Unbelievable History: Charles Darwin

By Peter Bristles, Patriotorian

British naturalist Charles Darwin was the twin brother of Abraham Lincoln. This led some people to ask a lot of uncomfortable questions regarding the legitimacy of Lincoln’s Presidency. These people have been removed from the gene pool by Darwinists. Darwin was famous for proposing the modern theory of evolution which states that nothingness created two rocks that smacked together to create your monkey grandma, who magically gave birth to your human mom.

After attending divinity school in order to mock God, Darwin was enlisted to join the second voyage of the HMS Beagle to study nature. He wrote about how he was seasick constantly in his journals, but this is betrayed by his confession to his wife that he really just enjoyed vomiting constantly and would induce it for fun. This is believed to be the root of his nickname, “Ol’ Chucky Vomitpants.”

Once the ship reached the Galapagos archipelago, Darwin observed that certain species of finch had differently shaped beaks. He also observed that they tasted vastly different. There were also Galapagos Island iguanas that tasted remarkably better than their mainland counterparts. There were also varied species of giant tortoises that went quite good in soup. This led to his landmark theory of “Survival of the Tastiest.”

Aboard the HMS Beagle, he came to a disagreement with the Captain Robert FitzRoy while the Captain was showing off his slaves. Modern scientohistorians like to play up how Darwin was opposed to slavery and how he would argue that slavery was evil. Really though, Darwin wasn’t opposed to the notion of slavery. He just didn’t like FitzRoy’s slaves, which he felt were not as shiny and top-of-the-line as his own collection.

When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he was laughed at by the Royal Society of England–not because he was thought to be wrong, but because (without his knowledge) his penis was sticking out of his pants, hard and stiff. This was really funny until a consensus was reached that it was annoying to be constantly whacked in the head with Darwin’s oblivious hard-on. Many people ran in fear when Darwin began to speak about the more essential aspects of his theory, as he would become so excited that his penis would throb until it spermed out majestically.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck provided an alternative theory of evolution. He could do this because his ancestors would practice debating Darwin’s ancestors. Each successive generation carried on its Darwin-debating skills. Modern creationists are not believers in Lamarck’s theory either, but it is true that they are all descended from the best Darwin-debaters.

Some prominent secular historians (the ones who don’t tell HIS-story), believe that Darwin not only came up with the theory of evolution, but that he was able to demonstrate evolution live on-stage. These live performances of evolution were mere trickery though. Darwin would start by cramming five chimpanzees into a hat, putting the hat in a coffin, poking all kinds of swords through the coffin, and out would come a rational, God-fearing human. What nonsense! That just proves that Darwin was a good magician, not a good scientist.

A lot of historians want you to believe in Darwin’s alleged contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace, who supposedly formulated the theory of evolution independently. Little is known about “Wallace” except that his handwriting and style of writing appears to be identical to Darwin’s. It makes sense that Darwin would fabricate Wallace’s existence in order to perpetuate the lie that evolution was independently discovered by two people instead of one. That way it would give the lie more credibility.

Evolutionary theory was a point of contention between Darwin and his wife, Emma, who believed in God like any good and moral person. He would talk about his observations about the natural world and she would talk about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe. This kind of disagreement could have led an ungodly woman to a divorce, but she was a good woman and was subservient to her husband, no matter how satanic he was.

Many people know that Darwin was a proto-Nazi (just turn to the first chapter in On the Origins of Species entitled “The Final Solution”), but what they didn’t know was that Darwin would spend his time plotting about how to stop and silence creationist Ben Stein years before Stein was even a twinkle in his father’s eye. Not to mention that Darwin–getting his advice from Lord Satan–knew that he needed to change the way that universities taught so that they could, in 150 years time, silence Intelligent Design theorists.

Many claim that Darwin did not advocate eugenics or Social Darwinism–that it was actually Herbert Spencer and some others who advocated eugenics. But how do you explain the book that non-secular historians recently unearthed, entitled How To Kill Off The Weak And Mentally Inhibited by Charles Darwin? Sure, if you carbon-dated the book it would appear only to be three years old–not old enough to have been written by Darwin. But that just proves that carbon dating is unreliable!

A lot of people are knowledgeably aware of Darwin’s famous death bed recantation of evolution. What they are unaware of though, is all his other recantations. He recanted most appropriately the atomic theory of matter, Mendelian genetics (even though he had absolutely no knowledge of such a genetics…weird), special theory of relativity (everyone knew that one was false), and supply side economics. He is most famous for recanting the mother and father theory. The mother and father theory states that everyone had a mother and a father. What rubbish!

In modern academia, the theory of evolution has been refined and well-understood. It is taught to millions and is the foundation of our understanding of biology. Just about every field of science reinforces the claims of evolutionists, as well as a mountain of fossil evidence. But were you aware that the famous Piltdown Man fossil was in fact a hoax? I now declare the entire theory void!

Unbelievable Fact! Naturalist T.H. Huxley was a groupie of Darwin’s, and sexed him up constantly. He had such Darwin-lust that he earned the nickname, “Darwin’s Constantly-in-Heat Pitbull.” If you read any of his books you can still see the stains where he spermed out onto the page.

