Posts Tagged ‘why’

Transcript: Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 32)

December 14, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying this transcript!

[0:00] Eric Hovind: “Now understand, evolution is NOT a science. It is a world view, just like Christianity is a world view. So how is somebody that looks at the world through the lens of evolution going to view life? How are they gonna answer the basic questions of life?”

“Who am I?”

Hovind: “Evolution tells us we’re just an accident, the result of random chance.”

[0:25] Thunderf00t: (Haha) The product of random chance, you say? Heh, yeah, sure the same way it’s random chance that day follows night.

[0:34] Well, for certain, both I and you are unique. But what is it that makes you unique? Is it your property, your technology, your spouse, or your siblings, your children? Or is it something more intrinsic like your DNA?

[0:50] Well it turns out your genome will fit, uncompressed, on about a gigabyte. But that’s not the part of the genome that’s unique to you. Virtually all of this is identical to that of your neighbors. The bit of the genome that’s unique to you is only about 10 megabytes. That means that your typical iPod with maybe 30GB of memory can store the genetic uniqueness of about 3,000 people on something that will fit in the palm of your hand.

[1:17] Now let’s follow that thought for a moment and say that the potency of a system is related, in a loose way, to the information within that system. Well, to be honest, the genome is basically only the instructions, if you like, for the ‘make-human’ process. And part of that make-human process includes the brain.

[1:36] Now, it’s kind of fuzzy to work out how much memory the brain has. But it’s typically estimated on the order of terabytes. Now the design of an informational storage device that can hold more information than that design itself is, not exactly an earth-shattering concept.

[1:51] For instance, the blueprints and design specs for the make-hard drive function are probably only on the order of a few gigabytes or so, and that’s massively smaller than the storage that these devices have.

[2:04] So is it your brain that makes you special? Well, it’s certainly a big part of it. But as individuals, humans are unimpressive creatures. They really only come into their own when they start to work in groups.

[2:18] For instance, one man versus a tiger is: one well-fed tiger, 100% probability. 10 coordinated people versus one tiger, is one nice tiger skin rug, 100% probability.

[2:33] This change in group behavior is doubtless due to tiny changes in the genome that promotes communal behavior. But this has a very large effect on the survivability of the individuals.

[2:44] For instance, 10 specialists, you know—the farmer, the farrier, the blacksmiths—that sort of thing, will carry significantly more knowledge than 10 individuals who do not work as a coordinated group. That is, they have better informational potential as 10 people all trying to remember specialized information than 10 people all trying to learn 10 times as much as will fit into their soft, squidgy human brains. You know, it’s that you do better with 10 specialists than you do with 10 jack of all trades, master of none types.

[3:19] But there’s more to it than working in teams. People die. And when they do, their knowledge is lost, via what’s taught to the next generation. However, when one of those individual’s immense stored media—you know: writing, disk drives, the internet, that sort of thing—everything changes. Knowledge from that point on is essentially accumulative AND exponential in nature. Knowledge enables large groups to coordinate and work together, and it enables machines that can do the work of thousands of men. It enables health care, clean water, understanding disease, and so on. So you see from these miniscule tweaks in the DNA, massive effects can ensue.

[4:02] Those relatively modest changes that promote group formation can greatly increase the potency of a community. After this genetic selection plays a diminished role, its selection criteria that determines who dies and who doesn’t is essentially down to the stored knowledge of societies. Communities that can treat small pox will survive better than those that cannot. Communities that can treat water survive better than those that cannot. Societies with WWII era weaponry simply cannot challenge modern military equipment on the battle field.

[4:35] But it’s the pace that this knowledge can be gathered at that’s the real knee-weakening factor. I mean, merely over the last few decades I’ve seen vast changes in our civilization. When I was young, there was no such thing as a personal computer. And now, just over one generation further on, it’s difficult to find ANY aspect of our lives that does not benefit from this technology.

[4:59] Our genetics are now essentially in a state of stasis when one considers the growth of the knowledge of mankind. Looked at in such terms, the potency of mankind is a product of several factors which contain elements that could be described both as genetic and group survival terms.

[5:17] However, one thing is overwhelmingly clear. And that’s for mankind, knowledge is the principle factor. Knowledge is the enabler of both society’s and the species. Knowledge is now the prime factor in deciding the survivability of individuals. Knowledge is the future, and intentionally, intellectually corrosive muppets like this:

[5:40] Kent Hovind: “I believe the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant word of the living God. I believe it from cover to cover. Amen. And I believe the evolution theory that’s being taught in our schools is one of the dumbest and most dangerous religions in the history of humanity.”

[6:00] Thunderf00t: -just cannot be ignored.

[6:03] Presented with such arguments, it’s baffling that so many politicians do not have education; that’s the propagation of knowledge. And research, that’s the acquisition of new knowledge. And countering the disinformation sewn by pseudoscientists, that’s the top items on their agenda.

[6:22] Now let’s compare this previously presented perspective to that of a creationist:

[6:27] clip: “Who am I?”

Hovind: “Evolution tells us we’re just an accident, the result of random chance. But the Bible says we’re fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of our Creator.”

[6:40] Thunderf00t: (chuckles) Well, fundamentally, no. We are a hierarchical, social, species. Something an individual god can never be. It’s tautological that a single individual cannot form a hierarchical social structure.

