Holy Hallucinations 29


Uploaded by TheLivingDinosaur on 10.12.2011

Transcript:
This is a response to PPSimmon’s video “APE - PARENTLY - Evolution is still...well...EVOLVING!”
Well, well, Carl, I have to say that your latest videographic floater surfaced from
the depths of the septic tank called the PPSimmons channel much more quickly than I’d anticipated.
As a result you caught me working on the script for Holy Hallucinations 29, but I dropped
everything just for you and instead dedicated myself to eradicating the lingering stench
from your newest noxious arse rumble. In this particular offering it seems you’ve
taken it upon yourself to regurgitate the rancid sputum of a certain Robert Roselli
of “THEorYofLIVEvolution.com”. Now, I must confess that I’d never heard of this
particular individual or his rather eccentrically named website and so popped over there and
did something that you’re apparently congenitally incapable of – i.e. some research.
Once there, it rapidly became evident that you’ve somehow managed to hit an all-time
low, and seeing that I’m dealing with you, Carl, that’s quite an achievement. You see,
it appears that Mr. Tosselli is a conspiracy theorist of quite extraordinary proportions,
even by your standards, who subscribes to pretty much every crackpot idea imaginable
which he’s blended into his own quite unique hallucinatory cocktail.
Additionally, it was difficult to determine what exactly qualifies Tosselli as the authority
on biological evolution that you apparently take him for, Carl. From what I could find
it seems that he has a Masters in Civil Engineering which he claims “demonstrates” that he’s
a “scientifically grounded thinker”, whereas everything else on his website only seems
to demonstrate that he’s nothing but a certifiable loon. So it’s a mystery to me that you felt
that anyone should value the opinion of someone who’s clearly nuttier than a squirrel turd,
and whose only qualification to opine on evolution is the same as yours, that is that he has
an anus where his mouth should be. I can therefore only say that you’ve done
yourself a disservice here, because not only does Tosselli make your usual sources look
like scientific leviathans, but also because your choice essentially sets the seal on my
suspicions that you’ve finally relinquished your tentative grasp on sanity and have plunged
headfirst into realms of the completely bat-shit crazy.
With that said, I’m not going to comment any further on Mr. Tosselli’s unfortunate
mental dysfunction, but urge whoever doubts me to gird their loins and wade onto his website
to check for themselves. Meanwhile, to preempt any accusations that I’m engaging in ad
hominem argumentation by discrediting your stooge instead of his so-called arguments,
I’m now going to address his main points while simultaneously stuffing them up your
arse one by one. “Fact number one. There is no physical fossil
record of even one single mutant involving species anywhere. There are a lot of artists’
renditions, anecdotal evidence and claims of such things, but that’s it.”
This is just the preamble and I already had to stop here to ask: what the fuck is fossil
of a “mutant involving species” exactly? If you want people to understand you, Carl,
you’d be well advised to use the English language rather than the incomprehensible
mumbo-jumbo you just excreted. You see it takes more than spouting random words to be
convincing and you really should take a little time to consider the order in which you squeeze
them through your sphincter if you want people to understand you.
If you were quoting Tosselli verbatim here then it speaks volumes as to the quality of
your new source, but in any case while this preposterously amateurish language might work
with your lobotomized simpleton cheerleaders, all it does for those with more than a handful
of functional neurons is make us laugh at you even harder. Anyway, let’s take a look
at the rest of this “fact” and see if we can decipher what you’re trying to get
at. “’One cannot walk into a college laboratory
and find the fossil evidence. One cannot walk into the Museum of Natural History and find
the evidence. A verifiable and actual fossil record of evolution simply does not exist.
So of if there truly were millions of mutant morphing stages between animals and man, as
the mad scientists claim, then don’t you think and a single one of these millions of
life forms might show up in the fossil record?’ Rob asks.”
Nope. Sorry. Still sounds like meaningless bullshit to me. I can only guess that you
two fucktards are vaguely referring to transitional forms. If that’s the case, then you really
should know better, because paleontologists have described thousands of such forms in
great detail despite your unwarranted assertion to the contrary.
You see, Carl, if you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge what’s been described and are
willing to look like an ignorant dolt in public, then it’s easy to smugly declare that no
such evidence exists. But if you want convince anyone other than a microcephalic imbecile,
you need to do a little better and explain why said evidence is inadequate. Of course,
in reality you don’t have any such credible explanations and so settle for outright denial.
In response I can say that, firstly, back in Holy Hallucinations 24 I already explained
to your partners-in-slime, William Liar Craig and his personal arse-licking toady Cockshite,
why the uneducated creationist’s ignorance of comparative zoology and the rarity of the
fossilization process puts paid to these claims of missing millions.
