What good is half a bike?

Kudos to Panda's Thumb and Carl Zimmer for bringing the pwn.

Casey Luskin, one of DI's last remaining Quixotesque crusaders for Creationism Truth, embarrassed himself recently with yet another botched analogy for Goddidit:

“Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you’ll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex.”

Actually, bicycles can and do still function after a wheel is removed. It's called a unicycle.

This comes of the heels of a long line of botched analogies, most notably Behe's insistence that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, just like a mouse trap.

Actually, it turns out that if you take away most of the parts of the flagellum it's still functional as a type 3 secretory system.



And if you're really want to blow ID out of the water, you can get E. coli to evolve novel flagella. Guess a designer isn't really so necessary, after all.

Even the infamous mousetrap analogy itself fails miserably:



And if you look at the evolution "debate" closely, it's interesting to observe the rank-and-file creationists talking about evolution as if it were merely the addition of new, fully-formed parts, and that if you rewind the clock, you get organisms without the vital tools needed for survival. After all, what use is half a wing or half an eye or half a flagellum? That's essentially the argument of the Discovery Institute's argument, rebranded creationist arguments from ignorance.

It's hard to comment on exactly how wrong this line of reasoning is. It's like arguing with someone who seriously thinks that the Spore creature creator is how evolution actually works - that organisms are simply bestowed new parts as they go along and presto changeo, your eyeless fish suddenly has complex eyes. Similarly, with a wave of his magic wand, the Christian God Intelligent Designer has given previously-immobile bacteria the gift of the bacterial flagellum. Magic sure is neat!

But that's not really how evolution works at all. New features do come into fruition on occasion, but not out of thin air. And parts used for one function can find a new function (case in point: hands) The key concept in evolution is variation: finch beaks with slightly different lengths, primate skulls with slightly different dimensions, etc. A nearly endless variety of forms off just a few basic parts. That's how evolution really works.

And try as they might, creationists can't explain the diversity of life with magic. It simply fails as a science.

Anti-atheist blog makes a factual error, film at 11

Good catch from Friendly Atheist.

Hehe, confusing Africa with a country, those silly apologists. But that's orders of magnitudes less stupid than their usual fare. (A lot of the same people run Atheism Sucks and Atheism is Dead, as well as the now-defunct pre-internet site: "Ye Atheism most foul art mortally wounded, my good sirs", distributed with free copies of the Malleus Maleficarum)

Screw going after trivial slip-ups, there are failboat fleets out there just waiting to be photographed and archived for posterity.

Here's one of my personal favorites: a linkstorm of "excellent" anti-evolution resources. And there's a twist! These aren't your (relatively) high-class AIG or DI sites, we're talking links to sites that are low-quality, even by creationist standards. (the first link is to Conservapedia for crocoduck's sake) All with the author's glowing approval. D'oh!

And let's not forget this example of superb logic: Logic exists, therefore God exists. Seriously.

Geographical errors are the least of their concerns.

The Science Behind Santa's Mystical Journey

Link

Essentially, it's a brain-melting journey into Santapologetics - how Santa (who really exists) uses sufficiently advanced technology to really deliver the Christmas presents on time. The stupid just oozes from this one.

Here's how some kids think he does it:

"He has a gadget on his sleigh that makes it go turbo. He can go down the chimney in one second!" he said.

Over in Hillsdale, N.J., however, five-year-old Amelia offered a simpler solution: "Maybe he has a secret shortcut."

Next, there's a literal rocket scientist's take on the whole thing:

He believes that Santa -- whom experts say moved to his underground complex at the North Pole more than 500 years ago -- has spent the last five centuries researching better ways to deliver presents at light-speed to kids everywhere.

In doing so, he and the elves have made scientific breakthroughs that the rest of humanity can only dream of, Silverberg said.

To understand kids' wishes, he simply constructed a ginormous underground antenna, to "collect incoming electromagnetic waves and filter them, finding out which thought-waves are coming from which kids." Then, Santa filters the the "though-waves" by naughty/nice somehow, and when it's deliver time, he wraps his sleigh and eight reindeer in a "relativity cloud", which apparently uses Einsteinian relativity to create a time-dilation bubble, which can then physically shrink Santa and Co. so they can fit through keyholes and dog doors instead of chimneys, since few homes have chimneys nowadays.

Apparently, all this was figured out by a whole team at NCSU running detailed calculations (wow, what an incredible waste of time).

Oh yeah, and Santa uses super-high-tech GPS/navigational devices that put Fed Ex to shame and he genetically engineered his reindeer to fly.

One quick question: why can't we just say that Timmy's parents love him and bought him presents? Seriously.

Dinesh D'Souza, certified Liar for Jesus

And the arguments are still incredibly silly.

Quick summary:

#1 - Sunnis suiciding bombing Shia mosques and Shi'ites retaliating with death squads has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Seriously. Same thing with the historical violence between Catholics and Protestants - and these kind of conflicts are literally called "Wars of Religion". And religion has nothing to do with it? Fail. Big time.

#2 - The ancient Greeks and the Romans didn't believe in compassion or "sacredness of human life", whatever that's supposed to mean.

“Wherever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for a kindness.”
- Seneca the Elder, a Roman orator

#3 - Science is faith-based. Oh dear, he's really digging that hole. But wait, it gets better: "D'Souza went on to say that these assumptions are the direct legacy of Christian theology. They are: 1. The universe is rational. 2. The universe is lawful. 3. The rationality of the world is mirrored by the rationality of our minds."

Wow, what a trainwreck. And no, concepts like the universality of physical laws owe nothing to laughable tales of the dead rising up from the ground, demon-possessed pigs, and iron axe-heads that float on water. Besides, if imparting scientific knowledge was the goal of the Bible, you'd think there'd be a heck of a lot better advice in there than using magic to cure snakebites.

But still, D'Souza seems to think that while the universality of physical laws makes sense to Christians (it's apparently analogous to the concept of divine law), us poor atheists believe this stuff purely on faith. Those foolish scientists apparently didn't run experiments, replicate those experiments to double-check people's work, and observe natural conditions elsewhere to make sure that alleged physical constants are indeed constant. Nope, no one ever thought of that.

#4 - This one is really my favorite part, he takes a page out of the neo-Nazi playbook and tries to downplay alleged atrocities by the faithful. Instead of good ol' fashioned Holocaust denial, we get Inquisition denial and witch-burning denial. He claims that the inquisition only resulted in 2,000 deaths. He must've been reading the completely unbiased Vatican version. Well, at least the witch-burning claim isn't as unsubstantiated - 19 people were indeed executed in Salem. (one additional man, Giles Corey, was killed in an act of judicial torture and a few more died in prison, but details shmetails!) What Dinesh apparently forgot was that Salem wasn't the only city with a witchcraze - the witchcraze body count in Europe ranges into the ten of thousands. In fact, people are still killed for alleged witchcraft to this very day.

#5 - In his last foot-in-mouth moment, Dinesh suggests that the real reason atheists don't believe in God is that they want a morality-free existence:

The atheist, however, has found a beautiful solution to the problem of moral judgment: Just abolish the Judge. If there is no God, there are no Ten Commandments, everything is permitted. To atheists, that is a gospel of liberation.

And here it is, your moment of zen:

The new atheism is different in that it attacks belief in the private sphere. Its goal is to eradicate, demolish and discredit Christianity. Many atheists want to make each and every Christian feel like a complete idiot.

This one cracks me up every time. You need no help, my friend, you're doing just fine on your own.

Fresh War on Christmas Fail

One of the most sanctimonious and hysterical editorials I've seen on the Faux War on Christmas so far. You can almost visualize the angry froth against atheists for spoiling this magical sacred tradition (that has only truly existed since its reinvention in the 19th century)

Up first is the standard theocon rant, bemoaning the PC secularization of Christmas and horrendous persecution of Christians in having to share a nativity scene on the state capital building with other religious (and even atheistic) messages :

Since you can't selectively use public property to endorse a long-standing religious tradition anymore, the pendulum has swung wide and now anyone with an axe to grind on a Christmas, excuse me, "holiday" tree, is welcome.

Boo-hoo.

(By the way, Atheist Revolution has an excellent explanation of what happened in Washington State that apparently prompted this editorial writer's meltdown. Suffice it to say it was hardly as anti-Christian as the writer made it out to be.)

Next comes the hernia-inducing denunciation of Dan Barker's sign, which says:

"At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds"

Apparently, this "atheist-sympathizer" is quite insulted by "Godless blowhards" and their refusal to consider hold anything sacred (if only we paid more deference to what other people hold sacred, then we would be considered nicer people!)

But alas, the die is cast, "the War on Christmas continues. The atheists, playing spoilers to Judeo-Christian belief, give atheism a bad name instead, while PC public officials pursue policies that debase the whole notion of the sacred season. I score this a loss for the anti-Christmas forces."

But the author reprimands the "pro-Christmas forces" as well, though with the curious metaphor that they're "as selfish and murderous as Somali pirates". Say what??

But the piece doesn't end until the fat lady sings her verse - a Christ-like appeal to the cudgel:

This is a war that nobody is winning, but everyone had better hope the atheists are right. Otherwise, there'll be hell to pay.

Humor: You're Doing It Wrong

The good news: a well-meaning article with tips on how to appreciate humor.
The bad news: it's full of fail and reads as if it was made for a 1950s homemaker.

Seriously, folks. The author lists reading newspaper comics as a viable source of humor. That's just plain wrong. Some of the stuff is good enough to crack a smile (Calvin and Hobbes, Far Side, etc) but the vast majority is humorless drek (Family Circus).

Then there's another activity recommended as a great way to get you laughing: writing funny captions in the family photo albums. Uggh, shoot me if I ever do something like that.

Dave Letterman's Top Ten List (how many decades has it been since that was ever funny?)

Add "find something funny" on one's to-do list (spontaneity fail)

Then there's this:

When a person offends you or makes you angry, respond with humor rather than hostility. For instance, if someone is always late, say, "Well, I'm glad you're not running an airline."

Yeah, that makes you a jerkass, not a comedian.

Spend 15 minutes a day having a giggling session.

*facepalm*

Recall several of the most embarrassing moments in your life.

WTF.

Okay...it's apparent that this article wasn't meant for me (or possibly anyone born before 1920), especially its insistence on the lubby-dubby normal people's levity, like smiling at "the sight of kids playing, a loved one or friend approaching". Meanwhile, I'm chuckling at Pedobear and mechwarrior mechs photoshopped into old WWII photos. Methinks the common ground is pretty thin.

Normal people's type of humor:

My type of humor:
I typically go for a mix of black comedy, slapstick and absurdist humor and I throughly enjoy Dave Chappelle, Monty Python, Futurama, Three Stooges, Invader Zim, etc. I adore off-color jokes, like Mel Brooks parodying Hitler (especially the Hitler on Ice bit) and satirical jabs like the Cannibal Corpse Lounge music joke (NSFW).

I really wish people could appreciate that kind of stuff more and expand their horizons just a little bit. There's a whole wealth of humor out there that people, especially the author, seem to miss out on.

Playing to their strengths

Remember wayback when the election was over, Michelle Malkin gave the battlecry for conservatives to continue fighting for their beliefs (i.e. that crazy, often bigoted quasi-fascism that the public clearly doesn't want)?

"We stay positive and focused."

Yeah!

"We keep the faith."

Preach it, baby!

"We lock and load our ideological ammunition."

Right on, sister!

"....and shoot our fellow Republicans in the face."

Whaaa?

Well, apparently here's the beating heart of conservative values:



When the news broke that Palin was a complete moron according to McCain staffers who had to patiently coach her on the intricacies of basic geography and American civics, Michelle Malkin was angry. Not at the foibles of her own party for picking such an obviously unprepared veep, not at Palin for screwing the election, or even at herself for lavishing praise on a candidate who clearly wasn't cut out for the role. She was angry at the snitches.

Oh yes. Damn those McCain staffers! How dare they reveal unfavorable information! (Thoughtcrime via bad-fact) They are so getting outted and blacklisted by me and my goons as traitors to the cause. Full, internets-wide jihad - that'll learn 'em.

It's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Remember kiddies: loose lips sink ships!

(hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

The Conservative Reaction

The mainstream media applauded Obama's election into office. They went a bit heavy on the first black president thing, but that's understandable I guess. Still, it's a bad idea to see this guy purely in terms of race, as if his candidacy was nothing more than an attempt at a historic moment.

Normal Republicans seem to be taking this okay. A little disappointed perhaps, but not crushed by the news. That's good to know.

But how are the Real Conservatives of Real America taking it? For laughs I checked a few of the wingnut blogs and forums.

Bill O'Reilly seems to think that Obama is "indebted" to the "far left" now and will either spend money like crazy, ruining the economy, or cheese off his overlords. WTF. Bill is such an incisive political analyst, it's hard to imagine how such a brilliant guy is wasting away at such an overtly partisan smear machine like Fox News.

Michelle Malkin comes in with a 300esque "now we stand and fight!" post, explicitly denouncing any introspection on whether or not any conservative beliefs themselves may be faulty. Pure zombie mentality. I love it.

