125 Rebuttals, #5

Alright, just a reminder, I'm rebutting the logical fallacies contained within the arguments found here.

5: The Argument of the Ancient Protein as the Origin of Life

Well, if past performance is any indication, this is going to be an interesting one.  Wonder how PSH is going to define 'ancient protein.'  

1. The primeval proteins, described (Aug. 8. 2013) in the journal Structure, could reveal new insights about the origin of life, said study co-author José Manuel Sanchez Ruíz, a physical chemist at the University of Granada in Spain.

Alright, so first, we need a source.  Unfortunately, PSH doesn't know how to do anything other than copy and paste text from other people, so I had to go and find it on my own.   The article doesn't contain the word primeval, though it does contain the phrase 'origin of life' three times.  For some context, here's one of those quotes:

To summarize, we have shown that protein 3D structure determination can be reliably carried out with laboratory resurrections corresponding to Precambrian nodes dating up to approximately four billion years ago, i.e., close to thThis leads me to believe that, since the author of the blog post didn't simply just link to the blog, that it is indeed a plagiarism.  Seeing as how the arguments mostly appear to exist on that blog, I'm going to switch gears here.e origin of life. This result is remarkable, given the large number of sequence differences (up to ∼50%) between the extinct and extant proteins, and demonstrates the possibility of incorporating a time scale of several billion years to expand the sequence space for 3D structure determination studies, i.e., a time scale over which we may expect significant changes in protein structure to occur. We have furthermore shown that critical evolutionary issues regarding fold definition, fold age, and the identification of ancestral and derived structural features can be readily addressed based on putative ancestral structures. The results and analyses reported here thus support that laboratory resurrection targeting Precambrian nodes followed by 3D structure determination can be a powerful approach to explore the poorly understood evolution of protein structures.

Journal, Conservation of Protein Structure over 14 Billion years, Aug 8 2013, Paragraph 9

So, the statement made by PSH, ripped once again from the Proofs of God's existence blog, doesn't carry any such citation either, just a literal rip of the argument.  The ultimate post does indeed include a link, so I guess that counts as attribution.  Since I can't say whether it's the blog owner's post or not (though it seems to be at this point), I'm going to work from the premise that it is, and continue in this vein.

As you can see by the quote from the article, and the article itself, 'primeval proteins' aren't mentioned.  It's actually not even talking about RNA as the origin of life, since it's actually talking about the fact that they were close (i.e. after) to the origins, not the actual origins themselves.  This is so intellectually dishonest, and such a false premise, that I shan't dwell on it any longer.

2. Exactly how life emerged on Earth more than 3 billion years ago is a mystery.

Wonderful. Good thing you pointed out that, in fact, you do not know.  Again, argument from ignorance fallacy, possible poisoning the well / guilt by association.

Some scientists believe that lightning struck the primordial soup in ammonia-rich oceans, producing the complex molecules that formed the precursors to life.

It's possible that electricity helped catalyze some reactions, but it ignores the fact that things like table salt form without it, and are natural, self-replicating procedures.  Lightning didn't just strike a salt bath and make bacteria.

Others believe

Who?

that chemical reactions at deep-sea hydrothermal vents gave rise to cell membranes and simple cellular pumps.

Again, who?  Also, it's possible, so it's got that going for it, which is nice.  I mean, the hydrological activity wasn't what created it, but rather chemical reactions that were permitted by the conditions, but I digress.  It's probably just bad wording.

 And still others believe

Seriously, PSH, it doesn't matter what people believe. It matters only what can be shown with evidence.  Some people believe that gnomes steal their underwear, but like any belief, it doesn't mean anything here.  Unless you're meaning the other definition of belief, which requires evidence.  Which you don't, which is a modified fallacy of ambiguity.

that space rocks brought the raw ingredients for life — or perhaps even life itself — to Earth.

And again, that's something that may have happened, but as I discussed yesterday, whether it was panspermia or not, that's not even part of the question at this point, because those organisms had come from somewhere. Imagine I purchase a cake.  The cake is in my house.  It was somewhere else.  Taking this analogy one step further, it's a bit like saying that since cakes come from stores, the wheat used for the flour didn't have to be grown.  It's a non-sequitur, plain and simple.  This argument is invalid here, for one because this is supposedly a premise, and  for two because it doesn't address origins.

3. It seems that the complexity of thioredoxin, a class of small redox proteins known to be present in all organisms, suggests intelligent design.
    a. They then recreated the protein in the lab. The original “fossil” protein was incredibly stable, bound to many different chemicals and functioned well in a highly acidic environment.
    b. “That makes a lot of sense because 4 billion years ago, many people think that the temperature was high and the oceans were acidic,” Sanchez Ruíz told LiveScience.

Well boy howdy, what do you know.  The article PSH is referring to here is literally where the quote from the first premise was ripped from.   Also, literally the first few points.  What a disingenuous bastard PSH is.  This is literally the definition of plagiarism.  Same goes to that Proof of Goddamn But The Author Is An Imbecile blog or whatever.  The LiveScience article is discussing something in a different context.  Again, the argument made by PSH is that ancient proteins might be the origin of life.  The article from LiveScience is dealing with the fact that the proteins were recreated.  Which is what we'd expect if the guys doing the science are on a correct hypothesis.  It's important to note that LiveScience is not a peer-reviewed journal, but rather an interesting place to read up on science.  This is a great example of how a statement can support one thing in one context, but not another thing in another context.  This, folks, is why it's important to give proper attribution and context to whatever sources you rip from.

Think for a second, about what I've just done.  I'm arguing points on a forum thread post, ripped verbatim from a blog without attribution, ripped verbatim from a science news article without attribution, to support a claim where no claim was made in the original context.  This kind of mental gymnastics is Olympics-level stuff, if the Olympics were giving prizes to the worst offenders.

Let's do some rapid-fire stuff on the next few points, since it's basically the same tripe.

4. A BBC article pointed out several problems with this resurrected theory.

Which article, and which theory?  For crying out loud, you'd think if this were important to the point, PSH would at least link to it.  Maybe it's not really terribly important.  Luckily, our fair PSH's morals don't change in a few sentences, so finding the article was relatively simple. To their credit, the BBC really seems to cover this better than LiveScience.  Also, that statement is pretty much a lie.  Here's an actual quote from the article.

    a. Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: “A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.

    b. “If our ancestral sequences were incorrectly inferred by having a single mistake, that could have led to a dead gene. Instead, our approach created biochemically active proteins that fold up into three dimensional structures that look like modern protein structures, thus validating our approach.”

Here, let me put that in context.  From the selfsame BBC article:

They then used modern bacteria to convert the ancient gene sequences into a chemically active protein that could be measured to determine its molecular structure and the properties of the ancient protein.

The thioredoxin protein is an enzyme which can break sulphur bonds in other molecules and has a number of metabolic functions in cells. It is shared by almost all life on Earth, from the simplest bacteria to complex animals including humans, indicating that the ultimate single-celled ancestor of all life on Earth would also have had the gene.

Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: "A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.

"If our ancestral sequences were incorrectly inferred by having a single mistake, that could have led to a dead gene. Instead, our approach created biochemically active proteins that fold up into three dimensional structures that look like modern protein structures, thus validating our approach."

The group used molecular clocks to date the evolutionary branches back in time and linked them to geological changes in Earth's environment.

Changes in the protein's length appeared to occur in fits and starts, with its helix structure suddenly lengthening at the point that cells started to develop a nucleus (the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote), paving the way for higher life.

The results suggest that biological systems might evolve at the molecular level in discrete jumps rather than along continuous pathways, as has been suggested from studies of the evolution of species. 

This quote is pulled so vigorously out of context that the actual context of the quote argues against the point PSH is trying to make.  This is called quote mining, cherry picking, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, among others.

5. Even bigger problem is the dismissal of the main tenet of neo-Darwinism namely the gradual evolution.“The results suggest that biological systems might evolve at the molecular level in discrete jumps rather than along continuous pathways, as has been suggested from studies of the evolution of species.”6. Finally, Sanchez Ruíz has a great doubt whether the designed protein in the laboratory had anything to do with a hypothetical lonely protein in an imagined hot sea:“There is no way to make absolutely certain unless we invent some kind of time machine…But we know that the properties we measure for these proteins are consistent with what we would expect of 4-billion-year-old proteins.”7. One more problem of this earliest thioredoxin protein is that it is not simple, but complex, stable, and possessing multiple functions. And what would it function with, if not a cell filled with many other proteins and genes? 8. Another speculation in the theory of Ruiz is that thioredoxin arose on Mars and then was transported to Earth in meteorites.  “Four billion years ago Mars was a much a safer place than Earth…Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor (the first life) formed on Mars and transferred to Earth.” 

