Similar posts

David J. Stewart #conspiracy jesusisprecious.org

Charles Darwin Was a Luciferian-Worshipping Occultist

History is shocking! Truly, the truth is always stranger than fiction. You couldn't make this stuff up...

THE MASONIC THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF LIFE – The hidden link between Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche & Hitler

Those generally thought to be the founders of the theory of evolution are the French biologist Jean Lamarck and the English biologist Charles Darwin. According to the classic story, Lamarck first proposed the theory of evolution, but he made the mistake of basing it on the “inheritance of acquired traits.” Later, Darwin proposed a second theory based on natural selection.

Though, here we must mention the name of another theoretician who played an important role in the origins of the theory of evolution: Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin’s grandfather.

Erasmus Darwin was a Mason. Though, Erasmus Darwin was no ordinary Mason, he was one of the highest ranking masters in the organization; a 33rd Degree Mason.

He was the master of the famous Canon-gate lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland. Moreover, he had close ties with the Jacobin Masons who were the organizers of the revolution in France at the time, and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion. That is, Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations.

Erasmus educated his son Robert (Charles Darwin’s father), who too had been and made a member of the Masonic lodge. For this reason, Charles Darwin received the inheritance of Masonic teachings from both his father and his grandfather.

Erasmus Darwin hoped to have his son Robert develop and publish his theory, but it would be his grandson Charles who would undertake the enterprise. Although it came some time later, Erasmus Darwin’s Temple of Nature was finally revised by Charles Darwin. Darwin’s views did not have the weight of a scientific theory; it was merely the expression of a naturalist doctrine that accepts that nature has creative power.

The fundamental philosophy of freemasonry is based on Darwinism. That is because, though having no scientific aspect whatsoever, Darwinism is a fake ideology with a scientific guise propounded solely to make the mainstays of freemasonry (atheism, aimlessness, wars and degeneration) legitimate.

The Mason Magazine [printed in Turkey by the freemasons] explains why they support evolution theory as follows:

Darwin’s evolution theory showed that many events in the nature are not the work of God. Freemasons try to impose Darwinism as a scientific theory. Darwinism is used as a tool to pave the way for the atheist Masonic powers to spread their deviant belief system. Therefore masons adopt the propagation of this theory as one of their primary duties.

Mason Magazine refers to this “masonic duty” as below:

The greatest humane and Masonic duty we all own is to hold on to the positive science, to spread this belief among people and educate them with positive science [Darwinism] by adopting the view that this is the best and only way in evolution. An important example which proves the fact that Darwinism is one of the biggest deceptions of freemasonry is a resolution carried out in a mason meeting. The 33rd degree Supreme Council of Mizraim Freemasonry at Paris, reveals in its minutes its promotion of evolution as science, while they themselves scoffed at the theory. The minutes read as follows:

“It is with this object in view [scientific theory of evolution] that we are constantly by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism…”

Masons openly admit that they will use the scientists and media which are under their control to present this deception as scientific, which even they find funny. When freemasons talk about the successes they arranged for Darwinism, they actually refer to infiltrating a deception into universities, schools, text books, into most of the mass media as a scientific truth, squelching the ones who have anti-Darwinist views, and hindering anti-Darwinist activities by oppression.

By means of Darwinism, it was, of course, not difficult for freemasonry to cause outbreak of hostilities, to commit mass murders, genocide and racism. Freemasonry drifted the world into a horrible disaster by means of various senior freemasons, by making Darwinist ideology a basis to its objectives, and by brainwashing methods. This horrible plot caused more than 350 million lives. They experienced the destruction of two world wars without understanding what was going on.

In The Secret Cult of the Order, Antony Sutton states: ‘Both Marx and Hitler have their philosophical roots in Hegel. It is here that one arrives at the Hegelian nexus where Darwin, Marx, and Hitler intersect. Recall that Nietzsche-ism, Darwinism and Marxism were all mentioned together in the Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion. This was no accident. Nazism (a variant of fascism) sprung from Nietzsche-ism. Communism sprung from Marxism. Both were based upon Hegelian principles. Moreover, both were ‘scientific dictatorships’ legitimized by the ‘science’ of Darwinism.

The interest of both Hitler and Marx in Darwinian evolution is a matter of history. While he was living in London, Karl Marx attended lectures on evolutionary theory delivered by T.H. Huxley.

Recognizing the odd synchronicity between the communist concept of class war and the Darwinian principle of natural selection, Marx sent Darwin a copy of Das Kapital in 1873. Enamored of evolution, Marx asked Darwin the permission to dedicate his next volume to him…

However, Fascism or Marxism, right wing or left … while the foundation for each of these roads is Darwin’s theory of evolution.

In fact, in Evolution and Ethics, Keith candidly stated: ‘The German Fuhrer (Hitler) as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution’ (Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 230)

In both the case of communism and Nazism, the results were enormous bloodbaths. This is the natural consequence of Darwinian thinking and the legacy of the ‘scientific dictatorship.’

In applying the ideas of Darwin, both communists and fascists have murdered millions. Both of these groups find their origins in the elite (the Illuminati), who are still pursuing the same objectives today. According to the Darwinian mantra of ‘survival of the fittest,’ victory will demand bloodshed…

Atheistic freemasonry infiltrated to masses under the appearance of Darwinism and led millions of people to be murdered. This system of Satan* himself ruined nations and became the primary perpetrator of massacres against believers. The methods of this system has always been tried to be shown as reasonable and thought to be shown to have a scientific base under the veil of evolution. The fact is however, apart from being bereft of a single scientific proof, every scientific evidence once again demolishes this theory. The fact that Darwinism is a great deception is a certified, proven fact.

SOURCE: http://www.globalfreemasonry.com (website no longer exists)

Sen. David Givens & Rep. Ben Waide (R-Kentucky) #fundie kentucky.com

Several GOP lawmakers questioned new proposed student standards and tests that delve deeply into biological evolution during a Monday meeting of the Interim Joint Committee on Education.
In an exchange with officials from ACT, the company that prepares Kentucky's new state testing program, those lawmakers discussed whether evolution was a fact and whether the biblical account of creationism also should be taught in Kentucky classrooms.
"I would hope that creationism is presented as a theory in the classroom, in a science classroom, alongside evolution," Sen. David Givens, R-Greensburg, said Tuesday in an interview.
...
Another committee member, Rep. Ben Waide, R-Madisonville, said he had a problem with evolution being an important part of biology standards.
"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up," Waide said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

n/a #fundie

[Ok, here's the story: I bought an old computer from Value village that wasn't formatted, and lo and behold, they didn't wipe their hard drive! It has 2 fundie essays on it, or at least that's all I can find (good old Windows 3.1!). I'll clip a few quotes from it and put them at the top, then the whole essay if you want to read it. I saw there were other essays on the site but didn't know how to submit just an essay. Interesting -- the file name for this one was toastmast.doc, implying that it was a toastmaster's speech. Essay 1 is your basic "evolution isn't scientific" essay, Essay 2 suggests that the British European union is the coming of the antichrist.]

FIRST ESSAY

Quote: "This kind of thinking is like watching a tornado sweep through a junk yard and out the other side comes a 747."
"Thermo dynamics is physics, it is the laws that govern the relationship of all energy and matter in our universe."

Essay:

The speech I am giving today is speech #8 from the communication and leadership manual, “Make It Persuasive” My objective is to persuade you to consider a point of view that differs from the one you hold. The subject matter of my talk is the origin of us and our world, in other words , “Where did we come from?” This is a topic that is far too complex to handle in this short time. But I am going to plant three ideas in your head, for your consideration, and then to speak again on the subject at a later date.

About six months ago I attended a lecture series given by Dr. Ron Carlson. He holds degrees in anthopology, palaeontology, geology, physics, biology to name only a few subject areas. It is from his speech that I prepared this talk to you. His basic premise is that the theory of life on this planet, presented to the world by Charles Darwin over 100 years ago, the theory of evolution, is not scientific. There are known scientific principles, principles proven by the scientific method of study, that contradict the theory of evolution. The work of Charles Darwin does not hold up over time of study and research.

Well let’s get started. The evolutionist believes that the world started with a Big Bang, a really BIG BANG - a hydrogen explosion. Energy spread out, and order was established in the formation of planets, galaxies, stars and the earth. In a few billions years, there developed on our planet, earth, some amino acids, some simple forms of life. From an accident in nature, life commenced on earth - algae, bacteria, protosoa, reptiles, vertebrates, mammals - followed by the early primates - a few million years more, the evolutionist confirms, we have man. The important point to note here is that there was no predestined or predetermined pattern in the commencement of life forms on this planet. The beginning of life was an accident. An accident, like the explanation of the origins of the universe - the Big Bang was an accident. There is no proof that the accident did indeed happen. The Big Bang theory is used to explain one theory of the creation of our world.

Dr. Carlson offers another theory of creation of our universe. It is the one written in the book of Genesis of the Bible. We were created by a supernatural, creative, active God. My question to you, are you an accident, or the product of a supernatural creative, active God?

Let’s look at some of today’s scientific laws and the evolution vs creation theory. A basic principle of the evolution theory is that energy and matter become more organized over time. There is an upward direction of more complexity - inorganic matter becomes organic matter. Organic matter becomes conscious matter, becomes moral matter, with a brain with a heart, becomes ethical matter, becomes an orderly society. This is in direct conflict with the 2nd law of thermo dynamics. Thermo dynamics is physics, it is the laws that govern the relationship of all energy and matter in our universe. This basic law of physics states that everything eventually runs out of energy - and as it does this order and organization become chaos. The process is called entropy - everything goes down to chaos over time. Entropy refers to a mathematical principle that everything including the universe over time runs out of energy. It is a basic law of physics. The theory of evolution is built on the principle that over time, we have become more organized and more complex. We’ve come from hanging in the trees to walking upright and organizing ourselves into complex societies says the evolutionist. Dr. Carlson says no, this is in contradition of the 2nd law of themo dynamics. This kind of thinking is like watching a tornado sweep through a junk yard and out the other side comes a 747.

To the field of biology we go next. A basic law of biology is the law of bio-genesis. This law states that life can only be produced by life. It states that it is impossible to get life from non-life. Life needs a metobolic engine that takes energy from the environment to create itself - the DNA is part of this life force. Only life can create new life. The law of bio-genesis says it is impossible to create life from non-life. Yet this is what the scientist who teach evolutionary theory say, that life started from non-life. Out of the waters of the Big Bang came early forms of life i.e. algae, bacteria etc. Life started as an accident. From no where, came the first signs of life.

A third thought I would like to plant is the comments Darwin himself made about his theory of evolution - he said that over time the fossil record would eventually show all the transitional forms of life evolving from the ocean to land, to complex life forms, and finally to man. He admitted that at the time he proposed his theory of evolution the fossil record was scant. He said given time, the record would support his theory. Since that time over 100 years have elapsed. Hundreds of paleontologists have spent their careers looking for the transitional fossils, the missing links to show how one species evolved in to the next. There are none. To visit the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, the largest museum of evolution in North America, is to see there are hundreds of fossils - but no transitional forms, no missing links. Instead what the fossil record does show is that there is a sudden appearance of fully formed fossils - fully formed unto themselves. There are no transitional forms - no fossils of early forms of a part cow part eagle. No fossils of early forms of a part shrimp part frog. Darwin’s predictions that the fossil record would prove his theory has not happened.

The theories of creation - the Big Bang or creation by a supernatural creative, active God. The fossil record show life forms appear suddenly. The creation theory states that life forms appeared suddenly. Is our planet winding down to chaos - as stated in the 2nd law of thermo dynamics? Man is capable of destroying life on this planet, sending it into total chaos through bombs, destruction of the environment. Note the holes in the atmosphere - our protection from the sun is diminishing. Do we see any signs of increasing order and organization in our world? The second law of thermo dynamics is at work. Have we been able to create life from non-life in the science lab? Should we accept this as a possibility of our origins - life began as an accident - rather than to believe that a supernatural, creative active God created us.

You ask how could such a doctrine as the evolutionary theory , if it is false, be so accepted as scientific truth? This would not be the first time in the history of our planet that false laws of science were accepted as truth - i.e. there was a time when the thinking of the world said the earth was flat. With that in mind, I hope I have planted a thought in your head, three thoughts actually 1. the law of thermo dynamics, 2. the law of bio-genesis and 3. the fossil record - maybe the world did not evolve, but rather was created by a super creator. Are you persuaded?


Essay 2:

Quotes: "The gold head of the statue represents the Babylonian empire - the empire of splender and magnificense."
"It is suggested that the European Common market countries are those that were part of the great Roman Empire and are coming together again today in an economic union that will be political as well. These are the feet and toes of iron and clay. A mixture of different people. But they will not stay united, as iron and clay do not unite. It is this Kingdom, the revived Roman Empire and all previous remnents of kingdoms that will be smashed by the rock. As the Bible predicts God in the form of Jesus Christ will return to the earth and build his Kingdom, the fifth kingdom that will be everlasting. All other Kingdoms will be destroyed."

Essay:

The millennium will change in a very few years. December 31, 1999 marks the end of this thousand year period and the next day, January 1, 2000 marks the beginning of another thousand year period. What is in store for us in this next millennium? There is something mystical and mysterious about the millennium change. At least there is in the minds of some of us. In the remaining years before 2000 there will be more and more prophets, and sign readers telling us what is to come. One famous prophet of the 1500’s, Nostradamus, pin pointed the seventh month of 1999 as the time when a great king of terror will descend from the skies. However, he continues in this quatrain, Mars (god of war) will reign for the good. Could this be armageddon, the battle between good and evil?

Another prophet writing in the times of the Babylonian Empire - around 600 B.C. made prophesies for the future based on dreams, his dreams and his interpretation of his King, Nebuchadnezzer’s dreams. These dreams are written in the Old Testament book of Daniel.

Just a bit of historical information about ancient times. King Nebuchadnezzer conquored the known world of the day. In today’s geography the countries are called Iran, Iraq, Jordon, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Greece and Italy. Nebuchadnezzer’s empire was known as the Babylonian Empire - it was an empire of incredible splender, incredible glitz. The world had not been gathered together in one kingdom this size before. Nebuchadnezzer’s word was law - he had total and supreme power. Following this empire, the Persians conquored the known world and held their empire ( from 530BC to 330BC) until Alexander the Great conquored the world to commence the Greek empire.(330 BC to about 63 BC) The Roman empire followed - there has not been a world empire to replace the Roman empire. Napoleon tried to build a world French empire, but failed. So we have the Babylonian empire, the Persian empire, the Greek and Roman empires.

Returning to Daniel, he was a valued adviser to the King of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzer, the King had a dream where he saw a huge dazzling, statue, awesome in appearance. The statue had a head of gold - chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of part iron and part clay. A huge rock was cut out but not by human hands. It struck the feet of the huge statue - the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were smashed to pieces - and blown away

by the wind - but the rock that hit the feet, became a huge mountain and filled the earth.

Daniel commenced to interpret the dream for Nebuchadnizzer. Daniel told him that God had shown the king what would take place in the future of nations. The gold head of the statue represents the Babylonian empire - the empire of splender and magnificense. The greatest empire to date in the history of man. The following empire would be inferior to the Babylonian empire - thus made of silver in the statue. We know this to be the Pesian empire. The Greek empire is represented by the bronze on the statue. The metals are getting stronger as we move to the feet of the statue and less glitzy. The governments of these successive empires are becoming less despotic, and democracy is beginning to be part of the way people live together. The fourth kingdom will be as strong as iron - the strongest of the metals. The Roman empire was the strongest of the four great empires, and the least glitzy. The Romans governed by senates and assemblies, closer to democracy. Daniel continues, the iron will crush all the others. But this fourth kingdom will be a divided empire or kingdom - this is represented by the feet of clay and iron. This kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. Just as you saw in the statue that the clay and iron were mixed, this fourth kingdom will be a mixture of people - they will not stay united, any more than iron mixes with clay. The rock that destroys the whole statue, grows and takes up the whole of the earth.

Interpretations in today’s Christian world - see the time of the Roman empire still here, in the present. Although for us it seems the Roman empire is no longer, commentators today feel that there will be a revival of the Roman empire, it never died - the legs and feet of iron and clay have not yet met with the crushing blow of the rock. The predictions of this fourth empire are not yet completed. It is suggested that the European Common market countries are those that were part of the great Roman Empire and are coming together again today in an economic union that will be political as well. These are the feet and toes of iron and clay. A mixture of different people. But they will not stay united, as iron and clay do not unite. It is this Kingdom, the revived Roman Empire and all previous remnents of kingdoms that will be smashed by the rock. As the Bible predicts God in the form of Jesus Christ will return to the earth and build his Kingdom, the fifth kingdom that will be everlasting. All other Kingdoms will be destroyed.

Is the formation of the European Common Market the completion of the Roman Empire. Is there any connection between the prophet Daniel’s predictions of the rock smashing all former Kingdoms, and the formation of God’s everlasting Kingdom and those of Nostradamus predicting a battle of the king descending from the skies and good reigning over all. What wonders will we behold in this next millennium?

Mark Johansen #fundie creation.com

Is evolution pseudoscience?

The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each.

1. Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.

In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’ [our emphasis]

We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’.

2. Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.

The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, ‘As for the fact that we haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you’re expecting too much of your species. Let’s say, as a first guess, that it took blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up … ’.

So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under artificially accelerated conditions.

Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’

3. Some can’t be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world.

The next is essentially the same:

4. … [or] are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory.

Evolutionists are always ready with a story to explain any observed trait of a species. Why do some birds, like peacocks and birds of paradise, have beautiful and elaborate tails? Evolutionists explain, ‘If a peacock can … find food and evade predators while dragging around a bigger and more conspicuous tail than his rivals do’ this demonstrates that he is particularly strong and capable, and thus makes a better mate. So evolution selects females that prefer males with the most elaborate tails.

But the same article also says, ‘it’s hard to figure what possible advantage these eye-catching but burdensome appendages offer … in the grim business of survival.’ If peacocks had small, streamlined tails, evolutionist would surely be explaining that an efficient tail gives an advantage in the struggle for survival (in escaping from predators, for example).

Evolution is just as good at ‘predicting’ things that never happened as it is at predicting things that actually did happen. A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing.

5. Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them.

Evolutionists are forced to admit that the fossil evidence for their theory is slim to non-existent. For example, almost all major groups of creatures appear in the fossil record with no evolutionary past. ‘Something quite bizarre happened at the end of the Precambrian Era. Rocks from that time show evidence of an astounding variety of multicelled and hard-shelled life forms that seemingly appeared all at once. Scientists have long pondered the causes of this sudden appearance of new life forms, known as the Cambrian explosion.’

So the evolutionists offer ad hoc hypotheses to explain the lack of evidence. One popular theory is ‘punctuated equilibrium’, which says that sometimes evolution happens so fast that there are too few ‘intermediate’ generations for any to have much chance of being fossilized.

We cannot see evolution happening today because it goes so slowly, and we cannot see evidence of it in the past because it happened too quickly!

6. Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends…

Okay, one that doesn’t particularly describe evolution, although evolutionary notions can be traced back to ancient pagan Greek philosophers such as Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC)

7. Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances.

Evolutionists try to find animals that fit into their ‘evolutionary tree’. In the classic ‘horse story’, they arrange a group of animals with similar body shapes in order by size and say it shows the evolution of the horse. But is this actual ancestry or just a contrived arrangement? Except for the supposed ‘first horse’, which it probably isn’t, far from being an example of evolution, the fossils show the wide variation within a created kind. As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks’.

Most of the creatures that would have had to exist if evolution were true have never been found, and some creatures have been found that don’t fit in the evolutionary tree at all, like the platypus. But evolutionists seize on a few creatures that sort of look like they might be halfway between a badger and a horse, or between a reptile and a bird. These rare apparent fits ‘prove’ evolution as much as occasional good guesses by a psychic ‘prove’ that he can read your mind.

8. Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims.

Some evolutionists insist that evolution has no metaphysical implications. ‘Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.’

But others make dogmatic metaphysical applications. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science website includes a whole section on ‘Science, Ethics, and Religion’, with statements like, ‘Evolution is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. … In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately.’

Richard Dawkins said that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’.

9. Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.

A pro-evolution web site states, ‘Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as “spontaneous generation”. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life. … No life has ever been observed to arise from dead matter.’

But evolutionists dismiss the fact that their theory requires the violation of this well-established law of science. ‘Did [Pasteur] prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn’t, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally … ’.

The fact that all the experimental evidence of the past 200 years contradicts their theory is irrelevant, because they speculate that it’s possible that there is some experiment that no one has yet tried where it might work.

10. Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate.

Evolutionists claim that their theory is science, but the National Center for Science Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s a problem: ‘The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … . According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. … In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific Method”.’

So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’.

Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences—astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever—would meet so many.

William Dembski #fundie geocities.com

Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher
By Dylan T. Lovan, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 5/2/06

LOUISVILLE - To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.
By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.

The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.

"I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said.

Dembski is one of the country's leading proponents of intelligent design, which asserts that certain features of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause. The ideas put forth by Dembski's movement have piqued the interest of some school boards, churches and politicians -- including Kentucky's governor and President Bush.

But biologists call Dembski's statements on the death of evolution absurd. They say intelligent design, or ID, has failed as a science, so its supporters are trying to foster interest in a receptive public.

Dembski, who holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, teaches a course on intelligent design at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. He calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans.

"It is a reasonable question to ask if there are patterns in biological systems that point us to intelligence," he said in an interview. "It is a reasonable question to ask what are the limits to evolutionary mechanisms."

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher called design by an intelligent source a "self-evident truth" in his annual State of the Commonwealth address in January. Fletcher has said he would encourage schools to teach the concept.

That is despite a December ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as science in Dover, Pa., schools.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones wrote that "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Jones found intelligent design failed as a scientific theory because it can't be tested.

"He pretty much pegged it for what it was," said James Krupa, an associate biology professor at the University of Kentucky. "It really should just be called God theory."

Krupa said evolution science is not dying.

"It's the driving force, it's the foundation of all biology," said Krupa, who teaches evolution courses at UK. "Natural selection and evolution theory are getting stronger and stronger."

For the American public, opinions on evolution vary.

According to a 2004 Gallup poll, about 35 percent of Americans think Darwin's theory is well-supported by evidence, another 35 percent said it is not, and 29 percent said they didn't know enough about it.

Several state legislatures are considering bills critical of the traditional teaching of evolution in the classroom. Legislators in Oklahoma and Missouri have introduced measures to change science teaching standards. In Nevada, a masonry contractor has introduced a constitutional amendment that says there are many questions about evolution.

"It's an ongoing debate; I'm not surprised that the public tends to be somewhat interested in it," said Rob Crowther, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which funds intelligent design research.

That debate is fueled by a belief that Darwinian evolution is linked to atheism, said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education and a former UK professor.

"This is actually, I think, key to understanding this whole controversy in this country: people think that because science restricts itself to a natural cause, it's therefore saying that God had nothing to do with it," Scott said.

Dembski and other proponents say intelligent design is in its infancy and not yet ready to be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. Crowther said the Discovery Institute actually opposed the actions by the Pennsylvania school board that brought the federal court case.

"People assume that we must be actively and aggressively seeking for intelligent design to be put in the classroom, and that's not our position," he said. "What should be required in a classroom is more about evolution, and by that we mean students should be able to learn not only the evidence that supports it but also some of the criticisms of the theory."

That is enough for now, Dembski said.

"I guess I would say that even though intelligent design has a long way to go, it seems to me evolutionary theory is so problematic that just about any alternative that's scientific, or has the possibility (of being scientific) should be allowed on the table," he said.

Sam Gerrans and Christina Wilkinson #fundie rt.com

When failure to embrace what the scientific establishment currently believes in cases where it can produce no conclusive evidence results in a witch-hunt, the cause of true science is not served.

Recently, Christina Wilkinson, of St Andrew’s Church of England school in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, came under fire for falling out of step with orthodoxy on the issue of the origins of life.

The Guardian reports that Wilkinson tweeted in response to London headteacher Tom Sherrington who urged teachers to stick to science when teaching young minds where life comes from: “Evolution is not a fact. That’s why it’s called a theory! There’s more evidence that the Bible is true.”

[...]

Wilkinson is correct – at least in the first part of her initial statement: evolution is, objectively, a theory. It may be treated by the scientific establishment as a fact, but that does not make it one.

Theories – like thought experiments – have a place. The realm of theory is where the mind goes for an after-dinner glass of port and cigar and stretches out in a leather armchair in front of the fire and blows a few what-if-scenario smoke-rings around the sitting-room.

But scientific methods are where the evidence comes in. What such methods have in common is that conclusions are based on observation and experimentation. While exact methods vary depending on the field, the constant is: you can check; the findings are demonstrable and repeatable. This is what distinguishes law from theory.

Reputable, genuine scientists use both systems – and the world is much improved as a result.

The problem comes when those who presume to speak for science forget the distinction between theory and law, and simply attack those who have not forgotten it.

The secular priest Richard Dawkins chimed in that Wilkinson was misusing the word theory.

“Scientists call evolution a theory only in a special scientists’ sense, which is NOT the same as the layman’s ‘tentative hypothesis’,” he said.

He continued: “This is so often misunderstood that I now recommend abandoning the confusing word ‘theory’ altogether for the case of evolution. Evolution is a fact, as securely attested as any fact in science. ‘We are cousins of monkeys and kangaroos’ can be asserted with as much confidence as ‘Our planet orbits the sun’.”

I am not here interested in the rightness or otherwise of Dawkins’ assertions. My point is that theories do not cease to be theories simply because Richard Dawkins recommends that they not be seen as such. There is either empirical evidence, or there isn’t. And if there isn’t, Dawkins’ “recommendations” should not interest us if our allegiance is to science and its methods, rather than to Mr. Dawkins and his recommendations.

Rom831 #fundie rr-bb.com

Oh, its a good hypothesis, but its not a theory as it doesn't pass the scientific method. Evolutionists blur this by claiming you can observe and test aspects that you'd expect to be true if evolution were true. This IS true, but all this shows is what you are test ing may meet the scientific method standards, but that does not mean evolution does and therefore it is not a theory. Let me explain. IF evolution were true, you'd expect to find fossils of animals which no longer exist. You can now look for fossils and test them against existing animals and find they (to our knowledge) do not exist today. Then you can look at DNA and say you'd expect to find similarities between different species. And sure enough, tests show this. So evolutionists claim this qualifies evolution as a theory. But what is being observed and tested? Evolution or fossil records? Evolution or DNA? This is the case in 100% of their proofs that they say make evolution a theory. But as anyone open and honest can see, in no case is evolution observed, in no case is it tested, and in no case is that test repeated until it is shown to be repeatable. All three of these are necesaties of the scientific method for a hypothesis to become a theory. Now, I am going to get bombarded with protests on this, but again, only those people who are open and honest will see the truth. Those who are blinded by their desires and Satan's lies will protest until their fingers bleed.

Clarifying Christianity #fundie clarifyingchristianity.com

How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The only explanation you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.

If there is no support for the theory of evolution, why is no alternative taught? We can only think of two reasons:
The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable.”
The authors, book publishers, and school boards do not have all the facts.

We can not help the first condition. This page does contain all the necessary information needed for everyone else.

Mike Pence #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Mr. Speaker, I've always been interested in origins. Even though my training is in the law and in history, it has ever been an application of mind to contemplate and to study the origins of man and of life here on earth and many theories of origins have been propounded throughout our nation's history.

1859, a sincere biologist returned from the Galapagos Islands and wrote a book entitled "The Origins of Species", in which he did then Charles Darwin offered a theory of the origin of species which we've come to know as evolution. Charles Darwin never thought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that someday, it would be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor have we.

1925, in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, this theory made its way through litigation into the classrooms of America and we all have seen the consequence over the last seventy seven years. Evolution not taught as a sincere theory of biologists but rather, Mr. Speaker, taught as fact. Unless anyone listening in can doubt that, we can all see in our mind’s eye that grade room classroom we all grew up in with the linear depiction of evolution just above the chalkboard. There's the little monkey crawling on the grass, there's the Neanderthal with his knuckles dragging and then there's Mel Gibson standing in all of his glory. It is what we have been taught that man proceeded and evolved along linear lines.

But now comes a new find by paleontologists in the newspapers all across America, a new study in Nature magazine. 6 to 7 million year old skull has been unearthed - the Toumaï skull - and it's suggested human evolution was actually, according to a new theory, human evolution was taking place, and I'm quoting now, "all across Africa and on the Earth" and the Earth was once truly, and I quote, “a planet of the apes” on which nature was experimenting with many human-like creatures. Paleontologists are excited about this, Mr. Speaker, but no one's pointing out that the textbooks, I guess, will need to be changed because the old theory of evolution taught for seventy-seven years in the classrooms of America as fact is suddenly replaced by a new theory or, I hasten to add, I'm sure will be told a new fact. The truth is it always was a theory, Mr. Speaker.

And now that we've recognized evolution as a theory, I would simply and humbly ask that can we teach it as such and can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species, like the theory that was believed in by every signer of the Declaration of Independence. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence believed that men and women were created and were endowed by that same creator with certain unalienable rights.

The Bible tells us that God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and I believe that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that God created the known universe the earth and everything in it, including man, and I also believe that someday, scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rational explanation for the known universe. But until that day comes, and I have no fear of science I believe that the more we study the science the more the truth of faith will become apparent, I just would humbly ask as new theories of evolution find their ways into the newspapers and into the textbooks, let us demand that educators around America teach evolution not as fact but as theory and an interesting theory to boot. But let's also bring into the minds of all of our children all of the theories about the unknowable that some bright day in the future through science and perhaps through faith, we will find the truth from whence we come and I yield back.

Mr. Coulter #fundie godorscience.com

Darwin introduced theory of evolution. Evolution is not the important factor in the theory of evolution. It is the theory that is important. AS long as the truth is theoretical, it can be changed whenever it meets an obstacle. Evolution is only important for its idea that there is no god. Therefore, it is the theory of no god. And that is atheistic/atheism. Not factual, just theoretical. Which is now the education of teaching a truth that only exists in theory.

Helen Pluckrose, Peter Boghossian, and James Lindsay #conspiracy areomagazine.com

The problem [that is destroying our universities] is epistemological, political, ideological, and ethical and it is profoundly corrupting scholarship in the social sciences and humanities. The center of the problem is formally termed “critical constructivism,” and its most egregious scholars are sometimes referred to as “radical constructivists.” Expressing this problem accurately is difficult, and many who’ve tried have studiously avoided doing so in any succinct and clear way. This reticence, while responsible given the complexity of the problem and its roots, has likely helped the problem perpetuate itself.

This problem is most easily summarized as an overarching (almost or fully sacralized) belief that many common features of experience and society are socially constructed. These constructions are seen as being nearly entirely dependent upon power dynamics between groups of people, often dictated by sex, race, or sexual or gender identification. All kinds of things accepted as having a basis in reality due to evidence are instead believed to have been created by the intentional and unintentional machinations of powerful groups in order to maintain power over marginalized ones. This worldview produces a moral imperative to dismantle these constructions.

Common “social constructions” viewed as intrinsically “problematic” and thus claimed to be in need of dismantling include:

* the understanding that there are cognitive and psychological differences between men and women which could explain, at least partially, why they make different choices in relation to things like work, sex, and family life;
& that so-called “Western medicine” (even though many eminent medical scientists are not Western) is superior to traditional or spiritual healing practices;
* that Western liberal cultural norms which grant women and the LGBT equal rights are ethically superior in this regard to non-Western religious or cultural ones that do not; and
* that being obese is a life-limiting heath condition rather than an unfairly stigmatized and equally healthy and beautiful body-choice.

Underlying these alleged “social constructions” is the most deeply concerning of them all. This is the belief that in urgent need of “disrupting” is the simple truth that science itself—along with our best methods of data-gathering, statistical analysis, hypothesis testing, falsifying, and replicating results—is generally a better way of determining information about the objective reality of any observable phenomenon than are non-scientific, traditional, cultural, religious, ideological, or magical approaches. That is, for grievance studies scholars, science itself and the scientific method are deeply problematic, if not outright racist and sexist, and need to be remade to forward grievance-based identitarian politics over the impartial pursuit of truth. These same issues are also extended to the “Western” philosophical tradition which they find problematic because it favors reason to emotion, rigor to solipsism, and logic to revelation.

As a result, radical constructivists tend to believe science and reason must be dismantled to let “other ways of knowing” have equal validation as knowledge-producing enterprises. These, depending on the branch of “theory” being invoked, are allegedly owned by women and racial, cultural, religious, and sexual minorities. Not only that, they are deemed inaccessible to more privileged castes of people, like white heterosexual men. They justify this regressive thinking by appealing to their alternative epistemology, called “standpoint theory.” This results in an epistemological and moral relativism which, for political reasons, promotes ways of knowing that are antithetical to science and ethics which are antithetical to universal liberalism.

Radical constructivism is thus a dangerous idea that has become authoritative. It forwards the idea that we must, on moral grounds, largely reject the belief that access to objective truth exists (scientific objectivity) and can be discovered, in principle, by any entity capable of doing the work, or more specifically by humans of any race, gender, or sexuality (scientific universality) via empirical testing (scientific empiricism). (This particular belief is sometimes referred to as “radical skepticism,” although philosophers also have other meanings for this term.) Although knowledge is always provisional and open to revision, there are better and worse ways to get closer to it, and the scientific method is the best we have found. By contrast, the means offered by critical theory are demonstrably and fatally flawed. Particularly, this approach rejects scientific universality and objectivity and insists, on moral grounds, that we must largely accept the notion of multiple, identity-based “truths,” such as a putative “feminist glaciology.” Under critical constructivism, this gains an explicitly radical political motivation.

Any scholarship that proceeds from radically skeptical assumptions about objective truth by definition does not and cannot find objective truth. Instead it promotes prejudices and opinions and calls them “truths.” For radical constructivists, these opinions are specifically rooted a political agenda of “Social Justice” (which we have intentionally made into a proper noun to distinguish it from the type of real social progress falling under the same name). Because of critical constructivism, which sees knowledge as a product of unjust power balances, and because of this brand of radical skepticism, which rejects objective truth, these scholars are like snake-oil salespeople who diagnose our society as being riddled with a disease only they can cure. That disease, as they see it, is endemic to any society that forwards the agency of the individual and the existence of objective (or scientifically knowable) truths.

JohnR7 #fundie christianforums.com

[Certainly you know that only a very few fringe scientists reserve acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. As theories go, it's very well accepted.]

The Bible is also very well accepted. Up to 97% of the people accept the Bible. More than what accepts the theory of evolution.

The difference is if you accept man's theory of evolution, then you have low standards. If you accept the Bible, you have high standards because God sets a much higher standard for us then we would set for ourselves. Evolution is false simply because it is a man made theory.

