"Dr." Kent Hovind

Kent "I really have a PhD" Hovind is known amongst evolutionary biologists as a constant pain in the butt. For those who haven't heard of him, here's a small introduction.
Hovind is a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the 6 day creation, and a young earth. Dr. Henry Morris (This guy is another nut case, but at least he has a real PhD) considers Hovind as a "god"send to his cause (Morris is the head of the Creation "Science" research institute) and even fully supports this guy's arguments. Even better, Chick publications (It's not a 10 day free trial porn site, check it out http://www.chick.com/ ) actually sells his books and videos.
Some of Hovind's brilliant "discoveries" include: White bread causes cancer, Adam was over 9 feet tall, Teaching Evolution is a conspiracy by Nazis, Marxists, and all those bad people.. (All from his website), dinosaurs are still alive today.

As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So let's see Hovind's evidence for the claim "dinosaurs are still alive today".
Hovind's Evidence: Three sets of badly taken photographs. That's it. Three or four silly images that any kid with Adobe Photoshop can beat.

Photograph No. 1: The Loch Ness Monster, old photographs showing a plesiosaur like animal on the foreground and one weird looking set of pictures where the "dinosaur" looks like a bag of old rubbish.
Upon first glance itself, I found that the Loch Ness and the Lake Champlain photos are most probably fake. Look at the wave patterns around the head and the body of the alleged "dinosaur". A creature that big swims without even breaking a wave?
The next set of pictures took me a while to understand that it was supposed to be a dinosaur and not a bag of rags. He claims that it was taken in 1977 by a Japanese fishing boat off the coast of New Zealand. I have serious doubts about the pictures' authenticity. Firstly, the "dinosaur" looks just like a mangled lump of stuff with a head like end. Has anyone else seen this thing or do we have to solely depend on the word of Kent? Turns out it was the rotting remains of a dead whale.
The next picture by far is the silliest. Again there is a lump of stuff which could be anything. Kent says it was a "sea monster that was washed up in a harbour in Massachusetts. Apparently a group of people came up and mutilated the body! I don't know, but scores of times, people have found bodies of whales and sharks on beaches intact. How come they decided to mutilate this one, and that too, in the middle of the night!
The last picture is a total phony. It looks like someone made a really good practical joke. It looks like a mounted effigy of some kind, like a cheap Made in China figure of a toy dinosaur.
Now I would like to remind you that just because dinosaurs have been found, does not mean that the theory of evolution is wrong. Even IF there are such "monsters" today, it merely means that the meteor that struck earth at the end of the Jurassic did not wipe out dinosaurs completely.
Note that after each example, he says there are more such instances in the video he is selling at $9.90. I think the whole thing is a bad scam. Seen a T-rex in your backyard lately? Or for that matter a triceratops?

Hovind then asks what he thinks are really big questions to evolutionists. For brevity, I have chosen the most silly ones.
Hovind: Where did space for the universe come from?
Gosh man, you are a moron on this count. Don't you know anything of the Big bang theory? Before you start using your faux science on that one, genesis gives no answer either. It primitively assumes that space and time are eternal concepts.
I am not a physicist, but I can say that just by your first question you have shown to be a fake scientist. Just because science does not have the complete answer now doesn't mean it ever will. Secondly, what the hell has this got to do with evolution? Evolution is solely a biological phenomenon which has nothing to do with the Big Bang!

Hovind: Where did matter come from?
I don't know. Neither do you, neither does anyone who is not too deeply into physics. This question again, has nothing at all to do with evolution. Evolution as I know it talks about life. The Bible has no answer to all this as well. It simply goes "and god created living things" or something.

Hovind: Where did gravity come from yadda yadda...
Bunch of crap questions. All answered above.
Hovind: How is matter so perfectly organised?
It is? You call this cesspool that is the universe "organised?!" I'd hate to walk into your room boy! The universe is a mess. Look at our own solar system. Any second a rogue asteroid can plunge into some helpless planet destroying all life on it. There is no organisation on the macro-level (By macro level I mean at least to the order of a few galactic groups.) Galaxies show pockets of order in them , but all are explained through perfectly simple laws of physics, like gravity and centripetal forces.
Oh yeah, What has all this got to do with evolution?
Finally:
Hovind: When, where how and WHY(??!!) did life originate from inanimate matter?
Finally that fucktard draws near life. When? 4 billion years ago. Where? Somewhere off the east coast of Tanganyika. Who knows? In what way is this linked to the theory itself? We cannot look back in time, we can only postulate. Besides, what difference does it make if we don't know to an exact point WHERE life arose? Does it matter? What's with the "why"? Why did life arose? So you could be born and ask stupid questions. It's something like asking why is blue blue.

Hovind: WWHW did life learn (?) to reproduce sexually?
When? Around 3.5 billion years ago. Where? Just off the 7-11 off Napier Road in Singapore. How? Bacteria don't learn. Those that do, live, those that don't die. Period. Why? Gosh this is stupid.

Hovind: With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Hovind, Hovind Hovind... you've been sleeping through your high school E.coli reproduction classes! Either that or you were staring at titty mags under the desk. Why, with another cell of course! The first cell capable of reproducing sexually was probably a bacterium. For details, any Secondary school biology text book is sufficient to tell you that it is nowhere near as complicated as human sexual reproduction. A bacterial cell like the E.coli can spontaneously become a "sex cell" when another E.coli inserts a pilum (a projection on its surface) into the cell. There is only one sex. There are no male female genitals. This mode of reproduction is the most primitive form of sexual reproduction. The protists evolved a better form, and the most advanced forms are seen in fungi, plants and animals.
Hovind: Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
The first sentence itself is flawed. Most animals in fact don't give a hoot for their young. Neither do plants. Try stealing an offspring sapling of a mango tree. Plants and animals constantly uptake energy as food. There can be two ways then they can live. They spend all that energy for metabolism, and growth, or they spend some amount for metabolism, and some to produce more plants and animals. Now into the picture comes the problem of death. Therefore, we can easily see which scenario is preferred. Animal infant care probably evolved again as a more efficient mechanism that optimised an individual's drive to survive and the need to reproduce.
Hovind: How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
This guy is losing it. To start off let me say, recombining DNA will never give carbohydrate or protein, and hence the analogy of English and Chinese is flawed. Besides, mutations are of two types. Point mutations (the change of one base unit in the DNA is not sufficient to explain the complexity of life that is attained today. Besides point mutations there are so many other kinds of mutations. Insertions, inversion, deletions, polyploidy.. all these involve changes in large sections of the chromosome. Just because recombining English letters will not produce chinese books does not mean that recombining DNA would not produce new varieties. What is the link between the two? If I were to say because books when they are flung don't fly, therefore birds cannot fly, would I be making sense?
And he goes on to another ten-twenty totally stupid questions, all of which have been answered ad nauseum by other evolutionists.
Apart from the usual "Evolution is a pagan religion" rants, Hovind has nothing new to offer to the creationist-evolutionist "debate". I wonder why he thinks he is such a respectable and feared force in the scientific community. I would like to see one scientific paper published by him in a reputed journal. Chick website actually considers him an authority on science. Let's look at one such sample:
Discover the age of the earth.If we were to discover a sunken ship, could we determine when the ship sank? Assuming we do not have the ship's log, we could check the dates on any coins found inside and know that the ship sank after the youngest coin was minted. The dates on the coins are limiting factors. If we found three coins dated 1650, 1718 and 1692, the ship must have sunk in 1718 or later.
We can apply this same logic to learn the age of the earth. The rotation of the earth is slowing down. That means it used to rotate faster. If the earth were millions of years old, the winds generated by the Coriolis effect would have made it uninhabitable. In his seminar, Dr. Hovind gives many more evidences of a young earth.

(From Chick Publications, http://www.chick.com/)
First, there are too many flaws here.
Is the earth really slowing down? Evidence?
Does this "slowdown" occur at a constant rate? Or is it periodical slowing down or speeding up? Evidence for this?
Hovind is known for making blind assertions without providing a shred of evidence. Even his so called "PhD thesis" was almost fully un-referenced. (Read about it here) Oh yeah, has "Dr." Hovind ever published ANY scientific paper in even a SECOND rate non-peer reviewed journal? If not, what makes him such an authority on science? I am not saying that just because you haven't got a simple publication you're not a scientist. But there is no evidence that you ARE one. Not only do you not have any positive claims about being a scientist, your "theories" often sound like ramblings from a padded cell than those of someone with even a partial knowledge of science. Remember Hovind, minor successes in "debates" and "seminars" do not make you a scientist.

True, as Carl Sagan said, they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Edison, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown....

