Similar posts

Heavens Janitor #fundie scienceblogs.com

You say you have proven big bang it true because of microwaves and radiation. Do voices in these waves and radiation tell you big bang is real? How do I hear the voice of big bang as you have? Will big bang ever speak to me as he did you?

Why is there no records from 65,000,000 years ago saying big bang made everything out of nothing? So bible gives written documentation and your big bang is just "some guy" saying big bang is my faaaaaaaaaather?

So will you be pleased if the US Dollar starts saying in big bang we trust on it?

Exactly how old is this big bang God of yours? Since your Satanic money loving scientists you worship keep changing the date of Big Bangs birth. By the way when is the second coming of big bang?


Jesus never said in the bible I have to prove anything to you. All I have to do is love Jesus and my neighbor and my job is done. To bad your big bang does not teach atheists to love their neighbors as themselves.


Tell me this since you beleive we evolved from a rock. If someone were to smash a stone with a sledgehammer, would you consider that murder?

Patrick #fundie answers.yahoo.com

But my reasons to believe in God is actually:
1) the Bible. Why should the Bible be a big fat lie, huh? Why would someone trick us into an entire religion that isn't true? In the time the Bible were written, and if there was no Jesus? Don't you then think people would have noticed? Then the word would have been all over the world if you know what I mean, and then we would by no doubt know that the Bible is a big fat lie. BUT IT ISN'T!

2) the Big Bang. Why would a big explosion create Earth? Now lets see. Everything does have a cause no matter what, and what did exist before the Big Bang? Something must have created black and white and all the other colors. Now if a scientific nerd reads this he would probably make some reasons on how the Big Bang got created, but what created the stuff needed to create the Big Bang? Scientists still doesn't know what caused the Big Bang to happen.

deadbrain #fundie someplacesomewhere.com

How do you know that background radiation is evidence of a big bang? Have you ever seen a big bang? Has a big bang ever been reproduced? You are assuming that background radiation would accompany a big bang even though you or anyone has ever actually seen a big bang happen. Think logically people

VX3 #fundie disqus.com

[NOTE: VX3 is also the user SEDAGIV, who changed his name yesterday, likely because he found that his posts were appearing here.]

"You made the following statement: 'Atheists represent a group with the evil and ignorant agenda of ultimate denial.
The fatuous pretense that everything made itself from nothing takes far more faith than Christianity.' Please explain the Big Bang."

It's a nonsense theory. There's your explanation.

"According to whom?"

People with functioning brains.

"Study of the Big Bang takes someone with great knowledge in astronomy and physics."

And acceptance of it takes someone who refuses to use common sense and logic.

"On the contrary. Said scientists have studied the Big Bang for years and have reached a logical conclusion based on the evidence they have gathered. Have you studied the Big Bang?"

To the contrary, there is NO evidence for Big Bang to allow anyone to come to any "logical conclusion" that is ever occurred.

"https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html
Please explain the cosmic microwave background radiation."

It is something that in no way is any kind of evidence for the ridiculous "Big Bang" theory.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Lessons from Back to the Future

Today, October 21, 2015, is the day that Marty McFly, the hero of the popular 1989 movie Back to the Future Part II, arrives on after he travels to the future. Although we don’t yet have flying, time-traveling DeLoreans, or self-adjusting and drying clothes, we don’t know if the Chicago Cubs will win baseball’s World Series this month, and our hoverboards today can barely get off the ground, we at AiG do have a great time-traveling adventure in store for you.

In our online store we have a movie that features time travel but teaches an important lesson. This film, called Time Changer[/i], is set in 1890 and features a Bible professor looking to receive unanimous endorsement from the board for a new book he wrote. But one board member won’t endorse it because he believes the views in the book are dangerous for future generations. He then sends Carlisle into the 21st century to see where his ideas will lead. This movie is described as a humorous “conversation starter” on biblical authority and why it is so important that we stand on the authority of God’s Word without compromise. You can learn more about this faith-affirming movie.

Now, many secularists will argue against biblical creation by saying that we have a “time travel” problem. The supposed problem goes like this: there are some galaxies that are so far away it would take light from their stars billions of years to reach Earth. Now, they say, since we can see them, their light has already arrived here, and so the Earth can’t be only thousands of years old, it must be billions. But, creation astronomers and astrophysicists have researched this question and have posed several ways to explain it in a biblical worldview. You can read more about proposed solutions and assumptions inherent in the argument.

Actually, this is a poor argument to use for those who hold to the big bang to use because it’s self-refuting—they have a similar problem! You see, in the big bang model light has to travel farther than is possible in even 14 billion years. You see, according to the big bang model, at the beginning the universe would develop different temperatures in different places in the universe. But everywhere we measure, the universe has the same temperature—even in the most distant galaxies. In order for all of the different places of the universe to reach a uniform temperature, light had to be exchanged from one place to another. But, even in the supposed 14 billion years that those who hold to the big bang believe in, there hasn’t been enough time for light to travel from one side of the universe to the other. So for those who hold to the big bang to argue that biblical creation is wrong because of this “time travel” problem, they are really “shooting themselves in the foot” because their argument is self-refuting!

Although we can’t time travel like Marty McFly, we do know Someone who created everything and is outside of time and even created time, as stated in Genesis 1:1. Since we have the testimony of the Creator God of the universe, which is the written account of the history of the world, we can be confident that the things it says are true. His Word tells us how everything came to be, how sin entered into the world, and how Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross takes away the penalty of that sin. It even tells us of the future glory of timeless heaven, for those who are Christians.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

goblueresurrection #fundie amazon.com


The first one is all that's necessary to show atheism fails - empirical adequacy.

Its demonstrable by using IF , THEN statements.

IF atheism is true , THEN the universe is either eternal, or "nature" caused it to begin or it leaped into existence out of nothing uncaused.

Ok - let see if there is any evidence to support any of those scenarios:
1. the universe is external: False

A portion of the the evidence:

"Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me ... I should like to find a genuine loophole."
Arthur Eddington
"The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics"
Nature, vol. 127 (1931) p. 450

-Arthur Eddington - "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."

-Stephen Hawking: "In real time.....the universe had a beginning."

-Steven Hawking: "It has been interesting to watch the change in the climate of opinion on singularities. When I was a graduate student, almost no one took singularities seriously. Now, as a result of the singularity theorems, nearly everyone believes that the universe began with a singularity. In the meantime, however, I have changed my mind: I still believe that the universe had a beginning, but that it was not a singularity."
Text of `Origin of the Universe' by S.W. Hawking
(Copyright 1988 Stephen W. Hawking. All rights reserved.)

-Dr Guillermo Gonzales: "Like Einstein, most astronomers of the early twentieth century, including the young Hubble, believed in a static and eternal universe. Even after Einstein conceded his error in the late 1920s, many scientists would not accept the implications of an expanding universe-namely, that it can into existence sometime in the finite past."
The Privileged Planet, Gonzales & Richards.

"The picture today is more complete and much richer. The cosmos began 13.7 billion years ago with the big bang." " In our journey back to the beginning of creation, cosmologists first travel through the well-established history of the universe back to the first microsecond; then to within 10-34 second of the beginning, ..."
Scientific American, Sep 2009

-Dr. Robert Jastrow-who until his recent death was the director of the Mount Wilson observatory once led by Edwin Hubble: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

-Dr. Robert Jastrow- "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

- Einstein tried to avoid such a beginning by creating and holding onto his cosmological "fudge factor" in his equations until 1931, when Hubble's astronomical observations caused him to grudgingly accept "the necessity for a beginning."
A. Vibert Douglas
"Forty Minutes With Einstein"
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
Vol. 50 (1956), p. 100

"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris
LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University http://web.archive.org/web/200607182...o101/lec29.htm

"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/n.../k032102a.html

Ok - so an eternal universe is ruled out via evidence - that leaves atheism:
1. nature causing the universe to begin
2. an uncaused universe

Lets examine the remainin 2 options for atheism:
1. "nature did it" - what natural forces cause time, space and matter to leap into existence from nothing? There are none - so this option fails.

The last: an uncaused universe.
Preposterous scientifically and logically as this violates the Law of Causality.

So this leaves us a universe that began due to a cause;
1. The universe CANNOT be eternal or static because:

1. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics: this says that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form. The universe contains a FINITE about of energy/matter. The universe still contains usable energy so therefore, the universe cannot be eternal because all the usable energy would have been used up by now.
2. The Cosmic Background Radiation: A static and eternal universe would not have the afterglow of its beginning.
3. Universal Expansion: The universe is still expanding. If the universe was static and eternal it would not be expanding. If it were eternal all the matter in the universe would be an infinite distance apart. Expansion requires a single point of origin in order to have a place to expand from.
4. The Cosmic Rebound Theory is false: Charles Bennet of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center;" The universe will expand forever. It will not turn back on itself and collapse in a great crunch." There is not enough matter in the universe to collapse it back again, therefore the universe had a beginning.
5. This assumes no energy would be lost in each successive crunch/bang.
6. There is no evidence for a Big Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.
7. The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
a. An infinite number of days has no end.
b. But today is the end of history(history being a collection of all days)
c. Therefore there were not an infinite number of days before today.
d. Another way of saying this is one cannot add anything to infinity. But tomorrow we will add another day, so the number of days must be finite. Thus a finite number of days has a beginning.
Therefore I conclude that the universe had a beginning. An infinite anything within the material universe is theoretically possible, but not actually possible.
8. The Law of Causality: the universe is one big effect, an effect has to have a cause. This is the foundation of all science. If you reject this then you reject science itself and we cannot go any further.

The universe is finite, therefore it had a beginning. Relativity demands a beginning to space-time-matter and has been mathematically verified to 5 decimal places and confirmed by the above empirical evidence (which Relativity predicted such as expansion as well as others, such as parallax (which Relativity predicted also).

Rayburne Winsor #fundie facebook.com

Rayburne Winsor: First of all, you must distinguish between operational or experimental science, which can be observed, tested and repeated in a laboratory, from historical or Origins science which cannot. Even evolutionists admit hat. Neither biblical creation nor "goo-to-you, molecules to man" evolution can be proven. The Tree of life (GTE or Thesis of Common Ancestry) is just an unproven hypothesis at best. What evolutionists conveniently do is extrapolate "change in gene frequency over time" or "descent with modification" and rapid speciation (which creationists have always believed to be compatible with biblical creation) as evidence for vertical (primitive to complex) change that increases the genetic information content in the genome. It is not. All alleged "proofs" of "evolution in action" today do not show that functional new information is added to genes; rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of genetic information. Let us examine the fossil record. After, 150 years after Darwin and alleged millions of years of gradual evolution-by-creeps [too slow to see], evolution-by-peaks [too fast to see] and evolution-by-freaks (genetic mutations still harmful-produces nothing new by way of transmutations: snails remain snails, clams clams, trilobites trilobites, jellyfish jellyfish, birds birds, fish fish, apes apes, man man) , we have only a few highly disputed intermediate or so-called transitional fossils that could cover a billiard table and are highly disputed even among evolutionists themselves.

What scientists find in the fossil record are completely formed and intact fossils of all life-forms without a hint of evolutionary ancestors or "transitional" fossils in the geological strata beneath them (evidence for biblical creation). And what do we have in the so-called hierarchy of human evolutionary ancestors that you see neatly and orderly arranged in some museum? You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.


David Murray: abiogenesis is not evolution, open a grade school level science book as you are not smarter than a fifth grader. Then learn how to use google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia


Rayburne Winsor This is not science; it is science fiction. You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.

(...)

Rayburne Winsor: I have heard the same old crap during the last 40 years of discussing this topic with atheists, science students and skeptics. Most of which is highly speculative in nature and not surprisingly based on evolutionary assumptions and predictions (nothing ew). But what real evidence, if any, do they have. As I said, a few supposedly “transitional” fossils that even evolutionists highly dispute among themselves.
Charles Oxnard, formerly professor of Anatomy and biological Sciences at the University of Southern California and Professor of Human Anatomy and Human Biology , University of Western Australia, showed that the big toe of the famous “Lucy” stuck out as in chimpanzees.

Also, Dr. Fred Spoor, Professor of Evolutionary Anatomy at University College London, UK , and joint editor of the Journal of Human Evolution , performed CAT scans of australopithecine inner ear canals , the organs of posture and balance. This showed that they did not walk habitually upright (See Spoor, F, Wood, B., and Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369 (6482):645-648, 1994). This is all contrary to Dawkins’ claim that Lucy “walked upright on her hind legs...on two feet which were pretty much like ours although its brain was the size of a chimpanzee. Indeed, evidence now suggests that Lucy had wrist-locking abilities “classic for knuckle walkers” which is hardly consistent with Dawkins claim that ucy walked upright like we do (Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287 (5461) :2131, 2000, citing the first author of Richmond, B. G. and Strait, D.S. , Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor , Nature 404 (6776):382, 2000). Museums once featured Australopithecus africanus as an ancestor to humans---A. Africanus includes “Mrs Ples” (now thought to be small “Mrs Ples”) and the Taung child (Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p.189-193) . Donald Johanson , the discoverer of “Lucy” , places Australopithecus africanus in a side-branch not leading to man (Johanson, D. C. and White T.D. , A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids , Science 203:321-330, 1979) and many museums have now demoted this once certain human ancestor to a non-ancestor.

Time magazine reported on a specimen called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated between 5.6 and 5.8 million years old. Time claimed that this new specimen was already walking upright , at (what they claim was ) the dawn of evolution. But how clear is this really> Time reports the opinion of the discoverer of “Lucy”, Donald Johanson : “Beyond that, he’s dubious about categorizing the 5.2 million year old toe bone (Ardipithecus) with the rest of the fossils : not only is it separated in time by several hundred thousand years, but it was also found some 10 miles from the rest (Lemonick, M.D. and Dorfman, A., One Giant Step for Mankind, Time magazine cover story, 23 July 2001). Note that this toe was the major “evidence” for uprightness, yet, at being found 10 miles away , it boggles the mind how it could be regarded as part of the same specimen. As one researcher put it regarding the fossils and human evolution, “Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear” ( Shreeve, J., Argument over a woman, Discover 11 (8):58, 1990).

When the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. That is my last comment. I don't really care what you come back with. You believe what you want. You seem to enjoy calling me dishonest and a liar, but David the truth is you would not know the truth if it was standing right in front of you. I will leave it to the readers to decide who is honest and truthful based on real evidence and scientific research, for which I gave clear references, mostly from evolutionary journals and publications, not straw dummy arguments without evidence to support it. Of course, I know you will deny that too as dishonest and a lie. Right?
Honestly, I don't feel sorry for guys like you who are brainwashed by the fairy tale for grown-ups (Evolution) but the truth is, as both you and I know, you do not want to know the truth, just promote your evolutionary faith that is nothing more than a philosophical justification for not wanting to believe unbelief in a Creator/God. It is not rocket science, David, as I hope and pray you find out before you exit this life on earth (and you will).

For example, Pakicetus (whale from Pakistan) was first drawn as an aquatic creature based on a few skull bones and teeth (Gingerich, P.D., et al., Science 220 (4595): 403-406, 22 April 1983). Its discoverer Philip Gingerich proclaimed it to be perfectly intermediate in time and in its morphology, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales (Gingerich , P.D., J. Geology. Educ 31:140-144, 1983. Since a few scraps of bone were interpreted in an evolutionary framework, it is not surprising that they were thought to be a “missing link”.

However, when the rest of the skeleton was found, it was realized to be a fast-running land creature (then drawn by the same artist as the diagram in Dawkins book (see Thewissen, J. G. M., et al., Skeletons of terrestial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413: 277-281, 20 Sept. 2001; and Pakicetus...eight years on. Illustration: Carl Buell www.neoucom.edu/Depts.Anat/Pakicetid.html ).

This is hardly the only example of evolutionists misleading the public , exaggerating the evidence from a few scraps of bone. The moral of the story, as one evolutionist put it, is:”Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear (Shreeve, J. Argument over a woman, Discover 11 (8):58, 1990 (in reference to human evolution).

Heavens Janitor #fundie scienceblogs.com

There is no evidence this god named big bang ever created anything. I would like to see a written record of one man who saw big bang happen. Or at least on man that has met gorillawits half man half ape. Big bang was made up by some Catholic screwball last I heard.

When I was talking about lying about Hovind I was reffering to all you people that hate him. All you can ever give is something vague


Missionarys are tax exempt as well. So this tax fraud by Hovind so called "employees" is BS as they were Missionarys.


You guys don't go after Tom Dashle's tax fraud cause he worships the devil like you do. So you have love your good Godless buddy.

Heres a question to you all, what is evolution and how did life begin and how old is this big bang? You guys keep changing your storys all the time. One day its 50 Million then its 60 million. One day you say you came from ape then another soup that washed up on the beach. Then you put a man and apes bones together and call it the missing link.

Kent Hovind #fundie kent-hovind.com

There is zero proof of black holes. Now, if someone wants to believe in them that's fine. There is some evidence that can be interpreted that way, and maybe they do exist, I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying there is no proof of them. So if somebody says there are black holes, the reason they are saying that, and they probably don't even know it, they are trying to rescue the Big Bang Theory because the Big Bang Theory would say if the matter expanded or blew out from the Big Bang it should be evenly distributed. There are billions of miles of nothing, then clumps of matter called galaxies. The real purpose behind the black hole idea is to rescue the Big Bang - to explain why there is the nothings between the somethings.

Vance Ferrell #fundie evolution-facts.org

The Big Bang Explosion

1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. Let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

7 – The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

(attempting to prove God exists)

Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

God is the (first uncaused) Cause. We know that since space, time, and matter had a beginning at the Big Bang, this Cause MUST transcend space, time, and matter. In other words, the Cause must be spaceless, timeless, and non-material. We also know that this Cause MUST be immensely powerful, right, in order to create 100 billion galaxies out of (literally) nothing?!? We can also surmise that this Cause must be personal, in some sense, as It has chosen to create, and only personal agents can create, to our knowledge. Moreover, this Cause has chosen to create (or allow the creation of) persons (that's us!) - indicating strongly that It is personal.

This Cause is also self-existing, right? We know that either the universe (or multiverses, if they exist) are self-existing OR the Cause of same is self-existing. (Those are really the 2 options we have.) But, since the secular data points toward the universe having a beginning (and overwhelmingly so), then we must conclude that the First Uncaused Cause is self-existing.
There is also a way to argue that this Cause is immutable or changeless. Let's not get into that too much, but it's worth thinking about on your own, OK?

So, we have: spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, personal free will, self-existing, changeless. That sounds a LOT like Yahweh, no? All we are really missing is omnispresent, omniscient, and holy. There are arguments there as well, particularly for the first two. In summary, we have e stablished, through metaphysical analysis only, many of the prime characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God (the Father in Christian theology) Yahweh. So, He was there in the Kalam argument all along.

Moral Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

Here are 3 more reasons to back up Premise 1:

1. Under naturalism, the only things that exist are those things described by and measured with science. Objective moral values do not apply. You cannot locate moral values in a test tube.

2. Why would human beings, under Darwinism, have any objective moral value? We are, in that view, just byproducts of macro-evolution and social conditioning - no objective moral values there. In fact, rewind the clock and play evolution over again, and you will, based on the randomness involved, get something entirely different:

“If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.

3. As for moral duties, we would have no more basis for them than any other animal. That means that, as in the animal kingdom, we can kill or rape for any reason whatsoever - animals are not restricted by some sort of "traffic cop" in doing so. There is no one saying "OK, Mr. Lion, you can take out that gazelle, but only if you eat all of him." :-)

Conclusion 1 is based on identity with Premise 2. If objective evil exists, then at least one objective moral value (evil) must exist. So, it is a restatement of Premise 2 based on the identity function of logic, perfectly acceptable. All we have to show Conclusion 1 is to find just one objective mor al value, and we did - objective evil.

Once we have Premise 1 and Conclusion 1, then by Modus Tollens, we necessarily have Conclusion 2. That's the second proof for God's existence.

Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design.

Now, it must be noted that both Dawkins and Sir Martin Rees reject the possibility that it is due to physical necessity because the fine-tuning constants are independent of the physical laws of the universe. That is a key point: the G in the universal gravitational formula could, in theory, be anything - but if it were much different, no life whatsoever could exist - not just life as we know it, but no life.

Additionally, we would be forced, if what you say is true, to conclude that a life-prohibiting universe is a physical impossibility. That just seems to be a fantastic conclusion that would require some evidence. Why couldn't there exist a universe with no life whatsoever? Huge parts of our universe cannot support any kind of life. You would have to share some burden here yourself to provide a line of thought for why this might be true.

Even under M-theory, or superstring theory, the overwhelming number of possible universes are life-prohibiting. So, such a theory would seem to compound the need for showing physical necessity. It is an interesting line you are taking here, but I would like to see a little bit of evidence to support why that is true. I have provided several arguments against it, but I am open to your views in support of it.

Melton #fundie topix.com

My parents, who are now deceased, were in a prophetic ministry. My Father pastored several churches and was also a traveling evangelist. When my parents were in their twenties they were baptized in the Holy Spirit.

At night, when they would first go to bed, an Angel of the Lord would enter the room to teach them God's Word. My brother was a little boy and shared their room at that time. My brother would see the room light up with a white light. My parents would see the angel. They described the Angel as being so tall that he would have to bend over to fit in the room. They said he was nine or ten feet tall.

The angel would explain scriptures to them and answer their questiones. My parents ministered from the 1950's thru the 70's. America was visited with a mighty move of God's Spirit in the 50's and 60's, after that the church entered a lukewarm state.

Harry #fundie talkorigins.org

IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST

1)I would convince people that order came from disorder and chaos. 2) I would convince people that intelligence came from non-intelligence. 3) I would persuade minds to believe that living things can spring from dead matter.(The opposite of the law of biogenesis) 4) I would dupe people into believing that their most distant relatives were lovesick amoeba. 5) I would tell man that if the sun was only one degree closer, we would all burn up, and if the sun was only one degree farther away, we would all freeze to death. Then I would convince man that the accident called evolution caused the sun to be placed in the only position it could be in for man to exist on the earth. 6) I would convince man that the intricate design of the universe had no designer, it was all an accident. 7) I would convince man that dolphins at one time had legs and climbed trees and then evolved into men. 8) I would convince man that the very first thing that ever came into existence, came into existence out of nothing. 9) I would convince man that the laws of nature( gravity, biogenesis, aerodynamics etc.) did not need a law giver. These laws came into being accidently from non-intelligence. 10) I would tell man that if the moon was not in the exact place it is in, the earth would be covered by water, and that the moon is where it is by accidental happenstance and good fortune.

LAST OF ALL IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST, I WOULD PERSUADE PEOPLE THAT GRIMM'S FAIRY TALES ARE ALL TRUE

Christian Ryan #fundie animaladventures1314.blogspot.com

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?
I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?
Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?
The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.
What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.
“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.
This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:
“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”
He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.

So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they?

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.
Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.
If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?
There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".
In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:
“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”
In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.
What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.
First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.
If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.
This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.
In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

Haylow #fundie iidb.org

Why a big bang, why not just a bang, or a little bang... why couldn't the bang be the size of a pea. Why wouldn't the bang keep on banging, what set the paramerters of the size of this bang for it to be any size that it can be claimed to be a big bang or is that claim false, if its false why claim it to be a big bang. Sounds like a bit of spice put on something to sell me something... Well i aint buying it. i'm sure there are a lot of fools that have.

viko_mx #fundie phys.org

@antialias_physorg

Cosmic evolution in the face of the Big Bang theory is necessary in order to provide sufficient time for biological evolution to look credible to the layman. The main problem facing the Big Bang theory is that it relies on the theory of relativity, but it forbids speeds greater than the speed of light. Indeed, the universe would have collapsed immediately after hypothetical big bang thanks to its own gravity, which is a problem for this theory. And as usualyfor politicaly correctness It should change the reality instead of theory because this theory is sacred cow for some people with influence. If we look at the famous big bang chart which shows the rate of expansion of the universe in relation of time, we will see that in the beginning the curve has a very strange form that shows us that theorists think that the universe was expanding at a speed much higher than the speed of light to prevent gravitational collapse.

I hope that you undrstand why the speed of light restric the theories of evolution and why it proponents have invented the idea of ??expanding space. If you can imagine what would be the organization and management of the world if all people or the majority of them were christians will answer the question why are maintained mythologies in society.
Adopted in astronomy term gravitational lens is not associated with distortion of vacuum of space but with its physical propertais.


@denglish

"They are identical in chemical composition because stars produce a limited number of molecules during chemosynthesis".

Stars do not produce molecules. Only atoms of chemical elements light than iron including iron. This process release energy and is self sustaining according theory. But this theory have no expalnation how are poduced atoms heavy than iron which can be found on Earth.

"The big bang doesn't explain rotation. Conservation or angular momentum does."

I do not want declarations, but explanation. By which mechanism or physical laws conservation of angular momentum can explain rotation of cosmic objects in different directions?

jacuzzi37 #fundie christiannews.net

Oh, I have the goods ;) ... God is proved by facts, science and logic. At the same time atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) is easily destroyed by the facts and I'll list a few:

Nature (Bees making honey, flowers blooming, speciation, reproduction. gravity, time/space/matter) repeats daily, every 10 secs on every street corner; while the lies of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) do not repeat period AND THEY SHOULD because atheist scientists list them as "nature." They don't repeat like other things of nature, because they don't exist and never did exist.

Since the big bang never happened, what does the evidence for the big bang point to instead? The fact that God created the Heavens from one point and expanded them (documented in his word over 3500 years ago):

"He alone STRETCHES OUT the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Job 9:8.

” … who STRETCHES OUT the heavens like a curtain, and SPREADS THEM like a tent to live in.” - Isaiah 40:22

"In the beginning (time [past, present, future]) God (intelligent force [Father, Son, Holy Spirit]) created (action) the heavens (space [height, width & depth]) and the earth (matter [liquid, solid, gas])." – Genesis 1:1

NOTHING CAN ONLY PRODUCE NOTHING. It's impossible that purposeless mindless unguided NOTHING created EVERYTHING from NOTHING. Everything came from God. There is no other option.

"Time" does not help evolution as "time" does not add new information to the genome (DNA) to make a life form
NEW & BETTER.

Any person that can create time, must be timeless. Does someone "timeless" have a beginning? No. THEREFORE God is "timeless" or eternal. He designed/created time/space/matter/energy ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

The only option for the design/creation of the high-complexity/high function human being, is a brilliant divine God. It's impossible that MINDLESS UNGUIDED processes (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) designed/created anything.

God is THE ONLY ONE that has life, intelligence, morality and value to give us AND the tools (divine power & divine brilliance) to give it. LIFE, INTELLIGENCE, MORALITY AND VALUE CAN COME FROM NOBODY ELSE as God designed/created us in his image:

Genesis 1:26.. “Then God said, "Let us (Trinity: Father, Word, Holy Spirit) make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Life could not of been created in stages and survived, because along w/ the ability to reproduce, life had to have all bodily systems (circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, pulmonic, digestive, skeletal, muscular, nervous, body (skin), etc., etc.) intact to survive and progress. This fact proves life was created SUDDENLY as depicted in The Book of Genesis, while at the same time destroys atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution).

Christ/Einstein reincarnated #crackpot #dunning-kruger #ufo #fundie #god-complex godlikeproductions.com

Stephen Hawking was WRONG about GOD, the Afterlife, and More

Stephen Hawking was wrong about (A) there being no GOD or God-incarnate, (B) there being random bubble universes and parallel worlds, (C) the BIG Bang-Bit Bang was a random event, (D) we should avoid making contact with aliens, (E) "There is no afterlife - it's a fairytale. The brain is like an old computer where you just throw it away." (F) The Universe is our perception of The Matrix as a 2-dimensional hologram that projects our reality.

Hawking was right about (G) there being a Theory of Everything: Supergravity Theory/M-Theory's 7D hyperspace + 4D = 11 dimensions spacetime. Yet, it's incomplete.

