Dumb Things I’ve Read Recently on the Internet

Online forums are a clearinghouse for absolute stupidity. It’s sad, but true.

Also sad but true is the fact that I don’t get to read blogs or write on this blog as much as I would like to due to the new addition to my family. So, although each of these three things warrants a post of its own describing the utter stupidity of it, I don’t have the time. So I will post a brief blub for each here and now, and that’s all I’m going to be able to do for now.

First, over at Debunking Christianity, John Loftus very often distinguishes himself as a moron. But in this post, he leaves the category of moron in the dirt and enters a category by himself.

So, Mr. Loftus contends that we should only believe what science tells us is true. Okay. Right. Well, science once taught that the atom was the smallest possible particle. Science once believed that the female was the passive receptacle for the male semen, which was comprised of fully formed embryos ready for implantation. Agent K said it the best: “1500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”

Science can be confident in its conclusions, but it can never have epistemical certainty. That’s the nature of the beast. Science is constantly shifting its theories to accomodate for new facts.

As a final bone of contention, Loftus says that science teaches that a virgin birth is impossible. Really? Really? Is he that dumb? Virgin births are not only possible, they happen often enough to warrant a term: Parthenogenesis.

I really meant to ignore the Rational Response Squad for the rest of my natural life, as they contribute nothing to the atheist-theist debate and really aren’t even that active anymore. But one of my nemeses from the boards, Darth Josh, posted this about me (see comment #2). Ironic, considering that most of my web hits come from Christian forums (like Theology Web) or from random Google searches. The RRS hardly sends me any traffic whatsoever. I think that was a desperate bid for attention. Sadly, I bit. Oh well.

Speaking of irony, atheist bloggers often score high on the irony meter, but in this post, Vjack blew the meter up. It’s funny to me that atheists take simple observations like speciation (which no creationist denies, despite what science bloggers might have you believe) and extrapolate it far beyond what it implies to get things like the theory of evolution while calling it “science,” but refuse to let creationists take a simple observation like creation and draw the warranted conclusion of a creator from it. To them, that’s fantasy. The universe is only evidence for the universe, but speciation is evidence for the wholly different process of biological evolution. Can’t have it both ways, guys! By your definition, speciation is only evidence for speciation. Sorry.

Because of Vjack’s commitment to naturalism, the sense of wonder that he feels for nature is centered on nature itself and he has no special feelings for God, who created nature. He is essentially worshipping the creation instead of the Creator. Fulfillment of Romans 1? I think so! What makes it ironic is that Vjack doesn’t even realize that he’s doing it. He’d deny it, of course! Because we all know that the Bible has no bearing on anyone’s life. No, no, no. No fulfilled prophecy there. Just a contrived explanation for atheists. In Vjack’s mind, it’s probably the apostle Paul demonstrating “anti-atheist bigotry,” a catch-all term that Vjack uses for any opposition to his philosophies.

About Cory Tucholski


Posted on February 26, 2010, in Humor and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. When Darth Josh said “he couldn’t exist without us” he I don’t think he was referring only to how you get your web traffic. He was referring to much more… deeper Cory… think deeper.

  2. “refuse to let creationists take a simple observation like creation and draw the warranted conclusion of a creator from it.”

    Wait no creation isn’t an observation. The universe is an observation, it’s only creation if something created it.

    And concluding a creator is more a philsophical thing as opposed to the scientific processes behind evolution.

  3. I’d love it it you could find me a single case where parthenogenesis has been the cause of a birth. A human birth. Insects don’t count. Good try on that though.

    • But I thought through the magic of evolution, I could look at things that happen in the Animal Kingdom and extrapolate that the possibility exists of its occurrence in human beings. Isn’t that why animal testing of vaccines on mice works?

      Or, is it only okay when your side uses it to explain evolution, not when my side uses it to ponder the veracity of Scripture?

      One last thing: the phenomenon has been observed in reptiles, fish, birds and sharks. It isn’t exclusive to insects.

      As for the example of parthenogenesis in humans, I might point to Jesus, but you wouldn’t believe me.

      • Indeed, I would not believe you. And believe it or not, I am aware that parthenogenesis occurs in things other than insects. You apparently missed the sarcasm in my original statement.

        Mice are mammals, and, biologically speaking, they’re pretty darn similar to humans. You seem to make a distinction between the “animal kingdom” and humans, when humans are biologically a part of said animal kingdom.


        Could parthenogenesis happen naturally in humans? I’m no biologist, but I’d say it could happen, sure. Has it happened in humans? There’s no evidence supporting it.

        Let’s go on a hypothetical journey for a moment… Many of species of frogs secrete highly toxic liquids from their skin, so, by your logic, we’re bound to find cases of humans with naturally toxic skin. And there are certainly way more organisms that lay eggs that are fertilized outside of the mother’s body than there are poisonous frogs, so it’d be even more likely that there’d be human females who lay eggs outside of their bodies, which are subsequently fertilized by a male. While the image of a guy ejaculating on an egg is pretty humorous, that doesn’t really happen.

        And merely to be picky, parthenogenesis is most definitely not synonymous with “virgin birth.”

        Good day.

  4. I would think parthenogenesis would be an argument against Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. When we try to explain miracles naturally, we become functional atheists…and no one wants to be as dumb as Loftus…or worse, Sapient.

    • I can see how that would be the case. However, I was merely trying to point out that science does not teach that a virgin birth is impossible. Whenever I mention parthenogenesis, I’m never using to argue for or against the Virgin Birth.

  5. Is it possible for someone to worship something without knowing that he/she is doing so? I don’t know about you, but I’d say no.

    • It is not only possible, but necessary for the sin of idolatry to happen. See, every well-meaning Christian knows that he or she is to put nothing in front of God. The Bible is clear: “you shall worship no other god” (Ex 34:14; see 34:11-16 for the full context and 20:3-6 to see that God will visit iniquity down to the third or fourth generation of those who do!). Who would intentionally break that command?

      But it happens everyday, unintentionally. I once saw a tract explain it like this: Your dad buys you and the family a big screen TV. Now you and your siblings park in front of it everyday, watching it constantly. When your dad comes in the room, you barely notice or acknowledge him because of the TV. The gift has taken the rightful place of the giver. This is idolatry. Like if I were to emphasize my wife and children over God. He gave them to me, so the gift would be taking precedence over the giver. Not a great way to say thank you.

      You don’t believe in God. Fine. So you place nature in his rightful place–your own words, “I’ll never understand those who must conjure supernatural entities in order to have a sense of awe about the world. Nature doesn’t need any help.” Nature, by not needing help, is taking God’s rightful place in your mind and heart as you have that sense of wonder and awe. You may not be intending it, but that is precisely what you’re doing. Read Romans 1:21-23 again:


      That’s YOU.

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: