The world is not flat, and nobody needs to say that.

Even in this day and age, there are still people who believe the world is flat. To say that such a person is not the brightest crayon in the box, is an understatement. Their box is empty! Empty vessels make the most sound, and the internet is their echo chamber for this flat Earth madness.

These people, who don’t accept gravity and don’t believe in satellites, read and write on the world wide web, often connecting and sharing their locations via GPS technology on their smartphones. GPS – Global Positioning System. Let that sink in.

GPS isn’t the only navigation system that requires knowledge that the planet is not a fucking disk, but I figured it’s a good example to use, since it depends on connecting to satellites that convey coordinates (geolocation) and time data, which allows us to position ourselves, or navigate to, anywhere on the planet. To deny the existence of satellites while using technology that depends on them is, well… fucking stupid. There is no polite way to phrase it. A flat Earth, despite such technology working (and let’s pretend that satellite TV doesn’t exist, OK) would mean that every engineer, every university and college lecturer, every student, was in on the conspiracy. There’d have to be some other explanation for why such technology works, and millions of people would have to be involved, motivated for reasons that I cannot imagine, to hide the truth and perpetuate the hoax of a spherical planet. To think this, you must be mind-bogglingly stupid, and are implicitly unable to work in any one of many fields that requires understanding some pretty basic concepts.

They call us normal people globe heads. Well, even when I smoked meth for nine years out of a globe, I didn’t believe that the planet was a fucking disk. It’s difficult for me to imagine how anyone could think this.

I was going to go on, and explain how they hang on to dogma written thousands of years ago, and compare their beliefs to that of religions in general, but I won’t go there today. Suffice to say, if you are a flat earther, this post was not written to convince you of the truth; it was written to call you an idiot.

Advertisements

Very cool: Biological wheels and motors imaged for the first time, and the old chestnut, the argument from complexity

No time to write today, so a quick share instead… This is fascinating. “Wheels and motors” of bacteria have been imaged for the fist time. (Image is taken from the article without permission. Sorry.)

abacteria2-tojpeg-1200x800

And of course, there are creationists who cite the existence of such natural wonders as evidence of God. Read the first link… The second one is too long, what with their irrational need to rationalize it as being evidence of a creator.

Of course it is not evidence of god. It’s the same old story… Ooh, something is complicated, therefore it must have been created by God. But God is just a name for magic. If you don’t understand something, fabricating a magical explanation for its existence does not make that magic true, even if the magical explanation was accepted by primitive people thousands of years ago and then handed down through the generations by brainwashing children before they were old enough to think critically.

The argument from irreducible complexity has been used for a long time for many different things, and it still doesn’t make sense. It boils down to saying, “This is so complex, it must have been designed.” The concept only works if you already assume that god exists, and that there is no need to question how this being came about (without recognizing that your assumption solves nothing and that your god is just another name for magic). The fact is, the same line of reasoning can be applied to the creator too, in that surely a being capable of creating such complex things couldn’t just exist. Only through special pleading can you expect this not to be questioned. Of course this fallacious argument is once again an example of begging the question, albeit a subtle one because the existence of god is implicitly assumed, and you might not notice the implication. But it’s still there, and the entire argument is formulated around this starting point. (Thus you have a circle.) So no, still no creator required, thank you very much.