Rayburne F. Winsor #fundie postmillennialworldview.com

I once posted a long comment on a similar article by Randy Alcorn entitled: Do you believe God created the universe in six literal (24 hour) days? I certainly do. I really am not concerned with how many (is it 38%) “evangelical Christians are compromising the truth of God’s Word regarding the sex literal (24-hour) days of creation in Genesis by bowing down to scientific opinion (“from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution) that accommodates millions of years to the days of Genesis rather than the clear,straightforward , literal meaning of six literal (24-hour) days in Genesis. There is no warrant biblically, scientifically or linguistically for doing so (from the perspective of the ancient Hebrew language). I have posted many long comments why I oppose theistic evolution (accommodating long ages to the literal days of Genesis) as not biblical. Jesus Christ himself accepted the Genesis account of creation (Matthew 19:4), including the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve, as well as the biblical account of Noah’s Flood (which would radically alter everything modern uniformitarian geologists have learned in Geology) as historical fact (Matthew 19:: 4, Matthew 24:37-39). We should not be surprised by this when we remember that, though many leading scientists (i.e. “scriptural geologists”) resisted the “old earth” ideas of James Hutton and Charles Lyell (Uniformitarianism) and defended scripture as both true and scientific, Regrettably, it was Christians, not evolutionary scientists, who first lead the charge against scripture, beginning in the 1800s when theologians (theistic evolutionists) readily adopted the “old earth” ideas, of Lyell (uniformitarianism) instead of Noah’s Flood. The Bible believing scientists of the day were in a difficult position of trying to defend scripture when even theologians (who compromised the literal history of Genesis) were against them. The situation remains even worse today, despite recent scientific discoveries about the universe, atom, the internal structure and incredible complexity of cells, DNA, the natural world, etc. Believing scientists, though understandably still in a minority, are leaving Darwinian Evolution, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. Unfortunately, though they have grown weary of arguing how random mutations (essentially harmful to a living organism) in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements to it (no functional genetic information-increasing changes on which “goo to you” evolution depends). So, what do they do? They re-adopt Creation, but still hold on to the old earth and formulate a local Flood account to fit modern uniformitarian geology. How much better it would (and I believe employ better science) to come all the way back to a biblical worldview (instead of just a halfway or middle position between biblical creation and natural evolution (Theistic evolution).. See other comment below:

One could write a book on why it is imperative that Bible-believing Christians not compromise the historical truth of Genesis 1 ( i.e. Day-Age theory, Gap theory, Framework Hypothesis theory) by adding or accommodating evolution to the Genesis account. First, theistic evolution, which is just evolutionary development with God added on, is diametrically opposed to supernatural, ex nihilo (out of nothing), , fiat, (divinely spoken Word\) creation, which even Darwin, who was also a divinity student, rejected: In a letter he wrote to Charles Lyell in 1861, he stated: “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the new species out of the range of science” . Not only was theistic evolution rejected by Darwin, but also was never seriously considered by the other founding fathers of evolution. The evolutionary claim of an old earth (4.5 billion years old) denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis regarding the order of creation (contrary to evolution, the Bible says birds were created on Day 5 at the same time as the sea creatures –before dinosaurs and other land animals; the Bible says the work of shaping the earth was finished on Day 3 before the moon was made on the 4th day into earth’s creation, not smashed from the earth in a cataclysmic collision; etc.), the distinctness of created kinds (10 times in Genesis 1), the absence of death and bloodshed before the Fall (see Genesis 3; Romans 5:12), the instantaneous creation of Adam and Eve and all of creation functionally mature (which explains the appearance of age), the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the creation week (Genesis 1:31), the great longevities of the patriarchs, and the global nature of the Flood, as attested by over 200 Flood traditions by peoples all around the world, over 30 scriptural references (indicating universality of Great Flood), and layers of water-deposited sedimentary rocks containing separate and distinct and intact kinds of fossilized plants, birds, animals, etc. (not transitional or intermediate fossil) all over the earth.

Every major doctrine of Christianity stands or falls upon the historical foundation laid in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Obviously, if death were here eons before Adam sinned (Genesis 3), as evolution requires, then creation had already been spoiled and death is not the penalty for sin, as scripture plainly teaches (Genesis 2:16; Romans 5:12). This, in turn, means that Christ’s death and resurrection were ineffective and meaningless, and the biblical teaching (Romans 8:18-23; Rev. 21) of the final restoration (Paradise Regained) of this fallen world to its original state before the Fall (only much more magnificent and glorious)–no sin, no death. no curse–is sheer nonsense. Dr. James Barr, formerly Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University and renown as one of the world’s leading Old Testament Hebrew scholars , wrote, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that that the writer (s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” The word “day” (Hebrew yom) associated with a numeral (i.e. “first day” “second day,” “third day” in Genesis 1 (and that used 359 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1 ) always means a literal 24-hour day. 

To make sure that no one missed the obvious meaning of a literal 24-hour day, the writer (s) of Genesis 1 under inspiration of the Holy Spirit further qualifies “first day, ” “second day” etc. with “evening and morning”–“and the evening (that part of the day associated with darkness) and morning (that part of the day associated with light) were the first day” (“second day, “third day” etc.). But many who are easily embarrassed (yes, that includes genuine Christians and theistic evolutionists like Dr. John Lennox, astronomers like Hugh Ross and others) by the opinions of secular scientists concerning the unproven assumptions of radiometric dating (which has been off by hundreds of thousands/millions of years, even on rocks of known age) will claim that Genesis 1 and other creation passages are myths, parables, poetry, dramas, allegories or analogies–the only exceptions to the perspicuity of scripture and cardinal rule that “context defines the meaning of a word”—anything, in order to escape the obvious fact that they are written, and read as, a straightforward historical narrative.
 
Even such astounding scholars as Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages holds that “Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible–Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job, and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis.” He further states: “The man who says I believe that Genesis purports to be an historical account, but I don’t believe that account” is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, “I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry”. The inspired, infallible Word of God trumps the opinion (actually “faith”) of fallible scientists, my friend. Don’t undermine or sell out the firm foundation (Genesis 1-11) on which your Christian faith is based, my friend, for the favor and praise of men. God will reward you in due time for your faithfulness to His inspired, infallible Word. God bless.

BabaSege #fundie premier.org.uk

BabaSege: My views aren't based on "strident denial". They are as well reasoned and well researched as any other. Darwinian Evolution is nonsensical on a mathematical, molecular biochemical and molecular biomechanical basis. Without the purposeful direction of outside forces, evolution's postulations are scientific impossibilities. Intelligent Design has a lot more going for it scientifically than Darwinian Evolution ever can, on its best day and Biblical Creationism, is simply ONE paradigm for ID. Really? You want to bring the unimaginable complexity and purposeful information characteristics of DNA into a debate about Evolution vs ID?Forget it ... I'm laughing already!!!!

Brent Cantwell: BabaSege, you'll forgive us if we doubt that your strident "there is no evidence for evolution" malarkey a "well reasoned, well researched" conclusion on your part. "Darwinian Evolution is nonsensical on a mathematical, molecular biochemical and molecular biomechanical basis." Redundancy aside, the fact that mention mathematics suggests to me that you don't actually know anything about evolution and instead are just parroting Creationists talking points. "Without the purposeful direction of outside forces, evolution's postulations are scientific impossibilities." Yeah, you definitely don't know what you're talking about.

BabaSege: I know a lot about what I'm talking about. That's the difference between us. I limit my comments to what I do know and what has and can be evidenced scientifically rather than purely on faith grounds, on various sides of the debate.bJust Google Intelligent Design for more info (make sure you go down the back pages the search engines don't really want you to get to where the good stuff is!).

Dan Eastwood: Bluster will get you nowhere. Show us this math you understand so well. Fair warning, I know a bit of math myself.

BabaSege: I absolutely don't need to. Like I said above, don't be lazy and Google ID! The research is there. ID is much more authentic science than Darwinian evolution.

Dan Eastwood: Do not need to, or unable to? I am quite familiar with the arguments for IDC. The entire premise is based on a tacit Bayesian prior assumption that allows no other possibility. IDC is not science at all, but only circular reasoning. Work out the Bayes Factor for yourself, and you will see what I mean. For more detailed mathematical arguments, I refer you to Elsberry and Shallit (2011), Devine (2014), and Rosenhouse (2016).

BabaSege: I repeat, I don't need to. ID is both science and theory, in certain aspects.
However, it's assumptions are logical and scientific, in stark contrast to Darwinian evolution which is dying a death of a thousand cuts. Many self respecting scientists have abandoned it. The more information and knowledge we acquire about the universe and cosmos, the more nonsensical evolution becomes as a credible explanation for it all.

Dan Eastwood: So you are unable. That's OK. Math is hard, and there's no shame in admitting you do not understand difficult concepts.

BabaSege: Don't be lazy!

Dan Eastwood: Don't be absurd.

BabaSege: It's not so complicated. Young Human History (6000+ years). Very aged Earth/Cosmos (however long). These are views accommodated by the Bible. Affirming that science disproves Scripture (or vice versa) unmasks massive ignorance of both. I DON'T need to subscribe to Darwinian evolution and it's supporting belief systems to be consistent with the above

Connor R #fundie debunkedevil.blogspot.com

[Someone attempting to debunk this webpage http://www.evilbible.com/common_lies.htm]

CTS- Common Lies Christians Tell
Ok, a few apparent lies that Christians tell. For the sake of being thorough I'll go through all of them, even the ones mentioned in the introduction. Before I begin, I'd like to make a point about lying. A lie is defined as "a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive". This means that Charlotte is accusing Christians of, completely on purpose, deceiving everyone that they discuss the following topics. That is one large accusation. I would contend that most, if not all, Christians don't fully understand the Einstein, Darwin, or American topics. Now I'll begin the explanations.

Einstein

This is a hotly debated issue. I'm not sure whether or not there is enough evidence to say it one way or another, but there are two basic conflicting views. Richard Dawkins (wrote "The God Delusion") sees Einstein as a pantheist, which he goes on to say is basically "sexed-up" atheism. He believes Einstein's use of the word 'God' was always used only in a poetic and metaphorical sense. On the other side of the issue, Susan Wise Bauer (wrote "The Well-Trained Mind") doesn't try to portray Einstein as a Christian, but argues that Einstein believes in one god and had a tendency toward deism. This view basically portrays God as a universal clock-maker, who winds everything up and then lets it tick without interfering. So those are the differing views, I'll post a few links below so you can see both sides. What we can say about Einstein is that he absolutely believed in the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. He also believed that religion and science can cooperate, they are not in contention.

Evidence for Jesus's Existence

First of all, the Bible is absolutely reliable as a historical document. Archeologists frequently discover artifacts that confirm the events recorded in the Bible. For a video on these findings click here. The writings of Josephus, a Roman citizen who lives from c. 37-100 wrote about Jesus. He calls him "a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man", and says that he performs paradoxes and won over many Jews and Greeks. He even calls him the Christ. In a later writing, he also calls James the "brother of Jesus, who is the Christ". Many other early scholars reference "Christus", a Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". Justin Martyr mentioned an "Acts of Pilate", a record of some cases Pilate was involved in, but only Tertullian also mentions this. The evidence for the Bible and Jesus's historicity is to numerous to do more than touch on, so look around for yourself.

Darwin Recanted on his Deathbed

I don't believe this to be true. There is very little evidence for this. This story became popular when it was preached by an evangelical woman named "Lady Hope". She may have visited Darwin, but if she did it is most likely that she did so around 7 months before his death. At this point in time he would not have been bedridden as she had said, and therefore was unlikely that he was studying the Bible then. As Charlotte said, his daughter opposed this and his wife made no comment on it. It's likely she would have, as she was worried about the "godless nature" of his views. This doesn't rule it out entirely, but it doesn't have the background to be stated as fact.

Evolution is false (or only a theory)

This is an interesting one for sure. I agree that micro-evolution is as close to a fact as you can get with our limited knowledge. All it does is explain the variation we see every day as humans. Charlotte goes on to admit that "macro evolution remains a theory", and then contends that it is a fact (by saying "EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN"). I know a certain line of resources (look to the right) that would contend otherwise, and with scientific observations of their own. The theory of evolution by natural selection is at this point in time filled with far too many holes to be assumed to be a scientific fact. I'm also going to stray away from saying it is a flat-out falsity because of the evidence on the other side of it. Hopefully time will tell, but for now, Christians saying it's only a theory aren't lying.

Atheists Have No Morals

Once again, Charlotte using a statistic to prove her point and does not give a source for it. It is a gross generalization to say that no atheist alive has morals, so I don't agree with this statement. I do, however, take issue with Charlotte's accusations that Christians cause true immorality (genocide, slavery, etc). I've already disproved the slavery point, see here. I've also argued many times that genocide is not often caused by Christians, but when it is there are absolutely not following the Bible's teaching. The only wars backed by God were against societies taking part in extreme immorality (demon worship, human sacrifice, sodomy, etc).

Regarding women's suffrage, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union was one of the most influential groups pushing women's rights. Eleanor Roosevelt, a huge influential leader, was a theist (although not a Christian). The Christians who believed that women should not vote misunderstood the historical context of verses like 1 Corinthians 14.35 and Colossians 3.18. Women do have a different God-given role than men, but that is a different topic.

Back to atheists' morals. The Bible teaches that "the Law is written on our hearts" (Romans 2). This would imply that every person, unless their conscience has been severely fragmented by sin, has a basic moral awareness. Furthermore, many values consistent with Christianity are encouraged in our society. However, an argument exists that atheism, if left unchecked, will cause moral deprivation. If there is no God, there exists no standard for ethics beyond what is helpful for society. When no objective standard exists, it is easier to argue that choices like homosexuality, bestiality, abortion, prostitution, etc can do no material harm to society. In fact, one of the only atheists against gay marriage is Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who has been labeled a hypocrite by fellow atheists. Food for thought.

United States Founded on Christianity

Charlotte is correct here, but I'm going to add some perspective. There is no disputing the fact that the majority of the founding fathers and colonists at the time were Christians. This means that America was founded on a number of biblical Christian values (equality, respect, etc). However, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all deists. They believed in a generic god, but did not accept orthodox Christianity. Charlotte is correct, one of the principle reasons for the voyage to America was freedom of religion. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: State sponsorship is not conducive to a strong Christian faith. There's no need for Christians to push this idea. This "lie" is likely based on ignorance, not deception, I've not met one Christian who knows the information I just posted above. Atheists, please inform my brothers of this respectfully, there are not lying to you.

There Are No Atheists In Foxholes

You can wikipedia this to understand it. This is meant as an expression, not a statistical fact. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, which Charlotte referenced, stands against the use of this as a statistic. It's simply meant to show that many people re-evaluate their positions on God's existence when under circumstances of extreme stress. This common idea is backed up by the experiences of people who encounter NDEs, or Near-death experiences. I've posted a link below for some information about atheists in particular who encounter this phenomenon.

Near-death experiences: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/atheists01.html
Einstein opinions:
http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/02/08/was-albert-einstein-religious/
Historicity of Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_sources
Julia Gillard: http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/atheists_against_gay_marriage

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

Helmut Welke #fundie qctimes.com

Why celebrate Darwin’s theory?

It’s 2009 and many Darwinists plan to celebrate Darwin’s 1859 publication “Origin of the Species.” Yet Darwinism is losing as a viable scientific theory. So what are we to celebrate?

-- Should we celebrate that Darwin’s theory was adopted by Karl Marx, providing scientific cover for despots and atrocities including Lenin, Stalin and Hitler? The connection between evolutionism and Hitler’s final solution is well documented including in Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled—No Intelligence Allowed.”

-- Should we celebrate academic intolerance against anyone who questions the dogma of evolution? No matter their scientific credentials?

-- Why celebrate a theory that is still looking for scientific verification? S.J. Gould admitted in Scientific American, “Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress.”

-- Or the fossil record? Darwin admitted it did not fit his theory — and still does not. Dr. Colin Patterson, British paleontologist, said: “I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.” It takes blind faith to believe in evolutionism. Or being “duped.”

Instead let’s celebrate a great scientist, Louis Pasteur, who opposed Darwinism. Pasteur’s work disproved the spontaneous generation of life and promoted major advances in medicine. Pasteur saw wisdom and design, not randomness and chaos. He gave hope to those with diseases and said: “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Helmut Welke

Bettendorf

Robert Schoch #fundie newdawnmagazine.com

I have been studying our Sun for some years, focusing on the influence of erratic solar behaviour (erratic from a modern human perspective) on the course of human development and civilisation. One of my major conclusions is that the last ice age ended abruptly circa 9700 bce due to a major solar outburst (or series of outbursts). Solar activity is intimately tied to climate changes on Earth, which in turn have major effects on life on our planet, including humanity.

(...)

For the past several years my wife, Catherine (Katie) Ulissey, has been following observations of the Sun on a regular – usually daily – basis. Solar flares and accompanying coronal mass ejections (CMEs) can erupt from sunspots, so sunspots and their activity are a potential short-term indicator of an impending major solar outburst that, if Earth-directed, could cause massive devastation to our modern technological society, as might have happened if the July 2012 solar eruption had hit us.

Katie often comments to me that otherwise very active sunspots strangely lessen the severity of their activity, producing smaller solar flares and so forth, or even appear to become temporarily dormant and shut down their activity, when they are Earth-facing. Then, as they move around to the side and back of the Sun (as viewed from Earth; the Sun rotates on its axis and of course Earth revolves around the Sun), these same sunspots begin firing again, increasing their activity dramatically. It is as if the Sun is aware of Earth’s presence and is attempting to avoid spewing a major solar outburst (whether a solar flare, CME, or some other type of solar eruption) directly at us.

Katie is not the only observer to comment anecdotally on this apparent pattern, others have independently suggested, perhaps in jest, that our Sun is consciously attempting to protect us from being hit by a major solar outburst. In analogy, imagine a person who is about to sneeze, but is able to hold it long enough to turn away and avoid sneezing on someone else.

This may seem like a very weak basis for suggesting our Sun has the property of consciousness, but there is additional evidence. The Sun is a fairly typical star, and it has been found stars exhibit anomalous behaviours that are not easily explained by the theories of standard physics.

As physicist Gregory Matloff (New York City College of Technology) has discussed,10 stars do not appear to move in the ways that standard theories, such as formulations based on Newton’s theory of gravity, predict. Stars typically move around the centre of the galaxy in which they are located. Standard theory predicts that stars closest to the galactic centre should revolve more rapidly than those farther from the centre (just as Mercury travels more rapidly around the Sun than does Saturn, which is much farther from the Sun). However, this proves not to be the case. On the whole, stars farther from the galactic centre move more rapidly than stars closer to the galactic centre; it is as if all of the stars are mounted on a huge rotating wheel.

Another problem with standard theory is that the masses of clusters of galaxies (as best as can be calculated based on our observations) are not great enough to hold the clusters together gravitationally. To address these issues, the concept of “Dark Matter” has been hypothesised. In simple terms, Dark Matter, which according to its advocates is said to compose the majority of matter in the universe, is essentially undetectable except for its gravitational effects on visible matter and radiation. Supposedly, Dark Matter can explain the anomalous movements of stars and the clustering of galaxies.

There is another explanation that could also account for the anomalous behaviour of stars, an explanation that does not need to invoke undetected Dark Matter: stars are conscious and move according to their own will or volition. In one of his articles, Gregory Matloff defines “a conscious entity as one capable of volition – it has enough self-awareness that it can decide to take (or not take) a selected action.” Thus “a conscious star can decide to alter its motion to participate in the great stellar dance as stars orbit the centres of their galaxies. Such a star need not have a human-level or god-like consciousness. A simple herding instinct is enough.

The existence of such consciousness in stars, which are following a herding instinct (similar to a school of fish swimming together or a flock of birds flying together), would adequately explain their otherwise anomalous motions. Is this a simpler explanation than invoking Dark Matter?

Matloff has also discussed several potential mechanisms by which stars might be able to express their will and consciously change their trajectories. The best established mechanism is the use of jets of material emitted from the star. Young stars emit intense jets of material, often bipolar but not necessarily symmetrical. Asymmetric jets exuded by young stars could be used to preferentially change and adjust their trajectories. Mature stars, such as our Sun, emit a “solar wind” consisting of electrically-charged particles. Variations in the intensity, in various directions, of the solar wind could change the path of the star. One must remember that, as Matloff points out, changes in the trajectory of a star that may be “significant” to the star over its long lifetime of millions or billions of years (our Sun is estimated to be nearly five billion years old) may appear trivial or imperceptible to us.

The use by our Sun of jets and variations in the solar wind to express will and volition could be related to the idea that our Sun may consciously attempt to avoid throwing solar eruptions toward Earth – and if this is the case, it is then also the case that the Sun could consciously decide at some point to hit Earth with a major solar outburst. Is this what happened at the end of the last ice age, circa 9700 bce? Or was the solar outburst at that time an “accident”?

Matloff tentatively suggests two other mechanisms by which our Sun, or any conscious star, might theoretically change its trajectory: 1) Variations in the pressure of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, given off by the star; and 2) by psychokinesis. Electromagnetic radiation pressure seems like a plausible possibility, although little work has been done to model how great the variation would have to be to change a star’s trajectory. Possibly changes in electromagnetic radiation could be used volitionally by stars for other purposes, such as communication among themselves.

Psychokinesis (also known as telekinesis or mind-over-matter) has, to my satisfaction, been demonstrated to exist among biological organisms such as humans. Whether psychokinesis could (or does) exist among other conscious entities, such as possibly stars, is currently unknown – although I am not aware of any theoretical reason why it should not.

But how can the Sun and stars be conscious when they are not even biological organisms, at least not in the sense of carbon-based cellular creatures like ourselves? A common notion, which is not to say it is correct (all too often common notions and “common sense” are wrong), is that consciousness and volition (at least in nature) can only occur in carbon-based forms of biological organisms, and many people would limit the notion of consciousness to “advanced” biological organisms like vertebrates, mammals, or, according to some, only human beings. However, various researchers have argued that consciousness may arise at a quantum level and may not be limited to familiar biological organisms such as ourselves.

For instance, the British physicist Sir Roger Penrose (University of Oxford) and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff (The University of Arizona Medical Center) have developed the theory of orchestrated objective reduction as an explanation for how consciousness arises. Essentially, an orchestrated coherent series of quantum reductions (wave function collapses) result in moments and sequences of consciousness and choice or decision-making. As it turns out, according to such analyses, the conditions conducive to the manifestation of consciousness may occur on and in stars. Indeed, at a more fundamental level, consciousness may be inherent to the manifestation of matter and exist throughout the universe – with most conscious beings taking forms other than “biological organisms,” yet we as carbon-based life forms may have a difficult time recognising consciousness in other forms of matter. The physicist Max Tegmark (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA) has suggested consciousness may be a “state of matter” (“perceptronium”)– perhaps this is a state of matter that our Sun, and stars more generally, possess.

won4christ #fundie godtube.com

Evolutionists claim creationism is not science because it is based on revelation. But if Genesis 1:1 is revelation, then there is a God and He did create all things. On the other hand, atheists say there is no God. Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is a conclusion based on human observation and is a legitimate scientific theory. Genesis 1:1 is scientific or it really is revelation. Either way evolution loses on both accounts

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

Here at TomatoBubble.com; we love all of our readers, including the Atheist / Evolutionists. From time to time an E-mail that reads something like the following will arrive in the inbox:

"Mike. I love your work but you really need to stick to history and current events. You do not understand the science behind Evolution and are only harming your credibility when you attack Darwin."

Though this type of feedback is certainly more cordial and tolerable than the occasional, "You are a stupid ignorant deranged 'Nazi' extremist who believes that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe in 7 days. Ha ha ha" - it is still a variation of the condescending you-do-not-understand-science ad hominem logical fallacy that Evolutionists always resort to. This rhetorical device is a weaponized trick that we shall now disarm.

First of all, the lack of any extensive "scientific background" does not necessarily disqualify a logical thinker from expressing an opinion on Evolution or any other matter related to science. If a man observes a rapidly darkening sky on a brutally hot and humid summer afternoon; followed by a sudden temperature drop and distant rumbles of thunder; would his lack of a "background in meteorology" invalidate his opinion that rain is forthcoming?

If a man opts to take the elevator downstairs instead of simply jumping out of a 40th floor window and into his waiting convertible; would his lack of a "background in physics" invalidate his fear of jumping out of skyscrapers?

This idea that any matters pertaining to science, or alleging to pertain to science, can only be discussed by those with the right "qualifications" is a clear example of another classic logical fallacy; the 'Appeal to Authority'. Every great philosopher from Buddha, to Confucius, to Plato, to Socrates, to Marcus Aurelius, to Jesus, to Schopenhauer and so many others specifically warned against the inherent errors associated with this type of boot-licking, group-thinking worship of authority figures. Buddha expressed the key to right thinking very well when he stated:

"Do not go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought."

In other words, "To hell with those diploma-decorated fools. Use your own reason and observation!" And with that, let us dispense with this puffed-up patronizing rubbish about "lack of a scientific background" once and for all. You see, it doesn't take a "scientific background" to understand the basic and timeless principles of what is known as "The Scientific Method". Ironically, it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.

Had Darwin studied Greek or Buddhist philosophy, he would never have made such a monkey of himself.

What is the Scientific Method?

The Scientific Method consists of the flow-chart steps shown in the following chart:

image

Each step must logically flow into the next step until the process is complete. No skipping steps! As soon as the standards of any given step cannot be met, the game ends and the hypothesis goes into the garbage. Now, let's plug "Evolution" TM into the step climber and see what we get.

Step 1: Ask a Question

OK. This one is easy. Anyone can ask a question about anything. Here it goes: "How did we all get here?"

Step 2: Do Background Research

Gather data and observe it carefully. If you detect a pattern that suggests a plausible conclusion, then move onto the next step. What Darwin "discovered" during this step is that all living creatures share many common traits; and that the differences among them adapt them perfectly to their natural environment.

Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis

Based on your data mining, make an educated guess as to what the truth is. Not just any ole guess; not a wild and baseless guess; but an educated guess based on a compelling pattern of data. Here, at a very early stage of the Scientific Method, Darwin has already gone off the rails. In his own words:

"The real affinities of all organic beings, in contradiction to their adaptive resemblances, are due to inheritance or community of descent. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

What Darwin observed is nothing that a retarded 8 year old, living 10,000 years ago, could not have easily noticed on his own; namely, that all creatures have much in common. For example, a lizard has two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc; and, a human being also two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc. And from that, and nothing more, Darwin "hypothesizes" that all living things came from an original "single-cell" organism? Really Chuck?

Darwin himself even admits that there is no data to support his hypothesis; which means that the hypothesis itself should never have been put forth in the first place. Again, from his own mouth:

"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?

We meet with no such evidence. and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections used against my theory."

That's right Chuckie. The MILLIONS of "missing links' flowing from single-cell pond scum to modern man did not exist in the 1800's, nor have they been pieced together to this day. In fact, as even prominent Evolutionists openly admit, the fossil record actually appears to show that new life forms came on to the scene very suddenly.

Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that the standards of the 'Hypothesis Step' of Scientific Method have, by Darwin's own admission, not been met; let us, purely for the sake of argument, cheat a little and give the Evolutionists a "free pass" to the next step.

Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

I don't even know where to even begin with this one. How does one construct an experiment to "prove" that great-great-great grandma[x] was a piece of algae that spontaneously appeared in a pond, and "mutated" into millions of transitional species, culminating in what we are today. In the absence of any experimentation, one could conceivably skip this step and jump to an intense observation of unfolding natural processes; a "natural" experiment, so to speak.

But here again, there is nothing to observe. The reality is that trans-species evolution is not observable and has never been observed, neither in nature nor in the fossil record. Sorry Evolutionists, but a non-definitive skull fragment of some creature purported to be an "ape ancestor" does not meet the standard of observation; let alone constitute evidence that great-great-great grandma[x] was single-celled pond scum. The same goes for your desperately hyped-up finches, peppered moths, 'super rats', platypuses etc.

And speaking of "simple" single-cell organisms (which we now know are more complex than nuclear submarines and space shuttles!), a single-cell organism has NEVER been observed to "mutate" into a new species of two-cell organism. My God! The Evolutionists cannot even validate, neither in nature nor in a laboratory, the jump from one-cell bacteria to two-cell bacteria; yet they call us "stupid" for doubting that our common one-celled pond scum great-great-great grandma[x] "evolved" into the modern day human, elephant, bird, bumble bee, dolphin, eagle, spider, flower, tree etc.

Obviously, steps 5 and 6 of the Scientific Method are rendered mute; but that doesn't stop the dogmatic Evolutionists and degenerate Marxists from pounding their fists on the table and screaming "Science ... science ... science!" in your face; whilst viciously denouncing you as "uneducated" for daring to question their pond scum to human scenario.

The Theory of trans-species Evolution TM is neither testable nor observable. Likewise, the theory of life blindly coming from non-life is neither testable, nor observable; to say nothing of even being sane. Heck, these ideas were never even 'hypothesizable', and that was before our understanding of the incredibly complex DNA computer code we call the genome; a mind boggling instructional code that is programmed into all organisms, including those "simple" single-cell amoebas and bacteria!

Bottom Line: According to any honest rendering of the Scientific Method, Evolution TM is NOT science!

Christine O'Donnell #fundie huffingtonpost.com

[In response to her opponent, Chris Coons, who said, "I believe that creationism is religious doctrine," (interrupted here by O'Donnell, insisting that the "theory" of intelligent design is different than creationism)... "Evolution is widely accepted, well-defended, scientific fact."

Wow, you've just proven how little you know, not just about Constitutional law, but about the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution is not a fact, it is indeed a theory, but I'm saying that that theory, if local school districts want to give that theory equal creedence to intelligent design, it is their right. You are saying it is not their right. That is what has gotten our country into this position. It's the overreaching arm of the federal government, getting into the business of the local communities. The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards. The reason we're in the mess we're in is because our so-called leaders in Washington no longer view the indispensable principles of our founding as truly that, indispensable.

[Shortly after...]

Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?

[Room full of laughter at that question. Later...]

So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase of, "Separation of church and state," is found in the 1st Amendment?

[More from Coons]

Let me just clarify. You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the 1st Amendment?

[Coons quotes the establishment clause]

That's in the 1st Amendment? *snicker*

[Room fills with laughter again]

Republican Party of Texas #fundie s3.amazonaws.com

Protection from Extreme Environmentalists – We strongly oppose all efforts of the extreme environmental groups that stymie legitimate business interests. We strongly oppose those efforts that attempt to use the environmental causes to purposefully disrupt and stop those interests within the oil and gas industry. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Endangered Species Act. We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species. We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.

Free Speech for the Clergy – We urge amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send the government any personal information about their contributors.

Homosexuality ? We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning).

Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.

U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished.

Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice.

Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

Sue Kern #fundie startribune.com

Brainerd school board chairwoman questions teaching of evolution
Chairwoman asks why it's still taught if Christians don't agree with it. ’

The chairwoman of Brainerd’s school board this week questioned the teaching of evolution and suggested that it’s incompatible with Christian beliefs.

“I did have a question about evolution,” Sue Kern said at a Monday board meeting after a presentation about the planned biology curriculum at Brainerd High School.

“You know, Darwin’s theory was done in the mid-1800s and it’s never been proven,” Kern said. “So I’m wondering why we’re still teaching it.”

District staff and faculty members who gave the presentation responded by explaining that the theory of evolution has gotten stronger with scientific discovery — for example, the study of DNA.

Kern then wondered about those whose religious beliefs don’t include evolution.

“And then with regard to your Christian students, then — how do you do that? How do you tell them?” she said. “Because they are taught not to agree with that, so …”

Craig Rezac, a Brainerd science teacher who led the presentation to the school board, answered that teaching evolution is not in conflict with Christian beliefs.

“This is science, and science doesn’t deal with a belief system,” he said. “We deal with facts.

“It doesn’t have to be a dilemma or a concern with someone to choose between evolution or Christianity,” he said. “You can actually embrace both.”

Tim Murtha, the district’s director of teaching and learning, pointed out that teaching evolution is explicitly identified in state educational standards.

Kern didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In a statement, Brainerd Public Schools Superintendent Laine Larson said Kern’s comments “reflect her personal views and do not reflect the views of the Board of Education as a whole or the Brainerd Public School District.”

“The District’s approved science curriculum aligns with the MN State Standards,” Larson’s statement said, adding that “the Board of Education unanimously approved the Science and Biology curriculum at Monday’s meeting.”

Kern was first elected to the school board in 2012. In a candidate questionnaire in 2016, as she ran for a second term, she promised “to maintain family conservative values and culture.” According to her LinkedIn profile, Kern is a registered nurse and works as a realty assistant.

Minnesota courts have upheld the teaching of evolution. In 2001, the state Court of Appeals upheld the removal of a Faribault biology teacher, Rod LeVake, who argued that teaching evolution violated his Christian beliefs. He was reassigned to teach science in a lower grade, where evolution wasn’t part of the curriculum.

Randy Moore, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota, called evolution disputes “a common theme in virtually every school district. It’s been controversial throughout the country, and not just in the South, for 100 years,” he said.

Moore has done regular surveys of Minnesota teachers and consistently found that at least a third of them either downplay evolution or don’t teach it at all, despite state requirements.

“They are afraid of it — either the topic or the consequences,” Moore said. “Either for religious or local political reasons, it’s just not worth it.”

Disputes over evolution teaching are less frequent than they were 20 to 30 years ago, said Ann Reid, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

“The court rulings have been so clear,” she said. In many cases, she added, evolution becomes an issue “because someone has run for the school board, or gotten involved because they want to keep evolution out of the schools.”

“They really see it as a battle for their kids’ souls,” Reid said.

Eugene McCarthy #crackpot macroevolution.net

Stabilization Theory

An alternative theory of evolution

The main claims of stabilization theory, which distinguish it from neo-Darwinian theory, can be summarized as follows:

1. The typical form treated as a species comes into being via certain well-known, well-documented genetic processes ("stabilization processes") that produce new stable forms in an extremely rapid manner;
2. These processes produce new forms that are, for genetic reasons, inherently stable from the time of their inception right up to the time of their extinction. A corollary of this claim is the theory's assertion that any given type of organism produced by such a process has a negligible tendency to change over time in response to environmental constraints.

These primary tenets of stabilization theory can be contrasted with the following salient claims of neo-Darwinian theory:

1. The typical new form treated as a distinct species comes into being gradually through the accumulation of certain characteristic traits within an evolving population over time;
2. The accumulation and spread of these traits is due to environmental influences favoring the survival and reproduction of individuals having such traits (natural selection).

Only a few words of difference, but the implications are huge. Consider how extensively Darwinian theory has influenced not only biology, but also society at large and you will see that the stakes here are incredibly high — what if the axioms of Darwin's theory actually are erroneous? — and subsequent discussion will provide excellent reasons for believing they actually are — Then the theory itself is wrong and the entire Weltanschauung based upon it is mistaken. For example, under stabilization theory we select and shape our environment. The neo-Darwinian outlook, of course, is just the opposite: Under that view, the environment selects and shapes us.

As we shall see, the relative merits of these two hypotheses can in fact be evaluated by considering which of the two is more consistent with available data. But first, let's look at some examples of stabilization processes.

Submitter’s note: I’ll just summarise the rest.


The Theory
1. Evolutionary change is sudden, not gradual (Saltationism)
2. Speciation generally occurs as a result of hybridisation between species that may not be closely related. Humans, for instance, are chimpanzee-pig hybrids and platypi are mammal-bird hybrids.
3. Convergent evolution is a fallacy born from the assumption of traditional taxonomy and Darwinian evolution, they are actually the result of hybridisation

The Evidence
1. Birth defects that vaguely resemble another type of animals, e.g. syrenomelia and Harlequin ichtyosis support human-fish hybridisation.
2. Similarities actually due to convergent evolution.
3. He has a doctorate in genetics and researches hybridisation. Unless you are a geneticist and hybridisation expert as well, you are not qualified to criticise his theory. Even if you’re a biologist specialised in another relevant field.

Rep. Andy Thompson (R-Lima) and another #fundie arstechnica.com

Science educators have recognized that teaching science as a large compendium of facts, without reference to the scientific process and theories that bind them together, simply leads to uninterested and uninformed students. So it's a bit mind-boggling to discover that an Ohio state legislator is attempting to ban educators for teaching anything about the scientific process. And for good measure, the bill's sponsor threw politics and creationism into the mix.

The bill, currently under consideration by the Ohio Assembly, is intended to revoke a previous approval of the Common Core educational standards, which target math and literacy. However, the bill's language also includes sections devoted to science and social studies. And the science one is a real winner:


The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.

Specifically prohibiting a discussion of the scientific process is a recipe for educational chaos. To begin with, it leaves the knowledge the kids will still receive—the things we have learned through science—completely unmoored from any indication of how that knowledge was generated or whether it's likely to be reliable. The scientific process is also useful in that it can help people understand the world around them and the information they're bombarded with; it can also help people assess the reliability of various sources of information.

Prohibiting "political or religious interpretation of scientific facts," however, opens up a large can of worms. People who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old frequently claim that they work with the same facts as actual geologists and biologists; they simply interpret them differently. Although the wording of the bill is vague, it could be interpreted as blocking educators from pointing out how completely inconsistent with the data this interpretation is, or prevent them from describing how the evidence favors a four-billion-year-old Earth.

One of the bill's two sponsors, Rep. Andy Thompson (R-Lima), has gone back and forth about his intentions. Last week, he told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design: “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate.”

This week, however, he told the Cincinnati Enquirer that the bill does nothing to put creationism into the classroom—instead, he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change. Confusingly, as evidence of climate change's political nature, he cites past estimates of agricultural productivity and the availability of fossil fuels.