Bob Novak has a bizarre piece up that says that despite the clear victory, Obama doesn't have a mandate. O RLY.

The Spectator seems to think that America just sold away its freedom:

"Millions of Americans remain lion-hearted, decent, rational and sturdy. They find themselves today abandoned, horrified, deeply apprehensive for the future of their country and the free world. No longer the land of the free and the home of the brave; they must now look elsewhere."

Some nutbar school board member in Texas says that "Barack Obama is plotting with terrorists to attack the U.S." Wow. Just wow.
(hat tip to PZ)

Meanwhile, the Rapture Ready folks predictably seem to think this is a sign that the end is nigh and the USA is doomed, which is pretty much par for the course.

And last but not least, there are some people with serious mental problems in addition to a whatever political insanity they subscribe to, engaging the readers in nothing more than childish tantrums:

"Congratulations, moonbats. You finally have your revenge for being forced to look at all those flags after 9/11. This is a day of celebration for everyone hostile to America and the principles of individual liberty for which it stands. Enjoy it while you can."

Awwww, how cute.

Well, looks like same old same old from the conservatives. No riots today, just endless whining and distortion.




*UPDATES*

Ed Brayton has a bunch of good ones in the article and the comments. Check it out.

HJHOP does too. The conservative constitution sleuthing in particular had me in stitches.

The Weekly Standard has an absolutely hilarious piece up, accurately titled "We Blew It" (but omitting the key part: "And We Suck"). Thankfully, us leftists aren't to blame for the horrific disaster of the McCain-Moose ticket losing. Because we're all insane and therefore not responsible for our actions. Oh, and you leftists out there with kids are doing it wrong: "Nobody with kids is a liberal, except maybe one pothead in Marin County." ROFL.

The LA Times has a nice collection of Limbaugh and Hannity fail.

Five Public Opinions has Bill Muehlenberg's take on the election (he's the Australian version of O'Reilly I guess).

"As an example of the media bias, the coverage of the election yesterday was quite a spectacle. Both Australian and American media commentators were absolutely gushing in sycophantic praise, adoration and worship for the new Messiah-King. It really smacked of frenzied idolatry."

(translated: a lot of people liked the fact that Obama won but I don't. Bah humbug.) I love how being happy that your guy won on election night is somehow transformed into "frenzied idolatry". What a buffoon.

Rep Paul Broun of Georgia says that Obama is creating a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship. The stupid, it burns!

Some nutbag in a news site's comments section. Not as notable as the rest, but makes up for it with pure comedy gold: "We have experienced a coup today. And Communism won."

10 questions atheists can't answer

HJHoP already took a crack at it, so I guess I will too, just for kicks.

Ordinarily, I would say that this is the Christian apologetics version of the infamous 10 questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution from Jonathan Wells's Icons of Evolution, but that's essentially Christian apologetics as well, so let's just call this Gotcha, Part 2 - the latest in a long line of lame gotcha attacks in which the guy who believes in all sorts of dubious supernatural things seriously thinks that he'll win points for his wacky beliefs by trying to poke holes in normal people's beliefs - aka "I know you are but what am I?" apologetics.

Argh, and it's from Ray Comfort too, the guy who argued that bananas are so well suited for human consumption that they simply had to be created by the God he already believes in, so you know this is going to be spectacularly idiotic. (here's what a wild banana looks like, by the way)

1. What was in the beginning?

Planck time, heh. Lots of radiation eventually cooling down to the point where baryons could form.

Before that, you ask? Well, the truth is that no one knows what was going on before the big bang, and religious people embarrass themselves by arrogantly asserting that they know things that they cannot possibly know, like God waving his magic wand and creating the big bang.

2. How will life on earth end?

No one knows. All kinds of lovely scenarios await us. But the one to count on for sure is that in about 5 billion years, our sun will hit its red giant phase, swell to about 1 AU, and either engulf the Earth or bathe it in so much radiation that it'll sterilize the Earth.

3. What happens after death?

Rigor mortis, decomposition, consumption by various other organisms. This is known as a fact, despite people's dreams of immortality.

But don't just take my word for it, check out your Bible too:

Job 14 (NIV)

10 But man dies and is laid low;
he breathes his last and is no more.

11 As water disappears from the sea
or a riverbed becomes parched and dry,

12 so man lies down and does not rise;
till the heavens are no more, men will not awake
or be roused from their sleep.

Ecclesiastes 3 (NIV)

18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

4. What is the purpose of existence?

There is no innate, objective purpose. But people choose meaning in their lives.

5. Why there is order in all of creation?

Chemistry and physics. Emergence.

(Yeah, I know it's a loaded question, especially the "creation" bit, implying that order in nature requires a creator God)

6. Why there is morality in every civilization?

Morality is in innate trait among humans (and other species). Humans are a very social species, and so it makes sense that humans would evolve with a moral sense. And as human societies became larger and more complex, eventually becoming civilizations in the proper sense of the word, our moralities became codified.

7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?

I don't know if we can actually say that this is the case. In some religions, like Buddhism, there doesn't appear to be a Creator God at all.

Religions around the world often do have common elements, like a trickster god, a god of death, a fertility god, and a god whose dominion is life and creation (usually represented by the sun). These beliefs are widespread, it is true. But that fact doesn't give help their veracity at all - a widely-believed superstition is still a superstition.

8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?

Because it's instinctual (humans evolved with a moral sense, like many other social species) and because children are raised to believe that certain actions are wrong and certain actions are right.

9. How did nothing create everything?

This assumes a time in which there is nothing. I doubt this claim can be substantiated.

10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?

Eggs. Amniotes existed before birds did, let alone chickens.

Ridiculous atheist challenge

Make no mistake about it, I love the internet crazies. It's quite a gas to check out FSTDT and see the latest fundamentalist carnival of stupidity on the interwebs (Rapture Ready is perfect for lulz) or whichever odd news story the media dredges up (like praying for cheaper gas or praying for it to rain on Obama's speech). There's something cathartic in seeing people fail so badly. It really puts things in perspective: most of us, no matter how foolish we think we are, will simply never do anything that idiotic.

So imagine my surprise when I found such characteristic hysterics and idiocy in an almost perfect form: an incredibly disingenuous Atheist Challenge over at *snickers* Atheism is Dead. I half-expected it to be self-deleted in embarrassment, but apparently the author is quite serious. My condolences.

So here's the setup:

Atheists, since we have "possession of the truth" (apparently, my certificate of omniscience got lost in the mail) are supposed to prove, using "only empirical experimental data, replicated by separate disinterested scientific teams, unfalsified yet falsifiable, peer reviewed and published in a major scientific journal" the following claims:

(btw, I have a drinking game for this: take a shot if it's not a claim that atheists actually make. Take two shots if it's a claim that no reasonable person actually makes. If you make it to the comments section without passing out, take a shot for every time they redefine disbelief in gods or declare victory in exposing atheist irrationality)

1. Prove there is no God.

2. Prove Materialism is true.

3. Prove Monism is true.

4. Prove abiogenesis actually happened.

5. Prove macroevolution actually happened.

6. Prove Parsimony is a Law of Nature.

7. Prove Universal Uniformitarianism exists in all cases.

8. Prove wisdom does not exist.

9. Prove humans are perfectible.

10.Prove universal happiness is a moral imperative.

11.Prove information is identical to the media scaffold upon which it resides.

12.Prove the Multiverse exists.

Okay, #1, ye olde shifting burden of proof, the infamous "Oh yeah? Prove there isn't a God!" with delusions of pwnage. It's absurd enough on its own, but combined with the aforementioned peer-reviewed and published in a major scientific journal demands, the retort reaches new heights of fail. The author seems to be seriously asking for an issue of Nature in which God is pronounced dead, and try as I might, I can't find the November 1859 issue.

Presumably, the author doesn't believe in djinn in the same way I don't believe in gods. Well, crank up Scirus and get me a scientific disproof of djinn, then.

#4&5 give it a nice creationist flair, a great move that hearkens back to the legendary master of rationality, Kent Hovind. Confusing atheism and evolution (and apparently understanding neither on even a basic level), the perfect way to be taken seriously.

#8&9 give it that touch of WTF that's absolutely essential to spectacular fail. Perfectible? Who the heck said atheism relied on human beings being perfect?

And the rest are either red herrings or things that I doubt any human being would seriously deny (like the wisdom one). So, either I missed Dawkins's lecture where he railed against the existence of wisdom or the author's post is deeply misguided.

And you know what the best thing is about this pseudointellectual wasteland? All the "questions" were answered pretty well in the comments section by Vigilante, a self-described Christian. D'oh!

Also, another atheist already sunk his teeth into this one and did an excellent job answering the challenge before I could get a hold of it. But I can't help myself in joining in, seeing as there was already plenty of blood in the water.