Alarmist crackpots try to halt scientific research

3/31/2008 | 10:46 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Just when you thought that creationist dumbfucks must be the worst anti-science raving lunatics around, these goons come along.

The builders of the world's biggest particle collider are being sued in federal court over fears that the experiment might create globe-gobbling black holes or never-before-seen strains of matter that would destroy the planet.
The Large Hadron Collider is going to fucking destroy the goddamn planet? Wow. Just wow.

Haven't we heard the exact sort of alarmist cries used in what seems like a gazillion previous situations? Haven't we noticed that the alarmist cries never seems to materialize - simply because those ranting and raving don't have a clue about the science behind what they are so vehemently opposing?

Oooooh, genetic engineering is bad bad bad bad because we will end up with Frankenstein monsters!! We should not play god, we don't care about the benefits, the slippery slope is too dangerous!! Ooooh, artificial intelligence is bad bad bad bad because the machines would someday take over and imprison us!! Brain implants!! Zombies!! FRANKENSTEINNNNNN!!!

Sound familiar?

Those idiotic freaks obviously cannot tell the difference between particle physics and science fiction. The LHC creating black holes, and those black holes gobbling up the whole fucking planet? In a rational age, none of those goons would be given the time of day in court, but sadly, we are living in an age where science and scientists are viewed with distrust and fear (yes, a large part of this is due to religious dumbfucks and liars). Scientists are portrayed by the media as mad, imbalanced, and weird. Saturday morning cartoons portraying the 'mad scientist' tells kids that science is something strange and all scientists spend their time:
  • blowing things up
  • preparing for world domination with scary-looking machines
  • laughing maniacally
  • plotting evil schemes that are always thwarted by superheroes with absurd costumes
Add the above to complicated particle physics and the LHC, and we've got a recipe for lunatical alarmists wetting their pants and pooping all over the courts. If the fucktarded buffoons win this case, it will send a clear message to the public that they can simply halt scientific research they disagree with/don't understand/have a theistarded objection to/etc by going to court. Although they might not win every case, science as we know it will be ruined. If you think that I am being alarmist, just think if we did not go ahead with every scientific experiment that caused some form of protest. If this is allowed to happen, we would start sliding back towards the Dark Ages (remember, where scientists were burnt at the stake). Theistards, alarmists and general anti-science kooks would undoubtedly be happy, but do you really want to live in that sort of world?
Representatives at Fermilab in Illinois and at Europe's CERN laboratory, two of the defendants in the case, say there's no chance that the Large Hadron Collider would cause such cosmic catastrophes. Nevertheless, they're bracing to defend themselves in the courtroom as well as the court of public opinion.
Ah, if you cannot win at science, try pushing your crap through the courts and try to twist the law to push your crackpot ideas on the unsuspecting public. Where have we heard this before, eh?

*cough* Dover *cough*
The Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, is due for startup later this year at CERN's headquarters on the French-Swiss border. It's expected to tackle some of the deepest questions in science: Is the foundation of modern physics right or wrong? What existed during the very first moment of the universe's existence? Why do some particles have mass while others don't? What is the nature of dark matter? Are there extra dimensions of space out there that we haven't yet detected?
Oh, and scientists should give up this groundbreaking research simply because some alarmist anti-science goons need some particle physics lessons? Wonder why I am becoming increasingly worried about the future of science in the face of so much stupidity?
Saying something is absolutely impossible doesn't always come easy. Some scientists find it difficult to state categorically that such-and-such a theoretical catastrophe has no chance of happening, and Fermilab spokeswoman Judy Jackson told me that the doomsayers have "cynically distorted" that natural reluctance to rule out even the most outlandish theoretical possibilities.
The alarmists obviously have no clue how science works - and that is a clear-cut case. The fucked-up part is that the alarmists would use the fact that scientists often avoid saying that something is 'absolutely impossible' to play up to public fears. As the public already fears things that they don't understand, the alarmists may be able to evoke strong emotions among their ignoramus base.

I am not saying that safety regulations and precautions are unnecessary - they are. However, obviously ludicrous claims should be laughed out of court, thus saving everyone involved a large amount of time and money. Alarmists with no good science on their side should be publicly humiliated and exposed for the crackpots they are before more retarded morons jump on the bandwagon. Sometimes, it is necessary to put a foot down and say enough is enough.

A first-hand account of the 'EXPELLED' teleconference

3/28/2008 | 8:08 PM | Evolved Rationalist

"We're sick of being pushed around by the intelligentsia, although I'm one of the intelligentsia". ---Scientifically illiterate and arrogant fool Ben Stein

At 4pm today, I decided to waste an hour of my precious time to call in to Ben Stein's teleconference on the Expelled theistard mockumentary.

It started out with IDiots yapping about how much publicity their shitty movie has been receiving recently (conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the recent publicity has been negative) and claiming that 'Darwinism' is a modern-day witch hunt. (No, evolutionary biology is NOT 'Darwinism'). When was the last time you saw scientists burning the IDiots at the stake? As far as I know of, Michael Behe, for one, is a tenured professor at Lehigh. His publication record has been shitty since he went nutty, but he is still a tenured professor. The IDiots are obviously all about obfuscation, drama, lies and preaching to the choir. Epic fail.

Next was the usual 'Darwinism is Hitler is Nazism is Holocaust is eugenics is murder' tripe. Although that pile of dung is untrue, it would not have any bearing on the science of evolutionary biology if Hitler was an ardent fan of Darwin. Science does not work that way, and if they knew that, they wouldn't be IDiots. Next, Stein's droning voice came on, where he foamed about how he is a rebel who is going against the 'establishment', and after that he uttered what must now be his most infamous quote:

"We're sick of being pushed around by the intelligentsia, although I'm one of the intelligentsia". --Ben Stein, IDiot
Next, he uttered the same babble the YECs use about how he accepts microevolution but not macroevolution. (Yes, he needs remedial science lessons.) Next, he made me choke on my tea as he uttered his challenge to evolutionists: "Give me an example of a single mammalian species that has evolved through Darwinian evolution".

What the fuck is wrong with this IDiot?! Mammals evolved. Deal with it.

The lies didn't stop there. After receiving a question about the allegations that the IDiots interviewed scientists for the movie under false pretenses, and for a movie named 'Crossroads', Mathis lied by claiming that they didn't know the exact name of the movie at that time and were debating a few options. Sorry, Mathis. You fail at lying. He went on to accuse those who claim to be duped into being in the movie of slander and libel. Hmm...I wonder when the case will go to court.


After Stein again started drooling about eugenics and how the 'evidence is so clear' that Darwinism is linked to Nazism, Mathis decided to spin and lie about the recent Myers/Dawkins/Expelled debacle. After failing to salvage their grand shitshow of an epic fail, Mathis is now claiming that the RSVP site was only for 'certain groups' (ie. their church base), but the info leaked out to 'other groups' that were not invited.

Hypocrites! For all their talk about freedom of speech and how IDiots are being oppressed by evil atheist Darwinists, they admit to EXPELLING 'certain groups' from their movie screenings. These are the same people who link evolution to Hitler although they are the fucktarded theistards rambling about wanted and unwanted groups. They are desperate, muddled, and their true colors are getting more and more obvious as time goes by. Train wrecks are like that - you know it's going to get worse but you can't stop watching.

He went on about how he knew that PZ was going to be there and decided to expel him because he wanted to make a point. He then claimed that PZ advocated removing professors who are pro-ID from their positions. Mathis is either lying for his God Designer or was too ignorant to realize that PZ has clearly stated that Behe, as a tenured professor and as wrong as he is, can do he pleased. Lying fail again, Mathis. Your skills are not as good as you previously thought, huh?

The IDiots made a fuss about how Darwinists refuse to address the contents of the film itself. This is a lie as the key ideas in the film have been refuted, refuted again, and refuted yet again. The most important thing here is, how are 'Darwinists' supposed to address the contents of the film itself if they aren't allowed to watch the damn movie, and the apparently non-evil-Darwinists who do get invited to private screenings have to sign non-disclosure forms? Mathis was clearly on his lying-trainwreck mode during the teleconference.

Mathis then made another astounding statement about how there is so much fuss over evolution and how nobody makes this much fuss about gravity. Uh, Mathis, evolution has been accepted as a scientific fact by the scientific community the same way gravity is accepted as a scientific fact. The 'fuss' that you are talking about is in the public square, and it is because religious morons keep dragging this issue into the limelight by using whatever despicable methods they can think of. The last time I checked, there weren't ministries and un-museums devoted to denying gravity.

Strangely, I agreed with Mathis on one point(!). He said that this was not a scientific battle, but a battle of worldviews. He's got this right - there is no scientific debate about the fact that evolution happened. This whole culture war is because a large, deluded segment of the population yells about how science threatens their religious worldview. Bingo, Mathis.

Oh, and here is another gem by the IDiots:

"This film struck a huge blow to Richard Dawkins' career, but he could only ask about why PZ was expelled?"

WTF? Expelled struck a huge blow to Dawkins' career? When (if ever) will those retards get out of the gene pool?

Now, for the highlight of the teleconference, go over to PZ's.

A healing crusade as seen by an atheist

3/26/2008 | 3:18 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I recently attended a fundie ‘healing crusade’ where people expected Jesus to somehow cure their illnesses while children die of starvation in Africa. First things first: Did it convince me that something supernatural was going on? The plain answer is NO. If anything, it reinforced the fact that faith healing is nothing more than bunk and wishful thinking. Granted, nobody was literally smacked on the forehead like what happens during Benny Hinn’s crusades, but it was a painful experience to sit through nevertheless. It was a full house, and as expected, I felt exasperation overwhelming me. It took every ounce of effort not to start screaming and yelling at everyone to simply open their eyes to the deception that they have willingly entered into.

