Similar posts

Steve Sailer #fundie

Snowpiercer is a sci-fi allegory directed by Joon-ho Bong in English with a mostly American cast.

Chris Evans of Captain America plays a rebel who looks just like Christian Bale, who fights his way to meeting the Dictator of the World, who is played by a very American actor. (I saw it without knowing who he would be, so I won’t mention his name here.)

A couple of South Korean performers steal the show, however, as a father-daughter pair of genius drug addicts.

Bong’s 2006 movie The Host holds the South Korean record for most tickets sold and this one set a national record for biggest opening weekend.

Set in 2031, 17 years after an attempt to arrest global warming has caused the Ultimate Ice Age, the only survivors are the passengers on board a train powered by a perpetual motion engine that allows it to roar around the snowy world nonstop.

Why does the train zoom endlessly around the frozen world instead of going some place well-insulated and staying there?

Perhaps for reasons of cinematic influence: Snowpiercer is reminiscent of another foreign-directed American movie star film about a train in a cold climate, 1985's R unaway Train, directed by Andrei Konchalovsky with Jon Voight and Eric Roberts earning Oscar nominations playing tough guys. And it recalls Wong Kar-Wai’s gorgeous sci-fi erotic daydream about a round-the-world train, 2046.

But most sci-fi movies are about doing things that, while difficult, sound, prima facie, like fun: fly like Superman, travel through time, visit planets around other stars, etc. Then the spoilsports explain why you can’t do that, but you willingly suspend disbelief because it would be cool to have a laser gun or whatever. In contrast, traveling nonstop around a dead world on a train forever is both impossible and seems like a pointless ordeal, so the movie hasn’t been very appealing outside of South Korea.

The movie starts out among the poor in the ultra-crowded last carriages, where everybody dresses like the slightly grotesque nice people in Road Warrior. Evans leads the impoverished rebels into the first class carriages run by the dictator’s emissary Tilda Swinton. These appear to have been borrowed from Brazil: somebody should add up how much influence Evelyn Waugh has had on science fiction.

A remarkable fraction of big budget movies these days are obsessed with themes of either Malthusianism, Darwinism, or eugenics, or all three. In Snowpiercer, the Dictator of the World apologizes at the end that he hasn’t had time for eugenics yet, so I guessed most of the Big Reveal at the end about an hour beforehand.

Then there’s a second surprise ending that I didn’t guess, but only because this one is pretty stupid. In the end, two individuals from races at the different ends of Rushton’s continuum go off to start a new human race presumably cleansed of racial division.

Is it a good movie? Snowpiercer has some cool elements, but the lack of even an attempt to justify rationally why it takes place on a train puts a lot of stress on the style to make up for the lack of sense, and it doesn’t quite have enough visual chops to pull that off. A movie entirely about moving from the caboose to the locomotive will be by nature linear and segmented, kind of like a submarine movie. That’s a challenge that sometimes inspires directors, but not quite enough in Bong’s case.

P.S., I think I figured out why this going around the world on a train movie was a giant hit in South Korea but not, so far, in the rest of the world: South Korea is a three-sided peninsula and the fourth side is mined.

In other words, you can’t go very far on any train that starts in South Korea. You can’t even get to North Korea, and that breaks the hearts of Koreans. The rail system is claustrophobic, so traveling around the world on a train sounds cool.

David J. Stewart #fundie

If the Archaeopteryx specimens really are genuine, there are several reasons why Archaeopteryx can be considered to be a bird and not a reptile:

1 - Scientists say it is only a bird and not a transitional species. It is significant that a special scientific meeting was held in 1982, a year before the furor over the Hoyle-Watkins declarations that Archaeopteryx was a hoax (which we will discuss shortly). The International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Germany, not far from the limestone deposits where all the specimens were originally found. At this meeting, it was decided by the evolutionists that Archaeopteryx is a "bird" and not a reptile, or half-bird/half-reptile. It was also decided that Archaeopteryx was not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds.

Therefore, the scientific community now officially declares Archaeopteryx to be, not a transitional species, but only a bird!

2 - How could scales turn into feathers? Although zealous evolutionists have always claimed that this creature is a descendant of the reptiles and the ancestor of the birds, yet they do not explain how the scales on a reptile can change into feathers.

3 - Bones like a bird. Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones—such as a bird has.

4 - Not earlier than birds. Archaeopteryx does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period (the Jurassic) in which Archaeopteryx was found.

5 - It has modern bird feathers. The feathers on Archaeopteryx appear identical to modern feathers.

"But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us."—*A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020.

6 - No intermediate feathers ever found. Transition from scales to feathers would require many intermediate steps, but none have ever been found.

7 - Well-developed wings. The wings of Archaeopteryx were well-developed, and the bird probably could fly well.

8 - Wings designed for flight. The feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical, that is the shaft does not have the same amount of feathers on both sides. This is the way feathers on flying birds are designed. In contrast, feathers on ostriches, rheas, and other flightless birds, or poor flyers (such as chickens) have fairly symmetrical feathers.

"The significance of asymmetrical feathers is that they indicate the capability of flying; non-flying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings."—*E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p. 248.

9 - No prior transitions. There ought to be transitional species from reptile to Archaeopteryx, but this is not the case. It cannot be a connecting link between reptile and bird, for there are no transitions to bridge the immense gap leading from it to the reptile. It has fully developed bird wing-bones and flight feathers.

10 - Bird-like in most respects. Archaeopteryx gives evidence of being a regular bird in every way, except that it differs in certain features: (1) the lack of a sternum, (2) three digits on its wings, and (3) a reptile-like head, but there are explanations for all three points. Here they are:

[a] - Lack of a sternum. Archaeopteryx had no sternum, but although the wings of some birds today attach to the sternum, others attach to the furcula (wishbone). Archaeopteryx had a large furcula, so this would be no problem.

"It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.

- Digits on its wings. Archaeopteryx had three digits on its "wings." Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds. Modern birds with wing claws include the hoatzin (Oplsthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternum—such as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.

[c] - The shape of its skull. It has been said that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by Benton says the head is shaped more like a bird.

"It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the ‘London’ specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that ‘Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird."—*Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-113.

"Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: ‘A vertebrate with feathers.’ Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."—Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate," in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

11 - Ornithologist agrees. *F.E. Beddard, in his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird; and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: How could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.

"So emphatically were all these creature birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains."—*F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p. 160.

12 - Other birds had teeth. It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds that also had teeth.

"However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."—*P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197.

13 - Could be a unique bird. Archaeopteryx could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.

The platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck and has fur, but lays eggs; in spite of its egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk and chews its food with plates instead of with teeth. The male has a hollow claw on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole; but, like a duck, it has webs between its toes. It uses sonar underwater.

The platypus is definitely far stranger than the Archaeopteryx, and there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species.

14 - Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx, *Romer, the well-known paleontologist, said this::

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presume thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later ‘proper’ birds than before."—*A.S. Romer, Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

From his own study, *Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."—*W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), p. 1.

Other scientists agree. Here is an important statement by *Ostrom:

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."—*J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

ARCHAEOPTERYX—That name surely sounds scientific. But it covers, what many scientists consider to be, yet another contrived hoax. Notice how carefully each "feather" is separated from the one next to it. None overlay others, as would occur if the bird was pressed flat by natural conditions. Instead, the artist carefully scratched out separated "feathers."

15 - Modern birds in same strata. Bones of modern birds have been found in Colorado in the same geologic rock strata—the Jurassic—in which archaeopteryx was found (Science 199, January 20, 1978). According to evolutionary theory, this cannot be; for millions of years ought to be required for Archaeopteryx to change into a regular bird. If it was alive at the same time as modern birds, how can it be their ancient ancestor? Birds have also been found in the Jurassic limestone beds of by researchers in Utah.

16 - Modern birds below it! Not only do we find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,—but we also find birds below it!

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils."—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46 [also see Nature 322, August 21, 1986; Science 253, July 5, 1991].

No bird bones of any type have been found below the late Jurassic; but, within the Jurassic, they have been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now below it: Two crow-sized birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of the strata they were located in, those birds would, according to evolutionary theory, be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. More information on this Texas discovery can be found in *Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677.

Johnny Lee Clary #fundie

(From a long, insane, half-researched tirade against Marilyn Manson, this is one of the dumbest sections)

Manson sells WWJD bracelets at his concerts saying that it does not stand for "What Would Jesus Do", but instead they stand for "WE WANT JESUS DEAD". He has allegedly raped a young girl on the stage, and has sodomized one of his band members in front of thousands of children. He took a little puppy dog that was only 6 weeks old, and tossed it into the audience, encouraging kids to rip it to pieces and then smear the blood all over one another, which they gladly did. He said he dreams of the day that he can take a little baby and do the same thing to the baby. He has asked audiences at his concerts if they have ever eaten babies. He sells t-shirts encouraging children to KILL GOD, KILL THEIR PARENTS, and then KILL THEMSELVES. Many a teenager has committed suicide after going home from his demonic concerts. Singer Courtney Love, pulled out of her on the road tour with Manson, in March of 1999, stating that she would never tour with him again as he was telling children to commit suicide. This web site would never endorse Courtney Love or her music, but in this case we say, "Good On Ya, Courtney!"
Manson tells kids that Hell is a great place and they need not fear Hell. He says it is one great big party for eternity with all of the drugs and sex you can ever want. He tells them to escape the pressures of this world by committing suicide. I notice that Manson advocates suicide and tells young people to do it, but he fails to lead by example! If Hell is so great and suicide is the solution to life's problems as Manson says, then why doesn't he set the example? I will even loan him my gun if he will just practice what he preaches!

This was an unconfirmed rumor, but Marilyn Manson supposedly had his bottom two ribs removed, so that he can perform oral-sex on himself. He bragged about this in interviews, although some say he made that up and he never actually did this. Just the fact that he would state such a filthy thing, shows his reprobate mind.

Twiggy Rameriez , one of Manson's band members was arrested for molesting a little boy. Manson and Twiggy have frequently kissed and fondled each other at concerts. Marilyn Manson and Trent Reznor of satanic band "Nine Inch Nails" had sexual intercourse.

According to Manson, the eye tattoos on Marilyn's forearms are really bulls-eyes for his heroin needles. Marilyn Manson told many that he had gotten breast-implants, but that he later had them removed. He had posed for a photo showing himself with breast, but he no longer has them now. See photo below. [Mechanical Animals album cover, which was a harness, not implants]

(The rest of it is just as funny and stupid, and for those who are curious, the shirt is real, the Manson and Twiggy on stage action is real, and the Manson and Trent stuff is a rumor, the rest of it is 100% bullshit)

Avery Foley #fundie

It’s a popular evolutionary idea that dinosaurs are still among us—but not in the way you think. Evolutionists certainly don’t think a T. rex or a Stegosaurus is going to wander into your backyard, but they do think the colorful creatures perched on the bird feeder by your porch represent dinosaurs that are still among us.

“The Age of the Dinosaurs is Now”
A new exhibit, “Dinosaurs Among Us,” at the American Museum of Natural History showcases the idea that dinosaurs are still among us in the form of birds. Their website says,

The evolution of life on Earth is full of amazing episodes. But one story that really captures the imagination is the transition from the familiar, charismatic dinosaurs that dominated the planet for around 170 million years into a new, small, airborne form: birds.
The video below, posted on YouTube by the American Museum of Natural History, features the text “the age of dinosaurs is now.”

And in another of their videos we are told, “The dinosaurs didn’t go extinct 65 million years ago. We still have them around today. You can see them in your backyard; you can see them everywhere.”

To back up this claim that dinosaurs and birds are basically one and the same, the museum provides supposed behavioral and anatomical evidence. But rather than supporting their imagined link between dinos and birds, the so-called evidence they provide really highlights their interpretation of the evidence. They start with the assumption that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and then they view some observable facts through that lens while ignoring the massive differences between the two groups. As with anything in the creation/evolution controversy, the issue isn’t about the evidence, but rather the interpretation of the evidence.

Shared Behavior = Shared Ancestry?
To back up their claim that birds are just dinosaurs, they point to similar behaviors, such as nesting and caring for young—something birds and crocodiles do and something some dinosaurs appear to have done. They say, “Shared behaviors like these are evidence of common ancestry.” They also point to similarities in bird and dinosaur eggs as another “link in the chain of evidence connecting them.” But as we’ve pointed out many times, this is an interpretation of the evidence that simply assumes evolution to be true. They assume we see similarities because of shared ancestry. But there’s certainly another option: such similarities are reflections of a shared Creator. This Creator made all life to live in the same world, eat the same food, drink the same water, and breathe the same air; so we shouldn’t be surprised to see similarities across the animal world. Similarities in no way “prove” evolution. The claim that they do is merely an interpretation of the evidence.

