Brace yourself. Before we begin to dissect the theory of evolution you are going to be thrust straight into deceit. I want you to experience it firsthand for yourself.
Man, I’m getting all hot and bothered. This reads like a choose-your-own-thrusting-and-naughtiness adventure book.
You Magazine, October 12, 2006
I told you! This retard starts his mighty, ground-breaking salvo against evolution with the fucking You Magazine. For those of you who are not familiar with this family pulp magazine, let me put in perspective: the You Magazine is to evolutionary biology, what Vanity Fair is to particle physics. But it’s not the low, populist level of the magazine that I have a problem with (they have great crosswords), but it’s that our mental giant here seems to be completely ignorant of the existence of peer reviewed scientific publications. You see, I’m willing to bet almost everything I have that this guy honestly, truly believes that Nobel prize winners, serious biochemist, geneticist and dedicated biologists spend their time and effort writing articles and doing research for the fucking You Magazine.
Found: The Human Ape Girl. Blah, blah…Was it a girl or an ape-girl creature or a human ape girl? There’s a difference between a girl and an ape-like creature. Blah, blah… It’s a child. Blah, blah… A child and an ape-like creature isn’t the same thing. Blah, blah… They find bones that have characteristics of monkeys, yet they call it a child and a girl because they say it has short canines and smooth eyebrows.. Blah, blah… What on earth do they mean resembled?
And captain retard’s confusion goes on like this for six fucking tedious and painful pages. He seems, again, to be completely incapable of grasping even the most basic idea behind evolution: that all species have common ancestors. In fact, the theory of evolution predicts that such transitional fossils will be found (and I’m sure that he’ll mention this later in the book). Still, six fucking pages because he’s unable to decide whether it’s a girl or an ape? He must have a real hard time when he’s presented with a cross-breed dog (”No! You CANNOT have a German Shepherd/Husky mix! It’s either a Husky or a German Shepherd! You are playing word games!”).
But all this head-up-the-arse confusion isn’t anything close to the following few gems.
They are hiding information that helps confirm this is just a monkey. How can I just make that statement? This is why. I’ll prove it. Firstly the team leader is an Ethiopian paleoanthropologist who works at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology. I’m sure that they are really open-minded. This guy finds the bones and guess who the article states carried out the research. You guessed it, the same institute that found it. Blah, blah… You need guys who are prepared to play along.
I wish I had this guy’s wonderful, insightful ability. He should be a detective. From simply looking at the name of the institute that “the guy” (actually Zeresenay Alemseged, Fred Spoor, William H. Kimbel, René Bobe, Denis Geraads, Denné Reed and Jonathan G. Wynn) and the Max Planck Institute not only committed fraud but are also part of a vast conspiracy to make evolution appear legitimate. And while you might think that it’s all pretty innocent, I want you to think about this: he’s claiming that there’s a conspiracy to further an agenda because it’s in the name. It’s like walking up to the Automobile Association and saying: “Hmmm. I am not fooled by their deceit. It is clear from the word “Automobile” in their name that they favour the use of cars and that, therefore, they’re biased when looking at the issue of human transportation.”
It’s a good thing for O’Connell that he’s not too bright and, like me, a nowhere writer in a nowhere town, or I’m pretty sure that he’d be sued for libel faster than he can type out “Darwin is the Antichrist” because, believe it or not, accusations of fraud are taken very, very seriously in scientific circles.
Regardless, what does Jack have to conclude after all of this? Without so much as looking at or investigating the actual bones? Without so much as five minutes in an anthropology class?
She’s a chimp. Blah, blah… For me a chimp is a monkey.
And there you have it: Jacky-boy knows that it’s a chimp simply from reading the You Magazine article. And he also is proud to tell us that that chimps are monkeys. They’re not, of course. They’re apes, of course, like humans but… shhh… Let’s not disrupt his fantasy. A fantasy, I may add, that includes the Big Bang because Tard O’Connell here believes that, somehow, the theory of evolution has something to do with the Big Bang. That’s like saying that Pasteur’s theory of germs has something to say about gravity (hint: the thing that the theory is about is included in the name of the theory).
