The world’s full of ignorant and constitutively unintelligent people. As the emergence of the Internet has shown, this shambling and insufferable army of halfwits is just as eager to offer opinions as those who can actually read, think, and process information above what I’d refer to as a simian level if I were fucking drunk and feeling less than charitable. Among these hominid-pundits who technically qualify as human beings are Gribbit and Ikester7579 (Andrew Richardson and Isaac Bourne respectively). If I were indeed plastered and inclined to engage in facile ways to upset these assholes, I’d write this post in a manner that would force Google to index additional evidence of the haplessness of Andrew Richardson of Dayton, Ohio (Gribbit) and Isaac Bourne of Jacksonville (Ikester 7579) and link it to their real names.
That dumbasses want to be heard just as much as others do is not at all surprising; in fact, it’s to be expected, and at some level it’s even acceptable. Before the Web, fuckheads who in a sensible world keep their delusions and misapprehensions to themselves had few options for sharing them beyond the walls of their trailers and group homes. They could disseminate their useless ideas was by writing incoherent letters to newspapers, creating illegible newsletters, and meeting in the basement of Cletus’ Snack Shack in Twat Rot, Alabama to trade insights about how to best deal with Negroes, liberals, the godless and other enemies of the trout-faced and toothless. Beyond that? Not much; functional illiterates have a hard time infiltrating higher-visibility venues such as the mainstream media, colleges, and book publishers (all of which are controlled by vindictive, godless Jew-communists anyway).
But now, the Internet offers the bumpkinry the perfect vehicle for slinging its malformed and laughable ideas around vigorously and with aplomb. For almost nothing, people who give every indication of not being able to negotiate the world without a caregiver and a cast-iron drool bib can produce screed after worthless screed lobbying ferociously against that which they do not like, do not understand, and have no business contesting except in the dense, scorched neural brambles inside their heads, thickets of weakly throbbing biomatter that stands as functional liaisons between the ganglia of deep-dea protozoans and the true brains of higher animals. If I were in my cups I’d find an overwrought and wordy way to say “stupid,” but we’ll go with parsimony and brute-force simplicity here.
Gribbit and Ikester are both incredibly daft bloggers with a distaste for evolution and godlessness, but the similarities in what they write actually end there. Gribbit is motivated solely by an abiding hatred of all things liberal, a stance that at a glance seems curious since he has reported benefiting from SSDI but after a bit of analysis emerges as garden-variety resentment and self-loathing. He’s angry and needs to find something to hate that can’t hit back. He says he converted to Catholicism when he was engaged to be married, but his form of faith is even more transparently hypocritical than that of other loudmouth believers; it’s just another way to separate himself from his narrow concept of the political left. He’s an ass, but doesn’t really seem crazy. He’s been quiet lately, but did emerge briefly to call President Obama a terrorist and post a helpful link to the Washington Times — a rag catering to the absolute lowest form of right-wing life — explaining why Bush should get the credit for nailing Osama.
Ikester is stupid and crazy. His site has attracted notice from aghast observers before, mostly owing to Isaac Bourne’s genuinely startling disconnect from any semblance of reality, a nigh unprecedented level of comically deranged yet stoic resistance to evidence-based thinking. His ideas about science are so insane that they cannot really be pinned down as wrong, and there are so many such ideas in his colossal shitstain of a Web presence that examining any one of them in detail merely seems to tacittly excuse a thousand others. It would take a dedicated team of a hundred bloggers to formally debunk all of the bullshit Ikester has jammed into some sad and screaming server, given how wildly off-base even his simplest premises are. I’ll start and end with the Ikester’s most recent mind-blower:
The fantastic thing about the claims science makes about the formation of the Grand Canyon, is that a river that currently flows through it took 5 million years (5,000,0000 years) to cut out all that you see. But there is a visual problem with this claim. You see that means that the top of the canyon has been exposed to weather wear for 5 million years. So the horizontal wear you see at the bottom, should not exist at the top. But as you notice in the picture above, the horizontal wear is almost as deep at the top as it is at the bottom of the canyon. How did that happen? 5 million years of vertical weathering should have already worn the horizontal wear away. It should not be visible, but it is. In fact as you study the picture, would you not think that this wear looks more around 4,400 years (since flood) instead of 5 million?
Also, wear from a river over 5 million years would have left evidence. Where is all the sediment that has to wash out while the river slowly carved the canyon? You see the flood was in the process of receding back into the earth’s crust. The raging waters would have carried the sediments with it into the earth’s crust leaving no evidence. And that is exactly what we see. But to get all that water to carve the Grand Canyon and take away the sediments, you would have to have an opening in the earth’s crust (a fault line). Is there one around the Grand Canyon giving the flood waters a place to run off?
Yes there is a “major fault line”. It would have to be a “major fault line” to take on all the water from the flood and carve out the Grand Canyon. Where you see the red arrow, it’s pointing at a major fault line that runs right through the Grand Canyon. And to top it off, we now have enough water for the flood which you can read here: Water for Noah’s Flood.
