Category Archives: Skeptic

Evolutionary Psychology Bingo Card


I’ve no idea who made this card, in all honesty. However, this is perfect. Use it when someone tries to claim that 1950s gender roles are evolutionary chosen for and how women are naturally inferior to men because SCIENCE!.


For a Good Laugh: Kent Hovind’s Doctoral Dissertation

Kent Hovind: creationist, owner of Dinosaur Adventure Land, so-called “Dr. Dino”, claimant of four “PhDs” from Patriot Bible University, and currently serving ten years for tax fraud. But you really need to care about the first and the fourth parts.

Patriot Bible University is essentially a diploma mill, and for some reason they won’t release their doctoral students’ dissertations. By contrast, most (if not all) (accredited) universities allow the public to access their students’ dissertations, often times in the university library. And given the fact that Hovid’s a creationist and utterly ignorant on how the theory of evolution (or science in general it seems) works, people have been curious about exactly WHAT said dissertation contains.

So, I finally found a copy of Kent Hovind’s doctoral dissertation for his “PhD” in Christian Education (which, for some reason, somehow qualifies him to teach about evolution? The mind boggles.). It was leaked on WikiLeaks a few years ago, to the horror of Patriot Bible University (and probably Hovind himself), but the last time I tried to access it the URL was down. Today, said link finally worked, and now I’m free to share said document to the world.

This is the dissertation in question. It’s hosted on my blog, so it should be accessible for all eternity (or until WordPress breaks down, or if WordPress decides to suspend my blog without a reason again, whichever comes first),

Anyways, I just want to highlight my favorite parts.


My name is Kevin Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I’ve been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for some time.

As someone once said, “That’s not a thesis, that’s a letter to Santa.”

All seriousness though. who actually starts off a dissertation saying “My name is <nym> and I am a <career/title>. I have been <career> since <year>.”? Are you writing a serious dissertation or are you sitting on Santa’s lap asking for a PhD for Christmas under the tree?

It is my burning desire to help Christians get back to a simple faith in God’s Word. Satan’s method has always been to instill doubt in God’s Word. The first sentence that came from Satan that is recorded for us in the Bible is: “Yea, hath God said?” He started by questioning God’s Word in the Garden of Eden. It worked there so he has used it ever since.

I’m a undergrad college student, and I can write better sentences then that, complete with complicated sentence structures, Oxford commas, advanced vocabulary, and the like. Seriously, the most complicated word in that passage is “questioning”, with three syllables.

Of course, then there’s the “where’s the evidence that the Garden of Eden exists?”, “where’s the evidence that Satan is an actual being?”, “where’s the evidence that the Bible speaks the literal truth?”, and the like. Then again, this IS a dissertation for a PhD in Christian Education, so it does make sense. You’d think Hovind would have cited his work however, even if it IS from the Bible.

Also, I should note that the Jews didn’t believe that Satan was even speaking in Genesis 3:1. In fact, it’s specifically stated to be a serpent (NIV version, KJV version). I’m aware that Christian tradition presumes that the snake IS Satan, but that’s not what it says in the text itself.

In the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis. […] I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, perfect Word of God.

So from “God made the earth in 6 days, with plants before man” to “God made the earth, with man before plants” to “serpent convinced Eve to eat forbidden fruit who convinced Adam to eat forbidden fruit” to “kicked out of Eden” to “Cain kills Abel out of jealousy and Abel’s blood calls out to God” to “Noah’s ark and global flood because man is EBIL” to “rainbow covenant” to “lots more babies and names and descendants” to “tower of Babel”?

I mean, they’re nice stories and all, but seriously, they’re just stories. We have absolutely NO evidence that any of this stuff happened. In addition, the story contradicts itself. If God’s word is totally infallible and perfect and whatnot, why does the story contradict itself in it’s FIRST book? Doesn’t God have the power to NOT have the freaking creation story riddled with contradictions and errors?

Also, science is Satan now? Let me go fetch my pitchfork.

I believe that God’s Word is infallible and flawless in every detail.

See above.

If the Bible says that something was created in a certain way, then that is just the way it happened. Now, as a science teacher, I want to keep an open mind […]

> Bible is utterly infallible and that’s final, no questions asked.
> Science: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”

Choose one.

I will be quick to point out that “there is nothing new under the sun.”


Second of all, what is the point of writing this then? A dissertation is meant to advance our body of knowledge with new ideas, not restate it. If I wanted Genesis restated to me, I’ll go read Genesis myself.

There’s apparently supposed to be sixteen chapters in this dissertation. As someone else noted, there’s only four chapters. And none of the chapters really advance any knowledge at all — instead, it just explains what Hovind has come to learn “through many years of studying both science and the Bible”.

If I wanted to read an interpolation essay, I’ll read Montaigne. At least Montaigne is at a higher reading level AND is more interesting to read than this.

I didn’t go over the entire document (since it’s 102 pages long, and time is short), but RationalWiki did an amusing article on this dissertation here. I recommend you save a copy; I personally use it to make myself laugh.

The Unfortunate Implications of the Anti-Vaccine Claim of “Vaccines Cause Autism!!!”

Today I was walking home from class and mulling over various issues when my mind happened to think about the anti-vaccine “VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM!1!!” gambit.

You know this one: the so called “link” between vaccines and autism, and how you’re better off not vaccinating your kids because ZOMG AUTISM IS SO HORRIBLE.

And you know what? Pondering over the subject, I realized that the claim that vaccines cause autism and that you’re better off not vaccinating your kids is actually full of very unfortunate implications.

(This might have been partially inspired by the TVTropes page on unfortunate implications. I can verify that TVTropes WILL ruin your life.)

What happened the night before. Credit to xkcd.

What happened to me the night before, when I was supposed to do Latin homework (damn you TVTropes). Credit to xkcd, used under a CC BY-NC license.

Unfortunate implication: autism is DA WORST THING EVER and it’s better for a kid to be dead than to be autistic because disabilities are SO TERRIBLE, especially for the parents, because their “real child” has been “lost” and that no “real child” has disabilities.

Disclosure: I have a mild form of autism (formerly Asperger’s before the DSM got rid of that category and put it in the autism spectrum on the high functioning end).

So to me, this is actually pretty personal. And offensive.

I can totally sympathize with parents whose kids were recently diagnosed with autism. Seriously, finding out that your child will be facing some difficulties that isn’t their fault (to put it lightly) sucks. Feeling helpless sucks. You want to help your child, and that’s totally normal.

But the “disabilities are inherently bad and we need to make sure that no one else ends up disabled, even if it means that the kid might die” just smacks of WARNING, HIGHLY OFFENSIVE.

What it does is to enforce the paradigm that people with disabilities are “lesser” and not as human as the neurotypical people. It enforces the idea that if you’re disabled, you’re better off dead because how the hell can you stand to live knowing that you have a disability?

And it leads to the idea that risking preventable diseases (that can totally kill your kid!), autism biomed, chelation therapy, Lupron therapy, and even outright murder is totally justifiable, because hey, your kid wasn’t “normal” (whatever that means), and you just wanted to make them better, even if it means causing them further suffering in the process.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh, that’s some pretty serious unfortunate implication stuff right there.

And that stuff’s offensive.

Anti-vaxxors: no, you do not speak for me or for people like me when you claim that autism is caused by vaccines (which is totally not true by the way, this being one of the many studies on the topic). Nor do you speak for me when you then start saying that it’s better to risk death than to get your kid vaccinated because autism is so terrible.

That stuff is ableist as hell. And I want no part of it.

People: please, please get your vaccines. The world will be better off with it.


I’m supposed to be doing homework at the moment, but I just needed to post this.

Okay, so there is this “documentary” about GMOs made by anti-GMO groups called Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs. I’m probably going to listen to this video while I struggle with nuclear chemistry, but there’s this quote that I HAVE to show you.

“And of course what happens is when their genes are changed, our genes are changed by consuming them, just as the super weeds and the super bugs are genetically altered by consuming them. The bug eats the plant, its genes change. The animal eats the plant, its genes change. We eat the animal or the plant, our genes change. Our babies’ genes change and the change is permanent.”

(Clip; this is about 20 minutes into the original documentary.)


Are you serious?

You have GOT to be kidding—nope, wait, you’re not.

Someone should TOTALLY let me know if after eating some spinach whether we get the ability to photosynthesize.

Anti-GMO groups: where basic science and common sense are not allowed.

From NaturalNews: We Should Totally Tell Cancer Patents to Use DMSO!

There is so much cancer quackery in the world, I swear. I don’t think it’s ever possible to get to the bottom of the barrel, since it’s like everywhere.

That and autism quackery, but that’s its own little can of worms.

The article: “Whatever Happened to DMSO for Cancer and What Is It Anyway?”

But before the mocking, let’s do a little science lesson.

DMSO (dimethyl sulfide) is an organosulfer polar solvent, a byproduct of the paper production process. It is mincible (i.e. it can easily create solutions) with numerous solvents and can easily tolerate strong bases due to its acidity, which makes it useful for chemical analysis.  It is also used to preserve frozen tissues in cyropreservation, in order to prevent cell rupture due to the formation of large ice crystals. It also can easily penetrate cellular membranes without damaging it, and transport chemicals along with it. For this reason, it is used as a drug vehicle in experiments.

Because of the latter property, it was the subject of experimentation in the 1960s. However, these experiments were soon stopped when people began to worry about possible side effects. Damage to the eye, headaches, a burning sensation at the application site, itching, and a strong garlic odor/taste in the mouth have been reported. Furthermore, because it can easily dissolve numerous substances, there is a risk of absorbing unwanted contaminants into the skin along with the drug(s) desired. For these reasons, the FDA has not approved the use of DMSO in humans for any condition exempting interstitial cystitis (i.e. a really, really, really painful bladder). The FDA also has put DMSO products on a list of fake cancer “cures” to avoid.

There is some evidence that DMSO might be useful as a drug carrier for the treatment of bladder cancer. However, further testing is needed.

Now for the mocking.

The initial excitement during the 1960s and ’70s for a wide variety of uses with natural, inexpensive DMSO […]

DMSO is “natural” now even though it’s an industrial byproduct? *raises eyebrows*

SCAM proponents have a weird definition on “natural”.

[…] was eventually suppressed by the Medical Mafia and followed by obligatory disinformation campaigns.

Because there was evidence of glaucoma when we were using it in animal models. That’s not suppression, that’s saying that the risk is too great.

The unofficial explanation for the Camelot raid and shutdown was that the clinic was using vitamin B17, or laetrile, an FDA-banned substance for treating cancer. Laetrile was banned even after it was proven safe and efficacious against cancer. Because as a natural substance, it wasn’t patentable for huge profits.

I went over the story of laetrile in a previous post. Needless to say, laetrile has been linked to cyanide poisoning, is not effective for anything, and is not safe to consume.

Also, just saying, but you don’t need to patent something to make huge profits. Acetaminophen isn’t patented, and yet it still brings large profits to the companies that sell it. In addition, much of the medicines that we have come initially come from natural sources (e.g. aspirin, digoxin).

(I really need to finish that series. Note to self.)

Instead of the chemo destroying everything in its path as usual, the DMSO escorted the chemo to cancer cells only, thus greatly reducing the amount of chemotherapy needed for a result.

DMSO can read minds? And it somehow intuitively knows to only go towards the cancer cells, and not to the eye or whatnot? And it’s smart enough to not transport chemotherapy drugs to surrounding cells?

The scientist in me finds it really, really, really hard to suspend belief.

Using only 10% of any chemotherapy drug and getting positive results adversely affects Big Pharma’s profits.

See: Damage to the eye, headaches, a burning sensation at the application site, itching, and a strong garlic odor/taste in the mouth have been reported.

Also, uh, if it worked, scientists would happy embrace the treatment and we’d call it medicine. If there was something better, and it worked, why would pharmaceutical companies NOT want to market it? And why would doctors NOT use it? After all, the goal of medicine is to treat and help patients—if there was something better that we can use for a treatment, we’d totally use it.

DMSO has been used by itself for anecdotal success with cancer.

Anecdotes =! data.

Now, NaturalNews was nice to us, and threw us a bone with a study done in India. This is the study in question. The actual text is behind a pay wall, so I can’t actually go over the methodology and see if it’s valid.

But let’s say it is. Let’s say that it actually does what it says it does.

One study isn’t enough. We still need to be able to replicate it, see if the results in rats can apply to humans, etc. So while it is promising, this is by no means the end of the controversy. That’s how it works.

The FDA requires DMSO to be sold only as a solvent. Please research thoroughly with the sources provided before purchasing DMSO.

Industrial DMSO is not pharmaceutical grade. There’s a huge chance that there’s contaminants (both chemical and bacterial, since it’s not sterile) inside industrial DMSO, and these contaminants might kill you. DO NOT DO THIS.

Needless to say, I don’t recommend you actually purchasing DMSO and using that to treat cancer. At least not at this time. More research is needed to see if it works.

Happy Saturday!

My One Trip to the Cesspool of Pesudoscience:

Today, I went off the deep end in search of new blog material, I opened an incognito window on my browser, and typed in in the address bar.

Oh gods. Oh, oh gods.

I knew that was not a reliable source and that if you quote it seriously, you’re going to get laughed out of the room. I knew that that site was going to be chock full of misinformation and that you need to watch out before you get sucked in. Everything pesudoscientific ever to come into existence can and will end up here, plus some additional things such as conspiracy theories.

So I thought I knew what to expect.

It’s even worse than that.

The following is a sample page on what you might find on This is a screenshot, and not a link to the actual page itself. Hence, none of the links are clickable. You have been forewarned.

It’s so wrong that it’s not even wrong anymore.

I don’t even think this is worth debunking or mocking. It’s so ridiculous, mocking it won’t even do it justice. That’s how bad it is.

I’m going to go find brain bleach.

Happy Friday!



Happy Veteran’s Day people! Today, another serving of woo, mocked up to your taste.

Woo NEVER gets old, does it?

The article: “Raw Organic Fruits and Vegetables Can Cure Cancer, So Why Don’t Oncologists Tell Their Patients?”

The presumption: raw foods will cure a cancer patient.

Someone want to explain to me how that works?

There is a 75-year “CON” known as Western Medicine, but it’s a hush-hush topic in the news and in newspapers and magazines. Although medical doctors and surgeons are experts at fixing broken bones or removing animal fat from clogged arteries, the “pharmaceutical nation” known as the USA is caving in on itself, but nobody is allowed to talk about it on TV, or they lose all their sponsors.

Only a few sentences in and we’re already getting ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!11!!. It’s like BOOM! CONSPIRACY! IN YOUR FACE!

And of course the media’s in on it. And the doctors, and Big Pharma.

How many people were bribed again?

There is also a world of medicine known as organic food, but some people want to cook it, fry it, boil it or broil it, or even worse, grill it out, and that LIVE food becomes DEAD food, useless to the body, which needs nutrients for immunity, cellular health, vitality and sustainability.

Because it’s so terrible to want to eat something warm and soft rather than something cold. And because obviously we were much better off before the invention of fire, when we had to risk diseases.

And of course, because by the time the food gets to your stomach, it’s not already dead/denatured/whatever from the stomach acids.

So why don’t oncologists talk about RAW foods, which are full of nutrients, oxygen for the cells (the cure for cancer) and the RAW REGIMEN when people are on their “death beds” or “sent home to die” with pancreatic cancer, liver cancer or cancer of some other organ that you have to have to survive?


  1. More nutrients =! cancer cure?
  2. You get more oxygen through breathing than by eating (besides the fact that your gut doesn’t actually absorb oxygen)?
  3. We have evidence that chemotherapy can help treat/cure people, and we have evidence that people who forego conventional cancer therapy just so that they can eat vegetables 24/7 die?
  4. Giving false hope to patients is really unethical?

Are these “Western Medicine” practitioners evil, money-grabbing cons or are they just ignorant, miseducated and unknowing? How could that be? How could you be trained to do surgery or read lab results and not know ONE THING about nutrition? Do some of them know but are not saying because their income would drop to about 25% of what they make now, using dangerous chemicals to treat a chemical-driven disease?

False dichotomy much?

Of course doctors know about nutrition. They also know that we don’t actually have evidence showing that ODing on micronutrients is going to treat/cure cancer.

Also, the fact that this author thinks that cancer is chemically-driven shows how much this author actually understands cancer.

(Hint: although hazardous chemicals can increase your risk for cancer, cancer is, first and foremost, uncontrollable cell division due to screwed up DNA).

No oncologist in the world suggests medicinal mushrooms, and take a big guess why!

Because eating a whole bunch of mushrooms isn’t going to treat/cure cancer?

(For a second there I thought the author meant psychedelic mushrooms. Uhhh.)

I mean, I know that oncologists do recommend people to eat healthier, but uh, that’s pretty much the same advice your physician gives you as a matter of point.

The answer to every one of the questions above is to just listen to the people who DO KNOW about RAW foods and can tell wonderful stories of their own recovery from deadly cancer and why they chose nutrition over chemo, surgery and radiation. Learn from honest souls who share their most personal journeys, through and past the “cons” of the cancer-industrial complex.

Because obviously anecdotes are the same as data if you have a lot of them.

Consider the fact that even scientists have found a natural cure for cancer, and people TESTIFY in court that it works, even for children with “terminal” cancer

Because court testimony is the same thing as a randomized clinical trial.

Check out Fooducate – the free phone app that scans the barcodes of foods and drinks, tells you if it’s GMO and rates it for quality!

Except that GMOs don’t cause cancer. And the scientific consensus agrees that GMOs are perfectly safe.

[…] if you don’t “eat” cancer, it doesn’t “eat” you.

Wait. Why were you even considering going down on Cancer anyhow?

I don't think going down on Cancer's very comfortable.

No, seriously. Why were you considering going down on this? It boggles the mind.

Onions: Some Sort of Magic Germ Sucking Portal Thingy

A friend of mine posted this in an online community that I frequent. Apparently this had been making the rounds on Facebook, and she posted this in a thread I started on said online community mocking SCAM and other pseudoscience.

Let me reproduce it in full, so that you can see that I’m not quote mining. It’s been reproduced online, see here, here, and here.

Wow- very interesting….Everyone should read

ONIONS! I had never heard this!!!

In 1919 when the flu killed 40 million people there was this Doctor that visited the many farmers to see if he could help them combat the flu…
Many of the farmers and their families had contracted it and many died.

The doctor came upon this one farmer and to his surprise, everyone was very healthy. When the doctor asked what the farmer was doing that was different the wife replied that she had placed an unpeeled onion in a dish in the rooms of the home, (probably only two rooms back then). The doctor couldn’t believe it and asked if he could have one of the onions and place it under the microscope. She gave him one and when he did this, he did find the flu virus in the onion. It obviously absorbed the bacteria, therefore, keeping the family healthy.

Now, I heard this story from my hairdresser. She said that several years ago, many of her employees were coming down with the flu, and so were many of her customers. The next year she placed several bowls with onions around in her shop. To her surprise, none of her staff got sick. It must work. Try it and see what happens. We did it last year and we never got the flu.

Now there is a P. S. to this for I sent it to a friend in Oregon who regularly contributes material to me on health issues. She replied with this most interesting experience about onions:

Thanks for the reminder. I don’t know about the farmer’s story…but, I do know that I contacted pneumonia, and, needless to say, I was very ill… I came across an article that said to cut both ends off an onion put it into an empty jar, and place the jar next to the sick patient at night. It said the onion would be black in the morning from the germs…sure enough it happened just like that…the onion was a mess and I began to feel better.

Another thing I read in the article was that onions and garlic placed around the room saved many from the black plague years ago. They have powerful antibacterial, antiseptic properties.

This is the other note. Lots of times when we have stomach problems we don’t know what to blame. Maybe it’s the onions that are to blame. Onions absorb bacteria is the reason they are so good at preventing us from getting colds and flu and is the very reason we shouldn’t eat an onion that has been sitting for a time after it has been cut open.


I had the wonderful privilege of touring Mullins Food Products, Makers of mayonnaise. Questions about food poisoning came up, and I wanted to share what I learned from a chemist.

Ed, who was our tour guide, is a food chemistry whiz. During the tour, someone asked if we really needed to worry about mayonnaise. People are always worried that mayonnaise will spoil. Ed’s answer will surprise you. Ed said that all commercially-made mayo is completely safe.

“It doesn’t even have to be refrigerated. No harm in refrigerating it, but it’s not really necessary.” He explained that the pH in mayonnaise is set at a point that bacteria could not survive in that environment. He then talked about the summer picnic, with the bowl of potato salad sitting on the table, and how everyone blames the mayonnaise when someone gets sick.

Ed says that, when food poisoning is reported, the first thing the officials look for is when the ‘victim’ last ate ONIONS and where those onions came from (in the potato salad?). Ed says it’s not the mayonnaise (as long as it’s not homemade mayo) that spoils in the outdoors. It’s probably the ONIONS, and if not the onions, it’s the POTATOES.

He explained onions are a huge magnet for bacteria, especially uncooked onions. You should never plan to keep a portion of a sliced onion.. He says it’s not even safe if you put it in a zip-lock bag and put it in your refrigerator.

It’s already contaminated enough just by being cut open and out for a bit, that it can be a danger to you (and doubly watch out for those onions you put in your hotdogs at the baseball park!). Ed says if you take the leftover onion and cook it like crazy you’ll probably be okay, but if you slice that leftover onion and put on your sandwich, you’re asking for trouble. Both the onions and the moist potato in a potato salad, will attract and grow bacteria faster than any commercial mayonnaise will even begin to break down.

Also, dogs should never eat onions. Their stomachs cannot metabolize onions.

Please remember it is dangerous to cut an onion and try to use it to cook the next day, it becomes highly poisonous for even a single night and creates toxic bacteria which may cause adverse stomach infections because of excess bile secretions and even food poisoning.

Please pass this on to all you love and care about.

Got it? Good.

Now to get down to the mock/debunking.

In 1919 when the flu killed 40 million people there was this Doctor that visited the many farmers to see if he could help them combat the flu…
Many of the farmers and their families had contracted it and many died.

The doctor came upon this one farmer and to his surprise, everyone was very healthy. When the doctor asked what the farmer was doing that was different the wife replied that she had placed an unpeeled onion in a dish in the rooms of the home, (probably only two rooms back then). The doctor couldn’t believe it and asked if he could have one of the onions and place it under the microscope. She gave him one and when he did this, he did find the flu virus in the onion. It obviously absorbed the bacteria, therefore, keeping the family healthy.

