Podcast for 8-1-2011

[MrBogosity]

[bogosity-podcast]https://bogosity.podbean.com/mf/web/ez8cpe/BogosityPodcast-8-1-2011.mp3[/bogosity-podcast]

News of the Bogus:

• Near Elimination of Varicella Deaths in the US After Implementation of the Vaccination Program http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/07/21/peds.2010-3385.abstract
  
• 
  Nobody runs for office in small N.C. town http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/18/nobody-runs-for-office-in-small-n-c-town/
  
• 
  Victory for evolution in Texas http://ncse.com/news/2011/07/victory-evolution-texas-006802
  
  
  
  • International Databases, LLC (the creationist supplements) http://internationaldatabasesllc.com/

Biggest Bogon Emitter: Dr. Richard Kent http://blip.tv/raydirector/dr-richard-kent-interview-about-evolution-2011-4880175

Silver Cluon Award: powerm1985 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsJq8RKcXts

• Homeopathic Nitric Acid http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-books-online/keynotes-homeopathic-remedies/nitric-acid/

Idiot Extraordinaire: Panelists of The Talk http://www.cbs.com/e/uYY6jHTAD9Nnj4bak1K2G3c1Bdr0rTyt/cbs/1/

This Week's Quote: "Homeopaths get on my nerves with their, 'Science doesn't know everything!' Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you." —Dara O'Briain

[AnCap Dave]

I think it would be kind of cool if what happened in that NC town happened on a federal level.

Also, when listening to that stupid Kent guy, the other dude sounded exactly like this young Earth old man who came to my door once. His arguments were the usual tripe, but he also kept insisting that I should be miserable because of things like crime, poverty, and war. I told him the basic stuff like how it is intellectually irresponsible to just fill in the blanks with whatever you want for stuff that we don't know, but of course they don't really give a shit about that. The problem with these types is that their mind is like a filter in reverse. They filter out the facts and science and load their mind with complete garbage.

I also would like to go on record and state that I NEVER liked Sharon Osbourne. She always has been an evil bitch. Hell, I remember back in 2005 when she tried to sabotage Iron Maiden's performance at Ozzfest because Bruce Dickinson said that he was picking up for Ozzy's slack, which was true. Ozzy couldn't perform, and Iron Maiden offered to do extra time in their show for him. Sharon decided to mess with their performance by screwing with speakers, turning off mics, and even having people that she picked out to throw eggs at them.

[MrBogosity]

Penn Jillette was on the other day, and he made a joke that was pretty good: he mentioned that Sharon Osbourne believes that there should be nothing controversial at amusement parts, yet she took Ozzy there: "I'm sorry, Mrs. Osbourne, but could you turn your husband inside-out please?" Everyone thought it was funny EXCEPT her, even though she later admitted that Ozzy wouldn't have been offended and would have found it funny.

[AnCap Dave]

Yeah, fuck Sharon. I don't mean that literally though.....I wouldn't wish such a terrible fate on any man.

She really is just a raving bitch, and I think half the inane and stupid things she does is for attention.

[AnCap Dave]

Oh sweet Jesus I'm laughing my ass off. Not even a minute after I posted the Texas article on another forum, I got this tripe.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread519306/pg1

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.
--------------------------------------------
......So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!
---------------------------------------------
Because he believed in the simplicity of the information of the cell, he came up with a theory called "pangenesis," where huge variations simply popped out of cells at random—something that was later proven to be entirely false.
Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
During his life, Charles Darwin was puzzled over the fossil record. For it to back his theory, the evidence should show a fine gradation between the different animal species and have millions of intermediate links.

He stated it this way: "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [of evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth" (The Origin of Species,1958, Mentor edition, p. 289).

Yet faced with the evidence, he admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory" (p. 287).
-------------------------------------------------
Darwin got the idea about natural selection in part from observing artificial selection. For instance, he noted the way pigeon breeders came up with a great variety of pigeons. Yet we should remember, they are still all classified as pigeons!

He thought that from this variety, given enough time, pigeons could eventually evolve into some other type of birds, such as eagles or vultures, and gradually, even to other creatures such as mammalian bats.

No one seriously disputes the notion of "change over time" in biology—heredity sees to that. We vary from our parents and grandparents—but that is not what the theory of evolution is all about. It is really an attempt to explain how microorganisms, insects, fish, birds, tigers, bears and even human beings actually became what they presently are through the passage of time.

Darwinian evolution—what is taught in the schools—is about macroevolution, or changes beyond the limits of the species kind to create another distinct species. It consists of three suppositions: 1) all living things descend from a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanisms for the changes are natural selection and mutation; and 3) these are unguided, natural processes with no intelligence at work behind them.

But have we seen either in present life forms or in the fossil record that creatures are slowly changing and mutating from one kind to another? Never.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In his studies, Darwin noticed that different types of creatures shared some common features, such as the five fingers of a human hand and the five digits of a bat's wing or of a dolphin's fin. He postulated that this similarity in different species, which he called "homology," was evidence for a common ancestry.