On the other hand, I felt pity and rage at the same time. I felt pity for the sick who attended desperately seeking a miracle. I felt pity for the sick children whose parents chose to drag to the deception healing crusade instead of receiving medical care. It was indeed a heart-wrenching sight to see the disabled, the deaf and the blind with looks of longing and hope on their faces as they ‘surrendered their fates’ to an imaginary god. I was filled with rage at the people who could even consider feeding tantalizing, false hopes to people who are desperately seeking a miracle just to propagate their religious convictions. I felt rage for the entire system of self-deception and suspension of disbelief. With pity and rage alternating inside me, I took my seat among the credulous flock. (They’re not called sheep without good reason, you know.)

As usual, it started off with a few worship songs to supposedly ‘bring the presence of god into this place’. The songs were repeated over and over again, thus bring about a hypnotic effect, which some in the audience took as a sign that the ‘holy spirit’ was present. This sounds totally off on a few counts. If the Christian god is the omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing deity he is portrayed as being, why would he need to be alerted to the fact that his sheep followers needed healing? Couldn’t he have just healed them without have to being told to do so in a special ceremony? The ‘invocation’ also sounds too much like pagan practices of invoking ‘spirits’, doesn’t it? Another paradox is that if god is omnipresent, why did he need to be specifically channeled into the hall? Why did they have to start the crusade with the act of ‘bringing god into this place’? Is it just me, or does something doesn’t quite add up? The Christian faith is, of course, no stranger to contradictions.

The epitome of the phrase ‘fleecing the flock’ was displayed when the collection basket was handed out with calls to ‘give back to god what he has done’. In the first place, nobody had been healed yet, so what would be the rationale for that silly statement? Blind faith doesn’t need any rationale, does it? What happened that night was that the gullible flock gave, and did they give! By the time the collection basket arrived at my row, it was full enough to line an evangelist’s pocket or two. Why do people simply beg to be deceived? How have we, as a human race, chosen to live in superstition while at the same time enjoy the products of modern science?

Next came the preaching. The preacher claimed that everyone wants to believe in a god. Well, many people choose to deceive themselves into thinking that a Creator exists and cares about us, but his generalization of ‘everyone’ certainly irked me. For goodness sake, did it look like I, for one, was dying to deceive myself with the sky-god story? I couldn’t help snickering when the preacher claimed that he can prove that there is one true god.

His 'proof' was so ridiculous that you could be sure that I’m not making it up. Firstly, he asked the crowd how many people have only one biological father. When the audience raised their hands, he continued with ‘Since nobody could have more than one biological father, it is only possible to have one god as well. It is impossible to have more than one god, as it is impossible to have more than one biological father.’

Yes, that was his great theological proof of monotheism. Voila!


What would an evangelical crusade be without threats of hell and damnation? After the great theological ‘proof’ of god, it was time for the ‘worship Jesus or burn’ threats. The usual tripe was spouted: Now that you have proof (smirk) that there is only one true god, it is your obligation not to worship false gods. You must choose Jesus, because if you don’t, you will end up in hell, and hell is not a place you want to go to. Only Jesus ass-lickers worshippers go to heaven! You want eternal life! You don’t want to end up in hell! You don’t! You don’t! You don’t! You don’t! You don’t! Hell is an absolutely terrifying place! You DON’T want to go there! ACCEPT JESUS!!

Christians just love preaching by fear, don’t they? This holier-than-thou attitude can really get on my nerves, and as for their doctrine, I would call their preoccupation with sin and heaven and hell and saving lost souls simply fucking morbid and bigoted. On a side note, notice that their central religious symbol is an instrument of torture.

The same garbage was repeated over and over again until I nearly fell asleep, but I was jolted awake in horror when I saw the credulous around me simply lapping it up. After attending evangelical crusades as a skeptic, trust me, horror movies pale in comparison. The horror of again realizing that around the world, millions of people are buying into this bullshit would be more than enough to cause sleepless nights.

Next, we were promised that Jesus would work miracles and that through the miracles; we would see that he is the way to God. We were also told that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit would work the miracles not only to heal the sick, but to also ‘show the truth’ to the non-Christians.


So did the loud-mouthed, sarcastic, skeptical me fall on her knees and accept Christ after the crusade?

No. Sorry, folks! No dramatic conversion story from me.

You must be wondering what ‘miracles’ Jesus worked that night. And I have to say, Jesus was really disappointing, or more likely, a no-show. There were a few headaches, stress and depression cases ‘cured’, in addition to a kid’s cough, a slight pain in the foot, a mild ankle injury, ringing in the ears, and pain ‘disappearing’ from various parts of the body. Nobody got out of their wheelchairs and walked despite the repeated calls to ‘Get up and walk.’ No blind people suddenly saw, the deaf didn’t suddenly hear, the mute didn’t suddenly talk, and the disabled didn’t suddenly recover. Most importantly, no amputated limbs were re-grown by god although that would be the most convincing ‘evidence’ that faith healing actually could have something to it after all.

