One of the funniest/most tragic sites on the entire intertubes is Answers in Genesis, which is the headquarters of the Creationists. Creationists are Biblical literalists who are so threatened that their beliefs just might be wrong that they insist that not only is every word in the Bible true, but that is is the only truth, and that their truth supersedes not only all of history, but all of creation. They also believe that the Bible is correct not only philosophically, but scientifically. Turning the normal concept of science - evidence leads to conclusions - upside down, they are convinced that the Bible's truth is the conclusion, and therefore they must find evidence to support it. The evidence MUST be there, because the Bible is TRUE. Well, lots of Creationist "Scientists" have created lots of arguments based on this complete misunderstanding of how science works, and published their results on the Intertubes, or passed them around on the emails. The Answers in Genesis folks actually consider themselves real scientists, and they have actually published a page of the weakest of these arguments, under the title -Don't Use These Arguments! (click to link to the article). It's actually quite responsible of them to post these "oops" moments, but I can't help but think that if you actually use the scientific method, ALL creationist arguments eventually fall apart, and posting the faulty logic, or just lies of the mistakes will only prove to draw attention to how tenuous any creationist arguments are, in the long run. But I know that I'm preaching to the choir, and that they are, too. No one is ever going to be convinced one way or the other by my arguments, or even by theirs, because on both sides, we're only seeking to have our own beliefs confirmed. But I have one advantage over them. I'm right, and they're wrong. There, that should put an end to it.
Hope you like the picture of a guy being attacked by a ferocious giant panda. Maybe the guy's wearing essence of bamboo. Serves him right. I think if a panda saved all the energy it used in an entire year, and expended it all at once, it MIGHT be able to execute a lunge like the one illustrated, but why on earth would it want to? Maybe the guy threatened a baby panda. I can see an attack being entirely justified, on the panda's behalf. Everybody loves baby pandas. Can you even imagine someone saying: "I hate baby pandas."? I didn't think so.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
If you're going to visit the White House, please don't bring any of the following items with you:
"Handbags, book bags, backpacks, purses, food and beverages of any kind, strollers, cameras, video recorders or any type of recording device, tobacco products, personal grooming items (make-up, hair brush or comb, lip or hand lotions, etc.), any pointed objects (pens, knitting needles, etc.), aerosol containers, guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size."
Please feel free to bring the president a kitten.
Or maybe not.