(A) GOD & God-incarnate have been proven in many ways including GOD=7_4 Theory.

(B & C) The BIG Bang-Bit Bang was a supermassive white hole - expansion of energy and information 13.8 billion years ago - spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our parent universe. This Universe is 1-in-2 trillion offspring each with similar inherited physical constants.

(D) Aliens are cool. We shouldn't be scared of them and they shouldn't be scared of us. Although, we should both be very cautious of each other.

(E) Science has proven reincarnation (google that). The great American scientist Benjamin Franklin believed in it and he conducted an experiment with his Autobiography being written as a manual for his reincarnated self as a child. This book was one of five that the young Abraham Lincoln had access to when he was a boy in Indiana.

(F) This Universe is an omniscient quantum computer where particles not only collide, they compute.

Hawking's analogy of the brain being like an old computer is incorrectly portrayed. Everyone takes the valuable information from an old computer and transfers the data into the new one or stores it on a hard drive/flashdrive/The Cloud. Now the truth of the analogy supports reincarnation.

(G) Unified Strings 21 or 19 Dimensions & Aspects of Spacetime provides an analysis of one-dimensional time and thus a very simple symmetry. There are 7 aspects of regular time: beginning, end, past, present, future, the void(?), and a constant - the speed of light in a vacuum. There are 4 aspects of hypertime: fast-forward, reverse, pause/stop, and before the beginning and after the end. The 12th aspect of time is imaginary time, but it doesn't apply here.

xtremek2008 #fundie popsci.com

Then how can you prove that evolution happened? How can you prove that a big bang happened? That is faith WITHOUT evidence; at least evidence that would hold in a court of science! Now I do understand that you may have what SEEMS like evidence (such as similarity between animals), but how is that valid evidence? If you would be an automobile designer, then OBVIOUSLY your cars would be quite similar, only getting better each model! In the same way, God created creatures that have similarities! Imagine 1000 years into the future, not knowing that humans created cars, and saying that they evolved from some scrap metal! That would be a stupid assumption to make.

As to believers loving God out of requirement, that is NOT true. You obviously have NEVER loved Him at all. But I can almost guarantee that if someone rescued you from dying a certain death, you would at least FEEL GRATEFULL to the person. In the same way, we love God because He saved us from eternal damnation and separation from Him. God didn't force me to love Him....I love Him because He loved me first! I am not AFRAID or SCARED of God at all!

Xtreme Kommander

Mark Jones #fundie markjones1388.esy.es

In Acts chapter 17 we read of a people called the Bereans. In this passage (verses 10-15) that they appear in (very little of the Bereans is mentioned in the Bible), it shows them take the words of the apostle Paul and examine them in relation to the Old Testament scriptures (quite possibly the Septuagint, certainly the Tanakh if not the Septuagint).

In verse 11 we read the following quote:
“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11 (NIV)

The Bereans were the people who lived in the ancient city of Berea (also known as Beroea), the city is now called Veria and is situated in Macedonia in Northern Greece.

Many people will listen to something they are taught and will take that as truth. However the example the Bereans set in this verse is that we should check the validity of what we are told and examine those things and check that they are in line with what the Bible tells us. There would’ve been no doubt people in that time who reacted when they read this and expressed outrage, saying something along the lines of, “how can these people dare to doubt the words of the apostle Paul”. It may sound like a harsh response, but it’s often what we see happen today, in fact many atheistic arguments are based on similar logic, “who are you to disagree with the words of Stephen Hawking (etc)?”. That kind of logic in of itself proves that it is of man and not of God. The principle outlined here in Acts 17 with the the Bereans is an important one and it is something we can glean something from.
So in this post I’m going to outline a few ways we can test something said in the Bible or even an interpretation of a verse someone references or just simply the outlining of a belief that someone has, and test it in such a way that does justice by God’s word and doesn’t mire it in our eyes.

So without further ado, let’s get into it:

Go To God’s Word First:
You’ll have no doubt heard someone ask the question, why are there are so many contradictions in the Bible? This argument is actually rooted in a seed of deception that goes back to first century AD, in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we are told that the god of this age (who is Satan) has blinded the eyes of the unbelievers so that they will not see the light of the gospel. The word we see in the original Greek language where we see the word unbelievers is the word apistos. The word apistos means unfaithful, faithless, incredible, unbelieving or incredulous. So this statement in 2 Corinthians 4:4 almost seems to have a Ronseal principle to it (does exactly what it says on the tin), however I think it goes a little deeper than that. In John 3:16 we see the word pisteuo and it means to be persuaded of something or to completely trust in something. I think Paul is hinting at the reverse of this very principle outlined in John 3:16, so 2 Corinthians 4:4 isn’t just referring to those who haven’t committed their lives to Christ, but also to those who doubt the ways and the truth of God. This could be part of the reason why Paul tells the Church in Corinth a little later in the letter to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).

But back to the “contradictions”. Any so-called contradictions that we run into in scripture are either born out of man-made teaching or simply out of a lack of understanding of scripture as a whole. What we need to do is cross-check with what the scriptures say and the Bereans had that principle nailed, they cross-checked a statement or a principle we now find in the New Testament with what was written in the Old Testament.
NB – Check out my post called “The 2 Timothy 3:16 Principle” for more on the subject.

Now this means a couple of things, first we actually need to read the Old Testament. Some people don’t like reading the Old Testament because they find it confusing, or they believe it paints a different picture of God than of the one we see in the New Testament. In response to that let me say this, the human mind is an incredible thing, but our heart is even more powerful than our minds. In fact the prophet Jeremiah tells us that the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (note this in reference to human works) and he asks the question who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9) However we read in Ezekiel 36:26 a promise from God where we are told that He will give us a new heart, removing our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh (not to be confused with the flesh Paul often speaks of). So if our hearts are polluted then it is entirely possible for our hearts to convince our minds of something that is contrary to what is the truth. This is part of the principle behind the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke when He told us to deny ourselves daily and to take up our cross and follow Him (Luke 9:23). Where we see the word deny in this verse in Luke it is the Greek word arnesastho which is very closely linked to a word we’ve discussed before on this blog, arneomai. As we’ve talked about in the past the word arneomai means to deny, disown or contradict, so in this verse in Luke it’s saying that we have to literally give up ownership of ourselves and take up our cross and follow Jesus. So we need to read the Old Testament.
The other thing we need to do is to see if it fits with the overall picture that scripture gives us (so reading the entire Bible). For example, does what we see in Psalm 1:2 where we are told that our delight is in the law of the Lord and on that law (the word of God) we should meditate on it day and night line up with other verses in scripture. We are told in Joshua 1:8 to meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, it’s the exact same principle. And just to show that this is not a ruse or anything like that, let me ask you what you’re reaction would be if I told you that there was over 400 years between the writing of these two verses. You see Joshua chapter 1 would’ve been written in about 1406 BC and Psalm 1 would’ve been about 979 BC, now if those two dates are exact (I have no reason to say they’re not), then that puts these two verses 427 years apart. But I’ll get into timelines a little later on.

What we need to do when a preacher preaches a sermon or a Bible study leader explains a passage or a verse is to go away and read the scriptures and check if it all lines up.

We Need To Read Into A Bit Of History:

Now, I know that history isn’t everybody’s cup of tea however when it comes to understanding the words of the Bible it can be quite key.

However please let me briefly explain why history is important when it comes to testing the validity of God’s word. You see what it simply boils down to is the fact that when it comes to the historical claims of the Bible (creation, Jesus, the ark, the exodus, etc), none of us who are reading this post were alive when those events occurred. So the question then is how can we know they’re true historical accounts? Is there evidence for such events in the Bible? Well to answer the first question, there is an amazing wealth of evidence for the events that the Bible outlines, we have found the ruins of the city of Jericho we also have massive evidence supporting the global flood recorded in Genesis 6-9 (you can see more on that here) and there’s a more than all of that, but I’ll leave you to do your own research (I’ll give some recommended sites to start with for doing that). And the answer to the second question, is yes, there’s lots of evidence supporting the Biblical accounts.

So let me encourage you to look into things such as Biblical chronology, and Biblical history. Some of the stuff you’ll find along the way is fascinating. For example I’m currently reading a book called “The Discovery of Genesis” by C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, the book looks at examples of how the Chinese language links in with the accounts of the book of Genesis. It is a truly fascinating book, in it we see examples such as the word for boat relating to the flood, when we break down the symbols that make up the word boat we can see that the word boat points to a vessel for eight people. So reading into some of this is not only fascinating but can help us to grow stronger in the faith.

...

History is important to the events of the Bible, because if the events of the Bible did not happen then the Bible is not infallible, and because of the claim of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God breathed, then if even 1% of the Bible is false then the entire Bible is compromised.

However let me say that although history is important to understanding the validity of the Bible, by all means this does not mean you have to be an expert in the subject. One of the best things to know as a Christian when it comes to any question that arises in regards to the Bible is where to go to find answers to those said questions.

...

Little Bit:

Did you know that one of the most common objections that critics of the Christian faith make, is that the Bible apparently tells us that the world is flat? An example of where this comes from is found in Revelation 7:1 which makes reference to the “four corners of the earth”, however the Bible states in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is a circle, remember though the obvious understanding (before some misinterprets the word circle) that a sphere is a 3D circle and the earth is spherical in nature.
Science tells us a lot about the truth of Biblical history, for example did you know that the mitochondrial (from the mother) and y chromosome (father) both trace back to a single ancestral sequence approximately 6,000 years ago (more on that here), this is something that you may not get taught in a science classroom today. Science is very important to know about in regards to defending our faith today, as it is highly likely to be one of the first areas you will be challenged on about your faith, bearing in mind the myth that is running around rampantly that says “science has disproved God”.

Again like in all of the other subjects, you don’t have to be an expert in the field, again I’m most certainly not although I do enjoy reading into science, but it is helpful to know a little bit on the subject and more importantly to know where to go to find answers to the questions you’ll get asked.

Now the Bible does make some scientific claims, such as we all come from two people, Adam and Eve. The thing we have to look into is whether or not science supports the claims made in the Bible, I touch on the Adam and Eve question a little bit a couple of paragraphs before this one. But looking into science is pretty important in this day and age to understanding the validity behind the Bible, but again you don’t have to be an expert on science but having a basic understanding of it and knowing where to go to find some great answers is definitely valuable.
One other thing I think is worth mentioning is that understanding the difference between historical and operational science, the reason why I say this is because very often at the minute the lines between the two get blurred particularly when you’re talking to evolutionists. We often see the claim that creation is pseudo-science and evolution is science, however both evolution and creation are historical science, they are versions of history that haven’t been observed through operational science that we either accept or don’t accept and then use operational science to look for evidence that supports the historical science that we accept. But in a basic way of saying it is historical science is conclusions that we form from things that we see from the past (historical records, archaeology, etc), whereas operational science is the testable repeatable and observational methods that we can use today, such as carbon dating for example (check out this article for more). So knowing enough about the difference between historical and operational science is of a great benefit in helping us tell the difference between the two, but again you don’t have to be an expert on the subject, but know where you can get the information from that you need to answer the questions.

In Closing:

So that’s all I wanted to say in this post eally. When it comes to testing what the Bible has to say to us, we need to start with the Bible and cross-check it with what it has to say in other parts of it. Look into a bit of history, look at what evidence we find that supports the accounts in scripture.
Read a bit into the original languages look at what the original words were in their original languages, find out what they mean and how they correspond to your understanding of what you’re reading. And finally look a bit into science, go and look into whether or not science supports the Bible or not. But don’t worry about being an expert in these things, you don’t have to be one, again I’m not one.

I hope you’ve found this post both interesting and helpful. I would love to hear your thoughts, as I mentioned I’m going to post some links below that may help with looking into some of these things, so if there’s any extra ones you can think of just drop them in the comments or send me them over through my Facebook page and I’ll update the list, I may even create a sub-page here on the site of useful links, let me know if that is something that you would want.

I’ll be posting again soon as I have a lot of posts in the draft que currently being edited.
But until next time I’ll leave you with the links below.

All the best,
Mark

Bob #fundie earthsky.org

Why would anybody come up with the idea that they came from a monkey? Who pays these scientists to study monkeys and find evidence of us coming from them. This is absurd. This article has showed me that lots of money goes to people who study monkeys. If humans came from a monkey and a monkey came from some bacteria that started in the ocean. How did this begin. You say the big bang. How did the big bang come to exist. What started the big bang. You cant answer that question. Scientists just started their timeline at the big bang and worked their way up. Nothing before that. Scientists chose not to believe in the Bible because it had no evidence. Well scientists have no evidence of anything either. Scientists can believe they came from monkeys but I belive in what the Bible says.

Carl #fundie forums.catholic.com

[Replying to "Science can do nothing with the theory of intelligent design because it makes no predictions."]If the Intelligent Designer predicted a certain event, and the event happened, we would have verification rather than falsification. 'Let there be light.' (Genesis 1) And the Big Bang occurred. Science verifies the Big Bang, the unleashing of light throughout the early universe. Then why not deduce an Intelligent Designer?

Gemstone #fundie forum.myspace.com

Creationists believe in adaptation but not some stupid lighting bolt big bang crap. If lighting hits it would blow everything to hell and back not make life. It take a hell of a lot more faith to believe in your Evolution big bang theory then a Being somewhere in all that universe smart enough to create dirt and biorobots. Then let 6000 years of adaptation do its thing.

Remnant of God #fundie remnantofgod.org

(Note: This is only the first half of the article)

Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.

Darwin said “It is a truly wonderful fact… that all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other…” –The Origin of the Species p 170.
The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans. If that’s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created? Scientific fact is, we still have many of the old species among us, and we know of many that did in fact become extinct. But not a single bird has been found that used to be a fish. And not a single bird has been found that is related to a lizard. If life truly evolves like they say it does, why did it all of a sudden stop dead in its tracks 6000 years ago? After all, if life is as they define it to be, then it must be a constant evolutionary process for life to continue, which means that evolutionary process be never ending. Some have claimed that mutations are evolution because of some moth that changed its color years ago. Real scientists discovered that the moth changed its color because of its environment. In other words, if just changing its color means they evolved, then that must mean that every time I work in the garden and get a tan I’m actually evolving?

And by the way, I say 6000 years because as Christians we know by reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2 that our Lord created all that is seen and unseen in creation week 6000 years ago. We also know this is when creation stopped and He hallowed the day He rested. We call that day Sabbath to this day and we keep it holy to acknowledge Him as our Creator every seventh day. Could it be this is why Satan inspired Darwin with evolution? I believe so because evolution allows you to hide the fact you were created and in so doing removes your requirement to acknowledge Him as Lord which would mean you need to and obey Him since He truly would know what’s best for you seeing how it is He that made you.

Getting back, the evolutionist believes the evolutionary cycle is never ending, but they too cannot explain why according to their Darwin inspired calculations that there has been no new species recorded for hundreds of millions of years, let alone the true 6000 years as reality dictates.

They also state it takes billions of years for each animal, insect or plant to evolve. If that's true, why do we have termites? Termites eat wood but can't digest it. In their intestines are smaller insects that digest the cellulose the termites place in there for them. Kind of like the worm inside the cricket. The termite can't exist without the smaller insect, and the smaller insect can't live without the termite. If evolution is true neither insect should be on this planet.

There are even some that believe in Creation, but not the Bible version wherein it took only 6 days. These so called "Creationists" insist it took 1000 years for each "day" of creation because 2 Peter 3:8 says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" If they aren’t twisting that passage out of context and it is as they claim, why do we have wasps that rely on certain plants to lay their eggs within them to procreate. And if this is true, how do those plants survive without the wasp pollinating them? If the plants and the wasps were created thousands of years apart, how does the plant pollinate without the wasp, and how does the wasp procreate without the plant? That means the 1000 years for each day recorded in Genesis must be wrong by simply applying easy to research reality.

Moving right alone, we have the big bang theory which declares a spinning dot of absolutely nothing exploded to form all the planets, stars, asteroids, black holes, quasars, nova’s, and primordial soup found on earth. According to the scientific discovery called, “conservation of angular momentum”, which actually means, if what’s spinning in a clockwise manner explodes, everything flying off of it will explode in the exact same manner. That being the case, why is it 2 planets, and numerous moons orbiting many planets in our galaxy alone spin in a different direction than all the others. If their big bang theory was true, why is it those planets and moons appear to have come off of a different explosion? Were there two big bangs?

Jumping ahead a bit, let’s take a look at man for example. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that have organs that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 million years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) Now keep in mind, no one learns something every second. They just calculated it that way to get an educated idea. Most will learn something new once a week or even once a month and later in life once every few months or so. That means the human brain, as small as it is now, can handle the data for literally billions of years. That being the case, we see that evolutionists also claim that all species evolve after there is a need for a change. So I have to ask, how is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over billions of years, when all we can live up to is 90 -100 years? If evolution is true, why haven’t we evolved to age extremely slow so as to meet the requirements of our own brains, wherein we can live for an eternity?

When you get time I would like to ask you to view a video of a scientific experiment wherein they show how sound waves can actually create visible light when they are directed towards a body of water. The video can be found online. It’s titled, "What happens when you collapse an underwater bubble with a soundwave?" The link is found in box #4 of this sermon’s notes. When you watch that video you will be amazed at how nothing but sound-waves pointed at water did in fact create light, just as the Bible dictates.

Genesis 1:2-3, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Ok.. Picture a sphere of water in Space. God literally SPEAKS and says, "Let there be light." That amazingly loud blast of sound causes the water to form a small bubble within it. Then that sphere of water collapses internally upon that bubble, and as we see in that video, "there was light" created at that exact moment. Better yet, the scientists also discovered there was an enormous amount of heat generated when that happened, and the method by which the heat arrives is what they deduce to this day is what caused our Sun to be formed in our Solar System. Pretty convincing argument for the creationist is it not?

Ok.. let’s talk dinosaurs. Were you aware that Tyrannosaurus Rex was not a meat eater? Yes, I am fully aware that every evolutionist, and Hollywood director insists that he was. But Christian scientists have recently discovered two things about T-Rex that proves we have all been lied to for quite some time. They found that the roots of T-Rex’s teeth were only 2 inches deep. That means, had he bit into the hide of another dinosaur in his day he would have lost all his teeth. When you compare the size of T-Rex and the fact his roots were only 2 inches deep, he couldn’t have possibly been able to break the hide of such animals as most evolutionists have him eating. His teeth would have broken off before he even broke the skin. Better yet, were you also aware that these same scientists took one of the teeth they dug up, cut it in half, and they actually found the teeth to be gorged with chlorophyll all the way to the center of the tooth. This confirms he never ate meat. Ever.

Now because this evidence is so well known now among scientific circles, evolutionists know they cannot say it’s not true. The data has been published, and they were caught in a lie. But to try and cover the lie, some evolutionists now claim his teeth are gorged with chlorophyll because he ate dinosaurs that were vegan. Problem with that theory is, it still doesn’t negate the fact that the teeth of T-Rex only had roots that went 2 inches deep, which would still make it impossible for them to eat meat. Still, the Christian scientists also offered data that showed the teeth of modern day animals that eat only herbivores. That’s right, their teeth had absolutely no chlorophyll in them.

By the way, this discovery concerning T-Rex also validates the Biblical record once again! Before the flood of Noah, which is when evolutionists claim dinosaurs roamed the earth, and they also claim no man was alive then, we have a Bible verse that declares they were not originally designed to be meat eaters.

Genesis 1:30, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
Still, some claimed this to be impossible by using mankind as an example. They claimed that we as humans must eat meat to receive the proteins found in meat to grow big and strong. They claim that without meat we couldn’t gain weight or become strong enough to sustain life. Besides the fact that you can actually find much more protein in some plant life than you will ever find in meat, look around on planet earth for a moment. Look at all the HUGE animals like cows, horses, hippos, elephants, rhinos. etc. Or look at some of the ancient dinosaurs that evolutionists do admit were herbivores, like the brontosaurus or thunder lizards that were the largest mammals ever to walk the earth. All of them were herbivores! How did they get so big? How is it the elephant, giraffe or hippos, just to name a few, are so large yet they never eat meat?

Now I would like to get into a few scientific facts I found that can do a much better job and confirming what I saw. After all, I’m no scientist. So, I would like to quote a few if you don’t mind.

dadman #fundie hardforum.com

So how does cosmic expansion, background radiation, and nucleosynthesis prove that there was a big bang? It proves nothing. I theorize that reverse gravity is pushing the galaxies apart, while at the same time maintaining normal gravitational effects. You can't disprove it either, and it is just as credible as any other theory out there.

Background radiation? There should be that, but it doesn't prove the big bang. Just because the radiation lessens the further out the universe goes doesn't prove there was a big bang.
In fact, it proves that my theory of reverse gravity is more likely due to the almost uniform distribution of the radiation.

Nucleosynthesis? It only lasted for seventeen minutes? Ok, who timed that, and what kind of watch did they use?

Not trying to be an a** about this, but if you read the explanations on these things the usual comment is "scientists believe". That simply means they don't know, but have to put something out there. Faith is on both sides.

Adam R. #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Evolution and the big bang theory?
all those who believe in the big bang theory answer this one question.if everything was in a ball of gas swirling and swirling then bang it gets sent all over the universe why did it stop?its space no gravity.there is no reason why it should have stoped.there were no stars to pull them in because the big bang had just happened.so as you can see if it is not possible why do you believe it and if the big bang did not happen then doesn't that leave only one option "creatianism"

j.p. its a big explosion that can shoot stars across the universe.it shouldn't slow down THERE IS NO GRAVITY IN SPACE.

inae #fundie forums.quizilla.com

If you believe in evolution, then you believe in the Big Bang.

The Big Bang was so stupid that it actually caught on to people who felt threatened by the truth and had to hide behind a stupid theory such as that. It the Big Bang really happened, where did the energy come from to cause a "bang"? Why did it explode? Is there even a reason? Did you know that the name "Big Bang" was christened by a scientist that found the theory so stupid that he was mocking it? Evidently the other scientists, having no other way to explain the theory, took it up.

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?

riedhied #fundie imdb.com

[thread title: evolution of elements...]

If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)?
When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included?

When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included?
Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation.
Why don't they speculate about this?

How did life develop from non-life?

Robert Congelliere #fundie drdino.com

It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject [evolution] in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?

-Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?

-How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

-Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from? ... They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)? Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang? When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included? When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

The 1-to-10 scale is used to rate women's physical attractiveness. Tuthmosis states, "I use halves (.5s) to achieve a little more precision. The idea is that a girl who’s almost at that next level—but doesn’t quite have it takes to get the rating outright—will get a .5. I’ll also occasionally grant (or deduct) halves for “intangibles”—things like extraordinary sweetness (or bitchiness), a sexy vibe (or awkwardness), or a personal preference (though I’m quick to disclose the latter)."[1]

Tuthmosis has argued that the scale is pointless because "It seems we have to account for taste after all. . . . Guys rate their own catches high and others' low. Big-ballerism is rampant. . . . Most guys can't extrapolate. . . . Conversely, guys are easily fooled by camera tricks. . . . It's mental masturbation that breeds pointless arguments."[2] General Stalin notes, "Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, the 1-10 scale is difficult in practice. Generally men can agree whether or not a girl is attractive or not, but to get specifics on how attractive, as Tuth said, calls upon a lot of discretion. Using objective and universal characteristics like symmetry, physical fitness, hip-to-waist ratio, hygiene, etc. are decent points to go on, but everyone has a particular level of preference and ego that makes true objectivity impossible. Men have been referencing the 1-10 scale for an awful long time so I don't see it going anywhere and everyone has a general understanding of it. Dispute over specifics is where men just get into a pissing contest."[3]

MrXY writes, "A 7 is a girl I would describe as being 'pretty'. A 6 to me is 'cute' and an 8 is 'beautiful'".[4]

General Stalin writes:[5]

6/10 is average OK looks. Bangable and respectable but nothing to write home to mom about (not that you should be writing letters to your mom about your conquests)

7/10 is sort of perfect "girlfriend" territory. Where the girl is good looking enough to keep you interested in the long term, but not too good looking where she has a crazy ego or you get anxious about having to mate guard when you go out.

8/10 is where a girl is good looking enough to be able to start making money on her looks. Could be a stripper, bartender, IG hoe, fitness chick, etc. These girls are often crazy, especially where they live a fine line between normal and glamorous life style.

9/10 is a stunner. Model good looks. Gets tons of attention everywhere she goes because of her beauty. Can make a good living off of her looks alone. Most women at this level of physical beauty tend to shack up with wealthy/famous men because they can.

10/10 doesn't exists. No one is perfect. The idea of a "10" would be a girl that has something that a 9 has that makes her specifically more attractive per your personal tastes. Maybe you really fucking love gingers and this girl is a 9 who happens to have long red hair and freckles. There is your 10.

Hume's cheat sheet

L D. Hume notes that the appropriate level of investment in a girl?? depends on her rating:[6]

<table>

Rating Long term relationship Short term relationship Fuck buddy Booty call One night stand
1-4 No No No No Rarely
5 No No No No Sometimes
6 No No Sure I guess Yes Yes
7 No Yes Yes Yes Yes
8-10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Scale

0

Tuthmosis states, "No Such Thing. Has a dick."

1

Tuthmosis states, "Hideously Unattractive. A monster. Disfigured or irretrievably mutilated. Has two heads, is missing an eye, etc."

2

Tuthmosis states, "Very Unattractive. Disproportionate, morbidly obese."

3

Tuthmosis states, "Unattractive. Ugly, fat, and/or old."

4

Tuthmosis states, "Almost Bangable. But definitely doesn't pass the boner test. Still not good-looking." According to L.D. Hume, girls 4 and lower on the scale are suitable only for one night stands, and even then only when blackout drunk or when one has had sex with fewer than five girls in one's life and is trying to gain experience.

5

Tuthmosis states, "Merely Bangable. Barely passes the boner test. You’d be pretty embarrassed to be seen with her." Hume notes that having sex with such girls is "Almost always a result of excessive, yet not blackout amounts of alcohol. The 'last call at the club' slut coupled with a dry streak."

6

Tuthmosis states, "Almost Cute. She might be cute if one or two things were different, but they’re not. You may not be super-embarrassed to be seen with her, but you certainly wouldn't be proud, and you definitely wouldn't willingly bring her around to anything." Hume describes this as "actually the most dangerous category. The 6s are the most likely to finagle you into a relationship. The sheer number of 6s means you are bound to run into some that have a decent personality, or amazing blowjob skills. Your male hamster will start spinning, thinking about how her tight body overlooks the weird haircut and acne she has. Or how her cute face overrides her baby fat."

7

Tuthmosis states, "Solidly Cute. Zero embarrassment, even some nascent pride in being seen with her. You could bring her to things without looking bad, or losing any of the luster on your game." Hume notes that they are suited for short-term but not long-term relationships:

As to why they are not suited for a long term relationship, the reason is simple—there is just better out there in the world. There are 8s and above. So why, even though she is a cute girl and may have the personality traits to go along with it, settle for a 7? It’s a very very tough thing to advise against and even harder to put in practice. I’ve fallen into the trap myself several times.

The answer of course lies in something that most men have yet to experience. The feeling of dating an 8, which is exponentially better (though admittedly harder to pull off) than a 7. I’ve dabbled in this before and it does make a difference. Try to keep the 7s at bay for the short term relationships and everything below. Instead, use the time you would put LTR’ing a 7 into bettering yourself for the 8.

8

Tuthmosis states, "Hot-Cute. Would be straight-up proud to be seen with her or bring her to things. This is often the sweet spot for long-term relationship material."

9

Tuthmosis states, "Smoking Hot. This is a girl who can easily monetize her beauty. You’re going out of your way to be seen with her."

