Unfortunately, Ronen took off the original video he made on masturbation and homosexuality. But he did take the time to make a video response to my post on his video:
Regarding homosexuality, he takes the Fundie way out and deny facts. A religious person he considers very smart saying homosexuality is an illness is good enough for him. Forget science. I'm sure the genius he looks up to as forgotten science too.
Interesting that he quotes the Jewish version of the Catholic edict that every sperm is sacred. I didn't think the Jewish God was that adamantly against masturbation that he favours incest over it. You learn something new every day.
Of course, me and Ronen look at world from different perspectives. I live in a world where there is no evidence for a soul, but Ronen states, "the soul is borrowing the body." Well, I guess the soul is the entity compelling us to masturbate. So again, blame God. And also blame God for making our arms long enough to access our penis so easily. If God didn't want us to masturbate, he should have put our penises in the middle of our back. Then I could go to my wife and say, "I have an itch, can you take care of it for me?, I can't reach it, and it is driving me crazy."
Sit ups and push ups just don't take my aggression away as a good yanking does. After sit ups, I'm still on "full." I didn't call it an exercise by the way. He sort of twisted that.
I can talk slow and be as mellow as possible, but I don't think man was made to walk around on "full" for any lengthy periods of time.
And I'm not going to get into the "married men don't need to masturbate" discussion right now, especially while I'm on "full." I don't want to say things that will come back to haunt me:)
December 15, 2008
December 12, 2008
Fortune Cookies
I had Chinese food for the first time in quite a while yesterday. Waking up this morning, I was struck with two revelations. One is that Chinese food makes my stomach hurt and the second one is that I don't read fortune cookies anymore. I don't mind eating the odd fortune cookie, but recently I've just stopped even reading the nonsense.
I used to read them, but now that I've morphed from strong agnostic to atheist, I don't even get any entertainment value out of them anymore. I'm not sure how many atheists are like me when it comes to fortune cookies. Is it just me? Do I need to lighten up?
Oh, and I don't read horoscopes anymore either. I definitely read the ones in the newspaper up to my early 30's. I even remember hoping it was right at times. Again, I know we have a evolved a susceptibility to accept supernatural explanations, so I guess I'm only human that way:)
I used to read them, but now that I've morphed from strong agnostic to atheist, I don't even get any entertainment value out of them anymore. I'm not sure how many atheists are like me when it comes to fortune cookies. Is it just me? Do I need to lighten up?
Oh, and I don't read horoscopes anymore either. I definitely read the ones in the newspaper up to my early 30's. I even remember hoping it was right at times. Again, I know we have a evolved a susceptibility to accept supernatural explanations, so I guess I'm only human that way:)
December 4, 2008
Cane Toad Evolution: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly (and The Funny)
It was over 70 years ago that cane toads were introduced to Australia from Hawaii as a way to try to take care of the cane beetle who were agricultural pests. But:
The Good
The cane toad is probably one of the best ways to see evolution happen before our very own eyes, which means that they can be used as PROOF that evolution does happen.
The legs of cane toads have increased by 10% since arriving. Note: there are still toads with shorter legs, but the ones that are on the migration front have the ability to travel more ground per day thanks to their bigger legs.
Now, I know evolution deniers will always say that they have no problem with this kind of evolution. However, evolution is evolution is evolution. The genes of these toads have changed. And if there is still an argument the best thing to do is to ask the denier "now that you agree that evolution happens, what mechanism prevents evolution from making lots of small changes which appear like big changes over lots and lots of time?"
Evolution in fact, is happening too fast for these toads. One in ten are developing arthritis and back defects because their bodies were not made for the size of their legs.
The toads with the smaller bodies seem to be more equipped to live longer and breed more.
The flawed toads may continue to breed their bad lineage if they do in fact make it past toad puberty and are able to make new tadpoles. So we could see a higher percentage of hunchback toads in the near future. But if they wind up overpopulating their ecosystems where no more land is available, the small bodies toads will be the one that survives in the end.
