Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This is a response to PPSimmons' video, 'Silly Evolutionists – CHASING BUTTERFLIES & Stumble
(sic) Into Intelligent Design - AGAIN!' In it, you use a report of research into the
fabrication of structures that mimic the iridescence of butterfly wing scales as a pretext to smear
evolutionary theory with your cranial excrement. If that’s a little stronger that I normally
like to begin, it’s because but your entire video appears to consist solely of non-stop
arguments from both ignorance and personal incredulity liberally sprinkled with generous
amounts of either gross stupidity or, more likely in my opinion, just downright dishonesty
and plain old lies. But then again, you are a Creationist, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
There is also another more specific reason, and we’ll get to that later.
“To some eyes they appear bright blue, but to others they appear green. The article says,
‘this could explain why the butterfly has evolved this way of producing color’. Gee,
isn’t evolution a smart and wonderful thing? If course Dr. Cole did not explain how the
butterfly could have ‘evolved” such a clever system. But they don’t have to explain
it. Don’t you know? Evolution – well – it just is. It’s a proven fact.”
Has anyone told you that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. You might want to remember that
next time you try being funny. Anyway, I’m curious as to why you feel that an article
on nano-engineering should contain an explanation of evolutionary theory? Of course, you may
say that ‘Dr. Cole’s the one who brought up evolution, so he should explain it.”
If so, then my response would be that I think it’s fair to assume that Dr. Cole was working
on the assumption that he was addressing people who are actually interested in science, and
not dishonest Christians who are only interested in using his words to metaphorically urinate
on it in order to defend their intellectually indefensible belief system.
And you end up illustrating this dishonesty perfectly by implying that this lack of explanation
is a deliberate underhanded tactic to pass of what you claim to be a baseless assertion.
Rationalists do not owe retards a full explanation of evolutionary theory every time the word
is mentioned in the same way that they do not have to explain non-Euclidian geometry
every time they say gravity. If you’re that interested in evolution, read a *** book
about it. “But perhaps this butterfly system was designed.
The evidence for that is just as credible. Perhaps even more so.”
And perhaps this butterfly system was ejected from the bottom of a rhinoceros at close to
escape-velocity. Perhaps, but equally unlikely. I don’t suppose you’d like to back up
that baseless assersion, would you? Could you enlighten us with regard to the nature
of this evidence? Because if you aren’t referring to irreducible complexity, whose
lame examples have all been debunked, so called fine-tuning, or any of the other tired old
arguments from ignorance or disbelief, then I’d be interested to know. However, I strongly
suspect that you referring to the same old *** that we’ve all heard before and whose
credibility is only apparent to your kind, who would deny anything that conflicts with
your mass delusion and accept anything that you can use to affirm it, no matter how ridiculous.
“But whether design or evolution, one thing is clear. Dr. Cole admitted: ‘the shiny
green patches on this tropical butterfly’s wing scales are a stunning example of Nature’s
ingenuity in optical design.’ End quote. Yes Dr. Cole. It was designed. The evidence
is plain. Thank you for using that word.” Once again, your blatant dishonesty shines
through. Not only do you make it sound like Dr. Cole is deliberately hiding something,
you also then jump onto the word “design” like a preacher onto a rent-boy even though
you clearly show that you know that you are using the word entirely out of context.
I have to congratulate you on one thing, though. You are the first fundie I have come across
who actually able to quote mine an article without removing any of the words. Have you
ever considered a career change. I’m sure someone could make use of your talent for
weasel words. By the way, don’t think I didn’t notice
the way you artfully switched from suggesting that scales could either have evolved or been
designed earlier, to now simply baselessy asserting the latter. And there you go with
evidence again. An chance of presenting any, Congratulations, PPSimmons. You appear to
be devolving from a mammal – to an amphibian. The evidence is plain.
“The pseudoscience of evolution contributes nothing to a particular story except for a
tacked-on, after-the-fact fairy tale about the butterfly mysteriously evolving some amazing
capability. For the purpose of doing something. With now explanation of how it did such a
thing, why it did, when it did it or what it may be continually doing now.”
I want to preface this with an assumption I am making. The facts that on your channel
you say you are a computer programmer, and your ability to produce such a prodigious
numbers of videos, despite their dubious content, suggest that you aren’t without some intellectual
ability. Coupling this to the fact that you must spend
quite some time seeking out new articles and reading about evolution in order to trash
it, we can, I think, conclude that you must be aware that you could fill an entire library
with what has been written about the mechanisms and theory of evolution. And yet here, you
act as if evolution has no explanatory power at all. Even if you disagree with it, why
don’t you have the common decency to at least accurately represent what you are arguing
against. Dishonesty is not an attractive characteristic. In addition, even if the exact mechanism of
scale evolution has not been described, your argument from ignorance proves nothing other
than your inability to make a convincing case. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
and inductive reasoning from the evidence in our library can still lead us to reasonably
conclude that butterfly wing scales evolved. By the way, why would your perfect designer
have used at least 3 different designs for producing iridescence? Can’t he make up
his mind? Doesn’t make much sense, does it? But it does if these characteristics evolved.
Finally, I your reference to fairy stories quite amusing. Particularly since you are
the one who believes in magic… “Even though human inventors, using intelligent
design and modern technology cannot even come close to replicating it.”
How can I even take this seriously? Even though the article clearly states that they have
replicated it, what relevance does this have? Humans have been working scientifically for
only 400 years. If we’d had 4 billion, I have no doubt that we’d do an even better
job than Nature (and certainly your invisible friend).
“Yet we are to believe that a primordial soup, millions of years, some strikes of lightning
and random chance evolved this amazing intricacy of this particular butterfly? Astounding.
Silly scientists, once again you have unwittedly pointed the world to the wonders of intelligent
design.” Aha, the argument from personal incredulity!
I knew it was coming! Life s complex, but guess what? It’s been evolving for 4 billion
years from the molecular level up. It’s bound to be complex. Just because you can’t,
or more accurately won’t, understand evolutionary theory doesn’t mean that it’s not true
in the same way that your not fully understanding quantum electrodynamics and solid state physics
does not mean that you can’t program a computer or make crappy videos. The inability of you
shriveled and crippled mind to understand something is not grounds for asserting that
it is not true. And what is this creationist obsession with
lightning? And with the random chance. If you want to argue against evolution, then
read about it first and do it fairly, instead of picking out random words and using them
to tell vile lies. “And the idea that this butterfly somehow
evolved this amazing ability by accident even though human inventors, pooling all their
intelligence cannot begin to replicate it in its perfection, is a huge leap of faith.”
Just repeating the same old *** over and over again doesn’t make it more convincing.
As for leaps of faith, if you applied your critical criteria to your own beliefs, you’d
be dropping your baby Jesus into the font and running out of the church screaming in
a heartbeat. “Yet this is what evolutionists want us
to believe, every day, simply because they declare it to be so. The unintelligent, directionless,
uncaring blind forces of evolved nature somehow used physics and then designed this state-of-the-art,
self-replicating technology in this butterfly. Congratulations on your faith, Dr. Cole. Silly
scientists.” I personally don’t want you to believe anything,
I just want you to stop lying about evolution in the breathtaking way you just did. Even
a 9th grader would give a better account of evolution than you just did. Aren’t you
capable of forming the words “natural selection”? Congratulations, you just devolved into pond
***. And finally we get to that part that really
pissed me off, even though it’s the second time you said “silly scientists”. I take
personal offense to this because I happen to be a scientist myself, so I make no apologize
to my insulting tone in this video. Because when “silly scientists” all over
the world are hard at work trying to understand nature and make life better for everyone,
while selfish, childish, lying, ignorant and arrogant little pricks like you have nothing
better to do than insult them while at the same time luxuriating in the blessings that
these rationalists have bestowed upon them, I get pissed.
So why don’t you shut the hell up and crawl back into the *** hole that you came out
of. �