Oh, hello Carl.
I didn't notice you down there – I'd thought you'd gone off to stretch your legs.
Hmm?
What's that?
They're still feeling a little wobbly, are they?
Well, I can't say I'm too surprised, but I suppose that's for the best since it means
we can finish off this extended lesson by ripping off the Elastoplast right in one go
so you can get back to your own channel to let Pisspants and your other cronies lick
your wounds for you.
With that said, though, I need to pause for a moment to correct a mistake of mine because,
very much unlike you Carl, accuracy is important to me.
You see, in the previous two videos of this series of arse-oriented educational episodes,
I mistakenly referred to the title of your videographic catastrophe as "Best Critique
of Evolution You Will Ever Hear."
This came to pass because some time ago I'd started a script to address that particular
digital clusterfuck but never got around to finishing it.
So, when the extant abomination was first brought to my attention I chose to use parts
of that earlier introduction for this one, and in doing so was careless enough to forget
to update the title of your little artistic endeavor.
This error escaped my notice until now, and while it makes absolutely no difference to
any of the arguments I've inserted thus far, I wanted to correct it here for the record.
Now, with that out of the way, Carl, let's get back to putting you out of your misery.
As you know, I noticed that during the course of your video you squeezed out an occasional
Joycean nugget that was unrelated to your two main cadaveric theses, and I promised
my viewers that I wouldn't let the comedic opportunity of sharing them pass.
Thus, while you've been recovering, I've taken the time to gather them up in one place,
and so while you're bracing yourself for the next lesson, I'll play the first clip.
"The problem was… is that these skeletons were only three-and-a-half feet tall, and
they were very human-like… in many respects, and they also had characteristics of chimpanzees
and apes in other respects."
Now that you've had a chance to hear yourself, Carl, did you spot what you did there?
But wait… don't answer that because I don't want to have to bend over to pick
up the coprolite, and instead let me do it for you.
Aside from implying that chimpanzees aren't apes, which, against my better judgement I'll
attribute to a slip of the tongue rather than a product of your boundless ignorance, you
plainly admit that the Flores specimens displayed both ape-like and human-like morphological
traits.
Needless to say, I was somewhat taken aback by this because there's a special phrase
that scientists use to describe a specimen that displays a mosaic of primitive and derived
characters, Carl – and you may have heard of it – it's called a transitional form.
You know?
Exactly the kind of form you and your fellow Yahweh-loving, science-denying, thought-allergic,
fact-phobic, reality-averse bumpkins will deny at the drop of a choirboy's skivvies
even when it's inserted forcibly into your most posterior of circular orifices.
The kinds of forms whose existence Charles Darwin presciently predicted in his theory
of biological evolution which, funnily enough, also provides a beautifully elegant explanation
of their existence while invoking only observable and verifiable physical phenomena within a
perfectly cogent and internally consistent conceptual framework, and without even once
needing to resort to invoking the trans-dimensional prestidigitation of a mysteriously elusive
cosmic pixie.
So, what's your explanation for the existence of this mix of traits you've admitted to,
Carl?
Did the pixie undergo an existential crisis one day, unable to decide whether its true
image was that of a chippendale or a chimpanzee?
Or does Homo floresiensis represent one of its countless failed attempts to produce an
intelligent creationist?
Or is it a result of him reaching for that trusty mud puddle and mistakenly scooping
up an elephant turd?
You see?
I could go on indefinitely like a creationist, pulling ad hoc explanations out of my arse,
without even breaking a sweat.
It's so easy for you odious reptiles, isn't it Carl?
Actually, when I say 'you', I don't really mean you, because I realize that your
hobbled perspicacity presents an insurmountable barrier that prevents you from dreaming up
your own such rationalizations.
Thus, your other option would be to fall back onto one of two putrescent old creationist
stalwarts.
The first is the denial of the blindingly obvious, where half of you vacuous simpletons
declare that any given form is clearly an example of an ancestral species while the
other half announce the very same fossil is clearly a descendant, and all of you demonstrate
how you have not the slightest inking of a fucking clue.
The second would be to admit to the nature of the specimen as you did here, but then
claim that all its discovery has done is create two new missing links that now need to be
discovered to satisfy your eternally insatiable demands.
Thus, when someone like this glabrous nematode opined, back in Holy Hallucinations 9, that
for a whale evolutionary series to be convincing "to be honest with you, you'd need twenty",
one can almost guarantee that.
once the twentieth such fossil is finally inserted, the two-faced little fucknugget
will clench his cheeks, turn around, and declare that that's not good enough and now he needs
twenty-two.
It's this latter reprehensible and pitiful excuse for argumentation that I suspect would
be your favored choice of dishonesty should you actually be confronted with your own stupidity,
Carl, because elsewhere in your video, you also said this:
"And so, back in 2003, they declared it to be some kind of great evolutionary find
– perhaps the missing link, and, er… you know… just another missing link."
Honestly, Carl, don't you ever pause for just a moment to divert your words past even
the vague vicinity of your consciousness before you puke them out onto the internet?
Because while the stream-of-consciousness thing might work well for some, it tends to
be quite a little less than effective when you have the sentience of a potato.
So not only have you now acknowledged that Homo floresiensis is a transitional form,
but also that other hominid/hominin transitions have also been discovered – all in a video
in which you doggedly maintain your infantile assertion than Mankind is only 6000 years
old and evolved in an instant from a fistful of Wonder Clay and an undercooked McRib under
the guidance of mystical pan-cosmic entity which is somehow both incorporeal and a dead
ringer for Charlton Heston.
This, I posit, places you into the "new links required" school of fucktardism by
default, even though you're apparently too ignorant to realize that LB1 almost certainly
doesn't represent a direct ancestor of our species but rather a cousin to that direct
lineage, which nevertheless provides significant insights into the actual forms our ancestors
took during the course of our evolution.
This all leaves us with the question of why you saw fit to make these admissions in your
video, Carl?
Was it because you don't really believe your anti-evolutionary rhetoric but continue
spouting it because you give not one single shit about values such as honesty, decency,
honor, truth or progress if they run counter to the nauseatingly repugnant and backward
agenda you're pushing like a crack dealer in a kindergarten?
Or was it a Freudian slip, Carl – a desperate, stifled cry for help from your subconscious
as it flails around frantically trying to extricate itself and escape from the steaming
mire of ignorance, deceit and delusion that you've buried it in.
Or was it because you're just too stupid to even contemplate the implications of the
words you emit from your ignorant yap like the torrential spray from a fire hydrant that's
been accidentally plumbed into a sewer line and then run over by a tank?
Who knows what's going on in that kaleidoscopic virtual reality inside your cranium?
It could be any one of these possibilities, or all of them, or even one or more that couldn't
even be conceived by someone not suffering from your special kind of dementia.
But whatever it is, might I suggest that you would do well to pin it down and get it under
control, because otherwise it'll continue to lead you to pwn yourself in your own videos
much harder and far more hilariously than I ever could.
"And there's an artist's rendition [smug chuckle].
I mean, boy, that's pretty detailed, coming from some bone fragments and… and a partial
skull."
So, Smugly, just "some bone fragments and a partial skull," is it?
Well, when it comes to the skull, the images of it that were in the article you used in
your dismal crap-fest of a video seem to suggest that a more accurate description would be
"almost fucking complete!"
To be fair, the authors of the original Nature paper that described the discovery actually
used the phrase "fairly complete cranium and mandible," but then they were writing
for arguably the world's most prestigious science journal and not addressing a desiccated
creationist dingleberry, and so they presumably didn't feel need to resort to the linguistic
liberties that I need to take when making my videos, because they're not in the business
of heaping fully deserved scorn and ridicule on delusional, unprincipled, deceitful piss-pots.
So, did that image skip your notice as you scrolled through the Sun article salivating
like a deranged loon at the prospect of finding something new to lie about, Carl?
Or did the drool make its way through your keyboard and short out the Pentium Pro in
your laptop before you got to it?
Then again, perhaps Ken's biblical glasses prevented you from perceiving it because they
did an exceptionally fine job of blocking out the reality glare?
