hell’s handmaiden

… this is satire. Easily confused with the real thing though– so easily confused that after posting, and despite my best judgment of the tenor of the site, I shall live in fear that the post’s author will come ’round to inject me with verbal venom.

Just look at this logic:

Hell, we don’t even care if homosexuals marry other homosexuals. Nothing wrong with gay man on lesbian marriages, (so long as the woman isn’t too butch.) Listen, ‘gay’ means happy. ‘Marriage’ is a miserable hard slog. ‘Gay Marriage’ is like saying, “happy misery.” It just doesn’t make any sense.

Granville Sewell, a mathematician at the University of Texas at El Paso, has a series of articles online expressing his bent towards creationism. Apparently these articles have generated quite a bit of attention, and thus Granville has had to face criticism– some of it from me– of his revolutionary ideas. Sad, really…

Granville’s reaction to all this?

There are a lot of articles out there on the web intended to refute my writings on Intelligent Design, but if there is one that isn’t full of anger and personal insults, I haven’t located it yet.

decorabilia has the 48th meeting of the Skeptics’ Circle. I especially like Dembski’s Greatest Contributions to Information Theory and dowsing rod. Good stuff.

Popularity: 1%

Stump Lane Launches The War On Thanksgiving. Its about time, I’d say.

Popularity: 1%

I wonder if creationists listen to themselves talk, or think about what they write.

Imagine this scenario: A lonely band of planet-formation scientists are hanging in the lab collecting data, crunching some wicked data, doing some modeling, arguing statistics, and comparing graphing calculators, when… my God, man! It looks like some stuff they thought they knew about planet formations just doesn’t fit the data. What to do!!!????? Brush it under the table? Nah… Cite textbooks to the contrary and call it a day? Nah… “How about we just remodel our theory?,” someone says. “Yeah, sure. That the thing to do,” the rest agree.