Holy Hallucinations 20


Uploaded by TheLivingDinosaur on 06.03.2011

Transcript:
This is a response to onceforgivennowfree’s video “Evolution is Stupid.”
This response was initiated by the YouTuber, FranksVoice, who recently paid a couple of
kind visits to my channel in order to defecate textually in my comments section. Now, I’d
vaguely heard of this user before and needless to say was intrigued, so I clicked my way
over to his page and that’s where I found a mirror of your video.
I have to say that I was initially dumbstruck by the contents of your production because
it may represent an all-new low-point in creationist dishonesty, and considering the competition
that you’re up against, that really did take some doing. Because of the sheer magnitude
of your quite astonishing duplicity I felt a moral obligation not to let it ride and
instead to take the time to point out what a devious and insincere little Christian you
are. Now before we begin, I should mention that
I am aware that you have an aversion to colorful language. So I want to warn you that, because
your video contained mind-bogglingly outrageous deceit, it got me just a little hot under
the collar and I may not be able to control myself during this rebuttal.
If you therefore don’t like what you hear might I suggest that you ask your friend Frank
to keep his voice down in the future, or better still to just shut the fuck up.
So with that said, let’s take a look at what you had to say in your video, and why
it pissed me off. “Was the cell designed? Well, let me help
you out. Was this car designed? Now, you might be thinking, ‘wait a minute, that is not
a fair analogy – one is living and the other is not’. And you’d be correct. It is not
a fair analogy.” Well, that was innocuous enough. It was also
nice to see that you’re more than aware of the flaw in this analogy that creationists
have been beating mercilessly for years despite it having shuffled off this mortal coil a
long, long time ago. Living systems can maintain homeostasis via
a variety of physiological process and so can adapt to their environment and repair
themselves. Additionally, they’re capable of imperfect replication. Genetic variation
caused by germ line mutations, chromosomal crossover during meisois and the recombination
of parental alleles following gamete fusion lead to phenotypic variations in the resulting
progeny. This variation acts as the feedstock for natural
selection which ensures that organisms displaying inherited traits that make them better suited
to their environment are more likely to survive to reproduce and therefore pass on these traits
on to their offspring. Over periods of times measured in millions
of years this process leads inexorably to the continued divergence of species as they
adapt to constantly changing ecological niches and ensures that they remain beautifully adapted
to their respective environments. In contrast a car, which in itself can’t
do anything other than sit where it’s been parked, is capable of doing nothing other
than slowly turning into a pile of rust. The resulting intricacy and complexity produced
by this process generates the appearance of conscious design in organisms and yet is magnificently
explained by the simple, yet elegant conceptual framework known as evolutionary theory.
This theory weaves together countless millions of pieces of independent physical evidence
into a robust and coherent explanation of why and how organisms have diverged to produce
the staggeringly vast array of life forms on planet earth today. It also abolishes the
need to invoke the existence of an invisible and undetectable designer that poofs each
creature into being from thin air. Science has definitively demonstrated that if a designer
does exist, it works from the bottom up, not the top down, and uses physical evolutionary
processes to accomplish its end and not tawdry magic tricks.
However for those who are too stupid, too indolent, too apathetic or too wedded to their
primitive belief systems to learn anything about this process, it’s presumably too
difficult to conclude anything other than it all being the result of the cosmic equivalent
of a cheesy Las Vegas variety act. “It is not a fair analogy because a living
cell is much more complicated than a car. The car analogy does not do the cell justice.”
Oh for fucks sake! Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you go and say
something this misleading, this underhanded and this devious? You’ve just attempted
one of the slimiest tricks I’ve ever seen a creationist try to pull, one that’s only
worthy of a sneaky, mendacious little tosser of the first order. Of course calling you
that would be impolite in the extreme, so I’ll restrict myself to saying that you
should be as ashamed of yourself as your god would be if he existed.
And if that seems a little harsh, consider this. You ooze your way onto Youtube and present
a tired and tatty argument against perhaps the most sublime accomplishment of the human
intellect, and then admit that you’re aware of why it’s been shown to be nothing more
than steaming pile of malodorous fecal matter. The decent thing to do in the situation is
to either shut the fuck up immediately or to actually present a new and logical counter
to the said refutation. Unfortunately neither of these options was good enough for you and
instead you chose to merely skip over the problem and restate your fallacious argument
while adding a few extra turds to it to make the pile seem all the more impressive.
Unfortunately for you, your analogy fails for the same reason regardless of the actual
magnitude of the difference in the complexities of living cells and automobiles, and your
pathetic and painfully transparent attempt at giving it the kiss of life has done nothing
other than give you a terminal case of halitosis. “So the thing is, if you can’t believe
that unguided laws of nature can produce vehicles, how could you possibly believe that they can
build living things, which are way more complicated?” Because I, unlike you, understand and accept
that there’s a fundamental difference between living organisms and inanimate objects. You
of course have demonstrated that you also understand this but are either intellectually
crippled enough not to pursue the logic and the mountains of evidence to their rational
conclusion, or intellectually bankrupt enough to ignore the gaping hole in your piss-poor
excuse for an argument. Vehicles are not produced by “unguided laws
of nature” because they cannot reproduce and are therefore not subject to Darwin’s
principle of decent with modification. Living organisms on the other hand can and are, and
so can evolve complexity using mechanisms that are extremely well documented and understood
by science. And while this process might indeed be unguided in that it isn’t reaching for
some unseen goal, it’s not the entirely random and directionless mechanism that you’re
presumably implying it is. Just because you’re unable or unwilling
to look into or acknowledge the way that science can explain how these systems developed doesn’t
make your argument any more compelling – it just serves to demonstrate how ignorant or
dishonest you are. If you want to be treated with a little more respect then it’d serve
you well to try and criticize the specifics of what evolutionary theory actually says
instead of borrowing someone’s threadbare straw man and frenziedly whipping it until
you’ve run out both breath and common decency. “But it gets worse. If you are an atheist
then you are actually compelled to believe that cars are formed naturally by Nature.