Of course, another possibility is that you saw the fucker perfectly clearly but still
referred to it as "partial" because it suited your nefarious and despicable agenda
and because you're a filthy, lying puddle of impotent jizz.
As for the remaining "bone fragments", it's strange that you neglected to mention
that these included a pair essentially intact legs, one intact and one partial arm, a partial
pelvis and a partial hand, which en face would seem to provide just a little more detail
than you're insinuating here, eh Carl?
It's also strange that while you referred the plural "skeletons" in the first clip
you never bothered to mention that these consisted of partial remains of thirteen other individuals,
albeit none anywhere as complete has LB1.
Furthermore, just a year after the description of LB1 and in a second Nature paper reporting
more of the remains the authors wrote that they could "…now reconstruct the body
proportions of H. floresiensis with some certainty."
And do you know where you can find a citation of that paper, Carl?
Why in the very same Wikipedia page you were slavering over in half of your video, and
who's references you seemed to be so intent on harping on about but not actually reading.
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you Carl?
Even your factually vacuous, intellectually desolate dogma can be defended more competently
than the way you do it.
You don't research your subject in any depth whatsoever to at least try and make your bullshit
just a little less exhaustive.
You don't provide any references in any of your videos to any of the material you're
projectile defecating despite the alleged import you claim to place on source citation.
You don't check your videos for errors prior to flushing them onto the web, and you don't
even make a pretense of acting in a manner that's even passingly concordant with the
teachings of the founder of the religion you claim that you follow.
It's almost as if you're deliberately going out to make yourself, and therefore
by proxy all creationists, look like a collection of lazy, incompetent, lobotomized gibbons.
I can only think of two possibilities here, Carl.
Either you're really an undercover atheist who's been working diligently for decades
to make the religious look like unhinged, mentally-castrated loons, or you're so firmly
in the grasp of a case of biblically-fueled Dunning-Kruger Syndrome that even the violent
insertion of a hard-back copy of the DSM-5 into your alimentary canal wouldn't snap
you out of it.
And as for any sane Christians watching this, don't think that Pastor Carl's stupidity
isn't rubbing itself at least partly onto you, because I can bet with near certainty
that there are plenty of stupid atheists out there, let alone adherents of other faiths,
who would be happy to paint you with exactly the same brush I've been using to "freshen
up" Mister Gallups.
And so, you'd be well advised to perhaps consider lifting a finger occasionally by
climbing into the pigsty and putting the good pastor and his ilk in their place instead
of leaving all the dirty work to me.
"Now, look at another artist's rendition.
Oh my gosh!
I mean, first of all, it's rather sexual.
Second of all, it's… horrific looking.
Thirdly, it is an artist's rendition.
this came out of somebody's mind… they didn't find anything like this.
They took the fragments and they constructed this artist's rendition to make us think,
er, that… and, and look how humanoid it looks, way more human than ape-like.
So, what are they trying to say?
It's not a human, yet they draw a humanoid… erm… rendition of it.
An X-rated humanoid rendition of it [smug chuckle]."
Man, you really drank the Kool-Aid here Carl, so let's take a closer look at what you
subsequently threw up.
Firstly, regardless of the rendition, I fail to see what your puritanical distaste for
hirsute wumba jumbas, nor your critique of the aesthetics of Homo floresiensis' appearance,
has to do with the misinformation you've positively steeped your video in.
Of course, if you really think that this constitutes X-rated material, then might I suggest you
withdraw immediately from the internet and start running like all buggery in the opposite
direction lest you shit your pants after clicking on that ad for bigbonersnboobies.com that
keeps popping up whenever you're on the Answers In Genesis website.
Secondly, obviously "they didn't find anything like this" you numbnut.
Do your really think that your audience is quite so paralytically stupid that you needed
to explain that?
No, wait… on second thought, perhaps you have a point there.
In any case, despite your facepalmingly inane self-contradiction that this reconstruction
was simply the product of "somebody's mind" which was simultaneously produced
with the aid of skeletal fragments, the fact is that this rendition didn't exactly spring
forth from the fertile imagination of an artist in the same way that a creationist's claim
materializes out of nothing and springs forth from their arsehole.
