Archive for the ‘Filthy Lies’ Category

Joe thinks he found himself a good old fashioned proof of Jesus’s existence and, moreover, everyone, everywhere pays homage to that fact every single day:

Are you fucking shitting me?!?!

Joe is seriously suggesting that the calendar era typically used in the western world is proof positive that Jesus existed. Let that marinate in your brain for a minute.

Ready? Let’s do some good old fashioned learnin’ about things, mkay? There are actually several different calendar eras used throughout the world. Of course, the most familiar one to most anyone reading this is the Western Christian calendar era that was based on the Incarnation of Christ. The Western Christian calendar era was introduced by the monk, I shit you not, Dennis the Short in 525CE in what is now Romania. The wee Dennis had no more proof of Jesus than any modern person, and in fact may have known LESS about Jesus than we do. The only significance of Dennis the Midget’s calendar era system is that Dennis (along with all the rest of the western world that wasn’t currently tied to sticks and being burned alive) believed that Jesus was born about 525 years earlier.

If Joe’s argument was that there is no way I could argue that someone somewhere believed that Jesus was born on or around the year 1CE because the Western Christian calendar era is denoted Anno Domini or Before Christ, then I wouldn’t have a reason to write a post about it. But that’s not Joe’s assertion. Joe is stating that one proof of Jesus’s existence is that some of us use AD or BC when we write dates. This is so stupid that I can’t even allow myself to believe Joe Cienkowski doesn’t get it, that’s why I’m categorizing it as a filthy lie.

What interests me more is the fact that there are other calendar eras that are in common use today. If one were tempted to use Joe’s own brain dead logic on the other calendar systems, what would we have to believe? Well, the Etos Kosmou of the Byzantine Calendar places Creation at the beginning of its year 1, namely 5509 BC. So using Joe’s logic, we have proof that that nobody can argue that the world started not in 4004 BC (as Joe insists it did) but in 5509 BC. Uh oh, Joe.

But wait, there’s more. Those feisty muslims have their very own calendar era that they denote AH for the number of lunar years after Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina. In Saudi Arabia, if you ask them what year it is, they’ll tell you it is 1431 AH. Joe, I guess that means you can’t argue that Muhammed really did exist and really did migrate from Mecca to Medina.

We’re just getting warmed up here. In India they use a calendar era based on Kali Yuga. Kali Yuga is the last of the four stages that the world goes through as part of the cycle of yugas described in the Indian scriptures. Kali Yuga began on the Gregorian calendar year January 23, 3102 BCE. Well, Joe, I guess you’re stuck being unable to refute Hindu scriptures. Better get to reading those.

In reality, none of these calendar eras are at all indicative of the veracity on the event which they are based. The event may have happened or it may not have happened and we can’t know which is true just by looking at the calendar system in use today. It is profoundly stupid to suggest otherwise and I almost have difficulty labeling this strictly as a lie.

Many attempts were made to inform Joe about the truth on this issue and he stuck to his ridiculous assertion and decided to be an arrogant dick head about it. Given that, I have no other choice but to label this a filthy lie.

Joe Cienkowski is a filthy liar.

As a post script, I’m wondering why Joe spends every single Tuesday paying tribute to Tiu, the Germanic God of war, every Wednesday paying tribute to Woden the chief Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic god, every Thursday paying tribute to Thor the Norse god of thunder, every Friday paying tribute to Freya the Teutonic goddess of love, beauty, and fecundity, and every Saturday paying tribute to Saturn the Roman god of agriculture and the consort of Ops? Are you also paying tribute to the Sun god on Sunday and the Moon goddess on Monday? You really are a pagan monkey aren’t you, Joe?

A very big thank you to Ant Allan (@antallan) who submitted this to me via email!

As with all Joe’s lies, this is one that he repeats ad nauseam. This is just a recent instance:

Yes, Joe, evolution is science.

(The assertions that Joe loves science and trusts science may be true, but other tweets reveal that he just doesn’t understand science… But that’s the topic for another blog post, perhaps.)

So, Joe claims that there is ”no evidence at all“ that evolution is science.

Given the vast number of scientists that have worked in this area and the volumes of peer-reviewed research that have been published since Darwin, Joe’s claim is so obviously bogus that it hardly deserves a rebuttal.

But earlier today I chanced on the “perfect” rebuttal on the Daylight Atheism website. To put that into context, we must understand what a science is: Edward Wilson defines science as a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories [my emphasis] – such as the theory of evolution.

The Daylight Atheism piece laid out clearly the evidence that evolution makes testable predictions to verify its hypotheses, the very essence of a scientific theory. Moreover, these predictions turn out to be true!

The theory of evolution not only explains and unifies a vast range of scientific observations, it’s given rise to an enormous, fruitful research program by predicting where we should look in order to find all kinds of phenomena of interest. One of the most famous examples is how Charles Darwin predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa, which turned out to be 100% correct. Based on observing flowers from Madagascar, Darwin also predicted the existence of a moth species with a startlingly long proboscis, and a moth matching his specifications was discovered. Evolutionary theory led paleontologists to inspect rocks of a certain age in a certain location to find tetrapod ancestors, and lo and behold, we dug up Tiktaalik roseae. Evolutionary theory enabled us to predict the likely characteristics of an ant ancestor, and we found a species preserved in amber that matched our expectations almost perfectly. Evolutionary theory illuminated the similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and feathered theropods continue to turn up at a dizzying rate.

(For some reason, the ant ancestor example appealed to me the most. Lest I be accused of cherry-picking, evolution will also make testable predictions to verify hypotheses that turn out to be wrong, but – since it is science – such results are used to reformulate hypotheses and thus make continuous improvements in the larger theory.)

The website goes on with even more examples of “bold, surprising predictions” that have been used to verify hypotheses from evolution and thus continue to validate its scientific approach and more firmly establish it as a scientific theory: “no other theory or hypothesis accounts for [these discoveries] so consistently and so well.”

Evolution is science.

And that makes Joe Cienkowski a filthy liar.

Is there a living individual more reviled by the creationist movement than Richard Dawkins? Many come close, but I think Dawkins’s combination of genius, balls, and penchant for attacking nonsense have really made him the biggest target of creationist pot shots alive today. Guess what, Joe has seen Expelled. You know, the creationist movie with Ben Stein which whinged its way across theaters nation wide at some point in the past. Joe Cienkowski believes that what Expelled says is gospel. Joe says repeatedly the following:

Richard Dawkins clearly states many times that he does not believe in ID of any kind.

Here is that clip from Expelled that Joe likes to link to over and over and OVER again:

The fun part about this post is that I don’t actually have to do any thinking to expose and rebut this filthy lie. I’ll just let Richard Dawkins do the talking.

And just for good measure, here is a lengthy rebut by Richard Dawkins from his own website:

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (“oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

This ‘Ultimate 747’ argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment — however implausible — was designed to illustrate intelligent design’s closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don’t think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

According to Joe, none of that matters. Joe repeatedly suggests that Dawkins believes in ID, that he believes in aliens, that he believes that there is a signature in the cell of these aliens. This is a filthy lie and Joe knows it. Joe is a filthy liar.


I seized on a mis-tweet by Joe to drive this point into his filthy lying brain:

Really? "There IS NO FOSSILS?" Really?

I simply restated the obvious conclusion that one would get from this single tweet. Joe Cienkowski clearly thinks that no fossils have ever been found. This is clear from this tweet and completely in context. What did Joe do when confronted with the EXACT same kind of argument he makes? He cut and ran. He called me names and refused to acknowledge me for the rest of the day. It was glorious and I highly recommend that you regularly remind Joe that it’s stupid not to believe that humans have found fossils.

UPDATE because JoeCienkowski is such a filthy liar about this. This is the transcript of the interview in Expelled:

BEN STEIN: How did it get created?

DAWKINS: By a very slow process.

BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start?

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don’t know.

. . .

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution. [note question asks for a hypothetical answer]

DAWKINS: [note answer is entirely hypothetical] Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

. . .

And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.

Note the hypotheticals in Dawkins’s answer. It could be that aliens. If it was aliens then we might find the signature of that hypothetical designer by looking at our biochemistry. Joe staunchly refuses to accept this. According to Joe, what Dawkins said was “I believe that aliens created us and we can find evidence for this at the cellular level.”  Joe is, of course, a filthy liar. He will never admit that he is wrong about this despite the fact that everyone can clearly see that he is. Joe is trying to pass off a lie, trying to say up is really down that all rectangles are squares. If he can’t be straight about this, how can anyone trust him to be straight about anything? Joe is a filthy liar. Period.

In typical Joe Cienkowski fashion, tonight we’re getting a dose of his often repeated yarn that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation repackaged.

Abiogenesis is the opposite of spontaneous generation you filthy liar!

Since Louis Pasteur (who Joe is quick to remind you was a Christian) disproved spontaneous generation, Joe is suggesting that abiogenesis has also been disproved without ever having to dip his filthy toe in the water of evidence and science to do so.

Let’s get a little wikipedia review of spontaneous generation:

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle[1], who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

Louis Pasteur’s 1859 experiment put the question to rest. He boiled a meat broth in a flask that had a long neck which curved downward, like a goose. The idea being that the bend in the neck prevented any particles from reaching the broth, while still allowing the free flow of air. The flask remained free of growth for an extended period. When the flask was turned so that particles could fall down the bends, the broth became quickly clouded.

and of abiogenesis:

In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter [ed note: inanimate matter is not nothing as Joe suggests]. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called “the building blocks of life”, can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

As you can see, spontaneous generation literally means the generation of fully formed creatures. It was said that the recipe for forming a mouse was a piece of soiled cloth plus wheat for 21 days and the recipe for a scorpion was basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight. It was thought that rotting meat spontaneously generated maggots and that mud from the river banks spontaneously generated alligators. On the contrary, abiogenesis is a hypothesis that suggests that life arose from non-life via natural chemical processes. Here’s a video that might help you understand how:

As you can see, having fully formed organisms simply arising out of nothing is completely opposite of what abiogenesis is about. That makes Joe Cienkowski a filthy liar.

UPDATE: Lousy Canuck has another debunking of this filthy Joe Cienkowski lie.

One tactic of creationists that Joe has taken a particular interest in is finding a legitimate problem that rational people have with creationists and then turning that problem around and using it on things creationists disagree with. Joe’s age of the earth lie is a weak sort of example of this tactic.

Billions of years were accepted with no evidence? Lie!

Joe’s assertion is that scientists decided the earth was billions of years old long before there was any evidence to support such a conclusion. This is a little lie that becomes a filthy monster lie when Joe asserts that every single scientist since then has misrepresented the data to fit in with this false conclusion. Joe’s filthy lie slanders scientists and is completely ignorant of how science works. Like any God fearing creationist, Joe wants people to believe that scientists use the same illogic that creationists use.

Let’s talk about Joe’s first lie. It doesn’t take much research to learn what scientists believed about the age of the universe, when they believed it, and what their rationale was. Joe asserts the following:

James Hutton said that? Where?

James Hutton is known as the father of modern geology and is a popular target of creationists since he had the audacity to suggest that the earth was much older than the bible accounted for. Hutton believed the earth itself was eternal and the geologic formations were formed slowly by a hot inner core and eroded away slowly by the elements. Hutton himself did not estimate the age of the earth, in fact he suggested the earth had existed forever. The final sentence of his 1200+ page masterwork, The Theory of The Earth – the distillation of years of meditation on landscape formation, would become famous: “The result therefore of our present enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning – no prospect of an end.”

Because of the enormity of the volumes of Hutton’s work, much of it remained obscure and little known in his day. In 1830, Sir Charles Lyell developed Hutton’s ideas that the earth was under  a very slow process of building up and eroding away that was constant and roughly uniform world-wide. This view became known as uniformitarianism. Lyell’s work went on to give great insight to Charles Darwin during Darwin’s famous voyage on the HMS Beagle. Darwin, of course, is the arch enemy of creationists world-wide. All of Darwin’s ideas must, necessarily, be destroyed by any means necessary and in this case, the path is through those who had an influence on Darwin: Lyell and by extension Hutton. Bear in mind, however, that neither Hutton nor Lyell specified any age for the earth and both of them had extremely well thought out rationale for their views.

Nevertheless, even the most well thought out views can be wrong. The uniformitarian view was to be countered fiercely by the physicist William Thompson who would later be known as Lord Kelvin. Thompson thought the earth did have a beginning and was at one point entirely molten. In 1862, Thompson calculated a figure of the age of the earth by determining how long it would take the surface of the earth to cool to its present temperature. Thompson’s figure was between 20 and 400 million years. Other scientists used different methods to date the solar system including Hermann von Helmholtz in 1856, Simon Newcomb in 1892, and Charles Darwin’s son, George Darwin. Helmholtz and Newcomb derived the age of the solar system from how long it would take gasses to condense down and form the sun and reached ages of 22 and 18 million years respectively.

It wasn’t until French chemist A. Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity in 1896 and until Pierre Curie would show that radioactive materials produce heat that we understood that there was another factor adding heat to the system. George Darwin was the first to point out that this heat generated was not accounted for in Lord Kelvin’s calculations. What’s more, radiation provided another way to date the age of the earth. In 1907, Bertram Boltwood published a study of rock samples that he used radiometric dating to arrive at an age of 250 million to 1.3 billion years. It wasn’t until 1921 that there was a consensus that the earth was billions of years old and that radiometric dating was credible.

So as you can see, there was not one single instance of scientists coming up with and age for the earth that wasn’t supported by rational reasons. Furthermore, the earth was first considered to be eternal and in a constant and uniform state of uplift and erosion. This view was challenged and the age of the earth was then considered to be in the tens or hundreds of millions of years. The figure of billions of years was not agreed upon by science until after the discovery of radioactivity and the understanding of radioactive decay. Further analysis has refined the age of the earth by radiometric dating of meteorites and has been corroborated  by helioseismic dating methods.

Joe Cienkowski has clearly lied. He lied about his understanding of the subject, he lied about the conclusions of scientists from the past, and worst of all he lied about the motives of scientists in the present. Joe expects you to believe that scientists are simply manipulating data so they can agree with pre-formed conclusions. Don’t you believe it. Joe Cienkowski is a filthy liar.