There is also a problem with the immune systems of the toads who get arthritis. Again, this trait could go on if they are able make it to procreation.
There still have a lot of ground to cover before they make it all across Australia, so I don't see the arthritic toads dying out so fast.
Another cool thing is that many other animals are evolving because of the presence of cane toads. Some snake species have evolved smaller jaws so that they can't swallow these poisonous treats even if they wanted to. Of course, this means that the snakes with bigger jaws had a trait that was destined to wind up in the evolutionary trash bin. The toads helped kill off those who had the trait in a very short period of time.
Also, many other animals who were attracted to eating cane toads, are not anymore. Again, this is due to the innate mechanism that tells one what is food and what isn't, evolving to help the species survive. Again though, the animals with the attraction to cane toads helped their line out by dying before procreating too much. The animals without the attraction trait had a better chance of surviving to procreate more. That is evolution 101 to any of my Fundy readers.
The Bad
As stated above, these toads are taking over. They are poison to eat. Pets die when they eat these guys. They are also killing off endangered crocs and quolls (whatever the heck a croll is).
There are papers that give me a headache to read that predict cane toads will wind up living all over Australia.
There were only 100 or so that were introduced in 1935. Now there are over 200 million of these creature.
Besides being able to get high off their poison (Family Guy had an episode having to do with licking cane toads), these amphibians have an average life span of 10-15 years. That is the same as dogs (which I find totally unfair, if there was a God, dogs would live to 80). In fact, they can live up to 20 years in captivity.
The Ugly
In order to get rid of cane toads, Australians have come up with a couple of gruesome ways. The first one is to refrigerate the cane and then freeze it to death.
If you think that is humane, you haven't seen anything.
Cane Toad Golf
I could never ever do that. I agree that cane toads need to go, but there has to be a better way.
The Funny
The plan backfired completely and absolutely. As it turns out, cane toads cannot jump very high, only about two feet actually , so they did not eat the beetles that for the most part lived in the upper stalks of cane plants. Instead of going after the beetles, as growers had planned, the cane toads began going after everything else in sight--insects, bird's eggs and even native frogs. And because the toads are poisonous, they began to kill would-be predators. The toll on native species has been immense.
The Good
The cane toad is probably one of the best ways to see evolution happen before our very own eyes, which means that they can be used as PROOF that evolution does happen.
The legs of cane toads have increased by 10% since arriving. Note: there are still toads with shorter legs, but the ones that are on the migration front have the ability to travel more ground per day thanks to their bigger legs.
Now, I know evolution deniers will always say that they have no problem with this kind of evolution. However, evolution is evolution is evolution. The genes of these toads have changed. And if there is still an argument the best thing to do is to ask the denier "now that you agree that evolution happens, what mechanism prevents evolution from making lots of small changes which appear like big changes over lots and lots of time?"
Evolution in fact, is happening too fast for these toads. One in ten are developing arthritis and back defects because their bodies were not made for the size of their legs.
The toads with the smaller bodies seem to be more equipped to live longer and breed more.
The flawed toads may continue to breed their bad lineage if they do in fact make it past toad puberty and are able to make new tadpoles. So we could see a higher percentage of hunchback toads in the near future. But if they wind up overpopulating their ecosystems where no more land is available, the small bodies toads will be the one that survives in the end.
There is also a problem with the immune systems of the toads who get arthritis. Again, this trait could go on if they are able make it to procreation.
There still have a lot of ground to cover before they make it all across Australia, so I don't see the arthritic toads dying out so fast.
Another cool thing is that many other animals are evolving because of the presence of cane toads. Some snake species have evolved smaller jaws so that they can't swallow these poisonous treats even if they wanted to. Of course, this means that the snakes with bigger jaws had a trait that was destined to wind up in the evolutionary trash bin. The toads helped kill off those who had the trait in a very short period of time.
