www.jeffthefish.com

May 2008:

Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. [Source]

February 2009:

I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists. [Source]

What other conclusion could we possibly draw?

I was reading some comments on a thread over at Pharyngula about a video that was just super saturated with stupid.  I mean, you could not dissolve this amount of stupid just by stirring it in warm water.  You’d need something far above atmospheric pressure.  One commenter lamented the fact there is no term for this kind of stupid in the English language.

That’s when JackC saved the day* and suggested Weapons-grade stupidity. Thank you JackC.  You have just saved me a lot of colorful verbiage.

*Listen, if you click that link, you might be tempted to watch the video.  I am warning you, it will make you angry, cry, and vomit. Even I could not get through it.

Wow, whale transitionals are starting to feel mundane.

Ladies and gentlemens, Maiacetus inuus.

Thanks to Geoff and Redd Foxx.

UPDATE: Here’s a little more detail.

UPDATE: Here’s a new image (click to enlarge):

On top is Dorudon, another primitive whale with obvious, tiny hind legs.  This is clearly an ocean going whale.  On the bottom is our beloved Maiacetus, with obvious, less tiny hind legs.  Clearly this animal can walk on land, at least a little bit. But compare the two skulls!  They are ridiculously similar! I expect people like Answers in Genesis to try to make believe that this is not really a whale, so, having pointed this out, let me say it in advance:  Suck it, creationists.

“…or should we say evolved…”

As in, “Look at how many times the theory of evolution has changed(or should we say evolved) over the years because of lack of evidence to support the original claims.” Thanks to Susan, a commenter over at Ray Comfort’s  blog.  Also, take a look at Dimensio’s response to Susan.

A few spiders have recently been described that lack certain features of modern spiders.  They have only partial tagmosis, which just gives me a joygasm; they seem to lack venom, though they do have fangs; they have spigots for producing silk, but lack spinnerets; and one even still has a primitive “tail”!

According to YouTube user globetrekker2:

true scientists are Christians, all others are a poor excuse for a human. [Source]

K thx!

One of Ken Ham’s favorite tactics is to in one breath deny some claim and use that denial to prove the claim.  I know, it doesn’t make sense.  For instance, he might say something like, “Of course we don’t belive that Darwinism caused the Holocaust.  That is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who thinks we believe that is simply mistaken, or deliberately misrepresenting our position.  What we really believe is that Darwinism caused the Holocuast.”

Yesterday Ken Ham posted a classic example of this kind of stupidity on his blog: in response to Telegraph article about the relatedness of all living human beings. Ken quotes this part of the article:

To get to the universal ancestors (when everyone was the forefather of everybody alive today, or of nobody) we need go back only 5,000 years. Had you entered any village on Earth, the first person you met would, if he or she had heirs, trace their descent straight to you and your partner.

I’m not exactly sure how accurate that can be, since the Australian Aborigines were genetically isolated from everyone else for at least 40,000 years. Perhaps the research doesn’t include the Aborigines, because clearly any common ancestor to all living humans would have had to have lived before the Aborigines were isolated on the continent of Australia.

But that aside, Ken Ham is thrilled about this news!  Here’s what he has to say:

This research certainly doesn’t prove the Bible’s history is true—but it certainly fits with biblical history, thus confirming once again the trustworthy historicity of God’s Word.

Wait, what!??? This research doesn’t prove the Bible’s history, but it definitely proves the Bible’s history! A reasonable person would have said something like, “This research doesn’t prove that the Bible’s history is true, but it does seem to fit with biblical history.” That’s really all you can say about it, if you can even say that much.  In no way does this research confirm “the trustworthy historicity of God’s word”, as even Ken Ham agrees!

Ugh, what a dishonest man.

I want to try to make a point of posting a link to articles about new transitional forms as they are discovered, which happens surprisingly often.  I’ve done it once before, that I can remember*, and I missed an awesome one that was written about over the summer.  I created a special category called Transitional Forms so that there will be a handy list of recent discoveries that people can reference when dealing with creationists.

So, onto today’s link: Odontochelys, a 220 million year old turtle with a shell on bottom, but not on top. Amazingly cool!

* I found two more.

A couple weeks ago when I read Ken Ham’s post about the movie Religulous, in which he is interviewed and portrayed less than favorably, I decided to send Ken an email asking, in a calm and even tone, about what appears to be a double standard on his part.  Ken had this to say about the producers of Religulous:

Some of you may recall that over a year ago, a documentary crew, under false pretenses and giving a false name of the producer, came to the Creation Museum (under construction) to interview me. Then, through further clever deception, they set me up to be interviewed by Bill Maher, abusing the privileges our security gave them and breaking our security rules and protocols. But then again, for such God-haters, why would they have a high level of ethics when morality can be whatever they want to define it to be?

Hmm. “God-haters” certainly do lack ethics and morality! Unlike Christians, that’s for sure. Because I can’t think of anyone claiming to be a Christian who has done anything like this. Oh right, the makers of Expelled! They did the exact same things! So naturally, being a man of integrity and consistency, Ken Ham also condemned Expelled for making use of this same kind of “clever deception”:

I urge everyone not to miss Expelled. I found it riveting, eye-opening, even astonishing. Ben Stein does a masterful job of exposing the ruthlessness of evolutionists who will go after anyone who challenges or merely questions Darwinian orthodoxy. I was on the edge of my seat—entertained yet instructed. [Source]

Of course he didn’t. Ken agrees with the message of Expelled, so the ends justify the means in that case. It’s ok to act like a God-hater when you’re trying to show people how awful the God-haters are!

I wasn’t going to write about this at all, because it’s so transparently ridiculous, but Ken wrote this in his blog a couple days ago:

 Actually, one is not surprised at the tactics of the world—or the name calling and false accusations. Not only are we used to that, but we should expect it, as the Bible clearly teaches. It’s when people calling themselves “Christians” accuse us falsely that is truly distressing.

I haven’t gotten a response from the first email I sent, and I don’t expect to.  AiG probably recieves thousands of emails a day.  But I will send it again, because I’d really like Ken to explain to me how the tactics in Expelled and the tactics in Religulous are different.

From Conservapedia:

I’m so thankful we have an unbiased alternative to Wikipedia!