Saturday, 12 March 2016

Christoforge vs Creationism: Answers in Genesis

Next up on out tour of creationist crap is the website 'Answers in Genesis' who have attempted to collate all the stupid arguments that evolutionists use. Let the irony commence.
_____________________________________________________________________________
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/
_____________________________________________________________________________
No, I'll admit that these first two points are actually fair points. Proclaiming something as a fact and only understood by the intelligent does make it true, and I find it increasingly noticeable that people use science as almost another religion, discrediting arguments in the same way that 'Answers in Genesis' is doing here. This ignorance fails to look at the larger picture, jumping to conclusions. This is hopefully what I'm going to be debunking today by actually providing some evidence instead of making the vague assumptions that 'Answers in Genesis' love to do, and I expect the same attitude from the source being as they've already voiced their displeasure at blind ignorance. I don't agree with their point that the unobservable past cannot be explained through human understanding, as then how can you explain anything? They seem to be pretty confident that the inverse argument is true even when by their own admission it's impossible to know for a fact since the unobservable past cannot be determined. Stating that a higher power was responsible is simply based on belief, and of course we know how much 'Answers in Genesis' hate it when people blindly determine facts. The sources used are even worse and just there to cut and stick bible verses in between scientific theories and quotes by people who are barely qualified to even be called scientists, but then what did we expect from an article that quotes directly from The Bible.

To actually respond to any of the arguments on this list you have to concede that any scientific theory is based on assumptions, so by simply dismissing a theory on that basis is simply rejecting scientific methods full stop. The theory of evolution is an example of this, and despite what you claim is a study that has no observational proof, there are many cases both in the lab and in nature that show the process is visible over a period of time. As a biology student I have actually undertaken that lab experiment sourced above, and in just a short four hour period I was able to evolve E.Coli into a resistant strain. As far as I'm concerned that's damn more direct, first hand, and observational proof than creationism has ever provided. The second argument is even worse and revolves around calling famous scientists of the past uneducated. Famous scientists I may add who are no longer living. Intelligence and scientific perspective are both relative and so change over time, meaning your comparison of scientific attitudes in different periods is both inaccurate and hypothetical. We're not living in the 19th century anymore and therefore the point that Isaac Newton wouldn't have believed in evolution today is hypothetical nonsense that you have no way of knowing. That's a bit like calling Archimedes an idiot for not knowing the now commonly accepted fact that there's a planet in our solar system called Uranus. Education is a pretty good indicator of the validity of a person's knowledge of a subject, hence why you source qualified scientists. And let me tell you, evolution is one of the most commonly accepted scientific theories out there.


The article continues with this denial of scientific progress. In this particular scenario 'On the Origin of Species' and The Bible are simply two sides of the same coin. Before The Bible was published creationism wasn't a big deal, so it's actually quite ironic to bring up a point about how attitudes change in accordance with revolutionary works. Scientists at the time of Darwin had no way to prove evolution that modern technology now allows us to, but does that suddenly mean evolution couldn't have happened? I still don't understand why evolutionists can't use this argument. The only point being made in this argument is that evolutionists can't be right because the author has a differing opinion. Bit of a hypocritical stance really isn't it?

The next argument is even more stupid. I wasn't aware that studies in physics and biology were instantly comparable, and in my funny little world I always thought that the scientific methods used were the only comparable part. Gravity for example is a constant and therefore isn't a random process, which explains why it can be proven instantaneously. In reality that experiment you explain with the pencil would not prove gravity exists, rather that a force is exerting itself on the pencil, attracting it towards the centre of the Earth. To then make the childish comparison of that experiment to an amoeba instantly turning into a goat is idiotic. Not only are the chances of that amoeba turning into a goat minute, because as explained previously evolution is a random process, but even if all criteria were met that process would take hundreds of millions of years with many transitional species in between. This stupid argument forgets that evolution is not a forward thinking process and instead falsifies a whole theory based on a singular piece of evidence, taking an entire process out of context. You may as well have jumped to conclusions by falsifying the theory of gravity because pencils float in space, therefore proving that gravity can't exist.