So Ikester’s argument against the formation of the Grand Canyon by basic, well-understood geological processes? It doesn’t look right, and there’s no way, say, a fucking river could have carried away the eroded material from the growing canyon’s sides in merely five million years. In Ikester’s view, the sediment either disappeared in a flash or there was no way for it to have been toted away at all. Jesus H. Christ, has this idiot ever even looked at a river? Things are carried in rivers’ currents. They move things. And as if this weren’t bad enough, there’s the fact that Ikester equates the denial of a scientific explanation with the accuracy of a Biblical one. In other words, if geologists are wrong, then the Godly explanation is correct by default. But in that case, why aren’t there canyons of this magnitude everywhere? I mean, if…never mind.
But what I want to explore here isn’t the specifics of these waterheads’ claims. I get that many people are not at all bright and are looking pretty far up at workaday levels of stupid. What is strange to me is the need both of these guys, and many others, have to put ideas out there for others to read coupled to an absolute resistance to seeing those ideas challenged.
Gribbit long ago disabled comments on his blog. (I should note that “Gribbit’s Word” gets very little traffic; I just happen to have stumbled across it years ago and found reason to periodically fuck with him ever since.) Before that he allowed only comments of assent, many of which, I suspect, Gribbit probably wrote himself. But even manually filtering out dissenting comments didn’t work for him because he still had to see them, and thus see evidence that people were disagreeing with him and (far worse) making him look like a fifth-degree jackhole. Even now, he has a contact page on his site in which he laughably assures visitors that any flames sent via this channel will be dispensed of by a third party before he can even see them. He also can’t stand getting pingbacks from posts that mention him, like this one, because he then has to read those, too.
The bottom line is that Gribbit wants to both have his ideas out there and not have anyone who disagrees with them take notice, much less comment. He doesn’t merely dislike people visibly disagreeing with him; he doesn’t want to even know when they are doing it elsewhere online. In short, he wants the impossible: a publicly accessible philosophical echo chamber, a place that everyone in the world with a similar mindset can and will find but will remain magically unknown to those with other ideas.
Ikester more or less does the same thing. I left a comment or two on his site in recent days, and he not only didn’t publish them but set up an IP block (he should know by now that these are futile). This is interesting in that he tirelessly claims that evolutionists won’t debate his ridiculous claims. You would think that someone with a hankering for debate would actually allow it on his site, right? If I weren’t pretending to be blind drunk I’d marvel at this cowardice and throaty hypocrisy. I know Gribbit’s had at least one kid, but I hope to Christ that Ikester hasn’t fathered anything.
Someone needs to help me understand the dissonance mechanism at work here. Most us probably have ideas we’d rather not see challenged because the alternative makes us uncomfortable. I can’t come up with anything deep, but let’s say that credible research emerged that implied that men who have run at least twelve marathons made extraordinarily shitty sexual partners. (Leave it to simulated-shitfaced me to come up with this one; ribaldry and a skyrocketing blood alcohol level go hand in hand.) In theory I would be annoyed at this because I’ve run thirteen marathons and in theory am not done having sex with other people yet. But how would I respond? I guess I could some to this blog and start bitching about the motivations of the scientists, and giving lame examples of how I’ve been a skilled and doting paramour since that fateful twelfth marathon (whenever the fuck it was), and otherwise behaving in ways evocative of everyday denialism. But under these circumstances, I cannot imagine disallowing comments. I might be extremely suspicious and disconcerted about the scientific evidence (although I could see the pluses of this as well, but that’s a discussion for another buzz), but I wouldn’t stop people from offering input, savory or otherwise, once I made the decision to go public with my thoughts and feelings. And even if I did go so far as to block or delete hectoring or even gently argumentative input, I wouldn’t try to stop people from reading my site altogether or commenting about it elsewhere, as Ikester and Gribbit both do. Gribbit even has a plug-in designed to keep people from copying his posts, not that it does any more good than an IP blockade.
So again, to summarize, we have people who: 1) Say “this is the way shit is!” on sites at publicly available URLs; 2) assiduously not only delete dissent, polite or otherwise, but do their best to shield themselves from the very idea that people are disagreeing.
I’m convinced that if these dolts had genuine confidence in what they were writing, they wouldn’t behave this way. So the psychology seems to be: This is the way the world damned well needs to be, and if it’s not this way, I sure as shit don’t want to hear it. But now we’re back to the question, why post that crap on a blog you ostensibly want as many people to read as possible? (Gribbit and Ikester have both bragged about their online visibility, and the fact that they’re lying isn’t the point.) If I were disturbed by the notion that my vigorous marathon habit had rendered me less than vigorous in other ways, I wouldn’t post to this blog day after day about how Suzy Mae Slutbag of runnergroupie.net assures me that I’m a wondrous and passionate lover or laboriously try to discredit the scientists behind the research and expect no resistance. And if that resistance emerged, I wouldn’t act as if I were being unfairly victimized by a deluded coterie of non-running fucksters intent on staking out a position among single guys on the top of the pussy-prowling heap.
If this plaintive wailing seems disjointed, it’s not because I’m in a would-be blackout and cannot make sense as a result. It’s because I really don’t get clowns like Ikester and Gribbit. I also don’t feel bad about calling them poopyheads and worse because they have no qualms about throwing brick after dimwitted brick at things I happen to cherish and respect, and if it’s not their fault that they were born with shoddy chromosomes guaranteeing the eventual formation of soft and misshapen heads, tough shit. God didn’t put me on this planet to behave kindly toward empty-headed blowhards.