Similar posts

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

Once upon a time, the Evolutionists assure us, a “simple single-cell life form” spontaneously emerged out of a protein-rich “primordial soup”, which, they assure us, also existed. Through the process of binary fission, single bacterial cells divided into multi-cellular organisms. Over billions of years, the family tree branched out to include all living things; from blades of grass, to maggots, to Marilyn Monroe. It’s amazing what a “simple” cell can do!

Charles Darwin had proposed that the very first cell, the universal common ancestor of all life forms, could have formed "in some warm little pond." One of Darwin's supporters, the German biologist (and proven forger) Ernst Haeckel, examined a mixture of mud removed from the sea bed and claimed that this was a nonliving substance that turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that comes to life," is an indication of just how simple life was thought to be by the founders of "The Theory of Evolution" (bow your head in solemn reverence as you say that).

By invoking the simplicity of that original simple cell, Evolution is made to sound somewhat plausible, at least to the easily impressed. The mispresentation of the original simple cell, slowly “evolving” into more complex cells, and then into actual creatures over time, is the only way that the Evolutionists can even begin to sell their junk-science. So, let’s attack the theory at its very root, "the simple cell".

To make life easier for the Evolutionists, let us grant them a generous 'head-start' by not even asking where the “Primordial Soup” came from, or the Sun, or the amino acids and protein building blocks, or how the Earth and its chemical components all got here. Let’s focus only on the cell. The word cell comes from Latin, cella, meaning "small room", which is essentially what the cell is. The cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all living organisms. Cells are the smallest form of life that can replicate independently.

Prokaryotic cells were the earliest and “simplest” forms of bacterial life on Earth, as they have a self-sustaining process built into them. A prokaryotic cell has three regions, each with its own components. On the outside, flagella and pili project from the cell's surface. These structures are made of proteins that facilitate movement and communication between cells.

Enclosing the cell itself is the cell envelope – which consists of a cell wall covering a plasma membrane and a further covering layer called a capsule. The envelope gives rigidity to the cell and also serves as a protective filter and barrier against exterior forces. It also prevents the cell from expanding and bursting from environmental pressures.

Finally, inside the cell is the cytoplasm region that contains the complex coded genome (DNA). Prokaryotes can also carry extra-chromosomal DNA elements called plasmids, which encode antibiotic resistance genes.

So you see, dear reader, this bacterial “simple cell” which accidentally, randomly, and “unintelligently” popped up out of the “soup” is not so simple, at all. It's actually a multi-functional, multi-component, integrated, well-oiled and living machine that cellular biologists can spend an entire lifetime studying. If it were possible to shrink yourself to the size of an atom, and enter the walls of the “simple single cell”, and gaze about this microscopic world-within-a-world like some awestruck tourist, you would marvel at the suddenly visible nanotechnology enveloping you. Only this bit of orchestrated technology actually lives, mends itself, protects itself, feeds itself, and, get this, reproduces itself!

Sorry Chuckie D., but integrated complexity and living nanotechnology does not spring up without intelligence behind it. Even the atoms, the tiniest particles of matter within the "simple" cell, demonstrate an ordered and integrated complexity of their own. Every atom is composed of a nucleus made of protons and neutrons. The nucleus is surrounded by a cloud of electrons. The electrons are bound to the atom by the electromagnetic force, and the protons and neutrons in the nucleus are bound to each other by the nuclear force. Nothing "simple" about nuclear physics, Chuck!

All "simple" life is complex and integrated; and cannot come from non-life. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. Consciousness cannot come from non-consciousness. The Darwinists and the Big Bangers need to go back to the drawing board and ‘check their math’. They won't though, because Godlessness and conceited arrogance walk hand-in-hand.

The mathematical "fingerprints" of an intelligent creative force are everywhere - snowflakes, galactic swirls, insect wings.

INTRIGUED? READ 'THE GOD OF LOGIC' AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HOAX OF EVOLUTION.

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)

James Neilson #fundie independent.co.uk

It may be a good idea to have extra public holidays but to call one of them a Darwin Day is preposterous (letters, 23 January). Do all scientists believe (I use the word advisably) Darwin's theory of evolution? Why have some adapted his theory to become Neo-Darwinism? Others have noted that the fossils do not show the evidence Darwin postulated, and once more adapted the theory with another aspect called punctuated equilibrium.

Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, viz, a theory. There are laws in science which most, if not all, scientists accept. Entropy is evident all around us and we see things do run down. Consequently, Darwin's molecule-to-man theory is a contradiction of accepted scientific laws.

Finally, are we to accept every detail of Darwin's theory, or be selective? Social Darwinism, as it has been called, I believe, consigns women to an inferior status to men. This is surely unacceptable. Also natural selection or the survival of the fittest is what we see in our day on the streets.

Why do young people get involved in gangs, carry knives etc if it is not to survive? Many examples which are causing us serious social problems could be given and these relate to Darwin's theory of evolution. So, contrary to reinvigorating the scientific studies, it has created ills in society.

Dr. Ted Baehr #fundie movieguide.org

[Review of the book "DARWIN'S RACISTS - YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW."]

DARWIN'S RACISTS - YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW exposes the real Charles Darwin: a racist, a bigot and 1800's naturalist whose legacy is mass murder. This well written book shows that Adolf Hitler, along with other genocidal mass murderers, was influenced by Darwin's half-baked Theory of Evolution. This book exposes Darwin's Theory of Evolution for what it is: an elitist and racist dogma that has infiltrated our every area of culture thereby undermining sense and sensibility.

DARWIN'S RACISTS succinctly covers, among other revealing topics, who Darwin was, his impact on the human race, evolution and naturalism, agnosticism, creation, Charles Darwin's family and friends, Darwin's sickness, the eugenics nightmare, Darwin's racists, frauds, and fakes, atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering, and the impact of Darwin's thought on our rights and freedoms today. Thus, two conflicting and discordant worldviews are examined along with the history, theology and science that support them. Also examined are the differing impacts that creation vs. evolution have had on ethnic, racial and class distinctions in our society.


DARWIN'S RACISTS is written by Sharon Sebastian and Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D. Sharon Sebastian writes for film and television. Sharon questioned the ape to man chart at an early age and found no credible answers. Eventually, she found answers that the book reveals and the public must know. Bohlin holds a doctorate in Cell and Molecular Biology, is President of Probe Ministries, a Discovery Institute Fellow, and a graduate of the University of Illinois, The University of North Texas and the University of Dallas.

DARWIN'S RACISTS is recommended reading for everyone who cares about our culture and the future of our children and grandchildren.

Guest #fundie disqus.com

Evolution has been disproven. There is absolutely no basis for believe in it. Only racists believe in evolution. Hitler did. You didn't know who [Michael Faraday] was, and you didn't know that he was a Darwin contemporary. You also didn't know that evolution has yet to be proven (as evolutionists themselves will admit), and you didn't know that Darwin based his entire theory of evolution on the fact that he thought blacks looked like apes and that they must have "evolved". You can read about it in his books. Hitler cited him for his bigotry, too. You don't know science, and you don't know basic history.

Joseph C. Richards #fundie deseretnews.com

Frank Salisbury (Readers' Forum, May 1) says that intelligent design is not science. Is there any implication that what is taught in many schools about creation is science? Science is privileged to teach many theories, which, of course, are not proven science. Darwinism is an unproven theory and is really only a story about what might have happened and is considered such by many qualified scientists. Astronomer Robert Jastrow says, "The Bible has been vindicated by the findings of modern science." We have got to stop letting the secular world destroy the only hope we have: God.

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

The great and the good of the “intelligentsia” assure us that all “educated” people accept Charles Darwin’s Evolution as a indisputable fact of science that is "not open for debate." Oh those superstitious "straw-men" bible-thumpers portrayed in the propaganda film Inherit the Wind may have a hard time accepting it, but even the slightest doubt can never be tolerated within the elite confines of the academic cool-kids club. Woodrow Wilson Warmonger of World War I fame, a former Princeton professor himself, put it this way:

“Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”

And yet, neither Darwin, nor Wilson, nor the Communist ACLU Attorney Clarence Darrow (played by Spencer Tracy), nor any other “scientist” (bow your head in solemn reverence when you say that word) has ever adequately addressed the gaping holes of Darwin’s Dogma. The best rebuttal the "smart people" can muster consists of scorn, ridicule, charges of "stupidity" and even government force -- but never any true scientific substance. Many of these holes are blown wide-open in the book: “God vs Darwin: The Logical Supremacy of Intelligent Design Creationism” (by yours truly). But for this particular piece, let us focus on what is perhaps the single biggest flaw of all regarding trans-species “Evolution” – which should not be confused with minor variations / adaptations of existing characteristics already present in a gene pool (Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, stickleback fish, "super rats" etc.) We refer to this gaping hole as the “complex integration” of multiple parts that is found in all living organisms (even “simple” single-cell bacteria).

Darwin and his deluded devotees maintain that tiny “imperceptible” and "innumerable" blind and random mutations, favored by environmental circumstances, added up over very long periods of time to the point that an evolved species (such as us humans) became unrecognizable from our direct lineal “ancestors” (single-cell oceanic bacteria). Apart from the obvious fact that none of these transitions from millions of years ago were observable, how do the Evolutionists explain away the “complex integration” of our body parts? One part of any given creature could not have blindly “evolved” without so many other parts coming into existence at the exact same moment in time. How can hundreds or even thousands of complex parts -- functioning in sync with one another in a scientific symphony in which each component can only function if all the others are in place -- have “blindly” appeared, without intelligent guidance, one piece-of-the-puzzle at a time, over “millions of years?”

To better illustrate this problem, let’s have a closer look at the integration of the digestive system.

To start the digestive process, we need an oral cavity -- that is, a mouth to put the food in. The mouth needs teeth, both upper & lower sets, deeply anchored into our gums, which are attached to a jaw-bone, which is attached to a skull which is etc., etc., etc., Without all of this in place at the same time, the first step of the digestive process comes to a halt. But our gums and 32 perfectly-matching teeth alone, which come if different shapes and sizes for certain functions, won’t ensure survival. We still need saliva to begin the breaking down of the food, as well as the preservation of our teeth and the gums which hold them. And we also need mucous producing cells in the mouth to help form the saliva mix.

Remove any of those elements (oral cavity, teeth (upper & lower), gums, jaw-bone, salivary glands, mucous) and humans (and many other animals) never make it out of the box. Each of the elements is part of an integrated system in which one element cannot function, and serves no purpose, without all of the others already in place. Then of course there is the tongue – a complex multi-faceted organ in its own right, which is vital for chewing and swallowing food. In the back of the mouth, the tongue is anchored into the hyoid bone – which itself is anchored by various muscles and ligaments. Once swallowed, the pre-digested food passes through the pharynx (part of the throat) -- which is lined by more essential membranes and muscles – and moves down to the esophagus (food pipe).

Let’s review the pre-digestion process: oral cavity, teeth (upper & lower), gums, jaw bone, skull, saliva, mucous, tongue, hyoid bone, muscles, ligaments, pharynx, membranes, muscles, and esophagus. That’s 15 systems in all, each of them also highly complex, and each of them integrated with the other systems. Remove just one, and there can be no digestive system and hence, no species. Therefore, the elements of this grand orchestra had to have come into play at the same time – which implies, no, proves deliberate design. But we’re just getting started.

1. Just the individual contents of the mouth alone form a complex integrated system in which each part is useless without all others in place. 2. Complex Integration: Remove just component, and the whole structure becomes non-viable. 3. For that reason alone (although there are many other flaws) Darwin's ridiculous paper gets an "F."

Moving right along, gravity and contraction (more muscles) push the mix into the stomach where digestive enzymes really begin to break down the food. To block these powerful enzymes from literally “eating” the stomach itself, membranes called b]gastric mucosa produce a protective coating of mucous which lines the stomach. How genius is that? On to the duodenum -- the first section of the small intestine which leads to the large intestine. Along the journey there are more enzymes produced by the pancreas. Then it is down to the colon, (there is an ascending colon, a descending colon and a sigmoid colon) rectum, anal canal and out the anus -- where Darwin's stinky work-of-fiction truly belongs. Assisting the expulsion of bodily waste is the diaphragm -- a sheet of internal skeletal muscle made up of no fewer than a dozen different parts. Though it is mainly part of the respiratory system, the diaphragm also generates the pressure needed for waste disposal.

Key contributions to the process are also rendered by the liver, the gall bladder, the spleen, the cecum, and many more muscles and many more glands to numerous to name. And holding those muscles in place are a complex system of more ligaments fastened to more bones which are fastened to other bones etc. etc. etc. As for the liquids that we ingest, that speaks to a whole other complex integrated system of complex integrated systems involving kidneys, renal arteries, renal veins, urinary tracts, collecting ducts, bladder, pelvis etc[/b. Of course, all of this digestion is pointless without blood-flow to carry the food's nutrients throughout the body – which means that even more complex systems had to have been be put in place at the same time: blood, veins, arteries, capillaries. But the nutrient-carrying blood can’t flow through the vascular system without a pump and an oxidation system already in place, right? You need a set of heart & lungs which are the basis of the cardio-pulminary system -- an incredibly complex integrated structure made up of countless essential components such as the -- (well, you get the point -- we can go on forever with this --)

So, let’s take it from the top, boys and girls. All of the following complex elements must come into place at the same time in order for digestion to work:

oral cavity, teeth, gums, jaw-bone, skull, saliva, mucous, tongue, hyoid bone, muscles, ligaments, pharynx, membranes, more muscles, and esophagus, more muscles, stomach, digestive enzymes, gastric mucosa, duodenum, small intestine, large intestine, more enzymes, pancreas, ascending colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, rectum, anal canal, anus, diaphragm, liver, gall bladder, spleen, cecum, more muscles, more glands, more ligaments, more bones, kidneys, renal arteries, renal veins, urinary tracts, collecting ducts, bladder, pelvis, blood, veins, arteries, capillaries, cardio-pulminary system, a bunch of other intregrated items and systems too numerous to list here and a partridge in a pear tree!

Each necessary component "blindly" evolved and integrated with all the others by itself --- one at a time, without design? Ha ha ha. --- "Intelligent and educated," my foot!

This mind-boggling complexity, -- which cannot be reduced by even a single element lest the species cease to exist -- becomes even more integrated and more complicated when studied on a molecular level --- the complex "4-digit" DNA “computer coding” behind it all. The mere suggestion of these integrated systems blindly “evolving,” one component at a time, independent of one another, in an “imperceptible” manner over millions of years is absurd on its face. As a matter of fact, St. Charles Darwin himself, in a pathetically futile effort to explain away the “problem” that integrated parts posed for his theory, admitted that his idea sounded “absurd in the highest degree.”

From his Origin of the Species:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

After objecting to his own theory (so that he can control the debate), Darwin proceeds, in the very next paragraph, to lamely explain away the "absurdity" of attributing the integrated complexity of the eye to random evolution. But his "solution" to the problem amounts to nothing but a diversionary debating trick.

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science."

Darwin is using an old lawyer's trick here. He states the objection, then casually explains it away by using a bizarre and totally irrelevant analogy to astronomy. He also adds a theatrical touch of Latin mumbo-jumbo to impress the easily-impressed. We're not talking about the sun and the earth and "Vox populi," Chuckie! The subject here is your admittedly "absurd"-sounding claim that the integrated complexity of organisms and body parts came about blindly, randomly, and one element at a time without any intelligence involved. Explain it for us!

Plato warned us to be on guard against the type of empty diversionary rhetoric that Darwin used to explain away the massive holes in his goofy theory of self-creating life coming blindly from non-life, and then putting its own integrated parts together.

Darwin continues:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

More slick sophistry and silly semantics -- An "if", followed by another "if," then a "can be," then an "if further," then a "should be," and a "could be," then a "though," and finally a "should not be." If elephants could fly -- If I could live forever -- If dogs could speak. If, maybe, perhaps, and, though, coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, but, but but, if, if, if... This then is what the academic cool-kids club refers to as "science?" This non-observable and wild speculation about "numerous gradations" of the eye's integrated components amounts to pure rhetorical manipulation -- not true science. Read it again closely. Darwin totally dodges the question and explains NOTHING to solve the mystery of complex integration -- a mind-boggling phenomena that is observable in all living creatures and even "simple" single-cell organisms.

As it is with the many essential integrated systems of an automobile -- each one absolutely necessary for the car as a whole to function -- (engine, transmission, wheels, axle, spark plugs, gas tank, battery, hoses, belts, ignition, alternator, steering wheel, gear shift, accelerator, carburetor, braking system, drive shaft, oil, coolant / anti-freeze, transmission fluid, containers for fluid, radiator, chassis, pistons, nuts, bolts, welded parts, etc.) -- only the existence of an eternal designing force without origin, permeating and communicating through every living cell of existence, possessed of freakish intelligence and power, and far beyond our lowly human "pay grade" to ever fully comprehend, can adequately explain the complex integration of multiple systems that neither Darwin nor his sci-fi cult of diploma-decorated dick-heads have ever been able to, and never will be.

Can you?

1. The 20th Century discovery of DNA codes which program our physical traits makes Darwin's problem of explaining away integrated complexity a million times even more complex. 2. Imagine car parts blindly "evolving" one at a time and "randomly" integrating themselves during a billion-year tornado. That is essentially what "educated" evolutionists, without a shred of observable precedent, believe to have happened in the living world. 3. You may be a whiz at mathematics and rhetoric, professor. But you're as bloody frickin' stupid as you are crazy!

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!

Mr_drummie #fundie forums.facepunchstudios.com

first off,
Cell theory.
one of the most widely accepted theories in modern Science.
"The observations of Hooke, Leeuwenhoek, Schleiden, Schwann, Virchow, and others led to the development of the cell theory. The cell theory is a widely accepted explanation of the relationship between cells and living things. The cell theory states:

* All living things are composed of cells.

* Cells are the basic unit of structure and function in living things.

* All cells are produced from other cells."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
see that!
Ha.
If all cells come from other cells,
then tell me,
o blaspheming atheists
where the first one came from.
OWNED

and I'm not saying that natural selection is wrong,
things do adapt,
things do change.
but this man from monkey bullshit makes me sick

i eagerly await your response,

signed,
and intelligent human being

MarkT #fundie foru.ms

[PRATT. "Theory" in a scientific context is different from the common use of the word; atoms, relativity, and gravity are theories too. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.]

That's just word play. Science used to be much more approachable and practical before the time of godlessness. A theory was a theory no matter who used the word; it meant the same thing. And it was understood to mean unproven. Generally we didn't think gravity was an unproven theory and likewise we didn't think the atomic theory or relativity were unproven. We didn't call them theories then. Rather we considered them proven theories or science.

Mr. baldy #fundie islamicboard.com

well if ur basing ur beliefs on science, ill attack science. quite simply science is completley fickle, theories are being proven wrong all the time, for example quantam physics and the theory of relativity, the big bang theory replaced a different theory (i forget what the name is). so really its only a matter of time until a 'more accurate theory' comes out. what will u do then? what will happen to the beliefs u hold so staunchly

rather than basing ur beliefs on science, i suggest u base them on ration.

Dave Daubenmire #fundie #pratt newswithviews.com


I’ve about had it up to my once water-breathing gills with this whole whitey hates blackie thing. Coming on the heels of a made-up pandemic the idea that the greatest evil facing America is racism is more than my once-monkey evolved brain can handle.

“Minds full of mush” is what Rush Limbaugh once called them; Human brains that will believe just about anything that some expert feeds them. “Please don’t feed the humans” should be the warning label on every TV in America.

Even though I would love to talk about the phony charges of racism that are spewed 24/7 on America’s airwaves I have decided to take a different tack and discuss another means of discrimination that very few people are willing to talk about. In fact, the thoughts my hunt-and-peck digits are tapping out may cover an area of thought that no one has ever programmed you with.

I am referring to the very common form of discrimination known as FAITHISM.

“I’ve never heard of that before” your CNN wired cerebral cortex may be beeping. “What the heck is faithism? Anderson Cooper has never mentioned that before, and if I haven’t heard of it from one of their expert guests so it certainly can’t be real.”

Well, racism isn’t real either. It is a made up word. It was a condition created by the CIA in the early 1930’s and was designed to be used to divide and conquer the American people. I won’t go into details about it in this rant, but as the carnival barker would likely say “read all about it.” RACISM IS MADE UP. Check out THIS LINK if you really want to know the truth.

Save me the emails. Racism is made up. It only exists in our minds…planted there by nefarious forces intent on destroying America. I’m sorry if Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Juan Williams have hustled your mind into believing it. There is only one race…human. Period. Skin color is not a race.

So I decided to coin a phrase that is just as prevalent and just as destructive to America and that is Faithism. Never heard of it, huh? Well, stick around and maybe we can get another group of Americans all riled up.

Faith is defined by Mr. Webster as “Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth.”

Nearly everything you and I believe is based on faith. Any story you read about an historical figure is faith-based because you have no firsthand knowledge of the veracity of the information. I BELIEVE George Washington existed, but I can’t actually prove it. I have to trust that the historical record is true. In all of my life’s work I have never heard anyone tell me that they didn’t “believe” in George Washington. Most of us simply trust the history books.

The same holds true for Darwinism. I never met the guy, but from what I understand he wrote a book about “The Origin of Species” and even though I am familiar with it I have never met anyone who can prove he wrote it or that the information he presents in it is true. I simply take it on faith that he existed and that his theories are true.

By the way…a theory is a theory because there is no proof. Darwin’s theory is actually FAITH based because there were no eye-witnesses to verify what he postulates. Darwin’s theory has less scientific PROOF than the THEORY expounded upon in the book of Genesis. Both theories are lacking PROOF and can only be believed through FAITH.

FAITHISM is nothing more than the discrimination of one belief system over another based solely on the opinion of the one promoting the theory. Zoo keepers often have faith in Darwin and his acolytes while most Christians have faith in God and his evangelists.

A fair evaluation of the origin of man would certainly contain BOTH unproven theories. To choose one set of theories over another would be the ultimate discrimination. Despite what you have been taught in government schools, discrimination is a good thing. To discriminate is defined as “the act of making or observing a difference.” It has nothing to do with the buzz word “racism.”

But the nub of the issue is that both sides are not presented. “Science” always trumps “faith” when dealing in the secular world. “Religious” beliefs are always pooh poohed in favor of “science” even though much of what we believe about science is based completely on faith.

Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” Even racism is built upon a BELIEF and not a fact.

FAITHISM would be defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different worldview based on the belief that one’s own belief system is superior.”

Faithism is rampant in our society. Those in authority do not allow both systems of BELIEFS to be treated fairly. The theory of Darwin is presented freely and openly to America’s public school children while the theory of Creationism is forced to the back of the bus. Faithism is everywhere you look and there has been nothing as destructive to our American society as the second class treatment afforded Americans who put their faith in the God rather than in Darwin.

“People of faith” are the most discriminated against citizens in this country. Most of our problems would go away if we simply taught ALL children the 10 Commandments of God.

