A New Impact Crater on Mars Brings Out the WND Crazies … Yes, Even Crazy for WND

Ahem. So, this made news a few weeks ago, a new impact crater on Mars, formed between 2010 and 2012 (we have before and after images).

HiRISE Image of New Mars Impact Crater (PIA17932) (©NASA/JPL-CalTech/UofA)

It’s a straight-forward article, no WND spin, but I left it open just in case something crazy happened.

Well, it’s gotten 6 comments. The first one is by “jagiorda” which – to me – reads tongue-in-cheek purporting that it’s fake like the moon landings, evolution, “and a round earth.” To me, that last part is what gives it away as a Poe.

The first response to him/her/it is by “Guest,” and “Michael” responded to “Guest:”

The moon landing very well “could” have been a hoax out in the Nevada desert, which at night looks very much like moonscape. I don’t believe that back in the late sixties that they had the technology to put a manned mission to the moon. Today yes, then no. Evolution is a false branch of science though other science branches are true. Evolution was just put in science to destroy belief in God and so control the masses. Whenever there is a God fearing people the government has a very hard time controlling the people. Destroy God, subject nations. And yes the earth really is round, that I agree on.

There is an exact replica that was of the Sea of Capricorn built somewhere they practiced on. I believe in Arizona. As well I have listened and read quite a bit about it , by very astute people with Degrees up the Wazoo as to why and how it was not real. Passing through the Van Allen radiation belt twice should have caused all the Astronauts to have died within several years. The most spectacular photos ever taken by non photographers with a Hasselblad camera that didn’t even have a view finder on the camera because it couldn’t be used with the helmet and gold visor. They were trained for ONE DAY as to how to use it and take photos. . Film that went through the great amount of radiation , and there is NO RECORD of any lead lined or anything else to have protected the film. I know for a first hand fact , airport X-ray machines wiped out film back in the day of actual film. Can’t remember which astronaut it was , but he was asked what it was like and he couldn’t even describe it , he said ” it was like a dream “. Yeah , dreams can be described and one of a few who walked on the moon can’t remember what it was like ? Nor describe it ? Pretty strange. Russia and China both said it was fake , which you can understand them saying. But why wouldn’t Russia go ahead and send their own even after we were to have made it to the moon? Because they said it couldn’t be done is why they didn’t. The ” moon Rocks ” are indistinguishable from earth rocks. They were examined a few years back in Hawaii , the samples of earth and ” Moon” rocks were sent to be emxined and BOTH samples had been pulverized to dust , no longer even rocks per se. Why were they ground into powder ? Then they were identical. Although some say the moon was spun off from earth by an impact on earth creating the moon. And all of the dust billowing up as the module landed on the surface, then photos of the landing pads with NO DUST whatsoever having managed to settle back down onto the pads. Perfectly clean.

Who knows , but I have my doubts as to the truth telling integrity of the government. Does everybody still believe a poor marksman with a rifle with bad sights hit the head of a moving target from an elevated position in Dallas ? Or that he was the ONLY perpetrator ?

There’s much , much more that I’m not going to bother typing. But if the US Gubermint spent who knows how much Cha-Ching on something and telling the public we were ” going to beat the Russians to the moon ” during the height of the Cold War , then finding out they screwed up and found out it wasn’t possible , I can see them faking it to save face.

Wow. So, because the moon landings “very well ‘could’ have been a hoax” (they weren’t), evolution is a false branch of science which means we’re out to destroy God? At least he agrees that Earth is round. The reply is just a stream-of-consciousness litany of easily debunked moon hoax go-to arguments.

Meanwhile, apparently this new Mars impact crater has to do with global warming, or so-claims “Steven Kimball” as a way to discredit science: “Global warming must have caused that new crater. I’m sure at least one so-called scientist will make that claim.”

The fifth comment comes from “Montesquieu” which is just some weird statement that seems like it was copied-and-pasted randomly here: “Although democratic processes are usually found in states that enjoy morality, liberty, and prosperity, by no means are morality, liberty, and prosperity always present in states claiming democracy.”

And finally, “Daniel Martinovich” apparently doesn’t realize that a rock seen in a photo by one of the rovers on Mars does not have anything to do with this new impact crater: “There is the reason the rock appeared in the place it wasn’t on a previous picture taken by the mars rover. I thought that was how it “appeared” there. Nice to see possible verification.”