Secondly, it also occurred to me that what you and Tosselli might have been trying to
do here in your appallingly puerile vernacular was to obliquely quote mine a Steven Jay Gould
line from his 1977 article in Natural History that creationists have been crapping on for
over thirty years – that is: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” If that’s the case, Carl, then I’ll remind
you and the monkey you’re quoting that this particular lie has been rammed back up creationists’
arseholes as many times as it’s been shat out by them. Gould himself made it abundantly
clear both in the article and subsequently that he was referring to the relative paucity
fine transitions between pairs of species, a paucity that he and Niles Eldridge explained
with their proposal of Punctuated Equilibrium, which itself arose from the elucidation of
the mechanics speciation three decades before by, amongst others, Ernst Meyer, one of the
founders of the Modern Synthesis. In short, Carl, these fossils are only missing
is in your and your delusional friend’s fevered imaginations, something you and Mr.
Tosselli would realize if you stopped for a moment to pull your heads out of each others
arses and actually visited some of those laboratories and museums you mentioned.
“Number two. Rob says Charles Darwin himself admits that his theory can’t explain our
human instinct or origins. Check it out for yourself, he says. In chapter seven, on the
topic of instinct in ‘The Origin of Species’ or ‘The Preservation of the Favored Races
in the Struggle for Life’.”\ Oh for fuck’s sake Carl. Are you serious?
I know that you’re working hard to urinate all over the achievements of people whose
arses you’re unfit to wipe with your tongue and on the very science that makes your miserable
life and your inept video productions possible, but with arguments of this quality all you’re
doing is getting your shoes wet. Firstly, I’ll point to your blatant use
of a genetic logical fallacy. Darwin’s views on the evolution of instinct have as much
of effect on the evidence for and the current status of evolutionary theory as his views
on the color of Queen Victoria’s crotchless panties would have on the demonstrable fact
that you’re colossal douchebag. Secondly, while Darwin did consider the evolution
of instinct a challenge to explain when “Origins” was first published, it’s somewhat telling
that you and Mr. Tosselli neglected to mention that he later solved his dilemma with his
formulation of group selection in “The Descent of Man” - coincidentally the same book in
which he also explained, at least according to you, our inexplicable human origins.
I wonder why it is that you both missed that, Carl? Could it be because you know little,
and care even less, about the subject on which you deem yourself fit to preach? Or because
you don’t give a second thought about lying your filthy little fundie face off in any
way you choose to as long as it suits your despicably vile agenda?
Either way, if the best you can do to attack modern evolutionary theory is by resorting
to criticizing the state of the science 150 years ago, you must be getting really desperate.
That desperation came through loud and clear when you followed up by trying to first link
evolution to abortion, racism and eugenics and then topped it off with this noxiously
repulsive brain fart. “And does another infamous person come to
mind when you hear the last half of the title of Darwin’s book, ‘The Preservation of
the Favored Races’? Can we find Adolf Hitler in this fossil record, do you suppose?”
A guilt-by-association fallacy now, is it Carl? And not a particularly new one at that.
But then you creationists are nothing if not predictable, which I suppose it comes with
the territory when all your assertions have seen the inside of your collected rectums
countless times and you have no credible or cogent arguments to make.
Obviously only a lamebrain of truly Nephilistic proportions would be unable to grasp that
even if this particular skid mark of claim were true, Hitler using evolution as a pretext
to commit genocide would have no effect on the veracity and accuracy of evolutionary
theory. In reality, there’s no historical evidence whatsoever that Hitler’s policies
were informed by biological evolution, but rather by the bigoted philosophical school
of thought inappropriately named Social Darwinism, which had as much to do with Darwin as Pamela
Anderson’s tits have to do with Ray Comfort’s and Kirk Cameron’s sex life.
This is the point where an atheist might respond by turning the tables and pointing out that
Hitler, if anything, leaned in a distinctly Christian direction and insinuate this might
have influenced his homicidal proclivities. I’m not going to do that though, Carl, because
it would be grossly unfair and inaccurate and, unlike you, I have some conception of
the meaning of the word “decency”. In reality course, Hitler was just a sick and
twisted bastard and only another similarly obnoxious bastard would use him to further
his limp and fallacious argument. “Fact number three. Evolutionary scientists
are all over the map, Rob says, on what evolution actually is. Multiple accounts of ‘evolution’
by evolutionists themselves tell very different stories as their own theories keep evolving.”
