Mr. C: Do you speak English?
Me: Yes, I do.
Mr. C: So what does “misology” mean?
Me: I don’t know.
Mr C: Ha! Then you don’t speak English!
Me: (confused) Umm…I don’t follow you.
Mr C: (Triumphant) You don’t know what misology means, therefore you don’t speak English.
Me: No, hang on…What does misology mean anyway?
Mr C: (Evasive) Well, I don’t know either, but the point is you don’t know therefore you don’t speak English.
Me: But-
Mr C: (Beaming) Furthermore, as I have now proved you cannot speak English it follows that you must speak French!
Me: I….excuse me? Wait, wait…Even if I don’t speak English, why does that mean I speak French? What about…Spanish? Or Chinese?
Mr C: (Patiently) Ah, those aren’t true languages.
Me: Right…Umm, what?
Mr C: French is the only true language. Things like Chochenyo, Tillamook and Jassic are dead languages. French is a living language! People who speak things like Arabic and Chinese are mistaken and are going to go to Hell. I believe in the one true language, French!
Me: So, even though I know thousands of thousands of words in English and can construct clear, meaningful sentences, I don’t speak English because I don’t know what misology means?
Mr C: Yep.
Me: (consults dictionary). It means “fear of reason”. Do I speak English now?
Mr C: (Pondering) Hmmm, fine. What does “incogitant” mean?
Me: (Shaking head) You got me.
Mr C: (Triumphant) You don’t speak English! Praise be to French!
Staring at the Absurd 
jjberg
12 April, 2008
this is possibly one of the best counters to the gap worshippers that I have heard
jjberg
12 April, 2008
btw, you’ve gained a new reader this evening (well, evening where I live) 🙂
angryxtian
14 April, 2008
Evolution is a fraud and I prooved it on my blog. The THEORY of evolution is oficially debunked.
Lucy Lowe
15 April, 2008
Thankyou for the comment jjberg! Nice of you to take the time to be so nice.
And thankyou angryxtian for using my blog to announce the Earth-shattering news that you’ve proved Evolution wrong! I’m flattered and will look out for your picture in the Newspapers tomorrow!
Have a Fab day both 🙂
angryxtian
16 April, 2008
Nwespapers won’t print it there part of the liberal media.
Lucy Lowe
18 April, 2008
Yep Angryxtian, Rupert Murdoch is a darling of the “Liberal elite”
angryxtian
18 April, 2008
I think maybe your being sarcastic? I can’t tell for sure but I’m pretty sure. Isn’t Murdoch friends with the commies in China? Liberals still love communists. Ever since Abby Hoffman. They think communism is a good thing and we never gave it enough chance!! Rupert is one of those I guess.
Fox is the only fair and ballanced media around. There hard on liberals and conservatives because there aligned with the truth. It’s just how democrats aren’t that makes em get a beating on Fox, and they think it’s some kind of conspiracy.
Fox is the onlly station what’s critical of all the ideas they teach our children – crazy stuff like the world is a billion years old. And we came from a monkey.
Lucy Lowe
19 April, 2008
Hi Angryxtian,
Fox news was created by Rupert Murdoch and is a subsidiary of News Corporation, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Have a fab day.
angryxtian
20 April, 2008
But evolution is still fake no matter how owns Fox News. It’s made up by scientists with an agenda even though they can’t even find one transitional fossil record after 140 years. I don’t know why all the mass media is on on this, it seems like a conspiracy. But evolution doesn’t even try to explain why God put the earth at just the right distance to the son and why he put all the right kinds of gass in the environment for us to breathe. Charles Darwin ( who gave up on his death and became a Christian ) couldn’t explain any of that. Plus it’s all just to complix to understand so it had to be mad by God. Evolution doesn’t expplain that at all.
poisonedv
22 April, 2008
… Jesus Christ! (hahaha!) Angryxtian is so misguided it boggles my mind. Anyway, that is about the creationists usual argument- makes no sense whatsoever and actually works against them.
poisonedv
22 April, 2008
But maybe I will start- first of all, use spellcheck. It takes two seconds, honestly.
“Evolution is a fraud and I prooved it on my blog. The THEORY of evolution is oficially debunked.”
You did not “proove” it wrong, or “oficially” debunk it.
Also, everything is a THEORY- nothing can be proven true. If you say just cause somethings a theory it isn’t true, well, the fabric of your very world wouldn’t exist.
“Nwespapers won’t print it there part of the liberal media.”
No, “there” not. Someone looks a bit paranoid; Apparently you have not ready very many newspapers.
“I think maybe your being sarcastic? I can’t tell for sure but I’m pretty sure. Isn’t Murdoch friends with the commies in China? Liberals still love communists. Ever since Abby Hoffman. They think communism is a good thing and we never gave it enough chance!! Rupert is one of those I guess.”
I am much more liberal than conservative yet I dislike communism. I am so so on Socialism, but I prefer Capitalism either way. Quit making idiotic assumptions and generalizations.
“Fox is the only fair and ballanced media around. There hard on liberals and conservatives because there aligned with the truth. It’s just how democrats aren’t that makes em get a beating on Fox, and they think it’s some kind of conspiracy.”
What? No, most of the news they report is even more skewed than any of these so called “liberal media”. They are not “ballanced” or fair at all, they act like any fundie would. Also, I thought you just said Rupert Murdoch was the dreaded COMMUNIST?
“Fox is the onlly station what’s critical of all the ideas they teach our children – crazy stuff like the world is a billion years old. And we came from a monkey.”
Holy (haha) shit, are you dumb. They aren’t the “onlly” station to do that, especially since they don’t. The world is a billion years old- geographic evidence, radioactivity dating using the half lifes of geometric structures can be used to tell how old something is. Most HYPOTHESIS’ that deny this have a very horrible understanding of the way chemicals work and how you change a decay rate. Trust me, I’m a chemist.
“But evolution is still fake no matter how owns Fox News. It’s made up by scientists with an agenda even though they can’t even find one transitional fossil record after 140 years.”
There are several around. Look in any peer reviewed archeology journal.
“But evolution doesn’t even try to explain why God put the earth at just the right distance to the son and why he put all the right kinds of gass in the environment for us to breathe.”
There was a random possibility. There are millions of planets, the chances that one is the right distance from the “son” and has the right kinds of “gass” is actually quite large, especially considering how EVOLUTION works.
“Charles Darwin ( who gave up on his death and became a Christian ) couldn’t explain any of that.”
Charles Darwin may have started off research into evolution, but his work is in no means the end all be all of it. Honestly, sheer stupidity on your part.
“Plus it’s all just to complix to understand so it had to be mad by God. Evolution doesn’t expplain that at all.”
No, it isn’t “complix” if you have any degree of intelligence. Evolution “expplain”s many things, and so do many other scientific theories.
You’re out of your league, kid. Go back to singing gospel and worshiping your imaginary friend.
squigs
23 April, 2008
i must say, angryxtian is a little out of league. he made several misguided remarks about evolution; however, i don’t disagree with him. i am very much on his side. evolution is a fraud, and your very precious professors and what not are scrambling to save it. why have they taken out a lawsuit to ban Expelled? if none of it is true, then just let people watch it, and later explain why it’s wrong. why do they have to rant and rave, “oh, i was misled! i was decieved!” if it’s so wrong and ridiculous, then surely the common people can see through the obvious and know that evolution is right. what are they scared of?
and poisondev, you’re grammar lacks just about as much as angryxtian’s spelling does: “Charles Darwin may have started off research into evolution, but his work is in no means the end all be all of it. Honestly, sheer stupidity on your part.” the end all be all of it? what are you trying to say here?
also, poisondev, you are an idiot. leastways, you are if you really think this: “No, it isn’t “complix” if you have any degree of intelligence. Evolution “expplain”s many things, and so do many other scientific theories.”
life is so very complex. Richard Dawkins would tell you that. we still don’t even understand fully how the brain works. we don’t know what the appendix does (however small it’s job is.)
sure, evolution may explain many things, but only if humans develop it. evolutionists can now say that a deer like creature evolved into a whale; where is the solid evidence for that? evolution doesn’t give a rational reason for life, or how that life got there. what does? creationism. not only does creationism do that, it also explains how things work, why we are here, why we don’t understand what the appendix does. taken side by side, creationism shows much more than evolution ever could.
Lucy Lowe
23 April, 2008
Hi Squigs,
You seem to be confusing that which people believe with that which is fact. We could debate whether Scientists are “scrambling to save Evolution” but whatever conclusion we came to on that subject wouldn’t alter this:
There is an overwhelming array of evidence for Evolution.
We could also debate what motivated some Scientists to take out a lawsuit against the movie “Expelled”. Whatever conclusion we came to would have no relevance to the following:
Despite the best efforts of creationists, no evidence has ever been found to disprove Evolution.
Unlike the theory of God, it is possible to disprove the theory of Evolution. Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian, to take the most famous example, would completely destroy the idea. In fact, one single, teeny tiny fossil out of place would make the entire theory of Evolution nonsense! And yet, all of the thousands and thousands of fossils fit perfectly into the theory, year after year after year.
To believe all those fossils fitting into place is the result of blind chance must take a heck of a lot of faith!
You’re right when you say “Evolution doesn’t give a rational reason for life, or how that life got there”. But then, you’d also be right if you criticised Evolution for not making toast! Reasons or origins for life aren’t what Evolution seeks to explain. It doesn’t explain the origin of life and never pretended to. It seeks to explain how life developed from humble beginnings to the complexity of today.
Creationism is an entirely plausible position for someone with very little understanding of how the World works. It makes lots of little assumptions and then answers them with the first thing that comes to mind:
“There MUST be a reason for life because…if there WASN’T a reason for life I would think that was awful…therefore, there is a reason for life…And that reason MUST be a God!”
or, as you suggest:
“I don’t know what the appendix does, so there must be a God!”
