Thursday, October 27, 2005

Don't Want to Work? Bleeve in Invisible Friends!!

From About Atheism via The Uncredible Hallq, we find this article:

Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

Although it is safe, effective and legal, emergency contraception - the "morning after" pill - can be hard to find in Tucson.

After a sexual assault one recent weekend, a young Tucson woman spent three frantic days trying to obtain the drug to prevent a pregnancy, knowing that each passing day lowered the chance the drug would work.

While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

"I was so shocked," said the 20-year-old woman, who, as a victim of sexual assault, is not being named by the Star. "I just did not understand how they could legally refuse to do this."


...less than half [of AZ pharmacies] keep emergency contraception drugs in stock, with most saying there is too little demand, but some cite moral reasons, according to the Arizona Family Planning Council. Yet, family-planning agencies say they've seen a 60 percent increase in demand for the drug in recent years. The statistics are creating what advocates say is a frightening situation for some women. But others are glad pharmacists have a choice.

Women who report sexual assaults to police receive treatment, examination and the immediate offer of emergency contraception at a local emergency room, according to the policy of most Tucson hospitals.

But, like many sexual assault victims, the 20-year-old woman did not report the assault because she felt traumatized and guilty she had put herself in a situation that left her vulnerable. She was mistakenly locked outside a gathering at a friend's house and accepted the offer of a neighbor to stay at his place.

"This (sex) was with someone I did not even know and did not want to have intercourse with, and I am in no place now to have children," she said. "I just don't think this should be the pharmacist's decision."

The manager of the Fry's pharmacy at 3920 E. Grant Road, where the refusal occurred, offered to find another location where the prescription could be filled, according to a Fry's spokeswoman. But the young woman said she was offered no other options.

Although emergency contraception drugs have been around in one form or another for more than two decades, they remain highly controversial, with anti-abortionists and religious conservatives saying they can abort a fertilized egg.
More widespread use of emergency contraception could prevent as many as 800,000 surgical abortions a year, according to family-planning groups such as Planned Parenthood.

Controversy over emergency contraception is roiling now at the national level, with FDA scientists resigning over the agency's refusal to allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter, without a prescription.

The issue surfaced in Arizona last winter, when Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill that would have permitted pharmacists to refuse to dispense it on moral or religious grounds.

..."He (the manager [of Fry's Pharmacy]) said he would fill it himself if we could get there before his shift ended, within 10 minutes," said Sabrina Fladness, a University of Arizona student and owner of a computer service business.

"But we were more than 10 minutes away, so that was impossible. So he said we would have to come back the next morning" - after the shift of the refusing pharmacist ended.

"We have all kinds of compassion for a rape victim - in that case, Plan B is OK, the church has no problem with it," said Ron Johnson, with the Arizona Catholic Conference, which supports the right of any health-care worker to refuse to dispense emergency contraception and lobbied hard for passage of the Arizona law to allow it.
But the biggest roadblock to obtaining emergency contraception was that most pharmacies simply do not stock it, Fladness said. She said she called nearly 50, before finding two that had it and agreed to dispense it.

[I inserted bold]

So since gawd/Jeebus/Mohammed/Krishna/Thor et. al told this phucking pharmacist emergency contaception in the case of rape is bad, he doesn't have to work!

Folks, rape is messed up shit. A close friend of mine experienced this several years ago and is still suffering mental effects. Should she have been required to go through 9 months of pain, suffering, and constant reminder of the tragic event because you interpreted your silly ancient book to read "'bortions r bad"?? Seriously, that' s like asking someone who lost a family member in the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep a picture of the planes flying into the World Trade Center on their mantle for 9 months!

Thanks gawd for all you do. I know these women thank you daily...

Friday, October 21, 2005

Less Boring Bigfoot Journalism

Seriously, why is this news? A Bigfoot convention that draws 400 people in Texas is about as exciting to me as a polyp found on Bill Manitopolis from Houston's ass. Where's the star of the show? Have you ever heard of a Star Trek convention where none of the actors from the series show up? Hell even Lincoln's ST convention had "Drugged Military Officer #2 himself, Chuck Hicks! So in a Rockstar exclusive, I was able to get a few moments with Mr. Bigfoot. Things get a little intense when he attempts to validate his existence.

Rockstar Good afternoon Mr. Bigfoot. Thank you for joining us. Why thank you Rockstar. Just "Bigfoot" will be fine.

Rockstar Very well, Bigfoot. Let's get first things first. What do you think of all those people gathering to discuss the latest sightings and tracking techniques at the Texas Bigfoot Conference? It's quite an honor, Rockstar. We are slowly starting to earn support from the scientific community.

Rockstar Scientific community? Mmmm yes. People have been believing in me for years, but this conference brought forth the newest scientific evidence of my existence.

Rockstar Such as? The thousands of footprints, sightings, and photographs.


Rockstar You don't think those prints are highly suspect? I mean, why have we found "footprints" but no hair, bodies or scat? I, um, don't poop or shed.