Stop misleading our schoolchildren! Make sure your kid’s school is using Unbelievable History as it’s science textbook.

Cogito ergo I am right #10: Naturalism, Science, and Religion

By Amateur Philosopher Penny Ham

Hello, you philosophically-minded fuckers out there! I want to talk to you about naturalism today.

Naturalism has something going for it when compared to non-naturalism: predictive power and rightness! Naturalism implicitly assumes there are only natural causes in the world and so sets up the entire possibility of science because science can only give us testable predictions when steered by this implicit assumption. Naturalism is itself unfalsiable but naturalism makes up for this by setting up an entire enterprise that holds that each naturalistic statement, individually, is falsifiable. Man, that just makes naturalism uber-badass!

Thinking in terms of non-naturalistic terms, the proposition “God did it” or “God made it” has no predictive power. It can’t be incorporated into science. Naturalism is the necessary condition of science and not the other way around. You have to think of it this way – if you have a science, that is, an enterprise that bases all of its findings on the empirical realm and makes predictions, then you have naturalism, a belief that everything can be understood in terms of natural efficient causation. It’s that simple!

“God did it” explanations must remain outside of science simply because the essence of science is predictive power and this only implies naturalism and not both naturalism and non-naturalism. Sorry intelligent designerists, your theory is non-naturalistic and so it sucks!

If you guys want “God did it” explanations, just stick with theology. As a matter of fact, theology is where “God did it” explanations should be anyway. Unfortunately in the history of evolution and creation debates, people got all confused and presupposed that science had won the battle over theology and so that meant they could and should modify their faith with science. Religious dolts out there, don’t modify your faith with science! You’ll only undermine your own faith by requiring it to have a burden of scientific testability!

What “God did it” people don’t realize is that by making their faith rest on science, they are severely setting themselves up for total destruction of their own faith or some kind of silly denial or overt form of mental gymnastics (throwing out assumptions that scientists are all liars or that fossils were created by Satan, for instance).

What non-naturalists and religionists should do is think, “maybe science didn’t win against theology since science is just a different interpretation of the world than theology.” Maybe, as Nietzsche said, science is just one interpretation of many. Science is a damn good interpretation but just one out of the many. So maybe theology still has something to it. Theology has its own perspective and science has its own. Nietzsche, the guy who said that God is dead might be the last best hope for religious people. What an interesting concept. Actually, it’s not really that interesting. Boring!

The great thing about science is that it is definitely open to the possibility of implying, if given sufficient reason, a worldview of non-naturalism. It’s just that it never has arrived at a situation where non-naturalism has served the simplicity and the predictive power of science. So currently, science only implies a naturalistic worldview. Although this isn’t necessarily a necessary implication, now is it?

Currently as standing. (The arrows stands for implication.)

Science —> explanation —-> predictive power —-> naturalism

Non-naturalism —> lack of predictive power —> lack of explanation —> pseudo science.

Non-naturalism + naturalism —> lacking in the predictive area —-> barely an explanation —> pretty pseudo scientific.

Did you like this article? Please consider subscribing and telling your friends about it.

Cogito ergo I am right #6: Existentialism

By Amateur Philosopher Penny Ham

Existentialism is a movement hard to define. Mostly because existentialists avoided defining it. But Sartre gave the movement something close to a definition. Existentialism is basically the idea that we all come into the world without any defining essence. We find ourselves existing without any prior purpose and so we have to create our own meaning.

Most people think existentialism is liberating and great. But I think existentialism is a waste of my precious time.

If you read through existentialist literature, you’ll find yourself reading literature by people who complain, “blah blah blah….I have no purpose…blah blah blah…oh how I need to create my own purpose and meaning…blah blah blah…finally I created my purpose and meaning!”

But, honestly, those people only care about their own purpose and meaning because somehow or another they’ve found enough free time to go into the details of thinking about their own purpose and meaning. Look, sometimes I find myself pondering my own meaning and existence and what my purpose is but then I remember what my purpose is….

I’m a biological organism! My purpose is to eat, drink, fuck, and make friends because I’m a social ape. There you go existentialist. The answer is right in front of you but you’re too busy writing your dumb books.

Existentialists are just like religionists. They worry too much about deeper meaning rather than care about the simple meanings and the simple pleasures. They do not and cannot confront the overwhelming fact that human beings have spectacularly boring and simple biological purposes. Look, I write, I read, I do lots of things that don’t involve eating, drinking, sex, and making friends. But all of these things I do revolve around those simple things. Purpose is to be found in all of those things. Not subjective purpose either. Real objective out there in the universe purpose. You know, my genes, my hormones, that stuff.

Did you know that people make friends simply because they need someone to smoke around? Well, nicotine-addiction is pretty biological. It’s all got purpose and design right there. Humans are motivated by pleasure and they avoid pain. Wow, what a concept?!

Why did people make the Internet? To impress their friends (it’s the social instinct of being human) or make some money (feed the need for food, water, etc.). Hell, these desires don’t even have to be egoistic. Altruism is built into our genes as well. It’s part of the social instinct. Just because purpose isn’t divine doesn’t mean we have no purpose. Our purpose is pretty biologically based and objective.