“Big, Bad, . . . and Feathered”
Of course no discussion of dino-birds would be complete without trotting out the feathered dinosaurs. And this exhibit is full of them. Every dinosaur featured in the photos boasts a fluffy, bird-like coat or at least a small clump of feathers. Feathers have become a standard feature on modern depictions of theropod dinosaurs and even occasionally on other dinosaurs; but the evidence is contentious. (And it’s not just creationists who aren’t convinced! Many evolutionists, such as Alan Feduccia, a leading bird evolution expert, deny feathered dinosaurs).

The website mentions that a cousin of T. rex “sported a shaggy coat of the filaments called ‘proto-feathers.’” But considering that these fossilized filaments do not exhibit any of the features of feather anatomy (such as hooks, barbs, or barbules), they could easily—and much more likely—be collagen fibers, a sort of connective tissue commonly found in skin as well as many other places. The supposed “feathers” on “feathered” dinosaurs aren’t feathers at all. They are filaments that, because of evolutionary presuppositions about the history of life, have been labeled as “proto-feathers” on the path to becoming true feathers.

Smart Dinosaurs with Super Lungs
Another part of the “Dinosaurs Among Us” exhibit claims that “kinship . . . goes much deeper” than just eggs and feathers. Computed tomography (CT) scans of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs reveal some internal similarities. Indeed, a video on the website goes so far as to claim that certain dinosaurs “all have a brain that is identical to the earliest birds.” One page on their website goes into more detail about what they mean by “identical.”

Birds have large brains for their body size; much of this additional size is in the cerebrum, “the part of the brain responsible for learning,” as well as the optic lobe, which is responsible for sight. Reptiles of the equivalent size do not have this increased brain size.

CT scans of fossilized dinosaur skulls show that “one group of theropods displays the trend toward inflation of the ‘thinking’ brain we see in living birds.” So by “identical” they mean that in some theropods there’s a trend toward having an enlarged cerebrum as birds do. This teaches us nothing about their having descended from a common ancestor. It just shows that, as they say, “Theropod dinosaurs were probably capable of advanced learned behavior.” (Read more about dinosaurs and birdbrains in “Were Birdbrains on the Dinosaur Pre-flight Checklist for Evolution?”)

They move on to show the “unbroken . . . link between birds and dinosaurs” in the “super lungs” of birds, dinosaurs, and birds’ “living relatives”—crocodiles and alligators. They claim that the supposed last common ancestor of birds and crocodiles “also had birdlike lungs.” But crocodile and alligator lungs are nothing like bird lungs!

Bird lungs are completely unique in the animal kingdom. Instead of sequentially breathing in and out to fill and empty lungs like we do, they have a unidirectional airflow that constantly supplies fully oxygenated air to the bird’s hard-working flight muscles and the rest of its body. Air sacs, scattered throughout a bird’s body, briefly store fully oxygenated air and then continue to supply this fresh air to the bird even while the bird exhales carbon dioxide. This remarkably complex and highly efficient design is without equal, even among some reptiles that share some of its features.

Crocodiles also have a unidirectional airflow, but that’s where the similarities stop. Crocodiles have a diaphragm, as we do, to pull air into their bodies. Birds don’t have or need this muscle. Crocodile lungs look like a bag with chambers; bird lungs look utterly different as they branch throughout the body. And this is just a very brief overview. You can learn more in Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell’s illustrated article “Lizard Breath Fails to Support Kinship with Birds.”

To claim that reptile lungs are bird-like is to ignore vast anatomical and functional differences and to concentrate on a few very minor similarities. Each design serves the animals quite well, but no observational evidence has shown any way that these systems could evolve from a common ancestor.

The Similarities Just Don’t Stop!
The above similarities between birds and dinosaurs have been rather underwhelming. But they claim there are more! Actually, they say, “Once you start seeing the resemblances between non-bird dinosaurs and living birds, you won’t be able to stop!” This claim is only true if you are an evolutionist looking for any similarity to connect the dots between the two groups.

