Dear Mr. Feurerstein... allow me to explain why you're a twatwaffle

Woo, it's been quite a long while since I've had the pleasures of sitting down and getting to write something. Thankfully, just as I was remembering how to English, a mister Joshua Feurerstein went viral with his video "Dear Mr. Atheist ... allow me to destroy evolution in 3 minutes!"

The only problem is that, like most unscientific plebs, he doesn't understand a lick of what he's talking about.

Now, there are already tons of videos and blog posts and what have you out and about that smack down this guy's argument like Randy Savage snaps into a Slim Jim. But everyone else isn't Kyle, and Kyle just likes to throw his opinions around as if they were going out of style (they were never in style, mind you).

So, without further adieu: Dear Mr Feurerstein...

You are, without a doubt, part of what the problem is in this world. And no, I don't mean "religion is the root of all evil" problem. I mean the "willing propagation of misinformation, inability to perform proper research, and willful ignorance" problem. While I've already gone to lengths to call you a twatwaffle, I feel that I could come up with much better insults while effectively countering your entire argument.

And that's just to sum up the video; go on and check out the link to it above. You'll find people rallying around him, caps-locking their way into digital Heaven, and using their own holy book as proof for their holy book. While I'm not going to try to denounce any religion (that'll be when I've ascended into my own godhood), it just amazes me that the proof for their claim is their claim. And that's not even all that's in the video! This guy goes on to denounce evolution, talk about the etymology of the word "universe" and whatever. Let's take it step by step, shall we?

Case 1: Mistaking that anyone believes evolution is what created the universe

The video opens up with der Feuerstein claiming an atheist called him a moron for believing in God and that God made everything whereas the atheist "believed in something he called the science of evolution." That italics is there because der Feuerstein spread some extra sass butter all over that linguistic bread. I'm not too sure if Atheist v Feuerstein actually happen, but let's assume that it did.

Based just on this introduction, it's clear that Mr. Feurerstein thinks that evolution, as used by the atheist, is something used to describe how the secular world believes everything came into existence. It's not. While the secular idea of the Big Bang (more properly referred to as "inflation theory") -- which has recently come into a pretty neat piece of evidence that essentially proves it happened -- is the theory for the universe's existence, evolution isn't.

This might just me being nit picky, but the problems don't stop there.

Case 2: "Evolution is not a science, never has, and never will be[...]"

Holy gravy balls, readers. I can't even begin to understand how the hell he came up with this idea. 

Even the people who perform magic don't get it.

He continues: "It cannot fit within the parameters, the parenthesis of science for one simple reason: it was never observed."

Alright, I suppose he's technically correct. Evolution has never been directly observed. Except for the pat where it kinda has. Want an even closer-to-home example of evolution? Influenza. Every single year, a new flu vaccine has to be created and distributed because the virus is constantly evolving.

Add to that the following evidence (source)

• The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
• The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. 
• Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
•  Common traits in embryos.  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. 
• Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.

"But Kyle," you begin to object, "I've never actually seen these things develop before my eyes. How can I know they're true?" Glad you asked. Here's this super cool video (catchy music free of charge) showing the transitional species throughout the ages: 

Got it? Good. Back to Mr. Feurerstein. He describes evolution as "one man's theory". Most scientist accept it as true.

Der Feuerstein says it takes faith to believe in evolution. I suppose it does, but tons of evidence cushion my faith so well, it's like I'm sleeping on a bed of scientific facts. Back to my man:

"You want me to believe that in some accidental cosmic bang, that out of that was created one cell, and that from one cell, all life springs?" No, because life didn't form instantaneously. In fact, the Earth didn't form until 9.1 billion years or so until after the Big Bang. Life didn't start until much later. Of course, it's hard to get straight numbers on that, since almost nobody is in agreement on just when proto-life began to form. 

"Somewhere[...] we mysteriously and magically developed different wills and we all developed different characteristics, all because we willed it in our h-"

Hold the fucking phone.

Karate action grip, GO!

How can a creationist denounce anything as "mysterious" and "magical"?! They literally believe in a God that created everything as is in seven days from nothing. That sounds pretty mysterious and magical to me. Oh, and evolution isn't magical; it's a process that naturally selects traits that'd be beneficial to an organism in a specific environment. Survival of the fittest, as they say. And no, I'm not going to explain how each and every organism is best suited to their environment. That'd take an enormous amount of time that I just don't have.

Nor was evolution as conscious process. It's called "natural selection" not "artificial selection". The difference between the two is that the former is something based on the relationships between the organism and the environment, while the latter is something a sapient organism performs on another organism. So while artificial selection is a "willed" process (and something that couldn't have come about until humans came into existence; aliens notwithstanding), natural selection is just something that happens as organisms attempt to survive. Simple as that.

Case 3: Still asserting that evolution isn't a science

Wrong. Again.

Case 4: The Second Law of Thermodynamics

"Chaos can never produce order," as the Famous Feurerstein doth spake. What I'm assuming he means is that "energy is randomly lost in a system due to entropy". While he never actually makes any point on the Second Law, I'm still going to talk about how he's wrong for using it and idiotic if he thinks it applies.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often used by creationists in order to assert that evolution requires energy, and tons of energy would be lost if organisms started as single cells and evolved into complex entities like ourselves. To which I respond as such 

Thank God that giant nuclear reactor in space exists, what with it's whole "pumping energy into our planet" and whatnot.

He also points out how gravity makes object orbit each other. I'm not sure how this disproves evolution though.

Case 6: Because it's ordered, it must come from something to do the ordering

Der Feurerstein uses an example of a tornado going through a junk yard and making a shiny, new Lamborghini on the other side. While this makes no sense in its own right, there are just two problems with this assertion

1. The probability of life forming is incredibly tiny. This is true. Unfortunately for brochacho there, the universe is so freakin' huge that it almost definitely had to happen, and has probably happened multiple times.
2. Evolution isn't about "taking parts and making new, unrelated parts". Each step is related to the previous one in some way (for lack of a better way to describe it). A fish does evolve into a mouse. 

This point link back to the previous one about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Again, Mr. Feurerstein doesn't understand that, after the Big Bang, gravity would have attracted particles together, and after lots and lots and loooooooooots of time, created what we see today. Order was instantaneous (and still isn't). Chaos just got a little prettier.

Case 7: Etymology

In the previous two points, der Feurerstein cited the existence of hours as proof of a God that created order. He, of course, ignores how those hours are only dependent on how long it takes a planet to rotate and how humans have themselves set just what an "hour" is. 

But the best part, the topping to this delicious cake of stupid, is the word "universe".

Yes, he cites the word "universe" as proof of a God. A word. He cites a fucking English word as proof of a higher power.

Since "uni" means "one" in Latin and "verse" means "a spoken statement" that obviously equates to God having spoken everything into existence. Since English is a white man's language, I can only assume that God intended the white man to reign supreme.

And science uses the word "universe" to name the "universe". Take that, atheists!

Mean is Good

This will probably be more of a mini-rant, but it's just something I have to throw out the eye before I have to hut my head against the wall thinking  about it. What is it,  you ask? Well,  if you read the title of the post, you'd know. Of course, now you're going back to read it. I'll wait.

Done? Good. Now,  if you didn't get it,  let me explain: there is nothing wrong with being mean. Nothing. Really, the language is too subjective to decide what is and what isn't mean,  but I know someone will argue with me about how I should respect everyone no matter what while disregarding  my own thoughts and opinions.

Honestly, I'm so tired of this that I don't think I could even bring myself to try  and explain. The scary thing is,  I now sympathize with conservatives some (and we all know how I feel about those people). There is no longer the end chance to express a dissenting opinion without  being labeled as something intolerant. Isn't it intolerant to label someone as intolerant? Kinda weird when you think about  it.

Going off of that, how can someone else's opinion be quantified as lore important than mine? It can't really, and personal bias with always make opinion more important to me.

"But Kyle," you begin angrily protesting,  "you can't just be mean. The at hurts people's feelings." On the surface,  try at seems like a good argument, but thinking about it,  it's really not. Couldn't the argument then be made that it hurts my feelings to not be mean? Of course,  most people won't find that acceptable, but at this point I don't really care.

This leads me to one conclusion: to stop caring what everybody - and I do mean everybody - thinks. It'll be tough (what with the biological need to conform and all that) but I can't see any other choice. Of course,  that doesn't mean I'm going to be a giant douche to everyone,  but I doubt anyone bothered to read this last sentence.

Talk is Cheap

Alright, so I know I haven't posted anything in a while. Mostly because I've been tired as hell, but today's experiences have enraged me enough to get on here.

If there's one thing -- one thing -- I learned (or confirmed, since I've thought this for a while) that people are idiots. Complete and utter morons.

Just once I wish he wasn't.

"But Kyle," you stupidly attempt to argue with me, "I'm people. I am not stupid!" Yes, you are. Sit down; shut up. Read. Maybe you actually are intelligent, but since those kind of people area rare breed, it's pretty safe to assume that you're an idiot. Whether a slightly-below-average idiot or a I-write-my-name-on-my-undies idiot, you're an idiot nonetheless. Or maybe you're not. The hell if I know.

Anyway, as always, I have an example. Evidence to support my claims is always nice, isn't it? I could go off on that, but that's another rant for another time. Today, during an English class, we looked through USA Today's website and check out some pictures of war protesters (y'know, about the Syria thing). The first one to illicit an idiotic reaction was one of a group of protestors... well, protesting.

This one.

And holy shit, can you guess what my classmates did? Go ahead, guess. It shouldn't be too hard.

If you answered "said something intelligent and meaningful in relation to this image," then you'd be dead wrong. However, if you answered "HAHAHA OBAMA = AL... how do I pronounce that word?" Then you are one of those idiots and I hope this offends you enough to write me hate mail. I'm not even going to tell you what Al-Qaeda is, Google it for yourself. There was one person -- a male of the Negro (I can say that, dammit! If you find it to be racist, it's you own fault) variety -- who didn't even know what Al-Qaeda was. Al-Qaeda; the arch-nemesis of this imbecilic "war on terror." The group synonymous with the September 11 attacks. And he didn't know who they were. Holy shit. I'm not sure if he's just that stupid, or the educational system is letting us this far down (to be fair, it's already letting us down pretty far). I mean, sure I watch the news every morning, but you'd think that we, as a country, would know about a rather large terrorist group that dislikes us.

And do you want to know what a good 25% of the rest of the class did? Laugh. Like overgrown children, they laughed. My best guess is because "Al-Qaeda iz ud fonny werd."

And that's not even everything. There was a picture that followed just after that one.

It's this one.

Now what could this possibly mean? Is it about how the newlywed couple were protesting in their own right? Is it about finding happiness even in tough situations? I actually have no clue, because the caption didn't say. But if there was one detail you would notice, what would it be?

Funny enough, that same 25% of my class noticed "the white girl with the phone." And you know what they thought about her? That she was "childish." Please, for the love of all that is holy, please explain to me just how her behavior is childish? She could have been recording the protest (it's happened before). Or perhaps she's taking a picture of the person taking a picture. I'd get pretty hyped if I saw someone from USA Today taking a picture of me. But no, that painfully large percentage of people thought it was childish. Idiots.

There's only one thing worse than an idiot, and that's a loud one. Oh yea, I had to deal with one of those today too. Well, not just one. There are a multitude of them that run rampant around the school. I come in close contact with several every day.

Every single thought they blurt out sounds as if it were ground in a cow's intestines and just about as intelligent. Words can't even describe how unsurpassably dense I find these people. Seriously. I just tried using a thesaurus, and even then there wasn't anything descriptive enough.

I hate things like this, and yet I still feel compelled to use it.

Idiots will be the death of me.