Firstly you can easily observe that the Earth is round by using a sundial or observing the path of a ship on the horizon, so that point about The Bible proving that fact is just nonsense. The quotations used from The Bible are also just so vague. It's clear that quoting from a work of literature shouldn't be taken literally, especially when it's used as a source for scientific evidence. But, yeah right it's the evolutionists who are the ones with the assumption based beliefs. The second explanation is even more bizarre. Basic numeracy has nothing to do with the validity of scientific theories, which for the record cannot be found in any sort of framework from The Bible no matter how many quotes you try and desperately squeeze for alternative meanings. We get no explanation of the relatedness of species or how 'lines of descent' are explained between fossils from any holy book. I wouldn't expect that explanation from a source such as The Bible, because as previously stated it's not something that should be taken literally, and the points made are allegorical instead of primary evidence.

I hope evolutionists don't claim that natural selection and evolution are the same thing, as natural selection is a component leading to the change in allele frequency over a period of time. However the explanation from 'Answers in Genesis' is just as bad as those that mix up two scientific principles. It is correct in claiming that natural selection, which by the way isn't necessarily observable, cannot cause speciation, since that is determined by reproductive barriers, but then it fails to actually explain what natural selection is in the first place, or what the consequences are. This article jumps to the conclusion that evolutionists believe that natural selection causes an instantaneous change in morphology of organisms over a single generation, when in reality this is caused by mutations that are then subsequently selected for. This line of argument sure as hell doesn't disprove the process of evolution, and the claim that The Bible is supporting of natural selection is encroaching on the controversial world of eugenics.

Argument eight is again banging on about assumptions. The Bible and creationism are of course not assumptions if you were to believe this source, and so entirely more valid arguments in every single way despite any reasoning. This argument is also atypical of all the points I've previously raised on here as it continues with vague waffle that isn't backed up by any evidence. Do they have any right to even claim that a common designer fits in with the evidence of common descent better without providing any counter evidence? I'm sure 'Puff the Magic Dragon' fits the evidence that he is the creator instead of evolution occurring, but that doesn't make his existence any more valid. Is intelligent design really the more logical conclusion when taking into consideration the diversity of life on the planet? Take the penis for example; the morphology of a penis is different in just about every single organism, but why would something with the same function be made differently every single time if it served the same function? It's just entirely illogical.



Oh not these fucking assumption again. IF YOU TRY AND DISPROVE EVERY ARGUMENT BASED ON THE FACT IT'S CONSIDERED AN ASSUMPTION THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORIES FULL STOP. As for the second point, well that's just idiocy. It is correct in saying there are trade-offs between the rate of mutations and the rate of evolution, with the majority of mutations being deleterious, but that is exactly the purpose of natural selection. Earlier this article banged on about about how natural selection being part of the biblical worldview, yet here you simply dismiss its very conventions. Stop contradicting yourself, and stop making vague assumptions with zero evidence.

The final two points suffer from exactly the same flaws as every other one on this list, yet it's us evolutionists that should apparently stop using the same arguments all the time. None of the points on here have been disproved with any evidence, with the only source being The Bible; a work of literature. Leave science for scientists to determine, and not for spiritual individuals to just aimlessly guess.


Sunday, 6 March 2016

Morons of the Internet: The Tab

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have one of those male feminists who thinks judging other good minded feminists is the route to gender equality. I bet you never thought you would see me writing an article defending feminists, but I can sure you the main aim of this article is to defend pornography.
___________________________________________________________________________
https://thetab.com/uk/durham/2016/02/27/porn-27270?utm_source=localxpost&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=pages
___________________________________________________________________________

Wow, what a solid introduction to the argument from our resident expert in sleaze. For some reason he thinks he's an expert on pornographic themes and tropes; which is a bit creepy when you've considered he's gone to all the effort of analysing the individual roles of porn stars. According to him all the signs point to a male dominated art form, and of course when you jump to conclusions like that the only result is to instantly screams sexism when you disapprove of something. We never get any solid evidence as to why you shouldn't watch pornography, just some vague observations from a singular source. My main issue with this argument is that the author evidently forgets that porn is a fictitious work. He doesn't seem to understand that I can have an ideology in real life despite also having viewing habits of fictional material. I love 'The Godfather' as a film, yet I would never agree with someone being murdered in cold blood. It's the same principle with this pornography argument. You have no evidence apart from your personal feelings to suggest that the business in question is sexist, with your only point being that the content you've seen is largely derogatory towards women.