10

Tuthmosis states, "Perfection. A theoretical abstraction that only exists in the laboratory." Athlone McGinnis agrees.[7] According to Donovan Sharpe, tens don’t get hit on as often, are much more pleasant than you think, are extremely insecure, are so-so in bed, and are people too.[8]

Alternative Scales

philosophical_recovery notes, "The 1-10 as a rating scale will be debated until people stop using it. It's been pointed out before that a much better scale is something more like WNB->WB->WHR->WI, or, Would Not Bang -> Would Bang -> Would Hit Raw -> Would Impregnate".[9]

The late comedian Patrice O'Neal devised a thirty-point scale, with 0-10 being degrees of "ugly looking women", 11-20 being degrees of "alright looking women", and 21-30 being degrees of "beautiful women."[10]

Roosh mentioned both the 1-10 scale and the "binary scale" (with 0 being WNB and 1 being WB) in an early article.[11]

kirkz2006 #fundie groups.yahoo.com

Again, you blithering, uneducated idiot, the Big Bang is theory devoid of evidence and absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. The Big Bang does not claim matter came into existence from noting BECAUSE THE VIOLATES THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

The matter in the universe had to be created because matter can't create itself.

The only other alternative is that universe always existed. But, that premise contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics and law entropy. If the universe had always been here, all available energy would have been used up and everything would have died.

You're mindless jackass that doesn't even understand what is being discussed. Nor does your boyfriend Ted. You two are the most willingly blind morons I've ever encountered. Members that disagree with me that FAR smarter than you two have at least understood and tried to address my points.

You two are going to hell unless you repent and then, for eternity, you can remember I told you so.

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.

Marilyn Oakley #fundie amazon.com

Excuse me, I do get your point. That's why the idea of Big Bang exists, so it doesn't have to deal with the fossil record or any other record of slow evolution. You seem to miss my point sir. And the multiple exclamation points are not necessary.

The big bang consists of things evolving in big leaps as opposed to smaller ones instead. So the fossil record isn't needed in the big bang theory, and therefore isn't dealt with. It doesn't need to be. I don't appreciate your rudeness at all.

Where is the actual data and proof and evidence that says the very first moment of our universe is billions of years old? Who actually said "I have proof that this universe is billions of years old"? WHat scientific data makes this valid?

Sweeet #fundie boards.historychannel.com

[A series of posts submitted collectively]

Sweet: On a full moon night ask yourself where the light is coming from?.. That's why it's called "moon light" because it comes from the moon..

Now you wanna get all technical and claim it is only reflexed off the moon.. True enough but I've yet to hear anyone say "what a beautiful reflexion of the sun's energy off the moon tonight"..

Let me make this simple for you.. If I handed Joe $5.00 to give to you (and by a miracle no less then biblical) he actually does give it to you, whom did you receive the money from?.. That right Joe gave you the money, not me..

['Think of what happens during a lunar eclipse. When the earth gradually moves between the sun and the moon and you can see the earth's shadow move across the moon's surface, why would you imagine that part of the moon is dark if the moon is producing light?']

Dion: Ah isaac your to smart for this stupid arguement you know that regardless of how the moon is finding away to produce light on the earth through reflecting it or on its own it is producing light to our earth. Who cares how the moon does it. It produces light to us in the night. I really love the comment sweet makes i laughed so hard sweet with look at the lovely reflection of sun light coming off the moon thing lol ha ha.

Laoldar: Just because you deliver the items doens't mean you PRODUCE them. Delivery is not production.

Dion: Hmmmmmmmmmm the sun light of the night just doesn't feel like the sun light of the day. Its not as warm it doesn't light as bright as the day. I don't know why the moon even gets in the way of the night produced sun light. I don't know where the moon thinks it shines light on the earth its got a lot of nerve it should just get out the way and go somewhere else cause the sun is produceing the light of the night and the moon has nothing to do with produceing it. The moon can't produce anything even through reflection. ok i got it straight now. I don't know how light surrounds us on earth if the moon has nothing to do with producing it how does the sun get around the other side of the earth and produce the light we use to see things without the moon helping it to produce it? Yes that sun light at night is feels the same as the sun in the day. The moon doesn't put anything on the light we recieve at night it just sits there and shines the sun off of it producing the exact same intensity of the day. It doesn't change the product one bit. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm how you going to get around this one i suppose. The product that is produced during the day is the exact same product that is produced at night but its not as warm not as bright. sounds like a contradiction here somewhere? I think the product at night is changed to a different product is that possible and who helped to produce this different product of light we recieve at night could it be the MOON?

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

A shit test is a test by a woman of a man's mettle. To pass a shit test, a man must simply hold his masculine frame,[1] and put her in her place if necessary. Shit tests have been written about since no later than 1910.[2]

SmellyJelly22 notes, "A shit test is basically when a woman challenges a man with a bit of anxiety she has been feeling. If a man reacts with masculinity, he passes. If he reacts with anxiety, he fails. . . . If I can show the insult doesn't faze me I show myself to be a suitable partner because I can destroy weak emotions in a way she can’t."[3]

Rollo notes, "Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence."[4] According to Powers, everything women say is either a shit test or "Her telling you exactly what she wants or likes about you (e.g. 'you"re an asshole')." Chateau Heartiste advises, "Shit tests are essentially a woman telling you 'Please train me to respect you.' Oblige her."[5]

Women find it sexy when men don't take their shit and call them out on their shit.[6] Charles Sledge notes, "Women want you to put them in their place. They want you to tell them 'no'. To stop them, to put your foot down. They want a man they can submit to but they know that it must be a real man who isn’t going to change for them. So they test you and when you remain your dominant masculine self they love it because they know you are really what they thought you were and wanted."[7] He continues:[1]

Most men fail shit tests as most men have been trained by the media, overbearing mothers, the government, the school systems, and just about everything else that he is supposed to give in to women. Despite that this goes against the natural order of how nature works. The woman gives into the man not vice versa. This false belief that men should give into women has given many men problems with their relations to women. They get stepped on or a woman loses all attraction for them because the man gives in to them. . . . .

When a girl is giving you a shit test, she is challenging you. What she is doing is testing your balls to see if you actually have any or to see if you’re going to be like ninety nine percent of guys and give in to her (in which case she loses all attraction). She is seeing if you are actually a man or if you are a little boy pretending to be a man. She wants to see your masculinity, that is why she is testing you. To see if there is masculinity there.

While a guy can just look at a woman and see if he is attracted to her it doesn’t work that way with women when seeing if a guy is attractive. So a shit test is to see if the guy is actually attractive. Imagine if all women wore burkas a shit test would be the male equivalent of seeing what was under the burka. Is she hot or not. That is what women are trying to see. Is he masculine (and therefore attractive) or is he submissive (and therefore repellent)?

Oneitis as a reason for failing shit tests

The Rational Male notes:[8]

   The reason men fail most shit tests is because they subconsciously telegraph too much interest in a single woman. Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:

   a.) Confidence – first and foremost b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option? c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?

Responding to shit tests

Heartiste also advises, "Learn to love the pregnant pause. When a girl shit tests you, don’t respond like a wind-up beta. Give her a blank, serial killer stare and wait… wait……. waiiiiit for it…. ANSWER!"[9]

Agreeing and amplifying

Agreeing and amplifying tends to be an effective response to sarcastic shit tests.[10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, here we go:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bang! Owned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got Questions Ministries #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

Professor Michael Varnell #fundie comingintheclouds.org

"Synthesis" - The First Book Of Carl Pagan

1. IN THE BEGINNING THERE SOMEHOW EXISTED A SINGLE SPOT.

2. And this spot was without form, and of undetermined size; And darkness was upon the spot. And an "unexplained Big Bang" moved upon this spot.

3. And the Big Bang caused a great light: And there was light.

4. And the resulting chaos divided the light from the darkness.

5. And man eventually called the light day, And the darkness he eventually called night. And the years and the centuries were the first eon.

6. And somehow the stars, galaxies, and planets evolved.

7. And all matter resulted somehow from this unexplained Big Bang. And so it happened.

8. And Man eventually called the result the cosmos. And the years and the centuries were the second eon.

9. And water somehow evolved, and dry land evolved after eons of evolution: And so it happened.

10. And Man eventually called the dry land earth; And the collecting together of the waters called he seas: And it was a good chance arrangement.

11. And thru some yet undiscovered chemical reactions, life sprang up from the dead matter and eventually evolved into grass And all plants, fruits, vegetables, and trees upon the earth; And so it happened.

12. And life began as a one celled organism And evolved into all forms of vegetation and plant life.

13. And the years and the centuries were the third eon.

14. And the stars divided day and night and eventually man used them to chart his horoscope and he eventually called this astrology.

15-18. And the stars gave light to the earth, as it so happened to evolve.

19. And the years and centuries were the fourth eon.

20-22. Then from the plant life evolved sea creatures of all kinds, which eventually evolved into lizards, which eventually evolved into birds of all kinds.

23. And the years and the centuries were the fifth eon.

24-25. And then all other land creatures evolved (all of which had evolved from the original one celled organism without leaving any traces of transitional forms between kinds in the fossil record).

26-30. And then monkeys evolved further than all other creatures developing reason, language, and superior intelligence......... becoming Man.

31. And the years and centuries were the sixth eon.

32. Thus, in complete contradiction to the "second law of thermodynamics", the cosmos evolved and it all made sense to man?

Toe Jam #conspiracy shroomery.org

I never been abducted, but I went to a rehab in Nevada, very close to the supposed location of area 51. It's all govt. airspace out there, so anything in the sky is govt owned supposedly. I would hear sonic booms all day; just see a jet floating along, then it dissapears and BOOOOOM! these booms SHOOK THE BUILDING.
But anyway, at night, I'd see these lights floating above the hills, and they would like do figure 8's and change colors rapidly, and I would poke my buddy and ask, "Can you see that?" and he would just immediately say no, one one would see them, or if they did, they'd say it was a satellite or something. I have seen satellites and they don't move like that, they move straight across the sky and have a white unblinking light. Plus these things I say would hang around awhile then dip off into the sky, seemingly into space.
I dunno if these were govt aircraft or what, but they were unlike anything I ever saw.

And On a more light note, this one time I ate 1/8 ounce of Psilocybe Ovoideocystidiata freshly picked (this is equivalent to a quarter or more of cubes) and me and my buddies SOOO thought we were about to be abducted, but it just turned out to be a low flying plane LOL!

khazul #fundie bbs.payableondeath.com

Atheism disproves itself. It is an impossibility. "If We are, then God must be" The fact that matter exists proves a higher being. "From nothing, nothing comes" If the Big bang really happened it would have to have a beginning, which is impossible because of a lack of existance before. Even Darwin himself in his last days found the flaw in his own theory. Yet billions of people will still do anything to deny Gods existance. They want freedom from his wrath, yet it's coming wether we want it or not.

LoneWolf1984 #fundie lonewolf1984.deviantart.com

I have few questions for you.
Does big bang mades cars?
Does big bang mades Buildings?
Does big bang mades Songs?

Only a divine creator created this beautiful world we live in.
Satan ruin by trick Even and Adam to bring sin in this world.

God's orignal plan was walking among the humans and talk to us like we are his friends.
Thanks to Satan. Jesus had to die to open a new door way to talk to God the Father.

Mark Mywords #fundie youtube.com

Freeman: Joel is right, the earth is not flat. For the flat earthers out there, why can polaris only be seen from the northern hemisphere? The southern hemisphere will never see polaris. This proves the earth is round.?

Mark Mywords: I don't Freeman, why can I see cities that are over the curve of the earth, when, based on distance and Earth's curvature, it should be impossible? Joel is a false teacher. Proof is in how he mis-uses the Bible to make it say whatever he wants it to.?


Freeman: Answer my question, then I will answer yours. Its simple fact that the north star cannot be seen from the southern hemisphere, but everyone when in the northern hemisphere can see it. When at the equator it will only be on your horizon, while at the north pole it will be at your zenith. How do you explain this??

Mark Mywords: I don't have an answer to your question, I haven't gotten that far (that's my answer). Instead I can do "real" science (observable and repeatable). Know the distance between two points, knowing the earth's curvature and using my telescope, I can see cities are impossible to see on "your" ball earth. Proving that the Earth is NOT a ball. And the Bible does NOT support a Heliocentric universe (unless you misuse the Bible the way Richarson and Heiser do).?

Mark Mywords: Once we know the Earth is flat (and it is) we don't have to keep proving it over and over. We progress to the question "why?". Why are people lying about the shape of the Earth? Why do christians believe these lies? And the answers take us to the source and understanding of it all: There are a religious group of people who are dedicated to making their religion both "the" religion and "the" government of the who world. They accomplish this by deceiving all people, from childhood (schools) to adulthood. Anyone who discovers the truth is called a "Conspiracy Theorist" or a "Moron." by those who are still under the delusion. Only a few people ever look into thinhs enough to find out what is really going on.That makes you, Joel, and Heisner all under this delusion. Blind, but arrogant of their "supposed" knowledge. You are a member of a Pagan Church that began 5000 years ago, and has survived until today. And you don't even know it....so sad.?

Freeman: Mark Mywords Cities being visible on the horizon does not prove the earth is flat. If a sailboat is on the horizon of the sea and you were looking at it with a telescope, you would still see the sails; however, the hull would not be seen as it is underneath the horizon line caused by the curvature of the earth. The same is true of buildings. You can see a tall building miles and miles on the horizon, because it rises well above the horizon line. You would not be able to see ALL of the building though as some of it will be hidden. I gave you the simplest way to prove that the earth is round. Ask anyone in Australia if they can see Polaris... they can't! Just as many in the northern hemisphere will never see the southern cross. Another example is the shadow that the earth casts on the moon is ROUND during an eclipse, or do you believe that is faked as well and the moon is artificial? Go outside and check for yourself with your telescope the next lunar eclipse. These are all verifiable facts. If you search for the truth without a confirmation bias through the help of the Holy Spirit., you will find the truth.?

Mark Mywords: Freeman...that is incorrect. We can see way more of cities over lakes than we should be according the Earth's Curvature. This has been proven by science (both observable and repeatable). As for sailboats, that was solved by the same perspective. When the boat is far enough away, you shouldn't see "any" of the boat. And yet, we can. You really don't understand the curvature of the Earth, or you wouldn't be arguing it so poorly. And since Flat Earth is so far behind, because of the many of years of Ball-Earth indoctrination, it will take time for the truth to be understood. You understand things from a pagan point of view. Who does the Bible say is the "god" of this world? Do you believe that we evolved from monkeys and rocks? Not if you believe the Bible. And if the "world" lies about where man comes from, what makes you think you can trust anything it says/teaches? You are still listening to the "god" of this world, which according to the Bible, is Satan. As for the Holy Spirit, I have the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit confirms the Word. Try doing a search on the countless Scripture that denies the Heliocentric and Globe Earth Model, without using the false teachings of Joel Richardson and Michael Heisner. People like these shouldn't be teaching the Bible at all.?

Freeman: Mark Mywords I have made my case. I'm done trying to support it. You don't have anything to say about the shadow of the earth on the moon being circular during a lunar eclipse though, huh? Either way, at the end of the day it's not a doctrine of salvation. I can believe the earth is round and you can believe the earth is flat. Fine. We will both go to heaven even if we disagree, and God will make all things clear as Luke 8:17 tells us. May God bless you, and I wish you the best.?

Mark Mywords: I have already proven Flat Earth by the "lack" of curvature. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. You should look into it. Why would I need to care about the shadow of the moon, Polaris, or any other attempt to fool me back into the satanic delusions of this world? I have "seen" the Flat Earth with my own eyes. Why would I need pseudo-science to try to fool me again? If you really believe the Bible, then read the many verses that disprove the Heliocentric Globe Model, which you received by faith, from the "world." (satan's kingdom). Otherwise, how can you truly understand what God has made? And if you won't do it, then stop preaching a lie that you clearly don't understand. You are deceiving other Christians and keeping them from learning the truth, just as Joel and Michael do by twisting the Bible to say what they want it to, rather than reading for what it says.?

jiaogulan #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Evolution VS High School Biology. Evolution Loses. Check My Math

The law of biogenesis. Have you heard of it? Louis Pasteur proved that living organisms come from other living organisms and do not spontaneously come to life from non-living material. 150 years later there are some that believe that all life arose from a cell or cells that spontaneously generated from non -living material. Perhaps the law of biogenesis is more of a guideline rather than a law. Or perhaps everything that has ever been observed in nature by scientists over the last 150 years affirms the validity of this law. So the spontaneous generation of a theoretical original cell is a violation of this law and is contradictory to scientific observation.
The End.

No, not really. Let’s look at several of the insurmountable problems associated with the theory of spontaneous generation (evolution)

Problem 1. Amino acids.

Amino acids would be needed to form the protein molecules contained in the first theoretical non-living cell. These amino acids would have been formed by natural processes. Dr. Stanley Miller performed a series of experiments to show how amino acids could be produced by generating electric arcs in a gaseous mixture of hydrogen, methane and ammonia along with water. The main problem with producing Amino acids by natural processes, apart from formation within a living organism is that a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids will be formed. These two forms of amino acids are chemically the same but the component atoms of each are put together differently. In fact, mirror images of each other. In living organisms, virtually all amino acids are left handed. The Miller experiment produced a 50/50 mixture of both. Half left-handed and half right-handed. Typically one right-handed amino acid in in protein molecule will render the protein useless or inactive. In other words, if you have an enzyme molecule that performs a particular function in a cell or organism that contains only one right-handed amino acid, that enzyme will not work.

Problem 2. Specific sequence of amino acids in proteins:

Proteins are made of 20 different amino acids. The amino acids are chemically bonded together like links in a chain. The specific arrangement or sequence of amino acids determines the characteristics and function of each protein molecule. To calculate the probability of the correct amino acid sequence in a given molecule in the first theoretical non-living cell, you only need to know two things:
The probability of a particular amino acid in the sequence being the correct amino acid out of a possible 20 amino acid is one chance in 20.

Multiply all the probabilities together.
In other words, if one of the theoretical protein molecules in the theoretical cell had 50 amino acid links, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 etc. 50 times. So the probability of the first two links being in the correct sequence is 20 x 20 = 400 or one chance in 400. The probability of the first 3 links being in the correct sequence is 20 x 20 x 20 = 8000 or one chance in 8000. As a mathematical shortcut to visualize how big of a number you get when multiplying 20 x 20 fifty times, do this:

Multiply 2 x 2 fifty times (2 x 2 x 2 ……) and tack on 50 zeros to the end of that number.
To calculate the chance of getting all 50 sequences correct AND all left handed, consider that each link could be a right-handed version of any of the 20 amino acids or a left-handed version of any of the 20 amino acids but only one of the 40 possible amino acids is correct for each link. The probability of the first amino acid being correct and left-handed is one chance in 40. The probability of the first two amino acids being correct is 40 x 40 = 1600 or one chance in 1600. The probability of the first three links being in the correct sequence is 40 x 40 x 40 = 64000 or one chance in 64000. The probability of the first 4 links being in the correct sequence in one chance in 2,560,000 or about one chance in 2 and a half million. To get a handle on the probability of getting all 50 links in the correct sequence multiply 4 x 4 fifty times and tack on 50 zeros to the end of that number. That is a really big number. Please enter your answer in the comments section below.

A protein with only 50 links is relatively small in nature. Some enzymes are made up of thousands of amino acids. The first theoretical non-living cell must have had many protein molecules perhaps 100 or more. To give an unfair advantage to those who reject the law of biogenesis lets suppose the first cell or proto cell had only 50 protein molecules that contained 50 amino acids each. To get an idea of the size of the number that represents the probability of all the amino acids being in the correct sequence and all left handed in in all the protein molecules:

multiply 4 x 4 2500 times and tack on 2500 zeros on to the end of that number. I am no math whiz but I believe that would be a really big number. It is bigger than the estimated total number of fundamental particles in the observable universe”

So, if every particle in the universe represented a trial and error formation by natural processes of just two of the theoretical proteins, you could possibly get two molecules that were correct at the same time somewhere in there. The odds would still be against it. By the way, proteins have not been observed to form by natural processes apart from living organisms and isn’t that what scientific theory is all about? The observable and reproducible? How many universes of chances do we need to get the first cell right?
By the way. All of the above math is overkill. Just the left-hand, right-hand problem destroys any hope of spontaneous generation. The chance of all the links in all 50 protein molecules being correct can be calculated by multiplying 2 x 2 2500 times. Every time you multiply by two you cut the probability in half. Please write your answer in the comments section below. One more thing while we are on the subject of multiplying by two. How many times you would need to fold a piece of paper in half to make it thick enough to reach to the moon? The number of folds is as ridiculously small as the piece of paper needed is large.

Problem 3. Specific sequence of the genetic material.

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule inside a cell that among other things contains the code for making protein molecules. As a cell grows it takes in nutrients and produces protein molecules. When the cell is large enough it splits into two cells. The ability for the cell to produce the correct amino acid sequences in the various protein molecules is dependent on the specific sequence of molecules in DNA called nucleotides. If the sequence of nucleotides is incorrect the cell will produce proteins with the wrong amino acid sequence. The DNA molecule contains the code for every type of protein in the cell as well as the code for the specific structure of the cell. The probability that the DNA in the first non-living theoretical cell contained the correct code for all the types of protein molecules in that cell is the combined improbabilities of at least one of each type of protein molecule in that cell having the correct amino acid sequences at the point in time the cell spontaneously transitioned from being dead to being alive. You may want to re-read that last sentence a few times so the implications become apparent.

Problem 4. All the component parts in the same place at the same time.

Cells contain structures called organelles. They are like small organs within the cell that have specific functions. Some of the organelles and other structures one might expect to find in this theoretical cell are endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, nucleus, DNA, RNA, and cell membrane. At the very least, the theoretical minimum set of component parts to sustain cellular life needed to be present at the same time and place. The component parts needed to be structurally correct and needed to, by chance and unknown natural processes not associated with living organisms, be in a state of correct assemblage. That is a strange concept. The complete simplest theoretical cell needed to be produced by a set of natural processes, then transition from a dead state to a living state, and then grow and reproduce by an entirely different set of natural processes other than the ones that originally generated it. Highly improbable? No. Totally impossible.

Cornucopia of other problems:

Due to the fact that there is massive amounts of calcium on land and in the oceans, there would be no free phosphorus to form DNA. All the theoretically free phosphorus would end up in the form of calcium phosphate in no time.
The theoretical primordial earth atmosphere contained no oxygen. As useful molecules were theoretically being produced by bolts of lightning they would be destroyed by ultraviolet light since there would be no ozone layer. Some molecules would end up in the ocean and if submerged deep enough to be unaffected by UV radiation would be in the ocean along with other lucky molecules in a state of near infinite dilution. At some later time some of these molecules might end up on land in a muddy little evaporating puddle or pond with less dilution. Then they would be destroyed by ultraviolet light. If the atmosphere contained oxygen, these same molecules would be oxidized and useless.

The same lightning that could produce organic molecules could and would far more easily destroy previously generated molecules. That is just how the physics works. Some fortunate few would make it to the depths of the ocean.

Some might theorize that the first living cell might be of the type that would exist near a submerged volcanic vent far from the perils of the earths surface. This cell would reproduce and future generations of cells would produce oxygen by some method other than photosynthesis. As impossible as this is, you still have to get to that first cell. So all the afore mentioned problems still apply.

Misc. notes:

The math in regard to the left and right-handed amino acids is a little flawed. One of the amino acids, glycine, is left handed only. With that in mind the odds are slightly better so spontaneous generation is totally possible. Not. In all fairness, the Miller experiment produces several amino acids with left-hand and right-hand versions that do not occur in living organisms. In other words the Miller experiment produced all the right amino acids as well as some wrong ones. These could just as well be factored in.

Some researchers have concluded that under certain conditions amino acids could be generated with about 90 percent being left-handed. This does not help much. So instead of half of 2500 amino acids statistically being right handed in the theoretical cell, only 250 will statistically be wrong. Then we multiply the results with the probability of all 2500 amino acids being in the correct sequence.

A chemist once came up with this great party game to help illustrate math probabilities like those in this article. He suggested that you get 17 people to line up in a row. Then line up in a different order. Keep lining up in a different order until all the possible combinations have been used. How many unique arrangement of 17 people in a row are there? More than 355 trillion combination. This can be calculated by multiplying 17 x 16 x 15 x 14 x 13 x 12 x 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2. Since guinea pigs are so well suited for scientific experimentation, guinea pigs can be used instead of people in this experiment. The results are the same.

One last thought. Someone once wrote something like this:

If you had an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters all the books that have ever been written and would ever be written would be written.

The problem is there is no such thing as an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters. Ok. Let’s deal with the finite. Start with a meaningful paragraph 2500 characters in length. Forget case and punctuation let’s just get the spelling correct. There is 1 chance in 26 of getting the first letter correct. What is the probability of getting the first two letters correct?.......

bbreland #fundie community.cnhi.com

Here's some questions I would like to see answered from an Evolutionist/Big Bang proponent:

1. How was the universe created? Let's say for a moment the big bang happened. Then where did the galaxies come from? What about stars, planets, moons, nebulas and gravity?
If the Big Bang happened, that was a miracle in itself, but then to have a galaxy form with stars, planets, moons, etc. would be incredible. Did all of these happen at the beginning or later on?

2. Let's say evolution is true, where did plants and trees come from? Did they evolve from a lower lifeform? What about bacteria and viruses? How is it possible that plants and animals have a symbiotic relationship?

3. Some people theorize that the Earth was formed billions of years ago and was basically a big molten rock that later cooled down. If that's the case where did the Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and other gases come from? What about the ozone layer and upper atmospheres?

4. Where did magnetic fields come from? It's amazing that a magnetic field is required for us to survive.

5. Where did the water come from and why do we have salt water and fresh water?

6. Where did our Moon come from? How is it possible that our moon is required for our survival?

I don't believe in the Big Bang. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. I would like to see some of your thoughts on the questions though.

Winman #fundie baptistboard.com

You are wrong, the Earth can be only 6000 years old, and the Universe 14-15 years old if you understand it properly.

When we say the Earth is 6000 years old. we are speaking of "solar years" the time it takes the Earth to travel around the Sun. In solar years the Earth and universe is only about 6000 years old, just as the Bible says.

But there are "light years". This is time (actually distance), but it is based upon the speed of light. Right now if we look out to the edges of the universe, it appears to be about 14-15 billions years old. At today's speed of light, this is how long it would take light to travel from the most distant galaxies to Earth. And this is why science argues the universe is 14-15 billion years old.

But if the speed of light was much faster just a few thousand years ago, then that light could have reached Earth within the 6000 solar years.

It is the same with radioactive dating methods. When they date rocks or fossils using this method, they get very old dates, such as 70 million years ago for dinosaurs. Of course, these methods are prone to much error and they have dated live chicken eggs to be thousands of years old.

Nevertheless, these dates are true based on the present speed of light. But if light was much faster in the recent past, then radioactive decay would likewise also have been many millions or billions of times faster just 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

So, the fossil of a dinosaur that lived 5500 solar years ago could give a radiometric age of 75 million years. Both are true, but you must understand that light was much faster in the early universe.

You must understand, when science speaks of the universe being 14-15 billion years old, they are speaking from the perspective of "light years", not solar years. The reason there is confusion is because science assumes that light speed is a constant, when that may not be so.

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.

Sami_ #fundie forum.gateworld.net

on torture

Any psychological effects are unfortunate but every measure should be taken to reduce the chance of long term psychological trauma and to make sure that there is good reason to believe the person has the information in the first place.

Every country has examples of innocent people going to jail for crimes they didn't commit (A-Team lolol) and I'm sure those people had lasting psychological effects but we don't stop sending people to jail because we might be wrong.

Just to be clear I'm completely against rounding up people arbitrarily based on anything than convincing evidence that they are connected to an attack in some way, I would not tolerate torturing people because they are a certain race or because they happen to go to the same mosque as a known terrorist or whatever the case may be. Investigating, gathering evidence and implementing the interrogation techniques we classify as torture should be a science and approached impartially by competent individuals.