You and the fuckwit whose astonishingly banal shite you’re proudly smearing over your
video evidently don’t realize that if evolutionary theory wasn’t changing then it wouldn’t
be science. The strength of science lies in its obligation to continually question its
conclusions and thereby improve and refine its explanations of nature, and the results
of this continual improvement should be evident to even delusional dick-splashes like you.
I suppose that I shouldn’t be surprised though, because it seems that childish, simplistic
minds like yours seem to view uncertainty as a weakness rather than a sign of intellectual
honesty. Instead you prefer to prefer to stamp the indelible label of “truth” on whatever
concept makes you feel better and then stick to it like a pair of pubic lice to a hairy
testicle, regardless of how ludicrous it is. Isn’t it interesting, though, that you choose
to draw the line at maintaining other previously supposed absolute truths in your holy book,
such as the curing of diseases by animal sacrifice, the treatment of women during menstruation
and the eating of shellfish. Could it be that you’re a little more flexible about what
your scriptures say when it might actually inconvenience you, Carl, but not when it comes
to subjects that you’re too stupid to understand and whose wholesale rejection you’re too
ignorant to realize would be devastating to us all?
I’m also going to ignore the pathetic examples from populist, non-technical sources that
you gave to attempt to back up your piss-poor assertion, but suffice it to say that, to
anyone who knows anything about science, the disagreements that you allude to are a sign
of a vibrant and healthy field of study that’s roaring smoothly along the super-highway of
progress, while your clapped-out, steaming creationist jalopy is spluttering to a standstill
down the rutted dead-end of your primitive and crippling belief system.
“And finally, Rob says, number 4. In order for the theory of evolution and the big bang
to be true, four of the most well established laws of science must be compromised in one
way or another: Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, the law of biogenesis
and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.” This is where I lost my shit Carl and almost
pissed my pants with laughter. You really have no idea how stupid you’re making yourself
look, do you? This is the kind of stuff that could be debunked by a fifth grader, and the
only reason I’m bothering to spend any time on it is because I refuse to let you get away
with ejaculating your syphilitic mental emissions over science without pointing out your non-existent
sperm count. Firstly, in real science the big bang has
nothing to do with evolutionary theory apart from inside the psychedelic hallucinations
that, for creationists, pass as reality. Secondly I have no idea what Newton’s and
Kepler’s laws have to do with any of this, and since you didn’t see fit to regale us
with what I’m sure would have been a most amusing exposition, there’s not much I can
do to address them. I can however point out that Kepler’s laws are a special case of
Newton’s, and that your redundant repetition only serves to highlight your and Mr. Tosselli’s
ignorance of the basic science that you mental midgets nevertheless conceitedly think you’re
capable of attacking. Thirdly, the claim that evolution is impossible
because of an imaginary thermodynamic barrier barely needs addressing because it’s been
refuted more times than NephilimFree’s modem’s overheated from terabit porn downloads. The
only thing this claim does is further demonstrate your mate’s complete ineptitude when it
comes to the science he’s ineffectually trying to wipe his arse with, and his inability
to understand the difference between an open and closed system. That inability doesn’t
render the argument valid, Carl – just stupid. To show exactly how ludicrous this claim is,
I should point out that if the generation of order over time is impossible then how
have we, in the past few thousand years, come from sitting around campfires eating toasted
goat-shit and getting around on camels like the authors of your fables, to living in towers
of glass and steel and exploring the outer reaches of our solar system? Once you can
answer that, Carl, you’ll know why this claim is a pathetic as you are.
And finally, aside from your attempt to link evolution to the origin of life again despite
being told why it’s dishonest multiple times by myself and others, I already explained
to you back in Holy Hallucinations 26 why the overturn of the concept spontaneous generation
has nothing to do with modern hypotheses of abiogenesis. Ignoring such corrections and
simply repeating your assertions doesn’t magically make you right, Carl. It just demonstrates
how effective your flavor of religion is at making you a lying, dishonest piss-mark and
how worthless your flavor of religion is at making you a decent human being.
“Rob Roselli says that evolutionists may see this particular video hem and haw and
hold in derision the points that are made. But realize this – their so-called scientific
theory can never be proven or tested empirically, as scientific hypotheses are supposed to be
tested, and at its core evolution grants infinite latitude to those who support its claims.”
While I do have to confess to resorting to a modicum of derision in addressing this veritable
bullshit tsunami, Carl, I think that the record will show that there was no hemming and hawing
involved. In addition, my derision is not only sorely deserved but also in direct proportion
to the unwarranted buggery you subjected science and reason to during the course of your video.