Our schools teach our children that they evolved from apes and we are shocked when they begin to act like monkeys. Amoral education leads to immoral behavior. Christian beliefs are given second class treatment in this nation.

America’s Christian history is being rewritten. Statues are being torn down. Faithism is worse than racism. Content of character is more important than skin color.

MandM #fundie foru.ms

I appreciate those who have made points regarding the difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism.

While in theory there may be a difference, in reality they seem to always go together hand in hand. Wherever Darwinism shows up, Social Darwinism is sure to follow.

Darwin himself and his family were massively into "social Darwinism".......just watch the film in the original post.

As for those on this thread who question whether the New World Order exists:

I don't even know what to say. I find it hard to believe that anyone is still so ignorant.

Every single one of the "top tier" candidates for both parties is a member of an organization that is directly tied to the New World Order, and I would bet most of the atheists here can't even name that organization.

It is the same organization that every secretary of state since the 50s has belonged to. If you can't name the organization, then don't even think that you even know the first thing about what is really going on in the world.

eragonbookfan #fundie imdb.com

(a review of "The Theory of Everything")

First off, I don't mind Stephen Hawking - definitely a smart guy, and I respect him for the atrocious disease he has. But I certainly don't think he's wise -concerning his remarks of "There is no Heaven" and "There is no God". Well, Hawking, if you evolved by chance, then that means your brain evolved by chance also, right? Now if your brain evolved by chance, that means your processes of logic also evolved by chance; so if your logic evolved by chance, you can't be sure it evolved the right way—you don't even know if you're saying the right words!

And I definitely did not ASK for a feature film about his life; nor that it was made by Hollywood, to add all the classic "HollyWEIRD" formulas into it, always wanting to add in a little bit of cursing, always wanting to add a little bit of sexual innuendos, and especially a little bit of bias.

This movie features one of my LEAST favorite actors Eddie Redmayne, who I thought was embarrassing in the musical "Les Miserables" (though the 1998 Liam Neeson version is a whole lot better, in terms of story.)

Anyways, in terms of the tension of this movie, did you know that every single piece of "evidence" to argue in favor of evolutionism has been either disproven, or discovered to be fraud? Even an evolutionist has to admit that fact. The man is Dr. Kent Hovind and if you watch some of his videos he will show you where, evolutionists themselves admit their "facts" are false, or at least have been disproven with science. Evolutionism is not Science as there are no facts to prove it. Evolution is theory and religion (because you must believe in it) only. Natural Selection IS a science, but changes are LIMITED within the animal kinds; all in all, it's not about "evolution".

Why are you guys trying to jam your religion down my throat, via Hollywood films, and tell me how to run my life? The religion of secular humanism is shoved down the throats of billions of kids worldwide and evolutionism is an integral part of that. But I don't suppose you have a problem with that, do you? Let me know when Hovind goes house to house and drags people to his seminars.

Just go to YouTube and search up Dr. Kent Hovind's videos - I watched them in Science and was BLOWN away!

1. Nearly all branches of Science were started by creationists (Isaac Newton, Edward Blyth, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Carl Linnaeus, Raymond Damadian, etc.) 2. The evolution theory has added nothing to the advancement of Science – it's useless. 3. When students or professors fear expressing their conclusions under threat of being flunked, demoted, fired, or ostracized – Science is suppressed.

I was saying that Evolution is a faith-based worldview, not observational "Science", believe that the scientific evidence better supports the Biblical record than it does the unscientific worldview of Evolutionism.

Science proves, you *cannot* get a fossil unless you BURY IT ALIVE!! If you just left something dead on the ground, it'll either rot, rust, die, breakdown, or other organisms will come & eat it! And the obvious question should be, "Where's all this dust coming FROM???" "What's the evidence for a worldwide flood?" Answer: Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth!

Charles Darwin himself thought a cell in your body was simple little sack of jelly - now today, we know that a cell is MORE complex than a Space Shuttle, or any satellite ever put out by NASA.

Trust me when I say that Darwinian evolutionism is a carefully-protected state religion surviving on tax dollars - waste of money! Just think of all the billions of dollars being wasted by the governments trying to prove evolution when the living Lord God Jesus Christ has already revealed our true origins through His Word - and there *IS* evidence and conformation for that.

By simple definition, "religion" is a belief without proof or evidence

and the theory of evolution matches that quite well! There has

*never* been one spadeful of dirt that has ever disproven the Bible. And there are people trying to BLEND evolution and the Bible together, when both world views are POLAR opposite on every level; why should we take a perfectly good Bible, which has never been proved wrong, and compromise it with a dumb theory that has never been proved right??

There is a principle in Science: you can have any theory you want, but if the FACTS don't square with your theory, throw your theory away! They would've thrown out Darwinist theories of evolution a long time ago, except they don't have a replacement theory other than Creation.

Evolution has been taught to control & dumb down society. Evolution is indoctrination and not part of Science. Nearly all the founders of the basics of Science were Bible-believing creationists; they believed that anyone who studies true Science will be drawn to the Creator, and Satan has worked really hard in the field of "Science" to draw people away from the Creator. Satan is using dinosaurs to make people doubt . But dinosaurs were the original "dragons" in history, that's how they fit it. :)

In the end, just another just subtle anti-Science propaganda movie

2/10

Sot #fundie forums.worldofwarcraft.com

the most complicated molecule known to man is a DNA molecule, if life were to work by natural selection the most complex would have had to come first as far as life goes. a single celled organism is more complicated than a single cell of multi-celled organism. the theory of going from simple to more complex fails in that the complex came before the simple. and that's undeniable. also if a multicelled organism, say needs several different specialized organs made from different cells than how would these organs form over time not having the other organs they rely on to live in the first place.

Roger Jones #fundie wnd.com

Ha. Ha. Lies and more lies. God is absolutely necessary to explain the universe. Your comment is total foolishness. Science absolutely cannot explain the existence or complexity of life without God.

There is not one thing in the Bible that science has proven to be wrong. Not one. Don't confuse some people's dogmatic confusion of fact and theory. Facts are provable. Faith and theory are not. Neither macro evolution theory or young earth theory are fact. They are both, so far, faith based, not fact.

The Atheist has more faith than the Christian since they have faith all this incredible complexity and order has no designer, happening totally by random chance. Macro evolution is a statistically illogical theory because it is statistically impossible for the thousands of necessary genetic mutations to occur as the theory proposes. No one has ever observed a jump from one kind of creature to another. Now that we know how complex the simplest living cell is, macro evolution theory falls flat.

Finally, the natural process is entropy, not creation. There is no evidence anywhere for raw chemicals naturally being converted into a living creature. There is no evidence for a simple living organism becoming a more complex organism one. Fossil evidence is evidence of the creature that left it, not evidence of its being an biological ancestor of anything that exists today. Macro evolution is the Atheist god and is totally faith-based theory, not scientific fact.

William Rees-Mogg #fundie timesonline.co.uk

The modernist attack on religion was based on the victory of science, and particularly of neo-Darwinism. Yet science was open to the same challenge as religion; it could explain only half the world. The scientists, or some of them, sneered at religion for being unable to explain the developments of nature. Yet science itself was unable to produce a science-based morality for society. Marxism attempted to create a scientific social order that ended in monstrous and bloodthirsty tyranny. Social Darwinism either meant eugenics and the slaughter of babies who were not thought fit to survive, or it meant nothing. The Social Darwinism of George Bernard Shaw, or indeed that of Adolf Hitler, has been rejected by mankind.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

MR: Again, when you write that paper and win a Nobel prize, I'll believe you, cause I'm open to actual evidence, of which you've demonstrated none. Without evidence, you just come off to me as a naive and gullible person repeating discredited propaganda... or a Russian shill, I'm not sure which. Evolutionary science is based on the same principles of research as any other science, and if you so distrust science, I suggest you quit using it. If churches forced people to choose between church and the benefits of science, the church certainly wouldn't last very long! We all know the benefits of science, and especially when someone's life is on the line, people may pray, but they sure as hell hedge their bets and go to the doctor, don't they!? I have a dear Christian friend who "doesn't believe in evolution" getting treatment right now with medicine based on evolutionary science. It's working.

Martin: Isn't it strange how you claim Evolution is science yet you cannot demonstrate it.
Science is what is observed and demonstrated, repeatedly. Evolution doesn't fit that.
And no, your friend is not "getting treatment right now with medicine based on evolutionary science", they are getting treatment based on real, experimental, empirical science.

MR: Which is based on what we know about evolutionary science. It's why we use other animals in medical experiments, particularly animals with which we have a closer common evolutionary ancestor. Based on what we know about the evolution of cells and viruses. You don't have to accept it, I don't care, but scientists do. I trust the scientists who have cured me and my friend more than I do some anonymous science-denying internet dude. When you give up the benefits of science, that's when I'll believe that you take your own arguments seriously.

Martin: One of the fallacies of medicinal experiments is that you can test satisfactorily on different organisms. It leads to errors in the design of medicines. Nether cells nor viruses evolve, although they very within their range.

MR: Says the non-scientist who hasn't provided a shred of evidence for his view. Scientists are well aware of their limitations. Nor does everything need to be recreated in the lab to come to a conclusion. Forensic scientists don't need to recreate a murder in order to solve a crime. I don't have to know what every little gadget in my car does to understand the basics of how a car works. The same for evolution.
Every time I travel to another part of the world, I read up on the geology of the place, the fossils, its ancient past and compare it to what I've learned. It's always consistent. Every time I travel, the evidence supports science. You've not given me one reason to believe your view. Unsupported assertions mean nothing. Until you write the paper that overturns the scientific consensus, I think we can safely ignore your opinion. Just because you have heartburn about evolution doesn't change a thing. All of your "Answers in Genesis-style" talking points have long been debunked. Even religious institutions are understanding that you can't keep asking people to check their brains at the door of the church, and have come around to the evidence of evolution. Fortunately, science and scientists keep on doing their thing without regard to your willful ignorance. Tell me again how scientists are wrong. You can tell me any lie you want. Until you provide actual evidence they're wrong, we can safely dismiss your protestations. I eagerly await your Nobel prize winning paper.

Martin: You have provided no evidence for Evolution, not merely missed out a little. My evidence is the Bible.
That fossils match the strata they're in is no surprise, for the strata are defined by the fossils. Consensus is destructive of science, it was scientific consensus that Galileo had to battle against. The evidence of the rocks and fossils is entirely consistent with the Genesis Flood narrative, scientifically.
No, the evidence and interpretations from Creationist organisations hasn't been debunked. In the main they've been ignored.It isn't a case of not using your brains, rather it's a case of actually using your brains and looking at the evidence. Exactly the same evidence you claim for Evolution supports the Genesis Flood much better.

MR: Science has provided a mountain of evidence for evolution. You've provided none. The Bible isn't evidence any more than the Vedas are evidence for a Hindu version of the universe. Creationists haven't provided any evidence, even gave up providing evidence. If they had evidence, then they'd have convinced scientists. They haven't. They just keep asserting nonsense, like you keep asserting nonsense. I'm to believe some anonymous internet dude over people who dedicate their lives making this world a better place? Wait..., have you written that paper yet? No? Oh, well, then a shout out to Frances H. Arnold, George Smith, and Sir Gregory Winter in today's news for winning the Nobel Prize for their "pioneering work in evolutionary science." Thanks for continuing to provide us with evidence for evolution. Great job!

Martin: You have provided no evidence for Evolution. What you need to do is provide a demonstration of the descent of all life from the LUCA. Anything else is just interpretation. I await your demonstration.
Creationist have provided plenty of evidence, there are papers that examine and refute the claims of Evolution. The reason many scientists will not be convinced is because then they'd have to admit there is a Creator.

Blood of Tyrants #fundie freerepublic.com

Darwin gave atheists the “beginning” they needed to rid themselves of God. Darwin also was wise enough to realize that if a cell were more complex that simple protoplasm his theory would never hold up. As it turns out, a single cell is so incredibly complex that scientists have only a remote understanding of its inner workings. Believing that a human being could accidentally evolve from muck and ooze is as ridiculous as believing that a watch you find on the beach is the result of gravity, chemical reactions with salt water and erosion.

John Chance #fundie enterthejabberwock.com

Who said it is not science? Who appointed you to decide? Darwinism is a “Theory” only, not proven science (missing link found anyone?)

Say it is “not fucking science” is in iteslf a pretty dogmatic and narrow minded statement, one bereft of ignorance.

Sadly, no one on the Evolution side ever wants to debate it. if you do, please contact:

Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics Intl.

He has so far been unsuccessful getting anyone to debate Creationism vs Evolution.

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.

Derelictus #fundie moonbattery.com

The very weighty criticisms of Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution are readily available, but for whatever reason you choose to ignore them. Note we’re not talking about natural selection, which is something no one (including Biblical creationists, most of whom aren’t as dense as you’d perhaps like to pretend) disputes. But apparently the scores of scientists who doubt Darwinian theory are all just a bunch of yokels, correct? Doubters who include prominent atheists like Antony Flew (who ceased being an atheist and moved to agnosticism before he died) and Thomas Nagel, as well as theists of all stripes.

I would suggest starting at intelligentdesign.org for an overview, then sites like uncommondescent.com, evolutionnews.org, and arn.org for more in-depth discussions of the limits of neo-Darwinism. To sum up…Darwin’s Grand Theory of Evolution is outdated 19th century science (again, NOT talking about natural selection, which is observable and factual, but that theory pre-dates Darwin himself). If Darwin were alive today, he would NOT be a Darwinist. Darwin himself thought the cell was a mere lump of protoplasm, which of course is not proven to be bogus. Believing in neo-Darwinism is like believing a 747 can assemble itself from all its assorted parts scattered on a field, given enough time (1 billion years? 13 billion? 15 quintillion? Doesn’t matter, ain’t gonna happen).

devkhera #fundie beliefnet.com

Now let us talk about the most flawed scientific theory, the Quantum Theory. It is even worse than the Theory of Evolution. Evolution seemed to have purpose towards higher organization and complexity but Quantum Theory states that things just happen randomly, without any purpose or guidance. To ridicule this theory Albert Einstein simply said, “God does not play dice with the universe”.

Other fields of science are also riddled with theories that have gaps and flaws. Without going into too much detail I can name a few. Genetic Theory, Cell Theory, Dinosaur Theory, Old Earth Theory, Moving Continents Theory, Round Earth Theory, Rotation on Axis theory, etc are all flawed theories. I would like to end with the words from Tom Cruise, the greatest actor of our time, “Psychiatry is not a science but it is a pseudo-science.” Therefore, we should actually stop teaching science in schools because it is all just pseudo-science.

CertifiedRabbi #racist reddit.com

My first real red pill occurred when I was 14-15 while I was doing research online about IQ. I already knew that I had a high IQ when I was accepted into a very prestigious private boarding school in New England, but I wanted to learn more about what exactly IQ is. And it was during that research online that I accidentally stumbled across the raging debate over racial IQ differences. After a lot of painful and uncomfortable research and soul-searching, I very reluctantly came to the extremely disturbing conclusion that the toothless, racist, inbred, skinhead, neo-Nazi, KKK pieces of shit really did have science and reality on their side.

But rather than just ending my red-pilling process there, it's probably a good idea to go over more of the details on my background in order to provide additional context to my current worldview since I think that it will help to dispel lazy stereotypes about most Alt-Righters being born into trailer parks or whatever.

My parents grew up in very liberal, wealthy families in the sister cities of Detroit and Flint, Michigan - two cities that were eventually completely ruined by black people during their lifetimes. But they first met each other at a law school that won't be named because I've already provided way too much doxxable info. After they graduated, they White Flighted to Fairfax County, Virginia - which is considered to be a part of the larger Washington, D.C. area (another city that was ruined by blacks) and is where I spent about half of my childhood.

Despite my parents being very liberal, they were actually quite socially conservative in many ways - such as their decision to not allow my siblings and I to watch TV or play video games growing up because they (correctly) thought that it would rot our brains. And the private boarding schools that I attended also didn't allow us to have TVs in our dorms. So, what do you do for entertainment when you can't watch TV or play video games? Read lots and lots of books. I had already read all of Carl Sagan's books, all of Stephen Hawking's books, all of Jared Diamond's books, and many other similar popular science books by the time that I was 13. So, I was an absolutely massive science fanboy growing up.

I was also super liberal and politically conscious growing up because my parents and grandparents were heavily involved in donating to and campaigning for the DNC for decades. Some of my earliest memories were being dragged around the Presidential campaigns of Clinton and Gore back in the 1990s and getting a behind-the-scenes look at the Clinton/Gore administration - which was pretty cool.

That's why I was so fucking incensed to see these racist, redneck fucktards dare try to claim that the science was on their side. I wanted to completely annihilate their arguments, and so I read a small mountain of books and at least a hundred blog posts and online articles and watched several documentaries on this topic before coming to the literally physically painful conclusion that the evil, subhuman racists really did have the data on their side, and that my liberal side of the debate was spouting half-truths and flat-out lies in a desperate attempt to combat White supremacy and uphold their liberal egalitarian paradigm.

I basically went full Kraut & Tea for about half a year or so researching this topic in my free time, except that I actually had the intellectual honesty to admit that the racists were right. I actually genuinely and naively believed in the liberal mantra of being open-minded and following the evidence regardless of how unpleasant it might be to my own sensibilities - and it caused me to realize that racism, social Darwinism, and eugenics is scientifically justified...

So, that was quite the traumatic red pill... But I actually managed to remain a loyal shitlib for several more years despite that paradigm-shattering realization on such an important issue. And that's because it's extremely hard to escape the liberal ideological bubble. My brain had basically been marinating in liberal propaganda my entire life. And simply being a Republican was enough to become a social pariah in the kinds of far-left social circles that I existed in. My family and friends were liberal as fuck, the communities that I lived in were liberal as fuck, the private boarding schools that I attended were liberal as fuck, the authors that I read were liberal as fuck, the popular culture that I consumed was uniformly liberal as fuck, the news that I consumed was liberal as fuck, the university that I attended was liberal as fuck, et cetera.
Reading books from far-left ideologues like Noam Chomsky in middle school and high school actually caused me to become even more far-left in my teens. I was even borderline Antifa at one point. But it was traveling to former and current communist countries, walking through museums that were dedicated to exposing communist crimes against humanity, and reading critiques of the left (e.g., The Black Book of Communism) which caused me to gradually become disillusioned with the left as I started college.

But the last straw that finally broke the camel's back was the brutal murder of my liberal White best friend by a pack of 15 MS-13 illegal immigrant gang members when we were both sophomores in college. I had never even heard of MS-13. While researching them online, I came across a random blog post by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin that was basically sounding the warning bells about the dangers of MS-13 in the Washington, D.C. area and condemning the left for allowing violent illegal immigrant gang members to spread across previously idyllic American communities.

That blog post - which she probably didn't even put that much thought and effort into - completely broke me mentally. I could barely even look at the screen while reading it because I knew that just a few weeks ago I probably would have left an angry comment on her blog calling her a racist, right-wing asshole and hoping that she got hit by a bus for writing something that was so blatantly ignorant and bigoted.
I had also strongly supported open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, sanctuary cities, and amnesty. I was basically a global citizen of the world that supported a UN on steroids because I didn't think that global problems like climate change and inequality could be solved without much stronger global governance. I basically viewed nation-states as being these primitive, tribalistic relics that were enabling disease, income inequality, war, environmental destruction, and xenophobic racism.

After reading that blog post, I finally realized that my best friend's blood was on my hands because I had supported those dangerously retarded leftist policies. And I also finally realized that my leftist views were helping to completely ruin one previously serene White community after the next and sacrificing countless innocent White lives to the altar of diversity and anti-racism. I became completely radicalized against my former leftist comrades after I realized that they had taken advantage of my ignorance and innocent altruism by brainwashing me with such a dangerously suicidal and delusional ideology.

When I first left the left and joined "the dark side", I actually started out as a fucking neocon because neocons still dominated the conservative movement - and because I was reading lots of neocon journals and books as I was exploring right-wing ideology and right-wing critiques of the left. I also became an Islamophobe because I was reading Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch blog on an almost daily basis. And I even briefly became a non-Jewish Zionist because Zionist propaganda is omnipresent in the mainstream cuckservative movement, and especially in the Islamophobia community.
Robert Spencer and other Islamophobes constantly denounce racism and routinely spout the talking point that criticism of Islam has absolutely nothing to do with race; but brown- and black-skinned Muslims flooding into the White Western world and leeching off of our welfare states, filling our prisons, turning underage White girls into sex slaves, slaughtering us in terrorist attacks, aggressively shoving their way of life onto us, and openly declaring their desire to rule over us is obviously a racial issue.
That realization caused me to seek out moderate White "racialists", which is how I discovered Jared Taylor's work. The flawless logic of his arguments and his relatively moderate approach towards pro-White activism completely changed my perceptions of White nationalists. I quickly became a closeted White nationalist and race realist (I have to pretend to be a liberal in real life in order to avoid being socially ostracized). And then Richard Spencer's work impressed me back in around 2014, which caused me to join the Alt-Right.

As to the JQ; I was very close-minded and dismissive towards the JQ my entire life, even after I became a White nationalist. I basically viewed the JQ as extremely counterproductive conspiracy mongering which didn't have any merit and would only scare people away because it reeked of Nazism; but it was during a debate with a fellow White nationalist about 4 years ago where he recommended that I read Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, and so I did. That's one of those paradigm-shifting books which completely transforms how you view the world. I checked his references to see if they were actually true, and I was shocked to see that they were. I'll never look at Jews or the world the same way again after reading that book.
So, yeah - that's a really long-winded explanation for why I left the left and joined the Alt-Right.

Habitable Worlds #fundie habitableworlds.wordpress.com

Social Darwinism is just Darwinism. Social Darwinism is just the rational assumption that mankind does not exist in a special bubble, cut off from forces we see at work every time we turn on National Geographic.

The common retort is that “social Darwinism” is merely a just-so story concocted post-hoc to explain away the effects of discrimination. There are haves and have-nots, power and oppression, and in my mind it is an obvious statement to say that such things are inevitable or “natural” given the dynamics of life on Earth. To others, however, by saying it I am erasing the real culprits, the real agents of inequality among humans: discrimination, privilege, and so on. Nothing natural about those. Combat them, and you will see equality flourish.

But this is a misunderstanding. Discrimination and privilege are absolutely a part of the natural order of things that we see at work on National Geographic.

Japanese macaques (snow monkeys) have a stark hierarchy of who does and who does not get to soak in the hot springs. There is a certain class privilege given to young macaques who are lucky enough to be born to dominant females. They get the warm waters of the hot springs; the others are quite literally left out in the cold.

Elk regularly face discrimination—the ones who are weak, elderly, retarded are the ones who will be eaten by the wolves, not the ones who are strong, young, able. Clearly, ageism and able-bodied privilege are at work on the arctic tundra, and the consequences are not psychological but a matter of life and death.

Rape-culture is rampant in nature. Just the other day, at the zoo, I saw a male lion humping a female lion despite her obvious displeasure and anger. Yet she was weaker and smaller than the male lion, and had nowhere to run.