[6:56] clip: “Why am I here?”

Hovind: “Evolution leaves us without an answer. There IS NO purpose to life.”

[7:03] Thunderf00t: Well, again—no. You HAVE a purpose AND a vested interest; and the benefit of the society that raised your living standards and life expectancy beyond any ramblings from any Bronze Age myth book.

[7:18] I mean, really it’s a direct challenge. Present anything in the Bible or similar that conveys what we are and how our species functions better than I have shown in this video. But again, it shows this harsh contrast.

[7:34] I could concisely and comprehensively convey complex concepts, clear of the confusion of convolutional clouding. But the Bible bombastically and bitterly bombs, as belied by its bleakly bad bungling. [Extra points for alliteration!]

[7:50] clip: “Where am I going when I die?”

Hovind: “Well, if evolution is true, don’t worry about it. You got nothing to lose. But if creation is true, you have everything to lose by not considering this fundamental question of life.”

[8:03] Thunderf00t: Well all this seems a pretty shallow and manipulative play on the sense of self-preservation that we must necessarily have. Well, at least why it’s those who don’t have one are unlikely to have lived long enough to watch this video.

[8:16] However, everyone watching this video does have a brain, and now that brain has been introduced to an overview of mankind and your position in it.

[8:26] Immortality is an elusive concept for volatile genes, organisms, organs, and ideas. Self-preservation is merely the introspective fear of the termination of an organ. But for those who perceive they’re part of an individual in the grand scheme of things, they gain an enhanced potential to shape the thoughts and behaviors of things long after their brain ceases to function.

[8:51] In this sense, for the lesser, as for the greater, the footprints of the individual in the sands of time will echo into the future. But ultimately, for reasons that should be explicitly clear in this video, Bronze Age religion is an inhibiting influence on the progression of mankind.

[9:08] Thankfully, in the open and free global forum of ideas this intellectually erosive concept is progressively more unviable, and I believe we serve the coming man, society and ourselves, in challenging it by decree of open contest.

Advertisements

God Loves you enough to BURN YOU WITH FIRE!: Transcript

August 16, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for providing this transcript!

[0:00] Thunderf00t: You know, I can put up with A LOT of fiction in a good story. Like blue god-like quantum men, or hundred year old girls fighting werewolves in subways. Or, people in computer games who can stop bullets if they believe it, and so on. However what I can’t take, even in a fantasy, is internal inconsistency. Like say, for instance when these agents—they can punch through walls—and they wanna kill everyone in this car, and this is what happens when he jumps on the first car; he utterly destroys it. And of course, that’s what happens when he jumps on the car with everyone in it he’s trying to kill, right? Nah, he just nimbly lands on the hood, merely making a mess of the paintwork, and so on.

[0:42] Or the time where the car he wasn’t trying to kill the people in is a mangled, bullet time wreck. In films, these are just kind of annoying and they’re called plot holes—it’s an internal inconsistency, and it’s the hallmark of bullshit. And people who can hold these internal inconsistencies in their mind in the real world—and even justify them—are idiots.

[1:05] So, let me just give you an example like: ‘my boyfriend only beats me because he loves me so much.’ Actually, no that’s a bad example because that’s pretty emotionally driven. Let me give you another example, that ‘God loves me so much, that he will torture me for eternity if I don’t do what he says.

[1:24] Huh, now that’s exactly the same thing just for the fictional character. Now it’s just come to me. I’ve got a famous example of this. Like when John Paul II claimed that it was a miracle that saved him from dying when he was shot, and that it was the Lady of Fatima who diverted the bullet away from a critical artery. To which Richard Dawkins famously retorted in The God Delusion that:

[1:48] clip from “Richard Dawkins Reads The God Delusion”: “When he suffered an assassination attempt in Rome, and attributed his survival to intervention by Lady of Fatima, “her maternal hand guided the bullet”. One cannot help wondering why she didn’t guide it to miss him altogether. Others might think the team of surgeons who operated on him for six hours deserve at least a share of credit.”

[2:19] Thunderf00t: Hell, if he wanted a miracle thing, why didn’t he just make like Neo? I mean believe me, if the Pope could do this, there would be a hell of a lot more Catholics in the wide world. But the reason I bring all this up is ‘cos this YouTube video I saw the other day.

[2:35] The creationist Kent Hovind is currently in jail after being convicted on a host of federal offenses mostly related to not paying his taxes. In fact, he’s been in jail for the best part of the last ten years. So some of the religious folks were discussing this:

[2:50] clip from “New 911 EMERGENCY! Dr. Kent Hovind 07/10/2014 Truth Serum Talk Radio Show Club Creation”: “And if you’re not everyone, priest [?] please lift him up in prayer. God has kept his hand of protection on Kent. Kent has been with some of the most violent offenders in this nation, and he’s not been harmed.”
“Mmhmm. Yes, exactly. And that just shows you the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of God at work here.”

[3:13] Thunderf00t: So did you get that? The fact that Kent has not been harmed in jail—just like tens of thousands of other prisoners who haven’t been harmed in jail—is actually the work of god. However, it would seem that even though god is powerful enough to keep Kent safe in prison, he’s not quite powerful enough to free him from prison.