One problem with this complete cowpat of an argument is that evolutionary theory is tested
hundreds, if not thousands, of times daily by scientists in numerous disparate fields
of study, and this has been going on relentlessly since Darwin first published his ideas. To
date it’s withstood a century and a half of intense scrutiny, and while it’s it still
possible that it might one day fail, I for one am not holding my breath.
As in all fields of science the results of these tests are interpreted in the light of,
and incorporated into, the current conceptual framework which in the case of biology, is
evolutionary theory. In cases where a theory is fundamentally flawed it becomes increasingly
difficult to fit more and more new data into the model over time. The conceptual cracks
eventually become obvious, the theory fails and is replaced in a paradigm shift with one
that has better explanatory power. This happened numerous times in the past as, for example,
geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism; classical mechanics gave way to quantum theory and relativity;
and a static crust gave way to continental drift and plate techtonics. At present no
such shift has occurred in biology because evolution has withstood everything thrown
at it. As for the infinite latitude, comment, think
I can best explain this inanity with an analogy that even a simpleton like you might be able
to follow, Carl. Let’s consider a hypothetical murder case where the police and district
attorney are working on the theory that you’re the culprit.
This theory’s based on the fact that you were found within a block of the crime scene.
You were carrying a gun that matched to the bullet in the victim and had fresh powder
residue on your hands. Your fingerprints and DNA were on the victim’s body and you were
spattered with his blood. Two people heard you scream “Die in the name of Jesus atheist
scum” just before the gunshot and a third saw you running from the scene just afterwards.
And on top of all that you had the victim’s wallet in your pocket and photograph of the
body on your cell phone. After all this is presented at the trial,
however, the defense steps up with a witness who claims that at the time of the murder
you were on the job in his Whorehouse in Istanbul. His testimony, though, is contradicted by
the facts that you’re probably biologically incapable of… shall we say, “rising”
to the occasion; that your passport has no Turkish stamps in it; that the witness recently
deposited a check for a million dollars made out by your ministry; and that your shriveled
genitals appear to be unaffected by the unfortunate malady from which the lady in question was
suffering. It shouldn’t take a PhD to work out where
I’m going with this so I won’t spell it out for you, Carl, but I will ask you this:
Is it really likely that this new evidence invalidates the prosecution’s theory, or
can you think of any more plausible explanations that elegantly explain it within the current
theoretical framework? Of course, by the reasoning you present in your video, Mr. Tosselli would
be the one dumbfuck in the jury voting ‘not guilty’.
“Rob urges: ‘Demand this of those prodigious pseudo-science prognosticators. Mr. Evolutionist,
prove your own theory. You come up with a scientific experiment to prove your suppositions.
You prove that a pile of carbon can turn into a human brain.’”
Firstly, let’s just make it clear that no evolutionary biologist that’s not suffering
from a cerebral malignancy would claim that a pile of carbon has ever or could ever turn
into a human brain, though having watched your video, Carl, I’m not sure I can be
certain of the opposite. But breathtakingly outrageous straw-man aside,
presumably what you and Tosselli are expecting us to produce is something like a crockoduck
in a test tube, or to document a pregnant tiger shitting out a baby baboon. If that’s
the case then of course the evidence will never be forthcoming because you’re not
asking for evidence for evolution, but rather for the sick parody of it that you’ve constructed
either out of sheer ineptitude or deliberate misrepresentation.
If instead by some miracle you’re asking for real evidence for the real theory being
expounded by real science then I’d like to point in the direction of the mountain
that’s already been, and continues to be, generated in its support. All you need do
is go to PubMed and type in “evolution”, Carl, and you’ll find over three hundred
thousand peer-reviewed papers in research areas such as; systematics, paleontology,
geochemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, geology, embryology, biogeography, biostratigraphy,
plate techtonics and nuclear physics to name a few.
I can only assume that to date you and Mr. Tosselli have been unaware of this evidence
because the walls of your colons are pressed too tightly against your ears to hear of it.
But now that I’ve set you straight, Carl, I’d be delighted to see you read a few of
these reports and produce a critique of them with a detailed and specific explanation of
how your creation model better explains their data, and without resorting to your miraculous
all-encompassing and entirely useless panacea. It would certainly make a change from hearing
you parroting the inane ramblings of one clinically delusional fucktard after another.
Of course, my hopes aren’t high by any means, partly because you’re too stupid to understand
the subject matter, and partly because over the years creationists have demonstrated that
they are no honest and valid arguments to make for their position. As a result I suspect
that I’ll have to settle to just watching more of your smug and sickening dishonesty
in the future and using my boot to shove it roughly back up your arse where it belongs.