Ducking Homophobes

Ok, cheap, likely overdone pun aside.  Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty has apparently been suspended indefinitely from the show following anti-gay remarks which A&E deem harmful to them.  Does anyone remember those little posts that used to go before movies/tv shows stating that the opinions depicted in the show don't necessarily reflect the broadcaster's opinion?  Well it still goes.  Sure, homophobic remarks are ignorant and reprehensible, but seriously, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it's controversial.  I'm not defending the anti-gay comments, but really do they warrant that response?  I don't think that A&E should remove someone for their opinions no matter how poor or ignorant those opinions are.  Also, you get a bunch of old rednecks and make a show expecting nothing controversial to ever surface?  Get real.  Hell, at least if he's not on the show he's got the duck call business.

Paul Taylor's guide on how to educationally retard yourself

This 'Creation Byte' just came through my youtube feed and it surpasses even creation today's average stupidity.



First thing, if you have a system called 'fuzzy word analysis', you might want to just throw the towel in right there.  Anyway though, on to matters of actual substance.

Fuzzy word analysis is supposed to be useful for reading public release, article-format scientific writing. It helps people who don't know much or anything about the topic they're reading criticize it without all the bother of gaining a proper understanding of it first.

How evidence for a theory can be 'in the use of the words' confuses me, but that's not really important, on to the system itself.

With a yellow highlighter, mark every word or phrase that implies the least bit of uncertainty or implication, <sarcasm>after all, every true scientific statement is absolute and not subject to change.<sarcasm/>

With an orange highlighter, mark any statement that couldn't be directly observed by the individual.
(We can deal with radiometric dating and Paul's infantile understanding of it later.)

With a gray highlighter, mark off every paragraph which includes either yellow or orange marker.  The whole paragraph is null.

You are now qualified to intellectually criticize science that is performed by people who 1) have a working knowledge of it, 2) are trained and educated for it and 3) don't have to take turns with the family brain cell.

If you have the time, read this and do the same thing. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals

So, to Paul, Eric and the rest of Creation Today and the YEC/Fundamentalist factions;


Until next time.

Ken Ham's Enema Results

We all knew he was full of it, but parading it around so flagrantly is a disservice to his own reputation.  I'll not leave his partners in idiocy (and the creation of this excremental piece) out, Bodie Hodge and Tommy Mitchel also deserve honorable mention in the window licker hall of fame.  Wear a helmet for this part, and not for the same reason they need to.

Apparently the experiment involving a room full of monkeys with typewriters has finally given fruit.  Let's look at the two arguments for the validity of the Bible which although good, aren't proof.

The first example is too stupid to parody.  Stupidity of this magnitude and concentration has caused death in laboratory animals.  I really can't make any comment on that.

The second example is a simple lie.  It simply doesn't adhere to reality.  But this is Ken Ham we're talking about.

This incredibly watered down version of presuppositionalism is as abhorrent as it is aberrant.  With the narrative being that the fact that we're capable of logic somehow evidences design, this is a mere assertion.  As Christopher Hitchens said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.",

Granted, this was only the example of the book given on the web page where it is for sale, which will be linked below.  However, an example is supposed to demonstrate the book's high points.  This just defies all attempts to understand it in a meaningful fashion. Claims are made without justification, assertions without evidence.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but don't put it in the form of propaganda.




The book, Answers Book for Teens Volume 1 is available for sale here.  Book images are taken from that page.

Accuracy vs. Truth

Eric Hovind and his merry band of idiots are at it again (episode from October 5, 2012 - snippet released August 28, 2013), check out their video here.

So, Jackson equivocates philosophical truth with situational accuracy.  I don't see that this even requires much explanation, but hey, who wants to just be in that "puffy cloud of pretend intellectualism"?  Philosophical truth is much more complex than mere accurate information, here's Stanford's page on philosophical truth, which does a better and more complete job of explaining it than I can.  As is clear from that page, the equivocation between philosophical truth and accuracy is no small deal.  The amount of change a person should get from a clerk is a matter of accuracy.  Knowing that a bus is coming toward you is a matter of accuracy (and possibly a change of pants).

The Bible verse warning about philosophy is really a cheap out and it makes me think that the author knew as well as anyone that he had little ground to stand on, thus making a direction to avoid philosophical discussion necessary. It seems that were the Bible credible, it wouldn't have an issue with people engaging philosophically.

Thank you Eric, for unearthing an old gem of idiocy.