[3:33] clip from “New 911 EMERGENCY! Dr. Kent Hovind 07/10/2014 Truth Serum Talk Radio Show Club Creation”: “But then again, you know, we do have an enemy and it’s not flesh and blood. Our adversary is the Devil and it’s his objective, um, to clearly to shut Dr. Hovind up and lock him away from the world so he can’t continue winning souls.”

[3:50] Thuderf00t: I mean, really, an all-powerful being who you think has personally intervened to keep you safe in jail, can’t get one man out of jail. I mean DAMN, the sheer self-centeredness of it all. If you’re gonna pray for something, DAMN pray for an end to childhood cancer! Not to get Kent Hovind out of jail. Or even better—get off your knees and actually DO something. ‘Cos as the old saying goes, a single pair of hands at work achieves more than a billion clasped in prayer.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) – Transcript

July 3, 2014

[0:05] clip from VenomFangX: “When I claim that there was a worldwide flood, I get laughed at³.”
“But, this planet is covered ¾ in water. If the planet flooded like the Bible says, the Grand Canyon could have been formed in about five minutes.”

[0:22] Thunderf00t: This is a geographical map of the United States. This is the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is about 300 miles long. In order to travel from one end of the canyon to the other in five minutes, it is required that you would be travelling at about five to six times the speed of sound.”

[0:41] clip from VenomfangX: “the Grand Canyon could have been formed in about five minutes.”
“I get laughed at”
“in about five minutes”
“I get laughed at”
“Scientists have been desperately trying to find water on other planets. However, the search is futile.”

[0:59] Thunderf00t: Weeell, not really. There was the Mars Global Surveyor probe which had found evidence that water has been flowing on Mars within the last five years. Then of course, there’s the Mars Express probe which has taken pictures of water ice on Mars, and revealed massive deposits of water ice under the Martian poles. Then there’s the Cassini-Huygens probe that has taken pictures of water ice on Titan.

[1:22]: Three of the four large Jovian moons are composed mostly of water. It’s as likely that Europa has oceans under the frozen surface created by tidal heating from Jupiter. Similarly with Ganymede and Callisto, almost all the moons of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are ice balls too, as are most of the comets.

[1:43]: It’s difficult to contrive that anyone could make a more uneducated statement on the status of water in the solar system, than:

[1:51] clip from VenomFangX: “Scientists have been desperately trying to find water on other planets. However, the search is futile.”
“Yet, this planet—this, amazing planet—just so happens to have, you know, a hundred percent of the water in the whole solar system.”

[2:12]Thunderf00t: Well, let’s ignore for the moment the water on Mars, the gas giants. Let’s ignore the water on the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Let’s ignore all Kuiper belt objects such as Pluto, Sedna, of course all comets.

[2:26] clip from VenomFangX: “Here’s an interesting thing about water—uuh, where did it all come from? We can’t find like a speck of H₂O in outer space.”

[2:33] Thunderf00t: Is there still no water in the universe? BOLLOCKS. Water is the second most common molecule in the universe. The reason for this is simple. The elemental composition of the universe by atom percent is about 92% hydrogen, 8% helium, the third most common element in the universe is oxygen, and there’s less than 1 atom percent of it.

[2:56]: Helium of course doesn’t form any compounds, so the most common molecule in the universe is hydrogen, H₂. The second most common molecule in the universe is H₂O, water.

[3:11] clip from VenomFangX: “I get laughed at”
“There is a small zone around every star called the “habitable zone”, where liquid water is possible. Our Earth happens to be in a perfectly spherical orbit around our star.”
“perfectly spherical orbit around our star.”

[3:27] Thunderf00t: The Earth’s orbit is not a perfect sphere. It’s not a sphere, it’s not even a circle. The earth’s orbit around the sun, like all planetary orbits, is elliptical. And this has been known for about 400 years.

[3:44] clip from VenomFangX: “I get laughed at.”
“However, if Earth was a mere 5% closer to our sun, we would COOK, like Venus. Now, if our earth was a few percent away from our sun-“

[3:55] Thunderf00t: By a few percent, you fail to mention that this is 37%. This is about 50 BILLION meters, almost out as far as Mars.

[4:06] clip from VenomFangX: “I get laughed at.”

[4:11] clip from VenomFangX: “The Grand Canyon could’ve been formed in about five minutes.”

[4:14] clip from VenomFangX: “Yet, this planet—this, amazing planet—just so happens to have, you know, a hundred percent of the water in the whole solar system. We can’t find like a speck of H₂O in outer space.”

[4:24] clip from VenomFangX: “Our Earth happens to be in a perfectly spherical orbit around our star.”

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2) -Transcript

July 3, 2014

 

[0:04] VenomFangX: “Let’s talk about chemical evolution. In laboratory science, it is proven that hydrogen cannot turn into another element. So, we already know that chemical evolution is impossible.”

[0:14] Thunderf00t: Actually, the sun is powered by hydrogen being converted into higher elements by a process called fusion. So the energy released from this fusion that heats and lights the earth. However, the creationist may well argue that no one has actually ever been to the sun.

