Saturday, March 2, 2013

I'm back, baby!

Woah, it's been an intense couple of months, but I'm back!

First, some cleanup. Yes, I got rid of the baby posts-- they were just an easy way to share pictures without resorting to facebook, nothing serious. They're not gone gone, just hidden for the time being. If you all are really good to me, maybe I'll include some Darkling pictures in future posts.

Anyway, apparently a creationist found my blog and was SO CONCERNED that he* simply had to send me an email. Now, I haven't gone through my old posts, but I'm pretty sure most of them have been about politics, feminist issues, and crap like that, not science or religion specifically.

Without further ado, here's the brain vomit that was belched into my inbox several hours ago:
Too Bad
[redacted]<[redacted]> 2:36 PM (3 hours ago)
to me
Read this news.
I'm going to regret this, aren't I?
(That is the first and last sentence that doesn't require any correction.)
Wht (What) Dawinism (evolution) cant (can't) explain [is] the cambrian (Cambrian) age.
Yep. I shouldn't have read past the first statement. 
What can't evolution explain? You might as well say that evolution can't explain 1985.
Let alone trilobytes (trilobites) are so  sophisticated They (they)  alone  can crush Evolution (evolution)  and the trilobytes (trilobites') eyes are so complicated that only a creatot (creator) could have made them..
  Have you seen a trilobite?
Trilobite! Courtesy of Wikipedia
It doesn't exactly scream MOST COMPLEX ORGANIZM EVAR!! does it? I mean, trilobites are little dudes with an exoskeleton.

After some quick research, it seems as though trilobites had compound eyes, which isn't surprising considering that arthropods have compound eyes. There's no mention in anything I've read so far that a trilobite's eyes were too complex to have appeared in the Cambrian Period.

I do not understand  the insistence that eyes disprove evolution: eyes come in all different types from simple light detecting cells to complex organs that can detect different wavelengths of light, movement, depth, etc. Unless creationists are insisting that every species has an eye that is wholly unique, I don't see how eyes disprove evolution instead of supporting it.
Check it out(,) read up on [missing word(s)](.) i (I)  was like you(:) in the dark  because they [who are "they"?] do not talk about the cambrain (Cambrian) in text books (textbooks) and  if they do  its (it's) real (really) short(.)  ok (OK/Okay)(,) just thought i (I) would drop you this line(.)  c ya(,) protohunter
 I love run on sentences!

"They" don't include Cambrian period in textbooks? It has been a hell of a long time since I've been a student, so I can't really speak to what "they" have or have not included in school science curricula. It was stupid easy to find a Wikipedia article on the Cambrian Period though, so if there is some sort of conspiracy to keep us in the dark about the truth of the Cambrian, "they" are doin it rong.

To follow this train of thought (such that it is): our little Nimrod only accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and savior† because somebody fed him some goofy disinformation about compound eyes. He also believes that if someone like me sees one tiny example of (what he believes is) an unexplained phenomenon, we will instantly crumble and choose his religion above the thousands of others out there because Goddidit.

Here's the thing: I am perfectly okay with "I don't know". In fact, there would be very little scientific advancement if people didn't say "I don't know, but let me find out" and instead assumed that all unknowns were caused by a "creatot". Let's say that there was some mystery about trilobite eyes; that wouldn't prove the existence of a god, but it would demonstrate that we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle yet. 

Here's a couple of protips, just in case protohunter is reading:
  1. It's all well and good to use a pseudonym (I obviously do), but it's kind of pointless if you're sending out emails with your real name attached.
  2.  How exactly do you expect to convince anyone of your point of view with all the spelling/grammatical carnage? It may not be fair to prejudge someone's intelligence based on how well they communicate, but it happens all the time. I'd rather judge you based on your silly ideas, but to be fair, your refusal to use a spell check is pretty fucking annoying.
In case it's not glaringly obvious, I'd like you all to know that I am not a scientist. If anyone would like to impart any additional information (or make corrections if I've gone wrong), it would be greatly appreciated!

*Throughout the rest of this post, I refer to the writer as "he". This email was sent from an account with a masculine name attached (which I have redacted).
 †There's no doubt in my mind that protohunter is a Christian. He may not have used "Jesus" or "God", but trust me on this. They all sound the same.


  1. Should, possibly, maybe been a comma after 'textbooks'? At least, I take a slight pause there as I read the sentence.

    More seriously, it might not be fair to judge intelligence by grammar, but anyone unschooled enough to be unable to string a sentence together is, by the very nature of things, too undereducated to be making arguments about scientific theory.

    1. I think because the comma would immediately precede an "and", it's not necessary. But I very well could be wrong!

    2. In a list, yes, but in cases like the above, the 'and' introduces a change of direction. Hmm. Possibly even a semi-colon … :-)

    3. Oh gawd, the Oxford comma. Wars have started over less!

      And welcome back, by the way. So many people seem to disappear just after I start following their blogs that I was actually starting to wonder if "jinx' was actually a superstition…

    4. Thanks!

      I'm going to try for an update a day, now that the babe has a little more of a routine. Gonna try hard not to let you down, Daz! ;)

    5. Aww, fankoo! A boy could blush!

      (I keep making the "post a day" promise to myself. Then I post three in a day, and then nowt for a week. Ho hum.)

  2. And making a comment about grammar, I screw up a sentence!

    "Should have, possibly, maybe … etc"