I HATE to keep bitch-slappin Dumbass Dougie Mataconis

Hell, it is a full-time job pointing out what an ignoramous he is, but jan24_pickled_dragonsomebody has to do it.  Little Dougie’s latest ignorant blog comment? Dumbass Dougie gets his panties hot and excited over a Chris Matthews’ video where Matthews asked GOP Rep. Mike Spence if he believed in evolution.  In dumbass Dougie’s world, Matthews “destroyed” Rep. Spence.  Dumbass Doug (there is a reason he is a collection attorney–any attorney too stupid to get a real job goes into collections) believes the canard that anybody who does not believe that men evolved from the primordial ooze billions of years ago is somehow anti-science.  At least I think that is what dumbass believes, it is so hard to tell–because he never has an original thought in any of his blog comments–he just parrots what some other dumbass says.  

I will type slowly so that even a pathetic collection attorney can understand: Not all people who are skeptical of the claims of science are “Creationists.”  Many Christians believe in evolution. Not all “Creationists” reject “the theory of evolution.”  All Creationists believe in “micro evolution” (variation within the species, such as the difference between a Daschund and a Great Dane, or within bacteria which cause the swine flu, to address a straw man set up in one of Dumbass Doug’s previous blog articles).  Not all “Creationists” believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old.  Many do not.

But what most “Creationists” do believe is that scientists are people, and some scientists are liberals; and that liberals are full of shit; and that you can’t blindly believe a damn thing that liberals say. Because liberals lie. And they pull scams, such as the theory of “anthropogenic global climate change,” and then try to force their bogus views on the entire world. 

So we are skeptics.  When science tells us that the “missing link” between species has been found, a.k.a. “The Piltdown Man,” we do not blindly follow it. When science tries to get us to accept as a fact that life evolved from non-life billions of years ago “from the primordial ooze,”  we do not blindly accept it as true (as Dumbass Doug apparently does).  We are skeptical. We want to follow the science wherever it leads. With facts.  Like they presumably taught Dumbass Dougie to do when he studied law through Correspondence Classes.

Granted, it might be true:  Perhaps life did evolve from non-life billions of years ago. Of course, we have absolutely zero evidence to support such a proposition. But that does not dissuade true-believers in evolution, such as Dumbass Dougie.  True believers in evolution accept it upon faith that life evolved from non-life. And they get hostile and object when we want our children to be told the truth–that science just do not know and there is no proof to support such a belief that life evolved from non-life. And they object when we want our children taught the truth, that it is just godless heathen talking out their assholes with no evidence to support their beliefs.  Come to think about it, that is right up Dumbass Dougie’s alley. It’s in his wheel house. It’s what he does best.

p.s.  Cute, even the idea for Dumbass Dougie’s comment came from “Little Green Footballs.” Now we know who Dougie spends his intimate time with?

4 responses to “I HATE to keep bitch-slappin Dumbass Dougie Mataconis

  1. I’ve never encountered anyone who was skeptical of evolution and who was not a creationist. Do you know anyone?

    You state that we have absolutely zero evidence to support that life did evolve from non-life billions of years ago. You need to do more reading. There is plenty of evidence out there if you bother to open of book.

  2. I guess it depends upon how you define a “creationist.” And how you define “evolution.” I remember in high school biology class–despite being brought up a godless heathen–I still found it laughable that life suddenly sprang into existence from non-life out of the so-called “primordial oooze” billions of years ago. So I was at least one who was skeptical of that portion of the theory of evolution.

    And, please, if you are going to come here and insult me, at least have handy some sites to back up your bare assertion that “there is plenty of evidence out there [to prove life evolved from non-life]…” I don’t mind you being a pompous know-it-all, I’m used to such people. I do mind you making assertions without backing it up. I disagree with you: I assert that there is zero evidence to support life springing from non-life. I’m willing to read any information to the contrary.

    And p.s., you are dealing with a lawyer. I require EVIDENCE, not bare supposition, learned opinion, or hypotheses to back up what you say. Show me some evidence that life evolved from non-life, ever, anywhere, any time.

  3. Here is that obviously biased author’s conclusion: “Even though recent, exciting research has provided PLAUSIBLE SCENARIOS for the origin of life and has answered many questions, it is clear that a lot of research remains to be done, since much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still HYPOTHESIS. Experimental models are needed that are both realistic and of some appreciable complexity. Were it possible, for example, to show that a primitive RNA organism could be built in the laboratory, as the Szostak lab plans to do, it would be a significant step forward. For this, see Carl Zimmer’s article; there also the hope is expressed that evolution of such an organism might be observable on the lab bench. I would agree that ethical issues are practically non-existent since the organism would not be able to live in the present-day outside world.” [emphasis added]

    Dude, thanks for getting back with me, but that is so far lacking in “proof” or anything remotely resembling proof that it would be laughed out of a court of law. And I am NOT saying that eventually scientists might not eventually come up with proof. But WHAT is wrong with teaching kids the truth? WE DO NOT KNOW? Why are scientists, supposedly who are driven by facts, afraid of the truth? Could it be that they have an ulterior motive? If humans cannot create life from non-life in controlled environments, that seems to argue against it just spontaneously arising through mere time and chance in the real world. And until sufficient “proof” is found to establish that life naturally evolved from non-life, those who claim that it did merely have FAITH that that is what happened. That is a step too far for me, given the current status of science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s