[0:29] clip from Futurama

[0:37] Thunderf00t: So let’s discount the sun for the moment. Here on earth, there are numerous groups working on laser fusion where hydrogen is converted into higher elements. Then of course, there’s the international thermonuclear experimental reactor currently being built in France, which is designed to harness the energy released from the fusion of hydrogen into helium.

[0:59]: However, even if a creationist were to ignore all of these examples, by which hydrogen is converted into higher elements, there are more graphic examples of fusion:

[1:15] VenomFangX: “It is proven that hydrogen cannot turn into another element . . . hydrogen cannot turn into another element . . . which we’ve proven to be impossible . . . [1:33] Here’s a fun fact: because the moon can eclipse the sun so perfectly, we can measure the constituency of the sun, the materials and elements on its surface, by observing the pinkish arc of the chromosphere at the moment of totality.”

[1:47] Thunderf00t: Here’s a fun fact: the only reason we cannot observe the elements on the surface of the sun all the time, is because we live under an atmosphere. Without this you could make exactly the same observations you can during an eclipse simply by putting your finger over the body of the sun.

[2:03]: Here’s a fun fact: we can actually see in the H-alpha wavelength, we would be able to directly observe the dynamic behavior of the surface of the sun.

[2:12]: Here’s a fun fact: have you ever wondered why there isn’t an eclipse every time the moon orbits the earth? Well it’s simple. The angle between the plane in which the moon orbits the earth, to the plane in which the earth orbits the sun is about five degrees. Practically, this means that a total solar eclipse can only happen two times of the year.

[2:33]: In a different geometrical arrangement such as, say for instance the moons of Jupiter, an eclipse is observed every time the moon goes around the planet.

[2:42] VenomFangX: “The moon fits over the sun so perfectly that it makes it possible to observe the surface of the sun. Otherwise this would be impossible. If the moon was too big or too small, it would be impossible. Because of our vantage point from the earth, the moon fits perfectly over the sun, the chances in which are one in a trillion.”

[2:59] Thunderf00t: What a crock of shit. The distance between the earth and the moon varies by about ten percent, between about 360 and 410 million meters. This practically means that the angular size of the moon can vary by about ten percent. As a direct result of this, about sixty percent of non-partial eclipses, the moon is too small to completely cover the sun and an annular eclipse is observed. In the remaining forty percent, the moon is too large, and a total solar eclipse is observed. All that is required to observe the outer layers of the sun is for the moon to be angularly bigger than the sun. Further, it’s completely bogus to call this ‘perfect’ for the simple reason the moon does not have a smooth surface. This causes an effect known as Baily’s beads where the sun shines through the valleys of the surface of the moon.

[3:55] VenomFangX: “Well, I’m not gonna sit here and tell you that I know how the planet was formed—‘cause I don’t. The Bible says God made the heavens and the earth in six days.”

[4:03] Thunderf00t: Is that the same Bible that allows you to make the statement that:

[4:07] VenomFangX: “The moon fits perfectly over the sun, the chances in which are one in a trillion.”

[4:11] Thunderf00t: You see this is the thing I’m always curious about when creationists assess probabilities. In order to make a statement on the probability of the moon perfectly covering the sun—ignoring for the moment the fact that it doesn’t—you would need to have a solid understanding of the mechanisms of the dynamics of the formation of the solar system and the planets. And yet:

[4:32] VenomFangX: “I’m not gonna sit here and tell you that I know how the stars or the planet was formed, because I have no idea . . . Clearly, this is pure imagination, yet it’s in a science textbook. Ridiculous, right? So if there’s pure imagination sneaking into the textbook, how can you trust what it says? . . . Let’s keep going. The conservation of angular momentum—we’re gonna talk about it—shows that if some-“

[5:03] Thunderf00t: What, you mean the conservation of angular momentum that’s in all the textbooks which only moments ago you described as containing ‘complete imagination’, and as ‘ridiculous’?

[5:20] VenomFangX: “The moon fits over the sun so perfectly that it makes it possible to observe the surface of the sun . . . In laboratory science, it has proven that hydrogen cannot turn into another element. So, we already know that chemical evolution is impossible . . . and the chances of which are one in a trillion.”

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript.

Video Transcript “Why ‘feminism’ poisons EVERYTHING”

June 27, 2014

Thunderf00t, “Why ‘feminism’ poisons EVERYTHING” 

[0:00] Thunderf00t: So why does feminism poison everything? And I really mean EVERYTHING. I mean, let’s just take one of the most absolutely, uncontentious and difficult things to poison that you could get. Say for instance, ‘raising money to help blood cancer research’. And now let’s see how many seconds it takes for feminism to poison it: 

 

[0:21] From Rebecca Watson clip, “Help Blood Cancer Research with Light the Night”: “Hello, YouTube. It’s been awhile. I’ve missed you. And, I’m guessing that you’ve missed me too. Because I’ve heard that if a male atheist on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a cunt, his balls will actually shrivel up, and then tuck up inside of him, forming what some call a ‘mangina’.” 

 

[0: 37] Thunderf00t: And that was it. That’s how the face of feminism—in atheism—thinks it’s the best way to start a charity fund-raiser—using this passive-aggressive victim routine to spit poison at the entire male atheist audience. 

 

[0:52] Rebecca Watson clip: “Because I’ve heard that if a male atheist on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a cunt, his balls will actually shrivel up, and then . . .” 

