Holy Hallucinations 26

This is a response to PPSimmons' video, "EVOLUTION - Settled Science - or - A Magic Man In The Mud?" Hello again Carl! Long time no see! I have to say that your uncharacteristic silence on the subject of evolution following the serial scholastic butt-*** I gave you in Holy Hallucinations fifteen through eighteen had me thinking that you'd given up on science denialism. I was therefore a little surprised when I found out that you'd produced the aforementioned video, but nevertheless delighted because, while I can't explain it, there're few creationists that I enjoy beating the *** out of with the baseball bat of reason more than you. In fact, I was so delighted that I rushed over to your comments page to leave you a little thank you note. Now call me a tad naïve, if you must, but I was a little taken aback to find that I was unable to do so because it appeared that you had inexplicably blocked me from your channel. Of course, I dearly wanted you to know that I hadn't forgotten either you or my vow to respond to any of your future *** expulsions, so I took the liberty of posting a bulletin to my subscribers asking if anyone could pass on my best wishes. Needless to say, a large number of them kindly proceeded to do so, and before long I think the message was coming through to you loud and clear. In fact, it's a lucky thing that I happened to be on the comments page watching the waves rolling in when I noticed these comments suddenly starting to disappear like popping soap bubbles. Fortunately, despite my being busy *** my pants with laughter at the time, I had the presence of mind to save a copy of the page before your trained monkeys decided that being chicken-*** was the better part of valor, and pulled the plug by taking down the page entirely and heading for the hills. So I'd like to sincerely thank all my subscribers who took the time to make sure that Carl and his special friends at the PPSimmons channel were made fully aware of what they are about to receive, and for that I'm sure that they're forever thankful. And as for you Carl, might I suggest that you go and find something to bite down on while I play the first clip from your video, because I think I can safely say that this is going to make you wince. "Of course the Evolutionists has to declare that evolution is a settled, scientific fact, because any less of a declaration at least leaves room for the possibility of an intelligent designer and/or, blasphemy of all blasphemies, the Genesis account of the bible and the Christian faith." I'll get to your mischaracterization of the word "fact" in the next segment, Carl, but let's get one thing straight here from the outset. When you or any other creationist uses the term "Intelligent Designer" we all know that it's a euphemism for "my God." So don't try slipping that in there to make yourself look like you have an open mind, because anyone who's watched just one or two of your videos will know that yours is closed tighter than Kent Hovind's buttocks at shower time. And with regard to your Genesis account, it's funny how you neglected to mention any of the thousands of other creation fables out there and their associated deities, each of which has exactly the same amount of evidentiary support behind it that yours does and is therefore every bit as likely to be true. So unless you can produce a talking snake; or demonstrate how to clone a female sexpot out of a male human rib; or explain how one can produce a viable gene pool from two individuals; or present us with physical and verifiable evidence for the existence of your particular celestial butt-buddy, then you can take your Genesis account and get to the back of the *** line. "Is evolution a settled scientific fact? While I am willing to admit that there are several scientifically factual observations noted by the field of evolutionary study, to declare the entire field of evolutionary theory to be a settled scientific fact to the exclusion of all other possibilities of origins and the continuation of the species, is at least disingenuous and at most, downright dishonest." I found it fascinating that you actually came out and admitted that there are "several scientifically factual observations noted by the field of evolutionary study". Does that mean, Carl, that even a pig-headed simpleton like you has come to the conclusion that brazenly denying the existence of what is patently obvious to even a five-year old does nothing but highlight your early onset senility? Of course you haven't shared with us exactly which facts you've honored with your blessing, Carl, and I really would like to know what they are, mainly so I could explain exactly why there are thousands more examples that are equally undeniable. Nevertheless, just this admission alone leaves you on shaky ground, because as far as I'm aware your precious Genesis account is not supported by any facts at all, and in contrast is contradicted by millions of them from multiple disciplines of science, not just evolutionary biology. As a result, when it comes to possibilities other than evolution, your option is hardly at the top of the list, is it? As for the rest of this clip, in it you begin what turns out to a running theme of this digital streak of mental diarrhea, and that is the continuous misuse of the words fact and theory, and the concerted effort to justify your insincere conflation of abiogenesis and evolution. You should be aware that phrases such as "the entire field of Evolutionary Theory" are meaningless collections of words that only arrogantly ignorant morons like yourself string together to try to fool others into thinking that you know what you're talking about. Evolutionary theory isn't a "field", it's a coherent conceptual framework of diverse mechanisms that provides an explanatory basis for the facts that have collected by scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology. To this day I still find it breathtaking that dullards such as yourself are so willing to go out into public to so confidently pontificate about things that you evidently don't even have the first *** clue about. So when scientists state that evolution is a fact, Carl, they're talking about facts such as: the demonstration that allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time; the verification of numerous speciation events both in the wild and in the laboratory; the observation of the appearance of new morphological features in isolated populations, and many others. Evolutionary theory, which provides a cohesive and consistent explanation of these and countless other observations, on the other hand, isn't a fact by definition, though it can be either correct or