Privilege, discrimination, rape-culture . . . the academic concepts of the Progressives are merely labels for behaviors that we see across the animal kingdom, and it is the existence of privilege, discrimination, and rape culture across the animal kingdom that completely undermines the utility of these concepts—they are supposed to name uniquely human (and therefore alterable) phenomena. But as spending five minutes in front of a wildlife documentary will demonstrate, they are not uniquely human phenomena. They exist in the non-human world. So the onus is on the progressives: what makes you think you can change the behavior of the human animal any more than you can stop dominant macaques from keeping the other macaques out of the hot springs?

Unknown author #fundie darwinconspiracy.com

We are trained scientists and everything you read on this website is based on the latest scientific discoveries published in the most respected peer reviewed scientific journals.

Nothing we write on this website is based on the Bible or any religious beliefs.

But we are persons of faith and proud of it. In fact, we have no doubt we are better scientists because we embrace Divine Providence, as did all fifty-six Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence.

The only goal of this website is to use scientific methodology to seek the truth and the truth is there have recently been earth shaking scientific discoveries in genetics that now proven Darwin was wrong because:

“Ape to human evolution” is impossible - recent DNA tests reveal that ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes.

“One species into another species evolution” cannot occur in bisexual animals becaue the laws of genetics and embryology preserve each species and prevent any bisexual species from evolving into another.

This website will provide you with details from peer reviewed scientific journals to support all this.

If you are wondering why you have not read about any of this, it is because a very powerful Darwin Conspiracy, led by atheists, has suppressed the truth about evolution theory and fed us lie after lie after lie for over 100 years.

The Darwin Conspiracy has both faked evidence, suppressed evidence and it currently constantly lies to promote Darwinism.

The Piltdown Man is an example of the power of the Darwin Conspiracy and how insidious the conspiracy has been.

In 1912, Darwin's “ape to human evolution theory” was at its most critical crossroads – Darwnians had to either come up with the “missing link” or evolution theory would become extinct. For decades, critics of “ape to human evolution theory” had pounded it by insisting that unless it comes forward with evidence of the “missing link,” then “ape to human evolution theory” should be put to death.

In the fall of 1912, the Darwin Conspiracy was formed and on December 18, 1912, the Geological Society, with the assistance of co-conspirator British Museum of Natural History, unvieled a faked skull that they claimed was the “missing link.” Their forgery led to headlines all over the world proclaiming “Missing Link Found – Darwin's Theory Proved.”

The faked Piltdown Man saved Darwin's Theory of evolution from being quickly extinct, and for the next forty years, atheists incessantly cited the fake Piltdown Man skull as irrefutable evidence for “ape to human evolution theory.”

Faking evidence is bad enough but the British Museum and other Darwin Conpirators went much further. They not only faked evidence but the British Museum insisted on being “keeper of the Piltdown Man skull” and refused to permit anyone to examine the Piltdown Man skull. In effect, the British Museum said “We have the evidence but we will not allow anyone to examine or verify our evidence and you just have to take our word for it.”

The British Museum claimed they were afraid the Piltdown Skull would be somehow contaminated or harmed if any one examined it. But the real reason no one was allowed to even look at it from a distance is that it was so obvious a fake.

For over three decades, the British Museum arrogantly denied any requests to examine the fake Piltdown Man skull. Most of the scientific community did not object because they were atheists and part of the Darwin Consipiracy

But then, Darwinians ran into a problem that forced the British Museum to change its stance.

By 1949, most Darwinists supported the “Man Came Out of Africa Theory” of human evolution which said that humans evolved from apes in Africa. But this theory was directly contradicted by the Piltdown Man skull because that faked skull would support the theory that humans came from England, or Europe instead of Africa.

In fact, in 1949, the fake Piltdown Man skull stood in the way of “Man Came Out of Africa Theory” and several prominent Darwinists, including Louis Leakey (who discovered “Lucy”) convinced the British Museum to allow them to examine the Piltdown Man skull.

A History Channel documentary revealed that Louis Leakey said that the Piltdown Man skull was so obvious a forgery that he could tell the skull was a fake from over fifteen feet away because the coloring of the jaw and skull were different. This fact proves the British Museum and all of its hierarchy knew it was a fake and also that it was easy for any expert to know the skull was a forgery and that is why the museum refused to allow anyone to examine it.

This is an example of how a very powerful Darwin Conspiracy, led by atheists, fakes evidence, suppresses the truth and spreads lies in order to promote Darwinian evolution theory.

We are here to combat the Darwin Conspiracy that prevents you from easily learning about the latest scientific data and information that are related to evolution theories. We promise to do our best to provide you with only what is factual and true, without bias.

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

Kari #fundie forums.worldofwarcraft.com

Q u o t e:

It is in fact a greater stretch to look at the world and say there is a god. To say you look out and find a greater power in the air is to say you've ignored the tremendous pain and suffering of people.

As for evidence for evolution? The common theory is that evolution didn't occur through small changes over and over as in Darwin's ideas, it actually occurred through something called punctuated equilibrium. What this means is that a few small cosmetic changes happened now and then but somewhere along the line a great big change happened and completely dissolved the need for small changes. Religious scholars as well as secular scholars seem to agree on this issue.

Does it matter? Darwin's theory if far from complete. It has more flaws than the Bible everyone loves to criticize.

The truth is, Darwin never intended his theory to reject the belief in God. In fact, he advised against it. He understood that there would be some that would use his theory to negate the existence of God and that was never his intention. Darwin also admitted his theory was not the only one and was not flawless.

deuteronimy232 #fundie freerepublic.com

Neither Creation nor evolution are science, both are religions. We who believe God created the world just as He says He did in His book the Bible are creationist. Those who believe the theory out forward by some worm eaten corpse named darwin are evolutionist. Nether believe is based upon science as science is defined, both are based upon a religious belief.
As for me, I'll go with God's book after all, He was there at the beginning. And I admit that it is my religious convictions and absolute believe in the word of God that leads me to that conclusison. Why is it that evolutionist can not be as honest, for there is no science in evolution, just one changing theroy after an other, one misguide belief after another.

Nickthesupergenious #fundie teenspot.com

im creationist for several reasons
for a start i have found several, i guess you could say, holes in the theory of evolution
the first cell, when it "evolved" why would it bother to evolve any more, its the top dog, wouldnt it just sit there completely content w/ being the only living thing on earth?

this one is a little amusing
lets take the example of a giraffe, so it starts out sorta like a horse, it decides it needs a long neck to eat the food at the top of the tree.
so it starts growing a long neck. it finally gets its long neck and reaches up to get some food and passes out cuz it cant get blood to its head (dead)
so then it starts to evolve a strong muscles to push the blood to its head. its gets the muscles and the long neck.
now it can eat from the top of the tree, when it reaches down to get a drink, the blood rushes to its head and its head explodes (dead)
then afters its been extinct twice then it knows it needs a long neck, strong muscles to get the blood up there, and a sponge like tissue to soak up blood when its getting a drink

its the whole thing of "irreducible complexity" where if you take out one part of a system (in this case a giraffe) then it wont work

this applies to a cell too. if you took out a part of a cell then they wouldnt work anymore.
darwin (the inventor of evolution) said that if a cell cant be reduced then my theory wont work
(he came up w/ his theory before we really knew much of anything about cells, i believe at the time the were just thought to be little blobs, which they arent)

now the whole theory of natural selection, i do believe in (its not actually a set part of evolution, but it does work in w/ the whole theory)
in my freshman biology class we studied about how when the grand canyon was formed a group of rodents live in the area and was separated by the chasm. over time they each adapted to there different environments and even became different colors

lol, sorry that took so much space and all but i hope it helped
feel free to ask me stuff if you would like, i cant promise that ill have the answer but ill do my best to answer the best i can

Cameron Mitchel #fundie forum.gateworld.net

Let me just say this, not once has proven science disproven facts about the Bible. But the Bible does disprove certain theories of science. Think about that... proven science doesn't disprove the existence of a deity. You may say that the Big Bang and evolution do, but no, they aren't proven. But, however, the Bible does disprove evolution and the Big Bang. So, as I said, think about that before responding again.

Christian Revival Center (Thomas Robb Ministries) and The Knights Party #fundie whitepridehomeschool.com

Ken Ham, the famous “creationist” is a favorite of the new apostate Christian church. He is heavily cited as an expert in Christian science textbooks. He misleads his followers into believing in evolution. How can a “creationist” mislead sincere Christians into believing in evolution? He teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans (we know they were the first white man and woman) and that from them all Homosapiens resulted. After the tower of Babel incident when God confused the languages – Ken Ham teaches that people went to different parts of the world and in a few hundred years evolved into the different races. People in Africa became black and got tight kinky hair. People in Asia got extra eye folds from squinting at the sun and people in Europe – well they didn’t really change much at all. His theories are bizarre and based on Charles Darwin. Noah and his family who God spared because he was perfect in his generation (racially pure) He wasn’t really perfect – only Jesus Christ is perfect – were a mixed race family – we are told by “scientists” like Ham. He would have us believe that Noah had a racially integrated family. None of his teachings make any sense and smack of the ramblings of a small child who comes up with various fantasies as to why the sky is blue.

Gary Cass #fundie defendchristians.org

For the last two generations students from kindergarten through graduate school have been constantly inculcated with the atheistic, humanistic, materialistic view of evolution. This is poisonous fountain from which flows humanism in all its Anti-Christian forms; Communism; Fascism, Relativism. But the evidence from science against evolution is mounting.

Darwin’s theory that life started from simple forms and evolved into more complex forms is being refuted almost daily. The more we know, the more see even that even the simplest forms of life are irreducibly complex and filled with millions of bits of complex genetic code. Did you know the human body has approximately 60 billion bits of intricate genetic information, at least that until recently, it might be as high as 120 billion bits.

Time Magazine recently reported a research team at the University of Washington has discovered a second code hidden within our DNA written on top of the other. The first code describes how proteins are made, the second language instructs the cell on how genes are to be controlled. Do you think further research will find there to be more or less complexity?

Stephan Hawkin, one of the famous “new atheists,” concludes; “The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.”

It’s a good thing the religion of evolution has been protected by the courts. If it had to stand on its own merits it collapses like a house of cards. It has done incalculable harm, but its days are numbered as a serious scientific theory.

Rayburne Winsor #fundie facebook.com

Rayburne Winsor: Renown physicist Paul Davies, certainly no friend to Creationists or Christians in general, has pointed out that the living cell would be more meaningfully equated to an incredibly powerful supercomputer, in his own words, "an information processing and replicating system of astonishingly complexity." He stated: "DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a general databank that transmits its own information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff--hardware--but as information, or software," which as a naturalistic origin-of-life perspective.."leaves us with a curious conundrum. How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information processor—the original living cell—from the blind chaos of blundering molecules ? How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?"

A recent New Scientist article stated: "There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP, and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell".

My reply: And evolutionists claim there is no evidence to believe in a superintelligent, All-wise, All-knowing, All powerful , Creator-God. No wonder God's word states that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God (1 Corinthians 3: 19). The problem is not evidence but, as one scientist said, they (evolutionists ) cannot allow God to get a foot in the door. Some educated people are ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth . God bless.


David Murray: Its called cell theory, its well explained, and you shouldn't talk about science when you dont know any

Rayburne Winsor
Rayburne Winsor David, stop acting like an idiot. That is how you come across to people reading this , because you don't have to be a scientist (are you one?) to understand what Paul Davies said above anymore than I have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2= 4. Honestly, I have heard all this crap before(nothing new) from atheists and Bible skeptics who think that the only avenue to determine truth is what can be understood by a naturalistic explanation. Naturalism does not explain the origin of life, the origin of sex, the origin of consciousness, the origin of love , the origin of morality . These may be "unsolved mysteries " to Richard Dawkins (who now knows better) but they are easily and most rationally and intelligently explained in God's Word.

David Murray: i dont care what atheists say, i care what science says and what DNA proves and what is a scientific theory you are ignorant of, cell theory
the origin of life is an ongoing study in several major universities and to try to talk about with no data in yet shows you are another idiot yelling at the wright brothers man will never fly
gods word says planets come before stars so its worth nothing to anyone with half a clue how the natural world works

Rayburne Winsor: But you do, right David. Typical proud, arrogant atheist response.
DNA, science and information theory (bio-informatics, the study of biological information) disproves "from the goo, through the zoo, to you, molecules to man" evolution. (see Gitt, W. ., 1997, In the Beginning was Information, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany and Truman, R. The problem of information for the theory of evolution: Has Dawkins really solved it? 1999; trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp).
trueorigin.org
- The Problem of Information -
- The Problem of Information -

(...)

Rayburne Winsor: Really? But you know better than God's Word (He is not one of little gods) . Right? God's Word has a name for you. Proverbs 14:1).

phillyade88 #fundie answers.yahoo.com

I think it [evolution] still must be questioned...judging on the fact they found 18K Gold Chariot Wheels in the red sea that are carbon dated to the same time Moses parted it.

And judging on the fact they found a piece of an ark that carbon dates back to Noahs time.

Science has NEVER PROVEN "darwins theory of evolution"....but general evolution...sure. We all evolve...right now I am evolving because time never freezes. Nice try atheist.

Anonymous #fundie bit.ly

[Poll on Facebook]

Do you think that Christian-based science and techonology is the most cutting edge science their is?

Christian-based science, technology, and biology are quickly eclipsing the secular sciences. Studies have shown that by 2020 many of todays secular sciences will no longer be relevant and that Christian-based versions will replace them by that year.

(Option 1) Yes, studies prove this

(Option 2) Yes, but secular science is also relevent

(Option 3) No, but I know very little about science

Saudi Arabia Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta #fundie dailymail.co.uk

Saudi Arabia's top clerical body has banned Pokemon Go saying it is too similar to gambling and that characters are based on Darwin's evolution theory.

It also said the game carried symbols of 'deviant' religions and organisations, such as 'international Zionism' and Israel, Christian crosses, Freemasonry, and symbols from Japan's native Shinto religion.

Despite Pokemon Go not yet being officially available in ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia, many have downloaded it illegally and have joined the global frenzy of hunting for virtual pocket monsters

The kingdom's Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta said in its latest announcement on its website that it has republished a 2001 edict on the game after 'receiving many questions' on it from the public.

The 15-year-old fatwa said the game was too much like gambling and that the concept of its characters appeared to be based on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is rejected by Islam.

It also said most cards on the game carried symbols of 'deviant' religions and organisations, such as 'international Zionism' and Israel, Christian crosses, Freemasonry, and symbols from Japan's native Shinto religion.

heil19 #racist debate.org

All he needed to do was win the war Hitler's perfect world would not at all be a bad place to be born in. Looking at the prosperous germany of 1933-1939 we can get a glimpse of a beta version of hitler's perfect world. If Hitler had won the war the utopian society could have been established. Hitler's perfect world would however be better than the beta of it from 1933-1939. Hitler's perfect world is not the same as the Holocaust. Hitler's perfect world is the end goal and the Holocaust is just the means to achieve an end. The means justify the ends. All that needs to happen was for Hitler to have reached the end goal in order to make up for whatever suffering done to achieve the end. Unfortunately Hitler did not achieve the end goal so thus far it seems not worth it. However the creation of a 4th Reich could solve this problem.

[Then he makes another comment]

K
i'd like to clarify the difference between Hitler's perfect world and the 'Holocaust'

People seem to have a grave misunderstanding and seem to related national socialism in practice to national socialism in theory.
National Socialism in theory is essentially hitler's perfect world. National socialism in practice is the mass execution done in the name of eugenics
People seem to relate Hitler's perfect world to the Holohoax but people don't realize that once the perfect world is created the mass executions no longer need to be carried out.
True it may be morally repulsive with the holohoax and all but I believe the long term benefits of Hitler's perfect world will outweigh and short terms mass executions used to achieve those means.
Auschwitz will be disbanded in Hitler's perfect world once auschwitz has finished its job
Thus auschwitz was never a part of Hitler's perfect world.
Think of the world today as a crude and rough diamond ore. The mass executions auschwitz included are the refiners. Hitler's perfect world is the beautiful diamond itself. Once a diamond is perfect and refined then there no longer exists a reason to have the refiner
Thus judge the diamond not by the refiner so much as by its perfect beauty
After a few brief months when Hitler took power, Germany's economic problems went away and the country began to progress and make better of itself. True it wasn't perfect yet because of imperfections in the gene pool, but it was on its way.

Collin #fundie blog.wired.com

Creationists: God made everything and everything was made by God. His name is Jesus, who made Himself a body to become the sacrifice for our sins, that we would not have to be punished for them (our sins) but instead receive everlasting life.

Intelligent Design: Used in archeology when examining artifacts to ascertain the development level of the society in which the artifact was made. Also used in the scientific quest to find evidence of extraterrestrial life. Using the concept of irreducible complexity to ascertain the possibility that an intellegent being had created an artifact. "Observations, Practicums and CONCLUSIONS", boys and girls. REAL SCIECE YOU IDIOTS!

Darwinism: A dogmatic cult of quasi-science based on 19th century science. One of the root causes of the spread of socially destructive movements. The passive role of scientific theory has become the mantra of totalitarian governments that despise God and love the propagada of the "Theory of Evolution". Its yesterday's science, like bleeding to cure a disease, frontal lobotomies to fix mental disorders and forced sterializations.
Get over it!

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)

dwmitch #fundie theologyweb.com

Now why do we teach our children as fact one theory, which science admits can not be proven concretely, and reject another as backwoods mysticism? Because maybe if our children realize that we were designed for a specific function we would be pressured into doing the unthinkable and perhaps live for something other than our own gratification.

CertifiedRabbi #fundie reddit.com

Who wants to bet that these IQ-linked genes won't be evenly distributed across "population groups" (aka, races)? I'm willing to bet my entire bank account that the widely observed racial IQ hierarchy that we've known about for decades will line up almost perfectly with these genome-wide polygenic scores. Likewise for socioeconomic class hierarchies (aka, social Darwinism). Is the anti-racist, anti-classist, social constructionist, egalitarian left willing to do the same? Yeah, that's what I thought...

I remember getting into a really heated debate on the old /r/AltRight subreddit about 2 years ago with a couple of the mods at /r/science that claimed to be professional geneticists. They laughed at my argument that we were probably only 5 to 10 years away from being able to create accurate DNA-based IQ predictors. I argued that when that became a reality, all of the "social constructionist" leftists that have completely dominated and corrupted both the scientific and academic community for decades would finally be exposed as the lying frauds that they so obviously are - which, again, they laughed off as being pseudoscientific nonsense.
I linked them some blog posts like this one and some video lectures like this one from Stephen Hsu because I had been following his work for several years, and so I was aware of the pioneering research that he was doing on this topic. But they were too lazy to read the blog posts or watch the lectures, which should give you an idea of how close-minded and politically biased and motivated that sub and the larger scientific community is...
Instead of trying to understand why I thought that Stephen Hsu was on to something, they instead argued that we'll probably never be able to accurately predict IQ based on DNA alone because intelligence is only partially heritable and because the portion of human intelligence that is heritable involves several thousand different genes that are interacting in impossibly complex ways.

Lots of other geneticists and academics felt the same exact way about DNA-based height predictors because height is also only partially heritable and relies on the complex interactions of thousands of different genes. But thanks to the work of a group of researchers that Stephen Hsu was a member of, we now have a DNA-based height predictor that can predict someone's height to within an inch.

And the reason why that's so important is because we can use pretty much the same exact technique that they used to create accurate DNA-based height predictors to create accurate DNA-based IQ predictors. Stephen Hsu argues that we simply need to analyze the genomes of about a million people and give them IQ tests in order to create an accurate DNA-based IQ predictor. Right now researchers are mostly relying on rough proxies for IQ like academic performance and years of completed education, but that's not as good as actual IQ tests.
And another reason why the advent of DNA-based predictors for highly polygenic human traits like height and IQ is so important is because it will allow us to greatly improve the genetic health of our species (aka, eugenics). As I wrote in more detail here, pretty soon we're going to have the ability to walk into a fertility clinic with our wives and then be able to pick the embryo with the highest IQ. And then shit is really going to get wild when we have the technical know-how to utilize precision gene editing in order to safely select all of the genes and alleles linked to intelligence while also avoiding harmful pleiotropic effects, which will produce the smartest people to ever live in all of human history.

And it's fucking sad that we have to rely on based, politically incorrect Asian researchers like Stephen Hsu in order to push through the wall of leftist, social constructionist, anti-racist, and anti-classist biases that completely dominate the West's academic and scientific institutions - which is largely being caused by Jewish and gentile shitlibs. I guess that that will be one of the benefits of China's rise and mass Asian immigration into the West.

I remember reading an article that predicted that China was on track to surpassing America and the West in about 50 years when it came to producing the top 1% of scientific papers which get cited by other scientists. And while China surpassing the West will obviously suck for us overall, one of the benefits for we Alt-Right hereditarians is that both science and academia will lurch back to the hereditarian right - which will move our species forward and rehabilitate the much-maligned reputations of the pioneering Western scientific racists and eugenicists of the late 19th and early 20th century.

natkra09 #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Why would we need to come up with any new evidence when there is already so much evidence that Atheists ignore? Atheism is based on either spite for God, or "scientists", but not science, and definitely not on solid reason. People are so easily swayed by what the guy on TV says that they rarely look into the evidence themselves. Have you ever figured out how complex a cell is in the most simple form. A cell is much more compicated than a PC. It is next to impossible for a cell to have come from soup by natural selection. Have you ever asked yourself a very simple question? Do accidents breed destruction, or complex life forms? Anyone with half a brain could tell you that accidents breed destruction. Yet people still believe that there is no God simply because anyone who questions macro-evolution is hushed and jeered as if it's a political arena, and not a science arena. This is because modern "science" has turned into politics. If you want evidence, just look around at the complexities of life. It is just too complex to say that natural selection did it, especially if you want to call it science.

Satyapal Singh #fundie theguardian.com

Indian education minister dismisses theory of evolution

Scientists condemn Satyapal Singh for saying ‘Darwin’s theory is scientifically wrong’

India’s minister for higher education has been condemned by scientists for demanding the theory of evolution be removed from school curricula because no one “ever saw an ape turning into a human being”.

Satyapal Singh stood by his comments on Monday, saying his ministry was ready to host an international conference where “scientists can come out and say where they stand on the issue”.

“I have a list of around 10 to 15 great scientists of the world who have said there is no evidence to prove that the theory of evolution is correct,” Singh told a crowd at a university in Assam state, adding that Albert Einstein had agreed the theory was “unscientific”.

Singh, who has a postgraduate degree in chemistry from Delhi University, said he was speaking as a “man of science”.

“Darwin’s theory is scientifically wrong,” he said at the weekend. “It needs to change in the school and college curriculum.

“Since man is seen on Earth, he has always been a man. Nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral, said they ever saw an ape turning into a human being.”

More than 2,000 Indian scientists have signed a petition in response calling Singh’s remarks simplistic, misleading and lacking in any scientific basis.