The website highlights another section of the exhibit, “Dinosaur Bones, Beaks, and Claws.” Their list includes the discovery of what might be hollow bones in some dinosaurs, toothless beaks in some dinosaurs, and claws. Birds have hollow bones which, containing air sacs, are integral to their respiratory system and, as a bonus, are quite lightweight, allowing them to fly. Dinosaurs might have hollow bones, but our bones are not solid structures either. The “hollow” spaces in our bones are filled with marrow, as dinosaur bones likely were too, though marrow isn’t commonly fossilized. Birds, however, have pneumatic bones. These bones are filled with air and are an essential part of their unique respiratory system—a system dinosaurs did not share.

Another similarity that they note is the surprising presence of a wishbone, or furcula, in theropods. The furcula is formed from the fusion of the collarbones (clavicles). Many evolutionists consider this the “smoking gun” for the dino-to-bird evolution story because the furcula has only been found on birds and theropod dinosaurs.

In birds, the furcula shows great diversity in size and shape, depending on the bird’s method of flight (or lack thereof). The flight muscles are anchored to this bone. In some birds it acts as a spring, allowing the powerful flight muscles to flex without snapping the bone. There is evidence that birds also use this bone to augment air movement during breathing.

Clearly scientists could not know that theropod dinosaurs used their furculae for flight or avian respiration. Since all we have is fossil evidence, it is difficult to definitively determine the purpose of the theropod furcula, but some scientists have suggested it increased forelimb mobility. Evolutionist Alan Feduccia has noted that even though some theropods have furculae, their distinctly un-birdlike shoulder anatomy makes it “unlikely that any of these structures could have articulated or functioned in a manner similar to the bird furcula or the hypertrophied furcula of the first bird, Archaeopteryx.”1 Others, assuming an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs, suggest dinosaurs used them to aid breathing as they suspect birds do. Interestingly, one paper notes that “only the early ornithurines possess a furcula typical of extant avian clades.”2 In everyday language this means that only “early ornithurines”—birds in a biblical view—have wishbones typical of living birds. Of course, this is not surprising.

Just because birds and theropods both possess furculae does not mean that they are related to one another. God simply used a similar design in two distinct groups of animals. Anatomical differences indicate that their furculae would have differed in not only structure but also function. Instead of searching for similarities between theropods and birds, scientists should study dinosaur furculae to determine what God designed this bone to do, because, whatever its function, it was perfectly designed to do what it was created for.

They go on to claim, “The similarities are especially striking when it comes to legs, feet, and claws.” But bird and dinosaur legs really aren’t that similar. Bipedal dinosaurs did walk on their toes, like birds do, so we expect some similarity in the structure of the foot and ankle. But the femur (thigh bone) and knee of a bird are inside its body and are essential to its breathing structure. The femur of the dinosaur (which is anatomically almost identical to a human, though this is not pointed out), as well as its knees, are outside the body and appear to have nothing to do with breathing.

It should be noted that dinosaurs are very different from other reptiles, particularly in the placement of their legs. Rather than spreading out to the sides, as they do in other reptiles, they were directly under the body. The obvious anatomical differences between dinosaurs and other reptiles should hint that there would be other differences in bone structure, organ placement, and other areas. This doesn’t mean that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds any more than saying that bats, very different from other mammals but with some similarities to birds, prove that bats evolved from birds— something no evolutionist would argue.

Similarity in anatomy does not mean shared ancestry.

God’s Word, Our Starting Point
The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs comes directly from a naturalistic evolutionary interpretation of the fossils and of living birds. The idea does not come from the facts themselves but from an interpretation of the facts that assumes evolution to be true. Exhibits such as “Dinosaurs Among Us” are nothing more than propaganda pieces for this popular evolutionary idea. Sadly, many kids will tour through this exhibit without realizing that this is merely an interpretation and not observational science.

Though some Christians try to mesh evolution with a Creator, this idea completely contradicts God’s Word, which says that kinds will always reproduce according to their kinds (Genesis 1:21, 25) and that birds were created on Day Five and land animals—which would include dinosaurs—were created on Day Six (Genesis 1:20–25). Instead of interpreting the world through the faulty lens of man’s ideas about the past, we need to turn to God’s perfect Word, given to us by the eyewitness Creator who never lies (Titus 1:2), to give us the true history of life and the universe.