The bill is still being considered, and Ohio residents have time to contact their legislators to try to prevent its passage. For those wishing to keep track of it, the National Center for Science Education has a page dedicated to news out of Ohio.

I'm a ramblin' man #announcement

This'll probably be my last Shy Says post here. After this, they'll have their own separate blog hosted on the site.

Also, I typed this up more or less stream-of-conscious, and afterward I put aside tags around the parts where I strayed too far from my original topic. I haven't done anything resembling proofreading any of it. But I'm letting it stand as it is for now.

Something I really want to do but don't know how to go about even figuring out where to start is making public all of the statistics that I've collected from what the comment filter evolved into. Funny how The Frog thought he 'won' because he made me waste my time making that filter. In reality, I love statistics, especially corpus statistics, and I obviously love programing, so it should go without saying that I legitimately enjoyed making the filter, so much so that it's morphed into something well beyond its original purpose. It now analyzes comments in other ways besides detecting Le Frog and other trolls and even does the same kind of analysis on quotes too. Unfortunately, it ain't easy to put all of the data and statistics together in a user-friendly form that's easy to read, browse, and manipulate so you guys can explore and have fun with it.

That's not to mention the problem of organizing the code and getting it into a form that can even run on the current host. For the curious, the filter started its life as a well-organized and structurally coherent set of three VB module files and one C# class file. The C# class was later translated into VB when the quote comment page was, since it is closely tied to it. It originally intercepted comments with unusually high, low, or average troll scores and sent a copy of them to my FSTDT email so I could add them to the corpus of training material. It would then discard comments and perform a progressive IP ban if they had a high score, or returns comments back to the quote-comment page code to be posted as normal if they had a low or average score.)

Now it's become a disorganized, ad-hoc set of seven VB modules, three Object Pascal* unit files (compiled in either Delphi or FreePascal depending on the operating system I'm compiling on), one Ada file mostly written by my BFF / modly minion Mikey, and two JavaScript files that I wrote to run in Node.js when I was testing out how well it worked with databases (the verdict on that: comme ci, comme ça). Code in three two of those languages won't even run on the current host. I could probably get the Object Pascal to compile with Delphi.NET after some adjustments. The code only started branching away from things like "written in one language" and " organized structure" after I started analyzing comments for fun and the whole thing was taking on a life of its own. Around that time, it also somehow began to take on a secondary role as personal playground for experimenting with programming languages.

[aside]*I'm using Object Pascal here in the sense that a lot of Pascal-dabblers nowadays use it, i.e. to describe a modern and quasi-standard dialect or "style" of writing Pascal code that can be compiled by at least both Delphi and FreePascal, and possibly other Pascal languages (e.g. GNU Pascal) if you adhere to a stricter subset of "Object Pascal" in this sense. Confusingly, Object Pascal is also originally what Borland called the last couple versions of its Pascal compiler for DOS (whose very last version also apparently had a hilariously bad, half-assed Windows port). Indeed, this old-school Object Pascal is essentially Turbo Pascal with object orientation (or a ridiculous attempt thereat in the case of the Windows port). Aside from their core syntax and lexicon, that Object Pascal and "Object Pascal" in the sense here are dramatically different. Most code more complex than "Hello world" written in the latter is not compatible with the original Object Pascal in any useful sense unless it was intentionally written to be. And that's your programming-language history lesson for today.[/aside]

In addition to being written in as many languages as your average Dutchman can speak, another fairly major hurdle to making this little pet project public is that both the quotes and comments I've fed it to analyze (originally "train") and the interesting parts of the analyses thereof are stored on my private server in an SQLite database. Our current host Does Not Allow Using SQLite, despite their terms of use saying nothing to that effect or even suggestive of it. Apparently SQLite is Too Forbidden to even do that. TIL SQLite is Lord Voldemort.

Only the word and word co-occurrence probability data needed for the filter to run was stored and updated here on FSTDT in a secondary SQL Server database. (It still is, but hasn't been updated in a while and isn't currently being used.) This probability data is basically just how likely (or unlikely) certain words and co-occurrences of words are to occur in 'good' and 'bad' comments. These probabilities are the product of other statistical and meta-statistical analysis stored in the external SQLite database.

Getting the probability data used by the filter requires collecting statistics about a corpus of training data, the larger the corpus the better. Those statistics are stored so they can be subjected to statistical analysis of their own, and then those statistics are subject to further statistictaal analysis. That's two layers of meta-statistics. I originally decided against storing this latter data on the FSTDT server because I vastly overestimated the amount of space that would be required to store statistics about statistics pertaining to statistics of statistics about tens of thousands of words and the frequency they co-occur with other words. (How could you not??) Yo dawg, I heard you liked statistics, so I gave you some statistics collected from your statistics about your statistics...

We call this madness naive Bayesian filtering. To be a "non-naive" Bayesian filter, you must venture even further down this metastatistical rabbit hole.

TL;DR: Bayes Theorem is postmodern statistics.

Anyway, I think the corpus in the training database is a good representative crosscut of the actual FSTDT database. There's tons of cool, fascinating, and just plain weird stuff to gleam from it, like the fact that the fundie index of a post and the number of times the word 'when' appears in it appear to stand in direct correlation. Why?? Anyone wanna fathom a guess? Quotes also have way more hapax legomena (words that occur only once in a corpus) than comments do, but I don't find that nearly as interesting, because there are already a couple of very likely explanations. One, certain fundies absolutely love to invent "words" like abortuarydeathscortagandistism.* Two, a whooole lot of fundies just can't spell. Perhaps they try to hide that fact with word puree like homocommunofascofemininazis?**

[aside]*Protip: English is a mostly Isolating language, so we Anglophones generally prefer to create names for novel concepts by compounding existing words together into phrases instead of creating new words by adding prefixes and suffixes to other words or word roots. For example, to describe the practice of treating medical problems with things that actually exist in reality (as opposed to quackpot woo-woo), we coined the term evidence-based medicine instead of inventing a completely new word like vercomadhealancy (ver-com-ad-heal-anc(e)-cy, lit. "truth~reality | with~using | from~by | heal | having the quality of | the activity or state of"), no matter how much cooler and more phonoaesthetic vercomadhealancy sounds.

If that gloss is incoherent to you, read it backwards: "the activity or state of | having the quality of | heal(ing) | by | using | reality." In English, the order that a word's morphemes follow is generally a mirror image of the order that words usually follow in clauses and sentences. In linguistic parlance, English clauses and morphemes branch in opposite directions: clauses are head-initial (branch to the right of their head), while words head-final (branch to the left of their head). Oh, and only one morpheme of that word, heal, can stand alone, while all three of evidence-based medicine can. And that's your linguistics lesson of the day. And this is exactly why I love corpus statistics: it fuses my three favorite subjects: linguistics, mathematics, and in the modern age, computers.[/aside]

[aside]**True fact: I'm also a terrible speller, but I actually heed the little red underlines that tend to pop up a lot in the things I write.[/aside]

Dennis Hedke, Kansas State Board of Education Candidate #fundie kcfs.org

I have stated publicly and openly that the theory of evolution should be scrutinized along with any other theory that makes its way to the domain of scientific review. I can see no logic in attempting to isolate and protect this theory against the broad range of theories in science, economics, sociology, etc. On this subject, our standards appear to be out of balance. Theories are theories and facts are facts. While some would claim that the theory of evolution is ironclad and without fault, I respectfully disagree, and so do many individuals who belong to the organizations listed above. I know because I’ve visited with them on this very subject. Therefore, it should remain open to criticism, adjustment due to new data and evidence, and overall improvement.

[Emphasis mine]

Mark Johnson #fundie scienceblogs.com

Faith in evolution requires belief. The theories suggest that evolution happens depend on whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is material to evolution. Scientific principles are subject to modification as new fads dictate what is fashionable in order to support such changes, depending on one’s original belief. I fear you have conflated what is currently in vogue in support of a process with the argument from the scientific Sanhedrin. That happens with followers now and then. [Emphasis added]

Mitchel Townsend #conspiracy chronline.com

Bigfoot Enthusiast to Offer New Spring Class at Centralia College
‘The Old Ones, the First Americans’: Course Builds on his Bigfoot Research, Incorporates Stones He Found Depicting the Creature

image
Mitchel Townsend, a part-time volunteer educator at Centralia College, shows off what he believes is prehistoric artwork on a rock that depicts bigfoot.

A new class at Centralia College taught by a part-time volunteer instructor will further build on his claims that he discovered scientific evidence that proves bigfoot’s existence.

Mitchel Townsend, with the college’s department of continuing and community education, will feature some of his new archeological discoveries that include hybrid hominin art and stone carvings.

The rocks found locally at a location Townsend would not disclose are similar to that of Solutrean art — prehistoric art from the paleolithic times found in France. The artwork shows there was an advanced society in Lewis County over 20,000 years ago with culture and religion, according to Townsend.

The pictures on the rocks, which still need to be carbon dated, include elephants, bears and what he describes as a hybrid hominin in a similar pose to the Patterson-Gimlin film, which shows an unidentified subject thought to be bigfoot.

The stone carvings still need to be examined in an academic environment. Townsend has done a preliminary data analysis but plans to wait for the material to be peer reviewed since he has not yet finished a scientific paper that adequately describes his newest findings.

The class will marry bigfoot into the Solutrean art, Townsend said, claiming it shows that “bigfoot had to be an important part of their society.”

According to Townsend, the class will try to identify “the very first Americans through Native American legends, new scientific theories about population migration and his own multidisciplinary independent research.”

Townsend said the ancient native North Americans had identified a primitive culture of people that predated their arrival on the Bering Sea Land Bridge. He said there are remarkable consistencies with the recorded descriptions of the people’s cultural traditions, arts and traditions, and the stones he discovered.

In 2015, Townsend released the first of a series of three scientific papers that described his findings of three separate deer and elk bone piles that had giant hominin teeth marks. Townsend concluded the human-like teeth imprints, accompanied by footsteps with a length of 16 inches, belong to a creature like bigfoot who shares the genetic makeup of Native Americans and an ape.

Townsend has presented his forensic dental impression signature analysis research at various conferences including the annual Anthropological Research Conference in Tacoma. He also presented the research at the Sasquatch Summits and the International Bigfoot Conference. The response from the conferences led him to submit his most recent version of his papers to the Journal of Archaeological Science/Reports, one of the top archaeological research journals in the world.

“To this day our research stands intact,” Townsend said. “Not one scientist has been able to refute our conclusions in any category. The integrated and mutually supporting nature of the evidence and analysis is clear, repeatable and microscopically impossible to fake or hoax.”

Townsend will provide the material, his analysis or his new archaeological discoveries to anyone who wants to analyze them.

He has authored a textbook titled “Bigfoot Solved, Hybrid Hominin,” which was released in February and is available on Amazon. The book consolidates his scientific papers.

CF #fundie au.answers.yahoo.com

('in response to: 'If Satan invented evolution, than why didn't he do it earlier?')

He would need the right time to introduce it. Roger Morneau who got involved in spirit worship when he was young, tells what a priest from a secret society he used to belong to, confessed to him:

"At the beginning of the eighteenth century."he said."Satan and his. spirit counselors held a great general council to prepare to the industrial age that would soon break upon the world,Satan foresaw that an age of scientific discovery and intellectual enlightenment would immediately follow upon its heels.It would usher in the end-times .The close of the struggle between the forces of good and eVIL. "Since Satan had been studying the prophecies of the Bible,he understood the meaning of DanielI~:4that described the time of the end, how many shall run to and fro,and how knowledge would be increased .He recognized it as an ideal time to separate human from their Creator.Thus leading earth's multitudes to perdition."

The Council establlished 3 major policies: i´m not going to elaborate on the fist two policies but the third was:

"To destroy the Bible without actually doing away with it. Satan would drive the thought of God out of the minds of millions through the Theory of Evolution."

The priest went on to explain how this the plan of the master to deceive the human family, is most intriguing to his mind, as it was used by the master to launch a truly monumental deception that would literally capture the minds of millions. The priest explained that a fellow by the name of Charles Darwin, and another by the name of Thomas Henry Huxley, could be effectively used and controlled by the spirits because in their childhood, medical doctors had hypnotized them. The spirits concluded that they would be very good tools in their hands to lead large numbers of people to fall for another major deception, thus fulfilling their third policy. The third point in the plan of Satan and his spirit counselors was to destroy the Bible, without burning it.

Evolution

"It was all very interesting to hear about this, as I was informed that after the great General Counsel, it was decided that Lucifer would tutor Charles Darwin personally. So in setting up the principles of his theories of evolution, Darwin was tutored by Satan himself, the master fallen angel. And at that time it was well understood, by this mastermind and his spirit counselors that if a person were led to believe in the theory of evolution, it would in his mind and heart destroy completely any confidence in the Biblical record of creation week, as detailed in the book of Genesis. This would also effectively destroy all belief in the fall of human kind, and in God’s plan of redemption. Thus in one master stroke they could do away with all of the foundational historical realities which point to the reality of man’s rebellion against his Maker and his desperate need for salvation. Now the high priest made a unique statement, he said that according to the spirit intelligences, anyone who teaches other persons the theory of evolution is considered to be a minister of a great religious system. You see they actually understood it to be a religious system, this theory of evolution. This is because it was ingeniously devised by the master himself, as a system of schooling people to disqualify themselves – by making a spiritual choice – to reject the reality of the Creator and of Christ’s future eternal kingdom.

And the priest explained to us that every teacher of this theory is recognized in the spirit world, as a person of great value to the master’s kingdom, and such teachers receive a very special unction from Lucifer himself who gives them great capacity and power to induce spiritual blindness, to totally convince and convert the mind. And that’s not all; the high priest said that the master considers teachers of evolution to be so valuable to him that in the sight of all the inhabitants of the galaxies, he assigns a special retinue of his bright and beautiful angels to follow that educator throughout all the remainder of his/her life. He would thus have the billions of unfallen inhabitants of the galaxies to know that he is bestowing the greatest of honors upon his chosen workers among humankind, until the great controversy between he and the Creator is finished. To say the least, this was all quite enlightening to hear."

note: At that time, we had translations with the word Lucifer, although that is applied to the king of Babylon and not to Satan. However, it was common in the beginning of last century for people to refer to Satan as Lucifer.

Gottservant #fundie christianforums.com

Creation is winning by Evolutions rules

As technical as you want to be, Creation science is out-doing - out-surviving, out-evolving, out-creating - Evolution science. Just look at the evidence!

Creation - existed from the dawn of time
Evolution - existed later than the dawn of time

Creation - followers prepared to die for the belief
Evolution - followers not prepared to die for belief

Creation - messaging spreading to all parts of the world
Evolution - message spreading to some parts of the world

Creation - specific changes in creation predicted
Evolution - specific changes in creation yet to be predicted

Creation - eternal hypotheses (Heaven, Hell, Judgement Day, etc.)
Evolution - temporal hypotheses (life, death, etc.?)

Ok, so Evolution is losing, for the moment. But let's make this a fair fight!

Evolution - An author (Darwin et al.)
Creation - An eternal Saviour (the Lord Jesus Christ)

Evolution - no commitment to belief
Creation - life-long commitment to belief

Evolution - no commitment to theory (you don't change evolution)
Creation - total commitment to religion (you change at all costs)

Evolution - changing from finding to finding
Creation - constant from the first finding (God)

Evolution - number of people in Hell = all of them
Creation - number of people in Hell = less and less

Take a look! As far as standards go, the Lord has led us to victory all the way. Who knows? Perhaps evolution will lift its standards. Imagine that, Creationism showing Evolution how to have real standards!

Melissa Pind, Keith Flaugh, Michael Mogil, Joseph Doyle, Erika Donalds and Kelly Lichter #fundie eu.naplesnews.com

The Collier County School Board voted 3-2 on Monday to adopt a new batch of science textbooks after residents filed objections to more than a dozen of them.

Four Collier residents opposed some of the textbooks, making arguments ranging from unbalanced views of evolution and climate change to inaccurate racial depictions of science experts.

Board Chairman Roy Terry and members Stephanie Lucarelli and Erick Carter voted in favor of adopting the disputed textbooks. Erika Donalds and Kelly Lichter voted against them.

The slate of instructional materials was unanimously approved for adoption at the May 8 board meeting. Since then, four people submitted 220 objections to content in 18 textbooks. The overall theme of the objections was a lack of balance and context in references to evolution and climate change and the treatment of those topics as fact rather than theory.

Evolution and natural selection are “a total indoctrination of liberal ideas,” wrote Collier parent Melissa Pind in her complaint. “Very disgusting and disappointing that this is included and no other viewpoint is even mentioned! What a shame that kids’ minds aren’t opened up to other possibilities.”

Keith Flaugh, co-director of the Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a conservative group that is suing the school district over social studies textbooks adopted last year, wrote in his objection that there are “many very credible scientists” who have proved the impossibility of evolution.

Flaugh cited the following websites as sources for his pro-creationism stance: Godandscience.org; Creation.com; Christiananswers.net; and Conservapedia.com.

Michael Mogil, a meteorologist, objected to images of polar bears, which he wrote were “the ‘poster child’ of human-caused climate change proponents.” Repeated references to climate change, he said, “brainwashes” students.

Several of Mogil’s complaints were aimed at images of science experts in the textbooks, which he said inaccurately represented the racial makeup of society’s expertise in science.

“Why would I wind up with four black males and no white males,” he asked board members Monday. “It just doesn’t look right.”

Mogil also cited one instance in which there was a lack of Hispanics.

Naples resident Joseph Doyle took aim at passages that addressed overpopulation, which he said is “an exaggerated, unproven concern.”

“This is a slippery slope implying the need to kill humans— i.e. abortion, euthanasia,” he wrote.

Doyle and other objectors did not recommend alternative textbooks but said the district ought to pressure the textbooks’ publishers to make the appropriate fixes.

Many objections referred to minor details in the books, such as an image of children playing on the beach in 107-degree weather.

“From a safety angle, this is quite dangerous,” wrote Mogil, who submitted 144 objections. “From a weather angle, such temperatures at a U.S. beach are not likely.”

Brandon Haught, a high school biology and environmental science teacher in Orange City and founding member of Florida Citizens for Science, a group focused on defending against attacks on science education, advised the board to be wary of the hundreds of objections filed.

Haught authored a book about the battle over the teaching of evolution in Florida classrooms.

The objectors’ strategy, he said, “is to overwhelm you by so many facts that it makes you think, ‘Oh, maybe there’s something to it.’ ”

“If you actually take a look at each individual fact you’ll find that they’re hollow,” he said. “They’re based on misinterpretations and wishful thinking and religion.”

Several people, including Haught and some board members, noted the unconstitutionality of teaching religion in public schools.

Donalds disagreed, arguing intelligent design has a place in science classrooms.

“The theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution can be taught alongside each other without violating the Constitution,” she said.

Donalds and Lichter unsuccessfully put forth a motion to pull each book objected to from the adoption slate to be reviewed individually.

“We need to push these publishers to get rid of the political agenda, especially with the climate change issue,” Lichter said. “It’s just shoved down the kids’ throats without any scientific background knowledge. It’s just really inappropriate.”

All three residents who filed objections and attended Monday’s meeting received 30 minutes to present their findings to the board, plus 10 minutes to reply to the district’s defense.

The meeting lasted five hours, the vast majority of which was spent hearing from objectors Mogil, Flaugh and Doyle, none of whom have children attending Collier public schools.

Legislation passed last year gave all Florida taxpayers the right to dispute materials in front of a school board. That privilege previously was reserved for parents only In Collier County.

The change in law came after Donalds' husband, state Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Naples, introduced House Bill 989, which states all materials must provide a “balanced viewpoint” on issues and expanded the objection process to all taxpayers.

Drew Zahn, Donald Wildmon #fundie wnd.com

The Campbell's Soup Company purchased a pair of two-page advertisement spreads in one of the nation's leading pro-homosexual magazines, including an ad highlighting a lesbian couple and their son, reports the American Family Association.

The advertisement for Campbell's product Swanson's broth, the AFA reports, appears in both the December 2008 and January 2009 issues of The Advocate, a magazine that touts itself with the line, "For 40 years, setting the standard in LGBT journalism."

The AFA, however, objects to the ad, particularly the frame that depicts the lesbian couple and their son, claiming that the soup company is contributing to homosexual advocacy.

"Not only did the ads cost Campbell's a chunk of money," writes AFA Chairman Donald Wildmon in an email alert, "but they also sent a message that homosexual parents constitute a family and are worthy of support."

Cassiterides #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

Those are standard and have to be put up legally. From what i know about [sungazing], there are no actual health risks, i have a brother who is into alternitive medicine etc and he's been into sungazing for a while. You don't do it for long, the idea is that you only do it for a few minutes (or even seconds) each day. The idea is that it replaces food and drink and is a source of energy.

Moonlight is the opposite - it is destructive. Hence why their is folklore about lunar effect if you look at it. The word lunacy comes from ancient times when the moon was thought to cause mental problems.

[Unless you think our eyes damage themselves through their own emissions, this shows vision comes from light entering the eye, not vice versa.]

There are many other lights, however there is no evidence actually that light travels.

[In any case, emission theory and sungazing don't seem to have anything to do with the speed of light being infinite, which I think was your original claim? We have measured the speed of light and its not infinite, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.]

The speed of light is a theory based on the theory of relativity, which attempts to connect space and time.

The theory of relativity though is just a theory. Theories are not fact. Anything with theory in it's name is not proven most notebly: the theory of evolution.

I could invent a theory now i.e the theory that the sky is yellow, so the ''Yellow Sky Theory''. Obviously this doesn't make it a fact, it's just theoretical.

Most evolutionists though have a hard time understanding what is fact and what is theory or assumption, speculation etc. They can't distinguish between the two, and so they think evolution and any other science theory which has a considerable amount of support is a fact when it isn't.

Sipho Yanano #fundie parent24.com

Dear son

I know you've always wondered where humanity came from and I’m happy that you're discussing this aspect at school. As a parent I hope you'll have the opportunity to decide for yourself whether life came here by creation or by evolution.

However I'll give you my take, son. You'll hear that organisms originated by transformation out of yet existing organisms, and not by direct creation into their final state. You'll come across a lot of conflicting and mind boggling evolutionist theories of how life began:

1. Life came from a warm pool of organic "soup".
2. Undersea geysers gave life.
3. A foam in the ocean was a form of life.
4. Earthbound meteors brought life.
5. Asteroids hit the earth so hard that the atmosphere changed thus igniting the life process.

Son, these are a few of the differing views on evolution. One fact is clear though; these conflicting ideas show that evolution is just a theory and not fact. So when teachers try to tell you that evolution is a fact, always remember that it’s just a theory supported by inconclusive evidence which is full of holes.

The truth, son, is that evolution is a form of religion and woe to you if you resist. After all one prominent evolutionist is on record for saying "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."

I guess your daddy is one of those ignorant, stupid and insane people who doesn't buy into the propaganda of evolution. As unique as you and I are, with intelligence, hope, love and many other wonderful human qualities I find it laughable to be told that we evolved from such animals as apes, monkeys and lemurs. These animals have no conscience or a sense of morality. They don’t have humour or self awareness and the list goes on.

Son, the theory of evolution is fraught with weaknesses. For example some experts have argued that because the theory tries to reconstruct the past, it is impossible to prove by experiment or by direct observation. Also, because the theory deals with unique events such as the origin of life it is impossible to prove.

The theory of evolution leaves too much to chance. That life is where it is now out of chance. That our amazing human body came about by a sequence of chances. What are the chances that you'll come across a computer that came from no where? Humans are more advanced than computers and to credit chance for their existence is a myth.

So, son, it’s good to know what different people have to say about where we come from. It's good for you to distinguish facts from opinions and propaganda.

Love
Dad

ThackerAgency #fundie hotair.com

That’s what it boils down to in the scientific community. They believe it is either evolution or Creation because there is no other plausible theory - when scientifically that isn’t accurate. It isn’t one or the other. It could be neither. But you can disprove one without proving the other. That’s why some idiot decided it would be as appropriate to come up with a flying spaghetti monster to mock Creationists . . . when actually they are mocking the evolutionists who created their theory exactly the same way. . . out of whole cloth.

The scientific community doesn’t recognize that as valid. So any ‘attack’ on their theory - legitimate though they may be - is dismissed as being an overly religious position.

Their need to not have a God causes their science to be flawed because they dismiss important evidence. I don’t say that to claim that science is the search for God as you claimed by quoting me. Atheists and evolutionists claim anyone disagreeing with them is ‘religious fanatic’ whether they are or not. It causes bad science.

ThackerAgency on June 18, 2008 at 1:11 AM

Gee300 #fundie fstdt.com

Interesting to note ppl who have never studied the sciences contained in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, making definitive statements.
There is no variance between the Bible and Science when we are presented with a true and proper translation of the Text, and CURRENT, UPTODATE science.
And not that pseudo science they force feed students, even today.
Having studied Genesis 1 and 2 for a year now in the original Hebrew, I had to learn maths, astronomy, nuclear physics, quantum physics, biology, and so forth.
Needless to say I had a steep learning curve.
As a sceptic, It took me by surprise to find evolution is a lie, current DNA results have been published and debunked Darwin's stolen idea, and that most ppl mean ADAPTION, not evolution.
Yes, Darwin was in court many times for intellectual property theft.
Do your research and be UPTODATE with CURRENT science before you nay Sayers go off half cocked with inadequate assumptions, that merely highlight your ignorance.
Even Hawkins States at the end of his lecture, " And remember ladies and gentlemen, it is still only a theory".
Yes. The Theory of Evolution. An idea that was around before Darwin's grandfather. What Charles Darwin tried to do was introduce the creation model into the existing theory of evolution. He tried, and failed.
Just as you who rubbish the science found in the bible have failed to impress me with any intelligent argument.
Study it for yourselves, you may be amazed at what you'll find.

South Dakota Senate #fundie rawstory.com

Senators in South Dakota approved a Senate Bill 55 on Wednesday barring schools from prohibiting teachers from questioning established scientific theories. It could be assigned to a South Dakota House committee next week.

“No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to,” the 36-word bill reads.

South Dakota Sen. Jeff Monroe sponsored the bill following failed attempts in 2014 and 2015 to give teachers more leeway regarding controversial scientific lessons. In 2014, Monroe sponsored SB 112, which would have stopped school boards from prohibiting teachers from teaching creationism.

Though South Dakota’s SB 55 doesn’t specifically mention evolution, experts say the bill leaves the door open for teachers to teach whatever they want with regards to controversial topics.

“This is horrible, but let’s say I believe in eugenics,” Deb Wolf, a high school science instructional coach told the Argus Leader. “(SB 55) says that I couldn’t be prohibited, I couldn’t be stopped from teaching that as long as I did it in an objective scientific manner, and it doesn’t specify what that means.”

Similar bills are making their way through legislatures in Oklahoma and Indiana. According to the National Center for Science Education, Oklahoma’s SB 393 would require administrators to “assist teachers [in finding] effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.” And Indiana’s Senate Resolution 17 would urge the state department of education “to reinforce support of teachers who choose to teach a diverse curriculum.”

“Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), that the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics can generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society,” Indiana’s Senate Resolution 17 reads.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, told the Hill the language of these bills makes them “very hard to challenge on the basis that they’re unconstitutional, because they’re not requiring anyone to do anything.”

“They’re no longer trying to ban teaching evolution,” Branch said. “They’re no longer trying to balance teaching evolution. They’re now trying to belittle evolution.

ebtesam #fundie gawaher.com

Hmm, are you aware of all the errors in the whole Evolution theory and Natural Selection? As an example birds. They say that birds evolved from those flying dinosaurs. The biggest difference between a bird and pterosaurs ( as Pteranodon) is that pterosaurs don't have feathers. Their wings were closer to a bat-wings, than todays birds. But how is it possible that the skin turned into feathers within so short period of time?

And are u aware that Mr. Darwin, who was the first one to introduce the whole evolution theory, believed actually in Shaytaan (Satan, the devil..etc..) and held different kind of ceremonies in his house related to this subject? Don't you think, that it was just a big scam from Shaytaan to make people away from the truth, by making them believe something as stupid as this?

Peace

purtian lad #fundie covenant-theology.blogspot.ca

Immanuel Kant suggested that morality should be based on human dignity and reason, sort of like the "Golden Rule", but without the Golden Rule Giver. From a practical perspective, the categorical imperative fails when trying to resolve two evil choices (ie., lying to save a life). From a secular standpoint, neither human dignity nor reason can be justified, thus the categorical imperative begs too many questions. Consider the following quote from atheist Richard Dawkins:

"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."


From a secular standpoint, human dignity and human reason must be accounted for before any moral standard can be build upon them. Finally, we must ask yet again,

What obligates us to act “according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”? Like all other secular ethical theories, the categorical imperative cannot be a sound basis for ethics, since it must assume a moral standard in order to build rules by which we act.

The “Social Contract” holds that humans, by virtue of being human, are contracted to obey ethics laws which are necessary for peaceful, cooperative, social order.

Aside from the fact that what makes up a "peaceful, cooperative, social order" is subjective at best, the social contract does not justify ethical standards as much as it assumes them in advance. What obligates humans to be concerned about a peaceful, cooperative social order? Like relativism and subjectivism, the social contract reduces immorality to mere "non-conformity", thus has no objective meaning.

In dealing with the various secular theories of ethics, two questions immediately come to mind.

1.) Why so many? If the secular worldview can justify morality, I would have expected there to be a predominant theory, with maybe one of two non-conforming theories. Instead, however, what this study shows is that there is no moral standard in a secular world.

2.) All of these theories have in common the fact than none of them can account for moral obligation. Instead, they must assume their standard in order to promote their theory.

As we have shown, not only are secular moral theories logically inconsistent, they are also unjustifiable. It is one thing to invent a moral theory, as many secularists have done. It is another thing to give a rational justification for that theory, and all secular moral theories have failed in this regard. The natural, materialistic worldview simply cannot justify obligation, “IS” cannot produce “OUGHT”.

Bishop Boniface Adoyo #fundie observer.guardian.co.uk

The world's most important collection of human fossils may soon be hidden from public view - if religious leaders get their way.
In a move that has stunned scientists, senior clergy have demanded that the bones and skulls currently exhibited in Nairobi's National Museum of Kenya be removed from display to prevent young Africans from being corrupted.

'It's creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith,' said Bishop Boniface Adoyo, who is leading the hide-the-bones campaign. 'When children go to museums they'll start believing we evolved from these apes.' Not surprisingly, the bishop's remarks have infuriated scientists who consider the museum's collection to be unrivalled anywhere else in the world. Its fossils include those of the 4 million-year-old apeman, Australopithecus anamensis, the 1.5 million-year-old remains of the Nariokotome boy, the most complete skeleton of an ancient human ever found, and a series of other bones that highlight crucial phases of our evolutionary past.

Many of these fossils were discovered by palaeontologists Louis and Mary Leakey in areas around Lake Victoria and Lake Turkana and are generally regarded as providing stark demonstrations of how our species was shaped by natural selection.

Their son, Richard Leakey, and his wife Maeve, have continued this fossil-hunting tradition. They too have been dismayed by the bid to suppress the museum's fossils. 'The church is being ridiculous,' said Richard Leakey. 'Its leaders are out of step. Evolution theory is accepted across the world. This is scientific history and Kenya has the best of this evolutional history. Globally, few can match that claim to fame.'

The National Museum of Kenya is currently preparing to reopen next year after completing massive EU-funded renovations. As part of that work a special exhibit, The Origins Of Man, which displays the key finds around Africa's Great Rift Valley - considered by many the cradle of humanity - is now being set up.

However, it is this display that African evangelicals say they find offensive, because it promotes Darwin's theory of evolution. As a result, they are demanding that the display be removed or at least shunted to a less prominent location.

'When museums put it out there that man evolved from apes, theologically they are affecting many people who are Christians, who believe God created us,' says Bishop Adoyo, the chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, which claims to represent churches of 35 denominations with nine million members.

ThisBWhoIsMe #fundie reddit.com

The scientific method. The necessity that a hypothesis needs to be proven through testing and observation before it can be accepted as knowledge; something that is known.

And, hypothesis, that haven't been tested, can't be trusted as knowledge, but are just assumptions, even though they may be good assumptions. Evolution is a falsified theory. "Descent with modification from a common ancestor" requires that the common ancestor be able to be confirmed through testing and observation before the theory can be accepted as knowledgeable.

Otherwise, the rules of science label it an unconfirmed assumption. Evolution is falsified by observation. The theory requires a common ancestor for all the millions of species on Earth, but not a single common ancestor has been found. There are fossils that are assumed to be descendants of a common ancestor, but you can't validate a theory with an assumption. The Big Bang is a model and not a theory. A model is part of the process of constructing a theory. The theory then must be tested and validated before it can be accepted as knowledge.

It is ignorance of the rules of science to present Evolution, or the big bang, as science. ignorance: 'a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant' assume: 'to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true' If one accepts an assumption as true, without requiring validation, then they are still in a state of ignorance.

Eric hyde's Blog #conspiracy ehyde.wordpress.com

I write very little in the area of Christian vs. atheist apologetics anymore, and for good reason.

It was in atheist chat-rooms and blogs that I first cut my teeth in theology many years ago. Since those days I have not heard anything new from atheists.

It seems that many atheists today (some like to use the title ‘New Atheists’ to distinguish them from the more profound philosophical atheists of yesteryear) have very little to add to the discussion. To be fair, the same goes with most Christian apologists.

However, I thought it would be fun to comment on the ten arguments I hear the most. My hope is that it will help expose some of the more obvious problems with them and maybe help both sides—atheists and Christians alike—to move on to more interesting debate material.

One additional note: another reason I do not enter into the atheist-Christian debate world much anymore is because of the sheer discourtesy that both sides tend to show the other. I will not delete any comments, no matter how uncivil or juvenile they become, because, for me, it is an important part of the article. The responses (if there are any) will demonstrate the current state of atheist vs. Christian banter. Also, I will not respond to rude posts. This is advanced warning so please don’t think me rude as well if I ignore them.

Okay, here we go:

1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.

There are a couple of problems with this line. Starting with the idea of ‘evidence,’ what exactly does one mean by evidence? What is sufficient evidence for one person is often not sufficient evidence for another. A court of law provides innumerable examples of how two parties can possess the same collection of data, the same power of logic and reasoning, yet argue for completely different interpretations of the data. The old saying is true: the facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

When confronted with the charge that there is no evidence for God the Christian often does not know where to start with a rebuttal. It’s as G.K. Chesterton once said, asking a Christian to prove God’s existence is like asking someone to prove the existence of civilization. What is one to do but point and say, “look, there’s a chair, and there’s a building,” etc. How can one prove civilization by merely selecting a piece here and a piece there as sufficient proofs rather than having an experience of civilization as a whole?

Nearly everything the Christian lays eyes on is evidence of God’s existence because he sees the ‘handiwork’ of God all around him in creation. But this is hardly sufficient evidence in the court of atheist opinion, a court which presupposes that only what can be apprehended by the senses rightly qualifies as evidence (in other words, the atheist demands not evidence of God’s handiwork, but rather material evidence of God Himself). For the Christian who believes in a transcendent God, he can offer no such evidence; to produce material evidence of God is, ironically, to disprove a transcendent God and cast out faith. If one desires God to appear in the flesh, well… He already did. But even if one lived at the time and could touch Christ in the flesh, this would still not “prove” God’s existence in the scientific sense (science has no such categories).

The second part of the line is equally short-sighted. What does one mean by ‘existence’? If one means, ‘that which has come into existence,’ then surely God does not exist because God never came into existence. He always was; He is eternal. This was a famous assessment of the matter by Soren Kierkegaard (dealing with Hegel’s dialectic of existence). The argument is a bit involved, so for times sakes I’ll just have to state it and leave it there.

2. If God created the universe, who created God?

This is one of the more peculiar arguments I’ve ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as ‘eternal.’ It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (a necessary Being upon which all other things exist by way of contingency). Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, “Well then who created God?” (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being rather than God as simply one more being among other beings in existence, follow this link for more.) What is a Christian to do but smile at such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.

3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.

Bang! Owned.

Not so fast. This argument would be fantastic—devastating maybe—if God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos. The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view God’s ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie? Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesn’t is no commentary on whether He could.