“It is factually incorrect to state that the evolutionary principle has been rejected by the scientific community,” the statement said. “On the contrary, every new discovery adds support to Darwin’s insights. There is plentiful and undeniable scientific evidence to the fact that humans and the other great apes and monkeys had a common ancestor.”

Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution nearly 160 years ago, arguing that all species, including humans, evolved over time through a process of natural selection. He argued that humans and apes share a common ancestor who lived more than 7m years ago, an idea frequently misunderstood to be suggesting modern apes turned into human beings.

Ancient Indian scholars are credited with advances in astronomy and mathematics including the invention of the concept of zero, but religious nationalist figures have been accused in recent years of pushing “ideological science”.

That includes claims by the prime minister, Narendra Modi, that myths from the origin texts of Hinduism include evidence of plastic surgery and genetic science.

YS Rajan, a prominent scientist, said in response to Singh’s comments that Hindu texts such as the Rigveda included lines that explicitly embraced knowledge from across the world.

“Nothing in ... Bharatiya samskaar [Indian philosophy] would demand rejection of such theory or for that matter any scientific findings,” he wrote on Facebook.

SavedByGraceThruFaith #fundie atheistforums.org

Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)

Atheistic origin science has a lot of explaining to do to counter the very obvious and scientific conclusion that God, the Almighty Creator, indeed created all things. A thorough investigation into the facts, the laws of nature, mathematics, and logic will prove that this alternative explanation, of an origin without God, is totally false and contradictory.

Therefore, a second irrefutable proof of the existence of God Almighty the Creator can be made. Assume indeed that atheistic origin science is correct, and all of the creation can be explained without God by the laws of nature and random chance. As will be shown, this assumed theory will prove to be false. And since the only alternative to a Creator is false, then again the fact that the Creator, God Almighty, exists will have been proven again.

Atheistic origin science claims that it can explain the origin of things without God. The claim is that most things have been explained and only the details need to be ironed out. The truth is that atheistic origin science has not been able to answer anything of importance in the origin question. If anything, new discoveries have ended all hope that it will ever be successful. So after over 150 years since Darwin, and over 50 years of an extensive effort, atheistic origin science has not answered anything. Why does anybody believe it ever will? Most of its believers have either died or will die before anything will ever be answered.

To show that atheistic origin science has failed, I will just ask for some simple answers to some very simple questions. If atheistic origin science has answers, this should be no more than to copy the answers from the verified answer book of atheistic origin science.

If there are no real answers, it proves my point.

If the answers given are not complete answers, avoids questions, dances around questions, or doesn't answer one single question, what does that say about the claims of atheistic origin science.

Please note I have some more simple questions to ask.

Questions

What was the first living thing?

Was it made of just proteins?
If so, how many amino acids did it have and what was their sequence?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.
How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

Was it made of just RNA and proteins?
If so, how many nucleotides for the RNA and amino acids for the proteins?
What were the sequences for both?
What are the odds of that happening?
How did it then make the jump to DNA?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

Did it actually use DNA?
If so, how many nucleotides for the DNA?
What was the DNA code sequence?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

What was the 2nd living creature?
The 3rd, 4th ... up the actual first cell?
What are the odds of each of those jumps?
Please show real calculations.

Upward evolution

Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?
What are the odds based on the fact that there would be about 30 million base code differences in a 3 billion base code DNA between the 2 creatures, only 500,000 generations in that time, and only at most several million individuals for each of most of those generations?
What are the odds?
Please show real calculations.
How did that happen since higher-level creatures use sexual reproduction?
Please show real calculations.

Now repeat that feat for the over 100 million species that have been supposedly on the Earth. What are the odds of that?
Please show real calculations.

Given the fact that mutations in general corrupt the DNA code, why is the DNA code of all species not completely corrupted after the long line of progression over hundreds of millions of years?

The fossil record

Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?

Why has not a single chain of missing links of one disparate species becoming another ever been found in the entire fossil record?
There are millions of chains of missing links still missing. None have been found.

Provide one set of dates for one supposed intermediate species. Give the dates of the ancestor, the intermediate and the descendent species for one intermediate species.

JohnR7 #fundie christianforums.com

Darwin took truth and twisted it into a lie. A common methoid of satan, you see it from the beginning. The Bible exposes satan and all of his attempts at deception. That is why Darwin has been proven to be false and the people he argued against have been proven to be true. So followers of Darwin have had to replace Darwin's "theory" with a modern post Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism.

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?

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.

Gary #fundie rr-bb.com

Theory - 'Not derived from experience; speculative; to form opinions solely by speculation' According to Webster's dictionary. Meaning; Einstein's theory, however attractive on paper, has never been proven to be true. It is just that ; a theory. And that's not what I think it means, that's what Webster's says it is. It isn't truth, until it can be proven. It doesn't matter how many other 'theories' have been based on this in the past century it is still a 'theory'. It you based all of you thruth on centuries old theory, then you should believe in evolution too, which also cannot be proven.

Ron Graham #fundie raptureready.com

Charles Darwin is credited with bringing about a worldwide change in man’s thinking about the origins of life. Although Darwin wasn’t the first to espouse the idea of the theory of evolution, he certainly got most of the credit. When Charles Darwin wrote his famous book on the theory of evolution, he probably had no idea where that ugly lie would take mankind and what a major falling away from faith in God would occur.

Man has been trying to glorify Darwin and promote his theory of evolution even though there isn’t a shred of proof of any of those so called scientific “evolutionary” facts. Man in all his diligence has never found any intermediate fossils. This means scientists have no proof of anything evolving from a lower life form into a higher life form. Man has never found or observed a gradual change in any life form in all the billions of fossils that have been dug up in all the years he has been searching. Mutations and adaptations happen, but there is no observable evidence pointing to a transition form one life form to another. That fact alone demolishes the theory of evolution. If Darwin was alive today, and being presented with the scientific facts we now have, he would not be a believer in his own theory.

Darwin wrote “Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].”

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species p. 323

One example we can see is the scientific evidence against the human eye evolving. This is a staggering reality; the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of our Creator God. All secular scientists have is blind speculation.

“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown”

4Given #fundie disqus.com

"If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?"
I hope you know this is a line that is used to ridicule people who do not understand evolution.

It would serve you better to study Irreducible Complexity instead of Evolutionary Theory because it basically disproves Evolutionary Theory.

This is what a simple search on irreducible complexity turns up on Google:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a
pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve
by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems
through natural selection.

That's interesting because "pseudoscientific" would be a term that more properly fits a theory written by a man such as Darwin, who wasn't even a scientist.

worship4ever #fundie christianforums.com

Get your head out of your butts and start looking at things from an objective manner. Darwin himself stated that his theory could be proven wrong if some things in science could be found, they have. What you people have done is taken the theory of evolution and applied it to every aspect of science. You think the universe is evoling, plantets, space, cells, animals, humans, everything, its stupid. I feel sorry for you guys.

Curtis #fundie bibleforums.org

I’m a little surprised that none of you have mentioned “Intelligent Design”. Science has proven that a single cell is irreversible complex, being that it is impossible to have evolved. Both Christian and Non-Christian scientists now agree on this fact. AS a matter of fact one atheist scientist has give a person better odds of rolling dice and coming up with six’s every time fifty thousands times in a roll.

Intelligent Design has changed my faith life forever and I thank God!

Rom831 #fundie rr-bb.com

Want to invoke occam's razor? Cats evolved into cats? Or a microbe involved into intermediate... things which continued to evolve and evolve and evolve through simple cells, complex cells, fish, amphibians, reptiles, basic mamals, to cats. Hmmmm....

Wendy Moir #fundie forums.randi.org

NASA believes that the Sun a radiated body caused life on Earth, yet ancient documentation states that Light created life, not evil.

Sun worship, a burning body of energy light sound forms evil burnt bodies of radiation. Radiation attacked the Earth and caused her atmosphere to fall out as per ancient literature explains.

Radiation is supposed to be the result of origin creation as per scientific literature updates, yet origin creation quantifies that it was destroyed and transformed via our own awareness as conscious receiver of information, hence radiation the evil burnt body did not create life as previously supposed. Sun worship was therefore stopped as a religious practice.

By ancient religious version the previous Heaven Earth atmosphere was attacked by the Sun (Satan), and the Christ act (Oxygen) saved the life of Earth by stopping the radiation burn releasing a huge volume of water onto Planet Earth, causing radiation (Satan) to fall into the Earth body (stone). The empty atmosphere around the planet cut off the radiation attack of Earth.

Oxygen was created as the Christ Act in the previous origin formed atmosphere, and when the earth's volcanic eruptions released gases and vapor, the atmosphere was replaced from its act of destruction as fall out. Human remains pre dating the dinosaur era has proven this via archaeological discovery in coal bodies. Radiation burning the previous nature on Earth evidence of the coal beds containing human implements. Volcanic eruptions replaced the Earth face with new stone.

Oxygen therefore became the new atmospheric spirit of creation. Oxygen as a mass body therefore protects us from radiation attacking us as per documentation. Radiation quantifies that it is used by science to destroy cells allowing healthy cells to continue to produce.

If our consciousness, the state of our personal awareness believed that radiation created us, why would it protect its own body from radiation pollution when dealing with cancer victims? As consciousness demonstrates to advise us, it seems it already does.

Science looking for new creation theories are involved in the current day dilemma of falling out UFO bodies in their attempt to study the evolution of cellular matter. Believing in the radioactive creator theory (evil spirit) is therefore a new science theory proposed by the occult scientists.

NASA has demonstrated occult science exploration along with the Catholic Church........what else is there to say?

Cassiterides #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

If you believe that light travels that means you start at the assumption of the intromission theory.

Starting at assumptions is not scientific.

And saying Einsteins theories are empirical is ignorant.

A theory = something not proven scientifically.

Definition of theory:

An assumption based on information or knowledge; a conjecture.

If that's what you think science is, then no wonder you believe in evolution.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Will There Be a National Darwin Day?

Will Darwin Day be honored as a national holiday here in America? Well, a resolution was reintroduced to the US House of Representatives recently to recognize Charles Darwin’s birthday (February 12, 2016) as a national holiday because of many absurd reasons. There has since been an additional resolution from a Democratic Senator that would show Congressional support for the Darwin Day distinction.

Now, some of the reasons listed nationally for celebrating Darwin, who of course was not an American, include the following:

•Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

•It has been the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Darwin that has promoted new scientific discoveries that have helped humanity solve many problems and improve living conditions.

•The teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems.

•Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth’s peoples.

These are terrible reasons to make Darwin Day a national holiday. Putting aside the fact that Darwin was not an American, Darwinian evolution has no confirmation in observational science. What we see in the world is consistent with God’s Word, not evolutionary ideas about the past, and much of what we observe actually contradicts evolutionary ideas.

Darwin isn’t a great example of “human curiosity and ingenuity”—he was compelled to come up with a way to explain life without God because he rejected God. Although AiG doesn’t lobby for it because creation would probably be poorly represented by teachers, mandating that creation be taught alongside evolution doesn’t compromise “scientific and academic integrity”—if done properly, it promotes critical thinking and inspires a desire to learn more about God’s creation.

And Darwin isn’t a “worthy symbol” of the promotion of “a common bond among all of Earth’s peoples.” He was racist and his ideas were racist! Choosing Darwin as the symbol of “scientific advancement” instead of many more worthy and less controversial figures like Newton, Mendel, or Pasteur seems to be nothing more than an attempt to push the anti-God religion of secularism on the nearly half of Americans who believe in a Creator.

Proposed Holiday Shows How Anti-God Our Society Has Become

This proposed new holiday only emphasizes how anti-God our society has become. Christian holidays like Christmas or Easter have been secularized to the point where Nativity scenes and crosses are being taken out of public places, yet a secular figure whose ideas on the origin of life are a major tenet of the secular religion of humanism can be publicly applauded and celebrated. It’s not really Darwin who’s being celebrated on Darwin Day, it’s an anti-God religion and its foundation of evolution and millions of years that’s being celebrated. Actually, the intolerant secularists (intolerant of Christianity in particular) are now wanting more and more to impose their anti-God religion on the culture.

On the home page of the International Darwin Day website (a website that promotes the celebration of Darwin around the world) scrolls several phrases: “Let’s celebrate intellectual bravery . . . perpetual curiosity . . . hunger for truth . . . Let’s celebrate Darwin Day.” It should be more like “let’s celebrate man’s fallible ideas being trusted over God’s infallible Word!” This is really a worship of man, a worship of the god of self.

Darwin Day is a day that celebrates the legacy of a man who elevated his own fallible ideas over God’s Word. Darwin took the things he observed—natural selection and adaptation—and leapt to the conclusion that these small, observable changes within a kind could lead to huge, unobserved (and still unobserved!) changes between kinds. But his ideas still have no observational corroboration. What we see in nature is kinds that reproduce according to their kinds with only limited amounts of variation within the kind. We do see common designs in all of creation but that is explained by a common Designer, not common descent. This is consistent with God’s Word, not Darwin’s imaginations about the past.

This February 12, I encourage you to celebrate the truth of God’s unchanging Word. Use “Darwin Day” as a springboard for conversations with your friends and family about the flaws of evolution and show them how observational science confirms God’s Word from the beginning. And then challenge people that the history in the Bible—starting with Genesis—is true, and that’s why the gospel based in that history is true.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

cantfightnature #sexist cantfightnature.tumblr.com

[The edgelord with the racist porn blog returns! Once again, the source is NSFW.]

Good Dick Will Make Girls Think You’re a Good Person

Breaking a couple of my rules on talking about my own life, but something happened that was so remarkably indicative of how women work. Here we go:
Yesterday an Asian girl I know starts talking to me about how many creepy white guys she knows. That’s just a part of life, she says, if you’re a hot Asian chick, you meet a ton of awful, racist dudes who just want to treat you like a sexualized, racist caricature.
At this point, I decided to remind her that 15 minutes ago, I was cumming down her throat while calling her something like “just another hot little Asian slut who loves sucking white cock.”
Oh no, that’s totally different, she said. I mean really sketchy guys, I know you’re just having fun with that.
To which I mentioned that she’s literally in my phone as first name: Hello, last name: Kitty.
Nothing about our interactions really indicated that I wasn’t racist. We didn’t meet at a lovely safe space in a social justice rally, or have a long, boring conversation about the politics of kink before I started getting racial. We just started fucking, and at one point when we were fucking I said “of course you people love white dick” and she moaned enthusiastically in response. That’s it. As far as she knows, I could be a literal Klan member in my down time.
But women, I have learned, are fucking great at rationalization. And because she liked this, because she wanted it, she had to believe that I didn’t really mean it. That it was all a game, even though I’d never said so. Those other guys were creeps, because they were too awkward to turn her on. When a real man insults her race, she can only justify her attraction to herself by choosing to believe he’s a good person.
How great is that? How ridiculously fucking dumb are women? You can make fun of them, insult their race, their gender, their culture, you can slap them, spit on them, choke them, make them gag on your cock and then jizz on their face while laughing, but: as long as you make them cum, they’ll think “Oh… he’s probably a really nice guy, deep down.”
That’s way better than bondage. That’s way more fun than tying someone up and having your way with them, because hell, anyone can do that. It takes a particular kind of mindfucking superiority to make someone suck your cock like you’re a God and they are nothing, and still have them believing the whole time that you must care for them. Even when you kick them out in the morning, smack their ass and say “see you later, squinty! Oh, don’t let those racist white guys keep you down!” It really makes you love being a white man.
(By the way, for all the non-porn blogs who follow me, all the ardent feminist and anti-racist tumblrs I know are reading and might be getting concerned: as I make clear in my description, this whole blog is, of course, fantasy. It has no possible connection to the real world, and you should never feel guilty for enjoying this harmless fun. I have nothing but love and respect for all God’s children! If you ever get a little worried that you’re getting off to somehting so offensive, just read some more, remind yourself that this isn’t affecting your psychology in any way, touch yourself a bit to calm down as you think about my words over and over, and go ahead and contact me if you have any needling concerns.)

G. Nageshwar Rao and others #fundie theguardian.com

India outcry after scientists claim ancient Hindus invented stem cell research

The organisers of a major Indian science conference said they were concerned by speakers citing religious texts and ideas at the event

The organisers of a major Indian science conference distanced themselves on Sunday from speakers who used the prestigious event to dismiss Einstein’s discoveries and claim ancient Hindus invented stem cell research.

The Indian Scientific Congress Association expressed “serious concern” as the unorthodox remarks aired by prominent academics at its annual conference attracted condemnation and ridicule.

The distinguished gathering of Indian researchers and scientists, which was held over the weekend, hosts Nobel laureates, but in recent years has seen Hindu faith-based theories edging onto the agenda.

At this year’s congress, the head of a southern Indian university cited an ancient Hindu text as proof that stem cell research was discovered on the subcontinent thousands of years ago.

“We had 100 Kauravas from one mother because of stem cell and test tube technology,” said G. Nageshwar Rao, vice chancellor at Andhra University, referring to a story from the Hindu epic Mahabharata.

Rao, who was addressing school children and scientists at the event, also said a demon king from another centuries-old Hindu epic had two dozen aircraft and a network of landing strips in modern-day Sri Lanka.

“Hindu Lord Vishnu used guided missiles known as ‘Vishnu Chakra’ and chased moving targets,” added the professor of inorganic chemistry.

Event organisers tried to hose down the remarks, saying it was “unfortunate” the prestigious event had been derailed by controversy.

“We don’t subscribe to their views and distance ourselves from their comments. This is unfortunate,” said Premendu P Mathur, general secretary of Indian Scientific Congress Association.

“There is a serious concern about such kind of utterances by responsible people.”

Another speaker, a scientist from a university in southern Tamil Nadu state, also raised eyebrows by questioning the breakthroughs of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

India is no stranger to prominent figures citing ancient Hindu texts like the Puranas and Vedas as ironclad evidence of the country’s technological prowess.

India’s minister for higher education Satyapal Singh last year said Darwin’s theory of evolution was wrong, and vowed to change the national school curriculum to reflect that.
Advertisement

The minister hails from the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which rules 17 of India’s 29 states and territories outright or through alliances.

BJP leader and prime minister Narendra Modi in 2015 pointed to Hindu scriptures as proof that plastic surgery existed in ancient India.

Science minister Harsh Vardhan last year said ancient Greeks took credit from India for early mathematical principles and misquoted Stephen Hawking as praising the Vedas for discoveries greater than Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The Breakthrough Science Society, an Indian-based educational charity, said it was “astounded and even horrified” at the remarks made at an academic summit.

“Puranic verses and epics are poetic, enjoyable, contain moral elements and [are] rich in imagination but [are] not scientifically constructed or validated theories,” the group said in a statement Sunday.

“Such a hallowed assembly of scientists has been misused to make false and chauvinistic claims about ancient India.”

brilliantLiberal #fundie freeconservatives.com

What I could never understand is the following:
If all of life originated from one cell, how could that animal become a plant or that plant become an animal? Evolution presupposes more impossibilities than creation, and unlike creationism there exists no supreme being capable of doing the impossible. In other words, evolution by any definition in the mind of any thinking person cannot possibly happen. The entire theory is based on science which cannot conform to the laws of science. It is circular reasoning in reverse; instead of arguments supported only by the arguments, it is science negated by the very science it uses as a base.

How these people can claim to bear rational argument is beyond me.

Dylan #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

ok, fact based on something right? says alot does it?
Darwin couldnt explain the human eye Brother! Darwins Theory is Racist, did you know that? Common descent from where? How, i prefer the Genesis 11 explanation. So with missing Links apparently, evolution is now true and has been tested and verified?

Not really, look at the meaning of those words, i used many words to show you, you dismiss the meaning, it does say alot quiet frankly.

Science has made tremendous marks over time, funny they established those other findings and this one they call a theory!

Please explain the human eye to me. Were we blind at one stage, or are you going to say that the eye was the first thing that evolved and everything else followed?

4Given #fundie disqus.com

Why would anyone buy into Darwin's theory? He wasn't even a scientist, he was an author; and one who didn't even believe his own theory.

If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

Why isn't there a cross species jump anywhere in the fossil record?

It doesn't even make logical sense to believe in evolution when one looks at the mathematical probability. For example, take a relatively simple 200 component organism. That organism would require 200 successive and successful mutations. The chances of that happening are 1 in 10 to the 60th power. Borel's Law states that anything with a probability more than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is mathematically absurd and has a zero chance of ever happening. That's just a simple organism, nothing like the extremely complex organisms that human are.

This is what I meant when I said that it takes more faith to not believe in God (thus believing in evolution) than it does to believe in Him.

[No name given] #fundie whatisacult.com

The theory of evolution, which is taught as a fact in our public school textbooks, tax-supported parks, museums, and public television programs, is actually not a harmless theory but a dangerous religious belief. People need to learn the truth in order to expose evolutionism as being largely responsible for molding the thinking of hosts of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot of the Khmer in Cambodia, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx, who have caused untold suffering in our world. Evolution as it is being taught is dangerous for several reasons. At stake is the credibility of Jesus. He said the creation of Adam was "the beginning" (Matthew 19:4). Evolution and creation represent worldviews that are polar opposites – one of them is wrong! Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Real science, not evolution, should be taught in the science classes. Teaching the religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. It has never been proven, as such, it remains a theory.

Government should not sponsor religion. It take just a much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in intelligent design. Teaching the theory of evolution as fact in tax-supported schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Why should all taxpayers support one religion over all others in our schools? Efforts must be made on all fronts to inform people that evolution is only a religion and that tax-supported institutions should not teach it as fact.

Facts About Evolution

FACT 1: Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

FACT 2: Evolution has never been proven, as such, it remains a theory.

FACT 3: It take just a much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in intelligent design.


Do Creationists fight against science?

This question is amusing since all major branches of science were started by creationists. There has never been one advancement in any field of science that the evolution theory has helped. The evolution theory is useless. I don't know of any creationists who fights against science. Most creationists that I know love science and only fight against evolution. You may be confusing the evolution theory with science. Some think the two go together. This is a common mistake due to the intense evolution propaganda campaign of the last 50 years. There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution. Please don't accuse me of being against science. I am only against the false teaching of evolution as science.

the chosen one #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Do Christians teach their children about evolution at the same time they teach them about Christian beliefs?

Answer : Modern science will soon replace Darwin's theory of evolution with Intelligent Design Theory of evolution when a new discovery proves the existence of the God Yahweh. It will be taught to our children around the world in public school science classes that Yahweh has been the "missing link" in the chain of evolution making the genetic changes to all species of life on Earth for the last billions of years and stopped life evolving on Earth in the same era He created the modern human. Darwin's theory will fall by the wayside just as the spontaneous generation theory did.

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

We have all heard of the "Super Rats" - those "miracles of Evolution TM" that have "mutated" into indestructible creatures immune to even the deadliest of rat poisons. With breathless enthusiasm the disciples of Darwin hail these creatures as smoking gun evidence of "evolution on steroids". How pathetic that the 'Super Rats' phenomenon is the best "evidence" the Evolutionists can muster in support of Darwin's 'simple first cell - to amoeba - to fish - to amphibian - to ape - to man' delusion. Here is a typical example, from the London Telegraph, of type of tommy-rot that passes for "science", and "journalism" these days:

New 'Super Rats' Evolve Resistance to Poison

Rats across Britain are evolving a resistance to poison that makes them almost impossible to kill, scientists have warned.

"Genetic mutations have produced a new breed of "super rat" with DNA that protects the vermin from standard toxins, according to Professor Robert Smith at the University of Huddersfield."

And this from PBS (Propaganda - Bullshit -Sophistry):

Pesticide Resistance

"The chemical arsenal we have developed in an attempt to rid our homes of rodents and our crops of insects is losing its power. We have simply caused pest populations to evolve, unintentionally applying artificial selection in the form of pesticides. Individuals with a higher tolerance for our poisons survive and breed, and soon resistant individuals outnumber the ones we can control."

And on and on the fallacy goes; promoted by the press, taught in the schools, enforced by the state, never questioned, and never challenged. The most frustarting part feature of this big lie is that is so simple to debunk. All it takes is a bit of thought and some common sense, yet the lie rolls on and on. Now you might say, "Wait a minute Mike. The Super Rat phenomenom is very real. The rats without immunity die. Those rats lucky enough to have the immunity survive, and the offspring of those survivors inherit the immunity. What's so hard to understand about that?"

Well, there is nothing hard to understand about that; and nobody disputes the existence of Super Rats. But the phenomoneom only demonstrates natural selection (or, in this case, artificially-induced natural selection). But the rat remains a rat! Nothing changed. Nothing "evolved TM". Nothing "mutated". Not a single additional line of complex genetic code was added to the overall rat gene pool that wasn't already there to begin with. The surviving rats were already genetically immune to the posion. The dead ones were not. What type of insane "scientist" would make the galactic leap-of-faith from this common-sense example of natural selection, all the way to the 'simple first cell - to amoeba - to fish - to amphibian - to ape - to man' scenario?

The bottom line remains: trans-species evolution TM- let alone trans-genus, trans-family, trans-order, trans-class, trans-phylum, trans-kingdom - has never been observed; neither in the fossil record, nor in the current natural world. And anyone who tries to use the 'Super Rats' as a means to circumvent this Darwinian difficulty is either a criminal, an insane person, or just someone who hasn't given the matter much thought.

image
Atheistic Evolutionists have yet to prove a single case of trans-species Evolution TM, yet, on the basis of 'Super-Rats', we are expected to jump all the way up the biological classification ladder to trans-Kingdom Evolution TM - which holds that both the lovely woman above and the inanimate rose that she is smelling have the same great grandmother [x].

To better dispel the Super Rat Fallacy, for the sake of those who still don't see through the scam, let make an analogy to biological weapons. The technology for engineering race-specific biological weapons does indeed exist. Let us all hope and pray that the weapons themselves do not exist in some secret laboratory! But suppose that some evil clandestine group were to poison the reservoirs and springs of Japan with a biological weapon that was lethal to people with a certain gene specific to Asiatics. (that's the analogy to the rat posion).

What would happen? Obviously, all of the Asiatic inhabitants of Japan would die after drinking the poisoned water. But what about the tiny minority of White expatriates, tourists, missionaries etc, present in Japan at the time of the great poisoning? The biological weapon wouldn't kill them. The "Whites of Japan" would survive, unchanged, and pass on their genetic immunity to the bio-weapon on to their offspring. (the analogy to the Super-Rat). One hundred years later, Japan could be a thriving island nation of 10 million White people.

Now, what type of deranged crackpot mad-scientist would then dare to hypothesize, no, declare, that the Asiatics of Japan "mutated" into White people? See my point? And yet, this is exactly the type of madness that the great and the good of Academia are shoving down our throats as they denounce doubters as "uneducated" and "anti-science". Dirty rats!

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."

ZoltanKH #fundie youtube.com

ever notice how science makes a theory, its prven wrong, then they make another "better" theory, then its proven wrong again...then they make another theory which the people believe AGAIN, while religion has simple concepts that are always right no matter how much you test em. the only scientific theory thats right is gravity, good job science

Anti-Gravity Alliance #conspiracy squeeb1134.tripod.com

Substantial scientific evidence has been found that gravity does not exist! In fact there is more evidence that gravity doesn't exist than that it does!

Gravity is only a THEORY and NOT a Scientific FACT!
Gravity cannot be proven!

- As a theory, gravity can never be proven, scientists admit this!! No one has tested gravity on Jupiter!

Gravity cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelt!

If gravity exists then:

How do birds, bats, and insects fly?

How do airplanes fly?

Why do balloons float up?

What makes a hot air balloon keep from falling from the sky?

How do Zeppelins or Dirigibles float in the sky?

How does a siphon work?

If gravity is pulling everything to the center of the Earth, then:

Why aren't we and everything else crushed to the ground and pulled to the center of the Earth?

I don't have any trouble jumping, do you?

Why hasn't the moon (or for that matter the sun and other planets) fallen into the Earth?
-You think this would be an obvious one!!!

Gravity can not exist. Consider the lies scientists tell us about gravity:

Gravity is blind, ruled by random chance and chaos.

- Why are all the stars, planets, and moons round instead of many different shapes. How did "blind" gravity make all the celestial objects perfect spheres?

Gravity is a great force which permeates the whole universe that we are powerless to resist.
- We are told that this force is blind, does not love us, and that we are not known to it. Can this be so?

If gravity is the attraction of two bodies of matter to each other, then:

Why isn't there an attraction between small and large things, such as a car being pulled toward a mountain, or gnats being pulled toward a person walking in a field?

Which is it? Is gravity the attraction of bodies of matter, or a force that pulls matter toward the center of the Earth? Make up your mind!

A concerned person #fundie topix.com

Actually with all due respect , you're actually the one who lacks knowledge . SO what your saying about evolution is you evolved from dirt or nothing , is that what your saying ? since evolution believes that everything started from nothing , I would really like to know where you got your complex DNA . I mean especially since something cannot come from nothing. Infact I would really like you to explain how everything got its specific DNA structures and how everything works in harmony as it does. Maybe you can explain how in just your ear alone there are hundreds of differnt parts that all work toghther that allow you to hear. Maybe you can explain how any of these things that are alive to day and how they could of just appeared out of no where.

The one is correct that stated darwin used primitive biology and now todays microbiology proves that darwins theory isnt correct. The problem is darwins theory has been driven down so many peoples throats they are trying to make it fit todays evidence and it doesnt work. There are way to many things that disprove it.

Oh and by the way the article was incorrect the evolution in schools was challenged in court several years ago in florida and lost.

Its about time that someone in the govt stood up for whats right and put God back in the classrooms.

TheNewKnightsTemplar #fundie deviantart.com

Hello and greetings from 2019. I am happy you have come upon this time capsule and have very deep hopes that humanity has survived and this is not being read by a caterpillar, if it IS, I guess it will eventually evolve into a human being someday, anyway. I know, right?

Our current President Donald Trump has made terrific strides in making American great again, but the only way the Left will acknowledge this is by trying to give Obama the credit. Trump DOES make a few blunders, but when we point out that President Obama made them as well, the Left blames President Trump for President Obama’s mistakes. In fact, the Left blames President Trump for everything. And if you think the Left hates the President, you should see how bizarre they get when they see a red hat.

The Democratic Left, which is pretty much all of the Democratic Party, in order to push their agenda, has been allowed to make up words, phrases, and concepts in this day and age. For instance, they say “toxic masculinity” needs to stop, we can’t have “boys being boys”, you know, like shooting guns or anything, but that is merely because the feminists don’t want girls being girls, they want girls being boys so they can shoot guns, even though they could very easily shoot guns being girls. It is somewhat like The Boy Scouts of America but with girls included, although I don’t think the Girl Scouts of America let Boy Scouts enter. But, I’m optimistic, both sexes are starting to take high school showers together in Florida.

In fact, according to the Left, girls CAN be boys all they have to do is to FEEL like a boy, and if a boy feels like a girl, he can be a girl and it is okay because that isn’t toxic masculinity it is “non-toxic masculinity” which is actually feminine masculinity. I know, right? How can all of this possibly be? Simple--Because gender is a social construct but you are born that way. And if someone feels like the opposite sex, you have to call them by “zip” or “zot” or something like that; or it is considered violence and even though you didn’t know they felt like the opposite sex or forgot to ask, they can kill you. And homosexuality is okay because the sex they have isn’t hurting anyone, but you are deranged as hell (maybe not by next week), if you have sex with the dead, even though THAT really isn’t hurting anyone either.

And socialism is the latest and greatest thing, even though it has been around as long as dirt. But it will work this time, even though it has never ever worked in the past; because it is DEMOCRATIC Socialism. And the difference is ... actually there IS no difference but who cares because things will be free! Free health care and college and vehicles and cell phones and we might as well throw in meals until things collapse and there is no more food. We will still have to work, though. I know, right?

And abortion is perfectly okay because a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body, although it ISN’T her body because it has its own DNA. And it isn’t alive although it has a heartbeat. And it isn’t her body after the baby is born, either, but that doesn’t matter as long as we keep the mother’s mental health intact. And the best WAY to keep the mother’s mental health intact is to kill her infant.

And infanticide is something Islamic extremists have been known to do, but we can’t say that out loud or we are an Islamophobe. Which actually doesn’t mean in inordinate fear of Islam anymore, it has been changed to mean “hater” of all and everything Islam and sometimes more than that. And note; we are still CALLING the baby an infant because the Left hasn’t, as of yet, had the chance to come up with a stigma-lessening euphemism like “external cellular expiration” or for the more socially elite, “Baby B Gone”. We can even revive the child and have a nice, extremely short and pressure-prone discussion with the already overwhelmed mother, so that if she does have regrets after the slaughter, which she will, she has been involved in the decision because it is all about “choice”. However, choice still means two or more options, but if you express opinions favoring THE OTHER option besides killing, you’re a racist. I am not really sure why you are a racist; almost everyone who does anything anymore is a racist, so I guess it just got included in the name of “diversity” and “love”. Maybe not love.

If this is all confusing for you, I have to admit is rather the same for most of us on the RIGHT, what comforts me is that we live in a tolerant society, that is unless you are Christian or Jewish, and then you don’t count, especially if you refuse to make certain kinds of wedding cakes.

Besides much controversy these days about war, we have a rather perplexing breed of individuals we call SJW’s or “Social Justice Warriors”. They don’t really DO anything or WEAR any ARMOR, they just lay in wait for people to say something offensive, which is pretty much everything they hear. These warriors believe in “all things civil” especially good productive discussion, as long as they get to scream and you don’t get to say anything at all. That is, unless you agree with them, and then you can all hold hands and go to a designated area called a “safe space”. Oddly enough, although you might think these spaces were designed for preschoolers, they are actually most prominent on our college campuses these days. They are even in the internet encyclopedia called Wikipedia, which is a rather “strange bird” in itself because anyone can add anything to it in the name of collaboration, so it changes a lot. Sometimes these SJW’s turn into a fantasy creature called a troll, but it amounts to the same thing, screaming and then running off to a safe space.

Our Mainstream Media are much the same as the SJW’s but we still have freedom of speech, unless you post anything conservative on certain social platforms like Facebook and YouTube and Twitter and a few others. But they apologize for taking things down, usually; some of the time; if they get caught; and they have been working on new algorithms and training their staff to not be so sensitive for the last decade or so, so things are looking promising. Our search engines like Google aren’t very reliable either, but who needs an honest search engine?

I hope this has cleared up what 2019 is like at the time of burying this time capsule. I am sure you wish you had science and history records, but they were all destroyed by the Left and replaced with pornography.

An SJW just told me to tell you to write when you can. I know, right?

watchman_2 #fundie factnet.org

Fact No. 1 - God's existence can be proven. Life exists; therefore, God exists.

There are only two possibilities for life, evolution or God. Evolution, having been proven false, leaves the only other possibility for life -- God.

Fact No. 2 - Evolutionism is every bit a religion as any other religion. In fact, you were participating in the debate as evolutionism was proven to be a cult.

Fact No. 3 - Evolutionism is not based upon science. The theory takes underlying scientific discoveries and combines poor exegesis to postulate that all life originated from bacterium, which, itself, originated from a bolt of lightning into the primordial soup of chemicals. Yet, there is no observeable evidence to support such postulation nor can scientists duplicate the process in any means.

Fact No. 4 - Science has proven evolution false. The process of genus/species change has been labeled 'natural selection'. It has been proven that extinction would be impossible if 'natural selection' were true since all precursor species, including the bacterium, would also have to be extinct as well.

Fact No. 5 - Evolutionism is driven by the socialist left. Scientists know that evolution is an unproven theory. Yet, evolutionists refuse to acknowledge that it would be proper to teach the theory of evolution along side creation in public schools. Such a position is not scientific, but is driven by the leftists' hatred of Christianity and the religious right.

nononsenseguy #fundie city-data.com

Darwinism is not based on science! Sheeesh. You people that believe this stuff are relentless. Science is based on observation, and repeatable processes.

There is no physical evidence! Show me. It is pure foolishness (well, I have to admit, I have met a few people in my life that gave me a fleeting thought that evolution might be true).

You cannot observe evolution, and you certainly cannot create it (therefore repeat it). It is the biggest hoax ever foisted on a gullible public. Only global warming comes close.

Meggsie #fundie gaiaonline.com

Actually, recent scientific evidence points more to Intelligent Design.

As for Darwin's Theory of Macroevolution, it HAS been proved WRONG. Now, Microevolution, the evolution we see taking place in everything life (eg. within a species for example, genetic changes down a generation) is everywhere around us. The Bible and Microevolution geld perfectly into each nothing, nothing wrong with that. The reason why so many Christians are against Macroevolution is because Darwin was saying that ALL animals came from the SAME ancestors (humans, monkeys and fruitflies are all linked), and that natural selection ALONE created us, hence putting God out of a job. However, he was wrong.

According to Darwin's theory, nature makes no big changes. He had no evidence but he was positive that future fossil finds would prove his theory. Ideally, fossil record should how a whole string a fossils from waaaayyyy back with minimal changes every few decades (since his theory of natural selection meant no major changes). HOWEVER, many discoveries later till the present day, the fossil record instead shows an incredible phenomenon (known as the Cambrian Explosion) that can't really be scientifically explained. There is no long string of fossils that leads to modern day, instead, in a short span of time (short relative to the millenia that earth has been around of course) EVERY major species (the group they belong to that is) just sprang up! And this is not due to any gap in the fossil record at all, for there are fossils found all along the timeline.

Conclusion: The fossil record disproves Darwin's theory.

In fact, there is NO evidence for the theory at all. I know many say 'of course, it's just a theory, no one says it actually FACT' but the fact is in schools worldwide Darwin's theory is being taught as a fact. All the pieces of evidence used to support his theory have been disproved too. For example, the pictures of Haeckel's embryos were faked. There is NO 'Java man' or caveman findings that show early Man was stooped and ape-like, since there were NO fossils to proof that. The supposed 'Java Man fossils' were just one skullcap, one thighbone and 3 teeth. The skullcap didn't belong with the femur either. And the skullcap was exactly the same as that of modern man.

Contrary to what many are saying about how Creationists are believing lies in favour of God, for the past half of a CENTURY is has been atheist scientists who are grappling at straws to avoid the theistic truth behind the whole matter.

All that said, anyone have any conclusive evidence to bring up for Darwin? That hasn't already been disproved, exposed as false or been countered that is.

Mehitable Adams #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

As you probably know, if you've seen my posts, I'm very cynical about these "terror attacks". I think most of them are fake, in whole or part.

So, I've been hearing about this Nice truck event, and I have to say once again.....I THINK THIS IS FAKE.

I don't see how ONE TRUCK can kill at least 77 people and injure 50 more - that 127 people KILLED OR INJURED BY ONE TRUCK. I don't think that is physically possible. I don't see how it is.

So I've been watching this for a couple of hours on and off and I've seen several videos that basically show a truck driving down the street, but I don't see anyone getting hit. There don't even seem to be that many people. It's not like a crowd you would see on the Esplanade of Boston - hundreds or thousands of people deep. These are like people walking down the sidewalk. I don't see how a truck of that size could have the mobility to "zig zag" as they describe it to hit people on the left and right. As well, the driver was supposed to be shooting people although I haven't heard of anyone that was actually shot - although they are perhaps alleging that.

Then I see pics of people running and screaming - AND LAUGHING - I actually saw one video where at least a couple of people were running and LAUGHING - but no truck. They interviewed (on Fox) some American girl who was saying that she just saw people running but she head no explosives or loud noises so she had no idea what was going on, which is very odd considering that this truck event was happening nearby and then the police all started shooting out the windshield! I saw yet another video of people running and falling - for no reason - no truck near them - that looked like it was straight out of Cloverfield.

And then there are those CRACK French police who shot up the hell out of that windshield. If they were all there in the first place, why weren't they shooting at that truck as it was supposedly raging into the crowd? Looked like it kept going for quite a ways to kill or injure 127 people! Couldn't they have got a few shots in BEFORE THAT POINT or into the tires?

Also, looks like we have another LONE NUT!!!! Lee Harvey Renault, who not only wanted to plow down the streets of Nice but had a truck full of EXPLOSIVES AND GUNS!!!! Which he didn't really use, except for that one gun he was shooting - apparently out the driver's window - while he was mowing down Le Civilians! Alors!!!!

Why wouldn't our fearless driver be part of a terror cell that would take that enormous truck full of explosives and actually blow the damn thing up near some facility that might matter? And then start shooting up the land with his Jihadi Jean freres????? Why waste all this energy on mowing down some Citoyens????

Where are all the videos from the, no doubt, hundreds of cell phones in that area? Where's footage from the police or other surveillance in the area that actually SHOWS PEOPLE BEING MOWED DOWN???? YES, I WANT TO SEE THIS. I'm strong....I can TAKE it. SHOW ME. And show me those "dead" bodies - I'd like to see some pics that aren't PIXELLATED because all the pics I've seen that purport to show victims, ARE.

I just don't believe this folks, it doesn't pass the Mehitable smell test. If any of you have real videos that have not been shown endlessly on TV and that don't just show people running and screaming, please post them here. I'd like to be proven wrong FOR ONCE.

Ashens #fundie conservapedia.com

You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

jlo0312 #fundie wired.com

[Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory]

I usually enjoy Wired…interesting content and all. However, the “spark of evolution article” is the most ridiculous piece of crap that I ever read. If the Earth was in a state of primordial ooze, where did the boiling water come from? It takes more faith and less brains to believe in this crap than it does to believe in an intelligent God. The deal is this: EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE by numerous outstanding scientists. Why we base our theories on Darwin, whose work “evolved” BEFORE BIOCHEMISTRY is beyond me. It is ridiculous. Look up irreducible complexity.

old_mcdonough #fundie bbc.co.uk

I am a trained scientist who is also a Christian, as such I can look at Darwin's Theory and respect his evidence and his arguments. The difference betwixt myself and many of the more Fundamentalist Darwinians is this. Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory! It has not been proven despite efforts of Fanatic Darwinians to totally shut down any objective discourse on this subject.

Kris #fundie lbc.co.uk

Kris phoned in to discuss her views on science during a conversation about gene editing techniques and using animal organs in human.

Kris rang in to say that she believed that we are built in the image of God and that humans are special "because our brains are higher" and that humans are in a different category from animals.

Kris said that she didn't believe we evolved and that the "big bang theory has been disputed."

When Maajid explained what Darwin's theory of evolution Kris said she didn't believe that "because how come the monkeys haven't learnt to drive buses?"

When Maajid asked if Kris was opposed to science she said she wasn't, but the theory of evolution was "making God a liar because he said that he created the world in six days."

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Can Dawkins Disprove God in 5 Steps?

Can the idea of a Creator God be easily dismissed in just five steps? Well, atheist and anti-theist Richard Dawkins certainly thinks so!

He recently appeared on a Norwegian-Swedish television show called Skavlan where he quickly dismissed the idea of God by ticking off on his fingers five arguments for God.

Dawkins starts by equating God with fairies, and then says that “the onus is not upon an atheist to say why there is not something, the onus is on a theist to say why there is.” Well, Dr. Richard Dawkins, the onus will actually be on each person on judgment day when he stands before God. And no excuses will be enough when we stand before Him. In the end, every person will bow before Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord (Philippians 2:10–11). You can either do so voluntarily now or by compulsion later.

Dawkins then says that “there simply are no reasons for the existence of a God.” But, of course, this doesn’t mean there actually aren’t any reasons for God’s existence. It simply shows his anti-God bias. He then mentions a few of the common arguments used to demonstrate that there is a God.

Design Exists Because of Darwinian Natural Selection?

Dawkins begins with the argument from design. Now, Scripture is clear that everyone is without excuse for not believing in God because His creation clearly shows that He exists (Romans 1:20). But Dawkins dismisses the powerful argument from design in nature simply by saying that we should expect design because that’s what Darwinian natural selection does, “it makes them look as though they’re designed.” According to Dawkins, “Darwin has exploded once and for all the argument from design.” Dawkins recognizes that things do look designed, but says that the most likely explanation, a Designer, isn’t the case—natural selection simply does it. But what he never explains is how natural selection—a process that only works by decreasing or re-shuffling existing genetic information—is supposed to add the massive amounts of new information that are required to get the complexity we see today from a simple single-celled organism over millions of years. How do you get from simple pond scum to highly complex people without adding massive amounts of new genetic information? You can’t!

People Hallucinate or Are Fooled?

Dawkins next dismisses personal testimony by saying that people hallucinate or are fooled with relative ease. Now, subjective personal experience does need to be weighed carefully (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21), but what I would like to ask Dawkins is the same question Bill Nye was asked during our 2014 debate: where did consciousness (which is needed for our experiences) come from? Nye was at a loss to explain this “great mystery” as he called it and Dawkins likely would be too.

Of course, God’s Word tells us exactly where consciousness (and everything else!) came from—God Himself (Genesis 1:27, 2:7). And, furthermore, in a godless world, how do you even know what truth really is when you have no objective standard for determining truth? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? As Pilate asked Jesus, without God and His Word, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). And if we are just random chemical accidents, why should we trust anything that comes from our brain anyway? If Dawkins’ worldview is true, then he can’t trust anything that comes from his brain either! It’s ultimately a self-defeating argument. We can only know what truth is because there is a God and He has ordered this world and has given us His Word.

If God Is the First Cause, Then Where Did God Come From?

Next is the argument of the first cause. This argument, in a nutshell, states that everything must have a cause, including the universe. Now, Dawkins dismisses this argument by saying that if God is the first cause, then where did God come from? Frankly, it’s a silly response. God is outside of space and time—in fact, He created these things. He didn’t have a beginning and He will have no end (Psalm 90:2). And if there was someone who created God, then it would be a bigger God, and then a bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and then a bigger-bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and so on to infinity. This is silly. If He needed to be created, He wouldn’t be God. But God doesn’t need a Creator; He is self-existent.

Darwin Explains How We Got Here Without God?

Dawkins then explains that Darwin shows how everything got here without the need for God. But Darwin was simply wrong because everything we see in observational science confirms the history of the universe from God’s Word, not Darwin’s ideas—kinds reproduce according to their kinds; we don’t see new genetic information being added to produce brand-new features; life only comes from other life, never from non-life. Life did not originate by itself; it was created by our all-wise Creator.

Pascal’s Wager a Silly Argument?

Lastly, Dawkins addresses the so-called Pascal’s wager, which says that it’s better to believe in God, live a godly life, and be wrong when you die than to reject God and die and go to hell. He says that this is a “silly argument” and that there is no way of knowing if you’ve bet on the right god or not. But I submit that only the God of the Bible makes sense of this world. God alone has left us a coherent Scripture that does not contradict itself and is historically and scientifically accurate in all it says.

But Dawkins does get one thing (sort of) right in his short video in reference to Pascal’s wager. He says that perhaps the God of the Bible would not prefer someone who “slavishly pretends to believe something.” Scripture is clear that God sees the heart, not external signs of worship or belief (1 Samuel 16:7). No one will get to heaven by “slavishly” pretending to believe in God. Salvation only comes by truly believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross to pay for our sin debt (Romans 10:9–10). That’s the good news of the gospel—salvation is a free gift to those who will put their faith in Christ.

My heart breaks for people like Dawkins who are utterly lost and who, unless they repent and believe in Christ, will face an eternity separated from God in hell. All of their seemingly clever arguments against God will amount to nothing when they stand before His judgment throne. If you are like Dawkins, or even if you believe in God but have not trusted in Christ for salvation, I encourage you to listen to the good news and believe in Christ and be saved.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Bill Charlton #fundie friendlyatheist.patheos.com

When I was an atheist, I spent an inordinate amount of time & energy trying to disprove the Bible, God, Christianity, etc., and trying to discourage others from doing the same. It never occurred to me that, if it wasn't true, if it was just a stupid belief, then why was I SO obsessed with it, when there were so many other better uses of my time.
Obviously, the answer (which I eventually discovered) is that it's true... He's really our Creator. We didn't magically spring to life from some primordial ooze. Just look at the incredible complexity required for the simplest cell, or the fact that information could not have just appeared as complex DNA, the incredibly complex cell processes... all of it!
Do a sincerely honest and open-minded investigation of the scriptures (without falling for the critics accusations carte-blanche).
Join the many of us former atheists who were surprised at the results of a sincere look at the existence of God, the truth of the Bible, and the love of the One Who came to rescue us!

Royce E. Van Blaricome #fundie christiannews.net

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Too bad we don't have a POTUS and a WH Spokesman who can't just come out and say that there is no such things as a Transgender and therefore no legal protections required.

Ambulance Chaser:
You want a POTUS and WH spokesman to lie? Trans people very much exist.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Of course not and NOTHING from my statement could remotely be construed as to say such. But you, on the other hand, just publicly displayed for all to see that you are a Liar just like your father, Satan, who is the author of all lies.

"Trans people" as you call them are a figment of the imagination of Mankind who wishes to cling to their sin rather than the Savior. They most certain do NOT exist for those who wish to deal with Truth and Reality.

Just because someone CHOOSES to engage in a BEHAVIOR of putting on the clothing of the opposite sex, or wearing makeup, or behaving in some other way does not make them another gender. As I've said many times now, what it makes them is Deceived, Deluded, in Denial, Demonically Influenced/Possessed, or a combination of those.

Being a man or woman and putting on the clothes or behaving in any way as the opposite sex does NOT change the truth of who that person is no more than having body modifications to make yourself look like a parrot, tiger, cat, etc. And before you go to the FEELINGS bit, "feeling" like the opposite sex no more changes Truth and Reality that a human being who FEELS like a parrot, tiger, cat, etc.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:27)

And there it is. In a nutshell. TRUTH!! God created them MALE and FEMALE. Period. NO exceptions. NO fluidity. Your either male or female. That's it!!

Now stop being so doggone hateful and feeding into the Deception, Delusion, Denial, and Depravity of those who need help. That is perhaps the most unloving thing one human could do to another.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23)

And that' s not just physical death but eternal spiritual-death. So just STOP IT!!! STOP killing people and leading them into the eternal torment that comes with spending ALL Eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Of course, in order for you to actually stop doing that and actually start loving folks, you're gonna have to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ first and beg Him to make you a New Creation by being Born Again.

All that said, congratulations! You've earned yourself the Plato Award!!

"Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something" – Plato

Ambulance Chaser:
Okay, well, if you're done ranting, all major medical organizations in America recognize trans people as A) existing B) suffering from a biological conditioning that cannot be controlled or changed, but is measurable.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
No rant there at all. But thanks for showing how the Liberals work again. Falsely characterize what's said or who said it and then rely on falling back on the typical reliance upon the so-called "expert" people and "major" organizations as long as they agree with your POV.

No, "Trans'" people do NOT exist. What does exist is Deception, Delusion, Denial, Demonically Influenced/Possessed, or a combination of those.

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, and you've proven this because you stomp your foot and scream that it is so.

Whereas I have science.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Lying again I see. No stomping of the foot or screaming here. As for the rest...

"Whereas I have the science I choose to accept and the rest I just ignore or try to discredit by saying they're not "experts" or "major".

There, I fixed it for ya.

Ambulance Chaser:
Well then let me fix it back.

I have science. You have anger.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Lies again. No anger here. Another false characterization. Once again proving all you have.

I'll fix it for ya again.

"I have the science I choose to accept and the rest I just ignore or try to discredit by saying they're not "experts" or "major".

There, I fixed it for ya again. There's PLENTY of science that proves otherwise and here's a REALLY BIG point you seem to have missed. SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON FEELINGS!!!!

Ambulance Chaser:
OK, let's see some of this "science" you have.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Sure. Go see "Genesis In History". Just got back from the theatre and it's chocked full of actual Science. Aside from that, try a simple Google search. There is NO shortage of actual Science. Check out CRI, CMI, AIG and an absolutely SUPERB piece of actual Scientific Evidence that PROVES Evolution as it's been understood for years can be found by a Google search for "Larry Vardiman+RATE".

Now, that should keep you busy for some time. From there you could even go the the site where oodles of Scientists, MOST of them Atheists, sign a document saying the continued teaching of the Big Bang is wrong because it's scientifically false.

Of course, I really do NOT expect you to be open-minded enough to actually let the science speak to you.

HEIGHTSIXFIVE #fundie youtube.com

Sounds like you dont know what a theory is. Theory is an idea that has not been proven. Gravity is not a theory, neither is germs, cells, nuclear, atomic, and so on.
Evolution IS a theory. You have no facts to back it up. Nature is far too complex to happen by itself, just like a car. When you can you convince me that no one invented the car, but that it EVOLVED ON ITS OWN, AND GIVE ME REAL EVIDENCE FOR IT, then I'll give up defending creation. After all, nature is FAR more complex than a car.

Billybob - The True American Patriot #fundie speakout.com

[Paragraph breaks added]

Does anyone really wonder why the Liberals want our guns? Its real simple. Many of them are Homo-Nazi fascists and are ready to start a civil war on the Right. But first they want our guns taken away. Does anybody really buy their sob stories about all the gun accidents with children. They do not care about our children. They don't care about their own and they have aborted most of theirs anyway. Can you really see a Liberal homo-nazi saying that poor right winged child accidentally shot himself. Yeah right! Their agenda is becoming very clear. They want to rape and pillage anyone that doesn't agree with them. They hate the Christians and anyone that voted republican. We are all right-winger bigots.

Don't be fooled by the term "Gay". There is nothing gay about the homosexuals and they are becoming very violent as history has proven time and time again. Remember they are afraid of our guns. They could care less about accidents or human life. Its just not possible to support murdering 40 million plus unborn babies and caring about a poor right-winger child that accidentally shoots himself. The Homo-Nazi fascist want to raid our homes and commit acts of violence and rape.

They do not want guns in our homes when they carry out their agenda's. They also want our Bibles. That is a fact people. The say it is hate speech and want it banned. They have already started the process in Canada. There really is no other explanation as to why they want to take our guns.
Billybob-True American Patriot

Dr. Richard Paley #fundie objectiveministries.org

Some of the most popular vehicles for this subliminal propaganda are children's television shows, books, and toys. By getting their ideas into the minds of the young, they hope to be able to do the most damage to traditional values and belief. Shows like Pokemon, which features animals "evolving" into new forms, and popular movies like Jurassic Park and X-Men provide a continuous cultural fog of Evolutionism that is impossible for innocent children to escape from.

Apple Macintosh:

However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values"2. But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple3 by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness4.

This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different". We have to ask ourselves: "think different from whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to think different than our Christian upbringing, to reject all the values that we have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Given the now obvious anti-Christian and cultish nature of Apple Computers, is it any wonder that they have decided to base their newest operating system on Darwinism? This just reaffirms the position that Darwinism is an inherently anti-Christian philosophy spread through propaganda and subliminal trickery, not a science as its brainwashed followers would have us believe.

TL;DR Award

For excellence in crazy that defies condensing

Brad Watson_Miami #conspiracy kiwifarms.net

[font=sans-serif](Admin Note: I'm not accepting any additional quotes of this gentleman for at least two weeks. If you want to submit anything else from him after that, it must be fewer than 500 words. That's an excellent general rule of thumb to keep in mind for all submissions. However, it's now mandatory for submissions of this fellow to be accepted, because I let this obscenely long submission of him stand almost as-is, and I don't want that to set a precedent. With that said, on with the show!! If you love batshit insanity, then you're in for a real treat, especially if you can make it through the whole thing. I've even bookmarked this quote as a reminder to nominate it for something in the next FSTDT Awards. –shy)[/font]
_

Since you want to peer review my work, here it is - GOD=7_4 Theory condensed into http://GOD704.wikia.com ...

Plan-it Theory: GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 on Planet Nestor; FIG=6|7 (Design Worlds Theory)

Our planet and all 'true Earth-like plan-its' were designed through a simple mathematical model/program/ algorithm/physics law/initial condition/'fractal'/code of GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 that includes...

Variations of 7_4: 7+4, 7-4, 7×4, 7÷4, 7.4, 74, 47, 704, 407, 7004, 4÷7, 4 7s, 7 4s, 77 77, 7 40, etc.

most common are 7+4, 7-4, 7×4, 74, 47, 704 (GOD), and 7004 (GOOD)

Variations of 6_4: 6+4, 6-4, 6×4, 6÷4, 6.4, 64, 46, 604, 406, 6004, 4÷6, 4 6s, 6 4s, 66 66, 6 40, etc.

most common are 6+4, 6-4, 6×4, 64, 46, 604 (FOD), and 6004 (FOOD)
_

"Think not of what you see, think of what it took to produce what you see." "There is an order beneath the seeming chaos...an underlying order governed by simple74 mathematics." - PBS Fractals

"Without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist." - Stephen Hawking

"Unless a theory can be explained to a child, the theory is probably useless." - Albert Einstein

"To understand is to perceive patterns." - Jason Silva, host of Brain Games on National Geographic Channel

I've discovered a very simple repetitive numerical pattern that's prevalent throughout Nature and global culture that I call Plan-it Theory of GOD=7_4. Actually, this simple combination of 7 & 4 was first recognized by the ancient Mesopotamians/Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Hebrews, Romans, Indians, Chinese and others in the heavens and expressed through the precept of "As Above, So Below" which became the leading principle of the practice of sacred geometry. The ancients observed what we call the 7 Classical Planets or 7 Naked-Eye Planets: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn and 4 of these don't cast shadows on Earth (Venus can on a moonless night); 4 can't be easily seen during the day (Venus can be). (Now we know that 4 are rocky celestial objects.) The 7 lamp/4 branched Hebrew temple menorah mystically represented this. The 7 Planets of the Ancients were known by those of classical antiquity as the 7 Wanderers, 7 Sacred Planets, 7 Luminaires, 7 Governors, or 7 Heavens.

The Sumerians were the first to keep written astronomical records, keep track of the 4 Great Patterns of Nature (day, lunar 'moonths', lunar year, and solar year), 4 seasons, and built their observatories/temples - ziggurats - to be 7 levels high (six stories). They also observed the 4 lunar phases being roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each (varying due to apogee and perigee). Lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year.

Our Roman Calendar has 7 thirty-one day months + 4 thirty day months + February's 28 (7×4) days.

The ancients observed Mars as returning to the same position against the background of the stars and is in the same relationship to Earth and the Sun every 47 years.

The Big Dipper consists of 7 stars with 4 making up the quadrilateral bowl of the ladle. Its 4th star in the middle is its brightest. The Big Dipper points toward the Star Polaris which is the tip of the handle of the Little Dipper which is also 7 stars with 4 making-up its bowl. Polaris has been the North Star since around the time the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD.

Orion consists of 7 stars with 4 making up his shoulders and feet. (The remaining three stars make up the easily recognizable Orion's Belt.) Pleiades or the 7 Sisters is the 4th most recognizable asterism.

The Sumerians, Egyptians, and Hebrews took the regular cubits of 6 palms × 4 fingers = 24 digits (see Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man) and added a palm to create the sacred royal cubits of 7 palms × 4 fingers = 28 digits. Pharaoh Djoser's Step-Pyramid (7 levels & 4 sides), the Sphinx, Pyramids of Giza - all Egyptian sacred buildings - were designed by their architects using the 7 & 4 combination to invoke the heavenly gods.

The Greeks and Romans were the first to recognize the ring finger which when palms are up is the 7th finger from the right and 4th from the left. Wedding7 ring4.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam & Buddhism are strongly encoded with GOD=7_4

"On Earth as it is in the heavens." - The Lord's Prayer (Jesus' rewording of "As Above, So Below.")

[Hebrew text here] (translation) "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." - Bereshit 1:1 / Genasis74 1:1. The original Hebrew of the first verse of the Bible has 7 words and 28 letters (7×4); it's God's Signature.

"The Hebrew scriptures begin - not from the first person perspective of some man's understanding of God - but from an omniscient third person perspective, a Voice that reveals the Glorious Power that created the entire cosmos by means of His Word." - http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Bereshit/bereshit.html

Gn 1:14, "God said, 'Let there be a system of light-bearers in the vault of the sky to separate day from night, and they shall serve as signs and for festive seasons, and for cycles of days, months and years (and omens of eclipses)...God saw it as good...a 4th day (of 7)." Gn 7:4 introduces the recurring theme of the #40, "For in 7 days it will rain for 40 days and 40 nights". Besides Noah, there were 7 on the Ark and 4 were the married women. Pharaoh's dream related to Joseph of the "7 plump cows, 7 lean ones, 7 plump heads of grain and 7 lean ones" - Gn 41:1-7. The 4th Commandment of "Keep the 7th day holy". Moses, Aaron, his two sons and 70 elders were on Mt. Sinai - 74 altogether. 7 times Moses did the #40. "Selah" used 74 times in the Bible (71 in Psalms & 3 in Habakkuk), King4 letters Solomon7 began building his Temple in the 4th year of his reign and it took 7 years to complete, etc. until the "7 Seals" are opened, yet produce only "4 Horsemen" in The Revelation Chapters 5-8.

John4,47 the Baptist7 was born on Thursday November 12, 7 BC / 12.11.747 AUC / 20 Heshvan 3755 HC.

Y'shua74/Joshua74/IESVS74/Jesus74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19 was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC [1]. The Jewish74 Messiah74 - the king74 of the Judeans74 - received 39 lashes and was nailed on74 the Cross74 on the first day of Passover Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC. Mother Mary was born in 19 BC and was 47-years-old when Jesus was crucified.

With 7 loaves of bread, Jesus fed 4,000 - Matthew 15:34-38, Mark 8:20.

"Anytime an idea19 is connect74ed to nature, it's not only logical, it's inevitable."

In Mecca, Muslim pilgrims observe Hajj & Umrah with Tawaf: the circumambulation of the 4-sided Kaaba 7 times with three fast pace rounds on the outside (ramal) and 4 ordinary pace on the inside. The Qur'an refers to the "7 Heavens".

Freemasonry and GOD=7_4

Knowledge of sacred geometry and the sacred combination of 7 & 4 has been passed on by the ancients through the centuries by the sacred Mystery schools and operative masons of many cultures. The Freemasons have been documented as using the GOD=7_4 Code for five centuries now in several very important places and events, i.e. the Old Course at St. Andrews, Scotland and 24 June74 1717 when 4 London74 Lodges47 formed the first Grand Lodge.

GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th which Commanding General & Grand Master Mason47 George Washington (VA & Continental Army) marked in 1775 with his General Order declaring, "The United Provinces of North America." He'd eventually have 74 generals in the Continental Army (33 were Masons). The Declaration of Independence was signed on 7/4/1776 only by President of Congress John447 Hancock740 (GMM MA) and attested by Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson74=T20+H8+O+M13+S19+O+N14. 7/4/1776 was also marked by the founding of the Committee to design the Great Seal of the United States which was led by Benjamin Franklin (GMM PA). July 4, 1776 also encoded Jesus' Birthday of 4/17/6 BC - just double the 7: Christ=77=C3+H8+R18+I9+S19+T20. 'Coincidentally', Franklin died on 4/17/1790, Washington died on 12/14/1799, and the 2nd President John Adams and 3rd President Thomas Jefferson both died on 7/4/1826: the 50th Anniversary of July 4, 1776. (Adams & Jefferson were not Masons.)

The 7 Articles of the Constitution were written on 4 pages, Federal7 City4 / New York7 City4 and Federal Hall at 74°W. Lady4 Liberty7's 7 spikes atop her head (symbolizing the 7 Classical Planets) and she stands on a 4-sided pedestal with 4 columns on each side. 7 Uniformed Services: 4 under the Department of the Defense, etc.

'Father Abraham' Lincoln's "4 score & 7 years ago, our fathers..." was a variation of Genasis 16:16. Lincoln was not a Mason, but the higher-degree Masons would have recognized his use of the code.

So then to be more accurate, I've cracked the Masonic(7,74) code(4) and discovered what is generating this 7_4 pattern on Earth, this solar system and throughout this Universe...

The supporting data

~74% of this universe's elemental mass is hydrogen (Milky Way/most galaxies are ~74% hydrogen, our/most solar systems' mass is ~74% hydrogen, the Sun's/most stars' mass is ~74% hydrogen, most gas giant planets'/Jupiter's atmosphere is ~74% hydrogen). Hydrogen gas forms explosive mixtures with air if it is 4-74%.

~74% of this universe is dark energy (~69%) and ordinary matter (~5%) + ~26% dark matter.

There are 4 basic states of matter: liquid, solid, gas, and plasma. But very recently, this has been expanded to 7 by adding: Bose-Einstein condensate, Quark-gluon plasma, and Degenerate matter.

Using whole numbers, 4 is in the middle of 7; it's the majority of 7. #7 is the 4th prime number. 7+7=14, 7×7=49: '7 naturally produces 4'. 1+2+3+4+5+6+7=28: a perfect number and 7×4.

7 = (4+4) - (4/4)

1.74 × 4 = ~7 or 6.96

4÷7 = .571428... Decimals of this kind in which the same figures are infinitely repeated are called repeating decimals. The part repeated is called the repetendand .571428 (4÷7) continually repeating without end is highly symbolic of GOD.

Besides Earth, this solar system has 7 planets (not including hypothetical Planet 9): the 4th from the Sun is the LARGEST: Jupiter. Out of these 7 planets, 4 are non-rocky gas or ice giants. Venus is .7 AU & Mercury .4 AU from the Sun (Venus .7233322, Mercury .3870987 with aphelion at .47). Saturn's '4 seasons' are each ~7.4 years long. Jupiter accounts for 74% of the planetary gravitational/tidal forces affecting the Sun. Uranus is the 7th planet from the Sun and 4th largest planetary mass in this solar system. Our Sun's radius is .0047 AU.

The 7 Classical Planets were/are the 7 moving objects in the heavens that can be seen with the naked eye. (Uranus it is at the limit of detection with the naked eye under dark skies and therefore undistinguishable from a dim star.) In 1610, Galileo Galilei was the first to point the new telescope towards the night sky and he discovered Jupiter's 4 large moons: Io, Calisto, Ganymede, and Europa. These are now known as the Galilean moons. (Galileo also used his improved telescope to discover mountains, valleys, and "seas" on the Moon. And he also discovered the phases of Venus, the rings of Saturn and sunspots.) On December 28, 1612, Galileo was the first to observe and document a 7th planet (Neptune) while he sketched the movements of Jupiter's 4 large moons. But after further observing its movement, he either didn't recognize the star as a planet or he feared the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church to such a discovery.

Uranus is the 7th planet from the Sun and its diameter is 4.007 Earth diameters. Besides Earth, Neptune is the 7th planet from the Sun and its diameter is also 4x (3.883) Earth's. Venus obits the Sun in 224.7 days which is ~7.4 Earth months (avg. month = 30.4 days).

The 4 lunar phases are a little over 7 days (~7.4 days) each varying due to apogee and perigee = Lunar 'moonth' of 29.531 days. Lunar year (12 lunar months74) + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year = 7 thirty-one day + 4 thirty day months + February's 28 (7×4) days. There are 7 moving objects74 in the heavens74seen with the naked eye (the 7 Classical Planets) and 4 of these don't cast shadows74 on Earth (Venus does); 4 can't be easily seen during daylight (Venus can be); 4 are rocky. The Big Dipper consists of 7 stars with 4 making up its quadrilateral bowl. Its 4th star in the middle is its brightest. The Big Dipper points toward Polaris which is the tip of the handle of the Little Dipper which is also 7 stars with 4 making-up its quadrilateral bowl. Polaris has been the North Star since about the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. Mars has a cycle which we observe as it returning to the same position against the background of stars and is in the same relationship to Earth and the Sun every 47 years.

4-7 eclipses occur annually. The longest theoretically an eclipse can be is 7 min. 40 sec. Our Sun has an 11-year sunspot cycle. Earth's magnetic field is tilted 11 degrees from its spin axis.

The Earth-Moon barycenter is ~1,710 km below the surface of the Earth: 4,661 km from Earth's center, ~74% of Earth's radius. This is the point about which the Earth and Moon orbit as they travel around the Sun.

Earth has 7 continents (or 4 land masses surrounded by water) & 4 seasons, the ancients' 7 Seas & 4 oceans (some recognize 7 oceans), ~74% of Earth's surface is water (~71% oceans & seas + ~2.5% freshwater lakes, rivers, canals, swamps (including Florida Everglades), ice caps, glaciers74, year-round snow cover, flooding, etc.). Human brain, heart, muscle, newborns, chicken eggs, and living trees are ~74% water. Human pregnancies are 40 weeks (7×40). The average women's heart beat is 74 beats per minute.

Ancient Babylonian, Egyptian, and Hebrew sacred royal cubits74 were 7 palms × 4 fingers = 28 digits (regular cubits are 6p × 4f = 24 digits).