And the rest of that is exactly the same.  Apart from being unable to stick to one piece of evidence, now our brave PSH (and I'm presuming the PSH in the forum is the same as the PSH from the blog, now.  I'm thoroughly convinced now he's disingenuous enough to plagiarize himself and not realize it) takes quotes from those sources and mixes them up, destroying context to paint a picture that doesn't exist.  Literally, what he's doing is akin to this, taking literal segments and making them say something else:



Fair use fair use fair use....

But I'll remove if it they want me to.

I don't like simply ripping off other people.

Am I really going to do all 125 of these?  Sometimes it seems hard, but I honestly enjoy it. One of the hard bits of doing something that was written completely, at some point in the past, is that sometimes it feels like I'm just repeating myself over and over and over...

9. However, no life or products of life have yet been discovered on Mars, and shifting the origin of thioredoxin from earth to Mars still does not explain how a complex protein arose at once.

 That's right.  The cake analogy from above.

10. All in all, after considering all the impossibilities and unexplained things, intelligent design by the greatest designer who all men call God is the best explanation.

Oh, and we did it again.  Again I shall remind you, gentle readers, that not one shred of evidence was given in support of anything.  Even if we take the arguments at face value, and pretend that they are arguments against the premises presented therein, no premise of a false dichotomy was even introduced here.  Not once did PSH provide one shred of evidence that some other method of nature could produce it, nor that it could simply have existed for ever.  Nowhere does he provide a single premise in support of any god, let alone his own.  This is the simple appeal to heaven fallacy, or the god of the gaps fallacy more specifically.

The presumption is, if someone can't explain something to one particular individual, that somehow invalidates the reasoning of the argument.  Here, however, we actually do have a neat dichotomy.  It's entirely possible that it's being explained correctly, and PSH is simply too daft to understand it.  Well, that's not really a dichotomy per se, because there are other options.  Perhaps PSH is simply willfully denying, or is too dishonest to allow any honest ideas into his mind.

Tune in next time when we tear down another fun, logically incoherent argument.  Speaking of which, I almost forgot.

 11. God exists.

Actually, I'm not quite done. There's one more fun logical structure I can throw in here.  Also, I just realized, this argument for god actually runs contrary to Irreducible Complexity, since PSH is letting it be valid that they did, indeed, replicate the RNA structures in a simpler way.  Remember, this is one of the foundational points of this set of premises.

acce245's Argument that Some Other God Exists

1. Creationists can't seem to agree what god exists.
2. There's tons of evidence that maybe their god doesn't exist.
3. Buddhists think Yahweh doesn't exist.
4. Christians think Allah doesn't exist.
5. Muslims think Yahweh doesn't exist.

Conclusion: None of those gods exist.  Ergo, leprechauns must exist, because they created the universe.

I'm sure I won't change PSH's mind, but if you want a fun argument to throw around with a creationist, have fun!  Just remind them, those same scientists they quote will likely be deistic, if religious at all, and they also claim that PSH's god doesn't exist.  It's a fun way you can apply learning in your daily life.

Peace to all of you, and until next time, think rationally!

125 Rebuttals, #4

This is a post in a series of rebuttals to the claims made on this site.  Today I shall be starting with the fourth argument.

Before I jump in, I'd like to take this moment to let you know I have a youtube channel.  I haven't done much with it yet, but here's a short clip of some neat ice formation I found in my yard the other day.

With that out of the way, let's move merrily along!

4: The Argument of the Contradicting Theories of the Origins of Life.