(Note: Due to the immense amount of discussion that this point has raised, one clarifying statement is worth noting. An argument based on strict logical word games can render the idea ‘all-powerful,’ or ‘omnipotent’ self-defeating. When one considers the juvenile question, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” this point becomes clear. But in reality, such an argument winds up further solidifying what Christianity means by an all-powerful God. For the Christian it simply means that all power and authority are God’s. Following the logical word game above forces the believer to make a redundant proclamation in order to remain consistent: “God cannot overpower Himself.” But this fact is anything but confounding, it merely stresses the point that there is no power greater than God, so much so that one is forced to pit God against Himself in order to find His equal.)

4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What I love about this well-worn atheist ‘argument’ is that it actually serves to demonstrate how vastly different a belief in God is to these myths and imaginations. When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defense of the faith; he will find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc (these fact are of course not ‘proofs,’ but rather ‘evidences’ that elicit strong consideration). Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs, no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for children, for point making, or for whatever. It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.

5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t have science.

Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness. The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse. Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture.

Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky). On average, ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us moderners.

In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry. If people lack religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iphones and Macs then with nature. Maybe.

But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history. The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.

6. Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead.

This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities based on their environmental influences in childhood. The idea is that people in general are so intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would be an equally condemning commentary on atheism (if one was consistent with the charge), but the idea is fairly easy to counter.

Take the history of the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking and believing and interaction with the world. But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever? One would have to be seriously out of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities, that is: many sport a Christian title, but are wholly derelict in personal faith. “Believing” in Christianity is a far more serious endeavor then merely wearing a church name tag. Indeed, being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family, or at least be associated with the faith by affiliation only.

7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill his own Son so that he could appease his own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.

This is actually a really good argument against certain Protestant sects (I’ve used it myself on numerous occasions), but it has no traction with the Orthodox Christian faith. The Orthodox have no concept of a God who needed appeasement in order to love His creation. The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not to assuage His wrath, but to heal; not to protect mankind from His fury, but to unite mankind to His love. If the reader is interested to hear more on this topic follow this link for a fuller discussion.

8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus the Christian story is a myth like the rest.

This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across the plate (if you don’t mind a baseball analogy). There is no arguing the fact that history is full of similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here. But this fact should not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern. Anything beautiful always has replicas. A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite. A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a myth.

Ah, but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth, death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament. That, to me, would be odd. It would be odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from the prime mysteries of human existence. It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it would permeate through the consciousness of mankind on some level regardless of their place in history. One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.

9. The God of the Bible is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil.

This criticism is voice in many different ways. For me, this is one of the most legitimate arguments against the existence of a good God. The fact that there is suffering and death is the strongest argument against the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. If suffering and death exist it seems to suggest one of two things: (1) either God is love, but He is not all-powerful and cannot stop suffering and death, or (2) God is all-powerful, but He does not care for us.

I devoted a separate article addressing this problem, but let me deal here with the problem inherent in the criticism itself. The argument takes as its presupposition that good and evil are real; that there is an ultimate standard of good and evil that supersedes mere fanciful ‘ideas’ about what is good and evil at a given time in our ethical evolution, as it were. If there is not a real existence—an ontological reality—of good and evil, then the charge that God is evil because of this or that is really to say nothing more than, “I personally don’t like what I see in the world and therefore a good God cannot exist.” I like what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”

What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good. So, the initial criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God. Instead, he is more in a position to wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all, the very word God used for his people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with God.

10. Evolution has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths anymore.

This might be the most popular attempted smack-downs of religion in general today. It is found in many variations but the concept is fairly consistent and goes something like this: Science has brought us to a point where we no longer need mythology to understand the world, and any questions which remain will eventually be answered through future scientific breakthroughs. The main battle-ground where this criticism is seen today is in evolution vs. creationism debates.

Let me say upfront that there is perhaps no other subject that bores me more than evolution vs. creationism debates. I would rather watch paint dry. And when I’m not falling asleep through such debates I’m frustrated because usually both sides of the debate use large amounts of dishonesty in order to gain points rather than to gain the truth. The evolutionist has no commentary whatsoever on the existence of God, and the creationist usually suffers from profound confusion in their understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, without entering into the most pathetic debate of the ages, bereft of all intellectual profundity, I’ll only comment on the underlining idea that science has put Christianity out of the answer business. Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things. But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings—the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God? etc, ad infinitum.

As far as where we come from, evolution has barely scratched the purely scientific surface of the matter. Even if the whole project of evolution as an account of our history was without serious objection, it would still not answer the problem of the origin of life, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available when considering how dead or inorganic matter becomes organic. Even more complicated is the matter of where matter came from. The ‘Big Bang’ is not an answer to origins but rather a description of the event by which everything came into being; i.e., it’s the description of a smoking gun, not the shooter.

That’s it… my top 10 list. Thanks for reading. Cheers.

Roy Moore #fundie newsweek.com

Video has resurfaced of Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore making a speech in 1997 in which he links the teaching of evolution in schools with drive-by shootings.

“That’s the kind of logic they’ve used in our society today when we have kids driving by shooting each other that they don’t even know each other. They’re acting like animals because we’ve taught them they come from animals,” said Moore, who at the time was an Alabama Circuit judge. He was speaking at the “Role of Religion in the U.S. Government” conference hosted by the National Clergy Council.

Amanda Glaze, a professor who specializes in evolution education at Georgia Southern University, told Newsweek Friday that Moore’s 1997 statements were “inflammatory, ludicrous and unsubstantiated.”

About halfway into the 1997 speech, Moore joked, “Scientists who study evolution come up with some of the oddest things, don’t they? They tell us we evolved from something that crawled out of the water, but they have no evidence for that.”

Glaze countered that there is, in fact, good evidence for evolution. “Scientific evidence of evolution and development of species, and development within species, is extensive,” Glaze said, adding that detractors like Moore often have a limited focus on Charles Darwin’s work. “We have everything from biological evidence to DNA; we have the fossil records; we have 100 years of formal study of evolution post-Darwin’s time that explains descent with modification, that explains what evolution is.”

This is not the first time that Glaze has heard such arguments. In fact, it’s not the first time she has heard Moore’s 1997 speech.

“I was actually a sophomore in high school in Gadsden, Alabama, which is Roy Moore’s county,” said Glaze, who watched the speech when it first aired in 1997. The full speech is available for viewing on C-Span.

Moore’s office did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Backronym of the Year

Anon #fundie anointed-one.net

Evolution is falling apart today. The theory of evolution is crumbling in the face of total lack of evidence. However, you might not hear about it because many people in this world simply find the only alternative to evolution, a divine creator, completely and totally unacceptable. If we were talking about any other subject, evolution would have been abandoned long ago, but atheists do not want to believe in God so they must believe in evolution by default, regardless of the fact that it does not have one leg to stand on. If evolution is a lie, then there is God. There is a moral standard. There is accountability for your actions.

Alien Syndrome #fundie forums.fark.com


Of course ID (unlike the tooth fairy and for that mater evolution) is supported by many credible scientists. Looking at the many holes in evolution, it’s easy to see why so many scientists (including Darwin himself) are abandoning the theory of evolution.

Rovian, AdrienVeidt, one the numerous reasons I oppose evolution and the atheist movement is that it’s causing our society to spiral into a pit of degradation and self-destruction. Religious or not, you have to acknowledge the importance of Christianity in this country and that it keeps it together as it has done for hundreds of years.

I’m just supporting logic and open-mindedness over the pseudoscience and bigotry of the left.

Alien Syndrome #fundie forums.fark.com

"Of course ID (unlike the tooth fairy and for that mater evolution) is supported by many credible scientists. Looking at the many holes in evolution, it’s easy to see why so many scientists (including Darwin himself) are abandoning the theory of evolution.

Rovian, AdrienVeidt, one the numerous reasons I oppose evolution and the atheist movement is that it’s causing our society to spiral into a pit of degradation and self-destruction. Religious or not, you have to acknowledge the importance of Christianity in this country and that it keeps it together as it has done for hundreds of years.

I’m just supporting logic and open-mindedness over the pseudoscience and bigotry of the left.
"

Poncho #fundie justinvacula.com

Again, Tony, you are making the mistake of thinking God is "just another" person. From a human perspective, His standard is objective, because all humans are subject to it. He is not. If there is a king in a kingdom, and he makes an edict that murder is illegal, it is not a subjective law just because a person made it (your narrow definition of "dependent on a person" does not capture the sense of the word in common parlance). It is objective as far as anyone living in the kingdom is concerned. Subjective means the people could say, "Well, king, that's YOUR opinion. MINE is that murder is fine. Your law is true for you, mine is true for me." THAT would be a subjective law. And that doesn't free him from the inevitable beheading he will get when he murders someone. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a lot of philosophers who agree with your definition of "objective" as a standard that even God would be subject to. Without God, there would be no standard, so there is no such thing as an objective standard of the calibur you are talking about. You would then have to posit an even more transcendent lawgiver than God. Your incoherent responses are starting to border on the not-worth-answering.

efenzie #fundie nola.com

Intelligent design is a legitimate line of scientific inquiry. It is not biblical creationism. It does not pre-suppose deity. It does however rattle to the core the fragile paradigm of neurotic atheists and dogmatic Darwinists who have already long abandoned objectivity in their oppressive rejection of the scientific method and freedom of conjecture.

Sue Knight #fundie facebook.com

Sue Knight: Would Darwin accept his theory if he came back now?

David Murray: even nuts like ken ham accept that natural selection is glaringly obvious

Sue Knight: Yes, natural selection. But that is a different thing from evolution.
If we evolved,it could be a mechanism of Evolution. But did we? Surely we know so much now about the intricate complexity of even the "simplest" life form not to see the work of a grand Designer?

David Murray: Darwins theory is natural selection, a mechanism of evolution, evolution is about inheriting traits, natural selection is who lives to pass them on, thats evolution, its in grade school level science books.
if you think there is a grand designer worthy of worship, you need to visit some children's wards.

Sue Knight: And David that was always my problem - as a child I was taught that there is a God, and he is all good and all powerful. And yet the world is full of suffering - and nature is "red in tooth and claw with ravine".
And we are all brainwashed with the idea that Genesis is a "creation myth". So it wasn't till many years later that I sat down and read it, and began to understand.

David Murry: Genesis is a myth penned during the Babylonian exile.
It doesnt matter how many god stories people come up with, it has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Sue Knight: Hello David. and yet generation upon generation of faithful Jewish scribes carefully counted the generations down from Adam.
And the first chapter of Genesis ends this way:
"Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.
After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good..."
It was very good, it was perfect. And,whether you believe this or not, is this describing a Darwinian world, in which nature is "red in tooth and claw", a world full of the hunters and the hunted?
This was a paradise. The whole creation was at peace.Why isn't it now? Genesis does go straight on to explain.

Rayburne Winsor: Natural selection is not proof of goo-to-you evolution. The main objection to "goo-to-you evolution is not about whether changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so use of micro or macro-evolution should be discouraged) It isn't even about whether natural selection happens . It does. The key issue is the type of change required to change microbes into men--the kind of change that requires changes that increase the functional genetic information content in the genome. All the alleged "proofs" of "evolution in action" to date do not show functional new information is added to genes. Rather they involve sorting and/or loss of information. Natural selection cannot create anything new; it only selects from what is available. Therefore, demonstrating that natural selection occurs does not prove that goo-to-you evolution occurs. It helps adaption to the environment by removing genes (of the unfit) from the population, but it cannot bring about the information-increasing change necessary for goo-to-you evolution to occur. And if anyone argues it does, he is lying to you. Don't for that crap. Dr. Felix-Konotey--Ahulu, a world authority on sickle cell anemia states: "Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that "upward " evolution is a fact, yet many school children are taught this as "proof" of evolution. He pointed out that the sickle cell gene is still a defect , not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for. And he pointed out the unhappy downside , that "having more carriers of the sickle cell genes results in more people suffering from this terrible disease (Exposing Evolution's Icon: World leader on sickle cell anemia:" Nothing to do with evolution! " Jonathan Sarfati interviews Felic-Konotey-Ahulu, Creation 29 (1):16-19, 2006).

Sue Knight: And Rayburne, Genesis does explain the genetic damage that every one of us carries in various different ways. It tolls us that when our first parents made that fatal decision to cut themselves off from their Creator, their Source of life,they found they could not even keep themselves alive, let alone run this beautiful and complex planet.
We,, their damaged children, are still living with the chaos and suffering that decision caused. Our Creator, Jehovah, the God of Abraham, has let us live with this for a while. Only a few days in his eyes.
But he has not abandoned us to it. What is it we are praying for when we ask for God's Kingdom to come?

Christian Schools Trust, Accelerated Christian Education, and unnamed faith schools #fundie telegraph.co.uk

Creationism is still taught in dozens of faith schools despite Government threats to withdraw their funding, the Telegraph can disclose. Last August Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said schools found teaching creationism as scientific fact would not be eligible for any money from the taxpayer. Yet a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests show that 54 private schools are still being funded by local authorities, while continuing to teach that the Earth began with Adam and Eve.

Only 14 of the 91 schools teaching creationism have had their funding withdrawn, an investigation by the British Humanist Association revealed. The campaign group also found that some faith schools' science departments were teaching pupils to identify what happened on each of the days of the creation. The curriculum of one group of religious schools reads: "Creation stories give a holistic image of the origins of the earth, plants, animals and human beings." In another, it says that 'The Darwinian mechanism delivers clarifying power within a certain range of phenomena, but it is rooted in reductionist thinking and Victorian ethics and young people need to emerge from school with a clear sense of its limits.'

Separately, the Christian Schools Trust's current guidance to their schools says: "Young children within the schools would learn from the start of their schooling that they are created beings, that they are very valuable to God and that they are made in His image. "They would be taught that He is the Creator of all things, including all living things, and that He has designed this Earth to be their home. They would also learn that creation was originally good but that it is now flawed as a consequence of sin introduced into the human race by Adam and Eve." The BHA investigation also found five schools under the US firm Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) are also teaching creationism as science.

In the past, ACE has allegedly used the Loch Ness monster to discredit evolutionary theories, according to the BHA. Its content reads: "Some scientists speculate that Noah took small or baby dinosaurs on the Ark. Are dinosaurs still alive today? With some recent photographs and testimonies of those who claimed to have seen one, scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. "Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie', for short, has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

The group has explicitly discredited evolution in its various textbooks, according to the BHA. Another excerpt reads: "No branch of true science would make these kind of impossible claims without proof. "Because evolutionists do not want to believe the only alternative - that the universe was created by God - they declare evolution is a fact and believe its impossible claims without any scientific proof." Responding to the FOIs, Hackney council said it has informed schools about the rules introduced last August.

However, it added: "The Local Authority has not had correspondence with the schools" on a list of 21 schools the BHA identified as receiving state funding despite not complying with the guidance. Commenting on these latest findings, BHA director of public affairs and campaigns, Pavan Dhaliwal, said: "We congratulated the government last summer when it changed the rules on nursery place funding to this effect. "It is hugely disappointing therefore to discover that creationist schools have continued to receive state funds since the ban on their doing so came into force. "Little seems to have been done to ensure conformity to the new rules and the Department for Education (DfE) urgently needs to address this.

"The funding is administered by local authorities and they do not seem to have the same awareness as the DfE as to which local authorities are implicated by such a ban. "As we have done in the past, we will be doing all we can to raise the issue with relevant officials to ensure that the ban on funding is properly implemented."

Eliezer Yudkowsky #crackpot #fundie lesswrong.com

The Dilemma: Science or Bayes?

"Eli: You are writing a lot about physics recently. Why?"

— Shane Legg (and several other people)

"In light of your QM explanation, which to me sounds perfectly logical, it seems obvious and normal that many worlds is overwhelmingly likely. It just seems almost too good to be true that I now get what plenty of genius quantum physicists still can't. [...] Sure I can explain all that away, and I still think you're right, I'm just suspicious of myself for believing the first believable explanation I met."

— Recovering irrationalist

RI, you've got no idea how glad I was to see you post that comment.

Of course I had more than just one reason for spending all that time posting about quantum physics. I like having lots of hidden motives, it's the closest I can ethically get to being a supervillain.

But to give an example of a purpose I could only accomplish by discussing quantum physics...

In physics, you can get absolutely clear-cut issues. Not in the sense that the issues are trivial to explain. But if you try to apply Bayes to healthcare, or economics, you may not be able to formally lay out what is the simplest hypothesis, or what the evidence supports. But when I say "macroscopic decoherence is simpler than collapse" it is actually strict simplicity; you could write the two hypotheses out as computer programs and count the lines of code. Nor is the evidence itself in dispute.

I wanted a very clear example—Bayes says "zig", this is a zag when it came time to break your allegiance to Science.

"Oh, sure," you say, "the physicists messed up the many-worlds thing, but give them a break, Eliezer! No one ever claimed that the social process of science was perfect. People are human; they make mistakes."

But the physicists who refuse to adopt many-worlds aren't disobeying the rules of Science. They're obeying the rules of Science.

The tradition handed down through the generations says that a new physics theory comes up with new experimental predictions that distinguish it from the old theory. You perform the test, and the new theory is confirmed or falsified. If it's confirmed, you hold a huge celebration, call the newspapers, and hand out Nobel Prizes for everyone; any doddering old emeritus professors who refuse to convert are quietly humored. If the theory is disconfirmed, the lead proponent publicly recants, and gains a reputation for honesty.

This is not how things do work in science; rather it is how things are supposed to work in Science. It's the ideal to which all good scientists aspire.

Now many-worlds comes along, and it doesn't seem to make any new predictions relative to the old theory. That's suspicious. And there's all these other worlds, but you can't see them. That's really suspicious. It just doesn't seem scientific.

If you got as far as RI—so that many-worlds now seems perfectly logical, obvious and normal—and you also started out as a Traditional Rationalist, then you should be able to switch back and forth between the Scientific view and the Bayesian view, like a Necker Cube.

So now put on your Science Goggles—you've still got them around somewhere, right? Forget everything you know about Kolmogorov complexity, Solomonoff induction or Minimum Message Lengths. That's not part of the traditional training. You just eyeball something to see how "simple" it looks. The word "testable" doesn't conjure up a mental image of Bayes's Theorem governing probability flows; it conjures up a mental image of being in a lab, performing an experiment, and having the celebration (or public recantation) afterward.

Science-Goggles on: The current quantum theory has passed all experimental tests so far. Many-Worlds doesn't make any new testable predictions—the amazing new phenomena it predicts are all hidden away where we can't see them. You can get along fine without supposing the other worlds, and that's just what you should do. The whole thing smacks of science fiction. But it must be admitted that quantum physics is a very deep and very confusing issue, and who knows what discoveries might be in store? Call me when Many-Worlds makes a testable prediction.

Science-Goggles off, Bayes-Goggles back on:

Bayes-Goggles on: The simplest quantum equations that cover all known evidence don't have a special exception for human-sized masses. There isn't even any reason to ask that particular question. Next!

Okay, so is this a problem we can fix in five minutes with some duct tape and superglue?

No.

Huh? Why not just teach new graduating classes of scientists about Solomonoff induction and Bayes's Rule?

Centuries ago, there was a widespread idea that the Wise could unravel the secrets of the universe just by thinking about them, while to go out and look at things was lesser, inferior, naive, and would just delude you in the end. You couldn't trust the way things looked—only thought could be your guide.

Science began as a rebellion against this Deep Wisdom. At the core is the pragmatic belief that human beings, sitting around in their armchairs trying to be Deeply Wise, just drift off into never-never land. You couldn't trust your thoughts. You had to make advance experimental predictions—predictions that no one else had made before—run the test, and confirm the result. That was evidence. Sitting in your armchair, thinking about what seemed reasonable… would not be taken to prejudice your theory, because Science wasn't an idealistic belief about pragmatism, or getting your hands dirty. It was, rather, the dictum that experiment alone would decide. Only experiments could judge your theory—not your nationality, or your religious professions, or the fact that you'd invented the theory in your armchair. Only experiments! If you sat in your armchair and came up with a theory that made a novel prediction, and experiment confirmed the prediction, then we would care about the result of the experiment, not where your hypothesis came from.

That's Science. And if you say that Many-Worlds should replace the immensely successful Copenhagen Interpretation, adding on all these twin Earths that can't be observed, just because it sounds more reasonable and elegant—not because it crushed the old theory with a superior experimental prediction—then you're undoing the core scientific rule that prevents people from running out and putting angels into all the theories, because angels are more reasonable and elegant.

You think teaching a few people about Solomonoff induction is going to solve that problem? Nobel laureate Robert Aumann—who first proved that Bayesian agents with similar priors cannot agree to disagree—is a believing Orthodox Jew. Aumann helped a project to test the Torah for "Bible codes", hidden prophecies from God—and concluded that the project had failed to confirm the codes' existence. Do you want Aumann thinking that once you've got Solomonoff induction, you can forget about the experimental method? Do you think that's going to help him? And most scientists out there will not rise to the level of Robert Aumann.

Okay, Bayes-Goggles back on. Are you really going to believe that large parts of the wavefunction disappear when you can no longer see them? As a result of the only non-linear non-unitary non-differentiable non-CPT-symmetric acausal faster-than-light informally-specified phenomenon in all of physics? Just because, by sheer historical contingency, the stupid version of the theory was proposed first?

Are you going to make a major modification to a scientific model, and believe in zillions of other worlds you can't see, without a defining moment of experimental triumph over the old model?

Or are you going to reject probability theory?

Will you give your allegiance to Science, or to Bayes?

Michael Vassar once observed (tongue-in-cheek) that it was a good thing that a majority of the human species believed in God, because otherwise, he would have a very hard time rejecting majoritarianism. But since the majority opinion that God exists is simply unbelievable, we have no choice but to reject the extremely strong philosophical arguments for majoritarianism.

You can see (one of the reasons) why I went to such lengths to explain quantum theory. Those who are good at math should now be able to visualize both macroscopic decoherence, and the probability theory of simplicity and testability—get the insanity of a global single world on a gut level.

I wanted to present you with a nice, sharp dilemma between rejecting the scientific method, or embracing insanity.

Why? I'll give you a hint: It's not just because I'm evil. If you would guess my motives here, think beyond the first obvious answer.

PS: If you try to come up with clever ways to wriggle out of the dilemma, you're just going to get shot down in future posts. You have been warned.

(Emphasis original)

Victor Hafichuk & Paul Cohen #fundie thepathoftruth.com

What is Richard Brown smoking? Mr. Hafichuk did not say that “creationism should be exempt from the rigors of science.” He said that those teaching evolution should walk the talk, and put up some hard evidence before opening their mouths. There is not one single incontrovertible piece of evidence that supports evolution. NOT ONE. And Brown has the nerve to talk about science? His explanation of thermodynamics is pure deceitfulness. It is common knowledge among scientists, including ones espousing evolution, that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics, whether in open or closed systems. Honest scientists admit that the organized complexity of biological organisms requires two additional factors besides an open system (sun providing energy). These are: a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy to maintain life. Evolution has no answer or explanation for the presence of either, the development of which contravenes the second law of thermodynamics. The formation of ice crystals from water does not answer this conundrum. Snowflakes simply represent water’s movement towards equilibrium at a lower energy level. They are not an example of matter forming itself into more organized or complex systems, but are the result of the intrinsic nature of the constituent elements forming repeating structures with minimal complexity and no function. Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine puts it this way: “The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.” Brown has put up a smokescreen to obfuscate the truth. He has employed sheer bravado to cover over the absolute bankrupt and totally unscientific whimsy called evolution (it cannot even be called a theory because it is entirely unprovable). Why the determined doggedness to maintain and promote blatant error? Because Brown, along with all mankind, would rather not answer to his Creator. He wants to continue as a free agent, doing what is right in his own eyes. It is the sheer arrogance of the spirit of rebellion that says to God, “Who are You to tell me what to do? I know better!” Enamored of this ungodly position, Brown becomes the consummate fool, espousing and promoting an idea that for pure ridiculousness has never, and shall never be matched. Man, made in the image of God, insists on being the son of amoeba. How great the fall!

-- Paul Cohen

Victor Hafichuk’s reply to Richard Brown, also sent as a letter to the editor:

Contemplating the controversy of evolution, I was on my lawn one day. I had spread compost on it. Everywhere I looked, I saw organic material until I spotted a fruit sticker that had not broken down in the composting. It was something obviously foreign. I realized that I could distinguish something man-made, of specific and deliberate design, versus what was natural. What person in his or her right mind could declare that the deliberate, descriptive fruit sticker could have evolved from nothing, or even on its own from something? Yet, with the God-given intelligence granted, we have discovered that the natural substance I put on the lawn has biological, intelligent, living organisms and countless design features that put the fruit sticker to shame, though we obtained the materials for making the sticker from that which already existed. I had a scientific experience, but not to be appreciated without the gift of reason. Science has observed and verified God’s creation. True science proves creation everywhere in everything, all the time. However, as monkeys cannot manufacture Lego toys in a lab, not having the reason or intelligence, though granted all the time, components, equipment, and even an enormous amount of guidance, so man who denies his Creator cannot discern the obvious. Without God, he has little reason. Without reason, he is an idiot, truly. Richard Brown dismisses teaching creationism in science class, stating that creationism cannot be substantiated by scientific principles. I may not have made my point amply clear to him, that being that anything unsubstantiated by sound scientific principles should not be permitted in science class. Evolution has not one verifiable fact. It defies all science, not to mention reason, yet its proponents call it “science.” As he has challenged creationists to “put up or shut up,” so I have challenged him to dispense with theory and tell us what sure facts there are to defend the “theory” of evolution. He has not done so. He has used big words, made himself sound like one who understands science, and even creationism, but neither he nor any one else has provided any conclusive proof to defend their ludicrous theories. My point is to address his hypocrisy, point out his sophisticated ignorance, and throw his challenge back to him. You say creationists are without substance. Show us yours. I know I can be as stupid and ignorant as any person, and could believe in evolution. I acknowledge that it is by the sheer grace of God that I can hear, see and understand. For that, I am so thankful, especially when I witness examples of such darkness in thinking as that of credulously entertaining evolution theory.

-- Victor Hafichuk

Click HERE to go to “Exposing Evolutionists.”

Spiritualist's National Union #fundie snu.org.uk

How is Spiritualism a Science?

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

This study may lead to finding the cause and the effect of the nature of the experiments which support a real and rational conclusion through evidence. The conclusions reached may not be final and must remain open to the light of new evidence, which may compound or disprove the theory. This is true of all sciences. Therefore Spiritualism in its’ scientific aspect is open to continuous research in all areas.

Applying logical thought and reason to Spiritualism helps us to realise that there is a Science at work. It is a science in which we can all take part by giving consideration in the simplest of terms, or by more complex study.

Natural Law:
Everything that occurs operates within ‘Natural Law’. In terms of observing and considering anything that happens we can be sure of two things, there will be a ‘cause’ that creates an ‘effect’. Natural laws apply to everything, including, the non-physical attributes of our selves. Our mind, thoughts and emotions can cause us to act and react in words or actions and may, for example, have an effect on others. It can be seen that ‘a cause’ results in ‘an effect’, and that effect can be the cause of another occurrence and another effect, and so on. This helps us realise that Natural Laws control everything that happens and that spirit communication is not dependant on religion or philosophy. Mediumship is a science with controls (natural laws) that determine how the information is transferred and the process is repeatable, providing evidence of survival of the person’s intelligence beyond physical death.

Psychic ability:
The word Psyche is from the Greek language meaning ‘Soul’, hence Psychic is ‘of the Soul’. We, as physical beings, have a soul so we all have psychic abilities to some degree, however, it must be borne in mind that our abilities vary across many activities. A psychic can sense and interpret information about a person or object, but cannot, communicate with the Spirit World.

Mediumship:
Mediumship is the transfer of information from the spirit of a deceased person via a medium to a recipient. A medium is psychic but is also capable of communicating with people in the Spirit World through the further development of their psychic faculties. Communication with the Spirit World using mediumship is a means of enabling Spirit People, some of whom are our family and friends, to communicate with us to ensure us that they:

Have survived physical death,
Have retained their personality, character, mind, memories, etc.
Have continued to learn and develop in the Spirit World

Mediums cannot call up a particular Spirit person to communicate with us because, like ourselves, they can choose whether to communicate or not. Mediums do not all develop every form of Mediumship. Each medium’s abilities and qualities vary, because everyone is individual in their personal attributes. ( Read about: Guidance for a Private Sitting...)

Mental Mediumship:
Mental Mediumship involves the medium perceiving information via their psychic senses from a spirit person. This can manifest in several ways; they may receive visual (clairvoyance), auditory (clairaudience) or sensory information (clairsentience) including smell or taste. On occasion mediums simply know something by virtue of the information having been received in their mind without any form of sensory manifestation.

Spiritual Healing:
Spiritual Healing involves the use of healing energies being directed by Spirit people, via a medium, to assist a physical person to become healthier at all levels of being.

Physical Mediumship:
Physical mediumship is the ability of the Spirit people utilising the energy of a medium and others present, to create effects that can be witnessed by everyone present, whether they are mediumistic or not. This type of mediumship was much researched in the 19th century by various people, including eminent scientists such as Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir William Fletcher Barrett and Sir William Crookes. The experiments that they carried out with mediums convinced them of the authenticity of the phenomena.

Modern Research:
In January 1991, A group comprising seven scientists, who were psychical researchers, and seven mediums was set up as a research group. It was titled Psychical Research Involving Selected Mediums (PRISM), and the research group was named ‘Council of PRISM).

The group developed and carried out a series of scientific experiments under strict protocol to determine the amount of information given by mediums to recipients being acceptable or not, with regulated requirements in place concerning the mediums and audience. Statistical analysis showed that the ‘intended recipients’ acceptance levels were higher than non recipients, the odds against chance being a million to one.

PRISM maintain they have a repeatable experiment, providing the protocol is adhered to and good mediums are used. Their results were submitted to the Society for Psychical Research, and were published in their journal (JSPR).

21st Century thoughts:
Modern scientific theory continues to expand and encompass more that just the physical aspects of our Universe. It has moved from looking at the origins and vastness of our Universe to looking at the smallest particles that hold our physical world together through the scientific principles of 'Quantum Theory'. Today there are many who see answers to the unseen worlds and the 'divine' natural law present in the resulting research and equally those who would disagree with the 'divine' presence and express it merely as natural law.

Science and Religion may always be uncomfortable bed fellows and for the Spiritualist, we accept that we will one day have some further answers and evidence, may be not in this phase of life but certainly at some point in the next.

Dr. Michael P. Masters #ufo #crackpot idflyobj.com

IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Brief Overview of The Book
This work represents a unique examination of long-term evolutionary change in human biology, culture, and technology, as it pertains to the question of “UFOs” and “Extraterrestrials.” More specifically, this study carefully considers the possibility that the individuals described in reliable reports of close encounters, may represent our distant human descendants, returning from the future to study us in their own evolutionary past.

By reexamining this subject matter in the context of an original, falsifiable theory, which has undergone rigorous scientific scrutiny, the objective is to begin a new and more informed discussion among believers and skeptics alike.

As an anthropologist who has worked on and directed numerous archaeological digs in Africa, France, and throughout the United States, it is easy to conceptualize just how much more could be learned about our own evolutionary history, if we currently possessed the technology to visit past periods of time.

This would undoubtedly facilitate in-depth, in-person analyses of the enigmatic, non-preservable aspects of our hominin ancestors. Furthermore, with the accelerating pace of change in science, technology, and engineering, it is likely that humans of the distant future may someday develop the knowledge and machinery necessary to return to the past.

Modern and past human groups would only be capable of comprehending the biology, culture, and technology of these extratempestrials in a limited capacity, as we represent a far more primitive stage of their remote ancestral past. However, through a comprehensive analysis of consistent patterns of long-term biocultural change throughout human evolution - as well as recent advances in our understanding of time and time travel - we may begin to consider this future possibility in the context of a currently unexplained phenomenon.

Many changes characterize human evolution, but it is primarily tenacious shifts toward habitual upright walking, changes in brain size and shape, facial reduction, reduced body hair, higher intelligence, and the development of increasingly complex tools and culture that most define our lineage. These changes occurred throughout hominin evolution, and have persisted in spite of marked modification to our subsistence strategy, climate, ecology, environment, and system of social, economic, and political organization.

Furthermore, from credible reports provided by sound-minded individuals who have experienced a “close encounter,” the extratempestrials observed are ubiquitously described as bipedal, hairless, human-like beings, with large brains, large eyes, small noses and mouths, culture, social organization, the ability to communicate with us in our own languages, and who possess technology advanced beyond, but clearly built upon, our own.

Coupled with a thorough understanding of the past and modern human condition, these accounts point to the continuation of established biological and cultural trends here on Earth, long into the distant future.

The Quest for Right #fundie questforright.com

[an ad for a new anti-evolution textbook series]

The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.

Alan F. Alford #fundie bibliotecapleyades.net

WHERE did we come from?
Are we the product of a Divine Creation?
Did we evolve through natural selection?
Or is there another possible answer?


Introduction

In November 1859, Charles Darwin published a most dangerous idea - that all living things had evolved through a process of natural selection. Although there was almost no mention of mankind in Darwin’s treatise, the implications were unavoidable and led to a more radical change in human self-perception than anything before it in recorded history. In one blow, Darwin had relegated us from divinely-created beings to apes - the culmination of evolution by the impersonal mechanism of natural selection.

But are the scientists right in applying the theory of evolution to the strange two-legged hominid known as ‘man’? Charles Darwin himself was strangely quiet on this point but his co-discoverer Alfred Wallace was less reluctant to express his views. Wallace himself was adamant that ‘some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of man.’

One hundred years of science have failed to prove Alfred Wallace wrong. Anthropologists have failed miserably to produce fossil evidence of man’s ‘missing link’ with the apes and there has been a growing recognition of the complexity of organs such as the human brain.

Such are the problems with the application of Darwinism to mankind that Stephen Jay Gould - America’s evolutionist laureate - has described human evolution as an ‘awesome improbability’.


In Search of the Missing Link

Speciation - the separation of one species into two different species - is defined as the point where two groups within the same species are no longer able to inter-breed. The British scientist Richard Dawkins has described the separation quite poetically as ‘the long goodbye’.

The search for the missing link between man and the apes is the search for the earliest hominid - the upright, bipedal ape who waved ‘a long goodbye’ to his four-legged friends.

I will now attempt to briefly summarize what is known about human evolution.

According to the experts, the rivers of human genes and chimpanzee genes split from a common ancestral source some time between 5 and 7 million years ago, whilst the river of gorilla genes is generally thought to have branched off slightly earlier. In order for this speciation to occur, three populations of common ape ancestors (the future gorillas, chimpanzees and hominids) had to become geographically separated and thereafter subject to genetic drift, influenced by their different environments.

The search for the missing link has turned up a number of fossil contenders, dating from around 4 million years ago, but the picture remains very incomplete and the sample size is too small to draw any statistically valid conclusions. There are, however, three contenders for the prize of the first fully bipedal hominid, all discovered in the East African Rift valley which slashes through Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

The first contender, discovered in the Afar province of Ethiopia in 1974, is named Lucy, although her more scientific name is Australopithecus Afarensis. Lucy is estimated to have lived between 3.6-3.2 million years ago. Unfortunately her skeleton was only 40 per cent complete and this has resulted in controversy regarding whether she was a true biped and whether in fact ‘she’ might even have been a ‘he’.

The second contender is Australopithecus Ramidus, a 4.4 million year old pygmy chimpanzee-like creature, discovered at Aramis in Ethiopia by Professor Timothy White in 1994. Despite a 70 per cent complete skeleton, it has again not been possible to prove categorically whether it had two or four legs.

The third contender, dated between 4.1-3.9 million years old, is the Australopithecus Anamensis, discovered at Lake Turkana in Kenya by Dr Meave Leakey in August 1995. A shinbone from Anamensis has been used to back up the claim that it walked on two feet.

The evidence of our oldest ancestors is confusing because they do not seem to be closely related to each other. Furthermore, the inexplicable lack of fossil evidence for the preceding 10 million years has made it impossible to confirm the exact separation date of these early hominids from the four-legged apes. It is also important to emphasize that many of these finds have skulls more like chimpanzees than men.