One case was especially heartbreaking, as it was self-deception in the highest degree. A cancer patient who had undergone several rounds of chemotherapy claimed that she felt a decrease in the numbness in her right side. She also felt that the cancer had been ‘reduced by 90%’. I mean, seriously! How would this be possible to determine without a medical check-up? Despite the patient’s obvious credulity and willing acts of self-deception, I felt really sorry for her. Sometimes, false hopes can be more than just unethical. Would she stop her chemotherapy treatments because she feels that her cancer is all but gone? I would never know, but somehow I hope that somewhere along the line, her skepticism kicks in. The anger and pity coursing through me when she gave her testimony at the front was indescribable. It takes a healthy dose of skepticism to fully understand the feeling, and I’m sure many of you reading this would understand me perfectly well although I cannot find the right words to describe it.

Some Christians will stupidly claim that the few 'healings' were miraculous enough as evidence of god’s existence. For those who think this is so, here is my refutation of faith healing and what counts as evidence when making extraordinary claims.

Another sad part is how the crowd clapped and cheered at the end of each testimony, seeing the testimonies as a confirmation of what they so desperately want to be true. When it was time for the altar call, around forty people went up to the front to accept Jesus. I mean, what the fuck? Is skepticism dead among most members of the human species? Superstition claimed more members that night, and I’m afraid that we might never be able to compete with the numbers superstition claims all over the world everyday. I know this sounds pessimistic, but for now, this seems to be the case.

Ever since I became an 'evangelical atheist', less than ten people have informed me that they have left their faith due to my efforts. But think about it, if forty people are claimed by superstition at ONE moderately-sized evangelical crusade in ONE day, what hope does science and reason have? Those who criticize us ‘New Atheists’ and accuse us of being ‘fundamentalist atheists’ had better think about reality before shooting their mouths off.

My strongest hope is that people would think about this carefully without being clouded by emotions. For atheists, I feel that it is time to get our acts and strategies together before it is too late. Let us put an end to superstition before superstition puts an end to reason. In the science vs. religion debate, only one side will emerge victorious. And for that, fuck the spineless appeasers, and let the New Atheists rise!

In light of the recent Myers/Dawkins/Expelled debacle:

3/25/2008 | 7:27 PM | Evolved Rationalist

"If you fail once, don't give up, FAIL again." ----The cdesign proponentsist anthem.


Anti-science retards, walk the talk!

| 12:57 AM | Evolved Rationalist

[Click to enlarge]

Now, read this.

Creationist + Ignorance + E-mail Ranting = Epic FAIL

3/24/2008 | 9:38 PM | Evolved Rationalist

A theistard ignoramus recently sent me an e-mail which only served to expose him for the clueless, bumbling cretin that he is. This particular Christarded theistard obviously fails at science and at life. Be prepared to lose some brain cells as you read the e-mail:

I'll tell you what, I'll read you site if you can explain the following intelligently:
1 evolution happening in spite of the second law of thermodynamics
2 the impossibility of spontaneous generation of life from non-life (Pasteur disproved SG about 140 years ago, sorry)
3 genetic information theory (DNA)
4 Anthropic Principal
I find that most of you God haters have little or no facts to back yourselves up. I don't expect much from you, but maybe you'll surprise me

My first reaction to that dungpile was:

The creationist lie that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics was refuted ages ago. This theistard is either lying for Jesus, simple ignorant or just plain stupid. Why don't any of these kooks do some basic research before shooting poo out of their mouths? Do they need a hard whack on their heads with their own Babbles before they start to see sense? Christarded cretin lunatics claim that evolution violates the 2nd law because everything tends toward disorder, evolution is impossible, and so the Bible is right and Jesus saves.

The lunatic who sent me the e-mail has no clue what the 2nd law actually says. According to the 2nd law, the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease. This theistard was too stupid to realize that the earth is not a closed system, thus, this argument turns to epic fail. Next time, learn some science before sounding like the moron that you undoubtedly are.

Oh, and Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, so abiogenesis is wrong and Jesus saves? Well, asshole, I've got news for you. Pasteur disproved the old idea that life can spontaneously appear fully formed (which sure sounds a lot like creationism, don't you think?). As abiogenesis does not work that way at all, your argument falls flat on its' face, and you need to go back to remedial science class.

Now, what the fuck are you trying to show in your third point? Information theory somehow disproves evolution? You fail.

Notice how this cretin thinks that he is oh-so-smart and can disprove evolution with his great theistard mind, but he apparently does not know the difference between 'principal' and 'principle'. Are you really that retarded, or are you a six-year-old bed wetter playing with your parents' computer? The very fact that we exist tells us that we should not be surprised that certain conditions are conducive to human life. If you have no idea how many universes there are, how the fuck can you make the fine-tuning argument with any shred of credibility? Has Christianity totally muddled your brain or are you just lazy, ignorant and foolish?

The theistard concludes his epic fail by ranting about god-haters. How the fuck am I supposed to hate something that I don't believe in? Do I hate unicorns and dragons because I don't believe in them? Does this theistarded moron hate Allah, Zeus, Thor and countless other gods because he doesn't believe in them? What the fuck is wrong with this lunatic?

The typical theistard/cretin moron:

Matthew 18:3 (KJV): Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

UPDATE: The cretinous theistard responded with copy-and-paste spam from ICR directed at my inbox. What a redefinition of 'epic fail' those theistard goons have!

