since even he’s embarrassed by this. Also, notice how he’s picked up the terms “exploitation” and “desensitization” from other issues and stuck them onto an issue to which they simply don’t apply. Remember, this is a single cell that we are talking about. One human zygote–that’s what therapeutic cloning produces. That’s it. It has no feeling, no thoughts, no experiences, no nerves, no brain. There is nothing there to be harmed in any way. A single cell has no dignity. It can’t be exploited. It has no senses. It is not a person. But in the name of “exploitation” and “desensitization” and “human dignity” we need to outlaw experimenting on it at the cost of valuable medical knowledge which could save thousands of real human beings.

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine a trolley track with a fork in it. You’re at the switch. You can decide which track to send an out of control trolley down by pulling the switch.  On one track, there is a man tied to it. On the other track, a rack of petri dishes containing one thousand human zygotes. If you don’t pull the switch, the trolley will hit the man and kill him. If you pull the switch, it will hit the petri dishes and destroy all 1,000 embryos. What do you do?

If you answer “Pull the switch”, then you don’t believe zygotes are really people, since you’d be willing to destroy 1,000 of them to save one life.

If you say, “Don’t pull the switch and let the man die,” then you’re a fucking asshole.

The only effective preventative is to enact a comprehensive legal ban on human SCNT, not just the uses to which a cloned embryo may be put. Contrary to what the science intelligentsia, the biotechnology industry, and the mainstream media might claim, banning human SCNT is a step that is widely supported internationally. Indeed, in 2005, the General Assembly of the United Nationsvoted overwhelmingly in support of a non-binding resolution calling upon member states “to prohibit all forms of human cloning.”

Is there anything that the UN HASN’T issued a non-binding resolution on? I mean, Jesus, just about anybody can suck the right diplomatic cock and get a non-binding resolution through in the UN. And you gotta love how the right wing fuckberries rail against the evils of the UN and kowtowing to the international community…right up until they agree with them on something.

The devil will be found in how the term “cloning” is defined. In particular, we should be on the lookout for phony bans that actually legalize the SCNT process using human DNA. For example, many proposals would only outlaw “reproductive cloning.” But as we have seen, such a “ban” would not outlaw cloning at all, merelyone potential use that could be made of embryo made through cloning.

Yeah, kinda sucks when people use that tactic of  making a law vaguely worded so that it doesn’t actually do what you claim it does. Now, about those “academic freedom” laws that the Discovery Institute keeps pushing in state after state….

Outlawing human cloning would provide salutatory benefits

No, it wouldn’t. All it would do is deprive us of life-saving research in order to protect single cells. There is no plus side to this.

First, it would deprive cloning researchers of the funds to further perfect human cloning techniques.

Hear that? That’s every sane person on earth asking, “How the fuck is that a salutatory benefit?”

Outlawing human cloning would also be a clarion call to our scientists demanding that they stay within proper moral parameters as they serve society through the pursuit of knowledge.

I send this message out to all god-humpers, all sanctimonious twats, all conservative evangelicals and every moral crusader in the country:

YOU DO NOT GET TO DEFINE THE “PROPER MORAL PARAMETERS” FOR THE REST OF US. FUCK OFF.

And it would protect women.

You have got to be shitting me.

Recall that human eggs are the essential ingredients in the cloning recipe. As I wrote here last month, the need for human eggs in cloning threatens a great “human egg rush.”

But retrieving human eggs can be very dangerous to women’s health and fecundity. Banning cloning can thus prevent the further objectification of the female biological function.

There’s more appropriation for you. “Objectification”. Except for the fact that this issue has nothing to do with objectification or feminist critiques thereof.

This shit really pisses me of.  This asshole is leaving out the part where women volunteer their eggs in order to further scientific knowledge. It’s not like scientists are running through the streets probing every woman they find in order to get at her precious, precious ova. Women–grown up, adult women–donate the eggs of their own free will.

