You Can't Make This S*** Up!

Okay. It gets better. The guy who wrote the crazy "deceitful critics" article I just fisked has also "rediscovered" the cure for cancer! Guess what it is? C'mon, guess. No peeking.

*

*

*

*

*

*

It's drinking your own semen.

I am not making this up. He calls it "the Panacea or Universal Medicine."

Then, he says, "Let me add that in our days the Universal Medicine is called Human Genome, or rather the qualities of the Human Genome." And, of course, in his article he conflates the human genome with "human intelligence," so why do we actually need to drink our own semen anyway? We could just use our intelligence to cure cancer. Oh, wait, that's what freakin' doctors do everyday, but they have actual evidence as the efficacy of their treatments.

And the nutbags on a Intelligent Design (ID) site called, ironically, Overwhelming Evidence, in the comments to this article, don't instantly disavow this guy! Here's a comment from a guy who calls himself 'littlejon':

You simply cannot label revolutionary ideas "loon"; they laughed at Galileo
as you laugh at the idea of eating sperm to help your biophotons. Do not fall
for the materialist mafia ensuring such clearly true IDeas are not taught in
schools. How on earth people fall for ateistic [sic] nonsense like that humans have
DNA resemblance to chimpanzees, but not the new paradigm of Intelligent Design
biophotonsemenics is beyond me.

I can't remember what site I recently read where the author said that as soon as someone starts comparing a wacko idea to the ideas of Galileo or Einstein or Newton, you know the person doing it is batshit crazy. It's funny, though, because I did literally laugh at the "idea of eating sperm to help your biophotons." Just typing that sentence is making me giggle. And "biophotonsemenics?" They're just making shit up again, like whatever the hell "retsyn" is that is supposedly in Certs mints.

Another bold new thinker:

I appreciate that according to strict materialist dogma much of what the Prof
says does not make sense, but is that his fault or is that the fault of a
materialist prison which limits what we can speculate on?

According to "strict materialist dogma?" You mean, that tawdry little thing we call reality? So, the fact that what the author said doesn't make a damn bit of sense is reality's fault, not the fault of the batshit crazy guy who said it? Well, hot damn, I think my spentensotrons (word I just made up) are spedooling (also made up) today, and so I need to go on disability with pay until I can re-mopeleeter (made up) them, which is indefinitely. Oh, the doctor says there's nothing wrong with me? Well, is that my fault, or the fault of the materialist prison which limits what we can speculate on? Hmm?

Another future Nobel Laureate:

Although this topic may be (heck, definitely IS) somewhat gross, it may also be
the big breakthrough that ID needs to finally become as accepted as
Materialistic Science. Think about it. Why do so many people prefer materialistic science to ID?

Uh... I dunno. Maybe because it's true? How about that? Because it can actually be demonstrated to be true without resort to making up words, false analogies, and tautological reasoning? Because it's peer-reviewed, extensively studied, makes falsifiable predictions, and does a bunch of other things none of which involve crazy hand-waving? Jeez!

Plus, though they at first claimed that the crazy article this guy wrote was "peer-reviewed," they later in the comments admit that, in fact, it wasn't, but then the author says, "American Chronicle is not a peer-reviewed publication, but neither is the Bible, nor most of the publications we have. So what? "

If it doesn't make any difference, why bother to lie about it in the first place? Oh, that's right, so you can use it when legitimate scientists who don't drink their own semen say that ID hasn't produced any peer-reviewed articles. And I love the "neither is the Bible" bit. The fact that the freakin' Bible isn't science is the nub of the whole debate, but he acts as if it's settled. Good to see that he hasn't lost his propensity for assuming his conclusion in his arguments.

This site is supposedly for teens to get information on ID, but I'd bet you a lot of money that the only people there are skeptics and the DI people who run the site. If the site looks laughable to me, you can bet that cynical teenagers aren't going to think it's cool.