Perfect for the season: Raptor Jesus

3/22/2008 | 12:28 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Raptor Jesus is the saviour of all mankind, and will deliver thee to carnivorous enlightnement. In the name of the Moot, the Raptor, and the Holy Server, Amen.

For something more serious, click here. The gospel stories about the burial and resurrection of Raptor Jesus does not hold water in light of known Jewish laws.


3/21/2008 | 12:34 AM | Evolved Rationalist

You have to read this to believe how stupid, Christarded, ignorant, cowardly, hypocritical, malicious and incompetent the ID goons are.

Go over there and read the story. Now.

Intelligent Design Creationism = Epic FAIL!


Why do these theistard cultists need tetanus shots?

3/20/2008 | 4:35 PM | Evolved Rationalist

From here:

Health officials in the Philippines have issued a warning to people taking part in Easter crucifixion rituals.

They have urged them to get tetanus vaccinations before they flagellate themselves and are nailed to crosses, and to practise good hygiene.

Wait....what? Some lunatic theistard morons want to nail themselves to crosses and beat themselves with whips to supposedly feel what Jesus felt, and the health department officials are encouraging them to get tetanus shots? Is this really the 21st century? Does the Holy Babble mention anywhere that Christarded fanatics are to flagellate themselves for Jesus?

The most interesting thing here is the need to get tetanus shots or to disinfect the whips in the first place. Jesus sure as hell did not have those things available to him when he supposedly lived and was crucified, so the theistards above are clearly too cowardly to actually practice what they preach. Another point that induces acute laughter is the very fact that their god whom they are trying so hard to please would not even protect his theistards from dying from tetanus or getting a severe infection. Where is your gawd now, theistards? Is he sleeping, dead, or simply non-existent?

These theistards are the worst type of hypocrites to walk the earth. They claim that they are whipping themselves for gawd and their religious zombie cult, and yet they rely on tetanus shots and disinfectants which are the products of modern science, which they are so vehemently opposed to. Their anti-science stupidity apparently extends only up to the point where they need it to save their hypocritical lives. Why don't they have enough faith to trust that gawd would keep them safe while they torture themselves for him? It is clear that theistards subconsciously know and understand that science works and religion doesn't, but they are too deluded, moronic, stupid or lazy to actually comprehend it.

The best thing to do would be to encourage the theistards to actually practice what they preach and go the whole way by faith alone and without the help of modern science. It would be a great way to cleanse the gene pool of these theistard morons, and it would ensure that they would not get the chance to spread their dangerous cult practices to innocent young minds. They should be held responsible for their own doing, and we should ensure that they are helped in their quest to get out of the gene pool. A Darwin Award, anyone?

How many ID creationists does it take to change a light bulb?

3/18/2008 | 11:29 PM | Evolved Rationalist

  • None. A light bulb could not have screwed itself in by natural means because it has Specified Complexity. Specified Complexity means something that cannot come about by natural means, therefore a light bulb must exhibit specified complexity.

  • None. Screwing light bulbs is an Irreducibly Complex action that requires multiple parts. Therefore, it was intelligently designed and could not have evolved. If someone demonstrates how that light bulb could have screwed itself in, that just means that it was not Irreducibly Complex after all.

  • None. Turn off the controversy.
  • None. God, er, the Designer designed that light to burn out. Bad design does not mean that it was not designed.

Biblical literalism taken to extremes

3/17/2008 | 3:40 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Not a very pleasant sight if you ask me...

Interesting search terms that have led people to my site

| 3:35 AM | Evolved Rationalist

  • what is evolved rational's real name (*snicker*)
  • evolved rational author real name blog
  • author location (I know where you are from now, n00b.)
  • evolved rational theistard
  • theistard (My favorite word.)
  • theistard christ jesus fucktard (Accurate description of Jeebus, if he even existed.)
  • stupid theists
  • Darwinism is evil (You FAIL!)
  • creationist liars
  • mental illness creationists (BINGO)
  • Are creationists stupid?
  • evolved real name
  • leviticus contradiction homo
  • WHOIS (Ah, the wonders of private domain registration. Praise the Lord science!)
  • jesus saves please jesus save me bible (Did my site make you lose, or at least doubt your faith? I hope so, you pathetic, cowardly, deluded fundie theistard. Grow a spine someday, will you?)
  • mutation jesus evolution
  • ignorant religious nuts
  • scientia natura evolved rational are they related
  • has Evolved and Rational met Dawkins (Um...I have met him, but my blog sure as hell has not.)
  • atheism there will be cake (Where is this place that gives atheists free cake?)
  • dumbfuck
  • how does the 100,000 people died in hospital to prove the theory of evolution (Huh? What is this person smoking?)
  • not your mom

Transitional fossils

3/16/2008 | 5:15 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Creationists, if you still rant and spew your usual lies about how there are 'no transitional fossils, so GODDIDIT' after watching the videos below, you deserve to be removed from the gene pool. You are without excuse, dumbfucks.

If you are still too deluded to at least keep an open mind about science, shove your Bible up your ass sideways. The pain and some anal tearing might help.