Why Atheism?
(Note:From the Archives)

There was a time when I would have never accepted the concept of a god-less universe. I was born and raised a Hindu Brahmin (the highest caste of the archaic caste system), but I converted to Christianity (much like Ravi Zacharias, but unlike Zachy I left the faith a year later) in 2001. I was a good Christian for a few months, dutifully praising god, spending my quiet time meditating on his "Word" and trying to spread his word to the unsaved. Basically, I became a fuckstick. I apologise unreservedly to those people whose lives I had made a "living hell" by my constant harping on salvation in Christ Jesus.
Whew, now that's done, let me carry on with my original rant.
Firstly, atheists are of two types. Positive and Negative. A positive atheist is one that asserts, "there is NO god". While a negative atheist (sometimes classified under agnostics, people who suspend judgment on the supernatural) denies the assertion, "There is (at least) one god".
There is a reason why there is this difference although both their beliefs sound similar. A positive atheist faces the burden of proof in proving the assertion, "There is NO god". He must prove that his statement is true. A negative atheist does not have to. In fact a negative atheist denies the theist's assertion "There is god/s". So the burden of proof falls on the theist. I am a negative atheist. I believe that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the existence of god. Hence its existence cannot be substantiated, and therefore it probably does not exist.
Apart from the fact that no theist has so far given a logical proof for the existence of god, reality often contradicts the supposed "attributes" of this god character. Contradictions like the argument from evil, and the argument from divine hiddenness and contradictions in god's character (no being can be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. The two terms are contradictions in themselves) show that a character with all the attributes given to it by theists cannot exist. Hence atheism remains the only viable option. (For more detail read George H Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God)
Atheism, as a lack of belief in god thus also sets the stage for making reasoned choices, to bear responsibility for our actions, to strive and succeed with our own efforts and to be independent leaders of our own lives. Hence atheism. Note that I am not saying disbelief in god automatically makes one more reasoned. I am saying that if we demonstrate the use of reason in rejecting the belief in a deity, we can then make more rational choices (no need to turn to a deity to ask if the choice is right or wrong. We choose based on what we think is right), be more independent (we bear responsibility for our own actions, and not leave it to fate/god/spook), live lives with pride (rather than under the depraved feeling of perpetual guilt for all our actions) and hopefully, be more tolerant of our neighbours, regardless of race, class, sex or lifestyle as atheists themselves are often highly marginalized for their beliefs, or the lack of them. At last count I could be sentenced to death in fourteen countries for daring to commit the greatest crime of apostasy and blasphemy. Imagine, in the 21st Century there are people who want me to die because I don't believe in the same invisible man as they do and dare to say that out loud.

Atheism, as in rejecting a belief in deity, is a product of a rational mind, and hence it shows that the person is capable (though not necessarily willing) to make rational decisions.
Without god, life assumes even more meaning as we can then associate with living in a more personal way. For me, I realise therefore that my life is finite, and I want to make it as meaningful as possible, so on my deathbed, I have no regrets that I didn't lead it fully. As a Christian I was thinking of Jesus coming back and me being accountable to him. I now realise I am accountable only to me. How I live my life now will determine how satisfied I am later. Then when death comes it shall be like the end of a journey, tiring but fun. There is joy with a twinge of sadness, which is way more human than a ridiculous concept of everlasting life with god and his gang. Heaven is a great 30 second orgasm after sex, hell is an everlasting one.

Hence I am atheist.

The London blasts: Kill The Queen!

My only lasting regret is they didn't try to take down Buckingham Palace. It irritates me to no end that these idiots stand about talking about terrorists attacking their "freedom and way of life" when they have been responsible for the enslavement of half the globe and the systematic looting of some of the richest treasures of their colonies, something they have yet to apologize for.

The British royal family is a bunch of siftless, lazy, bunch of inbred yobbos who, by virtue of their birth are somehow given the divine right to govern, and these idiots have the gall to talk about democracy. It's sad that innocent people died in place of the queen and her gang. I suppose it would be too much to hope that the queen and her ilk will go the way of Diana.

When the Brits finally come to their senses and tear down that palace brick by brick and then pelt the whole House of Lords with it, only then they should let their leaders talk about democracy and freedom.

Am I the only one who has noticed the permanent puckered expression on Tony Blair's face? Must be all the Bush ass-kissing.

So the NKF saga ends. For those not in Singapore, NKF, The National Kidney Foundation has been THE biggest charity organisation in Singapore, each year raking in millions of dollars (upto 18% of all charity money donated here). It would hold huge fundraisers that would often outdo the other big event, the President's Star Charity in glitz and glamour here. However for all the money it raked in surprisingly little went to the common man who needed dialysis or a kidney transplant ($0.52 for every dollar made). What's more it has been disclosed that the CEO has been pulling a salary of S$25,000 (US$15,000) per month, and a 12 month bonus leading to him having an annual salary of S$600,000 (US$350,000), and other perks which included first class flights on charity money, gold plated bathroom fittings, also presumably on charity money, company cars (Mercedes Benz's) for private work etc.