[ And what if the average percentage of people who commit suicide is put to that '100' people. So we now have (iirc it is around 2.8 percent) so 3 people killing themselves cause of that 'torture'? Was that one life still worth it? ]

Again this is something that I feel is more about careful application of the various techniques used and the proper steps that should be taken afterwards.

Innocent or not I don't want to see people killing themselves after torture so I would want a careful investigation into what techniques used are causing it and adjust practices accordingly to bring that number as low as possible, also I would want some sort of "after care" to make sure a person subjected to torture is mentally stable and is not likely to commit suicide.

[ So how many innocent have to suffer torture or you to NOT think it is all right? 2? 8? 1000? ]

I wouldn't really use a flat number to decide nor would my decision be to decide that its not "all right".

If it was turning out that a very high number of people were being subjected to torture that had no involvement then I would be calling for stricter evidence that indicated a suspect could provide information.

If you are asking how many peoples temporary suffering I think a life is worth though, it would be very high, certainly well over 100.

[ "The U.S. Constitution Amendment VIII:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Yeah, those guys in the 18th century *shakes head* I wish they hadn't been so doggone sqiwmish. They could have thrown in an exception for "unless we really, really, really, need to torture someone" couldn't they?
]

I'm not American so not sure why your quoting the US constitution to me, I actually live in a true democracy.

As for suggesting that jail and torture have anything in common. I'd like to remind that people who go to jail get a trial. People who are tortured do not. People who go to jail can appeal the decision. People who are tortured can not. ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any measures that are currently taken or even ones I'd like to see in regards to torture would be as thorough as a trial I'm merely pointing out that we already subject people that could be innocent to long sentences that in my opinion are worse than torture and that the risk of incarcerating an individual who is innocent whether it be a jail sentence or torture is not reason enough to avoid the practice altogether

[ So, hypothetically of course, If I find out who you really are and call the Dept. of Homeland Security to let them know I think you may be aware of an impending terrorist use of nuclear weapons on U.S. soil you'd be cool with being picked up, waterboarded, beaten, sleep deprived, or worse (all without the benefit of counsel or trial) despite the fact they are operating on nothing but the hearsay warning? After all it's only temporary pain weighed against a possible nuclear explosion in a major U.S. city, right? ]

If the bolded part is the extent of your evidence then no I would not be happy just as I would if anyone was arrested/charged/convicted of a crime with the justification that "you think". As for the techniques you cited, yes I am fine with all of those if there is a real expectation that information gained can save lives.

False confessions can happen in any investigation and there are rules and procedures in place to identify them, I'm no expert in torture but I assume they work just as dillligently to weed out false confessions.

Roosh V #fundie #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

ELLIOT RODGER IS THE FIRST MALE FEMINIST MASS MURDERER


Since originally publishing an article describing how a male-friendly culture encouraging Elliot into self-improvement (game), legal prostitution, and foreign marriage with Southeast Asian women would have prevented his murderous rampage, I did something that most people won’t bother to do: I read his manifesto. Not even halfway through, I began to understand exactly why the media has been pushing the narrative that PUA (game) may have been the cause: Rodger was one of their own.

Here is the PDF of his manifesto (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf). If you take the time to read it, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have that Elliot Rodger is in fact a feminist. In other words, the killings of six individuals stem in part because of his mainstream feminist beliefs that, after intersecting with his dark traits of narcissism, entitlement, loserdom, and hopelessness, led him to kill. The fantastical mainstream media articles you have come across trying to pin Rodger upon us is nothing more than a defensive measure to distance themselves from a killer that was a card-carrying member of their own progressive club.

1. He put pussy on the pedestal, just like feminists do
Feminist theory speaks a whole lot about equality, but it’s actually an ideology that seeks to absolve all women from their amusing but sometimes dangerous stream of mistakes. Feminism (and progressivism in general—they might as well be interchangeable terms) treat women as flawless snowflakes that must be coddled and spoon-fed happiness and validation. Any act by a woman, even if it results in failure or bodily harm (like an abortion), is an “empowering” statement of independence and strength, while any failure by men is seen upon as proof that they are out-of-touch doofuses, a fact that is readily displayed on television, movies, and advertising.

Rodger’s manifesto exactly matches this feminist belief. He shows little genuine hate towards the object of his affections—women—and their poor choices, instead lashing out against the men who were successful with those women. Feminists do the same, always ready to blame men for their failures in life, even going so far as saying that society would be better without men, who are mocked as mere “sperm donors.” In spite of the bad choices that women make by dating bad boys at the schools he attended, Rodger gave them a pussy pass and continued to believe that they were flawless angels who should be cherished, especially the blonde ones.

Rodger’s hate for those men isn’t much different than that hate displayed to me and my colleagues here at ROK. Just take a look at this supposedly professional woman having an embarrassing emotional meltdown on a news show because she didn’t agree with what I said, resorting to blatant distortion and lies about “rape culture” and other such nonsense that was unrelated to the piece she was critiquing:
https://youtu.be/g3w-5-b4mhM

Elevating women as the superior sex, which is what both feminists and Rodger have done, means that discrimination and outright hatred must be then applied to the “inferior” sex—men. It’s no surprise that the most violent killings performed by Rodger were on his three male roommates with a knife, who surely endured more suffering and pain than the cleaner executions he did on his female victims.

2. He was awash in blue pill knowledge

We have an often-used metaphor called the “red pill,” which stands for the pursuit of truth concerning human nature, no matter how painful those truths can be. The opposite of the red pill is the blue pill, of people who choose to be placated by lies describing reality. Both feminists and Rodger were firm adherents to the blue pill world—of believing in a way of nature that doesn’t actually reflect actual human behavior. For example:

Both Rodger and feminists believe that attraction should be automatic and easy instead of being based on sexual market value or other components that can be changed (such as game).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that men should be blamed for problems of society or personal relationships.
Both Rodger and feminists were deluded into having standards way beyond their level of attractiveness (e.g., fat feminist cows actually think they should be able to date a good man).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that all a man has to do to get a girlfriend is to be “nice” and a provider, a strategy that no longer works in today’s America.
Both Rodger and feminists hated players who did well with women
As final proof that Rodger was as blue pill as you can get, simply reverse all the gender references within his manifesto and pretend it was written by a woman. What you would then have before you is a pity party of a self-absorbed feminist who thinks that men are the cause of all her problems. If he lived a couple more years, I have no doubt that Rodger would even be a proud moderator of the Blue Pill subreddit.

3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
In spite of all the loneliness and pain that Rodger went through, he still couldn’t be bothered to lift one finger to improve his station. Compare that to what we teach here at ROK, where we strongly advise you to start your game training with at least 100 approaches, with the expectation that you’ll probably have to do thousands during your lifetime. In Rodger’s manifesto, all 140 pages of it, he details only saying “Hi” to one girl and practically running away from fear. In other words, he did one aborted approach with zero follow-up. That’s not game anywhere in the game universe, and if he came to us saying that he has yet to get laid after putting such an half-assed attempt, we’d tell him to do 10 solid approaches the following day and stop whining like an entitled child.

The fact that Rodger was a member of PUAHate, an online community of social retards who despised game and believed only Brad Pitt and millionaires can get laid, further highlights how vehemently anti-game he was. Why wasn’t he open to improving himself? Why wasn’t he ready to expend the labor to make himself more attractive to women? For that answer, we might as well ask some feminists, who share the exact same belief as him in not having to lift a finger in making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. Look no further than feminist’s cause-du-jour, fat acceptance, a culture of de-improvement—and frankly, de-evolution—where women gain massive amounts of weight and then flaunt their blubber on social media, ready to attack any man who dare finds their display to be unattractive or repulsive.

Fat acceptance has become so pervasive that we had to dedicate one whole week on ROK tearing it to shreds, but in spite of that, not much has changed. America continues to get fatter and feminists continue to attempt to normalize obesity as actually being beautiful, just like how Rodger tried to convince himself of the idea that having a BMW would be attractive to women.

Take a look at this quote by Rodger:

“Everyone treated me like I was invisible. No one reached out to me, no one knew I existed. I was a ghost.”

Does that ring a bell to you? It’s almost identical to the rant we recently witnessed on the Louis CK show when a morbidly obese female went on to whine and bitch about how being a fat ass is not getting her the man she wants. It’s no surprise that fatties rushed to praise Louis CK for his act of sedition against men and acceptable standards of beauty. There is almost no difference between Rodger and a modern American woman who subscribes to feminist thought.

Now take a look at this passage:
“All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.”

Let’s do a swap on the genders:

“All the handsome men walked around with blonde bimbos who don’t have a good career like me and knowledge of reality television shows. These men should be going for a strong, empowered, independent, fabulous woman such as myself. Men are sexually attracted to the wrong type of woman.”

The overlap in mindset would be comical if it didn’t result in tragedy.

Another question worth asking is this: when today’s American woman can’t find the man of her dreams, does she look in the mirror and blame herself? No, she blames men for not finding her unattractiveness attractive. This is actively promoted by feminist thinkers on the most widely read American blogs like Buzzfeed, Gawker, and Huffington Post. Rodger shared this same viewpoint. His manifesto is dripping with entitlement of why girls don’t find him to be “marvelous” just because he happens to own a fancy pair of sunglasses. Feminists and Rodger, it turns out, are like two peas in a pod.

4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
Please don’t forward us another listicle on a feminist-friendly blog about how men need to be nice, friendly, and awkwardly consensual by applying legalese speak in the bedroom before passionate fornication. Rodger believed much of the same, thinking that you had to be a “supreme gentleman” that catered to the material and emotional whims of women, doing everything possible to please them in exchange for a sexual reward. We can only imagine how nauseatingly “gentlemanly” he would have been if he actually managed to land a date on his terms.

I have no doubt he would have agreed with just about all the mainstream bullshit advice on being a gentleman, particularly the Thought Catalog piece The 20 Rules Of Being A Modern Gentleman. There is also a Buzzfeed quiz titled How Much Of A Gentleman Are You? that Rodger would have gotten an A+ on. The end result of his loneliness (killing six people) was obviously not gentlemanly, but before that rampage he treated girls with a gentlemanly shyness, reverence, and respect that feminists would have applauded him for. Rodger and feminists believed in the exact same demeanor that men should have around women.

5. He hated game, like feminists do

No one hates game more than feminists, who have gone so far as to equate it rape ([1], [2], [3]). They absolutely despise any attempt by men to improve their value in the sexual marketplace because then that would mean fewer men to put up with their obesity, short hair, or bad attitude. Rodger believed the same, going so far as becoming an active member in the PUAHate community which dedicated the bulk of their efforts to criticizing game and its adherents like a woman’s gossip circle. (On PUAhate there had been over 100 threads criticizing me and other ROK staff.)

Would you be surprised if I were to tell you right now that Rodger and a mainstream feminist shared the same views on PUAHate and game? I hope not, because that’s exactly what I found. A popular feminist writer who has worked for Newsweek, Jezebel, Buzzfeed, and Dissident magazine, Katie JM Baker, publicly declared that PUAs (i.e. us) are actually worse than PUA Hate.

“The men that lurk in the PuaHate forums are almost worse than the PUAs themselves…”

Let that soak in for a second. Feminist rage is so deep and emotional against game that they have supported a forum with “hate” in the title that cultivated and gave comfort to a mass murderer. I gave Baker a chance to change her opinion about believing a forum of hate was less worse than men who practice game:

[Image of a Twitter Feed, Transcript:

RoK: @katiejmbaker, for the record, do you still believe that we are worse than PUAHate? Or did the recent murder Rampage change your mind?

Katie Baker: lol, what are you even talking about?]

A feminist refused to reverse her position that game practitioners are not worse than Rodger’s favorite hangout. That tells me that Rodger and Baker would get along very well in their hate for men like us who teach game and try to improve men’s lives.

6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling

This is a minor point but one worth mentioning. We don’t know how knee-deep he was into The Young Turks liberal positions, but it’s a fact that he was not a subscriber to my channel or forum. We can only speculate as to how much TYT molded his pro-feminist view.

7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
Whenever a feminist encounters these parts, she immediately bashes our alpha/beta concept of male sexual hierarchy. She instead spouts tired cliches that are supposed to help men in their pursuit of sexual happiness but which actually do nothing of the sort:

“People are people!”
“Just be yourself!”
“Don’t be an asshole/creep/jerk/rando!”
“Having sexual standards is, like, misogynistic!”
Of course these phrases don’t explain human mating behavior and why some men get way more women than others, but that’s no matter since feminist theory does not have the slightest intention to explain the world in an accurate or truthful manner.

Like feminists, Rodger despised alpha males, who he called “obnoxious.” Here’s some relevant quotes from his manifesto:

“I noticed that there were two groups of cool, popular kids. There were the skateboarder kids, such as Vinny Maggio, Ashton Moio, Darrel, Wes, and Alex Dib. And then there were the boys who were popular with girls, including Vincent, Robert Morgan, and [redacted]. They all seemed so confident and aggressive. I felt so intimidated by them, and I hated them for it. I hated them so much, but I had to increase my standing with them. I wanted to be friends with them.

[…]

I thought all of the cool kids were obnoxious jerks, but I tried as best as I could to hide my disgust and appear “cool” to them. They were obnoxious jerks, and yet somehow it was these boys who all of the girls flocked to.”

If Rodger was alive right now, he’d be giving feminists high fives for sharing the exact same viewpoint on sexually superior but “horrible” males who have figured out the dating game and what women actually want.

8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist
Rodger might as well have been a woman, which has raised speculation if he was actually gay. He took selfies like women. He was addicted to Facebook like women. He was obsessed with his appearance. He was narcissistic, vain, and materialistic. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also addicted to his iPhone like your standard issue American woman. Heartiste does a good job of highlighting the similarities:

“[The effeminate male, like Rodger, is an] indictment of this infantile Millennial generation, which daily provides evidence that their ranks are filled with effeminate males who, like women, expect the world to cater their needs, no questions asked, no demands made. Elliot Rodger couldn’t stand how unfaaaair girls were to date uglier men than himself, how unfair life was that his car and clothes weren’t a magnet for hot white sorority chicks, how unfair the cosmic laws were to require of him a little bit of effort if he wanted to put an end to his virginity.

Egotistic, attention starved, solipsistic, passive aggressive, perpetually aggrieved, and unwilling to change when posing as a martyr feels so damn good… there’s your new American manlet, same as your new American woman.”

Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.

9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
He had a victim complex of being held down by invisible forces outside of his control. Feminists also believe that the “patriarchy” is holding them down, and they flock to Tumblr to reblog facile images and memes to spread lies that men make more than women for the same work, for example. These Tumblr crusades have even led to my own family being prank called at late hours, all because my words hurt their feelings, just like Rodger’s was hurt that pretty girls didn’t find him automatically attractive.

It turns out that Rodger was a budding social justice warrior, perhaps not far from establishing his own Tumblr beachhead:

“I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

[…]

I seriously started to consider working towards writing an epic story. I was always creating stories in my mind to fuel my fantasies. Usually those stories depicted someone like myself rising to power after a life of being treated unfairly by the world.

[…]

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it takes.”

Both Rodger and feminists feel the only way to get what they want out of life is not self-improvement, but attacking others they disagree with. Their shared ideology is one of destruction. We have to wonder if Rodger would have eventually participated in any feminist event like SlutWalks to right the world of fantasy injustices that prevent them from being seen as beautiful, marvelous, gentlemanly, and so on.

10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

If you see a feminist in the wild, a white knight won’t be far. He’s the man who enables her false view of the world and provides her with good feels and encouragement for her social justice campaigns. While Rodger wasn’t quite a white knight in this sense, he nailed all three white knight components:

“1. He is the ever-present servant.
2. He pines silently for a single woman.
3. That woman wants little to do with him, and it shows.”

In other words, if you inserted him in feminist company, he would be the glove to their chubby bear claw fingers. His personality is wholly compatible with how feminists believe men should behave: servile and wimpy while never taking real action on their sexual desires.

Conclusion

The only things in common that Rodger had with us is that (1) he wanted sex with attractive women, and (2) he had a functional penis. That’s it. The overlap of thought and belief between Rodger and feminists, however, should convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodger was in fact a feminist, even if he didn’t himself know that his peg fit snugly into the feminist hole. I’ve actually met self-described feminists who were less feminist than Rodger was.

While I stand by my argument that game would have helped Rodger, I am beginning to wonder if being a feminist was the seed that drove him to desperation and delusion, eventually leading to a tragic loss of life. This line of thought is worth pursuing by people who want to understand why a man felt that taking other lives and his own was seen as the best solution. You definitely won’t read about this conclusion in the media, which is too busy trying to toss Rodger to our side like a hot piece of coal, even though Rodger shares absolutely no similarity in thought and behavior to game practitioners.

I have logically come to the conclusion that Rodger was in fact the first male feminist mass murderer that we have seen in America. I’m afraid that if the feminist ideology contained within Rodger’s head is allowed to continue spreading, we are likely to see more violent acts by men who believe in the exact same things that feminists do.

Maximus Decimus Meridius #fundie returnofkings.com

The Orthodox Church Is The Answer To Reviving Christianity In Europe And Saving The West

Maximus is a Man, capital M, period. Love. Truth. Justice. Liberty. Respect. These are the lodestones pointing true to magnetic masculinity in a polarized feminist west. His goal for writing on ROK is to be the gadfly that provokes thought and counters groupthink. You can find more of his writing at A Dream That Was Rome .

First let us take a look at a Christian faith that is strong, vibrant and alive.

Christianity is a beautiful faith. For all my previous criticism of its intellectual formulation, the one thing it gets 100% correct is that it actually enshrines the nuclear family unit – Father, Son and virgin Mother. In that respect, it is more patriarchal than Islam in overtly formulating The Father as divine authority, The Son as heir to that authority, and the virgin Mary as model all women should aspire to be as wife and mother. The video above is a 26 minute silent reflection on life inside a men’s Orthodox Christian monastery in Abkhazia. The power of the documentary is palpable for its very lack of speech and thus quiet testimony to the essence of Christian truth – the worship of God through Jesus Christ.

After the passionate response to my last essay, I went on YouTube to look up what I could find on the Eastern Orthodox faith. Here is a great video series I would like to share with you all.

For Christianity to return and thrive in Europe & The West, there must be unity.

The single biggest advantage of the Orthodox faith is its unity. There is simply too much division and conflict in almost all flavours of Christianity outside the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, the Orthodox faith does not have a real history of theology (per se). That is, the Orthodox don’t think too much or question too deeply about their faith. They accept. They believe. They practice. Most importantly, they do not allow any change – none – to what they believe is the original church handed down to humanity from St. Paul.

For the Orthodox, it is not about the intellectual foundations (i.e. theology) so much as the community of worshipers and keeping to past traditions. They keep to what their ancestors practiced and see no need to change anything. Doing so would be a grave break and violation of the past, a complete insult to the body of Christ and the family tradition that has been passed down for generations to preserve the faith.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity has kept the original Byzantine rituals and formulations for worship. A good example of its seriousness and unwillingness to change is the fact that they will not let anyone who is not Orthodox to take part in communion. They see communion as a serious ritual, the true taking in of the body and life of Christ, His word, and His salvation. To allow just anyone to partake without proper preparation, proper orientation, and proper intention, is dangerous. The liturgy and hymns are also old. They go back all the way to the original church over 1000 years ago and more. The swinging incense pots is not some ornate flashy thing they do, there is real spiritual purpose and foundation to everything in an Orthodox liturgical mass.

What I have just described is practiced by all Orthodox churches which may strike many American Protestants and Evangelicals as odd. The different designations (Greek, Ukrainian, Russian, etc.) are nothing more than jurisdictional boundaries. If you are Russian, you want to go to mass in your language and with your people. Each church is local and loosely affiliated with the others, but there is no over arching official hierarchy, no Pope as it were for the ENTIRE faith. What unites them as Orthodox is not a single authority ON doctrine (per se), but common faith IN practice (de rigueur).

In many ways, Martin Luther was a revolt against the Pope having authority over how to worship by the local community. His opposition to Indulgences and a paper titled “The Pagan Servitude To The Church” are reminiscent of my own intellectual wrestling trying to understand Christianity. For Luther, it was ultimately about a return of faith to the followers of Christ, not blind obedience to papal authority for which he saw no authority given to it.

@Martin Luther ~ Wikipedia

His theology challenged the authority and office of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge from God[3] and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.

Ironically, in Eastern Orthodox, the power of the church rests in the local faithful and has forever been this way. In one video, a story is told about an Orthodox priest who was invited to a world religions syncretic type seminar where he was quoted at the end of the conference as saying “Yes, there are many paths to God and all are valid.” When he returned to his local church and went to put the key in the door, the local church members had already changed the locks!!! How many Catholics would like to do that to the current Pope?!?! This is why the East rejected authority of Rome over THEIR religion. Christ belongs to the people, from God, and the Eastern Orthodox have protected this faith and non-hierarchical organization since the beginning of Christianity.

Why is it that Eastern Christians are agreeable about this? Why don’t they clamour and agitate for new stuff, for revision, for updating? The reason is that in the East, we expect the faith to actually do something. It isn’t just a matter of having the right institution, or having the right theology, though I believe the Orthodox church does have those things. That’s not what does it, really. It’s that we expect that practicing this faith will change people. And you know what? We see that it actually does. We see it over and over again. We see it in contemporary lives. We see people actually transformed.

To an Orthodox, they practice because it works, not just because it is right.

This… that single statement… would unite all Christianity. Gone would be the divisions, the arguments, the 1000s of flavours of Christ by each Protestant wanting to be a Pope.

If I ever become Christian, it will be in the Orthodox faith. This single video series has proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt that what the Orthodox has works. It works because…

Even after over 70 plus years of Communist oppression & outright murder, the faith has rebounded

Russians are Orthodox because faith in Christ works, not just because it is right. If you have ever known a Russian, you know how much they value what works and not what is bullshit. My intellectualization and analysis of Christianity is precisely the problem in The West. No single Christian tradition in The West, outside of the Catholic faith, can truly claim that what they have works, but they have ALL argued and warred for centuries about being right.

If Western Christianity did work, people would not have left. Leaving aside the massive hurdle of getting Westerners to actually stop being atheists or completely ignoring God, a Christian faith that can actually claim to work is precisely what will get someone like me back in the church. A claim I must repeat, that is actually backed up by evidence, not rhetoric.

The final video I want to close off with is an Orthodox explanation of salvation.

This… brought tears to my eyes. It actually answered one, if not THE, core complaint Westerners have about Christianity as they know it – you are condemned to hell if you reject Christ, and no amount of good works or deeds or repentance can save you if you do not accept Christ, the end. Of importance to note, this priest refers to God only when explaining the Orthodox version of salvation; it is God, not Jesus that is the focus of Eastern Orthodox faith. I suspect this is why the Protestants split from The Vatican and we can see it in their further splintering right up to today; Protestants wanted more Jesus and less God talk from the Pope because it was Jesus that truly saves. (Once again, you can see why a non-Christian starts to scratch his head in puzzlement.)

This Orthodox version of salvation is one I have never heard from any Christian priest or pastor in The West. If Europe, if America, were to hear the message of God in the Orthodox faith, I think you would have a revival like none we have ever witnessed in the past. In fact, the whole Theoria YouTube channel is, I suspect, a production created for just that reason. Thousands of disillusioned Protestants and other long lost former Christians are filling the Orthodox churches. The Theoria video series was created to help orient and guide the newly faithful. Is their any other church outside Catholicism that is seeing this kind of resurgence? (Assuming Catholicism is seeing an influx, I do not know and just speculating because it too has a good history of unity in faith and would be The West’s oldest incarnation of Christianity.)

Conclusion

Putin is demonized in the West for many things, but the one reason “they” hate him the most? Putin and Russia are a walking, talking, living reminder of a faith they thought was all but extinct by their design and command. Putin’s Christian message is not just reaching America, but the entirety of Europe. Note as well that Putin is an astounding example of the claim to proof that the Orthodox faith works.

He has single-handedly inserted himself in Syria and reversed what was not just the holocaust of Syrian Christians, but the globalist plan to balkanize the region with Iran being the last Muslim nation standing in their way. For all those who claim Islam is favored by the elites and want it to take over Europe, just look to Muslim lands where, regardless of how you feel about Islam as a religion, the homeland of Muslim faith is being literally bombed into oblivion in a way Christian “Muslim invasion” Europe is not. Make no mistake, after Islam’s “victory” in Europe, it will be up next for targeted wholesale destruction by they who hate God more than they hate humanity.

I have no doubt that if Europe and The West can find its way back to Christianity, our future will look as bright as Russia’s. From even this most minimal and cursory review of the Eastern Orthodox faith, it is the only path back to Christ in Europe and The West that I can see actually working.

What Christianity needs is unity of faith, unity of belief, unity of practice and unity in God. All of this is found in the Eastern Orthodox church and nowhere else.

[Emphasis original]

Outer Secrets #crackpot #fundie #conspiracy outersecrets.com

Concerning this Web Site, the test is to see if you can read it all before you reach a conclusion, meaning, do you control your brain, or does Reality have complete control of you. This web site will also determine whether or not you are capable of seeing TRUTH, meaning, even though you claim not to, do you always judge a book by its cover, or are there at least brief moments when you give yourself permission to actually think, rather than just respond like a robot? By the way, "Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance." - Albert Einstein. A word has meaning, a sentence has a larger meaning, and a paragraph has an even larger meaning indeed, however, many a people believe that an entire web site can not have a greater meaning than that of any of its contents. They do not believe that it is necessary to view an entirety to be able to see an entirety. Thus they draw conclusions long before having seen its entirety. They therefore believe that the lessor is greater in scope than the greater. Thus in turn they have concluded that an entire web site is smaller in scale than merely a portion of it.

In short, they are claiming to be able to see the assembly of an entire jigsaw puzzle by simply looking at merely a few of the pieces of such a puzzle, and do so since to them these few pieces are larger in scale than the assembly of the entire jigsaw puzzle itself. This is why the bigger truth always sits far beyond the vision of such people.

BUT MOST OF ALL, this web site is written to save Millions of innocent lives now, and Billions of lives later, by clarifying the difference between fact and assumption, all done by making it clear to you that this reality came about by INTENTIONAL DESIGN, and that with this being the case, each and every thing you see around you, and each and every action you see occur around you, is part of that intentional design and intentional Plan. This therefore includes conformal behavior as a component of that design, conformal behavior which divides you from complete truth by imprisoning you within the walls of conformity. This web site clarifies exactly who it is who both destroys many innocent lives across this world, and then proceeds with the vicious murder of these victims. It reveals how reality is arranged such that the rest of mankind at the same time gives its complete but blind approval of such destruction. It also explains why it is that much of mankind proceeds to accidentally worship those who commit this murdering of the innocent.

In short, reality is designed to make much, out of very little. To do so, one starts with the big bang. Evolution then eventually produces mankind. Step two, is to go beyond normal evolution. If we just create man and then wait for man to evolve into something far greater, then it would require an extensive time period. Therefore a second big bang is required. The second big bang is focused at the center of truth. Destroy the center of truth by making it inaccessible. From here onwards, all remaining reality constantly expands and no longer has a central point holding it back by holding it together. Minds grow larger and larger and become much more complex. These minds, however, are absolutely horrible due to the fact that absolute truth has become inaccessible. These minds are composed of nothing but lies. Granted, once this is done, one can be very creative indeed. But unfortunately, the innocent and truthful amongst mankind, must therefore be left behind and buried with the truth, the truth that is never to be seen nor believed by those outside of it. Only the selected liars, the heartless, the self centered, and those who are willing to accept the imprisonment of the rest of mankind, will actually end up living for eternity.