And yet, this guy is trying to sound like a feminist while leaving out a woman’s ability to make her own choices about her own body. I’m gonna call this bullshit Patriarchal Pseudo-Feminism. Basically, it means infantilizing women, treating them like they are unable to determine their own lives and choices, just like patriarchy always does to women, but disguising it in the language of feminism. I see it a lot. I’ve seen it used to attack pornography, abortion, IVF, contraception and a host of other issues relating to women. It frustrates me even more than overt sexism or misogyny, since at least if someone is being blatantly sexist they aren’t trying to lie to me about what a piece of shit they are.

But this fucknugget is treating women like they’re helpless children who need the law to protect them from evil scientists, and trying to make it look like he’s pro-woman for this. Fuck that. I’m not standing for it. Women can make their own fucking choices about their own fucking eggs. And (assuming they’re properly informed) if they want to give them to a scientist for a cloning experiment, the rest of us should respect their decision and not make condescending, patriarchal comments about how we need to protect them from themselves. Fuck you, Discovery Institute.

And any time you hear someone demanding that we need to ban something in the name of feminism, but they conveniently leave out the notions of informed consent and a woman determining her own life, tell hem to fuck off with their patriarchal wolf in feminist clothing.

Finally, on a positive note, once human cloning becomes beyond the pale, we could begin to row in the direction of areas of biotechnology that are morally licit, freeing human and financial resources for the pursuit of the abundant avenues of moral andefficacious biotechnological research—such as adult stem cell research, genetically tailored chemotherapy, and other medical treatments.

Except for the fact that there are things you can do with cloning that can’t be done with those other types of research. You’d be preventing us from making certain discoveries, not encouraging discoveries in other areas.

We can achieve remarkable biotechnology breakthroughs in this century without surrendering our ethics.

“Our” ethics? I certainly don’t share ethics with you, shitwad.

Outlawing human cloning is the essential progressive act.

And we end with one more act of cloning the left’s language in order to attack it. “Progressive” my boney white ass.

Gay marriage vs. “science” I pulled from my ass

Since I just ragged on a letter to the editor of a newspaper in my former home state of Maryland, I guess I should also look at an anti-gay letter from my other home state of Oklahoma, where the situation for gays is much, much worse. The scholar who wrote this particular piece of…something is Pat Rupel of Edmond, the town where I went to high school. He opposes gay marriage in the name of SCIENCE!

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set science back about 3,000 years by…

Wait, wait, wait. I gotta stop you right there. You do realize that in Oklahoma, proposing to “set science back about 3,000 years” is a good thing to most citizens, right? I mean, we get at least one bill proposing exactly that every year in the state legislature. It’s the people who support these kinds of things that are most receptive to the whole “Legislate gay people’s lives” schtick. You need to be aware of your audience.

Anyways, continue.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set science back about 3,000 years by comparing millions of years of anthropological and genetic evolution to the difference between whole and skim milk.

Science will never recover from Bader Ginsburg’s courtroom analogy! We might as well just take evo-devo and the Higgs boson and shove them up our asses at this point!

It says a lot about my ambivalent attitude towards the state of my birth that, when I read this, my first thought is, “At least this asshole believes in evolution.” Though I question what he thinks the term “evolution” means. I get “genetic evolution”, but what exactly is “anthropological evolution”? Is that just a fancy term for human evolution? If so, why not just say “human”?

More importantly, how does Bader Ginsberg’s analogy have any effect on any evolutionary science anywhere in the known universe?

The assumed equality of homosexual and heterosexual unions is strictly a legal invention, not a fact based on scientific research.

And what scientific research established heterosexual marriage? Last time I checked, straight marriage was just as much a legal invention as gay marriage.

In an attempt to be “tolerant,” we appear to be willing to ignore or remain ignorant of recent biological, psychological and genetic research into gender differences.

Oh, you mean the extremely controversial evolutionary psychology that is by no means established mainstream science yet?

Look, here’s the thing about gender differences:

Is there good reason to suspect that evolution resulted in behavioral/psychological differences between the genders? Probably. Evolution resulted in numerous other species with gender dimorphisms in behavior, so we have no reason to consider ourselves a magical exception.

