Tuesday, December 19, 2006

IDiots and Doggrel = Kibbles 'N Bits

Having read some of the comments posted by that weapon of mass instruction kid (who will hereafter be known as "cocksnack") it just made me realize how unsinkable these people are.

"Goddidit" is more tenable to me than "nobodydidit"
I'm sure it is. Is it also more tenable to believe that when you plug your lamp into the socket it is light fairies making the bulb glow?

See, it is obvious to me having dealt with cocksnack and his ilk that they simply haven't taken the time to understand what evolution is: A change in the gene pool of a population over time. That's it in layman's terms. A simple google search for observed instances of speciation will bring up all the evidence you need that this has happened, and continues to happen. So when the cocksnack of the world continue to say evolution did not/does not happen, all they are doing is putting their fingers in their ears and living in a fantasy world.

A note to skeptics - whenever you bring this point up, the smart IDiots (oxymoron?) usually go into "micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution" mode (which is complete B.S anyway).

But somehow you have no problem in making sense of how your great grandad was a chimpanzee.
If I ever saw a chimpanzee give birth to a human being, I would cease my defense of evolution in favor of ID/Creationism.

First, humans and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor millions of years ago. And to see that many generational changes take place in only 3 generations would refute evolutionary theory outright.

So, there we have proof that evolution happened and is happening. We also have proof that if, as all the cocksnack think, a frog gave birth to a cat, not only would that refute evolutionary thought in general, it would give support to the Sky Daddy made it from nothing belief.

42 comments:

Bronze Dog said...

If anything qualifies for being "supernatural," it'd be changes that rapid. So, IDiots like Weapon are asking us to demonstrate a supernatural event in order to demonstrate a process that posits zero supernatural events.

Black is white. Up is down. Watch out for that zebra crossing.

IAMB said...

Next step: if you're going to googlebomb him with the word "cocksnack", you need to link to his blog every time you use the word, like this:

Cocksnack
Cocksnack

There... I feel better.

austinatheist said...

Sock puppetry is mighty tempting in this regard.

cocksnack said...

Der durpity durpity der!

austinatheist said...

I just couldn't resist any longer. Only ten minutes.

Rockstar Ryan said...

IAMB:

Done. Thanks.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

If I ever saw a chimpanzee give birth to a human being, I would cease my defense of evolution in favor of ID/Creationism.

First, humans and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor millions of years ago. And to see that many generational changes take place in only 3 generations would refute evolutionary theory outright.


Hmmm... double-talk I presume.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

So I guess if the semantics game betrays you, all you must have left is ad hominems.

Can anyone say, "Thumb in mouth"

Bronze Dog said...

Says the person who expects us to believe that a journey of a thousand steps can be accomplished by Superman-style jumping.

So, when are you going to give up the redefinitions of evolution into a handful of silly Creationism-like absurdities, rather than a long series of perfectly mundane events?

Akusai said...

I'd like it, too, if he'd give up his redefinition of "ad hominem" from "Use of an irrelevant insult as the premise of an argument, thus rendering the argument invalid," to his newfangled version, "Anytime someone insults me, it means they are wrong." I've been over this at great length, and I'm kind of sick of linking to it and reiterating this fact.

Frankly, cocksnack, you're a cocksnack.

Mechalith said...

I think I finally see why Cocksnack and his ilk as so bad at managing logical arguments: if they were any good at following a logical progression, they wouldn't be Christian. Behold, as I form a rapid argument: God (as I understand Cocksnack to be using the term) is an asshole, if not outright evil.

(To be clear, before I get going, I should point out that I don't actually believe in a God as such. I'm just trying to make a point.)

The logic procedes thusly; God is omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, having the power to do anything and the knowledge of the exact outcome of any given action he takes, the state of the universe as we see it was a deliberate choice on his part.

