See other Religion Articles
Title: The Best of the Worst of GodTube
Source:
Wired Blogs/Table of Malcontents
URL Source: http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcon ... s/2007/03/the_best_of_the.html
Published: Mar 20, 2007
Author: John Brownlee
Post Date: 2007-03-20 15:51:32 by Indrid Cold
Keywords: None
Views: 366
Comments: 5
Amongst the legions of YouTube knock-offs that have sprung onto the Internet, aiming to appeal to interest groups who feel marginalized by YouTube's terms of services or its wide spectrum of subjects, there are some which are so disgusting and fetishistic that they really can only be explored during a reverie of private self-loathing [BeastTube, YouTube for bestiality enthusiasts. Not work safe and very disturbing, although a lot of the dogs seem like they're having a good time]. On the other side of the spectrum, there's GodTube, a YouTube clone that is dedicated to Christian-themed videos. And while many of the videos GodTube has to offer are no more offensive in their pervasive stupidity than the majority of YouTube's slack-jawed amateur offerings, there is something a bit insidious about them. For the record, what is disturbing about many of GodTube's videos is not that they are done by Christians, or enthusiastically discuss topics like Intelligent Design, the immorality of homosexuality, etc. What is disturbing about GodTube is that it is an observable microcosm of the way that fundamentalist Christians have shut themselves off from any outside perspective. The result is mental and creative poverty. GodTube's videos are no more stupid than any of YouTube's videos because they mutter gibberish about intelligent design, or indulge in lame Christian-themed parodies of mainstream media. But they sure as hell are a heck of a lot funnier. Chatting with Charley: Creation vs. Evolution From the moment this clip starts, we can tell that Charley is a serious scientific mind. Consider the ultra-scientific equipment Charley fiddles with, before being interrupted from his scientific pursuits by the camera. Equipment of note includes an inflatable globe, a large drawing pad and, of course, a robot's titanium erection mounted on a plastic stand. But what really lets us know that Charley means business is the oscilloscope, an esoteric, highly-specialized device used by such famous scientists as Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood's Bride of the Monster and Ro-Man in Robot Monster. Unlike Ro-Man, Charley does not appear to have the Billion Bubble Machine attachment for his oscilloscope, which harms his credibility somewhat, but he may have just turned it off to make the video... Christians don't like to be showy. Also, bubbles are a bit gay. Today, Charley will be introducing us to "definitions of terms." The term he'd like to define for us is science... a word Charley immediately misspells by inserting a hyphen between the two middle vowels. What is sci-ence? Charley begins... Science is not science because someone in a lab coat who calls himself a scientist does it... He's off to a good start. Science has nothing to do with your fashionological consciousness. This also explains why Charley is not wearing a lab coat. But then Charley continues... Science is sensible, meaning you can feel it with your five senses. It is repeatable and it is only in the present. Let's leave aside the fact that this is not the accepted definition of science. The last point will become important later, because Charley wants to make the argument that evolution is just as unscientific as intelligent design. Charley then goes on to vividly imagine a primordial tree trunk, surrounded by the corpses of proto-woodpeckers who had shattered their brain pans open, trying to smash open the trunk with their fragile skulls. If these woodpeckers died smashing open their heads against tree trunks before they evolved a long, tough beak, Charlie doesn't understand how evolution could have caused them to develop a tougher, longer bill, which they would then pass on to their offspring. Needless to say, evolution doesn't work by strengthening existing characteristics. It works by gradual mutation. Charley is also puzzled by the woodpecker's long tongue: What are you going to do with a tongue seven times longer than your head? You know, as someone not bound by the moral coda of an invisible old man who lives on a cloud, I can think of several ways that would come in handy. And Gene Simmons agrees! It's clear where Charley is going with all of this: Gene Simmons could never have evolved from lesser beings. Gene Simmons and the extraordinary cunnilingus mutation of his slavering, five foot tongue had to have been intelligently designed by God. Which makes it all the more ironic that Gene Simmons is a Knight in Satan's Service. After he defines sci-ence, Charley turns to the heady task of defining ev-o-lu-tion. What is ev-o-lu-tion? Charley says: Evolution is the concept that given enough time, all things will happen. That a rock will turn into a man... That's like saying that