|
"Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
- Noam Chomsky
"Scientists estimate that the Grand Canyon is five to
six million years old. In today's popularly accepted geological
model, that's not very old - especially when you consider that
the rocks exposed at the bottom of the canyon are thought to
have been formed 2,000 million years ago. That sounds really
old, but Earth's oldest rocks are believed to be twice that
age."
- Geology of The Grand Canyon from www.goamericanwest.com
"By dating the fossils found in the rock of the Kaibab
Limestone, geologists have determined that it is approximately
250 million years old, and this is the youngest layer. "
- Grand Canyon Explorer, The Geology of the Grand Canyon
(www.kaibab.org)
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the
word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing
out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then
was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens
and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition
of ungodly men."
- The Bible - 2nd Peter 3:5-7 King James Version
"Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!"
- (Eros) Ed Wood, Plan 9 from Outer Space
November 18th, 2004
Stupid! Stupid!! Stupid!!!
Why is it that everytime I decide to go on vacation
(translation: take a break from the rat race for a week), I
come across something that is so mind bogglingly stupid yet
scary enough that it bears the right to be ranted upon? With
the addition of the article below, I'm convinced that since
the religious right have come to power in the executive office
as well as the Senate, complete and total idiocy is now coming
to view.
Things are now, officially, out of control.
As my wife and I were on vacation this week,
I had the opportunity to introduce my wife to a show of such
epic madness that it threatened to overwhelm me with a worldview
that can't be achieved without psychedelic mushrooms. Tuesday
nights on The Bullsh%t Network... ooops, sorry,... The Trinity
Broadcast Network (TBN), the show Creation
in the 21st Century is on. The host, Dr. Carl Baugh, apparently
the foremost doctor on creation science (whatever that means),
attempts to prove each week that the Bible is right about the
origins of the universe. And each week, it's the same thing,
he'll gather some biased "scientists" that may or
may not be "experts" in their field and "prove"
that what the Bible says is 100% correct.
Here are some of the things that he has attempted
to prove:
- That the earth is not billions of years old,
only a couple of thousand.
- That the dinosaurs and man occupied the earth
at the same time.
- That the flood of Noah covered the earth.
- That the universe was created in six days.
As a matter of fact they have stated their mission
on their site: The purpose or purposes for which the corporation
is organized are to operate a museum for educational and scientific
display of creation evidence, to sponsor paleontological and
archaeological excavations attendant to these purposes, to buy,
sell, lease, own and operate personal and real property, and
to engage in such other activities as corporations may lawfully
engage in under the Texas Business Corporation Act.
The last episode was attempting to illustrate
that the water originally made as per the theory of biblical
creation was different than the water today. This has to do
with the "pre-flood" waters and their life giving
theraputic value. Well, after thirty minutes of chemical/biblical
babbling they laid their argument that the water produced after
the process which apparently was based on the Bible's history
theory made people feel better,... so long as you added it to
a special tea.
Maybe, do you suppose, that it's just possible,
that it could be.... THE TEA?!!!!
Well, the end of the show usually comes with
Dr. Baugh realistically not proving a damn thing and me having
a large belly wrenching laugh because of it.
Let me state this now plainly: The theory of
evolution is a reality.
It's what makes sense. The theory of survival
of the fittest makes sense because it can be easily explained.
If the planet was under water, the undersea life would be dominant.
If the planet was made of nothing but lava and life were to
evolve, the dominant life form may be silicon based or something
like that. Life evolves to the conditions of the environment.
There is a reason why Darwin did his research at the Galapagos
Islands. It was an isolated spot on the earth where life forms
evolved to the specific environment.
Charles Darwin stated the following:
- Evolution did occur
- Evolutionary change was gradual, requiring
thousands to millions of years to process.
- The primary mechanism for evolution was a
process called "natural selection".
- The millions of species alive today arose
from a single original life form through a branching process
called "specialization."
See, here's the deal and this is what the creationists
don't seem to grasp. The theory of evolution was a long, long,
trial and error process. Life evolved when an organism could
survive on what the planet had. Think about it. The life on
this planet is probably unique to planet earth. Why? Because
carbon based life does best in this environment. If life were
to occur in an environment that required a silicon base instead
of a carbon base, things would be completely different.
In any event, Tuesday night, my wife and I had
a good laugh at the creation idiots and filed it away to just
plain stupidity.
Today, I was surfing the net and came across
this.
Faith-Based Parks?
Creationists meet the Grand Canyon
Leon Jaroff, Time Magazine
Wednesday, Nov.
17, 2004
At a park called Dinosaur Adventure
Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors
are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs. This
fantasy accommodates the creationists’ view that
the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Darwin’s
theory of evolution is false. Among the park exhibits
is one that illustrates another creationist article
of faith. It consists of a long trough filled with sand
and fitted at one end with a water spigot. Above the
trough is a sign reading “That River Didn’t
Make That Canyon.” When visitors open the spigot,
the water quickly cuts a gully through the sand, supposedly
demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was created, practically
overnight, by Noah’s flood. That’s nonsense,
of course, but what else would you expect at a creationist
park? Certainly, one might think, this couldn’t
be acceptable at, say, a National Park, right? Think
again.
Two-thirds of the way across the continent,
some four million people annually visit Grand Canyon
National Park, marveling at the awesome view. In National
Park Service (NPS) affiliated bookstores, they can find
literature informing them that the great chasm runs
for 277 miles along the bed of the Colorado River. It
descends more than a mile into the earth, and along
one stretch, is some 18 miles wide, its walls displaying
impressive layers of limestone, sandstone, shale, schist
and granite.
And, oh yes, it was formed about 4,500
years ago, a direct consequence of Noah’s Flood.
How’s that? Yes, this is the ill-informed premise
of “Grand Canyon, a Different View,” a handsomely-illustrated
volume also on sale at the bookstores. It includes the
writings of creationists and creation scientists and
was compiled by Tom Vail, who with his wife operates
Canyon Ministries, conducting creationist-view tours
of the canyon. “For years,” Vail explains,
“as a Colorado River guide, I told people how the
Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time span
of millions of years. (Most geologists place the canyon’s
age at some six million years). Then I met the Lord.
Now I have a different view of the Canyon, which according
to a biblical time scale, can’t possibly be more
than a few thousand years old.”
Vail’s book attracted little notice
when it first appeared in the NPS stores in 2003, until
a critical review by Wilfred Elders, a respected University
of California geologist, brought it to light and took
apart its pseudoscientific claims. That led David Shaver,
who heads the Geologic Resources Division of the Park
Service, to send a memo to headquarters urging that
the book be removed from the NPS stores. “It is
not based on science,” he wrote, “ but on
a specific religious doctrine…and should not have
been approved for in NPS affiliated book stores.”
The presidents of The American Geological
Institute and six of its member societies also weighed
in, expressing their dismay to the Park Service. Noting
that the Grand Canyon “provides a remarkable and
unique opportunity to educate the public about Earth
science,” the scientists urged that, “in fairness
to the millions of park visitors, we must clearly distinguish
religious from scientific knowledge.”
But when Grand Canyon National Park superintendent
Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Vail’s
book at canyon bookstores, he was overruled by NPS headquarters,
which announced that a high-level policy review of the
matter would be launched and a decision made by February,
2004. So far, no official decision has been announced.
Even worse, according to the Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an organization
that includes many Park employees, papers obtained under
the Freedom of Information Act reveal that no review
has ever taken place. Indeed, PEER claims that the Bush
Administration has already decided it will stand by
its approval for the book and that hundreds more have
been ordered. “Now that the book has become quite
popular,” explained an NPS flack to a Baptist news
agency, “we don’t want to remove it.”
Even more troubling, PEER charges that
Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official
estimate of the age of the canyon, and that the NPS
has blocked publication of guidance intended for park
rangers that reminds them there is no scientific basis
for creationism. The group has been increasingly concerned
about what it calls the Park Service’s “Faith-Based
Parks” and the agency’s seeming indifference
to the separation of church and state Among other moves,
for example, NPS has allowed the placing of bronze plaques
bearing Psalm verses at Grand Canyon overlooks. PEER
Executive Director Jeff Ruch is indignant, “If
the Bush Administration is using public resources for
pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at
least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”
Is this religious bias, as some
creationists charge? Hardly. It’s more than likely
that the majority of scientists, environmentalists and
others protesting the NPS stand are themselves intelligent,
rational Christians who are convinced by overwhelming
evidence that the Grand Canyon is no Johnny-Come-Lately.
The creationists have demonstrated again that they are
scientifically illiterate, and out of step with the
21st century.
|
I need this kind of crap, right?
Intelligent people should be afraid... very afraid.
Idiocy like this is one of the reasons why we are perceived
by other educated countries as poorly educated. It is no small
coincidence that the intelligent, literate, states voted for
Kerry. Only in the backwater, inbred, bible belt, Christian
Coalition, stinkingly, stupid states that elected George W.
Bush president could let something like this come about.
So, beyond all logic and reason, the federal
government has decided to go back on a geological certainty
to a myth based story based on a man who lived to be 600 years
old, successfully gathered two of every creature on earth, built
an ark of epic proportions, and repopulated the planet from
the roots of his three married children. This is what he wants
us to swallow. I mean, forget about the separation of church
and state, forget about my tax dollars going to support a theory
that only a certified mad idiot would buy, forget about the
fact that every geologist worth their salt has contradicted
this theory, we are going to go with the same populace that
went in favor of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
One other point, too. How was Noah supposed to
actually survive in the amount of time that the creationists
are saying it took the flood to create the Grand Canyon. Granted,
he was 600 years old. But, the Noah family did have a limited
supply of food on the ark plus they had to wait a long time
to sit out the water evaporation to land on Mount Ararat.
My explanation is quite simple: Unicorn and dragon
burgers.
Of course that would have led to the much edited
biblical conversation between Noah and the Lord. Let me set
the scene. Noah's ark is at the top of Mount Ararat. Noah is
getting everything ready for the big moving day and the Lord
calls upon Noah.
"NOAH!"
"What?"
"NOAH, THERE'S A PROBLEM."
"Problem? I see no problems. I've done as you've asked."
"YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO GATHER TWO OF EVERY CREATURE
ON THE PLANET. WHERE ARE MY UNICORNS AND DRAGONS?!!"
"I couldn't find any."
"NOAH. LET ME REMIND YOU THAT I AM GOD AND I KNOW
EVERYTHING. TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED."
"Well, if you know everything, you don't need me to tell
you what happened to the unicorns and the dragons. Forty days
and forty nights of sea sickness and a family can get a bit
peckish. So, we.. um... we ate them."
"YOU ATE THEM?!! YOU ATE MY UNICORNS?!!! THEY WERE
A THING OF BEAUTY AND WONDER! AND YOU ATE THEM!!!"
"They came with pointy things. That kind of creature begs
to be eaten. Plus, one dragon can last a month in left overs,
let alone two."
"I'M GOING TO PRETEND I DIDN'T HEAR THAT."
And God, in what will eventually be mistranslated
in "Be fruitful and multiply", dismissed Noah.
However, those of us who have a dose of common
sense know this could never have happened. Why? Logic and reason
just dictate that it could not have happened. But the Christian
fundementalists are doing their level best to support this absurd
theory.
And, unfortunately, it looks like our commander
and chief, who apparently is suffering from the mental shock
of his key cabinet members leaving in droves, is supporting
this initiative. And why shouldn't he? When you are proudest
of the "Leave no child behind" program, it is easier
to succeed with that goal when you approve the facts and figures
based on one book that is full of historical inaccuracies. I
mean, kids do great in class when they are asked "How did
the earth begin?" and they say, "Well, Adam and Eve
were the first people about and then, being bored, they decided..."
It's so easy to teach kids that homosexuality is wrong because
the bible says it is. I mean, haven't YOU read the book of Leviticus?
There it is, black and white, it's an abomination. It's easy
to say that the Israelis has a right to a land because GOD,
HIMSELF promised it to the Jews. Why have political debate when
you have a blueprint like the Bible to draw from.
The Bible clears so much up. And just think of
the money you'll save on text books. All you'll really need
is a copy of the poorly translated version of the King James
Bible. ("Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live"
is one such example. Yet the mistranslation of the Hebrew word
m'khashepah would imply the English word of "witch".
The blood of many an innocent woman who lost their lives due
to the publication and adherance to the Malleus Maleficarum
is based on this idiocy.) Bible readers should bear this in
mind when you have a book that was translated from Greek to
Hebrew to Greek again to Latin and eventually to English. But
Christianity's endless pocket of miracles provide the latitude
that everything was translated in complete and absolute correctness
according to God's word.*
You only need one book and you, too, can be one
of these bible thumping "doctors".
I wonder, though, how some of the real business
will fare if the eventual bible based conclusion were to be
reached. I'm sure that the manufacturers of womens sanitary
napkins and tampons should include a badge that they are, indeed,
menstruating. I mean, we do have to know now. I wouldn't want
my hands to be soiled by accidentally touching a woman, or,
heaven forbid, shake her hand, if she happens to be cycling.
Remember, the Book of Leviticus says not to touch her.
What will also happen with the pork and lobster
industry? Last I recall those foods were completely not kosher
and not on the Bible's eating list. This is reiterated in the
letters of "Saint" Paul. We should also be observant
of how and of what length a woman should cut their hair. I'd
hate to pay the modern day fine for a bad hair day.
That also reminds me. What are we going to do
with all of those American Indians who are living on those damn
reservations. They don't believe as REAL AMERICANS do. After
all, they are part of those stinking nature based beliefs (I
use the term beliefs as the Indians have no word for "religion").
Nature based beliefs are those of the devil and we surely must
erradicate those as well, won't we?
And what about all of those New Agers? Will the
government need to hunt them down as well. How long will it
be until the government, as we know it, will have federal penalties
for those who blaspheme? How far are we from saying the wrong
thing on the air that does not conform with Biblical standards?
If we are to look at The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of
2004 where fines will go from $27,500 to $500,000, the FCC will
dictate what we can and can not say on the air with very little
wiggle room. Should that happen with me, I'll just give an homage
to Eddie Izzard and instead of using the Lord's name in vain,
I'll just say, "Jeezy Chreezy".
Jeezy Chreezy.
One of the building blocks of this country, according
to Thomas Jefferson is our right to worship however and whoever
we please. He firmly believed that it was beyond the scope of
our government to enforce the beliefs of a human being. Ironically
enough, he put all of these statements in Christian terms. Which
is only fitting. Think about it. If an individual worships the
incorrect god or goddess and should happen upon his death to
meet his creator, the just punishment will come from a divine
source - not from a human one.
Doesn't that make sense?
*- And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you that
connects Manhattan to Brooklyn.
|
