KellanStec

In the midst of one of our seemingly frequent late night religio-philosophical discussions on Morey 3N, there were two claims made a pair of the more prominent Christians on my floor that startled me. I would like to mention them and thoroughly debunk the claims made. Before I get started, I must state that I have absolutely no problem with opening religion up to debate. If you oppose someone’s political position, you are free to criticize it. But, question an opinion about how the Universe began and who created it, and you’ll find yourself at the business end of a metaphorical (or in the case of historical times, real) torch. I have absolutely no problem with religion, and these two men are among the nicest and most well-mannered of all that I know. But, at the same time, I am not obligated to respect their beliefs just because they are considered “holy”.

Claim 1: Charles Darwin recanted on his deathbed; accepting Christianity and rejecting evolution.
To many Christians (Young-Earth Creationists at least), Darwin was a villain who postulated a godless creation. I’m not exactly sure what this claim is supposed to mean in an argument regarding the truth (or fiction) of evolution. Even if it were true, so what?

I can debunk this one with a single quote, but I’ll elaborate on details first. It has been said that a woman by the name of Lady Hope visited Darwin while on his deathbed, and upon reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, changed his mind saying, “How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done.” This story has unfortunately been repeated by the religious for decades in an attempt to delegitimize evolution–in spite of many Christian websites testifying the truth. This seems unlikely due to the fact that Darwin, while repeatedly rejecting Christianity throughout his later years, generally avoided controversy. Darwin was at most a deist and at least an agnostic in terms of his religiosity.

The lie, however, was laid to waste in 1922 when Darwin’s own daughter denied claims of a deathbed conversion. “I was present at his deathbed,” she wrote “[and] Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A….the whole story has no foundation whatever.”

Claim 2: A freshly killed penguin was carbon-dated to be 1,000 years old.
At first, I thought this one had just been fictitious. But, after a quick Google search, it turns out to be true–though the implications of this do not discredit the use of carbon-14 dating, as is the intention of the argument. It was a seal rather than a penguin, but that isn’t important. We know exactly why this happened. Read the link for yourself, but I’ll summarize. Basically, Antarctica has a slightly different carbon exchange than what is expected in the rest of the world. Old carbon is up welled along the Antarctic coast from deep in the ocean, and is introduced into the plant life, and eventually this “old carbon” makes its way into the animals higher in the food chain. This is one of the limitations to radioactive-dating, but it does not invalidate the tool.

These are just a couple of little things mentioned in the conversation that I can remember, and I don’t usually concern myself with things such as these. But, it’s been on my mind since last night, so I figured that I would write about it to get it off my mind so I can concentrate on finishing my midterm papers. It is just frustrating to me that some people snub some facets of scientific advancement if they are irreconcilable with their religious beliefs, and yet take advantage of all advancements that do such as cell phones, central heating and air, automobiles, and electricity. The evidence for evolution by natural selection and that we share a common ancestor with primates–indeed, we are primates–is so utterly overwhelming that to deny it, you may as well deny that the Sun is a star.

I typically don’t care about the Oscar awards until I found out that Al Gore won an Oscar for his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Before I start, it should be revealed that I have not seen this film. Yet. I do plan on seeing it in the near future to see what the big deal is. I suppose I should have seen it before I go on criticizing it, but it’s not like I have a reputation on the line. For my purposes I think my opinion would be unaltered had I seen the film or not. Throughout this post, you will see me spouting satirical global warming hysteria jabs directed towards Al Gore. Although I praise him for inventing the Internet, I still believe he is a giant douche.

Don’t get me wrong, the Earth probably is warming. Something should probably be done to at least decelerate the effects of warming. It also cools a lot. Obviously it has warmed at least enough to bring us out of the ice age we were in about ten thousand years ago. It’s natural for a planet to go through periods of warming and cooling. What I am not convinced of, though, is that the planet’s warming is a direct result of human activity.

But how do we know that the Earth is even warming? The weathermen can barely predict the weather for the next week accurately. Sure, we can look at graphs and see a warming trend, but who’s to say where it ends? We don’t know how the Earth’s climate changes over long periods of time, because we have only been logging temperature data for a little over 150 years. Don’t forget that there was once a global cooling hysteria that looked equally convincing at the time.

Alright, so that was thirty years ago. Their science was inferior to our science, obviously. But could you not also say the same thing about their methods of obtaining temperature? Maybe they were off by a degree in the negative direction–especially in the 1800s. This illegitimizes the principle of global warming–that we’re seeing a warming trend since temperatures started to be logged.

It just bothers me when people like Al Gore make it seem like humans are intrinsically evil. Other factors of global warming, such as volcanic activity and solar warming are commonly ignored. Mars is warming up too, you know. So, those polar animals are going extinct? It happens. A conservative estimate of the percentage of all species that have gone extinct is 95%. Many animals went extinct both before and after the earth’s last ice age.

I also have yet to see any persuasive effects of global warming. If it’s so super duper serial, why aren’t I ablaze under the February sun? It just snowed six inches Saturday night. The ground has not been free of snow for well over a month. It’s cold. The more intelligent penguins would be well-advised to migrate to Nebraska. Take a look at the graph again. The record anomalies are about +.42° and -.53° C. The record anomaly is .95° lower than the record high. We are talking about temperature changes of less than a degree. Wow, it would sure suck if the early meteorologists were off by .2°.

Al Gore is here to tell you that manbearpig–I mean global warming–most certainly exists. And he’s serial. It doesn’t care who you are, or what you’ve done–global warming is out to get you. And someday, when the world is rid of global warming everyone will say, “Thank you Al Gore! You’re awesome!” Should we take him seriously? Who knows?

Excelsior!

I cannot believe that I am actually writing about this, but it has gotten to a point which I cannot bear. It seems that every week, there is at least one new story or article regarding the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It’s becoming a bit ridiculous. The inveterate theme is a continual re-hashing and re-interpretation–in effect, bending–of the “facts”. There are videos, documentaries, and websites created explicitly for this purpose. Today, I’m going to add one more opinionated story to this week’s tally. As if one story weren’t enough.

9/11 conspiracy theorists would have you believe that it was not terrorists who flew planes into three of our buildings, but our own government that initiated the event. Governmental involvement is, at the very least, a fundamental belief of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Some say that the United States government hired the Islamic terrorists to do the job, and still others say that the entire plot was executed by the government itself–both equally absurd. Taken directly from the mission statement on 911Truth.org:

TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth; namely, that elements within the US government and covert policy apparatus must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened in the way that they did.

Let’s look more closely at what they are saying. Our government–the same government responsible for the failed policy in Iraq, lackluster homeland security plan, pathetic no child left behind bill, and cohorts of an inept president who can barely grasp the English language–committed one of the greatest war atrocities our country has ever seen on our own soil, while at the same time, covered it up. When reminded how little compelling evidence there is for what they’re saying, a typical response is something like, “And the reality that there is little compelling evidence for this makes it all the more plausible. Of course there is little evidence for it. That’s how profound the conspiracy really is!” Absolutely ludicrous.

If this administration was so good at covering things up, why didn’t it cover up that feral quail hunt incident? There were only a handful of people present, and it couldn’t have been to difficult to hush-up this public relations disaster. Maybe they saw the potential landmine of jokes associated with Cheney’s mishap. Jon Stewart and the like were pretty quick to jump on that one. My point is, it would have been wise to try to cover this up, although it is less serious than 9/11 by orders of magnitude. The truth is this: the implementation and number of people that would have to keep their mouths shut about this is unfathomable. Countless military officials, air line employees, and members of the administration. This could not have been executed successfully by a handful of people, this would have had to have required widespread cooperation of individuals all over the country.

I am going to propose something that has already been covered on an episode of South Park [video]. The 9/11 conspiracy is a government conspiracy. This should make the conspiracy theorists squirm in their chairs. This means that all those who believe there was a conspiracy are playing right into the government’s hands. How diabolical!