English is Earth's primary language - it's due to a constant conscious/subconscious feedback loop with nature. English(74=E5+N14+G7+L12+I9+S19+H8) is alphanumeric: A-B-C becomes 1-2-374 (A=1, B=2...O=15 or zerO...Z=26). This pairing774 between774 a letter7 and a number774 is called Simple674 English774Gematria874. The key74: GOD=7_4, 7/4 = 7 April or July 4 (Masonic774 code4) ˜ aphelion & hottest day globally, Constitution's 7 Articles on 4 pages. France47's 14/7. Religion74, Judeans74/Jewish74.

Y'shua74/Joshua74/IESVS74/Jesus74 born Saturday 4.17.6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 3755 HC on Cross74 on G7ood4 Friday74 7.4.783 AUC / April 7, 30 AD / 14 Nisan 3790 HC. Winter solstice usually occurs on December 21 (sometimes 22) and 4 days later is Christmas and 7 days later is New Year's.

Muhammad74, Hajj & Umrah requires Muslim pilgrims to make Tawaf: the counter-clockwise circumambulation 7 times around the 4-sided Kaaba (4x fast on the outside [ramal], 3x regular on inside).

74°F is ideally comfortable, tropical storms become hurricanes at 74 mph sustained winds (Hurri.74 Katrina74 reached 174 mph), speed-of-sound is 742.5 mph (sea level, 0° centigrade), 1 horsepower = 746 watts, Genasis74 7:4, 4th Commandment: "Keep the 7th day holy", G clef & 4/4. General George Washington as new Commander of the Continental Army referred to "United Provinces of North America" on 7.4.1775; he'd eventually have 74 generals. "4 score & 7 years ago". Many major sports championships are best 4-of-7 games, men's golf championships are often played on 7,400 yard courses with a rating of 74. The world's first golf course - Old Course in St. Andrews - established 18 holes with 7 par 4s 'out'/front nine and 7 par 4s 'in'/back nine; the 7th Hole Par 4 and the 17th Par 4 Road Hole. Golf's 1st rule book was published in 1774. United Nations in New York7 City4 40.74°N 74°W. Vatican7 City4, Western7 Wall4, Federal7 City4, Capitol7 Hill4, Liberty7 Bell4, Sufis74. 74 members of the Council on Foreign Relations were present at the first meeting of the United Nations in 1945. The Dresden Codex (one of only four Mayan texts to still exist) has 74 pages of astronomical predictions. In English, the 7 day week has 4 days not named after heavenly bodies. US' 7 Uniformed Services: 4 under DOD, etc.

The Roman Catholic Church's Liturgical Year: 7 seasons with Easter 4th after Christmas.

Simple6,74 English7,74 Gematria8,74

The spoken word is linked to the written word which is based on its alphabet which is phonetic, pictographic, and has a numerical order connected to Genasis74, Nature and science.

Simple674 English774 Gematria874 uses 'the key'74 of A=1, B2, C3...Z26. The only irregularity is the circle: O=15 or zero, i.e. 704 = GOD = G7+O(15)+D4 = 11/26.

simple=74=S19+I9+M13+P16+L12+E5, English=74=E5+N14+G7+L12+I9+S19+H8, gematria=74=G7+E5+M13+A1+T20+R18+I9+A1, the key=74= T20+H8+E5+K11+E5+Y25, A-B-C becomes 1-2-3=74=A1+B2+C3+B2+E5+C3+O15+M13+E5+S19+1+2+3

English is Earth's primary language - it's due to a constant conscious/subconscious feedback loop with Nature of GOD=7_4, etc.

Y'shua74/Joshua74/IESVS74/Jesus74 born Saturday April 17, 6 BC (17.4.748 AUC) - the King74 of the Judeans74 - the Jewish74Messiah74 was nailed on74 the Cross74 on Friday April 7, 30 AD (7.4.783 AUC).

Archaeology and the sacred combination of 7 & 4

All ancient Egyptian sacred buildings starting with Pharaoh Djoser's Step Pyramid at Saqqara were designed by their architects using royal cubits of 7 palms x 4 fingers. This was the first pyramid built and it was 7 levels and 4-sided. The Temple of Luxor, the Sphinx, the Pyramids at Giza were all designed and built using royal cubits and the sacred combination of 7 & 4 invoking

"As Above, So Below". There's been a great deal of discussion about how the Great Pyramid is encoded; it is.

Stonehenge was disassembled centuries ago, but there are 7 large stones still in contact with 4 being vertical. When one looks through the middle of these 4 stones towards the heel stone, it aligns on the solstice with the Sun.

Music encodes GOD=7_4

G clef & 4/4. The G clef circles the G4 line. In solfeggio, G is Sol (the Roman Sun god) and D is Ra (the Egyptian Sun god).In the Key of G Major, G is the tonic (I) and D the dominant (V).

Sports & GOD=7_4

In football, there are 11 players on a team on the field with the offense required to have at least 7 on the line. The defense is often in a 4 linemen and 7 back position. A touchdown is traditionally thought of as 7 points and a field goal three points (4 less).

7/11/14 LeBron James played 7 years with the Cleveland Cavaliers then 4 years with the Miami Heat before announcing he was returning to the Cavaliers. After the announcement that evening, the Cleveland Indians won 7-4.

G-D = 7-4 = 3

I have a tendency to overlook the very simple and obvious G-D = 7-4 = 3. Sun, Moon & Earth has always formed an essential cosmic trinity for life on this planet: every 'true Earth-like plan-it' must have a LARGE moon. Earth is the 3rd Rock from the Sun.

3D. The word 'GOD' has 3 letters and Christianity's Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the Guardin' of Eden, there were 3 humans: God-incarnate, Adam and Eve.

Earth is the '3rd Rock from the Sun' except for when the Moon is between the two.

Pi was first discovered to be 3 as it is referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures - 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. It's logical to assume that soon after the first guy discovered pi as being 3, he discovered that it's slightly more than that. Perhaps he discovered 3.1 next and 3.14 later. (We know Plato encoded pi as 3.14159.) 100 divided by 3 = 33.3 and a couple is not a 'family' until they have a baby: 3.

Unified Strings 21/19 Theory - Physics' "Theory of Everything" (M-theory + time analysis providing a very simple symmetry breaking) - falls under GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4

Superstring theory (10 dimensions) and supergravity theory (11 dimensions) state that the 4 forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear & weak nuclear) are united by the smallest things possible: ultra-subatomic strings of energy74. M-theory unifies these field theories of 6 or 7 higher-dimensions (hyperspace) + the 4 common dimensions = 10/11 dimensions of spacetime...

6/7D hs + 4D = 10/11D st

My Unified Strings 21/19 Theory (M-theory + time47 analysis) documents the macroscopic effects of strings (some are listed above and below) and provides a very simple symmetry breaking with the 6 or 7 aspects of 'regular time': 1. beginning: the Big Bang/Bit Bang, 2. end: this Universe's Big Crunch/final entropy, 3. past, 4. present, 5. future, 6. void(?): beyond the boundary/event horizon of an expanding universe and black hole, and 7. a constant (the speed-of-light in a vacuum). Plus...

4 aspects of 'hypertime': 1. fast-forward/time dilation: moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks and clocks run faster in less gravity, 2. reverse: thought, tachyons(?), torsion waves(?), and quantum nonlocality/entanglement 'information' can travel faster-than-light; in another frame-of-reference, they are traveling backwards in time (natural & artificial wormholes warp space), 3. pause/stop: photons and all electromagnetic waves traveling at the speed-of-light are in a domain where time stops74 in that reference point74, and as the event horizon of a black hole is approached, time slows down relative to that of distant observers - stopping completely on the boundary/event horizon, and 4. before the beginning and after the end: this universe had a birth and may have a death, yet, it is but one of the seemingly infinite 'nonparallel-universes' in The Conglomerate/Multiverse (supermassive black holes Big Bang/Bit Bang [supermassive white holes] into new universes). Using unified strings 21/19 as a foundation means that designing a habitable planet to run on 6_4 can be built64. (10D superstring theory is now considered "incomplete", yet it is still engineerable.) Earth is proof that 7_4 has been engineered at least once. Note: The 4 aspects of hypertime are like operating a video player: fast-forward, reverse, pause/stop, before the beginning and after the end.

Note: Imaginary time using imaginary numbers is the 12th aspect of time, but it's not used in Unified Strings 21/19 Theory.

M-theory/Supergravity Theory
7D hs + 4D = 11D st (4D = 3D rs + t)... 11 dimensions of spacetime

(dimensions [D], hyperspace [hs], spacetime [st], regular space [rs], time [t])

Unified Strings 21/19 Theory
7 dimensions hyperspace + 3D regular space + 7 aspects regular time + 4 aspects hypertime = 21 dimensions/aspects of spacetime

7D hs + 3D rs + 7a rt + 4a ht = 21D/a st ... 21 dimensions/aspects of21 spacetime
(aspects [a], 'regular time' [rt], 'hypertime' [ht])

Note: Almost all string theorists use the term "higher-dimensions" although Michio Kaku wrote the book Hyperspace. I use the term 'hyperspace' because "7 dimensions of higher-dimensions" would be redundant and its abbreviation (7D hD) confusing. Also, hyperspace is needed to balance hypertime. This equation possesses a very simple symmetry of 7+4, 7+4 and then a very simple symmetry breaking of 21D/a st.

"Identifying 'True Earth-like Planets'
All New Worlds Are Built On 7_4 (like Earth) Or 6_4"

On April 21-23, 2009 at the Hilton Hotel Ballroom in Pasadena, CA, I presented this one-page paper/poster at the NASA Conference Missions for Exoplanets 2010-2020; it's been tweaked since and can be found at http://PlanetNestor.blogspot.com . For over two years, it was found at [2] and [3].

true Earth-like planets: those worlds where advanced civilizations have evolved in their past, present or future.

The Planet Nestor - our 'next-door neighbors' - is built on FOD=6_4 mathematical model

Using the closely connect74ed plan-it and unified strings 21/19 theories, I can now reveal the nearest** Earth-like exoplanet where humanoids have evolved. The Planet Nestor (not to be confused with 659 Nestor: an asteroid orbiting Jupiter) is ~4.6 billion-years-old and has...

6 continents & 4 seasons, their ancients' 6 Seas & 4 oceans, ~64% of its surface is liquid or frozen water, Nestor's large moon has 4 phases of 6.4 days each - 6 day weeks & 24 (6×4) hours - and it has 12 lunar months (25.5 days per) for a lunar year of 306 revolutions + 6 day week + 4 days = 316 day solar year with a leap year of 317 days every 4th year. All of these characteristics will be directly observed through great advances in future technology. However, with the new space telescopes, new land-based telescopes, and new techniques that we'll possess by 2018, we'll be able to test64 and confirm Nestor and its two inner planets orbit64ing at .6 AU & .4 AU and/or 6 AU & 4 AU. (Nestor's 1 AU ˜ Earth's 1 AU).

There are 6 moving objects in their heavens that can be seen with the naked eye from Nestor's surface - their 6 Classical Planets - and 4 are planets (+ sun & moon). Their Big Dipper consists of 6 stars with 4 in the quadrilateral bowl of the ladle. It points towards their North Star which is the tip of the handle of their Little Dipper which also consists of 6 stars with 4 making-up its bowl. Besides Nestor, their solar system has 6 planets: the 4th from their Sun is the LARGEST. Out of these 6 planets, 4 are non-rocky gas or ice giants. Their nearby 'colony planet' has a 46-year cycle which they observe as returning to the same position against the background of stars and is in the same relationship to Nestor and their Sun. 4-6 eclipses occur annually, the longest an eclipse can be is 6 min. 40 sec., its sun has a 10-year sunspot cycle, and Nestor's magnetic field is tilted 10 degrees from its spin axis. Their sun's radius is .0046 AU.

Nestor's 'Venus' orbits their Sun in 169 Nestor days: 6.4 x Nestor months (avg. 26.4 days).

Nestlings speak (& spell64) 'Eqfish664', acknowledfe 'FOD'(=6_4) as The Creator, practice 'famatmia64' (gematria74), use Standard/Byblical cubits of 6p x 4f, and recofnize a 'simfle64' (simple74) and elegant64 theory...

M-theory / Superstring Theory
6D hs + 4D = 10D st (4D = 3D + t)... 10 dimensions of spacetime

If the observer avoids recognizing the void (i.e. no boundary theory), symmetry is maintained with 6 aspects of regular time + 4 aspects of hypertime...

Unified Strings 21/19 Theory
6D hs + 3D rs + 6a rt + 4a ht = 19D/a st... 19 dimensions/aspects of s19pacetime

M-theory's universal laws can be localized, yet effects are felt non-locally***.

Sympathetic vibration provides clues to Nestor's existence

Our solar system is ~4.6 billion-years-old. Our Moon contains two clues to Nestor's predicted characteristics: the Moon travels around Earth at .64 miles per second and the Moon's crust is ~64 kilometers deep. Would Nestor's large moon travel around it at .74 mps and have a ~74 k deep crust as a reflection of Earth's existence? Mars contains a huge clue to the prediction of Nestor's 24/6: Mars has a 24.6 hour day. Would a potential colony planet near Nestor have a 24.7 hour day as a reflection of Earth's existence?!

Pluto also contains a huge clue to the prediction of Nestor running on 6_4. The reclassified dwarf planet is 648 miles wide, its fifth moon has been observed, Pluto rotates with a 6.4-Earth-day period and its largest moon - Charon - orbits it every 6.4 days. (Because of this, Pluto and Charon uniquely always show the same hemisphere to one another.) Would a distant 'dwarg planet' in Nestor's system be 748 miles wide, have 6 moons, and it and its 'companion moon' have a 7.4 Nestor-day revolution/orbit64 as ***'sympathetic resonance' of Earth's existence?!

Is Genasis74 6:4 and its "Nefilem64" a coded message from GOD/FOD? Many define 'Nefilem' as extraterrestrials.

Nestlings' primary global language is connected to nature: Eqfish(6,64)

A world's primary spoken language ('Holy Tongue') is based on its written language which is based on its alphabet which is based on simple geometry, pictographs, being phonetic, and its numerical order connected to history, science and Nature.

Earth and its civilizations have evolved consciously and subconsciously on GOD=7_4. Nestlings and their civilization would have evolved consciously and subconsciously running on FOD=6_4. Their primary global language - lingua64 pura - would inevitably be 'Eqfish'. Why? Because Eqfish has 6 letters and its second syllable begins with the 6th letter of the alphabet. Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial74 point74 - initial conditions - going on in chaotic complex systems. 6_4 (& 7_4) acts as an underlying pattern/program/algorithm/'fractal'. Therefore, Eqfish=64 (E5+Q17+F6+I9+S19+H8=64) and their 1 deity64: FOD=6_4. As stated above, on Earth, this pairing74 between74 a letter & a number74 is known as Simple74English74 Gematria74. Nestlings would spell64 it: Simfle64 Eqfish64 Famatmia64. They'd focus64 on F...

Nestor's Byble46, "In the befinninf, Fod created the healens64 (heavens74) and the Nestor ('The 10 Words'). This is Fod's signature.

"In 5 days, Fod created everythinf and rested on the 6th day." - Fenkis64 (Genasis74)

The 4th Commandment: "Keep the 6th day holy."

"In the befinninf was the Word, and the Word was with Fod and the Word was FOD." - Juan46 1:1

Esus64 Chrift64 their Ewish64 Meisiah64 was born on 4/16/7 BC / 16.4.647 AUC. F6ood4 Griday (Good Friday) was on 4/6/29 AD / 6.4.682 AUC.

Nestor's Qur'ag64, "The 6 ogt repeated verses." - 6 verses of Surah 1

"Fod created 6 healens64 and og Nestor a similiar number. The 1 divine64 command descendinf."

After many centuries of having 6 Classical Planets, Nestor's Faileo6 Failei6 (Galileo Galilei) discovered 4 moons around its solar system's largest planet using the newly discovered telescope. He also first observed their 6th planet (not seen with the naked eye), but their main religious institution would have killed him had he fone public with the discovery.

Nestor's Albert Einstein, "I want to know Fod's thoufts in a mathematical way." "When I'm judfinf a theory, I ask myselg whether, ig I were Fod, I would have arrange64d the world in such a way."

"Anytime an idea is connected to nature, it's not only lofical (logical), it's inevitable."

Nestor's tropical storms become hurricanes when their sustained winds reach 64 knots/74 mph.

'Nestor' sounds like **'next-door' and humans may have a 'nest or' base there. Nestor is ~4.6 billion-years-old and has ~6.4 billion humanoids. Hey! That's very similar to Earth! Music is considered a universal language. Is it a 'coincidence' that G clef (treble clef) and F clef (bass clef) are used in conjunction to depict all the various pitches? Using strings as the building blocks of spacetime, I predict that All Earth-like planets with evolved humanoids run on FOD=6_4 (like Nestor) or GOD=7_4 (like Earth).

Feel free or 'geel gree' to spread this info / 'ingo' around. Can I get some feedback, uh, can I 'fet some geedback'?

Deleting incorrect data

This paper in 2009 used to begin with "~74% of the total mass-energy of this universe is dark energy74." This data was from the NASA WMAP. However, on March 31, 2013, the European Space Agency (ESA) released its findings from the Planck Spacecraft of ~68.3% dark energy.

4/3/14 19:04 With the latest discovery of three potential dwarf planets in the Orf Cloud, I've deleted "& 4 distant dwarf planets" from both Earth's 7_4 and Nestor's 6_4 examples. 11/14/16 10:17 Planet 9 although not directly observed, is now acknowledged by astronomers.

Links

http://7seals.blogspot.com
http://7seals.yuku.com

- Brad Watson Miami, FL 2/3/09 t 2/6/17 11:07

Mr. Coulter #fundie godorscience.com

[In responce to an article about a town using, among other things, hog manure to generate their own energy. A fundie who happens to be a pig farmer responds with a bizarre post.]

Is this some way of saying that me and the piggies are going to be the heros of the energy crisis? Well, well, well.

Here you go WD, we can now use the theory of evolution to solve the energy crisis! So now the theory of evolution is not about evolution, but a TRUTH on aiding the energy crisis. This is how the simple pig farming thesis/process will work. First, I will have all theory of evolution gibbergabber mailed to me. Second, I will feed it to the piggies. Third, I will let those theories "evolve"(get it evolve) into pigshit. And I(well not "I", the deep bowels of the piggies) even got it to go from one form of existance into another, how sweet is that! Where are those pesky creationist now! Huh?! We dont hear one word from them, humph figures. We (pig farmer and science) have proven the "theory of evolution" does exist, and how "theory of evolution" emerged from a gob of goo(in this case pigshit) and evolved(I will make sure evolve/evolution get full credit) into energy/fuel. GOD?! HA! INDEED! Well GOD may have created the pig and man, but where was He when the "theory of evolution" evolved into pigshit? HMMM? How about you, confused? Me and WD just theorized an idea into an absolute truth. Cant forget the Fourth process, then we convert the pigshit into fuel and solve the pinch at the gasoline tank. WOW!

Does this make me a *sniff*, dare I say, a a a scientist?! OR maybe if this thesis pans out, a Doctor. I'll even let the Chinese beauties call me Docker. Dr.Mr. Coulter, and I did not even go to college. I can use my new fortune to finance a phD course at the local community college, I will target the poor and minorities of course. We will have basic readin', writin', and rithmaticin' ciriculum to give us validation, you know. WE will have advanced degrees in shredding the "theories of evolution", litteraly shredding with a paper shredder, so the pigs can easily consume them. And whittling, gots to do sumptin while them pig bowels are evolutioning. And of course the proper pronuciation in hollaring "sue ee". Let me demonstrate, it is not "sue ee", no, no. It is "Sue EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" "Comes and git yer theories!" Just think, with Dr. liscences more easily attainded, when those libbys come and profess gibbergabber with their elite educational credentials, we can have an army respond with "Nah uh" and flash their Dr. badge. Also, proper pumping of poo will have to be taught. From now on the poo truck will no longer be called the "honey wagon", no sir. It is now officially the "MONEY WAGON"! Hey, hey bling, bling. Oh, and for those who are too lazy to complete the semester it takes to become a doctor, we can have a 2 nit seminar on becoming a scientist by teaching folks how to feed "theories of evolution" to pigs. If the pompous educational field raises a stink(get it) with them being credited as scientists, we will graduate them as evolutionists. The Christianity will be taught free of charge.

Yes, and when you cruise the Illinois countryside with your $0.25/gallon gasoline and you get a whiff from that south wind, you can now be proud! For that whiff is the "theory of evolution" evolving into TRUTH. Now Jerry, WD we are in an alliance. The Christian Evolutionists! Ta da!

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.

Magnum 44 #fundie freerepublic.com

As far as literally creating the world in a matter of days, since God has been for all eternity, and will be for all eternity, I will let Him define what a day is, rather than try to interpret it for myself. In that since only, evolution and Biblical history can be compatible.

As for the creation of man, even Darwin himself admitted that without fossil records (which dont exist), his theory was bunk. And Darwin never imagined the nano-tech like machinery of the DNA contained in cellular structure. The cell was just a black box to him from which life could spring from nothing. If Darwin knew what we know today about the intelligent design going on within DNA and the complex machinery required for something as simple as blood clotting, he would not come to the same conclusion he did.

But some scientists will never admit the answer lies in God. They would rather suppose it was placed here by some other worldly species...just pushing out the question they dont want to actually find the right answer to.

Power Point Paradise #fundie powerpointparadise.com

Just last week an article turned up at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, “The bacterial flagellar motor: brilliant evolution or intelligent design?,” by a biophysicist named Matt Baker, claiming to refute irreducible complexity. Has Baker finally solved the riddle of answering Behe’s challenge to Darwinian evolution? No, it’s pretty much the same stuff we’ve heard before, with maybe a variation or two that are original to Matt Baker.

Well, since these perennial objections are indeed perennial, I would like to answer them again, using Dr. Baker as my example. We’ll see that IC remains as potent a weapon in ID’s arsenal as it was in 1996.

The article purports to explain how the bacterial flagellum is the result of Darwinian evolution rather than intelligent design. But the author badly misunderstands both how we test for irreducible complexity and what it means to provide a Darwinian explanation. He is also apparently unaware of the many reasons why the Type III Secretory System could not have been a precursor to the flagellum.

The article’s first error comes in the sub-headline, which states:

"Luckily, individual components of the bacterial flagellar motor have indeed been found elsewhere. And they work. So the motor is ‘reducible’, and certainly not ‘irreducibly complex’."

First of all, it’s not the case that all “individual components” of the flagellum have been found elsewhere. But even if they had, that would not necessarily mean that the motor is “reducible” and “not ‘irreducibly complex.'” In any case, Baker goes on to state:

"A central tenet of this theory is the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’. This asserts that some biological machines — like the flagellar motor — must be the product of design, because if you were to remove one or two components from the motor it would not function properly, or at all. The logic being, this motor was designed as a whole construction — it didn’t evolve through a series of steps, so the individual parts of the motor would serve no purpose on their own.So the creationist argument relies on us finding no evidence of individual parts of the motor having a role outside of bacterial flagella."

Ignoring the gratuitous “creationist” jab, his argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand he says (correctly) that irreducible complexity means that a system “didn’t evolve through a series of steps.” But he then wrongly claims that this implies “the individual parts of the motor would serve no purpose on their own” or that irreducible complexity “relies on us finding no evidence of individual parts of the motor having a role outside.”

The former claim is a great description of irreducible complexity; the latter is a straw man test, which has nothing to do whatsoever with the concept. Dr. Baker should read my article “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” which addresses this common misconception. I explain there that Michael Behe formulates irreducible complexity as a test of building an entire system in a stepwise manner. IC relates to the functionality of a collection of parts, not the function (or possible functions) of each individual part. Even if a separate function could be found for a sub-system or sub-part, that would not refute the irreducible complexity of the whole, nor would it demonstrate the evolvability of that entire system. Here’s how Behe defines IC:

"In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.(Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 39 (Free Press, 1996).)"

According to Darwin himself, Darwinian evolution requires that a system be functional along each small step of its evolution. One could find a sub-part that could be useful outside of the final system, yet the total system would still face many points over its “evolutionary pathway” where it could not remain functional through “numerous, successive, slight modifications.” Thus, Baker mischaracterizes Behe’s argument as one that focuses on the non-functionality of sub-parts, when in fact, Behe actually focuses on the ability of the entire system to assemble in a stepwise fashion, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system.To further understand how Baker’s test fails, consider the example of a car engine with its nuts and bolts. Car engines use many kinds of bolts, and a nut or a bolt could be seen as a small “sub-part” or “sub-system” of a car engine. Under this logic, if a vital nut in my car’s engine might also perform some other function — perhaps as a lug nut — then it follows that my car’s whole engine system is not irreducibly complex. Such an argument is obviously fallacious.

In assessing whether an engine is irreducibly complex, one must focus on the function of the engine itself and whether it can be built in a stepwise fashion, not on a possible function that one particular sub-part could have elsewhere. Of course a nut or bolt could serve some other purpose in my car. It could probably serve many purposes. But this does not explain how a variety of complex parts such as pistons, cylinders, the camshaft, valves, the crankshaft, sparkplugs, the distributor cap, and wiring came together in the appropriate configuration to make a functional engine. Even if all of these parts could perform other functions in the car (which is doubtful), how were they all assembled properly to construct a functional engine? The answer must be intelligent design.

To offer another analogy, consider how you would build an irreducibly complex arch (Figure A):

image
Figure A: An arch is irreducibly complex: If one removes a piece, the remaining pieces will fall down.

According to Baker, if we can find a function for some sub-piece, then a system is not irreducibly complex. Now, let’s now break this arch into sub-pieces:

image
Figure B: Here an arch has been broken up into sub-pieces.

Baker has apparently found a flagellar sub-piece (the T3SS) that can perform some other function. The T3SS comprises no more than a quarter of the total flagellar parts. Similarly, in this arch, there is one large sub-section (labeled “S”) that comprises approximately a quarter of the total arch. Sub-section S can have a function outside of the arch (i.e., it can stand on its own). However, this exposes the fallacy of Baker’s test: the ability of sub-section S to stand on its own does not therefore dictate that the arch is not irreducibly complex. If one were to remove the top piece (t), the arch crumbles, even if sub-section S remains standing (Figure C):

image
Figure C: Even if sub-section S can have a function (i.e., if it can stand) outside of the arch, this does not imply that the arch as a whole is not irreducibly complex — capable of being built in a step-by-step manner.

Thus, we see that a system does not become “reducibly complex” simply because one part remains functional outside of the final system, and Baker has followed many others in proffering a straw-man test of irreducible complexity.

So can we properly test the flagellum to show that it is irreducibly complex? Yes, we can. Scott Minnich’s genetic knockout experiments on the E. coli flagellum have shown that it fails to assemble or function properly if any one of its approximately 35 structural parts are missing. That’s prima facie evidence that it’s irreducibly complex, and it’s a proper test of the model.

Jesus Admirer #fundie bibleforums.org

Question: How much faith would it take to believe that a puddle of primordial soup eventually grew into living organisms, which adventually evolved into male and female human beings?(The myth & faith of evolutionists) To believe that a puddle of primordial soup would become living cells and organisms would require a leap of faith in the first place, but then for these simple organisms to evolve into complex cells and organisms would require another giant leap of faith, but then to believe these complex organisms divided themselves into male & female organisms, which is required to produce new life would require gigantic leaps of faith, which is what evolution really is based on by many atheistic Scientists who don’t want to be accountable to a Creator, whether there’s a Creator or not. Evolution has failed to explain how life is made up of male and female species, which requires both to reproduce, which makes life impossible to spring forth from primordial soup as evolutionists believe with their gigantic leap of faith in the religion of evolution.

Amos Moses #fundie christiannews.net

nope .... EVERY successful science experiment has proven that God has order all, everything that works without appeal to men ..... science, logic, and reason .... are ALL aspects of God and are reflected in His creation as His creation is a reflection of the Creator ...... and to eliminate that knowledge from the science is really to eliminate science .... as there is no science without the Creator as science is a REFLECTION of the Creator ...........

Jason Unruhe #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

In the wake of brutal police murders of young Black men, a popular resistance began to form. This movement was known as “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) Officially according to the organization it began in July 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. In June of this year I said that the movement was nearing its end; and that it had only a few months left to it. This appears to be the case now. The movement is on its last legs, the steam it came on with has blown itself out.

Don’t mistake my words here for some kind of celebration. Most leftist groups in the U.S. are still in denial over the movement’s fate. What was once a loud and proud resistance has become little more than a part of the “cuck” jokes about Bernie Sanders. What was once a declaration of war against oppressors has become little more than the obnoxious behaviour of a few self-involved individuals.

So what happened? Essentially what I predicted would happen: liberals took over the movement. It was born out of a radical need to fight killings by police. A real physical defense against police oppression was being organized. Truly radical ideas like self-defense forces were being organized. Unfortunately the mass of the movement are liberals, not radicals. The majority of Black people in America aren’t leftist radicals, they’re liberals who vote Democrat. BLM is made up of liberals with a few radical elements around the fringes. These fringe radical elements are the exception, not the rule.

I said that liberals were going to overtake the movement and co-opt it. Once that took place the movement was sabotaged. Liberals are not interested in radical change, they’re interested in getting concessions. Radical elements were deliberately purged from the movement. This is what the Austin chapter of BLM did:

That’s a consideration that’s come into question since news broke that the city would host three discordant rallies at the same time this Saturday morning. Members of the 1312 Project did not respond to calls from the Chronicle, but Margaret Haule, who spoke on behalf of Black Lives Matter, quickly made it known that her organization is “not to be confused” with the 1312 Project. “We don’t do things that are considered illegal,” she explained. “We’re not trying to get a bad rap. We’re more transparent and open. It’s important that people see there are people playing an active role in the community.”

Essentially the 1312 Project opposed (and rightfully so) the Police Lives Matter (PLM) movement. However, the BLM wanted to support the PLM. This collaboration is with Police Chief Art Acevedo:

Acevedo said he spoke with members of Black Lives Matter about national and local policy changes they want implemented to ensure equality, and added he agrees with the majority of them. He also said what the group would like to see in regards to police relations is only a small part of the entire movement.

“All they want is to have police officers that are respectful, that treat people as part of the community and don’ treat them like they’re an occupying army and we get that,” Acevedo said.

This act is an outright collaboration with the enemy. The 1312 Project was purged from BLM because it had a radical agenda that challenged the police. There were not without comment on the matter:

On Monday morning, Sept. 14, an anonymous member of the anti-police-brutality activist group the 1312 Project – shorthand for “All Cops Are Bastards” – posted a message on Facebook announcing a change of plans. This Saturday, Sept. 19, the group will send its membership to rally at the Capitol rather than APD headquarters. “It appears as though some organizers’ desire to control this movement has resulted in, at best, police collaboration and, at worst, the active selling out of other organizers,” read the note. “We see this as a breach in camaraderie that puts those of us who were planning on meeting at APD headquarters in far more danger.” The seven-paragraph message concluded with an edict: “Fuck the cops, fuck politicians, and stay savvy,” it read.

The fact is in the first world the more successful you are, the more you’ll be co-opted. At this point BLM is an empty shadow of what it was intended to be. The mainstream media and political establishment aren’t even opposed to it. News networks are now using terms like ‘white privilege’ and going over the recent history of police violence. Politicians are voluntarily meeting with the group, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If the establishment doesn’t see it as a threat, you’re not challenging the system.

Why did this happen? Long story short: there is no social base for revolution in the first world. Radicals begin resistance groups to challenge the power of an unjust system. The problem is that the masses of the American people don’t want to do revolution. Often they face very oppressive conditions, such as the police killings of young Black people. However, they have no desire to overthrow the system which causes that oppression. They only wish to have that oppression stop. There is no social base for these radical groups to lead. There are only liberal Democrat Party supporting reformers. The liberals co-opt these radical movements because there isn’t any significant number of radicals to follow them.

The truth radical groups are not accepting, is that Black people in America don’t want a civil war to bring about a whole new society. All they really want is the same wealth and privileges that White people have. Radical groups however, continue to pull quotes from the 1960s Black Panthers and act as though we still exist in those times. Just because radicals want to take radical action, does not mean that the mass of Blacks in America want to take radical action themselves.

There definitely needs to be a coordinated radical action against the racist U.S. police state. Unfortunately there isn’t the social base, nor the organization for such a thing to happen.

supersport #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

One of my all-time favorite lies is that antibiotic resistance proves darwinism. This has been the one of the greatest fabrications of the 20th century. I have long questioned why, if antibiotic resistance proved Darwin's version of evolution, that science couldn't prove this same version with real animals........why is it that the proof is somewhere that 99.9% of the population can't see it?

Matt #fundie blog.wired.com

Horrible article for all the holes and misleading statements already covered. I never heard any "creation-based" teaching in my corn-fed Iowa education. By 17, I had decided that knowledge and understanding were genetic (because I knew a lot when I shouldn't have and didn't know why) and that education simply "unlocked" info I already had inside. School was boring because I took personal responsibility in my own understanding of things. I had also nearly destroyed my own life believing I was the only thing that mattered.

Science failed me socially. I failed me socially. I still believe evolution is a possibility and a component of things we (the human race) are not smart enough to understand.

Don't expect others to be responsible for your personal understanding of things. Read for yourself.

Three things to consider:

Big Bang - First described in Genesis
The Earth is Round - First mentioned in Isaiah 40:22. Made Columbus check it out.
The Universe has more stars that we can count - Hebrews 11:12

Modern Science has not figured everything out. Even Darwin knew that.

"Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Michael & Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

The Lacerta Files

Interview with a Reptilian

[...]

Question: Can you tell me something about the natural history and evolution of your species? How old is your species? Have you evolved from primitive reptiles as mankind has evolved from apes?

Answer: Oh, this is a very long and complex story and it sounds certainly unbelievable to you, but it’s the truth. I will try to explain it in short. Around 65 million years ago, many of our unadvanced ancestors from the dinosaur race died in a great global cataclysm. The reason for this destruction was not a natural disaster—an asteroid impact as your scientists believe falsely—but a war between two enemy alien groups that took mainly place in the orbit and high atmosphere of your planet. According to our limited knowledge about the early days this global war was the first alien war on planet earth but it was definitely not the last (and a future war is coming soon, while a “cold war”—as you call it—between alien groups is ongoing since the last 73 years on your planet).

The opponents in this 65 million year old war were two advanced alien species, whose both names are again not pronounceable for your tongues. I’m able to say them but it would hurt your ear if I tell you the names in their original way. One race was humanoid like your species (but much older) and was from this universe, from a solar system in the star constellation you call “Procyon” today in your maps. The other species—about which we know not so much—was a reptilian species, but they have nothing to do with our own species, because we have evolved from local saurians without exterior influence (except the successful manipulation of our own genes by us. More about that later). The advanced reptilian species came not from this universe but from a—well, how should I explain it to you. Your scientists have not really understood the true nature of the universe, because your illogical mind is not able to see the easiest things and relies on wrong mathematics and numbers. This is part of the genetic programming of your kind to which I will come later. Let me say, that you are nearly as far away from the understanding of the universe as you were 500 years ago.

To use a term you will maybe understand: the other species came not from this universe but from another “bubble” in the foam of the omniverse. You would call it maybe another dimension, but this is not the right word to describe it correctly (by the way, the term dimension is generally wrong in the way you understand it). The fact you should remember is, that advanced species are able to “walk” between bubbles by use of—as you would call it—quantum technology and sometimes in special ways only by use of their mind (my own species had also advanced mental abilities in comparison to your species, but we are not able to do the matterstring/bubble changing without technology, but other species active on this planet are able and this looks to you like magic as it had to your ancestors.)

Back to our own history: the first species (the humanoids) had reached Earth around 150 years before the reptilians and they built some colonies on the former continents. There was a large colony on the continent you call “Antarctica” today and another one in the continent you call “Asia” today. These people lived together with animal-like saurians on the planet without problems. When the advanced reptilian species arrived in this system, the humanoid colonists from “Procyon” tried to communicate peacefully, but they were not successful and a global war started within months.

You must understand that both species were interested in this young planet not for its biology and undeveloped species, but for only one reason: raw material, especially copper. To understand this reason, you must know that copper is a very important material for some advanced species (even today) because it is—together with some unstable materials—able to produce new stable elements if you induce a high electromagnetic field in the right angle with a high nuclear radiation field to produce an over-crossing of fluctuating fields. The fusion of copper with other elements in such a magnetic/radiation field-chamber can produce a force field of special nature that is very useful for various technological tasks (but the base for this is an extremely complex formula you are not able to discover because of the restrictions of your simple mind).

Both species wanted to have the copper of Planet Earth and for this reason, they fought a not very long war in space and orbit. The humanoid species seemed to be successful during the first time, but in a last battle the reptilians decided to use a mighty experimental weapon—a special kind of fusion bomb which should destroy the life forms on the planet but should not harm the valuable raw materials and the copper. The bomb was fired from space and detonated at a point of your planet you call “Middle America” today. As it detonated in the ocean, it produced an unpredictable fusion with hydrogen and the effect was much stronger then the reptilians had expected. A deadly radiation, an over-production of fusion-oxygen, a fall-out of different elements and a “nuclear winter” for nearly 200 years were the results. Most of the humanoids were killed and the reptilians lost their interest on the planet after some years for (even for us) unknown reasons—maybe because of the radiation.

Planet Earth was on its own again and the animals on the surface died. By the way, one result of the fusionbomb was the fall-out of different elements and materials created in the burning process and one of that materials was Iridium. Your human scientists today see the Iridium concentration in the ground as an evidence for an asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. That is not true, but how should you know that?

Well, most of the dinosaurs died (not all in the detonation but in the bad things which came after the war, especially in the nuclear winter and in the fall-out). Nearly all dinosaurs and reptilians were dead within the next 20 years. Some of them—especially those in the oceans—were able to survive for the next 200 to 300 years even in this changed world, but these species also died, because the climate had changed. The nuclear winter ended after 200 years, but it was colder on earth then before. Despite the cataclysm, some species were able to survive: fish (like the sharks), birds, little creepy mammals (your ancestors), various reptiles like crocodiles…and there was a special kind of small but advanced dinosaur which had developed together with the last large animal-reptilians like the species you call Tyrannosaurus.

This new reptile was walking on two legs and looked at little bit like your reconstruction of an Iguanodon (it originated in this family) but it was smaller (around 1.50 metres tall) with some humanoid features, a changed bone structure, a larger skull and brain, a hand with a thumb which was able to grab things, a different organism and digestion, advanced eyes in the middle of the head like your eyes and…most important…with a new and better brain structure. This was our direct ancestor.

There are theories that the radiation from the bomb took part in the mutations of the organism of this new breed, but this is not proven. Nevertheless, this little humanoid-like dinosaur evolved during the following 30 million years (as I have said earlier, a species need generally more time to evolve then you think, if the evolution is not artificially induced like in your case) from an animal to a more or less thinking being. These beings were intelligent enough not to die in the next millions of years, because they learned to change their behavior, they lived in caves instead in the cold nature and they learned to use stones and branches as first tools and the use of fire as help to warm them—especially to warm their blood which is very important for our kind to survive. During the next 20 million years this species was divided by nature into 27 sub-species (unfortunately, former reptilian species were prone to divide themselves in a more or less illogical way into sub-species during the evolution process. You can clearly see this in the unnecessary high number of animal-dinosaur species in earlier times) and there were many (mainly primitive) wars between this sub-species for dominance.

Well, nature was not very friendly to us and as far as we know from the 27 sub-species, 24 were extincted in primitive wars and in evolution, because their organism and mind was not developed enough to survive and (as main reason) they were not able to change their blood temperature in the right way when the climate changed. 50 million years after the war and after the end of Dinosaurs, only three (now also technological) advanced reptilian species were remaining on this planet together with all the other lower animals. Through natural and artificial crossbreedings this three species were united to one reptilian species and through the invention of genetic manipulations, we were able to “eliminate” the dividing-prone genes in our genetic structure.

According to our history and belief, this was the time when our final reptilian race—as you see me today—was created by use of genetic engineering. This was around 10 million years ago and our evolution nearly stopped at this point (well, actually there were some minor changes in our look toward a more humanoid and mammal-like appearance during the coming ages, but we have not divided again into sub-species). You see, we are a very old race in comparison to your kind, which was jumping around as small monkey-like animals in the trees at this time while we invented technology, colonized other planets of this system, built large cities on this planet (which disappeared without a trace in the ages) and engineered our own genes while your genes where still those of animals.

10 million years ago the small simians started to grow and they came down from the trees to the ground (again because of the change of the climate—especially on the so-called African continent). But they evolved very slow as it is normal for a mammal and if nothing extraordinary had happened to your kind, we wouldn’t be able to sit here and talk because I would sit in my comfortable modern house and you would sit in your cave clothed with fur and trying to discover the secrets of fire—or you would maybe sit in one of our zoos.

But the things had developed differently and you believe now you are the “crown of creation” and you can sit in the modern house and we must hide and live beneath the earth and in remote areas. Around 1.5 million years ago, another alien species arrived at Earth (it was surprisingly the first species since over 60 million years. This would be more surprising for you if you would know how many different species are here today).

The interest of this humanoid species—you call them “Ilojiim” today—was not the raw material and the copper, it were to our astonishment the unadvanced ape-humanoids. Despite our presence on this planet, the aliens decided to “help” the apes to evolve a little bit faster, to serve them in the future as some kind of slave-race in coming wars. The fate of your species was not really important for us, but we didn’t liked the presence of the “Ilojiim” on our planet and they didn’t liked our presence on their new “galactic zoo” planet and so your sixth and seventh creation was the reason for a war between us and them. You can read about that war for example partly in the book you call “Bible” in a very strange way of description. The real truth is a very long and difficult story. Should I continue?

Question: No, not now. I’ve made some notes about your history and now I have some questions.

Answer: Please ask.

Question: First of all, you handle with a very large time scale. You claim that your primitive ancestors lived together with the dinosaurs, survived the—as you called it—artificial cataclysm and evolved then over 40 million years and your evolution was completed 10 million years ago. This sounds very unbelievable to me. Can you say something to this?

Answer: I understand that this must sound absolutely unbelievable to you, because you are a young and genetically engineered species. Your historical horizon ends at a scale of just some thousands of years and you think this is right. But it isn’t. This is impossible. Your programmed mind is obviously not able to handle with such large time scales. Our evolution time may seem incredibly long to you, but this is in fact the original way of nature. Remember, your early mammal ancestors developed together with dinosaurs and they survived the bomb like us. They evolved slowly during the next millions of years and they divided into various species and shapes, some of them larger, some of them smaller. This is evolution of the body.

But what about their mind and intelligence? They were simple animals. The mammals evolved since—let us say—150 millions of years, but only in the last 2–3 millions of years they were able to become intelligent and thinking. And within this small period beings like you were created. From nature? 148 millions of years time for the evolution of animal-like mammals, 2 millions of years time for the development of (more or less) intelligent beings like you? Ask yourself: Do you really think this accelerated evolution is natural? Then your species is more ignorant then I’ve thought. We have not evolved wrong but you.

Question: I understand. But I have another question. You’ve mentioned many facts about the ancient war between the aliens 65 million years ago. This happened very long before your kind became really intelligent (as far as I have understood you). Why do you know so many things about that “first war” and about the evolution of your species?

Answer: This is a good question (much better then the previous) and I have not explained it properly to you. Our knowledge about the first war comes completely from an ancient artifact, which was found around 16,000 years ago from our archeologists on the continent you call North America today. They found there a round plate with a diameter of approximately 47 of your centimeters The plate was made of an even for us unknown magnetic material and inside the plate there was another smaller crystal plate which contained an enormous amount of information coded in the molecular structure of the crystal.

This “memory plate” was manufactured from the last bomb survivors of human race from “Procyon” already 65 million years ago but it was completely intact when we found it. Our scientists were able to encode the messages and data and so we heard the first time about the events which took place in the distant past and which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. The plate contained detailed descriptions of both species (but more about the humanoids) and about the events and weapons, including the fusion bomb. It contained also a description of the animals and saurians on earth, including our pre-intelligent ancestor species. The rest of our knowledge about our evolution comes from skeletons and from the back-reading and de/encoding of our DNA. You see, we know the real truth about our roots since 16,000 years. Before that time, there was a more religious idea of our creation.

(Note by Michael Relfe: Assuming that this female is providing accurate information, from what she has been taught, it now becomes apparent that everything the “reptilians” understand about their history is from an unknown alien artifact, created by an unknown alien group at an unknown time for an unknown purpose. Just as the reptilians enjoy subjecting humans to propaganda and disinformation, it seems that some other group is “running a game” on the reptilians as well. So this “advanced” reptilian race has no hard facts on their history, contrary to what they would have humans believe.)

T. J. Reed "6days" #fundie amazon.com

It's unbelievable the amount of faith an evolutionist has to have to believe we were all created from molten lava millions of years ago. If you blew up a pile of bricks, would it form into a building if you gave it enough time to evolve? That's what evolutionist believe. We Christians don't argue w/the science. We have the same science and facts that you do. We believe there is a God who created and ordered all of the universe. The historical facts and evidence back it up. We have a Biblical foundation to back up the science -- evolution is based on man's version of the facts instead of God's version. If we evolved from a sigle cell to apes to humans -- why are we still not evolving? Actually, the people in the past were much smarter than we are today because we are looking at the world through clouded glasses of man's "truth" instead of God's truth. I suggest any reading of Ken Ham's Answers in Gensis collection. He dumbs it down so even an evolutionist like Wild Willy could understand.

donaldkilroy #fundie iidb.org

Interracial marriages involve a man and a woman, the legally and socially accepted version of 'marriages.' So based on that, no, you cannot compare the two as the issue is SAME SEX (at present, the legally and socially unaccepted version)...