 

[1:00] Thunderf00t: Huh. And they wonder why they get called ‘toxic’. And of course it goes without saying that if you call her—specifically her [out] on being a toxic parasite, she will say, ‘Aaaah! Look at all this hatred women get! It just shows how endemic misogyny is in the atheist community.’ 

 

Now where have I seen that victimhood routine before? 

 

[1:20] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Anita Sarkeesian at TEDxWomen 2012”: “Now, I’m a pop culture critic. I am a feminist and I’m a woman . . . Turns out, that there are a bunch of male gamers out there who were, shall we say, not too excited about this project . . . I found myself the target of a massive online hate-campaign.” 

 

[1:34] Thunderf00t: -because remember, calling Feminist Frequency a liar just shows how much you hate women! Right? It can’t possibly be because she actually lied to everyone’s face for her Kickstarter.  

 

[1:48] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “This is a photo of me, at age ten playing Super Mario World on the Super Nintendo. So I’ve been playing games for quite a while.” 

 

[1:56] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Anita And The White Knights” (her lecture at Santa Monica College, CA 2010): “-one song, except I’m doing videogames. So, it’s not exactly a fandom. I’m not a fan of videogames. I actually have to learn a lot about videogames in the process of making this. And also videogames—like, I would love to play videogames. But, I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. And it’s just, gross. So-” 

 

[2:12] Thunderf00t: There you have it. Anita Sarkeesian in one sentence:  “I’m not a gamer, because shooting people and ripping off their heads is gross”. But the fact this princess needed to be rescued is an outrage—because rescuing a princess will make society more sexist. 

 

[2:31] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Support My Kickstarter Project – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “And as with all pop culture media, the gaming industry is playing a role in helping to shape our society. Either by challenging, or more often, reinforcing existing values, beliefs, and behaviors.” 

 

[2:42] Thunderf00t: Yes, that’s right. Games clearly have an influence on society. I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that rescuing girls will make society more sexist. While games where you <Anita Sarkeesian> “go around shooting people and ripping off their heads” will clearly make it more likely that you will uh, kill people and rip off their heads. Huh. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the very core of Anita’s proposition here is bullshit:  

 

[3:10] “And as with all pop culture media, the gaming industry is playing a role in helping to shape our society. Either by challenging, or more often, reinforcing existing values, beliefs, and behaviors.” 

 

[3:20] “to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”  

 

[3:23] Thunderf00t: -that the whole crusade that she’s got here against games she doesn’t even play is built on one, single, fundamentally wrong premise?  

 

But let’s be generous and say that even though she’s provided no evidence whatsoever that these games do make people more sexist. Aaand let’s just ignore the rather important point that everything else is built on this single, completely unsubstantiated point—now, let’s just ignore that for a moment and assume that she’s right. Doesn’t that means that she’s just got really, really messed up priorities?  

 

You know, ‘look at this princess who needed to be rescued. Because that’s gonna make society more misogynistic. And that’s a very serious problem’. Whereas her expert pop culture critic skills seem to have completely missed the fact that there are thousands of games out there that are gonna make society more likely to kill people and to rip off their heads.  

 

Now I think given that there are billions of people killed annually in these video games, and that that has no significant effect whatsoever on the murder statistics, suggest that playing video games really isn’t’ a significant factor. So that really does put the owners on Feminist Frequency to demonstrate why killing people in computer games doesn’t have any significant effect on society, while for some completely unexplained reason, ‘rescuing this princess is gonna make you more sexist’.   

 

[4:47] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The trope quickly became the go-to motivational hook for developers, as it provided an easy way to tap into adolescent male-power fantasies.”     

 

[4:57] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I would love to play videogames. But, I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. It’s just, gross. So-” 

 

[5:04] Thunderf00t: Yeah, I can see how that really would be a problem for pre-Kickstarter. Anita, thinking that ‘it’s gonna be difficult for me to play the victim, if all I have to work with is, I don’t like these first-person shooter type games’.  

 

[5:18] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. It’s just, gross. So-” 

 

[5:23] Thunderf00t: ‘Oh, I know what I need to say. I need to say that the gaming industry that supplies people who want first-person shooter type games with first-person shooter type games, which I’ve got no interest in playing, of course, is actually a patriarchal, misogynistic, man-o-centric, man-ocracy trying to oppress meeeeee.’ 

 

[5:39] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “It’s very male-dominated. And I think with that male-domination comes, a sense of entitlement; that these games are for men, and by men. And that women, if they’re going to participate, they need to shut up.” 

 

[5:49] Thunderf00t: Hey, Anita, I can play that game too. I’ve got almost no interest in puzzle games. Really don’t. But I can tell you with absolute certainty, that the fact that there isn’t more first-person shooter type action randomly in the middle of puzzle games, just shows how this gaming section is very woman dominated. And this female domination comes through in the sense of entitlement; that these games were made by women, for women. And that if men want to participate, they just have to shut up.  

 

I suppose I should congratulate her, ‘cause she’s managed to sell this bullshit all over the place. And managed to get people to give her a hundred and sixty thousand dollars for something that can be debunked in under a minute.  

 

[6:33] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I’m not a fan of videogames.” 

