Tom Tomorrow Archive

Tom Tomorrow Archive, a storehouse of hilarious comics penned by the finest liberal cartoonist around. It’s moved since the last time I’ve been there, and I haven’t taken the time to see if any content has been lost, but regardless, it’s worth a look.

Online KJV

KJV and Apocrypha. An online KJV and the Apocrypha that were originally included with it. It’s searchable and everything! Useful for anyone with any sort of interest in Christianity. Hosted by the University of Virginia.

My Latest Amazon Haul

Worth the Risk

C. S. Lewis
“Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk.”

Thought of the Day #2: “God of the Gaps”

“God of the gaps is dead!”

Thought of the Day #1: “Every Molecule”

“Every molecule is a miracle.”

Sessility

Palaeos article on the Arenig Stage (Toby White?)

One of the many advantages of being sessile is the elimination of all traffic congestion.

Ba dum tish!

Oh well, I found it amusing. <_<

Changed the Banner Again

I’ve changed the banner again. The old one can be seen here.

Committee Competence

Sir Alec Issigonis
“A camel is a horse designed by a committee.”

Arin i Asolde- Limyaael’s Fantasy Rants

Arin i Asolde is the home of Limyaael’s Fantasy Rants, wherein Limyaael rants about her fantasy novel pet peeves and gives suggestions to would-be authors. This site should be of interest to anyone that writes or uses RPG Maker regardless of their preferred genre.

Needless to say, though, fantasy writers will get the most out of it. In addition to ranting, she also reviews plenty of fantasy novels. There may be spoilers too, but since I don’t really read any fantasy books, that doesn’t bother me. Check her out.

See also:

An archive of old rants.
Limyaael’s old Live Journal.
Limyaael’s Fanfiction.net page.
Limyaael’s Fictionpress.com page.

Mudpies in a Slum

C. S. Lewis
“We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

Debunkery II

You may remember a little addendum I made extending the list of debunkerisms found in Zen… And the Art of Debunkery. Well, a few more came to mind since then and I figured I post them.

Shooting the Son to Kill the Father
Confuse popular ideas and subsequent research regarding a paranormal claim with the original claim itself. If you debunk Marjorie Fish’s interpretation of the Betty Hill star map as representing Zeta I Reticuli, roundly claimed to have unmasked the Hill abduction as a hoax.

If the original and subsequent claims are intertwined closely enough in the public consciousness no one will notice the fallacy (or dishonesty) inherent in such a tactic.

---

You Can’t See the Emperor’s Clothes… With Your Eyes Shut!
Ignore all arguments from an advocate of an anomalous phenomenon. After all, fortean, paranormal and religious phenomena are self-evidently false. Those woomongering pseudoscientists and superstitious fundies are prone to object to being summarily dismissed, though, so expect complaints!

When some kook protests that you’re being snobbish and anti-intellectual by completely sealing yourself off from the other side’s arguments, explain to him that a citizen doesn’t need to listen to the courtiers’ arguments about the finery of imperial silk - the emperor’s obviously naked! If you’re condescending enough people will be too intimidated to ask how you know the emperor is naked when you refused to open your eyes when he passed by.

---

Don’t Trust Hypnosis… Unless It’s Convenient
Research has shown that hypnotically enhanced recall is likely to result in distorted or confabulated memories. Consequently, memories gained through hypnosis must be treated with great suspicion even if the event the recovered memories described was known to have actually occured.

This is especially true of people making “extraordinary claims,” like that they recovered memories of being forcibly taken and examined by aliens. However, if you can utilize these recovered memories for debunking the claim when taken as one hundred percent literally representing the alleged experience on face value you, as a skeptic, are obligated to do so.

Example: The star map hypnotically recalled by Betty Hill as being shown to her by an alien. It’s obvious that the map is bogus because of minor discrepancies between it and the actual configuration of stars around Zeta I Reticuli!

Hope that no-one asks you why memories from such an allegedly flawed method should be held to such a high standard if the memories are likely inaccurate or distorted even if the experience was genuine.

Parable of the Twelve Policemen

I found a disturbing parable that gives a grim look at the “problem of pain” from an atheistic perspective. Twelve policemen give their justification for standing idly by as they watch a woman get cruelly raped and murdered by a psychopath. Let’s hope the author is wrong about God.

Forget About War

Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war.”

Sorry, Mr. President. We’re not going to forget about the mess you started.

Re: Back to Genesis #2 [Part II]

Note:
This is the second part of a response to Back to Genesis #2, an article by famed creationist, Ken Ham.

Claim #3
Ham spouts some non-sense about how some evil atheist conspiracy has redefined science in order to disprove God.

I’m not even gonna bother. <_<

Claim #4
WARNING: It is not just that these people want evolution accepted they want a total man-centered philosophy.

I must have missed the “Instituting a Man-Centered Philosophy” chapter when I read On The Origin of Species. <_< Or The Beak of the Finch, or The Panda’s Thumb, or any one of countless books on paleontology, fossils, evolutiona, and what-have-you. So where are you coming up with this crap?

Besides, I thought evolution was bad because it debased humanity to the status of meaningless soulless animal? Which is it? Is evolution bad because it debases us, or bad because it puts us on a pedestal?

And why is it even relevant? Humoring your conspiracy theory, just because the idea of evolution is being used to support a philosophy you dislike doesn’t mean the idea itself is wrong, or even that the philosophy you dislike logically follows from evolution!

Ham then goes on spouting random irrelevant Scriptural references in order to distract the reader from realizing how fallacious his reasoning is and just how little substance there is in this tirade. Yawn.

After that he argues against the carnivorous origins of the giant panda. He provides no scientific support against the accepted theory. Instead, his arguments consist of appeals to the bible (or false interpretations thereof) and “You haven’t proven it to me!” type garbage. The will to believe is strong in this one.

Nobody’s proven the virgin birth of Christ either yet Ham accepts that without question. Not that theres anything wrong with that belief, but it seems a tad hypocritical for a man whose worldview is so dependent on faith to criticize people who he claims to live by the same philosophy (just putting their faith in different things). Not that scientists actually do, but that’s beside the point.

Claim #5
Scientists were originally wrong about germs, so they’re probably wrong about evolution, too.

This claim is from one of those fun “Did You Know?” sections where Ham throws down a random historical anecdote to give an air of intelligence about himself in a desperate attempt salvage credibility and to keep reader’s distracted from his failure to give valid criticism of evolution.

He tells us the story of a doctor who used good hygiene and how this cut down on the spread of disease in his hospital. He was mocked by other medical professionals but the germ theory of disease proved him right.

Ham hopes you’ll make the non sequitur connection between the fact that the majority of scientists were wrong at one time and the possibility that they may be wrong now. Apparently if a majority of scientists were once wrong, this is always the case. Riiight. Suuurrre.

I will give him credit for one thing, though; it is possible for a majority of scientists to be wrong. After all, at one point most scientists were creationists.

Later.