Assuming that the above is true, God manufactured a universe where millions of people will be tortured horribly for eternity simply because they were born before Jesus was. In addition, he created a system wherein his 'son' had to be tortured to death to forgive a series of sins that he caused to be commited by creating Adam and Eve in the forms he did. (I'll be happy to defend this assertion if anyone really wants me to)

This is only the beginning. I'll skip over the idea that things like dinosaur fossils were created to throw us off and other related ideas. I'll also bypass the idea that Satan (who doesn't actually do much of anything if you read the Bible) is 'tempting' us away from God with sundry tricks, because anything that figure theoreticly could do is by definition allowed by God unless Satan is an equal to God, which pretty much violates the Christian belief that he was a fallen underling.

The idea of 'free will' is a joke if we assume any of this is true. Even if for some self-contradictory reason we assume that God's unlimited knowledge is somehow stymied by our ability to choose for ourselves, religious choice is a fallacy in their world. Either you choose to bow before the all powerful invisible bully in the sky and love him for the priviledge, or you die and are tormented forever for the temerity of having your own ideas. All it is, in the end, is a religious version of Hobson's Choice.


If my above logic is accurate, then Cocksnack is either a fool who can't follow a simple logical series of concepts to their conclusion, or a coward who lacks the moral fortitude to stand up to a being that is clearly unworthy of adoration.

Mechalith said...

Apologies for any typos in the above that I didn't catch. My typing is sometimes a matter of enthusiasm over accuracy.

Bronze Dog said...

Nice summary of at least the generic fundie, Mecha. About the only way I can think to get out of that nastiness is to apologize Hell out of existence... ignoring that redundancy.

Nes said...

I think we should buy this shirt for Cocksnack. Or, heck, for yourself. I just got mine on Monday.

By the way, how many people do you think search for cocksnack on google anyway?

Bronze Dog said...

Sounds like a good idea, Nes. If I can get his address, I might try sending one to him for Decemberween.

Probably not the best Googlebomb, since I don't think people who type that in are out to learn about Intelligent Design.

Rockstar said...

Holy crap nes, PSI Rockin' (my default, of course).

Can anybody seriously do a google search for cocksnack? I'm at work...and afraid...

Rockstar said...

Hmmm... double-talk I presume.

Wrong Cocksnack.

You said, and I quote:

But somehow you have no problem in making sense of how your great grandad was a chimpanzee.

A strawman argument for sure, one which I rightly refuted. You WILL NOT get away with being intellectually dishonest with me fuckhead. Did you not say that? If I really thought that, then I should be right there with you and your Sky Daddy worshiping friends; a chimpanzee giving birth to a human would not only refute evolutionary thought, it would support a supernatural occurence.

Now quit fucking lying or go away.

Berlzebub said...

Cocksnack said:
If I ever saw a chimpanzee give birth to a human being, I would cease my defense of evolution in favor of ID/Creationism.

First, humans and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor millions of years ago. And to see that many generational changes take place in only 3 generations would refute evolutionary theory outright.


Hmmm... double-talk I presume.


You presume?! That's all you've been doing. BD and company have tried to explain things, as simply as possible. All you've done in return is hurl insults and attack strawmen of your own design.

Here's a question for you, Cocksnack. Why doesn't your daughter looke exactly like you, or your wife? I don't mean similar, I mean exactly. That's because she shares traits (i.e. genes) from the both of you. So, while there is a resemblance, there are also differences. She may also have traits that neither of you have, but run in either of your families but were dormant in both of you.

Now, the similarities between you and your father/mother, are the same way[1]. And the same goes for them and their parents. Extend that back hundreds of thousands, and millions, of years. Until there is a species of primates that show a similarity to humans, chimps, and the other apes. It's not theoretical physics, that require a great deal of math. It's not even a leap of logic. It's the very same reason that you don't look exactly like any of your relatives, and why some of them have traits that you don't.

This is the the way that I understand the creationism beginning. (Now, I may be creating a strawman argument of my own, and if so, I apologize.) God created Adam, first. To create Eve, he used one of Adam's ribs.
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Since Eve was created from Adam, they shared the same genetic material. Not only should there not be so much variation from one person to another, if this is true. This is also the ultimate act of inbreeding. The only difference between Adam and Eve was their gender. They were even more similar than brother and sister. So, evolution not only makes more sense to me from a logical perspective, but from a moral perspective, as well.

