RazzyBlog

one suggestion. dress up like lara croft from tomb raider (angelina jolie). she's got the booty shorts a gun, boots, and the mid-riff (sp?) baring top. then you could tie a few cabbage patch kids of different colors to your gunbelt... or something like that. definitely your idea is more relevant, but more entertaining? not sure
 

Make sure to carry around an invoice so you can charge rape victims for their own rape kits.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep11/0,4670,PalinRapeKits,00.html
 

Comparing her down syndrome son to your nasty little pug is so non-p.c. In fact if Sarah Palin wasn't so conservative you'd probably have the bleeding heart left that makes up the majority of your fan base putting a wiccan hex on you or stirring up a rally outside your apartment.

jj
 

OK, I understand that you want to vote for McCain because you think he has a better plan for how to move forward in Iraq. I disagree, but I guess I understand. Anyway, you're obviously entitled to your opinion.

What I don't understand is how you apparently have no regrets or misgivings about supporting a party with a vehemently antigay, antichoice, etc., etc., agenda.

If you think the Republican candidate is better, then of course you must vote for him. But I don't get how you can be so happy about it. Does it not creep you out that hordes of warmongers, fundamentalist gay-bashers, etc., would interpret a McCain victory as a vindication of their insane philosophy?

I feel like part of your motivation for voting Republican is that you like to be a bad-ass. Liberals are sanctimonious, self-righteous, self-important, and you feel like you're somehow sticking it to the establishment by voting for bad-boy McCain.

But, really, who is more sanctimonious and self-righteous than the right-winger who tells you what you can and can't do in your bedroom, whether you're allowed to have an abortion, and which countries get to be invaded? No liberal in the world is as smug, self-important, or elitist as the fundamentalist zealots in the right wing.

Again, I'm not saying you should vote for Obama just to piss off Rush Limbaugh. If you think McCain is the best man for the job, then by all means vote for him. I'm just surprised you can be so cheerful about it, considering that you are giving aid and comfort to the same extremists who want to ban books and teach creationism in public schools.
 

Why is teaching creationism extremist? It takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
 

"It takes more faith to believe in evolution than creationism?"

HUH?!

Evidence of evolution is all around us, from the fossil record to clear documentation of speciation. What proof at all is there of creationism beyond some passage in the Old Testament? That said, what gives the Judeo-Christian creation story any more legitimacy than say, the Chinese Cosmic Egg or the Egyptian story of Ra-Atum masturbating into the Nile.
 

American religious extremist > Socialists

Why? Because there are Constitutional protections against religious extremists, while there is no such protection against socialism. The separation of church and state is well-tested, and going forward I trust the Constitution will maintain it; after all, it has managed to defend that separation in times that were far less religiously pluralistic than now. Unfortunately, there is no Constitutional defense against Socialism, as the 16th Amendment, New Deal, Fanny/Freddie, et. al proves. As such, people who believe man and dinosaur shared time don't scare me nearly as much as those who think that the Government has a right to meddle in socioeconomic matters.
 

ok, MH, here we go. Razzy I hope you have enough space for this...
Entropy or the second law of thermodynamics is considered an absolute by scientists because it has been proven thousands of times by direct observations. No exceptions to this law have been observed. Basically, this law states that, if left to natural processes, absolutely everything degenerates to the lowest possible level.

The second law of thermodynamics presents a serious problem for evolution. Evolution requires that, if left to natural processes, everything will evolve to the highest possible level.
In other words, entropy and evolution contradict each other. One of the most fundamental principles of ecology is that ecosystems are balanced and so fragile that any change, no matter how small, will eventually result in the destruction of that ecosystem. Yet, evolution requires radical change within ecosystems and that the changes will result in the upward development and improvement of the ecosystems. But we know that any change in the predator/prey relationship will result in the permanent damage and the eventual destruction of the ecosystem. We know this based on thousands of direct observations in zoology and ecology.
Therefore, ecology and evolution contradict each other and they can't both be right.

That's just a start. Give me more space and i can continue.
 

This post has been removed by the author.
 

Anonymous,
Seeing as Razzy has the PhD in hard sciences, I'm going to let her respond at length to your post. That said, I find creationists who cite scientific concepts such as thermodynamics (of all things!) as support for their religious beliefs to be rather amusing in their brazen reliance on circular logic. On one hand, science can't be trusted to explain things like the undeniable change in species over time, but on the other, aspects of it can be cherry-picked to support religious hocus pocus. Then again, most Christians seem to cherry-pick the Bible anyway. For example, the Bible says (allegedly) that gays are doomed to perdition, so it logically follows that we have to persecute them. The Bible also says that women should leave city limits when they're on the rag...don't see many Christians doing that.
 

Actually, anonymous, there is nothing contradictory about evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics when applied properly. The essence of the 2nd law is better thought of as stating that the universe is random (non-ordered). Evolution is entirely a random process, from the mutations themselves to the environment that "selects" certain mutations as beneficial. Your use of the term "highest level" when referring to evolution is incorrect and self-serving. There is no "highest level" - rather there are only mutations that aren't benefiical to a given environment (the vast majority) or ones that are. However, if you want to continue to argue that evolution requires elevation to a "highest level", you need look no further than your nearest mirror to be proven wrong.
 

Who said anything about cherry-picking parts of the Bible to beleive in? I just said it takes a whole lot of faith to beleive in something like evolution when there is more evidence against evolution than for it. I did quote the Bible (or misquote as you just did about gays) nor did I preach any Biblical beliefs. I beleive there is more evidence of a Creator (not throwing religion around here) than there is for the evolution "theory". Go to dictionary.com and look up the word theory. Theory is not fact! Creationism is theory as well. Look at the proof on both sides, without pre-judging and you will see there is more proof for creation then evolution. Go preach your anti-bible hatred to somebody else bub. The fact that you get so defensive proves you are basing your belief in evolution on faith, not fact.
 

Anonymous,
My approach to your ignorance was far from defensive; rather, it saddens me more than anything that our public schools clearly failed people like you (who, for example, inject the term Creator with a capital C). Incidentally, Bub, your silence as to significance of the fossil record is deafening. Please enlighten us all with your theories on how dinosaur bones are the product of some vast secular, "Bible bashing" conspiracy.
 

Actually, there is an overwhelming amount of proof for the theory of evolution. Here is one of the most famous - though certainly not the only - experiments into the effects of evolutionary theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

Before you trot out the Wikipedia objection, note that I used it simply because it does a good job of summarizing Belyaev's experiment. As it is one of the most famous genetic experiments in the history of science, the number of more credible citations is limitless.

If that doesn't do it for you, simply look at Chongay. Only 15,000 years ago, Chongay would have been a wolf. The historical record of the evolution of modern dog from wolf is well-documented and provides definitive and unquestionable support for evolution.

Of course, once corned on this issue, creationists always fall back on critiques of science itself. At that point, its best to pat them on the head and let them be. This is America after all, and you're welcome to believe what ever you chose to, no matter how preposterous it may be. Many on the left seem to forget that, and their religious intolerance smacks of bigotry. Vote McCain.
 

Actually anonymous you look up word "theory".

You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence "

To topic, U! S! A! bikini is fine :)
 

click here for the original photo. hubba hubba!
 

suit upgrade!
 

If the Bible is the only "evidence" of Creationism you got, I got news for you - you lose.
 

What makes you Bible biggots even think that I am a Christian, I could be Muslim, Hindu, American Indian or Jew. All believe in a Creator.
As for the fossils: When the very first evolutionists began lining up fossils to show that these species had evolved from each other and to prove the concept of evolution, they did not have one piece of biological evidence that any one organism actually did evolve from any one other organism. What they did was to assume (with no scientific basis) that more simple organisms were more primitive and then line the fossils up according to similarities in relation to this assumption.
In other words, there was no evidence that evolution did actually occur. All they did was to line the fossils up in some logical order and CLAIM that they had evolved with absolutely no supporting biological evidence. To this day, evolutionists don't have any biological proof that any one fossil did evolve from any one other fossil. Therefore, they don't have any biological proof that evolution did even occur.
The proof of this is how the evolutionists have and still do constantly move these fossils around in their tree of evolution. If there were scientific evidence that any one fossil actually did evolve from any one other fossil, they would not be able to move these fossils at all. Oops!
Therefore, evolutionists "theory" of evolution is really nothing more than a scientifically unfounded and unsupported CLAIM that life did evolve. I call their very detailed fossil stories fossil fairy tales.
As for Razzy's dog being a wolf 15,000 years ago that is what is called microevolution. There is millions of proof of microevolution(the occurrence of small-scale changes in a population, over a few generations at or below the species level). Yet Macroevolution whcich studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species) has never been proven once. Simply stated for your simple mind: a wolf CAN evolve in to a pug, given enough mix of breeds, yet a wolf will NEVER evolve into a tiger. Never has happened, never will.
 

So...you concede that evolution occurs at some level?
 

Wow, I didn't expect to provoke a whole discussion of evolution. When I said that only "extremists" want to teach creationism in public schools, I assumed (since I was speaking to a scientist) this would be a noncontroversial statement.

But if this is a sticking point for some readers, forget I even mentioned evolution. These are people who try to ban books, invade countries, take away reproductive rights, and "pray away the gay." Is that self-righteous enough for you?
 

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with teaching Creationism in the public schools, so long as it is taught in the context of a philosophy or comparative religion class. It's certainly not science though, and shouldn't even be taught in the same building as the actual sciences.
 

This discussion is hilarious, if only because so many intelligent people have spent time fencing with a dullard. Everyone ought to know by now (see George W's "base") that reason is optional in the fly-over population, and rationality need not apply. LMAO. Debating any subject with a bible-thumper is like trying to teach latin to a goldfish. It cannot, and SHOULD not be done, lest you want to waste a good portion of your day. Oh, and for the record, I did a little snooping around on the internetS and found, with glee, anonymous's EXACT argument about thermodynamics. It was on a site called GodTube! Enjoy!
http://www.acorscadden.com/atheism/top-10-ridiculous-creationists/
 

Hotlawyer, Morrissey's Hair, Anonymous, etc..
You're totally right, you should believe in evolution over creation. It's totally your choice. Oh course there's really only one way to test this theory, and we ALL will test it one day, die.
Of course if I'm wrong, what's my loss, I'm dead. If you're wrong well...You better be 100% sure you're right, you have much more to lose than I do.
 

Thanks, Anonymous, but Blaise Pascal beat you to that "novel" notion too. As certain as you may be that GOD is making people out of clay and the like (a la Clash of the Titans), I'm just as convinced he's shaking his cosmic head at the anti-intellectualism going on in his son's name.
 

Muwah!!! I fucking LOVE IT! Go for it Razzy.

I CANNOT WAIT!

L&L
 

Anonymous, as "Hot Lawyer" pointed out, your attempt to use game-theory to threaten us with eternal damnation was first employed by Pascal. There is, however, another level to Pascal's logical progression: what if you're wrong about your specific brand of God? What if God isn't Christian, but Buddhist? Or Islamic? Or Jewish? Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? In order to comply with Pascal's logic, one would have to properly worship every concept of God ever conceived. Since you must agree with Pascal's Wager, do you follow it to its logical conclusion? Or are you simply worshiping a Judeo-Christian God? Because if that's all you're doing, you're certainly playing the same game of Cosmic Russian roulette that the rest of us are.