I find myself listening to this over and over, so I'm sharing it with you. I found it featured on SpoonyExperiment.com.

I put together this video. Please watch the whole thing, it's only 1:30 long.
Death threats received so far: 1

Pope Benedict XVI sparked controversy today by making a preposterous comment about the HIV situation in Africa and the role of condoms in solving it. The Pope said that condoms only increase the problem and preached abstinence instead. Anyone can see the blatant falsehood of this statement. However, it would be wrong to accuse the Pope of being ignorant. I'm pretty sure it was a cynical and calculated remark and a deliberate lie.

The Pope has no interest in saving the lives of Africans. What matters to him is the number of people who adhere to Catholicism. It's obvious that abstinence, sexual loyalty and other Catholic "virtues" will help you avoid HIV and other STDs. This is what makes Catholicism a tempting choice for any Africans who want to keep themselves healthy.

Condoms, however, do the job far more efficiently. While they protect people from STDs, they also curb the population growth and allow people to feel sexually emancipated, causing them no guilty conscience for being who they are. For this, condoms are a dangerous rival for Catholicism and other religions. This is why the Pope is opposed to them, not because they "don't work". Whether they save lives or not is irrelevant to the Vatican. Condoms are a direct threat to their religion (and most other religions as well). People who use condoms don't need religion to protect their health.

Do you see where I'm getting with this? Can you appreciate the full awesomeness of condoms yet? Whoever invented them should win posthumously two Nobel prizes, one for medicine and another for peace. Not only do condoms stop STDs from spreading and slow down overpopulation, they also protect humanity from yet another virus; a more stealthy and dangerous virus, one that cannot be seen through the lens of a microscope and which doesn't spread by biological means, but rather by infecting your mind and your thoughts: a virus called Religion. And this is why condoms are awesome. All hail the Condom, the only true saviour of humankind!

OK, this is getting old now.

If you don't feel like reading this post, you can simply watch the video below, in a shitty PowerPoint style slideshow (but you'll be reading the same text anyway, so it doesn't make a lot of difference).

Allow me to present to you this helpful list of guidelines, which I hope will come in handy to creationists willing to debate against evolutionists. Of course, most of you brave creationists are already well aware of the strategies I'm about to tell you and never hesitate to use them diligently and frequently. However, perhaps there are a few ignoramuses out there who still are afraid that exposure to evolution might poison your thoughts. I hope that these pieces of advice will help you prevent that from happening.

Rule 1: Never define the words you use.

It is inadvisable that you make a positive claim of any sort in the first place. A creationist should solely focus on attacking the opposition. However, sometimes you might find yourself in a situation where this is not possible, and you're asked to present your own hypotheses.

When this is the case, simply make vague, ambiguous claims that cannot be disproven and use undefined words that can mean whatever you want them to mean, depending on the situation. Words like 'kinds' and 'information'. Fling them around casually. Work under the definitions which are most suitable and convenient for you, regarding the issue at hand, and if attacked, implicity switch their definitions to something else.

Avoid defining these words at all costs. If this is not possible, offer something vague and meaningless, like "A kind means the group of animals that God made to be the same kind". Keep dodging, and change the subject as quickly as possible.

Rule 2: Don't allow your opponent define their words.

Unlike creationists, an evolutionist will attempt to offer a precise, clear definition of what his position is, with no room for interpretation. Do not allow this to happen. Instead, define his words for him, before he beats you to it. One way to do it is this: when dealing with arguments supporting evolution strictly in the biological sense, scratch genetics and heredity and focus on attacking something completely unrelated, like abiogenesis or big bang, as if your opponent had brought them up. You can even deliberately confuse them, and come up with a definition like "Evolution means Universe was created from a rock." If your opponent tries to correct you, insist on using your definition.

The idea is that rather than allowing the evolutionist to defend his position, force him to defend a position he doesn't hold. If he refuses to do it, simply declare yourself the winner.

Rule 3: Appeal to ignorance.

If you don't understand something, then it must be because it's wrong. Therefore, it is a good idea to take measures to deliberately understand as few things as possible. If an organ, or an organism, or one of its features seems too complex to have evolved, then declare it a miracle without thinking about it any further. This is a biggie: do not, under any circumstance try to THINK.

Stay out of touch with the current events of science. If at all, only refer to scientific material that is over 30, 50 or 100 years old, preferably more, and pretend nothing in science has changed since then. Needless to say, any research or experimentation on your part is strongly discouraged.