 

[6:35] Clip from “16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “By the pop culture critic and life-long gamer-“ 

 

[6:37] Thunderf00t: No, no, no, no, no. You gotta use feminist reasoning here. Calling her a liar because she lied to everyone’s face about being a gamer, just proooves how much misogyny there is in the gaming community.  

 

This is why people like Madonna dissociate themselves from feminism. Instead preferring to call themselves ‘humanists’. For the simple reason that those who vocally associate themselves with being feminists, tend to be so toxic, that they poison absolutely everything they come in contact with. Including, the very term ‘feminism. 

  

[7:12] Clip from “Gloria Allred: If You’re Not a Feminist, Then You’re a Bigot”: “I often say that if you’re not a feminist then you’re a bigot. I mean there is nothing in between.” 

 

[7:16] Clip from “mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event”: “-the assumption—I’m reading fuckface! I’m trying to fuckin’—I’m letting everybody else hear it, okay!? It’s not just for you Mr. entitled. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of the patriarchy. . .  

Can you, shut the fuck up for a second too” 

 

[7:37] Clip from?: “In particular, artists such as Miriam Shapiro and Judy Chicago championed what is today known as ‘vulvic’ or ‘cunt art’ to art historians. Which can be defined as a type of essentialist aesthetic that focuses on the universal, physical characteristics that all women share—their sexual organs or genitalia.” 

 

[7:56] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “#6 The Straw Feminist (Tropes vs. Women): “Women are being institutionally oppressed all the time in nearly every facet of our lives.” 

 

[8:02] Rebecca Watson clip from “Rebecca Watson – European Atheist Convention 2012”: “And when I point out that ‘bitch’ is a gendered insult that demeans all women—again, most people get it.”  

 

[8:09] Clip from Aliens“Get away from her, you bitch!” 

 

[8:11] Anita Sarkeesian clip from ?: “because it’s basically a choose-your-own-patriarchal-adventure porno fantasy.” 

 

[8:15] Thunderf00t: But recently, feminists have decided that Wikipedia is biased against them. Why? What’s the evidence for this? Because they say so, of course. The accusation IS the evidence. And now, because of their asserted bias, they want to inject feminism into Wikipedia in an exercise they call ‘Wikistorming’. Yeah. Feminists are looking to poison Wikipedia as well.  

 

The irony is though, on articles I’ve come across on Wiki, like, ‘Sexual dimorphism’, it’s already got the grubby fingerprints of feminist ideology-based edits all over it. But this is the thing. I don’t have to claim bias. Because claims are cheap, unsubstantiated. No, unlike feminists, I don’t claim bias. I demonstrate it.  

 

[9:06] Thunderf00t clip from “Feminism vs Facts (part 1)”: “You see, we are part of a sexually dimorphic species, that is, males and females tend to have different physical characteristics. Look, the reason that we divide the Olympics up by sex, is not because we are inherently sexist. It’s because men and women tend to have different traits. On average, in the upper body strength, it’s almost fifty-percent difference.  Ugh, come on. Tell me again how this is really a myth.  

 

[9:32] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth. Which of course is completely false.” 

 

[9:41] Thunderf00t clip from “Feminism vs Facts (part 1)”:  I’ve not seen this study yet. But I’m gonna go out there on a limb and predict that there will be no correlation whatsoever between the number of damsel-in-distress video games and the ensemble differences in the upper body strength between men and women.  

 

However, many who take a few seconds to read the Wiki page on ‘sexual dimorphism’ in humans might come across this, where someone seems to be suggesting exactly that: “The smaller differences in the lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing. Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength” (Wikipedia, “Sexual Dimorphism) 

 

But this is the cute thing—when you actually take a closer look at those references, and you find this: “The Gender and Science Reader brings together the key writings by leading scholars to provide a comprehensive feminist analysis of the nature and practice of science.” 

 

And just, take that to heart for a second. A ‘feminist analysis’. Not an objective analysis. Not a scientific analysis. A feminist analysis.  

 

Now let’s compare that to some of the other studies like: “One study of muscle strength at the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength. Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes” (Wikipedia, “Sexual Dimorphism”) 

 

Hm. And both of those from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I think I’m almost to the point where I can track down the difference between objective scientific research, and feminist research.  

 

[11:32] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Support My Kickstarter Project – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”“As you might imagine, this project requires an enormous amount of research.” 

 

[11:35] Thunderf00t: That is, if anything, Wikipedia already has a feminist bias to it. But come now, feminists. It’s time for you to shine. Show me the examples of where Wikipedia is biased against women to the point where you need feminists to storm Wikipedia and inject feminist thinking into its heart.  

 

 Many thanks to Linda for creating this transcript

 

So many videos to makes, so little time!