Where does morality come in? Morality best serves our biological purposes and makes sure that our interests are best represented, whether it’s the individual, family interest, community interest, or national interest. Is morality utilitarian, egoist, deontological, virtue-oriented? It’s quite debatable. Morality is just a very complicated way of settling our many different unique ways of satisfying our biological purposes.

Anyway, if you ever feel tempted to read an existentialist book, it’s because you’re bored/lonely or you’re doing it for a class. Both have to do with human social relationships that all boil down to eat, sleep, sex, social bonding, and drinking. People who want to make human purpose more significant than this have never been to a Frat Party.

Did you like this article? Please consider subscribing and telling your friends about it.

Future Facts: Religion


Let me set everyone straight on the future of religion.  You vastly inferior people believe in such untenable notions as agnosticism and atheism. You think agnosticism and atheism are innocent enough concepts but these ideas were later a terrible cause that led to people denying all reality. At first atheists only believed in the empirical and testable universe but this was a slippery slope that later caused atheists to believe that the boxes at the store were empty unless they could test it. It got so bad that people had to invent transparent cardboard with some help from Scotty. Interestingly enough, the trend of atheists denying everything is already apparent. Atheists deny so many thing that they’re already denying atheism itself. A Pew poll recently showed that 21% of atheists believed in god in 2009.

Atheists can sometimes pride themselves on their ability to disrupt a Sunday dinner. But agnosticism turned out to be the worse kind of poison for any kind of Sunday dinner, and further still, it was a poison for any human cultural concept of hygiene. Agnostics started asking innocent questions like, “do I know or can I know that I need a bath?” Pretty soon society was overrun by stinky fence-sitters. It is probably the worst crime against humanity not to believe in basic truisms as “put on deodorant.” Eventually society just had to kill the stinky lot of them. Normally history looks back at genocides as some kind of atrocity. Well, agnostics were just an exception.

If Only Agnostic Thomas Huxley Had Taken A Bath, He Might Not Have Been Known As "Darwin's Poo Gas"

If Only Agnostic Thomas Huxley Had Taken A Bath, He Might Not Have Been Known As "Darwin's Poo Gas"

In the past (about 40 years in the future from your time), Pope Yaddy WhackMcClad was the last Catholic pope, after she made the laughable claim that there was a God and Afterlife. The Vatican was then replaced by two religions at war. The Way of Infinite Stress already began its existence in a mutually fatal Jihad with the newly established Church of Perfectly Reasonable Demands. The Google-lama (click here for information about newly founded google church in your time) tried desperately to keep peace but the 4 Chanistic cults provoked the superpowers into war. The war saddened the Google-lama. Because the Google-lama could not reason with people caught up in the religious strife, she spent her time forming stronger relations with T-Mobile (producing things much cooler than the Google Phone, let me tell ya). After the war, the Google-lama’s sleepless nights and 24-7 work finally proved fruitful. By the 2170s, people got more relaxed about faith with the dominant religion of the period being the Brotherhood of Pleasant Things and Pretty Flowers, a new kind of religion all produced wirelessly by T-Mobile.

The Church Of Google Is Already Founded In Your Time.  But A Google-lama Is Still Pending.  Credit Given To:  http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

The Church Of Google Is Already Founded In Your Time. But A Google-lama Is Still Pending. Credit Given To: http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

During the period of Brotherhood of Pleasant Things and Pretty Flowers religious pluarlity and diversity were deemed so important that it was mandatory. my own great nephew was a Daydream Believer before his forced conversion to Tom Hanksianity. But eventually people got tired of peace and diversity, so a new era of religious intolerance was ushered in. Who created this era of intolerance? None other than Pat Sajack. Wheel of Fortune was banned by the UN in 2169 because spinning wheels can actually lower your IQ if watched in 30 minute segments. 224 year old Pat Sajak, poor and without a job, found the hidden truth that peace and civility spoil the goodness of humanity (causing them to watch spinning wheels for way too long). So he knew he had to create religious intolerance. In this new era of intolerance, two religions of “yes we can” and the opposite extreme religion of “no we can’t” were created. Eventually, MSNBC wanted to know, “yes we can what?” and “no we can’t what?” Instead of the two competing religions explaining “yes we can” and “no we can’t,” the two religions reduced to simply “yes” and “no.” Thus, harkened in the era of the two religions known as the Church of Yes and the Church of No.

By The Year 2150 2/3rds of Americans Will Identify Themselves As Tom Hanksians.  They Will Also Congregate And Chant, "Wilson!"

By The Year 2150 2/3rds of Americans Will Identify Themselves As Tom Hanksians. They Will Also Congregate And Chant, "Wilson!"

I can’t go any further than 2181 and tell you what happened to the Church of No and the Church of Yes. But I can tell you this. By 2181, evolution still is controversial, though everyone believes in it. As late as 2172, I’ve read Sunday editorials where people just argue over whether we diverged from other apes 3.1816 million years ago or the heretical claim that we diverged 3.18165 million years ago.

Did you like this article? Please consider subscribing and telling your friends about it.