Ow, my poor goddamned brain.
Some people, when I start ranting about the cr/evo debate, ask me, “Don’t worry, your Hierophant-ness. The situation isn’t that desperate.”
An example of just how bad it is can be found in crap like this:
The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?
This is a perfect example of what we might call Bad Waiter Syndrome. If you have a bad waiter, and he makes a small mistake, such as bringing the wrong kind of salad dressing, that’s easy to fix - you say “Yo, waiter-dude. Wrong salad dressing.”
However, if instead of bringing you a salad, he stuffs a rabid wolverine down your trousers and starts singing showtunes, it’s just overload time. There so much wrong here, you don’t even know where to start. This is what we’re up against.
(Hat tip: The Panda’s Thumb.)
17 Responses to “Ow, my poor goddamned brain.”
Leave a Reply
Please keep comments civil, rational, reasonably on-topic, and in something tangential to standard written English. Comments that display a reckless disregard for civilized discourse will be moderated.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
For instance, when and how did water evolve?
Ow. Ow. Just… ow. Water’s not alive. ;_;
March 24th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Well, science tells us it evolved from hydrogen peroxide, if I remember the label to my hydrogen peroxide correctly.
Yes, that was a chemestry joke. Yes, that’s a new low even for me.
March 25th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
It’s like ignorance is breeding in his brain, parasitically replacing the sanity and reason.
March 27th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
The joke’s on you. Elements heavier than hydrogen (which includes oxygen for the science challenged), are a result of stellar evolution. For smaller stars fusion stops when carbon is produced from burning helium. For larger stars, they keep on collapsing under their own weight and the pressure ignites fusion of heavier and heavier elements. Under the right conditions these heavy stars burst in a supernova explosion which distributes the heavy elements into gas clouds that eventually form later generation stars and planets. So you see, every oxygen molecule (oxygen is a molecule in nature composed of two oxygen atoms pronounced “oh two”) did evolve from lighter elements. Water of course is a combination of one hydrogen atom and one oxygen moecule. So water evolved and that’s how.
March 27th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Okay, except that is (a) a complete non sequitur, and (b) clearly and obviously not evolution in the sense usually described by the phrase “theory of evolution”, which is what she was complaining about.
Yes, I’m fairly familiar with the standard ID-c tactic of conflating various kinds of “evolution” in order to cloud the issue. It won’t fly.
March 27th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Gravity makes things fall down. Clearly this is the evolution of the “up” state to the more biologically advanced “down” state.
A proton is made of two up quarks and a down quark, while the neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark. Thus, any scientist can clearly tell that the neutron evolved from the proton.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
“Water of course is a combination of one hydrogen atom and one oxygen moecule.”
I do hope that is a typo lest you lose the entirety of your scientific credibility.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Would a “moecule” be a small-scale compound that describes one of the elemental types of moe?
The Fool, your thoughts?
March 28th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
I think moe might be irreducibly complex. It’s definitely some kind of complex.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Oh oh! Can we start calling ID-c proponents irreconners?
March 28th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I honestly hadn’t even noticed the “moecule” typo. My comment was fuming about the incorrect atom ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in water.
March 28th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I think he was suggesting that water contains one O2 molecule and one H atom. Which is not really…
March 28th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Which is still completely wrong. Exactly.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Yes. Chemistry brain returns with more caffeine.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
The irony is that hydrogen is also diatomic naturally. Had he switched the element names, he would have been correct.
March 28th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Well that’s what I’d originally thought he did, but it wouldn’t *really* be correct even so, I think, since in H2O the H bonds are to the O atom, not to eachother, no?
March 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Correct (wiki).