Hat tip to The Panda's Thumb.

Basic problems with the Noah's Flood story

3/15/2008 | 1:10 AM | Evolved Rationalist

  1. The flood story is incompatible with the Christian concept of a loving, omniscient god. Apart from that, god's great flood idea didn't rid the world of 'evil people' after all. Way into the 21st century, there are still 'evil' people around. God failed.
  2. The similarities to earlier flood stories, such as the one in the Epic of Gilgamesh make it really hard to deny that the Genesis authors were pathetic plagiarists (of this or of earlier texts).
  3. There were also records found of civilizations that existed before, during and after the fictional flood who didn't mention anything about a global flood. Therefore, the global flood story was simply made up, or it was simply a local flood that was blown into Biblical proportions.
  4. The water requirement for covering the earth fifteen cubits up is simply implausible. No creationist has ever come up with a plausible explanation for it. One hilarious explanation comes by the way of Gabor Horvath, whose incoherent ravings about a 'transparent solidified hydrogen firmament' nearly caused me to fall off my chair due to excessive laughter. Now, how on earth does NASA deal with this solidified firmament during shuttle launches? Is this how god supposedly opened up the 'windows of heaven' for it to rain in the Holy Babble?
  5. The facts of geology clearly falsify a global flood, especially one on the scale of Noah's flood. The endless list of geological problems, described using a variety of techniques, makes the flood story impossible. Theistards, please do some basic research before jacking off like the dumbasses you are.
  6. The animal problems are the most hilarious of all. The dietary and environmental requirements for all the animals (koalas, for example) would make the logistics impossible. How could the koalas get fresh eucalyptus leaves on the ark? Did the carnivores suddenly turn vegetarian on the ark? Any rational person would see the problems faced by carnivores, parasites, and microorganisms. What about the hosts for the parasites and the......aaargh! The stupidity makes my head throb.
  7. Now for the human problem. There was no way for Noah and his family to manage the tasks of keeping the ark in order throughout the flood. Fundies, are you going to claim that god endowed them with superhuman powers, or that god was 'working through them'? DNA markers also show that it is impossible to claim that all living humans were descended from Noah and his family. I mean, honestly!
  8. What, did the saltwater and freshwater fish decide to throw a free-for-all open house and come out of it alive when the waters mixed during the flood?
  9. How did the dove find the olive leaf? How did it have time to germinate after the flood? The global flood would have killed most vegetation unless they were endowed with godly superplant powers.
  10. Was the ark a 'superark' for it's remarkable endurance level throughout the flood, considering the lack of modern technology at the time?
*Cue for fundie theistards to scream GODDIDIT!!*

IDiots don't understand how science works

3/12/2008 | 5:11 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Over at Uncommonly Dense, DaveTard has done it again:

This only goes to prove that the creationist theistards over at UD have no clue (or are lying again) that modern evolutionary biology has advanced well beyond Darwin, and it is widely acknowledged that a lot of Darwin's ideas were actually wrong. Unlike religious dogma, science is constantly changing and self-correcting, and this is what IDiots fail to understand. They are so warped in their Christ cult that they have to throw the 'Darwinist' label around to imply that evolution is a religious dogma just like theirs. They might be able to fool their simple-minded church folk, but I don't think they have a right to scream about how the scientific community is not taking them seriously. They are simply too stupid, dishonest and confused to ever do any real science except rehashing old creationist arguments and attacking a strawman version of evolution.

(And they wonder why we call them IDiots.)

ID is dead. It is not science. Get over it.

Theistard morons, get out of the gene pool!

3/11/2008 | 2:41 PM | Evolved Rationalist

What on earth is 'DNA popping'?

3/10/2008 | 6:23 PM | Evolved Rationalist

From a stupid creationist e-mail:

Evolution is stupid theory!! DNA needs proteins to make two of it, and proteins need DNA to make it!!!! DNA turn into proteins for a protein to form!!! DNA cannot just pop and evolve into the world!!!! IDIOT!!!!!!!!

First, let us look at this little gem:

DNA needs proteins to make two of it,

Somebody, please tell this hapless theistard moron a thing or two about DNA replication before my stomach bursts due to excessive laughter. He seriously needs to go back to remedial science class to ensure that he does not continue to make a fool out of himself.

Next, we have a new theistard discovery:

DNA turn into proteins for a protein to form!!!

Oh, my! I never knew that a DNA molecule can change into a protein molecule at will. If this is indeed the case, forensic science would not be able to depend on DNA evidence anymore as any DNA left at the crime scene would turn into protein molecules. How on earth did this theistard dumbfuck come up with this crazy idea in the first place? What was he smoking?

Yet another new theistard discovery:

DNA cannot just pop and evolve into the world!!!!

Our creationist friend seems to know all about DNA forming by a yet-undiscovered mechanism known as 'DNA popping'. He would be in the running for the Nobel Prize for all his new discoveries, if only he had some evidence to back them up.

When he said 'evolve into the world', I seriously hope (for his sake), that it was a grammatical error and he didn't actually mean to imply that DNA was supposed to evolve into the universe or whatever he meant by 'world'.