Three Logical Fallacies Mean We Should Pray in Jesus’ Name

A logical fallacy is a logical flaw in someone’s argument. As in, the argument is not based on on facts/data or sound reasoning, but on something that is a known flaw. For example, if I say “ghosts are real because lots of people believe they are real,” hopefully regardless of whether YOU think ghosts are real, you can spot the flaw in this argument: I’ve provided no real evidence they are real, just an opinion of many people. This is known as the “argument from popularity” or, to use the Latin, “argumentum ad populum.”

It should also be stated in this discussion preface that just because one makes a logical fallacy does not mean their argument is wrong. To say so would be the “fallacy fallacy.” But, it does mean that the person making the argument should re-state it without committing whatever fallacy they did. (Many of these are actually sub-types of the “non sequitur” fallacy, meaning “it does not follow.”)

Such is the case that Jerry Newcombe makes in his WND article, posted yesterday, entitled, “The Non-Jesus Religion.” Jerry writes about the case before the Supreme Court now, Galloway v. City of Greece (which is not in Greece, but rather near Rochester, NY). The city opened council meetings with very strong, very Christian prayers. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing, and it has made its way to the Supreme Court because different circuit courts have issued different rulings.

In his article, Mr. Newcombe commits at least three logical fallacies that I noticed. The first two, and most obvious, are the argument from antiquity and argument from authority. He spends the majority of his article talking about how the Founding Fathers (an authority figure, hence the argument from authority) would often open legislative sessions with prayers. He also noted that this practice has been going on for hundreds of years (hence the argument from antiquity, meaning that you’re making the case for something just ’cause it’s been done that way for a long time).

The third logical fallacy is a straw man. This is an argument where you misrepresent (deliberately or by mistake) your opponent’s argument and then argue against that. The straw man argument that you argue against is usually a weaker one than was actually made. In this case, David Gibbs III of the National Center for Life and Liberty is the lawyer (or a lawyer) who is arguing this case against the ACLU. To quote from Mr. Newcombe’s article: “David told me, “What the ACLU is arguing is that praying in Jesus’ name is establishing a religion. The reality is that their goal is to establish a non-Jesus religion.” David noted the ACLU is advancing cases only against anybody praying in Jesus’ name, not in any other tradition.”

That’s a straw man. Their goal is not to establish a non-Jesus religion. It just so happens that it’s the Christians who are the majority in this country so nearly every single example of legislative session opening prayers is done by Christians (or “a Jesus religion,” anyway). Most counter-examples only exist because they were originally Jesus-only, but the town was sued and told they had to either let any religion do it or stop ’em all together.

The reason that David’s argument is weaker than the ACLU’s is because the First Amendment prohibits government establishment of religion. If the ACLU were arguing that Jesus should be out in favor of non-Jesus religions, then clearly that’s just as bad as Jesus-only. And (I would argue) unconstitutional. It’s harder to argue the constitutionality of public money being spent to hire chaplains for prayers, or, at the very least, to pay public officials out of public money to waste their time listening to those prayers.

Not that either of the two commenters pointed these logical fallacies out. And the three ratings are all 5/5.

Comets and Non Sequiturs About the Downfall of America

What is it about science stories and non sequiturs on World Net Daily about the downfall of America? There’s yet another example, posted mid-yesterday, and actually an article by WND executive news editor Joe Kovacs: “‘Comet of the Century’ About to Fizzle?” It was published last night, and is a somewhat reasonable article about the comet that the media is collectively calling “ISON.” It has 548 ratings with a 4.44/5 average.

It also has 139 comments. The top-rated comment, with 103 up-votes and 1 down-vote is by “sovereigntyofone”:

“It has been billed as the “comet of the century,” but the snowy dirtball known as Comet ISON now racing toward Earth may turn out to be just a flash in the pan.”
Maybe they should rename it Obama, nothing but a big disappointment and a big dirty ball of gas.
Just my 2 cents worth.

Second-highest is “Titiana Covington” with 29 up-votes and 0 down-vote: “Hit DC! Hit DC! Hit DC!”

Anomalies? Maybe … the next two, by “Tosheba” and “jpbutterworth” also have 29 up-votes and 0 down-votes: “If it isn’t too bright, just rename it ‘Comet Obama'” ~~||~~ “Too bad it doesn’t hit us and put us out of our misery. You must admit, it would be quick and painless compared to the fate the Obama administration has in store for us with the collapse of the dollar.”

