Thursday, March 26, 2009

Um ... no.

PZ asks: "Even dumber than Denyse O'Leary?"

Not physically possible.


Stimpson said...

No one could be dumber?

I dunno. O'Leary isn't dumb enough to crash Pharyngula with an argument that our dear Science Minister is right about evolution, is she?

Cuz only a total, hopeless asshat idiot would do that.

the rev. paperboy said...

Oh come on Stimpson, Denyse is easily that dumb. I would have said that anything dumber than Denyse would have to be an inanimate object ie: furniture. Having clicked through and read the piece in question by one Joseph Farah at World Net Daily (one click shopping for wingnutty dumbassitude) ---- well, any good scientist, when confronted with evidence that disproves a hypothesis, must modify that hypothesis:
1) Joseph Farah is not an inanimate object - he typed the piece of crap in question, so we know he has some sort of capacity for movement.
2) He appears to be dumber than Denyse. From the comments I offer the following bit of evidence proffered by "Ryan" at #3 who quotes Farah and then makes a very astute observation:

"It's funny to me that many of the same scientists who discount the Flood are believers in man-made global warming. While there's plenty of evidence for a worldwide Flood, there's no scientific evidence for man-made global warming. It is a pipedream. It is a hoax to enslave mankind to global authorities."

That's a hell of a lot of retarded packed into such a small space.

3)Given 1 and 2, I conclude that there exists a subclass of animate object that are dumber than Denyse and yet still just slightly smarter than furniture. I therefore strongly suspect Joseph Farah is likely to be some kind of houseplant.