No, you see Carl, there's a whole field called forensic facial reconstruction that
specializes in rendering facial features from craniomandibular remains and that is used
with remarkable success to identify long-dead murder victims.
However, such reconstructions seldom consist of a sculptor taking a glance at skull and
then letting their imagination roam as freely as Kent Hovind's does when he's pondering
his tax return.
Instead, they consider any remaining soft tissue that might be attached to the skeleton
and utilize extensive empirical datasets of muscle sizes and thicknesses.
In fact, if you'd done any actual research for your piece whatsoever, you would have
found the website of the actual artist that produced the model in question and found that
she didn't just start slapping together some clay in the hope of coming up with something
that looked just a step or two more evolved than the average creationist.
Instead, she used – guess what?
– the exact same methods employed in forensic medicine.
Hopefully even you can understand what that sudden short, sharp ano-centric sensation
was Carl, but just in case you don't – it was me placing your claim that this image
simply "came out of somebody's mind" back from whence you'd fished it.
My third point addresses a possible objection you might have should you, by some miracle,
think of it Carl.
You see, it's obviously true that there were no soft tissue remains associated with
the Liang Bua remains to aid with reconstruction, and also that current datasets on facial musculature
are based on modern Homo sapiens since we have, by definition, no such data on other
hominins.
So should you want to go there, Carl, be aware that, contrary to what you may think, these
reconstructions are not in any way scientific evidence and that attacking them would be
as effective as calling a Muslim an atheist because he doesn't eat kosher or talk to
a ceiling every Sunday.
That's because the sole intent of these kinds of models is to sate the very human
instinct of curiosity that drives us to want to know what these creatures might have looked
like.
It is the very same curiosity that first led our ancestors out of the forests and onto
the savannahs, that led to the discovery of fire and the invention of agriculture, that
led Copernicus to propose that the Earth orbits the Sun, that led Darwin to put forward the
Origin of the Species and that led Einstein to turn physics on its head.
It is also the very same curiosity that creationists mercilessly stifle in themselves and their
children for fear that it might one day lead them, kicking and screaming, to the edge of
reality and beyond.
Thus, the actual accuracy of such reconstructions bears no relation to the veracity of the scientific
data and biological interpretations that underpin them, and while it's hoped that the care
taken in their production has resulted in at least an approximate likeness, only most
monumentally ignorant of boobs would place any more significance on them than being the
mere curios that they are.
Finally, let's finish with your incredulity that the reconstruction is a humanoid form.
The question here, of course Carl, is what the fuck, exactly, you thought it should look
like?
A fucking pineapple?
Of course, I'm joking because you did qualify yourself for a change by indicating that you
expected it to be more ape-like.
Why you thought this remains somewhat of a mystery, not least because it's quite clear
from all the literature that the scientists working on these discoveries consider it to
be a hominin and not a hominid.
I'm joking again, of course, because your ignorance isn't a mystery at all, as it's
equally clear you did nothing more to research this subject than to give Wikipedia the most
perfunctory of perusals while steadfastly maintaining your ignorance in all other respects.
However, what truly does remain a mystery is why, despite this self-imposed perpetual
ignorance of yours you weren't clued-in by the genus name they gave it: Homo.
Are you really that dumb Carl, or are the rusty cogs of that dilapidated jalopy of a
brain of yours only jolted into action by a twat across the head with a copy of the
King James?
So, to answer your question, Carl, what they're trying to say, or more accurately what they
did say but you were far, far too dense to pick up on, is that Homo floresiensis is more
closely related to us than we are to the great apes, you irredeemable cretin.
OK, we're almost done, but you'll be glad to know I've definitely saved the best for
last.
I must say that you really are full of surprises, Carl, because every time you make me think
you've achieved sublime perfection – that you've crested the zenith of the infinite
possibilities of human stupidity – you find a way out-do yourself.