The hue and cry raised was surprising for a country like Singapore where normally the biggest outcry against perceived social injustice is a tentative letter in forum pages of the local newspaper. People went to the extent of tarnishing the NKF signboard with graffitti. WOAH!

Here I am thinking, what's the big deal? I mean, the NKF has always been glitzy, it has always been a rich man's show, and it has always commanded the big bucks (it has reserves for 30 years worth of operations, S$260,000,000).

All this was known for years but why only now has the outcry risen? Does it have to do with the fact that the CEO, TT Durai bit of much more than he could chew when he tried to sue the local media company for defamation, leading to all this being published right out in the front pages? The local papers, like all local politicians and government bodies (And people like Durai) are shockingly thin skinned. This whole issue arose over one thin skinned local charity CEO suing ANOTHER thin skinned government body, the Singapore Press Holdings. Pot, meet kettle. Unfortunately for Mr Durai, he picked a fight he could never win. SPH is the only newspaper organization here and Mr Durai was simply begging for having his name tarred and feathered by trying to take on SPH and tarred and feathered he was, in the proper gentlemanly way that has become the hallmark of a Singapore libel suit. (Poor JBJ is still bleeding from the ass).

Is $600,000 a reasonable pay for a CEO of a charity?

I agree that the 12 month bonus was a bit much and certainly way over what most people would agree is fair. However $25,000 a month for a CEO of an organization as large as the NKF sounds reasonable. CEO's in Singapore earn up to ten times as much for companies that are much smaller than the NKF. Instead of raising Cain over a little issue like this shouldn't the public rise up against the fact that health care in Singapore is ridiculously expensive? Shouldn't we do something about the ridiculous Medisave policy which prevents Singaporeans from seeking cheaper and better healthcare avenues available in other countries? The very fact that organizations like NKF grow so large is because healthcare costs here are spiralling upwards. Added to that a rising income gap and uncertain employment, means that Joe Public very often feels it's cheaper to die here than to seek medical attention.

Ministers in Singapore earn upto five times what Mr Durai does. The president of Singapore gets ten times what he gets, for doing one tenth of the work. These people live off taxpayer money. Shouldn't we question the wisdom of paying them such outlandish salaries? For the record, the president of Singapore earns upto three times what Dubya earns but Singapore is smaller than New York City. Why isn't anyone questioning this, instead of going on silly witch hunts?

Welcome folks,

So I put up in my old site that I am getting sick of ranting about stupid shit. Well, I am. I mean, when you're hitting up skinnyass bitches who refuse to eat, it's time to step back and look at your fucking site.

Pros:

1> My ranting is now more focussed, I don't wander about the topic trying to cover as many bases/offend as many people in one rant as possible.

2> I hit not just the religious zealots but zealots of many different hues and shapes including those who "worship Ana", "worship Britney" or fellate George W. Bush.

3> I can get political ideas across easily so that the most simple minded Bush Supporter can understand what the hell I am trying to say.

4> I still manage to piss off ignorant-ass stupid fuck-bloggers.

5> I haven't been sued (although four people have threatened lawsuits), maimed or slaughtered with a small dining fork and my testicles served as a rare meat delicacy to the tribes of Mboto Gorge.

Cons:
1> Too bloody expensive. I had 25 GB of bandwidth for a site that was attracting tops 200 visitors a day.

2> I am already 25, and I don't intend to carry on ranting like an angst-filled kid. I finally decided to heed the calls for maturity with more Chomsky and fewer dick-jokes

3> I want to move on past fundamentalism and the site was holding me back as far as shedding baggage was concerned.

So this new blog (I am not too comfortable with blogs but let's see how things go) will be where I shall rant from. This new blog will feature mainly socio-political rants and takes on current affairs. Again, although the language will be toned down a bit (meaning I'll try really hard not to insult your mother), the point of view will remain the same. I'll still take potshots at popular culture, media, political figures, religious figures, nutjobs, and the occasional attack on stupid bloggers. The layout will be simple and no-frills. I won't bother putting up a profile so you can stare at my mug and think up interesting, rude nicknames. I'll just type what I feel like and when I want your opinion, I'll give you one.

Watch this space folks. More coming up.

-Hades