Make deliberate efforts to misunderstand everything your opponent tells you. Do not allow a single fact penetrate your skull.

Rule 4 (this is hardcore): Invent your own facts.

When you're debating against a professional scientist, or someone with a scientific mind, the poor bastard will have to stick to real facts to comply with his integrity or work ethic. You do not have this disadvantage. You can simply make up your own facts!

It might seem that inventing "facts" that appear plausible to your audience, and especially to your opponent, requires an enormous amount of effort. However, it takes even more effort to look up or discover the real facts that contradict yours. Try to encompass as many fields of science in your "facts" as possible, increasing the chance that they will go beyond your opponent's area of expertise. If one of your "facts" gets debunked, you can simply invent five new ones. And that just means more homework for your opponent! If you don't think you can pull this off, you can also use "facts" invented by your favorite creationist author or mentor.

If your "fact" gets exposed, plead ignorance. Though both of them should be avoided, it's better to admit a "mistake" than it is to admit a lie. Dodge and change the subject, as usual. Never refer to that part of your debate afterwards. Continue the discussion casually, as if this portion of the debate had never taken place.

Rule 5: Censor the discussion.

If you post your arguments on a blog, or a vlog, keep a close eye on who gets to comment on your blog/video. Delete all comments that are trying to rationally argue against your position. If your policy is challenged, use your "necessity" to censor comments as a "proof" that you're being harassed with hateful, spammy comments and point out how evolutionists are unable to provide any rational arguments for their position (even though those are pretty much the only things you have been deleting). Sometimes, it's better to disable commenting altogether.

Disable any rating bars that might accompany your video or post. As a proud Christian, you should not have to endure the humility of being ridiculed with low ratings.

That concludes my tuitition.

Now, a word of warning.

If you sincerely want to engage in an honest, open, free exchange of ideas, these guidelines I have provided are useless.

They have, however, proven to be VERY efficient if your goal is to infuriate and frustrate your opponent, and make them feel like they've been cheated and had their intelligence insulted.

They also work extremely well if your goal is to shield your preconceived, firmly held, narrow-minded beliefs from the proper scrutiny of critical thinking, allowing you to spread them around with little fear of having them seriously challenged.

And isn't this really the only goal that creationists should have? Who cares if you can't convince a professional scientist, or anyone of comparable intellect, as long as you can convince YOURSELF that you are right? And more importantly, convince those even more gullible and ignorant than you are.

It's what Jesus would do.

I guess you've all heard the terrible news by now. So sad that we had to lose him so young.

To pay my respects for the tragedy, I made this video tribute.

UPDATE: I hate to bring some more terrible news with in such a short period of time, but another one of my idols has died recently. Here is the video in memoriam:

Then that only proves my point.

My second YouTube entry is titled VenomFangX goes to jail while I play unfitting music.

For those of you who don't know, VenomFangX is a creationist v-logger, who filed false DMCA claims on two videos that criticized him, made by the user Thunderf00t. Filing a false DMCA claims constitutes a perjury, which may result in a prison sentence of up to five years. You can read up on the drama on Encyclopedia Dramatica, or just browse some YouTube videos to catch up on stuff.

This is my video tribute to the drama, expressing my sincerest hope that VenomFangX will go to jail to meet his idol Kent Hovind.

Update: Thundef00t and VFX have reached an agreement. Thunderf00t is not going take any legal action and is going to settle for a public apology instead. Oh, well.

Using nothing but Windows Movie Maker, I put together a video titled Dr. Phil zooms in while I play unfitting music. It's nearly an exact recreation of a flash I made about 3 and a half years ago. Fortunately YouTube doesn't have a blam threshold! I figured it would be a nice addition to the "unfitting music" fad.

Nice Guys Finish First is a 1987 documentary film presented by Richard Dawkins. I watched it on YouTube and I thought it was really ingenious and one of the coolest, most fascinating documentaries Dawkins has made. It answers a lot of questions about why and how altruistic behaviour and many of our moral codes have evolved. I think it also explains the root of the "golden rule".

My favourite part is where the different computer programs play "The Prisoner's Dilemma" against each other, each of them programmed for a different strategy. (Don't let the 80's computers and floppy discs bother you.)

EDIT: The videos are embedded now, instead of just links.

Nice Guys Finish First, part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Each part is about 9 minutes long (45 min total).