Fine, I accept your point as a serious one, but tell me this: If the pornographic industry really is this bad towards women then why is there not a shortage of female porn stars? Maybe you should actually get the picture from the perspective of a porn star rather than just your own uninformed opinion, and then maybe that might change your outlook. Also I find your point about just female performers being objectified strange. Are you honestly telling me that the male porn stars are held in high regard by the material? If you were to believe this author you would think male porn stars were effectively celebrated. Speaking of male performers, if your hypothesis of having one active and one passive role is true for all pornography then surely this argument would also apply to gay porn as well. In that scenario who's the one being mistreated? Either you have to admit that men experience sexism in the porn industry or you have to cede that the attitudes towards gender are not inherently sexist. Either way your allegations of sexism are made redundant.


Careful with your language here mate; does porn 'only' cater for men? You disprove that point in the very next paragraph when referring to the singular female based category. So in actual fact porn does cater for women, with the reason that there is significantly less content aimed at the female demographic is because significantly more men watch pornography. Only 24% of the total 'Pornhub' viewers are female, so why should they be equally catered for? What I can't work out with your nonsensical logic is if these pornography watching women could be called 'feminists'? How could they try and promote their gender rights when they watch something as inherently sexist as porn? 

This argument is ignoring the basic principles of supply and demand economics. In reality the viewing habits of people who watch porn has nothing to do with sexism, and you have no evidence to prove that it does in any way. The only conclusion you lead to here is the quite comical admission that feminism has done fuck all to desexualise the breast. I just love the use of the word 'fighting'. I could be fighting a brick wall with my bare fists, but I'm never going to win am I. I also love how you just assume that all feminists will rally to this quite pathetic cause. Fuck their individual free will, if someone wants to identify themselves as a feminist then how dare they get sexually turned on by porn. The message here is that the author agrees women should be liberated as a gender, unless of course they view breasts and pornography sexually, as then they're just funding the patriarchy. Great logic.


Yeah how dare pornstars try and act like they're enjoying sex when that's what their payed to do. Surely they must know what this author does about the business. If I was them I too would take fictitious events literally and act like the sexual violence is real. Who honestly cares if this isn't realistic or reflects common beauty standards? I think you might be mistaking the common audience who watch porn, as they're ulterior motive isn't to be intellectually stimulated by a gripping narrative. What person would actually want to watch porn friendly for feminists, or whatever the hell ideology this imbecile has? Porn is a consumer product, and it appears the author hasn't grasped that fact. The actual content of porn has nothing to do with gender equality, and try as he might this author can't unfortunately prove that with his feelings. You could make the argument that the porn business itself is sexist by bringing up the fact that female performers are payed far more than their male counterparts, but I forgot that's not how the mind of this biased piece of shit works.

Is it any wonder why a growing number of people are being alienated by feminism when crap like this is spewed across the internet. This is another example of how these minority of feminists treat their followers like a cult. If feminism really is about the liberation of gender inequality then why shouldn't individuals be allowed to watch porn? Instead of actually providing a balanced argument looking into the world of porn this is just slander that caters to an individual's feelings. It's pretty fucking ignorant to then demand a change from the industry when you yourself have proven you have no idea on even the basics of the porn industry. Maybe instead of passing the blame you should look at your own actions, and by shunning the habits of others with terribly written articles you aren't going to be rallying many to the feminist cause.

Friday, 4 March 2016

Top 10 Sitcoms


#10 South Park (1997-)

A bloody modern sitcom for a bloody modern audience. I'll happily admit that 'South Park' is not everyone's cup of tea, including mine actually, but I love the way this animated cartoon doesn't give a shit about anything, and as a result produces some of the most insane and memorable scenes possible for the boundaries of comedy. This is a sitcom aimed primarily at adults, but actually for a younger audience this is one of the more relatable comedies in recent memory, and perfectly optimised for a modern day audience. A show about students cocking around is perfect for adolescents, and the often puerile and immature jokes support this younger target market, even if the content is often very mature. Unlike many modern sitcoms this is a fantastic work of satire that focuses on dark and surreal humour to get laughs, often offending just about everybody it can in the process. This humour changes with the times as well, with often well publicised events being quickly scrutinised by the writing team in the most shocking way possible, leading to some unforgettable scenes that are perfect for that point in time.