Also, many other animals who were attracted to eating cane toads, are not anymore. Again, this is due to the innate mechanism that tells one what is food and what isn't, evolving to help the species survive. Again though, the animals with the attraction to cane toads helped their line out by dying before procreating too much. The animals without the attraction trait had a better chance of surviving to procreate more. That is evolution 101 to any of my Fundy readers.
The Bad
As stated above, these toads are taking over. They are poison to eat. Pets die when they eat these guys. They are also killing off endangered crocs and quolls (whatever the heck a croll is).
There are papers that give me a headache to read that predict cane toads will wind up living all over Australia.
There were only 100 or so that were introduced in 1935. Now there are over 200 million of these creature.
Besides being able to get high off their poison (Family Guy had an episode having to do with licking cane toads), these amphibians have an average life span of 10-15 years. That is the same as dogs (which I find totally unfair, if there was a God, dogs would live to 80). In fact, they can live up to 20 years in captivity.
The Ugly
In order to get rid of cane toads, Australians have come up with a couple of gruesome ways. The first one is to refrigerate the cane and then freeze it to death.
If you think that is humane, you haven't seen anything.
Cane Toad Golf
I could never ever do that. I agree that cane toads need to go, but there has to be a better way.
The Funny
November 28, 2008
The New Disingenuous Breed Of Creationists
So I get this comment on my brilliant (if I say so myself) satirical video "More Proof Evolution Is Wrong"
Good Science For You
I thought he was talking about assmonkey Ken Ham, but I quickly found out that he meant Dr. Ken Miller.
This guy is hard to watch. There is no entertainment value whatsoever, but more importantly no science either. He pretty much "thinks" that science is one very large conspiracy theory.
I could barely watch a complete video, let alone the 10 videos he has recently put up.
I could only watch half of his last video Final Proof Of Evolution Falsified:
His conclusion from what I saw of the above video is that fossilization dating techniques are always contaminated, so therefore evolution is bull.
In Sideways Logic Miller Whale, Devolution he has a problem with animals evolving to be smaller when on a smaller isolated island:
His "logic" here is again not based on science, but on the premise that animals must either go extinct or be able to exist in the new environment, and I guess if they exist, there is no need to evolve smaller.
He obviously thinks in terms of decades and not not even hundreds of years.
Funny that he calls Ken Miller an idiot, makes fun of Miller's PHD, and questions why he should be allowed to tour the country lecturing.
But this is the best part. In the comment section of both those videos, I've been engaging him somewhat, though it is hard not to just call him a moron and be done with him.
He claims both evolution and creation are both bull. When I asked what he believed, he said you can't know for sure (while calling evolution a belief and religion like a good creationist does). Then when confronting him a bit more in a logical way, I asked him if evolution is bull and creation is bull, what else is there?
Of course, I haven't and I won't get a reasonable answer to that question. He is obviously nothing but a disingenuous creationist trying something new on Youtube.
This is just another example of why intelligent design is simply creationism. Either life evolved on this planet or it was poofed here as is. There is no in between. Of course, I can live with the theistic evolutionists who want to believe that God set everything in motion as long as they don't deny science in the equation.
I also asked him to explain the Nylon Bug to me, and he asked me to explain it to him first so that he can give me reasons for why my worldview about it is wrong. I told him that this is not how the game is played, I asked you a question, you get to answer me before I answer your questions.
Good Science For You
"There is no evidence of evolution of mankind from any other species. It is easy to prove.
Check out my vids. I have studied this for over 40 years. I have no religion and I certainly never want to be indoctrinated by some idiot named Ken. Do your own thinking. Don't be the clone of someone elses thought process and beliefs."
I thought he was talking about assmonkey Ken Ham, but I quickly found out that he meant Dr. Ken Miller.
This guy is hard to watch. There is no entertainment value whatsoever, but more importantly no science either. He pretty much "thinks" that science is one very large conspiracy theory.