The statement here is a false premise in itself, since there's currently only one theory on how life came to be, and that's via abiogenesis.  Also, I'm not sure that it's actually a theory yet, as it's actually an area of study rather than a proper description of the natural process.  There are indeed several potential triggers which could have started the more complex processes going, but none of them rule out natural processes in the slightest.  Let's take a look at the premises here, because as always, this series of rebuttals isn't to teach you specifics of complex things.  The point of this series is to demolish bad thinking and faulty logic.  Again, if there's at least some interest, perhaps I'll delve into the more complex stuff later.  I don't need it here, and without further ado, the first premise:

1a. Researchers at Cambridge created an RNA enzyme that worked at freezing temperatures. They said: ”Ice could have aided the emergence of self-replication in the prebiotic chemical world.”
1b. But Jack Szostak1 threw a snowball: the created molecule cannot replicate itself.  “I’m afraid we still have a long way to go to get a self-replicating ribozyme.”

Well, isn't this interesting.  I'm going to ignore the logic part of the argument for a minute.  I was curious to find the context of this quote given by Jack Szostak.  One of the first sources I came across in a google search was this, this, and this. It seems as though premise 1a and 1b here are literally a plagiarization of something.  As a matter of fact, I'm going to pull up the original New Scientist article, where he's cited, to give this some actual context.  The intellectual dishonesty of the folks who started this quote mine, to leave the source out, is blatantly dodgy.  Here's what New Scientist quoted him as actually saying, in context.

The RNA enzyme’s effectiveness at cold temperatures suggests ice was crucial to the first life. When a mix of RNA and metal ions freezes, growing ice crystals suck up the water, leaving tiny pockets of RNA and concentrated salt. RNA replication can happen in these pockets. “They’re a little bit like artificial cells,” says Holliger, and could be where evolution started.

“It certainly makes a cold RNA world something to think about,” says RNA expert Adrian Ferré-D’Amaré of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

However, the theory has some weaknesses. At cold temperatures, RNA strands often stick together, making it tricky to separate them after the RNA has been copied. Primitive life would need to warm up to separate the strands, saysJack Szostak of Harvard Medical School. “It couldn’t just live at continuously cold temperatures.”

True, says Holliger, but there’s a fix. “Ice freezes and melts all the time, so you can easily see how an RNA replicator could be enclosed and then released in a cyclical way and allowed to spread.”

Szostak also points out that the enzyme only occasionally makes long strands of RNA. “I’m afraid we still have a long way to go to get a self-replicating ribozyme.”

SOURCE: NEW SCIENTIST

I realize that takes up a bit more information than I'd normally put for a quote, but I feel this is very important.   Sadly, it wasn't the top result, but google did a very good job including it in the non-replicated sources.  It's also important to note that, at the time RNA-like structures would have been reproducing, life would have already started within the implied definition of the author's argument.  RNA is a basic constituent of the thing we typically call life.  There are simpler mechanisms which can self-replicate, like the mRNA molecules, which we might not call alive.  However, under the author's argument, life would have 'started' before this point, if its catalyst were indeed 'competing' with other theories about abiogenesis.

Sorry, I guess I misspoke earlier.  I shall indeed be giving free biology lessons, it appears.  Anyway, let's move onto the next premises asserted by this facetious slack-wit.

2a. Wayne Roberge, a professor of physics within the School of Science at Rensselaer recently re-introduced a formerly discredited idea where “a new look at the early solar system introduces an alternative to a long-taught, but largely discredited, theory that seeks to explain how bio-molecules were once able to form inside of asteroids.” 
2b. But Roberg also said: “We’re just at the beginning of this…it would be wrong to assert that we’ve solved this problem.”

Oh, thanks for reminding me.  Two fallacies of appeal to authority, all in a neat little row. The inability of the author to understand that he's not even applying them correctly is astounding.  Similarly, the fallacies constitute a special pleading, in that they accept part of what the expert does based on who they are, but not the stuff that is involved in parts of quotes they don't like.  You can't have it both ways, sir or madam.

I'm not sure what to call the other author at this point, so ADMIN shall now be known as PSH.  Because he's a Plagiarizing Slackjaw Halfwit cur.  PSH it is.

So, PSH is basically trying to set up that panspermia is one of the ways life could have arisen on earth. This is possible.  It still doesn't solve where that life came from to begin with.  It also ignores the fact that physical things can't move fast enough to populate everything in the universe from one chance thing.  This logic only serves to extend the overall argument, not to discuss the actual origin of the life that was on that comet, or what have you.  Panspermia isn't typically given as a form of abiogenesis, since the abiogenesis that would have ultimately led to life on that bit of space junk still requires an explanation.  Much like turtles, it can't just be comets or asteroids or whatever, all the way down.

3a. A coacervate is a tiny spherical droplet of assorted organic molecules (specifically, lipid molecules) which is held together by hydrophobic forces from a surrounding liquid. The idea of these theoretical bubbles in which the magic of life happened was introduced by Oparin in 1920s. 

3b. Dutch researchers Ekaterina Sokolova, Evan Spruijt et al. revisited Oparin’s theory of creation of “artificial cell-like environment in which the rate of mRNA production is increased significantly” however, without explaining the origin of the complex molecular machines DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase.   

4a. “We propose that in early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions," said Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering and a member of the Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science. (Nov. 5, 2013) 

Again, PSH has shown a complete inability to comprehend how premises work. First and foremost, all the points down through 4 are not premises.  They're statements people have made, hypothesizing about what might have been a condition.  It's important to note that it's all based on actual science, however.  Observations were made which led to the conclusions given having some validity.  Experiments were done, which produced things we'd predicted should happen.  If something we'd predicted hadn't happened, the predictions would have been thrown out or retested, to find what variables actually led to the various thing here.

For example, here's how science basically works, in case you're unfamiliar, or simply haven't had a science course in twenty years:

1. Observe that something happened.
2. Come up with a hypothesis as to what caused it.
3. Attempt to use the hypothesis to predict what should happen.
4. Do experiments to find out if hypothesis predicts correctly some later action.
5. If hypothesis doesn't explain (can't predict) the future action, discard and try again.

This is literally the entire process through which science works.  When something gets to number 5 enough times, and is never wrong in our history of testing, it goes from a hypothesis to a theory, or potentially a law.  This is why the scientists in the above assertions can do this.  They made a prediction that, for example, RNA of some sort should be able to exist and work in ice.  Simply because it couldn't be made perfectly doesn't mean it wasn't made, or that it didn't function in ice.  The hypothesis predicted an outcome accurately.  It's important to remember this as we approach the next premise PSH gives us:

4b. The Bible, the Koran and even Greek mythology has suggested for thousands of years that life began as earth, dust or clay.

Well, no.  The bible claims that life began as the breath of god (Gen 1, 2), not dust.  The Koran asserts that life began as thick clots of blood (sura XCVI).   The Greek pantheon (and subsequently titans, cyclopses, nymphs, and so on) actually started as a giant orgy involving Cronus, Gaea, and the rest.  Not a single one of them claims life came from dust, but that life was a product of something involving some kind of divine touch.  Ergo, very false premise.  Also, special pleading, since PSH is going to claim that since some god exists, it must be his god (two premises PSH has not shown). But we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

4c. New theory is that clay is a breeding ground for chemicals which it ‘absorbs like a sponge’ and eventually leads to proteins and DNA forming.

Well, considering we didn't even know about Germ Theory until around 150 years ago, I'd have to agree that it's a relatively new concept.  Although, the wording here is very tenuous, and probably PSH is gonna screw it all up.  Also, clay's not special in this regard.  Vents at the bottom of the ocean harbor life, and they're amazingly hot and lack clay. Lots of things which aren't clay can 'harbor life.'  Also, if it's such a new idea, how do you claim ancient religions somehow knew about it? Not a single one mentions clay being a 'breeding ground' for life.  All of them talk about how gods created life.  It's astounding the level of intellectual dishonesty required for this stance.

4d. One little problem remains: “How these biological machines evolved remains to be explained,” the Science Daily article points out.

Again, it's clear these articles are being pulled blindly from somewhere, and that the author hasn't even had the decency to check what's going on here.   It's interesting how that link goes to some child's textbook, and not a Science Daily article.  I'll pull the significant bit here:

How these biological machines evolved remains to be explained, Luo said. For now his research group is working to understand why a clay hydrogel works so well, with an eye to practical applications in cell-free protein production.   

Science Daily

 So, as you can see, they're still working it out.  They are developing new hypotheses, working on what mechanisms explain reality.  PSH is simply asserting that we can never know, despite the fact that it appears we will in a relatively short time.  As a matter of being thorough, here's a link to Dr. Luo's website, specifically a paper published in 2014 regarding some of the exact same science PSH just said couldn't be known.  Let that sink in a moment.  I don't want to hit you with the next premises at full-throttle if you've not recovered from that whiplash.

5. Till now all the contradictory theories of origin of life falsify one another.
 Well, now we have something that resembles a premise.  Let's break it down.  First, we're not dealing with theories, as I stated earlier.  These are still hypotheses.  Also, they don't falsify one another.

The “building blocks of life” can’t be cold and hot at the same time.

• False dichotomy: the building blocks of life could simply have a large range of temperatures at which they can function or survive.  Much like how seeds can survive winter and grow in the summer, or grow some 32,000 years later. Some seeds require fire to reproduce.  

They can’t be at deep sea vents and in asteroids at the same time. 

• False dichotomy: the building blocks of life can indeed exists in extreme conditions.  I just showed you two examples thereof.  

They can’t be dry and wet at the same time. 

• False premise and false dichotomy: Here we have no evidence of the claim, including no evidence that it's a dichotomy.

The metabolism-first and genetics-first scenarios are mutually incompatible and impossible.

• I already dealt with this one in the previous post.  Similarly, false dichotomy (it can be simultaneous, and probably has to be).   

6. Moreover, none of the above theories answers the question: where did biological information come from?

Well, except that, as I demonstrated last post, by 'information' you mean 'energy,' ergo the 'information' comes from the sun, at least on our planet.  I'm not going to rehash yesterday's post for you, because it's like the Beatles said, 'that was yesterday.'

7. For the origin of life to take place there is a need for a complex system that has all the ingredients for a genetic code, and the machinery to read and translate it, encased in a cell with active transport. These all have to be present and working together from the beginning.

False premise by argument a priori, modified appeal to heaven (there simply must have been something complex!) which is simply a somewhat specific argument from ignorance (I can't imagine how it's otherwise!), false analogy (a cell is not its constituent parts and processes, ergo there's no dichotomy of existence/nonexistence as only options - it can simply develop over time, in unison with other features), and so on.  This premise is physically hard to read, because it's so terrible.

8. Such an irreducible complex system gives evidence for creation with intelligence.

I feel as though my 'false premise' button is getting worn out, so I'll go with fallacy from affirming the consequent, though one could just as easily go with existential fallacy: presuming that 'complex systems' must fall in the category of 'creations.'

9. That person with super intelligence that only a super scientist can have all men call God. 

Again, this isn't really a premise, but a baseless assertion (false premise).  I'm glad I'm not taking a shot for every fallacy here, because I'd certainly not make it far.  Also, I'm going to reword the premise, so I can (hopefully) address it accurately.

Ergo, since it appears that complexity requires an intelligence larger than the complexity (false premise), or requires intelligence at all (false premise), something intelligent must exist.

Plants and bacteria grow in amazingly complex fractal designs, but there's absolutely no reason this can't happen naturally.

Ergo, since people have claimed that something which has been described might exist (fallacy, modified appeal to tradition by way of genetic fallacy), it does so with absolute certainty (fallacy of false cause/dichotomy) and exactly explains my position (argument from ignorance, special pleading, genetic fallacy).

Ergo, (fallacy from special pleading), it can only be my god (false corollary I think), because (fallacy from appeal to emotion) I don't want another god to exist, or I can't imagine another god to exist (argument from ignorance).

I think I've reasonably demonstrated the point therein.  Can you guess what comes next? Luckily, you don't have to, because here it is:

10. God exists. 

Yeah, false premise.  If it can't be demonstrated, it can't be asserted, and so far none of the arguments have done so.

If you've made it this far, congratulations!  Hopefully you're enjoying my posts, but even if you aren't, go ahead and leave a comment or something.  If you do enjoy reading my posts, perhaps consider donating to me via Patreon.  I'd certainly appreciate it.  It can take me an hour or two to type out these posts, when the research is all said and done.  Even if you don't donate, I appreciate you taking the time to read my post!

Have something you want me to debunk?  Let me know!  I might even start doing youtube videos on these kinds of things or something.  What do you folks want to see?  Give me your feedback, and let's have some fun!