Thursday, May 21, 2009

My Annual Post-Deluvian Comment on Dakota Voice

Bob Ellis of course had a front page story on Dakota Voice about what a fraud the evil Swedish evolutionists were trying to pull with the unveiling of "Ida."
Bob likes his science from The Wall Street Journal, I'd rather quote something with a little more scientific credibility, say, National Geographic. Upcoming: a special by the somewhat-less-credible History Channel. Should be a fun flick though; they go for the dramatic.

Evolutionists were all aglow yesterday as the discovery of a primate fossil was announced. While they do manage to stop short of calling the find a full-fledged “missing link” between humans and apes, they act pretty certain that it is some sort of missing link between one evolutionary form of primate and another.
Well, duh, aren't we all?

Bob goes on to attack scientists for being sure about facts like, all known evidence points to life 47 million years ago that is different but ancestral to what we see today:

In other words, notice how something which can not possibly be verified is being discussed in definitive, authoritative terms. Notice how conjecture passes itself off as “science.” There is no hint of uncertainty or reservation whatsoever in these statements.

My reply (edited a bit for clarity):

What can we say Bob? Ignorance is strength.

But let's cut to the chase.

Your argument is not really with Biblical literalism, because I don't think you can argue with me that pi=3. (My favorite: 1 Kings 7:23, [see highly recommended commentary]) You will quickly change the subject to carbon dating - which only works well back about 100,000 years. (A bit far for you, but whatever.)

Your argument is not really with Darwin, either, but with the whole concept of biological succession, which the Greeks guessed at more than 2000 years before Darwin and 500 years before St Mark (or his disciples) started writing.

And really, it's not even that.

Your problem is that you cannot accept the concept that a) homo sapiens is possibly not the crown jewel of the universe and that our choices have consequences, just as you b) can't accept that the US of A is not the greatest expression of nationhood ever in the history -- a great nation is not good enough for you, because if we're the best ever we can't possibly ever be wrong. It's #1 in everything or nothing.

I'm really glad that Americans are showing signs of abandoning the apathy of the last 25 years.

Thank you for tying your ship to the Bush Administration, you've our nation (and our species [and genus, and family]) a huge favor by making the Republican brand look ridiculous to anyone with more than a high-school education.

So thankful to God today as I recover from a nasty pneumonia thanks to faith-inspired (I'm sure of it now) yet science-based (not scriptually-based) anti-bacterial medication.

and his predictable response ("God will consider smiting thee!" in that cool foil-hat wingnut happy talk "it's not pretty".... I myself used such rhetoric when I was a high schooler, so into Hal Lindsey [these days he's looking like Mark Twain crossed with Jimmy Swaggart! Aaaaagh!] Alas, wasted youth. But I digress...I am quite rambling today, he's right.)

Curtis, I'm not sure whether to write off your rambling comment to the pneumonia, or simply to the fact that you're a really confused individual who claims to be a Christian on one hand, while on the other denying almost everything the God you claim to follow says. Such a dichotomy simply has to produce profound confusion and inconsistency at every turn.

One of those irrational inconsistencies being the hilarious evolutionist crutch that believing in the irrational theory of evolution is essential to biomedical science.

If I could make a suggestion, it would be to be either hot or cold, because we know what the God said about those who try to straddle the fence, and it isn't pretty.


Uh, okay. But it's rumored that "He's not a tame Lion." So I recommend you watch your butt too. But, I know he loves you and me (and that tree I'm distantly [and wondrously] related to in the front yard).

So, as the Bible teaches, I try to focus on ... as Lewis Black would say ...
what most of us accept as

f***ing REALITY!



  1. Bob does enjoy mockery, not to mention twisting of language beyond logic. But then when you're doing the Lord's work, anything is excusable, I guess.

  2. Succinctly put.

    I preferred Bill Maher's take on evolution when talking about the Swine Flu and how it was a mutated and evolved strain of influenza:

    "If you get the Swine Flu, and you don't believe in evolution, you have to pray it away. Leave the TamiFlu for us sinners."

  3. Bob can't prove there is a God. That's his he attacks everybody else's theories and myths. His bases his science on a 2000 plus year old book that has no difinitive basis other than a bunch of crackpots who call it "God's Word." He's not even sure about his book's origin. He let a bunch of Bishops decide what would be in his book and what wouldn't. He's accepted everything in the book they told him should be there. Sound like it wasn't God's Word...but some ancient committee's book. And I wonder what Bible he doesn read...which of the existing translations in which he puts his confidence is God's Word? There isn't much use in getting into a battle with him and his kind...he's a confidence man...a flim-flam artist. Just like all the preachers and myth spreaders throughout history. At least those who discovered the bones of any dinosaur have the evidence to prove the existence of that dinosaur or whatever is discovered. Enjoy your bigoted ignorance, Sir Bob, I'm certain you'll make more money than I ever will. Lots of people "buy into" that kind of trash. Miss California is making a fortune from your kind right now. Any way to make a buck.

  4. Anonymous18:36

    of course they stop short of calling it a missing link between humans and apes, and a guy like Ellis doesn't know enough about evolution to know why.
    then again, he can't read Genesis well enough to see that it contradicts itself, and therefore can't be errant.