incorrect, or in most cases partially accurate. Epistemically, of course, we can never be completely sure whether any given theory is absolutely correct, but for you to hang your spiv's hat on this philosophical technicality is an act of breathtaking dishonesty. In reality the insurmountable edifice of accumulated data on this subject makes the likelihood that Evolutionary Theory is, at least in broad terms, correct almost undeniable. And while science does technically allow for the now infinitesimal possibility that this evidence might be better explained by completely unrelated mechanisms, that doesn't give any raving *** with a microphone and an internet connection the right expect to have their cranial excretions taken seriously without them providing a shred of evidence in their support. If that were the case, Carl, then you should be perfectly willing to accept that your Genesis fable could equally well be supplanted by my contention that the first two humans were shat out of a tetrasexual, pan-dimensional octopoid's arsehole after a particular heavy night of lagers and a dodgy chicken biryani. Come to think of it, that particular hypothesis may go a long way towards explaining the existence of you "good folks" at the PPSimmons channel. So these *** and indirect creationist arguments that seek to exploit the honesty of the scientific enterprise, and its willingness - nay, obligation - to continually question the status quo is nothing new, particularly when they're disingenuously coupled to examples where paradigm shifts have occurred. Of course, you're nothing if not predictable Carl, so let's go on to look at which example of change you picked on, and why your choice elevates you to new and previously unimagined heights of complete and utter fail. "For almost two thousand years it was considered settled scientific fact that one of the primary mechanisms for the origins of a living organism was through spontaneous generation, or life arising spontaneously from non-life. The great philosopher and scientist Aristotle proliferated this scientific fact of his day." And there you go again with your glib and flippant disregard for the actual meaning of words, Carl. Why is it that you think that this isn't really that important, I wonder? Is it because it allows you to easily construct the straw men that you proceed to beat so gleefully with your fundie stick? Or is it because you really are so stupid as to believe that what you're saying has some meaning to those who subscribe to a word view that encompasses the mental state known as sanity? Aristotle was without question a genius of colossal stature, but one who was considerably constrained by the limitations of knowledge of his time. He was also was in no sense of the word a scientist, because true science arose approximately two thousand years after his death from the ideas and writings of the likes of Francis Bacon, which were eventually implemented by Galileo Galilee in what were the first truly scientific investigations. Not being privy to this extraordinarily powerful method for the investigation of the physical world, Aristotle was restricted in his quest for knowledge to the philosophical and logical pondering of the implications of what he thought were obvious and self-evident facts. Of course the fruits of any such investigation can only be as sound as the premises on which they were based, and in the example you give here these false premises resulted in fruits that might as well have fallen straight out of a donkey's ***. This is precisely why pure philosophy, while being wonderful in informing us in subjective matters such as to how to think and behave, has a very poor track record in determining the nature of the physical world. While its products can only be as good as the assumptions that the philosopher makes, or in some cases pulls directly out of his ***, science can put these products to the test buy presenting them to Nature and allowing Her to be final and objective arbiter of their true worth. So your using the words "science" and "scientist" in the context of Aristotle in order to make your loathsome insinuation that his failures are in some way comparable to the continual improvements and refinements of modern science is perhaps one of the biggest and foulest brain turds I've seen you squeeze out since I first started wading through your sewage here on Youtube. "Yet this astounding thinker and scientist was wrong on the matter of spontaneous generation. He was wrong concerning the fundamental question of life. And this is no small error. His massive miscalculation went to the foundation of life itself. Yet anyone who wished to argue for the spontaneous generation of life and the absence of a need for God, could have appealed to the so-called 'settled scientific truth' of Aristotle and his day." That of course would be a great point it Aristotle's thoughts could even vaguely be considered scientific. Unfortunately, no matter how many times you assert the contrary, Carl, your dirty little lie won't become true. One more time, you dishonest little skid-mark of man: comparing the stature and credibility of Evolutionary Theory, which is based on arguably the largest and most diverse body of physical evidence in the whole of science, to Aristotle's spontaneous generation, which was based on almost none at all, is like comparing the entire faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to VenomFangX and his sub-par high-school education and diploma in Embezzlement Technology. Anyway, I think I've made my point, but before I go on I did want to mention that I noticed the two references that you put up while quoting Aristotle. I think that's a first for you Carl, but forgive me for suggesting that this was just a cheap little ploy by you so that you could make some kind of pretension towards being academic. In the future I'd be more impressed if you could instead cite either peer-reviewed references to support your outrageous claims, or the actual sources that you happen to be frantically quote mining so that your viewers can check your dishonesty for themselves. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned, you can take your pointless citations and stick them up your swollen brown-eye. "We now know, for a scientific fact, that life does not originate from non-life." And as much as it pains me to say it, Carl, I actually have to agree with you. The idea of spontaneous generation was destroyed by the truly scientific investigations of individuals such as Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani and Louis Pasteur. These individuals dispelled beliefs that, for example, maggots arose spontaneously from rotten meat, by proving empirically that no extant (and as we'll see later, I use that word for a reason) organisms can arise from non-living material, but only from preexisting life forms. Ironically for you Carl, this observation was critical for the eventual development of Evolutionary Theory because the spontaneous generation of fully developed organisms from dirt (which appears to be what you, as a biblical literalist, are arguing for), would undermine the central concept of evolution, that is descent with modification. So although for a change I've agreed with you on something, the reason I've taken the time to elaborate here will soon become clear, because you're about to use the concept of spontaneous generation to commit the most outrageous fallacy of equivocation, or to put it another way, tell another massive stinking lie. "And so what is evolution's story for the origins of life today, some two thousand years after Aristotle? The answer is Abiogenesis or Chemosynthesis. Fancy sounding words, but what do they mean? Plain and simple, the words mean this. Life originated from non-living substances, or non-living chemical compounds, randomly, without intelligent input of design. In other words life originated through, wait for it, spontaneous generation." It's becoming extremely difficult for me come up with new adjectives to describe you, Carl, because every time I think you've hit rock bottom you somehow manage to find a way to sink even further into the sewer. As a result I'm going to have to start creating some new ones, and ask you whether there are any limits to your complete and utter turdishness? The collection of hypotheses known as abiogenesis has nothing to do with spontaneous generation because it doesn't attempt to explain the sudden appearance of modern extant biota from non-living substrates. I know from some of your previous videos that you're more than aware of this, so you have no excuse for this underhanded and deliberate subterfuge. Abiogenesis outlines possible physical mechanisms for the production of the first self-replicating polymers, their assembly and sequestration within membrane bound compartments and the development of the chemical interfaces between different biopolymeric systems. So for you to argue that the same evidence that destroyed spontaneous generation three hundred years ago also applies to this new and exciting field of study is nothing short of a deliberate and outrageous brazen lie. As I said, I'm running out of adjectives for you, Carl, so perhaps I'll try a noun instead. How about ***-bag? "For anyone wishing to argue that origins theory is somehow not connected to evolution theory we would simply refer you to any college text book on origins, or specifically to Dr. Richard Dawkins' book, 'The Ancestor's Tale'." And here you go again, Carl, trying so desperately to link abiogenesis to Evolutionary Theory so that you can gleefully tar the latter with the current uncertainties inherent in the former and then come to your preferred and predetermined conclusion, that it "my God did it." It's interesting that suddenly you've switched to this new field of science that apparently just emerged from you ring-piece, because I for one have never heard of "Origins Theory." I have to hand it to you Carl, this was certainly an inventive attempt to conflate the two, but you're going to have to do a lot better to slip something like that past me or anyone else who as a nose for complete and utter ***. As for your textbook claim (one that you funnily enough don't reference), my reaction is "so *** what?" The fact that any given text contains discussions and descriptions of more than one topic does not mean that those topics are de facto interdependent. Based on this reasoning, could I therefore assume that you'd agree that because Playboy magazine contains both photographs of handsomely endowed young ladies as well as articles on all manner of sports, it would not be unreasonable to expect that all women who attend sporting events should do so while displaying their wubbly jubblies? Of course not, and what's relevant in this case what science and the scientists who develop it have to say on the matter, and not the putrid lies of a dishonest *** who's regard for the truth as small as his desire to make a quick buck from the people who listen to his crap is large. And while those scientists agree that chemical evolutionary processes play important roles in abiogenesis, they also all agree that Darwinian biological evolution only applies to preexisting life forms. If your metaphysical mate did happen to create life, Carl, then the evidence is overwhelming that He allowed it to diversify and flourish over billions of years via evolutionary processes. And if you're going to insist that He did it all a few thousand years ago using juju, then not only are you denigrating the magnificence of His creative vision, but also cramming Him into a pathetically small and human box within the pages of worn and threadbare book which you're chosen to worship instead of Him. "So is origins and its subsequent explanation for the continuance of the life cycle, evolution, settled scientific fact? Not by a long shot. Not even close. In fact some of the theory is still mired in two thousand year old mythology. A 'Magic Man in the Mud', so to speak." You really are a slimy little ***, Carl, you really are. A magic man in the mud? Really? That's kind of rich, coming from someone who himself is seriously insisting, like some tribal shaman with a bone through his nose, that man arose fully formed from mud at the behest of an invisible and all powerful Magic Man with whom he communes on a daily basis. If there were an Olympics for projection, you'd not only in the gold, silver and bronze, but you'd also be elected ***-Merchant-in-Chief for life. So I'll finish up here by reiterating that your clumping together abiogenesis and evolution under the word "Origins" doesn't suddenly make evolution dependent on naturalistic chemogenesis, it only demonstrates the magnitude of your dishonesty and your propensity to produce cranial flatulence of truly volcanic proportions. Neither does it magically transfer our uncertainty as to the accuracy of the current hypotheses on the origin of life to the theory that beautifully explains its diversification; it just demonstrates your complete inability to act like an honest and decent human being when defending the intellectually indefensible. So *** you and your word games, Carl. Because apart from your vast arsenal of lies and your willingness to use them at the drop of a hat without even a passing nod at your conscience, it seems that they are all you and your fellow creationists have got. �