I realize I'm talking to a brick wall, Cocksnack. You not only refuse to try to understand evolution, you also intentionally misinterpret it. I won't pretend to understand why you do so. Whether it's out of fear of contradicting your faith, or just because you're an asshole. And honestly, I don't care.

As far as I'm concerned, you're just a jackass. On your blog, you have, This is why truth matters, followed by a picture of your daughter. The truth doesn't matter to you. Just what you want to be true. When someone points things out to you, you make insults against their pets, and relatives.

Cocksnack, you're a fuckin' coward, because you won't look at anything that might change your worldview or test your faith. And you're a cocksnack, because your morals are completely abscent.

-Berlzebub

IAMB said...

Ryan, I did the search and this post is in the number four spot as of five minutes ago. The next step is to have a couple other sites pick it up to redirect from your post to WOMI's blog. I'm game, if we're still playing.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

Actually, I would take the shirt if it were a bit more creative. But it is quite boring. I doubt any of you purchased one.

Bronze Dog said...

Somehow, I doubt you comprehend what it says.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.

The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters.’


Many many evolutionary propagandists (ie Bronzedog) are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven.


Newsflash:

Speciation nor adaptation= evolution

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

A strawman argument for sure, one which I rightly refuted.

I must've missed it in between your profanity rants.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

I think I finally see why Cocksnack and his ilk as so bad at managing logical arguments: if they were any good at following a logical progression, they wouldn't be Christian. Behold, as I form a rapid argument: God (as I understand Cocksnack to be using the term) is an asshole, if not outright evil.

I guess the majority of people in this world are ignorant, and only an elite handful have been enlightened.

No thanks.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

God manufactured a universe where millions of people will be tortured horribly for eternity simply because they were born before Jesus was.

Obviously you have not read Ephesians 5.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

In addition, he created a system wherein his 'son' had to be tortured to death to forgive a series of sins that he caused to be commited by creating Adam and Eve in the forms he did.

Obviously you have not read the book of Genesis nor the book of Romans.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

This is only the beginning. I'll skip over the idea that things like dinosaur fossils were created to throw us off and other related ideas.

Yep, and I assume that reindeers were created so we can believe in Santa Clause.

Strawmen?

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

I'll also bypass the idea that Satan (who doesn't actually do much of anything if you read the Bible) is 'tempting' us away from God with sundry tricks, because anything that figure theoreticly could do is by definition allowed by God unless Satan is an equal to God, which pretty much violates the Christian belief that he was a fallen underling.

When you actually read through a Bible, let alone one book in the Bible, let me know.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.

Rockstar Ryan said...

Newsflash:

Speciation nor adaptation= evolution


Cocksnack, that's the problem; you just don't get it.

One more time for the retard:

Evolution is a fact - it means a change in the gene pool of a population. If you don't agree with that definition, I'm sorry but you are just wrong.

Your argument is baseless; it's sole tennants are "I don't understand what this word means."

One more time for the xians:

Evolution is a theory - by what processes do gene pools of populations change? We don't know for sure but evolution is the best scientific explanation.

I must've missed it in between your profanity rants.

I'm not going to repeat myself. Go fucking read it again. You prove your intellectual laziness at an exponential rate.

I guess the majority of people in this world are ignorant

Yes, about 95% of you.

You are a moron.

Now quit posting lies - one more vaccuous post and I'm going to fucking delete it. I don't tolerate dipshits well.

Bronze Dog said...

This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters.’ Many many evolutionary propagandists (ie Bronzedog) are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven. Newsflash: Speciation nor adaptation= evolution

Translation: Sound bite-sized quotes from one person make better definitions than a community who works with nuances.

Oh, and let's just forget about all the DNA evidence that shows just how similar we are with other life forms. Bye-bye HOX genes and such.

As for increases of information, you obviously haven't been paying attention to information theory. It's easy to increase information. You only need a source of randomness, and mutation, though not completely random, fills in that niche nicely.

