Tag Archives | Anti-Science Idiocy

President and Crazy are not two words we want connected

Ron Reagan (Jr.) in the Hardball Let Me Finish segment, Monday, August 22, 2011, gives a stinging commentary on "Crazy Presidential Candidates".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Let me finish tonight with science and the Republican Party. Two out of the three presidential candidates generally considered frontrunners for the Republican Party nomination believe the moon is made of green cheese. Does that cause you concern?

You’d think it would. After all, astronauts have been to the moon and have brought back rocks that seem utterly cheese-free. And no giant space mice have been observed nibbling at lunar craters.

Ah, but Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman – the frontrunners in question – don’t believe NASA ever landed men on the moon. As for space mice, the Governor and Congresswoman think they may just be lurking out of sight on the moon’s dark side.

I’m kidding, of course. As far as I know, neither Perry nor Bachman really harbor any such thoughts about our planet’s satellite. If they did, they’d be laughed right out of any presidential contest. Wouldn’t they? I mean… the moon made of green cheese? NASA landings faked? That’s way too crazy for the White House, right? That’s out there where the buses don’t stop. Yeah…

Trouble is, both Bachman and Perry profess other beliefs just as crazy. For instance, neither seems to accept Charles Darwin’s idea that species – including the human species – evolve over time. Instead, they pretend there’s a scientific controversy involving evolution where none exists.

Both also reject the consensus of over 90% of climate scientists worldwide that human activity is warming our planet to dangerously disruptive levels. One of Rick Perry’s first pronouncements upon entering the presidential contest was to declare any such scientific consensus a hoax. Bachman seems to agree.

That would be a massive global charade involving not just the world’s scientists but the governments of virtually every nation as well. If they wanted to be taken the least bit seriously, anyone making such an extraordinary claim would have to back it up with extraordinarily compelling evidence. Wouldn’t they?

Perry and Bachman offer no such evidence. Not a shred. Any rational person would consider such wild, unsupported claims an embarrassment and the folks who made them unfit for high office. Yet here they are, Perry and Bachman, frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination.

That ought to tell us something – and it’s not something good – about the current Republican Party. And if either of these two were to actually move into the White House, it would say something even more tragic about our body politic. President and crazy are not two words we want connected."

"President and Crazy are not two words we want connected." What an important line!

Comments { 0 }

Bill O’Reilly on the question 'Where Did It All Come From?'

Wow! Only just the other day we learned about how Bill O’Reilly dug himself a deep deep hole and then jumped into it when he made his now infamous proclamation that "tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication." and that is his proof that there is a God and he has dug himself another deeper one and jumped into this one head first.

For those that missed his jumping in that first hole lets look at Stephen Colbert’s take on that:

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bill O’Reilly Proves God’s Existence – Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

If that humiliation wasn’t enough Bill O’Reilly wanting to remove all and any doubts we may have that he’s a pompous irrational gas bag he then digs himself a deeper and wider hole and dives in head first when he publishes this little video on his YouTube channel:

O’Reilly reads a letter from a viewer and responds:

David Bevely Hills, Florida

"What do you mean when you refer to the tides when you are asked about the existence of God? Science explains the tides… the moon’s gravity pull on the oceans. "

Okay How did the moon get there?

How did the moon get there?

Look you pinheads who attack me for this, you guys are just desperate.

How did the moon get there?

How did the sun get there?

How’d it get there?

Can you explain that to me?

How come we have that and Mars doesn’t have that? Venus doesn’t have that. How come? Why not?

How’d it get here?

How did that little amoeba get here? Crawl out there? How’d it do it?

Come on.

You have order in this universe. You have an order in the universe.

Tide comes in, tide goes out.

Okay yeah, the moon does it, fine. How did the moon get there? Who put it there? Did it just happen?

Okay if we have existence if we have life on earth how come they don’t have it on the other planets?

We’re we just lucky? Some meteor just do this? Come on…

You know I see this stuff as desperate as I have said many times it takes more faith to not believe and to this that this was all luck. All this human body the intricacies of it and everything else all luck that it does to believe in the (a) deity.

There ya go."

If that isn’t laughable enough as the video segment closes out you get a still screen that reads:

Yeah,… if you want more of this anti science creationist idiocy you can pay for it.

One of my favorite science writers and popularizers (a la the late Carl Sagan) is Phil Plait who write the Bad Astronomy blog for Discover and he’s written a great take down of this Bill O’Reilly nonsense called Bill O’Reilly: tidal bore that I can highly recommend and read the comments there too. They’re a hoot.

But its a bit ironic but just before I discovered this most recent bit of Bill O’Reilly blather I watched this great little video from AntiCitzenX called The Black Box of Empirical Falsification that O’Reilly really needs to watch.

In his accompanying video notes AntiCitzenX writes:

"A nice metaphor for how empiricism and falsification work to build knowledge. It is also a nice explanation of the fundamental reasons why William Lane Craig is an idiot.

I may not be a professional philosopher, but I am a professional scientist. I do not claim that this metaphor is perfect, but it does illustrate the problem of claiming certainty about things you cannot even subject to testing."

He could have just as easily have written "It is also a nice explanation of the fundamental reasons why Bill O’Reilly is an idiot"

Bill O’Reilly is 1000% cocksure he knows exactly what the content of the box in the video is.


And just for fun if you haven’t seen enough of Bill O’Reilly taking like an idiot be sure to watch: O’Reilly on Hawking too.

Comments { 0 }
FireStats icon Powered by FireStats
Plugin from the creators ofBrindes Personalizados :: More at PlulzWordpress Plugins