There are other things that immediately debunk the 9/11 conspiracy myth. As satirist Maddox pointed out, the fact that people like David Lynch, Dylan Avery, and the 911truth.org gang are alive is proof enough that the government didn’t have anything to do with this. Maddox writes, “…the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, [and] this raises the question: if his documentary [Loose Change] is true, and we’ve established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn’t the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What’s a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?” Eloquent as always.

Seriously people, the truth is obvious. The attacks on September 11, 2001 were planned and orchestrated by nineteen Islamic terrorists following Allah’s law: killing infidels. They believed they would be going to paradise accompanied by “dark-eyed virgins” (Koran 37:40-48) upon death. Plus, we already know many Muslims hate us. Many believe 9/11 was justified.

By now it should be clear what my position is. Anyone who believes that the attacks on 9/11/01 were a government conspiracy is–I’m sorry–a delusional moron. There are probably many things that we do not know about that day more than five years ago, and probably never will. But, it doesn’t help when people just start making things up. I am going to leave you with a series of dialogue from a recent South Park episode: The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.

Cartman: Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?
Kyle: Because everyone who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy is a retard.
Cartman: Oh, really? Well, did you know that over ¼ of the people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that ¼ of Americans are retards?
Kyle: Yes. I am saying ¼ of Americans are retards.
Stan: Yeah, at least ¼.
Kyle: Let’s take a test sample. There are four of us; you’re a retard, that’s ¼.

later….

Kyle: …well then who was responsible for 9/11?
Stan: What do you mean? a bunch of pissed off Muslims.
Hardly Boys: Yeah, what are you? Retarded?

Further reading:

Edit 02/26/07:
As I said above, there’s a new 9/11 conspiracy hysteria story every week. This time, four days later. Here‘s another one.

Yesterday, the supreme court overturned an earlier decision to award a widow of a smoking man $79.5 million dollars in damages. The decision was overturned because of a restriction placed on such awards in 2003. I don’t really care about that. I’d like to declare this a victory for personal freedom. Also, it serves to remind people in the future that someone else should never be held responsible for your personal decisions.

I am wondering how this decision was ever reached in the first place. Mayola Williams apparently pressed charges in 1997 following her 40 year old husband’s death from lung cancer. Sometime in his 40-year life, he made a personal decision to begin smoking, and this ultimately killed him. Who was at fault? It seems to me that it would be Mr. Williams, but apparently the court saw differently.

I don’t know how many of you have seen the movie Thank You for Smoking, but for those who haven’t: please do. It’s about the life of a public relations spokesman for a big tobacco company. The film makes some very compelling points. Tobacco companies are collectively despised for committing mass murder against smokers, but think about it: why would a company want its customers to die? They make more money by keeping their customers alive and smoking.

But this isn’t about the tobacco companies. This is about people. It is my opinion that in the free society we should all strive for, people have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies as long as they do not endanger the well-being of others. Why should anyone have the right to tell you otherwise? I am free to take ibuprofen to relieve a headache whenever I wish. Taking tobacco to relieve stress should be no different. A drug is a drug.

I suppose it could be said that when I take ibuprofen, it causes not the mildest inconvenience to others, while smoking does. I am talking, of course, about second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is definitely an inconvenience. I don’t care for the smell, and it tends to make the air hard to breathe when I am inside a bar. I’m pretty skeptical of the potential health risks involved in inhaling second hand smoke, but the smoke is still an annoyance. But, I don’t find it necessary to bitch about it. In my mind, the freedom of others to do as they wish is more important than my personal comfort. There are certain cases where this does not apply. For example: children and the elderly. I’ll ignore that in order to continue.

To me, this is no different than an overweight person suing McDonald’s because of their weight. It’s difficult to see why someone can even blame someone else for their continual face-stuffing, and even more difficult to see how people like this can win their cases. How is an argument made to focus the blame on those who sell the products that cause harm to the customer? It seems to me that the customer should make a reasonable purchasing decision before they indulge. I would read the court documents that I found online, but I am too lazy/tired.