And now you'll pretend that any randomness at all makes the whole thing random and impossible to predict.

I guess the majority of people in this world are ignorant, and only an elite handful have been enlightened. No thanks.

Unfortunately, it's true: A lot people are idiots. That's why I'm in favor of educating them. Of course, many can't see beyond the Hollywood pseudoscience and stereotypes they're given.

And what's with this 'elite' crap? Is that some kind of Socialist agenda leaking through or something?

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

If my above logic is accurate, then Cocksnack is either a fool who can't follow a simple logical series of concepts to their conclusion, or a coward who lacks the moral fortitude to stand up to a being that is clearly unworthy of adoration.

I am sorry, but I rather stand with the millions who believe that they are a product of special Creation then a few elitists who think that they came from a chimpanzee.

Rockstar Ryan said...

Cocksnack:

Appeal to popularity.

Just because you and a few rednecks believe something doesn't make it true.

And can you please condense your comments into one post? Jesus Tittyfucking Christ.

Rockstar Ryan said...

few elitists who think that they came from a chimpanzee.

This was refuted in my post you lying sack of shit.

Bronze Dog said...

I am sorry, but I rather stand with the millions who believe that they are a product of special Creation then a few elitists who think that they came from a chimpanzee.

You just can't resist lying, can you? Say goodbye to future posts. But they don't really exist, so don't worry about it Mr. Solipsist. When you feel like believing in an external world that features us, rather than figments you invent to knock over, we'll be here.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said...

The comments above illustrate that with all their hypocritical ad hominems of ignorance and repremands of how Creationists need to some objective research they demonstrate themselves:

1. Have absolute minimal knowledge of the Bible let alone have a desire to actually understand it.

2. They have no idea of what the position is for Intelligent Design.

This is evidenced by the fact that their accusations are always destitute of any sound research.

As always, it is a one way street for those who have a fanatical hatred towards God.

Bronze Dog said...

The above comment demonstrates the infinite capacity for IDiots to lie about their opponents.

Yeah. We believe something that Ryan has explicitly stated would contradict what we believe.

Bronze Dog said...

Note: The soundbite-sized definition Weapon stuck in there doesn't include radioisotope dating.

And for those curious: I let Ryan keep this post up (and didn't oppose the googlebombing) because Weapon has so thoroughly insulated himself from our arguments, I was hoping that the new approach would shock him into facing the reality of his trollish behavior.

Failing that, it'd serve as an example. Remember, kids, netiquette is important:

1. Don't copy-paste long, long spams, especially if a single link will do exactly the same thing.

2. Don't defend flaming, yet moldy straw men that were manufactured a century ago when your opponent has explicitly stated that they've already knocked it down (chimp -> human in a handful of generations is pretty much impossible. Evolution says so. In Creationism, pretty much nothing is impossible.)

3. Don't pretend your opponent's argument doesn't exist, just because you're too lazy to read what he's posted.

4. Don't just selectively pick out what you want to see in your opponent while ignoring the inconvenient parts, such as links that feature references to peer-reviewed articles and technology that currently utilizes the thing you say can't work.

Mechalith said...

"I guess the majority of people in this world are ignorant, and only an elite handful have been enlightened."

I wouldn't use the term elite, but yes, essentially that is the case. The vast majority of the world IS ignorant, not just in a theological sense, but in a broader sense as well. It isn't a matter of enlightenment but education and critical thinking.

"Obviously you have not read Ephesians 5."
Apparently you haven't either, or if you have you're mis-understading my meaning. In order to be Christian, and therefore saved, one must believe in Christ yes? Therefore people who died before he was born are screwed. Ephesians 5 does not seem to address this in any way.

Additionally neither Genesis nor Romans adress the fact that according to your religion God created the first people. According to his omnipotence, they must have been made exactly as he intended. Additionally in his omniscience he must, by definition, have known what they would do from birth to death in the tiniest detail. Knowing then, that the beings he created in such a way that they would defy the edict not to eat the fruit of knowledge, he punished them for their 'transgression'. Free will doesn't enter into the question because with enough information any given choice is predictable.