May 21, 2014

So the other day I started making a list of videos I have planned (which are at various degrees of development).

too-much-to-do1

—————————————————————
Interview with Lawrence Krauss (postponed)
How to spend a billion dollars.. What can you really buy with a billion dollars. Hubble cost average American 3 bux

Climate change videos
1) how much bioenergy to run man kinds biology compared to civilization compared to global warming flux
2) heat flow on planet earth
3) changing the volume of the oceans

Debunk Laci green feminist bullshit on feminism

Why do people laugh at creationists
1) giants – nephilimfree
2) Atmosphere -ian juby
3) What is science -ken ham
Noah’s arc theme park

Debunk radioactive bullshit
1) Depleted uranium
2) is it safe off Fukushima

How does a drinking bird work

sodium potassium alloy stuff
1) potassium exploding on ice
2) ultra high speed footage of explosion
3) large scale potassium, sodium and cesium explosions
4) ACTUAL mechanism of nak/water explosion
5) is it possible to get lithium to Explode

Make cesium thermometer- need to sort out high vacuum kit
Scientific research on Noah’s Flood- what happens to a plant under water for a year
Watching the go around the Sun (year in time lapse)
Time lapse of tracking telescope over several days (+ with without moon)

Debunk homeopathy (pico second qm simulation of water)
Who is thunder foot – scientific research
Getting drunk science – monitor blood alcohol level in resting and physically hard working thunderf00t
Comparison of sleep pattern while drunk and sober

Remaster why do people laugh at creationists videos

Anita sarkeesian master’s thesis and why having a ponytail is sexist
-Full reason why having gender bias in top field is probably nothing to do with sexism
Solar system in perspective. What if the solar system was all water
Death by meteorite impact…. Will you live long enough for your ears to go pop?

1) energetic of car crashes and statistics
2) comparison of car crash stats and rules and regulations with guns

call rationalwiki out on its comical degree of social justice warrior BS.

—————————————————————

 

So just curious, what you would like to see!

Why God stopping the Sun in the sky is so stupid, no matter which way you look at it!

October 6, 2012

Joshua call on God and God stops the sun in the sky right?

Well considering God was only doing this such that Joshua could have light to continue his butchery of a fleeing people (man woman and child), this has to be the most inefficient use of military force ever.  The Earth rotates once a day (ish, it actually depends on how you define days, when the Sun is in the same place again (solar time) , or the stars (siderial time)).  Just to give that some perspective, the people at the Earth surface on the equator are travelling about 1000 miles per hour (1.4x the speed of sound in the frame of reference of the Earths center of mass), those at temperate latitudes are doing about half of that, and those at the poles are doing zero!  This means if God merely stops the Earth, the people on the surface will be doing about half the speed of sound relative to the surface.  Given that it generally hurt to fall over, hitting objects at the best part of the speed of sound is probably going to sting!

Just so you know, this is what it looks like for something to hit a wall at about the speed of sound!

 

However to truely ‘Stop the Sun in the sky’ you need to stop the Earth in it’s orbit.  Here the calculations are actually very easy.  The Earths orbit around the Sun in about 30 km/ second.  Given the speed of sound is about 1/3rd km per second, this means the Earths orbital velocity is some 90 times the speed of sound.  So in order to stop the Sun in the sky you need to reduce the Earth velocity by 90 times the speed of sound, which in a frictionless environment is the same energy it would take to accelerate the Earth from rest to 90x the speed of sound.

So how much energy would this take?

Well kinetic energy is given by 1/2 x mass x velocity^2 (thats velocity squared)

So lets take a unit mass (1kg), and accelerate from rest to 30 000 meters per second (30 km/s the orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun)

KE = 0.5 x 1 x 30 000^2 joules (1/2 mv^2)

KE = 225 000 000 joules = 225 000 kJ

So how much explosive would be needed to accelerate a unit mass to his velocity.

Well wiki tells us that a killogram of TNT exploding releases 3 000 000 J of energy per kg,  = 3 000 kJ

That means it will take about (225 000/3 000) kg of TNT to accelerate a kg to the orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun.  Give or take, it requires about a 100 times an objects mass in TNT to accelerate it to this orbital velocity.  So to stop the Earth in its orbit would require about 100 times its mass in high explosives.

Lets just take a look at this in terms of total war.  Historically it turns out bombing is not a very efficient way of killing people, such that in WW2 it would typically take about 1 ton of bombs to kill one person.  Some ball park numbers,

In the bombing of Berlin, some 60 000 tons of explosive were dropped, which killed some 20-50 000 people.  These are actually fairly typical numbers for WW2.

So modern(ish) warfare takes about a TON of explosive to kill one person.  That might sound inefficiency till you compare to to God!.

God expends 100x the mass of the Earth in high explosive (~100 x 6 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 tons)

So lets say God killed 10 000 people by doing this, this means that God expended about the same energy as 6 000 000 000 000 000 000 tons of high explosive per person killed. The biggest atom bomb ever was the Czar bomb at some 50 megatons (50 000 000 tons of TNT).  This means that Gods expenditure of energy here was about the same as 100 000 000 000  (ONE HUNDRED BILLION Czar bombs per person he killed).

So, lets see, God, determined to wipe out a fleeing people, first tries throwing rocks at them, and manages to kill some of them, and then when Joshua wants some extra daylight to continue with this religious genocide, God obliges by stopping the Earth in its orbit at an energetic cost of 100x the Earth mass in high explosive, when the same effect could have been had with a truck load of flares.  Given that people can be killed simply by simply stopping the electrical current that regulates the heart, stopping the Earth such that Joshua can continue to kill man, woman and child by stabbing them with sharp pieces of metal seems to be both EXCEPTIONALLY inefficient and psychologically VERY messed up.

 

 

Thunderf00t 2012: The Aspirations.

April 13, 2012

The Priorities :

Why Do People Laugh at Creationists.

Of the people I talked to at The Reason Rally, (of the stuff I’d done) this was mentioned more than anything else as the key factor in ‘saving the saved’.   Two more episodes were meant to be put out before the Reason Rally (they are all scripted, just need a couple of weeks to put them together), just all the distractions that WLCs DMCA abuse and Dawahfilms flagging harassment took up all my spare time.  The Reason Rally, above all else convinced me that this is an area to focus on.   I am hoping to get 1/3 to ½ the time devoted to this (probably means somewhat under half the videos will be WDPLAC).

 

“OMG, The Bible says WHAT?!”

The bible is batshit crazy.  Most Christian have never read it, and so Im going to make the media.  I may even start this up as a guest spot for people read their favorite crazy bible verses.  This may take the form of a ‘mid-week short’.

 

SCIENCE BITCHES, IT WORKS

I’ve already got permission to get the footage from within a nuclear reactor for an experiment (~June).  Last year I showed you how close the edge of the unknown was and even demonstrated, for the first time as far as I can tell, that gaseous potassium is evolved when the metal is thrown into water, and its GREEN!  This year I’m going to show you the REAL face of the unknown, and how it could affect your life.  Yup going to go inside a nuclear reactor to look at something a billion times smaller that your typical human!

 

Nailing the religious types in the 2012 elections.

I would have liked to have been more active here, but regrettably I got sidetracked into DMCA and flagging complaints.

 

Build the community. 

The secular atheist community on YT emerged strongly, quickly overtaking all the religious communities.  In order to maintain and take full advantage of this position we need to increase the number of people producing good media regularly. I will be moving towards facilitating that goal.  There will be two mechanisms, 1) A (biyearly?) competition for people who have produced at least 3 good videos in three months.  This way promotional effort is focused on those who are both committed to, and capable of producing the goods 2) donation of equipment (green screen, cameras, sound equipment etc) to active folks who are making quality content videos, but that have the amateur-ish look that doesn’t fly so well on youtube these days.  Basically, imagine if someone had supplied ZOMGitscriss with a camera, green screen and other kit early on how much this would have helped.

-Deploy the resources where they will have greatest benefit for the community.

 

Create a DVD.

This is another project I’ve been trying to get done for about a year, to create a dvd of the work, if not for sale, then simply so it can be hosted and torrented.  Indeed I had wanted to get a thousand or so pressed (several kgs) to give away at the Reason Rally.  Sadly again event overtook the aspirations.

This year I’m not going to get enough time to go touring, so sadly no touring or dark sky astro video.   I might yet be able to get a good timelapse of Mars though!  Hope for clear skies 🙂

Yup, it’s going to be a busy year!

 

-=Support via Paypal=-

 

Why cold fusion is bullshit

November 21, 2011

So why is cold fusion bullshit?

    Firstly you need to understand the orders of magnitude of energy.  Imagine a kilogram of explosive.  Blow it up and you get a lot of energy.  In fact that energy actually comes in the form of accelerated atoms/ molecular fragments, and the pressure and temperature from these is what causes damage.  Okay, so when you blow up explosive you are releasing chemical bond type energy, and that’s typically in the eV (electron volt) range per nuclei.

     Now imagine a fusion type event.  This typically releases MeV (a million times as much energy) per nuclei.  This is why 10kg warhead, when releasing its energy all at once, can give kilotons of chemical explosive equivalent energy.  Bear in mind that for chemical explosive, you have eV type amounts of energy per nuclei (about the energy of a chemical bond), while with fusion you have a million times that.  So you fragments from fusion type events typically have a million time chemical bond energy, and this is why they are so dangerous.  That can make a mess of your DNA and kill your cells.  The bottom line is it really doesn’t matter if your fusion takes place at room temperature or millions of Kelvin, the products still have CRAZY amounts of energy.

    This is why if you really did have cold fusion on your desktop, you would be a gold plated idiot to be in the room while the reactor was running.  This is apparently what our Italian scientists are doing while running their ‘cold fusion reactor’.  However for some strange reason our Italians don’t find any high energy radiation.  This was also the problem with Pons and Fleischmanns claims of cold fusion.  They were claiming to get enough energy out to boil water.  Hmmm well if they had had that sort of fusion energy flux, everyone in the room would have died from the radiation.

Cold Fusion, normally turns out to be a poorly calibration thermocouple.

     This is where the whole thing goes into the category of bullshit.  Fusion is great ‘cos you generate MeV per reaction.  If you don’t have those high energy particles, then whatever you are doing is not fusion!  Even more perculiar is if you wanted to work out what sort of fusion you had going on, the first thing you would measure would be the energies and fluxes of the radiation coming off the sample.  Not only have our Italians not tried the obvious analysis (well how can they when they have no high energy radiation) but instead they focus on the bloody silly metric of ‘excess energy’.  That is they claim to put X energy in, get Y energy out and ascribe the difference to fusion, even though it’s bloody obviously from the lack of high energy particles that its not fusion.  The nearest analogy I can think of its like lighting a firework, watching it generate more energy than was put in, then concluding that the ‘excess energy’ must have been cold fusion.