Yet this argument is based on an analogy that's quite weak since the fossil record shows no gradual evolution of these limbs from one species to another. There is, however, another and simpler way to explain these common features. Instead of having a common ancestor, these similar features could simply be the result of a common design.

We see this common design in how man builds things. We construct a car, a cart and a vacuum cleaner with four wheels, but this doesn't mean they have a common ancestor —merely a common design. Four wheels happen to give more stability and strength than three wheels and can better distribute the weight on top. We can deduce that a wise designer would have used this type of model of four legs to give stability and strength to many of the creatures that were made, instead of using three legs.

Really, does it make more sense that a designer used these same patterns because they worked so well, or that blind chance in natural selection and mutations just happened to come up with the optimal design after so many trial-and-error attempts? If the latter was the case, where is the evidence of the many failed models that should have ended up in the scrap heap of the fossil record, as Darwin predicted? No such evidence has been found.

Indeed, when creatures that are supposedly far removed from one another on the evolutionary tree share common advanced characteristics, evolutionists maintain that these characteristics evolved separately. But what are the odds of the same complex characteristic evolving by chance multiple times? Again, common design is clearly a far more logical explanation.
--------------------------------------------------
The similarity (between man and chimps) is now down to about 93 percent, according to more recent studies—results that curiously have not made many headlines. Stephan Anitei, science editor for Softpedia, writes: "Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7%. There are obvious similarities between chimpanzees and humans, but also high differences in body structure, brain, intellect, and behavior, etc." ("How Much DNA Do We Share With Chimps?" Softpedia, Nov. 20, 2006, p. 1).

Again, the question has to be asked: Is the similarity between chimpanzees and men due to a common ancestor or to a common Designer? If a common ancestor, why are human beings so drastically different now from this ancestor while chimpanzees have remained much the same? The fact is, we are not seeing any evolution presently going on in either chimpanzees or human beings.
------------------------------------------------
The only drawing Darwin had in his book The Origin of Species is that of the supposed "tree of life." It pictures the imaginary transformation of a common ancestor (at the root level) into the different species we see today (at the twig level). Yet the drawing is actually based on slight variations within a species after many generations, and then he adds some suppositions.

Again Darwin went well beyond the evidence. He took limited evidence about adaptations and extrapolated it to the idea that a species or genus (group of interbreeding species) can transform into a completely different one—all based on speculation. He cleverly said, "I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to the formulation of genera [plural of genus] alone" (p. 121). He had to say this since no more direct evidence was forthcoming.

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection.
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Darwin was a man of his times. The 19th century saw many major social upheavals—political, philosophical, economic and religious—and Darwin was deeply shaped by them.

Some 11 years after writing The Origin of Species, he candidly admitted his two main purposes for writing it: "I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change...

"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations" (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 92).

Notice that the first reason for writing his book was religious—for he sought "to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." In other words, he had no room for a religious version of origins involving the Creator God of the Bible. He promoted the idea that the world of matter and energy, mainly through natural selection and variation, might well account for all life we see around us—a philosophy of science known as scientific materialism.

Instead he pigeonholed creationists as having to believe in a recent creation and in "fixed" species confined to specific geographical regions. This was a straw man he set up so he could then bash it time after time in his writings. For him, evolution was "scientific" and was to be viewed with an open mind—but within a closed materialistic system—minimizing or eliminating any role for intelligent design or God.

Yet instead of the data accumulated during the next 150 years pointing toward blind and random causes of nature doing the creating, we now see it, based on molecular, chemical, biological and astronomical evidence, pointing to a supremely intelligent Designer of all.

Darwin's bicentennial has arrived but, as Phillip Johnson predicts, Darwin's ideas will eventually end up in the trash heap of history. Johnson concludes: "Every history of the twentieth century has three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx, and Freud... Yet Marx and Freud have fallen... I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be the mightiest of the three" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113).

Creationists are funny people.

Oh god, it gets funnier.

Im not fancy on big words, but there has been no man too prove what ive showed you wrong. Evolution is fake

Oh sweet fuck we won't top this one.

Post the usual garbage that fucking proves the shit!! Dammit I do think your fuckin insane...and dude he walked on water...its history..its documented...its called the bible there in every book store youll ever see in your life

I'm nearly in tears laughing so hard.

[MrBogosity]

Sad thing is, a lot of those I DID prove wrong in the BBE segment.

[Gumba Masta]

You didn't spell "science" correctly in that quote you posted.

Also am I the only one who thinks of Eugeenie C. Scott as a GILF?

Also also was that a stab at John Beneth?

[MrBogosity]

Also also was that a stab at John Beneth?

Since I have no idea who that is, I guess it wasn't.

[Gumba Masta]

[yt]avon9MMnWRo[/yt]

Skip ahead to 4:13

[MrBogosity]

Here's the video the quote is from:

[yt]YMvMb90hem8&start=76[/yt]

[Gumba Masta]

I ment the bit where you talked about powerm1985

[MrBogosity]

Oh. No, it was just a joke.