Death of an Idol

On December 15th, 2011, a great man lost his life. This is not a post saying how great he was. I will admit I've not read any of his work. I plan too, but I haven't yet. This post is not about wallowing in pity about this loss, because there is no point in such a course of action. This post is not talking about the large number of people he inspired, or helped, though that would be a worthy post. This post, one that reaches only very few, will be talking about douche-bag reactions to the death of Christopher Hitchens.

First off, I have ALREADY SEEN some dick headed, heartless responses to the grave news. It seems that a minority (at least I hope it's a minority) of people think this is good news. "HA HA Burn in hell" or the like is common, though there are other more colourful responses... The fact that he hasn't been dead for a day and people are CELEBRATING it. Claiming God's will is to blame. FUCK YOU! A MAN IS DEAD! Anyone who can derive happiness for the passing of another is fundamentally sick. Also, he died of cancer, not act of god. Either accept that ALL people killed by diseases die naturally (and more often than not, painfully), or believe that God decided to make most people suffer for no discernible reason, killing indiscriminately. Claiming that an atheist died because he was atheist is pathetic, and only serves to alienate you further from the rest of the civilized society.

Another type of comment follows this kind of template: "A good man has died, he now knows the Truth". All I can say to this is, shut up. His death proves nothing about your faith. Using the death of another human, the loss of their mind, and potential ideas, to further the goals of his enemies is unethical. It is a sad and failing attempt, and complimenting him in the same breath is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Lastly, in anticipation of all the 'bedside conversion' rumors that will inevitably begin circulation, Christopher Hitchens said this: "As a terrified, half-aware imbecile, I might even scream for a priest at the close of business, though I hereby state while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be 'me.' (Bear this in mind, in case of any later rumors or fabrications.)" This is an awesome quote, and I will be sure to point it out to any douche bag that tries to convert me with stupid crap like this.

Answering creationist "arguments"

I said this post would be good, and while it is not particularly unique, it is very entertaining. This is of course an incomplete list, but I'll expand upon it later when I find some more "arguments".

If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Ok, almost everyone has heard this one, and almost everyone thinks it is stupid. But for those who think it is convincing, I'll explain it this way. All dogs were bred from wolves, so how come there are still wolves? It's because only a small group was changed. And there are so many different breeds of dog, but they all have the same ancestor species, the wolf. The same thing applies to humans and monkeys, and apes. We all evolved from a common ancestor. It wasn't a monkey or an ape of today. It was something that had the shared traits of all, and most likely in a more primitive form. There was a divergence of genetics in the past, one side went on to become monkeys, the other to become apes (humans are just really smart apes).

Creatures don't live for millions of years!

Once again, this is stupid, even to some creationists. The million year timeline isn't for the individual, but for the genetic group it is part of. Their defendants over the course of millions of years adapt to survive in drastic ways (depending on the circumstances). If a being did live for millions of years, that'd be amazing, and worthy of study and preservation.

I did a (insert radiometric dating technique here) on my dead cat and found it to be thousands of years old. Therefore radiometric dating is false.

Okay, well first off, that's fucked up. Second, there are many reasons why a false result could have been achieved. First and foremost, radiometric dating is to brides on very old things. Fossils, or rocks that are at least a couple hundred years old. Thief younger than this are going to give a false result. Or, if you were using a more appropriate dating method (and thus disproving your conclusion anyway) there is a high chance for human error. I doubt you have a degree in any of the sciences, which makes it unlikely that you know the correct processors. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias comung into play. Doing multiple tests and only one of them was wrong, so you hold it up as a triumph. Silly creationists, tricks don't work well in science.

Scientists like to use big words to sound more impressive, like deoxyribosenucleic acid, for example. Sounds impressive, right? Ever seen what happens when you put something in acid? It dissolves. If we had that throughout our bodies, we'd all dissolve. So much for the theory of evolution.

I respond to this thusly: ever eaten an orange, or a lemon? Those have citric acid in them. And not just a kittle. How come your teeth and stomach didn't dissolve? Remembering from my Chen days (a couple years back) I think an acid is defined as having a readily bonding hydrogen atom on it. Like HCl, or hydrochloric acid. The acidity is determined by the number of free H+ ions in a solution, I think. I'll check my facts and comment the results on this post.

So that is it for the arguments I've seen/heard. If you know of any that you want me to answer, or want to challenge my answers on these, just comment, and I'll get right on it.

New blog

Hey there, my loyal followers. I'm sorry I haven't posted recently... I'm a shit of a person. I have now got a new blog, Written Utopia. It's about my writing skills; differing styles, practicing for my novel, reviews of literature. Things of that nature. Grammar Nazis are more than welcome, how else will I learn?
Keep a lookout for my next post, it'll be good, as a sorry for my lack of content for the last few weeks/months.