I Can Has Sienz 2???

Hello gang! As you have no doubt noticed, I haven't been picking on the fundaloons much lately. To be perfectly honest, it gets old shooting down the same garbage constantly. However, occasionally I run across something so completely wacky that I start experiencing involuntary twitches in my throwing arm. This is one of those days.

Allow me now to introduce you to an amazing piece of creotard nuckfuttery by one Rob Hood (shouldn't he be out stealing from the rich and giving to the poor instead of spewing creationist crap?). Ah... sweet, sweet poo targets.

The splattering, as always, is below the fold.

The article starts out innocently enough:

There was an article that appeared on YAHOO! news on June 25, 2008 about the discovery of a primitive fossil of a four legged creature. The reported stated that it's estimated age was around 365 million years old and that the fossil could help scientists in their effort to figure out when fish evolved enough to walk onto land.

Let's just forget the nitpicks about the wording in the last line and get to the good stuff (and it gets good in a hurry):

The article is interesting, but comical to anyone who has studied Biology and then studied any type of creation science. First of all, the whole earth is not 365 million years old.

Well, considering that I study biology on a daily basis, and considering that I've blown a considerable amount of my valuable time on creationist nonsense, I'd say I've studied both in quite a bit of detail. Given that the author has made his position quite clear, let's see how he backs it up:

There are two distinct ways that creation scientists come to this conclusion. One is direct genealogy given in the Bible from the time of Jesus backward to the time of Noah. Other ways are more scientific and involve geology. Either way the conclusion comes to the same figure of the earth's age of about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

The Noah part I expect as par for the course, but I absolutely love the vague reference to "scientific" and "geology". Of course, he expects us to take his word for it without actually explaining this earth-shattering insight into the nature of True(tm) geology. Hint, dude: you're more likely to fool the rubes using math... geology doesn't hold nearly the mystical status of vague calculus references. Didn't you read that in your "Fleecing the Flock 101" class?

We'll skip the next couple paragraphs since they're typical "molecules to man" and "extinct animals drowned in Da Fluuuud"... we've been there too many times. The next real gem is this one:

Scientists are free to make claims like this since freedom has few boundaries in the science world, but when talking about molecules to man evolution, then the subject changes from science to science fiction.

I love how creationists can have their cake and eat it... "freedom has few boundaries in science" yet it's all about the "Darwinian orthodoxy" and such when you actually corner a creotard and ask why none of their shit makes it into scientific literature. Which is it? Choose a fucking side for fuck's sake!

Next:

People who read their Bibles and claim that evolution is real are very confused indeed. Evolution involves survival of the fittest, natural selection, and one ingredient that messes the whole thing up - DEATH!

That's right: death happens... and how exactly does that mess anything up? Death is a crucial ingredient in natural selection: either you survive to pass on your genes, or you don't. It's not a difficult concept.

Either the Bible is right about a literal creation a short time ago and that death did not occur before man sinned, or evolution is real and the Bible is wrong. These are the only two choices. There is no middle ground. Please pick A or B. There is no C.

I'll take B, thank you. However, a good number of pretty smart folks take issue with that little tidbit about the nonexistence of C. I don't hold that against them even a little... it just seems superfluous to add a god or gods into the mix when natural processes work just fine.

Evolution is a good fairy tail that cannot be taken seriously by the church. I encourage anyone doubting creationism to step back from secular society temporarily and do the research. You might be surprised what you learn about God's created universe.

Evolution doesn't belong in church... church bullshit doesn't belong in school. Fair enough. As far as stepping back and actually looking at the subject, I have. Creationism didn't add up for me when I was not even yet a teenager (and I went to a private Christian grade school where creotardery was taught) and it adds up less and less with every new and exciting discovery. For the author: why don't you step back from your religion for a moment and see the world as it really is? Sure, you're going to die one day and there just might not be a Heaven or Hell waiting. Big freakin' deal. The journey is important. You can't take the beauty of life, the universe, and everything with you when you go, so why not enjoy it while you're around? Worry about the end when you actually get there.

For the rest of y'all: for a good time check out the "reference" section of the article. Out of the twelve total references, half point at Schlafly's exercise in stupidity: Conservapedia. How's that for a reliable source?