Whiny Canuckistanis, or: You only know that because someone told you
Let me start by clearing the air. I reject the following things as false:
1. Canada is its own country
2. Canadians deserve to eat big hamburgers like us Americans
3. Those drawings of embryos we saw in biology class were true and proof of evolution
4. That scientists were able to recreate early earth conditions in a laboratory and create precursors to life
5. That the fossil record supports evolution
6. Punctuated equilibrium, or: Circular logic (Since the fossil record doesn’t show intermediaries, they must appear quickly and then disappear. That proves evolution. Therefore these intermediaries show up quickly and then disappear and that’s why they’re not in the fossil record)
7. Survivial of the fittest (The eugenists had it right-if you eliminate the inferior genes from the human population, you will create a genetically superior race. A theory finding new support today as people tie abortion + early detection of genetic abnormalities in the womb. The status quo is that uneducated people reproduce more. I can’t wait for the flames.)
8. If you don’t support evolution you must believe in God, and that makes you a weirdo.
All of these things are false. How do I know? I was told. By Ann Coulter. BTW Ann, my offer’s still open. I will brush your cat any day.
Let’s examine the life of a fact. Information comes in, and one could make an argument over whether that information is more firmly entrenched if it enters as a child or in adult life, one would have to compose a study of just how it is that people accept things as true, I would speculate it has to do with the levels of various brain chemicals. That was a rambling sentence. Let’s start over. Information comes in. The brain compares it to existing information. Judgements are made based on the estimated truthfulness of the source, usually an emotionally based decision, and the information is either rejected wholesale, accepted wholesale, or put on the shelf for a later compromise. In my brain, anyway. I’d love to know others thoughts on how this occurs. Moving on, this information stays in there, and becomes reinforced over time. The information is called upon when a conflicting statement is made. The brain must compel the user (in this case, you) to refute said statement, either by silently fuming, crying, or yelling a lot. If you’re trained you can force yourself to switch off your emotions and enter into a rational comparison of supporting information, otherwise known as logic. I don’t think even the best arguers can pull that off too much. Most of us are left with the emotional side of refutation, where we pitch a hissy fit, or better, engage in righteous denial of the competing information and bask in the limelight. Enter the intelligent design discussion. Go on, post a comment here, get it out of your system. Oh my good gloriousness, you complete republican idiot, how can you possibly believe that God sort of waved a wand and made things and evolution is SO true, it’s like true 10 times over and how can you not possibly believe somethings that’s completely, 100% true.
An aside: Whenever two positives are used to modify a statement, your “falsehood” flags should be thrown down.
Let’s go back to my original statement: I know these things because I have been TOLD them by someone else who affirms it is true. I know nothing personally about global warming, evolution. I do not have the job of compiling hundreds of research papers from academia on the subjects. I don’t think anyone does have that job. So let me ask you: What do you know? The answer to the world’s problems becomes perfectly clear once you see the light:
Put all the geeks in a room and get them arguing about who knows more digits of pi. By the end, only one will have his or her glasses intact. This geek will emerge victorious and tell us all what to believe about these complicated issues.
Instead we have politicians and the media with their righteous laughter and indignation. Oh logic, to what lofty heights you have flown. Your home is now academia, where hippies control the content and anyone caught publishing conflicting works is ostracized. Sent to guantanomo, they are, just like Alec Baldwin and anyone else who criticized Bush (oh he’s a raging liberal, except for the Iraq thing).
I read this report today about a University denying high school course credit because the course included intelligent design. Here’s my problem. Let’s say you’re walking down a street and some guy comes up to you and offers you peace, love and happiness. Sounds good, right? Now let’s say he offers you peace, love and happiness and God. If you are most of us who’ve lived in a city you keep on walking and try to ignore him. If he throws in an offer to die for your sins and you’re in the south, you fall to your knees and wash his feet. If you’re a liberal you run away crying that there are limits to free speech, and didn’t anyone tell him that there’s separation of church and state, the damn hobo is on the steps of the municipal courts building, for crying out loud. This fear of God has got to go. You don’t like him? Fine. Slap him in the face. Believe in God, don’t believe in God, you’re still an American. He offers to die for your sins, kick him in the balls and say, not in these parts, pal. Don’t run away crying like a worthless maple syrup loving Canuckistani. No more triple beef patty burgers for you!
PS-Just kidding, Canada. I love your maple candy.