They may be the first apes that walked but, as of 4 million years ago, we are still a long way from anything that looked even remotely human.

Moving forward in time, we find evidence of several types of early man which are equally confusing. We have the 1.8 million year old appropriately named Robustus, the 2.5 million year old and more lightly built Africanus, and the 1.5 to 2 million year old Advanced Australopithecus. The latter, as the name suggests, is more man-like than the others and is sometimes referred to as ‘near-man’ or Homo habilis (‘handy man’). It is generally agreed that Homo habilis was the first truly man-like being which could walk efficiently and use very rough stone tools. The fossil evidence does not reveal whether rudimentary speech had developed at this stage.

Around 1.5 million years ago Homo erectus appeared on the scene. This hominid had a considerably larger brain-box (cranium) than its predecessors and started to design and use more sophisticated stone tools.

A wide spread of fossils indicates that Homo erectus groups left Africa and spread across China, Australasia and Europe between 1,000,000-700,000 years ago but, for unknown reasons, disappeared altogether around 300,000-200,000 years ago. There is little doubt, by a process of elimination, that this is the line from which Homo sapiens descended.

The missing link, however, remains a mystery. In 1995, The Sunday Times summarized the evolutionary evidence as follows:
The scientists themselves are confused. A series of recent discoveries has forced them to tear up the simplistic charts on which they blithely used to draw linkages... the classic family tree delineating man’s descent from the apes, familiar to us at school, has given way to the concept of genetic islands. The bridgework between them is anyone’s guess.
As to the various contenders speculated as mankind’s ancestor, The Sunday Times stated:
Their relationships to one another remain clouded in mystery and nobody has conclusively identified any of them as the early hominid that gave rise to Homo sapiens.
In summary, the evidence discovered to date is so sparse that a few more sensational finds will still leave the scientists clutching at straws.

Consequently mankind’s evolutionary history is likely to remain shrouded in mystery for the foreseeable future.


The Miracle of Man

Today, four out of ten Americans find it difficult to believe that humans are related to the apes. Why is this so? Compare yourself to a chimpanzee. Man is intelligent, naked and highly sexual - a species apart from his alleged primate relatives.

This may be an intuitive observation but it is actually supported by scientific study. In 1911, the anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith listed the anatomical characteristics peculiar to each of the primate species, calling them ‘generic characters’ which set each apart from the others. His results were as follows: gorilla 75; chimpanzee 109; orangutan 113; gibbon 116; man 312. Keith thus showed scientifically that mankind was nearly three times more distinctive than any other ape.

Another scientist to take this approach was the British zoologist Desmond Morris. In his book, The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris highlighted the amazing mystery of mankind’s ‘missing hair’:
Functionally, we are stark naked and our skin is fully exposed to the outside world. This state of affairs still has to be explained, regardless of how many tiny hairs we can count under a magnifying lens.
Desmond Morris contrasted Homo sapiens with 4,237 species of mammals, the vast majority of which were hairy or partly haired. The only non-hairy species were those which lived underground (and thus kept warm without hair), species which were aquatic (and benefited from streamlining), and armoured species such as the armadillo (where hair would clearly be superfluous). Morris commented:
The naked ape [man] stands alone, marked off by his nudity from all the thousands of hairy, shaggy or furry land-dwelling mammalian species... if the hair has to go, then clearly there must be a powerful reason for abolishing it.
Darwinism has yet to produce a satisfactory answer as to how and why man lost his hair. Many imaginative theories have been suggested, but so far no-one has come up with a really acceptable explanation. The one conclusion that can perhaps be drawn, based on the principle of gradiented change, is that man spent a long time evolving, either in a very hot environment or in water.

Another unique feature of mankind may provide us with a clue to the loss of body hair. That feature is sexuality. The subject was covered in juicy detail by Desmond Morris, who highlighted unique human features such as extended foreplay, extended copulation and the orgasm. One particular anomaly is that the human female is always ‘in heat’, yet she can only conceive for a few days each month.

As another scientist, Jared Diamond, has pointed out, this is an evolutionary enigma that cannot be explained by natural selection:
The most hotly debated problem in the evolution of human reproduction is to explain why we nevertheless ended up with concealed ovulation, and what good all our mistimed copulations do us.
Many scientists have commented also on the anomaly of the male penis, which is by far the largest erect penis of any living primate.

The geneticist Steve Jones has noted it as a mystery which is ‘unanswered by science’, a point which is echoed by Jared Diamond:
... we descend to a glaring failure: the inability of twentieth-century science to formulate an adequate Theory of Penis Length... astonishing as it seems, important functions of the human penis remain obscure.
Desmond Morris described man as ‘the sexiest primate alive’, but why did evolution grant us such a bountiful gift? The whole human body seems to be perfectly designed for sexual excitement and pair bonding.

Morris saw elements of this plan in the enlarged breasts of the female, the sensitive ear lobes and lips, and a vaginal angle that encouraged intimate face to face copulation. He also highlighted our abundance of scent-producing glands, our unique facial mobility and our unique ability to produce copious tears - all features which strengthened the exclusive emotional pair-bonding between male and female.

This grand design could not be imagined unless humans also lost their shaggy coat of hair and so it might seem that the mystery of the missing hair is solved. Unfortunately, it is not that simple, for evolution does not set about achieving grand designs. The Darwinists are strangely silent on what incremental steps were involved, but however it happened it should have taken a long, long time.

There are three other interesting anomalies of ‘the naked ape’ which are also worthy of note.
The first is the appalling ineptitude of the human skin to repair itself. In the context of a move to the open savanna, where bipedal man became a vulnerable target, and in the context of a gradual loss of protective hair, it seems inconceivable that the human skin should have become so fragile relative to our primate cousins.

The second anomaly is the unique lack of penis bone in the male. This is in complete contrast to other mammals, which use the penis bone to copulate at short notice. The deselection of this vital bone would have jeopardized the existence of the human species unless it took place against the background of a long and peaceful environment.

The third anomaly is our eating habits. Whereas most animals will swallow their food instantaneously, we take the luxury of six whole seconds to transport our food from mouth to stomach. This again suggests a long period of peaceful evolution.
The question which arises is where this long and peaceful evolution is supposed to have taken place, because it certainly does not fit the scenario which is presented for Homo sapiens.

Nor have Darwinists explained adequately how the major changes in human anatomy were achieved in a time frame of only 6 million years...


The Mystery of the Human Brain

The greatest mystery of Homo sapiens is its incredible brain.

During the last fifteen years, scientists have used new imaging technologies (such as positron-emission tomography) to discover more about the human brain than ever before. The full extent of the complexity of its billions of cells has thus become more and more apparent. In addition to the brain’s physical complexity, its performance knows no bounds - mathematics and art, abstract thought and conceptualization and, above all, moral conscience and self-awareness.

Whilst many of the human brain’s secrets remain shrouded in mystery, enough has been revealed for National Geographic to have boldly described it as ’the most complex object in the known universe’.

Evolutionists see the brain as nothing more than a set of algorithms, but they are forced to admit that it is so complex and unique that there is no chance of reverse engineering the evolutionary process that created it.

The eminent scientist Roger Penrose, for example, commented:
I am a strong believer in the power of natural selection. But I do not see how natural selection, in itself, can evolve algorithms which could have the kind of conscious judgments of the validity of other algorithms that we seem to have.
What does the fossil record tell us about our evolving brain capabilities? The data varies considerably and must be treated with care (since the sample sizes are limited), but the following is a rough guide.

The early hominid Afarensis had around 500cc and Habilis/Australopithecus had around 700cc. Whilst it is by no means certain that one evolved from the other, it is possible to see in these figures the evolutionary effects over two million years of the hominid’s new environment.

As we move forward in time to 1.5 million years ago, we find a sudden leap in the cranial capacity of Homo erectus to around 900-1000cc. If we assume, as most anthropologists do, that this was accompanied by an increase in intelligence, it represents a most unlikely macromutation. Alternatively, we might explain this anomaly by viewing erectus as a separate species whose ancestors have not yet been found due to the poor fossil records.

Finally, after surviving 1.2 to 1.3 million years without any apparent change, and having successfully spread out of Africa to China, Australasia and Europe, something extraordinary happened to the Homo erectus hominid. Perhaps due to climatic changes, his population began to dwindle until he eventually died out. And yet, while most Homo erectus were dying, one managed to suddenly transform itself into Homo sapiens , with a vast increase in cranial capacity from 950cc to 1450cc.

Human evolution thus appears like an hourglass, with a narrowing population of Homo erectus leading to possibly one single mutant, whose improved genes emerged into a new era of unprecedented progress. The transformation from failure to success is startling. It is widely accepted that we are the descendants of Homo erectus (who else was there to descend from?) but the sudden changeover defies all known laws of evolution. Hence Stephen Jay Gould’s comment about the ’awesome improbability of human evolution’.

Why has Homo sapiens developed intelligence and self-awareness whilst his ape cousins have spent the last 6 million years in evolutionary stagnation? Why has no other creature in the animal kingdom developed an advanced level of intelligence?

Kat #fundie forums.myspace.com

[Does evolution stipulate any political attitudes?]

Um...can you stop using fancy phrases and talk plainly? What exactly do you mean by this?

If you mean, "Does belief in the Theory of Evolution affect the way a country is run or what Laws are (or are not) introduced?" then yeah, in my opinion it does. Racism for example used to be a HUGE problem back when people believed that Black folk were not as highly evolved from the monkey as White folk, and were in fact, sub-human. This all ties in with the Slave Trade as well. In the 1800s the Australian Aboriginies were highly persecuted, chased, shot, and displayed in museums, as sub-human "missing links". Presumeably this was all perfectly legal, because the Theory of Evolution dictated that these people were not really human, and therefore did not have human rights. The problem of racism also falls under the last question about moral consequences. Many other laws have also been passed that greatly oppose Christian and other moral teaching, and I believe that these can be linked with the general embracing attitude towards the Theory of Evolution.

Editor-Surveyor #fundie freerepublic.com

["But they do recognize that almost all progress in civilization comes from science and a President who doesn’t believe in evolution (or atomic theory or acids and bases or electromagnetic theory or any core science) would never be able to set the right priorities."]

This is one of gondramB's standard strawmen. Eliminating evolution would in no way impact science, and gondramB knows it. Nothing of value has ever come from evolution or its promotion. The vast majority of scientific advances have been by, or at the direction of creationists, and without them we would all have to work much harder.

If we could remove the search for the imaginary 'glue' that connects evolution to science from the various government budgets, we could cut taxes by 50%.

(no name given) #fundie bible.ca

Psychopaths share these qualities:

Believe in atheism/evolution.
Usually above average intelligence, but not always. Anyone who has the ability to comprehend the philosophical implications of atheism/evolution is capable of becoming psychopaths.
High self-esteem and narcissism: They view themselves as smarter, "the evolutionary man of the future", ahead of their time, better than others.


...

A psychopath is anyone who has make themselves their own standard of authority. Evolutionary theory, atheism and humanism have created fertile ground for a large crop of psychopaths to germinate, grow and come to maturity. Most of them are not really dangerous, but they have adopted their own personal version of morals and made themselves their own god. Whatever they have decided is ok to do, is ok to do! They can murder, and it doesn't bother them because after all, they kill mosquitoes and rats and cows all the time. Man is just another animal.

Psychopaths not only believe in the theory of evolution, they have understood its implications for the purpose and meaning of the existence of man. Since there is no God, then all morals are determined by the collective agreement of mankind. There really is no such thing as right or wrong, since sin is defined by a God they do not believe in. Sure society has rules, taboos etc, but they are smart enough and perceptive enough to notice that these rules are changing. Whereas adultery and homosexuality was once a capital offence, today it is openly promoted. A psychopath is someone who is lived in a time when adultery was a capital offence, but was able to look ahead to the present time when he realized adultery would be the norm and accepted without consequence. Living in a time when adulterers were stoned in the public square, they are able to look forward to the present time when TV commercial openly say, "Life is short, Live it up, Have an affair, Call us today." A psychopath is able to do things others view as wrong and it does not bother them because they believe that whatever they have personally decided is right, is right and they don't care if others have determined it is wrong.

They can murder, and it doesn't bother them because after all, they kill mosquitoes and rats and cows all the time. Man is just another animal. We are only here by random changes and have not real purpose. They have comprehended that the animals they kill suffer just as much as men. They have noticed that social animals that live in communities, like Meerkats experience depression when they kill one of the pack members. They notice that animals and man both grieve over the "death of a loved one". Since Darwin and humanists teach that man is just an "animal", if you can kill an animal, you can kill a man. If killing mosquito, rat, cow, chicken, fish, meerkat, lion or dog doesn't bother you, why would it bother you to kill a man? This is actually very rational thinking.

...


You would think the psychiatry industry could make a lot of money off psychopaths. In fact the psychiatry industry do not treat the various psychopathic personality disorders since they understand they cannot be fixed and are determined to be untreatable. They have also discovered that no matter what they try, nothing changes the psychopath into a "normal person". The reason the psychiatry industry cannot fix the psychopath, is because they are unwilling to do the only thing that would cure them: Attempt to convert their belief system from atheism into Christianity. Until you address the underlying "faith" of the psychopath from atheistic Darwinism, into bowing down in worship to their God and creator, Jesus Christ, there is no hope for the psychopath.

...

It is impossible for a psychopath to be a Christian. Indeed they are usually atheists! They view themselves as their own highest power and god!
When mentally ill people confess their sins to Jesus and repent of their sinful lives and put their faith and trust in God, they will be almost instantly cured of mental illness. Why not visit a good, Bible believing our local church in your own home town.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

"But Crazy, Dawkins, Provine and Ruse didn't SAY that there could be no moral values without God. "

You WISH they weren't saying what they are saying. and, thus far, you have provided no counterargument - just wishful thinking. And, it is delusional, because on atheism, the universe is just headed for a slow cold dark death, and nothing you do will matter in any ultimate moral sense.

'"you have NEVER - not even once - said why God is necessary."

Sure I did: without an Objective Moral Standard there can be no objective moral values or duties. It is quite simple, for those willing to listen.

"because God cannot be proven"

What?!? I have given you lots of arguments in favor of the God Hypothesis and you have given me no arguments, other than wanting to be your own "god" that He doesn't exist. In fact, merely the fact that you are spending so much time debating me on this subject is proof of God's existence: you are behaving as if your life has an objective purpose but such does not exist on atheism. (See slow cold dark death of universe.) You are actually denying your atheism, pretending that your life has an objective meaning - by evangelizing theists. :-)

"If I give you evidence and you don't believe it, it doesn't mean I haven't given you evidence. I have objective values and I have no God."

Merely saying that you have objective values is not proof that they exist, any more than my saying I have a billion dollars is proof that it exists in my bank account.

"Isn't that really your problem - you are so intent on telling me what I believe rather than actually listening to me that you can't handle the truth?"

I don't actually care what you believe. I care what is objectively true. What you believe is a measure of your feelings and psychological state - I am not interested in that - I am a theist, in search of truth, not feelings. That is a huge difference from my life as an atheist, I might add.

"Because we are human beings with c onsciences, empathy, a sense of belonging, a sense of place, a sense of purpose, a sense of how to co-exist with our fellow human beings, a sense of what works best for us all to live together harmoniously."

None of those things are objective, - they are ice cream flavors that vary across individuals. Some like Hitler, others like Ghandi. A sense of purpose is not any objective purpose - it is just a grand delusion, on atheism. How can anything objectively matter when there will be no one around to remember it or you for that matter?

"What a waste of a g ift this life is under that way of thinking."

Life IS a waste on atheism. It is a big accident which has no ultimate meaning. It is absurd. Look at the universe around you: if that is all there is, then it is a huge waste. And you are a speck of a dot of waste, on atheism. Why are you pretending your life means anything, other than whatever you want to make up out of thin air - to satisfy a fairy tale of yours?

"We are not insects. Next."

Nice try, but take it up with Darwin. He realized full well that we could be insects in a subjective moral sense if evolution had taken a different turn, and, BTW, aren't insects our cousins or something?!? :-) You have not answered the question as to why Darwinian evolution is not just one giant craps table, and due to that, there are no objective moral values and duties? Darwin understood.

"We are not other animals, either. Our brains don't work the same way."

That is twice it sounds as though you are distancing yourself from macro-evolution, do I have that right? I thought we were just animals evolved to a different species, no better or worse? It almost sounds like you are saying, twice, that human beings are supernaturally different from insects and lions, not merely physically different? Speaking of lions (scroll down for more good images):

http://www .powerlineblog .com/archives/2015/08/zebra-lives-matter.php

"I don't think it's intellectually honest of you to tell people who are living perfectly happy lives under s ecular humanism that they are miserable failures."

I never said that. I said that you are deluding yourself into thinking your life has objective moral value and purpose and meaning. (And, for some strange reason, 97% of atheists do not give the same consideration to the human in the womb.)

I know drunks and drug addicts who thought they were living perfectly happy lives too. They are as deluded as atheists. :-)

"All right, under the condition that you ditch the annoying smilies."

OK, but you didn't warn me before this, so that is why I have annoying smilies above. (Uuugh! I SO want to put an annoying smiley here!)

"Premise 1: You, the fundamentalist Christian, require a God in order to claim moral objectivity. Premise 2: The moral objectivity you claim is actually moral SUBJECTIVITY as laid out specifically by your God in your Bible. Premise 3: God's subjective commands can involve killing, torture, murder, and other unsavory and amoral things. Conclusion: You are amoral, subscribing to the whims of a cruel and jealous God."

It would be nice to have these in IF-Then form, but OK, I will consider this as a step-wise proof. I would probably reword Premise 1, but I will allow it.

Premise 2 is invalid. Even if you think that the Bible is a rule book (hint: it's not), then you would need to show that. How is it that God's Rule Book could pos sibly be subjective, since He is the Objective Moral Standard? Even if you believe that He is cruel and mean and all, how can that be subjective? What Higher Standard are you appealing to? Not God. Perhaps (yourself)?!?

Premise 3 is also invalid, since it includes "subjective" and it smuggles in you placing your objective moral values and duties above God's, which by the definition of "God" cannot be true. Same for the conclusion and, BTW, there are no rules of logic that would apply, even if Premises 1-3 were true, that would lead to the Conclusion. If I am wrong, please state the propositional logic rule that applies.

"I get morals from my family, my upbringing, and my developed sense of empathy."

Yes, but those are not objective. Hitler got his morals that way too, as did Stalin. Hitler had tremendous empathy for the Aryan race.

"Dawkins, Provine, Ruse and anyone else you'd care to name puts value on the loved ones in their lives."

Oh sure, but they are stealing from theism to do so. They are denying their atheism and pretending that their lives, and those of their loved ones, have objective moral value, purpose, and meaning. This is why atheism is totally unlivable. For the atheist to spend this much time debating a theist, he MUST believe that there is something objective about that purpose. But, on the slow cold dark death of the universe, such objectivity means nothing of course.

RCQ_91230 #fundie barbwire.com

[RCQ_92130 alleges setting aside Proposition 8 was unlawful because the judge was a homosexual seeking marriage]

1. "committed Christian" ???? Balderdash. You KNOW that is a lie;.

2. You can troll until your drop dead from AIDS; I care not.

3. A Judge must recuse himself if he has a horse in the race, as did Walker. Deal with it.

4. Explain to me why society should change it's 5,000 year old definition of marriage; why this is beneficial to our society. The onus is on YOU, not on those to say why it should NOT happen.

5. If you actually WERE a Christian you would understand you are NOT to 'conform to the world'. Your argument that, "a whole generation has been brainwashed and supports us" is not even a lousy way to make public policy; it's no way at all.

[Poster replies]

Yes, that's the typical homosexual excuse.

Realizing you say this simply out of dogma, I'll respond anyway.
We see from many ~~ Vaughn Walker, Annise Parker, etc. ~~~ that homosexuals are for some reason incapable of subjugating their personal, activist agenda in favor of their professional responsibilities. I suppose it has something to do with the fact homosexuals define themselves first and foremost as homosexuals; everything else is far lower.

Normal people are not like this. If you were to ask ANY straight person about themselves, the very last thing they would use to describe their lives is "straight". So, if a normal Judge is adjudicating a case in which a straight (or homosexual) individual is either Defendant or Plaintiff, the urge to promote some sort of sexual agenda is simply absent.

With homosexuals, the urge to promote "Gay Agenda" is everything, squeezing objectivity and impartiality completely aside. Homosexuals, generally, are incapable of fulfilling their duties. Others do not suffer from this deficiency.

Thus, your extrapolation is inapplicable.

[Another poster replies]

Yes, of course ... if a Black Judge were an activist he or she should recuse him/herself on any matter in which that activism was germane. Of course. If, for example, Obama were to appoint any of his blatantly racist friends to the bench there should rightly be a good deal of 'recusing" going on..

This is not global warming. Your claim that "all scientists agree" is absurd. There is no consensus at all on this other than in the APA's Division 44 and other internal gay propaganda mills that have been established., and their voices - though carrying the banner of the Association that was once a legitimate, objective scientific resource, should be ignored by all as ,... well, as it's nothing more than propaganda. That silly stuff might make you feel a bit more 'justified', but serves no other sensible purpose.

Oh, and please shuck off the "stop peering into bedrooms" silliness. Before the rampant, militant activism swept homosexuals up, there were, no doubt, many individuals like you described, who just want to be left alone. That is no longer true, and the matter that has awakened so many in fierce opposition to GayGestapo is that the matter is NOT in the bedroom. Take it back there and all will be well again. But the obsession will not allow that, will it?

jhappel #fundie theologyweb.com

God could have accelerated nuclear decay during the flood as a mechanism for generating tectonics. He could have accelerated decay just from his creative process on forming the earth. Also the curse could have effected nuclear decay. The are ways of explaining the same data within a literal Genesis framework without resorting to ad hoc theories void of scriptural support.

George Shollenberger #fundie georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com

The founding of the USA in 1976 was the first effort to unify Science and Religion and unify them in a nation under God. But, this godly effort of the founders of the USA began to fade away with the assassination of Abe Lincoln. The motive behind Lincoln’s death seems clear. Darwin’s 1859 theory of evolution is godless and, if promoted worldwide, could remove God from the USA. To expand this promotion, atheistic physicists created another godless theory known as the Big Bang theory. By the 1970s, most US scientists became atheists. But, these atheistic efforts are failing. I say they are failing because human freedom can be proven only if God exists and creates independence in everything in the universe.

Jim Bendewald #fundie opinioneditorials.com

A fundamental position of ID supporters is that evolutionists do not define key terms such as "science". By keeping the public in the dark, evolutionists could write off Intelligent Design as religious while maintaining that evolution is scientific. This double standard might finally come to the public's attention because of Judge Jones' detailed definition and description of science.

Evolution is principally metaphysics based on many unprovable assumptions. There is no empirical evidence for macroevolution, and the evidence that some call microevolution is simple adaptation. The extrapolation of evidence from adaptation to macroevolution is not empirical science. Uniformitarian geology and interpreting the fossil record in favor of evolution is based upon the unprovable assumption that evolution is true. The Big Bang is also based on the assumption that evolution is true. ...

If Jones's definition of science becomes known to the broad public then evolutionary theory can no longer hide in the muddle of fuzzy "science". As Jones' definition comes before the public those teaching evolution will no longer be able to present assumptions as facts. Origins issues and macroevolution will be exposed for what they are -- metaphysical beliefs with no empirical evidence to support them!

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

Recent Quotes from the same fundie
Quote# 117934

I often receive complaints from atheists about the God of Christianity. They accuse Him of being a monster and a moral tyrant. They just don't like Him. Apparently there isn't enough room in the world for two moral judges: God and themselves. So, they want to dismiss God and judge Him. Okay, so what gives them to right to judge God? Where is their standard from which they base their moral assertions about what is right and wrong? The problem is that they can't produce any objective standard. They only have their subjective opinions and that is a problem--a big problem.

Now, just because they have a dilemma on their hands about rationally and morally justifying any sort of standard of righteousness by which they can make moral judgments, it doesn't mean they are going to give up their moral self-righteousness (isn't that what it is?) when someone shows them the irrationality door and firmly escorts their rears through it. After all, when you get to play God and make yourself the moral standard of right and wrong, that is hard to give up. I'm sure there's some internal satisfaction that permeates the atheist's soul when declaring what is good and bad and then passing judgment on others. The problem is that no atheist I've encountered has been able to provide a rational justification for his moral judgments.

Let's just take a look at their dilemma. You see, if an atheist wants to complain about the God of the Bible, that is his privilege. I will defend his right to have an opinion--even such a stupendously wrong one. But what logical argument can an atheist provide that would justify his saying that anything God does really is wrong? Think about it. The atheist could only have three possible options for the source of a moral standard:

He can develop a moral standard out of his own opinions.
He can adopt the moral standards of society.
He can use a combination of his own opinions and the morals of society.
Other than those three, I don't see any other options. So, let's take a look at them.

Deriving morality from one's own opinions
If an atheist wants to develop his moral standard based on his own opinions, then what justifies his opinions as being the right ones? His opinions are subjective--not objective. They are based on his opinions, so why should we take his moral opinions seriously? And what right does he have to say that anyone else's moral position is right or wrong? Isn't their opinion on morals as valid as his? Furthermore, if he tried to say that anyone else's morals were wrong, then isn't he being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on his subjective opinions? These questions expose the problem of deriving morality from one's self.

Deriving morality from society
If we go with the second option where the atheist derives his morality from society, then what makes one society right and another wrong? Haven't societies been wrong before? Think of Nazi Germany or America in the 1800's regarding slavery. Furthermore, who's to say that in the future a new moral majority might condemn atheism as an ethical danger to society? Would they be right? How would you know? The point is that deriving morality from society doesn't mean it is correct. History has shown that to be the case. Many atheists respond to this criticism by saying that society is evolving and getting better morally. Okay, but that is just begging the question. In other words, they are saying society is getting better morally because we are evolving. Really? In other words, societies are getting better morally because societies say so?

Deriving morality from opinions and society
Finally, if the atheist uses his own opinions in combination with those of society, then he is subjectively deciding what he thinks is right and wrong in the society around him. He is judging society's morals and deciding which ones are right and wrong, which ultimately brings us back to the first problem where he's deriving morality from his own opinions. He's logically befuddled.

So, the atheist doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones.

Since he doesn't have any moral standing by which to make objective moral claims, then all he can say is that he doesn't like the God of Christianity. He can't say that the God of Christianity as found in the Bible is objectively morally wrong because he doesn't have an objective moral standard by which to make such a judgment. He only has a subjective opinion. If he then tries to impose his opinions on others, he then becomes guilty of arrogance and judgmentalism.

Atheists are stuck, but they don't care. All they have to do is ignore the logic, ignore their moral dilemma, and continue along in their subjective, opinionated, emotional path of moral relativism while they condemn the actions of anyone who doesn't agree with them. I guess rational ignorance is bliss.

Alparslan Durmus, Numan Kurtulmus #fundie google.ch

Turkey to stop teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in high schools because it is 'controversial and difficult to understand' 

Turkey is to stop teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in high schools, claiming it is controversial and difficult to understand, a senior education official said.
In a move which has alarmed secular Turks, a chapter entitled 'Beginning of Life and Evolution' will be deleted from the standard biology textbooks used in schools.
The material will be available only to students who go on to higher education, according to head of the national education board Alparslan Durmus.
Critics say President Tayyip Erdogan and the Islamist-rooted AK Party are undermining modern Turkey's secular foundations by pushing a conservative agenda.
They have held up tighter regulation of alcohol and other restrictions since he came to power in 2002 as further examples.
'We are aware that if our students don't have the background to comprehend the premises and hypotheses, or if they don't have the knowledge and scientific framework, they will not be able to understand some controversial issues, so we have left out some of them,' said Durmus.

[...]

Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said earlier this year that Darwin theory, first published in the 19th century, was 'old and rotten' and did not necessarily have to be taught.
The changes are part of a new curriculum that will go into effect at the start of the 2017-2018 academic year, and was formulated in accordance with 'Turkish values', Durmus said.
A total of 51 courses programmes from primary school to high school, including those at the 'Imam Hatip' religious schools championed by Erdogan, have been changed.

DiveCon #fundie hannity.com

[In my opinion, religious people don't want a theocracy, they just don't want to see God removed from the history of America.

They don't want to see our currency changed, holidays changed, etc.

They don't see a problem with introducing alternatives to the theory of evolution.]

they fear christians, they fear it not because they REALLY believe christians want a theocracy, but because christians remind them of how lost they are ::Winking Smiley::


biggandyy #fundie puritanboard.com

(YE stands for Young Earth Creationists)
Charlie, you are making the assumption that God set the age of the universe at 15 billion years and started it from that point. We know from Scripture that Adam was formed as an adult male. We do not know at what age God preset the universe, if it was preset at all.

However, let's ask the question, what if God had made Adam as an infant? If he were the first man who would be there to care for him, nurture him, feed him, teach him. It makes sense that God would create man and beast as adults. Did He not create the beasts to be fruitful (reproduce after their kind) in the Garden?

Now for the universe, if God started creation with a big bang and allowed the swirling gases to coalesce into planetary systems we have a problem with the text of Scripture, not just in day and night designations but with the order of creation itself.

Also keep in mind that YE Creationists don't want to disprove radiometric dating because it would prove their YE position (although probably a few believe this). Radiometric dating is flawed at its core and needs to be abandoned as a part of scientific theory.

YE gains nothing from knocking out another leg of the OE stool. But science does gain a modicum of respect back, especially in light of the utter failure of so called "peer reviewed science" in the Global Warming hoax.

‘Mad’ Mike Hughes #fundie independent.co.uk

Flat-earther blasts off in homemade rocket in bid to reassure himself world is shaped 'like a Frisbee'

'I'm tired of people saying I chickened out and didn't build a rocket'

A self-taught rocket man who believes the earth is flat blasted himself 1,875 feet into the air, in an effort to reach orbit and reassure himself the world is shaped "like a Frisbee".

‘Mad’ Mike Hughes, who has been likened to cartoon character Wile E Coyote, propelled himself off the ground in a homemade rocket on Saturday before a hard landing in the Mojave Desert.

The 61-year-old limo driver said he was fine – apart from his aching back – after the launch near Amboy, in California.

“I'm tired of people saying I chickened out and didn't build a rocket,” he said after being checked out by paramedics.

“I'm tired of that stuff; I manned up and did it.”

Mr Hughes worked on overhauling his rocket in his garage for months before the launch on Saturday, which was given the go-ahead by Albert Okura, who owns Amboy.

He converted a mobile home into a ramp and modified it to launch from a vertical angle so he would not fall back to the ground on public land.

It looked like Saturday might be another in a string of cancellations, given the wind was blowing and his rocket was losing steam.

But some time after 3pm (Pacific Daylight Time), and without a countdown, Mr Hughes’ rocket soared into the sky.

He reached a speed he estimated to be around 350 mph before pulling his parachute.

The limo driver was dropping too fast, though, and had to deploy a second one.

He landed with a thud and the rocket’s nose broke in two places like it was designed to do.

“This thing wants to kill you 10 different ways,” said Mr Hughes, who had an altimeter in his cockpit to measure his altitude.

“Am I glad I did it? Yeah, I guess. I'll feel it in the morning. I won't be able to get out of bed.”

“At least I can go home and have dinner and see my cats tonight,” he added.

The launch is said to have lasted three to four minutes, with the rocket landing about 1,500 feet from the ramp.

And it isn’t the first time Mr Hughes has built and launched a rocket: he is reported to have travelled 1,374ft into the air in Arizona in 2014 before collapsing and taking three days to recover.

Some naysayers have posted things like "He'll be fine" with a picture of Wile E Coyote strapped to a rocket.

"I hope he doesn't blow something up," retired Nasa astronaut Jerry Linenger said as Hughes' plans captured widespread attention. Mr Linenger orbited the globe more than 2,000 times during four months in 1997.

"Rocketry, as our private space companies found out, isn't as easy as it looks," he added.

Hughes often sparred with his critics on social media leading up to the launch, through Facebook comments and a 12-minute video addressed to his doubters

"My story really is incredible," he said.

"It's got a bunch of story lines — the garage-built thing. I'm an older guy. It's out in the middle of nowhere, plus the Flat Earth. The problem is it brings out all the nuts also, people questioning everything. It's the downside of all this."

The self-taught rocket man has always maintained that his mission is not to prove that the Earth is flat.

“Do I believe the Earth is shaped like a Frisbee? I believe it is,” he said. “Do I know for sure? No. That's why I want to go up in space.”

In the future Mr Hughes wants to build a ‘Rockoon’ – a rocket that is carried into the atmosphere by a gas-filled balloon, then separated from the balloon and lit – which would take him about 68 miles up.

He revealed he also planed to run for governor.

CCRT Blog #conspiracy ccrtblog.com

Getting Started

Starting it slow ...

What’s it all about ?

Bascially data is retrieved from a consciousness field beyond time and space which stores information about quite everything. This is done by holding a thought in mind like for example “my neighbor did some gardening yesterday”. The statement will yield a true or false response depending on the fact if the neighbor actually did some gardening that day. And this without the subject consciously knowing any information about the neighbor at all. Confused or even excited? Yes you got it, anything that happened or any kind of information you can think of is already available and accessible for free, right now.

Ready for takeoff?

Getting to know the basics

- Former research

Beginning in the 1960’s Dr. George Goodheart developed Applied Kinesiology, which uses a simple muscle test to determine whether a certain remedy is beneficial for the body or not. If a tested muscle stayed strong, a substance was good for the body, and if it went weak, it was not.
Later in the 1980’s Dr. John Diamond continued the work and discovered that different images, paintings, music and objects affect the muscles strength as well. The findings of Diamond showed that everything we interact with either strengthens or weakens our life energy.
At the end of the 20th century Dr. David Hawkins found out that the muscle test really turns out to be a non-local response from the field of consicousness itself. He has taken Diamond’s work further, through the discovery that the kinesiologic response also reflects the capacity to differentiate truth from falsehood and the actual degree of truth. In the early 2000’s he tested anything and everything and documented the results that he called calibrations. Among them were calibrations of people, animals, buildings, sports, businesses, philosophical concepts, scientific theories, statements, books and whatnot. The implications of the work were startling.

If life would be easy we’d all be happy ...

The Theory behind it

Spiritual revelation by a few mystics showed that pure awareness is the irreducible stratum of life itself. The subjective knowledge and experience of these advanced states of consciousness brought forth an instantaneos understanding of how reality operates. This understanding correlates with the theories of Quantum Physics, Nonlinear Dynamics, Chaos Theory and Attractor Research and some terms from these sciences are used to describe the findings.

- Chaos Theory

Is a subfield of nonlinear Dynamics and examines dynamic systems which are chronologically unpredictable, though still deterministic. Also called deterministic chaos, these systems are highly dependend on initial conditions. They are non-linear in practice. To determine the behaviour of the system on a spiceific time in the future the initial conditions have to be known with infinite precision. Therefore practical predictions can only be forecast for short periods of time like in meteorology (e.g. the butterfly effect).

- Nonlinear Dynamics

Is a subfield of the theory of dynamic systems where differential equations contain nonlinear functions. The solutions of these nonlinear equations show interesting characteristics like plots in phase spaces known as attractors and fractal structures under certain conditions.

- Attractor Field Theory

The term attractor is derived from the theory of non-linear dynamics and describes a subset of phase space (meaning a specific amount of system states) to which the dynamic system converges and which the dynamic system does not leave. This means that a certain value, curve or sub space comes to and stays near the attractor because of its inherent pull and potential. The attractor is a strict recognizable structure which can be called a stable condition of a system.

image
Strange Attractor

- Quantum Physics

In Quantum Physics when we move in the area of microscopic scope we see phenomena that are discontinuous with our understanding of Newtonian Causality and yet proved to be as real in observation and practice. These principles are already used in a variety of ways like in satellite communications, atom physics, solid state physics and so on. The nature of consciousness itself can be said to reside in a realm beyond time and space and thus shows characteristics related to quantum physics.

A quantum physics view of reality

In the paradigm of causality it postulates that A causes B causes C like billiard balls sequentially striking each other. But consciousness research indicates that the very nature of causality functions quite differently:

image

The very cause of a phenomenon is an unobservable non-deterministic attractor pattern which cause the detetministic A, B and C at the same time. But A, B and C from an observable linear point of view are still perceived as the cause of each other. The operants can then be seen as transcending both the linear and non-linear domain. This depiction is in accord with what physicist David Bohm describes as the enfolded and unfolded universe.

