I want a platypus for Christmas. Why? Well… because I just saw one on Animal Planet and it looks really cool. We all know what a platypus is, but just think about the ass-kickingness of its composure, it’s enough to blow your mind. A mammal. That swims in the water, lays eggs and has poison spurs. Venom lethal to dingos, a reptile like gait with legs on the side, no teeth, and only one functioning ovary in the female species.

How is this creature NOT your favorite animal? Why are children NOT clamoring for the awesomeness that is the platypus? A playmate of their very own to keep in a simulated river?

This is it. This is what I want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

Admittedly, I do so consciously – if I have to wait an hour and a half for a table at somewhere like PF Chang’s, you damn well better be sure that I’m not going to move my ass when the server try his “do-you-need-dessert” annoyance tactics. Not like I blame the guy – the more tables he’s able to turn over, the more money he makes. I feel for him, but I also feel for my behind which has just been sitting on the curb for the last hour because there was no room on any bench and the inside of the place was too damn hot to stand in.

I’ve had a lot of trouble coming up with theories against this, mostly because I’m an idiot and this isn’t my field of expertise. I guess the biggest, simplest argument is that the theory automagically assumes a great creator, rather than a series of evolutionary steps.

The common metaphor that “ID” proponents use is finding a pocket-watch in the middle of a forest. You know that it was created, not formed, and there is reason and purpose behind it. Despite the philosophical problems with such an assumption, a pocket-watch ISN’T ALIVE, and doesn’t have to fight and procreate for the survival of its species.

Anyway, this is a long rant for a link elsewhere, but in today’s New York Times magazine, there’s a great editorial about the fallacies of this approach. Read it and weep for the future of our children.

http://www.nytimes.com – Unintelligent Design

It’s sad to see the same issues from 80 years ago, in the Scopes Monkey Trial, still being discussed today.

…Patterson said, ‘Koko, you see my nipples all the time. You are probably bored with my nipples. You need to see new nipples. I will turn my back so Kendra can show you her nipples.’

Goodness. Read the whole article here (Monkey Day News. Original article from AP.)

[Link via BoingBoing.net]

As a kid, I knew it had to do with the way that the floor was slanted (I closed my eyes and walked slowly), but I never knew why. The following site explains the hows and whys, and also provides a few good links to “mystery spots” around the country. I’m especially fascinated by those that are formed naturally.

http://www.sandlotscience.com/MysterySpots/MysterySpots.htm

Many places, I’d say. As a kid, I’d always want to know how a trick was done (much like many people) and truly hated it when people would pretend to have powers that I knew were tricks. After being exposed to enough lying, a curious kid is bound to come to the realization that just because somebody says something is true, doesn’t make it so.

More recently. however, it was that asshole Uri Geller. Yeah, he’s a real spoon bending motherfucker. Maybe it was his arrogance or self-righteousness that just set me off. I recall a live special on Fox, where Gellar told the audience to concentrate, and try to make the watches and clocks stop. It was fucking embarassing as he went around to people, looking at their watches claiming that they had stopped, when it was so clear that they hadn’t. Plus, he’s Michael Jackson’s good friend, so that has to be telling you something. Fraud. Uri Gellar is a fraud because he claims to do that which he cannot. I can’t believe this trickster is still on TV. Please, Uri: I’ll stop calling you a fraud if you can prove that you are not. So there.