I could barely watch a complete video, let alone the 10 videos he has recently put up.
I could only watch half of his last video Final Proof Of Evolution Falsified:
His conclusion from what I saw of the above video is that fossilization dating techniques are always contaminated, so therefore evolution is bull.
In Sideways Logic Miller Whale, Devolution he has a problem with animals evolving to be smaller when on a smaller isolated island:
His "logic" here is again not based on science, but on the premise that animals must either go extinct or be able to exist in the new environment, and I guess if they exist, there is no need to evolve smaller.
He obviously thinks in terms of decades and not not even hundreds of years.
Funny that he calls Ken Miller an idiot, makes fun of Miller's PHD, and questions why he should be allowed to tour the country lecturing.
But this is the best part. In the comment section of both those videos, I've been engaging him somewhat, though it is hard not to just call him a moron and be done with him.
He claims both evolution and creation are both bull. When I asked what he believed, he said you can't know for sure (while calling evolution a belief and religion like a good creationist does). Then when confronting him a bit more in a logical way, I asked him if evolution is bull and creation is bull, what else is there?
Of course, I haven't and I won't get a reasonable answer to that question. He is obviously nothing but a disingenuous creationist trying something new on Youtube.
This is just another example of why intelligent design is simply creationism. Either life evolved on this planet or it was poofed here as is. There is no in between. Of course, I can live with the theistic evolutionists who want to believe that God set everything in motion as long as they don't deny science in the equation.
I also asked him to explain the Nylon Bug to me, and he asked me to explain it to him first so that he can give me reasons for why my worldview about it is wrong. I told him that this is not how the game is played, I asked you a question, you get to answer me before I answer your questions.
November 24, 2008
Did You Know That Masturbation Leads To Homosexuality?
First off I want to say that this religious nutter seems like a very nice person. But as soon as saw the video I said to myself "I've got to post it." I discovered Ronen Levi Yitzchak Youtube channel because I am a follower of Atheist Media Blog, and another Yitzchak video was posted there. He criticized Christopher Hitchens without knowing anything about what Hitchens has to say except for the title of the book he wrote, God Is Not Great.
This video is classic. Ronen has it all figured out. When a guy masturbates he has his male hand gripping his penis, and since one is accepting of a male hand on his penis, he becomes more and more prone to becoming a homosexual. If we cut down on this type of gay behaviour, less and less gays would be created.
The old religious mindset that gays are created by nurture is prevalent. How about this Ronen, homosexuality is mostly created in the womb. And when straight guys like me masturbate, I'm thinking of women. I'm sure when homosexual men masturbate they mostly think about men.
Not only does masturbation most likely reduces the chances of prostate cancer, it also relieves tension and that makes us human males less likely to be overly aggressive most of the time. Sure, sex with a willing female is preferred, but I live in a real world where women (ie wives) tend not to need it as much as men, after they get their wedding ring that is.
Masturbation. There, I said it, I'm relieved....OK, I'm not relieved....not yet anyway.
This video is classic. Ronen has it all figured out. When a guy masturbates he has his male hand gripping his penis, and since one is accepting of a male hand on his penis, he becomes more and more prone to becoming a homosexual. If we cut down on this type of gay behaviour, less and less gays would be created.
The old religious mindset that gays are created by nurture is prevalent. How about this Ronen, homosexuality is mostly created in the womb. And when straight guys like me masturbate, I'm thinking of women. I'm sure when homosexual men masturbate they mostly think about men.
Not only does masturbation most likely reduces the chances of prostate cancer, it also relieves tension and that makes us human males less likely to be overly aggressive most of the time. Sure, sex with a willing female is preferred, but I live in a real world where women (ie wives) tend not to need it as much as men, after they get their wedding ring that is.
Masturbation. There, I said it, I'm relieved....OK, I'm not relieved....not yet anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)