Do we have a good grasp what those differences are in our species? Rarely. For most, we have only biases, stereotypes, and poorly reasoned evolutionary psychology. Acknowledging the reality of gender differences is not the same as having a scientific basis for specifying what exactly they are. There are very few gender differences in behavior that have anything like a solid scientific basis proving that they exist.

Should we expect these gender differences to be set-in-stone, black-and-white differences with no overlap or middle ground? Absolutely not. Evolution doesn’t work that way. There’s always variation. We should expect gender differences to be real, but we should also expect to find a lot of variation. And we sure as fuck should never act as if relationships which don’t fit the stereotype of some gender difference are somehow “unnatural”. Variation is natural. Difference is natural. If we’re going by evolution as our standard, then we should expect there to be some individuals who are different from the majority. Not all women will fit neatly into the stereotype of femininity. Not all men will fit neatly into the stereotype of masculinity. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just nature.

Additionally, not all gender differences are the result of genetics. Some are hammered into people’s heads as they grow up. Girls are discouraged from being assertive or standing up for themselves (Be a proper lady!). Boys are discouraged from being honest about when something hurts them (Take it like a man!). Is it really a genetic fact that women are passive and men are insensitive? Almost certainly not. More likely, people are just trained to act this way. It might be a psychological byproduct of the fact that men are larger and more muscular than women, so people associate the personality of toughness with those who have the stronger body, and the personality of passivity with those who have the weaker body. It might be true when averaged over the population, but that doesn’t make it a good predictor of how any particular individual should be. Nor does it mean that there’s anything wrong with the numerous individuals who don’t fit this stereotype.

Oh, wait, I was responding to a homophobe. What does he have to say at this point?

I don’t care how consenting adults get their sexual pleasure or if the legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual “unions” are given to same-sex “unions.” However, don’t expect me to park my intellect at the door of so-called tolerance or political correctness.

And here I was trying to discuss gender differences with at least some amount of nuance and sensitivity to the current political and scientific climate. What I really should have done is pull turds out of my ass labeled “political correctness” and “tolerance” and throw them at the Daily Oklahoman, so they could publish them as if they were actual opinions from an actual human being. Silly me!

Despite the groupthink of the American Pediatric Society, the scientific jury has just started deliberating on how the significant differences between male and female might affect child development.

And this is relevant to gay marriage because — LOOK! A MOOSE! *runs away*

We’ve not even begun to understand how to combine the gifts of female and male.

Someone didn’t get the talk.

Words and their associated ideas change the world.

This sentence seriously followed right after the one I quoted above. Your guess is as good as mine.

We may change the name of the “rose,” but its essence doesn’t change.

This pseudo-Shakespearean sentence followed immediately after the one I subsequently quoted. It contradicts it. No explanation is given.

Look at the impact of the technological revolution.

Again. Very next sentence. I have no idea what this motherfucker is saying at this point. We don’t know how to combine males and females, words change the world, except they don’t, look at technology. I’m starting to wonder if the author had a stroke at this point in the letter.

If our leaders can simplify millions of years of complex animal and human evolution to the difference between skim and whole milk, then we may as well believe the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth human activity doesn’t affect global warming or that black people aren’t citizens and therefore without legal rights…

Yes! If we accept that gays can have families, then we might as well throw out all of modern science and all the progress made in civil rights since the Civil War. All because Bader Ginsburg oversimplified things! Only a really evil, stupid person would make a sweeping judgment based on a gross oversimplification and ignorance of science! And Pat Rupel knows that the evil, stupid person doing this is none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I mean, who else might be doing something like that?

Roger Ebert 1942-2013

I was really sad to read that Roger Ebert has died after battling cancer for over a decade. He was a great writer, and I loved reading his reviews (although I will never understand the fact that the only reviewer in the universe who liked Speed 2 was Ebert. Usually it’s Armond White that likes the obviously horrendous movies). He also had a lot of great insights about facing death as an unbeliever.

He also knew how to riff on religion, as evidenced by his brutal, epic, totally awesome take-down of Ben Stein’s execrable Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Everyone on Earth should read it.