Why? Because on your view Nature is all there is.”
It’s very nice of you to take the time to tell atheists what they must believe and save
them the bother of thinking for themselves. It would have, however, been more helpful
if you’d expended some thought on the matter before arrogantly opening your mouth and acting
as if material that just came out of it was Shinola, and not what it actually sounded
and smelled like. Firstly, atheists aren’t compelled to believe
anything about the origins of General Motors or any other motor vehicle manufacturer- they
merely don’t accept the existence of your or any other passing loon’s god, and may
or may not accept the existence of any god at all depending on their level of agnosticism.
They may do this after a great deal of thought and consideration or because, perhaps like
you, they refuse to think at all. But in either case, their views of the supernatural have
nothing to do with their views of crankshafts and valve cover gaskets.
Secondly, rationalists, if that’s what you mean by atheists, accept only what’s indicated
by the evidence presented. This acceptance is always tentative and subject to modification
or withdrawal pending the production of contradictory data. At present everything happens to indicate
that nature is all there is since no evidence to support the existence of the supernatural
in general, and your special magic friend in particular, has ever been forthcoming.
In the absence of any evidence to explain a given physical phenomenon such rationalists
do the intellectually honest thing and use the label “I don’t know” pending more
information instead of filling the gaps in their knowledge with psychologically comforting
fluff and labeling it “truth.” “If you want to call yourself an atheist,
then you have to believe that the four fundamental forces of Nature can produce cars, computers,
spaceships and televisions. Now, you might be thinking, ‘but that’s stupid’.””
You’re right, I am. That was stupid. And dishonest in the extreme. Repeating the same
misrepresentation doesn’t make it any less repugnant or incorrect, no matter how many
times you do it. Your little game should by now be obvious
to anyone who looks at your video with anything even vaguely resembling an open mind. All
you’ve done is construct a painfully transparent appeal to ridicule, presenting a patently
ludicrous scenario that ignores the entire palace of knowledge erected by science that
explains in great detail how this could have, and probably did, occur.
In a certain sense these laws did eventually produce vehicles but it took them, almost
fourteen billion years to do so, and then only after sentient beings that were capable
of producing such designs had evolved. This is hardly the spontaneous assembly that you’re
implying is posited by evolutionary theory, and in reality the only people who claim that
life can pop into existence out of nothing are creationists.
If you really want to disprove evolutionary theory, then try doing the decent thing and
debate against actual evidence that supports it instead of constructing a deliberately
misleading and inaccurate proposition and trying to pass it off as more than the just
intellectual skid-mark it really is. “And you would be absolutely right. And
that is why I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”
So you can’t be an atheist because you can’t bring yourself to accept the preposterously
laughable straw man you just presented? I don’t blame you, because arguments of that
quality are about as likely to have persuaded Mother Teresa to take up stripping as they
are of convincing a rationalist that evolution is incorrect but that invisible, undetectable
magic pixies are real. In reality, the veracity of evolutionary theory
should have nothing to do with anyone’s stance on the existence or non-existence of
deities. All that science has done is provide essentially incontrovertible evidence of how
life on this planet has diversified but says nothing as to whether a god or collection
of gods were involved in setting the ball in motion. As a result, there are still enough
gaps in our knowledge at present to accommodate your special chum without you having to behave
like a mentally incompetent or dishonest simpleton. But what you really mean, is it? What really
saying is that you can’t or won’t accept evolution because it’s completely incompatible
with the laughably childish myths in your holy book, and that you’re either unable
or unwilling to relinquish them even though that means having to deny reality to the point
of psychosis. I’ve come to that conclusion because on
your channel page you claim to be a mechanical engineer and so should be intellectually more
than capable of comprehending the evidence that you’re distorting so flippantly. The
fact that you’re either unaware of, or so willing to lie about, it speaks volumes about
the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance reverberating around inside your head.
As a final example of how low you’re willing to sink to cling on to your psychological
safety blanket, let’s take a look at how you finished off you video.
“Then the intestines move back and of course then the diaphragm can contract quite easily.
‘So this is a piston?’ This is a piston. Beautifully done. Couldn’t be more beautifully
designed… evolved.” Has it occurred to you the the gentleman in
this clip may have corrected himself because he was aware that the world’s full of despicable,
two-faced creationist scumbags who’d be more than willing to jump on his words like
an anemic vampires onto a used tampon and use them against him?
Alternatively he could equally well have been being ironic in expressing how evolution is
more than capable to producing creatures that to all intents and purposes superficially
appear to be intentionally designed to fit their habitats.
Without seeing this clip in the full context of the program from which it was culled, I
can’t distinguish between these two or yet other possibilities, but I can be certain
of one thing. And that’s that you didn’t catch him in the act of revealing some kind
of global scientific conspiracy aimed at perpetuating evolutionary theory at the expense of your
pathetic little childrens’ bedtime stories. Your eagerness to jump feet first into the
slime to take this unbelievably lame and pathetic cheap shot only serves to showcase the dishonorable
depths to which you’re happy to plunge to protect your beliefs, and the outrageous lies
that you’re more than willing to tell to defend them.
If this kind of sordid and tawdry behavior is the best you can offer, if you’re truly
incapable of rational debate and honesty, if all you have is quote mining, misrepresentation
and character assignation, then that speaks volumes more about your position and your
beliefs then I, or anyone else, ever could.