They claim nothing exploded and created the entire universe. This defies every natural law and is contradicted by the laws of physics. Blah, blah… I thought science teaches that explosions are destructive. I [sic] you light a stick of dynamite and it explodes you probably won’t get a collection of billiard balls suspended in the air. Blah, blah… To comprehend that we cannot comprehend creation is to comprehend it.
We’re going to leave his demented philosophical musings alone for the moment (but you can say “Wooah, duuude!” and make bong noises if you like) and the fact that he quotes Kent “I’m a fucking Criminal” Hovind to support his claims, and get down to the nitty-gritty of his claim: that the idea of the Big Bang is unscientific. I don’t need to tell you that it isn’t, of course. You’re able enough to have gotten dressed this morning, as well as switch on a computer and get this far, you’re able to understand how science works and why the Big Bang, thus far, remains the likeliest of the explanation. Well, the likeliest explanation for people who are interested in accounting for all the empirical evidence, of course.
Evolutionists must prove that the molecules became fine looking men and woman [sic] that we are today. Because if molecules can’t morph into man then it means we were created as men and woman [sic] and didn’t start out as slime on the water (primordial soup theory) according to which man is 50 million year old pond scum (the words of a leading evolutionist not mine).
Ooh! Ooh! I know how to play this game: create a straw man, make a ridiculous assertion and state it as proof! Jack O’Connell must prove that sugar became a delicious pancake. Because if sugar can’t morph into a pancake then pancakes are impossible. This is easy!
More seriously, though, I just want to point out that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. It’s a common misconception and one that creationists love to play up, but it’s simply not true. The field that they are looking for is abiogenesis. Conflating the two is like saying that civil engineering fails because it doesn’t deal with mining the steel to make a bridge.
It’s been proven to be scientifically impossible for natural selection (survival of the fittest) to account for it. Blah, blah… But it’s a preposterous explanation to claim billions of mutations (a destructive force that is proven in all the examples of it we see today in man and animals to damage organism) made us [I’m only including this sentence here because it fascinates me. I’ve read it about 10 times and still cannot fathom out what he’s trying to say]. Blah, blah… Just one mutation can destroy efficiency, symmetry, appearance and function of an organism. Blah, blah… Mutation causes degeneration and destruction. Blah, blah… If we had to undergo millions of years and billions of mutations we’d all be destroyed! Blah, blah… [and I love this bit] If evolution is true then parents should hope that their children are abnormal because then it’s carrying the species forward… a baby born with only one eye… disproves evolution.
He goes on like this for a bit longer but it’s the old Creationist canard: mutations only destroy and if evolution was true then we’d all be dead. It’s complete bollocks, of course. He’s deliberately skewing the truth. Most mutations are actually neutral with a few beneficial ones and a few detrimental ones.
That’s why it’s a theory! Blah, blah… “theory”… “theory”… Blah, blah… Any bizarre story or reasoning can be called a “theory.”
Of course, this is a lie. He must either be truly ignorant or wilfully lying. There is a huge difference between what constitutes a scientific theory and what we, in every day terms, call a theory. It’s like saying that you don’t understand why engineers spend so much time in building bridge supports since bra manufacturers build support in seconds. But, luckily for us, Captain Retard’s complete lack of comprehension doesn’t stop him from attacking scientists (warning: if you’re a scientist, don’t read this. It’ll upset you).
Yet a scientist is classified as a person who studies one or more of the natural sciences e.g. physics or biology. So some guy with no common sense and no powers of reasoning is a scientist because he studies biology… ignorant of life’s important truths… have a close mind or one-dimensional way of thinking… out of touch with reality… Maybe he’s missing the beauty, purpose and meaning of life because he’s always looking for it under a microscope. He may be bias [sic] or self-serving… own agenda… brainwashed. Blah, blah.
There’s no real need to tackle what he says here. I think the true character of ol’ Jacky-boy is beginning to show. And on that note, I’ll leave it here for the week. Stay tuned, there’s plenty more where that came from: it’s like a cornucopia of stupid.