Okay, I'll be serious now..

Creationists of all kinds often rehash the same refuted YEC argument about DNA needing proteins in order to replicate, while proteins in turn need DNA to form. They claim that neither could have formed naturally without the other, thus seemingly creating a problem for DNA evolution.

Sounds convincing? It is not.

First, I'll reply to the creationist in his own style:

You are a stupid man!!! DNA needs proteins to form, but RNA doesn't. IDIOT!!!!

Now, for any other creationists who happen to have a speck of a brain:

According to the current consensus, DNA most likely evolved from RNA, which is a simpler replicator. RNA does not require proteins to form, as it catalyzes its own duplication. (Jeffares et al. 1998). The RNA had simpler precursors, for example, peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995).

Creationists, if you're too stupid to understand science, I'm afraid you'll have to stick to religion after all. Being a fundie theistard dumbfuck would certainly relive you from thinking and actualy using your evolution-endowed brain.

What modern Christianity is all about

| 6:22 PM | Evolved Rationalist


Fundie Claim #6: Everything has to happen for a reason

3/08/2008 | 12:55 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: There are many things that are out of human control, and they have to have happened for a reason. Atheism does not explain these situations, but Christianity can!

Divination. That’s all there is to the above claim that everything, and Christians do mean everything, that happens on earth actually happens for a reason (even more amusing is the fact that this so-called reason always ties in with human life). Yes, there are things in there world that we have no control over, but it does not mean that there has to be a divinely ordained reason for it. Here, a Christian sees thing that happens in daily life, such as a toothache, a rainy day, or a free gift, as a sign from god. The irony is that the Christian is left to interpret these so-called ‘signs’ in any way he or she sees fit, and this makes the whole premise of having a ‘sign from god’ totally laughable. This Christian idiocy is no different from divination practices that flourish all over the world right up till today. Pat Robertson attributed Hurricane Katrina and the Indian Ocean tsunami to god’s vengeance for human sin. On the other hand, another Christian interpreted the tsunami as a work of god to bring out humanity’s compassionate nature (and these are only two out of tons of possible interpretations). In this case, whose interpretation is right? Who should decide? The ‘answer’ that Christianity is supposed to provide is again nothing more than words and interpretations of mortal humans, and this leaves the Christian going around in circles.


Mental illnesses are not contagious

3/07/2008 | 4:23 PM | Evolved Rationalist

My recent post on the common misconceptions surrounding mental illness was mainly due to a conversation I had with a friend on the topic. This time, the same friend has sprouted some biased and bigoted claims that do not have a basis in reality.

Why do people avoid being acquainted with mentally ill patients? One of the main reasons I heard of is that they are afraid that the 'madness' would 'rub off' on them. Psychological conditions 'rubbing off' on other people? Infections of mental illness? For the last time, mental illnesses are not contagious. The disorder won't 'rub off' on you if you befriend person with a mental disorder. Deliberately pushing people aside and discriminating against them due to something outside their control is a horrible, unjustifiable thing to do. As I mentioned in my previous post, it has been found that around 30-40% of the population suffer from some form of mental disorder or another. Are those people who discriminate and go to great lengths to avoid the mentally ill actually saying that 30-40% of the population should be avoided? Something reeks of hypocrisy and selective cherry picking now, doesn't it?

There is no evidence and no rational basis whatsoever to make the absurd claim that befriending a mentally ill person will cause the disorder to 'transmit' to the so-called 'sane' person. Using such silly misconceptions and misrepresentation of the facts to actively discriminate against the mentally ill is simply bigotry in the highest degree.

The Problem of Evil (Spirits)

| 3:47 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Theologians have been splitting hairs over the Problem of Evil for centuries. Nevertheless, they seemed to have solved one of the 'evils' of Christian myth theology: The existence of evil spirits.

In Christianity, evil spirits have long been attributed to Satan. Not many people (including the deluded, moronic, hypocritical fundies) know that what the Bible really says contradicts the theological consensus on this issue. If you are wondering what the Bible says about the origin of evil spirits, let's take a look at a few Bible verses:

1 Samuel 16:14-16
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.

1 Samuel 18:10
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand.

1 Samuel 19:9
And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.

The other instances where the Bible mentions evil spirits is when illnesses are concerned. The facts clearly show that the Christian view that evil spirits are from Satan does not have a Biblical basis. It was simply made up (what else can you expect from Christianity apart from a bunch of poorly made-up lies and bad fiction?).


Why creationists are stupidly wrong about 'macro-evolution'

3/04/2008 | 6:58 PM | Evolved Rationalist


Alister McGrath is a clueless, self-contradicting, theological mess of a buffoon

3/01/2008 | 5:07 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Theistards often claim that atheists attack a strawman version of religion and not the 'oh-so-intellectual' version of leading theologians. Leaving aside the fact that most theistards accept the stupid version of religion and generally do not bother with 'intellectual' theological discourse (isn't this an oxymoron?), let's look at what an Oxford theologian has to say about religion.

This interview with Alister McGrath reveals the usual pot-headed, bowel-worthy, bile-inducing theistard stupidity characteristics of great theological minds.

The buffoon‘s dung pile is in italics.

I think Richard Dawkins approaches the question of whether God exists in much the same way as if he'd approach the question of whether there is water on Mars. In other words, it's something that's open to objective scientific experimentation.

Strangely, Mr. Buffoon got this correct. Dawkins does approach the god question in a scientific way, and his Mars analogy is actually good. Nevertheless, as is the case with all theological buffoons, it doesn’t take long for the usual theistard stupidity to set in:

And of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God.

Uh, why exactly can’t we? The buffoon gets up on his high horse by trumpeting that his imaginary friend is exempt from scientific inquiry, but he doesn’t give any reason for why this should be so. Yes, we all know that blind faith does not require reason, but this is really a delusion and sidestep of the highest degree.

I think Dawkins seems reluctant to allow that God may not be in the same category as scientific objects.

What the hell does this buffoon mean by ‘scientific objects’? Every damn thing is a scientific object in the sense that questions can be asked about it. This buffoon thinks that his fantasies are exempt from scientific scrutiny and has no qualms about asserting his opinion dogmatically. Tell me, why should science respectfully tiptoe away when it comes to religion? On what grounds is this foolish respect based upon?

A second point, which clearly follows on from this, is that Dawkins clearly believes that those who believe in God must prove their case and atheists have nothing to prove because that's their default position.

This buffoon often claims that he is familiar with the philosophy of science. So how is it that he does not even recognize that science does not deal with proof? Science deals with evidence, but apparently this is way over our Oxford theologian’s head. This inflatable gasbag of a theologian claims that atheists misrepresent Christians ("Nobody can object to Christianity being critiqued, but I do object it being misrepresented."), but here he blatantly misrepresents science.

Some friendly advice: Your buffoonery is getting too obvious, Alister. You might want to clean up your act a little bit.

But I think that's simply incorrect and it's obviously incorrect. Really, the only obvious position is to say: We don't know, we need to be persuaded one way or the other. The default position in other words is: not being sure.

This buffoon is lying through his teeth. In reality, his default position is never ‘not being sure’. His position is one based on dogma, or more aptly called: Blind faith. For this dishonest buffoon, it is never about not being sure; but believing and being certain about one thing or another, often in spite of evidence to the contrary.

As someone who has studied the history and philosophy of science extensively, I think I've noticed a number of things that Dawkins seems to have overlooked. One of them is this: One of the most commonly encountered patterns in scientific development is seeing a pattern of observations and then saying, in order to explain these observations, we propose that there exists something that is as yet unobserved but we believe that one day will be observed because if it's there, it can explain everything that can be observed.

Of course, if you're a Christian you'll see immediately that that same pattern is there in thinking about God. We can't prove there's a God but he makes an awful lot of sense of things and therefore there's a very good reason to suppose that this may, in fact, be right.

Now, wait a minute. Is this the same buffoon who earlier claimed that "of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God"? and "God may not be in the same category as scientific objects"? Isn’t he aware of this glaring self-contradiction, or has his theology warped his brain beyond repair? Even for a buffoon like Alister, this contradiction is seriously hilarious.

Theologians like this particular buffoon make assumptions about the world based on superstitious myths, but prevent empirically testing their claims at all cost. This is the exact opposite of how science works, so Mr. Buffoon again does not have any idea about what he is talking about.

So my question, therefore, is: How on earth can Dawkins base his atheism on science when science itself so to speak is in motion, in transit?

Buffoon McGrath is claiming that we can’t base anything on science because it is in transit.

Another piece of friendly advice to Alister: Why don’t you give up your cars and computers, for after all, anything based on science can’t work, can it?

The self-contradictions do not stop there. Compare this:

…I've spoken in many lectures about Richard Dawkins and critiqued him. And very often atheists will stand up and say: "How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins!" It's almost as if there's a new dogma of the infallibility of Richard Dawkins in certain circles and I find that bizarre.

To this:

The most serious, negative reviews have come from atheists …….

Buffoon, get your arguments in order, will you? Idiot.

First he claims that atheists avoid criticizing Dawkins with near-dogmatic conviction, then he claims that most of the negative reviews have come from atheists themselves. This buffoon is actually an Oxford theologian, right? My bad.

The second point I'd want to make is that certainly I believe in the Nicene Creed, but I don't believe it because someone has rammed it down my throat. I believe it because I've looked at it very closely and I believe it to be right.

A fatherless man who is also a god, this dead god dying because his father (who is also a god) sacrificed him to save humanity from some sins committed by two non-existent individuals who some theologians finally claim to be symbolic but then what the heck is the sacrifice of the fatherless god for?! Aaaarrrrrghhhh Bible, Bible, Jesus saves he’s watching you and people burn in hell for not believing in these consolidated bowels of god, Jesus loves you!!

Considering that no evidence for the above is forthcoming, the fact that people still believe in it up to the 21st century is simply incredible.

(And Alister McGrath is still a clueless buffoon.)