In this case the epic moment came when you reached up for the stars and shattered the
fucktard ceiling by saying this: "But, by the way, the guy that invented
the word 'Hobbit' is now, um, considering some legal action against them for stealing
his word from his books and, er, movies."
His name, Carl, was John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and he's be dead since nineteen-seventy-fucking-three.
Thus, if he really is considering legal action it's a bigger miracle than William Lane
Craig coming out of a debate looking like a legitimate academic philosopher rather than
an intellectually bankrupt assclown.
On top of that, it wasn't even the Tolkien estate that was threatening suit, but rather
the company to which it had sold the rights to his work, and on top of that they weren't
suing the scientists in question but rather a low-budget movie studio for their use of
the word in the title of their exploitative release, "Age of the Hobbits."
In a different incident a scientist, who was stupid enough to ask for it, was denied permission
to use the word in a talk he was giving on Homo floresiensis by the same organization,
but this neither involved a law suit nor the scientists associated with the discovery or
its documentation.
I asked it earlier, but now I feel the need to ask it again.
What the fuck is wrong with you, Carl?
You were wrong on every conceivable point here despite all of this information being
in the Wikipedia article you claimed you were reading.
It's very difficult to imagine a scenario here where you were deliberately lying because
of the immensity of the down-side of how it makes you look.
So what on Earth could have moved you to expectorate this particularly laughable collection of
miserably erroneous and muddled words and syllables?
Are you really this stupid?
Really?!
Or have you just been telling lies for so long that you've convinced yourself that
everything that comes out must be de facto true, and so have long since given up on checking
any of your cranial flatulence for congruence with reality before you release its rancid
noxiousness into public?
Whatever the answer, Carl, I would ask any of your subscribers who are watching this,
no matter what their stance on any of the other points I've had issue with in your
video, to at least pause for a moment and ask themselves this question: if you could
be so wrong and so ignorant on something so straightforward and simple, then could you,
just perhaps, also be wrong on the turd mountain of anti-science propaganda you've been peddling
to them over the years?
And again, for any sane Christians out there, I'd suggest you ask yourselves how you think
this unmitigated, feckless oaf reflects on your beliefs, and whether this might warrant
you doing something more than just standing by and letting him smear his filthy excrement
over your religion and your God while he's doing the same to modern science.
For more infomation >> How Will President Trump, GOP Relationship Change After August Recess? | MSNBC - Duration: 1:52. 
For more infomation >> Smear campaign targets McMaster - Duration: 2:51. 
For more infomation >> Lemon water 101: What are the benefits of drinking it? - Duration: 2:23. 
For more infomation >> Record-Breaking Neymar Transfer to PSG - Duration: 1:00. 
For more infomation >> Trump Boasts Economic Boost, Sessions Attacks Leakers - Duration: 1:52. 
For more infomation >> Improvements Ironing Center with Hamper - Duration: 1:31. 
For more infomation >> Julio Iglesias y Romeo Santos le cantarán una canción a sus partes íntimas - Duration: 2:22. 
For more infomation >> Excitement Building For 38th Pan-Mass Challenge - Duration: 2:58. 
For more infomation >> 🔴 PUMP, Hawking says ETs are close - FACEBOOK DISABLED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - Duration: 3:50. 
For more infomation >> María Elena Salinas ha sido un gran ejemplo para Karla Martínez y Satcha Pretto - Duration: 5:14. 
For more infomation >> Amang Capulong Anak Ng Tundo[Monsour Del Rosario]1992 full movie - Duration: 1:44:12. 
For more infomation >> 10 Biggest Animals That Ever Lived on Earth - Duration: 5:06. 
For more infomation >> Indiana State Fair opens - Duration: 3:07. 
For more infomation >> Mystery Skulls
For more infomation >> Chrysler Grand Voyager 2.8 CRD TOURING / AUTOMAAT / 7 PERSOONS / STOW N GO - Duration: 0:58. 
For more infomation >> BMW 3 Serie Touring 320D HIGH EXECUTIVE / M-SPORT PAKKET / LEDER / NAVI / HEAD-UP DISPLAY - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Clash Royale Battles 3CrownUrAssBruh - Duration: 10:37:24. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét