All those in favour of abortion?

Well, it's 10pm so naturally it must be time to talk about something really fucking serious right before bed. It's been a while since I've posted anything, but I've been meaning to write this for a long time. 
This one stems from the a belief a lot of people have about a specific topic that seems to draw more controversy than almost anything else. I'm talking, of course, about abortion. 

Now bear with me, this is obviously a very touchy subject, and as a straight white dude there's going to be a lot of people claiming that I really shouldn't have a say about this as it clearly doesn't affect me. My problem with that kind of argument is that it makes absolutely no sense - of course it doesn't affect me. The fact is, abortion affects only one person: the mother. The choice rests with her, and it does so for a very good reason. Allow me to elaborate.

There is a concept which many people within the women's rights movement will know of, but few others will. Not knowing the name of this concept doesn't really matter however, because everyone at some point has been glad that this concept exists, and that in many places it is written into law.

The concept is known as Bodily Autonomy, or Bodily Integrity; It is one of the 10 capabilities laid out under Capabilities Approach, which was put out in the 80's as an extension of existing Human Rights codes to plug some fairly sizable holes in existing welfare the world over. It is generally regarded by most as law within the developed world, and is recognised as such by the UN. The concept is fairly simple - The freedom to move from place to place, to be provided with lawful protection against sexual assault, to be able to choose your own sexual partners and not be forced to make physical contact with anyone, nor have physical contact of any kind forced upon you.

This is just the basis however, as the concept goes a little deeper to describe the methodology of consent relating to the human body. Essentially, it stipulates that no one is allowed to physically use your body in any way without your consent, before or after death. Think for a second about what this means:

1. If someone requires an organ transplant or blood transfusion in order to live, you cannot be forced to provide either by law. 
2. In the event of your death, you cannot be farmed for organs or used for any purpose other than what is laid out in your will, or dictated by your next of kin. This is why donor cards are a great idea. 
3. If you are having sex and decide that you no longer wish to have sex with that person, you have a legal right to revoke your consent. At that point, any contact is legally classed as rape. 
4. It also works the other way around. If you want something from someone else that requires access to their body, they have the right to say no, even if it would cost you your life. 

So as we can see, it's a fairly simple idea. There are obviously those people who would suggest that not being forced to give up a bit of blood to save someone's life is selfish, but remember that we are talking about a law here, not an act of empathy. It's important to bear this in mind, because by no stretch of the imagination am I suggesting that this is a motto to live by. It is something to keep in mind, to make you feel a little more secure in the knowledge that your body is protected by law. Equally important is that I'm not suggesting that abortion is something to take lightly, for a lot of people it will clearly be a very distressing choice, and a very big deal... but should that factor in to law? Emotions aside, the premise of the concept is very clear.

So how is this relevant to abortion? Well, a fetus uses the mother's body for sustenance. Without a host to live from, a fetus would die. You can probably see where this is going... in the same way that you cannot be forced to donate blood or organs to save someone's life, you cannot be forced to keep an unborn child. When a woman gets pregnant, she effectively enters into an agreement to allow the fetus to use her body for the duration of the pregnancy. However, just like the 3rd scenario above, the woman can withdraw this consent at any time.

Some people may see this as barbaric, and far too "clinical" for something that relates to what they see as a human life, but remember that laws are not put in place to only apply under certain scenarios. You cannot say that every scenario is different and requires different laws - if the woman was going to die if she didn't have an abortion, very few people would complain. If the woman had been raped, very few people would complain. The fact is, the rules must apply to ALL PEOPLE and in ALL SCENARIOS for them to be lawful. A woman having an abortion after being sexually assaulted has the same rights as a woman who chooses to have an abortion in a long term relationship. This makes perfect sense; would we really want people deciding what laws should be based on individual cases rather than considering the whole picture? You can ask the African American population, I'm fairly sure they'll give you an insight into how problematic that can be.

It's worth remembering that in America, there is nothing in the constitution that directly defends bodily autonomy. The Supreme Court has defended many cases in favour of it, whether they were for abortion, organ donation, or even body farming, but it is not directly protected. That said, the UN recognises bodily autonomy as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so lawfully you are still protected.

So where does that leave us? Well, when we consider the message of the Anti-Choice stance as part of this law, the conclusion is abundantly clear:

If you wish to willfully revoke a woman's right to abortion, you are giving more rights to an unborn fetus than any living human being on the planet, and are granting fewer rights to the mother than you would a corpse. 

Yes, all men.

This is something I've been meaning to write for a while and, after recent events, it seems like a good time for it.

"The real problem with the "not all men" argument is that it stems from an inherent ignorance into what the phrase actually means in context of a discussion. It carries no weight as a statement on it's own, because it is simply not true. This may take a while, so bear with me...

Women are brought up to think that their appearance is everything, and that society will expect them to conform to a strict code of conduct in order to fit in with the group. All female products are marketed with appearance in mind; from makeup and jewelry, bras to make your tits bigger, pills to make you shit, shoes to make you taller, tablets to help you lose weight, even headache remedies... it's all tailored to make women think that the secret to happiness is in inanimate objects. It is a world where the woman is taught to shrink, and fill the resulting space with things to make her look and feel better. The woman becomes smaller so her world can become bigger; a world where your eating habits are now a fashion item, and your appearance is a window on to your mental health. Nothing is ever good enough because you cannot have possibly bought everything you need to truly be a "real" woman.

Men's products are different. The marketing of male products is more simplistic but carries an equally damaging message. It all appeals to the child inside us, the little boy that gets what he wants; words like "fusion", "power", "turbo"... they're all buzzwords for "traditional" masculinity... because that's what we want to strive to be, right? The alpha. The number one. The man that other men want to be, and women want to be with. 
They appeal to our libido, constantly reminding us that we need to buy more of the latest products in order to get the latest girls; like tasters on a supermarket counter, or items in a catalogue. It's an ideal that breeds men who get what they want because they ask for it. They don't ask nicely, they don't ask twice... hell, they don't even have to ask. We're brought up to think that we need no justification for the things we receive because we were born male, and men should get everything. 

And this is problem... can you see it?
Women are taught to be jealous and spiteful of other women, because they can never be as beautiful as the boxes of cosmetics, drugs and shoes tell them. They can never be as beautiful as other women believe they can be. They cannot live up to the unfair expectation the world sets for them, because there is no way of achieving it - it is set deliberately high. They either hate themselves, hate other women, or both. 
Men? Well, when we inevitably find out that spraying yourself, dressing yourself, and treating yourself lead absolutely nowhere and garner you nothing, who do you blame? Can you blame yourself? 
Of course not, you blame the real reason you don't get what you want. You blame the people that don't give you what you want. Like a small boy being told to brush his teeth, you're a grown man targeting women who don't spur your advances. But why? Were you not told that you could get anything you wanted by shouting loud enough? What went wrong?
After being taught your entire life that you can get anything you want, you are met with a woman who rejects you. This isn't the way it was supposed to be! You deserve it; you're a man! In truth, you've barely grown up since you were being toilet trained; marketing designed to keep the child inside alive has made sure of that. 
So you can see, women end up hating women, and men end up hating women. You can't blame the media, they are profiting greatly from our stupidity. We buy their products because we believe what we read in the news, on the boxes and packaging... we do as we are told. You can't really blame your upbringing either, your parents are part of the same system. They're only doing what they're told.

And this is the real problem we face. As you can see, it isn't all men at all; it's all. All people. Everyone. 
Whether it be misogyny from men, or internalised misogyny from other women, the world seems to fall back on women in the end. 
You can use the excuse of "not all men" all you like, but you're still part of the same system that has brought us to this point. You, your parents, your friends and your family are all part of a system which is generally content to ignore injustice. The fact is, regardless of gender, not speaking out about misogyny when it occurs is just as bad as ignoring any other form of prejudice. You don't have to actively hate women to take part, you need only stay silent.

We see it in the genital mutilation in Africa, the sexual censorship in Japan, Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia, the teen beauty pageants, anorexic models and Christian hate groups in America, and we see it here in the tabloid press who throw aside pressing news to make room for more news about the latest celebrity diets and bad clothing choices. 

THIS is the problem, THIS is what we fight against, and THIS is why we will always respond with "Yes, all men". The reason? Because every person who decides to derail the conversation from a topic as important as this just so they can take control is merely providing another reason for feminism to exist in the first place. Of course it isn't "all men". It's all men, all women, all people."

Hollywood Kids

So you've all seen the Miley Cyrus video right? The one that is either a very indulgent metaphor about her taking a cock in her arse, or an equally vivid metaphor about her dad's testicles slamming into her face?
Well this got me thinking. What happens to the child stars of today when they reach the magical age of 18? What happens to the poor, poor, exceedingly rich children once hollywood realises they have no talent?

Allow me to take you back to 1999. As the world prepares for the millenium celebrations, the Backstreet Boys stop playing with each other's todgers long enough to make an album, Dr. Dre forgets what year it is and releases "2001", and Brits were still busy complaining about Thatcher, the world was treated to the marvellously shite acting of one Jake Lloyd, who played Darth Vader in George Lucas's film equivalent of wiping your arse with the Shroud of Turin, The Phantom Menace.
Many of you will remember this film for the character of Jar-Jar Binks, an instantly lovable and deep character in that you would love to deep throat him with a fucking spear. My "love" of this character would likely fill an article all on its own so i would rather express my anger of him thusly and get it out of the way.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Anyway, shithouse "Annie" is not necessarily a bad actor, but the script he was provided with was so thin and watered down it could be sold to a homeotherapist to cure alzheimers.
Unfortunately, the excuse of a bad script was not able to save his now forever horseshit-typecast career and he has since given up acting completely. He stopped attending conventions a few years ago as well; part of his retirement was allegedly down to the bullying he received from classmates who objected to his wanky performance, and the rest was down to the ridiculous number of interviews he was being asked to attend.

Jake isn't alone in this either. Let's go through a list of the more recent additions to the list of child stars gone wild:

Michael Jackson - Topped the charts at 11 years old, later accused of child molestation. Whether you think he did or didn't, no one can deny that this guy turned from child star to melanin-deficient wacko-jacko fuck nugget in a series of unfortunate events that would make Lemony lick his own Snicket.

Macaulay Culkin - from star of Home Alone to possible smack addict. He was arrested with so much Heroin on his person that Courtney Love was quoted as saying "he will have a rather nice night".

Lindsay Lohan - She's in and out of rehab more often than Tiger Woods's dick in a nightclub manager. Made famous with a double-role in Parent Trap and stayed famous thanks to... well... fucked if i know...

Britney Spears - This one even has her own defense attorney on YouTube; she's possibly the only one I have some semblance of sympathy for. Unfortunately, drug abuse, multiple failed marriages and (somehow) millions of dollars of debt, she deserves to sit on the throne of fuck ups.

Today, child stars are a commodity, and are treated as such. Every year, another 20-something actor or actress dies thanks to a bad lifestyle brought on by the stress of the business, and another few come in to take their place.

This isn't a new thing at all; the cycle of fame, drug abuse, alcoholism, arrests, DUIs, Assaults, Suicides... it's been going on for years.
Shirley Temple, Deanna Durbin, Ann Rutherford, Mickey Rooney, Margaret O'Brien, Hayley Mills.... these are all names of actors from the 50's glory days who turned to drugs, weekly abortions, alcoholism and... actually, what? Oh, all of them went on to field outstanding careers in other movies and lived long and happy lives?

Oh. Okay then... well, there's always Judy Garland.

... and why we will never see them.

In my previous post I told you all the reason that I believe in aliens, and today i will tell you the reason that you will never see one. Enjoy.

It seems every year brings around another batch of stories from people being abducted by green goblins floating around in UFOs with a penchant for anal intrusion. It frustrates me to no end how people lap this shit up, because from a scientific perspective, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The stories coincide purely because people want to be in on the action, and apparently people in the American deep south just love to let the world know about that one time they were anally tortured by an alien.

The fact is that the laws of physics do not just apply on earth. The laws of physics are what we base our observations of the universe upon; we see the same phenomena on earth and in our own solar system as we do everywhere else in the universe. The same laws of physics that cause the northern lights are responsible for the bursts of radiowaves given off by pulsars. The same force that keeps your feet on the ground causes black holes and supernovae.

This is something that people who are not scientifically literate must understand - we wrote the rules of the universe based on what we see around us. Our theories are based on what we observe, they weren't provided to us on a stone tablet for us to try and figure out.

Unfortunately, these rules are about to destroy your dreams of space exploration, because I'm about to tell you that it's practically impossible.

To be able to explain this, I need to first go back to the mid-1800's. Two scientists, Maxwell and Faraday had successfully united the forces of Electricity and Magnetism, forming the idea of Electromagnetism and more importantly, electromagnetic fields.
A field is simply a flow, or tide of electromagnetic force that moves through an area of space. Sprinkle iron filings over a magnet and you can observe the lines of force that these fields create. It is a truly beautiful thing.
The mathematical framework of Maxwell's equations is astoundingly simple considering it's implications on physics. It remains one of the greatest discoveries in physics, and provided a firm basis for modern physics in the quantum realm.

I could go on for hours about these equations, but only one part is truly important in the context of this article. The equations prove that ALL light travels at one speed. In a specific medium, all light regardless of it's frequency always travels at one speed - we know this now as the speed of light, the speed limit of the universe, a speed that can never be reached.

Enter Einstein. Einstein noticed a rather large flaw in the theory; if you were to travel at close to the speed of light next to a beam of light, how fast would the beam be travelling? On the one hand, the light has to travel at the speed of light, but as you are travelling close behind, would it be travelling slower in comparison to you? On the other hand, if you were in a car travelling at 30 next to another car travelling at 31, it would be inconceivable to see the faster car fly away at the speed of light... how the hell can you explain this?
The answer is an amazing thing; time slows down or speeds up depending on how fast you travel. At the speeds we travel on a day to day basis, this is negligible. You could travel for years around the earth in an airliner and never see it's effects, but as we approach the speed of light, things are very different.

Imagine you are in a rocket orbiting the earth. The rocket is travelling at 99% of the speed of light, and the journey lasts for 14 years. Your intuition would tell you that when you return to earth after 10 years, everyone you left behind would greet you like a king! They wouldn't. They would be dead.
If you took that journey for 14 years, and returned to earth, you would find that the earth you left behind had aged 100 years. Let that soak in for a moment. By travelling ridiculously fast, you have (by all intents and purposes) travelled forward in time.

The reasoning behind this is utterly amazing, and it's not science fiction. GPS Satellites travel much faster than the earth spinning below them, and their clocks have to be set to tick at a slightly slower speed. Without this difference, their calculations would put them off by several miles every day.

Of course, you may have already guessed the problem. First of all, everything in the universe is incredibly far apart, usually on a scale of lightyears. That means the light between two objects 10 lightyears away will take 10 years to travel that distance. It stands to reason that if you were to travel at the speed of light to your destination it would also take 10 years.
Now let us look at it from the other side for a moment. The people on earth who aged 100 years in the 14 year journey you took saw time travelling at a much slower pace for you than you saw it yourself. To you, life on earth was ageing much faster, but to them, you were effectively aging slower.
This means that if you were to travel at the speed of light, time would effectively stop. For everyone watching you, you would cease to age at all. For you in your spacecraft, you would see the universe around you age at an infinite speed. Physics doesn't like infinites, they just don't exist in nature - it would break the laws of physics. It cannot be done.

Even if you were able to travel at 99% of the speed of light, you would still age differently to the world around you. The people on the planet you travel to would never live to see you arrive, and the people who you were trying to reach may be dead by the time you get there. Realistically, the laws of physics as we know them render any kind of space travel over great distance redundant.

Maybe wormholes are the answer? Well, not unless we find a way of stopping them from collapsing before we get through to the other side. Wormholes are essentially black holes until you reach the centre, and that means you would likely be crushed into oblivion before being spat out of the other side.

What about warp drives? Well, nothing in the laws of physics says they are impossible, which is probably why NASA have been looking into this idea for years. The basic idea is that instead of moving, you move the space around you by shrinking it in front and stretching it behind you. It's a great idea, but since our knowledge of how gravity works is so slim and the fact that gravity is the only thing we know of that is capable of bending space like that, it may simply stay a great idea.

The fact is, the laws above are universal. The same rules that apply to us apply to all alien life. Combine this with the fact that our planet is one of trillions in the universe, and the fact that aliens would have to be actively looking for us to find us, and the fact that they might not be all that bothered about visiting earth anyway... it looks like seeing aliens will not be for our lifetime.
Plus, if their economy is as bad as ours, how the fuck do they expect to get funding just to visit this shit hole of a planet?

Why believing in aliens makes perfect sense...

I'm a believer. Not a believer in life among us on Earth, but a believer in life out there, somewhere in the cosmos. It seems like a certain amount of stigma is attached to saying you believe in alien life, but it makes perfect sense. In actual fact, it's more ridiculous to think that life DOESN'T exist elsewhere in the universe. Here is my reasoning, I hope you enjoy it. 

Our solar system is home to millions of species of life. Our planet is perfectly placed around our sun to be just the right temperature for life to form, the planet core is made of the right materials and our planet spins at just the right speed to produce a magnetosphere to guard us from radiation from the sun, our planet is just the right size for gravity to keep a hold on our atmosphere while allowing us to walk around freely. Disregarding the life present on our planet itself, our situation is remarkable and surely unique in the universe... or so most people would think.

The fact is, our solar system is one of 300 billion within our Galaxy. In our Galaxy itself, there are 300 Billion suns for planets to orbit, and within our universe there are close to 500 billion galaxies. Some galaxies are smaller than ours, some much much larger, and the number vary greatly. The figure of 500 billion galaxies comes from a recent computer simulation by scientists in Germany using images collected from the Hubble deep field.

The most important thing is none of these. The most important thing comes from a very important equation outlined by Frank Drake in 1961, known as the Drake Equation, and it isn't a number. The Drake equation is used to find the number of active extraterrestrial civilisations in the Milky Way galaxy that are able to communicate with earth. The journey of finding the variables and calculating this equation leads to many places, and many answers, but in my opinion, only one real conclusion.
The parameters of the equation are as follows:

R* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy = 7

This number changes dramatically over a great length of time, but we are talking millions of years. Within the past few million years, this number has stayed fairly stable. Current estimates from NASA come back at around 7 per year.

fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets = 1+

Due to the way in which Stars form, there is usually a great amount of debris left orbiting stars afterwards. This is how planets form; accumulation of debris in space crushed together into a sphere... a new planet. Microlensing surveys performed in 2012 estimate that every star will have at least 1 planet as a rule.

ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets = Minuscule

This one is a fairly complicated one, and it incredibly difficult to measure. We can deduce based on the Kepler space mission in 2013 that as many as 40 billion earth-sized planets could be orbiting within the habitable zones of stars the size of our sun. 11 billion will be orbiting stars almost exactly the size of our own. As the minimum number of stars is our galaxy stands around 100 billion, the value of fp*ne is around 0.4. On it's own the value of "ne" would be tiny. The value depends greatly on the balance of resources on the planet itself, which is very difficult to measure over such a great distance. It also doesn't take into account any Moons of larger planets which may support life.

fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life = 0.13

Again, incredibly difficult to measure, but this number should be very high. Life on earth began very shortly after the earth became capable of supporting it. Clearly, we are biased, as we are basing our knowledge of life purely on one planet that we know sustains it; our own, but in 2002 a team of scientists at the University of New South Wales estimated the value to be greater than 0.13, based on knowledge of planets older that one billion years, and the time it took for life to form on Earth.

fc = the fraction of the above that release detectable signs of their existence into space = 0.1

This one is another complicated one as you would think it relies on the extraterrestrials purposefully trying to communicate with other life in the universe. This is not the case. A great amount of earth communications via EM waves leak into space, and may be detectable by other life. We have no estimate for this one, but the original hypothesis in the 60's was around 0.1, meaning 10% of intelligent life will be capable of communication with others in the universe.

L = the expected lifetime of such a civilisation for the period that it can communicate across interstellar space = 304

This was estimated first to be 420 years, but was re-calculated by Michael Shermer as 304 years by basing the result purely on 28 civilisations of humans that have lived since the Roman Empire. The problem here is that we do not take into account that as each civilisation falls, their technology may be passed to the next (some areas of Italy still use sewage systems created by the Romans, for example). As a minimum, we will use 304.

The Result

This is where things get really complicated. So far we have made so many assumptions that our value will be far from accurate. In actual fact, the real result for the Drake equation goes from results close to zero (which makes no sense, as the value should be greater than 1 as we count ourselves as being part of the result) all the way up to 36 million.
The Drake equation was never meant to be a serious equation used to gauge the number of possible life sources in our universe, it was simply an equation to garner more interest in the subject itself, but the results show something far more interesting.

The fact is that despite the assumptions we made while trying to find an answer to the equation, the assumptions were based on real experiments, and real data that we didn't just pull out of a hat. The numbers are there, and they speak of a universe that could range from sustaining very little life, to a universe teeming with it. The fact is, the answer we get is not relevant next to the way that we get to the value - each part of this equation tells a different story that extends beyond scientists simply looking for an answer. The huge number of possibilities, the history of our own planet, and the fact that this equation only takes into account life within our own galaxy...

I'm a believer because i believe that the numbers show something which is undeniable. I believe that the numbers show that it is far more likely that life does exist, and the probability is calculated using real observations, models and close estimates. This is the way in which science works, and considering how our civilisation has grown and evolved in the relatively short time we have spent on this planet thanks to advances in science, that should be enough. There may still be a chance that we are alone in the universe, but that chance is small... almost meaningless.

My rebuttal to a bunch of moronic Creationists.

I'm not sure how many people saw the debate last night between Bill Nye, The Science Guy and some idiotic young-earth creationist who i can't remember the name of, but it seems to have sparked responses from a number of creationists who have raised the following questions. I will now answer these questions using my signature style of calling them cunts.

Original article below:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?bffb

"Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?"
Yes. Yes he is. If we consider a "positive way" to mean "a way in which they will provide some useful function in society" then yes, he is most definitely influencing children's minds positively. You sir, are the first cunt on the list.

"Are you scared of a Divine creator?"
Ultimately, a lot of Christians accept the Creationism is a bag of horseshit anyway, and they still believe in god; this question is pointless and has nothing to do with the debate.
Allow me to retort with "Are you scared of dying, knowing that you will be judged for your actions in life and most likely sent to hell?". For your cuntish ignorance, you will most certainly end up there.

"Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings... Adam created as an adult..."
Yes, in the same way that it would be completely illogical to assume that just willing something to be true will make it a fact. In all honesty, I can't fault anything about this except for the basis of the belief itself - trees could be created with rings and Adam could have been created as an adult... but only if you first accept that all of biological science came into being 6000 years ago, and conveniently showed evidence of life millions of years previously... you know... just to route out us "non believers"

"Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?"
No, it fucking doesn't. The second law of thermodynamics is "In a closed system, all things tend towards entropy". Entropy is the scientific term for disorder. It basically states that in a system with no outside influence, the structure of atoms and molecules will become more and more disordered over time. If you build a sandcastle on a beach, it will eventually turn into a pile of sand.
Conveniently forgetting parts of this law have been a staple comeback of creationists for years. "In a closed system" refers to a system with no outside influence. For a start, we have a fucking sun. Cunt.

"How do you explain a sunset if their is no god?"
Hang on, creationists know that the earth spins on it's axis right? Really? Shit. This is worse than I thought. Someone call NASA.
Aside from bad grammar, this is the most ignorant bullshit I've read yet. A sunset is beautiful, we get that, but it's just as beautiful for non-believers who understand it's beauty scientifically. If your only argument is that the earth is aesthetically pleasing, you should go spend more time collecting nice shiny shells on the beach, and less time trying to make a coherent point you cuntwaffle.

"If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?"
There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that debunks the Big Bang Theory and as i have already pointed out, the argument against the 2nd law allowing evolution is bullshit too. I really have fuck all else to say on this one, it just stinks of amateur scientist. Someone who has read one article on Natural News and thinks that's the way the world works.

"What about Noetics?"
What about it? It's a branch of metaphysics, it isn't science. Cunt.

"Where do you derive objective meaning in life?"
As far as I know, the meaning of life according to Christianity is simply to live it. Isn't that the same thing everyone does? For fuck sake, decide for yourself what your life is to you, and live it the way you want to. If everyone got their meaning of life from the same fucking book we'd be surrounded by clones.

"If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By Chance?"
"The first single-celled organism"... don't those 5 words prove that she doesn't understand creationism anyway? Isn't a belief that single-celled organisms EVOLVED into life part of EVOLUTION?
And yes. By chance. That's kinda the point.

"I believe in the Big Bang Theory... God said it and BANG it happened!"
Well done you, have a fucking cookie.

"Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?"
I've never met anyone who thought that we originated from aliens. I want whatever this fucking guy is smoking.

"There is no in between... the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an "official proof""
If you want proof, why the fuck are you a creationist you silly bitch...

"Does metamorphosis help support evolution?"
Yes it does. The current theory is that insects before pupation are in an embryonic state, where they feed to gain the necessary body mass and nutrients required to undergo the change.
There is nothing in evolution that metamorphosis disproves, but granted it is still a grey area. Still less of a grey area than creationism though.

"If evolution is a  theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is Evolution taught as fact?"
Because it's based on what we observe around us, and what we see evidence of in the past... it isn't based on a book of questionable origin.
Also, why are you referring to the Bible as a theory?

"Because science by definition is a "theory" - not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?"
Ohhhh no. Not repeatable? How the fuck do you think we build advanced machinery and computers if science is "not repeatable"? How can we see the movement of stars and planets if science is "not observable"? How did the LHC find evidence of the Higgs Boson if our results are "not testable"?
You are the worst. You are awful. Get the fuck out. We don't want creationism being taught in schools because we're worried kids will turn out like you.

"What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information see in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?"
Bill explained this in his debate. If you take a fish that reproduces either asexually or sexually, the ones that produce sexually carry fewer diseases and parasites because their genetic code is more diverse. The genetic information may not increase, it simply adapts to overcome problems. The biggest problems facing all life, especially humans, are not predatory; they are diseases, viruses, parasites... all of these can be explained via evolution, but are conveniently glossed over by creationists.

"What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?"
To live. We are here to live; the same reason you are here you quack. Some of us don't need a book to guide us in life because we are more than capable of making our own decisions. Seriously, intelligent life? Are you trully intelligent if you spew this kind of shit? Do you wake up on a morning and forget to brush your teeth if someone doesn't point you towards the sink? Derp derp derp.

"Why have we found only 1 "Lucy", when we have found more than 1 of everything else?"
Seriously, compare the size of a dinosaur to a human. Now look at the bones discovered belonging to "lucy". There is very little left. We may have discovered other bones, but not announced them to the public because we have no real proof of origin. Lucy was the result of decades of hard work by scientists, and was a fairly recent find. What we haven't found yet, doesn't disprove anything; it certainly doesn't mean we won't find more in future.

"Can you believe in "the big bang" without faith?"
I'm an atheist, and I believe it because I see the evidence for it. Point proven bitch.
I think he got this question backwards considering that the origin of the universe according to Creationism was not a big bang... so if you have faith in Creationism you shouldn't believe the big bang right? Yeah. He believes it. What the fuck is he? Deluded.

"How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's amazing!!!"
Oh yeah, look at all that delightful famine. How fucking lovely.
Get bent.

"Relating to the big bang theory... where did the exploding star come from?"
There was no exploding star. The big bang was not an exploding star. That would be a supernova, genius. Seriously, if you don't even understand the point you're trying to argue against, why the hell would you speak up at all?

"If we come from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?"
They are not the same monkeys.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME FUCKING MONKEYS, TIT. AGAIN, ARGUING A POINT HAVING NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO TRY AND READ UP ON THE THEORY YOU'RE TRYING TO DISPROVE. FUCK OFF. THE LOT OF YOU, FUCK OFF YOU IGNORANT BASTARDS.

And that concludes today's episode of rage. Next week, we will be disproving scientology by dangling $20 notes in front of Tom Cruise.
Since writing this, another article has been released documenting the rebuttal from the Evolutionary camp; enjoy!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?bffb

Some people shouldn't start flame wars.

• Harry Potter What a stupid comment Ross.

  Like · Reply · 22 minutes ago
• 

  James Stone Your name is Harry Potter.

  Like · 2 · 16 minutes ago
• 

  James Stone You're a dickhead Harry...

  Like · 1 · 8 minutes ago