Launching the rocket!

Through the technique of neurophysiologic modelling it has been discovered that there are classes of brain neuronal networks that act as attractors as a whole, though single neurons may behave randomly. These network classes of interconnected neurons operate within a series of limits and are defined by feeling patterns. These patterns are actually dominated by fields of consciousness which reside beyond the body and are activated by choice. Thus one’s consciousness can be said to be like a needle in electrostatic fields of different dominance. These different fields have been calibrated on a scale from 1 to 1000 and are presented on the Map of Consciousness©.

Ordninarily the processing of problems requires going from the known condition to the unkown answer. In nonlinear dynamics it is the other way around: from the unknown nondeterministic data of the question to the known answer. And this is the same process that is used by muscle testing. A high energy attractor pattern interconnected with the human nervous system via the meridians known in accupunture yields the response.

Getting to know the numbers

Map of Consciousness of David R. Hawkins unfortunately had to be removed due to copyright issues. You can find it elsewhere.
You can find an outline through the link below.
©spiritualwiki, Germany

For most people the levels up to 500 are easily verifiable. To get an intuitive understanding of the map it is best to take a look at the massive amount of data that has been retrieved over the years.

Still with me? No need to, this is for the pros...

- How to muscle test: Two pair testing

Choose a friend or a family member for testing. We’ll call him or her your subject.

1. Have the subject stand erect, right arm relaxed at his side, left arm stretched out parallel to the floor, elbow straight.
2. Face the subject and place your left hand on his right shoulder to steady him. Then place your right hand on the subject’s extended left arm just above the wrist.
3. Tell the subject you are going to try to push his arm down as he resists your downward pressure.
4. Now push down on his arm fairly quickly, firmly, and evenly. The idea is to push just hard enough to test the spring and bounce in the arm, not so hard that the muscle becomes fatigued. It is not a question of who is stronger, but of whether the muscle can lock the shoulder joint against the push.
5. Let the subject hold someone in mind that they love and push down the arm. The arm should be able to resist the pressure. Then again let them hold someone they hate. The arm should go weak.
6. If this works well you might start holding statements, people and books in mind you want to test.
7. Now you can go for the numbers.

-OR-

- How to muscle test: O-Ring Method for single testing

Shape a ring by putting your middle finger on top of your thumb. Place your forefinger on the middlefinger in the ring and try pushing them apart while holding the favored statement in mind.

image

image


More to know about testing…..

- General Information

1. The energy field of consciousness is infinite, a certain spectrum that is useful for the human domain has been mapped from 1 to 1000.
2. Everything in the universe emanates a specific energy, which stays in the field of consciousness permanently. Thus any event thought, deed, feeling, or attitude is recorded forever an can be retrieved.
3. The intention as well as both tester and the one being tested, must calibrate over 200 in order to allow for accurate results.
4. Experience has shown that many people are still not able to achieve accurate results. This issue will be addressed elsewhere in detail.
5. At a personal calibration level 0f 200, research shows that there is still a 30% chance for error.
6. The chance for error diminishes as one moves up the scale and becomes more conscious of one’s intentions.
7. The attitude that serves best for testing is one of clinical detachment. Emotionally charged states should be avoided while testing.
8. Adding the prefix “In the name of the highest good ____ calibrates as true. Over 100, Over 200 increases accuracy, because it transcends self-serving personal interest and motives.
9. Saying “resist” also benefits results.
10. Any muscles of the body can be used.
11. Alterations in pupillary response and brain function are associated with changes in consciousness as well.
12. Before a statement is presented it is necesarry to qualify permission: “I have permission to ask about what I am holding in mind” (Yes/No)
13. The muscle test cannot be used to foretell the future; otherwise there are no limits as to what can be asked. This blog is subject to this ongoing exploration.
14. The answers are impersonal and do not depend on the belief systems of either the tester or the test subject.
15. People want to determine truth from falsehood. Therefore, the statement has to be made very specifically. Avoid using general terms such as a good job to apply for. Good in what way? Pay scale? Working conditions? Promotional opportunities? Fairness of the boss?
16. Familiarity with the test bings progressive expertise.
17. Use chross-checking to confirm accuracy, e.g. reversing the statement.
18. 10% of the population, as well as sometimes married couples cannot use the technique for unknown reasons.
19. To try to prove a point negates accuracy.
20. Doing the thymus thump (with a closed fist, thump three times over the upper breastbone, smile, and say “ha-ha-ha” and mentally picture someone that is loved) will clear up temporary imbalances. The imbalance may be the result of recently having been with negative people, listening to heavy-metal rock-music, watching wiolent television programs, playing violent video games, etc.
21. Truth operates on a different paradigm (600’s) of reality as does logic in the 400’s. Thus it is not subject to prove or disprove.

- Discrepancies

Differing calibrations may be obtained over time or by different investigators for a variety of reasons:

1. Situations, people, politics, policies, and attidudes change over time.
2. People tend to use different sensory modalities when they hold something in mind, i.e., visual, sensory, auditory, or feeling. Your mother could therefore be how she looked, felt, sounded, etc, or Henry Ford could be calibrated as a father, as an industrialist, for his impact on America, his anti-Semitism, etc.
3. Accuracy increases with the level of consciousness. (The 400’s and above are the most accurate.) One can specify context and stick to a prevailing modality. The same team using the same technique will get results that are internally consistent. Expertise develops with practice. There are some people, however, who are unable of scientific, detached attitude and are unable to be objective, and for whom the testing method will therefore not be accurate. This amounts to 85% of the worlds population and around 50% of the western populace. Dedication and intention to the truh has to be given priority over personal opinions and trying to prove them as being “right.”

Charles Lawson #fundie rawstory.com

Fundamentalist Christianity is under a heavy threat from an ever changing world that relies on science for answers, technology, medicine, research and exploration. But Tennessee Pastor Charles Lawson hates science almost as much as he hates Katy Perry, Lady GaGa and their devil music. Perhaps that is why he is conveniently using conspiracy theories and unconfirmed assumptions to fit into his own ideology.

After a lengthy discussion about “spirit guides” that can take us from the Earth to the Heavenly world on the lost continent of Atlantis, bigfoot and UFO sightings on Mt. Shasta in California, Lawson declares the “scientific” facts. “Think about what I’m saying about aliens communicating with you. Aliens from above,” Lawson says as he points toward the sky. “Something coming down from the skies and communicating with us here on this earth. A lot of scientists, a lot of them, and there’s really no way to know specifically because of political correctness and the pressure that’s put upon them. A lot of scientists have abandoned Darwin, but because of fear of losing their jobs, fear of losing the ability to produce papers, uh, fear, peer pressure, they have to keep it in, and they don’t come out with it, but here and there some do. They have abandoned Darwin. They have abandoned evolution.”

Of course, there is “no way to know specifically” since he’s making up his claims. Specifics are no match for a fire-and-brimstone pastor who can simply point toward the sky and say “God did it.”

Lawson continued that all of this comes down to scientists, who must now find answers to big questions, that evolution once provided these scientists, who have “abandoned Darwin.” Instead, these scientists “have jettisoned Darwin and now they’re looking up, and past, and they’re getting into the spirit world, into the paranormal world. And the two of them, they compliment each other, and they begin to get into something that their scientific books know nothing about.”

He is right about one thing, “You can get a Ph.D. from Harvard and not know one thing about a spirit.” Ghosts or spirits are not part of the prerequisite requirements for engineering sciences at Harvard.

“What I’m trying to do in these lessons,” Lawson enlightens his Sunday school class, “is to open your mind up and make you begin to think with a broader spectrum at the deception that is coming down upon us. Because it’s coming from every direction.”

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) relies on science to get its work done. Their radio telescopes “listen” to the spectrum of the universe and their vast computers and volunteers to parse actual data gathered from real science. While it might seem a fool’s errand to some, writer Michael Crichton explained, “A wonderful area for speculative academic work is the unknowable. These days religious subjects are in disfavor, but there are still plenty of good topics. The nature of consciousness, the workings of the brain, the origin of aggression, the origin of language, the origin of life on earth, SETI and life on other worlds…this is all great stuff. Wonderful stuff. You can argue it interminably. But it can’t be contradicted, because nobody knows the answer to any of these topics.”

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

(Reactions to James Delingpole's article)

(proreason)
This illustrates one of the core problems with liberals of all stripes. They have no limits on their unhinged desire to control everybody and everything around them.

(aka Randy Yonkers)
The left is driven by toxic emotions.
They thrive on the control they get from making themselves and everyone around them miserable. They label destruction and misery "Progress". They manufacture pain and rage and sell it for profit, by taxing a guilted public and forcing them to pay for the "cure".

(Eskel Gorov)
The entire concept of "AGW" is preposterous. Even if there were an AGW "consensus" (which there categorically is not), it's irrelevant. Consensus is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of scientific process. Relying on those more educated than you are is just fine until science becomes corrupted by politics and the politician's eternal quest for more tax dollars from the uninformed. AGW is indeed about politics, wealth redistribution, and crowd control. We can and should be better stewards of our planet; but, we don't need to abandon all scientific process and commit suicide in order to do so. This stewardship has little or nothing to do with CO2. Regardless, a consensus of people from NOAA, NASA,and the IPCC who have all been caught red-handed altering data to meet their failed modeling assumptions is worthless on its face. Failed models, failed theory, end of story.

(redpilldebtslave)
CO2 is plant food. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too and the earth is covered by a bunch of it. Imagine if they went after water like they do the energy industry. We need politics to stay out of science. This all fell apart when they got caught falsifying data. Follow the money.
Leftists are the science deniers! LOL! Too funny!

(ricocat1)
Those liberals who are concerned about CO2 should hold their breaths until they turn blue. Don't exhale. No CO2. No liberals. Problem solved.

(Trump Train aka Honey Badger)
These liberals idiots would have rather breathed nuclear fallout by voting for HRC... end of the planet for sure!
There is no greater contaminant then of one’s mind, you can thank the liberal ideology for that!
Our youths minds are being poisoned all across the campuses in America by these liberal professors.
President Trump already saved the planet by defeating the nuclear holocaust know as HRC, ending the Paris Accord, slashing the EPA and ending big bureaucratic regulations!

(Johnny)
these people are seriously mental defects and delusional,, they dont stop to think who is going to fund these places without republican support,, liberals arent going to part with weed money to keep the lights on

(proreason)
Allow me to crystalize your comment a bit more. I think it has a core that is a real insight. You said: "these people...dont stop to think".

Liberals are too p*ssed off at everybody else for not complying with their manias to think about anything other than enforcing their will.

(Pleiades R)
"bite the hand that feeds them" comes to mind

both comments so valid, so many liberals I know think work is beneath them, they spend money on the latest cell/computer/clothing/shoes/entertainment/restaurants... then complain insurance, utilities, necessities are too expensive.... some are on assistance, but they own a "vape", a big screen tv and cable...

they make fun of me for having an old phone and not dressing expensively... I don't have cable or a tv.... but, I pay my own way...

amusingly they support open borders... if only they were destroying their own world, not the world we share...

(redpilldebtslave)
I often tell them they advocate their own destruction. By destroying the family and abusing the legal system, we have today's society. That is advocating for the leftists grand utopia. Leftists advocate their own destruction. Everybody must suffer as they do.
I usually say it just like that. They accuse me of making threats on the leftist sites. All I do is predict their futures.

(Jon)
These climate nuts are out of control.

Please support our Vets and Police! Boycott the Superbowl this weekend! #Boycottsuperbowl #PleaseStand

(Eric Simpson)
It's a consensus of ideology, not of science. Notice that nearly every conservative scientist does not believe the leftist scam.

(rennyangel2)
Not, "conservative" scientists but many REAL scientists who study cause and effect, are knowledgeable about history, and are not trying to impose their own views on outcomes or results.
There is a current complaint in the scientific community that too many "experiments" are not repeatable, as they should be if the same processes are followed, and I think the problem with replicating in today's science is because too many choose a pre-determined outcome and then force their "experiment" into the desired result. No wonder, one scientist has trouble producing the same conclusion, again.

(earlysda)
The problem in science is that they fell for a different god than the the Creator (Jesus Christ), and have been wandering in the darkness ever since.

(Reno Rivera)
Doesn't matter. The left lost on this one.

I don't feel sorry for the fickle, Rebekah Mercer. She's getting some payback here for betraying Bannon.

Also, she is not behind BB and never one who made BB popular.

I guess she is now since Bannon left and BB becoming effeminate with increased People Magazine type and news stories.

(earlysda)
Sadly, most of our youth are taught the doctrines of Evolution as "scientific fact", when actually, even Richard Dawkins admits: "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening".

(Mash Draggin)
Science is being subverted and swallowed up by politics, and the fact that there are so many marxists at our universities is a big reason why. The left wants to use science as a political weapon. It's actually slowing down real scientific advancement too.

David J. Stewart #fundie #conspiracy #pratt jesusisprecious.org

Evolution is the most obvious evil lie ever contrived by man. In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859).[1] History exposes the Freemasons as being involved in the forced indoctrination of children with the ungodly bogus theories of evolution!

There is not a more Satanic evil in this world, than the attack on impressionable children's souls with the blatant lies of evolution. Any uneducated fool knows that humans did not evolve from gorillas! If men came from apes, then why are there still apes? It is a simple question. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure it out. Only a wicked person who hates God would want to deprive children of the inspired Word of God, and replace it with a bizarre science-fiction story. Romans 1:28a, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind...”

Evolutionists are fools! 1st Corinthians 3:19, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” Our text Scripture says in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” We further read the truth in 2nd Peter 3:5a, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old...” Anyone who accepts the lies of evolution are spitting on the Holy Bible! We have very clear teaching in the inspired Holy Scriptures, that it was God Who created the heavens and earth, and all therein. Jeremiah 32:17a, “Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm...”

I just read something that didn't surprise me—31% of all Roman Catholics accept the lies of evolution.[2] It doesn't surprise me because Catholics don't even accept the Bible. Mark 7:9, “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Kindly, heathen Catholics are no better than heathen evolutionists, who elevate manmade TRADITION over the inspired eternal WORD OF GOD! People either believe what man says about God, or what God says about man. God says evolutionists are corrupt!

Bruce DePalma #crackpot depalma.pairsite.com

<Pure Free Energy Word Salad>
27 February 1997
ON THE NATURE OF THE PRIMORDIAL FIELD
To err is to be human

by Bruce DePalma
The description of the Primordial Field is imaginary but that is precisely why it is correct. The best instrument for the exploration of this question is the human mind.
The representation of reality within our conscious persona is constructed out of the myriad chemical reactions to the sensory stimuli of "external reality". On this basis the sensory image is living and we could speculate the external reality was non-living unless we knew the self-evident proposition that all reality was alive.
Nothing could exist unless the organizing force were more powerful than destructive & dissipative effects. Consequentially we can view the organizing force as transcendent and that destruction and dissipation are facets of the constructive energy.
The most profound manifestation of the creative force in material form are the thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas are modifiers in the direction and application of Force. We arrive at the idea that the primordial field is a field of pure Force.
The detection of an isotropic field consists of distorting it and noting the force isotropys.
On the highest level of abstraction Force is Intelligence; consequently the primordial field is intelligent. Within the limits imposed by the capability of my human mind reality exists as it is. Its architecture is beyond the scope of my discovery.
Nevertheless that architecture forms a basis for the positing and asking of questions. A dialogue of questions and answers, the field of a design for Physics. As long as we remain rational, 'it' remains rational.
The primordial field has all known properties. We understand its force nature through experiments with charged capacitors, magnets, and gravity. In every case, a distortion of the primordial field results in an unbalanced force.
Apparently the primordial field has certain mechanical characterizations which allow for the propagation of 'waves'. Mechanical characteristics mandate the possibilities of discrete 'particles'. Both characteristics exist simultaneously. The measuring instrument asks the question, the Universe provides the answer.
Consequently, in the Universe of the primordial field the Nature or origin of the field is unknown being beyond the conception of the minds which are examining it.
The human mind or body is a materialization of an implied tendency in the body of space. Consequently man can never know his source because only in the downstream of time is the material manifestation formed.
Can the material manifestation form more subtle connections than itself? Can you have more subtle thoughts than you can think? The plenum of existence is formed within the limitations of the human mind.
The existence of the primordial field can be proved by the manifestation of unbalanced forces through distortion of its normally isotropic condition, i.e. by electricity, magnetism or gravity.
That the primordial field has certain mechanical characteristics can be shown by the apparent propagation of waves and the existence of discrete particles.
Mathematics is a facet of the Nature of the intelligent primordial field. The mathematics we presently use is derived from the counting of integers. This is OK when counting marbles or money. What is the Nature of the integer? Is an integer exactly the result of a number or are properties of counting being ignored like the higher order precessional modes of rotation, i.e. nutation, ..., ..., etc.
Every experiment which is done qualifies and quantifies the primordial field in some aspect.
If you want chaos you get chaos. For those of us who govern our thoughts with logic we get logic. Actually logic and chaos are the extrema of what we know as thought.
For those of us who consider ourselves sophisticated we amuse ourselves with a pastime called Science. This the application of logic (the self-defining reasoning process in Nature), to Nature. This self-examination in itself has the limitation of the manifest in attempting to describe the un-manifest.
A final thought. The primordial field is responsible for the inertia of material objects. Without rotation the manifested inertial mass is isotropic, as is the primordial field. With rotation anisotropy is established firstly in the existence of directions for the inertia experiment, i.e. axial motion or motion in the plane of rotation. Apparently there is a connection, (through time), between the manifest material object and the primordial field. Consequently, rotation of a material object introduces spatial anisotropy of inertial mass measurements into the spatial region surrounding the rotating object.
It is suggestive that magnetism, a phenomena of spatial anisotropy, could be introduced into a normally non-magnetic material, i.e. brass, through the influence of a field of spatial inertia anisotropy. Certain recent experiments of Monstein have borne this out.
Although as a field it is no more primary than electricity, magnetism, or gravity, the spatial inertial anisotropy created by a rotating object is called the OD field.

Unknown author #fundie creationworldview.org

Evolutionists do not want us to teach in our public schools the science that shows the validity of creation. They want us to teach only their (with apologies to Rudyard Kipling) "Just So Stories."

Personally, I believe that we should teach evolution side-by-side with creation giving equal scientific emphasis and have our students learn to think critically. Let us show them both and allow them to decide for themselves which one they will believe because origins is a faith position. Evolutionists reject this two model approach to teaching about origins because they inherently know that they will lose every time.

If they will not allow the teaching in our public schools of the science to support creation and adamantly defend the teaching of evolution only, that is fine with me - as long as we teach the students more about evolution than the evolutionists do. If we teach students ALL about evolution then they will realize that evolution is intellectually bankrupt.

The solution to evolution is education!

Please allow us to teach the students the truth about the implications of the Laws of Science, such as the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how these Laws disprove evolution. Please allow us to teach the truth about the whole and complete nature of natural processes, like photosynthesis and metamorphosis, and how these could not possibly come into existence by random chance. Please allow us to teach the truth about what is really in the ground, like the out of order layers and polystrate fossils, as opposed to what evolutionists say is in the ground.

Please allow us to teach the truth about the hoaxes and frauds that have been authenticated and perpetuated by evolutionists then later had to be retracted. Please allow us to teach the truth about: Piltdown Man, Java Man, Peking Man, English Peppered Moths, the Horse Series, Pithecanthropus alalus, Galapagos Finch Beaks, embryonic recapitulation and the Monera.

Please allow us to teach the students the truth about how the acceptance of evolution is the foundational justification to promote: human racism, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, lawlessness, pornography, and all the other immoral and unethical activities within our society.

Yes, I am convinced! We need to teach more about evolution in our public schools, not less!

With this admonition in mind, I want to give you a Primer on the Scientific Reasons that Evolution is Wrong. The following are only thirty basic points and are by no means the total list that we might make. This is just a list that you may refer to when you want a quick way to look up what is wrong with evolution.

1. The evolution of one kind into another kind is not happening in a measurable way in the present, nor can it be proven to have occurred in the past.

2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously existing organisms. (We discover new kinds that we have never cataloged before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)

3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence. All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed. (The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their decay and degradation.)

4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the "missing links" because they are missing, not there, don't exist.

5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does not come from non-living material. Life does not spontaneously generate itself.

6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially. Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the upward progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by evolutionists.

7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.

8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older" layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record. In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical position rather than in a horizontal position.

10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the "oldest" layers of the fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.

11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the "Tree of Life" so glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types represented from the beginning with their own individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.

12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links" are missing because they are missing.

13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artists depiction, conception or illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artists illustration of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination are not evidence.

14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex languages than we do today. The engineering feats of the past cultures are well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times. There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone, bronze and iron tools in all ages of past human activity. Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.

The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.

15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence.

16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work. The universe is running down, not up.

17. The concept of a "Big Bang" producing the universe is absolutely illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure. Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or destroy what was previously ordered.

18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to be "born." The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.

19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind.

20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order and/or complexity.

21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order to produce an increase in complexity and/or intelligence, that intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.

22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!

23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given population.

24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.

25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis, Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and human eyes (or human brains for that matter).

26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system, digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system, command and communication system.

27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70 proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete DNA to fabricate those proteins.

28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by random chance.

If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.

We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside. The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective countermeasures without killing us at the same time.

29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution. It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive organs or structures in a human body!

30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of sex, symbiosis or altruism.

I reiterate that the solution to evolution is education! If we teach the true facts of science and teach our people to think critically they will never believe the Just So Stories of the evolutionists.

Besides, what is so dangerous about the facts that support creation?

A belief in creation destroys the works of the Devil!

That is what is so important about it and why evolutionists cling to their faith position concerning it. Evolution is a religion of conveniences. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which people may mentally justify that there is no God. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which they may mentally justify that they may lead a sinless life with Jesus Christ. The Bible declares that this is manifest delusion.

Power Point Paradise #fundie powerpointparadise.com

You know how people parrot the media: "Well, that Loch Ness Monster is just a myth and a legend!" Well is it really? There are "only" 800 official sightings, beside the "un-official" ones, and a couple of pictures of the beast like the one below. And several serious local newspaper reportings of people who saw "Nessie", like this clipping from 1935?

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE FROM 1935, TITLED: The Loch Ness Monster at Tea.
LONDON -- In far off Inverness shire, the Loch Nes Monster became active again [on June23] to show his appreciation of the summer weather. He was seen at Halfway House near Invermoriston by sixteen persons, mostly tourists having tea at the time.
George Sutherland of Edinburgh, one of the witnesses, said that the proprietress of Halfway House called out: "There's the monster!" Everyone rushed out and saw part of the creature's back as it emerged from the bay and made its way across the lake. It moved about for twenty minutes before it disappeared. "I cannot say what it was," Sutherland said, "but it was a living creature. It was no hallucination."

BELOW ARE SONAR PICTURES OF THE LOCH NESS "MONSTER"
The water of Loch Ness turned out to be so murky and black, being filled with peat particles, that a specially built submarine launched to hunt for the monster, had to abort its mission, as the crew couldn't even see one meter ahead through its portholes.
Then the whole lake, one of the deepest in the world being hundreds of meters deep, was searched with sonar equipment and these are some of the results. One can clearly see the body, fin, neck and head on the left and two other pictures show the diamond-shaped fin of this living water dragon!?Or if you prefer: a plesiosaur or pliosaur! Because this so-called "monster" of Loch Ness, has all the earmarks of being a living Plesiosaur or some other "marine dinosaur" or rather Water Dragon, often seen by the Vikings in their time, who fashioned the bows of their boats like seadragons! ?Most likely to scare the real ones, that they had encountered on their many voyages, away! Vikings were more realistic than people today!

image

"But I thought Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago?
This Loch Ness creature is hardly taken serious by the media and general press, and normally pooh poohed as a hoax, hallucination, as a mysterious "monster" or as "cryptozoology!" Wish they would declare every rare bone and piece of a skull of "the human primates" as "Cryptozoology!" But those are immediately hailed as "missing links!" Only creationist scientists take "monsters" like this seriously, as one of the few remaining dragons, only labeled "dinosaurs" since 1875 by modernistic scientists of those days!
Did you know that Nessie--most likely a "plesiosaur" or a family of them--is only one of several waterdragons that survived thus far? The media, scientists and evolutionists ignore or minimise these facts, finds and phenomena. Why? Because it would negate the by the elite favored theory of evolution and their now widely promoted theory of "the asteroid that made dinosaurs extinct!" Because "long extinct dinosaurs preceding Man" paint a more believable Evolutionary scenario, than the truth: Live dragons co-existing with Man until now!
And so most scientists stick to Evolution like glue, as it's the only theory that's government- and tax-supported as well as widely funded, and because of professional peer pressure. And frankly, many, if not most of them, plainly despise the only possible alternative!--The theories of Creation and a Worldwide Flood, for which there are many proofs, both of which are supported by many historical accounts, the Bible and other reports and legends of almost every culture.
But most materialist, secular humanist scientists would rather die than adhere to these much more plausible theories! And sad to say many of them will, believing a lie and materialistic hoax perpetrated on bewildered mankind these last 125 years, to make them doubt anything supernatural, ghosts, angels, God and Jesus, to turn them to the opposite side!

"Well", you say, "they never really caught this marine dinosaur, and this may be the only one in the world, so that proves nothing! Are there any other documented sightings and witnesses reports?"

Latest Nessie picture, of course contested again!

image

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

You see, according to the Darwinists, nothing outweighs self-preservation except for race-preservation, on the ground that whatever genetically coded strategy of survival promotes the most selfish gene (selfish here meaning designed to preserve and promote itself with the greatest tenacity) by definition is the code most likely to be carried along in future generations, repeating itself. It is the ultimate conservative.

However, ironically, this genetically selfish behavior is a hindrance to the process of evolution as evolution is usually described. It is only by eliminating the selfish gene, creating mutations, and then weeding out the unfit, that evolution, as it is usually described, can take place. It is the ultimate radical.

(I must pause to comment that was is described as Darwinism is usually unrelated to Darwin, and more related to Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx, who had a mystical belief in endless upward progress either toward the superman, the absolute, or the socialist paradise. Darwin never spoke about evolution, only about descent with modification, which is a sound theory regarding the creation of breeds, but in recent years has begun to seem doubtful in the minds of candid biologists regarding the creation of a new species, much less a new genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom. The random mutation theory, which is not Darwin's theory, does not seem to be a feasible mechanism to explain the stability of species in some geological strata, versus the sudden explosions of species in the precambrian and others.)

Bradford G. Schleifer #fundie realtruth.org

[A little taster from an article of a magazine which calls itself pompously "Real Truth Magazine"]

Why is evolution cemented in the minds of many as fact, when it is nothing more than theory?

How did this occur?

Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand. Do not be surprised! The rationale invented to support evolution is bewildering and complicated. It is tiresome and boring. Certain facts are conveniently left behind, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail. Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.

This series will demystify the subject. You will know if evolution is science fact or science fiction. Convoluted and illogical theories will be simplified in a way never before presented. While some sections are technical, the more detail given, the better you will be able to see through the theory’s “smoke and mirrors.” Clear and simple logic always destroys ill-conceived suppositions.

Once evolution is dismantled, you will be left with many questions—and serious implications.

[Read the whole thing!]

Pastor Mike #fundie therockag.org

Put Faith In God, Not “Missing Link”

A rubber gorilla suit. Lost somewhere between the Olympics, hurricanes, and political conventions was the story out of Georgia about the latest Bigfoot hoax. When the hoax was finally uncovered, it was probably one of the least imaginative deceptions of all time.

Two men claimed to have found the body of a Bigfoot and hauled it away while other Bigfoots watched from a distance. The men placed the body in a chest freezer and filled it with water to create a giant Bigfoot ice cube. After holding a news conference to announce their discovery, they submitted DNA for testing. The DNA was proven to be from an opossum. Regardless, an eager Bigfoot researcher paid an undisclosed sum of money for the freezer and its contents. When the ice melted, the large object inside was nothing more than a gorilla suit mingled with road kill. As elaborate hoaxes go, this one was not so elaborate. Nevertheless, intelligent, educated people got caught up in the enthusiasm and wanted so badly for this to be genuine that they fell for it, hook, line, and gorilla suit.

This wasn’t the first attempt at producing a missing link between modern day humans and our so-called Neanderthal ancestors. Java man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, and a whole list of others have bypassed normal scrutiny in a desperate effort to prove the theory of evolution. The few specimens that are still considered to be legitimate were fabricated from bone fragments and teeth which, given enough artistic license, could become anything one wished. That’s why a living remnant from a bygone era such as Bigfoot is the Holy Grail for evolutionists.

Ernie Drogt #fundie quora.com

It is important to know that Atheist hide behind Ad hoc hypothesis. Every thing they know is an adjustment of the equation to keep their failures current with the mind set of the public. This is also called the Axis of Evil. The bible is not really a scientific book, but it explains scientific beliefs ever so slightly. Which drives scientists mad. Mad enough for them to do Ad hoc. One cannot explain matter without intelligent design. You cannot make the leap into evolution without it. Which is why the missing link cannot be found. That takes a creator to do so. Bread a dog with a cat it cant be done. But some how it is done from ape to man. If its so easy as scientists claim then it should have been done over and over again. Try it and it is said you end up having AIDS. Laughable i know. I don't even know if that theory is true or not, but it had a good run….. its really not about faith but the bible really does explain our existence quite well. And science is only there to distort it. In order to understand i would suggest that people explore our quantum reality rather then mediocre science.

<table>

The Bible Science Then Science Now
The Earth is a sphere – Isaiah 40:22 The Earth is a flat disc The Earth is a sphere
Innumerable Stars – Jeremiah 33:22 only 1100 stars Innumerable Stars
Air Has Weight – Job 28:25 Air is weightless Air Has Weight
Each star is different – 1 Corinthians 15:41 All stars were the same Each star is different
Light moves – Job 38:19-20 Light was fixed in place Light moves
Free float of Earth in space – Job 26:7 Earth sat on a large animal Free float of Earth in space
Winds blow in cyclones – Ecclesiastes 1:6 Winds blew straight Winds blow in cyclones
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains – 2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6 The ocean floor was flat Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains
Blood is the source of life and health – Leviticus 17:11 Sick people must be bled Blood is the source of life and health
Creation made of invisible elements – Hebrews 11:3 Science is mostly ignorant on the subject Creation made of invisible elements(Atoms)
Ocean contains springs – Job 38:16 Ocean fed only by rivers and rain Ocean contains springs

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The topic of evolution, especially regarding how politicians have responded when asked if they believe in evolution or not, has been in the news lately. The very liberal Huffington Post published an article on the topic stating the following:

"The 2016 presidential campaign is already upon us and the debate is heating up over an unexpected issue—the theory of evolution. Of course, in an ideal world, evolution would never really become a campaign issue. But the anti-science wing of the Republican Party continues to voice skepticism. Apologists for this wing would dearly like to distract the media and the voting public from what is, frankly, a national if not a global embarrassment."

"In truth, the President of the United States needs to be scientifically literate."

The truth of the matter, however, is that such statements as those in this article, and the questions about belief in evolution being asked of politicians, actually portray their anti-God agenda.

Just as the pro-evolution Bill Nye “The Science Guy” has done (and continues to do), the author of the Huffington Post article attempts to equate rejection of evolution with the rejection of the whole of science and thus undermining studies in biology, genetics, diseases, and computing. Because of a commitment to the religion of naturalism, many evolutionists try to intimidate people through the use of terms like “anti-science” in their attempts to bully people into thinking that those who reject evolution are undermining technological advancement.

I have observed that in most instances when the secular media write articles about Answers in Genesis, the authors will state we are against science and will use terms like “anti-intellectual,” “anti-academic,” and so on, and claim we are undermining the whole of what they call science. And then, when using the word science, they will discuss technology and try to intimidate people into believing that organizations like Answers in Genesis will adversely affect America’s technological achievements for the future. This is the agenda of Bill Nye, as was seen in his debate with me last year, and as witnessed in his numerous interviews and lectures around the world.

That’s why during my debate with Bill Nye, I concentrated on explaining that the word science means “knowledge.” And then I explained the difference between historical science (beliefs about the past) and observational science (using our five senses, repeatable tests, and so on) that helps build our technology.

During the debate, I showed video clips of creation scientists who had developed some great technological achievements. I then asked Bill Nye a question (a question I have often asked publicly of all evolutionists—which secularists won’t and cannot answer):

"Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?"

There is no such example! In fact, the real reason Bill Nye—and reporters questioning politicians who are contemplating running for US President—are bullying and intimidating people about evolution is not because belief in molecules-to-man evolution is necessary for technological advancement. It’s due more to the secular humanistic, anti-God agenda they want implemented!

You see, if there is no God who created us—no God who is the absolute authority—then “every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2).

When the Huffington Post author states, “In truth, the President of the United States needs to be scientifically literate,” the author really is saying, “In truth, the President of the United States needs to be committed to the religion of naturalism and reject the absolute authority of the Word of God.” Having abandoned the Bible as the authority, the President can then insist on supporting gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else such a President deems is “right in his own eyes” (which is what we see happening).

watergaia #fundie youtube.com

people sometimes wonder why the IQ has started to drop after 1960s. ironically, it's caused by the evolution theory that is taught in schools. it says that we are apes, so we are devolving into apes.

1960s was the sexual hippie rEvolution when people abandoned all morals and meaning from their lives (which was caused by evolution, because if evolution is true, there are no absolute morals or meaning in life).

it's ironic that it's called the theory of "evolution", and it causes us to Devolve. this happens, so that what the bible says would come true:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." -- Romans 1:22-25

Hindu Nationalists #fundie sciencemag.org

Hindu nationalists claim that ancient Indians had airplanes, stem cell technology, and the internet
By Sanjay KumarFeb. 13, 2019 , 10:55 AM

New Delhi—The most widely discussed talk at the Indian Science Congress, a government-funded annual jamboree held in Jalandhar in January, wasn't about space exploration or information technology, areas in which India has made rapid progress. Instead, the talk celebrated a story in the Hindu epic Mahabharata about a woman who gave birth to 100 children, citing it as evidence that India's ancient Hindu civilization had developed advanced reproductive technologies. Just as surprising as the claim was the distinguished pedigree of the scientist who made it: chemist G. Nageshwar Rao, vice-chancellor of Andhra University in Visakhapatnam. "Stem cell research was done in this country thousands of years ago," Rao said.

His talk was widely met with ridicule. But Rao is hardly the only Indian scientist to make such claims. In recent years, "experts" have said ancient Indians had spacecraft, the internet, and nuclear weapons—long before Western science came on the scene.

Such claims and other forms of pseudoscience rooted in Hindu nationalism have been on the rise since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014. They're not just an embarrassment, some researchers say, but a threat to science and education that stifles critical thinking and could hamper India's development. "Modi has initiated what may be called ‘Project Assault on Scientific Rationality,’" says Gauhar Raza, former chief scientist at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) here, a conglomerate of almost 40 national labs. "A religio-mythical culture is being propagated in the country's scientific institutions aggressively."

Some blame the rapid rise at least in part on Vijnana Bharati (VIBHA), the science wing of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), a massive conservative movement that aims to turn India into a Hindu nation and is the ideological parent of Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party. VIBHA aims to educate the masses about science and technology and harness research to stimulate India's development, but it also promotes "Swadeshi" (indigenous) science and tries to connect modern science to traditional knowledge and Hindu spirituality.

VIBHA receives generous government funding and is active in 23 of India's 29 states, organizing huge science fairs and other events; it has 20,000 so-called "team members" to spread its ideas and 100,000 volunteers—including many in the highest echelons of Indian science.

VIBHA's advisory board includes Vijay Kumar Saraswat, former head of Indian defense research and now chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University here. The former chairs of India's Space Commission and its Atomic Energy Commission are VIBHA "patrons." Structural biologist Shekhar Mande, director-general of CSIR, is VIBHA's vice president.