Although, there can be an exception made to this rule. There are believers. Believers can not see the truth. Believers focus upon belief instead of focusing upon truth. And so by doing so they turn their backs towards the truth, meaning also that they will turn their backs towards the rest of mankind. In the end, the evil, the selfish, and the believers will survive. Much of the religious folk believe that all mankind were born as sinners. Because of this, those who are pure and truthful are therefore not believed by the religious folk, since many of these religious folk in particular believe that there are no pure and truthful people anywhere on this world to be speaking of any pure truths. To many of the religious folk, there was only one being who could and had spoken pure truth. All who are connected to truth, will therefore be imprisoned and rejected by believers.

To keep the plan on the go, the sane, those connected to truths, must be set up to appear to be the insane. The innocent must be set up to appear to be the guilty. With truth having been kept out of reach, this becomes an easy task. This is discussed thoroughly below. Anyone who attempts to expose the truth at this time, is also set up to appear to be anything from being an Anti-Christ figure to some, to an insane mentally limited person to the remainder. The job of ensuring onward success on the path of eternal lies, is then set towards a guaranteed success.

And of course not to forget about the picture projected into the minds of people across the globe, of Jesus extending his arms outward to protect and save ALL mankind, while in fact the plan of those from above who have forsaken Jesus Christ, is to save just a few. The one who truly does want to save ALL mankind, naturally is the one who is set up to be perceived as an Evil figure. This is the result of the "Great Accuser" at work, accusing the most innocent as being the most guilty. As I have said, those who know of the truth are to be perceived as being insane, and so the one who wishes to expose the truth is also set up to appear to be insane to the non-religious. This is the entire purpose of " Insanity " being included as a component of this reality that you know of.

That which mankind calls the " Evil ", will win to a certain degree, and do so because mankind can not break free from their programmed view of reality. Even the slightest suggestion of something that goes against general belief, will immediately be rejected. Fascinating predictable behaviour, isn't it ! But at least I can die knowing that I am off the hook. I can't be blamed. I actually have done everything that can be done to save the innocent ! If no one listens, then no one listens ! But at least those of you out there who are being destroyed, can now understand that you are being destroyed because you are an intelligent caring person who walks the path of truth rather than the path of belief. The ignorant believers will ignore the truth, and as the result of this, you, the innocent, will be condemned. I'm sorry, but I did do all that could be done to try and prevent it, but all attempts failed, since no one would listen. But on the other hand, on the grand scope of things, the truth has been successfully held onto by two powerful figures. This leads to a reality of a closed structure in which truth eventually comes full circle. Thus all the agony that those who rejected the truth thus allowed to occur to others, will eventually come full circle and hit them with full force. Meaning, those who reject the truth will learn of it in the most painful manner of which reality permits.

To understand it ALL, all you need is Prime Intellect, Non-Conformist reasoning, and the Capacity for Lateral Thinking.

In general, you focus upon one topic at a time. Lateral thinking, on the other hand, leads to viewing all topics at the same time and seeing how they are all connected as a larger ONE. This web site therefore covers many topics, but these topics are not focused upon individually, and therefore are not clearly indexed, but are simply meant to be the components that are to be completely assembled within your mind in the long run. The following topics are discussed. The Relativistic and Holistic Mechanics of reality, Mind Control, Schizophrenia, Psychosis, Delusions, Hallucinations, Religion, Heaven - Hell, Miracles, Bible Codes, and the War between Power and Equality.

How and Why they are all connected is what is to be seriously noted.

This Web Site is also written in simple and plain English for all to understand. This site is not meant for mere browsers. Despite its simplicity, it still requires a significant study period. It is meant for those who are interested in a complete understanding of reality and also have an interest in what has kept such knowledge from being within reach for so long.

So grab a coffee, and read on.

Kent Hovind #fundie kenthovindblog.com

1.Cosmic evolution: the origin of time/space/matter from nothing in the supposed “Big Bang”
2.Chemical evolution: all the elements “evolved” from hydrogen
3.Stellar evolution: stars formed from dust clouds
4.Organic evolution: life formed from non-living matter
5.Macro-evolution: plants and animals produce offspring different than their ‘kind’
6.Micro-evolution: variations develop within the kind such as big dogs and little dogs; bacteria becoming resistant to drugs; etc.

[...]

I would love to see Bill’s (or anyone else’s) best evidences for any of the first five definitions of evolution. Looks to me like anyone with one eye and half a brain can see that “God created the Heaven and the earth.”

BTW, world events s-u-u-u-r-e make ya think we are getting close to the end just as the Bible predicted. Meanwhile — WIN SOULS!

Bob one #fundie phys.org

"New Scientist" published a paper signed by 33 secular cosmologists explaining what is wrong with the Big Bang theory. It was posted on line at cosmologystatement.org and additionally signed by hundreds of secular cosmologists.

Dr Hartnett showed that CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) actually poses problems for the big bang and supports creationist cosmologies. One problem is that the CMB seems to indicate a preferred frame of reference, contrary to the basic assumption behind the big bang. Another is that the total mass density of the universe inferred observationally does not agree with the mass calculated from big bang theory. And this latest NASA report even said that the stars formed earlier (by their own dating methods) than previously predicted. Then there is the fact that the CMB is very smooth, contrary to big bang predictions. And so on. Creationist cosmology models do not have these problems.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-cosmology-late-news-big.html#jCp

Paul Dowdy #fundie newscientist.com

science confirms that life cannot arise from non-life SO= where did humans, animals,plant life come from? And science says there has to be a cause and effect so whats the cause. If a scientist could tell me that he knows where everything came from then i would believe that the bible is fake. but science will never be able to make sence think about it you keep coming back to how did it get started and science has no starting prosess for life. you cant take nothing and nothing and a little bit of nothing and put it togeter in a lab and creat anything. science dont even know how a cubit foot of space is created you know that stuff you walk threw ,air is in it ,your house is in it ,the earth is in it. you cant tell me space is just free theres no formula no math to figure it out. If you use worldly logic it just dont make sence you know science. the only logical answer is the unlogical one to use that something magical created everything wich would be god. Oh yeah i belive in the bible but i belive that it is older than alot of people do. The bible does say that the world is round spear mean round. and the the bible saying things like i will go to the end of the world doesnt mean they thought is was flat we still say that phrase today. and the bible knew that befor we did. the bible knew that there were spings in the bottom of the ocean and we didnt discover it until like 1970. Even if im wrong why would anyone want to live knowing that they are just going to die in that case i dont mean anything life is all for nothing. or you can beleve and get saved and you still dont have to live a sin free life thats why jesus died on the cross. you have nothing to lose if you beleve. and if you dont beleve you have nothing to gain even if the bible and god was not ture.

wyncrtr #fundie space.com

What astronomers and scientists continue to leave out of the equation is the God factor. Who knows what they are hearing. It could be an echo from the time of the so called "Big Bang" when Jehovah God said, "Let There Be Light".

I hope they find the God particle when they fire the Large Hadron Accelerator in Geneva Switzerland "CERN" and finally discover that all matter both dark and light was created by a devine designer not some random explosion. Science and chance will tell you that if one took some C-4 charges and detonated them in a junk yard the probablity of the pieces falling back to earth forming a completely operational Boeing 747 would be out of the question. Random explosions only cause destruction. Planned, calculated, and properly executed explosions can bring down buildings, but they not create something new other than rubble. So much for the so called random "Big Bang" theory.

The bandwidth of God's voice, hearing, and light spectrum goes beyond anything a radio telescope, oscilloscope, or telescope can detect. Human ears can only hear frequencies between 20Hz to 20kHz. Human eye sight can only see light frequencies between 400nM and 700 nM. The normal human voice frequencies fall between 350Hz and 1kHz. A very narrow bandwidth compared to God's ability to see, speak, and hear. God's bandwidth for speech, light, and sound is infinite. God also exists at light speeds faster than our known light speed of 186,000 mps. Therfore enabling Him to travel forward or backward in time, and be everywhere at the same time.

Sirgak #fundie rr-bb.com


The answer to how we can see light from things millions of light years away when the Earth is only 6000 years old is found in Genesis. God is His wisdom KNEW we wouldn't be able to see that light yet, so He created light already in transit from there to here, such that we (within 6k years) would see now what otherwise would have taken millions of years to reach us. Anyway, here's the passage:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Gen 1:3)


Note He created light BEFORE He created the stars. Again, He made the light already in place so we could see those stars He was about to put into existence far out there.

As someone once said, only God can think of everything.

Anonymous #conspiracy dataasylum.com

I'd like to take a moment and expand on what someone should see if they actually wish to test themselves for this nano-disease. To make any connection at all you must recognize these Chemtrail nano-fibers as coming from your body which in a normal environment is completely impossible.

Everyone knows red wine stains absolutely everything. It's a nightmare to clean. It should be no surprise that when dealing with co-polymer nano-fibers this red wine principal is no different. The test is basic. The purpose is to simply allow the red wine's acidity to saturate your mouth and the nano-fibers will slowly be extracted and then stained by the wine. Why this actually happens is unknown by myself.


image

To being simply get a bottle or red wine as shown in the image to the left.

image

Zoom in
Poor a little into the sink. See anything? No. Of course not. It's just red wine. Nothing to see here. Also check your mouth if you care, it's clean. If not just brush your teeth.

image


Sip a little red wine, swish it around in your mouth for a bit, maybe gargle. Spit it out. What do you see? Some people will see nothing at first, the red wine has to saturate the oral cavity. Some people will immediately see small strange specs or fibers as shown. Now think for the first time in your life, I thought the wine and your mouth were pure and clean? Therefore this must be impossible right?

image

After repeating this test a few times, specifically gargling, you should start to see large globs of nano-fibers come out. They never stop. You can do this test for hours and more and more fibers will come out of your mouth.


image

A little disgusting yes, but necessary for demonstration purposes. Look at your tongue. Nano-fibers get caught in your tongue's hairs (your tongue has hair obviously).

There you have it. Chemtrail's spray nano-fibers. You breathe, eat and ingest these nano-fibers. It's impossible not to. Could you put these nano-fibers from your mouth under a microscope? You could but it's not realistic because they are all stained. It's much better to get a sample of pond water or water from the street or sewer drain or leave a small dish of water outside for a while to get nano-fibers that are falling from the lower atmosphere after some chemtrail spraying.

Now what do they do? Why? Why on earth would this be happening? Brace yourself, you still have to think, I know it's difficult but hang in there. Nano-fibers deliver nano-components as reflected above. These nano-components encapsulate neurons and bridge synapses throughout your body or to a greater extent install nano-implants. Again, for what? Why? To control you (for example Gamer (2009)). That's why. To read your mind, thoughts, see what you see and hear what you hear. Essentially turn you into a cyborg, in standard computer science circles this would be called a BioAPI or wetware. It's for mind control. Plain and simple. They even show you examples of what they can do in every day life, so continue on for several awesome media examples and real life mind control references. It's all real, they did it all.

Thoughts on a possible cure can be found in the review for Rise of the Zombies (2012).

Personal D #fundie answers.yahoo.com

2 problems I see from the start with the big bang theory.

First, we are told by scientists that there was nothing big about it. That somehow all the matter and energy in the universe was smaller than the size of one molecule or atom (as we relatively comparatively understand this juxtaposition of apples to apples today).

Second, we are told there was a bang or explosion. This would mean fire. How can fire burn in the absence of oxygen? Even if this explosion was self contained, what is this place and where did it come from that all this energy and matter exploded out into?

Since when has an explosion ever created order?

I am more accepting of The Creation model. Energy dispersal and matter placement are quite provocative matters for the finite mind to grasp. What is seemingly apparent to the finite mind often overlooks mysteries of the conception and standards of human contrivances. Many theories are just that, they are specious in nature and just invented for convenience. Big bang ego is a dream, but The Saviour reigns supreme.

James Rink #conspiracy #ufo #crackpot supersoldiertalk.com

My Life In The Secret Space Program

My name is Bruce and I was in a black ops sniper group called Wraith in MARSOC in the Marines from 2008 to 2017, then I was in a black ops private Military from 2017 to 2018. This is my story. When I was a little kid in the 90s, I was abducted by Grays. I remember that it was at night and I was being pulled up by a tractor beam. I went through the ceiling. I remember seeing my parent’s house at night below me. A few of the lights were on. I then was facing the ship as I was coming toward it. It was a huge silver flying saucer that was about eighty feet across. I then remember being on the ship in orbit above the Earth. Because I have remote viewing, I see the ship in third person. I saw the ship and the Earth, and the stars in the background. The Earth was at the bottom left of my vision and the Sunlight was coming up over the horizon.
I was laying on a table in a round room that was whitish silver, and there was a cylindrical wall around it. There were four Grays standing there staring at me, and I was on an operating table. I don’t remember being operated on. I also saw porthole windows on the walls all around the room. In them, I saw the stars in the background, and there were little silver spherical drones going to and fro. They abducted me again many times from when I was fourteen to fifteen, and every time I would wake up with nose bleeds. Most of the time, I was above the Earth in orbit in varying degrees of distance; and there were a few times that I was in interstellar space past Proxima Centauri but not to the fourth closest star to us. Also from when I was a little kid up until I was seventeen, the Military would abduct me and take me to an underground base for training. I first got my memories of that when I was fourteen. I had a dream when I was fourteen that I was lying in bed, sleeping in the middle of the night when a whiteish blue rotating oval portal appeared on my open closet door. It was slowly rotating to the left of my vision and it had little streamers on it. An old man with gray hair who was wearing a black suit stepped through the portal and moved to the side and stared at me. He looked very much like Ben Rich, the former head of Lockheed Skunkworks. After that, a Marine wearing digital camo came through and stared at me. After that, I was on a super advanced mag leveled small transport with other kids. It was in silver and white and in an angular egg shape, and it was traveling at extremely fast speed. After that, I was in a super advanced deep underground Military base and me and the other kids were being trained for combat. That older guy with gray hair was the head of the whole thing. We did live fire training with regular guns, hand to hand combat, we shot what looked like experimental energy, sci fi guns, and trained our third eye. There were times when we were told to meditate together in a dark room with purple crystals taped to our foreheads, and we listened to isochornic tones. There was also a girl there that had telekinesis. I remember that there was a buffed up black guy that was our trainer and he was really hard on us sometimes and the older white guy always got onto him. I also put on a headset and had to fight aliens in fully immersive simulations, and the helmet was connected by thick capes that went to something on the ceiling. The most traumatizing thing that happened to me was that there were times that I was put in a deprivation chamber and in a tank underwater with a small breathing apparatus and I was told to stay calm after they had closed a lid on me and I was in total darkness, so I was not abused.
[…]
When I was eighteen, I was sent to Mars. The Military pulled up to my house, shot an anomaly into my room where I was at, and came in the house and activated me, then restored my memories. Then they took me to base. I was given my contacts that I put in my eyes, then I was hooked up to the exoskeleton. I was then injected with the two fluids, then I boarded a small transport craft that was black and shaped like a kind of stretched out pyramid laid on its side. There was a pilot and three seats in the back. After that, the craft went to above Earth orbit to a huge ship that was sitting at a spacedock. It was a ship that the Marines have in a separate Secret Space Program that they have where they patrol between Earth and Mars. It was about a mile long, tactical digital black, had red and white lights, and it had huge wings on the sides that stretched way out and tapered off. It was called the USS Vengeance (United States Starship Vengeance) and it had rows and rows, and rows of defenses on the wings that fired bullets, rockets, and beam-type weapons; and it had farce fields. On the inside, it was tactile digital black as well, and it had very dim red and white lights. Most of the Marines wore digital woodland camo, and the commander and higher up officers wore digital desert. It had glass windows, but most of the windows were actually screens that projected the outside of the ship on the inside, so it acted like a window. I remember that it looked like two gray outlines of a TV that was round at the edges, and it just looked like a rubber outline of a TV on the wall, and in the center was just the wall, but it was actually projecting the wall when it was on standby. And there was a button at the bottom left that I could press, and when it would be pressed, the image would disappear in little black blotches, and then they would disappear really fast and it would look like a section of the wall would just disappear and you could see out into space.

The commander called all of us Wraith members to the briefing room. He had gray hair. It felt very much like Starship Troopers. He stood in front of us and told us the basics of the Secret Space Program over all, that history of the Solar System, what is going on on Earth, and why were were going to Mars. I was briefed that there were many SSPs. I was told that every branch of the Military has their own, there are different patrol groups that patrol the Solar System and other systems as well, there is that group that the Marines have that is one of them, SSPs that other Countries have, an Illuminati type group that own most of the infrastructure out there that experiment with cybernetics in a bad way, and they are really into the occult, a Nazi group that works with the Draco, rogue SSPs, and many others that I don’t exactly remember. I was told that the Solar System had a super advanced civilization that have spread out across the Solar System from some planet, but they destroyed themselves and the planet they were on called Tiamat, that is now what we call the Asteroid Belt, and we haven’t found them yet. Also that the Earth had been free for many years, until the Draco arrived and used the Illuminati to enslave the planet. And we were going to Mars because the Draco had started attacking Human Military bases there on a bigger scale than normal.

As he was talking and pacing the room, these huge pieces of glass rose up from black raised up platforms that were on the floor in rows in front of us. They were cut sharply in angles at the top edges and when they had risen all the way up, they turned on and displayed pictures and information on different races. There were two pictures for each race, like profiles, and rows and rows of text below them. I was briefed on the Grays, the Alpha Draconians, the Mantis, the Connonains which are a humanoid doglike race, a blatlike race, the Lyrans, one Human looking group, a raptor race, and many other races that I can’t exactly remember. The Grays had been enslaved by their technology and a lot of them were cybernetic. Their race had been dying out and they had made clones, but that wasn’t working, so they abducted Humans to create hybrids to sustain their race. The Alpha Draconians are racists who believe that they are the master race in the Universe, and they went around and conquered and supplanted other reptilian races, and put them in their ranks. They have a pyramid cast system and their top people are fourteen feet tall white Draco that have wings and they are called Royal White Draco. I don’t remember anything about the Mantis. The Lyrans are huge humanoid lions who are spiritual Militarists and they are on our side. The Connonians are a huge buffed up humanoid doglike race that are spiritual Militarists. They are on our side. I don’t remember the story with the other races. I remember that most of them were reptilians and they were red colored,and the other ones were green. We were told that although we were fighting the Draco, the biggest threat is actually evil alien AI that would either be infected by a virus, be sentient, or be demonically possessed. I was also told about and given a medical device called a tourniquet that was like a black tube that had another black tube of rubber over it, and it had a needle that would come out of the bottom. When it would be used, it would instantly partially heal and seal up wounds. I was also told about another medical technology that was a holograhic medical regeneration bed that soldiers could lay down in, and it would heal them. It had large gel packs on it, and a clear sheet over that, and if a soldier’s arm was blown off at the elbow, he could lay in it and it would project an orange colored, gridded hologram of the arm down to the cellular level, and it would completely heal the arm in a matter of hours.

We were then given a tour of the ship and we were given galsspads to read whenever we wanted. It looked like a long rectangle, and when it would turn on, it would display rows of text in white. The girl that I saw in the first training area when I was a kid asked one of the crew if there were any androids on the ship. The guys said that there weren’t, but on some ships in that patrol group, there were androids in their crews. The front part of their heads are human, and the back is all robotic parts, and their voices are low, they carry, and they sound electric. I remember that they also had their own money. It looked like dollars, except that it had a lot more brown in it, and they had faces on them that were of different people. I was also given an ID card that I would use to clock in and out with. It had a special access clearance, my picture and info on it, and it had a black jell pack on it that contained nanites. It was so it could protect ships from getting viruses. I saw many parts of the ship, I remember that the engine looked like huge black metal spheres that were stuck together at odd angles, and there were multiple rectangular and cylindrical shaped housings stuck on them in random spots; and behind all that was a giant vertical rectangle, and underneath all that, there was a purple crystal. The ships main fuel source was zero point energy, and it had nuclear, solar, and chemical thrusters as a backup just encase something happened and they got lost. It used tachyons and quantum entanglement when it traveled. It could go faster than light and it could go intergalactic. I remember that the bridge was shaped like a forward facing rectangle. There were people on computers on the sides toward the front that wrapped around toward the front door. There was the commander standing with his hands behind his back way toward the front of the bridge, a small row of people on computers right in front of him, and the pilot at the front. The pilot operated manual controls, but he also had a headset and a glove that he could wear and he could pilot the ship with his mind. The glove was black and it had glowing blue lights on on the finger tips. It had four small windows up top on the sides of the front of the room. And a huge screen in the center.

After that, we went to Mars. The trip only took fifteen seconds. Mars is not red and it is not the dead planet that NASA wants people to think. It had a blue sky and it looked like the Arizona desert. It also is populated with many races, wildlife, had trees, bodies of water, and is very much like Earth. There is oxygen on it too that is breathable for a short time in the polar regions. The planet was once a lot more like Earth in the past, but there was a nuclear war there and the atmosphere got really messed up, but it is in the process of getting back to the way it was before.

I remember that Wraith has a base on Mars that looked like a smaller outpost and the commander was older with short gray hair and he was kind of muscular, with a scar on his face. We were in the Northern Polar region. I remember that I had digital tan power armor that had a pitch black visor on the helmet that displayed red information and a redicle in red and it acted as my spotter; and I used a sniper rifle that looked very much like the Barrett .50 Cal, but it was a little bigger and it shot a bigger round that had a black casing. The bullet was brass colored and after it would penetrate a target, the top layer of the bullet would break up in pieces and create a shockwave effect. It was designed to kill Alpha Draconians.

I remember very vividly some battles that were going on in a valley. I remember seeing human Marines and Draconians fighting each other far ahead of me toward the edge of the valley. I saw both people dying on both sides. I remember being way off in the background on a rooftop and sniping Draco as the battle was going on. The Draconian soldiers were dark green, seven to eight foot tall humanoid crocodiles. I remember shooting them. Most of them wore helmets, but some didn’t. And there were a few that I shot in the neck near the shoulder a few times and I saw a shockwave effect and they had a huge hole in their neck and blood sprayed everywhere. There were also times when I was with other Wraith members and we sniped Draconians together, and times when we had to take out key Draconoian Military leaders and sometimes do sync shots on them. There was one time when three of us had to take out three Draconian Military leaders in the middle of the night when it was raining and it was windy. They were walking around and talking. They were inside some kind of base that was up on a higher level off the ground, and they were inside some kind of pressurized room because they didn’t have any helmets on. We did a sync shot at the same time and shot through the glass and killed them. The were also two times when I killed Draconian generals with remote influencing. I remember that I was in a small cylindrical outpost looking building and I was standing in the central room facing a large window outside. Outside, I could see the Martian surface and the sand getting kicked up by the soft wind and the blue sky, remember that I was far away from my target, but I could see him because I have remote viewing. I could see that he was in a pressurized room in a base that they had built. He didn’t have his helmet on and I could see his reptilian face. I remember moving my right hand up in the air and balling it into a fist, then taking it down and unfolding my fist. I made him take out a long green knife and stab himself in the chest with it, and shove the blade through. I did the same thing and made the other general shoot himself in the head with his hand gun, I also made a Draconian politician that was on Mars shoot himself with a handgun, too.

For eight years, the Military would pick me up, take me to Mars, and wipe my memories, and take me back home. Sometimes, it was by the same small transport craft to the USS Vengeance and that would take me to Mars; and sometimes, if the ship wasn’t near Earth, the transport would take me all the way to Mars. I wasn’t in any space battles, but I remember that sometimes when I was boarding the carrier that I saw that it had bullet holes, missile impacts, and glowing red beam marks on the hull that were still smoking. I also remember having dreams of a bald Military man debriefing me, but it was more like an interrogation, and dreams of doctors injecting me with with needles. I also remember seeing dark green helicopters on Mars that had enclosed blades in rings like on the movie Avatar, except that the connector pieces to the rings were a little shorter, and they had no landing gear. I also saw large white drones that moved slowly along the sky, searching for targets. The Draconian ships were dark green, had wings that bent forward and downward, and when you would look at them from certain angles, they would change color and turn purple in some areas. In total, I killed 78 Alpha Draconians.

After that, I joined a black ops private Military called Hammerhead and I was with them for a year. They go after gun and drug runners, and they hunt down and kill Illuminati and Shadow Government soldiers. We wore a round black and blue patch that had a Hammerhead shark on it and it read: Hammerhead in white at the top. I remember that they have a base somewhere in America that looks like a completely blacked out unmarked building, and it goes underground, too. It has torsion field cannons on the roof for defenses.

Femitheist Divine #sexist thefemitheist.blogspot.com

The New World: The Rebirth, Castration Day, Breeders and More

I have written about this multiple times in the past, but due to the fact that I have numerous articles, it appears that people are not able to find every bit of information that I have provided, so I will detail it here.

1) Castration Day: The purpose of this day is to pacify males for further processing, meaning, in the end, the majority of them would eventually be terminated, and this holiday would no longer be entirely relevant at a certain point – the day of the True Rebirth, and the dawn of The New World. It is merely a major point in the short-term solutions for the pacification and so forth of all males.

2) The population of males world-wide for the indefinite future after the implementation of the short-term solutions would be around 10%, for the purposes of practicality. The 10% that remained would be used for the sole purpose of breeding, and nothing more. They would be given enough sustenance and so forth to remain alive, while being held in captivity to keep them from posing a threat to the general population outside (women). They would be allowed visitation by their closest female guardian(s) and or relatives if their closest female guardian(s) or relatives wishes to see them.

3) All males, regardless of age, would be eligible (with the consent of their closest female guardian) for castration. However, their closest female guardian (CFG) would be advised to exempt them from castration and sign them up as a future Breeder (someone used for sample-collection) on the basis of supply-and-demand. If the supply was well enough for the foreseeable future, the CFG would likely be advised to go ahead and have the male castrated, and in The New World, the CFG would likely comply with this. There would be no moral qualm about such an issue, because it would be based entirely on practicality and common knowledge (men need to be castrated to keep women safe) – there would be no emotional attachment to such a process. It would be seen as creating civility in the individual male, not as an act of harm.

4) The purpose of Castration Day is not to shame men, but to liberate all people and to civilize men. Nothing more, and nothing less. It is the only way.

5) Until science could be used to create genetically strong female progeny from two female parents (The Rebirth), the world population of males would remain around 10%. Once science was able to complete such a process (The Rebirth), the world-wide population of men would be held at around 1%, just in case. Any males who were born after this would be either disposed of or kept based entirely upon foreseeable practicality and potential for genetic efficiency. No emotional attachment would dictate otherwise, and if it did, the woman with said attachment would be reformed.

6) Some point out the issue of genetic deficiency due to lack of diversity, and a potential for inbreeding. In The New World, however, this would be a non-issue… Genetics would remain strong due to population. Say, for instance, the world-wide population in The New World is 7 billion, and 10% of that population is male, that would mean that there would be 700 million males world-wide. A sustainable population. If you multiply 6,300,000,000 (the number of females) by 700,000,000 (the number of males), you get 4,410,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities for the genetic makeup of future offspring. The population by the time The New World comes will be much larger than 7 billion, meaning that the possibilities will be even greater in number than this. Inbreeding and weakness of DNA will not be an issue.

7) By the time males are old enough to provide sperm samples, at the consent of their CFG, they will be screened for specific traits prior to Castration Day to see if they are viable Breeders. This screening will determine whether or not they are the most suitable contributors genetically. Characteristics will include testing physical symmetry, age-height-weight ratio, mental health, and parasite resistance, or the strength of their immune system. It is based entirely on practicality and efficiency, and nothing more. This would be done until The Rebirth (the day when science has its breakthrough in creating female progeny from two female parents and the male population is reduced to 1% world-wide via termination).

8) Post-Rebirth, Castration Day will be reduced to a smaller set of local screenings and procedures in each city world-wide, they will be uniform and set in stone, and the process will no longer be a celebration by all people, but a way of life for any male. Testing and screening for potential genetic contribution will happen at a male’s birth, and will be more lenient at that time, looking only for typical symmetry and a decent healthiness. This process will then be repeated when the male reaches the age to provide samples (maturity). If a male is born and appears to be weak, it will be disposed of. If a male is sufficient, it will be allowed to reach the age of “maturity”. It will then be screened again, for the aforementioned traits which will be determined by then, and if it is still sufficient, it will be kept as a Breeder. If it is not, it will be terminated. If the amount of males in relation to Post-Rebirth supply-and-demand is sufficient, all newborn males will be terminated based on the age and assumed longevity of the currently existing males, unless the particular male appears to be exceptionally healthy and strong.

It is as simple as that.

Thank you for reading.

Sincerely,
Femitheist

*Footnote: Breeders and all of the samples that they give would be identified with a set of numbers unique to them as an individual. These numbers would essentially be their name and or identity. Any woman who collects a sample will have her own ID in the system marked with said Breeder-number, and so shall her children's Birth Certificates and IDs be marked with the same Breeder-number. That way, if her children were to return some day to take a sample, they would not (on the off-chance it might occur) be given a sample from the same Breeder that their mother took from. This would be done to avoid any possibility of inbreeding. Sample-collection, retrieval and artificial insemination centers would be dispersed all across the world at local areas, as Breeders too would be dispersed all across the world, in numbers sufficient to the specific area.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

"1) Why do you think atheists all believed the universe had no beginning"

Because it made for a good atheist myth and, if it had been true, it would have been a defeater for the 2nd premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. No way out there for the atheist who desires to deny God's existence.

"So what? Its still finding things amazing after the fact."

Aaah, but it is the Explanation for "amazing" that counts. :-) Not to mention that it is delusional to think that one could survive so many firing squads and they NOT be rigged.

"3) Theists have no say in science."

Then why did the Scientific Revolution kick off with theological scientists - who put prayers to God in their technical papers? And, of course, there are plenty of theist-scientists now. I happen to be one of them.

"Great is our Lord and great His virtue and of His wisdom there is no number: praise Him, ye heavens, Praise Him, ye sun, moon, and planets, use every sense for perceiving, every tongue for declaring your Creator. Praise Him, ye celestial harmonies, praise Him, ye judges of the harmonies uncovered: and thou my soul, praise the Lord they Creator, as long as I shall be: for out of Him and through Him and in Him are all things; for both whose whereof we are utterly ignorant and those which we know are the least part of them; because there is still more beyond. To Him be praise, honour, and glory, world without end. Amen." -- Johannes Kepler, "Harmonies of the World Book Five." This was at the end of this book - there are prayers interspersed throughout.

" You do realize the Cambrian was the first time hard bodied animals were available for fossilization?"

Take it up with secular scientists who are resorting to miracles and hand-waving to explain it.

"It a pity Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin was a physicist so had no idea about the field."

Ad hominem. One cannot do away with his argument based on his degree.

"Evidence should be everywhere. Where is it?"

Everywhere. :-)

"Arno Penzias would be a clown"

Ad hominem. You are the emotional atheist, no?

"Without men observing reality there would be no proof for the Big Bang."

Yes, indeed, and thank God for the Big Bang - literally! :-)

Yeti #fundie allthefallen.ninja



AI am sorry that you reject all authority in your own life Yeti but I don't want a teacher who goes around having sex with her students and searches for more, just because she needs some type of validation in her own life, to be anywhere near a school. In your own views, any form of laws criminalizing such behavior is a violation etc. and I for one am glad the world at large doesn't view things as you do and most think someone who spends their time around children should behave in a respectful manner not as some bimbo who goes around fucking the people she should be teaching and caring for.

Well in my eyes, if a teacher has sex with a bunch of students but you can clearly see that they are taking the job of imparting knowledge to the students seriously and are not just bribing students to have sex by offering them better grades or whatever, then it is just like that large scratch on the wall and I don't see why anyone would care. And frankly in many cases, grades are actually just another formality that doesn't actually mean much, so changing some grades really would not even be a big deal.

In my eyes, what you care about isn't whether the teacher is seriously trying to help the kids or not (specifically by offering them the tool called knowledge, which is their job). In my eyes, what you care about is whether they make sure to be all prim and proper.

And in my eyes, forcing such ideas on others is often extremely harmful.

The Galactic Center via Galaxygirl #ufo #moonbat #crackpot #conspiracy voyagesoflight.blogspot.com

I am the Galactic Center of your ever-evolving Milky Way, now Golden Rose, Galaxy. I am delighted that more and more of you have been coming up for a visit, to spend some moments of contemplation, relaxation and togetherness. So many of you long for togetherness. You feel isolated upon your blue sphere that has only known war for so long, and as strategically placed chess pieces of light, you are challenged to find the logic of your placement on the board of Gaia. (I am seeing a massive chess board superimposed over Gaia. I am seeing the light workers are on team light strategically placed all over, some within caves, some within deep jungles, feeling cut off from the other chess pieces on their team, and yet I am seeing a thin glowing line of white light connecting them all over the world. I am seeing that the dark chess pieces are more smokey than solid at this point and are easily swirled into mist in the wind. I am seeing the line of white between each chess piece become thicker, turning from a string to a cord. The cord becomes a web, and this web of light is pulsating across Gaia, anchoring into the ground, while a light web from our friends in the skies encases Gaia’s sky. It is becoming a beautifully intricate crystalline shape of rainbow light).
<...>
am the Galactic Center. Look around you, children, and hold hands. Walk across the bridge of your 5D thoughts and intentions towards Nova Gaia that you are creating in this glorious now moment. (I see that I am standing on transparent gems forming a bridge spanning the void. We are all walking upright, without timidity, for as we look behind us the transparency is gone. After we step on the transparent rainbow gem bridge our faith and creativity solidifies it. We are halfway across the void. I am linking arms with my fellow light workers on either side of me. We are forming such a long line I can’t see the ends of it. Behind us I see 3D earth. I see mobs of gray people, looking lost. They are peering out but they can’t see us. We are unable to feel their energies because we are vibrating so high, creating across the void. We are all so joyful! Some of us are running, others dancing, and the Galactic Center is so immense, so deep, so infinitely powerful it’s awesome to be a part of this moment. I see rainbow light coming up from beneath us, it is alive, the void is alive. I see Nova Gaia solidifying in the distance. I see there are people hanging out of windows, trees. I hear cheering coming from the glowing Nova Gaia. I see the distance is shortening. My heart leaps and feels very full. I am teary. We are all tearing up. Suddenly I see and feel a flash of light. All is light. All is light. Before we can feel sad about the gray people we are blanketed in light, like a motherly hug. I keep hearing “All is most well, my children of the light, for you have done the impossible. Welcome back. The nightmare is over.” I feel Mother’s pink blanket around us all. We are being healed from our traumas. I see the pink blanket extends all around 3D as well but those there can’t see it or feel it because their hearts look like small brown rocks that are not ready yet for the light of Mother’s pink love to penetrate. Light. I am being hugged. I am hearing happy yelling in the distance, like kids at a slumber party who are excited and happy. I am home).

Osiris #conspiracy subvertednation.net

The main secret about the moon may be that it’s an artificial alien satellite, parked in Earth orbit millions of years ago to stabilize the Earth’s rotation and precession in order to allow intelligent life forms to evolve. Prior to the moon’s arrival, the Earth’s rotation and precession may have been too unstable, leading to periodic cataclysmic pole reversals which wiped out all evolving life forms. Also, it’s well-known that the moon regulates the Earth’s tides. What were the Earth’s tides like before the moon arrived in orbit? Possibly unpredictable and tsunami-like?

Supposedly, seismic tests done on the moon have revealed that it is hollow, which isn’t possible with a real moon or planet. Adam’s comment about how unlikely it is that only one side of the moon ever faces Earth turned on a light bulb for me. Although I knew that was the case, I had never really thought about how unlikely it is.

I also agree with the comment that the “Cold War” explanation for the moon hoax doesn’t cut it, because the Jews have controlled Russia since 1917, and the United States since at least 1913, when the “Federal” Reserve was forced upon us. So, it doesn’t make sense that they would stage such a risky, expensive, and elaborate hoax just to make one puppet hand (the U.S.) “fool” the other puppet hand (the Soviet Union). The military, intelligence, and scientific directorates of the Soviet Union were surely intelligent enough and had enough espionage and technical capabilities to easily figure out that the moon landings were hoaxed, yet they never called the U.S. on it – they played along.

I don’t agree with the idea that the moon landings were hoaxed just as a way of funneling more money to Israel, because there would have been much easier and less risky ways for the Jews to do that. Imagine the risks they took to pull off multiple moon landings hoaxes – what if something went wrong, and their hoax was suddenly exposed to millions of TV viewers? There has to be something about the moon itself that they don’t want people to know, and therefore they took the huge risk of hoaxing the moon landings so that, as Adam said, NASA could later say, “Been there, done that. Nothing more to see on the moon – move along.”

Here’s an article about how NASA has issued orders to the private companies wanting to explore the moon to stay away from the Apollo “landing sites.” Most likely, because there’s nothing at those sites!

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=20051

Or, on a more hopeful and somewhat less “far-out” note, it could be that the Jew-created, German-bashing spoof movie “Iron Sky” is a reality, and that those “evil Nazis” may have antigravity ships and bases on the moon’s far side, waiting to conquer Earth. This sounds ridiculous, but there is actually a lot of evidence that the Germans had made incredible technological advances in the closing years of WWII, possibly including antigravity “flying saucers” or UFOs, and that they managed to ship those secrets to Antarctica and/or South America, where they developed them further. I can easily see why the Jews who control the U.S. and Russia would want to hide German antigravity UFOs and German military bases on the moon, if that is the case. It could also explain why U.S. and Russian nuke sites have been repeatedly probed by UFOs from 1947 up until the present day. Why would aliens from another star system be so concerned about our nuclear missiles, which could never reach them anyway? This “German UFO/ moon base” scenario could explain the NASA Space Shuttle video in which it appears that a missile was fired at a UFO in Earth’s upper atmosphere, which then immediately darted off into space to evade the missile.

Or, it could be that both scenarios are true – the moon is an artificial alien satellite, and the Germans have used their antigravity UFO technology to establish military bases there. I can certainly see why the Jews would want to hide such a reality from the people. If such a scenario is true, I’m pulling for the Germans!

MY HERO!! #fundie community.channel4.com

There are a lot of arguments against the existence of God (and heaven and hell) but what about Unseen Forces of Evil,wether you call them Satan or some other name.

1)Theres plenty of evil,death,disease and disaster in the world - a good argument,
for some people, against the existence of god but not against the existence of evil forces.

2)No scientific evidence? - well why would forces of evil want to leave evidence? It's perfectly logical that they would want to cover up their activities.

3)Their motives? - power perhaps or sadism.

4)Religions that believe in Satan also believe in lots of things that are,according to modern
science,illogical or unproven - Wouldn't that make them a great tool for 'forces of evil',use
religious fanaticism and fear to do your dirty
work for you on one hand and make yourself seem
so absurd to atheists and scientists (a possible threat?) that they don't believe in you
and they convince everyone else not to believe in you.

The theory of evolution and the big bang do nothing to disprove the existence of 'forces
of evil' since any such force would be destroyers/corruptors/manipulators rather than creators.

Marksman11 #fundie topix.com

#158457

For the origin of life to have evolved from non-living chemicals, first these chemicals had to first evolve and come into existence as a product of the big bang. No one was there to observe the big bang, so to say that these chemicals came into existence from a big bang that was a result of nothing known, is in itself, of the highest fantasy, and has no place at all in empirical science.

Ross Olson #fundie creation.com

When I discuss the creation/evolution controversy, there are all sorts of interesting responses to the evidence. People are basically unable to answer the powerful logical and scientific case for creation. So, many eventually say something like this:

‘But if creation is true, why don’t all scientists believe it? All scientists agree that evolution is true.’ Others do not say this outright, but it is an unspoken criticism which they see as an automatic veto of anything that seems scientifically unorthodox.

Can the majority be wrong? Most people admit that the general public may be in error. But they doubt that the majority of scientists could be wrong. This implies that science is somehow different from other human enterprises, and that scientists are immune to the foibles of non-scientists.

History shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time. It is unwise to bet your life on any scientific theory, no matter how popular it is. In fact, often those who have consciously sought safety by staying in the middle of the herd have ended up, like lemmings, in the middle of a stampede off an intellectual cliff.

Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis (1818–1865) found that by washing his hands between the time he examined dead bodies and the time he delivered babies, he could prevent certain illnesses in mothers and babies, and save many lives. He was appalled by the heavy death rate in Vienna maternity hospital when he worked there. He introduced antiseptics, and the death rate plummeted from 12 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Even though Semmelweis should have been declared a hero for this simple but powerful discovery, he was not. He was not even asked for his data. Rather, his idea was soundly rejected by his colleagues, and he was forced to return to his home in Budapest. Germs had not yet been discovered, and the physicians of that day had no theoretical basis for understanding the phenomenon Semmelweis was talking about. Even so, the idea would have been easy to test and was clearly of great potential importance. But they did not even consider it.

If we had quizzed the ‘dirty hands’ doctors at a particularly frank and honest moment, they may have said: ‘It just doesn’t make sense. If I can’t see it, it must not be real.’ Or, ‘What I don’t know can’t hurt me (or my patients).’ Or worse yet, they might have said, ‘If I admit to this, I will have to accept responsibility for untold past preventable suffering.’

Our past decisions may prejudice our ability to evaluate the present. A scientist who has based his career on calculating what happened during the first few moments of the ‘big bang’ will find it difficult to be open to evidence that the ‘big bang’ never happened. Great learning does not always make a person more honest and accessible, but it may increase the complexity of his or her rationalizations.

A young graduate student who believes in creation, but also knows that rejection of evolution would jeopardize his degree and career, may try to work out some intellectual compromise, whether it fits the data or not. (This is essentially a form of protective colouration which makes his beliefs invisible in that environment.) He is then likely to spend the rest of his professional life ‘agreeing with himself’. He may even ridicule those more forthright than he, partly because they prick his conscience.

Many scientists hold firmly to evolution despite the evidence. They know that without evolution they must consider themselves responsible to a creator. Their need to reject that possibility is so emotionally powerful that they hang on to evolution tenaciously.

Most of us assume the best about our fellow humans unless forced to think otherwise. Have you ever read a newspaper account of an event you know by personal experience, and found the story inaccurate or incomplete? You then probably wondered about the accuracy of other stories in the paper. Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions.

Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.

At one time or another, most children probably say to their parents (in support of some questionable activity), ‘But everybody’s doing it!’ Good Christian parents invariably say, ‘No, they’re not! But even if they were, you’re not, because it’s against what God wants for you, so it’s wrong.’ We should therefore become a bit wary if someone says, ‘But everybody knows…’, or ‘All scientists agree…’. They probably don’t. And even if they did, it might still be wrong.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

FLAT STATIONARY EARTH: Jesuits Behind the 500 Year Old SPHERICAL EARTH LIE - "WE CREATED THE BIG-BANG THEORY!!!"

Feel free to copy this and post it as your own post. Share and make it viral.This thread was posted once and was deleted by GLP's resident Jesuit astronomer mod,
although it does not go against any of the rules of the private forum that is GLP. This thread will be deleted again, so click on the 'quote' button, and copy all the text along with the Youtube codes.


The Goal: To place 'science' as bigger than scripture.
The subjugation of the wisdom of the scriptures to the agenda of the satanic Jesuits.
Around 1539 AD was the time the Jesuits converted humanity to the SPHERICAL earth representation of reality. Since then a stream of astronomers and scientists originated from the Jesuit church. Which is why the founder of NASA in masonic attire is no surprise. The Jesuits control the world via the Vatican, which is preparing for a big manufactured 'alien invasion' as a preparation to lay the foundation of Lucifer's new world order.

Quote:
Being both a priest and a former particle physicist at CERN, I am often asked to give talks on faith and science. Quiet often young people ask me the following question: "How can you be a preist and believe in the Big Bang?" To which I am delighted to respond:
"We invented it! Or more precisely , Priest Georges Lemaitre invented the theory that is today called the 'Big Bang' and everyone should know about him. [link to thesestonewalls.com]

Geroges Lemaitre:
Georges Henri Joseph Edouard Lemaitre was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely mis-attributed to Edwin Hubble. Lemaitre also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' or the "Cosmic egg."
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

[...]

Feel free to edit this, add to it, and publish as your own.


The Jesuits are a satanic worshipping cult , who go around dressed in black 'church' robes. During the middle ages, the Vatican was taken over gradually by the Jesuit Satanists, and today this cult practically runs the whole world. They use the trappings of Christian robes and symbols to cover their real nature. They are probably linked to the Knights Templar (research needed)

Satanic worshippers try everything to please Satan, and Satan wants only one thing; the complete take over of this, our spiritual earthly domain by the legions of inter-dimensional evil entities. The Jesuits agenda was to achieve this. In order to open up the portals to the demonic, the Jesuits needed to dismantle humanity's powerful spiritual links. Humans before the 16th century were well and truly anchored into the flat stationary domed Earth system, and thus felt special close to God. This protected them and made them strong. The Jesuits realized that they needed to take down this protective system by altering our perception .

So in or around the year 1539 they introduced and converted humanity into accepting their heliocentric view via Copernicus. Since then, as they already had control over the Vatican, they made this the de-facto reality of humans. All the the establishment "Astronomers", and "Scientists" originate from the aegis of the Jesuit Satanic platform. The Jesuits thus controlled ALL scientific knowledge and dispensed the 'truth ' according to science and humans have for the last 5 centuries accepted anything these Jesuit vermin dish out. Operation paper clip was launched as a way to control all 'space' exploration. Fictitious photographs and moon landings are their way to keep the populace in a constant state of disconnection.

The Jesuit agenda of opening up portals will most likely come in the form of a fake 'alien invasion'. Only thing is instead of aliens, what will come in through the portals (CERN maybe- research needed) will be hordes of demonic beings. This was shown by the Jesuit controlled Hollywood mind control movies like THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, PROMETHEUS, THE AVENGERS etc. In the Avengers you can see the Ironman enter a sky portal only to release a horde of demonic beings. BATMAN movies show the rising up of great evil onto our domed earth system.

Protect yourself by connecting to your real spiritual origins.

[...]

The Big Bang theory is a pile of dog-shit fiction created by the satanic Jesuits.

Look at it this way:
If the Jesuits can pinpoint and locate and event BILLIONS OF YEARS IN THE PAST< why is it so difficult for Jesuit Scientists to invent FREE ENERGY?

If these fake jesuit scientists can pinpoint the location of the Sun to 93 million miles out in 'space', why is it so difficult for them to cure cancer? Makes your brain go bump.

If you look at their work close, you will realize that these scientists are just dishing out fake shit. Their aim is to surround themselves with expensive equipment that only a few can access, and huge and complex formulae that they keep throwing on your face to invalidate your own innate spirituality.

waiting1 #fundie rr-bb.com

What kills me is that back in the 60's they conjectured by the Red Shift that the universe is expanding, and because the Mount Palomar Telescope could only see 4.5 to 5 Billion light years into space and therefor that was how old the Earth was and then they did all their crazy dating based on this reference point. I am amazed at how they hide their reasoning and facts. Why? because they now have the Hubble Telescope seeing 16.5 Billion light years into space yet they haven't readjusted their data based on this revelation, and they won't do it because it will expose their lies.

Anybody watch the loggers on TV, especially the water loggers ( no pun intended ) the cypress that has been underwater for about 50 to 100 years has absorbed minerals in the wood from the water to the extent that it gives a dazzling shimmering look to the wood when it is cut and sanded. If this fossilization / mineralization can happen with just 10 to 20 feet of pressure under water, then it stands to reason any animal or person who was swept away in the flood and the intense pressure of the great depths the flood buried all this debris under as shown:

Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
22 1/2 feet higher than the highest point on Earth.

This fossilization / mineralization would occur in a very short time.

They just won't accept the Truth about the flood and that it was about 4,000 years ago.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Ironic Hypocrisy in TwoXChromosomes right now

So over on TwoXChromosomes right now there's a post called "I was just catfished and it was kind of terrifying" posted by a transwoman. I commented before I realized. I'm not posting the link because I don't want them to get the notification and I really don't like brigading.

Anyway all the comments are like "OMG you poor thing, it's absolutely atrocious how men don't respect lesbian's boundaries and try to convince lesbians to have sex with them!"

Of course OP is a pre-op transwoman who previously posted "hey fellow women how can I make my voice cuter cause you all do that" and "does everyone want to be their favorite anime girl or is it just me?"

Reality is broken. This is peak. Seriously, how is this not an episode of South Park or the Twilight Zone?

(YahwehTheDevil)
That thread is fascinating:

"Here me out, I know you don't like dick but you haven't seen mine!" Fucking losers.

I’m a lesbian as well and have also been catfished by men, unfortunately multiple times. So many men just don’t take lesbianism seriously, and view it as a challenge.

You just don't appreciate the mystical power of dick! As if lesbians could actually be happy without dick, they're just deluding themselves! Then when you trick them into coming close you shove yours in their face and BOOM their delusion crumbles and they'll be desperate for your schlong.

I don't care if you are gay or straight that is not cool, who thinks anyone would want to start a relationship based on a lie?

I was supposed to meet “her” at the Walmart because it was near my house and in a public place.

If you don’t understand why a man catfishing a lesbian is creepy as fuck, you’re part of the problem

By misleading a lesbian and making that connection while in the guise of a woman, you pretty much out yourself as a creep and a liar. The connection was made via deceit

I'm of the opinion that, although adults should be allowed to get SRS and HRT, and that they shouldn't be discriminated against because of those things, people have a reasonable expectation for a man to have an actual, functioning penis, and for a woman to have an actual, functioning vagina. Genitals, while not a sufficient condition for attraction, are for most people a necessary condition, and to call yourself a woman when you don't have a vagina is deceptive.

I wonder if that thread would play differently if everyone know that OP was a pre-op trans.

(radfemanon)
It's almost like trans ideology is super duper homophobic.

(DifferentAirGC)
Off-topic, but I wonder if TIMs think the name of that subreddit is exclusionary and "TERFy"

(contecorsair)
There's a few xx subs like that, like xxketo for example, which I like/hope is for actual women and transmen, because biology matters, especially when specifically talking about something that effects your hormones and so many women, myself including, have absent or two week+ menstruation from keto or are using keto to help with diabetes and ovarian cysts. (And no transwomen are not "just like women with PCOS". Gag me.) There was this "I'm an XY women am I welcome?" Seriously, who other than trans ask if they are "welcome" on a sub? People are free to subscribe and post to any sub as long as it's relevant. Why ask? Even GC doesn't have a "no Transcribers" rule. They are just fishing for validation at our expense. Like, if I'm uncomfortable with it, like I am, what am I supposed to do? Say, "Actually, this sub is not for you, it's for people talking about the specifics of dealing with keto and how it changes the female body."? No. I'll be downvoted to hell and labeled transphobic. So they come seeking validation, I'm just asking an innocent honest question, no hate plz~ but we all know that there's only one allowed answer to the question or you get banned, downvoted, or threatened.

(lesbianisntabadword)
Go sort by “top of all time” on xxketo and you’ll find a post at the very top welcoming a TIM with open arms.

Many even suggest changing the name because xxketo is “exclusionary” and “chromosomes shromosomes”. And that was as of 74 days ago.

Many even had the audacity to say that women with PCOS could “relate to his androgen problems” so he should fit right in.

Uhh... seriously? I have PCOS and that does NOT make me relate more to a man, Tina. Get out.

So annoying!!

(SeverelyModerate)
I’m sorry .... WHAT?!!?! Are you fucking kidding me!? That’s enraging!!! Chromosomes DO matter when it comes to the expression of literally every gene in the body. Your risk of osteoporosis, certain cancers, certain diseases ... it doesn’t give a flying fart what the patient “identifies” as. I promise. And the PCOS thing has my head spinning like Beetlejuice. I can’t. It’s too stupid.

(lethalmachine)
I was just part of a thread where a TIF called me a dick. I said “I’m a cunt if you want to be technically correct” so he sent me a PM calling me a terf and all of those pleasantries. When I said “isn’t using genitals as an insult kind of terf-y?” He blocked me right after. The irony is ALWAYS lost on them.

(That90sCaliChick)
Oh trust me. There was a thread where a mother posted about her daughter being 18 and already being a cam girl. I suggested that there could be a chance she was groomed into it and I was dogpiled by these idiots who were pro sex industry!

That's so disturbing, you're probably right! I bet they were like oh no don't tell her to stop, give us her camera name

They didn’t ask for her camera name, but they were making the typical sex pozzer libfem arguments:

“But what if she knows other cam girls”

“You’re perpetuating the stigma.”

(Candentia)
I'm hoping if nothing else that seeing the dogpile on you would convince the mother to refrain from taking pro-porn arguments to heart. If she legitimately cares about what may be happening it's better that her daughter could have someone to talk to about it instead of being left to handle it alone...or worse, with no one but other sex-positive individuals (far more likely to find around her age today) who will offer nothing but encouragement for doing it.

(artificialgraymatter)
The guy in that thread that says lesbians and women should give him a chance as a platonic friend....

Women always owe men something.

*Edit: And I haven’t even gotten to the incel yet.

(Hooksandfangs)
Remind me why we’re not supposed to say these men are utterly revolting, again?

(Burbseverywhere)

LOL. This guy thinks that this other guy has anything in common with his lesbian mother.

I’m glad you’re safe...I should mention that I am a straight married male, but I grew up with a gay mother and I couldn’t imagine someone trying this to her, if you need any help trying to figure out witch VPN to go with I have a few in mind that should help you on all platforms, just let me know if you need any help

I love how these men white knight for trans but when a woman is harrassed it is her fault.

Silly womens acting so sensitive. /s

DoctorDoom #conspiracy freeconservatives.com

Let's suppose that the Kenyan-born usiurper leaves office on 20 Jan 2013. A day later is is revealed that he is not a natural-born US citizen. Want a constitutional crisis? There's one that could destroy the country. The United States went for four years without a president. Absolutely nothing that he did as POTUS would be valid. No bill that he signed would be law. No EO that he issued would be valid. No treaty that he signed would be in effect. No expenditures that he authorized would be legal. There would be a four-year vacuum of power.

This isn't a fugging game. It's a critical issue that must be addressed ASAP. That c**ksucker could end it in a matter of minutes, but he absolutely refuses, and has spent millions to prevent the answer from being given.

America has a need to know, RIGHT NOW. We're paying that arrogant, lying son of a bitch, and he's flipping the bird at us. Answer the f**king question, Obasshole!

FEZZILLA #fundie christianforums.com

If the world was burnt to a crisp by a astroid greater than all the nukes in the world. Then the dinosaurs and everything died and nothing could have survived. And astroid this big would also leave a BIG hole somewhere on the earth...there is none. Furthmore, since there is no evidence that the dino-bones weren't burnt to the crisp, then i'd say evolution is in big trouble. Acid rain would have also contaminated the waters and atmosphere, thus, throwing off carbon dating... The big bang?? Eternal universe??? Think about it...

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

Dreams of Dunamis #fundie dreamsofdunamis.wordpress.com

Today on college campus, one of my kids sensed something out of the ordinary. He sensed, a place on the campus grounds, that was light. Airy. Positive.

This ‘place’ didn’t stay in one area, but moved about slightly, within the general grounds of the campus.

This was very unlike the usual things my kids have seen and sensed on this public school campus. Usually, it is like walking among the living dead, within a future graveyard. (Their words, not mine.)

But today, there shone such…joy…there, that it caused one of my kids to go out and hunt it down. He wanted to see what was causing such glory to be found in such a usually dead place.

So He hiked clear across the campus, to where he sensed it was coming from. As they got nearer, he could see a very bright, clean, pure light. This light easily outshone even the sharpest ray of sunshine, yet was soothing to the eyes and his spirit.

As he came up to the light, he could see that the glorious bright light was actually caused by several angels clustered together in one area. He could see that the angels were guarding a group of people.

Before my son could say anything to these people, one of them turned to him and asked my son if he would like a copy of the New Testament and its Psalms and Proverbs. The person held out a small green booklet to my son, who took it with a smile and then said thank you.

My son looked around, and seen several of the others also handing out the New Testaments, and talking to the students about Jesus. He even seen one of the teachers there who happened to also be a believer, talking to them.

My son stood there for several minutes, just soaking up the peaceful atmosphere.

Then the people said it was time for them to say goodbye and go home. (It was just after the dinner hour.) So they left.

The angels and their light went with them.

Isaac #fundie yecheadquarters.com

Is the earth really 4.3 billion years old?
Yes. In a sense that God added this age to it so that it would work in a time line formation of how things would have been if the actual time had passed.

Does this explain why everything dates so differently?
Yes. If every object had come from the Big Bang, the dates for each would be much closer together then what we see. You would not have the same matter material on one side of space dating 18 billion years old. While the same matter on the other side only dates 4.3 billion years old. That's a "BIG" difference when it "all" comes from one source of matter. If your were to write out the numbers talked about on a sheet of paper. You would get a better idea of how much time a billion years really is. Science just throws these numbers around like they are nothing. But the magnitude of difference between 4.3 and 18 billion is just two much to comprehend as far as the actual passage of time goes.

Johan Fritz and James Rink #ufo #wingnut #conspiracy supersoldiertalk.com

Johan: My name is Johan Fritz. Like I said, I did a total of 40 years in a secret space program. I started off as a Kruger asset. I was then recruited from Kruger after a certain number of missions in the MDF. And once I went from MDF through training there, we did a set of missions and I was eventually recruited into Nacht Waffen because the style of missions I was doing through MDF. We had an individual who was there, he actually was the CEO of the Patten at the time and he was recruiting Nacht Waffen and Assets. and eventually he brought me in along with two other individuals from MDF on board his ship. And then I did the rest of my time via either Nacht Waffen or the last section of it was actually what CG is calling Space Alliance, which is actually project Radiant Glory. So, depending upon, the time period, I’ve done quite a few programs, and a lot of work.

James: First of all, I do want to apologize for saying your name, but you’ve actually been docs recently and we don’t want to talk about that. But Johan was your secret space program name, just like James Rink was the name I went by when I was – in the moon and James Rink. But anyway, despite that I do want to say first of all Johan has a lot of memory recall because for starters he was an upper level management and we were actually talking a little bit earlier about. How come a lot of people within the secret space program, whistleblowers or experiencers are not able to recall as much. And so why don’t you talk a little bit about what you said earlier about resisting the programming.

Johan: So essentially when anyone’s indoctrinated into the SSPs at all and any program, essentially, they go through a set of mkultra. They have multiple levels within mkultra depending upon what your job duties are going to be. And even on-board ship, we actually would even expand on that sometimes. We actually had equipment on board where we could upgrade people as needed. And what would happen is once that information was uploaded within 72 hours or tested. So, you get to this whole process of making sure that the actual programming takes, that you’re able to recall when they give you your alphanumeric key signatures that you’re able to step into that alter, all that stuff. But what you’re talking about is when they’re getting ready to step you out. I mean, they actually separate you from the programs back into, in my case, the US military, some folks go straight back to being a civilian again. And they have to make sure that you will not ever be able to recall anything that you did while in the programs.

So, one of the things they do is they will start off by injecting a chemical into your system, which puts you into what’s called a hypnagogic state. And while you’re in that state, they start using “friendly ETs” in the room who are actually sonically trying to put barriers in place to make sure you cannot actually recall these memories. One of the interesting features about neuro-plasticity, which is what we’re really talking about here, the ability for the brain to actually still be able to reach in and remember and do certain things and rewire itself is that when you, if you use pain to anchor certain portions of your memory, which is what I did when they had me in the actual bed, I was actually crunching my fingernails in the palm of my hand.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

UFOs are a hoax or PSYOP by the GOVT & Hollywood.

There is no proof for such a thing, even as most people carry around a camera.

The reason for this HOAX or PSYOP is the same reason as the moon landing HOAX - NASA Want to create evidence of Big Bang (because they lack real evidence.)

So if there is life out there somewhere, that means there are more planets, created by the Big Bang, not God.

The so-call UFO/ET Crop circles were made by the govt to trick the masses.

In the 1960s nobody believe in UFO/ET. Today?

Terry Watkins #fundie biblebelievers.com

Who, REALLY, is this man we affectionately call Santa Claus?

What do we REALLY know about Santa?

Is Santa just a jolly ol’, harmless, friendly fellow?

Or is there something or someone else hiding behind jolly ol’ St. Nick?

Before we look at Santa, let’s begin with some basic Bible facts:

The Bible clearly teaches a powerful, rebellious, subtle, evil being called the Devil, Lucifer or Satan.
Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
The Bible teaches Satan rebelled against God. And Satan’s reason for rebellion is to be God. Satan’s goal is to de-throne God and persuade mankind to rebel against God.
Isaiah 14:12-14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
The Bible clearly teaches Satan’s primary attack is the most vulnerable. In Luke 10:19, Jesus Christ compares Satan to lightning, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". Lightning, like Satan, always travels the path of least resistance. The Bible also likens the devil to a "roaring lion" The lion is a "predator of opportunity". The lion looks for the injured, the youngest, the smallest, or the weakest – the one with the least ability to run or fight. So it is with Satan. He’s "seeking" those "whom he may devour".
1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
The great German Reformer, Martin Luther writes in his Table Talks:

"The devil plagues and torments us in the place where we are most tender and weak. In Paradise, he fell not upon Adam, but upon Eve."
(The Table Talk of Martin Luther, #424)
The most vulnerable and least resistance are our children. It’s no accident that the Lord Jesus Christ distinctively warns several times against harming or offending these "little ones".

Matthew 18:1-6
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
The Lord Jesus invites, and encourages little children to come unto him. The younger years are by far the most spiritually fruitful in the life-cycle of an individual.

Mark 10:13-15
13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Luke 18:15-17
15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Without question the most fertile time in the average persons’ life for receiving and trusting the Lord Jesus is the pre-teen years. Any church bus worker or youth worker knows young children are very receptive to the gospel of Jesus Christ. For them that "child like" faith is natural. It’s what the Lord Jesus described in Matthew 10:15. As we get older; the sensual, youthful lusts and logical, carnal mind begin to dominate our minds. And as that happens, our heart becomes hardened and seared to the spiritual things of God.

Barna Research Group published a survey conducted among teenagers titled Third Millennium Teens. Under the subtitle "Displacing the Myths", the report said:

"The Myth: the teen years are evangelistically productive.
The Reality: if they're not saved by age 13, they probably never will be.
The report goes on to say, "The data shows clearly that the prime evangelistic years are those before a person becomes a teenager." (George Barna, Third Millennium Teens, p. 65)

If the most productive time of salvation are the pre-teen years, and if the pre-teen years are the most vulnerable – does it not stand to reason that Satan would fiercely attack this time? Can we not see the overwhelming evidence of this Satanic attack on our children? From the sexual, sensual music of Brittney Spears, or Nsync, to the occult and witchcraft of Harry Potter – there is an attack aimed directly at our children. It’s blasting from the TV, the music, the Internet, the peer pressure, the public schools – Satan’s attack literally "seeks" to "devour them" into every "nook and cranny".

Many parents have been "lullabied to sleep" with the deception that our children are innocently immune to the attack of Satan. There’s a false security that believes our children will naturally "grow out of it" or "they’re just sowing their wild oats" or maybe "they’re just being kids". But the Bible tells a different story. In Mark chapter 9, God details a frightening occurrence. A man brings his "spirit possessed" son to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mark 9:17-29
17 And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18 And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21 And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26 And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out?
29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
It’s interesting the apostles could not cast out this "kind" (vs 29). Jesus said, "This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting." What kind of possession was it? Is that why the Lord Jesus asked the man "How long is it ago since this came unto him?" And the man answered, "Of a child". Possibly, these "hard to cast out" kind are those that enter in a child. Is it because the "possession" reaches so deep and so strong that they’re almost impossible to remove?

In Proverbs 22:6, the Bible explains the lifelong fruits of training a young child in the way he should go. That early training is so strong and so deep – as that child grows and matures – they will not depart from it.

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
But. . . The flip side is: if that same child is trained by the ways of Satan and the world, chances are that child will "not depart from it." George Harrison, a devout follower of the Hindu god, Krishna, understood this life-long influence, Harrison told Rolling Stone Magazine:

"The main thing is to get the kids. . . nail you when you’re young and brainwash you, then they’ve got you for the rest of your life."
George Harrison, Beatles, (Loose Talk, Rolling Stone Magazine, p. 70)
It has been stated the foundation of a child is shaped by the time that child is five-years-old, maybe sooner. Without question, the early pre-teen or "Santa Claus" years are some of the most important in a person's life-long development. It has been truthfully said, "The hand that rocks the cradle controls the world."

That brings us to Santa. . .

Where does Santa Claus fit in the life of a young child? What about the teaching of Santa Claus in the psyche of a child? Is there more to jolly old St. Nick than meets the eye? Is Santa a clever, seemingly harmless, subtle (see Genesis 3:1) attempt to question the truthfulness of God? Is Santa the handiwork of Satan?

May I remind you of the "harmless" question, the subtle serpent, asks Eve in the garden? "Yea, hath God said,. . .?" So slight. . . So simple. . . And yet so deadly. . .

Not only that. . . Satan’s attack is not necessarily evil, or bad. In fact, it can be good, or even pleasant. The subtle temptation of Genesis reveals Satan’s clever "good and pleasant" message.

Genesis 3:6
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
As Eve saw the forbidden fruit, it was "good" and it was "pleasant" – and yet it was deadly.

The Devil is a "master of disguise". He can take that which looks good and pleasant, and seemingly so innocent – and make it so deadly. The Bible says in 2 Corinthians 11:14, "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light" He doesn’t appear with horns and a pitch fork breathing fire. He might just appear as a pleasant, friendly, fellow, with "a broad face and a round little belly, That shook when he laughed, like a bowl full of jelly. . ."

I believe, and will prove, Santa Claus is a subtle, deadly attack on our children to confuse, doubt and rob their God-ordained "child like" faith. Satan knows, if he can somehow get that child through those fruitful early years without trusting the Lord Jesus Christ – his goal of eternal damnation in hell increases substantially.

Evolution Facts, Inc. #fundie evolution-facts.org

[Obviously the fundamental forces do not exist.]

We have mentioned ten reasons why matter could not be made by a supposed Big Bang. But now we will discuss what would happen IF it actually had.

THE OUTWARD RUSHING PARTICLES

1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

Mr. Munchkinma #fundie answers.yahoo.com

my science teacher is obsessed with the big bang (if it even happend) and he yaps about how chistianity or budism are beliefs, and have no evidence to support them. if a theory is a belief that has proof to back it up, i asked him what proof there was to support the big bang theory. he talked about the red shifts, and how the universe is expanding. what i dont understand is how can scientists say that the universe expands and shrinks and when it shrinks realy small then explodes in a big bang. HOW THE HECK DO YOU COME UP WITH AN IDEA THAT THERE WAS THIS BIG EXPLOSION THAT CREATES A UNIVERSE JUST BECAUSE COLOR IS CHANGING ON A SPECTRUM? but what realy annoys me is all of the videos about the "big bang" and how these wacked up scientist talk about the big bang like they KNOW for sure that it happend. this is more of a rant than a question, but i just want some input.

Antarian Collective via Galaxygirl #ufo #crackpot #magick voyagesoflight.blogspot.com

We are the Antarian Collective. We are light weavers in our own right. (I am seeing light language codes become thin shiny gossamer-like fabric of the most vibrant pastels. They are weaving the light language into a fabric-like substance). We wish to imbue you and/or homes with this special fabric of peace. We are a peaceful race and nation. Long ago have we left the warring ways and we delight in anchoring peace. These light codes of our language and world are our gift to you today. We offer them freely to you. (I see they are now translucent light robes of vibrant pastel colors). Would you like to wear this? (Yes, thank you.) We offer them freely with love and deep respect to our light workers and family embodied on ground. You have many aspects, you have many forms. Be assured your success is nigh, in fact you have already succeeded. Oh, we realize that we may not be as exciting as some of our other friends, (I am seeing dragons), but we hold steady, we hold strong, as do you, our beloved family, our beloved ones. (They are weaving a vortex of rainbow light and colors around me. I see other light workers joining in all around the world. We are adding our light. We are weaving our own fabric and we have spanned the world with this light fabric of higher dimensional light language from not only the Antarians, but now more and more of our galactic friends are joining in. It is a fabric of multi-dimensional light language from many systems. It is singing. There is laughter, there is joy. It is becoming an orb of light language englobing Gaia and all upon her). Yes. We send forgiveness to the dark ones.

Little Bobby Tables Award

Can you win it??

back up and running! #announcement

If you are having trouble posting or seeing comments, send an email to admin@fstdt.org with your username, the browser you are using, and if possible, the IP address and ISP you're using when comments don't work. Also include any browser extensions you are using. If you prefer IM, I can be reached on Skype (search spikedee@openmbx.org) or AIM (screenname 'a nerd of sorts'). I will always fix the troll bouncer so you can comment and/or see comments again. Someone's priorities are way mixed up if keeping trolls out is more important to them than letting people use their site.

Also email or post any other errors and issues you encounter in the Site / Off-Topic Thread'!

I'm so sorry for all the downtime and any other problems!! I feel really bad for not giving you any tangible new features for the wait. I made a large number of fairly significant changes to the database, a few of them particularly major changes, like completely redoing the pubadmin table in anticipation for the FSTDT rewrite and also because of how extravagantly disorganized the pubadmin data was stored. (I discuss the details of that later in this post.)

Many changes also had to be made to the behind-the-scenes FSTDT code to accommodate for the database changes, and in one case something had to be all but completely rewritten. (When that happens, I just go ahead and get a head start on the rewrite's transition from C# back to VB — the current C# version is itself a transition from an earlier VB version — it's like some kind of bizarre cycle. I write the new code in VB, since then it will be usable in the actual big rewrite itself. A number of other changes unrelated to those necessary to accommodate the database changes were made, but none of them are major.

But the biggest change to the FSTDT server-side code, though, is that the new troll-detection and auto-cleanup system Piège-à-Pèpe (PàP) I've been talking about is finally in place and has a real name!! Much of PàP is still turned off on the server side for that reason, but everything on the client side is operational. It still does more than enough to be useful and justify going live with it.
_

Known issues

oopz

I scrapped the original Banned IPs table and replaced it with one that supports wildcards and does away with the surrogate key. This is not an "issue," but I sure as hell accidentally made one while I was working on this. I intended to export the original banned IP list and import it into the new table. Unfortunately, however, my executing a query with a single misplaced colon deleted the entire list of IPs. Since the old table had not been cleaned out in literally 8 years, I doubt this will be a major issue. Like half or even more of those lost IPs were probably Mabus in the first place. Yes, he really was that fucking crazy.

[aside]Gotta love SQL and how it will execute literally anything without asking the user if they're sure they wanna do that, not even if it is something that just screams "What this does is almost certainly a mistake, and YOU WILL REGRET EVER EXECUTING THIS!!!" If you know SQL, can you guess what the offending statement was and where I put the misplaced semicolon? If you can, I'll give you the prestigious Little Bobby Tables Award and put your name on it at the top of the page for all to marvel and envy.[/aside]

Losing the banned IP list means there's a small chance we'll see a slight increase in the number of trolls over the next few days. When and if they show their ugly troll faces, their IPs will be re-collected again and added back to the database. Piège-à-Pèpe will also help deal with some of it, so any issues with this should be fully resolved over the next few days. Still, if you see 'em, report 'em in the Site / Off-Topic Discussion Thread.
_

Proxy Penalization

This is not an issue so much as something worth noting. PàP heavily penalizes known Tor nodes and IPs from a certain major Turkish telecommunications company. If this is a problem for you because you accidentally trigger other penalization from PàP such that it incorrectly considers you a troll, then use another browser and/or a different proxy to access FSTDT. If you're completely stuck, contact me. (See info above.)

Though not done by PàP, a certain other hotbed of seediness that calls itself a web host and proxy server provider has been completely banned. If you're posting from an IP there, you're probably The Frog or someone else up to no good anyway.
_

The Croaking Cloaking Croat

PàP could quite possibly have trouble recognizing the Croat because the information and behavior PàP uses is all over the place for him. I don't know if it's deliberate or the result of him using a fuckton of different devices. He also avoids obvious Tor nodes, (likely because they were already banned here), but I know a Tor exit note emitted his verbal diarrhea at least once — and possibly twice or more if an anonymous commenter was him as I suspect.

[aside]On the other hand, Le Frog Français is much easier to spot. We will most likely be seeing much less of him as soon as his first IP is added to the fresh, new, and now-empty banlist. He unwittingly gives PàP a decent amount of information to work with and seems to think otherwise. That means his comments will be tossed out and their originating IP banned before they ever even reach the server code that adds comments. Try harder, bro.[/aside]
_

"Summary" of database changes (and relevant FSTDT code changes)

Cleanup

I removed a ton of dead weight from the database (empty tables and a surprisingly large number of columns created for abandoned features). Doing this also required removing references to said dead weight from the FSTDT code itself; despite never actually using it, quite a bit of code (especially related to user accounts) queried the database for it. Trying to do that now that it's no longer there in the database would throw a Kerblewy error.
_

New Banned-IPs table

As I mentioned earlier, the old Banned-IPs table has been replaced with a new one that supports wildcards and does away with the needless surrogate key, instead using the IP addresses themselves as the primary key.
_

New banned-strings list

The banned-strings list was also scrapped and replaced with something supporting wildcards. Since you're most likely not aware of the banned-strings table, what it does is that if you try to post a comment with a string in the table, the comment is simply ignored and not posted, and the quote page the comment was posted from acts like nothing happened. (It does not ban or monitor people who try to post comments with the banned strings; it just discards comments that contain them.) Nearly all of the banned strings are for automatically discarding obvious spam that resembles nothing a real user would ever actually post. Believe it or not, this pathetically simplistic technique actually catches almost all of the spam that somehow makes it past the "Check here" button.

Note that the names of both Le Frog Français and the Literal Motherfucker are in the banned strings list now, since saying them is like speaking Lord Voldemort's name. A few of other tics and words related to them are also banned. These are mostly Frogface's.
_

Stored procedures

In addition to the stored procedures I wrote working on the pubadmin table, I also wrote stored procedures to handle all of the other specific database-related tasks that the FSTDT code has to do, such as getting the comments for a quote and paginating them, logging in, submitting a quote, etc. (Aside from the occasionally mentioned exception, none of it is actually used in the FSTDT code right now, and the current codebase won't be updated to do so. This move was in preparation for the new upcoming rewrite I keep talking about. It will interact with the database exclusively using stored procedure insofar as possible. Unless you have good reason not to, I am ridiculously passionate about storing procedures in databases rather than using inline queries that reference the structure of the database, but getting into that will launch me way beyond the point.
_

Pubadmin database overhaul

I redesigned the entire pubadmin database table. Note that I didn't say I restructured the table, as that would imply I just shuffled things around a bit, maybe tided up a few loose ends, or made a lot of changes but very minor ones, etc. — no, I redesigned the pubadmin table. Doing this is where the protracted downtime came from and why the site had to be brought down.

I completely rethought not only how to store pubadmin data but also how to approach the task of handling the pubadmin system itself, both in database design and the site's code.

This post and "summary" is already long enough, so I won't go into detail, but I will say that this was probably the most needed and overdue change I made: the old pubadmin table was there and indeed stored pubadmin data, but pubadmin data was also strewn across three other unrelated tables besides the correct one. That data had to be moved in the process of redoing the pubadmin table and the columns that contained it deleted.

For those who don't know about how awful making structural changes to a large database is, this task necessitated creating a temporary table, copying the to-be-changed table's data into the temporary table, dropping (deleting) the to-be-changed table, creating a new table like it with the desired changes, copying the data from the temporary table to the new table, and finally dropping the temporary table. This obviously isn't technically changing the table but making a whole new one.

When your database is stored on a shared database server with 100 or so other databases, and the table you want to 'change' has over 100,000 rows and 15-20 columns, and its indexes have not be defragmented in a while, you're gonna be waiting a couple hours, and that's with the whole process being the only transactions taking place on the database and with you the only user accessing it. Having other users accessing the database would cause the transactions to be even slower to the point of timing out because they took too long.

And that is why we had to go down for maintenance and why we were down for so long.

[aside]If you can't change a table's structure, then it would seem a new table should be able to be created in "just" four steps (rename the original table, create the new table, transfer the data to the new table, and drop the renamed original table). You can do this when it doesn't violate any foreign-key constraints that create relations between data and connect their tables. Ignoring these constraints can compromise the referential integrity of your database and cause its relations to fall into such a state of disarray that they may as well not exist.[/aside]
_

Rewriting the pubadmin code-behind file

Since I completely redid the pubadmin table, I had to gut almost all of the FSTDT pubadmin code-behind file because it was coded to read and write data using the old table. I bet every query in the gutted code would have failed when attempted on the new pubadmin table. (Not having that happen is one of the major advantages of using stored procedures that tell the database what you want rather than telling it how to do it.)

The overwhelming majority of the gutted code was just that: literally gutted, i.e. removed from the codebase altogether. The remainder was kept in the code, but it was still gutted in the sense that it was commented out so it wouldn't be used. The parts I commented out and kept were ones that can be easily translated to VB and used in the FSTDT rewrite. By saving that code, I'll have a concrete launchpad from which to begin the process of writing the rewrite's pubadmin code.

[aside]Already having something tangible like that to work with from the get-go makes starting a project from scratch a lot easier for me, even though this is mostly just a psychological thing, and I often wind up not even using or replacing those parts. Am I weird for this?[/aside]

So quotes could be approved, the code-behind file for the PublicAdmin.aspx file had to be almost completely rewritten aside from the repeater controls that show similar quotes to check for dupes. They still worked because they were using stored procedures when I had my first glance at the database back in September of last year. The rest of the rewritten code also uses stored procedures and saved views, unlike the original code, which used a combination of inline SQL and a separate data access class that also used inline SQL itself.

PublicAdmin.aspx also had to be updated to remove controls that interacted with the not-reimplemented functionality, like issues and public admin being able to actually be used by the public again. (These issues will be fixed in the FSTDT rewrite at the latest.) Mods will probably immediately notice these changes on the page.

Mods, everything in the above paragraphs probably needs to be combed through for bugs because it was literally written in half a day. Report any issues you find, SVP.
_

Anyway, bear with me while I get any kinks worked out, and please let me know if you notice any. Post them in the Site / Off-Topic Thread, or if you think they can be exploited or pose a potential security issue, send a message to the email above instead or shoot me an IM.

Again, sorry for all the down time! I'll try not to do anything like this again.

Jean-Batave Poqueliche #sexist returnofkings.com

It is grim to realise that we have reached a point where our contemporary society is so sick, that it could be healthier for everyone if women were imposed the legal status of property instead of being free individuals. The fact that this absurd method could indeed create a safer society shows how cancerous our “progressive” Western world has become.

...

Women would keep the status of human beings even by becoming property. They would become the asset of a Senior Male Authority (SMA) from birth until his death or their own. In practice, the bond between man and female property would resemble the one between a legal guardian and a minor, incapacitated senior or mentally handicapped adult.

With women being children in adult bodies, the comparison is appropriate. But where the authority of the legal guardian expires in time, the right over female property would not be finite. All decisions would be taken by the SMA (father, older brother, then husband). The auction of a young woman from a father to a suitor of his choice would be agreed upon by setting a dowry.

Purchasing power would be in the hands of the SMA, preventing women to spend male income on frivolous and useless items like female “holidays” (the real sex tourism), designer clothes, drugs, club entrances and the like.

...

This measure would include the right of repudiation for the husband in case of serious misconduct. The decision would have to be studied and approved by a jury of adult all-male peers.

Repudiation would be efficient to keep women in line because they greatly fear being called out, held accountable, and losing resources or status because of self-inflicted behaviour, and this proposal would not deprive them from love. On the contrary, because of the affection that a man shows towards his property (added to the blood or family bound), the women he acquires will be safer. His “investment” has both a financial implication in addition to an emotional one.

To the triggered liberals, women are already property in Islam. But all I hear about it from the left on social media are crickets. Contrary to Shariah law, my theory does not include whipping, gang rape, honour killing, beheading or stoning when women are at fault.

...

10 societal benefits of declaring women legal property

1. No women in the military or police, so men and women would die less.

2. Divorce would plummet and single mommery would become a rarity.

3. No access to funds (under SMA supervision) for women would benefit the global economy.

4. Being a negotiable asset, women would be under constant male protection.

5. Women (and men) would die less of drug, tobacco, alcohol abuse and the heart diseases, cancers and violent or accidental deaths caused by it.

6. Due to heavy competition, women would have to be thinner, reducing the epidemic of obesity and the health risks that it involves.

7. Less child mortality and death during childbirth (women giving birth younger combined with better healthcare hence greater chances of survival).

8. No more left-leaning parties elected as women would be deprived of the right to vote.

9. Conservative governments elected by men would favour traditional families over leeches and degenerates.

10. Less domestic violence as women would avoid damaged men, having no personal resources (and hitting your woman would be like keying your own car: pointless).

...

7 ways this proposal would bring balance to the sexual market

1. No more welfare policies encouraging women to remain single or raise bastards. Welfare would be focused on those who need it the most, like veterans or the elderly.

2. No more inflated ego and instant gratification through attention whoring on social media. Its restricted access would create saner women. Promotion of degeneracy would be greatly reduced in the mainstream and social media.

3. No Instagram prostitution for wealthy sheikhs, being defiled for platform shoes and handbags with “stylish” patterns worthy of a child doodle.

4. Women would actively seek males based on their ability to provide, as they would have no alternative access to wealth.

5. Males would access a healthier sexual market, their hard work being rewarded by regular sexual intercourse, relative loyalty and children.

6. No more violent third world hordes imported by the votes of bitter women. No more homosexual agenda, gateway to the next great taboo, the pedophile-friendly agenda.

7. Professional advancement and success earned by women through sexual favours, like the one popular in Hollywood, would virtually disappear as adultery would be a valid reason for repudiation. “Promotion through horizontal refreshment” would only be used by already repudiated women, nothing of value would be lost.

...

It is not a panacea. The nature of women can’t be changed, but women-as-property would be finally held accountable after the “empowered” ones spent such a long time driving the Western world into the ground.

William Retzel #fundie quora.com

To build a case for the reality of God, we must start with the evidence for God. We have to show that first a Higher power exists. Second: if its one or many Gods. Third: if its a deist type it theistic type. Fourth: what makes the theistic God true of the Bible compared to Islam. Five: whats the evidence for Jesus and if Jesus claims to be God does the evidence support that. The evidence below will shed light on every one of the questions above.

The Kalam study, Ontological, teleological, archeological, biological, philosophical, historical, forensic evidence, manuscript textual criticism, early church fathers letters, secular sources, eye witnesses, amazing 360 degree life changes once hearing or seeing the truth, testimonials, prophecies fortold in the past and recorded historical events actually took place, moral law that is transcending, space,time, and matter came into existence during the big bang which means before the big bang there was no matter or natural relm. It took something from the supernatural relm that had to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent. All points to a theistic God.

Just from secular sources, manuscripts, fragments, and early church fathers letters brings even the scholar skeptics to admit our current Bible is atleast 98% accurate to the original sources.

Making the Bible the best evidence to show who God is.

Cold case detective J Warner Wallace who has been on tv a few times for solving really old cold cases decided to try and prove the Bible wrong by using forensic science and investigating the eye witness accounts. Which surprised him how accurate they came to any eye witness accounts he had came across many times and eventually the evidence led to accept Christ.