On second thought, that isn’t such a bad idea. I should start diving in front of slow-moving vehicles and sue the drivers and/or auto makers for my hospital bills plus emotional trauma. I can’t lose. Except maybe functionality of a limb or my life.

Last Thursday, I was doing my daily tech news reading and came across an article about the next version of Microsoft Office, slated for a 2009 release. The release itself isn’t what I am concerned about.

The current version released, Office 2007, has release version number 12. Logically, the next version number would be 13, but Microsoft has elected to skip this version number and call the next release Office 14. Their rationale is, “well, 13 is unlucky, so we’re calling it Office 14″. This might not have bothered me so much if this was a quote from 1300 Europe. But, sadly, this was uttered little more than two months ago by the head of a department at one of the most successful firms in the computer world.

The number thirteen has struck fear in people of many different cultures and religions for millennia. What is our infatuation with this seemingly arbitrary value? Why is it “unlucky”? Surprisingly, the number was not always considered unlucky. The Egyptians were possibly the first culture to develop a superstition around the number thirteen, but it was considered good luck. According to Egyptian lore there are thirteen steps between life and death. Jewish tradition holds that thirteen is the age at which a boy becomes a man. Not surprising though, is that the foundation for holding that thirteen is an unlucky number is irrational.

Thirteen is the number of people in attendance at the last supper, so Christians usually make Judas out to be the thirteenth, thus, “unlucky”. Lucifer is also considered to be the thirteenth angel. This story possibly sprang from a similar Norse myth, in which twelve deities were seated around a table, only to have Loki (ironically the God of disorder) wreck the fun by raising the number to thirteen, in effect killing one of those already seated. Other explanations for the unlucky number thirteen is that it is one more than twelve, widely viewed to be a perfect number since it is easily divisible. It sounds silly, but just think of how many times that wretched number has intruded on our tidy arrangements of twos, threes, fours, and sixes! It is also relevant to note that many tall buildings are built without a thirteenth floor. One might inquire how the floor labeled as the fourteenth doesn’t end up becoming the thirteenth anyway. Label them all you want, it doesn’t change what floor it really is. Many buildings do not contain room number thirteen either, but a quick walk down the hall showed me that the architects (or at least the guy that paints numbers on room doors) were not so superstitions to leave out room number 313.

Actually, I may have gotten a little sidetracked there for a bit. I am not particularly concerned with the history of the number thirteen either. What I want to know is why we are still practicing such a superstition today. Why is “unlucky thirteen” any more compelling than “unlucky nineteen”? We certainly have some “evidence” that shows the number nineteen is unlucky. There were nineteen 9/11/01 hijackers. I also just noticed some math related to 9/11: 9 + 11 -01 = 19! The number nineteen surely appears to have some significance in the holy Koran. In an editorial afterword in one of Thomas Wolfe’s books, Edward C. Aswell remarks that Wolfe’s second book, was to have been titled K19. When Wolfe died, Aswell watched the train carrying his coffin go by: Train K19. This sounds incredibly stupid, but it goes to show that if you want to, you can connect dots and see things that aren’t really there.

Now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot and examine the antithesis of the common perception of the number thirteen: the number thirteen is a lucky, or at best neutral, number. Thirteen is the atomic number of aluminum. Why aren’t soda cans spontaneously rupturing and cutting our skin with that cursed metal number thirteen? The olive branch on the back of a U.S. one-dollar bill has 13 leaves. Do people who carry one dollar bills in their pocket get struck by vehicles more often while crossing the street? The Chinese abacus consists of 13 columns of beads. Where are the records of scores of Chinese mathematicians dying as a result of using the wrong number of columns on their counting device?

My point is, we currently live in a scientific, reasonable society for the most part. Why don’t we get rid of these silly superstitions? The next Friday the 13th will be in April. I plan on living it as if it were a normal day. Who’s with me?