What sets apart 'South Park' from the rest of the animated competition is just how fresh and intuitive the content is. It's a well known fact that each individual script is written the week before the episode is scheduled to air, allowing the content to be both topical and relevant in its own unique way. However shock value is the key to this show's long running success, and I can't think of another sitcom that comes close to this level of dark humour. I love how this show doesn't give a fuck about political correctness, and it's no surprise that many others feel the same way. It's just a shame a certain minority don't understand the context of the satire on show, subsequently blasting the style of humour with little thought. 'South Park' was such a successful sitcom that it's seen as solely responsible for the rise of Comedy Central as a cable channel, and although the quality may have gone downhill in recent seasons, the topical subjects still deliver their weight in comedy even if the premise becomes more politically motivated as time goes on.


#9 Seinfeld (1989-1998)

It's hard to see how a show like 'Seinfeld' ever became such a hit sitcom. The premise is essentially about absolutely nothing, and it doesn't have any recurring or interesting plot points that would leave viewers wanting more. But what a huge ratings hit this turned out to be, and actually ended up becoming a staple part of 90's culture, containing jokes that have become part of comedy legend over the years. However for me what makes 'Seinfeld' so special is how it uses that now famous humour. This unique style has to be accredited to creators Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld who could both write a great sketch with ease, and their know how is evident with each episode. Their style is a great mix of observational and black humour that was just perfect for the time period, creating a style that was never stupid or serious despite being based on the fundamentally flawed topic of absolutely nothing.

'Seinfeld' is probably the greatest example of how a sitcom should work. The show contains characters that are both believable and play off each other nicely, and there is a consistent use of quality comedy that never feels like it's designed to get a cheap laugh. It feels like a real life production, and that's because the very idea is to base the narrative off of real life events. The show never becomes bigger than reality itself and so many episodes are usually just a simple problem from daily life, but that's all part of the rustic charm that blurs the lines between comedic conventions and everyday life. It's a very ingenuous idea, and one that was achieved with just four simple, yet open ended characters. In a way it was a blessing that the cast were open ended personalities as this led to a huge diversity of styles with each episode. The results of this were hugely impressive. 78 million people tuned into the unfortunately disappointing, but very fitting finale; proving just how popular the show was over its lengthy tenure.


#8 M*A*S*H (1972-1983)

'M*A*S*H', or Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, is probably the greatest satire in American television history. You know you're doing something right when the finale is still one of the most watched in all of TV history, with 125 million people tuning in; a 77% share of the total American audience. When you consider that the original series struggled in ratings this is an incredible achievement from what would later be considered a great piece of television. The high ratings reflected the superior quality of episodes, and you could tell that this was a TV series based off of a film because it felt like an epic production and played out like a sophisticated Hollywood drama. The genius of 'M*A*S*H' is that it was aired during the Vietnam war, yet took place during the similarly fought Korean War, and so actually became a very intelligent satirical production on the controversial topic of war. At it's heart this was a lighthearted show, but in between the comedy was some serious themes. In fact the narratives were often based on real life stories, so there was always that sense of realism that drove home the message of conflict over just plain jokes.
 
'M*A*S*H' was a comedy that could contain such an emotional range throughout each episode. In just a few moments the viewer could be happily laughing away, and just a dew minutes later feel a genuine sense of remorse after a characters' plane is shot down all of a sudden. Not only is that proof of how well the characters have been written into the sophisticated storyline, but also how well each role is acted out, allowing you to actually care about their cast in their comedic pursuits. This isn't a comedy that's aged particularly well, but there are a few jokes that you can still appreciate the intelligence and messaged conveyed. Even if the jokes don't do it for you then surely you must appreciate the way that strong messages are combined with the lighthearted elements to produce a comedy series that's never been replicated in message or scale.


#7 Dad's Army (1968-1977)

'Dad's Army' is the result of what happens when the British decide to satirise warfare. The result is a lot more quirky and charming than American counterparts, and at its heart unmistakably British in its execution. The real star of this show is the characterisation of some of the most defining personalities in British comedy history. Everyone just lives their roles to perfection, and despite being an eccentric bunch of personalities, all the cast pull off that level of realism to make some absurd situations seem like they were a vital part of war. The characters are such a highlight, and are actually bigger than the show themselves. They're aided by some damn fine writing, but their unique personalities will live on as legendary figures in comedy despite their physical limitations and their desire to never be taken seriously. There's even a film being released soon, which has got no chance of being even half as good as the original, but still showing that this long lived favourite still has an appeal to a drastically different audience.


#6 The Office (2001-2003)

Yes, this is the original British version of the now famous sitcom. The equally successful American version must be praised for being able to stand on its own two feet, but it's never managed to trump the original in terms of quality or comedy. The British version may have only lasted for two seasons, but in that short time it's become one of the most notable comedies of the modern age, appealing to audiences on a global scale and catapulting talent such as Ricky Gervais into the public eye. The ultra realistic setting and characters in this satire make this such a down to earth production, but the content is so relatable to an audience tired of their everyday lives that the formula is nothing short of genius.

The British version is the one with some great comedic characters, and some such as David Brent would become iconic over time. This popularity stems mainly from the realism, but also because Gervais as a comedian just fits into that office role perfectly. In fact all the characters are both larger than life and yet frighteningly realistic at the same time, and this style is what drives the writing, which is something I think the US version fails with. The US version is more eccentric and in no way reflects the mundane and subtlety of working life like the British version did. You don't get the sense the US version would actually happen, where as in the British version you actually start to see the characters as people in a similar way you would in a serious high budget drama. And for me, the ability to relate and care for the whole cast was the standout feature of this overall polished production.


#5 Only Fools and Horses (1981-1991)

A British classic that's still fondly remembered today by people of all ages. It's a sitcom centred around the pursuit of riches, which at the time of airing was a perfect allegory for many lives in the British population. It's lighthearted take on the human condition was unsurprisingly a huge hit, regularly scoring huge ratings and breaking records for British comedy. Even today many episodes are seen as a significant moment in British comedy, regularly being repeated to the still large fanbase. From 1985 onward this show was churning out comedy gold on a weekly basis, constantly providing fresh material and strong narratives to accompany the various characters. They eventually overdid everything with a stupid number of Christmas specials, but even those episodes are worth a watch for their content alone.

Aside from the later special episodes, this was a series that never managed to lose the original charm and wit that everybody fell in love with. Each episode has the quality to be re-watched multiple times whilst still enjoying the spectacle. 'Only Fools and Horses' is something so quintessentially British yet actually well performed and executed, which really is a rarity in sitcoms. The writing is absolutely sublime, and the jokes are so well executed that it's no surprise that many have become legendary TV moments over the years. The 'bar flap scene' in particular is one of comedies all time greatest moments, and in reality there are hundreds of beautifully executed gags throughout this show's long history.


#4 Family Guy (1999-)

A personal favourite of mine, although in terms of a sitcom the quality has declined significantly in previous years. Originally however this was one of the best and forward thinking comedies on the market, with a style that used to make intelligent and witty jokes with the odd reference to pop culture. There were also a wide range of characters with unique personalities that they hadn't yet ruined, with an amazing cast of minor characters included that all had individual characteristics that could accompany any comedic narrative. This foundation has now all but disappeared, taking the show away from episodes that would draw you in to sequences where you feel forcibly drawn in by attention seeking material. Running gags and tenuous references are now at the fore, with a noticeable lack of intelligent material that used to really surprise me in older episodes that you would expect to be littered by the flaws of such a crude production. Even worse is the prominence more recently of some really damn serious episodes, including one where they killed off one of the main characters for absolutely no reason; and that's just no fitting in with the style that made me hold this franchise in such a high regard.

Having said that 'Family Guy' is still one of the funniest shows on TV. I do love the emphasis on cutaway gags no matter how irrelevant they are to the scenario, and the storylines that branch from the cast's relationship with each other are mostly top notch. Some of the episodes may not be the good fun I expect from, but this always was and still is the first sitcom since 'The Simpsons' to really push the boundaries for a mass market. I love shows that are deliberately dark, and so the satire in this is right up my street. This show takes the piss out of everything, even itself, and it does this in such a spiteful manner that you can't help but take every message with a pinch of salt. Of course that strategy isn't going to be a hit with everyone, and not surprisingly this is a very controversial success story, but when has any radical idea not been met with resistance? Although 'Family Guy' does almost emulate 'The Simpsons' with its premise, it is in my opinion a totally different show that draws in viewers with its unique and lovable style. The show is starting to revert to that classic style, so it looks like there's still a future for this series with many more watchable seasons to come.