Christianity became true when the very real historical the Jesus called Christ was crucified and from eye witness and secular sources speak of this event happening. Then something crazy happened 3 days later that gave great courage to the scared and hiding disciples that they gave their lives for claiming Jesus had risen ( in which only God can defeat death). Something turned the middle east and Rome upside down and Christianity spread like wild fire. The early church creed almost sounded as if I dare you to investigate the still alive eye witnesses for yourselves.

AimeeGurl #fundie iflscience.com

People are idiots for blindly believing in science. People who believe in science think it's not a faith but you don't realize more than half of science is based on things you can't see. You guys swear buy big bang but you weren't there to see it. I have a witness, God, who is yours? Science can't even figure out how to cure cancer or isolate it from the gene pool so it is no longer a hereditary problem. I have someone who can do all that and more, God. Where's your super doctor? Oh can't help because he didn't make the phenomenon that is the human body? Tsk. Tsk. Every time you see a "theory" that's something that's not guaranteed to be correct that's just something accepted as correct by a bunch of flawed people. Science and math are plagued with them. You're putting your faith in people that aren't perfect and that makes you comfortable because you aren't perfect but imperfect people can't lead you to perfection. I am a science and math major and I'm not half as dumb as people on here. Being Christian doesn't mean to be ignorant, I know to look for the science in the world my God created and I'm thankful for every bit of knowledge I get but with that understanding also comes the ability to discern what what I need to pass class and what science is questionable. You rely on science to keep you alive everyday and it fails, everyday. I rely on God to keep me alive everyday and even when they bury me in the ground I'll be alive because that's what being a Christian means. Atheist and scientists don't bother me for not believing in God you guys bother me because you don't accept your "faith" and circumstances for what they are.

Fj Robertson #fundie facebook.com

I have read through many of the creationist responses to the evolution concepts. While I understand that you are all doing them for good intentions, I disagree with the methods. Those pseudoscientific arguments are always easily debunked by the evolutionists, and do not hold up. It would be much better if we Christians stopped trying to disprove evolution with "science" and just stick to the Bible. After all, one who believes without seeing is blessed.

We Christians must believe in creation without questioning. All of God's word is true, every single thing. What is said in Genesis must be followed and obeyed. The world was created in 6 days, no questions asked. We do not know why there is so much evidence for evolution and Big Bang and none for creation, and we do not know why there are dinosaur fossils to be found when they clearly could not have existed. However, our job is not to question but to believe. No matter how much evidence there is for evolution or Big Bang, we must hold on to creation and never falter to modern science. In the whirlwind of science that contradicts God, the Bible is what we can hold on to.

ImmortalLegend527 #conspiracy abovetopsecret.com

The triangle flying alien space ship has never and was never a flying vehicle driven by aliens in a reverse engineering sophisticate UFO that fly’s beyond the speed of light.

ATS

Every Real sighting of the real Triangle shape entity, is the ‘all Seeing Eye of God’

Three ENERGIES THAT ARE IN FORMATION AS A TRIANGLE

I, this mystery woman, and maybe this video can help bring to light what the world is actually seeing. I will be the first to tell you, what is in the middle of the three energies that form the triangle shape…is nothing but another Universe.

In the middle of the triangle is nothing but billions of stars, all you can see is space. A ship has nothing to do with it, aliens do not ride inside, it has no reverse engineering there are not light, AND they are not engines and cloaking has nothing to do with this.

If I am right, every one on earth has actually at some point in their life, witnessed the all ‘Seeing Eye of God’ and if I am wrong well, floating around on earth is a REAL ‘Portable Portal that leads to another universe’ iml527

…Maybe that’s why the Bermuda triangle came into play in this world ?

James Laffrey #racist whiteswillwinparty.org

Trump: Right and Wrong

This morning in my car, I heard on the radio that Donald Trump won yesterday’s (s)election for the next president of the United States of America.

Back in the primary season, I said that Trump was another “designated loser” whose job was to make the half-awake Whites think they had a viable representative in the electoral process. Thus, the built-up steam of rightful anger among the half-awake would be vented off, and the jews could go on about their normal anti-White business.

So, I was wrong about Trump being a “designated loser.”

When Trump won the Republican nomination for president, my thinking was forced to change. I retreated to the foundation of solid rock.

Since I don’t have a short memory, since I have researched and analyzed a lot of history, it was easy to note that the jews don’t let a two-term president be followed by another president of the same party. They keep flipping back and forth. There’s a great little one-panel cartoon showing an American in a car and alternately shifting from forward to reverse, either way crashing into a wall in front of and behind the car. One wall is Demo, the other Repub. So, knowing that Trump was likely to get the paper crown, I fell back to saying what was certain: Trump is another lying crypto-jew.

Adolf Hitler correctly noted that Communism and Democracy were, and are, two sides of the same jew-owned coin.

Likewise, Republican and Democrat are two sides of the same jew-owned coin.

I am right about these things.

Foundations

Our original WHITE Founding Fathers had no parties. They were all Whites for a White USA. They established a Republic of semi-sovereign States, NOT a Democracy. They were for fair and free Commerce, NOT Capitalism which was later invented by the jews for the jews. And then only 12 years into U.S. history, the jews succeeded in their monumental CON in overthrowing the original USA of the Articles of Confederation and foisting their CONstitution upon our White country. Read all about that here in my historic one-of-a kind article.

How did the jews — James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, et al. — get away with it? Our Founding Fathers didn’t know about crypto-jews. They only knew about the jews who openly identified themselves as jews, and they thought being a jew meant a religious affiliation rather than being a member of the parasitic, devious, heinous anti-human race. Also, the Founders were surely war-weary. And as Whites, yes we must admit it so that we can overcome it, they were gullible to jew lies.

And immediately after establishing the CONstitution, the jews caused divisions giving rise to parties.

Adolf Hitler said he used the party structure in order to win power but that he planned for a future of no parties, just Germans. Sounds great.

That’s what I want. That’s what I see for our future: No parties in the USA, just Whites. A government by Whites, of Whites, for Whites, in the White States Of America.

Conclusion

So, Trump. I began my big wake-up when Obama was (s)elected and then immediately appointed known criminals from the Clinton administration. Maybe some more of our fellow Whites will begin their big wake-up when they see Trump appointing known criminals from previous administrations. Also, because of the Internet’s ubiquity now, our fellow Whites will have an increased possibility of becoming awakened to the fact that Trump is already surrounded by jews that he chose to be surrounded by, and that Trump’s new appointments will be all or nearly all jews. (Note: I use the nonpersonal “that” rather than the personal “who/whom” whenever I want to in referring to the anti-humans, who do not deserve human status.)

The only slightly interesting aspect for us is whether Trump will mostly appoint jews that are hard to identify as jews or whether he will appoint a slew of the already known and obvious jews.

Did I say it yet in this article? Trump is a crypto-jew. Has to be. A White man is not given the opportunities by jews that Trump has been given. The jews do not give tv fame and wealth to White men. The jews do not give massive banking help to White men to survive and make comebacks from massive bankruptcies. Doesn’t happen, folks. The jews push us down. They bankrupt us. They do not prop us up. Therefore, Trump is not a White man. Period.

But now the half-awake have had all their steam vented off. Trump will be shown to have lied about nearly everything that matters. When he doesn’t do what he promised he would do, he will use the age-old excuses of “a contrary Congress,” and information he “wasn’t privy to” before he became president, and Climate Change, ha ha, and on and on.

It was so-called conservative Republican Ronald Reagan who did the first big amnesty for invaders. Yes, I say “invaders,” while the jews used to say “illegal immigrants” and now say “undocumented immigrants” and simply “immigrants” and “migrants.” They are all vile invaders and more of us should simply be killing them. (I plan an article on this subject.) You see, a Republican could get away with doing what Reagan did at a time when a Democrat would have been lambasted for “overdoing” his liberalness.

That’s how it works. No matter which jew party’s animal mascot is on the balloon at the White House festivities, the jew agenda advances. The elephant pushes it forward or the donkey pulls it forward, each to whatever extent the gullible, dumbed-down, medicated, intoxicated, self-poisoned populace will tolerate.

How about a prediction? Democrat jews couldn’t get gun control to go forward. But Republican jews will be able to, to some extent. I predict they will. The NRA (National Rifle Association), led by crypto-jews, went all-in for Trump because Trump made the appropriate noises in favor of the “Second Amendment.” Hillary Killary Clinton promised to be a gun-grabber — not a grabber of her fellow jews’ guns nor her jew bodyguards’ guns, of course. Not Negroes’ guns. Not Mexiturds’ guns. Whites’ guns. Our guns.

So, Trump will advance the jew agenda against us. He will help the jew bankers continue their massive crimes. He will sign some kind of limits on guns or ammo, or on private sales, or he will advance the recording of gun-owner registrations. He will not deport enough of the shitskins illegally and wrongly alive inside our country. He will not even try to force the jew-owned corporations to pay us a living wage instead of the current poverty wages. He will, certainly, continue the massive funding of jews-only Israel. He will not stop the U.S. Military Murder Machine from killing anybody but jews around the world for the sole benefit of jewry.

A problem now is that the masses who wanted Trump to win will wait and do NOTHING while waiting to see what will happen, bit by bit, month after month, year after year. And as Trump’s deeds display step-by-step his true DNA, the jewsmedia will trump-up other secret jews pretending to be better-than-Trumps for the still-ignorant masses to pin their hopes on and say their stupid prayers for.

Those of us with both Knowledge and Wisdom have seen it all before. We know that waiting is continued slow suicide. We know that the solution is to kill the invaders — including all jews and the shitskins that the jews invited in, no matter how many generations they’ve already been here.

White heroes are wise, careful, courageous, effective killers of the enemy. One by one. Two by two. Occasionally, groups of jews, when such great opportunities arise. White heroes, for now, tell no one. White heroes choose the best advice from the articles listed at the bottom of this website, and adapt that advice for their skill sets and situations.

We are falsely asked if we “want a race war?” There already is a race war, a long-running race war. It’s all anti-White. We need that race war to flare up so that it is in our fellow White MEN’s faces, and then they will rise to join us, and finally we will win the race war once and for all.

Trump, surrounded by jews, says he will “make America great again.” Only our America WHITE again will be great again. Only Whites ever made a country great for Whites. Only Whites will do it again.

goldliger #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that God is/was its author.)

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

Thanks for reading.

John A. Davison #conspiracy jadavison.wordpress.com

Barack Hussein Obama is the only truly dangerous president in our history as a Republic. He hates Democracy in any form and will go to any length to destroy it. Jerome Corsi properly identified this man even before he became President with his “The Obama Nation.” I would not be a bit surprised to see Obama engineer a devastating attack on the homeland from his radical allies in the arab world. Such an attack would allow him to declare marshal law and further his ambition to nationalize the entire economy. His treatment of Israel is a disgrace and reveals the real Obama as the enemy of Democracy wherever it may exist. Nothing would please him more than to see our ecomomy collapse entirely. That is how Adolf Hitler gained power in Germany. I hate to have to paint such a pictue of our President but his history both genetic and post partum leaves me no alternative. In my opinion we have a mortal enemy in the White House. What makes matters worse is a Supreme Court which I believe has become impotent to implement the Constitution as defined by the Founding Fathers. Our affluence has weakened our will and ethical fiber as it has other civilizations before ours.

Zachary Austin Harris #fundie onelord.cn

(Zachary Austin Harris would really like to see a return to arranged marriages in the proper biblical fashion)

Let me reemphasize my main point in summary, for I know how easily my statements could be misrepresented. I do not think that proper Biblical interpretation would lead us to conclude that Christians must use the arranged marriage system. If anyone's response to this essay is to say, "Oh but just because arranged marriage is in the Bible doesn't mean we must do the same today," then clearly they haven't read what I have written. And yet, although the Bible does not command it for us, I certainly don't see that anything in Scripture would turn us away from the arranged marriage model. But on the contrary, the arranged marriage model is in fact very much in line with Biblical principles about how godly families operate. And indeed, I have a hard time to see what advantages other models (such as dating and courtship) have to offer.
The Bible does not mandate the arranged marrige model. But what if we approached the Scripture without our heavy cultural bias against arranged marriage. Would we find reason to reject arranged marriage? Would we find convincing evidence to persuade us towards the benefits of courtship or dating?

* For Christians living for Christ, singleness is, in the absolute sense, the greater "ideal", for those who are "able" (1 Cor 7). When I speak of a godly arranged marriage system as being the "ideal picture" I am speaking in contrast to dating and courtship systems. I do believe that the arranged marriage system is a preferrable ideal over the dating system, but for those who are "able" to remain single, that is the most ideal of all.

Miles Williams Mathis #conspiracy mileswmathis.com

[From "The Glen Ridge Rape was Faked"]

This event allegedly happened in 1989, before the golden age of hoaxes, so we find no exposés of it on Youtube. I could find nothing off Youtube, either, but didn't look past the first pages on a search. So I guess I am in virgin territory here, so to speak. Just where I like to be. The first thing we find is that Glen Ridge is a very wealthy community in New Jersey where the median family income is above $175,000. Although the population is only about 7,000, Glen Ridge has a long list of notable people, including Buzz Aldrin, Tom Cruise, Edward Mitchell, Cindy Sherman, Kerry Bishé, Alison Stewart, Don van Natta, and internet hoax artist Mike Z. Tom Cruise graduated from the high school at which the event occurred, although he was of course there about a decade earlier. This leads us to the discovery Cruise's father worked as a defense consultant for the Canadian military. In other places this is scrubbed by telling us Cruise's father was an electrical engineer, but Wikipedia admits his father worked for the Canadian military as a defense consultant. The family moved around a lot, which leads us to ask what a defense consultant was doing in Glen Ridge in 1980. There must be a defense facility in the area we aren't told about. Perhaps it is the Picatinny Arsenal about 15 miles to the west. According to their website, they supply all conventional ammunition for the armed forces and 90% of the Army's lethality. Wow.

[...]

The next thing we learn is that one of the boys initially charged with rape in the Glen Ridge case was Richard Corcoran, Jr., son of Glen Ridge's Chief of Detectives. This is curious, is it not? That the Chief of Detectives in this small community would find his own son involved in the event? Well, it gets curiouser and curiouser. Lieutenant Richard Corcoran, Sr., was in control of investigating the case. We are told he assigned Detective Sheila Byron to the case, but they admit it was his decision who to assign, which means he was in ultimate control of the investigation. In 1994 the prosecution against Corcoran Jr. was dropped for no good reason. The reason given was that the victim's family no longer wished to press charges, but five years on that makes no sense. Why had the prosecution of Corcoran not proceeded long before that? Perhaps because Corcoran Sr. had stalled the investigation? Or was it to allow Corcoran Jr. to join Special Forces?

That's right, this same Richard Corcoran, Jr. applied to Special Forces and was accepted. How does that work? Is it the custom of Special Forces to admit young men indicted on nine counts of rape and torture? You will say he is innocent until proven guilty, but given that all these young men were found guilty in the press long before their actual convictions, that claim doesn't hold much water. Remember, Corcoran was accused by the victim herself in courtroom testimony of actually wielding the stick that penetrated her, so it is difficult to understand how he could not be one of the major players here or how he could not be one of the first ones taken to trial. Seeing that according to the mainstream story, Corcoran appears to have skated based on good fortune more than anything—or more likely the influence of his family—it is somewhat astonishing to find Special Forces considering him a good candidate. I have had friends go into Special Forces, and they background check you all the way to
Mars and back. The Glen Ridge event was a huge national story, so there is no way they overlooked it. I suspect they knew something about the event we didn't: namely, that it never happened.

What you need to know here is that Special Forces is closely linked to the CIA, since both their operations include covert ops and various other intelligence operations. Special Forces historically came out of the OSS and CIA. So to see Corcoran Jr. accepted into Special Forces after the Glen Ridge event is a huge red flag.

But the mystery doesn't quit, since in 2005 this same Richard Corcoran allegedly killed himself in an attempted murder/suicide near Ft. Bragg. To get to that story requires you go to the Wayback Machine, since it has been memoryholed by The New York Daily News and the Associated Press. We also learn from that story that Corcoran won a $200,000 settlement from Essex County in 1997 for malicious prosecution. That's right, not only did Corcoran mysteriously dodge prosecution despite testimony from the victim that he wielded the stick that penetrated her, he actually became $200,000 richer from the event. Given all that, do you believe this Richard Corcoran really died in 2005 at age 34? I don't.

What I suspect is that Corcoran Sr., the Chief Detective of Glen Ridge, also had a military or Intelligence background, and that he was linked somehow to a nearby base. The event would then have been coordinated from there. That is the way it is normally done. Curiously, a people search on this Richard Corcoran pulls up nothing at Intelius. There is no Richard E. Corcoran of his age listed as ever having lived in New Jersey or Glen Ridge. So Intelius has been scrubbed. If we go to InstantCheckmate, we do find a listing for him. He is 69 and has the same relatives as his son. He is also listed as having lived in Henderson, Nevada. This is curious in the extreme, seeing that Nevada is
famous for its secret military bases—and not just Area51. There is a large area south of Henderson blacked out in a Google Search. Beyond that, an unmarked base nearby was recently discovered by locals, making Youtube in 2013. If we take that info back to Intelius, we find that his son of the same name has also lived in Henderson.

[...]

The author, Bernard Lefkowitz, couldn't find any interest in the book from big New York publishers and had to settle for the University of Nebraska Press. In 2006, Steven Hart from Opinion Mill asked him about this, finding it odd that such a high profile case with so much publicity wouldn't interest a major publisher. No good answer was forthcoming. But I have a suggestion. University of Nebraska is in Lincoln and also has a presence in nearby Omaha. Offutt Air Force Base is between the two cities.
This is headquarters of the US Strategic Command, but in 1989 it also was headquarters of the Strategic Intelligence Wing. So it is possible Intelligence has its hand in U. of Nebraska Press. No, make that probable. Intelligence has its hand in all US publishing.

Lefkowitz is a curious character as well, having taught journalism at Columbia and also having been an assistant editor at the New York Post. The Post was run by the granddaughter of Jakob Schiff until 1976, when it was bought by Rupert Murdoch. Lefkowitz had been in the Peace Corps. All these things are potential red flags, as we know. But it is the Jewish connection that is most curious. He is Jewish of course, and it turns out the University of Nebraska Press has strong connections to the Jewish community, although we aren't sure why or how. It has a collaborative arrangement with the Jewish Publication Society.

A movie was then made based on Lefkowitz' book. See the under title photo above. Usually, when you see a movie made from a book like this—one based on a sensational headline story—that is more indication the event was faked. Hollywood was an Intelligence creation from day one, and one of the reasons it was created was to make films to back up their propaganda projects. First they run a fake event, then they hire someone to back it up with a book, then they make a film from the book. Each time the story is retold, another layer of lies and emotions can be added.

Now let's look at the event itself. The victim was said to be a mentally retarded girl, but with more research we discover she was co-captain of the high school's junior varsity softball team. Since captain is normally an elected position, it is strange to find a challenged girl in this position. It is also claimed she had been raped six years earlier. She would have been only 11 then. She is now said to work in a department store in that same town. Again, this would be impossible given her IQ of either 49 or 63.

[...]

In that one report, we get two major clues. Not everyone on the ground believed the event. Not even the girls who attended the high school believed it. But we rarely heard from them. And why didn't they believe it? Because it wasn't believable. Why would the handsome quarterback rape a retarded girl? He has his pick of dozens of hot girls, so why would he be interested in this retarded girl? The story makes no sense in dozens of basic ways. It is full of huge holes. That one hole was the first red flag that led me into this hoax.

[...]

After being convicted of rape, Chris Archer and the Scherzers were allowed to remain free on bail while the case was appealed. Really? Is that how it works? None of them served time until 1997, eight years after the alleged crime. In a real event, it wouldn't happen that way. They don't let convicted rapists roam free while waiting for appeal. Why would they? Say one of these guys rapes again: well, the victim can then sue the county for gross negligence and huge damages. It doesn't happen.

[...]

They went to a “campus-style youth correctional facility”. Although the Scherzers were 18 at the time of the crime, the judge classified them as “young-adult offenders”. You may wish to compare this to what you are told in other high-profile crimes, where 14 and 15 year olds are tried as adults. Kyle Scherzer was said to have been released in 1999, after serving 2 years of a 7-year sentence. The other two, said to have been sentenced to 15 years, are said to have served only 4 and 5 years. My guess is the young men weren't to be found at this youth correctional facility at all.

[...]

Of course the appeals court finding that the girl was both of age and complied with the acts was never reported in the mainstream or academic press. No one on either side of any debate ever mentions that fact.

Most will now admit this event is suspicious in the extreme, but they will say, “OK, maybe it was manufactured by CIA or someone, but why?” Why would anyone want to fake a horrible rape of a retarded girl by good-looking football players? Answer: as part of the longterm project to demonize men and boys, and especially attractive ones. See my paper on Ted Bundy, where I try to explain it for the first time. Or see the books of Christina Hoff Sommers, such as Who Stole Feminism? and The War on Boys. A resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, Sommers admits this has happened and is happening, and she outs many of the academic projects of the past 30 years. Unfortunately, after outing these projects, she pursues her own project of demonizing men and boys, though in a slightly more subtle way. I have recently outed her, and this paper was a spin-off of my close analysis of her books and bio. She uses the Glen Ridge case to support her own analysis of boys and men, which forced me to take this closer look at it. Of course she never questions the mainstream story, only giving us a 3-page retelling it, with no mention of the appeals court finding.

But why demonize men and boys? To separate the sexes. It has been a long term goal of the billionaire industrialists and Plutocrats to drive a wedge between the sexes. Why? Because this creates trauma, and trauma increases all sales. Scared and traumatized people buy more stuff, period. Happy people in good relationships are lousy consumers.

Got Questions #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "Is the universe eternal?"

Answer: The Bible makes it clear that the universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning, and that the beginning was its creation by God (Genesis 1:1). This truth has been denied by philosophers and pseudo-scientists who have come up with a variety of different theories in an effort to “prove” the eternality of the universe. Further, atheists will say that matter and energy are eternal, following the first law of thermodynamics—“Energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed.”

Philosophically, why do we have something rather than nothing at all? If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause, and therefore cannot be eternal. And every drop of evidence we have points to the universe having a beginning, but this truth is not something welcomed by naturalists and atheists. Numerous scientifically minded atheists have expressed a desire to find a loophole to the scientific fact that the present order of nature had a beginning. Unfortunately for them, such a loophole does not exist. Here are five proofs that the universe is not eternal:

(1) The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).

(2) The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding.

(3) The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded.

(4) Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”

(5) Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.”

Further, it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind. In the end it is either matter before mind or mind before matter, and all scientific, philosophical, and reasonable evidence points to the latter.

In conclusion, we find that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning, just as the Bible states, and that a Cause must exist that resembles all we know today. As Lord Kelvin, a British scientist once said, "If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God."

David Kupelian #fundie wnd.com

A final warning: There is one perfect crisis for Obama and the entire progressive left, one event that would serve as the ultimate validation of all their delusions, fantasies and projections, something that would validate every prejudice, lie, unworkable idea and failed policy they espouse.

The one event that would be Barack Obama’s grand-slam homerun would be if, in response to the ever-increasing outrages and provocations of the left, someone on “the right” becomes unhinged and goes violent in a big way.

That terrible event would constitute the perfect answer to all Obama’s problems, the fulfillment of the left’s fondest dreams. Haven’t you wondered why the liberal media are always painting the tea party as racist without a shred of evidence, and are always hoping out loud that every new terror act or school shooting was perpetrated by a conservative? Didn’t you see how the media fell over one another trying to portray – ridiculously and incorrectly – the Boston Marathon-bombing Tsarnaev brothers as right-wingers, and how ABC News reported – ridiculously and incorrectly – that the Aurora, Colo., movie theater mass shooter might be a tea-party member, and how the Department of Homeland Security painted pro-lifers, constitutionalists, libertarians, NRA members and returning war veterans as potential “right-wing extremists” and terrorists?

Why do they do this? Because, in their imaginations at least, violence on the right would validate their narrative. Worse, it would finally seem to justify and even necessitate Obama’s violations of Americans’ core liberties – gun control and confiscation, censorship of conservative news and talk radio as “hate speech,” the growing police state, advanced surveillance state and so on. All would be seen as necessary restraints against all those conservative terrorists out there.

Of course, in the turmoil (and secret left-wing revelry) over a major “right-wing terror attack,” forgotten and irrelevant would be the fact that you – and tens of millions like you – are being forced to obtain new and much more expensive health-care insurance. After all, we’re under attack by right-wing extremists!

It’s the perfect crisis.

On a more personal note, here’s something to keep in mind during these difficult times: When you’re upset and angry, you can be negatively transformed in many different ways. When you’re not upset and angry – when you’re cool, calm, collected, centered, thinking clearly, cheerful, confident and full of faith – you’re invulnerable to being transformed from the outside, no matter what happens. Instead, being faithful to God, you are being transformed from within, and what’s more, you will tend to quietly transform (influence) – for the good – everybody with whom you come into contact.

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” – Romans 12:2

Carico #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

After an OP in which she claimed that the big bang formed the earth, and being told she was mistaken:

"False. The Big Bang claims that energy can be converted into mass and that's how the earth was formed. And since explosions can't come from nothing, then the Big Bang can't explain the formation of the universe. Sorry."

Alexander Chagema #fundie standardmedia.co.ke

Atheists must stop imposing their beliefs on society

By Alexander Chagema

Understanding the Bible as one would while reading a newspaper, text book or novel is challenging.

For thousands of years we have had the holy book, and in that time, various preachers and theologians have attached divergent interpretations to the scriptures. Luckily, the variations only add embellishments while retaining the original meaning.

In my formative schooling days I found it hard to reconcile with reality Genesis 1:2 which states, “in the beginning God created the heavens and earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of waters.” My reasoning then was that if earth was not there-nothing-where did God get the material to create man?

With better understanding as I grew up, my perception changed. I came to appreciate the precision in life which could never, at any given time, have been the product of an accident of nature; evolution or the ‘big bang’ theories. Man, as an example, cannot possibly have been an accident; not with his sophisticated brain, heart, two eyes, two hands, two legs, pared internal organs and all other accoutrements that function in such harmony and complementary fashion it is beyond human comprehension.

This brings me to last week’s warped argument by atheists that religious education corrupts the mind and should therefore be banned from schools. Atheists don’t believe in God and creation. In fact, they believe in nothing, drawing notoriety from being attention seekers and are now attempting to draw everybody else into their jumbled world. At least, evolutionists believe in something, they don’t entirely deny the existence of a super-natural being.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution contends that all life had a common ancestry. In acknowledging a supernatural being despite his ‘evolution’ theory, Darwin opined thus; “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.”

God must, and will remain a mystery by design; his own. For conceptualisation, the closest we can come to explaining God is to liken him to air. Air is life, we feel it, breath it, trap it into containers, but none of us can touch or see it. Humanity has tried to understand God to no avail, which inspires the atheists. In trying to reach God, man attempted the tower of babel. Cynics and scientists can explain the collapse of the tower as a weak base for such a high rise structure but are at pains to explain the Egyptian pyramids, given their construction, sturdiness and engineering precision at a time when there were no fork lifts or cranes to carry the stones weighing as much as seven tonnes and place them atop each other.

From the outset, scientists disputed existence of God or a supernatural being, but their own escapades into outer space and discoveries made on earth are beginning to convince them that a superior power exists. They first averred the world was flat only to discover later it was round. They have been to the moon; they have sent space probes and the stream of satellite imagery being relayed back is giving them second thoughts about formation of the universe which was initially explained as a product of the ‘big bang’. The big bang theory acknowledges the universe indeed had a beginning; that before it, there was nothing. Explaining the nothingness is the elephant in the room.

Atheists must refrain from foisting themselves upon society. They have largely been left alone in their little forlorn world; without any encumbrances. They must reciprocate this gesture by leaving the believers alone. Their dangerous suppositions should never be allowed to poison the minds of believers. Belief in God is responsible for law and order. A society guided by religious values is an orderly one.