WTF do these have to do with comets? It’s insane.

Possible AIDS Cure / HIV Vaccine Brings Out the Best Non Sequiturs

I delayed writing on this news story because I didn’t really know what angle to take and I didn’t want to seem like an angry young white man. But, I guess sometimes you just gotta talk about it. German news site Der Spiegel is the source for this WND snippet under the title, “AIDS Cure on the Horizon.” It was making the rounds last week that work on an HIV vaccine was showing much more promise than previous attempts, and there really may be success now visible on the horizon.

This being WND, bigoted homophobic lies were the comments du jour. “GTHSBB Momma” posted, in part: “[T]he risk of HIV infection for heterosexual, married, monogamous, drug-free people is near 0%. Perhaps our efforts at disease eradication are better aimed at various forms of cancer, type 1 diabetes, MS, etc.” Maybe big momma should stay in her fantasy land where married couples also sleep in separate beds separated by a moat of lava and babies aren’t born HIV-positive.

It was “1coachretired1” and his(?) exchange with that plucky young “Arch” that I wanted to address more. It starts with this:

Male homosexuality has the highest rates of HIV/AIDS and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases, higher cancer rates, and earlier deaths.
Boys and girls raised by female homosexuals have skewed gender identities. Girls are more masculine-acting and more aggressive than normal, and boys are less masculine-acting and more passive than normal.
The marriages of husbands and wives, on average, are 1000% stronger, with 10 times the duration, of homosexuals who cohabitate. There is no such thing as marriage without a man and a woman.
There is no “gay gene,” thus no basis for civil rights designation. Consider that race and ethnicity are inherited, but homosexuality is not, as both science and thousands of former homosexuals demonstrate. A changeable behavior is not immutable; therefore homosexuality/bisexuality/transsexuality should not have been given the legal force of non-discrimination laws, such as those based on immutable race and immutable gender.

Yeah. So, NOTHING to do with the story and just a homophobic rant. “Arch” responded:

Could you please supply data and an unbiased source to support your claims, especially those in the first three paragraphs? Oh, and why you are talking about something like marriage and a gay gene and civil rights when this story is about a vaccine to prevent HIV?

“1coachretired1” responded with, “The truth will set you free!” and posted a bunch of links to the americansfortruth.com website. “Arch” replied, “See, when it says at the top on the left-hand side, “Welcome to Americans for Truth, a national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda,” well, I kinda don’t count that as an “unbiased” source. I’m just trying to find out what the facts are, as I’m sure you are, too, but in your heart of hearts, I’m sure you must recognize that when something clearly states that, it’s hard to consider them unbiased. It may be they’re right, but I’d prefer to get my facts from something that doesn’t state they hate the other side. Peace and God’s love, ~Arch.”

“1coachretired1” did not respond.

A Particularly Vile Comment on World Net Daily Gets Up-Voted, Not Censored

Anyone who hasn’t read this blog from the beginning or the About page, read the About Page first. I’ll wait.

Okay, so you now know that my perfectly reasonable comment got me banned.

Yesterday, WND published a snippet from a Weekly Standard article entitled, “Obama Now Saying, ‘I Have Not Made a Decision’ on Syria.” (For those in a cave or reading this years later, this week, the US appears to be seriously intervening in Syria’s Civil War, though the UK just voted against intervention, and Russia is demanding a UN Security Council meeting on the subject.)

The article isn’t important. It’s the top-rated comment by “Jim:”

Mr. Obama, you know in your heart you are anti-American, anti-white, Anti-Christian, anti-Israel and you are a Homosexual. This is why we despise you. You are engaged in actively attacking all that is good and lifting up and supporting that which is evil. What is so enraging is your shameless lawlessness and your manipulation of the poor ignorant who support you.

That comment has three up-votes and zero down-votes. It is the top-rated comment on this post.

Welcome to World Net Daily, your place to go when you’re afraid that the world is just a bit too rational.

A Non Sequitur Experiment Over 100 Years Old Somehow Refutes Evolution

David Rives has another video under the headline, “Scientific Experiment Refutes Evolution.” The sub-title is just precious: “Exclusive: David Rives recalls Louis Pasteur’s challenge to Darwin.”

The two-minute video (at least they’re short!) explains that the famous biologist Louis Pasteur (who we can thank for the pasteurization process that prevents a lot of food spoilage) was apparently dead-set against Darwinism … err, evolution, when it was first proposed by Darwin. So he designed an experiment to disprove it: Pasteur pasteurized some liquid and put it in a sealed container and with nothing allowed into the container, life did not start. Zero genesis of anything, and therefore zero evolution.

Wow. If you need a dictionary example of a non sequitur, this is it. But, it’s a favorite of creationists to think that origin of life studies have something to do with evolution. They don’t. Evolution is a theory that describes what happens to life after it is there. It has nothing to do with origin of life. Nothing.

An intellectually astute commenter – with whom I have no relation – named “Arch” pointed this out, starting with:

I love this site and sharing God’s love, but this is ridiculous. Please, David, catch up with the times! An experiment over 100 years ago based on the understanding of a process >100 years ago doesn’t say anything about the current state of the science! Evolution has nothing to do with origins of life, and a sterilized, sealed, small container that has no other inputs to the system says nothing about Earth’s environment in the distant past. This video is pretty embarrassing to all Christians.

Arch makes an excellent point. And currently has 7 up and 7 down votes for it. “Avenger” was the first to respond (and has 4 up and 3 down) with this:

Let me get this right: you out-of-hand reject Pasteur’s experiment because it was done over 100 years ago and based on the understanding of the time. Yet, evolution is based on a speculation that is also over 100 years old. Pasteur’s experiment, showing that abiogenesis never happens, has been replicated thousands of times in the last 100 years. Evolutionary speculation has never been observed in nature and has never been replicated. You seem to choose speculation as fact and fact as too old to count. Amazing how much indoctrination it takes to make one stupid.

Yes, amazing how much indoctrination it takes to make one stupid. I agree.

“Disciple” agreed with “Avenger” with:

The Bible has much to say of our origins, and unlike the theories of man, the scriptures have never changed. God created the world in six 24-hour days, Adam was the first man, death entered the world through sin, and there was a literal global flood. Not only is the evolutionary paradigm antagonistic towards the scriptures, but it attempts to undermine the Gospel message.

God bless.

Love that last part. Earned him 8 up and 4 down votes. “Arch” responded:

But that’s irrelevant here — If David wanted to argue against Darwin and this were 1860, that’s fine, it’s like arguing that Newton’s laws can’t explain the motion of Mercury therefore it’s God’s hand perturbing it to show us His wonders. But then in the first two decades of the 1900s, relativity was formulated and it perfectly explains Mercury’s orbit, hence active divine intervention is no longer needed. Similarly, this is using an outdated idea of the theory of evolution and arguing against that (and not even evolution since it’s origins stuff that evolution has nothing to do with). Anyone who knows what biologists are saying today would just roll their eyes at David, which does nothing to advance his cause. If David really wanted to spread God’s word and love, he would look at what evolutionists are saying NOW, not >100 years ago, and show how God is actually needed to explain things and that science can’t. Not do some straw man argument.

4 up and 1 down. “Avenger” replied:

At its most basic level evolution says that one species changed into another, and that species into another, etc. all by random chance without any input of intelligence. Science has failed every attempt to prove this has ever happened, offering only speculation as to maybe how it could have happened. When a writer says that a Princess kissed a frog and it turned into a Prince, you say that’s a fairy-tale; when a biologist says that frogs turned into Princes, you say that is science.

4 up and 4 down. To this, “Arch” responded again, in a very calm and measured manner that makes me think he’s an all-around good guy:

Let me be very clear because you are not understanding my point:

1. David claims that Pasteur’s experiment disproves evolution.

2. Pasteur’s experiment was to study abiogenesis in a way that no scientist today thinks it happened.

3. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and nothing to do with what Darwin argued.

4. Therefore, David Rives has not said anything about evolution, rather instead he’s set up a straw man to argue against and is in effect violating the Commandment of not bearing false witness.

Not sure how I could be more clear in this point that I’m not arguing for evolution, I’m arguing that David’s claim has nothing to do with what he says it does.

He got 5 up votes and 0 down votes for that. Avenger responded again trying to state that origins = evolution, to which Arch finally replied, “Sorry, you’re just wrong. Origins ≠ evolution. No point in me posting about this anymore since you’re not getting it.”

In general, the rest of the comments are about as mixed as that discussion. This is why I almost “enjoy” David’s videos because they actually bring out some commenters that realize that he’s just full of s—.