#3 Fawlty Towers (1975-1979)

In only twelve episodes this sitcom managed to gain a legendary status as not just one of the greatest sitcoms of all time, but also one of the greatest TV shows. This is the role that famous comedian John Cleese was waiting for, and he owns his central role as Basil Fawlty. In this role he shows off his eccentric personality and is so good that he almost engulfs the rest of the cast with his immense screen presence, owning every scene with his larger than life personality. When that charisma is paired with the various and stereotypical hotel guests and supporting cast it creates for some iconic moments in comedy history. All these classic moments comes from the sheer ineptitude of each character, and because of this this is my opinion this show is one of the few sitcoms where the humour never feels forced and always naturally flows from scene to scene.

The quality and content of each episode is just unbelievable. It was said that each episode took sometimes four months to write, and that level of detail is evident. This sitcom told a far greater story in just twelve episodes than others do in decades, and that has to be because of the storylines that are so well written and implemented. This was a groundbreaking format for British comedy, turning out fresh comic genius in every episode, and that's a rarity for a sitcom. This maybe the only television programme I can think of that hasn't declined in quality and public perception over the years, and doesn't look like it ever will.


#2 The Simpsons (1989-)

Who would have predicted that when this animated sitcom first aired that it would become such a hugely influential hit on the whole genre? Now almost six hundred episodes on and the title of 'America's longest running sitcom' and I doubt there isn't a family in the Western World that hasn't had this comedy institution beamed into their living rooms at some point. 'The Simpsons' was a show that actually changed pop culture forever. For the first time an animated sitcom was given its true potential, and instead of relying on realistic scenarios to pass as relevant a comedy could now create a whole universe in which to set up an endless possibility of gags. That's not to say 'The Simpsons' isn't realistic, and actually the realism is all part of the appeal, becoming vital in how this franchise broke down barriers for animated television.

'The Simpsons' got satire in a way that was so much better than any contemporary sitcom before it, somehow pulling off the trick of making global audiences care about animated characters that were in no way serious or mature. Some of the characters presented here are so well thought out and written that they almost do pass as real human beings. All the cast are so well depicted and voice acted that you really do start to care about some yellow figures that couldn't possibly exist. The first few seasons of 'The Simpsons' were the highlights. During this time you had such complex plots that jokes would naturally accompany. Some of the episodes and gags are so well written that you have to pause the video just to see them, and it's this incredible detail and artistic integrity that made the series, so it pains me to say the quality has declined significantly over the last decade. 'The Simpsons' is still a great watch that pumps out new material on a regular basis, but it's this high on the list purely for its groundbreaking origins.


#1 The Inbetweeners (2008-2010)

For me personally this is sitcom perfection. When 'The Inbetweeners' first arrived on the scene I was exactly the right age to get every single gag, and the series is so well written that I could have sworn it was written by someone my age who actually understood what makes me howl with laughter. No sitcom in history has ever managed to hit its target market quite like this one, and as I'm still at that age I can happily watch every episode again, and find the material so brilliantly funny. Every line is quotable and every scene is memorable. The antics are such a departure from the depressing and mediocre view of teenage life that this show has, but it fucking nails the storylines in every respect.

I'll admit that this isn't for everyone. The style is centred around the British lad culture, and as such the characters are just absolutely perfect for their roles. They're not larger than life, yet in their own average way all incredibly special with their own hilarious personalities. Trust me, this may be juvenile for a sitcom, but I think this has some of the most intelligent uses of comedy I've ever seen on a television. Some of the situational comedy is just so good it's side splittingly funny; and that's coming from a man who doesn't laugh for the hell of it. The films are also just brilliant, and I' even rated the first a ten out of ten, which is the only comedy film to get a perfect score from me. The television series is even better though, and it was such a shame that a comedy this good only lasted for three seasons.