What I meant by the fossil comment is that a number of fundamentalists have claimed that dinosaur bones were placed on earth to confound humans and test our faith. If this is true I feel it only reinforces my argument that God is malicious, but I don't think it's really important to the central issue which is WHY I intended to skip over it. Not a strawman at all.

"When you actually read through a Bible, let alone one book in the Bible, let me know."
I've read through the Bible pretty extensively, actually. You will note however, that aside from thanking me for a demonstration of ignorance, you don't actually provide any counter evidence here. The only instances I know of wherin Satan has a direct hand Biblically are in Job (where he must get permission from God before taking action) and during the temptation of Christ. Neither strike me as particularly in step with the idea that Satan can overpower God and inflict all manner of suffering on us to taint our faith.

I'm perfectly willing to defend my points in a rational, and polite manner as long as you extend the same effort. If you insist on ignoring things or simply handwaving them away then I'll cheerfully go back to just being insulting.

bigdumbchimp said...

Mechalith, your paragraph is almost word for word on how I explain the contradictory nature of having an all knowing god and then having him getting pissed and punishing people for doing things he already knew they would do.

Additionally neither Genesis nor Romans adress the fact that according to your religion God created the first people. According to his omnipotence, they must have been made exactly as he intended. Additionally in his omniscience he must, by definition, have known what they would do from birth to death in the tiniest detail. Knowing then, that the beings he created in such a way that they would defy the edict not to eat the fruit of knowledge, he punished them for their 'transgression'. Free will doesn't enter into the question because with enough information any given choice is predictable.

Very nice.

Akusai said...

I remember having this debate with some fundies in a high school English class where the teacher had us read the Bible "as literature." Whatever. So Magus, my sometime blogmate, and I were in a group together and we were given photocopies of Genesis and asked to present our answer to the question "Whose fault was it that Adam and Eve fell from grace? Adam's, Eve's, or the serpent's?"

Fifteen minutes later, the teacher goes around the room and when she gets to us, Magus and I smile at one another and he says "It was God's fault."

My, what an uproar. We explained it, using pretty much the exact same logic as mechalith. We made an extra analogy to cover our bases: say god isn't omniscient. He created two people who essentially had the mentalities of six-year-olds, and told them "Don't do this thing!" Well, what does a six-year-old do when you tell him "See that cookie jar? Don't eat any of the cookies?" Even if god isn't omniscient, he's got to be a fairly intelligent guy to create living beings and a working ecosystem. He'd figure out that telling them "No" would only drive them to do it. People just kept screaming at us "NO! NO! YOU'RE WRONG!" We sat back, smirking, and calmly defied them to explain how; they were too busy foaming to be coherent. The teacher just looked dumbfounded and scared of imminent lightning strikes.

That night, the teacher, an evangelical herself, called Magus's house and told his mother about his "troubling behavior." His mom asked her to explain our logic. The teacher did so, and his mom answered "Well, that sounds pretty watertight to me. Hey, isn't there this thing called separation of church and state? I'd hate to have to report you." The teacher stammered something and hung up.

Ahh, high school in the Bible Belt.

Bronze Dog said...

Oh, fun!

Tom Foss said...

That's fairly similar to what I realized about Genesis in High School. Okay, so Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and from that, they gained the knowledge of Good and Evil.

So, before that, they had no such knowledge. So, not only would they have been completely unaware that disobedience and the snake were evil, but they didn't even know that there was a difference between the concepts of good and evil. If the big man in the sky says "don't do this, it's wrong," and you don't understand what "wrong" is, how can you be expected to obey? Adam and Eve had no reason to trust God over the serpent; they didn't recognize that there was a difference between the two.

Incidentally, the thing Christians also forget about the Genesis story is the reason for the banishment from Eden. It wasn't because they disobeyed, it wasn't because they brought death into the world. It was because God was scared.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden so they wouldn't eat of the Tree of Life and become immortal gods themselves. He was protecting his power base, not punishing them.