NoFeline #transphobia

Garrah isn't much better than the Fakebois. (Being a truscum won't keep you from being a cow-- Alex Vidal is a truscum as well) Kid is absolutely delusional, almost on Reddit Troon levels. He's convinced that he never gets clocked when he looks like a depressed lesbian with 7 cats and talks like an excitable highschool girl. Not to even mention the I 👏 AM 👏 LICHRALLY 👏 MALE 👏 shite he goes on about. The nicest thing I can say is that he doesn't expect straight girls to date him. That's at least a step above the other trannies.

Wayne Allyn Root #fundie

Hillary will open the borders like never before, to let in millions of illegal aliens who have no love for anything that made America great.

Illegals immigrants no longer come here "for a love of America." They come for a love of welfare, food stamps, housing allowances, free medical, free education, free meals at school, free English as second language classes…and don’t forget $3,000 welfare payments disguised as "earned income tax credits," for people who paid no taxes.

Illegals come here for the cradle to grave welfare state that America has become. Eighty percent of them (or higher) will vote for Democrats forever to keep the checks coming. That’s Hillary’s plan.

Don’t believe me? See California. No Republican will ever again be elected to statewide office.

This was the exact formula that destroyed California. Open the borders, let in millions of foreigners, make them dependent on government welfare checks, train them to vote Democratic to keep the checks and handouts coming. It worked!

That was the experiment. Call it Plan A. Now Democrats are onto Plan B. The plan is to flood the country with illegals and foreigners who don’t share our values or love of America. The plan is to turn the rest of America into California.

Hillary will flood the country with millions more.

Hillary will legalize the 15 million or so already here -- and give them the right to vote.

Hillary will allow those 15 million to quickly and easily bring in millions of their relatives and friends.

Hillary will also import millions of Muslim refugees -- people who will need instant welfare and food stamps, very few of whom speak our language, very few of whom believe in American exceptionalism, our Constitution, or Judeo-Christian values.

This is the four-step plan. Then it’s over for America. In four years we’ll be California-cated. We will never win a popular vote for president again.

Donald Trump is our last chance to ever again elect a Republican president. It’s Donald Trump…or it’s the end of the GOP on the national level…and the end of America.

So don’t even think of staying home…or taking a vacation…or registering a “protest vote” on Gary Johnson…or Evan McMullen.

Don’t even think of staying home because you’re a Christian and Trump is not your cup of tea.

Think of the Supreme Court.

Think of open borders.

Think of millions of Muslim refugees imported by Hillary to turn America into Western Europe.

Think of your children’s future.

Think of the future of your unborn grandchildren.

Think of your job.

Think of your middle class life.

Think of ObamaCare expanded to single payer like bankrupt Europe.

Think of capitalism, American exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian values.

Think of this as the last time you can EVER elect a Republican.

Think of this as Trump…or the end of America.

Then vote like you’ve never voted before.

Vote for Trump like...

It’s Trump, or the end of America.

Because it is.

Wayne Allyn Root is a capitalist evangelist, serial entrepreneur, conservative national media commentator, and proud champion of the middle class. He is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee, now back to the GOP. Wayne's latest book is "Angry White Male" (Skyhorse Publishing). He is a supporter of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. For more, visit his website: Follow him on Twitter@WayneRoot.

andyet #fundie

I respect other peoples beliefs, as a mature adult should. Ror example, if an Orthodox Jew believes that he can do no work on the Sabbath, including flipping a light switch, I respect his decision and his belief even though I do not share it.

I don't call him STUPID for believing what he believes, because only an immature, socially retarded, total dick would do such a thing.

[20 minutes later]

Why are you all such emotionally autistic, socially retarded, bitter and nasty misfits? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Were you all nerds who got towels snapped at them in gym class and are still pissed off about it? Granted it's hard to believe in a kind and loving God when bullies take your lunch money and girls (there doesn't seem to be many female atheists - except for some lesbian Goths) tell you they just want to be friends.

Does atheism lie somewhere on the autistic scale next to Aspergers? If not why are you incapable of simple polite social interaction? Autism is a mostly male thing and so is atheism, perhaps there is a connection?

Are you mostly gays who are really just pissed off at the Abrahamic religions for condemning homosexuality? That would explain Gore Vidal, Arthur C CLarke, etc.

[He goes on for 5 more paragraphs]