Saraswat—who says he firmly believes in the power of gemstones to influence wellbeing and destiny—is proud of the achievements of ancient Hindu science: "We should rediscover Indian systems which existed thousands of years back," he says. Mande shares that pride. "We are a race which is not inferior to any other race in the world," he says. "Great things have happened in this part of the world." Mande insists that VIBHA is not antiscientific, however: "We want to tell people you have to be rational in your life and not believe in irrational myths." He does not see a rise of pseudoscience in the past 4 years—"We have always had that"—and says part of the problem is that the press is now paying more attention to the occasional bizarre claim. "If journalists don't report it, actually that would be perfect," he says.

But others say there is little doubt that pseudoscience is on the rise—even at the highest levels of government. Modi, who was an RSS pracharak, or propagandist, for 12 years, claimed in 2014 that the transplantation of the elephant head of the god Ganesha to a human—a tale told in ancient epics—was a great achievement of Indian surgery millennia ago, and has made claims about stem cells similar to Rao's. At last year's Indian Science Congress, science minister Harsh Vardhan, a medical doctor and RSS member, said, incorrectly, that physicist Stephen Hawking had stated that the Vedas include theories superior to Albert Einstein's equation E=mc2. "It's one thing for a crackpot to say something like that, but it's a very bad example for people in authority to do so. It is deplorable," Venki Ramakrishnan, the Indian-born president of the Royal Society in London and a 2009 Nobel laureate in chemistry, tells Science. (Vardhan has declined to explain his statement so far and did not respond to an interview request from Science.)

Critics say pseudoscience is creeping into science funding and education. In 2017, Vardhan decided to fund research at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology here to validate claims that panchagavya, a concoction that includes cow urine and dung, is a remedy for a wide array of ailments—a notion many scientists dismiss. And in January 2018, higher education minister Satya Pal Singh dismissed Charles Darwin's evolution theory and threatened to remove it from school and college curricula. "Nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral [texts], has said that they ever saw an ape turning into a human being," Singh said.

Those remarks triggered a storm of protest; in a rare display of unity, India's three premier science academies said removing evolution from school curricula, or diluting it with "non-scientific explanations or myths," would be "a retrograde step." In other instances, too, scientists are pushing back against the growing tide of pseudoscience. But doing so can be dangerous. In the past 5 years, four prominent fighters against superstition and pseudoscientific ideas and practices have been murdered, including Narendra Dabholkar, a physician, and M. M. Kalburgi, former vice-chancellor of Kannada University in Hampi. Ongoing police investigations have linked their killers to Hindu fundamentalist organizations.

Some Indian scientists may be susceptible to nonscientific beliefs because they view science as a 9-to-5 job, says Ashok Sahni, a renowned paleontologist and emeritus professor at Panjab University in Chandigarh. "Their religious beliefs don't dovetail with science," he says, and outside working hours those beliefs may hold sway. A tradition of deference to teachers and older persons may also play a role, he adds. "Freedom to question authority, to question writings, that's [an] intrinsic part of science," Ramakrishnan adds. Rather than focusing on the past, India should focus on its scientific future, he says—and drastically hike its research funding.

The grip of Hindu nationalism on Indian society is about to be tested. Two dozen opposition parties have joined forces against Modi for elections that will be held before the end of May. A loss by Modi would bring "some change," says Prabir Purkayastha, vice president of the All India People's Science Network in Madurai, a liberal science advocacy movement with some 400,000 members across the country that opposes VIBHA's ideology. But the tide of pseudoscience may not retreat quickly, he says. "I don't think this battle is going to die down soon, because institutions have been weakened and infected."

YouAreWinnar66 #fundie gamefaqs.com

To me, ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up, while astrology has nothing going for it. In any case, what makes ID and astrology different is one has some legitimate backing, while the other is more or less just for quacks.

The Last Trump #fundie christiannews.net

Something had to just BE. No matter what one believes there has to be a starting point. And we have absolutely no idea what HIS environment is like outside of our universe which science has indeed proven to have had a beginning, a starting point, an explosion of light just like the Bible had told us.

What you know as MAGIC I know as God.
Have a better explanation for the clear and unmistakable intelligent design we see everywhere we look? Exactly.
NOTHING cannot create ANYTHING.

And there is no more ridiculous an argument than stuff just created itself! Without reason or purpose. That is simply not what we see.
And that's why real scientists today are rejecting the religion of evolution and embracing what the data is telling them. Intelligent Design.
It's so painfully obvious that it's astounding.
That the scientifically ignorant and uneducated still cling to their completely disproven religion of evolution.

Not my opinion. Scientific fact. Design. Not a mathematically disproven series of remarkable "accidents". Check it out.
You'll be glad you did. Science is your friend. :)

Josef #fundie jasonlisle.com

The Bible also provides the foundation for modern science. In order to even be able to do a scientific experiment, we must be able to rely on our senses, rely on logic, uniformity of nature and an objective moral standard. None of these comport with the atheistic worldview. As an evolutionist how do you know your senses are even reliable? How do you know you can rely on logic as the correct way of thinking? In a random chance universe how do you explain uniformity of nature? And how do you explain objective morality? If you don’t think there is an objective rational standard for morality, then why are you here condemning Dr. Lisle for you consider to be lying?

Franzboas #racist en.wikipedia.org

Jews are, however, a group, and a strongly identified one. They have group interests, and those interests are sometimes at odds with those who they live amongst. As I said in my response to TFD below, this doesn't imply a conspiracy. However, it's necessary to distinguish a canard or conspiracy theory from people's factual acknowledgement of or concern with the fact that Jews were strikingly overrepresented in many communist movements.

MattMarriott #fundie christianforums.com

The greatest illuminati "science" hoax ever - revealed worldwide first by Matt Marriott

Not just another "science" hoax.
You can measure how great the hoax is. The measurement results prove it to be the greatest hoax ever.

No, not Evolution Theory, the most important hoax ever.
It is even older.

No, not Heliocentrism, the mother of all "science" hoaxes.
It is not as old.

Unlike Heliocentrism and Evolution, this hoax did not appear as the result of a new theory.
The acceptance of this hoax was
- the post-condition for the acceptance of the Heliocentic model;
- the pre-condition for the illuminati to launch the Evolution hoax.

The greatest hoax ever and the 9/11 "planes" hoax

It appeared just like the 9/11 "planes" hoax, i.e. as the result of manufactured "evidence".
Again like 9/11, the repetition technique in the context of the BIG LIE framework (9/11: using not only one but four "jets" to cover-up the hoax; second "impact" constantly repeated in the first hours) was used.
Like 9/11, the full story of this hoax is revealed first worldwide by Matt Marriott.

But what is probably the most incredible analogy with 9/11 is the "thousands of eyewitnesses" aspect, where 9/11 pales in comparison with this hoax ...

To get the hoax's name, just fill the blanks below:

[_ _ _ _ _ _ _] [_ _ _ _ _ _ax]

It should not be difficult to name it, right?

Institute for Noetic Sciences #fundie noetic.org

What are the Noetic Sciences?

no•et•ic: From the Greek noesis / noetikos, meaning inner wisdom, direct knowing, or subjective understanding.

sci•ence: Systems of acquiring knowledge that use observation, experimentation, and replication to describe and explain natural phenomena.

no•et•ic sci•ences: A multidisciplinary field that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the full range of human experiences.

For centuries, philosophers from Plato forward have used the term noetic to refer to experiences that pioneering psychologist William James (1902) described as:

…states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority.

The term noetic sciences was first coined in 1973 when the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was founded by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who two years earlier became the sixth man to walk on the moon. Ironically, it was the trip back home that Mitchell recalls most, during which he felt a profound sense of universal connectedness—what he later described as a samadhi experience. In Mitchell’s own words, “The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes. . . .The knowledge came to me directly.”

It led him to conclude that reality is more complex, subtle, and mysterious than conventional science had led him to believe. Perhaps a deeper understanding of consciousness (inner space) could lead to a new and expanded understanding of reality in which objective and subjective, outer and inner, are understood as co-equal aspects of the miracle of being. It was this intersection of knowledge systems that led Dr. Mitchell to launch the interdisciplinary field of noetic sciences.

Why Consciousness Matters

con•scious•ness: In our work, personal consciousness is awareness—how an individual perceives and interprets his or her environment, including beliefs, intentions, attitudes, emotions, and all aspects of his or her subjective experience. Collective consciousness is how a group (an institution, a society, a species) perceives and translates the world around them.

con•scious•ness trans•for•ma•tion: A fundamental shift in perspective or worldview that results in an expanded understanding of self and the nature of reality.

world•view: The beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and assumptions through which we filter our understanding of the world and our place in it.

The essential hypothesis underlying the noetic sciences is simply that consciousness matters. The question is when, how, and why does it matter?

There are several ways we can know the world around us. Science focuses on external observation and is grounded in objective evaluation, measurement, and experimentation. This is useful in increasing objectivity and reducing bias and inaccuracy as we interpret what we observe. But another way of knowing is subjective or internal, including gut feelings, intuition, and hunches—the way you know you love your children, for example, or experiences you have that cannot be explained or proven “rationally” but feel absolutely real. This way of knowing is what we call noetic.

From a purely materialist, mechanistic perspective, all subjective—noetic—experience arises from physical matter, and consciousness is simply a byproduct of brain and body processes. But there is another perspective, suggesting a far more complex relationship between the physical and the nonphysical. The noetic sciences apply a scientific lens to the study of subjective experience and to ways that consciousness may influence the physical world, and the data to date have raised plenty of provocative new questions.

IONS sees noetic science as a growing field of valid inquiry. Every new discovery leads to more questions as the mystery of human consciousness slowly unfolds. In the areas of consciousness and healing, extended human capacities, and worldview transformation, IONS keeps pushing the boundaries of what we know, advancing our shared understanding of consciousness and why it matters in the 21st century.

Andrew Pontbriand #conspiracy resistancejournals.com

Texas Under Attack!?! Gunfights, Jade Helm, and EMP’s

Andrew Pontbriand

June 14, 2015

Fear mongering. It is an unacceptable form of journalism or reporting used to strike fear into a target audience. However, how do we distinguish between fear mongering, and a legitimate warning based on evidence and fact, that generates fear simply due to the nature of information.

This report to some may be interpreted as an attempt to “fear monger,” or sensationalise, however that’s just not the case. With events that have already occurred, are occurring now, (some of which have been ignored or buried in the news) or about to unfold, it is our duty to report troubling news. Texas, the Lone Star State has a revolutionary history second to none. Texas fought for it’s independence once already, joined the Confederated States in the Civil War, and has threatened seccesion many times. So, what is the point?

Texas has been targeted lately, over and over again. Here is just a RECENT timeline, just showing events in 2015 alone.

•ISIS Claims it will Attack Texas
•May 3rd Charlie Hebdo Staged Attack ?verified false flag
•ISIS “Takes Responsibility,” for Hebdo Attack
•Texas Passes Bill to Repatriate $1Billion in Gold/State Bullion
•Dallas Police False Flag
•Website Claims “EMP Attack in Texas on June 15
•June 15th is the Start of Jade Helm

There seems to be an odd, re-occurring pattern that is ongoing, in regards to Texas. Speaking in private to a few well-known researchers of geopolitics and understand domestic insurrection all seem to agree, that Texas would be the first State to form a unified front, or the first to be attacked.

Jade Helm

Out of what is listed above, the only one that makes the cut for likeliness to happen, is Jade Helm. Many fear that the “military drill” is going to go live and quickly escalate into full-scale Martial Law. This is virtually identical to what happened during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. That is, the attacks happened while NORAD was simultaneously running a live drill that precisely mimicked the events that played out. Coincidence?

Distractions

Most Americans have absolutely no idea that Texas signed a bill overwhelmingly to have $1billion in gold repatriated in a Texas Bullion Depository. The bill provides for legal recognition of gold and silver for legal tender. I reported on this last night, as we were all distracted by then false flag shooting in Texas.

Was that why they used this type of Hebdo style production? Both to show how evil it is Texans can own, and carry guns, and to use the Hegelian Dialectic to justify militarized police?

According to an interview done by Kerry Cassidy, a “friend of hers” gave her a warning about an impending EMP attack, set for none other than June 15, 2015.

secret wiki #conspiracy #magick secret-wiki.de

Magic works and is used in many ways, at times unconsciously, at times deliberately.

Prestidigitators, stage magicians and charlatans contributed to the image of magic being banished into the realm of illusion, tricks, deception, sorcery and fairy tales. With this, more or less fear was created or control over magic conveyed through exposing tricks.

The original meaning and the sense of magic were lost in the process. For distinction, Aleister Crowley introduced the term "magick" to distinguish stage magic, illusionists and pseudo-sorcerers from real sorcerers. This article is about this kind of magic, as there is no German equivalent for the English word "magick".

imageThe four elements and the magic mirror are fundamental to magic.

Is magic real?

The average citizen does not "believe" in it or at least speaks little about it, but an astonishing number of people practice magic.

It is important to realise that magic works and is used on a daily base. Its power and its use can be great and delivers tangible results, although only few can actually manifest it on a large scale. But every disciplined mind can learn and practice it.

Some of the real practitioners do not want the masses to know that and how well magic works because they would lose this advantage in power. Therefore, they spread the belief that it is nothing but tricks and magic effects are the delusions of crackpots.

Recently, the knowledge of magic and its effects has been returning more and more to normal society, but generally, it is not talked about much.
During Christianisation, this folk-knowledge was lost and remains only rudimentary in wisdoms. Thus it was forc-ed to only be preserved and practiced in secret societies or family tradition. Since recent decades, ever better literature on the topic is becoming available, but the area is still strongly dominated by half-knowledge.

The very materialistically or scientifically socialised part of the populace stays firm in their belief in the non-existance of magic or connect magic with superstitious practices divorced from reality.

Demarcations

With “magical thinking”, which is also a stage of development in toddlers, one refers cause and effect selectively to oneself. This means they produce a strong correlation between his own powers of realisation and an event that could just as well have happened completely independently of his thoughts. Experience is dominated by egocentrism and the impression of being the centre of Creation, the point of origin of the universe’s power of Creation.

Such thought-magic is considered a pathological loss of reality in the manic phase in Manic-Depressives. Magical thinking however has another foundation, than gaining awareness and thus is only very limited in its effectiveness (generally just self harming).

Blessings are not viewed in the sense of magic. Here, the focus lies on the Divine, not on the own goals and intentions.

Healers can use magical rituals.

Fundamentals

Magic is the art and the science of bringing about changes through altered states of consciousness in accord with the will.
- Frater V.D.

Magic is the wilful influence over reality or as Bardon writes, the sacred science of all knowledge.
It works through various techniques to accomplish definitive goals. In this, magic applies the general Laws of the Mind.

Here, magic is a took and, taken by itself, completely neutral. It is just an option which the practitioner can use in any way. It can be compared with a knife, with which one can prepare food or harm someone else. Its effectiveness can be enormous with good magical schooling and correct usage and should not be underestimated.

A large part of the known effects of magic is based on strong projection of the magician upon the energy field of the addressed one (others or himself), so that his sensations and perception are altered. In this, the self-energy is frequently augmented through rituals or external energies. This can also lead to altered resonances within the different energy bodies of a person that attract corresponding experiences, for example what was once commonly known as a “bad luck” curse.

The options for working magic are diverse, for example:
* Training intuition and willpower
* Energetic work (for example with the 4 elements, energetic body training)
* Thought concentration and focussing
* Working with the subconsciousness
* Usage of foreign energies and powers (angels, (Light-) Masters, demons etc.)
* Working with symbols, archetypes and rituals (candles, visualisations, certain sequences of motion) or usage of amulets
* Spells of banishment or magic, invocations
* Tarot can be used as a way of magical initiation, but the Tarot is not to be equated to magic.
* Esoterics work magic, as long as the intention is to influence or manipulate reality energetically or through willpower. Generally speaking, esotericism is a path to enlightenment and does not contain magic. It does, however deal with the same foundational principles that form the foundation of magic, and for this reason it can result from it. The magical path to enlightenment is more concrete and practical in focus than esotericism, which is focussed on developing consciousness in any form.

An important principle of working magic is formulated in ”To Know, To Dare, To Will, To Be Silent”, which is one of the reasons why only few practitioners speak about it. Silence is part of the power of the manifestation, whereas speaking can disperse this power and expose it to opposed forces.

The practice of magic means to influence, to deliberately change things through force of will and at one's own discretion. Characteristically, the main focus here lies in the power of the human will – as opposed to ways of knowing that merely recognise that which is without using this insight: here, the usage is left to the Divine and techniques that optimise the bodily/subtle-energy conditions for the purpose of perceiving personal enlightenment (such as Yoga) are not generally understood as magic/magical forces.

More on occult, magical abilities also in the article Esotericism,
more on techniques in the article Energetic Self-Protection
more on the functional foundations in the article Laws of Life
and even more on magic in a FAQ on magieausbildung.de

White and Black Magic
White magic refers to magic used to heal or to help others. It also includes using magic to protect oneself or others. The intention is to use Light and “good”, benevolent forces. Most witch-cults call themselves white-magical. White magic is also used for the purpose of enlightenment.

Black magic refers to magic used in the pursuit of selfish and self-centered goals, for example in order to gain more money, property, power and success. It is seen as acceptable or even intended that others are harmed or attacked by this. A famous example are voodoo techniques that these days are still used mainly in African countries. Black-magical practices are mainly based on greed, envy, jealousy, anger/hatred and/or lust for power.

From this area stem the attempts to oblige foreign or entire societies into certain rituals to draw power from them. Often enough, these tactics are successful. It is common to wrap dark magic in a nice package and thus deceive. Not everyone who enters dressed in White has honest intentions. Black magic in particular likes to use deception and illusion and does so extensively. Furthermore, it leaves its followers in ignorance and wins through intimidation: in Adepts (those learning the way of magic), to stay dominant, and in the deceived “good” people (who frequently do not have any idea who they serve) simply so that they do what they would not do otherwise.

Tarot Card The Magician
imageThe Sorcerer of the Crowley Tarot in his three manifestations

In the Crowley Tarot Deck, publisher Urania has added all three versions of Frieda Harris’s drawings of the Magicician: the white magician (golden, left), the black magician (with a dark shadow in the background, right), and the magician transcendent (the juggler, at the centre. Crowley, however, had only authorised the sorcerer transcendent back then, which was the form to strive for.

The white and black magician are part of the dual system, of the dual plane, whereas the juggler has integrated and transcended the dual magical forces. He can use both forces – not according to his own volition but in accordance to the divine will.

Transcended dealing with the magical abilities is attributed to spiritual Masters and points to a difference between spiritual Masters and magicians.

Protection Against Magic
The best defence against unwanted magical influences is gaining awareness of the way magic works
In the article Energetic Self-Protection, various options for protecting oneself and locations are described. For a start, everyone can pay attention to the resonance. The ones most likely to deal with deliberate magical ham are people who work magic themselves or who did it in a potential previous life. Old connection can appear or be activated during certain procedures or stages of development. Especially white-magically oriented people frequently challenge nether spirits in polarity. This can lead to the magician being disturbed or influenced by their dark power or to the spirits trying to subjugate him.

imageNo one should move glasses, conjure spirits/ghosts or “play” with comparable things for amusement. If it is done “correctly”, the summoned and unused entity will easily turn against the practitioner.
When a dark guest enters the channel in an ill-conceived attempt at channelling, it is not trivial to get rid of him and successful help is rare.

Ultimately, such “games” result in an increased resonance towards magic of the lower or dark kind, which follows one like a shadow and adds a subliminal bad taste to all good works.

* Against general magical mass-manipulation, a clear mind, a lot of water and a healthy body help. It is always the unaware and weak minds that are susceptible.
* In clubs, it can be problematic if one is the target of magic while weakened (for example by alcohol, tiredness, consumption of drugs). In such a case, the magic can even be effective afterwards, but is normally resolved with a lot of pure water and self-centering. In exceptional cases, external help ie needed, for example by an essence.
* Similarly, harmful energies can be taken with oneself unconsciously at mass events, especially in places where magic is performed in ignorance. Unfortunately, this very fact is not known to the visitors of such events. Then this can also include smaller meetings. The knowledge on how to protect oneself or a good connection to the Divine (or to a divine person) are the best companions.

Positions of power can be named as a further endangered group. In such circles – reportedly in lodges – black magic is used frequently to accomplish economical goals.

Where are magical procedures performed?
* Magically effective procedures and rituals are widely used in religions. This frequently happens without the faithful being aware of it, via rituals and prayers.
* The hypnosis of today supposedly originated in the magical tradition as well, it works with the Subconsciousness and influences it.
* Many circles, lodges, neopagans and cults such as witches practice magic and teach it. Among them, most of them are likely honourable and harmless.
* Tantra, which more and more people are discovering for themselves, was original a spiritual method of enlightenment. However, Tantra is also used frequently magically for the manifestation and deepening of a bond with the wish-partner. When used with this (manipulative) purpose, Tantra counts as sexual magic. As targeted built-up sexual energy has a strong effect, it was used against demons in the past. However, it is advised against manipulation of the Kundalini energy because it can also cause damage if impurities are present.
One example of a magical sexual procedure is here – (in English) – with further types of magic here. (Submitter’s note: Links broken)
* Magical techniques are also used for manipulation of the masses.
* For example through religious symbols on vertices of power that change the base structure of the regional energy. (Christian crosses on the summits of mountains, energy intersections and churches, with the effect of binding the populace to the material)
* Symbols of corporations, ideologies and flags
* Modern advertising, as it utilises originally magical ways to deliver information (advertising) into the Subconsciousness. This is exactly what a magician does with himself, it is just that he determines the content and thus the goal himself.
* The massive proliferation, for example printed-on skulls and bones on many products have magical meaning in regards to the manipulation of society as well (corresponds to Saturn and among other things the preservation of existing structures)

Magic & (World) Politics
Secret, very powerful lodges work in the background and supposedly influence politics, banks and the economy. It is known that very many politicians, magnates, nobility, musicians and bankers in some orders and lodges. At times, they may be harmless, at times subverted and at times indeed part of a powerful network of lodges.

Whether secret lodges do indeed rule the world, but some things indicate their heavy influence. Especially the fact that this topic is avoided in movies and media is conspicuous. In documentaries, it is mostly Rosicrucians and Freemasons are portrayed (for example the membership of most US presidents in the Masonic Lodge). It is at least within the realm of possibility and should therefore worth consideration.
For the study of this topic, the following literature could be helpful:
* Banks, Bread and Bombs – Volume 1 by Stefan Erdmann
* Secret Societies and Their Power in the 20th Century 1 & 2 by Jan van Helsing
* Secret Societies 3rd War of the Freemasons by Jan van Helsing
* And The Truth Shall Set You Free – Part 1 by David Icke
* 334 ‰ Lie by H.M. v. Stuhl

Learning Magic
It is harder to cast magic than to protect oneself against it. It requires disciplines and constant practice, as well as continuous development of character. Another perspective assumes that we only remember, skills we already mastered in earlier lives or as a soul.
The practice of magical procedures is always tied into development of character and a form of therapy.
The short, easy way, is generally called the dark one.

imageIn black magic circles, the learning one (adept) will normally surrender his control completely and entrusts himself completely to a master or to a community. Those who want to leave such a circle apparently frequently suffer worldly or magically induced accidents.
*Various circles offer magical training. As most of them are structured pyramidically, the initiate does not know what the intentions of those ranking above him truly are. Disciples are often monopolised and pay either with (a lot of) money or with his energy and magical work. Interested people should therefore inform themselves in advance and select carefully.
* There are small circles and societies, some of them are public or can be found with a serious search.
* One core are the Laws which should be part of everyone’s basic knowledge and are by themselves completely uncontroversial. These laws, however, also find application within magic, as they represent an instruction for reality.
*Books inform about the methods up to self-training via literature.

* School of High Magic by Frater V.D.
* The Way To The True Adept by Franz Bardon
* Transcendental Magic: Dogma and Ritual of High Magic by Eliphas Levi

Original German Magie wirkt und findet in vielfacher Weise Anwendung, teils unbewusst, teils absichtlich.

Taschenspieler, Bühnenzauberer und Scharlatane haben dazu beigetragen, das Bild von Magie in das Reich von Illusion, Tricks, Manipulation, Betrug, Zauberei und Märchen zu verbannen. Damit wurde mehr oder weniger Angst erzeugt oder durch Entlarvung von Tricks eine Beherrschbarkeit von Magie vermittelt.

Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung und der Sinn von Magie gingen dabei verloren. Zur Abgrenzung wurde daher von Aleister Crowley der Begriff "magick" eingeführt, der Bühnenzauberei, Illusionisten und Pseudomagier von echten Magiern unterscheiden sollte. Der Artikel handelt von dieser Art Magie, wobei es keine deutsche Entsprechung gibt für das englische Wort "Magick".
Magie
Die vier Elemente & der magische Spiegel sind Grundlage der Magie

Gibt es Magie wirklich?

Der normale Bürger "glaubt" nicht daran oder spricht zumindest kaum darüber, jedoch wenden erstaunlich viele Menschen magische Praktiken an.

Es ist wichtig zu erkennen, dass Magie wirkt und täglich angewendet wird. Ihre Kraft und ihr Nutzen kann groß sein und liefert handfeste Ergebnisse, wenn dies auch nur wenige in großen Ausmaßen manifestieren können. Doch jeder disziplinierte Geist kann sie erlernen und anwenden.

Manche der tatsächlichen Anwender möchten nicht, dass die breite Masse erfährt, dass und wie wirksam Magie ist, weil sie dann diesen Machtvorteil verlieren würden. Deshalb verbreiten sie, es seien nur Tricks und Spinner würden sich magische Wirkungen einbilden.

Neuerdings kommt das Wissen um die Magie und ihre Wirkungen mehr und mehr wieder in die normale Gesellschaft zurück, dabei wird in der Regel wenig darüber gesprochen.
Durch die Christianisierung ging dieses Volkswissen verloren und ist nur noch rudimentär in Weisheiten verfügbar. Dadurch wurde es gezwungener-maßen, nur in geheimen Vereinigungen oder durch familiäre Überlieferung gepflegt, benutzt und erhalten. Seit einigen Jahrzehnten ist immer bessere Literatur zum Thema erhältlich, trotzdem herrscht noch viel Halbwissen in diesem Bereich.

Der sehr materialistisch oder wissenschaftlich geprägte Teil der Bevölkerung hält an der Nichtexistenz von Magie fest oder verbindet Magie mit realitätsfernen, abergläubischen Praktiken.

Wo wohnen die Dämonen?: Was Sie schon immer über Magie wissen wollten* von Frater V.D.

Abgrenzungen

Beim "magischen Denken", das auch eine Entwicklungsphase des Kleinkindes ist, bezieht der Mensch selektiv Ursache und Wirkung auf sich selbst. Das heißt, er stellt einen extremen Zusammenhang her zwischen seinen eigenen Verwirklichungskräften und einem Geschehnis, was ebenso-gut völlig unabhängig von seinem Denken passiert sein kann. Das Erleben wird beherrscht von Egozentrik und dem Eindruck, der Mittelpunkt der Schöpfung, der Ausgangspunkt der Schöpferkraft des Universums zu sein.

Als krankhafter Realitätsverlust gilt solche Gedankenmagie in der manischen Phase von Manisch-Depressiven. Magisches Denken hat jedoch eine andere Grundlage, als die Bewusstwerdung und ist daher nur sehr begrenzt wirksam (eher nur selbst-schädigend).

Segnungen werden nicht im Sinne von Magie betrachtet. Hier steht das Göttliche im Vordergrund, nicht die eigenen Ziele und Absichten.

Heiler können magische Rituale benutzen.
Grundlagen

Magie ist die Kunst und die Wissenschaft, mit Hilfe von veränderten Bewusstseinszuständen im Einklang mit dem Willen Veränderungen herbeizuführen.
Frater V.D.


Magie ist die willentliche Beeinflussung der Wirklichkeit oder wie Bardon schreibt, die heilige Wissenschaft allen Wissens[1]
Sie arbeitet mit verschiedenen Techniken, um definierte Ziele zu erreichen. Die Magie wendet dabei die allgemeinen Gesetzmäßigkeiten des Geistes an.

Die Magie ist dabei ein Werkzeug und für sich genommen völlig neutral. Sie ist nur eine Möglichkeit, welcher der Ausübende auf jede Art nutzen kann. Vergleichbar mit einem Messer, mit welchem man Nahrung zubereiten oder einem anderen schaden kann. Ihre Wirksamkeit kann bei guter magischer Schulung und korrekter Anwendung enorm sein und sollte nicht unterschätzt werden.

Ein Großteil der bekannten Wirkung von Magie beruht auf starker Projektion des Magiers auf das Energiefeld des Adressierten (andere oder er selbst), sodass dessen Empfindung und Wahrnehmung verändert wird. Die Eigenenergie wird dabei gerne mittels Ritualen oder Fremdenergien verstärkt. Das kann in den verschiedenen Energiekörpern einer Person auch veränderte Resonanzen hervorrufen, die entsprechende Erfahrungen anziehen, wie zum Beispiel früher landläufig ein sogenannter "Pech"-Fluch.
Hier beruht die gemachte Erfahrung nach dem Gesetz der Anziehung (Resonanz-Gesetz) nicht auf eigenen Glaubenssätzen sondern auf projizierten, in die Aura platzierten Elementen (Introjekte).

Es gibt vielfältige Möglichkeiten, magisch zu arbeiten, wie zum Beispiel:

Intuition und Willenskraft schulen
Energetisches Arbeiten (zum Beispiel mit den 4 Elementen, energetische Körperschulung)
Gedankenkonzentration und Fokussierung
Arbeiten mit dem Unterbewusstsein
Nutzen fremder Energien und Mächte (Engel, (Licht-) Meister, Dämonen u.ä.)
Arbeiten mit Symbolen, Archetypen und Ritualen (Kerzen, Visualisierungen, bestimmte Bewegungsabfolgen) oder Verwendung von Amuletten
Bann- oder Zaubersprüche, Anrufungen (Invokationen)
Tarot kann als magischer Einweihungsweg Verwendung finden, doch ist das Tarot nicht mit Magie gleichzusetzen.
Esoteriker arbeiten magisch, sofern die Absicht verfolgt wird, energetisch oder mit Willenskraft, die Wirklichkeit zu beeinflussen oder zu manipulieren. Grundsätzlich ist die Esoterik ein Erkenntnisweg und beinhaltet keine Magie. Jedoch befasst sie sich mit denselben Grundprinzipien, die der Magie zugrunde liegen, weshalb es sich daraus ergeben kann. Der magische Erkenntnisweg ist konkreter & praktischer angelegt als die Esoterik, die sich auf Bewusstseinsentwicklung ausrichtet, auf jedwede Art und Weise.

Ein wichtiger Grundsatz der magischen Arbeit formuliert sich in "Wisse, Wage, Wolle, Schweige", was mit dazu führt, dass nur wenige Ausübende darüber sprechen. Das Schweigen gehört zur Kraft der Manifestation, während das Sprechen diese Kraft zerstreuen und Gegenkräften aussetzen würde.

Die Anwendung von Magie bedeutet, zu beeinflussen, gezielt Dinge durch Willenskraft und nach eigenem Ermessen zu verändern. Kennzeichnend ist hierbei der Hauptfokus auf die Macht des menschlichen Willens - im Gegensatz zu Erkenntniswegen, die lediglich das anerkennen, was ist, ohne die Erkenntnis zu benutzen: die Verwendung wird hier dem Göttlichen überlassen und Techniken, die die körperlichen/feinstofflichen Bedingungen zur Wahrnehmung der eigenen Erkenntnis optimieren (wie Yoga), werden im Allgemeinen nicht als Magie bzw. magische Kräfte verstanden.

Mehr zu okkulten, magischen Fähigkeiten auch im Artikel Esoterik,
mehr zu Praktiken im Artikel Energetischer Selbstschutz
mehr zu funktionellen Grundlagen im Artikel Lebensgesetze
und noch mehr zu Magie in einem FAQ von magieausbildung.de
Weiße und Schwarze Magie

Von weißer Magie wird gesprochen, wenn damit geheilt oder anderen geholfen wird. Auch die Anwendung zum Schutz für sich selbst oder von anderen zählt dazu. Die Absicht ist, Licht und "gute", wohlwollende Kräfte zu nutzen. Die meisten Hexen-Kulte bezeichnen sich als weiß-magisch. Weiße Magie wird auch zu Erkenntniszwecken genutzt.

Von schwarzer Magie wird gesprochen, wenn eigennützige und eigenwillige Ziele verfolgt werden, wie beispielsweise mehr Geld, Besitz, Macht und Erfolg zu erhalten. Es wird in Kauf genommen oder gar beabsichtigt, dabei anderen zu schaden oder anzugreifen. Ein bekanntes Beispiel dafür sind Voodoo-Praktiken, die heute noch hauptsächlich in afrikanischen Ländern praktiziert werden. Die Basis schwarz-magischer Praktiken ist im wesentlichen Gier, Neid, Eifersucht, Ärger/Hass, und/oder Machtstreben.

Aus diesem Bereich kommen die Versuche, fremde oder ganze Gesellschaften auf bestimmte Rituale einzuschwören um daraus Energie zu schöpfen. Oft genug sind diese Taktiken erfolgreich. Es ist gängige Praxis, dunkle Magie in schöne Verpackung zu schlagen und damit zu blenden. Nicht jeder, der Weiß gekleidet daher kommt, verfolgt hehre Ziele.
Gerade die schwarze Magie arbeitet gerne und ausgiebig mit Täuschung und Blendwerk. Überdies lässt sie ihr Gefolge gerne in Unkenntnis und gewinnt durch Beängstigung: bei Adepten (lernende des magischen Weges), um überlegen zu bleiben und bei den geblendeten "guten" Menschen (welche oft nicht einmal ahnen, wem sie dienen) schlichtweg, damit sie tun, was sie sonst nicht täten.
Tarotkarte Der Magier
Der Magier des Crowley-Tarot in seinen drei Erscheinungs-Formen

Im Crowley-Tarot-Deck hat der Urania-Verlag seit 1986 alle drei Versionen von Frieda Harris' Zeichnung des Magieres beigefügt: den weißen Magier (goldfarben, links), den schwarzen Magier (mit einem dunklem Schatten im Hintergrund, rechts) und den transzendenten Magier (den Jongleur, in der Mitte). Crowley hatte damals jedoch nur den transzendenten Magier autorisiert, welches die anzustrebende Form war.

Der weiße und der schwarze Magier sind Teil des dualen Systems, der dualen Ebene, während der Jongleur die dualen magischen Kräfte integriert und transzendiert hat. Er kann beide Kräfte verwenden - nicht nach Eigenwillen sondern im Einklang mit dem göttlichen Willen.

Der transzendierte Umgang mit den magischen Fähigkeiten wird spirituellen Meistern zugeschrieben und weist auf einen Unterschied hin zwischen spirituellen Meistern und Magiern.
Schutz vor Magie

Der beste Schutz gegen ungewollte magische Beeinflussung ist die Bewusstwerdung, wie Magie wirkt.

Im Artikel Energetischer Selbstschutz werden verschiedene Möglichkeiten beschrieben sich und Räumlichkeiten zu schützen.
Grundsätzlich kann jeder die Resonanz beachten. Wer am ehesten mit bewussten magischen Schädigungen zu tun hat, sind Menschen, welche selbst magisch arbeiten oder dies in einem möglichen Vorleben taten. Alte Verbindungen können auftauchen oder aktiviert werden bei bestimmten Praktiken oder Entwicklungsstufen. Besonders weiß-magisch orientierte Menschen fordern in der Polarität gern niedere Geister heraus. Dies kann dazu führen, dass der Magier von deren dunkler Macht gestört oder beeinflusst wird oder die Geister versuchen, ihn zu unterwerfen .
Ausrufezeichen.png
Niemand sollte zur Belustigung Gläser-rücken, Geister beschwören oder vergleichbares "spielen". Wenn es "richtig" gemacht wird, richtet sich die gerufene und ungenutzte Wesenheit leicht gegen den Anwender.

Kommt bei unüberlegten Channeling-Versuchen ein dunkler Gast in die Leitung, wird man diesen nicht mehr ohne weiteres los und erfolgreiche Hilfe ist rar.
Letztlich entsteht durch solche "Spiele" eine verstärke Resonanz zur Magie der niederen oder dunklen Art, die einem wie ein Schatten folgt und allem gutem Handeln einen unterschwelligen schalen Beigeschmack beifügt.