this mouse trap [holds up a mouse trap] could ultimately turn into a mouse. Leaving aside the fact that many Christians believe God made the first human out of a pile of dirt, I have to digress with Charley's ultra-scientific definition of evolution here. No, Charley. You're wrong. It's an understandable mistake: you've confused evolution with magical fairies. Baby Got Bible Admittedly, this one's pretty clever. Pan-offensive novelty rap is turned into a stunning anthem of Bible-literacy by changing a single word in the title. Unfortunately, it took almost twenty years for Christians to get around to parodying a song made famous in 1992, when Christians were still busy trying to come up with 11 minutes of Christian-themed lyrics to insert into Don McLean's "American Pie." Behold the Atheist's Nightmare... The Banana! Yes, that is Kirk Cameron, sitting next to the strange Aussie using a banana to disprove atheism. Bananas, you see, are to atheists what crucifixes are to vampires. Although this video really speaks for itself, especially in its phallic connotations, a brief summary of his argument. 1) A banana's ridges perfectly match the ridges of a human hand. 2) The banana has outward indicators of inner contents: "Green, too early! Yellow, just right! Black, too late!" 3) God has placed a tab on the top of the banana for easy banana-opening, just like a can of Coke. 4) The banana sits gracefully over the human hand, it's pointy at the top (for easy oral entry) and it's even curved to the face to make the process of eating it so much easier. Unfortunately, the clip ends there, with Kirk Cameron's delighted clapping. I often wonder if the following minutes tried to answer some lingering questions. 1) If it's true that a banana's ridges perfectly match the ridges of a human hand, isn't that also true of a monkey's hand, which scientists tell us share common ancestores? 2) Why didn't God apply this ingenious color scheme to pineapples? 3) Why didn't God place an easy-opening tab on the top of coconuts? Combined with the whole pineapple thing, does this mean God is prejudiced against Hawaiians? 4) If you hold your banana backwards when eating it, does that disprove the existence of God? Poster Comment: Click source for the videos referenced above.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Indrid Cold (#0)
Hardly. Man, when you have to sink to complete fabrication of terms to make an argument, you're toast. Evolution is simply heritable change in a population over several or many generations. Generally, it means that a population will change from primitive to sophisticated, better adapted to its environment. The woodpecker has a long tongue because it sucks bugs out of deep wormholes in trees. Short-tongued woodpeckers starved to death and failed to reproduce. It's that simple. So, given enough time, not all things will happen. Only things that make sense at the time. When they stop making sense, as in the brontosaurus when vegetation died out in the ice age, it's curtains.
I'm a believer in Lamarkian Evolution, myself.
The "Department of Defense" has never won a war. The "War Department" was undefeated.
Pretty close. Like Skinner said, science is a kind of advice. Period. Feynman said science is the business of prediction. Do predictions follow from evolution? Can we test them? Feynman also said that while science makes use of ontological ideas, these do not come from science. Evolution has some associated ideas of just this kind. Science does not tell us whether they are true. They may be consistent with some other frameworks, and observations (possibly not all), but they are not necessary. Philosophically it is perfectly respectable to reject or accept evolution. Anyone who says otherwise is pushing an agenda.
Open the second drive-through window, Hal.
How evolution ever got elevated to the level of "theory" without satisfying the prediction and testability criteria always puzzled me. Philosophically it is perfectly respectable to reject or accept evolution. Anyone who says otherwise is pushing an agenda. Bears repeating.
Oh great. Another social worker. I see Wiki is it's usual PC self on the term. "Race memory" may be viewed as a genotype affinity for certain sorts of phenotypes involving the power of speech. In that view it's not really Lamarkian at all. If there's an error in it, it's more likely to be in memory or the associated idom of mind rather than race.
Open the second drive-through window, Hal.
Evolution is the concept that given enough time, all things will happen.
#2. To: Mekons4 (#1)
Evolution is simply heritable change in a population over several or many generations.
#3. To: Indrid Cold (#0)
Science is sensible, meaning you can feel it with your five senses. It is repeatable and it is only in the present.
#4. To: Tauzero (#3)
Feynman said science is the business of prediction. Do predictions follow from evolution? Can we test them?
#5. To: Indrid Cold (#2)
I'm a believer in Lamarkian Evolution, myself.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest