Daily Archives: February 26, 2010
Recently, I’ve become a huge fan of the site Failbooking.com. The premise is to highlight really bad or stupid Facebook status updates. It’s part of the Cheezburger Network, which began with the hilarious site I Can Has Cheezburger, which publishes pictures of cute cats with sarcastic but poorly spelled captions, popularly called lolcats.
Normally, sister sites Failbooking.com and Failblog.org are notable for horrid theological mistakes. But this one gets it right:
Online forums are a clearinghouse for absolute stupidity. It’s sad, but true.
Also sad but true is the fact that I don’t get to read blogs or write on this blog as much as I would like to due to the new addition to my family. So, although each of these three things warrants a post of its own describing the utter stupidity of it, I don’t have the time. So I will post a brief blub for each here and now, and that’s all I’m going to be able to do for now.
First, over at Debunking Christianity, John Loftus very often distinguishes himself as a moron. But in this post, he leaves the category of moron in the dirt and enters a category by himself.
So, Mr. Loftus contends that we should only believe what science tells us is true. Okay. Right. Well, science once taught that the atom was the smallest possible particle. Science once believed that the female was the passive receptacle for the male semen, which was comprised of fully formed embryos ready for implantation. Agent K said it the best: “1500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
Science can be confident in its conclusions, but it can never have epistemical certainty. That’s the nature of the beast. Science is constantly shifting its theories to accomodate for new facts.
As a final bone of contention, Loftus says that science teaches that a virgin birth is impossible. Really? Really? Is he that dumb? Virgin births are not only possible, they happen often enough to warrant a term: Parthenogenesis.
I really meant to ignore the Rational Response Squad for the rest of my natural life, as they contribute nothing to the atheist-theist debate and really aren’t even that active anymore. But one of my nemeses from the boards, Darth Josh, posted this about me (see comment #2). Ironic, considering that most of my web hits come from Christian forums (like Theology Web) or from random Google searches. The RRS hardly sends me any traffic whatsoever. I think that was a desperate bid for attention. Sadly, I bit. Oh well.
Speaking of irony, atheist bloggers often score high on the irony meter, but in this post, Vjack blew the meter up. It’s funny to me that atheists take simple observations like speciation (which no creationist denies, despite what science bloggers might have you believe) and extrapolate it far beyond what it implies to get things like the theory of evolution while calling it “science,” but refuse to let creationists take a simple observation like creation and draw the warranted conclusion of a creator from it. To them, that’s fantasy. The universe is only evidence for the universe, but speciation is evidence for the wholly different process of biological evolution. Can’t have it both ways, guys! By your definition, speciation is only evidence for speciation. Sorry.
Because of Vjack’s commitment to naturalism, the sense of wonder that he feels for nature is centered on nature itself and he has no special feelings for God, who created nature. He is essentially worshipping the creation instead of the Creator. Fulfillment of Romans 1? I think so! What makes it ironic is that Vjack doesn’t even realize that he’s doing it. He’d deny it, of course! Because we all know that the Bible has no bearing on anyone’s life. No, no, no. No fulfilled prophecy there. Just a contrived explanation for atheists. In Vjack’s mind, it’s probably the apostle Paul demonstrating “anti-atheist bigotry,” a catch-all term that Vjack uses for any opposition to his philosophies.