Gegen allgemeine magische Massenbeeinflussung hilft ein klarer Geist, viel Wasser und ein gesunder Körper. Anfällig sind immer eher die unbewussten und schwachen Geister.
Problematisch kann es in Clubs sein, wenn man geschwächt (zum Beispiel durch Alkohol, Müdigkeit, Drogenkonsum) Ziel von Magie wird. In so einem Fall kann die Magie sogar noch nachher wirksam sein, erledigt sich aber in der Regel durch viel reines Wasser und Selbstzentrierung. Im Ausnahmefall braucht es fremde Hilfe, zum Beispiel durch eine Essenz
Ebenso können durch Massenveranstaltungen schädigende Energien unbewusst mitgenommen werden, besonders an Orten, an welchen in Unkenntnis magisch gewirkt wird. Leider ist es genau dann den Besuchern solcher Veranstaltungen häufig nicht bewusst. Das kann dann auch kleinere Treffen mit einschließen. Das Wissen darum, wie man sich schützt oder eine gute Anbindung ans Göttliche (oder an eine göttliche Person) sind die besten Begleiter.

Als gefährdete Gruppe können noch Machtpositionen genannt werden. In diesen Kreisen wird - angeblich von Logen - öfter schwarze Magie angewandt, um wirtschaftliche Ziele zu erreichen.
Wo werden magische Praktiken ausgeübt?

Magisch wirksame Praktiken und Rituale werden vielfach in Religionen angewendet. Dabei geschieht dies für Gläubige häufig unbewusst, durch verschiedene Rituale und Gebete.
Auch die heutige Hypnose soll aus der magischen Tradition entstammen, sie arbeitet mit dem Unterbewusstsein und beeinflusst dieses.
Viele Zirkel, Logen, Neuheiden und Kulte wie Hexen wenden Magie an und lehren sie. Unter diesen sind wohl die meisten ehrenhaft und harmlos.
Die "Macht der Gedanken" zu nutzen ist eine magische Praktik, da sie darauf abzielt, die Wirklichkeit über den Hebel der Gedankenkraft zu beeinflussen.
Tantra, das immer mehr Menschen für sich entdecken, war ursprünglich eine spirituelle Erkenntnis-Praktik. Tantra wird aber vielfach auch magisch angewendet zur Manifestation und Vertiefung einer Bindung an den Wunsch-Partner. Mit diesem (manipulativen) Zweck ausgeübt wird Tantra zu Sexualmagie gezählt. D

secret wiki #magick #conspiracy secret-wiki.de

Magic works and is used in many ways, at times unconsciously, at times deliberately.

Prestidigitators, stage magicians and charlatans contributed to the image of magic being banished into the realm of illusion, tricks, deception, sorcery and fairy tales. With this, more or less fear was created or control over magic conveyed through exposing tricks.

The original meaning and the sense of magic were lost in the process. For distinction, Aleister Crowley introduced the term "magick" to distinguish stage magic, illusionists and pseudo-sorcerers from real sorcerers. This article is about this kind of magic, as there is no German equivalent for the English word "magick".

imageThe four elements and the magic mirror are fundamental to magic.

Is magic real?

The average citizen does not "believe" in it or at least speaks little about it, but an astonishing number of people practice magic.

It is important to realise that magic works and is used on a daily base. Its power and its use can be great and delivers tangible results, although only few can actually manifest it on a large scale. But every disciplined mind can learn and practice it.

Some of the real practitioners do not want the masses to know that and how well magic works because they would lose this advantage in power. Therefore, they spread the belief that it is nothing but tricks and magic effects are the delusions of crackpots.

Recently, the knowledge of magic and its effects has been returning more and more to normal society, but generally, it is not talked about much.
During Christianisation, this folk-knowledge was lost and remains only rudimentary in wisdoms. Thus it was forc-ed to only be preserved and practiced in secret societies or family tradition. Since recent decades, ever better literature on the topic is becoming available, but the area is still strongly dominated by half-knowledge.

The very materialistically or scientifically socialised part of the populace stays firm in their belief in the non-existance of magic or connect magic with superstitious practices divorced from reality.

Demarcations

With “magical thinking”, which is also a stage of development in toddlers, one refers cause and effect selectively to oneself. This means they produce a strong correlation between his own powers of realisation and an event that could just as well have happened completely independently of his thoughts. Experience is dominated by egocentrism and the impression of being the centre of Creation, the point of origin of the universe’s power of Creation.

Such thought-magic is considered a pathological loss of reality in the manic phase in Manic-Depressives. Magical thinking however has another foundation, than gaining awareness and thus is only very limited in its effectiveness (generally just self harming).

Blessings are not viewed in the sense of magic. Here, the focus lies on the Divine, not on the own goals and intentions.

Healers can use magical rituals.

Fundamentals

Magic is the art and the science of bringing about changes through altered states of consciousness in accord with the will.
- Frater V.D.

Magic is the wilful influence over reality or as Bardon writes, the sacred science of all knowledge.
It works through various techniques to accomplish definitive goals. In this, magic applies the general Laws of the Mind.

Here, magic is a took and, taken by itself, completely neutral. It is just an option which the practitioner can use in any way. It can be compared with a knife, with which one can prepare food or harm someone else. Its effectiveness can be enormous with good magical schooling and correct usage and should not be underestimated.

A large part of the known effects of magic is based on strong projection of the magician upon the energy field of the addressed one (others or himself), so that his sensations and perception are altered. In this, the self-energy is frequently augmented through rituals or external energies. This can also lead to altered resonances within the different energy bodies of a person that attract corresponding experiences, for example what was once commonly known as a “bad luck” curse.

The options for working magic are diverse, for example:
* Training intuition and willpower
* Energetic work (for example with the 4 elements, energetic body training)
* Thought concentration and focussing
* Working with the subconsciousness
* Usage of foreign energies and powers (angels, (Light-) Masters, demons etc.)
* Working with symbols, archetypes and rituals (candles, visualisations, certain sequences of motion) or usage of amulets
* Spells of banishment or magic, invocations
* Tarot can be used as a way of magical initiation, but the Tarot is not to be equated to magic.
* Esoterics work magic, as long as the intention is to influence or manipulate reality energetically or through willpower. Generally speaking, esotericism is a path to enlightenment and does not contain magic. It does, however deal with the same foundational principles that form the foundation of magic, and for this reason it can result from it. The magical path to enlightenment is more concrete and practical in focus than esotericism, which is focussed on developing consciousness in any form.

An important principle of working magic is formulated in ”To Know, To Dare, To Will, To Be Silent”, which is one of the reasons why only few practitioners speak about it. Silence is part of the power of the manifestation, whereas speaking can disperse this power and expose it to opposed forces.

The practice of magic means to influence, to deliberately change things through force of will and at one's own discretion. Characteristically, the main focus here lies in the power of the human will – as opposed to ways of knowing that merely recognise that which is without using this insight: here, the usage is left to the Divine and techniques that optimise the bodily/subtle-energy conditions for the purpose of perceiving personal enlightenment (such as Yoga) are not generally understood as magic/magical forces.

More on occult, magical abilities also in the article Esotericism,
more on techniques in the article Energetic Self-Protection
more on the functional foundations in the article Laws of Life
and even more on magic in a FAQ on magieausbildung.de

White and Black Magic
White magic refers to magic used to heal or to help others. It also includes using magic to protect oneself or others. The intention is to use Light and “good”, benevolent forces. Most witch-cults call themselves white-magical. White magic is also used for the purpose of enlightenment.

Black magic refers to magic used in the pursuit of selfish and self-centered goals, for example in order to gain more money, property, power and success. It is seen as acceptable or even intended that others are harmed or attacked by this. A famous example are voodoo techniques that these days are still used mainly in African countries. Black-magical practices are mainly based on greed, envy, jealousy, anger/hatred and/or lust for power.

From this area stem the attempts to oblige foreign or entire societies into certain rituals to draw power from them. Often enough, these tactics are successful. It is common to wrap dark magic in a nice package and thus deceive. Not everyone who enters dressed in White has honest intentions. Black magic in particular likes to use deception and illusion and does so extensively. Furthermore, it leaves its followers in ignorance and wins through intimidation: in Adepts (those learning the way of magic), to stay dominant, and in the deceived “good” people (who frequently do not have any idea who they serve) simply so that they do what they would not do otherwise.

Tarot Card The Magician
imageThe Sorcerer of the Crowley Tarot in his three manifestations

In the Crowley Tarot Deck, publisher Urania has added all three versions of Frieda Harris’s drawings of the Magicician: the white magician (golden, left), the black magician (with a dark shadow in the background, right), and the magician transcendent (the juggler, at the centre. Crowley, however, had only authorised the sorcerer transcendent back then, which was the form to strive for.

The white and black magician are part of the dual system, of the dual plane, whereas the juggler has integrated and transcended the dual magical forces. He can use both forces – not according to his own volition but in accordance to the divine will.

Transcended dealing with the magical abilities is attributed to spiritual Masters and points to a difference between spiritual Masters and magicians.

Protection Against Magic
The best defence against unwanted magical influences is gaining awareness of the way magic works
In the article Energetic Self-Protection, various options for protecting oneself and locations are described. For a start, everyone can pay attention to the resonance. The ones most likely to deal with deliberate magical ham are people who work magic themselves or who did it in a potential previous life. Old connection can appear or be activated during certain procedures or stages of development. Especially white-magically oriented people frequently challenge nether spirits in polarity. This can lead to the magician being disturbed or influenced by their dark power or to the spirits trying to subjugate him.

imageNo one should move glasses, conjure spirits/ghosts or “play” with comparable things for amusement. If it is done “correctly”, the summoned and unused entity will easily turn against the practitioner.
When a dark guest enters the channel in an ill-conceived attempt at channelling, it is not trivial to get rid of him and successful help is rare.

Ultimately, such “games” result in an increased resonance towards magic of the lower or dark kind, which follows one like a shadow and adds a subliminal bad taste to all good works.

* Against general magical mass-manipulation, a clear mind, a lot of water and a healthy body help. It is always the unaware and weak minds that are susceptible.
* In clubs, it can be problematic if one is the target of magic while weakened (for example by alcohol, tiredness, consumption of drugs). In such a case, the magic can even be effective afterwards, but is normally resolved with a lot of pure water and self-centering. In exceptional cases, external help ie needed, for example by an essence.
* Similarly, harmful energies can be taken with oneself unconsciously at mass events, especially in places where magic is performed in ignorance. Unfortunately, this very fact is not known to the visitors of such events. Then this can also include smaller meetings. The knowledge on how to protect oneself or a good connection to the Divine (or to a divine person) are the best companions.

Positions of power can be named as a further endangered group. In such covens – reportedly in lodges – black magic is used frequently to accomplish economical goals.

Where are magical procedures performed?
* Magically effective procedures and rituals are widely used in religions. This frequently happens without the faithful being aware of it, via rituals and prayers.
* The hypnosis of today supposedly originated in the magical tradition as well, it works with the Subconsciousness and influences it.
* Many covens, lodges, neopagans and cults such as witches practice magic and teach it. Among them, most of them are likely honourable and harmless.
* Tantra, which more and more people are discovering for themselves, was original a spiritual method of enlightenment. However, Tantra is also used frequently magically for the manifestation and deepening of a bond with the wish-partner. When used with this (manipulative) purpose, Tantra counts as sexual magic. As targeted built-up sexual energy has a strong effect, it was used against demons in the past. However, it is advised against manipulation of the Kundalini energy because it can also cause damage if impurities are present.
One example of a magical sexual procedure is here – (in English) – with further types of magic here. (Submitter’s note: Links broken)
* Magical techniques are also used for manipulation of the masses.
* For example through religious symbols on vertices of power that change the base structure of the regional energy. (Christian crosses on the summits of mountains, energy intersections and churches, with the effect of binding the populace to the material)
* Symbols of corporations, ideologies and flags
* Modern advertising, as it utilises originally magical ways to deliver information (advertising) into the Subconsciousness. This is exactly what a magician does with himself, it is just that he determines the content and thus the goal himself.
* The massive proliferation, for example printed-on skulls and bones on many products have magical meaning in regards to the manipulation of society as well (corresponds to Saturn and among other things the preservation of existing structures)

Magic & (World) Politics
Secret, very powerful lodges work in the background and supposedly influence politics, banks and the economy. It is known that very many politicians, magnates, nobility, musicians and bankers in some orders and lodges. At times, they may be harmless, at times subverted and at times indeed part of a powerful network of lodges.

Whether secret lodges do indeed rule the world, but some things indicate their heavy influence. Especially the fact that this topic is avoided in movies and media is conspicuous. In documentaries, it is mostly Rosicrucians and Freemasons are portrayed (for example the membership of most US presidents in the Masonic Lodge). It is at least within the realm of possibility and should therefore worth consideration.
For the study of this topic, the following literature could be helpful:
* Banks, Bread and Bombs – Volume 1 by Stefan Erdmann
* Secret Societies and Their Power in the 20th Century 1 & 2 by Jan van Helsing
* Secret Societies 3rd War of the Freemasons by Jan van Helsing
* And The Truth Shall Set You Free – Part 1 by David Icke
* 334 ‰ Lie by H.M. v. Stuhl

Learning Magic
It is harder to cast magic than to protect oneself against it. It requires disciplines and constant practice, as well as continuous development of character. Another perspective assumes that we only remember, skills we already mastered in earlier lives or as a soul.
The practice of magical procedures is always tied into development of character and a form of therapy.
The short, easy way, is generally called the dark one.

imageIn black magic covens, the learning one (adept) will normally surrender his control completely and entrusts himself completely to a master or to a community. Those who want to leave such a coven apparently frequently suffer worldly or magically induced accidents.
*Various covens offer magical training. As most of them are structured pyramidally, the initiate does not know what the intentions of those ranking above him truly are. Disciples are often monopolised and pay either with (a lot of) money or with his energy and magical work. Interested people should therefore inform themselves in advance and select carefully.
* There are small covens and societies, some of them are public or can be found with a serious search.
* One core are the Laws which should be part of everyone’s basic knowledge and are by themselves completely uncontroversial. These laws, however, also find application within magic, as they represent an instruction for reality.
*Books inform about the methods up to self-training via literature.

* School of High Magic by Frater V.D.
* The Way To The True Adept by Franz Bardon
* Transcendental Magic: Dogma and Ritual of High Magic by Eliphas Levi

Original German Magie wirkt und findet in vielfacher Weise Anwendung, teils unbewusst, teils absichtlich.

Taschenspieler, Bühnenzauberer und Scharlatane haben dazu beigetragen, das Bild von Magie in das Reich von Illusion, Tricks, Manipulation, Betrug, Zauberei und Märchen zu verbannen. Damit wurde mehr oder weniger Angst erzeugt oder durch Entlarvung von Tricks eine Beherrschbarkeit von Magie vermittelt.

Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung und der Sinn von Magie gingen dabei verloren. Zur Abgrenzung wurde daher von Aleister Crowley der Begriff "magick" eingeführt, der Bühnenzauberei, Illusionisten und Pseudomagier von echten Magiern unterscheiden sollte. Der Artikel handelt von dieser Art Magie, wobei es keine deutsche Entsprechung gibt für das englische Wort "Magick".
Magie
Die vier Elemente & der magische Spiegel sind Grundlage der Magie

Gibt es Magie wirklich?

Der normale Bürger "glaubt" nicht daran oder spricht zumindest kaum darüber, jedoch wenden erstaunlich viele Menschen magische Praktiken an.

Es ist wichtig zu erkennen, dass Magie wirkt und täglich angewendet wird. Ihre Kraft und ihr Nutzen kann groß sein und liefert handfeste Ergebnisse, wenn dies auch nur wenige in großen Ausmaßen manifestieren können. Doch jeder disziplinierte Geist kann sie erlernen und anwenden.

Manche der tatsächlichen Anwender möchten nicht, dass die breite Masse erfährt, dass und wie wirksam Magie ist, weil sie dann diesen Machtvorteil verlieren würden. Deshalb verbreiten sie, es seien nur Tricks und Spinner würden sich magische Wirkungen einbilden.

Neuerdings kommt das Wissen um die Magie und ihre Wirkungen mehr und mehr wieder in die normale Gesellschaft zurück, dabei wird in der Regel wenig darüber gesprochen.
Durch die Christianisierung ging dieses Volkswissen verloren und ist nur noch rudimentär in Weisheiten verfügbar. Dadurch wurde es gezwungener-maßen, nur in geheimen Vereinigungen oder durch familiäre Überlieferung gepflegt, benutzt und erhalten. Seit einigen Jahrzehnten ist immer bessere Literatur zum Thema erhältlich, trotzdem herrscht noch viel Halbwissen in diesem Bereich.

Der sehr materialistisch oder wissenschaftlich geprägte Teil der Bevölkerung hält an der Nichtexistenz von Magie fest oder verbindet Magie mit realitätsfernen, abergläubischen Praktiken.

Wo wohnen die Dämonen?: Was Sie schon immer über Magie wissen wollten* von Frater V.D.

Abgrenzungen

Beim "magischen Denken", das auch eine Entwicklungsphase des Kleinkindes ist, bezieht der Mensch selektiv Ursache und Wirkung auf sich selbst. Das heißt, er stellt einen extremen Zusammenhang her zwischen seinen eigenen Verwirklichungskräften und einem Geschehnis, was ebenso-gut völlig unabhängig von seinem Denken passiert sein kann. Das Erleben wird beherrscht von Egozentrik und dem Eindruck, der Mittelpunkt der Schöpfung, der Ausgangspunkt der Schöpferkraft des Universums zu sein.

Als krankhafter Realitätsverlust gilt solche Gedankenmagie in der manischen Phase von Manisch-Depressiven. Magisches Denken hat jedoch eine andere Grundlage, als die Bewusstwerdung und ist daher nur sehr begrenzt wirksam (eher nur selbst-schädigend).

Segnungen werden nicht im Sinne von Magie betrachtet. Hier steht das Göttliche im Vordergrund, nicht die eigenen Ziele und Absichten.

Heiler können magische Rituale benutzen.
Grundlagen

Magie ist die Kunst und die Wissenschaft, mit Hilfe von veränderten Bewusstseinszuständen im Einklang mit dem Willen Veränderungen herbeizuführen.
Frater V.D.


Magie ist die willentliche Beeinflussung der Wirklichkeit oder wie Bardon schreibt, die heilige Wissenschaft allen Wissens[1]
Sie arbeitet mit verschiedenen Techniken, um definierte Ziele zu erreichen. Die Magie wendet dabei die allgemeinen Gesetzmäßigkeiten des Geistes an.

Die Magie ist dabei ein Werkzeug und für sich genommen völlig neutral. Sie ist nur eine Möglichkeit, welcher der Ausübende auf jede Art nutzen kann. Vergleichbar mit einem Messer, mit welchem man Nahrung zubereiten oder einem anderen schaden kann. Ihre Wirksamkeit kann bei guter magischer Schulung und korrekter Anwendung enorm sein und sollte nicht unterschätzt werden.

Ein Großteil der bekannten Wirkung von Magie beruht auf starker Projektion des Magiers auf das Energiefeld des Adressierten (andere oder er selbst), sodass dessen Empfindung und Wahrnehmung verändert wird. Die Eigenenergie wird dabei gerne mittels Ritualen oder Fremdenergien verstärkt. Das kann in den verschiedenen Energiekörpern einer Person auch veränderte Resonanzen hervorrufen, die entsprechende Erfahrungen anziehen, wie zum Beispiel früher landläufig ein sogenannter "Pech"-Fluch.
Hier beruht die gemachte Erfahrung nach dem Gesetz der Anziehung (Resonanz-Gesetz) nicht auf eigenen Glaubenssätzen sondern auf projizierten, in die Aura platzierten Elementen (Introjekte).

Es gibt vielfältige Möglichkeiten, magisch zu arbeiten, wie zum Beispiel:

Intuition und Willenskraft schulen
Energetisches Arbeiten (zum Beispiel mit den 4 Elementen, energetische Körperschulung)
Gedankenkonzentration und Fokussierung
Arbeiten mit dem Unterbewusstsein
Nutzen fremder Energien und Mächte (Engel, (Licht-) Meister, Dämonen u.ä.)
Arbeiten mit Symbolen, Archetypen und Ritualen (Kerzen, Visualisierungen, bestimmte Bewegungsabfolgen) oder Verwendung von Amuletten
Bann- oder Zaubersprüche, Anrufungen (Invokationen)
Tarot kann als magischer Einweihungsweg Verwendung finden, doch ist das Tarot nicht mit Magie gleichzusetzen.
Esoteriker arbeiten magisch, sofern die Absicht verfolgt wird, energetisch oder mit Willenskraft, die Wirklichkeit zu beeinflussen oder zu manipulieren. Grundsätzlich ist die Esoterik ein Erkenntnisweg und beinhaltet keine Magie. Jedoch befasst sie sich mit denselben Grundprinzipien, die der Magie zugrunde liegen, weshalb es sich daraus ergeben kann. Der magische Erkenntnisweg ist konkreter & praktischer angelegt als die Esoterik, die sich auf Bewusstseinsentwicklung ausrichtet, auf jedwede Art und Weise.

Ein wichtiger Grundsatz der magischen Arbeit formuliert sich in "Wisse, Wage, Wolle, Schweige", was mit dazu führt, dass nur wenige Ausübende darüber sprechen. Das Schweigen gehört zur Kraft der Manifestation, während das Sprechen diese Kraft zerstreuen und Gegenkräften aussetzen würde.

Die Anwendung von Magie bedeutet, zu beeinflussen, gezielt Dinge durch Willenskraft und nach eigenem Ermessen zu verändern. Kennzeichnend ist hierbei der Hauptfokus auf die Macht des menschlichen Willens - im Gegensatz zu Erkenntniswegen, die lediglich das anerkennen, was ist, ohne die Erkenntnis zu benutzen: die Verwendung wird hier dem Göttlichen überlassen und Techniken, die die körperlichen/feinstofflichen Bedingungen zur Wahrnehmung der eigenen Erkenntnis optimieren (wie Yoga), werden im Allgemeinen nicht als Magie bzw. magische Kräfte verstanden.

Mehr zu okkulten, magischen Fähigkeiten auch im Artikel Esoterik,
mehr zu Praktiken im Artikel Energetischer Selbstschutz
mehr zu funktionellen Grundlagen im Artikel Lebensgesetze
und noch mehr zu Magie in einem FAQ von magieausbildung.de
Weiße und Schwarze Magie

Von weißer Magie wird gesprochen, wenn damit geheilt oder anderen geholfen wird. Auch die Anwendung zum Schutz für sich selbst oder von anderen zählt dazu. Die Absicht ist, Licht und "gute", wohlwollende Kräfte zu nutzen. Die meisten Hexen-Kulte bezeichnen sich als weiß-magisch. Weiße Magie wird auch zu Erkenntniszwecken genutzt.

Von schwarzer Magie wird gesprochen, wenn eigennützige und eigenwillige Ziele verfolgt werden, wie beispielsweise mehr Geld, Besitz, Macht und Erfolg zu erhalten. Es wird in Kauf genommen oder gar beabsichtigt, dabei anderen zu schaden oder anzugreifen. Ein bekanntes Beispiel dafür sind Voodoo-Praktiken, die heute noch hauptsächlich in afrikanischen Ländern praktiziert werden. Die Basis schwarz-magischer Praktiken ist im wesentlichen Gier, Neid, Eifersucht, Ärger/Hass, und/oder Machtstreben.

Aus diesem Bereich kommen die Versuche, fremde oder ganze Gesellschaften auf bestimmte Rituale einzuschwören um daraus Energie zu schöpfen. Oft genug sind diese Taktiken erfolgreich. Es ist gängige Praxis, dunkle Magie in schöne Verpackung zu schlagen und damit zu blenden. Nicht jeder, der Weiß gekleidet daher kommt, verfolgt hehre Ziele.
Gerade die schwarze Magie arbeitet gerne und ausgiebig mit Täuschung und Blendwerk. Überdies lässt sie ihr Gefolge gerne in Unkenntnis und gewinnt durch Beängstigung: bei Adepten (lernende des magischen Weges), um überlegen zu bleiben und bei den geblendeten "guten" Menschen (welche oft nicht einmal ahnen, wem sie dienen) schlichtweg, damit sie tun, was sie sonst nicht täten.
Tarotkarte Der Magier
Der Magier des Crowley-Tarot in seinen drei Erscheinungs-Formen

Im Crowley-Tarot-Deck hat der Urania-Verlag seit 1986 alle drei Versionen von Frieda Harris' Zeichnung des Magieres beigefügt: den weißen Magier (goldfarben, links), den schwarzen Magier (mit einem dunklem Schatten im Hintergrund, rechts) und den transzendenten Magier (den Jongleur, in der Mitte). Crowley hatte damals jedoch nur den transzendenten Magier autorisiert, welches die anzustrebende Form war.

Der weiße und der schwarze Magier sind Teil des dualen Systems, der dualen Ebene, während der Jongleur die dualen magischen Kräfte integriert und transzendiert hat. Er kann beide Kräfte verwenden - nicht nach Eigenwillen sondern im Einklang mit dem göttlichen Willen.

Der transzendierte Umgang mit den magischen Fähigkeiten wird spirituellen Meistern zugeschrieben und weist auf einen Unterschied hin zwischen spirituellen Meistern und Magiern.
Schutz vor Magie

Der beste Schutz gegen ungewollte magische Beeinflussung ist die Bewusstwerdung, wie Magie wirkt.

Im Artikel Energetischer Selbstschutz werden verschiedene Möglichkeiten beschrieben sich und Räumlichkeiten zu schützen.
Grundsätzlich kann jeder die Resonanz beachten. Wer am ehesten mit bewussten magischen Schädigungen zu tun hat, sind Menschen, welche selbst magisch arbeiten oder dies in einem möglichen Vorleben taten. Alte Verbindungen können auftauchen oder aktiviert werden bei bestimmten Praktiken oder Entwicklungsstufen. Besonders weiß-magisch orientierte Menschen fordern in der Polarität gern niedere Geister heraus. Dies kann dazu führen, dass der Magier von deren dunkler Macht gestört oder beeinflusst wird oder die Geister versuchen, ihn zu unterwerfen .
Ausrufezeichen.png
Niemand sollte zur Belustigung Gläser-rücken, Geister beschwören oder vergleichbares "spielen". Wenn es "richtig" gemacht wird, richtet sich die gerufene und ungenutzte Wesenheit leicht gegen den Anwender.

Kommt bei unüberlegten Channeling-Versuchen ein dunkler Gast in die Leitung, wird man diesen nicht mehr ohne weiteres los und erfolgreiche Hilfe ist rar.
Letztlich entsteht durch solche "Spiele" eine verstärke Resonanz zur Magie der niederen oder dunklen Art, die einem wie ein Schatten folgt und allem gutem Handeln einen unterschwelligen schalen Beigeschmack beifügt.

Gegen allgemeine magische Massenbeeinflussung hilft ein klarer Geist, viel Wasser und ein gesunder Körper. Anfällig sind immer eher die unbewussten und schwachen Geister.
Problematisch kann es in Clubs sein, wenn man geschwächt (zum Beispiel durch Alkohol, Müdigkeit, Drogenkonsum) Ziel von Magie wird. In so einem Fall kann die Magie sogar noch nachher wirksam sein, erledigt sich aber in der Regel durch viel reines Wasser und Selbstzentrierung. Im Ausnahmefall braucht es fremde Hilfe, zum Beispiel durch eine Essenz
Ebenso können durch Massenveranstaltungen schädigende Energien unbewusst mitgenommen werden, besonders an Orten, an welchen in Unkenntnis magisch gewirkt wird. Leider ist es genau dann den Besuchern solcher Veranstaltungen häufig nicht bewusst. Das kann dann auch kleinere Treffen mit einschließen. Das Wissen darum, wie man sich schützt oder eine gute Anbindung ans Göttliche (oder an eine göttliche Person) sind die besten Begleiter.

Als gefährdete Gruppe können noch Machtpositionen genannt werden. In diesen Kreisen wird - angeblich von Logen - öfter schwarze Magie angewandt, um wirtschaftliche Ziele zu erreichen.
Wo werden magische Praktiken ausgeübt?

Magisch wirksame Praktiken und Rituale werden vielfach in Religionen angewendet. Dabei geschieht dies für Gläubige häufig unbewusst, durch verschiedene Rituale und Gebete.
Auch die heutige Hypnose soll aus der magischen Tradition entstammen, sie arbeitet mit dem Unterbewusstsein und beeinflusst dieses.
Viele Zirkel, Logen, Neuheiden und Kulte wie Hexen wenden Magie an und lehren sie. Unter diesen sind wohl die meisten ehrenhaft und harmlos.
Die "Macht der Gedanken" zu nutzen ist eine magische Praktik, da sie darauf abzielt, die Wirklichkeit über den Hebel der Gedankenkraft zu beeinflussen.
Tantra, das immer mehr Menschen für sich entdecken, war ursprünglich eine spirituelle Erkenntnis-Praktik. Tantra wird aber vielfach auch magisch angewendet zur Manifestation und Vertiefung einer Bindung an den Wunsch-Partner. Mit diesem (manipulativen) Zweck ausgeübt wird Tantra zu Sexualmagie gezählt. D

Clint Loveness #fundie pepperdineevolution.weebly.com

In response, someone might say that Moses did not understand science, but Jesus affirmed Moses in Luke 16:31 ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ Jesus also said in Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” If there were a billion years before Adam and Eve then it was not ‘the beginning’. If there were a billions years before Adam and Eve, than you have death before sin, which goes against Scripture!


image

Why didn’t the Pepperdine professors teach the flaws of evolution? For example, they should teach the different types of evolution. One type is called “microevolution”, which refers to changes variations within species (different types of dogs, etc.); I have no problem whatsoever with this type of minor evolution, as it clearly occurs within the plant and animal kingdoms. However, there are some major scientific and moral flaws within “macroevolution”, which is defined as one species morphing, or evolving, into a completely different and separate species. Clearly, these two very opposite types of evolution cannot be called similar to each other, yet evolutionists have hijacked the word “science” by blending microevolution and macroevolution together
Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the foreword to the Origin of Species (100th edition), admitted that “Evolution is unproved and unprovable, we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” When the well-known apologist Ray Comfort recently interviewed dozens of evolution professors, he asked them for just one example of repeatable, observable evidence of macroevolution and they COULD NOT give even one example. Thus, macroevolution does not follow the scientific method, which means that macroevolution is not real science. In fact, since these professors need billions of years they actually need faith to believe this worldview. I recommend that you watch his movie called “Evolution vs. God” on this link.

I asked Dr. Honeycutt for one clear example of macroevolution and he used whale evolution, but Dr. Honeycutt was wrong, because the world’s leading authority on whale evolution admitted that it was a hoax on this link. Even Darwin himself was concerned that the lack of transitional fossils disproved his own theory. He hoped that in the years to come, there would be more fossils discovered that would prove the theory as he stated it. It has been over 150 years since he wrote that book, and countless more fossils have been found as people search for the missing links, but the supposedly innumerable transitional forms have not been found. Why didn’t the Pepperdine professors teach about how many missing links have been a hoax? In fact, every time a supposed link is discovered, an evolutionist would criticize that example as a hoax, meaning that we still do not have one example. The Cambrian explosion disproves transitional forms because the very base layer of the fossil record shows advanced life forms. This fact is fatal to the evolutionary theory’s descent with gradual modification through natural selection. The fossils record is evidence for a worldwide flood or for transitional forms evolving, but it cannot be both. If Noah’s flood were true you would expect to find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and what do we actually see in the fossil record? Millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth!

Evolutionary dating methods are not accurate. For example, did you know that living snails have been radiometrically carbon dated to be 2,300 years old? Or that the radioisotope dating showed Mount St. Helen's lava to be 340,000 years old, when in reality it was only 10 years old? Carbon-14 atoms should not exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years old, but we find carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils, diamonds, and coal - which is good evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old, not millions of years old. Scientists have found red blood cells in many different dinosaur bones that could not possibly have survived millions of years. Here are two links for the top scientific reasons why the earth is not millions of years old: from the Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis the two leading creationist organizations.

Essentially, the bottom line is this: macroevolution is not only unscientific, it directly goes against the Bible. If I was a current Pepperdine student and I had these theistic evolution professors teaching me that Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Noah and the worldwide flood were not real, that evolution was true, and that Genesis was not to be taken literally, I probably would have doubted whether or not the rest of the Bible was true and I would have lost my faith! I’m worried that many more students like my brother will lose their faith in Christ because we are putting another religion called evolution ahead of the Bible. In the past, the Hebrews worshiped two gods and one was named Baal. Now, I believe that we are guilty of worshipping two gods by mixing evolution and theology. If you look up “religion” in the dictionary, it says that a religion is “a worldview that explains the cause of origins, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially the creation of humans.” I would propose that evolution is not science but a form of another religion that you need FAITH to believe in. God will also judge a teacher more strictly, which makes this issue of an important issue because if you compromise the book of Genesis, than this will encourage many young people to compromise and to reject the rest of the Bible.

TheWrongStuff123 #sexist reddit.com

Re: Parents more uncomfortable with gender-nonconforming behaviors in boys, study finds

"In the current study, researchers expected to find that fathers, more so than mothers, would be less accepting of sons who are gender-nonconforming than daughters and that gender-nonconformity in general would correspond with parent discomfort. Additionally, those parents who believe their parenting style to be more feminist or socially equal would express more comfortability with a gender-nonconforming child. As such, researchers aimed to identify characteristics that compel parents to make efforts to change their child’s behavior. Again, the prediction was that parents would be more likely to change boys’ behavior than girls’.

An online survey completed by 151 mothers and 85 fathers living in Salt Lake City, Utah reported on 156 children age 3 to 13. The survey included questions relating to parenting style, parent gender atypical traits, attitude toward gender roles, and the prevalence of their own children’s gender-nonconforming behaviors.

As expected, parents report girls engage in gender-nonconforming behavior more than boys. In accordance with past research, results of the current study reveal parents are more uncomfortable with boys engaging in gender-nonconforming behavior than girls and make attempts to change the behavior more often. Contrary to other research however, this study shows mothers and fathers are equally likely to try and change their sons’ behaviors. Nevertheless, they are okay with their sons having girls as playmates and with daughters playing “boy” games.

Although initially researchers presumed parents’ warmth toward their children would be an indicator of acceptance of gender-nonconforming behavior, the study shows otherwise. Parents who report greater warmth also say they make more attempts to change their child’s behavior if it does not align with societal expectations."

Bold is done by me. I saw this on the front page from r/science, as expected the vast majority of the comments were deleted (I don't know what kind of gay rules they have over there), but I did see the typical reddit explanations: "This is because we don't have an equal enough society! Feminism doesn't care about boys! Nobody cares about boys' feelings!" While I think these are true in a superficial sense, I think these double standards reveal something far more deep about why parents behave in the way they do towards sons and daughters.

I start with the assumption that parents care about how their children turn out, at least the majority of them. Most parents want their kids to be productive, happy citizens with healthy relationships, I don't think they do things to purposely sabotage their children.

I think parents don't care about girl's lack of adherence to gendered behavior because it doesn't fundamentally matter how girls behave. If a girl is healthy and looks okay, she can and will find a decent guy. The quality of guy a girl can find if she likes to play basketball vs if she likes to go to fashion shows seems to be no different. However, from the parent's perspective, guys have objective standards they need to meet if they want to find a partner or be sexually successful. If a guy makes a lot of money, or if he's a great athlete, or if he acts like a pussy, this DOES have an effect on the quality and quantity of partners he will have. Parents deep down know this, they might not articulate it like this, and I think more superficial people would say this is an example of a female dominated society or unconscious bias against men, but to me it's just an acknowledgement that those male gendered behaviors are necessary to get a partner.

rpi 1609132 #fundie netflix.com

{Reviewing Life in the Undergrowth, a documentary on bugs narrated by David Attenborough)

I find the narrator hard to understand. With his strong English accent, I have to listen very closely. Also, while the photography is great, this series is far too heavy on evolution. It treats evolution as if it were fact instead of a theory, which is more accurate. I feel as though I am being endoctrinated.