Anyway Squigs, Evolution doesn’t invalidate the theory of God. It’s just the same as when Science proved the World was round, and when Science proved earthquakes weren’t the anger of God and all those other things Science proved. Believers in the theory of God just changed the details a bit, compromised a little to accomodate the reality. I guess you could say their ideas about God
Evolved.
poisonedv
23 April, 2008
I forgot to say one thing up there: Despite what you said, scholars of evolution DO NOT believe that humans came from monkeys. Just more evidence of your ignorance.
As for you, squigs, I won’t refute your misguided attempts to beat down evolution, because it would just be more of the same of what I have already done.
Starbix
23 April, 2008
Mmmm, I love when Evolution makes me toast. When I’ve been real good Evolution makes me French Toast. Ha! See how I connected the comments to the post? You can thank me later. BTW: Good job schooling Squigs and Angryxtian. I’d suggest sending them to talkorigins, but they’d probably think it’s anti-christian propaganda from the devil.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
P.S.
Thanks for the comment on my blog.
squigs
23 April, 2008
Lucy: You sound as if you are confusing God with evolution.
“Believers in the theory of God just changed the details a bit, compromised a little to accomodate the reality. I guess you could say their ideas about God
Evolved.”
absolutely wrong. God has always been, is, and always will be the same. however, evolution is what is “evolving.” for the longest time, evolutionists considered hippos to be the closest relative to whales. all of a sudden, a few evolutionists do a “study” and all that research is hippo poop. now they think some deer like creature was the predecessor to whales. (but, interestingly enough, they have no evidence whatsoever showing this change.) this isn’t the only example, however. the theory of evolution is always changing and twisting. the fact that evolution doesn’t prove how life begins is one of them. someone springs up that question to evolutionists, and instead of thinking rationally about, they say “You idiot! Evolution never showed how life began!” well yes it did. Darwin proposed that all life came from nothing, and that is what evolution was early in its day. and since evolutionists say “Evolution doesn’t show the beginning of life,” they win that argument. but you still have a problem: what was the beginning of life? no evolutionist really knows that. here’s another example of the ever changing evolution: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2071
poisonedv
23 April, 2008
You have no idea what you are saying do you?
squigs
24 April, 2008
do you?
poisonedv
24 April, 2008
Seeing as how went into chemistry, electronic engineering, and physics, I think I do, especially since many of my colleagues are biologists of one sort or another.
Lucy Lowe
24 April, 2008
Hi Squigs,
I’m so sorry my last post went over your head. I didn’t say God evolved – that would be silly as I don’t think there is one! – I said people’s ideas about God have evolved. For example: A long time ago people thought earthquakes were God’s wrath. Then Science proved that they were not. Christians then took the position, (And I like to imagine them as mumbling it), “Well alright, you got us on that one, but Science doesn’t explain everything”.
Which of course, it doesn’t. Wherever ignorance lies, religion will be there nestling.
I’ve read through your post a number of times and here’s the thing:
Nothing you’ve said disproves Evolution.
As to the predecessor to whales: It’s a fascinating subject, and one you would find even more interesting if you understood it.
Yes, a theory has been put forward that Indohyus, a 48 million year old fossil, could be the closest relative to whales. Indeed, in order to explain to non-scientists, Indohyus has been likened to the modern deer, (though the similarities to a deer are minimal). Unfortunatey, you’re wrong when you claim there is no evidence: Indohyus possessed dense limb bones for ballast (as do whales) and a middle ear structure only found in sea mammals.
The theory connecting whales with Indohyus is a theory with a small “t” in that it hasn’t been proven conclusively, (unlike the Theory of Gravity, or Theory of Evolution itself). A great deal of anatomical evidence has been found, but nothing on the molecular level yet. As to Darwin proposing all life came from nothing – He didn’t. If that’s something you’ve read then I’m genuinely sorry your education has been so lacking.
Your last comments are lovely. You claim Evolution, which has never set out to solve the riddle of the beginning of life, has a problem in that it doesn’t solve the riddle of the beginning of life. Doing so is a bit like attacking Einstein’s Theory of relativity for not solving the riddle of the dispute over Palestine, or the whereabouts of the Yeti. It doesn’t, but it was never meant to, was it?
Of course, you have your answer to where life began: The theory of God, wherein a magic man made everything and lets not think anymore about it. That’s fine, you’re welcome to believe in something for which there is no evidence. It’s just your commitment to not believeing in something despite there being vast evidence makes me a little bit sad for you.
Still, thanks for commenting, and have a gorgeous day,
Lucy
poisonedv
24 April, 2008
Damn, I love you.
Chris Taylor
26 April, 2008
Hey, I’m working on a little personal research and I’ve got a simple question up for Atheists on my site if any of you would mind answering? Here is the question if you wouldn’t mind stopping by to answer it?
When you embraced Atheism (for those that officially embraced it), how did you feel? (i.e. was it like waking up, a weight lifted, what?)
Thats it.
I sincerely appreciate it!
http://sharpeningiron.wordpress.com/
Chris
Robaigh
10 May, 2008
non sequitur
Lucy Lowe
10 May, 2008
Hi Robaigh,
I’m sorry you think my little blog here is a logical fallacy. It was meant to illustrate the nonsense of the Gaps argument which Creationists level at Evolution. If you think the Gaps argument is sensible I’d be happy to hear how so. 🙂