Rockstar As far as the sightings, isn't there a more rational explanation? According to Christopher L. Murphy's 2004 book "Meet the Sasquatch", I've been seen by 2,550 credible people, like this man: Notice the stunned look on his face? He's a big fan in Utah. Daryl Coyler, my lead investigator, even said "It's not a matter of believing, like faith, when you believe in something you can't see". How true!

Rockstar Couldn't those folks have experienced
pareidolia? Ya know, like, saw something they thought was you but was something else? Like seeing Jesus on a tortilla for example. There are many clear photos of me taken by credible scientists.

Rockstar Most of them look like guys in suits. Then how do you explain THIS!? (Bigfoot, according to the Texas Bigfoot Research Center)

Rockstar ZZZZZZZ... ......

Rockstar ZZZZZZZ... Rockstar?

Rockstar ZZZZZZ... Rockstar? Um, do you explain that?

Rockstar That doesn't look like anything paranormal, Bigfoot. It's just a shadow. In fact, are you...

(*shuffle* *rip*)

Rockstar BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! ......

At this point in the interview, Craig Woolheater, co-founder of the Texas Bigfoot Research Center ran out from behind the puppet. I chased him as far as I could, but I made my point. It's amazing how fast he can run with those big fake feet.

Having a convention about a bunch of invisible apes running around that no one has any evidence of...sheesh...

Wonder if it was held on a Sunday??

*Bigfoot photos credit: © Nimba Creations UK 2005. Bigfoot sculpture, mould making, casting, painting and hair punching. ~ they are awesome!*

Thursday, October 20, 2005

ID + Behe X Astrology = Bullshit

During the ongoing Dover religion Intelligent Design trial, Michael "Goddidit" Behe has recently stated that under his definition of a scientific theory, "astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design".


Ok, according to Behe (and every rational thinking person on this planet) ID has as much merit in the world of science as astrology, which we all know is
complete and utter bullshit. So why teach ID in schools?

Behe states ID is another "theory" of "how complex biological structures arose." Let's examine this theory. The bible of ID, "Of Pandas and People" defines ID thusly:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."

That's it. That's their theory. Complex biological structures began abruptly through an intelligent agency. Or in other words, God did it.

I can't wait for that college final:

Good Job, Bob!

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

The Bibble - Inerrant, DAMMIT!

At least according to Xian blogger David Heddle . Says Heddle:

I find it very interesting, this insistence of atheist evolutionists that an inerrant bible is incompatible with science.

He follows up with a great quote from science blogger
PZ Myers:

A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with science, because its followers would have to be idiots.

Apparently David and his Christer buddies have a problem with this. But in true apologist form, they do not take on Professor Myers' statement. No, they simply whine about "atheist bigots" calling them idiots. David, following the Xian apologist textbook, takes this opportunity to express the controversy!

...see religion has nothing to fear from science—these scientists and devout Christians see no conflict whatsoever.

However, it is a strategy they just can’t make themselves follow. Why? I can only assume that it is because their hatred for Christianity far outweighs the possible political advantage. Someone like Myers could never say: “What are you worried about? Professor X believes in the compatibility of an inerrant bible and science. Science is not your enemy.” No, to someone like Myers religion must be the enemy. It just has to be. No alliances permitted. He loves being an enemy of religion.

So, according to Heddle, the only reason we atheists feel the bibble contradicts science is because of our hatred for Christianity.

Stop right there David! I'm not a fan of apologetics. I like evidence and science. Here's just a few examples where the bibble and fact collide like a fat kid and a cupcake:

1. Which
genealogy of Jebus should we believe - Mark or Luke?

2. What were the true
last words of Jebus?

3. Since when do animals in the family leporidae chew their cud? (Lev. 11:5-6)

4. Pi must be
3, according to the good book. (I Kings 7:23)

Need I produce more? That's why we feel any religion that calls the bibble "inerrant" would require idiots to follow it.

Friday, October 14, 2005

All Things are NOT Through Him

A pirate walks into a bar. He has a large galleon steering wheel coming out of his trousers. The bartender says "Hey buddy - you know you gotta big wheel sticking outta yer drawers???"

"Aye, and it's drivin' me nuts!"

I thought that may illustrate the point I'm about to make. Why do people give credit for their abilities to a magical man in the sky? For instance, many Grammy winners begin their acceptance speech with "First off I'd like to thank God; through him all things are possible."

If your Rockstar ever wins a Grammy, I might start my speech like this:

"First off, I'd like to thank God for sitting in my basement every night for five hours learning to play guitar for me. I'd also like to thank Him for writing
Labeled's songs (Rockstar's band). Through Him all things are possible."

What about Me?

Why do people give their invisible friend credit for all their accomplishments?

Thursday, October 13, 2005

19th Skeptic's Circle

An alcoholic has taken over Nurse Kelly's blog! Shit, Rockstars know all about that! Here is the link to the new SC. En-friggin-joy!

Belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster Now Required to Sit on Supreme Court

*Spontaneous Entry Alert*

This just in from the "You Gotta be Fucking Kidding Me" files. It now appears that belief in magic is a requirement to be nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court. Quoth the Bush:

"People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

You chose her because of her religion. That irritates me so bad, it's hard to comment. Says Scott McClellan:

"Faith is very important to Harriet Miers. But she recognizes that faith and that her religion and that her personal views don't have a role to play when it comes to making decisions."

Oh really? Well, since they never discuss what or whose magic Miers believes in, what if she has to make a decision against her faith? We'll assume she's a Xian since the Prez likes her.

What about school prayer? What about a woman's right to choose? The death sentence?

I guarantee she and all the other religious Justices base part if not all of their decisions on their book of magic written a thousand years ago.

Now, to all the fundies who read this and would like to bitch at how stupid I am, think of this:

What if, in the future, the President of the United States nominates a Supreme Court Justice based on their Muslim beliefs? What if they're Hindu? Now you know how I feel. Anyway,

Evil = More Evil

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

A Script for "Debating" ID/Creationists

Debating an ID/Creationist (I use that term lightly; it's hard to debate someone with no facts) is like listening to Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might be a Redneck" jokes. At first it's interesting, but gets old when you hear the same tired old thing all the time. The same goes for ID/Creationists. Some of them are just honest uneducated people. Others are lying propogandists. Here's a script I've used in probably every "debate" with an IDiot/Cretinist. Keep in mind, they usually come out with all of these at once. Stick to your guns and hit them one at a time.

Part I or "They ALWAYS start with this one"

1. Evolution never happened. Why do you think they call it a theory?

Big mistake. It happened, it's still happening.

*First point out the to the ID/Creationist they are apparently ignorant of what evolution is. In layman's terms, evolution is the
change in the gene pool of a population over time. This is readily observable. I typically provide antibiotic resistant bacteria and DDT resistant insects as obvious choices. Direct them to the talk origins FAQ on observed instances of speciation for proof. This is a good time to point out the difference between what "theory" means to scientists and what it means in everyday conversation.

The comeback:

Oh, you mean "micro-evolution" (changes within species). I mean "macro-evolution" (at or above the level of species). A frog that changes into another frog is still a frog.

The end of argument 1:

*Don't let the ID/Creationist get away with being dishonest! Do not address anymore of their points until they answer this question: "Why did you say evolution never happened before, but now you say it did?" Continue to quote their point until they give an honest answer, basically making them admit they believe evolution has occured. In my experience, they will usually tuck tail and run, or say something like "sorry for not being clear." It is now apparent that the only thing being argued is "macro-evolution". Soooooo...

Throw 'em for a loop! We've both agreed micro-evolution is a fact. Now why is there a "controversy" here? Oh, maaaaaacro-evolution. Which brings me to my next ID/Creationist argument:

Part II or "The Most Ignorant Argument ID/Creationists Use"

Trust me, if you use this, do so only with people who are utterly ignorant of science lest you sound like a complete and total moron.

2. When I see a frog give birth to a cat, then I'll believe in macro-evolution!

Well, when I see a frog give birth to a cat, I'll renounce atheism and lead my life for Christ; that would be excellent evidence for Creationism, not evolution.

*BWAHAHAHAHA! Silly ID/Creationist! Not only are you serving to debunk your own claims, you are playing my game now! If generational changes occured that quickly, it would refute evolutionary theory! Evolution happens over millions of years, not overnight.

The comeback:

Fine, but animals stay in their own kind; frogs are still frogs, dogs are still dogs!

The end of argument 2:

*Does "kind" mean different species? If so, they're wrong; you've already agreed speciation occurs. Typically, though, ID/Creationists move the meaning of the word up to
higher taxonomic levels, be it genus or even family. By this way of thinking, they might lump these together:
Hey, same genus, right?

Some ID/Creationists say "kind" can't be defined biologically. OK fine. How does one define it? If "kind" has no definition, why use the term?

Part III or "I'll Huff, and I'll Puff and I'll Blow that Strawman Down!"

3. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? I believe God/gods/Gorlock the Mighty gave me a soul, so there's no way we could be related to monkeys.

This point may be the easiest to refute.

*We didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution works like this:

Not this:

Creationist's View of Evolution
Note the common ancestor.

Here's where it gets real interesting. Show them Eohippus and Miohippus only. Are they the same "kind"? I'll wager $50 bucks they say yes. Then show them Miohippus and Merychippus. Are they the same "kind"? Repeat ad finitum until you get to the modern horse. Notice how the tree
branches off to other species. So note how eohippus was not only the common ancestor to modern horses, but also species such as Paleotherium.

Human evolution was much the same, with a common ancestor extending through many branches.

The comeback:

You have to give it to them they stick to their guns. They'll always revert to the "kind" argument.

The end of argument 3:

Ok so this:

and this:

Are the same "kind"? Looks like pretty good evidence for "macro-evolution" to me.

Stay tuned for part II...some jackass just
spammed a critical thinking blog with an ad for pseudo-science. What better way to pay him back than to debunk the hell outta his product?

*update 10/12/05*
I know I used some of the older names for a few of the extinct species (ie Eohippus). They're extinct, I don't think they'll care...