Some questions:

  1. Who was this doctor in question?
  2. Why are you speculating on how many rooms this supposed farmer’s wife had?
  3. Who was your biology teacher? Or did you not pay attention in biology class, given the fact that influenza is caused by viruses and not bacteria. And viruses are too small to be seen under a regular microscope. Electron microscopes weren’t even invented until 1931, so while we did know that viruses can cause disease since the late 19th century, we didn’t even know what they looked like.
  4. Why couldn’t the bacteria be just plain old bacteria? Bacteria are everywhere, and it’s quite likely that there was already bacteria on the onion naturally. If you took an orange peel and studied it, you can find bacteria under the microscope too. But does that mean that oranges absorb bacteria?
  5. Are you even 100% sure that it’s bacteria and not onion cells?

Now, I heard this story from my hairdresser. She said that several years ago, many of her employees were coming down with the flu, and so were many of her customers. The next year she placed several bowls with onions around in her shop. To her surprise, none of her staff got sick. It must work. Try it and see what happens. We did it last year and we never got the flu.

Because one data point is enough to draw a conclusion. Because testimonials are the same as data. Because herd immunity from flu vaccines wasn’t what kept you from getting the flu. Because it had to be the onion and not because you were washing your hands more or got lucky or something. Because post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I came across an article that said to cut both ends off an onion put it into an empty jar, and place the jar next to the sick patient at night. It said the onion would be black in the morning from the germs…sure enough it happened just like that…the onion was a mess and I began to feel better.

Because you wouldn’t have gotten better without the onion. Because onions don’t go through decomposition naturally.

Another thing I read in the article was that onions and garlic placed around the room saved many from the black plague years ago. They have powerful antibacterial, antiseptic properties.

[citation needed]

Also, I still don’t see how that’s like possible. At all. My knowledge of science says “nope, nuh uh, nope, does not work like that”. Does yours?

Lots of times when we have stomach problems we don’t know what to blame. Maybe it’s the onions that are to blame. 

Or maybe you have food poisoning. Maybe you had some spoiled milk. Maybe you ate too much. Maybe you ate too little. Maybe you have an ulcer.

I can play the speculation game too!



People are always worried that mayonnaise will spoil. Ed’s answer will surprise you. Ed said that all commercially-made mayo is completely safe.

“It doesn’t even have to be refrigerated. No harm in refrigerating it, but it’s not really necessary.” He explained that the pH in mayonnaise is set at a point that bacteria could not survive in that environment. 

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, no. If you opened a jar of mayo, that goes in the fridge. Mayo has raw eggs in it, and you don’t want to have that sitting in the counter.

The reason why you see jars of mayo on the supermarket counter in the open? Because the jars are prepared in such a way that it’s as sterile as possible inside. But once you open it, bacteria can come inside and multiply. That’s why you have to refrigerate an open jar.

He explained onions are a huge magnet for bacteria, especially uncooked onions. You should never plan to keep a portion of a sliced onion.. He says it’s not even safe if you put it in a zip-lock bag and put it in your refrigerator.

I made a lentil salad a while back, and it had cut, uncooked onions in it. I was still eating it a week later, and I’m perfectly okay.

And while my story definitely isn’t data, given the fact that the magic bacteria sucking portal mechanism isn’t explained and no source is provided, I’m going to conclude that it’s perfectly safe to eat uncooked onions, even if they’ve been sitting in the fridge for a few days.

Also, dogs should never eat onions. Their stomachs cannot metabolize onions.

Well, yeah, dogs shouldn’t eat onions because there’s compounds in onions (and garlic and shallots and the like) that can harm their red blood cells.

But this doesn’t actually prove anything. Dogs can’t eat chocolate either, and yet we can eat chocolate and not die.

Please remember it is dangerous to cut an onion and try to use it to cook the next day, it becomes highly poisonous for even a single night and creates toxic bacteria which may cause adverse stomach infections because of excess bile secretions and even food poisoning.

Wait, so onions can spontaneously generate bacteria? Didn’t science debunk spontaneous generation like a long time ago?

Conclusion: onions will not prevent you from getting the flu. Go get your influenza shots. Wash your hands. Eat onions to your hearts delight, even if it’s been sitting in the fridge for a few days. And science!

[LINK] MRAs Use BAD Math in Regards to a 2010 CDC Survey about Rape

Long story short, I took a nap the day before, and didn’t wake up until early this morning, so that’s why there was no post yesterday. Oops.

Anyways, moving on. I have a decent amount of work to do today, so I’m basically going to drop a link from Manboobz and go.

This link is about the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a victimization study in 2010, which MRAs like to (mis)use to claim that half of the rape victims are men and that 40% of rapists are women.

Of course, those speculations are based on bad math that is unfounded. David Futrelle had emailed the CDC about this survey, and they sent back a response stating such. Linky.

I highly encourage you to read this, even if it’s quite technical in nature. Enjoy.

And now, to homework!

“I Don’t Understand Evolution, Ergo It’s a LIE!” (NaturalNews Mocking)

Or, how Adams thinks he played “GOTCHA” with evolutionary biologists when he realized that evolution isn’t the same as abiogenesis.

First off, the article, “Huge Contradictions in ‘Scientific’ Thinking Reveled: Theory of Evolution in No Way Explains Origins of Life”.

First off, duh? The scientific community already knew this since, uh, after Darwin came up with what will become the theory of evolution via natural selection?

Seriously, the ONLY people who think that evolution = “explanation for all of life” are:

  1. Creationists.
  2. People who didn’t pay attention in science class when the topic of evolutionary biology came up.
  3. Anti-science cranks.

These are categories not mutually exclusive.

With that, lets get mocking!

Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they’ll usually give you a one-word answer: “Evolution.”

Ask any not-strawscientist where life on our planet comes from, and they’ll explain that it’s more complicated, but that much of the scientific consensus believes that abiogenesis is the where life came from and evolution is where we all specialized into becoming different kingdoms, phyla, families, genus, species, whatever.

Immediately thereafter, they will usually give you a condescending look that also implies you’re an idiot for not knowing this “scientific fact” that everyone else has accepted as true.

Yeah, because you are a dumbass if you think that you know more than evolutionary biologists on this subject. That’s as stupid as thinking that you can overturn special relativity with a thought experiment regarding a racecar and a train after learning about it one hour ago.

How idiotic Adams seems to be right now. Credit to xkcd.

How idiotic Adams seems to be right now. Credit to xkcd.

It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn’t even encompass origins of life. Rather, evolution (i.e. “natural selection”) explains a process by which species undergo a process of adaptation, fitness and reproduction in response to environmental, behavioral and sexual influences. No rational person can deny that natural selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms. It does not give rise to non-existent life.

Duh? I mean, it’s not like every reputable scientist under the sun doesn’t know this.

Adams, that straw looks mighty large. You sure you need it all?

Darwin, in other words, did not study the “reproduction of rocks” because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.

Yeah, we’re not stupid Adams. You might think that your readers are, but I have more respect for my own readers than that.

Also, abiogenesis =! “reproduction of rocks”.

Thus, the “Theory of Evolution” utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from.

You keep using the word theory. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

How did natural selection have anything to work on in the first place? You can’t “evolve” life forms from dead rocks, after all… unless the evolutionists are now embracing the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects into living organisms.

So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?

It’s call abiogenesis, Adams. Which is separate from the theory of evolution via natural selection, as you yourself have already noted.

I mean, it’s not like scientists have been asking this question for a long while.

And by the way, Adams, abiogenesis doesn’t mean life came from rocks. Just saying!

Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question.

Correction: strawscientists prefer to skip over the origins of life. REAL scientists did ask, and have already begun to draw answers. Again, abiogenesis.

According to scientists, you can never argue with scientists because they uniquely have a monopoly on all knowledge.

LOLWUT. Monopoly on ALL KNOWLEDGE? Even the knowledge on what you do at night?

Yes, I know what you do at night. I’m a scientist-in-training, it’s one of my first homework assignments in science college.

Be terrified.

Their beliefs can never be questioned because they are beyond any need to be validated.

Other than this archive of creationist claims regarding abiogenesis and numerous responses, with references, debunking them?

And other than the following links, which is only a small sampling of all of the evidence we have for evolution and the like?

“Scientific truth” is true because they say it is, […]

Because obviously saying that all scientists are incompetent quacks is true because you say it’s true, just like how your claims that you know more than an evolutionary biologist on the subject of abiogenesis/evolution is true because you say it’s true.

[…] and the faith-based belief that evolution explains the origins of life cannot be questioned either.

Adams, did you buy your strawscientists in bulk from Costco?

The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang. No biological organism could have possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological life.

According to physicists, the Big Bang itself followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws that we know of — gravity, electromagnetism, etc. — came out of the Big Bang. Even the very fabric of reality was created by it (space and time).

The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. “Give me one miracle,” they’re fond of saying, “and we can explain everything that follows.”

Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained. How could everything suddenly come from nothing? How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause? These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.

Oh my gods, the stupid, it’s too much.

Right now, I need to establish that I am not a physicist and that while I can give a nuanced explanation on what the Big Bang is (thank you Wikipedia!), I can’t fully explain it, and that any questions should be directed to your nearest physicist.

The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show, the scientific theory) is basically the leading theory describing how the universe came to be and where matter comes from. It does not describe conditions pre-Big Bang, only how the universe came to be and how the universe evolved into its current form. As such, the question on what the universe was like pre-Big Bang is irrelevant to this theory, just as the Big Bang is irrelevant towards explaining abiogenesis, which is irrelevant towards explaining the theory of evolution via natural selection. That is to say, these theories stand on their own, and are independent of one another.

The nuanced, simplistic description is as follows: once upon a time, there was a singularity in the universe, and it was very dense and very hot. This expanded extremely fast, and led to rapidly cycling temperatures and pressures, which led to the birth of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and bosons). This gradually became less and less dense, as the singularity expanded further and further, which led to lower temperatures, and as such, these elementary particles began to lose energy and slow down. Eventually, it cooled down enough to prevent the formation of additional elementary particles, which led to a mass destruction of quarks and bosons. These came together to form electrons, neutrons, and protons, which soon became atoms, which soon became matter. And such, matter was born!

This theory is supported by evidence, including cosmic microwave background radiation, various tests in particle accelerators, and the fact that galaxies are actually moving further and further away from one another.

What do you take away from this?

  1. Duh, of course the Big Bang Theory doesn’t explain life. It’s an independent theory that does not correlate with abiogenesis in ANY way. If we take away the Big Bang, abiogenesis will still work.
  2. The theory does not state that something came from nothing. That’s way too simplistic and not at all accurate.
  3. We have evidence that the Big Bang happened, so it’s not based on faith.
  4. Adams really needs to consider consulting a dictionary to learn what “faith” means and what science really is.
  5. Adam must have gotten a pretty good deal on those strawscientists.

Also, seriously, argument from credulity? King of Logical Fallacies, Adams is.

And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13.8 billion years later, we see life all around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang — where no life existed — and today, life must have appeared.

But how?


Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life spontaneously sprang from lifelessness. Seriously, that’s their real answer. They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic. Because “magic” is the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.


Nuanced explanation of abiogenesis covers: this basically describes how organic chemical compounds (e.g. amino acids) could be produced from inorganic chemicals, and how these organic chemical monomers eventually evolved into more and more complex organic chemical polymers which eventually led to primitive life.

Some of the stuff that we know from experimentation: that methane, ammonia, water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide/dioxide, and phosphate were present in large amounts in the atmosphere, that free oxygen (as in O2 or O3 gas) was rare or absent, that an energy source (e.g. electricity from thunderstorms, ultraviolet light, impact) allowed various reactions to occur that led to the formation of basic amino acids. and that polymers can spontaneously form under the conditions that were possible when Earth was still a young planet.

In other words, it does not mean “once upon there was a rock and somehow the rock gave rise to bacteria”.


All of a sudden, the idea of a Creator who seeded the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the “magical” explanations of many conventional scientists. It is far more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.

You know, I was mocking how Adams called the field of genetics a lie, and one of the things I swore he was going to say was that “evolution is too hard, God done it”.

26 days later, he hath done it! Because the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution is too hard, God done it! Even though there is absolutely no evidence of any supernatural deity, whereas we have a large body of evidence supporting the Big Bang, abiogenesis, AND evolution!


Conventional scientists, of course, will go through tremendous contortions to try to remove any idea of a designer, engineer or Creator from their worldview. That’s because nearly all of them are devout atheists who also disavow any belief in consciousness, free will, the soul, God or spirituality.


According to their own explanations, they themselves are mindless biological robots suffering from the mere delusion of mind created as a kind of artificial projection of mechanistic biological brain function.

I seriously think that Adams has an addition to strawscientists. It’s the only thing that makes any sense right now.

The twisted philosophy of many scientists also raises bizarre ethical lapses, such as their belief that killing a lab rat, or a dog, or even another human being is of no ethical consequence since all those creatures are not actually “alive” in any real way. This is why drug companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.


Also, we feel no remorse? So why do we have a field called bioethics, laws requiring that we get approval from Institutional Review Boards before we can conduct trials on human subjects, and something called “informed consent”?

Seriously, there’s a reason why we have Phase I, II, and III trials: you have to pass Phase I (Petri dishes) to get to Phase II (animal models) and you have to pass Phase II before we get to Phase III (human subjects). If you fail Phase II (e.g. if what you’re testing out doesn’t work as intended), you can’t just say “screw it, let’s mess with human subjects for funsies!”.

The worst trait of conventional scientists is not merely that they are wildly self-deluded into believing they have no real consciousness; it’s actually the fact that they are simultaneously wildly arrogant, even combative about forcing their twisted beliefs onto others.

Because Adams isn’t arrogant at all. I mean, claiming that he knows better than every single scientist in the world and proclaiming that only he knows DA TRUTH is just him being humble. And of course, it’s not like Adams doesn’t lie and imply that scientists are really amoral and cruel and unfeeling, in order to smear scientific concepts that he doesn’t understand, just to “win”, right?

I mean, this is the guy who approved and published on his website an article telling people that they should bleach away their cancer by drinking hydrogen peroxide. But of course, that is TRU COMPASSION, you guys! TRU COMPASSION.

Their faith-based beliefs are always described as “facts” while they proclaim other people’s beliefs are “delusions.”

Because Adams doesn’t outright claim that science is a total lie, and describes himself as the Health Ranger and the one who knows DA REAL TRUTH.

You cannot argue with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational defense.

Because obviously critical thinking = “adhom science in order to make it sound stupid, and assert that only you know DA TRUTH”.

As an example of this, ask any doctor or pharmacist this question: “Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine?”

I’m well aware that vaccines do carry some risks (duh) and that some people should never be vaccinated, ever. However, if a vaccine has FDA approval, and so long as you’re not allergic to any of a vaccine’s ingredients, it’s usually perfectly safe.

In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn’t compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.

Strawscientists and now strawdoctors? Huh. Because I’ve never met any doctor who claimed that the vaccine was 100% without risk.

You can test this further by asking a vaccine-pushing doctor, “Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe?”

After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer, “Well, sure, there are all sorts of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe.”

Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble onto the self-evident answer of “mercury,” a deadly neurotoxin which remains present in many modern vaccines.

Because the question “could you add anything in a vaccine to make it unsafe” can be asked in good faith and doesn’t signal that you have an agenda.

Also, Adams, you realize that mercury and thiomersal are not the same thing, right? One of them is an elemental compound, and the other is a preservative that happens to have mercury atoms in it. I mean, if you’re breathing in large amounts of the stuff or touching it, it’ll hurt you, but the amount you get in a vaccine is so little, you actually get more mercury containing compounds from consuming fish than you can by getting your shots.

This is not to mention that the only vaccine to have thiomersal in it is the flu vaccine, and only for multidose vials.

Ask the doctor, “Has any safe level of mercury ever been established for injection into a child?”

The answer, of course, is no. Logically, no vaccine containing mercury can be considered “safe” regardless of the level of mercury it contains.

Mercury =! thiomersal, Adams.

Also, we did do tests to see if thiomersal was safe. It is.

In addition, if even a small number of mercury compounds is enough to say “nope, not safe, buh buh”, you should probably throw out your CFL bulbs and the fish you were going to consume tonight. But be careful to not break the bulbs, unless you want to actually get mercury on the floor.

If, at any point in this questioning process, you get stonewalled by this person, recognize they are abandoning reason and reverting to their faith in “Scientism.” Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status. They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is required nor even desired. Who needs to validate “facts” anyway? Everyone already knows they are true, right?

So, all scientists are atheists, but scientists treat pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, and chemical companies as like God?

And Adams thinks that science is really just a circlejerk of people saying “nope, nope, nope, nope”, even though one of the main tenets of science is to ask questions and look for evidence to support one’s claims? And he also somehow thinks that we don’t question ourselves and repeat experiments and tests and review our own work to make sure that it makes sense?

Adams does not know how to logic.

All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise.


This is why doctors warn patients that their dietary supplements are “interfering with their medications” and not the other way around.


Many scientists, sadly, do not grasp the chasms in their own belief systems. They are incapable of realizing that many of their own beliefs are based in a system of faith rather than a system of rational thought.

Replace “many scientists” with Adams and his ilk, and you have a perfect description on what CAM actually is.

Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right.

Which is why when I do debunking posts in the name of SCIENCE, I never directly link to sources to prove my point.

Even the theory of natural selection based on purely mechanistic genetic inheritance contains enormous gaps in logic and is therefore a matter of faith. For starters, there isn’t enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral inheritance of a human being. The massive failure of the Human Genome Project also comes to mind: Here’s a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of nearly all disease. Once the human genome was fully decoded, disease would be eliminated from humankind, we were all promised.

The Human Genome Project never promised to be the cure for all diseases ever. Its only goal was to figure out the human genome code; whatever was done with said code is up to anyone who wants to use it to do research.

I already debunked much of the rest in a previous post on this particular subject.

Another glaring contradiction among many scientists is their comedic belief that everyone else is a mindless biological robot except themselves! Yes, they alone have intelligent thought based on free will, inspiration and creativity. We should read their books alone, as their books came from original thoughts powered by unique minds.

How many strawscientists did Adams ask before making that profound statement?

Most conventional scientists claim that consciousness is an illusion which somehow arose out of natural selection so that individual members of a species could operate under the illusion of free will. Yet, at the same time, they claim this false “mind” has no actual impact on the real world because it is, by definition, an illusion.

Which is why psychology is totally not a science and why psychiatrists and mental health therapists aren’t real medical providers.

So how can an illusory phenomenon drive natural selection and evolution if it has no impact on the real world?

Adams, I’m sorry to inform you, but just wishing for a larger brain isn’t going to magically give you and your descendants larger brains. Not even if you wish for it very, very, very hard.

Any system of thought which cannot tolerate questions or challenges to its beliefs is no science at all.

Which is why CAM isn’t science at all, unless the study reinforces their own confirmation biases.

Oh yeah, and we have a group of questions at the bottom! As a true believer of “Scientism”, I should be totally qualified to answer these questions!

Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine? Or are all vaccines automatically safe by definition?

A vaccine is a drug. And there is no such thing as a drug that is 100% safe.

The answer lies in the risk-benefit analysis: do the benefits outweigh the risks? You will find that the benefits of vaccines (herd immunity from some really terrible diseases, such as measles, and possibly full eradication of diseases like smallpox and hopefully polio) outweigh the risks of vaccines.

Do you beat your dog? If animals have no souls and no consciousness, then do you agree it is of no ethical consequence to torture dolphins and elephants? What about primates? Cats? Neighbors?

You’re begging the question, Adams. For someone who claims that we don’t know how to spot logical fallacies, you really suck at this.

To answer the question: no, I do not condone animal abuse. And I do not condone torture in all forms.

If free will does not exist, then no one can be held responsible for their actions. All actions are, by definition, “automatic” and of no fault of the person because there cannot be any “choice” in an unconscious brain. If you believe this, then do you also support freeing all murderers and rapists from prison because they are not responsible for their actions? What purpose does punishment serve if violent criminals have no “choice” because they have no free will?

You’re begging the question again, Adams.

Personal answer: I believe that we do have the power to make choices. A rapist chooses to rape someone, and a murderer chose to kill someone.

The thing is, you can only control a few things. You can’t, for example, wish that you can have a larger brain. And you can’t wish for the laws of science to not work.

If the human genome doesn’t contain enough information to describe a complete human form, then how is inheritance purely mechanistic?

You’re begging the question again. The answer is that the human genome has more than enough information to create the entire human form, and that genetics is much more complicated than you think it is.

If consciousness is an illusion, by what mechanism does the brain create this illusion? And for what purpose? What evolutionary advantage could this serve if the “illusion of consciousness” cannot have any “real” impact on behavior? By definition, natural selection should de-emphasize useless brain functions. So how did consciousness survive for so long?

Scientists do not think that consciousness is an illusion. If we did, then psychiatry would not be a legit medical field and cognitive therapy would not work.

The latter part of that question is idiotic and makes absolutely no sense.

If natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms, where did the first life come from? How did it arise? (Magic?)

Abiogenesis. Go look it up.

What caused the Big Bang? If nothing caused it, how do you explain a universe governed by “laws” which, itself, sprang into existence by not following laws?

Singularities, also you realize vacuums aren’t actually stable, right?

If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes might have different constants governing variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how does our universe “remember” its selected laws? Can physical constants change? Can the speed of light change? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?


Any publication that says people should not know what’s in their food (GMO labeling) is, of course, not engaged in real science because real science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burying of facts for corporate interests. No legitimate science would want the public to be denied knowledge.

Besides the “no true Scotsman” fallacy that is being employed here, I’m going to come out and say it: I believe that GMOs should be labeled.

HOWEVER, I also believe that campaigning for GMO labeling should be based on good science, not “studies” such as this.

(Oh yeah, Adams! You claim that scientists have no qualms with killing/torturing animals! How do you explain the fact that that anti-GMO study—which is based on really, really, REALLY bad science—allowed the rats’ tumors to become 25% of their own body mass and took pictures of them in pain? Do you consider this ethical, and why?)

They all believe that murder, rape and even child molestation have no ethical considerations whatsoever because no one is responsible for their own actions due to free will being “an illusion” as they explain it. Jerry Sandusky is ethically equivalent to Mother Theresa, according to the soulless beliefs of modern-day science.



No evidence is required to support their core faiths such as “mercury in dental fillings is harmless” or “chemotherapy saves lives.” 

Except for the fact that there is evidence that silver amalgam is perfectly safe and that chemotherapy actually saves lives.

And don’t even get me started on the rise of killer robots and artificial intelligence. That’s another case where the arrogance and delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind.

Because we actually have killer robots and AIs smart enough to kill people.

I’m sorry to say, Adams, but GLaDOS isn’t real.